HHS 320 Cultural Awareness in the Human Services
chantaxrews
HHS-320-Chapter4.docx4 Cultural, Racial, and Ethnic Identity Models The preceding chapter presented an overview of social, cultural, and racial identity theories, and connected them to self-concept development. This chapter continues the discussion of cultural and racial identity while considering notable race and ethnicity models. In addition, it gives further thought to the relationship of these concepts with overall self-identity. As models, stage theories of racial and cultural identity might be helpful in assessing where clients are as they enter and proceed through counseling or other helping relationships. Equally important is the understanding theoretical models might offer about your own cultural identity. Throughout this chapter, you will have opportunities to explore your cultural identity. Space in a single chapter cannot do justice to a multitude of theoretical models developed over the years. Furthermore, not all conceptual models of understanding human differences are stage oriented. For example, Arredondo (1992) demonstrated a three-dimensional approach to counseling with diverse clientele. Her model identifies the first group of dimensions (A Dimensions) as personal characteristics with which, or into which, people are born, including language, culture, sex, sexual orientation identity, age, social class, and physical status. The second set (B Dimensions) includes traits and characteristics that, while not always visible, influence a person’s behavior and achievement. These factors include regional residency, educational and career background, economic status, leisure activities, religion, marital status, and citizenship, among others. The final group of traits (C Dimensions) identify encounters and events that have influenced a person’s development. These include major events such as leaving a homeland because of religious oppression or political upheaval and changing lifestyles due to health epidemics, economic disasters, or constant terrorism (Robinson, 2005). Arredondo’s A-B-C approach (1992) encourages a holistic perspective that considers many internal and external factors, each of which might have meaning for various stages of human development. Another reason the following sections are not all-inclusive is that new theoretical models are emerging. For example, Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT) (Jordan & Hartling, 2002) is a relatively new school of thought that proposes alternative perspectives and emphasizes the complexity of developmental patterns across the life span (Comstock & Qin, 2005). In particular, the model focuses on creating and nurturing interpersonal connections rather than aspects of individual development. Readers are encouraged to review original sources cited throughout this chapter to gain a fuller appreciation of the various models and approaches presented. Table 4.1 provides a list of various stage models of cultural identity. Racial Identity Models This section examines a few racial identity models that have gained prominence in the multicultural literature and research. It begins with Cross’s (1991) Nigrescence theory and more recent references to “activity approaches” to understanding Black identity (Cross, Smith, & Payne, 2002). Each of the following summaries provides a sample perspective and is not intended as inclusive of all racial models or all perspectives about a particular racial identity. Black Identity Cross (1971, 1991) differentiated between personal identity and group identity, what he referred to as “reference group orientation” (RGO). He related personal identity to self-esteem and interpersonal relationships, while he associated RGO with racial identity and esteem (Helms, 2003; Robinson, 2005). According to his five-stage model, African Americans create a self-identity through a developmental process within which they replace negative self-images with positive beliefs about themselves. In the first stage of this model, preencounter, the Black person in America begins creating a self-image and worldview by looking through the lens of a dominant White culture. Here, the person uses identifiers unrelated to race and more reflective of the dominant culture. Such descriptors might include career, school, and church connections rather than identifiers linked with the Black experience. Consequently, Cross (1991) hypothesized that at this first stage of development, African Americans tend to behave in accordance with a White-centered cultural perspective. The second stage, encounter, occurs when a Black person has a traumatic or other life-altering experience that challenges views established during the earlier stage. This stage is twofold. First, the person must encounter a challenging experience, and next, she or he must internalize the experience personally. This second phase of internalization is essential to move through the encounter stage. Without personal internalization of the event, the person will not fully process the encounter stage. Cross’s (1991) third stage consists of immersion and emersion. By internalizing the belief-altering experience in the encounter stage, the person now focuses more on being Black, even to the exclusion of other races, especially members of the dominant White culture. Now the person feels a strong connection and common bond with Black people. In some instances, this stage might be accompanied by anger and hostility towards the dominant culture. Internalization is the fourth stage of this model, and at this level, the person shows evidence of maturation and resolution of the negative feelings espoused in the previous stage. Still, a greater value is assigned to one’s Blackness, and assertive, confident behaviors replace the dissension and conflict sparked in the earlier stage characterized by immersion and emersion.
TABLE 4.1 Stages of Various Cultural Identity Models *
Cultural Identity Development Theory (Ivey et al., 2002)
Cross’s Nigrescence Model (Cross, 1971, 1991, 1995)
Racial/Cultural Identity Development Model (Sue & Sue, 1999)
White Racial Development Model (Helms, 1984, 1995)
Identity Development Theory for White Counselors (Ponterotto, 1988; Ponterotto & Pedersen, 1993)
Biracial Development Model (Poston, 1990)
Root's Resolution Model of Identity Development (1990, 1996, 2002)
Five Resolutions:
Stage 1: Naïveté
Stage 1: Preencounter
Stage 1: Conformity
Status 1: Contact
Stage 1: Preexposure
Stage 1: Personal Identity
(a) accept the default monoracial and monoethnic identity through a hypodescent process,
Stage 2: Encounter
Stage 2: Encounter
Stage 2: Dissonance
Status 2: Disintegration
Stage 2: Exposure
Stage 2: Choice of Group Categorization
(b) identify with multiple groups,
Stage 3: Naming
Stage 3: Immersion and Emersion
Stage 3: Resistance and Immersion
Status 3: Reintegration
Stage 3: Zealotry or Defensiveness
Stage 3: Enmeshment/Denial
(c) actively resolve a single racial or ethnic identity,
Stage 4: Reflection on Self as Cultural Being
Stage 4: Internalization
Stage 4: Introspection
Status 4: Pseudoindependence
Stage 4: Integration
Stage 4: Appreciation
(d) identify as new ethnic or racial group,
Stage 5: Multiperspective Internalization
Stage 5: Internalization and Commitment
Stage 5: Integrative Awareness
Status 5: Immersion-Emersion
Stage 5: Integration
(e) adopt a symbolic race of ethnicity (Root, 2002, p. 175).
Status 6: Autonomy
* This table offers only a sampling of the many cultural identity models presented in the literature.
Full understanding and appreciation of the destructive force of “racism” marks the entry into the fifth stage of development—internalization and commitment. In contrast to the brief life periods reflected in earlier stages, this stage is characterized by long-term involvement and commitment to fighting racism and other forms of oppression for all people in society and across the world.
