The overarching theoretical framework that informs the major ideas of this study is critical psychology. There is no one form of critical psychology, rather, critical psychology is characterized by multiple perspectives of psychology which bear resemblance to one another (Hook, et al., 2004). It is important to understand that critical psychology is more of an approach to the kind of knowledge and practice of psychology rather than one kind of theory with a set of concepts. One element that is common within the multiple perspectives of critical psychology is that it challenges the knowledge and practice of traditional psychology. As stipulated by Fox, Prilleltensky, and Austin (2009), critical psychology presents a range of approaches that challenge mainstream psychology. Mainstream psychology represents the psychology that is taught and practised by most researchers and practitioners in the field. Fox et al (2009, p.3) describes mainstream psychology as one that “is presented as a science whose researchers use objective methods to understand human behavior and whose practitioners help individuals cope with distress”. Crirical psycholology sees mainsteam psychology as possessing a narrow view of understanding human functioning and effective interventions towards promoting human welfare. Critical psychology believes that mainstream psychology too often ignores the multiple facets that promote human well-being which are associated with socio-political implications (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002).
Due to the different structural factors that influence people, such as social class, gender, and race, people enjoy different levels of well-being. This is a central concern for critical psychology scholars. As Prilleltensky and Nelson (2002) posits, critical psychology aims to understand how cultural norms and systems of social regulation shape the experiences of peoples’ lives. More precisely, critical psychology is concerned with critiquing oppressive uses of the discipline of psychology and enhancing forms of practice which have social equality as their goal (Hook, et al., 2004). As argued by Fox et al. (2009), mainstream psychology often over emphasises individualistic values which consequently hinders interventions that have a focus on the well being of the larger community and thus perpetuating unjust or oppressive institutions. Furthmore, the authors claim that because of mainstream psychology’s individualistic approach, psychology distances itself from democracy participation and
28
distributive justice. Prilleltensky & Nelson (2002) stipulates that critical psychology acknowleges that interventions are affected politics.
Scholars from critical psychology posit that meanstream psychology research and practice has effectively isolated the individual from the social and political sphere (Hook, et al., 2004). As Hook et al (2004) argue, meanstream psychology has actively depoliticised our understanding of ourselves. By ignoring pressing political contexts of culture, economics and poverty, mainstream psychology hurts members of powerless or marginalized groups (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). Doing psychology critically means moving towards interventions that acknowledges different levels of analysis and having a holistic understanding of psychological distress. Critical psychology wants to avoid mainstream psychology’s tendency to overlook pressing sociopolitical circumstances in favour of prioritising purely psychological terms which suggests that individual’s problems can be understood as an internal phenomenon, cut off from the social and political circumstances that give rise to it (Hook, et al., 2004). As argued by Prilleltensky and Nelson (2002), to experience quality life, we require well-enough social and political conditions free from the human rights abuses and oppression. Critical psychology does not necessarily argue that there is a need for social change but rather what can be done to bring about that change.
This study will integrate a theoretical framework derived from ideas of multicultural and feminist counselling psychology. Feminist and multicultural perspectives to counselling emerged as a result of the dissatisfaction with the theories of traditional mainstream psychology (Goodman et al, 2004). Multicultural and Feminist writers argued that traditional theorists of psychology largely ignored how social oppression (e.g. racism, sexism) and discrimination contributes to the client’s presenting problems (Goodman et al, 2004). The feminist and multicultural perspectives acknowledge the limitation of the traditional counselling psychology which has increasingly directed more time and energy in assessing what can be viewed as ‘individual deficits’ when helping people. By doing so, counsellors merely strive to help people develop strategies to cope with environmental stressors rather than engaging with their clients in facilitating environmental change efforts (Crethar, Rivera, & Nash, 2008). Based on this understanding, feminist and multicultural counselling psychology chooses to move towards interventions that are targeted at social justice work (Goodman et al., 2004). As suggested by Crethar et al. (2008, p. 269) “not only do counsellors who operate from multicultural, feminist, and social justice counseling paradigms direct time and energy toward stimulating positive changes among the individual clients with whom they work, they also strive to intentionally
29
ameliorate social injustices that adversely affect the mental health of larger numbers of persons in oppressed and marginalized groups in contemporary society.”.
Multicultural and feminist psychology approaches, therefore, share the view that clients belong in an environmental system which constantly shape their lived experiences. Secondly, these approaches emphasize that effective helping of a client involves being aware of the environmental context with which the client belongs to and how this affects their mental health (Crethar et al, 2008). The heart of feminist and multicultural psychology is the recognition that systems and structures (i.e. social, political, socio-economic and cultural etc) need to be changed to alleviate the source of individual suffering (Goodman et al, 2004).
Goodman et al (2004) discussed a set of principles that can help guide psychologists in social justice action. These principles were derived from some of the leading sources on multicultural counselling and feminist therapy. The principles will be used in the current study as a frame of reference to understanding psychologists’ actions towards social justice work. The first principle is called Ongoing Self-evaluation. This principle emphasizes that for psychologist to work with a client without influences of bias, discrimination or prejudice, they should continually engage in critical self-assessment. This assessment will make the psychologist become aware of how their cultural background may potentially influence their understanding of the presenting client who comes from an unfamiliar cultural group. Sharing Power is the second principle and is about the psychologist and clients establishing a collaborative relationship to work towards solving problems. Psychologists should not establish themselves as expert that will remove social injustice, however, they should allow individuals and community members to have some ownership and self-efficacy to make change. The third principle is Giving Voice. This principle involves therapist allowing clients to tell their problems from their own cultural context and belief system and then helping clients amplify these concerns. Psychologists should engage with individuals and communities by allowing them to voice their concerns in the way they experience it. The psychologist’s task would be to make their needs, wishes, and visions heard by significant others (in position to facilitate change). The fourth principle is Consciousness Raising and this principle involves the psychologist raising the marginalized groups awareness about the extent to which their problems are rooted into larger historical, social and political forces. This principle is feasible to community groups rather than individual counselling as it is focused on community based social action. The fifth principle is Focus on Strengths which emphasizes helping clients identify their own internal sources of strength (skills) to solve their problems of racism,
30
discrimination and oppression. The last principle Leaving Clients with Tools is about the psychologist working collaboratively with group/community members to provide them with the necessary tools/skills to affect social change. These tools/skills are to sustain the community for an extended period, post collaboration.
Steele (2008) also developed The Liberation Model to describe the principles that can be used by counselling educators to prepare counselling students to advocate for social justice when working with clients from marginalized groups. The model consists of four phases that educators should follow collaboratively with their students. The first phase involves the educator educating the students about social justice advocacy in counselling. It includes evaluating current dominant cultural and political ideas of the society to recognize its influences on peoples’ thoughts and social policies. The second phase involves examining explicit and implicit cultural and political ideology of counselling. The aim of the second phase is to deconstruct or remove the dominant counselling literature or models that work with or against the cultural and political ideas discussed in phase one. The third phase is about the multidisciplinary study of the themes that emerged from phases one and two. It involves the students finding out from multidisciplinary approaches what initiates and perpetuates social injustice issues of clients. The fourth phase involves a plan of action to advocate for social justice. The plan to address the problem is about including all the stakeholders (learned through thethird phase) involved in the client’s relevant issue.