“We must convert widespread mental health problems from medicalized conditions into effective antagonisms. Affective disorders are forms of captured discontent; this disaffection can and must be channeled outwards, directed toward its real cause, Capital”

(Fisher, 2008, p.84)

With this article, Global Project launches a new Critical Psychology column aimed at exploring the revolutionary frontiers of psychology and its role in understanding the intersection between the personal and the political. We will attempt to do so with articles, interviews, reviews, and contributions from psychology students and professionals working in the field of psychology and service users, shedding light on the challenges that an organized community such as ours is facing at this time.

While psychology is contemporarily thought of as the scientific study of the human mind we have come to know it rather as a field through which knowledge about human beings can be weaponized for the benefit of those in positions of power.

Critical psychology is a radical alternative to traditional psychology that challenges dominant structures and ideologies in both the academic discipline and professional practice. Behind the façade of empiricism, critical positions in psychology are often marginalized and subject to taboos because they challenge the established order of the academic and institutional system. This does not only affect students and professionalists in the field but has direct consequences on the whole society as the academic community exerts enormous influence on public opinion, easily handling the ideas, practices, and norms of the entire population.

Today, in a society where the demand for psychotherapy is increasing, we are seeing a rise in diagnoses and prescriptions.  This “boom” is inevitably driven by increasingly hostile environments all around us, which constantly restrict the definition of what is a “normal” being and force us to name our needs through labels where we otherwise might not have had to. At the same time, we are critical of a portion of abolitionist bourgeois critical psychology, that deems every label or prescription as harmful while offering no alternative to the people struggling.

Through this column, our goal is to examine how economic and political structures profoundly influence the human psyche, which we do not see as a fixed, neutral entity, but as a product of social interactions under historically determined conditions. On the other hand, we also deem as necessary a reflection on the very epistemological foundations of psychological knowledge. Psychiatry and psychology cannot be reformed through legislation, where change remains localized and revocable at any time, but they must be assessed critically as disciplines that developed contingently with a capitalist system, and as such, they have become tools of surveillance, normalization, and profit.

Considering psychology, as all sciences, “objective” knowledge about humans opens up dangerous instrumentalizations of psychological knowledge, which historically has often been used in the service of oppression of marginalized people or to justify discriminatory measures and rights violations. For instance, IQ (Intelligence Quotient) has historically been used to legitimize social hierarchies and inequalities, including scientific racism and eugenics (Teo, 2024). Moreover, resistance has always been subject to psychiatrization, one need only recall the “Puerto Rican syndrome” or the construction of Black men as psychotic for speaking out against racial injustice during the Civil Rights Movement, which led to the overdiagnosis of schizophrenia in Black men (Logan & Carter, 2022). It is no coincidence that the boundary between resistance and mental illness has often been deliberately blurred; individuals frequently labeled as “mad” and relegated to passive roles can, through collective organization, emerge as active agents of antagonism and transformative change.

To date, the primary aim of psychology and its applications appears to emphasize personal growth and the cultivation of positive affect as fundamental objectives of the self (Adams et al., 2019). Simultaneously, coercive therapies have been elevated to “gold standard” status only to be subsequently commercialized, as seen in the case of ABA (Applied Behavioral Analysis) therapy in Europe, where governments have actively impeded parents from accessing funding for ABA-based treatments (Keenan et al., 2010; Roberts, 2018). In the recent Italian context, just three months ago, Fratelli d’Italia introduced the DDL Zaffini, which outlines objectives such as the prevention of mental health issues and the safety of mental health professionals, while also aiming to identify “residential solutions suitable to the needs of individuals” with mental disorders “within public housing accommodations.” In a legislative proposal that stands in stark contrast to the Basaglian legacy in Italy, this narrative appears nothing but opportunistic, seeking to obscure the true issues plaguing Italy’s psychiatric system—namely, the reduction in community-based interventions in favor of inpatient and pharmacological treatments, a shortage of personnel and resources, and the increasing trend toward a securitarian approach in psychiatry. In its preventive and repressive intent, albeit in different areas of application, one cannot fail to notice a synergistic alignment with the recently approved DDL 1660 by the Chamber of Deputies. After all, psychiatrization can function as a political process insofar as it is shaped by both private and public actors who exercise political authority to define concepts of both normalcy and social order in ways that align with or advance their own interests and values.

In the face of this state of affairs, we would like to devote this space to reasoning about some issues that we still feel the need to dissect, as psychology cannot afford to claim neutrality.

We must recognize that the intersections of psychology, mental health, politics, and power are not merely theoretical constructs but deeply embedded realities that shape the human experience. The complexities of the human psyche cannot be reduced only to the clinical diagnostic categories or commercialized therapies that currently dominate the field. Instead, we must strive to cultivate a psychology that is reflexive, critical, and deeply aware of its own historical and ideological contingencies. As Mark Fisher articulated in his seminal work “Capitalist Realism”:

“If it is true, for instance, that depression is constituted by low serotonin levels, what still needs to be explained is why particular individuals have low levels of serotonin. This requires a social and political explanation; and the task of repoliticizing mental illness is an urgent one if the left wants to challenge capitalist realism.” (2008, p. 41).

As we open this new Critical Psychology column, we do so with the intention of challenging the status quo, unraveling the entanglements between psychological knowledge and systems of control, and fostering a space for radical rethinking.

References 

Adams, G., Estrada‐Villalta, S., Sullivan, D., & Markus, H. R. (2019). The psychology of neoliberalism and the neoliberalism of psychology. Journal of social issues, 75(1), 189-216.

Fisher, M. (2008). Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books.

Keenan, M., Dillenburger, K., Moderato, P., & Röttgers, H. R. (2010). Science for sale in a free market economy: but at what price? ABA and the treatment of autism in Europe. Behavior and Social Issues, 19, 126-143. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v19i0.2879

Logan, J., & Karter, J. M. (2022). Psychiatrization of resistance: the co-option of consumer, survivor, and ex-patient movements in the global south. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, 784390.

Roberts, J. (2023, July 13). Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Therapist Neurodiversity Collective. Retrieved from https://therapistndc.org/applied-behavior-analysis-aba/

Teo, T. (2024). Subjectivity and method: Why psychology needs more armchair scholarship. Theory & Psychology, 34(3), 347-361.