Chapter 6

Chapter 6

Commitment, Accountability, and Inclusion

Warm-up Exercise

1. There must have been occasions in your life when you recognized injustice and suffering. It is quite likely that at the time you saw this you thought to yourself: ASomething must be done about this, this is not right.@ Now for the hard part.

2. How often have you pursued your conscience and what have you done about it?

3. If you have followed your conscience with actions, what factors helped you to follow your conscience. Please include in the list psychological, sociological, cultural, and political reasons for acting on your moral impulse. You can think of different levels of analysis (micro, meso, and macro) and how they influence your decisions.

4. If you have not followed your conscience, what factors inhibited you from doing so?

5. Compare your actions and reasons with other students and friends.

6. What were the predominant reasons for acting or not acting on your moral impulses?

7. How satisfied are you with the way you responded to the injustice you observed?

What do these proverbs have in common? They talk about commitment and accountability and human imperfections. Moreover, they talk about the risk of hypocrisy and the certainty of contradictions. In Spanish, the word consecuente is more common than the English consequent, which refers to being consistent with one=s ideals. In liberation psychology, which has its origins in South American liberation theology, people talk about being consequent with one=s ideals (Fals Borda, 2001; Martín Baró, 1994; Montero, 2000). In community psychology, as in liberation and feminist psychology, we aspire to be consequent with our values. This can make for an interesting but complicated life. Interesting because community psychologists are explicit about living their values and melding their professional and personal lives (Jason, 1997; Prilleltensky, 2001). Complicated because there is no rest from scrutiny. Once we declare our values we are exposed to criticism of not living up to them. It is far easier to hide our values than to commit to them in public. As human beings, we embody personal contradictions (Jaggar, 1994).

In this chapter we want to discuss ways of being consistent with our values. We do so by addressing commitment, accountability and inclusion. We will analyze these concepts and we will examine ways of being in harmony with our belief system. This is not to imply that all community psychologists believe in exactly the same credo, for differences abound. However, there is enough in common that unites community psychologists behind the values presented in earlier chapters. In essence, this chapter is about ensuring that all the previous principles outlined in the book are put into effect. Because of their function in upholding all the other values, we call commitment, accountability and inclusion meta-values. That is, superordinate values make sure that the rest of the values are in place (see Chapter 3). We can pronounce all kinds of ideal values, but if we lack commitment and accountability, our values remain in a theoretical sphere without application at the community level. Complacency lurks everywhere. How can we fight it?

COMMITMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Commitment to What? Accountability to Whom?

Commitment to a cause such as social justice requires emotional and material investments (hooks, 2002; Seabrook, 1993; Stout, 1996). It requires time, dedication, thought, and perhaps even sacrifice. What do we commit to? In our view, we commit and are accountable to five principal entities: (a) values, (b) self, (c) others, (d) communities, and (e) profession.

To Values. As noted in Chapters 2 and 3, values are guiding principles that help us behave in ethical and defensible ways. They are a set of action-oriented beliefs. In their absence, we wouldn=t know what to propose to improve society, nor would we know how to assess the current state of affairs or progress in our communities.

But values are only as good as the people who practice them. Values don=t have an independent existence other than as ideas. While it is imperative to refine our values and get the Aright ideas,@ values, as cognitive entities, don=t expect of us accountability. It is people, ourselves included of course, who expect accountability. We should be careful to avoid the philosophical fallacy, according to which good ideas should necessarily lead to good outcomes. We need vehicles for action, and, more importantly, we need to internalize and embody our values and to be accountable to ourselves and others.

To Self. This book pursues the dual and complementary goals of liberation and well-being. In line with personal interests, most people aspire to achieve these goals for themselves (Bourdieu, 1990; Swartz, 1997). And while attention to self, as opposed to others, varies across cultures, a commitment to one=s personal development and well-being is quite ubiquitous.

We identified earlier values for personal, relational, and collective well-being. As you would remember, for reasons reviewed in Chapter 3, committing to any particular set of values in isolation creates a dangerous imbalance. Making a commitment to advance my personal well-being, through values such as self-determination and personal control, can undermine relational well-being. For looking only after my own well-being diminishes the chances that I=ll care equally for others. Too much power in my hands translates into too little power in others= hands. The same logic applies to collective values. Total commitment to collectivist values leads to conformity and squashes personal freedoms. Our call is to improve personal well-being through relational and collective well-being, and to enhance collective well-being through relational and personal well-being. There is a tripartite reciprocal relationship among all values.

But being committed to one=s well-being is quite different from being accountable to oneself. How do I monitor that I=m being true to my values? How do I account to myself that my actions are congruent with my beliefs? This is no simple process. We explore below enabling factors as well as traps. We are forever at risk of manipulating our thoughts and actions in order to bring them in line with our declared values. Human beings want to avoid cognitive dissonance at all cost. Our position, as noted later in this chapter, is that without help and monitoring from others, it=s very difficult to maintain in our deeds a close alliance with our values. Subjective forces and psychological dynamics imperil the commitment to ethical principles (Bourdieu, 1990; Flyvbjerg, 2001). Not because we are necessarily immoral beings, but because we are not moral machines operating on an ethics software. Countless intrusions interfere with the smooth operation of our values: a culture of self-indulgence, vested interests, economic considerations, ignorance, vanity, need for control, and others (Bourdieu, 1998; Damon, 1996; Jason, 1997). In short, our humanity. How to reconcile the part of our humanity that wants to be value-driven and the part that wants to be interest-driven is an open question. This process is further complicated by restraining environments. As a young professional wishing to promote alternative values, you may not have a smooth ride. In response to a call by postgraduate students from the UK, Dennis Fox wrote the piece reproduced in Box 6.1. Have a look and see how you feel about it. You can discuss it with friends and your instructor.

Insert Box 6.1 About Here

To Others. By Aothers@ we mean people who are close to us in our work and in our personal lives. Caring is not an abstract ideal performed only in heroic acts of self-sacrifice; it is also very much an act of mundane relevance. Caring and compassion for our children, partners, co-workers and friends are all expressions of love and commitment (hooks, 2000, 2002). This notion is intuitively and easily understood. What is not so easy to apprehend and operationalize is how to be accountable to all those people. Where do we learn how to give and receive feedback? Who taught us to put in place structures of mutual accountability? How does a patriarchal society convince its male members that dialogue is more virtuous than psychological and physical dominance?

Ingrid Huygens has been developing, practising and studying structures of accountability in a bi-cultural environment for many years (see Chapter 16; Huygens, 1997, 2001a, 2001b; Mulvey, Terenzio, Hill, Bond, Huygens, Hamerton, & Cahill, 2000). Her approach is based on two principal tenets. First, on the recognition of injustice and suffering inflicted by one party to another, in this case by Pakeha or White-European New Zealanders to the Maori people of Aoteroa/New Zealand. And second, on the establishment of processes and structures to make sure that relationships between Pakeha and Maori people are based on fairness, mutual respect, and responsibility for past and present injustices. Huygens puts this into practice by subjecting the nature of collaborations among Pakeha and Maori people to the scrutiny of the latter. This is to ensure that past injustices are addressed and not perpetuated. Confronting previous and current wrongdoings is the trademark of this approach. Though labour intensive, Huygens (2001a) reports that the rewards of this work are uniquely satisfying.

To Community. Caring is proximal and distal at the same time. Whereas proximal caring refers to compassion and support we display towards those close to us, distal caring reflects our concern for those who are not physically or emotionally close to us, yet very much worthy of our respect and obligations. We may not come into contact with poor or hungry children on a daily basis, but they are deserving of our concern nonetheless. Likewise, we may not witness first hand the plight of textile workers in Southeast Asia or the discrimination sustained by women in totalitarian and patriarchal regimes. Still, if we pursue the values and guiding principles of community psychology, we will worry about justice and fairness not only in our immediate environment, but wherever injustice and unfairness occur. Thus, we worry about immediate as well as distal geographical and relational communities.

Whereas convenience, logistics and opportunities can make it easier to do our community work close to home, that should not stop us from contributing to other communities. There are many ways to show caring for those who are physically removed. Our commitment, in principle, is to all those who experience oppression and injustice, locally and globally. How much effort to expend on local versus global issues is an open question, one that requires personal deliberation and considered attention.

It is hard enough to commit people to transparency and accountability in close relationships, let alone in communities that can be amorphous entities. Who exactly am I accountable to in my community? What structures exist to monitor the accountability of citizens towards their community? And who is going to sit in judgement of me to tell me whether I behaved or misbehaved towards my neighbours? A Pandora=s box of rights and responsibilities is opened by our suggestion that we should be accountable to somebody or something in our community (Etzioni, 1993, 1998). Compared to the reigning silence, we wouldn=t mind some lively debate on these issues.

Emergent and imperfect as they might be, there are some exemplars of accountability to communities. Huygens (2001a) is documenting the work of Treaty educators in Aoteroa/New Zealand. Treaty educators collaborate with organizations to facilitate accountability to the Maori people and to the Treaty of Waitangi, which outlines the rights and obligations of Pakeha and Maori cultures towards each other. The Treaty had been dormant for decades, and it is only in the last 15 years that intensive work to revive it has taken place. Treaty educators strive to raise awareness of White domination, privilege, and oppression of Maori people. Partnering organizations create committees and structures to advance the process of reconciliation.

Counter examples of despotic accountability also exist. We have all seen in the media the burnt or mutilated bodies of men and women who Adisobey@ community norms, only to end up in paraded corpses for Aall to see.@ Only yesterday (19 August 2002) news broadcasts announced a death sentence by stoning of a Nigerian women who had a child out of wedlock. These are gruesome reminders that accountability should not come at the expense of the liberties of the individual. This is not the accountability we=re talking about. Fanatic regimes use accountability to terrorize the population and bring them in line with official rule.

The accountability we propose is to people who suffer from exploitation and marginality, not to those who use and abuse their power for personal, governmental or corporate interests. Furthermore, our accountability extends to those who are committed to bringing about a more just society.

To Profession. We choose to devote part of our energies to the development of community psychology. This profession has much to offer to the promotion of liberation and well-being. There are countless ways for psychologists to make a difference in the world (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). Strengthening community psychology research and action is an important one for us, and, we hope, for you too.

Multiple approaches, methodologies and interventions co-exist in community psychology. Although we welcome its pluralism, we sometimes wonder about priorities in community psychology. In this book, we make a case for prioritising well-being and liberation. These are our two main priorities at this point in time. To guide our commitment to these two priorities we propose the concept of psychopolitical validity (Prilleltensky, in press a; in press b).

This type of validity is built on two complementary sets of factors: psychological and political. Hence, the term psychopolitical. This combination refers to the psychological and political influences that interact to promote well-being, perpetuate oppression, or generate resistance and liberation. Psychopolitical factors help explain suffering and well-being. At the same time, this combination of terms denotes the need to attend to both sets of factors in our efforts to change individuals, groups, and societies. As a result, we propose two types of psychopolitical validity: (a) epistemic, and (b) transformational. Whereas the former refers to using psychology and politics in understanding social phenomena, the latter calls on both sets of factors to make lasting social changes.

We pay equal attention to psychological and political factors. Psychological factors refer to the subjective life of the person, informed by power dynamics operating at the personal, interpersonal, family, group and cultural levels. Political factors, in turn, refer to the collective experience of individuals and groups, informed by power dynamics and conflicts of interest at the interpersonal, family, group, community, and societal levels. In both sets of factors we emphasize the role of power in the subjective or collective experience of people and groups.

Psychopolitical validity, then, derives from the concurrent consideration and interaction of power dynamics in psychological and political domains at various levels of analyses. Hence, we can talk about psychopolitical validity when these conditions are met. When this type of analysis is applied to research, we talk about epistemic psychopolitical validity. When it is applied to social interventions, we talk about transformational psychopolitical validity. To illustrate these concepts, we refer you to Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.

Insert Tables 6.1 and 6.2 about here

To understand issues of well-being, oppression, and liberation at the personal, relational, and collective domains, we turn our attention to Table 6.1. Each cell in the table refers to issues of power and their manifestation in political and psychological spheres. Needless to say, this table is not exhaustive or inclusive of all the fields of community psychology. Rather, it concentrates on the priorities of well-being and liberation, two issues we regard as crucial.

Table 6.1 may be used to guide our commitment to community psychology research. Furthermore, it may be used as an accountability device. We can monitor the extent to which we study the priority areas described in the table. In a sense, these guidelines serve the function of a vision; a vision of what type of research we need to pursue in community psychology.

The same can be said about the guidelines for transformational validity. Table 6.2 integrates levels of intervention with key concerns for community psychology: well-being, oppression, and liberation. This is a vision of preferred interventions. We would show high degrees of commitment and accountability to the extent that we pursue these interventions. As a monitoring system, Table 6.2 helps to keep track of our interventions. Are we intervening primarily at the personal level? Do we focus too much on oppression to the neglect of liberation and well-being? Have we neglected the collective domain? The templates presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 can be used by research and action teams and by investigators wishing to assess progress in the field as a whole.

Why Are Commitment and Accountability so Important?

You are probably the best person to answer this question. We can only talk about why commitment and accountability are important to us. For us, commitment and accountability provide meaning to our actions. In their absence, the entire building of values collapses. What good is it to have values if there is no commitment to them? We value commitment for the same reason we value other principles; they provide a compass in our pursuit of meaning. Some people call it spirituality, others call it purpose in life. This is the part of our humanity that is driven by values and transcendence (Dalai Lama, 1999; Jason, 1997; Kane, 1994).

What is your passion? Do you want to make a difference in the world? Is there a topic that excites your or upsets you? Do we want to go through life without reflecting on our actions?

We think it=s better to pause and reflect and commit ourselves to a set of values. Accountability makes life hard because it means producing some sort of a report card on our behaviour. This is, we think, a reasonable expectation in our pursuit of spirituality and a value-driven life.

In psychology and other disciplines there has been an emerging trend towards the pursuit of meaning in our work. Today, various strands within psychology converge in their desire for meaningful engagement with subjective forces, with community members, and with social struggles. Critical, feminist, liberation, and community psychologists are invested in creating meaning in their various roles. There is a need among many psychologists across the world to engage in meaning-seeking activities. We believe that many psychologist strive to integrate their professional lives with their civic lives through meaningful engagement. By meaningful engagement we mean involvement in activities that integrate the epistemological, moral, political and social commitments of psychologists with their professional endeavours.

A psychology for meaningful engagement examines the silent issues, those issues that are either too controversial or complicated for positivist psychology. Critical and community psychology delve into the complicated relations between values, interests and power (Dokecki, 1996; Dokecki, Newbrough, & O=Gorman, 2001; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). In each and every one of our interactions with students, clients, research participants or community members our values intersect with our own interests and the interests of others. To complicate matters, our behaviour is determined in large part by our own power and the power of our partners. In the end, the way we behave towards others is the result of a struggle among our own values, interest and power, and those of others (Dokecki, 1996; Flyvbjerg, 2001). These are difficult connections to disentangle, but worth exploring nevertheless. If we neglect them, we could only achieve superficial commitments and limited accountability.

What Is the Value-Base of Commitment and Accountability?

We make a distinction between common and meta-values. Social justice, caring and compassion and respect for diversity are examples of the former, whereas commitment and accountability are examples of the latter. In simple terms, meta-values refer to the values that look after all other values. In order to promote any of the values presented in Chapters 2 and 3 we need to commit ourselves to the basic principle of action. Commitment and accountability are superordinate principles that we invoke in order to pursue all other principles. Before we take steps to address injustice or discrimination, we commit ourselves to do something about important things in life.

But after we commit ourselves to doing something, how do we know what we=re doing is the right thing? For this, we need accountability, to ourselves and others. We need to spell out how to achieve accountability, otherwise it can remain a beautiful but unfulfilled dream.

How Can Commitment and Accountability Be Promoted?

As with many other phenomena in psychology, patterns of moral behaviour begin in childhood, through educational and socialization processes (Damon, 1996). Community psychologists bring with them to the professions a reservoir of experiences dealing with values, ethics, morality, commitment and accountability (Dokecki, Newbrough, O=Gorman, 2001). In this regard they are no different than other people.

Unlike the sixties, which saw an effervescence of political consciousness, the eighties, the nineties and the first decade of the new millennium seem to promote political apathy (Ralston Saul, 2001). Stating and standing up for one=s values is like swimming against the tide. With the exception of some new social movements (e. g., Freeman & Johnson, 1999), everything else about Western culture goes in the opposite direction: self-indulgence, consumerism, and political cynicism (Ralston Saul, 1995).

Some community psychologists (Pancer & Pratt, 1999) and social scientists (Berman, 1997; Damon, 1996; Yates & Youniss, 1998; Youniss & Yates, 1997) are investigating the sources of activism and volunteerism. Role models, opportunities to contribute in society through school and religious congregations, social consciousness and family influences all shape the future of a prospective activist and volunteer. Furthermore, some community psychologists are trying to intervene to increase social and political awareness. Some strategies include educational activities in schools, social action with special interest groups, and others (Watts, Griffith, Abdul-Adil, 1999).

Insert Table 6.3 About Here

To translate the vague idea of accountability into action, we recommend a series of steps. Table 6.3 describes roles, tasks, facilitating factors, potential subversions and mechanisms of accountability for community psychologists. We are not content to point out jobs without thinking about potential distortions of good intentions. The first two columns of the table may be seen as cognitive and behavioural tasks: imagining vision and values, talking to people, cooperating with stakeholders. This is very prescriptive. In other words, this is what we suggest people do to increase their commitment and accountability. But, as community psychologists, we know that this is not good enough. We also need to think about the context in which such actions take place. This is why we pay attention to facilitating factors and structures that may encourage, support, and enable the person to engage in commitment and accountability.

Prilleltensky, Walsh-Bowers and Rossiter (1999) explored commitment and accountability to ethical principles in professionals working in a child guidance clinic. The sample consisted of psychologists, social workers and learning specialists who were individually interviewed about their ethical dilemmas. Table 6.4 shows the main challenges experienced by the professionals (middle column) as well as the sources and processes for positive (two right hand columns) or negative (two left hand columns) resolution of the conflicts. The results showed that workers were much better able to perform in line with their values when there were supportive structures in place, such as a safe place for sharing weaknesses and peer supervision. In isolation, workers reported, it was very difficult to contend with pressures to deviate from values, such as expectations to label children and blame-the-victim propositions. The two right hand columns provide insights into the processes and structures needed to facilitate commitment. Together with the right hand column of Table 6.3 they form a platform for accountability measures. Such a platform is based on interdependence. In isolation, we run the risk of obviating values. In concert with others, we might be able to overcome temptations and subversions.

Insert Table 6.4 About Here

What Are the Limitations of Commitment and Accountability?

Even after all the prescriptions and precautions put forth in Tables 6.3 and 6.4, there is a chance that individuals will miss the mark. Good processes may be subverted and altered to suit personal interests. Let=s have a look at the first row of Table 6.3. Under potential subversions we see that people may confuse personal preferences with well-justified values. This is very common in the organizational development literature (see for example Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Senge, 1990, Senge, Ross, Smith, Roberts, & Kleiner, 1994) where employers and employees put forth visions that satisfy their personal and corporate interests, but not necessarily those of the community they serve. When dealing with vision and values there is always the danger of engaging in platitudes that sound nice but lack substance or justification.

Substituting the need for personal change with personal forgiveness is a potential subversion we have witnessed. Instead of owning up to personal wrongdoings men and women choose to Aforgive themselves.@ Forgiveness is good if it comes with a commitment to change, not if it serves to exculpate abusive husbands or exploitive bosses.

Tokenism is another distortion of commitment and accountability. Popular participation in decision-making processes is not an easy outcome to achieve. Easier and more expedient is choosing a few selected members of a community to represent others= interests. While convenient, this can easily turn into tokenism, claiming to have had a collaborative process, when in fact only a fraction of the population was represented.

The last two potential subversions presented in Table 6.3 deal with power. Commitment and accountability cannot take place without using one=s power. Too much power leads to its abuse, whereas too little power may lead to its abuse by others (Dokecki, 1996). It is possible to use one=s power to silence other people, but is also possible for others to take advantage of our lack of assertion in order to advance agendas that are anathema to the community. With power, and we all have a measure of it, comes responsibility; the responsibility to confront those who exploit privilege and the duty to include others who have a stake in our work and values. One of the main commitments and the best measure of accountability we may have is inclusion.

INCLUSION

What Is Inclusion?

The term Ainclusion@ has its roots in the field of disabilities (Oliver, 1998). In particular, parents and advocates of individuals with developmental disabilities have promoted the idea and practice of inclusion and community because of widespread practices of segregation and exclusion of adults and children with developmental disabilities (O=Brien & O=Brien, 1996; Schwartz, 1997). Historically people with developmental disabilities have been labeled by professionals (with psychologists playing a lead role in this) by such pejorative terms as Amental defectives,@ Afeeble-minded,@ Aidiots,@ and Amorons.@ The eugenics movement, which we noted in Chapter 1, advocated that this Atainted@ group should be segregated and sterilized so that they would not mix with mainstream society. The stigma and shame that families with a child with a developmental disability experience, and that such children experience themselves, has persisted. Today, many people with developmental disabilities are surrounded by a Asea of services,@ in institutions, special schools, special classes within schools, and special living facilities (McKnight, 1995). Parents and advocates have contested this approach and reclaimed language with terms like Ainclusion,@ Amainstreaming,@ and Acommunity integration.@ The language of inclusion suggests that the community, not people with disabilities, needs to change; communities and community members need to become more welcoming and hospitable to people with disabilities (O=Brien & O=Brien, 1996; Schwartz, 1997).

The principle of inclusion goes beyond people with disabilities; it applies to a variety of groups that have been subjected to social exclusion. Inclusion is becoming an organizing principle that applies more broadly to people who have been discriminated against and oppressed by virtue of their gender, sexual orientation, ethnoracial background, abilities, age, or some other characteristic (Askonas, 2000; Smale, Tuson, & Statham, 2000). Sexism, heterosexism, racism, ableism, and ageism are all forms of social exclusion. Inclusion is an antidote to exclusion and can be conceptualized at different ecological levels of analysis. At the individual level, inclusion entails the recovery of a positive personal and political identity, the development of a personal story of empowerment. At the relational level, inclusion means welcoming communities and supportive relationships. At the societal level, inclusion is concerned with the promotion of equity and access to valued social resources that have historically been denied to oppressed people.

