This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Of What Is History of Psychology a History? Author(s): Graham Richards Source: The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 201211 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The British Society for the History of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4026307 . Accessed: 23/03/2011 14:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cambridge University Press and The British Society for the History of Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal for the History of Science.
Outlines of the History of Psychology. 5 January 1985. Warren. 1952.). E. 1974.BJHS. The BritishPsychological is a freshlook at the natureof the Historyof Psychology calledfor. Classical Psychologists.4 which dominatedthe field for decadesalong with GardnerMurphy's of of HistoricalIntroduction ModernPsychology5 1928.G.S. 1972).K. Pinter).d. An Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology. The History of Psychology in Autobiography.and the first volume of G. Both went into subsequent editions. History of Psychology: A Sketch and an Interpretation.New York. 1957). 1936. H. *North East London Polytechnic. Romford Road. 3 vols. G. Pillsbury.20. 1980.by physiologists In 1929. History of Psychology. suchas Helmholtz. W. clearlyaimedat providinga respectable or a fifth of Baldwin's work actually deals with experimental empiricalPsychology dating from later than the mid-nineteenthcentury. New York. 1912-1921.C. 1967.S. 1912.Baldwin'sHistoryof Psychology'appeared 1913. New Jersey. Gardner Lindzey (ed.This earlywork was only about genealogyfor the nascentdiscipline.London.The series The Historyof Psychologyin Autobiography. which served as an introductorytext. 1929. San Francisco. Boring's other principal contribution to the area was Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology.though. so to speak. with Joseph K. History of Psychology. Klemm. S. 1942. E. Wilm and R. (tr. New Jersey. 1929 (2nd edn. 1912.I would which have yet to be like to make a contributionto this by raisingsome conundrums so in First. U.).201-211 Of What is History of Psychologya History? GRAHAM RICHARDS* a and Societyhavingestablished 'Philosophy History'section. London. New York. Dessoir. Brett'strilogyof the sametitle in 1912.what has happened the Historyof Psychology adequatelyaddressed. History of Psychology (tr. New York. sired on it. 2 G.6 begunin 1930 andnow in its seventhvolume 1 James Mark Baldwin.2a yearwhichalso saw Dessoir's Outlines of the History of Psychology3 translatedinto English. Kovach. London. New York. A History of Experimental Psychology. London E15. 1930. Fisher). Massachusetts. B. 5 Gardner Murphy.C. for example. 1912. n. tradition. Boring and GardnerLindzey (eds). Rand. 1987. G. 1921. while Brett treats scientific approachesvirtuallyas a coda to a surveyof the historyof the philosophyof mind. a lighterweightwork butwith a somewhat broader range. New York. 1914. 1932. History of the Association of Psychology. Boston. the latter as recently as 1972 (muchenlarged).). 6 C. Brett. New York. Boring (ed. This is an amended version of a paper delivered at the British Society for the History of ScienceWinterMeeting. 1928 (6th edn. E. Founders of Modern Psychology.G. (Prefacedate: 1913). Other early histories of Psychology in English include: 0.B. far? Psychologistshave been writing historiesof theirdisciplinesince the turn of the in century. Worcester.New York. D. . Inthispaper. 3 M. Psychology is presented as the legitimate heir to the main western philosophical MullerandBroca. Boring publishedthe first edition of his A History of Experimental Psychology. Hall. 4 Edwin Garrigues Boring. Murchison (ed. E.
