本文介绍了有关纳粹德国心理学史的竞争性叙述的语境化和重估。自1980年代以来,这场辩论围绕着从希特勒上台到第二次世界大战结束的所谓的“专业化”学科。在战争期间,学术心理学是否从与纳粹政权的合作中获利,这不仅具有历史意义,但也带有强烈的政治和道德含义。最近,WolfgangSchönpflug对国家社会主义下德国心理学专业化的既定叙述提出了质疑。根据他的论证,心理学没有从战争中受益,但在教学和研究的人员和质量方面不得不遭受相当大的损失。在重建了辩论的历史背景和政治含义之后,我们建议对“专业化”问题采取不同的观点。“奥地利心理学家的三个案例例子,他们的职业生涯在战争期间取得了显著进步,以揭示那些在战争期间提供心理学专业知识的人所面临的众多机会。总之,有人认为,职业化应该被理解为一个理论框架,刺激地方层面的进一步历史研究,而不是对整个学科状况的教条式判断。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2022年APA,保留所有权利)。
This article presents a contextualization and revaluation of competing narratives concerning the history of psychology in Nazi Germany. Since the 1980s, this debate revolves around the supposed \"professionalization\" of the discipline from Hitler\'s rise to power until the end of World War II. The question whether or not academic psychology has profited from collaborating with the Nazi regime during the war is not just of historical interest, but also carries strong political and moral implications. Recently, the established narrative concerning the professionalization of German psychology under National Socialism was called into question by Wolfgang Schönpflug. According to his argumentation, psychology did not benefit from the war, but had to suffer considerable losses on terms of personnel and quality in teaching and research. After reconstructing the historical context and the political implications of the debate, we propose to take a different perspective on the question of \"professionalization.\" Three
case examples of psychologists from Austria whose career advanced significantly during the war are provided to shed light on the multitude of opportunities that emerged for those who offered their psychological expertise during the war. In conclusion, it is argued that professionalization should be understood as a theoretical framework that stimulates further historical research on a local level, not as a dogmatic judgment about the state of the discipline as a whole. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).