Musings about Metaphors and Models: the Need to Put Psychology Together Again
- PDF / 474,135 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 77 Downloads / 135 Views
Musings about Metaphors and Models: the Need to Put Psychology Together Again Nandita Chaudhary 1 & Sujata Sriram 2 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Zagaria, Andò & Zennaro (2020) raise several issues for the study of the human condition, highlighting the precarious status of psychology on account of a core weakness: The absence of consensus about fundamental concepts. Using the metaphor of a giant, albeit one with feet of clay, the authors develop an argument about how evolutionary psychology is the best possible candidate to advance a unified paradigm on account of theoretical consistency. In this commentary we examine the metaphors and models invoked in the article and suggest alternative perspectives on the grounds that a grand singular solution and consistency in definitions are not urgent requirements for understanding the complexity, diversity, and nuances of the human condition. We argue that plurality and low consensus can be taken as productive and functional; precisely because psychological and cultural phenomena are always characterized by uncertainty in irreversible time. Cultural psychology is a valuable paradigm, inclusive of universal and individual processes in ways that provide more appropriate resolution for cultural pluralism. Every definition of psychological phenomena, however obscure and contested, has arisen from theoretical speculation arising from a specific perspective. Keywords Psychology . Evolutionary psychology . Cultural psychology . Metaphors
* Nandita Chaudhary [email protected] Sujata Sriram [email protected]; [email protected]
1
University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
2
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Integr Psych Behav
Fragmented Structures, Fragile Branches and Decontextualized Methods Psychology is the scientific exploration of human thought and behaviour. The configuration of these domains can be remarkably dissimilar in different traditions, although they are guided by similar preoccupations to understanding the human condition. The objects of interest for psychologists are historically, socially and linguistically constructed and can be vastly divergent based on problems, assumptions and taxonomy, which, Danziger argues, are not “exempt from the flux of history” (Danziger 1997, p. 12). In terms of categories, we agree with the authors that there may be little consensus on foundational concepts like mind, cognition, emotions, intelligence and others, but it is important to remember that unlike the natural sciences where concepts have precise meaning, psychological constructs are ‘field-like signs’ (Valsiner 2007). “Field-like signs are generalizations that allow for heterogeneity within the field……All open systems are characterized by equifinality which requires the acceptance of heterogeneity at the abstract level” (Valsiner and Salvatore 2012, p. 15). Point-like signs, where meanings are specific, clear and defined, cannot represent the multilinearity that open systems require.
Data Loading...