Watson (1974.H. A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940.in the U. Watson.until the 1960s that a self-conscious sub-disciplinecalling itself 'History of Psychology'emerges within Psychology.for example.S.S. 10 R. 'In memoriam: Robert I. 1. outcomewas that neither the Lavater. 1976. 'revolution'.I.S.Ohio.by operatingaccordingto the rules laid down by philosophersof science as to how to be scientific.New histories begin appearing. In addition to the observations of this work which follow in the main text. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences (J. not the first. 6.202 Graham Richards of levelsof autobiographies the ageingeminent varying by (1980). pp. Psychological Review.S. pp. might be noted that bibliographicdetails are often only provided for the most recent.Psychologycould ensureits scientificstatus. New York. 1-21.in the wake of Kuhn. (1970). Volume 2: A Bibliography of Secondary References.in the 1960s shoulddo so by emulating existing History of Science. Watson Snr. Eminent Contributors to Psychology. The Scientific Evolution of Psychology Vol. ix-xxi of the introduction to Vol.S.S. 8 L. 'Eminent psychologists: correction and additions'. Kantor.R. Psychologywould becomescientific emulating the by sciences. psychologists rateand rank. with the general propensityof U.It is therefore surprise findthatthosestriving establish sub-discipline no to to a of History of Psychologyin the U.H.B.Thus. as well as pp. I. Watson died in 1980. London. pp. containsprofessional self-disclosure. 'Psychology as the behaviorist views it'.A. 1909-1980'. 17 of 1963 and Hearnshaw's ShortHistoryof British of Psychologyf 1964. Chicago and Granville. (1913).S. Combined roles of 'paradigm'. 17. producedby R. 1976)10was compiledon the basisof a questionnaire-derived of ranking all-time greatpsychologists.wit and informativevalue. ditto 'Characteristicsof individuals eminent in psychology in temporal perspectiveI. 20.' J.which meant. can be said that for muchof its lifetimeEnglishwas to speakingPsychology(if not German its Psychology) struggling establish scientific boththeriseof Behaviorism credentials. 158. hereafter). 261-262. In 1965. It is not.Apartfromthe factthatit is veryoftenthe obscurefigures whom on one needs to consult suchworksandthe acceptance thejudgements 'nineacademic of of psychologists' of the early 1970s as somehowdefinitive.I.I. 1963.A.) 7 J. Hearnshaw. 1. 9.B. For the methodology used in compiling this work see R. editions of books! . feature was One far of this was that Psychology took Philosophy Science moreseriously of thandid most other disciplines. including Kantor's very positivistic The ScientificEvolution of A Psychology Vol. 339-368.lookingfor candidates the for 'normalscience'andso on. Watson acknowledges absenceof Combeand Willis. 9 This is conventionally dated from J. however. (1973).B. Volume 1: A Bibliographyof PrimaryReferences.one resultis thatthe nearest to thingto a of comprehensivebibliography the Historyof Psychology. 1974.177. by virtueof one paperseventeen pages long on colourvision).H. on of formallysignallingthe arrival the new sub-discipline the scene.this beingone factorunderlying after19129and in the eagernesswith whichpsychometrics developed the inter-bellum.beingpioneeredby the late R. 1964.nor Thomas Willis.were actuallyincluded (althoughDalton was. the Journalfor the History of the BehavioralScienceswas started. products Clark as Hull's hypothetico-deductive theory.New York.especially. suchextraordinary logical positivisminspires. (1981).with its arcanealgebraand comprehensive operational definitions of all terms.Subsequent events warranta morecriticalappraisal.but Lavater to obtainany the fails mentionat all (thereasonfor this apparent digression becomeapparent will later. Watson. pp. J. Watson and Maralyn Merrifield. R.nor GeorgeCombe. having been Professor of Psychology at the Universityof New Hampshire since 1967 [see Barbara Ross. Watsonin the UnitedStates.B. it As a sweeping generalization. 1.
some justification of has is perhapsneededfor returning it. Psychology Is lookingdownon 'Science'. .being scientificis a form of behaviourof the most potent kind. character U. to Philadelphiaand New York.History of Psychology 203 To returnto my main line of argument. The GreatPsychologists: Aristotle Freud. Watson. Whatcanbe doneis to illustrate difficulty applying the of orthodox History of Scienceconceptsto the historyof Psychology considering widelyused by the distinctionbetween 'internalist' 'externalist' and to approaches historiography. that fact. its history involves such psychologicalmattersas the natureof concept-formation conceptand change.motivation and even perception. History of Psychologyhas beenused primarily anotherarenain whichthe scientific as bona fidesof Psychologyhaveto be established. I. a respectable If sub-discipline History of of SciencecalledHistoryof Psychology be created. science is part of Psychology'ssubjectmatter.S. possibleexceptionraisedat the 1984 Summer One 11 R. 1963. But Psychology's only claimto authorityin all this is that it is somehow'scientific' itself.in principle. itshistory is and mustboth take account of.in a repeatperformance Psychology's of earlierstrivingsto becomeassimilated