Mentors, Muses, and mutuality: honoring barbara snell dohrenwend

Abstract

I describe feminist community psychology principles that have the potential to expand and enrich mentoring and that honor Barbara Snell Dohrenwend, a leader who contributed to the research, theory, and profession of community psychology. I reflect on the affect that Barbara Dohrenwend had on life and on the development of feminist community psychology. Examples of peer mentoring between Barbara Dohrenwend's research assistant, John L. Martin, and me are used to illustrate radiating effects of mentoring and interrelationships among forms of mentoring. Feminist community psychology principles discussed in relation to mentoring include mutuality, the power of contexts, and the importance of recognizing and affirming stigmatized and oppressed aspects of identities. The concepts of “muse” (Sullivan, 1996), “public homeplaces,” and “developmental leadership” (Belenky, Bond, & Weistein, 1997) are used to illustrate qualities of feminist community psychology mentoring. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

It is a privilege to dedicate this special issue on women in the community to the memory of Barbara Snell Dohrenwend. We thank her for her encouragement of us as students and colleagues, for her insightful and clear scholarship, and for her leadership in the field of community psychology. She was our mentor and friend. (Mulvey, D'Ercole, & Blair, 1988, p. 4)

I had thought of mentoring as a career-related enterprise within a formal organization in which a senior person provided something valuable to a younger person until about 12 years ago when I participated in discussions organized by the Committee on Women of the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA). These discussions were an outgrowth of the committee's focus on mentoring initiated by Kelly Hazel (Angelique & the Musing Collective, 1999). I was moved by compelling stories that illustrated a great need for mentoring, particularly, although not exclusively, for students and entry-level professionals (Angelique et al.; Hazel et al., 1998). Participating in the initiative, I realized that there were many ways to think of mentoring and that mentoring based on feminist community psychology (FCP) principles was needed. Reporting on the second session, Holly Angelique (1999) noted that “hierarchical mentoring relationships may have some advantages, but many women have additional mentoring needs that can be more fully addressed in lateral and multi-dimensional relationships” (p. 35). The importance of documenting the unrecorded “herstory” of women in community psychology (CP) and of honoring the contributions of women leaders were identified as priorities by the participants.

This article has two interconnected purposes: (a) to illustrate FCP concepts and values that expand and enrich the meaning of mentoring; and (b) to honor Barbara Dohrenwend, my mentor, by describing her work, her influence on my work, and the critical mentoring role that she played in the early development of FCP.

MUSES, MENTORS, DEVELOPMENTAL LEADERSHIP, AND PUBLIC HOMEPLACES

Although approaches to mentoring congruent with FCP exist, they are not named often and some are not even thought of as mentoring (Belenky, Bond, & Weinstock, 1997; hooks, 1994). FCP concepts and values include relational processes, collaboration, activism, the importance of contexts, and diversity-related issues and identities (Bond, Hill, Mulvey, & Terenzio, 2000a; Mulvey, 1988). The concepts of “muse” (Sullivan, 1996), “public homeplaces,” and “developmental leadership” (Belenky et al.) are useful in illustrating FCP values and principles.

Muse and Mentor as Concepts

In her research with young women adolescents about positive relationships that they had had with older adult women, Amy Sullivan (1996) used the concept of “muse” to interpret her findings: “My research with urban adolescent girls … suggests that important and health-sustaining relationships with women are overwhelmingly characterized by women's ability to listen, understand, and validate the knowledge, experience, and feelings of the adolescent” (p. 226). She argued that muse is compatible with feminism and has more libratory potential than does mentor.

Based on a Greek myth in which Odysseus asks Mentor to take charge of his son, Telemachus, while he (Odysseus) is away at war, mentor originally involved males in positions of authority in which the mentor was “devoted to teaching, socializing and acting as a role model” for the boy (Sullivan, 1996, p. 226). This is a hierarchical, unidirectional model.

In contrast to mentoring based on a one way helping relationship, muse suggests a relational model. Also based in Greek mythology, muse refers to “any of the nine sister goddesses … presiding over song and poetry and the arts and sciences … [or] a source of inspiration, a guiding genius” (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2004, p. 818).

The importance of the muse concept is that it “recognizes the diversity of needs and resources among girls of varied backgrounds, assumes that both adolescent and adult possess vulnerabilities and strengths, and values the contributions of both partners in the relationship” (Sullivan, 1996, p. 227). The focus shifts from the wisdom of an elder to the potential of a younger or junior person when inspired or affirmed by another. Experiencing a muse is associated with realizing one's own unique purpose rather than following in someone else's footsteps.

