Montero, M. & Montenegro, M. (2006) ‘Critical Psychology in Venezuela’, Annual Review of
Critical Psychology, 5, pp. 257-268 www.discourseunit.com/arcp/5
Maritza Montero & Marisela Montenegro1
Critical Psychology in Venezuela
Introduction
The production of psychology as a discipline area in Venezuela, as in other countries in Latin
America, has frequently been influenced by hegemonic perspectives of scientific thought, coming
from centres of production with more resources and considered as with more geo-political
importance, such as the United States or Europe. However, in Venezuela, as well as in the region,
beginning in the mid-70s of the last century a significant production of knowledge in the area of
psychology and, specifically of social psychology has been generated in response to the need to
answer to specific phenomena and social problems of these contexts. In this sense, the critical
aspect was generated out of concern about the relevance and social significance of the knowledge
produced in both academia and professional practice, in relation to the life circumstances in these
countries, as well as to the pertinence of psychosocial theories in use.
A characteristic of the Venezuelan and Latin American critical movement, in general, has been its
not being strictly defined by the geographical limits of the nation. Instead, it has been developed
through dialogue and collaboration with professionals and scholars from Latin America and other
parts of the world. Therefore, summarizing the contributions of the production of knowledge within
the so-called “critical psychology” limited to the geographic area of Venezuela has to take into
account this dialogical condition, that would open areas of interest about what was being done
elsewhere, while at the same time submitting the knowledge thus obtained to critique, to doubt, or
to transformation. And as also happens in such circumstances, to many uncritical repetitions, until
the lack of ecological validity would end such experiences.
In general, in the world in which we live it is difficult to think that critique should have a local
aspect. Rather, it should be considered as an active dialogue between social groups, as has happened
in Latin America. At the same time, critique is not a uniform practice and this is also evident both in
Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. If critique is universal, it is also particular. And critically
speaking, it would be necessary to revise the conceptualization of what is defined as universal and
what is considered as particular, taken into account the homogenizing sense typically given to each
of those ideas. On the other hand, there is such multiplicity of works, interests, and production
centres that just to intent a classification according to those two big categories would be a very
difficult work, if not a useless one.
In this article, through an act of reduction and simplification of the task we have undertaken, we
will first characterize what we understand critical psychology to be, departing mostly from the Latin
American contributions to this area of psychology. Our objective is to generate criteria helping us to
highlight certain research and social intervention options. Then, we will offer a brief description of
the areas of interest that have most strongly marked the production of “critical knowledge” in
Venezuelan psychology: theoretical and epistemological reflections in critical psychology,
community psychology and participatory action-research and social psychology of political
1
Contact: mmontero@reacciun.ve & Marisela.Montenegro@uab.es
257
processes. Finally, we will describe what for us represent the main challenges currently faced by
critical psychology in Venezuela.
Critical Psychology in Latin America
The developments that have made critical psychology possible in Venezuela and other Latin
American countries have opened a wide range of theoretical and professional possibilities within
psychology which question diverse aspects of the traditional ways of doing psychology. It has thus
established a political commitment to marginalized sectors of society and of struggle from the
position of researcher and professional against different oppressive relationships. On the one hand,
this has had an effect on people with whom this type of practice has been carried out; and on the
other hand, in a large production made in Venezuela and in other places in Latin America
contributing to build theories, institutions, practices, and discussions that participate in a wider
network of production of critical psychology in the world, creating different forms of understanding
the political engagement of psychology within specific societies.
A first approach to critical psychology, as it is understood in Latin America, shows its distance with
respect to mainstream psychology. Following Montero and Fernández (2003b), critical psychology
could be characterized as the development of theories, practices, and policies in psychology that
transform both social and academic reality. Or, as those authors point out:
“It serves to subvert the way in which we see things. Presenting different points of view and
deconstructing the objects that populate our world reveal different perspectives, open our
comprehension to new interpretations, and present other perspectives of events and things. It strips
us of the habitual tools and induces us to create new ones.” (Montero and Fernández, 2003a:7).
The dismantling of mainstream psychology would start, then, with the development of alternative
understandings for research and professional practice; with political claims about the ways in which
such knowledge is produced and practiced in society, and with a strong critique of the forms of
social control produced by traditional psychological practice (Correa, Figueroa & López, 1994).
The critical perspective has been based on: Analyzing, deconstructing, and showing the way in
which that which is accepted as “natural” or as an essential part of the being of some thing, has
acquired that condition; offering alternative visions of those phenomena by showing their sociohistorically constructed character and, finding the power relationships sustaining those
interpretations. Montero (2004b) highlights the following aspects when she analyzes the condition
of what pretends to be critical: Firstly, critique shows that where something is presented as
immovable and normative, it is possible to choose. The etymological origin of the term (from the
Greek krisis/eos) assumes that a choice is necessary, so things can have a variety of forms and not
exist in only one way. Secondly, critique means submitting to analysis the theoretical models,
concepts, and perspectives that serve as explanations for psychological phenomena, establishing the
contradictions, holes, incoherence, and also strengths of those explanations. Thirdly, and in
accordance with the one mentioned above, critique implies recognizing and submitting to
judgement the different forms in which power is exercised, which tend to exclude alternate or
divergent explanations. Fourthly, critical activity, when it shows what is confusing and dark and in
doubting about what seems to be obvious, offers more than an option or explanation of the
phenomena which can lead to transforming the world and making it different. Fifthly, critique is
dynamic, it changes. The world which changed becomes natural and habitual and, therefore, it will
be an object of new criticism. Sixthly, critique is not in and of itself good or bad. It is necessary to
change things and, finally, the critical movement expresses that knowledge is not an objective
reflection of reality, but instead it is characterized by the historical conditions of its production of
258
which it forms a part. Therefore, one should not think that necessarily, attributing the qualifier
‘critical’ to something or to somebody will invest them with the critical condition.
So critique, or what is considered “critical”, aims to make uncomfortable that which is considered
adequate and natural. Its function is not to generate patterns of action or social categorization. It
does not canonize modes of acting nor does it produce norms. In this sense it does not generate that
calming sensation of security for us that comes from believing that we have, finally, produced The
Knowledge (uppercase and in italics). Such a thing can lead us to naturalize modes of doing, with
which our critique would have been a new form of essentializing a specific form of knowing.
In the case of critical psychology in Venezuela, as in some other areas of Latin America, the
fundamental characteristic that sustains it is concern about the processes of social oppression and
the struggle -considering academics and practitioners as social agents in specific societies- against
urgent social problems of these societies such as poverty, social exclusion, and domination, among
others. Another characteristic leads to showing how certain psychosocial theories are established as
locus of power, blocking and demobilizing the search for new forms of knowledge which allow
describing, explaining, or intervening with the objective of transforming social contexts and
phenomena. In the critical psychology produced in Venezuela in the last three decades, the
psychology that can be considered as critical is characterized by:
 It’s questioning of the ways of understanding both the production of knowledge and the
professional practice of psychology.
 The search for social transformation and the emancipation of social categories, independently of
participation in the enjoyment and production of social goods.
 The social relevance of research and intervention relative to the most urgent social problems of
the country.
 A political motivation (understood as empowerment of the citizenry and occupation of the
public space) upon undertaking the theoretical and professional practice, bringing along the
negation of academic and professional neutrality.
 A critique of the positivist and experimental approaches to understanding social reality and,
also, of the individualist perspectives of psychological and psychosocial phenomena.
 The search for a production from and for Venezuelan contexts, linked at the same time, with
different productions of critical psychology around the world.
 Questioning of the separation of subject and object of knowledge. As a consequence of this,
emphasis on the participation of people in the solution of the problems suffered by them.
 Development of a dialogic perspective between researchers or practitioners and those people
with whom psychology professionals work.
 An understanding of human beings as social actors that construct and lead their own lives,
capable of carrying forward the transformation of their respective contexts.
Summarizing the variety of critical psychology developments in Venezuela would take more time
and space than we are allowed for this paper. Therefore, we have chosen to briefly describe those
areas of study in the country that have greater weight as fields of knowledge and practice and which
include a critical consideration in the transformation of situations of oppression.
Theoretical and Epistemological Reflections in Critical Psychology
A first framework of development for Venezuelan critical psychology, in dialogue with other
modes of critical work in other parts of the world, has been related to the forms of extending the
activities of knowledge production; that is to say, critical theorization, research and, practice. We
refer specifically to the construction of a reflective space -mainly in scientific and academic ambitsof ways of conducting research and social intervention. If a part of critical psychology consists of
259
the generation of theories, practices, and policies that question the very dynamics of academic
spaces with respect to the power of certain forms of knowing, then, the forms of production of
knowing and the effects of the knowledge produced are an area of great importance. Thus, the way
in which knowing can serve both to processes of control and social exclusion of social groups, as to
processes of liberation and questioning of relationships of power, has been a focus of productions
(Montero, 1999).
The development of critiques of the forms of production of traditional knowledge are characterized
by the influence of the so-called “crisis of the social sciences” in different geographical locations,
through which it has brought into question forms of production of knowledge marked by the
positivist paradigm, the experimentalist model of research, and the psychologisation of social
phenomena and problems (Montero, 1993). This critical work has been developed in part through
analysis of the construction of theoretical explanation in social psychology, particularly in the
theories developed during the 1960s in the United States and France. Another main influence was
the use of qualitative methods of social research which, among other things, shows the sociohistorical character of social and psychological reality; proposes horizontal and dialogue
relationships between research teams and persons being researched; incorporating the voices of
these to the social analyses of phenomena, and facilitating the creation of new social arrangements.
This has implied, on the one hand, granting social relevance to the production of knowledge and, on
the other, strengthening the participative and democratic character of social relations, such as
bringing into public light forms of social violence associated with the domination relationships
exercised in academic and scientific activity.
On this topic, the work of Moreno in blue-collar barrios in Venezuela presents an approach to
knowledge starting from the researcher living within the community and his use of biographical
methods. This knowledge is produced through an analysis of the external theories that make up his
framework and of a process of joint construction between the researcher and the people narrating
their lives. Moreno (1993, 1998b, 2002) working jointly with students and biographied people, has
generated the concept of popular episteme (meaning it comes from the people); analyzing the
structure of the blue-collar Venezuelan family and the effects that the absence of a male figure
produces in the children. His work illustrates the heuristic character of the method used providing,
at the same time, a critical interpretation of Venezuelan society.
However, as Wiesenfeld (2000) shows, the breach that can exist between the epistemological and
methodological principles of qualitative research perspectives and their practice in concrete
processes carried out in academic contexts, can lead on occasions to the reproduction of oppression
relationships in the course of the research. Research processes carried out using qualitative
methods, like discourse analysis, says this author, may bias the voice of the participants according
to the researcher’s analysis and interpretations. In the same way, many times the qualitative
research projects are used as an argument to sustain or disdain theoretical proposals in the debates
in the academic environment and, in consequence, distance themselves from the very practical and
emancipatory ends of qualitative research. In such cases, we would be faced with a form of power
derived from the method that is considered appropriate or preferred by a certain researcher.
Therefore, within the critical perspective it is necessary to maintain a constant reflection about the
implications of the different methods and techniques used in the investigation and about their
pertinence to the research problem. This critique of the critical position is ever more frequent since
qualitative methodology and the quantum relativist paradigm have begun to occupy places of power
both in academic and social ambits.
Another aspect, directly related to the previous one, is pointed out by Montero (2001) in relation to
the importance of recognizing, beyond the ontological, epistemological, and methodological
dimensions, other two dimensions: the ethical and the political, in social research and intervention.
260
The inadequate use of a method or the blind defence thereof, without bearing in mind the context in
which it is applied, the people involved, the definition of the problem, or the type of results that can
be produced, imply a lack of knowledge of what is being done and how and why to do it. That is to
say that the objective of knowledge and its nature (ontological aspect) have not been considered,
and neither has the relationship between production of knowledge (epistemological aspect), and
possibly, a particular method is being applied (methodological aspect), just because it is what is best
known, or because it is fashionable, or because it has been recommended by an authority figure.
Then, what will what is produced serve for; who will be the beneficiary of the work done and which
are the interests that were dominant in such a research, not only will not be taken into account but
also will not be considered (ethical and political aspects). This ethical posture (conception and
relation with “the other”), and the political implications referred to the lines of action and saying in
the public arena, deriving from them, are often ignored. Both these dimensions could be partially
responsible for the commitment considered as a fundamental condition both in external and internal
agents of change, in order to produce the transformations deemed as socially necessary. Together
with the social historic and economic conditions of the country, they could be considered as the
basic source for selecting as main field of practice, to work along with the underprivileged.
This model, developed in Venezuela, is frequently used in community psychology; but it should not
be considered as exclusive to that area of psychology. The realm of the theoretical and
epistemological relationships in critical psychology goes across different topics in Venezuelan
critical psychology. It is transversal to different concerns regarding specific areas of research and
social action, with which we will deal below.
Community Psychology and Participatory Action-research
Community psychology is one of the areas with more theoretical and practical production in
Venezuela. As critical perspective proposes a political option directed towards professional practice
committed to the most impoverished sectors of society. CP has been defined as:
“The branch of psychology whose objective is the study of psycho-social factors fostering the
development and maintenance of the control and power that individuals can exercise over their
individual and social environment, to solve problems that beset them and achieve changes in their
environment and in the social structure” (Montero, 1984:390).
Therefore, the principal objective of this branch of psychology, from a critical perspective is to
facilitate social changes through conscientisation and the participation of the people involved in
community processes, achieving the integration of popular knowledge in theory and in practice. It
does not intend to substitute externally directed “subjects” for “participants”, which become pawns
in the power games that sustain new forms of authoritarianism. The common values supporting this
objective, following Serrano-García (2002), are the commitment to the disadvantaged sectors of
society and to the just resolution of social problems affecting them; the idea that communities have
resources and the potential to assess their needs and problems and act upon them; urgent
transformations generated from horizontal power relations and a sense of solidarity, responsibility,
and membership of the individuals towards their community; respect for popular knowledge and,
the questioning of the role of experts invested on psychologists.
There is agreement among authors about which are the characteristics of this community
psychology (Serrano–García, 1989; Montero, 1996b, Freitas, 1996; Lane, 1996, Quintal de Freitas,
1996; Wiesenfeld, 1998):
261
 Emphasis on social transformation. As has been said before, the primordial objective of
community action is the transformation of social reality through processes of reflection-actionreflection.
 Social problems are caused by an unequal social structure, in which the immense majority of
people are excluded from the resources that are theirs by right (there is here, the evident influence
of Marxist developments and the theories of dependence and underdevelopment).
 Use of the theories of ideology, alienation, and power among other psycho-social tools for
comprehension and intervention.
 Social constructionism. Knowledge is produced in social interchanges and it is necessary to
commit oneself to the development of models and methods that allow the free expression of
different constructions by the people with whom the research is carried out (participants).
 Problematization of the relationship between theoretical production and the application of
knowledge. There is the presupposition that knowledge is produced in the interaction between the
psychologist and the participants.
 The impossibility of the researcher’s neutrality. Therefore, the need for an explicit engagement
of the external agent with the community.
 Horizontal, dialogical relationship between external agents (researchers) and community
stakeholders.
These developments have been worked out through theoretical reflection and practical interventions
and have generated many debates. Some of the most important issues that are currently debated in
the area of community psychology are summarized by Montero (2002): debates related to
paradigmatic principles, the way of doing community psychology within science (Sawaia, 1998;
Montero, 1999; Sánchez, 2001); debates related to the object of knowledge, the cognizant subject
and the ways of producing knowledge (Wiesenfeld, 1998; Montenegro, 2002; Montero 2003b);
debates related to the notion of community and the sense of community (García, Giuliani, &
Wiesenfeld, 1994; Montenegro, 2003; Montero, 2004a); the concept of participation, its definition,
effects, possibilities, and limitations (Sánchez, 2000); the role of affectivity in community work
(León & Montenegro, 1998; Sawaia, 2003); the concept of empowerment, its conceptualization and
the ways of achieving empowerment processes (Montero, 2004a); perspectives about psycho-social
community practice (Serrano-García & López, 1994); the political effects thereof (Montero, 1998);
the practices of community psychology and, in general, the role of community psychologists in
concrete processes (Quintal de Freitas, 1994); liberating practice in participatory perspectives and
the relatedness orientation in community psychology (Moreno, 1999; Montero, 2003a).
The most popular methodology in community psychology is the Participatory Action Research
(PAR). A method that emerged in Latin American in the mid-20th century with a critical
perspective of society sustained by the social sciences (Freire, 1970, 1973; Fals Borda, 1959; 1976).
PAR has been defined as a group of theoretical principles and tools for the combined action
between professionals and members of the community towards the solution of the problems
besetting them, through conscious and organized mobilization with the objective of transforming
life conditions and power relations present in the social structure. Following Gabarrón y Hernández
(1994) Participatory Action Research is:
“A methodological proposal inserted in a strategy of defined action. It integrates the
researchers/educators (both practitioners and lay-people) in a collective process of production and
reproduction of knowledge necessary for social transformation. It is also an emergent paradigm of
the critical social sciences, which is characterized as alternative, with its own epistemological and
methodological premises. It is a political movement, in Latin America, of intellectuals in alliance
with the ideological cause of grassroots groups or majorities, in their struggle for the change in
power relations -asymmetrical and oppressive- between hegemonic and subordinate social groups.
It is a multiple process of research, education, and action” (Gabarrón & Hernández, 1994: 5).
262
The fundamental principles of this methodology are based on three essential issues: transformative
social action starting from a perspective that understands society as an articulation of social
conflicts; the production of knowledge through the integration and collaboration between scientific
and people’s knowledge and the participation of people affected by problems, in a continuous
dialogue with practitioners towards the transformation of relationships and, specific social realities.
The principles of community psychology and PAR mentioned above have been -and continue to beof great use as guides for action in specific community processes and, to treat a wide range of
situations lived by impoverished sectors in Venezuela and in some other Latin American countries.
Regarding this, debates have been produced about the experiences and theoretical developments of
concepts and methodologies in use. Also those debates have opened a discussion over those
developments in the wider context of the network of critical studies around the world.
Social Psychology of Political Processes
Political psychology has a long history of production in Venezuela. Topics referring to collective
processes of reproduction and social transformation have been one of the main areas of
development and intervention in Venezuela and in the rest of Latin America.
The study about stereotypes, self-images and hetero-images, and social identities, both in Venezuela
and in other Latin American nations later are abundant (Salazar, 1997; Salazar & Salazar, 1998).
Studies about nationalism are included in this area, as do studies about Latin Americanism as a
political idea which led Salazar to construct the idea of an overarching identity (Salazar, 1983,
1987). About this Montero produced the concept of negative social identity and altercentrism
(Montero, 1987, 1996a). Equally worthy of mention are the research projects about images of
political actors and processes in concrete contexts and of the influence of different types of social
movements in social transformations (Montero 2003c). There are also works about the
consequences of the current processes of globalization (Urreiztieta, 2002) and about the generation,
in this context, of new forms of agency and social power in current democracies, responding to new
cultural illnesses and analyzing, furthermore, the specificity of these processes in the Venezuelan
context (Urreiztieta, 2004).
There is a wide production in the themes having to do with gender, where critical activity has been
characterized by the production of knowledge relative to gender identities (Banchs, 2000);
phenomena such as domestic violence which especially affects women (Rodríguez, 1998) or
reflections about sexual and reproductive rights in the new legal reforms in Venezuela (Muñoz,
2000), to give some examples. The political activity of these works consists in a denunciation and
permanent struggle through academic work and social intervention, in contrast to the forms of
oppression and domination of women in patriarchal societies. Or as has also been critically studied
in Venezuela, denouncing the problems and construction of gender identities in the mother-centred
family structure historically predominant in Venezuela (Vethencourt, 1974; Moreno, 1998a).
The current Venezuelan political context has also given way to different interpretations of political
processes. The crisis of de-legitimization that Venezuelan democracy has suffered since the early
nineties of the past century, and the political agencies that emerge from that crisis, have assumed a
wide space in the scientific discussion about the characteristics, consequences, and options for the
current Venezuelan political crossroads. In this environment, the current Venezuelan situation has
been characterized by political violence and social polarization (Lozada, 2004). The definition of
the disagreement about political projects for the nation, draws a panorama of social violence and an
inability to accept the political point of view of the “other” as valid, creating, as Silva (2003) says, a
monochromatic refraction that reflects only two points of view in the multiple political panorama,
263
through processes of homogenization and differentiation constructing the “other” as radically
different. The alterity (otherness) is constructed as everything that is not desired and that is
considered negative about “the way of being Venezuelan”. For example, the tendency to infringe
norms of coexistence or personal interest considered as more valid than common interest. These
processes situate the other, who is not like one, as a representative of everything that one does not
want to be. Hence, suppression of the other results in the only viable solution to the conflict of
interests and forms of being (Silva, 2004). This situation of political and social violence comes to
represent a phenomenon of profound concern for certain social and academic groups due to the
difficulties that derive from the construction of spaces of non-violent debate and spaces of tolerance
and democratic coexistence (Lozada, 2002).
Between community and political psychology developed in Venezuela, it is necessary to introduce
the development of studies in the perspective of liberation psychology, a tendency proposed by
Martín-Baró in 1986 and 1989/1991, and developed from that early base in the 1990s in various
places in Latin America. These studies combine the critical aspects that were being developed in
both branches of psychology in Venezuela. In this sense, they make contributions to the liberation
current, while they introduce the reflective critical perspective. They also alert about the need to
develop an ethical base and denounce the biases and interest directed to the acquisition of academic
power as well as the introduction of partisan interests, which threaten liberation psychology; an idea
born out of a genuine concern about the social transformation of oppressed majorities in Latin
America.
Critique of the Critical: Limits and Threats to Critical Psychology in Venezuela
Starting from this brief sample of developments of the most visible lines of critical psychology in
Venezuela, in this section we will deal with some current challenges of this area from this
paradoxical position of commitment to the political and academic project of critical psychology and
having certain doubts relative to specific aspects of it.
Departing from developments in the area, there are some limits voiced by authors from Venezuela,
as well as by others in the region, which reflect their own practice -and that of their colleagues- in
critical psychology. So, in the area of production of knowledge considered as critical and starting
from the premise maintaining that knowledge is always a product of the socio-historical context
where it is produced, the reflection about the ways of creating knowledge (Montero, 1994;
Wiesenfeld 2000), the implications of the knowledge produced by psychology and the ethical and
political aspects of that knowledge (Montero 2001) are indispensable. Due precisely to the fact that
the forms of domination and oppression are changing within Venezuelan society, and to the fact
that critical knowledge refers always to a given order of things, critical activity has to be permanent.
