noumena

I was watching a discussion with Christopher Hitchens, Lee Strobel, Douglas Wilson, James Denison, and William Lane Craig on the Youtube and I felt I had to share this particular segment.

The clip below begins immediately after Hitchens is asked if he believes in “transcendent, universal laws, whether they be logic, morality, whatever… And if you do, how do you account for those in a purely naturalistic universe?”

I’ve watched a number of these sorts of religious discussion panels, and Hitchen’s response to this question has been one of the best answers.

I think he hits on the issue; is the unknown so abhorrent? They just don’t seem to get it.

scatterplot

It’s strange how the more involved I get with my studies, the less concrete my academic trajectory becomes. I am approaching the end of my third month of graduate school and I have less of an idea regarding a thesis topic than I did leaving undergrad.

I probably shouldn’t find this too surprising though. The oscillation between clarity and crisis of purpose and the associated ‘creative destruction’ of ideas has become the norm. I can only hope this process parallels some sort of selective pruning; getting rid of the undeveloped and fanciful views and opinions in favor of a more mature perspective. Some sort of progression towards greater understanding would be nice.

The feedback process is tough. Not in the critical sense, but as a source of evaluation and reinforcement. Opportunity for assessment is often few and far between. I can certainly see the appeal of business in this respect: make money = doing well. I don’t expect to be making money for a while, unfortunately, so I will need a better measure of personal development.

I am asked from time to time what it is that I study and, as I mentioned in a previous post, I often simply reply, “Psychology.” Although technically true, any follow up questions on the subject necessarily result in confusion. It seems that ‘History & Theory of Psychology’ does not often come to mind with this sort of answer. After a number of awkward introductions, I believe I have discovered the best shorthand response to this question: history of medicine.

Why this label? Mostly because of the recent combination of my interest in the influence of cognitive neuroscience and biological psychology on psychology’s image of human beings with my developing interest in the effects of managed mental health care on psychotherapeutic practice. Given my program, my adviser, and my current direction it seems like ‘history’ is the most accurate title for the kind of practical work (i.e., writing and reading) that I am doing now. ‘Medicine’ is more accurate than ‘Science’ or ‘Psychology’ because I am interested in the places where and the ways in which science, technology, and society come together. As one of my new heroes, Georges Canguilhem, once said, “medicine is the field in which the boundaries between the normal and the pathological is articulated.”

Although after talking to my adviser about my desire the integrate more of the applied sciences to my degree, he suggested I look into the Health Psychology Diploma offered through York. So, maybe I will end up going back to ‘Psychology.’ Who knows. Wow- I sure spend a lot of time worrying about this.

discourse and discontents

I’ve recently returned from yet another afternoon of interesting discussion and insightful debate. This is the second night in the row that I’ve neglected doing any sort of work (mainly readings) in favor of dialogue over a couple pints. It’s easy for me to rationalize this decision. I’ve noticed for some time now that the most useful learning experiences I have come from, not digesting the contents of a book, but from lively discussion, explanation, and argument. I will take this over one-sided absorption any day.

This evening after class, as most weeks, many of the students meet at the campus pub for a drink. We talk, pose questions that lingered after class, and engage in some good old HT (history & theory) banter. It’s often been the case that a doctorate student in philosophy, with ties to some of the members of our class, would join us. As is also often the case, well after most of the other students have left I am find myself continuing our debates, regarding moral theory, the dangers of relativism and skepticism, origins  and lines of division among political ideologies, cultural histories, etc…

I can’t say all of our talk has been constructive. I’ve certainly become aware of how, as we become more enmeshed, in our own fields of study we begin to emphasize certain values and our vocabulary becomes specific to these purposes. For example, in talking with this philosophy student it became clear (after some irritation) that matters of ‘practical’ concern were secondary to the soundness of an argument and the clarity of thought it might provide. From a poli/anthro/soci-perspective the pragmatics of a certain system of belief are primary. I struggled for some time to acknowledge that just because something could not be doubted does not mean it is True – the relevance of such a statement is something we are still working out.

