No abstract

Arland Deyett Weeks (1871-1936) was an American educator and social reformer who published The Psychology of Citizenship in 1917 with the intention of compiling the psychological, psychobiological, and psychosocial knowledge needed for governing modern democratic Western industrialized societies, as well as offering suggestions for intervention and social reform in the educational, legal, and occupational domains. His point of view can be placed within the progressive social and intellectual movement that characterized the policies of the United States in the first decade of the 20th century. His sociopolitical ideas were fed by transcendental and pragmatic sources, especially with respect to the way of dealing with tension between the individual and the collective. Modern psychological techniques (occupational, educational, legal psychology, etc.) nourished his reform program. In this article, we contextualize Weeks's book within these ideas and show its historical significance in the sociocultural and intellectual context that gave it meaning.

This study focuses on the analysis of the early work of Howard W. Odum (1884-1954) and the examination of the psychological aspects that marked his reflection on African American music. This analysis reveals many of the aspects that were generically shared by the psychological agenda of the period when analyzing aesthetic experience and activity. Outstanding among these are the relationship of the musical phenomenon with very basic or primary affective-emotional dimensions, the conception of the musical phenomenon as an indicator of the cognitive-affective development of human groups, its expression in the form of cultural and complex intersubjective products, or its possible participation in the technoscientific design of social reform and progress. The simultaneous treatment of all of these aspects in Odum's work brings to light the interdisciplinary framework in which early psychology moved, while revealing the theoretical and ideological contradictions and controversies that enveloped the discipline, above all, at the point where it attempted to place itself at the service of the constitution of self-governed individuals. All in all, Odum's work also reflects the crucial role that early psychology attributed to art as a privileged medium to give meaning to experience and the human being's vital purposes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Our starting point is an article by Uchoa Angela Branco published in 2009 in Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences (vol. 43, pp. 350-355) and titled "Why Dichotomies can be Misleading while Dualities Fit the Analysis of Complex Phenomena". She criticizes the dualist uses of the distinction between subject and object, or between subjectivist and objectivist perspectives. However we subscribe to the criticism, we argue that some kind of distinction between objectual and subjectual realities is neccesary. Our argument is grounded on the classic constructivist Psychology, especially that of James Mark Baldwin's genetic logic. We assess two theoretical perspectives -the systemic and the structuralist ones- that, in our view, are at risk of falling into objectivism because they tend to reduce subjectual activity to objectivistic or formalistic kinds of explanation. Based on a critical recovery of some ideas of the French philosopher Michel Serres, we propose that subjects and objects must be understood as interpenetrated realities in perpetual construction.

No abstract

Taking Jürgen Müller's (2012) article The sound of history and acoustic memory: Where psychology and history converge as a starting point, we make a critical reflection about the way in which sound has been represented in history and the many ways in which the intersection between sound and history has been understood. We centre our critique on two components of Müller's work. The first of these is a bias according to which the past is seen as a reality that can be accessed directly, as if one could travel back in time. The second is the mixture of different aspects in the definition of the historiography of sound, including levels, methods, objects and very disparate subjects under study. We suggest that the experience of the past is necessarily mediated by the conditions of the present, and the work of historiography is always subject to certain intentions. KeywordsHistorical realism, historiographical theory, history of sound, mediated experience, oral historyIn his interesting article about acoustic memory and history, Ju¨rgen Mu¨ller (2012) rightly claims that historiography should take full advantage of sound. He restores the resource of sounds as a tool to better understand the past. He underlines the fact that most historians only recur to texts, and more recently to images. Against this, Mu¨ller defends that the use of acoustic memory allows for a more trustworthy and complete image of the past. In this sense, he asks that better historiographic attention be paid to sounds, understood in diverse forms: as soundscapes from

In this book, Despret and Porcher attempt to disassemble the 'scientific' discourse of the difference between humans and animals by showing the types of methodological choices that cause it. Up until the twentieth century the discourse on the difference between humans and animals was not supported by disciplines such as Comparative Psychology and Ethology, which were consolidated academically by way of cutting off relations with practices in which the question of human specificity was and still is simply irrelevant. This refers to the practices of stockbreeders and those who raise animals.Here the relationship with other species appears as a relationship between beings that have a capacity for agency. At the beginning of the twentieth century Zootechnics served as a bridge between the practices of animal breeders and Comparative Psychology. Zootechnics industrialized the relationship between animals and their breeders. Comparative Psychology and Ethology tried to make sure that everything the animal does is predictable. This determinism was looked for by Psychology in the laboratory, where there is no room for subjective relationships with the animals. Lorenz founded Ethology by distancing himself from the laboratory and treating his animals as subjects, but along with Tinbergen he needed to elaborate a scientific discourse and they turned to mechanical analogies in order to develop explanatory models of behaviour. The amiable spirit of nineteenth-century naturalism was given up in favour of an unpleasant conception of animals as mere instruments of scientific reason.The authors of the book approach modern breeders as heirs of a tradition that has not lost sight of subjective relationships with other species. The main part of the book is dedicated to showing what various European breeders have said about the difference between human beings and animals. They search for human specificity in more complex and nuanced answers than the 'scientific' discourse that bases this difference in some quality and whether animals have it or not. Despret and Porcher denounce the fact that the difference between man and the rest of the animals is habitually formed by assuming human uniqueness and defining the characteristics of the animals by what they are unable to do and what man is. However this standardized formulation has much academic vice. Despret and Porcher prefer to present the question to the interviewees in an open format. The participants in the interview complied with this beyond expectations and were able to deconstruct the theoretical bias inherent in the problem. The question was more like a small discourse that ended up something like this: 'According to you as a farmer, how should we think about the question of the [difference between man and animal] so that it could be of interest to those of us who study it and so that we r

No abstract