Watson, in the first paragraph of source 1, uses the newspaper quote to support the claim that
EL “MANIFIESTO CONDUCTISTA” DE 1913 DE JOHN B. WATSON:PREPARANDO EL ESCENARIO PARA EL LEGADO DEL CONDUCTISMO EN LA ACCIÓN SOCIALRichard F. RakosCleveland State UniversityDescargar / Download PDF Show
Abstract
Keywords: John B. Watson, application of behavioral principles, social action, environmentalism, eugenics Resumen
Palabras clave: John B. Watson, aplicación de principios conductuales, acción social, ambientalismo, eugenesia Watson’s 1913 “Behaviorist Manifesto” viewed psychology as a natural science with the goal of prediction and control of behavior, an appreciation of environment as a determinant of behavior, and the great potential to improve society through application of
empirically-derived principles of behavior (Logue, 1994). His balanced view of the nature-nurture issue emphasized learning — “habit formation” in Watson’s construct — as a key mechanism for understanding the impact of the environment on behavior and thereby improve prediction and control of behavior. But beyond promoting the concept of learning to the psychological research community, Watson argued that one could — and should — apply scientifically validated behavioral principles to a wide
range of pressing social needs and problems (Hart & Kritsonis, 2006; Mills, 1999). His linking of the goal of prediction and control with practical application to human affairs suggests that his reason “to learn general and particular methods by which I may control behavior” (Watson, 1913, p. 168) was to promote social change that improved society and make life better for its citizens (Salzinger, 1994; Samelson, 1981). Though the 1913 manifesto itself had only a very small impact on the
scientific community, both immediate and long term, as measured by citations and rebuttals (Leahey, 1992; Samelson, 1981; Todd, 1994),¹ it was the first behavioral foray into spirited intellectual conflict with other approaches to understanding behavior and the first to argue that empirically derived principles must be applied for the betterment of society. As one biographer observed, “his fight to make psychology an agent of social engineering had begun in earnest in 1913” (Buckley, 1989,
p. 111). Therefore, despite the 1913 article’s limited impact, Hart & Kritsonis (2006) credit it with “sparking the flame that has now blazed as the field of Applied Psychology” (p. 6). Watson’s (1913) focus on generalizing laboratory-derived principles to improving daily life and solving social ills initiated the behavioral tradition of ideologically progressive social analysis, philosophy, and intervention (Mills, 1999). While his 1913 manifesto made him
a symbol of the ideal of scientific inquiry to some (Bakan, 1960; Mills, 1999), his later works shifted from scientific analyses to suggestions for social and cultural change, many of which were provocative and not based on existing science, such as his child rearing proposals that parents should restrain displays of affection (cf. Skinner, 1959) or that children should be rotated every three weeks among different pairs of adults to avoid dependency (cf. Logue, 1994). Watson also saw women in a
highly sexist manner and proposed a utopia that achieved efficiency but within a markedly authoritarian and tightly controlled society that socialized children to conform and retrained persons who deviated from expected behavior (cf., Buckley, 1989)². Watson’s evolution to promoter of unconventional social practices was accompanied by a hyperbolic style that at times eclipsed his substance. However, Skinner admitted (1995) that he liked the “campaigning style” of Watson’s 1924 book Behaviorism
as it stridently advanced the primacy of the environment in the determination of complex human behavior while relegating heredity to a distinctly secondary role.
