updates of famous theories in the history of psychology

greenspun.com : LUSENET : History & Theory of Psychology : One Thread

How important do you think it is for instructors in history & systems to tell students the current status of theories that they discuss? For example, after describing Freud theories of dreams and repression, should the students briefly be updated on current relevant research and theories?

-- Paul R. Kleinginna (prklein@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu), March 30, 2001

Answers

On the one hand it may give the students an increased sense of the "relevance" of history. On the other hand, it may give them the *wrong* sense of relevance, leading them into whiggish expectations about the value of historical research. Although we, of course, cannot entirely free ourselves from our own historical situatedness, there is still a sense, I think, in which we want to study the past "in its own right" -- trying to find out why certain ideas and institutions were (and were not) important to *them* -- not perpetually through the filter of our own current interests and values.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), March 30, 2001.

I believe that it is a good practice for instructors to give students a progression of the studies and theories so that the students can have a better idea of how people of different times regard the issue under study. For example, after discussing about Freud's ideas, the instructors may give a brief introduction of Jung, Adler, Neo- Freudians, and etc. In this way, the students can see how the ideas can be perceived differently in different periods of time.

-- Shirley Lao (laosx@yahoo.com), March 31, 2001.

Hi Paul, from my experience, "briefly updated on current relevant research regarding the theory," although well ment, was a one-sided attack on the theory by a prof hostile to the theory which there is no way I could see that as benefting the students. It seems like it would be a major effort to present an impartial up-to-date status of all that's presented in a history & systems course and not make a mistake in someone's estimation. Best, David

-- david clark (doclark@yorku.ca), April 02, 2001.

David brings up a good point about the dangers of updating theories of famous psychologists is history & systems classes. I admit I have a strong presentist bias to give current views often based on current research. I try to moderate this "updating", however with the lesson that scientific knowledge is tentative and encourage students to challenge anyone's views, including mine. I have a handout on the value of multiple perspectives. Also I often try to emphasize the contributions of famous psychologists. My background might also be a factor. I subscribe to many scientific publications and enjoy sharing this new information. I also taught many different courses over the years, which allows me to share this information. I have handouts on my view of the strengths and weaknesses of Freud and Skinner. For Skinner I list 12 strengths and 12 weaknesses and for Frued I list 19 strengths and 16 weaknesses. I hope that these lists do not lead to simple memorization or acceptance, but that they stimulate critical thinking based in part on what they have learned in other courses. I also require a couple of student team debates, which may be the high points of the course, because the students get to express themselves more. Is it possible that it is benifical to have both teachers who take David's point of view as well as teachers that take my point of view? Paul

-- Paul R. Kleinginna (prklein@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu), April 04, 2001.

Paul wrote:

"I have handouts on my view of the strengths and weaknesses of Freud and Skinner. For Skinner I list 12 strengths and 12 weaknesses and for Frued I list 19 strengths and 16 weaknesses."

There's a sense in which this is a perfectly harmless exercise that enables (esp. undergraduate) students to engage with historical material, bringing to bear on it skills that they have developed in their other psychology (and other university) courses. There is a danger lurking within it, however, that concerns me a little. The "strengths" and "weaknesses" that you mention are, of course, "strengths" and "weaknesses" according to our *current* intellectual and social values. If these were not the values of the figures in question (in their own time and society), then is our evaluation a fair or even particularly meaningful one? To take an extreme example, is there any value in describing, say, "ruthless imperialism" as being a "weakness" of the Roman Empire, or does it rather, only go to show that we haven't really understood what the Roman Empire was about. To take another example closer to the history of psychology, if we criticize Kant's theory of the categories for, say, not being empirically grounded, have we "stimulated critical thinking," or have we simply judged him by an inadequate -- possibly irrelevant -- criterion? I would say such a critique simply demonstrates a failure to understand Kant's project. As the historical figures we study are closer to our time, perhaps we have more in common with them vis-a-vis intellectual values, and so can legitimately assess "strength" and "weakness". But as they receed in time from us, it seems to me it becomes increasingly important that we put our "faculty of judgment" on hold and engage instead what might be called our "faculty of understanding." What exactly was s/he trying to achieve? Why did s/he think it was important? Why did the work in question have the kind of impact it did on the surrounding culture (e.g., intellectual, institutional, broader societal). And then, perhaps, why was s/he *not* so worried about issues a, b, and c as *we* are today?

-- Christopher Green (cgreen@chass.utoronto.ca), April 04, 2001.



One approach to the study of the history of Psychology minimizes evaluation and emphasizes understanding. This approach may have come about in part because evaluation so often seems arbitrary, unfair, or meaningless and because we have difficulty agreeing on evaluative criteria. Evaluation, however, is a ubiquitous human process tied to both cognition and emotion that tells us what is important. Is it possible to have a compromise by first approaching a historical figure or theory from the understanding approach and then go to the evaluative approach? While evaluation is difficult to do,it may be worth it. Some psychologists today may be better trained to step back and more objectively evaluate people, cultures, or phenomena. For example, we know more about the role of philosophical assumptions, beliefs, values, emotions, and even bodily sensations on our ability to think critically. We have more cross cultural data that shows how differently things can be looked at, or reacted to. We also better understand genetic and cultural transmission of information and the complex interactions of heredity and environment.

This dual understanding - evaluation approach - might be further aided if the instructor early on familiarized the students with various approaches to the study of psychology (e.g., presentist vs. historicist, internal vs. external history, personalistic vs. naturalistic, scientific vs. non-scientific, etc.)and by identifying the assumptions and biases of the people in the class. For certain people and theories we might even want to apply different evaluative criteria (e.g., scientific criteria, hermeneutic criteria, moral criteria, etc.).

-- Paul R. Kleinginna (prklein@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu), April 05, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