Metatheory and the Critique of Psychology

Abstract

What contributes to the development of the discipline of psychology? Traditional answers suggest that it is new empirical evidence. However, a closer look at the history of psychology over the last two hundred years indicates that the accumulation of facts, problem solutions, induction, and the explanation of anomalies play only supporting roles. Indeed, studies on the social, political, and economic factors that have shaped the disci- pline have contributed significantly to an understanding of the theoreti- cal and practical dynamics of psychology. With the shift to externalist explanations, problem-oriented historical and theoretical analyses have fallen out of grace. However, if one agrees with Gould’s (1996) statement that “science moves forward as much by critiquing the conclusions of oth- ers as by making novel discoveries” (p. 25), then an analysis of the history of the critique of psychology becomes central. Thus, the focus in this book is not on socio-historical contexts, but on arguments, more specifically, critical arguments, regarding the problems of mainstream psychology at different stages of its development—a critique that has been combined often, but not always, with a vision for a better psychology and the prom- ise to solve the theoretical, methodological, and practical problems of the discipline. Such a program requires emphasizing the logic, structure, and flow of rhetoric, which takes on an important function in psychology’s history and contributes to an understanding of the modifications of the mainstream but also the margins. A focus on arguments does not mean that socio-historical traditions are not important. On the contrary, external dimensions are significant for recognizing changes, but they are not the center of attention in the following reconstructions.