Functionalism, Darwinism, And The Psychology Of Women
Functionalism, Darwinism, and thePsychology of WomenA Study in Social Myth STEPHANIE A. SHIELDS Pennsylvania State UniversityThe psychology of women is acquiring the characterof an academic entity as witnessed by the proliferation of research on sex differences, the appearanceof textbooks devoted to the psychology of women,and the formation of a separate APA division, Psychology of Women. Nevertheless, there is almostuniversal ignorance of the psychology of womenas it existed prior to its incorporation into psychoanalytic theory. If the maxim "A nation withouta history is like a man without a memory" can beapplied, then it would behoove the amnesiacs interested in female psychology to investigate itspre-Freudian past.This article focuses on one period of that past(from the latter half of the 19th century to thefirst third of the 20th) in order to clarify the important issues of the time and trace their development to the position they occupy in current psychological theory. Even a limited overview leadsthe reader to appreciate Helen Thompson Woolley's(1910) early appraisal of the quality of the research on sex differences:There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific whereflagrant personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting a prejudice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel, have run riot to such an extent ashere. (p. 340)The Functionalist MilieuAlthough the nature of woman had been an academic and social concern of philosopher psychologists throughout the ages, formal psychology (itsThe author would like to thank Judith Abplanalp,Carolyn Sherif, and Dale Harris for helpful comments concerning earlier drafts of this manuscript.Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephanie Shields,Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University,University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.inception usually dated 1879) was relatively slowto take up the topic of female psychology. The"woman question" was a social one, and socialproblems did not fall within the sharply definedlimits of Wundt's "new" psychology. The businessof psychology was the description of the "generalized adult mind," and it is not at all clearwhether "adult" was meant to include both sexes.When the students of German psychology did venture outside of the laboratory, however, there isno evidence that they were sympathetic to thosedefending the equality of male and female ability(cf.Wundt, 1901).It was the functionalist movement in the UnitedStates that fostered academic psychology's studyof sex differences and, by extension, a prototypicpsychology of women. The incorporation of evolutionary theory into the practice of psychology madethe study of the female legitimate, if not imperative. It would be incorrect to assume that thepsychology of women existed as a separate specialty within the discipline. The female was discussed only in relation to the male, and the function of the female was thought to be distinctlydifferent from and complementary to the functionof the male. The leitmotiv of evolutionary theoryas it came to 'be applied to the social sciences wasthe evolutionary supremacy of the Caucasian male.The notion of the supplementary, subordinate roleof the female was ancillary to the development ofthat theme.The influence of evolutionary theory on the psychology of women can be traced along two majorconceptual lines: (a) by emphasizing the biologicalfoundations of temperament, evolutionary theoryled to serious academic discussion of maternal instinct (as one facet of the general topic of instinct); and (b) by providing a theoretical justification of the study of individual differences,AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST JULY 1975 739
evolutionary theory opened the door to the studyof sex differences in sensory, motor, and intellectualabilities. As a whole, the concept of evolutionwith its concomitant emphasis on biological determinism provided ample "scientific" reason forcataloging the "innate" differences in male andfemale nature.This article examines three topics that were ofspecial significance to the psychology of womenduring the functionalist era: (a) structural differences in the brains of males and females and theimplications of these differences for intelligenceand temperament, (b) the hypothesis of greatermale variability and its relation to social and educational issues, and (c) maternal instinct and itsmeaning for a psychology of female "nature." Asthe functionalist paradigm gave way to behaviorismand psychoanalytic theory, the definition and"meaning" of each of these issues changed to fitthe times. When issues faded in importance, itwas not because they were resolved but becausethey ceased to serve as viable scientific "myths"in the changing social and scientific milieu. Asthe times change, so must the myths change.The Female BrainThe topic of female intelligence came to 19th-'century psychology via phrenology and the neuroanatomists. Philosophers of the time (e.g., Hegel,Kant, Schopenhauer) had demonstrated, to theirsatisfaction, the justice of woman's subordinatesocial position, and it was left to the men of scienceto discover the particular physiological determinants of female inadequacy. In earlier periods,woman's inferiority had been defined as a general"state" intimately related to the absence of qualities that would have rendered her a male and tothe presence of reproductive equipment that destined her to be female. For centuries the mode ofEve's creation and her greater guilt for the fallfrom grace had been credited as the cause ofwoman's imperfect nature, but this was not anadequate explanation in a scientific age, Thus,science sought explanations for female inferioritythat were more in keeping with contemporaryscientific philosophy.Although it had long been believed that the brainwas the chief organ of the mind, the comparison ofmale and female mental powers traditionally included only allusions to vague "imperfections" ofthe female brain. More precise definition of the740 JULY 1975 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGISTsites of these imperfections awaited the advancement of the concept of cortical localization of function. Then, as finer distinctions of functionalareas were noted, there was a parallel recognitionof the differences between those sites as they appeared in each sex.At the beginning of the 19th century, the slowlyincreasing interest in the cerebral gyri rapidlygathered momentum with the popularization ofphrenology. Introduced by Franz Joseph Gall,"cranioscopy," as he preferred to call it, postulatedthat the seat of various mental and moral facultieswas located in specific areas of the brain's surfacesuch that a surfeit or deficiency could be detectedby an external examination of the cranium.Phrenology provided the first objective method fordetermining the neurological foundation of sexdifferences in intelligence and temperament thathad long been promulgated. Once investigationof brain structure had begun, it was fully anticipated that visible sex differences would be found:Did not the difference between the sexes pervadeevery other aspect of physique and physiologicalfunction? Because physical differences were soobvious in every other organ of the body, it wasunthinkable that the brain could have escaped thestamp of sex.Gall was convinced that he could, from grossanatomical observation, discriminate between maleand female brains, claiming that "if there had beenpresented to him in water, the fresh brains of twoadult animals of any species, one male and theother female, he could have distinguished the twosexes" (Walker, 1850, p. 317). Gall's student andcolleague, Johann Spurzheim, elaborated on thisbasic distinction by noting that the frontal lobeswere less developed in females, "the organs of theperceptive faculties being commonly larger thanthose of the reflective powers." Gall also observedsex differences in the nervous tissue itself, "confirming" Malebranche's belief that the female"cerebral fibre" is softer than that of the male,and that it is also "slender and long rather thanthick" (Walker, 1850, p. 318). Spurzheim alsolisted the cerebral "organs" whose appearance differed commonly in males and females: femalestended to have the areas devoted to philoprogenetiveness and other "tender" traits most prominent,while in males, areas of aggressiveness and constructiveness dominated. Even though cranioscopydid not survive as a valid system of describingcortical function, the practice of comparing the
appearance of all or part of the brain for anatomical evidence of quality of function remained oneof the most popular means of providing proof offemale mental inferiority. Most comparisons usedadult human brains, but with the rise of evolutionary theory, increasing emphasis was placed onthe value of developmental and cross-species comparisons. The argument for female mental inferiority took two forms: some argued that qualityof intellect was proportional to absolute or relativebrain size; others, more in the tradition of corticallocalization, contended that the presence of certainmental qualities was dependent upon the development of corresponding brain centers.The measurement of cranial capacity had longbeen in vogue as one method of determining intellectual ability. That women had smaller headsthan men was taken by some as clear proof of areal disparity between male and female intelligence.The consistently smaller brain size of the femalewas cited as another anatomical indicator of itsfunctional inferiority. More brain necessarilymeant better brain; the exception only proved thisrule. Alexander Bain (1875) was among thosewho believed that the smaller absolute brain sizeof females accounted for a lesser mental ability.George Romanes (1887) enumerated the "secondary sex characteristics" of mental abilities attributable to brain size. The smaller brain ofwomen was directly responsible for their mentalinferiority, which "displays itself most conspicuously in a comparative absence of originality, andthis more especially in the higher levels of intellectual work" (p. 655). He, like many, allowed thatwomen were to some degree compensated for intellectual inferiority by a superiority of instinctand perceptual ability. These advantages carriedwith them the germ of female failure, however, bymaking women more subject to emotionality.Proof of the male's absolute brain-size superiority was not enough to secure his position of intellectual superiority, since greater