Contributions to inclusive and impactful development and psychopathology science: interrogating ecology-linked vulnerability and resilience opportunities

Abstract

Since its launch in a 1984 Special Issue of Child Development, significant contributions and insights have followed that have expanded our understanding of psychopathology and normal human growth and development. Despite these efforts, there are persistent and under-analyzed skewed patterns of vulnerability across and within groups. The persistence of a motivated forgetfulness to acknowledge citizens’ uneven access to resources and supports, or as stated elsewhere, “inequality presence denial,” is, at minimum, a policy, social and health practice problem. This article will examine some of these issues from the standpoint of a universal human vulnerability perspective. It also investigates sources of resistance to acknowledging and responding to the scholarship production problem of uneven representations of basic human development research versus psychopathology preoccupations by race. Collectively, findings suggest interesting “patchwork” patterns of particular cultural repertoires as ordinary social and scholarly traditions.

Acknowledging its noteworthiness, Dante Cicchetti formally launched developmental psychopathology in a Special Issue of the 1984 volume of the journal, Child Development (Cicchetti, 1984). The opening statement to the special issue included the cogent reflection “…the great systematizers in psychology more generally, and in developmental psychology in particular, we see that nearly all of them have observed, and have taken as a basic working principle, that we can learn more about the normal functioning of an organism by studying its pathology, and, likewise, more about its pathology by studying its normal condition.” (p.1) Progress during the subsequent 40 years of scientific contributions to developmental psychopathology represents numerous significant gains and insights about psychopathology and normal growth and development. At the same time – and whether acknowledged or not – there are persistent and under-analyzed skewed patterns suggesting vulnerability character across and within groups. Spencer’s theoretical contributions define vulnerability as a state of balance or imbalance between risks vs. level of accessible assets (Spencer, 2006, 2008). Without question, development and psychopathology theorizing and findings provide resources as policies and practices intended for lowering human vulnerability. However, important to state although not always acknowledged, no one escapes a vulnerability status. There is an unavoidable possession of both risks and protective factors since both are context linked. As interrogated for an educated and generally economically secure society (i.e., although generally considered a young nation) – when compared across the globe – the patterned fact of high vulnerability for some societal members is troubling in its persistence (Spencer 2006, 2008). As well, the persistence of “inequality presence denial” is, at minimum, a policy, social and health practice problem (Nichols Lodato et al., 2021; Spencer, 2021). The label suggests a motivated forgetfulness to acknowledge the fact of citizens’ uneven access to resources and supports (Spencer et al., 2019; Nichols Lodato et al., 2021; Spencer, 2021). As an insulting pretense, “inequality presence denial” serves as an additional source of risk and challenge and matters for all humans sharing space. For highly vulnerable individuals, it precipitates greater stress, thus a consistent need for reactive coping, which can be either positively or negatively adaptive in character. At the same time for low vulnerability individuals and communities, it communicates faulty, narcissistic, self-serving, hegemonic ego-beliefs. Ignoring the fact of shared human vulnerability and, thus, mutuality of needs and a required sensitivity to same often obfuscates the problem of the invisibility of power (Mandviwala et al., 2022). At minimum, from a socio-emotional needs and character virtue perspective, the dilemma suggests a particular self-limiting and narcissism positionality (Spencer, 2024). Under-interrogated given the penchant for “inequality presence denial” cultural traditions (Spencer et al., 2019; Nichols Lodato et al, 2021; Spencer 2021), globally impactful trauma situations such as COVID-19 are left to demonstrate the fact. As consequent education differential outcomes as well as particularly patterned mortality and morbidity rates by race and class, a trauma’s impact by level of vulnerability matters; low vulnerability due to uneven power distributions across ecologies continue to make a difference for the democratic collective. An obvious lack of nuance in understanding the ecology associated complexity is manifested politically; accordingly and as observed globally, there are demonstrated critical consequences for those members of the collective who value democracy. To state it differently in regards to the demonstrated shared experience and trauma consequences of COVID-19, vulnerability is shared by all and status level differences matter tremendously. Variously resourced communities have access to wide-ranging levels of protective factors and supports given varied histories of risk exposure and reactive coping requirements. Understanding this for all is an important human development scholarly resource; as suggested by the referenced systematizers, there are implications for understanding the varied character of pathology, as well.

Introduction

The perspective emphasized is that practices and policies intended for the resilience and thriving of all unavoidably fail if both development and pathology are not recursively interrogated for everyone. Under-acknowledged diverse levels and character of vulnerability statuses serve to increase the high-risk status and dangerous ecology for all. As “inequality presence denial” (Spencer et al., 2019; Nichols Lodato et al, 2021; Spencer, 2021), the persistent effort to mask power differentials, as suggested, does not bode well for the democratic collective and undermines practices and policies important for everyone’s well-being particularly during periods of shared trauma. Emphasizing particular constructs, contexts and intersubjective experiences, scholarly outputs resulting from decades of hypothesis testing, investigating of research questions, and theorizing – collectively – provides critical evidence and, as well, under-acknowledged shared vulnerability status. Jointly, findings indicate interesting and concerning “patchwork” patterns of particular cultural repertoires as ordinary social and scholarly traditions (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). The latter are particularly evident when it comes to individuals and communities representing varied social and cultural traditions and varieties of vulnerability statuses frequently associated with power differentials. More specifically and discussed elsewhere (Spencer, 2006, 2008, 2022; Spencer & Spencer, 2014), normal human development processes and developmental tasks completion successes are general expectations associated with White individuals’ experiences in America. Counter to “normal development” status occupancy expectation for people of color, critical to acknowledge is that pathology continues to be the expectation and focus for Brown and Black individuals. Accordingly, the reactions to development and psychopathology continues to suggest very different meanings and quite different reactions in regard to the lives of Black and Brown as well as White children. Accordingly, significant scholarly requirements – per needed balanced insights for policy and constructive practices – persist.

The referenced perspective of the field’s systematizers concerning the bidirectional links between development and pathology remains prescient. But critical, as well, is appreciating that developmental science scholars maintain a focus on White children’s human development processes and linked contextual successes that are viewed as “the accepted norm” for health, learning and well-being. However, in a national and global ecology of increasing ethnic and racial diversity, little attention is paid to particular hegemony-maintaining practices that are counter to the nation’s democratic collective survival. Given the violent impacts on others and observable as attitudes, beliefs and preferences observed early on, troubling but under-investigated from a pathology perspective are some non-minoritized members’ pathology-appearing attachment to particular traditions (Spencer & Dowd, 2024). As examples, referenced are cultural practices closely linked with stereotypic and problematic 1) interactions with unlike others, 2) structured conditions of tenacious uneven distribution and access to wealth, opportunity and power, and 3) ongoing under-acknowledged persistence in regards hegemony beliefs (i.e., including a failure to see humanity in unlike others). The situation continues in a world and nation representing increasing diversity. Thus, consistent with the referenced systematizers positionality that much is learned about pathology from a community’s normal representation, we examine possible explanations for the skewed scholarship by race (as exacerbated by socioeconomic status) and frame the analysis as fomenting opportunities and contributions for an inclusive and impactful development and psychopathology literature. That is, given the preoccupation of scholarly focus on problems and pathology for Black and Brown children, the current investigation is different in its dynamic ecological and phenomenological focus and review of perspectives helpful to interpreting White children development. As suggested by the noted systematizer viewpoint, for identifying and understanding particular social pathology and problems for Whites, the review and interrogation requires highlighting underlying reasons for the persistence and uneven focus on the assumed “normality” of Whites in a progressively racially diverse nation and the implications for collective well-being.

The egregious pattern to study Whites’ development and Blacks’ problems is noticeable given the nation’s progressive diversity orientation and myriad under-acknowledged strategies for identifying and understanding the character of protective factors needed in the design of supportive programing for resilience and thriving goals. Needed, as well – given evident persistent struggles in regards the latter – is accruing insights about the resistance to balanced approaches to development and psychopathology throughout the sciences and the impact of scholar leadership on the process (Spencer, 2024). The noted shortcomings communicate important implications impacting both the victims of problematic scholarly behavioral repertoires and, as well, those responsible for the patterned persistence (i.e., independent of their awareness of the role; Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). Recently, David Brooks provided a denunciation against the significant and overly populated administrative layer in all areas of life (i.e., myriad sites of concern include heavily populated diversity, equity and inclusion administrative oversight efforts) (e.g., universities, health systems, businesses) (Brooks, 2021). Brooks suggests their presence as an ever-increasingly load, which may be explained by the perception that systems require protecting themselves from lawsuits. He opined that heavy administrative load presence is accompanied “…with an implied view of human nature. People are weak, fragile, vulnerable and kind of stupid. They need administrators to run their lived.” Perhaps, au contraire to Brook’s conclusion, more likely, is an under-acknowledgement of a kind of “academic culture-creep.” Interspersed into everyday life, the cultural repertoire ignores the impact of historical events as sources of contemporarily operationalized and ecologically infused risks, bias, unnecessary challenges and “general unfairness;” that is, equity beliefs – together manifested behaviorally as “cultural repertoires” (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) and shortcomings of science – may, in effect, deny others access to promised fairness and opportunity. The internalized and automaticity of the internalized “cultural traditions” then precipitate fragility to acknowledge their very existence (i.e., referenced and experienced as “inequality presence denial” (Spencer et al., 2019; Nichols Lodato et al, 2021; Spencer, 2021, 2023). The situation may be especially relevant when hegemony associated identity processes are involved; thus, necessary inclusivity focused changes are resisted, which applies to everyday life and science production and intended as scaffolding of best policy and practices necessary for everyone’s resilience, well-being and thriving. As scholarship of Luthar (2003) and Luthar and Latendresse (2002) would suggest, beliefs of privilege spawn a kind of psychopathology and fragility and, as well, long-term exposure to weak policies and problematic practices that serve to increase risk and challenge (Spencer, 2023, 2024).

The needed scholarship referenced suggests an apparent reluctance to acknowledge a type of organized and persistent resistance; its organized appearance and character may be due to an issue of under-interrogated collective identity. To “heal itself” from the propensity to dehumanize and distort those different from “the self” requires admitting individual and collective vulnerability variation; referenced is not a vulnerability status as weakness but an acknowledgement, in fact, of shared humanity. Although hegemonic assumptions about self and group would suggest otherwise, however no one is free from risks and challenges; nor, as well, are individuals totally absent from possessing – and even if mainly phenomenologically inferred – protective factors and supports (Spencer, 2006, 2008). Suggested here is that vulnerability is synonymous with humanity (Spencer & Dowd, 2024). However, resistance to the synonymous perspective (i.e., the equivalent status of vulnerability and humanity) is represented in social and developmental theory focused scholarship in specific ways. In fact, the quote previously cited noted that knowledge accrued about normal functioning is best understood from studying its pathology; however, interpreting pathology is authentically aided by appreciating the presence of unavoidable vulnerability (i.e., assets and supports vs. risks and challenges as levels of balance or imbalance) (Spencer, 2006, 2008); important and helpful is the assumption that pathology is best understood by studying its normal condition. Equally insightful is the acknowledgement of the self-deception problem of “inequality presence denial” (Nichols Lodato et al., 2021). Overall, making clear that the situation of “normalcy” always includes acknowledging and taking into account the various levels and representations of unavoidable human ecology or context matters.

Perspectives assistive to inclusive and balanced science

In examining the requirements of scholarship both for the study of pathology and the normal human condition, albeit inclusive of all, a particular perspective is provided; as a core aspect of interrogation, the analysis requires an examination of ecological contributions. The strategy reflects the view that much of U.S. history as ecological context for science production is hierarchically arranged by demographics. Specifically, Whites too frequently are represented as the “norm” (i.e., without an assumption of shared human vulnerability status) and, simultaneously, people of color generally conceptualized as “the other” and assumed different from what is viewed as “normal.” Ongoing under-interrogated history as a critical ecological contributor influential for and scaffolding of social science and broad social theory suggests an uneven distribution of strengths and problems; those lacking power and generally “othered” are frequently represented in samples for studies and analyses with a problem and pathology focus generally absent strengths. Others enjoying under-acknowledged hegemony status are positioned as the healthy norm (Spencer, 2022). The statuses are particularly significant and consequential for “othered communities;” adaptive coping responses to unequal conditions are left unexplored which matter in the design of policies and effective practices. The current publication date represents the virtual 70^th anniversary of the Brown v. Board 1954 Decision. Its interrogation is helpful in explaining the parallel challenges to much of social research and social theory. In fact, the recent synthesis publication and analysis, Radical Brown: What we owe America’s Children (Spencer & Dowd, 2024), speculate that the nation’s under-interrogated chronosystem and, thus, virtually 400 year-old history is burdened with a specific dilemma. The common humanity status of racially different – i.e., non-White individuals – has never been fully accepted. The enslavement of Black people and its aftermath provided the dilemma of structured inequality as experienced both socially and economically. The linked practices contribute inhumane treatment and assumptions about Blacks and reinforce the acceptance of hegemony for Whites. The embraced ideology scaffolds the creation and practice of science and has implications for policies. Its codification broadly implemented impact everyday practice traditions from education, justice, social welfare practices, science production and economic opportunities to health policy. In sum, both prior to and continuing from development and psychopathology’s formal launch as a field in 1984 up to its current 50-year anniversary, both triumphs and troublesome behavioral repertoires persist (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). It would appear that the conduct of science – which obviously encircles a much wider historical period than the field’s launching – encounters significant challenges. The major one emphasized here and consistent with the systematizers’ admonishment previously noted is the requirement to investigate all children’s development and thriving as well as demonstrations of psychopathology.

Noted is a particular failure. There continues to be a patterned and incentivized resistance to a seamless and reliable study of both development and psychopathology across culturally unique groups. The observation is poignant given that human development ecologies embrace – without dissonance – the Constitution’s broadly used “We the People” language. Suggested is an apparent stable difficulty and lack of fit between the intersubjective experience of the producers of scholarship and the cultural traditions reflecting meaning making – including coping patterns – for those serving as “othered” participants of presumed “scholarly efforts.” Thus, as a joint consideration – both the socially constructed and shared ecological conditions of those serving as subjects of scientific efforts as well as parallel reflections about those responsible as producers of scholarship – deserves more scrutiny. A conceptual and theoretically framed strategy, which includes consideration of ecological context, shared vulnerability status, processes of intersubjectivity, and cultural traditions as responsive repertoires require exploration. The strategy noted emanates from multiple sources that include 1) appreciating the role of the specific problem of under-interrogated historical factors in the conduct of social science (i.e., specifically the chronosystem); 2) failing to acknowledge the fact of shared human vulnerability; 3) under-estimating the unavoidability and power of intersubjectivity for all humans; and 4) ignoring the salience of responsive cultural repertoires (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). Further, an awareness of whiteness intersecting with race trauma further assists as an explanatory vehicle for appreciating shared vulnerability status (Moffitt & Rogers (2022).

Interrogated are some of the assumptions underlying programs of development and psychopathology research as impactful contributors to – in particular – youth serving practices (i.e., particularly those salient for youth development and learning). Relative to power, scholarly efforts remain hierarchically organized as questions, research practices, data interpretations and conclusions which then frame awkward and ineffectual policies and practices (e.g., Brown v. Board Decision 1954) (Spencer & Dowd, 2024). The dilemma serves as a source of challenge to 21^st century authentic responsive strategies actually needed and particularly salient for individuals of nonWhite status. Stated differently for explaining chronosystem level ecological influence for scholarly efforts, the following is fairly obvious when spoken out loud: The impact of Blacks’ arrival and enslavement for a new nation’s economic benefits and global status begun at their forced arrival on the shores of Virginia in 1619 included the nation’s collective failure to appreciate their shared humanity (Spencer & Dowd, 2024). Instead, generally understood, was the group’s commodity status engineered for the benefit and service to White humanity. Its broad and ongoing contemporary manifestation is described and referenced as fBIP (i.e., functional Black inhumanity perspective) (Spencer & Dowd, 2024), and is intrusive and deeply integrated into all levels of the ecology. The pervasive tradition suggests an uninterrogated carryover of precolonial ideologies concerning color, difference, inhumanity belief status (Nichols Lodato et al., 2021) and, thus, accepted oppression. It includes the production of scholarship intending to represent everyone’s development and psychopathology, however and as suggested, too frequently fails the expectation. Needing recognition is the ongoing contemporary and unacknowledged resistance to inclusive human development and psychopathology knowledge production traditions. As a research status, it represents a history of, ultimately, shielding promised equitable practices behind “We the People” constitutional language. Its suggested source is the use of broad social theory and research assumptions as scaffolding and implementing devices with specific shortcomings. Too often hierarchically framed, the tendency is the reinforcement of hegemonic ideologies and uneven scholarship; that is, for example, research strategies disproportionately focus scholarship on normal development processes for those privileged; at the same time, ear-marked and focused are patterns of psychopathology for those representing high vulnerability status (i.e., significant developmental challenges with few identified strengths and insights about assets and productive reactive coping strategies particularly useful to policymakers and practitioners).

In addition, “cultural repertoires” (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003) as social traditions describing the knowledge production patterns noted remain under-acknowledged and uninterrogated; their presence and persistence are too frequently hidden behind “masked identities” which claim commitment to perspectives concerning diversity, equity and inclusion although outcomes are questionable. Such language is inconsistent with actual situations of highly vulnerable conditions when a shared disastrous situation is actually experienced. COVID-19’s aftermath serves as illustration of the extraordinary burdens encountered for some. It indicates the actual a priori situation of uneven distribution of protective factors and assets; further showcased were obvious inadequacies of “intended supports” for offsetting a catastrophic situation shared by all – but experienced differentially as mortality, morbidity and “learning loss” education statistics by race. It is not possible to build upon and design supports if normal human development adaptive coping processes for high vulnerability groups are unavailable from extant research and practice efforts.

Psychopathology is not unexpected for those “othered” given the situation of uneven levels of challenges confronted (and the availability of accessible assets). When considered by race, as described, the situation represents the under-acknowledged tradition and problem of fBIP and linked behavioral repertoires; unfortunately, more often than not, the disproportionate emphasis on psychopathology for some youth and communities fails to acknowledge behavioral traditions that guarantee inequality due to fBIP. Disappointing, as well, the preponderance of unevenness of human development and process-oriented scholarship ultimately reinforce behavioral coping stereotypes; precipitated are assumptions of inferiority without acknowledging the long-term problem of unequal conditions functional at the multiple levels of the ecology. Without question, the trauma of the public execution of George Floyd and three years of COVID-19 represent two vivid examples.

Suggested is that generous attention has been provided scholarship focused on processes of human development for Whites who are generally perceived as “the standard” for normal human development; of course, one exception to this was Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1970) comparison of U.S. and U.S.S. R. childrearing. However, generally under-analyzed and considered to be problems and psychopathology – particularly given their very early observations – are the attitudes and socio-emotional relevant beliefs, stable color and race preferences, and behavioral traditions linked to whiteness. Evident are myriad weaknesses for coping with cultural and race difference. The socialization relevant history alluded to suggests an appearance of organized resistance for an inclusive humanity perspective. The significance to acknowledge organized resistance in the scholarship production process is due to the appearance and problem of a “scholarly awkwardness” or uncomfortableness when it comes to research design and production; as suggested, the latter is especially salient given its role for practice and policy.

The position taken in the current analysis provides a particular perspective about the fact of shared human vulnerability. As described, our definition suggests the status as a balance or imbalance between risk factors versus the presence of assets or protective factors (Spencer, 2006, 2008). As tracked (i.e., as recognized by the World Health Organization), the cognitive, physical health and socio-emotional untoward effects of the global pandemic trauma on youth, families and communities of color are informative and decidedly uneven (World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2022). In addition, the academic recovery variation broadly reported as “learning loss” differences suggest a skewed pattern “in favor” of less vulnerable, broadly privileged White families; unfortunately, as presented, the reporting style provides additional stereotyping without an analysis of context variation including longstanding social, economic, and historical contributions. The uneven patterns by race suggest an imbalanced accumulation of knowledge about strengths and assets available to youth and communities needed for policies and practices to be leveraged for survival and “everyday thriving efforts.”

Overall, there appears to have been too little accrued knowledge about authentic challenges and their myriad representations in individuals’ everyday lives in need of recompence as policies and supported practices given the virtual and shared 3-year and formidable clout of COVID-19. At the same time, neither was there adequate accrued knowledge about the nature of risks for those disproportionally economically privileged or the role of resilience-associated-assets including coping traditions available for those burdened by a history of compounded-challenges already in place (e.g., the supportive character and challenges linked with extended family networks). Given the differential impact of the pandemic by race and class, there have been few other events representing a test of vulnerability status as broad and impactful as the trauma of COVID-19. Specifically requiring attention given the nation’s changes in diversity are the persistent race difference patterns; supportive programs for the design and implementation of successful positive coping models and programs of training and professional development should represent, as well, insights concerning health and resilience promotion. Unfortunately and as suggested, there continues to be a broader focus on the human processes of the majority White population and, at the same time, programs of research for people of color are narrowly focused on psychopathology as opposed to an understanding of development. Providing a foundation, the latter emphasis would aid the identification and unpacking of authentic contributors to wellness and thriving. As well, with the unprecedented rates of global immigration and broad reach of social media – contextual considerations as under-conceptualized influencers – such as the role of the multiple levels of ecologies of development remain discounted. A pattern continues to be that theoretical and empirical contributions have ignored the necessity to generate new knowledge that includes life course unfolding experiences had in ecologies of development as experienced by culturally different communities of children. Ecologies include, as well, the necessity to consider chronosystem or historical circumstances that determine the nature of “cause and effect” experiences that necessarily impact the character of development and experience of pathology. As noted, particularly developmental psychology has produced systematizers who agree as a principle that we learn more about normal functioning by studying pathology and, as well, more about pathology is appreciated by studying an individual’s normal situation. As well, determining causal origins is a critical part of the process (Cicchetti, 1984, p. 1-2). A focus on ecology and its contributions to scholarship needs to be a focus as well as challenges to broader approaches such as uninterrogated privilege that aid an understanding of vulnerability and resilience. These several themes are salient given their embeddedness in myriad contexts and are interpersonally expressed habits as “cultural repertoires” of everyday practice (Rogoff, 2003; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003).

Ecology: Contexts of opportunity and challenge

The ecology of human development concerns “the scientific study of the progressive and mutual relationships between an active, growing human being, and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person resides” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s contributions to the field of child development particularly relative to the various contexts of human development continue to be highly cited. However, even his perspectives about youth of color suggest a tradition of a priori pathologizing, once more – representing a fBIP; Urie Bronfenbrenner’s views concerning Black people and Black life as unfolding in context are strangely absent the complexity of analysis concerning ecology as represented by Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Or, at best, his treatment and later theorizing about the ecology is absent obvious inhumanity assumptions and interrogation; race is generally absent from his theorizing overall. On the one hand, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1967) Child Development article provides his synthesis of the psychological impact of integration and is titled, “The Psychological Costs of Quality and Equality in Education.” In it, he details all of the challenges precipitated by integrating “Negro children” into White Schools. The synthesis is especially interesting given that Bronfenbrenner, himself, was culturally different as a Russian immigrant. Thus, his 1967 article – referencing the 1954 Supreme Court decision – suggested the limited, inferiority and pathology assuming viewpoints about “Negro” children and particularly psychological factors and education (1967, p. 910). Ignoring the role of Black schools, families and churches as assets and sources of support in the lives of Black children (Franklin, 1985; Walker, 2000), his perspective was both narrow and stereotypic and overall hegemonic; in fact, it communicates the viewpoint of the “normal standard” in referencing White children and, thus, the implications of integration for White children (i.e., who are forced to interact with poor and inferior Blacks). More to the point and interrogated elsewhere, his use of “available data” at the time – among other sources – was notably Thomas Pettigrew’s, 1964 Profile of the Negro American. Bronfenbrenner cites a swath of studies that focused only on the historical fact of slavery and linked assumptions of inferiority; however, little note is given to the social institution created due to the dehumanization of a people. His analysis provides no insights about the pathological and dehumanizing institution of slavery itself and which emerged solely due to a profit motive. In fact, as reported by Bronfenbrenner (1967), the conditions promoting dehumanizing practices and organized inequality traditions for Blacks were virtually left from any interrogation as context character. His 1967 analysis notes that slavery, poverty and discrimination were responsible for the “Negro’s” child’s psychological and educational (untoward) status given assumed social and biological forces; however, unlike other writers referenced in his background and review texts that ordinarily clear Whites of any responsibility, thus, literally “bleaching untoward behavior from existence,” Urie Bronfenbrenner’s perspective is somewhat different. In fact, in his invective specifically, he notes: “From this perspective, it is the white man who is in the first instance primarily responsible for the inadequacies of the Negro and his way of life” (line 13 from the top). He continues with a vilification of Black children given the problematic literature referenced and notes, as well, the implications for White children which have generally remained absent from the development and psychopathology literature in regards White child development and the intergenerational perpetuation of dehumanizing beliefs concerning people of color. Bronfenbrenner (1967, page 918):

