Introduction

Ironically, the term German Critical Psychology (GCP) coined for this handbook highlights its particularities in comparison to critical psychologies, whereas the entry itself intends to indicate its general value for the international dialogue on challenges intellectuals and practitioners encounter vis à vis human subjectivity.

Definition

GCP’s founders, Klaus Holzkamp and his colleagues, developed an original conceptual framework (“categories”) as a “new scientific base for the entire Psychology” (Holzkamp, 1983, p. 19) in its material and methodological dimensions. Rooted in Marxist thought and methodology, this approach opens a way out of the pre-paradigmatic state of the discipline (Graumann, 1994; Maiers, 1991; Métraux, 1981, 1985) and of the chism between natural and social sciences within it by a trans-disciplinary approach (Maiers, 1988). The core category ‘personal agency/action potence’ is derived from historical-empirical research and mediates biological and social aspects of human subjectivity. It relates to individuals’ actions and to psychological functions such as cognition, emotion and motivation. GCP’s methodology and methods are derived from categorical assumptions, suggesting that objectivity is achieved by procedures adequate to their object rather than by compliance with an overgeneralized epistemology. Several generations of psychologists have, on this basis, reinterpreted traditional concepts, carried out empirical research, developed alternative professional approaches to psychological challenges. Last but not least, the categorical assumptions themselves have been refined and revised.

Keywords

Agency/action potence; first person perspective; grounded action; practice research; societal nature; subjectivity

History

Institutional History

GCP emerged from cultural transformations, which social movements of the 1960s across Europe sought to bring about in the post-Second-World-War constellation. In West Germany, the students’ movement was a stronghold in this development. Based on critical theories of (capitalist) society and state students investigated how psychological theories and practices can serve as an element in the reproduction of domination. The branch later on called GCP (Kritische Psychologie) shared this view, yet argued furthermore for the necessity of a genuinely psychological level of analysis within Marxist theory and for developing psychological categories alternative not only to ‘mainstream’ but also psychoanalytic concepts. Driven by the fusion between critical students and an established professor for psychology, Klaus Holzkamp, this program was carried out at the Psychological Institute at Freie Universität Berlin. From an epistemological standpoint drawing on Dingler’s constructionism Holzkamp (1964, 1968) had pointed out some shortcomings of scientific ‘objectivity’ in the experimental-statistical model. Making use of Habermas (1965) notion of ‘technological’ from ‘emancipatory’ relevance of social sciences, he expanded this critique of low external validity to discussing the societal relevance of psychological contributions. Ensuing vivid debates between contradicting psychologies, prototypically embodied in the foundation of the Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie by H. Feger (Experimental Psychology), C.F. Graumann (Phänomenology), K. Holzkamp and M. Irle (Mainstream) in 1970, ceased soon again (Maiers, 1979). Facing theoretical challenges and losing their political power in the process of the democratization of academic decision making the conservative staff eventually left the institute and founded the Institute for Psychology, while the critical majority remained within the Psychological Institute. At first sight GCP flourished in the following decade as curricula were established, as international congresses with thousands of participants took place and as the approach was received abroad (mainly in Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands). Yet, the Institute’s coherence and reputation was undermined throughout its existence. A Yellow Press Campaign affiliated Holzkamp with sexual abuse, while he had in fact accepted formal responsibility for a students’ project (Autorenkollektiv, 1971), in which sexuality was addressed as an issue of interest to the children visiting the after-school care club (Haug, 1971). Furthermore, the Senate of Berlin regularly appointed scholars to the Institute, who had been listed on second or third place, positions were not prolonged and none of those on the short list (W. Maiers, O. Dreier, C.W. Tolman) for Holzkamp’s chair (he retired in 1992 and died in 1995) were appointed until the chair was cancelled altogether. The Psychological Institute lost its autonomy in 1995. Its remnants, upheld by Holzkamp’s students and colleagues such as Professor M. Markard, were buried under a wave of neoliberal governance in Germany. In historical oblivion and anti-marxist frenzy unleashed by the crumbling Eastern Bloc and the incorporation of East Germany into the West German State, the psychological monoculture was (re-)established in the department of psychology at the Freie Universität Berlin. Next to feminist, qualitative and other critical approaches Marxist GCP was excluded from the new B.A. and M.A. curricula. Yet, before and after its end as an academic institution GCP has been developed and taught in various settings: the journal Forum Kritische Psychologie publishes theoretical and empirical innovations, professors such as J. Held (Tübingen), K. Weber (Munich) and W. Maiers (Stendal) teach and do research on its basis just as numerous younger scholars do in academic and non-academic contexts. Also, through W. Maiers and O. Dreier, GCP has been introduced to the community involved in the International Society of Theoretical Psychology (ISTP). Students in German-speaking countries continue to study GCP and discuss it in self-organized Summer Schools. Recently, the Klaus Holzkamp-Institut für Subjektwissenschaft was founded at the Freie Universität Berlin.

