Feminist Psychotherapy Research Paper

These diverse views of feminism have resulted in conflicting definitions in the field of psychotherapy and have led to questions of whether one should more aptly refer to feminisms and psychotherapies rather than a unified theory of feminist therapy. In fact in many ways ‘feminist therapy’ is a moniker for an approach or value system that can be applied to all mental distress. Neither monolithic nor static feminist perspectives can be applied to all therapeutic orientations (e.g., Interpersonal Psychotherapy; Feminist Theory: Psychoanalytic).

1.1 Core Principles

Although they may vary in their application, at the core of a feminist approach are the following assumptions (Worell and Remer 1992).

(a) Women’s problems cannot be solved in isolation from gender politics which often result in women’s lower social status and oppression in most societies.

(b) Equal status and empowerment are vital not only for women but for all oppressed groups.

(c) Values enter all human enterprises: neither science nor clinical cases can be value free.

(d) Women’s experience and knowledge should be appreciated and studied.

(e) Few individual women can achieve parity alone, individual and collective action is necessary to achieve the social and political change that underpins many stated ‘mental’ problems.

Brown (1994) captures it well when she says ‘what makes practice feminist is not who the clients are or the specific techniques used, but how the therapist thinks about what she does’ (p. 2).

2. The Birth Of Feminist Therapy

The women’s movement in the late 1960s prompted a reconsideration of roles for women and men in western society. Consciousness raising groups provided a forum for women to make the link between their personal experience and the political context in which these experiences were constructed. In spite of their turning away from the accepted expertise of the ‘establishment’ one of the outcomes of consciousness rising groups was the development of feminist therapists. Through setting up ‘women’s’ groups and ‘feminist’ supervision, services run by women for women began to develop.

As emergent ideologies challenged traditional views, the field of psychology was also pushed in new directions. This produced revised theories of psychological development and a demand for new explanations to prevent and remediate human problems. In 1975 a new discipline, The Psychology of Women, was established providing a foundation or (at least one academic home) for an applied science dedicated to counseling women.

While the consideration of gender in the prevalence, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of human problems had long been neglected (Age, Race, and Gender in Organizations), there is now increasing awareness that the labeling of illness, the election to seek care, the dialogue between the professional and the ‘helper,’ and the ‘cure’ offered are all transactions that are influenced and bound by social organizations, as well as socially constructed themselves.

2.1 Data Supporting The Disproportionate Number Of ‘Mentally Ill Women’

Studies of clinical and community samples report that a high proportion of individuals with signs of depression, anxiety, panic, and eating disorders are women. Community health and mental health utilization rates are higher for women and a disproportionate share of psychoactive drugs are prescribed to women—many with deleterious or unknown side effects. In addition, it has been suggested that continuous exposure to disempowered positions may be associated with women’s depression (Feree et al. 1999). In addition physical and sexual abuse has been recorded in significant numbers of women seeking mental health care (Childhood Sexual Abuse and Risk for Adult Psychopathology).

2.2 Dissatisfaction With Traditional Treatment

Worell and Remer (1992) in a classic text delineate numerous sources of discontent with prevailing treatment options.

(a) Dissatisfaction with traditional theories that depicted male traits as the norm and women as deficient by comparison.

(b) Omission of women from the knowledge base of psychology.

(c) Failure to recognize that psychopathology may reflect power imbalances rather than intrapersonal difficulty.

(d) Uncovering sex bias in psychotherapy.

(e) Disregard by many health professionals for women’s self-reported experience.

(f) The practice of attributing blame and responsibility to women for their experience of sexual and physical violence.

(g) ‘Mother blaming’ such that women’s inter- dependence and involvement is pathologized and men’s responsibility for their abuses of power remains unchallenged.

(h) Increasing medicalization of women’s psycho- logical problems, including misuse of diagnoses and prescriptive drugs.

3. From The Western Individual To The Global Issue: Changing Focus Over Time

The initial focus of feminist therapy was to name the biases indicated above and to create a validated discipline to address them. Consciousness raising groups increased personal insights and improved relationships between women. Although these groups helped women see how the personal could be political, the wider political impact of these groups was limited and the focus was on the individual (Seu and Heenan 1998). The movement was primarily contained to western societies with the experience of the ‘other’ women of the east infrequently noted.

The next step was to describe and implement clinical practice. Alongside grass roots movements, scholars began to focus on issues specific to women’s needs. An important contribution was Gilligan’s (1982) In a Different Voice in which she argued that women’s relationship-oriented concern for care and connectedness is devalued by the dominant androcentric culture’s emphasis on logic and reasoning. She called for men and women to embrace a wider range of emotional qualities.

The 1980s and 1990s also saw a proliferation of writing, primarily in the USA, on ways to teach ‘empowering behaviors’ such as assertiveness training and psychoeducation.

In addition, psychoanalytic scholars in America and Europe explored ways of incorporating feminist object relations theory and its emphasis on connectedness into its framework, while Lacan (1977) provided direction for many professionals working on cultural theory.

Although the field became more adept at questioning, the answers were not forthcoming and indeed the inherent tension between political theory and therapeutic practice has not been resolved. There has, however, been greater attention paid to the global condition of women.

As a result, the third stage within feminist therapy will be the naming of the biases within the profession (Seu and Heenan 1998). Influenced by postmodern deconstructionist thought, there have been continuing challenges to the notion of ‘feminist therapy’ as a singular idiom. Eurocentric and heterosexual biases in teaching and treatment have been criticised and the esteemed position of gender bias as the ‘ultimate’ social oppression has been questioned.

Feminist analyses have become increasingly cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary as a greater effort has been made to understand not only the complexity of the social issues ‘masquerading’ as individual psychopathology but the near universal struggle to achieve and maintain power in a complex, modernizing, global environment.

Studies exploring the social construction of illness—borrowing from sociology, anthropology, and history as well as medicine and psychology have focused as much on gender issues as on power issues. By widening the gender lens to survey hierarchal imbalances more generally, feminist theories have found a way to answer male and female needs in an array of areas from self-definition, personal agency, and respectful care delivery to the negotiation of improved working environments and rejection of limiting fashion norms.

The tension between the individual and the societal approach along with connotations attached to ‘feminisms’ has led to several interesting questions for the future. For example (a) should a ‘true’ feminist approach to care even involve treating the individual? or (b) do we even need the term feminist at all if in fact the goal is parity for all humans?

4. Research Questions And Concerns

To amply answer the questions generated by a feminist perspective one must first gain support from societal (governmental, academic, and personal) agencies that manage funding. That questions of female mental health have been omitted in the past reflect that this is not all easy. However, all who study the mental health of women need not be feminists or utilize feminist research methods, in fact they could be men!

Striegel-Moore (1994) has delineated research guidelines for feminist scholarship in this field: affirmation of a positive view of women (challenges the deficit model of women vs. men), adoption of a ‘contextual’ approach, utilization of a broad spectrum of research methods (applies qualitative and quantitative methods and establishes a collaborative relationship with research participants), and consideration of the implications of research findings for social change (studies diverse women in natural settings).

The challenge for the future will be to apply these methods across disciplines and across countries to help answer questions such as ‘how the outside (environmental influences) get inside (and become individual pathology)?,’ and when problems are mostly female specific, Why women? Why now? (at this point in history). It may be that by looking across specific diagnoses to syndromes of female distress that new approaches to treatment and prevention will be found. It may also be possible to better understand societal dilemmas by decoding these personal struggles.

5. Future Directions: The World As Living Laboratory

Changing societies and gender roles may provide in vivo opportunities to explore the impact of modifying political and social structures on human adjustment. Cross- disciplinary input will be the key. In addition, access to technology may enhance efforts to distribute knowledge and care to a broader audience. The impact of globalization and technology on women’s freedoms and their applications in the therapy environment will be critical areas for study in the twenty-first century.

Bibliography:

1. Brown L S 1994 Subversive Dialogues: Theory in Feminist Therapy. Basic Books, New York
2. Feree M M, Lorber J, Hess B B 1999 Revisioning Gender. Sage Publications, London
3. Gilligan C 1982 In a Different Voice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
4. Hare-Mustin R T, Marecek J (eds.) 1990 Making a Difference: Psychology and the Construction of Gender. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
5. Lacan J 1977 Ecrits: A Selection. Tavistock, London
6. Seu I B, Heenan M C 1998 Feminism and Psychotherapy: Reflections on Contemporary Theories and Practices. Sage Publications, London
7. Striegal-Moore R 1994 A feminist agenda for psychological research on eating disorders. In: Fallon P, Katzman M A, Wooley S (eds.) Feminist Perspectives on Eating Disorders. Guilford Press, New York
8. Worell J, Remer P 1992 Feminist Perspectives in Therapy—An Empowerment Model for Women. Wiley, New York