Genius [corrected] without the "Great Man": new possibilities for the historian of psychology

The Carlylian style of history, more commonly known as the "Great Man" approach, presented the "genius" as an individual worthy of celebration: history as hero worship. This style, which characterized the first wave of the history of psychology, has gone out of historiographic fashion. In its place is the "new history," which is marked by its external focus and privileging of social factors and cultural context in its explanations. This shift in historiographic sensibilities has also led to a revision in the appropriate subject matter for psychologist-historians. This article argues, in contrast, that it is possible to study eminent individuals without resorting to hagiography, and it presents various methods that could be used for this purpose. The aim of such an endeavor is to create a space for critically and historically informed perspectives on greatness and to suggest a reconsideration of the value of an "historical psychology".     

Contributions of American mental philosophers to psychology in the United States

Professors of mental philosophy who taught and wrote textbooks in colleges and universities in the United States before the Civil War contributed significantly to the development of the new psychology that replaced mental philosophy in the last quarter of the 19th century. Their contributions have been neglected in textbooks on the history of psychology, even those devoted to the history of psychology in the United States. These mental philosophers eased the transition to, and influenced the nature of, the new psychology in the United States by establishing a place in the curriculum for mental philosophy that the new psychology came to occupy; by identifying the topics for laboratory methods to address; by pursuing an empirical, inductive, scientific approach to the study of the mind; and by their tradition of functional analysis that came to characterize psychology in the United States.     

Ten years of Italian historiography of psychology: a field in progress

This article briefly outlines a picture of the activities and research conducted in Italy on the history of psychology during the last 10 years, focusing its attention on institutions, scholars, conferences, archives, journals, and so forth. At the dawn of the 21st century, the tradition of historical-psychological studies that developed in the last quarter of the 20th century has led to a renewed situation in teaching organization and research, with the emergence of several groups, especially at the universities of Rome "Sapienza", Bari, Milan-Bicocca, and Urbino, and of a second generation of young historians increasingly engaged on an international level. After a general survey conducted with historiometric method on the principal areas of research cultivated and on the themes dealt with, we mention a change that has occurred in the historiographical approach, a transition from a historiography addressed prevalently to the "history of ideas" to one that, pursuing the approach of a new and critical "multifactorial" history, proves to be more attentive to the social and institutional history, in correspondence with established international trends.     

Empirical evaluation and justification of methodologies in psychological science.

The purpose of this article is to describe a relatively new movement in the history and philosophy of science, naturalism, a form of pragmatism emphasizing that methodological principles are empirical statements. Thus, methodological principles must be evaluated and justified on the same basis as other empirical statements. On this view, methodological statements may be less secure than the specific scientific theories to which they give rise. The authors examined the feasibility of a naturalistic approach to methodology using logical and historical analysis and by contrasting theories that predict new facts versus theories that explain already known facts. They provide examples of how differences over methodological issues in psychology and in science generally may be resolved using a naturalistic, or empirical, approach.     

CONTEXTUAL HISTORY

The absence of women from published histories of psychology is addressed from a perspective that makes sense of women's place in the history of psychology, including their participation, their exclusion, and their invisibility. This approach is based on principles of social construc-tionism and on a contextual approach to history that seeks to understand women's place in psychology as a product of socially constructed notions of gender, psychology, and history. The article suggests that an awareness of the context created by these constructions explains women's role in psychology to date and holds promise for their meaningful inclusion in the future.     

PSYCHOLOGY RECONSTRUCTS THE FEMALE 1968–1988

Recent work on the psychology of gender is pluralistic, stemming from varied specialty areas within psychology, grounded in several intellectual frameworks, and reflecting a spectrum of feminist perspectives. This article is a critical appraisal of diverse approaches to the study of women and gender. It first describes prefeminist or "womanless" psychology, then analyzes four co-existing frameworks that have generated recent research. The four frameworks are: Exceptional Women , in which empirical research focuses on the correlates of high achievement for women, and women's history in the discipline is re-evaluated; Women as Problem (or Anomaly ), in which research emphasizes explanations for female "deficiencies" (e.g., fear of success); the Psychology of Gender , in which the focus of inquiry shifts from women to gender, conceived as a principle of social organization that structures relations between women and men; and a (currently relatively undeveloped) Transformation framework that reflexively challenges the values, assumptions, and normative practices of the discipline. Examples of research programs within each approach are described, and the strengths and limitations of each approach are critically examined.     

The science of language and the evolution of mind: Max Müller's quarrel with Darwinism

For Darwinism to succeed as a general theory of the development of life, it had to account for at least the rudiments of all human characteristics. Thus Darwin and his colleague G. J. Romanes had to make "mental evolution" the basis for scientific psychology. F. Max Müller, Oxford's professor of comparative philology, drew on Kant's work, Romantic Naturphilosophie, and his views on the history of language and the relation of language to thought to maintain that language showed a difference not in degree but in kind between man and the lower primates. In his debate with Romanes, he argued that the study of language, not Darwinist natural history, should be the basis for a science of human psychology. However, the two authors had such different definitions of the key terms in their discussion that their differences were not only unresolved but irresolvable.     

Making the history of psychology clinically and philosophically relevant

The author discusses ways to make the history of psychology course relevant for a clinical psychology doctoral program within a multidenominational Protestant theological seminary. She uses a personalist orientation to emphasize the need to integrate psychology, philosophy, and theology. She differentiates among the intrapersonal, interpersonal, impersonal, and transpersonal dimensions of experience. She illustrates the rich multidisciplinary historical roots of contemporary psychology by tracing the the history of the term psychology and examining its meanings in the existential psychology of S?ren Kierkegaard and in the 19th-century novel. She includes brief histories of the "new psychology" and of the unconscious. She describes how she uses the field of psychotheological integration to illustrate principles of historiography and summarizes resources used to supplement traditional textbooks.     

选择文化心理学研究课题之我见？

笔者经由回顾自己如何走上本土理学研究的道路,介绍了本土心理学的由来,本土心理学中的研究进路的选择,以及如何使用本土进路选择研究课题.进而提出应该将社会心理学,本土心理学及文化心理学三者结合起来开展华人心理的研究,为华人心理学在世界心理学界发声和为人民的社会实践提供切实有效的帮助.     

ASSESSING THE CANDIDATE AS A WHOLE: A HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR PERSONNEL DECISION MAKING

Although individual assessment is a thriving area of professional practice in industry, it receives little, if any, attention from textbooks on industrial psychology or personnel management. This article is an attempt to establish individual assessment's place in the history of personnel selection, and to examine why the practice has survived despite receiving little attention in research and graduate training. It is argued that the clinical, holistic approach that has characterized individual-assessment practice has survived primarily because the "elementalistic" testing approach, focusing on traits and abilities, has often been dismissed as inadequate for addressing the complexities of the executive profile. Moreover, public displeasure with standard paper-and-pencil testing in the 1960s and 1970s made the holistic approach to assessment an attractive, alternative. The article contrasts individual assessment practice with the current state of knowledge on psychological assessment and personnel decision making. Like psychotherapy in the 1950s, individual psychological assessment appears to have achieved the status of functional autonomy within psychology.     

心理学的历史编纂学：后现代主义的挑战

后现代主义思潮深刻影响了心理学史的研究与写作。传统的心理学历史编纂学接受真理的符合论,认为心理学的发展史是一维的和历时的。它习惯于在心理学的发展史中寻找某些“中心”或“标志”,并假定了不同的国家和民族、不同历史时期的心理学所面对的是同一主题。但是后现代主义的心理学历史编纂学强调了历史的社会建构特性,认为心理学史叙述的并非一种“客观实在”,而是史学家的一种话语建构。后现代主义的心理学历史编纂学使得心理学史家更明确的意识到历史知识的主观性,有助于心理学史家认识历史研究中的价值和意识形态问题,正视文化视角造成的认识差异,因而是有着积极意义的     

History of Methodology in Psychology: Starting Point,Not the Goal

Current mainstream psychology is characterized by mismatch between questions asked and methods used to answer the questions. There are several important and theoretically justified methodological principles that can be found in pre-WWII (mostly continental Europe) psychology, but disappeared from current mainstream psychology. Future psychology can be built with understanding that not everything that is new is better than the old and not everything that disappeared in the history of psychology disappeared for rational reasons. Methodological thinking of several pre-WWII psychologists may have been far ahead of current mainstream psychology.

A critical gaze and wistful glance at Handbook histories of social psychology: did the successive accounts by Gordon Allport and successors historiographically succeed?

Gordon Allport's account of the development of social psychology in the 1954 Handbook of Social Psychology became, de facto, a standard or official historical reference for researchers and apprentices. His history also provided the field's ontological center point with a definition of social psychology that would become predominant. The revised and updated chapter appeared posthumously in 1968, was then reprinted (lightly edited) in 1985, but was removed from the 1998 Handbook. In 1966, Allport prepared a parallel evaluation of six decades of the history of social psychology, for a conference on graduate education in social psychology. This paper was critical of "elaborate mendacious experimentation" and ended with a plea for an interdisciplinary cross-cultivation. It was rarely cited. Ironically, it was Allport's "official" history, his justificatory Handbook account, that often was used for graduate mentoring rather than the more critical history, specifically written to address issues of graduate education. Other "official" Handbook historical chapters that succeeded Allport's displayed less breadth of geographical and transdisciplinary coverage and offered a shorter temporal, more presentist, and more selective personalist historical perspective. In contrast to more contextualist accounts, these Handbook chapters are constrained in a number of ways that raise questions about the success, functions, and professional consequences of such "official" histories, and who should write them.     

Early applied psychology between essentialism and pragmatism; the dynamics of theory, tools, and clients

The indebtedness of applied psychology to classical laboratory psychology is much greater than is usually assumed. It manifests itself both in the initial use of laboratory apparatus and diagnostic tools and in the conception of vocational fitness as a matter of the same elementary mental functions as those measured in the laboratory. In America this psychological essentialism soon gave way to a more pragmatic approach, aimed at prediction of success. As the history of the psychotechnical movement shows, this transition occurred on the European continent much later. The disparity is explained by differences in the primary audience of the pioneers of practice at both sides of the Atlantic. The development of occupational psychology is used as a case of transition in investigative style in general.     

Pavlov's methodological behaviorism as a pre-Socratic contribution of the melding of the differential and experimental psychology

The differential/experimental distinction that Cronbach specified is important because any adequate account of psychological phenomena requires the recognition of the validity of both approaches, and a meaningful melding of the two. This paper suggests that Pavlov's work in psychology, based on earlier traditions of inquiry that can be traced back to the pre-Socratics, provides a potential way of achieving this melding, although such features as systematic rather than anecdotal methods of observation need to be added. Pavlov's methodological behaviorist approach is contrasted with metaphysical behaviorism (as exemplified explicitly in Watson and Skinner, and implicitly in the computer-metaphorical, information-processing explanations employed by current "cognitive" psychology). A common feature of the metaphysical approach is that individual-differences variables like sex are essentially ignored, or relegated to ideological categories such as the treatment of sex as merely a "social construction." Examples of research both before and after the "cognitive revolution" are presented where experimental and differential methods are melded, and individual differences are treated as phenomena worthy of investigation rather than as nuisance factors that merely add to experimental error.     

Modelling the History of Ideas

We propose a new method for the history of ideas that has none of the shortcomings so often ascribed to this approach. We call this method the model approach to the history of ideas. We argue that any adequately developed and implementable method to trace (dis)continuities in the history of human thought, or concept drift, will require that historians use explicit interpretive conceptual frameworks. We call these frameworks models. We argue that models enhance the comprehensibility of historical texts, and provide historians of ideas with a method that, unlike existing approaches, is susceptible neither to common holistic criticisms nor to Skinner's objections that the history of ideas yields arbitrary and biased reconstructions. To illustrate our proposal, we discuss the so-called Classical Model of Science and draw upon work in computer science and cognitive psychology.     

The Other Self: Psychopathology and Literature

The figure of the "double" or the other self is an important topic in the history of literature. Many centuries before Jean Paul Richter coined the term, "doppelg?nger," at the beginning of the Romantic Movement in the year 1796, it is possible to find the figure of the double in myths and legends. The issue of the double emphaszses the contradictory character of the human being and invokes a sinister dimension of the psychological world, what has been called in German as "umheimlich." However, does multiciplicity always involve pathology? Related to this figure in literary history, a new perspective from clinical psychology called "dialogical self" defines the self as a multi-voice reality. Along the same line, postmodernist psychology considers the self a discursive construction. From these perspectives, the "self" is situated a long way away from the classical essential conception of the self. In this paper, we review briefly some important landmarks of the figure of the double in the literature, and we compare the coincidences of the "double" experiencies described in literature with the experiences of our patients. Finally, we discuss how this literary tradition can help us to understand new psychological perspectives.     

Genetic epistemology,history of science and genetic psychology

Genetic epistemology analyzes the growth of knowledge both in the individual person (genetic psychology) and in the socio-historical realm (the history of science). But what the relationship is between the history of science and genetic psychology remains unclear. The biogenetic law that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is inadequate as a characterization of the relation. A critical examination of Piaget's Introduction à l'Épistémologie Généntique indicates these are several examples of what I call stage laws common to both areas. Furthermore, there is at least one example of a paradoxical inverse relation between the two — geometry. Both similarities and differences between the two domains require an explanation, a developmental explanation. Although such an explanation seems to be psychological in nature, it is not merely empirical but also normative (since psychology is both factual and normative according to Piaget). Hence genetic epistemology need not be reduced to psychology (narrowly conceived), but rather should be seen as being both empirical and normative and thus similar to certain types of contemporary philosophy of science.I wish to thank Guy Cellerier, Ken Freeman, Pierre Moessinger, and Pat McKee who provided stimulating conversation on several of the issues discussed in this paper.     

Getting dirty: psychology's history of power

This introduction to the special issue on the history of power forwards the anthropological concept of "purification" as a means of drawing together disparate histories of psychology that invoke notions of power. Drawing on the work of Mary Douglas, Bruno Latour, Michel Foucault, and Donna Haraway, I argue for a history of psychology that links the carving up of people up into their properly natural and enculturated parts with keeping people in their place, the purification of interpretation by scientific representation, the maintenance of the body politic of the discipline, and the role of psychology in making up power in modern nation states.     

The rise of Soviet sociolinguistics from the ashes of Völkerpsychologie

Nineteenth-century Russian philology was dominated by an approach derived from German V?lkerpsychologie. Language and social consciousness were viewed as embodiments of "national-popular psychology." The shortcomings of this approach were becoming apparent at the end of the prerevolutionary period, but it was only in the 1920s that the hegemony of V?lkerpsychologie was decisively challenged. V?lkerpsychologie was attacked in the name of "objective psychology," and concrete studies of the relationship between language and social structure were carried out. By the end of the 1920s, v?lkerpsychologische ideas were subsumed into a new and progressive form of sociological linguistics.