I am currently reviewing and broadening my understanding of liberation psychology practices, so today I would like to share a quote that aligns with my broken heart (we call liberation psychology the psychology of broken heart). Unfortunately, like many individuals in my network, I watch the world’s events with a deep sense of sadness, and I seek comfort in actionable responses in my everyday life. Yes, we need to regulate as we watch the news. However, if we think deeper about the shifts we witness – movement away from respect towards displaced communities or generally, everyday kindness toward fellow humans and prioritising of personal (or group) more material interest, I am left seeking the wisdom of people who came before me. So today, I would like to invite the possibility and the importance of communal and individual dreaming for healthier realities and futures. Here is the quote that inspired my thinking, from Watkins and Shulman (Watkins and Shulman, 2008, p. 219):
“Within an individualistic orientation, people turn toward dreams and images to address personal woes and well-being, and sometimes to nurture defensive strategies, while often failing to understand sufficiently how intimately these are tied to cultural pathology and community well-being.
Without this critical insight, we forget how to practice community dreaming and visioning, severing ourselves from the springs of communal understanding and regeneration that are sorely needed in our lives with one another. Practices of community dreaming, imaging, and visioning reconnect individual and community transformation, creating public spaces to hear the imaginal’s critical and creative commentary on our lives. Whereas ideology usually tends to conserve status quo arrangements, utopic imagination brings forward the new, posing a discontinuity (Kearney, 1998a; Ricouer, 1986).”
The word “ideology” caught my attention here, as recently someone referred to my anti-oppressive stance and advocacy for the displaced communities (and my work for healing from abuse and harm) as a form of ideology, and that left me startled. My stand is different, as I agree with Watkins and Shulman that “ideology” usually signifies a rigid, outdated, often harmful form of thinking. However, with modern, rather fluid ethics, the word can often be transformed to indicate an attack on and resistance to social change (for a better, more qualitative and kinder society). I do notice that since the introduction of terms such as “fake news” and “alternative facts”, with the policies banning EDI policies and rolling back the rights of women that we observe in some countries, I worry that the very idea of kindness and duty of care may start to be seen as “alternative ideology” too by those who shape public narratives. So what is the response, I wonder? How can we collectively ground ourselves? How do we find grounding when things feel turned upside down and inside out? At times, when we possibly even start to doubt ourselves?
Watkins and Shulman speak of individual dreaming as a psychological form of defence – one which protects the common narratives embedded in our systems, defined mostly by people in positions of power. This is how the flippant use of the word “ideology” to attack progressive thinking can also indicate the inner need to stay safely within the privileged position of power, within our comfort zone. However, they also mention communal dreaming, and I wonder if maybe we can find some inspiration there? Rob Hopkins wrote an entire book about reframing the question “what is” to “what if”, which is packed with case studies supporting the point Watkins and Shulman are making. Instead of closing down in individualistic fear, anger, hostility, or comfort-driven binary thinking of “them and us”, maybe we could create spaces that allow for liminal, different, and dialogic exchange of ideas?
That is what I admire in the therapeutic process – the possibility of meeting another human being as we are, raw and honest, with respect and gradually growing trust, to confront the stories we live with curiosity. The idea of therapeutic neutrality was long debunked by empathy studies, so maybe it is simply safer and more authentic to show up as we are, with our stories and our dreams in a collective, co-created space and ask questions together. Such as: how do we move forward if we act like this today? What future do we envisage for ourselves if we witness and allow harm? What are our alternatives? What if another way is possible? And most importantly: what is stopping us from seeing and seeking those alternatives?
I remain open to such possibilities because my moral compass is centred on preventing harm and respecting the human dignity of all. It is possible that your views are different, and that’s OK. We can meet and talk. We can dream up something new and different. It’s a possibility.
On that note, if any of this resonates with you and you would like to explore it through a therapeutic conversation, you can book a consult here. Let’s meet and let’s talk.
