The histor(y/ies) of social psycholog(y/ies).

Abstract

No simple blueprint exists fur writing a, let alone the, history of psychology. Papers at the International Conference on the History of Social Psychology (Paris, April, lOfli) reflected differing methodologies, cultural perspectives, and purposes in writing histor(y/ies) and upon social psycholog(y/ies)'s nature as a singular/ plural and/or universalist/relativist. Historical recovery of such lost themes as language, the uses and abuses of interpersonal influence and political power, and trans-generational influences, may enrich social psychology beyond its current specialized narrowness.

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

“…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).…”

“…Reviewing past collections on histor{y/ies} of social psycholog{y/ies}, we found a variety of historical methods used to recount the development of this neighbouring sub-discipline: text analysis, bibliometric studies using citation counts, biographical interviews, case reports, archival research, autobiographical accounts and so on. (Lubek, 1992, 1993a, 2000a, 2000b). Here, studies using different methods and viewpoints would often see their findings triangulate (as in social science research).…”

Genius without the “Great Man”:New possibilities for the historian of psychology.

“…While the older "official" and "recurrent" histories of the discipline attempt to celebrate progress and laud exemplary scholars, the newer "critical" histories tend to problematize the dominant narratives of the discipline and lay bare their power structures and subjectivities (Lubek, 1992(Lubek, , 2000Lubek & Apfelbaum, 2000;Rose, 1996; see also Danziger, 1994). Powerfully guided by economic, feminist, colonialist, and other critical theoretical frameworks, the new generation of psychologisthistorians set themselves the task of studying those who have been marginalized or rendered invisible by traditional Great Man histories.…”

“…Of course, this characterization of "old" and "new" history as being diametrically opposed to one another is based on theoretical, historiographic writings (e.g., Furumoto, 1989;Lubek, 1992Lubek, , 2000Lubek & Apfelbaum, 2000;Rose, 1996). In practice, the difference between the two has been much more subtle.…”

Interpreting Brown and Hackley (2012)

“…Clearly within the community researching marketing history there is a noticeable commitment to intellectual pluralism that encourages the production of more culturally rich studies like Brown's contribution. This said, there has also been a marked tendency to refer to the history of marketing thought and marketing history, when a more accurate label might be histories of marketing thought and marketing histories (Lubek, 1992). This labelling strategy highlights the pluralisation of interpretation and representation that results from paradigmatic and methodological expansion beyond once popular, but less so now, "positivist" approaches (Brown et al, 2001;Savitt, 1980).…”