This week, I decided to center my reflection around Mary Calkins - her struggle with credibility among the predominantly male field of psychology as well as her accomplishments. Though we read that one of Calkins' greatest achievements was the development of "self psychology," the text did not do a great job of explaining what exactly this entailed. Biographical information on Calkins can be found here : http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/marycalkins.html
In essence, self psychology is a "reconciliation between structural and functional psychology." She stressed an important division between internal and external facts, with the former containing images, memories, thoughts, emotions & volitions, while the latter consisted of events of the outside world (physical facts). The other sciences concern themselves with studying these external facts, while psychology separates itself as a discipline by focusing on consciousness and the self. The reason most of us likely didn't know much about self psychology is attributed to its eventual phasing out in the field. Calkin's ideas were replaced with later theories of personality, specifically from Gordon Allport. In the beginning, apparently, Calkins was credited a great deal with helping to make advancements in the field. Eventually, though, her ideas were more or less swept under the rug. One can't help but wonder if her being a woman played any role in this, as the field of psychology was still largely male-dominant at the time. The notion that sexism plays a role in psychology is still very much apparent, as one can find out with a simple search on google or amazon books.
Ps - Harvard has apparently still not conferred any degree in honor of Calkins and sees no reason to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To compliment Megan's post, I thought I would add a link I found to a piece written by Calkins describing a psychology course she taught at Wellesley. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Calkins/lab.htm
ReplyDeleteThis course was entitled "Psychology including Experimental Psychology," and (not surprisingly) involved a fair amount of laboratory work. She discusses what was successful about her course (brain dissection) and what was not (the experiments involving taste were not well-received), the examinations she gave, papers she assigned etc. Calkins also describes the original research of her students, conducted in place of a final examination.
As far as I can tell by reading this paper, Calkins was a more than competent professor and her students seemed to enjoy the course. I don't want to say that it was a shame that Calkins would not have been allowed to teach at a men's institution such as Harvard, because that would make it sound like I don't think that women should learn pscyhology; it should be rather obvious given my sex that this is not the case. It just makes me wonder if Harvard had any idea what kind of talent they were turning down when they refused to issue Calkins her degree. Her passion for both research and teaching come across in this selection, and it is a shame that we must wonder what she could have accomplished if she were not limited by the social expectations of her time.