Talk:Indigenous psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KMONET777 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chasemilan, Tammytrinh.

Criticism: Benefits and Risks of a Global Psychology

Thomas Kuhn, in his essay, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962/1970), argues that when a science is operating in a paradigm, it is in the first stage of a revolution. In this stage, new and old questions are evaluated and researched in a manner that supports the dominant paradigm. This continues until the appearance of an anomaly challenges the dominant way of researching and interpreting the data. A crisis follows. The “dominant” paradigm is replaced by a new one and remains in power until the next revolution occurs (Lawson, Graham, and Baker 2007). Currently, Western psychology is undertaking an effort to analyze and incorporate indigenous psychologies of Latin America, South Africa, and India-Asia. Since these areas have a long history of political and social instability, their contributions to the history of psychology have been ignored, marginalized, or misinterpreted from a Western perspective. Thus, the current paradigm of Western historiography is challenged. An illustration of how a paradigm can have limitations is elucidated by Tilly’s article How (and What) Are Historians Doing? Tilly argues that the six traits of Western history-writing are, “not likely to discover principles that apply across large ranges of space and time, to make much headway in analyzing processes that leave few written traces, or to have great success in dealing with social changes that operate through the cumulation of diverse actions by millions of actors” (93). The time and space problem within the history of psychology is the two dominant methods of historiography: the naturalistic and personalistic orientations. The naturalistic method focuses on the “spirit and time” of the place. The personalistic method emphasizes the individual contributions of “heroic” persons. Moreover, both methods exclude institutions (Lawson, Graham, and Baker 2007). Excluding institutions leaves the institutional processes unexamined and, in many cases, the historical neglect of women, minorities, and marginalized groups contributions to the history of psychology. Within the Western nations, the institutional processes presented special barriers for marginalized groups such as women and minorities in the following institutions: education, family, marriage, and networking (ibid). A new history of psychology is going to require the inclusion of historically neglected individuals and groups—especially indigenous nations in which their psychologies developed amid social and political strife or instability. These types of situations necessitated an applied orientation (Lawson, Graham, and Baker 2007: 436). In developing indigenous psychologies, “special attention is given to the historical and current state of formal governmental and educational institutions as well as to the impact of social needs of the nation and culture(s) upon the field of psychology” (Lawson, Graham, and Baker 2007: 434). Studying indigenous institutions will help formulate a more global psychology. In studying indigenous institutions, commonalities across nations, space, and time will emerge. However, in order to make headway, psychologists need to change the way data is interpreted in order to incorporate indigenous psychologies into a global psychology. According to Furumoto (1988) that is exactly how a new history of psychology evolved in the United States (cited in Lawson, Graham, and Baker 2007). The first and second stages consist of compensatory history in which the past is examined to identify historically neglected individuals or groups and their contributions to the history of psychology. The third stage examines their unique histories, which is the current focus of the new “global psychology” that has emerged (ibid). The benefits of a global psychology would include the merging of Western and Eastern psychologies and the inclusion of indigenous psychologies to form a meta-psychology. Naturally, this would improve the field of psychology, globalize its theories, and form a more comprehensive psychology with a universal application if necessary or a more sensitive psychology that is culturally appropriate and helpful. Furthermore, there are potential pitfalls to a global psychology. Psychology, in particular, the movement to acquire indigenous psychologies is fraught with potholes that can only be describes as possible sinkholes for those they are supposed to assist: indigenous cultures. Disregarding the incorrect application of Western psychologies as harmful, psychology in America has a long history of abuse. That is, applied psychology within the United States has been used in unethical manners (for instance, following 9/11). It is a moral imperative to psychologists as ethical researchers and practitioners to ensure that such knowledge is not abused. Failure to protect the vulnerable and common man against psychological terrorism is a breach of the American Psychological Association’s code of ethics and contrary to International Humanitarian Law. Preventing this type of event from occurring is going to require a paradigm shift in how we interpret indigenous psychologies and thus develop our new “global psychology.”

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Rev. ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962). Furumoto, L. (1988). The new history of psychology. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.

Lawson, R. J. (2007). A History of Psychology: Globalization, Ideas, and Applications. Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tilly, C. C. (1990). How (and What) Are Historians Doing? American Behavioral Scientist, 33 (6), 685-711.

References

Indigenous Psychology

My undergraduate major was Native American Studies and I know there are works by American Indians which deal with Native American psychology.

The authors should read works by American Indians to have a better understanding of their subject. I can recommend the book "Native American Post-Colonial Psychology" by Eduardo and Bonnie Duran, as well as many books by Vine Deloria, Jr. All three authors have Ph.D.'s and have taught in major universities. And all are American Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.232.63 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)