The "Black box" Identity Development and the Crisis of Connection among Black Adolescent Boys

The Black box in American culture is imposed upon Black boys and girls regarding what they can and cannot do, and who they should and should not be. In the case of Black boys, they can be athletes and thugs, but they cannot be scholars and scientists or engaged fathers and partners. They should be tough, independent, and aggressive, but they should not be vulnerable, relational, and sensitive. The Black box, in other words, constrains the humanity of Black people; it splits Blackness from goodness, and embeds homophobia into the Black male identity. These impositions are not simply about race, as Marcus reveals, but also about gender, sexuality, and social class. When Black boys and young men accommodate to society’s box of intersectional stereotypes, they disconnect from what they know about themselves—that they are thinking and feeling human beings—and disconnect from others within and outside of their communities as well. Over the next few pages, I first describe identity development and then reveal the pathways through which Black boys construct their identities, and conclude with ways to foster resistance to help Black boys stay connected to themselves as well as to others

“I’m just a girl; not a White girl”: Intersectionality and Early Adolescents’ Race-x-Gender Identities

Social identity is defined, in part, as the sense of “we-ness” one forms with a social group. The social identity literature, however, is largely divided by identities—with racial identity conceptualized, measured, and interpreted separately from gender identity—rather than examining how youth understand these group memberships at their intersections (i.e., “we” Black girls or “we” White boys). The current mixed-method analysis examines the subjective importance and meaning of Black and White early adolescents’ (Mage = 12.51; N = 63) racial by gender identities. Black girls, in particular, rated their intersectional identities as important and White adolescents, overall, rated intersectionality as low in importance. Qualitative analyses further reveal that youth reason about the (in)significance of intersectionality on different levels: personal (the self), relational (others, peers), and structural (stereotypes, discrimination). We discuss contributions for studying identity development and intersectionality during adolescence

Conceptualizing the Multiple Levels of Identity and Intersectionality

With disciplinary roots in legal studies and Black feminist scholarship in the United States, intersectionality takes a birds-eye view of structural inequality and oppression. Yet, as the construct of intersectionality has moved across disciplines, alternate perspectives have come into view and new questions have been asked. Psychological perspectives on intersectionality have centered on questions (and tensions) about how to apply intersectionality in the study of identity—that is, whether intersectionality informs how individuals come to understand themselves and others, and how this may occur. Identity is an obvious link to intersectionality because the categories of difference/inequality that comprise intersectionality are also the identity groups that we study (e.g., racial identity, gender identity). At the same time, identity is (mostly conceived to be) a personal-level construct, which seems to stand in opposition to the structural lens that defines intersectionality. In this chapter, we use empirical data to consider what the study of identity reveals to us about intersectionality as a psychological process. We first define intersectionality and our developmental approach to identity drawing on Erikson’s (1968) psychosocial identity theory. Next, we discuss core challenges that identity researchers in psychology often face when integrating intersectionality; the disciplinary emphasis on individual-level processes, discrete variables, and linear associations. We then present an analytical framework, drawn from our analysis of Black and White adolescents’ race x gender identities, to conceptualize identity and intersectionality as phenomena that can be measured at multiple levels—personal, relational, and structural. We conclude that a multi-level perspective allows psychologists to see intersectionality in identity development

"They say Black men won't make it, but I know I'm gonna make it" Ethnic and racial identity development in the context of cultural stereotypes

For more than a century, scholars have defined the self as a social phenomenon dependent on relationships and embedded within a sociohistorical context. Yet a review of the empirical study of identity over the past forty years reveals significant divergence from this individual-in-context perspective. This chapter returns to the sociocultural roots of identity development study, reviewing empirical research with adolescents from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds and the works of others that focus on how cultural stereotypes about race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, social class, and nationality intersect to form the context within which individuals construct, experience, and interpret their ethnic and racial identities. This review makes evident that identity is simultaneously personal and social and that stereotypes about social categories are a significant link that binds them. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for research and theory on identity development and for the field of psychology more broadly

Listening for culture: Using interviews to understand identity in context

There is an inextricable link between humans and their cultural environments, as each reciprocally creates and is created by the other. This chapter discusses interviewing as a critical methodological tool for understanding culture as intricately intertwined with subjective meaning-making and identity processes. We start from the premise that the stories gathered through research-based interviews serve as repositories of shared cultural knowledge as experienced and interpreted by individuals. After briefly examining the historical position of interviewing in the field of psychology, the chapter will draw on examples from the authors’ own research in the United States and Germany to offer guidance on (1) designing interview protocols that allow for cultural analysis, and (2) conducting analysis to see culture through interview data. Empirically-guided suggestions for fostering researcher reflexivity, acknowledging power, and dismantling hierarchies are provided throughout the chapter, all in service of truly “hearing” culture in the stories participants tel

The Friendships of Racial-Ethnic Minority Youth in Context

An extensive theoretical and empirical literature suggests that friendships are an important, if not essential, micro-context of adolescent development – shaping youth identity, school and civic engagement, and psychological and physical wellbeing. Friendships are also themselves embedded within, and shaped by, the larger macro-context of culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), including racial-ethnic stereotypes (García-Coll et al., 1996; Spencer, 1995). Yet, the study of friendship rarely examines the influence of the macro-context or includes racial-ethnic minority youth despite the fact that such youth represent half of the American youth population. In this chapter, we review research on the friendships of racial-ethnic minority youth and focus specifically on how the macro-context of social-identity based stereotypes shapes the micro-context of friendships

Integrating Systems of Power and Privilege in the Study of Resilience

Although current approaches to the study of resilience acknowledge the role of context, rarely do those conceptualizations attend to societal systems and structures that include hierarchies of power and privilege - namely systems of racism, colonialism, patriarchy, and capitalism – nor do they articulate how these structural realities are embedded within individual experiences. We offer critiques of the current literature from this structural lens, using the concept of master narratives to articulate the incomplete and, at times, damaging story that the discipline of psychology has told about resilience. We then provide three models that center history, systems, and structures of society that can be employed in the study of resilience. We close with lessons learned from listening to those voices who have been marginalized by mainstream society, lessons that require us to redefine, broaden, and deepen our conceptualization of resilience

Research As Resistance: Naming and Dismantling the Master Narrative of “Good” Science

The call for psychological science to make amends for “causing harm to communities of color and contributing to systemic inequities” (APA, 2022a) requires a critical acknowledgement that science itself is not neutral, but a sociopolitical and ideological endeavor. From its inception, psychology used science to produce what was framed as incontrovertible “hard” evidence of racial hierarchy, infallible “proof” that white people (i.e., cismale, heteronormative, and economically resourced white people) were superior to Indigenous and Black people. We first trace the historical links between post-positivist epistemology and the ideology of white supremacy in psychological science, showing that although explicitly racist science (e.g., eugenics) has faded, the widely shared and strictly enforced epistemological norms about what is (and is not) “good” science remain entrenched. We then outline three epistemic imperatives to resist this harmful master narrative: 1) Embrace humanizing epistemologies, 2) Listen and learn from those who have been systematically left out of science, and 3) Recognize resistance as normative and necessary. We discuss how these imperatives, rooted in critical, feminist, and anti-racist scholarship, disrupt oppression, and guide us toward doing science that does good

Quantifying gender norm resistance

Introduction: Qualitative and mixed-methods researchers have described the experience of gender norm resistance in adolescence and identified potential types of resistance including indirect resistance (motivated by a preference for gender-atypicality) and direct resistance (motivated by dislike of gender norms and a desire to change them). Building on this work, we developed the Gender Norm Resistance measure to operationalize indirect and direct gender norm resistance. We explored how gender norm resistance aligns with and differs from other gender self-concepts (e.g., felt pressure to conform to gender norms) and peer relations (e.g., contact with peers) and tested for gender differences. Methods: Participants included 484 early adolescents (girls = 234; Mage = 11.44 years, SD = 0.56). Analyses included factor analyses (EFA, CFA) and bivariate correlations to gather validity evidence, and ANOVAs to determine mean level differences. Results: Evidence that validated using the proposed measure as intended was found including confirmation of the two types of gender norm resistance (indirect and direct). Mean differences were found across participant gender as well as across types of gender norm resistance. Conclusions: The findings highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the Gender Norm Resistance measure, the different ways adolescents experience indirect and direct gender norm resistance, and the limited role of felt pressure in gender norm resistance.</p

Quantifying gender norm resistance

Qualitative and mixed-methods researchers have described the experience of gender norm resistance in adolescence and identified potential types of resistance including indirect resistance (motivated by a preference for gender-atypicality) and direct resistance (motivated by dislike of gender norms and a desire to change them). Building on this work, we developed the Gender Norm Resistance measure to operationalize indirect and direct gender norm resistance. We explored how gender norm resistance aligns with and differs from other gender self-concepts (e.g., felt pressure to conform to gender norms) and peer relations (e.g., contact with peers) and tested for gender differences. Participants included 484 early adolescents (girls = 234; M  = 11.44 years, SD = 0.56). Analyses included factor analyses (EFA, CFA) and bivariate correlations to gather validity evidence, and ANOVAs to determine mean level differences. Evidence that validated using the proposed measure as intended was found including confirmation of the two types of gender norm resistance (indirect and direct). Mean differences were found across participant gender as well as across types of gender norm resistance. The findings highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the Gender Norm Resistance measure, the different ways adolescents experience indirect and direct gender norm resistance, and the limited role of felt pressure in gender norm resistance. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2020 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.