Chapter 2
The Project of Community Psychology:
Issues, Values, and Tools for Liberation
and Well-Being
|
Chapter Aims In this chapter,
you will learn: 1. the “big
picture” of community psychology: oppression, liberation, and well-being 2. the three
main components of the conceptual framework of community psychology that is
used in this book: (a) issues and problems, (b) values, and (c) principles
and conceptual tools. |
In this
chapter, we begin by presenting the “big picture” of what community psychology
is all about. We argue that the central problem with which community psychology
is concerned is that of oppression, and that the central goals of community
psychology are to work in solidarity with disadvantaged people to accompany
them in their quest for liberation and well-being. While oppression,
liberation, and well-being are the overarching concepts of community
psychology, more specific principles and conceptual tools are needed to address
the many different manifestations of oppression. The conceptual framework that
we propose consists of three main components: (a) issues and problems, (b)
values, and (c) principles and conceptual tools. In subsequent chapters, we expand
on the values, principles, and concepts and describe how they can be used to
addressed the issues and problems that are of concern to community psychology.
The issues and problems are those with which community psychology has been
concerned; the vision and values are the ideals towards which community
psychology strives; and the principles and conceptual tools are what is used by
community psychology to address problems and issues in pursuit of its vision
and values.
OPPRESSION, LIBERATION, AND
WELL-BEING:
THE “BIG PICTURE” OF COMMUNITY
PSYCHOLOGY
In
this section, we provide an overview of the project of community psychology. We
believe that it is important to start with a focus on the people and
communities with whom community psychologists work, the way community
psychologists think about the problems those communities and people face, and
the goals towards which community psychology works.
Oppression: Silence and Invisibility
As we
argued in Chapter 1, community psychologists are concerned with the issues and
problems facing disadvantaged people, problems that have deep historical roots.
The journeys of disadvantaged people have been ones of pain and suffering,
dislocation and colonization, oppression, and marginalization. Society has
constructed stories about disadvantaged people, making them into
something different from you and me. These stories, which Rappaport (2000)
calls dominant cultural narratives, are often of the victim-blaming variety and
help members of dominant groups to rationalize their role in contributing to
and perpetuating the oppression of disadvantaged people. They also serve to
disconnect disadvantaged people from the journey of their people and
themselves. Listening to the stories of disadvantaged people is a first step in
undoing the damaging stories that society has constructed about “those people.”
When
we listen to stories, the pain and suffering of disadvantaged people becomes
more real and apparent, and it has an impact on us. We often feel shocked,
hurt, angry, guilty, and/or defensive, and many of us want to do something to
correct the injustices that people have suffered. Telling stories is also
empowering for people and helps to create and inspire a vision of a better
future. It helps individuals and collectives to reclaim their history, to
understand and appreciate their strengths, resilience, and resistance, to
overcome their silence and shame, and to build community. We see part of the
mission of community psychology as helping disadvantaged people to tell their
stories so that dominant cultural narratives that have been imposed on them can
be challenged and alternative stories can be promoted. It is also important for
those of us who come from privileged backgrounds to be aware of where we stand
and where our predecessors have stood historically vis-à-vis oppressed groups
(McIntosh, 1990). Such reflexive awareness is necessary for dominant groups to
embark on their own journeys of change to create more just and equitable
relationships.
Throughout
this book, we will hear stories of people who have experienced disadvantage.
Disadvantaged people have often been forced to move to physically segregated
environments or they have had to flee oppressive conditions. Many of the
original settlers of North America came to the new world to escape religious
persecution and economic deprivation. At the same time, the “founding fathers”
of the new world inflicted subjugation and oppression on the aboriginal people
of North America, black people from Africa, and women. When a society is
hierarchically constructed with vast disparities in power between different
groups, it is possible that a previously
disenfranchised group can become the oppressors of less powerful others.
Using
the ecological metaphor, the issues and problems with which community
psychology is concerned can be conceptualized as occurring at different levels
of analysis (see Table 2.1). Different social issues and problems that occur at
different levels of analysis are not isolated; they are interrelated. We argue
that the common thread that links together the different problems and issues
that we touch upon here and throughout the book is that of oppression.
Elsewhere, we have defined oppression as follows.
“Oppression is described as a state of
domination where the oppressed suffer the consequences of deprivation,
exclusion, discrimination, exploitation, control of culture, and sometimes even
violence.” (Prilleltensky & Nelson, in press, p. )
The
core of oppression is power inequality. Oppression is a relational concept that
implies asymmetric power relations between individuals, groups, communities, or
societies (Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996; Watts & Serrano-García, in
press). Moreover, oppression is experienced at multiple levels of analysis:
personal, interpersonal, and social levels of analysis (see Table 2.1). At the
level of the individual, disadvantaged people often internalize the dominant
cultural narratives about themselves, which is psychologically damaging. This
internal psychological oppression includes self-blame and feelings of personal
worthlessness. In relationships with others, disadvantaged people are often
seen as inferior and are treated as such by people who have more power. These
dominant-subordinate relationships are characterized by an inequality in power,
and they are embedded in larger structural arrangements that are manifested in
social policies and community settings.
|
Insert Table 2.1 here |
|
Box 2.1 Manifest Destiny and the Colonization of
Native People in North America In his book, Bury
My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West,
historian Dee Brown (1971) tells the story of “how the west was won” in the
late 19th century. Guided by a belief in “manifest destiny,” which
upheld the innate superiority of white people, the U. S. government and
military embarked on a campaign of systematic destruction of aboriginal
people to pave the way for settlers of European ancestry. This is a hard book
to read. Each chapter tells a story of aggression against and conquest of a
different nation of people. The Long Walk of the Navahoes is a story about
the journey of these people on foot, in frigid weather, from their homeland
into an internment camp. In Canada, aboriginal children were sent to residential
schools run by missionaries to sever them from their families, communities,
language, and culture. Much the same happened in Australia with the stolen
generation. The legacy of these schools is one of physical and sexual abuse
and cultural genocide, whose impacts are still felt today. Brown’s book,
which was based to a large extent on oral history of aboriginal people, also
demonstrates the resistance of aboriginal people who were vastly outnumbered
and lacking in resources to combat the powerful U. S. government. The stories
in the book and Brown’s conclusion that aboriginal people stand among the
most courageous of North Americans presents a compelling alternative to the
“cowboys and indians” narrative promoted in the popular culture. |
There
are many different stories of oppression (see Box 2.1). Consider how African
people came to the new world. Alex Haley’s (1977) Roots tells the story
of the roots of an African-American man and his family. Nearly 2 million
Africans were taken from their homelands and packed on slave ships bound for
the new world, where those who survived the journey were bought and sold as
slaves. African-Americans have had to overcome slavery, segregation, racism,
the Ku Klux Klan, brutal repression and violence, and economic disenfranchisement.
