You are on page 1of 17

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

C 2002)
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 4, August 2002 (

Ideology and Community Social Psychology:


Theoretical Considerations and
Practical Implications
Marisela Montenegro1

Universidad Autonoma
de Barcelona

This paper addresses the importance of the concept of ideology in community work. The implications of a Marxist approach to ideology in community
practice are analyzed in terms of the concepts of problematization (P. Freire,
1979) and consciousness-raising (J. Barreiro, 1976), illustrating the point with
some examples. The traditional Marxist perspective is also examined in rela
tion to the perspectives of social constructionism (I. Ibanez,
1996), cultural
studies (A. McRobbie, 1992), post-Marxism (E. Laclau & C. Mouffe, 1985),
and feminism (D. Haraway, 1991). It is argued that the concepts of hegemony
and habitus (P. Bourdieu, 1985) can be useful to community social psychology theory and practice. A situated perspectivein which it is possible to
dialogue from different subject positions, and articulate transformation and
political actionis argued. The implications of this shifting in the concept of
ideology by means of theoretical developments outside social community psychology can help to define the external (outside) agents position in community
practice.
KEY WORDS: ideology; problematization; consciousness-raising; situated perspective.

It has been widely recognized (see, for example, Wiesenfeld, 1994) that
the concepts of problematization (from the Portuguese neologism problematizacao)

and consciousness-raising informing community practice


in Latin American countries derive from Paulo Freire (he introduced the
1 To

whom correspondence should be addressed at Dept. de Psicologia de la Salut, Y de


Psicologia Social, Edifici B., Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra,
Barcelona, Spain; e-mail: mmontenegro@seneca.uab.es.
511
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
0091-0562/02/0800-0511/0

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

512

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

new word) who was influenced by Marxists versions of the notion of ideology
(Allman & Wallis, 1997). These versions consider ideology as a set of ideas
that make people see asymmetric power relationships as natural and, consequently, maintain these relationships, hiding the contradictions in the forms
of exploitation on each historical period. Thompson (1990) would label
this understanding as epiphenomenal, meaning a system of ideas which
expresses the interests of the dominant class but which represents class relations in an illusory form (1990, p. 37). This understanding is significant for
community interventions implemented in Latin America (and elsewhere),
both in terms of its theoretical and its practical dimensions. Consciousnessraising and problematization refer to the process by which individuals and
people become aware of their conditions of life and, consequently, transform
them.
Nevertheless, authors such as Laclau and Mouffe (1985), Thompson
(1990), Eagleton (1995), Zizek (1995), Iba nez
(1996), and Parker (1999),
have revised the Marxist interpretation of ideology, criticizing (a) the representational nature of the traditional Marxist concept of ideology and (b) the
centrality of the working class as the privileged group for social transformations. And although issues such as living conditions have been considered by, among others, Vio Grossi, Fals Borda, Le Boterf, De Witt, and Park
(1977), Serrano-Garca (1989), and Wiesenfeld (1998) in terms of the centrality of peoples awareness in the process of community transformation,
there is a lack of critical reflection about the conception of ideology underlying these concepts in community social psychology developed in Latin
American, and in its theoretical and practical implications (for exceptions
see Montero, 1989).
This paper considers the concepts of hegemonyas worked by
Laclau and Mouffe (1985)and habitus (Bourdieu, 1985) to examine and
discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the Marxist conception of ideology for community social psychology as originally developed
in Latin America, and applied elsewhere. I shall also argue that a situated
perspective can be sustained for community social psychology. A situated
perspective considers community processes as complex articulations of semiotic and material subject positions of knowledge and action. Each subject
position holds a partial knowledge of the articulation with no privileged subject position from which to achieve total understanding; therefore, there is
not an underlying reality that can be uncovered, as knowledge is dependent
on each subject position. In this perspective, from the semiotic and material
situations of members of community and external agents it is possible to start
a productive dialogue to construct the articulation of political movements
of transformation departing from community processes.

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Ideology and Community Psychology

Style file version June 4th, 2002

513

This theoretical movement that does not presupposes a reality veiled


for community people, nor an unique historical subjectas the working
class for traditional Marxismcan be more useful for articulating different political subjects and transforming action. Then, reflection on the concept of ideology within community psychology can contribute to enrich the
theoretical and practical developments in this area. Specially, because the
aim of social transformation made by community social psychology in Latin
America can be, and sometimes is, sustained with the theoretical accounts
of movements as feminism or post-Marxism who also seek changes in the
relations of domination within a constructionist and poststructural theoretical frame.

