WHAT IS OPPRESSION?
Oppression is a form of injustice that occurs where one social group is subordinated while another is privileged, and oppression is maintained by a variety of different mechanisms including social norms, stereotyping and institutional rules. A key feature of oppression is that it is perpetuated by and affects social groups.
[Oppression] occurs when a particular social group is unjustly subordinated, and where that subordination is not necessarily deliberate but instead results from a complex network of social restrictions, ranging from laws and institutions to implicit biases and stereotypes. In such cases, there may be no deliberate attempt to subordinate the relevant group, but the group is nonetheless unjustly subordinated by this network of social constraints. (Taylor; 2016; Groups & Oppression 520-536).
THE SOCIAL LEVELS OF OPPRESSION
IDEOLOGICAL OPPRESSION
Any oppressive system has at its core the idea that one group (dominant group), is somehow better than another in some measure: More intelligent, harder working, stronger, more capable, more noble, more deserving, more advanced, chosen, normal or superior, therefore has the right to control other groups. The dominant group holds this idea about itself, and of course, the opposite qualities are attributed to the other group/s.
INSTITUTIONAL OR STRUCTURAL OPPRESSION
Belief that dominant groups have the right to control others becomes embedded in the institutions and structures of the society- the laws, the legal system & police practices, the education system & schools, job hiring policies, housing, media dialogue and images and political power. Institutional/structural oppression is reinforced when policies and practices maintain inequalities between privileged and less privileged groups. Social institutions/structures, replicate the ideological beliefs & make injustice normal, every day and expected.
INTERPERSONAL OPPRESSION
Gives permission & reinforcement for individual members of dominant social groups (eg. men, white, straight, affluent, able-bodied) to personally disrespect, mistreat, harass and exhibit microaggressions towards members of oppressed groups: the essence of hate based thinking or behaviour. For example interpersonal abuses from one person to another due to racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, Islamophobia, classism, etc. This is the level that most people identify racism, sexism, homophobia etc. by reducing individual acts of bias or hatred, as identifying and demonstrating whether person X is 'a racist', or 'a sexist'. In reality acts of interpersonal oppression express the institutional/structural and ideological frameworks which underpin these interpersonal acts and processes.
The oppressed group does not have the social power to enforce its prejudices unlike the dominant group. To stress again, interpersonal oppression is built on the ideological & institutional/structural oppressions which legitimate and normalise these interpersonal abuses. Because interpersonal oppression arises from ideological and institutional/structural oppression, it is inaccurate to talk of say, 'reverse racism': because racism is based on ideology and institutional/structural practices supporting white supremacy. In the example given of racism, a black person may have and express prejudice to a white person but the black person lives within the global ideology of white supremacy. In a world promoting say, 'heavily melanised supremacy', for example, the social representations, expectations and entitlement to social power with respect to skin colour, would turn on its head what we view as normal or expected in the world we live in today.
It is important to recognise that we have to step-out of thinking within the 'black' 'white' binary and reframe ideological and therefore social power, as residing with the normalised institutional/structural laws, policies and practices created to support, in my example, 'highly melanised supremacy' over 'lightly melanised populations'. If we view high levels of melanin skin pigmentation as supremely dominant and desirable in society, then it would be European people avocating for their human rights from the heavily melanised countries such as those in Africa, in charge of them. It is interesting to think of the narratives that might legitimate 'melanin supremacy' in this alternative ideological world view.
PSYCHOTHERAPY, COUNSELLING, PSYCHOLOGY & PSYCHIATRY CLINICAL TRAINING & PRACTICE AT BEST ONLY CONSIDERS THE INTERPERSONAL AND INTERNAL LEVELS OF OPPRESSION; ALTHOUGH NOT NORMALLY DESCRIBED OR UNDERSTOOD IN THIS WAY. PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELLING PROFESSIONS DO NOT LOCATE INTERPERSONAL AND INTERNALISED OPPRESSION PHENOMENA WITHIN BROADER INSTITUTIONAL/STRUCTURAL AND IDEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF INJUSTICE. THIS IS WHY PARTICULARLY WITH A FOCUS ON COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY LITERATURE AND ACADEMIC RESEARCH, CRITICAL THEORETICAL APPROACHES EXPLORING THESE DYNAMICS HAVE NOT EMERGED. THIS RESULTS IN AN INDIVIDUALISTIC AND DEPOLITICISED APPROACH IN MY PROFESSION WHICH CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS HARMFUL WITHIN TRAINING, CLINICAL PRACTICE AND RESEARCH. THIS FAILURE IS NOT NEW AND HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY IDENTIFIED AS PROBLEMATIC WITHIN THE COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY. PROFESSION FOR DECADES.
INTERNALISED/INDIVIDUAL OPPRESSION
Internalised oppression can be either internalised privilege and entitlement. For example a male believing he has the right to dominate women. Most people in the dominant group are not conscious of their internalised privilege, they have internalised societies belief that they operate within on a daily basis. In contrast to internalised privilege is internalised criticism, judgement and hatred encountered by those groups judged by the dominant group as inferior. For example women believing they must be slim, or a Chinese person wanting double eyelid surgery, or a black person using skin lightening cream: to look and feel closer to the social ideal. Those members in less ideologically privileged groups are taught by society that they are inherently defective or flawed. Believing the ideological truths underlying self privilege or self hate can create ideologically based mental illness which informs and harms self image within populations .
