What is Postmodernism

and

How is it Relevant to Engaged Pedagogy?

Lisa Cosgrove

University of Massachusetts-Boston

What is Postmodernism and How is it Relevant to Engaged Pedagogy?

In recent years the subject of postmodernism has sparked numerous debates both in and outside of academe. Part of the reason for these (often contentious) debates is that a postmodern epistemology requires a paradigm shift, and for psychology this shift is a radical one. That is, as a discipline psychology remains entrenched in a modernist paradigm. A modernist paradigm is characterized by the belief that truths about human behavior can be found and adherence to the methods of the natural sciences is the best route by which to discover them. Postmodernism, by virtue of its rejection of the idea that it is possible to characterize reality objectively or accurately, engenders concerns about relativism or even nihilism. Some scholars worry that incorporating a postmodern epistemology will undermine the status of psychology as a scientific discipline. Locke (2002) expressed this fear strongly, "like anthrax of the intellect, if allowed into mainstream psychology, postmodernism will poison the field" (p. 458). In other words, how can psychology students learn about the science of human behavior or the science of psychopathology if teachers adopt a paradigm that challenges the very notion of achieving scientific truths about human experience? However, as Gergen (2001) noted, "if psychologists can replace a defensive posture with more productive participation in postmodern dialogues, psychological inquiry can be transformed in ways that will deeply enrich our endeavors" (p. 803).

Following Gergen (1994, 2001) I argue that utilizing a postmodern approach helps students develop critical thinking skills, strengthens students' awareness of social justice issues, and encourages activism within the field of psychology. Indeed, the importance of fostering critical inquiry is a topic frequently discussed in the social science literature. An increasing number of educators have emphasized the importance of active learning and the development of critical thinking skills (Anderson, 1992; Dunlap, 1998; Gray, 1993; Halpern & Nummedal, 1995; McDade, 1995; Sheldon, 1999; Wade, 1995). As Keely, Ali and Gebing (1998) aptly noted, psychology professors want students "to know how to think about psychological ideas, rather than simply what to think" (p. 270). Adopting a postmodern pedagogical stance is one way to help students become active learners and increase their openness to other perspectives.

Scholars who describe their work as being informed by a postmodern epistemology critique the dominant paradigm in psychology as being rooted in a foundationalist perspective, i.e., a belief that the search for "truths" about human behavior and experience is an achievable and desirable goal of the social sciences. Although there have been many definitions of postmodernism, all hinge on the notion of anti-foundationalism. Postmodern scholars critique the following as impossible projects: the attempt to discover universal truths about human behavior, the belief in the grand narratives of science, and the distinctions between subject and object, and facts and values (Burr, 1995; Cosgrove & McHugh, 2002; Lyotard, 1993). When psychologists work within a postmodern framework they are more cognizant of, and reflective about, the construction of categories and concepts within the field, especially insofar as these constructions are made to seem natural. In fact, postmodern scholars seek to deconstruct the very categories (e.g., gender, mental disorder) upon which psychological research depends (see, e.g., Cosgrove, 2000; Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1997; Hepburn, 1999; Ussher, 1996). Postmodernism is a project that reveals the socially constructed nature of reality and the varied interests that are served by particular constructions (Layton, 1998). A constructivist view is congruent with the emphasis on incorporating issues of diversity in psychology courses, for it encourages inclusive perspective by appreciating the richness, diversity, and often contradictory aspects of lived experience (Enns, 1989).

