The cultural-historical origins of (mainstream) psychology – The psychonomy of “because”
While researching a new book, I found another article by Aaro Toomela ( Methodology of cultural-historical psychology ) in “ The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology “ (2014).
I agree with both his extensive criticism of the lack of methodology and the methods in psychology.
And I also agree with the cultural-historical approach advocated by Toomela, which is just as unknown here in Germany as Lev Vygotsky as its originator.
If one considers culture as a semiosphere (I call it a „frame of meaning“), then different cultures have different frames of meaning that have emerged in a historical process (historiogenesis).
Western/European-American mainstream psychology is a product of this historiogenesis and has its roots in Western philosophy, which in turn has its roots in Catholicism (as distinct from Christianity).
Catholicism, as a combination of „religion“ and state, is not, as religious scholars believe, the culmination of a development, but rather the perversion of (natural) religion.
What matters is no longer this life, but only the afterlife, for which everything must be sacrificed.
The escape from reality behind monastery walls and into celibacy is stylized as the highest form of life ( generalized reality phobia ).
Greek virtues—such as „moderation and balance,“ all of which require an engagement with reality—are being replaced by morality. In this way, „moderation and balance“ are lost and replaced by dichotomous thinking in extreme positions (good/evil, heaven/hell, reward/punishment, etc.).
And the soul is separated from the body (and not just justifiably distinguished!), humans from animals, humans from their fellow human beings (solipsism)… and above all, the humanities from the natural sciences. As if the mind has nothing to do with nature.
Everything natural, such as joy, sexuality including masturbation, etc., is condemned as immoral.
Catholicism is therefore distinctly hostile to nature (and science).
People are taught that they are sinners from birth, that they must confess their sins, that Jesus died for them to take away their alleged sins… and crucifixes hang everywhere.
(An interesting investigation would be to determine how many cases and forms of psychopathy can be traced back to these unnatural, perverse dogmas alone.)
Everything comes from God (mono-causal) and strives to return to God (mono-final, teleological).
Everything is static, mechanistic, lifeless, joyless … because dynamism, joy, and interaction require encounters with reality. And this is done dogmatically, ideologically (ideology as an exclusive promise of salvation), and with maximum intolerance towards those who believe or think differently.
The union of church and state, a hallmark of Catholicism, allowed this unprecedented intolerance towards other opinions and churches to be enforced by force. The free exchange of ideas came to a standstill, and most universities were controlled by the Catholic Church.
Western philosophy emerged in the Middle Ages under the maximally restrictive control mania of Catholicism, under constant threat to dissenting opinions. It found its substitute gods in Aristotle and Plato, which is why they still haunt most textbooks (including those on psychology). This is hardly surprising given their (vital) similarity to Catholicism.
The Platonic “essence” of “roundness”, for example, is, at least if one has read Vygotsky, nothing more than a human-made “concept”.
And philosophy flees from the world into metaphysical speculations , into academic ivory towers . It remains static, mechanistic, lifeless and joyless, hostile to reality and nature… monocausal and monofinal.
The humanities remain utopian-idealistic, morally normative, and with a comprehensive claim to power.
Intolerance and dichotomous thinking persist, as does the belief in predetermination and teleology.
The “ community of believers “ becomes the “ scientific community ,“ which excludes and excommunicates critical thinkers, such as Ludwig Feuerbach and Theodor Lessing, and thus becomes the “ community of ignorance .“ And is therefore far removed from any kind of science.
And when psychology emerged, there would have been three possibilities:
1.) Based on the English „Empiriker“(as distinct from the „Empiristen“) Charles Darwin ( The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animal ), G. H. Lewes ( Problems of Life and Mind ), G. John Romanes ( Mental Development in the Animal Kingdom – Mental Development in Man ), Lloyd C. Morgan ( An Introduction to Comparative Psychology ).
(see also https://b-j-schmidt.net/redition-schmidt/ )
2.) From medicine with its methodology and interdependence of anatomy, physiology, pathology (it is noteworthy that there is no psychopathology!), pharmacology…
3.) On idealistic-metaphysical philosophy.
Unfortunately, the latter has prevailed as the anxiety of (generalized reality phobia) and defense/avoidance from reality (generalized reality defense), i.e., nature, community, etc.
This is why Western mainstream psychology is not a science, but rather a form of scientific mimicry . And it is not practiced „despite“ the lack of a methodology and the use of meaningless methods, as Toomela rightly points out, but “ because „.
As a “hereditary disease”, it exhibits the same symptoms of psychopathy as the underlying Western philosophy (see above).
Thus, as Aaro Toomela argues, what is needed for scientific thinking is not a (scientific) philosophy, but a psychonomy of science.
Because scientists are also human beings, and can therefore develop personality disorders and form symbiotic groups (see also: Schmidt BJ; Ganz, A. (2017) Symbiotic narcissism as a group phenomenon ).
The distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought and knowledge can, and this should have become clear, never succeed within (scientific) philosophy.
Without intending to give a complete definition of science, the following points are necessary, though not necessarily sufficient:
– Research ! (Research) instead of ignorance (see also https://b-j-schmidt.net/ignorism/ )
What did earlier times know, what is known outside one’s own field? This avoids the frequently criticized problems of psychology such as atomism , the “ obsessive discoverer’s complex “ (Sorokin, Pitrim 1956), “ nothing-buttery „, and over-claiming (Phillips and Clancy 1972, Paulhus, et al. 1977)…
– Measure and balance
Instead of extreme positions like Nature/Nurture…
Instead of just either/or, also more/less , both/and…
Necessary information reduction instead of reductionism/holism.
– Differentiating instead of separating, analysis and synthesis
– „Empirie“ instead of „Empirismus“, pragmatics instead of pragmatism… (By their deeds you will know them.)
– Metacognition instead of centrism.
Anthropocentrism, ethnocentrism, and egocentrism will probably never be completely avoidable. But asking about other animals, cultures, and people can at least reduce them.
It’s often overlooked that a significant portion of the world’s population lives not only without the internet and therefore without AI, online shopping, etc., but also without electricity and, in some cases, sufficient drinking water and food.
– Methodology and suitable methods
– Systematicity (Hoyningen-Huene)
as necessary, but not sufficient! Even systematically committed errors remain errors.
– Uniform, comprehensive and correct terminology instead of linguistic confusion (while, for example, programming languages have both „or“ and „xor“, German only has „oder“ as an exclusive, dichotomous „or“, which corresponds to „xor“. The „or“ as „and/or“ is missing.)
– Mytholysis instead of permanent mythogenesis (e.g., by Freud) (see also https://b-j-schmidt.net/mytholyse/ )
– Freedom instead of the need for control (as with the behaviorists), dogmatism and ideology
– Neutral instead of moral-normative and/or utopian-idealistic
– Communication, especially with critics/dissenters, instead of excommunication
…
If even one of these points is missing, then it is definitely NOT science!
The title of my new book will be:
Generalized Reality Phobia:
On the Psychopathology of Catholicism, Western Philosophy, and Psychology.
Foundations of the Psychonomy of Science.
