RBG Communiversity Concepts in African-Centered Psychology, Two Pivotal Essays

RBG Communiversity

Theories of African American Personality:

Classification, Basic Constructs and

Empirical Predictions/Assessment by

Kobi K.K. Kambon, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Florida A & M University

&

Terra Bowen-Reid, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Morgan State University

Through the Prism of Black Psychology: A Critical Review of Conceptual and Methodological

Issues in Africology as Seen Through the Paradigmatic

Lens of Black Psychology by

DeReef F. Jamison North Carolina A & T State University

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE HISTORY OF

AFRICAN AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY Prepared by the APA Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs

Concepts in African-Centered Psychology

https://www.facebook.com/RBGCommuniversity

https://www.facebook.com/RBGCommuniversity

Theories of African American Personality:Classification, Basic Constructs andEmpirical Predictions/Assessment

by

Kobi K.K. Kambon, Ph.D.Department of Psychology, Florida A & M University

&

Terra Bowen-Reid, Ph.D.Department of Psychology, Morgan State University

Kobi Kambon ([email protected]) is a widely recognized expert in the field of AfricanPsychology emphasizing personality and cultural oppression. He is currently a Professor ofPsychology in the Department of Psychology at Florida A & M University, where he also hasheld the positions of Department Chair & Program Director of the Community PsychologyGraduate Program. He has authored over 60 scholarly publications, including some five booksand several widely used Black personality and mental health assessment instruments. He is aformer National President of The Association of Black Psychologists and holds the Ph.D. inPersonality and Social Psychology from the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Terra Bowen-Reid ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor in the Departmentof Psychology at Morgan State University. Her research interests are in the areas of AfricanAmerican mental health, race-related stress, spirituality and cancer prevention. Dr. Bowen-Reid’s most recent publications have appeared in the Handbook of African AmericanPsychology, Journal of Black Psychology, Journal of Urban Health and the Western Journal ofBlack Studies.

83

The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.3, no.8, June 2010

Abstract: This article represents a brief overview and review of the state of contemporarytheories of African American personality. A slight modification of an earlier scheme put forthby Kambon (1992, 1998) provides the organizational framework for the analysis. The schemecomprises three classifications of such theories: Eurocentric Approaches, TransitionalAfricentric Approaches and Africentric Approaches. The addition of the Transitional AfricentricApproach is designed to better capture approaches that represent more or less a hybrid or diffuseversion including basic aspects of both the Eurocentric and Africentric approaches, yet reflectingat the same time a slowly but definite movement away from the Eurocentric toward theAfricentric approach (“Transitioning”). A more or less composite of the Eurocentric Approachis presented, while the William Cross model of Nigrescence is discussed as representative of theTransitional Africentric Approach. Much of the discussion of the Africentric approach is takenfrom previous manuscripts by the authors (Kambon, 1998; Kambon & Bowen-Reid, 2009) andemphasizes Kambon’s African Self-Consciousness model as representative. The major thrust ofthe article emphasizes what are the key-central constructs of the representative models (both coreand peripheral), as well as the changes that have occurred in these models over the past quarterof a century or more since their introduction, and the general status of the research that isassociated with the main paradigms involved. Finally, we give some limited consideration tosome of the seemingly pressing issues in the short-term future outlook for the field.

I. Introduction

Perhaps no other area of African/Black Psychology has such a legacy of controversy andstrident intellectual debate than the area of Theories of African American (AA) personality(Belgrave & Allison, 2006; Cross, 1991; Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2006; Thomas & Sillen, 1972;Wilcox, 1971). This has not only been because of the legacy of the notorious contentiousness ofthe literature on AA intelligence, but also the subsequent literature on AA self-concept/racialidentity and self-esteem, as well as the focus on AA motivation (i.e., achievement motivation)and antisocial behaviors such as drug abuse, delinquency, violence and criminality (Belgrave &Allison, 2006; Cross, 1991; Jones, 1972, 1980, 1991, 2004; Kambon, 1992, 1998; Pettigrew,1964; Wilson, 1993). Each of these areas of the psychological study of AA personality hasbrought to the table their own set of controversial theoretical models, methodologies, data bases,analyses and conclusions. Through the years and as a result of the accumulation of a relativelylarge amount of research data and theoretical constructs, a distinct area of study called AAPersonality has emerged within the African-centered psychological literature (Baldwin, 1976;Kambon, 1992, 1998) that commands serious consideration in any social policies respectful ofcultural diversity that focus on truly improving the lives of all of the population. Thus, thegrowing body of psychological literature focused on African American personality will bediscussed in this article in terms of the following considerations: (1) Classification of BasicTheoretical Paradigms, (2) Core Constructs and Empirical Predictions and Assessments, and (3)Future Directions of this important area of focus in African-Centered Psychology.

84


II. Classification of Theories of African American Personality: BasicTheoretical Paradigms

What then have emerged as the basic theoretical paradigms in this area of study and knowledge?Azibo (1990) has used such classifications as Positivists versus Negativist-Pejorativists tocategorize these paradigms, whereas Kambon (1992, 1998) has proposed the categories ofAfricentric versus Non-Africentric as more appropriate to capture the distinguishing features ofthese paradigms. Kambon’s (1992, 1998) work has been the primary guide in the developmentof classification schemes relevant to this area.

More similar to Kambon, but incorporating many features from Azibo’s scheme as well, wepropose that three distinct approaches or paradigms seem to have emerged and have come tocharacterize contemporary work in this area. They might best be designated as (1) EurocentricModels, (2) Transitional Africentric Models, and (3) Africentric Models. This schematic issummarized in Table 1.

85


Table 1. Contrasting Africentric and Non-Africentric Approaches to African AmericanPersonality Theories_____________________________________________________________________________

African Personality Paradigms: Modification of Kobi Kambon’s Schematic

PARAMETERS AFRICENTRIC THEORIES NON-AFRICENTRIC THEORIES

Worldview/Cultural Framework African Worldview European Worldview

Motivation/Psychic Proactive - Reactive -Energy Positive Energy Negative Energy

Assumption Assumption

Standard of Strengths, Normality, Weakness, Abnormality,Referent Naturalness/Positive- Defensiveness in

adaptiveness of behavior & functioningbehavior & functioning

Subtypes or Africentric a. Pure EurocentricVariants (African Worldview emphasis) (European Worldview emphasis)

b. Pseudo Africentric(Diffuse/Predominant EWV emphasis)

c. Transitional Africentric(movement toward AWV emphasis)

Goal/Outcome Africentric Orientation 1) Eurocentric Orientation

2) Transracial/Diffuse:Universalism emphasis

3) Some Pro-Black with Diversity& Universalism emphasis

Optimal Fulfilling the African Fulfilling the EuropeanFunctioning Survival Thrust Survival Thrust______________________________________________________________________________Adapted from Kambon, 1998.

86


A. Eurocentric and Pseudo-Africentric Models

Following Kambon’s (1992, 1998) earlier scheme, theories whose racial-ethnic andphilosophical orientation is of European/European-American descent and thus asserts theEuropean Worldview (EWV)-cultural reality are classified as “Pure Eurocentric” because of itsCaucasian authorship and exclusive emphasis on the EWV as the conceptual framework (i.e., theabsence of the African Worldview). And in a related vein, we define the Pseudo-AfricentricModels as those theories whose ethnic- philosophical orientation is of AA descent, yet asserts theEuropean Worldview-cultural reality as the conceptual framework of analysis (Kambon, 1992,1998).

In the case of the Pure Eurocentric Approach, it, of course, has represented one of theoldest traditions in Eurocentric social sciences concerned with such theoretical formulations ofAA personality (Kambon, 2006). These theories therefore are distinguished philosophically andideologically from other approaches by their imposition of the European Worldview (being theirnatural cultural orientation) as the appropriate conceptual framework for explaining AApersonality or some important aspects of it. While no independent models in the Eurocentrictradition have ever been proposed as a definitive model of African American personality(Kambon, 1998, 2006; Thomas & Sillen, 1972), a variety of seemingly highly eclectic theoreticalperspectives derived from Eurocentric speculations and stereotypes about Blacks drawing frompsychological, bio-physiological and medical, sociological and anthropological knowledge bases(Ferguson, 1916; Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951; Pettigrew, 1964), came to represent a kind ofgeneral-eclectic paradigm. This paradigm, as articulated by Kambon (1998), posits a generallynegative psychological picture forming the AA personality profile. The negative constructs ofAA self-hatred, low or exaggeratedly high self-esteem, negative reference group identification,low intelligence and low-achievement motivation, low frustration-stress tolerance (inability todelay gratification) and faulty coping skills, high anger, aggression and hostility, anti-social andcriminally bent behaviors, low sense of personal causation/fate-control (high externality), amongmany others, have all been articulated either separately or in combinations as the core contentemphasis of such theories (Dreger & Miller, 1968, 1972; Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2006; Pettigrew,1964; Thomas & Sillen, 1972).

The Pseudo-Africentric Models, on the other hand, represent those theories of AApersonality developed by AAs and others of African descent (Fanon, 1967) who manifest aseemingly unwitting allegiance to the basic paradigms of Eurocentric Psychology and behavioralscience as their basis for interpreting the self-concept, identity and motivation of Black people(Azibo, 1990; Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2006). This group has been led in large part by suchnotables as Kenneth B. Clark (1965), Frantz Fanon (1967), Alvin Poussaint (1972), JamesComer (Comer & Poussaint, 1982, 1995),William Cross’ (1971, 1991) earlier works on Blackracial identity, Janet Helms (1985), and a host of others (Azibo, 1990; Kambon, 1998, 2006).This paradigm, as articulated by Kambon (1992, 1998), also posits a generally negative cultural-psychological picture of the AA personality profile.

87


For example, they fail by and large to address African cultural reality as a positive presence(protective factor) in the psychology of AAs. Rather, they accept the monolithic culturalparadigm of Eurocentric psychology and thus see AA personality as driven by the sameEurocentric motivational forces as White Americans, such as achievement driven, individualism,materialism and power-dominance driven, assertiveness-aggression as optimal motivation, alongwith an emphasis on differences, competitiveness, violence, victory-driven, conflict, strife,anxiety avoidance, shame and guilt all as critical psychological elements in normal personalityoperation (Azibo, 1990; Kambon, 1992, 1998). As a result, such theories assert great emphasison attempting to explain negative constructs of African American personality like self-hatred,low or exaggeratedly high self-esteem, negative reference group identification, low intelligenceperformance and low-achievement motivation, low frustration-stress tolerance (inability to delaygratification) and faulty coping skills, high anger, aggression and hostility, anti-social andcriminally bent behaviors, low sense of personal causation/fate-control (high externality), etc.(Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2006).

1. Common Theoretical Components of Eurocentric and Pseudo-AfricentricModels

Some of the major emphasis and key constructs articulated in this approach are thefollowing:

Core Elements/Factors/Psychological Infrastructure (Structural and Motivation-FunctionalEmphasis): Chief among the Core factors emphasized in the Eurocentric models are Negativeracial identity (Negative Personal and Reference Group -racial/ethnic- identity) - Black self-hatred, Envy of Whites/White Preference, low self-esteem and/or exaggerated (compensatory)high self-esteem, and a host of other anti-Black values and beliefs, and pathology-leaningpsychological and emotional traits.

Peripheral Elements/Factors (Attitudinal and behavior patterns resulting from response tooppression or European American cultural reality forces): The Peripheral factors, or thosebehavioral factors presumably generated by or emanating from the Core factors, represent acomposite theme of “Anti-Black” attitudes and behaviors among other dysfunctional-maladaptive, anti-social and ineffective behaviors.

Psychological Dynamics: The primary motivational emphasis associated with these theoriesstress psychodynamics reflecting a psychological dissonance over negative racial identity/status(negative social status) in American society. It emphasizes tension reduction/being driventoward achieving emotional-psychological comfort with self-identity (personal identity) byrejecting Black racial-cultural identity (reference group) and by identifying with/adopting WhiteIdentity, or at least a Non-Racial/Universal – Human Identity, as normal-natural AfricanAmerican identity/personality (Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951; Penn, Gaines & Phillips, 1993;Thomas & Sillen, 1972).

88


Developmental Issues: The primary developmental emphasis of these models has focused onpsychologically transitioning from an Anti-Black to Non-Black – racially neutral or Universal -Human identity. Other constructs like Individualism/Individual Human Identity (achieving anIndividual identity independent of race and culture) have been emphasized and are generallythrust toward the need to transcend racial identity to achieve an optimal individual-personalhuman identity within the framework of European/European American cultural reality.

Outcome Emphasis: Optimal African American personality development and functioning,according to these models, is viewed as synonymous to achieving a personal identityindistinguishable from normative (if not “optimal”) European/European American personality.The individual level adaptation/internalization of a European American racial-cultural identity-self-concept, as opposed to a Black/African-centered racial-cultural identity/self-concept, etc., isemphasized as the desired outcome-expression of normal African American personalitydevelopment (Kambon, 1992, 1998).

Empirical Predictions and Assessment Based on Pure Eurocentric Models:

As has been noted elsewhere (Kambon, 1998), these theories have virtually made a livingoff of the infamous “Black self-hatred” research model known rather generally as the racialpreference and various racial comparative research literature spanning the mid-1930s through1970s (Kambon, 1998, 2006). In general, the Eurocentric approach and its various constructshave predicted a myriad of behavioral anomalies and negative mental health outcomes amongAAs, many of which were alluded to earlier. This list encompasses such notorious findings asidentity confusion and negative personal and reference group identities, negative racial groupperception and stereotyping among AAs; also lower self-esteem and negative self-conceptamong AAs compared to Caucasian Americans, both children and adults, lowerintelligence/mental capacity/capabilities compared to Caucasians, white skin preferenceexpressed in a variety of ways, lower achievement aspirations and less competitiveness thanWhites, more criminally-prone (higher arrest and incarceration rates) than Whites, lower highschool graduation rates, lower college enrollment and graduation rates and higher unemploymentrates than Whites, higher truancy and school drop-out rates, delinquency, teenage parenting, andso on and so forth (Farley, 2002). Of course a proliferation of culturally biased researchinstruments and questionable methodologies have been developed and utilized in this overalleffort, and a notorious collection of contestable findings, including those listed, have beenpresented (Kambon, 1998).

89


B. Pseudo-Africentric and Transitional Models

The second group of theories, the Transitional Models, are to a large extent a derivationof the “Pseudo-Africentric or Diffuse approaches.” As noted, they represent those theories underAfrican/AA authorship that superimpose the European worldview as the conceptual framework,even though they focus on explaining AA personality or some important aspects of it. Thesetheories have represented the oldest tradition among Black psychological and social sciencetheorists in the general field of Black or Africana Studies, from the early works of Martin Delany(1856), W. E. B. DuBois (1902) and others of their era, to the more contemporary psychologicalworks of Herman G. Canady in his 1946 manuscript entitled “The Psychology of the Negro”(Guthrie, 1998) and Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks (1965), and the current studies ofWilliam Cross, Jr. (1991, 1995) and his associates (Cross, Parham & Helms, 1998; Cross &Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver, Cross, Worrell & Fhagen-Smith, 2002). Azibo (1990) has observedthat while some of these theories emphasize a predominance of negative traits as the basis ofportraying, characterizing and explaining normal and natural AA personality, others emphasizemore positive and perhaps more surface-transient psychological traits/states, dispositions andbehavioral patterns all defined within the European-American cultural context of experience.These models pay little or no attention to the role/forces of traditional African cultural reality andphilosophy (values, beliefs, behavioral norms, etc.) in driving AA cultural reality in thecontemporary psychosocial dynamics of AA personality (Kambon, 1992, 1998). Rather, theyemphasize coping with and adapting to the European-American cultural reality as the soledeterminant of core AA personality functioning in terms of racial identity and perhaps an AfricanAmerican personal-social identity void of any substantive African “cultural” infrastructure-underpinnings. Their motivational emphasis is therefore focused on “reactivity” to the forces ofEuropean American socio-cultural reality and the coping and assimilation demands it places onAfrican American’s adaptive responses. Although this area of theory in relatively recent timeshas been dominated mainly by William Cross’ (1971, 1991, 1995) ideas about AA personality,other theorists like Charles Thomas (1971), and Ivory Toldson and Alfred Pastuer (1976; Pastuer& Toldson, 1982), among others (Myers, 1993; Myers, et al., 1991; Myers, et al., 1996; Sellers etal., 1997) have also contributed to the general Transitional paradigm. While some of theseapproaches do recognize and give some limited emphasis to traditional African philosophy andculture in contemporary AA personality, at least as a conceptual starting point (Myers, 1985,1993; Pastuer and Toldson, 1982; White & Parham, 1990), they nevertheless emphasize reactionand adaptation to an European American cultural reality, or, in some instances, adopting a moremulti-cultural and universalistic philosophy (in interpreting Traditional African philosophy) asforming the basic psychological core of AA personality dynamics and functioning.

90


In general, these theories in many respects seem to place a predominate emphasis on theDuBois (1902) theme of “Bi-culturalism,” in the sense of racial and social status conflicts amongBlack individuals, and perhaps Fanon’s (1967) complex theme of Existential Universalism(Bulhan, 1985; Kambon, 1998), rather than on African cultural infrastructure as forming thepsychological core of AA personality (Kambon, 1992).

1. Common Theoretical Components

Among the major emphasis and key constructs articulated in this approach are thefollowing:

Core Elements/Factors/Psychological Infrastructure: Racial/Ethnic Identity at both the Personalidentity and Reference Group identity levels (i.e., positive or negative Personal identity versuspositive or negative Reference Group/Racial identity) seems to represent the core emphasis inthese theories. The idea of multiple identities encompassing individual uniqueness void of raceor social emphasis, racial identity with all of the usual racial content emphasis, as well as othersocial identities then are seen as forming the core factors of AA personality (Sellers et al., 1997).

Peripheral Elements/Factors: The Peripheral factors emphasized in these models represent thosebehavior patterns resulting from the “Response to Oppression” or European American culturalreality/forces, most of which are negative, maladaptive, or are Eurocentric culturally slanted(representing assimilationist and bi-cultural identities).

Dynamics/Functional Aspects: The primary motivational emphasis associated with thesetheories represents a kind of psychological dissonance over racial identity conflicts (negativesocial status in American society). It emphasizes tension reduction-driven functioning focusedon achieving emotional/psychological comfort between personal/self-identity as Bi-cultural/Multi-cultural and Reference Group identity.

Developmental Issues: The primary developmental emphasis of this approach has focused on anormal progression of psychological transitioning from anti-Black to pro-Black to Multi-culturalIdentity, or a broadly applied “Human Identity,” or an all-inclusive “Universal Cultural/HumanIdentity.”

Outcome Emphasis: Optimal AA personality development and functioning is generally viewedin its final form to represent a race neutral or transracial/transethnic/transcultural humanidentity (or a “universal human identity”), often comprising a mixture of individualism withstrong existential aspects, along with a strong achievement orientation and a “healthy” altruisticemphasis in one’s behavior, suggesting the ultimate achievement of self-acceptance/self-satisfaction or psychological comfort with oneself as a human being in a community of otherhuman/universal beings.

91


2. William Cross’ Theory of Nigrescence

As noted, the most well-known and fully developed of the various models comprisingthis group is the theory of “Nigrescence” proposed by William E. Cross, Jr., and his associates(Cross, 1989, 1991, 1995; Cross, Strauss and Fhaghan-Smith, 1999; Cross & Valdiver, 2001;Helms, 1989; Parham, 1989). Succinctly, in its original formulation, Cross’ theory (Cross, 1971,1989) proposes that AA personality is a dynamic psychological/cognitive-emotional process ofsystematic stages and/or phases consisting of some five presumably distinct cognitive-emotional(attitudinal) states in transition from an Anti-Blackness and Pro-White orientation to a consciousmulti-cultural/pro-diversity/”transracial”/inclusively humanistic orientation at its mature-optimallevel of expression. The five stages are identified as (1) Pre-Encounter Stage (Anti-Blackness/Pro-Whiteness orientation), (2) Encounter Stage (a purely transitioning processmoving away from the Pre-Encounter state provoked by contradicting experience), (3)Immersion-Emersion Stage (immersing into a pro-Blackness/anti-Whiteness orientation followedby contradicting experiences provoking an emersion to a more balanced pro-Blackness/pro-Whiteness orientation), and (4) Internalization Stage (reflecting a post-race nationalism orracially transcendent orientation - an appreciation of diversity/multi-culturalism and Global-Third World sensitivity. A fifth stage is possible by transforming the new psychologicalorientation of Stage 4 into social action on behalf of all people, regardless of race. Stage 4 is themore common level reached by most people who successfully negotiate the Nigrescence process,and thus represents optimal Black personality for the average AA (Cross, 1971, 1978, 1991,1995).

It is noteworthy that Cross’ basic model has enjoyed wide appeal for almost two decadesbefore any meaningful attempts at modification were put forth. Its broad appeal was no doubtderived in part from it being widely viewed as best capturing the psycho-social dynamics of theAfrican American racial consciousness movement from the pre-1960s Jim Crow era - throughthe 1960s “Black Power” movement, to the post-60s Racial Integration era (Kambon, 1998). Apart of its strong appeal also no doubt derived from it representing for almost a decade the onlyfairly well developed model with at least what appeared to be some positive features aboutBlacks that had been put forth by an African American psychological theorist along with itsdirect appeal to the popular conception of Black identity formation (as a “Bi-cultural”phenomenon).

92


Revisions and Extensions of Cross’ Model

During the mid 1980s, Thomas Parham (1985, 1989) and Janice Helms (1989) proposedexpansions of the basic model. Parham emphasized the recycling of Nigrescence throughout theindividual lifecycle from around mid-adolescence (Cross et al., 1999). Helms, on the other hand,emphasized the important motivational role of social interaction forces (Interactive Themes)characterizing different periods of life undergirding Nigrescence, such as Cognitive Dissonance-Consistency motivation and Transitional Cognitive States, as significant additions in articulating(interpreting-explaining) the Nigrescence process. Parham and Helms (1981, 1985) alsodeveloped the RIAS-B as one of the earliest instruments designed to empirically assess theNigrescence Model (Burlew & Smith, 1991). Although this instrument has received mixedsuccess as a valid and reliable assessment of the model, it also has seemed to raise morequestions about the theoretical clarity and logical consistency within the original model (Akbar,1989; Cross, 1991; Kambon, 1998; Kambon & Hopkins, 1993; Nobles, 1989) as it did indemonstrating the predictive efficacy of the Nigrescence paradigm.

In his subsequent revisions of the model, Cross (1991, 1995) emphasized the importanceof drawing a clear distinction between Personal Identity (PI) and Racial Group Orientation(RGO) in relation to the Black Self-Concept within the framework of the Nigresence Model. PIrefers to an individual’s sense of personal uniqueness, whereas RGO refers to one’s attitude andvalues associated with her/his social group affiliation and preference. A person can have manyRGOs, such as race, gender, religion, etc. Thus, Cross argues that one’s RGO has little to norelationship to their PI because their PI does not have to take RGO into considerationwhatsoever. Cross also dropped the Fifth stage (Internalization Commitment Stage) in therevised Nigrescence Model (Cross, 1991, 1995; Cross & Vandiver, 2001).

More recent revisions of the model have resulted from the development of the CrossRacial Identity Scale (CRIS) and the extensive and rigorous psychometric analysis it hasundergone (Cross & Vandiver, 2001), led primarily by his chief collaborator Beverly Vandiver(2001). Their work has resulted in further revisions in the Nigrescence paradigm, mainly interms of a revamping of the stages as “states/traits of AA personality” – racial/ethnic identity-consciousness. The Pre-Encounter Stage has been revamped into three distinct states; theEmersion Stage remains relatively unchanged as a transitional process; the Immersion-Emersionstage expanded into two distinct (yet related) states; and the Internalization Stage has beenrevised into three distinct states, making a total of nine states/traits of Nigresence (Cross &Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver et al., 2002). The revised states/traits are as follows:

93


Cross’ Revised Nigrescence Model

1) Pre-Encounter (PE) States/Traits1a. PE Assimilation State – Emphasis on pursuit of American-cultural identity1b. PE Miseducation State – Emphasis on internalization of Eurocentric stereotypes about Blacks(RGO)1c. PE Self-Hatred State – Internalized White supremacy or Anti-Blackness at personal level (PI)

2) The Encounter StageThe process of reexamining one’s RGO – It is not a State/Trait (Attitude) as are the others.

3) Immersion-Emersion (IE) States/Traits3a. IE Anti-White State – (Intense anti-Whiteness/anti-White hostility)3b. IE Black Nationalism State - (Intense Black Involvement)

4) Internalization (I) States/Traits4a. I-Afrocentrism (Black Self-Determination emphasis, more other-exclusive)4b. I-Multicultural Inclusive (Humanistic-Universalist/totally inclusive - give equal emphasis toothers)4c. I-Multicultural Racial (Black Core Emphasis but diversity inclusive - (Bi-culturalist))

All have in common the “pro-Black” element, according to Cross et al., but shift in terms ofother racial-ethnic exclusiveness-inclusiveness.

As shown, while the revised model consists of all of the states from the original, theyhave all been recast, except for the Encounter Stage, as more or less distinct PsychologicalOrientations/states or traits (as opposed to stages) of Black personality/Identity. Even with theseadditions, however, the basic core of the theory remains unchanged (Cross & Vandiver, 2001;Kambon, 1998; Vandiver et al., 2002).

This observation notwithstanding, it is noteworthy nevertheless to recognize thatphilosophically, the revised model allows for the existence of a “Pro-Black” (Black self-affirming/ self-determining) psychological orientation (i.e., the Afrocentrism State/Trait) as anoptimal Black mentally healthy state without the involvement of a Non-Black emphasis, and thusas sufficient for healthy psychological functioning or Black identity expression (Akbar, 1989;Kambon & Hopkins, 1993). This aspect alone seems to shift (or rehabilitate) the Nigrescencemodel in our view from a strict “Pseudo-Africentric” approach, as it was initially classified,(Kambon, 1992, 1998), to perhaps a more “Transitional Africentric” emphasis.

94


While the model still does not in the strictest sense address the worldview or cultural realitydifferences factor, which no doubt limits its Africentric value (Akbar, 1989; Kambon, 1998;Nobles, 1989), this apparent philosophical shift seems to open up the conceptual possibility of analternative reality referent for valuating AA psychological functioning and behavior to that of thedominant/mainstream Eurocentric American reality (Kambon, 1998, 2004, 2006).

Empirical Predictions and Assessment Based on Cross’ Model:

It has been in the area of empirical assessment of the predictions of Cross’ Nigrescencemodel that it has undergone most of its contemporary activity driving the more recent revisions -expansions. Heuristically speaking, the core predictions emanating from Cross’ model suggestthat contemporary AAs can be found to differ individually in their psychologicalstates/orientations related to racial-identity/consciousness along the 8-9 dimensions/states ortraits of the Nigrescence process, and certain racially-focused behaviors should be predictablefrom (correlated with) them. Led by the extensive psychometric work of Vandiver (2001) inparticular, recent findings have prompted many of the latest revisions and expansions of Cross’model. Most of this research has been associated with the development and testing of the CrossRacial Identity Scale (CRIS) that was developed by Cross, Vandiver and colleagues (Cross &Vandiver, 2001; Vandiver et al., 2002). The main findings to date have been that: (1) The CRIShas been shown to constitute a multifactored assessment instrument; (2) it has good reliabilityand construct validity (convergent, divergent and discriminant validity) for the most part, and itsfindings to date, at least for 6 of the 8-9 Nigrescence traits, appear to be theoretically consistent.There does, however, appear to be some conceptual and empirical issues related to theformulation of the Immersion-Emersion, Intense Black Involvement (Black Nationalism) andInternalization Multicultural Racial orientation subscales of the CRIS (Vandiver, Cross, Worrell& Fhagen-Smith, 2002). This research is ongoing, and appears to be looking at the broaderapplication of the paradigm to contemporary African American psychological functioning andbehaviors (Holler, 2005; Vandiver et al., 2002).

C. Africentric Models

The last group of theories, called the Africentric Models, represent those theories underAfrican/AA authorship, that utilize the African worldview as the conceptual framework forportraying, characterizing and explaining AA personality or some important aspects of it. Theyutilize traditional African philosophical-cultural values, beliefs and behavioral norms forformulating/constructing the psychological traits, dispositions and behavioral patterns that areused to represent normal and natural AA personality as distinguished from maladaptive,abnormal and dysfunctional AA personality (Kambon, 1998; Kambon & Bowen-Reid, 2009).

95


These theories represent the most recent-contemporary approach, even though the basic ideas arequite old in the thinking of African-descent scholars, both in Africa as well as throughout theDiaspora (Akbar, 2004; Bynum, 1999; Kambon, 1992, 1998; Nobles, 2006; Oshodi, 2004).While Wade Nobles’ (2006) early and seminal work on the continuing influence of traditionalAfrican philosophy and cultural reality in the behavior and basic functioning of Africansthroughout the Diaspora had some influence on the development of Africentric theories of AApersonality (Kambon, 1998), paradigms constructed by Na’im Akbar (1975, 1976, 1979, 2004),Robert Williams (1981), and Kobi Kambon (1992,1998, 2003, 2006) in particular represent themore fully developed models to emerge in this literature. These models, while both similar anddifferent in some important respects, seem to combine a structural, dynamic and functionalemphasis framed on the African cultural reality within the American socio-cultural context.Some of their overlapping emphases are as follows:

(a) emphasis on traditional African culture in terms of values, beliefs and behavioral practicesthat have persisted in the AA psychological makeup forming the psychological infrastructurecore of normal-natural AA personality;

(b) emphasis on the structure, organization and dynamics of the core in thrusting AA behaviorand functioning toward collective/cultural-affirming outcomes;

(c) emphasis on the psychosocial nature, dynamics and outcome of the interaction between thisnormal-natural African-centered thrust or striving and the European American cultural reality inwhich the historic and contemporary AA personality finds itself. These theories then clearlymake a positive and proactive assumption about the basic energy driving the African/AApersonality system in its interaction (conflict, adaptations to, and coping) with the imposing,ever-present and hostile European American cultural reality (Kambon, 1998, 2003; Kambon &Bowen-Reid, 2009).

1. Common Theoretical Components

Core Elements/Factors/Psychological Infrastructure: In these theories, Racial-Cultural Identity(Personal and Reference Group Racial-Cultural Identity) is viewed as serving the core functionof Racial-Cultural self-affirmation.

Peripheral Elements/Factors: The Peripheral factors that are emphasized in these theories focuson the Cultural Behavior/response patterns, individually and collectively, that operate in adaptingto one’s environment as reflecting normal-natural AA Personality Traits – i.e., the Basic Traits ofAA personality. Aberrations/Abnormality/Maladaptation in the basic traits modified byoppression (i.e., European American cultural reality) forces are also articulated at this level ofthe Africentric theories.

96


Dynamics/Functional Aspects: The psycho-dynamic aspects of AA personality in Africentrictheories emphasize in one way or another the Natural (inherent) Racial-Cultural Self-Actualization/Affirmation/Empowerment striving (i.e., the proactive thrust or striving) inherentin normal/healthy AA personality functioning.

Developmental Issues: Where psychological development is concerned, Africentric theoriesseem to emphasize the critical importance of ongoing psychological (inclusive of spirituality)growth/development/transformations toward a mature and fuller expression of Africanitythroughout the lifecycle of the individual. The vital role and function of African-centeredsocialization occurring in African-centered institutions and the specific socio-culturalinfrastructure of African-centered societal-cultural institutions are emphasized as essential to thenormal-natural developmental process of AA personality. Thus, there is a general emphasis inthese theories on the processes involved in transitioning (cognitive and behavioral transitioning)from lower/weaker to higher/stronger levels (and expressions) of Conscious Africanity oversystematic stages or transitioning phases of development covering the entire life cycle.

Outcome Emphasis: Optimal AA personality development and functioning in the African-Centered theories emphasizes a congruent pattern of Africentric psychological dispositions (i.e.,a core nexus of pro-Black/African values, beliefs and attitudes) and behaviors reflecting thenormal-natural African Survival Thrust of the AA personality system.

2. Kobi K. K. Kambon’s Theory as Representative

Although the works of Na’im Akbar (1975, 1976, 1979; 2004) and Robert Williams(1981; Kambon, 2006) have made significant statements of their own in these areas, the mostwidely known and fully developed model representing this approach is that of Kobi Kambon(1992, 2003, 2006). Succinctly, Kambon’s model emphasizes two key heuristic constructs inarticulating the structure, dynamics, and behavioral outcomes related to a cultural-centeredunderstanding of AA psycho-logical functioning and behavior: African Self-Consciousness(ASC) and Cultural Misorientation (CM). According to the model, African personality consistsof a core system called the African Self-Extension Orientation (ASEO) and African Self-Consciousness (ASC), and a number of basic traits emanating from the core. ASEO is thefoundation of the Black personality. It is the organizing principle and energy source of the entiresystem. It is innate (biogenetically based), unconscious, and operationally defined by theconstruct of "Spirituality" - a dynamic communal energy which allows the Self to merge (extend)into the totality of phenomenal experience. It is also immutable (unchanging in its thrust) anddeeply rooted in the African psychical system. The ASEO manifests in terms of a set of basicpsychological and behavioral traits, or “Africanisms,” expressive of the African spiritualitydynamic (Kambon, 1992). ASC derives from the ASEO and, except for its conscious nature andideological content/thrust, is essentially an "undifferentiated process" from the ASEO undernormal-natural conditions.

97


That is, a part of the ASEO differentiates into a conscious structure called ASC throughdevelopmental progression under normal-natural conditions. ASC is therefore partly biogenetic,but because consciousness evolves in large part through experience, it is also partlyenvironmental-experientially based as well. ASC directs and guides the personality systemtoward Africentric goals and objectives; that is, it directs/focuses the “African Survival Thrust”inherent in the ASEO. Thus, the ASEO defines and energizes the African personality system,while ASC cognitively directs or focuses the system toward the fulfillment and maintenance ofAfrican survival, affirmation-empowerment (Kambon, 1992).

The ASC Model

The ASC core is defined operationally by four basic components or competencies(cognitive-attitudinal and behavioral competencies). They are as follows:

a. Awareness-recognition of one's collective African identity.b. Priority value placed on African survival, racial-cultural self-knowledge and positivedevelopment.c. Participation in African cultural institutions and their perpetuation.d. Practice of resolute resistance against all “anti-African" forces.

Combined, these competencies define the self-affirming, self-determining and self-fortificationthrust of the AA personality’s basic striving for collective self-empowerment.

We can see then that given the ASC’s core more basic dependence on experientialdevelopment (environmental forces), it is susceptible to change/modification under certain socio-cultural conditions. Thus, the directional thrust and strength of ASC can vary radically from itsnatural tendency under certain unnatural-abnormal experiential conditions. For example,variability in the actual strength of the manifestation of ASC (in terms of intensity andpervasiveness or dominance) is explained in terms of experiential variability among individualBlacks (different racial-cultural psycho-histories, and especially concentrated, long-termdevelopmental Eurocentric experiences). The strength of ASC then depends on the extent towhich early socialization experiences and/or significant institutional processes actively nurtureand reinforce it (Kambon, 1992, 2003). In a heterogeneous racial-cultural context whereAfrican-centered forces are not dominant (i.e., where an "alien/European worldview" dominatesthe socio-cultural reality of AAs), the natural socialization processes undergirding ASC may beweakened and distorted (Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2003).

98


On the other hand, a strengthening-reinforcing effect would be expected in a homogeneous(natural) racial-cultural context where African-centered socio-cultural forces are more dominant(Kambon, 1992). Of course, a variety of psychological modifications and/or indoctrinatingcircumstances of an institutional nature may also interact with and, in some cases, overrideambiguous individual socialization conditions where racial-cultural identity can be blurred or de-emphasized, such as in a racially integrated social context where a mixture of some African-centered and some European-centered socialization experiences occur (Kambon, 2003).

Hence, ASC can function at different intensities/levels (from Weak to Strong ASC),depending on the dominant socio-cultural, institutional experiences characterizing thedevelopmental context of a young AA personality. Moderate-to-Strong ASC thus representsmovement toward the optimal pole of the African mental health continuum more so than doesthe condition of Weak ASC, and particularly Severely Weak ASC (Kambon, 1992, 2003).

Hence, there are many circumstances that can interfere with or distort normal Blackpersonality functioning in terms of the strength of ASC. These circumstances, where they dooccur, are usually socio-cultural in nature and typically involve the operation of institutionalizedanti-African forces, as in cultural oppression (Kambon, 1998, 2003, 2006). In the unnaturalsocio-culturally oppressive context of American society, where ASC is superimposed upon by analien and anti-African reality structure, it (ASC) is subject to severe weakening, modification ordistortion from the overriding influence of the alien/anti-African European worldview (Kambon,2002, 2003, 2006).

The CM Model

Kambon’s model further proposes that the severe weakening of ASC constitutes (in manyinstances) the onset of a basic disorder in the AA personality that is called CulturalMisorientation/CM (Kambon, 2003). The CM model thus proposes that chronic and severelyweaken ASC can under some circumstances bring about a shift in the core psychologicalorientation of AA personality, prompting a process of transitioning (in content) from degradedAfrican worldview content to the adopting/internalization of European worldview content. Insuch an instance, severely degraded ASC qualities (such as a weak African worldviewidentification) are no longer adequate, appropriate and applicable to describe and explain thepsychodynamic condition of the AA personality. The psychological parameters of CM thusbecome necessary as the more appropriate interpretative framework under these circumstancesfor describing and explaining the transformation in the AA personality. Hence, the occurrence ofchronic-severely weakened ASC represents the psychological crossroads whereby the AApersonality undergoes its paradoxical transition from an African-centered to a European-centeredsurvival thrust or cultural reality framework in its core conscious level functioning (or from anASC to a CM psychodynamic). The model thus proposes that only under the severely weakenedASC condition do the psychological preconditions come about for the transitioning from ASCdominance to CM dominance to occur.

99


Kambon therefore defines Cultural Misorientation (CM) as a psychological orientation inAAs resulting from European cultural oppression reflecting a European Survival Thrust,reflecting the basic components or content dimensions of a materialistic, individualistic, alienand anti-self, self-destructive and racial integration emphasis in one’s thoughts, attitudes andbehaviors (Kambon, 2003, pp. 72-73).

These six components of CM are described as follows:

Materialism Orientation: reflects a physical-material objectification emphasis in life (emphasison physical characteristics, clothes, money, things, etc).

Individualism Orientation: reflects an I/Me emphasis in life.

Alien-Self Orientation: reflects a general Eurocentric values emphasis in one’s self-concept andgeneral approach to life.

Anti-Self Orientation: reflects the Alien-Self emphasis along with negativity and hostilitytoward Blackness/Africanity.

Self-Destructive Orientation: reflects an emphasis on self-group injurious and anti-social and/orcriminal thoughts and behaviors.

Integration Orientation: reflects a dominant emphasis on the inclusion/involvement of non-Blacks (namely Whites) in one’s life.

CM, according to Kambon (2003), thus represents a Eurocentric - “Anti-African” self-consciousness among AAs which the European American societal-worldview context (i.e.,American cultural institutions) allows to masquerade as a normal-natural (mentally healthy) andfunctionally effective psychological-cultural orientation among AAs as a consequence ofinstitutional reinforcement (i.e. socialization, assimilation and societal indoctrination processes).In other words, CM content is consistent with, and thereby supported and reinforced byEuropean American culture itself (Kambon, 1998, 2003).

The CM Model further proposes some three levels of intensity –severity - that can rangefrom a minimal degree of the disorder to a moderate degree, to a severe degree of the disorder.Minimal CM represents the weakest level of identification with or internalization of theEuropean Worldview of the three levels, while Moderate CM represents a much strongerEurocentric consciousness than the minimal CM level, but less than the severe CM level, andSevere CM reflects the strongest and most pervasive European self-consciousness, i.e., anoverwhelming predominance of internalized Eurocentric/anti-African cultural values, beliefs,attitudes and behaviors, of the three levels (Kambon, 2003).

