You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
When is “radical” radical? It is fashionable to take a “radical” approach to radicality by averring that the root of the word is the word for root and that “radical” means merely returning to the root. This derivation, however, suggests the possibility of returning to the root without overturning all that has repressed, denied, and obfuscated it, and thus without confronting the resistance to authentic radicality. The historical exigencies of radicality suggest another view—that it means revolution, that is, humanity's desire to uproot the rotten roots. Given this latter, authentically radical version of radicality, Melvin Feffer is justified in titling his book Radical Constructionism; for he means to say, and does say, with wit, intellectual rigor, and courage, that unless psychologists, and psychoanalysis in particular, confront the persistent, damaging inconsistencies in their thinking, they will continue to believe that they are moving forward, but they will not be. Moreover, Feffer shows that these inconsistencies grow from a common root. As for radicality in the “grand historical sense” (Marx), we will see if and how radical constructionism is relevant to an emancipatory praxis.
The common root of the inconsistencies inhabiting psychological theory involves the most vexing yet most crucial issue in theoretical work in psychology: the belief that we can gain knowledge