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.