Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unlike other disciplines that have at least a central or underpinning framework or focus, Psychology is known to have an absence of a unified approach or even targeted intention of study. For example, if we look to the American Psychological Association, we find that it is separated into 5 divisions, !anchar and "life #$%%%& note that this is representative that psychologists are more likely to be researching and contributing to a 'subdiscipline( or a speciali)ation than to Psychology as a whole. *r. Paul +ealy
proposes to apply what might be called the practice and approach of hermeneutics to the now instilled division, and perhaps even confusion with psychology as a process of finding a common ground of fusion of the various understandings and conceptions to enrich the variety of psychological endeavours #$% $&.
,n --$, historian of psychology, .eahey submitted that three developments of psychology occurred somewhat independently. /he first is that of consciousness, those of 0bbinghaus and 1undt, then later the unconscious by 2ung and Freud. ,n relation to adaptation, "pencer is known for his investigation into organic evolution, and 3alton in his study of psychology in relation to eugenics. +eidbreder in the early $%th century noted that in even earlier decades, there was a general consensus and adherence to the scientific method. !et, it was through what can(t really be described as an 'internal split( within psychology #as it is not in actuality a recogni)able whole& in regards to appropriate methodology, and methods of introspective that it would adopt. +owever, running even deeper is the differing approaches the variety of origins had within both theoretical and even sociological positions #*an)iger, --%&. ,n a similar way *an)iger highlights that depending upon the situatedness and social climate, each approach to psychology differed. As an amalgamation of divergent positions, it was perceived to be 'officially( a singular discipline, a scientific scholarship. 4n the other hand, there are some who posit that psychology can be conceived of as a amalgamated and cohesive study5 this is due to the supposedly held 'unassailable( position of the positivist and mechanistic understanding that it held in nearly every subdiscipline, passed down from it(s birth in the natural sciences #!anchar and "life, p$67&. 1hile it undeniable that the mechanistic conception of human mental activity is pervasive within the broader psychological studies, there are still other movements within neurobiology and the like, such as the work of 0van /hompson who offers complex understandings that offer enriching explanations, yet does not integrate with the language of other psychological fields.
!anchar and "life, utili)e words such as vague, loosely related, manifold with numerous sub8 disciplines to describe the state of contemporary psychology # --9, p. $65&. Underlining their criti:ue of Psychology as a 'di))ying array of irreconcilable theories, models, methods and even philosophies( #p$67&, is that such a division is not new, and is at the core of psychologies origins. ;oting that different language, conceptions and methods are utili)ed by the variety of Psychologies, is it possible to
envision a potentially functioning collaboration within the fragmentation, a continuing of 'business as usual(, or one position becoming the leading mainstream< Furthermore, with an increasing but slow escalation of knowledge in the various areas of psychology, if a cohesive cooperative unity was achieved within the field, how would the various subdivisions adopt new findings into their own, especially if they are contradictory or oppositional to their own framework< /o borrow some key phrases from *r. Paul +ealy5 is there an 'elusive possibility( for a paradigm shift or is this an 'impossible ideal(<
/here are some who have trouble with such an underlying position in the various studies or psychologies and advocate against any formal unification or defragmentation. /hey propose to diverge further and look past the deterministic and ob=ective worldview that most psychological in:uires inherited. 4thers view such a divergence as a natural potential for latent unity, that fragmentation is, according to >uhn # -7$&, 'preparadigmatic(, that it will lead to a fuller and eventually cohesive field of study. /his position, a calm before the storm is seen by theorist such as ?ower # --6& as a necessary transitional struggle in an attempt for unification.
/his fragmentation remains a key issue within the field, and for a number of decades, the American Psychological Association has kept this internal division as a key topic of their deliberations and negotiations. @oleman, @ola, A 1ebster # --B& were some of the first authors to acknowledge and address the fragmentation within psychology. At this stage, we must ask why is fragmentation an issue according to some theorists< !anchar and "life proposed a twofold downfall in such a divergence within the field. /he first is that psychology cannot be conceived of as science, or pertaining scientific rationality if it is too diverse or fragmented. ,f there is no central understanding, agreement, terminology or methodology, how can such a field be sub=ect to criti:ue or analysis< #"tatts, -C6&. !anchar and "life submit that this fragmentation may bring about a level of confusion internally. /his is not so much an identity crisis per say, but that any attempt of intra8sub=ect contribution becomes almost impossible when language and even theoretical positions differ. Furthermore, on this same line of thought, unlike areas of scientific research where there is progressive accretion and a genealogy of study, without even a more central and unified purpose, progressing in collective knowledge is challenging, if not improbable. 1ithout a standardi)ed understanding of rationality, it is problematic to
establish a rational methodology, and this in turn plays into the absence of a progressive growth in knowledge #p$69&.
/he second downfall they addresses is that, contrary to the understanding of >uhn # -7$& that fragmentation is 'preparadigmatic( and will eventually lead to unification, !anchar and "life highlight many theorists that believe such a divergent difference within psychology will be lead to its disbanding. 1e might suggest that such an occurrence is probably impossible with such a strong front that contemporary Psychology now holds, exemplified within the departments of Universities. /he demand for honors Psychology is :uite high, so we might take that as an indicator that the field of Psychology is healthy and strong. +owever, "pence # -C9& described a 'nightmare( in which the study is absorbed into a multitude of various other areas, such as biology and neuroscience, utili)ed by businesses #p %56&. ;ow, as some of this foreshadowing has come to fruition, psychology being
operationally employed by business enterprise, Psychology seems to hold it(s own ground still. +owever, this is not to say that this is not still a potentiality. ,f we look to the University sphere for example, it can be noted that many are rapidly loosing support for various sub=ects outside of the ?usiness and economic studies, and with this shift, such a prediction might not be improbable.
*r. Paul +ealy offers us a way of addressing fragmentation through a hermeneutic process, culminating in a pluralistic position. /he hermeneutic position is one that is non8foundationalist, as it focuses on meaning that occurs from the interpretive interaction between historically produced texts and the reader. /heorist Packer and Anderson of the +ermeneutic endeavor propose that +ermeneutics understands people as entrenched within the social and cultural, and that to achieve any pure 'neutrality( in one(s research is merely aspiration # -C-, p -8$%&. ,n this present paper, the research is that of the various psychologies and their attempts to :uantify human mental activity. 1ith a hermeneutic en:uiry by each psychological unit, one that examines the historical and cultural embodiment, sub8divisions may have a clearer vision of where they have come from. ,n the case of positivist and those of the rationalist and empirical positions, they may be reminded that a conception of human mental activity, behaviour and psychology that perceives such as computational or mechanical, arises from a long pedagogy of the 'naturalistic approach(, aspiring for absolute reproducibility #3uignon, $% $, p-C&. /his reproducibility may be argued to simply reducing the
sphere of understanding, and a hermeneutic dialogue may remedy such an issue. /he 'father( of hermeneutics 1illiam *ilthey envisaged individual psyche to be pre8disposed with meaning, and perhaps even fundamentally meaningful in interpretation #Dartin A "ugarman, $%% , p -5&. 1hat might be understood as the 'goal( or pinnacle of this hermeneutics endeavour, but possibly better envisaged of as a processes, is 3adamer(s 'fusion of hori)ons( #3adamer, p %, -C &. /hrough this
processes apparently separate positions mutually integrate and explore their own and other(s stance and view which may lead to a fusion, and perhaps a shift in the 'hori)on(. As previously proposed by >uhn, and by ?ower, that such complexity and fragmentation that is present may indeed by 'preparadigmatic( for such a fusion.
,t is at this point, an intersection between +ealy and !anchar and "life #year $%%%& work occurs in which the hermenutic dialogue is invoked5 one that 'recogni)es relatedness( between each community, even to the extent that it can simultatnously cultivate both an distinctiveness and commonality with each other. ,n this case, cultivating the individual psychological in:uiries while fostering the macro study itself. 1e must note that this does not promote a unified and homogenous study with singular terminology. ,n !anchar and "life(s --9 piece they identify through dialogue and communication, each psychological subdivision may offer a uni:ue perspective that offers an understanding of the complexity without creating a totality #p75-&.
Eeframing this notion of the nightmare of the psychologies( dissolution as feared by "pence, +ealy highlights the importance of a multifaceted in:uiry which helps solidify not only the in:uiry but the validity of it(s results. ?em A .ooren de 2ong #$%%7& utili)es the example :uestion of '1hy did 2ohn slam the door( to submit that a singular explanation through one field of psychology will not be ade:uate. ,f we are to give an explanation from neuroscience, or as the authors specifically suggest, neurophysiology, we have lost all the potential understandings and :ualities of his intentions, his situatedness and his motivation #p.5$&. +ealy proposes that to begin to understand the multitude and complexities of 2ohn(s action, we should adopt a pluralistic perspective within psychology, using the divergent and multifaceted subdivisions to examine a sub=ect. Paul +ealy actually draws our intention
to the fact that Psychology is in of itself, or inherently a pluralistic tradition because of it(s defragmentation #$% $, p.$96&.
Dany would suggest that to promote pluralism is to commit a downfall of returning to dualism, that of the body and mind as distinct5 widely acknowledged as outdated. ,t must be noted that en:uiries in philosophy, psychology and some of the scientific fields has found a new area of addressing pluralism that is not a reductive or mechanistic conception. Paul +ealy highlights the understanding of emergence as a potential solution for such polarity of @artesian dualism and the restrictions of mechanistic positivism.
+ealy submits that such an adoption of a hermeneutic dialogue would not be the only ?and8Aid for this so8called fragmentation. !et, he notes that pluralists do not fall into either absolute skepticism or acceptance5 highlighting however that without sometime of paradigm shift or 'intervention( this issue will only progress further #p$95&.
4ne example of such a fragmented unity between sub8disciplines is pursued by Francisco Farela and his student 0van /hompson, in which they attempt to intersectionally address a phenomenological investigation coupled with the mind sciences such as neurobiology. /hey originally called their approach a 'hermeneutic approach(, a 'complementary and mutually GinformativeH method #/hompson, $%%9, p B&. /hey later used the term an 'enactive approach( for their specific in:uiry. +owever enriching their work may be to the field of psychology and philosophy, if such a method would continue, , believe that psychology would need follow the advice of >och and specify a specific arena of en:uiry to address, rather than also being fragmented on the choice of topic.
,f this dialogue were to occur, an authentic interaction between schools of thought or methodology, then Dartin #$%%%, p6%-& forecasts that critical open8mindedness to the other is re:uired. "uch an endeavor is noted by !anchar and "life #$%%%b, pp. 6$B8$5& to be a intrapersonal adoption rather than one that must be regulated by a 'theoretical psychology( body. ,n their --9 paper they identify that such an en:uiry needs to go to the heart of the assumptions and accepted premises that each school makes. /his is a very challenging re:uest, as this can often apparently undermine an entire body of a
school(s thought. A type of bravery highlighted in both the readings would be necessary from all participants in the dialogue, especially since the foundations of some positions may come into the uncomfortable spotlight.
1hat might be the most subtle yet important proposals or remedies in this attempt at unification or dialogue is what +ealy proposes through ontology. +e submits that the subdivisions are 'always already( connected, through both the endeavor of studying human mental activity and from our collective situated and cultural arising #$% $, p$9-&. ,f however, we accept that we are already by sheer actuality already dialogically connected and reaching conclusions, then we have missed the purpose of +ealy(s proposal, especially since there remain un:uestioned and dominant ideologies within many psychologies that may benefit from other divisions. Furthermore, as previously addressed, if psychology wishes to avoid the 'nightmare( of absorption into various other studies, then further dialogue must become prevalent to remain scientifically motivated #"pence, -C9&. A hermeneutical exploration of psychologies that find their research motivated entirely for business or corporate endeavors may find their situatedness under criti:ue. ,nstead of attempting to commence on the path of inter8disciplinary dialogue anew, conceiving this as an ongoing process rather than an end8state may also help with framing this dialogue. Additionally, the hermeneutical dialogue employed as a solutions is not in any means the totality of the answer, and *r. Paul +ealy suggests it will emphasi)e a 'bothIand( understanding within the psychologies and an exploration of the systems, structures and histories that underpin it #$% $&.