100


As indicated earlier, within the psychosocial context of cultural oppression, the acquisitionof CM can follow a developmental pattern similar to ASC, only emphasizing the oppositecultural (Eurocentric over Africentric) content. Thus, depending on the levels of Eurocentricemphasis/exposure, the resulting CM condition can reflect from minimal to severe CM levels(Kambon, 2003).

The ASC and CM Prediction Models

Kambon’s (1992, 2003) models also propose a systematic set of propositions related toboth ASC and CM. The focus of these propositions, where ASC is concerned, emphasizepsychological correlates of ASC that involve general psychological dispositions (self-esteem,personal causation, achievement motivation, etc.), behavioral predictions of ASC that involveself- affirming (pro-Black) behaviors and opposition to anti-African/anti-Black forces, as well asbackground predictors of ASC indicative of Africentric socialization experiences (Kambon,1992). On the other hand, the opposite predictions, for the most part, emanate from the CMConstruct. In this case, the focus of the propositions suggest that positive relationships would beexpected to occur between CM and such psychological functions and behaviors as poor or sub-optimal mental health states like low self-esteem, apathy, low motivation, high anxiety, lowstress tolerance, problems in anger control, etc., and such Eurocentric measures of psychologicaldisorder/mental illness like depression, psychosomatic disorders, schizophrenia and psychopathicstates, paranoia, etc. (Kambon, 2003; Kambon and Rackley, 2005). Some Eurocentric measuresof psychological health/positive-optimal mental health within the European worldview contextwould also be expected to correlate positively with CM, such as an internal locus of controlorientation, high need for achievement, competitiveness and aggressiveness. Positive correlationsmay also be expected between CM and other African-centered measures of personality disordersor poor AA mental health (Kambon, 1998, 2003), such as anti-Black attitudes and behaviors,pro-White attitudes and behaviors, and measures of racial neutrality or a so-called humanisticorientation. At the same time, however, negative relationships would be expected to occurbetween CM and such psychological functions and behaviors as African-centered measures ofhealthy/optimal personality such as ASC and an African worldview orientation and pro-Blackattitudes and behaviors (Kambon, 2003; Kambon and Rackley, 2005). Accordingly, apsychologically healthy AA, as noted earlier, manifests conscious functioning and behaviorreflective of the affirmation and perpetuation of an African/AA Survival Thrust (Kambon, 1992,1998).

Again, African Self-Consciousness is reflective of healthy AA personality in Kambon’smodel while Cultural Misorientation is reflective of unhealthy AA personality or personalitydisorder (Kambon, 1992, 2003). Hence, the ASC and CM constructs represent those aspects ofthe AA personality system that have good heuristic value, and thus assessed through systematicempirical examination (Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2003). The assessment of ASC and CM istherefore critical, according to Kambon (1992, 2003; Kambon & Rackley, 2005), to a substantiveand comprehensive evaluation of contemporary AA behavior and mental health.

101


In order to assess the ASC and CM Constructs, the African Self-Consciousness Scale(ASCS) and the Cultural Misorientation Scale (CMS), respectively, were developed by Kambonand his associates (see Kambon, 1992, 1996, 2003, 2005). The ASCS and CMS have beenutilized in various research studies involving variables such as personal causation (Kambon,1992), psychological well-being (Pierre and Mahalik, 2005), health promoting behaviors(Thompson and Chambers, 2000), anti-Black behavior (Kambon, 2003; Kambon & Rackley,2005), career decision making (McCowan and Alston, 1998), and male-female relationships(Bell, Bouie and Baldwin, 1990), among others (Kambon, 1992, 2003; Kambon & Rackley,2005, in press).

Empirical Assessment Based on Kambon’s Model

Empirical research has been conducted on Kambon’s model utilizing the ASCS since theearly 1980s (Kambon, 1992, 1998). From these findings: 1) the ASCS has been shown to be avalid and reliable multi-factored measure of the ASC Construct; 2) its four empirical factors areconsistent with its four conceptual factors; ASCS-F1: Sense of Collective African Identity andSelf-Fortification, ASCS-F2: Resistance/Defense against anti-African Forces, ASCS-F3: Valuefor Africentric Institutions and Cultural Expressions, and ASCS-F4: Value for African Culture;3) it has been shown to be a reliable predictor of both general psychological health factors (self-esteem, sense of personal causation, etc.) and African-centered psychological health factors andbehavior (pro-Black functioning) across diverse demographics of African-descent populations;and 4) it has also been shown to be associated with certain background profiles, as well asdemonstrate some effective use in the assessment of clinical interventions with both individualsand groups of adult AAs (Kambon, 1992, 1998, 2003; Kambon & Rackley, 2005, in progress).

The CMS, on the other hand, has enjoyed a much shorter period of research activitygiven its briefer history (Kambon, 1997; 2003; Kambon & Rackley, 2005). Since itsdevelopment in the mid-1990s (Kambon, 1997), the CMS has been shown to represent a validand reliable multi-factored measure of the CM Construct (Kambon, 2003; Kambon & Rackley,2005; Kwate, 2001) across diverse African-descent demographic profiles. It has also beenshown to be a reliable predictor of general maladaptive and psychologically disorderedfunctioning (depression, anti-social drug use, violence), as well as more cultural specific basedmaladaptive behaviors, such as N-word usage, light skin preference, preference for anti-Blackrap music, etc., among young adult African-Americans in diverse social settings. This researchis also ongoing and shows great promise toward bringing more clarity to the psychologicalanalysis of AA behavior and mental health.

102


Conclusions

In concluding this brief review, several key questions beg for consideration in projectingthe future status of this vital area of psychological theory and research. What future issues andconcerns will we be confronted as this area of focus continues to unfold and expand itsconceptual and contextual boundaries? One apparent critical issue appears to be the need for ourmodels to accommodate more of the variety of developmental and socialization circumstancesthat the contemporary AA personality might experience (e.g., predominantly Black versuspredominantly White or racially-culturally integrated, or Africentric versus Eurocentricworldview dominated socialization, or bi-racialism, etc.). There seems to be a continual need tocall for a greater emphasis on the role of cultural reality forces in forming the conceptualframework and content of our theories, and the importance of including in some systematic waysthe widest possible diversity in the sample populations that we study in our investigations. Wealso welcome the addition of more creative and innovative methodologies and instrumentation inour investigations, as well as encourage the development of both molar (Kambon, 1992, 2003)and molecular (Sellers et al., 1997) models in these explorations of the AA personality.

References

Akbar, N. (2004). Akbar’s Readings in African Psychology. Tallahassee, FL: MindProductions.

Akbar, N. (1989). Nigrescence and identity: Some limitations. The Counseling Psychologist,17(2), 258-263.

Akbar, N. (1979). African roots of Black personality. In W. D. Smith et al. (Eds.). Reflectionson Black Psychology. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

Akbar, N. (1976). Rhythmic patterns in Black personality. In L. M. King et al. (Eds.), AfricanPhilosophy: Assumptions and Paradigms for Research on Black Persons. Los Angeles: FanonR & D Center.

Akbar, N. (1975). The rhythm of Black personality. Southern Exposure, 3, 14-19.

Azibo, D. A. (1990). Advances in Black personality theories. Imhotep: An Afrocentric Review,2(1), 22-46.

103


Baldwin, J. A. (aka K. Kambon), (1976). Black Psychology and Black Personality: Someissues for consideration. Black Books Bulletin, 4(3), 6-11.

Belgrave, F. Z. & Allison, K. W. (2006). African American Psychology: From Africa toAmerica. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bell, Y. R., Bouie, C. & Baldwin, J. A. (1990). Africentric cultural consciousness and AfricanAmerican male-female relationships. Journal of Black Studies, 21(2), 162-189.

Bulhan, H. A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the Psychology of Oppression. New York: PlenumPublishers.

Burlew, A. K. & Smith, L. R. (1991). Measures of racial identity: An overview and a proposedframework. Journal of Black Psychology, 17(2), 53-71.

Bynum, E. B. (1999). The African Unconscious: Roots of Ancient Mysticism and ModernPsychology. NY: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.

Canady, H. G. (1946). The Psychology of the Negro. In P. L. Harriman (Ed.). Encyclopedia ofPsychology. New York: Philosophical Library.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revisiting the Cross model. In J. G.Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of MulticulturalCounseling. 1st Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African American Identity.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence. Journal ofBlack Psychology, 5, 13-31.

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience. Black World, 20(9), 13-27.

Cross, W. E., Jr., Parham, T. A. & Helms, J. E. (1998). Nigrescence revisited: Theory andresearch. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), African American Identity Development. Hampton, VA: Cobb& Henry.

Cross, W. E., Strauss, L. & Fhasgen-Smith, P. (1999). African American identity across the lifespan: Educational implications. In R. Hernandez-Sheets & E. R. Hollins (Eds.), Racial andEthnic Identity in School Practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Pp. 29-47)

104


Cross, W. E., Jr. & Vandiver, B. J. (2001). Nigrescence theory and measurement: Introducingthe cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS). In J. G. Ponterotto et al. (Eds.), Handbook ofMulticultural Counseling. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delany, M. (1856). The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored Peoples ofthe United States. New York: Arno Press (1968 edition)

Dreger, R. M. & Miller, K. S. (1968). Comparative psychological studies of Negroes and Whitesin the United States: 1959-1985. Psychological Bulletin Monograph Supplement, Vol. 70 (No.3, Part 2).

Dreger, R. M. & Miller, K. S. (1960). Comparative psychological studies of Negroes and Whitesin the United States. Psychological Bulletin Monograph Supplement, 57, 361-402.

DuBois, W. E. B. (1902). The Souls of Black Folks. New York: Fawcett Press.

Farley, J. E. (2002). Majority- Minority Relations. 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall Pubs.

Ferguson, G. O. (1916). The Psychology of the Negro: An Experimental Study. New York:The Science Press. .

Guthrie, R. V. (1998). Even the Rat was White: A Historical View of Psychology. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Hall, C. S. & Lindzey, G. (1995). Theories of Personality. 5th Edition. New York: Wiley &Sons.

Helms, J. (1989). Considering some methodological issues in racial identity counseling research,The Counseling Psychologist, 17(2), 227-252.

Holler, D. (2006). How ethnic identification attitudes and acculturative stress interact to predictsuicide and eating disorder symptomatology in individuals of African Descent. UnpublishedMasters Thesis, Department of Psychology, Florida State University.

Jones, R. L. (Ed.), (1996). Handbook of Tests and Measurements for Black Populations. Vols. I& II. Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry Publishers.

Jones, R. L. (Ed.), (1972, 1980, 1991, 2004). Black Psychology. First – Fourth Editions.Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry Publishers.

105


Kambon, K. K. K. (2006). Kambon’s Reader in Liberation Psychology: Selected Works,Volume I. Tallahassee, FL: Nubian Nation Publications.

Kambon, K. K. K. (2005). African-Centered Measures for Research on Black Personality andMental Health. Tallahassee, FL: Nubian Nation Publications.

Kambon, K. K. K. (2003). Cultural Misorientation: The Greatest Threat to the Survival of theBlack Race in the 21ST Century. Tallahassee, FL: Nubian Nation Publications.

Kambon, K. K. K. (1998). African/Black Psychology in the American Context: An African-Centered Approach. Tallahassee, FL: Nubian Nation Publications

Kambon, K. K. K. (1996). Introduction to the African Self-Consciousness Scale. In R. L. Jones(Ed.). Handbook of Tests and Measurements for Research on Black People. Vols. I & II.Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry Publishers.

Kambon, K. K. K. (1992). The African Personality in America: An African-CenteredFramework. Tallahassee, FL: Nubian Nation Publications.

Kambon, K. K. K. (in progress). African Self-Conscousness theory and research. (Unpublishedmanuscript)

Kambon, K. K. K. & Bowen-Reid, T. (2009). Africentric theories of African Americanpersonality: Basic constructs and assessment. In H. A. Neville, B. M. Tynes & S. O. Utsey(Eds.), Handbook of African American Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kambon, K. & Hopkins, R. (1993). An African-Centered analysis of Penn et al’s critique of theOn-Race Preference Assumption underlying Africentric models of personality. Journal of BlackPsychology. 19(3), 342-349.

Kambon, K. & Rackley, R. (unpublished). Psychometric properties and socio-politicalconsiderations associated with The African Self-Consciousness Scale. (unpublished manuscript)

Kambon, K. & Rackley, R. (2005). The Cultural Misorientation Scale/CMS: Psychometricassessment. Journal of Africana Studies Research, I(1), 15-34..

Kardiner, A. & Ovesey, L. (1951). The Mark of Oppression: A Psychosocial Study of theAmerican Negro . New York: Norton Publishing Company.

106


McCowan, C. & Alston, R. (1998). Racial identity, African self-consciousness, and careerdecision making in African American women. Journal of Multicultural Counseling andDevelopment, 26, 28-38.

Myers L.J. (1993). Understanding an Afrocentric Worldview: Introduction to an OptimalPsychology (2nd Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company.

Myers, L. J., Montgomery, D., Fine, M. & Reese, R. (1996). Beliefs System Analysis Scale andBelief and Behavior Awareness Scale development: Measuring an optimal, Afrocentric world-view. In R. L. Jones (Ed.). Handbook of Tests and Measurements for Black Populations. Vol.II. Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry Publishers.

Myers L. J., Speight S. L., Highlen P.S., & Cox C. (1991). Identity development and Worldview,Toward and Optimal Conceptualization. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70 (1), 54-63.

Nobles, W.W. (2006). Seeking the Sakhu: Foundational Writings for an African Psychology.Chicago: Third World Press.

Nobles, W.W. (1989). Psychological Nigrescence: An Afrocentric Review. The CounselingPsychologist, 17, 253-257.

Nobles, W.W. (1986). African Psychology: Toward its Reclamation, Reascension andRevitalization. Oakland, CA: Black Family Institute Publication.

Oshodi, J. E. (2004). Back Then and Right Now in the History of Psychology: A History ofHuman Psychology in African Perspectives for the New Millennium. Bloomington, IN:AuthorHouse Pubs.

Parham, T. A. (1989). Cycles of Psychological Nigrescence. The Counseling Psychologist, 17(2), 187-226.

Parham, T. A. & Helms, J. L. (1985). Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem of Blackstudents: An exploratory investigation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 143-147.

Parham, T. A. & Helms, J. L. (1981). The influence of Black students’ racial identity attitudeson preference for counselor’s race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 250-258.

Pastuer, A. B. & Toldson, I. (1982). The Roots of Soul: The Psychology of BlackExpressiveness. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

107


Penn, M. L., Gaines, S. O. & Phillips, L. (1993). On the desirability of own-group preference.Journal of Black Psychology, 19(3), 303-321.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1964). A Profile of the Negro American. Princeton, NJ: D.Van NostrandReinhold Pubs.

Pierre, M. & Mahalik, J. (2005). Examining African self-consciousness and Black racialidentity as predictors of Black men’s psychological well-being. Cultural Diversity and EthnicMinority Psychology, 11(1), 28-40.

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N. & Smith, M. (1997). Multidimen-sional Inventory of Black Identity: Preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73, 805-815.

Thomas, A. & Sillen, S. (1972). Racism and Psychiatry. Secaucus, NJ: The Citadel Press.

Thomas, C. (Ed.), (1971). Boys No More: A Black Psychologist’s View of Community. SanDiego, CA: McGraw Hill.

Thompson, S. & Chambers, J. (2000). African self-consciousness and health promotingbehaviors among African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(3), 330-345.

Toldson, I. & Pastuer, A. B. (1976). Therapeutic dimensions of the Black aesthetic. Journal ofNon-White Concerns, 4(3), 105-117.

Vandiver, B.J. (2001). Psychological Nigrescence revisited: Introduction and overview.Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 165-173.

Vandiver, B., Cross, W., Worrell, F. & Fhagen-Smith, P. ( 2002). Validating the Cross RacialIdentity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 71-85.

White, J. L. & Parham, T. (1990). The Psychology of Blacks: An African AmericanPerspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishers.

Wilcox, R. C. (1971). The Psychological Consequences of Being a Black American: ACollection of Research by Black Psychologists. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Williams, R. L. (1981). The Collective Black Mind: An Afrocentric Theory of BlackPersonality. St. Louis: Williams & Associates.

108


Through the Prism of Black Psychology: A Critical Review of Conceptual and Methodological

Issues in Africology as Seen Through the Paradigmatic Lens of Black Psychology

by

DeReef F. Jamison North Carolina A & T State University

[email protected] DeReef Jamison ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor of the African American Experience in the Division of University Studies at North Carolina A & T State University. His research interests are African-American cultural and gender identity, community activism among Black psychologists, the psychological aspects of oppression and liberation, and the intellectual history and diasporic connections of Africana Psychology. He has taught courses such as: The Psychology of the African American Experience, The Psychology of Prejudice and Racism in the African Diaspora, African American Social Science, Africa, African Americans and Pan Africanism, and Introduction to African American Studies. Dr. Jamison has previously published articles in the Journal of African American Studies and The Griot. Abstract This paper attempts to address the invisibility of Africana psychological theory, research, and methodology in Africology by synthesizing the competing definitions, schools of thought, and research agendas in Black Psychology. Attention will be given to the various ways in which Black psychologists have attempted to deconstruct and reconstruct traditional psychological thought as well as construct new definitions, theories, measurements, and conceptual frameworks for understanding and interpreting the psychological experiences of people of African descent. Although psychology was identified by Karenga as one of the core components in the emerging discipline of African-American Studies, very few of the existing institutes, programs, and departments of African-American Studies include psychology as a major part of their curriculum. As a psycho-historical endeavor, a primary concern of Africana Psychology is with understanding how the historical experiences of being an African in America have impacted African-American psyches. Thus, it is argued that if the discipline of Africology is attempting to fully understand Africana experiences, Africology must re-examine the importance of psychology and its role in aiding Africana scholars interpret and understand the experiences of people of African descent in the Americas and throughout the diaspora.

96

The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.2, no.2, March 2008

Although Black [African, Africana and/or African American] psychology was identified by Maulana Karenga (1992) as one of the core components in the emerging discipline of Africology [African American, Black, Africana and/or Afro-American Studies], very few of the existing institutes, programs, and departments of Africology include Black psychology as a major part of their curriculum. As a psycho-historical endeavor, a primary concern of Black Psychology is to understand how the historical experiences of being an African in America have impacted African-American psyches. Thus, it is argued here that if the discipline of Africology is attempting to fully understand African American experiences, Africology programs must re-examine the importance of Black psychology and its role in aiding scholars interpret and understand the experiences of people of African descent in America. This paper attempts to address the invisibility of Black psychological theory, research, and practice in Africology by: (1) providing a brief history of the intellectual antecedents to the field of Black Psychology; (2) identifying the social and political context in which Black psychological theory, research and practice emerged; (3) synthesizing the competing definitions, schools of thought, and research agendas in Black Psychology; and (4) demonstrating the relevance and applicability of Black Psychology to the future of Africology in particular, and to the Africana life-world in general.

Black Psychology is composed of various schools of thought that reflect the

particular theoretical orientations of its practitioners. However, it should be kept in mind that although the compartmentalization of these various schools of thought is useful for conceptualization purposes, there is also much overlapping between the various schools. Karenga (1992) has identified the schools of thought among Black Psychologists as the traditional school, the reformist school and the radical school. According to Karenga (1992), the traditional school is characterized by: (1) its defensive and/or reactive posture; (2) its lack of concern about the existence of and subsequently the development of a Black Psychology as evidenced by its continued support of “traditional” (Eurocentric) psychological models with minor changes; (3) its concern with changing white attitudes; and (4) its being critical without offering alternatives for correcting problems. One of the leading figures in the traditional school as identified by Karenga (1992) is Kenneth Clark who was the first and only black to be president of APA and in collaboration with his wife Mamie Phipps-Clark co-authored the famous doll study that influenced the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Other influential scholars were William Grier and Price Cobbs with their classic text “Black Rage” (1968) and Alvin Poussaint’s “Why Blacks Kill Blacks” (1972).

97


In spite of the negative connotations explicit in many of the critiques of the

traditional school (Karenga, 1992; Kambon, 1998), these scholars seem to have contributed significantly to the development of conceptual and methodological issues in Black Psychology. For example, the Clark study brought attention to the psychological processes involved in education (particularly issues of identity, self-hatred and self-esteem) of children of African descent, which in turn had a major impact on how the educational process was understood and perceived. Most importantly, the Clarks’ studies demonstrated how social science research could play a role in not only influencing but also changing social policy.

Grier and Cobbs (1968) work illustrated the manner in which traditional

(Eurocentric) scholarship could be applied to the conditions facing people of African descent. They argued that the causes of Black rage may be found in: (1) Blacks understandable and necessary cultural paranoia; (2) Blacks cultural depression and cultural masochism reflecting a general “sadness and intimacy with misery”, i.e. Cornell West’s (1993) concept of Black Nihilism and (3) Blacks cultural anti-socialism, i.e. disrespect for American laws which are designed to protect whites not Blacks (Karenga, 1992). While very Freudian in their approach, they do begin the process of defining the clinical issues of what constitutes the complexity and diversity of “psychopathology” among people of African descent.

It must also be acknowledged that Poussaint (1972) was among the first Black

psychologists to address the issue of Black on Black violence. Nonetheless, Africologists should be critical of the fundamental assumptions underlying his question “Why Blacks Kill Blacks”, since the title can be interpreted as meaning that Blacks are solely responsible for the violence in their community, and therefore observers may fail to acknowledge the social and political conditions that contribute to the violence seen in these Black communities (Wilson, 1998). However, Poussaint does put forth the argument that there are perhaps four reasons why Blacks kill blacks, which include: (1) the American cultural experience that teaches ‘crime and violence as a way to success and manhood; (2) the fact that ‘Americans respect violence and often will not respond to just demand except through violence’ as with the revolts by people of African descent; (3) the sense of power violence gives the oppressed and (4) the dehumanizing transformation in incarceration which perpetuates the cycle of violence (Karenga, 1992). Thus, Poussaint’s research raised the issue of Black social scientists investigating social and political issues that impact the quality of life experienced by Black people.

98


The reformist school shares with the traditional school the concern for white attitudes, but tends to place more emphasis on confronting public policies that maintain and support institutional racism, according to Karenga, (1992). Black psychologists in the reformist school “tend to emphasize the American slavery legacies of the continuing oppression of Blacks and the subsequent creation of a relatively distinct reactive pattern of adaptation among Blacks in America” (Kambon, 1998, p. 231). Major theorists in the reformist school were identified as Charles Thomas, Joseph White and William Cross (Karenga, 1992). These theorists began “to advocate an Afro-centric psychology but still combine it with traditional focus on appeal for change that would ostensibly benefit Blacks and whites and thus U.S. society” (Karenga, 1992, p. 325). Thus, members of this school of thought “stand as bridges between the traditional and radical schools, attempting a synthesis of the social and discipline criticism of the traditional school and the demands for and development of new models and professional engagement from the radical school” (Karenga, 1992, p. 329).

Similar to the declarations made by Black Psychologists such as Green (1974) and Smith (1974), Thomas (1979) emphasized the social responsibility of psychologists. He argued that Black social scientists are responsible for “defining, defending and developing information systems that will give Blacks increased socio-political power” (p. 7). In addition, Thomas contributes to the re-conceptualization process of Eurocentric/Western psychology within Black Psychology by critiquing the universalism embedded in Eurocentric psychology. Thomas reforms the conceptualizations of Merton (1967), Horney (1945), and Pettigrew (1964), who posited that humans may respond in various ways to the social, cultural and political conditions they encounter with primary responses consisting of turning against, turning towards, and turning away. Similarly, Thomas suggests that the oppression of people of African descent created social roles that were designed to sustain and maintain oppressive conditions, such as: (1) hybrid or bad niggers; (2) conformists or good Negroes; (3) marginalists or white middle class Negroes and (4) rebels or Black militants (Thomas, 1974; Karenga, 1992). Therefore, he takes the position that “if Blackness came into existence as a healthy support state, it cannot be logically used as a symptomatology of maladaptive behavior” (Thomas, 1978. pp. 21-22). Thus, Thomas argues that the psychology of people of African descent not be viewed as substandard to the European-American experience, pathological, or culturally deficient, but as a culturally specific psychology that is valuable in and of itself. Joseph White (1980) continues this questioning of the conceptual framework as well as the value of Eurocentric theory and methodology. He asserts that “not all traditional elite psychological theory is useless” (p. 8). In urging the development of a Black psychology, White challenges Black social scientists “to come up with more accurate and comprehensive explanations” (White, 1980, p. 8) in order to gain a better understanding of the African American life world.

99


Thus, he warns that we should approach Eurocentric psychology with caution and determine the extent to which it is relevant and can be modified and made applicable to the life experiences of people of African descent (Thomas, 1980; Karenga, 1992).

William Cross (1971) took an innovative approach to the study of the

development of Black consciousness for Africans in the United States. He is best known for his conceptualization of the various stages of Black identity. Building on Erickson’s (1978) stages of child development that emphasized the contradictions and difficulties experienced when individuals or groups of people attempted to transition from one stage to the next stage of personal development, Cross established a theory of Black psychological development called “Nigrsecence”. The Nigrescence model attempted to account “for the progression of African Americans through sequential stages to arrive at a healthy racial identity” (Bellgrave & Allison, 2006, p. 20). The stages in the process of Nigrescence were identified as: (1) Pre-encounter; (2) Dissonance/Encounter; (3) Immersion-emersion; (4) Internalization and (5) Internalization-Commitment. According to the theory, “each stage is characterized by certain affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions” (Bellgrave & Allison, 2006, p. 21). Whether scholars were conducting research that sought to affirm and validate the theory, expanding the theoretical parameters of the theory, appropriating the theory for use with different diasporic populations, or countering the claims of the theory by offering alternative interpretations, a substantial amount of the literature on cultural identity in Black psychology has responded in some shape, form or fashion to Cross’ theory of Nigrescence (Akbar, 1981; Azibo, 1988; Banks, 1976; Baldwin, 1979; Cross, Parham, & Helms, 1998).

While the reform school’s analysis begins with the enslavement period up until

contemporary times, the radical school argues that an authentic psychology of Black folk must go beyond the shores of the “New World” to discover the African roots of this American fruit (Nobles, 1974.) The defining characteristic of most of the radical school of thought is their emphasizing that an African worldview analysis is essential to understanding the psychology of people of African descent. Major figures within the radical school that contributed to the development of an African worldview analysis are Nobles,(1974), Akbar (1994), and Kambon (1998). Nobles’ (1980) article “African Philosophy: Foundation for Black Psychology” was one of the first articles to articulate an African philosophical basis for understanding the psychology of people of African descent.

100


Compared to Black psychologists from the reformist school that focuses on the

psychological consequences of being Black, Nobles argued that: Black psychology is something more than the psychology of the so-called underprivileged peoples, more than the experience of living in ghettoes or having been forced into the dehumanizing condition of slavery. It is more than the ‘darker dimension’ of general psychology. Its unique status is derived not from the negative aspects of being black in America, but rather from the positive features of basic African philosophy that dictate the values, customs, attitudes, and behaviors of Africans in Africa and the New World. (Nobles, 1980, p. 23) Akbar (1994) posits that traditional Eurocentric psychology distorted the African

definition of psychology from the study of the soul to the study of behavior. The consequences of this transubstanstive error (Nobles, 1986; Akbar, 1994) is that the focus of Eurocentric Psychology shifted from the focus of psychology from spiritual aspects to Western Psychology’s focus on materialism: (1) emphasizing objectification as the only method of studying; (2) quantifying as the only accepted measure of reality; (3) essentializing man as only material manifestation, i.e. body and behavior; (4) believing that there is no superior power or purpose in man; (5) believing that human behavior is what it is with no significant meaning beyond what is actually observed; (6) viewing invisible or intangible phenomena as irrelevant; (7) viewing life and consciousness as identical with physical processes; (8) ignoring the individuality of the person and the element of transparent awareness; (9) maintaining that humans are a product of biological determination, personal experiences, and chances; and (10) characterizing the death of the mind as the death of the body, and that one does not attend to life before or after death. Furthermore, Akbar suggests that Black social scientists re-examine scientific paradigms as they relate to psychological methodology (Akbar, 1994), the psychological legacy of slavery (Akbar, 1990), and the diagnosis of mental illness (Akbar, 1981) among people of African descent from an African philosophical perspective.

Baldwin (1980), Kambon, (1992) and Myers (1988) have further articulated the

conceptualization of an African worldview. Kambon argues that an individual’s definitional system is determined by their particular cultural reality and our worldview “determine[s] how we experience (perceive and respond to) the various phenomena of the ongoing process of everyday existence” (Baldwin, 1980, p. 96). He argues that people of African decent have a worldview that is culturally specific to their experiences. Furthermore, he asserts that an African cultural consciousness develops out of the African worldview at a conscious and unconscious level. However, under conditions of white supremacy domination and control the African worldview can be distorted and experience cultural misorientation, which is the internalization of the European worldview by people of African descent (Kambon, 2003).

101


Myers’ theory (1988) is similar to Kambon’s in her worldview focus. The

primary difference in their views is that while Kambon’s worldview analysis is race-specific, Myers views the African worldview paradigm as having “the cultural and historical capacity to unite all humanity” (Myers, 1999, xvi). Hence, if Africans are the original human beings and have historically developed certain cultural traits and personalities based on their environment (Diop, 1991, Wobogo; 1989), then the behavioral patterns found among other cultural groups are logical extensions and/or deviations from the original African archetype (Jung, 1959). Following this reasoning, Myers (1988) asserts that the African worldview is not only “optimal” for people of African descent, but for all of humanity, since this humanistic worldview began with Africans, and based on a result of biological and cultural evolution, extended to all those who descended from and followed after the African prototype for humanity (Jung, 1959; Bynum, 1999). According to Myers (1988), an optimal worldview consists of: (1) viewing the spiritual and material as one, (2) knowing self through symbolic imagery and rhythm, (3) valuing positive interpersonal relationships among people, (4) emphasizing the union of opposites, (5) processing the interrelatedness of human and spiritual networks, (6) identifying the extended self and the multidimensionality of self, (7) assuming self-worth is intrinsic in being, (8) valuing spiritualism, oneness with nature and communalism, (9) being positively consistent despite appearances due to relationship with the source, and (10) having a life space that is infinite and unlimited.

A major difference between the reform and radical schools is that in contrast to

the traditional school, the radical school does not focus on changing white attitudes about Black people (Karenga, 1992) and for the most part the radical school emphasizes African culture and philosophy as the foundation for Black Psychology (Kambon, 1998). However, a closer examination of the radical school demonstrates that the radical school is not monolithic and may be in need of critical re-conceptualization. In their groundbreaking article “Voodoo or IQ: An introduction to African Psychology” (Clark, McGee, Nobles, & Weems 1975), which was one of the first articles to attempt to define and introduce the content emphasis of African Psychology, it was argued that Black psychology was a “radical discipline”. Let us reconsider the particular type of radicalism they were suggesting. They stated that African psychology was “radical, not in a political sense per se, but in a scientific and philosophical sense” (Clark, McGee, Nobles, & Weems, 1975, p. 13). Interestingly, a distinction is proposed between political radicalism and scientific/philosophical radicalism. Thus, the articulations of the worldview paradigm by Akbar (1994), Nobles (1972; 1986) and Myers (1988) who have emphasized the philosophical foundations and dimensions of Black psychology are radical, but not in the same sense as other black psychologists in the radical school such as Welsing (1970), Wright (1984), and Wilson (1990; 1993; 1998).

102

This latter group seems to imply a political radicalism that includes critiquing

white supremacy behavior and its influence on people of African descent, as well as challenging the social and political structures that impact the quality of life experienced by people of African descent. It is important to note that both philosophical and political radicalism are important aspects in Black psychology (Kambon, 1998). However, such distinctions are can be helpful if we are to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the intricacies involved in Black psychological theory.

Both Welsing (1970) and Wright (1984) are psychologists from the radical

school that contribute to the deconstruction of Eurocentric psychology’s claim to universalism. Welsing and Wright do not argue that European psychological theories are irrelevant. What they argue is that to the extent that major psychological theories were standardized and normalized on European people, then these theories are more appropriately viewed as culturally specific to people of European descent. In contrast to the “Black Rage” (1975) analysis where Grier and Cobbs use standard European psychological principles to understand Black behavior, Welsing and Wright turn European psychology on its’ head and apply established Eurocentric theories to specifically understanding European thought and behavior (Ani, 1994). When Welsing (1970) uses a psychoanalytical approach to examine the cultural logic underlying white supremacy, and Wright (1984) uses the Eurocentric criteria of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual to explain the behaviors of people of European descent in relation to African people, they are combining reformist school methods with African-centered sensibilities to form their own unique version of radicalism.

Inspired by the work of Neely Fuller (1969), who posited that “If you do not

understand White Supremacy (Racism)- what it is, and how it works-everything else that you understand … will only confuse you” (p. 1), Welsing developed “The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation and Racism, i.e. White Supremacy” (1970) as a guide to assist people of African descent to interpret and understand global White supremacy. The foundation of Welsing’s theory is based on genetic and social factors. The genetic factor states that: (1) skin pigmentation has many adaptive functions which lack of pigmentation does not have (i.e. protection from disease, ultraviolet radiation, etc.) and thus the absence of color (low melanin concentration) represents a genetic deficiency; (2) the majority of the world’s population are people of color, and are thus highly melanated people and are the norm among human beings; and (3) since people of African descent generally have the highest concentration of melanin among the races in the world, then they represent the group most despised and feared by whites (Kambon, 1998; Barnes, 1988; Welsing, 1970). Based on the underlying assumptions posited in the genetic factor, the social factor states that:

103


(1) since the majority of the world’s peoples have more color/pigmentation than White people, then Whites are the numerical minority among the world’s population and Blacks, of all the colored races of the world, therefore represent the greatest threat to White genetic survival (Kambon, 1998; Welsing, 1970); (2) White supremacy hostility and aggression against people of African descent manifests as psychological defense mechanisms that mask feelings of inferiority, inadequacy, fear, and envy toward people of color (Kambon, 1998; Welsing, 1970). In accordance with the genetic and social factors, Welsing puts forth three Freudian defense mechanisms (repression, reaction formation, and projection) that people of European descent use to oppress people of color, and especially African descent groups. These defense mechanisms consist of: (1) repressing their feelings of inferiority by denying them, (2) discrediting and despising people of color, (3) sun-tanning, using make-up, enlarging breasts, buttocks, and lips to acquire the physical characteristics of people of color, (4) elaborating myths about white genetic superiority, (5) projecting their hate and sexual desires on people of color, while hypocritically maintaining that it is people of color that lust and desire white people, (6) obsessing, focusing, and alienating the physical body from sex, (7) dividing and separating people of color by classifying them as minorities, and (8) imposing birth control on people of color in order to neutralize/marginalize the reality that people of color are collectively in the majority of the world’s population (Karenga, 1992; Welsing, 1970).

Similarly, Wright (1984) argues that because, “Blacks are now a threat and a liability to the White race… As a consequence, the major research that White scientists are involved with today is genocidal in nature, e.g., nuclear warfare, population control, medication control, genetic engineering, psychosurgery, electrical stimulation of the brain and the highly complex behavioral technology” (p.1). Wright’s theory applies to Eurocentric psychological criteria to understanding the behaviors characteristic of white supremacy directed toward peoples of African descent. Wright differentiates between the psychological functioning of the neurotic, psychotic, and the psychopathic based on the definition provided by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Mental Diseases. To rationalize his use of Eurocentric theory, Wright states WHO’s argument that theories are functionally relevant, “if they (theories) have concrete reality, i.e. they can be retained if they are useful in understanding and treating disease” (p. 5). According to the WHO’s classification, Wright posits that the neurotic “is a person who suffers a great deal over problems that are handled fairly routinely by a well adjusted personality ...they are characterized by an inordinate amount of anxiety” (Wright, 1984, p. 4). In contrast the psychotic has an understanding of contact with reality. Thus, she/he has “a very good reality contact” (Kambon, 1998; Wright, 1984). Finally, the psychotic “has sever malfunctioning and many times has to hospitalized for long periods of time” (Wright, 1984, p. 4). As if anticipating the basic tenets of Ani’s (1994) critical analysis of European thought and behavior, Wright identified the basic concepts of psychopathology in Whites as:

104


(1) an engaging personality; (2) an above average intelligence; (3) a high competence in everyday/normal functioning; (4) an appearance of honesty and humanness; (5) rejecting and ignoring of constituted authority and discipline; (6) a limiting capacity for close relationships; (7) a sexual inadequacy; (8) behavior that is totally selfish; and (9) having a low level moral and ethical development (Kambon, 1998, Wright, 1984). Wright concludes that these behavioral characteristics are manifested among people of European descent in their behaviors and attitudes toward people of African descent in essential areas of life such as religious practices, law and legal practices, sexual attitudes/behaviors, and attitudes/behaviors pertaining to health care and civil/human rights, while at the same time maintaining a rhetorical ethic that promotes Christianity, civilization, democracy and progress among others (Ani, 1994; Wright, 1984).

The late Amos Wilson (1998) promotes the most political focus of the radical Black psychologists in his emphasis on the social structure. He develops his focus around psycho-social analysis that seeks not only to interpret, critique and understand Africana realities under Western oppression, but to ultimately change them. The evolution of his work and the ideas and agendas expressed in them represent the type of “Africana Social Theory” that Bobby Wright spoke about when he stated that “Black Social Theory will not only tell us where we are going, but will also explain what to expect once we achieve our goal”(Wright, 1984, p. 22). In similar fashion, Wilson expressed the role Africana psychology must play in social theory that leads to social action and change when he asserted:

At the center of African-centered psychology…is a psychology of power. It does not merely describe the traditional nature of African people, or the orientations of African people based on traditional African culture. It is a psychology that is prescriptive as well as descriptive. It is a psychology of liberation. (Wilson, 1998, p. 7)

CRITICAL APPROACHES IN BLACK PSYCHOLOGY

According to Marable, “the concept of African American Studies [Africology] is

essentially the black intellectual tradition” (2000, p. 1). Marable contends that this black intellectual tradition which encompasses Africology is descriptive, corrective and prescriptive. The discipline of Africology is descriptive in that it presents “the reality of black life and experiences from the point of view of black people themselves” (Marable, 2000, p.1). He contends that Africology has been corrective because it has “attempted to challenge and to critique the racism and stereotypes that have been ever present in the mainstream discourse of white academic institutions” (Marable, 2000, p. 2). And finally, Marable (2000) argues that Africology has also been prescriptive since scholars in the discipline “who have theorized from the black experience have often proposed practical steps for the empowerment of black people [thus] there is a practical connection between scholarship and struggle, between social analysis and social transformation” (p. 2).

105


Black Psychology follows in the tradition of the role and function of Africology

as outlined by Marable. In close conjunction with the three schools of thought among Black psychologists, are three critical methodological approaches. These critical methodological approaches in Black Psychology are a microcosm of the conceptual crisis found in the discipline of Africology and serve as a lens for examining and exploring the various manifestations of debates concerning methods in Africology. The critical approaches or methods are conceptually different from schools of thought in that schools of thought explicitly express theoretical/ideological orientations (i.e. integration, assimilation, Black Nationalism, African-centeredness etc.). Kambon (1998) posits that “the fundamental issue separating African psychologists is that of ideology or sociopolitical philosophy” (p. 232). These ideological differences are characterized as: (1) racial integrationists /cultural assimilationists; (2) African American nationalists; and (3) Pan-African cultural nationalists (Kambon, 1998). Harrell (1999) agrees with Kambon and suggests that not only are the schools of thought in Black psychology ideological, but the ideological differences are similar to those differences found among African philosophers and historical social movements. Although critical approaches may imply associations with a particular ideological orientation, they are more representative of research agendas rather than schools of thought since they describe the intent underlying the purpose of the research being conducted. Similar to the schools of thought in Black Psychology, there is also overlap between the three critical approaches.

Banks (1982) identified the critical approaches or methods as deconstructive,

reconstructive, and constructive. According to Guthrie (1998), during the first half of the twentieth century, the process of deconstructing myths about the psychological inferiority of people of African descent dominated the research agendas of early Black Psychologists. The deconstructionist approach “attempts to expose the error and weaknesses found in general psychology” (Nobles, 1986, p. 75). This is done by employing traditional methods to “expose the weaknesses found in general psychology” (Nobles, 1986, p. 75) and to “debunk and falsify the claims advanced about black people in the standard journals of the discipline” (Harrell, 1999, p. 63). Research done by Black psychologists such as Hilliard (1981), Thomas (1971), Jackson (1979), Cross (1971), and Banks (1976) are historically representative of the deconstructive approach.

Black psychologists who take the reconstructionist approach also focus on

correcting errors, misinterpretations, and distortions of data found in the psychological literature concerning Black people. However, unlike the deconstructionist approach that stops at exposing weak science, reconstructionists attempt to modify and reconstruct these models into a more culturally relevant model for Blacks (Nobles, 1986; Kambon, 1998).

106


The reconstructionists take the position that there are techniques in traditional methods that have heuristic value and should still be used by Black psychologists and thus, in the Black psychologists’ critique of traditional methods, it would be unwise to discard sound empirical methods just because some psychologists have misused certain methods to rationalize and justify Black inferiority (Boykin, 1979). The reconstructionists approach has been taken on by scholars such as White (1980), Hayes (1991) Savage and Adair (1977), and Boykin (1979).

The deconstructionist and reconstructionist approaches are in contrast with the

constructionist approach. Although, they do not totally discard empirical methods, the constructionist approach uses them cautiously while questioning the belief that empiricism is the only valid way of knowing (Harrell, 1999; Kambon, 1992, 1998). The constructionists’ places emphasize not only on exposing weak science or modifying traditional psychological theories to fit the needs of Black people, but also it focuses its research on creating new paradigms and methodologies that stem from “an organic, authentically African epistemological and ontological base” (Harrell, 1999, p.45). Constructionists are represented by such scholars as Akbar (1981), Nobles (1973, 1986), Kambon (1992) and Wilson (1978, 1991), Pasteur and Toldson (1982), Azibo (1996) and Myers (1988). Nobles asserts:

The ability to reveal or expose the truth of African reality will determine which of these apparent camps has more utility of continuing the advancement of the discipline…the reader is cautioned against placing the contributions of Black thinkers (Black psychologists) into artificial and premature divisions. The author (Nobles) has done so only in order to highlight the development of the developmental response. (Nobles, 1986, pp. 87-88)

He further posits that as Black Psychology begins to develop, there will be more agreement within these often overlapping schools of thought and critical approaches. However, at the present moment, “each approach is equally important, complimentary and necessary” (Nobles, 1986, p.87).

Crucial to any discussion of schools of thought, ideological orientations and/or critical approaches within the field of Black psychology is the question of methods. The debate over whether logical positivism, materialism, empiricism or spirituality is the most conducive approach has been a very intense discourse among Black psychologists (Akbar, 1985; Azibo, 1989; Boykin, 1979; Banks, 1982). Questions have arisen concerning the extent to which empirical methods can measure the various manifestations and nuances of the experiences of people of African descent. Specifically, the questioning centers on the issue of whether or not empiricism can measure and interpret the spiritual dimensions of the experiences of people of African descent.

107


While it has been argued that empirical methods are not inherently abusive (Boykin, 1979), Banks (1999) countered this argument by suggesting that empirical methods are often viewed as “just good doctrines put to ill purpose, when they may be no less than ill doctrines put to degenerate purposes” (p. 4). According to Banks (1999), the two major criticisms put forth by Black psychologists since the emergence of Black Psychology as a field of study have been: (1) that science is ideology, and (2) that empirical research is inherently destined to prove pernicious claims about people of African descent. He addressed the relationship between the theoretical and the empirical when he posited that the most critical considerations for developing theory are: (1) what methodological programs it is capable of justifying, and (2) what methodological framework does its protection and preservation demand. Thus, “criticism has at once formed the foundation of Black Psychology and the methodological perspective that guides its research practices,” according to Banks (1982, p. 6).

At the center of Banks articulation of the dialectics between the theoretical and

empirical is the concept of “empirical falsification”. Empirical falsification implies that at the root of psychological theory and method is the attempt to deconstruct previous research by demonstrating the fallacies in the research and attempting to advance new theory that is more suitable to addressing the research questions at hand. Additionally, Banks (1999) asserts that “Theory does not advance ideas as the positivists…would believe; theory justifies ideas. Empirical methodology is not a tool of revelation and verification as the positivists believed in the early part of the century, but a tool of refutation and a shield of obstruction behind which those ideas which theory justifies are operationalized as programs” (p. 5).

In Banks’ (1999) analysis, the schools of thought in Black psychology are intertwined with critical approaches and methods. He describes the two schools of thought as characterizing how Black psychologists have dealt with the differences between ideology and methodology. The schools of thought identified are: (1) the Africanist and (2) Empiricist schools. The Africanist school has “a deep appreciation of the role of theory in the justification of ideological program, with only the barest attention to the protective demands of theory for a methodological framework” (Banks, 1999, p. 6). He maintains that “the role of method within the Africanist framework must be to protect theory and program, not contribute to them. But if the demands are for methodological practices that obstruct rather than defend the ideological program, the theories (by implication) demand revision (Banks, 1999, p. 6).

In contrast, the empiricist school, according to Banks, has attempted to establish “impeccable methodological credentials for whatever theoretical constructs those (scholars) might defend” (Banks,1999, p. 6). Thus, for Banks (1999), “this school seeks the human core which lies beneath the African American peoples veneer and the White veneer of European peoples” (p. 6).

108


Both schools, in Banks view, are similar in their shortcomings in that “The Africanists have simply rejected a conventional methodology which would clearly not serve to verify and confirm its claims, but has failed to provide a comprehensive alternative, or come to terms with the essentially negative role it must play in knowledge growth…while the empiricists have made methodological integrity their foremost preoccupation, believing in its ability to lead systematically to a knowledge base from which theory and ideological programs can spring” (Banks, 1999, p. 7). Therefore, in order for Black psychologists to manifest the power to define as well as change the reality of Black life it is important that they are able to interpret and understand the life experiences of people of African descent, which requires “a contingent of Black researchers making a contribution” (Boykin, Franklin and Yates, 1979, p.18). Banks (1999) predicted that the contributions made by Black psychologists to the field of Black psychology are “likely to prosper in direct proportion to its [their] ability to deconstruct conventional falsehood, and its [their] ability to construct particularistic theory that stands in contrast to relativism, and a methodology of the absolute rather than the comparative” (p.8).

A DISCUSSION OF MAJOR ISSUES, CONCEPTS AND THEMES IN AFRICOLOGY AS MANIFESTED IN BLACK PSYCHOLOGY

One of the primary concerns in conducting scholarly research revolves around the issue of conceptualization. Questions such as what concepts are relevant to the issue(s) being studied? How do scholars’ particular theoretical orientations influence their choice of subjects and the type of research questions being asked? Answers to these questions such as these factor into determining the conceptual model from which researchers will approach their projects. For Black psychologists, the issue of conceptualization has been paramount in their efforts to produce meaningful scholarship that is culturally relevant. At times this has meant having to come to terms with the reality that many of the theories and concepts they were taught in their graduate training do not apply wholesale to people of African descent.

Two major thrusts in African American social scientists critiques of concepts used in psychological research are that: (1) the accumulating literature on the individual African American person, family, and community reflects the common practice of looking within the African American community and African Americans themselves for the sources of social disadvantage effecting their personal and collective destinies and (2) the tendency to describe the psychological functioning of African Americans in negative terms (Jenkins, 1995). Related to these concerns, Nobles (1982) argues that psychology “has become the single most powerful tool of oppression, and its single most effective technique has been to place itself, its conceptions and formulations, as the standard by which all people of the world are to be understood” (p. 100).

109


The placing of European-American conceptions and formulas as the universal standard can conceptually incarcerate Black psychologists as they seek to study African American life experiences. According to Nobles:

In this case “conceptual incarceration”, the knower is given a set of pre-determined ‘concepts’ and definitions to utilize in the ‘process of knowing’. The alien or incorrect concepts themselves, however, inhibit the process of these alien ‘ideas’. The notion of conceptual incarceration allows us to understand the delimiting quality of faulty or erroneous concepts provided in the process of scientific understanding. (1986, pp. 19-20)

It is in this vein that Lerone Bennett (1970) asserted “it is necessary for us to develop a new frame of reference which transcends the limits of white concepts. It is necessary for us to develop and maintain a total intellectual offensive against the false universality of white concepts…We must abandon the partial frame of reference of our oppressors and create new concepts which will release our reality” ( p. 7).

EMPIRCAL AND THEORETICAL RELEVANCE TO AFRICOLOGY

After all the data has been collected and analyzed, the question becomes what is the relevance of Black psychology and what does it contribute to expanding the body of literature within Africology? Empirically, Black psychology demonstrates the importance of being evidence-based in one’s work. In many Africology departments, some students are learning that others should accept their arguments simply because they make sense, or worse, because they speak with passion. Perhaps, the empirical component of Black psychology can serve as an example of the importance of presenting evidence, even when what you say makes sense without it. By utilizing different types of methods in their research agendas, Black psychology may help to disabuse many students of the notion that methods will not make a difference in the quality of contributions they can make to Africology. Thus, Black psychology demonstrates the importance of knowing and utilizing a variety of methods in order to make scholarly contributions and shows the type of skills needed to improve upon these scholarly contributions.

Theoretically, Black psychology is not a marginalized field of study to be

perceived as simply peripheral to “traditional” psychology and/or Africology but an area of serious critical inquiry that systematically studies the psychological experiences of people of African descent (Harper-Browne, 1996). Black psychology’s emphasis on recognizing and understanding culturally specific psychological issues that are particular to the historical and social experiences of people of African descent enhances the breadth and depth of Africology. By exploring the various ways that Black psychologists have examined Black experiences, Black psychology reflects the diversity and complexity of thought in Africology.

110


CONCLUSION

On a surface level, it could be argued that Black psychology has not substantively contributed anything novel to Africology. For example, before there was a formal conceptualization of a Black psychology in the psychological literature, social scientists of various ethnicities and theoretical orientations had already articulated the idea that people have particular ways of expressing themselves that stem from their cultural and social experiences. Academics in disciplines such as anthropology, political science, sociology and psychology had already acknowledged that race and culture were important social variables to consider when studying human experiences. In fact, the theoretical domains discussed during the evolution of Black psychology such as identity, education, language, methods, community, marriage and family, health disparities, sexuality and gender, clinical psychology, developmental issues and discipline construction are very similar to, if not the same, as the theoretical domains studied in other areas of Africology.

So what makes the contributions of Black psychologists within the field of

Africology unique? In what ways do Black psychologists enhance the discipline of Africology and our understanding of the lived experiences of Black people? The scholarship in Black psychology does not necessarily introduce scholars in Africology to new phenomena to which they are totally unfamiliar. However, through the critical approaches of deconstruction, reconstruction and construction, scholarship in Black psychology does introduce new concepts and themes that are used as tools for interpreting old and new phenomena relevant to Africana experiences. The value of Black psychology relative to Africology is found in its ability to construct paradigms that serve as conceptual maps that assist Black people in navigating their cultural terrain and making sense out of their experiences.

Black psychology also parallels Africology in its attempt to establish itself as an

instrument of social transformation. It appears that Black psychologists are at the crossroads in the development of a Black psychology that is relevant and functional to people of African descent. Now that the theoretical and methodological foundations for Black psychology have been articulated, a major issue becomes where does Black psychology go from here? The future direction of the social impact of Black psychological theory, research and practice within the discipline of Africology will depend on the extent to which contemporary Black psychologists view themselves as social scientists and social agents involved in a psychology of liberation that actualizes the lofty goals and standards prescribed for them in the literature.

111


References

Akbar, N. (1979). African roots of Black personality. In W.D. Smith, K. H.

Burlew, M. H. Mosley, W. M. Whitney (Eds.), Reflections on Black Psychology, pp. 79-98. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

Akbar, N. (1981). Mental disorder among African Americans. Black Books Bulletin, 7, (2), pp. 18-25.

Akbar, N. (1984). Africentric social science for human liberation. The Journal

of Black Studies, 14, (2), pp. 395-414. Akbar, N. (1985). Nile Valley origins of the science of mind. In Ivan Sertima

(Ed.), Nile Valley Civilizations. New Brunswick, N.J: Journal of African Civilizations. Akbar, N. (1990). Chains and images of psychological slavery. Jersey City, New

Jersey: New Mind Productions. Akbar, N. (1994). Light from ancient Africa. Tallahassee, Florida: Mind

Productions & Associates, Inc. Ani, M. (1994). Yurugu: An African-centered critique of European cultural

thought and behavior. Trenton, New Jersey: African World Press. Azibo, D. A. (1988). Personality, clinical and social psychological research on

Blacks: Appropriate and inappropriate research frameworks. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 12, (4) 220-233.

Azibo, D. A. (1996). African psychology in historical perspective and related

commentary. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Baldwin, J. A. (1979). Theory and research concerning the notion of Black self-

hatred: A review and reinterpretation. Journal of Black Psychology, 5, (2), 51-77. Baldwin, J. A. (1980). The psychology of oppression. In M. K. Asante and A. S.

Vandi (Eds.) Contemporary Black Thought, pp. 95-110. Baldwin, J. A. (1986). African (Black) Psychology: Issues and synthesis. The

Journal of Black Studies, 16, (4), 235-249.

