LGBT psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from LGBTQ psychology)

LGBT psychology is a field of psychology of surrounding the lives of LGBTQ+ individuals, in the particular the diverse range of psychological perspectives and experiences of these individuals. It covers different aspects such as identity development including the coming out process, parenting and family practices and support for LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as issues of prejudice and discrimination involving the LGBT community.

Definition

LGBTQ psychology stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer psychology. This list is not inclusive to all people within the community and the plus represents other identities not covered within the acronym. In the past this field was known as lesbian and gay psychology. Now it also includes bisexual and transgender identities and behaviors. In addition, the "Q" stands for queer which includes sexual identities and behaviors that go beyond traditional sex and gender labels, roles, and expectations.

The word "queer" was historically a slur used towards people within the community. Those who identify as queer today have reclaimed this label as self-identification. However, due to the traditional use of the word, many people in the LGBT community continue to reject this label. Some of the identities that fall under the term queer are aromantic, demi-sexual, asexual, non-binary, agender, genderfluid, genderqueer, pansexual, intersex, genderqueer, etc.

The names for this field are different in different parts of the world. In the UK and US, the acronym LGBTQ+ is widely used. The terms 'lesbian', 'gay', 'bisexual', 'trans' and 'queer' are not used all around the world and definitions vary.

Apart from the terms above, there are other words and phrases that are used to define sexuality and gender identity. These words and phrases typically come from western cultures. In contrast, in non-western cultures, the range of sexual and gender identities and practices are labelled and categorized using different languages, which naturally also involve different concepts compared to Western ones.

It is concerned with the study of LGBTQ individuals' sexuality – sexual identities and behaviors – thereby validating their unique identities and experiences. This research focus is affirmative for LGBTQ individuals, as it challenges prejudiced beliefs, attitudes, and discriminatory policies and practices towards the LGBTQ community.

It also includes the study of heterosexuality – other-sex romantic attraction, preferences and behaviors, as well as heteronormativity – the traditional view of heterosexuality being the universal norm. This line of research aims to understand heterosexuality from a psychological perspective, with the additional goal of challenging heterosexuality as the norm in the field of psychology and in society as a whole.

The overall goal of LGBTQ psychology is to raise awareness of LGBTQ issues in scholarly work and psychological research. In raising this awareness, LGBT+ psychology aims to be one of the fields in which inclusive, non-heterosexist, non-genderist approaches are applied in psychological research and practice. These approaches reject the notion that heterosexuality is the 'default' and acknowledge a spectrum of genders outside of the traditional binary, allowing for more inclusive and accurate research. In line with LGBTQ psychology being an inclusive field of study and practice, it welcomes scholars or professionals from any branch of psychology with an interest in LGBTQ research.

Umbrella Terms

The 'Q' in LGBTQ is an umbrella term for identities or sexualities that do not fall within lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identities. For example, the term non-binary is used to house many identities within the LGBTQ community. Non-binary is a term that is used to define identities that do not fall within the traditional gender binary. This means that any identities that do not classify as male or female would technically fall within the non-binary umbrella term. Identities that are usually associated with the non-binary umbrella term are genderqueer, agender, intersex, etc. Transgender is also an umbrella term for any identities that do not identify as the genders that they were assigned at birth. Non-binary can also be used within the transgender umbrella term.

History

Alfred Kinsey, sexologist and early sex researcher

Sexology

Sexology is a part of the historical foundation upon which LGBTQ psychology was built. The work of early sexologists, in particular those who contributed to the establishment of sexology as a scientific field of sexuality and gender ambiguity, is highly relevant and seminal to the field of LGBTQ psychology.

As previously mentioned, sexology is a scientific field of study focusing on sexuality and gender identity. In the field of sexology, a broad classification spectrum known as inversion, is used to define homosexuality. On this spectrum, early sexologists included both 'same-sex sexuality' and 'cross-gender identification' as belonging to this all-inclusive category. More contemporary sexology researchers conceptualize and categorize sexuality and gender diversity separately. In terms of LGB sexualities, this would fall under sexual diversity. As for transsexuality, this would be placed under gender diversity. Important figures in this field include Magnus Hirschfeld and Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs.

The historical emergence of 'gay affirmative' psychology

Gay affirmative psychology was first established in the 1970s. It was founded with the mission of 1) challenging the idea and view of homosexuality as a mental illness and 2) affirming the normal and healthy psychological functioning of homosexual individuals by dispelling beliefs and attitudes of homosexuality being associated with mental illness. There has been a lot of stigma surrounding the LGBTQ community which may result in feelings of self-hate. Gay affirmative therapy has been implemented with the purpose of combatting the influence that LGBTQ oppression may have had on the individuals in the community.

Following this field's mission, most of the research conducted in this area has naturally looked at the pathologization of homosexuality. In relation to this, much attention has also been placed on heterosexual and cis-gender (i.e. non-trans) individuals' lived experiences.

In the 1980s, the name gay affirmative psychology changed to lesbian and gay psychology to denote that this branch of psychology spanned both the lives and experiences of gay men and lesbian women. Later on, additional terms were included in the name of this field. Variations of LGB, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+ or LGBTQIA+ are used to refer to the field of LGBTQ psychology.

Due to the variation in the terminology to define this field, it has led to significant discussion and debate regarding which term is the most inclusive of all individuals. Though there continues to be ongoing debate surrounding the terminology used to define the field of LGBTQ psychology, this in fact highlights the field's concern over the diversity in human sexuality and gender orientation. Further, the various letters within the LGBTQ acronym indicates the diversity and variation in the scope of research that is conducted within the field – namely the types of research questions and the types of methodological approaches used to address these questions.

Traditionally, LGBTQ psychology has largely focused on researching the experiences of gay men and lesbian women meeting the following criteria:

1. Young
2. Caucasian
3. Middle-class
4. Healthy
5. Residing in urban areas

Individuals may benefit from gay affirmative therapy if their therapist shares the same experience as them, but there may be a bias alongside having a therapist that is a part of the LGBTQ community. Heterosexual therapists may also hold stigma or not have the knowledge to be able to properly handle a client that belongs to the LGBTQ community.

The scope of research within the field of LGBTQ psychology has been somewhat lacking in breadth and diversity due to most of the observations regarding LGBTQ psychology to be based in behavioral research. In the past, a majority of the research done on LGBTQ psychology used physical observations and has since expanded to include psychological research. Recently, sociocultural psychologists such as Chana Etengoff, Eric M. Rodriguez and Tyler G. Lefevor have begun to explore how sexual and gender identities intersect with other minoritized identities such as religious identities (e.g., LDS, Muslim, Christian).

Overall, LGBTQ psychology is a sub-discipline of psychology that incorporates multiple perspectives and approaches regarding the populations of study, topics of research, and the theories and methodologies that inform the ways in which this research is carried out.

Mental health

See also: Mental health inequality

LGBTQ individuals experience a significant amount of stigma and discrimination at various stages of their lives. Often this stigmatization and discrimination persists throughout their lifetime. Specific acts of stigmatization and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals include physical and sexual harassment. Hate crimes are also included. These negative experiences put LGBTQ individuals' physical and emotional well-being at risk. As a result of these experiences, LGBTQ individuals typically experience a higher frequency of mental health issues compared to those who do not belong to the LGBTQ population. More than half of the LGBTQ+ community have depression and a little less than half have PTSD or anxiety disorder.

