COMMENTARY

CONFRONTING PSYCHOLOGY’S
POWER
Dennis Fox
University of Illinois–Springfield

Isaac Prilleltensky (this issue, pp. 116–136) seeks to make community

psychology a more effective force for social justice. His discussion of
psychopolitical validity raises a number of questions: How perfect must
the theoretical framework be to usefully oppose unjust power? In what
way is the notion of ‘‘psychopolitical validity’’ most useful? How might an
analysis of power apply to community psychology’s own institutions? Is
redirecting community psychology the most effective way to bring about
transformative social change, or is success more likely to come outside
psychology? Might more research aimed at understanding the mechan-
isms of oppression and liberation help oppressors more than liberators?
And how can critical psychologists move beyond critique to action? The
proposed framework will help facilitate social change only if community
psychology also changes itself. & 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Isaac Prilleltensky (this issue, pp. 116–136) directly challenges community psycholo-
gists: Put up or shut up. Well, maybe not ‘‘shut up,’’ exactly—he’s too polite for that.
But Isaac’s growing frustration with community psychology in particular and
psychology more generally has reached the point where he insists, with some urgency,
‘‘Time is short and the suffering vasty. If we continue to use our limited community
psychology resources only to ameliorate conditions and to tend to the wounded, who
will work to transform the very conditions that create exploitation and distress in the
first place?’’ He’s right, of course.
Still, this effort to redirect the field’s priorities—to move from amelioration to
transformation, from awareness to action—will discomfort not just those who suspect
the critical psychology agenda is more political than scientific, but also some whose
essential agreement with Isaac’s overall framework and goals is masked by the heavy
demands of their day-to-day jobs or studies. I don’t think Isaac enjoys making people

Correspondence to: Dennis Fox, P.O. Box 470783, Brookline, MA 02447-0783. E-mail: df@dennisfox.net

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, VOL. 36, NO. 2, 232–237 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
& 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20233
 Confronting Psychology’s Power  233

uncomfortable; I know he works hard to make his analyses and prescriptions palatable.
But making people uncomfortable is not all bad. For one thing, every revolutionary
endeavor causes the kind of discomfort that is necessary for change, though it doesn’t
guarantee it. For another, suspicion about critical psychology’s open political
commitments can, at times, lead to parallel suspicion about mainstream psychology’s
more hidden version.
The more important question raised by Isaac’s latest article—‘‘The Role of Power
in Wellness, Oppression, and Liberation: The Promise of Psychopolitical Validity’’—is
not whether the effort is ‘‘too political’’ or whether its theoretical framework is
sufficiently rigorous, but whether it will succeed. Will Isaac’s attempt help transform
community psychology and maybe even psychology more generally? Or, after
appropriate accolades, will most psychologists shunt it aside like they have so many
other efforts to move psychology from complacency and complicity through awareness
to action?
A decade ago, Isaac and I organized a conversation hour at the annual American
Psychological Association convention called ‘‘Will Psychology Pay Attention to its Own
Radical Critics?’’ (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1993). Why? We were both already aware that
in our own initial efforts to focus on psychology’s support for an unjust status quo
(Fox, 1985, 1993b; Prilleltensky, 1989, 1990) we routinely cited efforts by older or
more established psychologists whose work prefigured, and thus helped legitimize,
our own (e.g., Albee, 1982; Caplan & Nelson, 1973; Sarason, 1981). Indeed, many of
the articles upon which we relied were published, somewhat incongruously, in the
American Psychological Association’s primary journal, American Psychologist (for a list of
critical articles published in AP, see http://www.dennisfox.net/critpsy/americanpsycho-
logist.html). Dissatisfaction with what seemed our likely fate—publication in
prestigious journals, congratulatory letters, citation by others coming after us, but
not much institutional change—stimulated our interest in mulling this over with others
who wanted not just to publish, but to make a difference.
That 1993 APA session became the founding meeting of the Radical Psychology
Network (http://radpsynet.org). Since then, RadPsyNet has had a newsletter,
journal, Web site, listservs, and more, offering networking and moral support to
more than 300 psychologists, especially graduate students, in more than three
dozen countries (Fox, 2001). It also helped spur on the nascent North American
critical psychology movement (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997; Sloan, 2000). Yet despite all
this activity—new organizations and Web sites and journals and conferences, even a
few critical psychology degree programs outside the United States—it’s important to
keep in mind that psychology’s vast mainstream still pays little attention to its own
radical critics.
Although critical psychology’s critique has generated useful work in a number of
subdisciplines, community psychology—as Isaac implicitly acknowledges here and
elsewhere—is probably its most natural home. As I read Isaac’s latest effort to push
community psychology even further into critical work, several questions come to mind,
generally related to an overriding one: Will community psychology prove more open
than mainstream psychology to the insights of critical work? The questions are

1. How perfect must the theoretical framework be to usefully oppose unjust

power?
2. In what way is the notion of ‘‘psychopolitical validity’’ most useful?

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

234  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2008

3. How might an analysis of power apply to community psychology’s own

institutions?
4. Is redirecting community psychology the most effective way to bring about
transformative social change, or is success more likely to come outside
psychology?
5. Might more research aimed at understanding the mechanisms of oppression
and liberation help oppressors more than liberators?
6. How can critical psychologists move beyond critique to action?

