Barbara Held

The call to re-envision theoretical psychology comes after more than a half century of theorists’ efforts to re-envision psychological science. Especially prominent is persistent critique of mainstream psychology’s deployment of the ontological and epistemic templates of the natural sciences, in theorists’ multifaceted mission to replace that metatheoretical grounding with one deemed properly suited to a thoroughgoing psychological science of lived experience. Despite anticipated objection, I call for consideration of boundary-pushing trends and challenges in the natural sciences, especially in theory and philosophy of physics, with an eye toward inspiring theoretical psychologists and mainstream psychologists anew. I also draw attention to the use of relevant findings of mainstream psychological scientists by philosophers of psychology who ask traditional philosophical questions nonetheless. This use mirrors the use of relevant findings of biological scientists by philosophers of biology within the burgeoning field of biophilosophy, in which I find an apt analogue to what I herein call “psycphilosophy.” By adopting a more mutual, relational attitude toward disciplines that have heretofore been dismissed, theoretical psychologists may attain a better position from which to make more constructive and productive contact with mainstream psychological scientists—contact that may facilitate the impact on the mainstream that has to date eluded theorists.

Do mainstream psychologists think critically? And are the many critiques of the mainstream made by its critics “on target”? Answering both questions requires consensus about what critical thinking consists in, and there seems to be little consensus in sight. I begin by accepting Slife, Yanchar, and Reber's claim that “rigorous thinking” itself is insufficient for critical thinking in and about psychology, and I then consider various suggestions made by critics of the mainstream about thematic assumptions that should be included in critical thinking about the mainstream. After identifying three areas of mainstream research in which some of these assumptions seem to have been challenged from within the mainstream, I conclude by considering how both critique and metacritique may be combined, repositioned, and/or recontextualized, to advance the important cause of critical thinking in and about psychology. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The discourse of postmodernism proclaims with a unified voice the context-dependence or knower-dependence, the relativity or subjectivity, of all truth claims. But the discourse of postmodernism also proclaims universal truths upon which this antirealist epistemology itself rests. These constitute the very foundational claims that the postmodernist campaign, in all of its alleged antifoundationalism, strives to subvert. In this article, the author considers 3 universal truth claims of PM discourse. And because the antirealism that defines much of PM discourse is often grounded in the doctrine of social constructionism , the 3 truth claims under consideration constitute the claims of SC itself, especially the claims of SC as it has been propounded within postmodern therapy circles. Each of the 3 claims is articulated, and then followed by a critique which asks whether the claim is not either simply a variant of the so-called modernist paradigm that is under attack, or the product of the very observational/empirical powers that PM doctrine seeks to erode in its anti-empiricist spirit. Particular attention is give to challenging the value, found within postmodern circles, of a pragmatic or utilitarian standard for acceptance of theory or discourse. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Katherine Morrison charges that in my book, Back to Reality, I failed to make my case for the adoption of a modest realism in postmodern (narrative) therapy, because I failed to establish the motive behind that movement’s adoption of antirealism. In fact, in Back to Reality, I put forth several reasons for therapists of all stripes to favor a modest realism over antirealism, reasons which do not depend upon the motives of narrative therapists, whatever they may be.Katherine Morrison prétend que dans mon livre Back to Reality, je ne parviens pas à établir le bien-fonde d’une position qui adopte un réalisme modeste en thérapie (narrative) postmoderne, parce que je n’etablis pas les motifs qui se cachent derrière l’adoption de l’antiréalisme par ce mouvement. En fait, dans Back to Reality, j’énonce plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles les thérapeutes de toutes écolesdevraient préférer un réalisme modeste à I'antiréalisme. Ces raisons ne dépendent pas des motifs des thérapeutes narratifs, quels qu’ils soient.

How have spokespersons for the positive psychology movement presented the movement to the public and to the profession of psychology? Moreover, what are the consequences for psychology of that presentation? These questions inform my assessment of the "virtues" of positive psychology, which I interpret in two ways. First, there are the ways in which the movement implicitly presents itself as virtuous, not least by constituting itself as a corrective to "negative psychology." Second, there are the ways in which Martin Seligman, in calling for a new and discrete scientific enterprise, promotes building "signature strengths" as routes to virtue and thus "authentic happiness." Alternative ways to conceptualize virtue and authenticity are considered, as are the epistemic problems that inhere in movements in general, and the positive psychology movement in particular. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

A good number of therapists have tumed to the antirealism of postmodern theory in general, and postmodern literary theory in particular, to justify their antitheoretical preferences. Does this turn make sense? Given what drives the antitheoretical agenda - the aspiration to individualize therapeutic practice so as to optimize each client’s unique potential for change - the answer is no. More specifically, I argue that it is the composition (i.e., the completeness) of the theoretical system that guides therapeutic practice, rather than the therapist’s epistemological leanings, that does have considerable bearing on the recalcitrant problem of individualizing practice, otherwise known as the nomothetic/idiographic problem.Bon nombre de thérapeutes se sont toumés vers I’antiréalisme de la théorie postmoderne, en particulier de la théorie littéraire postmoderne, pour justifier leurs positions antithéoriques. Qu’en est-il de ce choix? Si l’on considère le moteur de l’idéologie antithéorique - à savoir l’aspiration à individualiser la pratique thérapeutique afin d’optimiser le potentiel de changement propre à chaque patient - il faut admettre qu’elle ne tient pas. De façon plus spécifique, je soutiens que c’est la composition (c’est-à-dire la complétude) du système théorique qui guide la pratique thérapeutique, non pas les inclinations épistémologiques du thérapeute, lesquelles ont par ailleurs une incidence considérable sur le problème tenace de I’individualisation de la pratique, connu aussi en tant que problème nomothétique/idiographique

Rationality or reason, traditionally conceived as a universal, essential human faculty, is out of favor these days. Its defenders are few, compared to its many challengers. The challengers are not those who lament the decline of reason but rather those who express an egalitarian impulse, in their determination to refute universal, essential ideals of reason. These challengers are a diverse lot and sometimes prefer to speak instead of “rationalities” , or what Shweder called “divergent rationalities.” This paper considers the question whether this trend toward divergent rationalities is itself reasonable. To answer this question, the paper begins with some standard definitions of rationality or reason, on the understanding that any such standard is what stands in question. This is followed by recent work of Evnine that demonstrates just how our personhood logically entails universal epistemic “dimensions,” some of which are normative, rational dimensions. Evidence that Nisbett and Shweder muster to challenge a universal rationality is then considered, ending with a defense of just that which is challenged. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)