Historians are influenced by the world around them. Their world’s interest plays the largest part in what they study. For example, Laurence Lafore argues in his introduction to his The Long Fuse: an Interpretation of the Origins of World War I, that starting in 1945, following the end of World War II, a greater interest in German history sparked research on Germany’s past. And it was at this time, due to the increase in study, that a lot of new evidence was revealed on World War I. In this example World War II, provides itself as a event, later proven to be historically significant, that catalyzed research on areas that had received little study prior, causing Germany’s story following its unification to become significant. The shifting paradigms cause ideas and ideals to change which sparks a new interest in an aspect of the past that may have not been studied so closely before. Or, if having been studied before, it had been studied through an old, previous generation’s lens. This is why it is essential for each generation to modify its view on history, and allow new events to have an effect on how the past is approached. A strong example of this point in our modern society would involve the presidential election of Barack Obama, and the role it has and will play on our view of history. The United States presidential election of 2008 definitely had an impact on the filters through which we perceived our history, for when drawing a parallel to Andrew Jackson’s election of 1828 or Abraham Lincoln’s of 1860, where a new party enters office, one must understand that these new political ideas, in this case arguably spurred by emotion, has caused a shift in paradigms in America, which thus completely alters how we viewed the past, and in this case allows to embrace past aspects. Some view Obama’s election as president as closure to the Civil Rights’ woes that afflicted this nation’s past, therefore several connections are made. Statements such as Steven F. Lawson’s “In becoming commander in chief, Obama has inherited the legacy of countless civil rights warriors who risked their lives and many who lost theirs, to gain the right to vote, not as an empty symbol, but as a genuine tool for freedom and equality” serve to prove that the civil rights movement is now approached in a new light as the beginning of progress, and that the election is a continuation. This direct connection that is argued to exist between the election and the civil right’s movement, could not exist five years ago, and therefore approaches on the civil right’s movement five years ago, could not take in as much as it could now, with the election of Obama expanding the viewpoint. Therefore, Obama’s election is a prime example that History, is not actually moving, but is indeed growing, expanding upon past viewpoints with new ideas.
However, could what be said about History’s expansion be applied to a true social science such as psychology? I believe that it can be applied. Instead of new events and ideals unfolding, as in history, new theories and discoveries could occur, changing the paradigms of the field. Psychology, a relatively new science, is a strong example because of its rate of new developments that are occurring. For example, the cognitive revolution in psychology occurred in the mid 1950s. This shift liberated psychology from the behaviorist view, “a scientific movement popular in America that studied behavior as a proxy for understanding the mind”. Now another shift has occurred, once again changing the overall approach. Following over fifteen years of work, psychological researchers have concluded that in order to understand how we think, we must first understand how we feel. Prior, to this most recent shift, the brain fit perfectly into a machine metaphor. However, this is now viewed as extremely limited for one key reason, “machines don’t have feelings”. “Feelings didn't fit into the preferred language of thought. Because our emotions weren't reducible to bits of information or logical structures, cognitive psychologists diminished their importance.” Some of the first tests done to prove the emotional connection to thought process were done in the early 1990s by a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California, Antonio Damasio. Prior to Damasio’s findings, it was thought that emotions got in the way of rational thought, and thus, an emotionless person would be a better thinker as their computer like brain could process information without any diversions. Damasio sought patients who had suffered brain injury and as a result lost all perception of their own feelings. Damasio found that the patients’ lives “quickly fell apart.” Many made poor investments and many others wasted hours deliberating over irrelevant details. The results showed that “proper thinking requires feeling. Pure reason is a disease.” Now emotional processing is now found with ease throughout the field. This new discovery does not move the field of cognitive psychology from one point to another, but instead expands on the previous notions the cognitive approach had already established.
When a historian examines history, they draw upon knowledge of the past knowledge to guide their observations. Similarly, in psychology, specifically cognitive psychology, one must consider past ideas and ideals to guide their train of thought. It is essential in analyzing the two fields to consider that both the historian and the psychologist are both subjects of their contemporary world, and thus, share the perspectives of their current society. Therefore, the fields of history and psychology are always expanding, and this expansion occurs from within, which allows for new concepts and ideals that were once thought as unacceptable, to be embraced.