(The link to the file in case of dysfunction : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UQNKA0oEpGxjBQLf6C0IafvabR8r6bKM/view?usp=sharing )
Here is the script. My friend and myself would like to apologize for our outstanding frenchy-french accent. Hope your ears will come through the five minutes !
G : Welcome to our show and thanks to be with us ! I am Gabriel, your chronicler. Today’s subject is about the use of psychological theories in understanding historical events and ancient societies : the psychohistory. Our guest is Andréa, a social psychologist.
A : Good morning everyone ! Thanks for inviting me.
G : Let’s begin with our first question : can you explain to our listeners what psychohistory is ?
A : Sure. Psychohistory is the union between psychology and history, a union in which both of these sciences bring their interests to the other.
G : As a historian, I must ask what psychology can bring to history.
A : Thanks to psychology, historians benefit of a lot of theories to analyze mentalities. For example, theories about group dynamics or about attitudes and behaviours can profit to a historian. It is a point of view that has been set aside for long, mostly because historians do not know much about it – disciplines are very distinct at university, aren’t they ?, and so they are afraid to go on a subject they do not know much about. In history, using other science’s methods is quite common, as archeology, geology and so on. It allows widening analysis. But with psychology, historians can see beyond economic and political aspects, to take a look at the human aspects, including groups and individual.
G : Any example ?
A : Sure, the one that comes into my mind is the study of rural world’s revolts. Historians know about the economic and political contexts, what created the revolt, but they do not know why this particular context led to this reaction. An other example is the attitude of the nobility to preserve their privileges : In the 13th century, the revolt of the English barons against their king who did not respect their rights has begun because of one of the barons stood for his right, and so the others followed him. This can be linked to leader ermergence’s theories.
G : On the other side, what is the interest for psychologists ?
A : It is a new study subject, that permits the confrontation of psychological theories to ancient societies. History provides the time question to psychologists, which is not a question usually taken into account. Psychologists can have a hard time when it comes to find and analyze historian sources : these sources are restricted, the method is specific… To finish, psychologists could benefit from the historian view, in recontextualizing the historic source.
G : Ok, this is interesting. But aren’t there any common points between those two ?
A : Psychology and history are both sciences that yearn for sense. They are willing to understand, analyze and diagnose. They gather elements together, and look for their sense. The question they both want to answer is : why ? And how ? So as you can see, these two sciences have some common points, despite their different methodology.
G : I heard about a controversy, can you tell us more about it ?
A : I think you are talking about the great place of psychoanalysis in psychohistory. In a general manner, historians – and some psychologists, rejected psychoanalysis’ theories, in particular the oedipal complex : some psychohistorians, inspired by Freudian theories, tried to explain the Plantagenet’s history in a matter of taking the father’s place, et cetera. Psychoanalysis gave a bad name to psychohistory.
G : To conclude, do you have a last word ? Which advice would you give to historians and
psychologists working together ?
A : There is a real interest in psychohistory and it is too bad there are not many serious
researchs. By understanding psychological mecanisms from the past, we could understand the
present and future better. As an advice, I would recommend to researchers to not looking for
contradictions between their methods, but trying to understand each other’s point of view.
G : Thank you very much ! Maybe we could even work together.
A : For sure ! Bye everyone !
References
Lévy-Valensi, E-A. (1965). Histoire et psychologie ? Annales. Economies, sociétés, civilisations. 20ᵉ année, N. 5, 923-938. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1965.421838
Bizière, J-M. (1980). « Before and After ». Essai de psycho-histoire. Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 27, 2, 177-207. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/rhmc.1980.1093
Rousso, H. (2002). Analyse de l’histoire. Analyse de l’historien. Espaces Temps, 80-81, 126-134. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/espat.2002.4205
Société Française de Psychohistoire, http://www.psychohistoire.com/articles.html
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1984). Historical Social Psychology (1re éd.) [E-book]. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weber, P., Charron, J-M., (1992) De Narcisse à Jésus. La quête de l’identité chez François d’Assise. Revue théologique de Louvain, 27(1),122-123. Retrieved from : www.persee.fr/doc/thlou_0080-2654_1996_num_27_1_2809_t1_0122_0000_1
… And the jingle at the beginning : Paranoid, Black Sabbath !