No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Challenging Borders and Border Violence: A Decolonial Community Psychology Perspective
Abstract
The last two decades have seen an unprecedented expansion of brutal border regimes around the world. People racialised as migrants are systematically disenfranchised, dispossessed and often exposed to forms of organised violence such as immigration detention and deportation. Despite the widespread political and scholarly debate on migration, the relationship between contemporary border regimes and the history of colonialism has largely been overlooked. This gap is particularly evident in psychology, a discipline traditionally dominated by an emphasis on individuals and lacking acknowledgment of social, political, and structural processes. In this chapter, we examine border violence as being produced by a combination and intersection of power structures and relations that maintain the colonial global orders. Furthermore, we critically analyse how psychology in general, and community psychology in particular, have approached these issues. In doing so, we rely on our observations and lived experiences as community organisers, practitioners, and researchers engaged with “border thinking.” Ultimately, we hope that the reflections shared in this chapter can contribute to an ongoing conversation on how community psychologists, inspired by the decolonial turn, can actively engage in solidarities-in-action with individuals and communities on the frontline of border struggles in local and global contexts.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
In this paper, we invite psychologists to reflect on and recognize how knowledge is produced in the field of social psychology. Engaging with the work of decolonial, liberation and critical psychology scholars, we provide a six‐point lens on precarity that facilitates a deeper understanding of knowledge production in hegemonic social psychology and academia at large. We conceptualize knowledge (re)production in psychology as five interdependent ‘cogs’ within the neoliberal machinery of academia, which cannot be viewed in isolation; (1) its epistemological foundations rooted in coloniality, (2) the methods and standards it uses to understand human thoughts, feelings and behaviours, (3) the documentation of its knowledge, (4) the dissemination of its knowledge and (5) the universalization of psychological theories. With this paper we also claim our space in academia as early career researchers of colour who inhabit the margins of hegemonic social psychology. We join scholars around the world in calling for a much‐needed disciplinary shift that centres solutions to the many forms of violence that are inflicted upon marginalized members of the global majority. To conclude, we offer four political‐personal intentions for the reorientation for the discipline of hegemonic social psychology with the aim to disrupt the politics of knowledge production and eradicate precarity.
As we planned this special issue, the world was in the midst of a pandemic, one which brought into sharp focus many of the pre‐existing economic, social, and climate crises, as well as, trends of widening economic and social inequalities. The pandemic also brought to the forefront an epistemic crisis that continues to decentre certain knowledges while maintaining the hegemony of Eurocentric ways of knowing and being. Thus, we set out to explore the possibilities that come with widening our ecology of knowledge and approaches to inquiry, including the power of critical reflective praxis and consciousness, and the important practices of repowering marginalised and oppressed groups. In this paper, we highlight scholarship that reflects a breadth of theories, methods, and practices that forge alliances, in and outside the academy, in different solidarity relationships toward liberation and wellbeing. Our desire as co‐editors was not to endorse the plurality of solidarities expressed in the papers as an unyielding methodological or conceptual framework, but rather to hold them lightly within thematic spaces as invitations for readers to consider. Through editorial collaboration, we arrived at the following three thematic spaces: (1) ecologies of being and knowledge: Indigenous knowledge, networks, and plurilogues; (2) naming coloniality in context: Histories in the present and a wide lens; (3) relational knowledge practices: Creative joy of knowing beyond disciplines. From these thematic spaces we conclude that through repowering epistemic communities and narratives rooted in truth‐telling, a plurality of solidarities are fostered and sustained locally and transnationally. Underpinned by an ethic of care, solidarity relationships are simultaneously unsettling dominant forms of knowledge and embrace ways of knowing and being that advances dignity, community, and nonviolence.
This article develops an alternative definition of a migrant that embraces the perspective of mobility. Starting from the observation that the term ‘migrant’ has become a stigmatizing label that problematizes the mobility or the residency of people designated as such, we investigate the implications of nation-state centered conceptions of migration which define migration as movement from nation-state A to nation-state B. By asking ‘Who is a migrant in Europe today?’ we show that nation-state centered understandings of migration rest on a deeply entrenched methodological nationalism and implicate three epistemological traps that continue to shape much of research on migration: first, the naturalization of the international nation-state order that results, secondly, in the ontologisation of ‘migrants’ as ready-available objects of research, while facilitating, thirdly, the framing of migration as a problem of government. To overcome these epistemological traps, we develop an alternative conception of migration that, inspired by the autonomy of migration approach, adopts the perspective of mobility while highlighting the constitutive role that nation-states’ bordering practices play in the enactment of some people as migrants. Importantly, this definition allows to turn the study of instances of migrantisation into an analytical lens for investigating transformations in border and citizenship regimes.
In this article we seek to expand on the developing interest in Slow Violence and how it relates to immigration and asylum, by exploring how such violence is resisted. Following Foucault’s insight that in order to better understand power, it helps to study resistance to it, we draw on original research into acts of protest by refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland, and connect this to existing research on experiences of and resistance to the UK asylum system. In so doing we offer ‘Slow Resistance’ as a potentially useful concept with which to understand resistance not just to a particular configuration of power relations, but to a particular form of violence. The conceptual utility of Slow Resistance lies in its ability to illuminate: the particular operations of power/violence in the UK asylum system; the multiple forms of resistance to this violence/power; how these forms of resistance may be connected (thus discouraging the ‘silo-ing’ of analysing different forms of resistance); and how time is creatively engaged with by such forms of resistance. If, as has been argued, a particular challenge of slow violence is representational – how to devise arresting images and stories adequate to this form of violence – then resistance has the potential to focus our attention on it, and to gradually prepare the ground for meaningful change. While developed here in relation to the UK asylum system, slow resistance is a concept that we think can be useful in a wide range of contexts in which slow violence operates.
Colonialism and coloniality constitute the backbone of modernity. Colonial structures/systems are predicated on recurring patterns of domination and violence. Decolonial movements are rehumanizing and abolitionist projects guided by Global South peoples’ reimagining and reclaiming of what it means to be human. Decolonial praxes therefore require transnational efforts to decenter Whitestream academic institutions as hubs of knowledge production. In light of this, we question the boundaries of what we consider to be research in psychology as we walk in the legacies of struggle and survival—of our grandmothers and grandfathers, and so many ancestors who never used the word “decolonial”. Weaving together stories of refusal and community grounded on our work in Palestine and India, we demonstrate how our decolonial strivings require us to continuously rediscover ways of being present, being in struggle, and being human together as we work ‘‘creatively in coalition’’ with our communities. Through our stories of accompaniment, and bringing them into conversation with each other, we disrupt violent, colonially‐configured borders. In our world‐making coalitions and the writing of this article, we turn to a praxis that allows for the revisioning of justice as irresistible and interlinked, ungovernable and in defiance of borders and walls.
The mass migrations of 2015 were not merely a watershed moment for ‘EUrope’ but also for the scholarly study of migration to EUrope. With academic expertise and insights becoming much sought-after in the media and political discourse, migration scholarship has gained in unknown popularity over recent years. This current ‘migration knowledge hype’ has particularly benefited scholarship that claims to be of relevance for EUropean policymakers in finding responses to ‘migratory pressures’. This article critically interrogates the increasing intimacy between the worlds of migration scholarship and migration policy and seeks to unpack how the quest for policy-relevance has shaped the process of research itself. The impact of policy on migration research can be discerned when policy categories, assumptions, and needs constitute the bases and (conceptual) frames of research that seeks to be legible to policymakers. However, with EUropean migration policies causing devastation and undeniably harmful effects on migrant lives, what is the responsibility of researchers for the knowledge they produce and disseminate? Should the ‘do no harm’ principle prevalent in the migration discipline be expanded to also include the potentially harmful consequences resulting from research made relevant to migration policymakers? This article makes the case for an engaged scholarship that does not shy away from intervening in the contested field of migration with the intention not to fix but to amplify the epistemic and other crises of the EUropean border regime.
Behrouz Boochani published No Friend but the Mountains: Writing From Manus Prison in 2018 which went on to win the 2019 Victorian Prize for Literature while he was still incarcerated in Manus Prison. Since its publication the book has attracted a great deal of worldwide attention, particualrly from UK academics – it was released in the UK in 2019. Prior to winning Australia’s richest literary award his film Chauka, Please Tell Us the Time had its world premiere at the Sydney Film Festival and its international premiere at the BFI London Film Festival. The feature-length film has also been screened at numerous UK universities. In February 2020 Behrouz and translator Omid Tofighian engaged with academics and activists in the UK over a series of events; this article is an edited version of various conversations that emerged from these collaborations and critically discusses the global nature of border violence and the colonial ideology at the heart of immigration detention.
In a global scenario of increasing criminalisation of transnational human mobility, this special issue brings into dialogue different voices and experiences of migration, borders and border crossing. It does so by examining the present and historical socio-political structures of inequality in home, transit, and host societies. As we argue in this introduction, these structural realities shape individual and collective decisions and experiences of migration. At the same time, the relation between people and the power matrices that affect their lives is not smooth, but rather marked by shades of opposition. In taking this dual perspective, on both violence and resistance, the contributions in this special issue offer original insights to challenge individual-centred perspectives that have largely dominated psychological research on migration. These perspectives have ultimately contributed to de-historicise, de-contextualize and de-politicise people's experiences. In this introduction, we provide a brief history of how this special issue was developed and illustrate the main takeaways lessons from each paper. We conclude by providing some reflections on how community psychology scholars, and overall psychology as a discipline, can support the struggles of those who are confronting border violence and contribute to a transformative change in this field.
The so-called refugee crisis encouraged the expression of different forms of solidarity and activism, opposing increasingly oppressive asylum policies. New solidarity movements and social participation projects were created, stimulated by the relationships established between newcomers and civil society. However, grassroots refugee activism seems to have remained less visible, despite its frontline support in crucial areas such as language interpretation and mediation. Refugee activists are regarded as fundamental sources of support; but they usually assume a secondary role in solidarity projects. Some remain as volunteers for years, despite submitting their own projects and filling important gaps in the institutional support system. This article, a co-production between a researcher in Anthropology and two refugee activists leading an association exclusively formed by refugees (União de Refugiados em Portugal-UREP) reflects about refugees' informal solidarity networks. The three authors will be looking into the solidarity arising between refugee activists and newly arrived refugees, underlining how it emerged from specific problems created by gaps in the institutional support system. In writing collaboratively, the authors expect to shed light on the daily struggles of refugee activists and to enrich the academic debate with the shared reflections that have emerged from a collective community-based work.
Chauka, Please Tell Us the Time (Behrouz Boochani and Arash Kamali Sarvestani, 2017) is a documentary that exposes the systematic torture of refugees banished by the Australian Government to Manus Prison (in Papua New Guinea and officially called the Manus Regional Processing Centre). Shot clandestinely from a mobile phone camera by Boochani and smuggled out for codirection with Kamali Sarvestani, the film documents an important phase in the history of migration to Australia. This article analyses the film by foregrounding the experience of displacement, exile and incarceration as a unique cinematic standpoint. Boochani’s cinematic vision and socio-political critique will be interpreted in terms of embodied knowing and his existential predicament. The symbiotic relationship between the experience of seeking asylum, exile, imprisonment and the filmmaking process raises critical questions regarding the film as anti-genre, common tropes used to define refugeehood, and the criteria necessary to interpret and evaluate cultural production created from this unique position. The article draws on theories pertaining to accented cinema and incorporates ideas from social epistemology. Furthermore, it considers the author’s dialogue and collaboration with Boochani and Kamali Sarvestani and examines the significance of various contributors to the filmmaking process and cinematic vision.
The sudden increase of asylum applications in the aftermath of the 2015 “refugee crisis”, has sparked the debate on the concept of “deservingness” in public discourse. Who deserves to enter into European territory? Who deserves to receive state-funded assistance? This article unpacks the notion of “deservingness” by analysing the rationalities of care underpinning a European-funded local support programme in Antwerp (Belgium). The programme offers special assistance to former unaccompanied minors, recognised as beneficiaries of legal protection, who have recently turned 18. By examining the categories, attitudes and perceptions shaping this local project, we show how the idea of “deservingness”, a central notion in wider European discourses on refugee reception, is reproduced and critically implemented by local actors of refugee assistance. Drawing on focus group interviews with five municipal and civil society organizations, we untangle legal, moral and economic dimensions of deservingness and illustrate how these can overlap or contradict each other within stakeholders’ perspectives. The analysis of the different stakeholders’ perspectives about the assumed characteristics of this “new” category of refugees deserving special care shows the significance of stakeholders’ respective organisational backgrounds. On a deeper level, ideas on deservingness reflect stakeholders’ different aspirations about the kind of citizens young refugees should become. As such, this chapter contributes to deeper understanding of moralities and rationalities shaping public discourse and local reception of refugees in Europe. It also highlights the role of localities in shaping innovative policies and in the wider debate on refugee assistance.
This article provides an extended overview and explicatory synopsis of border imperialism. Drawing primarily from the insights of Harsha Walia's (2013) Undoing Border Imperialism, we aim to situate the concept in interdisciplinary literature and show how it can be effective for scholars, activists, and organizers alike committed to political education, transformative research and organizing, and struggles for emancipation. In addition, we illustrate how as an analytical framework it is useful towards understanding the myriad interlocking dynamics generated by the convergence of borders, race, and migration. Focusing on the bordering regimes of what are now called the United States of America and Canada we also: offer a diagnosis of how colonial power and borders produce geographies of deracination; underscore the inextricable links borders have with Western neo(liberal) worldviews, settler colonialism, and white supremacy; highlight the relationship amongst racial capitalism, the state, biopower, and nationalism; offer a snapshot of how intersectional feminism is useful when engaging with migrant struggle; and finally, take to task common misconceptions and myths about migrants. The goal of the piece is thus to incite action, academic and otherwise, towards centering dignity in research and activism, undoing border imperialism, and advancing decolonization.
In this article, I outline a proposal for decentering the field of United States-based community psychology. Transnational migrations, border crossings, and proliferating neoliberal trade and global media characterize the contemporary moment we live in. These movements challenge any monolithic disciplinary narrative of community psychology. Drawing from liberation psychology and women of Color feminisms, I argue that decentering the field involves engendering more reciprocal, nonhierarchical relations between the core and peripheries of knowledge production. Specifically, I consider the decentering project in two related realms-content and agents of knowledge production. The first issue concerns the kind of research and theorizing we engage in, the issues or topics we investigate, and the subject populations we work with. The second issue pertains to the agents who engage in the aforementioned processes, exercising epistemic power, that is the authority to construct what is considered legitimate and valid knowledge. I conclude with the implications of the decentering project for a multistranded community psychology that is responsive to the cartographies of contemporary struggles.
This essay advocates for a paradigm shift in psychology toward the activity and ethics of accompaniment. Accompaniment requires a reorientation of the subjectivity, interpersonal practices, and critical understanding of the accompanier so that (s)he can stand alongside others who desire listening, witnessing, advocacy, space to develop critical inquiry and research, and joint imagination and action to address desired and needed changes. The idea of “accompaniment” emerged in liberation theology in Latin America, and migrated into liberatory forms of psychology as “psychosocial accompaniment.” This essay explores accompaniment and its ethics from a phenomenological perspective, highlighting differences from mainstream stances in psychology. Attention is also given to the effects of accompaniment on the accompanier. Efforts to decolonize psychology require careful attention to the psychic decolonization of its practitioners and to the cultivation of decolonizing interpersonal practices that provide a relational and ethical foundation for joint research, restorative healing, and transformative action. Such practices endeavor through dialogue to build mutual respect and understanding, promote effective solidarity, and contribute to the empowerment of those marginalized. The decolonization of psychology should enable practitioners to be more effective in working for increased social, economic, and environmental justice; peace building and reconciliation; and local and global ecological sustainability.
Despite unprecedented access to information and diffusion of knowledge across the globe, the bulk of work in mainstream psychological science still reflects and promotes the interests of a privileged minority of people in affluent centers of the modern global order. Compared to other social science disciplines, there are few critical voices who reflect on the Euro-American colonial character of psychological science, particularly its relationship to ongoing processes of domination that facilitate growth for a privileged minority but undermine sustainability for the global majority. Moved by mounting concerns about ongoing forms of multiple oppression (including racialized violence, economic injustice, unsustainable over-development, and ecological damage), we proposed a special thematic section and issued a call for papers devoted to the topic of "decolonizing psychological science". In this introduction to the special section, we first discuss two perspectives—liberation psychology and cultural psychology—that have informed our approach to the topic. We then discuss manifestations of coloniality in psychological science and describe three approaches to decolonization—indigenization, accompaniment, and denaturalization—that emerge from contributions to the special section. We conclude with an invitation to readers to submit their own original contributions to an ongoing effort to create an online collection of digitally linked articles on the topic of decolonizing psychological science.
Resumen
A pesar de acceso sin precedentes a la información y difusión del conocimiento en todo el mundo, la mayor parte del trabajo en la ciencia psicológica hegemónica todavía refleja y promueve los intereses de una minoría privilegiada de personas en centros ricos del orden mundial moderno. En comparación con otras disciplinas de las ciencias sociales, hay pocas voces críticas que reflexionan sobre el carácter colonial Euro-Americano (nordocéntrico) de la ciencia psicológica, y en particular su relación con los procesos de dominación que facilitan el crecimiento de una minoría privilegiada, pero socavan la sostenibilidad de la mayoría global. Movido por preocupaciones sobre las múltiples formas actuales de la opresión (incluida la violencia racializada, la injusticia económica, el desarrollo insostenible y daño ecológico), propusimos una sección temática especial y emitimos una convocatoria para recibir artículos reflexivos dedicados al tema de la descolonización de la ciencia psicológica. En esta introducción a la sección especial, primero discutimos dos perspectivas—psicología de la liberación y psicología cultural—que han fundamentado nuestro acercamiento al tema. A continuación discutimos manifestaciones de la colonialidad en la ciencia psicológica y describimos tres enfoques para la descolonización—indigenización, acompañamiento y desnaturalización—que surgen de las contribuciones a la sección especial. Concluimos con una invitación a las/os/xs lectores a enviar sus propias contribuciones originales a este esfuerzo en movimiento para crear y continuar una colección electrónica de artículos digitales sobre el tema de la descolonización de la ciencia psicológica.
