Liberation psychology: a constructive critical praxis

Abstract

Can a critical psychology be more than an inward looking critique of the discipline itself? Liberation psychology emerged in Latin America in the 1980s. It is a critical psychology with an action focus, taking sides with the oppressed populations of the continent. The originator of the approach, Ignacio Martín-Baró practiced psychology in the context of the El Salvador an civil war, himself becoming a victim of State repression. The consequences of social conflict have since then been an important theme for liberation psychology. Other areas of emphasis have been community social psychology with an emphasis on the role of social movements and social and political commentary and critique. I will present a review of the field covering some key concepts (conscientisation, de-ideologization, historical memory, reconstruction of psychology from the perspective of the other), its geographical spread (in Latin America and other regions), its organization (the emergence of liberation psychology networks and collectives) and some examples of work that is relevant to social trauma, the theme of this symposium.

Cracking The Code: A Critical Discourse Analysis Of The Canadian Code Of Ethics For Psychologists

“…Liberation psychology is a field that particularly privileges an approach grounded within the lived experiences of the groups and communities affected by oppression. It assumes no monolithic theory or approach as the work of liberation psychologists takes shape within the groups and communities of work and change (Burton & Gómez Ordóñez, 2015). As actionfocused within equitable and inclusive power relations, every aspect of research is carried out with marginalized individuals.…”

Expanding conceptions of liberation: Holding Marxisms with liberation psychology

“…The last of LP's core elements encourages psychologists to focus on a new praxis that receives every perspective critically and aims to transform and clearly articulate reality so that we know what it is, what it is not, and what it ought to be (Martín- Baró, 1994). For this reason, practices of LP are often linked to social justice movements (Burton & Gómez, 2015) which do not rely on distanced, individualised, and/or temporary psychological fixes. Instead, psychologists operating within the liberation paradigm facilitate the autonomy and the critical consciousness of people who may then enact further psychosocial change.…”

“…When we hold LP with Marxisms, we afford particular attention to how people's contextual embeddedness functions alongside their individualised temporal location, that is, we engage psychologically with the time-space dialectic. Those operating from an LP paradigm tend to insist on the importance of historical memory, with historiography and its relationship to historical erasure-such as that wrought by colonialism and ongoing coloniality (see Fanon, 1963)-forming a key component of LP (Burton & Gómez, 2015). Marxist historical materialism, however, roots history proper as emerging from revolutionary class struggle (Eagleton, 2011;Marx, 1867Marx, /2010, concerning itself less with the version of history that is prioritised (see Benjamin's, 2007, Marxist treatise of historiography and meaning for a notable exception in this regard), and more with ways that history has unfolded, and indeed how the working class can take control of this unfolding process.…”

Psychologists Against Austerity: mobilising psychology for social change

“…Moving from critical to community psychology, we can perhaps start to find some paths out of this conundrum. Burton (2013) offers Liberation Psychology, emergent in Latin America, as an example of: "a socially committed psychology characterised by the reconstruction of psychology in dynamic relationship with social issues, social action and social movements" (p. 252). Drawing on the work of scholars such as Martin- Baro (1996) and Enrique Dussel (Burton & Flores, 2011), then we can see the possibility of drawing on the legitimacy, training and knowledge of psychological practitioners, while subverting an individualised and individualising psychological account.…”