Thus, a postmodern approach brings epistemological, methodological, and political issues to the foreground by calling into question the beliefs and practices that allow social scientists to assume the validity of the categories they use. Postmodern scholars make explicit the epistemic commitments that warrant psychological concepts and theories. This attitude of "reflective skepticism" (McPeck, as cited in Gray, 1993) provides a formidable challenge to the science/politics dichotomy, a dichotomy that sustains the belief that scientific research is value free, objective, and hence, apolitical (Prilleltensky, 1989). That is, the science/politics dichotomy assumes "science" is uncontaminated by power, whereas the term "politics" implies competing interests and power dynamics. If this assumption goes unchallenged, the view psychology students often get is one that celebrates psychology's accomplishments without attending to the ways in which many theories and interpretations of data reinforce Eurocentric perspectives (see, e.g., Bronstein & Quina, 1988; Harris, 1997). Avoiding ethnocentrism requires genuine incorporation of pluralistic and critical perspectives into the psychology curriculum (Gloria, Rieckmann, & Rush, 2000). Hence, an effective multicultural curriculum also necessitates an exploration of how mechanisms of oppression operate at both the micro and macro level. Challenging dichotomous and other forms of reductive thinking, especially the science/politics binary, helps students to avoid ethnocentrism, to think gobally, and to become more culturally competent citizens (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002; also see White, 1994).

Engaged pedagogy necessitates embracing the complexity and political embeddedness of the arguments one makes (Billig, 1994) and the psychological truths one upholds and disseminates. Adopting a postmodern epistemological stance encourages students to examine the relationship among the trinity of power, knowledge, and rhetoric (Maranhao, as cited in Lowe, 1999). The belief that behavior should be contextualized in its full socio-political matrix is not unique to postmodern thought, and many of the questions raised and ideas discussed in the postmodern literature are not new. Pioneers in the field such as Chesler (1972), Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), Horney (1973), and Szasz (1961) long ago addressed the oppressive implications of psychiatric labeling and the ways in which psychological theories and interpretations of research data reflect gender, class, and race bias. Postmodernism contributes to and builds upon these critiques in new and innovative ways by challenging students to examine their underlying views about subjectivity, the good life, and ethics, and how these views ultimately sustain their investment in particular theories and clinical practices. In the next section I elaborate on this point and give specific suggestions for incorporating a postmodern approach into lecture material, in-class discussions, and course assignments. Although I focus on abnormal psychology, many of the suggestions and activities are applicable to other courses such as introductory psychology, personality theory, and courses in cross-cultural psychology. However, some of these assignments may need to be modified depending on the cognitive complexity of the course material.

Courses in abnormal psychology indoctrinate students into the specialized language of the mental health profession, and implicitly license them to speak it. Where will students learn about the ethical and moral responsibilities entailed by the use of this powerful tool? Like knowledge itself, diagnostic language confers power, but that power is not necessarily benign. (Marecek, 1997, p. 548)

Faculty who teach courses in abnormal psychology have the daunting task of trying to cover a great deal of material without sacrificing depth for breadth. A postmodern framework is especially helpful in this regard because it encourages students to take an in-depth look at the inescapable relationship between epistemology and methodology and the implications of this relationship for understanding emotional distress. Beginning with the first lecture, I stress three main points: (a) diagnostic knowledge confers power (Marecek, 1997); (b) the disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) are constructs, not a priori categories; hence, the medical model is perhaps best understood as a discourse (Gergen, 1994) rather than an objectively valid set of facts; and (c) postmodernism is not another theory, set of techniques, or another foundationalist discourse (Burr, 1995); it is best understood as a critical attitude toward knowledge and knowledge making. Adopting a postmodern stance allows teachers and students to notice the ways in which discourses privilege certain worldviews and beliefs and undermine others.

Many students come to a psychopathology class recognizing the fact that diagnostic knowledge confers power. However, most textbooks and ethical codes address the issue of power in terms of its potential abuses. For example, there is a great deal of published work that discusses the importance of establishing an egalitarian therapeutic relationship. In a similar vein, the ethical guidelines for psychology warn against the misuse of power by avoiding dual relationships in both research and clinical settings. Thus, monolithic notions of power, in which power is seen as an individual or institutional possession (Foucault, 1980) typically frame these discussions; teachers usually do not address the ways in which power is constitutive or productive. However, it is important for students to think about the inescapable relationship between power and knowledge. As Foucault (1977) cautioned:

Clearly, relations of dominance are sustained through the very act of diagnosing; the diagnosis given creates a certain reality and marginalizes others. Foucault's point that there is an inescapable relationship between knowledge and power provides an important grounding for the course; it allows for stimulating discussions early on in the course about the ways in which the labeling of abnormality always involves interpretation, judgment, and values. However, students are not usually familiar with Foucault's work, and therefore it is helpful to use material from within the field of psychology to render more accessible his ideas about power and knowledge and "rituals of truth." A wonderful example of Foucault's contention that "power produces reality," can be found in Landrine's work on the history of psychiatric labeling. In the first lecture I discuss Landrine's (1988) paper on the role of racism in the development of concepts of psychopathology. In describing the clinical taxonomy of slaves in the early 1800s, Landrine pointed out that slaves once held center stage as objects of intense clinical scrutiny. She wrote,

This brief foray into an often unacknowledged part of psychology's history can help set the stage for an examination of the way in which symptoms are contextual and why it is helpful to re-conceptualize the science of psychopathology within a socio-political framework. In addition, this short history lesson provides an important opportunity to discuss issues of exclusion and marginalization from both an epistemological as well as methodological perspective. It also helps foster critical thinking about what an emancipatory, more culturally sensitive and politically engaged psychology would look like (Griffin, 2000; hooks, 1990). Unfortunately, psychology operates under the assumption that race, gender, class, disability, and so on, are discrete variables that can be inserted easily into clinical research studies. As an increasing number of marginalized individuals have emphasized, this assumption leaves intact many heterosexist, racist, and classist beliefs. It also leads to the commodification of diversity (Landrine, 1996). For example, many scholars argue that despite much rhetoric about respecting difference, researchers tend to exploit diversity as a commodity rather than working toward the development of a truly inclusive psychology (Landrine, 1996; Moghaddam & Studer, 1997; see also, Gloria, et. al, 2000). A productive discussion that often develops from this lecture is how psychology, and especially abnormal psychology, can grapple with the issue of "other-ness." That is, the discussion focuses on the question of who becomes an "other" for us. (See, e.g., hooks, 1990; Kowalski 2000; Shawver, 1998).

More specifically, postmodernist scholarship challenges the idea that cultures are best understood as properties of stable groups; thus a postmodern framework fosters re-theorization of the complexity of identities and cultural categories (Griffin, 2000). A framework that enables psychologists to theorize diversity issues is especially important in light of Ocampo et. al.'s (2003) review of the empirical studies concerning diversity published in ToP over the last twenty-five years. Ocampo et. al. found that these studies were mainly descriptive and atheoretical. The focus on other-ness, together with the postmodern emphasis on the complexity and multiplicity of cultural and group identities, encourages researchers and teachers to use theory to inform their work on diversity and social justice issues. Ensuring diversity is no longer reduced to a methodological problem that is easily solved by making sure clinical trials and studies are stratified by race/ethnicity, gender, class, and sexual orientation.

Thus, instead of ferreting out methodological problems in past research studies, psychologists whose work is informed by postmodern approaches to diversity ask questions about the epistemological commitments that undergird inquiry in the field of psychopathology. This shift allows the following questions to be addressed: "How are social relations of dominance and subordination reinforced in and through the process of psychiatric labeling?" "What are some of the implicit beliefs, assumptions, and values that are needed to support this hypothesis/theory/diagnostic category/treatment recommendation?" "Does this theory/diagnosis/conclusion contribute to the marginalization of certain groups of people?" Asking students to explore the pervasiveness of ethno-, andro-, and heterosexist biases in the psychological literature enhances their critical thinking skills (Goldstein, 1995, p. 230). Intellectual debate is stimulated by exploring the relationship between inequality and emotional distress and by questioning the therapeutic hegemony of psychological theories regarding effective coping (Fine, 1992; Sloan, 1997).

Discussing the conceptualization of homosexuality in the DSM provides an additional lesson about the construction of normality and the politics of psychiatric diagnosis. It is also provides an opportunity for students to think critically about the meaning of terms such as objectivity and validity, especially when these terms are used to support the inclusion of specific mental disorders in psychiatric taxonomy. Many students are not aware of the fact that homosexuality was included in earlier editions of the DSM (e.g., DSM II) and that the controversy came to a head in the 1970s when pressure from gay rights activists forced the DSM committee members to reconsider its inclusion.¹ I briefly discuss the paper by Sptizer (as cited in Kirk & Kutchins, 1992) in which he argued that those individuals who were adversely affected by their sexual orientation be given a new diagnosis of Sexual Orientation Disturbance. After much debate, Sexual Orientation Disturbance was changed to homodysphilia, then to dyshomophilia; in the DSM III the name was changed to Ego Dystonic Homosexuality, a diagnosis for individuals who experience distress about their homosexual impulses (Kirk & Kutchins, 1992). Students are surprised to learn that until 1994 Ego Dystonic Homosexuality appeared in the index of the DSM. Although the DSM-IV-TR (2000) no longer includes homosexuality in the index, the third example listed under the category Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified is "persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation" (p. 582). A lively discussion ensues in the classroom about the meaning of ego syntonic homosexuality in a world where individuals are often discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

Similarly, increasing students' awareness of the history and controversy surrounding the diagnoses Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) and Dependent Personality Disorder (DPD) fosters healthy debate about the medicalization of emotional distress. It is important to expose students to the empirical research that challenges the validity and reliability of these diagnoses. For example, there is little support for the existence of such a thing as a premenstrual mental illness, and the relevant research that provided preliminary support was methodologically flawed (Caplan, 1995; Caplan & Cosgrove, in press; Chrisler, 1996; Cosgrove & Riddle, in press; Ussher, 1996). Also, women who label their experience as PMS or PMDD are significantly more likely than other women to have histories of abuse, to be in upsetting life situations, or to be in troubled marriages (Golding, & Taylor, 1996, 2000; Hunter, Swann &Ussher, 1995; Moeller, Bachmann, & Moeller, 1993; see also Stout & Steege, 1985). Discussing how the diagnosis PMDD may inadvertently perpetuate a view of women as hormone driven and emotionally labile, and why the diagnosis DPD perpetuates sexist stereotypes, helps students to think critically about the costs, benefits, and sociopolitical implications of using DSM diagnoses to capture the lived experience of emotional distress.

Following Burr (1995), Cushman and Guilford (2000), Gergen (1994; 2001), and Hepburn (2000), I emphasize the idea that postmodernism should not be seen as a separate theory to be pitted against traditional psychological theories. Adopting a postmodern epistemology means taking a critical perspective about knowledge claims. However, as Gergen (1994) astutely noted, critique in and of itself impedes dialogue, as it silences rather than engenders conversations among individuals and groups who hold disparate views of the world. Critiques can invigorate the discipline of psychology, but teachers must emphasize that it takes a special effort to use critiques to move thinking forward. For example, most teachers and researchers propose an interactionist perspective in which the etiology of distress is explained by appealing to biological, cognitive, and social factors. However, the dualisms that continue to exert an influence in the field of psychology, such as mind/body, healthy/disordered, and observer/observed, remain entrenched within an interactionist framework. Offering a critique of these dualisms moves an interactionist approach forward in novel and productive ways.

In the first class I ask students to write down their definitions of three terms - psychopathology, mental disorder, and abnormal behavior - and then share, discuss, and reflect on their definitions. I emphasize that the purpose of this assignment is not to try to discover the correct definition(s), but rather to encourage students to reflect on the following questions: "What does my definition reveal about my theoretical and personal assumptions? Does my definition afford me the greatest opportunity to help the clients with whom I will work? Why or how does it afford me that opportunity?" (I also encourage students to keep their definitions and look at them again at the end of the semester.)