The following list shows the different mental health issues that LGBTQ individuals may experience:

• Anxiety
• Depression
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Phobic disorder
• Trauma
• Substance abuse
• Self-harming behaviors
• Suicidal tendencies and suicide

The list above is by no means complete or exhaustive, rather it shows the range and severity of the issues that LGBTQ individuals often experience. These issues usually result from a combination of negative experiences and a perpetual difficulty accepting their LGBTQ identity in an anti-LGBT society.

Suicidal tendencies and suicide are serious issues for LGBTQ youth. Compared to their non-LGBT peers, LGBTQ youth typically engage in a higher rate (around 3 to 4 times higher) of attempted suicides. People who identify as transgender are almost nine times more likely to attempt suicide than a person who does not identify in that way. A reason the number of LGBTQ+ community members who experience poor mental health is high is because it is found that many have had experiences where health care providers disrespected them. This causes one to postpone care or not return to a doctor again. Without professional help, symptoms of mental illness worsen. In school, LGBTQ youth have a higher likelihood of experiencing verbal and physical abuse due to their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. LGBTQ youth quickly learn from these negative social experiences that they are more likely to receive negative judgment and treatment, and often rejection, from those around them. This becomes a vicious cycle in which LGBTQ youths' self-beliefs and self-perceptions are negatively reinforced by society. Evidently, the high rates of mental health issues among LGBTQ communities has been perpetuated, and continues to be so, by systemic prejudice and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals.

Nevertheless, LGBTQ individuals do not necessarily experience the same types of prejudice or discrimination, nor do they respond in the same ways to prejudice or discrimination. What is common are the reasons leading to prejudice and discrimination. In the context of LGBT-targeted prejudice and discrimination, it broadly relates to sexual orientation issues (e.g. LGB) or gender identity issues (e.g. transgender). Our basic needs as human beings include being our true selves and being accepted for who we are. Feeling loved for who we are is an important aspect of a healthy mind. Due to discrimination, LGBTQ+ individuals experience more stress and low self-esteem. Systemic prejudice and discrimination leads to LGBTQ individuals experiencing substantial amounts of stress on a long-term basis. It also influences LGBTQ individuals to internally assimilate all the negativity they receive, emphasizing the differences they have with others. This, in turn, causes LGBTQ individuals to experience guilt and shame regarding their identity, feelings and actions.

The coming out process involving LGBTQ individuals can also create a lot of added pressure from family, peers and society. This process is about LGBTQ individuals openly proclaiming their sexual orientation and/or gender identity to others. In addition, LGBTQ individuals also experience other negative outcomes, for example:

Sexual orientation and/or gender transition Internalized oppression of sexual orientation and/or gender identity

• Exclusion and ostracization
• Removed or reduced family or social support
• Facilitating mental health well-being for LGBTQ individuals is a highly pertinent matter.

The main factors in promoting positive mental health for LGBTQ individuals are as follows:

• Presence of family and peer support
• Community-based and workplace support
• Understanding, appropriate and positive feedback provided during the coming out process
• Defining, assessing and handling the social factors influencing LGBTQ individuals' health outcomes

Gender

In the past, a lot of LGBTQ studies were mainly based around the idea of sexuality, but more recently there have been more studies around the gender binary. As the community has become more inclusive and understanding of different identities over time, there has been an addition to the focus of LGBTQ psychology surrounding queer gender identities. Identities such as non-binary, transgender and gender queer may have different experiences in their coming of age and may need guidance or therapy based in those specific experiences. People that have queer identities have different experiences than people who are of homosexuality and need resources that pertain to their specific issues or needs. For example, transgender people may go through hormone therapy or face oppression that is not the same as cisgendered people who are a part of the LGBTQ community.

LGBTQ identity development in youth

There is an increasing trend of LGBTQ youth coming out and openly embracing and establishing their sexual or gender identities to people around them. Since 2000, the average age of coming out was around 14. This age compared to the average age of 16 recorded between 1996 and 1998, and 20 during the 1970s, shows that LGBTQ youth are comfortably recognizing their sexual or gender identities at an earlier age. Based on the large aggregate of research on identity development, in particular sexuality and gender identity, it appears that young people have an awareness of their LGBTQ identity from an early age. This awareness can be observed starting in childhood, specifically the feeling of being different from their peers and having non-normative appearances, behaviors and interests.

During adolescence, there are gradual shifts in young people's attitudes and behaviors regarding themselves and others. At the beginning of adolescence, young people are more aware of, and concerned about how they and others present against gender and sexuality norms. In the middle of adolescence, young people tend to hold more biased, stereotypical attitudes and show more negative behaviors towards LGBTQ individuals and topics. It is clear that the early adolescence years make it easy for LGBTQ youth who have come out to have negative or unpleasant social experiences. These experiences could involve peers intentionally excluding them from friendship groups, peers engaging in persistent, harmful acts of bullying, and more.

While there appears to be more and more LGBTQ youth coming out about their sexual and gender identities, there are also youth who do not come out and are against the idea of coming out. Thus far, psychological theory surrounding LGBTQ identity development suggests that individuals who do not come out, or are against the idea of coming out are either in denial about their identity or wish to come out but are unable to. Aside from the fact that LGBTQ youth are more vulnerable to experiencing negative social reactions and treatment as a result of coming out, there may also be other reasons for this. Firstly, the higher visibility of diverse sexualities and gender identities could influence young people in becoming more reluctant towards concretely defining their sexuality and gender identity (Savin-Williams, 2005). Young people are turning away from these types of labels in opposition of social identity labels, demonstrating the importance of their sexuality and gender identity within their personal identity. As well, LGBTQ individuals from ethnic and cultural minority groups often refrain from using sexual identity labels, which they see as westernized concepts that do not relate to them.

Schools

Current data regarding LGBTQ families and their children show an increasing number of such families, as in the United States of America, and suggests that this number is continuously increasing. Children of LGBTQ parents are at risk of being the targets of discrimination and violence against LGBTQ individuals in the education system. School has become such an unsafe place for certain LGBTQ individuals that absences have skyrocketed due to not feeling safe from violence and verbal harassment.  These attacks at their identity can lead to chronic sadness and thoughts of suicide. The abuse that many LGBTQ+ students face have led to thoughts of feeling like there is something wrong with them. Therefore, this is an important issue that must be addressed to ensure the physical and psychological well-being of children from LGBT families. Apart from children of LGBT families having negative school experiences, LGBTQ parents also face challenges with regards to anti-LGBT bias and related negative behaviors that are often a part of the school climate.

Gay-Straight Alliance

LGBTQ parents can refer to the following strategies to facilitate a more safe, positive and welcoming experience in interacting with schools and school personnel: school choice, engagement, and advocacy. Many schools are not particularly inclusive of LGBTQ individuals, as anti-LGBT language is often used and cases of harassment and victimization with regards to sexual orientation or gender identity often occur. Therefore, parental choice of the school in which their child enrolls is crucial. As far as parents are able to select a school for their child, selecting a school that is inclusive of LGBTQ individuals is one way to ensure a more positive school experience for themselves and for their children. Parental engagement with schools in terms of volunteering and other forms of involvement, such as being on parent-teacher organizations, allows LGBTQ parents to be more involved in issues which may concern their child. Parents can access resources that provide information on how parents can facilitate dialogue and collaboration with teachers and schools, enabling them to become proactive advocates of their child's education and school experience.

