Broadening Theories: Intersectionality & Social-Ecological Model
Intersectionality is defined as a framework for conceptualizing a group of people, social problems, or a person, as impacted by several disadvantages and discriminations. Intersectionality considers the overlapping experiences and identities of people in understanding the complication of prejudices faced by such people (Adames, Chavez-Dueñas, Sharma, & La Roche, 2018). Intersectionality concept recognizes that the identity markers such as being woman or black do not occur independently, and each identity informs the each other, often generating a complex oppression convergence (Quiros & Berger, 2015). For example, Adames et al. (2018) say that a white woman and a black man make 0.78 dollars and 0.74 dollars to a white male’s dollar, respectively. Besides, a black woman who is faced with numerous forms of oppression only makes 0.64 dollars (Adames et al., 2018). Understanding the concept of intersectionality is essential in combatting the existing interwoven prejudices faced by people in their day-to-day lives (Quiros & Berger, 2015). The intersectional model emphasizes that people are normally disadvantaged by various oppression sources such as race, gender identity, class, religion, sexual orientation, as well as other markers of identity.
The intersectionality theory was initially coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a social theorist and a law professor, in her 1989 paper recognized as “Demarginalizing The Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique Of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, And Antiracist Politics,” (Adames et al., 2018). However, the theory had emerged in about two decades earlier, when the black feminists started to exclaim about the popular white, middle-class nature in the normal feminist movement (Quiros & Berger, 2015). Several black women had found it challenging to identify white mainstream feminist movement issues, such as homemaker pressure. Quiros & Berger (2015), suggest that the black women, who frequently had to labor to keep their families afloat and consequently did never have the homemakers’ luxury, never felt as though such issues related to their overall experiences. Similarly, several black women further experienced sexism as they participated in the renowned Civil Rights movement and were repeatedly shut out of top leadership positions (Adames et al., 2018). Such intersectional experience of black women who faced sexism in the so-called civil rights and racism in the popular feminist movement encouraged them to demand a stronger feminist practice that could centralize their existed experiences (Quiros & Berger, 2015). The racially conscious and culturally responsive psychotherapeutic task demonstrates that the therapists tend to identify some major ways in which traumatic clients are affected by marginalized characteristics and oppression systems such as ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, nativism, and heterosexism (Adames et al., 2018). Attending exclusively to marginalized identities of clients, that is, weak intersectionality can drive therapists to focus on subjective, emotional, internal experiences. Hence missing the opportunity of considering and addressing how several socio-structural dimensions, that is, strong intersectionality, would be impacting the presenting problems of a client (Quiros & Berger, 2015). On the other hand, concentrating solely on the affect’s socio-structural dimensions on the client’s lives could blunder the more variable and nuanced individual personal experiences.
In looking at how intersectionality theory impact on how to assess and intervene with clients presenting with trauma, the empirical evidence generally supports the usefulness of psychotherapy irrespective of the selected treatment approach (Quiros & Berger, 2015). Research suggests that traumatic patient’s therapists attain better treatment results compared to others, and therefore specific behaviors and characteristics of therapists are vital to fruitful treatment outcomes (Adames et al., 2018). Several qualities and actions of the effectiveness of trauma therapists include a therapist offering a flexible and acceptable client’s distress etiology and development of a treatment plan, which is consistent with the particular etiology given to the traumatic client. This aspect also without avoiding complex content in such therapy, being aware of the context of client and demographics, and being conscious of their internal processes (Adames et al., 2018). Hence, upholding an intersectional stance may help in fostering the attitude and characteristics of therapists consistent with what is known about positive therapeutic relationships, particularly from psychotherapy research (Quiros & Berger, 2015). The intersectional stance similarly helps in appreciating that a substantial part of the trauma that marginal ethnic individuals experience can be caused by oppression systems operating in society (Adames et al., 2018). For example, a strong intersectional stance may help psychotherapists who are culturally responsive in helping trauma clients discover the sources of their problems and further challenge assumptions about such issues (Quiros & Berger, 2015). Such kind of discovery can be predominantly helpful and possibly even essential with the oppressed communities’ members who are frequently socialized to blame and internalize themselves for faced challenges.
Therefore, every strong intersectional stance may serve as an approach to provide clients with permission never to blame them for experiencing certain symptoms that result from existing in oppressive and abnormal environments (Adames et al., 2018). Besides, through this kind of therapeutic experience, trauma clients can start to actively learn about the systemic oppression role and its impact on both self- worth and self-concept sense (Quiros & Berger, 2015). Conferring to Adames et al. (2018), due to this aspect, a framework of strong intersectionality can help in several depathologizing difficulties oppressed communities tend to experience, and further open a dialogue in therapy which can help clients in creating alternative accounts of individual lived experiences and reality.
