Is this Your King?

By Red the Philosopher

Why are White psychologists preserved in academia and placed upon pedestals? The short answer is White Supremacy leaves no domain untouched. This paper acknowledges Allport’s contributions and questions the role of Allport’s white privilege in both the appreciation of his contributions and the preservation of his legacy. Learning about Gordon Allport, the “father of personality,” has produced ambivalence. On the one hand, his contribution – his trait theory, his descriptions of both core and periphery features of a person, and his emphasis on behavior which aligns with the trope, “actions speak louder than words,” are salient points and deserving of acknowledgement. Taken within the context of his times, these contributions are possibly akin to what Allen Iverson did for the NBA. Although today, crossovers are commonplace and there is much more creativity in ball-handling, Allen Iverson popularized the flair of ball-handling which is continued by contemporaries such as Kyrie Irving. Due to this, one cannot easily dismiss the value of Allport’s contributions to the field of personality psychology despite the urge to do so due to his common sense conclusions. One example of such a common sense conclusion is that prejudice is linked to discrimination. Respectfully, the scientific study of prejudice was much needed and living in the US in 2023, Allport’s conclusions maintain relevance but did Allport uncover a truth that was unknown elsewhere or does he simply get credit for the publication of such truth? To take adjectives, organize them, and suggest new language – Allport made up words, such as proprium – to regulate the functions of these adjectives, is most impressive because it was selected as an activity. Furthermore, today people can describe each other using personality labels and designations which seem to stem from Allport’s work; but Allport did not invent adjectives, and maybe both laypersons and Allport’s use of adjectives to describe people share some common root. Allport’s scientific approach to studying and theorizing personality was potentially not even the most insightful, useful, or comprehensive, yet his work is touted as original and productive. Did Allport invent adjectives? Have people not known, even prior to Allport, that certain adjectives describe people? In this way, Allport’s work is recognized for it’s contributions at the time but who else’s work do we have to compare to Allport’s? And what is the reason why other voices (non-White) are not emphasized as contemporaries of Allport? Look at the field of neuroscience. How many MRI machines exist in the US? Who gets access to them? The same with factory analysis techniques and access to research resources. When Black contemporaries are dealing with racism, White researchers get credit for studying it, as if learning to live and endure it is not both research and practice. How much of Allport’s contributions to the field were due to opportunities he had as White man in America, with an audience that cared about what he said? This is one of the most significant points from learning about Allport, especially as a Black researcher in America – it speaks to not only the need for creativity in thought and research design, but also the need for guerilla tactics to access these niche areas where one’s work can be appreciated and preserved in antiquity. Or else, the need for Black researchers to produce libraries of Black works and to increase the appreciation of ideas and findings of Black researchers. Learning about Allport brings up the question of why his culture supported and proliferated him and why Black researchers do not get the same support from their culture. One reasonable assumption is that Allport’s descriptions of personality were not unique to him, in the way that pyramids found in Egypt may also be found in Central and South America. In the same way, within a given classroom, two students may have the same idea. Likewise, two people living within the same zeitgeist, sharing the same allusions, may perceive the world on similar frequencies and come to ideas that have no true owner just willing vessels through which they may manifest or be manifested in physical reality. But, the social context around these mediums –people with these ideas – alters whether that person’s work is spread, received, or even acknowledged. Allport’s work is respectable and credit is given to him for that. At the same time, who cares and why should one? To what extent did Allport’s white privilege account for his induction into the canon of psychology. Although Allport studied prejudice, his legacy is upheld by the very thing he studied. Allport’s work on prejudice can be interpreted by some as an olive branch to marginalized peoples. The zeitgeist of hatred, racism, and world wars seemed to spark in some, not all, compassion and curiosity as to the root of such hatred. On the other hand, his work can be seen as one of many voices from that time, which was allowed to take root and grow. His legacy is upheld by the number of citations of his works which is connected to academia’s inclusion of his works in undergraduate and graduate-level courses on psychology and personality. Where are the Black voices from Allport’s time? And most importantly, as a Black researcher, how can one’s own works be remembered in antiquity? Some may question the worthiness of remembrance in antiquity but if one believes in the validity and importance of one’s own work, that one has uncovered a truth worth knowing, then why shouldn’t one’s work be ratified center stage for budding researchers and even high school students taking a Psych 101 class to study. If one believes one’s work to be valuable to improving quality of life, to have some practical application, then one’s work deserves to be understood, chewed, criticized, and taught because even if learners do not become researchers themselves, they may gain the benefits the researchers intended the works to provide. This paper discussed Allport with a critical eye, validating that his work has a truth value to it but also questioning why anyone should care and why he should be remembered considering many Black researchers have done phenomenal work that is not taught in any class whatsoever. Yet, there are Black students coming into academia looking for themselves, looking for relevance and representation in both the figures and the theories. Who can provide that to them if not Black researchers?