S5E03- Dr. Jude Bergkamp

S5 E3: Reconciling Psych’s Problematic Foundations With Its Transformative Potential

Jude Bergkamp is working to reform therapy—but he doesn’t believe this can happen without reconciling the field’s problematic foundations.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google | Simplecast

Episode Notes

Jude Bergkamp is a true believer in the potential of psychology to transform lives and help heal society—but he doesn’t believe that this can happen without reconciling the field’s problematic foundations with a knowledge of how systems of power impact practitioners and clients. This insight guides his work directing the Doctor of Psychology program at Antioch’s Seattle Campus as well as his contributions as a member of the Competencies Taskforce of the American Psychological Association, determining what future students will study across the entire discipline. In this interview with guest host Mair Allen, Jude tackles question including, what does social justice mean, how do you become a therapist, how does your identity shape your practice, how do systems shape your identity,  and what are the challenges that students face as they enter a flawed but important system. But the wide-ranging conversation also engages the challenges of working within the criminal legal system as a forensic psychologist and the question, how you stay grounded in your work when facing challenges that affect every aspect of your life?


Dr. Jude Bergkamp
Dr. Jude Bergkamp

Dr. Bergkamp is currently core faculty in the Clinical Psychology Department at Antioch University Seattle and clinical faculty in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington. He is also the director of the Decoloniality and Social Privilege Awareness Initiative at Antioch University.

He is currently licensed as a psychologist and mental health counselor in Washington State. He earned both a master’s degree in family therapy and a doctorate degree in clinical psychology from Antioch University Seattle. He was trained in forensic and neuropsychology and has worked in the Washington State Department of Corrections and, most recently, as a forensic evaluator at the Center for Forensic Services at Western State Hospital. In addition, Dr. Bergkamp was a research fellow with the American Psychological Association studying cultural competency and minority health disparities.

S5 Episode 3 Transcript


Mair: This is the Seed Field Podcast, the show where Antiochians share their knowledge, tell their stories, and come together to win victories for humanity. I’m your guest host Mair Allen, and today we’re joined by Jude Bergkamp for a conversation about how the mental health field can incorporate a social justice framework.

Let me introduce why this is important. A good place to start is just to remember that the field of psychology is built on foundations that have been used to uphold white, patriarchal colonial systems of. In the past, psychologists have used the field to essentialize race. Explain away its violences. And this has led to the forced hospitalization of women and the L G B T Q community. The standard model of diagnosis, the DSM five, only removed homosexuality as a disease in 1973. This is a personal issue for me because as a queer person, if I had been born only a few decades earlier, I could have been institutionalized [00:01:00] for not fitting into white models of correct femininity. And I put that in quotes, but this power isn’t relegated to the distant past.

Last month, the mayor of New York gave the police power to hospitalize people without their consent based on their perceived mental. With calls from the American Psychological Association for more social justice integrated into the field, professors and practitioners are facing a critical moment of defining what that means and what its implementation could look like. Which is why I’m so excited to talk with Jude Bergkamp today.

Dr. Bergkamp is the chair and a core faculty member of the Clinical Psychology Department at Antioch, Seattle Campus and clinical faculty in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington. He has a private practice and has worked as a forensic evaluator for the Washington State Department of Corrections. He was recently selected to serve on the influential competencies task force of the American [00:02:00] Psychological Association, helping to determine the curricula of psychology programs across the country. And here at Antioch, he has led the charge in revamping the curriculum of our Doctor of Psychology program, and he recently published a scholarly paper describing the process with the hopes of inspiring and supporting other programs in similar integrations.

So welcome Jude to the Seed Field Podcast.

Jude: Thank you, Mair. Thank you.

Mair: Since our conversation today is going to be centering on social justice, and part of working in that framework involves recognizing how one is positioned in society. I’d like to take a moment for both of us to disclose to our listeners just a bit about that positionality that we’re bringing to the conversation.

I can start. I’m a white non-binary person. I’m gay. I’m currently able bodied and experienced generalized anxiety and depression. I am a property owner.

Jude, as much as you’re comfortable, could you tell us a little bit about where you are coming from in the conversation?

Jude: Thanks Mair for inviting that right off the bat. I think it’s great.

Jude: So [00:03:00] my positionality basically, according to like the addressing model of Pamela Hayes, really all of the domains of my lottery of birth has been privileged. So, I’m a male, middle class, raised Catholic, practicing Buddhism, but still have the codes in my bones, if you will.

I think the only domain where I have some target rank or experience some kind of marginalization or historical oppression has been me being biracial. So, my mom is from India and immigrated here, so I’m also second generation immigrant. And my father is a white farm boy from Kansas.

But my mom has the dominant gene, so I’m kind of dark, and you know, I’m a person of color and a little racially, ethnicly confusing for myself and for others. So, I think

Jude: that piece specifically is probably one thing, like an origin story that probably [00:04:00] drives the rest of my research, and passion, and work as well. I was raised in Kansas and live up here in Washington and have the legacy of colonization, and genocide, and atrocities that come with living here. And I’m a property owner as well.

Mair: Yeah. I’m also a Midwestern Catholic. Well, not, I’m not Catholic anymore, but in the bones is a good way to put it. I’m excited to talk to you today about mental health and the idea that it needs to change in pretty foundational ways. But also there is this idea that when you’re training as a clinician, like part of it is discovering these things about yourself. What has your own process of self-study looked like?

Jude: I think I’ve been called to be a psychologist, or cursed. I don’t know which one you want to use, but my dad was a counselor. My dad was actually trained in the seminary as a [00:05:00] Catholic priest. So he is got all of that philosophy and humanism and so kind of, you know, catholicized social justice in a way, which is a lot of helping folks out.

On the bookshelves would be like Jung’s “Man and His Symbols” and Freud’s “Interpretation of Dreams.” And I would read those when I was really young and we would chat about them all the time. And so I’ve always been kind of called to psychology.

In parallel, I’ve also been called to, traditions like Tibetan Buddhism or other ways of knowing. And I think also, in my childhood, going back to India and then coming back to rural Kansas and trying to reconcile those two parts of myself and really define who I am.

It pointed out both the incredible power of Western psychology to help us understand who we are, but also from my view, I could feel some serious, [00:06:00] inaccuracies or paradoxically, you have this science and tradition that tries to heal. But I had a sense that there might be some inadvertent harming that’s happening within this Western technology.

I’ve struggled, to define what that is. I don’t want to negate the healing quality and the great stuff of Western psych. It’s definitely there and lots of people have experienced how helpful it’s been. I’m just not sure if being helpful is the same as being liberating, if you will. That’s my drive, I think is to figure out where those kind of places are.

Mair: Yeah, thinking about that liberation and the concept of social justice, it’s differentiations between multiculturalism and, yes, we recognize that there are these different things, but what does that mean on a systemic level? Could you work through the [00:07:00] definition or what it means to you, like social justice and social justice and social justice in the paradigm of psychology?

Well, I think it’s a pretty new paradigm for psychology. I think social justice lives a lot more in other fields. You can see. And philosophy and politics and things like that. Really calling for the benefit of all. And it’s really , distinct and it’s really pushing for that piece of equity, i.e. kind of acknowledging that the starting line for individuals is different and we each , by the lottery of our birth, not by our responsibility, or our work ethic, or our accomplishments, or our effort. Those things come later, but the starting lines are different for folks, right?

Previously you have these different eras, if you will, of psychology. In the research we basically talk about the anti-racism, quote unquote, not like we use it today, era. [00:08:00] That was really after and right around the civil rights movement.

And so that was distinctly a white, black dichotomy. And the idea there was really that we need to change individuals minds and attitudes about folks who are different than us. And so during that time you get seminal research coming out like The Clark Studies with the little dolls and the kids constantly, whether they’re kids of color or white kids, they’re attributing positive attributes to the white doll.

I think that most of psychology both at the masters and doctoral level are stuck in what we’d call like the multicultural era of psych. And that means that, we have started to open ourselves up to the understanding that we have multiple identity domains, gender and race and ethnicity and religion and socioeconomic status.

 So it’s really about the [00:09:00] clinician understanding themselves as cultural beings and trying to, as best they can with some humility, also have a fund of knowledge about the general culture of their clients.

And of course the danger there is that in this multicultural curriculum, what’s been taught. These sorts of general ideas about the culturally different “other”. So you’re gonna get chapters on, Asian Americans, or African Americans, or Native Americans, things like that. And it boils down into, do they like eye contact or are they really big and family and what kind of food do they like in music and how can you relate, that kind of thing.

But the social justice era or wave has caused that model to get , not particularly relevant, if you will, for today’s culture and today’s critical consciousness.

And so social justice is really about, yes, there is that clinical diad [00:10:00] and yes, the clinician and the client, quote unquote, or even you and I, we are cultural beings, but I think that word culture is conveniently used as a bypassing effort to not really understand that you and I are contextualized within a more societal, institutional, systemic and historic context. Our tradition has been to focus on the individual, if you analyze the narrative of, let’s say, our diagnostic manual, it’s almost all about how these problems originated and developed within us as individuals, which comes with the sense of shame, and deficit and, blame, and so I think what our field is grappling with [00:11:00] is have we been pathologizing an inevitable ideology of suffering, which is the contemporary forms of oppression and power and privilege that we all live within. And have somehow, unconsciously, and possibly somewhat consciously, and complacently agreed to not talk about. And that comes with how psychology has been mechanized within a colonial kind of mindset and tradition. But instead to realize that the ideology of our human suffering is really around the history of the land that we live on, and the mechanisms of the way that we gain livelihood, and all of the categorizations and measurements and casts-isms that we use when we interact with each [00:12:00] other. To determine who gets what? Who gets treated what way? I mean, All of those things that you mentioned in your intro duction.

So, I’m thinking about being a student, being a learner, being a teacher, and I’m thinking about holding all of that, and discovering all of that, and being in a classroom setting, being in an institution where there are already imbalances of power too, and how people will end up having to hold those things so differently. And that’s something that came up in your paper too, is h ow students have to grapple with that. And I think you called it reconciliation.

And so I’m wondering if you can speak a little to, how you see it coming up, or how you see it being incorporated.

Jude: I would say I’m fumbling and I say that to everybody, like we’re all [00:13:00] fumbling in the training of clinicians right now because we have had some good waves of critical consciousness crash over our professional organizations, if you will. The American Psychological Association, they recently released an apology on racism and how psychology has been instrumentalized and operationalized from its foundings within that kind of oppressive norm.

And also put out this historical chronology of how racism was concretized throughout our field. And so I think those are great things. And lots of articles that are coming out similar to mine recently about a call for social responsiveness or, a move from just that multicultural stuff that we’ve had forever, to something else. But what is that something else, and how do [00:14:00] you get to that something else? It is not there yet. We’re at a place where I think some trainers and folks in the academic field might be waiting for a clear model to be brought down from above. And then others like myself are fumbling with, how do we do that in a way that makes sense.

And for us, I think at Antioch, because of our clear social justice mission I believe it is my responsibility to fumble and struggle and try to find a way towards that let’s say as a chair of a program, I have the responsibility to make sure that our graduates come out with these solid, scientifically minded and backed competencies right around interventions, and treatment, and diagnosis, and assessment, and measuring outcomes, and research, and biological basis of behavior [00:15:00] and psycho-pharmacology. And, you hear these terms, these are all very colonial, western scientific, positivistic things, and they are important. I don’t think we can abandon.

One for the other, which has been something that we fumbled around with in our program in the past. So let me give you some just like concrete examples. In our program, like in every accredited doctoral program, let’s say students are educated in how to do, standardized intellectual assessment.

And so they take these classes, they learn about intelligence measurements and assessment. That’s kind of a big reason why they came to the program. They love it and they love to go home and, kind of see how smart their partners are and friends and, you know, all kinds of other craziness happens.

