You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
How are we to conceptualize relationships between psychology and history? Psychobiography and psychohistory have occupied my attention for many years, with books on Life Histories and Psychobiography (1982) and Psychology and Historical Interpretation (1988a). However, these interests in psychobiography and psychohistory were preceded by an interest in the study of individual life histories, and later evolved into interests in the history of psychology and in psychology as an historical science. These latter interests transform my conception of what science is, of what scientific psychology is, and how it is related to historical inquiry.
I argue that the “two disciplines of scientific psychology,” experimental and correlational psychology, need to be complemented by a third discipline of historical-interpretive psychology. With the rise of “cognitive neuroscience,” the fate of human science traditions such as psychoanalysis and the study of lives need to be rethought. “Historical science,” as developed by Stephen Jay Gould (1986) in relation to evolutionary biology and historical geology, is a valuable recent resource for bringing the methods and accomplishments of the human science traditions into clearer focus.
This essay is, undeniably, an idiosyncratic, historically contingent, and personal look at relationships between psychology and history. It may, however, not be that different from the idiosyncratic intellectual and personal journeys pursued by others, perhaps including yourself, gentle reader. Out of such diverse and partial perspectives, we attempt to communicate with each other, and to move toward at least an incrementally more adequate understanding of the issues.