Humanistic Psychology and Humanistic Social Science

Warmoth, Arthur

doi:10.1177/016059769802200306

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Access to reality can only occur through interpretive media like language, and through shared meanings that are socially constructed and arise through consciousness. The humanistic approach can be elaborated on by defining three attributes that it possesses (Warmoth, 1996): an epistemology that admits the centrality of human experience as basic data, where all human knowledge ultimately represents interpretations of human experience; an emphasis on holistic theoretical models; and an advocacy of value-based and value-affirming social science. …”

Section: An Underpinning Of Complexity and Humanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Warmoth (1996), humanism implies exploration of perspectives that are: phenomenological (where reality as deemed to exist through conscious reflection of experience thereby creating conditions for objectivity); social constructionist (where jointly constructed understandings of reality are created through socially shared propositions); and transdisciplinary, where (for instance) the resolution of problems is not sought through the perspectives of a single discipline, a frequent requirement where complexity is involved. …”

Section: An Underpinning Of Complexity and Humanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The complexity continuum, Part 1: hard and soft theories

Yolles

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Complex systems adapt to survive, but little comparative literature exists on various approaches. Adaptive complex systems are generic, this referring to propositions concerning their bounded instability, adaptability and viability. Two classes of adaptive complex system theories exist: hard and soft. Hard complexity theories include Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and Viability Theory, and softer theories, which we refer to as Viable Systems Theories (VSTs), that include Management Cybernetics at one extreme and Humanism at the other. This paper has a dual purpose distributed across two parts. In Part 1, the purpose of this paper is to identify the conditions for the complementarity of the two classes of theory. In Part 2, the purpose is to explore (in part using Agency Theory) the two classes of theory and their proposed complexity continuum. Design/methodology/approach A detailed analysis of the literature permits a distinction between hard and softer approaches towards modelling complex social systems. Hard theories are human-incommensurable, while soft ones are human-commensurable, therefore more closely related to the human condition. The characteristics that differentiate between hard and soft approaches are identified. Findings Hard theories are more restrictive than the softer theories. The latter can embrace degrees of “softness” and it is explained how hard and soft approaches can be mixed, sometimes creating Harmony. Originality/value There are very few explorations of the relationship between hard and soft approaches to complexity theory, and even fewer that draw in the notion of harmony.

show abstract

Section: An Underpinning Of Complexity and Humanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Underpinning Of Complexity and Humanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The complexity continuum, Part 1: hard and soft theories

Yolles

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The human mind and behavior are diverse—so why should our methods for investigating them not be equally diverse? Although largely outside the “scientific mainstream,” there are other schools of thought in psychology which operate on the basis of different concepts of science, such as psychoanalysis (Bazan, 2018 ), humanistic (Warmoth, 1998 ), constructivist (Lincoln and Hoffman, 2019 ), or phenomenological (Langdridge, 2007 ) psychology. Taking their approaches seriously is likely to turn academic psychology into a vibrant generator of relevant knowledge and to spark more light to the enigma we term psyche .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Principle of Inversion: Why the Quantitative-Empirical Paradigm Cannot Serve as a Unifying Basis for Psychology as an Academic Discipline

Mayrhofer

Hutmacher

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to Warmoth (1998), the future of humanistic psychology lies, in part, in a deepening exploration and appreciation of its underlying philosophical foundations. This cannot occur without an equally profound appreciation of its historical roots.…”

Section: Embrace a Proud And Pluralistic Historical Lineagementioning

confidence: 99%

On framing the future of humanistic psychology.

DeRobertis

2016

The Humanistic Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a narrative frame for envisioning the future of humanistic psychology. Diverse themes pertinent to the topic were drawn from a wide body of literature and given organizational structure. The analysis presented here suggests that contemporary humanistic psychologists ought to embrace their pluralistic historical lineage, offer a revolutionary image of psychological science, offer an alternative image of the person in psychology, permeate psychology's database, and market humanistic psychology. Various subthemes and concrete suggestions are presented as signposts for the development of humanistic psychology in the 21st century.

show abstract

Humanistic Psychology and Humanistic Social Science

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The complexity continuum, Part 1: hard and soft theories

The complexity continuum, Part 1: hard and soft theories

The Principle of Inversion: Why the Quantitative-Empirical Paradigm Cannot Serve as a Unifying Basis for Psychology as an Academic Discipline

On framing the future of humanistic psychology.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About