Psychology and the Community: Issues
to consider in a changing South Africa
by Lloyd Vogelman, Adrian Perkel & Anna Strebel
The dramatic changes in the social context of South African society have brought into sharp focus issues of the relevance and appropriateness of psychological practice. This paper examines the structural and social base of mainstream psychology and argues that rather than abandon it, a process of professional introspection and structural modification is required. The development of "community", or "culture-specific" practice is criticised, as is the need to be apologetic for professional expertise. Instead, issues of accountability and relevance are addressed and recommendations are made regarding the future of South African psychology.

Introduction

Psychology in South Africa is confronted by many challenges. Psychologists work within a highly politicised climate in which political struggle has become part of popular culture. Furthermore, despite political change and reform, South African psychologists are still faced with international academic and professional isolation. Many communities and community organisations appear to question the relevance of psychology in a world where material struggle takes precedence. In this context, some practitioners are attempting to make psychology more relevant. Many are seeking to play a constructive role, lest they be bypassed in this time of political change.

A number of psychologists have responded to this challenge in the past by developing progressive mental health organisations (such as the Organisation for Appropriate Social Services in South Africa (OASSSA), Social Workers' Forum, etc.) or working as individuals and applying their skills to the benefit of different communities. Some have focused their skill on dealing with victims of repression (for example the Detention Treatment Team (DTT), Detainees Counselling Service, etc).

Others have retreated into the realm of academic theorisation where attempts to find a conceptual base for "relevance" have highlighted the inherent contradictions faced by an alienated "profession". For still others, the political uncertainty of the 1980s gave rise to opportunism. In the face of international boycotts and national irrelevance, condemnatory statements about racism were made, and the concept of community psychology for "blacks" was discovered. In the main, however, little changed in the delivery of mental health services and little active work was evident.

This paper addresses the development of a psychology geared towards "the community" as part of a process of transformation of South African society. Rather than articulating criticisms of those who discovered "community psychology", it will attempt to highlight some of the issues which impede the development of a progressive psychology serving the interests of the South African majority.

Psychology's Role in a Changing South Africa

The history of psychology and mental health care in South Africa is not a proud one. This history helps to explain why South Africa's mental health care system is still characterised by racism, sexism and the fragmentation of services, with its corresponding problems of inadequacy, inefficiency and discrimination (Vogelman, 1987). Clinicians working in psychiatric settings, for example, have argued that existing services are inadequate; few can afford to consult private practitioners; and South Africa's mental health services have not been adapted to the African context so that problems are not targeted and diagnoses are often missed (Schoeman, Robertson, Lasish, Bicha & Westaway, 1989).

Two other features of South African psychology which have been defined are its commercialised (emphasis on private practice) and urbanised form, and its emphasis on a curative medical model (in the hospital context). The above have helped divorce psychology from the daily life experience of the black majority.

To transform, and not reform, psychology as it is presently practised, requires that challenges and changes need to be made at many levels - a greater orientation towards community work being only one of them. Imposing an unchanged psychological practice onto communities presently deprived of services may fail in its attempt to address real structural problems. Any strategy geared towards changing psychology and community work should note that the root of exclusive psychology lies not only in the profession itself but also in the structure of South African society. Thus a democratic psychology cannot be fully developed in an undemocratic apartheid society.

Democratic psychologists should therefore be encouraged to align themselves with those forces which are attempting to create a more just social and economic order in South Africa. Importantly, because real change within psychology and other spheres of society is a slow process, psychologists need to ensure that change within (and outside) the mental health sphere begins now and does not wait for a new government to take power. New governments do not mean that old ideas and practices die (see Freeman, 1988, for an illustration of this in Zimbabwe). Rather, they require an active process of transformation. Thus the struggle for a democratic psychology not only requires that it serve the interests of the majority of South Africans, but that it is also involved in the struggle for a democratic government and for non-exploitative and non-oppressive social relations.

The above choice negates the notion of neutrality that has been particularly popular among psychology graduates of English-speaking liberal universities. Just like psychologists such as Robbertse (1967; 1971), who were at one time explicit in their support for apartheid, clinicians who claim neutrality may be perceived as providing support for the present social system, albeit in an implicit and tacit manner (Dawes, 1985). The adoption of neutrality is itself a political position. Not being neutral does not imply not being objective; it is an acknowledgement that all individuals, including psychologists, have values which influence their work, and that their work has social consequences.

Hayes (1987) in writing about the social role of psychology, distinguishes between a psychology which deals with individuals and one that is individualist. The latter de-emphasises the major contribution social conditions and power relations play in the formation of pathology. However, mental health practitioners who work with individuals from a socio-political perspective and who enter the arena of psycho-political activism, face losing respect as clinicians from the professional community. They stand accused of practising politics rather than psychology. These accusations encourage self-censorship. This, combined with the fear of state repression and the economic lucrativeness of professional work, has helped to conserve the practice and target population of traditional clinical work over the past years.

Growth of "Community Psychology"

The advent and growth of "community psychology" can be traced to the 1960s in the United States. Its birth stemmed from a heightened awareness in psychology of environmental determinants in the individual's milieu, and the unequal distribution and inadequacy of psychological services to certain communities (primarily working class). In a similar vein to South African psychology's new-found interest in community psychology for blacks, and psychology's role in a changing South Africa, the American interest in community psychology and its official recognition as a division of psychology by the American Psychological Association in 1967 did not occur in a social and political vacuum.

Community psychology in America was born within a context of the uprisings of the civil rights movement, racial tensions, strong challenges to prevailing culture, and working class militancy. In response to growing public awareness of poverty and militant challenges to the status quo, the American government introduced an anti-poverty programme. Without denying the humanism of the participants of this programme, the strategy was also seen by some as a means to dampen the increasing social and labour militancy of the day (Vogelman and Bor, 1981). The scope of this paper prevents a detailed critique of the anti-poverty programme and the different models of community psychology.

Regarding models of community psychology, it is useful to note that some models have been developed which attempt to locate the origin of pathology within the social order (Nazzi, 1978 cited in Seedat, Cloete and Shochet, 1988). However, in reducing human problems to solely structural determinants, this model has tended to increase the praxis alienation that characterises mainstream psychology and rendered its effectiveness to the realm of theoretical debate. At the other extreme, some models of "community psychology" have geared themselves towards extending an unchanged and unchallenged mainstream praxis to the arena of those deprived of its services. According to Seedat et al (1988), it is precisely this divide that needs to be addressed.

If it is accepted that mental health is related to structural and human determinants in apartheid South Africa, then a clear understanding of these structural determinants, the psychologist's function, whose interests he or she serves, and the role of psychologists in changing the face of South African politics and mental health care is required.

Community Psychology: Relevance to whom?

As suggested, one manner in which psychologists can exhibit their relevant political credentials is to claim to do "community psychology". The first question that needs answering, if we are to understand relevance and community work, is to define the community. Traditional community psychology had tended to reify the concept of the community without adequately accounting for the ideological basis from which its definition arises. Is the "community" white, Indian, coloured or African? Are they middle class or working class? Are they privileged, or exploited and oppressed? Are they politically progressive or politically conservative? Are they rural or urban? Are they organised into political structures or not? Answers to these questions, as well as the allocation of the state's mental health resources to these communities, are important in determining the nature of psychological work in a community setting.

It is important that the ideological construct commonly referred to as "the community" be carefully examined. There are different sectors differentiated by different class, race, and cultural backgrounds. It is incorrect to perceive of communities or cultures as homogenous. By doing this and/or focusing purely on culture, as proponents of cross-cultural psychology do (Holdstock, 1981; Kruger 1980), power relations within communities and cultures, and different experiences are ignored (Dawes, 1985).

Soweto as a South African community, for instance, comprises people of different class and ethnic backgrounds, as well as different political positions. Community psychologists who engage in marriage enrichment programmes for African middle class couples within Soweto, for example, are not necessarily doing relevant psychology that addresses the needs of working class people (see Turton, 1986, for an example of this problem). This does not mean that such psychology is not important or relevant. What it is not, however, is relevant to the working class. Psychologists need to be honest about this, since psychology may again be perceived by the working class majority as being of little value to them.

Not only is defining "a community" a complex task but so is articulating and defining what comprises "community work". It can be argued that clinical work in a hospital, or psychotherapy with white middle class clients, is a form of community work that deals with specific community needs. The premise of relevance that is addressed in this paper, therefore, refers to community work that serves the needs of black working class communities in which progressive organisations operate. Such organisations are those rooted in grassroots structures that are controlled by the communities themselves.

Attempting to address the problem of relevance, however, does not mean developing a separate branch of "community psychology" within an unchanged mainstream discipline. This has the potential to simply reinforce the dominant problems that characterise present psychological practice. Rather, psychology as a whole needs to be reoriented and relocated to meet the needs of the South African majority (Perkel, 1988).

However, this process need not give rise to a sense of pervasive helplessness. Arguments that mainstream models of psychological praxis are irrelevant need to be re-examined. What is required is not their abandonment in favour of some new culture-specific psychology, but adaptation that makes them accessible to the broader majority (Perkel, 1988). It is inappropriate to attempt to develop a different psychological practice that is based on a reified social reality such as the state's definition of culture, race or community (Seedat & Nell, 1990). To do so may be counter-productive and unhelpful and may simply serve to reinforce the ideology of separate development (Seedat & Nell, 1990).

Values and Ideas

Related to the psychologist's perception of communities and culture is the life value he or she attaches to particular communities. No-one, mental health practitioners included, can escape the effects of socialisation within apartheid society. Although the increasing intensity of political struggle against the ruling group has challenged their ideas and view of the world, many of the ideas emanating from institutions controlled by the state (schools, TV, newspapers, etc) have been internalised. These institutions have tended to give more value to the lives of whites than they have to the African working class. It is the individual tragedies of the former that more often make the "big" news.

Psychologists need to be aware of the prevailing myths and ideas of South African society and how these have been internalised. Transforming South Africa demands that psychology practitioners (in whatever forum they work) develop insight into themselves and challenge themselves and their colleagues. This involves acknowledging the internalised values that inform one's professional identity (Rappaport, 1984). Without negating the personal for the political, it is important to acknowledge that the two are inextricably linked. Govender (1989) argues in the context of "political psychology":

that any analysis of human behaviour cannot exclude an analysis of the dynamics of the social, political, economical and cultural context within which such behaviour occurs.

Psychologists therefore need to examine the mutual interaction between the personal and the political.

The "Expert" Versus Expertise - The issue of accountability to the community

Another vital issue psychologists need to address is accountability. Are they accountable to themselves, their university department or the community organisation with which they are involved? If it is the latter, they should define themselves as equal participants rather than leaders, accept horizontal participation, and the democratisation of structures and processes (Prinsloo, 1989). This allows for greater organisational control and development. If community organisations represent the interests of the community, such accountability will allow intervention to be determined by the community themselves. Accountability to one interest group, however, does not preclude accountability to others. For example, working under a democratic mandate from an organisational structure should not lead to breaches in ethical accountability to the profession.

The personal and work transformation required by a commitment to community and organisational accountability is often difficult for academics and psychologists, since their educational training has emphasised the role of "expert". Having received a clinical or counselling degree in psychology, they are led to believe that they are now the sole experts in psychology. Indeed a degree does provide specialised skills others do not have; but it does not mean that psychologists are the only individuals with an understanding of the psyche.

The notion of "expert" is a complex issue. On the one hand, it may be argued that the change from "expert" to assistant is made more difficult by the day-to-day experience of professionals. Psychologists are used to making decisions individually or relying on the head psychiatrist within an institutional setting to resolve conflict. Either way, the process of democracy, which can often be long and tedious, may not be part of the professional consciousness. On the other hand, the psychologist's expertise should not be negated. It is necessary to make the distinction between being "the expert", and being a community or organisational member with expertise. Having expertise does not preclude democratic accountability to organisations, and through them to the broader community. Within this framework, psychologists need not feel that their expertise will be devalued.

One problem that may occur when doing psychological research and working within a context of community accountability, is when research results are perceived by the community as antagonistic to their interests. This becomes more problematic when the researcher believes publication of the results is of importance to both the community to which he or she is accountable, as well as to a wider population. The resolution of this dilemma is never easy. Many practitioners who have encountered this situation have maintained an uneasy silence and compromise. To acquire a greater sophistication in resolving this difficulty, both progressive community and mental health organisations must raise the issue in open and honest debate.

Alienation in Community Work

The practice of democracy, together with the poor resources in working class communities, frequently results in community work being slow and difficult. Transport problems, tiredness as a consequence of work and social pressure, feelings of alienation, and structural constraints are some of the important factors which help explain this. Some practitioners and students who are new to the field and are keen and motivated, often find this exasperating and begin to feel pessimistic about such work.

Pessimism among psychology students about community projects may be increased by their being plunged into ongoing community work without sufficient initiation. Furthermore, they may feel alienated by the cold welcome they receive from other project participants who perceive their involvement as an intrusion. Within an educational setting, many of these problems can be alleviated by thorough clarification with students about the difficulties of working in a community setting.

It should be noted that the lack of emphasis that many psychology departments place on community work, the practical difficulties of participating collectively, as well as the dearth of real, financially viable outlets for appropriate community placements, lead many students and clinicians to take refuge in more orthodox clinical work. It is something for which they have been trained and with which they feel more comfortable. The consequence of the above is that South Africa has few psychologists who are actively linked to progressive and working class community struggle. This is so despite many having an intellectual or moral commitment to it.

Recommendations for the Future

In attempting to make recommendations for how psychologists can better serve the interests of the majority, it is necessary to point out that no individual can be responsible for such a task. Work programmes need to be developed by, or in consultation with, progressive community organisations. Thus what follows are merely some tentative proposals.

Within the psychological sphere there is room for manoeuvre in the struggle for democratic and progressive ideals and practices. The practice of psychology in the community has potential to offer one such avenue. It requires, however, that practitioners challenge the quality and orientation of present-day clinical and community psychology; and if possible they should do this from a position of strength by being well-armed with knowledge and by participating within, and with progressive organisations who are dedicated to the interests of all South Africans. The present tendency to separate psychological practice into "mainstream" and "community" branches needs to be challenged. Instead, a transformed discipline as a whole should be geared towards meeting the needs of the South African majority.

References

Dawes, A. 1985. Politics and mental health. The position of clinical psychology in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 15, 55-61.

Dawes, A. 1986. The notion of relevant psychology with particular reference to Africanist pragmatic initiatives. Psychology in Society, 5, 28-48.

Freeman, M. 1988. Mental health in Zimbabwe:Are there lessons for South Africa? Psychology in Society, 9, 22-43.

Govender, R. 1989. Political psychology and developing countries: Can it make a meaningful contribution? Unpublished Conference Paper. University of California, Los Angeles.

Hayes, G. 1986. Intervening with the political psyche. In: Organisation for Appropriate Social Services in South Africa, apartheid and Mental Health. OASSSA National Conference pp. 44-48. Johannesburg: Organisation for Appropriate Social Services in Southern Africa.

Holdstock, T L. 1981. Psychology in South Africa belongs to the colonial era. Arrogance or ignorance? South African Journal of Psychology, 11, 123-129.

Kruger, D. 1980. The white therapist and black client - A problem of cross-cultural contact. Psychotherapeia, 6, 25-32.

Lazarus, S. 1986. Training of psychologists for social responsibility in South Africa: A community psychology approach. Unpublished paper delivered at the Fourth Annual Congress of the Psychological Association of South Africa.

Perkel, A K. 1988. Towards a model for a South African clinical psychology. Psychology in Society, 10, 53-75.

Prinsloo, R. 1989. Workshop on challenges to "appropriate" social services from community psychology. In G Eagle, G Hayes & A Bhana (eds). Mental health: Struggle and transformation. OASSSA Third National Conference Proceedings, 129-135. Durban: Organisation for Appropriate Social Services in South Africa.

Rappaport, J. 1977. Community Psychology: Values, research and action. USA: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rappaport, J. 1984. Seeking justice in the real world: A further explication of value contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 208-216.

Robbertse, P M. 1967. Rasseverskille en die sielkunde. South African Psychologist Monograph, 72.

Robbertse, P M. 1971. Sielkundige navorsing en Bantoetuisland ontwikkeling. South African Psychologist, 1, 1-9.

Schoeman, J B, Robertson, B, Lasish A J, Bicha E, Westaway J. 1989. Children and adolescents consulted at four psychiatric units in the Transvaal, Natal and Cape Province. South African Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1, 1-15.

Seedat, M, Cloete N & Shochet I. 1988. Community Psychology: Panic or panacea. Psychology in Society, 11, 39-54.

Seedat M & Nell V. 1990. Third world or one world: Mysticism, pragmatism, and pain in family therapy in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 141-149.

Turton, R. 1986. Bourgeois counselling and working-class clients: Some problems and political implications. Psychology in Society, 6, 85-100.

Vogelman, L. 1987. The development of an appropriate psychology: The work of the Organisation for Appropriate Social Services in South Africa. Psychology in Society, 7, 24-35.

Vogelman L & Bor, R. 1981. Community psychology: A theoretical exploration. Unpublished paper. Department of Psychology, University of the Witwatersrand.