Home For Librarians Authors Jenna MacKay Carleton University Dr. Joshua Goodbaum Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Editor Professor Thomas Teo Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada Help My SpringerReference Go Advanced Search Behavioral Science > Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology > Abuse, Overview Cite | History | Comment | Print | References | Image Gallery | Hide Links Update Article Abuse, Overview Introduction A defining feature of abuse is the reduction of human welfare. Abuse can be perpetrated in covert, systemic forms (e.g., discrimination, inequality) and overt, direct forms of interpersonal violence (e.g., hate crimes, rape). From a systemic standpoint, abuse is connected to multiple invisible power structures and relations that produce and maintain social inequity. In understanding abuse, psychology is uniquely positioned as both a power structure that has created and perpetuated abuses, and a social science that contributes to scholarly knowledge of abuse. Judging by its absence from the indexes of several introductory critical psychology readers (e.g., Fox, Prilleltensky & Austin, 2009; Hook, 2004), “abuse” is not often a directly explored concept by critically-minded psychologists. Although seldom named, abuse has been both a rich topic of inquiry and a motivational force in examining psychology’s own knowledge and practices. This has involved the study of abusive practices within psychology, as well as more general societal processes. Within the discipline, psychology is argued to have been “complicit in perpetrating oppressive social relations…exercis[ing] power through both its methods and its forms of knowledge.” (Kiguwa, 2004, p. 7 - 9) Through claims of objectivity and neutrality, psychology has been able to research the experiences of various groups without acknowledging the impact of its own power or interests in the research process and application of findings (Prilleltensky, 2008). This has had an impact outside of the discipline. For instance, psychologists have actively participated in the development of racist and oppressive American policies that have had an impact domestically and internationally (Herman, 1995). Repressive uses of psychology are not limited to the United States. For instance psychologists have been instrumental in constructing, perpetuating and maintaining South African apartheid (Duncan, Stevens & Bowman, 2004). Thus psychology contributes to both systemic and direct abuses. In contrast, critical psychology incorporates a social, contextual analysis of abuse into psychological theory, research and practice. In general, critical psychology is committed to a principle of social justice that explicitly works to eradicate abuse by being cognizant of power and the ways in which psychology constructs, perpetuates and maintains abusive practices. Definition According to the Oxford English Dictionary (Abuse, 2012) abuse is a chronic “corrupt practice or custom,” “contemptuous or insulting language,” and/or sexual, physical and/or psychological maltreatment. These definitions demonstrate that abuse includes direct actions and systematic processes that undermine an individual’s well-being and selfdetermination. As there is no accepted definition of abuse within critical psychology literature, we will utilize the overlapping concept of violence. Bulhan (1985) defined violence as “any relations, process, or condition by which an individual or group violates the physical, social and/or psychological integrity of another person. From this perspective, violence inhibits human growth, negates human potential, limits productive living and causes death.” (p. 135) We believe that from a critical psychological perspective, it is important to conceptualize abuse with the same criteria Bulhan uses for defining violence. Bulhan’s definition is useful because it is incorporates the invisible networks of power that construct, sustain and perpetuate oppression, and is inclusive of both direct and systemic forms of abuse. Examples of direct abuse include power and control against another person or group of people through sexual, physical, emotional and verbal assaults, along with neglect (an example of abuse that is specific to groups, such as children or persons with disabilities, that are dependent upon others for needed care). Direct abuse is often studied and discussed in regard to the specific groups to which the abuse is targeted (e.g., child abuse, woman abuse, elder abuse). Although there are many explanatory factors, abuse against specific groups is often understood as reflecting underlying identity-based oppressions (e.g., sexism as a cause of woman abuse, ageism as a cause of elder abuse). In contrast to direct abuse, systemic abuse refers to societal power structures that locate some individuals in positions of privilege and others in positions of disempowerment. This includes the marginalization of some intersecting aspects of identity (e.g., race, class, ability, sexuality, geography, status, gender, education, religion) and experiences of discrimination and inequality. Keywords A wide variety of concepts discussed in this encyclopedia are clearly interrelated to a discussion of abuse. In alphabetical order, keywords that seem particularly relevant to a discussion of abuse are: Bullying, Child Abuse, Conflict, Disciplinary Power, Logout Disempowerment, Disenfranchisement, Domestic Violence, Dominance, Elder Abuse, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Epistemological Violence, Exploitation, Gender-based Violence, Genocide, Homophobia, Neglect, Oppression, Patriarchy, Poverty, Power, Prejudice, Racism, Rape, Scapegoating, Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Subordination, Torture, Trauma, Victimization, Violence, Women Abuse and