The field of psychology is often seen as similar to physics or biology, relying heavily on scientific methods and experiments. However, this strict focus on methodology has caused psychology to overlook the rich and detailed insights into human experience that the humanities can provide.
Critical psychologist Thomas Teo argues that the discipline needs to embrace more armchair scholarship—a reflective, theoretical inquiry that goes beyond mere experimentation. This shift could pave the way for a deeper, more comprehensive grasp of the human psyche, one that accounts for the socio-historical and cultural dimensions of mental life.
In a recent article in the Journal of Theoretical Psychology, Teo challenges the prevalent natural-scientific approach in psychology. Teo contends that the current focus on experimental methods and quantification has led to a representational misunderstanding of psychological science. By incorporating the psychological humanities and fostering theoretical, reflective practices, psychology can better address the complexities of human subjectivity.
He writes:
“A representational view of methodology is discussed, arguing that a natural–scientific approach based on variabilization and subdivision of mental life is epistemically insufficient. Subjectivity, as the subject matter of psychology, must be studied with methods capable of addressing holistic entities and integrating a mostly socio-historical object, which can be addressed through the psychological humanities.”
“It is concluded that psychology needs a much broader knowledge base and methodological canon, including armchair reflection, for an understanding of human mental life.”
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
Agree 100%, how to make happen in a world driven by neoliberalism?
Report comment
Why not try this armchair experiment: quit using pseudo-technical jargon.
Report comment
Amen Birdsong. You never fail to hit the nail on the head.
Report comment
🙂
Report comment
Why do we need scholarship when we have the living reality? Because unconscious vampires need a sense of self importance? That’s right. There is no other reason.
You don’t know what you’re being enslaved by. I do. It’s a disease in your head that IS society, and that is an energetic life system that now liquidates itself in desperation because it doesn’t know what else to do with you. You are all so blind and selfish, and too afraid to see, but all that is required to fix all things is simply to see. But none of you will do that because you want what you want. You don’t want the truth. And one thing you want is a completely meaningless sense of social importance, a little piggy treat for a confused factory farm animal, another potato famine for the heart, and an Earth devastated by us, without which we are nothing at all.
Report comment
Umm- Psychology seen as similar to physics or biology? Really? Because the field categorizes traits or “symptoms” and plays with statistics with unfalsifiable “studies”. Yeah. No. I’m no scientist, but I know that the world of psychology is more akin to philosophy, religion, or even political science or literary analysis. It’s a “soft” science, but bears no resemblance to those “hard sciences of physics or biology.
Report comment
That’s uh… that’s the point of the article Annie. It’s saying that Psychology pretends at the methods and language of ‘hard’ science but in doing so actually produces findings that are less useful or reliable than if it embraced that it is one of the humanities.
Report comment
LOVE this comment!
Report comment