Rise or Fall of the Philosophy of Psychology?

Reflexivity has been a common theme in the literature on the history of psychology in recent years. Reflecting on the history of psychology is for historians of psychology the ultimate reflexive step. Germany is widely regarded as the homeland of "modern" or "scientific" psychology. It is here that the oldest surviving work with the word, "psychology" in the title was published in 1590. It was also here that the first book with the title, "History of Psychology" [Geschichte der Psychologie] was published in 1808. This reflects the fact that a substantial literature on psychology had already been published in Continental Europe by the end of the eighteenth century. Several other works on the history of psychology were published in German-speaking countries in the nineteenth century and in the years leading up to the First World War. English-speaking countries were relatively late in adopting psychology but it grew rapidly in the United States when it was adopted and the country was already the dominant power in the field by the outbreak of the First World War. Several works on the history of psychology were published in the United States around the same time, suggesting that disciplines and disciplinary history tend to appear simultaneously. This is because disciplines use their history to create a distinct identity for themselves. The history of psychology was widely taught in American psychology departments and several textbooks were published to support these courses. E. G. Boring's A History of Experimental Psychology (1929/1950) was by far the most influential of these textbooks and it has profoundly shaped the understanding of psychologists of the history of their field. For example, it was Boring who traced the history of the discipline to the establishment of Wilhelm Wundt's laboratory for experimental psychology at the University of Leipzig in 1879. 1979/80 was widely celebrated as the "centennial" of psychology and the XXII International Congress of Psychology was held in Leipzig to mark the occasion. Prior to the 1960s, the history of psychology was mainly a pedagogical field and it still is as far as many psychologists are concerned. However, it also became an area of specialization during this decade. This was partly due to a few psychologists adopting it as their main area of interest and partly due to historians of science becoming more interested in the field. A large body of scholarly literature has been produced, including some scholarly textbooks, but this literature exists side-by-side with more traditional textbooks for which there is still a significant demand. There are signs that the history of psychology has been facing difficulties as a branch of psychology in Europe and North America in recent years. However, interest in the field has been growing among psychologists in other parts of the world and among historians of science. This situation will inevitably have implications for the content of the field.

2016

In this chapter, I comment on the ten aspects listed by Roger Smith to show the usefulness of historical research in psychology. Thereby, I characterize and evaluate different historiographic trends. History should be seen as a way of acquiring perspective, and it should offer a conceptual tool for comparison between different epistemological approaches. It is also instrumental in analysis of the social dynamics involved in knowledge construction. In general, therefore, a connection between the history of psychology and the broader field of the history of science seems fruitful.

In 1994, Kurt Danziger published an article in Theory & Psychology with the title, " Does the history of psychology have a future? " The article attracted a great deal of controversy and is now listed on the journal's website as one of the most cited articles in its history. After providing a synopsis of Danziger's article, I discuss some of the issues that emerged from the controversy that followed its publication. I also ask if the position of the history of psychology has changed in the intervening years. We are already in the future that Danziger discussed, even if it is only the near future, and the situation may look different from here. After pointing out that Danziger himself has changed his views on this subject, I suggest that it does look different. The editorial ends with an introduction to the articles in the special issue and some reflections on the importance of understanding the context in which historians of psychology work.

Pre-modern, modern, and postmodern frames of reference have all helped shape important contemporary psychological theories and issues. In this reflection paper, I attempt to walk through and revisit areas covered in a psychology course, the end aim being to gain a measure of insight into where the field of psychology stands today.

After reading , "What Lies in the Future of Teaching the History of Psychology," it was clear to me that the study of the history of psychology-by both researcher and student alike--is not only an area under some contention, but that the entire field is somehow deeply and wonderfully paradoxical.

Recent transformations in the history and philosophy of science have led historians of psychology to raise questions about the future development of their historiography. Although there is a dominant tendency among them to view their discipline as related to the social turn in the history of science, there is no consensus over how to approach methodologically the history of psychology. The aim of this paper is to address the issue of the future of the historiography of psychology, by proposing an alternative, yet complementary path for the field, which I call a philosophical history of psychology. In order to achieve this goal, I will first present and discuss the emergence of the social turn in the history of psychology, showing some of its problems. Then I will introduce the contemporary debate about the integration of the history of science and the philosophy of science as an alternative model for the history of psychology. Finally, I will propose general guidelines for a philosophical history of psychology, discussing some of its potentials and limitations. Keywords: history of psychology; history of science; philosophy of science.

The field of psychology established itself as a study in the late 1800’s through the contributions of many psychologists, theorists, and concepts pertaining to the human mind, behaviors, and purpose. During the pre-modernism era, fundamental thoughts and ideas were composed without a specific place to be directed. However, in Germany, doctors and philosophers such as Wundt contributed to the uprising of a field that was dedicated to the study of thoughts and concepts. The development of psychology progressed greatly through modernism by taking a scientific approach and establishing groundbreaking theories that would define the field. Several psychologists such as Freud, Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner implanted their efforts into making the field of psychology logical, practical, and scientific which led to the growth of what is psychology during the post-modernism era. New psychologists emerged to revise existing theories from the founding fathers and created an updated format of future ideas that reflect society today. Ideas such as existentialism developed into humanistic psychology while the contribution of women and minorities were added to the history of psychology. Overall, the study of the thoughts, ideas, and behaviors was a rough draft concept that lacked a foundation until the pre-modernism era. The development of psychology has taken a course through its roots in Germany and planted itself in American history. Due to the effort and contribution of researchers, the field of psychology has found a scientific path that legitimizes the purpose and study for the human mind and behavior.

Research in Developmental Disabilities, 1996

Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 1995

Deals with disintegration of the psychology to a science based on experimentation according to the positivistic methodology of natural sciences, and another one founded on interpretation according to the hermeneutic methodology of historical sciences. Considers the possibilities to reintegrate the psychology by a Vy gotskian methodology that would deal with signs and tools as functionning within the same structure. key words: hermeneutic vs positivistic methodology; historical vs natural sciences; Vygotsky, Leontiev; signs and tools A psychologist in Hungary today does not necessarily want to be acknowledged for what he does as a scientist; actually, the number of those who fancy themselves artists or magicians is growing. On the other hand, those of us who make a point of our theoretical or practical work being of a scientific nature are willing to consider psychology a natural science. Indeed, how could something be scientific if not in the same way as physics, chemistry, biology are? But how could it be thought otherwise, when in our university studies the foundations of our major are laid by anatomy, physiology, ethology, and we graduate without having had to learn a bit of sociology, linguistics, economics, or history as areas relevant to our special subject. True, some time earlier a subject called Cultural History and Anthropology was introduced in psychologist training at Budapest University, for example, but a more recent reform swept if out of the curriculum.

Assignment: summarize the schools of thought of structuralism, functionalism, behaviorism, Gestalt psychology, psychoanalysis. Then describe what I would like to be doing within the field of psychology in ten years.