Chapter 24
Between Person
and Society:
Community
Psychology’s Voyage Into Complexity
Maritza Montero
Behind the
familiar, discover the unusual
Behind the
quotidian, discern the inexplicable
May every thing
called habitual worry you
In the rule
discover the abuse,
And everywhere
abuse is present
Find the remedy
(Bertolt Brecht: The
exception and the rule)
Warm-up ExerciseBased on what you know about community psychology and the community where you live: 1. What community practices and norms should be changed? 2. What specific modes of relating to people should be the targets of change? 3. What modes of being and doing in the community should be changed? 4. Can you tell how much of your criticism comes from personal experience, prejudice, or theoretical notions? 5. What dominant social discourses prevent these changes from occurring? |
This chapter should be read like a brochure for future travels across the sea of community psychology; a brochure describing: exciting sites, daring and stimulating expeditions, unique places and circumstances, provoking dilemmas, and wonderful opportunities to meet interesting people. What these contrasting combinations demonstrate is that the subject matter of community psychology is made up of paradoxes and complexity. In community work one can find both very difficult and very rewarding situations. Community life is dynamic, changing, complex, and unexpected. It can be simultaneously predictable and unpredictable, scary and reassuring, stimulating and irritating.
In the preceding chapters we have travelled from ontological, epistemological and methodological issues, to ethics and politics in community affairs. Now, I would like to provide some hints for an itinerary for future voyages, knowing that every time one embarks on an expedition one should be prepared to be surprised; to assume different perspectives; to get lost and to arrive at unexpected destinations. At the same time, one should keep on hand personal and collective maps in order to find the many ways to get to the next port. As happened during the 15th and 16th centuries, we should also be ready to fill the blank spaces in those maps (pars ignota -- ignored region) with our discoveries.
In order to know where we are going, we need to have an idea of where we stand. Previous chapters have provided us with descriptions of the present whereabouts of community psychology. We have also seen glimpses of future destinations. We should keep in mind that in its 40 years of existence community psychology has kept some of its intents but it has also changed course. It has been innovative but faithful to its original intents at the same time. Some of its ways, critics might argue, have been paternalistic: observing, classifying, categorizing. Others, however, are quick to point out that participatory methodologies now constitute one of the main research and intervention tools of the field. Faithfulness to its original aims is seen in its steadfast pursuit of inclusion, integration, and empowerment of oppressed people. The very definition of community within community psychology has changed from one based on deficits to one based on strengths, agency, and resilience. The field has moved from a concentration on psychological variables to an appreciation of political, social, economic and contextual dynamics.
The objectives and priorities of community psychology have kept up with the times. They have moved from a concern with “the right to be different” (Rappaport, 1977), to preoccupation with access to services, to liberation and well-being catalysed by external agents and validated by community members themselves. Theoretical and methodological foundations have also changed. From the initial adoption of social psychological and clinical conceptions, community psychology has come to produce its own theories, explanations, and action-research methods. Changes notwithstanding, within community psychology and within the community at large, the conviction has remained that we ought to attend to holism in all we do (Newbrough, 1970). This book pays tribute to Newbrough’s invocation of holism as a cornerstone of community psychology.
Community psychologists broker between the community and society at large. Tönnies (1957/1887) said that what identifies communities is the fact that they are an amalgam of human beings that stay together in spite of all the factors that pull them apart. Tönnies distinguished between community (gemeinchaft) and society (gesselschaft). Diversity and passions exists in both of them, qualities that unite and separate people at the same time.
Community psychology has had to deal with that psychological space in which people construct their specific identities as a community and a society. In that sense, community psychology has had to keep pace with social changes, for the dominant forces that create people’s identities are dynamic and fluid. As a result, community psychology is trying to study a moving target, a dynamic culture, and a changing society. By the time we calibrate our equipment to take a picture of the present state, new dynamics have arisen that make our picture blurry and imperfect.
That means that new itineraries continuously open before us, and, with them, the need for new tools, cameras, and methods. What should we take then in future voyages? What kind of a luggage should we carry? Based on prescriptions from previous chapters, allow me to suggest the following first aid kit:
· a predisposition to scrutinize established mores and notions of right and wrong;
· a reluctance to take interpretations and research results for granted;
· a tendency to keep irregularities in mind, like those odds and ends that do not fit in an otherwise well-arranged framework;
· a proclivity to watch our likes and dislikes;
· a propensity to travel light. Do not load yourself with too many prefabricated notions or colored lenses that may prevent you from being surprised.
