I've been reading about this guy today, along with some other social psychologists:-
In the main if you're going to find Wikis "too long, didnt read" (I hate that ADHD riven designation BTW) then perhaps the fluff zone's a better place to go looking for threads to participate in, on the other hand I've found a paragraph which I thought was worth quoting out of the piece in its entirety:-
The thing about this is that almost every single source that I know of, whether they are partisan or attempt to be more objective and sociological or evidence based, seem to suggest that in processes of liberation or major structural adjustment and social change there IS inevitably some oppression.For Martín-Baró, the solution to mental health problems in societies characterised by oppression, where "normal abnormality" prevails, is the transformation of society to transcend the historical reality of oppression. Psychologists cannot ignore the influence that difficult contexts have on mental health. Furthermore, if they do, then they become accomplices to the social injustices (or abnormalities) that may have caused these mental health problems.
Now by no means am I attempting to rehabilitate those ideas, I really dont believe any of the left wing or other sources which suggest that there need to be dictatorial or emergency powers periods of "transition", I heard that idea described once as taking a little blossom tree, fashioning it into a club and then waiting for it to put forth blossoms at some point later on. Its not going to happen.
So my questions are, is it a matter of degree? For instance that it the change in question will involve coercion, which could be called oppression, even structural violence but that it is not in the same measure or degree as the ongoing unchanged arrangements coercion/oppression/structural violence, in which case it is a "lesser evil" kind of deal. Or is it a difference in kind? For instance it will involve coercion, which could be called oppression but to do so would be invalid as the criteria for its application and recourse for those effected, is different?
I am thinking of this all in the context of the uprisings across the arab world and the western attempts at "exporting democracy" as foreign policy.
Could it perhaps be possible, given the criteria of "normal abnormality", that in post-conflict regions there's going to be perhaps a number of generations come and go before the trauma involved in the original changes can fade and no longer have a major social implication? I'm thinking about what this means consequentially for the regions in question and the rest of the world even where the change could be necessary or to all intents and purposes desirable (for the purposes of that argument certain things are a given in terms of what can be considered desirable, such as rule of law/lawful authorities, representative democracies, contestable elections, basic freedoms etc.).
I was also thinking of whether or not this could ever serve as a dissuader to potential usurpers or tyrants, like elites in the military who could form juntas or dictators first officers may objectively look at the situation and say "well, we could "take power" but in the process the country will objectively be rendered shite, for a long time, for like longer than any of our kids or kids kids will live to see". I think this has been put in literary forms before, like 1984, which is supposed to protray a society in which ultimately "the joke is on big brother" because all big brother can produce is increasingly poorer conditions, even for the elites, although I've not read it in psychology before now.