Feminist Mentoring and Relational Cultural Theory

Context and Authors’ Positionality

This article reflects the mentoring experiences of two senior social work educators who first met when both served on what was then called the Women’s Commission (now Council) on the Role and Status of Women in Social Work Education. Both of us are North American women of European ancestry, one is now in her 60s and the other in her 70s (with minor, age-related physical challenges), one identifies as heterosexual, and one as lesbian. We both identify as feminists. We have each held faculty roles and academic administrative positions for more than 20 years. During our time together on the Women’s Commission, we developed a connection that has deepened over time, as we have collaborated on several projects, served together on another CSWE Commission, and continued to connect around our mutual interests in feminism and the social work academy—as well as over shared and disparate personal experiences over time. We have talked about our aging parents and related responsibilities, important family members and how we support them, our struggles with the at times unbearable pressures of academic life, severe societal injustices, our advocacy efforts, our missteps and successes, and when or when not to retire. There were times we literally laughed and cried together. The generative nature of our interactions has provided both support and a desire for continued explorations of both our personal and professional lives.

We have each found in the other a friend, colleague, and ally. Our appreciation for this and our interest in the RCT approach to mentoring led us to intentionally nominate and “award” each other within the “Mentoring Recognition Project” during the 2012 Women’s Council Networking Breakfast, which will be described later. As the language of one of our nominations read, “We are recognizing each other in honor of the work we have done together, and the mutual and reciprocal learning it has involved.”

It is significant that our relationship began in a safe space, a space that provided opportunities to experience open and honest discussions about life in academia and beyond. We began our service on the Women’s Commission at different points in time. One author shares that “From the first time I heard about it, I had always wanted to be part of the Women’s Commission. During my social work PhD program, my involvement with the women’s studies program was crucial to my survival and completion, and my colleague friends from those days are still important to me. I expected—and found—the Women’s Commission to provide a similar environment, within which feminist principles were actualized, connections between the personal and the political were recognized and honored, collaboration—rather than competition—was encouraged and accepted as the norm, and varied perspectives were welcomed and respected”. The other author writes, “As the newer member, I was able to observe relational interactions that made me feel both welcomed and respected. I was able to risk, to share thoughts and feelings that would likely have been discounted in other venues. I was in a room with strong feminists, many of whom I had only admired from afar, I began to see connections and networks that spanned across our country, as well as internationally. I learned that it was possible to thrive in academia and also, that is was perfectly fine to move on to new opportunities. I had a voice that mattered”.

The nature and quality of our relationship was not unique to us. Others established and maintained connections based on a variety of characteristics that included, for example, shared scholarly activities, similar ethnic/racial heritages, similar life roles such as being parents of young children, and the often unspoken challenges of being feminists in the academy.

During our many discussions about mentoring, our interest was piqued as to what about the interactions among Women’s Commission/Council members lent itself to the development of our relationship and others we saw among or experienced with our colleagues. After all, faculty members typically serve on multiple committees, commissions, and boards but seldom do these serve as springboards for ongoing professional and personal relationships and seldom could they be perceived as having involved or evolved into any kind of ongoing support or mentoring. We were intrigued enough to try to answer the question of what was different about the WC—what about its structures and processes led to the outcomes we had experienced and observed? This led us to a consideration of different approaches to mentoring to see if there was theory that was a good fit, could be applied to the WC, and had explanatory value as well as potential for application in other settings. This review and consideration, in turn, led us to RCT and its implications for mentoring.

The WC provides the backdrop for our reflections, as well as the context for applying RCT to those experiences, particularly as related to mentoring feminist social work educators. While there are certainly men who identify as feminist, our focus is more upon women, some of whom may not consider themselves as feminists. We define feminists as those who focus upon and advocate for the rights and needs of women, with an understanding of the complex intersections of their diverse characteristics and life circumstances. It is our position that most women in academia face unique challenges by virtue of their gender and their location in gendered institutions, with structures and processes that favor men over women. This privileged patriarchal status reflects and reinforces the priorities of our current society and who and what it values.

In 2008, the first history of the WC was published (covering the late 1960s through 2006). This historical analysis highlights the need for women in a female-dominated profession to remain vigilant.