The journeys of other marginalized groups have been characterized by social
exclusion and segregation. People with disabilities (physical, developmental,
mental health) have been excluded from mainstream community life and settings
and sent off to special buildings, schools, or institutions and had their power
and civil rights stripped away. Women have experienced barriers to their
participation in civic life. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have been forced
into the “closet” because of the tremendous social stigma that they experience.
Resistance and Liberation: Framing Problems, Listening
to the Voices, and Making the Invisible Visible
While part of the stories of disadvantaged
people is about injustice and oppression, there are also hopeful and
inspirational parts of these stories. There are many examples of resistance and
heroic people who have bravely fought for social change even against
insurmountable odds. From the underground railroad and activists like Sojourner
Truth during the time of slavery, to the more recent civil rights and black
power movements and leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and
“ordinary” citizens like Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her seat and move
to the back of the bus in the segregated southern U. S, African-Americans have
resisted slavery and racism. The first wave of feminism focused on women’s
right to vote, while the second wave has strived to liberate women from the
home and create opportunities for women to participate in and contribute to
work, education, and politics and to have control over their bodies and
reproduction. Different oppressed groups all have their stories of resistance.
In
the third column of Table 2.1, we highlight the importance of disadvantaged
people reclaiming power in their struggle to liberate themselves from
oppression. Social change often begins with disadvantaged people’s awareness
and understanding of the unjust psychological and socio-political circumstances
oppressing them. Brazilian educator and
activist Paulo Friere (1970) referred to this as a process of
“conscientization.” In a study of the process of personal empowerment, Lord and
Hutchison (1993) found that “gaining awareness” was often a beginning point in
people’s journeys of empowerment.
At the relational level, connecting with others in mutually supportive
relationships in which power is shared is also important for regaining power.
Solidarity with others can be found in self-help groups and social movement
organizations, which can serve as vehicles for collective resistance and social
action.
Along
their journeys, many disadvantaged people have encountered psychologists.
Sometimes, the response of psychology has been to further perpetuate
oppression, as the quotes from the eugenics movement in Chapter 1 illustrate.
Today the more typical response of psychology is to offer “help.” But the help
is typically in the form of some type of therapy or intervention that strives
to change disadvantaged individuals so that they can better adjust to unjust
social conditions. We believe that the response of community psychology should
be one that recognizes the injustices that disadvantaged people have experienced
and that involves a partnership to work in solidarity with disadvantaged people
towards social change. In this regard, consider the following statement from Australian
aboriginal social worker Lilla Watson: “If you’ve come to help me you’re
wasting your time. But if you’ve come because your liberation is bound up with
mine, then let us work together” (cited in Stringer, 1996, p. 148). To help
create social change, community psychologists must reframe problems, listen to
the voices of disadvantaged people, and make the invisible visible. This
involves challenging commonly held assumptions and consciousness-raising about
the sources of problems.
In
many respects, community psychology appears to have suffered from the same
historical blinders as the rest of psychology and the “helping” professions.
The problems facing people with serious mental health problems were framed in
terms of deinstitutionalization and the need for community services, rather
than in terms of larger social processes of social exclusion. While community
psychologists played a leadership role in the development of preschool and
school-based prevention programs for African-American children and families,
the problems that they faced were not typically framed in terms of racism and
economic disenfranchisement. Other issues and problems with structural roots
have been ignored by community psychology. For example, in the early days of
community psychology, the field was dominated by men, and the issues facing
women were invisible to the field (Bond & Mulvey, 2000). In spite of the
commonalities between community psychology and feminism explicated by Anne
Mulvey (1988) more than a decade ago, it is only recently that the value of
feminist perspectives in community psychology has been recognized (Bond, Hill,
Mulvey, & Terenzio, 2000a, 2000b; Swift, Bond, & Serrano-García, 2000).
More
recently there have been more voices within the field of community psychology
that have pushed for the inclusion of diverse groups and issues, with a focus
on issues of power and oppression (Serrano-García, & Bond, 1994). Today, community psychology is broadly concerned
with the issues and problems facing disadvantaged people, including minorities,
women, children and adults
living in poverty, people who are homeless, people with serious mental health
problems, people with disabilities, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and many
more. We believe
that these voices have been helping the field to reframe problems such that
there is more of a structural analysis of the
causes of individual problems.
Towards Well-Being
In
earlier work, we have defined well-being as occurring at multiple levels of
analysis (Nelson, Lord, & Ochocka, 2001; Prilleltensky, Nelson, &
Peirson, 2001). At the individual level, well-being is manifested in terms of
personal control, choice, self-esteem, competence, independence, political
rights, and a positive identity (see Table 2.1). At the relational level, the
individual is embedded in a network of positive and supportive relationships
and can participate freely in social, community, and political life. The person
is an active member of community. At the community and societal level, the
individual is able to acquire such basic resources as employment, income,
education, and housing. Thus, well-being is not a matter of individual health,
but rather a state of affairs that involves a transaction between individuals
and supportive relationships and environments. In its work with disadvantaged
people, community psychology is not just concerned with liberation from
oppression, but also with the achievement of a state of personal, relational,
and collective well-being.
Having
provided the “big picture” of community psychology, we now turn to an overview
of the three main components of our conceptual framework for community
psychology: (a) issues and problems, (b) values, and (c) principles and
conceptual tools (see Table 2.2). We begin by considering some of the
dimensions of the issues and problems experienced by disadvantaged people.
|
Insert Table 2.2 about here |
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
Problems
It is important to make a
distinction between the surface manifestations of problems, such as mental
health, school achievement, and crime, and the root causes of those surface
manifestations. Joffe (1996) refers to these root causes as the “causes of the
causes.” These historical and structural problems are all characterized by
oppression and power inequality between groups of people.
There are many dimensions of the issues and
problems that can be traced to root causes of oppression and loss of power (see
the first column of Table 2.2). First, as we noted in the previous section,
society tends to engage in “victim-blaming” of disadvantaged people (Ryan,
1971). The social context in which the problems facing disadvantaged people
arise is ignored, and individuals are expected to “pull themselves up by their
bootstraps.” Framing problems in terms of individual-level difficulties leads
to fragmented services for individuals, rather than efforts at collective or social
change (Caplan & Nelson, 1973). An example of victim-blaming is blaming
women who have been sexually assaulted by challenging them in terms of the
clothing they wore when assaulted, suggesting that they did not try to fight
off their assailant, or refusing to believe those who have been assaulted.
Widespread victim-blaming tends to lead individuals to self-blame and
internalized oppression. Second, disadvantaged people experience a multitude of
health issues and psychosocial problems in living. For example, there is
abundant research showing the children who have been maltreated live in
families that are often stress-plagued and chaotic, and that these children
manifest a variety of health and psychosocial problems (Peirson, Laurendeau,
& Chamberland, 2001).
Third,
disadvantaged people are often isolated from networks of support. People with
mental health problems, parents who maltreat their children, and many others
tend to be socially isolated. Fourth, disadvantaged people experience
powerlessness. Moreover, powerlessness is not just a personal quality (e. g.,
feelings of helplessness and lack of control), but rather something that is
experienced in the context of asymmetric relationships with other people and
systems (Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996). Fifth, powerlessness is related to
the discrimination that is experienced by groups and individuals who are held
to single standards (i. e., those that assert the superiority of male, white,
heterosexual, able-bodied people). Long-standing patterns of sexism, racism,
heterosexism, ableism, and stigma serve to rationalize and perpetuate power
inequalities at multiple levels of analysis. Moreover, disadvantaged people
have been and continue to be subjected to exclusion and segregation from a
range of social and community settings. Women who experience the “glass
ceiling” in career advancement and who are confined to low paid “pink collar”
jobs or social assistance are but one example of how existing social conditions
maintain inequality and social exclusion.
However,
perhaps the largest social problem today is the complacency of people who enjoy
many social and economic privileges. Many people either have little awareness
of the problems facing disadvantaged people, ignore these issues, or construct
these problems in terms of “victim-blaming.” As a consequence, advantaged
people tend go blithely along in their lives, without much concern about these
issues. But this is not just about “other people”; it is about all of us. In
the 1950s, there was a cartoon stripped called Pogo that often included
political satire. In one sketch, Pogo said “I have met the enemy and (s)he is
us.” This statement captures the complicity and complacency of the dominant
culture and community psychology regarding the problems facing disadvantaged
people. Consciousness-raising, anger about social injustice, and a passion for
social change are antidotes to this complacency.
The Global Context
Society is also becoming more
global with technology, communication, travel, trade, and capital mobility. One
of the consequences of globalization is the increasing gap between the “haves”
and “have nots” both within societies and between countries. Economic
exploitation and disenfranchisement of
disadvantaged people is widespread in both developed and developing countries.
More and more low-income people in western countries are being forced into
“McJobs” (i. e., low-paying jobs in the service sector), while individuals in
developing countries, particularly women and youth, are paid wages that are a pittance
to make the athletic shoes, clothing, and other commercial products that are
widely advertised and marketed in western countries (Clarke, 1997).
Corporate
power and global capitalism are also bringing about sweeping changes in the
natural environment (environmental degradation), working conditions (loss of
power and rights of working people and unions), culture (a rapidly developing
“monoculture”), and government policy (tax cuts and diminished role of the
state in addressing social inequalities, preserving the environment, and
ensuring the health of the population) (Korten, 1995). With government cutbacks at the national and state
levels, infrastructures (schools, housing, social programs) at the community
level are being diminished, and communities are increasingly being asked to “do
more with less” and to develop plans for “sustainability” (i. e., find ways of
maintaining services and supports in the absence of government funding) (Barlow
& Campbell, 1995).
Community
psychology, which is concerned with social context, needs to be cognizant of
these larger global changes because they are having enormous impacts on the
mission of the field.
Community psychology, like much of the dominant culture, has acquiesced to and
been complacent with these changes in the global environment. As the saying
goes, “if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”
Community psychology needs to prevent its own complicity in the process of
globalization by raising its consciousness about and resisting these global
changes which benefit a highly selective minority and harm the majority of
citizens and the environment world-wide.
VALUES OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY
Against
this background of historically and structurally-rooted problems, community
psychologists have been concerned with creating social change. But social
change towards what ends? We argue that the vision for the work of community
psychology should be guided by a set of values. Values alone inform a vision of
a more ideal or utopian future or a good society, because values are concerned
with what should be, not what is. Science and conceptual tools
can help us to realize the utopian future, but they cannot inform us as to what
that future should look like. The problems tell us where we are coming from and
what we are trying to change, the vision and values tell us the direction
towards which we should be headed. One’s values and the values of a field like
community psychology come from several sources. Values derive from one’s
personal experiences, moral philosophy (Prilleltensky, 2001), and one’s
spiritual and religious beliefs (Hill, 2000; Mankowski & Rappaport, 2000).
In
striving to become a science, psychology, particularly applied psychology, has
ignored the moral, ethical, and value dimensions of its work. Failure to attend
to value issues has lead psychology to uphold the societal status quo
(Prilleltensky, 1994) and to continued oppression of marginalized people. For
example, while the field of behavior modification has led to the development of
many powerful and helpful therapeutic tools, its lack of attention to value
issues has been a recurring problem (Evans, 1997; Rappaport, 1984). Behavior
modification has used aversive “treatment” (i. e., physical punishment); it has
restricted the civil liberties of captive and dependent people in institutions;
it has been used to try to “convert” individuals’ sexual orientation from
homosexual to heterosexual; and its applications in educational settings have
emphasized compliance and docility of children (Evans, 1997). While community
psychology has had its blind spots, as we noted earlier, it has paid attention
to value issues since the inception of the field (Rappaport, 1977, 1984).
Elsewhere,
Isaac and colleagues (Prilleltensky, Laurendeau, Chamberland, & Peirson,
2001) have offered a template of values which we argue should guide the work of
community psychology. These values are: (a) holism, (b) health, (c) caring,
compassion, and support for community structures, (d) self-determination,
participation, and social justice, (e) respect for diversity, and (f)
accountability to oppressed groups. While we elaborate on these values in the
next chapter, here we briefly define these values (see the second column of Table
2.2).
The
first value of holism reminds us of the importance of focussing on the
whole person, including his or her strengths, in the context of the many
relationships, settings, and environments in which the person is embedded.
Second, health can be defined as a state of physical, psychological,
social, and material well-being. Health is more than the absence of illness; it
is a positive state that includes personal, relational, and collective
dimensions. Third, caring, compassion, and support for community structures
involves empathy and concern for the welfare of others. Moreover, this value
emphasizes the value of settings and community structures that facilitate the
pursuit of personal and communal goals.
