A Wake Up Call

After not posting any blogs for many months I now have the urge to began posting again.  Since last April I have been taking on-line classes with the University of the Rockies.  I am in doctoral program Once complete I will have earned a PsyD with a specialty in International Leadership.  Being in the program has boosted my confidence.  I do have something to say and I will be heard.

Anyway, yesterday while attending a job related meeting I had a wake up call. I am the clinical supervisor of a program that assists persons with co-occurring disorders (substance abuse and mental illness) re-enter society after incarceration.  The meeting was with the sociology professor that is assisting us with evaluation of the program.  The program just received a new grant and we are re-organizing our evaluation process.  Our program will now have two phases: a pre-release phase and a post-release phase.  We provided only post-release services previously. 

During the meeting I suggested that we conduct a couple of focus groups for program participants just prior to release from prison.  The sociology professor without hesitation stated that she would be concerned about ethical issues.  Her response was like a slap in the face.  Was she saying that I had suggested something that was unethical?  Does she believe that I do not understand what would be required to conduct an ethical focus groups with inmates?  I sat there confused.  I did not react.  My emotions were on fire.  I felt misjudged and insulted.  

I suppose I had expected that a simple suggestion for a focus group related to a component of the program that was new would be fairly considered and not attacked.  But these feelings were not unfamiliar.   I recognized them as the type of subtle attacks or disrespect that is launched when threaten someone's authority and they want to put you in your place.  It is a common reaction when someone you believe to be beneath you has the audacity to challenge you or question your authority.  

When I thought about it I realized that focus groups had become a sensitive topic for this professor.  We conducted focus groups with the previous program and they did not go very well.  In one of our review meetings I suggested that next time we should conduct the focus groups differently.  They were led by the professor and a research assistant. 
The professor and the research assistant are white middle aged females originally from the mainland (we are in Hilo, Hawaii).   Our participants are mainly Native Hawaiians and Portuguese males who grew up here in Hilo.  I had come across information related to my studies that emphasized the importance of conducting focus groups in a culturally relavant manner.  One of the most import factors was selecting facilitators that the participants could relate to.  

I believe the professor did not take to kindly to my criticism of how we conducted our focus groups and my suggestion that we would get better results by making it more culturally relevant.   White Americans (especially those who consider themselves liberal) believe that they should be considered capable in all situations.  Stating that she could not be culturally relevant as a facilitator was probably tantamount to calling her a incompetent.   

The wake up call was that if I want to be in a better position to respond to such situations or be able to have my input respected I must complete what I have started with my doctorate.  I do want my voice heard and respected.  I know there will be attacks and attempts to discredit me, but I want to be standing on a doctorate degree and several publications.

So far I have completed 6 classes and have earned all A's.  I will be finished with my course work in about a year.  I will then work exclusively on my dissertation.  With a little patience and persistence I will reach my goal.

Telling the Story of Psychology: A Matter of Perspective

NOTE:  The following is a paper that was written as a final assignment for my History and Systems of Psychology course.  I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at the University of the Rockies.

Abstract

The history of psychology is reviewed in relation to the historical periods of pre-modernism, modernism and post-modernism.  When possible the Eurocentric worldview posed by the course text book is contrasted with at least one other worldview. The influence of Rene Descartes is discussed especially his idea that man himself could be the source of truth through reasoning (Goodwin, 2008).  Descartes’ duality is contrasted with the unity of pre-modern African culture (Carroll, 2008).  In the modern period Locke’s empiricism and the idea that everything is derived from experience is contrasted with the African concept of Ubuntu; “I am because we are.”  Four major areas of psychology are reviewed: Gestalt psychology, Psychoanalysis, Behaviorism and Humanistic psychology.  Humanistic theory ushers in the post-modern period and diversity enters the discussion.  Changes in society and psychology are discussed in relation to diversity.  Finally, the significant influences on this writer’s career from teachings within African psychology and humanistic theory are discussed.  As American society becomes increasingly diverse psychologist must be prepared to accept the changes in order to remain effective.

From the outset it must be pointed out that the textbook being used for the course on the history of psychology was written strictly from a Eurocentric perspective.  Other perspectives or worldviews are not mentioned.  It is as if other people in the world during the same period did not have any ideas about human psychology worth mentioning.  The people living in what is now China, India and the many countries of South America and Africa had ideas about their humanity and their relationship to the universe and each other.  The ethnic and cultural composition of students in psychology is also very diverse. Yet Goodwin (2008) saw no need to mention other philosophies in telling the story of the history of psychology.  African Americans, Native Americans, women and others are only mentioned within the context of the history of western psychology.  Perhaps a more accurate name for the course would have been “History and Systems of Western Psychology.”  By excluding the word “western” it gives the impression that it is the total story of psychology.  Of course that could not be since the ideas of this author’s ancestors from the pre-modern period were not mentioned.  The title and subsequent content (or absence of content) provides an example of exactly what Sue (2004) described as Ethnocentric Monoculturalism.  The “Whiteness” becomes invisible and all of the standards and definitions are from a monocultural perspective.  In this paper this writer will offer information from at least one other human perspective as a contrast to the Eurocentric perspective offered by Goodwin (2008).  As we are currently in the post-modern period of psychology it seems appropriate that a more pluralistic approach be adopted that questions the authority of the established hierarchy.

The Pre-Modern Period (Beginnings – 1650)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) emerged at the end of the Pre-modern period and was classically trained by Jesuits (Goodwin, 2008).  However, he became frustrated with the pace of his education and at 18 years old set out to have experiences of his own.  Descartes sought answers to questions philosophers had been posing for centuries.  In his Discourse on Method he established a process for determining what truth is.  One truth he identified was “I think, therefore I am.”  His ideas focused on the individual’s ability to seek truth through reasoning.  Descartes reasoned that the mind and body were separate.  He viewed the body as mechanical and existing in space but saw the mind (soul) as non-physical and existing outside of space.  Nevertheless, he did see the mind and body as interacting with each other (Goodwin, 2008).

Descartes’ ideas along with others during the Renaissance such as Galileo Galilei and Sir Francis Bacon, marked the end of the Pre-modern period characterized by the idea that truth could only be known through revelation and the church was the ultimate authority.  Galileo’s empirical evidence of a heliocentric universe and Bacon’s inductive approach to science set the stage for Descartes to assert that truth could be uncovered through reason (Goodwin, 2008).  Man as an individual using his power to reason has the potential to arrive at truth separate from an external authority.  Thus, the ideas of these men and others ushered in the Modern period. 

On the continent of Africa the dominant philosophy during the Pre-modern period was one that did not separate spirit or the non-material universe from the material universe (Carol, 2008).  The view was that spirit energy is the source of all manifestation in the material universe and continues to exist as spirit energy within material objects both animate and inanimate.  Also, all spirit energy is interconnected and interdependent.  In African philosophy mind (soul) and body exists as one.  These ideas were very similar to what had developed in China and India during the Per-modern period.  Plato, Aristotle and then Descartes believed in an either/or, good or evil dichotomy.  African and Eastern philosophy can be described as diunital (Carroll, 2010) meaning the acknowledgement that opposites exist side by side at the same time. Good and evil always exist together and naturally move toward balance.  Such a difference in worldview would have produced a very different approach to answering questions in psychology.

The Modern Period (1650-1950)

The Modern Period was characterized by empiricism which views knowledge as being the result of experience (Goodwin, 2008).  John Locke is usually considered the founder of empiricism.  Locke distinguished himself from Descartes and rejected the idea of innate ideas arriving out of reason.  Locke believed that ideas are derived from experience and we begin having experiences from the time we are born (Goodwin, 2008).  Interestingly enough in Africa especially South Africa the idea of Ubuntu emerged (Jamison, 2010).  Stated simply, Ubuntu means “I am because we are.”  What makes us human comes from experiences with other humans.  Without these experiences we would not know what it means to be human or how to be human.  The difference is that the focus of Ubuntu is on experience with other humans whom we are seen to be interdependent and interconnected with.  Locke’s ideas involved experience with or without other humans.  Nevertheless, there is certainly an overlap in the ideas.

Locke’s empiricism led to a focus on sensory perception since it is through our senses that we experience the world.  Empiricism combined with the scientific method resulted in detailed empirical studies of human sensory perception.  Empiricists favored the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate believing that experience has a far greater influence on human performance than innate abilities.  However, rationalists such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) and later Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that the ability to organize human experiences into meaningful information required that something had to precede the experience and that “something” would have to be innate (Goodwin, 2008).  Kant argued that psychology could never become a physical science because mental phenomena could not be observed directly or be defined and measured with the precision of mathematics (Goodwin, 2008).  Nevertheless, the scientific study of perception continued and resulted in many new theories and concepts.  Many of the studies began to establish direct relationships between physiological structures in the brain and nervous system with behaviors.  In spite of Kant’s doubts about psychology becoming a science, physiological research was contributing to an improved understanding of the relationships between the physical brain and observable behavior (Goodwin, 2008). 

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) is considered the founder of experimental psychology (Goodwin, 2008).  Wundt established strict experimental procedures that focused primarily on the immediate perceptual responses of his subjects.  He made a clear distinction between self-observation (immediate) and internal perception (involving interpretation and memory) (Goodwin, 2008).  This distinction was the main reason he believed the controlled setting of the laboratory was limited to immediate conscious experience of basic mental processes.  Although he was very interested in studying learning, thinking, language and the effects of culture, he felt they could not be controlled sufficiently to be examined in the laboratory (Goodwin, 2008).

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) released On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1959 (Goodwin, 2008).  The initial printing of 1250 copies sold out on the first day.  Darwin did not discuss humans in his book but applications to humans were made by the church, other scientists and in the field of psychology.  Darwin did very directly discuss humans in subsequent books and suggested a continuity of mental processes existed between man and other species.  His theories led to the development of comparative psychology (Goodwin, 2008). 

One of the principles identified by Darwin was that individual members within a species varied from each other.  Francis Galton (1822-1911) studied such individual differences in humans.  He believed that characteristics such as intelligence and scientific aptitude were inherited (Goodwin, 2008).  Such beliefs became very wide spread among Europeans and Americans and further justified or rationalized the mistreatment of Africans during the salve trade.  For many scientists Darwin’s research seemed to provide scientific evidence of European superiority over Africans.

Psychology in America developed within this context.  Even though several debates raged in the field of psychology at the time such as nature vs. nurture and structuralism vs. functionalism, the underlying assumption was that white males were a superior variety of the human species.  White woman were viewed as not having the same capacities as their male counterparts and other races were simply viewed as being evolutionarily inferior. Thus, in America the foundation was established for what Sue (2004) calls Ethnocentric Monoculturalism.  The remainder of the Modern Period would see this paradigm developed and supported. 

Four Major Trends in American Psychology

Four of the trends that emerged in American Psychology during the Modern Period were Gestalt psychology, Psychoanalysis, Behaviorism and Humanistic psychology.  Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Khler are credited with bringing Gestalt psychology to America (Goodwin, 2008).  The basic idea of Gestalt psychology is not that the whole is simply greater than the sum of its parts, but that the whole is something entirely different than the sum of the parts.  Gestalt psychologists put forth that the way we perceive and interact with our environment cannot be explained simply by understanding the components of perception.  Our brains have tendencies and abilities that help us organize the information into meaningful perceptions and those tendencies and abilities are extremely useful in adapting to an environment, problem solving and learning new things.  Gestalt psychologists introduced such concepts as phi phenomenon that explains why we perceive motion from still images presented in rapid succession.  Productive thinking was also a key concept introduced by the Gestaltists.  Productive thinking involves the ability to solve a new problem by recognizing and applying elements that are already familiar. 