112


Banks, W. C. (1976). White preference in Blacks: A paradigm in search of a phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1179-1186.

Banks, W.C. (1982). Deconstructive falsification: Foundations of a critical method in Black psychology, pp. 59-72. In E. Jones and S. Korchin (Eds.), Minority Mental Health, New York: Praeger Press.

Banks, W.C. (1999). Theory and method in the growth of African American Psychology. In Reginald Jones (Ed). Advances in African American Psychology. Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry Publishers.

Barnes, C. (1988). Melanin: The chemical key to Black greatness. Houston, TX: C.B. Publishers.

Belgrave, F.Z., & Allison, K.A. (2006). African American Psychology: From

Africa to America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bennet, L. (1970). The challenge of blackness. Atlanta, Georgia: Institute of the

Black World. Boykin, A. W. (1979). Black psychology and the research process: Keeping the

baby but throwing out the bath water. In A.W. Boykin, A. J. Anderson, & J. F. Yates (Eds.), Research directions of Black psychologists, pp. 85-103. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Boykin, A. W., Franklin, A. J., J. F. Yates (1979). Work notes on empirical research. In A.W. Boykin, A. J. Anderson, & J. F. Yates (Eds.), Research Directions of Black psychologists, pp. 1-17. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Carruthers, J. (1996). Science and oppression. In African Psychology in historical perspective and related commentary. Trenton, New Jersey: African World Press.

Clark (X), C., McGhee, D. P., Nobles, W. & Weems (X), L. (1975). Voodoo or

IQ: An introduction to African psychology. Journal of Black Psychology, 1, (2), 9-29. Clark, K. (1965). Dark Ghetto. New York: Harper & Row. Clark, K. B. & Clark, M. P. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro

children. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley, (Ed), Readings in social psychology. pp. 169-178. New York: Holt.

113


Cross, W.E. (1971). The Negro to Black conversation experience: Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 20, (5), pp. 13-27.

Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American identity.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Cross, W.E., Parham, T.A., & Helms, J.E. (1998). Nigrescence revisited: Theory

and research. In R. Jones (Ed.), African American identity development. pp. 3-71. Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

Diop, C.A. (1978). Cultural unity of black Africa. Chicago: Third World Press. Diop, C. A. (1991). Civilization or barbarism: An authentic anthropology. New

York: Lawrence Hill Books. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton & Company

Press. Fuller, N. (1969). The united-independent compensatory code/system/concept: A

textbook/workbook for thought, speech, and/or action, for victims of racism (white supremacy). Copyrighted Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Green. R. (1974). The social responsibility of psychology. Journal of Black Psychology, 1, (1), pp. 25-29.

Grier, W.H. & Cobbs, P. M. (1968). Black rage. New York: Bantum Books. Guthrie, R. (1998). Even the rat was white. Second Edition. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon. Harper-Browne, C. (1996). Toward curriculum development in Black

psychology. In D. A. Azibo (Ed.), African psychology in historical perspective and related commentary, 235-245. Trenton: African World Press.

Harrell, J. (1999). Mannichean psychology. Washington D.C.: Howard University Press. Hilliard, A. (1981). I.Q. as cathecism: Ethnic and cultural bias or invalid science, Black Books Bulletin, 7, (2).

Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton.

114


Jackson, G. (1979). The origin and development of Black Psychology: Implications for Black studies and human behavior. Studia Africana, 1, (3), 270-293.

Jackson, G. (1982). Black psychology: An avenue to the study of Afro-Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 12, (3), 241-260. Jenkins, A. H. (1995). Psychology and African Americans: A humanistic approach. Needham Heights, Massuchusetts: Allyn & Bacon. Jung, C. (1959). The archetypes and the collective unconscious. In Collected Works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kambon, K. (1992). The African personality in America: An African-centered framework. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation.

Kambon, K. (1998). African/Black psychology in the American context: An African-centered perspective. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation.

Kambon, K. (2003). Cultural Misorientation: The greatest threat to the survival of the black race in the 21st century. Tallahassee: Nubian Nation.

Karenga, M. (1992). Introduction to Black studies. Los Angeles: University of

Sankore.

Kitwana, B. (1994). The rap on gangsta rap. Chicago: Third World Press.

Lewin, K. (1941). Jewish self hatred. Contemporary Jewish Record, 4, 219-232. Marable, M. (2000). Dispatches from the ebony tower. New York: Columbia

University Press. Merton, R. (1967). Social structure and anomie. In Charles Lemert (Ed.), Social

Theory: The multicultural and classic readings, pp. 249-261.

Myers, L. (1988). Understanding an Afrocentric worldview: Introduction to an optimal psychology. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Myers, L. (1999). Foreword. In E. W. Bynum (Ed.), The African Unconscious: Roots of ancient mysticism and modern psychology. New York: Teachers College Press.

115


Nobles, W. (1973). Psychological research and the Black self concept: A critical

review. Journal of Social Issues, 29, (1), 11-31.

Nobles, W. (1974). African root and American fruit: The Black Family. Journal of Social and behavioral sciences, 20, pp. 66-75.

Nobles, W. (1980). African philosophy: Foundations for Black psychology. In R. L. (Ed.), Black Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.

Nobles, W. (1986). African psychology: Toward its reclamation, reascension

and revitalization. Oakland, CA.: Black Family Institute.

Parham, T. (1993). Psychological storms: The African-American struggle for identity. Chicago, Illinois: African American Images.

Pasteur, A. & Toldson, I. (1982). Roots of soul: The psychology of black expressiveness. New York: Anchor Press, Doubleday.

Pettigrew, T. (1964). A profile of the Negro American. Princeton, NJ: Van

Norstrand Reinhold. Poussaint, A. (1972). Why blacks kill blacks. New York: Emerson Hall

Publishers. Savage, J. and Adair, A. (1977). Testing minorities: Developing more culturally

relevant assessment systems. Negro Educational Review, 28, pp. 220-228. Smith, W. (1974). Editorial statement. Journal of Black Psychology, 1, (1), 5-6.

Thomas, C. (1971). Boys no more. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press.

Thomas, C. (1974). The significance of the Ethnocentrism factor in mental health. Journal of non-white concerns in personal guidance, 2, (2).

Thomas, C. (1978). The need for an ethnically specific social science. Lecture

given at Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama on April 27. Thomas, C. (1979). The social significance of research. Paper presented at

Howard University Mental Health Research and Developmental Center, May 1-3.

116


Welsing, F. C. (1970). The cress theory of color confrontation: (White supremacy): A psychogenetic theory and world outlook. Washington D.C.: Frances Cress.

West, C. (1993). Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press. White, J. (1980). Toward a Black psychology. In R. Jones (Ed.) Black

Psychology, pp. 5-12. Second Edition. New York: Harper & Row. Wilson, A. N. (1978). The developmental psychology of the Black child. New

York: Africana Research Publications. Wilson, A. N. (1990). Black on Black violence: The psychodynamics of Black

self-annihilation in service of white domination. New York: Afrikan World InfoSystems.

Wilson, A. N. (1993). The falsification of Afrikan consciousness. New York:

Afrikan WorldInfo Systems. Wilson, A. N. (1998). Blueprint for Black power. New York: Afrikan World

InfoSystems. Wobogo, V. (1976). Diop’s two cradle theory and the origin of white racism.

Black Books Bulletin, 4, (4), pp. 20-29, 72. Wright, B. (1984). The psychopathic racial personality. Chicago: Third World

Press.

117


A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE HISTORY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGYPrepared by the APA Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs

American Psychological Association (APA). (1997). Psychology and racism. Monitor, 28(10), 38-46.

American Psychological Association, Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation. (1996). Book 1:Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Washington, DC: Author.

Baker, D. B. (2003). The challenge of change: Formation of the Association of Black Psychologists. In D.Freedheim (Ed.), History of psychology. Volume 1 in I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief), Handbook ofpsychology. (pp. 492-495). New York: Wiley.

Benimoff, M. (1995). Eastern Psychological Association: Report of the Sixty-six Annual Meeting. AmericanPsychologist, 50(12), 1086-1088.

Benjamin Jr., L.T. & Crouse, E.M. (2002). The American Psychological Association’s response to Brown v.Board of Education: The case of Kenneth B. Clark. American Psychologist, 57(1), 38-50.

Blau, T.H. (1970). APA Commission on Accelerating Black Participation in Psychology, AmericanPsychologist, 25(2), 1103-1104.

Bowser, B (1996). Towards a liberated education: Asa G. Hilliard, III. Sage Race Relations Abstracts, 21(1),6-24.

Comas-Diaz, L. (1990). Ethnic minority mental health: Contributions and future directions of the AmericanPsychological Association. In Serafica, F. C., Schwebel, A .E., Russell, R. K., Isaac, P. D. & Myers, L.B.(Eds.), Mental health of ethnic minorities (pp. 275-301). New York: Prager.

Daniel, J.H. (1994, November). Leadership and legacy in psychology. Focus (Division 45 newsletter), 8(2), 14-15.

Evans, R.B. (1999a, December). The long road to diversity. The APA Monitor, p. 24.

Guthrie, R.V. (1976). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Guthrie, R.(1994, November). African Americans in psychology. Focus (APA Division 45 newsletter) 8(2), 4-6.

Guthrie, R.V. (1998). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Guzman, L.P., Schiavo, S. & Puente, A.E. (1992). Ethnic minorities in the teaching of psychology. In A.E.Puente, J.R. Matthews & C.L. Brewer (Eds.), Teaching psychology in America: A history (pp. 182-213).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

A Selected Bibliography on the History of African American Psychology

2

Hilliard, A.G. (1983). IQ and the courts’ Larry P. vs. Wilson Riles and PASE vs. Hannon. The Journal ofBlack Psychology, 10 (1), 1-18.

Holliday, B.G. (1999). The American Council on Education’s studies on Negro youth development: Anhistorical note with lessons on research, context, and social policy. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), AfricanAmerican children, youth and parenting (pp 3-30). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry Publishers.

Holliday, B. G. and Holmes, A. L. (2003). A tale of challenge and change: A history and chronology of ethnicminorities in psychology in the United States. In G. Bernal, J . E. Trimble, A. K. Burlew and F. T. L.Leong (Eds.), Handbook of Racial and Ethnic Minority Psychology (pp 15-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Holliday, B.G., Suinn, R.M., Bernal, M.E., Myers, H.F., Vazquez-Nuttal, E. et al. (1997), Visions andtransformations: The final report of the Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention andTraining in Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hopkins, R., Ross, S., & Hicks, L. H. (1994). A history of the department of psychology at Howard University,Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 82(2), 161-167.

Jenkins, M. (1994). Section VI, Clinical psychology of ethnic minorities. The Clinical Psychologist, 47(1), 16.

Journal of Black Psychology, 1974-Present

Laosa, L.M. (1984). Social policies toward children of diverse ethnic, racial, and language groups in the UnitedStates. In H.W. Stevenson & A.E. Siegel (Eds.), Child development research and social policy. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Kohout, J., & Pion, G. (1990). Participation of ethnic minorities in psychology: Where do we stand today? In G.Strickler, et al.(Eds.), Toward ethnic diversification in psychology education and training (pp.153-160).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mayo, M.J. (1913). The mental capacity of the American Negro. Archives of Psychology, 28.

Parron, D.L. (1990). Federal initiatives in support of mental health research on ethnic minorities. In Serafica,F.C., Schwebel, A.E., Russell, R.K., Isaac, P.D. & Myers, L.B.(Eds.), Mental health of ethnic minorities(pp. 302-309). New York: Prager.

Pickren, W.E. & Tomes, H. (2002). The legacy of Kenneth B. Clark to the APA: The Board of Social andEthical Responsibility for Psychology. American Psychologist, 57(1), 51-59.

Quintana, S.M., & Bernal, M.E. (1995). Ethnic minority training in counseling psychology: Comparisons withclinical psychology and proposed standards. The Counseling Psychologist, 23(1), 102-121.

A Selected Bibliography on the History of African American Psychology

3

Richards, G. (1997). ‘Race’, racism and psychology: Towards a reflexive history. New York: Routledge.

Riessman, F. (1962). The culturally deprived child. New York: Harper and Row.

Rogers, M., Ponterotto, K., Conoley, J., & Wiese, M. (1992). Multicultural training in school psychology: Anational survey. School Psychology Review, 21, 603-616.

Russo, N.F., Olmedo, E.L., Strapp, J., & Fulcher, R. (1981). Women and minorities in psychology. AmericanPsychologist, 36(11), 1315-1363.

Street, W.R. (1994). A chronology of noteworthy events in American psychology. Washington, D.C.: AmericanPsychological Association.

Valentine, C. (1971). Deficit, difference and bicultural models of Afro-American behavior. HarvardEducational Review, 41, 137-157.

Washington, V. (1988). Historical and contemporary linkages between black child development and socialpolicy. In D.T. Slaughter (Ed.), New directions for child development (No.24): Black children andpoverty: A developmental perspective (pp. 93-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Williams, R. (1974). A history of the Association of BlackPsychologists: Early formation and development.Journal ofBlack Psychology, 1(91), 9-24.

Wispe, L., Awkard, J., Hoffman, M., Ash, P., Hicks, L.H., & Porter, J. (1969). The Negro psychologist inAmerica. American Psychologist, 24(2), 142-150.

Wyche, K.F., & Graves, S.B.(1992). Minority women in academia: Access and barriers to professionalparticipation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16(4), 429-437.

Technology

RBG Communiversity Concepts in African-Centered Psychology, Two Pivotal Essays