Search

We introduce the special issue "Our Present Crises: Climate Change, Biodiversity Loss, and Social Inequality" by highlighting how histories of the social and behavioral sciences can contribute to a multifaceted understanding of the links among the climate crisis, massive biodiversity loss, and social and economic inequities of nearly every kind. We propose that although the epistemological and ontological bases of these disciplines are themselves entangled with modernity/coloniality, there are, nonetheless, critical insights to be gained by exposing these entanglements. These insights may help generate visions of decolonial futures which eschew destructive dualisms in favor of relational ontologies which honor the living ecosystem of the earth.

This is an introduction to the special issue on the impact of neoliberalism on the sociality, politics, and governmentality of contemporary psychological life. The articles suggest that Euro-American psychology writ large has not been a force for human freedom. Still, the articles are additional evidence of the historical and current lines of resistance and activism that indicate a move toward an emancipatory psychology.

This chapter contributes to emerging transition discourses that have their origins in both the Global South and Global North and seek to address environmental, racial, and social justice crises. How can humans and other than human beings have lives and futures based on living in deep recognition of our mutual interdependence and the co-constitution of all on the Earth? In this chapter, I lay out my desire for a new/old cosmology as a foundation for addressing these crises. One that is pluriversal, where many worlds are possible. In this cosmology, the register is marked by an ontology of radical relationality and a regenerative epistemology. Together, they will help create a new commons characterized by reciprocity and cooperation, with beings human and otherwise connected in ways both visible and invisible, mycelium-like. Such a cosmology requires a corresponding earth-centered psychology; a psychology otherwise and Earthwise.

In a relatively brief period of time, the discipline of psychology in the United States changed from being mostly concerned with its status as a legitimate science, qua physics or biology, to a rapidly growing field caught up in the tensions between academic science and the practice of psychology as a mental health profession. The numerical growth of the field’s members was heavily concentrated in the professional areas of mental health application. This was due primarily to the changed conditions of postwar life and the concerns of policymakers about the mental health of citizens in a dynamic, fast-changing, and fast-paced society. Government funding for psychology dramatically increased, especially funds for training clinical psychologists and for conducting research on mental health problems. It was not long before many of the clinical psychologists moved away from solely academic work and into the private practice of providing psychotherapy to clients. The discipline’s main organizational body of the time was the American Psychological Association, which came under pressure to allocate intellectual, organizational, and financial resources to the support of its practitioner members. One of the most intense battles of this period was that of creating different training models for clinical psychology. The early postwar model placed priority on training clinical psychology students to be scientists first, but by the 1960s, the demand for greater emphasis on training for practice had to be addressed for the field to remain coherent. Along with the internal tensions, psychology had to come to terms with external pressures as well. Among its challenges were those from competing professions, such as medicine, to its legal and cultural authority to provide professional services. Psychology eventually won those battles, but only after a state-by-state fight. Psychology was also presented with the challenges of a society wrestling with social problems, such as the demands for equal civil rights and opportunities. By the late 1960s, there were increasing demands for inclusion of students and faculty of color in graduate training and while there were some successes, there remained challenges that endured into the 21st century.

There are as many approaches to academic editing as there are editors. I suspect that for those of us who make editing a large part of our professional lives, it is also a constantly evolving process of learning, adapting, and, sometimes, improvising. I have served as an editor of books and journals for the last 18 years, including a term as editor of this journal. My statements here reflect my thoughts about editing academic journals, although the principles I employ are operative in all forms of my editorial work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The emergence and growth of the psy-disciplines, accompanied by the psychologization of everyday life, has raised questions about the role of psychology in relation to power. Who does psychology serve? And what are its effects on the person? The author holds that psy-disciplines have largely been managerial in their effects, especially empowering the rise of the neoliberal state in the late 20th century. In the face of such managerialism, can there be a liberatory psychology? The efforts toward a psychology or psychologies of liberation have come primarily from the Global South, as in the work and writings of Paulo Freire and Ignacio Martin-Baro. The author links these efforts to the decolonial turn proffered by the ‘Modernity/Coloniality’ group led by such scholars as Walter Mignolo and Arturo Escobar. The essay then examines the scholarly discipline of history of psychology in the light of decoloniality and shows how it has been an agent of colonial being and knowledge. Alternatives are offered on how the field can break the legacy of coloniality and move toward a more liberatory stance.