Also, early on in the course I assign a short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Yellow Wallpaper (1892/1993). This story was written in the late 1800s when the 'rest cure' was the standard treatment intervention for women who were depressed. Gilman provides a riveting semi-autobiographical account of a woman literally driven crazy by the treatment purported to cure her. (Indeed this story is a good example of what the term iatrogenic means!) I ask students to diagnose the main character according to the DSM-IV-TR's multiaxial system, to adequately support their diagnosis, and to provide a brief critique of the diagnosis that they chose. This assignment gives students the opportunity to apply their knowledge of the DSM-IV-TR to a particular case. When students share their diagnoses in class, they have the opportunity to see how different clinicians focus on different aspects of any given case, and that even though the DSM-IV-TR (2000) provides helpful guidelines, there are a number of diagnoses that are potentially supportable. This aspect of the assignment allows for stimulating and productive class discussions about the issue of reliability in psychiatric diagnosis. Most importantly, this exercise brings home the point that observation of symptoms always involves interpretation, and observations and interpretations reflect one's values and beliefs. This assignment helps students recognize the critical importance of contextualizing behavior and symptoms. It is one thing to have abstract theoretical discussions about the problems and controversies that surround psychodiagnostics, but it is quite another thing to actually assign a diagnostic label to a person's emotional pain. A large part of what makes this a powerful experience for students is that The Yellow Wallpaper is a first person account. Students see how difficult - and often objectifying - it is to take another person's complex and richly nuanced life story and make it conform to a psychiatric taxonomy. Indeed, this assignment helps students appreciate the fact that how we understand emotional distress is itself a function of specific socio-historic beliefs. Students often point out that normative expectations for women in the late 19^th and early 20^th century differ from expectations in the early 21^st century. This realization generates a discussion about the relationship between normativity and social regulation and the extent to which therapists, by being increasingly pressured to give a psychiatric diagnosis, are engaged more in social control rather than social change. This assignment also encourages students to think about the ways in which psychologists may inadvertently create chronic identities (Madigan, 1999) through psychiatric labeling and about how gender, class, race, and sexual orientation influence the experience and diagnosis of emotional distress.

I also require students to work together on a group project. Students form small groups of 3 or 4 people and their collective effort provides the basis for a group paper (i.e., a paper with multiple authors). Although students are free to choose a project, I give them a handout that includes suggested topics. The following topics are illustrations from that handout but these activities also can be designed as in-class discussions, exercises, or debates. These topics are relevant for use in other psychology classes, such as research methods, personality theory, introductory psychology, ethics, or cross-cultural psychology.

Data are from faculty evaluation forms gathered from two groups of students who took the abnormal psychology course in spring 2002 (n = 40) and fall 2002 (n = 29). At the end of the semester students completed faculty evaluations forms that require numerical ratings. The 4-point scale for responses ranged from not at all (1) to very much (4). Descriptors for the global course assessment question ranged from poor (1) to excellent (4). Students were assured of confidentiality, the instructor was not present when students completed the forms, and students knew that the instructor would not be allowed to see the results until after grades were submitted. The overall rating for course content and assessment was excellent (spring 2002 M = 4.0, SD = .00; fall 2002 M = 3.92, SD = .27). In response to the question "Exercises encouraged critical and creative thinking," students reported that the exercises encouraged critical inquiry (spring 2002 M = 3.95, SD = .22; fall 2002 M = 3.86, SD = .45). Students also believed that the "Instructor modeled advocacy for social justice" (spring 2002 M = 3.95, SD = .16; fall 2002 M = 4.0, SD = .00.). Students reported that the course "Provided a clear foundation for life-long learning and practice" (spring 2002 M = 3.95, SD = .22; fall 2002 M = 3.97, SD = .19). Since implementing a postmodern approach, many students have expressed strong positive feelings about the course. For example, one student wrote, ". . . I left each class meeting in state of excited engagement with the material and with the possibilities for my career in counseling." Another student expressed a similar sentiment, ". . . I always left surprised by something and intellectually and emotionally stimulated".

Incorporating a social justice model in the psychology classroom requires students and faculty to engage in critical inquiry and reflection and to evaluate the theories and assumptions that inform the discipline. If teachers do not encourage critical thinking, students' views of healthy human functioning may become ethnocentric and de-contextualized (Enns, 1994). Unfortunately, because many theories rely on intra-individual factors to explain distress, they may inadvertently sustain an unjust status quo (Fox & Prilleltenlsky, 1997; Parker, 1995; Prilleltensky, 1989). However, teachers can help students to become agents of social change by encouraging multi-perspectivity, and by encouraging students to "think outside the box." In this way, postmodernism can be seen as a resource, as a comportment towards knowledge and knowledge making that enriches one's teaching and thus is highly relevant to engaged pedagogy. Indeed, when faulty and students alike question taken-for-granted assumptions, transcend dichotomies (e.g., normal/abnormal) and try to envision new ways of thinking, teaching truly becomes "a site of resistance" (hooks, 1994, p. 21).

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4^th ed. text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, D. D. (1992). Questioning the conventional wisdom and critiquing unconventional perspectives in abnormal psychology: A written exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 230-232.

Billig, M. (1994). Repopulating the depopulated pages of social psychology. Theory and Psychology 4, 307-335.

Bohan, J. S. (2002). Sex differences and/in the self: Classic themes, feminist variations, postmodern challenges. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 74-88.

Bohm, D. (1990). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. Philosophical Psychology, 3, 271-286.

Breggin, P. R., & Breggin, G. R. (1994). Talking back to Prozac. New York: St. Martin Press.

Bronstein, P., & Quina, K. (1988). (Eds.). Teaching a psychology of people: Resources for gender and sociocultural awareness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York: Routledge.

Caplan, P. (1995). They say you're crazy: How the world's most powerful psychiatrists decide who's normal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Caplan P. & Cosgrove, L. (in press). Bias in psychiatric diagnosis. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Chesler, P. (1972). Women and madness. Garden City: Doubleday.

Chrisler, J. C. (1996). PMS as a culture-bound syndrome. In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (pp. 107-121). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cosgrove, L. (2000). Crying out loud: Understanding women's emotional distress as both lived experience and social construction. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 247-267.

Cosgrove, L., & Riddle, B. (in press). Constructions of femininity and experiences of menstrual distress. Women & Health.

Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. (2002). Deconstructing difference: Conceptualizing feminist research from within the postmodern. In L. Collins, M. Dunlap, & J. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 20-36). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cushman, P., & Gilford, P. (2000). Will managed care change our way of being? American Psychologist, 55, 985-996.

Dunlap, M. R. (1998). Methods of supporting students' critical reflection in courses incorporating service learning. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 208-210.

Enns, C. E. (1989). Toward teaching inclusive personality theories. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 111-117.

Enns, C. E. (1994). On teaching about the cultural relativism of psychological constructs. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 205-211.

Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality (Volume One). (R. Hurley, Trans.) New York: Vintage Books.

Fox, D., & Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Introducing critical psychology: Values, assumptions, and the status quo. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern world. American Psychologist, 56, 803-813.

Gilman, C. P. (1993). The yellow wallpaper. New York: Orchises Press. (Originally published 1892).

Gloria A. M., Rieckmann, T. R., & Rush, J. D. (2000). Issues and recommendations for teaching an ethnic/culture-based course. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 102-108.

Golding, J. M., & Taylor, D. (1996). Sexual assault and premenstrual distress in two general population samples. Journal of Women's Health, 5, 143-152.

Golding, J. M., & Taylor, D. (2000). Prevalence of sexual assault in women experiencing severe PMS. Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 21, 69-80.

Goldstein, S. B. (1995). Cross-cultural psychology as a curriculum transformation resource. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 228-232.

Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students' intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 68-74.

Griffin, C. (2000). More than simply talk and text: Psychologists as cultural ethnographers. In C. Squire (Ed.), Culture in Psychology (17-30). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Halpern, D. F., & Nummedal, S. G. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 82-83.

Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. (1997). Abnormal psychology and the politics of madness. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical Psychology: An introduction (pp. 104-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harris, B. (1997). Repoliticizing the history of psychology. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 21-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hepburn, A. (1999). Derrida and psychology: Deconstruction and its ab/uses in critical discursive psychologies. Theory & Psychology, 9, 639-665.

