Mindfulness based feminist therapy: The intermingling edges of self-compassion and social justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) often have trouble regaining a lost sense of self, even after years of ‘good’ feminist therapy. Both postmodern feminism and Buddhist philosophy have common ideas about the constructed nature and fluidity of the self, and feminist and Buddhist ontologies can inform each other—the former on the nature of subjectivity under oppression, the latter on how to relate differently to the self by not identifying with our stories as who we are. Therefore, one might assume that mindfulness-based approaches might be helpful with this problem. However, social justice values that feminists and social workers prize seem absent in mindfulness approaches that appear to be individual-focused and politically passive. This article argues that feminism and mindfulness have points of congruence as well as much to offer each other where they diverge, and it presents exploratory research investigating the role of mindfulness and self-compassion on reconstructing a sense of self and agency in survivors of IPV by comparing outcomes of a community-based feminist group and a mindfulness-based group. The findings provide a glimpse into the strengths of each approach and suggest some benefit in weaving these into a mindfulness based feminist therapy for survivors of IPV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".