Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Thomas Teo

Social Psychology

  • Athanasios Marvakis
  • Mihalis Mentinis
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_291

Introduction and Definition

It is almost mandatory for an introductory text to begin by providing a definition of the particular field of discussion. Such a definition would conventionally contribute toward a synoptic introduction of the reader to what social psychology is and what it is concerned with. It is the case, however, that given the state of the discipline in question what a definition would actually do would be nothing but presenting one’s own acceptation of social psychology’s subject matter, thus overlooking and, at the same time, obscuring the problematic character of the definition as such. In fact, the terrain of social psychologyis a field of dispute and antagonism of competing versions of social reality, of conflicting views of what it means to be a person, and of various sociopolitical agendas. In this antagonistic and conflictive field, what eventually comes to prevail as the most widely used, hegemonic, and generally accepted perception of what social psychology...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allport, G. W. (1985/1954). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology I (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Apfelbaum, E. (1986). Prolegomena for a history of social psychology: Some hypotheses concerning its emergence in the 20th century and its raison D’être. In L. Knud (Ed.), Dialectics and ideology in psychology (pp. 3–13). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Ebbinhaus, A. (1984). Arbeiter und Arbeitswissenschaft. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Farr, R. M. (1996). The roots of modern social psychology 1872-1954. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the witch: Women, the body and primitive accumulation. New York: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
  6. Greenwood, J. (2004). The Disappearance of the Social in American Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gulbenkian Commission. (1996/1998). Open the social sciences. Report of the gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kvale, S. (2003). The church, the factory and the market: Scenarios for psychology in a postmodern Age. Theory and Psychology, 13(5), 579–603.Google Scholar
  9. Moscovici, S. (1989). Preconditions for explanation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(5), 407–430.Google Scholar
  10. Parker, I. (2003). Psychology is so critical, only marxism can save us now. Paper presented at the international conference on critical psychology, Bath, August 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Porshnev, B. (1975). Social psychology and history. Athens: Anaximandros (Greek translation from the edition: Moscow: Progress Publishers Moscow).Google Scholar
  12. Wetherell, M., McGhee, P., & Stevens, R. (1998). Defining social psychology. In R. Sapsford, A. Still, D. Miell, R. Stevens, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Theory and social psychology (pp. 5–18). London: Sage and Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary EducationAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Centre of Intercultural and Indigenous Studies-ICIIS, Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile