Don't blindly accept what anyone has to say! Question authority! Just like I tell you to!

Seriously: I'm not really presenting "objective facts." I'm suspicious of claims to objectivity. Instead, I offer my interpretation of things, for you to mull over, accept, reject, modify -- whatever makes sense to you. That's what I do when I write, when I teach, when I engage in public debate.

I do believe in trying to be reasonably fair. The arguments I present in academic papers are supported by the references I cite, and most of the papers were published in peer-reviewed academic journals (which may or may not reassure you). My short political commentaries and similar rants on this site and on my related blog generally don't cite sources, but the facts and ideas are not hard to track down. In any case, I hope you think about things for yourself rather than blindly accept my stance on controversial value issues.

up to top

What are your credentials?

Credentials are less important than many people think, but since I do think it's fair to let people know what's relevant to their concerns, I've posted a pdf file with my curriculum vita (a resume with a list of my academic history, articles, etc.).

My formal education is in social psychology (B.A. Brooklyn College; M.A. and Ph.D. Michigan State University). I did postdoctoral work in a specialty area called "psychology and law" at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, after which I was a professor of legal studies and psychology at what's now called the University of Illinois at Springfield. I retired early, with the title "associate professor emeritus, legal studies," and occasionally I teach and do other temporary part-time academic work. In Fall 2009, armed with a Fulbright grant, I taught a seminar at Toronto's York University called Psychology and Society in Critical Perspective.

Social psychology is primarily a research field, though I don't do traditional empirical research. Also, I've had no training in therapy, I don't do therapy, I know very little about different therapy approaches. Still, I am interested in therapy's role in modern society, and psychology's role more broadly.

Since I also write about law, I should say I'm not a lawyer. Not that that makes much difference. Law school teaches how to use the law, not whether it's worth having. As part of my post-doctoral training in psychology and law, I took a dozen law school classes. The process was intellectually fascinating and politically frustrating.

Much of my academic work has addressed interconnections among psychology, values, justice, social change, and law. With Isaac Prilleltensky, I co-edited the 1997 book Critical Psychology: An Introduction, the first critical psychology text designed for ordinary college students; the second edition is now in print. We also co-founded the international organization RadPsyNet (Radical Psychology Network). I've published articles in psychology and psychology/law journals (e.g., American Psychologist, Law and Human Behavior, Behavioral Sciences and the Law).

Tell me more about your background.

That's covered elsewhere.

up to top

Critical Psychology

What's all this about critical psychology? My psych professor never heard of it.

Critical psychology is an effort to challenge forces within mainstream psychology that help sustain unjust political, economic, and other societal structures. At least that's the way I look at it; critical psychologists don't all agree about goals and methods. There's some overlap between critical psychology and radical psychology, which I've recently tried to sort out.

One of the most difficult things to confront is the belief of most psychologists that their work is entirely apolitical - they're just trying to help people. In fact, although they are trying to help people, their work often embraces assumptions they haven't fully considered.

Especially in the United States, work using a critical psychology framework hasn't made much of an impression, though significant work by some feminist, community, and theoretical psychologists is "critical" without using critical terminology. The minimal impact is not surprising - the US is the heart of psychology, influencing psychology in the rest of the world the same way American culture affects other institutions worldwide. So most psychologists never come across critical psychology in their training. Although a fair amount of critical material is published in mainstream journals (even in APA's American Psychologist), most appears in journals most psychologists don't read, using language that most psychologists find difficult to understand. (And the truth is, most psychologists don't do much more than skim the table of contents of the journals they do receive; there are too many journals to actually read them all.)

Some psychologists who do come across critical psychology are sympathetic to its goals but don't see it as a smart career move when trying to get academic jobs or to fit into a traditional clinical practice.

Others consider critical psychology less "scientific" by traditional standards, or think it's too "political." Too many openly endorse psychology's support for our unsatisfactory status quo.

up to top

Where can I study critical psychology?

Good question. There aren't a lot of good answers.

You can always read on your own. You'll probably have to do that even if you're a psychology major, because there are very few courses in the subject. The edited book Critical Psychology: An Introduction is one place to start (there are used copies around - no need to send me royalties!). My articles have a lot of references. Also useful: RadPsyNet's section on teaching materials includes some old reading lists.

For a formal course of study, outside the US there are a few university degree programs and other institutions with a self-defined critical focus. I don't know of any in th US, though some universities offer programs with approaches compatible with critical perspectives.

Especially when thinking about graduate school, you can contact professors at schools that interest you and ask them how students critical of the mainstream have fared in the past. Get specific! If you already know you want to do qualitative rather than quantitative research, for example, ask if the department allows that. If you want to study the connection between psychology and justice, find out if that fits in to the department's agenda. And ask professors you communicate with if they plan to remain at the university for the next few years. Without a professor or two who support your efforts, jumping through the usual graduate school hoops may be unbearable.

Some departments do have significant numbers of psychologists interested in critical issues, though they don't always call themselves critical psychologists. Look through faculty lists, look at the courses they teach, email them, email their students. Find out if professors are involved in off-campus justice organizations. Grad school takes forever. Do some research before you commit!

