Abstract
Reading this book, it is clear that Teo views “theoretical psychology” as, essentially, a critical endeavour, in that throughout, he constantly challenges the oft-hidden assumptions behind mainstream, scientific psychology, and seeks to counter its grip on the psychological establishment. Concentrating especially on the issues of “power, politics and society,” theoretical psychology, he says, must seek to make psychology a better profession, discipline, and practice. Through asking difficult, insightful questions (rather than seeking to prove hypotheses), this book opens up our craft to the kind of reflexive inquiry that can provide subtle and nuanced insight into, for example, human agency as it is instantiated within particular situated practices and embedded in social and cultural contexts. Psychology, he asserts, needs to be understood as a socio-historical product, which influences everything from what gets investigated to who does the investigation; from who gets investigated and in what way, to how its insights are applied and for whose benefit.
Teo identifies four key issues that are interrogated throughout the book. The first is psychology’s ontology—what should psychology make its subject of study? The second is psychology’s epistemology, and how should it be acquired—what stance should psychology take on the nature of knowledge? Third, the book examines psychology’s ethical-political praxis—should it focus its concern on regulation or on social justice? Should psychology challenge or support the status quo? Finally, he points out that aesthetics has been a neglected field in theoretical psychology, but that it merits consideration, especially in its potential to gain information (and hence insight) from art forms such as poetry and performance. He also identifies subjectivity—both in its individual instantiation but also as operating interactively and collectively—as a key topic addressed throughout the book, as it is at the core of what makes us human.
The first part of the book reflects upon ontology in psychology. It starts with Chapter 2, which looks at how psychology is delineated and defined, its models for representing mental life, the metaphors it uses to represent subjectivity, its theories of the human mind, and the relationship between the mind and body. Chapter 3 explores the question of what it means to be human, proposing that this is not a natural science question but a philosophical one, and argues for going beyond the conception of a mechanistic, biological entity and recognising the specifically human qualities introduced by bringing different kinds of subjectivity into the mix. In Chapter 4—“The ‘Nature’ of Psychological Objects, Events and Concepts”—Teo specifically addresses how psychology can gain insight into human nature. This far-reaching chapter covers a great deal of ground—from Cartwright’s drapetomania (where he defines the propensity of slaves to run away as a disease) to Frankfurt’s attempts to measure what constitutes a “bullshitter”—rounding up a fascinating panoply of psychology’s credulous attempts to pin down what it means to be ill, to be foolish, and so on. Teo is deliciously on the warpath here, having a grand time making fun of the ways in which psychology has so often lost its way.
Part 2, entitled Epistemological Concerns, takes on the second of his “big issues,” looking in turn at the consequences of positivism (Chapter 5); social characteristics and social knowledge (Chapter 6); and culture, epochs, and psychological knowledge (Chapter 7). Chapter 5 offers a very detailed and fine-tuned exposition of the dispute between psychology’s mainstream and its critical wing, about whether psychology should be regarded as a science, based solely on positivist principles, or whether it is a different form of inquiry based on a different ontology and epistemology altogether. This chapter explores the implications for the methods used by psychologists in their research; the interplay between the way findings are interpreted and the theories applied to this interpretation; and the issue of whether it is possible to achieve causal explanations. Chapter 6 explores further the naïve empiricism of mainstream psychology, its credulous belief in the possibility of being objective, and the way it ignores subjectivity. Teo brings this home by asking an interesting question: “Would psychology look different if all the psychologists in its history had been women?” Playing the same game with speculating about Germany winning World War II and Japan being dominant in psychology rather than the USA, he neatly invites us to recognise the extent to which psychology’s taken-for-granted knowledge is so very influenced by time, place, and standpoint. Chapter 7 develops his argument about the formative impact of setting and situation on what constitutes psychology’s knowledge. As an example, he offers us the individualist tendencies of Western psychology, where everything is seen to be going on within the individual, neglecting what is transpiring between people relationally and collectively. He identifies Foucault’s theories as having had the most significant impact on Psychology’s engagement with postmodernism, and the opening up of its concern with power and how it is exercised.
In Part 3, on ethical-political debates, the book takes on the third issue, looking first at the role of values, power, and money within the broad range of disciplines allied to psychology (Chapter 8). Teo argues strongly that ethics and values should not be a matter of add-on codes and checklists, but essential elements of how we go about our craft. We must not, he advocates, be drawn into the pragmatic-utilitarian stance, which did not, for instance, prevent the collusion of psychologists in the USA in administering torture. This is a fascinating chapter; it opens up psychology’s soft underbelly and exposes not only its self-serving nature, but also its frequent complicity with neoliberalism. In Chapter 9, Teo addresses the question: “Should psychologists care about injustice?” and, unsurprisingly, gives a resounding positive response. The chapter consists of a detailed account of work in this field conducted by psychologists. Chapter 10 contrasts the way psychology can either make problems or seek to solve them. In it, Teo recaps his earlier arguments about psychology’s historical tendency to “Other” deficit groups, noting that, “a wide range of racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, or ableist ideas can be supported by empirical data” (p. 221). Teo advocates instead a psychology that is not about people, but for them—a strategy of “giving psychology back.”
His final Part, Aesthetic Challenges, consists of only one chapter on subjectivity and resistance through aesthetics (Chapter 11). In it, Teo “boldly goes” to explore the fascinating new worlds to be found in the arts, where, for example, agency can be conceived as socio-subjectivity, opening up new vistas for us to explore, and new ways to share collective joy!
This is an erudite and scholarly book that takes no prisoners. The going can get tough at times, and it is one of those books where you find yourself often needing to go back and re-read a sentence or even a whole section in order to get on top of the ideas being expressed and the analyses being made. That said, it is most certainly worth the effort and I genuinely intend to go back to it regularly. It will be a “keeper” and, indeed, I suspect many of us will use it as an incredibly comprehensive and extensive resource, picking it up whenever we think, debate, and write about the theoretical bases of psychology and where we need to take our discipline.