Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Commentaries

No. 1 (2022)

On unifying psychology: A view from the trenches; and what’s wrong with pluralism anyway?

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rpc1-2022oa14458
Submitted
luglio 29, 2022
Published
2022-09-13

Abstract

This paper addresses, from the perspective of a psychotherapist, a proposal for unifying psychology under some form of conceptual umbrella, as advanced by Salvatore and colleagues in this current issue of Rivista di Psicologia Clinica. My response raises conceptual and practical questions. The unhappy history of universal models in psychoanalysis illustrates personal, social, and political dynamics that interfere with finding and implementing such models. There is no neutral meta-position; any meta-position is subject to challenge according to its angle, methods, and interests. The question may not be whether, a priori, psychology should be unified, but whether it will turn out to be so. Generalized scientific models applied to psychotherapy may not be close to how people understand and talk about themselves. Psychotherapists are likely to incorporate general principles and models without much rigor and as metaphors to justify and shape change in accord with cultural values rather than to describe or explain. Given different conceptual categories in psychology, natural/causal and humanistic, universal principles or models could be so general and abstract as to constitute philosophy more than science. Balancing assimilation and accommodation, or general stability with local level instability, allow for complexity, flexibility, and responsiveness to unique local conditions for human meaning systems ‒ individual and collective, and for the academic disciplines that study them. Pluralism or polyphony may be an alternative meta-position which allows therapists to flexibly draw from scientific and humanistic perspectives, and from folk psychology, along with personal training and life experience, soft-assembled at the moment of contact with the messy subjectivity of the other.

