Running Head: META-NARRATIVES 1

Moral Meta-Narratives, Marginalization, and Youth Development

José M. Causadias and Kimberly A. Updegraff

T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics

Arizona State University

Willis F. Overton, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

Temple University

Word count: 9,528

Author Note

Correspondence should be addressed to José M. Causadias, T. Denny Sanford School of

Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Cowden Family Resources Building,

850 South Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ 85281. E-mail: jose.causadias@asu.edu

META-NARRATIVES 2

Abstract

Morality, a central dimension of culture, is crucial for research on the development of youth

experiencing marginalization. In this article, we discuss two main meta-narratives as moral

frameworks that provide different meaning to the past and to cultural change: liberal progress,

focused on the struggle of those who have historically experienced marginalization (e.g.,

racial/ethnic minorities), and community lost, focused on those who are experiencing some forms

of marginalization in response to cultural and economic changes (e.g., rural Whites). Because

these two meta-narratives represent a false dichotomy, we use relational epistemology principles

–holism, identity of opposites, opposites of identity, and synthesis of wholes- to formulate an

integrated meta-narrative, community progress, to overcome this polarity and promote research

on the development of all youth experiencing marginalization. Acknowledging and

understanding these moral meta-narratives is crucial because they influence scientific discourse,

political action, and policy that impacts marginalization and youth development.

Keywords: culture; morality; meta-narratives; marginalization; development.

META-NARRATIVES 3

Moral Meta-Narratives, Marginalization, and Youth Development

The role of culture1, as well as research on racial/ethnic minority youth (henceforth,

minority youth2), have been historically neglected in developmental science. If marginalization is

defined as relegating ideas and groups to the fringe of society, both culture and minority youth

have experienced considerable marginalization in developmental research. It took decades for

scholars to convince their colleagues that culture is not peripheral, but of central importance in

human development (e.g., Quintana et al., 2006; Rogoff, 2003; Super & Harkness, 1986), and

that minority youth are under- and misrepresented in developmental research (e.g., García Coll,

Akerman, Cicchetti, 2000; Graham, 1992; MacPhee, Kreutzer, & Fritz, 1994; McLoyd &

Randolph, 1985). One of the major achievements of García Coll and colleagues (1996)’s

integrative model is that it addressed both forms of marginalization by placing culture and

minorities at the forefront of developmental science.

In this article, we advance this endeavor by presenting morality as a domain of culture

that is often neglected in developmental research on marginalization, and by discussing the role

of meta-narratives as moral frameworks that have profound impact on the development of youth

experiencing marginalization3. We center on two opposing meta-narratives that are implicitly

used to approach youth marginalization: liberal progress and community lost. We use Overton’s

(2010, 2015) relational epistemology to frame and propose their integration. Fundamental split

dichotomies, such as these opposing meta-narratives, are typical of Cartesian dualistic

epistemologies. However, from a relational epistemological viewpoint this separation represents

1 We define culture as a system of practices, symbols, values, and ideals that are shared by a community, transmitted from one generation to the next, dynamic and constantly changing, operating at the individual and societal levels, and related to ethnicity and race (Causadias, 2013; Cohen, 2009; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). 2 We use the term minorities to represent membership in any non-White groups in the US, including, but not limited to, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders. 3 Consistent with the editorial for this Special Issue (see Causadias & Umaña-Taylor), we focus on “youth experiencing marginalization” or “youth marginalization”, rather than “marginalized youth”.

META-NARRATIVES 4

a false dichotomy, as both are in constant interpenetration, coaction, and reciprocal

bidirectionality (Overton, 2010, 2015). We employ relational epistemological principles –holism,

identity of opposites, opposites of identity, and synthesis of wholes- to approach these meta-

narratives and developmental research on youth experiencing marginalization, and to formulate a

new integrated meta-narrative: community progress. We believe this meta-narrative can guide

research, policy, and interventions to support the development of all youth experiencing

marginalization. Following García Coll and colleagues (1996)’s integrative model, we focus

primarily on youth residing in the United States.

Culture, Morality, and Development

García Coll and colleagues (1996) situated cultural influences in minority youth

development, not as isolated, but within the dominant stratification system of society. According

to this framework, minority youth development is inherently linked to culture, ethnicity, race,

gender, and class. Reflecting on the role of morality can further advance our understanding of

marginalization, as morality plays a central role in human development and culture (Jensen,

2008; 2015). Moral development is conceptualized as a universal aspect of children’s

socialization in all cultures and societies (Jensen, 2015). Within the field of developmental

psychology, research has focused heavily on the development of children’s moral reasoning with

regard to principles of justice, fairness, and individual rights (see Haidt, 2008). Kohlberg (1963,

1969) proposed a cognitive developmental theory of moral reasoning that posits an invariant

sequence of stages through which individuals progress. Although this theory was informed by

data from youth and young adult males in the U.S. (Colby et al., 1983; Kohlberg, 1963),

Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning were postulated as universal (e.g., Nisan & Kohlberg,

1982; Snarey, Reimer, & Kohlberg, 1985), but scholars argued that moral reasoning concepts

META-NARRATIVES 5

among children from different cultural groups are broader than the concepts articulated by

cognitive-developmental (Kohlberg, 1963) and domain approaches (Turiel, 1983).

Efforts to integrate developmental and cultural perspectives on moral reasoning has led to

an expansion of the concepts that are pertinent to moral development to better represent the

diversity of human experience in different cultures (Jensen, 2008). One such model involves an

emphasis on moral reasoning with regard to autonomy (i.e., individual rights and needs), divinity

(i.e., spirituality, religiosity, and divine law), and community (obligations and concerns for the

group’s welfare; Jensen, 2008; Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, & Park, 1997). These expanded

concepts of morality are pertinent to the study of youth marginalization in the U.S. For example,

many Latino youth are socialized to value concepts of community, such as placing the needs of

the family above the needs of the individual (Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-

Stable, 1987). As such, understanding moral development from a perspective that is informed by

developmental and cultural models has the potential to advance the field. But it also entails

recognition of the supra-individual nature of culture (Kitayama & Uskul, 2011), the

acknowledgement that morality goes beyond the development of moral reasoning at the

individual level. It also operates at the societal level through moral meta-narratives that impact

the development of youth experiencing marginalization.

Morality and Meta-Narratives

Morality4 specifies ideals, norms, values, virtues, ethics, and goals (Wuthnow, 1987),

informing the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong, fair and unfair, and

meaningful and meaningless (Smith, 2003). Morality is made of interrelated sets of values, rules,

4 We rely on some of the premises of Haidt and Graham’s moral foundations theory (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009; Graham & Haidt, 2010; Haidt & Graham, 2007). However, a detailed discussion of this theory goes beyond the scope and aims of this paper. For a comprehensive review, see Haidt (2012).

META-NARRATIVES 6

practices, identities, and organizations that work together to regulate individual behavior and

make social life possible. For individuals, morality provides a cohesive -but not always coherent-

set of assumptions, expectations, commitments, beliefs, aspirations, thoughts, judgements,

obligations, and feelings. But morality is not merely a set of abstractions far removed from

everyday life. Morality is a call for action, a motivating engine to enact and sustain moral orders,

a framework that inspires individuals to pursue what is good, valued, and just (Smith, 2003). For

groups, communities, societies, and nations, morality is enacted collectively in social practices,

rituals, and institutions. Morality is personified by institutions, so not merely limited to

subjective concerns for rules and values (Graham & Haidt, 2010). Morality plays a pivotal role

in cooperation and coalition building, as perceived moral outrage over transgressions galvanize

groups and facilitate social cohesion (Tooby & Cosmides, 2010). Ultimately, moral systems,

such as religions, bind individuals into moral communities (Graham & Haidt, 2010).

The broader cultural frameworks in which individuals derive their morals beliefs are

profoundly narrative in form. For instance, the “American experiment” meta-narrative argues

that brave and freedom-loving pioneers, fleeing religious and political persecution, came to the

New World to carve a new civilization (Smith, 2003). Through their hard work, they forged a

new society where equality and liberty rule. This meta-narrative has powerful effects in the lives

of Americans, and even citizens of other countries. It organizes practices, rituals, and obligations.

Without this narrative, “many Americans would confront the world with profound confusion and

disorientation” (Smith, 2003, p. 68).

We acknowledge the rich tradition of narrative research in developmental sciences, that

has documented the importance of root metaphors as cultural models of development (Cooper,

1987; Cooper & Denner, 1998), and cultural conflict and rapid social change (Greenfield, 1999;

META-NARRATIVES 7

Rogoff, 2003), to name a few approaches. However, we argue that morality and meta-narratives

are not central to their conceptualizations. Furthermore, while narrative research on youth

development has often focused on the role of master narratives, these are typically rooted in the

work of Erik Erikson and focus on identity (Hammack & Pilecki, 2012; McLean & Syed, 2015).

In contrast, our approach to meta-narratives is grounded in the work of Smith (2003) and Haidt

(2008, 2012), and centers on morality.

Moral meta-narratives (henceforth, meta-narratives) are a unique form of narratives. They

are broader and more encompassing than single narratives and master narratives5, in that they

include, in some cases, all history, experience, and meaning in a single story. Meta-narratives

function like invisible constitutions that guide and inspire communities. They are shared stories

that lay out the foundation for a moral order, offering a system of beliefs, ideology, and

obligations (Haidt, 2008). Meta-narratives go beyond chronicles of separate events placed in

time, but they aspire to express the magnitude and meaning of actions and events in a unified,

interconnected explanation (de Rivera & Sarbin, 1998). Meta-narratives are therefore

purposefully created to provide accounts and meaning to human history, usually by articulating

three common components: (a) a cast of characters who are the subjects or objects of action; (b)

a plot with a structured sequence of beginning, middle, and end, although not always in that

order; and (c) the transmission of an important message, whether it is a revelation, explanation,

or insight about life and the world (Smith, 2003). Many Western meta-narratives parallel or

emulate the Christian narrative, including elements of paradise lost, fall or awakening into sin,

temptations along the way, and a road for redemption (Smith, 2003).

5 For a discussion of differences and similarities between master and meta-narratives, see Supplemental Material.

META-NARRATIVES 8

In addition to providing meaning and social cohesion, meta-narratives have the function

of enforcing moral systems that challenge, perpetuate, or seek to reclaim social power. Power

dynamics lie at the center of meta-narratives because they serve to maintain a moral and social

order. They define who experiences marginalization and who does not, and who is entitled to

rights and privileges, access to resources, and even justice. They inform ideology and serve for

system-justification, motivating individuals and communities to defend the status quo and to

view current social arrangements as just, legitimate, and necessary (Jost, Federico, & Napier,

2009). But they can also articulate system-resistance by challenging the status quo and

illuminating the present conditions of some groups as unfair, unfair, and oppressive. Thus, these

meta-narratives are not power-neutral: they are biased towards responding to perceived threats to

privilege and social status or towards denouncing oppression. Next, we discuss the meta-

narrative that arguably inspired García Coll and colleagues (1996)’s integrative model, and that

is at the core of most developmental research on youth marginalization.

The Liberal Progress Moral Meta-Narrative

One of the most consequential moral frameworks for the study of youth marginalization

is the “liberal progress” meta-narrative (henceforth, liberal progress), described as follows:

“Once upon a time, the vast majority of human persons suffered in societies and social institutions that

were unjust, unhealthy, repressive, and oppressive. These traditional societies were reprehensible because of their

deep-rooted inequality, exploitation, and irrational traditionalism --- all of which made life very unfair, unpleasant,

and short. But the noble human aspiration for autonomy, equality, and prosperity struggled mightily against the

forces of misery and oppression, and eventually succeeded in establishing modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist,

welfare societies. While modern social conditions hold the potential to maximize the individual freedom and

pleasure of all, there is much work to be done to dismantle the powerful vestiges of inequality, exploitation, and

repression. This struggle for the good society in which individuals are equal and free to pursue their self-defined

happiness is the one mission truly worth dedicating one’s life to achieving” (Smith, 2003, p. 82).

META-NARRATIVES 9

The core message of liberal progress is that injustice, oppression, and inequality

provoked significant suffering in the past, but modern democracy and science offer a chance to

reverse these effects by promoting equality and fighting to overcome the lingering consequences

of exclusion (Haidt, 2012). Issues of power are central to this meta-narrative because it focuses

on groups that have historically faced marginalization (e.g., ethnic/racial, sexual, and religious

minorities; women; immigrants6). According to liberal progress, these groups have been

oppressed, victimized, excluded, and neglected by those who hold positions of power and enjoy

exclusive social advantages and privileges (e.g., Whites7, religious majorities, heterosexuals,

men, nationals). Thus, liberal progress is not an abstract issue disconnected from the reality of

children and youth who have historically experienced oppression and exclusion. On the contrary,

this meta-narrative has had profound impact in the development of youth experiencing

marginalization. It has provided a roadmap for group action aimed at ending racial segregation

and discrimination, like the American civil rights movement. In turn, these movements resulted

in landmark legislations (e.g., Brown versus Board of Education, 1954; Civil Rights Act of

1964), that have led to some improvements in the educational opportunities and lives of minority

youth over the last decades.

The impact of this meta-narrative in developmental science on youth marginalization

cannot be overstated. We argue that García Coll and colleagues’ integrative model (1996) is

firmly embedded within this meta-narrative, as it conceptualizes marginalization as central rather

than peripheral for the theoretical understanding of minority youth development. Grounded

6 Individuals can belong to more than one of these groups, as proposed by the intersectionality framework (Crenshaw, 1991). We do not utilize this model because it has already been employed to approach marginalization (e.g., Santos, 2016), while using moral meta-narratives to address marginalization has not. 7 We use the term Whites to represent membership into any racial/ethnic group in the US of European ancestry, including, but not limited to, European-Americans, Anglo-Americans, and Caucasians.

META-NARRATIVES 10

within social stratification theory, a key emphasis of this framework is on its underlying

processes, including racism, discrimination, oppression, and segregation (García Coll et al.,

1996). Furthermore, this meta-narrative impacts development by inspiring, providing life

purpose and meaning, and articulating political, ideological, social, and professional goals to

those who embrace it (e.g., the struggle against inequality), including many minority scholars

(see Syed, in press).

The Community-Lost Moral Meta-Narrative

The community lost meta-narrative (henceforth, community lost) represents history and

morality in stark contrast to the liberal progress meta-narrative. Also framed as the Reagan

narrative (Westen, 2008), this meta-narrative is defined as follows:

“Once upon a time, folk lived together in local, face-to-face communities where we knew and took care of

each other. Life was simple and sometimes hard. But we lived in harmony with nature, laboring honestly at the

plough and in handcraft. Life was securely woven in homespun fabrics of organic, integrated culture, faith, and

tradition. We truly knew who we were and felt deeply for our land, our kin, our customs. But then a dreadful thing

happened. Folk community was overrun by the barbarisms of modern industry, urbanization, rationality, science,

fragmentation, anonymity, transience, and mass production. Faith began to erode, social trust dissipate, folk customs

vanish. Work became alienating, authentic feeling repressed, neighbors, strangers, and life standardized and

rationalized. Those who knew the worth of simplicity, authentic feeling, nature, and custom resisted the vulgarities

and uniformities of modernity. But all that remains today are tattered vestiges of a world we have lost. The task of

those who see clearly now is to memorialize and celebrate folk community, mourn its ruin, and resist and denounce

the depravities of modern, scientific rationalism that would kill the Human Spirit” (Smith, 2003, pp. 85-86).

In contrast to liberal progress, community lost focuses on groups who are now

experiencing some forms of marginalization (e.g., rural and working-class Whites, alienated

males) and argues that the excessive pressures and demands of modern societies -science,

urbanization, industrialization, secularization - have eroded and fragmented communities that

META-NARRATIVES 11

were previously harmonious, integrated, religious, and traditional in values and lifestyles. The

past plays a central role in community lost, and it is usually viewed as a splendid period of

prosperity and cohesion; happiness and harmony; and obedience to tradition and God. Cultural

change is perceived as negative, as alien ideas championed by intellectuals (e.g., professors,

journalists) challenged and perverted this order. Those who endorse this narrative see the present

as decadent and yearn for the past. They “have discovered that nostalgia can be a powerful

political motivator, perhaps even more powerful than hope. Hopes can be disappointed.

Nostalgia is irrefutable” (Lilla, 2016, p. xiv).

In part, community lost articulates the reaction to major demographic shifts in the US,

including the rapid growth in minority populations. By 2044, Whites will no longer be the

numerical majority in the US (Colby & Ortman, 2014). It also accounts for economic and

cultural changes, including the decline in health and rise in mortality as a result of worsening

economic conditions of rural and working-class Whites in the US (Case & Deaton, 2015, 2017),

their struggle to keep up with rapid cultural changes, deep resentment of urban liberals, and

feelings of betrayal and abandonment by the federal government (Hochschild, 2016). However,

it is problematic to equate the experience of rural, working-class Whites to that of groups that

have historically faced marginalization in ways that are quantitatively and qualitatively different

(see Causadias & Umaña-Taylor, in this issue). For instance, marginalization of rural Whites is

often related to class and education, while minority marginalization is also based on culture,

ethnicity, and race (Isenberg, 2016), which have different developmental implications.

Despite these differences, the impact of the community lost meta-narrative should not be

easily disregarded, even if its premises are questionable. This meta-narrative articulates

arguments employed by the populist wave that depicts liberal progress as a threat to the social

META-NARRATIVES 12

status, power, and privilege of Whites. It sheds light on the rise of Donald J. Trump to the

presidency of the United States under the call for a return to the past and the status quo of

unapologetic and uncontested White dominance (“Make America Great Again”). It has profound

effects on the development of youth who have historically experienced marginalization because

it directly threatens their wellbeing, not only by removing protections, but by potentially

criminalizing undocumented, transgender, and minority youth.

However, community lost may have the positive effect of calling attention to the adverse

experience of rural White youth. In recent years, rural White youth have been afflicted by the

heroin epidemic (Cicero, Ellis, Surratt, & Kurtz, 2014), and have surpassed urban youth in

substance abuse (Lambert, Gale, & Hartley, 2008; Roberts et al., 2016). Landmark research on

the development of White youth has documented the role of social class identity development in

the context of educational and career pathways (Bettie, 2014; Bullock & Limbert, 2003; Fine &

Sirin, 2007), and White youth and their feelings of marginalization in school, their multi-ethnic

communities, and more broadly, society (Azmitia, Syed, & Radmacher, 2008). Nevertheless,

more developmental research on rural White youth is necessary.

Moral Meta-Narratives, Marginalization, and Youth Development

Liberal progress and community lost impact emotional responses and cognitive

processing, provide meaning to the past, help explain the present, and give guidance for the

future. Most importantly, these two meta-narratives are central to understand the development of

youth experiencing marginalization, as they define (a) who has been the victim of

marginalization, (b) what are the causes of social injustice and exclusion, (c) what are the

solutions to these issues, and (d) how morality influences the development of youth experiencing

marginalization, as they operate at the individual and societal levels.

META-NARRATIVES 13

First, liberal progress and community lost are important because they define who has

experienced marginalization and entitled to supports and resources. By providing the blueprint of

a moral order, they identify what is right or wrong and who has been treated unfairly. Thus, they

challenge the status quo (system-resistance) by advocating for social inclusion of minorities and

other groups that have historically experienced marginalization (liberal progress), or rationalize

maintaining the status quo (system-justification) or restoring prosperity to ethnic majorities and

historically dominant groups that have experienced the whiplash of globalization and threats to

their social status (community lost). Liberals may support social justice programs because their

morality is rooted in care for the disadvantaged and equality among groups, while conservatives

may oppose such programs because they counter their ethic of autonomy and personal

responsibility (Haidt & Graham, 2007; Haidt, 2012).

Second, meta-narratives play a pivotal role in delineating the causes of marginalization.

This usually involves identifying the sources of oppression and injustice, typically by portraying

an out-group as the causal agent in the marginalization of the in-group. Liberal progress finds

White supremacy and patriarchy as the root causes of the oppression of minorities, immigrants,

and women, which often leads to blaming conservative White males for their marginalization.

The community lost places the responsibility for the unwanted changes on their communities on

secularism, liberalism, and globalization; which often leads to blaming liberals, professors,

journalists, women, minorities, and immigrants.

Third, meta-narratives play a pivotal role in delineating solutions to the problems of

youth marginalization, which have a direct impact on cultural, ethnic, and racial relations and

youth development. While liberal progress places a major emphasis on systemic change to

overcome structural issues of power, privilege, and exclusion; community lost argues in favor of

META-NARRATIVES 14

individual agency and personal merit to achieve autonomy and prosperity, denying the role of

structural forces. These opposite and apparently irreconcilable perspectives result in very

different policies, programs, and legislation. They also prescribe very different research agendas.

Fourth, meta-narratives display how morality have a direct influence on the development

of youth experiencing marginalization, as they operate at the individual and societal level. At the

individual level, these meta-narratives shape development by providing a moral order and a

historical account that gives meaning and purpose to how youth make sense of their own

experiences. At the societal level, these meta-narratives can have a decisive influence in child

development, as they provide a moral order to institutions that become the contexts of

development (Super & Harkness, 1986). Neighborhoods, schools, and governments may

explicitly or implicitly subscribe to liberal progress or community lost, which in turn, conditions

how children and adolescents are treated, what resources are afforded to them, and their

likelihood to overcome marginalization. This is consistent with research and theory linking

societal-level cultural processes and individual development (see Greenfield, 1999; 2009).

Integrating Opposing Moral Meta-Narratives Using the Process-Relational Paradigm

It is challenging to find a middle ground between two seemingly contradictory moral

frameworks (Stout, 1988), such as liberal progress and community lost. How does one reconcile

what seems irreconcilable? How can one perspective that sees racial and gender equality as the

goal (liberal progress) and another that sees it as a problem (community lost) be brought

together? To answer this question, we need to address the notion of “levels of meta-theory”.

While meta-narratives operate at the meta-theoretical level to provide grounding that informs the

way we study specific domains of inquiry, it is important to note that there several levels of

meta-theory (see Figure 1). Although liberal progress and community lost function at a high

META-NARRATIVES 15

level of discourse (i.e., metatheoretical discourse – metatheory), the ontological-epistemologic

level is above it and informs all other levels (i.e., metatheoretical discourse – ontologic-

epitemologic groundings). It is variously referred to as a “worldview” or, when applied

specifically to science, a “scientific research paradigm” level of meta-theory (Overton, 2010,

2015). And it is at this level that the solution to the integration of the two meta-narratives must

be found.

There are currently two alternative scientific research paradigms that can inform the

meaning of moral meta-narratives: the Cartesian-mechanistic-dualistic and the process-relational

paradigms. The Cartesian epistemology establishes relations between paradigms as an

unavoidable dichotomy in which either one or the other constitutes reality. Thus, it offers no

guidance for a reconciliation between the moral orders articulated and embodied by liberal

progress and community lost. Embracing the tenets of this dualistic meta-theory -that follows a

reductionist “divide and conquer strategy” with respect to fundamental concepts– leads to split,

dichotomous either/or conceptual approaches to problem solutions. Thus, within this context, one

must choose one of the two moral meta-narratives as the fundamental truth, and its opposite

becomes derived, epiphenomenal, or a special case of reality (Overton, 2015). The idea that the

two moral meta-narratives are simply rivals is one Cartesian solution, another is the idea that one

can contain and subsume the other. In contrast, the process relational paradigm demonstrates

how the split or opposition of these two meta-narratives can be resolved and both can constitute a

whole whose parts are reciprocally coacting and interpenetrating. The process relational

paradigm is composed of four principles, which serve to eliminate splits and offer a stable base

from which to pursue science within a relational world (Overton, 2010, 2015).

META-NARRATIVES 16

First, the principle of holism is the assertion that the meaning of any entity or event

derives from the context in which it is embedded. Just as reductionism is the overarching

principle of the Cartesian paradigm, holism forms the basic principle of relational epistemology.

Any system is a relational set of processes such that the whole determines the nature of the parts

and the parts determine the nature of the whole (Overton, 2015). Holism invites us to appreciate

that even if we focus on one meta-narrative or one component of each one –past as paradise lost,

equality as promised land- we also need to recognize that these components must be

contextualized as parts of systems that function as wholes: communities, states, and nations.

Also, we need to pay attention to the historical development from which each moral meta-

narrative emerged: civil rights movements for liberal progress and modernity and globalization

for community lost (see Figure 2A).

This attention to the whole ecosystem of development and history is consistent with the

aim of García Coll and colleagues (1996)’s integrative model of recognizing the role of culture

in development, as well as historical and structural forces driving marginalization. Holism invites

researchers to consider critical components of the experience of marginalization that impacts

development and may be neglected, including ecological changes at the community,

neighborhood, county, state, national, and global levels. For example, how climate change

threatens the health, wellbeing, and life of vulnerable youth of every ethnic background

(Wheeler & Von Braun, 2013). Likewise, it points out the role meta-narratives can play in

promoting awareness and action against climate change (liberal progress) or denial of research

evidence and avoidance of action under the pretext that environmental protections will destroy

jobs (community lost). Holism also encourages developmental researchers to consider, not only

ecological, but also historical and cultural forces shaping the development of youth experiencing

META-NARRATIVES 17

marginalization. Holism can foster a new appraisal of historical and cultural processes

traditionally misrepresented as distal, but that exert powerful influence on the development of

youth experiencing marginalization and are commanding engines of meta-narratives. For

instance, how the Atlantic slave trade impacts the development of African American youth and

motivates liberal progress, or how the US civil war shapes the development of rural White youth

in the South and fuels community lost. In the end, holism can help overcome the false dichotomy

of liberal progress versus community lost by illustrating how they are both embedded in

ecological, cultural, and historical forces that shape the development of all youth experiencing

marginalization.

Holism also encourages developmental researchers to look inwards, in addition of

looking outwards. It underscores the notion that developmental science is a knowledge enterprise

that is framed, pursued, and conducted by developmental researchers whom are not morally

neutral, but committed to certain meta-narratives. Ultimately, developmental research on youth

marginalization is an exercise of power by the developmental researcher, because it documents

and legitimizes some experiences of social exclusion, but not all. “One aspect of power is the

ability to determine what counts as knowledge and to make knowledge appear ‘natural’ rather

than a human construction (Gjerde, 2004, p. 145)”.

The second principle of relational epistemology is termed the identity of opposites. It

constitutes one moment of analysis that relaxes the logical law of contradiction and, thus,

establishes an identity among parts of a whole. In this moment, the parts are understood not as

exclusive contradictions (as in the Cartesian split epistemology), but as differentiated and equal

polarities of a unified and indissociable relationship (Overton, 2010). As differentiations, each

pole is defined recursively: each pole defines and is defined by its opposite. Here each category

META-NARRATIVES 18

contains and is its opposite, they are coequal and inseparable. Consequently, based on the

identity of opposites principle, community lost is liberal progress and liberal progress is

community lost. Both are part of the matrix of American history, culture, morality, and meaning-

making (Figure 2B).

Community lost and liberal progress are constantly engaged in a co-constructing

feedback loop, non-additive and reciprocal codetermination (Overton & Reese, 1973), that we

are only beginning to understand. First, landmark issues of community lost, such as perceived

cultural change; threats to social status and competition for scarce resources during economic

crisis can directly trigger further disadvantage of groups championed by liberal progress. Recent

studies have revealed that perceived scarcity may change perceptions of race in ways that

aggravate racial discrimination, underscoring how marginalization can be exacerbated during

times of economic duress (Krosch & Amodio, 2014). Times of economic scarcity also influence

the educational opportunities of Latino youth, for example, but such impact depends on the

developmental timing of the economic crisis in their lives (Pérez-Brena, Wheeler, Rodriguez de

Jesus, Updegraff, & Umaña-Taylor, 2017). Youth who transitioned out of high school during the

2007 economic downturn, as compared to their older siblings who transitioned prior to this

historical event, were less likely to pursue post-secondary education and less likely to attend a

four-year higher education institution (Pérez-Brena et al., 2017). Second, one meta-narrative can

reinforce the other, as Whites who resent Blacks might feel that they are falling behind if they

perceive that Blacks are making progress (Norton & Sommers, 2011). Whites who endorse the

current US status hierarchy as legitimate are more likely to report that Whites were victims of

racial discrimination when minority racial progress was salient (Wilkins & Kaiser, 2013).

META-NARRATIVES 19

García Coll and colleagues (1996)’s integrative model showed the importance of culture,

ethnicity, and race in the development of youth experiencing marginalization. The identity of

opposites can inform and guide research on such youth by encouraging developmental

researchers to see that minorities and majorities are part of the same matrix, as they are co-

dependent, and intimately connected. Majorities cannot exist without minorities and vice versa,

as their relationship exemplifies the dynamic of mutually constructed contrasts. For instance, in a

hypothetical homogeneous society, ethnicity becomes irrelevant because the idea of ethnic

groups is founded on differences, and requires boundaries, contrasts, and interactions (Gjerde,

2004). Majorities and minorities are part of the same system, so changes in one component

(demographic growth of minorities), triggers a reaction in the other (sense of alienation and loss

of power among Whites), and this relation feeds into opposing meta-narratives. This idea of an

inseparable connection between two poles has been employed successfully in developmental

psychopathology, a framework that emphasizes the notion that normal development cannot be

understood without studying abnormal development and vice versa (Sroufe, 1997).

Studying the implications of the US demographic shift in the balance of White versus

minority youth is an example of the application of identity of opposites. Further, this major

demographic shift is likely to impact distinct groups of youth at different developmental points

(e.g., early childhood, adolescence, the transition into adulthood). More broadly speaking,

identity of opposites challenges us to approach different groups at opposite developmental

periods that can have important parallels. For instance, graying and browning are twin

demographic revolutions currently reshaping American society (Pastor, Scoggins, & Treuhaft,

2017). First, graying refers to the growing trend in the senior population, who is predominantly

White, and is projected to double and outnumber youth for the first time in US history by 2033

META-NARRATIVES 20

(Pastor et al., 2017). Second, browning refers to the growing trend in the minority population,

who is projected to become the majority of the US population by 2044 (Pastor et al., 2017).

These twin processes -the aging White population and the browning of younger generations- can

trigger a racial generation gap that can exacerbate opposing meta-narratives, but also manifests

the joint fate of these two groups. Seniors are less likely to support education spending on youth

when they are from another racial groups (Lafortune, Rothstein, & Schanzenbach, 2016), while

minority groups might feel less inclined to support rising health care benefits mostly aimed at

elderly Whites.

The third principle of relational epistemology is the opposites of identity. This principle

establishes a stable foundation for inquiry by moving to a second moment of analysis following

the identity of opposites, in which the law of contradiction is restated and categories again

exclude each other (Overton, 2010). As a consequence of this exclusion, parts exhibit unique

identities that differentiate each from the other. These unique differential qualities are stable

within any dynamic system and thus, may form a relatively stable platform for empirical inquiry.

Hence, liberal progress and community lost now each attains a unique identity that differentiates

one from the other. They become standpoints, points of view, lines of sight (Latour, 1993), or

levels of analysis, not bedrock realities as in the Cartesian paradigm (Overton, 2010). Although

explicitly recognizing that both meta-narratives exist, impact, and mobilize individuals and

groups, alternative perspectives allow analyzing marginalization from a liberal progress or

community lost standpoint. They no longer represent competing accounts; rather, they are two

reciprocally related points of view on marginalization. Liberal progress can provide a unique

platform to approach the development of minority youth as they struggle with institutional and

structural barriers, while from the community lost perspective we can investigate how economic

META-NARRATIVES 21

decline and rapid cultural change promotes adversity and alienation that affects rural White

youth development (Figure 2C).

Garcia Coll and colleagues (1996)’s integrative model argues that there is “no theoretical

or empirical reason to assume that individual primary developmental processes operate

differently for children of color than for Caucasian children in Western society” (p. 1893).

Developmental researchers can advance this idea by using the opposites of identity principle and

recognizing that liberal progress and community lost are only standpoints – again, not rock

bottom realities - to address youth development. But minority and White youth are not

essentially different, even if they face very different and unique cultural and ecological

influences. Taking the community lost perspective, in addition to the liberal progress standpoint,

can also advance the field. Proponents of liberal progress have been criticized for not including

conservatives in their vision of social change. But advances in diversity and inclusion of youth

experiencing marginalization cannot be maintained or consolidated if those who are opposed or

feel affected by them are excluded from this conversation. Ultimately, including conservative

voices and perspectives is crucial in advancing cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity because

political beliefs are key components of culture (Redding, 2012).

Finally, the synthesis of wholes principle functions as a third moment of analysis in the

dialectical undertaking of relational epistemology. It establishes a resolution to the bipolar

tension of the opposites of identity by moving away from this conflict and discovering a new

system, a synthesis, that integrates these two moral meta-narratives and provides a more stable

base for future research (Overton, 2010). The synthesis of wholes can also inform developmental

research on youth marginalization. For instance, by using both liberal progress and community

lost to approach the development of minority youth, we may account for the historical

META-NARRATIVES 22

consequences of stratification and segregation, articulated in Garcia Coll and colleagues (1996)’s

integrative model, as well as how recent cultural changes and growing populism can trigger

further exclusion and compromise any social progress. We can even entertain the need for

progress and the sense of community lost as moments experienced by both racial minorities and

majorities, recognizing progress lost (the sense that there was a golden age of improvement in

social justice and inclusion) and conservative progress (the desire for social change that brings

about a stronger sense of God and country). Likewise, rural minority youth experience most of

the same adversities as White rural youth (in addition to others), while Black Muslims might feel

as alienated by secularization as White evangelists. The synthesis of wholes can inform and

guide research on the development of youth experiencing marginalization by inviting us to

overcome the moral empathy gaps in American culture wars (Ditto & Koleva, 2011) and expand

our moral compass to include all youth experiencing marginalization in our conceptualizations,

research, training, interventions, and policy.

An Integrated Moral Meta-Narrative: Community-Progress

Using the synthesis of wholes, we formulate a new meta-narrative that integrates both

liberal progress and community lost, and aims at addressing both traditional and new forms of

youth marginalization. Toward this end, we propose the community progress meta-narrative

(community progress; Figure 2D):

“Once upon a time, different groups came together under very different circumstances, creating the

American Experiment. Some came from another land voluntarily, others were forced, and others were displaced or

conquered. Within each of these groups, some individuals did better than others. For a long period of time, some

were treated unfairly, others inhumanely, while others enjoyed prosperity and wealth. Regardless of economic

issues, many of these groups lived in communities united by culture, religion, and traditions. But then change

happened, and it had an impact, both for the better and for the worse. The struggle for justice and equality resulted in

the improvement in the lives of some who were previously treated unfairly or inhumanely, but this progress was

META-NARRATIVES 23

insufficient and incomplete. At the same time, others experienced a deterioration of their communities and quality of

life. Traditions started to vanish, faith eroded, and the bonds that kept the community together started to weaken.

Rapid cultural change and globalization also affected their economic wellbeing and have led to rising inequality.

Today, we strive to recognize and address that many continue to struggle to overcome social exclusion, while others

are coping with the deterioration of their communities. The future of America depends on including all of them, to

build a more perfect union with liberty and justice for all”.

Guided by this proposed meta-narrative, we strive to promote a shared moral foundation

that can guide conceptualizations, research, training, interventions, and policy to overcome all

forms of youth marginalization, moving away from the false dichotomies of liberal progress and

community lost. Community progress gives a new meaning to the American experiment by

illustrating the existence of different forms and degrees of marginalization, the simultaneous

coexistence of social exclusion for some groups and prosperity for others, and the urgent need to

come together to make this experiment viable and sustainable. This complex perspective

promotes inclusion without illusion, a more nuanced appreciation of the unique and

interconnected experiences of marginalization of different groups in the history of the U.S.

This proposed meta-narrative cannot magically bridge our moral divide or reverse our

current political, cultural, and economic polarization, as this divide operates within a Cartesian

framework. For the community progress narrative to be plausible, first we need to understand

that human beings are profoundly moral creatures who gravitate towards different meta-

narratives (Haidt, 2008, 2012; Smith, 2003). These meta-narratives, in turn, provide individuals,

communities, and institutions with different moral foundations that guide the things they care

about, hold sacred, and determine who is experiencing marginalization and who are the

beneficiaries of power, privilege, and resources. Developmental research on youth

marginalization can advance by recognizing the importance of morality, embodied in meta-

META-NARRATIVES 24

narratives, and building a program of research, training, interventions, and policy inspired by

community progress that aims at addressing all forms of social exclusion. Important to this

process is admitting the influence of meta-narratives on researchers themselves. The social and

psychological sciences have been characterized as being ideologically homogeneous, favoring

liberal progress (Redding, 2012). In fact, more than 80% of psychology professors described

themselves as liberal in their political views, and less than 10% labeled themselves as

conservative (Duarte et al., 2015; Inbar & Lammers, 2012). But even though liberal progress is

largely endorsed in American psychology, minorities are still not well represented in the

discipline, and research on marginalization is still lacking. Most doctoral recipients in the

psychological and social sciences (72%) are White (NSF, 2015). Further, studies of culture,

ethnicity, race, and stratification processes, while increasing, still accounted for less than 1% of

all peer-reviewed articles targeting the periods of childhood and/or adolescence in PsycINFO in

the past two decades8.

In terms of applied developmental science, there is a need for policies, interventions, and

training programs that embrace community progress and target the universal needs of all youth

experiencing marginalization and the specific needs of particular youth populations. For

instance, poverty, obesity, drug abuse, and limited access to quality health care and education are

examples of social problems that currently affect both minority and rural White youth. At the

same time, it is important to design, implement, and evaluate policies, interventions, and training

programs specifically tailored to the development of specific groups. Policies and programs

8 A PsycINFO search ((childhood OR adolescence) AND (racism OR discrimination OR segregation OR prejudice OR oppression) AND (race OR ethnic* or cultur*)) conducted on April 10, 2017 yielded 317 peer-reviewed articles from 1975 to 1995 and 2,233 from 1997 to 2017, accounting for .002% and .006% of all articles on childhood and adolescent samples during these periods, respectively.

META-NARRATIVES 25

promoting the adaptation of refugee populations in the U.S. are one such example. Research that

tests the direct impact of meta-narratives on youth marginalization is necessary, for instance, by

examining how the rise of community lost can exacerbate anxiety among undocumented

minority youth and compromise educational achievement, leading to leaks in the academic

pipeline (see Cooper, Cooper, Azmitia, Chavira, & Gullatt, 2002). Likewise, more investigations

are needed on the development of rural White youth afflicted by the heroin epidemic (Cicero et

al., 2014). Other potentially fruitful future research directions include looking at the link between

meta-narratives and master narratives in youth development; the association between meta-

narratives and the development of moral reasoning regarding autonomy, divinity, and

community (Jensen, 2008; Shweder et al., 1997); and the role of meta-narratives on the interplay

between culture, development, and psychopathology (Causadias, 2013). Because this discussion

was focused on the role of meta-narratives in the development of youth experiencing

marginalization in the US, more research is necessary on how these processes unfold in other

regions of the world with unique meta-narratives and cultural, ethnic, and racial dynamics.

Importantly, further investigations are indispensable to address how effective community

progress can be in mobilizing resources and institutional support for all youth experiencing

marginalization. While we pursue diversity and inclusion, we should avoid color-blind racism

that perpetuates inequality by denying subtle forms of bias, discrimination, and marginalization

(Dovidio, Gaetner, & Saguy, 2015). After all, good intentions are insufficient to accomplish

social justice (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). But we should also admit that the current cultural

and political polarization in the US is unsustainable, and that we should strive to find a shared

moral framework.

META-NARRATIVES 26

Admittedly, morality is not the only dimension of culture that accounts for youth

marginalization. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism,

islamophobia, and classism, to name a few, also play a meaningful role in perpetuating social

exclusion. But morality is another important piece of the puzzle, and one that requires further

research in developmental sciences addressing youth marginalization. If it is true that “rarely is

progress made in conceptualizing, measuring, and understanding human behavior without

appreciation of and response to the inadequacies of extant, dominant conceptual frameworks and

methodologies (McLoyd, 2004, p. 185)”, developmental research can benefit from expanding

our view of culture to study the role of moral meta-narratives in development and considering all

youth experiencing marginalization. More broadly, understanding the important role of morality

and meta-narratives also forces us to face the limitations of developmental science, and science,

in general. Human beings are ultimately believers, who embrace moral orders, even when these

beliefs and assumptions cannot be verified empirically, are not derived from a deeper, objective,

or independent body of knowledge, and are not universal, self-evident, or shared by all groups

(Smith, 2003). Instead of using reality and verifiable facts to guide their beliefs, beliefs condition

to a large degree how facts are construed and knowledge is built (Alston, 1993). The result is that

individuals rely on their faith in beliefs that cannot be proven except by those same beliefs

(Haidt, 2012). Thus, developmental research is not enough and advocating against

marginalization based on scientific arguments is insufficient. We should also rely on the moral

argument that youth marginalization is wrong, unfair, and unacceptable. In order to do so, we

must find a common moral ground, like the one articulated by the community progress meta-

narrative.

META-NARRATIVES 27

References

Alston, W. P. (1993). The reliability of sense perception. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Azmitia, M., Syed, M., & Radmacher, K. (2008). On the intersection of personal and social

identities: Introduction and evidence from a longitudinal study of emerging adults. New

Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 120, 1-16. doi:10.1002/cd.212

Bettie, J. (2014). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. University of California Press.

Bullock, H. E., & Limbert, W. M. (2003). Scaling the socioeconomic ladder: Low-­‐income

women's perceptions of class status and opportunity. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 693-

709. doi:10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00085.x

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2015). Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-

Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

112(49), 15078-15083. doi:10.1073/pnas.1518393112

Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2017). Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century. Brookings Papers on

Economic Activity Conference Drafts, March 23–24, 2017. Retrieved on June 1, 2017 from:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6_casedeaton.pdf

Causadias, J. M. (2013). A roadmap for the integration of culture into developmental

psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1375-1398.

Causadias, J. M., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (in press). Reframing marginalization and youth

development. American Psychologist.

Cicero, T.J., Ellis, M.S., Surratt, H.L., & Kurtz, S.P. (2014). The changing face of heroin use in

the United States: A retrospective analysis of the past 50 years. JAMA Psychiatry, 71 (7),

821-826. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.366

Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64, 194–204.

META-NARRATIVES 28

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral

judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48, 1-124.

doi:10.2307/1165935

Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2014). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S.

population: 2014-2060. Current Population Reports, P25-1143. Washington, DC: U.S.

Census Bureau.

Cooper, C. R. (1987). Conceptualizing research on adolescent development in the family: Four

root metaphors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2(3), 321-330.

doi:10.1177/074355488723010

Cooper, C. R., & Denner, J. (1998). Theories linking culture and psychology: Universal and

community-specific processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 559-584.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.559

Cooper, C. R., Cooper Jr, R. G., Azmitia, M., Chavira, G., & Gullatt, Y. (2002). Bridging

multiple worlds: How African American and Latino youth in academic outreach programs

navigate math pathways to college. Applied Developmental Science, 6(2), 73-87.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence

against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. doi:10.2307/1229039

de Rivera, J. E., & Sarbin, T. R. (1998). Believed-in imaginings: The narrative construction of

reality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ditto, P. H., & Koleva, S. P. (2011). Moral empathy gaps and the American culture

war. Emotion Review, 3(3), 331-332. doi:10.1177/1754073911402393

META-NARRATIVES 29

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2015). Color-blindness and commonality: Included

but invisible? American Behavioral Scientist, 59(11), 1518-1538.

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Political

diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-13.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430

Fine, M., & Sirin, S. R. (2007). Theorizing hyphenated selves: Researching youth development

in and across contentious political contexts. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 1(1), 16-38. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00032.x

García Coll, C. G., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences on developmental

processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of development and

psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 333-356.

García Coll, C. G., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & García,

H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority

children. Child Development, 1891-1914. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x

Gjerde, P. F. (2004). Culture, power, and experience: Toward a person-centered cultural

psychology. Human Development, 47(3), 138-157. doi:10.1159/000077987

Graham, S. (1992). "Most of the subjects were White and middle class": Trends in published

research on African Americans in selected APA journals, 1970–1989. American

Psychologist, 47(5), 629-639. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.5.629

Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral

communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 140-150.

doi:10.1177/1088868309353415

META-NARRATIVES 30

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of

moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.

doi:10.1037/a0015141

Greenfield, P. M. (1999). Cultural change and human development. New Directions for Child

and Adolescent Development, 83, 37-59.

Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of

human development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 401-418. doi:10.1037/a0014726

Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 65-72.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New

York: Vintage.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral

intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.

doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

Hammack, P. L., & Pilecki, A. (2012). Narrative as a root metaphor for political

psychology. Political Psychology, 33(1), 75-103. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00859.x

Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American

Right. New York: The New Press.

Inbar, Y. & Lammers, J. (2012). Political diversity in social and personality psychology.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496-503. doi: 10.1177/1745691612448792

Isenberg, N. (2016). White trash: The 400-year untold history of class in America. New York:

Viking.

META-NARRATIVES 31

Jensen, L. A. (2008). Through two lenses: A cultural–developmental approach to moral

psychology. Developmental Review, 28(3), 289-315. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.11.001

Jensen, L. A. (2015). Moral reasoning: Developmental emergence and life course pathways

among cultures. In L.A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Development and

Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 230 – 254). NY: Oxford University Press.

Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions,

and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy

of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71,

589-617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404

Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence and future

directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 419– 449.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children’s orientation toward a moral order. Vita

Humana, 6, 11-33.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization.

In D.A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand-

McNally.

Krosch, A. R., & Amodio, D. M. (2014). Economic scarcity alters the perception of

race. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(25), 9079-9084.

Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2016). School Finance Reform and the

Distribution of Student Achievement. Retrieved September 14, 2017 from:

http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/100-16.pdf.

META-NARRATIVES 32

Lambert, D., Gale, J.A., & Hartley, D. (2008). Substance abuse by youth and young adults in

rural America. Journal of Rural Health, 24, 221-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2008.00162.x

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lilla, M. (2016). The shipwrecked mind. On political reaction. New York: New York Review of

Books.

MacPhee, D., Kreutzer, J. C., & Fritz, J. J. (1994). Infusing a diversity perspective into human

development courses. Child Development, 65(2), 699-715.

McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2015). Personal, master, and alternative narratives: An integrative

framework for understanding identity development in context. Human Development, 58(6),

318-349. doi:10.1159/000445817

McLoyd, V. C., & Randolph, S. M. (1985). Secular trends in the study of Afro-American

children: A review of child development, 1936-1980. Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development, 50(4-5, Serial No. 211).

National Science Foundation (2015). Science and Engineering Doctorates. Retrieved March 2,

2017 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17306/data/tab22.pdf.

Nisan, M., & Kohlberg, L. (1982). Universality and variation in moral judgment: A longitudinal

and cross-sectional study in Turkey. Child Development, 53, 865-876.

Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are

now losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215-218.

Overton, W. F. (2010). Life-span development: Concepts and issues. In R. M. Lerner (Editor-in-

chief) and W. F. Overton (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of life-span development, Vol. 1: Cognition,

biology, and methods across the lifespan (pp. 1-29). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

META-NARRATIVES 33

Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations and relational-developmental-systems. In W. F.

Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology and developmental

science. Theory and Method. Volume (pp. 9-62) (7th ed.), Editor-in-Chief: Richard M.

Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Overton, W. F., & Reese, H. W. (1973). Models of development: Methodological implications.

In J. R. Nesselroade & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology:

Methodological issues (pp. 65–86). New York: Academic.

Pastor, M., Scoggins, J., & Treuhaft, S. (2017). Bridging the racial generation gap is key to

America’s economic future. Retrieved September 14, 2017 from

http://nationalequityatlas.org/sites/default/files/RacialGenGap_%20final.pdf

Pérez-Brena, N. J., Wheeler, L. A., Rodríguez De Jesús, S. A., Updegraff, K. A., & Umaña-

Taylor, A. Y. (2017). The educational and career adjustment of Mexican-origin youth in the

context of the 2007 economic recession. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 149-163.

Redding, R. E. (2012). Likes attract: The sociopolitical groupthink of (social)

psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 512-515.

Roberts, M.E., Doogan, N.J., Kurti, A.N., Redner, R., Gaalema, D.E., Stanton, C.A.,…&

Higgins, S.T. (2016). Rural tobacco use across the United States: How rural and urban areas

differ, broken down by census regions and divisions. Health Place, 39, 153-159.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B. V., & Perez,-Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic

familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 9, 397-412. doi: 10.1177/07399863870094003

META-NARRATIVES 34

Santos, C. (2016). The intersection of ethnic and gender identity among Latina/o Youth in the

United States: Links to well-being, and familial ethnic and gender socialization. International

Journal of Psychology, 51, 989.

Shweder, R.A., Much, N.C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality

(autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” of explanations of suffering. In A.

Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.) Morality and Health (pp. 119-169). New York: Routledge.

Smith, C. (2003). Moral, believing animals: Human personhood and culture. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Snarey, J.R., Reimer, J., & Kohlberg, L. (1985). Development of social-moral reasoning among

Kibbutz adolescents: A longitudinal cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology, 21, 3-

17. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.1.3.

Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Psychopathology as an outcome of development. Development and

Psychopathology, 9(2), 251-268.

Stout, J. (1988). Ethics after Babel: The languages of morals and their discontents. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the

interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(4), 545-

569. doi:10.1177/016502548600900409

Syed, M. (in press). Why traditional metrics may not adequately represent ethnic minority

psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. In

H. Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality and sociality: Evolutionary and comparative

perspectives (pp. 191–234). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

META-NARRATIVES 35

Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Westen, D. (2008). Political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. New

York: PublicAffairs.

Wheeler, T., & Von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food

security. Science, 341(6145), 508-513.

Wilkins, C. L., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy

implications for perceptions of anti-white bias. Psychological Science, 25(2), 439-446.

Wuthnow, R. (1987). Meaning and moral order: Explorations in cultural analysis. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Figure 1. Levels of discourse proposed by Overton (2010). Reproduced with permission of the

author.

Life-Span Development: Concepts and Issues 3

procedures. For example, one metatheory may prescribe that no “mental” concepts (e.g., “mind”) may enter theory, and that all change must be understood as strictly addi-tive (i.e., no emergence, no gaps, strict continuity), and hence will be measured by additive statistical techniques. This is a description of some features of early behavior-ism. Another metatheory may prescribe that mind is an es-sential feature of the system under consideration, that the system operates holistically, that novel features emerge, and that nonadditive statistical techniques are a welcome feature of any methodological toolbox. This is a descrip-tion of some metatheoretical features of what is termed a “relational developmental systems approach,” which is described in detail later in the chapter. Metatheoretical assumptions also serve as guidelines that help to avoid conceptual confusions. Take, for example, the word stage. In a metatheory that allows discontinuity of change and emergence, “stage” will be a theoretical concept referring to a particular level of organization of the system; in a metatheory that allows only continuity, if “stage” is used at all—it will be a simple descriptive summary statement of a group of behaviors (e.g., the stage of adolescence), but never as a theoretical concept.

Together with metatheory, theory, and method, it needs to be kept in mind that concepts can and do operate at dif-ferent levels of discourse (see Figure 1.1). Theories and methods refer directly to the empirical world, whereas metatheories refer to the theories and methods themselves. The most concrete and circumscribed level of discourse is the observational level. This is one’s current commonsense level of conceptualizing the nature of objects and events in the world. For example, one does not need a profes-sional degree to describe a child as “warm” “loving,” “dis-tant,” “angry,” “bright,” or even “attached,” “aggressive,” or “depressed.” This observational, commonsense, or folk level of analysis has a sense of immediacy and concrete-ness, but when refl ected on, it is often unclear, muddy, and ambiguous. It is the refl ection on folk understanding that moves the level of discourse to a refl ective level, which is the beginning of theoretical discourse. Here, refl ection is about organizing, refi ning, and reformulating observa-tional understandings in a broader, more coherent, and more abstract fi eld. At the theoretical refl ective level, con-cepts are about the observational level, and these range from informal hunches and hypotheses to highly refi ned theories about the nature of things, including human be-havior and change. Relatively refi ned theories may them-selves be narrow or broad. For example, some theories of memory are relatively narrow, whereas Demetriou and

colleagues (Chapter 10 of this volume) present a theory of the architecture of mind that is very broad. Similarly, the theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, Erikson, and Werner are grand theories—theories designed to explain a broad sweep of the development of psychological functioning—whereas Bowlby’s theory more narrowly focuses on at-tachment and its development.

The metatheoretical level itself operates above, and functions as a grounding for, the theoretical level. At the metatheoretical level, refl ective thought is about basic concepts that, as mentioned earlier, form the contextual frame for the theoretical and observational levels. And here, to make matters a bit more complicated, it is fur-ther possible to discriminate levels of metatheory. Thus, arguably, theories such as “relational developmental sys-tems,” “dynamical systems,” “embodiment,” “action,”

METATHEORETICAL DISCOURSEONTOLOGIC-EPISTEMOLOGIC GROUNDINGS

METATHEORETICAL DISCOURSEMETATHEORIES

THEORETICAL DISCOURSE(REFLECTIVE)

OBSERVATIONAL DISCOURSE(COMMONSENSE)

DOMAIN OF INQUIRY

Figure 1.1 Levels of discourse.

JWBT287-01.indd 3JWBT287-01.indd 3 6/7/10 7:10:25 AM6/7/10 7:10:25 AM

META-NARRATIVES 36

A.   First Principle: Holism

B.   Second Principle: Identity of Opposites

C.   Third Principle: Opposites of Identity

D.   Fourth Principle: Synthesis of Wholes

Figure 2. Graphic Depiction of Relational Epistemological Principles Applied to Meta-

Narratives.

First Principle: Holism

World History

US History

Racial relations

Liberal Progress

Second Principle: Identity of Opposites

Liberal Progress

Community Lost

American History and Culture

Third Principle: Opposites of Identity

Liberal Progress

Community Lost

Ethnic Minority Youth Rural White Youth

Fourth Principle: Synthesis of Wholes

Liberal Progress

Community Progress

CommunityLost

Ethnic Minority Youth Rural White Youth

All Marginalized Youth