This article reviews the American Psychological Association's (APA) efforts in promoting human rights and social justice. Beginning with a historical review of the conceptualizations of human rights and social justice, the social challenges that have faced the United States over time are discussed in relation to the APA's evolving mission and strategic initiatives enacted through its boards, committees, and directorates. From early efforts on the Board for Social and Ethical Responsibility in Psychology and the Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs to the establishment of the Public Interest Directorate, the APA's efforts to address these human rights and social justice challenges through its task force reports, guidelines, and policies are described. Specifically, issues related to diversity and underrepresentation of minority group members and perspective within the APA, as well as women's issues (prochoice, violence against women, sexualization of young girls, human trafficking) were central to these efforts. These minority groups included racial and ethnic minority groups; immigrants and refugees; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and queer individuals; and those with disabilities. Later attention shifted to broader social justice challenges within a public health perspective, such as AIDS, obesity, and violence. Also included is a brief discussion of the Hoffman Report. The article ends with a discussion of future directions for the APA's efforts related to human rights and social justice related to health disparities, violent extremism, social inequality, migration, cultural and racial diversity, and an evidence-based approach to programming. (PsycINFO Database Record

The authors provide a reply to Harvey's (2019) comment on the authors' article regarding the American Psychological Association's efforts to promote diversity and social justice (Leong et al., 2017). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The idea that the mind plays a significant role in bodily health has a long history, with a popular appeal grounded in the need for personal control. A century of research into the connections between the mind and body has its roots in both psychoanalysis and physiology. While Freud outlined the metaphorical concept of conversion, the notion of stress was central to giving the mind–body connection a physiological basis. Stress paved the way for postwar research into personality as a contributing factor to health outcomes. The results of this research have been relatively disappointing, however, exhibiting declining associations, albeit with some convergence. Recent physiologically oriented research implicating neurobiology, genetics, and the immune system has likewise undermined the suggestion that personality traits can directly cause disease. Nevertheless, wishful public understandings emphasizing the power of the mind over body and individual responsibility refuse to disappear, with some unfortunate consequences.

Housing in postwar America became a critical focal point for issues of race and social equality. Housing and race relations became a real-world laboratory for psychologists and other social scientists, including several of the leaders of Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, to examine developing theories of intergroup relations, especially as potential means to reduce prejudice. Further, it is argued that psychologists sought to impact emerging housing policy and to ameliorate an enduring social problem. The author concludes that the efforts by social scientists to provide workable solutions, typically from an unacknowledged place of White privilege, proved largely ineffective.

This article argues for the development of a historical perspective to help understand the process of indigenization in psychology. The indigenization of psychology in both the United States and India is shown to be part of larger social, economic, and political processes. A center and periphery model of knowledge production and praxes is deployed to show how practices of scientific imperialism are used to maintain the hegemony of the center. It is argued that historical approaches may be useful to challenge and counter such practices. Finally, the authors call for a polycentric history of psychology that will correspond to the emerging polycentrism exemplified in indigenous psychologies.

The rapid growth of post-World War II psychology in the United States led to intradisciplinary tensions and opportunities. In this article, I examine these tensions and opportunities in the context of social change from the 1950s through the present, attending specifically to the broad impact of federal funding on psychology. I argue that as psychology became a resource-rich field, it was forced to move from a narrow, parochial stance to a position as a national-level professional player that had to deal with the challenges of mixing science and practice, as well as meeting the demands of non-White psychologists at the national level. The impetus to create a more inclusive psychology has grown in the last three decades of the 20th century and has helped create possibilities for greater richness in American psychology and movement toward a truly international role vis-a-vis emergent psychologies around the world.

By 1980, the previously held dichotomy of Black and White racial identity in America had yielded to a mosaic of red, yellow, brown, black, and white. During the 1960s and 1970s, identity, and thus psychological knowledge, were articulated and differentiated in terms of gender, sexual orientation, and class in unprecedented ways. In this article, the author contextualizes efforts to make mainstream American psychology more receptive to ethnic minorities between 1966 and 1980. Advocacy and activism by ethnic minority psychologists forced American mainstream psychology to yield a place at the table to non-White, non-European individuals. He emphasizes the recruitment and retention of ethnic minority graduate students and faculty, and concludes that many individual psychologists were important in forcing changes in these areas.

