Critical Psychology in Changing World 257 Working at the Borders: Reconstructing the History of Chinese Psychology from the Perspective of Critical Psychology Bo Wang Nanjing University Abstract Following the Western academic discourse of psychology, there is no such thing as critical psychology (even if in its plural form) in China which aims to react against mainstream psy-sciences. But the development of Chinese psychology shares overlapping issues with critical psychology. And the possibility of an overall understanding of these issues lies in the articulation of Chinese modern political-economic and cultural-historical systems. Situated in the macro framework of the formation of Chinese modern knowledge system, I will attempt to reconstruct the history of Chinese psychology from the perspective of critical psychology, in order to find the consensus between the possible thoughts of Chinese critical psychology and its Western counterpart and on this basis to trace in detail the possible theoretical and practical threads of Chinese critical psychology. Keywords: Chinese psychology, critical psychology, historiography, psychologisation, the modern governance of mind When I was passing through Canadian customs in summer 2007 to attend the International Society for Theoretical Psychology (ISTP) conference in Toronto, an official seemed puzzled after hearing that I came for a “theoretical psychology conference.” He asked: “How could psychology be theoretical?” I smiled at him: “You hit the nail on the head, sir. Those whom you usually examine and question are not Canadians but foreigners at your borders – at the very frontier of what you recognize as your country. In the same way, theoretical psychology examines with equal scrutiny ideas at the frontiers through which new paradigms and new knowledge enter the field of psychology.” He seemed satisfied, and smiled, as he placed the seal of approval on my passport, adding: “Have a nice day!” “Working at the borders”: this is also how I understand critical psychology (or critical psychologies). Critical psychology should be motivated by a philosophical ethos of limit- attitude, which means being at the borders. It brings to mind what Michel Foucault (1994/1997) said in “What is Enlightenment? ”: “Criticism indeed consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits.” Politzer (1928/1994) proposed more than 80 years ago that psychologists are scientists like evangelised wild tribes are Christians; and that psychologists “reject all control and all critique using as an excuse that ‘metaphysics’ has nothing to do with science”. Maybe it risks political incorrectness to repeat this claim, but there can hardly be a bolder assertion to expose the special feature of psychology which pretends to be a natural science and the dilemma of mainstream psy-sciences. Psychology, or to be accurate, mainstream psy-sciences, crossed the borders of legitimacy by claiming that it is a universal and neutral science. While this mainstream enterprise proceeded to psychologise society, critical psychology emerged as its symptom via making its universal claim problematic. The