A Critical Introduction to Psychology

Towards a Pluriversal Psychology 5

undergraduate students in an ‘introduction to psychology’ course are
usually exposed to (e.g., neuroscience, consciousness, development,
identity, etc.) and (2) proposing a critical psychological alternative, which
takes into account theories, philosophies, and/or histories from the Global
South—that is, transmodern and/or decolonial alternatives (cf. Adams &
Estrada-Villalta 2017; Bhatia 2017; Burton & Osorio 2011).
For example, if assigned the ‘thinking and intelligence’ chapter, the
author would show how mainstream (Euro-American) psychology
operationally defines thinking as problem-solving from a cognitive
perspective and what that definition implies both theoretically and
practically inside and outside of psychology. This abstract and reductionist
notion of thinking can then be contrasted with another more nuanced and
complex conceptualization of thinking as embodied and discursive. In
other words, thinking cannot be reduced to the mind because it takes place
in the body and occurs in between subjects or speaking beings.
As for intelligence, the author would then show how Daniel Goleman
expanded our traditional understanding of intelligence through notions like
emotional intelligence (1995) and social intelligence (2006) as well as how
mainstream Euro-American culture informs our ‘traditional’ understanding
of intelligence through its ideological emphasis on standardized testing and
its preference for two particular forms of intelligence (linguistic and
logical-mathematical) over other forms of intelligence (e.g., musical,
bodily-kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal), as illustrated
by Howard Gardner (1983).
This ideological emphasis on two specific forms of intelligence speaks
to mainstream (Euro-American) psychology’s subservient role within
capitalism, and how intelligence-testing functions in relation to job
placement to produce ‘intelligent’ workers that are interpellated by
“ideological state apparatuses” or ISAs (Althusser 2001). In other words,
those who are considered ‘intelligent’ are valued and rewarded by the
hegemonic culture through ISAs, while everyone else is oppressed in one
way or another. To put it differently, intelligence is much more than a
biological or genetic fact, it is a socio-cultural reality (or a discourse) that
is inherently hierarchical, if not racist (cf. Richards 1997).