Before we begin to delve into the details of Community Social Psychology as a potential ally of positive psychology, we believe it is first necessary to cast a look over the current political, economic, and social situation in Latin America. Indeed, if we observe the transformation that human relationships are undergoing today in Latin American societies – particularly in urban and industrialized areas – we cannot help noticing that the prevailing socio-economic model of this part of the world is increasingly associated with the neoliberal creed, ruthless capitalism, and Protestant work ethic (Stoll, 1990; Weber, 1905/2013). This kind of social order is becoming internalized to uphold a particular kind of individual and social worldview, which we call the “romantic imposture.” We believe it is an “imposture” in that it proposes a narrative whereby people accept dysfunctional socio-economic and political circumstances that are deceptively presented to them as natural and/or unchangeable. On the other hand, it is also “romantic” since, despite implying a life full of misery and exploitation, this worldview offers a “comfort zone” built on the shared belief of the unalterable nature of the world.
One primary tenet of the romantic imposture is firmly supported by the ideology of the mainstream Latin American political parties. This is based on the assumption that governments, in order to promote the welfare and care of their citizens – particularly the less fortunate – should become advocates and facilitators of private enterprises. However, this entails that the latter become the actual administrators of what would otherwise be public services, and by thriving on the “law of capital” they can dictate the standards of governance, approval of laws, and implementation of public policies.
To live in modern Latin American society not only implies deferring to this model, but also accepting the protection of guardian countries, which are headed by the G8 grouping of the eight most economically and politically powerful countries in the world – namely, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Russia. The G8 countries play the role of “parents of the economy,” as promoters of global well-being and their own conception of world peace. In reality, they watch over other countries to ensure that the latter “stay in line,” or, in other words, that they do not adhere to any other economic or political model. As such, the G8 countries define, from their own hegemonic position, the governmental, economic, and political world organization. In fact, they act as self-legitimized structures whose control over the mechanics of the world cascades from governments to social organizations, to families, and ultimately down to individual lives (Gronau, 2015). They have, as a result, naturalized their own ideologies of logic, morals, and code of conduct to such an extent that they present themselves – and are widely perceived – as enfolded by an ontological aura, an affirmation whose very existence is not (to be) questioned (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Miranda Pacheco, 2004).
The narratives and social dynamics imposed by the G8, which are claimed to be for the sake of the common good, are in fact necessary to justify their presence and the actions taken against countries that do not abide by their rules. Latin American countries such as Cuba, Chile, or Venezuela are good examples of attempted alternative models – particularly socialist/communist political experiments – that have attracted the wrath of some of the G8 countries, such as the United States (Galeano, 1971). Indeed, when rules are broken, punishment against rebellious countries must be imposed (e.g., economic sanctions, internal conflicts, open warfare), the latter being accepted as a necessary price to pay in order to maintain global law and order. Klein (2008) called this practice, which has been described under a variety of different names, Shock Doctrine. According to the shock doctrine theory, the ideological bombardment carried out by the “guardian countries” – which is justified by the necessity to ensure stability and world peace – has been so successful that is now widely accepted as a legitimate purpose. Moreover, “custodial” interventions subtly impinge on everyday life experiences, which in turn shape patterns of social interactions. This is quite evident in the constant attempt of the guardian countries to be at the center of the “globalization scene,” despite presenting themselves as natural and even altruistic allies of humanity striving to protect the universal order and provide global welfare in the long run. In reality, their interference in global matters – shrouded by a halo of pseudo-divine wisdom – imposes everyday forms of human relations that are defined by individualism, decontextualization, and a widespread lack of solidarity. These attributes stem directly from the Protestant ideology (Weber, 1905/2013), which assumes “salvation” to be an individual rather than a collective achievement. It follows that human flourishing is propagandized as being almost exclusively dependent on “presentist” individual life choices, which are aimed at increasing personal well-being regardless of the fate of others.
