_________________________________________________________________ VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1 PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL January 1997 _________________________________________________________________ SECTION C-1: PSYCHNEWS DISCUSSIONS I -------------------------------------------------------- Note: In the PsychNews Discussions series, we invite independent articles on current events and comments on PsychNews International articles. The following contribution is a reply to Paul B. Pedersen's editorial in the PsychNews International 1(7). The article can be retrieved at http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~expert/psychnews. Please send your articles to the PsychNews Int'l mailbox: pni@badlands.nodak.edu, cc'd to fu03c2dj@zedat.FU-Berlin.de -------------------------------------------------------- COMMENTS ON "THE POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MULTICULTURALISM" Myron Pulier In PNI 1(7), Paul B. Pedersen convincingly argues for making culture a "central rather than a marginal aspect" of one's perspective on psychology. He proposes a model of "multiple orthogonal cultural identities any one of which may become psychologically salient within any given situation." Indeed, it is useful to define culture as a more or less transitory mental state where certain recollections, reaction patterns, wishes, feelings, etc. become particularly likely and reinforce one another, only to give way to some other state; however, the 'culture' part of a mental state is the subset of components that are shared by others in one's current affiliation. Thus a person could be part of a teen culture in one context, or another time be part of a born-again culture when among some other group of people, or can be a middle-class WASP while volunteer teaching 'alone' in a impoverished rural community. Interpretation of such an individual's behavior therefore requires knowing where he or she is 'coming from,' that is, the person's cultural identity at the time of the behavior, or to know about conflicts in alternative cultural identities that this person is coping with. In addition of course one must consider components of the subject's mental state that cluster in ways not shared with a group or family, and which thus help determine how the person will interpret his or her cultures. These idiosyncratically associated mental functions also serve to characterize the person as an individual aside from his or her cultures. I had more difficulty understanding Pedersen's statement that "two persons or groups from different cultural backgrounds can disagree without one necessarily being wrong if they both share the same positive values but express those values in culturally learned different behaviors." Often the values of different cultures clash, so that rather than different ways of promoting the values what we are seeing is each group "necessarily being wrong" to the other. This is where some difficult conflicts and enmities arise that cannot be glossed over by enhancing communication, and perhaps not even by finding overarching areas of agreement. In such situations, projecting a liberal "multicultural" attitude can merely arouse the enmity of both sides. I also was uncertain as to Pedersen's reference to "the health of our social environment." Is this more than a platitude? How does he define, recognize or measure such "health?" Was a markedly isolated group, such as used to inhabit the 'Frozen North" or "Darkest Africa" necessarily unhealthy by dint of its lack of awareness of alternative cultures? The stability of such groups speaks otherwise. I enjoyed the article and, apparently, found some of Pedersen's remarks provoking. Myron Pulier, MD Forum Leader, InterPsych P-SOURCE Asst Clin Prof Psychiatry UMDNJ-NJ Med School, Newark, NJ mpulier@interport.net pulierml@umdnj.edu