Introduction

One of the interesting common points that Psychology 101 and Roman History share is that they both build on what has come before. The Roman civilization owed a big debt to the influence of the ancient Greeks. The field of psychology also owes a big debt to humanism. Although psychology is often associated with Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, humanism helped to move psychology in a more practical direction. Psychologists like Adler, Piaget, Erikson, Bandura and many others have focused on the role that human society plays in nurturing or shaping human development. Instead of looking at the suppression of urges that drive human behavior, Adler asserted that everyone human being is responsible for his own actions and can know what he wants and can take steps to achieve what he wants. The idea that the human psyche was somehow unknown or unknowable was rejected by the humanists. From them came they very common application of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is often used in therapy today because it focuses mainly on helping people to identify behavioral and thought patterns that get them to engage in negative or destructive actions and to counter these triggers with positive alternatives to thought and action. Roman likewise owed a great deal to the mythology, philosophy and learning of Greece. Rome renounced its kings after Tarquin the Proud: Junius Brutus led the revolt against the corrupt king and Rome established its Republicbuilding on the democratic system that Athens had initiated that same century. Rome, however, was not really a democratic republic but rather a fusion of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. The Republic eventually became an Empire under Caesar Augustus. So just as Rome developed ideas over time and constantly reinvented itself, the field of psychology has done the same. Indeed, it also relates to the division of academic knowledge and this paper will explain how.

The Importance of Inclusion

What made Rome great from the beginning was the fact that it was so inclusive: it started out a lot like America didwelcoming everyone and anyone who wanted to come and live there. People from other places flocked to Rome because there was a spirit of freedom and equity with the Roman culture in the early days. No one tried to lord it over others or insist that everyone adapt to a certain set of pre-conceived values. Universal values and ideals were allowed to be fostered in a way that allowed for an openness of discussion and a fertility of ideas. Rome became great because it did not box itself in to any narrow conception of the way things ought to be. It welcomed life in all its various aspects and simply looked to nurture a good life for all. Of course, there were problems and challenges and conflicts along the way, but Roman history is filled with the stories of heroes who rose to the occasionpeople like Cincinnatus, who left his farm to lead Rome in battle, and returned to his farm rather than stay on in a political capacity after he had done his service to the state. The most important thing, however, is that Rome was inclusive and open-minded.

This inclusivity relates to the division of academic knowledge. In school it is often the case that people are pushed into corners or into boxes; they are told to become specialists in this field or in this branch of such-and-such field, and all they know and look at is this narrow field that has a very tiny view of things. They acquire a great deal of academic knowledge about this specific field or branch, but they are somewhat cut off from other fields and branches and disciplines of study. They do not acquire a holistic view of things, but rather a compartmentalized view of things. What would have happened to Rome if it had set about developing itself in a compartmentalized way? If it had, instead of throwing its doors open to all people, it had instead restricted who could be part of Rome and what Romans could do? It would never have risen in the ancient world as it did. It would have basically cut itself off from the various forces of life that sustained it and allowed it to cultivate ideas and make advances on a large stage. The division of academic knowledge is not something that should lead to compartmentalize but rather something that should open doors and windows to myriad ideas and systems of thought so that the most holistic view of life possible can be obtained. The various disciplines can actually complement one another and help one to understand how fields develop, how one field can enhance another when it is related and so on. This is what has happened for me when I have looked at Psychology 101 and Roman History courses and thought of them in terms of being compatible instead of as exclusive. Being inclusive is helpful in the division of academic knowledge because it allows one to apply what is learned in one field to another that may seem completely unrelated. Yet in...

But what about in academics? Shouldnt we be academically inclusive as well? Why should someone studying Roman History be biased against psychology or vice versa? There is a lot to learn from every field that can help one to see more fully into another field. It is about enlarging ones vision and scope so as to be able to take in more, understand more, and arrive at a great degree of appreciation and insight.

Roman history is significant for many reasons. Western society grew out of the Roman Empire, so learning about Roman history is like learning where todays society came from. One does not get the whole picture of course, because the Roman Empire eventually collapsed when Odoacer sacked Romebut it also lived on in a sense through the Dark Ages and was brought back to some extent by Charlemgne, who was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor in 800 AD. So that started off a new chapter in the story of Rome, but the story had changed. What had been a pagan empire under Caesar Augustus had become a Christian Empire by 800 AD thanks to various factors and influences. From 800 AD, history marched on and the human drama continued to unfold. Wars and arguments and corruption continued, as is the age-old story of human life, and the West fragmentedbut by the 19th century and even before then great writers were reflecting a rather nuanced view of what it means to be human. Dostoevsky probed the mind of man in his numerous works, all of them with keen psychological insights. Shakespeare also did this a few centuries before him. What is interesting is that Shakespeare often used plots from Roman history to convey stories to his own people in his own time and place in England in 1600. He saw parallels between what had happened in Roman history and what was happening in England with the religious wars and the political upheavals. Shakespeares Julius Caesar is one of the greatest English plays of all time, but it is not about England: it is about ancient Rome and the start of the Roman Empire. It is also full of profound psychological insights, with characters like Brutus, Cassius and Marc Antony.

Shakespeare did not develop a systematic way of thinking about psychology the way Freud did with psychoanalysis. However, he did develop interesting psychological insights into human beings, and he did use history to convey ideas that were relevant in his own time and that are still relevant in todays world. Themes of honor, betrayal, power, corruption, honesty, and manipulationall of these can be found in Shakespeares play and all of them are themes that can be found in every age. So the lesson here is that the history of ancient Rome is not something that needs to be compartmentalized. Rather, it is something that one can use to illuminate other fields and disciplines of study because whenever the human person is concerned one can find the same old story over and over again. People have been commenting on this story for thousands of years and it is worth investigating what others have said or written to obtain a better understanding of things overall.

Psychology, Roman History and Social Science vs. the Humanities

Social science is the study of human society and social relationships. The humanities can be defined as a discipline that focuses on the nature of the human being, or what it means to be human. This subject can be approached from a political angle, a philosophical angle, a literary angle, and so on. There is no reason, however, to take an either/or positionas in, either social science or humanities, as though there were no way for them to live in harmony or to be compatible. Actually, the two disciplines can complement one another very well. Psychology as a field is proof enough of this because it has been influenced both by the humanities and by social science. Social psychology is a branch of study and humanism was very influential in psychology from Adler on. In fact, social science helps to explain some aspects of psychology that were not very well explained before. Albert Bandura…