Stated differently, the guardian countries claim that globalization will ultimately save us from plights such as poverty, underdevelopment, political instability, and even the demon of communism. Yet, they advocate a strategy that draws on individual consciousness, even though the individual is largely disconnected from the fate of the entire world. In other words, what is presented as the main ally of globalization is, paradoxically, individualism – that is, an alienated and causal consciousness, which purports to attain salvation through self-realization, while ignoring whether the rest of the world – including the self itself – might be condemned to damnation as a consequence.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, alarming social issues and injustices around Europe and North America kept vast numbers of people in poverty, marginalization, and political persecution. This endangered human dignity and sometimes even resulted in fatalities. Against this background, social psychology in North America and Europe underwent a crisis of relevance, being accused of caring more about attaining scientific legitimacy than being involved in more practical issues (Montero, 1998; Sánchez, 1996; Soto Martínez, 2004). As a consequence, Latin American social psychology gradually shifted from a descriptive and neutral stance aimed at achieving purported scientific status to one that was actively aimed at transforming social reality (Marin, 1983; Rappaport, 1978). Against this background, Latin American community social psychology1 emerged with a proposal to critically examine those aspects of social reality that have become “naturalized,” thus becoming accepted as inevitable and inducing a reluctance in the population to change them. Indeed, naturalization frames conditions such as poverty, labor exploitation, sexism, and social inequalities as a fact of life, which in turn feeds a vicious circle of social inequity (Freire, 1970; Martín-Baró, 1983). Contrary to this argument, community social psychology is committed to raising awareness about the social nature of injustice. Naturalization, in fact, is a social process likely to uphold dysfunctional social dynamics of abuse, oppression, and enslavement, whereby people are often blamed for their condition in life (Ryan, 1971) and made incapable of questioning the status quo (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
This condition calls for a radical transformation of the theoretical frameworks that underpin social reality as well as the practical actions required to change it, which in the context of Latin American theory are referred to as praxis (Mario & Osorio, 2009). Praxis is always a desideratum, but it becomes particularly necessary when social realities urgently require interventions to restore empowerment, community identity, leadership, power, problematization, deideologization and critical conscientization (Montero & Varas Díaz, 2007). Praxis came about in Latin America in the 1980s as a response to the crisis of ideology and relevance in social psychology (Elms, 1975). Having a clear political and ethical commitment, it addresses and confronts oppression in its various forms while attending to the needs of the people. In this sense, the community social psychology approach promotes social transformation, which stems directly from the liberation of consciousness from individual, social, institutional, and global influences (Freire, 1970; Martín-Baró, 1983).
This epistemological objective is similar in scope to positive psychology. However, interventions in the latter field have hitherto been limited to the transformation of the individual, whereas Latin American community social psychology has extended its area of action to include social change. Indeed, despite a few exceptions (see Tonon, 2014), since its introduction in Latin America nearly twenty years ago (Casullo, 2000), positive psychology seems to have made few adjustments to the socio-cultural and political conditions of this particular context. This has had both advantages and disadvantages for the development of the discipline (see Castro Solano, 2014, p. 6). However, the main issue revolves around the question: “Does ‘having a good life’ have the same meaning in countries with natural disasters, political instability and recurring economic crises than in countries where these conditions are less frequent?” (Castro Solano, 2014, p. 19).
In this chapter, we argue that positive psychology could be better integrated within the Latin American context if it drew on the richness of models and practices found in liberation social psychology and community social psychology. In fact, the latter have been specifically developed to promote social change, the betterment of everyday living conditions, and socio-ecological ethics (Chacón Fuentes & García González, 1998). As a word of caution, however, we should note that, since these models are primarily a product of the Latin American culture, they are imbued with some distinctive elements that are typical of this context2 (Wiesenfeld & Sánchez, 1991). For instance, despite a substantial degree of commonality with its North American counterpart, Latin American community social psychology holds social bonding – in terms of strong citizenship and political outlook – to be the essence of the transformational power of communities (Montero, 1996). In addition, Burton and Kagan (2005, 2009) have identified ‘conscientization,’ ‘realismo-crítico,’ ‘de-ideologization,’ a social orientation, ‘the preferential option for the oppressed majorities,’ and methodological eclecticism’ (Burton & Kagan, 2005, p. 63) as key concepts of the liberation psychology and community social psychology experience in Latin America.
In that regard, Montero (1998) synthesized at least three influences that Latin American psychology has assimilated, with a particular reference to liberation psychology as proposed by Martín-Baró as a “daughter of crisis” (Soto Martínez, 2004). We present these influences here as an entry point for combining positive psychology and community social psychology.
In the first place, we must be aware that Latin American social reality has been marked by the oppressive power of a dominant class controlling and exploiting the majority of the population. To fully understand this state of affairs, we must avoid decontextualized, individualistic, and presentist explanations to understand how oppression becomes historically naturalized in the minds of the majority (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). For instance, one way of reproducing the dehumanization of reality is to manipulate people’s religious faith to justify the actions that serve the interest of the ruling class (Martín-Baró, 1987). The first duty of Latin American liberation psychology is therefore to uncover these processes and bring about awareness, which in turn should lead to the liberation of consciousness (Montenegro, 2002).
Doing psychology as a service for the populace leads to Montero’s (1998) second point, which is a call for a socially relevant praxis aimed at changing reality. This involves an epistemological contextualization that significantly contributes to social transformation, requiring us to take a political position relative to how we do psychology. Being aware of a) the epistemological positions that professionals assume and how these inevitably contain political conditionings, and b) the social forces that intervene in the construction of social realities, necessarily makes community social psychology a politically conscious form of psychology (Montero, 1996).
The third influence described by Montero (1998) refers to the transcendence of religiosity, or more specifically to the impact of liberation theology on the religious imagery of Latin America. During the last quarter of the twentieth century, the radical approach of the Catholic church has had repercussions across Latin American social thinking, leading psychology to assume a social commitment to the neediest and the oppressed majority as well as the transformation of their conditions. In particular, as Martín-Baró (1994) described in his seminal book Writing for a Liberation Psychology, liberation theology informs the practice of liberation psychology through: a) the promotion of life and liberation from social and individual structures that perpetuate a state of mortal oppression of the majority of the people, b) the primacy of practice over theory, and c) the priority for the poor and marginalized to achieve collective salvation (pp. 25–26).
All these elements combined – namely, a critical view of social reality, consciousness of relations of oppression, psychological praxis at the service of the majority, a desire to improve the social conditions of existence, social praxis relevant to social reality, and the influence of ancestral religious narratives in Latin America – lay the groundwork for the emergence of new ways of doing psychology. This ethical, political, and psychological practice is well summarized by the words of the Colombian scholar Edgar Barrero (2012):
The ethical – political horizon of Liberation Social Psychology … is to put psychological knowledge at the service of the psycho-social transformational processes in which the majority of the people may transform the conditions of their material, psychological, spiritual, and relational existence.
(pp. 39)
As we shall argue in the following pages, this alternative approach to mainstream psychology has the potential to create a novel community social psychology informed by the practice of positive psychology. Therefore, in this chapter we advocate for a “community social psychology” that can combat social and political injustices in order to effectively enable people to achieve meaning in life, which positive psychology advocates as one of the primary purposes of human existence (Baumgardner & Crothers, 2009; Seligman, 2002).
At this point, the reader may wonder why we have talked so extensively about macroeconomic and macrosocial aspects, when the declared objective of this chapter is the relationship between positive psychology and community social psychology. We believe this introduction is necessary to counteract the tendency of mainstream psychology to turn the experiences of the individual into a self-explanatory reality whereby people’s behaviors and life choices are used as the main justification for their position in society (Martín-Baró, 1983).
In that regard, positive psychology has been strongly criticized for its “positive individualism,” which is overly focused on individuals in isolation while ignoring their social context (Cabañas & Sánchez, 2012; Fernández Rios, 2008). For this reason, positive psychology has been accused of being an ally of self-centrism and capitalism, unable to understand the human suffering produced by socio-economic and political circumstances (Becker & Marecek, 2008; McDonald & O’Callaghan, 2008). Given these critiques, it would perhaps come as a surprise to the reader to hear that positive psychology, at its inception, rejected humanistic psychology due to its extreme individualism (Vázquez, 2013) and presented symbolic human communal ties and a sense of belonging as crucial to promoting human well-being and happiness (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Despite the fact that positive psychology seems to have partially lost sight of its original intentions, we believe that these objectives can still be part of the discipline’s goals. Therefore, we will draw on that legacy to propose positive psychology as an ally of community social psychology. In fact, a close look at the parallels between these two approaches reveals that they share purposes and direction. Indeed, positive psychology and community social psychology both hold the promotion of people’s quality of life and well-being as their main objective. As such, they emphasize the role of the person in developing one’s own destiny, the importance of social factors in personal development and social institutions as facilitators for social change, and the ways in which these are necessarily related to individuals’ mental health and happiness (Biswas-Diener, Linley, Govindji, & Woolston, 2011; Schueller, 2009).
However, the main difference between the two approaches lies in their vision of the individual’s destiny. Whilst positive psychology posits that human beings are endowed with positive mental attitudes, strengths, and resilience that allow them to increase their sense of well-being while acting as barriers to mental disorders (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Snyder, Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2011), community social psychology believes that people can better deal with the transformation of individual and social conditions of existence if they are empowered by adequate socio-political and economic conditions (Maton, 2008). This entails promoting psychosocial control and empowerment, tackling individual and social issues, and changing the physical environment as well as the psychosocial construction of reality (Montero, 1984; Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010). Moreover, both psychologies strive to positively transform people’s consciousness to successfully enable them to confront the challenges, difficulties, and adversities that life may present (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Vaillant, 2000). However, while positive psychology tries to achieve this goal by enhancing the interior powers of the subject via social support, cognitive strategies, and reduced subjective stress through healthy involuntary mental mechanisms (Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009), community social psychology strives towards a similar objective by enhancing the social powers of the subject while promoting participation in community life (Montenegro, 2002).
Given these premises, we believe that in expanding the scope of action of positive psychology into the ethos and practice of community social psychology, we will find several conceptual similarities. For example, positive self-esteem is related to community welfare (Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989). Flow, which has been described by Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2014) as “the subjective experience of engaging just-manageable challenges by tackling a series of goals, continuously processing feedback about progress, and adjusting action based on this feedback” (p. 90), can be endorsed by the active involvement of people in both online and offline community activities (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003; Wu & Chang, 2005). Other positive psychological traits, such as optimism and creativity, can also contribute to strengthening communal ties. Moreover, we argue that even when the results of an intervention are not as expected, shared frustrations and collective failures might still give rise to a collective sense of hope and perseverance. In fact, in full alignment with the goals of positive psychology, community engagement acts as an enhancer of positive psychological strategies of coping such as optimism, interpersonal skills, faith, work ethics, hope, honesty, perseverance, and the ability to “go with the flow” (Contreras & Esguerra, 2006). Furthermore, in those cases in which Latin American positive psychology has taken into account matters of social justice and equity, it has also laid the groundwork for building positive communities through enhancing satisfaction with a) the existence and accessibility of amenities (e.g., open/green spaces or cultural spaces); b) the accessibility and efficiency of public services (e.g., educational or social services); c) the accessibility and quality of housing, public transport, etc.; d) levels of social support from neighbors and other citizens; and e) (local) government policies (Tonon, 2014, p. 238).
As we have shown, despite sometimes significant differences, both positive psychology and community social psychology are able to focus on the individual as a social being. Yet, we argue that the potential of this combination could be magnified if we were to treat individuals as promoters of both personal and social change; or, in other words, if we were to look at people’s behaviors no longer as an individual exercise, but as a social product. The expansion of action may be also increased once people who used to perceive themselves only as abstracted individuals come to understand how the power that has been taken away from them by the system can be regained and used as a means for social change. In fact, people who become conscious that their transformational power is underpinned by the social capital of the community are more likely to join a virtuous circle of participation and promotion of social action (Klesner, 2007). This constitutes, from our perspective, an opportunity to consider people as no longer detached from their context, but as social entities that are part of a web of social relationships. For this reason, we argue that the first step in putting positive psychology and community social psychology together is the reconversion of the neoliberal subject into a “social individual,” who carries the potential to become an agent of both personal and social change. Stated differently, the purpose of psychosocial interventions is to make people aware of the positive power they possess to transform their own destiny. However, this transformational process does not call for a solo effort, with a few superheroes and mavericks fighting against the world. It is, rather, a social process, in which the individual is intrinsically tied to others, and whose very strength resides in the power of the social (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010). In that sense, we abide by the truth of the old saying “There’s strength in numbers.”
