Abstract
The formation of global science in the modern world implies both the emergence of new objects and subjects of research and a change in the international scientific community. In the opinion of the authors, the globalization of psychological science determines not only integration but also differentiation of trends in world science. These processes challenge the mainstream theoretical ideas of the second half of the 20th century about human nature and the methodological foundations of the respective theories. The formation of global psychology as a multipolar network is viewed not as a single theoretical trend but rather as a divergent development of new and reconsidered old psychological concepts in an attempt to assess the modern empirical realities generated by the era of globalization. The authors propose to define global psychology as a stage in the development of psychological science, generated by the new reality, the assessment of which requires new approaches. The discourse of global psychology is directed to the establishment of a discipline that would respond adequately to the challenges of our time and reflect the psychological features of contemporary humans. The authors argue, that Russian science should actively participate in the dialogue and integration at this new stage, preserving at the same time its authentic identity, because it is its originality that can be of interest and, consequently, in demand on the part of international psychology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Interestingly, works of the Russian school substantiate the opposite position, the fundamental irreducibility of one language to another [20].
REFERENCES
S. A. Lebedev, “Science in the global world,” Vek Globalizatsii, No. 2, 145–151 (2012).
V. G. Enriquez, “Developing a Filipino Psychology,” in Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context, Ed. by U. Kim and J. W. Berry (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993), pp. 152–169.
D. Y. F. Ho, “Indigenous psychologies: Asian perspectives,” J. Cross-Cultural Psychol. 29, 88–103 (1998).
K.-S. Yang, “Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology,” Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 3, 241–263 (2000).
U. Kim and J. W. Berry, Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context (Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993).
J. Georgas and K. Mylonas, “Cultures are like all other cultures, like some other cultures, like no other culture,” in Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context, Ed. by U. Kim, K. S. Young, and K.-K. Hwang (Springer, New York, 2006), pp. 197–221.
G. Jahoda, “On the rise and decline of ‘indigenous psychology,’” Culture Psychol. 22 (2), 169–181 (2016).
J. W. Berry, “Achieving a global psychology,” Can. Psychol. 54 (1), 55–61 (2013).
A. J. Marsella, All psychologies are indigenous psychologies: Reflections on psychology in a global era. www.apa.org/international/pi/2013/12/reflections.aspx.
D. P. Todes, Darwin without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1989).
B. G. Anan’ev, Man As an Object of Cognition (Izd. Leningrad. Gos. Univ., Leningrad, 1968) [in Russian].
K. J. Gergen, “Culturally inclusive psychology from a constructionist standpoint,” J. Theor. Soc. Behav. 45 (1), 94–106 (2015).
J. Valsiner, “Integrating psychology within the globalizing world: A requiem to the post-modernist experiment with Wissenschaft,” Integrative Psychol. Behav. Sci. 43 (1), 1–21 (2009).
J. Valsiner, Between Self and Societies: Creating Psychology in a New Key (TLU Press, Tallinn, 2017).
A. Rosa, “Acts of psyche,” Cambridge Handbook of Socio-Cultural Psychology, Ed. by J. Valsiner and A. Rosa (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2007), pp. 205–236.
K. K. Hwang, “The rise of indigenous psychologies: In response to Jahoda’s criticism,” Culture Psychol. 23 (4), 551–565 (2017).
L. Sundararajan, “The Chinese notions of harmony, with special focus on implications for cross-cultural and global psychology,” Humanistic Psychol. 41, 25–34 (2013).
K. K. Hwang, “Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms,” J. Theor. Soc. Behav. 45 (1), 39–62 (2015).
J. Lasser and C. Plotts, “Global migration: The need for culturally competent school psychologists,” School Psychol. Int. 36 (4), 358–374 (2015).
V. F. Petrenko, “Multipolar culture of united humanity,” Vek Globalizatsii, Nos. 1–2, 126–132 (2016).
A. Toomela, “Modern mainstream psychology is the best? Noncumulative, historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical,” in Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years Gone Astray?, Ed. by A. Toomela and J. Valsiner (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2010), pp. 1–26.
J. Valsiner, A Guided Science: History of Psychology in the Mirror of Its Making (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2012).
K. Danziger, “Does the history of psychology have a future?,” Theor. Psychol. 4, 467–484 (1994).
M. B. Lykes and G. Moane, “Editors’ introduction: Whither feminist liberation psychology? Critical explorations of feminist and liberation psychologies for a globalizing world,” Fem. Psychol. 19 (3), 283–297 (2009). http://fap.sagepub.com.
R. Unger, Resisting Gender: Twenty-Five Years of Feminist Psychology (Sage, London, 1998).
V. M. Mays, J. Rubin, M. Sabourin, and L. Walker, “Moving toward a global psychology,” Am. Psychol. 51 (5), 485–487 (1996).
I. A. Mironenko and P. S. Sorokin, “Culture in psychology: Perennial problems and contemporary methodological crisis,” Psychol. Russ.: State Art, No. 4, 35–45 (2015).
P. Sorokin, “‘Global sociology’ in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems, and perspectives,” Curr. Sociol. 64 (1), 41–59 (2016).
U. Beck and N. Sznaider, “Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: A research agenda,” Brit. J. Sociol. 57 (1), 1–23 (2006).
I. A. Mironenko, Russian Psychology in the Global Science Space (Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, 2015) [in Russian].
A. V. Yurevich and I. P. Tsapenko, “Globalization of Russian science,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, No. 12, 1098–1106 (2005).
V. A. Kol’tsova, T. A. Nestik, and V. A. Sosnin, “Psychological science in the struggle for peace: Research objectives and vectors,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 5, 5–15 (2006).
L. G. Dikaya, “Urgent problems and prospects of labor psychology research in conditions of globalization,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 29–44 (2007).
A. V. Yurevich, “Russian psychology in the global mainstream,” Vopr. Psikhol., No. 1, 3–14 (2010).
T. V. Kornilova, “Internationality of psychology versus ‘national psychologies,’” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 91–99 (2015).
A. L. Zhuravlev and T. A. Nestik, “Psychological features of collective creativity in network communities,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 19–28 (2016).
A. L. Zhuravlev and A. N. Zankovskii, “Trends in the development of organizational psychology,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 77–88 (2017).
A. A. Gostev, “Psychological aspects of global manipulation studies,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 4, 17–28 (2017).
I. A. Mironenko, “From forecast to foresight of future Russian psychology,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 3, 119–123 (2017).
I. A. Mironenko, “Integrative and isolationist tendencies in contemporary Russian psychological science,” Psychol. Russ.: State Art 7 (2), 4–13 (2014).
A. L. Zhuravlev and T. A. Nestik, “Psychological features of collective creativity in network communities,” Psikhol. Zh., No. 2, 19–28 (2016).
V. Korionov, “They cemented the fortress…,” Pravda, Aug. 12 (1993).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Translated by B. Alekseev
RAS Academician Anatolii Laktionovich Zhuravlev is Director for Science of the RAS Institute of Psychology. Irina Anatol’evna Mironenko, Dr. Sci. (Psychol.), is a Professor at St. Petersburg State University. RAS Corresponding Member Andrei Vladislavovich Yurevich is a Deputy Director of the RAS Institute of Psychology.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhuravlev, A.L., Mironenko, I.A. & Yurevich, A.V. Psychological Science in the Global World. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 88, 385–393 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618030164
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618030164