Hepburn, A. (2000). On the alleged incompatibility between relativism and feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 91-106.

Hollingshead, A. B. & Redlich, F. C. (1958). Social class and mental illness: A community study. New York: John Wiley and Sons. hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Horney, K. (1973). Feminine psychology. New York: Norton.

Hunter, M. Swann, C., & Ussher, J. (1995). Seeking help for premenstrual syndrome: Women's self-reports and treatment preferences. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 10, 253-262.

Keeley, S. M., Ali, R., & Gebing, T. (1998). Beyond the sponge model: Encouraging students' questioning skills in abnormal psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 270-274.

Kirk, S., & Kutchins, H. (1992). The selling of the DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kowalski, R. M. (2000). Including gender, race, and ethnicity in psychology content courses. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 18-25.

Kramer, P. (1993). Listening to Prozac. New York: Penguin Books.

Landrine, H. (1988). Revising the framework of abnormal psychology. In P. Bronstein (Ed.), Teaching the psychology of people: Resources for gender and socio-cultural awareness (pp. 37-44). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Landrine, H. (Ed.). (1996). Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

Layton, L. (1998). Who's that girl? Who's that boy? Clinical practice meets postmodern gender theory. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Locke, E. A. (2002). The dead end of postmodernism. American Psychologist, 57, 458.

Lowe, R. (1999). Between the 'No Longer' and the 'Not Yet': Postmodernism as a context for critical therapeutic work. In I. Parker (Ed.) Deconstructing psychotherapy (pp.71-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27, 2-14.

Lyotard, J. F. (1993). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. (G.

Bennington, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Madigan, S. (1999). Inscription, Description and deciphering chronic identities. In I. Parker (Ed.), Deconstructing psychotherapy (pp. 150-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marecek, J. (1997). Disappearances, silences, and anxious rhetoric: Gender in abnormal psychology textbooks. In M. N. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 543-552). New York: Routledge.

McDade, S. A. (1995). Case study pedagogy to advance critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 9-10.

Moghaddam, F. M., & Studer, C. (1997) Cross cultural psychology: The frustrated gadfly's promises, potentialities, and failures. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 185-201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moeller, T. P., Bachmann, G. A. & Moeller, J. R. (1993). The combined effects of physical and emotional abuse during childhood: Long-term health consequences for women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 623-640.

Ocampo, C., Prieto, L. R., Whittlesey, V., Connor, J., Janco-Gidley, J., Mannix, S., et al. (2003). Diversity research in Teaching of Psychology: Summary and recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 5-18.

Parker, I. (Ed.). (1995). Deconstructing psychotherapy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Prilleltensky, I. (1989). Psychology and the status quo. American Psychologist, 44, 795-802.

Prilleltensky, I. (1994). The morals and politics of psychology: Psychological discourse and the status quo. Albany New York: State University of New York Press.

Prilleltensky, I. & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Szasz, T. S. (1961). The myth of mental illness. New York: Hoeber-Harper.

Shawver, L. (1998). Postmodernizing the unconscious with the help of Derrida and Lyotard. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 58, 361-390.

Sheldon, J. P. (1999). A secondary agenda in classroom activities: Having students confront their biases and assumptions. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 209-211.

Sloan, T. (1997). Theories of personality: Ideology and Beyond. In D. Fox & I. Prilleltensky (Eds.), Critical psychology: An introduction (pp. 87-103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stout, A. L., & Steege, J. F. (1985). Psychological assessment of women seeking treatment for premenstrual syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29, 621-629.

Ussher, J. M. (1996). Premenstrual syndrome: Reconciling disciplinary divides through the adoption of a material-discursive epistemological standpoint. Annual Review of Sex Research, 7, 218-251.

Wade, C. (1995). Using writing to help develop and assess critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 24-28.

White, A. M. (1994). A course in the psychology of oppression: A different approach to teaching about diversity. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 17-23.