Running head: OPPRESSION AND PSYCHOPOLITICAL VALIDITY
Understanding, Resisting and Overcoming Oppression:
Towards
Psychopolitical Validity
Isaac Prilleltensky
American
Journal of Community Psychology
Abstract
My first objective in this paper is to synthesize, synoptically, the literature on oppression and liberation with the contributions to this special issue. To fulfil this aim I introduce a framework for understanding, resisting, and overcoming oppression. The framework consists of psychopolitical well-being; experiences, consequences, and sources of oppression; and actions towards liberation. Each of these components is subdivided into three domains of oppression and well-being: collective, relational, and personal. Experiences of suffering as well as resistance and agency are part of the framework. My second objective is to offer ways of closing the gap between research and action on oppression and liberation. To do so I suggest two types of psychopolitical validity: epistemic and transformative.
Understanding, Resisting and Overcoming Oppression:
Towards Psychopolitical Validity
We know a great deal about the sources and dynamics of oppression. We are also quite knowledgeable about processes of empowerment and liberation. Now we need to find ways of integrating this knowledge into research and action. To that effect, I suggest in this paper that we adopt the concept of psychopolitical validity. My case consists of two parts. In the first part I conduct a synoptic review of primary lessons on oppression and liberation. I will try to synthesize in telegraphic form the contributions to this special issue with previous research in the field. The second part of my case deals with the challenge to integrate the information we possess into research and action in community psychology.
Lessons
Contributors to the special issue concur that oppression entails (a) state and process, (b) psychological and political aspects, and (c) victimization as well as agency and resistance. Following from these concepts, oppression can be defined as a state of asymmetric power relations characterized by domination, subordination, and resistance, whereby the controlling person or group exercise their power by processes of political exclusion and violence and by psychological dynamics of deprecation. It is only when the oppressed attain a certain degree of conscientization that mechanisms of resistance take place (cf. Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1994, 1996; Prilleltensky & Nelson, in press).
Table 1 provides a synopsis of what we have learned about oppression, liberation, and psychopolitical well-being. On the left hand column we see the values required for psychological and political well-being. Oppression deprives individuals and collectives of these rights, whereas liberation promotes their recovery. Liberation, then, is the process of resisting oppressive forces and striving towards psychological and political well-being. A brief summary of actions towards liberation is presented on the right hand column of Table 1. The framework presented in Table 1 builds on the contributions to this special issue and on previous efforts to foster a cycle of praxis in community psychology (Prilleltensky, 1999, 2001). I review below the main sections of the framework.
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Psychopolitical
Well-Being
Just as oppression contains psychological and political dimensions, so do liberation and well-being. The well-being of individuals depends on psychological health as much as on political structures. Political well-being relies on social justice, peace, institutions of human development, and respect for the environment. At the relational level, well-being rests on collaboration and democratic participation, as well as respect for diversity and social cohesion. Finally, for personal well-being we count on the promotion of health, self-determination, growth, meaning and spirituality.
The articles in this special issue confirm that psychopolitical well-being
comes about through the synergy of values in collective, relational, and
personal spheres. Well-being in any one sphere cannot take place in the absence
of corresponding satisfaction in the other two. The three constituents of
well-being exist in a state of seamlessness and fluidity. Changes in one domain
have a flow on effect on others. Participatory democracies reinforce social
justice through communal mobilization, resulting in better distribution of
resources and personal health. In the state of Kerala, for instance, a
succession of governments committed to participatory democracy stimulated
social action that simultaneously increased social cohesion and forced
legislators to create land reforms, revise tenancy laws, and provide food
supplements for children. Despite having very low economic growth and annual
income (US $ 370 per capita per year), Kerala boasts health indices comparable
to many industrialized countries and much better than the rest of
Indeed, achievements at one level of well-being energize people to
pursue the same at other levels. But the reinforcing cycle also works in the
opposite direction. Deprivation of rights at the collective level often results
in internecine conflict at the relational level, pushing people to lower levels
of personal wellness. Violence, isolation, fear, and anxiety often result from
this downward spiral. James and her colleagues support this view in their
article dealing with structural, interpersonal and intrapersonal violence
(James et al., this issue). In the same vein cultural deprecation at the
collective level results in internalised oppression and partial or complete
rejection of one’s own reference group (see for example Varas Díaz and Serrano
García’s work in
Experiences
and Consequences of Oppression
Although there is a distinct element
of pain, suffering, and indignity, evidence suggests that there is also a strong
component of agency in resisting oppression and promoting liberation. The work
of Lykes, Hamber, and Blanche in this issue clearly demonstrates the case. It
is obvious from their projects that responses to oppression vary dramatically
according to national, regional, cultural and interpersonal context. Gender
differences also account for significant variations in response. Bennett’s work
in
Denial
of rights, contempt for local culture, feelings of insecurity and exploitation
characterize the collective experience of oppression. These often precede,
accompany, or follow economic deprivation, vulnerability to illness, and
reduced opportunities in life. As Grant, Finkelstein and Lyons point out in
their article, women suffer more economic disadvantage than men and African
American men are more incarcerated than White men. These untoward effects of
oppression are countered by social action and sociopolitical education taking
place in schools and communities (see Potts, this issue; and
Absolute poverty is one of the most oppressive forms of living. But
even in these circumstances people demonstrate remarkable solidarity and
compassion. Narayan and her colleagues documented numerous instances of caring
and kindness in research with over 60,000 poor people in 47 countries (Narayan,
Patel, Schafft, Rademacher, & Koch-Schulte, 2000). Aristide (2000)
poignantly describes the case of
As Moane noted in this special issue, feelings of inferiority and
internalised oppression imbue the personal experience of this negative state.
Shame, degradation and powerlessness come along with addictions and mental
health problems. Grant, Finkelstein and Lyons note “there is consistent
evidence that stress predicts psychological problems over time” (this issue).
True, some go on to become resilient, leaders and agents of social change, but
not without considerable effort to overcome self-doubts and personal adversity
(see
The question of agency versus determinism is very salient in this
special issue. We learn from
Sources
of Oppression
At the broadest level of analysis
colonialism and economic exploitation account for the domination of poor
countries. Detailed analyses of globalization show that economic growth and the
liberalization of markets benefit only the rich, in the richest of countries.
As currently practised, globalization means the introduction of cheap foreign
products by industrialized countries into new markets, the decimation of local
competition, the eventual increases in prices for local people, the
privatisation of public utilities, and the closure of services to comply with
demands for structural adjustment by the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (Kim, Millen, Irwin, Gersham, 2000; Korten, 1995). Extensive
research documents the devastating effects of economic growth without provision
for human development and social safety nets (Lustig, 2001; Sen, 1999a, 1999b).
The so-called tiger economies in
But economic exploitation in the form of globalization is only one
manifestation of international oppression. Other forms include the
establishment of dictatorial regimes to satisfy imperial interests of superpowers.
The silent and not so silent endorsement of death squads in
Class and race-based systems of oppression create discrimination, maintain discourses of inferior ability, and refine means of political exclusion. Sexism, racism, ableism and ageism against the young and the old solidify asymmetric power relations and the status quo. We should be vigilant of adult-centric tendencies -- the special issue neglects discrimination against the young and the old.
Societal norms of discrimination are very much felt at the relational plane. Teens of both genders perpetuate stereotypes of “proper” masculinity and femininity. Norms of competition and discourses of homogeneity contribute to the rampant “othering” that currently exists in many parts of the world. When one is the subject of scorn, frustration ensues and learned helplessness quickly settles in. In cases like that, acting out one’s oppression on others in not uncommon.
Changes for Liberation
In this special issue Moane claims that liberation will “ultimate involve transformation of oppressive social structures, which can only occur through collective action.” Such collective action, in my view, needs to transcend the concerns of particular groups and must be extended towards other oppressed groups. The fragmentation of suffering colludes with politics of identity to erode solidarity. Collective actions need to address not only the urge to bond with one’s reference group but also the imperative to bridge across to other groups (Putnam, 2000). Only then can we expect to overcome the colossal failure of nations and groups to foster relational wellness at global and local levels alike.
Globalization is no longer a remote concept. As Bennett showed, it
knocked on the door of an Old Order Amish community to threaten their very way
of life. War and poverty are no longer a nightmare experienced only by people
in forgotten countries such as
Authors in this special issue have eloquently argued for collective action in several domains. I wish to remind us however that global poverty remains one of the most devastating forms of suffering and oppression. Amartya Sen (1999b) persuasively argued that collective actions must attend to the twin objectives of investment in democracy and in societal structures that promote human development. In the absence of the former the latter cannot prosper. Governments usually cater to economic interests opposed to taxation and social expenditure. Hymns of efficiency and smaller government usually accompany the bogus mantra of economic growth. We must forever ask, however, economic growth for whom?
For the actions on Table 1 to take effect, we have to manoeuvre ever carefully the gap between the philosophically desirable and the psychologically feasible. Ideal actions and prescribed states of affairs have to take into account the psychological dynamics that either enable or inhibit participation in local and global action. The work of Lykes and her colleagues, as well as the efforts by Bennett illustrate the craft of rapport building, always crucial for collective action (Nelson, Prilleltensky, & McGillivary, 2001).
It is very encouraging to see in this issue attention to
sociopolitical development and education, as illustrated in the writings of
Potts and
Challenges: Towards Psychopolitical Validity
The subject of this special issue need not remain the interest of a small group of community psychologists. The emerging challenge for the field is to incorporate our knowledge on oppression and liberation into research and action. To that effect I suggest a new type of validity. Psychopolitical validity refers to the extent to which studies and interventions in the community integrate (a) knowledge with respect to the multidisciplinary and multilevel sources, experiences, and consequences of oppression, and (b) effective strategies for promoting psychological and political liberation in the personal, relational, and collective domains. These concerns are addressed, respectively, by psychopolitical validity I: epistemic, and II: transformative.
Epistemic validity depends on the incorporation of knowledge on oppression into all research and action in community psychology. This means accounting for power dynamics operating at psychological and political levels in efforts to understand phenomena of interest. The following questions might guide the pursuit of epistemic psychopolitical validity.
1. Is there an understanding of the impact of global, political and economic forces on the issue at hand?
2. Is there an understanding of how global, political, economic forces and social norms influence the perceptions and experiences of individuals and groups affected by the issue at hand?
3. Is there an understanding of how the cognitions, behaviours, experiences, feelings, and perceptions of individuals, groups, and entire communities perpetuate or transform the forces and dynamics affecting the issue at hand?
4. Is there an appreciation of how interactions between political and psychological power at the personal, relational, and collective levels affect the phenomena of interest?
We have seen in this special issue a growing and stimulating understanding of how oppression at macro levels permeates the psychological lived experience of marginalized groups. James and colleagues noted that the effects of structural, interpersonal and intrapersonal violence are magnified when race and poverty are taken into account.
Global and personal dynamics are summarized by Moane in this special issue: “an understanding of oppression involves identifying patterns at the macro level which are related to oppression, and then considering their manifestations in the communities (meso level) and day-to-day settings (micro level) of people’s lives. This can then provide the basis for understanding their psychological impact and identifying practices for transformation.”
But as Grant and colleagues showed, psychology is far from embracing epistemic psychopolitical validity. Exploring the association between stress and mental health problems in girls, they found that out of over 200 studies reviewed, none “built on feminist theory to examine specific moderators of the relation between sexism based stressors and psychological distress in girls; nor did any examine sexist socialization processes as moderators.”
While
psychology’s political illiteracy may not surprise us, the perpetuation of
oppressive cultural stereotypes by oppressed people themselves should give us
reason to pause. As was the case with youth from
Whereas epistemic validity referred to our understanding of psychopolitical dynamics of oppression, transformative validity demands changes towards liberation at personal, interpersonal, and structural domains. The following questions attend to transformative validity:
Explicit political
aims have been often advocated for but infrequently acted upon in community
psychology. Transformative validity may serve to remind us that political
literacy and social change have to be part of all our interventions. We
seek not only to ameliorate social conditions but also to alter the
configurations of power that deprive citizens of their rights (Prilleltensky
& Nelson, 1997). Bennett enacted transformative validity on behalf of the
Old Order Amish community of
References
Aristide, J. B. (2000). Eyes of the heart: Seeking a path for the
poor in the Age of globalization.