And it does have a lot of power, to assist and help other people.[00:16:00] And our students then in parallel learn about the truly eugenic nature of those tests and how those tests have been used to funnel and filter people out into who gets resource, who doesn’t get resource.

And so this powerful, potential tool that has lots of implications for help, and opening doors, and accommodations, . Also have this legacy and this potentiality of real harmfulness and has been used, I think as a mechanism, as an instrument of kind of a colonial structure of resource allotment.

 If we emphasize one over the other. Then what happens is our students will go, “that stuff is dirty and terrible, and I don’t want to have anything to do with intellectual assessment at all. I’m [00:17:00] not doing it”. So then they go to their practicum or their internship, they need to do this, and then they say “on ideals of social justice, I’m not engaging in any of that”. I’m like, well, I don’t know . I dunno if that’s gonna work. I mean, I can appreciate that to a certain extent, but, but actually in a way, is that a bypassing of the conundrum in itself, and is that really helping to try to reconcile this? And so what we challenge our students to do is to really hold these two polarizations at the same time.

And it is very difficult. We analyzed all of our classes according to the trajectory of matriculation of our students, and we took a look at the syllabi and picked out what were the kind of cultural, multicultural, diversity, social justice, social responsiveness components of our classes [00:18:00] and determined when did they happen across the developmental trajectory, and which of them were disruptive in nature, meaning kind of triggering, or encouraging critical consciousness of the student, their own positionality, the history of psychology, the history of the legacy of oppression in diagnosis, let’s say, or assessment, ,

or these sorts of things and then which components were helping to reconcile? Which components we’re offering our students models of how can you participate in something that has such a legacy of harm while still trying to maximize the potential of benefit. And there’s not those models out there , right now, because it’s new.

But what we learned. We had a lot of disrupting components early on, and we didn’t have a lot [00:19:00] of reconciling components to help students congeal and integrate. And so what we had was a bunch of students who naturally, were confused, because we were kind of confused. Right. , and so I think we’ve been able to identify that and we are tightening things up, quite a bit to measure, if you will, how much disruption should we do and when do we reconcile and have a balance and an iterative process between these two factors all through the curriculum.

Mair: I’m thinking of my last two therapists, and both of them were so reticent to diagnose and really were open about their discomfort in that, and very open about the fact that my insurance would not cover it if they weren’t providing a diagnosis. And, it seems like as large communities across the United States, [00:20:00] especially Eurocentric White communities are like, “oh, this is bad.” There is like a personal tension in that as well. And I think a lot of people who do good things, right, do good work, are understanding the ways that the systems complicate that good work in a way, quote unquote, that they might not have understood.

 So, I’m wondering about what foundational materials do you think you need or like what kind of foundational changes are necessary in that?

Jude: There is a big, clear move and we’re doing this in our program too, of constantly auditing our syllabi and making sure we’re bringing in voices that offer a more critical perspective of things, and really to just assist our students and our graduates in that habit of critical consciousness, and a critique of: What’s the system? How am I participating? What’s the outcome? What’s the impact?[00:21:00]  what’s the impact not only of my clients, but what’s the impact on me? How much am I feeling like I’m selling out my soul, just to make sure insurance covers or something, while on the flip side, what does it mean if I just opt out of all insurance and only take private pay and then I’m not reaching folks who really need me in a lot of ways, right? And so , that dilemma is real. And We look for easy answers. We wanna look for somebody to tell us how to opt out in an ethical way.

In the opting out, how does that benefit and save us from the ambiguity and suffering of the system? And I’m really trying to encourage my students to just be perpetually uncomfortable, have their anchor in alleviating human suffering. And that’s not only their clients, but that’s also themselves as individuals.

Because this field , it’s not concrete, it’s [00:22:00] not super clear. You don’t know if you did a good job or not at the end of the day, but man, are you carrying a bunch of heavy stuff.

You know, psychic goo on you and you don’t want to participate in a system that further kind of, colonizes and kind of oppresses you.

And so I’m specifically concerned with our clinicians of color and our clinicians who have a lot of what we call like target ranks or places of marginalization because in the research we’ve done , we’ve got some articles coming out, it really replicates a kind of oppression that occurs not only through the microaggressions in the session, but just about their place and validity or veracity in the field.

And there’s a struggle to reach for what we call the therapist paragon or this image of white, male, perfection. That is who [00:23:00] our, lineage holders are in the field. So, we wanna offer valid different perspectives to challenge the weird way that academics are done.

Mair: When you think about the framework of multiculturalism, that has been the standard for a while. It’s written from a white perspective, you’re learning about monolithic pieces of other cultures as if you’re like picking off a menu and it’s written from the perspective of white European person doing that.

I can’t imagine having to read that and interact with that text.

Jude: It’s been a formative kind of model, for a very long time. And you’re right. It’s all about the other. So, the quiet, subtle, un articulate, covert implication is that really the clinician is coming from a normative majority, white male kind of perspective.

So there’s no chapter on white, male, folks. There’s no chapter on the privileged folks so yeah. In my classes, what is somewhat disconcerting is that I basically [00:24:00] flip that and say, in these classes we’re not going to be looking at the “other.” That can come later. You can build that fund of knowledge. But if you build that fund of knowledge without a foundation of understanding your own positionality, your own history, your own internal colonial mindset, then you’re gonna consume that knowledge in a way that just replicates the harm. And so we’re not going to do a survey class of everyone that’s different than you, so we can have a parade of sympathy that’s not to say that the intentions of that era we’re not good, right? Like folks in that era, that’s where the understanding and mindset was. That was the dominant discourse of the day. Folks who are still from that era. Believe that’s good and noble and how you need to be. And there’s definitely, components of that, that we don’t want to lose. [00:25:00] But it has been, in a way, turned on its head and the field is sort of reeling from that.

The things that our students say provide them with the most help or reconciliation or inspiration is just to hear from us as faculty on how we navigate these questions ourselves. And it does challenge us as faculty to be a little vulnerable and not only talk about our strengths and our accomplishments, but on our challenges, and our confusion, and our ambiguity. I practice within a criminal forensic context within my professional practice. And It’s just filled with confusion and ambiguity around social justice, and how am I just a cog in a system that perpetuates X, Y, and Z? But I’m hoping that what we can model, and I’m hoping that our graduates are really those folks who can then, after they graduate, [00:26:00] participate in the system in a different way than even I could have ever dreamed of doing, coming from the multicultural era of myself, of education.

And my other hope is definitely for psychologists, we can be able to liaison and connect the worlds of academic research and on the ground practice and really create a practice of how do we need to keep the parts of that history and lineage and technology that are helpful, but then tweak and change ultimately policy, and procedure, and implementation, and outcome measures to help guide us in this new direction.

Because I think if we have a whole cohort of folks who opt out of the system claiming a social justice value. I honestly don’t think that’s a good idea. I think we still have to get mucky, and dirty, [00:27:00] and involved, in the system and able to really understand how the thing works and then be able to influence those kinds of policies and procedures for change.

Mair: Leaving the system that way really gives the system a chance to de-legitimize you, and say, “Great, you’re doing that over there. That doesn’t count, that’s not real, that’s fringe. That’s all these other things.”

Jude: That’s right.

Mair: And so the potential to change it is lost in some ways.

Jude: I really feel it’s important to just acknowledge that look, it’s natural and normal. We have a natural, normal developmental process. Of education that’s gone through these different eras, like multiculturalism and cultural competency, and now social justice. And also with ourselves we all have different developmental places with how much we are willing to risk understanding our positionality [00:28:00] and who we are. That comes with a lot of identity risk and relational risk. If I was living in Midwest, Kansas, and going through these same things, I wouldn’t almost lose everything. And up here I still lose friends and family and connections that I so value, and it’s scary. And so I really think that while, yes, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do those. And I’m not saying that complacency is okay. I’m just saying that we need to have a form of compassion for ourselves and the field, that this is risky, and scary, and isolating. I mean, I’m totally down with the woke rhetoric, but the way that the rhetoric is used, it’s splitting us, and harming us, and, labeling us in ways that just don’t feel compassionate to me.

