Or better said: I reread some articles, because I have that academic collection of articles for many years now, have read it already, and also used articles for some of these blog posts.
Yet, only some of the articles, I noticed upon rereading the volume recently. A part of them I quoted directly for essays for this/my blog (when relevant for my theme), or elsewhere, but all of the 22 articles/essays in it I have read, and became somehow part of my own personal knowledge base, to then connect it to more knowledge. “A So It Go”.. (That’s how it goes), to say it in a Jamaican way.
HUTTON AND MURRELL
The article titled: “Rastas’ Psychology of Blackness, Resistance, and Somebodiness”, by Clinton Hutton and Nataniel Samuel Murrell, I don’t recall quoting or citing – maybe as side path, one -, yet now intrigues me more, because of the psychology aspect.
I have and had some interest in psychology and psychoanalysts like Freud, Jung, Fromm, and differences between them. This might relate to the Eurocentric cultural context – living and schooled in the Netherlands – I grew up under, being thus part of “Western ideas” of psychology. Especially when I got higher education, this specific knowledge increased.
The article in the volume does not really draw connections to such “Western” academic Freudian or Jungian views or traditions, but takes on psychology of inner processes and liberation from exactly that Western, colonial mindset. Mostly British shaped, in Jamaica’s case.
Black people in the Diaspora – or Diaspora Africans, in the Americas – went historically through slavery, as well as attempts at dehumanization and deculturalization, all resulting in traumatization. The article uses the word “depersonalization” instead of “dehumanization”, but pointing at the same.
Besides real economic poverty and equally real social and material discrimination, there is thus also a lot of psychological healing needed. According to said article by Hutton and Murrell, the Rastafari movement provided Jamaicans and other Black people with the possibility of that mental healing, through “resistance and liberation psychology”. They write in the article, also:
“Rastafarian psychology involves expressions of self-confidence, affirmation of one’s Blackness and personhood, a rejection of Eurocentric understandings of black people and their cultures, and a longing for liberation and ultimate redemption of the black peoples of the world (especially the oppressed).”
GARVEY
Marcus Garvey – one of Rastafari’s inspirators – tended to pay relatively much attention to processes that can be deemed inner and psychological. In fact, he went deeper with that than other Black leaders before and of the time, limiting themselves more to practicalities and the status quo, though also commenting on mental needs, such as Booker T. Washington.
“Emancipate yourself from mental slavery”, is a well-known motto by Marcus Garvey, immortalized in Bob Marley’s song Redemption Song. Even on his own accord – by the way – Bredda Bob (Marley) gave some interesting “psychological” perspectives in several of his lyrics, even if not citing Garvey.
As other articles in the ‘Chanting Down Babylon’ reader indicate, the Garvey movement was still somehow connected with Western thought, Marcus Garvey himself, often taking on a global approach, or comparing between the West and other areas, while aimed at Africa. The Rastafari movement, by contrast, was also focused on Africa, but wished to detach itself from the Western (neocolonial) oppressive system, calling it “Babylon”. It represents a cultural revival through a focus on Africa, with indeed psychological aspects, as addressed – generally – in Hutton’s and Murrell’s article.
FREUD, JUNG, FROMM, ADLER, & LACAN
Western academic thought on psychology and psychoanalysis (by Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and so on) seems therefore irrelevant, and too Eurocentric for this, one might conclude. Black people need their own psychology and mental healing, after all.
Still – while maybe not in all senses required - I think that in this regard is interesting to call on – or study – Western psychoanalytical thinkers, I to differing degrees studied once. They are part of the Western canon, that is hard to escape. Well known scholars and psychoanalysts like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, but also others, such as Erich Fromm, I personally “liked” a bit more than Freud or Jung. Freud and Jung, however, I found also to say some sensible things. Other well-known psychology theorists include Alfred Adler, and – outside of the German-speaking world, the Frenchman Jacques Lacan.
DRIVING FORCE
Even before the Internet made comparisons between these psychology theorists easier, I earlier in my life compared through old-time paper books already a bit between them, noticing soon that Freud saw human behaviour as “instincts-driven” (sexual and aggressive) –with libido as sexual energy, saw the “unconscious” as crucial, and was quite deterministic, whereas other , later theorists – even some studying periods with Freud – departed from this “instincts” focus, or partly. Jung differed from Freud in that he considered not instincts (just) as humans’ main driving forces, but more spirituality and self-integration, beyond just biology. The life-long process of “individuation”.
Likewise “my main man” (this means I agree often with him) Erich Fromm, in turn argues that instead of instinctual drives, human behaviours are more connected to society and history, and the existential search for meaning by the free will. Creativity and overcoming “alienation” (as mere producers/consumers) through love and meaning, were according to Fromm main human motivators, rather than instincts and sex. Many of Fromm’s notions - as similar ones of the Frankfurter Schule, such as author Herbert Marcuse - fitted well with anti-capitalist critique arising in the Flower Power era, among disgruntled, rebellious youth in the West (the “hippies”), but in my analysis, Fromm had good, own arguments, and not just fashionably followed the hippies.
Alfred Adler, also emphasized the “social” over the “biological”, but more specifically saw the drive for “superiority” as crucial among humans, also in overcoming feelings of inferiority (the inferiority complex). The now well-known term “inferiority complex” – also in anti-colonial writings, and even heard in popular culture – was in fact coined by Adler, seeming relevant in this context.
Another well-known theorist in the Western world, about psychology, is Jacques Lacan, who somewhat reworked Freud’s “biological urges” obsessions to explain human behaviour and of “the subconscious”, yet stemming from social and cultural factors (calling it “the symbolic order”) , and as part of this – typical for Lacan – “language”. Man’s main desire is, according to Lacan, “lack”, - not “pleasure-seeking” as Freud thought - and making human’s main drive therefore to seek “recognition” from the Other (the symbolic order/social/cultural), to compensate this lack.
Lacan stayed – compared to the others mentioned - closer to Freud, overall, but still worked things out differently. Interestingly, Lacan worked out the “phallic symbol” idea (of Freud) in relation to power in society, also popularized, more or less. The “penis”-shaped size of many bombs and weapons - or rockets -, made by white men, seem a case in point. Phallic symbolism of power.
RELEVANCE?
Focussing on their distinct views ”human driving forces” for now – though there are more differences, of course, between these known psychologists -, I find these differences in themselves interesting, but also certainly in their relation to the theme I want to address: the psychology of Black liberation through the Rastafari movement, as addressed in Hutton and Murrell’s academic article.
What “drove” the Rastafari movement psychologically? Can these Western psychologists and their different theories offer some sensible insights about this? Freud’s narrow interpretation of “libido” as sex drive does not seem to do it, Jung’s broadened meaning of “the “libido” energy as “life force”, seems to fit the movement better, but also Fromm’s attention to the existential and meaning, as human needs, seems relevant. Fromm was relatively more open to non-Western philosophies, like in the Far East (Buddhism), making him perhaps more relevant.
Adler’s emphasis on “overcoming an inferiority complex” is definitely relevant in the (post)colonial context, as is Lacan’s “recognition seeking”’, The article about Rastafari’s psychology of Blackness by Hutton and Murrell, after all speak of the “search for somebodiness” and “personhood”, supposedly driving Rastafari.
These psychologists also had different views on both religion and spirituality. Most Rastas consider their movement more “spiritual” than “religious”.
Freud was quite sceptical about both religion and spirituality, while understanding the psychological needs, rooted in – according to Freud – repression and traumas, and early childhood dependence on parents. Freud thus pathologized religious and spiritual feelings.
Jung, Adler, and Fromm, though, were all in their way more positive about spiritual needs, deeming them even crucial for human and psychological development. Fromm distinguishes however between “authoritarian” religions oppressing and stifling individuals, and the “humanistic” religions, read “spirituality”’. The latter he appreciates as aiding people to search for needed existential truths, transcending the self/ego toward meaningful connection and self-actualizing identity. Fromm also saw “love” as spiritual.
Fromm’s views on spirituality have much similarities to what many Rasta’s say regarding the matter, only earlier: Fromm wrote about it since around the 1950s, and after, while the Rastafari movement arose in Jamaica in the 1930s.
Carl Jung in turn likewise considered spirituality as crucial for the human psyche toward self-actualization and wholeness, individuation, or “balance”. Alfred Adler saw spirituality as seeking significance culturally, and thus was also more positive than e.g. Freud and also Lacan, viewing religion, but also spirituality as – in essence – pathological and illusory. So quite different views on it.
These are all Western scholarly psychoanalysts, made globally known, and in other cultures in Asia, Africa, Oceania, and the Americas, - or even in common folk culture everywhere - surely own, just as plausible ideas on “mental health” can be found. I am aware of that.
Erich Fromm deplored the notion that “psychoanalysis”, psychology, and psychiatry, in the West all were aimed at conformity, to serve - eventually - the productive economy. It is not unthinkable that such conformity in certain other cultures is also demanded, especially the more hierarchical and unequal ones, misusing thus also the “sanity” concept for power goals, as Fromm sees in the West. Or different “symbolic orders” as Lacan would call them.
BLACK PSYCHOLOGY
In the article by Hutton and Murrell about Rastafari “liberation psychology” is further written:
“Without being aware of the existence of black psychology as a field of study – it emerged in the 1920s when African-American (US) researchers began to address some of the biased notions promoted by white researchers about African-American people.- Rastafari brought to light the practical characteristics of this discipline, whose major characteristics are defined by leading African American psychologists as
“a de-emphasis on deficiency based hypotheses about black behaviour... a concurrent emphasis upon the positive aspects of black behaviour which have permitted survival.. in a racist society.. a rejection of white normative standards when understanding and assessing black behaviour.. A quest for explanation of black behaviour rooted not only in psychological phenomena but also in social and economic factors as well which serves to maintain the system which subjugates blacks”.,
Notwithstanding this dismissal of “white” perspectives, and the wider Rastafari’s rejection of the West and “Babylon”, a comparative reflection with the said known Western psychologists is still interesting.
Again, some similarities with Erich Fromm, who connected psychology also with social and economic conditions, as did Alfred Adler. Jung’s focus on identity development is partly relevant, although Jung believed identities are individual and “fluid”, and changing throughout one’s life, and less connected to social reality. About “collective identities” the said psychologists have a bit less to say, as their theories tend to be individualistically oriented, albeit with (certainly after Freud) social and cultural connections.
Indeed, the Freudian psychology, but to degrees also of the others (who were also active in “psychotherapy” after all), emphasizes already “deficiency”. This becomes worse and corrupted, when weaponized for racist or economic reasons, as in Western science: to enforce conformity to society and its “powers that be”.
Fromm especially saw positive, emancipating functions of psychology and mental healing, beyond achieving conformity. There is thus a parallel with that US positive “black psychology” as field of study appearing in the 1920s, and the “black psychology” put in practice by the Rastafari movement.
Important in Rastafari psychology is what Hutton and Murrell call “Ethiopianism” and also African consciousness, in which Garvey’s Pan-African movement of the 1920s was crucial in spreading. Africa became a cornerstone for self-love and personhood.
As said, Marcus Garvey gave quite some attention to the psychology of Black people, and of other races too. In the article, they indicate: “For Garvey the greatest and most enduring impact of slavery and colonialism is psychological. It destroys one’s sense of personhood and self-worth and limits the vision and potential of black people”.
The mental slavery, “slave mentality”, or self-hatred, Garvey regularly referred to in his speeches and writings. Racial and African pride seemed the antidote against this servility to European supposed superiority and Eurocentric dominance, as taught in colonial systems.
It is somewhat in line with the “self-actualization”, the mentioned Western psychologists strived for, albeit individualized, although some like Fromm and Adler, draw social connections, and Jung and Lacan with culture and regional/specific cultures, making it – so to speak – more collectively shared among a people or nation.
Born in a British, Protestant colony like Jamaica, both Garvey and Rastafari have been influenced by a “Christian mind-set”, with a Biblical, and – in a deeper sense – “written text/word” focus. This follows in fact the “recognition” goal, humans seek according to Alfred Adler and Jacques Lacan, rather than starting from scratch, or a total cultural departure, such as to African traditional religions involving spirits and dance.
In fact, many Rastafari disparage those traditional African faiths as Vodou, Obeah, and such as evilous and disruptive to their moral goals, preferring “Biblical”, “one god” solutions. Through a back door, Alfred Adler’s inferiority complex thus still slips in, through a focus on the after all colonially taught (Protestant/King James) Bible.
Though not my favourite psychologist, I agreed with Jacques Lacan in that he saw the limits of language to express truth, pointing at the role of the “mystical”, true yet resisting language or symbolization.
In some way, this “mystical” – beyond language - still found a way in Rastafari, such as in its Nyabinghi and musical gatherings, meditation, but always in connection with nature.. The Natural Mystic, as Bob Marley sang.
That balance with the natural environment – as well as the small-scale communitarian living - most Rastas favoured and many still do, seemed also a response to what Fromm termed “alienation”, in the modern (capitalist) economic productive system, “robotizing” complex humans for economic gain of some.
With references to Mama Africa, the motherland, and such, maybe some Freudian aspects also became part of this psychology, yet all part of a sought “healing process” within the African Diaspora. Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I is referred to as Jah (God), but also as “my father” by some Rastafari-adherents, confirming Freud’s theory of faith as meant to seek “parents”, in response to some unresolved neurosis. I think the latter is too negative, simplified, and also incorrect. Attention to one's mother and "roots" are in my opinion healthy and naturally human. The other psychologists I mentioned would also allow a more positive interpretation of Rastafari, which, as Mutabaruka called it, began as a “Black Power movement, with a spiritual focus”.
GENDER RELATIONS
While Rastafari is not particularly “macho”, there have also been comments (also in other articles in the said collective volume “Chanting down Babylon”) about male dominance in the movement, and a recurring tendency to view women in it as mere, serving “supporters” of their male kings or “king man”. This male dominance should not be exaggerated, in my opinion, and female individuality seems more respected in Rastafari than in say, parts of the Islamic or Hindu (or even strict Christian) world, harkening back to relatively independent women in African traditions, at the time of colonization.
Women in sub-Saharan Africa (and even women among some pre-Islamic Berbers in North Africa) were relatively independent from men, even when compared to Europe of the time, with Spain and Portugal having historical Moorish/Islamic and Catholic “male-led” household legacies, and England and the Netherlands similarly “male-led” households – the male breadwinner idea - , but in their case Protestant/Christian motivated. Around, say 1500 and 1600, or even 1700, women were de facto more “second-class citizens” in Europe, than in much of sub-Saharan Africa, where they had some more social freedoms. A relatively unknown fact, I found, as many still live under the patronizing illusion that “Europe liberated African women”. Feminist and women’s emancipation movements arose only after the 1950s in Europe.
This male need for dominance among some Rastas regardless, has in this sense both Freudian aspects of male insecurity and domination “instincts”, but also of an “inferiority complex”, wanting “recognition”, just like the white men/family heads, and other male leaders in Western society, in line with Alfred Adler’s ideas of “compensation”. That whole idea (also popularized) of “overcompensation” stems from Adler, showing how psychoanalytical ideas spread among (quasi-) intellectuals in the Western world.
LIVITY
The already mentioned Rastafari thinker, radio host, and artist/poet from Jamaica, Mutabaruka, emphasized the role of (practical) Livity: daily life in balance with nature (e.g., agriculture) in achieving wisdom about life and the world, including what can be called psychology or philosophy. “Livity” instead of the Bible or other “books” or texts. Other Rastas are more Biblical and “text” focussed than Mutabaruka, though.
The Western academic/scholarly system is part of its value system, shaped by historically vested interests, power inequality, and political/economic elites, arising or strengthened with European colonialism and imperialism. Simply said, industrialization which began in England in the Late 18th c, was financed by British colonial and slavery gains, financing this modernization, eventually spreading production-based industrialization through much of the Western world, modernizing society and academia, etcetera, while increasing global inequalities.
The desire to take distance from scholars within/from such a Western system, and come with own (“African”) views of human healing, psychology, and values, is from the Rastafari perspective more than understandable. Yet, the other extreme, discarding any Western scholar or insight, - even to just compare, not “favour” or “adhere to” - reeks too much of lazy anti-intellectualism, in my view, and not wanting to learn about the world, remaining isolated in mind-easing simplified fiction, and dumbing oneself down.
It also has an element of hypocrisy, as the Western (King James) Bible – once misused to legitimize slavery and racism – remains nonetheless for many Rastas the norm, and less the not so “weaponized” Ethiopian Orthodox, older version of the Bible.
Such comparative knowledge (with the West, but also e.g. Asia, or elsewhere) can even result in a bigger appreciation of one’s own African culture, I imagine; in Africa, cultural/human wisdom and mental healing are certainly equally present, only often more ritualized, and less in those Western technical, separate “categories” as psychotherapy, psychiatry, philosophy, or biology, and other academic disciplines. Besides, African wisdom also has unique aspects that can enlighten even non-Africans, especially in relation to rhythm, dance, natural balance, and spirits.
This Western thinking came to separate all too neatly the mind and the body, which is strictly speaking absurd, if normalized. Perhaps these are also power goals stemming from inequality, as true individual freedom as human being can only be fully achieved when both body and mind are free. The more hierarchical societies get,- i.e. away from communal living – the distinction between mind and body increases, enabling misuse through slavery, serfdom, or other exploitation.
On different continents this occurred (Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, more feudal development among Yoruba, the Aztecs in Central America, etcetera). Yet, the West – or Babylon – maximized this (mind-body separation) to the utter, cynical conclusion, during colonialism and slavery. This involved after all a de-humanization, and attempts of de-culturalization of enslaved Africans in the West.
Also the role of the “written word” gained supremacy in European thinking, especially since the rise of Protestantism in parts of Europe. This denies the all too natural given that not everything in this world can be expressed in texts/books or even language. Also a Western (French) psychologist like Jacques Lacan, and others, more or less recognized this. Predictably, the “written text” became misused to oppress other people.
There is – also in this light - indeed something to say for, instead of this, a more “holistic” and “daily life/practical” view of the world and humans, a bit of what Mutabaruka and other Rastas find in Livity (natural lifestyle), more communal and self-sufficient, but based at the same time on a wider African pride/connection, and self-realization, to heal from historical traumas and go with a needed sense of self-worth through life, to not be downtrodden again, and maintain your own agency.
The “I and I” notion within Rastafari – the view that the divine is within each person, not in the sky - ensures such agency and self-love, but is curiously not mentioned in Hutton and Murrell’s article (it is in other articles). Curiously, because it is in my opinion psychologically interesting and relevant: the Rastafari idea of “divinity/god” within each human..
On the other hand, “categorizing” themes can be practical and effective to deeply analyse phenomena, as in Western academia, but historically also in early universities in Africa e.g. Egypt, before “universities” as such even arose in Europe.
The risk of “misuse” and weaponizing this thus acquired knowledge in more modern - and unequal - societies, to maintain or gain more power over others, is unfortunately also proven historically, but even a free-thinking Western psychologist like Erich Fromm – and some others – came to this conclusion, showing how all humans on this earth can learn from all other humans, irrespective of race and culture, and even come to the same conclusion. Just by thinking free and open as human beings.
CONCLUSION
No, Rastafari does/did not really “require” the psychological works or insights of these Western psychologists as such. The parallels are nonetheless interesting to study. The way these different psychologists differ are perhaps more interesting than the views of each psychologist.
That is after all healthy scientific – “democratic” - debate: thinking free and open on some theories you and others had, reflecting upon them, broadening or revising them based on later insights, correcting, reapplying, so you can come with other interpretations than other scholars, no one being by definition more right than others. A really open, democratic debate is good and fruitful.
“Black psychology” and Afrocentric, anticolonial Rastafari psychology was needed in this debate too, I opine, following the principle of “who feels it, knows it”, rather than armchair theories in privileged circles.
It turned out to be a useful and uplifting psychology, the Rastafari one, being centered around “collective identities” , with all its “conformity” pitfalls, but with enough room for African views on individualism, or individual agency. It spread more globally with Bob Marley’s fame and Reggae, attracting even non-Black adherents, yet Africa remained the cornerstone.
With that inflated collective (national) pride and sense of superiority the British, and other Europeans, of course colonized and dominated the world, making others dependent on them. This was however aided by a strong individual senses of superiority, supported by (individualistically oriented) Protestantism and to a lesser degree Catholicism. English culture was superior to those of others, but also each individual Englishman to others, so to speak, limiting inhibitions, while legitimizing submission.
Also someone from a Catholic country (they say from Genua, now Italy) like Christopher Columbus, was not shy and shameful to do what he pleased, for his own power position, connecting it strategically with Spain, then jealous of Portugal’s earlier colonial exploits, and wanting riches and to become a colonial power. The Spanish conquistadores conquering Amerindian areas, following Columbus’ “discovery”, where likewise self-assured in their superiority, so it was not just the British or Protestant colonizers.
These (Hawkins, Columbus, Pizarro, etc.) are “criminal” personality types, one can say, but individuality can however also be worked out more positively, when considering nature, harmony, and equality, and balance within oneself’s psychology. Beyond Freud’s “instinctual” selfishness - which also exists as part of human nature (many white colonizers and enslavers embodied this) - the other psychologists, like Fromm, at least pointed at “positive” possibilities of individual psychological development, beyond self-interest and oppressing others, or mere conformity to society’s standards by resolving pathology. Rastafari as rebellious movement in Jamaica came to the same conclusion through the “Livity” idea, and Afrocentric ideas, like in some social movements like of Marcus Garvey.
Luckily – in my opinion - no “rigid authority” came to dominate Rastafari, allowing thus own ways of individual redemption or “self-actualization”. I am also glad no unintelligent, “high school bully-like” collectivistic/group identity tends to be espoused by most Rastafari adherents I know, giving the feeling you talk with other human beings who think for themselves, not just soulless “representatives” in some vague combat mode. Especially in more “established religions” such “representative” group thinking is more the norm.
Rastafari thus mostly developed in a positive and open-minded, humanistic way. Okay, some Rastas believe more in rigid rules than others, but some basic, “liberation” ideas – partly psychological – are shared throughout the movement – at least among its sincere adherents -, and its roots in the African Diaspora remains essential, as its response to social and racial inequality.
("Chanting down Babylon : the Rastafari reader (Temple University Press, 1998) / edited by Nathaniel Samuel Murrell, William David Spencer, and Adrian Anthony McFarlane.)