At the beginning of the eighties, community
psychologists in
“The study of psychosocial factors enabling the development, growth and maintenance of the control and power that people can exert over their individual lives and social environments, in order to solve problems and achieve changes in these environments and social structures.” (Montero, 1980)
The definition stressed the need to place control and power within the community, thereby defining the role of psychologists as catalysts for social change. What was being proposed at the time was a shift in the centre of gravity, away from psychologists and towards people in the community. Escovar (1977, 1980) focused this socially-sensitive psychology on the notion of social development, which he defined as control over the environment.
Another important aspect was the recognition that change was bidirectional: the individual changed the group while the group changed the individual. What was envisioned was a dialectical interplay of mutual changes. Social change was the goal of that type of community psychology. However, change and increased control could not be achieved in the absence of power to transform social structures. Reflective practice, expressed in the action-reflection-action model initiated by Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (1970), was set to become a key tool in the pursuit of popular power.
In
THE LIBERATING JOURNEY OF COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY
The idea of liberation was also introduced by Paulo Freire (1970, 1973), who invoked freedom to convert silent acquiescence into vocal discontent. He compared liberation to childbirth, painful but needed in order to have a new person: neither oppressed nor oppressor. Psychologists of various persuasions should be the midwives or obstetricians in that process; collaborating with parents and surrogate parents in delivering liberation. As Freire put it, “nobody liberates anyone; no one is liberated by her or himself alone” (1970); liberation is a collaborative enterprise. The very definition of liberation implies collective action, always a relational endeavour. Freire advocated a process of action-reflection-action to engage in dialogical processes of collaboration within and across sectors of society.
In 1986, Martín-Baró envisioned what he called a psychology of liberation, which he understood as:
· A psychology less worried by its social and scientific status and more concerned by the urgent problems of people in need;
· A psychology mindful of people’s virtues and assets in pursuing change;
· A systematic study of popular organizations as instruments of liberation;
· A new way to understand reality based on the vicissitudes of marginalized populations;
· A new psychological praxis contributing to change in Latin American societies;
· A recovery of collective memory;
· A way to conceive liberation as a historic and collective process (Martín Baró, 1986, 1990, 1994).
During the nineties, liberation psychology developed as a reflective practice, stressing the values, capacities and actions of oppressed people in fighting their oppression. Liberation struggles led to processes of de-ideologisation, by which people renounce hegemonic constructions of fate and inevitability (Montero, 1992). During the last decade, two lines of thought and action emerged within liberation psychology. One is the emancipatory psychology practiced by political, social, educational, health and community psychologists in several countries (Montero, 1992, 2001; Pacheco & Jimenez, 1990). The second variant of liberation psychology concentrated more on the psychology of oppression (Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1994; 1996). The two are really opposite sides of the same coin and cannot be regarded as autonomous branches of psychology, for they ought to permeate all aspects of theory and practice.
Change and well-being, the primary and most evident goals of community psychology, needed the concept of liberation. Well-being on its own is highly commendable, but it can be easily distorted into a welfare orientation which is based on charity and not justice. Change, in turn, can also be highly commendable, but in the absence of liberation, there is no way to confirm that changes will address power differentials.
CO-PRESENCE: THE COMPLEX CHARACTER
OF COMMUNITY PHENOMENA
An important aspect of psychosocial community phenomena needs to be discussed: their mobile, complex, and dynamic character. Quantum theory shows that light can be at the same time particles and waves. In the same vein, it is not possible to talk about foreground without background. If we want to consider community phenomena without fragmenting or reducing them, we cannot define them as just states or processes. Social phenomena can be, simultaneously, states and processes. Permanence and change can go together. This is not an untenable state but a paradox. Paradoxes are not errors, mistakes or flaws making our lives unnecessarily difficult. They are part of everyday life. Although we tend to reject them because they make us feel uncomfortable, we should heed their message and try to cope with the tension they create. That very tension reminds us that contradictory forces exist in the community and that we should be attentive to them.
Co-existence or co-presence of phenomena is much more common than we would like, but they are inevitable aspects of community phenomena. We want some people to take more control over their lives, but we also want them to take into consideration other people’s need for control while they exercise their newly acquired sense of empowerment. How can we ascertain that people achieve just the right dose of empowerment and don’t become over-empowered? How do we promote collaboration without pushing conformity at the expense of diversity? How do we advance an agenda of caring when some of the people who abuse others seem to listen only to the language of power?
What may seem as the right answer to a social problem today, or in this geographical and cultural context, may prove to be the wrong or ill advised for other historical, geographical, or cultural contexts. Hence, we are faced with the task of pursuing a clear line of thinking while at the same time questioning its applicability and validity across situations. In essence, we struggle to pursue clarity without dogmatism and diversity without paralyzing relativism.
UNDERSTANDING POWER IN COMMUNITY CONTEXTS
In order to produce power, power is needed. This means the notion of power has to be redefined and reconceptualised. The traditional way to define power considered it the capacity to influence other people; leading, forcing, or convincing them to do something in line with the interests of the source of influence. This asymmetrical conception of power has been dominant in social sciences since the beginning of the 20th century when it was formulated by sociologist Max Weber (1925/1964). That began to change when Michel Foucault (1975, 1979) introduced the idea that power is omnipresent; it is not in the exclusive domain of the seemingly powerful. Power is everywhere and its manifestations are present in all realms of society. In community psychology, Serrano-García and López-Sánchez (1994) proposed a relational definition of power whereby people create or disrupt norms in their interactions. The main point in this imminent and relational conception of power is that every human being has some power.
Empowerment, then, is based on the ability of community members to effectively use the resources they have to acquire new ones, and to overcome oppressive conditions while they change their own lives in the process. We cannot disentangle the acquisition of material power from the process of personal empowerment of the soon-to-be-empowered community member. We are talking about a very personal and societal process at the same time. If we forget the former part of the equation we err on the side of sociologism. If we forget the latter part we err on the side of psychologism.
Liberation, change and well-being also illustrate the complexity of community phenomena. These three aspects must operate in concert. In order to carry out changes in the world around us, we must have the necessary consciousness to know where to act, why, when, and how. In doing so, well-being may emerge out of people’s actions. Consciousness will help define what well-being is, while, at the same time, provide enough dissatisfaction with the status quo as to keep the change process going.
Issues of globalisation, colonisation, poverty and all manners of exclusion (like, racism, sexism, marginalisation, or disability), infrequently discussed in community psychology textbooks, permeate all social phenomena. Disadvantage is experienced in thousands of communities across the world. This is why liberation and well-being are the main goals of community psychology. But liberation and well-being, as much as oppression, surpass the scope of community. Locating disadvantage in a global context is consistent with the values of community psychology.
It is important that we avoid the illusion of communities as cozy and isolated microcosms, unaffected by global dynamics. Consequently, our values must be directed at the local and the global at the same time. We have to think of ways of expressing our values in proximal and distal environments at the same time.
· Holism must apply to the whole person, the whole community, and the whole context;
· Health must apply to physical and spiritual well-being;
· Solidarity must reflect caring, support, and compassion not only for those close to us but also for those we may never get to know in far away places;
· Self-determination should be about personal decisions while collectively determining what to do about our community and our world;
· Social justice ought to encompass both rights and duties towards those close to us and far away from us;
· Diversity should be about the right to be different in equality;
· Accountability must be to oppressed groups and to the groups we work with; while
· Participation should reflect the fact that community research and action are not isolated tasks but the joint labour of many people, sometimes across continents.
Does this mean that community psychology is evolving towards a more comprehensive and holistic discipline (“global community psychology”)? Will it abandon the community as it has been hitherto defined within the discipline? Is that the next destination for the journey begun in Chapter 1? We ought not to sacrifice the local for the global or vice versa, neither in research nor in action. Although invisible sometimes to the naked eye, the connections between global trends and local suffering are very powerful. This is why we must develop ways of seeing the part in the whole and the whole in the part. Perhaps holographic principles could help. In 1947 Gabor (Nobel Prize in physics, 1971) came out with an explanation that challenges conventional wisdom with respect to the relation between the whole and the parts. Each point of a hologram receives light coming from every part of a focused object. Each fragment of the hologram, in turn, contains information about the whole. Thus, if the hologram is broken, each piece allows for the reproduction of the complete image. What physics discovered about holograms is what has always happened in social life: not only the parts are contained within the whole, but the whole is also contained within every part. As Ferrarotti (1981) noted, the life of each person reflects the society in which that person lives. In a similar way, communities reflect the societies in which they are embedded and societies mirror the world around them. All these spheres of life orbit around a center of gravity: relatedness. People are not islands, no matter how aloof or anti-social they might be. People are relational beings living in a world of relations. No one can be outside of a relationship; even to reject them we need them. History is like a thread linking the person, the community, the society and the world. History is about life, and each individual life can only be told because it is part of a web consisting of multiple histories that weave that life and construct that history. Again, complexity rules the understanding of these relations.
THE POLITICAL SIDE OF COMMUNITY WORK
An exciting interdisciplinary field seems to be emerging out of this relatedness between micro, meso, and macrosocial levels, and out of the social repercussions of community research and action: a political community psychology. Some chapters in this book give grounds to say so, for who will be in charge of “linking the global and the local” (Chapter 14)? Who will export to other social sciences and settings the knowledge produced in community psychology to achieve liberation and well-being? Who will provide social planning and policy-making teams with a community perspective and know how? It has to be psychologists with community experience; psychologists who have observed and participated in community decision-making processes and who have witnessed first hand the outcomes of oppressive policies and practices. This new field of political community psychology would foster bottom-up approaches to balance the current administrative tendency to use top-down methods of planning and intervention.
De-ideologising, conscientising and problematising
are political means of advancing liberation and well-being. This way of doing
community psychology fosters its political base and provides an alternative
mode of political action (Montero, 1995, 1998). This is an alternative mode of
political behaviour because it does not fit conventional modes such as voting
or party militancy.
Conventional
political behaviour follows normative lines established by customs. Political
campaigns, political rallies, fund raising and advocacy groups are all forms of
conventional politics. Protest, networking, alternative and participatory
budgets, and mass movements present viable alternatives. They are means of
exerting citizenry. Sit-ins, land occupation (i. e., the Sem Terra, the
Landless Movement in
Struggles, movements and changes happening in the communities are modes of empowering civil society and of constructing the polis (the Greek name that gave origin to the word politics). These are ideal sites for community psychologists to intervene in the community. Thus, community action rejuvenates the concept of politics, going to its very foundations: dealing with social issues in the public sphere of civic life. This approach enhances participatory democracy, first enunciated in community psychology by Heller and Monahan in 1977, and widely practiced in Latin American political and community psychology (Montero, 1996, 1998).
Participatory democracy is a notion that goes beyond representation; it draws on the original meaning of the concept: government of the people. As such, it is totally dependent on people’s effectiveness to intervene in political events (Sabucedo, 1988). The challenge in enacting participatory democracies is not only in initiating but also in sustaining involvement of people who hitherto have been disenfranchised or alienated by the electoral process.
Some community movements created in
However meritorious these notions and movements are, they are not without risks. Participatory democracies and mass movements can be co-opted and corrupted. Furthermore, they are not always very efficient and occasionally they are plagued with internecine conflict. So, approach with caution and avoid romantic notions. Keep your eyes open, watch where you’re walking, and keep your skepticism ready at hand.
THE SIZE AND SPEED OF COMMUNITY CHANGES
The capacity of
organised communities to transform themselves through the process of
conscientization can have repercussions for society as a whole. Although this
does not mean a revolution with dramatic changes, it is part of social change
nevertheless. It is an investment in the future of social change. Change and
liberation cannot occur in the absence of psychological and political
education. The drama may not be of enormous proportions, but it is change all
the same. So, perhaps, it is a homeopathic revolution. Moghaddam (2002)
observed that “the maximum speed of change at the macro level of legal,
political, and economic systems is faster that the maximum speed of change at
the micro level of everyday behavior” (2002, p. 33). In other words, change can
happen quite quickly at the institutional level, but it will not be rooted in
society for quite some time. Daily interactions do not change for a while after
macro changes have taken place. It takes some time for new ways of being to
become habitus. Bourdieu’s (1972) notion of habitus is explained in
Insert
Habitus can explain how and why certain practices last
despite efforts to alter them. Habitus
sustains those acts one does not have to think about. In doing so, habitus
keeps action flowing; it becomes a main ingredient in naturalising social
practices and in automating “what one does.” This is not unconscious behaviour.
It is, however, an unprocessed behavioural pattern absorbed through cultural
interactions with people, the media, and the educational system. Habiti are the
guardians of the ways and relations that produced them. They need processes of
familiarising, naturalising and internalising to protect the status quo in
relationships, organizations, and government. To challenge habiti we need
problematisation and conscientization. They can help us reveal contradictions
and ways of disrupting habiti.