Integrating the concepts of muse and mentor is a way to name, formally recognize, and value qualities and activities that were traditionally associated with women and the private sphere that are different from, but as valuable as, those that were traditionally associated with men and the public sphere. This expands the types of relationships traditionally thought of as mentoring to include not only peers but also those in positions of relatively less formal power. (The terms “muse-mentor” and “muse-mentoring” will be used throughout the article to represent the synthesis of these concepts.)

Public Homeplaces and Developmental Leadership

Setting features and contexts might facilitate or hinder muse-mentoring. Although CP and FCP recognize the powerful role that contexts play, contexts have not been incorporated much into mentoring as a concept. In A Tradition That Has No Name, Belenky et al. (1997) use the term “public homeplace” for settings that encourage democracy, nurture development, and incorporate strengths typically associated with women and oppressed groups. Culturally and developmentally appropriate and often inter-generational, public homeplaces have qualities, values, and interactions associated with healthy families and face-to-face voluntary associations. They foster the psychological sense of community, welcome members of excluded groups, and value those who have been marginalized. Public homeplaces are all around us, but they are rarely recognized because they are not based on mainstream goals, values, and processes. The civil rights and the women's movements are exemplars of large public homeplaces. Small-scale initiatives that incorporate traditions associated with African American women and alternative organizations like the National Congress of Neighborhood Women are more common.

Developmental leaders play a central role in public homeplaces. They are “interested in the development of each individual, of the group as a whole, and of a more democratic society” (Belenky et al., 1997, p. 14). Qualities typically associated with women and domestic roles (e.g., nurturance, emotional support) encourage full, healthy, individual development within the context of the growth and civic engagement of all community members, including members of oppressed groups.

BARBARA SNELL DOHRENWEND: RESEARCHER, SCHOLAR, AND PROFESSIONAL LEADER

Barbara Snell Dohrenwend was arguably the most prominent woman in the early development of CP because of her outstanding research and scholarship and professional contributions. She was best known for research that investigated the relationship of social stress, individual characteristics, and psychological disorders. In collaboration with Bruce P. Dohrenwend, her husband, Barbara conducted an ongoing research program comprising studies that built upon one another to “tease out” relationships among socio-environmental conditions, social status, individual level variables, and health outcomes. In an analysis of epidemiological research in Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America published in 1969, they “aimed at solving some basic issues concerning the causes of psychological disorder” (p. xx) and hoped that they had “made a start in the right direction” (B. P. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1969, p. ix). Published in 1974, Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and Effects (B. S. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1974) and numerous later works confirmed that they were indeed going in the right direction (see B. S. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1981, for a comprehensive list).

The Dohrenwends' research program has been widely recognized for adhering to rigorous methodological standards and for significant methodological contributions. Their research team developed sophisticated research instruments and sampling techniques (e.g., B. S. Dohrenwend, Krasnoff, Askenasy, & Dohrenwend, 1978). Social psychologists by training, the Dohrenwends analyzed problems that manifested at the individual level using a model that incorporated social and clinical dimensions, which systematically investigating social factors and individual traits, to understand the origins, consequences, and interactions of transient stress responses and long-term psychological disorders. Their work provided a genuine alternative to much CP research that analyzed and interpreted social issues using clinical models and individual level analyses. In 1980, in recognition of their achievements, Barbara and Bruce jointly received the SCRA Distinguished Contribution Award (B. S. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1981).

In 1976, Barbara was the first woman elected president of the Division of Community Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA), which is now known as SCRA (Bond & Mulvey, 2000). (SCRA, the current name of Division 27, will be used instead of its former name, the Division of Community Psychology.) In her presidential address, Barbara introduced a model for understanding complex relationships among social conditions, stress, and psychological disorders that has stood the test of time (B. S. Dohrenwend, 1978). In 2007, her diagram of the model was reproduced in a leading CP textbook with this description: “[Barbara Dohrenwend] recognized both situational and individual causes of stressful life events and both situational and individual mediating factors that could offset those stressors. [She] also recognized that the outcome of coping with stress could be positive psychological growth….” (Dalton, Elias, & Wandersman, 2007, p. 54).

