William James: Pragmatism, Social Psychology and Emotions

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Barbalet
Author(s):  
Hans Joas

Together with Charles Peirce, William James and John Dewey, George Herbert Mead is considered one of the classic representatives of American pragmatism. He is most famous for his ideas about the specificities of human communication and sociality and about the genesis of the ‘self’ in infantile development. By developing these ideas, Mead became one of the founders of social psychology and – mostly via his influence on the school of symbolic interactionism – one of the most influential figures in contemporary sociology. Compared to that enormous influence, other parts of his philosophical work are relatively neglected.


1980 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman K. Denzin

AbstractThe study of the organization and experiencing of emotion in everyday life is called for. A phenomenology of emotion is proposed and its relevance for the study of deviance and deviant conduct is suggested. The foundations of an interpretive social psychology are sketched, drawing upon the works of William James, Scheler, Husserl, Schutz, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. The “cognitive bias” in traditional symbolic interactionist thought is criticized, as are the works of Erving Goffman.


Author(s):  
Rhodri Hayward

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.


Author(s):  
Troels Nørager

The first part of this essay deals with some of the theoretical and methodological problems related to the scientific status of psychology. On this basis, the precarious position of psychology of religion is addressed and the author suggests that the discipline’s future is dependent upon realizing the necessity of returning to the original formulation of the task and purpose of psychology of religion, i.e. the creative investigation of the individual’s religion. The second part is a survey of four major positions in the psychology of religion (William James; experimental and psychoanalytic psychology of religion, and approaches from social psychology) and leads, finally, to a brief discussion of some of the more interesting perspectives: (1) the relation between “classic” and “contemporary” approaches of psychology of religion; (2) the influence of secularization and the complementary relation between the scientific perspective of psychology of religion and the self-understanding of religious traditions, groups and persons; (3) the prospect of a future theoretical convergence in psychology of religion.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Gantman ◽  
Robin Gomila ◽  
Joel E. Martinez ◽  
J. Nathan Matias ◽  
Elizabeth Levy Paluck ◽  
...  

AbstractA pragmatist philosophy of psychological science offers to the direct replication debate concrete recommendations and novel benefits that are not discussed in Zwaan et al. This philosophy guides our work as field experimentalists interested in behavioral measurement. Furthermore, all psychologists can relate to its ultimate aim set out by William James: to study mental processes that provide explanations for why people behave as they do in the world.


2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Bernad Batinic ◽  
Anja Goeritz

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Gil Rodríguez ◽  
Carlos María Alcover de la Hera

After a long period of scarce resources and a long delay in new scientific results suffered as a consequence of recent Spanish history, research concerning groups has experienced a rapid development over the last 15 years of the 20th century—the result of the late but then clear institutionalization of psychology into university structure. Although most research has been carried out at the very heart of social psychology and along the traditional lines of the field, a significant growth in the study of groups and work teams in organizational contexts can now be highlighted, coinciding with the tendency detected internationally during the last years. Beyond the normalization of group research in Spain, it is necessary to point out its excessive dependency in both theory and methodology on models and tools elaborated throughout North America and Europe. The present review closes with the proposal of creating a European formative curriculum for group psychologists in order to unify and promote research within this active and important field of psychology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document