What factors determine whether the development of the history of psychology tends to history or to psychology? Danziger states that the history of psychology has become more a historical discipline than a psychological one, due to the "monocentric" character of the mainstream psychology of the second half of the XXth century, with a complete predominance of the American tradition. When a unity of assessments of theoretical developments of the past is generally secured, history of psychology, like the history of mathematics or physics, loses connections with the actual context of scientific research in the field and turns to historical agenda. Now the situation has changed. The policentric multiparadigmatic nature of psychology can hardly be doubted today. Danziger denotes these processes as the “decline of the insider history”. Time has come for the critical history of psychology. Substantial contributions are already being made by Western colleagues, the “insiders” of the mainstream psychology. However, gl