Laura C. Ball

Responsible Opposition, Disruptive Voices: Science, Social Change, and the History of Feminist Psychology.

Feminist psychology began as an avowedly political project with an explicit social change agenda. However, over the last two decades, a number of critics have argued that feminist psychology has become mired in an epistemological impasse where positivist commitments effectively mute its political project, rendering the field acceptable to mainstream psychology yet shorn of its transformative vision. In this article, we explore the complexity of allying positivism with a transformative project using two illustrative examples from feminist psychologys history. Both Naomi Weisstein, whose work was catalytic in the creation of feminist psychology in the 1970s, and Ethel Tobach, who has consistently fought against sexism, racism, and other forms of injustice as both scientist and citizen, have remained committed to the scientific ideal without losing sight of their political projects. An examination of their efforts reveals the vital necessity, but ultimate insufficiency, of this position for creating large scale social change as well as a need for constant vigilance to the politics of knowledge in which science—and feminism—are embedded.

Beyond Gender Differences Using Tests of Equivalence to Evaluate Gender Similarities

Proponents of what has been termed the Gender Similarities Hypothesis (GSH) have typically relied on meta-analyses as well as the generation of nonsignificant tests of mean differences to support their argument that the genders are more similar than they are different. In the present article, we argue that alternative statistical methodologies, such as tests of equivalence, can provide more accurate (yet equally rigorous) tests of these hypotheses and therefore might serve to complement, challenge, and/or extend findings from meta-analyses. To demonstrate and test the usefulness of such procedures, we examined Scholastic Aptitude Test–Math (SAT-M) data to determine the degree of similarity between genders in the historically gender-stereotyped field of mathematics. Consistent with previous findings, our results suggest that men and women performed similarly on the SAT-M for every year that we examined (1996–2009). Importantly, our statistical approach provides a greater opportunity to open a dialogue on theoretical issues surrounding what does and what should constitute a meaningful difference in intelligence and achievement. As we note in the discussion, it remains important to consider whether even very small but consistent gender differences in mean test performance could reflect stereotype threat in the testing environment and/or gender biases in the test itself that would be important to address.

Twin research, revisionism and metahistory

We understand metahistory as an approach that studies how histories within a particular discipline have been written and focus on insider scientists’ reconstructions of twin research. Using the concept of ethical-political affordances we suggest that such histories are based on a management of resources that prove to be beneficial for representing one’s own research traditions in a positive light. Instead of discussing information on the context and intellectual life of pioneers of the twin method, which include high-caliber eugenicists and Nazi ideologues, and on how the twin method has been used and abused, insider scientists’ accounts present twin research as neutral, objective and void of any kind of political connotations. We show how important leaders of German twin research have been historically managed, and how their contributions have been distorted and omitted. Reasons for historical revisionism by omission and for selectively revised accounts of the past are discussed. Suggestions for writing accounts of the twin method are included and focus on the necessity of self-reflection, considerations regarding one’s own ethical-political inclinations, and review of the existing historical literature. In analyzing these connections, we attempt to understand how science, politics and history interact.

Using Psychology's Feminist Voices in the Classroom.

Just a few short decades ago, an area explicitly called feminist psychology did not exist (Stewart & Dottolo, 2006). Psychology of women courses and the materials needed to teach them did not appear until the early 1970s, and as Unger (2010) has shown, some of these earliest materials were not particularly feminist. Although today’s students may not realize it, even the increased presence of women in the discipline is a fairly recent phenomenon. In 1960, only 17.5% of all doctoral degrees in psychology in the United States were awarded to women. By the year 2004, the proportion of women receiving doctorates in the field had risen to 67.4% (Women’s Programs Office, American Psychological Association, 2006). Female students are now the majority in most psychology classrooms in North America. However, despite this shift, in the increasingly antifeminist, neoliberal environment that surrounds us, the future of courses and programs on women and gender, especially feminist ones, is at risk. Given this context, it seems especially important to educate students about the short history, but long past, of women and feminism in psychology. Even though feminist psychology did not coalesce until the 1970s, women (many of whom identified as feminists) have long been active and important contributors to psychology. Their voices and stories went largely undocumented until the 1970s when feminist activism brought their contributions to light. Psychology’s Feminist Voices (www.fe ministvoices.com) is a unique multimedia digital archive that we have developed to highlight both the history and the current status of women and feminism in psychology. It is an advocacy tool for feminist psychology as well as an educational resource for instructors who want to include contextualized material about gender and feminism in their courses. Here, we give a brief history of the project and then present the teaching resources we have developed to help bring Psychology’s Feminist Voices into the classroom.

Book Review: The Sage handbook of feminist theoryEvansM.HemmingsC.HenryM.JohnstoneH.MadhokS.PlomienA.WearingS. (Eds.). (2014). The Sage handbook of feminist theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 680 pp.

Led by a team of academics from the Gender Institute at the London School of Economics, The Sage Handbook of Feminist Theory (2014) is an inter-disciplinary collection of essays on feminist theory, critique, and epistemology that explores both theory itself and how theory can be used to understand specific issues. In order to achieve this goal, the editors brought together contributing authors from relevant fields, such as philosophy, political science, economics, sociology, women’s and gender studies, and comparative literature, among others. The book is broken up into five domains, which are intended to cover a cross-section of important topics for feminist theorists. The editors structured the content around two common theoretical perspectives used in the feminist literature—psychoanalysis and Marxist theory. The structure and content of the Handbook reflect these perspectives through its focus on politics, economics, religion, and representation. The first section, ‘‘Epistemology and Marginality,’’ features essays that explore feminist epistemology, the politics of knowledge production and use, the debate over nature versus culture, women’s lived experiences, and the role of religion in feminist theory. The second section, ‘‘Literary, Visual, and Cultural Representation,’’ looks at the role of women in literature, journalism, pornography, and in the production of literature. The third section, ‘‘Sexuality,’’ features chapters on the expression of sex, gender, and sexuality through the lenses of intersectionality, governance, rights, and political economy. The fourth section, ‘‘Economy,’’ builds on the previous section and extends beyond it to explore inequality, power, and privilege through global economics. The final section, ‘‘War, Violence and Militarization,’’ explores feminist approaches to understanding the gendered ways in which war, genocide, and terrorism are carried out. The Handbook is an excellent collection of essays by notable theorists in their respective fields. Each chapter summarizes the relevant literature while also positing new claims. In this way, it not only makes an excellent reference book that can be used for teaching graduate-level courses on feminist epistemology and critique but also is a worthy addition to a more established scholar’s library. That said, there are a few challenges about which readers of this book should be aware. First, although the contributing authors come from many fields across the humanities and social sciences, there is no representation by psychologists in this volume. On its face, this oversight may not be an issue, but it does mean that the structure and content of the book may not necessarily reflect the nuances of feminist theory in our discipline. For example, the chapter by Neimanis, entitled ‘‘Natural others? Nature, Culture and Knowledge,’’ sounds similar to the ageold debate in psychology about nature versus nurture; that is, whether a particular phenomenon is the result of nature (genetics) or nurture (socialization, culture, and norms) or their interaction. However, upon closer inspection, the chapter instead resembles a variation in the debate more commonly seen in other sciences wherein passive, ‘‘fleshy,’’ female nature is there to be discovered, conquered, and subjugated by active, rational, and masculine culture. Potential readers thus should be aware of this kind of deviation from the expected narratives of psychology. The contributing authors to this volume all come from Western, largely English-speaking nations, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, and Sweden. There is only one author, hailing from Argentina, who does not fit this characterization. Given that, potential readers should be aware that the Handbook may not be representative of other international feminist theoretical perspectives. There is a significant ‘‘neglect of the foreign invisible’’ (Burman, 2015) which does not so much ‘‘Other’’ the contributions of feminist scholars from nonWestern nations but rather render them un-seeable and unknowable. That said, despite the issues raised about this Handbook, it still remains an excellent compendium of current, interdisciplinary feminist theory. The editors have put together a volume that engages in high-level theory, extends current thought, and pushes boundaries.

175.00 (paperback). ISBN 9781446252413.

provocative and rich definition of effective leadership in Chapter 8. Like other leadership theorists, Eagly and Carli conclude that the gold standard for the future of leadership combines transformational leadership, which promotes vision, mentoring, and thinking creatively with contingent rewards for successful followers. Their gender analysis goes on to conclude that women, as a group, are somewhat superior to men on these critical dimensions. If the sexist obstacles that compose women’s labyrinth are removed, then this analysis suggests that women will surpass men as leaders. Within status quo thinking, this conclusion just reaffirms what research already documents: that women need to be better than men to succeed. However, feminist thinking reminds us that gender, like leadership, is a process constructed through everyday interactions and is embedded in a social, cultural, and political context that involves privilege, power, and status. It is this realization that asks the pointed question: Who gains from complicating women’s labyrinths? Tackling this question head on can take Eagly and Carli’s truths to a new level that ultimately may transform the way we fairly and effectively think about, enact, and evaluate how women become leaders. Given the infusion of feminist perspectives throughout the book, I must admit that I was perplexed to find a single reference to feminist activism on the very last page that concluded that “feminism does not have the cultural relevance it once had” (p. 199). Alternatively, I would argue that much of core feminist ideology has transformed mainstream attitudes so that many people are practicing feminism without labeling it as such. More to the point though, I think that progressive social change through the leadership labyrinth, even if slow, must move beyond the personal to the collective and the political. In sum, I believe that the way we get from existing truths to true gender equity is necessarily and openly feminist.