Search

On the basis of extended biographical material regarding Danish social psychologist Gunnar Hjelholt (1920–2002), the two authors present a historically oriented case study in professional culture construction. The professional culture thus portrayed is a particular brand of Kurt Lewin-inspired social psychology. From the 1960s and onwards, Hjelholt was a key figure in developing this field in Scandinavia and, indeed, in most of Europe. Building on a chronological sketch of Hjelholt's life story presented in Part 1 of a two-part article, the present second part of the article endeavors, not only to paint a picture of Hjelholt as a professional person with a distinctive problem solving style and impact on his surroundings, but also to search for interactions between identified professional themes and Hjelholt's personal life story as well as his political attitudes broadly conceived. The concept of boundary and the image of the consultant as boundary keeper play important roles as recurrent, unifying metaphors in the text. Among other themes covered, the following may be mentioned: doing versus reflecting; what is the goodorganization; and individuals versus organizations. In the epilogue, one overarching aim of the two texts is described as that of opening up for discussion and dialogue concerning organization consultancy in a historical perspective.

On the basis of extended biographical material regarding Danish social psychologist Gunnar Hjelholt (1920–2002), the two authors present a historically-oriented case study in professional culture construction. The culture thus portrayed is a particular brand of Kurt Lewin-inspired social psychology. From the 1960s and onwards, Hjelholt was a key figure in developing this field in Scandinavia and, indeed, in most of Europe. In the present Part 1 of a two-part article, Hjelholt's life story is unfolded chronologically and in its historical context. It is shown how his internment in a concentration camp during World War II shaped his view of the relationship between individual and organization. Further, how a 1958 visit to the USA where he encountered the Lewinian tradition exerted paramount influence on his thinking and practice in such areas as organizational development, group dynamics, laboratory training, adult education and the consultant role. It is concluded that Hjelholt's experiences with the Lewinian tradition, coupled with a talent for supporting organizational change and development, made him a central figure in shaping a European variety of consultancy and group dynamics. The follow-up article discusses characteristic professional themes in Hjelholt's contribution to the field.

This paper examines the striking similarity between Kierkegaard’s and Mead’s theories of the self as relation, reflection and process as well as the normativity behind these theories. It is claimed that the theologian and the social psychologist share the view that the human being is an ethical being because its self is a dual relation; it relates to itself and in this relating it relates to an Other. Thus, regardless of their diverging views on the nature of this Other, they both define that of becoming a self as an unavoidable task: the task of standing in an ethical relation to oneself and to the Other. It is argued that differences in professions can be overcome: while reading Kierkegaard in the light of Mead helps to underline the relational character of Kierkegaard’s ethical notions, reading Mead in the light of Kierkegaard underlines the normative aspect of Mead’s social psychology.