In the 21st century, with growing awareness around mental health, and an increasing interest in psychology, we need to address some dark, and questionable aspects of the discipline.
I am a psychology student, but also a woman of colour. As aware as I am that currently, it is a female-dominated field, we need to acknowledge that the foundations of modern psychology link back to white men. White men came up with hypotheses and used white male subjects in their studies to draw conclusions. There were female subjects, but they were viewed from a sexist and misogynistic lens. Every school of psychology, and a majority of the theories; both pre and post-Freudian theories were established and verified by white men. They formed the basis of this discipline, and we rely on these to date.
Women like Anna Freud made it clear through their work and
contributions that women, in fact, lacked the space we required in the discipline. However, we need to acknowledge that present-day issues that come along with belonging to ethnic and marginalized social groups are much more complex.
Viewing what is supposedly the objective study of mind and behaviour only from a Eurocentric lens and applying it in Asian, Latin American, or African contexts is harmful. In fact, this leads to a loss of objectivity.
It has also led to the glorification of Individualism and criticism of Collectivism, which is central to many cultures. While there are negative aspects to both, we tend to hyperfocus only on the negative aspects of the latter. Collectivism isn’t inherently a bad thing. Humans are social beings, and we depend on each other. If anything, collectivism is only in consonance with human nature and our evolution.
This lack of representation and misrepresentation is much more harmful than we think, and contributes to internalized racism, colourism, and misogyny. How are we to make any progress as psychologists if we ourselves are not free of microaggressions and internalized stereotypes?
The very foundation of psychology is political, and you simply cannot separate the two.
Another controversial aspect of psychology is therapy; cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in particular. While it is very effective and preferred by many therapists, it does not take oppression trauma into consideration, and it wasn’t designed for individuals whose mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression are rooted in their oppression. We cannot try to restructure the thinking patterns (which is what CBT is designed to do) of a marginalised individual without addressing the systemic issue of oppression. That would be unethical. It is for this reason therapy is criticised by many left-wing individuals as you cannot therapize an individual to adjust to oppression without advocating for the overthrow of a system that allows oppression in the first place.
The structure of therapy is also elitist. When we think of a therapeutic setting, the first thing that comes to our mind is a client, probably from the working class, who is educated, able
to communicate with the therapist in English, and can afford it. This structure completely fails to acknowledge the population that cannot reach out to professionals, yet needs professional intervention.
According to the Psychiatric Times, a medical trade publication, the is strong evidence for a causal relationship between poverty and mental health.
“Findings suggest that poverty leads to mental health and developmental problems that in turn prevent individuals and families from leaving poverty, creating a vicious, intergenerational cycle of poverty and poor health.”
Quite often, individuals who need psychiatric attention the most, are the ones who are far from receiving it.
We as the next generation of therapists and psychologists have a role to play. The lack of intersectionality and accessibility needs to be taken into account, and worked upon. We as privileged working-class individuals owe our communities and other marginalised communities a lot more than we think.
this is great! i've never seen psycology from this point of view before!