These questions are worth pondering as part of our effort to make community
psychology more politically aware and politically effective. Of course, each question
generates others.
How Perfect Must the Theoretical Framework Be to Usefully Oppose Unjust Power?
Isaac’s framework is exceedingly useful as a means of generating ideas, assessing the
adequacy of power-related research and interventions, and directing attention to
neglected areas. It is useful despite its somewhat arbitrary details, and we should be
wary of endless debates over flexible specifics. For example, Isaac’s definition of power
refers to the tripartite power to strive for wellness, to oppress, and to resist oppression
and pursue liberation. These all make sense, but could easily be reworked into a two-
part definition without losing explanatory power: the power to strive for wellness, and,
because the other two appear to be mirror images, the power to oppress or resist
oppression. Or we could add something like the power to foster equality, or make
other terminology adjustments. Similarly, referring to power as the ability and
opportunity to fulfill or obstruct personal, relational, or collective needs builds on
Isaac’s three-value model (Prilleltensky, 1997). But although that model has already
proven useful, its specifics too are adaptable. For example, adding the middle
relational category to the age-old division of values and needs into the individual and
the community offers practical direction for psychologists focused on mid-level
interactions, but doesn’t seem absolutely necessary for theoretical harmony. A parallel
point: Isaac’s emphasis on addressing all three levels in a balanced way complements
centuries of philosophical musing on the individual/society divide as well as
psychological thinking about the importance of institutional change to better balance
‘‘the duality of human existence’’ (Bakan, 1966; see also Fox, 1985, 1993a, for
applicability of anarchist theory to the autonomy/community relationship).
I’m not at all suggesting we should spend endless time trying to nail down
theoretical niceties. To the contrary, Isaac’s proposed theoretical framework will prove
exceedingly constructive just as it is, in large part precisely because it is built on a large
supportive literature. That’s what makes it so significant, and what gives it
psychopolitical validity.

In What Way Is the Notion of ‘‘Psychopolitical Validity’’ Most Useful?

Is psychopolitical validity proposed as an addition to other forms of validity, so that
(for example) research that is psychopolitically invalid should be rejected by funding
sources, dissertation committees, journal editors, etc.? Or is the goal simply a less
formal reminder to researchers, teachers, consultants, and the like to keep in mind the
psychology and politics of power? If the latter, does using the technical term validity

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Confronting Psychology’s Power  235

stand in the way of adoption beyond the relatively narrow segment of psychologists
already attuned to issues of power? Are some phenomena unrelated to power worth
studying? Might formal insistence on psychopolitical validity simply cause those with
other priorities to add a pro forma paragraph to their research proposals that treats
the subject superficially, offering the appearance of psychopolitical relevance without
the reality?

How Might an Analysis of Power Apply to Community Psychology’s Own Institutions?

More than in many other fields, in community psychology there is great awareness of,
and formal opposition to, abuses of power facilitated by sexism, racism, homophobia,
class inequality, and other similar forms of oppression and privilege. Do community
psychology’s institutions—graduate school, professional organizations, conferences,
journals, etc.—live up to the field’s ideals? Are they open to the kind of changes
community psychologists advocate for other institutions? How do community
psychology’s professors mesh their own ideals with typical academic and career
pressures? Can graduate students easily pursue innovative and potentially transfor-
mative research and action and survive their training with dignity intact, or are their
concerns channeled and dampened by stultifying professional and academic norms
(Ehrenfels, 2004; for discussion: http://www.fireflysun.com/book/16PointsMemo.php;
Illich et al., 1977; Schmidt, 2000)?

Is Redirecting Community Psychology the Most Effective Way to Bring About

Transformative Social Change, or Is Success More Likely to Come Outside Psychology?
Psychologists already working in the field have many reasons to stick to what they are
doing, both personal (changing careers isn’t all that easy) and political (psychology uses
its power to sustain an unjust status quo, so confronting that power remains
important). But should students who want to change the world study something else
instead? Indeed, given the common moderating effects of any professional education
(Schmidt, 2000), might would-be activists do better to drop out of school entirely and
simply sign on to one or another political activist group?

Might More Research Aimed at Understanding the Mechanisms of Oppression and

Liberation Help Oppressors More Than Liberators?
How can psychology generate effective tools designed to combat oppression and
enhance liberation without unintentionally aiding power holders who might use those
same tools to dampen opposition and maintain the status quo? After all, they run
government and corporate institutions with huge resources to counter anything we
come up with. And they hire a lot of psychologists.

How Can Critical Psychologists Move Beyond Critique to Action?

Community and other psychologists have tried for many years to direct attention to
the issues Isaac raises here. How can we ensure that this time the outcome will go
beyond applause and lip service? Which institutional practices must we reform? Which
institutions must we replace? How will we get the power to make the changes we want?

