|
Religion is often looked upon as an uplifting source of support and personal growth. Religion and spirituality can provide a sense of belonging for individuals, families and communities and provides a sense of meaning to those who practice. According to the Pew Research Center a majority of the world’s population reports being spiritual or belonging to a religious sect. Religion and spirituality is often seen as a source of resilience and coping, when individuals, families, and communities experience hardship it is customary practice across the world to turn to religion as a source of hope. There is still much debate over among experts and religious leaders regarding how exactly to define religion and spirituality, which makes defining religious trauma and religious trauma syndrome (RTS) difficult. Since this is a rather new phenomenon being discussed among respective fields of social science, the definition of religious trauma remains ambiguous. Initial research around religion and spirituality focused predominantly on coping and resilience among other mental health benefits. Recent research has gone in the other direction and has explored ways religion and religious groups may lead to and amplify health concerns.
One of the definitions of religious abuse provided by the American Psychological Association is “mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support, or greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining, or decreasing that person’s empowerment.” This definition alludes to a person’s vulnerability and/or autonomy and brings attention to the needs of the people who indulge in religious or spiritual practice. Religious abuse also results from religious leaders taking advantage of their spiritual position by narcissistically reminding followers of their power, eventually leading to fear and paranoia among community members. The American Psychological Association presents several effects that religious trauma can have on victims including distorting the image of God or a higher power, creating barriers to setting healthy boundaries, as well as barriers to forming trusting and compassionate relationships in the future. The effects can also lead to hermeneutical injustice, which occurs when the victim’s harm results from a lack of knowledge which prevents them from acting in accordance with their own values. These effects can lead to severe cycles where, in many cases, victims suffer from cognitive dissonance and are unable to recognize, or simply refuse to acknowledge, the faults in their leaders and abusers. The recent discourse surrounding religious/spiritual abuse has brought attention to the aspect of cultural competence and cultural humility. Cultural competence relies more heavily on knowledge of distinct cultures, while cultural humility relies on knowledge but also emphasizes the need for critical self-reflection. Religious/spiritual trauma is not universal, not everyone suffers from abuse, and it is the duty of social workers to display humility when working with someone who has endured religious or spiritual abuse. According to the Industrial Psychiatry Journal, RTS was first termed by American Psychologist Marlene Winell. One area of study that has influenced has healthcare providers treat RTS is the amount of research on trauma or traumatology in the last 20 years. Research in traumatology has shown that people react differently, and this could be because of personal or any contextual factors. When victims who have experienced RTS are re-introduced to certain factors or triggers, their nervous systems can be mistakenly aroused and often the victim re-experiences the event. Dr. Marlene Winell outlined 3 stages of RTS which are as follows: 1) Pre-deconversion Trauma- harm done by religious beliefs and practices during the time a person is religious, 2) Deconversion- Acute period of leaving a religion, 3) post-deconversion adaptation- long-term mental health issues, delayed development, and cultural adjustment in the “world.” Treating RTS requires a holistic approach and an understanding of every aspect of the individual.
0 Comments
In recent years, specifically from the presidential elections in 2016 to the midterm elections in 2022, there has been an increase in young voter participation in
America. Young voter participation has been typically lower when compared to the rest of the general population in America. While there have been noticeable fluctuations in the 21st century, the most recent trend showed a nine percent increase from 39.4% of youth voter turnout in 2016 to 48% in the 2020 presidential election. The current trend is showing progress but there are still several structural and intentional barriers young voters must face each election in order to cast their ballot. The barrier that stands out most is the targeted efforts to disenfranchise and discourage young voters from engaging in the political process. Most of the efforts to disenfranchise young voters are consolidated in residency laws, which affect college students, specifically out-of-state students. Residency laws require students to either return home or, in some states, acquire a new driver's license and establish legal residency in a new state. This puts college students in a difficult position as they must choose between making arrangements to return home or going through the whole registration process in a new state. Young people face structural barriers to voting outside of the intentional barriers put in place by politicians. On average, young people often move far more often compared to the general population and this is not strictly indicative of young voters in college. Socioeconomic barriers limit the amount of employment opportunities that young people have. This leads to young people working jobs with less predictable schedules and their schedules can often affect their ability to even find the time to vote. Out of all eligible voters in America approximately 40 million of them are classified as Gen z voters. Those aged 18-29 years old constitute nearly 22% of the total American voting age population but in 2018 they made up only 13% of the electorate. The structural and intentional barriers restrict an enormous faction of our society from participating in the democratic process. The population of young voters are currently the most diverse generation of voters and while there has been an increase in young voter participation in recent years, there are still inconsistencies in how each state hinders or engages young voters in the political process. References Brill, L. (2024, January 19). A Silenced Generation: How the Power of the Youth Vote Collides With Barriers to Voting . Mapresearch.org. Tor, E. (2020, February 20). Why so many young people don’t vote – and how to change that. Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy | University of Virginia. https://batten.virginia.edu/about/news/why-so-many-young-people-dont-vote-and-how-change Beadle, K., de Guzman, P., & Medina, A. (2022, March 17). The impact of voting laws on youth turnout and registration. Circle at Tufts. https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/impact-voting-laws-youth-turnout-and-registration |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed