SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AS A CRITIQUE
Lupicinio Íñiguez-Rueda (2003)
Summary:
At some point, social psychology lost its intellectual restlessness, which might explain why Henry Tajfel's statement in 1972 still
stands: "Social psychology has certainly not succeeded in creating an intellectual revolution in the sense of profoundly affecting
our view of human nature as, for example, Freud and Piaget have done for individual psychology."
After two decades of changes in the social sciences, with post-structuralism and the postmodern zeitgeist, social psychology has
focused on routine and short-sighted work, published in consolidated journals. Titles such as "The Management of Missing Values
in Trajectory Models for Opinions or Attitudes" and "The Impact of Overlapping Categorizations on Differentiation Between Social
Groups" are examples of research that seems disconnected from society's core concerns.
According to Gergen (1996), experimental research in social psychology is so far removed from the current dialogues of the so cial
sciences that it runs the risk of becoming an antiquarian's curiosity. Therefore, in this article we will review the characteristics of
the crisis in Social Psychology, diagnose its current situation, explore its roots, and offer a description of a critical way of
understanding this discipline.
THE "CRISIS" OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?
If we follow the chronology of Ibáñez (1990), 35 years have passed since the beginning of the "crisis of social psychology". For
some, it was a fad; for others, a bad passenger; and for a few more, a crucial turning point. For years, the specialized medi a
intensely debated the characteristics, scope, and possibilities of our discipline. This crisis became a space for reflection on what,
how and why of social psychology.
Opinions varied: some highlighted the lack of coherence in the discipline, others questioned social psychology as a whole, an d
others proposed substantial changes in scientific practices. These debates defined a space for reflection and agreed on some lines
of action.
Ibáñez (1990) highlighted both internal and external factors that explained the crisis. Externally, the social fractures of the 1960s,
the protest movements, the crisis of values and the changes in the world productive structure had an influence. In addition, the
debates, and criticisms of the dominant models in the social sciences profoundly affected social psychology.
Internally, the complexity and imprecision of social psychology and the routinization of experimental research led to a focus on
metatheoretical, epistemological, and methodological issues. The knowledge produced by social experimentation lacked
cumulative properties, psychosocial theories were incommensurable and unrefutable, and the high number of auxiliary
hypotheses in experimentation made it difficult to identify errors.
After this period of debate, an optimism arose in social psychology in the hope of a new way of understanding and practicing the
discipline. However, years later, the same problems persist, especially in European and North American social psychology. The
"discursivization" of the crisis has had a reifying and paralyzing effect, turning the crisis into a punctual event detached from the
present.
Despite the disappointment at the lack of reaction from the dominant structures, a certain heterodoxy managed to maintain the
vitality of the debate, albeit at the cost of exclusion and delegitimization.
CRITICISM OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
Following the most renowned journals in social psychology makes us reflect on the scope and limits of open debate and its
presumed consequences. This debate could be articulated around three themes: a) the current practice of social psychology and
its relationship with the debates that arose during "the crisis"; b) the plurality of social psychology; and c) the question of the
applicability of social psychology as a proposal.
THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
In the "resolution" of the crisis, a consensus was assumed on a number of issues. For example, it was recognized that the
experimental method was dysfunctional, creating contexts far removed from social realities. He also proposed to abandon research
1
Made by MatyBuda
, disconnected from social reality, supported by the authority of authors such as Serge Moscovici and Henry Tajfel. In addition , many
social psychologists committed themselves to thinking about social problems and contributing to their resolution, revalidati ng
commitments related to applicability and involvement in social transformation.
However, when evaluating psychosocial practices and theories for their effect on maintaining the status quo and social injustice,
the picture is not encouraging. The current situation in mainstream social psychology does not seem aligned with the conclusi ons
of the crisis, showing a fracture into three distinct approaches: an empiricist approach, a professional approach, and a
transdisciplinary approach.
EMPIRICIST APPROACH
An especially important part of academic social psychology, at least in Europe and the United States, is still based on the same
assumptions that gave rise to the "crisis". This part, which we can call "empiricist", is characterized by an intense and fev erish
production of data, mainly experimental, on specific aspects of behavior in social contexts. Often, a myriad of variables is studied
operationalized from micro models, often referred to as "theories."
Nigel Armistead expressed this situation very well in his book "The Reconstruction of Social Psychology" written almost 30 years
ago. His words are still relevant: "Conventional social psychology has been progressively moving away from the world it was
supposed to explain. Although he does not completely ignore the real-world subject matter, he treats it in a narrow and
conservative way, abstracting the problems from its social context. The world does not wait for social psychology; People's ideas
are changing and moving, and social psychology lags behind. If we want to understand the changing and moving world and its
values, we need to place our social psychology in a historical perspective. Conventional social psychology is often static in a double
sense: it ignores historical context and freezes the individual in time."