The term “community” holds historical connotations of political, economic, and social disadvantage in South Africa. Many South African students tend to interpret the term “community” in ways that suggest that community and community psychology describe the experiences of exclusively poor, black people. Critical pedagogies that position the teaching process as a transformative activity and that challenge student perceptions about the status quo are central in teaching community psychology. This article uses the subdiscipline of community psychology to discuss the importance of pedagogy. It uses a module that was presented at Stellenbosch University (SU) in the Western Cape, South Africa, as an illustrative example. The module was taught collaboratively with the social work department at the University of the Western Cape. Forty-five psychology students from a historically white university (SU) and 50 social work students from a historically black university (UWC) engaged in face-to-face workshops and virtual (e-learning) assignments that interrogated notions of the self, community, and identity. Final student essays were analysed qualitatively for themes illustrating aspects of the human capabilities approach to pedagogy adopted in this project.
In this paper, we examine citizenship crisis in the Northeast Indian state of Assam through the lenses of structural and cultural violence. In 2019, close to two million people in Assam were disenfranchised by updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The vast majority of those disenfranchised are Miya people who have been subjected to legacies of persecution and violence since the early 19th century during British colonial rule. We map the contours of the citizenship crisis by centering the struggles of Miya communities who are most deeply impacted by violent citizenship regimes. Using a structural and cultural violence lens, we elucidate the linkages between colonial histories, (post)colonial policies, and institutional practices on the one hand and Miya people's everyday struggles on the other. Across these analyses, we demonstrate how current citizenship regimes operate as a form of state‐sanctioned violence against Miya people. The implications of these analyses for rethinking contemporary notions of citizenship and belonging for community‐engaged scholarship are discussed.
This article explores the magnifying lenses of the COVID-19 syndemic to highlight how people racialized as migrants and refugees have been-and continue to be-disproportionally harmed. We use empirical evidence collected in our scholarly/activist work in Europe, Africa, South Asia, and the United States to examine migrant injustice as being produced by a combination of power structures and relations working to maintain colonial global orders and inequalities. This is what has been defined as "border imperialism." Our data, complemented by evidence from transnational solidarity groups, show that border imperialism has further intersected with the hygienic-sanitary logics of social control at play during the COVID-19 period. This intersection has resulted in increasingly coercive methods of restraining people on the move, as well as in increased-and new-forms of degradation of their lives, that is, an overall multiplication of border violences. At the same time, however, COVID-19 has provided a unique opportunity for grassroot solidarity initiatives and resistance led by people on the move to be amplified and extended. We conclude by emphasizing the need for community psychologists to take a more vigorous stance against oppressive border imperialist regimes and the related forms of violence they re/enact.
This article provides a conceptual introduction to the second installment of a two‐issue collection of work on decolonial approaches to the psychological study of social issues. Whereas papers in the first installment consider decoloniality as a social issue for psychological study, papers in this second installment consider psychology as a site for decolonial analysis. In this article, we briefly review key concepts from decolonial theory (e.g., the coloniality of modernity, distinct from historical colonialism). We then discuss manifestations of epistemic violence in hegemonic psychology that require intervention. Epistemic violence is (not merely) a matter of epistemic exclusion of racialized others from the knowledge production process, imperialist imposition of white‐washed knowledge products as universal standards without regard to context, or pathologizing forms of explanation that construct racial others as deviants in light of white‐washed standards (i.e., epistemological violence; Teo, 2010). In addition, epistemic violence in psychology includes forms of harm (e.g., zero‐point epistemology and individualist lifeways) associated with its modern/colonial roots. Accordingly, a decolonial approach to the psychological study of social issues may require refusal of the discipline of psychology.
Focusing on Europe’s 2015 crisis in Italy and drawing on Balibar’s notion of “crisis racism,” this article discusses how the amplification of the refugee/economic migrant binary in “crisis” contexts carries asylum adjudication beyond courts, into the public sphere. Analyzing policy-related discourse and interviews with asylum seekers, I discuss how crisis racism feeds a culture of suspicion toward Black subjects, and how migrants understand their deservingness of protection in relation to social belonging. In crisis contexts, notions of deservingness have heightened significance for authorities, publics, and migrants, bolstering anti-Black racism, threatening asylum regimes, and putting migrants’ lives at risk.
