Israel-Palestine and The Responsibility of Psychologists
A brief segment of the article with the author Dr Ron Roberts
In Noam Chomsky’s (1967) essay written for the New York Review of Books during the height of the Vietnam war, he questioned the stance of intellectuals toward state crimes, singling out social scientists and technocrats in particular. The article played a significant role in elevating Chomsky’s importance as a public intellectual and in bringing critical thought to the attention of a wide audience. In my own analysis of British Psychology’s response to the US-UK led illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Roberts, 2006), I began with a quote from this article.
“Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions.” (Noam Chomsky, 1967/2012).
I’ll leave aside the question of whether many psychologists in the present day consider themselves intellectuals – that in itself being a question of interest - rather than mere technocrats for the burgeoning neuroscientific surveillance state. Nevertheless, we are, whether we like it or not, tasked with a social and intellectual responsibility to examine the human condition, the activities that human beings engage in, and to seek to understand why they do so. In political matters this challenge is made all the more difficult by organised psychology’s favoured and documented predisposition toward state and elite interests.
Since its inception as a credible scientific discipline in the late 19th and early 20th century, psychology has constantly sought approval from the higher echelons and in doing so hoped for appropriate recompense in improved status (Richards, 2002). The development of military psychology has been part of this project. It began with the recruitment of psychologists to assist in personnel selection –a process nowadays which may involve cognitive and emotional profiling with selection for such things as stress resilience, leadership potential, and the practical ability to kill people with the numerical efficiency, if not the dexterity, of John Wick – albeit lacking therein any sense of style, irony or technicolor infused dance music. Then there is the role of psychological science in the ergonomic design of weapon systems, propaganda, Psyops and prediction of civilian behaviour in combat zones. To this one may add, research into the efficacy of torture and interrogation and its relation to ‘National Security’ (See contributions by David Harper and Nimisha Patel in Roberts, 2007).
All of this subject matter flies under the discipline’s official radar, deemed unsuitable for undergraduate education, the associated ethics or politics involved sidelined as unworthy of attention, an unfortunate contradiction to the official historical narrative. That this escapes critical scrutiny goes some way to explaining how the discipline, as an organised social body and institution, responds in times of state organised or supported violence. My analysis, referred to above, of the BPS’s response to the Iraq war was consistent with Herman and Chomsky’s (1994) propaganda model of the media, which is to say it reflected state interests, either ignoring the war or when it did comment, and this in passing, failing to condemn it for its illegality. The coverage was in stark contrast to the treatment found in comparable medical journals from the UK, The Lancet and British Medical Journal.
Coverage of the genocide in Gaza has largely stuck to the same pattern – a special edition of The Psychologist, the Society’s monthly publication, devoted to political psychology, and published in 2024, managed to avoid mention of either Gaza or Ukraine – an astounding achievement, comparable to a visit to Anfield, in my home city of Liverpool, without mentioning the ‘f’ word - football.
Eme Temelkuran’s (2019) account of Turkey’s descent into authoritarianism contains an aside which highlights one of the dangers of psychology’s current disdain for empathy with the Palestinians. Madelaine Albright, former US Secretary of State, Temelkuran notes, believed the rejection of empathy was one of the three main ways fascism takes hold. A smug belief in self-righteousness that permeates the British body politic, and which assumes the country is somehow immune to political horror seems to have found a space in the inner sanctums of the BPS. A decade of Brexit, Trump I and II, genocide in Gaza, Erdogan’s continued rule in Turkey, Orban in Hungary and the global rise of the far right has done nothing to dislodge the complacency that resides there. Instead of a critical reflexivity directed toward the social, political and ideological function of the discipline, we find hubris, an arrogant and lazy denial of its own choice to disavow aspects of reality which have long stalked the human world. And with that denial of politics, it becomes oblivious to justice and incapable of affording dignity to the victims of brutal power, especially when exercised by the UK and its allies.
