Psychology and the Social Sciences

In one of the courses that I am currently taking this semester, Abnormal Psychology (at Mt. Holyoke College-- for those of you that are not familiar with my school, we have a consortium with other neighboring colleges, so we can take courses at the other schools and cross register), I had to write a paper supporting whether or not I agreed with Jane Murphy's article, "Psychiatric Labeling in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Similar kinds of disturbed behavior appear to be labeled abnormal in diverse cultures," on the idea of whether mental illness was universal or not (she criticized realtivism in psychopathology, towards the notion that the behavior considered "crazy," as well as other categories of "mental illness," is different in each culture), specifically on the labeling theory. She did the cross cultural survey between two "Non Western" cultures, the Eskimos of Alaska; and the Yorubas of Nigeria.
Upon initially reading this, I became very excited and enlightened. Why? I am getting so sick of people blaming the west for everything, which includes psychology. Non western cultures and countries are also human like westerners, hence they are also responsible for the atrocities and marginilization that occurs where they are.
(Unfortunatly I am defending the west, since my culture, according to society, has assimilated with white, American mainstream culture-- I personally don't identify as "white" but as Jewish-- and a fuck you to all that want to disagree with me, and tell me that I am not who I am; and much peace, love and respect to those that believe in me! :) )

   As a child and teenager, I was always interested in meeting people who were outcasts in their society, since I always was, always having a lot of trouble fitting in. It really irritated me when I would meet foreginers, and they would all fit in with their own circle; I never saw any of them within their own group being excluded (examples: Summer 2003, when I went to Kutz Camp, and all of the Israelies had their own group-- none of the Israelies seem to be outcasts towards one another-- they all seemed to get along fine; same with the increasing immigrant Albanian population at my high school--they all seemed to be best friends. I remember trying to acquaint myself with them, sometimes eating lunch with them, but all they would do was maybe  introduce me, and then go on speaking Albanian, as if I never existed).

      So from my previous experiences, it made me excited to see a scholarly article on how we are all similar, and how outcasts like myself DO EXIST  in every cutlture.

       However, once I had read the article, and I had to write an essay on it, and reflect what  her essay was about, along with the crucial points that she made in her article, I became very critical of the methods she went out about the study; the language that she used to describe the other culture, and also, possible behaviors or language that may be viewed as degrading or offensive to the people that she did the studies on (Orientalism).

    First, when she went about doing her research on the Eskimos, she did not interact with the people directly-- is was through key informant information. I feel that it is imperative to work with the people in a study first hand. Knowing the language is a plus, since it will help you understand the people better. Also, when languages get translated through someone else, the maybe mis translated; misinterpreted, or their initial meaning maybe lost (well at least within the case for Lacan! :P). Instead she had someone else translate and do the work for her, which I did not like.

     My professor thought that I was being too critical. For the first time in my life, I had never had a professor or teacher tell me that I was being too critical in a paper. It had always been quite  the converse. At Hampshire, I had too many professors tell the me that I am not being critical enough, especially in the Social Sciences. Some almost to the point of trying to force their critical biases down my throat.

     I had a lengthy conversation with my professor at Mount Holyoke about the paper. Although, I did miss discussing some critical points that Ms. Jane Murphy brought up, such as psychosis, neurosis and and anti-social behavior in American (and possibly Western Society as a whole) via punishment, and compare that to the Eskimos and Yoruba cultures. 

   The professor then brought up how the Eskimo and Yoruba cultures are "primitive." I stopped in my tracks. I knew that calling a certain culture "primitive" can be seen as offensive or degrading (which some social scientists refer to as "Orientalism," coined officially by the late Columbia University Professor, Edward Said). This idea of using the word "primitive" to describe certain cultures, was brought up several times within the last year at Hampshire (I can't remember where I first learned it-- maybe in some of my Social Science courses; maybe during Action Awareness week; maybe during an activism event that  I went to). I didn't want to tell him that I think that what he said was offensive, since I didn't want to be rude, and come off to him as being even more critical and arguementative. 

        I discussed with my advisor at Hampshire (who works in the Social Sciences; spefically in the Political Sciences, with a focus on China), on what my Mount Holyoke Professor had said about describing certain cultures as "primitive." She agreed with me, that that type of language used, and certain methods that Jane Murphy used in her study could be seen as different as Orientalist discourse. Hopefully she will help in re-writing how parts  Jane Murphy's study maybe seen as a Orientalism. 

      But then  I thought about the use of word "primitive."--> Can't it have several meanings? Did my professor mean it in a bad way? I need to be sensitive towards his feelings as well. I imagine that he was just trying to use the word "primitive" to describe these two non-industrialized societies. People coming from a western society may see it as "primitive" since they no longer use those methods of lifestyle in their own society, and have progressed onto something more "advanced," to sustain themselves within their own society/culture. Maybe using the term "primitive" may have some good connotations as well. I like how words can have more than one meaning, and you can use it however which way you like.

     We must also take into that the Yorubas in Nigeria (for example), live in a tropical area, and do not need all of these industrial advances for the most part. They live in a climate that has a lot of natural resources (I don't know enough about Nigerian geography, and what types of plants and crops are native to the land/grow there), but I think that it is safe to say so, and agreeable weather, in which there is no need to devise different machines/structures. (From what I have learned in my history courses, the Industrial Revolution, which began in Manchester, England, during the mid-nineteenth century, was based on trying to get more efficient machines that would help society since they lived in a colder climate;  had far fewer time to grow crops, due to the seasons--> Again, I realize that my arguement towards the Industrial Revolution is a cop out, but this is how I perceive it in a "brief nutshell" as they say).

     I think that we need to understand everyone's arguements and use of language. We need to understand and heed to the feelings and needs of all people.

 On and on, the main arguement  and question that I am trying to postulate from here, is "Are psychologists good researchers in the Social Sciences?" I am asking this, since my advisor (who is a professor in the Social Sciences), said so. I want to see how valid or not this is.

Love 

Stephanie :)