No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The author revisits the debates over absolutism versus relativism, freedom versus determination, objectivism versus subjectivism, representationalism versus nominalism, determinacy versus indeterminacy, and other manifestations of the realism versus constructivism debate in psychology. The author considers the advantages and drawbacks of both extremes and suggests that although as a critique of mainstream scientific psychology, the postmodern discourse has been fruitful for clinical theory and practice, at its extreme, it undermines its own claims as a basis for healing because it denies the legitimacy of any authority. Referring to recent thinking in cross-cultural psychology and neuroscience, the author suggests that there may be certain universal givens that form limiting constraints on how far psychologists can take indeterminacy. They suggest that psychologists hold a double vision, using each end of the realist–constructivist spectrum of positions as a limiting frame for the other.
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.