Essex, Ryan ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3497-3137 (2019) Psychology and its response to major human rights abuses: the case of Australian immigration detention. European Psychologist, 24 (2). pp. 195-203. ISSN 1016-9040 (Print), 1878-531X (Online) (doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000369)

Preview

PDF (Author Accepted Manuscript) 24916 ESSEX_Psychology_and_its_Response_to_Major_Human_Rights_Abuses_2020.pdf - Accepted Version Download (243kB) | Preview

Abstract

Australian immigration detention has been criticized both domestically and internationally for the harm that it creates and promotes and for violating human rights and international law. Psychologists have worked within centers and have thus been central to their operation, but have also long called for reform of these policies. Despite this and despite broader criticism from all corners of Australian society, the government has continued to consolidate power in relation to the administration of these policies and has actively attempted to shut down dissent. How should Psychologists respond? This article will argue that current approaches are inadequate and more adversarial action is needed. Supporting such an approach, social movement theory will be introduced and applied to examine how it may inform future action. Psychologists have an obligation to protect human rights and health, and while more adversarial action may not typically fit in traditional repertoires, there are few other professionals who are better skilled to begin to deal with these questions. In light of this, Psychologists in Australia and across the globe should carefully consider their roles in social change and whether they can do more in the face of major human rights abuses.Abstract. Australian immigration detention has been criticized both domestically and internationally for the harm that it creates and promotes and for violating human rights and international law. Psychologists have worked within centers and have thus been central to their operation, but have also long called for reform of these policies. Despite this and despite broader criticism from all corners of Australian society, the government has continued to consolidate power in relation to the administration of these policies and has actively attempted to shut down dissent. How should Psychologists respond? This article will argue that current approaches are inadequate and more adversarial action is needed. Supporting such an approach, social movement theory will be introduced and applied to examine how it may inform future action. Psychologists have an obligation to protect human rights and health, and while more adversarial action may not typically fit in traditional repertoires, there are few other professionals who are better skilled to begin to deal with these questions. In light of this, Psychologists in Australia and across the globe should carefully consider their roles in social change and whether they can do more in the face of major human rights abuses.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	Unmapped bibliographic data: M3 - doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000369 [Field not mapped to EPrints] JO - European Psychologist [Field not mapped to EPrints]
Uncontrolled Keywords:	refugee, human rights, psychology, social movement, contentious politics
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > School of Health Sciences (HEA)
Last Modified:	20 Oct 2020 14:35
URI:	http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/24916

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads