{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02125952667468913, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024067388688327317, 'mean_word_length': 5.219451371571072, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Internationalizing Counseling Psychology:

As a cultural anthropologist, as a native and citizen of France who has lived more than 35 years in the United States, as professor, and as chair of a Department of International and Transcultural Studies, I welcome any call to internationalize fields of inquiry and practice. As America, willingly or not, assumes global leadership, those who speak from it, particularly its intellectuals and professionals, must recognize that anything they say will be listened to with particular attention. Not that an international audience will accept at face value everything that comes out of the United States. We are all aware that this will never be the case. Contestation, vehement contestation at times, will remain the rule of the day. But even those who will stay most offended by American pronouncements will pay attention. We who may think of ourselves as critics of American practices will be identified with America as soon as our work has traveled outside the United States. We must acknowledge this global audience, and we must work at offering models for understanding and practice that take it into account. This responsibility is even greater for those—educators, clinical and counseling psychologists, and all such professionals—who claim that their practices are helpful and gain the authority to intervene in other people’s lives. As teacher, citizen, and now as department chair, I write here as an international professional who has reached this position partially because of my scholarly training and work in cultural anthropology. I bring to this discussion of Leong and Ponterotto’s call (2003 [this issue]) for internationalization my sense of where my professional field has been (the affirmation of institutionalized human variability—“culture”), of where it is going (the affirmation of the political and interactional nature of culture), and what this might mean for those wishing to answer their call. American cultural anthropology was built to face the implications of human variability both for the individual and for those who wish to work with individual growth and well-being. Arguably, the field itself springs from the sense that psychological theories of human development or education that have not directly confronted what can happen to human beings around the globe are unlikely to be either accurate or helpful. Forty years of work within the United States on internal variation, “multiculturalism” as it is often