Summary
The author argues that feminist research helped to restructure the theoretical and empirical content of psychology despite being marginalized. It is claimed that feminist research, which has led to the conceptual shift from sex to gender, has helped to unmask a variety of hidden assumptions, such as using biological determinism to explain psychological effects. In addition, it is suggested that feminist research offers a new theoretical perspective whereby the sociologically and historically bound generalized beliefs about universal biological processes are first brought into clear focus, thus permitting a subsequent shifting of the analysis towards a more socially oriented perspective. The author asserts that feminist thought supports a more integrative base of knowledge and transcends traditional subdisciplinary frontiers.
I am grateful for the thoughtful comments of Ian Lubek on a previous version of this paper and I thank him as well as John Mills for their help in putting this manuscript in proper English form.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Apfelbaum, E. (1986). Prolegomena for a history of social psychology: Some hypotheses concerning its emergence in the 20th century and its raison d’être. In K. Larsen (Ed.), Psychology and Ideology, (pp. 3–13). New York: Ablex.
Apfelbaum, E. (1989). Voices from the other half: Psychology’s responses to women’s concerns. Invited address at the Annual British Psychological Society’s Conference. Saint Andrews.
Apfelbaum, E., & Hadley, M. (1986). Leadership Ms-Qualified: II. Reflections on and initial case study investigation of contemporary women leaders. In C. Graumann & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Changing conceptions of leadership, (pp. 199–221). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Apfelbaum, E., & Lubek, I. (1976). Resolution or Revolution: The theory of conflicts in question. In L. Strickland, F. E. Aboud, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Social Psychology in Transition, (pp. 71–95). New York: Plenum press.
Battershy, W.S. (1956). Unilateral “spatial agnosia” (inattention) in patients with cerebral lesions. Brain, 79, 68–93.
Collin, R. (1988). Introduction: Sexe et savoir. Les Cahiers du G.R.I.F. (Le genre de l’histoire). 37/38, 5–7.
Farge, A. (1984). Pratique et effets de l’histoire des femmes. In M. Perrot (Ed.), Une histoire des femmes est-elle possible? (pp. 17–36). Paris: Rivages.
Gergen, M. M. (Ed.) (1988). Feminist thought and the structure of knowledge. New York: New York University Press.
Hurtig, M-C., & Pichevin, M.-F. (1986). La différence des sexes: Questions de Psychologie. Paris: Tierce.
Israel, J. (1979). From level of aspiration to dissonance. In A. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in social context. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Lubek, I. (1979). A brief social psychological analysis of research on aggression in social psychology. In A. R. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in social context, (pp. 259–306). New York: Irvington (Halstead/Wiley).
Lubek, I., & Apfelbaum, E. (1987). Neo-behaviorism and the “Garcia effect”: A “social psychology of science” approach to the history of a paradigm clash in psychology. In M. Ash & W. Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in the twentieth century thought and society, (pp. 59–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macaulay, J. (1985). Adding gender to aggression research: incremental or revolutionary change? In V. E. O’Leary, R. H. Unger, & B. S. Wallston, (Eds.), Women, gender and social psychology, (pp. 191–224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mathieu, N. (1989). Communication au Colloque “Sexe et Genre”. Paris: C.N.R.S.
Minton, H. L. (1986). Emancipatory social psychology as a paradigm for the study of minority groups. In K, S. Larsen (Ed.), Dialectics and ideology (pp. 257–277). New York: Ablex.
Plon, M. (1974). On the meaning of the notion of conflict and its study in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 389–436.
Riot-Sarcey, M., Planté, C., & Varikas, E. (1988). Femmes sujets de discours, sujets de l’histoire. Les cahiers du G.R.I.F. (Le genre de l’histoire), 37–38, 21–23.
Sachs, O. (1987). The man who mistook his wife for a hat. New York: Harper and Row.
Scott, W. (1987). History and difference. Daedalus, 116, 93–119.
Unger, R. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094.
Unger, R. (1982). Advocacy versus Scholarship revisited: Issues in the psychology of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7, 5–17.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Apfelbaum, E. (1990). From Feminist Research to New Categories in Psychology: What Is and What May Be. In: Baker, W.J., Hyland, M.E., van Hezewijk, R., Terwee, S. (eds) Recent Trends in Theoretical Psychology. Recent Research in Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9688-8_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9688-8_24
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-97311-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-9688-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive