Journal of Family Therapy (1988) 10: 271-282

Social anthropology, ethnicity and family therapy

Rohit Barot*

Family therapists in Britain may be familiar with current trends in social work and psychiatric literature concerned with South Asian and Afro- Caribbean minorities. One particular theme is the way practitioners may use the notion of culture or ethnicity to explain their clients' difficulties. As Shama Ahmed has recently pointed out, cultural explanations may be used and abused and may thus obscure the wider importance ofclass and race (Ahmed, 1986; p. 140). As both academics and practitioners have been interested in culture and ethnicity, this article examines the concept of ethnicity as it is used by social anthropologists and its application in the studies of ethnic minorities in Britain. To illustrate that family therapists can attribute undue significance to culture and ethnicity, material from an article by a family therapist is re-analysed to show certain limitations in the use of culture as the main explanation.

Social anthropology and ethnicity

The word ethnicity derives from the Greek word ethnos, meaning people. From about 1953, sociologists and social anthropologists alike have used the concept of ethnic group to identify culturally distinctive groups. It has also become a common practice to distinguish ethnic group from ethnic category which consists of a population sharing common cultural features and social institutions without necessarily forming a corporate group (Banton, 1983; p. I 14).

Sociological research into ethnic minorities was well established before World War 11. In the United States, more recently, Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan's book, Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, has been influential for its distinction between ethnicity as a primor- dial phenomenon (a matter of gut feeling about ethnic identity) and ethnicity as something circumstantial (created by the experience of particular groups in particular circumstances) (Glazer and Moynihan, 1975; P- 19).

* Department of Sociology, University of Bristol, I 2 Woodland Road, Bristol BJ8 I UQ.

271

0163-4445/88/030271+ 1 2 $03.00/0 0 1 9 8 8 The Association for Family Therapy

272 R. Barot As the readers of this Journal will no doubt know, social

anthropologists in Britain derived their ideas about ethnicity from research in African towns. Abner Cohen’s book, Custom and Politics in Urban Africa ( 1 9 6 9 ) , was influential in showing that when groups compete for specific aims and gains, ethnicity can emerge as a distinctive feature of group identity. In this study, he shows that in their dealings with Yorubas, Hausas deploy cultural distinctiveness to retain their monopoly over cattle and kola trading just as the Bengalis in Britain may use cultural symbolism to retain their control over the Indian restaurant trade in a particular city. Abner Cohen makes his clearest theoretical statement in his ‘Introduction: the lessons of ethnicity’ in his Urban Ethnicity (1974a) and his book Two Dimensional Man ( 19743). He argues that power and power relations should be explained in terms of cultural symbolism such as the practice of wearing turbans among the Sikhs to highlight the distinctiveness of their historical and cultural self-conception.

In contrast to Abner Cohen, the Norwegian social anthropologist Fredrik Barth has pursued a more interactionist approach. In his book, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation o f Culture Difference ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Barth mainly concentrated on self-ascription, ascription by others and the maintenance of group boundaries to sustain ethnic identities as a critical focus for the study of ethnic groups. These two anthropologists have greatly influenced the studies of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. In broad terms, the concept of ethnicity has come to refer to shared cultural heritage, common descent, group boundaries and identities known, understood and used by members of an ethnic group.

In view of the interest in ethnicity, it is worth asking whether there is a theory of ethnicity in the sense in which there are, for instance, Marxist and Weberian theories of social stratification. Although social scientists will recognize the importance of ethnicity, most of them are likely to consider it much more a concept rather than a theory. As Talcott Parsons has rightly pointed out in his essay, ethnicity ‘. . . is, however, an extraordinarily elusive concept and very difficult to define in any precise way’ (Glazer and Moynihan, 1975; p. 53-83). Further, when social scientists use race and ethnicity synonymously as in the United States, the concept of ethnicity is even more blurred.

In Britain, the legal difficulties in making a categorical distinction between ethnicity and race were sharply highlighted in the case of Mandla vs Dowel1 Lee reported in All England Law Reports of 1982 (3) and 1983( I ) . In this case, Seva Singh Mandla, a Sikh, applied for a

Ethnicity and farnib therapy 2 73 place for his thirteen-year-old son Gurinder Singh at a private school in Birmingham. When the headmaster, Mr A. G. Dowell Lee, met Mr Seva Singh and his son Gurinder Singh, he noticed that both of them were wearing turbans. His view was that if Gurinder Singh wore a turban at the school, it would serve to emphasize social and cultural distinctions. He asked the father if he would consent to Gurinder Singh removing his turban and cutting his hair in order to become a pupil at the school. Seva Singh Mandla considered that completely out of question. Consequently, Mr Dowell Lee informed him that he was unable to relax school rules about uniforms and that he was therefore unable to offer Gurinder Singh a place.