, propose that the challenge still lies amongst the various differing foundational understandings that are held. For example, if one position holds a more mechanistic and positivistic computational psychological position and another division holds a differing perspective, for example, that of philosopher of mind as 0van /hompson, these two for example hold conflicting conceptions of mental activity and their relationship with the psychical constituency. /he task of finding shared ground between these positions is an outstanding challenge, yet theorists such as ?ower see such a division as a greater potentiality, and to /homas >uhn, the very seeds for necessary for change. ,n this struggle to find commonality, the process of a hermeneutic dialogue or analysis proposed by +ealy becomes indispensible. ?y utili)ing 3adamers 'fusion of hori)ons(, with such a distance, internal confusion and
fragmentation between psychological studies, such a meeting or fusion through hermeneutic dialogue of their positions would then have at the least a tremendous influence, if not ushering in a new paradigm for the psychologies.
'e(erences:
?em, " A .ooren de 2ong, +, $%%7, Theoretical issues in psychology: An Introduction, $nd ed, "age, .ondon
@oleman, " E, @ola, P A 1ebster, ", --B, '@ontributions to the history of psychologyJ K@F,,,, /opical content of history of psychology literature( in Psychological Reports, 9B, p7- 89%
*an)iger, >, --%, Constructing the subject: istorical origins of psychological research, @ambridge University Press, @ambridge
3adamer, +83, -C-, Truth and method, eds, 1einsheimer, 2 A Darshall, *, trans, $nd ed, @ontinuum, ;ew !ork
3uignon, @, $% $, '?ecoming a personJ +ermeneutic phenomenology(s contribution(, in !e" Ideas in Psychology# , ed L6%, 0lsevier, p-9M %7
+ealy, P, $% $, '/oward an integrative, pluralistic psychologyJ 4n the hermeneuticodialogical conditions of the possibility for overcoming fragmentation(, in !e" Ideas in Psychology, 6%, p$9 8C%
.eahey, /. +. # --$&. A history of psychology: &ain currents in psychological thought' 0nglewood @liffs, ;2J Prentice +all.
Dartin, 2, $%%%, 'Fragmentation, hermeneutics, scholarship and liberal education in psychology(, in (ournal of &ind and )eha%ior, $ , #vol.6&, p6%5M B.
Dartin, 2 A "ugarman, 2, $%% , ',nterpreting +uman >inds, ?eginnings of a +ermeneutic Psychology(, in Theory * Psychology, L , "age Publications, "imon Fraser University
>uhn, / ", -7$, /he "tructure of "cientific Eevolutions, 6rd ed, University of @hicago Press, @hicago
Packer, D.2 A Addison, E.?, -C-, '0valuating an interpretative account(, Packer, D.2 A Addison, E.?, 0ds, +ntering the ciricle: ermenutic in%estigation in psychology, ;!, Albany
/hompson, 0, $%%9, &ind in ,ife: )iology, Phenomenology, and the $ciences of the &ind, +arvard
)
University Press
"pence, 2 /, -C9, '@entrifugal versus centripetal tendencies in psychologyJ 1ill the center hold<(, American Psychologist, B$, %5$8 %5B.
"taats, A 1, -C6, Psychology-s crisis of disunity: Philosophy and method for a unified science , Praeger, ;ew !ork
!anchar, " @ A "life, ? *, $%%%, 'Putting it all /ogetherJ /owards a +ermeneutic Unity of Psychology(, in The (ournal of &ind and )eha%ior, $ , p6 58$7
!anchar, " @ A "life, ? *, --9, 'Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented PsychologyJ Problems and Prospects(, in Re%ie" of .eneral Psychology, , p$658$55