Another consideration: Think hard about which area of psychology you'll specialize in. Adopting critical approaches in community psychology is sometimes easier, because community psychology claims to be psychology's liberal-activist wing. There's very little room in social psychology, though; despite the subject matter, traditional methods and assumptions rule. Clinical psychology also is usually difficult for students conscious of the shortcomings of individual solutions to broader problems.

up to top

How can I get a job doing critical psychology?

This question also has no good answer. I never found one myself, at least not in a psychology department. I ended up in an interdisciplinary legal studies department with an "affiliation" in psychology. In general, interdisciplinary departments are reasonable options partly because your peers won't have as many preconceived notions about exactly what you should be doing.

If you want a job in a mainstream psychology department - the most hostile place for critical psychologists - you'll have to do the kind of research in graduate school that gives you traditional credentials (I didn't). Some people can retain a critical edge through years of grad school and then job hunting and then trying to get tenure. Some people never quite get back to their early critical interests, or persuade themselves they've gotten over being young and impractical. It's a risk. But again, this is often more manageable in community or theoretical psychology than in other specialties. (I say a little more about this in the context of the politics of psychology.)

Outside academia, if you train in clinical psychology you can open your own practice offering any kind of therapy you want. There's a market for feminist therapists, for example. Remember, though, that critical-minded clinical psychology students often become frustrated with what they have to put up with both in grad school and on the job.

Here's a good resource, regardless of where you end up: Applying Critical Psychology in Diverse Settings, from Doing Psychology Critically: Making a Difference in Diverse Settings (Isaac Prilleltensky & Geoff Nelson)

up to top

How can I find other critical psychologists?

Join RadPsyNet, participate in email lists, look for the names of critical psychologists at conferences, and network in other ways. Don't be shy! Most academics love it when people approach them about their work, and critical psychologists in particular are often both surprised and pleased to come across students who are exploring approaches that the mainstream considers marginal. If you read a book or article you like, email the author. Submit essays to critical psychology journals, even as a student. The critical psychology world is a small one -- jump in!

up to top

Anarchism

Aren't anarchists just selfish, immature jerks who just want to do their own thing?

Some of them. "Anarchism" can become an excuse to be obnoxious. But it's not a requirement.

Although there are many takes on anarchism, what's been especially important for me is its examination of the relationship between the individual and the larger society. Aiming to create egalitarian communties without hierarchy and oppression, many anarchists seek "communal individuality" -- a society in which individuality flourishes within a supportive self-managed community. Despite the public image, most anarchists are not against organization. They are, indeed, trying to create well-functioning non-hierarchical organizations.

Then again, some people think I too am just a selfish, immature jerk.

What does anarchism have to do with psychology?

A lot of anarchists are suspicious of psychology because they're aware of the discipline's role in individualizing problems and solutions and, thus, turning people away from systemic analysis and solutions. In a 2011 paper I tried to explain why anarchists might still find psychology of use, or at least parts of psychology.

My early interest in social psychology made me think about how "the person" and "the setting" interact to influence behavior, an interaction that seems to me directly relevant to achieving communal individuality. I was not surprised to learn that psychologists such as Erich Fromm, Paul Goodman, Abe Maslow, Seymour Sarason, and Noam Chomsky had found anarchist theory useful. Anarchism's questions, it turns out, are as much psychological as political or philosophical (which may just be another way of saying that much of what we think of as psychological is also political). Of interest: The journal Social Anarchism is edited by a social psychologist, Howard Ehrlich.

Mainstreamers debate the virtues of government control versus free-market capitalism. Anarchists propose another option: restructuring institutions and communities so that decisions are made by the people they affect, without resort to external state or corporate rule. Of course, all this requires figuring out what might work and experimenting with various alternatives.

up to top

Isn't that kind of utopian?

Let's not knock utopia. It's better than what we've got!

Even for nonutopians, anarchism directs attention to the downside of state control, formal legal systems, corporate power, and other destructive forms of authority, including those common in interpersonal power dynamics. It highlights the dangers of expanding government power even for left or progressive ends. It asks good questions about things we too often take for granted.

But let's not settle just yet for anarchist questions while giving up on anarchist society. The essence of anarchism is very practical even if it's often pretty uncoordinated. Fortunately, there are past and current examples of anarchist and anarchist-compatible efforts: intentional communities, worker-controlled workplaces, alternative institutions such as food and bike co-ops, organizing networks and more. My own introduction to anarchism came just before and during the 1970s movement against nuclear power, which was organized essentially on the same anarchist principles as the more recent anti-globalization movement -- for example, decentalized decisionmaking, consensus-seeking, and direct action rather than appeals to authority. So there are aleady many models to build on.

What's with their black masks? What are they hiding?

Most anarchists don't own black masks. For some who do, as during anti-globalization demonstrations, it's partly a means of finding one another, partly to attract notice in larger crowds, and partly a means of protection. They know the cops are watching. With cameras.

With notable historical exceptions, few anarchists have been violent against other people. These days, some engage in minor vandalism and property destruction, most often targeting corporate symbols like McDonald's. Others disagree about whether such activity is a useful tactic or an unfortunate diversion from the larger message. Many anarchists are pacifists even when engaged in direct action, and some are religiously motivated as well. There's no party line.

up to top