“The Lens of Communal Health in Liberation Theology and Liberation Psychology”
Jesse Perillo, PhD, Part-time Lecturer, DePaul University
Drawing on Christian liberation theology and the tradition of liberation psychology, which originated concurrently and developed parallel to liberation theology, this paper will address the individualization and decontextualizaton of some mental health issues that can only adequately be addressed and properly attended to when these issues are acknowledged as bound up with the injustices allowed by the rest of society. This liberative drive which has expressed itself in two disciplines reminds one that attention to *salvus*, either understood as health or salvation, requires a recognition that one’s health and one’s salvation rarely is fashioned by just an individualistic drive. Simply stated, there is a need to question if people will be healthy or if people will be saved if they are not healthy together and saved together. This paper will present the underlying logic for these claims in each discipline and then demonstrate the application of this idea in regards to mental health concerns.
Ignacio Martín-Baró, one of the founders of liberation psychology, argues that a certain emphasis on individualism in modern psychology “reduces all structural problems to personal problems,” which creates a situation where the individual bears the burden and responsibility for his/her unacceptable behavior instead of sharing the burden with the society that has set norms of incivility and has helped fashion an individual. Some of his liberation theologian colleagues felt it essential to speak of the *crucified people* since there exists institutional violence which fragments religious bodies, weakens identities and minds, and turns people into objects. In either case, the health of an individual, either psychologically or spiritually, must be understood to be bound up and analyzed with the community around them. To lose this connection is to lose a key measure and concern of how to become healthy.
While this seems to be a rather simple and intuitive claim, the practice of medicine has often proceeded in the opposite direction. As Alan Horowitz and Jerome Wakefield argue, much of the mental health field has separated certain types of disorders associated with sadness and fear from the contexts which produced those effects. Without paying attention to the liberative drive in theology or psychology, one can easily pay attention to the symptoms of mental illness and not the social situation which allows the expression of that illness. For instance, as Jonathan Shay contends, many of the adaptations that soldiers undergo which lead to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) once home are quite necessary adaptations for a person who spends long stretches of time in combat. There exists a need to attend to the symptoms of PTSD, but attention must also be paid to situations where PTSD might be the natural consequence of what society has asked of a person and/or how they have been trained. And, if liberation theology is correct, this does not remain just a mental health issue; the spiritual health of society will only come about once the damages on inflicted by some become a catalyst for all to change and strive for justice.
Ignacio Martín-Baró, one of the founders of liberation psychology, argues that a certain emphasis on individualism in modern psychology “reduces all structural problems to personal problems,” which creates a situation where the individual bears the burden and responsibility for his/her unacceptable behavior instead of sharing the burden with the society that has set norms of incivility and has helped fashion an individual. Some of his liberation theologian colleagues felt it essential to speak of the *crucified people* since there exists institutional violence which fragments religious bodies, weakens identities and minds, and turns people into objects. In either case, the health of an individual, either psychologically or spiritually, must be understood to be bound up and analyzed with the community around them. To lose this connection is to lose a key measure and concern of how to become healthy.
While this seems to be a rather simple and intuitive claim, the practice of medicine has often proceeded in the opposite direction. As Alan Horowitz and Jerome Wakefield argue, much of the mental health field has separated certain types of disorders associated with sadness and fear from the contexts which produced those effects. Without paying attention to the liberative drive in theology or psychology, one can easily pay attention to the symptoms of mental illness and not the social situation which allows the expression of that illness. For instance, as Jonathan Shay contends, many of the adaptations that soldiers undergo which lead to Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) once home are quite necessary adaptations for a person who spends long stretches of time in combat. There exists a need to attend to the symptoms of PTSD, but attention must also be paid to situations where PTSD might be the natural consequence of what society has asked of a person and/or how they have been trained. And, if liberation theology is correct, this does not remain just a mental health issue; the spiritual health of society will only come about once the damages on inflicted by some become a catalyst for all to change and strive for justice.