The “two cultures” in clinical psychology

Constructing disciplinary divides in the management of mental retardation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

During the late twentieth century, drawing on C. P. Snow’s well-known concept of a “two cultures” divide between scientists and humanists, many psychologists identified polarizing divergences in their discipline. This essay traces how purported professional divides affected the understanding and management of mental retardation in clinical psychology. Previous work in the history of science has compared the differing cultures of disciplines, demonstrating that there is no one, unified science. Through an examination of multiple “two cultures” divides within the discipline of psychology, the essay demonstrates that perceived divergences in the field were animated by considerations of professional identity, ambitions, and goals. It argues that differing views among clinical psychologists about mental retardation, and crucially the localization of its causes—in individual bodies, minds, and genomes or within social institu-tions—reflected their position among the multiple “cultures” of psychology. References to Snow’s two cultures spanned the late twentieth-century scientific and clinical literature and were often used to encourage a conversation about the nature and goals of research in a field. In considering these purported “two cul-tures” divides, the essay proposes that historians of science must take care to look beyond constructed polarities, to instead analyze the resulting discussions about professional training and purpose.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)695-719
Number of pages25
JournalIsis
Volume109
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2018

Fingerprint

psychology
twentieth century
snow
divergence
genome
Psychology
Two Cultures
Mental Retardation
history
Psychologists
Divergence
science

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • History
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

The “two cultures” in clinical psychology : Constructing disciplinary divides in the management of mental retardation. / Hogan, Andrew J.

In: Isis, Vol. 109, No. 4, 01.12.2018, p. 695-719.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{99ac7cba18cf427685fb0a29771c6e8a,
title = "The “two cultures” in clinical psychology: Constructing disciplinary divides in the management of mental retardation",
abstract = "During the late twentieth century, drawing on C. P. Snow’s well-known concept of a “two cultures” divide between scientists and humanists, many psychologists identified polarizing divergences in their discipline. This essay traces how purported professional divides affected the understanding and management of mental retardation in clinical psychology. Previous work in the history of science has compared the differing cultures of disciplines, demonstrating that there is no one, unified science. Through an examination of multiple “two cultures” divides within the discipline of psychology, the essay demonstrates that perceived divergences in the field were animated by considerations of professional identity, ambitions, and goals. It argues that differing views among clinical psychologists about mental retardation, and crucially the localization of its causes—in individual bodies, minds, and genomes or within social institu-tions—reflected their position among the multiple “cultures” of psychology. References to Snow’s two cultures spanned the late twentieth-century scientific and clinical literature and were often used to encourage a conversation about the nature and goals of research in a field. In considering these purported “two cul-tures” divides, the essay proposes that historians of science must take care to look beyond constructed polarities, to instead analyze the resulting discussions about professional training and purpose.",
author = "Hogan, {Andrew J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1086/701062",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "109",
pages = "695--719",
journal = "Isis",
issn = "0021-1753",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The “two cultures” in clinical psychology

T2 - Constructing disciplinary divides in the management of mental retardation

AU - Hogan, Andrew J.

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - During the late twentieth century, drawing on C. P. Snow’s well-known concept of a “two cultures” divide between scientists and humanists, many psychologists identified polarizing divergences in their discipline. This essay traces how purported professional divides affected the understanding and management of mental retardation in clinical psychology. Previous work in the history of science has compared the differing cultures of disciplines, demonstrating that there is no one, unified science. Through an examination of multiple “two cultures” divides within the discipline of psychology, the essay demonstrates that perceived divergences in the field were animated by considerations of professional identity, ambitions, and goals. It argues that differing views among clinical psychologists about mental retardation, and crucially the localization of its causes—in individual bodies, minds, and genomes or within social institu-tions—reflected their position among the multiple “cultures” of psychology. References to Snow’s two cultures spanned the late twentieth-century scientific and clinical literature and were often used to encourage a conversation about the nature and goals of research in a field. In considering these purported “two cul-tures” divides, the essay proposes that historians of science must take care to look beyond constructed polarities, to instead analyze the resulting discussions about professional training and purpose.

AB - During the late twentieth century, drawing on C. P. Snow’s well-known concept of a “two cultures” divide between scientists and humanists, many psychologists identified polarizing divergences in their discipline. This essay traces how purported professional divides affected the understanding and management of mental retardation in clinical psychology. Previous work in the history of science has compared the differing cultures of disciplines, demonstrating that there is no one, unified science. Through an examination of multiple “two cultures” divides within the discipline of psychology, the essay demonstrates that perceived divergences in the field were animated by considerations of professional identity, ambitions, and goals. It argues that differing views among clinical psychologists about mental retardation, and crucially the localization of its causes—in individual bodies, minds, and genomes or within social institu-tions—reflected their position among the multiple “cultures” of psychology. References to Snow’s two cultures spanned the late twentieth-century scientific and clinical literature and were often used to encourage a conversation about the nature and goals of research in a field. In considering these purported “two cul-tures” divides, the essay proposes that historians of science must take care to look beyond constructed polarities, to instead analyze the resulting discussions about professional training and purpose.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059804493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059804493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1086/701062

DO - 10.1086/701062

M3 - Article

VL - 109

SP - 695

EP - 719

JO - Isis

JF - Isis

SN - 0021-1753

IS - 4

ER -