EL LÍDER DEBE PROMOVER LA REALIZACIÓN DE LOS VALORES

Reactions to the dominance of Western psychology have clearly influenced the emergence of indigenous psychology. However what is not clear is how Western psychology became dominant in the first place. Providing a clue, several authors have referred to the ‘import’ and ‘export’ of psychology (Adair, 1999; Berry et al., 2002; Moghaddam, 1987; Moghaddam & Taylor, 1986; Nsamenang, 2006; Sinha, 1993).

Moghaddam (1987) provided one framework to explain why North America has maintained a dominant and virtually unchallenged position within the field of psychology. He identified a power structure of psychological communities at a global level centred on the ‘Three Worlds’. Each world has a differential capacity for producing and disseminating psychological knowledge and, as a consequence for shaping and defining what is considered to be mainstream, conventional or normal within the discipline of psychology. Moghaddam (1987) considered the ‘First World’ to be constituted by the United States of America, which by virtue of its position as the major producer and exporter of psychological knowledge, holds a dominant and unchallenged position within psychology. The ‘Second World’ included countries such as Britain, Canada, and India. The Second World, although producers of their own knowledge, is heavily influenced by the dominance of the First World, reinforcing the legitimacy of psychological knowledge generated in the First World (Moghaddam, 1987). The ‘Third World’ included developing countries such as Bangladesh, Cuba, and Nigeria. It solely imports knowledge from the First and Second worlds, primarily due to a lack of capacity to produce and disseminate psychological knowledge (Moghaddam, 1987).

CHAPTER TWO

Thus, according to Moghaddam (1987) the primary gap between the First and Third Worlds is capacity to produce psychological knowledge. This capacity includes psychologists able to create the knowledge bases, as well as the publishing outlets which disseminate the knowledge (Moghaddam, 1987). The result of First World domination is that, through processes of exporting and importing, the discipline of psychology has come to be presented as a science founded within a mono-cultural western tradition which seeks and accepts universals, whilst invalidating other systems of knowledge and dissemination (Adair, 1999; Moghaddam, 1987). That the United States of America can be considered the ‘First World’ is supported by Ho (1992) who has pointed out that it is more precise to refer to the dominance of North American psychology and of the English language than it is to speak of the dominance of Western psychology. Moghaddam’s (1987) framework does shed some light on the dominance of Western psychology. However, this model has some limitations. Moghaddam’s (1987) analysis omitted the position of ‘Fourth World’ nations. Fourth World nations are defined by Nikora et al. (2006) as “indigenous communities positioned within colonial First, Second or Third World nations, for example Hawai’ians, Australian Aboriginals and Māori; the original inhabitants of the lands in which they dwell” (p. 254).

Smith (1996) has highlighted the ideological issues which arise from the colonising history of Aotearoa. In relation to education, these issues are manifest in the monocultural taken for granted pedagogy which determines dominant practice, structures and curriculum (Smith, 1996). These dominant models determine what will be accepted as valid. Implicit within dominant monocultural models is the assumption that Western forms of knowledge are considered superior to Māori knowledge bases (Smith, 1996). The relationship between Māori people in Aotearoa and psychology can be positioned within the Fourth World.

CHAPTER TWO

It is noticeable that for several countries challenges to Western psychology occurred within the broader context of post-colonial reactions, with a strong trend towards the decolonisation of knowledge in former colonial countries (Allwood & Berry, 2006; Allwood, 2002; Sinha, 1997). In these contexts, concern did not just centre on the utility of psychological knowledge obtained in the West but also on the way in which psychological concepts of universalism and individualism have worked to actively exclude the perspectives of indigenous communities, in some cases causing harm.

For example, in the early 1970s the introduction of indigenous psychology in the Philippines was influenced by the strong call to end American domination of the country (a colony of the United States for almost 50 years), with an increasing focus on national-self determination and self-reliance (Church, 1992; Church & Katigbak, 2002; Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000; Protacio-De Casto et al., 2006). The Filipino indigenous psychology movement, ‘Sikolohiyang Pilipino’ (SP), objected to a dominant imported psychology which perpetuated the “colonial status of the Filipino mind” (Enriquez, 1993, p. 55). Similarly, Nsamenang (2006) linked attempts to indigenise psychology in Cameroon with resistance to the imposition of colonial knowledge systems. However, reflecting the colonising powers of Cameroon, the focus was not on North American psychology but on psychology developed in Europe, described by Nsamenang (2006) as “an outreach discipline of Europe’s civilising mission” (p. 256). In Australia, Dudgeon and Pickett (2000) viewed psychology as a tool which contributed to the control, oppression and assimilation of indigenous peoples. Ho (1998) described the wholesale importation of dominant North American psychology into Asia as a form of cultural imperialism, which resulted in the “colonialisation of the mind” (p. 89). In Aotearoa, some have also described psychology as a tool of colonisation (Lawson-Te Aho, 1994; Love, 2003; Stewart, 1995).

The inability to produce and disseminate knowledge, while certainly important, is not the only reason to explain the position of countries characterised as

CHAPTER TWO

‘importers’ by Mogaddam (1987). It is important to consider the way in which First and Second World domination has been maintained via colonising agendas in which Western psychology is presented as a universal science. Knowledge bases which fall outside of this universal scientific paradigm are considered invalid.

Reflecting the varying interpretations of the term ‘indigenous’, some shifts to what has been described as indigenous psychology were not driven by post- colonial reactions and the self determination of indigenous peoples, but by nationalist agendas. For example, in Canada Adair (1999) does not intend indigenous psychology to refer specifically to the psychologies of indigenous peoples. Instead, according to Adair (1999) indigenous psychology in Canada focused on relevance and appropriateness to what is broadly termed the ‘Canadian context’. The move to what is described as indigenous psychology in Canada coincided with a period of emergent nationalism seeking greater independence from the influence of the United States (Allwood & Berry, 2006). In Iran, Moghaddam (2006) identified that the most important event leading to the emergence of indigenous psychology was the 1978 revolution, when the Shah was seen as a pawn of the United States. Although the dominant Western psychology is viewed as reflecting Euro-American values, European psychologists in the 1960s and 1970s were also beginning to question the dominance of Western psychology developed in the United States, identifying the need for distinctly European psychologies based on their own reality and concepts (Allwood & Berry, 2006; Moghaddam, 1987).