Fourth,
self-determination can be characterized as having the opportunity and
power to direct one’s life as one wishes; participation entails
individuals playing an active role in decisions that affect their lives and in
meaningfully contributing to their communities; and social justice is
concerned with the fair and equitable allocations of resources and obligations
in society. Fifth, the value of diversity asserts that the unique social
identities of individuals need to be respected and accepted. Finally, accountability
to oppressed groups refers to the responsibility of dominant groups and
individuals, including community psychologists, to work with disadvantaged
people towards social change. Angelina Grimké, who was active both in the
movement to abolish slavery and the movement for women’s rights, provides an
illustration of how dominant groups must speak out against social injustices
(see Box 2.2).
|
Box 2.2 Dominant Groups in a Society Are
Accountable for the Oppression of Disadvantaged Groups and Must Speak Out
and Resist Oppression Angelina Grimké
(1838) exposed the oppression of
supposedly “free” black women in the north as well as the enslavement of
black women in the south and exhorted white women in the north to stand in
solidarity with black women for their emancipation. “Much may be done,
too, by sympathizing with our oppressed colored sisters, who are suffering in
our very midst. . . Multitudes of instances will continually occur in which
you will have the opportunity of identifying yourselves with this injured
class of our fellow beings; embrace these opportunities at all times and in
all places, in the true nobility of our great Exemplar, who was very found
among the poor and the despised, elevating and blessing them with his
counsels and presence. In this way, and this alone, will you be enabled to
subdue that deep-rooted prejudice which is doing the work of oppression in
the free states to a most dreadful extent. When this demon has been cast out
of your own hearts, when you recognize the colored woman as a woman - then
will you be prepared to send out an appeal to Southern sisters, entreating
them to ‘go and do likewise.’” (Grimké,
1838, pp. 60-61) What is
significant about Grimké’s statement is that it was directed towards white
women and called on them to push for social change. We can take this
statement as a challenge to community psychology to be more active in
dismantling oppression. |
These
values have been expressed, either implicitly or explicitly, in the principles
and concepts of community psychology, to which we now turn.
PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTUAL TOOLS OF
COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY
In
this section, we briefly note the key principles of community psychology: (a)
ecology, (b) prevention and promotion, (c) community, (d) power, and (e)
inclusion, and (f) commitment and depowerment (see the third column of Table
2.2). Moreover, each of these principles can be applied to promote liberation
and well-being at different levels of analysis: (a) personal, (b) relational,
and (c) collective. To date, community psychology has focussed much of its
energy on the personal and relational levels of analysis. We agree with a tenet
of the feminist movement that “the personal is political,” which suggests to us
that community psychology needs to push its boundaries to the collective level
of analysis. We briefly identify the conceptual tools that flow from the core
principles to these specific levels of analysis (see the final three columns of
Table 2.2). We elaborate more fully on these principles and conceptual tools in
Chapters 4-6.
Ecology
Community
psychologists James Kelly, Ed Trickett, and colleagues (Kelly, 1966; Trickett,
Kelly, & Todd, 1972) introduced the metaphor of ecology to community
psychology. Kelly argued that in studying the transactions between people and
their environments that the metaphor of an eco-system is more appropriate than
the dominant mechanistic, reductionistic
metaphor used in individual psychology to study basic human processes of
learning, cognition, perception, and brain-behavior relations. The ecological
metaphor, which flows from the value of holism, suggests that communities are
open systems with many different levels and connections. The value of the
ecological metaphor for community psychology lies in its ability to
contextualize the issues and problems that face disadvantaged people over time
and across multiple levels of analysis and to embrace the value of holism over
reductionism. The ecological metaphor views human problems and competencies
within the context of characteristics of the individual (e. g., coping skills),
micro-level analysis (e. g., family, peer group), meso-level analysis, settings
that mediate between smaller systems and the larger society (e. g., work
settings, schools, neighbourhood organizations), and macro-level analysis (e.
g., social policies, social class, social norms). The smaller systems are
nested within the larger systems, and the various levels are interdependent
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Failure to think and practice ecologically reproduces
the dominant culture’s emphasis on individualism and tendency to engage in
“victim-blaming.”
Prevention and Promotion
Prevention
and health promotion are also founding concepts that have guided the work of
community psychology. The concepts of prevention and promotion reflect the
value of health and are used to promote well-being and prevent psychosocial
problems. Community psychologists adapted the concept of prevention from the
field of public health, which has emphasized population health and the
prevention of physical diseases. Gerald Caplan (1964), a community
psychiatrist, applied the concept of prevention to mental health problems and
introduced a three-fold typology of prevention: primary (reduction of the rates
of a mental health problem in the community), secondary (early detection and
treatment), and tertiary (treatment and rehabilitation to reduce disability
resulting from problems). Several community psychologists studied public health
or were strongly influenced by public health and began the work of translating
prevention concepts into workable program models to promote competence, mental
health, and well-being and to prevent various psychosocial problems in living.
In
his review of the literature on mental health promotion and primary prevention
20 years ago, community psychologist Emory Cowen (1977) referred to progress as
being made in “baby steps.” In a review done 20 years later, Cowen (1996) spoke
of the “lengthy strides” that had been made in the field. Clearly the past
three decades have seen tremendous growth in the research and practice bases of
prevention and promotion. Recent reviews of the literature have demonstrated
the effectiveness of prevention programs. For example, on the basis of a review
of 177 evaluations of prevention programs for children and adolescents, Durlak
and Wells (1997) reported that a number of different types of intervention have
proven to be effective in preventing emotional and behavioural problems in
children. Moreover, prevention programs have been applied in a wide variety of
settings to address many different problems, including violence against women
(Wolfe, Wekerle, & Scott, 1997), criminal behaviour and conduct disorder
(Peters & McMahon, 1996), and child maltreatment and family well-being
(Nelson, Laurendeau, Chamberland, & Peirson, 2001; MacLeod & Nelson,
2000).
The
principle of prevention and promotion can be applied at different ecological
levels. Much of the early work of community psychologists in prevention was
person-centered in its focus on promoting the well-being and enhancing the
competence of individuals (Cowen, 1985). An example of a person-centered
approach to prevention is teaching young children social problem-solving
skills. Prevention can also be practiced on a community-wide basis to change
the social environment (Cowen, 1994). Prevention programs of this sort
typically target meso-level settings, such as schools, to promote relational
well-being. An example of this type of prevention is changing the high school
environment to ensure a better transition of students from middle school to
high school. Finally, prevention and promotion can also be applied at the
macro-level. Macro-level prevention and promotion seeks to promote collective
well-being through changes in public policy (Albee, 1986). Since economic
inequality is a major structural cause of psychosocial problems (Raphael, 2000; Whiteis, 2000), policies that strive to reduce economic
inequality, such as those practiced in western and northern European countries,
are examples of the form that prevention can take at the macro-level (Peters,
Peters, Laurendeau, Chamberland, & Peirson, 2001).
Community
The concept of a psychological sense of
community was introduced by community psychologist Seymour Sarason (1974).
Sarason astutely observed a decline in traditional communities of support and
increased alienation on the part of people in western countries. Communities
help to fill human needs for support and connection, and isolation and
psychosocial problems in living are likely to follow when these needs are not met.
He argued that the overarching mission of community psychology should be to
create a psychological sense of community. Sarason’s concept of psychological
sense of community has generated a great deal of research (Chavis & Pretty,
1999; McMillan & Chavis, 1986).
Various
conceptions of community and psychological sense of community are related to
the values of caring, compassion, and support for community infrastructures.