Bennett, E. (in press). Emancipatory responses to oppression: The
template of land-use planning and the Old Order Amish of Ontario. American
Journal of Community Psychology.
Dobbin, M. (1998). The myth of the good corporate citizen:
Democracy under the rule of big business.
Grant, K. E., Finkelstein, J. S., & Lyons, A. L. (in press).
Integrating psychological research on girls with feminist activism: A model for
building a liberation psychology in the
James, S., Johnson, J., Raghavan, C., Lemos, T., Smith, M., Wooles,
D. (in press). The violent matrix: A study of structural, interpersonal and
intrapersonal violence among a sample of poor women. American Journal of
Community Psychology.
Kim, J. Y., Millen, J. V., Irwin, A., & Gersham, J. (Eds.).
(2000). Dying for health: Global inequality and the health of the poor.
Korten, D. (1995). When corporations rule the world.
Lustig, N. (2001). Introduction. In N. Lustig (Ed.), Shielding
the poor: Social protection in the developing world (pp. 1-20).
Lykes, M. B., Blanche, M. T., & hamber, B. (in press). Narrating
survival and change in
Moane, G., (in press). Bridging the personal and the political:
Practices for a liberation psychology. American Journal of Community
Psychology.
Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., Koch-Schulte,
S. (2000). Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us?
Nelson, G., Prilleltensky,
Parayil, G. (Ed.).
(2000). Kerala: The development experience.
Potts, R. G. (in press). Emancipatory education vs school-based
prevention in African American communities. American Journal of Community
Psychology.
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
psychology and politics of oppression. Political Psychology, 17,
127-147
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community.
Sen, A. (1999a). Beyond the crisis: Development strategies in
Sen, A. (1999b). Development
as freedom.
Sonn, C., & Fisher, A. (in press). Identity and oppression:
Differential responses to an in-between status. American Journal of
Community Psychology.
Varas-Díaz, N., & Serrano-García,
Table 1:
Understanding,
resisting, and overcoming oppression
|
Psychopolitical Well-Being Domains and values for liberation |
Experiences Voices and expressions of oppression and
resistance |
Consequences Outcomes of health and social science
studies on oppression |
Sources Roots of suffering and oppression |
Change Actions towards liberation |
|
Collective Social Justice Institutions
that support emancipation and human development Peace Protection of environment |
Suffering
Insecurity and
exploitation Denial of
collective rights Deprecation of
own culture Disregard for
environment Resistance
Collective action to help community. Each community
reacts differently to its own oppression |
Suffering
Economic
disadvantage and discrimination Vulnerability to
disadvantage, illness and disability Fragmentation
within oppressed Reduced
opportunities in life Resistance
Development of activist groups within schools and
communities |
Economic
exploitation Globalization,
colonialism, and power differentials Corrupt
government-structures Sexism and norms
of violence Material and ideological domination, political
exclusion |
Invest in human
and environmental development and health Resist dominant
theory that economic growth is main vehicle to well-being Join networks of
support that focus on personal, relational, and collective well-being Strive for democracy, peace and respect for
diversity |
|
Relational Social cohesion, respect for
diversity Democratic participation |
Suffering
Exclusion and
intimidations based on class, age, gender, education, race and ability Resistance
Solidarity and compassion for others who suffer |
Suffering
Lack of support,
competition across social groups, isolation and fragmentation Horizontal
violence Resistance
Acts of solidarity with other oppressed groups |
In-group
domination and discrimination Dehumanizing
treatment of others in same and different groups Objectification
of Aother@ Competition for scarce resources |
Power
equalization in personal, relational, and collective domains Prevent exclusion and promote liberation through
education Build trust, connections, and participation in
groups |
|
Personal Self-determination
and human rights Health Personal growth Meaning and spirituality |
Suffering
Multiple
restrictions in life Self-deprecation,
degradation and shame Powerlessness,
hopelessness ResistanceStrength and resilience |
Suffering
Loss of life
opportunities and lack of control Mental health
problems, addictions, internalized oppression Resistance
|
Insufficient
material resources and continued exposure to risk Power inequalities Learned
helplessness Acting out own oppression on others |
Join social
action groups that work to enhance personal empowerment and solidarity at the
same time Development of
assertiveness and positive self and cultural image Sociopolitical development and leadership training |