School-based interventions are also effective in improving the experiences of children from LGBTQ families. Typically, these interventions target school climate, in particular the aspects which pertain to homophobia and transphobia. Enforcing anti-bullying/harassment policies and laws in schools can protect students from LGBTQ families from being victims of bullying and harassment. Having these policies in place generally allows students to have fewer negative experiences in school, such as a lower likelihood of mistreatment by teachers and other students. Implementing professional development opportunities for school staff on how to provide appropriate support for students from LGBTQ families will not only facilitate a more positive school experience for students, but will in turn, lead to a more positive school climate in general. Although these laws do take a step in the right direction to contribute to students feeling safe at school, another way for teachers to show their support and make them feel welcome is by putting up pride flags. This can make one feel included. Once one feels safe with the teacher to be themselves, the student will be more open to talking about their struggles. The next step is educating teachers on the resources they can use to help these children. Using an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum where LGBTQ individuals, history and events are portrayed in a more positive manner allows students to become more aware and more accepting of LGBT-related issues. Specific ways in which LGBTQ matters can be incorporated into the curriculum include: talking about diverse families (e.g. same-sex couples and LGBTQ parents), discussing LGBTQ history (e.g. talking about significant historical events and movements related to the LGBTQ community), using LGBT-inclusive texts in class and celebrating LGBT events (e.g. LGBTQ History Month in October or LGBTQ Pride Month in June).

Further, organizing LGBTQ student clubs (e.g. Gay-Straight Alliances) are a positive resource and source of support for students from LGBTQ families. Studies conducted on Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs have repeatedly shown a reduction in hopelessness of LGBTQ individuals who were victimized for their sexual orientation and helps decrease the risk of suicide attempts or ideation. With their inclusion of heterosexual youth, GSAs help foster a safe school environment for LGBT individuals by decreasing victimization and fear for safety. In addition to GSAs, schools that adopt safe school programs such as safe zones, diversity trainings, ally trainings, or implementation of anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies reduce bullying and facilitate a safer school environment.

Workplace Discrimination

People that identify as a part of the LGBTQ+ community often face adversity and discrimination in the workplace. In an experimental study entitled, "Documented Evidence of Employment Discrimination & Its Effects on LGBT People," conducted by Brad Sears and Christy Mallory of the UCLA School of Law, resumes that associated applicants with a gay organization and ones that did not mention anything about the LGBTQ+ community were both sent to potential employers. Individuals' resumes that were associated with the LGBTQ+ community were less likely to receive an interview. Individuals that are able to receive an interview and get the job, furthermore, are susceptible to discrimination during work. LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to experience discrimination in their place of work than someone who has not identified their sexuality. Discrimination often leads to health problems whether that be mental or physical. Someone who is frequently discriminated against is most likely to not show up to work, quit their job, and not put their effort into the tasks they are given due to their state of mind and the health issues that arise.  To avoid workplace discrimination, many individuals will hide who they are by changing their overall appearance and keeping their sexuality a secret. 

Pride

Pride celebrations allow the LGBTQ+ community to celebrate their identity. It is a day where LGBTQ+ individuals and allies come together to look back on the history and how far the community has come. They celebrate the pain that they experienced and continue to experience and they feel surrounded by people that love them for who they are. A feeling of connection and validation is important for good health and Pride is the place for people of all identities to connect. People are more likely to attend pride if they feel as though their sexual identity makes up a major part of who they are as a person. Pride is an important way to normalize being a part of the LGBTQ+ community and to make society more accepting, but there are still other ways to show that being a member of the community is not shameful.

Types of applications outside the theoretical perspective

Effective treatment methods

Expressive writing

Research has found that writing about traumatic or negative experiences (known as "expressive writing") can be an effective way to reduce psychological stress that stem from such events. When youth engaged in expressive writing on issues related to their LGBTQ identity, their mental health well-being improved. This improvement was especially significant in youth who did not have much social support, or who wrote about more serious topics, as well as in individuals who were less open about their sexualities or had not come out. Expressive writing interventions have been shown to produce positive emotional outcomes for a variety of issues, including illness, childhood trauma, and relationship stress. Writing therapy is the use of expressive writing along with other methods in a therapy setting.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) – Effective Skills to Empower Effective Men (ESTEEM)

Cognitive-behavioural therapy focuses on changing thoughts and feelings that lead to negative behaviors, into more positive thoughts, feelings and behaviours. This treatment method is effective for a variety of mental health issues, including those related to LGBTQ identities. CBT can help reduce depression and anxiety and promote healthy coping mechanisms within LGBTQ youth. The ESTEEM program targeted stress-related thoughts and feelings that result from LGBTQ discrimination and stigma. Individuals who participated in the ESTEEM program experienced fewer depression-related thoughts and feelings and they also consumed less alcohol.

Parent and family-based LGBT treatment and education

Many LGBTQ youth may receive backlash from their families due to their sexuality or sexual identity. This may result in mental health issues such as suicide or depression. The unacceptability of an LGBTQ youth's sexuality within a household may result in mistreatment or in more severe cases, removing said person from the home. Family members not accepting their child for who they are has made it three times more likely that as an adult they will partake in the use of illegal drugs. Due to these factors, an average of 28% of LGBTQ youth have suicidal thoughts and 15%-40% make suicidal attempts each year.

Family-based treatment catering to suicidal LGBTQ adolescents where parents were given significant periods of time to process their feelings about and towards their child was found to be effective. For example, parents had time to think through how they felt about their child's LGBTQ orientation, and be made aware of how their responses towards their child could potentially reflect attitudes of devaluation. Adolescents that took part in this treatment had fewer suicidal thoughts and fewer depression-related thoughts and feelings. What is especially noteworthy is that these positive gains were sustained for many youth. While these results have been found to be effective, this method of therapy is only helpful if the family or parents are willing to go through the process of unlearning any stigma they may have against their relative being part of the LGBTQ community.

Noneffective Treatment methods

Conversion therapy (CT)

Conversion therapy focuses on altering homosexual and/or transgender individuals to heterosexual and cis-gender identities. Conversion therapy consists of a variety of approaches ranging from aversion and hormonal therapy, to religious-based techniques such as threats of eternal damnation or use of prayer. Little empirical evidence exists for CT, as most evidence is anecdotal or lacks acknowledgement of participants potentially faking or experiencing dissonance-induced rationalization. Long-term effects of CT, such as decreased overall sex drive, shame, fear, low self-esteem, and increased depression and anxiety have been observed in individuals that participated in CT programs. Due to the lack of scientific support, association with psychosocial health problems, and rejection of the practice by organizations like the American Psychiatric Association (APA), use of conversion therapy is often considered ethically problematic. Given the above concerns, there are multiple countries and various U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy.

State-owned enterprise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise

A state-owned enterprise (SOE) is a government entity which is established or nationalised by the national government or provincial government, by an executive order or an act of legislation, in order to earn profit for the government, control monopoly of the private sector entities, provide products and services to citizens at a lower price, implementation of government schemes and to deliver products and services to the remote locations of the country. The national government or provincial government has majority ownership over these state owned enterprises. These state owned enterprises are also known as public sector undertakings in some countries. Defining characteristics of SOEs are their distinct legal form and possession of financial goals and developmental objectives (e.g., a state railway company may aim to make transportation more accessible and earn profit for the government), SOEs are government entities established to pursue financial objectives and developmental goals.

Terminology

The terminology around the term state-owned enterprise is murky. All three words in the term are challenged and subject to interpretation. First, it is debatable what the term "state" implies (e.g., it is unclear whether municipally owned corporations and enterprises held by regional public bodies are considered state-owned). Next, it is contestable under what circumstances a SOE qualifies as "owned" by a state (SOEs can be fully owned or partially owned; it is difficult to determine categorically what level of state ownership would qualify an entity to be considered as state-owned since governments can also own regular stock, without implying any special interference). Finally, the term "enterprise" is challenged, as it implies statutes in private law which may not always be present, and so the term "corporations" is frequently used instead.

Thus, SOEs are known under many other terms: state-owned company, state-owned entity, state enterprise, publicly owned corporation, government business enterprise, government-owned company, government-owned corporation, government-sponsored enterprise, commercial government agency, state-privatised industry public sector undertaking, or parastatal, among others. In the Commonwealth realms, particularly in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, country-wide SOEs often use the term "Crown corporation", or "Crown entity", as cabinet ministers (Ministers of the Crown) often control the shares in them.

The term "government-linked company" (GLC) is sometimes used, for example in Malaysia, to refer to private or public (listed on a stock exchange) corporate entities in which the government acquires a stake using a holding company. The two main definitions of GLCs are dependent on the proportion of the corporate entity a government owns. One definition purports that a company is classified as a GLC if a government owns an effective controlling interest (more than 50%), while the second definition suggests that any corporate entity that has a government as a shareholder is a GLC.

The act of turning a part of government bureaucracy into a SOE is called corporatization.

Economic theory

In economic theory, the question of whether a firm should be owned by the state or by the private sector is studied in the theory of incomplete contracts developed by Oliver Hart and his co-authors. In a world in which complete contracts were feasible, ownership would not matter because the same incentive structure that prevails under one ownership structure could be replicated under the other ownership structure. Hart, Shleifer, and Vishny (1997) have developed the leading application of the incomplete contract theory to the issue of state-owned enterprises. These authors compare a situation in which the government is in control of a firm to a situation in which a private manager is in control. The manager can invest to come up with cost-reducing and quality-enhancing innovations. The government and the manager bargain over the implementation of the innovations. If the negotiations fail, the owner can decide about the implementation. It turns out that when cost-reducing innovations do not harm quality significantly, then private firms are to be preferred. Yet, when cost-reductions may strongly reduce quality, state-owned enterprises are superior. Hoppe and Schmitz (2010) have extended this theory in order to allow for a richer set of governance structures, including different forms of public-private partnerships.

Use

Economic reasons

Natural monopolies

SOEs are common with natural monopolies, because they allow capturing economies of scale while they can simultaneously achieve a public objective. For that reason, SOEs primarily operate in the domain of infrastructure (e.g. railway companies), strategic goods and services (e.g. postal services, arms manufacturing and procurement), natural resources and energy (e.g. nuclear facilities, alternative energy delivery), politically sensitive business, broadcasting, banking, demerit goods (e.g. alcoholic beverages), and merit goods (healthcare).

Infant industries

SOEs can also help foster industries that are "considered economically desirable and that would otherwise not be developed through private investments". When nascent or 'infant' industries have difficulty getting investments from the private sector (perhaps because the good that is being produced requires very risky investments, when patenting is difficult, or when spillover effects exist), the government can help these industries get on the market with positive economic effects. However, the government cannot necessarily predict which industries would qualify as such 'infant industries', and so the extent to which this is a viable argument for SOEs is debated.

Political reasons

SOEs are also frequently employed in areas where the government wants to levy user fees, but finds it politically difficult to introduce new taxation. Next, SOEs can be used to improve efficiency of public service delivery or as a step towards (partial) privatization or hybridization. SOEs can also be a means to alleviate fiscal stress, as SOEs may not count towards states' budgets.

Effects

Compared to government bureaucracy

Compared to government bureaucracy, state owned enterprises might be beneficial because they reduce politicians' influence over the service. Conversely, they might be detrimental because they reduce oversight and increase transaction costs (such as monitoring costs, i.e., it is more difficult and costly to govern and regulate an autonomous SOE than it is the public bureaucracy). Evidence suggests that existing SOEs are typically more efficient than government bureaucracy, but that this benefit diminishes as services get more technical and have less overt public objectives.

Compared to regular enterprises

Compared to a regular enterprise, state-owned enterprises are typically expected to be less efficient due to political interference, but unlike profit-driven enterprises they are more likely to focus on government objectives.

Around the world

Main article: List of government-owned companies

SOEs in Europe

In Eastern Europe and Western Europe, there was a massive nationalization throughout the 20th century, especially after World War II. In the Eastern Bloc, countries adopted very similar policies and models to the USSR. Governments in Western Europe, both left and right of centre, saw state intervention as necessary to rebuild economies shattered by war. Government control over natural monopolies like industry was the norm. Typical sectors included telephones, electric power, fossil fuels, iron ore, railways, airlines, media, postal services, banks, and water. Many large industrial corporations were also nationalized or created as government corporations, including, among many others: British Steel Corporation, Statoil and Irish Sugar.

A state-run enterprise may operate differently from an ordinary limited liability corporation. For example, in Finland, state-run enterprises (liikelaitos) are governed by a separate laws. Even though responsible for their own finances, they cannot be declared bankrupt; the state answers for the liabilities. Stocks of the corporation are not sold and loans have to be government-approved, as they are government liabilities.

State-owned enterprises are a major component of the economy of Belarus. The Belarusian state-owned economy includes enterprises that are fully state-owned, as well as others which are joint-stock companies with partial ownership by the state. Employment in state-owned or state-controlled enterprises is approximately 70% of total employment. State-owned enterprises are thus a major factor behind Belarus's high employment rate and a source of stable employment.

SOEs among OPEC countries

In most OPEC countries, the governments own the oil companies operating on their soil. A notable example is the Saudi Arabian national oil company, Saudi Aramco, which the Saudi government bought in 1988, changing its name from Arabian American Oil Company to Saudi Arabian Oil Company. The Saudi government also owns and operates Saudi Arabian Airlines, and owns 70% of SABIC as well as many other companies.

SOEs in China

Main article: State-owned enterprises of China

China's state-owned enterprises are owned and managed by the State-owned Asset Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC). China's state-owned enterprises generally own and operate public services, resource extraction or defense. As of 2017, China has more SOEs than any other country, and the most SOEs among large national companies.

China's SOEs perform functions such as: contributing to central and local governments revenues through dividends and taxes, supporting urban employment, keeping key input prices low, channeling capital towards targeted industries and technologies, supporting sub-national redistribution to poorer interior and western provinces, and aiding the state's response to natural disasters, financial crises and social instability.

China's SOEs are at the forefront of global seaport-building, and most new ports constructed by them are done within the auspices of the Belt and Road Initiative.

