Search

Mind, Self, and Society, the posthumously published volume by which George Herbert Mead is primarily known, poses acute problems of interpretation so long as scholarship does not consider the actual process of its construction. This paper utilizes extensive archival correspondence and notes in order to analyze this process in depth. The analysis demonstrates that the published form of the book is the result of a consequential interpretive process in which social actors manipulated textual documents within given practical constraints over a course of time. The paper contributes to scholarship on Mead by indicating how this process made possible certain understandings of his social psychology and by relocating the materials that make up the single published text within the disparate contexts from which they were originally drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at the program for social psychology presented by Floyd Allport in his Social Psychology of 1924. It contextualizes Allport's program in terms of intellectual currents of the time and the views of his teachers at Harvard University, specifically the philosopher Ralph Barton Perry and the psychologists Edwin B. Holt and Hugo Münsterberg. Finally, the paper analyzes responses to Allport's program at the time and later, retrospective responses. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to establish the historical context for the development and publication of Gordon Allport's text, The Nature of Prejudice, and by so doing illustrate the importance of historicizing psychological social psychology. The Nature of Prejudice was, in part, the cumulative result of a decade of Gordon Allport's classroom teaching in a new interdisciplinary unit at Harvard, the Department of Social Relations. This paper chronicles key elements of Allport's course —“Prejudice and Intergroup Conflict”—from 1944 to the mid-1950s. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the disciplinary status of social psychology through an analysis of the history of the boundary relations of psychology, sociology, and social psychology. After outlining some research on the nature of scientific disciplines, on the role of rhetoric in the constitution of disciplines, and on “boundary work,” I consider the singular importance of social psychology as a discipline for the analysis of boundary relations, examining its units of analysis and its “disciplining.” The boundaries of the disciplines of social psychology were seen as fluid, contingent, local, and contestable, reflecting the thematic preoccupations, disciplinary origins, and meta-theoretical commitments of social psychologists, of the parent disciplines, and of those who represent disciplinary practices. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines Greenwood's (2000) evidence for incompatibility between the early and later American social psychologists on the social conception of cognition, emotion, and behavior. The notion of the autonomy of the individual may offer the key to finding a degree of compatibility between them. Both generations, I argue, fundamentally accept the notion of individual persons as autonomous agents who are able to decide and choose to act and, hence, be responsible for their actions. Philosophical analysis can perhaps inform historians of social psychology on how carefully and critically to reexamine evidence for traditional claims of generational, paradigmatic, and/or foundational splits. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relationship between the development of industrial capitalism and the development of modern social science in the United States through the writings of two of the best–known writers on social science in the late nineteenth century: Henry George, the apostle of the rights of labor and author of the classic critique of private ownership of land, Progress and Poverty; and William Graham Sumner, the arch defender of the rights of capital and author of a pioneering treatise on Folkways. The paper traces and analyzes their mutual movement away from classical political economy and toward a new social psychology in response to rising economic inequality. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taken together the five chapters show how attachment theory was initially formulated by Bowlby at different levels: theoretical, practical, and clinical, and how Ainsworth's contributions to the theory made it a research paradigm that the second generation helped to shape further. The first two chapters of I Cornerstones i deal with the "original" work of Bowlby and Ainsworth. From secure dependency to attachment: Mary Ainsworth's integration of Blatz's security theory into Bowlby's attachment theory. [Extracted from the article]

This paper explores the attempt of social scientists associated with Unesco to create a system of knowledge production to provide the international perspective necessary for democratic governance of a world community. Social scientists constructed a federal system of international associations that institutionalized American disciplines on an international scale. An international perspective emerged through the process of interdisciplinary international research. I call this ideal of coordinating multiple subjectivities to produce objectivity the “view from everywhere.” Influenced by social psychological “action-research,” collaborative research was group therapy. The attempt to operationalize internationalists' rallying slogan, “unity in diversity,” illuminated tensions inherent in the mobilization of science for social and political reform. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Late nineteenth-century psychologists and aestheticians were fascinated by the study of psychological and physiological aspects of aesthetic response, and the British intellectual and aesthete Vernon Lee was a major participant in this venture. Working outside the academy, Lee conducted informal experiments with Clementina Anstruther-Thomson, recording changes in respiration, balance, emotion, and body movements in response to aesthetic form. In fashioning her aesthetics of empathy, she mined a wealth of psychological theories of the period including motor theories of mind, physiological theories of emotion, evolutionary models of the usefulness of art, and, most prominently, the empathic projection of feeling and movement into form. Lee distributed questionnaires, contributed to scientific journals, carried out her own introspective studies, and debated aesthetics with leading psychologists. This paper critiques the prevailing view of Lee's aesthetics as a displaced sign of her gender or sexuality, and questions her status as simply an amateur in the field of psychology. Instead, I argue that Lee's empirically based empathy theory of art was a significant contribution to debates on psychological aesthetics at the outset of the twentieth century, offering a synthesis of Lipps's mentalistic Einfühlung and sensation-based imitation theories of aesthetic response. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around the end of the 1920s, Vygotsky introduced his integrative framework for psycho-logical research to the Soviet Union. This framework was not abandoned and forgotten until its rediscovery in Russia and America in the 1950s, as some claim. In fact, even after his untimely death in 1934, Vygotsky remained the spiritual leader of a group of his for-mer students and collaborators, who became known as the Kharkov School. This paper reconstructs the early intellectual history of Vygotskian psychology, as it emerged, around the time of Vygotsky's death, in the research program of the Kharkov School. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 1930 and 1960, experimentation became the premier form of knowledge generation in social psychology. In journals, texts, and handbooks, experiment was now conceived as the active manipulation of an independent variable, and the sole method for the discovery of “causes.” Understanding this change requires further investigation of the fine-grained discursive strategies used to promote experimentation during the 1930s and 1940s. In this paper we use discourse analysis to contrast the cautious rhetoric used by Gardner Murphy and Lois Murphy and the more enthusiastic, unhedged arguments for experimentation employed by Kurt Lewin. We argue that analysis of changes in discourse justifying experimentation can illuminate the processes by which methodological consensus was constructed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper an attempt is made to specify the original conception of the social dimensions of cognition, emotion and behavior—and of a distinctively social psychology—that was held by early American social psychologists, but abandoned by later generations of social psychologists committed to Floyd Allport's individualistic experimental program. Two influential forms of “individualism” in the work of Floyd Allport are distinguished and detailed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gordon Allport's account of the development of social psychology in the 1954 Handbook of Social Psychology became, de facto, a standard or official historical reference for researchers and apprentices. His history also provided the field's ontological center point with a definition of social psychology that would become predominant. The revised and updated chapter appeared posthumously in 1968, was then reprinted (lightly edited) in 1985, but was removed from the 1998 Handbook. In 1966, Allport prepared a parallel evaluation of six decades of the history of social psychology, for a conference on graduate education in social psychology. This paper was critical of “elaborate mendacious experimentation” and ended with a plea for an interdisciplinary cross-cultivation. It was rarely cited. Ironically, it was Allport's “official” history, his justificatory Handbook account, that often was used for graduate mentoring rather than the more critical history, specifically written to address issues of graduate education. Other “official” Handbook historical chapters that succeeded Allport's displayed less breadth of geographical and transdisciplinary coverage and offered a shorter temporal, more presentist, and more selective personalist historical perspective. In contrast to more contextualist accounts, these Handbook chapters are constrained in a number of ways that raise questions about the success, functions, and professional consequences of such “official” histories, and who should write them. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates three conflicting reconstructions of the historical relationship between personality and social psychology and addresses questions they raise regarding the subdisciplinary status of personality in the 1920s and the way in which the field gradually emerged as a separate area of psychology. Contesting claims that Floyd Allport first connected social psychology to a separate “branch” of personality psychology in the 1920s, I argue that he drew upon earlier work of psychologists and sociologists who treated personality as a central topic of social psychology. I compare Floyd Allport's views with those of Gordon Allport, who endeavored to establish personality as a separate subdiscipline. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study of an inter-university controversy over the publication of research from an interdisciplinary social science project on the forced migration and long- term internment of West Coast Japanese-Americans during World War II shows some of the difficulties of maintaining ownership of research materials. In this particular instance the junior employee was able to override his seniors' demand for control of the dissemination of research results by playing on the concerns about even appearing to suppress work for political reasons. The paper discusses conflicting norms of science and rhetorics of justification ranging from proprietary self-interest through "good science" to "the national interest" and onto "the needs of a free society." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LeDoux asserted the intellectual connection between Darwin and Tomkins, focussing on the universalism of emotions in the human brain as well as the universalism of expressions (p. 119). The most curious thing about Frank and Wilson's book on the work of Silvan Tomkins is that it is presented as a "handbook", an entry point for the student to understand and start to use affect theory while remaining tethered to its originator. The authors distance Tomkins from Darwin, focusing on Darwin's I Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals i (1872), which has itself been made to serve Ekman's basic emotions model. [Extracted from the article]

Authors in this collection offer both critique and contextualist counterpoint to the standard, “official” histories of the field—successive editions of the Handbook of Social Psychology in 1954, 1968, 1985, and 1998. Unlike mainstream histories, the collected studies do not together constitute a seamless chronicle of continual progress for practitioners in a research area seeking social science status, viability, and legitimacy. Rather the authors focus on choice points, crises, and debates (some still ongoing), pay special heed to non-mainstream branches and voices, question numerous assumptions concerning the interrelationships among social psychological methodology, ontology (Danziger; MacMartin & Winston; Stam, Radtke, & Lubek), boundaries (Good), and individualisms (moral, political, and/or methodological). The specific contributions of Floyd and Gordon Allport are discussed from several perspectives as they helped define and shape and write the history of the field (Lubek & Apfelbaum; Parkovnick; Greenwood; Chung), and bridge it to neighboring areas (personality) and disciplines (psychology and sociology) (Nicholson; Barenbaum; Cherry). The constraints, origin myths, insensitivities, and omissions of standard histories are pointed out (Samelson), some partial correctives are advanced, and a more generative role for future historical studies is suggested. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the metaphor of ‘suggestion’ with reference to its origins and construction in the late nineteenth century in France. In addition to some general properties of the metaphorical mode, specific features of the ‘suggestion’ metaphor are identified. It is shown how a network of meanings from a pathological situation (hypnosis) came to be applied to the behavior of crowds. The work of Le Bon was central in this process. This examination shows how metaphorical discourse was an important indicator of the orientation of early social psychology, namely the focus on interpersonal influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This analysis assesses the factors underlying Charles Horton Cooley's place in the sociological canon as they relate to George Herbert Mead's puzzling diatribe—echoed in secondary accounts—against Cooley's social psychology and view of the self published scarcely a year after his death. The illocutionary act of publishing his critique stands as an effort to project the image of Mead's intellectual self and enhance his standing among sociologists within and outside the orbit of the University of Chicago. It expressed Mead's ambivalence toward his precursor Cooley, whose influence he never fully acknowledged. In addition, it typifies the contending fractal distinctions of the scientifically discursive versus literary styles of Mead and Cooley, who both founded the interpretive sociological tradition. The contrasting styles and attitudes toward writing of the two figures are discussed, and their implications for the problems of scale that have stymied the symbolic interactionist tradition are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ambition to rationally preserve a Christian religious inheritance distinctively informs Scottish psychoanalytic ideas. Scottish psychoanalysis presents the human personality as born into communion with others. The aim of therapy is to restore, preserve, and promote genuinely interpersonal relations. The Scottish psychoanalysis apparent in the work of W. R. D. Fairbairn, Ian Suttie, Hugh Crichton-Miller, and in the philosophy of John Macmurray, is exported to New Zealand, where it is promoted by the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists. Scottish psychoanalytic ideas also remain effective in post-war Britain: the idea of communion appears in dialogue with other theories in thework of Harry Guntrip, John Macquarrie, R. D. Laing, and Aaron Esterson. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marginality is an important concept in the history of science, though it is often used in a manner that presumes marginality to be a static designation. We contend that the dynamics of marginality are crucial to the history of psychoanalysis, a discipline that has moved between dominant and marginal positions. We address psychoanalytic marginality via three specific “cases”: the marginalization among Freud and his followers when psychoanalysis was an emergent discipline; the marginality trope in Erich Fromm's popular psychoanalytic writing when psychoanalysis was orthodoxy in American academic psychiatry; and the rhetorical marginality of psychoanalysis in Sweden as psychoanalysis entered a decline within psychiatry. Our aim is to show that marginalization and self-marginalization serve interpersonal, social, and professional strategies. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A textual analysis of post–World War II social psychology methodology manuals and handbook chapters on “methods” indicates that the introduction of the experimental method was enforced and gradually strengthened through the use of scientific rhetoric and the minimization of alternative research strategies. As a consequence, by the 1960s experimentation had become such an established identifying feature of psychological social psychology that the acceptability of ideas in the field came to depend largely on the ability of authors to couch them in the language of the experiment. Text writers continually shored up the defenses of scientific legitimacy and denigrated all other types of argument. We explore three sources of tension or strains evident as contradictions in these texts: (1) between a rational experimenter's carefully following prescribed, logic-generated scientific practices and the investigator's artfully or intuitively designing research; (2) between social psychologists' missionary activities of proselytizing the experiment as the primary research method and social psychologists' apologies and insecurities expressed about using experiments; and (3) between the treatment of participants as docile and submissive versus portraying them as underhanded and damaging to the outcome of the research. In addition, we briefly reexamine the strain (4) between sober scientific experimentation and a playful “fun and games” approach to experimentation (Lubek & Stam, 1995). © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In successive editions of the Handbook of Social Psychology (Lindzey, 1954), the focus of the history of the field shifted from the substantive ideas of nineteenth-century thinkers to the successful emergence of a psychological experimental social psychology in the twentieth. Countering this whiggish account, the dominant themes in the present issue involve attempts to portray two parallel paradigm shifts: from a “social” to an “asocial” social psychology, and from a broad-ranging theoretical-philosophical subject to a narrow experimental (psychological) science—changes initiated by Floyd Allport. But such a formulation may be called into question as another version of retrospective history—with inverted, anti-Whig valuations. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lloyd Morgan's Canon is usually represented as a brave step towards mechanistic behaviourism. Morgan himself, however, was convinced that the behaviour of animals and humans could only be treated in intentionalist terms. In fact, not only the spirit but the details of his Canon have been consistently misunderstood. It was turned around by Neo­Cartesians within psychology and evolutionary biology to attack the very ground that Morgan shared with Darwin—the assumption that organisms are ‘no mere puppets in the hand of circumstances.’ Morgan did not formulate his Canon in ‘revolt’ against Romanes's anthropomorphic approach to comparative psychology. An examination of Morgan's early views reveals that his Canon represented a move towards, not against, Romanes's idea of an animal psychology. Before the Canon, Morgan had denied the very possibility of a comparative psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]