Friday, 13 March 2015

More on Critical/Radical Psychology.

Critical/ Radical Psychology.

"Psychology is not, and cannot be, a neutral endeavour conducted by scientists and practitioners detached from social and political circumstances. It is a human and social endeavour. Psychologists live in specific social contexts. They are influenced by differing interests and complex power dynamics. Mainstream psychologists too often shy away from the resulting moral, social, and political implications."

" critical psychology is inherently value-laden, not value-free. It aims to change society just as it aims to change psychology."

"Indeed, the field of psychology itself is a mainstream social institution with negative consequences of its own. Of course, if existing institutions ensured social justice and human welfare, minor alterations to smooth out the rough edges might be good enough. In our view, however, the underlying values and institutions of modern societies (particularly but not only capitalist societies) reinforce misguided efforts to obtain fulfillment while maintaining inequality and oppression (Fox, 1985,1996Fox and Prilleltensky, 1996; Prilleltensky, 1994a). Because psychology's values, assumptions, and norms have supported society's dominant institutions since its birth as a field of study, the field's mainstream contributes to social injustice and thwarts the promotion of human welfare (Albee, 1986; Baritz, 1974; Chesler, 1989; Jacoby, 1975; Kamin, 1974; Sarason, 1981)."

The Critical Psychology Project:Transforming Societyand Transforming Psychology

Dennis Fox

Psychology Politics Resistance

"hat psychology has a prevailing ideology is taken for granted here. Seymour Sarason (1981), Nathan Caplan and Stephen Nelson (1973), Edward Sampson (1977, 1981), Rom Harré (Harré & Secord, 1972; Harré, 1980), and many others have, in recent years, convincingly pointed out a number of assumptions commonly accepted in American academic psychology, particularly in social psychology. Such assumptions cover a wide range. They include, among other things, the view that the purpose of social science is to determine causality (a positivist view) rather than to attain understanding (a phenomenological view); that the combination of experimentation and quantification is, ultimately, the only respectable scientific method; that the psychologist's focus on the individual level of analysis is more important than the more global levels examined by sociologists or anthropologists; that specialization within the field is not only necessary but preferable; that psychology has actually achieved a significant body of knowledge that is useful in bringing about improvements in society; that this increased knowledge supports a liberal rather than a conservative or radical political perspective; and that individual change rather than institutional change is the preferred focus of research. Now, all these individual points may or may not actually be correct; my primary purpose here is not to evaluate their validity but to consider some of the consequences for academic psychologists of their widespread acceptance and to speculate on prospects for achieving ideological change within our own field."

No comments:

Post a Comment