Wade Nobles: The Intellectual as Healer

Introduction

Wade Nobles began his early explorations of the study of Africana mental health at Westside Community Mental Health Center where he collaborated with Bill Hayes, Thomas Hilliard, Asa Hilliard, and Patricia Butler to create the Urban Institute (H. Nobles, 2008). He is Professor Emeritus of Africana Studies at San Francisco State University and the Founder and Executive Director of the Institute for the Advanced Study of Black Family Life and Culture. Nobles is one of the preeminent Black psychologists and a leading figure in the African-centered psychological movement. His book African Psychology: Toward Its Reclamation, Reascension and Revitalization (W. Nobles, 1986) is considered to be a classic in African-centered psychological literature. Nobles is a founder of the Association of Black Psychologists (ABPsi), former National President of the ABPsi, a recipient of the ABPsi’s Distinguished Psychologist Award, and the first recipient of the ABPsi Annual Award for Outstanding Scholarly Research.

This examination of Wade Nobles’ work is grounded in William Banks’(1996) definition of intellectuals as “individuals who are reflective and critical, who act self-consciously to transmit, modify and create ideas and culture” (p. xvi). Within the historical context of Africana intellectual traditions, Banks’ definition encompasses the various roles of healers, priests, and conjurers. Healers, priests, and conjurers were archetypes of intellectuals in West Africa that were maintained in the cultural memory of Africans in the diaspora. W. Banks (1996) opines that it was the healers/priests that “assumed the task of interpreting the universe and codifying and rationalizing cultural values” (p. 7). He further asserts that “as intellectual workers, both groups played key roles in reproducing the cognitive and spiritual codes of their villages” (W. Banks, 1996, p. 4). Priests were healers who did not fit into the mix of everyday plantation life. According to W. Banks (1996), they were individuals who challenged the status quo because they represented the unimaginable and inconceivable idea “of a reflective and non-laboring slave” (p. 4). W. Banks (1996) reasons that within the cultural reality of an institution of slavery based on spiritual and social death (Patterson, 1982), there is no need for deep thinkers who inspire and motivate people to reflect on their condition because “symbols and reminders of a previous existence must be eliminated” (p. 4). These intellectuals were guardians of the culture and possessed the ability to transfer and transmit collective cultural and historical memory. The attempt by enslavers to eliminate the small population of priests and healers served the function of deconstructing African cultural belief systems and replacing these cultural constructs with European cultural standards.

In conjunction with Nobles’ mission to address the issues that impact the souls and minds of people of African descent, Smith (1994) asserts that there are two psychosocial benefits to formulating an intellectual paradigm that seeks to heal. In this regard, Smith maintains that people of African descent need a philosophy/psychology that interrogates the conflicts inherent in African American double consciousness and examines the intellectual, social, and political struggle for cultural integrity. It is argued here that through seeking the Sakhu, Wade Nobles constructs a cultural psychology that examines these conflicts and articulates a worldview grounded in African spirituality that attempts to heal the minds and spirits of African people.

Seeking the Sakhu

According to Nobles, his search for the Sakhu began when he was born and has been a lifelong journey. Relative to this life mission, Nobles recalls that his grandmother worked for the Boston State Hospital for the Mentally Ill and relayed to the family stories of “crazy” Black people, White doctors, and the treatment of those diagnosed as having mental disorders (H. Nobles, 2008). These stories sparked Nobles’ interest in psychology. Similar to Malcolm X’s experience with an educational system that discouraged him from pursuing his goals of becoming a lawyer, Nobles was discouraged from becoming a psychologist. His high school counselor advised him to study woodshop instead of psychology because woodshop is a better “fit” for Black people (H. Nobles, 2008). Yet, Nobles would not let the expectations defined by White supremacy alter and adjust his commitment to finding and fulfilling his vocation as a healer.

There are several critical factors during crucial stages of his development as a person and as a scholar that were important in propelling Nobles to search for the Sakhu. While in graduate school, Nobles was fortunate to be surrounded by colleagues and mentors who influenced and inspired his attempts to analyze and understand spirit. While at Merritt College, Nobles attended school with the founding members of the Black Panther Party, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. He also was a teaching assistant for Sylvia Obradovitch’s class that addressed psychology and people of color (H. Nobles, 2008). As a student at San Francisco State University, Nobles was involved in a student strike and had the opportunity to study under some of the early pioneers in Black psychology, Joseph White and Gerald West. White (1991), who is often referred to as the “Father of Black Psychologists” (Guthrie, 1998), wrote the classic article “Toward a Black Psychology” that emphasized the importance of not only deconstructing Eurocentric psychology but also constructing a psychology of Black folk grounded in their particular cultural experiences. Nobles’ matriculation at San Francisco State also included relationships with scholars and artists such as Amiri Baraka, Sonia Sanchez, and Nathan Hare (H. Nobles, 2008).

Nobles’connections with these colleagues shaped and formed his view of psychology relative to people of African descent. In these settings, Nobles was able to understand how psychology, culture, spirituality, and social activism were interconnected. These relationships planted seeds that allowed Nobles to grow as an African-centered psychologist once he came in contact with Cedric Clark (Syed Khatib), Phillip McGee, Luther X/Weems (Na’im Akbar), and the legendary anthropologist St. Clair Drake at Stanford University. His ideological and conceptual collaborations with Khatib, McGee, and Akbar resulted in “Voodoo or IQ: An Introduction to African Psychology” (Clark, McGhee, Nobles, & Weems, 1975), an article that defined the fundamental parameters of the nascent but burgeoning discipline of African psychology.

Drake encouraged Nobles (to develop a grant that could support his interest in studying psychological trance with traditional healers in Ghana. In addition to these influences, Nobles was also influenced by the organic intellectual John Henrik Clarke from whom he learned a valuable life lesson about the role and function of the intellectual as healer (H. Nobles, 2008). Clarke advised Nobles (that “only in humility . . . can the scholar or intellectual keep in balance the willingness to be a servant of his/her people and the clarity of vision to honestly speak and seek the truth regarding one’s people” (H. Nobles, 2008, p. 154, italics added). Nobles would adhere to the wise words of his elder and speak truth to power while seeking a new approach to understanding the psychology of Black people.

Nobles’ search to articulate African psychology is grounded in what he refers to as Sakhu. Sakhu means the illumination of the soul/spirit, that which inspires (W. Nobles, 1986). W. Nobles (2006a) summarizes the essence of his life’s work when he states, “I devote myself to the development of a science of the spirit wherein we can illuminate and understand the conditions and requisites for being, becoming, belonging and beginning humanity as African” (p. xxxi). Along with his fellow life travelers Na’im Akbar and Asa Hilliard, Nobles has been consistently seeking, defining, unlocking, and applying the Sakhu. One of the most interesting aspects of Sakhu is that the definition of the term invokes spirit as the essence of psychology. The invocation of spirit in the discussion of psychology stands in direct contrast to Western views of psychology that tend to focus on measurable, observable behavior. It is seen as heresy within many psychological circles to approach psychology from a spiritual orientation as opposed to focusing primarily on measurable, observable behavior (Kwate, 2005). However, within an African worldview framework, Sakhu is the foundation of psychology that allows us to understand human behavior. Hence, what is observed in human behavior is actually a physical manifestation of the human spirit.

Nobles’ journey as an intellectual who attempts to think deeply about the condition of African people led him to seek the Sakhu. While seeking the Sakhu, W. Nobles (2006a) wrestled with “the parameters of thought, theory and therapy in Black Psychology” and opined that “a complete and full understanding of African people should be governed by a deep . . . search, study and mastery of the process of illuminating” (p. xxv). In this same vein, W. Nobles (2006a) states that seeking the Sakhu has inspired him to be on “a search for a profound and penetrating understanding of the psychology of African people independent of non-African conceptualization” (p. xxv). Nobles raises the issue of whether or not Black psychology is simply a reactionary response to the negative effects of Eurocentric psychology or a culturally specific psychology that serves as a distinct approach to understanding the lived experiences of people of African descent. Is African Psychology just a Blackenized version of White psychology? Is it a new approach and/or paradigm about the souls of African people? If it is the Sakhu, then the origin must begin in Africa. As a seeker of the Sakhu, Nobles attempts to look beyond the surface level of what appears to be the psychology of Black folk and delve into what Du Bois (1989) classified as the souls of Black folk.

Defining the Sakhu

The focus on Sakhu calls for a paradigm shift in psychology and changes what questions are asked and how particular issues are studied. Sakhu provides a holistic approach to understanding the nature of personality. By drawing from the collective wisdom observed in the cultural statements that African people have made to the world, Nobles attempts to outline a culturally specific theoretical framework that can be utilized as a conceptual lens for examining Africanity. Nobles set forth to reclaim and revitalize an African epistemology and reconstruct an African paradigm. W. Nobles (1997/2006d) maintains that some of the distinguishing characteristics of an African paradigm are as follows: (a) the universe is cosmos, (b) the ultimate nature of reality is spiritual, (c) that human beings are organically related to everything in the universe, (d) that knowledge comes from participation with and experience in the universe, (e) that human relatedness is the praxis of our humanity, and (f) that participation, relatedness, and unity are the modes of an African epistemological method. The concept of consubstantiation, which W. Nobles (1986) defines as meaning “I am, because we are,” is in direct contrast to the French philosopher René Descartes’ axiom, “I think, therefore I am.” The dictum attributed to Descartes emphasizes the individual’s cognitive ability to think rationally about their experiences, while consubstantiation focuses on collectivism. Hence, what emerges in the African paradigm is an extended concept of self that is not based solely on an individual’s rational thinking but on a person’s relationship to the Creator, the ancestors, and other human beings (W. Nobles, 1986).

In order for this discourse to be impactful, the Africanness of people of African descent has to be established. In this regard, W. Nobles (1997/2006d) extends Asa Hilliard’s insightful comment that the most critical cultural question people of African descent can ask themselves is whether they are African or not. W. Nobles (2000/2006c) acknowledges the difficulty involved in navigating through this cultural quagmire when he states that the fundamental issue centers on “how one proves that a particular element, construct or psychological disposition has been retained” (p. 341). Implicit in this query are issues such as how African are African Americans and other members of the African diaspora after the cultural uprooting that occurred during enslavement. Did slavery erase all historical and cultural memory of Africa out of their minds? Are they blank cultural slates that had their beliefs and practices swiped clean? The raising of these types of questions among intellectuals created a discourse that produced narratives and counter-narratives about who and what should be considered African (Harris, 1993; Walker, 2001).

The debates concerning the extent to which people of African descent in the diaspora still maintain African influenced thoughts and behaviors have a long history within Africana intellectual thought (Holloway, 2005). Recent scholarship has expanded the focus of the traditional debates by bringing attention to the dynamic forms of cultural agency demonstrated in the construction of identity as African descended people interacted with different ethnic groups and navigated new cultural landscapes (Gilroy, 1993; Hay, 2007). These critical perspectives notwithstanding, W. Nobles (2000/2006c) chooses to concentrate his thinking in this area on the foundational debates and highlights the archeology of scholarship that focused on Africanisms. He recognizes the work and important contributions of pioneering scholars such as Lorenzo Turner (1968), Melville Herskovits (1990), and E. Franklin Frazier (1974). The Frazier school of thought took the position that slavery destroyed African culture, while the Turner and Herskovits schools of thought argued that Africa survived the crossing of the Atlantic and that there are an abundance of Africanisms to be found if scholars only knew where and how to look for them (W. Nobles, 2000/2006c). Knowing where to look entails knowledge of people, places, things, ideas, and institutions that might shed light on Africanisms. On the other hand, knowing how to look entails knowledge of a particular worldview and how that worldview expresses itself under various social, political, and cultural conditions. Nobles perceives the where and how to look at people, places, things, ideas, and institutions that are African as an epistemological dilemma (W. C. Banks, 1999; W. Nobles, 2000/2006c). In this scenario, the epistemological dilemma is a situation where depending on the scholar’s epistemological orientation, they may perceive the same phenomenon differently. Thus, even if scholars know where to look, if they do not know how to look, they will still fail to see Africa.

When Wole Soyinka (1990) implied that Africa does not end where the salt water begins, he was making a case for expanding not only the geographical boundaries of Africa but its cultural and conceptual boundaries as well. Similarly, Nobles does the intellectual work of expanding the cultural boundaries and conceptual parameters pertaining to what is considered African. W. Nobles (1986) defines culture as “a process which gives a people a general design for living and patterns for interpreting their reality” (p. 126). It is in this context that Nobles addresses what it means to be African within the diverse diaspora of African descent people. Nobles formulates a discussion of the surface and deep structures of culture (Kambon, 1998; W. Nobles, 1978). The surface level of culture contains behaviors, values, and attitudes expressed by people of African descent throughout the diaspora. These behaviors, values, and attitudes are the surface-level manifestations of culture. On the surface level, they can be conceptualized as being outside of what is classified as “traditional” African behaviors. In other words, they manifest as behaviors that present themselves as solely American or at least not African. Therefore, they are perceived as being void of any African antecedents that may have influenced their particular manifestations. In contrast, the deep structure consists of cultural aspects such as ideology, ethos, and worldview. The deep structure also contains constructs of the worldview paradigm that include ontology, cosmology, and axiology that illustrate the common cultural statements and philosophical underpinnings of the worldview (Kambon, 1998; W. Nobles, 1978).

What is the process through which these behaviors, values, and attitudes are transmitted? Does the deep structure level become aberrant or is it totally lost in the confusion created by the cultural clash between African and European worldviews? Does it adapt and/or adjust to the new cultural environment and produce entirely new worldviews? Nobles’ explanation of cultural continuity among people of African descent in spite of historical attempts to spiritually assassinate the cultural integrity of African people and make them cultural others incorporates the concepts of cultural substance and cultural values. Cultural substance gives meaning to the overt manifestations of culture, and cultural values provide order and direction to the manner in which these principles are applied (W. Nobles, 1986). The dilemma of whether or not people of African descent in the diaspora are African or not is addressed by applying the surface and deep structural levels of culture approach. This means that regardless of how Africanisms appear and present themselves based on superficial manifestations, the essence of the core components and elements of the various cultures throughout the African diaspora are fundamentally African at the deep level of culture. This paradigmatic shift impacts the angle of vision and changes the conceptual lens of what is considered African from a narrow continental/geographical approach to a more expansive and diasporic analysis that includes the breadth and depth of Africana humanity.

Unlocking the Sakhu

While defining the Sakhu is critical, it is also important to unlock the Sakhu by removing the intellectual and ideological barriers that prohibit intellectuals and potential healers of people of African descent from identifying and recognizing the Sakhu. As the various schools of thought and critical approaches within Black psychology evolved, W. Nobles (1986) stressed the need to apply the critical approaches identified by W. C. Banks (1982) as a critical component to the process of unlocking the Sakhu. In order to unlock the Sakhu, the critical approaches of deconstruction, reconstruction, and construction (W. C. Banks, 1982; W. Nobles, 1986) have to be practiced simultaneously. For Nobles, this is another epistemological dilemma that emerges as a result of dichotomous reasoning. In W. Nobles’ (1978/2006e) estimation, this type of Manichean thinking that shapes and forms how social scientists approach methodology can be replaced with an understanding of (a) the connection between science critical thought and culture, particularly in its ideological aspect, and (b) the relationship between a people’s critical thought, culture, and human transformation. Nobles’ understanding of how these variables relate to each other is summarized when he comments

just as science served this society in the creation and use of technical and industrial power, it also has served in the creation and the use of theories and ideas designed to control the use of power by its oppressed. (W. Nobles, 1978/2006e, p. 76)

Here, Nobles stresses the relationship between science, culture, and oppression. The connection between these three variables is imperative to understanding how Nobles unlocks the Sakhu.

