The History of Psychology as a Science: From Necessity to Crisis

Document Type : Research/Original/Reqular Article

Author

Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Management, Science and Technology, Amirkabir University, Tehran. Iran.

10.22059/jihs.2026.411157.371876

Abstract

In the second half of the twentieth century, the history of psychology in the United States gradually acquired an institutional footing. At the same time, turns in the history and philosophy of science, especially Kuhnian formulations, opened a horizon in which psychological historiography could no longer function as a mere chronicle of the past. Rather, it became a mechanism of disciplinary self-reflexivity, elevating history from a marginal, ancillary domain to a non-negotiable requirement for theory and professional practice. This shift, however, was neither self-evident nor instantaneous. Indeed, at its point of maturation, it generated critiques directed at psychology itself and at its historiographical forms, thereby placing their very possibility under sustained scrutiny.
The present essay articulates this trajectory by asking how history moves from an auxiliary role to a theoretical and professional necessity, and how that very necessity subsequently issues in crisis. Adopting a historical-analytic approach, it traces the transition from classical historiography of psychology to critical historiography and argues that this turn discloses the necessity of history along three interconnected horizons: first, the historicization of psychological concepts and subjectivities; second, the entanglement of language with psychological inquiry; and third, the linkage between psychology and power. Finally, the essay shows that while critical historiography enables a critique of naturalization and renders institutional presuppositions visible, it also proliferates accounts of the discipline’s origins and identity and intensifies disputes over standards of validity

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

برک، پیتر، (1399)، تاریخ اجتماعی معرفت (ترجمه یاسر خوشنویس)، نشر کرگدن
فوکو، میشل، (1389) در دریفوس، هیوبرت؛ رابینو، پل، میشل فوکو فراسوی ساختارگرایی و هرمنیوتیک (ترجمه حسین بشیریه)، نشر نی
زیباکلام، سعید، (1389)، معرفت شناسی اجتماعی، طرح و نقد مکتب ادینبورا، نشر سمت
شیپن، استیون، (1398)، انقلاب علمی (ترجمه یاسر خوشنویس)، نشر کرگدن
گمینی، امیرمحد، (1389)، تاریخ نگاری علمی به سبک ویگی، مجله روش شناسی علوم انسانی، سال 16، شماره62
گیلسپی، مایکل الن، (1398)، ریشه های الیهاتی مدرنیته(ترجمه زانیار ابراهیمی)، نشر پگاه روزگار نو
مقدم حیدری، غلامحسین(1388)، جامعه‌شناسی اثبات ریاضی، نشر سمت.
 
Brock, A. C. (2020, April 30). History of the history of psychology. In W. E. Pickren (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Oxford University Press.
Teo, T. (2007). Local institutionalization, discontinuity, and German textbooks of psychology, 1816–1854. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 43(2), 135–157.
Araujo, S. de F. (2016). Wundt and the philosophical foundations of psychology: A reappraisal. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Smith, R. (2022). Psychologies: Their diverse histories. In D. McCallum (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of the history of human sciences (pp. 977–1004). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richter, M. (1987). Begriffsgeschichte and the history of ideas. Journal of the History of Ideas, 48(2), 247–263.
Rothman, A., & Coyle, A. (2018). Toward a framework for Islamic psychology and psychotherapy: An Islamic model of the soul. Journal of Religion and Health, 57(5), 1731–1744.
Woodward, W. R., & Ash, M. G. (Eds.). (1982). The problematic science: Psychology in nineteenth-century thought. New York, NY: Praeger.
Adams, G., Dobles, I., Gómez, L. H., Kurtiş, T., & Molina, L. E. (2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 213–238.
Agassi, J. (1973). Continuity and discontinuity in the history of science. Journal of the History of Ideas, 34(4), 609–626.
Allwood, C. M. (2018). The nature and challenges of indigenous psychologies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Araujo, S. de F. (2017). Toward a philosophical history of psychology: An alternative path for the future. Theory & Psychology, 27(1), 87–107.
Klappenbach, H., & Jacó-Vilela, A. (2016). The future of the history of psychology in Argentina and Brazil. History of Psychology, 19(3), 229–247.
Bhatia, S. (2002). Orientalism in Euro-American and Indian psychology: Historical representations of “natives” in colonial and postcolonial contexts. History of Psychology, 5(4), 376–398.
Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Briskman, L. B. (1972). Is a Kuhnian analysis applicable to psychology? Social Studies of Science, 2(1), 87–100.
Brožek, J. (1975). Contemporary West European historiography of psychology. History of Science, 13(1), 29–60.
Butterfield, H. (1949). The origins of modern science, 1300–1800. London, England: Bell.
Canguilhem, G. (2016). What is psychology? (D. M. Peña-Guzmán, Trans.). Foucault Studies, 21, 200–213.
Cunningham, A., & Williams, P. (1993). De-centring the “big picture”: The origins of modern science and the modern origins of science. The British Journal for the History of Science, 26(4), 407–432.
Danziger, K. (1979). The social origins of modern psychology. In A. R. Buss (Ed.), Psychology in social context (pp. 27–45). New York, NY: Irvington.
Danziger, K. (1980). Wundt and the two traditions of psychology. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), Wilhelm Wundt and the making of a scientific psychology (pp. 73–87). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London, England: Sage.
Danziger, K. (1999). Natural kinds, human kinds, and historicity. In W. Maiers, B. Bayer, B. Duarte Esgalhado, R. Jorna, & E. Schraube (Eds.), Challenges to theoretical psychology: Selected/edited proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology (pp. 78–83). Concord, ON: Captus Press.
Danziger, K. (2003). Where history, theory, and philosophy meet: The biography of psychological objects. In D. B. Hill & M. J. Kral (Eds.), About psychology: Essays at the crossroads of history, theory, and philosophy (pp. 19–33). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Danziger, K. (2008). Marking the mind: A history of memory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Daston, L. (Ed.). (2000). Biographies of scientific objects. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
De Vos, J. (2012). Psychologisation in times of globalisation. London: Routledge
Forman, P. (1971). Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual environment. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, 1–115
Foucault, M. (1988). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the Age of Reason (R. Howard, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1961)
Foucault, M. (1963). Naissance de la clinique: Une archéologie du regard médical. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Furumoto, L. (1989). The new history of psychology. In R. I. Watson & D. T. Evans (Eds.), The history of psychology: Critical issues (pp. 9–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309–320.
Giorgi, A. (1985). Toward the articulation of psychology as a coherent discipline. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 46–59). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effect of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 351–383). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2), 151–160.
Hatfield, Gary (2003). Psychology old and new. In Thomas Baldwin, The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870–1945. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 93–106.
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.
Kirschner, S. R. (2006). Psychology and pluralism: Toward the psychological studies. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 26(1–2), 1–17.
Kirschner, S. R. (2019). The indispensable subject of psychology: Theory, subjectivity and the specter of inner life. In T. Teo (Ed.), Re-envisioning theoretical psychology: Diverging ideas and practices (pp. 131–159). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Klappenbach, H., & Jacó-Vilela, A. (2016). The future of the history of psychology in Argentina and Brazil. History of Psychology, 19(3), 229–247.
