Counseling the Culturally Diverse. Laura Smith L.

      FIGURE 2.1 Dimensions of Personal Identity Development

There is an East Asian saying that goes something like this: “All individuals, in many respects, are (a) like no other individuals, (b) like some individuals, and (c) like all other individuals.” Although this statement might sound confusing and contradictory, many East Asians believe these words to have great wisdom and to be entirely true with respect to human development and identity. We have found the three dimension framework shown in Figure 2.1 (Sue, 2001) to be useful in exploring and understanding the formation of personal identity. The three concentric circles illustrated in Figure 2.1 denote individual, group, and universal levels of personal identity.

      INDIVIDUAL LEVEL: “ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE, IN SOME RESPECTS, LIKE NO OTHER INDIVIDUALS”

There is much truth in the saying that no two individuals are identical. We are all unique biologically, and breakthroughs in mapping the human genome have provided some startling findings. Biologists, anthropologists, and evolutionary psychologists had looked to the Human Genome Project as potentially providing insights into comparative and evolutionary biology that would allow us to find the secrets to life. Although the project has provided valuable answers to many questions, scientists have discovered even more complex questions. For example, they had expected to find 100,000 genes in the human genome, but only about 20,000 were initially found, with the possible existence of another 5,000—only two or three times more than are found in a fruit fly or a nematode worm. Of those 25,000 genes, only 300 unique genes distinguish us from the mouse. In other words, human and mouse genomes are about 85% identical! Although it may be a blow to human dignity, the important question is how so relatively few genes can account for our humanness.

      Likewise, if so few genes can determine such great differences between species, what about within the species? Human inheritance almost guarantees differences, because no two individuals ever share the same genetic endowment. Further, no two of us share the exact same experiences in our society. Even identical twins, who theoretically share the same gene pool and are raised in the same family, are exposed to both shared and nonshared experiences. Different experiences in school and with peers, as well as qualitative differences in how parents treat them, will contribute to individual uniqueness. Research indicates that psychological characteristics, behavior, and mental disorders are more affected by experiences specific to a child than are shared experiences (Bale et al., 2010; Foster & MacQueen, 2008).

      GROUP LEVEL: “ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE, IN SOME RESPECTS, LIKE SOME OTHER INDIVIDUALS”

As mentioned earlier, each of us is born into a cultural matrix of beliefs, values, rules, and social practices. By virtue of social, cultural, and political distinctions made in our society, perceived group membership exerts a powerful influence over how society views sociodemographic groups and over how its members view themselves and others. Group markers such as race and gender are relatively stable and not very subject to change. Some markers, such as education, socioeconomic status, marital status, and geographic location, are more fluid and changeable. Although ethnicity is fairly stable, some argue that it can also be fluid. Likewise, debate and controversy surround discussions about whether sexual orientation is determined at birth and whether we should be speaking of sexuality or sexualities (Sue et al., 2016). Nevertheless, membership in these groups may result in shared experiences and characteristics. Group identities may serve as powerful reference groups in the formation of worldviews. On the group level of identity, Figure 2.1 reveals that people may belong to more than one cultural group (e.g., an Asian American female with a disability), that some group identities may be more salient than others (e.g., race over religious orientation), and that the salience of cultural group identity may shift from one to the other depending on the situation. For example, a gay man with a disability may find that his disability identity is more salient among the able‐bodied but that his sexual orientation is more salient among those with disabilities. We are drawn to exploring experiences based on our social identities; we often read books, listen to music, watch TV shows or movies by or about people who are similar to us in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, or any combination thereof.

      UNIVERSAL LEVEL: “ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE, IN SOME RESPECTS, LIKE ALL OTHER INDIVIDUALS”

      Because we are members of the human race and belong to the species Homo sapiens, we share many similarities. Universal to our commonalities are (a) biological and physical similarities, (b) common life experiences (birth, death, love, sadness, and so forth), (c) self‐awareness, and (d) the ability to use symbols, such as language. In Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Shylock attempts to acknowledge the universal nature of the human condition by asking, “When you prick us, do we not bleed?” Again, although the Human Genome Project indicates that a few genes may cause major differences between and within species, it is startling how similar the genetic material within our chromosomes is and how much we share in common. However, that we are similar at a broad human level does not erase our individual and cultural uniqueness.

      REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

INDIVIDUAL AND UNIVERSAL BIASES IN PSYCHOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH

      Psychology—and mental health professionals in particular—has generally focused on either the individual or the universal levels of identity, placing less importance on the group level. There are several reasons for this orientation. First, our society arose from the concept of rugged individualism, and we have traditionally valued autonomy, independence, and uniqueness. Our culture assumes that individuals are the basic building blocks of our society. Sayings such as “Be your own person (à la Dr. D.),” “Stand on your own two feet,” and “Don't depend on anyone but yourself” reflect this value. Psychology and education represent the carriers of this value, and the study of individual differences is most exemplified in the individual intelligence testing movement that pays homage to individual uniqueness (Suzuki et al., 2005).

      Second, the universal level is consistent with the tradition of psychology, which has historically sought universal facts, principles, and laws in explaining human behavior. Although this is an important quest, the nature of scientific inquiry has often meant studying phenomena independently of the context in which human behavior originates. Thus, therapeutic interventions from which research findings are derived may lack external validity (Chang & Sue, 2005).

      Third, we have historically neglected the study of identity at the group level for sociopolitical and normative reasons. As we have seen, issues of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability seem to touch hot buttons in all of us because they bring to light issues of oppression and the unpleasantness of personal biases. In addition, racial and ethnic differences have frequently been