What makes a life dignified? What makes a life positive? The perception of what is positive or negative is derived from one’s empirical encounters with the world. Such encounters involve epistemological, philosophical, anthropological, and psychological exploration and interpretation. Individuals interpret their experiences according to logic or reasoning that is often shaped according to social and cultural norms. Socially and culturally defined logic allows individuals to determine what is, for example, good versus bad or beautiful versus ugly. Such concepts as good, bad, beautiful, or ugly are concepts that may be understood and operationalized in diverse ways (Bok, 2010; Kristjánsson, 2010; Watkins, 2014, pp. 16–26). A dignified or good life may similarly be understood and operationalized in diverse ways. What makes life good may vary from individual to individual. The sociocultural contexts within which an individual exists may further shape what makes life good (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Viera, 2013; Wong, 2011). In this way, the “good life” is a debatable and contestable notion.
According to Aristotle, a good or dignified life, eudaimonia, may only be achieved if humans direct all of their activities toward dignified means, such as improving health, knowledge, honor, and ultimately wellbeing. In the realization of individual and collective wellbeing, human activities are then justified and defined according to the good and virtuous outcomes to which they lead (Aristotle, trans. 1953). In contrast, Immanuel Kant (1781/1998) argued that the principles that guide good and virtuous actions provide the justification for the outcome of a dignified life, such that a dignified life may only be achieved through the embodiment of moral values. However, Epicurus, in his Letter to Menoeceus, argued that the good life consists of knowing how to make decisions according to one’s desires. In this way, one may achieve ataraxia or serenity of the soul.
In Quechua, the notion Sumak Kawsay refers to “living well,” neither better nor worse than one’s neighbor, and living well while expecting no more or less (Acosta, 2011, pp. 189–190). Sumak Kawsay introduces the idea of community and collective wellbeing at the societal level, of a good society for all. The good life is a model of life that is fair and just for all, and requires individuals to live in harmony with oneself, one another, and with nature. In these ways, the good life is not based on the possession of material goods. Instead, it is based on the ethic that communities as a whole possess no more than what is sufficient for the whole community to live well (Acosta, 2011, pp. 193–194).
Living well or living the good life is intrinsic to positive psychology. Positive psychology aims to improve individual and collective wellbeing, so that individuals and communities may develop their strengths, cultivate meaning and purpose, and find happiness in their daily lives. However, it is important to consider the ethical, aesthetic, and political issues that complicate the application of positive psychology to diverse contexts. Ignacio Martín-Baró (1990) brought to light some of these issues. He sought to liberate the field of psychology from the blind acceptance of dominating theories and their translation into practice. He called this “scientific antisepsis” or scientific objectivity. Scientific antisepsis ideologically blurs the idea that psychologists might take a stance on scientific practice. Psychologists like Martín-Baró have taken a critical stance to improve their practice. Martín-Baró argued that psychologists cannot remain impartial in the face of political and systematic torture and marginalization, just as they should not remain impartial in the face of child abuse or drug addiction (Martín-Baró, 1990, p. 18).
Rather than remaining neutral and blindly accepting dominant psychological theories, Martín-Baró argued for the adaptation of one’s scientific work to his or her own life values. In this way, the good life may truly be a dignified life for all, where personal fulfillment is not based on the exploitation of the other, the oppression of the other, or indifference to the other. This approach is beginning to gain legitimacy in spheres other than psychology, to such an extent that it can now be found within some sociopolitical definitions. The Constitution of Ecuador (Republic of Ecuador, 2008), for example, incorporates the wisdom of the native peoples who have populated and inhabited America for centuries. The native peoples defined the good life as Sumak Kawsay, as discussed above. In the Constitution of Ecuador, Sumak Kawsay is defined as: “A new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature … A society that respects, in all of its dimensions, the dignity of individuals and community groups” (Republic of Ecuador, 2008). This approach to promoting the good life involves a deep wisdom that involves individual and collective wellbeing.
However, one cannot consider wellbeing without considering life in its totality, integrated and articulated with others. In addition, one must also consider how one’s life might fail to ensure the proper reproduction of the good life for present and future generations. If individuals and groups adopt a positive approach toward others, especially marginalized individuals and groups, as well as nature, then those same individuals and groups may coexist and work together to enjoy and promote the good life. In this way, coexistence implies a deep transformation of the socioeconomic and political “life system that produces victims” (Hinkelammert, 1983). Therefore, in order to truly change the system, psychologists must shed scientific neutrality and critically analyze their practice.
When Seligman (1999) proposed positive psychology, he opened up a field of discussion and placed in question theories and practices that would lead to a better understanding of psychological theory and practice. Rather than focus on psychological illness or the weaknesses of individuals and groups, Seligman proposed that psychologists should place individuals’ strengths at the core of positive psychological interventions. This approach allows individuals and collectives to use their abilities and skills to build a good life (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Seligman proposed that psychologists should conceptualize and apply positive psychology in ways that aim to improve quality of life, prevent mental disorders, and, above all, promote the good life. In this way, positive psychology suggests that positive mental states act as shields against mental disorders, and have preventive and even rehabilitative effects. In order for such mental states to protect an individual from developing a mental disorder, they must reinforce emotional and cognitive anchors that everyone naturally possesses, and which can be used in psychotherapeutic treatment (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
As mentioned above, concepts such as good, bad, beautiful, or ugly may be understood and operationalized in diverse ways. Therefore, concepts such as happiness, love, optimism, gratitude, creativity, and resiliency may be defined as virtues and operationalized as psychological tools. Such tools may be used in intervention work to help individuals and groups create a good life. As Martín-Baró (1990) proposed, it is critically important that psychologists learn and acknowledge the common virtues of those with whom they work, especially vulnerable and violated people. In this way, psychologists may avoid viewing over individuals in the way that traditional science usually does to magnify individuals’ weaknesses, shortcomings, and difficulties. Instead, psychologists may strive to see with individuals their difficulties versus capabilities, shortcomings versus strengths, etc. This suggests that psychologists should work in collaboration with individuals and groups to articulate their memories and generate projects that may aim to liberate them from the structures that oppress them.
Collaboration allows psychologists to adapt perspectives within positive psychology to specific situations and conditions. When psychologists focus on individual and community strengths, they are better able to empower individuals to further cultivate their resiliency and enhance their overall wellbeing (Wong, 2011). These efforts allow psychologists to develop interventions that better promote the good life. However, in order for a psychologist to collaborate well with individual and collective subjects, one must be able to account for his or her own deficiencies and virtues. A psychologist can only do this if he or she allows knowledge, feelings, and thoughts to intersect and work together to influence health and wellbeing.
Health and wellbeing are ultimately the fundamental objectives of any intervention. However, the most pertinent definitions of health and wellbeing for psychological practice have been, and continue to be, topics of debate (Bircher, 2005). More specifically, the definition of health should constitute an appropriate tool for psychological practice, whether this is clinical, experimental, or applied. The debate over the concept of health has given rise to numerous issues and questions, such as: What does the definition include or exclude? What does it accept and value as legitimate or “healthy”? What is normalized based on this viewpoint? Health should first be conceptualized broadly, in a way that allows for the development of a dignified, autonomous, and authentic life, according to the individuals themselves. People should be able to cultivate their own abilities and realize life choices in both individual and collective ways. Such ways imply activities that occur in places where individuals share joint rights and responsibilities with others, where individuals coexist with others. When psychologists perceive the individual as coexisting within a group or groups, they are better able to view the individual as an integrated whole. However, viewing an individual as an integrated whole and understanding his or her overall health and wellbeing additionally requires the psychologist to refute the fragmented or dualistic aspects of health that divide the human being into specialized dimensions for conceptual and practical purposes (e.g., mental health, physical health, dental health, sexual health; Hoyos et al., 2008). Instead, psychologists must recognize how the dimensions of an individual’s overall health and wellbeing interact and are shaped according to the sociocultural contexts within which he or she exists and coexists.
However, just as sociocultural contexts shape individuals, so individuals shape the contexts and environments within which they live. As autonomous beings, individuals cultivate their sociocultural lives when they articulate their abilities and weaknesses along with their fellow citizens. These interactions must be addressed as part of any psychological intervention, because they are profoundly political. Here, “political” does not refer to the management of nation states, but rather the political management of everyday life. Past experience of interactions with the world determines what one does and fails to do, as well as how he or she may construct a dignified or undignified life with others. One can only construct a dignified life if he or she works collectively with others and from the collective. Individuals work from the collective when they come together as a community to question injustice, whether it is systematically or individually enforced, to advocate for one another and eliminate barriers to a dignified life for all (Freire, 1970; Viera, 2013).
Paulo Freire (1970) specifically called for collective action in the fight for a dignified life. He advocated for dialogue among similar and dissimilar individuals and communities. Individuals and communities often view those who differ from them as an “other.” Each encounter with the other or others involves a negotiation of symbols, values, stereotypes, etc. Based on such encounters, individuals and communities learn how to cultivate and manage their everyday lives. However, there is no guarantee that such lives would be dignified. Freire’s (1970) argument for dialogue offers the tools to build a dignified life. He calls for individuals and communities to evaluate themselves as they evaluate others. If one observes ignorance in another, then one must evaluate oneself for ignorance. People must be able to consider their similarities with the other, rather than solely their differences. Freire argued that individuals or groups cannot truly dialogue with one another if one individual or group views themselves as either superior or inferior to the other. Similarly, dialogue is impossible if an individual or group fears that the other(s) will replace them. Thus, individuals and communities must come together and work together to develop the knowledge and means by which to cultivate a dignified life for all (Freire, 1970, p. 91).
Eduardo Viera (2008) acknowledged that there are significant challenges to unifying people. He argued that globalization has been spoken of indiscriminately, and in reality, it has only accentuated the rich–poor gap. This gap has only served to highlight all other “gaps” marked by domination. Viera suggested that together, individuals and communities can identify and utilize the appropriate tools to improve their individual and collective lives, as well as the environments that they share. If individuals and groups can recognize and embrace the diversity and similarity of their histories, then they may be empowered to develop community projects aimed at cultivating a dignified life and improving overall health and wellbeing for the entire community (Viera, 2008, p. 29).
Given all this, health and wellbeing must be understood within context. Similarly, theories and interventions must be pertinent and consistent with a variety of life contexts that are relevant to the participants, individuals and communities alike, in order to be effective. The effectiveness of an intervention further depends on the intentions of the facilitators and participants. Therefore, in order for an intervention to have positive outcomes, individuals, communities, and psychologists must collectively and carefully create a political psychology that represents their political stance. Maintaining a political stance is especially relevant to psychological theory and applied practice in Latin America, where individual and community wellbeing are often directly related to social injustices (Martín-Baró, 1986). An intervention designed for a Latin American context must acknowledge the processes of awareness, denaturalization, and deideologization as privileged strategies (Montero, 2007).
Awareness generally involves conscious recognition and interpretation of internal and external events. Freire (1963) and Martín-Baró (1986) argued that awareness should additionally involve questioning and problematizing the conditions within which individuals and groups live. When individual and collective subjects, in collaboration with psychologists, question and problematize their living conditions, they can begin to denaturalize those conditions, especially when they are degrading, demeaning, and lead to an undignified life. In the context of an intervention, facilitators should strive to promote deideologization, in order to ensure that the power relations implicit to unjust living conditions become transparent (Montero, 2007; Viera, 2013). In this way, all actors involved may assess how power relations hinder necessary and possible change, both in the intervention context and in the sociocultural contexts of the actors’ everyday lives.
An intervention that challenges sociocultural power relations and life conditions is best tested using participatory action research (PAR) methodology (Fals Borda, 1978, 2013). PAR encourages oppressed groups to identify social injustices and challenge the social structures and systems that sustain them in order to transform them (Bradbury, 2015). The word “test” is important, because the intervention may prove to be too controversial and complex to ensure that the participants remain actively engaged, and that intervention facilitators are truly able to remain open and truly able to question from different perspectives. However, PAR methodology, as described below, provides intervention facilitators with the guidelines to successfully implement a PAR intervention.
PAR methodology involves a commitment from the researcher(s) to:
Beyond all this, however, an intervention can only be successful if individual and collective subjects maintain active hope and are aware of the needs and actions necessary to transform themselves and the world. Active hope and optimism are powerful tools that may be used to eradicate despair and pessimism. Positive psychology highlights hope and optimism as key features of intervention work. In the same vein, author José Luis Rebellato (2000) proposed that hope was revolutionary. Hope might serve as a powerful tool to motivate individuals to continue striving to accomplish their goals and achieve happiness. However, Martín-Baró (1986) challenged this concept, because traditional psychological theories do not take into account the intimate relations between personal alienation and social alienation, individual and collective power, and, most importantly, personal liberation and the liberation of entire groups of people. An entire group of people may exhibit symptoms of emotional and behavioral disorders due to systematic oppression rather than solely individual differences (Martín-Baró, 1986). In general, most psychologists agree that there is a need to attend to individuals who, for example, have suffered the impacts of war, have been tortured or exiled, or have experienced political repression and psychological warfare.
Martín-Baró (1986) argued that psychologists should overcome their reluctance and begin to conduct their work at a level that transcends the subjective world of the individual, in order to enter the objective world of the systems and structures that victimize whole groups of people. In this way, Martín-Baró argued that psychology is inherently political, and that psychologists must take a political stance and engage in social justice efforts in order to truly liberate individuals and groups from suffering (Martín-Baró, 2006, p. 7). Based on these arguments, Viera (2013) promotes a political psychology that involves the study of subjectivity and the subjectification processes that occur within social issues. Social issues, according to Viera, include power relations inherent to human relationships. In Viera’s view, political psychology is a vehicle by which to address the ways in which individual and collective life is governed. This political psychology further aims to help subjects become autonomous and take conscious action to transform their naturalized and ideologized everyday lives—the lives that shape how they think, feel, and act (Viera, 2013).
Today, societies across the globe live in hegemonic times, in which the global market defines consumption and competition according to Western horizons, or political global hierarchies, in which “developed” Norths maintain power over “developing” Souths. These are times in which work is uncertain, inadequate, temporary, and only defined as a means of making money. These are times in which it is said that utopias have ended and human acts of pollution and contamination summon the end of the world. These are times in which empires are disguised as flowing capital, and Western societies insist that this is the era of postmodernism, even when many countries have not yet reached modernity. These are times in which it is said that solidarity has gone out of fashion and participation in society is virtual and interactive. These are times of low intensity wars and global terrorism in which global politics permit murder. In these times, liberation means that people must denaturalize the logistics of oppression, because they close off the horizons between developed and developing nations, suggesting that hope is a naïve illusion. In response to these times, liberation means to deideologize the world of a single market and the individual race to death. Liberation means to deconstruct the naturalness of producing victims and excluding them from the system. Liberation means to call into question the inequalities, discrimination, oppression, and notions and nations that oppress people (Adams, Dobles, Gómez, Kurtiş, & Molina, 2015; Lacerda & Dobles, 2015). Liberation means making oneself and others aware that other “worlds,” other ways of living, are not only possible and necessary, but that they might already exist and are already creating alternatives to savage capitalism.
What people do and how they do it becomes liberating as long as it produces new avenues by which to create alternatives to the logic of “Every man for himself.” Professionals in the field of psychology and related disciplines can work together to facilitate processes of liberation in the sharing and critical analysis of differences, knowledge, cultures, ideologies, fears, and strengths. Professionals in the field of psychology and related disciplines might work with silenced or unrealized knowledge that they can use to develop much-needed collective tools for the good life, a life that also allows for and facilitates the reproduction of the good life for various groups of people and for future generations. This is the psychology of liberation in action. As a result, liberation psychology is a political psychology that is necessarily based on interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and intercultural knowledge. This knowledge involves taking a stance on politics and ethics, and embarking on a constant search for new and increasingly intrapersonal experiences (Viera, 2013). Based on these ideas, psychologists in Uruguay have already put theory into practice and made it praxis with “the other.” Here the term “other” suggests someone who is different from the respective actor. In the following case, for example, prisoners represent an “other” for the intervention team and vice versa.
On July 8, 2010, twelve individuals deprived of their freedom died in a fire in a Uruguayan jail. This incident is considered to be the greatest tragedy in Uruguayan prison history. Of those who died, most were young people between the ages of 18 and 25. Eight others were physically injured, three very seriously. However, it is impossible to calculate how many people were affected, as they may have suffered emotional wounds from either directly or indirectly witnessing the event. Events like prison fires are expected and have occurred several times due to overcrowding in the prison systems. When the 2010 prison fire occurred, there were about 5,000 employees expected to manage 9,100 prisoners – individuals deprived of their freedom. On January 1, 2009, a fire in a different prison facility claimed two prisoners’ lives. Another prison fire, again in a different prison facility claimed the lives of five prisoners on August 24, 2009. In each case, the police arrived late and safety materials proved inadequate.
The prison population in Uruguay has risen significantly over the years. By 2008, the prison population was about 245 prisoners to every one hundred thousand people, which is well above the average for Latin America of 145 prisoners to every one hundred thousand people. Within the total prison population, about 39 percent are first-time offenders, while 61 percent are repeat offenders. Only 44.4 percent of the total prison population received a sentence. Those without a sentence are considered “processed without judgment” (Herrera, 2010). These individuals may have committed petty crimes that do not warrant imprisonment, or such crimes may be the result of social conditions. Uruguayan prisoners are known to be young. The majority of prisoners are under 30 years old. About 59 percent of registered prisoners did not graduate from high school. Labor records of detainees show significant unemployment, as well as precarious employment or secondary industrial work (Departamento de Sociología de la Universidad de la República, 2010). About 61.35 percent of the registered prison population reported having been unemployed, underemployed, self-employed, or as having worked as laborers, domestic workers, or porters (Departamento de Sociología de la Universidad de la República, 2010). Overall, the majority of Uruguayan prisoners are victims of a social structure that is fractured and produces inequality, poverty, and misery.
In response to social injustice in the wake of the 2010 prison fire, the University of the Republic of Uruguay formed an intervention team that involved members of the psychology department. The team developed an intervention that drew ideas and inspiration from the psychology of liberation and positive psychology to address the underlying social issues both from within the individual and without. Psychologists worked directly with prisoners to help them transform and reclaim their lives and themselves, so that they might create a good life for themselves. The intervention was implemented immediately after the tragic 2010 prison fire in the affected prison. It involved individual and collective interviews with direct and indirect witnesses of the disaster, including survivors, regular prison employees, and prisoners who spontaneously approached the psychologists and researchers implementing the intervention to share their story. In general, all inmates, prison personnel (police), and the families of those who lived through the tragic prison fire were affected.
Whether directly or indirectly, all of Uruguayan society was affected, in as much as the prison fire placed a spotlight on the country’s prison system and its long-standing issues. The intervention team based their work on a negotiation of knowledge, where they collaborated with “the others” – those different from them – and facilitated a dialogue that enabled all actors involved to learn more about the contexts from which reality develops for each individual, such as prisoner versus prison personnel, or prisoner versus intervention team member. In this way, the actors involved may learn more about one another’s reality and the social conditions or contexts that sustain such realities. This meant that all participants were able to take ownership of their individual reality and learning experience, rather than passively receiving knowledge, so that they might transform themselves and their situations (de Sousa Santos, 2010; Freire, 1968; Rebellato, 1997).
The intervention team and participants did not have to depend on what the “experts” advised; instead, they worked together to develop their own knowledge and expertise to determine how best to transform their own lives. In this situation, the intervention team and participants were able to establish a strong, collaborative relationship that helped the various actors to open up and collectively determine their needs and what resources were available. In addition, the intervention team and participants were able to define clear spaces that the conditions of detainment could not claim. Thus, the intervention allowed the different actors involved to come together and develop networks to allow them to overcome any effects of the tragic prison fire, such as loss of resources, the loss of prisoners and prison personnel, etc. The intervention also gave prisoners a voice, which was transformative in that it empowered prisoners to view themselves as valuable members of society. This undermined the social conditions that typically marginalize prisoners and leave them in inhumane conditions.
In cases such as these, and based on the dialogue, learning experience, and intervention process, the intervention team realized the importance of supporting and sustaining any contradictions that may arise during the intervention process. Contradictions may arise when an intervention team explores their own theoretical frameworks and the concrete reality that defines those theoretical frameworks. Contradictions may arise when the intervention team faces the differences between their thoughts and feelings. Contradictions may also arise when an intervention team makes technical choices between what is ideal and what is possible in the context of an intervention. Given all this, intervention teams and facilitating psychologists must strive to create theoretical distance between themselves and the situations in order to effectively contribute to the intervention and the experiences of the participants.
However, such distance is not always feasible. An individual’s feelings and contextual conditions often determine whether or not he or she can create such distance. The intervention team in the case described above often felt the weight of their unique appraisals and feelings throughout the intervention process. Intervention team members had to constantly and consistently work to acknowledge their appraisals and feelings throughout the intervention. This work allowed them to strategically use their perspectives to promote the best possible intervention. As a result, the intervention was powerful; it prevented the team members from inhibiting the capabilities within the subjects and groups with whom they worked. This intervention demonstrated how intervention teams or facilitators can and should encourage collective learning among all actors within the intervention, especially those subjected to the intervention.
Interventions similar to the case mentioned above should be implemented as soon as possible after a tragedy or disaster. In this way, individuals’ psychological symptoms, such as anxiety, insomnia, or aggression, do not become chronic, and new symptoms do not develop. It is key that intervention facilitators emphasize that there are normal reactions to abnormal events so that subjects do not feel pathologized or develop iatrogenic symptoms. Facilitators can emphasize when subjects’ reactions are adaptive, because abnormal events, such as a prison fire, contradict everyday logic and expectations. The members of the intervention team in the above case were, as they should be, committed to helping the subjects gain cognitive control over their reactions to the situation, so that they might better cope with difficult present and future events (Seligman, Railton, Baumeister, & Sripada, 2013). In other words, individuals develop an adaptive attitude toward the present situation, as well as a preventive attitude toward new situations in the future. The intervention aimed to promote autonomy and allow individuals to shed their roles as victims. To do this, the intervention team in the case above highlighted individuals’ strengths. In particular, team members emphasized the participants’ resilience in the face of a difficult and traumatic event. Individuals can learn to use their strengths, such as resilience, both individually and as a group or community, to regain control over themselves and their lives. As a result, they are able to transform their identities from that of victims to that of survivors. For this process to occur, the intervention team in the case above had to adapt the intervention to the cultural context in which the intervention took place (i.e., a prison system).
During the intervention, team members came to better understand the cultural knowledge and practices of the groups with whom they worked. Such cultural knowledge and practices might include hegemonic values, customs, and traditions that are fundamental to people’s daily lives. The team members also had to be sensitive to and respectful of the participants’ cultural knowledge of the spaces in which the intervention took place, including participants’ experiences of the spaces as ordinary and part of their daily lives. These spaces additionally involve micro- and macro-spaces that influence how the intervention develops. Such micro- and macro-spaces may be understood as the “dark corners” of the study, where things may be said and done that are not formally shared, but which are fundamentally real in the everyday lives of the participants.
The team members used their awareness and the knowledge that they gained to actively adapt to the groups with whom they worked, including the human and material resources available in the community. One important resource involved finding a collective workspace where participants could feel comfortable sharing their experiences and knowledge. The team members also worked to achieve an appropriate space to work with individuals who required personalized attention. The facilitators carefully created an open and safe environment where anyone who wanted to could attend. This generally clashed with the rules and regulations of prison life, as well as what is permitted therein. However, the team members consistently and regularly worked with participants, which allowed them to create a stable and supportive framework for them. This framework further allowed team members to build rapport, support the participants in their coping, and accompany individuals in difficult moments throughout the intervention. Overall, the intervention was successful and can serve as a model for future interventions.
Psychosocial intervention in the aftermath of disaster can be implemented in a powerful way. Beyond the visible material aspects, catastrophes and disasters provoke predictable and unpredictable emotional and affective reactions from the direct and indirect participants of the lived situation. Institutions rarely intervene when people most need it, particularly when people are most ready and able to talk about the experience, and when they are most ready to stop feeling the effects of the experience that they may not have had time to process. People’s timing to speak, stay quiet, have group time, and have alone time often does not coincide with the institutional intervention. Institutions often intervene (principally) at times that allow them to be highlighted in the media and recognized for their work. In order to do this, institutions generally intervene while an event is still being discussed in the news and remains a focus of political and public concern. Once an event disappears from the political and public spotlight, so does the institutional support that is necessary for the interventions to be carried out. In reality, everyone, including the target population and decision makers, has in some way normalized this paradigm. Although this paradigm is not ideal and should be changed, it reflects the circumstances under which many psychologists must work. Therefore, given the brief time window during which an intervention may be implemented, the intervention should typically be one that can significantly impact people and leave lasting effects in a short period of time. Interventions should also leave undiminished people’s inherent capabilities to press forward in the face of present and future difficulties.
Interventions may be especially effective for endemic catastrophes, such as the effects of overcrowding in prisons. In Uruguay, prison overcrowding is due to the expulsion of marginalized people from the social and hegemonic system, who are left with little or no opportunities or space to even attempt to build a good life. Any intervention must account for these issues, because specific actions can be taken to mitigate the effects of overcrowding in prisons and marginalization in general. Endemic catastrophes are examples of marginalization that may be observed on a smaller, subtler scale. For some people, such situations may seem too ordinary or “natural” to be considered catastrophes. However, the following vignettes depict ordinary catastrophes that were simply observed during the previously discussed intervention:
In another prison case, Viera and his colleagues designed and implemented an intervention in a women’s prison in 2005. This intervention was also based on the psychology of liberation and positive psychology. Viera and colleagues again strived to develop a Latin American political psychology that encourages all actors involved in the intervention to continuously learn and question the practice. The prison case again involved prisoners; however, this intervention took place in a women’s prison. This intervention was different from the one previously discussed. In this case, intervention facilitators worked to develop a course that aimed to prepare women for discharge and reintegration into society. The course involved two-hour weekly meetings over a six-month period. Women were taught practical skills to enable them to find jobs in bakeries or to build their own small businesses. While building self-efficacy among the women, the intervention facilitators also worked with them to build and improve their self-esteem. To do this, facilitators reminded themselves and the women that they were once effectively “embedded” in society.
