{"title":"Creating Subjects","authors":"R. Hayward","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Self-creation has been held up as the fundamental task of modern man. We are repeatedly encouraged to discover our authentic selves or cultivate our individuality in order to win health, happiness, romantic fulfillment, or career success. It is a task that psychologists have been eager to take on, offering up competing pathways toward self-realization. At the same time, however, critical historians and sociologists have accused the discipline of psychology of fostering the creation of particular kinds of self. This article outlines debates about self-creation among psychologists and their readers from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st. It takes as its focus Western psychology and the ideas developed by its academic practitioners in laboratories and universities across Europe and North America, but it acknowledges that these ideas were often developed in dialogue with, or in reaction to, versions of the self articulated in other cultures and traditions across the globe. The opening section, “Creating Subjects and Making Selves,” discusses the ways that conventional ideas of selfhood have been challenged by developments in anthropology, philosophy, and the history of psychology, before going on to look at the ways that new religious movements and globalization challenged familiar ideas of the self in the 19th century. The first generation of professional psychologists (notably William James; see Section 2, “William James and Late 19th-Century Self Making”) recognized this challenge and used it to ground new theories of self-improvement and self-creation. These projects were deepened by the “discovery” of the subliminal or subconscious mind, which was portrayed to the public as a source of hidden potential (see Section 3, “The Subliminal: New Sources of Self-Creation”) or unconscious restrictions (see Section 4, “The New Psychology and the Discovery of Constraint”) to be unleashed or overcome. By the early 20th century, the discipline of psychology was offering manifold paths to self-creation: Behaviorism (Section 5, “Behaviorism and the Experimental Creation of Selves”), psychoanalysis (Section 6, “Psychoanalysis: New Paths to Self-Creation”), and social psychology (Section 7, “Social Psychology and the Sources of Self-Creation”). The various theories and practices put forward gained enthusiastic adherents but by the middle decades of the 20th century, this pursuit of the self was being met with growing skepticism. Existentialist philosophy (Section 8, “Selves as Prisons: Existentialism and Self-Creation”) claimed that the conventional faith in selfhood and psychology blinded people to their absolute freedom, but by the 1950s and 1960s this critique would be recuperated by psychologists, with existential analysts and humanistic psychologists celebrating the move beyond the everyday identity as a potential foundation for personal growth. At the same time, the rise of information technology and cybernetics supported the idea that the self was little more than a code or pattern of signals, encouraging the belief that it could be transformed through integration into new systems of information. At the beginning of the 21st century, the self-skepticism that had animated 19th-century schemes of self-building had become an academic commonplace. This is celebrated as a radical position, but in fact, this sense that individuals are not subjects but projects undergoing continual revision is the same sense that animates the growth of therapy and the self-help industry in the modern era.","PeriodicalId":339030,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Self-creation has been held up as the fundamental task of modern man. We are repeatedly encouraged to discover our authentic selves or cultivate our individuality in order to win health, happiness, romantic fulfillment, or career success. It is a task that psychologists have been eager to take on, offering up competing pathways toward self-realization. At the same time, however, critical historians and sociologists have accused the discipline of psychology of fostering the creation of particular kinds of self. This article outlines debates