Mainstream psychologists have not only ignored the unique and radical character of practice; they have generally misunderstood it. A major reason for this ignorance and misunderstanding is mainstream psychology's assumption of a particular ontology--abstractionism. With abstractionism, psychologists have generally assumed that abstractions, such as theories, techniques, and principles, capture and embody the fundamentally real. Most pertinently, abstractions are believed to precede and lay the foundation for good and thoughtful practice. Indeed, practices do not exist, in an important ontological sense, except (...) in relation to the concrete and particular situations and cultures that give rise to them, implying what we might call a relational ontology. The purpose of this article is to explore the possible meanings and implications of a relational ontology for psychology. I first attempt to clarify the important features of relational conceptions in general, distinguishing most importantly between their weak and strong forms. Then, I situate strong or ontological relationality historically by describing its initial embrace and eventual rejection by early scientists. To bring these historical lessons into the present, ontological relationality is next compared to the abstractionist understandings of the real and fundamental in mainstream psychology. These two forms of ontology are then illustrated by exploring their contrasting implications for individual and community identity. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

To address the title question, the authors first conceptualize the worldview of theism in relation to its historical counterpart in Western culture, naturalism. Many scholars view the worldview of naturalism as not only important to traditional science but also neutral to theism. This neutrality has long provided the justification for psychological science to inform and even correct theistic understandings. Still, this view of neutrality, as the authors show, stems from the presumption that these two worldviews are philosophically compatible. The authors’ (...) review of the traditional candidates for compatibility suggests not only that these candidates fail to reconcile naturalism and theism but also that these worldviews are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, attempts to use the insights gleaned from a naturalistic worldview to inform or correct the understandings of a theistic worldview could constitute a significant prejudice against theism and theists. The authors then provide practical examples of this prejudice in the following: mainstream psychology and its history, research design and explanation in the psychology of religion, and interpretations of important philosophers and scholars relevant to psychology. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

We explore the possibility that a priori philosophical commitments continue to result in a narrowing of inquiry in moral psychology and education where theistic worldviews are concerned. Drawing from the theories of Edward L. Thorndike and John Dewey, we examine naturalistic philosophical commitments that influenced the study of moral psychology and moral education in the USA. We then address the question of whether these foundational naturalistic commitments can be rendered as compatible with theistic commitments, using both modernist and postmodern philosophical (...) approaches that might be viewed as attempts at compatibility. Arguing that these attempts at compatibility fail, we draw from contemporary approaches to moral psychology and education in order to illustrate how naturalistic commitments might prevent these approaches from adequately addressing theistic understandings and experiences of morality. (shrink)

The question of incommensurability is an overlooked issue that has profound consequences for our ability to understand relationships and utilize common standards for comparison, contrast, and evaluation in psychology. Are the differences among discourse communities so deep that there is no common "commensurate" &emdash; no common measuring stick for making comparisons among communities? If so, then the community of communities, the discipline of psychology, has no way to compare competing knowledge claims, and no way to effect disciplinary unity and coherence. (...) Kuhn's distinction between incommensurability and incompatibility is described, along with its challenge to Enlightenment rationality and scientific method for brokering the relativity among discourse communities. Popper's misconception that this challenge implies an "anything goes" nihilism is also discussed, specifically his misconception that incompatibility and incommensurability mean incomparability. On the contrary, the article shows how recognizing the incommensurable is often the key to comparison, and thus disciplinary coherence and unity. (shrink)

Part of the development of ontological or “strong” relationality has been the exploration of its more applied aspects. My focus for this article is a therapeutic boarding school, which L. Jay Mitchell and I cofounded in West Virginia. I describe how our intention to base this school exclusively on strong relationality led us to employ Aristotle's virtue ethics. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Perhaps no name is more clearly associated with the formulation of American psychology than that of William James. Yet, one of James’s last published works, A Pluralistic Universe, is little known and rarely cited in the discipline. On the 100th anniversary of the publication of this book, the authors of this special issue of The Journal of Mind and Behavior explore the past, present, and future legacy of the provocative ideas contained in this volume for psychology, including the history of (...) psychology, scientific fragmentation and ethics, the philosophy of science, psychological methods and theories, the psychology of religion, the multicultural movement, and the path of psychology in general. (shrink)

Behavior and cognition, once conceived as psychological or interpersonal in origin, are increasingly thought to arise from biology. After investigating the validity of this trend of thinking, the article attempts to interpret what it means to the discipline of psychology. Two main categories of interpretation are discussed. First, this trend could mean that biological factors ultimately underlie traditionally psychological explanations i.e., biological factors are a sufficient condition for understanding behavior and cognition. Second, this trend could indicate that biological factors are (...) important, and perhaps even traditionally overlooked, but are not sufficient in themselves to explain human behavior and cognition i.e., biological factors are necessary conditions among other necessary conditions. The practical and methodological implications of each of these two interpretations are clarified, with a special focus on relevant research limitations. We conclude that the evidence does not bear out a sufficiency thesis and, instead, supports more convincingly a necessity understanding of these trends. (shrink)

William James’s A Pluralistic Universe was not very influential in his day; 100 years later, however, calls for a Jamesian-style pluralism are increasingly common in the natural and social sciences. We first summarize James’s critique of monism and his defense of pluralism. Next, we discuss similar critiques of monism and calls for “strong” pluralism across the natural and social sciences, even in traditional bastions of monism like physics, biology, and economics. We then argue that psychology is also in need of (...) this pluralism, but the discipline is mired in uncritical, monistic assumptions, most notably operationism. We describe the problems this particular assumption presents, and also suggest some solutions we believe James would proffer, in the context of this monistic requirement. (shrink)

Yanchar, Slife, and their colleagues have described how mainstream psychology's notion of critical thinking has largely been conceived of as “scientific analytic reasoning” or “method-centered critical thinking.” We extend here their analysis and critique, arguing that some version of the one-sided instrumentalism and confusion about tacit values that characterize scientistic approaches to inquiry also color phenomenological, critical theoretical, and social constructionist viewpoints. We suggest that hermeneutic/dialogical conceptions of inquiry, including the idea of social theory as itself a form of ethically (...) motivated human practice, give a fuller account of critical thinking in the social disciplines. (shrink)

After discussing a prominent theme of many of the comments, the prejudice against prejudice, the points at issue in this dialogue are explicated by addressing six questions: Issue 1: Are we trying to make psychology into a theistic enterprise? Issue 2: Are we ultimately arguing for some kind of dualism? Issue 3: Does theism’s involvement make science impossible? Issue 4: Is psychology’s treatment of theism truly a form of prejudice? Issue 5: Are some approaches to inquiry basically unbiased and neutral? (...) Issue #6: Can theism produce a viable program of psychological research? These issues are then followed by a description of some agreements and practical implications. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

Clarifies the central elements of the "stuckness" feeling in the traditional framework for free will and determinism in psychology, based on the inherent dependence on context and the assumed need of free will to be independent of context. These central elements are examined from the relatively overlooked perspective of time. A large part of the stuckness is revealed to stem from the linear assumption of time, rather than the linear nature of causality, as usually assumed. Suggestions are offered for overcoming (...) this overlooked perspective to overcome the stuckness. Alternative assumptions of time are shown to offer a fresh framework for resolving the free will/determinism problem. It is suggested that nonlinear approaches to time offer several advantages in the framing of the issues, including the integration of possibility and the past, without time and causality being sacrificed in the process. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

Comments that B. D. Slife , M. Gergen , R. N. Williams , and M. S. Richardson all seem to suggest that the contextless nature of the traditional conception of free will is problematic. Although each author attempts to contextualize this traditional conception, many of their explanations reveal that the underlying problem remains. It is suggested that a radically new assumption of time, such as Heidegger's temporality, is necessary. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Presents the Presidential Address to the Division of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology . In this address, the author discusses his current plans to tackle the practical issues of theoretical psychology instead of, as past presidents have done, pushing the already established conceptual envelope of theoretical psychology. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Clarifies the central elements of the "stuckness" feeling in the traditional framework for free will and determinism in psychology, based on the inherent dependence on context and the assumed need of free will to be independent of context. These central elements are examined from the relatively overlooked perspective of time. A large part of the stuckness is revealed to stem from the linear assumption of time, rather than the linear nature of causality, as usually assumed. Suggestions are offered for overcoming (...) this overlooked perspective to overcome the stuckness. Alternative assumptions of time are shown to offer a fresh framework for resolving the free will/determinism problem. It is suggested that nonlinear approaches to time offer several advantages in the framing of the issues, including the integration of possibility and the past, without time and causality being sacrificed in the process. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)