However, Logue (1994) noted that before the “dozen healthy infants” polemic, “Watson made many earlier, informed, balanced statements regarding the nature-nurture issue” (p. 120). Indeed, Skinner (1959) pointed out that Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist (1919), which he considered to be Watson’s most important book, contained two chapters on heredity — “unlearned behavior — emotions” and “unlearned behavior — instincts.” Watson stated here that “human action as a whole can be divided into hereditary modes of response (emotional and instinctive), and acquired modes of response (habits)” (1919, p. 224, emphasis in original), and further, “that there is no sharp line of separation between emotion and instinct. Both are hereditary modes of action” (1919, p. 262). Thus, throughout the second decade of the 20th century, Watson argued that behavior was a function of environmental circumstances as well as of hereditary factors; he advocated for environment-as-cause of behavior at a time when “nature” was often the dominant explanation for why people behaved as they did (cf., Kamin, 1974), introducing “nurture” as a second significant source of behavior. Watson (1913, 1919) was an unapologetic environmentalist, but at the beginning he was not an extreme environmentalist (cf. Todd, 1994). Watson’s adoption of extreme environmentalism Watson did shift to an extreme environmentalist position in 1924 in Behaviorism, where he contended that the data made the concept of instinct unnecessary (because humans are born with only a set of simple instincts) and narrowed the concept of emotion to only three responses: fear, rage, and love. And while he acknowledged that physical characteristics are strongly inherited, he flatly dismissed the possibility that “mental traits” are similarly determined by genetics; the inheritance of both talent and criminality constituted
This is because “our hereditary structure lies ready to be shaped in a thousand different ways — the same
structure mind you — depending on the way in which the child is brought up (Watson, 1924, p. 77; and similar in 1930, p. 97). Even Skinner (1959) saw in Watson an “extreme environmentalism” embedded in an admirable but probably excessively “crusading spirit” (p. 198).
A few years later, in 1930 he observed that eugenics and enhancement of human evolution “excite so many people almost to the point of combat” (Watson, 1930, p. 96),³ including the leaders of American psychology (Kamin, 1974). In this struggle, Watson asked whether “the behaviorist has an ax to grind…by being so emphatic? Yes, he has — he would like to see the presuppositions and assumptions that are blocking us in our
efforts…removed because then, and only then, can we build up a real psychology of mankind” (1924, p. 83). It is likely that the eugenics “combat,” which Watson entered in 1924, was also an important part of the “battle” to which Skinner (1959) referred, one that Watson engaged with “a crusading spirit” that Skinner (1959) seemed to both admire and find excessive.
Watson’s title for this lecture made it clear that his extreme environmentalism and anti-eugenic stance were directly linked: “Are There any Human Instincts: Part I — On the Subject of Talent, Tendencies and the Inheritance of all So-called ‘Mental Traits.’” Importantly, this linkage provides crucial context for the confidence Watson expresses, for example, in his ability to successfully raise “a
healthy, well-formed baby born of a long line of crooks, murderers and thieves, and prostitutes” (1924, p. 82; 1930, p. 103; emphasis in originals). Further, his combat with the eugenicists sheds light on his choice of particular words to convey his extreme environmentalist message. Why did he specify that the ancestries of “crooks, murderers and thieves, and prostitutes” were irrelevant to upbringing? Similarly, in the middle of the “dozen healthy infants” polemic, Watson stated that in his own
“type of world,” he can raise any healthy child “to become any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief…regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors” (1924, p. 82; 1930, p. 104). Again, why did Watson maintain the focus on paupers and criminals — the “beggar-man and thief?” And to whom is he “talking” when he says “and, yes, even beggar-man and thief” (emphasis added)?
Finally, why identify “race of ancestors” as one of several unimportant hereditary characteristics? The eugenics movement in Watson’s time The eugenics movement’s advocacy of the use of science (i.e., genetics) to improve the human gene stock through selective breeding strategies that strengthened superior strains and eliminated inferior genes became increasingly visible and popular in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Latin America in the first third of the 20th century. Its impact spiked
after World War I ended: “public attention to eugenics was renewed after the Armistice with a force that made [it] as much a part of the secular pieties of the nineteen-twenties as the Einstein craze” (Kevles, 1985, p. 59). Universities, including elite ones like Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley, typically offered courses fully or partly devoted to eugenics. British and American eugenics societies, led by a “priesthood” of scientists, organized lectures, held meetings, published journals and
popular books, sponsored eugenics exhibits and eugenic family contests at numerous state fairs, and even conducted a eugenics sermon contest (Kevles, 1985).
It is probably no coincidence that only in the 1924 edition of the book — published in the same year that Congress passed the restrictive Johnson-Lodge Immigration Act — did Watson express his belief that behaviorism can promote social harmony in a world being transformed by industrialization and the movement of peoples across the globe. Watson’s social engineering ideological legacy Watson’s opposition to eugenics and advocacy of humanitarian goals were manifestations of a “non-political empiricism” very similar to that evidenced by Skinner (Rakos,
1992); they were not products of inclusive political or moral values.7 While the psychology establishment8 and Congress were fueling the eugenicist fervor, Watson was exposed to and at least somewhat active with what Mills (1999) described as “a version of scientific Progressivism, expressing itself through the mental health movement” (p. 154), which asserted scientific findings must guide the interventions designed to solve social problems. For example, Burnham
(1924), a leader in the movement, not only advocated that conditioning principles be used to address practical problems (with favorable citation of Watson) but also contended that feeblemindedness and insanity could be remediated by proper early habit training (Mills, 1999). Watson in his 1913 manifesto identified the field of psychopathology as one with great growth potential due to its shift from introspection to experimental methods, and the mental health movement with its Progressive
ideology was consistent with this emphasis on science-as-guide.9 Watson’s involvement with the Progressive mental hygiene movement seems limited to speaking in 1917 at a symposium on “Modern Science and Education” organized by a member of the movement with whom he was acquainted (Buckley, 1989; Mills, 1999). Nevertheless, his work provided important empirical support for the social reformers of the day, who believed that science could solve problems in both education and mental
health. And it was natural for Watson to extend behavioral theory to psychopathology in an effort to apply empirical principles to enhance the social good: in 1916, he described a conditioned reflex conceptualization of psychopathology in “Behavior and the Concept of Mental Disease,” which Rilling (2000) called “a founding document” of behavior modification. The influence of the mental hygiene movement can be seen as well in Watson’s 1919 book, which concludes with an extensive application of
behaviorism to psychopathology in the final chapter called “Personality and its Disturbance.”
Watson’s Progressive ideology, transmitted to and through Skinner, “pervaded the therapeutic and educational programs of the behaviorists of the 1960s” (Mills, 1999, p. 153). And on occasion, this ideology was generalized to the social and cultural movements of the time, as when Wyckoff applied his expertise in programmed instruction and teaching machines to develop a voter registration campaign in Mississippi in 1963 based in immediate positive
reinforcement (Escobar & Lattal, 2011). The manifesto’s social action heritage Watson’s 1913 manifesto included the foundation for the field’s social action legacy: psychology as a natural science strives to predict and control behavior, and must use its knowledge of behavior control to solve human problems. Morawski (1982) pointed out that the control of individual behavior that was the focus of Watson’s 1913 manifesto had been expanded by 1917 to suggest that psychology had a broader social utility: In addition to developing principles that
predict how persons will adjust to life situations, “it is equally a part of the function of psychology to establish laws or principles for the control of human action so that it can aid organized society in its endeavors to prevent failures in such (life) adjustments” (Watson, 1917, p. 329, emphasis in original). Watson’s focus on the systematic use of scientifically-derived principles to prevent maladaptive behavior emerged as he began to question the role of instinct: “Just what are the
patterns of his instinctive acts, that is, does the human being, apart from training, do any complex acts instinctively as do the lower animals? If so, what is man’s full equipment of instincts?” (Watson, 1917, p. 336-7). By 1924, Watson argued that behavior is a function of environmental variables, the environment is the crucial variable that makes people different, including those called good and those called bad, and that behaviorism is the best way to engineer the environmental change needed
to remedy a social problem. References
Richard F. Rakos, Cleveland State UniversityThe author can be contacted via email atFootnotes
Which of the following best support the contention that the First World War was the first total war?Which of the following best supports the contention that the First World War was the first total war? Governments mobilized large segments of their populations and economies and targeted their opponents' military and economic capabilities.
Which of the following most directly led to the start if the first world war?The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (June 28, 1914) was the main catalyst for the start of the Great War (World War I).
Which of the following accurately explains the historical significance of the harsh conditions?Which of the following accurately explains the historical significance of the harsh conditions imposed on Germany that the editorial describes? They encouraged the rise of political extremism in Germany.
|