Political Psychology as Discipline and Resource

Abstract

Around the 1960s, political psychology was developed as a field of knowledge that attempted to interrelate scientific psychology and political phenomena. However, social and academic conditions are very different today. More and more, political psychology is becoming a protagonist, as much in the internal context of psychology as in the external context of its relations with the social world. Thus, political psychology can now be seen as a resource relating psychological knowledge to social practice, and relating psychological processes to social action. Political psychology is the interface that puts psychology and society in contact. The development of political psychology in Spain provides an example of this alternative view of the field. KEY WORDS: political psychology, discipline, resource, correspondence, democratization of knowledge.It has become increasingly clear that the activities and concerns of political psychologists not only depend on their geographic and scientific location, but also vary considerably over time. As a result, space and time are two essential coordinates for interpreting both content and meaning in the field of political psychology (Garzón, 1988). In this context, it is useful to draw a distinction between two ways of understanding political psychology. The first defines it as a field of knowledge, with the emphasis on empirical and cumulative investigation of a particular set of themes. The second sees it as an activating resource, fostering a productive relationship between psychological inquiry and social practice, between psychological processes and social action. From this latter standpoint, political psychology becomes the interface that connects psychology and society (McGuire, 1993;Seoane, 1995).Until recently, political psychology was primarily a field of knowledge, consisting of a theoretical corpus, a self-justifying methodology, and a circumscribed set of topics. Theory and research were applicable to political issues within society, but psychologists themselves were not typically engaged in political

Narrative as a Root Metaphor for Political Psychology

“…But this information also represents a resource for political psychologists who wish to illustrate the injustice of war and conflict on individual lives, for the life stories of young Israelis and Palestinians are constructed within the continued conflict that obstructs possibilities for youth. As Garzón Pérez (2001) illustrates in her discussion of the development of political psychology in Spain, this role of political psychology as resource is linked to a historical analysis of political phenomena—precisely the kind of analysis that a narrative approach assumes. Thus, in the tradition of action research in social psychology (Lewin, 1946), there is a need to produce knowledge that can go beyond mere explanation or interpretation toward practical utility in the interests of social change (see also Marx, 1888/1978).…”

“…Political psychology thus benefits from conceptual integration of the idea of narrative not solely for the increased theoretical clarity and cross-disciplinary conversations it affords, but also for the ability of narrative to illustrate a paradigmatic approach that links knowledge to action. That is, a narrative approach speaks to political psychology as both "field of knowledge" and "resource" (Garzón Pérez, 2001) in its provision of key information about the reciprocal relationship between discourse and subjectivity that might be used as a resource for social change.…”