roachboy

actually, sapiens, that's a very anglo perspective. in the francophone world, for example, psychoanalysis has a very different position than it does in anglo-world. there's nothing that explains it in principle--it follows from other factors, curious historical/ideological factors. it's yet another of those factoids that makes a mess of stories of progress as a single trajectory.

on the other hand, i think you're probably right about the role wundt played in "founding" psychology as a discipline--but the process was obviously diffuse, both spatially and temporally. it's not like one fine day folk woke up, looked around and saw a new Form floating about the aether than structured their lives as epiphenomena.
"hey...what's that?"
"i dunno, duane: it says 'psychology.'"
"has that always been here?"
"must have been..."

we like to naturalize categories.
naturalizing them seems to make repetition easier.
if you think about it, no discursive space is more amenable to this naturalizing of categories than is meta-discussions about the status of science.
well, maybe there are others more amenable.
if i could count them, i'd be making a "hard" claim.
but i'm a teddy bear.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite