Black monolithism in study of Religious/Spiritual Struggles and Mental Health Among Black Adolescents

Reassessing the Reliance on a Black Monolith in Parker et al.’s Meta-Synthesis: A Critical Examination Through a Race-Skeptical Lens

Introduction

By Grok under the supervision of Dr. Christopher Williams

The concept of a "Black monolith" refers to the tendency in academic research to treat Black individuals as a homogenous group, often overlooking the diverse socio-cultural, historical, and individual identities within Black populations. This assumption can oversimplify complex social realities and undermine the validity of research findings. In their 2022 meta-synthesis, "Religious/Spiritual Struggles and Mental Health Among Black Adolescents and Emerging Adults: A Meta-synthesis," published in the Journal of Black Psychology, Janise S. Parker, Lee Purvis, and Breiana Williams explore how religious and spiritual struggles impact the mental health of Black youth. The study aims to account for socio-demographic diversity, citing Taylor (1988) to acknowledge heterogeneity within Black communities. However, certain passages, particularly those discussing intervention strategies, suggest an overreliance on a monolithic conception of "Blackness" and the construct of race. Adopting a race-skeptical perspective, which questions the scientific validity of racial categories due to their historical construction and lack of specificity, this essay critically evaluates the authors’ reliance on a Black monolith, focusing on a key passage from the implications section (Parker et al., 2022, p. 192). While the authors attempt to address diversity, their generalized recommendations and uncritical use of "Black" as a unifying category reinforce monolithic assumptions, limiting the study’s rigor and applicability.

The Problematic Passage: Generalizing Black Youth Experiences

A notable passage in the implications for practice section states: “Helping Black Americans navigate religious and spiritual issues in mental health settings is not a new idea (Constantine et al., 2000). The literature is scarce with specific intervention approaches for serving Black adolescents and emerging adults when religious and spiritual issues emerge. However, general strategies… may provide insight into critical first steps. At the individual level, mental health providers can invite Black youth to discuss religious/spiritual issues… using assessment instruments such as the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (Exline et al., 2014) and the American Psychiatric Association’s (2013) Cultural Formation Interview to understand Black youths’ experiences… treatment goals may include helping Black youth process their perceptions of God… and addressing forgiveness issues when clients have been harmed by members in their religious communities” (Parker et al., 2022, p. 192). This passage exemplifies the authors’ tendency to treat "Black youth" as a cohesive group, assuming shared experiences and needs that can be addressed through uniform intervention strategies. A race-skeptical perspective, which critiques the reliability of race as a scientific variable due to its origins as a socially constructed category, finds this approach problematic because it fails to interrogate the construct of "Black" and overlooks the diverse cultural, historical, and individual contexts that shape religious/spiritual experiences.

The passage’s use of “Black Americans” and “Black youth” without defining or contextualizing the term assumes a monolithic identity that transcends diverse backgrounds, religious affiliations, and socio-economic realities. Racial categories like "Black" often lack coherence, encompassing groups as varied as African immigrants, Caribbean descendants, or multiracial individuals without accounting for their distinct experiences. By recommending broad interventions like the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale or the Cultural Formation Interview for all “Black youth,” the authors risk applying tools that may not address the specific cultural or religious nuances of, for example, Black Muslim youth or those with Afrocentric spiritual practices, thus perpetuating a monolithic view.

Methodological Choices: A Partial Commitment to Heterogeneity

The authors’ methodological approach demonstrates an effort to acknowledge diversity within Black youth populations. They synthesize qualitative data from 19 studies involving approximately 382 Black adolescents and emerging adults, explicitly considering socio-demographic factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, income status, and religious affiliation (Parker et al., 2022, pp. 161-164). The inclusion of detailed participant characteristics in Table 1 (pp. 165-171) and the use of a meta-ethnography approach to capture lived experiences reflect an intent to avoid monolithic assumptions. However, the study’s reliance on a predominantly Christian sample (16 of 19 studies reference Christianity, with only three mentioning Islam and three Catholicism) limits its ability to represent the full spectrum of Black religious experiences (Parker et al., 2022, p. 164). This Christian-centric focus, acknowledged as a limitation, inadvertently reinforces a monolithic view of Black religiosity, marginalizing non-Christian perspectives that may shape mental health outcomes differently.

Additionally, the authors’ decision to aggregate findings across adolescents (ages 13-17) and emerging adults (ages 18-29) under the term “Black youth” overlooks developmental differences that could influence religious/spiritual struggles (Parker et al., 2022, p. 171). For instance, emerging adults’ greater autonomy to leave non-affirming religious communities contrasts with adolescents’ dependence on caregivers’ choices, yet the study generalizes experiences across these groups. This aggregation risks obscuring critical nuances, reducing the explanatory power of the findings.

Thematic Findings: Nuanced Yet Undermined by Generalization

The study’s core themes—Rejected and Unloved, Abandoned and Dismissed, and Doubt, Disengagement, and Reconciliation—highlight diverse experiences of religious/spiritual struggles, particularly in relation to race, gender, and sexual orientation. The theme of Rejected and Unloved details how Black youth face racial isolation in predominantly White religious settings, gender-based oppression, and homonegativity, with specific examples illustrating the intersectional challenges of Black women and LGBTQ+ individuals (Parker et al., 2022, pp. 171-174). These findings resist a monolithic portrayal by emphasizing how specific identities shape unique struggles. Similarly, the theme of Doubt, Disengagement, and Reconciliation explores varied reconciliation strategies, particularly among LGBTQ+ youth, further underscoring diversity (Parker et al., 2022, pp. 182-185).

However, the passage’s generalized recommendations undermine these nuanced findings. By suggesting that mental health providers use standardized tools like the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale for all “Black youth,” the authors imply that a one-size-fits-all approach can address the diverse struggles identified in their themes (Parker et al., 2022, p. 192). This contradicts the study’s earlier emphasis on heterogeneity and suggests that all Black youth share similar religious/spiritual challenges and solutions, regardless of their specific cultural or religious contexts.

Discussion and Implications: A Missed Opportunity for Specificity

In the discussion section, the authors link their findings to Exline et al.’s (2014) framework of religious/spiritual struggles, emphasizing how Divine, interpersonal, and moral struggles intersect with socio-demographic identities (Parker et al., 2022, pp. 186-190). They acknowledge the role of racism, gender socialization, and sexual orientation in shaping unique experiences, aligning with their goal of avoiding a Black monolith. However, the passage’s broad recommendations for mental health practice fail to translate this nuance into actionable strategies. The suggestion to “invite Black youth to discuss religious/spiritual issues” and use standardized assessment tools assumes a shared cultural or religious framework that may not apply to all Black youth, particularly those outside Christian contexts or with non-traditional spiritual beliefs (Parker et al., 2022, p. 192).

The passage’s reliance on “Black” as a unifying category without clear conceptualization raises concerns about its practical utility. The term “Black Americans” encompasses a wide range of identities, yet the authors do not clarify how these diverse backgrounds influence religious/spiritual experiences or mental health needs. This lack of specificity risks rendering the recommendations ineffective for subgroups within the Black population, reinforcing the monolithic assumption that all Black youth face similar challenges.

Race Skepticism and Broader Implications

A race-skeptical perspective highlights the need for research to define and justify the use of race as a variable. The passage’s uncritical use of “Black” fails to specify whether the term refers to self-identified race, cultural heritage, or social experiences of racism, leading to ambiguous conclusions. In mental health interventions, this ambiguity could result in misaligned strategies that do not address the specific needs of diverse Black youth, such as those from low-income communities or non-Christian backgrounds. Moreover, the focus on “Black Americans” excludes the global diversity of Black identities, perpetuating a U.S.-centric view of Blackness that may not apply to, for example, African or Caribbean youth.

Conclusion

Parker et al.’s meta-synthesis seeks to highlight the diverse religious/spiritual struggles of Black adolescents and emerging adults, yet the implications section reveals an overreliance on a Black monolith. By recommending generalized intervention strategies for “Black youth” without specifying how these apply to diverse cultural, religious, or developmental contexts, the authors undermine their commitment to heterogeneity. A race-skeptical perspective underscores the need for clear definitions of “Black,” tailored interventions for specific subgroups, and broader inclusion of non-Christian and global Black perspectives. Future research and practice should build on this study by prioritizing specificity and cultural relevance to fully honor the diversity of Black youth experiences.

References

Exline, J. J., Pargament, K. I., Grubbs, J. B., & Yali, A. M. (2014). The religious and spiritual struggles scale: Development and initial validation. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036465

Parker, J. S., Purvis, L., & Williams, B. (2022). Religious/spiritual struggles and mental health among Black adolescents and emerging adults: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Black Psychology, 49(2), 153-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984221136800

Taylor, R. J. (1988). Correlates of religious non-involvement among Black Americans. Review of Religious Research, 126-139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511350