Barbara's research legacy has continued through the work of Bruce Dohrenwend and their colleagues (e.g., B. P. Dohrenwend, et al., 1987). Some of Barbara's scholarly and professional achievements have been formally documented in CP journals and texts (e.g., Bond & Mulvey, 2000; Dalton et al., 2007). There has been little public recognition, however, of Barbara's contributions as a mentor. They are described below.

GRADUATE SCHOOL, COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, AND THE POWER OF MUSE-MENTORS

Between graduating from college and beginning a doctoral program five years later, I moved several times, had several jobs, completed several graduate courses, and became active in the women's liberation movement.

The Urban Training Program: An Alternative Setting Within a Setting

I met Barbara Dohrenwend in 1973 when I began doctoral work in the Social-Personality Program of the City University of New York (CUNY). Without her influence and positive regard, I am quite certain that CP would not have become my primary professional identity, and I doubt that a university would have been the primary setting in which I work. Soon after meeting Barbara, I knew that I wanted to work with her because I could learn a new way of thinking from her and I was drawn to her as a person. Later, I realized that my career-long work as a feminist community psychologist was directly related to her advice, her encouragement, and the professional opportunities to which she provided access at a critical time.

After I was accepted into the doctoral program, Barbara invited me to participate in the Urban Training Program, a sub-program within the larger program funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Designed by Barbara and fellow community psychologist Morton Bard, the program was an innovative alternative within a traditional setting. There was a sense of excitement, distinctiveness, and shared cause that are common in public homeplaces and in new settings led by their creators (Reinharz, 1984; Sarason, 1972). Barbara and Mort modeled and fostered a collaborative, respectful social environment that was different from that of the larger program. In the latter, some of the faculty questioned students in challenging rather than supportive ways. Competition and intellectual “sparring” were common. One professor appeared to enjoy putting people on the spot, was known for reducing students to tears in class, and had a reputation for demolishing dissertation students and for challenging other committee members. The contrast between the overall program and the sub-program added to my appreciation of Barbara and Mort as people and of the formal and informal culture that they fostered.

Consciousness-Raising and Community Psychology Converge

In the early 1970s, just before beginning graduate school, I had joined a consciousness-raising (CR) group partly because I had just moved to New York City and wanted friends (Mulvey, Gridley, & Gawith, 2001). Participating in the group was an exhilarating, life-changing experience for me as it was for many women in other CR groups (Collins, 2009; Shreve, 1989). Concepts and tools that I was introduced to in the Urban Training Program complemented feminist concepts and tools, enhancing both. I appreciated the values that the two areas shared and that there was an academic discipline with explicitly humanistic, progressive values oriented toward social change. Both the commonalties and the differences were illuminating (Mulvey, 1988).

Pedagogical methods in the training program were innovative. They included, for example, a community-based practicum, uncommon in social and personality programs. Barbara and Mort co-taught a required case studies seminar; team-teaching was also rare. We worked in small groups assessing exemplary community programs. We did site visits and program leaders visited us, which allowed mutual exchange within different contexts.

Developmental leadership is based on the assumption that community members with more and less expertise are all valuable contributors and that “knowledge is best constructed in collaborative action projects where people work together to experiment, test, elaborate, and articulate goals, values and ideas” (Belenky et al., 1997, p. 17). We were all encouraged to participate in knowledge construction informed by community action projects and their leaders. Given this, Barbara and Mort might be considered developmental leaders and their collaboration a form of co-muse-mentoring.

Barbara embodied qualities of developmental leadership. The only time that she interrupted students was to ask for the referent of acronyms with which someone might not be familiar. Consistent with CP and FCP but uncommon in academia, Barbara intervened to assure that everyone—in seminars, community settings and professional meetings—was welcome in the conversation without putting anyone “on the spot.” Barbara's teaching encouraged education as the “practice of freedom” (Freire, 1973), a pedagogical approach that bell hooks (1994, p. 8) described this way:

As a classroom community, our capacity to generate excitement is deeply affected by our interest in one another, in hearing one another's voices, in recognizing one another's presence…. [T]he professor must genuinely value everyone's presence. Barbara muse-mentored the group and introduced us to a broad, integrative method of critical thinking that provided a rationale and tools for creating value-driven change.

Unmet friends

Literary critic Carolyn Heilbrun (1997) used the term “unmet friends” to acknowledge the powerful role that reading the work of other people played in her life. The concept of unmet friends as persons who inspire and support without direct contact expands the meaning of, and opportunities for, muse-mentoring. Barbara introduced me to many unmet friends, some of whom I later met.