Working at the ideological through to the individual internalised level of oppression as appropriate for the presenting issues offers a more holistic therapeutic alliance and relationship.
OLUKEMI AMALA'S THEORETICAL ALIGNMENT WITH MODERN PSYCHOANALYSIS: Olukemi Amala’s ‘panopticality‘ meets Paul Wachtel‘s disavowed self.’
The linking of Olukemi Amala’s theory of “panopticality” and Paul Wachtel’s integrative psychoanalysis on the “disavowed self” represents a powerful synthesis of political-structural awareness and clinical internal processing. Together, they explain how social hierarchies force individuals into psychological self-surveillance, causing them to split off and reject vital aspects of their identity to remain safe within oppressive systems.
How these two concepts meet and interact dynamically:
1. Conceptual Frameworks
Olukemi Amala’s Panopticality: Drawing from Michel Foucault’s panopticism, defines panopticality as developing the capacity to see oneself within social hierarchies, such as within gender, gender-identity, ability, sexuality, class, race or age. For example, what is your positionality with respect to race? What is the social language of those like you racially? What about if you lived within the opposite social location with respect to race? How might that affect how others see you. How would this impact on your self worth or how you see the worth of other people like you? How does positionality affect how you see yourself and your skin colour? What about your positionality on gender? How does being a black man differ socially from being a white man. What about a black woman verses a white woman? Positionality and Intersectionality affects mental wellbeing within social oppression.
Living within minoritised, marginalised and pathologised social systems and structures; (eg. black living within the prevailing global ideology of white supremacy), functions as a method of internalised psychological self-surveillance. It forces a person to look to their “socially conditioned self” to navigate interpersonal and systemic oppression.
Paul Wachtel’s Disavowed Self:
Integrative psychoanalyst Paul Wachtel notes that the “disavowed self” (or disallowed self) consists of thoughts, feelings, and desires side-tracked during early development. Because expressing these parts caused anxiety or threatened relational attachment, they are pushed aside. Crucially, Wachtel emphasises that they are not entirely erased, but rather excluded from the active sense of self.
2. The Meeting Point: Where Surveillance Meets Split
When panopticality meets the disavowed self, the clinical lens broadens from private childhood attachments to systemic realities:
The Cause of Disavowal: Wachtel focuses on how early caregiver attachment shapes what is disallowed. Amala expands this by showing that social structures (race, class, gender hierarchies) act as an overarching “macro-parent.” The “panoptic glare” of society demands specific conformities.
The Mechanism of Pushing Away: Under the internal monitoring, an individual judges themselves against social hierarchies. If a natural emotion (like anger, vulnerability, or a boundary) violates their assigned place in that hierarchy, it becomes highly dangerous to express. The individual then disavows that emotion to protect themselves from systemic or relational fallout.
Interpersonal Vicious Cycles: Wachtel is famous for his cyclical psychodynamics—how internal disavowal causes actions that trigger negative external responses, reinforcing the original fear. Amala adds that these cycles are deeply entrenched by institutional and systemic oppression. For instance, a marginalised person disavowing rightful anger due to institutional surveillance might resort to over-compliance. This submission can then be exploited by the system, reinforcing the internal rule that anger is unsafe.
3. Implications for Therapeutic Healing
When a therapist brings both theories into the room, the goal of treatment evolves:
From Internal Fault to Systemic Awareness: Instead of framing a client’s disavowed parts purely as individual pathology or defense mechanisms, the therapist helps the client recognise that self-surveillance is a logical survival strategy against oppressive hierarchies.
Making Room for the Disallowed: Wachtel outlines clinical strategies to “make room” for these hidden resources in the present moment. Amala’s approach ensures that this reclaimation explicitly addresses how intersectionality and positionality shape what is allowed to be spoken.
Moving from unprocessed to processed. From reactive Surveillance to Psychological Agency: It is vital for the therapist to acknowledge the importance of the coping mechanism of self-surveillance in a world structured on power hierarchies. Therapy shifts the client from an automated state of self-censorship into active, critical awareness -panopticality – which allows for the development of and reclaiming their authentic self skillfully, and safely within social power relationships such as black white, male female, ablebodied disabled. To achieve this clinical dynamic in the therapy room, the therapist must consciously bring structural power into therapeutic discourse. How does the client’s social positions and the therapist differ?
Psychological work required to live healthy from either social position. Panopticality . leading to becoming socially conscious. The different psychological work required from each position. When working with a black female client (oppressed in society by race and gender).
By recognising why society forces people to hide certain parts of themselves, people can safely begin to reintegrate their disavowed power, anger, or vulnerability. Ultimately for a black person to gain mastery under white supremacy this is vital for internal and interpersonal psycholological health and inner stability. Panopticality interrupts the socially conditioned internalisation of low worth, or inferiority. It is important for the white therapist to understand that: A white child is socialised to see themselves as socially inside the desirable group, therefore there is no psychological conflict for a white child’s sense of racial comfort and visibility – unlike for black children.
A white child’s development is normal and desirable under the ideology of white supremacy = psychological comfort (white child) verses psychological distress (black child). This is an example of an oppression based mental adjustment, which can develop into oppression based psychiatric illnesses.
Ref:
Attachment, Anxiety, and the Disavowed Self: Insights from Dr. Paul Wachtel, 2023.
---