Social-Ecological Model in Assessment and Intervention to Traumatic Clients
The Social-Ecological Model is a concept-based framework for understanding, exploring, and addressing the social health determinants at several levels. The Social-Ecological Model encourages people to move above the focus on individual behavior toward an understanding of the broad range of aspects that impact health outcomes (Baca, 2019). The model also increases the impact of achieving better results for people across various populations, such as marginalized people. Social-Ecological Model emphasizes several levels of influence, including individual, interpersonal, community, organizational, and public policy, as well as the idea that some behaviors are both shaped by and shape the social environment (Rosshandler, Hall, & Canetti, 2016). Baca (2019) suggests that the ultimate goal of the Social-Ecological Model is to stop a problem before beginning. Prevention needs to understand the influences that cause a problem. This model reflects on the intricate interplay between relationship, individual, community, and societal aspects. The concept also allows understanding the range of issues that expose people at particular risk or protect people from undergoing or perpetrating a problem (Baca, 2019). The model’s overlapping rings illustrate how some factors at a given level impact factors at the other level (Rosshandler et al., 2016). Besides the model helping in clarifying such factors, it also proposes that to prevent the particular issue, it is important to perform across various levels of this model simultaneously. Such a method is more potential in sustaining prevention efforts in time compared to any particular intervention.
Looking at the origin of the socio-ecological model (SEM), it was first presented as a theoretical model by Urie Bronfenbrenner for recognizing human development in the1970s then later formalized as a model in 1980s (Baca, 2019). The original theory was demonstrated through nesting several circles that place an individual in midpoint surrounded by numerous systems. The microsystem, which is closest to the person, contains robust influences while encompassing the relationships and interactions of the immediate environment (Rosshandler et al., 2016). The mesosystem, which is the second circle, looks past quick interactions as it includes aspects the central individual directly connected to, such as school, work, neighborhood, and church (Baca, 2019). The mesosystem never directly influences the individual at the center but applies both positive and negative interactive forces such as social networks and community contexts. Next is the macrosystem that includes religious, societal, and cultural influences and values. Finally, the chronosystem normally contains both external and internal time elements and factual content, whereby in the revised models, the chronosystem level includes the policy influence.
Regarding how the social-ecological model is applied in assessing and intervening with clients with a traumatic history, the trauma construct is broadly conceptualized in the social-ecological model. It is focused on the key contributors who might affect trauma (Baca, 2019). According to the social-ecological model, injury can be affected by potential interaction that exists between the community, individual, and the environmental characteristics, including the social, political, and physical components (Rosshandler et al., 2016). The most shared psychological disorder recognized following terrorism attacks has been posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Rosshandler et al., 2016). The symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are categorized into three key categories by using a social-ecological model; that is, event reliving, in which an individual frequently experiences memories, flashbacks, or nightmares (Rosshandler et al., 2016). The avoidance, which is feelings of detachment inclusive or emotional ‘numbing’ and avoiding people, places, or thoughts reminding the traumatized individual of the terror event. The arousal includes, for instance, difficulty in concentrating, irritability, or hyper-vigilance (Kilanowski, 2017). Such symptoms last over a month to qualify for an accurate diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder PTSD. According to Kilanowski (2017), the social-ecological model is useful in identification terrorism attack impacts and the possibly modifiable protective and risk factors that may be incorporated in the intervention strategies for treatment and prevention of PTSD. It is useful to apply this model to adolescent populations exposed to ongoing trauma, given its developmental perspective.
Ultimately, when the strong intersectional stance is used, trauma clients may start to feel more profoundly recognized and understood, trust trauma therapists, and trust that they can assist them. Hence such nonspecific therapeutic aspects can serve in the enhancement of the client-therapist relationship’s quality. The trauma-informed perception encourages trauma treatment without any revictimization of the survivor as it supports choices provided throughout such a service process. The fundamental trauma-informed perspective concepts are trustworthiness, safety, and transparency of peer support, service provider, collaboration and mutuality, survivor empowerment, choice and voice of a survivor, and attention to existing cultural, gender, and historical issues. The social-ecological theory further increases the trauma-informed perspective through the provision of a framework for observing the general complexity of trauma-causal factors.
References
Adames, H. Y., Chavez-Dueñas, N. Y., Sharma, S., & La Roche, M. J. (2018). Intersectionality in psychotherapy: The experiences of an AfroLatinx queer immigrant. Psychotherapy, 55(1), 73.
Baca, J. (2019). Trauma-Informed Approaches and Ecological Theory: Intervening with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence.
Kilanowski, J. F. (2017). The breadth of the socio-ecological model.
Quiros, L., & Berger, R. (2015). Responding to the sociopolitical complexity of trauma: An integration of theory and practice. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 20(2), 149-159.
Rosshandler, Y., Hall, B. J., & Canetti, D. (2016). An application of an ecological framework to understand risk factors of PTSD due to prolonged conflict exposure: Israeli and Palestinian adolescents in the line of fire. Psychological trauma: theory, research, practice, and policy, 8(5), 641.