Within British and American Psychology, the discipline as an organised academic entity warrants no sociological, philosophical or ideological scrutiny, and is presumed to exert zero effect in society, beyond the results of its own self-promotion and advertising. A curious blind spot. Reflexivity in psychology is never encouraged to stray beyond its permitted individual bounds. In his article, which was written post-Milgram, Chomsky raised the question of resistance to authority and cited, with evident approval, the scholar, Dwight Macdonald, who he had first encountered as an undergraduate. Macdonald, among the first to interrogate the question of intellectuals’ responsibility, had concluded,
"Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster."
Chomsky continued
“The question, ‘What have I done? is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam—as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defense of freedom.”
It is this same question which animates us today as we contemplate the UK-US-EU assisted Israeli genocide of Palestinians. The question however is not confined to the singular “What have I done?” The collective response of psychologists, ‘We’ as an organised profession, purportedly devoted to the ethical pursuit of knowledge of human behaviour and amelioration of suffering, is of immense relevance. It is surely no accident that much of the psychological literature dealing with the results of Milgram’s experiments has downplayed the importance of the significant minority who rejected experimental demands to inflict apparent harm on others whilst seeking to exonerate the actions of those who were willing to carry them out (Roberts, 2018). An unconscious leakage of psychology’s deference to authority perhaps?
The ethical codes of conduct to be found in contemporary practice have a lineage which can be traced back to the Nuremburg code introduced in the wake of the ‘Doctor’s trial’ at Nuremburg. This detailed a series of principles for the ethical conduct of research with human participants. It is worth stressing that the code’s origin was considered necessary because of the behaviour, not of aberrant individuals, but of an entire professional group (medical practitioners) who systematically endorsed and practiced an inhuman variant of medicine in line with National Socialist principles (see Robert Jay Lifton, 2000). The necessity of the code is thus derived from the unreflective behaviour of a specific class of professionals. It would be erroneous therefore to infer from the code’s existence that professional bodies themselves should not be subject to any moral or ethical standards. This is critical when it comes to assessing the adequacy of responses to date from organised sections of the psychological and psychotherapeutic professions. This leads to the matter of how psychologists and psychotherapists, as a group, can respond to the behavior of their national government’s disregard for international law and recognised standards of humanity. It is known that over 7% of all German physicians belonged to the Nazi SS during World War II (Colaianni, 2012). What proportion of BPS members endorse Israel’s final solution of the Palestinian problem is unknown, and no doubt the Society would consider it tasteless to ever ask. Let’s linger here for just a moment to let the reality of this sink in. The Society would find it distasteful to challenge in its membership the philosophy and practice of ethnonational supremacy and elimination as practiced by a nuclear armed state with a history of disregarding international criminal and humanitarian law.
It is more than ironic that the Society, which polices the behaviour of individuals, cannot see the need to police its own actions, or lack of, in the world. There are of course sins of omission as well as commission. In October last year, a full year into the carnage slaughter in Gaza, I sent the following letter to the BPS.
“On World Mental Health Day of this year, the results of a United Nations enquiry concluded Israel had conducted a concerted policy of destroying Gaza’s healthcare system. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay announced that “Children in particular” had “borne the brunt of these attacks, suffering both directly and indirectly from the collapse of the health system” and that there had been “relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities” in the war. This included torturing medical personnel, targeting medical vehicles and restricting permits for patients to leave Gaza. The enquiry judged the Israeli actions in Gaza to amount to both war crimes and the crime against humanity of extermination. Submissions and interviews with victims, and witnesses, alongside satellite imagery, informed the basis of the enquiry. On the same day, Israeli forces were accused, by Al Jazeera, not for the first time of targeting journalists, by the UN of targeting members of its peacekeeping force in Lebanon as well as having killed 28 people in an airstrike on a school where displaced people were sheltering. “Yet again, Gazans are teetering on the edge of a man-made famine,” The UN said. A study in the Lancet in July stated that it was “not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.” In early October a study from Brown University in the US put the figure at 120,000.
Some further pertinent facts include.
1. Approximately 83% of 65 Doctors and Nurses, working in Gaza who were interviewed by the New York Times in early October said they had seen “multiple cases” of pre-teen children who had been shot in the head or chest. This was described as “systematic”. 97% of the sample had observed “severe malnutrition” in patients and 84% “nearly universal psychiatric distress.” For children in Gaza their childhood had been “wiped away.”
2. Prior to its ruling that Israel was illegally occupying Palestinian land, in January 2024, The International Court of Justice, issued a statement requiring Israel to “take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of … the Genocide Convention”. This has been completely ignored.
3. Article II of the Genocide convention refers to acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. The stipulated acts include (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Article III declares the following got be punishable (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide (d) Attempt to commit genocide and (e) Complicity in genocide.
4. On the 20th May 2024, The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for the Israeli Leader Benjamin Netanyahu, defence Minister Yoav Gallant as well as the leaders of Hamas, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
5. Outside of Israel, and its foremost allies the US and UK, many commentators and eyewitnesses describe the events in Gaza as a textbook case of genocide. The UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese, is amongst those who has accused Israel of committing acts of genocide. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory have in addition accused Israel of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
6. The UK Government is a signatory to the Genocide convention, which brings with it an obligation to prevent the crime of genocide, to punish perpetrators and to cooperate with other countries to prevent and punish genocide. Despite this obligation and the ongoing international legal proceedings against Israel, the UK Government continues to supply Israel with arms.
7. The British Psychological Society has previously made representations to the UK government on matters, pertaining to mental health, workplace well-being and ethics. This is a de facto recognition that mental health and well-being are matters of political importance.
A special issue of The Psychologist earlier this year, contained no reference either to the war in Gaza or the war in Ukraine. This was months after the UN agency chief Philippe Lazzarini commented that the world was “losing its humanity.” Have we lost ours or are we simply too afraid to confront the defining international crimes of our era? We said little about the illegal war in Iraq perpetrated by US/UK forces and we appear to have learned little. I have been in communication with several practitioners who believe this silence is not only endangering the credibility of the organisation but making a mockery of our professed commitment to high ethical standards. Why do we continue to raise questions about what Milgram did in a laboratory a half century or more ago and say nothing about the routine slaughter and starvation of innocent children, women and men in Gaza – an area described by the UN as “an unlivable wasteland?”
I believe we need to have any discussion regarding all these matters out in the open where they can be considered with reason, passion, empathy and a commitment to justice – the best tools we have, and that furthermore we must enact our civic duty to challenge the UK government and its complicity in crimes against humanity.”
In response, the BPS refused to print the letter, and with it rejected any open discussion of the ethical issues facing the Society, as a group. It is striking and of considerable relevance that there was no such reticence when it came to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“in solidarity with the international psychological community in Ukraine and behind the values of democracy, human rights and freedom” and “shoulder to shoulder with our colleagues in Ukraine in the face of aggression, and we are ready to draw on the collective expertise of our membership to provide any necessary psychological aid and human rights support during the crisis.” (BPS, 2024a)
This appeared within weeks of the outbreak of war, with no regard for the complex history concerning NATO expansion, Neo-Nazis operating in the Russian speaking regions of the country, and rejection by the Ukrainian Government of the Minsk accords, to which it was a signatory (Benjamin & Davies, 2022a, b; Vorbrugg & Bluwstein, 2022). The rush to judgement was unproblematic for an organisation steeped in historic ignorance. Shortly afterwards the BPS expressed its support for the expulsion of the Russian Psychological Society from the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (BPS, 2024b). It will hardly come as a surprise to learn that no similar statement was forthcoming with respect to Israel. As a charity, the BPS is allowed to campaign for changes in the law, policy, or decision making if it supports its charitable purpose. Indeed, the Society has previously made representations to the UK government on matters pertaining to mental health, workplace well-being and ethics. Concern for the education, physical and mental well-being of Palestinians ought easily to fall under its umbrella. Instead, as the representative body of psychologists in the UK, the BPS chose to disregard any professional and moral obligation to enact its civic duty to challenge the UK government and its complicity in crimes against humanity. This led me to resign my membership after almost 30 years.
