Development of Critical Psychology

Development of Critical Psychology This précis locates critical psychology in the discourse of critical theory. The précis reflects on historical and social events that shaped decolonization, postcolonialism, and globalization and identifies a relationship between them. The précis proposes that critical psychology must now find ways to enrich policy with research if it is to better serve social justice.

Olivier Serrat 23/09/2020

1 Anchored in critical (social) theory, critical psychology was born of the belief that mainstream psychology means well but insentiently buys into the prevailing economic, social, and political outlook as if it were tabula rasa. Tersely, critical psychology charges that, by failing to locate psychological experiences in their context and overlooking the fact that the dominant position of some is typically achieved at the expense of others, mainstream psychology furthers powerful interests and strengthens social systems that oppress and alienate the disenfranchised (Fox et al., 2009).

Locating Critical Psychology Approaches The timeline of psychology spans centuries, indeed, millennia, with the Ebers Papyrus mentioning depression and dementia ca. 1550 B.C., but the scientific study of the mind and behavior is a relatively new—and multifaceted—discipline. With applications across a wide range of individual and group endeavors (e.g., business management, human development, mental health, sports), modern psychologists have—from the time Wundt founded the first experimental psychology laboratory in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany—investigated many clinical, cognitive, and social processes to describe, explicate, predict, and change them (McLeod, 2019). Behaviorist, biological, cognitive, humanistic, and psychodynamic approaches now feature prominently in mainstream (or Western) psychology, the kind of psychology that universities teach and clinicians, consultants, and researchers practice (Fox et al., 2009).

Critical psychology is an even more recent subset of critical theory, a philosophy of science (or interpretive framework), heavily influenced by Marx and Freud, that saw light in the Frankfurt School (or Institute for Social Research), Germany in 1923; there, an all-star crew of cultural critics, philosophers, and sociologists including Adorno, Benjamin, Fromm, Grünberg, Horkheimer, Löwenthal, Marcuse, and Pollock resolved to expose and challenge the power structures that condition society in keeping with class, gender, race, and other differences (Fox et al., 2009). Also with origins in Germany, but from the 1970s and—initially—courtesy of Holzkamp, critical psychology contends that power differences do impact mental and physical well-being. From different ontology ("What is the nature of reality?"), epistemology ("What counts as knowledge?"), axiology ("What is the role of values?"), and methodology ("What is the process of research? What is the language of research?") (Creswell, 2013, p. 21), critical psychology set out in the 1960s–1970s, also in Germany, to promote innovative thinking for social justice in the face of inequality and oppression (Fox et al., 2009).

Unlike mainstream psychology, which preoccupies itself with the individual as the primary unit of analysis and source of psychopathology, critical psychology ponders what impacts society might be having on both individuals and groups and looks to social change as therapy. Concisely, critical psychology is premised on four assumptions. Citing, • [T]he societal status quo contributes to the oppression of large segments of the population, • [P]sychology upholds the societal status quo, • [S]ociety can be transformed to promote meaningful lives and social justice, and • [P]sychology can contribute to the creation of more just and meaningful ways of living.

(Prilleltensky, 1999, p. 100) The Historicity of Critical Psychology Necessarily, given the accent critical psychology places on historicity, it behooves any treatment of that branch of psychology to circumscribe its historical context. Because it is grounded in critical theory, critical psychology's roots are deep and its branches are wide: this paper is not

2 the place for a comprehensive treatment of the historicity of critical psychology, if only because—with the benefit of hindsight—explanations often play catch-up with events. That said, critical psychology is less than 50 years old and it is possible to isolate major 20th century economic, social, and political phenomena that shaped its development: fascism, decolonization, postcolonialism, and globalization are among these.

1. The Crucible of Fascism In 1933, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany: before long, the National Socialist German Workers' (or Nazi) Party moved to eliminate all political opposition. Nazi political strategy was at first anti-bourgeois, anti-big business, and anti-capitalist, then antisemitic and anti-Marxist.

Pseudoscientific racist theories were central to Nazism, expressly through the idea of a "people's community", and thousands of scholars (including Freud) were banned from their professions and left for Britain or the United States. Most of the Frankfurt School's scholars found refuge in the United States and associated with Columbia University (in the main). The crucible of fascism made the Frankfurt School, hence critical psychologists, increasingly doubtful of the possibility of agency: the subjective factors (or conditions) for social transformation were in their opinion not ripe (or had been undermined) (Bohman, 2005). The aftermath of the Second World War, notably decolonization, postcolonialism, and globalization, vitalized concern about the economic, social, and political conditions that—realized by institutions—allow for social change; naturally, critical psychology's investigation of the linkages between human wellbeing and social justice has echoed critical theory's revisionist approach to political history and its methods of historical inquiry.

2. Decolonization Decolonization is the undoing of colonialism, that being the process whereby a country establishes and maintains domination on territories (and their people) overseas, usually with the aim of economic dominance. In 1945, when the United Nations was established, about 750 million people (or one third of the world population at the time) lived in territories administered by colonial powers including Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and—last but not least—the United Kingdom. (What with the Philippines, the United States could join the list.)

Over the period 1945–1960, three dozen new states in Africa and Asia achieved independence.

Even after decolonization, however, the institutional forces that had maintained colonial power remained: this might have been expected since—horror vacui—nationalists saw themselves as the heirs of the former European powers, but also because the world system that colonialism was part of could not just vanish at independence (Ashcroft et al., 2013). De facto, filiative connections with former colonists continued on account of global financial institutions, multinational corporations, and trade, leading to allegations of neo-colonialism. From the perspective of critical psychology, Martín-Baró (1994) advanced a theory of liberation from continuing oppression and Smith (1999) clarified that divesting the bureaucratic, cultural, linguistic, and psychological apparatus of colonial power should have entailed active participation by the colonizers, not the mere handing over of the instruments of government.

