Metaphor and the scientific method: Why Lacan’s perspective isn’t helpful yet

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
P. Thibodeau
{"title":"Metaphor and the scientific method: Why Lacan’s perspective isn’t helpful yet","authors":"P. Thibodeau","doi":"10.1177/09593543221107581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Keefer (2022) argues that theoretical commitments to conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) impede research on metaphor in psychology. To jumpstart the field, he suggests adopting Lacan’s perspective. I disagree with this argument for a few reasons. First, CMT has a much more nuanced place in current research on metaphor than it would seem from the target article. Second, the field does engage with the hypotheses enumerated by Keefer: that metaphors emerge from a complex web of associations, have unconscious influence, and reflect deep-seated motivations. I review how contemporary research has approached these questions and show how the constraints cited in Keefer’s article stem from the field’s commitments to the scientific method and the computational theory of mind, rather than CMT. Finally, contrary to how they are framed in Keefer’s article, I argue that these constraints have enabled scientific progress to date and limit the impact of Lacan’s perspective moving forward.","PeriodicalId":47640,"journal":{"name":"Theory & Psychology","volume":"32 1","pages":"808 - 813"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221107581","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Keefer (2022) argues that theoretical commitments to conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) impede research on metaphor in psychology. To jumpstart the field, he suggests adopting Lacan’s perspective. I disagree with this argument for a few reasons. First, CMT has a much more nuanced place in current research on metaphor than it would seem from the target article. Second, the field does engage with the hypotheses enumerated by Keefer: that metaphors emerge from a complex web of associations, have unconscious influence, and reflect deep-seated motivations. I review how contemporary research has approached these questions and show how the constraints cited in Keefer’s article stem from the field’s commitments to the scientific method and the computational theory of mind, rather than CMT. Finally, contrary to how they are framed in Keefer’s article, I argue that these constraints have enabled scientific progress to date and limit the impact of Lacan’s perspective moving forward.
隐喻与科学方法:为什么拉康的观点还没有帮助
Keefer(2022)认为,对概念隐喻理论的理论承诺阻碍了心理学对隐喻的研究。为了启动这一领域,他建议采用拉康的观点。我不同意这个论点,原因有几个。首先,CMT在当前隐喻研究中的地位比目标文章中看起来要微妙得多。其次,该领域确实参与了基弗列举的假设:隐喻来自复杂的联想网络,具有无意识的影响,并反映了深层次的动机。我回顾了当代研究是如何处理这些问题的,并展示了基弗文章中引用的限制是如何源于该领域对科学方法和心理计算理论的承诺,而不是CMT。最后,与基弗文章中的框架相反,我认为这些限制使科学进步得以实现,并限制了拉康观点向前发展的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Theory & Psychology
Theory & Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Theory & Psychology is a fully peer reviewed forum for theoretical and meta-theoretical analysis in psychology. It focuses on the emergent themes at the centre of contemporary psychological debate. Its principal aim is to foster theoretical dialogue and innovation within the discipline, serving an integrative role for a wide psychological audience. Theory & Psychology publishes scholarly and expository papers which explore significant theoretical developments within and across such specific sub-areas as: cognitive, social, personality, developmental, clinical, perceptual or biological psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信