批判主义的论文英文文献

英美文学作为世界文学史上重要的组成部分,对于它的学习是必不可少的。下文是我为大家整理的关于英美文学硕士 毕业 论文 范文 的内容，欢迎大家阅读参考! 英美文学硕士毕业论文范文篇1 浅谈英美女性主义文学批评 【摘要】英美派女性主义文学批评是当代西方女性主义文学批评的一个重要学派，它关注文学的社会 文化 语境，强调从女性的视角重新审视传统的文学史，批判男性中心主义的文学标准，并要求研究妇女作品的特殊性、谱写妇女作家的传统。本文着重从女性主义文学批评以及解构男性中心文学的框架与建立女性主义诗学这几个方面进行论述，指出英美派女性主义批评在女权主义运动中富有的实践指导意义。 【关键词】英美文学;女性主义;男性中心文学 女性主义文学批评是20世纪60年代随着女权运动而兴起的西方文艺批评新军。它以女性主义思想为理论基础，以性别和社会性别为基本出发点，以从边缘走向中心为行动纲领，其显著的特点在于具有很强的政治性和个人色彩。之所以把英美文学合在一起，是因为二者不约而同地对女性问题中的社会历史因素给予格外关注。另外，同为英语国家，女性主义批评者致力找寻的文学传统和艺术形象都集中在相仿的经典之中。 一、英美派女性主义文学批评的深层背景和原因 以往所谓的文学传统一律以男性为中心，文学史和文学批评也都被父权主义意识所统治。面对这种情况，女性主义批评家认为，文学批评要具备普遍意义和有效性，无论如何都应该将女性意识包括在内，坚决动摇和解构以男性为中心的文学传统框架，对现存的文化和制度进行总批判，整理提供掀起一场女权主义的文化革命。英美女性主义文学批评首先是从解构男性中心的文学传统框架而开始的。 这主要是通过考察、分析、审视男性文学中那些陈旧的女性形象。在男性本位创造的 神话 故事 中，女性总是以虚幻、美化或扭曲的形象出现的。她们是象牙女郎、安德洛美达、夏娃、潘多拉，是为男人享用而创造出来的尤物，是一种被动、缺乏自主能力的次等客体。在《性别政治》一书中，米勒特对D?H?劳伦斯、亨利?米勒、诺曼?梅勒和让?热奈特等男性作家的思想意识作了尖锐有力的批评和分析，指出这些作家的小说中有很多细节描写都把女性给非人化了。小说中描写的场景和过程全都是从男主人公的角度出发的，女性人物自始至终都处于被控制的地位，男性人物则是绝对的操纵者。 米勒特的分析说明，男作家正是通过这种夸张的描写，把男女之间的性关系表现为正常的政治关系，让女人处于屈从、附属的地位。桑德拉?吉尔伯特和苏珊?格巴在《阁楼上的疯女人》一书中指出，19世纪(乃至今日)占统治地位的父权主义意识形态把艺术创造力当成男性的一种根本优质，由于创造力被界定为男性，其结果必然是，占统治地位的女性文学形象也必然是男人幻想的产物，女作家们被剥夺了创造自我形象的权利，而必须努力遵照父权制强加在她们身上的标准。 吉尔伯特和格巴条分缕述地论证了19世纪的《不朽女性》是怎样被男人想象为虚无飘缈、温柔美丽的天使形象，认为从但丁的贝雅特里齐、歌德的葛雷特和玛甘泪一直到考文垂?帕特莫尔的《屋内天使》，理想的女性始终被视为逆来顺受、俯首帖耳和最富有自我牺牲精神的一种创造物。她们还指出，在天使形象的背后隐藏着妖妇的形象，男人把女性理想化的对应面就是对女性的恐惧。她既给男人带来满足，又会使他产生厌恶。 女性主义者认为，男性中心的文学把性别推向边缘，让妇女成为文化的接受者，批评的功能在于揭露隐藏在作品中的男性沙文主义的真正面目。因此，女性主义者的首要任务是用批判的眼光审视男性创造的女性神话，作一种对抗性阅读，把根植于女性心中的男性意识根除。文学批评一旦揭开了这些形象的政治含义和文本的性歧视，就能帮助读者摆脱意识形态的控制，从而动摇父权制的根基，达到改造世界的目的。 二、建立女性主义诗学女性主义批评家的一些实践 女性主义批评家们试图通过对男作家笔下诸多女性形象的考察、剖析和审视来解构男性中心的文学传统框架，但她们并不只满足于此，她们努力扩大批评的范围，拓展新的批评领域，确立女性主义批评原则，建造一座她们自己的文学宫殿，发掘被男人和社会所忽视的妇女文学传统，将批评的焦点对准女作家及其作品。她们要求拓宽妇女生活题材，创造一种崭新的、富有生命力的、迥然有别于男性文学的妇女文学;她们系统阐述女性主义批评原则以此肯定妇女的文学 经验 和社会经验;建构女性主义诗学，以此对传统的文学作品进行新的评价，重新书写文学史;此外，她们还对男女作家在文学传统方面的差异进行开创性的探索，对女作家的创作经验、想象及其创作手法等方面显示出来的不同倾向进行初步研究，对既存的批评观念和文学的道德性质进行深刻的 反思 和审视。 具体做法就是寻觅女性文学的传统，挖掘被埋没的女作家及作品。美国女性主义批评家丽娜?蓓姆指出，如果从已出版的文学史或文集来看，美国几乎没有一个女性大作家，而主要的小说很容易发现，早在移民时期，女作家就开始活跃了。到了19世纪中叶，在销售和品种方面，女作家已在美国文学史上占了重要位置，连霍桑那样的名作家都免不了担心自己的读者会被女作家吸引过去。然而，这些女作家在文学史上却名不见经传，因为文学史对她们不屑一顾，认为女人不能算是作家，其作品也够不上载入史册的标准。 正是这种以男性为中心的文学批评标准将女性作家长期摒弃于文学史外。因此，女性主义批评家的任务之一便是从女性的视角重新审视整个文学史，发掘被埋没或受冷漠的女作家的作品，纠正男性传统对之的错误理解，寻觅女性文学的传统，重铸文学批评的 方法 。伍尔夫在《一间自己的屋子》中承认一个女性文学的传统存在，但它时时被迫中断，妇女文学的发展呈间歇状态，直到19世纪以后才能较清楚地看到文学创作的具有历史延续性的女性文学传统。 相对于世界文学的发展，这一女性文学的传统无疑是十分短暂的，并且以阿弗拉?贝恩为代表的19世纪初期的妇女创作又被男性的文学批评排斥在文学范围之外，故导致妇女文学传统的难以发现。尽管有着种种困难，但妇女文学传统的存在是无疑的。伍尔夫认为她自己的创作也是沿着这条女性先辈开拓出的道路而进行的，这条道路是许多年以前开辟出来的，动手的有芬尼?伯尔尼、阿弗拉?本、哈利?马提诺、简?奥斯汀、乔治?艾略特。许多著名的女人，以及许多无名的和被忘记的女人，曾在我之前修缮着这条路以使之平坦光滑，并且调整着我的步伐。 所以，当我写作时，我的前面只有极少一些物质障碍。伊莱恩?肖瓦尔特是当代西方女性主义文学批评理论家中最为活跃、影响较大者之一，她倡导建构独立的妇女文学史和女性文学经典。 三、对女性主义批评理论的反思 女性主义文学批评灵活地吸收了西方流行的各种批评方法，容纳了生理学、人类学、现代心理学和美学等领域的知识和理论，呈现出一个多元开放的体系。女性主义批评不为单一的方法所左右，从语言、心理、文化等多角度解构男性中心的意识形态，达到建立女性自身的价值标准与独特文化的目的。 然而，玛丽?朴维在其文《女性主义与解构批评》里声称：“‘女性’仅仅是社会的产物，不具有自然的基础，即‘女性’是一个术语，对这个术语的界定取决于它所被讨论的语境，而不取决于某些性器官或社会经验”，“‘女性’反映不了完整的自我，因为特征是有所联系的，‘女性’仅仅是同‘男性’相对照时获得的临时定义的一个位置。”如果性别角色完全取决于话语，这一话语又时刻处于变化和解构之中，两性的意义缺乏稳定性，那么女权主义批评家和理论家就失去了存在的支点。如果放弃了对社会性别的界定，要求女性正当权益的斗争就失去了理论基石。 她因此呼吁，女性主义不能忽视女性受歧视的社会现实，不应该消解主体，反倒更应该加强对现实的斗争策略的研究。 综上所述，女性主义文学批评是20世纪6O年代末兴起于欧美的新女性主义话语的一部分。它在当代西方文学理论与实践中扮演重要的角色。不仅对父权制文化给予了尖锐的批判;而且还突破了理论话语惯有的表述方式，使历经沧桑的女权思想终于在20世纪下半叶得以理论化，并进入了理论话语的中心，使女性主义文学批评摆脱异端与边缘的地位，转而成为当代理论话语的重要一维，促进了西方理论话语的转型。当然，对这一领域的研究、探讨还需要我们做进一步深入的发掘。 参考文献： [1]英美派女性主义文学批评论莫文斌，罗艳《求索》2005(02). [2]试论20世纪英美女权主义文学批评理论的流变及其影响《北方民族大学学报》2002(02). [3]女性主义文学批评的本土化历程及其问题[J].魏天无外国文学研究，2011(06). 英美文学硕士毕业论文范文篇2 论英语教学中的英美文学 摘要：随着社会的飞速发展，要适应新世纪英美文学教学的发展，满足21世纪外语人才的需要，高校必须改变传统的英美文学教学模式，不断加强英美文学教学改革，构成合理的学科梯队。本文从英美文学在英语教学中的重要作用、英语专业英美文学教学现状和英美文学的 教学方法 三个方面进行了探讨。 关键词：英美文学;英语教学 一、英美文学在英语教学中的重要作用 (一)有效提高学生对所学英语知识的实际应用能力 文学作品是语言的艺术表现形式，是源于生活而又高于生活的文字语言形式。语言文字经过大师们的加工酝酿，便具有了鲜活形象的生命力，成为社会生活中的经典和宝贵的精神文化财富。因为文学作品中饱含生活气息，使人们更加易于接受，所以成为教学的典范和人们争相模仿的对象。在英语教学中适当引入英美文学作品赏析，可以进一步提高学生对英语语言背景的了解和对英语语言艺术的浓厚兴趣。在英语教学过程中充分利用这些经典的英美文学作品，结合其中的优美的语句段落让学生们在具体的语境中去感悟单词和语法的实际应用，能够收到良好的教学效果。 (二)可以提升学生的个人修养和综合素质 在英美文学作品的熏陶下，学生们不仅学到了基本的英语常识，还通过对作品内容的了解进一步开拓了自己的文化视野，了解到在不同文化背景下的文学作品所表现出的不同的社会生活场景，从而使自己的个人修养和文化情操得到进一步提升，对不同文化的欣赏、学习能力进一步增强。通过学习优秀的英美文学作品，在不同程度上了解英美国家的发展历程，感受英美人民的生活现实，可以让学生的 思维方式 和修养水平得到不同程度的提升。 (三)能够培养学生的思辨能力 文学作品是作者优秀思想的结晶。通过阅读作品，我们可以和作者进行跨越时空的精神交流。优秀的文学作品，其内容寄托于文字之中但精神无限延展。在欣赏文学作品的过程中，我们展开丰富的想象能力，对作者表达出的中心思想从不同角度加以揣摩，从而丰富了我们的情感体验、滋润了我们的心灵，是我们的眼界进一步拓宽。在英语教学上，通过阅读英美文学作品，对作品内容进行赏析，可以增强学生的创造性思维能力，提高他们对英语语言的理解能力。 对于同一篇作品，学生们可能会有不同的理解，教师可以引导学生对作品展开讨论，抒发自己的见解，在探讨过程中教师引领学生进入一个潜藏着未知答案的文本空间，由于没有标准答案，学生能够自己理解自认为正确的看法，主动去通过作品对作者进行评判。他们主动对话作者、质疑作者甚至否定作者，在对作品进行深入细致的分析、探讨中，逐步养成敏锐的感知能力，掌握严谨的分析方法，形成准确的表达方式。在英语教学中引入英美文学作品赏析的真正意义也正在这里。 二、英语专业英美文学教学现状 在我国的英语专业教学中，英美文学教学还保持着传统的泛读化教学方式。文本资料以教材上的为主要对象，在英语课堂上教师重点讲解教材，把重点在黑板上罗列出来，学生阅读仍然是次要的。英语教师往往背负着较重的教学目标，对教材的讲解也只是一遍而过，而教材对于英美文学的选取也受篇幅所限往往节选某一段落，对于英美文学的分类和评价往往比较混乱。 在英美文学课程中，由于教材教学内容信息量大，历史年限跨度长，文学流派和创作风格不一，英语文学作品的完整性和作品中心思想无法得到全面展现。这使得学生们的阅读效果大打折扣，教师在讲解过程中也无法全面展现作品中蕴涵的宝贵精神财富，只能针对几个关键的词汇和语言点重点讲解。 所以，现实中英美文学与课往往就是教师在讲台上漫无目的讲，学生在下面机械地听，麻木地记词汇。随着民间国际交往的不断扩大，英语专业教学中通过英美文学阅读引导学生提高 英语学习 效果，提升英美文学作品的阅读欣赏能力已经成为当下学术界的共识。 目前的英美文学教学模式还存在很大的问题。首先体现在教师的授课方式上，在课堂上，教师对于教材中的英美文学理论部分的讲述过于冗长，使学生们对学习毫无兴趣可言。学生们对这一部分的课堂内容只是被动地接受，自己不会动脑去思考有关作品的问题。教材选取的作品与文史理论也不利于课堂教学有效进行。其次，英美文学课由于教材篇幅有限，无法完整摘录某一文学作品，只能有选择地节选作品中的关键段落，而对作品的完整性造成破坏，作品的发生背景、人物介绍也变得残缺不全，学生初次接触作品很难深入阅读下去，教学效果可见一斑。 三、英美文学的科学教学方法 (一)循序渐进 英美文学课是需要一定的英语基础的，因此在课程安排上要遵循循序渐进的教学规律，贯穿于整个英语教学过程的始终。在具体的授课方式上，要考虑到学生们对英语的掌握情况，结合学生的词汇量和阅读水平逐步提高讲课层次。例如，在学生刚入学可以选择一些简单的英语读本培养他们的 英语阅读 习惯，等他们有了良好的阅读习惯，阅读水准达到一定的水平后，再给他们安排英语作品的原著阅读赏析。只有阅读英美文学原著作品，才可以看做是真正意义上的英美文学 教育 。学生有了一定的原著阅读经验，可以在课堂上适量增加阅读量，逐步提升学生们的英语阅读水平。 (二)通读原著 开设英美文学阅读课的目的是全面掌握英美文学作品的中心思想和作者的写作特色。只有将英语原著通读下来，才能充分体会到作品的语言特色、思想脉络和其中蕴含的深刻道理。目前我国英美文学教材只是节选作品的某一章节，断章取义，不利于学生整体理解作品。因此教师要创造条件，使学生尽量通读原著全文，全面体会作品思想内核，有条件的也可以横向扩展，多读一些相关作品，从更广阔的角度试着去理解作品，一定能收到意料之外阅读效果。因此，教师要向学生强调通读整本书的重要性，并布置写 读后感 ，督促学生完成任务。 (三)向学生推荐作品 英语教师在教授英美文学课时，除了教材上节选的内容外，还要积极拓展学生们的知识面，向他们推荐一些通俗易懂、可读性强的英美文学作品。例如英语典籍《圣经》、英国史诗文学《贝奥武夫》、经典小说《鲁滨逊漂流记》等等，都是一些优秀的英语文学作品，读来让人兴趣盎然，学生们课余饭后可以认真的深入进去进行精读。 (四)要求学生写读后感 英美文学作品阅读不能仅仅当做消遣，教师要要求学生每读完一篇作品都要写出心得。只有这样学生们在阅读过程中才会加强体验，在写读后感时重温对作品的个人理解，从而加深了最作品的认识。教师可以从学生的读后感中看出学生对作品的掌握是否充分?认识角度是否恰当?指出他们的不足，引导学生重读作品相关章节，纠正错误认识，进一步提高学生的英语阅读分析能力。此外，英美文学课程的考核可以采取写论文的方式，来促进学生通读作品，加深认识。 (五)让学生积极参与课程设计 课堂教学中教师可以反串角色，让学生主导课堂教学，扮演老师的角色在讲台上为大家讲解分析教材。这样可以活跃课堂气氛，调动学生们的学习积极性，使学生参与到课程设计中来，在学习中变被动为主动，加强对学习过程的记忆。从而避免了其被动接受知识养成的惰性。这样做一方面强化了课堂教学的学习氛围，另一方面使学生主动去对作品内容进行学习、记忆，对作品的印象进一步加深，促使他们在课外通过各种途径去对作品本身或作者相关资料进行搜集、检索，将之作为教科书的有益补充，学生们的自主学习能力得到有效提升。 四、结语 随着教育改革的不断深入，英语教学模式和教学理念面临着全新的挑战，在英美文学课程的教学上，只有转变教育理念，创新教学模式，改革教学内容，改进教学方法，在教育实践中探索有效的英美文学教学方法，合理的利用现代化的教学手段，以一颗火热赤诚的心投入到教育事业中，才能真正地帮助学生提高英语学习能力，满足新时期对外语人才的需要。 参考文献： [1]胡恒.基于网络环境的英语文学课程教学设计[J].英语广场(学术研究)，2012，(5). [2]董梅.英语教学中导入经典文学阅读的创新型教学研究[J].前沿，2012，(10). [3]张春开.浅谈英美文学在高中英语教学中的渗透[J].英语教师，2012，(4). [4]章洁帆.论文学性在综合英语课堂上的体现[J].宁波教育学院学报，2012，(2).

《David ·section wave 》BE 19 century England criticize realism master more of a representative the novel which has a strong autobiography color, more the use "the history and experience of little David's oneself", never little aspect review and tallied up own living road, reflected his life philosophy and morals article passes host the joys and sorrows of male David's whole life, announcing to public multi-layerly at that time a social true feature, outstanding earth's surface now money's corrosion to the marriage, family and the society of the formations of a series tragedy are what money causeses in the virtuous the mother who cheat to marry David is a her property;Loving the's eloping is through can not stand peculiarly come-on;The gram is a pain and sufferings, the despair of the sea isn't the bad result that the money results in mean mean person's hopings also in the money to lure a next move to tread the degenerative, coming to a shameful end of imprisonment for life the is setting out from the thought of humanitarianism, exposing the crime of money, uncovering the beautiful purdah of"Victoria peaceful times" thus, presenting to conceal afterward social true in the person up, David ·section wave the poured into the author's all strenuous efforts his orphan in spite of, ages suffer of various whet difficult and sad, be still he struggles unyieldingly after becoming adult, all expressing a small pota to look for the painful process of exit in the capitalism greatly bitter and big and difficult taste David of[with] the human life happiness and the warmth behind, what to depend is he sincerity, keep a rate of character, actively heading up of spirit, and to the heart of the person's clean and pure friendly is also the ideal female whom the author puts forth effort to current and outside beautiful looks, and then have endocentric virtue, since the fortitude and resilience doesn't pull out ground to protect to is subjected to the old father that the rare bullies, and then supports David of bitterness of suffering the end and David combine, is "thought and aim of consistent", this kind of perfect marriage makes the novelistic coda ocean overflow one parties happiness and hope of of them are more a the ideal incarnation of the propertied class humanitarianism and of this kind of thought more the is personal of career's ising friendly and bad is an always thinks being placed in is subjected to the common run of people of oppressing the position, its teachings the virtuous thoughts and feelings is by long odds in those ruler, exactly according to this kind of conviction, in the novel many common run of peoples if the fisherman opens up a fruit to lift, sea , though house poverty if wash, have never been subjected to an education, have one truly plain, docile of heart, with full of of the suggest blessing and it make for become fresh and clear contrast.

不知道行不行，我对心理学实在一窍不通！楼主也可以自己找一下：＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝Behaviourism: The Early Years[1]Robert H. Wozniak[2]Bryn Mawr CollegeIn 1913, in one of the most famous lectures[3] in the history of psychology, John Broadus Watson (1878-1958)[4], a 35-year-old "animal behavior man" from Johns Hopkins University, called for a radical revisioning of the scope and method of psychological research.:"Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior. Introspection forms no essential part of its methods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent upon the readiness with which they lend themselves to interpretation in terms of consciousness. The behaviorist, in his efforts to get a unitary scheme of animal response, recognizes no dividing line between man and brute. The behavior of man, with all of its refinement and complexity, forms only a part of the behaviorist's total scheme of investigation."[5]Introspection was to be abandoned in favor of the study of behavior. Behavior was to be evaluated in its own right, independent of its relationship to any consciousness that might exist. The concept of "consciousness" was to be rejected as an interpretive standard and eschewed as an explanatory device. As an objective, natural science, psychology was to make no sharp distinction between human and animal behavior; and its goal was to develop principles by which behavior could be predicted and in the Psychological Review shortly after its delivery and incorporated within the first chapter of Watson's 1914 Behavior: A Textbook of Comparative Psychology[6], this lecture eventually came to be known as the "behaviorist manifesto." Generations of psychologists, reared in a post-Watsonian discipline that defined itself as the "science of behavior," were taught that Watson was the father of behaviorism and that February 24, 1913 was the day on which modern behaviorism was born.[7]There is, of course, some truth to this. On that fateful day in 1913, Watson did reject the mainstream view, and he did do so in uncompromising terms. An indefatigable and effective self-publicist fond of referring to himself in the third person as "the behaviorist," Watson then embarked on a personal campaign to change the face of psychological science. Using his public position as a professor of psychology at Hopkins, editor of several of the field's most influential journals[8],and contributor to the popular press, he labored ceaselessly on behalf of his behavioristic vision[9]. Even when his career as an academic psychologist was abruptly and involuntarily cut short in 1920[10], Watson continued to press his case. By the time he left the field for good in the early 1930s, behaviorism had succeeded in taking center stage within American psychology. Like many origin myths, however, the story of Watson's founding of behaviorism is oversimplified and misleading. Watson was by no means the first to criticize psychology's use of the concept of "consciousness" or the method of introspection; his was not even the first attempt to rid psychology of "consciousness" altogether or to argue the case against all use of introspection[11]. Watson was not the first to use objective, experimental methods in the study of behavior[12], or to propose a unitary scheme for the investigation of animal and human response.[13] Indeed, even prediction and control of behavior had been articulated as worthy goals of psychological science prior to Watson's manifesto of 1913.[14] What happened in 1913, then, was not novel; it was not a sharp break with the past. Nor did it create an immediate revolution. As Samelson has described it:[15] "Supported by the Zeitgeist, Behaviorism supposedly spread quickly through psychology after the publication of Watson's manifesto in 1913. But an extensive search of published and unpublished source material from 1913 to 1920 shows only limited support and a good deal of resistance; documentary evidence for the conversion of psychologists to radical behaviorism during these years is hard to find. Though faced with some troubling problems, the discipline was not eager to renounce its established scientific authority and expertise on the mind."[16]Yet behaviorism did eventually spread throughout American psychology. During the 1920s, across the work of a growing number of psychologists, there emerged a reasonably coherent set of intellectual commitments to which the name "behaviorism" gradually became attached. Based on the rejection of mentalism in psychological theory, a dedication to the use of objective methodology in research, and a strong concern with practical application of psychological knowledge to the prediction and control of behavior, "behaviorism" in the 1920s owed an obvious debt to the same time, however, behaviorism grew during this period in part by diverging from and transcending Watson. Influenced by broader conceptions of objectivism and of psychological process developing at Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, Missouri, Ohio State, Minnesota, North Carolina, and even Hopkins, behaviorism had become, by the end of the 1920s, a more thoroughly elaborated, theoretically more varied and sophisticated approach than anything to be found in Watson's own writings.[17] It was this richer version of behaviorism, rather than Watsonianism per se, that succeeded in transforming American psychology; and it did so not by converting the old guard but by capturing the enthusiasm of the young. As succeeding generations of psychologists entered the discipline, objectivism gradually became the norm; and by the mid-1930s, American psychology had become the science of behavior, and behaviorism, methodological and/or theoretical, had become its dominant behaviorism, then, was a complex affair. On the one hand, much of the program for which its stood was not exclusively its own. This was noted as early as 1924 by no less a figure than Robert Sessions Woodworth (1869-1962).[18] Identifying a small set of intellectual commitments presumed by some to define behaviorism-objectivism, reliance on an animal behavior research program, neuromechanical reductionism, an emphasis on social process-Woodworth correctly pointed out that such commitments were common to psychologists of varying persuasions. Indeed, many who referred to themselves as functionalists, pragmatists, and objectivists would have and did find much in the behaviorist program with which they could still agree. On the other hand, even among those who identified themselves as "behaviorists," agreement on the program was by no means unanimous. Early behaviorism took a variety of forms[19]. There was, of course, the radical behaviorism of Watson, a view notable for its extreme anti-mentalism, its radical reduction of thinking to implicit response, and, especially after 1916, its heavy and somewhat simplistic theoretical reliance on conditioned reactions.[20] There was the relational behaviorism of the Harvard group, developed by Edwin Bissell Holt (1873-1946)[21] under the influence of William James (1842-1910) and transmitted, at least in part, to students such as Floyd Henry Allport (1890-1978) [22], and Edward Chace Tolman (1886-1959)[23]. Conceiving of behavior as "a course of action which the living body executes or is prepared to execute with regard to some object or fact of its environment,"[24] Holt's behaviorism was molar, purposive and focused on the relationship between high-level behavioral mechanisms in the organism and the concrete realities of the social and physical environment. Closely related to this view was a kind of philosophical behaviorism, espoused primarily by philosophers and tied to pragmatism, in which "consciousness" was defined as a form of behavior guided by future results.[25]At Ohio State, under the influence of his mentor, Max Frederick Meyer (1873-1967), Albert Paul Weiss (1879-1931) was developing a bio-social behaviorism based on a radical distinction between the level of theoretical discourse appropriate to behavior analyzed as social cause (., "biosocially") and that appropriate to behavior analyzed as sensorimotor effect (., "biophysically").[26] In Baltimore, Knight Dunlap (1875-1949)[27], who had been both a Harvard graduate student with Holt and Watson's former departmental colleague at Johns Hopkins, was articulating a reaction psychology that blended attacks on introspection, instinct, and images, with an "insistence on response or reaction as the basis of mental processes, including thought processes [and consciousness]."[28] At Minnesota, Karl Spencer Lashley (1890-1958) was arguing a physiological behaviorism in which the physiological analysis of behavior could be considered "a complete and adequate account of all the phenomena of consciousness."[29] At the University of Chicago, George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), who had been on the faculty since Watson was a graduate student, was elaborating a social behaviorism of mind, meaning, self, language, and thinking that emphasized the social character of behavior and the behavioral character of mind[30]. Finally, in a number of institutions, a sort of eclectic behaviorism was emerging-a behaviorism that assimilated whatever seemed strongest and most reliable in the views of others. This was the sort of behaviorism to be found in a text such as Dashiell's Fundamentals of Objective Psychology.[31]Early Behaviorism as an Orientation to PsychologyAs it existed during this period, behaviorism clearly resisted simple definition. Early behaviorism was not simple. It was complex, varied, and changing. Yet there was a common core within this variability-a definite movement away from certain ideas and practices and toward others. If early behaviorism could not be simply defined, it could nonetheless be broadly characterized in terms of a constellation of features including intellectual commitments concerning the nature of psychology as science and the fundamental nature of behavior and a set of theoretical and research emphases that followed directly from such commitments. It is this constellation of commitments and emphases, taken together, that gave early behaviorism its distinctive orientation. As context for the foundational monographs and papers reprinted in this series, the remainder of this introduction will be devoted to an analysis of this 1 Commitments-The Nature of Psychology as as a natural science. More than anything else, early behaviorism was committed to the assumption that physical processes and only physical processes play a causal role in the determination of psychological phenomena. The procedures of scientific psychology are the procedures of any science. As Dashiell put it: "A scientific study of man assumes that he is a complex physical object moving in a world of physical energies and relationships. Anything of psychological interest about man is to be treated as a physical phenomenon...as a natural occurrence in which material bodies effect energy changes...the events with which we are concerned are continuous with, and similar to, all other events in the world of nature." [32]Whether or not "consciousness" had any role to play in psychology as a natural science depended, for a given theorist, on how consciousness was construed. If consciousness was either reconceptualized in terms of physical processes or construed as an epiphenomenal (albeit psychical) byproduct of physical process, it was typically included within psychology as a datum although never as an explanation. While behaviorists in this period were of several minds on how to treat consciousness, they were absolutely united in rejecting any notion of non-material, psychical determinism of the sort implied in the traditional concept of "consciousness." Weiss was especially forceful in making this point. Behaviorism, he asserted, is "a protest against all attempts to explain human achievement by the introduction of an element which is beyond the range of physical measurement. [...] On this basis human behavior, human conduct, human achievement, human personality, are regarded as belonging to the same phenomenological categories as those which now form the subject of physics, chemistry, biology, in their strictly mechanical interpretations..." [33]As a natural science, psychology takes the study of behavior as its fundamental task. Whatever else psychology might be, for early behaviorism it was fundamentally the science of behavior, where behavior was defined in terms of the organism's organized response to stimulation. Depending on the theorist and the reaction system in question, response might be overt or covert, implicit or explicit, clear and well-defined or vague and obscure, molecular or molar, simple or complex. Response might consist of an actual act or simply of the adoption of an attitude, tendency, or set; it might be controlled by the proximal stimulus or directed toward objects in the environment. But however otherwise conceived, for the behaviorist, response involved the operation of effector systems-muscles and glands. Behavior, as Dashiell indicated, had to do with "how, when, and why a man does this or that, acts thus and so, desires, seeks, accepts, rejects-in a word, moves."[34]As a natural science, psychology is committed to methodological objectivism. As scientists, behaviorists focused on objective, behavioral methods. Although they were by no means the first to emphasize objective methodology in the study of psychological function,[35] objective methods were the cornerstone on which they hoped to build their scientific edifice. In this spirit, Watson devoted an entire chapter in Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist to "objective methods as employed in human psychology"[36] and Dashiell informed his students that: "The methods of psychological investigation differ no whit in their essential character from the various methods employed in other natural sciences."[37]As a natural science, psychology is committed to increasing scientific understanding of behavior for the purpose of prediction and control. For early behaviorism, the science of behavior was to lay the groundwork for a behavior technology. Just as behaviorists were not the first objectivists, neither were they the first psychologists to emphasize the application of psychological insight in practical human affairs. From the outset, however, behaviorism defined the goal of scientific psychology in terms (prediction and control) that led naturally to questions concerning the relevance of behavior mechanisms (., habit formation) to everyday life.[38] As Watson described it in 1919, "...the goal of psychological study is the ascertaining of such data and laws that, given the stimulus, psychology can predict what the responses will be; or, on the other hand, given the response, it can specify the nature of the effective stimulus."[39] The early behaviorists were convinced that with such information in hand, "the twentieth century...[would] become remarkable for the development of psycho-technology."[40]Level 2 Commitments-The Fundamental Nature of Behavior as Subject Matter for Scientific PsychologyAdjustment and maladjustment. In the 1920s, behaviorists were united in the assumption that behavior results when the organism's relationship to the environment must be changed if it is to survive and prosper. Behaviorism referred to such states as "maladjustments" and conceived of the occurrence of maladjustment as the "sine qua non" for behavior.