Periodizations in Psychology in Argentina and Brazil

a comparative study

Abstract

This article presents a comparative study of the periodization of psychology in Argentina, as proposed by Hugo Klappenbach (2006), and three Brazilian periodizations developed by Isaías Pessotti (1988), Mitsuko Antunes (1998), and Fernanda Pereira and André Pereira Neto (2003). Drawing on comparative history as its methodological framework, the study examines the criteria underlying each periodization, the historical landmarks used to define beginnings and ruptures, and the implicit conceptions of what constitutes psychology as a field. The analysis reveals significant convergences between the two national trajectories, including the early influence of French clinical-experimental psychology, the inductive role of the state in fostering applied psychology under developmentalist regimes, the establishment of higher education programs and debates over professional regulation in the 1950s and 1960s, and the impact of military dictatorships on the institutionalization of the field. At the same time, whereas the Brazilian proposals emphasize the university and professional institutionalization of psychology, the Argentine periodization defines its periods in terms of the dominant theoretical and practical orientations of each phase. The article concludes that periodization is a selective historiographical practice and that comparative approaches contribute to a more critical and context-sensitive understanding of the development of psychology as a science and profession in Latin America.