Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

In principle, the emerging conception of committed social psychology (CSP) implies that it is not easy to draw clear boundaries between social psychology and ideology, and more generally between social science and social action, facts and values, rational arguments and political beliefs, or “pure” and “applied” social research. Social psychology must not be regarded as “biased” just because it involves value presuppositions or ethical non-neutrality (see Sloan 1990 ). On the contrary, this is a strong “natural” involvement that waits to be reflexively exposed and elaborated as a basis for action. CSP should always be present in public political debates (or decisions) and move openly in the normative (or militant) direction of realizing the very ideological project or framework that inspired and motivated it. This also suggests, to paraphrase Alvin W. Gouldner (1970 : 15), that the social psychologist is determined to live for the discipline and not off it. Of course, such a radical anti-objectivistic (value-loaded) conception entails that the customary social psychological endeavor to systematically “position” individuals and groups in terms of locus of control and power, or to methodologically “explicate” social representations of human rights, duties, justice, democracy, security or terrorism, is de facto both politically and personally relevant. The social scientific ... log in or subscribe to read full text