Critical Psychology

...

Societal inequality and power imbalances include the argument of feminist precedent, where the lived experiences of women are overlooked and also ignored. Society is viewed as that belonging to a dominant white male, not including the female in any way especially in relation to work or professional careers. The question arises- are women equal to men within the legal system? (Arrigo, 2003). The legal theory and logic behind feminism is that there is a lack of focus on women’s experiences and that they also produce fair hearings although it is clearly a male-dominant system. There are also differences in sentencing regarding minority groups and also those people with mental health problems, for example, they usually send men more easily to prison, as women would not be able to handle the surroundings and circumstances, this is in itself sexist although many people may not think so. Other minority groups who would experience both inequality and lack of power are black ethnic minority groups, those living in poverty who turn to criminality in order to survive and those who have trouble accessing legal aid. (Warner, 2015) Exclusion is permitted in relation to law as there are youth offending institutions available, mental health hospitals and other such centres which exclude these minorities from the rest of the majority population. The anarchist agenda has ‘much to say about the social psychology of law, social organisation, and the centralised state’ (Fox, 1993a, p. 98) Advocates of the anarchist perspective identify that the legal system cannot make certain the most favourable standard of individual life and social well being inherent to this thorough schedule (e.g. Bankowski, 1983; Godwin, 1971; Goldman, 1969; Sonn, 1992). Furthermore, critical psychological researchers, supporting the anarchist critique, have shown how legal morals or state mandated practices limit prospects for social justice and frustrate basic human needs and values (e.g. Sarason, 1982; Fox, 1991; Williams, 2004). Therefore, issues relating to gender, race identity and class can never be neutral, especially according to critical psychologists.

Psychology's support of system lawfulness may not be as important as that of institutions with more social power, but it is still a worry nevertheless. Like other critiques of mainstream psychology offered by critical psychologists (Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997), Jost (1995) suggested "politicising" psychology by directing the political context of domination and subordination which surrounds most of our behaving and thinking in the social world. The phenomenon of false consciousness gives such an opportunity. Cognitive and affective bases of human error are nowadays, well understood. However, almost no awareness has been given to social and political circumstances (such as power, status, exploitation, inequality, abuse and injustice) that encourage pessimistic deceptions. (p. 413). Psychologists searching to evaluate the existence and outcomes of false consciousness in law could begin with Jost's (1995) portrayal of clear categories of false consciousness, each examined in a depoliticised fashion, by mainstream psychologists. Categories involve the lack of success to recognise justice and disadvantage ("people frequently perceive situations to be fair or just, even when there are good reasons to suppose that such situations are not"--p. 402); fatalism (including the beliefs that protest is futile, humiliating, or tiring); the reason of social roles (through person perception and stereotyping); false attribution of blame (including falsely blaming others and even self-blame); identification with the aggressor (including psychological dependence and preference for the out-group); and resistance to change (taking into reason cognitive conservatism and behavioural conservatism). These categories offer a beginning point for understanding the inculcation and acceptance of false beliefs about law.

Change does not come without difficulty. Sometimes, even with the best intentions, we lose our way, failing to notice or to see what must be done. A lot of what is wrong with the legal system, particularly in its communication with and interpretations of people, cannot be revised or resolved through it. As Roesch (1995, p. 329) observed, he says, "changes in the justice system will never be sufficient to create a just society, nor will within system changes by themselves ever have much of an impact on individuals who come into conflict with the law." Accordingly, it is time to move on and, when necessary, to look someplace else for direction. If the American Psychology-Law Society is to get back to its future (Arrigo, 2001), a different set of theories and a new set of methods should be exerted to the civil and criminal problems that are posed at the crossroads of law and psychology. These attempts must be thoughtfully and plan fully executed. Moreover, they should not be used as wholesale replacements for existing strategies, displacing the advances made on behalf of citizen justice and social well being by past psycho-legal researchers. The critical agenda offers opportunities for creating new views of meaning, linking these insights with others that have come before it and with those that are yet to be realised.

Sure, change does not come easily. Yet in the case of significant and sustainable legal reform--the test set down before the American Psychology-Law Society decades ago- it is something we can hardly afford to ‘address incrementally or forestall altogether. In short, the future of the law-psychology movement and its overall utility for society depend on such changes, and the critical agenda has a place in making real this call for justice.’ Mainstream psychologists and other social scientists frequently refuse the term false consciousness as it is affiliated with Marxism and other radical political views (Jost, 1995; Parenti, 1996). Yet it is radical theory's insistence on system-wide change that holds the most promise for solutions that do more than solely skim the surface. Psychologists who challenge the heart of legitimacy in propping up support for the political, legal, and economic system must desert mainstream presumptions if they are to expose the sources of power and intensify social justice. Because the system makes people "whose minds work to preserve the status quo at all costs" (Jost & Banaji, 1994, p. 15), it is time to "challenge the common sense through which we interpret the world" (Montero, 1997, p. 243).

References

Arrigo, B. A. (2003). Justice and the deconstruction of psychological jurisprudence: The case of competency to stand trial. Theoretical Criminology: An International Journal, 7(1), 55-88.

Bankowski,