What if psychology, instead of alleviating human suffering, reinforces the systems that create it?
David Pavón-Cuéllar’s paper, The Subject of Psychology: Seclusion, Contraction, Immobilization, Objectification, Privatization, and Depoliticization, offers a scathing critique of how psychology, shaped by historical and cultural forces, sustains systems of oppression. Pavón-Cuéllar argues that psychology isolates individuals, stripping them of collective power, and functions as a tool for capitalism, patriarchy, and the state.
“Nothing is easier than objectifying a subject who is individualised, deactivated, weakened, and plunged into impotence and immobility,” Pavón-Cuéllar writes.
“The seclusion of subjects in their individualities makes it possible to reduce them to objects of power apparatuses—of the State, Patriarchy, Capital, and the so-called objective sciences, including psychology.”
Tracing the historical development of psychology, Pavón-Cuéllar highlights how its focus on individual responsibility has isolated subjects and neutralized collective resistance. From its roots in Christian individualism to its entanglement with neoliberal capitalism, psychology has worked to shrink human subjectivity into private, powerless forms.
Yet, he also imagines a path forward—one where psychology fosters collective liberation instead of perpetuating systemic harm.
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.)
I largely agree, but not with absolutely everything you said.
“Across these critiques, a common theme emerges: the need for a radical transformation of psychology—one that moves beyond individual adaptation to challenge systemic injustices and foster collective empowerment.”
But I absolutely believe the psychologic industry must end both their faustian “partnerships” with the psychiatric and religious industries, if ever they are able to make the needed systemic change. Since those faustian, systemic, industry wide, “partnerships” are what cause the “systemic injustices” of today’s psychological industry.
For goodness sake, I had to leave my childhood religion forever, due to psychology’s systemic child abuse covering up “partnership” with the iatrogenic illness creating psychiatrists, and my ex-religion.
Report comment
If physiological responses to your article provide clues as to the true response of nature to your article, then my face reaction to reading your article paints a worrying picture. One eye went north east, the other went south east, the jaw dropped and the mouth drooped as the tongue protruded gormlessly, and a raspy groan escaped my lips that sounded rather like someone dying. This coincided with a death like chill that spread down the brain from top to bottom. But it did also temporarily arrest all mental operations. Perhaps you could do a controlled trial to compare reading your article to electroconvulsive therapy. You can call it intellectual and moral shock therapy.
Report comment
The link given to the paper is broken.
I don’t know how Pavón-Cuéllar manages to trace the roots of modern psychology to “Christian individualism.” I have always traced it back to Wundt’s work in the late 1800s, which was happening in the context of Prussian materialism and the formation of a new German empire.
I have no idea what “collective liberation” is supposed to mean. Does that mean that the group somehow becomes free, but at the expense of individual freedom? Isn’t that what “modern” psychology is all about?
Of course, human freedom must be tempered by group moral guidelines. And I always thought that “modern” psychology taught that “liberation” follows from the rejection of moral guidelines. All this does is encourage – or justify – criminal behaviors. Christian individualism sounds like a good deal compared to mass criminality.
Report comment
Larry, the link is broken to me too. I googled it and found the full text here:
https://discourseunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/0214_pavon_cuellar.pdf
Report comment
“Capitalism thus continues to gain ground at the expense of humanity and nature, while individuals are trained to adapt to it rather than to transform it.” —Really good.
Report comment
The “field” of psychology sees everything objectively but itself because objectifying others is what makes it seem powerful and therefore convincing.
Add to this psychiatry’s gobbledygook language which further cements people’s servile attitude and you’ve got one massive gaslighting machine few are able to see, much less “transform”, because psychology in the modern age is now used as a tool of manipulation more than a way of understanding.
Report comment
CORRECTION: The “field” of psychology sees everything but itself objectively because objectifying others is what makes it seem powerful and therefore convincing which means it’s a pretentious word salad no one should eat.
Report comment
As a practicing therapist, i randomly read these articles every time i want a good laugh. There is a grain of truth in them but every time writers for MIA seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For a publication claiming such a high level of nuance, the lack critical insight is jarring. Its hard to believe any of these writers have actual practiced as therapist and that their suppositions come from anything more than reactionary, unfounded arguments that share more in common with politically motivated instagram reels than actual science.
Report comment
As a practicing therapist, TheRealJody, it is quite troubling that you find humour in any criticism of your profession, rather than taking the time to consider the potential harms caused by practitioners like yourself. Psychological distress can arise from various sources that render it resistant to therapeutic intervention, and extensive research has highlighted the ineffectiveness of therapy (Smail, D, 1987). Furthermore, psychoanalytic interpretation is an act of aggression and domination (Masson, J, 2012). Consequently, it seems that your occupation bears “more resemblance to politically motivated Instagram reels than to actual science.”
Report comment
The mental health system is pretty bad, in general, in my opinion but sometimes medications or therapy can be helpful for people.
However, there is another side to this. We tend not to want to be told that what we are doing is harmful to others and that we need to change certain beliefs or behaviors. We tend to have too much pride and don’t want to see ourselves as the problem or part of the problem.
Report comment
Just for the record I don’t agree with everything anyone says.
Report comment
Wonder what would happen, eventuate, if one went to a dozen different psychiatrists and told them afresh as though they were the first and only doctor per se, to be seen?
Twelve different diagnoses? Twelve different rationale, reasons? Twelve different (or more) drug prescriptions?
Only a wealthy person could afford such an experiment – but it would be worthwhile research.
Report comment
Dear Vic,
To obtain twelve distinct ‘mental disorder’ diagnoses, it does not require twelve psychiatrists, nor wealth. For less than $3,000, I was evaluated by five ‘professionals’ and diagnosed with fifteen ‘mental disorders’. Additionally, I was prescribed thirteen neurotoxic drugs.
Kind regards,
Cat
Report comment