Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:36:30.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Regard and Other-Regard: Reflexive Practices in American Psychology, 1890–1940

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Jill G. Morawski
Jill G. Morawski
Affiliation:
Department of PsychologyWesleyan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Psychology has been frequently subjected to the criticism that it is an unreflexive science — that it fails to acknowledge the reflexive properties of human action which influence psychologists themselves as well as their subjects. However, even avowedly unreflexive actions may involve reflexivity, and in this paper I suggest that the practices of psychology include reflexive ones. Psychology has an established tradition of silence about the self-awareness and sell-consciousness of its actors, whether those actors are experimenters, theorists, or participants (subjects) in research, yet this silence has been established and maintained through sophisticated exercises in self-regard — through sustained reflexive work. Historical analysis reveals some of the ways in which psychologists recognized and then neglected, covered over, or denied reflexivity. Study of those instances where psychologists have engaged in self-conscious reflection or have attended to the sell-consciousness of research subjects indicates both the dangers of reflexivity to governing investigative practices and the resilience which psychology has built against reflexive work. Canonized procedures for scientific work reproduce selves of experimenters and subjects alike, selves who acknowledge only part of their reflexive engagements. Historians of psychology have a special opportunity (and obligation) to explore the reflexive dynamics of investigative practices, and, hence, to theorize about scientists, along with their actions and interactions, just as we theorize about science, its products, and its evolution.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1992 , pp. 281 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angell, J. R. 1904. Psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Ashmore, M. 1989. The Reflexive Thesis: Writing the Sociology of Scient Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, F. 1987. “How the Self Became a Problem: A Psychological Review of Historical Research.“ Journal of Personality and Psychology 52: 163–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C. 1988. Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bledstein, B. 1976. The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Boring, E. G. (1929). “The Psychology of Controversy.” The Psychological Review 36: 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowne, B. P. 1886. Introduction to Psychological Theory. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Buell, B. P. 1898. Essentials of Psychology. Boston: Ginn.Google Scholar
Calkins, M. W. 1925. “Converging Lines in Contemporary Psychology” British Journal of Psychology 16: 171–79.Google Scholar
Camfield, T. 1969. “Psychologists at War: The History of American Psychology and the First World War.” Ph.D. diss. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Carr, H. A. 1937. “The Search for Certainty.” Psychological Review 44: 274–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, P. 1990. “Why the Self Is Empty: Toward a Historically Situated Psychology.” American Psychologist 45: 599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziker, K. 1988. “A Question of Identity: Who Participated in Psychological Experiments?” In The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology, edited by Morawski, J. 25–52. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Danziker, K., 1990. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dashiel, J. F. 1929. “Note on the Use of the Term ‘Observer‘.“ Psychological Review 36: 550–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyal, L., and Harris, R.. 1986. Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Dulsky, S. G. 1932. “What Is a Distractor?” Psychological Review 39: 590–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, K. 1929. “The Outlook for Psychology.” Science 69: 201–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fay, J. W. 1939. American Psychology before William James. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, O. J. Jr. 1981. “Psychology, Progress, and the Problem of Reflexivity: A Study in the Epistemological Foundations of Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 17: 375–86.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Edited by Gordon, C., translated by C. Gordon, L. J. Mepham, and K. Soper. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Fox, R. W., and Lears, T. J. J., eds. 1983. The Culture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American History, 1880–1980. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Furman, E. R., and Oehler, K.. 1986. “Discourse Analysis and Reflexivity” Social Studies of Science 16: 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadlin, H., and Ingle., G. 1975. “Through the One-Way Mirror: The Limits of Experimental Self-Reflection.” American Psychologist 30: 1003–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillispie, R. 1988. “The Hawthorne Experiments and the Politics of Experimentation.” In Morawski, , ed., 1988c., 114–37.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. 1970. The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gruenberg, B. 1978. “The Problem of Reflexivity in the Sociology of Science.” Philosophy of Social Science 8: 321–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, E. J. 1882. The Human Mind. New York: Carter.Google Scholar
Harding, s., 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hare-Mustin, R. T., and Maracek, J.. eds 1990. Making a Difference Psychology and the Construction of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, B. 1984. “‘Give Me a Dozen Healthy Infants’: John B. Watson's Popular Advice on Childrearing, Women, and the Family.“ In In the Shadow of the Past: Psychology Portrays the Sexes, edited by Lewin, Miriam, 126–54. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Haskell, T. L. 1977. The Emergence of Professional Social Science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hershberger, R. 1948. Adam's Rib. New York: Pellegrini and Cudahy.Google Scholar
