Oppression and Its Many Forms

Oppression occurs when one group has more access to power and privilege than another group, and when that power and privilege is used to maintain the status quo (i.e., domination of one group over another). Thus, oppression is both a state and a process, with the state of oppression being unequal group access to power and privilege, and the process of oppression being the ways in which inequality between groups is maintained (Prilleltensky & Laurier, 1996). Oppression, therefore, results in the differentiation of people into groups (e.g., dominant/dominated, powerful/powerless, superior/inferior, oppressor/oppressed), and group membership determines the degree to which an individual has power or the opportunity and ability to access resources. Differentiating people into groups can be done in many ways (e.g., race, sex, sexual orientation, abilities) and, thus, oppression based on group membership also comes in various forms (e.g., racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism).

Oppressors, or those who are dominant or in power, use their access to power and privilege to impose their worldviews on the oppressed and justify and enforce the social, political, and systematic denial of resources to the oppressed. Indeed, oppression can take the form of imposition and deprivation. According to Hanna, Talley, and Guindon (2000), oppression by imposition or force is “the act of imposing on … others … a label, role experience, or set of living conditions that is unwanted, needlessly painful, and detracts from physical or psychological well-being … [such as] demeaning hard labor, degrading job roles, ridicule, and negative media images and messages that foster and maintain distorted beliefs” (p. 431). On the other hand, oppression by deprivation “involves depriving people of desired jobs, an education, healthcare, or living conditions necessary for physical and mental well-being … [such as] food, clothing, shelter, love, respect, social support, or self-dignity” (Sue, 2010, p. 7). In the case of heterosexism, for example, heterosexuals hold power and privilege over nonheterosexuals (i.e., heterosexuals are more likely to be in positions of power), and that position is used to maintain power and privilege (e.g., imposing a certain belief about acceptable expressions of love and partnership, while refusing to support anti-discrimination policies and laws, which would make it more likely for nonheterosexuals to make themselves visible and attempt to secure positions of power). This justification is often based on the supposed superiority of one group over another. Again, in the case of heterosexism, heterosexuals deny access to resources based on the argument that nonheterosexuals are abnormal, deviant, pathological, and are abominations—inferiorizing labels and perceptions imposed onto them by the dominant group.

Oppression can also occur at the institutional or systemic levels, such as with laws, policies, and “normative” practices that marginalize and inferiorize groups of people (Jones, 1997). Institutionalized oppression can be seen through laws (e.g., voter identification laws), policies (e.g., requiring food stamp recipients to announce in front of other customers how they are paying), physical environments (e.g., having diaper changing stations only in the women's restrooms), and social norms and conventions (e.g., the standard use of “he” as the default pronoun for neutral or unidentified gender). Another example of institutional oppression includes universities frequently having buildings dedicated to White, heterosexual men, subtly conveying to People of Color, nonheterosexuals, and women that it is not typical for people like them to succeed in this particular setting. In addition to institutional oppression, oppression also occurs at the interpersonal level between individuals (e.g., a White person clutches a purse when a Person of Color walks by), between groups (e.g., able-bodied individuals refer to dysfunctional, deviant, and substandard things as “retarded”), and within groups (e.g., American-born Asians refer to newly arrived immigrants as “FOB”—fresh off the boat).

In addition to oppression being present in multiple levels, oppression may also be overt or subtle, with contemporary forms of oppression being not as blatant as oppression of the past (Sue et al., 2007). Given that oppression today is not as overt or obvious as before, it is necessary to understand how more modern and subtle forms of oppression affect the psychological experiences of oppressed groups (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978; Sears, 1988; Sue et al., 2007; Thompson & Neville, 1999). The contemporary reality of oppression is particularly precarious for oppressed individuals because modern forms of oppression occur at a subtle, often unconscious level (such as the examples provided in the previous paragraph). Sue and colleagues (2007) outlined a taxonomy of microaggressions—subtle, everyday communications of discrimination and prejudice. According to their conceptualization, microaggressions often occur outside of the conscious awareness of the victim. Consequently, victims of microaggressions experience “attributional ambiguity,” which is the absence of a clearly identifiable source of oppression and discrimination (Sue et al., 2007). In other words, because microaggressions are perpetrated and experienced subtly and often unconsciously, the victim often questions the reality of oppression. Thus, victims of microaggressions frequently blame themselves for being “overly sensitive” or “crazy” and dismiss the behavior of the perpetrators. Nevertheless, microaggressions produce equally distressing psychological consequences as overt oppression and discrimination, perhaps even more so, because of the lack of a distinguishable target to which one can direct anger (Sue, 2010). When one is denied an opportunity to confront the source of oppression, the anger is directed inwardly at those who remind the oppressed individual of him- or herself. In this way, microaggressions contribute to internalized oppression and work to perpetuate oppression.

Annie, a lesbian, shares some of her experiences with microaggressions:

Annie went on to share a microaggressive act against her as a woman:

E.J., a Filipino American man, shared one of his experiences that touches on various forms of oppression, taken from his journal while attending graduate school in the Midwest:

It is clear that many forms of oppression remain highly ubiquitous, they can be overt or subtle, and they can operate in institutional, interpersonal, and internalized levels. Relative to the other types of oppression, however, internalized oppression has not been as extensively studied (Pyke, 2010), a disturbing reality given that overcoming internalized oppression is a prerequisite for overcoming oppression (Itzen, 1985). Therefore, we will now turn to a discussion of internalized oppression, beginning with Fanon's (1965) classic framework on colonialism. Although Fanon's model focuses on the oppression of racial or ethnic groups, it should be noted that this framework may also be applied to the oppression of women (e.g., Comas-Diaz, 2010), sexual minorities (e.g., Hawley, 2001), and people with disabilities (e.g., Kumari Campbell, 2008; see Part IV for chapters specifically on these groups), which may result in specific forms of internalized oppression such as internalized sexism, internalized heterosexism, and internalized ableism. Indeed, as Poupart (2003) stated, “as many expressions of internalized oppression exist as experiences of oppression” (p. 90).

Colonialism, Oppression, and Internalized Oppression

Fanon's (1965) four-phase colonial model is the classic framework for understanding oppression and internalized oppression. The first phase of colonialism is the forced entry of a foreign group into a territory to exploit its natural resources, including its inhabitants (e.g., slaves, cheap labor). The second phase is when the colonizer imposes its culture, disintegrates the indigenous culture, and recreates the indigenous culture as defined by the colonizer. This transformation of the indigenous culture differentiates the colonizer's supposedly more civilized ways of life and the colonized people's supposedly inferior or savage ways. Once the society has clearly contrasted the colonizer and the colonized, the third phase begins, as the colonized are portrayed as wild, savage, and uncivilized peoples who the colonizer has to nobly monitor, tame, and civilize. Thus, the third phase essentially conveys that tyranny and domination, and hence oppression, are necessary. The completion of the first three phases leads to the fourth phase—the establishment of a society where the political, social, and economic institutions are designed to benefit and maintain the superiority of the colonizer while simultaneously subjugating the colonized. The fourth phase can be clearly seen in established institutions (e.g., churches, boarding schools) in colonized lands that reward those who assimilate into the colonizers' ways, while punishing those who do not. Thus, colonialism is a specific form of oppression (see Part II for chapters specifically on indigenous groups with histories of colonization).

Based on Fanon's (1965) model, it is clear that “there is enormous social, psychological, and infrastructural work in producing the colonized person” (Okazaki, David, & Abelman, 2007, p. 96). Extending this conclusion based on the discussion of the various forms of oppression in the previous section, there is plenty of work necessary to create the oppressed person. So, how does such an oppressive context influence oppressed individuals? Postcolonial scholars (e.g., Fanon, 1965; Freire, 1970; Memmi, 1965) argue that internalized oppression, or specifically, internalized colonialism, is the major psychological effect of colonialism. Fanon argued that the sustained denigration and injustice that the colonized are subjected to often lead to self-doubt, identity confusion, and feelings of inferiority among the colonized. Memmi added that the colonized may eventually believe the inferiority of one's indigenous identity. Freire further contended that because of the inferiority attached to their indigenous identities, the colonized might develop a desire to rid oneself of such identities and to emulate the colonizer because their ways are seen as superior. Further, the colonized may eventually feel a sense of gratitude and indebtedness toward the colonizer for civilizing and enlightening the colonized (Rimonte, 1997).

