Don't blindly accept what anyone has to say! Question Authority! Just like I tell you to! (That's a joke...)

Seriously: I readily acknowledge I'm not just presenting "objective facts." I don't really believe in 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, though. 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 encourage 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 I do think it's fair to let people know what's relevant to their concerns. So I've posted a pdf file with my academic curriculum vita (a resume with a list of my academic 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 psychology and law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, after which I was a professor of legal studies and psychology at the University of Illinois at Springfield. I'm now retired, with the title "associate professor emeritus, legal studies," and occasionally I teach and do other temporary part-time academic work.

Social psychology is primarily a research field. I've had no training in therapy, I don't do therapy, I know very little about therapy techniques and alternatives. Still, I am interested in therapy's role -- and psychology's role more broadly -- in modern society, though that's not my main focus here.

Since I also write about law, I should also 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. Still, as part of my post-doctoral training in psychology and law, I took a dozen law school classes. The process was intellectually interesting and politically frustrating.

Much of my academic work has addressed interconnections among psychology, values, justice and 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; it's now used in courses around the world. We also co-founded the international organization RadPsyNet: The Radical Psychology Network. I've published a couple of dozen 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.

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, critical psychology hasn't made much of a dent in mainstream psychology. That's not surprising -- the US is the heart of psychology, influencing psychology in the rest of the world the same way other aspects of American culture affect other institutions. 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 be able to read them).

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," or openly endorse psychology's support for the 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. My co-edited book Critical Psychology: An Introduction is one place to start (there are plenty of used copies -- no need to send me royalties!). There are many references in my articles. Also useful: RadPsyNet's section on teaching materials includes reading lists.

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

Especially at the graduate level, 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 here! If you know you want to do qualitative rather than quantitative research, for example, ask if the department would allow that. If you want to study the connection between psychology and justice, find out if that fits in to the department's agenda. Without a professor or two who support your efforts, jumping through the usual graduate school hoops may become unbearable. You might ask professors you communicate with if they plan to remain at the university for the next few years.

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 sees itself as 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 is also usually difficult for critical people.

Here's a short article addressed to graduate students who are thinking about the relevance of politics to psychology.

up to top

How can I get a job doing critical psychology?

Another excellent question with no good answer. I never found one myself. At least, I never found a job in a psychology department. I ended up in an interdisciplinary legal studies department, with only an "affiliation" in psychology. Still, interdisciplinary departments are reasonable options.

If you want a job in a regular psychology department, you'll have to do the kinds 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 they persuade themselves they've gotten over being young and impractical. It's a risk. But again, this is more manageable in community psychology than in most other specialties.

Outside academia, if you go into something like clinical psychology, you can open your own practice offering any kind of therapy you want. There's a market for feminist therapists, for example. But I don't know too much about this. I do know that many clinical psychology students who develop an interest in critical psychology become frustrated with what they have to put up with.

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, etc. Don't be shy! Most academics love it when people approach them about their work. If you read a book or article you like, email the author. Write for critical psychology journals, even as a student. The critical psychology world is a small one -- jump right 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.

What I get out of anarchism is an approach to examining the relationship between the individual and the larger society. The goal for many is "communal individuality" -- creating a society in which individuality flourishes within a strong self-managed community. Despite the public image, most anarchists are not against organization. They are, indeed, very interested in creating well-functioning organizations.

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

What does anarchism have to do with psychology?

My early interest in social psychology made me think about how "the person" and "the setting" interact to influence behavior. Psychologists like Erich Fromm, Paul Goodman, Seymour Sarason, and Noam Chomsky have found anarchist theory useful in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of competing solutions to social problems. Mainstreamers debate the virtues of government regulation versus free-market capitalism. Anarchists say there's another way: restructuring societal institutions so that decisions are made by the people they affect, without imposition of external state rule. That requires figuring out how to do it, and doing some experimenting.

up to top

Isn't that kind of utopian?

Sure, but let's not knock utopia. It's a lot 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. The essence of anarchism is very practical. Though, I admit, sometimes pretty uncoordinated.

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

Most anarchists don't own black masks. For some who do, as during recent anti-globalization demonstrations, it's partly a fashion statement and partly a means of protection when engaged in confrontational direct action. They know the cops are watching.

With some notable historical exceptions, very few anarchists have been violent against other people. These days, some anarchists engage in minor vandalism and property destruction, generally targeting corporate symbols like McDonald's. Other anarchists disagree about whether such activity is a useful tactic or an unfortunate diversion from the larger message. Many anarchists are pacifists. There's no party line.

up to top