Science.Historyof Psychology thus The of has remained largely the same from Baldwin down to R. Itwill be argued to herethatin thecaseof Psychology the internalist/externalist distinctionfails at a logically more fundamental level than is usually the case. Psychologyclaimsto be the scienceof behaviour. Considerfirstthe term'psychology'.thatit espousesa superordinateideology of 'beingscientific'.a move madeeasierby the fact that most of those workingin the areawerepsychologists. U.S. and that the failure is particularly instructiveregardingboth the characterof Psychologyitself and the theoreticalsignificance its history (both for of Psychologyand Historyof Sciencein general). Surely would be betteradvised we initially to explore the applicability such conceptualframeworks Psychologyas of to criticallyas possible.no uniqueor specialproblems.Psychologyis superordinate. into Historyof Psychology eagerlystrove to assimilateitself into Historyof Science.Hence. Instead.however.S.butit is important to bringit into the open. since the interpenetration the two perspectives long been apparent. scientific can the statusof Psychology itself is therebyfurtherlegitimated. Foremost among these begged questions is the assumptionthat the history of Psychologyshould be interpretedin the orthodox termsof currenthistoryand philosophyof science. begs some central questions and prevents some genuinelyinteresting veryimportant and issuesfrombeingconfronted.it is usedto referto both the discipline itself and its subject-matter.The statusof Psychology problematical.in particular. do not needto considera physicist's physicsin order to understandtheir Physics.I. Likemanydiscipline names. Watson'sown The Great Psychologists: Aristotleto Freud(1963)"-the standard collegetext of the 1970s. communication. and explore. few As historians of science would now use this distinction uncritically. There is at heart a deeperproblemin the relationship betweenPsychologyand the History of Sciencethan can be exploredhere. conversely. or up to it? The resolutionof thisinteresting paradoxliesin thefuture. historians science.that it presents.or a chemist'schemistry (was Dalton acid or alkaline?) to gain insightinto his or herChemistry.A. of not Such an approach. aside from Archimedes' water-displacement we properties. However.in the U. however.
William James'sPsychology It is part of the corpus of work representing and containingJames'sprofessional contributionto the discipline. itprotects from invasion thenatives thedesert thefrozen Itdooms allto of and by zone. character setlikeplaster. P continuing the convention alreadyadopted in this paper.As a part of his accountof habit.S. 2 vols. it is toolateto there for we and begin It social strata mixing.204 Graham Richards meeting of the B..thispassageis instantly recognizable Jamesin one of his as depressed moods. .It is a sampleof James's own 'psychology' work.. his was of then geneticsdid bearon his Genetics. habit.. it is a sampleof his Psychologyin the samesensethata passagefromLyell's Principles Geologywould be of a sampleof Lyell'sGeology.To differentiate subject the matterand discipline senses of the word 'psychology'. keeps fisherman deck-hand sea the and by at in it the through winter.in ThePrinciples Psychology. The Principles of Psychology. 10 July 1984. New York and London. 1.bytheageof thirty.butonly if his Genetics correct-which it was not.I will use an upper-case for the latter. 13 William James.It aloneprevents hardest mostrepulsive walksof life frombeing It deserted thosewhotread therein. 2. saves children fortune the the and of the of from envious of the and uprisings thepoor.S. One is hamperedeven in writing about this becauseorthographic customis to use lower-case both and hope for context will disambiguate.Itiswellfortheworld inmost from again. 1890. giving free vent to this by conjuringup a semi-tragicvision of humanityimpotentto alterits fateby a typicalJamesian technique cumulatively of citing illustrativecases.. whatkeepsus allwithin bounds ordinance. 1. us fight thebattle lifeupon lines ournurture ourearly out of the of or and the choice. nails countrymanhislog-cabin the and the to us . B.. meeting.H. William James'spsychology To those familiarwithJames. 121. p. 'De Vries on the Perfecting of Man'.evoking roleof a at the psychologicalprinciple. tomake best of a pursuit disagrees. Vol. theenormous its of fly-wheel society.S. holds miner hisdarkness. keeps that different of us.writingon Habit.12 is De Vries's Genetics if. was This apparentlyflippantpoint highlightsthe fact that in Psychology irrelevance this of the reflexivedoes not apply.in humanlife. We do indeed often want to ask preciselythese sort of questions-how did J. us now of Let identifysome of the rolesthispassagemighttake. one deep motive behindhis theorizing to providea geneticexplanation his homosexuality. Unpublished paper read at the B. This is WilliamJames. consider following the passage: Habitis .H. History of the Life Sciences Ilkley. Watson's psychology affect his Psychology?Or Freud's Freud's?Burt'sBurt's?But this is only the startof our problem... as was argued. 12 Onno Meijer. that because is noother which arefitted. willnever the has and soften 13 again. most conservative Italone is precious agent.S.