Engaging in thoughtful analysis of ideas (both as a defender and explainer) has definitely been one of my objectives of graduate school. Having this aim in mind has been helpful in guiding my activities. For example, I’ve been quite happy giving tutorials in the introductory psychology course for which I am a teaching assistant as an alternative to marking midterms and exams. Sure, it’s a bit more work in terms of preparation and class attendance, but I really do enjoy explaining ideas and imparting advice (such as how to study more effectively). Although I’ve only begun my degree, I feel confident reporting the satisfaction that I’ve been getting from working with people, both as a defender and an explainer of ideas (this includes my courses, tutorials, and bar chats).

All this has made me quite excited about the ‘Art Meet Science’ initiative I’ve become involved with. But the matter of the different traditions of knowledge and the values of methods is definitely something I will have to address. More on this later.

What’s up?

With the relaunching of this blog, I think the best post to begin with would be one that addresses the question of: “What exactly am I doing right now?”

The official story is that I have recently begun graduate studies at York University in Toronto. The quick story is that I am doing my Master’s in Psychology. Although it is generally best to leave it at this, there is the occasion that a more precise response is requested; I am in a program called the History & Theory of Psychology. The description York gives suggests that we “employ a wide range of research methods, including the interpretation of primary texts, the collection and interpretation of archival material, and the conduct and use of oral history,” but in actually we do much more.

The American Psychological Association (organized as a collective of various divisions) contains both a Society for the History of Psychology and a Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology of which our academic objectives roughly fall under. Personally, I identify with the latter, but recognize the close (almost symbiotic) relationship with the former.  To give you a better idea of the sort of topics that we would address in our program I offer the following areas of interest:

• The philosophy of science and psychology
• The influence of cognitive neuroscience and biological psychology on psychology’s image of human beings
• The place of ethical concerns in psychology
• The place of spirituality in psychology
• The effects of managed mental health care on psychotherapeutic practice
• The role of qualitative methods in psychology, including phenomenology, cultural psychology, narrative, and discourse analysis
• Feminist and postmodernist perspectives on psychological knowledge

Now you can see why I prefer the quick answer.

I myself am primarily interested in the first two areas, but all of them interrelate. This of course doesn’t really help answer the question much of what I am actually doing, so I will be more specific. At this point I am working towards getting a more solid grip on the field of history of science as it applies to psychology. In doing so I attend a couple weekly seminars (one for a class called ‘The Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Psychology’ and another called ‘The Psychological Society,’ which is actually administered through the Department of Science and Technology Studies) where we discuss a substantial amount of reading we are assigned each week. The readings are designed to show us how different ways in which history in this area can be portrayed and we are encouraged to discuss, along with the specific aims of each book, the particular pros and cons of each approach.

I am finding this technique to be effective. During my undergrad it seemed to be mostly about developing a sense for the content and scope of various topics and now at the graduate level it is more about examining the methods by which these topics are investigated.

I am in the process of developing an historiographic essay about the decline of neurasthenia in the United States. What this means is that I am exploring, through a sampling of books and articles that have been written over the past 30 years, how historians have explained this particular issue in the history of psychology. This is of personal interest to me because I think it will be a great introduction to some contemporary concerns regarding some major issues such as ‘popular diagnosis’ and the whole nature v. nurture debate. While at the same time that I am becoming interested in matters that would be described as “biopolitics” I am still very much interested in the aspect of innovation and creation in the (social) sciences rather than strictly critique and deconstruction. This will no doubt be an topic for a future post.

Hopefully this has shed some light on what I am actually doing at this point in my development. I don’t think I would ever forgive myself if I was doing something that could be described in a single word in any case, so continue to call it ‘Psychology’ and if anyone cares to know more just say, ‘Jeez, I don’t know, something that has to do with biopolitics?’ – and leave it at that.