What lies
in the future of teaching the history of psychology? *
Gira Bhatt and Randal
G. Tonks
Department of
Camosun College
The Context
Over a decade ago, when we were
graduate students, we made a mistake (!) of pondering over the "big
picture" of psychology. Before we
knew it, we had the bug in our system and we were obsessed with psychology's
history, the nature of the discipline, the philosophy of science, Danziger…and so on.
While we riveted in our obsession, we also suffered. Our fellow graduate students made snide
remarks about us, and called us "those theoretical types". Some faculty members also drew humor from our
interest. But we survived. Graduate school sure makes you a hardy bunch!
When we got
jobs and got to teach the undergraduate history of psychology courses, we felt
secure and delighted in the thought that we had finally
"arrived". After all Guru Danziger had assured us of a promising future for the
history of psychology. However, beginning
around 1994 we witnessed a series of events at two psychology departments which
shook us from our security zone. We
noticed that the retired history of psychology positions were not being
replaced. We noticed that the
undergraduate courses on the history of psychology were "cut" or
"reduced" or no longer "required". We observed that the value of the history of
psychology courses was being discounted.
We talked to some esteemed historians of psychology who were retiring
and learned about their lost "ideological war fares" within their
psychology departments. We began to
wonder if these were random happenings or an indication of a gloomy future for
the teachers of psychology's history. Are the undergraduate courses on the
history of psychology a case of "here today, gone tomorrow"? It is within this pedagogical context that
our paper was inspired.
Keeping
within Danziger's (1994) analytical frame for the
discipline, our attempt here is to trace the origins, trends, and threats to
the undergraduate courses on the history of psychology. Along the path of this exploration, we also
compiled some course-related numbers as well as comments of the teachers of the
history of psychology from across Canadian universities. Finally, this historical examination allowed
for some reflections on the pedagogical status and the future of these courses.
History of
Psychology and the Undergraduate Curricula
Danziger
(1994) observed that whereas the departments of physics, chemistry and other
natural science disciplines do not offer an undergraduate course on the history
of their respective disciplines, psychology departments routinely do. Danziger (1994) emphasized
that this is largely due to the nature of the discipline and "a lingering belief that the history of
psychology has a role within the discipline of psychology" (p. 467).
This belief seems to have persevered over many decades now, as psychology
departments across the continent not only routinely offer courses on the
history of psychology, but often make it a "requirement" for a major
(Fuchs & Viney, 2000). We conducted a web-based and e-mail survey of
the undergraduate curricula of the history of psychology courses offered at 44
Canadian universities. Our observations
supported this (see Table 1 and Table 2).
Tracing the Pedagogical
Origin of the History of Psychology
Interestingly, the earliest books on
the history of psychology published were "textbooks" written for
didactic purpose (Danziger, 1994). The year 1912 marked these beginnings with
three publications: B. Rand's "Classical psychologists: Selections
illustrating psychology from Anaxagoras to Wundt",
G. Stanley Hall's "The founders of
modern psychology" and G. S. Brett's first of the three massive volumes "A history of psychology"
(Incidentally, Brett was a Canadian philosopher-psychologist) A year later in 1913, J. M. Baldwin
published his two small volumes which are considered to be the first American
textbook on the history of psychology in the 20th century. (Hilgard, Leary, & McGuire's, 1991). A discussion of the textbooks of the history
of psychology would, of course remain deficient without the mention of the
famous E.G. Boring who wrote the popular "A history of experimental psychology" in 1929. In the same year Garden Murphy published his "Historical introduction to modern
psychology", and Pillsbury published "The history of psychology".
Given the
publication timeframe of these textbooks, and their didactic purpose, it would
be reasonable to conclude that psychologists were discussing the history of
psychology with their students as early as 1912. What may have triggered this trend? Why did early psychologists take interest in
the history of psychology right from its inception in the early 20th
century?
Upon
examining the larger picture of the discipline at the time -between 1912 &
1929- when these publications began to emerge, it is interesting to note that
this period also marked the dominance of the natural science status of
psychology. In fact, Boring's 1929
history textbook has been viewed as an attempt on his part to defend the pure
scientific nature of psychology from its "applied" sibling. As Graham Richards (1996) contends, these
early books on the history of psychology were written because of the pressure
that was experienced by the discipline "to prove its scientific credentials" (p. 2).
