Navigating mental and emotional wellbeing in risky forms of human rights activism

ABSTRACT

How do people engaged in risky forms of activism understand and manage their mental and emotional wellbeing? What factors shape these responses? How is this significant for the sustainability of activism and human rights movements around the world? Drawing on a study with 407 participants who experienced high risks in human rights practice in Colombia, Mexico, Egypt, Kenya, and Indonesia, this article argues that cultures of human rights practice shape the way that mental and emotional wellbeing is understood and practiced. Gendered ‘feeling rules’ that valorize bravery, commitment, sacrifice, and selflessness complicate conversations about mental and emotional wellbeing, triggering feelings of guilt and self-indulgence in relation to self-care. Discussions about mental and emotional wellbeing are sensitive, culturally mediated, and laden with social and political implications. Some leaders are concerned that revealing their fears and vulnerabilities will lead to movement demobilisation. Mental health issues are thus made invisible. Participants in this study tended to rely on private rather than collective coping strategies; relatively few human rights groups and organisations adopted wellbeing practices. Crucially, however, activists affirm that their human rights practice enables them to experience and attain individual and collective wellbeing. This article discusses the maintenance of practices for self- and collective care that can sustain people engaged in activism in the face of high risks.

KEYWORDS:

• Emotions
• feeling rules
• activism
• wellbeing
• human rights defenders
• risk

Acknowledgments

This article benefitted from constructive feedback provided by Paul Gready, Alejandro Peña, Martin Jones, Adam Brown, Hannah Dwyer Smith, and Tallulah Lines and two anonymous reviewers. The research team comprised Patricia Bartley, Katrina Maliamauv, Peter Cousins, Emily Schmitz, Erick Monterrosas, Paola Pacheco Ruiz, Sherif Azer, Kholoud Hafez, Irina Ichim, Patrick Mutahi, Indria Fernida and Budi Hernawan.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. For a comprehensive discussion on the challenge of defining wellbeing, see Dodge et al. (2012).

2. For other research findings from this study, see: https://securityofdefendersproject.org/, accessed 18 October 2019.

3. We found, as Pavis, Masters, and Burley (1996) did, that ‘lay people’ feel more comfortable with a broader term such as ‘psychological and emotional wellbeing’ than ‘mental health’, which connotes mental illness.

4. Most participated in a semi-structured interview or focus group and completed a survey; a small number completed the survey without participating in the interview or focus group and vice versa.

5. We had planned to do the same in Cairo, but decided against it because of security concerns.

6. Respondents were asked ‘In general, how concerned are you about your mental and emotional well-being?’ and were given five options to choose from: ‘Not concerned at all’, ‘not too concerned’, ‘I don’t know’, ‘somewhat concerned’ and ‘very concerned’.

7. 85.0% stated that they were ‘somewhat concerned’ (26.9%) or ‘very concerned’ (58.1%) about their physical security, while 84.1% stated that they were ‘somewhat concerned’ (24.0%) or ‘very concerned’ (60.1%) about their digital security.

8. See also the website Resources for Resilience (available at https://www.hrresilience.org/, accessed 18 October 2019).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by a philanthropic organisation that wishes to remain anonymous.

Notes on contributors

Alice M. Nah

Alice M. Nah is a Lecturer at the Centre for Applied Human Rights and the Politics Department at the University of York, UK. She is on the Board of Protection International, the International Detention Coalition, and the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network.