lPsychology is the “study of mental or psychological processes and phenomena, especially in relation to human and animal behavior” (Saz, 2006, p. 217). This generalized definition encompasses the essence of psychological schools: describing, evaluating, modifying and predicting behavior. Because of the dissimilar theoretical variety, there is a dispute between a social practice or a discipline from individuality. Furthermore, the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research methods fuels controversy over their scientific status. To better understand the problem, I propose an analysis from systemic thinking, elucidating that it must integrate theories and methodologies.
Let’s think of psychology as a system composed of elements. These elements or subsystems are the paradigms (psychoanalysis, behaviorism, humanism, systemic, etc.). Each school or model has its own theories and intervention methods. The contradiction lies in the lack of cohesion on the part of the postulates, since the psychology system questions its identity between two metasystems: natural sciences and social sciences. Furthermore, it is interrelated with other systems that contribute to its construction and vice versa, but do not define it according to a mixture of knowledge. On the one hand, there are the disciplines within the natural sciences: biology, physiology, genetics and ethology; and on the other, the social sciences: sociology, history and anthropology.
Systemic thinking interprets phenomena as a whole made up of parts (system) to make relevant decisions.
With this text I intend to explain that psychology is built through interdisciplinarity and psychological paradigms. Then, systemic thinking promotes the integration of knowledge in its construction as behavioral science. Also, avoid choosing a single object of study without discriminating other possible or relevant ones (ontological reductionism); That is to say: consider social phenomena from psychology, ignoring sociology, or analyze a mental disorder from a subjective perspective and exclude the family nucleus (Cosacov, 2010).
Think in systems
Basically, systemic thinking interprets phenomena as a whole made up of parts (system) to make relevant decisions. According to the World Health Organization (WHO): “with increasing complexity (…) systems thinking was developed in order to understand and appreciate the relationships within a given system, as well as with respect to the design and evaluation of interventions at the system level” (WHO, 2009, p. 41).
Systemic thinking persists in psychology – it is part of its nature. It focuses on the study of intersubjective relationships, on the influence of the psychologist on the dynamics and does not ignore contexts because it develops its work in various areas of application (education, health, industry, sports, legal…). Although it was not always like this; Reductionist thinking prevailed for years. It intended to explain psychological phenomena from materialism, but its inability to reveal the complexity of a system makes it obsolete.
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
Inoperative reductionism
At the beginning, psychology had a functionalist and structural nature based on physiological experiments on elementary psychological processes (memory, attention, perception, sensation, etc.). They considered it lacking objectivity because it studied an abstract and intangible concept like the mind. Nor was he convinced that these psychological processes are generated in the nervous system. Some time later, behaviorism gave it the status of a science by implementing the scientific method in the analysis of behavior. For him, everything that is not observable and measurable lacks foundation; Therefore, he was criticized as a reductionist because of his strong materialist stance. In this case, Vygotsky (cited by Luria, 1973) proposed a solution to understand psychic phenomena without reductionism: “psychology as a science must (…) be built on the limits between the natural and social sciences” (p. 266).
These dual paths still exist. According to Carlos Cornejo (2007), a debate persists between two cultures within psychology: the scientific and the comprehensive. The first acquires the technical rigor of statistics; On the other hand, the second interprets man through language and its semiotics. Systemic thinking helps to recognize the dichotomy between the quantitative and qualitative method to break with the positivist regime and accept oneself in its plurality (Kaulino, 2007).
“Psychology as a science must (…) be built on the boundaries between natural and social sciences”
The relevant interactions
Psychology is considered a social science; Therefore, the study of human interactions is relevant. Its object of analysis is the collective and the individual in their personal and social development. Explores the phenomena that arise from formed networks -beyond analyzing subjects. Study the elements focused on dynamics; On the other hand, it dispenses with causal understandings (as in the exact sciences). That is, it does not seek to establish laws about behavior because, unlike physics or chemistry, human behavior always varies (Gergen, 2007).
Thus, psychodynamic, systemic, humanistic, cognitive-behavioral… They are based on theories—in their own way—to describe links between subjects; The language changes, but not the phenomenon. For example: for psychoanalysis, transference and countertransference is the affective reciprocity between the analyst and the patient; In therapy, each other’s perceptions are affected. Similarly, systemic psychology proposes that the intervention of an observer influences the behavior of the observed and vice versa, calling this second-order cybernetics. As we see, the terms implemented to explain interactions do not matter as long as they are necessary in the understanding of human events.
Psychology as a complex system
Edgar Morin (1999) analyzes complexity as a reciprocal “interweaving” of individual and group elements. Psychology is complex because it requires interactions between psychological and disciplinary knowledge (natural and social sciences). This knowledge constitutes it as a system even if there are theoretical discrepancies. Likewise, in its complexity it has the difficulty of predicting and being predicted; However, when it cannot anticipate events, it resorts to adaptation – the key is feedback.
Psychology is complex because it requires interactions between psychological and disciplinary knowledge (natural and social sciences).
Paradigms must respond effectively to the demands of the environment; Otherwise, they end up obsolete. If they do not corroborate the technique and reaffirm themselves as models, the methods become inadequate and the complexity of the context disintegrates them. That is to say: some psychological schools have such high negative feedback that their self-organization inhibits changes to face demands. On the other hand, others have survived thanks to promoting changes (positive feedback) and developing appropriate interventions.
Conclusion
We saw that psychology (system) is made up of paradigms (subsystems) and interacts with other disciplines of knowledge (biology, sociology, mathematics, chemistry, anthropology and a long etcetera). Consequently, it breaks with reductionism by integrating logical positivism and hermeneutics in the study of human phenomena. This generates specifically psychological knowledge; Furthermore, being part of the natural and social sciences allows you to intervene in any context. Psychology: a complex system that requires diversity, including heterogeneous theories and methods.
Systemic thinking is a position that understands the object of study in terms of a system. Thinking this way exhausts the possibilities in the genesis of a phenomenon; Therefore, the interactions are relevant. We must understand that it is not only about applying General Systems Theory or cybernetics or socioconstructionism, in short, it is an attitude against a single epistemology. I hope more psychologists leave exclusivity for one method and take advantage of the variety!
Psychology has a great task left: to transform over time. It must mutate along with society to understand it. It requires a morphogenetic change (positive feedback) that achieves homogenesis (negative feedback); that is, allowing new information (emergency) to change the system and stabilize it (structure). The ultimate goal is not to disintegrate with the threats of the external environment (fragility), nor to resist and remain unchanged (robustness), the ideal would be to benefit from disturbances to be strong (antifragility). In short, systems thinking is a tool that gives versatility to psychology.
The Article represents the opinion of its author and not necessarily that of the rest of the .com team.
References
Cornejo, C. (2007). Beyond the two cultures of psychology. In X. Zabala.
(Ed.), epistemology and psychology: crossed questions (pp. 35-42). Santiago de Chile, Chile: UCSH Editions.
Cosacov, E. (2010). Introduction to Psychology. Córdoba, Argentina: Editorial
Witches.
Gergen, K. (2007). Social constructionism: contributions to debate and practice.
Bogotá, Colombia: Uniandes Editions.
Kaulino, A. (2007). The ethical status of history: a contribution to
Critical historiography of Chilean psychology. In X. Zabala. (Ed.), epistemology and psychology: crossed questions (pp. 35-42). Santiago de Chile, Chile: UCSH Editions.
Luria, A. R. (1973). Psychology in the system of natural sciences and
social. Latin American Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 263-271.
Recovered from
Morin, E. (1999). The seven knowledge necessary for the education of the future. Paris,
France: UNESCO.
Saz, M. A. (2006). Psychology Dictionary. Bogotá DC, Colombia:
Panamericana Editorial Ltda.
WHO. (2009). Application of systemic thinking to strengthening
Health services. Recovered from: