"Decolonizing" the Minds of Bioethicists: Reflections on Psychosocial Challenges

A man who tries to control the life of another does not destroy the other any the less because he does it, as he thinks, for the other's benefit.

(Killingray 1973)

Catherine Myser's important call for American bioethicists to "decolonize" their minds so that they will be more able to effectively "problematize," "displace," "decenter" and "relocate" "whiteness" in their theory and practice presents formidable challenges for both white and nonwhite bioethicists. In order to achieve these goals, it is vital to examine the history of race, gender, and ethnic group relations in America and the extent to which the notion of white supremacy and the practice of majority group paternalism are embedded in American society generally, and in the training and life experiences of white bioethicists in particular. Myser's article provides an excellent opportunity to review this history, during which the term "domestic colonialism" was often heard, and it can serve as a backdrop for discovering ways to "remove hierarchical relationships" that serve as means of cultural control within bioethics. (Myser 2003). Moreover, examining some historical attempts to "mark," "decenter," and "displace" the domination of the majority, often involved resistance to which individual, cultural, and institutional white racism (Jones 1972) and ethnocentrism in America, can shed light on the challenges Myser presents.

An extension of Myser's astute historical review will reveal some of the numerous and wide-ranging attempts that were made by individuals and groups throughout much of the twentieth century—particularly during the civil rights and women's movements—to decenter whiteness and remedy academic and professional "colonialism" within disciplines as diverse as psychology, anthropology, education, biology, medicine, and law. Scholars in these disciplines have written extensively about the effects of white domination in theory, practice, and policy, and about subsequent minority group behavior that has ranged from resistance to inactivity and despair. For instance, concerning education, Smith (1969) writes that "White supremacy has left many black teachers and white teachers paralyzed in its wake, and it has been most deadly when they are unaware of their sickness." Cornel West succinctly describes and elucidates Myser's point about the power of the majority group to grant admittance into the arena where whiteness and "Americanness" dominate, and where an acceptable amount of assimilation is required for entry into the arena:

To engage in a serious discussion of race in America, we must begin not with the problems of black people but with the flaws of American society—flaws rooted in historic inequalities and longstanding cultural stereotypes. How we set up the terms for discussing racial issues shapes our perception and response to these issues. As long as black people are viewed as a "them," the burden falls on blacks to do all the "cultural" and "moral" work necessary for healthy race relations. The implication is that only certain Americans can define what it means to be an American—and the rest must simply "fit in." (West 1993)

Gender, ethnic group, age, social class and other categories that Myser includes can be substituted for "race." The "largely racially homogenous (i.e., Caucasian) zone of bioethics in the United States" (Myser) is the arena in which minority group members have largely been precluded from participating on an equal basis.

Although Myser does not present reasons why the evolution of bioethics will be any different from that of other disciplines dominated by "whiteness," or why "self-reflection" is a key element for decolonizing the minds of ethicists, the area of ethics may lend itself to a unique evolution. This might be possible because issues surrounding race, gender as described by Wolf (1996), and science which demand deep reflection and vigilance by ethicists are never far from the forefront.¹ Negative eugenics as described by Larson (1995), the potential misuse of information gleaned from the Human Genome Project discussed by King (1997), and the exclusion of women...