Institutional Racism in focus: New Zealand psychology.

In the lecture on orientalism, we were discussing the idea of ‘the other’ from a psychological and/or philosophical perspective. As a double major in psych and screen production, I thought I might take the opportunity to expand on this, and also to examine how cultural theories of race compare to psycho-social ones.

Psychology itself is a field that suffers from institutional racism, as it is deeply rooted in European (white) perspectives. Today, the American Psychological Association imposes restrictions on what constitutes valid psychological theory and research, and how such research is conducted (APA formatting). The influence of American psychology extends to New Zealand, with much of our educational literature and practices based on the research of these ‘classic’ academics. The whitewashing of psychology clearly has a local impact, as only 16% of registered psychologists in New Zealand identify as non-European (Ministry of health, 2009). In 2014 there were 123 undergraduate psychology courses offered in New Zealand, yet only 7 of these had the words culture, ethnicity, diversity or community in titles- suggesting that the discourse of race in psychology is still not a priority.

There is, however, some resistance to this. A developing field referred to as Indigenous Psychology, examines how psychological knowledge is produced by, and in relation to, those marginalized by current policies- i.e. the victims of institutional racism. These scholars propose two approaches to psychology. Emic involves using local insights and culturally specific knowledge to develop an academic discipline, whereas etic refers to the practice of applying and adapting existing methods from another (usually Western) cultures for use in more specific local contexts. Ideally, psychology should be a dialogue between the two- a discourse of both well-established Europeans theories and local insights. Sadly current scholarship, teachings and clinical applications of psychology tend to rely on the etic approach leading to racialised outcomes. This is detrimental to all citizens, but especially indigenous or non-european peoples, who uphold different cosmologies, values and (colonial) histories.

As a result of this, indigenous peoples have different ways of viewing the self, for example, Maori people interpret some mental illness as makutu or curses (Lyndon, 1993).  Different interpretations of the self subsequently lead to different definitions of ‘the other’, an important topic in this course. Fanon related the concept of the ‘other’ to the initial contact between black and white peoples through colonialism. However, Fanon used psychoanalytic theory to do so, a school of psychology dominated by Freud and Erikson, both white men who gave very limited thought to cultural differences. Jean-Paul Sartre focuses on awareness of self through difference, something that is slightly more relevant to indigenous or coloured peoples, but still feels highly individualistic. The truth is that non-European perspectives tend to view the self as interconnected- not a lone consciousness but rather intricately linked to the others in their community. There are many different theories in regards to this (see dialogical self; cobweb self; Te Wheke; Te Whare Tapa Wha) but I think one of the most interesting in regards to issues of race is the looking glass self. This theory, developed by Cooley, stipulates that our perception of ourselves is in fact the sum of how we believe others in our primary reference group (friends, family etc) perceive us. This, I believe, is a better explanation of how black people internalize racial oppression- compared to the Lacanian ‘mirror theory’.

 Another interesting intersection between psychology and this course is the topic of epistemological violence. Racial differences in scientific research are often reported, however the presentation of this data, i.e. the interpretation, can be a form of violence. Interpretations can be prejudiced, a more overt type of racism, but they can also be simply careless. The scientific community has a strong responsibility to interpret and explain their findings carefully and clearly, as they have symbolic power in society and what they say is taken to be true by the scientifically-illiterate public. This can be a very clear example of when an institution is racist not in intent by outcomes, for example when poorly explained racial differences in intelligence research lead to the completely unjustified conclusion that black people were ‘by nature’ less intelligent than whites.

Sources:

Hodgetts, D., Drew, N., Sonn, C, Stolte, O., Nikora, N., & Curtis, C. (2010). Social psychology and everyday life (Chapter 5: Indigenous Psychologies & the social psychology of everyday life). Basingstoke: Palgrave/MacMillian (Selection).

Teo, T. (2011). Empirical race psychology and the hermeneutics of epistemological violence. Human Studies, 34(3), 237-255