Adrian C Brock
Biographic Data
| ID | 3832675 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Adrian C Brock |
| GIVEN NAMES | Adrian C |
| FAMILY NAME | Brock |
| SIGNATURE | BROCK A C |
| AFFILIATIONS | University College Dublin |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 15 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 6 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 15 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1991 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2017 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
Disciplining interdisciplinarity
Alternative path for the future or a return to the past? Araujo’s “philosophical” history of psychology
Araujo begins by criticising what he calls the “social turn” in the history of psychology. He singles out the work of Kurt Danziger for special criticism in this regard. He then outlines the emergence of an allegedly new field called “History and Philosophy of Science” (HPS) and calls for a different approach which he labels a “philosophical” history of psychology. Here I examine his criticism of Danziger’s work and suggest that it is unjustified…
The new history of psychology II
This article is mainly a response to the article by João Paulo Watrin, "The Ambiguous 'New History of Psychology': Some New Questions to Brock (2017)" (Watrin, 2017), which was itself a reply to my article, "The New History of Psychology: Some (Different) Answers to Lovett's Five Questions" (Brock, 2017). Watrin (2017) suggested that previous writers have conflated the terms "critical history" and "new history." They are said to differ, in that a…
The future of the history of psychology revisited
In 1994, Kurt Danziger published an article in Theory & Psychology with the title, "Does the history of psychology have a future?" The article attracted a great deal of controversy and is now listed on the journal's website as one of the most cited articles in its history. After providing a synopsis of Danziger's article, I discuss some of the issues that emerged from the controversy that followed its publication. I also ask whether the position …
The new history of psychology
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 20(2) of History of Psychology (see record 2016-53552-001). In this article there was an error in the 11th paragraph of the Lovett's Five Questions for the New Historians section. The conference paper "The "new" history of science: Implications for philosophy of science" by Rachel Laudan (1992) was wrongly attributed to her husband, Larry Laudan. All versions of this article have…
The history of psychology in Germany
Presentism and Diversity in the History of Psychology
Thinking Outside the Disciplinary Box
Psychology in the modern sense
The article addresses Daniel Robinson’s claim that the term, “modern psychology” is vague and imprecise. It points out that there is general agreement that the modern period of history begins no later than 1500 and that any psychology that existed after this date can be legitimately described as “modern.” It also suggests that the qualifier, “modern” is superfluous since there was no psychology prior to 1500
In praise of marginality
Rediscovering the history of psychology
Kurt Danziger is a senior scholar whose innovative contributions to the history of psychology have received widespread international recognition. This wide-ranging interview covers every aspect of Danziger’s work since the 1970s, including his early work on Wundt, his work on psychological methods that culminated in the book Constructing the Subject (1990), and his more recent work on psychological objects in Naming the Mind (1997). It also inclu…
Psychologie in der DDR [Psychology in the GDR]
Something Old, Something New
Between 1970 and 1980, Blumenthal and Danziger published a series of works in which they criticized the mythical accounts of Wundt in history text-books. The source of these accounts was E.G. Boring's History of Experimental Psychology (1929/1950). Subsequent generations of textbook writers had merely copied from other textbooks without consulting original sources. Boring's flawed account had become increasingly distorted as it was passed on from…
Was Wundt a `Nazi
This article examines the widespread view that the Volkerpsychologie of Lazarus, Steinthal and Wundt was in some way related to the racial psychology of the Nazis. This was suggested in Gordon Allport's `Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology'. I discuss Allport's essay in order to show that this is nothing more than an ugly rumor. Volkerpsychologie was a cultural psychology. It was heavily criticized by racial psychologists and was us…
Otto Fenichel and the left opposition in psychoanalysis
David Rapaport's collection of Otto Fenichel's Rundbriefe (1934-1945) is described as a recently rediscovered, 2,500-page primary source for studying the intellectual and organizational history of European-American psychoanalysis. Beginning as the confidential newsletter of the Reich-Fenichel "Left opposition" within the International Psychoanalytic Association, its function became primarily intellectual as Fenichel's group ceased to function as …
The new history of psychology
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 20(2) of History of Psychology (see record 2016-53552-001). In this article there was an error in the 11th paragraph of the Lovett's Five Questions for the New Historians section. The conference paper "The "new" history of science: Implications for philosophy of science" by Rachel Laudan (1992) was wrongly attributed to her husband, Larry Laudan. All versions of this article have…
The future of the history of psychology revisited
In 1994, Kurt Danziger published an article in Theory & Psychology with the title, "Does the history of psychology have a future?" The article attracted a great deal of controversy and is now listed on the journal's website as one of the most cited articles in its history. After providing a synopsis of Danziger's article, I discuss some of the issues that emerged from the controversy that followed its publication. I also ask whether the position …
Rediscovering the history of psychology
Kurt Danziger is a senior scholar whose innovative contributions to the history of psychology have received widespread international recognition. This wide-ranging interview covers every aspect of Danziger’s work since the 1970s, including his early work on Wundt, his work on psychological methods that culminated in the book Constructing the Subject (1990), and his more recent work on psychological objects in Naming the Mind (1997). It also inclu…
Otto Fenichel and the left opposition in psychoanalysis
David Rapaport's collection of Otto Fenichel's Rundbriefe (1934-1945) is described as a recently rediscovered, 2,500-page primary source for studying the intellectual and organizational history of European-American psychoanalysis. Beginning as the confidential newsletter of the Reich-Fenichel "Left opposition" within the International Psychoanalytic Association, its function became primarily intellectual as Fenichel's group ceased to function as …
Was Wundt a `Nazi
This article examines the widespread view that the Volkerpsychologie of Lazarus, Steinthal and Wundt was in some way related to the racial psychology of the Nazis. This was suggested in Gordon Allport's `Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology'. I discuss Allport's essay in order to show that this is nothing more than an ugly rumor. Volkerpsychologie was a cultural psychology. It was heavily criticized by racial psychologists and was us…
Something Old, Something New
Between 1970 and 1980, Blumenthal and Danziger published a series of works in which they criticized the mythical accounts of Wundt in history text-books. The source of these accounts was E.G. Boring's History of Experimental Psychology (1929/1950). Subsequent generations of textbook writers had merely copied from other textbooks without consulting original sources. Boring's flawed account had become increasingly distorted as it was passed on from…
Rediscovering the history of psychology
Kurt Danziger is a senior scholar whose innovative contributions to the history of psychology have received widespread international recognition. This wide-ranging interview covers every aspect of Danziger’s work since the 1970s, including his early work on Wundt, his work on psychological methods that culminated in the book Constructing the Subject (1990), and his more recent work on psychological objects in Naming the Mind (1997). It also inclu…
Psychologie in der DDR [Psychology in the GDR]
In praise of marginality
Psychology in the modern sense
The article addresses Daniel Robinson’s claim that the term, “modern psychology” is vague and imprecise. It points out that there is general agreement that the modern period of history begins no later than 1500 and that any psychology that existed after this date can be legitimately described as “modern.” It also suggests that the qualifier, “modern” is superfluous since there was no psychology prior to 1500
Presentism and Diversity in the History of Psychology
Thinking Outside the Disciplinary Box
The future of the history of psychology revisited
In 1994, Kurt Danziger published an article in Theory & Psychology with the title, "Does the history of psychology have a future?" The article attracted a great deal of controversy and is now listed on the journal's website as one of the most cited articles in its history. After providing a synopsis of Danziger's article, I discuss some of the issues that emerged from the controversy that followed its publication. I also ask whether the position …
The new history of psychology
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 20(2) of History of Psychology (see record 2016-53552-001). In this article there was an error in the 11th paragraph of the Lovett's Five Questions for the New Historians section. The conference paper "The "new" history of science: Implications for philosophy of science" by Rachel Laudan (1992) was wrongly attributed to her husband, Larry Laudan. All versions of this article have…
The history of psychology in Germany
Disciplining interdisciplinarity
Alternative path for the future or a return to the past? Araujo’s “philosophical” history of psychology
Araujo begins by criticising what he calls the “social turn” in the history of psychology. He singles out the work of Kurt Danziger for special criticism in this regard. He then outlines the emergence of an allegedly new field called “History and Philosophy of Science” (HPS) and calls for a different approach which he labels a “philosophical” history of psychology. Here I examine his criticism of Danziger’s work and suggest that it is unjustified…
The new history of psychology II
This article is mainly a response to the article by João Paulo Watrin, "The Ambiguous 'New History of Psychology': Some New Questions to Brock (2017)" (Watrin, 2017), which was itself a reply to my article, "The New History of Psychology: Some (Different) Answers to Lovett's Five Questions" (Brock, 2017). Watrin (2017) suggested that previous writers have conflated the terms "critical history" and "new history." They are said to differ, in that a…
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology (13 works) · Psychology (13 works) · Epistemology (12 works) · Philosophy (12 works) · Sociology (12 works) · History of psychology (10 works) · Psychoanalysis (10 works) · Social Representations and Identity (9 works) · Law (6 works) · Philosophy (6 works)