by Ian Hansen, PhD
Particulars and Universals
Kerala is a geographically tiny state in a large country—India—that doesn’t make the news much in spite of having over a sixth of the world’s population. As such, Kerala is a very particular place. When I was a graduate student in cultural psychology, I remember my advisor telling me that another particular place, Japan, is considered the graveyard of all great social theories. This is in part because as an “interdependent” or “collectivist” culture, Japan fails to conform to many of the theories of human psychology backed up by data gathered in individualist cultures (particularly the United States). It is also in part because idiosyncratic Japan often defies expectations about what an interdependent or collectivist culture should behave like. I have now come to think that almost any distinctive cultural-political-economic entity, closely examined, will seem like a graveyard of all great social theories. Examinations of the particular tend to trouble pretenses to the universal.
Japan’s 127 million people—1.7% of the world’s population—are more plentiful than Kerala’s 35 million. But if Japan’s population is not to be sneezed at, then neither is Kerala’s. A whole movement in psychology—cultural psychology—has drawn much energy from studying fractional exceptions like Japan and Kerala to the apparently universal. And cultural psychology is gradually shaping the sense of the “actually universal” in general psychology, with psychology textbooks highlighting cultural differences in psychological processes, and cultural psychologists even becoming well-known public intellectuals like Jonathan Haidt1.
Now Japan specifically is a political ally of the United States, so studying it can feel like looking at some of the charming differences enjoyed between allies. Even with Modi’s India also being a US ally, Kerala’s particularities—including its role as a pocket of resistance to Modi’s Hindu nationalist fascism within India—are more politically troublesome to study. Though most psychologists are nominally “liberal”, a plutocratic militarist structural academic climate still hangs heavily over the psychology profession. So Kerala will probably not be a household word among even cultural psychologists anytime soon. Kerala’s benign-looking manifestations of communism, Islam, etc. will probably not be considered sexy by those whom many US psychologists beg hat-in-hand for grant money, status and fame. If the political economic will were there, though, more cultural psychological attention to the study of Keralan particulars—and Kerala-illuminated universals—could skewer some paradigms to potentially explosive effect.
Scientifically speaking, I think Kerala could illustrate how apparently shocking exceptions to the supposedly universal can sometimes mask an illuminating embodiment of the actually universal. In this case, the shocking universal that Kerala embodies exceptionally is that most ideologies are okay, and peace between them is better than the alternative. More specifically, most of the ideological principles we humans have been stealing, raping, torturing and murdering for over the last century are both (a) pretty good, and (b) would have been better served by peaceful integration, or at least live-and-let-live coexistence. Insofar as Kerala illustrates both the pretty-goodness and should-have-tried-to-get-alongness of the big three value foundations for the last century’s massive ideological projects, Kerala can be considered a cultural psychological goldmine. Or rather it could be considered a self-interest-threatening landmine if what you want is the military, corporate or CIA funding that can make you a household name in psychology. That’s because Kerala is, as per my title, the graveyard of all war propaganda.
Footnote
1. Haidt’s case illustrates the costs of once plucky and gadfly-like cultural psychology going mainstream. Being a US public intellectual and a successful psychologist at the same time appears to require more fealty to structures of power in the US (the military, the intelligence agencies, and the peculiar form of “capitalism” practiced by US financial institutions and corporations) than is required for public intellectual success in other disciplines. To some extent, Haidt embodies the gadfly critiques of cultural psychology. He became a wealthy, famous public intellectual even while offending many rank-and-file psychologists with his attack on an apparent hegemony: the overwhelming prefer-Democrats-to-Republicans “liberalism” of rank-and-file US psychologists. But perhaps his underdog success capitalizes on the fact that the psychology profession is minimally accountable to its rank and file. With regard to the more powerful sources of hegemony affecting how psychology operates as a profession, Haidt has demonstrated considerably less inclination to offend them. Even cultural psychology’s ideological organizer, Richard Shweder (whom Haidt studied under), appears to have felt the zeitgeist calling him to flatter these sources of power.
Ian Hansen, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Behavioral Sciences Department at York College, City University of New York, with a research focus on social psychology, religion, ideology, tolerance, and support for peace and pluralism. His core research interest is investigating psychological “odd bedfellows” phenomena with regard to religion and ideology. He is also an active member in Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and served as its 2017 president.