Paradigms of modern psychology and their types in simple words

Man is a being who constantly acts, as well as a being capable of learning. In this sense, it should be noted that no method has such a positive impact as a practical example. Thus, a paradigm refers specifically to a specific example, a specific pattern that is clear, visual and can serve as a guide for performing a specific action.

The example becomes a role model. The paradigm shows a specific model that serves as inspiration for performing other similar cases. A paradigm is also a way of classifying reality from the point of view of knowledge of this reality.

Two phases of the existence of science

Photo by Yeshi Kangrang on Unsplash
Thomas Kunt said that there are only two phases in which science can exist:

• revolutionary phase;
• normal science.

In the revolutionary phase there is great momentum and complete chaos - new discoveries are made that overturn previous knowledge, theories compete with each other, and scientists enter into debates because their arguments are often completely contradictory to each other.

Then some theories are accepted by the majority of the scientific community and the phase of “normal science” begins.

During this period, which is longer than the revolutionary phase, scientific knowledge is systematized, generalized, and the evidence base grows. The acquired knowledge is structured and interpreted.

Then some revolutionary discovery is made, a breakthrough that completely changes the idea of ​​certain phenomena that dominated the scientific community. And again the revolutionary phase begins.

Thus, the constant development of science takes place. Paradigms are directly related to the “normal science” phase.

Basic approaches and paradigms in modern psychology

Subject of psychological science

Behind the question “What is the subject and object of study?” followed by a number of other fundamentally important questions: “How to study?”, “What methods and means?”, “What are the basic principles of knowledge and explanation in this area?” The answers to these questions form the theoretical and methodological basis of a particular science.

It is quite difficult to determine the objective nature of the phenomena studied by psychological science. Understanding and interpretation of these phenomena largely depend on the worldview of the researcher, as well as on the traditions of a particular professional community of scientists - psychologists, and therefore differ significantly.

The main scientific problem is that psychology is concerned with the study of internal/subjective phenomena: for example, it is not the physical object that is studied, but its image; not the event that is considered "real", but the subject's perception of it or his memory of it. Such phenomena are called mental (functions, properties, processes, states, etc.). Their peculiarity lies in the fact that they relate to the inner world of a person, in contrast to everything that relates to the external world or “surrounding reality”.

Even at the level of ordinary judgments, it is quite obvious that there is a special subjective world of mental phenomena in the form of thoughts, experiences, perceptions, memories, motives, desires, etc., which are usually hidden behind external behavior and which together form what is called mental reality, the mental life of a person. Although this psychic reality is unique in each specific case, we can assume that it is formed according to common principles and obey general laws, and try to discover them.

In other words, the exceptional position that psychology occupies among other humanities is due to the fact that it tries to scientifically objectify subjective experience, that is, to identify reasonable and natural relationships between phenomena that are usually attributed to the sphere of human subjectivity.

In the domestic psychological tradition, the following scientific definition of the subject of psychology has been established.

Psychology is a science that studies phenomena and objective laws of the psyche.

A paradigm is a generally accepted standard, a model of scientific research, including theory, method, examples of its specific application, an indication of the nature of recognizable patterns, and so on. The paradigm ensures the integration of scientific knowledge, “metatheoretical unity”, based on ontological and epistemological attitudes common to certain communities of scientists.

At the present stage of its development, psychology does not have a single scientific paradigm - a dominant system of theoretical postulates, principles and rules that define science as a whole and ensure uniformity in the interpretation of theories, the organization of empirical research and the interpretation of scientific data. Moreover, influential trends in modern psychology are often based on diametrically opposed scientific principles; the controversy between their supporters ends in sharp division and open confrontation. For example, disagreements between Freud's psychoanalysis and the analytical psychology of C. G. Jung, between the doctrines of behaviorism and humanistic psychology, etc. There is also no agreement on the central question of what psychology should study in the first place, what its subject is.

This unstable position, due to inexhaustible conceptual inconsistencies, has two alternative interpretations. Supporters of the first are inclined to believe that psychology has no paradigmatic basis at all, since it is a descriptive, narrative science (from the Latin naratio - history, narration). It combines a wide variety of ways of describing and conceptualizing psychological reality, which inevitably multiply with the historical development of psychological disciplines and vary widely depending on the cultural traditions of specific professional communities of psychologists. According to the second point of view, psychology is inherently dualistic, since it simultaneously uses two essentially and methodologically opposite approaches to research: scientific and humanistic. His scientific paradigm seems to have split into these two polar components. The same statement can be formulated more positively: Natural scientific and humanistic paradigms autonomously coexist in psychological science.

What is a paradigm

A paradigm is a set of general principles of knowledge that dominate at a given moment in time and are accepted by the majority of figures involved in a given scientific field.

The paradigm acts as a scientific standard. It is important to understand that a paradigm defines:

• what is considered the object and subject of research;
• what methods to use in the study;
• what is considered reliable knowledge;
• theory and laws of science;
• evidence base;
• practical application of scientific knowledge.

The paradigm expresses the general logic of scientific knowledge.

Understanding activity in the works of Sergei L. Rubinstein

According to S.L. Rubinstein, structure can be considered by activity, actions, operations and movement.

Rubinstein's concept of the psychological structure of activity, although it looks almost identical in composition to the structure of activity established by Leontiev, is completely different.

Rubinstein defines activity as being carried out by a set of actions that can be divided into partial actions or operations, which in turn are performed by movements. If Leontiev defines actions by goals and operations by conditions, then Rubinstein (1999) argues that any action aimed at a goal comes from an impulse, which is a more or less conscious motive. While Leontiev defines an operation as the transformation of an action taking into account the conditions of its implementation, Rubinstein defines an operation as actions or parts that separate an activity. They are viewed as partial actions (Rubinstein, 1999).

Thus, the general structure is reduced to “movement of actions (operations).”

If we consider that “movements, especially so-called volitional movements, are usually used to express actions through which behavior occurs,” then the psychological structure of activity comes down to two components: activity and actions.

four sources of tension in the activity system :

• within the elements of the activity, for example, the lack of tools used;
• between activity elements, for example, usability issues between the user (subject) and the tool;
• between an activity at one time and a later, more advanced form (if new tools automate the operations of an activity, then a person may no longer need those operations, such as driverless trains);
• between different activities, for example, misunderstanding between the teacher's teaching and the student's learning.

It must be said that in fact, in work activity, activity is usually decomposed either into actions or into operations. The term "operation" is often used in worksheets. In some cases, most often in sports, action is transformed into movement. More importantly, the term "result" is included by Rubinstein in his system of concepts characterizing activity, but it does not work completely as described.

In Rubinstein's understanding of the psychological structure of action (and also, one might say, activity in general), the task is of his special interest. He writes: “Achieving a goal is taking into account the conditions under which it (the goal) will be achieved.”

The relationship between the goal and the conditions sets the task that must be accomplished by the action. “Human action aimed at achieving a goal is inherently a solution to a problem” (Rubinstein, 1999). In this regard, we can say that the motives of activity are of paramount importance when setting a task, and in the process of determining them, it is necessary to take into account both external (objective) and internal (subjective) conditions of activity. Therefore, one can see a significant difference in the views of Leontiev and Rubinstein on the structure of activity.

Paradigms in psychology

In modern psychological science, it is customary to distinguish three main paradigms that define the subject of psychology, methods of its study, principles of the scientific approach, criteria for the value of acquired knowledge, and much more.

Types of paradigms in psychology:

• natural science;

• humanitarian;
• practical.

Natural science paradigm

This paradigm presupposes a strict scientific approach to the study of psychological phenomena, the main principles of which are objectivism, determinism, rationalism and effectiveness. The science of the Enlightenment, Newtonian mechanics, and evolutionary theory served as role models.

Giphy

The subject of study is the forms of manifestation of mental life - behavior, relationships, results of human activity.

This paradigm is distinguished by a nomothetic scientific approach, that is, psychology should strive to establish general, objective and proven patterns of development and manifestation of mental phenomena. The dominant approach is the structural one, in which the whole is a collection of its parts.

The goal of this paradigm is to understand the objective laws of psychology, their typology and the establishment of logical connections. The evidence of these connections should be determined by the possibility of repeated repetition and mathematical statistics.

Research methods must be objective: observation, experiment, theoretical hypotheses and constructs. The researcher himself must be impartial, detached, and the person acts only as an object of research.

Humanitarian paradigm

At the end of the 19th century, a serious crisis arose, expressed in the realization that it was impossible to study the sciences of the soul and culture using the methods used in the natural and exact sciences. Exact sciences have shown their inconsistency in the study of certain aspects of the psyche.

Photo by Alex Green: Pexels

This is how a humanitarian paradigm emerged, largely based on Kant’s ideas about the limitations of natural scientific knowledge about the soul and God.

The subject of the humanitarian paradigm began to be the mental life of the individual, in all its integrity, uniqueness and uniqueness, which cannot be reduced to the sum of individual manifestations. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.

This paradigm is characterized by an ideographic approach, which involves the study of individual characteristics; it contains a lot of subjectivity, systematicity, and intuitiveness.

The purpose of the study is not objective, statistically proven patterns, but the inner world of a particular person, his life path, individuality and integrity.

Study methods have also become subjective: empathic listening, hermeneutics, intuitiveness, presuppositionlessness. Communication between the researcher and the subject was equal, suggesting emotional involvement and interaction.

The humanitarian paradigm operates with such concepts as uniqueness, uniqueness of the individual, her spiritual development, self-actualization, and her personal experience. This paradigm assumes different points of view of truth.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Practical paradigm

This paradigm is based not so much on the study of psychological phenomena as on working with them. That is, psychology, as a science, must not only study the psyche, but also develop methods of working with it, change and transform the relationships that a person builds, help her adapt and change the conditions in which she lives.

The prerequisites for the development of the practical paradigm were psychotherapy, educational psychology, psychology of abnormal development, and much more.

The task of psychology is the practical application of knowledge about a person. How science can help a person change his ideas about the world, about himself, about his place in this world, and also about how to change his life for the better. This is the main goal within the practical paradigm.

The author of this article has been involved in the integrative paradigm of psychology for the past twenty years. In order to more adequately define the content of this methodological approach, it is necessary to reveal the main system-forming concepts, the history of their origin and development.

The basic concept of paradigm (Greek “paradeigma” - example, sample) in the most general sense means a set of explicit and implicit (and often unconscious) prerequisites that determine scientific research and are recognized at this stage of the development of science. The concept goes back to ancient and medieval philosophy, in which it was understood as the sphere of eternal ideas as a prototype, a model in accordance with which God the demiurge creates the world of existence. It was first introduced into the methodology of science by the positivist G. Bergman. In the methodology of science, a paradigm is defined as a set of values, methods, approaches, technical skills and tools adopted in the scientific community within the framework of an established scientific tradition during a certain period of time. This concept, in the modern sense of the word, was introduced by the American physicist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn [1922–1996] in the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” (eng. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) (1962). In it, Kuhn shows that the scientific community is formed by the adoption of certain paradigms. “With this term I designate,” he wrote, “scientific achievements, universally accepted, from which a model of problems and solutions is formed, at least for a while, that suits those who engage in research in a given field.”

According to T. Kuhn, a paradigm is what unites members of the scientific community and, conversely, the scientific community consists of people who recognize a certain paradigm. As a rule, a paradigm is fixed in textbooks and the works of scientists and for many years determines the range of problems and methods for solving them in a particular field of science or scientific school. T. Kuhn identified two main aspects of the paradigm: epistemic and social. In epistemic terms, a paradigm is a set of fundamental knowledge, values, beliefs and technical techniques that serve as a model of scientific activity; in social terms, it is characterized through the specific scientific community that separates it, the integrity and boundaries of which it defines.

Thomas Kuhn identified various stages in the development of a scientific discipline: - pre-paradigm (preceding the establishment of a paradigm); — the dominance of the paradigm (the so-called “normal science”); - crisis of normal science; - a scientific revolution, which consists in a change of paradigm, a transition from one to another.

If we apply these stages to the science of psychology, then in a strange way we can find it simultaneously at all possible stages of development.

Pre-paradigmality of psychology Without a doubt, science does not develop in a straightforward manner, but has certain phases, there is, in a sense, an origin, a fashion for ideas and experiments, words... But the origin of science, its pre-scientific youth, is always problematic to detect outside of some strained convention. After all, many psychological maps, in their essence, content and functions, are very reminiscent of the worlds of the shaman, which arose before Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Mithraism, and paganism in the Slavic and European world.

And, as for the birth of a paradigm, maybe in psychology it is often simply a translation of old ideas into modern language, a kind of relay. If a paradigm as a system of certain scientific values ​​finds an empathetic social community, if the founding father of the paradigm (fathers) have sufficiently great organizational talent and expansive energy, then conditionally we can designate this Caesarean section from the womb of the philosophy of the eternal as a “new” way of understanding and explaining mental reality , a new semantic space – a new paradigm. The author of the article is deeply convinced that the transformation of psychology and its theoretical innovations come from contact with the general culture of humanity. Only ignorance of this vast space of meanings and knowledge can lead to a strange fascination with novelty, which, in fact, is what Euro-centered and American-centered psychology and psychotherapy suffers from.

An additional argument for the pre-paradigm nature of modern psychology is that there are an infinite number of schools of psychology, none of which can yet offer a scientifically correct and adequate methodology for studying the subject of science. In a modern democratic society, there is a huge number of religious communities that gather around the significant values ​​and myths of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc. In the same ratio, in the conditions of pre-paradigmatic plurality of power over the territory of the truth about the psyche, the plurality of paradigmatic theories constitutes a motley scientific community consisting of cognitive scientists, psychoanalysts, behaviorists, etc.

Pre-paradigmism in the doctrine of the soul is that epistemological situation when there are many paradigms, but there is no psychology as a science. The attempt of psychology to squeeze the nature of the psyche into the cage of theories developed by the system of professional education has so far been unsuccessful. The psyche, consciousness, and thinking do not yet lend themselves to the concepts of science and are too shaky a foundation for future practice.

Normal science If in the previous lines we argued that psychology as a science is in a pre-paradigm stage, then in this paragraph we can say that the change in the period of quiet development of psychology (its normal stage) has not yet arrived. The materialist and positivist paradigm of psychology, even at the beginning of the 21st century, are the main ones and “explanatory methodology” focused on observation, experiment and the hypothetico-deductive method is dominant in any scientific research. All Russian psychology is developing in accordance with established patterns and the system of prescriptions adopted by academic psychology, formed in line with materialistic psychology. They are “pre-founded” in “structural psychology” (W. Wundt, E. Titchener), “psychophysics” (E. Weber, G. Fechner, S. Steven), “reflexology”, “psychophysiology”, “theory of higher nervous activity” (S.I. Sechenov, I.P. Pavlov, V.M. Bekhterev), “functional psychology” (D. Dewey, Chicago and Columbia schools) - in the entire scientific system, which we have designated as the physiological paradigm of psychology.

Post-Soviet psychology of postmodernism is firmly based on its physiological past, recognizing its unshakable methodological principles and Cartesian requirements for the formalization of science as the foundation for subsequent development.

Each of the areas of psychology (general, social, organizational, pedagogical, etc.) has the same rules and strategies for conducting research, standards and norms of scientific practice, and paradigmatic justification.

It is the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm of psychology, embodied in the materialist-positivist attitudes and values ​​of scientists united in scientific clans, that is still leading, is still in the stage of normal science, performing projective-programming and selective-prohibitive functions through the education system, funded scientific projects and systems of scientific certification. At the same time, it should be recognized that the introduction of the physiological paradigm of psychology, based on the materialist and positivist doctrine, called for the ideas of scientism and “explanatory methodology” to be designated as science and scientificism in psychology. It was the imitation of natural scientific methods, focusing on observational data, experiment and the hypothetico-deductive method, that led Russian psychology to the depersonalization of the studied mental life and avoidance of solving the fundamental problems of human existence. Psychology replaced a person with a “subject” or “respondent no...”, a group of people with a “sample”, and the living tissue of human life with “statistics”.

