Let us at this point examine further the criticism that developmental psy- chology has tended to neglect historical influences. As mentioned above, Bronfenbrenner observed that culture is more stable than the inner ecosys- tems, but nevertheless, it does change, and this change was central to Riegel's theory of development. According to Ho et al. (2001), researchers often overlook this, treating culture as if it is 'frozen in time' - a back- ground variable to be controlled. They use changes in the People's Republic of China since the mid-twentieth century to illustrate how trad- itional parenting practices are being challenged by various historical forces.
In the case of China, these include increased openness to western ideas, official ideology and the one-child policy. Their research indicates that
Chinese parents are increasingly turning to western-influenced psychology for guidance on raising their children, resulting in a move towards more child-centred, individualistic ideals, with the pressure on children to achieve academically causing much distress. In contrast with the typical western finding that poverty places children at greater risk for poor devel- opmental outcomes, more behavioural problems in China are found among the children of the rich. Finding such a difference within 'the world's largest geopolitical community' makes it much more difficult for western commentators to dismiss such results as anomalies to be found occasionally in small, exotic communities (Goodnow, 2001).
If we accept the need to consider the role of culture in developmental psychology theorizing and practice, and that culture is not frozen in time, then there is clearly an important place for a historical perspective for cre- ating a deeper understanding of the field itself. As Valentine (1998) has observed, although 'psychology par excellence does not occur in a social or political vacuum', history and philosophy are often marginalized, for rea- sons such as a positivist inheritance and an emphasis on short-term gain (1998: 167). It is certainly the case that child development textbooks, including this one, generally give a brief description of various views of childhood that have existed in previous historical times. This in itself demonstrates that views of childhood are changeable and relative, and yet the implication generally seems to be that, now that we have reached the era of scientific understanding, we are finally on the right track and nearer to the truth. What we generally fail to stop and consider are issues such as why those particular figures became influential, or why certain theories have gained prominence over others (after all, history is written by the winners). We have already seen, in Chapter 2, that close analysis indicates that Darwin may not be as strongly deserving of acclaim as a founder of developmental psychology as is often claimed. Here, we will consider a further example of how historical and cultural factors conspired to influence theorizing about a specific area of child psychology: emotional development.
Magai and McFadden (1995) have observed how the long-held view in western culture that the emotions are inferior to the intellect, and need to be tamed, is reflected in the history of the study of emotional development.
For example, John Watson, who performed the famous experiment on con- ditioned fear with Little Albert in 1920, gave advice to parents on child- rearing that advocated the avoidance of 'mawkish sentimentality' (see Chapter 6). It has been suggested that Watson's stance was influenced not only by prevailing western approaches to emotion, but by his own upbring- ing, which combined religious fundamentalism with an alcoholic father prone to violent outbursts. The topic of emotional development became increasingly neglected during much of the twentieth century. This was reflected in its gradually being squeezed out of child development
textbooks over the years, and in the difficulty reported by researchers on emotion, such as Carroll Izard, in gaining funding and becoming published in the area (he reported receiving dismissive reviews of papers he submit- ted to scientific journals, and having to maintain his academic reputation by undertaking research on cognition).
As well as demonstrating how the western belief in the superiority of cognition over emotion influenced the course of child development research, Magai and McFadden have provided an enlightening analysis of how historical factors influenced twentieth-century theorizing about the development of infant emotions. Watson's proposal that infants express three basic emotions (fear, rage and love) was disputed in the 1930s by Kathryn Bridges, who maintained that the emotions of young infants are initially undifferentiated, and only become differentiated gradually through a process of conditioning. Her work was later criticized for its lack of descriptive detail of infant behaviour and her use of institutionalized infants, who are unusually lacking in emotional expression, as we saw in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, her theory of emotional development was accept- ed for many years and completely overshadowed research undertaken by another woman, Charlotte Biihler, whose work demonstrated the existence of discrete emotions in infants. Her research included painstaking, detailed observational work and experiments, including one that was, in effect, the first demonstration of object permanence in infants. Yet how many psychology students today have heard of Biihler? The first demonstration of object permanence is firmly ascribed to Piaget, whose work, in terms of experimental rigour, was arguably outstripped by Buhler's.
The influence of these three individuals on child development theory appears to have resulted from historical factors, with Biihler working in the German language and remaining untranslated into English, while Piaget's work was translated from French into English from the 1930s onwards.
With English-language publications being the most influential in develop- mental psychology, Piaget became known as a 'giant' of developmental psychology, Bridges' notion of undifferentiated emotions held sway for many years, and Buhler's work has remained little acknowledged, even in modern German-language accounts of the history of emotional develop- ment, which have drawn upon English-language accounts.
An exercise such as Magai and McFadden's is a historical and not a scientific one, but can it be denied that it throws valuable light upon theorizing in developmental psychology? It shows us how certain theories and theorists gain credence and others disappear because of cultural factors such as prevailing views about which topics are worthy of publica- tion, what languages are influential and, as we shall see in the next chapter, the gender of the researcher. To use Bronfenbrenner's language, there may be much value in paying closer attention to the chronosystem as it applies to the development of our discipline.