The Struggle of Paradigms in Psychology

Traditionally, The field of psychology has become more and more like a battlefield. than to a cumulative field of scientific knowledge. The contenders in this battle have varied throughout its relatively short history. And I say relative, because there has always been psychology, since the beginning of civilizations, although evidently, it has not always been considered under that term.

Innatists, situationists, interactionists, behaviorists, cognitive, humanists, psychodynamics… the fight between the fervent followers of one paradigm and another of psychological knowledge has been diverse in terms of origins of focus, but it has never been free of the conceptual suspicion that The followers of a certain paradigm raise the statements or considerations of the followers of others.

A theoretical and practical battlefield

Currently, from my humble perspective as an impartial eclectic observer, I consider that we are witnessing the recent majority contest, between the approach of the so-called cognitive-behavioral against the approach inherited from humanism, that is, positive psychology. Perhaps I am hasty in such an observation, but it is common for me to come across detractors of the positive approach defended by the Seligmans, Csikszentmihalyi, Dyer or Davidson among others, compared to the classic cognitive-behavioral approach of authors and researchers such as Skinner, Thorndike, Ellis and Beck among others. others.

As if it were a short circuit, there are many who are quick to point out the advantages and/or limitations of one approach over the other, trying to validate their firm convictions about the correct way to approach the different objectives of the field of psychology.

Once again, it happens that we immerse ourselves in eternal internal disputes, about who is in possession of the absolute “truth”, as if it were not willing to go away with those, who, in the exercise of their profession, apply one or another techniques in order to achieve certain types of results (health , well-being, performance, etc.). In the end, this type of systematic disputes, far from being useful for producing knowledge, acts as a drag on the development of this exciting discipline.

The eclectic vision of Psychology

If I have learned anything during the years that I have been practicing as a psychologist, it is that truths can take multiple forms, that Psychology is a “living science”, which grows and evolves parallel to the pace at which the societies to which it tries to offer answers grow and evolve and that, ultimately, even the truth takes a backseat when the objective is limited to the development of a more practical sense of existence.

The Latin statement, attributed among others to Julius Caesar or Napoleon himself, goes: Divide et impera (Divide and conquer) and it is paradoxical that the very division between students of the human mind, comes precisely from themselves. It seems that participating in collective efforts to better understand how we think and feel does not necessarily translate into a greater ability to apply those principles to the way in which, individually, we adopt a useful and constructive attitude toward theories and methodological tools. of others.

In short, neuropsychological data aside (which seem to settle with a stroke any type of dispute regarding the functioning of the brain), as observers, students and interveners of the functioning of the mind, We have a moral responsibility to unite and stay strong against our own internal conceptual frictions and against the external interests of others, which may destabilize the ultimate goal of our professional mission, which is none other than to offer the society in which we live, the questions and answers necessary to achieve its existential purposes.