Advertisement

A Role for the History of Psychology in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology

  • Saulo de Freitas AraujoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology book series (PSTHP)

Abstract

While traditional conceptions of theoretical psychology focus on epistemological and methodological aspects of psychological theories, recent approaches tend to include social, moral, and practical issues. However, whether defined in narrower or broader terms, contemporary views of theoretical and philosophical psychology have little room for the history of psychology. In this chapter, I argue that it plays an essential role in theoretical psychology, by making the theoretical psychologist aware of at least two things: the historical contingency of the very idea of theoretical psychology, and the persistent philosophical problems that underlie psychological science. To illustrate my thesis, I propose a two-layered approach in which the history of psychology plays a double role in theoretical psychology: it offers an immediate context for contemporary proposals and a deep connection with the long development of psychology. I conclude that the history of psychology is vital for re-envisioning theoretical and philosophical psychology.

References

  1. Arabatzis, T. (2016). The structure of scientific revolutions and history and philosophy of science in historical perspective. In A. Blum, K. Gavroglu, C. Joas, & J. Renn (Eds.), Shifting paradigms: Thomas Kuhn and the history of science (pp. 191–201). Berlin: Edition Open Access.Google Scholar
  2. Araujo, S. F. (2012). Materialism’s eternal return: Recurrent patterns of materialistic explanations of mental phenomena. In A. Moreira-Almeida & F. S. Santos (Eds.), Exploring frontiers of the mind-brain relationship (pp. 3–15). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araujo, S. F. (2016). Wundt and the philosophical foundations of psychology: A reappraisal. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araujo, S. F. (2017a). Toward a philosophical history of psychology: An alternative path for the future. Theory & Psychology, 27(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Araujo, S. F. (2017b). On methodological pluralism, context, and misinterpretation in the historiography of psychology: A reply to Brock and Burman. Theory & Psychology, 27(3), 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aristotle. (1995). De Anima. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 1, pp. 641–692). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ash, M. (1983). The self-presentation of a discipline: History of psychology in the United States between pedagogy and scholarship. In L. Graham, W. Lepenies, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Functions and uses of disciplinary histories (pp. 143–189). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bate, J. (Ed.). (2011). The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, M., & Hacker, P. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Bergmann, G. (1940a). On some methodological problems of psychology. Philosophy of Science, 7(2), 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergmann, G. (1940b). The subject matter of psychology. Philosophy of Science, 7(4), 415–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bergmann, G. (1943). Psychoanalysis and experimental psychology: A review from the standpoint of scientific empiricism. Mind, 52(206), 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bergmann, G. (1951). The logic of psychological concepts. Philosophy of Science, 18(2), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bergmann, G. (1953). Theoretical psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 435–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brock, A. (2016). The universal and the particular in psychology and the role of history in explaining both. In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 29–46). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. (Annals of Theoretical Psychology 14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Butterfield, H. (1965). The Whig interpretation of history. New York: Norton & Company. (Original work published 1935).Google Scholar
  17. Collins, A., & Bunn, G. (2016). The shackles of practice: History of psychology, research assessment, and the curriculum. In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 91–109). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. (Annals of Theoretical Psychology 14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Danziger, K. (1994). Does the history of psychology have a future? Theory & Psychology, 4(4), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feigl, H. (1959). Philosophical embarrassments of psychology. American Psychologist, 14(3), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferro, M. (1984). The use and abuse of history or how the past is taught. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, D. H. (1970). Historians’ fallacies. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Fowers, B. (2015). The promise of a flourishing theoretical psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(3), 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fritze, R. (2011). Invented knowledge. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  24. Gergen, K. J. (2014). Foreword. In C. Tileaga & J. Byford (Eds.), Psychology and history: Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. xxii–xxiv). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Surrogates for theories. Theory & Psychology, 8(2), 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 733–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guldi, J., & Armitage, D. (2014). The history manifesto. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanson, N. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hanson, N. (1962). The irrelevance of history of science to philosophy of science. Journal of Philosophy, 59, 574–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hatfield, G. (1996). Review Essay: The importance of the history of science for philosophy in general. Synthese, 106, 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Held, B. (2011). Critique and metacritique in psychology: Whence and wither. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31(3), 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howard, M. (1991). The lessons of history. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hunt, L. (2018). History: Why it matters. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  35. James, W. (1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890).Google Scholar
  36. Koch, S. (1951). Theoretical psychology, 1950: An overview. Psychological Review, 58(4), 295–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Koch, S. (1999). Vagrant confessions of an asystematic psychologist: An intellectual biography. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology in human context: Essays in dissidence and reconstruction (pp. 21–48). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kukla, A. (1989). Nonempirical issues in psychology. American Psychologist, 44(5), 785–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kukla, A. (2001). Methods of theoretical psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kuhn, T. (1977). The relations between the history and the philosophy of science. In T. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 3–20). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lamiell, J. (2013). Translator’s preface. History of Psychology, 16(3), 195–196.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Lamiell, J. (2015). Statistical thinking in psychological research. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology (pp. 200–215). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Lefkowitz, M. (2009). Historiography and myth. In A. Tucker (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of history and historiography (pp. 353–361). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1982). A new theoretical psychology? Higher Education Quarterly, 36(3), 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Machamer, P., & Sytsma, J. (2007). Psychology and neuroscience: What’s to worry about? Theory & Psychology, 17(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. MacKay, D. (1988). Under what conditions can theoretical psychology survive and prosper? Integrating the rational and empirical epistemologies. Psychological Review, 95(4), 559–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Macmillan, M. (2010). Dangerous games: The uses and abuses of history. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  49. Madsen, K. (1985). Psychological metatheory: An introduction to Volume 3. In K. Madsen & L. P. Mos (Eds.), Annals of theoretical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1–19). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martin, J. (2004). What can theoretical psychology do? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin, J., Sugarman, J., & Slaney, K. (2015a). Editor’s introduction. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology (pp. 1–20). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Martin, J., Sugarman, J., & Slaney, K. (Eds.). (2015b). The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nietzsche, F. (1997). On the uses and disadvantages of history for life. In D. Breazeale (Ed.), Untimely meditations (pp. 57–123). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1874).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nussbaum, M. (2016). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Osbeck, L. (2005). Method and theoretical psychology. Theory & Psychology, 15(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Petitt, M., & Davidson, I. (2014). Can the history of psychology have an impact? Theory & Psychology, 24(5), 709–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Toward a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Robinson, D. (2007). Theoretical psychology: What is it and who needs it? Theory & Psychology, 17(2), 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Royce, J. (1978). How can we best advance the construction of theory in psychology. Canadian Psychological Review, 19(4), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwartz, S., Lilienfeld, S., Meca, A., & Sauvigné, K. (2016). The role of neuroscience in psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. American Psychologist, 71(1), 52–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Slife, B., & Williams, R. (1997). Toward a theoretical psychology. American Psychologist, 53(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, R. (2016). History of psychology: What for? In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 3–28). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. (Annals of Theoretical Psychology 14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Srigley, R. (2018, February 22). Whose university is it anyway? Los Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved from https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/whose-university-is-it-anyway/#!.
  66. Stam, H. (2000). Ten years after, decade to come. The contributions of theoretical psychology. Theory & Psychology, 10(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stam, H. (2010). Theoretical communities and Theory & Psychology: A decade review. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 723–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stam, H. (Ed.). (2012a). Theoretical psychology (8 vols.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Stam, H. (2012b). Theoretical psychology and the multiple ways of being theoretical: An introduction to contemporary readings. In H. Stam (Ed.), Theoretical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. xix–xxxiii). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Teo, T. (2009). Editorial. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Teo, T. (2015a). Theoretical psychology: A critical-philosophical outline of core issues. In I. Parker (Ed.), Handbook of critical psychology (pp. 117–126). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Teo, T. (2015b). Historical thinking as a tool for theoretical psychology. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman, & K. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology (pp. 135–150). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  73. Tissaw, M., & Osbeck, L. (2007). On critical engagement with the mainstream. Theory & Psychology, 17(2), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Toomela, A. (2016). Six meanings of the history of science: The case of psychology. In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 47–73). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. (Annals of Theoretical Psychology 14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tosh, J. (2008). Why history matters. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Toulmin, S. (1961). Foresight and understanding: An enquiry into the aims of science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  77. Toulmin, S., & Leary, D. (1985). The cult of empiricism in psychology, and beyond. In S. Koch & D. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 594–617). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  78. Tweney, R., & Budzynski, C. (2000). The scientific status of American psychology in 1900. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1014–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Valsiner, J. (2015). Historical leads for theory construction in psychology. In C. Gruber, M. Clark, S. Klempe, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Constraints of agency (pp. 45–48). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. (Annals of Theoretical Psychology 12).Google Scholar
  80. Williams, R. (1999). A history of division 24 (Theoretical and philosophical psychology). In D. Dewsbury (Ed.), Unification through division: Histories of the divisions of the American Psychological Association (Vol. 4, pp. 65–89). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wundt, W. (1903). Naturwissenschaft und Psychologie [Natural science and psychology]. Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  82. Wundt, W. (1911). Die Definition der Psychologie [The definition of psychology]. In W. Wundt (Ed.), Kleine Schriften (Vol. 2, pp. 113–166). Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  83. Wundt, W. (1913). Die Psychologie im Kampf ums Dasein [Psychology’s struggle for existence]. Leipzig: Kröner.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of Juiz de ForaJuiz de ForaBrazil

Personalised recommendations