Psychoanalysis was introduced to America by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).  Freud developed his theory of personality and psychoanalysis over several decades.  His basic idea was that psychopathology could be traced back to biological drives (Goodwin, 2008).  He asserted that when these drives were frustrated in one way or another during childhood the result was unconscious conflict.  If the unconscious conflict persisted into adulthood it would be displayed as some sort of psychological problem.  The method to resolve the problem, therefore, was to uncover the unconscious conflict and bring it to the attention of the patient.

Initially Freud used two primary techniques to uncover the contents of the unconscious mind.  One was free association and the other was interpretation of dreams.  Later Freud developed what he called metapsychology as a general theory of human behavior and mental processes.  Within metapsychology Freud posed the idea of the structural analysis of personality.  Structural analysis identifies three components of the personality; the id, the ego, and the superego.  The id is that part of the personality that responds directly to basic drives and seeks pleasurable experiences with little regard to consequences or social limitations.  The superego serves as the conscience or keeper of morality, ready to impose limitations on the id.  The ego is the objective adult that seeks to find a healthy balance between to id and superego.  When the ego fails or is unable to perform its function the result is mental problems or psychopathology. 

John B. Watson (1878-1958) emerged in the United States as the founder of behaviorism (Goodwin, 2008).  Watson believed that behavior could be changed by controlling the environment and was adept at designing experiments to investigate and explain observed behavior of animals in his laboratory.  Watson contrasted his approach and ideas with that of Titchener and the structuralists.  In his “Behaviorist Manifesto” Watson set out to establish psychology as a natural science with a clear set of goals, devoid of unscientific introspection and accepting of the evolutionary model of behavior (Goodwin, 2008). 

B. F. Skinner also believed in the idea that behavior could be changed by controlling the environment and continued in the tradition of Watson regarding developing rigorous research design to support the scientific nature of his concepts.  Skinner’s research focused on what came after the behavior and altering behavior by altering the consequences of the behavior.  His approach became known as Operant Conditioning.  Skinner was concerned with what controls how the organism operates on the environment.  He believed very strongly in a purely inductive approach to research where samples of behavior are studied and the researcher looks for patterns as opposed to always working from a theory and then testing hypotheses based on the theory (Goodwin, 2008).

Humanistic theory and psychology developed as an alternative to psychoanalysis and behaviorism.  The humanists rejected the idea that human behavior could be explained by repressed biological drives or conditioning from the environment (Goodwin, 2008).  The two major figures of humanistic psychology were Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) and Carl Rogers (1902-1987).  Maslow is best known for his hierarchy of needs and the concept of self-actualization.  Humanists believe that human thought, feeling and behavior is motivated by a tendency to seek self-actualization.   Rogers developed what became known as the therapeutic triad of genuineness, unconditional positive regard and accurate empathy.  Most of the empirical studies involving an evaluation of these concepts found that when they are properly employed by the therapist outcomes are better regardless of the specific technique being used (Kerschenbaum and Jourdan, 2005).  Humanistic psychology became increasingly popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s as it ushered in the Post-modern Period. 

The Post-modern Period (1950-now): Diversity enters the Discussion

Post-modernism is characterized by pluralism and increased openness to new ideas.  The source of knowing can come from other than the established authority.  Established authority is often questioned.  Critical thinking about previous assumptions is central to the development and progress of knowledge and understanding.  Paradigm shifts are welcomed. 

One of the outcomes of post-modernist thinking is an attempt to counter the assumptions of the Ethnocentric Monoculturalism.   Discussions about multiculturalism and culturally competent treatment become common place.  However, talking about being more open and actually implementing real change can be two different things (Yutrzenka et al, 1999).  In the pre- and modern periods worldviews other than a European or Euro-American worldview were not even acknowledged as existing.  Thus far in the post-modern period alternate worldviews are acknowledged as an issue for psychologist to be aware of in relation to clients (APA, 2003), but not yet given full legitimacy in the academic arena regarding the methodology of research (Carroll, 2010). 

