American psychology and the religious imagination

In just three generations, American psychology grew from a fledgling science to a culturally authoritative discipline. Standard accounts of psychology's meteoric rise typically omit what most needs to be illuminated: the resonance between psychological theory and the symbolic universe underlying America's popular religious imagination. This article sketches a cultural history of American psychology by examining how many of its core concepts invoke a metaphysical horizon associated with the nation's heritage of unchurched spirituality.     

The scientific status of American psychology in 1900

In 1900, psychologists were attempting to define themselves and searching for their role among both academic and non-academic public. The success of experimental methods served to advance their position as exemplary scientists, although, as the authors argue in this article, other factors were also important. First, the issue of measurement involved many disagreements about the tools needed to measure psychological constructs or even whether psychologists should measure anything at all. Second, the relationship between the brain and psychological constructs enhanced psychology's status for some, whereas others felt that psychologists should stay away from such topics. Parallels with present-day concerns among psychologists are addressed at the end of the article.     

The growth and transformation of American ego psychology

The roots of ego psychology trace back to Sigmund Freud's The Ego and the Id (1923) and "Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety" (1926), works followed by two additional fundaments, Anna Freud's The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1936) and Heinz Hartmann's Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation (1939). It was brought to full flowering in post-World War II America by Hartmann and his many collaborators, and for over two decades it maintained a monolithic hegemony over American psychoanalysis. Within this framework the conceptions of the psychoanalytic psychotherapies evolved as specific modifications of psychoanalytic technique directed to the clinical needs of the spectrum of patients not amenable to psychoanalysis proper. This American consensus on the ego psychology paradigm and its array of technical implementations fragmented several decades ago, with the rise in America of Kohut's self psychology, geared to the narcissistic disorders, and with the importation from Britain of neo-Kleinian and object-relational perspectives, all coinciding with the rapid growth of the varieties of relational psychoanalysis, with its shift in focus to the two-person, interactive, and co-constructed transference-countertransference matrix. Implications of this intermingled theoretical pluralism (as contrasted with the unity of the once dominant ego psychology paradigm) for the evolution of the American ego psychology are spelled out.     

Noah Porter's problem and the origins of American psychology

The twin problems facing nineteenth-century American "mental and moral philosophy" of the nature of psychological language and the constraints that religious beliefs placed on possibilities of innovation in a "scientific Psychology" are both highly visible in the work of Noah Porter, who was unable to resolve them. They are also more covertly identifiable in the works of James McCosh and others in this school. It is suggested that the transition to the "New Psychology" of the 1880s and 1890s needs to be rethought in light of this in three respects: (a) ironically, it entailed repressing insights into the psychological language problem, (b) the legacy of the religious factor profoundly affected U.S. Psychology and played a less unambiguously negative role in its fortunes than customarily portrayed, and (c) the transition was itself a more complex and protracted process than is portrayed in traditional "revolutionary" accounts.     

The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American

This article proposes that psychological research published in APA journals focuses too narrowly on Americans, who comprise less than 5% of the world's population. The result is an understanding of psychology that is incomplete and does not adequately represent humanity. First, an analysis of articles published in six premier APA journals is presented, showing that the contributors, samples, and editorial leadership of the journals are predominantly American. Then, a demographic profile of the human population is presented to show that the majority of the world's population lives in conditions vastly different from the conditions of Americans, underlining doubts of how well American psychological research can be said to represent humanity. The reasons for the narrowness of American psychological research are examined, with a focus on a philosophy of science that emphasizes fundamental processes and ignores or strips away cultural context. Finally, several suggestions for broadening the scope of American psychology are offered.     

Tension and opportunity in post-world War II American psychology

The rapid growth of post-World War II psychology in the United States led to intradisciplinary tensions and opportunities. In this article, I examine these tensions and opportunities in the context of social change from the 1950s through the present, attending specifically to the broad impact of federal funding on psychology. I argue that as psychology became a resource-rich field, it was forced to move from a narrow, parochial stance to a position as a national-level professional player that had to deal with the challenges of mixing science and practice, as well as meeting the demands of non-White psychologists at the national level. The impetus to create a more inclusive psychology has grown in the last three decades of the 20th century and has helped create possibilities for greater richness in American psychology and movement toward a truly international role vis-a-vis emergent psychologies around the world.     

Individualism and the social in early American social psychology

In this paper an attempt is made to specify the original conception of the social dimensions of cognition, emotion and behavior-and of a distinctively social psychology-that was held by early American social psychologists, but abandoned by later generations of social psychologists committed to Floyd Allport's individualistic experimental program. Two influential forms of "individualism" in the work of Floyd Allport are distinguished and detailed.