Exploring Consciousness: Old Habits and New Horizons 59from presupposing the existence of “normal waking awareness” (Meyers &
DeWall, 2015, p. 92) that functions “much like yours and mine” (Pastorino
& Doyle-Portillo, 2016, p. 129). To be clear, this critique is not intended as
an affront on the authors of contemporary psychology textbooks that
employ homogenizing language. Rather, it is the acknowledgment of the
shortcomings of largely standardized, biologically-and-statistically-driven,
Euro-American approaches to the study of psychology. Such language not
only ‘others’ certain aspects of consciousness that are not deemed ‘normal’
or ‘average,’ but potentially alienates readers that do not adhere to the
authors’ definition of the status quo.
Case in point, each textbook reviewed both implicitly and explicitly
juxtaposes so-called normal consciousness versus altered states of
consciousness. Beyond overt, normative declarations such as those noted
in the previous paragraph, the chapters in question focus almost
exclusively on deviations from the norm, thereby reinforcing this ideology.
As we will consider in the next section (“The Big Four”), contemporary
psychology textbooks, with little exception, follow a particular formula
that includes an investigation of wakefulness and sleep, attention (or,
typically, inattention), dreaming, and drugs and their purported effects on
consciousness. This structure serves the purpose of positioning the reader
as ordinary, perhaps in an effort to inspire conviviality between author and
reader. Simultaneously, altered states of consciousness are described as
fluctuations and are generally grounded by way of neural markers and
percentage points.
For example, the examination of consciousness versus
unconsciousness in relation to waking and sleeping is invariably centered
on a discussion of the circadian rhythm and stages of sleep, including non-
REM and REM sleep (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2016; Coon & Mitterer, 2015;
Meyers & DeWall, 2015; Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 2016). Readers are
taught that their biological propensity for alertness shifts as they age, such
as the transition from “being [night] owls to being [morning] larks”
(Meyers & DeWall, 2015, p. 101). “Most 20-year-olds are evening-
energized ‘owls,’” write Meyers & DeWall (2015, p. 100), “with
performance improving across the day.” The authors reinforce their claims