No abstract

State‐sanctioned violence (SSV) has resounding effects on entire populations, and marginalized communities have long persisted in the work toward liberation despite continued SSV. This paper aims to bridge the gap between the vast scholarship on resilience and the practical challenge of sustaining and thriving in communities targeted by SSV. We use the theoretical frame of the Transconceptual Model of Empowerment and Resilience (TMER) to articulate the process of resilience and the resources that support it: maintenance, efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources. As a practical frame, we ground our application of the model in the experiences of the first two authors in their own communities. Centering examples from the Black Lives Matter movement and the CeCe McDonald Support Committee, we use our theoretical and practical frames to explore the scholarship on resilience relevant to resisting SSV, and we identify mechanisms for supporting community stakeholders' efforts to move toward liberation from SSV. We discuss implications for future research and activism, and we include a toolkit with suggested strategies as an appendix for psychologists, activists, and community stakeholders to consider as they work to facilitate community resilience and build a society free from SSV.

Multiple social movements (e.g., Black Lives Matter, The Combahee River Collective, Musawah, and #MeToo) have highlighted the systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and classism) in this country and globally that have targeted different marginalized groups. The traumatic experiences of gender-based violence (GBV) are compounded by the trauma of a long history of structural violence and the unique experiences of different social identities, including race, religion, and gender. One example in the Muslim American context is how Oyewuwo (2019) analyzes the unique experiences of Black Muslim women seeking help for GBV. Her work illustrates the ways in which these women, growing up in a system of oppression and injustice, shaped their response to GBV by creating patterns in which they endure violence and pain. As a South-Asian-American and an Arab-American researching GBV and working within the field, we ask: how do we, members of the Muslim community, become allies for Muslims experiencing GBV within the context of systematic oppression (in ways that prevent privileged groups from reproducing and maintaining patterns of inequality)? In this paper, we aim to envision possibilities for our role as allies by looking into the intersection of Islamophobia, racism, sexism, and domestic violence within Muslim communities. We present a theoretical background to some of the existing literature on intersectionality and allyship and provide a framework to combine them. The resulting framework will build off existing social movements and apply these learnings to the context of GBV within the Muslim context. Finally, this framework gives community allies, including faith leaders, activists, and community members, a guideline on the role they play in this critical social issue.

Objective There is urgent need for tools that quickly identify neurocognitive disorders (NCD). The Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) has high sensitivity for detecting NCD severity (Mild vs. Major) and type (amnestic vs. non-amnestic). However, full administration of three learning trials makes it relatively lengthy. We examined whether first trial performance detects NCD type and severity. Method 187 patients (Mage = 74.7 ± 6.9, Medu = 16 ± 3.1; 58% male) were clinically evaluated. Diagnoses were Mild NCD—amnestic (N = 55), Mild NCD—non-amnestic (N = 67), Major NCD -amnestic (N = 23), and Major NCD –non-amnestic (N = 42). Free recall accuracy (FRA) [number freely recalled/16 *100] and cued recall accuracy (CRA) [(number of cues provided—number recalled with cues)/16 *100] were calculated for each of 3 learning trials. Results First trial performance predicted NCD severity (2 (2) = 7.84, p < .03) and type (2 (1) = 59.0, p < .001). First trial FRA predicted NCD severity (B = −3.29, p < .01). First trial FRA and CRA predicted NCD type (CRA better than FRA, (B = −4.54, p < .001). Third trial accuracy did not predict NCD severity [2 (2) = 5.75, p = .06). Third trial accuracy predicted NCD type [2 (2) = 56.6, p < .001]; third trial FRA performed similarly to first trial FRA. Conclusions Our results suggest that first trial FCSRT performance may be enough to screen for neurocognitive disorders. Findings identify free recall accuracy as a better predictor of type and cued recall accuracy a better predictor of NCD severity.

No abstract