Any opposition to positivist and materialistic reductionism and the desire for a deep, comprehensive, holistic study of human mental life in scientific circles leads to accusations of “lack of empirical justification,” “statistical reliability,” “non-representative sampling,” etc.

Crisis of Psychology In our opinion, any more or less fresh look at psychic Reality is always preceded by a certain crisis of understanding, or paradigmatic crisis. In the history of Russian psychology, we can find several major crises that did not allow the ideas of integrative methodology to be realized. The first was when in July 1936 a party and government ban was imposed on the development of pedology as a comprehensive science about children. Thus, the biological foundations of developmental psychology were undermined. The second, when in 1951, during the famous scientific and academic session related to the study of the creative heritage of I.P. Pavlov, an attempt was made to reduce psychology to the study of the physiology of higher nervous activity.

Psychology experienced the third methodological crisis at the end of the 20th century, when, deprived of the usual materialistic methodology and experiencing the influence of a number of trends in foreign science, it runs the risk of losing certainty of purpose and clarity of guidelines with an uncritical perception of everything foreign. Although, it should be recognized that if the crisis of the paradigm is real, then it always brings to life an extraordinary science, naturally associated with the erosion of dogma and the weakening of the rules of scientific psychological research.

As for the social aspect of the paradigm, under the conditions of the third methodological crisis, entire groups of scientists lost faith in materialistic psychology.

In a certain sense, it can be argued that psychology is experiencing a kind of “crisis of growth”, similar to the crisis of physics at the beginning of the 20th century. In our opinion, the resolution of this crisis is connected not so much with the search for new facts or patterns, but with new methodological approaches and a new level of understanding of human consciousness as an integral system.

As for the scientific revolution, when a new paradigm displaces the old one, Kuhn was probably wishful thinking. Paradigms never die. Even Pauli’s principle: “A change in scientific paradigms occurs with a change in the generation of their bearers” for Russia, and for foreign psychology, looks absurd.

Max Planck’s expression “A new scientific truth, as a rule, triumphs not because it convinces its opponents, revealing new light to them; rather, it wins because the opponents, by dying, give way to a new generation accustomed to it,” has no basis, i.e. To. Each paradigm of psychology already has proven and reliable ways of its social and scientific reproduction.

In reality, everything looks different. All 5 directions, paradigms of psychology (physiological, psychoanalytic, behavioristic, existential-humanistic, transpersonal), which we have written about many times in previous articles and monographs, exist and coexist right now simultaneously. And I would not say that this coexistence is peaceful and empathic. Psychology, like any science that lives off social resources, is more like a battlefield of research programs than a system of isolated islands.

In general, one will find that any earlier, more historically older paradigm of psychology does not recognize later paradigms. In this sense, the physiological paradigm denies the potential possibility of the existence of all those levels that are analyzed in psychoanalysis, especially in transpersonal psychology, denying their existence and declaring them pathological, illusory, or even non-existent.

The third methodological crisis seemed to have to be produced as a crisis of the normal stage of the materialistic and essentially physiological paradigm of Soviet psychological science towards a scientific revolution. And it seems that in this cauldron of crisis we should have expected a paradigm shift, a transition to an integrative (humanistic, transpersonal) or some other paradigm, but this did not happen.

The loss of clarity and methodological unambiguity of psychology in the 90s gave rise to quite pronounced emotional and intellectual outbursts in Russian psychology in the 90s regarding philosophical, ontological, phenomenological foundations and problems of methods and research strategies. But these outbursts, in fact, turned out to be a storm in a teacup and the new paradigm did not pass through the crucible of transpersonal, existential-humanistic, hermeneutic innovations.

Jesus never showed up. And the ghost of a new paradigm in the methodological twilight of postmodern psychology never took shape. The highest achievement of the latest crisis is paradigmatic pluralism, which is more like methodological uncertainty.

Scientific revolution We have already discussed above that Russian psychology is pre-paradigmatic and is going through a period preceding the establishment of a “new” paradigm in the development of Russian psychology.

We dwelled in particular detail on psychology as a normal science. And, in the end, due to the existence of a multiplicity of subjects and a multiplicity of understandings of psychology and conflict tension within this multiplicity, we can talk about a crisis in psychology.

It is this multiplicity, competition, struggle, conflict, even the arrogance and contempt of scientists for other clans, paradigms and schools that create the tension that will cause the explosion of the scientific revolution.

But it should be recognized that the twenty-year experience of the crisis in Russian psychology did not lead to a new paradigm, to a Gestalt reorientation of psychology itself, to a scientific revolution.

In a certain sense, it can be argued that psychology is experiencing a kind of “crisis of growth”, similar to the crisis of physics at the beginning of the 20th century, which manifested a general crisis in the methodological standards of classical science. In the first half of the 20th century, this crisis was responded to by physics and mathematics. In our opinion, the resolution of the protracted crisis of the 90s is connected not so much with the search for new facts or patterns, but with new methodological approaches and a new level of understanding of human consciousness as an integral system.

Preliminary conclusions Thus, we can identify the current state of Russian psychology depending on the way of thinking and description at all stages of paradigm development: pre-paradigm, normal science and crisis. Scientists' assessment of the state of psychological science and the stage of its development depends on many variables. This is faith, and personal beliefs, a system of ideas about science and scientific character, and personal contact with representatives of different paradigms, this is a special aesthetic taste for the beauty of intellectual constructions, this is the pragmatism of the theory, in the end, this is gender and ethnic identity, social origin and “closeness” to the fathers of science, the degree of identification and engagement with the paradigm’s value system, monetary interests, laziness and envy... A forty-year-old senior university lecturer with a salary of 4,000 rubles. and the head of a million-dollar academic grant have different assessments of the level of development of psychology, and many psychologists consider the very concepts of paradigm and methodology to be nonsense.

Maybe, unfortunately, or maybe for good, scientists are people too, and sometimes too much people.

In order for a new paradigm to be heard, there are not enough reliable scientific arguments, and even strong arguments cannot convince many, and certainly there is no argument that can convince everyone.

Neither the viability, nor the pragmatism, nor the plausibility, nor even the beauty of a theory can convince a scientist who is inclined to wander through the graveyard of precious but erroneous theories.

Many people forget that ways of thinking and understanding age with the times. But the night is so quiet and the peace from the twinkling of long-dead stars is pleasant.

Integrative psychology In our previous works, we have already repeatedly analyzed the concept of paradigm and identified 5 basic paradigms of psychology in accordance with the specifics of the subject, categorical apparatus, methods, as well as social characteristics. The integrative approach is a fundamentally new semantic space for both professionals (psychologists, social workers, psychotherapists) and their clients.

Any modern psychological paradigm, despite its often seeming completeness and universality, is valid only under certain circumstances and with a certain degree of probability in a certain subject area. The value of any paradigm is relative and talking about absolute measures in relation to the empirical and conceptual beliefs of psychologists makes no sense.

The utmost awareness of the relativity and at the same time the truth of any understanding of the psyche frees the specialist from dogma and brings him closer to the point of integration, and reflexive understanding and acceptance - to integrative psychology. In this sense, integrative psychology is a direction of professional thinking, a philosophical and psychological tendency that has practical application.

For the formation of integrative psychology, a universal language environment is needed, like the language of mathematics or physics, in which any symbolism is interpreted unambiguously regardless of the paradigm, as well as the cooperative interaction of all paradigms and schools of psychology. The specific task to be solved first of all is to develop an integrative paradigm of psychological science, focused on communication (as V.A. Mazilov has repeatedly pointed out), i.e. implying an improvement in real mutual understanding: • between different areas within the framework of scientific psychology; • between academic, scientific psychology and practice-oriented concepts; • between scientific psychology and those branches that do not belong to traditional academic science (transpersonal, religious, mystical, esoteric, etc.); • between scientific psychotherapy and art, philosophy, religion; • between paradigms of psychology that objectify different levels of mental organization (body, person, behavior, morality, meanings of being in the world, interpersonal and transpersonal (Kozlov, 2003). Integrative psychology involves the consolidation of many areas, schools, directions, levels of knowledge about a person in semantic field of psychology. At the same time, we are convinced that understanding, evaluation, and use of a particular scientific paradigm can only be provided by a more general theory, to which we include integrative psychology.

The current situation in psychology is reminiscent of the construction of the Tower of Babel. Psychologists, filled with the intention of reaching and comprehending the soul and spirit, eventually began to speak in different languages ​​and all the energy directed upward towards the Great Subject of Psychology was spent on stupid quarrels and the study of bricks, dust and ashes.

The intention of psychologists to comprehend the soul is still hidden, but there is no unity of energy and mutual understanding.

We can say that there are five basic models of psychology with their own principles, methodology, subject and five magic crystals, five lenses through which psychologists of each clan perceive psychic reality in a completely unique way.

The efforts of integrative psychology are aimed at establishing the interaction of these “lenses”, magical crystals, in order to form and construct a perfect lens that adequately reflects psychic reality. Integrative psychology involves making maximum use of the opportunities for dialogue with representatives of all five areas of psychology, allowing one to expand ideas about approaches and research methodologies applied to the study of mental reality.

This dialogue involves the inclusion of mechanisms of identification, empathy and reflection as conditions for understanding representatives of all five waves of psychology and establishing productive interaction between them, subordinated to a common goal - deepening ideas about the essence of the psyche, finding ways and means of cooperation.

Instead of viewing physiological psychology, psychoanalysis, behaviorism, existential-humanistic and transpersonal psychologies as competing approaches, we can view them as complementary ways of obtaining new discoveries about a person, each of which is potentially informative for the other.

It should be recognized that all five paradigms of psychology are progressive and necessary, and each of them, in a time perspective, contains a certain excess relative to previous theories, explains a new, hitherto unexpected fact, objectifying new spaces of mental phenomena. And one should not think that paradigms in psychology are born and die, giving way to new ideas and scientific values. Paradigms evolve, adapt to new social and intellectual trends, and develop along with the spirit of the times.

All five paradigms of psychology in their continuity of modern development form that multidimensional theoretical, methodological and research and psychotechnical project, which we have designated as integrative psychology.

As for integrative psychology, it is at the stage of formation.

The strategy of integrative psychology is the comprehension of human nature through integration, accompanied by critical reflection, synthesis of various traditions, approaches, logics, diagnostic and psychotechnical tools, while maintaining their autonomy in subsequent development. Its essence lies in multi-plane, multi-dimensional, multi-level, multi-vector analysis, which creates the possibility of a qualitatively different study, involving the inclusion of aspects of multiplicity, dialogicity, and multidimensionality of the mental phenomenon in the analysis plane.

Becoming an integrative position, which in essence is metasystemic in relation to all five paradigms of psychology, provides the opportunity for detached analysis and provides the possibility of a new qualitative leap in the development of psychological knowledge.

Integrative psychology does not claim a monopoly of truth with all the ensuing consequences, but offers free operation of multidimensional knowledge associated with the most productive traditions, psychological paradigms and their diagnostic, psychotechnical tools working in the problem area. We do not deny the achievements of any paradigm in psychology and our attitude towards them is pragmatic: it is possible and rational to choose any paradigm that, at a given moment and in a given situation, solves a greater number of problems given by the context of life. The author of the article is absolutely sure that there is one psychology, executed differently in the texts of different paradigms, schools and personalities. It is united by a great and insatiable intention of understanding the psyche.

The methodological foundation of the integrative approach consists of the methodological principles of integrity, development, nonlinear determinism, multidimensionality of truth, positivity, relatedness, and ontological pluralism. These are methodological rules that indicate which paths and means of “scientific” comprehension should be avoided (negative heuristics) and which should be followed (positive heuristics).

Integrative psychology does not abandon the past experience of human research, which over the past 40 thousand years has been carried out in the spiritual traditions of art, theology, philosophy, and empirical character, but uses its various elements in new combinations.

Integrative methodology involves involving in the analysis of findings and achievements those psychological, philosophical, psychospiritual traditions and approaches that work effectively in a specific phenomenal area of ​​psychology. Integrative psychology offers mechanisms for the development of psychological knowledge, which include: interaction between all waves of psychology, integrative dialogue of alternative approaches, traditions, schools and critical reflective positioning.

An integrative approach is a creative and multidimensional synthesis of concepts that objectify various aspects of human activity both in theoretical and methodological, and in research and psychotechnical terms.

We see the main goal of psychology to be to reunite the integral fabric of mental reality and build a multidimensional integrative paradigm of modern psychology.

All five paradigms of psychology: physiological, psychoanalytic, behavioristic, existential-humanistic, transpersonal represent: - theory, methodology as a system of principles, methods for studying objects of science and culture of research, - psychotechnical influence on this subject, - representatives of the paradigm who are carriers of the system theoretical, methodological and axiological guidelines adopted as a model for solving scientific problems and applied purposes.

In the integrative model, we understand the individual and groups as integral, complex, open, multicomponent systems capable of maintaining homeostasis, expedient interaction with the environment, capable of adaptation, self-development and generation of new structures and subsystems in accordance with the current life situation and new conditions for existence.

As for the level organization of mental reality, at a first approximation we distinguish persona, interpersona and transpersona, which completely cover the possible phenomenology of the human psyche, ranging from physiological and somatic to transpersonal in both individual and group forms.

Individual free consciousness interacts with these three subsystems, filling it with content and problematizing a number of relationships between global subsystems or relationships and tensions within the systems themselves.

Each global system (person, interperson and transperson) has three classes of components (material, social and spiritual).

Thus, at the second approximation, we can isolate nine basic constructs that have systemic connections between each other, their integrity, which are both the subject of research and influence and transformation: Person - Material Ego, Social Ego, Spiritual Ego.

Interpersona - forms of social consciousness and the unconscious and their implementation at the level of material, social and spiritual media - Interpersona material (objectively material design of social statuses and roles, Interpersona social - a system of interactions and relationships, conditioned by status-role identifications in social communities, Interpersona spiritual - system of moral, ethical and existential values ​​and norms of social communities).

Transpersona - Transpersona material (object-material images of spiritual paraphernalia - from a copper cross and primitive yantras to monastic complexes and pyramids), Transpersona social (social design of spiritual traditions and religions - from binary relationships between guru and student, ending with the social organization of world religions ), spiritual transpersona (true transpersonal experiences that have a numinous and sacred character, both individual (for example, sattori) and group in nature (group induced religious ecstasy).

All nine substructures have a unique and very complex systemic organization, each time requiring special analysis, both on the structural and procedurally dynamic aspects.

At the third approximation, we can isolate the global system of Not-I and nine basic constructs that have systemic connections among themselves, which are a mirror image with a negative sign.

An integrative approach when interacting with a client is based on the highest ethical values ​​that are invariant for all cultural communities. In spiritual traditions, they are designated as non-involvement, impartiality (wei wu wei in Taoism, Mahakaruna (Great Compassion) with the four noble precious states of consciousness (joy, equanimity, compassion, loving kindness) in Buddhism, love for one's neighbor, mercy, mercy in Christianity, that is, the ethical core of the integrative approach is the highest moral priorities developed in spiritual traditions.

The goal of integrative psychology, in addition to explanatory and conceptual, is quite pragmatic - to change the structures and forms of consciousness of a person, who as a result gains the ability to think, reflect and act adequately in the appropriate sociocultural environment. In this regard, at an essential level, the transformation of homo sapiens and homo habilis (reasonable and skillful man) into homo ludens and homo creacoficus (man who plays and creates wisdom), open and present in his destiny, accepting his existence in the world and with -being with others as the meaning and juice of life. We would especially like this transformation to occur with the bearers of knowledge about man - psychologists and psychotherapists, philosophers and psychiatrists, teachers and social workers. Without a doubt, peace and coexistence with others does not always give reason and hope to think this way, but the will and desire to see this in others is more important.

In the 90s, Soviet psychological science lost its status as a bearer of truth and, accordingly, its unity in the post-Soviet space. All the small and large former brothers in the commonwealth have broken away from Russian psychological science.

In Russia itself, alternative trends in psychology stopped paying attention to each other, and each went its own way. And they all have their own Associations and Academies and educational systems.

It seems to me that psychologists have forgotten why they came to this science.

Psychology is an integrative science. How integrative a person himself is from the first inhalation to the last exhalation. It is said in the Wisdom of Ecclesiastes: “...a time to scatter stones, and a time to gather up stones; a time to hug, and a time to avoid hugs.” In my opinion, in psychology it is “time to collect stones” and “time to hug.” For we are so lonely and worthless individually, separated, scattered, in narcissism and flawed pride.

In our opinion, in postmodern conditions (from the Latin post - after, French - modern), it is the integrative tendency that can lead to the transformation of the intellectual culture of psychology itself.

The Russian ideologically biased psychological paradigm of modernism, aimed at changing the very nature of man (the personality of a communist society), negating the old and its dismantling, building ideal communities (collectives of a high level of development) with “comprehensively developed” builders with the basic principle “the end justifies the means” has already gone into the past.

We have already written more than once that integrative psychology as a method and culture of postmodern thinking implements a set of certain principles of scientific existence: - the use and introjection into the field of psychological thinking of the cultural and cognitive potential of previous historical periods; — radical pluralism and tolerance; — erasing the boundaries between mass and elite psychological cultures, subcultures of the East and West, through the diversity of psychological language; — equality of thinking styles and cognitive paradigms of psychology, recognition of their intrinsic value; — conventionality of psychological knowledge, that is, psychology as a science already has in social culture a certain set of stable characteristics identified as significant. The language, values, and research strategies of integrative psychology are addressed to the entire society without any differentiation, taking into account the entire spectrum of interests and sentiments of various social groups, using universal meanings and methods based on common anthropocentric values ​​and beliefs. In our opinion, these are the most promising strategies and principles of the new tradition of science.

Literature 1. Bryanik N.V. Introduction to the modern theory of knowledge. – M.: Academic project; Ekaterinburg: Business book, 2003. 2. Ilyenkov E.V. Philosophy and culture. – M.: Politizdat, 1991. 3. Kanke V.A. Basic philosophical directions and concepts of science. – M.: Logos, 2004. 4. Kozlov V.V. Psychotechnologies of altered states of consciousness. Personal growth. Methods and techniques. – M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2001. 5. Transpersonal project in culture: integrative psychology Revolution of consciousness: transpersonal discoveries that change the world. Materials of the 17th World Transpersonal Congress, June 23 – 27, 2010 / Comp. and ed. V.V. Kozlov, V.V. Maikov, V.F. Petrenko - M.: MTA, MAPN, 2010 pp. 365-392 6. Cole M. Cultural-historical psychology: the science of the future. – M.: Kogito-, 1997. 7. Kuhn T. Structure of scientific revolutions. With an introductory article and additions 1969. - M.: Progress, 1977. 8. Mazilov V.A. Methodology of psychological science. – Yaroslavl: MAPN, 2003. 9. Yurevich A.V. Psychology and methodology. – M.: Publishing house “Institute of Psychology RAS”, 2005.

President of the International Academy of Psychological Sciences, Academician of the MAPS, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor of the Department of Social and Political Psychology of YarSU named after P.G. Demidov Vladimir Vasilievich Kozlov

The problem of paradigms in psychology

The psyche and mental phenomena are a complex object of study. This is what determines the complexity and inconsistency of research methods. And it is still impossible to give an exact answer about which paradigm currently dominates in psychology. Thomas Kunt himself could not do this.

Photo by Michelangelo Buonarroti: Pexels

There are several approaches to understanding paradigms in psychology:

• psychology is a pre-paradigm science, that is, it is still at a stage where no paradigm has yet been defined;
• psychology is a paradigmatic science, since, despite many contradictory approaches, a common concept has been achieved in the main, central categories (psyche, mental phenomena, and so on);
• psychology is a multi-paradigm science in which, due to the specificity and versatility of the subjects of its study, several paradigms exist simultaneously;
• Psychology is a non-paradigm science in which, in principle, the dominance of one paradigm is impossible, and the logic of development, built on the analysis of natural sciences, is not applicable to it at all.

Rationalistic behaviorist paradigm

The psychological paradigm developed mainly in the USA from the works of J.B. Watson and E.L. Thorndike. The essential thesis of this movement is that the object of psychology should not be the mind, but behavior, declaring that mental states cannot be the object of scientific study, at the same time that they are not relevant to the explanation of behavior.

Behaviorism is the psychology that has been most concerned with making psychological research objective and scientific. Although behaviorism is no longer the dominant psychology today, much of behavioral research is now a legacy in the fields of educational psychology and therapy. It is customary to distinguish three moments in the development of behaviorism:

To be able to talk about rationalistic behaviorism, one must begin by talking about historical evolution, showing how psychology gradually established itself as a science independent of philosophy, to which it still remains attached.

We can say that in Western culture psychology was born from Greek philosophy. The word “psychology” itself has Greek roots. In Greek mythology, psyche is a maiden of incredible beauty who is loved and abducted by Eros, and symbolizes the fate of the soul, which after many trials is ultimately united forever with divine love.

Philosophers have tried to understand human behavior and thinking. Indeed, many of the fundamental problems of psychology were first raised and discussed by philosophers:

• Greek philosophy. Aristotle (384-322 BC):

A Greek philosopher and scientist who shares with Plato and Socrates the title of the most eminent philosophers of antiquity, he is often called the father of psychology, although other philosophers began to speculate several years before him. regarding human thought and behavior. He was the first to compile a classification of sciences and build a system covering all branches of philosophy. This system is divided into three groups:

1st group: metaphysics, physics and zoology;

2nd group: politics, economics and morality;

3rd group: poetic, rhetorical and dialectical.

He was the most influential in Western culture. He also created and systematized the syllogism, discerned the essence of existence, advocated hylomorphism, arrived at the concept of the Supreme God, the concept of the personal and unchangeable, and made the happiness of man a rest in the practice of virtue. Plato and Aristotle, like other Greek philosophers, grappled with some of the fundamental questions in psychology that are still being studied today: Are people born with certain abilities and abilities and with a certain personality, or are they shaped by experience? How does an individual experience the world around him? Are certain thoughts innate or are they all learned?

• Thales of Miletus (640-546 BC), (7th century BC)

The beginning of everything is water. Pythagorean philosophers say that the relationship between the constituent parts of a thing is important, then the principle of all things is number.

• Heraclitus (530 BC), (5th century BC)

Everything changes. From this point on the question arises: how can you say that something is there if it is constantly changing? Before asking what things are made of, we must ask what they are. What always exists and therefore can we say that it is something?

• Plato (427-347 BC)

Greek philosopher, student of Socrates, is the first Greek thinker whose legacy has been fully preserved. Plato relies on Socrates' assertion that man is created for science and that one of his fundamental purposes is to explain how man can have scientific knowledge. If science consists of a set of universal, necessary and immutable statements and it also exists and has value, then this can only be because there are universal, necessary and immutable realities. Since these realities do not occur in the sensible world, which consists of concrete and changing things, there must be another world in which these realities have their “headquarters,” which Plato calls ideas and whose knowledge makes science possible. Plato suggests the existence of two worlds: the sensitive world in which we live and the one who has ideas - the real one.

Of these two worlds that Plato raises, we can say that the sensible is only a shadow of the world of ideas.

Plato's idea of ​​man corresponds to his vision of nature. Plato believes that man is an immortal soul imprisoned in the body. Before this conclusion, the soul lived in the world of ideas and knows them, but when joining the body, forget this knowledge. Only the vision of objects of the sensory world, which are copies of genuine realities, ideas, can lead to their memory.

He also states that the immortal soul of rational and spiritual character must be the one that guides and dominates the mortal souls (hot-tempered and lustful) of the body.

• Socrates (470 – 399 BC):

A Greek philosopher and teacher, he changed Western philosophical thought by influencing his student Plato, who transmitted the teachings of Socrates in his writings. For his criticism of Athenian society, he was put on trial and sentenced to death.

Plato believed that Socrates is the master of thought for all times. Plato paid attention to every word said by the teacher, since Socrates never wrote anything, otherwise it would be impossible to know today about this privileged mind that he possessed, Socrates thought that everyone has complete knowledge of the highest truth contained in the soul and he needs only to be stimulated by conscious reflexes to become aware of it.

• Psychology in the Middle Ages. Saint Augustine (5th century)

To know oneself, a person must look within and not without. In his interior he will discover the truth - the imprint of God in him.

Knowledge is a faculty of the soul. There are two types of knowledge:

-Sensory knowledge: Material objects influence our body by influencing the external sense organs in which the soul is present.

-Intellectual (or rational) knowledge: deals with eternal truths and reasons. Its goal is contemplation that reaches the knowledge of God.

• Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) (13th century)

He takes Aristotelian philosophy and adjusts the Christian religion, creating an ecological philosophy, which became a philosophy officially recognized by the Catholic Church. His influence continues to this day.

The body is necessary for knowledge because it comes to us through the senses. The most typical human cognitive process is the ability to abstract.

• Rationalism . Descartes (1596-1650)

French philosopher who laid the foundation for modern philosophy: “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes thought about a closed mechanistic universal system, developed analytical geometry, explained the refraction of light, and explored magnetism.

He was convinced that nerves were hollow tubes through which “animal spirits” carried impulses in the same way that water flows through a pipe. When someone placed a finger near the fire, the heat was transferred via "animal spirits" through a tube directly to the brain.

With this explanation, he tried to respond to the facts and phenomena that surrounded man.

With Descartes, dualism was established in psychology. Questioning the relationship that the physical elements have with the psychic or spiritual, he comes to the conclusion that these are two completely different elements:

a) Res cogitans (or thinking thing) - this will lead to mentalism, which will be studied within the framework of psychology only the phenomena of consciousness. b) Res extensa (or extensive) - this will lead to behaviorism, which wants psychology to be only the science of behavior.

• Spinoza (1632-1677), (17th century)

A rational explanation for everything that happens is always possible. Everything has a soul.

• Leibniz (1646-1716), (17th century)

He will confirm: “there is nothing in the mind that has not previously passed through our senses (Aristotle), except the properties of the mind.”

Basic principles of rationalism: 1. The innate nature of psychological phenomena. 2. Possibility of extrapolation from other animals to humans or from simple to complex traits. 3. The existence of universals and/or continuity in behavior.

This will be followed by empiricism, associationism and constructivism, which will grow out of Kant's postulates in an attempt to reconcile rationalism and associationism.

“...Psychological paradigms, comparable in some ways to political ideologies or religious beliefs, presuppose guiding principles of behavior that motivate us to engage in professional practice in different ways...”

Z. Freud.

Natalia Shakhova