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

236  Journal of Community Psychology, March 2008

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Isaac Prilleltensky’s article is most important for its careful blending of literatures that
point to the neglected role of power in community psychology research. He notes that
the psychology and politics of power have generally been treated separately, though
this is only partly the case. It is especially so in traditional research that applies
supposedly ‘‘value-free’’ techniques to various dynamics of power. Social psychology in
particular has done its best to depoliticize politically crucial issues at the individual/
society interface. However, there are many exceptions, a number of which Isaac notes
in passing. Politically tinged psychological work has addressed facets of power,
oppression, liberation, obedience, ideology, repression, justice, legitimacy, competi-
tion, and other important topics, using a wide range of styles, concepts, and intellectual
traditions (e.g., Cohen, 1989; Fox, 1999; Fromm, 1955; Jost & Major, 2001; Kelman &
Hamilton, 1989; Kohn, 1986; Lerner, 1986; Martı́n-Baró, 1994; Reich, 1942/1970;
Sarason, 1976; Wachtel, 1983). Similarly, political theory has widely incorporated
relevant psychological concepts: for example, alienation and false consciousness
(Marx, 1963), Black rage (Grier & Cobbs, 1968), the hidden injuries of class (Sennett &
Cobb, 1972), and blaming the victim (1971). Fortunately, psychologists aiming for
social justice already have much ammunition. We don’t have to start from scratch.
What Isaac does here is not so much make links between psychology and politics
that have previously gone unnoticed, but organize those links in a manner likely to be
useful to community psychologists seeking practical ways to proceed. The proposed
framework can help direct work aimed at institutional change in the larger society—
‘‘to create spaces in communities, government, clinics, schools, families, workplaces,
classrooms, and society at large where this delicate balance among personal, relational,
and collective needs can be pursued’’ (Prilleltensky, this issue, pp. 116–136). But to
succeed, as Isaac Prilleltensky well recognizes—to create a Ph.D. in social change—we
first need institutional change within community psychology itself.

REFERENCES

Albee, G.W. (1982). Preventing psychopathology and promoting human potential. American
Psychologist, 37, 1043–1050.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Caplan, N., & Nelson, S. (1973). On being useful: The nature and consequences of psychological
research on social problems. American Psychologist, 28, 199–211.
Cohen, R.L. (1989). Fabrications of justice. Social Justice Research, 3, 31–46.
Ehrenfels, J.W. (2004). Fireflies in the shadow of the sun. Salt Lake City: American Book
Publishing Group.
Fox, D.R. (1985). Psychology, ideology, utopia, and the commons. American Psychologist, 40,
48–58.
Fox, D.R. (1993a). The autonomy–community balance and the equity-law distinction: Anarchy’s
task for psychological jurisprudence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 97–109.
Fox, D.R. (1993b). Psychological jurisprudence and radical social change. American Psychologist,
48, 234–241.
Fox, D.R. (1999). Psycholegal scholarship’s contribution to false consciousness about injustice.
Law and Human Behavior, 23, 9–30.

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop

 Confronting Psychology’s Power  237

Fox, D. (2001). Organizing critical psychologists: The RadPsyNet experience. Radical

Psychology Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from http://www.radpsynet.org/journal/
vol2-2/fox.html
Fox, D.R., & Prilleltensky, I. (1993, August). Will psychology pay attention to its own radical
critics? Conversation hour conducted at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved, from the Dennis Fox Web site:
http://www.dennisfox.net/papers/rad-crits.html
Fox, D., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (1997). Critical psychology: An introduction. London: Sage.
Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York: Fawcett.
Grier, W., & Cobbs, P. (1968). Black rage. New York: Basic.
Illich, I., Zola, I. K., McKnight, J., Caplan, J., & Shaiken, H. (1977). Disabling professions.
London: Marion Boyars.
Kelman, H.C., & Hamilton, V.L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of
authority and obedience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jost, J.T., & Major, B. (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology,
justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, M. (1986). Surplus powerlessness: The psychodydynamics of everyday life and the
psychology of individual and social transformation. Oakland, CA: Institute for Labor and
Mental Health.
Martı́n-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Marx, K. (1963). Early writings (T.B. Bottomore, trans. and ed.). London: Watts.
Prilleltensky, I. (1989). Psychology and the status quo. American Psychologist, 44, 795–802.
Prilleltensky, I. (1990). Enhancing the social ethics of psychology: Toward a psychology at the
service of social change. Canadian Psychology, 31, 310–319.
Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Values, assumptions, and practices: Assessing the moral implications of
psychological discourse and action. American Psychologist, 47, 517–535.
Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of
psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 116–136.
Reich, W. (1970). The mass psychology of fascism. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. [Original
work published 1942].
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.
Sarason, S.B. (1976). Community psychology and the anarchist insight. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 4, 243–261.
Sarason, S.B. (1981). Psychology misdirected. New York: Free Press.
Schmidt, J. (2000). Disciplined minds: A critical look at salaried professionals and the soul-
battering system that shapes their lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sennett, R., & Cobb, J. (1972). The hidden injuries of class. New York: Vintage Press.
Sloan, T. (Ed.). (2000). Critical psychology: Voices for change. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan Press.
Wachtel, P.L. (1983). The poverty of affluence: A psychological portrait of the American way of
life. New York: Free Press.

Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop