A Commentary on Commentaries on the Prospects for a More Equitable Global Psychology

Abstract

This chapter comments on commentaries on prospects for a more equitable Global Psychology as envisioned by Kuo-shu Yang. Yang was a quantitative empirical researcher, committed to quantitative survey methods even though he moved away from cross-cultural psychology toward indigenous psychology (IP). His instructive list of do’s and don’t provides a practical guide for constructing indigenous compatibility with decolonizing capabilities. He was committed to inductive research, where different IPs constituting semi-autonomous bodies of knowledge were to be integrated into a greater whole. As noted by commentators, especially Teo and Asfin, this aim is/was not realizable, given the power distribution in actually existing psychology. Yang was deeply committed to psychological science, and had no affinity for the emancipatory approaches advocated by Teo and Asfin, nor a focus on understanding poverty and its psychological correlates, as emphasized by Moghaddam and Kendricks. His goal to construct IP comprehensively suited for Chinese speaking peoples was not fully realizable. But he and his colleagues accomplished much in building a large body of both descriptive and theoretical knowledge, captured in 51 volumes of the journal Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies. Only time will tell how enduring the legacy of this scientific research will be.