The intervention team was enthusiastic because they believed that they could contribute something positive to this vulnerable and in-need population. When they initially proposed the intervention course to the women, they were on their break. Some did not come willingly. Others brought their sons and daughters who live with them and are imprisoned with them. For some of the women, recess brought relief. Similarly, the intervention team seemed to represent a window to the outside world. The meetings took place in an informal educational space outside of the prison that was arranged by the Peace and Justice Service of Uruguay. Thus, several women agreed to participate in the intervention. However, at the start of the first meeting, a woman arrived who was angry and had an attitude that promised a fight at any time. She seemed to ask herself: What do they want now? Why did they take me out of recess? … She chewed an apple. The intervention team feared that they too might be chewed. During that first meeting, the intervention team described the scope of the course and their intentions to help the women reintegrate effectively into society after their expected release. At the end of that first meeting, the woman who arrived angry came up to the team and embraced them tightly, thanking the team for “thinking of them.” Later, Dr. Viera shared with his team that he felt a lump in his throat, a lump that represented a life lesson larger than any the team could have expected to experience. This experience broke the stereotype that prisoners are brash and aggressive. The team saw first-hand how a stereotyped woman only wished for a better life. Unfortunately, the experience also revealed that prison life and the world that these women come from significantly limit their ability to achieve a better life, regardless of how hard they work to get there or how much they participate in rehabilitative courses.
Despite the team’s enthusiasm and good intentions, they were not prepared for the complexities of the penitentiary system. The team initiated the course full of rich expectations, but they lacked the organization and foresight needed to implement them. The system sets out to rehabilitate, but it truncates any possible action in that direction. Halfway through the course, the majority of women could no longer attend because the judge would not authorize them to leave the prison to attend the course. The team saw no logic in the judge’s decision. Those who were able to attend appreciated the break from prison life, but they also felt their companions’ loneliness. As a result, the participating women believed that the skills and knowledge that they gained would not protect them against the harsh realities of the prison system. These women believed that their sentence was much stronger than the promise of a different life outside. Thus, the women experienced internal conflicts about the course. The team, too, experienced their own internal conflicts; they became “imprisoned” in their own good intentions that could not be realized. Therefore, the facilitators viewed the intervention as a failure. Rather than build the women’s sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem, the course reminded the women of the weight of their sentences and the oppression of the prison system.
The team learned immensely from this experience. They adopted the positive psychology technique of accepting the failure and finding the good in the experience. Although the team knew that their work was done with good intentions, they soon realized the importance of taking into account the viability of a proposed intervention before applying it to a group of people based solely on “good intentions.” Doing so will only leave participants stranded in the middle of the road between hope and frustration. The story of this intervention is an example of other institutional interventions and community work that unintentionally communicate to participants and community members that they cannot improve their lives, that a good life is not meant for them, and that intervention teams show up only to leave soon after. If intervention teams only focus on solving specific issues, such as providing women with job skills, and ignore the underlying social injustices that exist within the society at large, then intervention work will always result in failure. In another case, and against their better judgment, Viera and his colleagues participated in another intervention project that also resulted in failure, and only served to reinforce and strengthen marginalization and exclusion.
In a Youth Center, Viera and Youth Center educators worked with poor and marginalized youth on the border of Uruguay and Brazil. Youth Center educators were concerned about educating boys and girls about sex. There were too many early pregnancies, almost non-existent efforts to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuous sexual behavior, etc. The educators believed that they must provide sex education to the youth. Taking into account the demand, Dr. Viera and his team of educators asked the youth to freely share their sexually related questions, doubts, and beliefs on paper and to leave them in a mailbox. The team proposed using the questions and comments to form a workshop discussion. However, it was clear that the educators held strong opinions of the youth. They made comments such as, “Well … the boy was right to have the attitude that you should make love to as many women as you come across, no matter how you come across her,” or “It is true that they did not have a reason to abuse her, but everyone knows that she is easy … The way girls dress show that they are looking for it.”
The workshop allowed the educators and youth alike to see that adults and youth are not so different with regard to sexual beliefs, desires, or practices. For youth and adults alike, prejudice, stereotypes, and repression influence their sexual experiences in positive and negative ways. Implied ideologies affect individuals’ perspectives and attitudes across diverse situations and experiences. Thus, educators cannot escape their own biases and principles that shape the lessons and implicit and explicit messages that they communicate to their students. Educators’ implicit messages carry their personal values and judgments that tend to overshadow those of the explicit pedagogical discourse. The intervention team realized that they should have better evaluated their own biases and principles before designing the course. It is important to recognize how assumptions and what is said, even in non-critical ways, can sustain or reinforce situations against which one intends to fight marginalization and exclusion. Therefore, in order to criticize key issues and intervene in a transformative way with youth, Dr. Viera and his team realized that they needed to ask themselves the following questions:
Given all this, the intervention allowed educators to confront their own biases, prejudices, and stereotypes about youth, as well as their own beliefs and issues with the topic of sexuality. Although the intervention was not successful overall, the intervention did successfully allow for open and critical dialogue between educators and youth, in which both parties engaged in a negotiation of knowledge.
Dr. Viera and his colleagues designed a community intervention in Cerro, a working-class neighborhood in Montevideo, Uruguay. The intervention aimed to support a larger movement called Program APEX-Cerro led by the University of the Republic of Uruguay. Program APEX-Cerro aimed to improve collective health. The intervention more specifically aimed to contribute to psychological health. It sought to reevaluate local culture and the community’s connection to a collective memory and identity. Collective memory and identity was to be reconstructed according to community members’ oral accounts of the community’s history, with emphasis on the strength and resilience of its people. The intervention team was careful to allow participants the freedom to express themselves. The team reminded participants that they did not need to judge their memories as “true” or “false,” because what they remember holds meaning. In discussing the participants’ oral histories, participants and team members alike allowed the participants to bring their collective history to life. In doing so, they were able to deconstruct this history and derive new meaning from it.
Below are excerpts of some of the participants’ oral accounts:
The intervention team and participants used the oral accounts to “discover” and transform the community’s collective memory and present reality. This process of discovering reality is a distinctive feature of the methodology for PAR. Fals Borda’s (1978, 2013) methodology and theory for PAR involves empowering participants to take a concrete, leading role in the intervention, while emphasizing the intervention process. The process involves investigators and community members working collectively and collaboratively to design the questions and discover the answers. Based on PAR methodology, the intervention team assumed a specific epistemological stance, in which they did not distinguish between common sense and academic knowledge. In this way, the intervention team focused only on knowledge that was relevant to the Cerro community and their experience in redefining themselves. Moreover, and as described in PAR methodology, the intervention team members assumed roles as agents for social change. Intervention subjects developed past, present, and future constructs based on the denaturalization of the inertia of daily life.
This intervention took place in the coastal town of Plaza Piero, Neptunia, Uruguay. At the time, construction projects in the public square led to local conflict. Old and new inhabitants of the area faced each other; older and younger generations and stories collided. The conflict represented a larger dilemma: Was Neptunia a neighborhood or a resort town? A neighborhood implies movement, noise, and the concentration of local residents. A resort town implies quiet, rest, and larger spaces for both individual and family accommodations. In order to determine whether Neptunia should be a neighborhood or a resort town, it was important for the intervention team to recognize the diverse identities, memories, and perspectives of the town’s inhabitants.
With regard to methodology, the intervention team conducted semi-structured individual and collective interviews. The interviews were recorded and shared with certain community agents, so that participants and other community members could use the observations, perspectives, and ideas to address community objectives and tasks. In carrying out the intervention, the intervention team faced several important issues. The team had to determine how individuals could participate. They had to become aware of the different and conflicting meanings that people attributed to specific spaces within the town. The team had to carefully navigate power relations that impacted people’s relationships in the town, as well as the relationships that the intervention team was able to form with participants. There were also formal and informal political and business-related networks in the area that had their own goals for the town that were not made transparent to the community or the team members. Those who lived in the town and those who did business there competed to define identities. In addition, it was important to acknowledge the complex relationship between bureaucratic activities in the area and the needs of the people. In addition, the intervention team needed to acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty of people’s lives that influenced their life stories, traditions, and unique aspirations.
For individuals and communities, it can be a difficult task to acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty that surrounds their lives, because doing so can mobilize anxieties that can seem paralyzing. However, these anxieties cause individuals and communities to reevaluate the barriers to a good and dignified life. In this way, individuals and communities can liberate themselves and recreate both themselves and their world, which is exactly what the intervention participants were able to do and what made the interventions successful. The ability to create and recreate life is a key aspect of transformative practice that can help individuals and communities create the good life.
In order to create the good life, as mentioned previously, positive attitudes are important and necessary. However, it can be difficult for some individuals or groups to maintain positive attitudes when the weight of “epistemological terrorism” threatens the credibility and utility of scientific methodology – including that of positive psychological theory – in practice. Feyerabend (1975) advocated for “epistemological anarchism” to overthrow and overcome the established methodology or rules for viewing and practicing psychology as a science. Psychological methodology generally includes: an association with the hard sciences and, especially, their status as “scientific”; the hegemony of a particular orthodoxy and medical discourse; and the central, political, and economic powers that organize the libraries and messages therein that educate and influence professionals, individuals, and communities. Currently, psychological research and practice is often impregnated with narratives that nourish the professional or academic’s subjective perspectives and define their roles as superior to the individuals and groups with whom they work. Professional and academic psychologists might purport that they are operating from a “loving” and beneficent position, and they communicate their beliefs of what is “good” and “healthy.” However, these are the ways in which professional and academic psychologists create hierarchical relationships of power. Such relationships of power reinforce the cycle of domination and oppression of marginalized groups. As evidenced by the interventions discussed previously, psychologists might embark upon an intervention with good intentions, only to later realize that they have instead created a power structure and alienated themselves from their subjects (now objects). Therefore, professional and academic psychologists must work to transform psychological theory and practice, so that they may break the cycle of domination and oppression.
Professional and academic psychologists need to free themselves from their roles as interpreters or translators of traditional psychological and social beliefs. They must denaturalize discourses and procedures, and they must continuously and critically analyze traditional theories and practices that are upheld and defended, as well as the clinical applications (e.g., individual, group, or community interventions) of the same theories and practices. Psychologists must further eliminate power structures and transform the role of subjects as objects into subjects as collaborators in the improvement of their own lives. In these ways, professional and academic psychologists can liberate the practice of psychology from the oppression of tradition, and truly set in motion an inter- and intra-personal movement toward the good life for individuals, communities, and the world.
1Changa: Rioplatense slang for a temporary or seasonal job that lacks formal recognition.
2To put in the pot: Rioplatense slang for having money to provide food for a household.
3Mango: Rioplatense slang for money.
4Iron: Rioplatense slang for a pistol/revolver.
5This neighborhood has a long tradition in the refrigeration and beef industries. Beef is a stable food in the country. The neighborhood is known for its strong working-class culture and community integration. At present, refrigeration production has nearly ceased in the area.
6Neptunia is a coastal region of Uruguay that runs along the edge of the Canelones department. Until the 1990s, one could find summer resort villas along the coast. Neptunia was one of those resort towns. Since the 1990s, however, a “demographic boom” caused community members to replace many of the resorts with residential buildings.
Acosta, A. (2011). Sólo imaginando otros mundos, se cambiará éste. Reflexiones sobre el buen vivir [Just imagining other worlds, this world changes: Reflections on living well]. In I. Farah H. and L. Vasapollo (Eds.), Vivir bien: ¿Paradigma no capitalista? [Living well: Non-capitalist paradigms?] (pp. 189–208). La Paz, Bolivia: CIDES-UMSA.
Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T., & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 213–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.564
Aristotle. (1953). The Nicomachean ethics (J. A. K. Thomson, Trans.). London, England: George Allen and Unwin.
Bircher, J. (2005). Towards a dynamic definition of health and disease. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 8, 335–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-0538-y
Bok, S. (2010). Exploring happiness: From Aristotle to brain science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The SAGE handbook of Action Research (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2010). Decolonizando el saber, reinventando el poder [Decolonizing knowledge, Reinventing power]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Ediciones Trilce.
Departamento de Sociología de la Universidad de la República. (2010). Primer censo nacional de reclusos [First national census of prisoners]. Montevideo, Uruguay: University of the Republic. Retrieved from www.tni.org/files/censo_reclusos_dic_0.pdf
Fals Borda, O. (1978). Por la praxis. El problema de cómo investigar la realidad para transformarla [For praxis: The problem of investigating reality to transform it]. In O. Fals Borda (Ed.), Crítica y política en las ciencias sociales: Del debate teoría y práctica [Critique and politics in the social sciences: On the theory – practice debate], pp. 209–249. Bogotá, Colombia: Editorial Guadalupe.
Fals Borda, O. (2013). La ciencia y el pueblo: Nuevas reflexiones sobre la investigación-acción (participativa) [Science and the people: New reflections on participatory action research]. In N. Herrera & L. López (Eds.), Ciencia, compromiso y cambio social: Orlando Fals Borda [Science, commitment, and social change: Orlando Fals Borda] (pp. 301–319). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Colectivo.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. London, England: New Left Books.
Freire, P. (1963). Alfabetização e conscientização [Literacy and consciousness]. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Editora Emma.
Freire, P. (1968). Contribución al proceso de concientización del hombre en América Latina [A contribution to the process of consciousness-raising in Latin America]. Montevideo, Uruguay: ISAL.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Herrera, E. (2010, July 12). 12 presos mueren calcinados en la cárcel departamental de Rocha [12 prisoners burned to death in Rocha regional prison]. Rebelión. Retrieved from www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=109517
Hinkelammert, F. (1983). Dialéctica del desarrollo desigual [Dialectics of uneven development]. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana.
Hoyos, M. L., Restrepo Ochoa, D. A., & Richard Londoño, C. (2008). Revisión crítica del concepto “psicosomático” a la luz del dualismo mente – cuerpo [Critical review of the “psychosomatic” concept in the light of mind – body dualism]. Pensamiento Psicológico, 4(10), 137–147. Retrieved from www.redalyc.org/pdf/801/80111670009.pdf
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1781).
Kristjánsson, K. (2010). Positive psychology, happiness, and virtue: The troublesome conceptual issues. Review of General Psychology, 14, 296–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020781
Lacerda, F., & Dobles, I. (2015). La psicología de la liberación 25 años después de Martín-Baró: Memoria y desafíos actuales [Liberation psychology 25 years after Martín-Baró: History and current challenges]. Teoría y Crítica de la Psicología, 6, 1–5.
Martín-Baró, I. (1986). Hacia una psicología de la liberación [Towards a psychology of liberation]. Boletín de Psicología de El Salvador [Psychology Bulletin of El Salvador], 5(22), 219–231.
Martín-Baró, I. (1990). Retos y perspectivas de la psicología latinoamericana [Challenges and perspectives of Latin-American psychology]. In G. Pacheco & B. Jiménez-Dominguez (Eds.), Ignacio Martín-Baró (1942–1989). Psicología de la liberación para América Latina [Psychology of liberation for Latin America] (pp. 51–79). Guadalajara, Mexico: Universidad de Guadalajara.
Martín-Baró, I. (2006). Hacia una psicología de liberación [Toward a psychology of liberation]. Psicología sin fronteras, 1(2), 7–14. Retrieved from www.facso.uchile.cl/psicologia/epe/_documentos/getep/martin_baro_psicologia_liberacion.pdf
Montero, M. (2007). The political psychology of liberation: From politics to ethics and back. Political Psychology, 28, 517–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00588.x
Rebellato, J. L. (1997). Horizontes éticos en la práctica social del educador [Ethical horizons in social practice for the educator]. Centro de Formación y Estudios del INAME, Montevideo, Uruguay. Retrieved from www.inau.gub.uy/biblioteca/rebellato%20horizontes.pdf
Rebellato, J. L. (2000). Ética de la liberación [Ethics of liberation]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Nordan.
Republic of Ecuador. (2008). Constitution of Ecuador. Retrieved from http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.537
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., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 119–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317
Viera, E. (2008). Caminos hacia psicologías latinoamericanas [Paths to Latin American psychologists]. Psicología Sin Fronteras, 3(1), 27–32. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/2547024.pdf
Viera, E. (2013). Construyendo psicología política latinoamericana desde la psicología de la liberación [Constructing Latin-American political psychology based on the psychology of liberation]. Electronic Journal of Political Psychology, 11(30), 37–56. Retrieved from www.psicopol.unsl.edu.ar/JulioAgosto2013-Art%EDculo04.pdf
Watkins, P. C. (2014). Gratitude and the good life: Toward a psychology of appreciation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Wong, P. T. P. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52, 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022511