Lubek I
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
J Hist Behav Sci. 2000 Autumn;36(4):319-28. doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(200023)36:4<319::aid-jhbs2>3.0.co;2-b.
Authors in this collection offer both critique and contextualist counterpoint to the standard, "official" histories of the field-successive editions of the Handbook of Social Psychology in 1954, 1968, 1985, and 1998. Unlike mainstream histories, the collected studies do not together constitute a seamless chronicle of continual progress for practitioners in a research area seeking social science status, viability, and legitimacy. Rather the authors focus on choice points, crises, and debates (some still ongoing), pay special heed to non-mainstream branches and voices, question numerous assumptions concerning the interrelationships among social psychological methodology, ontology (Danziger; MacMartin & Winston; Stam, Radtke, & Lubek), boundaries (Good), and individualisms (moral, political, and/or methodological). The specific contributions of Floyd and Gordon Allport are discussed from several perspectives as they helped define and shape and write the history of the field (Lubek & Apfelbaum; Parkovnick; Greenwood; Chung), and bridge it to neighboring areas (personality) and disciplines (psychology and sociology) (Nicholson; Barenbaum; Cherry). The constraints, origin myths, insensitivities, and omissions of standard histories are pointed out (Samelson), some partial correctives are advanced, and a more generative role for future historical studies is suggested.
本论文集中的作者们对该领域的标准“官方”历史——1954年、1968年、1985年和1998年相继出版的《社会心理学手册》各版——提出了批评，并提供了情境主义的反驳观点。与主流历史不同，这些收集到的研究并非共同构成一部对于一个寻求社会科学地位、可行性和合法性的研究领域的从业者而言连续进步的无缝编年史。相反，作者们关注选择点、危机和争论（有些仍在进行中），特别关注非主流分支和声音，质疑众多关于社会心理学方法论、本体论（丹齐格；麦克马丁和温斯顿；斯坦姆、拉德克和卢贝克）、边界（古德）以及个人主义（道德、政治和/或方法论）之间相互关系的假设。弗洛伊德和戈登·奥尔波特的具体贡献从多个角度进行了讨论，因为他们帮助定义、塑造并撰写了该领域的历史（卢贝克和阿普费尔鲍姆；帕科夫尼克；格林伍德；钟），并将其与邻近领域（人格）和学科（心理学和社会学）相联系（尼科尔森；巴伦鲍姆；彻里）。指出了标准历史的局限性、起源神话、麻木不仁之处和疏漏（萨梅尔森），提出了一些部分纠正措施，并为未来的历史研究建议了一个更具建设性的角色。