Holland, R. 1977. Self and Social Context. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C. L. 1935. “The Conflicting Psychologies of Learning — A Way Out.” Psychological Review 42: 491–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. [1890] 1950. The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Jastrow, J. 1927. “The Reconstruction of Psychology.” The Psychological Review 34: 169–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. 1986.“What Is Cultural Studies Anyway?” Social Text 16: 38–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, E. F. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatric, E. A. 1894. Introductory Psychology. Winona, Minn.: Jones and Kroeger.Google Scholar
Krohn, W. O. 1894. Practical Lessons in Psychology. Chicago: Werner.Google Scholar
Ladd, G. T. 1894. Primer of Psychology. New York: Scribner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, G. T. 1898. Outline of Descriptive Psychology. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. 1985. Reflexivity: The Post–Modern Predicament. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Lykes, M., and Stewart, A. J.. 1986. “Evaluating the Feminist Challenge in Psychology:1963–1983.“ Psychology of Women 11: 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCosh, J. 1886. Psychology: The Cognitive Powers. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Merchant, C. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scienz Revolution. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G. 1986. “Organizing Knowledge and Behavior at Yale's Institute of Human Relations.” Isis 77: 219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morawski, J. G. 1988a. “Impossible Experiments and Practical Constructions: The Social Bases of Psychologists' Work.“ In Morawski, ed. 1988c, 72–93.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G. 1988b. “Psychology and the Context of Reductionism.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G., ed. 1988c. The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G., and Hornstein, G. 1991. “Quandary of the Quacks: The Struggle for Expert Knowledge in American Psychology, 1890–1940.”In The Estate of Social Knowledge, edited by Brown, J. and Keuren, D.Van, 106–33. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. G. and Steele, R. S. 1991. “The One and the Other: Textual Analysis of Masculine Power and Feminist Empowerment.” Theory and Psychology 1: 107–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, M. 1984. “The Scientist Talks Back: A One–Act Play, with a Moral, about Replications in Science and Reflexivity in Sociology.” Social Studies of Science 14: 265–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, M., and Gilbert, G. N. 1982. “Accounting by Error: How Scientists Construct Their Social World When They Account by Correct and Incorrect Belief.” Sociology 16: 165–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, J. C. 1885. A Handbook of Psychology. Montreal: Dawson Brothers.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D. 1977. “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes.” Psychological Review 84: 231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, J. 1985. The Origin of Behaviorism: American Psychology, 1870–1920. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Oehler, K., and Mullins, N. C. 1986. “Mechanisms of Reflexivity in Science: A Look at Nontraditional Literary Forms.” Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Ohmann, R. 1987. Politics of Letters. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Pfister, J. 1991. “The Americanization of Cultural Studies.” Yale Journal of Criticism 4: 199–229.Google Scholar
Pillsbury, W. B. 1922. “Suggestions for a Compromise of Existing Controversies in Psychology.” The Psychological Review 29: 259–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, C. C. 1939. The Logic of Modern Psychology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rice, S. A. 1929.“Contagious Bias in the Interview.” American Journal of Sociology 35: 420–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, N. 1990. Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, C. 1979. “Toward an Ecology of Knowledge: On Discipline, Context, and History.”In The Organization of Knowledge in America, edited by Oleson, A. and Voss, J. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ruckmick, C. 1937. “Psychology Tomorrow.“ Psychological Review 44: 138–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, E. E. 1981. “Cognitive Psychology as Ideology.“ American Psychologist 36: 730–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, E., and Furumoto, L. 1987. Untold Lives: The First Generation of American Women Psychologists. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibe, K. E. 1979. Mirrors, Masks, Lies, and Secrets: The Limits of Human Predictability. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. 1984a. “Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology.” Social Studies of Science 14: 481–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S. 1984b. “Talking History: Reflections on Discourse Analysis.” Isis 75: 125, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinn, T., and Whitely, R. eds. 1985. Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. 1988. “Does the History of Psychology Have a Subject?” History of Human Sciences 2: 147–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, s. 1931. “The Schools of Psychology.” Psychological Review 38: 461–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, M. M. 1984. “James McKeen Cattell and American Psychology in the 1920s.”In Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, edited by Brozek, J.. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press.Google Scholar
Strumberg, D. 1925. “Corruption of Sophisticated and Naive Subjects by the Association–Reaction Method.” American Journal of Psychology 36: 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J. M., and Rosnow, R. L.. 1988. “Concerns about Artifacts in Psychological Experiments.“ In Morawski, ed., 1988c, pp. 163–87.Google Scholar
Tibbetts, P., and Johnson, P.. 1985. “The Discourse and Praxis Models in Recent Reconstructions of Scientific Knowledge Generation.” Social Studies of Science 15: 739–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veysey, L. R. 1965. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wheelar, R. H. 1925. “Stimulus–Error and Complete Introspection.” Psychological Review 32: 443–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, K. A. 1931.“Five Behaviorisms.” Journal of Psychology 43: 337–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, C. 1986. “Legitimation of Oppression: Response and Reflexivity,”Symbolic Interaction 9: 217–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolgar, S. 1986. “On the Alleged Distinction between Discourse and Praxis.” Social Studies of Science 16: 309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolgar, S. ed. 1988a. Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. 1988b. Science: The Very Idea. New York: Tavistock.Google Scholar