Psychology, Power, and Subjectivity

The three articles on "What is Psychology?" by Canguilhem, "The Birth of the Asylum, " and Abnormal by Foucault, illustrate several essential aspects of the critical perspective taken towards psychology. These include: the insubstantial basis of psychology, which nonetheless presents itself as authoritative and exact; the consequences of this shaky foundation when applied to areas such as the law (which transforms the juridical nature of the law almost completely to one of normalization); and the strict moral and psychological confinement given to subjects in "reformed" mental institutions under the guise of greater liberty and humanity. What is remarkable to me is the magnitude of the social critique and condemnation of society's practices (especially in Abnormal), whereas in much of what we have read Foucault remains primarily descriptive and refrains from accusation. Some of this could be due to his first-hand, extremely negative experiences with psychology. However, I also think that there is much truth to the idea that psychology, a very insecure discipline, can be and has been used to much detrimental effect when it is taken as authoritative. Here more than in most places, I agree with Foucault's and Canguilhem's characterizations of its abilities to deceive us and take us in.

In "What is Psychology?", Canguilhem calls into question the coherence of psychology as a discipline, examining different trends to see if he can isolate any one thing that can be seen as a basis for its study and its accountability--as opposed to just a "pact of peaceful coexistence between professionals" (38). He criticizes the conception of the nature of man as a tool in what he deems "instrumentalism." This conception naturally and inevitably leads to application of its principles on real behavior, and in the end those who determine how it is to be applied are no more than "a corporate elite of specialists equipped with a self-appointed mission" (49). Thus, we can see in his views the power of psychology in shaping relations, and its ability to be easily manipulated by those acting on their own prerogatives. This will figure in to a large extent in Foucault's analysis.

Turning to the other two readings, I was interested in a dual process of justice that seemed to be brought out. On the one hand, psychology was used to develop "a psychologico-ethical double" (Abnormal, 16) in the judicial process, and on the other hand used to create an "awareness of his guilt, the madman was to return to his awareness of himself as a free and responsible subject," ("Asylum," 146) a never-ending cycle of guilt that replaced strict confinement in the mental institution. In some ways these processes could be seen to be connected, as for instance if the psychological double was used to convict someone of a crime and he was then subjected to this treatment. However, I am interested in what seems to me like a description of two different artificial and psychological worlds created on the authority of the psychologist, one internal and one external.

Let's first start with the external world. This construction of psychology replaces the true defendant and the true acts of the crime with a character profile of a delinquent and a picture of minor deviances that seem to progress up to the crime itself. Thus, the crime itself is not judged, the juridical aspect dissolves, and the justice system becomes a system of normalization. All of this is done on the authority of the psychologist, his reputation and his credentials, which deceive the judge, jury, and general public.

Compare this now with the internal world. This takes the constant threat of punishments and corrections from without, and places the system strictly inside of the patient's own mind. Where he seems free and unbounded because of the structure of Pinel's or Tuke's new asylums, he is actually trapped in a never-ending cycle of guilt that was implanted by the psychologist. Once again, where does the psychologist derive his power to do so? By his authority as a moral father-figure, not by any of his specific knowledge of any type of truth in madness.

So we have what seem to be two artificial worlds, one which acts upon the public to create for them a portrait of a delinquent, and one which acts on the mind of a madman to create an internal check that at once controls his behavior and constantly torments him. Both are thoroughly imbued with moral condemnations and their possibilities of normalization. Finally, both are proliferated with the aid of what seems to me a kind of comfort and reassurance in seeing the psychologist as an authority figure or exemplar of moral conduct. Two powerful examples of the possibility for abuse in psychology that Foucault and Canguilhem fight against. It seems to me that the subjectification created by psychology is perhaps one of the most entrenched and powerful processes in the world that Foucault has described. I'm not quite sure if psychology has this much power any more, and once again this could simply be because of the passage of 30 years and the need to reexamine these changing power structures. However, I am sure that Foucault illustrates some compelling reasons why we must constantly be vigilant and analyze those power structures, especially when an inexact science holds a position of power.