{"title":"个人如何重要:对娜塔莉·布勒的分析、模仿和回应。","authors":"Maria Nicholas, John Cripps Clark, David Kellogg","doi":"10.1007/s12124-025-09892-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nathalie Bulle, writing in these pages, asks whether Vygotsky is indeed responsible for a major, foundational, contribution to integrative psychological and behavioral science. Bulle queries both \"analysts\" who strive to establish what Vygotsky's original texts actually meant in context and \"emulators\" who attempt to simulate his work on modern, hence not necessarily compatible, methodological \"hardware\". Here we query Bulle's distinction: as Vygotsky's legatees, we hold that analysis (at least in Vygotsky's sense) and emulation constitute each other. We demonstrate: first, we analyze Vygotsky's contribution using his own methodological prolegomena, \"The Historical Sense of the Crisis in Psychology\", newly translated in full for the first time, and we find that his crisis was not simply, as Bulle contends, due to \"the triumph in Vygotsky's name of an objectivistic, natural science, approach to psychology\"; it is better understood today as due to the kind of interpretative, \"understanding\" way of handling data that methodological individualism advocates. We then emulate Vygotsky's later semic method using data from post-seminar interviews about an initial teacher education seminar in Australia. We contend that Vygotsky's major, foundational, contribution to integrating psychological and behavioral science was twofold: he explained the methodological clash between the two and showed a way out of it through the study of meaning.</p>","PeriodicalId":50356,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science","volume":"59 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Individuals Matter: An Analysis, an Emulation, and a Response to Nathalie Bulle.\",\"authors\":\"Maria Nicholas, John Cripps Clark, David Kellogg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12124-025-09892-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Nathalie Bulle, writing in these pages, asks whether Vygotsky is indeed responsible for a major, foundational, contribution to integrative psychological and behavioral science. Bulle queries both \\\"analysts\\\" who strive to establish what Vygotsky's original texts actually meant in context and \\\"emulators\\\" who attempt to simulate his work on modern, hence not necessarily compatible, methodological \\\"hardware\\\". Here we query Bulle's distinction: as Vygotsky's legatees, we hold that analysis (at least in Vygotsky's sense) and emulation constitute each other. We demonstrate: first, we analyze Vygotsky's contribution using his own methodological prolegomena, \\\"The Historical Sense of the Crisis in Psychology\\\", newly translated in full for the first time, and we find that his crisis was not simply, as Bulle contends, due to \\\"the triumph in Vygotsky's name of an objectivistic, natural science, approach to psychology\\\"; it is better understood today as due to the kind of interpretative, \\\"understanding\\\" way of handling data that methodological individualism advocates. We then emulate Vygotsky's later semic method using data from post-seminar interviews about an initial teacher education seminar in Australia. We contend that Vygotsky's major, foundational, contribution to integrating psychological and behavioral science was twofold: he explained the methodological clash between the two and showed a way out of it through the study of meaning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-025-09892-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-025-09892-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
How Individuals Matter: An Analysis, an Emulation, and a Response to Nathalie Bulle.
Nathalie Bulle, writing in these pages, asks whether Vygotsky is indeed responsible for a major, foundational, contribution to integrative psychological and behavioral science. Bulle queries both "analysts" who strive to establish what Vygotsky's original texts actually meant in context and "emulators" who attempt to simulate his work on modern, hence not necessarily compatible, methodological "hardware". Here we query Bulle's distinction: as Vygotsky's legatees, we hold that analysis (at least in Vygotsky's sense) and emulation constitute each other. We demonstrate: first, we analyze Vygotsky's contribution using his own methodological prolegomena, "The Historical Sense of the Crisis in Psychology", newly translated in full for the first time, and we find that his crisis was not simply, as Bulle contends, due to "the triumph in Vygotsky's name of an objectivistic, natural science, approach to psychology"; it is better understood today as due to the kind of interpretative, "understanding" way of handling data that methodological individualism advocates. We then emulate Vygotsky's later semic method using data from post-seminar interviews about an initial teacher education seminar in Australia. We contend that Vygotsky's major, foundational, contribution to integrating psychological and behavioral science was twofold: he explained the methodological clash between the two and showed a way out of it through the study of meaning.
期刊介绍:
IPBS: Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science is an international interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of basic knowledge in the social and behavioral sciences. IPBS covers such topics as cultural nature of human conduct and its evolutionary history, anthropology, ethology, communication processes between people, and within-- as well as between-- societies. A special focus will be given to integration of perspectives of the social and biological sciences through theoretical models of epigenesis. It contains articles pertaining to theoretical integration of ideas, epistemology of social and biological sciences, and original empirical research articles of general scientific value. History of the social sciences is covered by IPBS in cases relevant for further development of theoretical perspectives and empirical elaborations within the social and biological sciences. IPBS has the goal of integrating knowledge from different areas into a new synthesis of universal social science—overcoming the post-modernist fragmentation of ideas of recent decades.