“What is more, in the integrated classroom, all of these characteristics of the Negro child have their impact on his white companions. To begin with, unless countermeasures are introduced, they provide an objective basis and emotional provocation for devaluating and rejecting the Negro, thus reactivitating and reinforcing the vicious circle of discrimination and defeat (Coles, 1963; Katz, 1964). But the white child is affected in other ways as well. Although the findings of the Coleman report (1966) indicate that middle-class white children do not suffer academically from attending the same schools as lower-class Negroes, the analysis was not carried out on a classroom basis, nor did it examine other aspects of behavior besides test performance. As has been demonstrated both in field (Polansky et al., 1954) and experimental (Bandura & Walters, 1963) studies, disintegrative and destructive behavior of peers is highly subject to contagion, against which contrasting values and practices of the family provide little immunity. In other words, the white child is likely to take on some of the aggressive and disruptive activities of his Negro classmates. Such developments are, of course, viewed with alarm by many white parents, who become understandably concerned about the consequences of integration for character development of their children. In short, in the integrated classroom, the problems of the Negro child become, at least in part, those of the white child as well. Thus, the costs of inequality to the Negro become the costs of equality to the white (pp. 918-919).

Bronfenbrenner’s (1967) solution to the challenge of equal education is informative given the implications for Blacks and Whites. He suggests the following in his summary remarks:

“In short, they demand heavy payment from the Haves in favor of the Have-nots, not just in money, but in the far harder coin of psychological security and status.…It is not the tragedy and irony of injustice that those who seek to right it gain as much if not more than those who have been wronged. Paradoxically, it is not the disadvantaged Negro alone who would benefit from equality in education, were we truly to achieve it. For the only way in which we can give the Negro child equality is to teach the white child how to treat him equally. This will not happen from mere physical association in the classroom. It will require the actual teaching and practice, in school and out, of the principles of human dignity to which our society is dedicated” (1967, p. 922).

In making reference to his research and ultimate volume which was a comparison between the United States to the U.S. S. R. (Bronfenbrenner, 1970), Urie Bronfenbrenner provides the following conclusion by noting:

“In American schools, training for action consistent with social responsibility and human dignity is at best an extra-curricular activity. The belated recognition of our educational obligations to the child of poverty, white or black, offers us a chance to redress this weakness and to make democratic education not only a principle but a process.” (Bronfenbrenner, 1967, p. 922, lines 1–6 from the bottom).

Given the group’s survival of the heinous condition of slavery, nevertheless and like others, there is little question except that Urie Bronfenbrenner’s perspectives concerning Black children viewed them only as to their risks and challenges without any acknowledgement of the strengths, protective factors and developed assets at the individual, family and community levels. His ecological systems theory provides significant opportunities at the various levels of the ecology for exploring options. It is noteworthy that he acknowledged the role of White families’ challenges – and relevant to all levels of the ecology – particularly given the institution of slavery and the consequences to all of inequality. Of course, and not surprising given the character of referenced “scholarship” available at the time, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s later analysis of contexts and ecological systems theory remains a viable perspective. Without question, “racial difference stereotyping” and inferences of Black inferiority were left intact as well as accepted beliefs of hegemony. However, in comparison – and very interesting – Bronfenbrenner’s democratic vs communist analysis of context and child development highlighted in Two Worlds of Childhood U.S. and U.S.S.R. (1970) are exceedingly rich, nuanced and informative re: the challenges and shortcomings of America’s childrearing traditions. In fact, they represent helpful insights as to why the continuing under-interrogated hegemony and long-term resistance to racial equality both as scholarly traditions and in everyday life.

Ecological perspectives and assumptions

As a known although not always acted upon research tradition, a child’s development proceeds by way of a process of bidirectional and reciprocal relationships between the developing individual and those within their immediate environment. This is an unavoidable aspect of social cognition as a developmental and life course process. Applications of this ecological perspective to various mesosystems has often focused on the interaction of microsystems in early childhood educational contexts (Day & Dotterer, 2018; Hampden-Thompson, & Galindo, 2017; Harney, 2007). There has also been a focus on mental health outcomes (Diab et al., 2018; Ziaei & Hammarström, 2021).

The individual person exists within five systems including: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and the chronosystem (Bronfrenbrenner, 1979). The microsystem represents the child’s immediate interactions with others and where relationships develop within the context of families and teachers as well as schools and peers. The mesosystem (or system of connected microsystems) refers to the relations between microsystems. The exosystem refers to the social structures where the individual doesn't interact directly but is still influenced given decisions made and the character of situations (i.e., family member’s workplaces, relationships). The macrosystem envelops the larger social and cultural structures and influences shaping a person’s development and can include laws, customs, ideologies, and economics. Finally, the chronosystem refers to the timing and aging of the person as well as the larger historical changes at work (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Vélez-Agosto et al., 2017). While relations between different settings can indirectly influence developing individuals, the interactions at the microsystem level can influence them directly. It is the individual’s social cognition – or inference making processes – functioning at the other levels that permit bidirectional exchange of information as meaning-making processes (see Spencer, 2006, 2008).

Bronfenbrenner revised his model over time to shift focus away from environmental systems in favor of looking at the interaction of systems. He increasingly aimed to incorporate the proximal processes and the role of biological influences (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Tudge & Rosa, 2013). He noted that “development takes place through the process of progressively more complex reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate external environment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 620). Sadownik (2023) notes that Bronfenbrenner places the child at the center of these interactions and forces in order to demonstrate that while the child is influenced by these contexts, they also possess agency and can act upon and influence the contexts as well (Bronfrenbrenner, 1979; Darling, 2007; Yngvesson & Garvis, 2021). They are not reduced to being merely a product of complex social forces and thus highlight the reciprocal and bidirectional nature of the ecological system. Central to this is also the role of linkages across the mesosystem which makes the theory one of collaboration where different interlocking microsystems can mediate the effects that exist at the exosystem and macrosystem levels (Bronfrenbrenner, 1979; Sadownik, 2023).

More recently, Navarro & Tudge (2022) proposed their “neo-ecological theory,” as a revised and expanded bioecological theory. Central to this revised version includes incorporating “Virtual microsystems” to account for 21st century technological developments including online activities/social media (Guy-Evans, 2023). The ubiquity and decentralized nature of these systems are different enough in how they operate that another level of context was deemed important. Additionally, the importance of macrosystemic influences is noted as these represent influences of culture and subcultural variation in the larger society and digital technology has enabled youth to actively shape and contribute to the broader culture (Guy-Evans, 2023; Navarro & Tudge, 2022). These two factors also have enormous implications for the proximal processes, as engines of development, as they now happen through complex interactions in these new microsystems. Their importance also speaks to residual coloniality beliefs that continue to impact equality and equity efforts particularly given diversity initiatives.

Decolonial approaches significant to psychological issues including unaddressed psychopathology

Coloniality is defined as ways of being, ideologies, and patterns of power that originate during colonial periods but remain following decolonization. Decoloniality refers to the political and epistemological movement that seeks to confront, delink, and dismantle the relations in the colonial matrix of power (Mignolo, 2011). Maldonado-Torres (2006) described decoloniality as “the dismantling of relations of power and conceptions of knowledge that foment the reproduction of racial, gender, and geo-political hierarchies that came into being or found new and more powerful forms of expression in the modern/colonial world” (p. 117). Decoloniality is distinct from postcolonial studies in so far as it developed in Latin America while postcolonial perspectives have tended to emanate from the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Decolonial approaches also extend their focus further back to the 15th and 16th centuries in contrast to Postcolonial’s concern with the 19th and 20th centuries (Bhambra, 2014).

The application of this perspective to the study of psychology is relatively recent with some suggesting that the field of mainstream psychology as practiced in the “WEIRD” (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and [supposedly] democratic) countries and that they are complicit in Coloniality. They claim that a decolonial approach to psychology would turn away from treating the individual as the central unit of analysis and instead incorporate their social, economic and political contexts. Although assumed to be neutral, the knowledge generation process – particularly when researching and interpreting racially distinct groups – leaves much for improvement.

Consistent with the work of Franz Fanon (1967), as his call to decolonize knowledge production, those adhering to a decolonial approach to psychology see needed change as strategies that might empower and emancipate those outside of the Euro-American-centric global order (Adams et al., 2015; Bhambra, 2014). Their criticisms of mainstream psychology focus on how its practitioners are insulated from the realities of violence in the daily lives of the majority outside their countries as well as the minority within their countries. These mainstream practices, the decolonialists argue, detach people from their contexts and assume levels of shared human experience that do not necessarily apply to those in the majority global south. These “epistemologies of ignorance” or methodologies of unknowing insulate psychologists in WEIRD countries from understanding the experiences of those who do not fit their assumed standards (Adams et al., 2015).

While this work is still fairly new some suggestions for a decolonial approach to psychology include challenging prevailing ideologies that animate in academic and scientific settings. This “denaturalizing” would instead privilege the voices of the marginalized and would reject any notion that science is apolitical (Adams et al., 2015). Other strategies would employ a culturally sensitive psychology to better understand the experiences of those who are not serviced by the mainstream psychological order. Also central to this perspective is the critique of neoliberal individualism and its role in conventional scientific and professional contexts. There remains a general theme of decolonizing institutions and practices through the reorientation away from individuals towards collective self-empowerment (Bulhan, 1985). This is also reflected in its larger perspective on relationality with greater attention paid toward sustainability rather than growth which defined the system of the global north (WEIRD).

One area of inquiry in the decolonial approaches to psychology is the principle of “Accompaniment” (Watkins, 2015). This approach to research shares similarities with culturally sensitive approaches to evaluation where the researcher maintains a position of humility with regard to the communities they are working with instead of assuming the role of an expert with solutions to their population’s “problems.” Emphasis is put on centering the narratives of the marginalized communities rather than engaging with traditional topics that dominate mainstream psychology.

Taken together, the decolonial approach to psychological sciences emphasizes the “denaturalizing” of hegemonic practices and ideologies they view as central to the mainstream practice of psychology. Direct engagement with marginalized communities and an engagement with everyday life are prominent approaches while aiming to decolonize and struggle against epistemic violence. Moving forward, approaches to articulating developmental processes and the nature of psychopathology re: origins and remedies, thus, should find decolonial perspectives of significant assistance particularly given the under-interrogated and resistant problem of privilege, which protects hegemony beliefs and science linked practices.

Problematic of privilege

Often referenced in practice communities, McIntosh (1989) characterizes white privilege as the “invisible package of unearned assets” that function as “special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.” In the United States, research has consistently shown that Black Americans are more likely to live in poverty (Creamer, 2020) and more likely to earn less than their White colleagues (McKinsey & Co. 2022). Additionally – with significant implications for trauma – they are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police relative to other groups (NYU 2020), more likely to be incarcerated (Pewewardy & Severson, 2003), and are more likely to attend schools that are under resourced (Dhaliwal et al., 2020). The literature on privilege is often closely linked to the concept of “whiteness” or the critical study of whiteness as an identity category (Bhopal, 2023; Roediger, 1991), as a form of oppression, as property (Harris,1993), or as assets (McIntosh, 1989).

Gallagher (2003) argues that colorblindness maintains white privilege by allowing whites to remain oblivious to their role in the socioeconomic hierarchy and “allows many whites to define themselves as politically progressive & racially tolerant as they proclaim their adherence to a belief system that does not see or judge individuals by the ‘color of their skin.” Hartmann et al. (2009) found that white Americans were less aware of privilege than individuals from racial minority groups and consistently adopt colorblind, individualist ideologies but also demonstrated awareness of the advantages of their race.

There is some scholarship on the subject of framing concepts such as privilege and whiteness and how different audiences respond. This work has often focused on white responses to these ideas. Powell et al. (2005) found that “representing inequality in terms of outgroup disadvantage allows privileged group members to avoid the negative psychological implications of inequality and supports prejudicial attitudes” (abstract). Without question, the tradition leaves invisible a focus on White psychopathology and maintenance of a “whiteness” as normal viewpoint.

Pinterits et al. (2009) developed the White Privilege Attitudes Scale (WPAS). The WPAS assesses the multidimensional nature of White privilege attitudes, reflecting affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Stewart et al. (2012) conducted two experiments examining the effects of heightened awareness of white privilege and “found that heightened WPA and higher efficacy (measured and manipulated) independently improved participants’ attitudes toward African Americans, but had no effect on their attitudes toward White Americans.”

The literature on privilege has often historically focused on gender and race. Black & Stone (2005) offer an expanded view of the concept that includes other categories including: sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, differing degrees of ableness, and religion. These issues are also examined by Liu et al. (2007) as themes in the field of counseling and its role as a multicultural competency. Bronfenbrenner’s (1970) perspective on White socialization given his comparison between the U.S. and the U.S.S. R. has important implications for understanding the limited character of the white racial socialization literature, resistance to a shared human vulnerability perspective, and reasons for the shortcomings of research efforts, which too frequently focus on White developmental processes and minority status outcomes focused assumptions of psychopathology.

White racial socialization

It is important to focus on how white socialization is approached, what is meant by it, and how it is conceptualized in the literature. Generally framed, racial socialization describes the mechanisms by which youth acquire concepts of race and racism. The field addressing racial dynamics in the United States has primarily focused on the racial socialization of youth of color, generally regarding White racial socialization as superfluous for White people, and therefore mostly absent in White families (Bartoli et al., 2016). Recently, research regarding the racial socialization practices of white parents has increased ¹ . However, the amount of literature regarding white racial socialization is still less comprehensive than research examining socialization practices within other ethnics groups (Strain, 2018). Prior research shows four common themes that emerge in regards, specifically, to cultural socialization in socialization strategies: preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, egalitarianism, and silence about race (Hughes et al., 2006). Silence about race aligns with colorblindness, which is a common strategy white parents use to teach their children about race (Hagerman, 2014, Hamm, 2001, Kelley, 2016). Hughes et al., reminds us that while not talking about race has been often overlooked as a form of socialization, a “failure to mention racial issues also communicates race-related values and perspectives to children” (757). Similarly, Robin DiAngelo acknowledges “white silence” as the tendency of white people to remain silent when given the opportunity to discuss race. DiAngelo suggests that the racial status quo in the United States is racist and that by not speaking up or participating in conversations about race, the status quo is reinforced (2018a). The author referenced and added some articles found in the media about the topic. Most of them referred to research by other authors. Recently noted has been a research focus on understanding how white racial socialization has changed following the murder of George Floyd.

Conceptualization in the literature

The conceptualization of white racial socialization suggests a few strategies. The first is referred to as progressive familial socialization and white partisans’ racial attitudes (Thompson, 2021). Scholars correlate the racial attitudes of White partisans with a number of explanatory variables, including ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice. Notwithstanding the importance of these variables, frequently neglected are other constructs that may also be relevant to understanding White racial attitudes.

A second category is White families and racial socialization (Strain, 2018). This method explores the manner in which parents transmit messages regarding race to their children. The author also addresses parents who hold color-conscious ideologies, examining the possibly unforeseen damage to communities of color that occur when these parents attempt to raise racially conscious children in a non-mutually beneficial way. A third is Training for colour-blindness as white racial socialization (Bartoli et al., 2016). The strategy makes use of a qualitative method to investigate the racial socialization practices of White parents of White children. Parents and teens were asked about their beliefs about race and how racial issues were addressed in the family. The results show that White youth received clear messages around color-blindness attitudes and behaviors, and that their parents were intentional in conveying such messages. The authors discuss the implications of the fact that racial socialization practices within White families are both pervasive and systematic. A fourth strategy summarizes the knowns about racial/ethnic socialization for White youth by providing a summary of what is known and future directions (Loyd and Gaither 2018). They acknowledge that teaching and talking about race and ethnicity with children and adults is especially important in racially diverse societies; the process has been coined Racial/ethnic socialization (RES). Concluded is that despite the importance of RES, still very little about how this process unfolds in the lives of White youth. Thus, from a social, cognitive, and developmental perspective, the authors summarize findings from empirical research and theory on RES for White youth across stages of development – early childhood through young adulthood. Since RES is linked with cross-group attitudes (e.g., less bias, prejudice, stereotyping) and behaviors (e.g., inclusion), highlighted are future directions for research with some discussion for existing findings for an increasingly diverse society. Obviously given the broadly disseminated reports of positive race socialization failure (Bunch, 2024), attention to White psychopathology begs innovative and focused efforts.