If one desires to learn about what African American psychologists have been researching and writing about since the 1960’s there are a number of sources and journals from which a wealth of information can be obtained.  However, conducting a search of some of the prominent names in contemporary African American psychology comes up empty with the University of the Rockies online library.  With the exception of a few abstracts, such names as Na’im Akbar, Wade Nobles, and Linda James Myers netted no results when searching for full articles.  Yet all have been President of the Association of Black Psychologists (ABPsi) and all are university professors with a long list of published works.  Within the African American community they are well known and respected.  This writer is not certain why their articles cannot be found at the University of the Rockies online library. 

Akbar, Nobles, Myers and others have all been involved in conducting empirical research and literature reviews on basic questions of worldview and human psychology over the past 40 years (Jamison, 2010).  This writer was mentored early in his career by Bobby Wright (1934-1982) who received his PhD in Psychology from the University of Chicago.  Wright developed the theory of “Mentacide” which is the systematic destruction of Black minds by a Eurocentric dominated society (Wright, 1985).  He was considered very radical even amongst other African American scholars.  What was engaging about Dr. Wright was that he challenged his students and employees to think for themselves and to not simply accept what was being taught as factual by university psychology departments. 

Wright’s views were typical of many African American psychologists and scholars attempting to answer questions relating to the impact of slavery and continued racism on African Americans.  One set of issues related to how African American mental health has been affected and the other side of the question attempts to explain how Eurocentricism came about and what its impact has been on the mental health of persons of European decent.  Much of what has been written on these questions and the theories that have been developed are often too radical for organizations like the APA to accept.  However, more moderated conceptions that put forth very similar ideas such as Sue’s (2004) Ethnocentric Monoculturalism are accepted by the APA.  

The APA (2003) guidelines are very comprehensive and inclusive of all persons that have been or can be marginalized by a dominant culture.   The guidelines (which are slated to be updated in 2012) also acknowledge the fact that there is a significant faction within the United States that seeks to reverse such programs as Affirmative Action.  The APA (2003) cites evidence that such programs and efforts as described by (Yutrzenka et al, 1999) continue to be necessary.  The actions of the APA reflect a continuing trend to support the acceptance of all segments of American society.  It encourages psychologists to play an active role in moving Multiculturalism forward.

Recently, a federal court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.  The next step will be the Supreme Court.  Such rulings represent a cultural shift in the United States towards more openness and fairness.   However, those persons uncomfortable with such a shift will, at least in the short term, become more intensely vocal in their opposition.  Nevertheless, it appears that a shift is taking place in society as well as in psychological training, education and practice. 

Significant Influences

This writer’s career as mentioned above was influenced early on by an exposure to the “big” thinkers in African American psychology of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.  Individuals such as Bobby Wright, Na’im Akbar and Wade Nobles had a lasting impact on my development as a practitioner.  As a young African American just beginning in the study and practice of psychology they offered a perspective that was not a part of any psychology class offered at the undergraduate or graduate schools this writer attended.  However, Carl Rogers had an equally significant impact regarding my views of what is important in clinical practice.  If there is such a thing as a culturally universal approach, Rogers found it.  This writer has found that the therapeutic triad of genuineness, unconditional positive regard and accurate empathy is appropriate and effective regardless of the race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or ability status of the client.  My area of specialty at the University of the Rockies is International Leadership.  This writer has had an opportunity to travel to Nigeria and spend time at a large psychiatric hospital in Lagos.  In spite of my previous training and education under Bobby Wright, as well as my personal openness, I still had to overcome a few basic biases that could have significantly interfered with developing healthy professional relationships with the people I worked with.  The employment of the therapeutic triad as well as a non-directive approach with the staff at the psychiatric hospital facilitated the release of certain biases and the gaining of very useful insight about African culture.  As a result, this writer developed very good working relationships with the Nigerians at the hospital. 

