Ideologies to inform psychological practice: Neoliberal markets can be unreliable, and Marxist bureaucracy can hinder efficiency for individual well-being. Ideology in Psychology
Part of training for professional practice is to contemplate and write a critique of theories and models pertinent to psychology. Two common economic ideologies in developed nations’ curriculum are Neoliberalism and Marxism.
Let’s do a thought experiment, and assume the extreme position for each ideology, in turn. Will your professional practice rely on trusting the market as a private business, or trusting a centralised government service provision?
Each of these approaches for engaging human behaviour, including a person’s mental health and broader societal well-being, has strengths and weaknesses for the practioner-to-be in psychology.
Examples of these are provided below, if you’d like to skip the overview of the definitions which follows next.
Pic: Talking it Over, Enoch Wood Perry (1872), oil on canvas, MET Open Access
Definitions with Pros & Cons
To define Neoliberalism and Marxism ideologies I’m drawing on a ytube share of Professor Philip Mirowski (2017). He is an esteemed scholar in Economics and Policy Studies and the History and Philosophy of Science. He is also the Director of the Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values.
Here's a summary table of Prof. Mirowski's presentation, inclusive of Q&A at the end:
Whilst the sound is not the best, the intellectual argument presented by Prof. Mirowski is thought provoking. He argues that advocates of either ideology rarely understand the other side's arguments. Also, that neither side pays enough attention to the weaknesses and potential negative consequences of its own stance.
We can learn from this.
Dig into our side of an argument and be curious about the other side.This demonstrates Care.
Neoliberalism advocates for the market (business and other forms of trade) to determine what is of worth. Real change can happen efficiently as people will vote with their feet/wallet. This requires trust in the market economy to problem-solve rather than the government.
However, not all ideas or products in the market are a success. Or they may not be accessible to all due to pricing. The process encourages competition, which spurs innovation (including social innovation), which can solve many real-world problems.
Leaving ‘what is’ to the market can deliver amazing leisure or practical products and services to those who can afford the originals or top-tier. Alternatively, there are replicas and lower-tier versions... many times of comparable quality to those of a higher cost to the consumer.
Still, not everyone has simultaneous access to all the products and services. For some, they never will (usually due to cost, but also location of the business). As well, for those providing products and services which see success in the market (e.g., many clients/able to set a substantially high fee), there is a lot of money to be made in the form of profit.
Though, not all Neoliberal businesses will choose to charge an-arm-and-a-leg.
Alternatively, Marxism promotes greater government control over production and delivery of services, aiming for every single person to ‘get a fair share’. The gap between those that can afford certain things (such as a private psychologist) and those who cannot, is reduced by state imposed regulations about what can and cannot be produced and disseminated.
For example, how much a psychologist can charge per hour, and or how many clients can be seen per day… where a psychology service is to be located …
The goal is to reduce poverty and increase access to services by redistributing wealth. For example, all psychologists would earn the same amount, being paid by the government, the fee rate and number of clients allowable would also be equal across service providers.
However, given there is a large amount of bureaucratic oversight needed (red tape), including admin responsibilities for the practitioner. This can be inefficient due to time delays (a box not ticked or the practitioner not keeping up with changes to processes etc).
Also, innovation can be hampered as there is less competition between practitioners, as each receives the same quota of clients and or fee. The motivation to excel can decrease, such as trialing new interventions with a target population or keeping up with the reading for best practices.
Particularly, as success may draw attention of potential clients, and this would not be fair to other practitioner quotas and earnings. The psychologist may be reprimanded by government regulators or disqualified from practicing.
There is the matter though as to how the government would fund practitioners, client care needs, and the bureaucracy to oversee the equality of administration of psychological services.
Relevance for the Psychology Undergrad
The economic ideologies of Neoliberalism and Marxism can affect practioner and or client mental health, motivations, and behaviors. Following is a non-exhaustive list of examples.
The psychological well-being of a client can benefit from a Neoliberal approach, as their right to autonomy and sense of ‘self-efficacy’ in their own agency is promoted. Although, awareness of the unequal access to services (e.g., using government funded or philanthropic services rather than higher-fee private services) could contribute to experiences of stress and anxiety.
Alternatively, the Marxism approach advocates for more social support of a client to influence community well-being. However, the centralised control (by government bureaucracy) of access to services may contribute to a client feeling powerless, given the lack of their autonomy to choose amongst available practitioners and practice styles.
With regards to motivation and behaviour, Neoliberalism could target the intrinsic motivation of a practitioner when personal goals at work being met or exceeded. Unfortunately though, market pressures (e.g., rent, registration fees, target market access) could reduce a psychologist’s intrinsic motivation to excel in their field, or at the very least, with their target population. This could decrease their personal satisfaction with their work and motivation to practice.
In contrast, Marxism would have the psychologist focus on collective goals of the nation as a source of motivation to work; to provide a sense of purpose. Nevertheless, the paucity of individual incentives could reduce the intrinsic motivation of a psychologist to take the initiative to ‘go the extra mile’ at work, or to explore better ways of delivering services.
The mental health of both client and practitioner could be enhanced via Neoliberalism, as taking personal responsibility for outcomes (within reason) can boost self-esteem. Yet, potentially high competition between practitioners, fees, or service availability, could facilitate either party experiencing depression and or anxiety-like symptoms.
Whereas Marxism could reduce stress of either party via a sense of economic security, and the knowledge of equality of service availability and provision. Nonetheless, centralised government systems can be inflexible, with a much expanded bureaucracy potentially ignoring individual mental health needs.
Pic: PromeAI
In contrast, Neoliberalism reduces government intervention to a minimum, relying more heavily on private sector organisations (e.g., the APS, PACFA or the AAPi). However, it could be argued that this decreases the efficiency of a social safety net for clients, particularly those from vulnerable populations (e.g., remote and very remote First Nations Australians, people living homeless or with a disability).
To reiterate, the Marxist approach emphasises a strong role for the government in the provision of social welfare, including mental health. Although, as identified earlier, this de-emphasises focus on individual mental health needs as bureaucratic processes tend to be hampered when encountering idiosyncrasies.
On that note, Neoliberalism supports the principle of individualism, autonomy, and personal freedom in identity development that does not infringe on the rights of others. For example, a psychologist can deliver ethical services in a way that suits their theoretical approach/es, and can set their own fee structure.
Even so, globalisation and standardisation of systems could lead to cultural homogenisation, affecting the local identity of a private psychological service. Also, economic convergence could result in local private practitioners unable to compete with national or multi-national conglomerates.
On the other hand, Marxism promotes a collective identity and a sense of solidarity amongst psychologists and clients. However, this does in turn mitigate individual identities as they negate a collective ideology. Again, standardisation of services would eventually lead to homogenisation of psychological services and de-emphasis of individual needs and expectations.
Further, Neoliberalism makes room for people to act as rational agents, seen as having the capacity and the right to make self-interested decisions. For example, how to run a private psychology business, or which psychological service to choose amongst options. Although, an overemphasis on rational thinking may ignore other psychological contributors to human behaviour (e.g., genetic predispositions or life experiences which affect emotional regulation).
Pic: PromeAI
Alternatively, the Marxist perspective would place more emphasis on the social nature of humans, taking a ‘blank slate approach' (i.e., we are determined by our social environment). Also, according to the hierarchy of the approach, community as a collective takes precedence over the individual.
As such, the psychologist would not be able to conduct business as a private entity, rather, being a conduit for the social good as identified by the centralised government. Each client would be the beneficiary of a standardised practice of care, given the determinate nature of the social sphere on an individual’s mental health.
Such an overly deterministic view dose though, neglect individual differences between psychologists and between clients (including the diversity of needs within any client group). Also, the approach seeks to eradicate such differences to achieve equality of outcomes in individual mental health, for the social good.
Overall, these are two economic ideologies that can inform a psychologist’s understanding of human behaviour and societal structures influencing client and practioner wellbeing. As such, the theories informing modalities and techniques you choose to use when working with a client, requires deep consideration.
Integrity of service delivery (and research if you choose to publish), as well as other ethical decision-making in your professional life, requires grappling with complex ideas and their inherent contradictions.
Light & Life~ Charmayne
References
Mirowski, P. (2017). Hell is truth seen too late. youtube.com/watch?v=QBB4POvcH18&t=2s
Comments