Two key concepts emerge from Nobles’ discussion of the relationship between science, culture, and oppression. Understanding the concept of transubstantiation is the first key needed to unlock the Sakhu. Transubstantiation is “a process wherein the substance of one culture is transformed into the substance of another culture” (W. Nobles, 1978/2006e, p. 79). Nobles comments on the concept of transubstantiation and the impact it can have on Africana thinking and paradigm construction with the following statement:

When the social scientist or researcher does not respect the integrity of a people’s cultural perspective . . . he/she is prone to fall victim to what we have defined as the transubstantive error, an error wherein one defines or interprets the behavior and/or medium of one culture with meaning appropriate to and consistent with another culture. (W. Nobles, 1978/2006e, p. 79)

The concept of transubstantiation is also observed in how the spiritual system of Ifa is viewed by many Western thinkers. Within the Ifa system, there are orishas that are considered to be manifestations of the Supreme Being that are seen in nature and personified throughout humans. From an African-centered psychological perspective, these orishas can be understood as personality types that guide a person’s particular way of approaching human phenomena. Eshu-Elegba is the orisha that stands at the crossroads and is responsible for assisting people in making appropriate life choices at difficult junctures in their lives (Karade, 1994). At times, Eshu-Elegba plays tricks on people. Within the European worldview, the tricks played by Eshu-Elegba that are designed to teach valuable lessons are often viewed in the same context as the actions of the devil in Christian theology. In the Western conceptualization, the devil attempts to separate human beings from the Creator by exposing them to knowledge that is contrary to their spiritual self. However, in the Ifa tradition, Eshu-Elegba strives to expose falsehood and challenge human beings to connect to their higher being by recognizing and understanding their inner self (Fatunmbi, 1992). Thus, Eshu-Elegba also provides human beings with the opportunity, through various choices, to sharpen and hone their analytical and critical decision-making skills. In this example, transubstantiation occurs as the cultural contradictions between African and European worldviews clash and result in a misinterpretation and/or distortion of the original concept.

Another important key to unlocking the Sakhu is scientific colonialism (W. Nobles, 1986; 1987). Jacob Carruthers (1972/1996) raises several issues relative to the relationship between science and oppression. The issues raised by Carruthers center on the use, misuse, and/or abuse of the scientific method when applied to people of African descent. Carruthers’ focus on how raw data are used is at the core of scientific colonialism. Similarly, Semaj (1981/1996) puts forth the minimum principles of a cultural science that includes but is not limited to (a) the primacy of self-knowledge, (b) the absence of artificial divisions via discipline, (c) no restriction on issues and methodologies, and (d) no scientific colonialism. Nobles’ position on cultural science combines the approaches of Carruthers and Semaj. Nobles’ work in this area draws attention to the importance of deconstructing academic disciplines that dichotomize the human experience and the use of scholarship to empower. Similar to Carruthers and Semaj, W. Nobles (1986) explains scientific colonialism as “a process wherein the political control of knowledge is carried out by a sophisticated process of falsifying the production of information and ideas” (p. 19).

A major aspect of scientific colonialism is conceptual incarceration. W. Nobles (1986) defines conceptual incarceration as follows:

The knower is given a set of pre-determined “concepts” and definitions to utilize in the “process of knowing.” The alien or incorrect concepts . . . inhibit the process of knowing and the knower becomes a prisoner of these alien “ideas.” The notion of conceptual incarceration allows us to understand . . . erroneous concepts provided in the process of scientific understanding. (pp. 19-20)

Instances of conceptual incarceration can occur when conducting research that is not grounded in the lived cultural experiences of the people being observed. Scholarly efforts to insert culturally relevant theories relative to people of African descent are vital to establishing culturally competent research paradigms. An example of classic conceptual incarceration in research by and/or about people of African descent is in the area of the African American family. The major research on African American families has centered on the extent to which African American families deviate from or approximate European American families (W. Nobles, 1987). W. Nobles (1987) contends that instead of emphasizing European American families as the norm, research on African American families should focus on their ability to practice the following principles: (a) unconditional love, (b) reciprocity, (c) restraint, (d) responsibility, (e) adaptability, (f) inclusivity, and (g) respect. He further asserts,

the ability of Black parents to develop competent and confident African American children . . . withstanding the debilitating and dehumanizing effects of racism and oppression, is directly related to our ability to reclaim our cultural tradition and to re-establish our own unique and appropriate codes of family conduct. (W. Nobles, 1987, p. 51)

Nobles maintains that the psychology of people of African descent begins in Africa. Therefore, based on W. Nobles’ (1976/2006b) conception, the study of African American families must examine the African root of the American fruit.