Based on postcolonial theory, experiencing oppression over lifetimes and generations can lead individuals to internalize the messages of inferiority they receive about their group membership. In fact, internalizing the alleged inferiority and undesirability of one's social group can begin at a very young age (Clark & Clark, 1947). Over time, internalized oppression can become an unconscious, involuntary (Batts, 1983; David & Okazaki, 2010) response to oppression in which members of oppressed groups internalize the negative stereotypes (Amaro & Raj, 2000; Bailey, Chung, Williams, Singh, & Terrell, 2011; Brown, 1986; Hill, 1999; David & Okazaki, 2006a; Pheterson, 1986; Rosenwasser, 2002) and expectations (Brown, 1986) of their group based on messages they have received from the oppressor. Internalized oppression may even lead to active self-fulfilling prophecies as oppressed individuals begin to act out negative stereotypes (Thomas, Speight, & Witherspoon, 2005). Using Lipsky's (1987) definition, internalized oppression is the “turning upon ourselves, upon our families, and upon our own people the distress patterns that result from the … oppression of the (dominant) society” (p. 6).

Not only is internalized oppression the result of oppression and exploitation (Brown, 1986; Itzin, 1985; Moreau, 1990; Padilla, 2001; Prilleltensky & Laurier, 1996; Ramos-Diaz, 1985), it also perpetuates oppression (Duran & Duran, 1995; Hill, 1999). Thus, as previously alluded to, internalized oppression is a component of oppression, whereby oppressors maintain domination over the oppressed. Duran and Duran (1995) argued that internalized oppression operates on an individual as well as a group level to maintain power structures that benefit the oppressors. Individuals, for example, having internalized hatred, develop unhealthy relationships with drugs and alcohol, while communities redirect anger toward the oppressor at those who remind the oppressed of him- or herself through domestic violence, homicide, and sexual assault (Duran & Duran, 1995; Poupart, 2003). Another example is the case of internalized homophobia, where nonheterosexuals are subjected to distorted images of sexuality (Brown, 1986), inferiorizing and dehumanizing labels (e.g., “abomination”), and the denial of power and privilege (e.g., the former Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, marriage). These messages and experiences are incorporated into one's understanding of oneself based on membership to an “inferior” group. As a result, nonheterosexuals may try to outwit the oppressive system by “passing” as a heterosexual (Perez, 2005) or self-concealment (Hill, 1999; Pheterson, 1986), but to do so means a denial of one's authentic identity. Consistent with this, Neville, Coleman, Falconer, and Holmes (2005) found a negative relationship between internalized oppression and the degree to which individuals endorse the existence of racism. That is, the more oppressed an individual is, the more denial the individual has about his or her own reality as an oppressed person, effectively fragmenting the individual's experience of him- or herself and the world.

Internalized oppression also leads to intragroup fragmentation (Pyke & Dang, 2003). It prevents group members from connecting with one another (Gainor, 1992; Kanuha, 1990) and causes intragroup conflict (Norrington-Sands, 2002; Pyke & Dang, 2003). Oppressed group members may begin to discriminate against one another (David & Okazaki, 2006a; Itzin, 1985; Neallani, 1992) and choose to emulate and identify with oppressors (Hill, 1999; Lipsky, 1977; Padilla, 2001). This is not surprising, because in systems in which the oppressed is consistently, aggressively, and systematically devalued and dehumanized, the oppressor becomes the model of acceptable humanity (Freire, 1970). To effectively emulate the oppressor, the oppressed must devalue his or her own group membership (Padilla, 2001) and reject his or her culture (Bailey et al., 2011; David & Okazaki, 2006a; Rosenwasser, 2005). Further, internalized oppression reinforces oppression because it generates mistrust and criticism of emerging leaders (Lipsky, 1977; Padilla, 2004), creating unrealistic expectations for possible leaders and resulting in burnout and abandonment of a vision of liberation (Lipsky, 1977).

Finally, perhaps the most devastating collective consequence of internalized oppression is intragroup (i.e., horizontal) violence (Amaro & Raj, 2000; Bailey et al., 2011; Freire, 1970; Lipsky, 1977; Padilla, 2001; Tappan, 2006). Fellow group members are viewed as inferior and as less of a threat than the dominant group, at whom the real anger is directed, so violence is sublimated or redirected to members of one's group (Artz, 1996). Additionally, the oppressed participates in his or her own oppression through self-destruction and violence toward self (Hill, 1999; Padilla, 2001), self-denigration (David & Okazaki, 2006a), substance abuse, and suicide (Duran & Duran, 1995). Furthermore, internalized oppression may cause oppressed groups to victimize each other. A logical extension of horizontal violence is intergroup violence between oppressed groups. Similar to intragroup violence, anger toward the oppressor is redirected to those who are equally (or perhaps more) vulnerable. Consequently, we see a striking disunity between historically oppressed groups in this country. For example, anti-gay sentiment among People of Color is common (Greene, 2009; Ochs, 1996), and bi-directional tensions between African Americans and Asian Americans (e.g., African Americans resenting Asian American-owned businesses in historically Black neighborhoods, and Asian Americans resenting Affirmative Action; Tawa, Suyemoto, & Tauriac, 2013) speak to this intergroup conflict between oppressed groups. Even more insidious, however, is that internalized oppression results in the incorporation of negative stereotypes into cultural values and traditions (i.e., “that's just the way we are”; Lipsky, 1977, p. 5), so that oppression becomes a cultural norm and transmitted across generations.

Below, Annie shared some of her experiences that touch on various manifestations of internalized oppression, both as a woman and as a lesbian:

Internalized Oppression Among Various Groups

Now that we have described internalized oppression, let us now turn to a brief overview of how common this phenomenon is among various groups, focusing on some oppressed groups in the United States. As previously discussed, the racial climate in the United States is consistent with oppression because “the opportunities [in the country] are not randomly [or equally] distributed across race … and social structures are not equally supportive for minorities” (Trickett, 1991, pp. 213–214; see Part III for chapters on specific racial groups). Again, such inequalities extend beyond race to also include sex, sexual orientation, people with disabilities, and other social groups. Thus, using Fanon's (1965) classic framework, the historical and contemporary oppression faced by dominated groups in the United States is one of internal colonialism. Although there is no recent forceful entry by a foreign group, internal colonialism is analogous to classic colonialism in that the society is characterized by social inequalities, cultural or worldview imposition of the dominant group, disintegration or devaluation of oppressed groups' cultures or worldviews, and stereotypical recreation of oppressed groups' identities by the dominant group. In terms of its consequences, Rudkin (2003) stated that the oppression of American minority groups “leads to self-debasement, alienation, loss of cultural identity, dependency, and internally-directed hostility” (p. 290), similar to the effects of colonialism provided by postcolonial scholars (Fanon, 1965; Freire, 1970; Memmi, 1965).

Harrell's (1999) discussion of the psychological consequences of oppression among African Americans is an excellent example of the applicability of the classic colonial model in describing the experiences of oppressed American minority groups. In his analyses, Harrell used Fanon's (1965) term—Manichean—to argue that American society is one that is essentially based on incompatible opposites such as good versus evil, light versus dark, white versus black. In a Manichean society, anything of the dominated group, including language, physical traits, and cultural values and traditions, is ascribed with inferior, undesirable, or negative characteristics. Concurrently, anything of the dominant group is attached with superiority and desirability. Further, this society also involves the destruction and reinterpretation of the history and culture of the oppressed through the eyes of the dominant group. Consequently, a Manichean society creates conditions that lead African Americans to develop self-hatred and to behave in self-destructive ways. Internalized racism, a form of internalized oppression, among African Americans leads to identity confusion and to the development of an inferiorized identity (Thomas, 1971). The Black Identity Development Model proposed by Cross, Parham, and Helms (1991) also argued that internalized oppression may lead African Americans to highly value the dominant culture and simultaneously devalue their own, leading many African Americans to hold anti-Black sentiments or have Black self-hate (see Chapter 6 on African Americans).

