American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 31, Nos.

1/2, March 2003 ( C 2003)

The Quest for a Liberating Community Psychology: An Overview

Roderick J. Watts1,3 and Irma Serrano-Garc a2

The diverse set of papers in this Special Issue on the psychology of liberation afrm the importance community psychology has long attached to social justice and social context. The papers also reect the issues that arise from the unique conuence of history, culture, and the exercise of social power in different nations, and among groups and settings within nations. As coeditors we had various goals in mind when we began work on this issue. One was to push the theoretical and conceptual contributions of community psychology further. We were interested in (a) examining denitions of oppression and liberation, (b) incorporating traditional concepts of psychology such as emotions, cognition, and identity into a psychology of liberation, (c) further developing concepts relevant to a liberation psychology diversity, action-research, resistance, and (d) exploring variations across populations, settings, and nations. Our interest was not in creating a unied theory of liberation psychology prematurely; on the contrary, the aim was to highlight how liberation and oppression vary by historical circumstances and by settings. Another goal was to explore how liberation psychology might lead to a new understanding or construction of our psychosocial realities. It may be that sexism, racism, and colonization, to name but a few oppressive processes, are different in light of a liberation psychology perspective. Our third goal was to examine the effects of liberation psychology on research and intervention activity. What are the promising strategies for gaining knowledge and generat1 Georgia

ing change that diminish oppression and promote liberation? How does the sociopolitical context shape these strategies? As is probably clear by now, our disciplinary interest in editing this issue was accompanied by other motivations. We are both members of oppressed groups and, although some would question our personal oppression, our personal and professional experiences are shaped by our immersion in racism, sexism, and colonization. We are both community psychologists with an interest in seeing the eld evolve into more than a misdirected psychology (Sarason, 1981). Each of us are Americans in different ways, but neither by choice nor persuasion. We value the inuence and contributions of other nationals and recognize, despite the dominance of U.S. psychology, the diversity of psychologies that abound in the world. Thus, we wanted to give voice to this diversity and to ourselves. THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS As with any valid theory, general principles provide a set of tools that aid in prediction and control. In the case of liberation psychology, a general theory would provide action scholars with the means to anticipate the dynamics of power as they play out in human relations. Predictive power aids our efforts to act strategically and proactively in the interest of liberation. However, the danger of premature theorizing is a set of general principles that seem to be universal when they are in fact particular to a unique set of circumstances. Recalling the venerable notion that human behavior is a function of people in interaction with their environment helps lessen this danger. Keep this in mind and view the words of the contributing authors as voices in a social setting. They are sharing ideas and stimulating critical dialogue among their 73
0091-0562/03/0300-0073/0
C

State University, Atlanta, Georgia. of Puerto Rico, R o Piedras. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, MSC 2A1155 33 Gilmer St., Unit 2, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; e-mail: psyrjw@ panther.gsu.edu.
2 University

2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

74 colleagues. Their dialogue afrms diversity and provides all of us with an opportunity to identify how personal dynamics, social group memberships and the like inuence theorizing and action. As a result, both common themes and points of difference emerge. Without denying the authority we exercised in shaping this Special Issue, we liken ourselves to facilitators in a critical dialogue on liberation psychology. If the contributors to this dialogue sat around a table discussing liberation psychology, what common themes would arise? We think they would see liberation psychology as different from U.S. community psychology, because liberation psychology places an emphasis squarely on the creation of just societies, strengthening self-determination, and healing the effects of oppression. Similarly, they might say that new knowledge is acquired and deemed valuable in accordance with its contribution to the liberation process. The analysis of social power would be a central concern. Most would agree that the common language of U.S. psychology (e.g., inner city, low income, underclass, minority, empowerment, disadvantaged, and diversity) is inadequate due to its lack of attention to history and social power. Because creating a just society is more than a disciplinary endeavor, the contributors freely trespassed boundaries between the political, sociological, historical, psychological, economic, and cultural disciplines. This is more common among community psychologists in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, in parts of Europe, and among a minority of U.S. community psychologists. Accordingly, authors in this issue framed their psychological ideas with terms such as hegemony, colonialism, critical consciousness, resistance, emancipatory action, reconciliation, repression, structural violence, and privilege. It is this emphasis on social and political power that distinguishes many of these terms, and it holds important lessons for community psychology. For example, in his article on emancipatory education, Potts describes how education for African Americans often serves as a system of indoctrination that reinforces European cultural hegemonyone that promotes internalization of oppression. His functional analysis of power has obvious implications for school-based interventions (common in U.S. community psychology), such as violence prevention. Yet community psychology has not thoroughly examined youth violence in context. When is this violence displaced resistance to oppression, and when is it a function of poor conict resolution skills? In her discussion of Irish women, Moane moves the eld toward a more sophisticated understanding of