This edited volume in the Community Psychology Book Series emphasizes applications of community psychology for disrupting dominant and hegemonic power relations. The book explores domains of work that are located within critical community psychology, as well as work that is conventionally not self-defined as community psychology but which draws on and contributes to the foundations and enactments of critical and liberatory community psychology. Specifically, the book advances conceptions and praxes for community psychology grounded within a decolonial framework. The volume heeds the call for a generation of approaches to community psychology that link local struggles to broader questions of power, identity, and knowledge production, bringing together examples of praxes from different contexts as a political project of highlighting indigenous struggles toward self-determination. Collectively, the chapters in this book embody a decolonial agenda for community psychology that foregrounds social justice; the lives and knowledges of the marginalized and oppressed; epistemic disobedience and transdisciplinarity; and decolonial aesthetics. The book is divided into two parts - Part I: Conceptions of Engagement for Community Psychology delves into the conceptual framework for a decolonial community psychology, and Part II: Modes of Enactments and Praxes for Community Psychology builds on these theoretical advancements through examples of praxis in different contexts. The audience for the book includes scholars, researchers, practitioners, activists, and students located within community psychology specifically, as well as disciplines within the health and social sciences, and arts and humanities more broadly.
Current discussion on coloniality dismantles structures embedded in neoliberal capitalism that maintain and perpetuate social pathologies. Theories and praxes emerging from Abya Yala (North, Central, and South America) provide academic and nonacademic contributions to co-construct community psychologies de otra manera (otherwise). These accountable ways of knowing and acting in cultural context and local place, become ways of making counterculture to inform decolonial community psychologies. The epistemologies of the Global South have produced invaluable teachings for transformative revisions of community psychology within frameworks that go beyond liberation and toward decoloniality. Activist women and decolonial feminists from the Global South, contest patriarchal rationality and universalism and co-construct new ways of being, thinking-feeling, sentipensar, and acting. Decolonial paradigms weave networks of solidarity with communities in their struggles to sustain Indigenous cosmovisions, delinking from western-centric ideologies that are not anthropocentric and promote sustainability, epistemic and ecological justice, and Sumak Kawsay/Buen Vivir (wellbeing) that includes the rights of the Earth. This paper deepens into decolonial community psychologies from Abya Yala that are making the road caminando (walking) de otra manera by applying methodologies of affective conviviality with communities, sentipensando, and co-authoring collective stories that weave pluriversal solidary networks within ecologies of praxes into colorful tapestries of liberation. These are the proposed coordinates to sketch pathways toward decoloniality.
Global Mental Health is a field of research and practice that addresses the expansion of universal and equitable mental health care worldwide. This article explores the ways the concept of culture is employed in Global Mental Health literature. Global Mental Health advocates and critics assume an ontological separation between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’ to typify mental illness, linking it predominantly to one or the other of these two categories. Advocates of Global Mental Health view mental disorders as a nature–culture hybrid, while critics see them as typically cultural phenomena. The cultural critique of Global Mental Health can be strengthened by a sociological approach to both the role of critique and the uses of the concept of culture within social sciences. As an alternative to the ontologization of culture, we propose a different theoretical approach to the social issues involved in the expansion of international public health care in mental health: Arthur Kleinman's and Didier Fassin’s moral anthropological approaches.
This paper discusses the concept of hospitality as a metaphor for thinking about the relationship between European publics and refugees. In particular, it explores how audiences in Greece discuss the European ‘refugee crisis’ and how, in doing so, construct hierarchies of deservingness of hospitality among different migrant groups reaching the Greek borders. Drawing upon empirical material from focus group discussions, the paper argues that these hierarchies of migrants draw upon media narratives, broader political discourses and cultural beliefs about religion, gender and class. Hospitality, as a metaphor for engaging with the stranger, is illustrated as embedded in national sociohistorical contexts, underlined by stereotypes both about the ‘other’ as well as the national self, and ultimately limited in constructing relations of solidarity between hosts and newcomers.
Public anthropology is a collective aspiration shaped by generally shared values and intentions within significant sections of social and cultural anthropology. The impetus behind the creation of the journal Public Anthropologist originates in this realm of ongoing discussions and actions inspired by the idea of pushing engagement and participation beyond academic borders. Given that the traditional triadic structure’s assessment standards and their financial and political backers are being reshaped by broader social forces beyond the academy and that the audit culture of accountability, that is replacing earlier standards, has significant problems, we need ask: Where do we go from here? In these changing times, how can anthropologists be more relevant to the broader society in the hope of escaping the worse aspects of the audit culture? We need raise our public profile, we need make clear to the larger society anthropology’s value in addressing the problems that concern them.
Book synopsis: (B)ordering Britain argues that Britain is the spoils of empire, its immigration law is colonial violence and irregular immigration is anti-colonial resistance. In announcing itself as postcolonial through immigration and nationality laws passed in the 60s, 70s and 80s, Britain cut itself off symbolically and physically from its colonies and the Commonwealth, taking with it what it had plundered. This imperial vanishing act cast Britain's colonial history into the shadows. The British Empire, about which Britons know little, can be remembered fondly as a moment of past glory, as a gift once given to the world. Meanwhile immigration laws are justified on the basis that they keep the undeserving hordes out. In fact, immigration laws are acts of colonial seizure and violence. They obstruct the vast majority of racialised people from accessing colonial wealth amassed in the course of colonial conquest. Regardless of what the law, media and political discourse dictate, people with personal, ancestral or geographical links to colonialism, or those existing under the weight of its legacy of race and racism, have every right to come to Britain and take back what is theirs.