Since then,
however, the discipline of psychology has undergone many renovations. It has grown and diversified
exponentially. As well, it has witnessed
many trends, "isms" and fads, raising doubts and debates about its status
as a singular discipline (e.g., Bevan, 1982; Matarazzo, 1987; Kimble, 1989; Furedy,
Craik, Adair, & Conway, 1991; Conway, 1992; Wand,
1993). Amidst these trends and continual
growth of the discipline, the courses on the history of psychology have
retained their place within psychology curricula across the continent, and in
many parts of the world. APA
accreditation, for example, requires that psychology students should get
exposed to the historical roots of the discipline (see Table 2).
The Rationale for Teaching
Psychology's History
The issue
as to why the history of psychology course gained and retained an esteemed
status within the undergraduate course structure is worth examining. Michael
Wertheimer (1980) critically summarized various reasons and justifications
provided in the prefaces of various books on psychology's history. His first observation was that there seems to
be a taken -for-granted attitude among the authors of psychology's
history. We looked at the prefaces of
the history of psychology textbooks published in the '90s and came to a similar
conclusion. As Wertheimer observed,
None of these writers … bother to specify in a preface or introduction
why they believe study of the history of psychology is worthwhile. There even are prolific contributors of the
history of psychology (such as Josef Brozek) who have
not bothered to say at length in print why they believe the history of
psychology is a topic worth pursuing. By
taking its value for granted, these scholars imply that it must be self-evident
to any thinking person. Devoting space
to justification of the endevour might even suggest
that there might be some doubt about it in the first place!
(p. 5).
There were a
few books that did list reasons for the study of psychology's history, which can be summarized as i) it helps avoid the past errors and repetitions, ii)
it provides a fertile source of new ideas, iii) it may offer resolutions of
current problems, iv) it provides a healthy dose of humility and tolerance, v) it
improves the general education of the psychologists, and vi) "simply
because…"- everyone enjoys a good story; it is inherently
interesting.
In
addition, Wertheimer (1980) also examined the value of teaching psychology's
history from a disciplinarian perspective and highlighted three:
1.
"It has been a tradition" - a legacy since
the Titchener era. Wertheimer (1980) calls it a
"ritual" which is akin to an initiation rite that all teachers of
psychology must take a course on the history of psychology, and in turn it
implies; "do unto others as others have done unto us" (p. 6).
2.
"Look at our illustrious ancestors" or a
"gee-whiz" approach. Wertheimer (1980) calls this a form of
self-legitimization, and points out, as we noted earlier, that Boring wrote his
history textbook to legitimize the "pure" against the
"applied" psychology.
3.
It strengthens one's job prospects. Wertheimer (1980) observed that regardless of
one's specialization, adding a history of psychology course to one's teaching
credentials raises one's marketability, since the course on the history of
psychology is an integral part of the undergraduate psychology curriculum.
Nature of
the Discipline: Locating the Pedagogical
Status of Psychology's History
At a larger
perspective, these assorted reasons and justifications may be brought together
under one umbrella: the nature of the
discipline. Is psychology a natural
science or a human science? Is
psychology a singular and coherent discipline or is it a house divided? These two issues are of great significance in
understanding the status of the history of psychology course.
Kuhn (1970)
suggested that "consensus", as a defining characteristic of normal
science, is lacking in psychology. This
lack of a "normal science" status for psychology is also reflected in
the ways in which the history of psychology is being taught. Tracing the ancient roots is one of the
favored ways of teaching the history of psychology as these roots are
relatively easy to order chronologically.
First there was the golden age of the Greek scholarship, then came the
Dark Ages, then came the Renaissance and the British empiricism, followed by the
German physiologists. The neatly ordered
chronology however, is lost upon entering the 20th century as
diverging fields began to emerge all over.
The major three distinct beginnings of psychology as Leahey
(1980) calls it, grew simultaneously. Wundt and his volunteeristic
psychology of consciousness,
The goal of
cohesion and consensus within the discipline has thus remained only
elusive. As a human science, psychology is
comprised of "fields that are
structured in an agonistic manner,
fields which are characterized by deep divisions between alternative schools of
thought" (Danziger (1994, p. 471). Danziger (1994)
states that even the historiography of psychology has changed due to cultural
critiques that have arisen (from around the globe) against the "American
hegemony in psychology" (p. 476).
He also states that "modern psychology is returning to the position
from which it began: a polycentric position in which there are diverse but
intercommunicating centres of psychological work that
reflect a diversity of local conditions and traditions" (p. 477).
Beyond the
divisions, sections and centres of psychology that
are seen across CPA, APA, , and elsewhere, the division between natural and
human science perspectives has played a major role in academic divorce and
separation (Tonks, 1997; Wand, 1993; Conway, 1992; Leahey, 1991; Danziger, 1990; Staats, 1987). The
identity crisis of the discipline dates back over 100 or so years since it was
first proclaimed that psychology was scientific. Leahey (2001), for
example, points out that American psychology has been fraught with debates and
"walkouts" over the appropriate nature of our discipline as a
"pure" science or an applied profession. In
What is the
implication of the lack of the disciplinary cohesion and consensus? Danziger (1994) has
contended that the very fact that the discipline lacks cohesion and has
remained filled with divisions has necessitated the study of the history of
psychology within the discipline. It
follows that as long as there are "isms" and systems and theories,
undergraduate psychology students will need a course on the history of
psychology since it is the only course that would put all these isms into a
larger "scientific" perspective.
Does the
lack of cohesion and consensus then ensure the presence of the history of
psychology courses at an undergraduate level?
Perhaps not, as doubts have been raised by some scholars. For example, upon reflecting on the nature of
the discipline today, Leahey (2000) the past president
of the Division 26 of APA (History of Psychology) observed that in contemporary
psychology, there seem to be no major "isms" and no "big
pictures" anymore that students need to know. Leahey has further
appealed to the Division 26 members to ponder over the need to revise course
content in view of the rapidly changing discipline. Citing the changing ethos of psychology from
that of the 1950s and 60s when it had a renaissance, he further suggests that
the canonical approach to education, where the history of psychology is seen as
being essential to the Bildung
or character development of our students, may no longer be relevant. We need to decide among the alternatives of
defending the status quo, changing the content but not the required necessity
of it, or changing the requirement, and possibly also the content of it.
The Problem
and the Threat to the Teaching of Psychology's History
Consequences
of the shifting and proliferation of contradictory perspectives on the larger
discipline have filtered into the pedagogical domains. As such there are two major challenges
involved in teaching of psychology's history today. One is to decide on the direction and the
content of the course, and the other, a more serious one is to justify its
relevance to one's colleagues and decision makers in a psychology department. A related issue pertains to the hiring of an
expert to teach the course. .
The Direction and the
Content of the Course
Danziger (1994) suggested that the
traditional content of the history of psychology needed to change from a
'celebratory' 'insider' view to a more critical 'outsider' perspective. He points out that the positivist 'Whig'
approach to history has largely been celebratory where history merely plays a
supportive role for current dogma and ideologies of psychology. Rather, he contends, the history of
psychology needs to offer a critical historiography of the discipline, one that
more typically arises through a social or human science recognition of the
social context of disciplinary activity.
Rappard (1997) responded to Danziger's initial concerns over the future of the history
of psychology by suggesting that the "insider" perspective is not so
bad after all. He contended that by
giving our history away to professional historians (critical outsiders) we are
likely to have an irrelevant history, one that would look more like philosophy
than psychology. (Rappard, 1998). Not necessarily being against critical
historiography, Rappard indicated that the question
of 'moral distance' also arises as to what the appropriate distance on the
'outside' would be to be acceptable for the production of critical
histories. Danziger
(1997), indicates that a critical historiography is essential if psychology is
ever to make a significant contribution to the field of human understanding. The essence of the problem is that historical
amateurism is abound in psychology where:
we find
histories that are no more than literature reviews extended backward in time,
we find story telling substituting for history, we find the cult of
'anticipators' and the awarding of good and bad marks on the basis of some
current scientific orthodoxy, we find gross insensitivity to historical
context, we find the formulation of 'timeless' problems in the language of the
present, we find the construction of spurious lines of ancestry, we find the
mythology of progress. What historian of psychology could feel smug in the face
of such shortcomings?
(Danziger, 1997, p. 108).
Dehue (1998) suggests that this debate between Danziger and Rappard lies in the
notions of rigour vs. relevance. She provides an account that conceptualizes
both Danziger and Rappard
as "community historians" who each have their own contributions to
make. Thus she indicates that a "contextualist" approach would serve to bring both
views together enabling each one their own voice. Rappard (1998)
rejects this interpretation of Dehue's, where she
opposes contextualism with presentism,
indicating his acceptance of both.
Rather he concludes with Dehue's point that
historians are "commissioned" to write histories close to
contemporary views as a dangerous caricature of presentism
and his "household" view of history.
Finally, Danziger (1998) responds by
indicating that the "occasional contextualism"
that he ascribes to Dehue is not sufficient whereby
there is a deep and essential need to recognize the situated nature of the
historian and historical studies. He
states:
No matter
how hard one tries, one cannot step outside history in order to write about
it. Every historian occupies a
particular place in a historical world and can only describe the historical
process as it appears from the perspective afforded by that place. ... That is
why history will always be rewritten."
(1998, p. 670).
In summary, we see that there is
considerable interest over whether or not psychology should include a (canonical)
history of the discipline, and if so what that would look like. Danziger (1994)
indicates that there has been a decline in the "insider" histories
over the past 40 years, however, recent events suggest that the current trend
involves a decline in the critical historiography as well.
The De-valuing of the
Undergraduate Course on Psychology's History
Danziger (1994) made a very convincing case that the lack of a natural science
status for psychology combined with the "isms" and divisions within
the discipline would make the study of the history of psychology
indispensable. This optimism is
comforting, but at the extreme, there seems to be a trend emerging to discount
the value of the history of psychology courses altogether. In a less extreme, but equally of crisis
fashion, the critical historiographic approach is
being challenged and squeezed aside by curricular changes based upon
ideological warfare.
We
witnessed this ideological warfare at two universities, which took several
forms. Among them were: i) not replacing
the retired "history of psychology" faculty, ii) hiring
"external" faculty to teach the history of psychology course, iii)
scrapping the history of psychology courses as a requirement for major at an
undergraduate level, iv) not offering any history of psychology course at the
graduate level, and v) shortening the credits assigned to the course.
We briefly
present a case study of one university as an illustration:
The Case of Gradual
Disappearance
·
In the mid 1980s there were five faculty members who
taught history of psychology at the undergraduate level. History of psychology courses were offered at
the 2nd, 3rd, and
4th year levels.
·
During the early 1990s three of these people retired and
no new faculty were hired to replace them.
·
Also during this time a graduate student who had been
trained by two long standing historians of psychology was hired to teach the
history and systems course as well as the honours
seminar. This student, who had been
influenced by Danziger's (1990) Constructing the Subject, introduced it as an essential part of the
curriculum. Others soon followed and
even the senior member of the department who had just previously taken on the
history of psychology (generally from a celebratory perspective) took notice
and began his own "conversion" to the critical historiography
·
During the mid 1990s a graduate course on the history
of psychology had been established which filled quickly the first time by those
who had great interest in it, but without departmental support the course has
not since been offered, due to "a lack of enrollment". (It was not a required course as CPA &
APA accreditation insist).
·
Soon the rumblings began with the goals to remove the honours seminar from being a required course. The fourth year seminar course (which had
become the single greatest source of critical psychology in the undergraduate
program) is now no longer required by honors students and has become merely an
elective.
·
As for the faculty teaching history of psychology
there are currently only two, and soon to be only one as one of them is
retiring this year. This tenured
professor has been clearly told that his position is not going to be
replaced. He has since reported that he
has given up the battle to keep history as a canonical set of courses.
·
The former graduate student left to find more suitable
employment elsewhere.
·
Currently one
"external" faculty member has taken over some of the teaching duties.
Around the
same time, a scenario was unfolding at another university mirroring these
events. An esteemed historian of psychology nearing his retirement in the 1990s
faced a growing antagonism towards his year-long history course. In a personal conversation he conveyed with
sadness and some bitterness that the course would stay alive only as long as he
was in the department. Indeed, as soon
as he retired, his position disappeared.
As well, his year-long course was cut into half. A young faculty member with interest in the
"cognition" area of psychology was assigned to take over. As well, an "external", a
post-doctoral fellow with a doctorate in philosophy, has been now hired to
teach psychology's history to undergraduate students.
The
implications of the reduction in courses and disappearance of some of the
faculty positions are already being felt.
The new PhDs who specialize in the field of history of psychology seem
to experience greater challenges and frustration in finding a university job. Katalin Dzinas (1995), for example, in her tribute to Kurt Danziger reflected that, whereas Kurt Danziger
represents a privileged voice, in that he had tenure, and was someone who turned
to history later in his career, and only after achieving full professorship. New
PhDs do not see a favorable career future in the history of psychology. As Dzinas (1995) expressed
her worries:
We worry whether we will be able to secure a job as historians of
psychology… None of us wish to work as closet historians, pretending at all
times to be something we are not and doing research on problems in which we are
not particularly interested…We worry that
we may not be able to secure grant money to fund our research… We might
not have the opportunity to supervise students who wish to work in this area. (P.
33)
One senior
faculty member teaching history who has advocated the critical approach,
indicated that he wished to remain "off the record" for fear of
reprisal from his colleagues. However he
did reveal that he had been told by one of the "backroom architects"
of these changes that the main reason for "getting rid" of the
courses presenting critical historiography is that they "would not enable
him to do the kind of psychology that he would like to do." This is because students had become too
critical and he could not convince them that his type of psychology was worth
doing. This attitude is reflected in a
recent book review from JHBS that indicates a weariness of the critical
approach where "biographers amplify private faults of a scientist and
neglect his or her contributions to the history of ideas" (Rilling, 1998, p. 390)
What might
be more interesting than the fact that history has been reduced to fewer
courses and faculty, is the rationale
behind these changes. The official
story is that such changes will make the department "more
competitive" against other programmes nationally
and internationally, however, unofficially informants have indicated that it is a positivist
backlash against the critical historiography that had emerged through the
1990s. It is also of great interest that
not only did the history of psychology courses witness a reduction in their
canonical role in undergraduate education, but that other areas (notably
statistics and measurement courses) witnessed an increase in their canonical
role as required courses
Dehue (1997) also echoes this view when she states "it
is my grounded impression that [critical] historians rubbing against
psychologists' shoulders are more likely to evoke their irritation than their
sympathy" (p. 659). Only time will
tell, but Danziger's vision of the future of history
of psychology appears to be in peril, ironically due in part to the success of
his own work.
Conclusion
Danziger's conviction based on his analytical
scrutiny and profound insight has assured us that given the "isms"
and sharp divisions within the field, history of psychology will retain its
anchoring status. However, this is the
"critical history" or historiography that Danziger
has talked about, and it has led to a wave of new scholarship in the
field. However, what we have observed is
that at the undergraduate level, the exciting historiographic
research does not make a headway. The
textbooks seem to ignore these research findings, and the instructors, a large
number of whom tend to be either "non-expert" or "external"
continue with the "celebratory" whiggish
account of psychology's history. Amidst
this, the self-acclaimed "hard-core scientists" within psychology
departments continually discount the value of undergraduate courses on
psychology's history. We have witnessed the backlash that Dehue.(1997)
commented on.. Several years ago, when
our section organized a symposium on "post-positivism", some of our
esteemed colleagues sarcastically commented that just because a bunch of the “theoretical
types” declare a death, does not mean that positivism is dead. It was further added that they would plan a
rejoinder titled "Positivism strikes back"!!
It seems to
us that the more that historiography has gained, the more it seems to have lost
at the pedagogical level. Historiography
will likely continue to prosper, but we are not so optimistic about its
pedagogical future.
References
Bevan, W. (1982). A sermon of sorts in three plus
parts. American Psychologist, 37, 1303-1322.
Brett, G. S. (1912-21). A history of psychology.
Vols. 1, 2, 3.
Baldwin, J.
M. (1913). A history of experimental psychology: A sketch and an
interpretation, Vol. 1, 2.
Boring, E.
G. (1929). A history of experimental psychology.
Conway, J. B.
(1992). A world of differences among psychologists. Canadian Psychology, 33,
1, 1-24.
Danziger, K. (1994). Does
the history of psychology have a future? Theory and Psychology, 4,
467-484.
Danziger, K. (1990).
Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research.
Danziger, K. (1997). The
future of psychology's history is not its past: A reply to Rappard.
Theory and Psychology, 7, 107-111.
Danziger, K. (1998). On
historical scholarship: A reply to Dehue. Theory
& Psychology, 8 (5), 669-671.
Dehue, T. (1998).
Community historians and the dilemma of rigor vs
relevance: A comment on Danziger and Van Rappard. Theory and Psychology, 8 (5), 653-661.
Dzinas, K. (1995). k. d. on K. D. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 7, 32-35.
Fuchs, A. H.
& Viney, A. W. (2000). The course in the history of psychology: Present status and future
concerns. Unpublished manuscript.
Furedy, J. J., Craik, F. I. M., Adair, J. G., & Conway, J. B. (1991).
W(h)ither the discipline? A symposium. Canadian
Psychology, 32, 439-460.
Hall, S. G.
(1912). The founders of modern psychology.
Hilgard, E, R., Leary, D.
E., & McGuire, G. R. (1991). The history of psychology: A survey and
critical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 79-107.
Kimble, G.
A. (1989). Psychology from the
standpoint of a generalist. American
Psychologist, 44, 491-499.
Kuhn, T.S.
(1970) The structure of scientific
revolutions, 2nd edition, Enlarged.
Leahey, T. S. (2001). A history of modern psychology, 3rd
edition, Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Leahey, T. S. (1980). A
history of psychology: Main currents in psychological thought.
Leahey, T. (2000, October).
What is the proper place of history in college and university curricula? [7
paragraphs]. APA26@yorku.ca
(listserve). Avilable
E-mail: listserve@yorku.ca.
Matarazzo, J. D. (1987).
There is only one psychology, no specialties, but many applications. American
Psychologist, 42, 893-903.
Murphy, G.
(1929) Historical introduction to modern psychology.
Pillsbury,
W. B. (1929). The history of psychology.
Rand, B.
(1912) (Ed). Classical psychologists: Selections illustrating psychology
from Anaxagoras to Wundt.
Rappard, F. J. H. van
(1997). History of psychology turned inside(r) out: A comment on Danziger. Theory and Psychology, 7, 101-105.
Rappard, F. J. H. van
(1998). Towards a household theory: A reply to Dehue.
Theory & Psychology, 8 (5) 663-667.
Richards, G.
(1996). Putting psychology in its place: An introduction from a critical
historical perspective.
Rilling, M. (1998). Review
of Gregory A. Kimble and Michael Wertheimer, Eds. Portraits of pioneers in
psychology Volume 3. Journal of the history of the behavioral sciences, 34
(4)390-391.
Staats, A. W. (1987).
Unified Positivism: Philosophy for the Revolution to Unity. In A. W. Staats & L. P. Mos (Eds.)
Annals of Theoretical Psychology (Vol.5).
Tonks, R. G. (1997). On
the nature of psychological science. Psybernetika, 3
(3). Retrieve from internet on
Wand, B.
(1993). The unity of the discipline. Canadian Psychology, 34, 2, 124-134.
Wertheimer,
M. (1980). Historical research- Why? In J. Brozek
& L. J. Pongratz (Eds),
Historiography of modern psychology (pp. 3-23).
Table 1
Undergraduate History of Psychology
Across Canadian Universities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40[1] |
|
|
15[2] |
|
|
18[3] |
Table 2
Undergraduate History of Psychology Across Canadian
Universities
|
History of Psychology Course |
|
|
|
12 (out of 20) |
* Paper
presented to the History and Philosophy of Psychology Section of the Canadian
Psychological Association annual meeting,
* Paper published in the History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14 (1), 2002.
[1]
N=41. No Web info was available on
faculty research interest for three departments:
[2] Out of a total of 115 psychology faculty.
[3] N=41
[4] N=43