When we seriously study the “scientific” literature of the past relating to people of color, we are immediately impressed with how an implicit equation of them with pathology and inferiority is a common theme.
Some examples of this literature focus upon the presumed genetic inferiority of people of color, while others locate the “problems”
within their cultural heritage.
The Genetically Deficient Model
The portrayal of people of color in the literature has generally taken the form of stereotyping them as deficient in certain desirable
attributes. For example, de Gobineau's (1915) The Inequality of the Human Races and Darwin's (1859) On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection were used to support the belief in the genetic intellectual superiority of Whites and the genetic inferiority of the
“lower races.” Galton (1869) wrote explicitly that African “Negroes”
were “half‐witted men” who made “childish, stupid, and simpleton‐ like mistakes,” while Jews were inferior physically and mentally and only designed for a parasitical existence on other nations of people.
Educators and psychologists have also historically portrayed people of color in pathological ways. The belief that various human groups exist at different stages of biological and emotional development was
promoted by G. Stanley Hall, the turn‐of‐the‐century psychologist who became the first president of the American Psychological Association in 1892. He stated explicitly in 1904 that Africans, Indians, and Chinese were members of adolescent races and in a stage of incomplete development (Hall, 1904). In most cases, the evidence used to support such conclusions was fabricated, extremely flimsy, or distorted to fit the belief in non‐White inferiority (Thomas
& Sillen, 1972).
As recently as 1989, Professor Rushton of the University of Western Ontario claimed that human intelligence and behavior are largely determined by race, that Whites have bigger brains than Blacks, and that Blacks are more aggressive (Rushton, 1989; Samuda, 1998).
Shockley (1972) expressed fears that the accumulation of weak or low‐ intelligence genes in the Black population would seriously affect
overall intelligence; he thus advocated that people with low IQs not be allowed to bear children—that they be sterilized. Allegations of
scientific racism can also be seen in the work of Cyril Burt, the eminent British psychologist, who fabricated data to support his
contention that intelligence is inherited and that Blacks have
inherited inferior brains. Such an accusation is immensely important when one considers that Burt is a major influence in American and British psychology, is considered by many to be the father of
educational psychology, was the first psychologist to be knighted, and was awarded the American Psychological Association's Thorndike Prize, as well as that his research findings form the foundation for the belief that intelligence is inherited.
A belief that race and gender dictate intelligence continues to be expressed in modern times and even by our most educated populace.
In 2005, then‐Harvard President Larry Summers (former director of President Obama's National Economic Council) suggested that innate differences between the sexes might help explain why relatively few women become professional scientists or engineers. His comments set off a furor, with demands that he be fired. Women academicians were reported to have stormed out in disgust as Summers used
“innate ability” as a possible explanation for sex differences in test scores. Ironically, Summers was lecturing to a room of the most accomplished women scholars in engineering and science in the nation.
The questions about whether there are differences in intelligence between races are both complex and emotional. The difficulty in clarifying these questions is compounded by many factors. Besides the difficulty in defining race, which has no significant biological basis, questionable assumptions exist regarding whether research on the intelligence of Whites can be generalized to other groups, whether middle‐ and lower‐class ethnic minorities grow up in environments similar to those of middle‐ and lower‐class Whites, and whether test instruments are valid for both minority and White subjects.
Moreover, the historical use of science in the investigation of racial differences seems to be linked with White supremacist notions (Jones, 1997, 2010). The classic work of Thomas and Sillen (1972) refers to this as scientific racism and cites several historical examples to support this contention:
Fabricated 1840 census figures were used to support the notion that Blacks living under unnatural conditions of freedom were
prone to anxiety.
Influential medical journals presented fantasies as facts, supporting the belief that anatomical, neurological, or
endocrinological aspects of Blacks were always inferior to those of Whites.
The following misconceptions were presented as facts:
Mental health for Blacks is contentment with subservience.
Psychologically normal Blacks are faithful and happy‐go‐ lucky.
Black persons' brains are smaller and less developed.
Blacks are less prone to mental illness because their minds are so simple.
The dreams of Blacks are juvenile in character and not as complex as those of Whites.
More frightening, perhaps, is a survey that found that many of these stereotypes have persisted among White Americans: 20% publicly expressed a belief that African Americans are innately inferior in thinking ability, 19% believed that Blacks have thicker craniums, 23.5% believed they have longer arms, 50% believed Blacks have achieved equality, and 30% believed the problems of Blacks reside in their own group (Babbington, 2008; Pew Research Center, 2007;
Plous & Williams, 1995). One wonders how many White Americans hold similar beliefs privately but, because of social pressures, do not publicly voice them.
The Culturally Deficient Model
Well‐meaning social scientists who challenged the genetic deficit model by placing heavy reliance on environmental factors
nevertheless tended to perpetuate a view that saw people of color as culturally disadvantaged, deficient, or deprived. Instead of a
biological condition that caused differences, the blame now shifted to the lifestyles or values of various ethnic groups. The term cultural deprivation was first popularized by Riessman's widely read book, The Culturally Deprived Child (1962). It was used to indicate that
many groups perform poorly on tests or exhibit deviant
characteristics because they lack many of the advantages of middle‐ class culture (education, books, toys, formal language, etc.). In essence, these groups are culturally impoverished!
While Riessman was well‐intentioned in trying to not attribute blame to “genes” and intended to improve the condition of African
Americans in the United States, some educators strenuously objected to the term. First, culturally deprived means to lack a cultural
background (e.g., as though enslaved Blacks arrived in America culturally naked), which is incongruous, because everyone inherits a culture. Second, such terms cause conceptual and theoretical
confusions that may adversely affect social planning, educational policy, and research; for example, the oft‐quoted Moynihan Report asserts that “at the heart of deterioration of the Negro society is the deterioration of the Black family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness in the Negro community” (Moynihan, 1965, p. 5). Action was thus directed toward infusing White concepts of the family into those of Blacks. Third, “cultural deprivation” is used synonymously with deviation from and inferiority to White middle‐class values.
Fourth, these deviations in values become equated with pathology, in which a group's cultural values, families, or lifestyles transmit the pathology. Thus, the term “cultural deprivation” provides a
convenient rationalization and alibi for the perpetuation of racism and the inequities of the socioeconomic system.
The Culturally Diverse Model
Many now maintain that the culturally deficient model serves only to perpetuate the myth of people of color's inferiority. The focus tends to be one of blaming the person, with an emphasis on pathology and a use of White middle‐class definitions of desirable and undesirable behavior. The social science use of a common, standard assumption implies that to be different is to be deviant, pathological, or sick. Is it possible that intelligence and personality scores for minority children are really measures of how Anglicized the child has become? To arrive at a more accurate understanding, people of color should no longer be viewed as deficient, but rather as culturally diverse. The goal of
society should be to recognize the legitimacy of alternative lifestyles, the advantages of being bicultural (capable of functioning in two different cultural environments), and the value of differences.
REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What reactions are you experiencing in learning that the history of the mental health movement was filled with racist formulations? As a White trainee, what thoughts and feelings are you experiencing? As a trainee of color (or a member of a marginalized group), what thoughts and feelings do you have?
2. Go back to Chapter 1 and reread the reactions to this book. Do the reactions in that chapter provide insights about your own thoughts and feelings?
3. Given the preceding discussion, in what ways may counseling and psychotherapy represent instruments of cultural
oppression? How is this possibly reflected in definitions of normality and abnormality, the goals you have for therapy, and the way you conduct your practice with marginalized groups in our society?