SOEs in India

Main article: Public sector undertakings in India

In India, government enterprises exist in the form of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs).

Government-linked companies in Malaysia

The Malaysian government launched a GLC Transformation Programme for its linked companies and linked investment companies ("GLICs") on 29 July 2005, aiming over a ten-year period to transform these businesses "into high-performing entities". The Putrajaya Committee on GLC High Performance ("PCG"), which oversaw this programme, was chaired by the Prime Minister, and membership included the Minister of Finance II, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of the Economic Planning Unit, the Chief Secretary to the Government, Secretary General of Treasury and the heads of each of the GLICs (the Employees Provident Fund, Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (the armed forces pension fund), Lembaga Tabung Haji and Permodalan Nasional Berhad. Khazanah Nasional Berhad provided the secretariat to the PCG and managed the implementation of the programme, which was completed in 2015.

Abusive power and control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusive_power_and_control

Abusive power and control (also controlling behavior and coercive control) is behavior used by an abusive person to gain and/or maintain control over another person. Abusers are commonly motivated by devaluation, personal gain, personal gratification, psychological projection, or the enjoyment of exercising power and control. The victims of this behavior are often subject to psychological, physical, mental, sexual, or financial abuse.

Overview

Abusive power and control are forms of violence characterized by their continuity, insidiousness, and common prerequisite of intimate partner relationships. They are a pattern of domination through which the abuser uses coercive and controlling tactics, which may or may not involve physical, psychological, or sexual violence, to entrap their victim. Professor Evan Stark has demonstrated that coercive control is gendered, in that it is mostly men who resort to it against their female intimate partners. Professor Janet Mosher refers to it as the “micro-regulation of women’s everyday lives.” The tactics deployed by the abuser can comprise emotional blackmail, threats, gaslighting, physical force, surveillance, stalking, insults, and other means. Researchers Andy Myhill and Katrin Hohl have explained coercive control as a “golden thread” connecting all these instances of intimate partner abuse.

Evan Stark first coined the concept of coercive control in his 2007 text Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. He defines coercive control as “an ongoing pattern of domination by which male abusive partners primarily interweave repeated physical and sexual violence with intimidation, sexual degradation, isolation and control. The primary outcome of coercive control is a condition of entrapment that can be hostage-like in the harms it inflicts on dignity, liberty, autonomy and personhood as well as physical and psychological integrity.” This leads the victim to experience isolation, self-blame, and a loss of their sense of self and of their independence. Some victims have reported high levels of anxiety and panic attacks. 

Researchers Isabelle Côté and Simon Lapierre have characterized coercive control as “everyday micro-regulations” [translated]. Abusers may control their victims with a range of tactics, including, but not limited to, positive reinforcement (such as praise, superficial charm, flattery, ingratiation, love bombing), negative reinforcement (taking away aversive tasks or items), intermittent or partial reinforcement, psychological punishment (such as silent treatment, threats, intimidation, emotional blackmail, guilt trips) and traumatic tactics (such as verbal abuse or explosive anger). The key element of coercive control is that it consists in a pattern, thus connecting multiple occurrences of abuse that may not be of the same nature. Researchers Andy Myhill and Katrin Hohl have explained coercive control as a “golden thread” connecting all these instances of abuse.

Coercive control may also be extremely subtle and insidious, and depleted of incidents of physical or sexual violence. It can exclusively consist of psychological tactics, such as gaslighting or guilt-tripping, with the common effect that the victim is constantly “walking on eggshells.” Understanding coercive control prevents interveners from wrongfully focusing on ‘isolated’ events of physical violence, and enables the understanding of abuse as a general, persistent dynamic in a relationship. Hence, Côté and Lapierre note that coercive control may include acts of physical violence, although not necessarily. If it does occur, violence is not a distinct or exceptional event in the relation dynamics: rather, it is a tool deployed by the abuser to better control the victim. In other words, the abuser may threaten to use force, and sometimes use it, as a strategy to create a climate of terror and reassert control. Plus, a single instance of physical violence can “be enough to terrorize a victim for several years”.

The vulnerabilities of the victim are exploited, with those who are particularly vulnerable being most often selected as targets. Traumatic bonding can occur between abusers and victims as the result of ongoing cycles of abuse in which the intermittent reinforcement of reward and punishment creates powerful emotional bonds (that are resistant to change) and a climate of fear. An attempt may be made to normalize, legitimize, rationalize, deny, or minimize the abusive behavior, or to blame the victim for it.

Tactics of coercive control

Coercive control is a cumulation of abusive tactics, and as such those tactics exist in relation to one another. For instance, an individual accusing their partner of infidelity does not amount to coercive control if it occurs on a single occasion in an otherwise healthy relationship. It will be constitutive of coercive control if it is a part of a larger pattern of humiliation, micro-management and isolation. 

Adverse impacts of coercive control on children

In a familial context, coercive control is a harmful parental choice as it is detrimental to children. Children are oftentimes exposed to the abuse that their parent sustains, and may be targeted or used by their father to control their mother. For example, a qualitative study conducted in the United Kingdom revealed that abusive fathers often prevent their children from interacting with their mothers and grandparents, from visiting their friends and from participating to extra-curriculars. Scholar Emma Katz has reflected that coercive control places children in an “isolated, disempowering and constrained world” which can prevent their emotional growth. Another study has documented how the abusive parent sometimes achieves control by recruiting children to undermine their relationship with their mother and further isolate her within the family unit.

The study highlights how a perpetrator may ‘joke and play, spend money on them [the children], or take them out to do things’ in order to form an alliance, which can result in children seeing the abusive parent as ‘fun’ and blaming the non-abusive parent for the abuse.

Plus, children are deprived from the emotional availability of their abused parent. Therapist Danielle McLeod has explained how an abusive father may “undermine the victim’s parental role” and attack their children’s respect for their mother. This tactic “will often leave them feeling emotionally drained and distant and as though they have little left to give as a parent”.

Risk factors

It is mostly men who subject their partners to coercive control. This violence often persists in a post-separation context. Breakup is an especially dangerous event for women who experience coercive control, as they then become at risk of intensified control and serious violence, including femicide and filicide.

Law

Jurisdictions have legislated over coercive control, mostly through family law and criminal law.

Canada

In 2019, the federal parliament amended the Divorce Act, in which it included coercive control. The new Divorce Act redefines family violence to integrate any conduct “that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour”. The definition provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of coercive control, among which forced confinement, harassment (including stalking), the failure to provide the necessities of life, psychological abuse, financial abuse, and threats or infliction of harming or killing of an animal or damage of property.

The Divorce Act now requires that courts take the presence of coercive control into account upon determining the best interest of the child, which may influence the courts’ determination regarding child custody. Upon these changes, the Department of Justice noted: “[...] while all violence is of concern, generally the most serious type of violence in family law is coercive and controlling violence. This is because it is part of an ongoing pattern, tends to be more dangerous and is more likely to affect parenting.”

France

In 2010, the French Parliament amended the Penal Code to include psychological violence in the offence of willful attacks against the integrity of a person. A new provision specifies that moral harassment can be the act of harassing an intimate partner by repeated remarks or behaviour aimed at or resulting in the deterioration of their living conditions.