UNDERSTANDING IDEOLOGY IN COMMUNITY


SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Given the socioeconomic circumstances of most Latin American countries, it should be of no surprise that the main aim in community social
psychology is the deep transformation of social conditions of life. The standard procedure outlined by community social psychology is the cooperation
between external or outside agent (professionals not pertaining to the community) and community members in order to identify community needs and
promote actions to fulfill them. The community process follows a model
based on the mutual dialectical interrelation between reflection and action,
in order to enhance community members awareness of their own reality
and promote active transformation of the community by the community. In
this process the concepts of problematization and consciousness-raising
are vital, as they constitute the cornerstone of community actions leading
to social transformation. Also, the relation between external and internal
agents complements the process of empowerment (Rappaport, 1977), the
mechanism by which people, organizations, and communities gain mastery
over their lives.
Paulo Freires concept of problematization (Freire, 1979) refers to
the process of questioning social conditions of life perceived as natural,
through a collective dialogue between educators and community members.
This process uncovers the social and historical origins of present conditions
of oppression and can be understood as a critical reading of a given reality, by the community (Allman & Wallis, 1997; Freire, 1979; Wiesenfeld,
1994). The process of consciousness-raising can be defined as a gradual
process where individuals and groups acquire a broader conscience of the
ideological conceptions concealing reality (Barreiro, 1976; Montero, 1991).

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

514

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

Consciousness-raising is facilitated by activities such as group discussions,


planning an action, and carrying it out. In spite of the differences between
both concepts, consciousness-raising and problematization point to the same
processes present during community intervention, and their origins can help
to understand the use of both of them. These notions assume that communities naturalize oppressive situations, and propose to give way to community
interventions directed to developing a critical standpoint toward present social conditions. Critical reflection and transforming action are intertwined
activities that energize a reconsideration of naturalized meanings, an action
improving life standards and, therefore, a critical transformation of reality.
Consequently, one of the capital aims of community social psychology and
of popular education (Freirian adult education), is the adoption of a critical stand towards oppressive ideological concepts and practices, as to allow
members of the community to acquire greater control and power over their
own material and social resources.
A community intervention in Caracas (Venezuela), where I was involved, illustrates this process of reflection/action. In this particular case,
actions were developed to create an educational program for children out
of the school system, in a slum. Community members considered childrens
absenteeism as something natural, and explained it primarily in terms of
parents incapacity to send them to school, or in the lack of enough room in
neighborhoods schools to receive all the children of the surroundings. The
process of community intervention questioned this fact. A process of problematization was carried out, in which group discussions were implemented.
The naturalization of the explanations for the childrens exclusion from the
educational system was questioned seeking a critical stand about the problem of absenteeism in that neighborhood. As a consequence of this process of
problematization, actions to tackle this issue were developed. Among some
of those actions, a project titled Non-formal education program for children
not attending school was designed with active involvement from community members (Montenegro, 1998). In this example, community members
naturalization of childrens absenteeism as a normal fact of the neighborhood was changed through community intervention. Social perception of
the issue was examined and reflected upon, leading to consider it as a problem that needed to be addressed, giving way to particular actions in terms
of the design of a community program for these children.
Another example can further illustrate these concepts. In a community
process at San Jose de La Urbina (a low-income neighborhood in Caracas),
members of the community group brought to attention the lack of public
transportation available, an issue that the community perceived as natural,
as the way things are. People living in the neighborhood had to walk a long
way to get home. Again, I was involved in the community intervention (Leon

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

Ideology and Community Psychology

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

515

& Montenegro, 1998) where this consensual fact was questioned in different
group discussions. In those meetings, community members manifested their
dissatisfaction with the local transportation, and acknowledged the duty
of the company to provide regular transport. After admitting that it was
possible to have local transportation, and that an already existing authorized
enterprise should provide it, community members got in touch with that
company, as well as with relevant local institutions, demanding a regular
service (more frequent, on time) for the neighborhood. That intervention
was effective, and their demand was granted after a few weeks. This is an
example of a shift in the awareness of the community, regarding the right
to have an adequate transport system, leading to actions of complaint that
changed their life conditions.
In both examples, the use of concepts such as problematization and
consciousness-raising, led to practical actions carried out by the community
for the community, helping people to transform their passive acceptance
of their life conditions and to improve them. The examples illustrate the
relationship between problematization and action. Community members
tackled specific issues in their communities after critically reflecting within
community groups. They also show how community interventions incorporate a critical perspective regarding the social relations sustaining the
current state of affairs, as the relationship of the community with a wider
social, economical, and political context is considered, in order to promote
transforming actions.
Community social psychology, as developed in Latin America, criticizes
interventions directed towards adapting the community to its social and
political contexts. Instead, it aims at the active transformation of the community context through the actions emerging from the dialogue between
external agents and community members. And the need for wider social
transformation lies in the assumption that societal resources are unequally
distributed because of exploitative social relations (Serrano-Garca, 1989).
This brief presentation of community psychology practice in Latin
America, discloses the importance of the underlying Marxists conception
of society, in community intervention practice. From a Marxist perspective,
social relations are produced by historical and social conditions. In that context, capitalism divides society into two different social classes with antagonistic interests: the ruling class and the working class. The control of the
ideological and productive system ensures the maintenance of relations of
exploitation from the dominating class to the dominated class (Althusser,
1971), and ideological forms of consciousness need to be explained through
economic conditions of production. Consequently, a certain form of consciousness is characterized as the ideological means to uncover how the
interests of the dominant class are safeguarded. Because any form of

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

516

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

exploitation has inherent contradictions, they have to be ideologically


hidden away to maintain and reproduce the current state of affairs
(Larrain, 1986).
Marxist understanding of society has string links with Paulo Freires
popular education. Paulo Freire suggests that contradictions experienced by
a particular oppressed community, configure its consciousness. To achieve an
objective transformation of this reality, Freire considers that the community
must uncover such contradictions, challenge them, and progressively change
their own conditions of life through actions transforming current power
relations (Freire, 1970/1979).
Allman and Wallis (1997) have shown the influence of the Marxist tradition into Paulo Freires work, here I would like to pay particular attention
to the concept of ideology. I will first summarize the relevant aspects of a
Marxist understanding of ideology for community practice considering the
work of, among others, authors such as Burkitt (1991), Eagleton (1995) and
Augoustinos (1999). Briefly
Ideology refers to the dominant ideas within a particular historical
period that legitimates its present social structure by masking power
relations between individuals. By ideological procedures, power
relations appear as natural and timeless bonds that cannot be broken.
Each social class has its own worldview expressive of its material
conditions of existence. When one particular social class imposes its
perspective over the whole societal formation, there is what is called
ideological dominance.
The achievement of a particular ideological view means that exploitative social relations and practices do not appear as such to the consciousness of societal members. Marxists understandings suggest the
metaphor of the camera obscura, portraying the opposite of what
reality is. This covering function perpetuates the present social order.
Institutions and social relations are embedded with ideological
elements.
Iba nez
(1996) summarizes the Marxist understanding of ideology in
three basic assumptions: (1) Ideology is produced in the social conditions
of existence of human beings, but it does not appear in such a way in individuals consciousness. (2) It is related to certain positions in the relations
of production, but this is masked when the individuals of other positions
assume the ideology of a particular position. (3) When it is defined as false
consciousness, ideology is directly related to the asymmetric power relations structuring society.
The legacy of Paulo Freires work has had much influence on community social psychology. With it, community intervention has also received a

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

Ideology and Community Psychology

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

517

Marxist understanding of ideology. It means in practice that people need


to know their conditions of oppression and that the external agent must
help community members to uncover the hidden social forces shaping their
reality, and facilitate its active transformation by the community.

CONTEMPORARY REVISIONS TO THE


CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGY
The inherited Marxist understanding of ideology implicitly assumed in
Latin American community theory and practice has been widely reviewed
and criticized by different theoretical perspectives. Social constructionism
(Gergen, 1985; Iba nez,

1996), feminism (Barret, 1995; Haraway, 1991;


Wilkinson, 1986), cultural studies (McRobbie, 1992), and post-Marxism
(Laclau, 1996; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) are being considered because they
have reviewed the concept of ideology, and like community social psychology, they also give special emphasis to social transformation. The dissatisfaction with the term ideology has lead authors such as Bourdieu, to tend to
avoid the use of the word, very often been misused, or used in a very vague
manner (Bourdieu & Eagleton, 1995, p. 266). Despite these criticisms, other
authors, such as Eagleton (1991) and Hepburn (1999) consider this concept
a useful and powerful tool to develop critical accounts of historic and social
situations.
Another line of argument comes from the theoretical criticisms towards the possibility of a representational social science. Poststructuralism
has questioned the relationship between reality and representation, and the
possibility of a purely objective account of reality. The researcher can only
produce a certain version of reality, as she/he is also a product of material
and symbolic processes, and any reading of reality cannot be understood
outside the situated points of view from which it is produced (Haraway, 1991;
Pujol & Montenegro, 1999).
Following the last line of argumentation, Laclau (1996) considers two
intellectual movements parallel to the decline of the use of ideology as an
explanatory notion. Firstly, the crisis of a holistic and naturalistic conception
of the social world. Secondly, the erosion of the possibility of metalinguistic
positions that could provide a neutral viewpoint from which to point out
and uncover the forms of distorted consciousness. As it has been pointed
out, Marxist notions of ideology are based on the assumption that peoples
consciousness is a product of social relations in a given society. Ideological
elements are imposed upon social groups in order to maintain certain oppressive practices. Particularly, dominant ideologies cover up exploitative power
relations within the production system, and to transform these relations

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

518

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

implies addressing these ideological meanings. The notion of distortion that


is implied in this Marxist approach assumes the possibility of a nondistorted
representation of power relations. A form of saying it would be that ideology
stands between the perceiver and reality, producing a false and distorted
image of the object. This metaphor produces a separation between what can
be seen (the apparent or ideological consciousness) and what is invisible (the
real or exploitative relations). Assuming a distance between the apparent
and the real does not fit well with recent trends in social theory. As a
leading theorist states
Does not the critique of ideology involve a privileged place somehow exempted
from the turmoils of social life, which enables some subject-agent to perceive the
very hidden mechanism that regulates social visibility and non-visibility? (Zizek,
1995, p. 3)

Despite these criticisms, as Hepburn (1999) points out, the concept of


ideology has to be used as to keep alive the critical potential of Marxist
analysis. Its critical potential is noticeable in accounts from specific social positions (such as political movements like feminism or postcolonial
studies), drawing attention towards relations of domination and urging for
the transformation of these relations. It is also part of our common sense
that some relations of domination are being reproduced by certain systems
of beliefs, and this constitutes a central aspect in the political agenda of social
movements. The central question from a political position is how can we act
(intervene or constitute ourselves as political agents of social transformation), if every content is an equally valid social construction, if there is no
external reality that can be reached differently from the technologies of
representations producing it.
Feminist authors such as Haraway (1991) and Wetherell (1999) consider the possibility of retaining a transformative political agenda without a
representational understanding of social reality. This is clearly a central issue for community psychology. Within community practice the issue should
be discussed along with the role of the external agent in the intervention.
That is, what is the position from which the agent evaluates community
problems, guides intervention or, in less directive approaches, talks with
the community? Community psychology must critically consider this role,
develop criteria of when to intervene and from which position to address
the relationship with the internal agents at the community. Above all, social intervention cannot continue to implicitly adopt a Marxist conception
of ideology, because it involves holding the epistemological principle of a
privileged position from which ideology can be challenged. This principle
translates in community intervention in the assumption that community
members must become aware of what lies behind their representations

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

Ideology and Community Psychology

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

519

of reality (as, by the external agent, those representations are the result of
a process of naturalization) and, therefore, community members lack an
accurate understanding of their life conditions. The ontological and epistemological criticisms to this approach should be taken into account by community practice and, therefore, the external agents perspective should not
be prioritized over community accounts. Nevertheless, we cannot get rid of
our political commitment to positive social transformative action. Next section explores some of the options available from a reconstructed concept of
ideology.

RECONSTRUCTING IDEOLOGY
Some attempts try to maintain the critical potential of the concept of ideology for positive social transformations, while taking into account the criticisms aforementioned (Bourdieu, 1985; Eagleton, 1991; Laclau & Mouffe,
1985; Zizek, 1995).
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) use the concept of hegemony developed
by Gramsci (1976) suggesting what they call a move towards radical
democracy in contemporary societies. Radical democracy can be understood as an alternative to the traditional Marxist concept of ideology. For
Gramsci, hegemony is the articulation of a set of meanings by apparatus and
institutions associated with a historical block. A historical block refers to
articulations of political alliances between different social agents in a shared
political process, in order to maintain or transform the present social order.
The concept of hegemony does not conceal the notion of false consciousness, as the traditional Marxist concept of ideology does. For Laclau and
Mouffe (1985), it refers to the alliances between fragmentary elements as
a historical block where meaning is not fixed as in the concept of ideology.
Instead, the meaning of free floating signifiers is fixed by the mode of
their articulation. This articulation creates a relative unified social and political space that constructs itself as antagonistic to other spaces and acquires
its meaning in specific contexts and relations. Zizek (1995) poses the example of ecology to explain Laclau and Mouffes position. From this perspective ecology is not ecology as such, it is always enchained in specific
series of articulations. It can be socialist (the problem resides in the capitalist profit-orientated exploitation of natural resources), feminist (the exploitation of nature follows from a patriarchal domination attitude), liberal
capitalist (environment damage must be included in the price of products
and leave the market to regulate the ecological balance), and so on. With
this example Zizek aims to illustrate that in Laclau and Mouffes account
there is no literal meaning prior to the articulations that make possible the

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

520

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

hegemonic formation. None of the enchainments is itself true, inscribed


in the very nature of ecological problematic.
Which discourse will succeed in appropriating ecology depends on the fight for
discursive hegemony, whose outcome is not guaranteed by any underlying necessity
or natural alliance (Zizek, 1995, p. 12).

According to Laclau and Mouffe (1985) hegemony is a useful concept as it


allows considering a noncentered subject of political action (individual or
collective agent). They understand the subject as a plurality of positions from
which it is possible to act in social life. Also, they question the traditional
Marxist statement that the proletariat was the only social class capable of
radical transformation. Considering the complexity of present societies and
Gramscis concept of hegemony, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) are able to introduce fragmentation in the understanding of political action. The concept
of historical block illustrates how the different struggles against relations of
domination (such as race or gender struggles) can, even developing their
own set of protests, articulate themselves in an hegemonic political project
towards democracy. The idea of a unified and homogeneous agent as the
proletarian class is abandoned and the analysis of the plurality of different
positions that stand as political expression of social antagonisms is suggested.

The Concept of Habitus


Another concept that is considered for an analysis of the notion of ideology is that of habitus (Bourdieu, 1985). Habitus expresses the inculcation
of durable dispositions in people that generate particular practices. With this
concept, Bourdieu explains how it is possible that practices and discourses
are reproduced in society. He also criticizes the representational character
of the concept of ideology as false consciousness.
I think that Marxism, in fact, remains a sort of Cartesian philosophy, in which you
have a conscious agent who is the scholar, the learned person, and the others who
dont have access to consciousness (Bourdieu & Eagleton, 1995, p. 268)

The habitus is the transmission mechanism by which social structures are


incarnated in daily social activity. It is not a set of fixed meanings and practices
that are reproduced in the same way in each context. On the contrary, it
is an open-ended system enabling individuals to cope with ever changing
situations. In this sense, it doesnt emerge as an ideological frame where
individual action is trapped, but as a possible set of practices to be used in
different contexts.
The two perspectives presented are representative of the theoretical
developments that surround a post-Marxist notion of ideology. They aim

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Ideology and Community Psychology

521

at tackling the representational character of this tradition while maintaining


the political relevance of taking into account how the relations of domination
are sustained. These perspectives question three aspects of the old notion of
ideology:
The conceptualization of ideology as a false representation of what
really is. The fact that the relations of domination are masked for
the oppressed.
The idea stressing that the meanings of the ruling class are imposed
as a fixed set of meanings to the rest of society members.
The preponderance attributed by traditional Marxism to theworking
class as the only social agent capable of political transformation.
Community social psychology inherits these notions from a Marxist
framework in the notions of problematization and consciousness-raising.
Criticisms to these notions must be considered by theoretical and practical
developments in community psychology. Questions such as the ones posed
by McRobbie (1992) about which is the role of the organic intellectual in
the era of post-Marxism must be also answered in a discipline so involved
with practical intervention as community social psychology.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY


Reflecting on the concept of ideology in community social psychology
helps to think about theoretical and practical developments. The critiques
brought up in this paper on this concept come from the preoccupation with
how to articulate explanations of the social world and promote political
transformative actions without assuming a privileged position of knowledge.
These questions are of paramount importance for community psychology,
a discipline so directly involved with social transformation. Critically reviewing the concept of ideology has a direct effect on community practice
as it questions the authority of the external agent insofar as his/her viewpoint cannot be considered nonideological. Therefore, from the situated
perspective argued in this paper, it is crucial to critically reflect on the
perspective of the external agent.
Ideology has often been conceptualized as the set of meanings sustaining
and reproducing relations of domination (Thompson, 1990), but as it has
been argued, this notion implies an external universal point from where
to denounce the ideological character of certain meanings (Iba nez,

1996).
After these critiques, the claim of a universal truth is unsustainable and is also
contradictory with community psychologys commitment to social change.
The concepts of hegemony and habitus may help to answer what should

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

522

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

be the standpoint from which community social psychology works in the


process of social transformation. Those concepts accept the reproduction of
practices, but not as a fixed and single set of meanings and practices. Those
meanings are part of the contradictory construction and reconstruction of
social relations in a dynamic process where certain aspects are privileged
in particular contexts. Consequently, it cannot be stated a priori which is
the social reality that must be contested. Such a perspective contradicts
the Marxist traditional departure point of a fixed social structure where the
working class is oppressed by the production system and by the ideological
frames imposed by the dominant class. A reconceptualization of the concept
of ideology is important within the perspective of the situated subject, and
of the situated knowledge.
The subject positions based on social dialogue emerge from the situated knowledge of the agents involved (Haraway, 1991). Dismissing the
representational character of the concept of ideologyand therefore, of
problematization and consciousness-raising as seen by community social
psychologydissolves the issue of who has the real interpretation of reality. Accepting the possibility of an encounter of different worldviews from
a multiplicity of partial and fragmented identities is an alternative perspective to the uncovering of the real relations of domination that community
social psychologyunder the Marxist traditionseeks. The collective construction of practices and meanings in a social context is possible from the
interaction of agents not defined as univocal subjects.
As said before, Laclau and Mouffes (1985) radical democracy is based
on Gramscis notions of historical block and hegemony. These concepts can
be illustrated in psychosocial community practice through the alliances created between different subject positions (i.e., political, religious, and social
organizations, relevant members of the community and so on), during the
community processes. Hegemony occurs when articulations of actors, actions
and meanings are created in opposition to other meanings defined previously
in these contexts. As Laclau and Mouffe (1985) would say, a historical block
would be created in specific contexts by means of the articulation of different subject positions. The meanings fixed in these articulations are not
understood as the uncovering of something real that underlies beneath
what community members believe as natural, but in each context this particular articulations can create horizons of transformation inasmuch as they
create new possibilities of signifying social practices. Consequently, according to these principles, one of the aims of a community process would be the
identification and promotion of articulations of different social actors and
meanings in specific interventions. In doing so, it is seeking political and social
spaces that respond to the situated claims of the different subject positions

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

Ideology and Community Psychology

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

523

involved in community process and that are in continuous redefinition and


rearticulation.
As it has been argued, this paper addresses the possibility of social
transformation and, consequently, political action, in community practice
without appealing to universal truths or a universal subject of political action.
Many feminists point out that the conflict arises when we sustain a relativist
epistemology (arguing that there is no universal truth) and, at the same time,
have a political commitment against what we see as relations of domination
that must be contested.
From the situated perspective suggested, some theoretical implications could be drawn for a community social psychology keeping the critical
potential of the concept of ideology.
A theory of ideology not considering a reality that must be uncovered leads to multiple possibilities in the construction of meanings
and practices in community settings.
If instead of a unique subjectas the working class, in Marxist
traditionwhose mission is the leadership of social transformation,
there are multiple and fragmented subject positions from where
to act. It is possible to strengthen the articulation of different social
agents in specific interventions.
Therefore, the dialogue that can be established from this theoretical
departure considers that all the voices involved have the same value
in terms of social transformation.
The critical character of this position is settled on the possibility to
generate political standpoints from situated material and semiotic
positions not characterized by naturalistic and essentialist claims.
Haraway (1991) says that our political commitment can only be possible
from our particular material and semiotic position as situated subjects. This
supposes a relation to a social historical world in constant construction,
as well as a possibility of political engagement in order to transform what
can be seen from this position, as relations of domination. From a situated
perspective we can get involved in the multidimensional interactions taking
place when we intervene as external agents in community settings, as well
as when we merely intervene in our daily lives. It is from this position that
is possible to start a dialogue to gain social transformation.
This perspective has also some implications for community practice. As
already discussed, it implies to give up a representationist conception of reality (Iba nez,

1996; McRobbie, 1992), because it assumes a privileged point of


view from which it is possible to point out the ideological character of another
perspective. The representational understanding of the concept of ideology

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

524

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

as false consciousness presupposes some truth that must be revealed


and, in doing so, undervalues the situated knowledge of the actors that
do not have access to this truth. The consequence is the establishment of
asymmetric relations between those who know the true conditions of oppression and those who do not. Regularly, community members are considered
as those who do not have access to this truth while external agents provide
tools for the process of consciousness-raising through their knowledge of
social structures. This understanding is opposed to the principles of community social psychology that emphasizes the need of horizontal relationships between the agents of the intervention process. The situated perspective argued in this paper suggests instead avoiding establishing a privileged
position from where to define actors, problems, and actions making possible the articulation of the subjects situated knowledge in each concrete
situation.
It is therefore possible, from a situated notion of truth, to make concrete claims from different subject positions in which particular relations
are articulated and signified. The task of the external agent, instead of
promoting consciousness-raising from a privileged position of knowledge
is incorporated and considered as an actorlike othersin the networks
of articulations that emerge in each particular context. She/he would contribute with his/her situated perspective, like all the other subject positions
in the process. Rejecting ones own privileged position necessarily incorporates a reflexive stand by external agents, assuming its partial and situated
character.
The situated perspective also provides theoretical tools for the analysis
of community settings in which community social psychology acts, paying attention to the relevant social forces (i.e., governmental institutions,
nongovernmental organizations, social movements, and so on) contextually
related with the community processes and foreseeing the possible alliances
to achieve certain objectives. This analysis allows an opening of possible alliances with other already existing social actors and movements (an aspect
not often contemplated in community social psychological literature) organized around similar interests. Promoting, consequently, the formation of
political and social spaces beyond community limits.

CONCLUSIONS
As seen, revising the concept of ideology is relevant for community social psychology. Equally important is to critically examine the use of concepts
such as problematization and consciousness-raising, linked to a Marxist
conception of ideology (Wiesenfeld, 1994). Those concepts, used within

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

PP508-374598

Ideology and Community Psychology

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

525

the theoretical context of orthodox Marxism, imply that people naturalize


situations of oppression in community (or educational) processes. Then,
the contexts they live in need to be uncovered as ideological. Community
social psychology in Latin America stresses that the process by which people reflect on their reality energizes transformative actions improving their
living conditions, and transforming certain relations of domination. The concepts of hegemony (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985) and habitus (Bourdieu, 1985),
emphasize the incoherent and contradictory nature of the meanings where
social relations are embedded, and consider that these meanings are not
necessarily imposed by a particular social class. Under these perspectives
the political subject is a set of different subject positions from which it is
possible to articulate political practice as a historical block (Gramsci, 1976).
Radical democracy, as seen by Laclau and Mouffe (1985), is the result of
articulations of different agents challenging what they take as relations of
domination.
The main question worrying many contemporary academic and political
movements is from which standpoint should one carry out social or political
interventions, if all accounts about reality are equally valid (as relativism
claims). The situated perspective considers that from different material
and semiotic positions one can start a dialogue with community members. A
dialogue articulating different productive worldviews for the transformation
of social relations perceived, in the process itself, as relations of domination.
This proposal seeks to convey a critical character to community social psychology but from a nonessentialist standpoint.
The liberating possibility of this perspective is the emergence of situated
dialogues where certain social relations can be defined and challenged. It may
allow community social psychologists to reflect on their own practice and
to avoid their own ways of reproducing relations of domination, between
external agents and community members. The arguments outlined in this
paper stress the possibility of promoting networks of participation between
different social actors in emancipatory movements, in order to transform
certain perceived social inequalities.
REFERENCES
Allman, P., & Wallis, J. (1997). Commentary: Paulo Freire and the future of the radical tradition.
Studies in the Education of Adults, 29(2), 113120.
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses: Notes towards an investigation.
In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 123173) London: NLB.
Augoustinos, M. (1999). Ideology, false consciousness and psychology. Theory and Psychology,
9(3), 295312.
popular y proceso de concientizacion
[Popular education and the
Barreiro, J. (1976). Educacion
process of consciousness-raising]. Mexico: Siglo XXI.