Since every community has its own peculiarities and unique history, the enhancement of people’s awareness must take place within the possibilities offered by the social context. In that regard, both positive psychologists and community social psychologists should approach every community as a new experience whilst demonstrating an ability to put themselves into the other’s shoes. By walking in those shoes, the psychologist can begin an investigative process with – neither “for” or “to” – the community. Community social psychology and positive psychology can share useful instruments to jointly achieve this purpose. For instance, community social psychology makes great use of Participatory Action Research (PAR), which was originally proposed by Colombian scholar Orlando Fals Borda (Fals Borda & Rahman, 1991; Fals Borda & Rodríguez Brandao, 1987) as a tool to bring about individual and collective awareness. In fact, PAR offers, among other things, the following advantages: a) it integrates both research and action in a given context; b) it can be integrated into the social process without abstract questions of scientific nature or validity; and c) it enables researchers to gain a real understanding of each community to ultimately promote social change (Bradbury, 2015). Furthermore, the combination of research and action inherent in PAR contributes to the bridging of epistemological dichotomies such as dualism/monism, researcher/participant, and subject/object (Montero, 2002).
In addition to humanizing both participants and researcher(s), this approach constitutes a dialectic of emotional attachment that develops positive experiences for both the professional and the community. On one hand, PAR facilitates the integration of the psychologist into the community by fostering a positive emotional attachment that arises from a shared sense of enthusiasm for being part of a common project. Also, being part of community dynamics turns the psychologist into a narrator, participant, viewer, receiver, and story-teller of people’s lives (Seligman & Peterson, 2003).
On the other hand, the person with enhanced community consciousness experiences the joy of being an actor within the narrative of community life. In PAR, in fact, participants are not treated as “objects” of intervention – as would be the case in the positivist paradigm – but as human beings endowed with knowledge and experience of historical and contextualized processes (Bradbury, 2015).
Given these premises, both positive and community social psychologists must be prepared to go to great lengths to be accepted by the members of the community. To this end, they must share the actions, customs, and habits of the community as if they were their own, in order to see reality from the community’s point of view. In return, it is very likely that members of the community will respond to this gesture of humility and solidarity by treating the psychologist as a familiar figure to whom they can disclose more details of their lives. If the intervention is successful, they will eventually come to see the psychologist as a fellow member of their community.
To this end, community social psychology can combine the advantages of PAR with some of the practices developed by positive psychology to link the subject to the process of community cohesion, particularly during the early phases of an intervention. For example, practitioners who approach a community that has never been the subject of an intervention are often faced with the stakeholders’ manifestations of “humility,” which in fact conceal fear and wariness towards social organizations. This is particularly evident in deprived areas where poverty and oppression are common features, and the vision that people have of themselves has been “naturalized” (Freire, 1970). Under these circumstances, people can be afraid to critically think and speak out, and to act and unite with others to change their fate. In this context, the psychologist must encourage people to participate by emphasizing the positive value of their contribution, regardless of how small they think it might be. During this stage, positive psychology can come to the aid of community social psychologists by bringing to bear the power of expressing gratitude (Emmons & Shelton, 2002), in this case with victimized subjects of structural abuse. Actions like sincerely being grateful for their attendance at meetings, welcoming their ideas and proposals for actions, and bringing them together to be part of the collective effort, allow subjects who might have initially thought themselves to be of no use in the process of community development to feel a useful part of an engine for change (Emmons & McCullough, 2004). In that regard, we recommend that the community social psychologist should use the techniques of positive psychology from the inception of the project to ensure maximum collaboration and optimal results.
For example, on their first visit to a very deprived community that lacked potable water and hygienic services, the first author of this chapter and some of his colleagues were offered a cup of coffee. Although the drink was made out of unclean drinking water, the researchers willingly accepted it and drank together with their hosts. They also did not forget to thank them for that kind gesture, which they could see was offered to them despite a precarious situation. After some time had elapsed – when the process of community building was well underway – the members of the community shared with the researchers how significant it had been that moment when they first approached the community and shared coffee with them, because the “doctor had sat at their table as a neighbor.” The simple gesture of sharing a cup of coffee was seen as a positive action, which opened the way for a connection between the professional and the community.