Baldwin. what I wish to stresshereis that in this casethereis no 'subject matter'for the passage beyondpsychologyitself-it is aboutpsychologyandit is psychology. the emphasisalreadyon 'our nurtureand our earlychoice'. U. determining is Titchener thussaidto have will be receivedsympathetically whichwill be rejected. Late nineteenth-century U. cit. p.. Psychology. . That Boring conceives of the Zeitgeist as an external factor is evident in the following passage: Again and again it seems as if the crucial insight either does not come until the Zeitgeist has preparedfor its inception. the last of the New England NorthAmerica.S. to speakof theroleof theZeitgeist andof thegreatmanin determining progress and of science. 4. Late nineteenth-century psychology We might see furtherin this passagesomethingtypicalof its periodand provenance. 3-5. This is inadequate.the discipline. then it does not register and is lost until it is unearthed later when the culture is ready to accept it. 4. envisaging as something which ideas on external to Psychologysomehowexertingan influence it. if it comes too soon for the Zeitgeist.History of Psychology 3.a phraselike 'German in matter 1920s' is problematical a way that'German physicsin the 1920s'is not..S.More specifically. To some extent. See also pp. Subject sense envelops disciplinesense.The 14 Boring. passage. or. xiii.the potentialprecariousness socialorder.like the Hall-is late one pluckedfrom any of his contemporaries-Dewey.directlyemergesout of 'psychology' subjectmatter.. indicativeof how Americans viewedtheworldandthekindof thingswhichpre-occupied of them-the industrial imageof the fly-wheel.Psychology 205 SinceJamesis a centralfigurein the foundingof this nationaltradition. belongsto a bodyof work on leadingon to the the nature of habit to which others such as Thorndikecontributed.S. op. 743-744. Stanley it nineteenth-century U.Whileit maybe argued the historian'sown level of interest. p. Psychologyover succeedingdecades.andto show thatthesetwo viewsof thedevelopment emergence thoughtarenot of mutuallyexclusivebut obverseandreverse everyhistorical process.It is also thatchoiceof levelof interpretation determined is by Psychology. and swum against the Zeitgeist and Freud to have been its 'agent'. further morenarrowly to consideration mightrevealit as related James's own social class position and social milieu. the complexityof the situationwas alreadyapparentto Boringwho wrote in the prefaceto the 1950 editionof his work: in I wanted.my queryis that this is preciselythe problemfor a historian of Psychology-which is the appropriatelevel of interest? The term Psychologyin the 'Psychology'is troublesomein its ambiguity.'4 But he does little with this awarenessof the interplayof externaland internalfactors this the other than point to Psychology'reflecting' 'Zeitgeist'. development of theories of learning as a central feature of U. the Psychology.ratherthanheredityas the If basisfor societyandpersonality. Transcendentalists facingthe dawnof industrial twentieth-century or document artefact of Whileit is truethatanyhistorical at permits analysis a variety of levels.S. it is in somerespects of untypical thisperiodandplace in its down-beatmood.G.
