Confronting psychology's power

C O M M E N T A R Y

CONFRONTING PSYCHOLOGY’SPOWER

Dennis FoxUniversity of Illinois–Springfield

Isaac Prilleltensky (this issue, pp. 116–136) seeks to make communitypsychology a more effective force for social justice. His discussion ofpsychopolitical validity raises a number of questions: How perfect mustthe theoretical framework be to usefully oppose unjust power? In whatway is the notion of ‘‘psychopolitical validity’’ most useful? How might ananalysis of power apply to community psychology’s own institutions? Isredirecting community psychology the most effective way to bring abouttransformative social change, or is success more likely to come outsidepsychology? Might more research aimed at understanding the mechan-isms of oppression and liberation help oppressors more than liberators?And how can critical psychologists move beyond critique to action? Theproposed framework will help facilitate social change only if communitypsychology also changes itself. & 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Isaac Prilleltensky (this issue, pp. 116–136) directly challenges community psycholo-gists: Put up or shut up. Well, maybe not ‘‘shut up,’’ exactly—he’s too polite for that.But Isaac’s growing frustration with community psychology in particular andpsychology more generally has reached the point where he insists, with some urgency,‘‘Time is short and the suffering vasty. If we continue to use our limited communitypsychology resources only to ameliorate conditions and to tend to the wounded, whowill work to transform the very conditions that create exploitation and distress in thefirst place?’’ He’s right, of course.

Still, this effort to redirect the field’s priorities—to move from amelioration totransformation, from awareness to action—will discomfort not just those who suspectthe critical psychology agenda is more political than scientific, but also some whoseessential agreement with Isaac’s overall framework and goals is masked by the heavydemands of their day-to-day jobs or studies. I don’t think Isaac enjoys making people

Correspondence to: Dennis Fox, P.O. Box 470783, Brookline, MA 02447-0783. E-mail: [email protected]

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 36, NO. 2, 232–237 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

& 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20233

uncomfortable; I know he works hard to make his analyses and prescriptions palatable.But making people uncomfortable is not all bad. For one thing, every revolutionaryendeavor causes the kind of discomfort that is necessary for change, though it doesn’tguarantee it. For another, suspicion about critical psychology’s open politicalcommitments can, at times, lead to parallel suspicion about mainstream psychology’smore hidden version.

The more important question raised by Isaac’s latest article—‘‘The Role of Powerin Wellness, Oppression, and Liberation: The Promise of Psychopolitical Validity’’—isnot whether the effort is ‘‘too political’’ or whether its theoretical framework issufficiently rigorous, but whether it will succeed. Will Isaac’s attempt help transformcommunity psychology and maybe even psychology more generally? Or, afterappropriate accolades, will most psychologists shunt it aside like they have so manyother efforts to move psychology from complacency and complicity through awarenessto action?

A decade ago, Isaac and I organized a conversation hour at the annual AmericanPsychological Association convention called ‘‘Will Psychology Pay Attention to its OwnRadical Critics?’’ (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1993). Why? We were both already aware thatin our own initial efforts to focus on psychology’s support for an unjust status quo(Fox, 1985, 1993b; Prilleltensky, 1989, 1990) we routinely cited efforts by older ormore established psychologists whose work prefigured, and thus helped legitimize,our own (e.g., Albee, 1982; Caplan & Nelson, 1973; Sarason, 1981). Indeed, many ofthe articles upon which we relied were published, somewhat incongruously, in theAmerican Psychological Association’s primary journal, American Psychologist (for a list ofcritical articles published in AP, see http://www.dennisfox.net/critpsy/americanpsycho-logist.html). Dissatisfaction with what seemed our likely fate—publication inprestigious journals, congratulatory letters, citation by others coming after us, butnot much institutional change—stimulated our interest in mulling this over with otherswho wanted not just to publish, but to make a difference.

That 1993 APA session became the founding meeting of the Radical PsychologyNetwork (http://radpsynet.org). Since then, RadPsyNet has had a newsletter,journal, Web site, listservs, and more, offering networking and moral support tomore than 300 psychologists, especially graduate students, in more than threedozen countries (Fox, 2001). It also helped spur on the nascent North Americancritical psychology movement (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997; Sloan, 2000). Yet despite allthis activity—new organizations and Web sites and journals and conferences, even afew critical psychology degree programs outside the United States—it’s important tokeep in mind that psychology’s vast mainstream still pays little attention to its ownradical critics.

Although critical psychology’s critique has generated useful work in a number ofsubdisciplines, community psychology—as Isaac implicitly acknowledges here andelsewhere—is probably its most natural home. As I read Isaac’s latest effort to pushcommunity psychology even further into critical work, several questions come to mind,generally related to an overriding one: Will community psychology prove more openthan mainstream psychology to the insights of critical work? The questions are

1. How perfect must the theoretical framework be to usefully oppose unjustpower?

2. In what way is the notion of ‘‘psychopolitical validity’’ most useful?

Confronting Psychology’s Power � 233

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

3. How might an analysis of power apply to community psychology’s owninstitutions?

4. Is redirecting community psychology the most effective way to bring abouttransformative social change, or is success more likely to come outsidepsychology?

5. Might more research aimed at understanding the mechanisms of oppressionand liberation help oppressors more than liberators?

6. How can critical psychologists move beyond critique to action?

These questions are worth pondering as part of our effort to make communitypsychology more politically aware and politically effective. Of course, each questiongenerates others.

How Perfect Must the Theoretical Framework Be to Usefully Oppose Unjust Power?

Isaac’s framework is exceedingly useful as a means of generating ideas, assessing theadequacy of power-related research and interventions, and directing attention toneglected areas. It is useful despite its somewhat arbitrary details, and we should bewary of endless debates over flexible specifics. For example, Isaac’s definition of powerrefers to the tripartite power to strive for wellness, to oppress, and to resist oppressionand pursue liberation. These all make sense, but could easily be reworked into a two-part definition without losing explanatory power: the power to strive for wellness, and,because the other two appear to be mirror images, the power to oppress or resistoppression. Or we could add something like the power to foster equality, or makeother terminology adjustments. Similarly, referring to power as the ability andopportunity to fulfill or obstruct personal, relational, or collective needs builds onIsaac’s three-value model (Prilleltensky, 1997). But although that model has alreadyproven useful, its specifics too are adaptable. For example, adding the middlerelational category to the age-old division of values and needs into the individual andthe community offers practical direction for psychologists focused on mid-levelinteractions, but doesn’t seem absolutely necessary for theoretical harmony. A parallelpoint: Isaac’s emphasis on addressing all three levels in a balanced way complementscenturies of philosophical musing on the individual/society divide as well aspsychological thinking about the importance of institutional change to better balance‘‘the duality of human existence’’ (Bakan, 1966; see also Fox, 1985, 1993a, forapplicability of anarchist theory to the autonomy/community relationship).

I’m not at all suggesting we should spend endless time trying to nail downtheoretical niceties. To the contrary, Isaac’s proposed theoretical framework will proveexceedingly constructive just as it is, in large part precisely because it is built on a largesupportive literature. That’s what makes it so significant, and what gives itpsychopolitical validity.

In What Way Is the Notion of ‘‘Psychopolitical Validity’’ Most Useful?

Is psychopolitical validity proposed as an addition to other forms of validity, so that(for example) research that is psychopolitically invalid should be rejected by fundingsources, dissertation committees, journal editors, etc.? Or is the goal simply a lessformal reminder to researchers, teachers, consultants, and the like to keep in mind thepsychology and politics of power? If the latter, does using the technical term validity

234 � Journal of Community Psychology, March 2008


stand in the way of adoption beyond the relatively narrow segment of psychologistsalready attuned to issues of power? Are some phenomena unrelated to power worthstudying? Might formal insistence on psychopolitical validity simply cause those withother priorities to add a pro forma paragraph to their research proposals that treatsthe subject superficially, offering the appearance of psychopolitical relevance withoutthe reality?

How Might an Analysis of Power Apply to Community Psychology’s Own Institutions?

More than in many other fields, in community psychology there is great awareness of,and formal opposition to, abuses of power facilitated by sexism, racism, homophobia,class inequality, and other similar forms of oppression and privilege. Do communitypsychology’s institutions—graduate school, professional organizations, conferences,journals, etc.—live up to the field’s ideals? Are they open to the kind of changescommunity psychologists advocate for other institutions? How do communitypsychology’s professors mesh their own ideals with typical academic and careerpressures? Can graduate students easily pursue innovative and potentially transfor-mative research and action and survive their training with dignity intact, or are theirconcerns channeled and dampened by stultifying professional and academic norms(Ehrenfels, 2004; for discussion: http://www.fireflysun.com/book/16PointsMemo.php;Illich et al., 1977; Schmidt, 2000)?

Is Redirecting Community Psychology the Most Effective Way to Bring AboutTransformative Social Change, or Is Success More Likely to Come Outside Psychology?

Psychologists already working in the field have many reasons to stick to what they aredoing, both personal (changing careers isn’t all that easy) and political (psychology usesits power to sustain an unjust status quo, so confronting that power remainsimportant). But should students who want to change the world study something elseinstead? Indeed, given the common moderating effects of any professional education(Schmidt, 2000), might would-be activists do better to drop out of school entirely andsimply sign on to one or another political activist group?

Might More Research Aimed at Understanding the Mechanisms of Oppression andLiberation Help Oppressors More Than Liberators?

How can psychology generate effective tools designed to combat oppression andenhance liberation without unintentionally aiding power holders who might use thosesame tools to dampen opposition and maintain the status quo? After all, they rungovernment and corporate institutions with huge resources to counter anything wecome up with. And they hire a lot of psychologists.

How Can Critical Psychologists Move Beyond Critique to Action?

Community and other psychologists have tried for many years to direct attention tothe issues Isaac raises here. How can we ensure that this time the outcome will gobeyond applause and lip service? Which institutional practices must we reform? Whichinstitutions must we replace? How will we get the power to make the changes we want?



WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Isaac Prilleltensky’s article is most important for its careful blending of literatures thatpoint to the neglected role of power in community psychology research. He notes thatthe psychology and politics of power have generally been treated separately, thoughthis is only partly the case. It is especially so in traditional research that appliessupposedly ‘‘value-free’’ techniques to various dynamics of power. Social psychology inparticular has done its best to depoliticize politically crucial issues at the individual/society interface. However, there are many exceptions, a number of which Isaac notesin passing. Politically tinged psychological work has addressed facets of power,oppression, liberation, obedience, ideology, repression, justice, legitimacy, competi-tion, and other important topics, using a wide range of styles, concepts, and intellectualtraditions (e.g., Cohen, 1989; Fox, 1999; Fromm, 1955; Jost & Major, 2001; Kelman &Hamilton, 1989; Kohn, 1986; Lerner, 1986; Martın-Baro, 1994; Reich, 1942/1970;Sarason, 1976; Wachtel, 1983). Similarly, political theory has widely incorporatedrelevant psychological concepts: for example, alienation and false consciousness(Marx, 1963), Black rage (Grier & Cobbs, 1968), the hidden injuries of class (Sennett &Cobb, 1972), and blaming the victim (1971). Fortunately, psychologists aiming forsocial justice already have much ammunition. We don’t have to start from scratch.

What Isaac does here is not so much make links between psychology and politicsthat have previously gone unnoticed, but organize those links in a manner likely to beuseful to community psychologists seeking practical ways to proceed. The proposedframework can help direct work aimed at institutional change in the larger society—‘‘to create spaces in communities, government, clinics, schools, families, workplaces,classrooms, and society at large where this delicate balance among personal, relational,and collective needs can be pursued’’ (Prilleltensky, this issue, pp. 116–136). But tosucceed, as Isaac Prilleltensky well recognizes—to create a Ph.D. in social change—wefirst need institutional change within community psychology itself.

REFERENCES

Albee, G.W. (1982). Preventing psychopathology and promoting human potential. AmericanPsychologist, 37, 1043–1050.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion.Chicago: Rand McNally.

Caplan, N., & Nelson, S. (1973). On being useful: The nature and consequences of psychologicalresearch on social problems. American Psychologist, 28, 199–211.

Cohen, R.L. (1989). Fabrications of justice. Social Justice Research, 3, 31–46.

Ehrenfels, J.W. (2004). Fireflies in the shadow of the sun. Salt Lake City: American BookPublishing Group.

Fox, D.R. (1985). Psychology, ideology, utopia, and the commons. American Psychologist, 40,48–58.

Fox, D.R. (1993a). The autonomy–community balance and the equity-law distinction: Anarchy’stask for psychological jurisprudence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 97–109.

Fox, D.R. (1993b). Psychological jurisprudence and radical social change. American Psychologist,48, 234–241.

Fox, D.R. (1999). Psycholegal scholarship’s contribution to false consciousness about injustice.Law and Human Behavior, 23, 9–30.

236 � Journal of Community Psychology, March 2008


Fox, D. (2001). Organizing critical psychologists: The RadPsyNet experience. RadicalPsychology Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from http://www.radpsynet.org/journal/vol2-2/fox.html

Fox, D.R., & Prilleltensky, I. (1993, August). Will psychology pay attention to its own radicalcritics? Conversation hour conducted at the annual convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved, from the Dennis Fox Web site:http://www.dennisfox.net/papers/rad-crits.html

Fox, D., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (1997). Critical psychology: An introduction. London: Sage.

Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York: Fawcett.

Grier, W., & Cobbs, P. (1968). Black rage. New York: Basic.

Illich, I., Zola, I. K., McKnight, J., Caplan, J., & Shaiken, H. (1977). Disabling professions.London: Marion Boyars.

Kelman, H.C., & Hamilton, V.L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology ofauthority and obedience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jost, J.T., & Major, B. (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology,justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, M. (1986). Surplus powerlessness: The psychodydynamics of everyday life and thepsychology of individual and social transformation. Oakland, CA: Institute for Labor andMental Health.

Martın-Baro, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Marx, K. (1963). Early writings (T.B. Bottomore, trans. and ed.). London: Watts.

Prilleltensky, I. (1989). Psychology and the status quo. American Psychologist, 44, 795–802.

Prilleltensky, I. (1990). Enhancing the social ethics of psychology: Toward a psychology at theservice of social change. Canadian Psychology, 31, 310–319.

Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Values, assumptions, and practices: Assessing the moral implications ofpsychological discourse and action. American Psychologist, 47, 517–535.

Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise ofpsychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 116–136.

Reich, W. (1970). The mass psychology of fascism. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. [Originalwork published 1942].

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.

Sarason, S.B. (1976). Community psychology and the anarchist insight. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 4, 243–261.

Sarason, S.B. (1981). Psychology misdirected. New York: Free Press.

Schmidt, J. (2000). Disciplined minds: A critical look at salaried professionals and the soul-battering system that shapes their lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Sennett, R., & Cobb, J. (1972). The hidden injuries of class. New York: Vintage Press.

Sloan, T. (Ed.). (2000). Critical psychology: Voices for change. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan Press.

Wachtel, P.L. (1983). The poverty of affluence: A psychological portrait of the American way oflife. New York: Free Press.



Confronting psychology's power

Documents

Transcript of Confronting psychology's power