These examples of transubstantiation and conceptual incarceration are the consequences of (a) the misinterpretation and delegitimization of African reality and (b) the use of knowledge created from a science inconsistent with African culture (W. Nobles, 1978/2006e). Furthermore, W. Nobles (1978/2006e) argues that people of African descent collaborate and participate in their own oppression and act as agents of self-dehumanization by (a) adopting another people’s science that is inconsistent with African culture and (b) failing to develop a science that represents and expresses the reality of African people. By acknowledging their own conceptual incarceration and recognizing when it rears its head in the thinking of other social scientists, Black psychologists begin the process of unlocking the intellectual impediments that prohibit them from advancing an authentic cultural science that is congruent with Africana lived experiences. An intellectual/healer must be able to address the lived experiences of African people with culturally appropriate concepts if they are to escape and break free from the confines of conceptual incarceration. If not, their scholarship will not only miss the mark and lose its value, but it will remain suspended in the universe of ideas (Diop, 1974) and never actualize its liberatory function.

Applying the Sakhu

The Sakhu deals with the spirit, which is the essence of existence, and defines what it means to be human (W. Nobles, 1986, 2006a), yet humans live their everyday lives on a physical level and deal with real-life issues. How is the Sakhu applied on a practical level that impacts the quality of life experienced by people of African descent? As an intellectual/healer, Nobles consistently merges the sacred and the secular in a manner that demonstrates that spirituality is not a separate, abstract entity but an undergirding dynamic that involves and influences all aspects of scholar/activist engagement. Nobles addresses theory building and culturally specific research agendas (Kambon, 2006) by pioneering the construction and articulation of an African psychology unique to Africana experiences and through his research on culturally specific approaches to substance abuse (W. Nobles, 1984) and public policy pertaining to African American families (W. Nobles & Goddard,1987). The blending of scholar/activism, culture, psychology, and spirituality in Nobles’ work is also seen in his professional development activities. In his role as president of the ABPsi, he emphasized that Black psychologists are “healers and as such must have an African-centered vision and praxis” (H. Nobles, 2008, p. 146). In an effort to engage in effective praxis relative to African spirituality and the art of healing, Nobles initiated a relationship between the ABPsi and the Ghana National Association of Traditional Healers (GNATH). In conjunction with GNATH, an African Healers Association Covenant was formed that sought “to guide mutual commitment to the promotion and advancement of traditional African healing sciences” (H. Nobles, 2008, p. 146). Through the institutionalization of this healing project, Nobles opines that “we may stimulate the Ngolo Zandiakana (self-healing potential) . . . and refine the best of African science and healing techniques” (H. Nobles, 2008, pp. 146-147).

While Nobles has contributed immensely to the development of African psychology through his articulation of the Sakhu, his approach has not gone without criticism. Even within Black psychological circles, the practicality of the African-centered psychological concepts espoused by Nobles have been questioned. For example, Fairchild (2004) identifies the following limitations of African psychology: (a) the use of African languages and terms that create more confusion than understanding, (b) the promotion of traditional/precolonial aspects of African culture that might not be worth retaining and/or recovering, (c) the generalizing from a few African belief systems to the whole of Africa that produces a misleading and false monolithic understanding of African cultures, and (d) the failure to articulate the practical dimensions and implications of African psychology. However, Nobles stresses that in order to think deeply about African culture, it is imperative that African-centered scholars utilize African language that reflects the worldview orientation of African people. For Nobles, the use of African language is more than a semantical excursion. Its utility lies in its ability to make scholars think within the appropriate worldview framework without implicit biases from other worldviews that might compromise the cultural integrity of their analysis. In accordance with his understanding of African worldviews, W. Nobles (2013) identifies the term Sakhu Sheti as meaning the practice of Sakhu. He explains that the Sakhu Sheti “is offered as a penetrating search, study, and understanding, requiring an approach, application, and implementation that always seeks the deeper meaning of phenomena and explores both the visible and invisible aspects of reality” (W. Nobles, 2013, p. 295). Sakhu Sheti involves “mastery of the process of illuminating the human spirit” (W. Nobles, 2013, p. 294) through actions that include the following: (a) “clarifying” human definition, meaning, and resolute position/purpose in the world; (b) “analyzing and describing” the concrete human conditions that affect and influence our collective human development and consciousness; and (c) “prescribing and exciting” solutions and actions that will free humanity from both material and spiritual degradation (W. Nobles, 2013).

Conclusion

Nobles’ search for the Sakhu begins with a comprehensive investigation of the history of ideas that culminated in the discipline known as psychology (W. Nobles, 1986). However, his examination of the origin and essence of psychology is neither stagnant nor confined to the archives of history. A careful consideration of Nobles’ scholarship reveals that his work is an attempt to make culture relevant to contemporary psychological realities. The practicing of Sakhu involves addressing the current needs of people of African descent through (a) reflecting and protecting their human integrity, (b) facilitating their future growth and development, and (c) drawing upon a source of energy and understanding that will enhance their spiritual, mental, and physical well-being (W. Nobles, 2013). Furthermore, the Sakhu practitioner seeks to assist people of African descent in making sense out of their environment and in creating meaning in the midst of the madness and confusion they experience under conditions of institutional racism, psychological oppression, and cultural hegemony. Nobles’ intellectual production functions in a similar fashion as priests in Africana traditions and thus situates his scholar/activism within a broader context of healers who contribute to intergenerational transmission and application of cultural knowledge.

If defined by standard definitions of psychology proper, Nobles’ conceptualizations might not be considered psychology. However, Nobles is comfortable with this interpretation of his work. He argues that the discipline of psychology has been and continues to be somewhat problematic for people of African descent. Thus, Nobles suggests that the term psychology might have to be reconsidered when applied to people of African descent. According to Nobles, there are words in other African languages that collaborate the Kemetic concept of Sakhu Sheti. For example, the word Nkindi is defined as “a specialist or scholar in the art/way of thinking” (W. Nobles, 2013, p. 297). W. Nobles (2013) explains that the “Nkindi is a Shushukulu (a person that sees both the physical and spiritual components of life) in the art or manner of ‘making, building, developing, weaving, stretching, extending, expanding, creating, and inventing’ thoughts or ideas” (p. 297). W. Nobles (2013) further elaborates,

A shushukulu, nkinda . . . is not only qualified to deal with the physical issues but is able to communicate and address issues of the spirit: They have “eyes” in both worlds. They are not only wise men/women, they are therapist, and they are healer. (p. 297)

What impact does the Sakhu construct have for Black psychology and African-centered psychology in particular? As Nobles attempts to revitalize and reclaim African psychology’s place as an antidote and tool for healing the diseased minds and spirits of African people, the implications of his work have profound consequences for how psychology is conceptualized and practiced. Nobles’ work raises several questions relative to the aim, scope, and direction of psychology. How do you measure and observe the spirit world? Is the study of the human spirit a deeper dimension of psychology or is it another type of inquiry altogether? In seeking the Sakhu, Nobles participates in what McDougal (2014) refers to as disruptive conceptualization. A disruptive conceptualization forces an epistemological rupture that debunks some of the fundamental assumptions held by traditional disciplines, destabilizes dominant approaches to thought, and relocates the humanity of people of African descent to the center of approaches employed to study the African world (McDougal, 2014).

Nobles’ articulation of the Sakhu proposes that the study of the human spirit includes but is not limited to the conceptual and methodological parameters of traditional psychology. It does not dismiss empirical investigation as being antagonistic to an African worldview analysis. To do so would be to ignore the vast Africana intellectual tradition of collecting and recording information obtained through observing reality. Instead, Nobles’ approach expands the ways of knowing by acknowledging different levels of interpretation and encourages Black psychologists to develop and disseminate new concepts and paradigms for investigating human phenomena. It is a multifaceted and holistic approach to understanding what it means to be human. Nobles’ nuanced articulation and implementation of various methods through the intersecting roles of scholar, activist, professor, psychologist, theorist, therapist, and healer positions him as the quintessential practitioner of Sakhu.