The article critically examines psychotherapy’s sociopolitical role through the concept of psychotherapism , seen as both an analytical tool and a set of effects related to the expansion of the psychotherapy apparatus . Drawing on Castel’s psychoanalysm, critical theory, and liberation psychology, it identifies four main, though non-exhaustive, iatrogenic outcomes: clinical harm, social stratification, symbolic individualization, and erosion of collective bonds. The analysis exposes psychotherapy’s alignment with neoliberal governance and challenges its presumed neutrality. It advocates for a decolonial, justice-oriented praxis that reclaims non-commodified, community-based care.
The humanistic tradition has long been associated with fallibilism due to the former's emphasis on epistemic humility and ongoing processes of belief revision. However, fallibilism admits of at least two variants, and those who have otherwise correctly associated the humanistic tradition with fallibilism often presuppose the applicability of only one of these-namely, "epistemic fallibilism." In this article, we draw from Charles Sanders Peirce to distinguish mere "epistemic fallibilism," as articulated by William James (p. 19), John Dewey (p. 573), and Karl Popper, from Peirce's broader "ontogenetic fallibilism." We revisit the link between the humanistic-relational tradition and fallibilism to suggest that ontogenetic fallibilism more perfectly explains and encapsulates humanistic therapeutic practices. In particular, Peirce's ontogenetic fallibilism explicates a therapeutic orientation to (a) an open-ended, (b) history-dependent regime of integrity or stability that is realized through (c) the co-construction of a novel client-therapist relationship by way of (d) exploratory processes. We conclude by claiming that if such humanistic-relational practices are characterized by ontogenetic fallibilism, this invites a reconceptualization of therapy, not just as a humanistic enterprise, but as a recapitulation of a cosmological, trial-and-error process by which the universe becomes an increasingly ordered and individuated variant of itself.
Capitalism, defined as unlimited capital accumulation, is and remains a contested system. In its search for growth and expansion, it succeeds in encapsulating and capitalizing on ever more areas of life, not only in the physical world, but also in the world of ideas and concepts. Variously called appropriation, incorporation, or co-optation, it refers to how expressions of protest, revolution, and dissent are domesticated and deradicalized so as to conform to the purpose of the corporation. In this paper, I discuss the appropriation of the concept of self-actualization, as developed by Abraham Maslow. Holding out the promise of a decentralized, nonhierarchical, and nonauthoritarian work place, it became central to the “human relations” school in management in the 1950s and 1960s. However, in subsequent translations by mainstream scholars, self-actualization became sanitized of its original humanist connotations. It was turned into a “pyramid,” a management tool for production and performance, and into the figure of the economic “entrepreneur of the self,” totally contravening Maslow’s original intentions with self-actualization at work.
This paper positions literary fiction as a complementary site through which the existential dimensions of trauma may be brought into view. Engagement with such representations may enrich psychotherapeutic discourse, particularly where the complex reverberations of trauma remain elusive or conceptually peripheral. The study advances an interdisciplinary approach by employing hermeneutic phenomenology to engage directly with Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five . Through a close reading of the protagonist’s descent into suspended modes of being that resist integration, the analysis demonstrates that existential disclosure does not necessarily culminate in meaning-making. Rather, traumatic affect, as rendered in this narrative form, emerges as paradoxical, temporally dislocated and resistant to therapeutic teleology. By bringing trauma-fiction into textual conversation with existential psychotherapy literature, the paper seeks to deepen theoretical understandings of existential upheaval as it may manifest in the wake of trauma. Therefore, it contributes to contemporary discourse on trauma as capable of catalysing ontological reconfiguration.
Sergio Piro (1927–2009) was a key figure in the Italian psychiatric movement for deinstitutionalization that culminated in the so-called “Basaglia Law” (Law 180) of 1978, an internationally recognized milestone in the struggle for the emancipation of mental health. While his work received less recognition than that of his colleague Franco Basaglia, Piro was deeply engaged in the training of mental health professionals and in the theoretical development of the human and social sciences. His prolific scientific output laid the foundations for a distinctive approach to mental health centered on the dialogical interplay among the human sciences. This paper introduces Transformational Anthropologies (TA), the framework developed by Piro, to an international audience. Drawing on an epistemological perspective that resonates with the aims of Liberation Psychology, TA calls for the contextualization of healthcare practices and provides conceptual and methodological tools that connect clinical intervention with emancipatory action in both individual and collective settings. The paper reconstructs the historical context of struggle from which TA emerged and examines the epistemological, clinical, and emancipatory principles underpinning its conception of care as liberatory praxis. Finally, it proposes TA as a promising perspective for critically examining the relationship between mental health and contemporary dominant ideologies, while fostering transformative forms of praxis aimed at rethinking and reshaping mental health practices. This manuscript is part of a special issue, Liberation Psychologies and Transformative Praxis, edited by Zenobia Morrill, PhD, and M. Mookie C. Manalili, LICSW. Manuscripts in this special issue are intended to represent diverse psychological experiences and viewpoints about liberation psychologies and the critical application of humanistic psychologies to understand and address current psychosocial polycrises. The material expressed in each article represents the subjective experiences, perspectives, and opinions of the author(s), not political or historical claims. The experiences and perspectives expressed in each manuscript are those of the author(s) alone, and not those of the editors, editorial board, journal, or publishers. For questions regarding these manuscripts or the special issue, please contact the author(s) or corresponding guest editor(s).