Watts and Serrano-Garc a violence and resistance when she notes how those who live in ecologies marked by oppression construct niches that shelter them from oppression and provide opportunities for resistance against it. The notion of niches of resistance might create a new perspective on niches of youth violencelike gangsthat psychologists usually describe without reference to structural violence against youth as described by James. Together Moanes and James et al.s ideas bring together liberation and ecological psychology. The concept of resistance is likely to occupy a prominent position in liberation psychology. People resist oppression, and so it is a reaction. Yet at the same time resistance is an emergent liberation behaviorit is some recognition of how things ought to be. Thus, resistance is at the boundary of both ideas. In a colonial context, Varas-D az and SerranoGarc as research on emotions show their potential role in resistance. Although their study of the psychological effects of colonialism on youth found numerous examples of internalized negative images associated with Puerto Rican national identity, there were highly positive ones as well. The authors describe how these positive emotions could be a basis for indignation, resistance, and liberation struggle. In the realm of practice, Bennett provides an uplifting example of successful resistance in his description of a struggle for self-determination by the Old Order Amish community of Ontario. Faced with the governments oppressive land-use regulations, they worked with Bennett to devise a strategy of resistance and emancipatory action. Authors agree that resistance does not emerge spontaneously nor easily. They speak of the need for the development of critical consciousness among the oppressed. Sonn and Fisher see it as indispensable in the reclamation of devalued and lost identities, and James et al. describe how an awareness of structural violence can be a rst step toward social change. Varas-D az and Serrano-Garc a suggest that current theorists of critical consciousness development must enrich their cognitive orientation with emotional considerations. Watts and his colleagues also emphasize critical consciousness and place it in the broader context of sociopolitical development. They describe it as a process of growth in a persons knowledge, analytical skills, emotional faculties, and capacity for action in political and social systems. In our opinion, the latter must be stressed. People need to experience the veracity and adequacy of their awareness by engaging in actions that both feel right and prove effective.

Quest for a Liberating Community Psychology An emphasis on critical consciousness led some of the authors to examine culture and ideology. Consciousness requires deconstructing cultural and ideological foundations of oppression and developing a vision of liberation. Multiple coexisting ideologies and cultures that support diverse individual lifestyles and national identities together with an equitable distribution of resources are necessary to move toward liberation. The diversity in the national origins of the authors gives us a window into oppression and liberation in South Africa, Ireland, Guatemala, Puerto Rico and in North America among women, African Americans, and the Amish. Despite the diversity, similarities are evident. In each case the analysis extended beyond individual functioning to include collective notions of self and identity as well as the larger social and national context. Another commonality among the contributors is an effort to bring theory, research, and action for social justice and psychological well-being into closer alignment. Many would argue that the connection between a fair balance of resources in society and a healthy balance in the psyche go hand-in-hand. Psychology has a long history of being concerned with mental well-being, and this tradition is not lost among the contributors to this issue. The continuity indicates that traditional concepts can be useful in liberation psychology. Some examples include emotions and social comparison processes (Varas-D az & SerranoGarc a), identity (Sonn & Fisher), stress (Grant et al.), and inter- and intrapersonal violence (James et al.). There is cause for caution, however. As Lykes noted, there is a difference between individual and national healing, and [ . . . ] at times the latter might be achieved at the expense of the former. She and her colleagues provide examples of how women in Guatemala and the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa dealt with the challenges of healing at multiple levels of analysis as part of a continuing quest for liberation. In a world struggling with the traumas of war, terrorism, slavery, torture, and repression, there is clearly a need for a liberation psychology that includes a farreaching conception of healing. There are some differences among the authors in how they connect liberation psychology to related community psychology concepts such as empowerment, collaboration, and prevention. We will focus our analysis on empowerment because it is mentioned most often. Because the authors differ among themselves in how they see empowerment, no simple summary of their views is possible. Varas-D az and

75 Serrano-Garc a accept Rappaports denition of empowerment as a process whereby people take control of their situations, and they see commonalities between liberation psychology and empowerment. Yet they also see a need for liberation psychology to push community psychology toward higher levels of analysis. Similarly, Moane sees empowerment as a useful concept, but she notes that a critical perspective on community psychologyincluding empowerment theoryindicates that community psychology interventions still tend to be focused at the individual level and retain some of the individualistic assumptions of traditional psychologies without adequately addressing the macro or structural level. With respect to empowerment behavior, Watts et al. talk about the capacity, and the creation or perception of a capacity for effective action. James et al. add that it is a mechanism by which people, organizations and communities gain mastery over their lives. Empowerment involves self-efcacy, self-condence, and successful action in social and political domains. One common element in these denitions may be that empowerment leads to peoples control over their lives and settings. In relating empowerment to liberation psychology, Potts sees close connections: As with empowerment, the psychology of liberation has been dened as one that attempts to work with people, taking their social context into account, to enhance their awareness of oppressive situations and ideologies. James et al. embedded empowerment in a larger framework: empowerment is best understood within an oppression paradigm because empowerment cannot be studied without examining oppressive contexts and consequences. In the realm of action, Sonn and Fisher see empowerment as a function of liberation movements: Liberation movements can play a crucial role in developing critical awareness about oppression, empowerment, and social change. In summary, empowerment is conceptualized broadly but is criticized for being used mainly at the individual level. Although criticized, various authors incorporate it into their frameworks precisely at this level, when they speak of developing critical awareness of oppressive situations. Finally, some consider it a process that leads to liberation while others consider it the outcome of liberating efforts. Further efforts to develop frameworks which clarify the relationship between these concepts should be fostered. What remains to be examined? One rst issue that comes to mind is the accord between authors despite their diversity. Some might argue that this is

76 due to similar training and disciplinary formation or even to the editors selection process. Thus the concepts should be explored in other settings and nations. United States is the only rst-world country included in this issue. What about oppression in Sweden, France, England? What about oppression among the oppressedwomen within decolonizing social movements, black men within gay organizations? The interplay of cognition and emotion also needs further consideration. Grant et al. state that people are not swayed by emotional appeals but can be moved by data. Is this the case or is it exactly the opposite? Are there areas where an emotional appeal will be more effective than a cognitive approach? Watts and colleagues state that creativity is required to envision a better cultural and moral order. Does this mean the answers will be found in new developments such as emotional intelligence as Cherniss (2001) suggested? There are a number of possible ways to further explore critical consciousness and sociopolitical development. Finally, most of the articles are written from the perspective of the oppressed. It is to them that liberation psychology is committed. However, some argue that oppressors construction of reality should also be examined. This has led to interventions with women batterers, heterosexual men as vectors of HIV/AIDS, and with torturers. Similarly, Watts and his colleagues argue Any hope for the formation of alliances across the divide of oppression requires that the beneciaries of privilege rst critically analyze their status and attend to their own sociopolitical development. Because of multiple group memberships, most people function in some settings where they benet at least nominally from oppression. Are any of these topics subject matter for liberation psychology, or do we contradict its basic tenets by going this route?

Watts and Serrano-Garc a ilar groups. Grant et al. also illustrate another longstanding issue: the absence of bridges between valueconvergent but action divergent efforts in our societies. Feminists, and researchers that focus on girls and women, have similar goals, but they have operated on different levels of analysis. If integrated, the information and experiences they have accumulated could be mutually benecial. This speaks to the role of research, which we will touch upon in the next section, but it also points to a new way to integrate what we know about one group (women in this case) with other groups. For example, liberation psychologists can advance the eld by linking their work with Blacks to the civil rights movement and their work with activists in the gay liberation movement. Varas-D az and Serrano-Garc a state that psychology of liberation, not new to psychology in other countries, has only recently crept into community psychology [in the United States]. Grants analysis might explain this curious lack of attention U.S. psychology gives to oppression and liberation. She and her colleagues state that manifestations of oppression in the United States are distinct from manifestations of oppression in other parts of the world and although they acknowledge signicant oppression in the United States, they also argue that . . . most forms of oppression in the United States are less blatant and more diffuse than counterparts in other nations that receive United States media attention. Potts takes a different view based on work by Ogbu, who found that caste minorities such as African Americans in the United States, West Indians in Great Britain, and Maoris in New Zealand, are subject to similar patterns of school failure, drop-out, and placement in special education. Is oppression qualitatively different in countries other than the United States? What variations are there among countries outside of the United States? Is it a difference in both magnitude and content? The question of magnitude is particularly poignant among authors in this issue. Sonn and Fisher state that oppression operates at various levels and varying degrees of negativity. Grant et al. speak of benevolent sexism as others in the political science literature speak of benevolent dictatorships. Other authors speak of the need to deconstruct subtle ideological foundations (Watts et al.) or the subtlety of domination (Varas-D az & Serrano-Garc a). An emphasis on materialism and social status dominates all these questions, as if material possessions are the primary determinant of ones quality of life. In contrast, a number of authors in this issue contend that a spiritual

NEW UNDERSTANDINGS OF OUR PSYCHOSOCIAL REALITIES The articles in this issue deal with many manifestations of oppression and examples of liberating struggles. In presenting their case they provide us with a new look at old problems. One of these problems is that of groups who are not at the extremes of the oppressoroppressed continuum. An example of this is Sonn and his colleagues explication of inbetween status. Although his sample is composed of South African immigrants to Australia, their experience can be used to understand the struggle of sim-

Quest for a Liberating Community Psychology worldview can be empowering if not liberating. This is more evidence of diversity. Obviously, differences in historical experience produce differences in outlook. The challenge is to create a liberation psychology that adjusts to the unique historical and ecological characteristics of the settings where it is applied. Most of the authors examined how racism, sexism, and colonization can be conceptualized from a liberation psychology perspective. How would the construction of other social realities such as ageism, homophobia, religious intolerance, and terrorism fare in a similar analysis? How important is the magnitude of social inequality within and between nations as compared to the absolute severity of a groups social deprivation? Clarifying these variations in outlook in both historical and theoretical termswould be useful to the eld.

77 uals their material and occupational circumstances give them high status. Views on how this affects their work and roles in liberation psychology vary. Opinions range from highly positive to highly skeptical. Bennett tells us
I have collaborated with the Old Order Amish . . . to change some of the normative legislative regulatory systems that they have dened as oppressive. The practice and research have emerged from the pursuit of the agendas of the Old Order Amish, who have been equal and collaborative partners . . . my approach has been consistent with the scholarly development agendas summarized by Kelly (1990), and the use of the narrative approach to theory and method proposed by Rappaport (1995).

