From “good” science to science that does good
From “good” science to science that does good
How activists transform psychological research into revolutionary praxis.
One of my goals is to help people recognize how social justice activists effectively seize existing systems and transform them into vehicles for revolution. Anything that possesses the tiniest semblance of legitimacy is a potential (albeit often temporary) tool, and it should come as no surprise that counseling and psychology, with their privileged, confidential access to people and state-granted professional privileges, are primary targets.
To illustrate this subversion, I want to walk through a paper published this year in the American Psychological Association’s (APA) peer-reviewed academic journal, American Psychologist, in its special issue on “dismantling racism in the field of psychology and beyond.”[1] Here, you will see how activists use epistemology to transform research from a truth-seeking endeavor (“good science”) into revolutionary praxis (“science that does good”).
Entitled “Research as Resistance: Naming and Dismantling the Master Narrative of ‘Good’ Science’” (Rogers, Moffitt, McLean, & Syed, 2024), the paper “traces the historical links between postpositivist epistemology and the ideology of white supremacy in psychological science” to show that “epistemological norms about what is (and is not) ‘good’ science” must be overcome by “humanizing epistemologies” that “resist this harmful master narrative.”
As we go through this, I want to remind people that this is not just some random paper for academics that means nothing to people outside of the Ivory Tower. This is the grounding that underlies training, state licensure, professional standards, authority, etc., meaning that it is a glimpse into how the ‘mental health’ field in its entirety is transformed into a vehicle for Communist praxis.
I ask you to please consider what this looks at scale, including clinically with vulnerable individuals seeking help.
First, they position their critique within the context of the ongoing self-immolation of psychology, citing the APA’s “historic apology” and seeking of amends for the field’s alleged contribution to systemic inequalities, requiring “a critical acknowledgment that science itself is not neutral but a sociopolitical and ideological endeavor.”
Note the subversive framing here, asking you to give up the pursuit of objectivity in science entirely. This is a common tactic that we will discuss in a moment, but pay attention to this refrain in other contexts. My guess is that you will notice it more often than you think.
They state that “prioritizing falsifiable quantitative methods, asserting that data can and should be ideologically neutral, and elevating conclusions that claim generalizability and universality” are the “precise epistemic values that originally tethered psychology to white supremacy.”
The Enlightenment, they claim, was when “white men were deemed the only ones capable and worthy of knowledge production, and their methods were deemed the only true and trustworthy science.” Psychology (with positivist and later post-positivist epistemology) then “built on this lineage” and ultimately made “the white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist subject represents the standard for human, or the figure of a whole person, and everyone else is just a fragment.”[2]
Good science thus entails “colonial, patriarchal ways of knowing” and comprises an invisible “master narrative” in psychological science that, naturally, must be deconstructed and replaced with science that does good.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” – Karl Marx
Here, you can see how a strawman is constructed through critique of allegedly unconscious narratives and power structures. That universal truth exists and can be pursued through scientific inquiry is not only a futile endeavor, but also one inextricably tied to our racist, sexist, etc. past, which must be expunged in pursuit of Year Zero.
And, like various other systemic -isms, such “master narratives” are unconsciously internalized via socialization and so-called policing, meaning that they conveniently evade empirical evaluation and, most importantly, implicitly require a total transformation of the (capitalist, racist, heteronormative, cisnormative, ableist…) system to address.
“Situated as the way to do science, the narrow and inequitable epistemological parameters of ‘good’ science construct facts as neutral and interpretation as objective, which obscures the ideologies and subjectivities involved in knowledge projection.”
Yet, even when one acquiesces and “ostensibly accept[s] the role of researcher subjectivity in science,” it’s still not good enough unless it’s contextualized within this matrix of oppression.
This sets the stage for the favorite rhetorical buy-in tactic, dialectical inversion:
“Because science is not neutral, researchers either passively align with the oppressive societal system in which it is embedded, actively support those systems, or actively resist them.”
See the game? Politicization of science is already happening anyway, but they, the Anointed Ones, have The Transcendent Vision, which only they understand because they (and not you) can understand how things fit into the greater systemic Whole (of interlocking systems of oppression and power), and thus need power to politicize it the right way.[3]
But alas, what now? How do we get psychological research on the Right Side of History, giving up the futile endeavor of truth-seeking and reimagining science as something that does good?
Fortunately, they provide us with three epistemic imperatives “aligned with just ends” to help us.
You may also ask: Why imperatives and not mere ‘recommendations’ or ‘suggestions’?
“Because they’re essential for building systems anew” which “underscores this is deep work that requires critical self-interrogation, unlearning, and reimagining science.” As they note, “the collective work of disentangling our science – and ourselves – from white supremacy is legacy work: intergenerational, cyclical, and unrelenting.”[4]
Got it.
The first imperative is the embrace of “humanizing epistemologies” which “broaden the boundaries of knowledge and attend to the contextual situatedness of what it means to know,” citing standpoint theory, constructivism, and various critical theories (queer theory, Black feminist thought, indigenous knowledge, etc.).
Standpoint epistemology, for those who aren’t aware, arose from feminist epistemology (lol) and includes alleged social and political positionalities to ‘situate’ knowledge in the oppressed-oppressor matrix, conferring special (g)knowing status to those ‘on the margins’ experiencing oppression that (through super special dialectical magic) is actually strong objectivity.
Here, they provide a practical example in the form of constructing research questions differently. Rather than, “How do children develop a healthy sense of self?” one should instead ask, “In an unequal society structured by oppressive ideologies (i.e., patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism), how do children develop a healthy sense of self?”
Constructivism and critical epistemology are also cited as explicitly counter-hegemonic forces, with the latter building on former’s multiple, co-constructed, and embedded ‘truths’ “by centering systems of power and oppression, making clear that no science can be neutral in a fundamentally inequitable society.”
Among the cited “alternate epistemologies” include “critical, queer, feminist, Indigenous, liberation, and antiracist science” but, in proper form, they avoid advocating for a specific alternative, opting to “promote critical reflection…and, thus, the opportunity and possibility of embracing humanizing frames and methods.”
They also target “gatekeeping” beyond training that includes publishing norms, funding metrics, and academic awards, suggesting that journals, for example, could incorporate inclusive submission guidelines, something that the American Psychological Association, publisher of this very journal article, has done with its Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion toolkit for editors.[5]
Fortunately for them (and not for us), most major academic publishers are already signatories to the SDG Publishers Compact, which incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion as a part of reaching the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (a Global Great Leap Forward with exponentially horrific consequences). But I digress.
Moving on to imperative #2, they tell us we must “value and validate who knows by listening to and learning from those who have been systemically relegated to the margins of our science,” which includes the usual demographics activists hide behind and exploit to attain power.
“This imperative is rooted in disrupting dehumanizing notions of who gets to know, whose knowledge counts as valid and relevant…recognizing that these voices and experiences are a primary source of knowledge,” meaning that the subjective lived experience of someone who happens to possess a temporarily convenient demographic characteristic, and the proper political orientation, is epistemically elevated above all other truth claims (Robin DiAngelo > Thomas Sowell).
The third and final epistemic imperative is, of course, resistance, recognizing it as “necessary and normative in the context of oppression” by identifying, dismantling, and replacing “oppressive” assumptions, as subjectively defined at every level by activists. Remember, we’re talking about research and psychological science, meaning the purpose is social justice practice and not discovering truth.
“Taking up the epistemic imperative to center resistance in the research process disrupts harm and forges pathways to do good.”
They tell us that our “hyperfocus on individuals and microsystems” (e.g., parents and families) and constructs like “grit,” resilience,” and “parent involvement” (👀) proliferate and reinforce oppression in psychological science, diverting focus away from structural inequalities.
Unsurprisingly then, they cite the usual array of “counterhegemonic” critical frameworks to resist the tyranny of objective truth, in addition to recognizing one’s “epistemic responsibility” as a researcher to interpret and discuss findings to avoid “epistemic violence.”
For a fitting conclusion, we are called to action (activism), noting that “each of the epistemic imperatives can be taken up by individuals and systems (i.e., professors, mentors, departments, grant reviewers, journal editors) across the range of subdisciplines and methodological approaches,” making The Work diffuse.
Remember, “each of us is accountable for how we do science; if we passively accept the status quo as is, unquestioning and uncriticized, it is a choice that reifies the legacies of oppression that embedded in resistance” (‘it’s not enough to be not racist…’).
But salvation is possible! If we heed their call to action and “reimagin[e] psychological science as a justice-making endeavor” by “taking up imperatives that serve just ends,” it “brings potential for reimagining and transforming psychological science.”
Psychology dies and is reborn on the side of the oppressed, just as you and I must do, and its zombie corpse serves the revolution (Communist religious practice) until it’s discarded.
This is psychological science that does good.
To briefly conclude, I want to remind you that this is not just one paper in one journal. I chose this to demonstrate how the game is played, but it is a drop in the bucket of the subverted state of research, clinical practice, and professional oversight. Most academic and other legacy institutions/bodies are potentially unsalvageable, with untold harm already caused to the public, but that doesn’t mean psychology as a discipline has to die with them.
Abandoning the pursuit of universal truth is not a minor thing, but it is always there when we’re ready to come back to it. I urge you to reject (de)humanizing politicized epistemologies and help preserve psychology from the snares of revolution. I fear greatly for what will happen if we do not.
[1] Please pay particular attention “and beyond.” They’re not hiding the fact that this isn’t meant to stay within the narrow ivory tower. After all, “decolonization is not just a metaphor.”
[2] I recognize that there this is a debate about positivist epistemology in psychology, which is tertiary to this discussion. For our purposes here, the focus is on how activists seed their destructive ideologies using lies and emotional manipulation. “The Enlightenment was when Straight White Man…” is peak subversion.
[4] That means the revolution is never finished.
[5] Note the meta-level irony here of complaining about publishing standards while simultaneously getting this published in a journal only because of EDI degradation of said standards.
For more, follow The Kids Are Not Alright on X @HideYourKids0
References
Akbar, M., Kelly, J. F., Shullman, S. L., Jernigan, M., & Faye, C. (2024). A historic apology: The American Psychological Association’s commitment to dismantling systemic racism and advancing racial equity in psychology. American Psychologist, 79(4), 660–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001381
Awad, G. H., Cokley, K. O., Comas-Díaz, L., Hall, G. C. N., & Gone, J. P. (2024). Dismantling racism in the field of psychology and beyond: Introduction to the special issue .American Psychologist, 79(4), 477–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001378
Lindsay, J., (2022). Dialectical inversion. New Discourses. https://newdiscourses.com/2022/12/dialectical-inversion/
Marx, K. (n.d.). Theses on Feuerbach. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
New Discourses. (2020). Standpoint epistemology. New Discourses. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-standpoint-epistemology/
Rogers, L. O., Moffitt, U., McLean, K. C., & Syed, M. (2024). Research as resistance: Naming and dismantling the master narrative of “good” science. American Psychologist, 79(4), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001246