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

526

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

Montenegro

Barret, M. (1995). Ideology, politics, hegemony: From Gramsci to Laclau and Mouffe. In S. Zizek
(Ed.), Mapping ideology (pp. 235364). London: Verso.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The genesis of the concept of habitus and field. Sociocriticism, 2(2),
1124.
Bourdieu, T., & Eagleton, T. (1995). Doxa and common life: An interview. In S. Zizek (Ed.),
Mapping ideology (pp. 265277). London: Verso.
Burkitt, I. (1991). Social selves. Theories of the formation of personality. London: Sage.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology. London: Verso.
Eagleton, T. (1995). Ideology and its vicissitudes in western Marxism. In S. Zizek (Ed.), Mapping
ideology (pp. 179226). London: Verso.
Freire, P. (1979). Pedagoga del oprimido [The pedagogy of the oppressed]. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in social psychology. American
Psychologist, 40, 266275.
Gramsci, A. (1976). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women. New York: Routledge.
Hepburn, A. (1999). Derrida and psychology: Deconstruction and its ab/uses in critical and
discursive psychologies. Theory and Psychology, 9(3), 639665.
Iba nez,

T. (1996). Fluctuaciones conceptuales en torno a la postmodernidad [Conceptual fluctuations related to postmodernism]. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela,
Facultad de Humanidades y Educacion.
Comision
de Estudios de Postgrados.
Laclau, E. (1996). The death and resurrection of the theory of ideology. Journal of Political
Ideologies, 1(3), 201220.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic
politics. London: Verso.
Larrain, J. (1986). The concept of ideology. London: Hutchinson Education.
Leon,
A., & Montenegro, M. (1998). Return of emotion in psychosocial community research.
Journal of Community Psychology, 26(3), 219227.
McRobbie, A. (1992). Post-Marxism and cultural studies: A post-script. In L. Grossberg,
C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 719730). London: Routledge.
Jesus

Montenegro, M. (1998). El proceso comunitario Nino


desde el caleidoscopio
Reflexiones desde conocimientos situados [The community process in Nino
Jesus
from
the kaleidoscopeReflections from situated knowledges]. Unpublished paper, Barcelona,
Universidad Autonoma

de Barcelona.
Montero, M. (1989). El estudio psicologico

de la ideologa: Revelar u ocultar [The psychological


study of ideology: To reveal or to conceal]. Boletn de AVEPSO, XII (1/2), 2845.
Montero, M. (1991). Concientizacion,
conversion
y desideologizacion
en el trabajo psicosocial comunitario [Consciousness raising, conversion and de-ideologization in psychosocial
community work]. Boletn de AVEPSO, XIV(1), 312.
Parker, I. (1999). Introduction: Marxism, ideology and psychology. Theory and Psychology,
9(3), 291293.
Pujol, J., & Montenegro, M. (1999). Discourse or materiality? Impure alternatives for recurrent
debates. In D. Nightingale & J. Cromby (Eds.), Social constructionist psychology: A critical
analysis of theory and practice (pp. 8396). Buckinham: Open University Press.
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research and action. New York: Holt.

participativa [Basic ideas about


Serrano-Garca, I. (1989). Bases ideologicas
de la investigacion
the participatory research]. Paper presented in the XXII Interamerican Congress of
Psychology, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Thompson, J. (1990). Ideology and modern culture. Great Britain: Polity Press and Blackwell
Publishers.

Vio Grossi, F., Fals Borda, O., Le Boterf, G., De Witt, M., & Park, C. (1977). Investigacion
participativa y praxis rural. [Participatory research and rural praxis]. Lima, Peru:
Mosca
Azul Editores.
Wetherell, M. (1999). Beyond binaries. Theory and Psychology, 9(3), 399406.
Wiesenfeld, E. (1994). Paradigmas de la psicologa social comunitaria latinoamericana
[Paradigms of Latin American community social psychology]. In M. Montero (Coord.),

P1: HDT/IVB

P2: GDR/GKJ

QC: GYK

American Journal of Community Psychology [ajcp]

Ideology and Community Psychology

PP508-374598

June 4, 2002

14:37

Style file version June 4th, 2002

527

Psicologa social comunitaria [Community social psychology] (pp. 4774). Guadalajara,


Mexico: Ediciones de la Universidad de Guadalajara.
Wiesenfeld, E. (1998). Paradigms of community social psychology in six Latin American nations.
Journal of Community Psychology, 26(3), 229242.
Wilkinson, S. (Ed.). (1986). Feminist social psychology: Developing theory and practice. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Zizek, S. (1995). Introduction: The spectre of ideology. In S. Zizek (Ed.), Mapping ideology
(pp. 133). London: Verso.

You might also like