References

  1. Aftab, A., & Stein, D. J. (2022). Psychopharmacology and explanatory pluralism. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(6), 522. DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0470.
  2. Appiah, K. A. (2017). As if. idealization and ideals. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  4. Barker, C., & Galasiński, D. (2001). Cultural studies and discourse analysis: A dialogue on language and identity. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  5. Barrett, L. F. (2009). The future of psychology: connecting mind to brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 326-339. DOI:
  6. 1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01134.x.
  7. Brendel, D. H. (2004). Healing psychiatry: A pragmatic approach to bridging the Science/Humanism Divide. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 12(3), 150–157. DOI: 10.1080/10673220490472409.
  8. Brendel, D. H. (2009). Healing psychiatry: Bridging the science/humanism divide. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  9. Bromberg, P. (1998). Standing in the spaces: Essays on clinical process trauma and dissociation. New Yok, London: Taylor and Francis.
  10. Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future? Journal of Change Management, 4(4): 309-325.
  11. Cooper A. (1985). A historical review of psychoanalytic paradigms. In A. Rothstein (ed.), Models of the Mind (pp. 5-20). New York: IUP.
  12. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon.
  13. Freud, S. (1985). Letter to Wilhelm Fliess, February 1, 1900. In M. Masson (ed.), The complete letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess: 1887-1904 (pp. 387–398). Cambridge (MA): Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (original work published 1900).
  14. Freud, S. (1937). Analysis terminable and interminable (pp. 209-253). London: Standard Edition.
  15. Gill, M. M., & Holzman, P. S. (eds.) (1976). Psychology versus metapsychology: Psychoanalytic essays in memory of George S. Klein. Psychological Issues, Vol. IX, No. 4, Monograph 36. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1976.
  16. Hempel, C. G. (1996). Philosophy of natural science. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  17. Kaplan, L. J. (2006). Cultures of fetishism. Palgrave: Macmillan.
  18. Kauffman, S. A. (2015). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. MiltonKeynes UK: Lightning Source UK.
  19. Klein, G. S. (1976). Psychoanalytic theory: An exploration of essentials. New York: International Universities Press.
  20. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (original work published 1967).
  21. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
  22. Linell, P. (2010). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: IAP ‒ Information Age Information Publ.
  23. McHugh, P. R., & Slavney, P. (1999). The Perspectives of Psychiatry. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  24. Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2019a). Evidence-based psychotherapy relationship: the third task force. Psychotherapy Relationships That Work, 1–14. DOI: 10.1093/med-psych/9780190843960.003.0001.
  25. Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2019b). Relationships and responsiveness in the psychological treatment of trauma: the tragedy of the APA clinical practice guidelines. Psychotherapy, (56)3, 391-399.
  26. Papanek, M. L. (1973). Kurt Lewin and his contributions to modern management theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, (1), 317-322. DOI: 10.5465/ambpp.1973.4981410.
  27. Pine F. (1988). The four psychologies of psychoanalysis and their place in clinical work. JAPA, 36, 571-596.
  28. Pine, F. (1990). Drive, ego, object, and self: A synthesis for clinical work. New York: Basic Books.
  29. Priel, B. (1999). Bakhtin and Winnicott on dialogue, Self, and cure. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 9(4), 487-503. DOI: 10.1080/10481889909539339.
  30. Rozas, D., & Huckle, S. (2020). Loosen control without losing control: Formalization and decentralization within commons‐based peer production. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(2), 204-223. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24393.
  31. Rohr, R. (2020). The wisdom pattern: Order ‒ disorder ‒ reorder. Cincinnati, OH: Fransiscan Media.
  32. Salvatore, S. (2016). Psychology in black and white: The project of a theorydriven science. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
  33. Salvatore, S., Ando’, A., Ruggieri, R. A., Bucci, F., Cordella, B., Freda, M.F., Lombardo, C., Coco, G. L., Novara, C., Petito, A., Schimmenti, A.,
  34. Vegni, E., Venuleo, C., Zagaria, A., Zennaro, A. (2022). Compartmentalization and unity of professional psychology. A road map for the future of the discipline. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica/Journal of Clinical Psychology (RPC), 1, 7-33.
  35. Saporta J. (2013). Converging Approaches to Multiplicity: Between Cultures, Within the Self, and Within Psychoanalytic Theory. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference on Multicultural Discourses, Hangzhou, China, October 23-26, 2013.
  36. Saporta, J. A. (2014). Psychoanalysis meets China: transformative dialogue or monologue of the Western voice. In D. E. Scharff & S. Varvin (eds.), Psychoanalysis in China (pp. 73-90). London: Karnac Books.
  37. Saporta, J. A. (2016). Changing the subject by addressing the other: Mikhail Bakhtin and psychoanalytic therapy. In D. M. Goodman & E. Severson (eds.), The ethical turn: Otherness and subjectivity in contemporary psychoanalysis (pp. 209-231). New York: Routledge.
  38. Schwaber, E. A. (1983). Psychoanalytic listening and psychic reality. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 10(4), 379-392.
  39. Schwaber, E. A. (1998). From whose point of view? the neglected question in analytic listening. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 67(4), 645-661. DOI: 10.1080/00332828.1998.12006069.
  40. Shi-xu. (2005). A cultural approach to discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  41. Shotter, J. (2002). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage.
  42. Shotter, J., & Billig, M. (1998). A Bakhtinian psychology: from out of the heads of individuals and into the dialogues between them. In M. Bell & M. Gardiner (eds.), Bakhtin and the Human Sciences. London: Sage Publications.
  43. Stebbing, L. S. (1937). Philosophy and the physicists. London: Methuen & Co. ltd.
  44. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1996). A Dynamic Systems Approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  45. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  46. Tuan, Y.-F. (1998). Escapism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  47. Vaihinger, H. (1925). The philosophy of “as if”: a system of the theoretical, practical and religious fictions of mankind, trans. C.K. Ogden. New York: Hartcourt, Grace, and Co.
  48. Wachtel, P. L. (1981). Transference, schema, and assimilation: the Relevance of Piaget to the Psychoanalytic Theory of Transference. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, 8, 59-76.
  49. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods and findings. New York: Routledge.
  50. Wertsch, J. V. (2009). Voices of the mind sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  51. Zittoun, T. (2007). The Role of Symbolic Resources in Human Lives. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 343-361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...