Community psychologist Meg Bond (1999) has argued that inclusion entails both a culture of connection and the legitimization of varied perspectives. The notion of connection, which has been emphasized by feminist writers as important for women=s growth and empowerment (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991), focuses on interdependence, team work, relationships, and sense of community. Connection stands as an alternative to the emphasis on individualism that is widespread in the western world. The idea of varied perspectives suggests that in any setting, there are multiple perspectives that reflect people=s unique circumstances and experiences. It has been observed that disadvantaged people understand very well the idea of multiple perspectives because they learn the norms and perspectives of their own group and they have to learn the norms and perspectives of the dominant group in order to cope with and survive that reality (Bond, 1999). In other words, disadvantaged people live in two different worlds and have to bridge those two worlds every day of their lives.

On the other hand, advantaged people have more trouble understanding multiple perspectives. Advantaged people are often oblivious to the life experiences and circumstances of disadvantaged groups, because they do not have to cope with those realities or be accountable to disadvantaged people. Moreover, legitimization of these varied perspectives counters the belief that there is one true, external reality and one single standard against which everyone should be judged.

Bond and Mulvey (2000) have made a distinction between representation and perspective that is important for the principle of inclusion. Representation refers to the participation and inclusion of disadvantaged groups (e. g., the representation of women in community psychology), while perspective refers to the unique and varied perspectives of disadvantaged groups (e. g., the inclusion of feminist perspectives that challenge male domination). Representation is a necessary but insufficient condition for inclusion; the incorporation of perspectives that are critical of the status quo are needed as well. Together representation and perspective enhance the voices of the disadvantaged people, providing them with opportunities to name their experiences rather than being silenced and suffering in that silence (Reinharz, 1994).

The principle of inclusion is closely tied to that of accountability and commitment. Bond (1999) has argued that forces supporting exclusion are lack of accountability and differential privilege. When dominant groups are not accountable for their impacts on subordinate groups, exclusion and oppression of the subordinate group occur. In contrast, inclusion is promoted when dominant groups become aware of their relative power and privilege and are accountable for their impacts on the subordinate group. But inclusion has been difficult to promote because dominant groups have historically held on to their power and privilege, as U. S. black activists Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton (1967) wrote during the 1960s.

Whenever a number of persons within a society have enjoyed for a considerable period of time certain opportunities for getting wealth, for exercising power and authority, and for successfully claiming prestige and social deference, there is a strong tendency for these people to feel that these benefits are theirs Aby right.@ The advantages come to be thought of as normal, proper, customary, as sanctioned by time, precedent and social consensus. Proposals to change the existing situation arouse reactions of Amoral indignation.@ Elaborate doctrines are developed to show the inevitability and rightness of the existing scheme of things. (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967, p. 8).

Often times, disadvantaged people do things for advantaged people so that they do not have to do such work themselves. For example, feminist sociologist Dorothy Smith (1990) has observed that: AWomen do the clerical work, the word processing, the interviewing for the survey; they take messages, handle the mail, make appointments, care for patients@ (pp. 18-19). Smith observed that when women do this, men don=t have to take responsibility for any of this work and are therefore unlikely to be conscious of what this work involves. Advantaged groups can rationalize power differences by constructing and adopting dominant social narratives about disadvantaged people that are of the victim-blaming variety. Moreover, these dominant social narratives, while highly irrationally, are clung to tenaciously by privileged groups. Consider, for example, bigoted white people who assert that black people are Alazy,@ when at the same time, black people perform a myriad of services for these same white people, like cleaning their homes, cooking and serving them food, etc. When challenges to their assumptions about disadvantaged people break through these defenses, advantaged people often find these experiences to be Aeye openers.@

Why Is Inclusion Important?

Failure to promote inclusion leaves the door open for oppression to occur. Sexism, heterosexism, racism, and ableism are all forms of exclusion that have psychological and political dimensions (Moane, 1999; Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996). Moreover, these different forms of exclusion sometimes intersect, such that some disadvantaged people experience double or triple jeopardy. For example, black feminists have written about how black women have to overcome both white- and male-supremacy, and heterosexual supremacy in some cases (Hill Collins, 1991; hooks, 1988; Lorde, 1984). While invited contributors go into much more depth and specificity of the problems facing women, minorities, people who have experienced unemployment, poor people, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, and people with physical and mental health disabilities in Part V of this book, here we provide a broad overview of the problems that are created for these populations when the principle of inclusion is ignored.

Psychological oppression is the internalized view of self as negative, as unworthy of social and community resources (Bartky, 1990). Black psychologist Kenneth Clark (1965) described the depth of psychological oppression in African-Americans in his book Dark Ghetto.

Human beings who are forced to live under ghetto conditions and whose daily experience tells them that almost nowhere in society are they respected and granted the ordinary dignity and courtesy according to others will, as a matter of course, begin to doubt their own worth. Since every human being depends upon his (sic) cumulative experiences with others for clues as to how he should view and value himself, children who are consistently rejected understandably being to question and doubt whether they, their family, and their group really deserve no more respect from the larger society that they receive. These doubts become the seeds of a pernicious self- and group-hatred, the Negro=s complex and debilitating prejudice against himself. The preoccupation of many Negroes with hair straightening, skin bleachers, and the like illustrates this tragic aspect of American racial prejudice - Negroes have come to believe in their own inferiority. (Clark, 1965, pp. 63-64)

Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two, closely related forms: individual whites acting against individual blacks, and acts by the total white community against the black community. We call these individual racism and institutional racism. The first consists of overt acts by individuals, which cause death, injury, or the violent destruction of property. This type can be recorded by television cameras; it can frequently be observed in the process of commission. The second type is less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation. (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967, p. 4)

For example, consider how women are excluded and oppressed. At the interpersonal level, there is abundant research demonstrating that violence, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse and assault of girls and women are widespread (Bond, 1995; Browne, 1993; Koss, 1993; Walker, 1999). Furthermore, violence and assault are nearly always accompanied by verbal and emotional abuse, with women being subjected to degrading and damaging language that assaults their character and integrity. Violence is but one mechanism that is used by men to silence women (Reinharz, 1994); it is part of a larger pattern of systemic oppression of women that is rooted in social, economic, political, religious, and ideological systems (Albee & Perry, 1998). El-Mouelhy (1992) has described the practices of son preference, malnutrition, economic blackmail, bride burning, female circumcision, and sexual enslavement that are used to contain women in many countries in the world. Moreover, sexism, like other forms of exclusion, is experienced by women on an everyday basis (Bond, 1999; Smith, 1990). The dynamics of sexism and patriarchal structures are elaborated on in Chapter 18.

What Is the Value-Base of Inclusion?

The principle of inclusion is based on the values of relativity and respect for diversity. Vive la difference! These values challenge the traditional paradigms in psychology that A. . . adopt an implicit faith that the single standard of white, middle-class society is, on an absolute basis, superior to all others@ (Rappaport, 1977, p. 22). Dominant groups have constructed differences among people along some dimension, such as skin color, equated those differences as deficits of the supposedly inferior group, explained those deficits in terms of biological or cultural factors, and used this narrative to legitimize mechanisms of exclusion of the subordinate group (Henwood, 1994; Teo, 1999). The values of relativity and respect for diversity, espoused by community psychology, challenge this view.