Armistead also pointed out: "When you combine the drive for general laws with a conception of the 'social' in terms of intera ction
between organisms and with the experimental laboratory method, you end up with a social psychology that systematically ignore s
the social context in which behavior occurs. That is the main reason psychological social psychology is at an impasse. With the best
of scientific intentions, it has been left stranded in its tracks by ignoring social contexts that should not be taken for granted."
PROFESSIONAL APPROACH
The professional approach defines a group of professionals who approach intervention from a social psychology perspective,
sometimes called "applied social psychology", also including "community social psychology" (Montero, 1994a). This approach is
hopeful because of its departure from conventional social psychology both theoretically and methodologically. As Tomás Ibáñez
and I (1996) have pointed out:
"'Practical' social intervention does not constitute an 'application' of theoretical knowledge. Today, Aristotle's reflection s on the
difference in nature between theoretical and practical knowledge are once again taken into sincere consideration. It is not the
same kind of rationality that operates in practical reason and in scientific reason, although both are equally rational. There is
knowledge and knowledge that are irreducibly practical and possess an autonomy and rationality that are their own. Therefore,
the social psychologist oriented towards social intervention is not in a subordinate relationship with respect to the social
psychologist oriented towards the production of scientific knowledge. It is the former's own practice, irreducible to any legislation
from the point of view of theory, which indicates what kind of theoretical production he or she can eventually use and in what
form."
Here, the role of social psychology is neither greater nor less than that of other disciplines and avoids any attempt to "technologize"
social psychology. The logic of daily work and the search for solutions to the most pressing social problems move away f rom the
"standard academic production" and produce an autonomous knowledge of extraordinary interest.
TRANSDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Transdisciplinarity is not just about connecting disciplines or collaborating with other sciences, but about removing the bou ndaries
between them. Ovejero (1999) describes it as follows:
"Interdisciplinarity calls for collaboration between different disciplines while maintaining their boundaries. Transdisciplin arity, on
the other hand, implies the suppression of borders, since they are artificial and limit knowledge about social reality."
Some practices of social psychology follow this transdisciplinary conception, which we could call "social psychology as critique".
This approach attempts to take on board the lessons of the "crisis" and place social psychology in a general space of the social
2
Made by MatyBuda
Lupicinio Íñiguez-Rueda (2003)
Summary:
At some point, social psychology lost its intellectual restlessness, which might explain why Henry Tajfel's statement in 1972 still
stands: "Social psychology has certainly not succeeded in creating an intellectual revolution in the sense of profoundly affecting
our view of human nature as, for example, Freud and Piaget have done for individual psychology."
After two decades of changes in the social sciences, with post-structuralism and the postmodern zeitgeist, social psychology has
focused on routine and short-sighted work, published in consolidated journals. Titles such as "The Management of Missing Values
in Trajectory Models for Opinions or Attitudes" and "The Impact of Overlapping Categorizations on Differentiation Between Social
Groups" are examples of research that seems disconnected from society's core concerns.
According to Gergen (1996), experimental research in social psychology is so far removed from the current dialogues of the so cial
sciences that it runs the risk of becoming an antiquarian's curiosity. Therefore, in this article we will review the characteristics of
the crisis in Social Psychology, diagnose its current situation, explore its roots, and offer a description of a critical way of
understanding this discipline.
THE "CRISIS" OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?
If we follow the chronology of Ibáñez (1990), 35 years have passed since the beginning of the "crisis of social psychology". For
some, it was a fad; for others, a bad passenger; and for a few more, a crucial turning point. For years, the specialized medi a
intensely debated the characteristics, scope, and possibilities of our discipline. This crisis became a space for reflection on what,
how and why of social psychology.
Opinions varied: some highlighted the lack of coherence in the discipline, others questioned social psychology as a whole, an d
others proposed substantial changes in scientific practices. These debates defined a space for reflection and agreed on some lines
of action.
Ibáñez (1990) highlighted both internal and external factors that explained the crisis. Externally, the social fractures of the 1960s,
the protest movements, the crisis of values and the changes in the world productive structure had an influence. In addition, the
debates, and criticisms of the dominant models in the social sciences profoundly affected social psychology.
Internally, the complexity and imprecision of social psychology and the routinization of experimental research led to a focus on
metatheoretical, epistemological, and methodological issues. The knowledge produced by social experimentation lacked
cumulative properties, psychosocial theories were incommensurable and unrefutable, and the high number of auxiliary
hypotheses in experimentation made it difficult to identify errors.
