Domination et impérialisme en psychologie

We offer some arguments in support of the idea that the only goal the teaching and research system of the United States can serve is that of the global system to which it belongs, namely, domination. We show how, within the last few decades, French research in psychology - its issues, its institutions, its practices, its ethics - has undergone a process of Americanization that has turned it into a mainstream Western (and basically American) psychology. We point out some research trends that have contested this mainstream psychology, either because it appears too male chauvinist or liberal (opposition psychologies) or because it is grounded in the individualist and liberalist postulates of Western cultures (indigenous psychologies). Unfortunately, because dominant epistemology is governed by a principle of continuity, these contesting trends have not increased our scientific requirements; on the contrary, they have often led to anti-scientific approaches. It is still the task of psychology to break away from kwoledges and values of common sense.     

Interpretation and the Problem of Domination: Paul Ricoeur's Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, or the science of interpretation,is well accepted in the humanities. In thefield of education, hermeneutics has played arelatively marginal role in research. It isthe task of this essay to introduce thegeneral methods and findings of Paul Ricoeur'shermeneutics. Specifically, the essayinterprets the usefulness of Ricoeur'sphilosophy in the study of domination. Theproblem of domination has been a target ofanalysis for critical pedagogy since itsinception. However, the role of interpretationas a constitutive part of ideology critique isrelatively understudied and it is here thatRicoeur's ideas are instructive. Last, theessay radicalizes Ricoeur's insights in orderto realize their potential to disruptasymmetrical relations of power in education. To this extent, the author contributes to thebuilding of a critical brand of hermeneutics,or the interpretation of domination.     

Transzendentalpragmatik und Diskursethik. Elemente und Perspektiven der Apelschen Diskursphilosophie

Transcendental Pragmatics and Discourse Ethics. Elements and Perspectives of Apel's Discourse-Philosophy. The author follows Apel's intellectual biography and shows the conception of a critique of meaning qua ‘reflection upon the discourse within the discourse’ to be the centre of Apel's language-pragmatic ‘Transformation of Philosophy’ (Frankfurt a.M. 1973). Beginning with an explication of the situation of a speaker/thinker, especially of the situation of a philosophising speaker/thinker, Apel reconstructs a two fold apriori of communication: Every thought is situated within the context of a particular, historically evolved, community of language and interaction. At the same time, however, the validity-claims of thoughts transcend the context of their origin towards an unlimited community of argumentation. On the basis of the first apriori Apel criticises the methodical solipsism as well as the objectivism of modern philosophy and theory of science. Drawing upon the second apriori he develops a universalist critique of meaning of relativism and contextualism. In the sixties and seventies Apel worked out a differentiated theory of the – more or less – communicatively cognizing humanities and set it apart from the theory of the causal-explanatory natural sciences, thus challenging the objectivism of a Theory of Unified Science. Building upon this work Transcendental Pragmatics, as developed by Apel and others, sets philosophy primarily two tasks: firstly, a (fallible) internal reconstruction of argumentative discourse as the (logical) situation of speech and thought which seeks to elucidate the conditions of the meaningfulness, i. e. the presuppositions, of discourse. These presuppositions comprise, thus Apel with Habermas, the four validity-claims to intelligibility, sincerety/credibility, truth and normative rightness/legitimacy. Their moral content consists, thus Apel, not only in the recognition of the equality of all beings capable of discursive reasoning but also in their recognition of a co-responsibility for the realizability of discourses and of responsibility. The author argues that the existence of a co-responsibility of this kind is indisputable because the discursive claims to validity are intertwined with a set of ‘primordial promises of dialogue’. Only with the elucidation and explication of these promises can the reconstruction of the internal conditions of discourse be completed.The second task of a pragmatics of argumentation isthe strict resp. actual reflection of the thinker upon the presuppositions of the discourse in which he currently engages. This reflection has a Socratic character and can only be done in the form of discussion and debate (‘Auseinandersetzungen’, Apel, Frankfurt a.M. 1998) with critics of the reconstruction. In this context, the author proposes a method of Socratic reflection upon the presuppositions of dialogue which suspends the usual, theoretically oriented, attitude of the scientist and the philosopher in favour of an actual reflective attitude. Within a dialogue with a sceptic who doubts one of the results of the internal reconstruction of dialogical presuppositions, say X, it is tested whether his doubt as to the unrestricted validity of X can be understood as a sincere contribution to the current dialogue or whether this particular sceptical thesis does not make sense, because it is incompatible with the role of a sincere participant of argumentation which, after all, the sceptic cannot refuse to claim for himself.Finally the author explains Apel's characterization of the tension between “Discourse and Responsibility” (Frankfurt a.M. 1988). In the course of discussions with Max Weber, Lawrence Kohlberg, Hans Jonas et al., Apel formulates and justifies an ethics of responsibility and gives an affirmative answer to the crucial question of whether the fulfilment of the moral obligations connected with the recognition of co-responsibility can be demanded within the non-dialogical circumstances of social reality. Apel's answer employs the idea of counter-strategies which are morally legitimate in virtue of their being worthy of argumentative consensus. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Rediscovering the ritual technology of the placebo effect in analytical psychology

Technology, viewed more generally, is a collection of skills and methods that are used to accomplish an objective of some kind. Modernity has produced many kinds of ever‐expanding new technologies, but it is also evident that technologies can be lost or fall out of use. A cross‐cultural survey of ritual reveals a rather startling observation: that while developed nations often exceed other cultures in terms of material technology, they often pale by comparison in their use of ritual technology. In this essay we will see how ritual is a powerful sort of technology that developed nations have mostly allowed to drift out of regular, vigorous use, despite its numerous psychological and biological effects. This tendency has left one of the rituals we still have – psychotherapy itself – to be bereft of some of the typical tools for concretizing the symbolic in recurrent patterns around the world. Jung himself could be accused of being somewhat anti‐ritual himself, enmeshed as he was in the post‐Protestant, post‐Enlightenment cultural environment that defines the West in many ways 1 . But these under‐utilized elements of ritual technology may be a natural fit for Jungian therapy due to its use of symbols.     

Quelques réflexions sur l'avenir en France des traitements psychologiques appuyés empiriquement

The effectiveness of treatments for psychological problems is an important preoccupation in the field of clinical psychology, both nationally and internationally. This article discusses the emergence of empirically supported psychological therapies, and identifies some current issues in France. ESPT have received limited attention in France to date, in contrast with other developed countries. Furthermore, there appear to be fundamental misunderstandings and negative attitudes concerning the idea that psychological interventions can be evaluated in terms of their benefits and effects. In future, more effort needs to be made to ensure that qualified and trainee clinical psychologists are aware of the importance of evaluating psychological interventions. This has implications for educational programmes, research activity and clinical practice.     

Approche dynamique et temporalité en psychologie sociale

The purpose was to specify the advantages and limits of the dynamical perspective proposed by Nowak et Vallacher (1998) for social psychology studies. This perspective contributes massively to new knowledge in economy, biology and motor control. Theoretical models, methods, self-assessment tools, and time series analyses are now available for addressing hypotheses that nomothetical approach has let unanswered, and to determine the impact of daily events on self-perception.     

“Critique” immanent in “practice”: New Frankfurt School and American pragmatism

As a result of a new understanding of the relation between theory and practice, the “New Frankfurt School,” with Jürgen Habermas as its major representative, highly values the philosophical tradition of American pragmatism, in contrast to the first generation Critical Theorists represented by Max Horkheimer. In Habermas, the idea of “critique” is, both substantially and methodologically, closely connected with the idea of “praxis” in the following senses: communicative action, rational argumentation, public discussion and political culture. “Critique” is thus found to be immanent in “praxis”; or, a la Horkheimer, pragmatism turns out to be a “critical philosophical analysis” without “falling back upon objective reason and mythology.” __________ Translated from Huadong Shifan Daxue Xuebao 华东示范大学学报 (Journal of Huadong Normal University), 2001 (5), with minor modifications     

Theoretical foundations of analytical psychology: recent developments and controversies

This article gives an introductory overview of the papers in this volume originally given at the Joint Conference of the IAAP and the University of Basel, Basel, October 18‐20, 2018. The aim of the conference was to bring core concepts of analytical psychology together with theorizing and research from academic sciences, at the very place where Jung started his academic career, the University of Basel. The conference focussed on three fields: the relationship of consciousness and the unconscious and the theory of complexes; the theory of archetypes; and the status of analytical psychotherapy in contemporary psychotherapy research. The aim of the conference was to further the development of theory in analytical psychology in relation to results and insights in contiguous areas of knowledge. In the first area, contributors pointed to the solid evidence especially from the neurosciences for the psychodynamic conceptualizations of the unconscious, and also for the concept of complexes. In contrast to this, the concept of archetypes is controversial, with a majority of contributors questioning Jung’s biological conceptualizations of archetypes, and speaking instead for reformulations from the perspective of cultural theory, dynamic systems theory and other approaches. In the field of psychotherapy research, contributors pointed to the profound need for conducting more empirical studies on the outcome of Jungian psychotherapy, but also for a thorough reconsideration of standard research designs in the field.     

Improving mindfulness through self-connection

IntroductionMindfulness-based practices have received significant attention recently due to the numerous benefits that result from increased mindfulness. One construct, self-connection, is less well-known but appears to relate to mindfulness.ObjectiveThe current study experimentally manipulated self-connection in an attempt to increase people's mindfulness.MethodA sample of 66 participants journaled for one week. Half of them discussed their days while the other half wrote about aspects of their day that related to self-connection.ResultsNo significant difference in mindfulness emerged between groups after the week of journaling. However, those who journaled about self-connection were significantly more mindful a month later. In contrast, no sustained or significant increase in mindfulness emerged in the control group.ConclusionAlthough limited by its sample size, this study provides initial support for self-connection and its ability to improve mindfulness. More studies are needed to further examine self-connection and its relationship to mindfulness for both researchers and practitioners.