The Epistemic Imperialism of Science. Reinvigorating Early Critiques of Scientism

Abstract

Positivism has had a tremendous impact on the development of the social sciences over the past two centuries. It has deeply influenced method and theory, and has seeped deeply into our broader understandings of the nature of the social sciences. Postmodernism has attempted to loosen the grip of positivism on our thinking, and while it has not been without its successes, postmodernism has worked more to deconstruct positivism than to construct something new in its place. Psychologists today perennially wrestle to find and retain their intellectual balance within the methodological, theoretical, and epistemological struggles between positivism and postmodernism. In the process, pre-postmodern criticisms of positivism have been largely forgotten. Although they remain deeply buried at the core of psychology, these early alternatives to positivism are rarely given explicit hearing today. The current piece explores some of the early critiques of positivism, particularly of its scientism, as well as early suggestions to tip the scales (back) in favor of sapientia (“wisdom”). This third option, largely overlooked within mainstream psychology, is of tremendous value today as it is both deconstructive and constructive relative to the shortcomings of positivism. It avoids the overly reductionistic “trivial order” of positivism, as well as the deeply unsatisfying and disorienting “barbaric vagueness” of postmodernism, while simultaneously embracing important core elements of both currents of thought.

The desire for power within activist burnout. An illustration of the value of interpretive social science

“…Interpretive social scientists have therefore argued that this "crisis" arises from the disconnect between our psychological lives and the methodological assumptions borrowed from the natural sciences. While mainstream researchers assume they are coming closer to the phenomenon under study the more variables they take into consideration or the more complex the statistical methods used, as long as this is done in line with naturalistic assumptions, interpretive social scientists would argue that they are in fact increasingly distancing their work from the psychological phenomenon under consideration (Mazur, 2021). Such research has fallen prey to what Gordon Allport called "methodolatry" (cited in Bruner, 1990, p. xi), the worship of method.…”

The Role of Mindfulness and Embodiment in Group-Based Trauma Treatment

“…Recognition of the meaningful relationship between embodiment and mentalisation, or reflective function, is currently in emergence (Køster, 2017;Rappoport, 2015). Such techniques, however, have been historically derided by empirically focused psychological researchers, on account of the positivist epistemology and scientistic tendency of the Western academy (Laungani, 2006;Mazur, 2021). However, as Courtois and Ford (2013) note, not only are such practices derided but, more broadly, so too are the relational components of interpersonal therapeutic modalities, including the psychodynamic, client-centred, mentalisation-based therapeutic principles (p. viii).…”

Meaningfulness beyond Meaning-Making. Cultural Psychological Aspects of the Donor Portrait

“…Cultural psychology is in many ways an attempt to appreciate the richness of the human experience, and to free our intellectual imagination from the limiting “iron cage” of positivism, a philosophy that continues to influence the field even if very few contemporary psychologists would explicitly subscribe to the positivist label (Bruner, 1990; Mazur, 2021; Steinmetz, 2005). One particular example of this is cultural psychology’s interest in holistic processes of catalysis over-and-above the kinds of ostensibly causal relationships between presumably independent variables found more often in mainstream psychology, including cross-cultural psychology, as well as the social sciences more broadly (Bevir & Blakely, 2018; Cabell & Valsiner, 2014).…”