Dennis Fox’s Weblog

Another proposal I’m involved in is for the August conference of the American Psychological Association. Since I’m mostly outside institutionalized academia these days, I don’t often go to APA, but this summer’s conference will be right here in Boston. With a few friends certain to show up, doing a session together might even be fun.

Thomas Teo, Isaac Prilleltensky, and I are proposing a Conversation Hour on the topic Critical Psychology Issues. Instead of a formal panel to read prepared papers, the conversation format is designed to generate discussion with whoever shows up. Here’s our proposal:

Critical psychology has generated an increasing number of books, journals, conferences, and other components of academic respectability. However, despite a general critique of mainstream psychology and a concern for social justice, it remains difficult to define critical psychology by consensus and to identify the principles its various approaches share. Two participants in this conversation hour — Dennis Fox and Isaac Prilleltensky — have just co-edited (with Stephanie Austin) the second edition of Critical Psychology: An Introduction; and Thomas Teo has recently published a book on the history and theory of the critique of psychology.

From these vantage points, the participants seek to raise and discuss a number of questions, including the following:

(a) Allegiances: Are critical psychologists primarily psychologists interested in theoretical rigor, advocating political goals only because they happen to be compatible with critical theory? Or, are we motivated by sources outside psychology such as Marxism, feminism, or anarchism and are we primarily activists interested in social change, using psychology’s theory and methods only when they happen to coincide with our politics?

(b) Methods: Should critical psychologists use traditional positivist methods to expose inequality and injustice and foster political and institutional reform, or should we reject methods that strengthen mainstream claims to legitimacy? Are qualitative methods more appropriate for critical psychology?

(c) Legitimacy: Should critical psychologists claim special expertise as psychologists to advocate social change, or does rejecting positivist methods reduce our rationale for doing so?

(d) Moral relativism: Can we advocate politically preferred values such as equality and empowerment or must we abandon all value preferences as culturally determined?

(e) Audience, style, and diversity: In our writing, conferencing, and teaching can we escape the conventional boundaries of academic life or should we adhere to academic norms? Is it at all important to answer these questions?

The three of us bring to this conversation hour a variety of perspectives on these and other issues within critical and radical psychology. I’ve worked with Isaac Prilleltensky, now Dean of the School of Education at the University of Miami, for about 15 years. Together we co-edited the first edition of Critical Psychology: An Introduction in 1997 and, as noted above, we’re now working on the second edition with Stephanie Austin, a former student of both Isaac and Thomas. We also co-founded RadPsyNet (Radical Psychology Network) in 1993 and have worked on a number of other projects. Thomas Teo is a professor at York University in Toronto, in the History and Theory of Psychology section. His 2005 book is The Critique of Psychology: From Kant to Postcolonial Theory. He is also writing a key chapter for our new critical psychology book describing the development of, and trends within, critical psychology.

The new edition of Critical Psychology, to be published in 2009, will address more directly the dilemmas critical psychologists confront. For my own approach to some of these issues, see my website.

Technorati Tags: American Psychological Association, critical psychology, Isaac Prilleltensky, positivism, social psychology, Stephanie Austin, Thomas Teo, RadPsyNet

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pm and is filed under Critical Psychology, Social Psychology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.