Mental health, family strengthening, and endogenous community development: a psychosocial perspective

Abstract

Introduction. The consolidation of the nuclear family coincided with the rise of industrial capitalism, along with a social division of labor for men and a sexual division of labor for women. In Colombia, this study was conducted within a family strengthening and community development program in the Nuevo Girón housing project in Santander. This study aimed to understand the subjective barriers and their reverberations in community dynamics within the framework of this program. Methodology. A qualitative, descriptive study was conducted, guided by Participatory Action Research (PAR) and the principles of the Do No Harm (DNH) approach. The psychosocial perspective is emphasized as a way of sustaining a productive tension between subjectivities, the family, and the community. Logbooks, field diaries, and conversations with 20 community participants were used as methodological tools to explore the expectations and frustrations of those involved in the program. The researchers provided accompaniment in a respectful manner, that is, non-intrusive, non-interventionist, and non-assistentialist. Results. The analysis showed that understanding the diverse forms of family ties, recognizing the effects of speech and dialogue in deconstructing reality, and generating reflective spaces for symbolization and autoethnography, among others, resonated with similar community-based experiences. These practices demonstrated, in qualitative and descriptive terms, that it is possible to adopt a critical stance toward how research is conducted with and within communities. The study highlights elements that subvert the logic of positivist and epidemiological social research, showing that the community is not a passive object of study but a source of unique capabilities sustained by a set of histories and circumstances that converge in its territory. Discussion. The approach taken in this research avoided treating the community as an object of study—that is, as passive and deficient. Nor was the term “vulnerable population” used, given its victimizing connotations, which the community itself noted did not accurately represent them; this allowed us to respect their potential for capacity building. Conclusions. The importance of this research lies in the subjective and community resources that participants developed to interpret their own reality, enabling them to commit to their desires and life projects, with the understanding that transformations at the individual level generate reverberations in the community.