Critical Debates

Conceptual Development

Facing the proliferation of massive problems individuals encounter in their individual reproduction in the context of a fundamental, multifaceted crisis of the capitalist formation around the globe, Psychologists are in great need of powerful emancipatory tools in theory and practice. GCP attempts to make contributions to this trans-national venture. While its set of categories full of neologisms hampers translation, its trans-disciplinary approach puts GCP into dialogue with anthropology, genetic research, sociology, education and the entire range of psychological sub-disciplines. We thus hope for a reader listening to the meaning rather than to the sound of GCP’s conceptual, theoretical and methodological suggestions.

The specific approach of GCP is related firstly to the debate, whether or not a critique of the genesis and function of Psychology would suffice (Rexilius, 1987). GCP holds that this approach is unable to identify the potentially relevant insights of traditional concepts (Maiers, 1979) and concluded that an alternative conceptual framework for such a differentiated assessment was needed. Secondly, GCP objected to combining Marxist Sociology with Psychoanalytic Psychology (Adorno, 1955; Lichtman, 1986) because of the latter’s anti-social concept of drive, yet reinterpreted psychoanalytical notions (Holzkamp-Osterkamp, 1976). The task was to create concepts rendering insight into human subjectivity under historically specific conditions (Holzkamp, 1976, p. 248) within an emancipatory project. This could be reached by reconstructing historically how ‘subjectivity’ became problematic in a way that would bring the discipline of Psychology into existence (Jaeger & Staeuble, 1978) and by reconstructing the genesis of the human psyche in evolutionary and socio-historical processes. GCP focused, thirdly, on the latter (Tolman, 1991).

Understanding the human psyche as a composition of natural, social and individual dimensions this historical reconstruction results in an empirically grounded understanding of the relation between them: The concepts (categories) relating to historically earlier phenomena are general, those relating to historically later developments are specific characteristics of the human psyche. Thus, the set of categories can serve to avoid an “organismic anthropology” (Holzkamp, 1972, p. 62) implicit to the (mis-)understanding of subjectivity as strictly determined by external conditions as in experimental psychology, or, vice versa, overgeneralizing or humanizing animals’ behavior. The period of special interest is the one, in which the human species evolved (Tier-Mensch-Übergangsfeld). GCP holds, that the human species became and is social by nature (gesellschaftliche Natur), giving it the potential of co-creating nature and to produce its social surrounding as well as enabling the human individuals physio-psychologically to socialization into historically and regionally varying societies (Holzkamp, 1973, 1983, 1991; Holzkamp-Osterkamp, 1975; Schurig, 1975a, 1975b, 1976). Still determined by laws of evolution, early forms of cooperation allowed for providing prospectively for the collective reproduction. Furthermore, the laws of evolution steering the development were gradually superposed by the socio-historical logic. As this transformation in the logic of development occurs and as the link between contributing to and using the means of (re)production loosens with respect to a certain individual, its reproduction is not dependant on its immediate contribution anymore, and neither are its actions strictly determined by the socio-natural surrounding. Rather, the individual takes action with respect to the surrounding’s social meaning. It is free to adopt given options or to expand the surrounding’s options by transforming it (collectively). As a result of this “possibility relation” between societal and individual reproduction the human individual’s actions cannot be understood in terms of evolutionary functions or of “stimulus and response.”

The “possibility relation” implies that human action and subjectivity is neither strictly determined nor completely in-determined. Rather, the individual’s reproduction depends/on its – socially mediated – appropriation of relevant means of reproduction, in short: personal agency/action potence (Handlungsfähigkeit). This term marks the essence of the human psyche and is regarded as the “psychological core category” (Holzkamp, 1983, p. 20). For the individual, socio-natural and socio-historic surroundings bear the meaning of a set of potentials and obstacles with respect to personal agency/action potence. Human actions and subjectivity are subjectively grounded in the surrounding and its meaning, as the individual in actu necessarily stresses certain aspects of them, turning them into premises (Prämissen) for specific actions (cognitions, emotions, motivations) intended to serve subjective grounds (Gründe) (Maiers, 1995). GCP holds, that essential psychological phenomena can be adequately analyzed only in terms of “premise-grounds-relations,” not in terms of “stimulus–response-relations.”

While the concepts introduced so far are meant to be valid for the entire human species in any socio-historical context, the category of “restrictive and generalized agency” seeks to specify the “possibility relation” with respect to the socio-historical context of the capitalist formation. “Restrictive agency” characterizes actions on the premise of accepting given forms of domination and of resigning from attempts to enhance personal agency by overcoming them (collectively); “generalized agency” refers to seizing this option. If “restrictive agency” implies harm to oneself (Selbstfeindschaft), yet nobody consciously harms oneself, this mode of action unleashes the dynamic unconscious (Holzkamp-Osterkamp, 1976, p. 255ff). The category “personal agency/action potence” contains psychological functions (cognition, emotion, motivation), which have been differentiated with respect to the “restrictive” and “generalized” mode. Also, the categories have been developed regarding the process of human ontogenesis. Finally, with respect to research on particular forms of agency, there are five levels of analysis to be considered including sociological and biological-physiological dimensions (Holzkamp, 1983, p. 356).

Using the set of categories, traditional psychological concepts have been re-interpreted, such as attitude (Markard, 1984), learning (Holzkamp, 1994) and volition (Maiers, 2007). The categories also served as a base for a variety of empirical research resulting in theories on relations between parents and children (Dreier, 1980; Markard, 1985; Ulman, 1987), on the meaning of high-tech-based production for workers (Projekt Automation und Qualifikation, 1980, 1981a, 1981b), on gender relations (Haug, 1980), on how the state of academic psychology affects emancipatory psychological practice (Markard & ASB, 2000; Markard & Holzkamp, 1989), on racism (Held & Spona, 1999; Osterkamp, 1996; Weber, 2001) and on Lebensführung (Osterkamp, 2008).

Methodology and Methods

In the tradition of action research, GCP’s research aims at overcoming (subjectively) problematic forms of agency by reconstructing ‘premise-grounds-relations’, suggesting theoretical alternatives and investigating their practical value (Markard, 1985, 2000). Rather than being a research object as in the case of a test person, the stakeholders are (in the ideal case) involved in the process as co-researchers; as the dialogue between researcher and co-researcher refers to subjective premises and objectives it is qualified as “discourse on grounded action” (Begründungsdiskurs), as opposed to the “discourse on conditioned behavior” (Bedingtheitsdiskurs) in the traditional model (Holzkamp, 1983, p. 509ff). By identifying the discourse on grounded action in the midst of experimental psychology, Holzkamp (1986) demonstrated that this approach cannot be confined to a hermeneutic exclave but is constutitive for the entire psychology. Since premise-grounds-relations are constituted by reasoned action mediated by meaning, empirical data cannot test a theory. Rather, they exemplify it. Also, theories and data do not inform about frequency and dissemination of the relation they refer to. Yet, generalizations can be developed theoretically as well as practically (Geffers, 2008; Holzkamp, 1983, p. 545). GCP’s methodology and methods are situated beyond the dualism of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Markard, 1991).

Baller (1995) opted for incorporating postmodern sociology into GCP’s implying methodologically to give up categories specific to socio-historical contexts, while Kaindl (1998) argued for updating categories according to historical developments within the capitalist formation; Markard (2009, p. 180ff), upholding the Marxist approach and the idea of historically specified categories, pointed out some historically specific traces within categories and concluded that futher theoretical and empirical research is needed in order to avoid such conflations. In Osterkamps’s theory on racism Fried (2002) missed a sociological contextualization, which Reimer (2011) tried to render. The assumption that agency within the restrictive mode implies necessarily harm to oneself has been criticized for not being able to understand apparent benefits of exerting power (Markard, 2009, p. 200), turning this assumption into a categorical hypothesis for empirical research. Theories on female subjection into ideological gender relations hold, that this process results from choice, while others argue that the implicit concept of ‘free will’ is valid as a sociological, not a psychological concept (Schmalstieg, 2006). According to Haug (2003), Holzkamp’s concept of learning underestimates the relevance of teaching, collective learning and emotions (Forum Kritische Psychologie 48, 2005; Markard, 2009, p. 254ff). Lux has formulated the program of updating the fundamental assumption, that the human species is social by nature with respect to recent developments in the field of genetics (Lux, 2012).

International and Practice Relevance

The comprehensive claim of integrating natural and social dimensions holds true against concepts, which neglect either the bio-physical or the social character of humankind. GCP can help to avoid vain controversies and identify the dimensions, aspects and levels of the human psyche, which specific concepts, theories and findings relate to. The venture of developing fundamental categories empirically in the historical dimension, opens an entirely new level of discussion within Psychology, because theoretical terms are usually defined, not derived from historical data. Thus, GCP is an attempt to make grounds for a truly paradigmatic (Kuhn, 1962) stage of Psychology. It stresses the perspective of the individual against sociological views on motifs of action and it overcoming continues to make use of Marxist thought for psychological challenges. Its answers may not hold true, but the questions raised are still valid for any discipline dealing with human agency and subjectivity. Contemporarily, theoretical and practical alternatives to traditional approaches found to be stabilizing forms of domination or failing to understand the subjects’ problems comprehensively have been developed in various fields by numerous young scholars (Huck et al., 2008; Markard & ASB, 2000). Thus, GCP’s categories and research concepts have been and continue to be put into practice in the perspective of an emancipatory global project.

Future Directions

The trans-disciplinary character of GCP necessitates its permanent dialogue with debates and findings in the social and natural sciences in order to reevaluate its own stance as well as to renew a Marxist voice in the global realm of Psychology. Its objective is to contribute with psychological means to strengthening forms of generalized agency, which may lead to emancipation from domination within the global formation of capitalism. The scattered intellectuals contributing to this project will need to establish and strengthen their networks. Also, the dialogue between GCP and critical psychologies around the globe will be intensified. English publications of selected writings of Holzkamp (Schraube & Osterkamp, 2013) and on basic notions of GCP (Painter, Marvakis, & Mos, 2009) should stimulate this process. And the recently founded Klaus Holzkamp-Institut für Subjektwissenschaft at Freie Universität Berlin may serve as a step toward re-establishing GCP’s original institutional base.