The essay summarizes the current state of research and arguments forwriting a history of narrative theory in the international context as well asthe possibilities of evaluating the particular contribution of Czech literarytheory to the narrative studies, considering the fact that poetics of narrative istypical of the Czech tradition rather than theorizing its structure. The authorsurveys the particular ways of coping with this objective which have beenemployed so far (such as anthologies of canonic texts, attempts at typologizingnarrative studies etc.). In analyzing the significant recent attempts at plottingthe development of narrative theory the author arrives at the conclusionthat the diachronic view of the discipline has been influenced both by thetension between the universalist study of narrative based on a structuralistapproach and the current tendency to write “historicizing” narratologies, aswell as by the competition between “textual” and “contextual” narratology.The discrepancy between the “institutional history” of narrative theory andthe “history of ideas”, proving the salient differences in the creation andacceptance of concrete concepts of narrative in particular research cultures,i.e. the fact that some systems were apprehended and applied with a delay ofseveral decades, does not seem to be an argument for questioning the idea ofwriting a history of narrative theory in general. The author of the essay sharesa methodological point of departure with David Herman, considering the“genealogic” concept of writing the history of narrative theory an appropriateone, and observing – apart from other programmatic strains of development –also the methodological relationships not demonstrated in the institutional history.
As in the previous paper, the authors investigated the history of post-war Czech and Slovak psychology based predominantly on archival sources. In the present article, they focused on the topic of graduate education in psychology and how it changed through the decades. The trends in various areas are mapped and the differences from the current state of the art are articulated, together with the role of historical context. and Stejně jako v prvním článku, i v navazujícím textu se autoři pokouší o reflexi poválečné československé psychologie založenou na historických údajích, v tomto případě se zaměřením na vysokoškolskou výuku a studium psychologie. I v univerzitním prostředí se v minulosti silně projevoval vliv dobových společenskohistorických poměrů a studium i výuka se vyznačovaly množstvím specifik a odlišností oproti současnosti. Ty se autoři snaží v textu popsat; ve zkratce je pak shrnují v závěru. Hlavními informačními zdroji jsou podobně jako v prvním článku archivní materiály a autoři se opět se více, i když zdaleka ne jen, zaměřují na období před rokem 1989.