In later work, Cross and colleagues focused on the continuous everyday activities that influence the development of a Black identity (Cross et al., 2002). Although the original stage model (Cross, 1971) is useful in understanding some of the basic traits and processes that Black people might live through in developing a racial identity, “conceptualizing identity as operations, functions, negotiations, enactments, or activities” (Cross et al., 2002, p. 93) helps to appreciate the complexity of this process. Using “activity theory,” which he developed from Vygotsky’s (1935/1978) work on social learning (see Chapter 2), Cross and his associates (Cross et al., 2002; Cross & Strauss, 1998) suggested a “constellation of five Black identity operations: buffering, code switching, bridging, bonding, and individualism” (Cross et al., 2002, p. 94). These identity functions are learned, and they involve Black and non-Black people in a range of situations from negative and possibly harmful to positive and nurturing. According to Cross and colleagues (2002), with the exception of the fifth operation, individualism, “the Black identity functions are race and Black culture sensitive,” and their purpose is to help the person affirm and establish “a sense of collective identity and attachment to the Black experience” (p. 96).
Buffering is an operation characterized by protecting the person against the racist behaviors of other people or racist environments created by institutions. In a sense, buffering behavior lessens the hurt and suffering often associated with racism and in some instances avoids feelings of degradation and humiliation altogether.
Cross and colleagues (2002) noted that racist situations are often complex in that a Black person must distinguish between those racially discriminatory behaviors, policies, and processes, and other aspects within a given situation that are “race-neutral” and of possible benefit to the person (p. 97). Buffering allows the Black person to diminish the negative effects of racist experiences while considering and benefiting from the neutral elements within those same situations. For example, a Black employee might use buffering to negotiate around the unintentional racist behaviors of a boss because the job is very important to the person’s immediate financial goals and long-term career plans.
Individuals and groups use buffering behaviors. Cross and colleagues (2002) explained, “when Black people join together to protest racism, that is a form of collective or group buffering” (p. 97). When group buffering evolves into formal group functioning (e.g., NAACP or the Legal Defense Fund), it establishes an institution advocating for the Black community.
Code switching is a function that enables Black people to move back and forth from their community to the dominant, non-Black society. In an increasingly multicultural society where most Blacks continue to live and interact in predominantly Black communities, schools, and churches, they often need to switch from their normal way of behaving in order to conform with situations governed by people who are not Black. Cross and colleagues (2002) noted that this “code switching” might require a Black person to master non-Black routines, expressions, and other competencies to become gainfully employed, achieve educationally, and receive customary services. Code switching does not necessarily involve situations that are difficult, discomforting, or otherwise challenging from a racial perspective. Sometimes, code-switching behavior might appear similar to buffering. However, “buffering always involves a racist threat, whereas a code-switching situation is typically non-threatening” (Cross et al., 2002, p. 97).
Bridging occurs when Black people form strong relationships, even intimate ones, with non-Blacks. In these instances, they are able to bridge differences in establishing deep friendships and loving unions. Bridging does not ignore racial and cultural differences. Rather, it celebrates them as each person in the relationship “relishes, examines, and assumes it is a privilege to share the other’s culture and lived experiences” (Cross et al., 2002, p. 98). Considering the racial history and challenges to overcome in these relationships, it is evident that bridging, as defined here, is a difficult and perhaps laborious process. Yet, the rewards of personal growth and understanding for Blacks and non-Blacks who achieve such valued friendships and intimate relationships are indeed unique and special.
Bonding forms strong ties with being Black. Beyond learning to use different operations to survive, function, and flourish in a predominantly White society, persons establish a Black identity to emphasize their cultural uniqueness and richness. Bonding among Black people exists at all social levels and in countless forms, from grand events to solitary experiences of reflection and contemplation. Cross and colleagues (2002) explained that Black people from all social levels who attain a positive identity “like and accept themselves, like other Black people, like the lived experience of Blackness” and sense a “fundamental attachment to Blackness” (p. 98).
Individualism is an operation by which people establish a self-identity that extends beyond their Black experience. Although the first four functions in this theory of Black identity—buffering, code switching, bridging, and bonding—have significance and lend meaning to the notion of collective identity, researchers have found that the last element, individualism, plays an important role in establishing personal identity (Cross et al., 2002). In early studies of these operations, Black participants tended to rely on “acting as an individual” in their responses more than in using any of the other functions. Different focus groups noted varied reasons for this result, such as “their sense of individuality was part of their group identity to the extent that their collective sense of self was always in the background,” or “they tended to see themselves in less racial and Black cultural terms, and more as Americans and individuals” (p. 99). Cross and colleagues (2002) noted several social and political trends (e.g., increased Black membership in the national Republican Party) that might be indicative of the function of individualism and its relationship to Black identity.
White Identity
Rowe, Bennett, and Atkinson (1994), Helms (1995), Ponterotto (1988), and others have proposed stages of White racial development. Rowe and colleagues (1994) presented a White racial consciousness model consisting of two major statuses and seven attitudinal categories. The two primary statuses are unachieved and achieved status. Accordingly, either White people achieve a level of consciousness that enables them to have a psychologically healthy identity, or they do not. In this model, the achievement of White consciousness is the awareness of being White and an understanding of what that means to people of color.
The attitudinal categories of the Rowe and colleagues (1994) model begin with avoidant, which is the lack of any thought about one’s Whiteness and a disregard for racial issues in general. Dependent is the second attitude and it is indicative of people who rely on White perceptions, beliefs, and values learned through experience, often from family members and close associates. Omitted from this category are any internalized attitudes or consideration of alternative perspectives.
The third attitudinal category is dissonant, which reflects confusion and uncertainty about being White and about common racial issues in society. In this category, White people face dissonance because they either lack information and knowledge or they have experienced discomfort over new experiences that conflict with their long-held attitudes and beliefs.
A fourth category is dominative. It includes people who hold views that Whites are superior to people of other races and cultures, and therefore, White people are entitled to certain privileges over others. This category of people takes one of two forms: active or passive. Active membership in this category is depicted by overt behaviors aimed at discrimination and degradation of people of color. Passive expression of dominative racial attitudes might include an avoidance of contact with people of other races except in situations where the White person holds a position of authority or supervision.
Rowe and colleagues (1994) proposed a conflictive category that includes people who are generally opposed to racist views, yet do not favor or support changes in policies and programs that would diminish or eliminate such practices in society. For example, they voice objection to commonly held stereotypic and racist views, but vote against government initiatives that might help society reduce inequities. Thus, they are in conflict in terms of value and attitudinal development.
A sixth category of this White racial development model is reactive. In this category, people understand the benefits Whites have garnered at the price of discriminatory practices and attitudes toward people of color. They are sensitive about societal inequities and might tend to overlook the implications of individual choice and responsibility in assessing the impact of institutional racism on minority groups. People in this category might also fall on a continuum of passive to active behaviors. They might be active in combating the effects of racism by joining community initiatives with members of different racial groups, or they might demonstrate more passive stances by being accepting of diverse populations, behaving appropriately in the company of non-Whites, and being able to defend their accepting behaviors to other Whites.
The last attitudinal category of this model is integrative, where people do more than tolerate cultural diversity; they value and celebrate it. At the same time, people in this category have come to understand and accept their “Whiteness” as part of their being and development. Although people in this category also span a full range of passive and active behavioral patterns regarding their attitudes about cultural diversity, racism, and social justice, they routinely express themselves and join initiatives to bring about appropriate social change.
An underlying premise of Helms’s (1995) model is that White people “are privileged relative to other groups” and subsequently “learn to perceive themselves (and their group) as being entitled to similar privileges” (Helms & Cook, 1999, p. 89). In a two-phase, seven-stage model of White racial-identity ego statuses, Helms proposed an evolutionary process that begins with a “primitive status” and ends with “advanced status” (Helms & Cook, 1999, pp. 92–93). The two primary phases of this model are (a) abandonment of racist attitudes and (b) development of a healthy and positive racial identity (Block & Carter, 1996). The attitudinal statuses cross these two phases.
Contact is the initial status or stage of this White racial identity model, and is distinguished by simplistic thinking and complete oblivion regarding the privileges and benefits derived from being White. When considering racial situations or conflicts, people at this stage commonly express denial, avoidance, and ignorance, particularly when responsibility by the White group is indicative of the problem.
The second stage of White identity development is disintegration, which a person enters when provoked by some racial conflict or dilemma. In this stage, the person becomes aware that White people have different status and are valued differently than people of color. The moral dilemmas that arise from these encounters place the person in a quandary of deciding between a just society and risking the wrath of the White society. People who remain at this stage suffer from confusion, stress, and anxiety about these challenging conflicts. Movement to the next stage, reintegration, allows people to avoid or absolve themselves from responsibility for racist attitudes and events in White society. According to Helms and Cook (1999), “The general theme of this status and correlated schema is idealization of one’s own socioracial group, denigration and intolerance toward other groups, and protection and enhancement of the White group and thereby the maintenance of the racism status quo” (p. 92).
Movement to the fourth status, pseudoindependence, shows an intellectualization by the person to identify with positive nonracist attributes of Whites while rejecting racist attitudes. However, nothing substantially changes about the individual’s awareness of racism or understanding of the responsibility Whites have in perpetuating a racist society. Instead, “White norms continue to be used to interpret cultural or racial differences” (Robinson, 2005, p. 136) and the person attempts, sometimes unwittingly, to resolve racial conflict by helping Blacks and other people of color to assimilate into White culture.
A continuing search for accurate information about racism and its meaning to the person’s development leads to the immersion status. Characterized by a mission to reexamine and redefine “Whiteness,” this stage also consists of behaviors aimed at debunking myths and replacing stereotypic beliefs and behaviors. Immersion becomes an active stage of reeducation and resolve that leads to an emersion status where the person experiences “a sense of discovery, security, sanity, and group solidarity and pride that accompanies being with other White people who are embarked on the mission of rediscovering Whiteness” (Helms & Cooks, 1999, p. 90). In this status, the person joins with other people in fighting racism, not by assisting people of color to assimilate, but by working within the White culture to educate and bring about change in beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes.
Autonomy is the last stage of Helms’s model (1995). During this continuous status of racial development, people express realistic responses to racial situations, no longer inhibited by past emotions, arbitrary definitions, or stereotypic attitudes and behaviors. Now the individual is secure in experiencing and reacting to all types of racial dilemmas with an understanding of her or his racial essence and acceptance of its collective identity. At the same time, this autonomy allows flexible responses to express one’s views about various racial situations and issues.
Asian Identity
Asian Americans (including Pacific Islanders) are a rapidly growing group in the United States, increasing from more than 3 million in 1980 to over 10.6 million in the 2000 U.S. census (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2003). For the most part, this tremendous growth can be attributed to immigration patterns (Maki & Kitano, 2002). As with other minority groups in the United States, the Asian American experience, including subsequent identity development, is a complex phenomenon that is “characterized by continuity, change, diversity, and marginality” (Maki & Kitano, 2002, p. 110). Furthermore, consensus is lacking about the number of different groups that make up Asian American heritage. According to Sandhu (1997), upwards of more than forty different ethnic groups can be placed within Asian and Pacific Islander populations.
In noting multiracial and multiethnic issues confronted by Asian Americans, Spickard (2000) mentioned two opposing views about identity formation. According to one view, “to make satisfactory places for themselves in American society, minorities must either retain the ethnic culture of their youth, family, and community, or eschew their ethnicity and adopt the culture, values, and viewpoints of the dominant Anglo-American group” (p. 256). He further noted an opposing view presented in the nineteenth century by W. E. B. DuBois, who wrote of African Americans being “possessed by a double consciousness, two identities in a dialectical conversation” (p. 256). Accordingly, “An increasing number of people who are of mixed ancestry are choosing to embrace multiple identities,” and research suggests “that the choice of a biracial identity is, for most mixed people, a healthier one than being forced to make an artificial choice” (Spickard, 2000, p. 265). Family support in this process is essential.
A two-by-two model (see Figure 4.1) presented by Maki and Kitano (2002) describes how Asian Americans or other ethnic groups with either low or high ethnic identity might interact with high or low assimilation into American society. Their model produces four possible types from this interaction:
• Type A indicates a person who realizes high assimilation into the new culture with low ethnic identity.
• Type B describes a person with high assimilation and high ethnic identity, what Maki and Kitano (2002) referred to as “bicultural adaptation” (p. 113).
• Type C reveals an individual with high ethnic identity and low assimilation. This is often a new person, an immigrant to the country, or “old timers who have little contact with the dominant society” (p. 114).
• Type D illustrates people with low ethnic identity and low assimilation. These individuals are rejected by the dominant culture and alienated by their own group. People who fit into this category most likely are the ones served by substance and alcohol abuse clinics, the criminal justice system, homeless shelters, and other services for the most delinquent and needy members of society.
Maki and Kitano (2002) noted that their model does not consider fully the different perspectives of ethnic groups that comprise Asian Americans. That is, as Asian cultures establish Americanized versions of their ethnic identities, they add an important dimension to this model. This is also true for other ethnic groups that have come to the United States. As an example, Maki and Kitano (2002) noted, “a Japanese American who is a Type A (high in acculturation, low in traditional Japanese culture) could strongly identify as Japanese American” (p. 114). Active involvement in the Japanese community for this person might provide appropriate balance between assimilation and ethnic identity.
