Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study analyzed the defensive functioning and profile of nine breast cancer women and identifies the differences from other cancer patients (N0) in the way they deal with internal conflicts and stressful situations related to the illness. Patients were interviewed and evaluated using the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scale Q-sort. Mean differences analysis showed that breast cancer patients use more reaction formation, omnipotence, and rationalization and less idealization of others-image and autistic fantasy, compared with other-site cancer patients. From the qualitative analysis of the defensive profile, displacement and repression appeared among the most representative defense mechanisms of breast cancer patients.

Can purely psychological trauma lead to a complete blockage of autobiographical memories? This long-standing question about the existence of repressed memories has been at the heart of one of the most heated debates in modern psychology. These so-called memory wars originated in the 1990s, and many scholars have assumed that they are over. We demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect and that the controversial issue of repressed memories is alive and well and may even be on the rise. We review converging research and data from legal cases indicating that the topic of repressed memories remains active in clinical, legal, and academic settings. We show that the belief in repressed memories occurs on a nontrivial scale (58%) and appears to have increased among clinical psychologists since the 1990s. We also demonstrate that the scientifically controversial concept of dissociative amnesia, which we argue is a substitute term for memory repression, has gained in popularity. Finally, we review work on the adverse side effects of certain psychotherapeutic techniques, some of which may be linked to the recovery of repressed memories. The memory wars have not vanished. They have continued to endure and contribute to potentially damaging consequences in clinical, legal, and academic contexts.

This study examines the complexities of researching Ukraine’s occupied territories, where silence often acts as both a defense mechanism and a barrier to understanding. It addresses the causes of informational isolation, including censorship, fear of repression, and restricted access to independent sources. The paper highlights the methodological and ethical challenges researchers face, particularly in working with sensitive data and engaging with vulnerable populations. The roles of universities, citizen science, media, and NGOs are explored as crucial avenues for gathering fragmented but vital information and fostering a broader understanding of life under occupation. Emphasis is placed on integrating FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) with CARE principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) to ensure data are both responsibly managed and ethically used. Combining analytical rigor with reflective narratives, this study advocates for interdisciplinary approaches and strategic collaborations that transcend academic boundaries. These efforts are vital for post-war recovery, reintegration, and developing socially inclusive and sustainable strategies that address the human realities of occupation.

In this introductory essay to the special issue on civil society in authoritarian and hybrid regimes, we review core themes in the growing literature on shrinking or closing space for civil society. We discuss the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) as agents of democratization and note the emergence of dual, at times apparently conflicting policy postures within authoritarian regimes (restriction and repression for some CSOs vs. financial support and opportunities for collaboration for others). We posit that different conceptual perspectives applied to civil society can help account for the duality of authoritarian postures and examine repercussions for three key subgroups of CSOs: claims-making (or advocacy) NGOs, nonprofit service providers and regime-loyal NGOs supporting often populist and nationalist discourses.

In many African countries, jokes represent one of the many means used by citizens to cope with a crisis. Chibuwe and Munoriyarwa explore how Zimbabweans utilize WhatsApp jokes, which are anchored in the concept of the “everyday,” to cope with pandemic-induced lockdowns. COVID-19 jokes provide citizens momentary relief from fear and function as a defense mechanism against COVID-19 and its effects, enabling citizens to confront and rationalize fear, death, and suffering. Chibuwe and Munoriyarwa argue that jokes are also a means of speaking truth to power by disgruntled citizens attempting to cope with a health crisis, in a context characterized by corruption, state repression, and bad governance.

This article examines the intricate interplay of psychological trauma, identity formation, and defense mechanisms in three contemporary Indian films:Tamasha (2015, Hindi), The Great Indian Kitchen (2021, Malayalam), and Fandry (2013, Marathi). Adopting a triangulated, mixed-methods approach that integrates psychoanalytic close reading, sociocultural critique, and visual semiotic analysis, the study investigates how cinematic narratives function as cultural texts that mirror and contest hegemonic structures such as patriarchy, caste hierarchy, and neoliberal individuation. The central research question guiding this inquiry is: How do these films depict psychological defense mechanisms in response to sociocultural trauma, and how do they challenge dominant identity narratives through formal and thematic choices? Grounded in the psychoanalytic frameworks of Sigmund Freud (structural model of the psyche; defense mechanisms such as repression and sublimation), Anna Freud (developmental schema of defenses), and Jacques Lacan (the Symbolic, the Imaginary, the Real; the fragmented subject), the analysis also draws from Erik Erikson's psychosocial theory of identity crisis, Frantz Fanon's theory of racial alienation and \"epidermalization,\" and Homi Bhabha's concepts of mimicry and hybridity. Judith Butler's theory of performativity also lends critical insight into the gendered dimensions of trauma and resistance. In Tamasha, the protagonist's fractured identity is read through Lacan's notion of \"lack\" and Freudian sublimation, illuminating the conflict between societal conformity and authentic creativity. The Great Indian Kitchen employs spatial repetition and silence to depict gendered trauma and domestic oppression, analyzed via feminist psychoanalysis and Butler's performativity. Fandry foregrounds caste-based humiliation and resistance through Fanon's framework of internalized oppression and Erikson's identity-stage conflict. The study contributes to interdisciplinary scholarship in postcolonial film studies, identity politics, and trauma theory by examining how these films aesthetically and psychologically negotiate trauma. It argues that cinema not only narrativizes personal suffering but also performs acts of cultural and political subversion, affirming that the personal is political and that trauma narratives are integral to reimagining selfhood in postcolonial societies.

This article explains temporal variation in repression as a function of the “dissident calendar,” the set of events that serve as natural focal points for coordination. The core argument is that regimes can anticipate the events that create these focal points and engage in preemptive repression to survive their passing. This dynamic produces predictable, often cyclical patterns in repression. An analysis of dissident detentions in China from 1998 to 2014 shows that “focal events” alone appear to be responsible for more than 20 percent of dissident detentions over the analysis period. Such detentions tend to be shorter and rely less on formal criminal procedures, suggesting a “catch-and-release” dynamic. Additional analysis of detentions in Tibet shows how the calendar may vary by issue or group.

In this article, we review decades of research on state repression and nonviolent resistance. We argue that these two research programs have converged around six consensus findings. We also highlight several areas of divergence, where greater synthesis between the research on state repression and nonviolent resistance might prove useful. We draw attention to remaining controversies surrounding the association between state repression and nonviolent resistance—particularly regarding different theoretical assumptions about structure, agency, and strategic choice; measurement challenges for both repression and dissent; methodological challenges regarding endogeneity, multicausality, and equifinality; and moral hazards associated with the study of nonviolent resistance and the effectiveness of repression. We conclude by highlighting some productive ways forward.

Autocrats use repression to deter opposition. Are they successful in the long run? The author argues that state repression can have long-lasting alienating effects on citizens’ political attitudes and coercive effects on their political behavior. The article evaluates this proposition by studying the long-term effects of state terror during China's Cultural Revolution. It shows that individuals who grew up in localities that were exposed to more state-sponsored violence in the late 1960s are less trusting of national political leaders and more critical of the country's political system today. These anti-regime attitudes are more likely to be passed down to the younger generation if family members discuss politics frequently than if they do not. Yet while state repression has created anti-regime attitudes, it has decreased citizens’ contentious behavior. These findings highlight the dilemma that authoritarian rulers face when they seek to consolidate their rule through repression.

Under what conditions are individuals more likely to approve of human rights abuses by their governments? While various theoretical expectations have been offered about public approval of repression, many of them have not been directly tested. We analyze the effects of differing opposition tactics, differing government tactics, and legal constraints on approval of repression through a series of survey experiments in India, Israel, and Argentina. Our results indicate that violent action by opposition groups consistently increases support for government repression. In the context of contentious politics, we find that the effects of international law vary by national context. While our respondents in India were less likely to approve of their government when told the government violated international law, the same information likely increased approval of the government in our Israel experiment. The findings provide insights into the microfoundations of existing theories and suggest areas for theory refinement.