Pat Santy re-offers an elaborate theory as to "why psychology seems to attract so many on the left." She traces the linkage to sometime around 1956, fingering Marcuse.
Sorry. While not denying specific overlaps have occurred (Adorno, for example, psychologized "the right" for not buying into Marxism), and not denying she makes a number of insightful observations, I'm not biting. I'm no expert on the history of psychology, but it's my impression is that many prominent personalities, starting from Freud (and certainly not ignoring Jung) would probably have fit into what we'd call "the left" today. Even before the 1950s.
My own theory (unburdened as it is by much depth in the field) is vastly simpler.
In school, I noticed that all of my friends who were interested in the field of psychology seemed to have also been those with psychological problems, or very unhappy family relationships. In fact, I couldn't help but notice that my psych-major-friends were some of the most maladjusted people I'd ever met. (In fact, one particularly troubled girl I knew was a child of two psychiatrists -- that was an eye opener.)
And friends who were seeing psychiatrists would also often tell me about some very strange psychological problems their psychiatrists had!
(Note: I also know a few seemingly well-adjusted psych-folk, but they seem to be the exception, not the trend.)
So the theory I came up with then was that my unhappy friends (who were often secular in outlook) were looking to the Great God of Psychiatry of help them heal thyselves. In short: psychology attracts many who have psychological issues. (Hardly surprising, I'd think.)
And, generally, the left is also an unhappy bunch.
So the left attracts the unhappy, and the field of psychology also attracts those with, shall we say, issues -- the unhappy. So there's a big overlap.
So we end up with a lot of left-leaning psychologists and psychiatrists.
Actually the linkage goes way, way back, to the time of William James, who was fairly progressive himself, with a fairly good start on relativism. However, he did acknowledge to positive power of the Christian religion, even when putting it on an even footing with Buddhism. (i.e. reglion in general as opposed to Marxist beliefs.) That puts it back in the late 19-th century.
Bertholt Brecht was also known for mixing Freudian and Marxist thought, along with Walter Benjamin, who brought it in with the Frankfurt School, at which Adorno and Marcuse also studied.
Karl Jaspers is also another famous counter example, who, while not being Marxist, was definately on the left side of the line. (Yet again, in the late 19th century)
Unfortunately this person really isn't all to familiar with the works of the left or psychology if that's her argument. The connection is much, much earlier than 1956, and is rather intrinsic.
One of the aspects of psychology that I credit for attracting the left is the idea that by understanding human psychology we can manipulate man's basic nature, and produce a better society. I also, having been in the religous studies department of a public university, tend to believe from my own, quite personal, expereience that people use psychology to try and understand themselves, and their behavior, to try and "fix themselves." I had this impulse, and I discovered that I really couldn't do it myself, no matter how many theories I studied.
Actually the linkage goes way, way back, to the time of William James, who was fairly progressive himself, with a fairly good start on relativism. However, he did acknowledge to positive power of the Christian religion, even when putting it on an even footing with Buddhism. (i.e. reglion in general as opposed to Marxist beliefs.) That puts it back in the late 19-th century.
Bertholt Brecht was also known for mixing Freudian and Marxist thought, along with Walter Benjamin, who brought it in with the Frankfurt School, at which Adorno and Marcuse also studied.
Karl Jaspers is also another famous counter example, who, while not being Marxist, was definately on the left side of the line. (Yet again, in the late 19th century)
Unfortunately this person really isn't all to familiar with the works of the left or psychology if that's her argument. The connection is much, much earlier than 1956, and is rather intrinsic.
One of the aspects of psychology that I credit for attracting the left is the idea that by understanding human psychology we can manipulate man's basic nature, and produce a better society. I also, having been in the religous studies department of a public university, tend to believe from my own, quite personal, expereience that people use psychology to try and understand themselves, and their behavior, to try and "fix themselves." I had this impulse, and I discovered that I really couldn't do it myself, no matter how many theories I studied.
Posted by: The Zapman on March 24, 2007 08:32 PM