"Few have greater confidence in psychology’s ability to mold subjectivity than its critics. However, there is a tension in much of the historical and sociological literature on psychology and the psychological society between a commitment to a microphysics of power ... and the kinds of sources and voices that get included in such analyses. ‘Subjectification’ ... is all too often taken for granted, rather than made into a matter of inquiry involving contestation, multiplicity, and rejection. Relationships between scientists and publics are largely understood in terms of a hypodermic needle model of communication ... On this basis, critical psychologist-historians select their favored disorder or construct, offer a largely intellectual history of it, and then assert that everyday experience has been psychologized. Such an approach speaks more to scientists’ visions and pretensions than to the social life of psychological facts ... Moreover, this approach bolsters and inflates, rather than critically scrutinizes, the scientist’s authority. We need greater specificity about psychology’s impact, better evidence of the circuits between expert description and self-understanding, and appreciation of the complicated lives of scientific methods and theories." (Referenser borttagna)Precis som Pettit skriver så överdrivs psykologins inflytande i vissa kritiska artiklar och man lyckas inte "fånga in" det förhandlande som egentligen alla former av såväl subjektifiering som objektifiering innebär. Hans artikel kan starkt rekommenderas och hittas här.
Shoutout till Advances in the History of Psychology för tipset.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar