The academic landscape is dotted with periodicals that serve as more than mere repositories for research; they act as the central nervous systems for entire fields of inquiry. Since its inception, the journal has not only documented the evolution of disciplines like psychology, sociology, anthropology, and linguistics but has actively shaped the very definition of what constitutes the "human sciences.Think about it: among these, History of the Human Sciences stands as a central institution. " Its pages reflect a decades-long conversation about the nature of human subjectivity, the politics of knowledge production, and the historical contingency of scientific categories The details matter here..
The official docs gloss over this. That's a mistake Simple, but easy to overlook..
Origins and Founding Vision
The journal was launched in 1988 by Sage Publications, entering a scholarly environment that was ripe for interdisciplinary disruption. On top of that, during the 1970s and 1980s, the history of science was largely dominated by the "hard" sciences—physics, chemistry, and biology. The history of psychology existed, often housed in departments of psychology rather than history, while the histories of sociology, anthropology, and linguistics were fragmented across various specialty journals Not complicated — just consistent..
The founding editors, Roger Smith and Theodore M. Porter, envisioned a publication that would transcend these silos. They recognized that the "human sciences" (or Geisteswissenschaften / sciences humaines) shared a unique epistemological problem: the object of study is also a subject capable of self-reflection, resistance, and cultural variation. This reflexivity distinguishes the human sciences from the natural sciences in ways that demand historical scrutiny Worth knowing..
The first issue, published in February 1988, set the tone immediately. It featured articles ranging from the history of phrenology and the statistical normalization of "the average man" to the anthropology of Franz Boas. The editorial statement declared an ambition to publish work that was "historically informed, theoretically sophisticated, and relevant to contemporary debates." This commitment to bridging the gap between historical scholarship and current theoretical concerns—whether feminist theory, post-structuralism, or science and technology studies (STS)—became the journal’s hallmark.
Intellectual Trajectory: Key Themes and Debates
Over three decades, the journal has served as the primary venue for several major historiographical shifts. Tracking its volumes offers a masterclass in the changing preoccupations of the field.
1. The "Linguistic Turn" and Social Constructionism
In its early years, the journal was a primary platform for the linguistic turn and social constructionism. Scholars like Ian Hacking, Roger Smith, and Kurt Danziger used the pages of History of the Human Sciences to argue that categories such as "intelligence," "personality," "mental illness," and "childhood" are not natural kinds waiting to be discovered, but historical constructs forged in specific institutional, linguistic, and moral contexts.
Danziger’s work on the historical formation of psychological categories—published extensively in the journal—demonstrated how experimental methods create the very objects they purport to measure. This perspective moved the field away from "great man" histories of theorists (Freud, Piaget, Skinner) toward a sociology of knowledge that examined laboratories, clinics, questionnaires, and statistical tables as sites of power.
2. The "Practice Turn" and Material Culture
By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the journal reflected a shift toward the practice turn in science studies. Inspired by STS scholars like Bruno Latour and Karin Knorr Cetina, historians began focusing on the materiality of the human sciences. Articles explored the architecture of asylums, the technology of the intelligence test, the paperwork of bureaucracy, and the physiology of the laboratory animal That's the part that actually makes a difference. That's the whole idea..
This era saw a surge in studies on psychological testing and eugenics, revealing how the human sciences were instrumental in state formation, colonial administration, and the management of populations. The journal became a critical site for exposing the complicity of scientific expertise in projects of social control, racial hygiene, and colonial governance.
Short version: it depends. Long version — keep reading.
3. Globalizing the History of the Human Sciences
A significant development in the last fifteen years has been the journal’s concerted effort to decenter the North Atlantic narrative. Early volumes were heavily weighted toward French, German, British, and American contexts. Recent editorial policies and special issues have actively solicited scholarship on the human sciences in Latin America, East Asia, South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
This globalization is not merely additive; it challenges the universalist claims of Western human science. Articles on the indigenization of psychology in the Philippines, the history of psychiatry in colonial Algeria, or the reception of psychoanalysis in Argentina demonstrate how local intellectual traditions appropriate, resist, and transform imported frameworks. The journal has thus become a key site for "provincializing Europe" within the history of science.
4. Neuroscience, Biology, and the New Materialism
In the most recent decade, the journal has grappled with the "neuro-turn." As neuroscience, genetics, and evolutionary psychology claim authority over traditional domains of the human sciences (morality, aesthetics, social behavior), historians have turned their lenses toward the brain. The journal publishes advanced work on the history of neuroscience, psycho-pharmacology, and the "social brain," analyzing how biological reductionism interacts with cultural meanings of selfhood It's one of those things that adds up..
Simultaneously, there is a growing engagement with new materialism and post-humanism, exploring the entanglement of human subjects with animals, machines, and environments. This signals a potential redefinition of the "human" in "human sciences," moving beyond the autonomous rational agent of Enlightenment tradition Most people skip this — try not to..
Editorial Leadership and Institutional Evolution
The intellectual character of the journal has been indelibly shaped by its editors.
- Roger Smith (Founding Editor, 1988–1997): Established the broad, interdisciplinary, and theoretically eclectic mandate. His own work on the history of the "mind" and "personhood" set a high bar for philosophical depth.
- Chris Renwick (Editor, approx. 1998–2008): Oversaw the consolidation of the journal’s reputation, navigating the transition to online publishing and the increasing professionalization of the field (metrics, indexing).
- Felicity Callard and Des Fitzgerald (Editors, approx. 2009–2018): This duo presided over a period of intense theoretical innovation, particularly around the intersections of history, STS, and medical humanities. They championed the "global turn" and special issues on topics like "The Social Life of Neuroscience" and "Psychology and the Other."
- Current Editorship (e.g., Jamie Cohen-Cole, Emily Martin, and associates): The current team continues to push boundaries, emphasizing open science, reproducibility in historical method, and the urgent relevance of the human sciences for understanding contemporary crises—from mental health epidemics to algorithmic governance and climate anxiety.
The Role of Special Issues
A defining feature of History of the Human Sciences is its reliance on Special Issues (often co-edited by guest editors). These curated collections function