And it’s very difficult. [00:29:00] How do you merge this idea of compassion with this idea of true insight? And this call for liberation now, because the harm is real. The harm is serious. And yet can we keep the sense of urgency, and integrate an understanding of development, and risk, and compassion all the same time.

Mair: There is a lot there. Thinking about reorientating yourself towards discomfort. Over, and over again, and the real toll that can take emotionally, relationally, all of those things.

 I’m wondering if there are personal examples you could share? About concrete things that you’ve done that have helped you?

Jude: When I noticed myself really having a drive to correct other folks when I hear them talking and I have this, like, “That’s not, [00:30:00] that’s terrible what’s being said, or you’ve got to change that now.” That whole thing, I wonder what’s going on? What’s the drive? Am I bypassing some piece of my own privilege that I see in the other person? You know, like and those, those are western psych kinds of ideas possibly. But us policing others, if you will, is that another way that we’re bypassing our own discomfort? And then, if we can cultivate a type of developmental compassion for that person and an urgency that, reality, it’s bad. And we need to get, move in here in some direction. And that direction for you is gonna be different for me, and it could be because I’m scaffolded with a bunch of safety where I can risk cultivating some critical consciousness. But if you don’t have it, and then I’m pushing you to cultivate that critical [00:31:00] consciousness that’s not smart.

My dissertation was based on this idea of how if you push someone too far with experiential efforts in the classroom, like experiences to confront your privilege in front of all these people, what could happen is, paradoxically, it can make people defensive, clam up, and never want anything to do with that ever again, which is totally opposite of the intention of the whole thing.

Like I mentioned before, I think my own personal Buddhist practice with that and actually like, I’ll tell you a quick story if that’s okay. I just had this trip to India and I went to this place called Goa, which is where my grandfather was from, and I went there thinking I didn’t really know anyone. There was no connection with my heritage, but I just wanted to go to feel where he was from and connect in some way. It’s a kind of resort beachfront thing, so I took all these touristy pictures of the beach and put ’em on Facebook or [00:32:00] whatever, and I had a distant relative message me and say, you actually do have relatives in Goa and one of them’s gonna call you.

So this woman Clarice calls me and she was like, “Look, I just wrote a book about our family, and tomorrow is the book release event. And you have to come.” And the next day I’m sitting here with her in the front and this beautiful giant book about my family, and she’s telling me all about my heritage and the history of how Goa was colonized by the Portuguese for four-hundred years.

And then, when the British and Portuguese then colonized Africa, my grandfather’s family went there to run the government over there, basically. And then how when the Portuguese, and British left, they left this vacuum of danger and animosity. And so then the African folks were wanting the Goan [00:33:00] folks to get the heck out. So they went back to Goa, they left two-hundred years ago. They don’t know this place worth anything. And so my grandfather was like in his, childhood years. And so he gets back to Goa and realizes he’s kind of homeless, and placeless, and it’s this dynamic and then later on he met my grandmother. They lived in Rawal Pindi, and then the partition happened in ’49, which was like one of the most bloody, terrible, massive, dislocations in 20th century history. And then he had to kind of flee again.

And I keep thinking about how much does that experience of displacement, and homelessness and whatever the impacts are on who he was, how much does that get in my bones and in my cells? How much did that impact my mother? And then how much does that impact me, ? Of course, we don’t talk about that in our family because it’s the issue of [00:34:00] assimilation, survival. But to think that I’m in a western psych frame, like a blank slate when I was born, and I’m somehow free of all these impacts of colonization, and history, and oppression, and whatever, whether my legacy was on the victim side or the quote unquote perpetrator side, I don’t honestly think it matters much. We’ve all got it in us. We all share the same colonial ground in a way, and I do believe that lives on with me. And if I didn’t have that experience, I really wouldn’t understand it.