A Final Word

In the practice of psychology the goal is always to provide the best possible service for clients so that the issues they are struggling with might be resolved or at least managed more effectively.  The reality of practice is that no matter how uniform your client population seems to be, when the details of each person’s particular story begin to unfold it becomes clear how diverse the population actually is.  Many of the individuals here in Hawaii are grouped into several different census categories.  However, there is a very strong “local” culture complete with a dialect and specific cultural practices that overlaps the census categories.  Hawaii also happens to be the first state where no single ethnic group is in the majority.  In many ways Hawaii represents the future for the rest of the United States.  Psychology practitioners regardless of ethnicity must be culturally open and ready to learn. 

References

Carroll, K.K. (2008). African studies and research methodology: Revisiting the centrality of the Afrikan worldview. The Journal of Pan-African Studies, vol 2, no.2, 4-27. Retrieved from: http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol2no2/AfricanaStudiesandResearchMethodology.pdf

Carroll, K.K. (2010). A genealogical analysis of the worldview framework in African-centered psychology. The Journal of Pan-African Studies, vol 3, no.8, 109-134. Retrieved from: http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol3no8/3.8AGenealogical.pdf

Goodwin, C.J. (2008). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for Psychologists. (2003). American Psychologist, 58(5), 377-402. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.377

Jamison, D.F. (2010), The roles and functions of Africana psychology. The Journal of Pan-African Studies, vol 3, no.8, 1-4. Retrieved from: http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol3no8/3.8EditorialTheRoles.pdf

Kirschenbaum, H., & Jourdan, A. (2005). The current status of Carl Rogers and the person-centered approach. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42(1), 37-51. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.42.1.37

Sue, D. (2004). Whiteness and Ethnocentric Monoculturalism: Making the "Invisible" Visible. American Psychologist, 59(8), 761-769. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.761

Wright, B.E. (1985). Psychopathic racial personality and other essays(2^nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Third World Press

Yutrzenka, B.A., Todd-Bazemore, E., & Caraway, S.J. (1999). Four winds: The evolution of culturally inclusive clinical psychology training for Native Americans. International Review of Psychiatry, 11, 129- 135. ProQuest: 43479524.

Redefining America: From Illusion to Reality

More than any previous presidential election the 2012 election was a choice between two candidates with very different views of America.  Those differences are rooted in completely different definitions about who we are as Americans and how we got here.  While the 2008 presidential election was and will always be historical for the election of the first African American President, who he was and how he viewed America was yet untested as President.  However, as his first term began the battle lines were drawn, not by him but by those that opposed him.  President Obama had hoped that his intelligence, knowledge of history, leadership ability and his skill as a negotiator would allow him to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans and create a government that worked effectively for its citizens in a time of economic crisis.  Unfortunately, those that opposed him had other ideas.  For them President Obama represented a move for America in an unacceptable direction.  They made it their mission to defeat Obama at all cost.  Senator McConnell, the minority leader of the Senate, made his position clear by saying that making sure that President Obama would be a one term president was “job one.”  

The Republican declaration of war against President Obama created an opening for Tea Party members.  Tea Party members ran for office as Republicans and grew in popularity and numbers both during and after the election of President Obama.  In order for the Republican Party to consolidate their political influence they had to embrace the Tea Party whom they had previously kept at arms length.  The Tea Party views tended to be farther to the right than that of Republicans in general.  Embracing the Tea Party meant that the Republican Party had to move farther to the right.  In 2010 the strategy seemed to be working.  The Democratic Party majority in the House of Representatives evaporated.  The Republican Party could now block any legislation proposed by President Obama that they did not like.  The criteria for what should be blocked seemed to be based more on what would assist in preventing a second term for Obama than to political philosophy.  The Republicans in the House of Representatives became obstructionists.  Any bill proposed by democrats or the president that could possibly result in positive changes for Americans was blocked.  Any bill that would create or save jobs was blocked.  The obstructionist behavior of the House republicans contributed to decline in the credit rating for the US government by one of the major credit rating agencies and prevented attempts by President Obama to speed up economic recovery.  

Why would the Republicans be willing to take such risks with the well-being of the American economy?  What was it about President Obama that they viewed as absolutely unacceptable?  What was it about how they viewed America that would allow them to think that the course they had committed themselves to was the correct path?  The answer to these questions is at the heart of what is being decided in the 2012 Presidential election.  The answer involves how America is being redefined and who is redefining it.  

First, let us consider how we got to this pivotal point in American history.  America was established by an exclusive group of White males.  In spite of the fact that the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution contained language that suggested the establishment of a country based on liberty, equal representation and “unalienable rights,” the words did not match the reality.  They did not even come close. 

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote.  Africans were being brought to America as a slave labor force and the various Native American tribes whose land was being taken over were largely viewed as enemies.   The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870; American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924; and women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

The White males in power had little motivation to move the evolution of the early ideals forward.  Instead, definitions of who America is were institutionalized into the legal system, the educational system, the economic system, and the political system.    Once institutionalized change became very difficult and many of the definitions established then continue in those institutions up to the present day.  Even the healthcare system was impacted by the how Americans were defined.  Those persons fitting fully the definition of what an American is would have easier access to a higher quality of care.  It is no surprise that President Obama’s attempt to address some of the inequities in the healthcare system has been met with such opposition.  The Affordable Care Act hits at the heart of the healthcare institution.  It is an attempt to change, by law, a basic definition of who deserves quality healthcare.  To those who wish to hold on to the old definitions it is an abomination because it begins to remove White males from a favored position.

So what are those definitions?  A “True American” was de facto defined as a White male committed to the perpetuation of the status quo.  White women were defined as Americans only through their men (fathers and husbands).  Non-white people were not defined as American at all.  They were defined as almost a subspecies of human beings that were being permitted to live among Americans primarily as servants.  These definitions became institutionalized in the legal, educational, economic, healthcare and political systems.  Any changes would be slow and hard fought.  So what was the result for modern American society?  Even as late as 2004 White men occupied approximately 80% of tenured positions in higher education and 92% of the Forbes 400 executive/CEO level positions; they constituted 80% of the House of Representatives, 84% of the U.S. Senate, 99% of athletic team owners, and 100% of U.S. Presidents.  (In 2009, of course, the 100% U.S Presidents was finally breached and became 98% with the inauguration of President Obama.)  These statistics are even more disturbing when one sees that White men comprise only 33% of the U.S. population!  

White males that believe in the old definitions of America and support the current status of America’s institutions dominate the Republicans, Tea Party members and their supporters.  President Obama, being the first non-White male president is a huge symbol that the landscape is changing.  In fact, in 2011 for the first time in America more non-White babies were born than White babies.  The trend is more than likely irreversible.  Every year the gap between the numbers of non-White and White babies will grow larger.  Demographers say that by the middle of the century, the social order will change significantly.  And racial and ethnic minorities will become the majority of the U.S. population.  The so-called “minority-majority” already exist in most urban areas and in two States.  Even the term “minority-majority” reflects the white male perspective and suggests a society that is somehow upside-down.  The reality is that America is growing increasingly diverse.  Soon we will be at the point where no single race or ethnic group makes up a majority of the population.  For those in non-White groups this is simply the reality of the world we live in.  But for White Americans, especially those wanting to hold on to the old definitions of American, it represents their world being turned upside-down. 

If your world was being turned upside-down how would you react?   Some of the reactions that have made news have bordered on insanity.  For example, Judge Tom Head of Lubbock, Texas while on a local television and radio news shows stated:

"regardless of whether the Republicans take over the Senate, which I hope they do, he (Obama) is going to make the United States Congress and he's going to make the Constitution irrelevant. He's got his czars in place that don't answer to anybody."

"He (Obama) will try to give the sovereignty of the United States away to the United Nations. What do you think the public's going to do when that happens? We are talking civil unrest, civil disobedience, possibly, possibly civil war. ... I'm not just talking riots here and there. I'm talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms, get rid of the dictator. OK, what do you think he is going to do when that happens? He is going to call in the U.N. troops, personnel carriers, tanks and whatever."

Are these the rantings of a mad man or paranoid thinking that results from the realization that the America you have known and loved all your life is changing?  The illusion of America is fading and the reality is beginning to show through.  While Romney has not gone on a paranoid rant like Judge Head he did have his “47%” moment.  In the secretly recorded video, Romney described the “47% of voters that support Obama” as being unwilling to take responsibility for themselves preferring to have a government that takes care of them.   Romney during a meeting with wealthy supporters stated:

“there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what" because they are "dependent upon government ... believe that they are victims ... believe the government has a responsibility to care for them ... these are people who pay no income tax."

The interesting thing about Romney’s comments is that he actually acknowledges that nearly half of the voters would not consider voting for him.  47% is a very large number to rule out as potential votes.  It suggests that in spite of his unflattering characterization of the 47%, he realizes that a growing number of Americans are no longer willing to accept the old definitions and institutions as defined by the group he represents, the White male elite.  Ironically, by having such a view and stating it publicly he has awakened an even larger number of Americans to the reality of the present.  Americans tend to believe in the ideals voiced and documented by the founding fathers.  They do not want to trash the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.  They want the illusion to become the reality. 

What is preventing or slowing down the process of America’s redefinition and the move from illusion to reality?  The answer is simple.  The major institutions of American society were established within the context of the the illusion of America and the old false definitions.  In otherwords our institutions are base on a lie about who America is and by design support the status quo.  These major institututions include our legal system, educational system, economic system, political system, and healthcare system.  If real change is to take place then it must be accompanied by a change in each of these major institutions.  Because of the nature of democracy the institution that is likely to change first is the political system.  Our political system is what creted an opening for President Obama to be elected in spite of the weight of history.  However, as we have seen, electing a single president that represents our evolving society is not enough to trigger a change in the entire political system nor a change of the other major institutions, but it is start.  President Obama is represents a new voice.

American society and institutions will eventually change and evolve into institutions that increasingly represent the reality of American diversity.  By electing President Obama the majority of voters have indicated they are ready for change.  The upcoming election will be a test of the resolve of those who desire to continue moving change forward and the resolve of those who would rather maintain the old power structure of the the White male elite.  The challenge to those desiring to maintain the status quo relates to how skilled they are at perpetuating the illusion of America created so many years ago.  Even Norman Rockwell whose paintings epitomized the illusion and idealism of America painted the reality of a changing America in his 1960 painting of 6 year old Ruby Bridges being protected by US Marshalls as she became the first Black student to attend Franz Elementary School in New Orlens entitled “The Problem We All Live With.”

In President Obama’s second term we can expect the intensity of his opposition to increase.  There will be more outrageous statements made by otherwise respectable Americans.  At the same time Americans who are able to see the reality of how America is evolving will continue to push forward the ideals of the Founding Fathers.  Those in touch with reality can not sit still and simply accept the illusions even though they might seem to present an opportunity for a more comfortable life.  In the 1999 movie “The Matrix,”  Neo chooses reality over the illusion while Cypher betrays Neo and chooses to re-enter the illusion.  The November 2012 election represented a choice between accepting the reality of America in all of its diversity, beauty, and harshness or attempting to preserve the illusion created long ago that has been perpetuated by our major institutions.  We have a choice to begin the challenging process of redefining America based on the reality of who America actually is or accepting definitions that are imposed on us and keep us in the dark about who we really are.