Radical
Psychology
Fall 2001, Vol. 2, Issue 2.
DIVERSE ORIGINS, COMMON AIMS: THE CHALLENGE OF CRITICAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Stephanie Austin
York University
Isaac Prilleltensky
Victoria University
Abstract:
As an emerging field critical psychology is defined in various ways. However,
most writers agree that critical psychology is a movement that challenges
psychology to work towards emancipation and social justice, and that opposes
the uses of psychology to perpetuate oppression and injustice. In this paper,
an overview of the philosophical and historical foundations of critical
psychology is presented, followed by a discussion of certain challenges
that remain to be addressed. The article traces the origins of critical
psychology to critical theory, German critical psychology, Latin-American
liberation movements, postmodernism, as well as community, feminist and
anti-racist critiques of psychology. To achieve its objectives of promoting
emancipation and resisting oppression, critical psychology faces the challenge
of praxis. Praxis, which is the integration of, and constant engagement
with, reflection, research, and action, is predicated on attaining a balance
between (a) academic and grounded input, (b) understanding and action, (c)
processes and outcomes, and (d) differing and unequal voices.
Although there is no uncontested definition of critical psychology, we
think most scholars in the field would accept that critical psychology is
a movement that challenges psychology to work towards emancipation and social
justice, and that opposes the uses of psychology to perpetuate oppression
and injustice (Parker, 1999). The field of critical
psychology has experienced an important period of growth recently. Developments
in 1999 alone included two international conferences: The Millenium World
Conference in Critical Psychology which took place in Sydney, Australia
in May 1999, and the Critical Psychology and Action Research Conference
which was held in Manchester, England in July 1999. At the University of
Western Sydney, there is now a Centre for Critical Psychology where students
can pursue graduate level training and professors can teach and do research
in critical psychology. The Centre for Critical Psychology has launched
a new journal on the subject called the International Journal of Critical
Psychology. The Bolton Institute in Bolton, UK also offers graduate level
training in critical psychology and has a journal called the Annual Review
of Critical Psychology. In 2001 an international Critical Psychology Conference
was held in Monterey California focusing on Praxis: Beyond the Theory/Practice
Divide.
The following review of the contemporary and historical literature in critical
psychology aims to contextualize the emerging field, exploring the roots
of critical thought as it relates to psychology. Following this intellectual
genealogy we discuss the challenge of praxis in critical psychology. As
an intellectual enterprise rooted in highly academic grounds on one hand,
and highly pragmatic territory on the other, it is important to seek a balance
between theory and action. If critical psychology is to grow in vitality,
we claim that it needs to integrate in its praxis the various strands of
academic and practical ancestry found in its diverse origins (Goodley
& Parker, 2000). We assert that critical psychology will come closer
to its humanitarian goals if it respects and synthesizes the rich intellectual
and applied traditions within it. We caution against splintering factions
within critical psychology, least the movement become more concerned with
theoretical purity than with solidarity among diverse social groups.
Background
Critical psychology is a strategy aimed at politicizing all subdisciplines
in psychology. It is a metadiscipline in that it enables the discipline
of psychology to critically evaluate its moral and political implications.
Just as methodology enables psychology to understand and measure human phenomena,
a critical dimension makes it possible to assess the moral and political
repercussions of psychological theories and practices (Prilleltensky,
1994, 1999; Walkerdine,
2001). Critical psychology focuses on reshaping the discipline of psychology
in order to promote emancipation in society.
As Prilleltensky and Fox (1997) suggest, the
underlying values and institutions of modern societies reinforce misguided
efforts to obtain human fulfillment while maintaining inequality and oppression.
The role of critical psychology is to raise questions about what we as a
discipline are doing to promote social justice and human liberation rather
than human suffering and social control (Ibanez, 1997;
Kitzinger, 1997; Sloan, 2000).
Critical psychology strives to go beyond studying oppression in the laboratory
with an attempt to effect change in the lives of people in real societies.
The type of critical psychology we espouse is based on a commitment to
the values of caring and compassion, collaboration and democratic participation,
self-determination, human diveristy, and social justice (Prilleltensky
& Fox, 1997). These values are the starting point from which critiques
of mainstream psychology and of the social status quo are elaborated. This
kind of critical psychology goes beyond simply stating its values by further
exploring the various ways in which values complement and/or contradict
one another in varying contexts (Prilleltensky & Nelson,
in press).
