Скачать или смотреть Ron Roberts Psychology and Capitalism Part 3: Reading, Discussion and Critique

#decolonizedecolonization

Book Score: A-/B+

In many ways the contrasting images of psychology available to the general public, which we may characterize somewhat simply as the couch and the brain scanner, have presented a very misleading picture of the things that psychologists do and why they do them. These two strands of representation not surprisingly enter the fray from very different quarters and have quite different sources and kinds of support. The arguments put forward concern questions not simply about what kinds of knowledge we wish to have about human beings, and what we want to do with that knowledge, but also how these different forms of knowledge relate to existing systems of power in the world at large. As we will see later in this book, how psycho- logical knowledge and perspectives have been employed in the world by the powerful have important implications for the kind of future we will live in and the kind of world that is possible. At present much of this knowledge and discussion has been the sole preserve of elite groups –academics, scientists, politicians, military planners and business leaders. It is imperative not only that the limitations of this knowledge are widely understood, but that the public also exert a much greater influence than they have until now on the kinds of psychological questions which are asked and which are truly of relevance and interest to them.

The very possibility that psychological knowledge itself may not be politically neutral is one which many psychologists do not wish to face. It is also a question which has been kept firmly away from the public gaze and from the majority of students who undertake a degree in the subject. This chapter will examine these conflicting types of psychology and attempt to make clear how they relate to major systems of political thought, in particular the set of ideas and beliefs which form the ideological lynchpin of the capitalist system. Psychology as natural science is not only the dominant form in which it is practiced; it is also the preferred form from the point of view of the existing social and political structure. There are a number of reasons for this, linked to the assumptions which are embedded in the theories and practices of experimental psychology.

First of all this approach holds that the individual is the primary reality from which we understand the world. Echoing Margaret Thatcher’s infamous maxim that there is no such thing as society, the framework implies that society is simply a collection of individuals and that the use of the term ‘social’ refers to nothing more than the environment of the individual. By an amazing coincidence it is also a cornerstone of the philosophies of ‘rational’ self-interest and individualism upon which the entire field of economics is predicated. Inevitably this encourages a reductionist analysis of all social phenomena. From urban rioting, political protest and changing social mores, to widespread inequality, drug use and ill-health, it all comes down to what is going on inside the individual. It is also how the catastrophes of finance capital are explained to us. It is not the entire system of classical economics or finance capitalism, built on greed and exploitation, which is at fault –merely the actions of rogue, possibly defective individuals. The proposed solutions to deal with this are consequently minor reformist tinkering to enable better detection of the aberrant miscreants, individuals who we soon invariably learn were operating under ‘stress’ or dealing with a ‘drug problem.’

One additional assumption needs to be incorporated into this setup in order to make it appear plausible. The scientific approach is intent on discovering universal laws of nature –principles which govern the operation of matter (i.e. the world of things) and which operate in the same way in all times and places. Consequently psychology must assume it is discovering and elucidating principles which apply to all cultures, in all places, at all times in human history. It has the gumption to continue with such claims despite a number of quite obvious problems, not least of which is the fact that a majority of the work published to date has come from research conducted with North American volunteer students. Not only are North Americans not typical of the world’s population, but neither are volunteers and neither are students, who for example are known for being friendlier, brighter, younger and less conventional than the general population. And then of course there are the problems which arise from the methods which are used to gather information. Experimental methods assume what is called ecological validity, which means that there are no serious problems in extrapolating results from laboratory-based studies to the bigger, messier, more complicated real world.