In contrast, Lykes and her colleagues said

[our work] illustrate[s] some of the complexities that arise when academics engage with communities and together develop novel processes of selfrepresentation. Our hope is that our account will serve as a corrective to overly purist and naive ideas sometimes found in the community psychology literature regarding the possibilities of giving voice to or empowering the marginalized and the disenfranchised, while at the same time celebrating basic community psychology principles of respectful engagement and participatory action. These transgressive, collaborative processes shift the voices of both professionals and community participants and discourse shifts.

RESEARCH AND INTERVENTIONS The Action Scholar in Context One of the major implications of the person environment t perspective for community psychology that is not well articulated is that between the action scholar and her or his historical context. By creating a setting for critical dialogue where action scholars can discern how their insights are shaped by the historical context of their work, the contributions of personal insight and unique historical forces to general theory become clearer. What has general value and what is tied to a unique setting or work group? In this volume, Varas-D az & Serrano-Garc a argue that liberation psychology must turn away from the task of generalizing specic characteristics to whole populations. Instead, an attempt to understand the particularities of every community is in order. This is one side of the tension between universalizing and particularizing human experience in the effort to build theory. It is part of that debate between the postpositivists and the postmodernists (along with anthropologists, cultural theorists, and others) who take a constructivist stance to knowledge. The editors of this issue will not pretend to settle this long-running philosophical debate, but it is worth the effort to see the tension between unity and diversity as complementarity and to manage it in a creative way. It is an inevitable tension in a liberation psychology that seeks neither coerced unity nor balkanization. Although many of the contributors to this issue are members of oppressed populations, as individ-

Through the din of these intellectual debates, VarasD az and Serrano-Garc a remind us of the connection between the personal and the political:
Liberation must not become another empty discourse in the psychological literature. It must be a belief system, an attitude, a political stance . . . A psychology of liberation is a psychology of the political; questioning the notions that perpetuate oppression is undeniably a political act. Only when our liberating beliefs are incorporated in our psychological practice will our work contribute to freedom from oppression.

Strategies We will conclude with a few thoughts on how liberation psychologists are (re)creating historical and cultural experiences in schools (Potts; Varas-D az & Serrano-Garc a) and in community and institutional settings (Moane; Sonn and Fisher; James et al.; Lykes et al.). Some suggest developing experiences where the oppressed can compare themselves to groups other than the oppressor (i.e. travelling to other countries, cultural exchanges), and facilitating their

78 direct engagement in political processes (Varas-D az & Serrano-Garc a). Efforts should focus on small aims and immediate results (Grant et al.). Few authors made explicit recommendations regarding research. Among those that did, both Watts et al. and James et al. make a case for transactional methods. The latter also proposed forums where researchers could share their ndings with activists. All the empirical articles in this issue emphasize qualitative methodsfocus groups, in-depth interviews, and narratives. The use of qualitative methods likely reects their special advantages: they foster a relationship between the researcher and others who participate in the research, and they provide an opportunity for people to respond to, or even reframe research questions through their own words. Neither of these elements guarantees a more egalitarian researcher participant partnership, but relationships and dialogue provide an opportunity for it to develop. The best liberation psychology research is reexive, constantly aware of its own context, and poised to harness resources for systemic change. Although surveys and other less interactive research methods have a vital place in liberation psychology, community psychology would do well to promote qualitative methods,

Watts and Serrano-Garc a which are already an increasingly important feature of research in the eld. Action research, participatory research, and intervention research are all mentioned in these pages and linked to a psychology of liberation. In these models, researchers are aware of their social context and committed to harnessing resources for social change. Is there a difference in the acceptance of these models between other nations and the United States? Are authors in this issue who are seemingly on the margins or at the vanguard of community psychology actually in the process of being coopted? Time will tell, but so will your response. If we have contributed in any way to your awareness, fostered a new look at the issues you work with and generated strategies which are more participatory and liberating, then we should all be contributing to moving community psychology towards it emancipatory potential. REFERENCES
Cherniss, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence for a better community. APA Monitor, 32(11), 61. Sarason, S. (1981). Psychology misdirected. New York: The Free Press.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.