A danger of critical psychology refers to the forms of institutionalization it can have in both
academic and social areas. The institutionalization of the practices described above (for example,
the shift of acceptance on the part of academic circles, now uncritically preferring qualitative
research proposals, or the incorporation of participatory perspectives in institutional programs), can
have a paradoxical reading. On the one hand, these phenomena can be understood as achievements
compared with the ways in which critical practice has had to be carried out at other times (with
scarce resources, little legitimacy of the research practices and, on certain occasions, risk for the
people involved). On the other hand, the tendency towards institutionalization has also meant the
loss of the critical and transformative potential of certain critical practices. Thus, the
institutionalization can carry processes of de-politicization of developed critical practices, with the
risk of losing the emancipating project that was the origin of the developments of critical
psychology in the region. The challenge of a critical psychology would be not to lose sight of the
264
necessity of constant questioning and debate about what does the adjective critical in psychology
means in each socio-historical moment and context.
Community psychology has also generated a field of theoretical-practical debates about itself. An
example would be the excessive use of the category “group” in the theorization and practice of the
sub-discipline (Spink, 1999). The legacy of social psychology (an expert discipline in work with
small groups and of research about their processes) has made it so that in community practice the
group organization has been defined as the best for the development of participatory processes. The
networks, assemblies, commissions, committees, street dailies, community radios, etc., should be
taken into account responding to the different ways in which people are organized in the society.
This change, from the group category to the study and participation of psychology with another
type of social organization, would expand the capacity that critical psychology has to connect with
different movements produced by people in the communities and would give a wider perspective
for the support of political projects that they share.
A relevant aspect in the area of community psychology is the critical discussion about fundamental
concepts, such as those of community, which can homogenize stakeholders within particular
groups, without bearing in mind the great heterogeneity and complexity of the relationships in
specific community contexts (Wiesenfeld, 1998; Montenegro, 2001; Montero, 2004a). This creates
a separation between the “external” and “internal” agents, generating an effect of homogeneity in
the groups of professionals and participants, as if each one were homogeneous and different from
the other, with identifiable interests, needs, and problems (Montenegro, 2003). Likewise happens to
the interested incorporation of the concept of social participation which can translate into new
power practices, in which the mercenary cooptation combine with forms of directed “participation”,
of de-mobilizing character, in addition to generating political clientelism and populism.
Another of the challenges for critical psychology in Venezuela and in the Latin American region is
to give more attention to the different ways in which social actors act on their specific contexts and
the complexity of the subject positions in the participatory initiatives. This theoretical-practical
movement can contribute in different ways to generate the connection between diverse types of
social agents in relation to defined social problems in those same connections.
Moreover, the fact that critical psychology has predominantly opted to work with marginalized
populations and different victims of dominance relationships, winning participation spaces for these
populations, has had the effect that only a few times has it worked with those that are in political,
economic, or cultural positions that allow them define and practice relationships of domination in
society. That is to say, it has given more attention to the liberating slope of psychology with
members of excluded groups than to work with more “included” social groups, in order to
influence, from there, the transformation of dominance relationships.
With respect to the relationships between politics and psychology, the current Venezuelan situation
results in a debate space in which academics and professionals enter the discussion in the public
arena as social agents. The challenge for critical psychology would be to contribute to the opening
of wide spaces of participation allowing to understand and produce alternatives to the current
political struggles (Silva, 2004), which construct and reconstruct social polarization and the
violence associated with it, and whose only exit assumes the destruction of the other since the other
is not understood as a valid interlocutor. Assuming a critical attitude in this context would imply,
then, walking -together with other social agents- towards the construction of forms of peaceful and
democratic co-existence and of the integration of a society polarized by a game of mirrors and
masks.
265
References
Banchs, M. (2000) Representaciones sociales, memoria social e identidades de género. Akademos.
II (1): 59 – 76.
Correa, N.; Figueroa, H. y López, M. M. (1994) La psicología social: pasión inútil del Estado
terapéutico. Anthropos, 156: 33 – 38.
Fals Borda, O. (1959) Acción comunal en una vereda colombiana. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional
de Colombia, Monografías sociológicas.
Fals Borda, O. (1976) Ciencia propia y colonialismo intelectual. Bogotá: Punta de lanza.
Freire, P. (1970) La educación como práctica de libertad. México: Siglo XXI.
Freire, P. (1973) La concientización en el medio rural. México: Siglo XXI.
Freitas, R. H. (1996) Introduçao: A psicologia social comunitária. In R. De Freitas (Ed.) Psicologia
social comunitária: Da solidariedade à autonomia. Petrópolis (Brasil): Vozes.
Gabarrón, L. R. & Hernández, L. (1994) Investigación Participativa. Centro de Investigaciones
Sociológicas. (Colección Cuadernos Metodológicos) 10.
García, I.; Giuliani, F. y Wiesenfeld, E. (1994) El lugar de la teoría en la psicología social
comunitaria: comunidad y sentido de comunidad. In M. Montero (coord.) Psicología Social
Comunitaria. Guadalajara, México: Universidad de Guadalajara: 75 – 101.
