This essay is framed by the work of Edward Sampson (1993), and is a sociohistorical analysis of the institutional vicissitudes in American history that have formed the ground of our current version of the “truth” about drugs, alcohol, the drug addict and the alcoholic. The drug and alcohol discourse has been used throughout American history to institute and maintain normative ideals. These ideals are contoured by Western individualistic understandings of human being. They revolve around a theme of freedom seen as (...) access to unlimited possibilities, which arises as a right for those individuals who are self-reliant. Alcoholics and addicts have been used as political identities, silently portraying the opposite and living out the underside of these normative ideals. As political identities they are used discursively to maintain mainstream illusions of self-reliance and to hide the falsehood of the capitalist promise of unfettered access to unlimited possibilities. Capitalist interests flourish through the maintenance of these illusions, and are able to disown responsibility via the silencing, through embodiment, of those who have been marginalized. This self-celebratory discourse is, hence, a monologue that undermines the possibility of hierarchical revolutions. Encapsulated in the embodiment of the alcoholic and addict are the covering over of political conflicts, the leveling down of difference, and the marginalizing of those who represent dialogical possibility. Twelve-step mutual help organizations participate in self-celebratory monologues that maintain the version of truth supportive of the agendas of the wealthy; however, they also offer an other-centered strategy by which dialogue again becomes possible. (shrink)

This article presents critical psychology in some new light. First, it presents the history of US critical psychology in terms of the overall foundation of its critique (identity-based, ideologically-based, and epistemologically-based). Second, it broadens the population that can be called critical psychologists. The argument is made to include: (1) philosophers of language, science, and mind critical of psychology’s foundational assumptions, conceptions, and methods of inquiry; and (2) non-professional, ordinary people who live their lives critical of psychology by eschewing mainstream approaches (...) and taking alternative routes to getting help with their emotional and physical pain, or the education of their children. Third, the article discusses ontology-based critique through the example of the practical-critical theory/practice of social therapy. (shrink)

Conventional categories of creativity are being deconstructed after the so-called postmodern debate. This article takes this process deeper, to what we will show is the hidden subtext of gender underlying how creativity has been socially constructed. It also proposes a more contextualized approach to creativity that takes into account both its individual and social dimensions and how this relates to what Eisler (1987) has called a partnership rather than dominator model of society.

This paper develops the ideas of rhetorical psychology by applying them to some basic Freudian concepts. In so doing, the paper considers whether there might be a ‘Dialogic Unconscious’. So far rhetorical psychology has tended to concentrate upon conscious thought rather than on the unconscious. It has suggested that thinking is modelled on argument and dialogue, and that rhetoric provides the means of opening up matters for thought and discussion. However, rhetoric may also provide the means for closing down topics (...) and, thereby, provide the means of repression. It will be suggested that language is not merely expressive but it is also repressive. Moreover, the repressive aspects of language are built into the very practices of dialogue. In learning language, we learn the codes for socially appropriate ways of speaking. These must be acquired as habits, so that we learn to repress routinely the desire to transgress the codes of appropriate speech. Thus, the routine use of language provides the resources for repression. If language is repressive, then this applies equally to the language of psycho-analysis itself. Freud's famous case histories, such as that of Dora, can be re-examined, in order to see what Freud's own theory of repression was itself repressing. (shrink)