On the Origins of IACCP

Gustav Jahoda, Glasgow, Scotland, U.K.

The Editor has asked me to "comment on the zeitgeist" that led to the formation at about the same time of both the IACCP and the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. Now the zeitgeist is as slippery and elusive a concept as that of "culture", so that no simple and straightforward elucidations are possible. Hence what follows are merely some tentative and discursive remarks from someone whose main qualifications for pronouncing on the issue is that he lived and worked during the period.

The first and obvious fact is that the number of researchers concerned with culture had reached a critical mass, hence the wish to give a more permanent structure to what had hitherto been merely a network of informal communication. But why had the numbers increased to that point? Here the answers are perhaps to be sought at two different through related levels, one individual and the other societal. The individual refers to the life histories of participants, the ways in which they became interested in problems of psychology and culture. A book edited by Michael Bond, Working at the Interface of Cultures (Routledge), has just been published, in which some of the old crocks-sorry, I mean of course elder statesmen-including John Berry, Harry Triandis and myself, tell all.

"As far as I can recall, the photo shows the participants at a meeting of the newly created 'People's Educational Association', probably in 1953. I had been asked to give them a talk, and the participants were keen and enthusiastic-the general atmosphere was then optimistic, in the run-up to full independence. I also have an idea, unless I mix up the occasions, which is quite possible, that the meeting was held in the beautiful setting of Cape Coast, in the college that later became a university." Copyright 1997 Gustav Jahoda

These personal experiences were of course set within, and influenced by, the wider sociocultural context, and here the story becomes more nebulous. Among a complex web of historical factors the causal strands are hard to disentangle. It would take several Ph.D. dissertations to make even a beginning, so let me just voice a few rough ideas in more or less random order.

One might speculate that the postwar ethos, with its revulsion against racism, had something to do with it. Differences between peoples are striking, and if racial interpretations are rejected, then culture comes into its own. This is of course not to say that interest in culture was purely a postwar phenomenon. Thus it is my impression that the ancestry of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research runs from Boas in the 1920s via Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict to Abram Kardiner; and when the star of the culture-and-personality school faded during the postwar years, it was succeeded by research relying on much more eclectic theoretical bases, often using the HRAF; the Whitings were the most active exponents of this trend. Thence emerged "psychological anthropology," joined by others such as sociologists and demographers who had caught the bug of "culture", and this probably resulted in the SCCR.

There were of course links, direct and indirect, with the sphere of the IACCP, partly due to overlap in (mainly American) membership. Let me give an example of an indirect one. During the 1950s, Piaget attended a series of seminars on child development. His stance at that time was very psychobiological, and it seems to have been Mead, also present, who persuaded him of the relevance of cultural influences. This led to his famous article in the first issue of the International Journal of Psychology on the necessity for comparisons. Although this did not originate developmental cross-cultural psychology (e.g., Price-Williams had started working with Tiv children several years earlier, as had Pat Greenfield with Wolog children), it laid the foundation for what became a major area of research, to which Pierre Dasen made an outstanding contribution.

The 1950s and the 1960s saw the blossoming of two theories which called for cross-cultural verification, namely McClelland's "achievement motivation" and Witkin's "cognitive styles." Another point of departure at that period was the excavation, by Segall, Campbell and Herskovits, of Rivers' classical studies of visual illusions. It was followed by a surge of research in the field of perception, with John Berry one of the pioneers. Here one should also remember the late John Dawson, who was active in this field in West Africa and later Hong Kong.

This leads on to a broader background factor, relevant then especially for Britain, that must be taken into account: namely the process of decolonisation. It evoked an interest in social changes, and Leonard Doob's fieldwork in Africa and elsewhere resulted in a book with the (now politically incorrect) title Becoming More Civilized; it was the precursor of numerous studies of what came to be labelled "modernization."

A political consequence of decolonisation was the foundation of colleges and universities in the former colonial territories in preparation for independence. Moreover, research centres previously confined to anthropologists began to open up to psychologists. Although in the new institutions the greatest emphasis was initially placed on economics, in the sadly mistaken belief that it would offer salvation, psychologists such as Jan Deregowski or myself, and later Robert Serpell, also came to be recruited. In this connection mention should also be made of the South African Institute for Personnel Research, founded just after World War II, where under the leadership of the late Simon Beisheuvel a number of able researchers were assembled, among them Ype Poortinga.

It will be clear even from this brief outline that a lot was going on, and in several different ways a common interest group emerged. It was largely due to the energy and enthusiasm of John Dawson, assisted by Walt Lonner, that it came to take on a formal shape. Although the bulk of mainstream psychology kept severely aloof from this development, it was fortunate that so prominent a member of the scientific community as Jerome Bruner was sympathetic and willing to offer his support.

In conclusion, I am under no illusion that this sketch is anything more than a highly fallible perspective coloured by my own cultural, national, and personal background. It is to be hoped that others will be stimulated to expand and, where necessary, correct my interpretations.

About the Author During the 1950s GJ spent several years in West Africa, where he embarked upon what is now known as cross-cultural research. He was in at the foundation of IACCP, and its one-time president. He remained active in empirical research until just over a decade ago, but has now retreated to the library. Publications include Psychology and Anthropology (1982) and Cross-roads Between Culture and Mind (1993).

September 1997 Table of Contents