The importance of actions in the civic domain and the part this plays in the rise or suppression of authoritarian and fascist societies has been well documented by historians (Koopmans & Statham, 1999; Welhoer, 2003; Vavrus, 2022; Ferreti, 2022). This goes beyond questions of collective memory to include matters of collective action, debate, representation and participatory democracy. With no debate there can be no representation. Psychologists show no interest in this history, or any history for that matter, despite the long-standing crisis in social psychology having arisen from a recognition of the historical dimension to psychological phenomenon (Gergen, 1973). What we have, courtesy of this historical amnesia, is a subject wedded to the farcical premise that all political behaviour has psychological origins. Like the proverbial fish in water, it remains oblivious to other possibilities – that what shapes one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviour often lie beyond one's own eyes, ears and time (Smail, 2005). Indeed, I have been at pains in several publications to attend to the inherent limitations of this primary assumption in psychology (Roberts, 2015, 2018; Roberts & Itten, 2026), not least as its falsity has been repeatedly demonstrated in history (Kaldor, 2012).
Given the refusal of the BPS to countenance public debate, it is odd that several months earlier - May 2024 to be exact - Erica Burman, Ian Parker and others had succeeded in having a letter printed in The Psychologist, heavily redacted though it was. In it, they commented on how there had already been
“open calls for a ceasefire signed by hundreds of psy professionals for ceasefire, including from the Red Clinic (at tinyurl.com/5988h6n7) and by practitioners with the British Psychoanalytic Council. This is clearly a 'divisive' issue that the British Psychological Society members need to discuss and take action on.”
So, despite publishing this acknowledged need for debate and action, the Society subsequently proceeded to shut it down. It is true that in recent months (April-June 2025, the online edition of The Psychologist has seen several welcome contributions addressed to the situation in Gaza (Dawood, 2025; Paltoglou 2025; Psychologists for Social Change, 2025). Ironically, several of these were specifically concerned with the issue of silencing. The Leicester chapter of Psychologists for Social Change (2025) for example, spoke of being “troubled by the long history of silence and silencing in psychology.” Unfortunately, the Society has yet to grasp that its own silence and organisational inaction constitutes a major part of the problem. Consequently, there remains a black hole where debate and action, in line with the responsibilities of the Society, is needed.
Subsequent to my exchange of correspondence with the BPS, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, issued a stark warning, describing Israel’s actions in Gaza as an unprecedented and rapid campaign of starvation, calling it “the fastest in modern history.” “How is Israel able to starve 2.3 million people so quickly and so completely?” he asked (Middle East Monitor, 2025). This led to no discernible change in the quiet complicity of the BPS, by now, drowning in a self-perceived debased moral equivalence between supporters of genocide and opponents of it. These were now considered as merely different “sides” with whom the BPS had no wish to align, one way or another. This organisational response of emotional coldness and disdain can be usefully compared to individual manifestations of equivalent callous indifference. Drawing such a comparison between organisations and individuals has seen the corporate world, which follows this maxim, correctly characterised as psychopathic (Adams, 2016). This is an appropriate designation for the heartlessness which stems from the core of the organisation. One has to ask whether the organisation’s silence in the long term is tenable in the face of this. What does it think it gains from it – approval from Zionist genocidaires? Payback from the UK government? Confirmation of a misplaced scientific neutrality? Peace of mind in the walled off psychic zone of the interior? Will this ever figure in future reflections on the history of British psychology – or will we be subjected to yet another glossy makeover of its constructed benign nature. With its alliance with the military and its supine kneeling before oppressive governments, Western psychology is always to be found at the scene of the crime. An assertion comfortably at ease with documented fact.
Years ago, I reasoned that “The ‘War on Terror’ and events in Iraq might constitute a watershed for the discipline, posing uncomfortable questions for the psychological community regarding the stance adopted towards the powerful and the privileged (Roberts, 2006). I was wrong. Rather than a watershed moment – it proved to be nothing more than a moment of inflexion before a calamitous drop over yet another moral precipice. I had hoped that human rights might become firmly entrenched at the centre of the discipline. Now, what is enshrined at the core is a performative dis-regard for them. We take incremental steps into the forbidding darkness, perennially afraid to look back, that we realise the nature of our journey and see the dream of a pure and uncorrupted psychology gone forever. There are parallels in Greek mythology in the tale of Orpheus’s descent into the underworld. He ventures in search of his beloved Eurydice. Hades agrees to let her go but only on the condition that Orpheus leads her out without turning to look at her until they’ve both reached the surface. Moments from freedom, overcome by doubt or longing, he turns. Eurydice vanishes forever. But there is an important difference. Unless we choose to look back our own dreams will vanish.
Psychology, despite its earnest desire for recognition amongst the pantheon of scientific disciplines, continues to ignore its own special place as the ideological messenger of capitalism – the unwitting handmaiden of individualism (Roberts, 2015). One can contend that the discipline is so steeped in its own mythology that it is ill-equipped, perhaps even incapable of realising its indebtedness to ideology. It is sadly true that Chomsky’s (1967/2012, p.57) call for intellectuals to “address their role in the creation and analysis of ideology” has had no impact whatsoever in the behavioural sciences, least of all in psychology, where it remains an unthinkable proposition. The repression of what is in effect, denied, forgotten, and suppressed in the politics of the discipline bears more than a passing resemblance to the mental gymnastics employed by defenders of Israel. There is much more that needs to be said about this.
The situation in the UK is mirrored in the US. Roy Eidelson (2024) argued that in refusing to speak out on the genocide in Palestine, the American Psychological Association was abandoning its commitment to human rights. The hypocrisy present in the BPS’s divergent stances toward Ukraine and Palestine is almost identical to that displayed by the APA. Hardly a coincidence. Eidelson observed the disdain for politics voiced by many APA members coupled with a “prevailing silence and inaction, the apparent invisibility of Palestinian anguish — when it comes to Gaza.”
There is a further important point that Burman, Parker and colleagues sought to make. They referenced how Maya Wind (2024), had described in her work how dispossession, erasure and apartheid in Palestinian lands had been ongoing since well before October 2023. She had called for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israeli state institutions, having described how Israeli universities are an active part of that state apparatus. Burman et al concluded
“This call for BDS is, we know from discussion with colleagues in psychology, experienced by some as an attack on personal freedom. However, it is precisely the reverse, for it applies not to individuals but to institutions.”
The question then of the responsibility of psychologists is both an individual and collective one. Both require a commitment to truth, an openness to discomfort and a preparedness to challenge phantasies of national and professional interest, which are largely hand me downs from the corporate media (see Philo & Berry, 2004, 2011, Centre for Media Monitoring, 2025 for a comprehensive empirical analysis and discussion of what this means in relation to Israel and Palestine[1]). Collectively, our professional bodies as civic organisations have the possibility to extend their presence in the theatre of public debate and morality. This we must demand. There, they can take a principled stand with other well-minded civic bodies and bring pressure upon the government to end diplomatic, economic, and military support for the Israeli state. That would be a definite public statement that its “conformist subservience to those in power” (Morgenthau, 1970; quoted in Chomsky, 2004) was at an end.
On one wall of Nadya Tolokonnikova’s exhibition ‘Police State’, a recreation of her imprisonment in Russia, the founding member of Pussy Riot has etched the inscription “I didn’t survive to be polite.” It is a statement for our times, and an indelible aspect of our responsibility.
Ron Roberts
London, June 2025
[1] In the context of the genocide in Gaza this has included the following - marginalisation of Palestinian suffering, delegitimising of casualty numbers, amplification of Israeli narratives, more emotive language employed for Israeli victims, masking of Israelis as perpetrators, shortcomings in highlighting genocidal statements, suppression of genocide claims, downplaying war crimes, disparity in coverage of detainees, under-reporting attacks on press freedom in Gaza, infrequent reference to historical context and pressure to censor journalism at the BBC (Centre for Media Monitoring, 2025).
References
Adams, T. V. (2016). The psychopath factory: How capitalism organises empathy. Duncan Baird Publishers.
Benjamin, M., & Davies, N. J. (2022a). War in Ukraine. Making sense of a senseless conflict. London. OR Books
Benjamin, M., & Davies, N. J. (2022b). How the US Started a Cold War with Russia and Left Ukraine to Fight It. CounterPunch.