Xenophobia. History When exploring the historical study of abuse from a critical psychology perspective, it is important to focus on both evolving psychological conceptualizations of abuse, and the steps by which the professions own abuses came to light. Although these histories are interconnected, they will be discussed separately. Regarding the former, the Great Depression and World War II (WWII) are two key antecedents of critical psychology. An outcome of unemployment during the Great Depression was the founding of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) in 1936, which was the first psychological organization dedicated to promoting social justice and human welfare (Pancer, 1997). During WWII, rising anti-Semitism in Europe resulted in some important psychologists immigrating to the United States, from where they developed many concepts that illuminate our understanding of abuse and social injustice (Pancer, 1996). This included seminal theorist, Kurt Lewin, who introduced concepts of a humanistic psychology, “group dynamics” and “action research” to the discipline (Ring, 1967). Lewin’s belief that science could advance human welfare and that research could lead to social action inspired a body of work that deepened psychology’s understanding of prejudice and discrimination (Ring, 1967). Both the SPSSI and Lewin were important influences in positioning psychology within the community and examining social issues, which led to an increased understanding of the dynamics of abuse. In regard to psychology’s own abuses, the profession has historically (and arguably, contemporaneously) erased its relationship to power, and thus misuses of power, through assertions of neutrality and objectivity (Prilleltensky, 2008). Drawing upon the energy and resources of the 1960s protest cycles, a number of psychologists began questioning the role that psychology played in social injustice, drawing attention to various systemic and direct abuses. One of the dominant criticisms of psychology at this time was that through individualism, psychology placed responsibility for both problems and solutions within the person, failing to acknowledge the impact of community contexts or social systems upon individual thoughts and behaviors (Pancer, 1997). Through such insights and social pressures, psychologists began acknowledging their own role in perpetrating systemic abuse (e.g., generalizing research on white males college students to diverse populations) and direct abuse (e.g., creating knowledge that legitimized the mistreatment and/or pathologization of minority groups). Traditional Debates Generally, positivistic psychology has taken a person-centered approach to understanding the struggles of individuals/groups, rather than rooting experiences within multi-leveled power systems. Reductionism has informed many of the traditional debates of abuse in psychology. Psychology has addressed the concept of abuse by researching areas such as: aggression, domestic violence, victims, conflict, bullying, sexual assault, stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. The causes of various forms of abuse have generally been understood using biological, psychological or social explanations. Biological Explanations The longstanding nature versus nurture debate has characterized this area of research by asking whether direct forms of violence are the result of a hard-wired need for dominance. Evolutionary psychologists have theorized that abusive behaviours, including rape (Thornhill and Palmer, 2000), are genetically programmed to ensure successfully reproduction. Other research has examined the influence of different brain structures, neural chemicals and hormones in violent behaviours. Psychological Explanations Psychological scholarship has generally attempted to understand abuse by examining how individual intra-psychic factors do or do not relate to abusive thoughts, feelings and behaviours such as prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination. To understand such psychological phenomena, contemporary theories and research often emphasize cognitive mechanisms. For instance, schemas and heuristics may lead to biased judgments toward those who do not share aspects of one’s own social locations, and are thus regarded as “different.” This can then lead to discriminatory thoughts, feelings and/or actions. Research has also identified personality variables, such as authoritarianism, that increase the likelihood of an individual identifying with prejudiced beliefs. Social Explanations Social factors are recognized as having considerable influence on people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours. While there are exceptions, in traditional psychology social factors are primarily researched and discussed in individualized terms, removed from substantial consideration of the social, political, cultural and economical context. Social factors that have received research attention have ranged from alcohol consumption, which can lead to the perpetration of severe physical violence, to access to resources, with fewer resources motivating higher levels of aggression. A particularly productive theory of the influence of social factors on behaviour is social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). From this perspective, children learn behaviours by observing and reenacting. Thus, abuse is learned through social interactions with caregivers, peers and the media. In exploring possible solutions for ending abuse, traditional psychology often emphasizes interventions that aim at producing changes within the individual. Such interventions may be educational in nature, with a focus on promoting greater empathy and/or teaching problem-solving skills and non-violent communication techniques to abusive individuals. Additionally, in