Yeni psikoloji tarihi üzerine bir derleme

Öz

19. yüzyılın sonunda ortaya çıkan modern psikoloji bilimsellik statüsünü elde edebilmek için metodolojik olarak doğa bilimlerine öykünmüştür. Psikologlar kendi disiplinlerinin tarih yazımlarını da çoğunlukla aynı paralelde inşa ederek psikolojinin deneysel kimliğini öne çıkaran bir tarih anlatısı benimsemiştir. Özellikle 1960 sonrası psikoloji tarihi psikologların profesyonelce ilgilendiği bir uğraşı alanı olarak belirmeye başlamıştır. Bu tarihlerden itibaren birçok psikolog, büyük adamlar ve onların başarılarıyla sınırlı bir anlatı etrafında kutsayıcı ve ilerlemeci bir dil kullanan ve psikolojinin yalnızca deneysel biçimine odaklanan geleneksel ya da eski diye nitelendirilebilecek olan tarih anlayışını eleştirerek psikolojinin yeni tarihini öne çıkarmıştır. Bu yeni tarih anlayışı psikolojideki fikirlerin ya da bulguların sosyokültürel bağlamını göz ardı etmeyen, birincil kaynaklara başvurma gayreti güderek tarih yazımını daha profesyonel bir şekilde icra etmeye çalışan ve bazen belirli bir toplumsal değerden (örn. eşitlik) yola çıkarak tarihi yeniden yazma amacını içermektedir. Bu yazıda psikolojideki yeni tarih anlayışı, geleneksel tarih anlayışı ile karşılaştırılarak Türkçe psikoloji alanyazınına tanıtılacaktır. İkisi arasındaki yaklaşım farkının yalnızca bilimsel bir yaklaşım farkı olmaktan öte psikolojinin bilimsel kimliğini farklı biçimde inşa etme yolları olduğu ileri sürülecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geleneksel Tarih Anlayışı
• Psikolojinin Yeni Tarihi
• Psikolojide Tarih Yazımı

A review on the new history of psychology

Öz

Emerging at the end of the 19th century, modern psychology methodologically emulated the natural sciences in order to achieve scientific status. Psychologists have often constructed the historiographies of their own disciplines in parallel, adopting a historical narrative that emphasises the empirical identity of psychology. Especially after 1960, the history of psychology started to emerge as an area of professional interest for psychologists. Since then, many psychologists have emphasised the new history of psychology by criticising the traditional or old understanding of history, which uses a sanctifying and progressive language around a narrative limited to great men and their achievements and focuses only on the experimental form of psychology. This new conception of history does not ignore the sociocultural context of ideas or findings in psychology, attempts to perform historiography in a more professional manner by endeavouring to consult primary sources, and sometimes aims to rewrite history based on a particular social value (e.g. equality). In this article, the new understanding of history in psychology will be introduced to the Turkish psychological literature by comparing it with the traditional understanding of history. It will be argued that the difference in approach between the two is not solely a difference in scientific approach but rather a different way of constructing the scientific identity of psychology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Traditional Understanding of History
• New History of Psychology
• Historiography in Psychology

Kaynakça

1. Ankersmith, F. R. (1989). Historiography and postmodernism. History and Theory, 28(2), 137-153. https://doi.org/10.2307/2505032.
2. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
3. Ash, M. G. (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). Reidel.
4. Benjamin Jr, L. T. (2023). A brief history of modern psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
5. Blumenthal, A. L. (1975). A reappraisal of Wilhelm Wundt. American Psychologist, 30(11), 1081–1088. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.30.11.1081
6. Boring, E. G. (1929). A history of experimental psychology. Century Company.
7. Brinkmann, S. (2005). Psychology's facts and values: A perennial entanglement. Philosophical Psychology, 18(6), 749-765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080500355244
8. Brock, A. C. (2014). What is a polycentric history of psychology?. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 14(2), 646-659.

9. Brock, A. C. (2020). History of the history of psychology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.464
10. Brown, S., & Stenner, P. (2009). Psychology without foundations: History, philosophy and psychosocial theory. Sage.
11. Cahan, E. D., & White, S. H. (1992). Proposals for a second psychology. American Psychologist, 47(2), 224-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.224
12. Cerullo, J. J. (1988). E.G. Boring: Reflections on a discipline builder. The American Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 561-575. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423233
13. Danziger, K. (1980). The history of introspection reconsidered. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16(3), 241-262.
14. Danziger, K. (1994a). Does the history of psychology have a future?. Theory & Psychology, 4(4), 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354394044001
15. Danziger, K. (1994b). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press.
16. Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. Sage.
17. Danziger, K. (2003). Prospects of a historical psychology. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 15(2), 4-10.
18. Danziger, K. (2006). Danziger, K. (2006). Universalism and indigenization in the history of modern psychology. In A. C. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of psychology, (pp. 208-225). New York University Press.
19. Danziger, K. (2009). Marking the mind: A history of memory. Cambridge University Press.
20. Danziger, K. (2013). Psychology and its history. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 829-839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313502746
21. Furumoto, L. (1989). The new history of psychology. The G. Stanley Hall Lecture Series, 9, 9–34.
22. Goertzen, J. R. (2008). On the Possibility of Unification The Reality and Nature of the Crisis in Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(6), 829-852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308097260
23. Green, C. D. (2015). Why psychology isn’t unified, and probably never will be. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 207-214. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000051
24. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29-29.
25. Hilgard, E. R., Leary, D. E., & McGuire, G. R. (1991). The history of psychology: A survey and critical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 79-107.
26. Koch, S. (1961). Psychological science versus the science-humanism antinomy: Intimations of a significant science of man. American Psychologist, 16(10), 629-639.
27. Koch, S. (1993). " Psychology" or" the psychological studies"?. American Psychologist, 48(8), 902-904.
28. Lovett, B. J. (2006). The new history of psychology: A review and critique. History of Psychology, 9(1), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/1093-4510.9.1.17
29. Nelson, J. (2014). Positivism. In Teo, T. (Ed) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. (pp. 1437-1444). Springer.
30. O'Donnell, J. M. (1979). The crisis of experimentalism in the 1920s: EG Boring and his uses of History. American Psychologist, 34(4), 289-295.
31. Oreskes, N. (2013). Why I am a presentist. Science in Context, 26(04), 595-609. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026988971300029X
32. Pickren, W. E. (2009). Indigenization and the history of psychology. Psychological Studies, 54(2), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-009-0012-7
33. Pickren, W., & Rutherford, A. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. John Wiley & Sons.
34. Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place: A critical historical overview. Psychology Press.
35. Richards, G. (2008). Psychology: The key concepts. Routledge.
36. Robinson, D. N. (2013). Historiography in psychology: A note on ignorance. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 819- 828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313499426 Robinson, J. H. (1911). The new history. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 50(199), 179-190.
37. Rutherford, A. (2014). Historiography. In Teo, T. (Ed) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. (pp. 866-872). Springer.
38. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2007). Modern psikoloji tarihi. (Y. Aslay, Çev.). Kaknüs Yayınları.
39. Shapin, S. (1979). The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the Edinburgh Phrenology Disputes. The Sociological Review, 27(1), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00061.x
40. Smith, R. (1988). Does the history of psychology have a subject? History of the Human Sciences, 1(2), 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/095269518800100201
41. Smith, R. (2005). The history of psychological categories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(1), 55-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.12.006
42. Stocking, G. W. (1965). On the limits of ‘presentism’ and ‘historicism’ in the historiography of the behavioral sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1(3), 211-218.
43. Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622.
44. Teo, T. (2005). The critique of psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
45. Teo, T. (2013). Backlash against American psychology: An indigenous reconstruction of the history of German critical psychology. History of Psychology, 16(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030286
46. Teo, T. (2015). Historical thinking as a tool for theoretical psychology: On objectivity. In J. Martin, J. Sugarman & K. L. Slaney (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches and new directions for social sciences (pp. 135-150). Wiley.
47. Teo, T., & Febbraro, A. R. (2003). Ethnocentrism as a form of intuition in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 13(5), 673-694. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543030135009
48. Teo, T., Gao, Z., & Sheivari, R. (2014). Philosophical reflexivity in social justice work. In C. V. Johnson, H. L. Friedman, J. Diaz, Z. Franco, & B. K. Nastasi (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of social justice and psychology: Fundamental issues and special populations; Well-being and professional issues; Youth and disciplines in psychology (pp. 65–78). Praeger/ABC-CLIO.
49. Vaughn-Blount, K., Rutherford, A., Baker, D., & Johnson, D. (2009). History's Mysteries Demystified: Becoming a Psychologist–Historian. The American Journal of Psychology, 122(1), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.2307/27784381
50. Young, R. M. (1966). Scholarship and the history of the behavioural sciences. History of Science, 5(1), 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327536600500101
51. Walsh-Bowers, R. (2010). Some social-historical issues underlying psychology's fragmentation. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.018
52. Watson, R. I. (1960). The history of psychology: A neglected area. American Psychologist, 15(4), 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044284
53. Watson, R. I. (1975). The history of psychology as a speciality: A personal view of its first 15 years. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 11(1), 5-14.