Eileen L. Zurbriggen’s research while affiliated with University of California, Santa Cruz and other places

Neoliberalism is based on the dogma that free‐market capitalism serves the public better than governmental programs (e.g., public universities). In this research, we first asked what psychological orientations and beliefs predict support for one of the fundamental tenets of neoliberalism: the belief that government interferes with the smooth functioning of public life and the free market. Second, we examined how these predictors function across economic contexts and political regimes by collecting data in the United States and Turkey. We find that in two U.S. samples, high levels of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and the belief in personal wherewithal (i.e., anybody can move ahead if they work hard enough) predicted people's support for neoliberalism. In the Turkish sample, we found that RWA and personal wherewithal significantly predicted support for neoliberalism, but unlike the US, in Turkey, higher levels of RWA were related to the rejection of neoliberalism. Our research highlights the flexible relationship authoritarianism has with neoliberalism and the importance of a belief in personal wherewithal in justifying neoliberalism. This research illuminates differences between US neoliberal logic and populist neoliberalism in Turkey.

Feminists have long argued that, under patriarchy, power is the key to understanding gender. Yet power has historically been under-theorized in psychology, including in the psychology of women and gender. The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology is meant to redress this omission. In this introductory chapter, the aims, goals, and scope of the handbook are described, and brief summaries of sections and chapters are provided. The aim was to center power in the analysis of gender, but to do so specifically in relation to psychological theory, research, and praxis, and with as much breadth, creativity in approach, and diversity of perspective as possible. Thirty-one substantive chapters, from 60 authors, provide an innovative approach to the conceptualization of traditional psychological sub-disciplines through engagement with a wide range of “real world” concerns: understandings of history and politics, institutions and settings, and bodies and identities. Moreover, the authors endeavor to challenge more traditional areas of psychological attention such as families and development, mental and physical health, violence and abuse, communication, and technology. The handbook concludes by focusing on the implications and applications of concerns that have more recently surfaced around backlash, postfeminism, and the female body.

Surveillance is an increasingly prevalent feature of daily life and is carried out for a range of purposes across different settings. Although experiencing some form of surveillance is very common, it is necessary to examine differences in how surveillance is implemented, for what purposes, and how it is experienced, and to consider how those differences can reflect, and at times reinforce, power dynamics and imbalances within society. Even in situations where the primary purpose of surveillance is not the exercise of power, or when surveillance is applied broadly, irrespective of gender, surveillance practices can still further existing gendered power dynamics because of how they are implemented or experienced. This chapter examines social and psychological issues raised by the interaction between surveillance practices and gendered power imbalances in society, first reviewing theoretical perspectives from psychology and surveillance studies, then applying these perspectives to consider how surveillance practices interact with gender and power across different contexts, including prison, public benefits, pregnancy, and social media. We conclude by identifying theoretical considerations for scholarship that bridges feminist psychology and surveillance studies.

The Palgrave Handbook of Power, Gender, and Psychology showcases some of the most pioneering scholarship in psychology that analyzes power and gender. Five cross-cutting themes are discussed: the importance of feminist history, the need for psychologists to continually interrogate their own use of power, the significance of trusting people as experts on their own lives, the value of intersectionality theory, and the importance of structural and systemic change. The authors present three attractive pathways for future feminist psychological research on power and gender, as exemplified by the handbook’s contributors. First, the analytical lenses of power and gender should be applied even more broadly, to help address a wide range of social issues including autocracy, neoliberalism, police violence, and climate change. Second, scholars can develop and utilize innovative methodologies that attend to subjective experience and step back from a narrowly focused individualist approach that often dominates psychology. Finally, the reach and impact of a feminist analysis of gender and power are greatest when scholars embrace context and complexity, rather than turning away from or minimizing them.

In this chapter on sexuality, we examine three foundational postulations from queer theory. The first postulation is that the historical construction of sexuality, and same-sex desire in particular, tends to be based on binary thinking that positions same-sex desire as either universal (a “universalizing” view of same-sex sexuality) or as a disposition common to a minority of the population (a “minoritizing” view of same-sex sexuality). In contrast, queer theory moves away from a binary view of sexuality to conceptualize it as fluid. The second postulation is that people’s sexuality is shaped by interlocking forms of oppression such as colonialism, racism, sexism, and class oppression. The intersections of interlocking forms of oppression configure sexual identities and desires in unique ways. The third postulation is the rejection of a hierarchy of sexual practices and a focus on the proliferation of sexual categories to disrupt that hierarchy. We juxtapose these three key ideas with a review of critical psychology research, showing how psychological studies moved from a universalizing to a minoritizing view of same-sex desire, with a recent turn back towards the universalizing approach. We describe psychological contributions on the manner in which LGBTQ identities are different among people of color compared to white people as well as research that examines the influence of neoliberal ideology on sexual agency. We explore recent psychological studies related to BDSM and kink, polyamory, and asexuality. Assessing the convergence and divergence between psychology and queer thought leads us to critique the notion that a proliferation of sexual identities is necessarily libratory; instead, we argue for a more intersectional approach to sexual identities.

This chapter discusses the history of queer theory and activism. In it, we discuss the theoretical flag posts leading to the emergence of queer theory and transgender studies. The texts we depict show the radical aims of the queer and transgender movement that focus not only on gender and sexuality but also on dismantling structures that sustain economic and racial inequalities and oppressions. We trace queer thought as it emerged in the gay and lesbian liberation movement, women of color feminism, and queer and transgender theory, and we look for underlying axioms across these different schools of thought. One common theme is the commitment to the liberation of all people rather than just to a white middle-class LGB minority. Another is an understanding that gender and sexuality categories are not stable, unitary, or “natural” in any essential sense. Activism and queer theory development have been intimately intertwined. We conclude with a discussion of a queer and transgender political critique of neoliberalism, homonationalism, and the carceral state.

In this concluding chapter we discuss some of the insights gained from juxtaposing three eclectic fields of knowledge: queer studies, transgender theory, and psychological research. Because the queer and transgender projects are political projects, in this conclusion we focus on understanding the processes that may lead to fragmentation within the queer and transgender movement as well as processes that are associated with continued solidarity activism among an increasing number of queer and transgender identities. To examine processes of intragroup conflict and solidarity activism we juxtapose research in social psychology, Black psychology, and contributions by queer thinkers in promoting community norms that support activism, dialogue, and solidarity.

In this chapter we juxtapose a queer theory formulation of gender with theories and research in the psychology and sociology of gender. Our discussion focuses on ideas from Judith Butler’s foundational book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. We discuss three key ideas found in Butler’s early work. The first key idea is Butler’s rejection of a distinction between sex as “natural” and gender as “cultural” which connects to their development of a performativity theory of gender. The second key idea is Butler’s formulation of the heterosexual matrix and its inherent instability, in which heterosexuality is dependent for its identity on the rejection of homosexuality. The third idea we discuss is Butler’s insight that a reconfiguration and proliferation of gender identities can be effectively used to dismantle gender and sexual binaries. We draw connections between each of these postulations and empirical research: on the relationship between biology and genders, on the internalization of gender schemas, and on the development of masculine heterosexual identity. We conclude with a review of psychological research on gender nonbinary and agender identities, and gender fluidity.

Websites, blogs, and message boards of the “manosphere” are dedicated to a worldview that celebrates hegemonic masculinity and decries feminism. In a reflexive thematic analysis of 227 posts (389,189 words) from two manosphere message boards (The Red Pill and Incel), we analyzed how posters viewed women and men. We found that beliefs about women and men formed an ideology comprised of (a) evolution‐based views of gender essentialism, (b) an informal psychology of women's motivations, and (c) a typology of men. Women were seen as having three primary motives: to deceive and manipulate men, to promiscuously satisfy their own sexual needs, and to trade sex for power. Men were seen as falling into two (The Red Pill) or three (Incel) types: alpha men who are attractive, powerful, and sexually successful, beta men who give to women as their only route to sexual interactions, and incel (involuntarily celibate) men who are too unattractive to achieve sexual success. Posters acted on these beliefs either to improve themselves (The Red Pill) or give up on life and endorse suicide and/or violence (Incel). We discuss these beliefs and actions in relation to theories of sexual aggression, the psychology of radicalization, and the American Psychological Association's Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.