Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Thomas Teo

Theory and Praxis

  • Ines Langemeyer
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_359

Introduction

With regard to the transition from school to work, it is a widespread belief that theory and practice ultimately represent opposites. Quite often, their relationship is experienced as rupture, disturbance, or conflict. Within the dominant paradigm of positivism, this perception often blends into other tensions such as scientific versus experiential knowledge, reason versus emotion, culture versus nature, and so on. Critical psychology tackles the “naturalness” and the societal purpose of opposing theory and practice by reflecting the sociohistorical background of these antagonisms: above all, the division of intellectual and physical labor and the domination of the former over the latter in capitalist relations. In what follows, it is important to distinguish three levels of the theory-practice-relation: First, the experiential relation that exists between a specific theory (a theory of X) and a concrete practice (a practice of Y); second, the philosophical relation...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Chaiklin, S. (2011). Social scientific research and societal practice: Action research and cultural-historical research in methodological light from Kurt Lewin and Lev S. Vygotsky. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2), 129–147.Google Scholar
  2. EP. (1999). In J. Sandkühler (Ed.), Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner (EP).Google Scholar
  3. Fahl, R., & Morus, M. (1999). The project “analysis of psychological practice” or: An attempt at connecting psychology critique and practice research. Outlines – Critical Social Studies, 1, 73–98.Google Scholar
  4. Fischer, M. (2002). Work experience. In N. Boreham, R. Samurçay, & M. Fischer (Eds.), Work process knowledge (pp. 119–133). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Friedrich, J. (1993). Der Gehalt der Sprachform. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Holzkamp, K. (1983). Grundlegung der Psychologie. Frankfurt/M: Campus.Google Scholar
  7. Holzkamp, K. (1991). Experience of self and scientific objectivity. In Ch. W. Tolman, W. Maiers (Eds.), Critical psychology. Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 65–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Original work published in German, 1985).Google Scholar
  8. Holzkamp, K. (2012). Practice: A functional analysis of the concept. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the standpoint of the subject. Selected writings of Klaus Holzkamp (pp. 87–111). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (Original work published in German, 1988).Google Scholar
  9. Holzkamp-Osterkamp, U. (1991). Emotion, cognition, and action potence. In Ch. W. Tolman, W. Maiers (Eds.), Critical psychology. Contributions to an historical science of the subject (pp. 134–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (original work published in German, 1978).Google Scholar
  10. Langemeyer, I. (2011). Science and social practice. Activity theory and action research as socio-critical approaches. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2), 148–160.Google Scholar
  11. Langemeyer, I. (2012). Socio-technological change of learning conditions. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 3144–3147). New York/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Lewin, K. (1997a). Problems of research in social psychology. In K. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts & field theory in social sciences (pp. 279–288). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (Original work published 1943–44).Google Scholar
  13. Lewin, K. (1997b). Action research and minority problems. In K. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts & field theory in social sciences (pp. 143–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (Original work published 1946).Google Scholar
  14. Markard, M. (2009). Einführung in die Kritische Psychologie. Hamburg: Argument.Google Scholar
  15. Molander, B. (2009). What is hidden and what is not? In A. Bolder & R. Dobischat (Eds.), Eigen-Sinn und Widerstand. Kritische Beiträge zum Kompetenzentwicklungsdiskurs (pp. 54–69). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. The Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  17. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  18. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Schraube, E. (2009). Technology as materialized action and its ambivalences. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 296–312.Google Scholar
  20. Stetsenko, A. (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on development and learning : Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) project. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 471–491.Google Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp. 227–357). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers (Original work published 1927).Google Scholar

Online Resources

  1. Langemeyer, I., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Is cultural-historical activity theory threatened to fall short of its own principles and possibilities in empirical research? Outlines. Critical Social Studies, 8(2), 20–42. Available from http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/viewFile/2090/1854
  2. Leont’ev, A. N. (1972). Activity and consciousness. In Philosophy in the USSR, problems of dialectical materialism (pp. 180–202). Available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1977/leon1977.htm (Written 1972)
  3. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm
  4. Marx, K. (1845). Theses on Feuerbach. MECW, Vol. 5. Available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm
  5. Marx, K. (1867). Capital, Vol. 1; MECW, Vol. 35. Available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
  6. Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1845/46). The German ideology. MECW, Vol. 5. Available from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of EducationEberhard Karls University of TübingenTübingenGermany