For-profit healthcare, long criticized in the U.S. for its inaccessibility and inequity, is facing scrutiny on a global scale. A new article by Rita Merhej and Rahaf Makarem reveals how psychology, as it is globalized under the influence of neoliberalism, spreads not only Western therapeutic practices but also Western-style profit-driven healthcare systems.
The authors argue that this process undermines indigenous values and replaces them with commodified psychological models steeped in competition and productivity.
“Rapid changes in technology have contributed to making globalization a reality, in spite of it being criticized for imposing Western cultural values on the world. Globalization embeds a neoliberal ideology where productivity, competition, and profit prevail. This paper posits that neoliberalism has enabled the persistence and further spread of coloniality in the field of psychology, both as a research enterprise and practice.”
While globalization is often framed as the free exchange of ideas and resources, Merhej and Makarem emphasize that it carries the residue of colonialism and neoliberalism. Psychology, they argue, is no exception. The Western psychological model—rooted in individualism and commodification—pervades global practices through exported diagnostic criteria, therapeutic techniques, and the booming self-help industry.
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
While I am sure these authors make some good points, from my perspective they have far from a full picture of what is going on here on Earth.
While human life forces people into groups for survival reasons, and groups tend to impose “cultures” on their members, that is not the whole story of human experience. Within a larger context of connectedness (through mental and spiritual – supernatural – exchanges), human experience is very much personal and in some sense, individual. We in fact rely on individuals with a more developed sense of their own autonomy for many of the innovations and ideas that we rely on today.
“Neoliberalism” is a buzzword of the social justice community, and though probably not that well understood, is a real thing and stands as an opposing ideology to the “diversity” movement. But I believe these terms are overused. We need to learn to live together, but ideology is not the key to that; better understandings are. The “western” takeover of “indigenous” cultures did not start with the birth of modern psychology (1897), but has been ongoing for hundreds if not thousands of years.
There have been “good” and “bad” consequences of this trend. But it is not the most basic trend. This whole universe is to some extent embroiled in a similar conflict that goes back, probably, millions of years. One ideology takes a rapacious, amoral approach to survival and other species. Another ideology seeks a more integrated and loving approach, but still must allow for the realities of trade, commerce and scarce natural resources. the “indigenous” cultures of Earth escaped this conflict for a while, but are now getting caught up in it again. Though some of us have a sentimental attachment to these cultures, they are not all there is to life, or some sort of ultimate well of higher knowledge. They did bring some spiritual values forward, but so did Buddhism. Neoliberalism attacks them all, and that’s the point. What use is any sort of psychology in a society that doesn’t believe in Spirit? It could only be used to attack Spirit, which is its most basic problem and crime.
Report comment
You make some good points but I think conceptualizing life as primarily personal and individual is a very culturally-specific judgment, and feeds directly into neoliberalism (people are arguably easier to deceive when they’re isolated).
Report comment
I’m not talking here about isolation. I’m talking about individuality and a being’s sense of control over its own life. Beings with that sense of control feel more “alive” and are factually more useful in a group than others who just follow along, take orders, or always conform.
I don’t see this as a “culturally-specific judgement.” Although there might be some cultures who frown on or are afraid of this sense of aliveness. In most cultures, though, there are those who feel more free and those who feel less free. I see that as the real conflict here.
Report comment
A non-paywall link would be more helpful, if it’s allowed.
Report comment