POLYCENTRIC HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY

OVERVIEW:
The history of psychology is often viewed as a single narrative, with the traditional view being
that it originated in Wilhelm Wundt's laboratory at the University of Leipzig and was then
transferred to the United States. This view was promoted by E.G. Boring in his influential
textbook, A History of Experimental Psychology. Danziger suggests that this account can only
be achieved by privileging certain local developments. Germany was the center of new
experimental psychology at the end of the 19th century, but this was only a part of the subject.

The psychological test, such as the intelligence test, personality test, and aptitude test, has its
origins in England with the work of Francis Galton. France also had significant developments,
including the transformation of hypnotism into psychotherapy and the rise of crowd psychology.
Many modern branches of applied psychology, including clinical, forensic, and consumer
psychology, were pioneered in the United States.

Boring's book, A History of Experimental Psychology, has been accused of promoting this field
at the expense of other branches of the subject. Danziger's account also highlights the privileging
of certain developments in psychology, both geographically and conceptually. Experimental
psychology was portrayed as the central branch of the field, producing laws that were thought to
be of universal relevance. However, this model of the relationship between experimental and
applied psychology is misguided. Applied psychology has tended to solve its problems
independently of experimental psychology, and there are historical examples of innovations in
applied psychology being adopted by experimental psychology.

Danziger suggests that the model of center and periphery emerged due to the dominance of
American psychology after World War II. Although the United States had been the most
important country for psychology during the period, it did not have the kind of dominance that it
had when much of Europe was devastated. The International Union of Psychological Science,
founded in 1951, became the undisputed center of the field, and psychology lay claim to
universality that no other country could claim.

This situation did not last forever, as Europe eventually got back on its feet and psychology
expanded significantly in the 1960s and beyond. Psychology also began to grow in many
developing countries after World War II, returning to the polycentric situation that existed in the
early years of the discipline. Danziger argues that the model of centre and periphery is now
obsolete and should be abandoned in favour of a polycentric approach.

INTERNALIZATION:

The geographical diversity of psychology has prompted a growing emphasis on

internationalizing the field. The American Psychological Association established a Division for
International Psychology in 1997, and subsequent literature, such as "The Handbook of
International Psychology" (Stevens & Wedding, 2004) and "Towards a Global Psychology"
(Stevens & Gielen, 2007), aimed to provide a more global perspective. This trend has extended
to the teaching of psychology as well (Leong et al., 2012). The impact of these developments on
the history of psychology is evident, with contributions like the edited book "Internationalizing
the History of Psychology," which features Danziger's chapter advocating for a polycentric
history of psychology (Brock, 2006b; Danziger, 2006).

This shift towards internationalization has led to a proliferation of local histories. Scholars from
various countries now contribute to the understanding of the history of psychology in their
respective regions, with individuals from Brazil, India, Japan, and others producing literature on
the subject. Notably, most American historians of psychology focus primarily on the history of
the discipline within the United States. This focus is understandable as scholars may feel more
knowledgeable about their own country's situation, find the issues more relevant to their
interests, and have better access to archival material and interviews with key figures.

This trend towards local histories has been reinforced by certain editorial practices. For example,
the "Oxford Handbook of the History of Psychology" claims to offer global perspectives but
primarily comprises 27 chapters, each focused on the history of psychology in a specific country.
The only exception is a chapter on the Caribbean, representing a region rather than a country.
Some argue that this model can limit creativity and overlook the changing interrelationships
among different centers in the global history of psychology.

Adrian C. Brock, in his work on "Internationalizing the History of Psychology," explicitly

rejected the model of one chapter per country, emphasizing the importance of allowing authors
to explore diverse topics. He acknowledged the influence of Danziger's work, which called for a
polycentric historiography that goes beyond merely adding disconnected local histories. A
polycentric history of psychology, according to Danziger, should focus on the changing
interrelationships among centers that have constituted the world history of the subject.

While acknowledging the value of local histories, Brock argues against a polycentric history
being synonymous with "valorizing local histories." He contends that there are compelling
narratives about neglected countries in the history of psychology, but there are also fascinating
stories about the interactions and interrelationships between these countries. Thus, a polycentric
history should not merely string together parochial visions but should shed light on the dynamic
connections and influences shaping the global landscape of psychology.

In conclusion, the internationalization of psychology has led to a surge in local histories, with
scholars from various countries contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the
discipline's development. The tension between focusing on local histories and adopting a
polycentric approach reflects ongoing debates in the field, with scholars advocating for a
nuanced understanding that embraces both localized narratives and the interconnectedness of
global psychological developments.

INTERRELATIONSHIPS

In Danziger's exploration of the history of psychology, he highlights the historical

interrelationships that shaped the discipline. He discusses how the movement of students across
countries, particularly to German centers like Leipzig in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, played a pivotal role. These students returned home with new ideas, creating a pattern
that continued throughout modern psychology. International links were forged not only through
formal studies abroad but also through translated books, scholarship funds, the exchange of
instruments, conferences, and more. Despite these influences, Danziger notes that there was no
complete homogenization of psychological discourse.

Danziger argues for a polycentric history of psychology that considers both international
influences and local differences. He emphasizes the need for a historiography that captures the
complexity of these phenomena by examining the interrelations among different centers.
Intellectual migration, involving not just individuals but also concepts and practices, becomes a
crucial category. Danziger prompts questions about the impact of transplanting psychological
concepts, theories, and procedures, exploring why some were more successful travelers than
others. This perspective delves into the transformative effects of travel on these ideas, revealing
stories of success as well as misunderstanding, mistranslation, incomprehension, and hostility.

The polycentric approach Danziger advocates is genuinely international, focusing on the

"between" in interrelationships. Rather than isolating individual countries, this approach
highlights the importance of understanding the connections between countries. This perspective
rejects the "one country per chapter" model, as it limits the exploration of these dynamic
interrelationships. Overall, Danziger's vision encourages a more comprehensive and nuanced
understanding of the global history of psychology.

EXAMPLES
The exaples discusses the importance of indigenisation in the history of psychology,
emphasizing the significance of a polycentric approach. Scholars like Pickren, Rutherford, and
Danziger have explored indigenisation, particularly in the context of psychology being exported
from Europe and the United States after World War II. The indigenisation movement emerged as
psychologists in various countries, especially in Asia, such as India, the Philippines, and Taiwan,
expressed dissatisfaction with the imported psychology, leading to the need for modification to
suit local contexts. Indigenisation, as defined by Danziger, involves "intellectual migration,"
signifying the transfer of psychological theories and practices and the changes resulting from this
transfer.
The polycentric history perspective is illustrated through Klappenbach's work on the influence of
French psychology in Argentina. This work demonstrates that a study centered on one country
can still be polycentric by considering the history of psychology in relation to other regions.
Additionally, the paragraph touches upon John Carson's work on intelligence testing in France
and the United States, highlighting the differences in emphasis on objective tests and the role of
standardization in these two countries' educational systems.

The discussion shifts to the transfer of knowledge from Europe to the United States and its
decline in the early 20th century, with a revival in the 1930s due to the arrival of refugees from
central Europe. William Stern's personalistic psychology, originating from the Methodenstreit in
Germany, is explored, and its influence on American psychology, particularly through Gordon
Allport, is discussed. The paragraph emphasizes the contrasts between the American and French
approaches to intelligence testing, illustrating the broader theme of the relationship between
psychology and the social order in liberal democracies.

The emergence of the indigenisation movement in developing countries after World War II is
explored, with a focus on European social psychology challenging the appropriateness of
American social psychology. Serge Moscovici and Henri Tajfel led efforts to establish a
European approach, leading to the creation of the European Journal of Social Psychology and
other institutional developments. The paragraph concludes with examples of exceptions to the
Euro-American-centric history of psychology, such as Christiane Hartnack's work on
psychoanalysis in colonial India.

In conclusion, the paragraph argues for a more diverse and polycentric perspective in the history
of psychology, emphasizing the limitations of considering individual countries in isolation. The
need to address power relationships and cultural biases is highlighted for a more accurate
understanding of the field's development. The diverse examples presented underscore the
existence of a significant body of literature that implicitly follows a polycentric perspective,
showcasing the potential breadth of topics that can be explored within this framework.