Rethinking “relevance”: South African psychology in context.

Abstract

This article examines the phenomenon known as the "relevance debate" in South African psychology. It begins with a historical overview of the contours of the discipline in that country before describing the controversy's international dimensions, namely, the revolutionary politics of 1960s higher education and the subsequent emergence of cognate versions of the debate in American, European, and "Third World" psychology. The article then details how South Africa's "relevance" project enjoyed a special affinity with an assortment of ethnic-cultural, national, and continental myths and metaphors, all of which served the interests of the political formations of the day. It discusses how, in present-day South Africa, the intelligentsia has become an important catalyst for the so-called African Renaissance, which seeks to provide "relevant" solutions for the regeneration of African society. However, the global hegemony of what began in the 1970s as a "second academic revolution," aided by the lifting of the academic boycott of South Africa, has blunted the once critical edge of "relevance" discourse. A new mode of knowledge production now holds sway, the outcome of a dramatic reformulation of the capitalist manifesto in which the values of the "May 68" generation have been hijacked by a managerialist rationality. In light of the capitalization of the knowledge-production enterprise, it is concluded that the idiom of "relevance" has outlived its usefulness.

Frequently asked questions about African psychology

“…The ultimate goals in searching for an African psychology has been to build a relevant, appropriate, socio-politically conscious, transformed, or decolonised discipline and profession. The search for an African psychology was sometimes explicitly labelled as such, but as often was barely traceable under various discourses such as relevance, appropriateness, or transformation (Dawes, 1986; Long, 2013; Vogelman, 1987). Of course, there is no one-to-one correspondence between something like a decolonised psychology and an African psychology, which points to new questions.…”

Some basic questions about (a) decolonizing Africa(n)-centred psychology considered

“…Indeed, until the 1990s, these psychologists in South Africa (SA) also happened to be mainly of European ancestry, and seeing the imported psychology was largely unopposed to colonialism and apartheid, the prevailing form of psychology was colonial and apartheid psychology. While it was not necessarily referred to as Africa(n)-centric, the motivation for a new psychology was to establish a more indigenous, endogenous, relevant, appropriate, transformed, and/or decolonized discipline and profession (Anonymous, 1986; Cooper, 2013; Dawes, 1986; Long, 2013; Manganyi, 1973; Nicholas & Cooper, 1990; Seedat, Cloete, & Shochet, 1988; Vogelman, 1987). However, the relationship between a decolonized psychology and an Africa(n)-centric psychology is not straightforward.…”

‘Health psychology’ or ‘psychology for health’? A history of psychologists’ engagement with health in South Africa

“…Through the lens of oral history, we can see how individual actors involved in the shaping of this body of work, navigated some of the tensions and difficulties thrown up by the practice of psychology, in contexts of political struggle and rapid change. In doing so, we have alluded to the importance of global social and disciplinary forces impinging on the practice of health-related psychology in South Africa (see further, Long, 2013; Staeuble, 2006; Yen, 2016).…”