Psychological writing, both theoretical and empirical, is assumed to exist free of the social dynamics of the psychologist who produced it. If anything like social power or control is contained within psychological writings, it is presumed to be an acknowledged feature of the experimental design or a manipulated attribute of the subject-participants. However, close analysis of these writings reveals a rarely acknowledged yet elaborate system of power relations. In the present study, discourses of power and empowerment are defined and compared in two different forms of psychological writing. The first form stresses the perspective of the observer, employs the male gaze, is relatively unreflexive, embraces the experimental method and attempts to centralize knowledge among a few while marginalizing a mass of unknowing others. The second form is grounded in women's attempts to voice their own and other women's concerns. It is watchful of men, advocates a decentralization of power, and tries to achieve understanding through dialogue.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agronick, G. (1988). Feminist psychologists, 1915-1930: Personal, political, and professional constraints. BA Thesis, Wesleyan University.
2.
Baumeister, R.F. (1988). Should we stop studying sex differences altogether?American Psychologist, 43, 1092-1095.
3.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
5.
Cixous, H. (1981). The laugh of the Medusa. In E. Marks & I. de Courtivron (Eds.), New French feminisms (pp. 254-268). New York: Schocken.
6.
Eagley, A.H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42, 756-757.
7.
Eagley, A.H. (1990). On the advantages of reporting sex comparisons. American Psychologist, 45, 560-562.
8.
Fine, M. (1989). Coping with rape: Critical perspectives on consciousness. In R.K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions of gender (pp. 186-200). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
9.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (C. Gordon, Ed.; C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham & K. Soper, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
10.
Freud, S. (1941, 1940a). Das Meduseithaupt. Gesammelte Werke (Vol. 17, pp. 45-48). London: Imago.
11.
Freud, S. (1955, 1940b). Medusa's head. In J. Strackey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 273-274). (Original work published 1922.)
12.
Gilbert, G.N. , & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Griffin, S. (1978). Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. New York: Harper & Row.
14.
Griffin, S. (1982). The way of all ideology. In S. Griffin (Ed.), Made from this Earth (pp. 161-181). New York: Harper & Row.
15.
Haraway, D. (1990). Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.
16.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
17.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
18.
Hare-Mustin, R.T. , & Marecek, J. (Eds.). (1990). Making a difference. New Haven: Yale University Press.
19.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1967). The phenomenology of mind (J.B. Baillie, Trans.). New York: Harper Colophon. (Original work published 1807.)
20.
Henriques, J. , Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C., & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing the subject. New York: Methuen.
21.
Kaplan, E.A. (1983). Is the gaze male? In A. Snitow, C. Stansell & S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (pp. 309-327). New York: Monthly Review Press.
22.
Keller, E.F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
23.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962.)
24.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
LeClerc, A. (1981). Woman's word. In E. Marks & I. de Courtivron (Eds.), New French feminisms (pp. 79-86). New York: Schocken.
26.
Lykes, M.B. (1989). Dialogue with Guatemalan Indian women: Critical perspectives on constructing collaborative research. In R.K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions of gender (pp. 167-185). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
27.
Marks, E. , & de Courtivron, I. (Eds.). (1981). New French feminisms. New York: Schocken Books.
28.
Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row.
29.
Mies, M. (1983). Towards a methodology for feminist research. In G. Bowles & R.D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of women's studies (pp. 117-139). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
30.
Miller, C. , & Swift, K. (1980). The handbook of nonsexist writing. New York: Lippincott.
31.
Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. American Psychologist, 24, 1012-1018.
32.
Morawski, J.G. (1988). Impossible experiments and practical constructions: The social bases of psychologists' work. In J.G. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 72-93). New Haven: Yale University Press.
33.
Morawski, J.G. (1990). Toward the unimagined: Feminism and epistemology in psychology. In R.T. Hare-Mustin & J. Marecek (Eds.), Making a difference. New Haven: Yale University Press.
34.
Moulton, J. (1983). A paradigm of philosophy: The adversary method. In S. Harding & M.B. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp. 149-161). Boston: Reidel.
35.
Nisbett, R.E. , & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84 (3), 231-258.
36.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-61). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rose, N. (1989). Individualizing psychology. In J. Shotter & K. Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity (p. 119-131). London: Sage.
39.
Sampson, E.E. (1981). Cognitive psychology as ideology. American Psychologist, 36, 730-743.
40.
Scarborough, E. , & Furumoto, L. (1987). Untold lives: The first generation of American women psychologists. New York: Columbia University Press.
41.
Shields, S.A. (1975). Ms. Pilgrim's progress. American Psychologist, 30, 852-857.
42.
Stami, H.J. (1987). The psychology of control: A textual critique. In H.J. Stam, T.B. Rogers & K. Gergen (Eds.), The analysis of psychological theory (pp. 131-156). Washington: Hemisphere.
43.
Steele, R.S. (1989). A critical hermeneutics for psychology: Beyond positivism to an exploration of the textual unconscious. In M.J. Packer & R.B. Addison (Eds.), Entering the circle: Hermeneutic investigation in psychology (pp. 223-237). Albany: State University of New York Press.
44.
Unger, R.K. (Ed.). (1989). Representations: Social constructions of gender. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
45.
Woolf, V. (1938). Three guineas. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
46.
Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (1988a). Knowledge and reflexivity. London: Sage.
47.
Woolgar, S. (1988b). Science: The very idea. New York: Tavistock Publications.
