Whig and Anti-Whig histories? And other curiosities of social psychology

Samelson, Franz

doi:10.1002/1520-6696(200023)36:4<499::aid-jhbs14>3.0.co;2-j

Cited by 27 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A discussion of historians’ conceptual tools and terminology critically applicable to many historical narratives – ‘celebratory’, antiquarian, hagiographic, ‘Great Man’ (sic) (Boring, 1950a), ‘Whiggish’ or ‘court’ histories (Samelson, 2000) – is available elsewhere (Lubek, 1992, 1993a). Others as well have suggested that we move towards a historiographical gold standard, with post-Kuhnian contextual, discontinuous, historicist and/or critical accounts (Cherry, 1995; Danziger, 1990; Furumoto, 1988; Harris, 1980; Lubek, 2000b).…”

Section: A Brief Critical Contextual Note On the Conceptual Toolbox mentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing Histor{y/ies} of Health Psycholog{y/ies}

Lubek

Murray

2018

J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic (sub)disciplines develop in time and place when particular ideas/practices are nurtured within social, gendered, cultural, community, economic and political contexts. Different histories employ different analyses, some with external views of scientific outputs describing research and practice, and others with internal, behind-the-scenes examinations of these developments, through oral histories and personal recollections. This collection, written by historians of (social) science, or practitioners or pioneering participants, uses different historiographical methods to contextualize health-related activities within the sub-discipline of health psychology and the evolving critical and/or community approaches. The papers connect the evolving health psycholog{y/ies} with changing socio-political circumstances in different countries.

show abstract

Section: A Brief Critical Contextual Note On the Conceptual Toolbox mentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing Histor{y/ies} of Health Psycholog{y/ies}

Lubek

Murray

2018

J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Curiosamente fue el propio Allport (1954), padre de esa limitada -y limitadora-defi nición a la que se refi eren Lubek y Apfelbaum 2 , quien presentó una revisión histórica que, si bien presentista y plagada de imprecisiones y errores (por ej., Haines y Vaughan, 1979;Ibáñez, 1990, pp. 12-13;Samelson, 1974Samelson, , 2000, era mucho más amplia en términos temporales, reconocía los antecedentes europeos de la moderna psicología social, daba cabida a antecedentes más plurales y multidisciplinares (por ej., procedentes de la sociología) y otorgaba un papel más importante a la teorización que a la mecánica experimentación vacía de contenido que se iba instaurando progresivamente en la práctica científi ca de la disciplina (véase Lubek y Apfelbaum, 2000). Los capítulos de Jones (1985Jones ( , 1998 y Taylor (1998) se centran principalmente sobre la psicología social experimental norteamericana de orientación psicológica, se limitan a fuentes mainstream, sus análisis históricos o conceptuales resultan escasos y pobres, y restan importancia a las críticas de los años 60 y 70 del pasado siglo (Farr, 1991;Lubek y Apfelbaum, 2000;Samelson, 2000).…”

unclassified

“…12-13;Samelson, 1974Samelson, , 2000, era mucho más amplia en términos temporales, reconocía los antecedentes europeos de la moderna psicología social, daba cabida a antecedentes más plurales y multidisciplinares (por ej., procedentes de la sociología) y otorgaba un papel más importante a la teorización que a la mecánica experimentación vacía de contenido que se iba instaurando progresivamente en la práctica científi ca de la disciplina (véase Lubek y Apfelbaum, 2000). Los capítulos de Jones (1985Jones ( , 1998 y Taylor (1998) se centran principalmente sobre la psicología social experimental norteamericana de orientación psicológica, se limitan a fuentes mainstream, sus análisis históricos o conceptuales resultan escasos y pobres, y restan importancia a las críticas de los años 60 y 70 del pasado siglo (Farr, 1991;Lubek y Apfelbaum, 2000;Samelson, 2000). El que el capítulo histórico de Allport haya sido suprimido en la última edición del Handbook (Gilbert, Fiske y Lindzey 1998) sin ser sustituido por otro de naturaleza similar, no hace hace sino agravar el problema 3 .…”

unclassified

Sobre el Desinterés por la Historia de la Psicología Social

Masip¹

2014

Summa Psicológica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenEl conocimiento del pasado de una disciplina es imprescindible para una comprensión adecuada de su presente. Sin embargo, los psicólogos sociales mainstream muestran cierto desinterés e ignorancia sobre el pasado de la psicología social. Esto puede deberse en parte al papel que juegan en su formación las historias "ofi ciales" de la disciplina. Así, los capítulos históricos del Handbook of Social Psychology abarcan un periodo histórico cada vez más limitado y se escriben desde una perspectiva presentista que toma el estado actual de la disciplina como el más desarrollado, considerando que el pasado ha ido conduciendo irremisiblemente a este avanzado presente. Esta concepción no refl eja la verdadera evolución, en modo alguno lineal, de una disciplina. Sólo una historia contextualista puede hacerlo, y los jóvenes psicólogos sociales deben rastrear en textos contextualistas los desarrollos históricos de la psicología social.Palabras clave: Psicología social, historia, presentismo. AbstractKnowing the past of a discipline is essential to fully understand its present. However, mainstream social psychologists show some lack of interest and poor knowledge about the past of social psychology. This might be a result of the role that "offi cial" histories of the discipline play in their education. Indeed, the historical period covered by the relevant chapters of the Handbook of Social Psychology is being progressively shortened, and these chapters are written from a presentist perspective that takes the current state of the discipline as the most evolved of all, which is a natural consequence of its ever-improving past.This view does not refl ect the actual development of a discipline, which is not linear. Only a contextualist history may refl ect it, and the novice social psychologists must look at contextualist writings to understand the historical developments of social psychology.

show abstract

“…The role of disciplinary history in the creation and maintenance of disciplinary autonomy and authority has been a target of scholarly inquiry at least since Thomas Kuhn's claim that such histories are key indicators of a reigning paradigm (Kuhn 1970). In the United States, the history of psychology is a recognized subdiscipline of psychology, with histories of psychology serving to inculcate students into psychology as well as to establish and maintain the authority of research programs (Ash 1983;Leahey 1992;Samelson 1997;Samelson 2000). We should not be surprised, therefore, to find evolutionary psychologists appealing to the history of the social sciences when they make their calls for the necessity and value of their nascent discipline.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Definitional Argument in Evolutionary Psychology and Cultural Anthropology

Jackson

2010

Sci Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ArgumentEvolutionary psychologists argue that because humans are biological creatures, cultural explanations must include biology. They thus offer to unify the natural and social sciences. Evolutionary psychologists rely on a specific history of cultural anthropology, particularly the work of Alfred Kroeber to make this point. A close examination of the history of cultural anthropology reveals that Kroeber acknowledged that humans were biological and culture had a biological foundation; however, he argued that we should treat culture as autonomous because that would bring benefits to the biological sciences as well as the human sciences. Hence, the historical caricature of his work by evolutionary psychology fails. The paper concludes that cultural anthropologists were successful in creating their discipline, at least in part, because they argued by pragmatic definition. Evolutionary psychology, on the other hand, offers an essentialist definition of “culture” and thus offers a much less promising vision of interdisciplinary collaboration.

show abstract

Whig and Anti-Whig histories? And other curiosities of social psychology

Cited by 27 publications

References 12 publications

Doing Histor{y/ies} of Health Psycholog{y/ies}

Doing Histor{y/ies} of Health Psycholog{y/ies}

Sobre el Desinterés por la Historia de la Psicología Social

Definitional Argument in Evolutionary Psychology and Cultural Anthropology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About