Un horizonte político inestable y un clima de continuidades y discontinuidades pareciera enmarcar la polémica que sobre el diseño, definición y situación de la Psicología, pulsea en las instituciones académicas y aplicativas. Las transformaciones conceptuales resultantes de esos debates, se inscriben en los momentos fundacionales de la carrera de Psicología. Instalan desapercibidamente la inercia de la tradición académica o introducen innovativamente los saberes de instituciones aplicativas, hasta entonces fuera del dispositivo de transmisión. Se busca iluminar en toda su complejidad el origen plural de múltiples tradiciones que convergen en momentos fundacionales.

Una polémica de larga data reúne dos tradiciones institucionales:

1. La tradición académica universitaria que a nivel formal ha ido madurando definiciones en los Programas de Psicología I y II. La inercia teórico-conceptual de los debates precedentes que queda impresa en el diseño del primer plan ('56). La colisión que implica la Dirección médica de la carrera por Marcos Victoria (1957) y la presión del Rectorado por retomar criterios humanistas (Risieri Frondizi, Plan '58).

2. La tradición en Psicología aplicada o asistencial que a través de sus actores, convocados como grupo fundador, introducen su experiencia y el saber de sus prácticas, debiendo explicitar sus definiciones y problemáticas en el contenido de los programas de las asignaturas.

Conceptual trends implicit in the creation of the Studies of Psychology at the University of Buenos Aires.

An unstable political arena and an atmosphere of continuity and "discontinuity" seem to frame the debates on the design, definition and situation of Psychology. Such debates take place place at academic institutions as well as at institutions of application.

The conceptual transformations arising from those debates acquire meaning in the foundation moments of the Studies of Psychology: they inadvertently establish the inertia of the academic tradition or innovatively introduce the knowledge of application institutions which were previously excluded from the mechanism of transmission. The aim to of this work is to throw light on the diverse origin of multiple traditions that converge in the foundation of the Studies of Psychology.

A debate of long ago focuses on two institutional traditions:

1. The university academic tradition, which on a formal level has advanced definitions in the syllabi of Psychology I and Psychology II. The theoretical conceptual inertia of preceding debates may be observed in the design of the first Curriculum (1956). The conflicts with Marcos Victoria due to his medical approach to the studies are reflected in the 1957 curriculum, whereas the pressure exercised by the university authorities to carry forward humanistic criteria is evident in the 1958 Curriculum (Risieri Frondizi).

2. The tradition in applied or assistance Psychology, the practitioners of which were part of the founding group and later introduced the knowledge and experience from their practice. In this respect, they had to put forth their definitions and controversial issues in the syllabi of the different subjects.