This article endeavors to craft pathways to disrupt dominant modes of knowledge
production and to imagine nonhierarchical epistemic possibilities in teaching community
psychology. The first section of the article discusses how the decolonial turn inspires new ways of advancing the critical social justice agenda of community psychology. Drawing upon
decolonial frameworks and allied critical theories, I outline how coloniality is entrenched in the ways we theorize, research, and teach about “communities”—and that decolonizing community in community psychology is a decolonial act. The second section presents three vignettes capturing student responses to curricular shifts that endeavor to dismantle notions of community-as-Other. I interpret these vignettes through a decolonial perspective in order to highlight how coloniality of community can be produced and potentially maintained in the classroom context. The article concludes with pedagogical and curricular recommendations geared towards decolonizing notions of community, with the ultimate objective of advancing decolonial and liberatory praxis in community psychology.
‘Cosmopolitan Europe’, the normative commitment that is widely understood to undergird the project of the European Union, is under threat as never before. This is manifest perhaps most prominently in Europe's collective failure to respond to the refugee crisis. As people flee war and destruction, we, in Europe, debate whether now is the time to give up on our human rights commitments. France is under a state of emergency and the UK in the process of withdrawing from the European Union and its associated institutions (including the European Convention on Human Rights). Voices have been raised against the burdens, financial and social, placed upon us by those we see as Other, with few public voices calling for Europe to remember its traditions of hospitality and stated commitments to human rights. In this article, I discuss the growing distance between the claims and practices of European cosmopolitanism, its roots in our shared colonial past, and the implications for the future.
Themes of loss, grief, and vulnerability have come to occupy an increasingly central position in contemporary poststructuralist and feminist theory. Thinkers such as Judith Butler and Stephen White have argued that grief has the capacity to access or stage a commonality that eludes politics and on which a new cosmopolitan ethics can be built. Focusing on the role of grief in recent pro-refugee activism in Europe, this article argues that these ethical perspectives contribute to an ideological formation that disconnects connected histories and that turns questions of responsibility, guilt, restitution, repentance, and structural reform into matters of empathy, generosity, and hospitality. The result is a veil of ignorance which, while not precisely Rawlsian, allows the European subject to re-constitute itself as ‘ethical’ and ‘good’, innocent of its imperialist histories and present complicities.
I am interested in the intersection of race, class, gender and sexuality in a way that enables me to understand the indifference that men, but, more importantly to our struggles, men who have been racialized as inferior, exhibit to the systematic violences inflicted upon women of color. I want to understand the construction of this indifference so as to make it unavoidably recognizable by those claiming to be involved in liberatory struggles. This indifference is insidious since it places tremendous barriers in the path of the struggles of women of color for our own freedom, integrity, and wellbeing and in the path of the correlative struggles towards communal integrity. The latter is crucial for communal struggles towards liberation, since it is their backbone. The indifference is found both at the level of everyday living and at the level of theorizing of both oppression and liberation. The indifference seems to me not just one of not seeing the violence because of the categorial separation of race, gender, class, and sexuality. That is, it does not seem to be only a question of epistemological blinding through categorial separation.
This book is an extended argument on the "coloniality" of power by one of the most innovative scholars of Latin American studies. In a shrinking world where sharp dichotomies, such as East/West and developing/developed, blur and shift, Walter Mignolo points to the inadequacy of current practice in the social sciences and area studies. He introduces the crucial notion of "colonial difference" into study of the modern colonial world. He also traces the emergence of new forms of knowledge, which he calls "border thinking." Further, he expands the horizons of those debates already under way in postcolonial studies of Asia and Africa by dwelling in the genealogy of thoughts of South/Central America, the Caribbean, and Latino/as in the United States. His concept of "border gnosis," or what is known from the perspective of an empire's borderlands, counters the tendency of occidentalist perspectives to dominate, and thus limit, understanding. The book is divided into three parts: the first chapter deals with epistemology and postcoloniality; the next three chapters deal with the geopolitics of knowledge; the last three deal with the languages and cultures of scholarship. Here the author reintroduces the analysis of civilization from the perspective of globalization and argues that, rather than one "civilizing" process dominated by the West, the continually emerging subaltern voices break down the dichotomies characteristic of any cultural imperialism. By underscoring the fractures between globalization and mundializacion, Mignolo shows the locations of emerging border epistemologies, and of post-occidental reason.
Today we are accustomed to psychiatrists being summoned to scenes of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, war, and other tragic events to care for the psychic trauma of victims--yet it has not always been so. The very idea of psychic trauma came into being only at the end of the nineteenth century and for a long time was treated with suspicion. The Empire of Trauma tells the story of how the traumatic victim became culturally and politically respectable, and how trauma itself became an unassailable moral category.
Basing their analysis on a wide-ranging ethnography, Didier Fassin and Richard Rechtman examine the politics of reparation, testimony, and proof made possible by the recognition of trauma. They study the application of psychiatric victimology to victims of the 1995 terrorist bombings in Paris and the 2001 industrial disaster in Toulouse; the involvement of humanitarian psychiatry with both Palestinians and Israelis during the second Intifada; and the application of the psychotraumatology of exile to asylum seekers victimized by persecution and torture.
Revealing how trauma has come to authenticate the suffering of victims, The Empire of Trauma provides critical perspective on some of the moral and political issues at stake in the contemporary world.
The World Health Organization's Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020 identifies actions for all member states to alleviate the global burden of mental ill health, including an obligation for mental healthcare to be delivered in a 'culturally appropriate' manner. In this article we argue that such a requirement is problematic, not least because such pronouncements remain framed by the normative prepositions of Western medical and psychological practice and their associated ethical, legal and institutional standpoints. As such, when striving to export Western mental health expertise, different paradigms for evidence will be necessary to deliver locally meaningful interventions to low and middle income countries. Our discussion highlights a number of philosophical concerns regarding methodologies for future research practice, including those relating to representation and exclusion in the guise of epistemic injury, presumptive methodologies arising from Western notions of selfhood, and related ethical issues.
© 2015 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness © 2015 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness/John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This article strives to meet two challenges. As a review, it provides a critical discussion of the scholarship concerning undocumented migration, with a special emphasis on ethnographically informed works that foreground significant aspects of the everyday life of undocumented migrants. But another key concern here is to formulate more precisely the theoretical status of migrant "illegality" and deportability in order that further research related to undocumented migration may be conceptualized more rigorously. This review considers the study of migrant "illegality" as an epistemological, methodological, and political problem, in order to then formulate it as a theoretical problem. The article argues that it is insufficient to examine the "illegality" of undocumented migration only in terms of its consequences and that it is necessary also to produce historically informed accounts of the sociopolitical processes of "illegalization" themselves, which can be characterized as the legal production of migrant "illegality.".
This article provides a fresh theoretical perspective on the most important development in immigration law today: the convergence of immigration and criminal law. It proposes a unifying theory - membership theory - for why these two areas of law recently have become so connected, and why that convergence is troubling. Membership theory restricts individual rights and privileges to those who are members of a social contract between the government and the people. Membership theory provides decisionmakers with justification for excluding individuals from society, using immigration and criminal law as the means of exclusion. It operates in the intersection between criminal and immigration law to mark an ever-expanding group of outsiders by denying them the privileges that citizens hold, such as the right to vote or to remain in the United States. Membership theory manifests in this new area through certain powers of the sovereign state: the power to punish, and the power to express moral condemnation. This use of membership theory places the law on the edge of a crimmigration crisis. Only the harshest elements of each area of law make their way into the criminalization of immigration law, and the apparatus of the state is used to expel from society those deemed criminally alien. The result is an ever-expanding population of the excluded and alienated. The article begins with a dystopia, narrating a future in which criminal and immigration law have completely merged, and membership theory has resulted in extreme divisions in our society between insiders and outsiders - between the included and the alienated. The rest of the article describes the seeds of that future in the past and present. Part II describes the present confluence of immigration and criminal law. Part III sets out the role of membership theory in those areas in excluding noncitizens and ex-offenders from society. It details the role of sovereign power in drawing and enforcing those lines of exclusion. The article concludes by describing the potential consequences of the convergence of these two areas and the use of membership theory to justify decisions to exclude.
Borderlands/La Frontera deads with the psychology of resistance to oppression. The possibility of resistance is revealed by perceiving the self in the process of being oppressed as another face of the self in the process of resisting oppression. The new mestiza consciousness is bom from this interplay between oppression and resistance. Resistance is understood as social, collective activity, by adding to Anzaldúa's theory the distinction between the act and the process of resistance. 1992 by Hypatia, Inc.
The social identity of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. has been shaped, for the most part, by two factors, the prevailing configuration of social relations across class, racial, gender, and sexual orientation, on the one hand, and the prevailing array of public health, especially epidemiological, categories of disease transmission, on the other. Focusing on the AIDS epidemic among inner city people of color, this paper challenges the distortions wrought in our understanding from both of these factors and instead develops an alternative perspective for AIDS research among medical anthropologists and health social scientists generally.