The concepts of oppression and emancipation are at the core of critical
psychology. By oppression we mean both a state of subjugation and a process
of exclusion and exploitation. Oppression involves psychological as well
as political dimensions. In light of these central characteristics, Prilleltensky
and Gonick defined oppression as "a state of asymmetric power relations
characterized by domination, subordination, and resistance, where the dominating
persons or groups exercise their power by restricting access to material
resources and by implanting in the subordinated persons or groups fear or
self-deprecating views about themselves" (1996, p.
129). Oppression involves structural inequality that is reproduced by
the everyday practices of perhaps well-meaning but unsuspecting citizens
who collude with dominating forces in society. As Young explains, the causes
of oppression "are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols,
in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences
of following those rules" (1990, p. 41). When
we invoke emancipation, we refer to the person's life opportunities as they
relate to power (Teo, 1998a). Liberation involves a
dialectical relationship between "subjective experience" and "power".
As psychologists dealing with subjective experience, it is essential that
we concern ourselves with power. Similar to the definition of oppression,
emancipation can be conceptualized both as a state and a process that includes
psychological and political dimensions. Emancipation is the experience of
symmetric power relations characterized by equitable and respectful alliances
between persons, communities, and nations whereby people are free from internal
and external sources of oppression and free to express and explore their
physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual human qualities. This notion
of emancipation builds on Fromm's (1965) dual conception
of freedom; freedom from social and psychological sources of oppression,
and freedom to pursue one's objectives in life. Freedom from social oppression
entails the experience of liberation from class exploitation, gender domination,
and ethnic discrimination, for instance. Freedom from internal and psychological
sources includes overcoming fears, obsessions, or other psychological phenomena
that interfere with a person's subjective experience of well-being.
The promotion of freedom and the elimination of oppression are foundational
concepts for critical psychology. These foci derive from diverse but converging
traditions, not only within psychology, but in other disciplines as well.
We briefly review the origins of critical psychology in order to understand
its present challenges.
Diverse Origins: Critical Theory
The Frankfurt Institute of Social Research, founded in 1923, was the place
where the concept of a critical theory emerged. The work that came from
the Frankfurt school in Germany is often cited in the published literature
as having played a prominent role in critical psychology. The first generation
of Frankfurt school theorists (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Loewenthal,
Pollock, and Fromm) sought to establish a social science that went beyond
the positivist tradition and thus criticized the very status, structure
and goal of traditional social science (Geuss, 1981;
Teo, 1997). Critical theory proposed a multidisciplinary
approach to understanding society, drawing from political economy, sociology,
cultural theory, philosophy, anthropology, psychology and history (Bronner
& Kellner, 1989). Concerned with "critically reexamining the
basic assumptions on which Western civilization had been founded so that
a more adequate theory and a more emancipatory practice could emerge"
(Sampson, 1983, p. 16), these theorists were critical
of the denial of subjectivity found in positivism. As the following quote
describes,
The eradication of subjectivity, they believed, was a betrayal of the promise
of modernity, which was itself predicated on the belief that the augmentation
of science and technology would improve human control over nature and produce
more freedom, individuality, and happiness. Instead, the critical theorists
argued, the institutions and practices of "advanced industrialized
society" were apparently producing ever greater conformity and social
domination (Bronner & Kellner, 1989, p. 9).
The second generation of critical theorists included Habermas, a thinker whose work profoundly influenced the social sciences, especially psychology (Sloan, 1996). According to Habermas, there are three interests served by knowledge seeking: (a) technical control, (b) interpretive understanding, and (c) emancipatory interest (Sloan, 1997; Sullivan, 1984). The emancipatory interest, which is of particular interest in the work of critical psychology, seeks not only to explain or understand, but to enhance human agency in order to modify conditions of systematic suffering.
Critical theory is an exploration of human and social phenomena that seeks to understand the ways in which our categories of thought reduce our freedom by providing only a partial recognition of what could be (Calhoun, 1995). It goes against relativism and nihilism by suggesting an emancipatory alternative to the existing order (Bronner & Kellner, 1989). According to Geuss, "a critical theory, then, is a reflective theory which gives agents a kind of knowledge inherently productive of enlightenment and emancipation" (Geuss, 1981, p. 2).
Critical theory has significantly influenced the development of all critical
subdisciplines in the social sciences. It has been helpful in critical psychology
as it has prompted the field to go beyond the traditional focus on the self-contained
individual. In keeping with the early influences of critical theory, some
critical psychologists engage in research that is interdisciplinary in nature
(Prilleltensky & Gonick, 1996) and are concerned
with the construction of critical theories of social transformation (Teo,
1998a). Others, inspired by the later works of critical theory, concentrate
on the critique of mass culture (Parker & Spears,
1996).
German Critical Psychology
Although it is an important precursor of critical psychology, the contributions
of German Critical Psychology are sometimes unrecognized. Much of the work
that was done in Germany remained inaccessible to English speakers until
the recent works of Dreier (1999), Tolman and Maiers
(1991), Tolman (1994), and
Teo (1998b). German critical psychology emerged in the
context of radical political and social movements in the 1960s and 1970s.
Centered on the work of the movement's founder and promoter Klaus Holzkamp,
critical psychology sought to improve psychology by developing an alternative
ontological and epistemological foundation (Tolman &
Maiers, 1991). Critical psychology at that time identified the inherent
weakness of psychology as what Holzkamp defined as psychology's reliance
on the wrong philosophy of science. In contrast to the empirico-deductive
model of accessing psychological knowledge, Holzkamp suggested that a critical
psychology should use a social constructivist approach. This approach still
worked with the experimental method but rather than believing that psychological
knowledge could be attained or accessed through the observation of behaviour
in an experimental setting, Holzkamp suggested that psychological knowledge
was constructed through the observation of behaviour in an experimental
setting.
In the social and political context of Post-War West Germany, challenging
the status quo in society by critiquing traditional structures and procedures
was quite common. The student movement of the time was reminding people
that academic and scientific knowledge had failed during the Nazi regime;
that there was no such thing as value neutrality or abstention from value
judgement (Teo, 1995). Holzkamp's work in critical psychology
at this time established the link between psychological issues and societal
goals by questioning the relevance of psychology in the practical domain,
identifying problems with traditional psychological methodology, and disclosing
psychology's ideological assumptions (Teo, 1998b).
Latin-American Liberation Theology/Psychology
South-American liberation psychology was developed based on the philosophical
and historical underpinnings of liberation theology. What made liberation
theology different from most academic theology was its connection to grassroots
movements. The socio-political context that marked the starting point for
a liberation theology was the fact of widespread poverty. As Rigoberta Menchu,
Nobel Peace Prize laureate for her struggles in Guatemala asserts: "as
Christians, we have understood that being a Christian means refusing to
accept all the injustices which are committed against our people" (Menchu,
1984, p. 134). Liberation theology was an active critique of how social
structures like the Christian church treated the poor. It was explicitly
concerned with having an impact on the experiences of oppression of the
people of Latin-America. Liberation was the motivation for and the outcome
of pastoral work.
Similarly, liberation psychology emerged as an attempt to reinterpret mainstream
psychology in light of the experiences of people who were disadvantaged;
to criticize society and its ideologies from a psychological perspective;
and to observe and comment on the practices of psychology and psychologists.
Latin-American psychologist Martin-Baro (1994) proposed
a psychology that openly concerned itself with ending oppression and promoting
emancipation. In contrast to mainstream psychology, a liberation psychology
is one that is historically grounded, that does not abstract its subjects
from their social and political contexts, that is not individualistic, and
that locates the sources of values, motivations and behaviours in the dialectical
relationships between person, community, and society (Vazques
Ortega, 2000). From the perspective of liberation psychology, "there
is no person without family, no learning without culture, no madness without
social order; and therefore neither can there be an I without a we, a knowing
without a symbolic system, a disorder that does not have reference to moral
and social norms" (Martin-Baro, 1994, p. 41).
Postmodernism
Critical discourses in the 1980s indicated a shift away from Marxism toward
postmodernism. Disappointed by the failure of Marxist social utopias, many
French and German postmodern philosophers moved to new ideas (Teo,
1996). The advent of postmodernism particularly in Europe marked a recognition
that the project of modernity had not been realized to an extent that would
make a liberated or emancipated subjectivity possible. "Modernity entered
history as a progressive force promising to liberate humankind from ignorance
and irrationality" (Rosenau, 1992, p. 5). Postmodernists
recognized and worked from the idea that this assumption needed to be rejected.
By providing evidence that the particular interests of certain groups were
erroneously being presented as universal, and that modern science was being
misused and abused to legitimate the preferences of powerful groups at the
expense of the interests of less powerful groups, postmodernists developed
their critique of all-encompassing social theories of all sorts (Teo,
1996; Rosenau, 1992). Consequently, postmodernism's
critical analysis of the way power is used in the very process of developing
theories, rendered questionable the critical project to develop a grand
theory of human liberation (Teo, 1998a). Changing the
subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity is a book often
cited as having marked a turning point for a critical understanding of psychology.
Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, Venn and Walkerdine (1984)
use the concepts of poststructuralism to discuss psychology's insistence
on the split between individual and society, and how this has contributed
to perpetuating oppression rather than promoting emancipation in psychology.
The distinctive feature of this work is that it does not conceptualize mainstream
psychology as a direct force of oppression that constrains and enchains
individuals. Rather, as this quote clearly states, psychology,
Has helped to constitute the very form of modern individuality. Psychology
is productive: it does not simply bias or distort or incarcerate helpless
individuals in oppressive institutions. It regulates, classifies and administers;
it produces those regulative devices which form us as objects of child development,
schooling, welfare agencies, medicine, multicultural education, personnel
practices and so forth. Furthermore, psychology's implication in our modern
form of individuality means that it constitutes subjectivities as well as
objects. (Henriques et al., 1984, p. 1)
The consequences of this are significant and multiple as can be seen in
the example of employability used to illustrate this point in the text.
Through the concept of unemployability, the unemployed person can become
identified and may even identify her/himself as a cause of unemployment.
This kind of psychologically reinforced explanation for unemployment perpetuates
the status quo: the individual labeled unemployable can be trained in interpersonal
skills either by a psychologist or by psychological instruments but this
does not increase the number of available jobs in any way.
Community Psychology
The emergence of community psychology in North-America has contributed
to setting the stage for contemporary critical psychology in its attempt
to move beyond the ahistorical, asocial, and value neutral assumptions of
mainstream psychology (Sarason, 1981; Sampson,
1983). In the Western cultural context, which can be characterized as
a place of extreme individualism, community psychology's critique of society
and psychology centered on the notion of community as something that had
been lost or forgotten. Community psychology was therefore developed in
response to the growing sense of disempowerment and alienation that an individualistic
mainstream psychology was ineffective in challenging.
Community psychology aligned itself with other social movements such as
the feminist movement and the civil rights movement. This is clear in Latin
America, where community psychologists work alongside the poor to ameliorate
their plight (Fuks, 1999). Because as psychologists
our focus is on human problems, it goes without saying that we need to pay
attention to social problems. This author went on to say that sexism, racism
and class exploitation are risk factors in human problems but have been
largely unexamined in mainstream psychology.
Feminist Psychology
Feminist theory recognizes and emphasizes the fact that "women's
experiences are important, and the validity of women's perceptions must
be known and valued" (Brown, 1994, p. 52). There
are many different kinds of feminism that focus on a variety of issues.
Some underlying themes are common to the varying manifestations of feminism,
such as: the importance of egalitarianism, respect of difference, and social
activism aimed at eliminating power imbalances and exploitation (Lerman
& Porter, 1990).
Feminist psychology has critiqued mainstream psychology's exclusion of
women as psychological subjects and creators of psychological knowledge.
Furthermore, it has been critical of biologism in mainstream psychology
because it has had the effect of representing women's inferior position
in society as biologically determined and therefore unchangeable. In contrast,
feminist psychology would argue that sex/gender should no longer be theorized
as difference but reconceptualized as a principle of social organization
that structures power relations between the sexes (Wilkinson,
1997). When sex/gender is thus defined, the possibility for change remains.
Feminist psychology has used the underlying principles of feminism to create
a space for a feminist approach within the practice of mainstream psychology.
In feminist psychology, the feminist goal of working toward equity and social
justice is interwoven with mainstream psychology's goal of further understanding
human activity and experience with the intention of improving mental health.