In 2020, the Penal Code was further amended to increase the penalties for malicious and repetitive communications issued with the aim to disturb the tranquillity of others. The invasion of privacy by geolocation without consent is now punished. The act of usurping someone’s identity or using data of any kind with the goal of disturbing their peace or undermining their honour is also criminalised. The French Parliament has also criminalised the act, committed in bad faith, of infringing the secrecy of correspondence by intercepting or disclosing electronic communications or installing services that allow such interceptions. All of these offences are more severely sanctioned if they are committed in a marital context.

French family law also implicitly addresses coercive control. Since 2010, the Civil Code provides that a court ruling on the terms of the exercise of parental authority must consider the violence, physical or psychological, that one parent inflicts on another. In 2020, the French Parliament withdrew the obligation of mediation within a divorce proceeding in cases where there are allegations of violence or manifest influence of one spouse over the other.

Ireland

In 2019, Ireland enacted the Domestic Violence Act 2018. Coercive control was defined as 'any evidence of deterioration in the physical, psychological, or emotional welfare of the applicant or a dependent person which is caused directly by fear of the behaviour of the respondent.'.

United Kingdom

England and Wales

Coercive control is criminalised by section 76 of the Serious Crimes Act 2015. This provision is often cited as the first example of criminalization of coercive control. The offence is attentive to the serious effect of controlling or coercive behaviour, and as such occurs when the behaviour causes the victim to fear they will experience violence on more than one occasion, or if the victim is seriously alarmed or distressed to the point of having adverse effects on their day-to-day activities.

The Serious Crimes Act 2015 was supplemented by a Statutory Guidance Framework on Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship. The document provides a non-exhaustive list of types of behaviour associated with coercive behaviour.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines domestic abuse as controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse and psychological, emotional or other abuse. Economic abuse intersects with coercive control as it designates any behaviour with substantial adverse effects on the victim’s ability to acquire, use, or maintain money or other property or obtain goods and services.

Scotland

The Domestic Abuse Act 2018 criminalises domestic violence, which implicitly includes coercive control. Abusive behaviour is defined as a “course of behaviour” which intentionally or recklessly causes a partner or an ex-partner to suffer psychological or physical harm. Its relevant effects are designated as making the victim dependent or subordinate; isolating the victim from their support network; controlling, regulating and monitoring the victim’s day-to-day activities; depriving or restricting the victim’s freedom of action; and frightening, humiliating, degrading or punishing the victim. The offence can also happen by way of conduct towards property, and by intentional omissions rather than solely actions.

United States

In the United States, to assist in preventing and stopping domestic violence against children, there have been laws put into place to mandate report in specific professions, such as teacher, doctor, or care provider, any suspected abuse happening in the home.

Family law is mostly under the jurisdiction of state and local governments in the United States. As such, states are unequally tackling coercive control through legislation.

Critics of state response to coercive control

Professor Janet E. Mosher calls the lack of a nuanced understanding of domestic violence an access to justice issue for victims. She identifies that this issue is widespread across all legal system actors. Mosher takes issue with “the enduring hold of an incident-based understanding of domestic violence”, through which legal actors focus on discrete incidents of visible physical violence rather than abusive patterns, which may or may not involve physical violence.

Mosher has also documented “the failure of legal actors to curb men’s strategic use of legal systems to further their power”. Abusive men may strategically engage with the legal system to retaliate for a separation and/or to further their control. Examples of this include procedural abuses, self-representing to cross-examine an ex-partner, and dragging out proceedings to deplete the survivor of their financial and emotional resources and to impede the resolution of conflict.

Another example of this manipulation of legal processes is the non-empirical parental alienation syndrome, through which abusive men are enabled by the legal system to deflect the blame of their abuse onto their ex-partner. In the words of legal scholar Suzanne Zaccour, the parental alienation syndrome theory is used “to explain a child’s refusal to see a parent (often the father)”, and “has led courts to order sometimes drastic custody transfers and prevent any contact with the child’s preferred parent”. Zaccour has documented that domestic violence is prevalent in parental alienation cases, and that courts fail to identify the violence that mothers try to protect their children and themselves from. In doing so, courts obliterate domestic violence and punish mothers for ‘alienating’ their children.

Relatedly, experts Nico Trocmé and Nicholas Bala have observed: “There is widespread misperception that there is a high incidence of intentionally false allegations of child abuse made by mothers in the context of parental separation and divorce in order to gain a tactical advantage or to seek revenge from their estranged partners.” In their landmark study, Trocmé and Bala found fabricated cases of child abuse were rare, and that fathers were about 16X more likely than mothers to make false allegations against their co-parent.

Mosher has also denounced “the host of complications that arise when women navigate multiple intersecting legal systems”, a phenomenon also referred to as ‘legal fragmentation’. Victims must engage with various courts when they report their abuse. For example, the same set of facts may give rise to proceedings in a criminal court, a youth protection court, and a civil court, which requires victims to recount their abuse multiple times and may result in contradictory judicial decisions.

Abolitionism in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1787 Wedgwood anti-slavery medallion designed by Josiah Wedgwood for the British anti-slavery campaign

Abolitionism in the United Kingdom was the movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to end the practice of slavery, whether formal or informal, in the United Kingdom, the British Empire and the world, including ending the Atlantic slave trade. It was part of a wider abolitionism movement in Western Europe and the Americas.

The buying and selling of slaves was made illegal across the British Empire in 1807, but owning slaves overseas was permitted until it was outlawed completely in 1833, beginning a process where from 1834 slaves became indentured "apprentices" to their former owners until emancipation was achieved for the majority by 1840 and for remaining exceptions by 1843.

Origins

Title page of a published lecture against slavery by Joseph Ivimey

In the 17th and early 18th centuries, English Quakers and a few evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian. A few secular thinkers of the Enlightenment criticised it for violating the rights of man. James Edward Oglethorpe was the first to act on the Enlightenment case against slavery on humanistic grounds. In his "Georgia Experiment" he convinced Parliament to ban slavery in his Province of Georgia from 1735. However, slavery was reinstated in 1751. He also encouraged his friends Granville Sharp and Hannah More to pursue the cause vigorously. Soon after his death in 1785, they joined with William Wilberforce and others in forming the Clapham Sect.

The slave trade had been banned in England in 1102, by the Church Council of London, convened by Anselm. However, the council had no legislative powers, unless decreed and signed by the monarch. In Cartwright's Case of 1569 regarding the punishment of a slave from Russia, the court ruled that English law could not recognise slavery, as it was never established officially. This ruling was overshadowed by later developments. It was upheld in 1700 by Lord Chief Justice Sir John Holt when he ruled that "As soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free".

English colonists imported slaves to the North American colonies and by the 18th century, traders began to import slaves from Africa, India and East Asia (where they were trading) to London and Edinburgh to work as servants. Men who migrated to the North American colonies often took their East Indian slaves or servants with them, as East Indians have been documented in colonial records. David Olusoga wrote of the sea change that had taken place:

To fully understand how remarkable the rise of British abolitionism was, both as a political movement and as a popular sentiment, it is important to remember how few voices were raised against slavery in Britain until the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

Some of the first freedom suits, court cases in Britain to challenge the legality of slavery, took place in Scotland in 1755 and 1769. The cases were Montgomery v. Sheddan (1755) and Spens v. Dalrymple (1769). Each of the slaves had been baptised in Scotland and challenged the legality of slavery. They set the precedent of legal procedure in British courts that would later lead to success for the plaintiffs. In these cases, deaths of the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, brought an end to the action before a court decision could be rendered.

African slaves were not bought or sold in London but were brought by masters from other places. Together with people from other nations, especially non-Christian ones, Africans were considered foreigners and thus ineligible to be English subjects; England had no naturalisation procedure. The African slaves' legal status was unclear until Somersett's Case in 1772, when the fugitive slave James Somersett forced a decision by the courts. Somersett had escaped and his master, Charles Steuart, had him captured and imprisoned on board a ship, intending to ship him to Jamaica to be resold into slavery. While in London, Somersett had been baptised and three godparents issued a writ of habeas corpus. As a result, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Court of the King's Bench, had to judge whether Somersett's abduction was lawful or not under English Common Law. No legislation had ever been passed to establish slavery in England. The case received national attention and five advocates supported the action on behalf of Somersett.

In his judgment of 22 June 1772, Mansfield held,

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.

Although the legal implications of the judgement are unclear when analysed by lawyers, the judgement was generally taken at the time to have determined that slavery did not exist under English common law and was thus prohibited in England. By 1774, between 10,000 and 15,000 slaves gained freedom in England. The decision did not apply to British overseas territories; e.g. the American colonies had established slavery by positive laws. Somersett's case became a significant part of the common law of slavery in the English-speaking world and it helped launch the movement to abolish slavery.

After reading about Somersett's Case, Joseph Knight, an enslaved African who had been purchased by his master John Wedderburn in Jamaica and brought to Scotland, left him. Married and with a child, he filed a freedom suit, on the grounds that he could not be held as a slave in Great Britain. In the case of Knight v. Wedderburn (1778), Wedderburn said that Knight owed him "perpetual servitude". The Court of Session of Scotland ruled against him, saying that chattel slavery was not recognised under the law of Scotland and slaves could seek court protection to leave a master or avoid being forcibly removed from Scotland to be returned to slavery in the colonies.

At this point the plantocracy became concerned, and got organised, setting up the London Society of West India Planters and Merchants to represent their views. From its inception in 1780, the organisation played a major role in resisting the abolition of the slave trade and that of slavery itself. The Society brought together three different groups: British sugar merchants, absentee planters and colonial agents.

Writing critically of English altruism in abolishing the slave trade, African-American historian W. E. B. Du Bois in 1948 said,

The rise of liberal and philanthropic thought in the latter part of the eighteenth century accounts, of course, for no little of the growth of opposition to slavery and the slave trade; but it accounts for only a part of it. Other and dominant factors were the diminishing returns of the African slave trade itself, the bankruptcy of the West Indian sugar economy through the Haitian revolution, the interference of Napoleon and the competition of Spain. Without this pressure of economic forces, Parliament would not have yielded so easily to the abolition crusade. Moreover, new fields of investment and profit were being opened to Englishmen by the consolidation of the empire in India and by the acquisition of new spheres of influence in China and elsewhere. In Africa, British rule was actually strengthened by the anti-slavery crusade, for new territory was annexed and controlled under the aegis of emancipation. It would not be right to question for a moment the sincerity of Sharpe, Wilberforce, Buxton and their followers. But the moral force they represented would have met with greater resistance had it not been working along lines favorable to English investment and colonial profit.

Activists organize

Ignatius Sancho (c1729–1780), an escaped slave, gained fame as an active 18th-century British abolitionist. He opened a popular shop in Mayfair and mixed with influential people. He was the first person of African descent to vote.

Antislavery sentiment may have grown in the British Isles in the first few years after the Somersett case. In 1774, influenced by the case and by the writings of Quaker abolitionist Anthony Benezet, John Wesley, the leader of the Methodist tendency in the Church of England, published Thoughts Upon Slavery, in which he passionately criticised the practice. In his 1776 A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, the clergyman Humphry Primatt wrote, "the white man (notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice), can have no right, by virtue of his colour, to enslave and tyrannise over a black man." In 1781 the Dublin Universal Free Debating Society challenged its members to consider if "enslaving the Negro race [is] justifiable on principles of humanity of [sic] policy?"

Thomas Clarkson (1760-1846) dedicated his life to ending slavery, he travelled 35,000 miles visiting ports gathering evidence against the slave trade to present to parliament.

Despite the ending of slavery in Great Britain, the West Indian colonies of the British Empire continued to practice it. British banks continued to finance the commodities and shipping industries in the colonies they had earlier established which still relied upon slavery, despite the legal developments in Great Britain. In 1785, the English poet William Cowper wrote,

We have no slaves at home.—Then why abroad?
And they themselves once ferried o'er the wave
That parts us, are emancipate and loos'd.
Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free,
They touch our country and their shackles fall.
That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud
And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then,
And let it circulate through ev'ry vein
Of all your empire. That where Britain's power
Is felt, mankind may feel her mercy too.

In 1783, an anti-slavery movement began in Britain. That year a group of Quakers founded their first abolitionist organisation. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the campaign. On 17 June 1783, Sir Cecil Wray (one of the Members of Parliament for Westminster) presented the Quaker petition to parliament. Also in 1783, Beilby Porteus, Bishop of Chester, issued a call to the Church of England to cease its involvement in the slave trade and to formulate a policy to improve the conditions of Afro-Caribbean slaves. The exploration of the African continent by such British groups as the African Association (1788) promoted the abolitionists' cause. Such expeditions highlighted the sophistication of African social organisation; before this, Europeans had considered them 'other' and uncivilised. The African Association had close ties with William Wilberforce, who became known as a prominent figure in the campaign for abolition in the British Empire.

Africans themselves played a visible role in the abolition movement. In Britain, Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography was published in nine editions in his lifetime, campaigned tirelessly against the slave trade. Also important were horrific images such as the famous Wedgwood anti-slavery medallion of 1787 and the engraving showing the ghastly layout of the slave ship, the Brookes.

Growth of the movement

William Wilberforce (1759–1833), politician and philanthropist who was a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. Between 1789 and 1807, Wilberforce raised 12 parliamentary bills to ban the slave trade, succeeding on the last attempt.

After the formation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787, William Wilberforce led the cause of abolition through the parliamentary campaign. It finally abolished the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act 1807. He continued to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, which he lived to see in the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

The Atlantic slave trade, also called Triangle trade, encompassed the trafficking in slaves by British merchants who exported manufactured goods from ports such as Bristol and Liverpool, sold or exchanged these for slaves in West Africa (where the African chieftain hierarchy was tied to slavery), and shipped the slaves to British colonies and other Caribbean countries or the American colonies. There traders sold or exchanged the slaves for rum and sugar (in the Caribbean) and tobacco and rice (in the American South), which they took back to British ports. The merchants traded in three places with each round-trip. Political influence against the inhumanity of the slave trade grew strongly in the late 18th century.

Europeans and Africans worked for abolition of the slave trade and slavery. Well-known abolitionists in Britain included James Ramsay, who had seen the cruelty of the trade at first hand; the Unitarian William Roscoe who courageously campaigned for parliament in the port city of Liverpool for which he was briefly M.P., Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, Josiah Wedgwood, who produced the "Am I Not A Man And A Brother?" medallion for the Committee; and other members of the Clapham Sect of evangelical reformers, as well as Quakers.

