Regulating criticism: some
comments on an argumentative
complex
JONATHAN POTTER, DEREK EDWARDS and
MALCOLM ASHMORE
ABSTRACT
This commentary identifies a range of flaws and contradictions in
Parker’s critical realist position and his critique of relativism. In par-
ticular we highlight: (1) a range of basic errors in formulating the nature
of relativism; (2) contradictions in the understanding and use of
rhetoric; (3) problematic recruitment of the oppressed to support his
argument; (4) tensions arising from the distinction between working in
and against psychology. We conclude that critical realism is used to
avoid doing empirical work, on the one hand, and to avoid scholarly
interdisciplinary engagement, on the other.
Key words critical realism, interdisciplinary engagement, psychology,
relativism, rhetoric
INTRODUCTION
For some time now Ian Parker and colleagues have been developing a dis-
tinctive and complex position in psychology. It has become something of a
discrete perspective in critical psychology, with its own publications,
workshops, courses and now a house journal. In his critique of relativism
HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES Vol. 12 No.4
© 1999 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) pp. 79–88
[0952-6951(199911)12:4;79–88; 010670]