In this chapter, the historical and theoretical foundations of the construct of resilience in North American social sciences are examined. Although the contemporary use of the term did not emerge until the 1960s, there is a longer tradition of theorizing on topics that are conceptually related to resilience. In the 1980s, research that shaped our contemporary understanding of resilience was conducted. Developmental scientists from various disciplines now dominate the field, resulting in a major focus on children and youth while leaving a noticeable gap in understanding resilience in adulthood. Implications for understanding refugee resiliency are discussed.

At its inception as a specialty within psychology in the first decades of the 20th century, the history of psychology was usually conceived as an extension of the history of philosophy, with perhaps some special attention given to the development of modern science. Within the last thirty years, the history of psychology has come of age and has become as diverse as its sprawling subject: historical studies have proliferated as psychologists’ activities have expanded and diversified. Alongside the original purpose of delineating the evolution of psychology from the historical roots of science, philosophy, medicine, and other intellectual traditions, recent histories of psychology have been very concerned with describing and explaining the social, organizational, and political context of psychological events and theories. Thus, the scholar of the history of any area of psychology would do well to become acquainted with other specialized literature not only of the specific area of psychology in which the historical events take place, but also of the political, social, and economic systems which condition them. Those with an interest in the history of any area of psychology which is not represented in any part of this necessarily selective article should adopt the attitude of confident pioneering which characterizes the leading historical scholarship in psychology today, school themselves in some basic techniques of historical investigation, and contribute to the further deepening and elaboration of our rich historical record. The timeframe of this article is the period from 1900 onward, mainly in the United States and Western Europe. This article contains a brief orientation and a section on the history of psychology as represented in Textbooks, classic and modern. There are also several sections expanding on the range of essential reference resources: Encyclopedias, Dictionaries, and Bibliographies; Compendia and Readers, along with collections of primary-source excerpts; Journals and blogs; Illustrations, Artifacts, and Archives; Timelines and Rankings of Eminence; Biography and Autobiography; and background about major Professional Organizations connected to the history of psychology. The philosophical context is represented by sections containing critiques of standard textbook history, sections that contextualize psychology’s history within the philosophy of science (see History and Philosophy of Science), a section on disciplinary taxonomy organized around the question of the Unity vs. Diversity of Psychology, and a section on several “crises” in 20th-century psychology. There is a selection of works surveying the transformation of psychology from science to applied technology (see the Transition from Science to Technology, 1880–1970). Histories of Subfields—theoretical and applied, with a special section on clinical psychology—are included, along with sections detailing the history of psychology in the contexts of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture as well as Gender. Finally, the section on Future Directions includes a selection of works pointing toward areas of potential future development in the field.

Among the scientific societies that proliferated across Europe and North America in the latter half of the 19th century were psychological societies and organizations. At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, there are well over 1,000 psychological associations, societies, or organizations. In this chapter, we provide a descriptive history of the development of organized psychology, beginning with international organizations, then moving to national, regional, and, finally, specialty organizations. We will not be exhaustive in our description; rather, we will attempt to be representative of the various types of psychological societies. Keywords: psychological organizations; scientific societies; international psychology; international psychological societies; specialty psychology organizations; history of psychology

A long tradition of thought and practice has asserted important connections between psychological states and physical health. The possible mechanisms or paths of influence may have changed over time and varied across locations, but humans have long believed that how they think and what they feel may be intimately linked to whether they are healthy or sick. This chapter focuses on those ideas and practices that led to this tradition’s eventual expression, in the late 20th century, in what came to be labeled health psychology. Beginning with developments in the mid to late 19th century, it tracks the convergence of thought and application that came together in the 20th century in a manner that made it possible to carve out a new area of disciplinary and professional expertise, that addressed health and disease from the perspective of the discipline of psychology.

W.E. Pickren, Foundations of Human Experience. F. Weizmann, B. Harris, Arnold Gesell: The Maturationist. A. Johnson, Florence L. Goodenough: Developmental Pioneer, Innovator, and Mentor. J. Valsiner, Heinz Werner: A Differentiation Theory of Development. R.H. de Freitas Campos, Helena Antipoff: A Quest for Democracy and Human Rights With the Help of Pscyhological Science. W.R. Woodward, Charlotte Buhler: Scientific Entrepreneur in Developmental, Clinical, and Humanistic Psychology. B.C. Beins, Jean Piaget: Theorist of the Child's Mind. A. Yasnitsky, Lev Vygotsky: Philologist and Defectologist, A Sociointellectual Biography. E. Johnston, Lois Barclay Murphy: A Pioneer of Positivity. M.M. Scott, Roger Barker: A Different Kind of Developmentalist. S.C. Oullette, Robert W. White: A Life in the Study of Lives. W.E. Pickren, Joseph McVicker Hunt: Golden Age Psychologist. E.K. Morris, Sidney W. Bijou: Outstanding (and Out Standing) in His Fields. D.A. Dewsbury, John Paul Scott: The Study of Genetics, Development, and Social Behavior. H.L. Pick, Eleanor J. Gibson: Learning to Perceive, Perceiving to Learn. A. Rutherford, Mamie Phipps Clark: Developmental Psychologist, Starting from Strengths. J.R. Snarey, Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral Biography, Moral Psychology, and Moral Pedagogy. W.E. Pickren, Eyes on the Prize: Psychologists and Human Development.

In American Samoa, a person may be said to be suffering from ma’ipopole or worry sickness if he/she becomes involved in a conflict that seems intractable to solution or, conversely, becomes very happy about an impending event. This worry sickness, which can take many forms, reflects the deep social interrelatedness of Samoan culture (Clement 1982).

In the summer of 2010 in Indonesia, the very first International Conference on Indigenous and Cultural Psychologies was held. The conference reflected the growth of psychology in many parts of the world, but it also reflected the perceived inadequacies of Western psychology for countries and cultures predicated upon different metaphysical assumptions about personhood and relationships. Thus, in a range of countries from India to Indonesia and beyond, there are systematic efforts to create psychologies anchored in local intellectual, philosophical, and spiritual traditions. This indigenization process is complex and takes many forms, from incorporation of Western practices refigured with local content to outright rejection of Western approaches in favor of methods and subject matter that are native to the culture at hand. The late Indian psychologist, Durganand Sinha, called these dual and often parallel processes, indigenization from without and indigenization from within (Sinha). The study of indigenous psychologies and their processes of indigenization is important for any effort to internationalize the psychology curriculum, although a full treatment is beyond the scope of this book and this chapter (see Pickren and Rutherford). Not only is indigenization of psychology important and interesting, there is also a great deal of liberatory and revolutionary potential in indigenous psychologies (Martin-Baro). Our efforts to expand and enrich the psychology curriculum in the USA depend on an understanding of the circulation of scientific knowledge and professional practice. No longer can it be that the flow of information and best practices only occur in one direction, from the USA outward to the rest of the world. I digress to offer a precis of the center and periphery model before returning to the need to incorporate multiple psychologies.

In response to the impact of globalization, Psychology has embarked upon a journey to internationalize the field. Beginning with a review of the impetus for such an internationalization movement, this chapter provides an historical review of the confluence of factors that have led to the current attempts to internationalize the psychology curriculum within the USA. This chapter provides the contextual background to the current volume which is aimed at supporting these efforts across the various subdisciplines of Psychology ranging from Developmental to Clinical Psychology.

Curricula in the history of psychology course have often been marked by a narrow emphasis on psychology as it developed in German and American contexts. In this chapter, the net is cast more widely to examine the history of psychology in multiple sites around the world. Examples are given of resources that are available to help broaden the course and deepen student understanding of the rich histories of the field as it has emerged in multiple national and cultural contexts. An argument is made that what is needed is not a singular history of psychology, but a multiplicity of histories in order to see more accurately how psychological science and practice grow in particular social and cultural contexts.

The advocates of the new psychology that emerged at the end of the 19th century were faced with a need to gain support from a public that was searching for a new basis for social and political order, yet was chary of any science identified with godless materialism. The first generation of American psychologists was faced with the dilemma of defining their approach as distinct from the old psychology while defusing public concern about the materialistic implications of their new science. Many of these new psychologists developed a rhetorical strategy of incorporating religious sentiment into their writing for the popular press. Their strategy emphasized the harmony of the new science with religious faith and stressed the moral qualities of psychological work.