Although the feminist contribution to critical psychology has been remarkable,
it has not often been acknowledged as such. The following quote describes
the tension that exists between feminist psychology and critical psychology,
"critical (social) psychology appropriates and assimilates theoretical
advances of feminist psychology without due recognition of the political
visions which inform and energize it" (Wilkinson,
1997, p.186). As the author suggests, feminist work in the area of the
gendered identity is not merely an intellectual exercise, it is motivated
by the political imperative to improve women's lives. This is not meant
to imply that only people who have experienced discrimination directly should
work for the elimination of oppression. Rather, it is meant as a reminder
that white men still represent the wide majority of people working in critical
psychology. It is still they who define psychological knowledge.
Anti-Racism in Psychology
Anti-racism in psychology is still emerging as a critical interrogation
of the racist foundations of psychological knowledge and practice. As one
author points out, "the modern concept of race was constructed pseudo-scientifically
within the context of European colonization and conquest in order to justify,
within a systematic ideology, inhuman practices" (Teo,
1999, p. 18). Scientific support for racism began with Galton, the founder
of the eugenics movement (Sarason, 1981, p. 77).
The ability to critically reflect on whether our discipline works to promote
either the oppression or the emancipation of certain groups based on the
category of ‘race’, has been neither taught nor practiced in psychology.
Anti-racism educator George Dei defines anti-racism as a "critical
discourse of race and racism in
society and of the continuing racializing of social groups for differential
and unequal treatment. Anti-racism explicitly names the issues of race and
social difference as issues of power and equity rather than as matters of
cultural and ethnic variety" (1996, p. 25). Critical
psychology needs to be further inspired by anti-racism in order that our
work may reflect the lived experiences and historically situated realities
of diverse groups in society.
Common Aims
The diverse traditions within critical psychology pull the field into
different directions. Each school of thought confers benefits as well as
risks upon the emerging movement. Postmodern theory challenges dogmatic
discourses and values the importance of identity, context and diversity.
At the same time, it faces the risks of social and political retreatism,
as well as skepticism and a lack of moral vision. German critical psychology
advocates rigorous theoretical and empirical research but has not entirely
broken outside of the academe and into the community. Feminist, anti-racist,
and community psychology do venture into social action but are not immune
to theoretical inconsistencies (Jaggar, 1994). In
the case of community psychology, for instance, there is a risk of collaborating
with the establishment in launching and evaluating programs that divert
attention from injustice and structural oppression. The discipline is complicit
in redefining political problems in terms of pseudo-neutral health issues
(Prilleltensky & Nelson, 1997).
The challenge for critical psychologists, we maintain, is to integrate the
most promising features of each tradition with the common aim of eliminating
oppressive practices in both psychology and in society at large. In order
to meet this challenge we need some guidelines. How are we to decide what
features of each tradition foster or detract from the common aim of eliminating
oppression and promoting emancipation? We need a set of criteria for praxis.
The criteria we suggest entail reaching a balance of (a) academic and grounded
input, (b) understanding and action, (c) processes and outcomes, and (d)
differing and unequal voice.
Balancing academic and grounded input
Academic discourse is useful in unveiling hidden assumptions about psychology
and about culture but we must acknowledge the fact that academics occupy
a particular location in society, typically one of privilege. Most critical
psychologists are academics who are concerned with the welfare of oppressed
populations. Their well-meaning intentions notwithstanding, they risk prescribing
what disadvantaged people need in the absence of consultation with the people
themselves. This is why we need to balance rigorous academic analysis with
grounded input; input that will complement what theoreticians and researchers
believe is a better state of affairs for a particular population.
Philosophers in particular face the risk of depicting ideal scenarios that
are out of touch with the experiences of most people in society. A balance
between philosophical and grounded input is needed to complement deductive
with inductive approaches to knowledge and praxis. What good is it to have
an internally consistent framework of values that does not reflect the lived
realities of most people? The corollary of this question is that moral philosophy
is not enough. On the other hand, we can ask what is the point of knowing
people's needs and aspirations if that knowledge is not processed into principles
and guidelines for action? The main corollary of this question is that grounded
knowledge is not enough (Kane, 1998). Moral philosophy
and grounded experience are complementary. Theories of values have to be
validated with lived experience. Otherwise, we can end up with notions that
are theoretically flawless but practically worthless. At the same time,
people’s voices need to be scrutinized for their ethical and political
meaning. The state of oppression does not confer moral superiority. The
desirable state, in our view, is a healthy tension between grounded input
and academic discourse. The techniques of participatory action research
in community psychology can complement deconstructive analyses to determine
which social policies are progressive and which ones maintain the status
quo. At the same time, discursive methodologies can dissect the voice in
which people are speaking. Is the voice of the oppressed representing their
own legitimate interests, or are they just voicing internalized messages
of victim blaming or neighbour blaming?
Balancing understanding and action
A balance between understanding and action is needed to ensure that knowledge
does not remain the sole object of intellectual interest. To achieve the
common aims of critical psychology, our theoretical sophistication has to
be followed by action, not just academic action, we claim, but social action
as well. It may well be argued that writing and theoretical work are forms
of action. To an extent, we agree. But this work needs to be translated
into social actions that have a direct impact on the life circumstances
of people who suffer because of globalization, unemployment and discrimination.
Powerful ideas need to be matched by powerful actions. Books don’t
change the world. But the urge to act should be tempered by the need to
know; to know our common aims, and the risks and benefits of pursuing one
course of action rather than another. Understanding pertains not only to
the internal consistency of any set of theories, but also to the context
of application. Whereas one set of principles may be appropriate in one
social context, it may be inimical to the well-being of people in another
setting. Thus, while we promote more autonomy and control for disadvantaged
people in oppressively controlling environments, we do not want to push
for more self-determination of violent people in disorganized societies.
Blind adherence to any value, from personal empowerment to sense of community,
is risky. Actions to promote personal control, for instance, have to be
considered in light of social repercussions.
Balancing processes and outcomes
Postmodernism and empowering approaches in psychology, including qualitative
methodologies and collaborative interventions with communities, recognize
the importance of entering into a dialogue with research participants and
community members (Crossley, 2000; Holzman
& Morss, 2000). Indeed, the values of collaboration and democratic
participation seem essential to us. However, there is a need to balance
good processes with effective outcomes for oppressed peoples.
The balance between process and outcomes is required to ensure that dialogue
is not an end in itself. By the same token, we need to assert that ends
do not automatically justify the means. If the object of an intervention
is to uphold the rights of an oppressed group, do we justify any means,
including terrorism? On the other hand, can we justify endless talk when
the lives of vulnerable people in conflict zones are at risk? These are
very difficult questions for which there are never easy solutions, but the
tension between valid processes and just outcomes should be reflected in
any framework of critical psychology.
Balancing differing and unequal voices
This is the fourth criteria for pursuing praxis in critical psychology.
Social policies and programs that have an impact on the health and well-being
of the population are typically formulated by powerful politicians, educated
government officials, and privileged academics. Efforts by critical psychologists
to work in partnership with disadvantaged members of society are not typical
practices in social policy formation. Quite the contrary, most social policies
are conceived in the absence of meaningful input from those most affected
by them (Taylor, 1996; Wharf &
McKenzie, 1998). Hence, a framework of praxis should be attentive to
differing voices and in particular to those who are often rendered inaudible
by the political process. Unequal power and unequal representation must
be considered in praxis. Actions that are based on the voice of the powerful
will irrevocably perpetuate the status quo, whereas actions that are based
on the voice of the powerless have a chance of promoting social justice
(Jaggar, 1994). This is why it is crucial for critical
psychologists to work closely in collaboration with members of oppressed
groups.
The criteria stipulated above responds to the challenge of critical psychology
by calling upon diverse voices (academics and community members), employing
diverse methodologies (discursive analysis, qualitative investigations,
participatory action research), and relying on diverse traditions (liberation
psychology, postmodernism, community psychology, etc.). The challenge of
critical psychology is to integrate these various perspectives into the
common aim of human liberation.
Conclusion
The cycle of praxis requires that we engage in reflection, research, and
action (Prilleltensky & Nelson, in press). Not
any one activity is sufficient to address the common aim of critical psychology.
Reflection is aided by discursive analysis, philosophical thinking about
the good society we want to promote, and about visions of a better future.
Research into the sources and mechanisms of oppression is facilitated by
qualitative and sometimes quantitative methods, by participatory action
research, and by textual analyses of oppressive discourses (Parker
and Bolton Discourse Unit, 1999; Willig, 1999).
Finally, action is promoted by consulting with both therapists and social
change agents because we believe that personal and community change are
complementary. The role of the critical psychologist is to defy narrow roles
by being philosopher, researcher, and activist all at once. A tall order,
but isn’t it a good start?
Author Notes
Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Stephanie Austin,
Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, M3J 1P3. Electronic mail may be sent to saustin@yorku.ca
References