Hagerman (2014) provides important insights on gender specific parental effects on raising “antiracist” children. As suggested, over the prior few decades, the definition of racial socialization has referred to how parents prepare children of color to flourish within a society structured by White supremacy. Drawing on ethnographic interviews with eight white affluent fathers, Hagerman (2014) explored fathers’ participation in white racial socialization processes. Focusing on fathers self-identified as “progressive,” the relationship between fathers’ understandings of what it means to raise an “antiracist” child were highlighted. Multiple explicit and implicit lessons of racial socialization were obtained in these understandings and hegemonic whiteness. Findings illustrate how these fathers understand their role as a white father, how their attempts to raise antiracist children, in fact, both challenge and reinforce hegemonic whiteness, and what role race and class privilege play in this process.

Vittrup (2018) investigated White American mothers’ approaches to racial socialization and explored their categorization as colorblind or color conscious. The study investigated the extent to which White American mothers discuss race with their children, which topics they are willing to discuss, and why some choose not to discuss it. Data were gathered from 107 mothers of children aged 4 to 7 years. Most mothers indicated the topic was important to discuss, especially for the purpose of elimination of bias and discrimination. However, many reported having no or only vague discussions. Only 30% were categorized as having a color-conscious approach, whereas 70% indicated a colorblind or color mute approach. The latter seemed to presume their silence would lead children to not notice differences and thus remain unbiased. Many also indicated that they would only approach it if an issue came up or the child asked questions. Almost all mothers perceived their children to have no racial biases, but their diagnostic tools for discovering biases may be inadequate. The author provided implications of the findings.

Exploring a decade’s progress on precursors and outcomes of ethnic–racial socialization in the family, the pattern of findings distilled were interesting (Umaña-Taylor and Hill, 2020). In the current decade, the U.S. population reached historically high levels of ethnic–racial diversity and reelected the nation’s first Black–White biracial President. Simultaneously, scholars also documented significant ethnic–racial inequities in education, increased xenophobia, and a racial climate that revealed deep-seated ethnic–racial tensions. Given this backdrop and acknowledging the significant role that families play in youths' abilities to navigate their social contexts, the review focused on the literature on families' ethnic–racial socialization efforts with youth from the 2010 decade. Their review of 259 empirical articles revealed that there has been an exponential increase in research on family ethnic–racial socialization in this decade. Furthermore, although it is clear that family ethnic–racial socialization is a robust predictor of youths' adjustment, the associations between socialization and adjustment must be considered with attention to specific socialization strategies, the confluence of strategies used, and the unique contexts within which families' lives are embedded.

There has been progressive media coverage of the topic. Megan R. Underhill, an academic researcher, discusses how white parents teach their children about race and racism. She notes observations that black people cited race and racial discrimination as factors that shaped their life experiences and outcomes, while many white people downplayed the significance of race and racism. She notes: “White parents often refrain from speaking with their children about race, racism and racial inequality. If racial discussions do occur, they are characterized by a colorblind rhetoric. White parents adopt these practices because they believe it will help them raise a non-racist child. From a sociological perspective though, white parents' racial messages may do more harm than good” (Underhill, 2020). She claims that understanding how white parents teach their children about race is important because whites remain the numerical majority in the United States. She surveyed 52 white parents on a 2014-15 study, most of them viewed themselves and their children as race-less. When she asked parents if they spoke with their children about being White, all responded without fail an expression of shocked dismay, and then stated, “No. What is there to say?” White parents communicate very different messages about race than parents of color. Parents of color proactively speak with their children about their racial identity. They also proactively speak with their children about racism. Parents of color broach these conversations with their children as a protective measure, to prepare them for future acts of discrimination.

“Among the white parents I interviewed, the majority of whom were middle class, parents expressed a desire to raise non-racist white children. Most felt the best way to achieve that goal was to avoid speaking with their children about race, racism and racial inequality – past or present.”

Dell’Antonia (2012) discusses how many white parents who speak with their children about race adopt a colorblind rhetoric, telling their children that people may “look different” but that “everyone is the same.” They also emphasize the importance of treating “everyone the same.” While these kinds of statements appear laudatory because they advance a racially egalitarian message, many sociologists point to what these statements ignore – enduring systems of stratification that privilege whites and disadvantage people of color.

Megan Underhill explains racial discussions, or the lack thereof, are not the only way that affluent and middle-class white parents teach their children about race: “White parents also communicate important racial messages to their children nonverbally (Underhill, 2020). As sociologist Margaret Hagerman argues in her new book, “White Kids,” white parents’ decision about the best neighborhood to raise a family or enroll their children in school shapes the social context in which white children develop an understanding about members of their own racial group and members of outside racial groups.” The author finishes explaining that white parents have a powerful role to play in facilitating racial change. If racial change is to be achieved, it will require that all Americans recognize that they must be intentional parents when it comes to race.

It appears that Black, but not white, families talked more about race after the murder of George Floyd (Reynolds, 2021). The author suggests that conversations about race can be beneficial to children and that research has highlighted multiple positive outcomes for young people of all backgrounds (e.g., enhanced ability to accept different viewpoints and perspectives, increased levels of empathy, a better understanding of their own identity, and less racial bias). However, some parents are still unwilling to take the time to have such conversations.

The findings of Sullivan et al. (2021) indicate that readiness to have such conversations has a lot to do with the racial identity of parents themselves. The Stanford University team suggests that even in the context of the global conversation that followed the racially charged killing of George Floyd in May 2020, White parents were far less willing to have conversations about race than their Black peers. Study findings indicated: “Participants, who were either Black or White parents of children aged 0–18 living in the United States, were initially recruited in April 2020, six weeks before Floyd’s murder. First, participants indicated whether or not they have conversations with their children about race, racial inequality and racial identity, as well as how often those conversations were instigated. They were also asked to share a recent conversation they had had with their child, and rated how worried they were that their child might be a target of racial bias or might be racially biased towards others. Another set of parents also completed these measures two months later, in June 2020.”

Results included: “Overall, a higher proportion of Black parents discussed race, racial inequality and racial identity than White parents. After the murder of George Floyd Black parents became more likely to discuss inequality, but White parents did not. There were also striking differences when it came to conversations about identity: Black parents remained just as likely to discuss being Black with their children after the murder of Floyd – but White parents were actually less likely to discuss being White.” Additional findings:

• Black parents increased the frequency they spoke about them with their children after the murder. White parents maintained the same frequency as before.

• White parents were more likely to give their children colour-blind messages like “the colour of your skin doesn't matter.”

• Black parents had far more realistic conversations with their children, preparing them to experience racial bias, police targeting, and injustice.

• White parents were also more likely to share colour-blind sentiments after Floyd’s murder.

• Black parents were more worried that their children would not only be targets of racial bias but actually biased themselves. White parents had a low level of worry on both counts, and this remained low even after Floyd’s murder.

• Overall, Black parents were both more willing to engage in questions of race than White parents and more willing to explore issues of injustice after a particularly traumatic event. White parents were also more likely to engage in conversations about race not mattering: colour-blindness, while the author claims its unproductive as it reduces people’s willingness and ability to identify and engage with racial inequality

Another media author (Guskin, 2017), centers the article on analyzing a survey of Virginia voters where they found that most of voters -regardless of race – have had discussions about race at least once in recent years.

“Large majorities of white and black registered voters in Virginia said they’ve had frank conversations about equality or prejudice with people of other races, according to the Washington Post-Schar School poll. A 65 percent majority of white Virginia voters said they had frank conversations about issues related to racial equality or prejudice with an African American person in the past few years. A similar 67 percent of black Virginia voters said they had such conversations with someone not African American.”

