Dear Jason, Gregg and TOKers, the 'silo-ing' of intellectual pursuits is
overwhelmingly apparent in this thread. I have been involved in the
initiative for what is being termed Interdisciplinarity for a number of
years, contributing to the *Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity,* for
example. I assumed that that effort was pervasive, only to realize through
this discussion that clearly it is not. If I may share my own life
experience, I was a Biology/English double major in college. Through that
interdisciplinary approach I learned how to 'dissect' both a frog and a
poem, literally. But the contrast was palpable in the sense that my poetry
Professor would read a piece of poetry, 'dissect' it over the course of the
lecture, but would never let us out of the lecture hall until he had read
it again in its entirety because it didn't exist other than as a whole.
Conversely, the frog would remain on the lab bench in pieces, and many of
my classmates are your physicians, I might add. My learning experience was
that the frog, like the poem, did not exist without reassembling it, which
I have done as a cellular biologist/physiologist over the course of the
last 50 years. It's far more difficult to see things both as parts and
wholes, let alone teach it, but as Gregg had alluded to, perhaps we'd be
better off learning through dual disciplines that complement one another,
like Psychology and Sociology, IMHO.

And not to get too meta, but I think the reason that we need to use a
'double major' approach is because we are only approximating the 'truth' in
David Bohm's Explicate Order (*Wholeness and the Implicate Order*), so to
have an informed perspective, we must see things through more than one
lens. I have, for example, come to the realization that the reason we must
control a scientific experiment is because what we are examining is only
relative, not absolute, so we need to provide a 'context' or framework in
which to do so.....in Bohm's ideal or Implicate Order, for example, there
is no need for controls, if you get my drift. I offer these thoughts with
the best of intentions.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:40 PM nysa71 <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Gregg writes, " A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists
> and psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures..."
>
> It's funny you should mention that. Over a decade ago, I started thinking
> that it was strange that there were these institutional "walls" between
> psychology and the other social sciences, and that it seemed so "early 20th
> century". I remember thinking that they're all dealing with human behavior
> --- with psychology dealing with individual behaviors, but the other social
> sciences dealing with the context within which individuals behave, (and
> those social structures being both reinforced and changed due to behaviors
> at the level of psychology).
>
> All of these fields have developed to the point where I sometimes wondered
> if it would make more sense to start thinking of universities offering more
> "general" bachelor degrees along the lines of "Psychology & Social
> Science", and then focusing on a specific disciple, (e.g., psychology,
> sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc.), in post
> graduate studies.
>
> At the very least, psychology undergraduates should be required to take
> some social science classes.
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
> On Sunday, February 24, 2019, 10:35:01 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for sharing this, Jason. Neoliberalism and its critique is a major
> focus of a number of the major Div 24 scholars, with Jeff Sugarman leading
> the way. A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists and
> psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures, values and
> processes that are operative. Rather they look at phenomena and clients and
> try to describe and explain what they see, with really appreciating the
> deep context.
>
>
>
> My favorite book on a related topic is Barry Schwartz’s The Battle for
> Human Nature
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Battle-2DHuman-2DNature-2DScience-2DMorality_dp_0393304450&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pXQ2SEX6BD7KGH3vPZgvrLZ7AAYVVT_vaq07aAJgoms&s=u3WdyySlG7vIl2KMErhZQBr88We_e0_390E8CwYOFEs&e=>.
> It reviews behavioral theory, evolutionary theory and economics and here is
> its summary:
>
>
>
> *Out of the investigations and speculations of contemporary science, a
> challenging view of human behavior and society has emerged and gained
> strength. It is a view that equates “human nature” utterly and unalterably
> with the pursuit of self-interest. Influenced by this view, people
> increasingly appeal to natural imperatives, instead of moral ones, to
> explain and justify their actions and those of others.*
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> G
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *nysa71
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:03 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> Interesting paper on psychology and neoliberalism:
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> This article draws attention to the relationship between neoliberalism and
> psychology. Features of this relationship can be seen with reference to
> recent studies linking psychology to neoliberalism through the constitution
> of a kind of subjectivity susceptible to neoliberal governmentality. Three
> examples are presented that reveal the ways in which psychologists are
> implicated in the neoliberal agenda: psychologists’ conception and
> treatment of social anxiety disorder, positive psychology, and educational
> psychology. It is hoped that presenting and discussing these cases broadens
> the context of consideration in which psychological ethics might be
> examined and more richly informed. It is concluded that only by
> interrogating neoliberalism, psychologists’ relationship to it, how it
> affects what persons are and might become, and whether it is good for human
> well-being can we understand the ethics of psychological disciplinary and
> professional practices in the context of a neoliberal political order and
> if we are living up to our social responsibility.
>
> Sugarman, J. (2015). "Neolberalism and Psychological Ethics
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.researchgate.net_profile_Jeff-5FSugarman_publication_276140354-5FNeoliberalism-5Fand-5FPsychological-5FEthics_links_555c08af08aec5ac2232aa06.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vwLIeIntBrX9PS9a_NIXhc5NSW7hFU5gGxWKr_V1S8g&s=52cspoZeSdor9CUOfJ1rN27wy_0SO4T-PYmkx9W7nv8&e=>".
> *Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35,* 103 - 116.
>
> ~ Jason Bessey
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1