Why Psychology has (mostly) ignored Social Class

Until some very recent work by feminist psychologists with an interest in intersectionality there has been a near complete absence of work on social class in USA based psychology. In the UK there has been some work (most notably by Michael Argyle)on social class, but that which has been produced reminds me of the early work in 'Race' Psychology and gender difference research, trying to show differences on a range of psychological phenomena 'caused' by social class. While there has been some work outside of anglophone psychology (some Russian and German work as well as Liberation Psychology work). So after considering why social class might be of interest to psychologists in the last blog post in this post I am going to look at a couple of stories about why social class has been neglected.

A Marxist Perspective

Walsh & Gokani (2014), in a paper in the Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology present a Marxist analysis.

Walsh and Gokani point out that while psychologists often invoke the concept of social justice when talking about issues like racism, gender stereotyping and homophobia that they consistently ignore one threat to social justice, inequality based on wealth and social class. Psychologists are thus being inconsistent with regard to social justice, only applying it to some forms of oppression but not all forms. One of the main reasons for this is that psychologists tend not to define social justice aims in relation to the concrete political-economic structures. Instead the focus tends to be on the individual who discriminates, rather than a system which (at times) encourages discrimination against particular groups. They go on to suggest that psychologists (at least in mainstream anglophone psychology) are reluctant to reality test their theories with political engagement and the creation of an emancipatory (social) psychology. Finally psychologists are unwilling to view themselves as part of a privileged group, and so act from the point of view of upholding (certain) social divisions rather than tackling them.

Walsh & Gokani contend that this is, at least in part, because psychology has sort alliances with the nation state in order to help build the prestige of psychology. This can be seen with the effort of psychologists in the USA to help the state during both world wars (and alliances with the military beyond that). And the way that in the early history of psychology in the USA the way that the promise of practical applications, both for government and business, led to an alliance with those whose privilege is maintained by exploiting the working class.

Citing from Herman (1995) Walsh and Gokani (2014) that psychologists make no distinction between service to the state, employment by government, social responsibility and advancement of the science and the discipline.

This limits the potential of psychology and psychologists to contribute towards social justice, except in the ways useful to early 21st century capitalism. To some extent this is reflected in the relative lack of research into the impact of socioeconomic conditions on psychological functioning. Walsh and Gokani describe this as a taboo in a North American context. It is less true in a UK and European setting.

While I have some sympathy for this approach I don't think it provides a good enough account of how and why psychology became interested in tackling issues of racism when and how it did (although it does account for some of the impetus to post world war two work), and I think they way that heteronormativity was tackled also provides a challenge for the Marxist perspective. While I do think that the story of how psychology allied with the state is worth telling with a slightly different spin.

The constituencies approach

Richards in the summary to his 1997 book on ‘Race’ Racism and Psychology offers up some assumptions about psychology and the nature of historical change in psychology.

1. Psychology as a discipline is a product of the ‘psychologies’ of those within it; thus, psychology is necessarily reflexive in character.
2. Psychologists represent specific constituencies in the discipline’s host societies, and until the mid-20th century, these were predominantly white, male and middle- or upper class.  While there has always been a degree of heterogeneity within this group, this was a restricted sample of the constituencies in society as a whole.

The constituencies approach is powerful in dealing with how and why psychologists became self aware of the racism within the discipline in the 1930s. It also help explain how this changed with the changing nature of who were psychologists in the 1950s and 1960s and onwards. As I mused in the last post it may be that even when higher education becomes more open to people of lower social class (which it arguably has become, although with various caveats in the UK since new fees regimes) the socialisation processes of higher education make it difficult for someone to remain working class if they become part of the academia or psychology professions.

The historical evidence of alliances with the state, the striving for a particular sort of practical psychology remain the same, as does the neglect of work about social class.

I think that the consequences that Richards suggest still hold true, especially for work on social class.

1. As Psychology is one of the social arenas in which the psychological issues affecting a host society are formulated, discussed and (temporarily) resolved the historical changes within the discipline both reflect and help constitute the change itself.
2. The psychological issues facing a particular constituency can only be addressed within Psychology in a fashion, which is satisfactory for the members of that constituency only, insofar as it is itself represented with the discipline.
3. Conversely, excluded constituencies can only be considered, by the discipline at the time, in terms of their psychological significance for those included.

And while the working class remains either excluded from the profession and academic psychology or are made into the middle class by the socialisation processes of becoming a psychologist then the working class are liable to be only considered in terms of the psychological significance of 'them' by us.

The final part will be to suggest some ways of possible engagement with issues around social class that try to do more than just reinforce current oppressions.