After this period of debate, an optimism arose in social psychology in the hope of a new way of understanding and practicing the
discipline. However, years later, the same problems persist, especially in European and North American social psychology. The
"discursivization" of the crisis has had a reifying and paralyzing effect, turning the crisis into a punctual event detached from the
present.
Despite the disappointment at the lack of reaction from the dominant structures, a certain heterodoxy managed to maintain the
vitality of the debate, albeit at the cost of exclusion and delegitimization.
CRITICISM OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
Following the most renowned journals in social psychology makes us reflect on the scope and limits of open debate and its
presumed consequences. This debate could be articulated around three themes: a) the current practice of social psychology and
its relationship with the debates that arose during "the crisis"; b) the plurality of social psychology; and c) the question of the
applicability of social psychology as a proposal.
THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
In the "resolution" of the crisis, a consensus was assumed on a number of issues. For example, it was recognized that the
experimental method was dysfunctional, creating contexts far removed from social realities. He also proposed to abandon research
1
Made by MatyBuda
, disconnected from social reality, supported by the authority of authors such as Serge Moscovici and Henry Tajfel. In addition , many
social psychologists committed themselves to thinking about social problems and contributing to their resolution, revalidati ng
commitments related to applicability and involvement in social transformation.
However, when evaluating psychosocial practices and theories for their effect on maintaining the status quo and social injustice,
the picture is not encouraging. The current situation in mainstream social psychology does not seem aligned with the conclusi ons
of the crisis, showing a fracture into three distinct approaches: an empiricist approach, a professional approach, and a
transdisciplinary approach.
EMPIRICIST APPROACH
An especially important part of academic social psychology, at least in Europe and the United States, is still based on the same
assumptions that gave rise to the "crisis". This part, which we can call "empiricist", is characterized by an intense and fev erish
production of data, mainly experimental, on specific aspects of behavior in social contexts. Often, a myriad of variables is studied
operationalized from micro models, often referred to as "theories."
Nigel Armistead expressed this situation very well in his book "The Reconstruction of Social Psychology" written almost 30 years
ago. His words are still relevant: "Conventional social psychology has been progressively moving away from the world it was
supposed to explain. Although he does not completely ignore the real-world subject matter, he treats it in a narrow and
conservative way, abstracting the problems from its social context. The world does not wait for social psychology; People's ideas
are changing and moving, and social psychology lags behind. If we want to understand the changing and moving world and its
values, we need to place our social psychology in a historical perspective. Conventional social psychology is often static in a double
sense: it ignores historical context and freezes the individual in time."
Armistead also pointed out: "When you combine the drive for general laws with a conception of the 'social' in terms of intera ction
between organisms and with the experimental laboratory method, you end up with a social psychology that systematically ignore s
the social context in which behavior occurs. That is the main reason psychological social psychology is at an impasse. With the best
of scientific intentions, it has been left stranded in its tracks by ignoring social contexts that should not be taken for granted."
PROFESSIONAL APPROACH
The professional approach defines a group of professionals who approach intervention from a social psychology perspective,
sometimes called "applied social psychology", also including "community social psychology" (Montero, 1994a). This approach is
hopeful because of its departure from conventional social psychology both theoretically and methodologically. As Tomás Ibáñez
and I (1996) have pointed out:
"'Practical' social intervention does not constitute an 'application' of theoretical knowledge. Today, Aristotle's reflection s on the
difference in nature between theoretical and practical knowledge are once again taken into sincere consideration. It is not the
same kind of rationality that operates in practical reason and in scientific reason, although both are equally rational. There is
knowledge and knowledge that are irreducibly practical and possess an autonomy and rationality that are their own. Therefore,
the social psychologist oriented towards social intervention is not in a subordinate relationship with respect to the social
psychologist oriented towards the production of scientific knowledge. It is the former's own practice, irreducible to any legislation
from the point of view of theory, which indicates what kind of theoretical production he or she can eventually use and in what
form."
Here, the role of social psychology is neither greater nor less than that of other disciplines and avoids any attempt to "technologize"
social psychology. The logic of daily work and the search for solutions to the most pressing social problems move away f rom the
"standard academic production" and produce an autonomous knowledge of extraordinary interest.
TRANSDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Transdisciplinarity is not just about connecting disciplines or collaborating with other sciences, but about removing the bou ndaries
between them. Ovejero (1999) describes it as follows:
"Interdisciplinarity calls for collaboration between different disciplines while maintaining their boundaries. Transdisciplin arity, on
the other hand, implies the suppression of borders, since they are artificial and limit knowledge about social reality."
Some practices of social psychology follow this transdisciplinary conception, which we could call "social psychology as critique".
This approach attempts to take on board the lessons of the "crisis" and place social psychology in a general space of the social
2
Made by MatyBuda