about self-creation among psychologists and their readers from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st. It takes as its focus Western psychology and the ideas developed by its academic practitioners in laboratories and universities across Europe and North America, but it acknowledges that these ideas were often developed in dialogue with, or in reaction to, versions of the self articulated in other cultures and traditions across the globe. The opening section, “Creating Subjects and Making Selves,” discusses the ways that conventional ideas of selfhood have been challenged by developments in anthropology, philosophy, and the history of psychology, before going on to look at the ways that new religious movements and globalization challenged familiar ideas of the self in the 19th century. The first generation of professional psychologists (notably William James; see Section 2, “William James and Late 19th-Century Self Making”) recognized this challenge and used it to ground new theories of self-improvement and self-creation. These projects were deepened by the “discovery” of the subliminal or subconscious mind, which was portrayed to the public as a source of hidden potential (see Section 3, “The Subliminal: New Sources of Self-Creation”) or unconscious restrictions (see Section 4, “The New Psychology and the Discovery of Constraint”) to be unleashed or overcome. By the early 20th century, the discipline of psychology was offering manifold paths to self-creation: Behaviorism (Section 5, “Behaviorism and the Experimental Creation of Selves”), psychoanalysis (Section 6, “Psychoanalysis: New Paths to Self-Creation”), and social psychology (Section 7, “Social Psychology and the Sources of Self-Creation”). The various theories and practices put forward gained enthusiastic adherents but by the middle decades of the 20th century, this pursuit of the self was being met with growing skepticism. Existentialist philosophy (Section 8, “Selves as Prisons: Existentialism and Self-Creation”) claimed that the conventional faith in selfhood and psychology blinded people to their absolute freedom, but by the 1950s and 1960s this critique would be recuperated by psychologists, with existential analysts and humanistic psychologists celebrating the move beyond the everyday identity as a potential foundation for personal growth. At the same time, the rise of information technology and cybernetics supported the idea that the self was little more than a code or pattern of signals, encouraging the belief that it could be transformed through integration into new systems of information. At the beginning of the 21st century, the self-skepticism that had animated 19th-century schemes of self-building had become an academic commonplace. This is celebrated as a radical position, but in fact, this sense that individuals are not subjects but projects undergoing continual revision is the same sense that animates the growth of therapy and the self-help industry in the modern era.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创建对象
自我创造被认为是现代人的基本任务。我们不断地被鼓励去发现真实的自我或培养我们的个性,以赢得健康、幸福、浪漫的满足或事业上的成功。这是心理学家一直渴望承担的任务,提供了通往自我实现的竞争途径。然而,与此同时,批判的历史学家和社会学家指责心理学学科促进了特定类型自我的创造。本文概述了从19世纪末到21世纪初心理学家及其读者之间关于自我创造的争论。它将西方心理学和其学术实践者在欧洲和北美的实验室和大学中发展起来的思想作为其重点,但它承认,这些思想往往是在与全球其他文化和传统中表达的自我版本的对话或反应中发展起来的。第一部分“创造主体和制造自我”讨论了传统的自我观念是如何受到人类学、哲学和心理学历史发展的挑战的,然后再看看19世纪新兴宗教运动和全球化是如何挑战我们熟悉的自我观念的。第一代专业心理学家(尤其是威廉·詹姆斯;参见第二节“威廉·詹姆斯和19世纪晚期的自我创造”)认识到这一挑战,并以此为基础建立了自我完善和自我创造的新理论。这些项目被潜意识或潜意识的“发现”所深化,它被描绘成隐藏潜力的来源(见第3节,“潜意识:自我创造的新来源”)或无意识的限制(见第4节,“新心理学和约束的发现”)被释放或克服。到20世纪初,心理学学科为自我创造提供了多种途径:行为主义(第5节,“行为主义和自我的实验性创造”),精神分析(第6节,“精神分析:自我创造的新途径”)和社会心理学(第7节,“社会心理学和自我创造的来源”)。提出的各种理论和实践获得了热情的追随者,但到20世纪中期,这种对自我的追求遭到了越来越多的怀疑。存在主义哲学(第8节,“作为监狱的自我:存在主义和自我创造”)声称,对自我和心理学的传统信仰使人们对自己的绝对自由视而不见,但到了20世纪50年代和60年代,这种批评将被心理学家们恢复,存在主义分析师和人本主义心理学家庆祝超越日常身份的举动,认为这是个人成长的潜在基础。与此同时,信息技术和控制论的兴起支持了自我只不过是一种代码或信号模式的观点,鼓励了人们相信自我可以通过整合到新的信息系统中来进行转化。在21世纪初,推动了19世纪自我建设计划的自我怀疑已经成为学术上的老生常谈。这被认为是一种激进的立场,但事实上,这种认为个人不是主体,而是经历不断修正的项目的意识,与推动现代治疗和自助行业发展的意识是一样的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Incentive Sensitization Theory of Addiction Music Performance Multistable Perception Inference in Social Cognition Attention in Early Development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1