Abstract
In this paper I discuss two basic theses about the formalization of cultural psychology. First, I claim that formalization is a relevant, even necessary stage of development of this domain of science. This is so because formalization allows the scientific language to achieve a much needed autonomy from the commonsensical language of the phenomena that this science deals with. Second, I envisage the two main functions that formalization has to perform in the field of cultural psychology: on the one hand, it has to provide formal rules grounding and constraining the deductive construction of the general theory; on the other hand, it has to provide the devices for supporting the interpretation of local phenomena, in terms of the abductive reconstruction of the network of linkages among empirical occurrences comprising the local phenomena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The discussion developed in this paragraph is based on the view of common sense as the informal system of knowledge and meanings (i.e. social representation, values, images, implicit theory of the world), enrooted within the cultural milieu, that grounds and channels the interpretation of the daily life experience. Accordingly, the common sense and the natural language are strictly intertwined: the common sense is embedded within natural language; the latter cannot but be exposed to the normativity of the commonsensical semantic. Yet, common sense and natural language have to be distinguished – indeed, on the one hand, the natural language is used in other context than other semantic (e.g. the scientific context); and, on the other hand, Smedslund (1988) showed how common sense could be subjected to formalization.
References
Bowlby, J. (1961). Process of mourning. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 42, 317–340.
Bühler, K. (1990). Theory of language. The representational function of language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (Original work published 1934].
Feynman, R. P. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out. New York: Basic Book.
Lauro-Grotto, R. P., Salvatore, S., Gennaro, A., & Gelo, O. (2009). The unbearable dynamicity of psychological processes: highlights of the psychodynamic theories. In J. Valsiner, P. C. M. Molenaar, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 1–30). New York: Springer.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mammen, J. (1993). The elements of psychology. In N. Engelsted, M. Hedegaards, B. Karpatschof, & A. Mortensen (Eds.), The societal subject (pp. 29–44). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Matte Blanco, I. (1975). The unconscious as infinite sets. An essays in Bi-logic. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company Ltd.
McGuigan, F. J. (1953). Formalization of psychological theory. Psychological Review, 60, 377–382.
McGuire, W. J. (1989). A perspectivist approach to the strategic planning of programmatic scientific research. In B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish Jr., R. A. Neimeyer, & A. C. Houts (Eds.), The psychology of science: contributions to metascience (pp. 214–245). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1932). Harvard Lecture on Pragmatism. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [Original version: 1902].
Salvatore, S. (2011). Psychotherapy research needs theory. Outline for an epistemology of the clinical exchange. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Science, 45(3), 366–388.
Salvatore, S. (2013). The reciprocal inherency of self and context. Outline for a semiotic model of constitution of experience. Interacçioes, 24(9), 20–50 available at http://www.eses.pt/interaccoes.
Salvatore, S. (2014). The mountain of cultural psychology and the mouse of empirical studies. Methodological considerations for birth control. Culture & Psychology, 20(4), 477–500. doi:10.1177/1354067X14551299.
Salvatore, S. (2015). Sense and sensemaking. Implication of a semiotic and dynamic model of mind for psychoanalysis (pp. 153–176). In P. Rosembaum (Ed.). Making our ideas clear. Pragmatism in psychoanalysis. Charlotte (NC, USA): Information Age Publishing.
Salvatore, S. (2016). Psychology in black and white. The project of a theory-driven science. Charlotte NC: Information Age Publishing.
Salvatore, S., & Pagano, P. (2005). Issues of cultural analysis. Culture and Psychology, 11(2), 159–180.
Salvatore, S., & Tschacher, W. (2012). Time dependency of psychotherapeutic exchanges: the contribution of the theory of dynamic systems in analyzing process. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 253. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00253.
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2009). Idiographic science on its way: towards making sense of psychology. In S. Salvatore, J. Valsiner, S. Strout, & J. Clegg (Eds.), Yearbook of idiographic science-volume 2 (pp. 9–19). Roma: Firera Publishing Group.
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory and Psychology, 20(6), 817–833.
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2014). Outline of a general psychological theory of the psychological intervention. Theory and Psychology, 24, 217–232. doi:10.1177/0959354314524295.
Salvatore, S., Lauro-Grotto, R., Gennaro, A., & Gelo, O. (2009). Attempts to grasp the dynamicity of intersubjectivity. In J. Valsiner, P. C. M. Molenaar, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 171–190). New York: Springer.
Salvatore, S., Gelo, O., Gennaro, A., Manzo, S., & Al-Radaideh, A. (2010). Looking at the psychotherapy process as an intersubjective dynamic of meaning- making. A case study with Discourse Flow Analysis. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 23, 195–230.
Salvatore, S., Gennaro, A., Auletta, A., Tonti, M., & Nitti, M. (2012). Automated method of content analysis. A device for psychotherapy process research. Psychotherapy Research, 22(3), 256–273.
Salvatore, S., Tschacher, W., Gelo, O. Koch, S. (2015). Dynamic systems theory and embodiment in pscychotherapy research. A new look at process and outcome. Frontiers of psychology, 6, 914. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00914
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, (2), 1317–1323.
Shweder, R. A. (2000). The psychology of practice and the practice of the three psychologies. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 207–222.
Smedslund, J. (1988). Psycho-Logic. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Smith, B., & Varzi, A. (2000). Fiat and bona fida boundaries. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60(2), 401–420.
Suppes, P. (1968) The desiderability of formalization in science. The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 65, No. 20, Sixty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division (Oct. 24, 1968), pp. 651–664.
Valsiner, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Valsiner, J., & Rosa, A. (Eds.) (2007). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valsiner, J., & Salvatore, S. (2012). How idiographic science could create its terminology? In S. Salvatore, J. Valsiner, A. Gennaro (Eds). Making Sense of Infinite Uniqueness: The emerging system of Idiographic Science Yearbook of Idiographic Science. Volume 4 (pp 3–20). Charlotte (NC, USA): Information Age Publishing.
Valsiner, J., Molenaar, P. C. M., Lyra, C. D. P., & Chaudhary, N. (Eds.) (2009). Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences. New York: Springer.
Vanpaemel, M. & Lee, MD. (2012) Using Priors to Formalize Theory: Optimal Attention and the Generalized Context Model Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6):1047–56. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0300-4.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (Original work published 1953).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was funded by he European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 649436
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Salvatore, S. The Formalization of Cultural Psychology. Reasons and Functions. Integr. psych. behav. 51, 1–13 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9366-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9366-2