Psychology and Social Class a possible way forward

 Welcome to the final part of the series on social class and psychology which contains the concepts I will be writing about for the new Jones, Elcock and Tyson book. In the first two parts I looked at why psychology should care about social class, and how and why this might have come about.

To some extent the sort of social outcomes in the UK that we see are typical of groups that are being discriminated against, poorer health outcomes, poorer educational outcomes and more involvement in the criminal justice system. However, especially in the current political climate, there are advantages (for politicians and those who gain by oppressing the working class) to blaming the individuals affected for the discrimination they face.

Walsh and Gokani (2014) end their Marxist analysis by stating that psychologists shouldn't try and engage in struggles for social justice as psychologists, as the position of being a psychologist is too compromised.

In sum, many psychologists believe that our discipline can contribute to social justice. We are skeptical. Although occasionally psychologists have been a force for emancipation, for example, in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision on school segregation (Herman, 1995), we have tended to enact the role of “arm-chair radicals” rather than engaging collectively in solidarity with marginalized peoples to overcome injustice and achieve freedom and dignity for all.

(Walsh & Gokani, 2014, p52)

So is there a way that psychologists, as psychologists can be more than armchair radicals.

One possible way forward is given by the work of Stoudt, Fox and Fine (2012). This involved how young people were being treated in New York city, rather than social class. But the project is a good example of how psychologists could get involved in genuine participatory and emancipatory research. The project was called Polling for Justice (PFJ)

Drawing upon and extending the participatory commitments of Kurt Lewin’s action research (Torre & Fine, 2011), PFJ was conceived and implemented by a broad based research collective including traditionally recognized experts (e.g., PhD researchers, public health specialists, lawyers), as well as a diverse group of youth activists and students (e.g., from private schools, General Educational Development (GED) programs, immigrants, youth identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or queer/questioning (LGBTQ), formerly incarcerated youth, young people who had intimate knowledge of foster care/homeless shelters). (Stoudt, Fox & Fine, 2012 p180)

The creation of the research collective is key here, the people being discriminated against are trained to do research into the phenomena, rather than psychologists holding tight to their expertise. Another point is that as part of the research collective other academics from outside of psychology were brought in. Finally there were a range of outcomes:

Our products (e.g., academic papers, expert testimony, organizing brochures, testimony for city council, youth performances) were created for varied purposes from theory reconstruction and critique of “adolescence” in the social sciences to organizing campaigns and public policy debates on the criminalization of youth. In the end and all throughout, opportunities were sought to design and engage critical inquiry, by researchers who imported distinct forms of knowledge and expertise, to challenge, resist, critique and transform conditions of injustice. (p180)

Of course this might be easier to talk about than to do.