Psychology Between Order and Liberation: Why the Discipline Feels Politically Split
Psychology has always been more than a science of the mind. It has been a cultural mirror, reflecting society’s tensions about authority, freedom, responsibility, and justice. In recent years, this tension has become especially visible. Many progressives describe negative experiences with therapists who seemed rigid, moralistic, or dismissive of systemic concerns. For them, psychology feels like a conservative institution, out of step with the values of liberation and inclusion. At the same time, conservatives often complain that psychology as an academic discipline is dominated by liberal assumptions and blind to their perspectives.
Both perceptions are accurate. Psychology is politically ambivalent, shaped by traditions that lean toward order and control alongside others that lean toward liberation and critique. To understand why this ambivalence exists, we need to trace how psychology’s major schools of thought align with broader political currents.
Psychology’s Conservative Foundations
The early history of psychology leaned toward hierarchy and authority. Freud’s psychoanalysis introduced radical ideas about sexuality and the unconscious, but the therapeutic structure was steeply hierarchical: the analyst interpreted, the patient obeyed. Behaviorism, which dominated American psychology in the mid-twentieth century, emphasized conformity, discipline, and external conditioning. Psychiatry, closely tied to medicine, carried enormous institutional power, with authority to diagnose, prescribe, and confine.
These traditions often reinforced existing social norms. Women were pathologized as “hysterical.” Queer people were diagnosed as mentally ill. Black and Indigenous communities were over-policed by psychiatric institutions while being denied access to culturally competent care. Therapy in this period was often not a site of liberation but a tool of social control.
The Countercurrent of Liberation
By the 1950s and 1960s, psychology fractured. Humanistic and existential psychologists such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Viktor Frankl rejected what they saw as the cold determinism of behaviorism and the authoritarianism of psychoanalysis. They emphasized growth, freedom, and personal meaning. Therapy became a collaborative process rather than a command structure.
In the 1970s feminist psychologists challenged male-centered assumptions and argued that mental health could not be separated from systemic sexism. Multicultural psychology and later queer-affirmative therapy went further, showing how racism, colonialism, and heteronormativity were baked into both research and practice. These schools explicitly tied psychological well-being to struggles against oppression, aligning therapy with progressive movements for social change.
For many clients who had been excluded or harmed by traditional approaches, these liberatory frameworks offered the first glimpse of psychology as something truly healing.
Academia on the Left, Practice a little to the right
These shifts created the landscape we see today. Academic psychology, especially in social and moral domains, leans heavily liberal. Surveys confirm this imbalance. A 2012 study published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences found that less than 10 percent of social psychologists identified as conservative, and more recent surveys show similar results. Research agendas often focus on empathy, fairness, prejudice, and harm reduction, all of which resonate with progressive values.
Clinical practice, however, is more politically mixed. Therapists are shaped not only by their training but also by the communities they serve. A counselor in a faith-based setting may stress morality and discipline, while a trauma-informed clinician in an urban community center may focus on empowerment and systemic injustice. The result is that psychology can feel conservative in one encounter and progressive in another.
This divergence explains why experiences with therapy can be so polarizing. A progressive client who meets a conservative-leaning therapist may feel dismissed and alienated. A conservative client who meets a progressive therapist may feel uncomfortable when asked to confront privilege or systemic harm. Both leave convinced that psychology as a whole is politically biased.
Order and Liberation as Twin Poles
Psychology has always been pulled between two poles. On one side is order: the goal of stabilizing, restoring, and adapting individuals to existing structures. On the other side is liberation: the goal of questioning, transforming, and sometimes dismantling those structures in the name of justice.
The history of the discipline shows what happens when order dominates. It is not just theoretical. It has meant the pathologizing of homosexuality, the overuse of involuntary hospitalization, and the dismissal of women’s and minorities’ suffering as personal weakness rather than systemic violence. Whenever psychology has chosen stability over critique, it has ended up reinforcing inequality.
Liberatory traditions, by contrast, have expanded psychology’s horizons. Humanistic therapy created space for freedom and authenticity. Feminist and multicultural psychology demanded that identity and culture be taken seriously. Trauma-informed approaches revealed how power and violence shape the nervous system. These shifts not only aligned psychology with progressive values but also made the field more humane, more accurate, and more capable of genuine healing.
Simply Put
Psychology is not neutral. It is conservative when it heals by returning people to “normalcy,” and progressive when it asks whether normalcy itself is unjust. For clients from marginalized backgrounds, that distinction is not abstract. It can mean the difference between a therapy that reinforces oppression and a therapy that empowers them to heal and resist.
In an era of political polarization, psychology cannot afford to retreat into false neutrality. The field’s future depends on aligning itself with liberation: with practices that confront systemic injustice, with research that challenges bias, and with therapies that affirm the dignity of every client. The conservative inheritance of psychology has left too many people harmed and excluded. The liberatory traditions have shown the way forward.
The choice is clear. Psychology must not only mirror the human struggle between security and freedom, but actively side with the struggle for freedom. That is where its relevance and its humanity lie.
Table of Contents