FIGURE 4.1 Interaction of Assimilation and Ethnic Identity
Source: Adapted from Maki & Kitano (2002).
The previous sections have reviewed racial identity models with respect to people who view themselves as being from one particular race. As noted earlier in this text, not all authorities in counseling and related helping professions view racial identity as a useful aspect of establishing beneficial helping relationships with clients (Aponte & Johnson, 2000a; Jackson & Vontress, 2003). At the same time, other authorities have noted that an increasing portion of the world population has begun identifying with more than one racial classification. This has encouraged discussion and development of biracial identity models.
Biracial Identity
As seen from the 2000 U.S. census data, a segment of society views itself as biracial or as coming from a multitude of races rather than as monoracial (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b). Nearly 7 million respondents in the 2000 census (2.4% of the U.S. population) indicated their makeup as of two or more races. In recent decades, “three important demographic trends have changed the face of America and its race relations: first, the percentage of people of color has increased; second, the percentage of people of color who are not black has increased; and third, the number of people who consider themselves multiracial has increased” (Ramirez, 1996, p. 51). In addition, concurrent social changes find that the term “minority” is no longer synonymous with Black people. Consequently, the increasing number of multiracial groups is eliminating the assumption of monoracial identity.
An increase in multiracial people makes stereotypical appearance factors less authoritative in identifying the backgrounds of individuals. As such, existing racial categories are becoming less useful for identification purposes. Exercise 4.1 gives you an opportunity to examine how people might classify different persons using their perception and using racial categories.
Root (1996) defined biracial as “a person whose parents are of two different socially designated racial groups, for example, black mother, white father.” She also noted, “a less commonly used, but perfectly accurate meaning, biracial can also refer to someone who has parents of the same socially designated race, when one or both parents are biracial or there is racial mixing in the family history that is important to the individual” (p. xiv). These meanings blend both social construction and individual definitions.
Until recent decades, researchers and theorists have ignored this increasing population. Furthermore, Poston (1990) criticized the monoracial developmental models, noting several problems when applying them to biracial clients. In response, he proposed a five-stage developmental model of biracial identity.
The first stage of Poston’s (1990) model is personal identity and it includes young people who are beginning to learn about their self independently from an awareness of race and ethnicity. As children become older, an increasing sense of race and identity with ethnic group members complements their self-development.
Exercise 4.1
Perception and Racial Classification
Instructions: Listed below are the names of prominent celebrities and sports figures. Using racial categories of your own choosing, assign a category to each name and write it in the right-hand column. If you do not know the name, skip it and go on to the next. When finished, compare your responses with classmates.
Prominent Figure
Racial Classification
Emeril Lagasse
____________________
Tiger Woods
____________________
Andre Agassi
____________________
Vijay Singh
____________________
Ricky Martin
____________________
Paula Abdul
____________________
Celine Dion
____________________
Jennifer Lopez
____________________
Selma Hayek
____________________
Se Ri Pak
____________________
Halle Berry
In the second stage of development, the person may begin to feel pressure to belong to a single ethnic group. During this period, the biracial individual chooses between a multicultural way of life or one parent’s racial and ethnic background. Many factors influence this decision, including the valued status of each parent’s background, attitudes of the dominant culture, physical characteristics, personality traits of the individual, peer group influence, and understanding of multiple cultures and languages.
Poston’s third stage is enmeshment/denial during which the individual processes feelings of guilt about having to choose between two parents and confusion about selecting a racial identity that does not fully define his or her background. In this stage, anger about having to make the decision might impede development. In addition, shame about the biracial union of parents might embarrass the young person when establishing meaningful peer relationships. The enmeshment/denial stage is critical in the developmental process for biracial persons. Accordingly, successful resolution of this stage is imperative for healthy self-development and in learning to accept, celebrate, and appreciate the cultural background of both parents.
Appreciation is the fourth stage of this model. Now the person begins to see the richness of a biracial background and begins to expand her or his identity to a broader population. Still, some of the factors that mitigated the decision to identify with a particular group (see stage 2 above) influence the choice to identify with one group.
Integration is the final stage of this biracial developmental model, and it is characterized by increased self-esteem and perceived value in all racial distinctiveness that has contributed to the individual’s identity. In addition, biracial people at this stage sense a oneness or wholeness about their self-development—they are an integrated self-entity.
From Poston’s (1990) model, we can identify several issues of biracial identity that distinguish it from monoracial identity. Most obvious is the number of choices and factors that influence a biracial person’s identity decision. Parents of different races, siblings of different races, peers that identify with different races, and countless other factors have an effect on this identity process. In addition to the difficulty incumbent in these choices, a biracial person also risks alienating people whose support is most crucial to her or his development. For example, if a biracial person chooses to identify strongly with the race of one parent, how might that choice affect relationships with the other parent? The feelings associated with these choices (e.g., guilt, remorse, betrayal, etc.) further complicate the identity process.
As noted in Chapter 3, Root (1990, 2002) also criticized monoracial and monocultural models of identity. Thornton (1996) supported this premise and suggested three prominent research themes that had attempted to understand multiracial people: “The first was an approach to multiracials as problems. The second theme was what we called the equivalent approach, which described mixed and mainstream identities as comparable. Last the variant approach envisioned mixed racial identity as a new phenomenon, presumably different than any before” (p. 108). All these themes focused on either differences or similarities, which, Thornton (1996) held, misses “an understanding of mundane, normal, and indeed, unique aspects of their lives, such as the dynamics of family life and peer pressure, as well as how members of this group feel about topics other than race” (p. 114). He continued that research should highlight this uniqueness by focusing on different sets of factors than previous studies have done.
Specifically, Thornton suggested that ethnic identity, social content, and developmental analysis across the life span might provide new direction for research themes of multiracial people. He placed combined emphasis on individual perception and social/cultural influences. For example, he noted, “Identity means to join with some people and depart from others, both within and without the group. Although society may try to impose identity in an absolute way, individuals often differ in how they define group boundaries and how strongly they identity with their own and other groups” (1996, p. 115). At the same time, Thornton (1996) noted, “we must address cultural and structural forces that determine how multiracials view themselves and are viewed by others” (p. 119).
Root (1990, 2002) suggested five aspects of identity formation based on social and cultural contexts and a person’s flexibility to change, rather than predetermined stages. Through one or more of these five processes, she hypothesized, multiracial individuals resolve their identity development. The five resolutions include:
a. Accept the default monoracial and monoethnic identity through a hypodescent process.
b. Identify with multiple groups.
c. Actively resolve a single racial or ethnic identity.
d. Identify as new ethnic or racial group.
e. Adopt a symbolic race of ethnicity. (Root, 2002, p. 175)
In an ecological framework for understanding racial identity development, Root (1999) chose a sociological and interactionist approach to examine the greatest number of influences on identity development and suggested, “the main lenses of influence are gender, class, regional history of race relations, and community” (p. 175). In addition, she noted that other lenses such as sexual orientation, family, and generations, among others, also influence the process.
Research of self-concept development and multiracial people identified adjustment difficulties in early studies, but later analyses of these reports found sampling and methodological problems that weakened the findings. In a more promising study, Field (1996) found biracial adolescents’ self-concepts to be as positive as comparison groups of African American and Caucasian adolescents. She concluded, “The overall finding that biracial adolescents had positive self-concepts is extremely important in light of the historical pathologizing of biracial children in the popular media” (p. 222).
Racial and Cultural Identity Model (R/CID)
Sue and Sue (1999) developed one of the most noted and inclusive models of racial and cultural identity. Their model consists of five stages, and although Sue and Sue (1999) presented it as a racial and cultural identity development model (R/CID) to understand the experiences all people have as they establish a clearer identity, we review it here to make comparisons with other models presented earlier. Readers are encouraged to review other stage models of racial development that parallel the R/CID model. For example, Helms (Helms & Cook, 1999) presented a six-stage model of ego-statuses that contains many similarities (and some differences) to the R/CID model.
The first stage of the R/CID model is conformity. In this stage, the person views the dominant race and culture as superior and tends to deemphasize one’s native culture (high assimilation–low ethnic identity). Stereotypic views espoused by the dominant race are accepted. For example, an Asian American’s development that includes low self-esteem and denial regarding traditional cultural values and physical characteristics might at the same time demonstrate acceptance of White, Euro-American culture at the expense of Asian traditions, beliefs, and values.
As experiences begin to conflict with some of these “conforming” values, dissonance becomes more prevalent. This second stage sees a transformation from high assimilation–low ethnic identity to rethinking of one’s racial and cultural identity. Confusion, disorientation, and uncertainty about one’s racial group are elements observed early in this stage of development. Now the Asian American observes external contradictions and attempts to resolve conflicts towards self-development, one’s racial group, and the White majority (Robinson, 2005).
Resistance and immersion mark the next stage of Sue and Sue’s model (1999). During this stage of development, group members identify more strongly with beliefs and values held by their racial group, while they reject many views held by society’s dominant race. For example, Asian Americans might express regret for having ignored or diminished their Asian heritage in previous years, and now want to rediscover the cultural influence and meaning it has had in their life. At the same time, they might feel angry towards the dominant group for fostering ignorance and devaluing their Asian culture.
In this stage, a member of the dominant racial group might also begin resisting and challenging values and beliefs that have perpetuated myths about minority groups and encouraged society’s oppressive attitudes, customs, and policies. For example, White people who process the resistant and immersion stage might question their own racist views. For the first time in their life, they begin to become aware and understand the meaning and impact of racism on individuals and society as a whole. In an attempt to compensate for past beliefs and behaviors, White people who experience resistance and immersion might express guilt and negative feelings about their “Whiteness.” In some instances, they might overly immerse themselves in other groups in the process of rejecting and detaching from the White culture.
The fourth stage of the R/CID model is the introspective stage in which people begin to assess their direction and purpose, particularly in the context of racial development and understanding. Expressions of independence now find balance with group identity. This stage might reflect an increasing ability to self-explore and self-analyze one’s identity development. At the same time, people gain an appreciation for the complexity of racial identity and racial relationships. For oppressed people, this stage marks a search for meaningful personal goals and movement beyond an emotional reaction to racism. Successful development through this stage brings people to the final stage of integrative awareness.
In the final stage of the R/CID model of racial development, people are able to self-affirm and achieve a sense of independence and self-worth beyond racial identity. Pride in one’s ethnicity remains strong, but more important is active commitment to fight oppression in any form by any group against another. In this process of becoming secure with oneself, people gain an understanding that all racial groups have aspects that are beneficial as well as some that are not. They also recognize the power of the individual within any group to capitalize on the benefits and diminish the negative attributes of that group. The autonomy that characterizes this last stage of development allows the individual to maintain a collective identity while responding as an independent person to racial situations. As such, a White person in this stage might respond to the oppression and degradation of other racial groups out of compassion and genuine commitment to equality rather than from a posture of guilt, shame, anger, or other rationalized emotion.
Optimal Theory Model
From their research, Myers and colleagues (1991) proposed an identity theory, which they called Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development (OTAID). Relying on Erikson’s (1968) assumptions about the emergence of self-identity and Jung’s (1953) emphasis on spiritual awareness, Myers and colleagues (1991) defined identity development “as a continuous process of interaction between individuals and the sociocultural environment that they encounter” (p. 58). The authors presented their theory as neither linear nor categorical, but rather an “expanding spiral” of developing self-knowledge and an awareness “of belonging to the cycle of life” (p. 58). Furthermore, the OTAID model views identity development from the foundation of a worldview, constructed and altered by the person through “observation, examination, reflection, discussion, and conclusions” (p. 58). All these processes combine to create a more global one of self-learning, which ultimately results in greater self-awareness and awareness of others. Table 4.2 illustrates the seven phases of the OTAID model (including Phase 0) with brief descriptions of each.
Ivey’s Cultural Identity Model
Ivey and colleagues (2002) presented a summary of a five-stage model of cultural identity development theory that illustrates movement from a lack of awareness of self to a higher level of awareness and action to fight against all forms of oppression and other aspects of society that demean, degrade, and discriminate against individuals or groups of people. The first stage in this summary is Naïveté, which manifests in lack of “awareness of self as a cultural being” (Ivey et al., 2002, p. 321). Different models of racial and cultural identity propose that at this lowest level of learning and functioning, people are unaware of differences in skin color and do not understand the significance of skin color as a status variable in certain societies. For example, many White Americans are unaware of “White unearned privilege” in their society. Simply being White gains them access to institutions, programs, services, and privileges that are routinely denied people of color in American society, and they do not comprehend this reality. This early stage of development might also reflect denial by people of having been oppressed and discriminated against in their life.
The second stage of this summary model by Ivey and colleagues (2002) is Encounter. This is a period of development when a person realizes that something about herself or himself or about other people is different, and they experience some form of discrimination or somehow witness it in society. The next stage is Naming, where the acts of discrimination observed in the earlier stage now have an identity of their own. Ivey and colleagues (2002) noted that in this stage of transformation, members of the majority group who are sympathetic and supportive of the oppressed minority would be challenged to maintain a positive identity for themselves. At the same time, members of the oppressed group might feel great anger and hostility and withdraw from contact with their oppressors (often the majority group), immersing themselves in the traditions and customs of their cultural group.
Table 4.2 Phases of Optimal Theory Applied to Identity Development
Phases
Description
Phase 0: Absence of Conscious Awareness
Generally associated with infancy, people have a lack of awareness of self or surroundings.
Phase 1: Individuation
An egocentric phase where:
1. Individuals rarely identify or value particular parts of their self.
2. Family values influence personal identity.
3. Individuals may be unaware of how others devalue them.
4. Societal reinforcement of certain views might preclude movement to higher phases.
Phase 2: Dissonance
Individual begins to explore aspects of identity that may be devalued by others. Conflict emerges and feelings of anger, confusion, isolation, guilt, and insecurity may be associated with a devalued sense of self. Some people in this phase might incorporate societal values and views into their identity, while others might reject such attitudes to remove or distance themselves from negative self-identities.
Phase 3: Immersion
People identify with the devalued group. They learn about and appreciate the devalued aspects, and feel joy and pride with a sense of belonging. Negative feelings toward a dominant group might persist, and some people might withdraw from, ignore, or reject the norms, customs, and values of the dominant culture.
Phase 4: Internalization
Individuals achieve a positive feeling about self. They translate feelings of self-worth into acceptance of others who are nonthreatening to their sense of self, resulting in an increased sense of security.
Phase 5: Integration
An increased sense of security with oneself helps individuals move toward a greater sense of community and genuine acceptance of others. The person has clearer understanding of oppression and how all people have the potential to oppress others and, depending on their self-views, all people can feel oppressed by others.
Phase 6: Transformation
Redefinition of the self allows individuals to experience an altered worldview that now understands the interrelatedness and interdependence of all things. Greater spiritual awareness occurs rather than reliance on external explanations.
Source: Adapted from Speight et al. (1991), pp. 59–60.
Reflection of Self as a Cultural Being is the fourth stage in this summary of cultural identity models. In this phase of development, the person becomes more aware of heritage, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical challenges, or other traits that help to define her or his culture. According to Ivey and colleagues (2002), this stage includes an understanding that “the majority society is less relevant” and the individual’s “developmental task is the establishment of a definite cultural consciousness” (p. 321).
The fifth and final stage of this summary is Multiperspective Internalization. Here, the person has achieved the ability to view life and world issues through many lenses. People at this stage of development are comfortable with self, proud of their heritage and culture, and celebrate the similarities and differences they find across cultures and groups within society. They accept the beneficial aspects of the dominant culture in which they live, and still actively protest and combat all elements of degradation and discrimination that exist, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of oppression.
As a summary of many models of cultural identity, the above stages should be processed by counselors and other professional helpers with caution. Ivey and his colleagues (2002) noted that clients might often express more than one form of cultural issue.
The developmental perspectives presented throughout this section are samples of models created to describe stages or statuses that people experience while moving toward an identity of self. Combined, they are indicative of the complexity of cultural and racial identity. Of course, this complexity begins with the debate of whether or not racial identity is a salient process in the larger scope of personal identity. This debate seems to have led counselors and other helping professionals to distinguish between racial identity as associated with biological/physical traits and racial identity as an outcome of social construction. Assuming that scientific discovery continues to debunk a biological distinction among human “races,” we will be able to operate from a more confident position that racial identity is an important socially based element of self-identification. As such, racial identity develops through an individual’s perceptual framework—experiencing, observing, learning, assessing, and drawing conclusions about countless factors that influence a person’s decision about the self within the context of socially constructed meanings about race and racial groups. Exercise 4.2 offers an opportunity for you to explore your cultural and/or racial identity using one or more of the models presented in this chapter.
Closely related to the processes that comprise racial and cultural identity is the development of an ethnic identity. Ethnic identity, sometimes mistakenly considered synonymous with racial identity, is the topic explored in the next section of this chapter.
Ethnic Identity
Derivation of the word ethnicity comes from the Greek word ethnos. The ancient Greeks used the word ethnos when referring to non-Greeks and others who shared physical and cultural traits. In time, European languages adopted forms of the word to denote racial associations (Scupin, 2003b).
Exercise 4.2
My Cultural/Racial Identity
1. Using one or more of the stage models above, determine what stage you are at in your personal development. What traits or characteristics have you identified about yourself that led to this conclusion?
2. Retrace earlier stages of your life. What views did you hold during early phases of development, and how did you come to alter these views and move to subsequent stage or stages?
3. As a future counselor, what biases and prejudices do you still have to address and confront to elevate your level of professional practice and multicultural competency?
In recent years, social scientists have used the terms ethnicity and ethnic group as indicators of people’s cultural identity and heritage, apart from racial characteristics. At the same time, ethnicity does not imply an absolute sameness of identification among all members of a group. Researchers have noted that subgroups within an ethnic group often have disparate perceptions. An example applied across cultural groups would be differences found between male and female samples within the same ethnic group.
On occasion, the two terms—racial identity and ethnicity—combine to convey a thought about human development that implies a link or close association between them. Nevertheless, while these terms are closely related and share common influences, racial identity and ethnic identity formation are distinctive processes. We have seen that racial identity is greatly influenced by the value and meaning a society assigns to specific physical characteristics. In contrast, an individual’s ethnic identity develops through countless personal, family, and social experiences.
As with racial identity, ethnic identity is a complex process. Some people are willing to give their lives fighting for ethnic beliefs including recognition and inclusion of their ethnic group. Other people seem oblivious and unconcerned about ethnic identity. Furthermore, society tends to classify people into ethnic groups, often without people knowing or agreeing with the identification (Scupin, 2003b). All of these aspects and dynamics are important to studying and understanding ethnicity and models of ethnic identification.
Ethnic Models
Scupin (2003b) summarized two major anthropological models of ethnic identity. The first, primordialist, comes from the work of Geertz (1973). Primordial refers to essential and fundamental connections that the group values and assigns historic meaning. In the primordialist model, several observations help us understand ethnic attachment and the dynamics that hold people to their identified groups. These observations include the following:
a. People base their ethnic attachments on deeply rooted family and social connections and bonds such as religious traditions.
b. Ethnic attachment persists because it is a fundamental aspect of personal identity.
c. Strong emotional sentiments involving visible symbols such as dress, language, and food mark a person’s ethnic attachment and identity.
d. Ethnic identity conveys strong personal meaning for the individual.
e. Individuals differ in how much attention they pay to primordial attachments.