it meetsthe needs which people at the time wish psychologicaltheoriesto meet. Social Psychology. Leadership and Men. We do not know which psychological phenomena are invariable and which are not. film directors and advertising executives. along with novelists. Solomon Asch. The History of Psychology might then be seen as a way of extending our sampling. Psychology can make no such assumption. In the late 1940s. 1951. are quite directly 'agents of the Zeitgeist'. also his 'Effectsof group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment'. New Jersey. they in some sense see more clearly or feel more deeply than others. . such as the psychological roots of Madame Curie's obsessional singlemindedness. In: H. this was ritually cited in Social Psychology textbooks as proof of the power of 15 A. On this assumption the physical sciences are based. the differing roles of memory in pre-literate and literate societies). lazy to diligent and responsible to negligent from the CroMagnons to California. 16 Solomon E. but some quite basic processes like perception and memory could well vary considerably (for example.in short. undertook some experiments on conformity in which it was shown that subjects could be got to 'see' the longer of two lines as the shorter. in a curious counterpoint to Orwell's Winston Smith seeing that 2+2 could equal 5.206 Graham Richards success of a psychologicaltheorymightwell be determined suchfactorsas whether by people 'see themselves'in it. This was done by placing them in a room full of confederates of the Experimenterwho had been instructedto report the obviously erroneous perception. 1982. Psychology has a problem of sampling. as it were. Pittsburg. and achievement of this insight was crucial in establishing the scientific cosmology. and it is this which enables them to provide Psychologies which meet such needs-needs which.15 cannot be segregated out in the case of Psychology.'6 For years. Archetypes and Ancestors. chapter 16. They are certainly not all constant across time and place. do not constitute an outside Zeitgeist. One instance of this is the study of 'conformity'. The status of past Psychological work has a characterquite different from the status of past work in other disciplines. But these needs. an absorption line at 7699 Angstroms indicates the presence of potassium whether the source is ten feet or ten million light years away. 1952. Perspectives which in other disciplines might be considered as straightforwardly 'externalist'. whetherthe view of life containedin it corresponds to everyoneelse's less articulated feelingsand perceptions. not just the 'great' ones. representative. Guetikow (ed. or the kinds of tie-up between palaeontology and changing attitudes towards scientific professionalism dealt with in Desmond's Archetypes and Ancestors. Groups. Other disciplines can generally assume that the properties of their subject matters do not change over time and space. for their own individual 'psychologies' are. to ranging across time and place from fortune-telling evaluationtechnologies. Asch. for it can always be reconstruedas subject matter data. politicians. Perhaps they are all plastic. London.). an exiled German Jewish social psychologist. All psychologists. Desmond. not are external to Psychology. Under this pressure about a third of the subjects caved in. Perhapstemperamenthas always ranged from happy to miserable. whether.
Asch was not 'reflecting' the Zeitgeist. 24. as in other disciplines. 205-209. Things have now been given a further twist by a reported finding of a post-Falklands War increase in British conformity. he was part of it. This is admittedly an 'easy case': animal learning or psychophysics are clearly closer to conventional science. the iconoclastic. Nigel Nicholson. even in principle. ibid. from 17 S. (1985). 'Conformity in the Asch situation: a comparison between contemporary British and US university students'. . To illustrate this. This is a caricature.S. The further dimension to be stressed. while Gestaltists were allegedly casual in their approach to empirical research. 20. 'Independence or conformity in the Asch experiment as a reflectionof cultural and situational factors'. is that Asch's experiments were not separate from the phenomenon they were studying-they were themselves part of it. the 'Behaviorism versus Gestalt' issue. The German Gestalt Psychologists preferred a holistic approach and the American Behaviorists an atomistic. Methodologically. folk-singers and social commentators generally. British Journal of SocialPsychology. utopian. Recently. Perrin and C.S. technologically optimistic J. Perrin and Spencer17 have failed to replicate the finding. but the point is that an orthodox 'internalist'Englishlanguage account will typically present the issue as one of theories and methods in which the result was a sort of 70-30 victory for the Behaviorists. failure to replicate a Psychological experiment can have this conventional implication). reductionist one. Watson. Watson and the other from Kurt Koffka. relying on introspection and demonstrations ratherthan on rigorous experiments. Social Psychological work on prejudice and the roots of racism was part and parcel of the wider civil rights movement. Steven G. B.S. This perspective leads us to reconsider the nature of theoretical differences and controversy in Psychology. just as later U. film-makers. however. I have long drawn my own students' attention to two passages. This conflict is typically presented as a difference at two levels. one from J. which I believe show the real nub of the issue to be one of differences in 'psychology' the subject matter rather than the technicalities of scientific procedure or theoretical pitch. you have to reconstruct the entire historical setting of highstatus European professors vis-a-vis earnest. We cannot.. His results were not wrong. The Asch experiments are evidence of a particularly fine-grained kind of the nature of U. my present aim is only to insist that we cannot prejudge the outcome of adopting a similar approach to even these 'hard' areas of Psychology. thereby stimulating a re-examination of the whole topic. Spencer. It was a highly conformist culture-so much so that a third of college students would agree under fairly moderate group pressure that the longer of two lines was the shorter. (1981). It is now clear that in order to understand Asch's results. respectful. pp. Cole and Thomas Rocklin. young U. 59-63. one further level of expression of the general cultural pre-occupation with conformity. theoretical and methodological. the Behaviorists were hard-headed experimentalists concerned only with overt behaviour.History of Psychology 207 conformity. three cases will suffice. Firstly. B. college students in a culture where conformity was a widespread pre-occupation of science-fiction writers. mean that we have to re-examine the original methods and procedures until we have diagnosed a mistake (although. demarcate 'externalist' influences on Asch's work from some 'internalist' perspective dealing with the history of the study of 'conformity' as a topic for research beyond the immediate 'external' context in which the research is being conducted. psychology at that time. pp. Failure to replicate does not. of course.
