Paul Brandon wrote (the first part is a quote I presented from Kurt
Danziger's book):
> >"What link was there between these fields, except that they all claimed
> >to be 'psychological'? But did that mean anything beyond a vague sense
> >of a common focus that was based on popular images rather than on solid
> >scientific grounds?" (p. 85)
>
> Supposedly, the common element in all these areas is the underlying entity
> of 'mind'.
> One might hypothesis that this is also the reason for the vagueness of
> focus when trying to identify specific common practices of individuals
> labeled 'psychologists'.
Yes, I think that Danziger had something like this in mind (i.e., that the
concept of the mind was the vague idea that made it seem as if all these
areas were related). His argument was that psychologists had to create a new
language to unite these disparate areas. They took old terms and
reconceptualized them so that they seemed to be relevant to all or most
fields within psychology. In the context of the passage I quoted, he argued
that psychologists (proto-behaviorists) began to use the term "behavior"
instead of "mind," and claimed that what united the disparate areas
(comparative psychology and experimental psychology) was that they studied
the category of behavior. But if you look at the bodily responses and
activities that psychologists excluded from the category of "behavior" (such
as digestive processes or heart beat), it becomes obvious that they were
referring mostly to those behaviors that seem to indicate the presence of
mind.
A very interesting book that is in the social-constructionist mode. His main
theme is that the categories we take for granted in psychology--the ones that
seem so natural (such as motivation and personality and learning)--have a
history to them. When we look at this history, it becomes clear that most
categories were introduced in order to solve practical problems, and that the
use of the labels for these categories involve assumptions that were obvious
to those who introduced them but that have become hidden in modern times. It
has made me more aware of many of my own assumptions about psychology. I
recommend this book. It's major problems are that it doesn't go into enough
detail when discussing the history of various categories and it ends at about
1950.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