An example of using the primordialist model to understand ethnic attachment might come from observing the Amish people and communities in the United States (Scupin, 2003b). Some of the visible ethnic attachments we might find are the similar dress of the Amish people, their use of a German dialect for language, a traditional way of life, and lack of modern conveniences and new technology in their day-to-day functions.
Another ethnic model is the circumstantialist perspective, which comes from a subjective definition of ethnic identity. This model offers a more complex process of groups revising boundaries and markers according to the circumstances the groups encounter. The circumstantialist model notes that ethnic markers often change when it is advantageous to the group (Scupin, 2003b). As such, ethnic groups are not always locked to particular markers as posited in the primordial model. Rather, they adapt to economic, political, and social circumstances in order to maintain an ethnic identity. For example, many European groups came to the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To adjust to the social climate of this adopted country, while retaining some of their cultural heritage, these people often embraced identities that merged the old and new. For example, Irish immigrants became Irish Americans.
Today, social scientists tend to draw from both models in attempting to understand the complex process of ethnic identity. Essential markers are important in the study of ethnicity, but it is also reasonable to measure circumstantial influences over time that have an impact on group development.
Ethnicity and Self-Concept Development
Several social conditions and types of personal experiences are evidence of the influences that affect ethnic identity. Migration, adoption, interracial marriage, religious conversion, and change in financial status are a few conditions that might influence a person’s ethnic choice. When people migrate from one place to another, they often acculturate to their new surroundings and subsequently adjust ethnic views. In the United States, we see this phenomenon played out daily as families, particularly children, from Asia, Europe, South America, and other parts of the world settle in the States and ultimately make decisions about who they are and to what ethnic group they belong (Roysircar, 2003). Similarly, adopted children of ethnically different parents will likely make adjustments in ethnic perceptions as they develop and mature. Such experiences illustrate the dynamics of ethnic identity. Indeed, it is a fluid and complex process rather than an unwavering stagnant one. Instead of portraying the self as a rigid and unchanging entity, ethnicity allows us to confirm the vibrant nature of self-concept. In today’s evolving global society, it is common to find people whose ethnic identity is continually adjusting and changing. Exercise 4.3 asks you to explore your own ethnic development.
When professional counselors and other helpers do not distinguish between racial and ethnic identity, mistaken assumptions might lead them to believe that because clients associate with a particular socially constructed race, they must therefore identify with specific ethnic groups. This assumption might be erroneous because, as noted above, numerous social conditions, personal experiences, and individual choices might lead clients to choose an ethnic identification quite different from the identity socially assigned to their supposed racial group. Inherent in gaining a clearer understanding of racial and ethnic identity is recognition that the terms used are imprecise at best. Indeed, we struggle to find a language that accurately depicts who we are.
Ethnic identity is the process of associating, connecting, and linking with a particular cultural group. The ethnicity of a group is the mixture and fusion of countless traits, beliefs, behaviors, languages, and traditions that distinguish it from other groups. This does not mean that all members of a particular ethnic group embrace the same beliefs, display the same characteristics, or behave in identical ways. Every ethnic group consists of individuals, who form subgroups within the larger culture, and these subgroups sometimes differ in the emphasis and importance they assign to various aspects of the group. Helms and Cook (1999) noted that loyalty and identification with a particular ethnic group by people who have immigrated to the United States relate to three factors:
Exercise 4.3
Developing Ethnicity
Instructions: In Column A, identify the ethnic group(s) to which you identified during particular periods of your life. In Column B, name significant events and experiences that influenced movement or changes in your ethnic identity. Share your exercise with a classmate and discuss.
Column A—Ethnic Groups
Column B—Significant Events That Influence Change
Early Childhood
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
Childhood
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
Adolescence
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
Young Adulthood
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
Adulthood
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
a. Family’s history of migration
b. Family and individual’s experiences of being separated from their ethnic group of origin and subsequent assimilation by other groups
c. The visibility, density, and connectedness of their group of origin in the locality where they live
Understanding how all three factors impact a person’s decision to identify with a particular ethnic group or to make adjustments in one’s ethnic identity is essential in coming to know and help that person. In the journey for an ethnic identity, everyone’s story is different, much the same way that each person’s self-concept is unique and special. More important, the journey for an ethnic identity often includes stressful encounters, alienation, persecution, and other situations that affect the developing self. Counselors and other professional helpers who appreciate these challenges are in better position to help clients from diverse ethnic backgrounds.
In the previous sections, we have considered several racial and ethnic identity models that may assist counselors and other professional helpers in working with diverse populations. Although informative, these models focus on specific social constructions of race and cultural influences related to ethnicity. Such attention on singular identity factors omits some of the other identity features that contribute to self-concept development. These aspects might include gender, spirituality, religion, geographic region, social class, and other factors that in combination lend themselves to the notion of multiple identities.
Multiple Identities
McEwen (2003) reported, “Multiple oppressions and multiple identities are beginning to be addressed in the psychological literature” (p. 223), and Weber (1998) suggested that examination of the relationships among various identity factors is overdue. Examination of multiple identities and their combined impact on self-concept development seems like a logical progression for professional helpers to make. This is the case made by Robinson (2005) in her text about converging social statuses with other identity factors. For example, to consider ethnic identity issues without examining gender differences disregards the unique contributions of feminine and masculine perspectives in the complex process of self-development. Similarly, viewing socioeconomic status in a vacuum ignores race, sex, and physical ability as oppressive issues and possible identity correlates worthy of study.
Reynolds and Pope (1991) proposed a Multidimensional Identity Model (MIM) with which they constructed two identity dimensions, each consisting of two choices. One dimension involves a person’s choice of whether to identify with a single aspect or multiple aspects of self-concept development. The other dimension indicates whether the person is passive or active in this selection process (McEwen, 2003). Table 4.3 depicts these two dimensions and the corresponding choices.
ABLE 4.3 Multidimensional Identity Model (MIM)
Single Factor
Multiple Factors
Passive
One aspect of self-identity (passive acceptance)
Active
One aspect of self-identity (purposeful identification)
Multiple factors of self identified in a segmented manner
Active
Combined factors of self identified in an interactive manner.
According to McEwen (2003), the MIM model does not reveal “how and under what conditions an individual’s pattern may change over time” (p. 224). However, a basic premise of the model parallels the fundamental ideas put forth is this text by suggesting that self-concept development “involves an interaction between what happens within a person and what takes place in his or her environment” (McEwen, 2003, p. 224). As such, MIM suggests active and passive stances that react to or accept external events in a complex process of self-concept development.
Another multiple identity model, presented by Jones and McEwen (2000), addresses multiple social identities within various contexts that surround the individual’s personal attributes, characteristics, and identity factors, which form the core, the center, of the person’s identity. According to McEwen (2003), the contextual variables, such as culture, social class, gender, and spirituality, rotate around the core in such a way as to illustrate their “relative salience to the individual and the degree of connectedness to the core at any one point in time” (p. 225). At the same time, these multiple rotations intersect with one another at various times, and these intersections indicate that a person’s “social identities must be understood collectively rather than singularly” (McEwen, 2003, p. 225). Figure 4.2 illustrates an adaptation of Jones and McEwen’s multiple dimensions of identity.
FIGURE 4.2 Multiple Dimensions of Identity
Source: Adapted from Jones & McEwen (2000).
In Figure 4.2, the core resembles “My Self” in the self-concept spiral illustrated earlier in Chapter 2 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2), and the multiple dimensions of context are similar to the “sub-selves” in those two diagrams. Another similarity between these two theoretical models is that the distance between the core (i.e., “My Self”) and the multiple dimensions of context (i.e., “sub-selves”) is indicative of the relative value particular dimensions have to the individual at any given period or point in time (McEwen, 2003; Purkey & Schmidt, 1996). In addition, both models advocate an understanding of self-concept development and identity development as a complex dynamic process that incorporates unique perspectives of individuals within the broad context of multiple social constructions and other essential contexts. This process, as noted in Chapter 2, is adaptable and flexible, yet the overall product (i.e., the emerging self-concept) is relatively stable over a lifetime.
In this chapter, we have explored several identity models that consider racial, cultural, ethnic, and multiple identities. Such models can help counselors and human service professionals to gain greater comprehension of how these factors might influence self-development of diverse populations. Equally if not more important to the process of counseling is an understanding of how different clients perceive and integrate these multiple concepts into their self-development. This integration of perceptions establishes a level of self-consciousness that every client uses in creating and maintaining a personal identity.
Self-Consciousness and Identity
We use the term self-consciousness here not in the common sense of being overly anxious about attention received from others, but rather being conscious of ones self regarding thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Self-consciousness gives the person an identity, a stance if you will, from which to behave. As noted in the second chapter, the behaviors people choose are typically consistent with the beliefs and perceptions that form their self-concept.
The process of developing self-consciousness (also referred to as self-awareness) begins early in life as children learn that they are physically separate beings. Later in the developmental process, children attain clearer definition of their self by learning to categorize themselves and other objects (color, size, gender, etc.). As seen throughout this chapter, social and cultural influences including language, traditions, and application of individualistic, collectivistic, independent, and interdependent views play a significant role in this process. Ultimately, however, the person’s integration of all these influences into a self-view establishes a self-identity. Self-concept theory suggests that the basic foundation for this identification process is set about the age of five (Hamachek, 1992), and as children grow, progress through school, learn about customs, and experience life within society, they begin to internalize these observations and this learning into an increasingly complex view of themselves and their surroundings.
Helms and Cook (1999) presented a table of descriptions to illustrate how people might express views of themselves across individualistic and collectivistic perspectives. They cautioned that although the table suggests two mutually exclusive cultural forms, “in fact, it is possible for a person to be collectivistic or individualistic with respect to some of the dimensions and the opposite with respect to the others” (Helms & Cook, 1999, p. 104). Their descriptions suggest that counselors and other professional helpers can assess self-consciousness by listening to how clients describe their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. For example, clients with individualistic leanings might tend to use descriptions beginning with “I” statements, such as “I am outgoing.” In contrast, clients with collectivistic attitudes might refer more to group orientations, as in “My family thinks I am the most outgoing.”
Exercise 4.4
Exploring Self-Consciousness
1. Where do you see yourself on a continuum of individualistic and collectivistic views?
2. Are you interdependent or independent?
3. How strong are your family ties?
4. What have been the most significant influences in making major life decisions (e.g., educational plans, career choices, marriage, etc.)?
5. What beliefs do you hold about expressing emotions, negative or positive?
6. What are the most important aspects that define who you are?
These examples illustrate how social and cultural aspects interact with a person’s unique processing and filtering of life experiences to form an identity. The better that people understand this process and the influences they have integrated into their development, the higher their level of self-consciousness. Exercise 4.4 offers you an opportunity to explore your level of self-consciousness.
Counseling Inferences
As noted earlier, when using proposed models in the helping process, counselors and other professionals avoid labeling or categorizing clients simply because they appear to belong to a particular racial or ethnic group. More appropriate interventions using these models ask clients if they can relate to the language and significance of particular stages of development and what meaning these factors might have for their present concerns or problems. The key is to learn from clients rather than to use one’s own perceptions in forming misguided or mistaken conclusions. This danger was illustrated in an ethnobiography written by a former graduate student. Narrative 3.1 summarizes his story.
NARRATIVE 3.1 • The Story of Timothy
Born in a southeastern state in 1972, the oldest of three children, Timothy reported, “I have red hair, brown eyes, and happen to be Caucasian. The general belief is that I am from Irish decent, but to my parents’ knowledge our family name is Dutch-German.” The family was “lower-middle class” and lived mostly in apartments and duplexes while Timothy, his brother, and sister were growing up.
In primary school, Timothy became “best friends” with a Black boy, and although they went to different elementary schools for a few years, the two “reunited in junior high school and started hanging out again.” This friend taught Timothy “a lot about defending myself and speaking up for the things I believed in most. I adopted many of his beliefs.” Timothy played on the basketball team in school and gained respect for his athletic abilities on the court. “The only downfall to this newfound glory was the negative attention received from my White friends. They did not approve of my association with Black kids, and referred to me as ‘White Knight’ and ‘Wigger.’”
Growing up in a multicultural neighborhood with Black, Asian, Latino, Greek and Euro-American ancestries living together, Timothy felt “Blessed to experience so much diversity. It was always entertaining when I stayed the night at my friends’ houses due to the differences in our cultures.” He credits his parents for instilling positive values. “The values, manners, and respect that my parents have instilled in me have carried on throughout adulthood. In 1992, I accepted Christ into my life and have tried to live my life according to His word ever since. I am proud to be a Christian and consider it to be a great success in my life.”
Timothy’s experiences with diversity and his embracement of values and beliefs that cross cultural boundaries have posed personal challenges. “I am a constant outcast because of the things I am attracted to in life. No matter the crowd I am in, I seem to be different.” He explained, “My favorite music is hip-hop, a predominantly Black music and culture. Music plays a huge part in my life because it makes me feel better when I’m down, happier when I am unhappy, and safe when I feel exposed. Most people tend to judge me simply by the music and culture I live by.” As a White, educated adult, Timothy reported that this “is frustrating, but I feel a certain comfort in being different, so it balances out. I guess I have strived to be different my entire life and it appears to bother other people.”