though less obviously polarized. 303-304. Behaviorism. Here.Beethovencomposingthe Ninth Symphony. Psychology of Early Childhood up to the Sixth YearofAge. by contrast. 1924. of course.B. In Europe. from the turn of the twentieth century until World War Two.. theuniverse change you try but freedom-a not to bringup your children. One.A. there are several different 'psychologies' underlying the varieties of Psychological theory.will gradually For changethisuniverse. untiltheworldfinally habitation? The second area is Developmental or Child-Psychology. 1979. . Watson.replace as societyandin turnbringup becomes placefitforhuman a in theirchildren a stillmorescientific way.forma colony. 1970 (7th edn. different images prevail.S. nakedand live a communal noram I askingfor a change a dietof rootsandherbs. in Switzerland. stimulus-response crossingthe Rubicon:certain Shakespearewriting 'Hamlet'. standing and distinctiveposition . I am tryingto danglea stimulus frontof you.'9the Southern preaching style ringing loud and clear: we individual shouldmakeof every I wish I could picturefor you what a richand wonderful and healthy child if only we could let it shapeitself properly then providefor it a universe thousandsof yearsago: unhampered by unshackledby legendaryfolk-loreof happenings which have no signidisgracefulpoliticalhistory. New York. at so situations.Anna Barwellof 3rd edn. the child is infinitely malleable. Pestalozzi. hard work. Here is Koffka:18 system. If psychologyis to be the scienceof behaviour. a behavioristic in freedomwe cannotevenpicturein words. Ehrenreich and D.).free of foolish customsand conventions in ficancein themselves. am not askingpeopleto go out to someGod-forsaken I to life.an Egyptian schema. . Watson-as the above passage suggests figures in this. mustit not havea realplacefor Caesar.go for revolution. is much more evidently heir to a tradition that extends back to Rousseau and proceeds via Itard. pp. whichhemtheindividual liketautsteelbands. 18 Kurt Koffka.. an assessment technology for keeping track of the individual's progress and evaluating his or her needs. London.so littledo we knowof it. The Principles of Gestalt Psychology. 1935. chapter 3. the pioneers in subnormality treatment Guggenbuhl and Seguin. with theirbetterways of livingand thinking.if actedupon. . traced in Ehrenreichand English'spolemical For Her Oum GoodA Century of the Experts Advice to Mothers20flourishesin the U. This will involve. 20 B. a verbalstimulus if will which. 21 Wiliam Stern. 19 J. Preyer.Caesar's could haveno possibleplacein sucha molecular Meaningand significance Luther Worms: manyothers. although he is one among many. Froebel. emotional self-control and so on. to wouldallbe reduced thestimulus-response the sculptorcarving bustof Nephretete. In this the child is seen as unfolding its The educator's potential in a process of what Stern called 'wholistic self-development'21. 1924. The basic image of the child is a Lockean one. (tr. and then more latterly.). Piaget. . New York.I amnot askinghere yet place. in the freedomof the libertine. Stern and Claparede. versus the cultured Jewish European intelligentsia battling with the forces of philistinism. pp. which they enjoy in the estimationof the ordinary educatedpersonandthe historian? And here is the last paragraph of Watson's Behaviorism. English. London. For Her Own Good-A Centuryof the ExpertsAdvice to Mothers. and in order to create an ideal society and individual happiness we need only train the child in the relevant virtues of self-discipline.a place which gives to the behaviour these men the same outShakespeare.208 Graham Richards the Southern Baptist belt. of Beethoven. Willnot thesechildren us turn. rep.I am in not askingfor 'freelove'. 26-27.
(tr. Here he is in Alice-in-Wonderland territory the research imagery on reported in Inquiries into Human Faculty. obedient. 1907).drew on Lombroso's physiognomical anthropology.22 while in Britainpsychometricapproachesat the level of method combinewith more modelsstemmingfromthe Galtonand Sullytraditionand heredity-oriented theoretical strandis presenttoo.it is rooted in prior assumptionsabout what childrenare and how to relate to them. a dullyellow Thursday.developmental of or about the 'facts'of childdevelopment. Leipzig.Forexample. whenIthink thewhole together. u e the are dovecolour. part And so she goes on.S. 24 E. see Roger Brown: Social Psychology.brown-red It is hard to think of anotherculturalcontext in which head teachersof girls high A schools would have so happilyrevelledin suchpsychological self-disclosure. arities: a and for sausage Friday'. when think a whole in whenI thinkof eachletter the colourof the vowels. 22 Maria Montessori. counterof Jaensch's identification the S andJ point to this is providedby the Nazi Psychologist and personality types. and that within Psychology. 1883. The ironyis imagery.but a strongpsychoanalytic in theorizingand methodology. adding: in from sister hervisual of account peculimy Perhaps maybe interested thefollowing you I see I of of emerald for 'When think Wednesday a kind ovalflatwashof yellow green.S. thedifference not differentdirectionto thatof theU.developits talents. 1965. first isa light gray-green. from Galton's own Eugenic concerns. Italyand Britain.albeit only partially. wouldbe complete withouta Thirdly. the word'Tuesday'. a In differencespanningboth of our sensesof the word 'psychology'. I of but of the tends a purplish word. Pedagogical Anthropology. dimension ChildPsychology. FederickTaber Cooper).History of Psychology 209 helpingthe childto blossom. colour theconsonants towards black. 107-108 (Everyman's Library edition. disciplined. London.24a mirrorimage of what later became called Authoritarian Democratic types in post-WorldWar Two Social Psychology.The AryanJ-type is firm-willed. 1938. pp.emergefrom and expresswith peculiarclaritythe actual psychological differencesbetweenthesesocieties. black. National differences Psychological and in preferred subjectareas. Der Gegentypus. even aboutthe explanation thesefacts. New York and London.no generalpaperon the Historyof Psychology in Galton quote.dreamyand weak.for instance. muddled. 477-478. Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development.R. is a light separately consonants purplish but of word the part anda is yellow. So the Piagetianmodelof childdevelopment is But psychologists. while S-typesare slovenly. London. and especiallyproneto synaesthetic and that Nazi concernwith degeneration racialpurity. takesa radically deficienciesand so forth.expressedhere. pp. 23 Francis Galton. not given to fantasy.Shetellshim: of to as language always appear me. of furthervariationsmightbe detectedin thepsychological Maria Montessori.A. largelyabsentat this typifiedin Burt. Jaensch. . is a paleemerald green.'the head teacherof a high school for girls'. time in the U.whenI think them.23 Upper class Victorian Psychology and a psychology fuse as he recordswith deadpanstraightness letterfromMiss Stones. andthelatter yellow.derived. possessing Thevowelsof theEnglish of of I a when are certain Consonants thought bythemselves of colours.copewith its job is akin to a gardener's. 1913. irregular polygon. which enclose diagram.
