Knights Mark
Department of History, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2012 Dec;46(4):584-98. doi: 10.1007/s12124-012-9211-1.
The article confronts methodological differences between (and among) social psychologists and historians about how far the social psychologist should be interested only in contemporary or very recent history and how far general conclusions can be drawn about human behaviour across time and space. The article suggests that social psychology need not be present-centric and might take different forms of a 'historical turn'. In turn, it is suggested, historians can benefit from approaches developed by social psychologists. Seven possible points of connection with the discipline of history are put forward in the hope of fostering future collaborations. These are: the nature of modernity; collective memory and the uses of the past; political discourse and ideologies; partisanship; the public sphere; stereotypes; and languages and images. Indeed, just as they can encourage closer collaboration between historians and social psychologists, these themes might also open a wider inter-disciplinary discussion with anthropologists, sociologists, literary scholars, art historians and scholars of political discourse.
本文探讨了社会心理学家和历史学家在方法论上的差异，即社会心理学家应在多大程度上仅关注当代或最近的历史，以及在多大程度上可以跨越时空对人类行为得出一般性结论。文章认为，社会心理学不必以当下为中心，可能会采取不同形式的“历史转向”。反过来，有人认为历史学家可以从社会心理学家开发的方法中受益。文章提出了与历史学科可能的七个连接点，希望促进未来的合作。它们是：现代性的本质；集体记忆与对过去的利用；政治话语与意识形态；党派性；公共领域；刻板印象；以及语言和图像。事实上，正如它们可以鼓励历史学家和社会心理学家之间更密切的合作一样，这些主题也可能开启与人类学家、社会学家、文学学者、艺术史学家和政治话语学者更广泛的跨学科讨论。
