By Clinton E. Sims, Clinical Psychologist

This commentary is written to spark self-assessment within the reader while also attempting to create a shift from thinking about race to thinking about culture. It is my belief that when someone holds discussion about another’s “race,” they are maximizing the differences in skin color and dialect, while minimizing the holistic dynamics associated with culture. It seems easy to identify from our perspective, but difficult to see from another’s.

A Psychological Perspective

In September 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the American Psychological Association in San Francisco on the topic “Is Racism a Social or Mental Ill?” Here we are 40 years later, and although some of our race relations are better, some aspects are still the same, just presented differently. Nonetheless, we must focus on our individual experiences in order to blend cultures. A focus on culture has more value than a focus on race.

When you acknowledge another’s culture, or more specifically ethnicity, you then can consider all of the dynamics of that ethnicity, such as its family dynamics, immigration history, and the like. Of course, there is no template that fits all within a culture, but I have discovered, via research and personal experience, that every culture has tendencies that can be utilized as initial points of reference. While everyone finds themselves in situations where they are struck by how people of different cultures handle particular situations, the primary question for this article is: Do you understand someone else from his or her perspective, or from your perspective?

The emic approach of cultural assessment is to study, or view, another culture from the inside and to try to see it as its own members do. The etic approach is to study another’s culture from the outside, based on your values and relevance. The lack of blending in our society is due to an unwillingness or inability to “walk in another’s shoes.” This may seem impossible, but our melting pot of a society offers numerous opportunities to better understand one another. It is important for people to actually listen to one another, not just wait their turn to speak. Therefore, if we start from that perspective, we can learn what is truly important to each other.

Let’s apply this to the workplace. Do you work on projects with people from other cultures? If you haven’t already formed an impression on how they may or may not perform, empower them to be a proactive member of the team and allow them the freedom to think differently. This can assist you in gaining an understanding of how they process information.

To really get to know someone, you should “break bread” with them. In that regard, invite a friend from another culture to dinner and have them bring a photo album of the extended family (i.e., grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) and learn about their family values. One common ground could be religion, as I believe we become friendlier to each other when we focus on our similarities and not our differences.

America does appear to have progressed as a melting pot when it comes to our children. Racism is a trait that is taught and flourishes in cultural isolation. However, because of upwardly mobile minorities of all ethnicities, it is difficult for the majority culture to move away from those they perceive to be “others.” This has resulted in their children’s exposure to diversity. It is truly a joy to see children from a multitude of ethnic origins, toddler-hood through adolescence, socializing at parties, sleepovers, athletic events and the like. It is my hope that our future as a melting-pot society is consistent with what our children are modeling.

Anesthetized to Injustice

I will introduce some clinically accepted cultural “generalities.” Psychologist Charles R. Ridley has defined a “healthy cultural paranoia” as a normal response of African-Americans and other ethnic minorities to oppression and racism, which includes distrust, suspicion of Caucasians, and a need to be cautious around them. Hispanic families are perceived as predominantly patriarchal, with rigid sex roles and family roles. Extended family, including long-term friends that are viewed as family, is very important. Native Americans tend to function from a traditional respect of elders and historical legends.

Asian-Americans tend to define their social roles by family, age and sex, and they tend to be patriarchal, traditional, and respectful of elders. Psychologist and author J.E. Helms identifies white racial identity as a continuum beginning with limited contact with people of color and potentially ending with an internalized nonracist white identity, based on a realistic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of white culture and a desire to value and seek out cross-racial interactions.

The effects of institutional injustice, or racism, desensitizes the masses and unconsciously divides the populace by focusing on differences. Society appears to be inebriated to the institutional dysfunctions around us, and this “drunkenness” has been apparent for decades.

In Dr. King’s address to the APA in 1967, he referred to a need for individual “creative maladjustment” as a way to cope with the institutional systems of that era. Recently, there was a political debate facilitated by a black community leader. Three of the primary presidential candidates did not attend. Could this be perceived as cultural insensitivity or racism? Should these candidates be taken to task or held accountable? Does this unconsciously divide?

What about the Jena 6, the group of six black teenagers charged with the beating of a white teenager at Jena High School in Jena, La., in December 2006. The media has saturated the airwaves with the dysfunctions in Hollywood, but only introduced the nation to the Jena 6 when a protest occurred.

Does this keep the majority asleep? Also, it begs the question as to why the supposed democratic liberation of Iraq takes precedence over the salvation of New Orleans – which is primarily a city of minorities – without a cross-cultural united outcry. As Dr. King stated, a “cosmic discontent” is necessary, as “the white majority, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change” needs to be held more accountable for the ills of our society, and to assist in cultural blending.

The individual is the most important component in the process of change. Although mass marches and protests are key parts of the process, I believe they have been given too much emphasis in terms of permanent change. For a culture to experience its own freedoms, it should start on the individual level. I will refer to the individual level as the micro level, and the collective process, such as protests, as the macro level. The macro process is reactionary, responding to perceived injustices. It focuses on the “theys” and “shoulds” of behavior. It allows individuals involved in the protests to leave outcomes to “others,” similar to seeing someone in need of assistance on the highway but passing them by because others may stop and help. The perpetrators, or establishments, that inflict the injustices prepare themselves for these protests just as a parent would accept the protests of their angry children: Let them vent and get it over with, and we’ll continue with what we want to do. On this level, real long-term change is difficult.

However, on the micro level, each individual is accountable for his personal growth, behavior and potential of influence. This is a long-range plan, but with it comes genuine personal and collective power. American history offers many examples of cultures who were once considered the underclass, but through educational and financial gains on the micro level, they have positioned and empowered themselves to become players on the macro level of our society. If we adopt this strategy, it can take us from being perceived as victims to being more in control of our destinies.

A collection of people without power still equals zero power. Being pro-active supercedes reacting, particularly as it relates to injustice, and I believe that being proactive begins by looking at our position as individuals.

Finally, it is my hope that this commentary engenders water-cooler discussion about what it is like to be you in this society, while accepting that our similarities can be the bridge to a more unified America. More importantly, our differences should be accepted and not utilized as tools to divide. Disagree without being disagreeable. You could become an integral part of the system.
To view the entire speech given by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King on race to the American Psychological Association in 1967 please click this link

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan99/king.html