Through first year course readings, we were introduced to George Albee, Robert Reiff, and William Ryan. They (and others) inspired me, fueling my enthusiasm for CP. Reiff, a first-generation CP leader, visited our seminar, adding to my appreciation of his work and the field. He argued, for example, that community psychology would “degenerate into nothing more than a new opportunities movement for psychologists” (1970, p. 30) unless the field developed a body of knowledge and practice with the capacity to understand social movements and to challenge social structural inequalities.

Demystifying and humanizing academia

Materials in the courses Barbara and Mort taught demystified obfuscating language and perspectives, analyzed the ideological underpinnings and political implications of theories, and critiqued elitism in “higher” education and professionalism. This form of collective muse-mentoring encouraged critical analytical thinking and a feeling of safety within an intimidating environment. Both what we studied and interactive teaching-learning were important, especially for those of us who entered graduate school afraid that we were not smart enough.

Many feminists have critiqued higher education, often drawing on their own experiences of overt and covert racism, classism, and elitism. Patricia Hill Collins (1990, p. xii) noted: “Theory of all types is often presented as being so abstract that it can be appreciated by only a select few…. [T]his excludes those who do not speak the language of elites and thus reinforces social relations of domination.” bell hooks (1994) observed that although alternative settings and peer mentoring are considered valuable resources for youth and young adults in some settings, this is rarely the case in higher education.

TRANSFORMING ERASURE: CREATING FEMINIST COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY

Barbara and Mort encouraged the urban trainees to become active in community psychology as a profession. Doing this played an important role in my subsequent career.

The Austin Training Conference: Exhilaration and Erasure

In 1974, the urban trainees organized a national training conference for CP students. Barbara and Mort obtained funding for the conference and helped us develop a plan, but we had decision-making authority (e.g., reviewing and selecting proposals). They muse-mentored us as a group and we did that for each other. I experienced success, efficacy, and empowerment individually and collectively. Each enriched the others.

In 1975, Barbara and Mort encouraged us to attend the Austin Training Conference, a working conference held in Austin, Texas. It was the second major CP conference. In sharp contrast with the student conference, my experience at the Austin conference, while exhilarating, was also upsetting and deeply disappointing.

The small group sessions were wonderful. The content deepened my understanding of CP and my interest in the field; the process was participatory and friendly. My experience of conference-wide programming was quite different. All major addresses were given by men. Sexist jokes and language were frequent. Women's issues, feminism, and sexism were not mentioned (they were in some smaller sessions). At the closing session, small groups created lists of topics for future consideration. I asked that women or women's issues be listed. The recorder (who I believe was a student) refused, saying that it would be too controversial. I walked to the front of a large auditorium and added “women as a constituent group” to a list on the board as a conference organizer put one arm around me and erased what I had written with the other. I felt personally and politically erased and violated (Mulvey, 2008).

Creating Feminist Community Psychology

I immediately told Barbara what had happened and how upsetting it was. Her response at that moment (and for the next few years) was instrumental in not only my work but also the creation of what would become FCP. Though anyone who knew Barbara would agree that she did not literally say, “Don't agonize, organize,” that was the spirit of her advice. Barbara encouraged me to develop feminist work for CP outlets (Bond & Mulvey, 2000; Mulvey, 2008). She told me that a constructive way to transform this experience would be to develop feminist work to educate and enrich the field. She suggested that I approach Bob Newbrough, who was then the editor of the Journal of Community Psychology, and offer to do a special issue of the journal on women's issues. She also encouraged me to run for the position of SCRA national student representative.

I followed up on both suggestions. I was elected national student representative. Through that role, I met women interested in feminism and CP. We conducted research that documented the under-representation and sometimes victim-blaming analyses of women in CP journals (Blair, Mamo, O'Connor, Green, & Mulvey, 1976). We ended the paper by recommending that SCRA create a task force on women. While I was national student representative, I presented the request to the Executive Committee. In 1978, a Task Force on Women was approved. In 1986, the Committee on Women, a permanent committee, replaced the Task Force. At the time, there were other groups meeting to discuss interconnections of CP, feminism, and women's issues (Bond & Mulvey, 2000). Barbara played a key role facilitating the involvement of our group at the national level.

The first special issue on women and community psychology, Women in the Community, emerged, albeit slowly. It was posthumously dedicated to Barbara (Mulvey et al., 1988). Special issues of the American Journal of Community Psychology on FCP themes were also dedicated to her (Bond, Hill, Mulvey, & Terenzio, 2000a, b).

As mentor during this time, Barbara provided entrée to the Austin conference and, later, to the SCRA Executive Committee as well as CP publishing outlets. She explained how formal and informal professional organizations worked and was available to consult with as needed. As muse, she agreed with me that women's issues and feminism were important areas of study relevant to CP and supported my interests, even though they were qualitatively different from hers. She encouraged me to become actively involved in national professional organizations, even though I was “just” a student. Barbara provided structural access and interpersonal support; each played a critical role in the co-creation and formal recognition of FCP.

MUSE-MENTORING: EXPANSIVE, INCLUSIVE, AND CONTEXTUAL

A few years after the Austin Training Conference when I had completed coursework, I wanted to continue to work with Barbara and hoped that she would agree to supervise my dissertation research.

Feminism, Peer Mentoring, and Dynamic Contexts

I wanted to do a feminist dissertation relevant to women's lives. When I asked Barbara to chair my committee, she responded with a refreshing variation on “I'm not a feminist, but…,” a response that usually represents a distancing from feminism and a belief in negative stereotypes of feminists. Barbara said that she wasn't familiar enough with the literature and had not done enough activism for women's equality to earn the right to call herself a feminist. When I persisted, she suggested that I use data from the Psychiatric Epidemiological Research Interview (PERI) (B. S. Dohrenwend et al., 1978) and encouraged me to find a research question that would allow me to pursue my interests. Barbara thought that working with this data would provide common ground and be mutually beneficial (e.g., Mulvey & B. S. Dohrenwend, 1984).

Through my work with Barbara and her data, I developed a peer mentoring relationship with John L. Martin, Barbara's research assistant. I had no experience working with large datasets and statistics was not my strong suit. Working with the PERI dataset and comfortable with statistics and mainframe computers, John became my teacher, technical consultant, and crisis intervention specialist. Our immersion in stressful life events data was accompanied by commiseration (and laughter) about our own stressful life events. Together, like siblings whispering behind a parent's back, we ranted about daily stresses. When we learned that Barbara had taken a position at Columbia University, we worried about how her move would affect our work.

Soon, however, we were grappling with new concerns as Barbara battled cancer, and wondered how we had worried about trivial things before. There didn't seem to be appropriate ways to express our feelings given normative faculty-student relationships and separation of the personal and professional realms. We wanted Barbara to know how much we cared—that we loved her. The muse-mentoring relationships we had with Barbara were far more than educational or professional: they were also deeply personal.

Affirming Multiple Identities, Whole Selves

The dynamic interaction of personal and political identities within particular contexts is central to FCP and relevant to muse-mentoring. After graduate school, John continued to collaborate with the Dohrenwends and their colleagues at Columbia University. When John, who was a gay man, became aware of AIDS and experienced its devastating effects on his friends and community, he decided to shift from normative life events to focus on AIDS-related research. John began this transition by writing a hypothetical grant proposal in a postdoctoral course that he was taking with Bruce. In a memorial tribute, Bruce read a note that John had sent to him in 1983 (B. P. Dohrenwend, 1992, p. 41):

The proposal I've submitted here represents a piece of work I would very much like to do … I am aware that this research might not be exactly “popular”… but I nevertheless think the problem warrants intensive investigation at this time. When John switched his research, he came out to Barbara and Bruce. Each of them was supportive personally and professionally. Their acceptance and encouragement were tremendously important to John in that they affirmed his full identity as well as his work. John went on to do groundbreaking research identifying AIDS-related risk factors and exploring relationships among risk factors, social supports, and health outcomes (Martin, 1986; Martin, Dean, Garcia, & Hall, 1988).

Muse-mentoring often occurs between people whose identities are different from one another. This was the case with Barbara, John, and me. In contrast to Barbara's understated, tailored upper-middle-class demeanor, John and I were from large, loud Irish Catholic families. Barbara was raised on the East Coast, John was from California, and I grew up in the Midwest. Barbara was married (to a man), John was the first openly gay man I ever met, and I was single and straight at the time.

Our identities as members of multiple interconnected communities and how they are related to our work supporting those communities deserve greater attention. The role of ally can be thought of as good CP and as muse-mentoring. Doing so might encourage us to share more of ourselves with colleagues in professional and community settings. The fluid nature of identity within dynamic contexts opens up opportunities to be allies in some situations, and to experience protection and solidarity in others. Recognizing reciprocal interdependence across statuses, aspects of identity, and settings would allow us to affirm our full selves as integral to creating inclusive, multicultural communities.

Unacknowledged Muse-Mentors

There are many ways that muse-mentoring may be mutual. It sometimes occurs without the muse-mentors realizing the role they played, especially if they are in a lower status position. Students who have survived rape, domestic violence, state-sponsored genocide, poverty, or other losses have inspired me. Their courage has supported mine. When I was in the process of an identity shift from that of a straight single woman to that of a lesbian in a committed partnership, I drew strength from John's courage years earlier and from my students who were openly gay. All of them were younger and in more vulnerable positions than I. They helped me to take the risk of coming out more publicly and often on campus and in the community because I wanted to support them. Knowing that Barbara had been supportive of John when he came out, I had her support indirectly.

CONCLUSION: CONTINUING BARBARA'S LEGACY

Barbara accepted me as a whole person and taught me about being a community psychologist and a full person. In her address as president of SCRA, Barbara (1978) discussed interconnections among political action, community development, crisis intervention, and the health and well-being of individuals within communities. Noting that CP has a commitment to “helping the socioeconomic underdogs of our society” (p. 11), she concluded that political activism is an appropriate area of activity:

With the strategy of political action, community psychologists have moved into an area of maximum controversy, some of it among ourselves…. [It] seems possible to legitimize political action as an activity of community psychologists if it is clearly and explicitly directed at reducing the incidence of avoidable stressful life events (p. 11).

Barbara believed that focusing on early elements in the stress process is what distinguishes CP from clinical psychology. When my work or I have been criticized as too political, too personal, or not scholarly enough, I return to her words and example. Knowing that Barbara integrated CP values, theories, and practices into her work and life in her way has guided and inspired me in my work and life.

Barbara died in 1982 at the age of 55. At Barbara's memorial service, Bruce shared that shortly before she died, Barbara said that she wished she could have been a musician and played the piano. When he asked her why, she replied, “Because it's beautiful and makes me happy” (B. P. Dohrenwend personal communication, Fall, 1982). Over the years, I have returned to these words of encouragement, on the one hand, to risk doing work that I care passionately about and, on the other, to allow myself to work less and to spend more time doing what “feeds” me—my version of playing the piano.

In 2008 at the age of 62, I retired from UMass Lowell, although I continue to teach part-time. Barbara and John did not have the luxury of a retirement phase (John died of AIDS in 1992 at the age of 38). They could not show me the way through the stressful life event of retirement. The work that has been most fulfilling to me has been intricately interwoven with professional and academic roles, resources, and contexts. Experiences of co-creating and belonging to alternative communities have been central to it. I had the luxury of doing work that I care passionately about because my role, salary, and work setting allowed it. My awareness of the exceptional privileges that I had (and have) has grown, but that has not made “retired” or “senior citizen” more palatable as identities.

Once again, Barbara has muse-mentored me through her writing that is as relevant today as it was in 1974. Barbara cautioned community psychologists not to “distort our goal of facilitating constructive social change by subordinating it to programs of professional development,” and instead to emphasize “bold, innovative, and challenging approaches to community problems” (B. S. Dohrenwend, 1976, p. 7). Before CP even existed, I was engaging in community-building and social activism because I wanted to create and participate in safe, supportive, and socially just communities. As with muse-mentoring, there are many different ways and opportunities to do this.

Introducing the Dohrenwends when they received the Distinguished Publication Award, Joseph Zubin, their mentor, described their collaboration as follows:

They are a most colorful species of birds, of beautiful plumage… [Their] song has a most interesting feature. Though the melody emerges as an integrated song, each of them interdigitates its notes with the other alternately, and independently, to produce a most harmonious melody (Zubin, as cited in B. S. Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1981, p. 125).

This description of Barbara and Bruce expresses values, processes, and outcomes at the heart of FCP and muse-mentoring: interdependence, cooperation, mutual respect, taking turns, and singing separately and together to harmonize and humanize. Both FCP and muse-mentoring challenge false dichotomies between the self and the other, the personal and the political, thoughts and feelings, bodies and minds, theories and practices, and professionals and community members. To affirm the beautiful plumage of all members of our colorful species, we must be clear enough, kind enough, fierce enough, and willing enough to share our professional, political, and personal powers and selves.