Relative Deprivation Theory and Public Health Liberation Theory

Overview of Relative Deprivation Theory

By Grok under the supervision of Dr. Christopher Williams

Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT), developed by Samuel Stouffer, posits that individuals or groups experience discontent when they perceive a discrepancy between their current situation and what they believe they deserve, often based on comparisons with others. This feeling of deprivation can motivate collective action to address perceived injustices. In public health, RDT is particularly relevant for understanding why communities mobilize for health equity when they feel their health outcomes are unfairly worse than those of other groups. For instance, studies show that relative deprivation negatively impacts health and happiness, as individuals unable to maintain the same standard of living as others experience reduced well-being (Relative deprivation and individual well-being).

Relation to the Scenario

In the scenario, people express a desire for change but only act when their interests are negatively affected. RDT suggests that this action is triggered by the perception of relative deprivation, such as when a community realizes their access to healthcare is inferior compared to neighboring areas. For example, the U.S. Civil Rights Movement was driven by Black Americans' perception of deprivation in social and legal equality compared to white Americans (Relative Deprivation - Wikipedia).

Intersection with PHL Theory

PHL Theory aims to accelerate health equity by addressing the public health economy, which includes economic, political, and social drivers impacting health. PHL's Theory of Health Inequity Reproduction (THIR) likely incorporates elements of RDT, recognizing that health inequities persist due to a lack of social mobilization, which can be sparked by feelings of deprivation. PHL emphasizes community experiences and historical trauma, which can heighten feelings of deprivation, particularly in marginalized communities. For instance, PHL's focus on historical trauma as a social determinant of health aligns with RDT's recognition of how past injustices fuel current discontent. Both theories see deprivation as a catalyst for action, with PHL providing a framework to channel this into systemic change.

Divergence from PHL Theory

While RDT focuses on the psychological state of deprivation as a trigger for action, PHL Theory is more comprehensive, integrating multiple disciplines to transform the public health economy. PHL not only addresses the triggers for action but also provides a proactive framework for systemic change through liberation and community empowerment. RDT's emphasis on individual or group comparisons is narrower than PHL's holistic approach, which includes economic and political dimensions and a moral obligation to intervene immediately in public health crises.

Example

The Flint water crisis exemplifies RDT, where residents, particularly from marginalized communities, mobilized due to relative deprivation compared to communities with safe water. PHL Theory would analyze this crisis through the public health economy lens, identifying structural failures (e.g., lack of constraints on harmful conduct) and advocating for community-led interventions, such as legal action or public testimony, to ensure health equity.

Conclusion

RDT offers valuable insights into why individuals and communities seek reform when their interests are negatively affected, highlighting the role of perceived deprivation. PHL Theory builds on this by providing a transdisciplinary framework that not only explains the triggers for action but also offers strategies for systemic change through liberation and community empowerment.