3. Postcolonialism With an understandably wide variety of approaches, postcolonialism examines the economic, political, and social legacy of colonialism, particularly the consequences of control and exploitation on formerly colonized people, including their cultures, languages, literature, religions, and social groups. Illustrating, Fox et al. (2009, p. 343) cited the examples of the indigenous peoples of Canada, South America, and the United States; institutionalized racial

3 segregation in South Africa under apartheid; and the Maori in New Zealand. Since the two share some common territory, dependency theory can be explored alongside postcolonial theory: the perspective that guides the first is structuralist and socioeconomic; that of the second is poststructuralist and cultural; even so, both see a binary, neo-imperialistic logic in the perpetuation of world systems. At any rate, from the perspective of critical psychology, an agenda for social justice cannot simply be fastened on former colonies: and so, mainstream psychology should formulate new aims (that identify and challenge iniquities); new relationships (that proactively share power throughout the research process); new topics (that include impacts such as exploitation, migration, and discord); and new locations for research (that investigate the spaces where class, gender, race, and other differences have been disrupted) (Fox et al., 2009, p. 344).

4. Globalization Globalization is the process whereby individuals and communities are impacted by economic, social, and political forces that operate worldwide (Ashcroft et al., 2013). The contemporary drivers of globalization include capital flows, information and communication technology, international trade, and migration. Of course, globalization is not new: the silk roads (from the 1st century B.C. to the 5th century, and in the 13th and 14th centuries); the spice routes (from the 7th to the 15th century); the Age of Discovery (from the 15th to the 18th centuries); the first big wave of globalization (from the 19th century to 1914); and, in particular, the couple of decades that followed the Second World War are milestones (Vanham, 2019). No matter, globalization became an all-conquering force when the Berlin Wall fell (1989), the Soviet Union ceased to exist (1991), and the People's Republic of China became a member of the World Trade Organization (2001). Fueled by digital technologies, the pace of globalization currently seems relentless: everywhere, distributive justice, mutuality, and even democracy are being tested; everywhere, powerful questions need answering. Who is to prosper? Who is to suffer?

Who is to decide? Exploitative globalization is not a given: but, fueled by capitalism, some contemporary patterns have been viewed—paraphrasing Clausewitz—as a continuation of colonization through other means. Irrespective, if globalization is to benefit all equally there assuredly is a need for what is termed "glocalization", viz., the practice of conducting business according to both local and global considerations. Therefore, the accent that critical psychology places on social justice opens up opportunities for significant contributions: quite possibly, harking back to Fox et al.'s (2009) new research strategies to deal with postcolonialism, a critical psychology perspective would suggest that mainstream psychology could also formulate new aims, new relationships, new topics, and new locations for research.

Critical Psychology for the 21st Century Decolonization, postcolonialism, globalization: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose as the perennial conundrum of income inequality demonstrates. Without doubt, globalization has created fresh opportunities for hundreds of millions of people: but, the gap between high-income and low-income countries has widened and inequality within many countries has increased.

Piketty (2014) was discourse-changing scholarship on income inequality: the gist of it was not that—per Marxian dogma—inequality is determined by the modes of production that technology dictates. Moving on from Marx, but in keeping with the tenets of critical theory, Piketty (2014) pronounced inequality to be a social phenomenon that is driven by institutions.

Gloomily, there is more to the 21st century than widening social schisms: per Kagan and Burton (2001), we are also witnessing commodification of people, communication, and human relations; increased harshness toward minorities; privatization of public and community space and withdrawal from politics; and domination of global capital and threats to sustainability. In the

4 new century, critical psychology's enduring concern for fair and just relations can continue to shine singular insight on economic, social, and political dilemmas, this to critique society and envision new possibilities vis-à-vis domination, oppression, and privilege. And yet, much as critical theory, critical psychology's analysis of the past and the present is more impressive than the actions it takes for the future. Because the future will not take care of itself, critical psychologists must become policy entrepreneurs: all their research should be linked to action.

Inspired by Kagan and Burton (2001), critical psychologists should accept that whole systems thinking summons a "person-in-context" ecological approach that, in turn, beckons action. If they are to cultivate practical precepts, critical psychologists must also become interdisciplinary: in the social sciences, interdisciplinarity is the only way to promote dialectical relationships between people and systems, enter peoples’ consciousness, and—in due course—influence policy makers. Past rhetoric, policy entrepreneurship can help critical psychology live up to its liberatory promise.

References Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2013). Postcolonial studies: The key concepts (3rd ed.).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Bohman, J. (2019). Critical theory. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/critical-theory Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (2009). Critical psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kagan, C., & Burton, M. (2001, March). Critical community psychology praxis for the 21st century. Paper presented at British Psychological Society Conference, Glasgow, Scotland. Retrieved from http://www.compsy.org.uk/GLASGOX5.pdf Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology (A. Aron, & S. Corne Trans.). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLeod, S. (2019). What is psychology? Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/whatispsychology.html Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Prilleltensky, I. (1999). Critical psychology foundations for the promotion of mental health.

Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, pp. 100–118. Retrieved from https://sites.education.miami.edu/faculty/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/31.-CriticalPsychology-Foundations-for-the-Promotion-of-Mental-Health.pdf Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: Zed Books.

Vanham, P. (2019). A brief history of globalization. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-globalization-4-0-fits-into-the-history-ofglobalization