Divided Attention, Divided Self: Race and Dual-mind Theories in the History of Experimental Psychology

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
C. J. Valasek
{"title":"Divided Attention, Divided Self: Race and Dual-mind Theories in the History of Experimental Psychology","authors":"C. J. Valasek","doi":"10.1177/01622439211054455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The duality of attention is explored by turning our focus to the political and cultural conceptions of automatic attention and deliberate attention, with the former being associated with animality and “uncivilized” behavior and the latter with intelligence and self-mastery. In this article, I trace this ongoing dualism of the mind from early race psychology in the late nineteenth century to twentieth century psychological models including those found in psychoanalysis, behaviorism, neo-behaviorism, and behavioral economics. These earlier studies explicitly or implicitly maintained a deficiency model of controlled attention and other mental processes that were thought to differ between racial groups. Such early models of attention included assumptions that Black and Indigenous peoples were less in control of their attention compared to whites. This racialized model of attention, as seen in the law of economy in the nineteenth century, with similar manifestations in psychoanalysis and neo-behaviorism in the twentieth century, can now be seen in present-day dual-process models as used in current psychological research and behavioral policy. These historical connections show that attention is not a value-neutral term and that attention studies do not stand outside of race and structural racism.","PeriodicalId":48083,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology & Human Values","volume":"60 1","pages":"243 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology & Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211054455","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The duality of attention is explored by turning our focus to the political and cultural conceptions of automatic attention and deliberate attention, with the former being associated with animality and “uncivilized” behavior and the latter with intelligence and self-mastery. In this article, I trace this ongoing dualism of the mind from early race psychology in the late nineteenth century to twentieth century psychological models including those found in psychoanalysis, behaviorism, neo-behaviorism, and behavioral economics. These earlier studies explicitly or implicitly maintained a deficiency model of controlled attention and other mental processes that were thought to differ between racial groups. Such early models of attention included assumptions that Black and Indigenous peoples were less in control of their attention compared to whites. This racialized model of attention, as seen in the law of economy in the nineteenth century, with similar manifestations in psychoanalysis and neo-behaviorism in the twentieth century, can now be seen in present-day dual-process models as used in current psychological research and behavioral policy. These historical connections show that attention is not a value-neutral term and that attention studies do not stand outside of race and structural racism.
分散的注意力,分裂的自我:实验心理学史上的种族和双重心理理论
注意的两重性是通过将我们的注意力转向政治和文化概念的自动注意和故意注意来探索的,前者与动物和“不文明”行为有关,后者与智力和自我控制有关。在这篇文章中,我追溯了这种持续的心灵二元论,从19世纪末的早期种族心理学到20世纪的心理模型,包括精神分析、行为主义、新行为主义和行为经济学中发现的心理模型。这些早期的研究或明或暗地维持了一种缺陷模型,即控制注意力和其他心理过程的缺陷模型,这些模型被认为在种族群体之间存在差异。这些早期的注意力模型包括这样的假设:与白人相比,黑人和土著居民对自己注意力的控制能力较弱。这种种族化的注意力模式,就像在19世纪的经济规律中看到的那样,在20世纪的精神分析和新行为主义中也有类似的表现,现在可以在当前心理学研究和行为政策中使用的双重过程模型中看到。这些历史联系表明,注意力不是一个价值中立的术语,注意力研究并不站在种族和结构性种族主义之外。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: As scientific advances improve our lives, they also complicate how we live and react to the new technologies. More and more, human values come into conflict with scientific advancement as we deal with important issues such as nuclear power, environmental degradation and information technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values is a peer-reviewed, international, interdisciplinary journal containing research, analyses and commentary on the development and dynamics of science and technology, including their relationship to politics, society and culture.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信