Insisting on the unthinkable: A reply to Wetherell and Potter

Abstract

This response to Wetherell and Potter (2015) clarifies both what our article (Hayter & Hegarty, 2014) did and did not attempt to do and considers how to address the questions that it raised. We re-state that genealogy is aimed at opening up questions about present consensus rather than formulating alternative competing psychological systems. We reflect on our own locations in social psychology which lead us to open up questions about the positioning of Potter and Wetherell's work in late capitalism. We consider alternative answers to the questions that our article raises about their work, and argue that David Harvey's work might be of broad utility in framing not only Potter and Wetherell's work, but also in framing a broader -and more global -history of social psychology.