While we have made progress in our profession, our discussions today are sprinkled with similarities of the same discourse as that of the 1980s. Why? The profession’s greatest “dilemma” as it pertains to the synthesis of ethics codes and culturally responsive practice lies in our continued struggle as practicing psychologists to begin with a cultural framework as our primary lens through which we view the practice of psychology in the 21st century. Let me reiterate again for the readers who might disagree with this analysis, the ethics code of psychologists is useful and valid. Rather than discuss the utility of our ethics code as it pertains to culturally responsive practice, let us shift to a model whereby we place our desire to be culturally responsive as primary. Our current model of infusing a clinical focus does not always include culturally responsive prac- tice for most of the communities it intends to serve, as has been demonstrated by several authors.
Many in the profession consis- tently challenge these notions by stating, “We are already doing this, and everybody is interested in culture.” How can one body of literature, and professionals, continue to argue for the inclusion and integration of culturally responsive education, training, and practice, while another set of professionals report that “we are already doing this?”
Fowers and Davidov addressed some important compo- nents of this dialogue in their discussion of virtue ethics and multiculturalism. They stated that our genuine openness to the other facilitates our own personal transformations through a willingness to question our own core beliefs and commitments.