Marrying the Head and
the Soul
Teaching Spirituality in an Academic Environment
By Brian Ouellette
Brian
Ouellette
The concept of spirituality is a new and evolving area of study in social work education (Dudley & Helfgott, 1993, Sheridan, 1994). Until recently, social work distanced itself from the exploration of spirituality and practice. This reticence was based on efforts to create “value-free” interventions, some confusion between spirituality and religion, and perhaps some discomfort with the religious roots of social work practice in North America (Canda, 1988; Derozotes, 1990). For the past four years, I have been teaching an elective course entitled Spirituality and Social Work. It was one of the first such courses in Canada, and one of a few in North America. Teaching this course has been one of the most enjoyable and exciting things I’ve done over my 15-year teaching career. I look forward to going to class, and leave each class energized and hopeful. I have often described the course as an oasis of warmth and tranquility in my busy life.
In terms of content, we cover diverse and fascinating areas — the first area we address is the distinction between religion and spirituality, which is an important first step since there is much confusion between the two. We also explore spiritual development, and students write a paper exploring their own stages/phases of spiritual growth. Besides looking at how spirituality is incorporated into social work practice, we also cover a wide variety of topic areas depending on student interest. These topics include such diverse areas as Yoga and Breathing; Feminist Spirituality; Native Spirituality; Near Death Experiences; Evil in the Context of Abuse; Stones and Healing; Holistic Healing; Eclectic Paganism; Fundamentalism; Liberation Theology; Musical Healing; Transpersonal Psychology; Food for the Soul; Spirituality and Humour; and Spirituality in the Workplace.
I’ve learned a great deal from teaching this course; it not only exposed me to whole areas of practice that were alien, unknown or off-limits to me, but it also taught me about my own biases, misconceptions, and fears. The other wonderful learning for me has to do with the realization that there was a great deal of commonality amongst the topics covered in the course and the values of social work practice. Themes such as harmony, unity, mutuality, respect, goodness, love, innateness, and connectedness to nature seemed to resonate throughout the various topics covered.
The exploration of spirituality and its integration into professional practice requires a high level of safety and an openness to diversity. When I began to teach this course I was acutely aware that the content of the course and the students’ past experiences were going to raise emotions and strongly influence their experience of the course. Early on I discovered that I had four types of students in the course: (i) the religious student committed to the practice of his faith; (ii) the anti-religious student who had negative feeling toward established religion due to negative experiences or ideological differences ; (iii) the spiritual student who had nurtured her own unique spirituality; and (iv) the student who hadn’t put much thought into the issue until taking the course. I was very aware that I could walk into or stimulate a holy war!
I was also aware that spirituality is not a cognitive concept — it can’t just be understood and studied cognitively. It is very much a concept that is experienced and experienced differently by different people. My dilemma was: How do I accomplish this in an academic course? How do I marry the head and the soul?
I’d like to share some of the things I’ve tried that I think were helpful :
(i) Using meditation as an integral component of the course: Each class began with a meditative activity (usually a piece of music, a reading and/or some quiet time). Steve Sunderland of the University of Cincinnati in a recent article describes this as a mean of “welcoming the spirit” (Sunderland, 1999). I’m convinced that this activity sets the tone for the rest of the class and facilitates the move from the head to the soul.
(ii) Standard setting: In the first class, we spend some time discussing the norms and expectations for the class. We usually identify a list of words or statements that capture how we will work together in the classroom. Such words as respect, confidentiality, mutuality, trust, honesty, and use of “I” statements are usually identified as norms or standards. We return to these norms when tension or judgement of the other begins to occur.
(iii) Using reduced lighting: I deliberately schedule the course for the evening. This allows us the opportunity to shut off the lights and use candles for the meditative activity. We turn the lights back on afterwards, but I try to find ways to use fewer lights. The reduced lighting in the room reinforces the atmosphere of trust and closeness. A benefit of night classes, I guess!
(iv) Prof and student as co-learners: Students are an integral component of the learning in the course. I do not identify myself as an expert but rather as a co-learner. Students are involved in the selection of topics to be covered in the course (although I do identify certain topics that must be covered), and after the first class they take full responsibility for the meditation activities at the onset of each class. As well, many students opt to do small group presentations on topics of their choice. The topics and the format of the presentations have been amazingly varied and full of impact.
(v) Use of rounds: Taking the time to do a round is a useful means of facilitating discussion, of creating safety, and reinforcing the concept of co-learning. Although I haven’t used rounds as much as I had hoped, when I have, they bring out issues, ideas and perspectives that may not have been raised. Rounds ensure that all voices are heard and that all voices have equal value. These are important concepts to reinforce, certainly in a spirituality course, or a course that celebrates diversity.
(vi) Separating the experience from the grade: Marks are of major concern to social work students and frequently get in the way of learning. In the spirituality course, I make the statement that I will not be marking their assignments! This, of course causes some consternation and concern for students, but the process has worked well with little problems. I inform students that I will give extensive written feedback on their assignments but I will not assign a grade. Each student is asked to identify a grade for the assignment, and I as teacher reserve the right to question the proposed grade. For the most part, students have been accurate and reasonable in their self-grading. In the few instances where I questioned the grade, students accepted my suggested new grade, or were willing to do more, or were willing to rewrite the assignment to attain the higher grade.
(vii) Encouraging creativity: In the literature and for many spiritually-oriented practitioners, creativity and spirituality go together (Walz & Uematsu, 1997; Krill, 1999). Aware of these connections, I encourage students to push themselves and to find creative ways to do their assignments. Each term I am pleasantly surprised by the quality, the creativity, and the diversity that students put into their assignments.
Conclusion: The course consistently receives positive evaluations from students and many identify safety, diversity and creativity as contributing to their learnings. Recent research by John Coates and myself on the impact this course has had on students’ values indicates that the course has (i) increased students sensitivity to spirituality in themselves, (ii) increased students sensitivity to spirituality with others, and (iii) had the most impact on those students not raised in a religious or spiritual tradition and not currently practicing in a religion or spiritual tradition. These results raise many questions and indicate the need for further research. However, as an educator and social worker they are encouraging and reinforce my belief that the context of learning is as important as the content learned.
References:
Canada, E.R. (1988) “Spirituality, Religious Diversity, and Social Work Practice” Social Casework, 69(4), April, P.238-247
Derozotes, D. (1995) “Spirituality and Religiosity : Neglected Factors in Social Work Practice” Arete, 20( 1), Spring P. 1-15
Dudley, J. & Helfgott, C. (1990) “Exploring a Place for Spirituality in the Social Work Curriculum” Journal of Social Work Education, 26(3) Fall P.287-294
Krill, D. (1999) “ The Creative Imagination and Social Work Practice” The Spirituality and Social Work Forum, 6(2) Fall
Sheridan,M.J., Wilmer,C.M., & Atcheson, L (1994) “Inclusion of Content on Religion and Spirituality in the Social Work Curriculum : A Study of Faculty Views” Journal of Social Work Education, 30(3),Fall P. 363-376
Sunderland, S. (1999) “ Welcoming the Spirit” Society for Spirituality and Social Work Newsletter, 6(1), Spring
Walz, T. & Uematsu, M. (1997) “Creativity in Social Work Practice : A Pedagogy” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 15(1/2), P. 17-45