Moreover, community and sense of community can be conceptualized at multiple
levels of analysis. In shifting away from clinical psychology, early community
psychologists recognized that distressed individuals need more than caring and
compassionate therapists, they need caring and compassionate relationships and
communities. At the level of the individual, the concept of social support
highlights the importance of relationships and the different types of support
that stem from supportive relationships, including emotional support, guidance,
tangible and financial support, and socialization. Many community
psychologists, like Canadian community psychologist Ben Gottlieb, have contributed greatly to the development
of the concept of social support, research on social support, and the
development of social support interventions (Gottlieb, 1981, 1983; Cohen,
Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000). As an alternative or complement to
professional treatment, community psychologists have helped to conceptualize,
design, and evaluate individual-level support interventions, using
non-professional and volunteer helpers.
Meso-level interventions to promote relational well-being include
professionally-led support groups and self-help/mutual aid groups and
organizations that are formed by and for people who share a common problem or
concern (Cohen et al., 2000; Humphreys, 1997).
Community
capacity and social capital are relatively new terms that have yet to receive
much attention in community psychology, but which have potential for addressing
collective well-being at the macro-level. Community capacity and social capital
refer broadly to the qualities of communities that are related to the
well-being of individuals (Labonte & Laverack, 2001; Raphael, Renwick,
Brown, Steinmetz, Sehdev, & Phillips, 2001). While capital is usually
thought of in terms of economic assets, Putnam (1993) argued that communities
can also have social capital, including a range of community organizations and
networks, civic participation, community identity, and norms of trust and
mutual support. The development of community capacity and social capital
through community development and social policy formulation is important for
the promotion of collective well-being.
Power
Over
20 years ago, community psychologist Julian Rappaport introduced the concept of
empowerment (Rappaport, 1981, 1987) to the field. He challenged the dominance
of the concept of prevention in community psychology, arguing that prevention
ignored the critical issue of power. Like clinical psychologists, community
psychologists with a prevention orientation could work from an “expert” model
in which they developed interventions for other people. Alternatively,
he argued for an empowerment approach in which community psychologists work with
disadvantaged people to promote their self-determination and control. The
concept of empowerment has had a tremendous impact on the field and has
generated a great deal of theory, research, and practice within community
psychology (Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Perkins, 1995), as well as in
other disciplines.
Rappaport
(1981, 1987) argued further that empowerment is ecological in nature and can be
conceptualized at multiple levels of analysis. We believe that power is an
overarching concept for community
psychology. At the individual level, people who have typically experienced a
lack of control in their lives not only need a change in their thinking about
power but experiences of actually having authority over events in their lives
(Riger, 1993). Personal empowerment is the process of reclaiming power in one’s
life (Lord & Hutchison, 1993). An important component of empowerment is
active participation in the life of the community (Zimmerman, 2000).
It is also important to
conceptualize power at the relational or meso-level of analysis. Elsewhere, we
have introduced the concept of “partnership” to address power at the this
level. We defined partnerships as:
“relationships between community
psychologists, oppressed groups, and other stakeholders that strive to advance
the values of caring, compassion, community, health, self-determination,
participation, power-sharing, human diversity, and social justice for oppressed
group. These values drive both the processes and the outcomes of partnerships
that focus on services and supports, coalitions and social action, and research
and evaluation.” (Nelson, Prilleltensky, & MacGillivary, 2001, p. 651)
For us, the concept of partnership provides community
psychologists with a way of thinking about how they work with disadvantaged
groups. While
community psychology has been concerned with citizen participation for some
time (Wandersman & Florin, 1990, 2000), the concept of partnership that we
are promoting highlights the importance of the participation of disadvantaged
groups in community research and action and suggests that community psychologists
should work in solidarity with disadvantaged people towards the goals of
liberation and well-being (Lykes, 2001).
At
the macro-level, social change is needed to promote collective well-being. As
we stated earlier, social change is not a new idea in community psychology.
During the 1960s, a time of social change in the U. S., many of the founders of
community psychology argued for the need to change oppressive social conditions
in pursuit of social justice (Albee, 1986; Goldenberg, 1978; Rappaport, 1987; Reiff,
1968). Social change emphasizes the importance of a vision and values of a more
just and caring society (Prilleltensky, 2001) and recognizes the fact that many
social problems, including health and mental health problems, are strongly
related to socio-economic inequalities (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1969;
Raphael, 2000; Whiteis, 2000). But social change is very difficult to achieve
because it threatens the power of dominant groups within society.
Community
psychologists have contributed to the development of social intervention
strategies and concepts that we discuss in more detail in Part III of this book
(Bennett, 1987; Seidman, 1983). However, the field of community psychology has
not yet fully embraced the need for social change in its research and practice.
To do so, community psychology
needs to adopt the value of social justice as a major principle, become more
political, engage in solidarity with oppressed groups and social change
movements, and utilize alternative research methods that are suited to the
study of social change.
Inclusion
The
value of cultural relativity and diversity occupied a prominent position in
Rappaport’s (1977) early textbook in community psychology. He argued that
people, particularly disadvantaged people, should have the right to be
different and not to be judged against one single standard. In spite of this
early focus on diversity, the concept of diversity and equity promotion did not
develop more fully until the 1990s. As Trickett (1994) stated, “the diversity
concept has been ideologically central but relatively neglected in the field of
community psychology over time” (p. 584).
As
western societies have become more culturally diverse and community psychology
has become a more diverse body of people, there has been greater attention to
diversity and the promotion of inclusion in community psychology theory,
research, practice, and training. In the past decade, feminist, critical, and
community psychologists, such as Meg Bond and Rod Watts, have shown how racism,
sexism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism are forms of sociopolitical
oppression and have elaborated on interventions that strive to eliminate such
oppression and to promote inclusion (Bond, 1997; Huygens, 1996a, 1996b;
Serrano-García & Bond, 1994; Trickett, Watts, & Birman, 1994; Watts,
1992).
To
overcome discrimination and to promote inclusion, interventions need to occur
at multiple levels of analysis. At the individual level, the recovery of a
positive identity and the development of an awareness of sociopolitical
conditions create shame and stigma is an important part of the journey of
disadvantaged people. For example, in the mental health field, the current
emphasis on empowerment and recovery narratives (e. g., Deegan, 1988; Lucksted,
1997; Nelson et al., 2001; Rappaport, 1993) underscores the importance of
mental health consumer/survivors striving to overcome the damaging impacts of
stigma, labeling, powerlessness, and segregation that they have experienced.
But
processes of recovery do not occur in isolation; rather they occur in
supportive contexts. At the relational level, settings that are run by and for
people with disabilities, such as self-help/mutual aid organizations and
Independent Living Centres (Deegan, 1988; Rappaport, 1993), appear to provide
many of the favourable qualities that researchers and individuals who have
experienced serious mental illness have suggested facilitate the process of
recovery, including the opportunity to share stories, the promotion of a
positive alternative community narrative from which people can draw and
incorporate into their personal stories, peer and natural support, and
opportunities to contribute to the group, organization, or community. At the
macro-level, policies that strive to enhance the equity of disadvantaged groups
are needed to promote an inclusive society. Continuing with the example of
mental health consumer/survivors, such
policies would address structural problems facing consumer/survivors,
including lack of affordable housing, unemployment, and poverty (Nelson et al.,
2001).
Partnerships
with oppressed groups require accountability on the part of professionals to
the oppressed group (Nelson et al., 2001). This involves both a commitment to
social change and working in solidarity with members of the oppressed group and
a conscious effort on behalf of professionals to “depower” themselves in these
relationships. Sharing power and knowledge is vital to the development of more
equal working relationships (Ochocka, Janzen, & Nelson, 2002). To overcome
complacency, professionals must raise their consciousness about oppression.
Critical psychologists and feminist psychologists have introduced the concept
of reflexivity to highlight the fact that the subjectivities of community
researchers and interventionists
are an important part of any research or intervention process (Parker, 1994;
Wilkinson, 1988). According to conventional wisdom, the researcher or
professional is assumed to be a detached, objective expert. One unfortunate
consequence of this position for community psychology is that it treats
disadvantaged people as objects to be studied or helped, rather than as whole
people with strengths who actively resist the unjust social conditions in which
they live. This process of objectifying or “othering” people who are different
or disadvantaged maintains the power imbalance between professionals and
disadvantaged citizens. Detached objectivity emphasizes surveillance, control,
and compliance with authority.
While
there is value in objectivity, there is also value in subjectivity.
Subjectivity introduces the human dimensions (personal, interpersonal, and
political) of the researcher and professional and draws attention to the
relationship between the researcher-professional and disadvantaged people. For
the community psychologist who is guided by the values that we outlined earlier
in the chapter, community research and action is a passionate undertaking. But
we need to be critically aware that in our desire to help and change the world,
we can cause harm because of our blind spots. For this reason, it is important
to self-critical and reflexive about one’s research and action. Reflexivity
suggests that we acknowledge our subjectivity, share the interpretation of
research findings with disadvantaged people, be aware of the political and
ideological character of our research and action, and reflect on the problem of
representation and authority in the construction of knowledge and social change
(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000).
At
the relational level, there must be mechanisms set in place for mutual
accountability in value-based partnerships. In their work with mental health
consumer/survivors, Geoff and his colleagues (Nelson, Ochocka, Griffin, &
Lord, 1998; Ochocka et al., 2002) have found several useful mechanisms for the
promotion of accountability, including having a steering committee composed of
all partners and a research team with researchers from the disadvantaged group
working as paid employees within the project. New Zealand community
psychologist Ingrid Huygens (1997) has argued that disadvantaged groups do not
want professionals or dominant social groups to empower them, rather they want
these dominant groups to “depower” themselves. To promote collective well-being,
structural depowerment of dominant groups and institutionalized processes of
accountability to disadvantaged groups are needed.
SUMMARY
In
this chapter, we provided an overview of the conceptual framework for the
entire book. We began with the “big picture” of community psychology, including
the central problem with which community psychology is concerned, oppression,
and the central goals of community psychology, liberation and well-being. In so
doing, we argued that community psychology is primarily concerned with
disadvantaged populations, such as children and families living in poverty,
people of colour, immigrants, refugees, women, people with disabilities, and
gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. These groups have been historically subject
to oppression by virtue of having considerably less power than dominant groups
in a society.
We
further argued that it is easy to lose sight of the people community
interventions are designed to “help.” This is because western science and
professionalism have historically emphasized distance, objectivity, and
expertise when it comes to “helping.” The intervention and the research are
typically at the forefront of professionals’ consciousness, while those we
“serve” are often more distant objects of our good intentions. For this reason,
we believe that community psychologists need to be more self-reflexive about
both ourselves and the people with whom we are working. We need to start
listening to the stories of disadvantaged people, rather than constructing
solutions for them, and we need to make visible the invisible issue of power
inequality that characterizes oppression.
We
then provided an overview of the main dimensions of the conceptual framework
underlying this book: (a) issues and problems, (b) values, and (c) principles
and conceptual tools. We pointed out
some of the different facets of the issues and problems that face disadvantaged
people. The overarching concept which links the different issues and problems
is that of oppression or power-inequality.
Next,
we argued that community psychology, like all of the social sciences and
helping professions, is a value-laden field. While science and professionalism
have been dominant in the training of applied psychologists, values and social
ethics have been neglected. But it is not possible to adopt a scientific and
professional position that is “value free.” Moreover, we argued that it is
dangerous to proclaim such a position, because failing to acknowledge one’s
values often leads, whether intentionally or not, to upholding the societal
status quo. There are many examples of how scientific psychology has been used
to rationalize racism and sexism for instance (Henwood, 1994; Teo, 1999).
Alternatively, we proposed a set of values that we claim can help to guide a community
psychology that promotes liberation and well-being. Finally, we provided a
brief overview of key community psychology principles: ecology, prevention and
promotion, community, power, inclusion, and commitment and depowerment. For
each of these principles, we highlighted conceptual tools that can be used at
the personal, relational, and collective levels of analysis.
|
Personal Reflection Exercise Please reflect on the
following questions as you think about yourself in relation to community
psychology. 1. What are some of the
values that are personally important to you and how you want to live your
life? How did you come to these values? 2.
Describe one social issue about which you are concerned. How did you come to
be concerned about this issue? How have you been involved in dealing with
this issue? How could you become more involved in this issue? 3.
Community psychologists are particularly concerned with power relationships.
Think of a situation in which you have been involved or which you know about
where one person (or group) has less power than another person (or group)?
What kinds of problems result for the party with less power? the party with
more power? Think about how community psychology concepts could be helpful in
equalizing power between the two parties. |
References
Albee,
G. W. (1986). Toward a just society: Lessons from observations on the primary
prevention of psychopathology. American Psychologist, 41,
891-898.
Alvesson,
M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for
qualitative research. London: Sage.
Barlow,
M., & Campbell, B. (1995). Straight through the heart: How the
Liberals abandoned the just society. Toronto: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.
Bennett,
E. M. (Ed.). (1987). Social intervention: Theory and practice. Lewiston,
N. Y.: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Bond,
M. A. (1997). Race, gender, and community: Creating contexts for diversity
within community psychology. The Community Psychologist, 30, 3-7.
Bond,
M. A., Hill, J., & Mulvey, A. (Eds.). (2000). Feminism and community
psychology [Special issue Part I]. American Journal of Community Psychology,
28(5).
Bond,
M. A., Hill, J., & Mulvey, A. (Eds.). (2000). Feminism and community
psychology [Special issue Part II]. American Journal of Community Psychology,
28(6).
Bronfenbrenner,
U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brown,
D. (1971). Bury my heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian history of the American
west. New York: Bantam Books.
Caplan,
N., Nelson, S. D. (1973). On being useful: The nature and consequences of
social problems. American Psychologist, 28, 199-211.
Chavis,
D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (Eds.). (1999). Sense of community II [Special
issue]. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6).
Clarke, T. (1997). Silent
coup: Confronting the big business takeover of Canada. Toronto: Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives and James Lorimer and Company Ltd.
Cohen,
S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (Eds.). (2000). Social support measurement
and intervention: A guide for social and health scientists. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cowen,
E. L. (1977). Baby-steps toward primary prevention. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 5, 1-16.
Cowen,
E. L. (1985). Person centered approaches to primary prevention in mental
health: Situation focused and competence enhancement. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 13, 87-98.
Cowen,
E. L. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness: Challenges and
opportunities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22,
149-179.
Cowen,
E. L. (1996). The ontogenesis of primary prevention: Lengthy strides and
stubbed toes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24,
235-249.
Deegan,
P. E. (1988). Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosocial
Rehabilitation Journal, 11(4), 11-19.
Dohrenwend,
B. P., & Dohrenwend, B. S. (1969). Social status and psychological
inquiry: A causal inquiry. New York: Wiley.
Durlak,
J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention programs for children and
adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 115-152.
Evans,
I. M. (1997). The effect of values on scientific and clinical judgment in
behavior therapy. Behavior Therapy, 28, 483-493.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy
of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Goldenberg,
I. I. (1978). Oppression and social intervention: Essays on the human
condition and the problem of change. Nelson-Hall: Chicago.
Gottlieb,
B. H. (Ed.). (1981). Social networks and social support. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Gottlieb,
B. H. (1983). Social support strategies: Guidelines for mental health
practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Grimké,
A. (1838). An appeal to the women of the nominally free states (2nd
ed., issued by an Anti-slavery Convention of American Women, pp. 13-16, 19-23,
49-53, 60-61). Boston: Isaac Knapp.
Haley,
A. (1977). Roots: The saga of an American family. New York: Dell.
Henwood,
K. L. (1994). Resisting racism and sexism in academic psychology: A
personal/political view. Feminism and Psychology, 4, 41-62.
Hill,
J. (2000). A rationale for the integration of spirituality into community
psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 139-149.
Humphreys,
K. (1997). Individual and social benefits of mutual aid self-help groups. Social
Policy, 27, 12-19.
Huygens,
I. (1996a, September). Anti-racism education: Example of a
partnership protocol. Project Waitangi, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Huygens,
I. (1996b, September). Gender safety: Example of a partnership protocol.
Men’s Action, Hamilton and Women’s Refuges, Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Huygens,
I. (1997, May). Towards social change partnerships: Responding to
empowerment of oppressed groups with voluntary depowerment of dominant groups.
Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society for Community Research and
Action, Columbia, South Carolina.
Joffe,
J. (1996). Looking for the causes of the causes. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 17, 201-207.
Kelly,
J. G. (1966). Ecological constraints on mental health services. American
Psychologist, 21, 535-539.
Kelly,
J. G., Muñoz, R. F., & Snowdon, L. (Eds.). (1979). Research in the
community: Methods, processes, and outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kingry-Westergaard,
C., & Kelly, J. G. (1990). A contextualist epistemology for ecological
research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching
community psychology: Issues of theory and methods (pp. 24-31). Washington,
D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Korten, D. (1995). When
corporations rule the world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler/Kumarian
Press.
Labonte, R., & Laverack, G. (2001). Capacity building
in health promotion, Part I: for whom? And for what purpose? Critical Public
Health, 11, 111-127.
Lord, J., & Hutchison, P. (1993). The process of
empowerment: Implications for theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Community
Mental Health 12(1), 5-22.
Lucksted,
A. (1997). Turning points and empowerment: Final report of the On Our Own
empowerment interviews. Unpublished report.
Lykes, M.
B. (2001). Activist participatory research and the arts with rural Mayan women:
Interculturality and situated meaning making. In D. L. Tolman & M.
Brydon-Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of
interpretive and participatory methods (pp. 183-199). New York: New York
University Press.
MacLeod, J., & Nelson, G. Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the
prevention of child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 24, 1127-1149.
Mankowski, E. S., & Rappaport, J.
(2000). Narrative concepts and analysis in spiritually-based communities. Journal
of Community Psychology, 28, 479-493.
McIntosh,
P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent
School, 31-36.
McMillan,
D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.
Mulvey,
A. (1988). Community psychology and feminism: Tensions and commonalities. Journal
of Community Psychology, 20, 70-83.
Nelson, G.,
Laurendeau, M.-C., Chamberland, C., & Peirson, L. (2001). A review and analysis of programs to
promote family wellness and prevent the maltreatment of pre-school and
elementary school-aged children. In I. Prilleltensky, G. Nelson, & L. Peirson
(Eds.), Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment:
Fundamentals for thinking and action (pp. 220-272). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Nelson, G., Lord, J., &
Ochocka, J. (2001). Empowerment and mental health in community: Narratives of
psychiatric consumer/survivors. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 11, 125-142.
Nelson,
G., Ochocka, J., Griffin, K., & Lord, J. (1998). “Nothing about me, without
me”: Participatory action research with self-help/mutual aid organizations for
psychiatric consumer/ survivors. American Journal of Community Psychology,
26, 881-912.
Nelson, G., Prilleltensky, I.,
& MacGillivary, H. (2001). Building
value-based partnerships: Toward solidarity with oppressed groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 649-677.
Ochocka,
J., Janzen, R., & Nelson, G. (2002). Sharing power and knowledge:
Professional and mental health consumer/survivor researchers working together
in a participatory action research project. Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Journal, 25, 379-387.
Parker,
I. (1994). Reflexive research and the grounding of analysis: Social psychology
and the psy-complex. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,
4, 239-252.
Peirson,
L. Laurendeau, M.-C., & Chamberland, C. (2001). Context, contributing
factors, and consequences. In I. Prilleltensky, G. Nelson, & L. Peirson
(Eds.), Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment:
Fundamentals for thinking and action (pp. 41-123). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Peters,
R. DeV., & McMahon, R. J. (Eds.). (1996). Preventing childhood
disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters,
R. DeV., Peters, J. E., Laurendeau, M.-C., Chamberland, C., & Peirson, L.
(2001). Social policies for promoting the well-being of children. In I.
Prilleltensky, G. Nelson, & L. Peirson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness
and preventing child maltreatment: Fundamentals for thinking and action
(pp. 177-219). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Prilleltensky,
I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological
discourse and the status quo.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Prilleltensky,
I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving toward social
justice and social action. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 29, 747-778.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Gonick, L. (1996). Polities change, oppression remains: On the
psychology and politics of oppression. Political Psychology, 17,
127-147.
