Embodied Ways of Knowing

Psychology has long ignored embodied experience and embodied ways of knowing, partially because it is rooted in a Western epistemology that separates body and mind. Most psychological theories treat individuals as essentially formless. This limits our ability to incorporate embodied knowledge into our research and practice, and also ignores the physical reality of the interconnections between humans and place. However, multiple epistemologies are beginning to infiltrate academic discourse, primarily spearheaded by indigenous scholars, and embodied ways of knowing are increasingly recognized and explored. The role of the body in both individual and historical trauma is gaining recognition (Rothschild, 2000; Van der Kolk, 2015) as is the interrelation between embodied experience, health of the environment, and health of the individual (Johnston, Jacups, Vickery, & Bowman, 2007; Meyer, 2001). The purpose of this roundtable is to review and discuss some of these advancements in embodiment theory and research, to examine their implications for community psychology, and to capitalize on the collective wisdom of diverse scholars and practitioners that gather at the conference. Together, we will explore diverse forms of embodied knowledge, how we might incorporate more embodied experience in our research and theory, and the potential implications for this vision on community health.

The dialectic: Sharpening an old tool for contemporary struggles

The dialectic was an intense focus of debate across the 20th century with academics and activists drawing on this method/tool/logic in their sense making of especially the dynamics of capitalism. It however fell from favour at the close of the 1980s with the emergence of the ‘post-history’ era and the intensification of the hegemony of ‘neoliberalism’. Although diminished, engagements with the dialectic and its complexities have continued amongst scholars, with the promise that its value will again be demonstrated as our world witnesses profound escalations in the noxious dynamics of capitalism, whose impact is most felt, unsurprisingly, by the most vulnerable. Dialectical reason however is prone to simplistic and dismissive characterisations which allows its potential to be ignored. In this paper I wish to provide an overview of this notion, some of the ways it has been engaged with and debated in the past and illustrate its utility in engaging and making sense of the struggles of current communities across the globalised world. Ultimately, the dialectic provides a critical tool seeking the production of knowledges that foster the agency, liberation and well-being of communities subjugated to larger processes that promote the differential distribution of wealth, burden and suffering. Part of its utility is in resisting individualistic and liberal formulations of poverty. This will be illustrated through the depiction of some of the affective and material dynamics of the cityscape of Auckland.

What needs underlie different community definitions?

It is natural for people to form communities but as individuals who form them are driven by personal psychological needs different meanings and expectations may implictly define the ways in which one is going to be engaged in communal activities and relationships.
On the basis of personality and developmental psychology understanding of human psychological needs six different types of community deffinitions are discussed: community as service (need for comfort), community as a scene (need for safety), community as a family (need for belonging), communty as a hierarchy (need for self-esteem), community as an aesthetic order (need for meaning), community as an inspiration (need for self-actualization). Each of presenting definitions is seen as different from others on the basis of dominating psychological need that is implicitly underlying it and often implies different ways of being in community.
For example, discourse on importance of diversity is seen as reflection of safety need: when no one is „in the shade“ of community its more safe, as there are no surprises, and also postive attention of other people makes one feel more safe. That defines communty essentially as a scene, where everyone should be seen. Concept of empowerment by contrast is seen as reflection of need for self-esteem: higher position in society is associated with more power and more respect, so that defines community essentially as an hierarchy etc.
Inclusive communty is seen as the one, that helps people with different underlying needs, to satisfy them by staying engaged and active member of community despite the individual differences. Some needs are more contradictory with each other than others, and as a result it creates tension because underlyng expectations are very different. Ways to negotiate between different needs that underlie definitions of communities are discussed.

Sense of community as cultural praxis

Sense of community (SoC) is a key construct for community psychology. McMillan and Chavis’ sense of community model has been the most embraced theory of SoC and the most cited in the study of SoC in community psychology. Despite its popularity, it is not without any contention. There are some alternate theories, models, and measures of SoC. Nevertheless, much of empirical evidence of SoC are quantitative and demonstrate it as cognitive and affective attributes that sit inside an individual. The present study investigates SoC in relation to the disruption of SoC by the event of disaster and permanent relocation following the disaster. Using grounded theory approach, the present study aims to unpack SoC from the point of view of community as practice. Considering local frames of reference and cultural knowledge in interpreting the social/communal and psychological realities, the present study provides interpretation and understanding the ways SoC reflecting contextual community processes and operating as praxis. The findings of the present study are discussed in relation to community resilience and post-disaster community recovery process.