Mr Mandla reported the matter to the Commission for Racial Equality, alleging that his son had been discriminated against by the school. The Commission decided to assist Mr Mandla in instituting legal proceedings against Mr Dowell Lee in the Birmingham County Court for a breach of 1976 Race Relations Act. The Act defines racial group as ‘a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins’. Mr Mandla’s case rested on the contention that as a cultural, linguistic and religious community, the Sikhs were defined with reference to ‘ethnic origins’. In his judgement, the County Court judge did not accept this particular conception of ethnic origins and affirmed that Sikhs were merely a distinct religious community and were not racially distinguishable from other people of Punjab. Therefore, as they did not constitute a racial group, i t was not unlawful to discriminate against them.

Subsequently, the Commission for Racial Equality appealed against his decision. At the Court of appeal, Lord Denning, Lord Justice Oliver and Lord Justice Kerr reviewed the case. In the judgement, Lord Denning accepted the 1934 Concise Oxford Dictionary meaning of ethnic as ‘pertaining to race, ethnological’. The word ethnological meant ‘corresponding to division of races’. Following this usage, Lord Denning asserted that Sikhs had always intermingled with the Hindu population of the Punjab area and what distinguished them from other communities was not their ethnic origin (in the sense of race) but their religion. M r A. J. Oliver accepted the argument that the word ethnic also included the notion of cultural or linguistic community. However, he believed that in its popular meaning it was essentially a racial concept referring to fixed inherited characteristics. As the Appeal Court accepted this somewhat narrow and racially based definition of ‘ethnic origin’, Mr Mandla’s appeal was dismissed.

Finally, when the case was heard, by the House of Lords, Lord

274 R. Barot Fraser of Tullybelton was much less inclined to define ‘ethnic origins’ in a narrow biological sense. He argued that if members of a group shared history, a distinctive cultural tradition, a common geographical origin or descent, common language and literature, a common religion and a minority status, then the group could constitute an ethnic group if it also saw itself as a distinct community and was so regarded by others. The Lords emphasized the cultural dimension of ethnic group and at the same time argued that the notion of common descent gave members of an ethnic group something akin to a racial aspect. Although, as Lord Templeman argued, the Sikhs did not qualify as a separate race, they were more than a religious sect, ‘almost a race, almost a nation’. In allowing the appeal, the House of Lords saw Gurinder Singh Mandla as a member of Sikh community which qualified as a racial group for the purpose of 1976 Race Relations Act.

The Mandla vs Dowel1 Lee case highlighted difficulties of legally defining precisely the distinction between race and ethnicity. Be that as it may, although sociologists and anthropologists may accept the idea of descent as part and parcel of ethnic self-conception of a group, it is less likely that they would wish to define descent in any narrow, racial and biological sense as the notion of descent can be purely mythical of fictional. I t is worth noting that in the early 1970s Michael Lyon made an important contribution to distinguishing ethnicity from race in sociological analysis. Using Fredrik Barth’s notion of boundary, he introduced a categorical difference between race as a boundary of exclusion, a boundary usually imposed by a dominant group (often, but not always in the majority) and ethnicity as a boundary of inclusion to mean the way members of a particular group would define themselves (Lyon, 1972-3; pp. 1 - 1 1 , 1973; pp. 1-24). In spite of various difficulties which arise in using ethnicity as a concept, there is no doubt that i t has emerged as an important analytical tool for explaining human behaviour as it is influenced by distinctiveness of culture.

Abner Cohen (1974~ ; p. 2 I ) has argued that the concept of ethnicity is more heuristic than theoretical. However, those who have studied ethnic groups, ethnic boundaries and ethnic indentities have often assumed that it is ethnicity which is the most important source of influence in contemporary life. For example, in the Introduction to their volume on ethnicity, Glazer and Moynihan (1975, pp. 16-18) clearly imply that ethnicity is a more fundamental source of stratification than property-based class relations. Social anthro- pologists studying ethnicity have tended to accept the importance of

Ethnicity and farnib therapy 2 75

ethnicity in different degrees. Once ethnicity is accepted as a critical factor, i t is not uncommon for social anthropologists to ignore the class dimension or to assume, explicitly or implicitly, that it is less relevant for their analysis. It is rare for them to study both ethnicity and class, and to examine and analyse the part each has to play in modern societies.

Social anthropology, ethnicity and ethnic minorities in Britain

The early studies of what used to be called racial rather than ethnic minorities tended to focus on the process of absorption of migrants and settlers in British society. As Sheila Patterson was to explain in her study of West Indians in London, ‘terms such as “adjustment”, “accommodation”, “integration” and “assimilation” represent the goals recognised by both sides’ (by the host society and immigrants) (Patterson, 1963; pp. 19-35). Further absorption of New Common- wealth immigrants was to be explained in terms of their adaptation to social life in Britain and their increasing acceptance by the white British. Such studies also emphasized the importance of racial prejudice, racial discrimination and disadvantage, and their effects on intergroup relations. However, as increasing numbers of South Asians and Afro-Caribbeans began to form larger communities in the mid- sixties, the British became more and more conscious of a multi-ethnic society developing in the United Kingdom. Awareness of this growing diversity gave a distinctive expression to the notion of cultural pluralism. As they settled down, both South Asians and Afro- Caribbeans began to create their own social and cultural institutions. For example, Indians began to open their own temples, gurudwaras and mosques, bringing into existence community organizations and voluntary associations. I t was at this stage that social anthropologists began to argue for the significance of ethnicity in understanding and explaining the position of ethnic minorities in Britain.

In 1967, John Rex and Robert Moore published a sociological study of race and housing in Birmingham, showing that the immigrant population had access to the least desirable quality of housing and that many lived in dwellings which were overcrowded and in very poor condition. Badr Dahya was one of the first social anthropologists to criticize this study. He argued that Rex and Moore had imposed their preconceived framework on the study and had taken inadequate account of the perceptions of the Pakistani buyers. They had also failed to note that the Pakistani immigrants saw inner city terraces as a

276 R. Barot

step forward from the kind of housing provision available to them in rural Pakistan before their migration and that the kind of inner city housing they chose was compatible with their own strategy to accumulate wealth and eventually to return to Pakistan (Dahya, 1974; pp. 77-1 18). In other words, Pakistanis were able to bring a specific ethnic dimension to bear on their choice of housing in Britain. Badr Dahya introduced the notion of Pakistani ethnicity as if to imply there was an ethnicity which was shared by all Pakistanis. In her study of Pakistanis in Bradford, Verity Saifullah Khan was critical of this monolithic notion of ethnicity and argued that Pathans, Baluch, Punjabi, Sindhi and Kashmiri Pakistanis were culturally and linguistically sufficiently distinct to render ‘Pakistani ethnicity’ a nonsense term (Khan, I 976; pp. 2 I 7 - 2 2 2 ) .

Although social anthropologists have provided valuable knowledge and information about cultural and social differences between and within various ethnic groups, they have often neglected the historical context of post-war migration and a whole spectrum of traumatic changes families have had to contend with in order to survive. For example, Abner Cohen’s ( 1980) scholarly and meticulous study of Notting Hill Carnival concentrates on ethnic symbolism expressed by carnival participants. The article tends to emphasize cultural forms in their vivid and dramatic presentation. It does not, however, explicitly analyse the carnival in terms of the inequalities and racism which so heavily influence the lives of carnival participants. The fact that the carnival also symbolizes self-pride and protest is a theme which is less well explored in his study.

More recently, social anthropologists have explicitly examined the part their discipline has to play in a critical study of racism. Recent issues of Anthropology Today clearly reflect this theme. Jean La Fontaine’s (1986) short article raised the question of the way social anthropologists could counter racial prejudice. Many anthropologists will find her comments on multi-culturalism and anti-racism unhelpful and her contention that anti-racists identify genetic inheritance with cultural tradition somewhat unsatisfactory. Such a position provides a doubtful basis for a proper anthropological understanding of racism and its effects on social relations in Britain. In his critical assessment of Jean La Fontaine’s views, Richard Jenkins argues that social anthropology has to face important criticism in its inability to deal with racism and ethnic disadvantage (Jenkins, 1987; p. 3) . In contrast to anthropologists, columns of the social work journal Community Care show that social workers have a better record on the subject. For

Ethnicity and farnib therapy 2 7 7

instance, Shama Ahmed’s work explicitly focuses on inequalities and racism, and prescribes anti-racist training for social workers so that individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds can receive services appropriate to their needs (Ahmed, 1987; pp. 1-3). As anthropologists have concerned themselves with studies of symbolism and power in a wide range of societies, they could help to study processes which allow racist practices to persist. Unless they respond to this critical challenge, it is likely that anthropologists will continue to study ethnic groups in a traditional fashion. This trend is most unlikely to inspire the kind of critical analysis capable of responding to the needs and aspirations of the most disadvantaged and discriminated segments of ethnic minority populations in Britain.

Ethnicity, ethnic minorities and family therapy

A collection of papers on minority families in Britain edited by Verity Saifullah Khan (1979) shows the way social anthropologists have addressed themselves to practical problems of stress and support affecting South Asians in Britain. Contributors to this volume show the importance of ethnicity and cultural differences in understanding the stress and suffering individuals from minority background may experience. Some contributors are clearly aware of the fact that cultures of minorities, far from being static, are dynamic and respond to social conditions in which groups and individuals find themselves. In her article on second generation South Asians, Catherine Ballard (1979) argues that the expression of ethnicity is better explained as a response to the experience of racism, abuse and discrimination. Among the Sikhs, for instance, in the 1960s in Bristol, it was not uncommon among young Sikhs to cut their hair and to remove their turbans to gain employment and a measure of acceptance among the white British. However, when the Sikhs realized that such acceptance was not forthcoming, and that removing obvious signs of Sikh identity did not diminish racial discrimination, awareness of the Sikh identity and the desire to maintain long hair and the turban grew stronger.

The influence of social anthropology is also evident in the psychiatrist Philip Rack’s Race, Culture and Mental Disorder ( I 982). The argument that practitioners in the field should be sensitively aware of cultural differences as they affect their clients is doubtlessly important. However, if the practitioner was to assume that his clients’ troubles were best sorted out primarily in terms of their culture, it is possible that such a practitioner may find the effectiveness of his intervention

278 R. Barot limited. For, not unusually, a focus on cultural framework may require a wider analysis of other institutional practices as they affect the lives of an individual. The suffering may have its roots in the experience of migration and displacement, and in the loss of traditional sources of support. A whole range of structural factors may be involved which are quite unrelated to ethnic affiliation or the ethnic identity of a particular client. Therefore, those academics and practitioners who assume that family is nothing more than an expression of ethnicity may find that such a contention is singularly unhelpful, as so many institutional factors influence the family quite apart from ethnicity.

In a recent American textbook, Ethnicity and Family Therapy by McGoldrick et al. (1982), Monica McGoldrick says, ‘Ethnicity is deeply tied to the family through which it is transmitted. The two concepts are so intertwined that it is hard to study one without the other’ (1982, p. 3) . She also asserts, ‘Ethnicity remains a vital force in this country, a major form of group identification and a major determinant of our family patterns and belief systems.’ However, although McGoldrick is clearly aware of those global inequalities which affect family life everywhere, she appears to be more concerned with the positive aspects of ethnicity. As she says, ‘The focus on the harmful effects of racism, poverty and political powerlessness often so dominate, that positive aspects of ethnicity-traditions, coping skills, belief systems-are ignored’ (1982, p. 8). Although it may be that she does not exclude the relevance of structural factors in her analysis, her theoretical identification of family with ethnicity is most likely to obscure the way institutional factors such as poor education, unemployment, bad housing and inadequate social and health care facilities can seriously undermine family cohesion-a process which is not properly explained by a primary emphasis on ethnic groups and ethnic identities.

In contrast, in their study, Aliens and Alienists: Ethnic Minorities and Psychiatry (I 982), Roland Littlewood and Maurice Lipsedge, while emphasizing the importance of culture in psychiatric illness, also stress the nature of the historical relationship between blacks and whites and the effects of migration, uprooting and racism with which an individual from a minority background has to contend.

In assessing the connection between social anthropology and psychiatry, Roland Littlewood has pointed out that in regard to ethnic minorities in Britain, examination of mental illness in relation to culture has been somewhat superficial. Consequently, the British Transcultural Psychiatry Society has moved to a kind of political

Ethnicip and farnib therapr 2 79 perspective which calls for equal and appropriate therapy for black people in Britain and a critical examination of racist assumptions which may influence theorizing within psychiatry (Littlewood, 1986; pp. 8-1 I ) . Recently, David Berry and Nick O’Dwyer (1987) have reported Roland Littlewood’s research in The Guardian under the title ‘Is racism driving blacks out of their minds?’, which appears to confirm that blacks are likely to receive less favourable treatment in mental hospitals than whites. Contemporary concern with the higher rate of involuntary admission of Afro-Caribbeans in our mental hospitals and assessment of their mental illness is unlikely to be illuminated by a focus on their ethnic origin and ethnic identity only. A critical assessment of the wider context which affects the mental well-being of all individuals and families is essential for a fuller understanding of welfare of those who are believed to suffer from mental illness. I t is probable that an analyst who assumes that ethnicity is a matter of prime importance, may fail to analyse those symptoms which do not necessarily derive from ethnicity.

To make this point more explicit, it is worth examining a specific article by the psychiatrist and family therapist Dr Annie Lau. Her ‘Transcultural issues in family therapy’ appeared in this Journal in 1984. In an erudite and scholarly study, she presents a helpful typology of transcultural situations. Underlining the importance of culture, she argues, ‘Our ethnic patients often present with maladaptive behaviour and symptoms influenced by the religious and symbolic language of the culture of origin’ (Lau, 1984; p. 98). Her practical guidelines in working with ethnic families (1984, pp. 103-104) require the therapist to know the family’s cultural and religious background in sufficient detail in order to assess the content of clinical material. She also add$ that if necessary, a ‘cultural interpreter’ should be brought in (1984, p. 104). Following this strong emphasis on culture, she presents three interesting cases to illustrate how she as a therapist was able to help the families because she could understand their culture.

However, a re-analysis of Lau’s first case clearly reveals that she assumed greater causal primacy of culture than was necessary. This case concerns a Chinese family which had fled from Vietnam in 1979. Their daughter had displayed bizarre behaviour a month after her arrival in Hong Kong. Subsequently, the family left Hong Kong to settle in Britain. In 1982, after the daughter was reported to have behaved in a bizarre fashion, she was admitted to a London hospital where, according to Dr Lau, she exhibited ‘catatonic behaviour with

280 R. Barot waxy inflexibility’ (Lau, 1984; p. 105). She was kept in this hospital to determine if she was mentally ill. Dr Lau spoke to the girl in Chinese and concluded that the girl did not suffer from formal thought disorder, although she did claim to see a female Chinese ghost. Dr Lau also discovered that the girl and her six sisters were severely harassed at school. She had her hair pulled and some boys had managed to peep at Vietnamese girls when they were in a school toilet. I n the context of this severe harassment and abuse, i t was not surprising that the girl should hear voices saying ‘I am going to hit you’ derived from the threats made against her at the school. Coupled with this were stresses of migration from Vietnam to Hong Kong and then to England. She had experienced many years of insecurity and anxiety. Added to this was her father’s chronic unemployment, poor English and a sense of despair.

Dr Lau consulted the school and helped the family to sail through this particular crisis, restoring this disturbed girl to a pattern of normal behaviour. She concludes this case by saying, ‘The case illustrates the importance of the knowledge of the cultural background for the therapist treating a family whose culture differs from his own so that the role of cultural material can be properly assessed’ (Lau, 1984; p. 106). It is obvious that the case does have an ethnic dimension; the girl is of Chinese background and speaks Chinese as her first language. However, her inability to cope with harassment and bullying at school is enhanced by stresses of displacement, refugee status of her family, unemployment of her father and generally less satisfactory settlement of the family in Britain-a whole range of factors which are simply not reducible to the cultural or ethnic background of Dr Lau’s Chinese patient. Although Dr Lau does mention these factors in her description of events which affect her patient’s life, she does not embody these non- ethnic elements in her explanation of behaviour of her patient which she largely sees in terms of the culture of the homeland. Expression of a particular disorder may take an ethnic form. However, this does not necessarily mean that ethnicity itself will provide an adequate explanation of those causes unrelated to any specific item of culture.

