Copyright by Victoria Campbell Hill 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by Victoria Campbell Hill 2009 The Dissertation Committee for Victoria Campbell Hill certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Defining “Normal” in Their Own Image: Psychological Professionals, Middle-Class Normativity, and the Postwar Popularization of Psychology Committee: Janet M. Davis, Supervisor Robert H. Abzug John Hartigan Patricia Roberts-Miller Mark C. Smith Defining “Normal” in Their Own Image: Psychological Professionals, Middle-Class Normativity, and the Postwar Popularization of Psychology by Victoria Campbell Hill, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December 2009 Dedication For my father, who introduced me to psychology. Acknowledgements This project has taken a long and often circuitous path. Had it not been for the many individuals who provided help, kindness, and conversation when I needed it most, I suspect that I would still be circling. My committee chair, Janet Davis, has been more than generous with her time, encouragement, and encyclopedic knowledge of culture and history. I am also grateful for her insistence on rigor when I was tempted to settle for less; the project is considerably better for it. I am also indebted to the other members of my committee, each of whom has helped to shape the final product in numerous ways. Bob Abzug provided early direction for my research and managed to steer me away from some of the larger mistakes that I tried to make; John Hartigan’s work has informed my understanding of class immeasurably. Trish Roberts-Miller graciously included me in her dissertators’ group during a summer when I desperately needed regular feedback, and she has been an inspirational source of advice and support throughout the process. Mark Smith has regularly shared his knowledge, his books, his kindness, and his humor with me throughout this project, and I am eternally grateful. I am also grateful to the members of my American Studies dissertation group, who consistently delivered thoughtful feedback on my work along with extremely pleasant conversation. Ed Donovan, Anna Thompson-Hadjik, Elizabeth Horany, Danny Gerling, Jason Mellard, Allison Perlman, Kim Simpson, Phil Tiemeyer, and Tracy Wuster have been the best of colleagues. Special thanks go to John Gronbeck-Tedesco, whose early thoughts on my project helped to shape my research questions, and to Amy Nathan Wright, who has been generous both with employment leads and with her friendship. I v also owe debts of gratitude to a number of office mates, Writing Center colleagues, and fellow graduate students, all of whom helped to soften the solitude of what is, in the end, solitary work: Scott Blackwood, Tony Fassi, Andrew Friedenthal, Stephanie Kolberg, Ben Lisle, Robin O’Sullivan, Audrey Russek, and Allison Wright have all brightened the past nine years, and Shelley Powers and Sasha Vliet have been particularly generous with their friendship and support. I am also indebted to the archivists who made my research possible: thanks go to Patrizia Sione at the Kheel Center for Labor Management Documentation and Archives at Cornell University, as well as to Peter Berg, Randall Scott, and Kris Baclawski in Special Collections at Michigan State University Libraries. Mr. Scott in particular went above the call of duty, digging through a new shipment of uncataloged materials to bring me cartloads of postwar men’s adventure magazines. Finally, I am grateful to Peggy Kelley, who has been an extraordinary teacher and guide, and to my family. My husband, Mike, has cooked more than his fair share of dinners over the past nine years; I am appreciative. And my children, Zach and Cohen, have grown into amazing young people during the course of this work, inspiring me daily with their humor, curiosity, and creativity. vi Defining “Normal” in Their Own Image: Psychological Professionals, Middle-Class Normativity, and the Postwar Popularization of Psychology Publication No._____________ Victoria Campbell Hill, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2009 Supervisor: Janet M. Davis This dissertation examines the relationship between the growth and popularization of psychology in American life in the postwar period and Americans’ belief that theirs is a “classless,” or overwhelmingly middle-class, society. I argue that psychology has, until recently, inadvertently naturalized middle-class norms of self-perception, communication, aspirations, and subjectivity. From the 1950s on, the United States has been what observers call a “therapeutic culture.” Psychological ideas have infused the major arenas of American life, including the educational, judicial, commercial, political, personal, and interpersonal realms. This project examines the origins and development of psychological professionals’ views of class, highlighting the professional, economic, disciplinary, and cultural factors that combined to form those views. vii I analyze a small but persistent thread of dialogue in the professional literature of the period that questioned mainstream psychological assumptions about class, and I explore how that impulse developed into major mental health policy initiatives in the 1960s, then was undermined by political and social conflicts. I also develop a case history of one mental health project that attempted to transcend psychology’s class biases, only to be contained by structural and disciplinary factors. After examining psychological professionals’ views of various publics, this project investigates a series of publics’ views of psychological practitioners. I draw on popular portrayals of postwar psychological practitioners across various media, including one particular working-class medium, postwar men’s adventure magazines, and employ classic cultural studies readings to analyze the significant differences in the portrayals. viii Table of Contents Introduction..........................................................................................................1 Chapter One: Approaches to Class in the American Social Sciences: Defining the Parameters.................................................................................................33 Chapter Two: Industrial-Organizational Psychology and the National Institute for Labor Education Mental Health Program: A Case Study..........................106 Chapter Three: Popular Representations and Polysemic Readings of Psychology in the Postwar Period...................................................................................143 Chapter Four: Psychology in the "Sweats": Men's Adventure Magazines.........175 Chapter Five: Successes and the Seeds of Failure: The Community Mental Health Movement ...............................................................................................204 Conclusion .......................................................................................................235 Bibliography ....................................................................................................247 Vita ...............................................................................................................266 ix Introduction Americans are confused about class. The Associated Press gave us a perfect example of this confusion in February 2008 when it quoted then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton describing herself as the "candidate of, from and for the middle class of America." In the very next sentence, with no apparent sense of inconsistency, the AP explained that “Clinton has relied on working-class Democrats for much of her support … .”1 For the newswire staff—arguably a group of people who care more than most about the precise use of language—the two terms were apparently interchangeable. I believe our confusion is the result of what Robert Seguin calls “middle-classlessness.”2 Seguin uses this phrase as a shorthand for the widespread, deeply held, but inaccurate American belief that most of us belong to a vaguely defined middle class. While the perception is widespread, it is patently untrue. Despite the fact that the United States currently has the least equitable distribution of wealth in the developed world, and despite widespread evidence that the gap between rich and poor has been expanding rapidly since the 1970s, popular and scholarly commentators alike note that Americans simply don’t have the vocabulary of class that would help them understand their economic situation.3 Inequalities of economics, opportunity, and autonomy are 1 International Herald Tribune, “Clinton Presents Case for Middle Class as She Tries to Hold onto Her Coalition,” February 15, 2008. 2 Robert Seguin, Around Quitting Time: Work and Middle-Class Fantasy in American Fiction (Durham: Duke University Press, 2001). 3 For inequitable distribution of wealth, see, for example, Timothy M. Smeeding, “Public Policy, Economic Inequality, and Poverty: The United States in Comparative Perspective,” Social Science Quarterly 86, no. 5 (December 2005): 955-983. Smeeding bases his claims on data from the much-cited but proprietary Luxembourg Income Study, a 20-year comparative analysis of national incomes. What qualifies as the “developed” world is, of course, contestable, and Smeeding disallows both Mexico and Russia to rank the 1 much more likely to be attributed to race or gender than to class; in the words of one sociologist, “class denial is woven into the fabric