Oppressed people, insecure and with a weak spirit,possess little vision for their future, in effect saying, “What do Iwant? I don’t know: Tell me” (Smith et. al 1997; Smith 1995).
One of the students in our class posted the attached article to our Blackboard discussion in the Tools for Social Change course. I appreciate the approach of the article, and its emphasis on the process of development behind the technologies. No technology nor intervention could work in a situation where people have become imbued with oppressions. As Friere writes, ‘once oppressed, the mind is lost, the spirit is broken and the body is tied’ (Pedagogy of the Oppressed).
Oppression can take the form of a deep hatred for self and other. Over the last few years I have worked with women who have been in abusive relationships. In the last session that I participated in, a woman verbally attacked another woman for staying with her abusive partner. This situation brought internalized oppression to a new level for me. Internalized oppression continues the divide, breaks solidarity and defaces self-efficacy. Where can the cycle be broken? What can be done about internalized oppression within the context of ‘development’ (‘transformation’???) work? What does it mean to work toward capacity, resilience and self-efficacy? How can this work be started so that it moves from the inside, out?
These questions seem to be at the core of social work practice. In truth, perhaps there is no correct response, only questions, a commitment to presence and the importance of the action/reflection cycle. Again, I take from the Smith and Marin article when they state;
“ “Outsiders” can work with “insiders” to generate a hopeful energy, while asking simultaneously important questions about the synergistic negative effects of toxins, malnutrition, beliefs of the “evil eye” and isolation on the health and creativity of local people over time. There is no breakdown or step-by-step recipe for this type of iterative, evolving humanistic work that combines serious inquiry with determined action and loving compassion.” (p.1).
How do we balance ‘serious inquiry’ (questioning) with ‘determined action’ (which seems to imply a sense of directionality). These qualities seem opposed to one another, and yet each seem important to the process.
No answers here – but more questions. But then again, perhaps questions do become the answers when asked with presence, commitment, and a mind open to learning?
One of the students in our class posted the attached article to our Blackboard discussion in the Tools for Social Change course. I appreciate the approach of the article, and its emphasis on the process of development behind the technologies. No technology nor intervention could work in a situation where people have become imbued with oppressions. As Friere writes, ‘once oppressed, the mind is lost, the spirit is broken and the body is tied’ (Pedagogy of the Oppressed).
Oppression can take the form of a deep hatred for self and other. Over the last few years I have worked with women who have been in abusive relationships. In the last session that I participated in, a woman verbally attacked another woman for staying with her abusive partner. This situation brought internalized oppression to a new level for me. Internalized oppression continues the divide, breaks solidarity and defaces self-efficacy. Where can the cycle be broken? What can be done about internalized oppression within the context of ‘development’ (‘transformation’???) work? What does it mean to work toward capacity, resilience and self-efficacy? How can this work be started so that it moves from the inside, out?
These questions seem to be at the core of social work practice. In truth, perhaps there is no correct response, only questions, a commitment to presence and the importance of the action/reflection cycle. Again, I take from the Smith and Marin article when they state;
“ “Outsiders” can work with “insiders” to generate a hopeful energy, while asking simultaneously important questions about the synergistic negative effects of toxins, malnutrition, beliefs of the “evil eye” and isolation on the health and creativity of local people over time. There is no breakdown or step-by-step recipe for this type of iterative, evolving humanistic work that combines serious inquiry with determined action and loving compassion.” (p.1).
How do we balance ‘serious inquiry’ (questioning) with ‘determined action’ (which seems to imply a sense of directionality). These qualities seem opposed to one another, and yet each seem important to the process.
No answers here – but more questions. But then again, perhaps questions do become the answers when asked with presence, commitment, and a mind open to learning?
RSS Feed