The Meaning of “Inhibition” and the Discourse of Order

Abstract

The ArgumentThe history of psychology, like other human science subjects, should attend to the meaning of words understood as relationships of reference and value within discourse. It should seek to identify and defend a history centered on representations of knowledge. The history of the word “inhibition” in nineteenth-century Europe illustrates the potential of such an approach. This word was significant in mediating between physiological and psychological knowledge and between technical and everyday understanding. Further, this word indicated the presence of a common discourse structuring ways of thought about order, whether in technology, moral activity, or experimental psycho-physiology. Writing history as the history of discourse suggests several difficulties; these are considered briefly. Nevertheless attention to language and meaning makes it possible to integrate the history of psychology with intellectual history and thereby to broaden its potential audience.

The evolving vocabulary of the social sciences: The case of “socialization”.

“…Despite proclamations and appearances, however, empirical investigations of socialization did not meet all the criteria of natural science research: the concept did not adhere to the rigorous positivist philosophies of science advocated by many experimental psychologists. Socialization was developed and promoted without any detectable logic of justification, sometimes even without notable empirical evidence, a process resembling the production of other psychological terms (Collins, 2007;Danziger, 1997;Smith, 1992aSmith, , 1992bSmith, , 2005. Values or "subjective knowledge" were not eliminated but merely displaced.…”

From H = log sn to conceptual framework: A short history of information.

“…By focusing on the history of a word, the approach taken in this article echoes several recent and important histories in the human sciences (Danziger, 1997; Smith, 1992a, b). 2 In his studies of inhibition, Roger Smith has shown how that word was used by different communities but carried over meanings from one to the other in a way that made it nonsensical to think of it as either a technical, scientific term unaffected by its ordinary meanings or an everyday term untouched by the ways in which it had been recruited and used by scientists.…”