Multicultural Psychology. Jennifer T. Pedrotti
truths and principles of human behavior delivered in the halls of science questions the pillars of much of our knowledge about the world and about human behavior. From time to time, we need to shake those pillars to see just how strong they are. (p. 3)
Today, one of the main goals of psychology must be to shake these pillars and to make sure that cultural context is attended to.
The Fourth Force
As a field, psychology has a history that involves several different movements or “forces.” In the early days of the creation of the field of psychology, Sigmund Freud and his followers developed theories and practices based around the First Force: psychodynamics. Later, B. F. Skinner and colleagues discussed human actions in the Second Force: behaviorism. Starting with Carl Rogers, Viktor Frankl, and Rollo May, the ideas of existentialism and humanism were termed the Third Force. There is much written about these forces in terms of the way they have shaped the field of psychology, offered explanations, and given evidence for development of different behaviors, cognitions, and emotional reactions. In each of the previous forces, a particular set of theories or explanations was used to decode human behavior. In psychodynamic theory, for example, it is believed that internal drives and interactions within different parts of the mind influence our behavior. Freud’s conceptualizations of the id, ego, and superego depict a constant internal battle between drive and ethics as impacting decisions, development, and emotions. This differs sharply from the theories of Skinner and Watson, who instead believed that all human traits were shaped and molded by external forces of rewards, punishments, or conditioning. Humanism and existential theorists brought forward the idea that the similarity of human conditions (e.g., loneliness, despair, desire) drives behavior. Each of these forces was deemed such after noting the deep impact each set of theories had on our understanding of human behavior, thought, and feelings.
In 1990, a psychologist named Paul Pedersen declared that a new force had emerged in the field, the Fourth Force: multiculturalism. Pedersen was pointing to the idea that culture influenced the way we think, feel, and behave on a daily basis. This is where we are in the field of psychology today. Thus, in keeping with the fourth force, culture must come into play in thinking of any type of development. Cognition, affect, and behavior can all be explained through the lens of cultural forces. Our racial backgrounds, gender identity, socioeconomic status groups, and other facets of our identity determine how we see the world, how we may be similar in some ways, and how we are all distinctly different. Naming multiculturalism as the Fourth Force shows the importance of each of these layers to our development and to our understandings of the world. We are not islands; we are connected to all others and able to make meaning of our surroundings and experiences primarily through our unique and culturally influenced worldview.
Important Definitions in Multicultural Psychology
Culture influences every aspect of our daily life. Even when not specifically named, culture is always in the room. Culture is in the air that we breathe.
The definition of the term culture has been debated by many, but psychologist Harry Triandis (1995) defines it as “a shared pattern of beliefs, attitudes, norms, role perceptions, and values” (p. 3). Kluckhohn’s (1954) definition adds to this understanding of culture by using an analogy: “Culture is to society what memory is to individuals” (Triandis, 1995). That is, culture is a structural and ever-changing force that impacts our experience in the world. When researchers use the term cross-cultural, they are usually referring to looking at differences between two contexts, for example, comparing individuals in South America to those in North America; while the term multicultural is defined as looking at differences that exist within a single context, for example, those within the United States. We will use these words in this book as we define them here, but it is important to note that these words have often been used interchangeably in the past.
Culture has been described as encompassing language, ritual, ideas, customs, and history (Triandis, 1995). Each of these aspects of culture impacts the experiences of individuals and the lens they use to make sense of the world. It is impossible to accurately talk about people without attending to culture.
Though multicultural psychology encompasses many different identity facets in its study of culture, understandings of race and ethnicity are often primary areas of study. Though these are separate concepts, many use them interchangeably, and this can be confusing to individuals learning about these terms. It is also important to recognize that individuals in different fields, researchers, and lay persons disagree on definitions of words like race.
Psychologist Janet Helms describes this well: “Race has no consensual theoretical or scientific meaning in psychology, although it is frequently used in psychological theory, research and practice as if it has obvious meaning” (Helms, Jernigan, & Mascher, 2005, p. 27). In some fields, especially in the past, race is sometimes described as a biological construct based on physical differences and characteristics. This biological distinction has multiple issues, however, in that having a particular set of genes does not necessarily explain how one thinks, feels, or is experienced in society. In recent years several companies have arisen offering DNA testing that compares an individual’s DNA with that of other individuals who have participated in their tests. Though the companies are careful to use words such as “ancestry” or “family history” as opposed to purporting to identify race, a perhaps unintended consequence of this new business venture is a misunderstanding of race as a biological construct. Consider the following story from a professor of multicultural psychology:
This DNA testing thing has had some interesting consequences in my multicultural psychology course lately. I have students who have been raised with a White cultural identity who get a result on one of these DNA company reports that says that they are a certain percentage “African” or some other cultural group that they never knew about. I have a student who has blond hair, blue eyes, and light skin. He’s from an area that is predominantly White and has been having a hard time understanding concepts like White privilege. He just doesn’t have any frame of reference for the experiences of racial minorities because he’s met so few in his life. He took a test like this and he came to tell me about the results. He started off by saying, “So, my test says I’m 2% African. That means I’m Black! I guess no one can say I have White privilege now.” We talked about what the test results actually meant and how race is more than just genes, and what White privilege actually is … but at the end of the conversation I’m not sure he had a better understanding. He kept thinking of race as biological because the test was of his DNA. I think it’s confusing for people to understand that when we are talking about race in psychology, we’re talking about racial identity and the historical experiences of one’s ancestors as well as the current experiences someone has had, and those aren’t just built on genes.
—Lynne, age 48
In this book, we will define race as a sociocultural construct that groups individuals together by both physical and social characteristics. Though there may be physical similarities among individuals within a race (e.g., eye shape, hair texture), it is not these physical similarities that link individuals to a race. For example, people of African American descent may range in skin color from light to dark, similar to those of European descent or Asian descent. Thus the idea of race “is not an intrinsic part of a human being or the environment but, rather, an identity created using symbols to establish meaning in culture or society” (Barnshaw, 2008, p. 1092). The idea that race is sociocultural as opposed to biological is difficult for many who are first entering this area of study. “People who are black share physical similarities!” is a comment we often hear from our novice students. Perhaps Barnshaw’s (2008) answer to this question can assist in a better understanding: “Although physical characteristics constitute a portion of the concept of race, this is a social rather than a biological distinction. That is, human beings create categories of race based on physical characteristics rather that the physical characteristics having intrinsic biological meaning” (p. 1092). Members of any particular race have shared traditions, history, and even vernaculars at times.
Ethnicity is separate from race, though linked,