Another oppressed group within the United States are Native Americans or American Indians, whose experiences involve both classical and internal colonialism. McBride (2002) argued that these historical and contemporary experiences of oppression led many Native Americans or American Indians to lose their cultural identity and spirituality. Duran and Duran (1995) and Brave Heart (1998) also argued that internalized oppression is passed on intergenerationally by continued oppression, lack of opportunities to critically and accurately understand history, and forced Americanization—contemporary forms of oppression that may be seen as internal colonialism (see Chapter 2 on Native Americans). Internalized oppression and its intergenerational transmission are also salient among Alaska Native Peoples, and are argued to contribute to the high rates of depression, suicide, domestic violence, and substance use among Alaska Native Peoples today (Napoleon, 1996; see Chapter 3 on Alaska Native Peoples).

Internalized oppression is also salient among Hispanic or Latina/o Americans. Hall (1994) argued that colonization and oppression—both historically and contemporarily—lead many Hispanic or Latina/o Americans to believe that light skin is advantageous, attractive, and desirable. The internalization of such a skin-color ideal results in a desire to become as white as possible in order for social mobility or acceptance, leading many Hispanic or Latina/o Americans to use “beauty” creams and other products such as bleach in order to whiten their skin (Hall, 1994). Indeed, according to Hall, many Hispanic or Latina/o Americans “will value and internalize all aspects of the mainstream culture—including the idealizations of light skin color—at the expense of their [heritage] culture” (p. 310; see Chapter 5 on Latina/o Americans).

Among a specific Hispanic or Latina/o American ethnic group—Puerto Ricans—the effects of centuries of Spanish and American colonialism include (a) identity confusion, (b) feelings of shame regarding their ethnic and cultural identity, (c) feelings of inferiority about being Puerto Rican, (d) discriminating against less-Americanized individuals, and (e) not having national pride (Varas-Diaz & Serrano-Garcia, 2003). Similar experiences of internalized oppression have also been observed among the indigenous Chamorros in Guam, a United States colony just like Puerto Rico (Perez, 2005; see Chapter 4 on Pacific Islanders).

As previously discussed, internalized oppression also goes beyond racial oppression to also include oppression of women (i.e., internalized sexism; Bearman, Korobov, & Thorne, 2009), people with disabilities (i.e., internalized ableism; Kumari Campbell, 2008), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT; i.e., internalized heterosexism; Szymanski, Kashubeck-West, & Meyer, 2008). For example, in his minority stress model for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, Meyer (2003) argued that discrimination negatively influences LGB individuals' mental health. Perhaps the worst consequence of this form of discrimination is internalized homophobia—a specific form of internalized oppression in which LGB individuals eventually redirect negative homophobic societal attitudes toward themselves (e.g., I do not deserve equal rights). It is another form of self-hate due to experiences oppression (see Chapter 9 on LGBT individuals).

Contemporary Conceptualizations of Internalized Oppression

Although internalized oppression is a common experience among various social groups, this phenomenon continues to be understudied and underappreciated, and thus, largely unknown to the field of psychology. Perhaps one reason for this is that most of the literature on internalized oppression is framed using postcolonial theory, instead of theoretical frameworks that are more familiar with and, thus, more palatable to psychological professionals. Therefore, although based on and still consistent with postcolonial theories, a more contemporary conceptualization of internalized oppression has been proposed (David, 2009) using the principles and concepts of cognitive behavioral theory (CBT), a theory that is familiar to and popular with psychological professionals. In general, CBT considers five components to any phenomenon: (1) cognitions (thoughts); (2) moods or affects (emotions); (3) physiological reactions (e.g., increased heart rate); (4) behaviors; and (5) environment (Padesky & Greenburger, 1995). CBT posits that individuals' environmental contexts, such as how they were raised and what messages about the world, about themselves, and about others they constantly receive, can lead to the development of general patterns of thinking (mental schemas). These general patterns of thinking are highly influential in producing the automatic thoughts or cognitions that individuals have as they interact with the world. In turn, CBT argues that a person's thoughts or cognitions influence that person's mood, behavior, and physical sensations in response to his or her environmental context. Thoughts or cognitions that are distorted, inaccurate, or false may lead to unhealthy or maladaptive moods, behaviors, or physical sensations, whereas thoughts or cognitions that are accurate, true, or realistic contribute to healthy and adaptive moods, behaviors, and physical sensations (Beck, 1995).

Using CBT principles and concepts, internalized oppression may be conceptualized as a set of self-defeating cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors that were developed as one consistently experiences an oppressive environment. Further, internalized oppression may be conceptualized as a distorted view of one's self and of others that is a consequence of how one experiences his or her environment. One of the most basic tenets of CBT is that thoughts that occur most frequently and are most easily accessible in memory are the ones we tend to believe. Historically, oppressed groups have been, both in subtle and overt ways, consistently receiving the message that they are inferior to the dominant group. Eventually, members of oppressed groups may no longer need the dominant group to perpetuate such inferiorizing messages, because they begin inferiorizing themselves in overt and subtle (and automatic) ways (David, 2009).

Consistent with CBT, another way to conceptualize internalized oppression is to use the empirical literature on learning and cognition, memory, priming, spreading activation theory, and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). Based on this body of literature, members of oppressed groups may internalize the oppression they experience in such a deep way that it creates within them a knowledge system that is characterized by automatic negative cognitions and perceptions of their social group. Using methods such as the word-completion task, implicit association test, and the lexical decision priming task among multiple samples of Filipino Americans (David & Okazaki, 2010; David, 2010)—the second largest Asian American ethnic group in the United States and a population for whom internalized oppression is highly salient—empirical evidence was found to support the notion that many (approximately 55%) members of this group have automatically associated undesirable, unpleasant, and negative thoughts with the Filipino culture, and desirable, pleasant, and positive thoughts with the American culture. These findings suggest that oppression has been internalized deeply enough by members of this group for a distorted cognitive system to be developed and automatically operate (see Chapter 7 on Asian Americans).

Thus, based on these series of studies (David, 2010; David & Okazaki, 2010)—the literature on learning and cognition, priming, spreading activation, the dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition, CBT, and internalized oppression among various groups—four conclusions may be made concerning the cognitive operation of internalized oppression. First, oppression may be deeply internalized by members of oppressed groups such that their cultural knowledge systems reflect internalized oppression. Second, internalized oppression is an individual differences variable in that not all members of oppressed groups experience it. Third, internalized oppression may be activated using priming techniques typically used in the areas of social cognition and memory. Lastly, oppression may be deeply internalized such that stimuli that are related to one's own group are automatically associated with ideas of unpleasantness or inferiority and stimuli that are related to the dominant group are automatically associated with ideas of pleasantness or superiority (David & Okazaki, 2010).

E.J. provides an example of how internalized oppression may automatically influence one's perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors outside of awareness or control:

So What? Mental Health Implications of Internalized Oppression

Following the use of CBT to discuss internalized oppression in the previous section, and consistent with CBT's conceptualization of how psychological disorders develop (e.g., Beck, Rush, Emery, & Shaw, 1979), underlying automatic thoughts (e.g., “men are strong, women are weak”) or behaviors (e.g., deferring to men to do heavy “manual” labor) are maladaptive general beliefs or mental schemas (e.g., “men are stronger than women”) that have been developed from previous experiences (e.g., socialization that “manual” labor is for men and women are the “weaker” sex). Such thoughts and beliefs contribute to the creation of dysfunctional self-schemas (e.g., “I am a woman, so I am weak”) that may lead to psychological distress and disorders (David, 2009; see Chapter 8 on Women). For historically and contemporarily oppressed groups, years of subjugation may have created a general belief that their social groups are inferior to the dominant group. Such a belief may underlie the automatic self-deprecating thoughts and behaviors that many members of oppressed groups display today. Such automatic negative cognitions, attitudes, and related behaviors are likely damaging to peoples' self-esteem and may contribute to the development of various forms of mental health concerns. Figure 1.1 is a representation of how internalized oppression may operate and lead to psychological distress and psychopathology using CBT concepts.

FIGURE 1.1

Conceptualizing internalized oppression using cognitive behavioral theory.

Depression

As discussed above, ethnic minority psychology literature suggests that constructs that are especially salient to minorities (e.g., enculturation, ethnic identity, collective self-esteem) are important contributors to their mental health, specifically depression (see solid variables and paths in Figure 1.2). Research also suggests that such constructs may be influenced by internalized oppression (e.g., David & Okazaki, 2006b; David, 2010; Walker et al., 2008). Further, studies also suggest that internalized oppression may be related to depression (Majied, 2003; Thomas et al., 2005; Ross, Doctor, Dimito, Kuehl, & Armstrong, 2007) and other negative emotions that are related to depression such as feelings of inferiority (Gainor, 1992; Pheterson, 1986; Prilleltensky & Laurier, 1996), resignation and powerlessness (Pheterson, 1986), learned helplessness (Prilleltensky & Laurier, 1996), shame (Rosenwasser, 2005), and humiliation (Rosenwasser, 2002). Interestingly, levels of depression have been shown to decrease when internalized oppression is a central focus of therapy (Ross et al., 2007), further suggesting that internalized oppression is an important factor to consider when conceptualizing depression as experienced by members of oppressed groups. Thus, internalized oppression may also be related to depression through enculturation, ethnic identity, and collective self-esteem (see dashed lines in Figure 1.2). Using structural equation modeling with data obtained from a Filipino American sample, a model of depression that included internalized oppression was tested versus a model that did not include it, and the results showed that the internalized oppression-model better captured depression, that the model accounted for a large percentage of the variance in depression, and that internalized oppression had a direct and significant effect on depression above and beyond the effects of the other important variables (David, 2008). Thus, internalized oppression can significantly contribute to the depression symptoms that many members of oppressed groups experience.

FIGURE 1.2

Internalized oppression and its mental health implications.

Source: David (2008).

Summary and Conclusion

In addition to having a clearer understanding of internalized oppression, it should now also be evident why it is important to better understand and address internalized oppression. Although we present a great deal of information here, this chapter is by no means comprehensive. Instead, it is only a general overview of the wide range of oppressive experiences and even wider range of internalized oppression manifestations and consequences faced by various groups throughout the world. The rest of the chapters in this book provide more in-depth coverage and analyses of internalized oppression as experienced by specific groups, further illuminating and bringing to life the losses, pains, and struggles faced by these communities. As a summary of the literature discussed in this chapter, and as an accessible guide as the reader proceeds with the rest of the book and beyond, we present a partial list of the characteristics of internalized oppression in Table 1.1.

In closing, there is no doubt that internalized oppression is a salient experience among various groups throughout the world, and empirical evidence is emerging to suggest that internalized oppression has immense negative mental and behavioral health consequences. Thus, in our efforts to better serve the majority of the people in our world, we need to incorporate larger sociopolitical factors (i.e., oppression) and its consequences (i.e., internalized oppression) in our conceptualizations of their psychological experiences. This broader, more complete, and more accurate conceptualization of the psychological experiences of socially marginalized groups will necessitate a change in the manner in which the field develops, conducts, and implements its research and service activities. This chapter, along with the rest of the chapters in this book, hopes to help facilitate this change.

References