We
have to keep in mind that most of the changes we may be facing as a society may
be unintentional or ill-directed. Changes in habiti may occur, but are these
the changes we really want? Technology, globalization and war may change the
way we relate to each other and conceive of the “other.” But are these the
changes we want. Will they result in more, or less well-being for the
oppressed? Will they produce liberation or more oppression? Will they benefit
the rich or the poor? Hence, we must not be too jubilant at the pace of change
in society. Change is not an aim in itself. Change that promotes values for
well-being and liberation are hard to come by.
Relatedness, based on participation, entails exchange of knowledge. Exchanging wisdom is a necessity. Community psychologists bring their own contributions, and so do community members. A horizontal, dialogical mode of relating to stakeholders, so often implored by Freire (1973) and Fals Borda (2001), can only be achieved through the full participation of stakeholders (see Chapters 16, 19, 20, 21, 22). The co-optation of community leaders or the assignment of pre-determined tasks for stakeholders is not participation (Montero, 2000a). Participation means deciding, acting, reflecting, analysing, interrupting, forming an opinion and being open to learn and teach from anyone sharing knowledge. It is not a neat and clean process and it requires consultation and listening skills. Community members don’t become adept at sharing or expressing their incipient knowledge overnight. They require an enabling environment that will help them recognize their current strengths and potential contributions.
Hitherto, globalization has been mostly unidirectional, going from the minority world to the majority world. This means that knowledge is flowing mostly from the West to the East and from the North to the South. This is the dominant conception of globalization: What an effective globalization ought to be, some might argue. But there is the possibility and the need to reverse the flow of knowledge. How can we embrace diversity if we keep exporting ethnocentric knowledge? One way to do it is by exchanging ideas and establishing dialogues with communities that may have tried alternate ways of being.
As epilogue for this chapter let’s reflect on its epigraph: the words of German play writer Bertolt Brecht. I have often used them in introductory classes of community psychology at the Universidad Central de Venezuela. Brecht’s exhortations to inquire, to look further than appearances, to probe deeper, to go under the skin and get to the heart of the matter is what community psychologists are about. His verses reflect what community psychology is trying to do: to recognise what is unfair under the mask of daily practices; to see what is diminishing, impoverishing, and oppressing under the semblance of “proper behaviour”; to denounce and fight exclusion and hypocrisy hidden under the mantle of welfare or self-appointed charity.
That is why community psychology aims for change-well-being-liberation, for what we are dealing with is not only access to material goods. It is also a state of mind, a sense of belonging and fitting and having an impact in society, accepting others and being accepted. Are well-being and liberation a community version of the Holy Grail? Most certainly not. They are the same old goals that humankind has been pursuing for ages. Community psychology is just a contemporary response to that eternal pursuit.
Problematising, de-naturalising, and conscientising are the bases for a critical attitude in our pursuit of liberation and well-being. Challenging Bacon’s (1952/1620) unquestioned idols is the preparatory phase of our journey. Bacon’s understanding of idola referred to notions deeply rooted in human understanding, so much so that they became difficult to access and transform. These idols are constructed by habitual, familiar and quotidian modes of thinking. Bacon’s idola pertained both to scientific and folk ways of understanding the world; modes of thinking that can be at the basis of ideology, that ever present way of giving hegemony to certain ideas. Ideology is everywhere and there are no privileged spaces immune to it, neither in the university nor in the community.
But as places once visited often change, so does our knowledge of community and interventions. No knowledge is final, no intervention lasts forever. Our role will remain co-producer of knowledge and interventions until such time that the community no longer needs us, either because it has solved its problems or because it has learned to do without us.
This chapter began as a brochure for a travel agency. But unlike their glossy booklets, this one reminded the traveler that the journey may be bumpy and full of surprises. In talking about the journey it described the sites as paradoxical and dynamic. Hence, do not depart without a critical perspective. Community psychology has not aimed for one single destination but for many, intersecting ones. Well-being, change and liberation feature prominently in the list of ports. Descending in one and forgetting the others will create a partial vision of community psychology. Visiting them all will complicate your journey but will make it worthwhile. Bon voyage!
|
Characteristics Defining a habitus |
|
- It is a regular practice associated with a socially structured environment. - It is a lasting behaviour. - It is a structured and structuring behaviour, following a stable and established pattern. - It is carried out without either a consciously chosen direction or explicit mastery of the operations needed to achieve its goals. - It adjusts to collective regulations without specific instructions. - It allows people to cope with unexpected situations. - There is an implicit anticipation of the consequences of such situations. - It is a socially coded and expected response. - It tends to reproduce objective social structures of which it is an effect. - It lacks strategic intention of its own. Montero (2000, 2001) |