The difference between ARCP6 and ARCP10 is the latter’s encyclopaedic scope. Incorporating 49 articles and spanning almost a thousand pages, the new edition covers an exhilarating variety of definitions of and approaches to ‘critical psychology’ from places as varied as Aotearoa-New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latin America, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the USA. Significantly, contributions from the global South are in the majority; they (we!) are certainly not ‘afterthoughts’, a sprinkling of spice supposed to add exotic flavour to which is essentially the same old stew.
If I may recycle a paragraph from my own contribution to the introduction of this edition: One of the truly exciting – and certainly unusual, at least for psychology – features of this collection of articles is its sheer geographical spread and, along with this, the extent of its cultural and linguistic diversity. Considered by itself the encyclopaedic quality of the volume already represents a substantial intervention: drawing strength from numbers, from the irreducibility of its multiple origins and theoretical/political trajectories, the clamour of voices collected here lends momentum to a certain ‘majoritization’ – through amplification rather than synthesizing – of alternative critical paths in/to psychology. The aim of this collection was never to tame the rich dialectical diversity of these voices; to reduce the vernacular variety of critical alternatives around the world to the ‘standard language’ of a single critical psychology. Instead, the volume enacts the reclamation and perhaps even the occupation of psychology in various ways around the world… Occupy Psychology! might well have been our rallying call, and not because we seek representation (or demand to be heard) within the existing epistemological, cultural and political coordinates of the discipline – which would only assist the globalizing ambitions of mainstream psychology, as represented for example by the Internal Union of Psychological Sciences – but because we wish to assert our critical autonomy whilst we also strive for the establishment and strengthening of relations of solidarity which, in an accumulation of distributed forces, could relativize the mainstream ‘internationalization’ of psychology and offer more potent forms of ‘internationalism’ in its place.