As another media report, Robin DiAngelo (2018b) explains how as a white person, he was raised to be racially illiterate. When race came up in school (rare occasion) they typically studied “them,” not “us.” Taking the Jackie Robinson story (celebrated as the first African-American to break the so-called color line and play in Major League Baseball), he explains the narratives of racial exceptionality and how it elevates individuals but implicitly positions African Americans overall as inferior. “Narratives of racial exceptionality obscure the reality of ongoing institutional white control reinforcing individualism and the illusion of meritocracy. The author says “people of color have been providing us with the feedback we need for centuries, but our biases have prevented us from granting legitimacy to their voices. Those same biases make us more receptive to the information when we hear it from other white people. This makes it all the more critical that white people use our positions to break with white solidarity and hold one another accountable.” He says all of us have a part to play, but the ultimate responsibility for addressing racism lies with those who control the institutions – white people. “As long as whiteness remains unnamed it will continue to reproduce racial inequality. To de-center whiteness it must be centered differently in ways that expose its strategies so that we can challenge them.”

Ferguson et al. (2022) notes that parents and other adults are silent about race; it communicates apathy or approval of racism, even if that’s not what adults intend. The author explains his recent study where they surveyed about 400 white mothers in the Minneapolis metro area in the month following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020. They found that a majority of respondents were racially silent, making no mention of Floyd’s murder or its impact on their home or community in response to an open-ended question about current events affecting their family. The ones who did mention Floyd’s murder or the unrest, most mentioned race in a vague manner but did not point out longstanding racial injustice in U.S. policing. “Only 17% of white parents in the study used color-conscious or power-conscious language or parenting strategies, meaning that only they directly acknowledged race, racism or Black Lives Matter in discussions with their children.”

Explaining the experience of Kara Fikrig, a white 28-year-old working on her doctorate in entomology at Cornell University after George Floyd’s murder by police, another report describes a small town’s big struggle over critical race theory (Keating, 2021). Kara began to reflect on the ways her small hometown of Guildford, Connecticut, hadn't adequately prepared her for difficult conversations about race and racism.

“As an undergraduate at Yale, Fikrig said, she “wasn't immediately exposed to different ideas in terms of diversity and a more complete history of the United States.” But her best friend at undergrad was Black, and in their discussions about news events and campus goings-on, Fikrig said, “It came to light that I had a lot of misunderstandings about the current status of racism in the US.” What followed was “a lot of introspection, and a lot of reading,” which further revealed to her the many holes she’d had in her high school education. Fikrig decided that one tangible impact she could have on her own community would be “bringing to light the fact that those holes do, in fact, exist.”

Important about the whiteness socialization literature and media reports of same is that there is the potential both for traumatic experiences both in the case of perpetrators and the victims of racial inequality and violence given the under-preparedness of Whites and the potential “adultification” (re: anxiety) of Black youth. Without question, the implications of White socialization processes and actual practices are woefully inadequate in the case of white race socialization efforts. Once more, suggested is the absence and shortcomings of white psychopathology contributions to the literature, which is somewhat startling.

Trauma

The study of trauma reveals several obstacles to incorporating it into an acknowledged clinical category. Jernigan & Daniel (2014) point out that definitions of trauma are limited to physical incidents as defined by the DSM-IV. Additional challenges include a lack of conceptualization of racial trauma, fears of diluting the meaning of “legitimate” (i.e. physical trauma). They note that additional work is needed to better highlight racial incidents as trauma as opposed to mere stressors (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005). Some have sought to broaden the definition of trauma as a “deeper psychological harm arising from a wide array of events and experiences that interact with development over time and exist in a cultural context” (Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010, p. 352).

Intergenerational transmission of trauma consists of the effect of parental trauma adversely affecting their descendants (immediate and future generations). This had led to increased traumatic symptoms and the increased vulnerability to later psychopathology (Brave Heart, 2011; Sirikantraporn & Green, 2016). This model draws from our understanding of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Sotero, 2006). This model draws on three frameworks 1) psychosocial theory where traumatic stressors can increase susceptibility to disease and have other negative influences on human physiology. 2) Political-economic theory looks at the impact of political, economic, and structural inequalities on the individual. and 3) Social-ecological systems theory which examines dynamics and interdependences between the past and present life course development factors that influence susceptibility to disease (Danzer et al., 2016).

Much of the work on intergenerational trauma has focused on Native Americans though more recent work has incorporated the experiences of African Americans and other historically marginalized populations (Fast & Collin-Vézina, 2010; Brave Heart, Maria Yellow Horse, 2017). African Americans are more likely to experience violent trauma than any other minority group and are also disproportionally likely to manifest symptoms of trauma including a great likelihood of suicide (Graves et al, 2010). Researchers have demonstrated the association between Racial Socialization (i.e. communication about racialized experiences) and the various well-being indicators. They have discussed how communication between family members about their daily experiences with racism functions as a protective factor in the psychosocial resilience of Black and Brown youth (Anderson et al., 2018; Anderson & Stevenson, 2019). As suggested by the previous review of White race socialization research and media reports, White youth’s response to the apparent trauma of diversity and implications for unacknowledged hegemonic self-identity remains a source of under-interrogation.

Discrimination from law enforcement is known to have contributed to trauma in its immediate effects of PTSD and as some have speculated that subsequent delinquent behavior that might stem from the initial interaction (Kang & Burton, 2014). “In lower income, urban African American neighborhoods, police tend to over patrol and counterproductively treat African American males with suspicion (Kang & Burton, 2014).” Additionally, “racist events exacerbate preexisting racial tensions and lead to widespread reluctance to seek protection from the police and other institutions that have historically safeguarded Whites (Graves et al., 2010).”

African American women are at a greater risk for being traumatized multiple times and are less likely to seek mental health services than white women (Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010; Osobor, 2009). It is been shown that this out of fear for what might happen to the perpetrator particularly if that person is also African American. Some have pointed out that this reflects the notion that an attack on one is an attack on all (Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010; Parham et al., 1999). It is also noted ironically that despite being raised to be fiercely independent and willing to help others (often at their own expense) black women will often exacerbate symptoms of trauma (Stevens-Watkins et al., 2014).

One area where symptoms of trauma can impact long-term outcomes is in higher education (Boyraz et al., 2013). For trauma-exposed females PTSD symptomatology in the 1st semester of college were associated with increased likelihood of not completing college. This was not significantly associated with academic achievement or persistence for males. For trauma-exposed females, in addition to PTSD symptomatology, being a student at a predominantly White institution and entering college with low high school GPA were identified as risk factors for low academic achievement and college dropout, on the other hand. They also found that involvement in on-campus activities and higher levels of perceived academic integration by the 1st semester were associated with higher 1st-year GPA as well as increased likelihood of remaining in college (Boraz et al., 2013).

There has been some work on the implications for psychologists and therapists in dealing with racial and generational trauma. One interesting item of note is the value of ethnic matching. African American patients generally prefer to be matched with a mental health care professional who is of the same race/ethnicity. This has been seen in the study of African American college students in particular. They have observed that up to 50% of African Americans who see a White practitioner will drop out after a single session. It is noted that it is usually because of their own reported feelings of not being understood or connected (Duncan & Johnson, 2007; Parham et al., 1999; African American Danzer et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2010; Psychologists, 2008). As initially noted, a clear shortcoming of the trauma literature is its focus on minorities. Little attention is paid to the presence and impact of protective factors and supports in the case of youth of color; at the same time, undiagnosed trauma having to do with the perceived lack of resources as privileges assumed and associated with hegemonic beliefs remain under-investigated as sources of psychopathology for Whites. The situation makes DEI success more potentially traumatizing for too many unprepared White youths given inadequate racial socialization strategies suggested by research findings. The issue is a critical societal issue given that unconscious but powerful cultural repertoires and traditions which make authentic solutions less probable as recognized needs.

Cultural repertoires and learning styles

Cultural repertoire is a concept used in various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies. Scholars explore how individuals use cultural knowledge, practices, and tools, to express their identities. These studies often focus on understanding the diversity of cultural repertoires across different societies with researchers and scholars examining how these cultural practices are transmitted across generations and how they contribute to the continuity and change within a culture.

Investigations into cultural learning styles emerged in the United States during the 1960s, as part of a larger trend of research initiatives that aimed to ameliorate the disparate conditions in schools (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff, 2003). Cultural learning styles refer to the ways in which individuals from different cultural backgrounds prefer to acquire and process information. These preferences are shaped by cultural influences, including beliefs, values, communication styles, and social norms. The concept suggests that people may have distinct approaches to learning based on their cultural context, and understanding these variations can be essential in educational settings and beyond.

Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003) explore the relationship between cultural ways of learning and the development of individual traits or repertoires of practice. The authors argue against framing learning solely as an individual trait and emphasize the importance of considering cultural repertoires of practice in understanding how individuals learn. They propose that cultural practices shape learning experiences, influencing the development of cognitive and social skills. Their perspective acknowledges the dynamic interplay between individual traits and cultural contexts in the process of learning.

Language constitutes a fundamental element of the cultural repertoire. Scholars explore the ways in which language both mirrors and molds cultural identities, investigating aspects such as linguistic diversity, language maintenance, and language shift within diverse communities. Cultural repertoire finds expression through various performances, encompassing rituals, ceremonies, and artistic manifestations. Research in this domain delves into how these performances play a role in sustaining and transforming cultural practices over time. Fosse (2010) examines the motives and patterns of infidelity in a sample of low SES status males. Fosse notes three central themes: doubt, duty, and destiny. The study investigates how these elements influence and mold the behavior of low-income men when it comes to engaging in extramarital relationships.

Swidler (1986) explores the dynamic interplay between culture, symbols, and human behavior. Swidler argues that culture is not only a set of static symbols but is actively used by individuals to guide their actions and strategies. The article emphasizes the practical and strategic dimensions of culture, suggesting that individuals draw upon cultural symbols and meanings to navigate their social worlds and make sense of their experiences. Swidler’s work encourages a view of culture as a toolkit that people deploy in various situations, influencing their decision-making and shaping their interactions within society. “Strategies of action are cultural products; the symbolic experiences, mythic lore, and ritual practices of a group or society create moods and motivations, ways of organizing experience and evaluating reality, modes of regulating conduct, and ways of forming social bonds, which provide resources for constructing strategies of action…these relationships vary across time and historical situation. Within established modes of life, culture provides a repertoire of capacities from which varying strategies of action may be constructed. Thus culture appears to shape action only in that the cultural repertoire limits the available range of strategies of action,” (Swidler, 1986, p. 284).

Scholars note that cultural repertoire is not neutral but is often influenced by power dynamics. Representing a variety of interests, researchers are exploring how specific cultural elements may be either privileged or marginalized, thereby contributing to social inequalities and hierarchical structures. Lamont & Small (2008) investigate how cultural factors actively contribute to shaping and influencing the experiences of individuals in poverty. Harding (2010) examines the neighborhood context and the intricate ways in which it molds the daily experiences of inner-city boys. Central are the links between violence and the sense of belonging to a particular area with discrete areas being marked as safe, neutral, or dangerous. Garrett (2016) explores the process of cultural repertoire formation in expectant mothers. The primary focus is on how education and social networks influence this development. The effort examines the role of social networks in shaping cultural repertoires, highlighting the interconnected nature of education and social influences in shaping cultural knowledge and behaviors during pregnancy. Garrett found that educational attainment and social network diversity independently predict repertoire diversity, and that these effects are each moderated by the respondent’s status as a new or experienced mother suggesting that institutional effects and social network resources may reduce such disparities. The scholarship underscores the context salience and intersubjective nature of cultural repertoires. Unacknowledged cultural traditions concerning race differences including intergenerationally transmitted fBIP, may have significant consequences. There are important implications for knowledge production and uninterrogated practices in the training of those in the fields of development and psychopathology. As well, and significant to policy, training and practice, the noted racial conceptual shortcomings matter. Manifested intangibly – the cultural practices and traditions although treated invisibly – have consequences particularly for professional service industries (e.g., healthcare, policing, all levels of teaching). In sum, they impact the intent of equity, significantly increase everyone’s level of vulnerability, and function as an intrusion to collective thriving.

Conclusions and implications for acknowledging shared vulnerability and achieving thriving

Argued and taken was a position that human vulnerability is a shared status which has implications for the conduct of science, the interpretation of findings and the shared experience of risk, encountered challenges, responsive coping and its interpretation given the character of ecologies’ particular historical contributions. From an ecological perspective, particularly the chronosystem was implicated as harboring content about non-Whites which – as intergenerationally transmitted values particularly when left unchecked – have implications for individual thriving. On the one hand, the positionality reinforces resistance observed as cultural repertoires evident in scholarship focused on communities and youth of color. Relative to efforts to reduce practices resulting in inequality in education, Bronfenbrenner (1967) notes reasons for resistance to correct the history of injuries relative to the psychological costs of quality and equality in education. His use of extant scholarship available at the time and an embracing of Black psychopathology assumptions suggest a consistency; it mirrors contemporary and unchanged perceptions of people of color and the character of scholarship produced during the subsequent virtual sixty years. As noted, his focus on and attention to the psychological costs of quality and equality of education are different from the traditional attention to economic costs, thus, he notes “The reasons for resistance are well known” (Bronfenbrenner, 1967, p. 909). He references the costs for both Black and Whites, although, stressing the psychological costs to Blacks without attention and acknowledgement to the resilience and strengths of communities having withstood the centuries of oppressive conditions. The limitations of his psychopathological perspective do not consider the reactive coping assets and strengths produced and used by Black communities for withstanding over three hundred years of violence and organized oppressive conditions.

One can sum that the frequent research tradition which emphasizes human development processes of Whites while focusing on the long-term and deeply engrained beliefs about pathology for Blacks continue deep-rooted as America’s cultural repertories concerning diversity. The strengths thin approaches to Black life continue as patterns that have significant implications for all particularly during periods of trauma. Whiteness and hegemony positionality – in a context of media dense and inadequate cultural socialization opportunities experienced in White families and communities – have implications for messages shared at all levels of the ecology of human development. The fact is in direct opposition to the admonishment iterated by the referenced systematizers who link the study of development with the investigation of psychopathology.

Although findings suggest that Black socialization efforts appear to be robust, however, the implications of further risk and stress given potential adultification tendency, nonetheless, suggests a continued needed attention to and identification of Black assets and protective factors required as building blocks for effective supports. Of course, at the same time given cultural repertoires modeled and passed down across generations, White fear of having one’s racism acknowledged and confronted may aid in understanding why the maintenance of “status quo” race relations and unequal patterned cultural repertories around “difference” persist.

On the one hand, uncomfortableness may exist given the lack of white socialization efficacy as an adequate coping response to an inferred threat of Black and Brown bodies. Concluded is that the impact of the attendant anxiety in response to reactive coping struggles in race conflict contexts situations matters. The review provided suggests that the shortsightedness of the literature remains a problem which scaffolds firm identifications with hegemony beliefs and is abetted by broad media coverage: Thus, there are inadequate strategies in place for developing White healthy coping around issues of difference and race. Decoloniality perspective provides explanation regarding the longevity of particular perspectives, behavioral traditions, and cultural repertoires. However, in a context of inadequate racial socialization and reluctance to face racism and the problem of fBlP, the situation leaves Whites with a dilemma of being viewed as uncaring and callous versus individual and collectively burdened by the situation of a lack of access to effective tools for achieving race difference coping resilience.

Particularly with the advent of social media and other communication outlets, alone and non-directed, the intended resource may not provide the coping skills and access required for White health and thriving. It is evident given the developmental literature, that there are significant and abundant “knowns” about Whites’ development. However, particularly in a context of traumatic situations and great diversity of contexts, pathology research for Whites must be explored for understanding cultural repertoire relevant strategies for mental health and thriving; in fact, the suicide statistics suggest problematic coping. Ignoring the “unevenness” in racial coping skills for Whites perpetuates the negative reactive coping problem of functional Black Inhumanity Perspective (fBIP); although with different contributors, it suggests untoward shared high vulnerability status for everyone. As suggested by the systematizers referenced by Cicchetti (1984), development and psychopathology knowledge is linked. Ideally – if the level of resistance is surmountable – its more balanced design and even investigation across groups should assist the psychosocial process regarding shared identity and vulnerability. And, as well, the effort addresses the social malaise associated with the dilemma of “inequality presence denial” experienced throughout all levels of the human ecology functioning as a source of shared risk and trauma. A balanced interpretation of the systematizers’ directive referenced by Cicchetti (i.e., an evenly balanced development and psychopathology scholarly commitment) might still be possible. Moving further into the 21^st century, its incorporation and operationalization may still provide an authentic direction and opportunity for positive social change scaffolded by the science of human development and learning as well as psychopathology challenges – for all Constitution referenced “We the People.”