A Postcolonial Feminist Critique of Harem Analogies in Psychological Science

Abstract

Since the 1930s, psychologists have used the termharemas an analogy for social relations among animals. In doing so they draw upon gendered and racial stereotypes located in the history of colonialism. We present an experimental study on theharem analogyas a means of confronting and challenging colonial undercurrents in psychological science. We investigated whether the use of this colonialist image in studies of animal societies could subtly affect thinking about Middle Eastern Muslim people. Two-hundred and forty-nine participants read about animal societies; in the experimental condition these were described as “harems” and accompanied by the analogy of harems in Middle Eastern Muslim societies. In the two control conditions, animal societies were either described as “groups” or “harems”, with no mention of the analogy. In the experimental condition, participants falsely remembered descriptions of Muslim people of the Middle East as applying to animals. This finding replicates the “resistance is futile” effect (Blanchette & Dunbar, 2002; Perrott, Gentner, & Bodenhausen, 2005) by which false remembering of analogical statements as previously seen literal descriptions is taken as suggestive of analogical mapping between two disparate concepts. As such, the study contributes to debate between feminist and evolutionary psychology about the value-neutrality of psychology, and to postcolonial critique of the partiality of mainstream psychological accounts of the universality of nature and society.

Which Partners Are More Human? Monogamy Matters More than Sexual Orientation for Dehumanization in Three European Countries

“…In contrast to Leyens and colleagues' theory (2001), and to our own prediction, CNM partners were also associated with more primary emotions than monogamous partners (for overattribution of primary emotions to the outgroup, see also Marcu & Chryssochoou, 2005;Rohmann, Niedenthal, Brauer, Castano, & Leyens, 2009;Viki & Calitri, 2008). This may reflect the fact that CNM partners are not merely perceived as less human, but are also "animalized", in that they are strongly related to their animalistic nature, expressed by primary emotions (see also Bharj & Hegarty, 2015). Denying humanness and ascribing animalistic characteristics can be two non-mutually exclusive processes, especially in a context where sexual behavior is involved.…”

How WEIRD and Androcentric Is Sex Research? Global Inequities in Study Populations

“…That said, Western definitions of sexual agency (Ussher et al, 2017) and culturally insensitive conceptualizations of sexual dysfunctions (Bhavsar & Bhugra, 2013) neglect the experiences of non-WEIRD people, and especially women. As part of the efforts to decolonize science, publishing research based on non-WEIRD samples is therefore crucial to create knowledge that is more representative of humanity as a whole (Bharj & Hegarty, 2015;Bhatia, 2018;Magnusson & Marecek, 2010;Rutherford, 2018).…”

“…We want to emphasize, however, the missed chance to better understand human sexual and gender issues by neglecting such a huge percentage of the world's population. We, along with other feminist and critical scholars (Bharj & Hegarty, 2015;Magnusson & Marecek, 2010;Rutherford, 2018) and cultural theorists (Bhatia, 2018;Kurtiş & Adams, 2015;Mahalingam, 2007), view the importance of publishing research based on non-WEIRD samples as part of the efforts to decolonize science. The efforts to decolonize sex research would entail reimagining the way we conduct and communicate about research.…”

A Taxonomy of Data Synthesis: A Tutorial

“…Some of these issues, like different baseline years and age, could be addressed using techniques like age period cohort analysis (e.g., Holford, 2016;Yang & Land, 2013). Others, like understanding cognitive function across Western and Non-Western, more and less developed countries, and more may require A TAXONOMY OF DATA SYNTHESIS rethinking traditional approaches to understanding cognitive function that are far beyond the scope of the present study (e.g., decolonial perspectives; Adams et al, 2015;Bharj & Hegarty, 2015;Phillips et al, 2015).…”