Search results

Psy-sciences (psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, pedagogy, criminology, special education, etc.) have been connected to politics in diverse ways during the 20th and 21st centuries. Besides episodes in the history of psychoanalysis in politically troubled times, the chapters in the book explore the full variety of "psy" disciplines in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, East European communist regimes, a Latin-American military dictatorship, and the South African apartheid regime, discussing psychology's role in legitimating and "normalizing" dictatorships. The essays' authors also explain the ideological and political foundations of ideas concerning mental health and illness in Russia, Hungary, post-war Transylvania, and Germany. Currents of critical psychology are also discussed, which try to understand how academic, therapeutic, and everyday psychological knowledge is produced within the power relations of modern-market or state-capitalist societies

Psy-sciences (psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, pedagogy, criminology, special education, etc.) have been connected to politics in diverse ways during the 20th and 21st centuries. Besides episodes in the history of psychoanalysis in politically troubled times, the chapters in the book explore the full variety of "psy" disciplines in dictatorships and authoritarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, East European communist regimes, a Latin-American military dictatorship, and the South African apartheid regime, discussing psychology's role in legitimating and "normalizing" dictatorships. The essays' authors also explain the ideological and political foundations of ideas concerning mental health and illness in Russia, Hungary, post-war Transylvania, and Germany. Currents of critical psychology are also discussed, which try to understand how academic, therapeutic, and everyday psychological knowledge is produced within the power relations of modern—market or state—capitalist societies.

"Much has been written on witchcraft by historians, theologians, philosophers, and anthropologists, but nothing by scientists. This book aims to reappraise witchcraft by applying to it the advances in cognitive sciences. The book is divided into four parts. Part One: Deep History deals with human emotions and drives to deepen the phenomenology of evil witchcraft agency and its female feature. Part Two: Historical Times focuses on the natural control of malefice that engendered rare state and church repressions. Surprisingly, Islamic lands remained immune from stakes. Modern urbanizations are considered a blow to the persistence of rural civilizations that embedded witchcraft in their vision. Part Three: In the Laboratory applies neurosciences to specific case studies such as the personalization of misfortune, the millenary stereotype witch=woman, the reality of evil, and the contagious meme of treasure hunts. Part Four: Millennials wonders whether intentional malefic hatred is a closed chapter in the history of humanity. An Anatomy of Witchcraft is ideal reading for students and scholars. Given its interdisciplinary nature, the book will be of interest to scholars from many fields including evolutionary psychology, anthropology, women's history, and cognitive sciences"--

Published under the direction of the Dept. of History and Political Science of the University of North Carolina. ; For earlier file, see entry in Old Catalog: North Carolina. University. History Dept. The James Sprunt studies in history and political science. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Once sparce and sporadic, histories of political science have proliferated in recent years. We contend that such histories are a necessary feature of the discourse of political science, because there are essential connections between the history, identity, and actual practices of any rationally progressive discipline. In light of the fact that the objects political scientists study are historically and contextually contingent, there has been—and should be—a plurality of histories to match the diversity of approaches in politicalscience. Unfortunately, most histories of political science prove either "Whiggish" and condescending toward the past, or "skeptical" and negative. The consequence has been an inadequate understanding of the relationship between plurality, rationality, and progress in the discipline. Taking into account both the deficiencies and achievements of Whiggish and skeptical accounts, we argue that context-sensitive histories would better serve the rationality and progress of political science.

"The basis of the following little work was a lecture delivered in . the Young Men's Christian Association." ; Mode of access: Internet.

After a close association in the first half of the 20th century, during the 1970s the political science & history disciplines parted company: political science embraced behavioral analysis of narrow questions & historians lost interest in government institutions & public policy. However, in the 1980s & 1990s, the field of American Political Development gained in popularity among political scientists who pursued broader historical questions, eg, Progressive Era reform, the New Deal, etc. Institutional political historians emerged to tackle issues surrounding law & public policy & the development of the modern administrative state. The exciting connections between political science & history should not be limited to American Political Development, however. Examples of other scholarship examining the connections are reviewed, eg, in civic participation, the relationship between race & politics, international political economy, & the philosophy of history. Each discipline still has its unique approach but for the study of politics, an understanding of the other is of great benefit. M. Pflum

Regards the study of politics not so much as a discipline with a distinctive method but more as a field of study which is amenable to various approaches. Suggests that the contribution of history has been more a body of knowledge than a set of methods. (SJK)

In nearly all the major historical fields one can see the increasing use historians are making of methods, models, and insights from the social sciences. E. H. Carr's exhortation, that the more history becomes sociology and the more sociology becomes history the better for both, is being taken seriously. Yet there is much more that can be done to bring these fields together. Most historians have used sociological theory only to gain insight, not with great rigour. They have learned their sociology by osmosis, so to speak. They have not gone through the social science literature, but rather have soaked it up second-hand from other interpreters. Consequently their works have not had the precision they might. Concepts have been distorted because of a lack of familiarity with them. African historians, on the whole, have been reluctant to use this rich and suggestive literature. This is probably true because the greatest efforts have been made in finding new sources in this difficult field—oral tradition, linguistic evidence, and so forth. But one is hard pressed to find works by African historians which have employed the theoretical literature of the social sciences.