I just wanted to say "Thank you" to the folks who responded to my request for sources on Nazi psychologists. There appears to be two main areas of scholorship among these references:
(1) What happened to psychoanalysis during the Nazi era in Germany and how it managed to survive given it's designation as part of "Jewish Science" (as represented by the work of Geoffrey Cocks and others). (2) What happened in academic psychology during the Nazi era. I was interested in the degree research psychologists (a) felt comfortable supporting a "Nazi Science" perspective, (b) felt neutral or tolerant about a "Nazi Science" perspective, and (c) confronted the "Nazi Science" perspective and what happened to them. There's an "obedience to authority" analysis waiting to be done here. With respect to the two articles I mentioned in my first message, the article by Baumgarten-Tramer is most consistent with (2) above. It is perhaps worthwhile to consider her final words, especially given the role that psychologists have played in the recent U.S. administration's combat operations. Baumgarten-Tramer, F. (1948). German psychologists and recent events. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43(4), 452-465. doi:10.1037/h0062777 | |The profession of a psychologist does |not consist only of investigating the |human mind in the laboratory; it contains |a social obligation as well. This |obligation, however, was not conceived |objectively by the German psychologists. |The social responsibility of a |psychologist, to draw objective consequences |from his knowledge of the |human mind, is not to be found among |German psychologists. In a trial of |mankind they have been found wanting. I am, however, still somewhat puzzled by the article by Ansbacher because it seems to be saying that one could have been a "good Nazi psychologist", with all of the possible interpretations that that statement has. There is a short Wikipedia entry on him, highlighting that he was born in Germany, came to the U.S., worked with Adler (though he did his dissertation under R.S. Woodward at Combia U), held various positions at U.S. institutions, and ultimately joined the faculty at the University of Vermont. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Ansbacher The American Psychologist had an obituitary for him in the September 2007 issue, written by Richard Musty of the University of Vermont. However, in contrast to Baumgarten-Tramer's final words, Ansbacher has the following to say: Ansbacher, H. L. (1950). Testing, management and reactions of foreign workers in germany during world war II. American Psychologist, 5(2), 38-49. doi:10.1037/h0060744 |Perhaps the most noteworthy conclusion is that |when and as psychology is employed, even within |a totalitarian state and dealing with forced labor, |it still is essentially the same psychology one would |find in a voluntary situation within a free society, |thus indicating that the same set of psychological |principles holds universally. To the extent that |such principles contradicted Nazi notions of human |nature and could be practiced none the less, |this gives support to the now growing realization |that even a totalitarian state is far more complex |than its stereotype. The relatively widespread existence |of sympathetic attitudes among foreign |workers would indicate that valid principles of human |relations were practiced beyond the sphere of |influence of professional psychology, in face-to-face |contacts of individual Germans with individual foreigners. NOTE: "foreign workers" were people brought to Germany and elsewhere to engage in slave labor. Ross Stagner wrote a letter to the American Psychologist which was published in the May 1950 issue, raising similar issues, to which Anbacher responded. I'll leave it to the interested reader to locate them. I don't know what I am more disturbed by: (1) that psychologists can "work within the system" fulfilling their professional roles (in some form), operating to "maximize efficiency of job placement and management in hell". (2) the apparent naivete that Ansbacher displays about the "benign" nature of the psychologist's involvement in their work even though during the war he worked for the U.S. Office of War Information, as though he can not but be impressed that psychologists can apply their trade even in totallitarian regimes (perhaps I am the naive one in thinking that psychologist would challenge totallitarian regimes instead of working for them; what did military psychologists do in the Bush administration?). I wonder to what extent such an attitude was common among psychologists and the general public in the post-war period. I note that at least in the version of PsycInfo that I use, there are no citations to this specific article by Ansbacher though he does have over 100 references listed and was influential. (Sidenote: early in his career, Ansbacher worked on the Psychological Abstracts, the forerunner of PsycInfo). -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
