Abstract
This paper discusses the need for contextualization and reflection of psychological theorizing within its respective cultural and historical context. By acknowledging the anthropological assumptions which form a key part of every psychological theory and connect psychological thinking with broader cultural values, norms, ideals and meanings, psychologists can gain a deeper understanding of the limits of their own theories. It is argued that the prolonged debate within academic psychology concerning its status and methodology which became famous as “psychology’s crisis” is an effect of the neglect of these implicit anthropological assumptions. Especially as cultural and cultural-historical psychologists, we should avoid the improper universalization of particular models of what defines a human being.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ash, M. (1984). Disziplinenentwicklung und Wissenschaftstransfer. Deutschsprachige Psychologen in der Emigration [Development of disciplines and transfer of science. German-speaking psychologists during emigration]. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 7, 207–226.
Bühler, K. (1927). Die Krise der Psychologie [The crisis of psychology]. Jena: Fischer.
Buss, A. R. (1978). The structure of psychological revolutions. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 57–64.
Capshew, J. H. (1999). Psychologists on the march. Science, practice, and professional identity in America, 1929–1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review: verbal behavior by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35(1), 26–58.
Dember, W. (1974). Motivation and the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist, 29(3), 161–168.
Driesch, H. (1926). Die Krisis in der Psychologie. Ihre Krisis in der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Reinicke.
Geuter, U. (2008). The professionalization of psychology in Nazi Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goertzen, J. (2005). On the possibility of unification. The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(6), 829–852.
Harrington, A. (1996). Reenchanted science. Holism in German culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Herzog, W. (1984). Modell und Theorie in der Psychologie [Model and theory in psychology]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Holzkamp, K. (1972). Kritische Psychologie. Vorbereitende Arbeiten [Critical psychology. Preparatory works]. Frankfurt: Fischer.
James, W. K. (1892). Psychology: A briefer course. New York: Holt.
Joravsky, D. (1989). Russian psychology. A critical history. Oxford: Blackwell.
Koch, S. (1951). The current status of motivational psychology. Psychological Review, 58, 147–154.
Koch, S. (1999). The age of “paradigm”. In S. Koch, D. Finkelman, & F. Kessel (Eds.), Psychology in human context. Essays in dissidence and reconstruction (pp. 91–114). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koffka, K. (1926). Zur Krisis in der Psychologie [On the crisis in psychology]. Die Naturwissenschaften, 25, 581–586.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lachman, R., Lachman, J., & Butterfield, E. (1979). Cognitive psychology and information processing. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Leahey, T. (1992). The mythical revolutions of American psychology. American Psychologist, 47(2), 308–318.
Leahey, T. (2000). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive development. Its cultural and social foundations (M. Lopez-Morillaz & L. Solotaroff, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mammen, J., & Mironenko, I. (2016). Activity theories and the ontology of psychology: learning from Danish and Russian experiences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 681–713.
Messer, A. (1926). Zwei Grundrichtungen der Psychologie [Two basic directions of psychology]. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 55, 27–36.
Palermo, D. (1971). Is a scientific revolution taking place in psychology? Science Studies, 1(2), 135–155.
Rathenau, W. (1912). Zur Kritik der Zeit [On the critique of time]. Berlin: Fischer.
Rinn, G. (2005). Der Kampf um das Subjekt. Politische Mobilisierung der deutschsprachigen Universitätspsychologie zwischen 1918 und 1933 [The fight about the subject. Political mobilisation in German academic psychology between 1918 and 1933]. In W. Hardtwig (Ed.), Politische Kulturgeschichte der Zwischenkriegszeit [Political cultural history of the interwar period] (pp. 343–374). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Segal, E., & Lachman, R. (1972). Complex behavior or higher mental process: is there a paradigm shift? American Psychologist, 27(1), 46–55.
Slunecko, T., & Hengl, S. (2007). Language, cognition, subjectivity - a dynamic constitution. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology (pp. 40–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slunecko, T., & Wieser, M. (2014). Cultural-historical psychology. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 352–356). New York: Springer.
Spengler, O. (1918). The decline of the West. Form and actuality. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Spranger, E. (1926). Die Frage nach der Einheit in der Psychologie [The question of unification in psychology]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Staats, A. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3(1), 3–13.
Stam, H. J. (2004). Unifying psychology: epistemological act or disciplinary maneuver? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 1259–1262.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Unifying the field of psychology. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Störring, G. (1927). Die Frage der geisteswissenschaftlichen und verstehenden Psychologie [The question of humanistic and understanding psychology]. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 58, 389–448.
Vygotsky, L. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 233–343). New York: Springer. (Original manuscript written in 1927).
Weimer, W., & Palermo, D. (1973). Paradigms and normal science in psychology. Science Studies, 3(3), 211–244.
Wieser, M. (2014). Remembering the “lens”. Visual transformations of a concept from Heider to Brunswik. History of Psychology, 17(2), 83–104.
Willy, R. (1899). Die Krisis in der Psychologie [The crisis in psychology]. Leipzig: Reisland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wieser, M. Psychology’s “Crisis” and the Need for Reflection. A Plea for Modesty in Psychological Theorizing. Integr. psych. behav. 50, 359–367 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9343-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9343-9