ending prejudice and discrimination, socialization that promotes acceptance is commonly endorsed, along with classroom techniques that increase children’s contact and collaboration with children from different backgrounds. While such initiatives are important, they will fail to end abuse if they are not integrated into a multi-pronged approach that creates structural change. Critical Debates In response to the deficits in traditional debates and perspectives of mainstream psychology, critical psychologists have embraced various theories. Although not exhaustive, this section will briefly describe counter-perspectives of abuse that draw upon Marxist, Feminist, and Black theory. Marxist Explanations Marxist theory explains systemic abuses as being rooted in the alienation and exploitation of workers by the ruling class. To create social change, Marxism urges the development of a class-consciousness that resists economic exploitation and seeks widespread economic structural changes to reduce human suffering. Marxism has influenced psychology in areas such as psychoanalysis (i.e., Freudian Marxists), research and theory. Of particular importance for critical psychology is the work of Michel Foucault (2006), who drew upon an analysis of social class and alienation in connecting evolving understandings of mental illness to the impacts of European industrialization. Foucault argued that the efforts to label and treat mental illness were systemic abuses of marginalized individuals and rooted in efforts of social control. Feminist Explanations Feminist psychology is informed by the theory and politics of the women’s movement and has been instrumental in understanding the abuse of women and children, as well as social inequity more generally. Feminists have critiqued abuses within psychology by examining the discipline from a gendered-lens. For example, feminist psychologists have illuminated abusive practices within psychology by drawing attention to the historical and contemporary lack of research relevant to women’s lives and sexist therapeutic practices (Clarke & Braun, 2009). In contrast to mainstream psychology, feminist psychologists have been instrumental in the development of qualitative methodology as a psychological method that seeks to reduce power imbalances between researcher and participant (Clarke & Braun, 2009). Feminist psychologists have also been pioneering in understanding the sexual, physical, and psychology abuse of women and children by developing explanatory theories, conducting research and developing therapy techniques in this area. Black Psychology The 1960s civil rights era in the United States is commonly regarded as the “birth” of Black psychology, although earlier forms existed (Ratele, 2004). Black psychology drew attention to the way in which psychological knowledge systems maintained and reflected racist societal power systems. For example, many psychological theories perpetuated racism by generalizing Black identity and explaining Black people’s using traditional theories developed by white psychologists for white people. (White, 1980 cited in Ratele, 2004) In response, Black psychology demanded for the experiences and meanings of Black American’s to be taken up by scholars and researchers from a Black, anti-racist perspective. Black psychologists engaged in activism directed towards professional psychology, developed an awareness of race and racism within psychology, constructed anti-racist, strengths-based theories, conducted research to challenge racism and developed therapeutic models of cultural competency (Ratele, 2004), Although not exhaustive, these critical debates give an introduction into how social, cultural, political and historical forces have influenced the theory and practice of psychology. In response to specific types and aspects of abuse, Marxist, Feminist and Black psychologists have focused their production of knowledge, research and practice to a specific social location (i.e., class, gender, race). These, along with other critical debates (e.g., postcolonial, post-modern), have been necessary in developing a greater understanding of power structures, the intersections of power systems in the lives of individuals and examining and resisting the presence of these power systems within and outside of psychology. International Relevance In an increasingly globalized world, abuse is perpetuated not only at the local level but by neo-colonial, capitalist power systems. One specific form of abuse, scientific racism, has had an impact internationally. Indeed, the dominant history and conceptualization of psychology in North America follows a colonial lineage emphasizing the superiority of white, European scholars (Teo, 2010). In describing contemporary colonialism hidden within psychology, Teo argues that prejudice is not the individual experience commonly described by cognitive factors of social psychology, but a form of psychological knowledge. Specifically, prejudice is informed by a history of assumptions that privilege Eurocentric knoweldges and traditions and discredit the “other.” Furthermore, Teo notes that as a result of globalization and colonization, Western psychology has erased indigenous psychologies. However, critical psychologists in Latin America and South Africa have conceptualized psychology as a tool not only of repression, but also of liberation and social action against abusive power systems. Committed to social change, liberation psychology works to change social structures that create and maintain human suffering (e.g., poverty, inquality). One method of achieving this is through participatory action research, which reduces power imbalances inherent in psychological research by insisting that researchers understand issues from the perspective of the oppressed and that the outcomes are applied. Practice Relevance Given that all individuals are connected to privilege and oppression, abuse is a topic of relevance to everyone. With a critical lens, psychologists have challenged abuse by constructing critical theories and methods that challenge the perpetuation of epistemological and ontological abuse. Similarly, liberatory research methodologies that engage the perspectives of diverse individuals/communities for applied outcomes, such as participatory action research, have been used to understand and respond to community issues (e.g., Freire, Fanon, Sandoval, Martín-Baró). Understanding abuse is not only relevant in conducting and applying research, but also in applied aspects of psychology, such as therapy. A critical understanding of abuse has been foundational in the construction of critical models of therapy (e.g., feminist therapy). Given that abuse includes both interpersonal and socio-cultural factors, critical therapy connects the personal to the political through the integration of an analysis of power and control. Future Directions In this overview, we have defined abuse in broad terms and attempted to demonstrate the interconnections of systemic and direct forms of abuse both inside and outside of psychology. One growing theory for understanding the multiple axes of power that operate to create, sustain and maintain abuse through the power dynamics of privileged and oppression is intersectionality. Intersectionality is a framework that explores how various aspects of identity (e.g., race, ability, sexuality, gender) interact to inform privilege and oppression at micro and macro levels. Since Prilleltensky (2008) argues that the integration of a psychological and political analysis is critical in the promotion of human welfare, intersectional psychological analyses of power and oppression may be the way forward in researching, understanding, resisting and healing from abuse. While such a framework may promote our understanding of how power operates, we cannot move forward without caution. Under umbrella concepts of “oppression” and “intersectionality,” some aspects of abuse may be rendered invisible. For instance, by focusing on oppression more generally, an analysis of racism may be omitted. Thus, it is important to understand the multiple, macro power systems while still asking who may not be represented in such work, and grounding research, knowledge and practice in the abusive experiences of individual’s lives. While we have clearly demonstrated that psychology can participate in abuse, psychology can also be used as a tool of liberation. Critical psychologists are dedicated to the liberatory utility and possibilities of psychology, using its power to challenge and dismantle abuse both within and outside of the discipline. References Abuse. (2012). Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/821?rskey=8DZlTV&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Bulhan, H. A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Clarke, V & Braun, V. (2009). Gender. In Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I. & Austin, S. (Eds.). Critical psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Duncan, N., Stevens, G. & Bowman B. (2004). South African psychology and racism: Historical determinants and future prospects. In Hook, D. (Ed.). Critical psychology. Landsdowne, SA: University of Cape Town Press. Foucault, M. (2006). History of Madness. (J. Murphy & J. Khalfa, Trans.) J. Khalfa, (Ed.). New York: Routledge. Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I. & Austin, S. (Eds.) (2009). Critical psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Heman, E. (1995). The romance of American psychology: Political culture in the age of experts. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Hook, D. (Ed.) (2004). Critical psychology. Landsdowne, SA: University of Cape Town Press. Kiguwa, P. (2004). Feminist Critical Psychology in South Africa. In K. Ratele, N. Duncan, D. Hook, N. Mkhize, P. Kiguwa & A. Collins (Eds.), Self, Community and Psychology (pp. 7-1-738). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Pancer, S. M. (1997). Social psychology: The crisis continues. In Fox, D. & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). Critical psychology: An introduction. London, UK: Sage. Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116 – 136. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20225 Ratele, K. (2004). About black psychology. In Hook, D. (Ed.). Critical psychology. Landsdowne, SA: University of Cape Town Press. Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 113 – 123. Teo, T. (2010). The critique of psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory. New York, NY: Springer. Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2000). A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Online Resources Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) Inequality.org (http://inequality.org) National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (http://www.ncadv.org) The Public Science Project (http://www.publicscienceproject.org) Sexual Violence Research Initiatives (http://www.svri.org) Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (http://www.spissi.org) UNICEF (http://www.unicef.org) UNiTE to End Violence Against Women (http://endviolence.un.org) © Springer 2013 Imprint | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | About Us | System Requirements Powered by illucIT Software Logged in as Thomas Teo (tteo@yorku.ca) · SpringerReference Community [3000447318] Remote Address: 99.237.201.103 Server: senldogo0367 Date: 2013-10-17 20:53:05 CEST User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_5) AppleWebKit/536.30.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.5 Safari/536.30.1 Project Version: 1.12 (2013-10-17)