whichmustbe left Both etymologyand logic can be invokedto justifythis contention. Jaensch. topic. the Yet it also once more puts the Psychology-Sciencerelationship of becomesthe historyof the exploration thereflexive significance Historyof Psychology of. we need to extend the model in such a way that the History of Science in general can be seen in relation to the psychological consequences of scientific ideas and technological innovations for the societies in which they occur. becomingpsychological of not distinction. in the 1930s. as is A finalissue to be raised.S. rule out in advancethe sustainability the internal/external in becausethey interactin suchcomplexways but becausetheycannotbe differentiated the first place.210 Graham Richards with visualimagery. was one of the few people still concerned the introducedas a topicby Galtonin theworkjustquoted(although topiclaterrevived). among other things.thus our samplingrangeis temporally in past itselfembodies psychology the subject profoundly. unexplored here.the same research as significancefor Psychologydramatically a resultof the changesin the psychological environmentin which it is beingconducted. then.give us a 'measure' the conformity extended. History of Science. example. pp. 26 Jamie C. xxii. Psychology.in two ways: (a) the observto Psychology. scientific innovations as images of psychological phenomena. campaigns for social change or the electing of class representativesin grade school. There are not 'Zeitgeists' and 'Great Men'. (1983). Kassler. (1984).But in the light of the central argumentbeing put forward in the present paper. It sufficesto say that if this view is correct. .(b) more time they were conducted.Bothof these. xxi.if my positionis not to be misunderstood. In understanding much modern U. or its informal precursors.Asch's meteorological observations of levelat the for conformityexperiments. can changeits Thus.the work of pastPsychologists data in its own right. History of Science. trying to find out how they rate and evaluate you. rating and evaluating others. own view is thatpsychological we concepts of any kind-Psychological Language mightcallit-can only be generated or by reflexiveapplicationsof what we could call WorldLanguage WorldConcepts. 'Origins of the schema of stimulated motion: towards a pre-history of modern psychology'. the latter. only psychological levels. thatconceptual tracksscientific conceptual changesandtechnological changein Psychologynotoriously My innovationsin the societiesin whichit is conducted. Danziger's 'Origins of the schema of stimulated motion: towards a pre-history of modem psychology'25 and Kassler's 'Man-a musical instrument: models of the brain and mental functioning before the computer'26). 183-210. these in turn fuelling the formally constituted enterprise of 'Psychology'. one of which is formallydignified Psychology. 59-92. 'Man-a musical instrument: models of the brain and mental functioning before the computer'. Past Psychologyis relevant current or ations of past Psychologistsmight have value akin to that of earlierastronomical for current astronomersand climatologists. feed-back regarding attitudes and so forth. the same psychologicalphenomenon.butespecially mattersense. Whether in marketing and presidential elections. pp.g. is 25 Kurt Danziger.the situationwould be and thanthepicture somewhatless relativistic fissiparous paintedin thispapersuggests. for centre-stage. it is essential to grasp the centrality of the psychological preoccupation with processes of opinion formation and change. There have been a few recent papers bearing on this (e.
and of of culturalembeddedness Psychology. and might find us a lot more interesting and relevant if we do. . a constantfeatureof U.New Haven. I. of course. then of what would History of psychology not be a History? 27 David Riesmann.S. and (c) History of Psychology thus continually shifts from being history of the discipline to being the history of its subject matter. the discipline. directly. I. Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology. A Study of the Changing American Character. As an example of this.S. The other branches of History of Science will certainly not respect us if we fail to take these problems into account.S. the subject matter. psychological its 'Other-directedness' DavidRiesmann as And it is a featuretoo of U. To assume in advance that History of Psychology is just one more branch of History of Science is premature and question-begging. Watson's once called it.At thispoint the circle bibliography perspectives. At a less abstract level.assumptionsand orientationsof its authorand the of component psychologies both R. 2.than the fact that the centralreference for the fromthe deriveits character sub-disciplineconcernedwith its historyshouldso patently specific. the distinction between internalist and externalist accounts cannot be sustained in the History of Psychology even in principle because (a) Psychological work can only be understood as a product of the individualpsychologist's psychology and those of his or her class and culture at the time their work was being done. So 'Of what is History of Psychology a History?' To the present author it seems increasingly likely that History of Psychology. which is in the final analysis. the subject matter. 3. The Lonely Crowd. the fusionof internal external text and of Psychology and psychology. that endemic psychological need for parity of scientific status with the physical sciences mentioned earlier.History of Psychology 211 as life. but if we decided to shift to psychology.A. CT.in theearly1970s?Another this was still. Historyof Psychology R. at one remove.Whatclearer testifies. 1. I will end by summarizing the argument which I have tried to put forward in the body of this paper. is History of psychology.27 of illustration the is complete. 1969. time and place-bound. History of Psychology would thus be advised to explore and articulate the numerous ambiguities and paradoxes of its situation vis-a-vis both History and Philosophy of Science. History of Psychology may be seen as of continual theoretical relevance to present Psychology as a way of increasing its sampling range. past Psychological experiments and investigations retaining an intrinsic current value in a way that is rare in other disciplines and never normal except perhaps in Astronomy and the palaeo-disciplines of Archaeology. the 'external' (or part of the 'external') with which externalists are concerned when considering other disciplines. rather than pretend for the sake of respectabilitythat they do not exist. Watsonandthe U. 4. (b) the inherent ambiguity of the term psychology as subjectmatter and discipline label points to a genuine ambiguity in the status of Psychological work as both study of the subject matter and data in its own right.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.