Community psychology . . . is an attempt to support every person=s right to be different without risk of suffering material and psychological sanctions. . . Rather than trying to fit everyone into a single way of life, the community psychologist must become an agent of the local community. This will often require the community psychologist to work toward providing socially marginal people with the resources, the power, and the control over their own lives, which is necessary for a society of diversity rather than of conformity. (Rappaport, 1977, pp. 1 & 23)

The recognition that there is diversity within diversity is another important insight of this perspective.

How Can Inclusion Be Implemented?

There are two broad viewpoints regarding the best way to promote inclusion. These two viewpoints differ with respect to the construction of similarity/difference. One approach minimizes the differences between groups, the beta bias approach, while the other maximizes the differences between groups, the alpha bias approach (Febbraro, in press; Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1988). Hare-Mustin and Maracek (1988) suggest that research on gender that is driven by the beta bias approach emphasizes the similarities of women and men. Another example of beta bias is the construct of androgyny, which integrates supposedly typical female and male qualities. According to this viewpoint, individuals, regardless of differences, are seen as people first; the focus is on the person, while characteristics such as gender, race, or ability are relegated to the background. This Agender-blind@ or Acolor-blind@ approach is guided by humanistic valuing of the person. Programs for children from different ethnoracial groups that emphasize similarities are an example of how this viewpoint can be put into action. Such programs have been shown to reduce prejudicial attitudes and ignorance of groups that are typically the target of prejudice (Williams & Berry, 1991). Emphasizing similarity rather difference is one way of building community and inclusion.

In contrast, the alpha approach focuses on differences. There are at least two different ways in which differences can be constructed. Mukherjee (1992) and Watts (1992) have made a distinction between multicultural (cultural pluralistic) and anti-racist approaches to diversity. These two broad approaches can be applied to many facets of diversity, not just race and culture. The former approach is one that is culture-specific or population-specific and promotes an affirmative diversity (Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1993). Affirmative diversity means that the uniqueness, special qualities, strengths, and positive characteristics of the group are emphasized. For example, feminist psychologists have argued that women place special emphasis on relationships, caring, and connection (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991). The psychology of women, gay and lesbian psychology, the psychology of disability, and ethnoracial psychologies were all developed by psychologists from these backgrounds as an alternative to mainstream approaches which constructed the differences of these groups from dominant social groups as defects (Trickett et al., 1993). Moreover, these population-specific psychologies are a reflection of the larger pride movements (e. g., black pride, gay pride) within society, which strive to broaden social standards about what is not just acceptable, but desirable.

This approach has been implemented particularly in the context of multiculturalism. Overall this approach focuses primarily on culture and towards the goal of educating people about minority groups, celebrating cultural differences and strengths, and developing multicultural organizations and policies that reflect and support diversity. Heritage language programs and culturally-sensitive interventions are examples of this approach at the individual and small group levels of analysis (James & Prilleltensky, in press; Mukherjee, 1992). The development of alternative systems and services that are developed and controlled by a particular ethnoracial group, such as aboriginal people (Connors & Maidman, 2001; McCormick, Vedan, McNicoll, & Lynam, 1997), reflects how this approach can be implemented at organizational and community levels. At a broader societal level, Canada=s policy of multiculturalism stands as policy initiative that strives to promote cultural pride and ethnoracial identity in contrast to Amelting pot@ policies and ideologies (Naidoo & Edwards, 1991). In this regard, it has been found that the well-being of immigrants and refugees is related to their mode of acculturation. The pattern of acculturation that results in the least stress is that in which individuals retain a strong identity in their indigenous culture and strive to integrate into the host culture (maintaining a balance between the old and the new) (Williams & Berry, 1991). Thus, policies of multiculturalism are important for inclusion (see Chapter 17 for an elaboration of these issues).

The second beta bias approach to promoting inclusion, anti-racism (anti-sexism, etc.), focuses more on differences in power (Mukherjee, 1992; Watts, 1992). The goal of the anti-racist approach is the empowerment of disenfranchised groups and overcoming systemic barriers to participation and access to valued resources. This approach strives to broaden the opportunities for excluded groups. Whereas the multicultural approach is more liberal-reformist, the anti-racist approach with its emphasis on power is more transformative. As Mukherjee (1992) stated:

Quite simply, the purpose of anti-racist change is to move our educational institutions from Aexclusive clubs@ to Ainclusive organizations@ in which: (a) there will be equity of results in academic achievement, curriculum, assessment and placement, staffing and community/school relations for all races and cultures; (b) there will be shifts in individual behaviours and attitudes; and (c) there will be willingness and ability on the part of everyone to recognize and challenge racism wherever it arises. In short, anti-racist education is not about equality of opportunity, sensitivity and dealing with individual acts of racism alone. More fundamentally, it is about voice, representation and participation in all aspects of the educational system for people who have been traditionally excluded from the curriculum and the institution; it is about challenging those dominant ideas, beliefs and assumptions that support such exclusion; and it=s about actively confronting those individual behaviours and attitudes which perpetuate those dominant ideas, beliefs and assumptions. (p. 145)

Like the multicultural approach, the anti-racist approach can be implemented at different levels. At the individual and small group levels, consciousness-raising groups and programs for disadvantaged people can be implemented to develop critical thinking, a positive identity, and social action. An example of this is a program for young African-American men, which links consciousness-raising and socio-political development with African-American spirituality (Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Consciousness-raising groups for women are another example.

At the community and societal levels, inclusion can be promoted through participation in social movement organizations (Jenkins, 1983; Morris & Mueller, 1992). The guiding vision of social movement organizations is a society free of racism, sexism, heterosexism, poverty, violence, and environmental degradation, a society that celebrates diversity, shares the wealth, and practices equality, peace, sustainability, and preservation of the natural environment. Often times the goal of social movement organizations is to change social policies. To promote inclusion at the societal level, policies that strive to create equity (e. g., pay equity for women, affirmative action) are the end results towards which the activities of social movement organizations are directed.

Community psychologists can work in solidarity with social movement organizations through value-based partnerships to promote inclusion (Nelson et al., 2001). Such partnerships are challenging for professionals and relatively privileged groups. In genuine or authentic partnerships, those who are disadvantaged have voice and can name their experiences, while those who are advantaged listen, learn, and validate the stories and experiences of those who are disadvantaged. People who are privileged take responsibility for the negative impacts of their actions on disadvantaged people, whether they are intentional or not (Bond, 1999). There is also a reduction of the power imbalance in the relationship between advantaged and disadvantaged groups with disadvantaged groups exerting more power, and advantaged groups having reduced power.

Value-based partnerships between advantaged and disadvantaged people are not linear or rational; rather they are often emotion-laden, touch people=s blind spots, and can be conflictual and messy (Bond, 1999; Nelson et al., 2001). Church (1995) speaks of Aworking together across differences@; Lord and Church (1998) talk about Apartnership shock@; and Bond (1999) uses the term Aconnected disruption@ to describe these partnership processes. As we noted earlier, it is difficult for advantaged people to understand that they are privileged and to become accountable for that privilege. However, feminist community psychologists have taken the lead in showing how reflexive and participatory approaches can be undertaken in partnership with disadvantaged groups to promote inclusion (Mulvey et al., 2000). For example, New Zealand community psychologist Ingrid Huygens has provided examples of partnerships between dominant groups and disenfranchised groups to eliminate racism (Huygens, 1996a) and violence against women (Huygens, 1996b).

What Are the Limitations of Inclusion?

The central issue with which the principle of inclusion is concerned is that of diversity. As we have seen, one can approach the issue of diversity in one of two ways, maximizing differences among people (alpha bias) or minimizing differences among people (beta bias). Each approach has its limitations.

As we noted in the previous section, there are two approaches that reflect an alpha bias approach. One emphasizes the unique strengths and special qualities of diverse groups, while the other emphasizes differences in power among groups. There are limitations to both of these approaches. While the former approach is valuable in its emphasis in pride and the recovery of positive identities, a limitation of this approach is that it tends to ignore differences in power. On the other, the latter approach is valuable in highlighting inequities in power, but limited in its dismissal of the importance of the special qualities of diverse groups. In many ways, the tension of these two approaches mirrors the tension between the principles of power and community, which we discussed in the previous chapter.

There is also a danger in minimizing differences (the beta bias approach). As Hare-Mustin and Maracek (1988) point out, the beta bias approach overlooks social context and obscures existing power differences. Treating everyone as if they are the same, when they are not, can lead to approaches that strive to adjust the subordinate group to that of the dominant group (Ashe=s as good as any man@) and/or fail to address the lack of power and resources of the subordinate group. If we are all the same, then no one needs any special supports or consideration.

Women and men typically have different access to economic and social resources, and their actions have different social meanings and consequences. Beta bias can be seen in recent social policies and legislation that try to provide equal benefits for men and women, such as comparable parental leave and no-fault divorce. Beta bias can also be seen in educational and therapeutic programs that ignore aspects of the context. They groom women for personal or professional success by providing training in what are deemed Amale@ behaviors or skills, such as assertiveness, authoritative speech patterns, or Amale@ managerial styles. Such programs make the presumption that a certain manner of speaking or acting will elicit the same reaction regardless of the sex of the actor. (Hare-Mustin & Maracek, 1988, p. 458)

In their discussion of alpha bias and beta bias, Hare-Mustin and Maracek (1988) argued that the Atrue@ nature of different constructions of gender (whether men and women are similar or different) cannot be known. Rather, they argue that what is important are the meaning and the consequences of those different constructions. Similarly, Rappaport (1981) has asserted that most social problems are paradoxical in nature, meaning that there are often two equally compelling perspectives that can be used to understand the problem. Moreover, Rappaport suggested that community psychologists should be wary of pursuing one-sided solutions to social problems, because one approach, by itself, is incomplete. Alternatively, he recommended dialectical thinking, considering multiple solutions to complex social problems. Consistent with Rappaport=s argument, we have noted that both alpha bias and beta bias approaches to inclusion have strengths and limitations. The challenge for community psychologists working in partnership with diverse and disadvantaged groups is to find some balance between the different approaches towards the goal of inclusion.

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we introduced the concepts of commitment, accountability, and inclusion. We argued that commitment and accountability are meta-values that are necessary for the promotion of the values that underlie community psychology. Inclusion is a closely related concept that suggests that the many forms of diversity that exist in communities around the world should be embraced, rather than labeled as defective. Commitment, accountability, and inclusion are tools for bringing people together to develop relationships and ways of living that are more respectful, just, and compassionate.

Resources

1. Free the Children is an organization started by Craig Keilburger when he was a young teenager. This Canadian boy travelled the world to learn about child labour and children=s rights. His organization is an example of commitment to a cause and accountability to his stakeholders, the children who need help. Visit their website at http://www.freethechildren.org/

2. Students like you can make a difference. In the United States, students have made a partnership with the labour movement to improve wages of workers and to stop exploitation in sweatshops. Students show commitment to this cause and get support from established organizations. Check this out at http://www.aflcio.org/articles/studentactivism/

3. Wyatt resources helps workers in the public sector with information in various aspects of their work. They have an excellent website on applied ethics that can complement many of the arguments raised in this chapter. Visit them at http://www.wyattresources.net/ethics.html

4. Watch the video Hollow Water, produced by the National Film Board of Canada (48 minutes), http://www.nfb.ca/. This a powerful video about diversity, power, oppression, and liberation experienced by one First Nation community in Manitoba, Canada. Torn apart by years of abuse and struggling to confront their past, this documentary charts a moving journey of healing and change and through an alternative approach to justice grounded in spirituality, community, and traditional native teachings and practices.

References

Albee, G. W. (1998). Economic causes of sexism and the exploitation of women. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 145-160.

Askonas, P. (2000). Social inclusion: Possibilities and tensions. New York: St. Martin=s Press.

Bartky, S. L. (1990). Femininity and domination: Studies in the phenomenology of domination. New York: Routledge.

Berman, S. (1997). Children=s social consciousness and the development of social responsibility. Albany, NY: State of New York University Press.

Bond, M. A. (1995). Prevention and the ecology of sexual harassment: Creating empowering climates. Prevention in Human Services, 12(2), 147-173.

Bond, M. A. (1999). Gender, race, and class in organizational contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 327-355.

Bond, M. A., & Mulvey, A. (2000). A history of women and feminist perspectives in community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 599-630.

Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes, and policy implications. American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the myths of our time. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Carmichael, S., & Hamilton, C. V. (1967). Black power: The politics of liberation in America. New York: Vintage Books.

Church, K. (1995). Forbidden narratives: Critical autobiography as social science. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach Publishers.

Clark, K. B. (1965). Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Connors, E., & Maidman, F. (2001). A circle of healing: Family wellness in aboriginal communities. In I. Prilleltensky, G. Nelson, & L. Peirson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment: Fundamentals for thinking and action (pp. 349-416). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dalai Lama. (1999). Ethics for the new millennium. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Damon, W. (1996). Greater expectations: Overcoming the culture of indulgence in our homes and schools. New York, NY: Free Press.

Dokecki, P. (1996). The tragi-comic professional: Basic consdierations for ethical reflective-generative practice. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Dokecki, P. R., Newbrough, J. R., & O=Gorman, R. T. (2001). Toward a community-oriented action research framework for spirituality: Community psychological and theological perspectives. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 497-518.

El-Mouelhy, M. (1992). The impact of women=s health and status on children=s health and lives in the developing world. In G. W. Albee, L. A. Bond, & T. V. Cook Monsey (Eds.), Improving children=s lives: Global perspectives on prevention (pp. 83-96). London: Sage.

Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community. Toronto: Simon and Schuster.

Etzioni, A. (Ed). (1998). The essential communitarian reader. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. (pp. 27-37). London: Sage.

Febbraro, A. (in press). Alpha bias and beta bias in research on labour and love: The case of enhancement versus scarcity. Feminism and Psychology.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, J., & Johnson, V. (Eds.). (1999). Waves of protest: Social movements since the sixties. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hare-Mustin, R. T., & Maracek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455-464.

Henwood, K. L. (1994). Resisting racism and sexism in academic psychology: A personal/political view. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 41-62.

Hill Collins, P. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.

hooks, b. (1988). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Toronto: Between the Lines.

hooks, b. (2002). Communion: The female search for love. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Huygens, I. (1996a, September). Anti-racism education: Example of a partnership protocol. Project Waitangi, Aotearora, New Zealand.

Huygens, I. (1996b, September). Gender safety: Example of a partnership protocol. Men=s Action, Hamilton and Women=s Refuges, Aotearora, New Zealand.