Like even since I’ve been back and I’m having interactions with my family, I’m wondering, huh? Is that reaction a Jude reaction? You know, according to the little, like just the little me that Western psych says is true? Or is that like a kind of intergenerational, transmitted almost karmic, [00:35:00] crazy reaction? Epigenetic reaction that’s , in my bones. And then if I didn’t allow to see that legacy pass down to me, how would I have attributed and explained that and probably blamed it on the other person. So those are examples that I just wrestle with myself and I try to share with my students as much as I can.

Mair: We haven’t really delved into concretely how psychology is a colonial force, but that story too shows how it’s a, it can be a force of self- colonization, like a colonizing of the self as an individual outside of those circles.

Yep. I cry. Like I cry the time. It made me cry.


 That’s what therapy did to me.

Jude: Yeah. Yeah. I think ultimately , I’ve been crying too about [00:36:00] that same thing for myself, and I really, I have a sense these are tears of liberation. It’s not tears of ” Oh, I’m sad”, or, ” You know, I am sad and there is grieving involved”. But the grieving is how much did I – colonize myself? Through my almost fifty years, because I didn’t know and allow myself to know these things. And really kept myself constrained within a Western psych kind of model. , And other folks , like even like his holiness to Dalai Lama when he talks about this idea of spiritual bypassing. When folks from the west go to Eastern Traditions to try to heal themselves, he goes like, “Whoa, look you guys, your kind of psychological wounds and harm, I don’t know if we get it. So, I don’t know if we’ve got the stuff for you over here to help you get through that”. So he actually says it might be good if you use your [00:37:00] Western technologies to deal with your Western wounds, and then you can come over here if you want, but maybe not for that. And I’m totally paraphrasing, of course but it’s the same kind of idea that maybe the other hope is this idea of social justice is not just liberation for those parts of us that have been oppressed, because we all have parts as we know that have socially conferred privileges, and some that we don’t.

Almost all of us. And so this, work is really about a kind of psychological liberation when we let some air in. Some reality in. Not only from history, but from all of these forms of contemporary colonization that are mechanized within our own minds. As Fanon, or Foucault and tons of others that were marginalized forever would say, like it could be that your mind is not your own. [00:38:00] And that can be really disorienting. But I think if we rest into it and to give this idea of both, we need to be compassionate to ourselves, and willing to be uncomfortable in ourselves, can be truly liberating in a way that’s beyond what we’ve known before.

Mair: Thank you so much, Jude, for your time and it was enlightening and a delight, and I’m so proud, and happy that I had the chance to have a conversation with you.

Mair, it was it was a lot of fun for me as well. Thank you for letting me get on my soapbox a little bit and yap so much. I really appreciate it. But I think I also experienced a type of just interpersonal liberation from our discussion when we disclose about ourselves and put a foundation of positionality on it, and then just kind of be personal and real with one another. I think it’s a gift.[00:39:00]

Me too and an opportunity that is rare, but I hope becomes less and less rare.

Jude: Absolutely.

Mair: If you want to learn more about Dr. Bergkamp’s work integrating Social Justice into the Doctor of Psychology program, we have a link to a scholarly paper in our show notes. We’ll also put a link to more information about that program, and we’ll include a link to our Common Thread article on Jude being appointed to the competencies task force of the APA. We post these show notes on our website, theseedfield.org, where you’ll also find full episode transcripts, prior episodes, and more. The Seed Field Podcast is produced by Antioch University. Our editor is Johanna Case. I’m your host, Mair Allen. The Seed Field’s regular host is Jasper Nighthawk. Our digital designer is Mira Mead. Jen Mont is our web content coordinator. Sierra- Nicole E DeBinion is our work study intern. A special thanks to Karen Hamilton, Amelia [00:40:00] Bryan and Melinda Garland

 Thank you for spending your time with us. . That’s it for this episode. We hope to see you next time. And don’t forget to plant a seed, sow a cause and win a victory for humanity. From Antioch University, this has been the Seed Field Podcast..