Natasha Bharj

In the history of Psychology, women and the Rorschach ink blot test have had some surprising commonalities; both have been constructed as unscientific, emotional, and invalid. In this chapter we explore the history of women’s involvement with the Rorschach, and demonstrate how the conceptualization of legitimate science has negated women’s contributions in revealing ways. In particular, we will correspond this history with the related trajectory of the use of statistics in Psychology and examine key moments within this history where women in Psychology, the Rorschach, and statistics, have come into contact. In doing so we distinguish between Psychology the discipline and psychology the subject matter, but play with this distinction by making the discipline itself the subject matter under examination. By historically contextualizing Psychology and considering the feminist ramifications of its history, it is possible to shine a light on how Psychology has constructed itself as a legitimate science. Our goal is not to locate legitimacy and subjectivity, since these concepts can be applied to all parts of psychological history and science. Instead, by utilizing a Science and Technology Studies perspective we are able to examine how attributions of subjectivity are strategically applied to de/legitimize certain people and certain knowledge. Entrenched within such explorations of gender, scientific legitimacy, and construction of knowledge, is power. Therefore, this chapter will provide a short analysis of the power dynamics at play within these histories and highlight the historically gendered nature of prestige within Psychology.

Tolerant discourse in the United States has responded to heightened stereotyping of Muslims as violent by countering that “not all Muslims are terrorists.” This subtyping of Muslims—as some radical terrorists among mostly peaceful “moderates”—is meant to protect a positive image of the group but leaves the original negative stereotype unchanged. We predicted that such discourse may paradoxically increase people’s support of anti-Muslim policies because the subtyping and its associated negative stereotypes justify hostile actions toward Muslims. In Study 1, subtyping predicted support for three anti-Muslim policies, but only among political moderates and conservatives. In Study 2, participants who were exposed to subtyping narratives expressed greater support for surveillance of Muslims in the United States. The effect of subtyping narrative exposure was stronger on support for hawkish anti-terror policy when participants’ preexisting endorsement of subtyping was low. Irrespective of the well-meaning intentions of peaceful vs. radical subtyping, its expression can justify ongoing “War on Terror” policies. As the population of Muslims increases in North America, the intuition that most Muslims do not meet the negative stereotype may ironically reduce inclusion.