[41] Maladjustment is a natural byproduct of change in the organism (., an increase in drive level) or in the environment (., a rise in ambient air temperature); and behavior, which is a process of adjustment, consists of responses on the part of the organism that tend to restore balance in its relationship to the continuity. For early behaviorism, animal and human behavior exist in an "unbroken continuity,"[42] Animals and humans share both mechanisms and fundamental forms of overt adjustment to the environment. This view, which originated with Watson's desire to place the study of animal behavior high on the psychological research agenda,[43] was reinforced by psychology's early success in extending trial-and-error and conditioning analyses from animals to humans. As Dashiell summarized the continuity commitment: "The genus and species Homo sapiens is moved by the same forces without and within as are the lower animal forms, and expresses them in the same general types of actions and action-tendencies. The differences are differences in degree..."[44]The Determination of Behavior. Behavior, from a behaviorist point of view, is a joint function of stimulating conditions in the environment and characteristics (drive states, hereditary reflexes, acquired systems of habit, emotions, mechanisms of implicit stimulation) within the organism. In its earliest formulations, this commitment, from which behaviorism later became known as "stimulus-response" or "S-R" psychology, was somewhat too simply phrased. Thus, for example, in 1919, Watson said only that: "In each adjustment there is always both a response or-act and a stimulus or situation which call [sic] out that response....the stimulus is always provided by the environment, external to the body, or by the movements of man's own muscles and the secretions of his glands...[and] responses always follow relatively immediately upon the presentation or incidence of the stimulus."[45]Throughout the 1920's, however, as the importance of drive states, the complexity of habit systems, and the implications of the concept of response-produced stimulation-the notion that every response of the organism, even those that are covert, is also a stimulus to further response-were more fully worked out, the S-R formulation became more sophisticated. In 1928, Dashiell characterized the state of the art in the following fashion: "...not all of a man's activity is directly excited from without...His conduct is just as much the expression of his own internal energies with all their traces of previous environmental influences and of his modes of response thereto [...] One thing should be clear...the conception of a simple stimulus leading to a simple response is only a convenient abstraction from the actual facts. [...] S X O->R (in which O represents these organic factors) would be a more adequate formula."[46]he Classification of Behavior. Although many behaviorists pointed to the indissociability of response types in actual behavior, early behaviorism remained wedded to the classification of response in terms of three major categories: a) somatic/hereditary (pre-potent reflexes, instinctive reaction tendencies); b) somatic/acquired (systems of habits); or c) visceral/hereditary and acquired (emotions). Responses in all three categories were then further classified as explicit, implicit, or preparatory (attitudinal). Distinctions between instinctive, habitual, and emotional reaction systems were delineated by Watson in 1919.[47] "Human action as a whole," he wrote. "can be divided into hereditary...(emotional and instinctive), and acquired modes of response (habit)."[48] For Watson, all three response modes were "pattern reactions," complex systems of reflexes that function in an organized fashion when the organism is confronted with an appropriate stimulus. Although behaviorists recognized that emotional reactions might involve somatic elements (., facial expressions),

（1）心理学的对象不是意识而是行为。华生格守一般科学所共有的客观性基本原则。他的行为主义心理学的基本特点是否认传统心理学的对象——心理或意识，而代之以行为。所谓行为，乃是有机体用以适应环境变化的各种身体反应的组合。华生曾把人的反应区分为外观习惯反应（如开门、打球）、内隐习惯反应（如思维，即无声语言）、外观遗传反应（如眨眼、抓握）和内隐遗传反应（如内分泌腺的分泌）。华生把心理或意识归结为内隐而轻微的行为。他指出，一向认为纯属意识的思维和情绪，其实也都是内隐和轻微的身体变化。思维是全身肌肉，特别是喉头肌肉的内在和轻微的反应。事实上，他把“思维”和“喉头的习惯”视作同义词。情绪是身体机构特别是内脏和腺体的变化，是内隐、轻微行为的一种形式。华生自称行为主义是唯一彻底而合乎逻辑的机能主义。按机能主义的哲学依据——实用主义来说，检验意识适应性的唯一标准只能是行为的适应性。既然行为主义是彻底的机能主义，那它就当然可以丢开意识去考察行为，而不能丢开行为去考察意识。（2）心理学的任务在于预测和控制行为。华生认为构成行为的基础是个体表现于外的反应，但反应的形成与改变则归因于有机体所受的刺激，反应紧随刺激出现。这便导致了刺激—反应的简化的行为公式。华生在其《行为：比较心理学导论》一书中写道：“人和动物的全部行为都可以分析为刺激与反应”。他认为最基本的刺激—反应联结叫做反射。不管多么复杂的行为总不外乎是一套反射而已。华生强调心理学必须符合一般科学共有的预测、控制的基本原则。心理学研究行为的任务就在于查明刺激与反应之间的规律性关系，从而根据刺激预知反应或根据反应谁知刺激，以预测和控制动物和人的行为。（3）心理学的研究方法应该是客观的方法而不是内省法。华生研究心理学抛弃传统的内省法代之以客观的方法的原因，固然是他不相信内省法的精确性，但也是他在心理学对象上否定意识的必然结果。他清楚地说过的客观方法有四种，即应用和不应用仪器控制的观察、条件反射法、言语报告法和测验法。条件反射法是行为主义者最重要的研究方法。华生在其著作中曾因为条件作用方法而感激巴甫洛夫和别赫捷列夫。他用“刺激替代”的术语来描述条件作用。他说当一种反应同一个并非原来引起它的刺激联结起来时，那么这个反应就成为有条件的（巴甫洛夫实验中的狗听见铃声而不是看见食物就分泌唾液，就是一种条件反应）。华生非常赞赏巴甫洛夫的条件反射法，因为这种方法可使像感觉辨别这样的主观经验转化为反应差异的客观事实。条件反射法使华生掌握了一种完全客观的分析行为的方法。华生强烈地反对内省法，但有人批评他把言语报告法作为客观方法之一，是他将内省法从前门猛烈地扔出以后，又以言语报告法从后门拾了回来。他把言语报告法列为客观方法之一，是把言语当作反应来看待的，所以听取别人在接受某种刺激后的言语反应，并不违反行为主义所坚持的客观原则。值得注意的是华生希望严格地把言语报告法的使用限制在能够加以证实的情境中。（4）个体的行为不是先天遗传的，而是后天环境决定的。华生关于先天遗传在行为中作用的立场，是从最初接受先天遗传的作用改变到断然否定先天遗传的作用的。这后一立场是在1925年宣布的。他认为行为最后都可分析还原为由刺激引起的反应，而刺激不可能来自先天遗传，所以行为当然就不可能来自先天遗传了。他认为人类行为中所有那些似乎像本能行为的方面，实际上都是在社会中形成的条件反应。他在《托儿所对本能应提供的证词》（1925）一文中断言“在人类的反射目录中，找不出哪一种相当于心理学家和生物学家所说的本能”。华生认为后天环境对行为具有压倒一切的影响。不管孩子出生时如何，只要控制环境，就能训练孩子成为我们所期望的人。他曾在婴儿的情绪行为上作了实验，使婴儿的爱、惧通过条件反射的改变而改变。他提出建立行为主义的实验伦理学。华生成了环境决定论和教育万能论者。