Huygens, I. (1997). Towards social change partnerships: Responding to empowerment of oppressed groups with voluntary depowerment of dominant groups. Paper presented at 6th Biennial conference of Society for Community Research and Action, Columbia, SC, U.S.A.

Huygens, I. (2001a). Journeys away from dominance: Dissonance, struggle and right relationships - the journey to accepting indigenous authority. Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and Action, Atlanta, Georgia, June, 2001.

Huygens, I. (2001b). Feminist attempts at power-sharing in Aotearoa: Embarrassing herstory or significant learning towards Treaty-based structures? Feminism & Psychology, 11, 393-400.

Jaggar, A. (Ed.). (1994). Living with contradictions: Controversies in feminist social ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

James, S., & Prilleltensky, I. (in press). Cultural diversity and mental health: Towards integrative practice. Clinical Psychology Review.

Jason, L. (1997). Community building: Values for a sustainable future. London: Praeger.

Jenkins, J. C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-553.

Jordan, J., Kaplan, A., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I., & Surrey, J. (1991). Women=s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press.

Kane, R. (1994). Through the moral maze: Searching for absolute values in a pluralistic world. New York, NY: Paragon House.

Kanungo, R., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. London: Sage.

Koss, M. P. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, intervention, and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48, 1062-1069.

Lord, J., & Church, K. (1998). Beyond Apartnership shock@: Getting to Ayes,@ living with Ano.@ Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 12, 113-121.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.

MacMillan, H. L., Fleming, J. E., Trocmé, N., Boyle, M. H., Wong, M., Racine, Y. A., Beardslee, W. R., & Offord, D. A. (1997). Prevalence of child physical and sexual abuse in the community: Results from the Ontario Health Supplement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 131-135.

Martín‑Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McCormick, R., Vedan, R., McNicoll, P., & Lynam, J. (1997). Mental health in aboriginal communities [Special issue]. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 16(2).

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits. New York: Basic Books.

Moane, G. (1999). Gender and colonialism: A psychological analysis of oppression and liberation. London: MacMillan.

Montero, M. (2000). Perspectivas y retos de la psicología de la liberación [Liberation psychology: Perspectives and challenges]. In J. J. Vázques Ortega (Ed.), Psicología social y liberación en América Latina [Social psychology and liberation in Latin America] (pp. 9-26). Mexico, DF: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

Morris, A. D., & Mueller, C. (Eds.). (1992). Frontiers in social movement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mukherjee, A. (1992). Education and race relations: The education of South Asian youth. In R. Ghosh & R. Kanungo (Eds.), South Asian Canadians: Current issues in the politics of culture (pp. 145-161). Montréal: Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute.

Mulvey, A., Terenzio, M., Hill, J., Bond, M. A., Huygens, I., Hamerton, H. R., & Cahill, S. (2000). Stories of relative privilege: Power and social change in feminist community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 883-911.

Naidoo, J., & Edwards, R. G. (1991). Combatting racism involving visible minorities: A review of relevant research and policy development. Canadian Social Work Review, 8, 211-236.

Nelson, G., Prilleltensky, I., & MacGillivary, H. (2001). Building value-based partnerships: Toward solidarity with oppressed groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 649-677.

O=Brien, J., & O=Brien, C. L. (1996). Members of each other: Building community in company with people with developmental disabilities. Toronto: Inclusion Press.

Oliver, M. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to inclusion.

Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. (1999). Social and family determinants of community service involvement in Canadian youth. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.), Roots of civic identity: International perspectives on community service and activism in youth (pp. 32-55). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Prilleltensky, I. (2000). Value-based leadership in organizations: Balancing values, interests, and power among citizens, workers, and leaders. Ethics and Behavior, 10, 139-158.

Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving towards social justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 747-777.

Prilleltensky, I. (in press a). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology.

Prilleltensky, I. (in press b). Understanding and overcoming oppression: Towards

psychopolitical validity. American Journal of Community Psychology.

Prilleltensky, I., & Gonick, L. (1996). Polities change, oppression remains: On the psychology and politics of oppression. Journal of Political Psychology, 17, 127-148.

Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings. London: Palgrave.

Prilleltensky, I., Walsh-Bowers, R., & Rossiter, A. (1999). Clinicians= lived experience of ethics: Values and challenges in helping children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 10, 315-342.

Ralston Saul, J. (1995). The unconscious civilization. Concord, ON: Anansi

Ralston Saul, J. (2001). On equilibrium. New York, NY: Penguin.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt-Rinehart-Winston.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.

Reinharz, S. (1994). Toward an ethnography of Avoice@ and Asilence.@ In E. J. Trickett, R. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 178-200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartz, D. (1997). Who cares: Rediscovering community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Seabrook, J. (1993). Pioneers of change. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and the practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.

Smale, G., Tuson, G., & Statham, D. (2000). Social work and social problems: Working towards social inclusion and social change. London: Palgrave.

Smith, D. E. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stout, L. (1996). Bridging the class divide and other lessons for grassroots organizing. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Teo, T. (1999). Methodologies of critical psychology: Illustrations from the field of racism. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 119-134.

Trickett, E. J., Watts, R., & Birman, D. (1993). Human diversity and community psychology: Still hazy after all these years. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 264-278.

Walker, L. E. (1999). Psychology and domestic violence around the world. American Psychologist, 54, 21-29.

Watts, R. (1992). Elements of a psychology of human diversity. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 116-131.

Watts, R. J., Griffith, D. M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression - Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255-271.

Williams, C. L., & Berry, J. W. (1991). Primary prevention of acculturative stress among refugees: Application of psychological theory and practice. American Psychologist, 46, 632-641.

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1998). Community service and political identity development in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 495-512.

Box 6.1

In response to a request by PsyPAGS Quarterly, a UK postgraduate student journal (www.psypag.co.uk), Dennis Fox wrote this piece about commitment and politics in psychology. Reprinted with permission of the author and the journal.

THE SUITABILITY OF POLITICAL DEBATE IN PSYCHOLOGYAugust 17, 2002

Dennis Fox

My dictionary defines "suitable" thus: "of the right type or quality for a particular purpose or occasion." The question posed -- "Is the discipline of Psychology a suitable site for Political debate?" -- requires considering that debate's "purpose or occasion."

If your goal is to build a traditional career, the answer is usually "No." Students will discover an unpleasant truth: most future bosses and colleagues won't consider your insistence on psychology's relevance to oppression or capitalism appropriate for a new hire who might corrupt impressionable undergraduates. They'll dismiss you as either immature or dangerous.

If you do find a job, the gatekeepers who define "suitability" won't disappear. To them, a science committed to objective inquiry might address the psychology of politics, if your research generates impressive statistics. But making psychology itself an arena of political debate violates the myth that science is objective rather than passionate. As for the politics of the discipline of psychology -- well, that's best left to sociologists.

On the other hand, raising political issues is essential if your "purpose or occasion" is to examine how psychology's assumptions and practices affect, and are affected by, societal forces. To investigate how an unjust status quo is maintained -- and how to change it -- you cannot help but notice human psychology's relevance. Pointing that out, and proposing values you think psychologists should embrace, may piss off the wrong people, but it's the honest thing to do.

There are ways to straddle a middle ground, at least until tenure provides somewhat ore

protection:

1. Address political issues as a small part of your work, spending the bulk of your time doing empirical research on traditional topics. Once you succeed on the mainstream's own terms, you have some leeway to raise political questions on the side -- you've demonstrated that your political critique isn't based simply on an inability to follow the rules. Of course, it's pretty time-consuming to produce impressive empirical research and also do serious critical work. You may give up, especially if you find the traditional work boring or useless. But who said being critical was going to be easy?

2. Do conventional empirical research on politically tinged topics. The acceptability of qualitative research has increased, but a nice, neat experimental manipulation demonstrating some dynamic of oppression impresses mainstreamers, especially if published in a prestigious journal. The same is sometimes true for review articles or essays. In both cases, you have to tone down the language to get past reviewers, but if you write a book, you're allowed to admit in the preface that your research was motivated by deep political concerns rather than simple scientific curiosity.

3. Find a niche that tolerates political motives and alternative methods. This is more easily done in specializations like community or feminist psychology, which began as attacks on societal institutions. Although both fields have gone more mainstream, psychologists who see themselves as advocates may still find a home there. Outside North America, critical psychology itself is growing, with journals, degree programs, and conferences. You might make a career publishing in non-mainstream journals. That's a good option for some, though marginal to psychology's core.

4. Find a niche outside psychology, perhaps an interdisciplinary department less concerned about psychology's status mania. This option, however, marginalizes the political debate even further.

Psychology plays a key role in the mechanisms of power. Psychologists who object to how societal institutions use their power will find a way to ask uncomfortable questions. Proceed carefully. Find others to work with -- in collaboration there is strength.

But in any case, proceed.Dennis Fox, associate professor of legal studies and psychology at the University of Illinois at Springfield, is co-editor of Critical Psychology: An Introduction and co-founder of RadPsyNet: The Radical Psychology Network (http://www.radpsynet.org). He=s never had a job in a mainstream psychology department. His work is available at http://www.dennisfox.net; email: df@dennisfox.net

Table 6.1

Guidelines for Epistemic Psychopolitical Validity in Community Psychology Research

Concerns

Domains

Collective

Relational

Personal

Well-Being

Accounts for role of political and economic power in economic prosperity and in creation of social justice institutions

Studies the role of power in creating and sustaining egalitarian relationships, social cohesion, social support, respect for diversity and democratic participation in communities, groups, and families

Studies role of psychological and political power in achieving self-determination, empowerment, health, personal growth, meaning and spirituality

Oppression

Explores role of globalization, colonization and exploitation in suffering of nations and communities

Examines the role of political and psychological power in exclusion and discrimination based on class, gender, age, race, education and ability.

Studies conditions leading to lack of support, horizontal violence and fragmentation within oppressed groups

Studies role of powerlessness in learned helplessness, hopelessness, self-deprecation, internalized oppression, shame, mental health problems and addictions

Liberation

Deconstructs ideological norms that lead to acquiescence and studies effective psychopolitical factors in resistance

Studies acts of solidarity and compassion with others who suffer from oppression

Examines sources of strength, resilience, solidarity and development of activism and leadership

Adapted from Prilleltensky, in press a.

Table 6.2

Guidelines for Transformational Psychopolitical Validity in Community Psychology Action

Concerns

Domains

Collective

Relational

Personal

Well-being

Contributes to institutions that support emancipation, human development, peace, protection of environment, and social justice

Contributes to power equalization in relationships and communities. Enriches awareness of subjective and psychological forces preventing solidarity. Builds trust, connection and participation in groups that support social cohesion and social justice

Supports personal empowerment, sociopolitical development, leadership training and solidarity. Contributes to personal and social responsibility and awareness of subjective forces preventing commitment to justice and personal depowerment when in position of privilege

Oppression

Opposes economic colonialism and denial of cultural rights. Decries and resists role of own reference group or nation in oppression of others

Contributes to struggle against in-group and out-group domination and discrimination, sexism and norms of violence. Builds awareness of own prejudice and participation in horizontal violence

Helps to prevent acting out of own oppression on others. Builds awareness of internalized oppression and role of dominant ideology in victim-blaming. Contributes to personal depowerment of people in position of privilege

Liberation

Supports networks of resistance and social change movements. Contributes to structural depowerment of privileged people

Supports resistance against objectification of others. Develops processes of mutual accountability

Helps to resists complacency and collusion with exploitative system. Contributes to struggle to recover personal and political identity

Adapted from Prilleltensky, in press a.

Table 6.3

Seeking Commitment and Accountability in Community Psychology

Role of Community Psychologist

Tasks

Facilitating Factors

Potential Subversions

Measures of Accountability

1. Clarify personal and organizational position with respect to values for personal, relational, and collective well-being

Engage stakeholders in dialogue about ways to balance personal, relational, and collective well-being

Knowledge with respect to balance among values and processes of consultation and collaboration

Confuse personal preferences with values and remain at level of abstraction without translating values into action

Consult with others about limitations and contradictions in values selected

2. Promote state of affairs in which personal power and self-interests do not undermine well-being or interest of others

Develop critical self-awareness of how personal interests and social power suffuse professional role and may undermine collective well-being

Creation of safe space for dialogue about value and ethical dilemmas

Replace need for personal change with self-acceptance and/or distort values to coincide with narrow personal interests

Subject personal and organizational process of consciousness-raising to scrutiny by stakeholders affected by the work

3. Enhance solidarity and common interests among citizens, volunteers, service providers and psychologists

Create partnerships among public, volunteers, workers, and community psychologists

Prolonged engagement in the organization and community and establishment of mutual trust

Engage in token consultative processes that do not afford public meaningful input

Create leaderships structures with meaningful input and representation from various stakeholder groups

4. Confront people and groups subverting values, abusing power, or allowing self-interests to undermine the well-being of others in the organization or in the community

Engage in constructive conflict resolution with individuals or groups undermining vision and values

Clear procedures for conflict resolution, and a culture of openness and critique

Use power and legitimacy to confront people in order to suppress opposing views, or use conflict resolution to avoid excluding people from organization

Subject to scrutiny of partners psychologists= efforts to confront people and groups subverting vision and values

Adapted from Prilleltensky, 2001.

Table 6.4

Challenges to Commitment and Ethical Action in Professionals Working in a Child Guidance Clinic

Sources of Negative Processes

Negative Processes

Challenges to Commitment to Values

Positive Processes

Sources of Positive Processes

Competing definitions of:

Who is the client?

What is good for the client?

Who controls clinicians' jobs?

Systemic entanglements among worker, unit, clinic, school, and family

Working in interlocking Systems

Effective collaboration

among systems

Dialogue regarding:

Clear expectations

Mutual respect

Role clarification

Pre-referral consultation

No team building

No support for showing weaknesses

Job insecurity

Poor physical conditions

Climate of isolation and insecurity

Meeting workers' needs

Climate of safety and support

Team building

Peer support

Support from supervisors

Proper space

Mind-fix vs system fix mentality

Threat to the status quo

Pressure to comply

Dealing with pressure to acquiesce to status quo

Ability to challenge system

Support from colleagues and superiors

Good relations with schools

Need for labels for placements

Need for labels to psychologize problems

Pressure to label

Dealing with pressure to label children and youth

Ability to assess without stigmatizing

Less emphasis on labels

Understanding negative effects of labelling

Belief in expert model

Restrictive orientation

Need for power and control

Professional arrogance

Facing the perils of professionalism

Professional humility

Inclusive orientation

Collaborative approach

Lack of sensitive to diversity

Racial and patriarchal biases

Discrimination

Facing racial and gender discrimination

Equality

Awareness of discrimination

Commitment to equality

Giving-in to pressure to be in schools

No time for proper service and reflection

Finding time and space for reflection and accountability

Time for proper service and reflection

Commitment to unit meetings and peer consultation