While suggesting that both community social psychologists and positive psychologists should strive to highlight the positive contribution of each member of the community, we also recommend that they never lose sight of collective achievements. The strengthening of communal ties is essential for shifting from “me” to “us,” both in words and thoughts. By the same token, the consolidation of a common purpose represents a substantial transformation of people’s views of themselves as well as their responsibility towards others. In that regard, the psychologist will be constantly faced with the difficult task of fostering the transformation of the individual into a political subject who is bound to the destiny of his or her community. At this level of intervention, many of the tenets of positive psychology can be brought to bear to strengthen community ties. Core aspects of positive psychology, such as gratitude, optimism, and hope, can be instilled in both the community and its members. However, as McNulty and Fincham (2012) have pointed out, we should always embed positive psychological traits in context. The experience of Latin America teaches us that the nature of each community is heavily influenced by the experiences of indigenous peoples. For example, in the Afro-Caribbean traditions of the Rule of Ocha, people’s well-being is seen as intrinsically connected with nature, their ancestors, and the spiritual world. As Andrés Reyes has pointed out:
According to the given belief of Santería, not only the influences of an individual biophysical environment, but also supernatural forces and entities can be objects of manipulation through various magic-religious rituals. These influences can act positively or negatively on the balance of a person’s vital energy, or an ache. As a result, what was previously expressed may exert an influence on the person’s state of health.
(Reyes, 2004, p. 75)
In addition, the Santero, also known as “house of Saints,” is a meeting space where a new family – one that was torn by racism, marginalization, and the silenced history of slavery in the Americas – can rearticulate itself. Each house of saints or temple weaves new community support, providing people with emotional, physical, and spiritual health. Therefore, collective spaces are also sacred spaces, as well as spaces with a living history. Community Social Psychology has this in mind when it recognizes the irreducible transformational power of interconnectedness. It is even possible to describe the underlying social processes within the community as magical, because what is achieved in union would be impossible by the actions or experiences of an individual.
By the same token, we should allow the experience of indigenous cultures to enrich our way of doing psychology. For instance, as Chiappari (2002) has demonstrated, the Mayan worldview, of “common liberation from suffering, spiritual advancement, improved social and moral conditions for the society and world at large, [and] greater harmony in the cosmos” (p. 61), is a powerful means to expand the outreach of liberation theology to global matters.
Proponents of community social psychology are well aware of these issues (Kloos et al., 2012), and we believe that positive psychology can likewise benefit from a critical cultural vision of the good life (see Di Martino, Eiroa-Orosa, & Arcidiacono, Chapter 7 in this volume). As one last note of caution, one should always bear in mind that change is possible in an advanced stage of community intervention if framed in ways that are attuned to the particular circumstances and needs of the context under study. Like any change, it must encompass multiple levels of analysis, and therefore it will not come about overnight, but through a slow process, which will, however, be very rewarding and positive when finally achieved.
In this chapter, we have argued that the contextualized, historical, and concerted approach of Latin American community social psychology could be a valuable ally of positive psychology. The main advantage of community social psychology lies in the power of awareness raising, which we believe is necessary to avoid the trap of individualism that unconsciously upholds the neoliberal social model dominating modern societies. In other words, a decontextualized positive psychology could be used as an agent of the neoliberal discourse, by reinstating individualist, disempowering, and naturalized views of social reality. Conversely, a positive psychology that is conscious of issues related to power, social justice, and liberation can become a strong advocate of collective efforts and social change (see Di Martino et al., Chapter 7 in this volume).
For this reason, we have proposed to combine the two approaches under the banner of “community positive psychology” or “community-based positive psychology,” creating an alternative critical practice for promoting better life conditions for individuals and society at large. As one last note of caution, we want to stress that our proposal does not aim to portray the two approaches as subversive agents of change. Rather, it emphasizes that the combination of community social psychology and positive psychology bears the potential to make psychology a tool to improve the quality of life of the many and not just the few (Biswas-Diener et al., 2011).
1Although primarily focused on community social psychology, this work also extensively draws on contributions from community psychology, social psychology of liberation, and critical social psychology. In fact, despite their particularities, the presence of mutual influences and similarities means that each of these disciplines is a form of neo-paradigmatic response to the problems and needs of societies in Latin America (Montero, 2004).
2This, however, does not entail that community social psychology’s teachings cannot be exported outside the boundaries of Latin America. On the contrary, numerous examples show that the experience of Latin American community social psychology can enrich the practice of other community psychologies all around the globe (see Montero & Sonn, 2009).
Barrero, E. (2012). Del discurso encantador a la praxis liberadora: Psicología de la liberación [From charming rhetoric to liberatory practice: Liberation psychology]. Bogotá, Colombia: Cátedra Libre.
Baumgardner, S. R., & Crothers, M. K. (2009). Positive psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Becker, D., & Marecek, J. (2008). Dreaming the American dream: Individualism and positive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1767–1780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00139.x
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Random House.
Biswas-Diener, R., Linley, P. A., Govindji, R., & Woolston, L. (2011). Positive psychology as a force for social change. In K. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 410–418). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The SAGE handbook of Action Research (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Burton, M., & Kagan, C. (2005). Liberation social psychology: Learning from Latin America. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 63–78.
Burton, M., & Kagan, C. (2009). Towards a really social psychology: Liberation psychology beyond Latin America. In M. Montero & C. C. Sonn (Eds.), Psychology of liberation (pp. 51–72). New York, NY: Springer.
Cabañas, E., & Sánchez, J. C. (2012). Las raíces de la psicología positiva [The roots of positive psychology]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 33, 172–182.
Castro Solano, A. (2014). Overview of positive psychology in Latin-American countries. In A. Castro Solano (Ed.), Positive psychology in Latin America (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer.
Casullo, M. M. (2000). Psicología salugénica o positiva: Algunas reflexiones [Salutogenic or positive psychology: Some reflections]. Anuario de investigaciones, 8, 340–346.
Chacón Fuentes, F., & García González, M. J. (1998). Modelos teóricos en psicología comunitaria [Theoretical models in community psychology]. In A. Martín González (Ed.), Psicología comunitaria: Fundamentos y aplicaciones (pp. 31–47). Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.
Chiappari, C. L. (2002). Toward a Maya theology of liberation: The reformulation of a “traditional” religion in the global context. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 47–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00099
Contreras, F., & Esguerra, G. (2006). Psicología positiva: Una nueva perspectiva en psicología [Positive psychology: A new perspective in psychology]. Diversitas: Perspectivas en Psicología, 2, 311–319.
Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 967–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.967
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2004). The psychology of gratitude. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C. M. (2002). Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 459–471). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Fals Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Acción y conocimiento: Rompiendo el monopolio con la IAP [Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with PAR]. Bogotá, Colombia: CINEP.
Fals Borda, O., & Rodríguez Brandao, C. (1987). Investigación participativa [Participatory investigation]. Montevideo, Uruguay: La Banda Oriental.
Fernández Ríos, L. (2008). Una revisión crítica de la psicología positiva: Historia y concepto. [A critical review of positive psychology: History and conception]. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 17, 161–179.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Galeano, E. (1971). Open veins of Latin America: Five centuries of the pillage of a continent. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Gronau, J. (2015, March). Guardian of democratic values vs. representative of world regions: The G8 and the G20 in quest for legitimacy. Paper prepared for the 43rd European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions of Workshops “The Quest for Legitimacy in World Politics – International Organizations’ Self-Legitimations,” Warsaw, Poland. Retrieved from http://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/e543f8c6-8c5e-4f36-b7ff-2e7b043e5364.pdf
Klein, N. (2008). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York, NY: Picador.
Klesner, J. L. (2007). Social capital and political participation in Latin America: Evidence from Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Peru. Latin American Research Review, 42(2), 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lar.2007.0022
Kloos, B., Hill, J., Thomas, E., Wandersman, A., Elias, M. J., & Dalton, J. H. (2012). Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Marin, G. (1983). The Latin American experience in applying social psychology to community change. In F. Blacker (Ed.), Social psychology and developing countries (pp. 229–243). New York, NY: Wiley.
Mario, J., & Osorio, F. (2009). Praxis and liberation in the context of Latin American theory. In M. Montero & C. C. Sonn (Eds.), Psychology of liberation: Theory and applications (pp. 11–36). New York, NY: Springer.
Martín-Baró, I. (1983). Acción e ideología. Psicología social desde Centroamérica [Action and ideology: Social psychology in Central America]. San Salvador, El Salvador: UCA Editores.
Martín-Baró, I. (1987). Del opio religioso la fe liberadora [From religious opium to liberating faith]. In M. Montero (Ed.), Psicología política latinoamericana (pp. 229–268). Caracas, Venezuela: Panapos.
Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology (A. Aron & S. Corne, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Maton, K. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 4–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6
McDonald, M., & O’Callaghan, J. (2008). Positive psychology: A Foucauldian critique. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36, 127–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08873260802111119
McNulty, J. K., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. American Psychologist, 67, 101–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024572
Mecca, A. M., Smelser, N. J., & Vasconcellos, J. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Miranda Pacheco, M. (2004). La persuasión globalizadora [The globalising persuasion]. Problemas del Desarrollo, 35, 153–155.
Montenegro, M. (2002). Ideology and community social psychology: Theoretical considerations and practical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 511–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015807918026
Montero, M. (1984). La psicología comunitaria: Orígenes, principios y fundamentos teóricos [Community psychology: Origins, principles, and theoretical foundations]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 16, 387–400.
Montero, M. (1996). Parallel lives: Community psychology in Latin America and the United States. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 589–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02509715
Montero, M. (1998). Retos y perspectivas de la psicología de la liberación. Consideraciones de fin de siglo [Challenges and perspectives of liberation psychology: Taking stock at the end of the century]. Estudios Centroamericanos, 601–602, 1123–1135.
Montero, M. (2002). On the construction of reality and truth. Towards an epistemology of community social psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 571–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015864103005
Montero, M. (2004). Relaciones entre psicología social comunitaria, psicología crítica y psicología de la liberación: Una respuesta latinoamericana [Relations between community social psychology, critical psychology, and social psychology of liberation: A Latin American answer]. Psykhe (Santiago), 13(2), 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22282004000200002
Montero, M., & Sonn, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Psychology of liberation: Theory and applications. New York, NY: Springer.
Montero, M., & Varas Díaz, V. N. (2007). Latin American community psychology: Development, implications, and challenges within a social change agenda. In S. M. Reich, M. Riemer, I. Prilleltensky, & M. Montero (Eds.), International community psychology: History and theories (pp. 63–98). New York, NY: Springer.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The construction of meaning through engagement. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 83–104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Springer.
Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (2010). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-being. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Optimism, social support, and coping strategies as factors contributing to posttraumatic growth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14, 364–388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15325020902724271
Rappaport, J. (1978). Community psychology: Values, research and action. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Reyes, A. R. (2004). Illness and the rule of Ocha in Cuban Santeria. Transforming Anthropology, 12, 75–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/tran.2004.12.1-2.75
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Sánchez, E. (1996). The Latin American experience in community social psychology. In S. C. Carr & J. F. Shumaker (Eds.), Psychology and the developing world (pp. 119–129). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schueller, S. M. (2009). Promoting wellness: Integrating community and positive psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 922–937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20334
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5
Seligman, M. E. P., & Peterson, C. (2003). Positive clinical psychology. In L. G. Aspinwall & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology (pp. 305–317). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2011). Positive psychology: The scientific and practical explorations of human strengths (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Soto Martínez, R. (2004). Una reflexión sobre el metasentido de la praxis cientifica: La propuesta de Ignacio Martín-Baró desde la psicología social [A reflection on the meta-meaning of scientific practice: Ignacio Martín-Baró’s proposal from social psychology]. Madrid, Spain: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Stoll, D. (1990). Is Latin America turning Protestant? The politics of evangelical growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tonon, G. (2014). Positive communities: Dimensions for assessment and intervention. In A. Castro Solano (Ed.), Positive psychology in Latin America (pp. 233–240). New York, NY: Springer.
Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in a positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 89–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.89
Vázquez, C. (2013). La psicología positiva y sus enemigos: Una replica en base a la evidencia científica [Positive psychology and its adversaries: A reply based on scientific evidence]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 34, 91–115.
Weber, M. (2013). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Merchant Books. (Original work published 1905)
Wiesenfeld, E., & Sánchez, E. (1991). Introduction: The why, what and how of community social psychology in Latin America. Applied Psychology, 40, 113–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1991.tb01363.x
Wu, J. J., & Chang, Y. S. (2005). Towards understanding members’ interactivity, trust, and flow in online travel community. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105, 937–954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570510616120