Markus Hazel Rose
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Am Psychol. 2008 Nov;63(8):651-70. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.651.
For more than a century, hundreds of psychologists have studied race and ethnicity. Yet this scholarship, like American culture at large, has been ambivalent, viewing race and ethnicity both as sources of pride, meaning, and motivation as well as sources of prejudice, discrimination, and inequality. Underlying this ambivalence is widespread confusion about what race and ethnicity are and why they matter. To address this ambivalence and confusion, as well as to deepen the American conversation about race and ethnicity, the article first examines the field's unclear definitions and faulty assumptions. It then offers an integrated definition of race and ethnicity--dynamic sets of historically derived and institutionalized ideas and practices--while noting that race, although often used interchangeably with ethnicity, indexes an asymmetry of power and privilege between groups. Further, it shows how psychology's model of people as fundamentally independent, self-determining entities impedes the field's--and the nation's--understanding of how race and ethnicity influence experience and how the still-prevalent belief that race and ethnicity are biological categories hinders a more complete understanding of these phenomena. Five first propositions of a unified theory of race and ethnicity are offered.
一个多世纪以来,数百位心理学家对种族和民族进行了研究。然而,这项学术研究,就像整个美国文化一样,一直存在矛盾态度,既将种族和民族视为自豪、意义和动力的来源,也将其视为偏见、歧视和不平等的来源。这种矛盾态度的背后是对种族和民族是什么以及它们为何重要的广泛困惑。为了解决这种矛盾态度和困惑,同时深化美国关于种族和民族的讨论,本文首先审视了该领域不明确的定义和错误的假设。然后,它给出了一个关于种族和民族的综合定义——从历史中衍生并制度化的动态观念和实践集合——同时指出,种族虽然经常与民族互换使用,但它标志着群体之间权力和特权的不对称。此外,它还展示了心理学将人视为基本独立、自我决定的实体的模式如何阻碍了该领域——以及整个国家——对种族和民族如何影响经历的理解,以及种族和民族是生物学范畴这一仍然普遍存在的信念如何阻碍了对这些现象更全面的理解。本文还提出了种族和民族统一理论的五个首要命题。