Prilleltensky,
I., Laurendeau, M.-C., Chamberland, C., & Peirson, L. (2001). Vision and
values for child and family wellness. In I. Prilleltensky, G. Nelson, & L.
Peirson (Eds.), Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment:
Fundamentals for thinking and action (pp. 124-173). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Nelson, G. (1997). Community psychology: Reclaiming social
justice. In D. Fox & I.
Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology:
An introduction (pp.166-184). London: Sage.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Nelson, G. (in press). Doing psychology critically: Making a
difference in diverse settings. London: Palgrave/MacMillan.
Prilleltensky, I.,
Nelson, G., & Peirson, L. (2001). The role of power and control in children’s lives: An
ecological analysis of pathways towards wellness, resilience, and problems. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 143-158.
Raphael,
D. (2000). Health inequalities in Canada: Current discourses and implications
for public health action. Critical Public Health, 10, 193-216.
Raphael,
D., Renwick, R., Brown, I., Steinmetz, B., Sehdev, H., & Phillips, S.
(2001). Making the links between community structure and individual well-being:
Community quality of life in Riverdale, Toronto, Canada. Health and Place,
7, 179-196.
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community
psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Rappaport,
J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.
Rappaport,
J. (1984). Seeking justice in the real world: A further explication of value
contexts. Journal
of Community Psychology, 12, 208-216.
Rappaport,
J. (1987). Terms of
empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121-148.
Rappaport,
J. (1993). Narrative studies: Personal stories and identity transformation in
the mutual help context. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29,
239-256.
Rappaport, J. (2000).
Community narratives: Tales of terror and joy. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 28, 1-24.
Reiff,
R. R. (1968). Social intervention and the problem of psychological analysis. American
Psychologist, 23, 524-530.
Riger,
S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21, 279-292.
Ryan,
W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.
Sarason, S. B. (1978). The
nature of problem solving in social action. American Psychologist, 33,
370-381.
Sarason,
S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a
community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seidman,
E. (Ed.). (1983). Handbook of social intervention. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Serrano-García, I., & Bond, M. (Eds.). (1994).
Empowering the silent ranks [Special issue]. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(4).
Stringer,
E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swift,
C. F., Bond, M. A., & Serrano-García, I.
(2000). Women’s empowerment: A review of community psychology’s first 25 years.
In J. Rappaport
& E. Seidman (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of community psychology (pp.
857-895). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Teo,
T. (1999). Methodologies of critical psychology: Illustrations from the field
of racism. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 119-134.
Trickett,
E. J. (1984). Toward a distinctive community psychology: An ecological metaphor
for the conduct of research and the nature of training. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 12, 261-275.
Trickett,
E. J. (1994). Human diversity and community psychology: Where ecology and
empowerment meet. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22,
583-592.
Trickett,
E. J., Kelly, J. G., & Todd, D. M. (1972). The social environment of the
high school: Guidelines for individual change and organizational redevelopment.
In S. E. Golann & Eisdorfer (Eds.), Handbook of community mental health
(pp. 331-406). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Trickett,
E. J., Kelly, J. G., & Vincent, T. A. (1983). The spirit of ecological
inquiry in community research. In D. Klein & E. Susskind (Eds.), Knowledge
building in community psychology (pp. 283-333). New York: Praeger.
Trickett,
E. J., Watts, R. J., & Birman, D. (Eds.). (1994). Human diversity:
Perspectives on people in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wandersman,
A., & Florin, P. (Eds.). (1990). Citizen participation, voluntary community
organizations, and community development [Special issue]. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18().
Wandersman,
A., & Florin, P. (2000). Citizen participation and community organizations.
In J. Rappaport
& E. Seidman (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of community psychology (pp.
247-272). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Watts,
R. (1992). Elements of a psychology of human diversity. Journal of Community
Psychology, 20, 116-131.
Watts,
R., & Serrano-García, I. (Eds.). (in press). The psychology of liberation:
Responses to oppression [special issue]. American Journal of Community
Psychology.
Whiteis,
D. G. (2000). Poverty, policy, and pathogenesis: Economic justice and public
health in the US. Critical Public Health, 10, 257-271.
Wilkinson,
S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women’s Studies
International, 11, 493-502.
Wolfe,
D. A., Wekerle, C., & Scott, K. (1997). Alternatives to violence:
Empowering youth to develop healthy relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman,
M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community
levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of
community psychology (pp. 43-63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Zimmerman,
M. A., & Perkins, D. D. (Eds.). (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and
application [Special issue]. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5).
A Journey of Personal and Political Change
|
Ecological
Level |
Oppression º |
Resistance and Liberation
(Processes to Overcome Oppression and
Achieve Well-Being) º |
Well-Being (A State of Personal, Relational,
and Collective Well-Being) |
|
Self |
Internalized,
psychological oppression |
Conscientization
situates personal struggles in the context of larger political and structural
forces |
Control,
choice, self-esteem, competence, independence, political rights, and a positive identity |
|
Others
(relationships) |
“Power
over,” domination of or by others |
“Power
with,” power sharing, egalitarian relationships, solidarity |
Positive
and supportive relationships, participation in social, community, and
political life |
|
Community
and society |
Oppressive
social practices manifested in policies and community settings |
Resistance,
social action |
Acquisition
of valued resources such as employment, income, education, and housing |
Table
2.2
Conceptual
Framework for Community Psychology: Issues and Problems, Values, Principles,
and Conceptual Tools
|
Issues and Problems |
Values |
Principles |
Conceptual Tools |
||
|
|
|
|
Personal Well-Being |
Relational Well-Being |
Collective Well-Being |
|
Victim-blaming (e.g.,
internalized oppression, singular solutions to systemic problems) |
Holism |
Ecology
|
Micro-level
analysis |
Meso-level
analysis |
Macro-level
analysis |
|
Psychosocial
problems (e.g., addictions, teen pregnancy, crime) |
Health |
Prevention
and promotion |
Person-centered
prevention |
Community-wide
prevention |
Public
health policy |
|
Social
isolation (e.g.,
depression, alienation, fragmentation) |
Caring,
compassion, and support for community structures |
Community |
Social
support |
Self-help/mutual
aid |
Community
capacity and social capital |
|
Powerlessness
(e.g.,
oppression, exploitation, lack of control, globalization) |
Self-determination,
participation, and social justice |
Power |
Personal
empowerment |
Partnership |
Social
change movements |
|
Discrimination
(e.g., racism, sexism, ableism) |
Respect
for diversity |
Inclusion |
Recovery
of personal and political identity |
Inclusive
communities |
Equity
promotion |
|
Complacency (e.g.,
collusion with racist system, discrimination, complicity) |
Accountability
to oppressed groups |
Commitment
and depowerment |
Subjectivity
and reflexivity |
Mutual
accountability |
Structural
depowerment and institutionalized processes of accountability |