The recent turn to discursive psychology has prompted an increasing interest in the work of Michel Foucault, particularly with relation to debates on the possibility and nature of ‘discourse analysis’. This variant of discourse analysis has generally emphasized the utility of Foucauldian insights in critiquing existent psychological practices as a manifestation of the proliferation of disciplinary forms in Western society. This utility may have been dramatically over-stated. Key concepts such as discursive practices and power are inextricably linked to theoretical frameworks (...) that radically resist any ad hoc importation into critical practice. Furthermore, they may be antithetical to the kind of reflexive critique promulgated by critical psychology itself. However, the later Foucault’s partial retreat from the disciplinary containment of subjectivity only promises to trap critical psychology in the agency/structure hiatus that has so bedevilled 20th-century sociological theory. Foucauldian critical psychology may be a dead end. (shrink)

is a book that stands as a testimony to the growing influence of social constructionism right across the social sciences. Gone are the days when it was just a voice from the margins—now it is a force to be reckoned with. Here Hibberd locks horns with social constructionism’s most pivotal character: Kenneth Gergen. In a careful review of his work, she dissects the key components of constructionism’s meta-theory, and she also considers (and dismisses) some of the more common lines of (...) critique. Yet for all her sophistication, Hibberd misses (or refuses?) something very simple—that her own critique is a view from somewhere. She simply asserts realist epistemology as the truth, without for one moment seeing the irony of this assertion (from a social constructionist perspective, that is). I put her straight.... Key Words: social constructionism • irony • realism • ontology • epistemology. (shrink)

rationality has increasingly been a target of attack in contemporary educational research and practice and in its place practical reason and situated thinking have become a focus of interest. The argument here is that something is lost in this. In illustrating how we might think about the issue, this paper makes a response to the charge that as a result of his commitment to the ‘Enlightenment project’ Vygotsky holds abstract rationality as the pinnacle of thought. Against this it is argued (...) that Vygotsky had a far more sophisticated appreciation of reason and of its remit. The paper proceeds first by examining the picture of Vygotsky that is presented in the work of James Wertsch, and especially his claim that Vygotsky was an ambivalent rationalist, goes on to provide an account of Vygotsky that corrects this picture, and develops this in the light of the work of Robert Brandom, who shares Vygotsky’s inheritance of Hegel. The conclusion towards which this piece points is that the philosophical underpinnings of Vygotsky’s work provide a radically different idea of rationality and epistemology from that characterised as abstract rationality and that this has significance for education studies. (shrink)

The first step that I took in preparing myself to undertake what is in essence a piece of epistemological research was to divide the psychological therapies into two: the potentiality paradigm and the pathology paradigm. The former is based upon the potentiality model articulated by person-centred theorists like Dave Mearns and Brian Thorne, which is essentially a growth model, whilst the latter reflects a form of therapy that recognises people according to what may be considered ‘wrong with’ or ‘deficient about’ (...) them, such as operates in the disciplines of medicine and clinical psychology. The main focus of this piece of research was to determine the epistemology that is at work with what actually goes on in the practice of potentiality paradigm therapy. In order to achieve this, I set about identifying, reading, analysing and eventually coding the most epistemologically rich writings that I could find from mainstream authors on potentiality paradigm therapy from the professional and the academic literature. It became clear from this analysis that the heart of what was actually going on in the practice of potentiality paradigm therapy as articulated in these theoretical writings could be coded into three main discourses: an experiential discourse, a relational discourse and a hermeneutic discourse, each of which I have considered to represent an epistemological discourse for the purposes of this piece of research. My next question was to ask myself how these discourses set about articulating the potentiality paradigm with respect to the practice of the psychological therapies, and the answer came back that they articulated the potentiality paradigm best when they worked concertedly rather than discretely. Indeed, it soon became apparent that the human brain integrates and synthesises the data that it receives by way of these three central discourses, and so it seemed only appropriate that I should work towards expressing these findings by creating a qualitative meta-synthesis of these three discourses: the experiential, the relational and the hermeneutic, which is exactly what I did. The epistemological mechanism by which these three discourses are integrated and synthesised needs to reflect the way in which the human brain integrates and synthesises the data that it receives, and the name given to this epistemological mechanism is dialectical constructivism. This is included along with the three epistemological discourses – the experiential, the relational and the hermeneutic – in the creative and interpretive synthesis in which this piece of research culminates, and is followed by an illustrative worked example showing how these discourses articulate the potentiality paradigm – concertedly – with respect to the practice of the psychological therapies. One of the advantages of applying this meta-model to the way in which we look at potentiality paradigm therapy is that it may be used to free us up to practice in the more dialogical ways which have been becoming increasingly favoured by practitioners in recent times. With our view of potentiality paradigm therapy mediated by this meta-model, we may find it easier to traverse across what many practitioners have tended to view as theoretical boundaries. It could also be viewed as a move towards a more functional and less structural form of governance or regulation, as expressed by Mearns and Thorne. (shrink)

Este ensayo se centra sobre los orígenes y principios básicos de la psicología de la liberación. Un enfoque afín a la psicología comunitaria y a la psicología política que emergieron en América Latina a partir de los 70, así como a la psicología crítica que se desarrolló en Occidente por esa misma época. Específicamente, aquí discuto cómo la epistemología, la ontología y la ética de este enfoque difieren de las asumidas por la psicología tradicional o predominante. La psicología predominante concibe (...) su rol como la descripción de la vida social existente, desprovista de su contexto ideológico o cultural, y entendida como una composición construida a partir de Yos esencialmente “moleculares”, aislados e individualistas. La psicología de la liberación denuncia estos supuestos —explícitos o implícitos— como fundamentalmente errados, abogando en cambio por un conjunto de nociones entrelazadas: el conocimiento como praxis; el conocimiento como diálogo; la inseparabilidad del Yo y del Otro; la relación como el verdadero locus del ser; los imperativos éticos de superar la exclusión y de transformar las condiciones de vida que la producen... Así se plantea que a fin de convertir a la psicología en un esfuerzo genuinamente liberador, ésta debe ir más allá del modelo terapeuta-cliente, hacia una movilización y transformación de la conciencia, hacia la liberación no sólo de los individuos, sino más bien de las colectividades donde esos individuos están inmersos. (shrink)