“Othering” threatens people's sense of belonging and safety

Since the end of the Second World War, there has been a high level of immigration to the UK. While the UK is a multicultural society, it still seems to be conflicted about its identity as a nation.

There has been rising anti-immigration rhetoric in recent years, as evidenced by the riots a few months ago targeting hotels housing refugees and asylum seekers; these highlighted an eruption of these building tensions around race and boundaries. 

Whether in the media, political debates, or daily interactions, there are constant reminders of a process of "othering", directed towards those who are racialised; perceived as different or other in their physical or cultural characteristics. For them, this is not a mere intellectual change, it is a living threat polluting their lives, their sense of belonging, and their safety.

I believe part of our role as researchers and practitioners is to understand rather than demonise these conflicts. Stenner and Andreouli in their 2023 article offer an exploration of wider historical and political forces. 

Sovereignty a recurring theme

They used Brexit as a poignant example of emerging pressures in the UK for de-globalisation and nationalism. Drawing from a focus group done before the 2016 referendum, they found sovereignty - having absolute power of decision over a country's territory - a recurring theme calling for a reclaim of lost control and raising "questions of fixed borders, insiders and outsiders, authority and obedience, and the absolute power to decide regardless of prior norms and laws". 

Sovereignty, as Stenner and Andreouli theorised, is a representation of an issue between the authority of the ruling government, obedience of the ruled citizens, and the jurisdiction of territory. It is a response to the postmodern economic globalisation in which the UK is influenced by other more powerful economic forces. 

A nationalistic embrace of sovereignty against the threats of globalisation invokes with it a rigid, closed, perhaps even frightened sense of absolutism in self-sufficiency and a wish for a mythical unified autonomy. Sovereignty at the same time seems to conflate the issues of identity and maybe present rich grounds for rejection of difference and projection of all these fears, frustration, and powerlessness onto the vulnerable "other".

Psychologists' responsibility

As psychologists, we have a responsibility to be aware of current social and political forces and to bring forth issues of power both outside and inside the therapy room. Myira Khan presents anti-oppressive practice as requiring an open acknowledgement of social and political inequality, oppression, and power relational dynamics, especially within mental health services. 

Rather than being a blank slate and reducing mental health work to internal dynamics, political, social, and cultural material is invited into clinical work as an integral part of our understanding of mental health and as a social responsibility in affecting change. 

I hope this is a reminder of the power we hold in our work and a call to be wary of transforming oppression into a diagnosis. If we ignore the socio-political issues and avoid engaging with rising fear, anger, and frustrations, we risk being closed and rigid - similar to nationalistic boundaries - against knowing the other and their experience, in all its complexity. That's the heart and true power of our work, I believe.

References:

Khan, M. (2023). Working within diversity: A reflective guide to anti-oppressive practice in counselling and therapy. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Stenner, P., & Andreouli, E. (2023). 'Revisioning psychology and deglobalisation: The case of Brexit'. Theory & Psychology, 33(2), 209-226.

About the author

Doaa Morsy is a trainee counselling psychologist at the University of the West of England.