In this paper, we present a descriptive review of the foundational components of transformation—the starting places and gaps—in a move toward synthesizing current works into a Community Psychology Transformative Praxis. This review focuses on published work identified in North American Community Psychology journals (namely two United States based journals)—a review from the belly of the neoliberal and imperial beast. We reviewed and categorized seven foundational dimensions for beginning and sustaining transformative praxis and which represent how Community Psychology (CP), in the United States publishing context, is engaging in transformative efforts. In Part 1, we present three dimensions of transformative process, focused on early and iterative practices that develop and enact shared (1) values, (2) visions of a just world, and (3) critical problem frames. In part 2 we present four additional dimensions of transformative action; the considerations that inform action in a given transformative process or intervention including (4) planning for the long‐term nature of transformation, (5) targeting multiple levels of analysis, (6) engaging in solidarity with those most impacted by injustice, and (7) identifying and resisting power holders and/or power structures that prevent transformation and maintain the status quo. In Part 3, we review the relationship between process and action, where processes can be understood as driving, directing, and bounding the types of actions or interventions taken or imagined in a particular transformative intervention. We close the paper with critical reflections and calls to action to further develop the transformative potential of CP praxis and name the tendency of settling for ameliorative solutions to problems needing transformative solutions.

As a registered psychotherapist and art therapist, my clinical training was primarily based on North American clinical approaches influenced by traditional Euro and western‐centric clinical theories of human behavior. I completed my training feeling certain that traditional clinical mental health practices were not an appropriate fit for racialized communities and could have negative implications for their healing and well‐being. As clinicians, it is our moral obligation to support and enhance the quality of life for marginalized groups. We can do this by challenging our values and knowledge that have been defined and influenced by structures (i.e., education, training, etc.) embedded in these colonial teachings. For this paper, I used a heuristic self‐inquiry research method to investigate these concerns. I interviewed other racialized psychotherapists practicing in Turtle Island (currently mostly occupied by the political entities of Canada and the United States) with the aim to learn how and if decolonization can be used in therapy practice. With this research, I (1) identified a gap in care for racialized communities, (2) questioned if or how a decolonizing approach to care should be considered, (3) explored my discomfort with practitioners in the field that claim their position on decolonizing therapy, practice, and approaches, and lastly (4) propose other ways of knowing that can inform new ways of practicing therapy. The results of this research helped to problematize the language and use of decolonizing therapeutic practices while learning about other concepts that may be relevant yet distinct, such as principles of coloniality/decoloniality. Those of us, therapists or researchers, wanting to disrupt the current practice of therapy need to work together, share knowledge, and challenge each other, so that we can transform the way we practice as psychotherapists. This paper is my contribution to this conversation.