Review of Cold war social science: Knowledge production, liberal democracy, and human nature, and Working knowledge: Making the human sciences from Parsons to Kuhn.
Reviews the books, Cold War Social Science: Knowledge Production, Liberal Democracy, and Human Nature by Mark Solovey and Hamilton Cravens (2012) and Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences From Parsons to Kuhn by Joel Isaac (see record 2012-13212-000). Taken together, these two important books make intriguing statements about the way to write the histories of fields like psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics in the Anglo American world during the 20th century. To date, histories of these fields have drawn on a number of fairly well-established punctuation marks to assist in periodization: the shift from interwar institutionalism in economics to postwar neoclassicism, with its physics-like emphasis on mathematical theory-building; the transition from the regnant prewar behaviorism through a postwar "cognitive revolution" in American psychology; and the move in fields like sociology and anthropology away from positivism and the pursuit of what has sometimes been called "grand theory" in the early postwar era toward a period defined by intellectual and political fragmentation, the reemergence of interpretive approaches and a reaction to the scientistic pretensions of the earlier period. These books, by contrast, provide perspectives orthogonal to such existing narrative frameworks by adopting cross-cutting lenses like the "Cold War" and the working practices of researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. As a result, they do much to indicate the value of casting a historiographical net beyond individual disciplines, or even beyond the "social sciences" or the "human sciences" sensu stricto, in the search for deeper patterns of historical development in these fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
Wesleyan University.
Paul
P
Erickson