International Journal of Intercultural Relations

27 (2003) 189–207

Academic representations of ‘race’ and racism

in psychology: Knowledge production, historical
context and dialectics in transitional
South Africa
Garth Stevens*
Center for peace Action, Institute for Social and Health Sciences, University of South Africa, P.O. Box 1087,
Lenasia, Johannesburg 1820, South Africa
Received 7 May 2001; received in revised form 8 November 2001; accepted 14 March 2002

Abstract

The paper critically reviews thematic patterns and trends pertaining to constructions of
‘race’ and racism within South African psychology’s formal discourse between 1990 and 2000.
It notes that clear differences emerge temporally with shifts in the socio-historical terrain of
South African society, and it is the author’s contention that these manifestations relate directly
to ideological, political, social and economic conditions prevalent in South Africa and within
the global context. Political transformation and its associated perceived threats to economic,
social and cultural integrity; the impact of globalization and neo-liberal ideologies; and the
contested institutional dynamics underpinning ‘race’ and racism in postapartheid South Africa
are all explored as potential factors contributing to these academic discourses within South
African psychology. The study is a thematic analysis of the South African Journal of
Psychology during this period and highlights the shifting ontological, epistemological and
methodological frameworks as they relate to the study of ‘race’ and racism. Furthermore, it
provides us with the basis to examine how academia dialectically engages with ideological
contestations pervading the social fabric and mirrors material and historical shifts in the
political and socio-economic landscapes of South Africa. The paper argues for a revisiting of
critical understandings of ‘race’ and racism within the framework of modernity, a re-
commitment to historical and materialist deconstructions of ‘race’ and racism and cautions
against the potential contradictions within postmodernist understandings of these social
scientific phenomena. However, it simultaneously acknowledges the changing social and
economic relations upon which modernist theorizing has been premised and suggests a
theoretical re-calibration that allows for the interface between the benefits of critical theory

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +27-11-857-1142; fax.: +27-1-857-1770.

E-mail address: steveg@unisa.ac.za (G. Stevens).

0147-1767/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00092-5
190 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

and postmodernism in order to begin to reflexively understand manifestations of ‘race’ and

racism in the new global context.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ‘Race’; Racism; Psychology; Academic discourses; South Africa; Representations; Modernism;
Postmodernism

1. Introduction

During the turbulent apartheid years in South Africa, the social sciences and
humanities displayed complex relationships to the social, political and economic
status quo. Whilst always being characterized by internal ideological debate,
disciplines such as sociology (Alexander, 1985), economic history (Saul & Gelb,
1986) and political science (Wolpe, 1988) all attempted to provide credible analyses
of the relationship between racism and economic exploitation, and therefore an
understanding of the prevailing intergroup relations in South Africa. On the other
hand, several disciplines that could broadly be characterized as helping professions
(including medicine, its allied professions and psychology) were all much less
vociferous in their critique of the social, political and economic crisis facing South
Africa and its populace (Baldwin-Ragaven, de Gruchy, & London, 1999). This was
partly due to the historical conservatism of these disciplines, but was also due to their
professionalization, the resultant guild mentality, and the associated economic
benefits of supporting an oppressive social system (Nell, 1993). Psychology as a
historical case in point was not only unable, but unwilling to examine reflexively the
manner in which it had contributed to the formation and maintenance of these
particularly brutal intergroup relations.
Moreover, psychology did not merely display a lack of commitment to critical
reflexivity, but for the most part engaged directly in forms of knowledge production
that invariably supported stereotypical notions of ‘race’1 and therefore, also
oppressive social relations in South Africa. During the early 1900s the discipline
had already adopted a firm ideological position in relation to both knowledge
production and praxis in South Africa. Several authors have highlighted the
complicitous relationship between psychology and a white, racist, political
hegemony that had emerged in postcolonial South Africa (Duncan, van Niekerk,
de la Rey, & Seedat, 2001; Nicholas, 1993; Nicholas & Cooper, 1990). This was to
have a fundamental impact on the very structure of the discipline and profession as
well as the content that drove research and praxis for years to come. At the peak of
the crisis in the South African social formation during the 1960s and 1970s, social
psychology was also engaged in its own internal crisis of social relevance (Foster &
Louw-Potgieter, 1991). This period witnessed alternative social psychological

1
The placing of words or concepts between single quotation marks generally indicates that its validity is
being queried, and suggests that the meaning broadly ascribed to the concept or word is not accepted by
the author. For a further explication of this process, see Duncan (1993).
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 191

attempts to explain intergroup relations and even to generate potential mechanisms

and strategies for intergroup harmony. However, even these attempts were often
reliant upon the work of international scholars such as Dollard, Doob, Miller,
Mower, & Sears (1939), Clark & Clark (1939), Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik,
Levinson, & Sanford (1950), Sherif (1966), Gurr (1972), Pettigrew (1969) and Tajfel
(1981), amongst others, and had limited application to South Africa because of their
inability to provide explanatory linkages between the prevailing intergroup dynamics
and racism as an ideology (Foster & Louw-Potgieter, 1991).
In the last two decades, South African scholars of psychology have increasingly
critiqued the conservative role that the discipline has played with regard to ‘race’ and
racism and have also made significant contributions to newer and more relevant
research efforts (Duncan, van Niekerk, de la Rey, & Seedat, 2001; Nicholas, 1993;
Nicholas & Cooper, 1990; Seedat, Duncan, & Lazarus, 2001). Despite new
contestations, the degree to which critical reflexivity has been internalized in a
widespread manner in the discipline and profession is unclear. Furthermore, there
appears to be a general malaise with regard to newer studies on ‘race’ and racism in
South Africa at present. Even though ‘race’ has been central to South African
history for the past 350 years and is certainly pivotal to social transformation, only
approximately one quarter of the publications in the South African Journal of
Psychology address ‘race’ directly or indirectly from 1990 to 2000. This is a relatively
small proportion, given the importance of ‘race’ as a social scientific phenomenon in
South Africa.
This paper therefore explores publication themes and trends emerging from within
the discipline of psychology in South Africa over the past 10 years (i.e. from 1990 to
2000), by examining the corpus of the only accredited psychological journal in South
Africa, namely the South African Journal of Psychology. This is critical as the
production of formal knowledge is in itself a contested ideological process and
reflects similar contestations in society at large. More importantly, it plays a
significant role in helping to shape commonsense discourses and practices related to
racism (Cornforth, 1963; Thompson, 1984; Van Dijk, 1991). Whilst the study is a
non-exhaustive thematic exploration, it does provide us with a snapshot of academic
publications and the shifting ontological, epistemological, theoretical and metho-
dological frameworks that characterize constructions of ‘race’ and racism during this
period. Furthermore, it provides us with the basis for examining how academic
constructions and representations (that are often elevated to the level of being
completely reflexive) consciously or unwittingly mirror and engage with social
processes within South Africa during this period.

2. ‘Race’ and racism in contemporary South Africa

As discourses of ‘deracialization’ have become infused and mainstreamed into the

process of social transformation in South Africa since the first democratic elections
in 1994, there appears to be less questioning of the validity of the construct of ‘race’
and even less emphasis on the critical study and research into ‘race’ and racism. This
192 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

type of response amongst academics, social scientists and ordinary people is not
unusual after periods of protracted, ‘racialised’, social conflict. It appears to be one
potential avoidance reaction when confronted with the imperative of critically
reflecting on a society’s oppressive social behaviors, conditions, history and legacy
(Stevens, 1996). On the one hand, it serves to normalize, deny and deflect
responsibility away from broader structural processes to the realm of the individual
and the group context. On the other hand, heightened levels of social fatigue and
disillusionment that settle in after prolonged periods of conflict, personal traumas,
the strong prevalence of a socially desirable reconciliatory discourse, and threats to
existing social, political, ideological and economic power bases may all in part
account for this tendency (Stevens, 1996). Whatever the reasons, South African
society’s pre-occupation with not being pre-occupied with ‘race’ and racism provides
an initial impetus for continued critical research, theorizing and study into these
phenomena. With regard to the psychological research that has been conducted,
several contending approaches to the understanding of ‘race’ and racism—with
differing ontological and epistemological bases—coexist and need to be considered
in any interpretations of the varied characterizations of ‘race’ and racism in South
Africa during this period.
Firstly, from a critical Marxist perspective relying on historical materialism, the
structural origins of racism are rooted in colonialism, imperialism and industrializa-
tion (which are themselves constitutive elements of modernity). Despite the changing
nature of global capitalism, a compelling modernist argument for theorizing on
‘race’ today lies in the fact that as an ideology, racism has adjusted and adapted
within this new global context and its structural basis remains, even if in an altered
state (Miles, 1994). This is also apparent from a historical and materialist analysis of
the development and contemporary condition of the South African social formation
and political economy (Alexander, 1992; Brecker, 1994; Bond, 1994, 2000).
Secondly, there is a widely expressed view that equates the dismantling of the
apartheid state apparatus with the eradication of racism. This facilitates the denial of
any current social responsibility and minimizes negative internal attributions,
allowing agents of racism to distance themselves from social inequalities that have
their ongoing basis in the social system. At a more sophisticated level, this denial of a
‘racialised’ past with contemporary and future consequences is epitomized in a clean-
slate argument in which the former oppressors and the former oppressed now
apparently operate on a leveled playing field, due to the visible re-direction of social
skills and services toward the formerly disenfranchised black2 populace (Stevens,
1996). The denial of racism is often found in contexts undergoing social change and
is a more covert symbolic racism that emerges when social pressure dictates that

2
The term black is utilized generically in this paper to include all people historically not labelled as
white. In South Africa it is a concept derived from the Black Consciousness Movement and is usually
utilized in a unifying manner, in opposition to the divisive and racist population classification system
which existed under Apartheid (Ramphele, 1995). However, it is the subjective choice of the author and
does not negate that there may be varied and diverse articulations, experiences and understandings of
being black.
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 193

overt expressions of racism are counterproductive and inappropriate (Sears, 1988;

Van Dijk, 1987).
Finally, postmodernist arguments supporting the idea of multiple, valid truths
arising from varied experiences of social reality, diffuse sets of identities and
fragmented and fluid social relations place the emphasis on subjectivities and inter-
subjectivities. Here again, while there appears to be both a theoretical and empirical
basis for such an argument, it also has the potential to nullify views that implicate
social systems or components thereof in the production and perpetuation of racism;
and to relegate ‘race’ and racism to the position of identity politics (Eagleton, 1996).
The rapid and fluid social transformation in South African society over the last
decade clearly represents a fundamental point for social inquiry into issues of ‘race’
and racism. Theorizing about ‘race’ and racism has needed to adjust to this
transformation, especially as articulations of Self and Other have become
increasingly complex and difficult to predict and understand (Duncan & de la
Rey, 2000; Rattansi & Westwood, 1994). Moreover, the imperative for those
involved in theorizing and other formal knowledge production to evaluate the
manner in which knowledge reflects and shapes everyday discourses and social
contexts, is critical as we attempt to responsibly build non-’racialism’ and anti-
racism.

3. Methodology

Within the present study, approximately 100 articles from the South African
Journal of Psychology (1990–2000) were selected and reviewed at the level of their
titles and abstracts. In an attempt to be as inclusive as possible, articles with a direct
and indirect focus on ‘race’ and racism were incorporated into the data set. The
inclusive nature of the data set meant that not only were critical appraisals of ‘race’
and racism sought out within the literature, but also as many discursive expressions
of ‘race’ and racism as possible. Abstracts were utilized to verify the nature of the
article, especially since titles often represent the content of articles cryptically or
abstractly. Whilst this appears to be a sizeable amount of literature within the data
set, and reflects approximately one quarter of all articles published within the South
African Journal of Psychology during this period, it should be noted that they
included several special issues that were in some way related to issues of ‘race’ and
racism (e.g. the Truth and Reconciliation issue, two special issues on racism and
black scholarship and one special issue on qualitative methods). Also, the historical
period in which the data set is located reflects ‘race’ as a more salient feature of
South African psychology. Debates within psychology related to ‘race’ and relevance
were rife during this period, and the ever-changing manifestations of ‘race’ and
racism associated with social transformation gave rise to greater theoretical flux,
fluidity and conceptual diversity. In spite of the above, the argument that South
African psychology acted with complicity around issues of ‘race’ and racism still
holds true, as this data set does not adequately reflect the actual silences within the
discipline throughout its conservative history (Seedat, 1998).
194 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

Once the data set had been established, a thematic analysis was conducted
using the basic procedures of qualitative thematic analysis. These included a reading
of the data, allowing themes to emerge organically, coding of data into more
manageable units, developing categories, observing patterns and generating themes
(Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Potter & Wetherell, 1992; Terre Blanche & Durrheim,
1999).
Rather than simply providing a descriptive commentary on the themes, a critical
social constructionist paradigm, using the Thompson (1990) ‘‘Depth-Hermeneutics’’,
provided greater analytical depth to the interpretation of these hermeneutic units.
This qualitative framework refers to the study and interpretation of the meanings
conveyed by social actors through their symbolic constructions. Such interpretation
is undertaken within the socio-historical context in which these symbolic
constructions are embedded, and attempts to reveal their ideological significance.
More specifically, the ‘‘Depth-Hermeneutics’’ framework consists of three primary
levels of analyses, namely, providing the socio-historical context of symbolic
construction and production, highlighting the social actors’ interpretations of this
context within their symbolic forms, and interpretation/re-interpretation of these
symbolic forms by the researcher. These three levels of analysis constantly interact
and influence each other. The social actor generates certain symbolic forms which
are determined by both the socio-historical terrain, and more importantly, by his/her
interpretation of this terrain. These symbolic forms may themselves then maintain or
transform the very socio-historical context in which they find themselves, resulting in
further interpretation and generation of symbolic forms.
Consequently, any research pertaining to ideology which utilizes this approach,
will reflect similar interactive processes. The analyst may initially sketch a socio-
historical context, then isolate particular symbolic forms, and attempt to interpret
social actors’ interpretations thereof. However, when reaching the interpretation/
re-interpretation level, the analyst may find that the initial assumptions which were
made about the socio-historical terrain were inaccurate, and therefore need to be
modified. The analyst therefore recognizes the influence of his/her own subjective
interpretation of social reality on the analytical process, and is willing to consider
alternative interpretations which may present themselves through the research
process. Rather than separating the Thompson (1990) three levels of analysis
arbitrarily, they were all combined to generate the analytical section below.
Even though this framework has been utilized extensively in discursive analyses of
ideological phenomena (see for example Duncan, 1993; Stevens, 1996), it is as useful
in critically deconstructing the ideological significance of emerging themes within
texts. Duncan (1993) notes that in the field of psychology there is ‘‘a growing
trend...[to] focus (...) on extended sequences of sentences and statements’’ (p. 66).
However, unlike content analysis where the thematic categories are often seen as an
end in themselves, a hermeneutic framework allows for an analysis of the subjective
understandings conveyed through these themes, as well as their functions and
ideological significance (Kress, 1985; Thompson, 1990).
Critical deconstructionist approaches have become increasingly popular amongst
researchers as a tool with which to study the reproduction and maintenance of
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 195

racism as ideology (Van Dijk, 1991). This popularity has been influenced by the
expansion in the literature base with regards to signification (i.e. attributed meaning)
and the ideology of racism in the last decade (Thompson, 1990). Several studies
conducted by Van Dijk (1984, 1987, 1991) explored the manner in which racist
prejudice is expressed and reproduced through face-to-face verbal interactions, press
reports, textbooks, academic discourse, political discourse and corporate discourse
about ‘ethnic’ affairs. Similarly, other studies have highlighted the subtle ways in
which culture (Essed, 1991; Rattansi, 1992) and linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1990)
are utilized in everyday and institutional discourses, to communicate racist prejudice
and to perpetuate broader racist ideology. In South Africa, critical analyses of texts
and the manner in which racist ideology is perpetuated and challenged has been
conducted by Duncan (1993), Stevens (1996) and Nathoo (1997). In addition, trend
analyses have also been conducted on publications within South African psychology
by Duncan (1993, 2001) and Seedat (1988, 2001a, b), highlighting the distinct
relationship between racism and academia during the apartheid era. Unfortunately,
a decline in this level of critical reflexivity has been evident in South African
psychology in recent years.

4. Emergent themes

The unanticipated social fluidity of the transitionary period, as well as the

influence of globalization and its contradictory impact on nationalist movements (le
Pere & Lambrechts, 1999) has resulted in a diversity of constructions of ‘race’ and
racism that have contended for hegemony at all levels of South African society.
While some of these approaches have at points been complimentary, others have
appeared more adversarial in terms of their intellectual, political and social
implications. Psychology, as a site of expression, has captured some of these
tensions, as is evident from the themes below.
In terms of the actual analysis of this data set, a review of the titles and abstracts
allowed firstly for a categorization into three broad themes in which several sub-
themes could then be identified. These included the object of research (i.e. the actual
content area on which research was being conducted in the article), the subjects/
participants on which research was being conducted (i.e. the target populations
referred to in these articles, often highlighted by the authors’ ‘racialised’ descriptors
of the populations), and the methodologies adopted in the articles (i.e. the research
tools, analytical tools and frameworks being utilized). Whilst distinctions between
subjects and objects were often unclear, this in itself provided insights into the
constructions and ideological functions of the research. Also, even though scrutiny
of the subjects and objects provided an entry point for the analysis, a meta-analysis
of the methodologies utilized helped to crystallize understandings of the ontological,
epistemological and ideological trends within the data set. For the purposes of
brevity in this article however, it should be noted that the following themes represent
a synopsis of these trends, rather than providing a comprehensive, 10-year analysis
of the publications within the South African Journal of Psychology.
196 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

4.1. Objects of research

4.1.1. ‘Race’, racism and the South African transition

Within the early 1990s, publications focusing on ‘race’ and racism tended to
explore traditional social psychological conceptions, but with an emphasis on the
changing context of South Africa. Constructs and concepts such as ‘‘identifications’’,
‘‘attitudes’’, ‘‘preference’’, ‘‘stereotypes’’, ‘‘racism scales’’ and ‘‘authoritarianism’’
dominated the title trends within these articles. In addition to these constructs being
utilized, they were often juxtaposed with phrases such as ‘‘transitionary South
Africa’’, ‘‘black South African children’’ and ‘‘political activism’’. In spite of the
ongoing debates surrounding this particular approach to the study of racism, in
which many of the traditional positivistic conceptualizations of ‘race’ and racism
were criticized (Katz, 1976; Stevens, 1996), the manner in which the content of what
was being explored in the early 1990s was still fairly positivistic. However, the
juxtaposition referred to above is indicative of the shifts that occurred with regard to
redirecting the discipline towards greater social relevance for the majority of the
black populace. The continued use of heavily critiqued conceptualizations of ‘race’
and racism is in some way reflective of similar social difficulties experienced by many
white South Africans, who recognized the inevitability of social transformation, but
who were as yet unwilling to break from their historical positions of power. The
juxtaposition that occurred in these papers can be seen as attempts to give greater
credibility and legitimacy to fairly conservative analyses and concealed the true
nature of the dominant conceptualizations of ‘race’ and racism (i.e. a narrowly
defined understanding that tends to reduce and generalize complex social issues of
‘race’ and racism and views them in the context of individual or small group
dynamics). This fundamental flaw fails to take cognizance of the fact that ‘race’ is
integrally linked to the ideology of racism and has its genesis in a range of historical
and material processes (Duncan & de la Rey, 2000). This conscious or unwitting
denial of racism as ideology is in itself a manifestation of symbolic racism (Van Dijk,
1987, 1992) and reflects to some degree the broader social resistances to the erosion
of white power as a result of the transformation politics of the early 1990s in South
Africa. The characterization of ‘race’ during this period can be described in part as
an uncritical acceptance of ‘racialised’ categories and their underlying ideological
components, combined with a growing awareness of the need to consider blacks and
their experiences as an increasingly socially significant ‘racialised’ category in
transitional South Africa. Fundamentally though, the apparently greater level of
social relevance evident in these titles belies the continued promotion of the
ontological and epistemological foundations of positivism within many of these
studies, and consequently, partial and conservative analyses of ‘race’ and racism.

4.1.2. Psychometrics and the South African transition

In addition, a growing number of papers focused on the one domain that
psychology has absolute control over, that being the area of psychological testing.
Traditional psychological tests that were criticized for many decades for their
culture-bias and lack of validity, reliability and standardization in South Africa
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 197

(Cooper, Nicholas, Seedat, & Statman, 1990; Duncan, van Niekerk, de la Rey, &
Seedat, 2001), was the focus of attention. The ‘‘Luria Neuropsychological
Investigation’’, ‘‘Junior Aptitude Tests’’, ‘‘Self-Directed Search’’, ‘‘Bender Gestalt’’
and ‘‘Super’s Career Theory’’ all featured prominently in several publications. These
were again addressed within the context of their relevance to black South Africans,
and scientific and social issues such as ‘‘problems in evaluating’’, ‘‘appropriateness’’
to black South Africans, ‘‘translation’’ into Zulu, ‘‘test bias’’ and ‘‘validity’’ were
tackled. What these tendencies reflect is the growing concern about psychology and
its relevance to South Africa during the period of transition, especially at the point
where fundamental social change is imminent. This represents, in part, psychology’s
response to the growing ideological pressure within the social formation that favored
non-’racialism’, democracy and egalitarianism. Whilst there was an acknowl-
edgement of ‘racialised’ social categories based on the discourse of ‘race’, it appears
that the position implicitly adopted in many of these papers was one of multi-
‘racialism’ (i.e. the belief in the existence of different ‘races’ with unique and different
needs). Even though multi-‘racialism’ has historically been one expression of racism
to avoid miscegenation and to entrench social and economic control over blacks
(CAL, 1987), the function of this conceptualization is more nuanced in these
instances. Professional psychology appeared to be gearing itself up to the fact that an
increasing number of blacks would enter the education sector and the world of work
and would have greater access to health and welfare services. These are all extremely
strategic areas in which psychology and psychological testing in particular are
valued. The multi-‘racial’ conception facilitated the professional class interests of
psychologists who acknowledged the market and potential for economic gain from
future black clients, but in a politically and ‘scientifically’ acceptable manner.
Racism and class interests still intersected, but in an altered and more sophisticated
manner, as the social, political and economic relations upon which racism had
historically been founded began to change in South Africa (i.e. from ‘racial’
capitalism to non-‘racial’ capitalism).

4.1.3. Critical evaluations of psychology’s history and relevance

Despite the superficial changes within psychology’s approach to ‘race’ and racism
during the early 1990s, they were clearly not sufficient and were in fact the precursors
to more critical contributions from within the discipline shortly thereafter. Critical
historical analyses began to emerge strongly in this period and continued throughout
much of the 1990s. This critical approach was often expressed in the form of
exploring the social relevance of psychology from a material and historical
perspective and focused on issues such as ‘‘liberatory psychology’’, questioned
‘‘where we are headed’’, explored ‘‘exclusionary ideologies’’, ‘‘neutrality, relevance
and accountability’’, ‘‘mental health for all’’, the ‘‘reproduction of racism’’, ‘‘science
and social accountability’’, and additional issues of ‘‘relevance’’. The ideological
contestations within South Africa during the mid-1990s were heightened, due to the
formal transfer of political power and its associated social consequences. This was
also reflected in the open debate and engagement amongst academics about
the future role of psychology and was not merely a collective attempt at disciplinary
198 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

re-definition, but was in fact a serious conflict about a discipline that had historically
served the direct interests of those who established and continued to benefit from
apartheid ideology. These tensions continued throughout this period and also
coincided with the formation of a new representative body within South African
psychology—the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA). Adversarial
relationships between conservative and radical perspectives on the historical and
material evolution of ‘race’, racism and psychology in South Africa characterized
psychological publications during this period. Even the discursive trends toward
more esoteric titles that tend to be steeped in political rhetoric and philosophy
indicate a depth in the ideological tensions that were increasingly being articulated
within formal process of knowledge production.

4.1.4. The ‘black experience’

Furthermore, a number of papers started to reflect specifically on the experiences
of blacks in South Africa. As this was an absolutely unambiguous shortcoming of
psychology that was recognized by many within the discipline (Cooper et al., 1990),
there was a proliferation of papers on this matter. Publication trends indicated a
growing responsiveness within psychology during this period. Examples of these
publications include the examination and exploration of ‘‘identification patterns
among black students’’, ‘‘response to dreams among Zulu South Africans’’, the
‘‘worldview of black and white South African adolescent pupils’’, ‘‘black adolescent
identity’’, ‘‘black psychopathology’’, ‘‘academic performance among African women
students’’, ‘‘health behaviors among black South African students’’, and ‘‘Zulu
students’ views’’. What is of interest, is that despite a seeming re-orientation of the
discipline towards a historically marginalized and disadvantaged group, construc-
tions of this group were still characterized by intense heterogeneity. Constructions of
‘racial’ identity within these articles still very much reflected the contradictions
between apartheid and liberatory ideologies, but on the other hand, started to reflect
the growing in-betweenities with regard to group categorization. Articles referred to
‘‘Zulu’’, ‘‘Black’’, ‘‘black’’, ‘‘African’’, etc. and it is apparent that constructions of
‘race’ remained highly ambiguous and diversely defined. At a theoretical level, the
white-black binary that had existed in South Africa (Bulhan, 1985) had become
infused with alternative meanings in the 1970s, through the emergence of the Black
Consciousness Movement. However, these meanings still remained circumscribed
within the framework of binary opposites (Duncan 1993; Stevens, 1996). What is
evident from the above illustrations, is that these binaries were themselves being
contested within psychological publications, and modernist interpretations of ‘race’
and racism relying on such binaries were indirectly being revisited and challenged.

4.1.5. Comparative experiences

Other than themes of the black experience, comparative studies also emerged
sporadically in the literature. Attempts to be inclusive of newly formed political and
numeric minorities are common in countries experiencing political transition
(Stevens, 1996). In line with this, one notes studies that compared ‘‘Black and
white employees’ fairness perceptions’’, the ‘‘comparability of the scores of blacks
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 199

and whites’’, ‘‘performance values of blacks and whites’’, etc. Whilst these studies
attempted to highlight similarities and differences between these social categories,
they also reflected the growing number of questions about the equivalence of these
groups in postapartheid South Africa. Furthermore, they coincided with concerns of
‘reverse racism’ emanating from various sectors of South African society, of blacks
being favored unfairly through Affirmative Action policies as well as social and
political transformation processes (Stevens, 1996). Underpinning these forms of
modern racism (Jones, 1997) is the frequent sense of being threatened and swamped
(Ashmore & Butsch, 1972). Publications focused on questions of perceptions, value
systems, competence and general abilities across ‘racialised’ categories, in order to
strengthen the position of minorities who were experiencing a perceived erosion of
power and/or access to resources.

4.1.6. Emergent identities

Towards the mid-1990s, a range of articles emerged, focusing on identity more
broadly. One of the distinguishing characteristics of these publications as compared
to earlier studies, is that they attempted to incorporate social analyses more overtly
through studies on ‘‘social identity’’, ‘‘social identity of township youth’’, and ‘‘social
identity theory and gender’’. Two important points need to be made here. The first is
that ‘race’ was increasingly viewed as one of many potential identities, and the
second, is that it represented an attempt to theoretically bridge critical social issues
and experimental social psychological investigations in the area of ‘race’ and racism.
These are both extremely interesting reflections of the generalized reconciliatory
period in South African history, with its emphasis on the ‘rainbow nation’, increased
levels of social desirability and social pressure to reduce the salience of ‘race’ issues.
In reality however, this approach was criticized for not being sufficiently contextual,
and coincided and reflected the growing unease and criticism of deceptive notions
such as the ‘rainbow nation’. In fact, shortly thereafter a re-emergence of critical
papers examining ‘race’ and racism within discursive frameworks, as well as more
critical historical publications on the discipline and profession of psychology in
South Africa, became evident. As these contending positions postured for hegemony
within the discipline, they partially reflected the prevailing conditions within the
South African socio-political landscape.
The discursive and qualitative approaches referred to above, examined emergent
themes and linguistic reproductions of racism and more specifically, highlighted
‘‘talking about racism’’, ‘‘discourses of public violence and the reproduction of
racism’’ and ‘‘racialised discourses’’. Moreover, additional qualitative articles that
placed greater emphases on multiple identities, experiences and realities, of which
‘race’ only constituted one component of the subject of inquiry, appeared in
publication. These included papers on the ‘‘discursive paradigm’’, ‘‘understandings
of psychology’s subject’’, and other more cryptic and esoteric titles. The particular
function that these served, was to create the academic and intellectual space in
psychology to shift the salience away from ‘race’ and to focus on all forms of
identities, interpretations and experiences of realities. Rapid developments at a
national and global level such as the increase in information technologies, the
200 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

globalization of economics on an unprecedented scale, and the beginnings of the

demise of the nation-state, all facilitated challenges to modernist understandings of
‘race’ and racism (even critical, modernist perspectives), and created opportunities
for the emergence of postmodernist understandings thereof. Within South African
society, this to some extent mirrors one of the contemporary debates related to ‘race’
and racism, that being whether they are representations of class politics or of new
forms of diffuse identity politics.3

4.2. Subjects/participants in research

4.2.1. The ‘racialised’ Self and other

The majority of the publications in the data set focused predominantly on
previously marginalized or disenfranchised social categories. They referred primarily
to the experiences of ‘‘Zulus’’, ‘‘Africans’’, ‘‘Blacks’’, ‘‘blacks’’ and to a lesser extent,
‘‘Coloreds’’, ‘‘Asians’’ and ‘‘whites’’.4 Very few articles reflexively examined the
understandings of the ‘racialised’ terms that were utilized, and proceeded to employ
them uncritically, either overtly as the apartheid state did, or as unquestioned
constructs and symbols. This lack of reflexivity was premised on an acceptance of the
notion of distinct and unchanging ‘racial’ categories, and revealed an ahistorical and
decontextualized understanding of ‘race’ that discursively reinforced dominant racist
ideological constructions. This is what Bulhan (1985) refers to as the internalization
of oppressive social relations and their consequent reproduction as acts of violence.
Van Dijk (1991) also suggests that the actual utterances themselves allow for
ideological ‘‘enactment, expression, legitimation and acquisition in society.’’ (p. 2) In
addition, they reflect the heterogeneous, fragmented and fluid experiences and
understandings of ‘race’ and racism in a context that itself is in a state of social flux.
In either case, what is missing is a relational and historical basis for the use of these
terms. As Duncan & de la Rey (2000) argue, ‘race’ is an empty signifier that is
meaningless without a relational and historical location. Moreover, the lack of such
a relational and historical location in any analysis leaves it open to an infinite
number of interpretations, but ultimately ones that are supportive of the dominant
ideological discourse of racism. Unreflexive academic practices reveal a profound
failure to see the manner in which they themselves often contribute to the discourse
of ‘race’, thereby legitimizing it within formal processes of knowledge production
that inevitably also influencing everyday, commonsense discourses (Van Dijk, 1991).

4.2.2. Methodologies
At the level of meta-analysis, four major competing trends in methodological and
theoretical orientations (all of which have already been alluded to above) can be
identified in the data set at different points in the last decade. These contending
approaches reflect a distinct potential for overt or covert ideological contrasts to play
3
This debate is discussed further in the latter section of this paper.
4
These ‘racialised’ categories were all institutionalised and artificially imposed on the South African
population during the apartheid era, through the promulgation of the Population Registration Act.
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 201

themselves out as they do in other areas of social reality, given their differing
ontological and epistemological underpinnings. There is little doubt that theoretical
frameworks are also ideological signifiers when located in particular historical and
material contexts, and their application therefore needs to be understood within
South Africa’s social climate of heterogeneity and contestation. As Cornforth (1963)
states:

Ideas are not the product of pure intellectual processes, nor are they mere
automatic responses to stimuli reaching us from external objects. They are
produced (...) in the course of human social activity. They reflect the connections
(...) with one another and with the external world. (p. 57)

4.2.3. Experimental social psychological approaches

The first trend that can be observed within the identified papers reflects what can
broadly be termed as traditional, experimental social psychological approaches to
understanding ‘race’ and racism. These approaches mainly utilized positivistic
underpinnings and methods that attempted to quantify components of ‘race’ and
racism through an analysis of ‘‘attitudes’’, ‘‘ethnic identifications’’ and ‘‘prefer-
ences’’, using ‘‘scales’’, ‘‘stereotype measures’’ and so on. As pointed out earlier,
these methods were frequently utilized in studies that attempted to responsively
engage with the criticism that South African psychology had lacked fundamental
social relevance. At an ideological level, this mirrored a similar crisis of validity at
the time within the social system in South African society. During this period, there
was a collapse of apartheid, political conservatism, and a failure to relevantly re-
define its role in postapartheid South Africa. Similarly, experimental social
psychological approaches that relied on positivistic methods and conceptualizations,
struggled to be relevantly re-defined in a meaningful manner, without a critical
awareness of and rupture with its historical role within South African psychology.
Methodological frameworks in themselves are not necessarily ideological, but
utilized in particular socio-historical locations, they clearly come to represent
ideological viewpoints within contested spaces.

4.2.4. Critical historical and materialist approaches

A primary methodological contender during this period, was the more critical
historical and materialist framework of analysis, that was represented within
arguments about psychology’s limited relevance and appropriateness within South
African health delivery. In many respects, these analyses occurred at a time when it
was extremely socially undesirable to raise them, but the application of this method
also represented a serious assertion amongst those opposed to apartheid and its
legacy, and provided a sound critique of ‘race’ and racism within psychology. More
broadly, it was indicative of the growing tide of social change, the hegemony of
transformation politics and the growing socio-political trend against racist
conservatism. This was further paralleled within South African society, by processes
related to the transfer of power in government, greater levels of social confidence to
202 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

address issues of ‘race’ and racism more openly, and an emerging culture of
transformation.

4.2.5. Social identity theory and reconciliation

During the period of ‘purging and catharsis’ in South Africa, there was also a
prevailing culture of reconciliation (e.g. the roles and functions of the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission), and psychological publications reflected similar
processes. The re-emergence of Social Identity Theory as a conceptual and
methodological framework represented a bringing together of the ‘old’ (i.e.
traditional experimental methods of scientific inquiry) and a simultaneous
accommodation of the ‘new’ (i.e. more critical, historical and social analyses).
Transformation and reconciliatory politics equally played themselves out within
South African psychological publications through this accommodation of ‘old’ and
‘new’. But, as in the case of the politics of reconciliation, Social Identity Theory and
its application struggled to uncover and address the concealed ‘racialised’
polarization of South African society. Reconciliation politics in some ways
undermined the basis for truly addressing the atrocities, inequalities and disparities
of the past and condemned them prematurely to history. Furthermore, it allowed for
a glimpse into historical matters of oppression, but denied the opportunity to
address these beyond the level of cathartic confession and disclosure (e.g. the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission). Whilst uncovering many atrocities, it also served
to scapegoat some and concealed structural contradictions within the status quo. In
a similar manner, the shortcoming of Social Identity Theory’s application in many of
these publications was that it was unable to account for deep rooted ideological
processes that created conditions of oppression, resulting in specific patterns of social
categorization and intergroup relations in the first place (Foster, 1991).

4.2.6. Critical modernism and postmodernism

The honeymoon period associated with reconciliatory politics in South Africa
experienced escalating pressures after the mid-1990s. This was evidenced by the
increasing emergence of underlying social tensions that were concealed during the
previous period. Claims of racism abounded, counter-claims of chauvinism were
reported, the Human Rights Commission reported on racism in the media, criticisms
of Affirmative Action policies unfairly favoring blacks surfaced, ordinary people
recognized that the state-driven Reconstruction and Development Programme had
not improved their marginalized position, and varied manifestations of prejudice and
racism began to emerge. Here again, psychology reflected similar tensions, with a
continued prevalence of critical historical papers on psychology, racism and
relevance and also more discursive analyses being published. In addition, an ever-
increasing number of qualitative articles explored postmodernist conceptualizations
of ‘‘being in the world’’. On the one hand, there were arguments emphasizing an
analysis of ‘racial’ inequality, its history, legacy and consequences. On the other
hand, emergent arguments that the nature of the world could not be reduced to
generalities and totalities, and that ‘race’ was but only one component of identities
that may or may not exist, arose within publication trends. In the first instance,
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 203

many of the analyses provided in these articles had their basis within traditional,
critical Marxist theory (and thus modernity), and in the latter, they developed
arguments suggesting that the social, political and economic conditions upon which
modernity was premised had changed in fundamental ways. The often unspoken
tension in psychological articles examined was between those who viewed ‘race’ as a
salient social phenomenon, and those who viewed it as salient only for those who
believed it to be salient. This co-existence of postmodernist and modernist
interpretations of ‘race’ and racism can be viewed as one of the significant
characterizations of the status of ‘race’ in South African psychology at the end of the
1990s and is firmly rooted in the changes occurring in the national and global
contexts.

5. The Contemporary Status of ‘Race’ in South African Psychology: Identity Politics

or Class Politics?

Given the debates related to modernist and postmodernist understandings of

‘race’ and racism that currently express themselves in South African psychology and
other disciplines internationally (see for example Rattansi & Westwood, 1994), we
now turn our attention more specifically to these. The present section serves not only
to examine contemporary debates in the field, but also to identify the different
ontological and epistemological positions operating in a rapidly changing global
context.
Modernist and postmodernist approaches are often set up as binary opposites by
the proponents of both frameworks (ironically), when in reality they may be
construed as different components of the same frame. By conceiving of them as
binary opposites, the dichotomy that this generates is essentially whether ‘race’ and
racism should be viewed as an expression of class politics or identity politics
(Eagleton, 1996).
Many postmodern purists are suspicious of notions of truth, reason, single
frameworks, grand narratives and of the idea of universal progress or emancipation.
Rather, the world is construed as diverse, unstable, fragmented and consisting of
diffuse and ephemeral sets of multiple identities. This is brought about by the
changing nature of social, political and economic shifts in a world that can be
characterized as ‘post-industrial’ due to the pervasive influence of finance capital,
information technology, increased global mobility, etc. These factors are said to
undermine the very nature of a class society and the premise upon which critical
Marxist thought was based. It is an approach that is highly reflexive—in some ways
described as a frame within a frame. It recognizes the fluidity and dynamic nature of
human interaction, while avoiding totalities and generalities. It validates the varied
and diverse experiences of humans and values them all equally. As for ‘race’ and
racism, it rejects the idea of uniform institutional processes that all collude as cogs in
the social machinery, giving rise to binary opposites of white and black, clever and
stupid, rich and poor, oppressor and oppressed. Rather, it suggests multiple
experiences and understandings of ‘race’ and racism, thereby allowing for a
204 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

transcendence of modernist dichotomies/binaries and an encouragement of reflexive

and creative exploration of the alternative, the ambiguous and the ambivalent
(Eagleton, 1996; Rattansi & Westwood, 1994).
On the other hand, those who subscribe to a purist modernist position would
argue that a postmodernist approach is reflective of a disillusionment with critical
Marxist theory, and that it serves to divert critical attention away from oppressive
social systems and to re-direct it towards the level of the individual’s perceptions,
opinions, logic and mind (Cornforth, 1963). It acts as a mechanism for repentantly
rationalizing away the radical nature of critiques among disillusioned critical
thinkers. In so doing, postmodernism itself acts ideologically to conceal contra-
dictions and to deny the need for a critical political project in the face of a system
that is perceived to be impenetrable. Postmodernism, in some ways, turns inwardly
on itself as it begins to function contradictorily as a grand narrative of its own
(Eagleton, 1996). With regard to ‘race’ and racism, critical analyses located within
modernism argue that the fundamental structural basis of capitalist social relations
remains intact, in spite of global economic, political and social changes, and that
racism pre-supposes a discourse of ‘race’ that serves to conceal the contradictions of
capitalist social relations.
What is pivotal to note here, is that in their dogmatic and purist forms,
both these approaches are self-defeating and filled with contradictions.
However, insofar as they both fundamentally support a critical analysis of
modernity, they represent the potential to undo the binary and to re-calibrate
our theoretical understandings of ‘race’ and racism. Whether one utilizes the
Bauman (1991) understanding that ‘‘postmodernism is modernity coming to
terms with its impossibility’’, or the Giddens (1990) conceptualization of a
‘‘radicalization of modernity’’, they both stress the necessity of emergent super-
reflexivity, if we are to attempt to make sense of shifting phenomena such as ‘race’
and racism in a global context in which institutional configurations are constantly
changing.
While it is clear that uniform institutional processes and outcomes that are
consistently and evenly applied with regard to racist oppression do not necessarily
occur, consistent discriminatory outcomes associated with the allocation of resources
may provide pointers to broader and more ‘generalized’ forms of racist discrimina-
tion and ideological practices. In this regard, Rattansi and Westwood (1994) argue
that:

racialised power relations (...) cannot be conceptualized as working and

reproducing through a small number of tightly knit sites, such as those of state
and capital, aided and abetted by a capitalist media supposedly interested only in
dividing black and white workers, as set out in some influential Marxist works.
Instead, racialised power relations may be seen more usefully in neo-Foucauldian
terms which do not deny the importance of state and capital, but see these as far
more fragmented and internally divided, together with a multiplication of sites for
the operation of racisms—playgrounds, streets, classrooms, doctors’ surgeries,
mental hospitals, offices, etc. (p. 62)
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 205

For social scientists (and scholars of psychology in particular), this means the
adoption of the ‘‘super-reflexivity’’ that is referred to above and a recognition of the
importance of both the subjective, as well as the context, in understanding ‘race’ and
racism. Rather than reifying either at the expense of the other, certain authors have
articulated the necessity of bridging them. Thompson’s (1990) hermeneutic approach
provides a framework for considering the dialectical relationship between the
subjective and the context. In addition, Althusser (1971) noted the relationship
between ideology, material practice, and subjectification through interpellation,
thereby recognizing the impact of base and superstructure on subjects, but also
subjects’ agency to shape base and superstructure. Not only is an intersection
between these positions desirable, but also theoretically possible. Understandings of
‘race’ and racism within the era of globalization can only be enhanced through more
critical, historical, materialist and reflexive analyses pitched at multiple subjective
and contextual levels. In so doing, social scientists are also more likely to critically
evaluate the manner in which their constructions, expressed within formal
knowledge production processes, reflect and shape subjective locations and socio-
historical contexts with regard to ‘race’ and racism.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper.
Alexander, N. (1985). Sow the wind. Johannesburg: Skotaville.
Alexander, N. (1992). National liberation and socialist revolution. In A. Callinicos (Ed.), Between
apartheid and capitalism (pp. 114–136). London: Bookmarks.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Ashmore, R. D., & Butsch, R. J. (1972). Perceived threat and the perception of violence in biracial settings:
towards an experimental paradigm. Boston: Eastern Psychological Association.
Baldwin-Ragaven, L., de Gruchy, J., & London, L. (1999). An ambulance of the wrong colour. Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press.
Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and ambivalence.. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bond, P. (1994). RDP versus World Bank. International Viewpoint, 257, 16–17.
Bond, P. (2000). Elite transition.. London: Pluto Press.
Brecker, C. (1994). Left faces new challenge. International Viewpoint, 257, 6–12.
Bulhan, H. A. (1985). Frantz fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York: Plenum Press.
Cape Action League (CAL) (1987). Introduction to ‘race’ and racism. Salt River: Author.
Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1939). The development of consciousness of self and the emergence of racial
identification in negro preschool children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 591–599.
Cooper, S., Nicholas, L. J., Seedat, M., & Statman, J. M. (1990). Psychology and apartheid: The
struggle for psychology in south africa. In L. J. Nicholas, & S. Cooper (Eds.), Psychology and apartheid
(pp. 1–21). Cape Town: Vision Publications.
Cornforth, M. (1963). Dialectical materialism: The theory of knowledge. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mower, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression..
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Duncan, N. (1993). Discourses on racism. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Western
Cape, Bellville.
Duncan, N. (2001). Dislodging the sub-texts: an analysis of a corpus of articles on racism produced
by South African psychologists. In N. Duncan, A. van Niekerk, C. de la Rey, & M. Seedat (Eds.),
206 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207

‘Race’, racism, knowledge production and psychology in South Africa (pp. 127–154). New York: Nova
Science Publishers.
Duncan, N., & de la Rey, C. (2000). Racism: A psychological perspective. Paper presented at the South
African Human Rights Commission National Conference on Racism 2000, Sandton, South Africa, 30
August–02 September 2000.
Duncan, N., van Niekerk, A., de la Rey, C., Seedat, M. (Eds.) (2001). ‘Race’, racism, knowledge production
and psychology in South Africa. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Eagleton, T. (1996). The illusions of postmodernism.. Oxford: Blackwell.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Foster, D. (1991). Social influence I: Ideology. In D. Foster, & J. Louw-Potgieter (Eds.), Social psychology
in South Africa (pp. 345–391). Johannesburg: Lexicon Publishers.
Foster, D., Louw-Potgieter, J. (Eds.) (1991). Social psychology in South Africa. Johannesburg: Lexicon
Publishers.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gurr, T. R. (1972). The calculus of civil conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 28(1), 27–47.
Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism.. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katz, P. A. (1976). The acquisition of racial attitudes in children. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the
elimination of racism (pp. 125–154). New York: Pergamon.
Kress, G. (1985). Ideological structures in discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse
analysis: Discourse analysis in society, vol. 4 (pp. 27–42). London: Academic Press.
le Pere, G., & Lambrechts, K. (1999). Globalization and national identity construction: Nation-building in
South Africa. In S. Bekker, & R. Prinsloo (Eds.), Identity? (pp. 11–38). Pretoria: Human Sciences
Research Council.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. California: Sage.
Miles, R. (1994). Explaining racism in contemporary Europe. In A. Rattansi, & S. Westwood
(Eds.), Racism, modernity and identity on the western front (pp. 189–221). Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Nathoo, N. (1997). The construction of identity in a sample of black preschool children within a multicultural
setting. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of the Western Cape, Bellville.
Nell, V. (1993). Structural blocks to a liberatory psychology in South Africa: Medical politics,
guild consciousness, and the clinical delusion. In L. J. Nicholas (Ed.), Psychology and oppression
(pp. 212–235). Cape Town: Skotaville.
Nicholas, L.J. (Eds.) (1993). Psychology and oppression. Cape Town: Skotaville.
Nicholas, L.J., Cooper, S. (Eds.) (1990). Psychology and apartheid. Johannesburg: Vision Publications.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1969). Racially separate or together? Journal of Social Issues, 25, 43–69.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1992). Discourse and social psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Rattansi, A. (1992). Changing the subject? Racism, culture and education. In J. Donald, & A. Rattansi
(Eds.), ‘Race’, culture and difference (pp. 11–48). London: Sage Publications.
Rattansi, A., Westwood, S. (Eds.) (1994). Racism, modernity and identity on the western front. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Ramphele, M. (1995). A life. Cape Town: David Phillip.
Saul, J.S., Gelb, S. (Eds.) (1986). The crisis in South Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. Katz, & D. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 53–84).
New York: Plenum Press.
Seedat, M. (1998). A characterization of South African psychology (1948–1988): The impact of
exclusionary ideology. South African Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 74–84.
Seedat, M. (2001a). Invisibility in South African psychology (1948–1988): A trend analysis. In N. Duncan,
A. van Niekerk, C. de la Rey, & M. Seedat (Eds.), ‘Race’, racism, knowledge production and psychology
in South Africa (pp. 83–102). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Seedat, M. (2001b). A comparative characterization of South African psychology (1948–1988): Discerning
ideological and academic strands. In N. Duncan, A. van Niekerk, C. de la Rey, & M. Seedat (Eds.),
‘Race’, racism, knowledge production and psychology in South Africa (pp. 103–126). New York: Nova
Science Publishers.
 G. Stevens / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 189–207 207

Seedat, M., Duncan, N., Lazarus, S. (Eds.) (2001). Community psychology. Cape Town: Oxford University
Press.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1990). Legitimating or deligitimating new forms of racism—The role of researchers.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 11(1&2), 77–99.
Stevens, G. (1996). The ‘racialised’ discourses of a group of black parents and adolescents in a western cape
Community. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of the Western Cape, Bellville.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K. (Eds.) (1999). Research in practice. Cape Town: UCT Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology.. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. London: Sage
Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Elite discourse and- the reproduction of racism. Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse and Society, 3(1), 87–118.
Wolpe, H. (1988). Race, class and the apartheid state. Addis Ababa: Organization for African Unity.