My client was an undocumented, illegal immigrant. He moved to America at a young age and relocated from the west to east coast throughout his lifetime. He moved from state to state with his family, who kept a sense of Hispanic traditions within the household. He often had educational and career aspirations but he would often have issues trying to attain his ambitions due to his undocumented immigrant status. Due to the disparities he faced the client would often feel emotions of frustration, depression, and anger. The client also became involved with the juvenile justice system due to behaviors that he later said was everyday life for him in the …show more content…
Looking back there were many differences including culture, ethnicity, social class and much more. If I were to use the etic approach with this client I would have to look at the constructs of his culture compared to mine to make assessments. I would have to examine the struggles he has to adhere to due to being an undocumented immigrant from my perspective. I would lack the understanding from his cultural perspectives. Also by following the etic approach I would not have a sense of his individuality. If I used the emic perspective it would be a perspective from his culture. This would be difficult due to not fully being a part of his culture. Ultimately this perspective could explain some behaviors from a cultural perspective (hence the statement he made about the behaviors that got him on probation were behaviors of everyday life in the past) but will not aid when comparing to the primary culture. Continuing with the emic approach, his individual uniqueness would be minimized and universality aspect would not be present. If using the optimal approach with this client, the focus could equally be on cultural specificity, individual uniqueness, and human universality with this client. Looking back the optimal, holistic approach could have greatly benefited this