46 Jan De Vos
the speak-being lies in the escaping itself from any discursive (or
‘objectified’ discursive) designation. In this way I consider the speak-being
as fundamentally non-psychological: from the moment it is interpellated
within a psychological discourse, it takes the external position to look upon
itself and thus elevates and distances itself from any possible
psychologistic assignation. Most remarkably it is precisely here that the
layperson meets the psychologist: both assume the point of view from
nowhere! Albeit that is it in the first place the professional psychologist
who succumbs to a major mistake: that is, he/she takes the human being for
the “homo psychologicus,” missing and negating the non-psychological
subject that always recedes and eludes itself.
In this respect, the problem is not only that psychology searches for the
external position and aspires the objectivist meta-perspective (Martín-Baró,
1994; Pavón-Cuéllar, 2015), perhaps the crux of this is that psychology
denies the layperson this very position. And from here, failing to
acknowledge the non-psychology of the layperson, the psysciences
condemn the layperson to be directly itself, to coincide with the homo
psychologicus. This is the interpellative, coercive, if not totalitarian move
of psychologization that psychology engages in: it tells people what they
are and should be. Psychology thus denies the fact that the human being is
that being that is always at distance from its being, only through this
negation psychology can pretend that a knowledge is possible, only in this
way it can claim a closure of its theories and practices, only thus it
becomes a tool for those powers that parasitize on the human precisely by
shaping and thus colonizing their concrete lives and their concrete
circumstances.
From here the question is, is there a theory, or, for that matter, a praxis
possible which could call itself a non-psychology, a psychology (if one
could still call it that way) that acknowledges the full weight of the non-
psychology of subjectivity? For me, psychoanalysis, at its best, could relate
to such theories and practices, but surely there are other possible
candidates here, these could be found in the various attempts to deconstruct
and to decolonize the neuropsy-complex (the world-wide conglomerate of