The WC … has a proud and successful history of commitment and accomplishment and yet, over time, has struggled for survival. Such determination to remain intact appears to have been fueled and sustained by a feminist vision. This feminist vision has been challenged, not only from outside the WC membership, but also from within. Some women and men may hesitate to use the word feminist, because for some it may conjure negative stereotypes and myths, or simply may not be consistent with their worldview. However, all WC members and their allies understand the importance of giving women’s experiences a voice and a presence in their work and their organizations. (Alvarez et al., 2008, p. 79)

Feminists in the Academy

Between us, we have held more than 11 academic appointments (including part-time lecturer, tenured faculty member, department/school administrator, interim vice chancellor for academic affairs, co-director for diversity and minority affairs, and formal leadership roles in faculty governance) and worked in a combined total of 8 different universities. Having identified as feminists in our roles, we are acutely aware of the challenges that many feminists, including students—and in particular those who are women—face in the academy. For some, caring for children, elders, or other family members presents a barrier that affects engagement in academic life in ways that result in gender discrimination. The impact of this is often exacerbated by cultural expectations that may disproportionately affect those who may already be marginalized on the basis of perceived differences. For others, the experience or fear of sexual harassment and/or retribution as tenure time approaches results in the silencing of women. In addition, the efforts of academics whose scholarly efforts are grounded in feminism may be discredited and/or discounted. Feminist scholars often address topics such as domestic violence, issues of families and children, women’s health (including behavioral health and reproductive issues), poverty, and culturally diverse approaches to practice—focusing on realities that disproportionately affect women. These areas of study, as well as methodological approaches used to explore them, are often undervalued. A chilly climate remains, resulting primarily from the patriarchal and hierarchical environments that characterize most academic institutions, including social work programs.

For social work in particular, this seems ironic, as there appears to be a goodness of fit between social work and feminist values and perspectives (Barretti, 2011; Bricker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1986; Collins, 1986; Kemp & Brandwein, 2010). This alignment with feminist values typically is ignored or minimized by the social work hierarchy, even though the profession’s history is grounded in the work of women who organized themselves in ways that would be considered feminist.

For example, Jabour (2012), in highlighting the life and work of early social work education pioneer Sophonisba Breckinridge (1866–1948), reinforces the significance of feminism, mentoring, relationships, and leadership. “By embracing the reform-oriented, female-centered social work that Breckinridge espoused, contemporary social workers may also reinvigorate feminist and activist visions of social work and revive a forgotten tradition of female mentorship, collaboration, and leadership” (Jabour, 2012, p. 23). It is important to acknowledge that a feminist perspective is not limited to women, and the reverse is also true: both men and women can and do engage with and promote the hierarchical system equally well. This can include holding positions of leadership, and operating within them to reinforce “power over,” as opposed to more egalitarian and participatory approaches. However, it is common knowledge that from the formative beginnings of social work to the present day, women have dominated the profession numerically, while the reverse is true when it comes to those who hold the majority of leadership positions, both in social work practice and in the academy. Overwhelmingly, that power continues to rest with men. Feminist values challenge the status quo, and when men as well as women show deference to power, those who identify as “feminist” are in jeopardy.

The hierarchy in social work academia simply reflects most organizational hierarchies, where those few at the top hold the most power over all other members of the organization. Generally speaking, these positions are held by white males who tend to belong to power networks (typically organized by virtue of gender and/or status position), which replicate patriarchal structures. As noted above, both men and women keep the system in place by the way they make decisions over others. It is the structure of hierarchies that places expectations and constraints on how people behave. When an individual attempts to move out of those prescribed roles, he or she will likely be faced with criticism and in some cases hostility and even violence. This is especially true for women, particularly those who identify as feminist, and those who are persons of color.

While we know there are multiple feminisms, the label itself often marginalizes those who self-identify and/or are identified by others as feminist. When an individual’s social identities are added to the mix, some feminists—by virtue of factors such as gender, age, sexual orientation, ability status, and/or ethnic/racial identities, among others—are further distanced from the sources of power in most academic institutions. What frequently results is a sense of isolation or disconnection. According to Judith Jordan, one of the founding scholars of RCT:

In a relational model of psychological development, disconnection from others is viewed as one of the primary sources of human suffering. Similarly, disconnection from oneself, from the natural flow in one’s responses, needs, and yearnings creates distress, inauthenticity and ultimately a sense of isolation in the world. (Jordan, 2004, p. 47)

There is a “paradoxical nature of feminist mentoring” that supports women to be successful in existing structures, while attempting to challenge and change the power imbalances of those structures (Humble, Solomon, Allen, Blaisure, & Johnson, 2006). Still, the structures and processes that keep the hierarchy deeply rooted leave little space for diverse feminist voices that aspire to transform institutions so that power over becomes “power with” (Miller, 1976), thus uprooting the hierarchy. As feminists strive to change and humanize higher education, we cannot lose sight of those who are most vulnerable on the basis of, for example, gender, age, sexual orientation, ability status, religion, nationality/ies, and/or ethnic/racial identities. Nor can we forget those who are vulnerable by virtue of role—including pretenured faculty members, those who are nontenure track (e.g., who may be considered lecturers, adjuncts, or contingent faculty), staff members, and, in some cases, students. When one feels supported as a feminist, there is a greater chance he or she will feel “safe” in supporting and advocating on behalf of others who may be struggling in their personal and professional lives.

The need for support has been voiced by scholars in a range of disciplines, including the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), geography, counseling psychology, family studies, and social work (Heilbronner, 2013; Humble et al., 2006; Logan & Finn, 2011; McClelland & Holland, 2014; Moss et al., 1999; Rayle et al., 2006; Sethi, 2011; Wilson et al., 2002). Mentoring, especially when viewed through the lens of RCT, sheds light on the potential opportunities for both the mentor and the mentee to engage in mutually enriching relationships.

Given the current state of higher education related to the increasing (mis-)use of lecturers as well as graduate students, many if not most of whom are women (Mason, 2011), the need for mentoring is even greater. This is a social justice issue that calls for action, especially from those of us in academia who are protected by virtue of our rank and/or position.

Relational Cultural Theory and Mentoring

RCT was developed in the 1970s, primarily by psychologists and psychiatrists affiliated with the Stone Center at Wellesley College, in Massachusetts. Jean Baker Miller’s (1976) groundbreaking work, Toward a New Psychology of Women, provided the foundation for the ongoing development and application of this theoretical perspective. As asserted by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), RCT is feminist theory, due to its analysis and understanding of the significance and impact of gender upon personal and societal relationships. Built upon an approach to therapy, RCT is basically a theory of human development, as well as a therapeutic modality, that emphasizes the belief that individuals grow in connection with one another and that both parties benefit from the relationship (Jordan, 1997; Jordan et al., 1991 , 2004; Miller, 1976, 2004). While the initial focus of this theory was informed by studying mostly white women and the nature of their connections, RCT has expanded and can be applied to all human relationships, with cultural contexts being a necessary consideration in understanding these relationships. “Over time, RCT deepened its cultural analysis beyond gender, to broader systemic categories of power and social identity” (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007, p. 378), concepts which hold relevance for the struggles that many feminists face in the academy. These categories of power and social identities include, among others, race/ethnicities, sexual orientations, and class status.

It seems clear that feminism is deeply embedded in RCT which, as noted above, has evolved over time. The following quotation from the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute website (2014) focuses sharply on issues of power and the impact and results of power over relationships.

We acknowledge the thesis that a “power over” culture is itself an agent of disconnection that, left unchallenged, diminishes the relational capacities and confidence of all its members.… When the purpose of a relationship is to protect the power differential (maintain the gap between those who hold privilege and those who do not), it is highly unlikely that authentic responsiveness can unfold. Indeed, authentic engagement and openness to mutual influence may be viewed as dangerous practices.

The literature has focused on mentoring that is formal, hierarchical, and ongoing and has paid less attention to mentoring episodes, which may or may not result in long-term personal and/or professional relationships (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007). These encounters may be serendipitous and unexpected and are not always understood or appreciated in the moment. Over time and upon reflection, however, these episodic interactions may provide a “safety net” for those involved. “Mentoring episodes are most likely to evolve to high-quality mentoring relationships when both members have the ability to resist hierarchically prescribed roles and adopt a relational stance” (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007, p. 383).

The CSWE Women’s Council as a Case Example

As one of the three other councils comprising the Commission for Diversity and Social and Economic Justice, the Women’s Council is part of the governance structure for the CSWE, the accrediting body for schools of social work in the United States and Puerto Rico. As part of its charge, the WC:

… works to eliminate all procedures within academia that hinder the full participation of women, makes recommendations to the Board on all matters of policy, and initiates and coordinates programs and activities related to women in social work education. (CSWE, 2014)

Another irony is that there is such a need for mentoring within the context of social work education. Given the nature of the two disciplines represented—social work and education—a newcomer might expect a focus on strengths-based empowerment, collaboration, respect for and appreciation of differences, and readily available support. The contrast with the reality, as described in the previous section on “Feminists in the Academy,” can be not only disappointing but also shocking and daunting. Despite attempts to the contrary, the Annual Program Meeting (APM) of CSWE can serve as an unfortunate representation of some of these aspects. To many of its attendees, this gathering is seen as bewildering, hierarchical, elitist, and overly expensive, in ways that are alienating, exclusionary, confusing, and counter to the ideals of social justice and advocacy that brought them to social work in the first place. In the face of immense and pervasive global inequities, a focus on bylaws and organizational maintenance issues can seem trivial, conservative, and frustrating. The WC and its events/initiatives can be perceived as a haven in this context—albeit an imperfect one that still operates under many constraints.

We will reflect upon and discuss the role of the WC in providing a context for both ongoing and episodic mentoring relationships. Specific focus will be on WC composition and structure, formalized mentoring aspects, and the impact of WC membership and mentoring. We believe that entities such as the WC hold relevance for feminists, particularly women, in most—if not all—professional disciplines, which are primarily housed in gendered organizations. In fact, this gendered aspect is so embedded and persistent that some may view university systems as among the last bastions of the white male patriarchy and privilege.

Throughout the remaining discussion, we refer to the chart in the Appendix, showing a model developed by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), which reflects the application of RCT concepts to mentoring. Concepts from the chart are in boldface for easy identification and reference. The six central components of the model—each of which has multiple subaspects—are relational conditions/stance, relational skills, relational behaviors and processes, contextual factors, mentoring episode outcomes, and mentoring relationship outcomes. This model elucidates the intertwining between and among individual relationships grounded in mutuality, with consideration of the impacts of contextual factors, leading to episodic and relationship mentoring outcomes. These processes are fluid and powerful, and this perspective on relationships is captured effectively in the chart.

Implications for Research and Action

While we have personally witnessed and experienced mentoring episode and mentoring relationship outcomes as articulated by Fletcher and Ragins (2007), our next goal is to better articulate the components of both episodic and ongoing mentoring relationships that are part of a relational mentoring continuum, specifically in the context of the WC.

The notion of mentoring episodes … offers a more fine-grained understanding of relational mentoring and the continuum of mentoring relationships. According to RCT, high-quality relational-mentoring episodes are those in which the criteria for a mutually growth-fostering interaction … are met. It is reasonable to assume that the frequency and quality of these episodes will predict a deepening connection and commitment between the parties and may over time evolve to what both may acknowledge as a high-quality mentoring relationship. RCT therefore gives us a way of envisioning a full continuum of possible mentoring interactions—from episodic to continuous—as well as a way to differentiate among them in order to study and articulate unique characteristics and outcomes of relational mentoring. (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007, pp. 381–382)

Insights from this article and results of further research can provide guidance for the WC in development of its processes and programs. For example, if the importance and relevance of RCT are established, there are implications for the balance of process and task focus within WC meetings and programs. This is always an ongoing debate in feminist contexts, but the need to develop connections among peers indicates the importance of time for informal conversations, which can be incorporated into the twice-yearly meetings and can also be provided during the annual Networking Breakfast. As program content has increased, it has been difficult to schedule this time and not to view it as “wasteful.” However, this may be some of the most important time toward establishing relationships of mutual benefit, outside of a more traditional formal and hierarchical mentoring model. We also hope that the leadership of the CSWE will take the opportunity to reevaluate its structures and processes, so they more strongly reflect social work and feminist values, which are closely aligned with and embedded in RCT.

Another potentially meaningful outcome of examining the impact of the WC on its members relates to leadership development. Many members of the council hold or have held leadership roles within their universities and within the social work profession. It will be important to learn from them the significance of their experiences on the WC vis-à-vis the relational mentorship they experienced as related to their leadership roles. In today’s society, there is much conversation related to crises with leadership, in organizations spanning the federal government to local entities. Perhaps there are more effective ways of “doing leadership” that we can learn from those who value mutuality and shared responsibility.

Clearly, the above principles and practices are applicable outside of and beyond both the CSWE and the WC. Those in positions of responsibility in universities and schools of social work can employ a feminist-informed leadership model that implies recognizing and providing support for different kinds of mentoring. For example, within some academic settings, a “formal mentor” receives a monetary reward that can be used for travel or research. While this is laudable, it might be even more beneficial in some cases if people were to develop their own connections, and if each participant received some kind of reward for this, in recognition of mutuality.

To sum up the preceding, we have the following recommendations:

That research be conducted to understand whether and how differences in culture and identity relate to differential experiences of mentoring in the WC (and in other settings),

In addition, we hope and recommend that individuals will become more aware of the potential to engage in interactions from the perspective of the RCT model, and will avail themselves of opportunities to develop both episodic and ongoing relationships that promote and demonstrate feminist principles of equality, support, and reciprocal learning and benefits.

Ultimately, an understanding of the relevance and usefulness of RCT could lead to the development of improved approaches for mentoring relationships among feminist academics, as well as the staff members and students with whom they share their personal/professional contexts and lives. It is also our hope that our efforts will help in the ongoing process of validating the significance of RCT as a critically important theoretical base not only in understanding human development and relationships but also in moving toward a more just society.