Since I have been posting a little on the FM ning, and making a video on my interest in developing and teaching "Metapsychology," I thought I probably need to map out my own vision of where Psychology has come and gone, how it has developed historically and in terms of consciousness complexity and what the future of Psychology may or may not be. Of course, it would take a few lectures by me to explain all that is in and behind this diagram, as well as to cite the references and theories and meta-theory that helps me to articulate and draw this mapping. It is in progress and no way the final word on the topic. And, yes, it leaves off a hundred other psychologies that could have been named (e.g., somatic psychology, feminist psychology, personality psychology, pop psychology, Green psychology, Gestalt psychology, liberation psychology, trauma psychology, fearological psychology, post-humanist psychology, educational psychology, transformative psychology, developmental psychology, animist psychology, child psychology, psychotropic psychology, forensic psychology, mestiza psychology, moral psychology, religiousl psychology, cult psychology, Indigenous psychology, East-West psychology, trans-sexual psychology, mass psychology, maternal-matrixial psychology, conspiracy psychology, phallic psychology, computational psychology, quantum psychology, depth psychology, social psychology, peace psychology, political psychology, victim psychology, Millennials psychology, archetypal psychology, fearlessness psychology, neurotic psychology, Buddhist psychology, apocalyptic psychology, Trumpian psychology, transdisciplinary psychology, Black psychology, etc. etc.). It creates a good place for conversation on the "psychological" or what I call "psychologia-q" notion. I share it here for feedback.
Note: W. Perspective is controversial for good reasons--it is Eurocentric (primarily); and, it's where I was born and educated and mostly lived and studied (Canada)
Comments
Hi Michael,
Thank you for sharing. In light of Ruth Frankenberg’s definition of whiteness as "a dominant cultural space with enormous political significance, with the purpose to keep others on the margin," I’m curious about the implications of a "new psychology" shaped by a W. perspective. Given your experience of being born and raised in Canada, do you think this might affect how your mind processes the world through a "white" lens?
I recently read an article by Four Arrows where he critiques the American Psychological Association for its role in perpetuating racism and dominant oppressive practices within the field. This made me reflect on how a W. perspective shapes our understanding of psychology. I am not sure if the W stands for White or Western - but either way, I have found W thought to be very linear - not making way for other forms of knowing
Hi Mmabatho.
Your concerns here are familiar to me, at least intellectually. A "metapsychology" would overcome (theoretically) any or most of the concerns you share. At some point, in my development I have to confront the Western lens that shapes my perspective, and at some point I have been deconstructing it and decolonizing it--an ongoing project that requires more than just my perceptions and thoughts and ways of thinking. The arena is open to thinking of all kinds, more or less--on what a "new psychology" would be. But if you read my map as I intend it, and if I was to give my lecture or two on the map and what is behind it, there might be a different perspective to emerge that is not Western or not not Western. How about that? When I labeled W. Perspective in the title, you also have to look at the point where "Psychology is dead" and that arguably would be also "W. Perspective is dead"--and then, what? Similarly, the metapsychology and the map here are not so "linear" if you actually look at the design of consciousness swirling in a Spiral...in which binary assessments fail; because it is just a representation (horribly simplified)--then, we have to discuss the details and dynamics of the territory of how consciousness swirls and grows and transcends and includes and... who knows what else is going on. Btw, I wouldn't use a classification of the "new psychology" (your claim) as that misses the point of the developmental arc shown above--I note in the subtext below the map, I am really interested to re-vision the psychological period--into a notion of psychologia-q (and, that's where things really shift).
You might want to not speak so abstractly about what you don't like here, and what it is that you see excludes what you want on the map or in the "new psychology"--then, we'd have more grounds for some serious conversation. That said, another issue is worth co-investigating: On what level of consciousness is this map conceived and drawn itself? On what level are you interpreting the map? That gets really meta- and interesting to me.
Keepin' up the dialogue.