British Psychological Society (2024a) BPS responds to current conflict in Ukraine. 25th February. https://www.bps.org.uk/news/bps-responds-current-conflict-ukraine
British Psychological Society (2024b) BPS supports expulsion of the Russian Psychological Society from European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA) https://www.bps.org.uk/news/bps-supports-expulsion-russian-psychological-society-european-federation-psychologists
Centre for Media Monitoring (2025) BBC on Gaza-Israel. 2023-24. One story-double standards. Centre for Media Monitoring.
Chomsky, N. (1967). The responsibility of intellectuals. New York Review of Books, 8(3). Supplement. Reprinted in Chomsky, N. (2012) The responsibility of intellectuals. New York. The New Press.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance. London. Penguin.
Colaianni, A. (2012). A long shadow: Nazi doctors, moral vulnerability and contemporary medical culture. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(7), 435-438.
Dawood, S. (2025) Left speechless. The Psychologist. 10th April. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/left-speechless Accessed April 2025.
Eidelson, R. (2024) The American Psychological Association is abandoning its commitment to human rights by refusing to speak out on Palestine. Mondoweiss October 23. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/10/the-american-psychological-association-is-abandoning-its-commitment-to-human-rights-by-refusing-to-speak-out-on-palestine/ Accessed October 2024.
Ferretti, F. (2022). Indignation, civic virtue, and the right of resistance: Critical geography and antifascism in Italy. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112(7), 1833-1849.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309.
Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing Consent: The political economy of the mass media. London. Vintage.
Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: Organised violence in a global era (3rd edition). John Wiley & Sons.
Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (1999). Ethnic and civic conceptions of nationhood and the differential success of the extreme right in Germany and Italy. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam & C.Tilly (Eds) How social movements matter. University of Minesota Press.
Lifton, R.J. (2000) The Nazi Doctors. Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York. Basic Books.
Middle East Monitor (2025) Israel carrying out ‘fastest starvation campaign in Gaza in modern history’: UN envoy. Middle East Monitor, March 12. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250312-israel-carrying-out-fastest-starvation-campaign-in-gaza-in-modern-history-un-envoy/ Accessed March 2025.
Paltoglou, A. (2025) When there are no words, we’d better find some. The Psychologist, 6th May. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/when-there-are-no-words-wed-better-find-some May 2025.
Philo, G., & Berry, M. (2004). Bad news from Israel. London. Pluto Press.
Philo, G., & Berry, M. (2011). More bad news from Israel. London. Pluto Press.
Psychologists for Social Change: Leicester (2025) Struggling with the silence. The Psychologist, 2nd June. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/struggling-silence Accessed June 2025.
Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place: A critical historical overview. Psychology Press.
Roberts, R. (2006) British Psychology’s response to the Iraq War 2003-2004. Clinical Psychology Forum, 157, 24-28.
Roberts, R. (Ed) (2007) (Ed.) Just war: Psychology and terrorism. Ross-On-Wye. PCCS Books.
Roberts, R. (2015) Psychology & Capitalism. Winchester. Zero Books.
Roberts, R. (2017) The Off-Modern. Psychology Estranged. Winchester. Zero Books.
Roberts, R. (2018) Social influence and malevolent authority: Obedience revisited. In C.J. Hewer & E. Lyons (Eds.) Handbook of political psychology. London. Wiley.
Roberts, R. & Itten, T. (2026) Psychology after capitalism. Reflections on war, tyranny and artificial intelligence. IFF Books.
Smail, D. J. (2005). Power, interest and psychology: Elements of a social materialist understanding of distress. PCCS books.
Temelkuran, E. (2024) How to lose a country. The 7 steps from democracy to fascism. Edinburgh. Cannongate Books.
Vavrus, M. (2022). Teaching anti-fascism: A critical multicultural pedagogy for civic engagement. Teachers College Press.
Vorbrugg, A., & Bluwstein, J. (2022). Making sense of (the Russian war in) Ukraine: On the politics of knowledge and expertise. Political Geography, 98, 102700.
Wellhofer, E. S. (2003). Democracy and fascism: Class, civil society, and rational choice in Italy. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 91-106.
Wind, M. (2024). Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom. London. Verso.