Feminist Therapy

 The article by Israeli & Santor (2000) highlights four unique aspects of feminist theory approaches to psychotherapy and discusses their use and efficacy. The four aspects include consciousness raising, social and gender role analysis, resocialization, and social activism. After reading this article, I am a little unclear as to if feminist theory views itself as an adjunct treatment to other therapies or as its own therapy that could be useful by itself for a variety of disorders. In many of the studies proposed, it appeared that feminist was combined with something else. This brings up the idea for me of the need for a theory, and the use of additive treatment and saying that it is useful. The famous example of this is the CBT + hat compared to waitlist trial and saying the hat therapy is effective. Although I do not think this is the case with feminist theory, the lack of well designed studies looking at its efficacy alone was a little surprising to me. However, this was an older study. Regardless, I learned in this article that feminist theory arose as partially a critique of the biological model, and occurred when waves of feminism were emerging on other areas as well (higher education, legal personnel, politics). In this, to me it feels like feminist theory would be a good jumping off point to a more culturally-sensitive and individual approach to therapy. However, for the targeting of specific symptoms in serious mental illness (psychosis, schizophrenia), I am not sure that I see myself using it alone. The feminist theory to me seemed opposed to many treatment models for correctional settings which emphasize an internal locus of control (you are responsible to change and can change) and hinge on the idea that people have a high level of internal ability to change despite their circumstances. Although I am not sure what I agree with, I think either of these can be useful if used with the appropriate populations. Lastly, I wonder if the idea of social activism would work in today's day and age. 

The Evans et al. (2005) paper discusses the history and impact of feminist movements and theory both within and outside of psychotherapy. Here, they emphasize that feminist theory is more encompassing than just focused on women, and emphasize that it embraces culture, race, class, and other variables that may serve as forms of oppression similar to the patriarchy. When they were talking about the impact of African American women in the feminist movement, the idea of splitting up marginalized communities I thought was interesting. Here, the authors discussed how focuses on only women could be counterproductive to marginalized groups facing more than just sexism. I have heard of this as a critique of feminist theory before, but it is interesting to think about in the space of psychotherapy. However, it seems that the current culture is less emphasized on classifying men as a problem, and more on the general societal norms around gender and roles. In the beginning of the paper, the authors mention how there is not one single author for feminist psychotherapy as there is with other theories such as IPT. To me, this makes it a more robust theory, for it was formed almost out of the cultural zeitgeist and out of necessity than of someone with a plan for a therapy. I also don't know if I agree with the idea of "no lasting individual change without sociopolitical change". On one hand, I believe this statement to be absolutely true especially when considering future sociopolitical issues and future generations. However, this statement almost makes it seem that individuals cannot escape from their outside world and thus cannot reduce their symptoms. This feels like an area where ACT could be very useful, as defusion and psychological flexibility could occur in the middle. Lastly, this article just made me think about how incredibly grateful I am for all of the women with less time, money, and opportunity than I have to be able to dedicate their lives work to ensuring that gender roles, career options and accessibility, and so much more was something that was much less of a barrier in my life. 

The Conlin (2017) article clarified more of the recent empirical support for feminist theory and helped me better understand what the theory emphasizes. One question I had before this article surrounded individual autonomy and ability to change. In this article, however, the authors discussed that clients are viewed as active agents that can make a change in their coping, behaviors, and activism even with the surrounding climate of oppression. One thing that I really like about feminist theory is it seems to be something that can continually encapsulate new findings about culture and the impact of oppression on mental health. As highlighted in the article, oppression has a large impact on health and mental health outcomes and can be negated by introducing coping strategies. Therefore, if new research comes out about other types of oppression or variables that have to do with power and negative effects of mental health, feminist therapeutic techniques would be a great starting point. I also appreciated the clarification in this article that "all therapists can be feminist theorists". This statement made me appreciate feminist theory in contrast with a theory like IPT which centers mental health around a central issue, but does not budge on the impact of other issues or its applicability outside of a more structured protocol. I also appreciated the empirical evidence provided for humanizing the therapist and the idea of self-disclosure. I have heard many different viewpoints on this topic, and wonder if the impact of self disclosure depends on the type of theoretical model in which it is in. For example, if self-disclosure was introduced in cognitive behavioral therapy, this may have a null or negative effect (I do not know this, just example). However, the idea of feminist theory integrates the idea of sharing identities, collective understandings of the world and others' perspectives, and a form of relational modeling between the therapist and the client that is more equal than other forms of therapy. This interplay of bringing down a power dynamic I can see being very useful not only in convincing the client of a feminist theoretical perspective, but also in modeling how power dynamics and their impact. I feel like some interesting studies could be done with this topic. Also, to answer my earlier question, yes efficacy in schizophrenia. 

In the article by Morrow & Hawxhurst (1998), the authors discuss the different important dimensions in feminist therapy that delineate how clients understand their place in the world (individual, interpersonal, and sociopolitical), and what conditions are required for empowerment (permission, enablement [as in "I can"], and information. I really liked this article, for I felt as if many other articles talked about some possible active factors in feminist psychotherapy, but did not go through what a session or case conceptualization would look like. I think the chart is a good way to understand where a client may be struggling with their identity. To a feminist theorists, these dimensions are all connected and need to be addressed. However, I could see myself using a framework for cultural identities in general, and maybe not the specific steps of empowerment listed, but using a similar chart to understand where a client seems to be having difficulties from each level. This article reminded me of the social network model, commonly used to understand the impact of peers and environment in the criminal justice field. Here, a person has factors that impact them including themselves, interpersonal relationships, community, organizational influences, community, policy, and society. In this way, I feel like taking this model further could help understand where something like activism could be introduced (society, policy), and where something like support groups and raising consciousness could be beneficial (interpersonal, organizational, community). Throughout many of the readings in this class, there seems to be a theme of theory sustainment, and theories requesting of themselves and their readers to continue integrating and talking about a theory so it can survive. Toward the middle of this reading, the authors talk about how psychology always serves to obscure larger social and political issues connecting them to an individual and making it personal. I think on one level I agree with this, but at the same time, it is very hard to address societal issues. Therefore, the easiest form of a deliverable is personal psychotherapy, case work, etc. I know, however, that many people would disagree with the idea that psychopathology is constructed via social oppression. Although I do not think it is the sole cause, I do think clinical psychologists often forget about systems of oppression due to bias. For example, as my case worker friend would say, there is nothing a psychologist can fix that a case worker does every day. Here, she is referring to the idea that many people never step into a therapy room due to oppression, stigma, financial issues, etc. Therefore, our lens becomes narrowed and biased to the people we do see. I agree with this, but also think individual psychotherapy for all mental illness is useful in that it helps client live more valued lives. Yes, equity would fix a lot of problems, but that does not mean that people would not greatly benefit from individual psychotherapy. 

Grade: 24/25