Koch, S. (1985). Psychology as a science. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 75–109). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Koyré, A. (1956). The origins of modern science: A new interpretation. Diogenes, 4(16), 1–22.
Furumoto, L. (1995). On textbook history of psychology and scientizing history. Psychological Inquiry, 6(2), 124–126.
Lovett, B. J. (2006). The new history of psychology: A review and critique. History of Psychology, 9(1), 17–37.
Marx, M. H., & Hillix, W. A. (1963). Systems and theories in psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
Miller, G. A. (1985). The constitutive problem of psychology. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 40–59). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Moghaddam, F. M., & Lee, N. (2006). Double reification: The process of universalizing psychology in the three worlds. In A. C. Brock (Ed.), Internationalizing the history of psychology (pp. 163–182). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Murphy, G. (1929). Historical introduction to modern psychology. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.
Nickles, T. (2024). Scientific revolutions. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Richards, G., & Stenner, P. (2023). Putting psychology in its place: Critical historical perspectives (4th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London, England: Free Association Books.
Robinson, D. N. (1985). Science, psychology, and explanation: Synonyms or antonyms? In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 60–74). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, D. N. (2013). Historiography in psychology: A note on ignorance. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 819–828.
Robinson, D. N. (1995). An intellectual history of psychology (3rd ed.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Rose, N. (1985). The psychological complex: Psychology, politics, and society in England, 1869–1939. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Samelson, F. (1974). History, origin myth, and ideology: “Discovery” of social psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 4(2), 217–232.
Samelson, F. (1980). J. B. Watson’s Little Albert, Cyril Burt’s twins, and the need for a critical science. American Psychologist, 35(7), 619–625.
Sinha, C. (2016). Decolonizing social psychology in India: Exploring its role as emancipatory social science. Psychology & Society, 8(1), 57–74.
Smedslund, J. (1979). Between the analytic and the arbitrary: A case study of psychological research. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 129–140.
Smith, R. (1988). Does the history of psychology have a subject? History of the Human Sciences, 1(2), 147–177.
Smith, R. (2005a). Does reflexivity separate the human sciences from the natural sciences? History of the Human Sciences, 18(4), 1–25.
Smith, R. (2005b). The history of psychological categories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(1), 55–94.
Smith, R. (2007). Why history matters. Revista de Historia de la Psicología, 28(1), 125–146.
Smith, R. (2013). Between mind and nature: A history of psychology. London, England: Reaktion Books.
Smith, R. (2016). History of psychology: What for? In S. H. Klempe & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology (pp. 3–28). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Sugarman, J. (2022). Psychology and the significance of history. In B. D. Slife, S. C. Yanchar, & F. C. Richardson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Critiques, problems, and alternatives to psychological ideas (pp. 230–249). New York, NY: Routledge.
Teo, T. (2010). Ontology and scientific explanation: Pluralism as an a priori condition of psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(2), 235–243.
Teo, T. (2018). Outline of theoretical psychology: Critical investigations. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Textor, M. (2021). The disappearance of the soul and the turn against metaphysics: Austrian philosophy 1874–1918. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Uher, J. (2021). Psychology’s status as a science: Peculiarities and intrinsic challenges. Moving beyond its current deadlock towards conceptual integration. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 212–224.
Walsh, R. T. G., Teo, T., & Baydala, A. (2014). A critical history and philosophy of psychology: Diversity of context, thought, and practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Warren, N. (1971). Is a scientific revolution taking place in psychology? Doubts and reservations. Science Studies, 1(3–4), 407–413.
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14.
Watson, R. I. (1963). The great psychologists: From Aristotle to Freud. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
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.
Weimer, W. B. (1974). The history of psychology and its retrieval from historiography: I. The problematic nature of history. Science Studies, 4(3), 235–258.
Wiesenfeld, E. (2012). Community social psychology in Latin America: Myths, dilemmas and challenges. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 3(1), 100–130.
Woodward, W. R. (1980). Toward a critical historiography of psychology: With an appendix on resources for funding. In J. Brožek & L. J. Pongratz (Eds.), Historiography of modern psychology: Aims, resources, approaches (pp. 29–70). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Wundt, W. (1896). Über die Definition der Psychologie. Philosophische Studien, 12, 9–66.
Young, R. M. (1966). Scholarship and the history of the behavioural sciences. History of Science, 5(1), 1–51.
Journal for the History of Science
Volume 24, Issue 1
September 2026
Pages 79-113

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics