This paper will examine the psychosocial identity development theories of Erik Erikson, William Cross, Vivienne Cass and Linda

William Cross’ Racial Identity Development Theory

Cross (1971), in his prototypical stage model of the “Negro-to-Black Conversion Experience”, predicated his individual racial identity development on positive in-group identification that came out of involvement in the Black liberation movement. The most fully developed model of s (1991) theory outlines a developmental process towards active self-understanding in five stages:

(1) Pre-encounter – an individual is programmed to think passively of the world as nonblack, antiblack, or the opposite of Black. Behavior and basic attitudes toward the self are determined by the dominant culture.
(2) Encounter – some experience manages to slip by and confront the individual’s current feelings about himself/herself and the existing interpretation of the condition of Black people.
(3) Immersion/Emersion – the dominant culture is rejected and everything of value must be relevant to blackness.
(4) Internalization – a strong cultural/racial identity exists that is strong and secure.
(5) Internalization/Commitment – the security of a strong racial identity gives one the desire to work to eliminate racism for all oppressed peoples.
Parham and Helms (1985) have operationalized the first four stages of Cross’ model by creating the Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (RIAS) which measures a subject’s degree of agreement with statements typifying those four categories of racial identity: Pre-encounter, Encounter, Immersion/Emersion, and Internalization/Commitment.

A Critique of Cross’ Theory of Racial Identity Theory

Cross’ theory has been one of the most widely used theory of racial identity development model (Myers, et al., 1991; Parham, 1989). The major contribution of Cross’ theory to the field of developmental psychology is in developing a model of positive identity development within an oppressive racist environment. The very framing of the identity development process within a racial and sociopolitical context greatly expanded the applicability of identity development theory to the real-life experiences of African Americans and other minorities in this country. Because s theory is grounded in liberation politics, the model lends itself to an intentional and strategic framework to further the development of a positive racial identity within the African American community. It is this sociopolitical framework that makes Cross’ theory particularly useful in modeling how the disability community can move beyond its own internalized oppression by raising the community’s consciousness and developing a positive identity (Anspach, 1979; Hahn, 1982, Hillyer, 1992). In providing a framework for linking and supporting positive individual and community identity development makes aspects of Cross’ theory particularly salient for disability community and identity development research and work.

Several limitations have been pointed out as existing in Cross’ theory. The first, and most global limitation, is that the theory is grounded in Eurocentric values of the positivist research tradition (Akbar, 1989; Nobles, 1989). Such critics assert that any theory or research about African Americans should be grounded in Afrocentric values and beliefs about the nature of life and being. These critics also see Cross’ theory as positing a historically reactive racial identity which does not presuppose African-based identity antecedents independent of White oppression. Disabled researchers are also calling for a community-based research agenda that reflects the values and beliefs about life that is held by the disability community, as the traditional focus of disability research has generally not reflected the issues and concerns of the disability community (Gill, 1998; French, 1992; Zola, 1993b). Another limitation is that the linear stage-wise theory does not encompass the complexity of the racial identity development process throughout the life-span (Parham, 1989; Myers, et al., 1991; Grotevant, 1987). They express concern that s theory is simplistic in that the theorized sequential progression through the stages does not truly reflect the ongoing challenges of living in a racist society, as one ages, or as factors other than race have saliency in the identity development process. Such issues would also be a concern when applying such a model to the disability experience, as the ongoing realities of living with a disability can mean changes in one’s condition or environmental supports that make living with a disability and the identity development process quite fluid. In addition to the issues of aging with a disability, the complexity of having multiple facets of oneself intersecting with disability (i.e. gender, race, sexual orientation) cannot be addressed by a theory that encompasses only one oppressed aspect of the self (Robinson, 1993; Myers, et al., 1991).

These concerns and limitations notwithstanding, s model has contributed greatly to the ongoing dialogue to further the understanding of racial identity development in this country. The reactions to and inspirations from Cross’ theory have generated greater understanding of the role of race in identity development for those both within and outside of the African American experience. However, racial identity development theories arise out of commonly shared cultural heritage with a minority family and community that is not true of the experience of the majority of disabled people. For understanding an identity development process that requires movement towards a socially devalued minority group, an examination of the homosexual identity development process is required.

Vivienne Cass’ Theory of Homosexual Identity Development

Cass’ theory of homosexual identity development has its grounding in interactional emphasis of Erikson’s (1959) theory of psychosocial development – the self in relation to others. It also builds on the foundation of racial identity development theory that emphasizes the process of identity development within a minority sub-culture context. The model outlines the homosexual identity development process in six stages:

1. 
   Identity Confusion – awareness of homosexual feelings that cause internal turmoil, leading to a choice to deny or ask for the possibility of being gay.
   

2. 
   Identity Comparison – emotional turmoil lessons and there is greater congruence between self-perception and behavior, with increasing in congruence with the dominant culture that can be supported by the presence of others were homosexual.
   

3. 
   Identity Tolerance – with greater acceptance comes comfortableness in acknowledging social, emotional, and sexual needs that may result in reaching out to other homosexuals for support.
   

4. 
   Identity Acceptance – results in a greater involvement in the gay and lesbian sub-culture that validates and normalizes one’s homosexual identity.
   

5. 
   Identity Pride – pride develops to offset the anxiety arising from one's own acceptance of homosexuality and knowing of society's lack of acceptance. “Coming out" to more people and seeking increased support for the gay and lesbian community supports this.
   

6. 
   Identity Synthesis – support from heterosexuals, but at this point, leads to a synthesis of the private sexual self and the public self, with homosexuality being seen as an aspect of the whole self.
   

Cass’ (1984) describes the movement of her model as being towards the integration of one’s self-image of being homosexual with the view that all others in one’s life hold of you. In providing a picture of the process of constructing both a personal and in-group identity that contrasts with the collective identity of one’s family and community of origin, Cass has provided greater understanding of how that process can be supported within a community-of-choice context.