Lane, S. (1996) Histórico e fundamentos da psicologia comunitária no Brasil. In R. De Freitas (Ed.)
Psicologia social comunitária: Da solidariedade à autonomia. Petrópolis (Brasil): Vozes.
León, A. & Montenegro, M. (1998) Return of emotion in psychosocial community research.
Journal of community psychology, 26 (3): 219 – 228.
Lozada, M. (2002) Violencia política y polarización social: desafíos y alternativas. Conferencia
dictada en el Centro de Estudios Lationamericanos "Rómulo Gallegos" (CELARG). Caracas
– Venezuela.
Lozada, M. (2004) El ciberciudadano: representaciones, redes y resistencias en Venezuela y
América Latina. In D. Mato (Ed.) Políticas de ciudadanía y sociedad civil en tiempos de
globalización. Caracas: FACES, Universidad Central de Venezuela: 167 – 180.
Martín-Baró, I. (1986). Hacia una psicología de la liberación. Boletín de Psicología (UCA, El
Salvador), 22: 219-231.
Martín-Baró, I. (1989 [1991]) Retos y perspectivas de la psicología en América latina. In G.
Pacheco y B. Jiménez (Ed.) Psicología de la liberación para América Latina. Guadalajara,
México: ITESO-Universidad de Guadalajara.
Montenegro, M. (2001) Conocimientos, agentes y articulaciones. Una mirada situada a la
intervención social. Tesis presentada en el Programa de Doctorado en Psicología Social.
Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Disponible en: http://www.tdx.cbuc.es/
Montenegro, M. (2002) Ideology and community social psychology: Theoretical considerations and
practical implications. American Journal of community psychology, 30 (4): 511 – 527.
Montenegro, M.(2003) Identities, subjectification and subject positions: reflections on
transformation in the sphere of social intervention. International Journal of Critical
Psychology, 9: 92 – 106.
Montero, M. (1984). La psicología comunitaria: Orígenes, principios y fundamentos teóricos.
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 16 (3): 387-400.
Montero, M. (1987) Psicología política latinoamericana. Caracas, Venezuela: Panapo.
Montero, M. (1993) Evolución y tendencias actuales de la psicología social en América latina.
Papeles del psicólogo, 55.
Montero, M. (1994) Construcción y crítica de la psicología social. Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Paidós.
Montero, M. (1996a) La identidad social negativa: un concepto en busca de teoría. In J. F. Morales;
D. Páez; J. C. Deschamps y S. Worchel (Eds.) Identidad social. Aproximaciones
psicosociales a los grupos y a las relaciones entre grupos. Valencia, España: Promolibro:
395-415.
266
Montero, M. (1996b) Parallel lives: Community psychology in Latin America and the U.S.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (6): 589-605.
Montero, M (1998) Psychosocial community work as an alternative mode of political acting (the
construction and social transformation of society). Community, work and family, 1 (1): 65 –
78.
Montero, M. (1999) De la realidad, la verdad y otras ilusiones concretas. Para una epistemología de
una psicología social comunitaria. Psykhe. Revista de la escuela de psicología. Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile, 8 (1): 65 – 78.
Montero, M. (2001) Ética y política en psicología. Las dimensiones no reconocidas. Athenea
digital, 0: 1 - 10.
Montero, M. (2002) La psicologia comunitària: un mapa de butxaca amb assenyalament de punts
que cal visitar. In L. Cantera, J. Herrero, M. Montenegro y G. Musito (Eds.). Psicologia
comunitària i benestar social. Barcelona: Edicions EdiUoc.
Montero, M (2003a). Relatedness as the basis for liberation. International journal of Critical
Psychology, 9: 61 – 74.
Montero, M. (2003b) Teoría y práctica de la psicología comunitaria. La tensión entre comunidad y
sociedad. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
Montero, M. (2003c) La construcción de ciudadanía como una respuesta posible a la agresión
discursiva. Psicología Política, 3 (6): 199-224.
Montero, M. (2004a) Introducción a la psicología comunitaria. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.
Montero, M. (2004b). Relaciones entre psicología comunitaria, psicología crítica y psicología de la
liberación: Una respuesta latinoamericana. Psyche, 13 (2): 17 – 28.
Montero, M & Fernández, P. (2003a) Editorial. International journal of Critical Psychology, 9: 6 –
12.
Montero, M & Fernández, P. (2003b). Editorial de la sección especial ‘Psicología social crítica’.
Revista Interamericana de psicología, 37 (2): 211 – 213.
Moreno, A. (1993) El aro y la trama. Caracas, Venezuela: CIP.
Moreno, A. (1998a) La familia popular venezolana. Caracas: Centro de Investigaciones Populares
(CIP) y Centro Gumillas. .
Moreno, A.; Brandt, J.C; Campos, A.; Navarro, R.; Pérez, M.; Rodríguez, W. & Valera, Y. (1998b)
Historia de vida de Felicia Valera. Caracas: Fondo editorial CONICIT.
Moreno, A. (1999) Historia-de-vida de Felicia Valera: introducción. Heterotopía, 2-3: 17 – 25.
Moreno, A. (2002) Buscando padre. Valencia, Venezuela: Universidad de Carabobo-CIP.
Muñoz, M. (2000) Derechos sexuales y reproductivos y proceso constituyente. Revista venezolana
de estudios de la mujer, 5 (14).
Quintal de Freitas, M. F. (1994) Prácticas en comunidad y psicología comunitaria. In M. Montero
(Ed.) Psicología Social comunitaria. Guadalajara (México): Universidad de Guadalajara:
139 – 166.
Quintal de Freitas, M. F. (1996) Psicologia na comunidade, psicologia da comunidade e psicologia
(social) comunitária: Práticas da psicologia em comunidade nas décadas de 60 a 90, no
Brasil. In R. De Freitas (Ed.) Psicologia social comunitária: Da solidariedade à autonomia.
Petrópolis (Brasil): Vozes.
Rodríguez, B. (1998) La cuantificación de la violencia doméstica. Muestrario de una impunidad.
Revista venezolana de estudios de la mujer. 3 (8).
Salazar, J. M. (1983) Bases psicológicas del nacionalismo. México, DF, México: Trillas.
Salazar, J. M. (1987) El latinoamericanismo como una idea política. In M. Montero (Ed.)
Psicología política latinoamericana. Caracas, Venezuela: Panapo: 203-227.
Salazar, J. M. (1997) La investigación transcultural en treinta años de la Revista Interamericana de
Psicología. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 31 (2): 169- 184.
Salazar, J. M. y Salazar, M. (1998) Estudios recientes acerca de identidades nacionales en América
Latina. Psicología Política, 16: 75-94.
267
Sánchez, E. (2000) Todos con la esperanza. Continuidad de la participación comunitaria. Caracas,
Venezuela: Comisión de estudios de postgrado, Facultad de Humanidades y educación,
Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Sánchez, E. (2001) La psicología social comunitaria: Repensando la disciplina desde la comunidad.
Revista de psicología. Universidad de Chile, X (2): 127 – 142.
Sawaia, B. (1998) Psicología comunitaria: Un área paradigmática de conocimiento científico
comprometido. In A. Martín González (Ed.) Psicología comunitaria. Fundamentos y
aplicaciones. Madrid: Síntesis: 176 – 181.
Sawaia, B. (2003) Affectivity as an ethical-political phenomenon and locus critical epistemological
reflection in social psychology. International journal of Critical Psychology, 9: 13 – 30.
Serrano-García, I. (1989) Bases Ideológicas de la Investigación Participativa. Ponencia presentada
en el I Congreso Interamericano de Psicología, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Serrano-García, I. (2002) Ser diferent: el repte de la psicologia comnunitària. In L. Cantera, J.
Herrero, M. Montenegro y G. Musito (Ed.). Psicologia comunitària i benestar social.
Barcelona: Edicions EdiUoc.
Serrano – García, I. y López, G. (1994) Una perspectiva diferente del poder y el cambio social para
la psicología social comunitaria. In Montero, M (Ed.) Psicología Social comunitaria.
Guadalajara (México): Universidad de Guadalajara: 167 – 209.
Silva C. (2003). The situational form of otherness. A discourse analytic approach to relationships in
public space. International journal of Critical Psychology, 9: 47- 60.
Silva, C. (2004) Dos veces otro: Polarización política y alteridad. Revista venezolana de economía y
ciencias sociales, 10 (2):129 – 136.
Spink, P. (1999, July). Psychology and Civil Society – remembering Gramsci. Paper presented at
the XXVII Interamerican Congress of Psychology.
Urreiztieta, M. (2002) Subjetividad, políticas de vida y poder social en tiempos de globalización.
Paper presented at I Jornadas internacionales de reflexión crítica sobre la globalización.
Las Palmas de Gran Canarias (November).
Urreiztieta, M. (2004) La sociología interpretativa: globalización y vida cotidiana. Espacio abierto,
13 (3): 457 – 470.
Vethencourt, J. L. (1974) La estructura familiar matricentrada y el fracaso sociohistórico
venezolano. SIC, 362.
Wiesenfeld, E. (1998). Paradigms of community social psychology in six Latin American nations.
Journal of community psychology, 26 (3): 229 –242.
Wiesenfeld, E. (2000) Entre la percepción y la acción: la brecha entre la teoría y la práctica en las
investigaciones cualitativas. Forum: qualitative social research (on-line journal), 1 (2).
http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00wiesenfeld-s.htm
268