height andweight tended to offset the brain-size advantage.Reams of paper were, therefore, dedicated to thesearch for the most "appropriate" relative measures, but results were equivocal: if the ratio ofbrain weight to body weight is considered, it isfound that women possess a proportionately largerbrain than men; if the ratio of brain surface tobody surface is computed, it is found to favor men.That some of the ratios "favored" males whileothers "favored" females led some canny souls toconclude that there was no legitimate solution tothe problem. That they had ever hoped for asolution seems remarkable; estimates of brain sizefrom cranial capacity involve a large margin oferror because brains differing as much as 15%have been found in heads of the same size (Elliott,1969, p. 316).Hughlings Jackson has been credited as the firstto regard the frontal cortex as the repository ofthe highest mental capacities, but the notion musthave held popular credence as early as the 18SOsbecause that period saw sporadic references to thecomparative development of the frontal lobes inmen and women. Once the function of the frontallobes had been established, many researchers reported finding that the male possessed noticeablylarger and more well-developed frontal lobes thanfemales. The neuroanatomist Hischke came to theconclusion in 1854 that woman is homo parietaliswhile man is homo frontalis (Ellis, 1934). Likewise, Rudinger in 1877 found the frontal lobes ofman in every way more extensive than those ofwomen, and reported that these sex differenceswere evident even in the unborn fetus (Mobius,1901).At the turn of the century, the parietal lobes(rather than the frontal lobes) came to be regardedby some as the seat of intellect, and the necessarysex difference in parietal development was dulycorroborated by the neuroanatomists. The changein cerebral hierarchy involved a bit of revisionism:the frontal region is not, as has been supposed smaller inwoman, but rather larger relatively. . . . But the parietallobe is somewhat smaller, [furthermore,] a preponderanceof the frontal region does not imply intellectual superiority. . . the parietal region is really the more important.(Patrick, 189S, p. 212)Once beliefs regarding the relative importance ofthe frontal and parietal lobes had shifted, it became critical to reestablish congruence betweenneuroanatomical findings and accepted sex differences. Among those finding parietal predominancein men were Paul Broca,1 Theodore Meynert, andthe German Rudinger (see Ellis, 1934, p. 217).1Ellis (1934) claimed that Broca's opinion changed overtime. Brocabecame inclined to think that it [the hypothesized malesuperiority of intellect] was merely a matter of education—of muscular . . . not merely mental, education—and he thought that if left to their spontaneous impulsesmen and women would tend to resemble each other, ashappens in the savage condition, (p. 222)AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST JULY 1975 741
Other neuroanatomical "deficiencies" of the female were found in (a) the area of the corpuscallosum, (b) the complexity of the gyri and sulci,(c) the conformation of gyri and sulci, and (d)the rate of development of the cortex of the fetus(Woolley, 1910, p. 335). Franklin Mall (1909)objected to the use of faulty research methods thatgave spurious differences the appearance of beingreal. Among the most serious errors he noted wasthe practice of making observations with a knowledge of the sex of the brain under consideration.The debate concerning the importance of brainsize and anatomy as indicators of intelligence diminished somewhat with the development of mentaltests; nevertheless, the brain-size difference wasa phenomenon that many felt obligated to interpret. Max Meyer (1921) attempted to settle thematter by examining the various measures of relative difference that had been employed. Afterfinding these methods far too equivocal, he concluded, in the best behavioristic terms, that sexdifferences in intelligence were simply "accidentsof habits acquired."Characteristics of the female brain were thoughtnot simply to render women less intelligent but alsoto allow more "primitive" parts of human natureto be expressed in her personality. Instinct wasthought to dominate woman, as did her emotions,and the resulting "affectability" was consideredwoman's greatest weakness, the reason for herinevitable failure. Affectability was typically defined as a general state, the manifestation of instinctive and emotional predispositions that in menwere kept in check by a superior intellect.2One of the most virulent critics of woman wasthe German physiologist Paul Mobius (1901), whoargued that her mental incapacity was a necessarycondition for the survival of the race. Instinctrendered her easily led and easily pleased, so much2Burt and Moore (1912, p. 385), inspired by contemporary theories of cortical localization of function, proposeda neurological theory of female affectability. On the basisof the popular belief that the thalamus was "the centrefor the natural expression of the emotions" while "control of movements and the association of ideas" was localized in the cortex and the common assumption that themale was more inclined to be intellectual and rational andthe female more passionate and emotional, they concludedthat in the adult male the cortex would tend to be "morecompletely organized," while in the adult female "thethalamus tends to appear more completely organized."They came to the general conclusion that "the mental lifeof man is predominantly cortical; that of woman predominantly thalamic."742 JULY 1975 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGISTthe better for her to give her all to bearing andrearing children. The dependence of woman alsoextracted a high price from man:AH progress is due to man. Therefore the woman is likea dead weight on him, she prevents much restlessness andmeddlesome inquisitiveness, but she also restrains him fromnoble actions, for she is unable to distinguish good fromevil. (p. 629)Mobius observed that woman was essentially unable to think independently, had strong inclinationsto be mean and untrustworthy, and spent agood deal of her time in an emotionally unbalancedstate. From this he was forced to conclude that:"If woman was not physically and mentally weak,if she was not as a rule rendered harmless bycircumstances, she would be extremely dangerous"(Mobius, 1901, p. 630). Diatribes of this naturewere relatively common German importations;woman's severest critics in this country seldomachieved a similar level of acerbity. Mobius andhis ilk (e.g., Weininger, 1906) were highly publicized and widely read in the United States, andnot a little of their vituperation crept into seriousscientific discussions of woman's nature. For example, Porteus and Babcock (1926) resurrectedthe brain-size issue, discounting the importance ofsize to intelligence and instead associating it withthe "maturing of other powers." Males, becauseof their larger brains would be more highly endowed with these "other powers," and so morecompetent and achieving. Proposals such as these,which were less obviously biased than those ofMobius, Weininger, and others, fit more easilyinto the current social value system and so weremore easily assimilated as "good science" (cf.Allen, 1927, p. 294).The Variability HypothesisThe first systematic treatment of individual differences in intelligence appeared in 1575. JuanHuarte attributed sex differences in intelligence tothe different humoral qualities that characterizedeach sex, a notion that had been popular inWestern thought since ancient Greece. Heat anddryness were characteristic of the male principle,while moisture and coolness were female attributes.Because dryness of spirit was necessary for intelligence, males naturally possessed greater "wit."The maintenance of dryness and heat was thefunction of the testicles, and Huarte (1959) notedthat if a man were castrated the effects were thesame "as if he had received some notable dammage
in his very braine" (p. 279). Because the principles necessary for cleverness were only possessedby males, it behooved parents to conduct theirlife-style, diet, and sexual intercourse in such amanner as to insure the conception of a male. Thehumoral theory of sex differences was widely accepted through the 17th century, but with theadvent of more sophisticated notions of anatomyand physiology, it was replaced by other, morespecific, theories of female mental defect: the lessersize and hypothesized simpleness of the femalebrain, affectability as the source of inferiority, andcomplementarity of abilities in male and female.It was the developing evolutionary theory thatprovided an overall explanation for why these sexdifferences existed and why they were necessaryfor the survival of the race.The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwinhad little to say regarding the intellectual capacityof either sex. It was in Francis Gal ton's (CharlesDarwin's cousin) anthropometric laboratory thatthe investigation of intellectual differences took anempirical form (Galton, 1907). The major conclusion to come from Gal ton's research was thatwomen tend in all their capacities to be inferiorto men. He looked to common experience forconfirmation, reasoning that:If the sensitivity of women were superior to that of men,the self interest of merchants would lead to their beingalways employed; but as the reverse is the case, the opposite supposition is likely to be the true one. (pp. 20-21)This form of logic—women
The psychology of women is acquiring the character of an academic entity as witnessed by the prolifera-tion of research on sex differences, the appearance of textbooks devoted to the psychology of women, and the formation of a separate APA division, Psy-chology of Women. Nevertheless, there is almost universal ignorance of the psychology of women
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Structural functionalism 1 Structural functionalism Structural functionalism, or in many contexts simply functionalism, is a broad perspective in sociology and anthropology which sets out to
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Organization Behavior is not a /an a. A separate field of study b. Applied science c. Normative science d. Pessimistic approach 13. “Cognitive theory” of learning was given by a. Skinner b. Pavlov c. Tolman d. Piajet 14. Extension of behavior modification into organization is called a. Enrichment b. Enlargement c. OB Mod d. OB Ext 15. -----is a relatively permanent change in behavior that .
