Decolonizing Liberation: Toward a Transnational Feminist Psychology

Abstract

This paper engages the theme of “decolonizing psychological science” in the context of a perspective on psychological theory and research—namely, feminist psychology—that shares an emphasis on broad liberation. Although conceived as a universal theory and practice of liberation, scholars across diverse sites have suggested that feminism—perhaps especially as it manifests in psychological science—is not always compatible with and at times is even contradictory to global struggles for decolonization. The liberatory impulse of feminist psychology falls short of its potential not only because of its grounding in neocolonial legacies of hegemonic feminisms, but also because of its complicity with neocolonial tendencies of hegemonic psychological science. In response to these concerns, we draw upon on perspectives of transnational feminisms and cultural psychology as tools to decolonize (feminist) psychology. We then propose the possibility of a (transnational) feminist psychology that takes the epistemological position of people in various marginalized majority-world settings as a resource to rethink conventional scientific wisdom and liberate “liberation”. Rather than freeing some women to better participate in global domination, a transnational feminist psychology illuminates sustainable ways of being that are consistent with broader liberation of humanity in general.

The Psychology of Neoliberalism and the Neoliberalism of Psychology

“…Rather than forms of social constraint that constitute a drag on individual growth and spectacular achievement of a well‐endowed few, these broader solidarities can constitute the basis for more collective forms of empowerment that create the conditions of possibility for broader, more sustainable well‐being. To be clear, the point here is not to argue against liberation (e.g., from suffering or oppression), but instead to question the extent to which the neoliberal construction of liberation or empowerment evident in hegemonic forms of psychological science is truly liberatory (and for whom; Kurtiş & Adams, ).…”

“…Theory and research in social psychology tend to equate relationship with mating and dating forms, and they tend to reflect and promote a voluntaristic construction of these and other relationship forms as the product of choice (Adams et al., ). This construction is associated with tendencies to choose connections that provide optimal satisfaction (with minimal constraint), a promotion‐oriented pursuit of personal fulfillment (versus prevention‐oriented assurance of support), an emphasis on feelings and emotional care (versus materiality of care; Coe, ), and narrow investment in nuclear family (rather than broader solidarities; Kurtiş & Adams, ; Salter & Adams, ). Consistent with neoliberal promises of personal fulfillment, these voluntaristic constructions of love and relationship may liberate the fortunate minority who are extraordinarily well‐endowed or well‐positioned in the relationship market to obtain satisfying outcomes.…”

A Three-Dimensional Model of Women’s Empowerment: Implications in the Field of Microfinance and Future Directions

“…However, previous research has highlighted that the act of choosing does not necessarily equate progressive outcomes for women, because women’s individual choices are historically and structurally conditioned (for a debate on choice feminism see Budgeon, 2015 ). Indeed, this focus on women’s individual liberties and growth is grounded in Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich et al, 2010 ) realities and may marginalize the experience of women in different societies (e.g., Carby, 1997 ; Kurtiş and Adams, 2015 ). Decolonial feminist psychology stresses the importance of being sensitive to cultural contexts, and gaining insights from (rather than ignoring or devaluing) the experience of women in low income countries (coined majority-world spaces in literature in this field to reflect the majority of humankind inhabiting these societies; Kağitçibaşi, 1995 ; Kurtiş and Adams, 2015 ; Kurtiş et al, 2016 ).…”

“…Indeed, this focus on women’s individual liberties and growth is grounded in Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich et al, 2010 ) realities and may marginalize the experience of women in different societies (e.g., Carby, 1997 ; Kurtiş and Adams, 2015 ). Decolonial feminist psychology stresses the importance of being sensitive to cultural contexts, and gaining insights from (rather than ignoring or devaluing) the experience of women in low income countries (coined majority-world spaces in literature in this field to reflect the majority of humankind inhabiting these societies; Kağitçibaşi, 1995 ; Kurtiş and Adams, 2015 ; Kurtiş et al, 2016 ). In line with this perspective, a recent study (e.g., Dutt et al, 2016 ) focused on the conception of women’s empowerment through collective rather than individual business ownership, thereby adhering to relevant cultural norms emphasizing collective rather than individual growth ( Kurtiş et al, 2016 ).…”

“…As highlighted in previous research, gender relations vary both geographically and over time and therefore should always be investigated in specific contexts and pertain to realities of women’s lives rather than being based on a generalized assumption that they are oppressed ( Mosedale, 2005 ; Haase, 2011 ; Kurtiş and Adams, 2015 ). Indeed, due to the diversity in interventions and cultural differences, access to microfinance cannot be expected to have one single consistent impact story ( Garikipati et al, 2016b ).…”