Decolonising Psychology: Back to the future

In 1898, under the leadership of a Cambridge Professor of Anthropology, Alfred Cort Haddon, a team of anthropologists, psychologists and a psychiatrist set off for the Torres Straits in South East Asia. The expedition could be considered one of the foundations of clinical psychology, but have we ever truly learned its lessons of cultural specificity? Here, we argue that an implicit view of British Psychology as a culturally odourless, apolitical discipline, is not sustainable.

A major objective of the Torres Strait expedition team – including W.H.R. Rivers, William McDougall, C.G. Seligman and C.S. Myers – was to distinguish what was universal in human psychology from what was culturally specific to the Western world (vide Herle & Rouse, 1998). A significant observation made by Seligman was that psychoses did not exist as an illness in the cultures studied, except in an area which had been substantially 'Westernised', and that those with psychotic symptom manifestations were quickly and effectively treated by local shamans. This observation was subsequently labelled as the 'Seligman error'. In a weighty review of the evidence however, Littlewood (2017) came to the view that Seligman's observations were most probably correct.

How is it that British Psychology today would seem to be more colonialist with respect to other cultural traditions than it was in 1898?

Rivers, Myers and Seligman all made names for themselves through the psychological treatment of WW1 shell shock victims; McDougall went on to become a founding member of the British Psychological Society, and Myers its first president. And the messages from Torres Straits did filter through – when one of us (Rasjid Skinner) was introduced to it at the beginning of the undergraduate course in the late 1960s, the message was that the Psychology we were to be taught was inevitably culturally niched, 'white middle class' Psychology.

Neither of us are aware of any recent UK undergraduate course in Psychology, or doctoral course in Clinical Psychology, beginning with such a bold statement. What has gone wrong? How is it that British Psychology today would seem to be more colonialist with respect to other cultural traditions than it was in 1898?

A universal, culturally odourless science

American Philosopher Thomas Kuhn's thesis (1964) demands respect – no science has evolved in a social vacuum, but rather emerges from specific cultural paradigms which influence the way we perceive the world and the questions we ask (and do not ask), whilst guiding the gaze in the interpretation of data. Yet in our experience, Undergraduate and Clinical Psychology courses in the UK teach as though the subject is a universal, culturally odourless science. This is reflected in the lack of reference to the cultural specificity of Western Psychology in the British Psychological Society Standards for the accreditation of doctoral programmes in Clinical Psychology and Undergraduate, conversion and integrated Masters programmes in Psychology (BPS, 2019). Its theories and models are aligned with Western philosophical traditions, social values and agendas (Rose, 1998); and such empirical data it relies on has primarily been extracted from studies conducted with Western populations.

The BPS Standards state that '…graduates should understand the scientific underpinnings of Psychology as a discipline, its historical origins, development and limitations upon completing their degree'. Yet we are not consistently taught in our undergraduate and clinical training courses about the Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) cultural niche out of which Western Psychology and its clinical branches emerged. The direction of study, theories and models, main schools of thought, were all shaped and sustained by a Western political discourse rooted in 19th century rationalism which was overtly antagonistic to religion and spirituality (Rose, 1998). However, the degree to which this is implemented across courses is inconsistent up and down the country, and implicit in the statement is that Western Psychology is the only Psychology.

Looking outwards to non-Western cultures who have cultivated their own psychology is largely ignored in the UK.

Indigenous psychologies from within

David Smail and the Midlands group have at least brought attention to the way British Clinical Psychology has been unreflective about its cultural and political paradigms (Midlands Psychology Group, 2013; Smail, 2005). That being said, their alternative paradigm is itself niched in a Western political philosophy. Looking outwards to non-Western cultures who have cultivated their own psychology is largely ignored in the UK.

Enriquez (1990) described 'indigenous psychologies from within' as those psychologies that are borne out of the culture itself. They rest on their own paradigms which are suited to the wider culture from which they have developed, and from that paradigm can critique, absorb or reject the products of other 'psychologies'. The Black Psychology movement in the United States provides an example of this point; Dr Thema Bryant, who was elected to lead the American Psychological Association, wants to '…craft codes on decolonising psychology by showing mental health practitioners how to use cultural practices from the Black church (e.g. song and dance) to reform mental health care' (The Washington Post, 2022).

Similarly in the UK, Pattigift Therapy (Rameri Moukam) and Nubia Wellness and Healing (Dr Erica Mapule McInnis), embed African thought into the foundation of their work as a way of providing culturally appropriate therapies to people whose lives and ancestral experiences have been different from the culture in which the mainstream psychology has evolved. Dr McInnis told The Psychologist in 2018 that '…it is about advancing a science of human functioning for Black people around the world, using the best of African thought, culture and rituals to create wellbeing. It is grounded in the sense of spirit and has its own healing paradigms, theoretical frameworks and intervention protocols'.

This approach has a strong resonance with the basis of Islamic Psychology, which like most, if not all, non-Western psychologies (such as Vedic and Buddhist), has spirituality at its heart, not just as a feel good 'mindfulness' but as a powerful dynamic within the self (Rothman & Coyle, 2018; Skinner, 2010). Islamic Psychology proceeds from scriptural sources (e.g. the Qur'an and Hadith) that describe the nature of the human self and its maladies; and from the work of classical Islamic Scholars (e.g. Al Kindi 801-866, Al Balkhi 850-934, Al Razi 864-932, Ibn Sina 980-1037 and Al Ghazali 1058-1111), who developed from this paradigm practical models for understanding the self, its dynamics, psychological health and appropriate treatments. It incorporated treatments and models from other cultures (e.g. Greek, Vedic, Chinese) when these did not conflict with the basic Islamic paradigm.

Early roots and Islamic psychology

It has recently been recognised that Al Balkhi's early writings on the 'Sustenance of the Soul' in the 9th century, which included classifications, symptoms and treatment modalities for obsessional disorders, has had 'transcultural diagnostic consistency' across many centuries (Awaad & Ali, 2015). There is evidence that the first mental health hospital was established in Baghdad under the directorship of Al-Razi in the 9th century. By the late mediaeval period, charitably endowed hospitals for mental health difficulties had been established throughout the Middle East, Persia and Ottoman Turkey. In the Turkish 14th century (C.E.) mental health hospital in Edirne, a range of treatment options deriving from an Islamic paradigm were available – including herbal medicines, aroma, architectural design, and sophisticated music therapy specific to different types of mental health difficulties [see also thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-34/february-2021/harmonic-healing-houses-turkey]. Ilm-ul-Nafs (Psychology) was on the curriculum at Nishapur University by the 14th century; and Tibb-ul-Nafs (Clinical Psychology) by the 15th century.

In the UK, residential training courses on Islamic Psychology for psychological therapists have been delivered regularly for the last ten years.

A knowledge of this Islamic heritage, in thought and practice, is at least of some importance for understanding how the contemporary Muslim populations conceptualise mental health difficulties. Yet we still have the perception that Psychology as an applied discipline starts with William Wundt in the late 19th century (Leadbetter & Arnold, 2013).

By the late 1970's, the intrusion of Western Clinical Psychology into the traditional Muslim world – especially in its American psycho-analytic variety – was opposed by British trained Clinical Psychologist, Dr Malik Badri, who was then practising in the Middle East. Badri argued that parts of Western Psychology were incompatible with the Islamic Psychology paradigm (Badri, 1979), and its intrusion into Muslim society, if not challenged, would lead to what Enriquez phrased as a 'colonisation of the mind'. From that time, there has been a growing modern Islamic Psychology movement (Kaplick & Skinner, 2017) with two international professional associations, regular publications, conferences, training courses including a new Islamic Clinical Psychology programme at Riphah University in Pakistan. In the UK, residential training courses on Islamic Psychology for psychological therapists have been delivered regularly for the last ten years. The Clinical Psychology-led Ihsaan Therapy Service (www.ihsaan.org.uk) was established ten years ago in West Yorkshire from which the model has spread to other parts of the country. All these clinical services are swamped, without advertising, with referrals from Muslims who are choosing to pay a fee for Islamically-orientated psychological therapy services rather than 'reaching out' to mainstream services.

Beyond the dissonance

How we interface with the psychologies of other cultures is important in our current conversation about increasing minority representation in Clinical Psychology. If we truly wish to value the diversity that comes with recruiting ethnic minorities/global majorities into the profession, then we ought to think more carefully about how we promote and embrace their perspective, without indoctrinating them with a version of psychology that can be far apart from their cultural constructs and experiences.

The paradigm shift for an Islamic Psychology has gone from slowly gathering momentum in the 1980s to becoming a 'movement' today.

We have observed and reflected on the dissonance that Muslim graduates, trainees and qualified psychologists experience between what they have been taught from Western Psychology and their own cultural lens from which they make sense of internal experiences and the world. This dissonance often plays out in one of two ways: (i) the social context in which Muslims are placed forces them to assimilate with the dominant Psychology culture, but with the sacrifice of their own attitudes, beliefs and values; or (ii) Muslims separate themselves in order to hold on to their own beliefs and values. The onus often falls on Muslim trainees and qualified Psychologists to navigate these spaces independently, but we collectively need to think more carefully about where the power is located within the profession and how those who hold the power within Clinical Psychology can facilitate a more integrated approach for Muslims and other ethnic minorities/global majorities.

We are in a privileged position to write and challenge others to think outside of the box irrespective of what stage they are at in their Clinical Psychology journey. We wanted to pause for a moment and offer food for thought to those rising through the ranks, or in positions of influence. If we are to lead the field in thinking about these matters, then it is imperative that we look at our training courses and governing bodies with more scrutiny. In writing this, we reflected on the work of the established anthropologist, Akbar Ahmed, who in the 1980's proposed an Islamic Anthropology which was borne out of Islamic sources exemplified by classical Muslim social scientists. This proposition attracted much debate within the Royal Anthropology Institute at the time (Ahmed, 1984) and created a position from which to critique Western Anthropology.

In parallel, the paradigm shift for an Islamic Psychology has gone from slowly gathering momentum in the 1980s to becoming a 'movement' today. Yet the British Psychological Society and other psychological bodies have maintained a passive stance to this fast-evolving field. It's time to revive the spirit of Torres Straits, and to be prepared to critically examine our own cultural conditioning. We must cease to be the unreflective agent of mind colonisation and become the lead profession in embracing 'other' cultural perspectives.

About the authors

Dr Hasan Waheed is a Clinical Psychologist and has worked with children, adolescents and families from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. He works for CAMHS and a social enterprise who offer specialist services to improve the accessibility and cultural appropriateness of psychological and mental health services for minoritized children and families.

e: [email protected]
@HasanWaheed0

Professor Rasjid Skinner is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Jungian Psychotherapist, a Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. He is a Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Clinical Director of 'Ihsaan Therapeutic Services, Visiting Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Karachi, and has lectured at the Cambridge Muslim College.

@Ihsaantherapy