个人如何重要:对娜塔莉·布勒的分析、模仿和回应。

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL
Maria Nicholas, John Cripps Clark, David Kellogg
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

娜塔莉·布勒(Nathalie Bulle)在本刊撰文质疑,维果茨基是否确实对综合心理和行为科学做出了重大的、基础性的贡献。布勒对“分析家”和“仿真者”都提出了质疑,前者力图确定维果茨基的原文在语境中的实际含义,后者试图在现代(因此不一定兼容)方法论“硬件”上模拟维果茨基的作品。在这里,我们质疑布勒的区分:作为维果茨基的继承者,我们认为分析(至少在维果茨基的意义上)和模拟是相互构成的。我们证明:首先,我们用维果茨基自己的方法论序言《心理学危机的历史意义》来分析他的贡献,这是他第一次全文翻译的,我们发现他的危机并不像布勒所主张的那样,仅仅是由于“维果茨基以客观主义、自然科学的名义取得的心理学方法的胜利”;在今天,它被更好地理解为是由于方法论个人主义提倡的一种解释性的、“理解”的处理数据的方式。然后,我们模仿维果茨基后来的semic方法,使用来自澳大利亚首次教师教育研讨会的研讨会后访谈数据。我们认为,维果茨基对整合心理学和行为科学的主要的、基础性的贡献是双重的:他解释了两者在方法论上的冲突,并通过对意义的研究指出了解决冲突的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
66
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.
×
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