Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1996
Where Is the Crisis in Psychology? Howard E. Gruber 1,3 and Simon L. Gruber ~
INTRODUCTION We begin with a paradox. Many present at this meeting, including ourselves, enjoy an undiminished enthusiasm and love for their main work of discovery, reflection, and teaching. Yet here we are again, sharing our complaints, anxieties, and forebodings. We live in an era of enormous changes--in the structure of populations and families, in international relationships and the definition of nations, in technology and the organization of production, in the rate at which we devastate the earth, and in standards of human relationships. Psychologists looking at the adequacy of their responses to an unpromising future, compared with other professions, may award themselves a noncongratulatory mediocre grade. The general position we take in this paper is somewhat different from Bakan's. Although we deplore approximately the same list of deplorable things as he does, we do not think they constitute a crisis within psychology. To rate as a crisis there should be a problem or group of problems so severe and intractable that they must be solved or the system cannot continue. In a seemingly stable situation, crisis may arise from a malevolent conjunction of seemingly minor problems. These may even be problems which, taken singly, do have known solutions but faced concurrently are overwhelming. In a more pessimistic vein one might interject: If only population growth, taken singly was a minor manageable problem! 1Teachers College, Columbia University,New York, New York. 2Gaia Institute, Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York, New York. 3Correspondence should be directed to Howard E. Gruber, Teachers College, Columbia University, Department of DevelopmentalEducational Psychology,525 W. 120th Street, Box 119, New York, New York 10027. 347 1053-0789/96/1000-0347509.50/0 © 1996 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
348
Gruber and Gruber
Is there a crisis within the field of psychology? Is it stagnant? Is it isolated? Is it moribund? On the whole, our answer is "no." Psychology is a self-satisfied, successful growth industry. In November 1994, the APA Monitor described the field as "hot." Employment projections show psychology to be among the top ten fields. The same issue of the Monitor carried 22 pages of job listings. New journals appear quite often. Among relatively new journals we may mention the Journal of Peace Psychology, the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, the Creativity Research Journal, and the Journal of Adult Development. All these, together with the older Journal of Social Issues (JSI) publish articles of social concern, as does the American Psychologist. Indeed, the Winter 1995 issue of JSI (SPSSI's journal) was entirely devoted to the subject, "Psychology and the Promotion of a Sustainable Future" (see McKenzie-Mohr & Oskamp, 1995). So, psychology is not only "hot," it is responsive to pressing social needs. This responsiveness is reflected also in the formation of new the divisions of the APA. In 1965, there were 26 divisions. In 1995, there were 50 and a number of these are concerned with social issues as their main focus, such as peace, the environment, women's issues, gay and lesbian issues, and addiction. In addition to activities within the span of the American Psychological Association, there is the American Psychological Society, which has been quite attentive to certain social issues falling under the general rubric of "The Human Capital Initiative." The most recent issue of its publication The APS Observer (April 1996) is dedicated to problems of health. It outlines a wide spectrum of research, touching on financial, biomedical, social, and ethnic issues. Then (out there in the surf, still waving), there are rump groups always forming, such as Psychologists for Social Responsibility. Such groups often define themselves as being intentionally outside of the system. Still, they are part of the system in that they play a vital role in struggling against the social lethargy and denial that characterizes much of what goes on "inside." It may well be that all this ferment and activity bears too little fruit. It may be too little, too fragmentary, too hemmed in by bureaucratic restrictions. It may well be that psychologists' apparent responsiveness to social problems reflects the energetic, even frantic, activity of a minority. But at least it cannot be said that the profession as a whole stands by and does nothing but deplore the sorry state of things. It may well be that there are important, unresolved, and alas recurrent or perennial problems in psychology. The 1994-95 excitement over the bell curve was for the most part a replay of earlier versions of the nature-nurture controversy. Skepticism about the effectiveness of psychotherapy is another hardy perennial. Likewise the more recent quasi-legal debate over
Where Is the Crisis in Psychology?
349
the accuracy of childhood memories. And it may well be that, willy-nilly, psychology promotes a sour view of humanity, for example, through its widely publicized findings about effectiveness of group pressures and surprisingly low thresholds for evoking sadism and brutality. Nevertheless, for every pessimistic thought there is an optimistic answer, and, alas, vice versa. This standoff between forces of hope and change against forces of cynicism and self-serving conservatism has been stable and long-abiding. It may well be that it is this quasi-equilibrium which is the unspoken aim of existing social arrangements. The cynic might say that the fat cats and those of the lean and hungry look have struck a balance. Another way of looking at the question of crisis in psychology is to suggest that, after all, our response to grave social issues has been rather limited, the part-time work of perhaps 1-10% of members of the profession. In some ways, that is a lot of effort, but considering that we are talking about issues that concern the whole future of humanity, we can scarcely say that we are mobilized for crisis.
WHERE, THEN, IS THIS CRISIS Looking at today's situation through the lens of an early approach to natural philosophy, we see critical problems across the entire ancient Greek spectrum of elements making up the physical world: air, water, earth, and fire. Air. Depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer and potential global warming effects. Water. Pollution of rivers and lakes, destruction of marine fisheries and coral reefs, and severe shortages of drinking water projected for many nations in years soon to come. Earth. Billions of tons of eroded topsoil lost each year from poorly managed farmland and cut-over forests, and growing accumulations of poisonous radioactive wastes. Fire. Thousands of nuclear weapons that stand ready to cause utter destruction by nuclear fire. These products of human activity, compounded by a growing world population (doubling time about 40 years), together do constitute a fundamental crisis. Strikingly, most of these global threats could not have been known, scarcely even imagined, by people living just a few hundred years ago. The rate of change and its comprehensiveness may have outstripped our ability to respond and change course.
350
Gruber and Gruber
To some extent, this is a technological challenge and a policy issue. It is also a psychological problem. Especially in the U.S. and in much of the Western world, we are taught from childhood that expansion and growth are romantic adventures, necessary for prosperity, and even morally imperative. Our entire economy is built on this unquestioned premise. But question it we must. Although this prevalent view of the world evades the need to accept limits, there is a growing interest in the concept of sustainability. This concept also has older roots. Hundreds of years ago, the Haudenosaunee, the six Nations of the Iroquois, a still-functioning cooperative government of six tribes of Native Americans, formulated their Great Law. This included the idea that: In all our deliberations we must be mindful of the impact of our decisions on the seven generations to follow ours.
Reading this text we feel a clear recognition of the importance of thinking for the long term, and a deep sense of responsibility to our descendants. Coping with these accumulated problems is much more difficult for us today, given the nature and scale of our technology and the sheer numbers of people on the planet. No family, or tribe, or nation can change alone. We are all truly interdependent in meeting our needs for air, water, soil, and energy. In the face of these formidable threats, the field of psychology may help to provide answers, both at the social and individual levels. New sociopolitical mechanisms are needed to facilitate effective communication, decision making, and group action. Unless we choose to accept widespread poverty, environmental degradation, and unemployment as inevitable, we must envision economic systems that provide increased opportunity even as society is re-shaped to live within limits. Something like the Seven Generations motif must replace the mantra that "Growth is Good." Along the way to this sustainable future, perhaps for several generations, things may get worse before they get better for many communities around the world. Psychologists may play a useful role in helping to counter the fear, despair, and hostility caused by such conditions. How can we encourage positive action in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles? The crisis, then, is everywhere. Locating it somewhere in particular may itself become a form of denial. As Satchel Paige said, "Don't look back--something may be gaining on you." Well it is. Can we do anything about it? Can we change our own behavior so that it is an adequate response? Comfortably ensconced as many of us are, this is hard to do. We
Where Is the Crisis in Psychology?
351
offer a few suggestions to people who want to move in a more socially responsible direction: Commitment. Start by making both a private and a public commitment to a change one's own behavior. Tithing. The ancient idea of tithing is a way of being serious. It is important to tithe both time and energy as well as money. For time and energy, 10% seems inadequate if something is really going to get done. Try 20%, i.e., one day a week. Collaboration. Granted, some projects can be done, even best be done, alone. But on the whole it helps to work out a system of collaboration with others sharing similar commitments. This might begin as a coffee klatsch, an "Olympia Club." People tend to be close friends with people their own age, but for what we have in mind a pattern of hands across the generations might be more feasible, and it certainly has its rewards. Project. To make commitments visible, tangible, communicable-choose some specific project that can actually be undertaken. Some projects lie best within one's own discipline, some require interdisciplinarity. Time Scale. Setting specific subgoals is often useful, but it might lead to unduly low levels of aspiration.
HOPE
Yes, change is possible. Consider a few "low tech" areas in which striking changes in behavior have occurred, each one with a different motive driving it: Picking up After Dogs. Just about 10 years ago this might have seemed impossible. "Please curb your dog" signs were the outer limit. Now, pooperscooper laws are ubiquitous. Shame is the engine. Anti-Smoking Campaigns. Sharp drops in amount of smoking. Desire for health and longevity is the engine. Teenage Pregnancyand Motherhood. Sexual desire was the main engine, but now combines with new attitudes toward parenting. The central question is now shifting from "Should we throw the young mother out of the house?" to "How can we keep her in school?" So changes in deeply embedded, seemingly ineradicable behavior patterns are really possible? Yes. Yes but. The 10-year rule that works pretty well for describing creative people at work may be too short a time span when it comes to important societal change. "Think globally, act locally" is a helpful guide, but not always appropriate. Where, then is the crisis? When we began thinking about this essay, we had in mind to deny that the crisis lies within psychology and instead
352
Gruber and Gruber
to locate it "out there" in society. But it may be more accurate and more telling to locate the crisis within ourselves, for it is each of us who must reallocate personal resources in order to make them available enough for the critical work that lies ahead. Who was it that said, "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is hardly worth glancing at"?
REFERENCES Colby, A., & Damon, W. D. (1992). Some do care. Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York: Free Press. Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247-262). New York: Cambridge University Press. Gruber, H. E. (1993). Creativity in the moral domain: OUGHT implies CAN implies CREATE. Creativity Research Journal 6, 3-16. Kohn, A. (1990). The brighter side of human nature: Altruism and empathy in everyday life. New York: Basic Books. McKenzie-Mohr, D,, & Oskamp, S. (Eds.) (1995). Psychology and the promotion of a sustainable future, Journal of Social Issues (special issue), 5I(4), 1-238.