Quakers made up most of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade and were the first to present a petition against the slave trade to the British Parliament. As Dissenters, Quakers were not eligible to become British MPs in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The Anglican evangelist William Wilberforce led the parliamentary campaign. Clarkson became the group's most prominent researcher, gathering vast amounts of data and gaining first-hand accounts by interviewing sailors and former slaves at British ports such as Bristol, Liverpool and London.

Olaudah Equiano (c.1745–1797) After purchasing his freedom, Olaudah was an active abolitionist and wrote a best selling memoir which influenced the abolitionism movement.

Mainly because of Clarkson's efforts, he trailed the country setting up a network of 1,200 local abolition groups. They campaigned through public meetings and the publication of pamphlets and petitions, a petition in 1792 got 400,000 signatures and the petition in 1814 got 1,375,000 signatures. One of the earliest books promoted by Clarkson and the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was the autobiography of the freed slave Olaudah Equiano. The movement had support from such freed slaves, from many denominational groups such as Swedenborgians, Quakers, Baptists, Methodists and others. They reached out for support from the new industrial workers of the cities in the Midlands and north of England. Even women and children, previously un-politicised groups, became involved in the campaign especially the successful sugar boycott. At this time, women often had to hold separate meetings as there were social rules against their appearing in public meetings. They could not vote, nor could the majority of the men in Britain at the time.

In 1792, after multiple petitions had been presented, the House of Commons voted in favour of the gradual abolition of the slave trade, a decision subsequently reversed by the House of Lords, which wanted to hear its own evidence for and against the trade.

The abolitionists negotiated with chieftains in West Africa to purchase land to establish 'Freetown' – a settlement for former slaves of the British Empire (the Poor Blacks of London) and the United States. Great Britain had promised freedom to American slaves who left rebel owners to join its cause during the American Revolutionary War. It evacuated thousands of slaves together with its troops and transported 3,000 Black Loyalists to Nova Scotia for resettlement. About a decade later, they were offered a chance to resettle in Freetown and several hundred made the move. Freetown was the first settlement of the colony of Sierra Leone, which was protected under a British Act of Parliament in 1807–08. British influence in West Africa grew through a series of negotiations with local chieftains to end trading in slaves. These included agreements to permit British navy ships to intercept chieftains' ships to ensure their merchants were not carrying slaves.

Also from 1800 the Royal African Corps was recruited from West African volunteers, and eventually included freed slaves from the Caribbean before it was disbanded in 1819.

In 1796, John Gabriel Stedman published the memoirs of his five-year voyage to the Dutch-controlled Surinam in South America as part of a military force sent out to subdue bosnegers, former slaves living in the interior. The book is critical of the treatment of slaves and contains many images by William Blake and Francesco Bartolozzi depicting the cruel treatment of runaway slaves. It was an example of what became a large body of abolitionist literature.

Slave Trade Act 1807

The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire. It was partly enforced by the West Africa Squadron. The Act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship.

Slave Trade Felony Act 1811

The capture of a slave ship by HMS Buzzard to free the slaves, 1834

The 1807 act’s intention was to entirely outlaw the slave trade within the British Empire, but the lucrative trade continued through smuggling. Sometimes captains at risk of being caught by the Royal Navy would throw slaves into the sea to reduce their fines. Abolitionist Henry Brougham realized that trading would continue, and so as a new MP successfully introduced the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811. This law at last made slave trading a criminal felony throughout the empire, and for British subjects worldwide. This proved far more effective and ended the trade across the Empire, as the Royal Navy ruthlessly pursued slave ships. In 1827, Britain defined participation in the slave trade as piracy and punishable by death.

Between 1808 and 1860, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. Britain used its influence to coerce other countries to agree to treaties to end their slave trade and allow the Royal Navy to seize their slave ships. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade. For example, the 1851 Reduction of Lagos deposed “the usurping King of Lagos”. Britain signed anti-slavery treaties with more than 50 African rulers.

Slavery Abolition Act 1833

Main article: Slavery Abolition Act 1833

A poster advertising a special chapel service in celebration of the Abolition of Slavery in 1838

After the 1807 Act, enslaved persons could still be held, though not sold, within the British Empire. In the 1820s, the abolitionist movement may have revived the campaign against the institution of slavery. In 1823 the first Anti-Slavery Society was founded in Britain. The Society's members consisted of a union of non-conformist churches and many had previously campaigned against the slave trade. In 1831, enslaved man Sam Sharpe led the Christmas Rebellion (Baptist War) in Jamaica, an event that catalyzed anti-slavery sentiment. This combination of political pressure and popular uprisings convinced the British government that there was no longer any middle ground between slavery and emancipation.

On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act received Royal Assent, paving the way for the abolition of slavery within the British Empire and its colonies. On 1 August 1834, all enslaved persons in the British Empire (except for India) were emancipated, but they were indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system that meant gradual abolition: the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840, two years later.

The apprenticeship system was deeply unpopular with enslaved persons. On 1 August 1834, as the Governor in Port of Spain, Trinidad addressed an audience about the new laws, the mostly elderly, unarmed enslaved persons began chanting: "Pas de six ans. Point de six ans" ("Not six years. No six years"), drowning out his voice. Peaceful protests continued until the government passed a resolution to abolish apprenticeship and the enslaved persons gained de facto freedom. Full emancipation for all enslaved persons was legally granted on 1 August 1838, ahead of schedule, making Trinidad the first British slave society to fully end slavery. The government set aside £20 million for compensation of slave owners for their "property" across the Empire, but it did not offer formerly enslaved people compensation or reparations (though that has never happened anywhere). This was because abolitionists had not planned for much more than the long-awaited reform of the law, and felt that freedom along with the option of returning to Africa to live in Freetown, or the nearby state of Liberia, was infinitely preferable to continued chattel slavery.

In context, the £20 million voted by Parliament to compensate slave owners under the 1833 Act can be compared with the Gross Domestic Product of the UK in 1832, which was £443 million and government spending which was £51.5m.

Campaigning after the act

"The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840" by Benjamin Haydon (1841). An elderly Thomas Clarkson addresses a meeting of over 500 delegates.

In 1839, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was formed. At the time, the British economy continued to import cotton and other commodities from the U.S. Deep South, which relied on slavery for cotton production, to fuel the spinning and weaving mills in Manchester and other northern cities. The finished goods furnished Britain's low-wage, export, manufacturing economy with surpluses exported to Europe and India. London merchant-banks made loans throughout the supply-chain to planters, factors, ware-housers, carters, shippers, spinners, weavers, and exporters.

The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society campaigned to outlaw slavery in other countries and pressured the British government to do more to enforce the suppression of the slave trade, by declaring slave traders to be pirates and pursuing them as such. It is in operation today as Anti-Slavery International, the world's oldest international human rights organisation, with its headquarters in London.

On 20 December 1841, the first multilateral treaty for the suppression of the slave trade, the Treaty for the Suppression of the African Slave Trade, was signed in London by the representatives of Austria, Britain, France, Prussia, and Russia. There was a treaty between Britain and the United States of America in 1862.