In a society marked by ethnic diversity, although cultures to which individuals belong do provide meaningfulness and a sense of security, i t is important to note that cultural patterns in themselves are unlikely to improve understanding of those situations which cause suffering. To achieve a better level of understanding, both anthropologists and therapists need to move away from a reification of ethnicity and ethnic identity. Any one-sided emphasis on ethnicity is patently unsatis-

Ethnicity and farnib therapy 2 8 I

factory when other institutional constraints affect everyday life of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Many would, for example, argue that ethnicity plays a very important part in the social life of the South Asian population. However, it is perfectly possible to argue that a process antithetical to the solidarity of ethnic groups may be equally at work. The increasing inability and reluctance on the part of many young Asians to look after their elderly parents is one signal among others which points to a weakening of traditional ethnicity. If it can be argued that such processes are likely to be operative, then assuming primary significance of ethnicity may simply mask the inability of individuals from ethnic groups to sustain their tradition and culture. In a socially and culturally fluid situation following migration, a sensitive anthropologist or a family therapist is likely to reach constructive conclusions if the investigation is conducted without many rigidly set and a priori assumptions about the significance of ethnicity.

Acknowledgements

For a discussion which stimulated ideas for this paper, I am grateful to John Carpenter. For their detailed comments on a preliminary draft, I am thankful to Professor Michael Banton and Dr Steve Fenton.

References AHMED, S. ( 1986) Social Work with Black Children and their Families. London. Batsford. AHMED, S. ( 1 9 8 7 ) Antiracist education for social workers. Community Cure, 684: 1-3. BALLARD, C. ( 1 9 7 9 ) Conflict, continuity and change: second generation South Asians.

In: V. S. Khan (Ed.), Minority Families in Britain: Support and Stress. London. Macmillan.

BANTON, M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) Ethnicity, ethnic group. In: M. Mann (Ed.), The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Sociology. London. Macmillan.

BARTH, F. ( 1 9 6 9 ) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation o f Culture Difference. Boston. Little, Brown and Co.

BERRY, D. and O’DWYER, N. ( 1 9 8 7 ) Is racism driving blacks out of their minds? The Guardian, 30 September.

COHEN, A. (1969) Custom and Politics in Urban Africa. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

COHEN, A. (1974a) Urban Ethnicity. London.,Tavistock. COHEN, A. (19746) Two Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology o f Power and

COHEN, A. ( 1 9 8 0 ) Drama and politics in the development of a London festival. Man,

DAHYA, B. ( 1 9 7 4 ) The nature of Pakistani ethnicity in industrial cities in Britain. In:

Symbolism in Complex Society. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

1 6 65437.

A. Cohen (Ed.), Urban Ethnicity. London. Tavistock Publications.

282 R. Barot

FONTAINE, J. L. (1986) Countering racial prejudice: a better starting point.

GLAZER, N. and MOYNIHAN, D. P. (1975) Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. London.

JENKINS, R. ( 1987) Countering prejudice-anthropological and otherwise. Anthropolopy

KHAN, V. S. (1976) Pakistanis in Britain: perceptions of a population. New Community,

KHAN, V. S. (1979) Minority Families in Britain: Support and Stress. London. Macmillan. LAU, A. (1984) Transcultural issues in family therapy. Journal of Famib Therapy, 6:

LITTLEWOOD, R. and LIPSEDGE, M. (1982) Aliens and Alienists: Ethnic Minorities and

LITTLEWOOD, R. (1986) Anthropology and British psychiatry. Anthropolou Today, 2:

LYON, M. (1972-3) Ethnicity in Britain: the Gujarati tradition. New Community, 2:

LYON, M. (1973) Ethnic minority problems: an overview of some recent research. New

MCGOLDRICK, M,, PEARCE, J. K. and GIORDANO, J. (Eds) (1982) Ethnicity and Family

PATTERSON, S. (1965) Dark Strangers: A Study of West Indians in London.

RACK, P. (1982) Race, Culture and Mental Disorder. London. Tavistock. REX, J. and MOORE, R. (1967) Race Community and ConJict: A Study of Sparkbrook.

Anthropolou Today, 2: 1-2.

Harvard University Press.

Today, 3: 3-4.

V: 2 17-222.

91-1 12.

Psychiatry. Harmondsworth. Penguin Books.

8-11.

1 - 1 I .

Community, 7: 1-24.

Therapy. New York. Guilford Press.

Harmondsworth. Penguin Books.

London. Oxford University Press.