What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of the History of Psychological Theories
نقدی بر روانشناسی: از کانت تا نظریهٔ پسااستعماری
انتقادات وارد شده به روانشناسي، نظريات انتقادي در روانشناسي و نقش اين نظريات در پيشبرد اين رشته، تاريخي به درازاي خود روانشناسي دارد. اين كتاب نخستين كتابي است كه به صورتي سيستماتيك به مطالعهی تاريخ روانشناسي انتقادي پرداخته و از زواياي گوناگون آن را مورد بررسي قرار داده است. توماس تئو با واكاوي روايتهاي تاريخي و نظري در دو قرن اخير، به دستهبندي اين نظريات پرداخته است: برخي از آنها به نقد محتوا و موضوع مورد مطالعهی روانشناسي پرداخته، برخي ديگر متدولوژي آن را زير سؤال برده و در نهايت برخي از اين نظريات به آثار عملي و كاربردي روانشناسي در جامعه اشاره دارند. اين كتاب، نقد روانشناسي صرفا جهت نقد آن نيست؛ هدف نهايي روانشناسي انتقادي به عنوان يكي از زيرشاخههاي روانشناسي، كمك به رشد روانشناسي و گسترش آن به موضوعات اخلاقي، سياسي و اجتماعي است. توماس تئو، استاد روانشناسي نظري و انتقادي در دانشگاه يورك تورنتو است. وي مدرك دكتراي خود را از دانشگاه وين گرفته و در طول فعاليتهاي حرفهاي خود به مسائل هستيشناختي، معرفتشناختي و تاملات انتقادي در روانشناسي پرداخته است.
- GenresPsychologyNonfiction
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
2 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 18, 2020
In The Critique of Psychology: From Kant to Postcolonial Theory, Teo provides an impressively large and inclusive picture of psychology and the ways in which psychologists have attempted to define their discipline. From the outset, we learn that Psychology consists of three major sub-disciplines of (a) natural-scientific psychology, (b) human-scientific psychology, and (c) critical psychology. The first two approaches represent positive programs for establishing a discipline, and have existed for as long as psychology has existed, whereas critical psychology involves adoption of an external perspective that points out important shortcomings in already-existing programs and viewpoints. Any approach to psychology (naturalistic or humanistic), furthermore, brings with it components along three dimensions of (1) subject-matter, (2) methodology, and (3) application/relevance. Teo's book highlights what is most critical in psychological thought, including the primacy of subject-matter (in the case of a human-scientific psychology) or the primacy of method (in the case of natural-scientific psychology) in a variety of approaches. The book can also serve as a reference and a set of pointers to the important (critical) works across the history of psychology.
The natural-scientific and the human-scientific approaches to psychology differ in several ways. They not only differ in what they hold as the proper subject matter of psychology, but they also differ in their strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the natural-scientific approach to psychology is due to (i) associating with other natural sciences, instead of associating with philosophy. We should keep in mind that associating with natural sciences was an important political decision for psychology. Relevant to the first point of strength, the naturalistic approach (ii) incorporates statistical methods and quantifiable accounts that provide it with objective legitimacy, and (iii) having the promise of unity. The major weakness of the natural-scientific approach is the actual lack of theoretical unity. Despite adopting the methods of the natural sciences, the vast diversity of psychological phenomena and the different ways in which the same phenomena could be approached has led to an increasing amount of diversity and separation.
The strengths of the human-scientific approach lie in (i) its recognition of the human, social, and cultural dimensions and (ii) not requiring theoretical unity to the same degree that the natural sciences do. Its weakness, however, is (i) association with the weaker disciplines such as philosophy, and (ii) inability to produce concrete and quantifiable results comparable to the natural sciences. More than anything, the Critique of Psychology allowed me to see how interesting developments in psychological thought have arisen against – and as a reaction to – other established viewpoints. The attempts of thinkers such as Dilthey, Spranger, and Giorgi – who worked toward a human-scientific framework – would not have the same rigor without the dominant background of the natural-scientific approach to psychology. Critical psychology is a reactionary psychology.
Due to the dense writing style, the Critique of Psychology is difficult to read, especially for the readers who are not already familiar with the major figures in the history of psychology. The writing style at times comes across as a collection of separate note-takings and, as such, it is not always easy to see the transitions between paragraphs. This, however, should not mask the incredible value of this book. The division between chapters and sub-chapters is much more clear, which makes the book easy to use as a reference. Overall, the book contains an exceptionally rich view of psychology with an impartial discussion of viewpoints and characters. This book would certainly benefit all students of psychology.
The natural-scientific and the human-scientific approaches to psychology differ in several ways. They not only differ in what they hold as the proper subject matter of psychology, but they also differ in their strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the natural-scientific approach to psychology is due to (i) associating with other natural sciences, instead of associating with philosophy. We should keep in mind that associating with natural sciences was an important political decision for psychology. Relevant to the first point of strength, the naturalistic approach (ii) incorporates statistical methods and quantifiable accounts that provide it with objective legitimacy, and (iii) having the promise of unity. The major weakness of the natural-scientific approach is the actual lack of theoretical unity. Despite adopting the methods of the natural sciences, the vast diversity of psychological phenomena and the different ways in which the same phenomena could be approached has led to an increasing amount of diversity and separation.
The strengths of the human-scientific approach lie in (i) its recognition of the human, social, and cultural dimensions and (ii) not requiring theoretical unity to the same degree that the natural sciences do. Its weakness, however, is (i) association with the weaker disciplines such as philosophy, and (ii) inability to produce concrete and quantifiable results comparable to the natural sciences. More than anything, the Critique of Psychology allowed me to see how interesting developments in psychological thought have arisen against – and as a reaction to – other established viewpoints. The attempts of thinkers such as Dilthey, Spranger, and Giorgi – who worked toward a human-scientific framework – would not have the same rigor without the dominant background of the natural-scientific approach to psychology. Critical psychology is a reactionary psychology.
Due to the dense writing style, the Critique of Psychology is difficult to read, especially for the readers who are not already familiar with the major figures in the history of psychology. The writing style at times comes across as a collection of separate note-takings and, as such, it is not always easy to see the transitions between paragraphs. This, however, should not mask the incredible value of this book. The division between chapters and sub-chapters is much more clear, which makes the book easy to use as a reference. Overall, the book contains an exceptionally rich view of psychology with an impartial discussion of viewpoints and characters. This book would certainly benefit all students of psychology.
Displaying 1 of 1 review