Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, No.3, pp.52-65
UDC: 
159.9.01

The foundations of H. Münsterberg’s psychological system in the context of main criteria of postnonclassical science

Fedorov A. A. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article is devoted to the issue of searching prerequisites for formation of postnonclassical psychology in the theory of H. Münsterberg. The purpose of the research is to analyze the foundations of H. Münsterberg’s psychological system in the context of main criteria of postnonclassical science.
Materials and Methods. The article is based on original H. Münsterberg’s works, literature devoted to the analysis of his views and the phenomenon of postnonclassical science. The analytical and comparative-historical methods were employed.
Results. The author proposes that development of Münsterberg’s views can be represented as the transition from classical (“causal”) to postnonclassical (“purposive”) psychology. It is also stated that the final version of Münsterberg’s psychology possesses numerous characteristics of postnonclassical science such as orientation to the historical sciences, treatment of man as a subject, relying on epistemological constructivism, special attention to the axiological features of science, interdisciplinarity, attention to the process of development / self-development, emphasis on the selection function of mind and the acknowledgement of the importance of applied forms of the science.
Conclusions. In conclusion, the author states that scrutiny of theories preceding to the mature postnonclassical psychology is important in the context of the further critical analysis of its foundations. In particular, the analysis undertaken in this article indicates that the basis of postnonclassical psychology is idealistic psychology.

Keywords: 

Postnonclassical psychology; Purposive psychology; Causal psychology; Psychological Constructivism; Psychology in the System of the sciences; History of Psychology; Idealistic Philosophy.

References: 
  1. Baranowski A., Hecht H. One hundred years of photoplay: Hugo Münsterberg's lasting contribution to cognitive movie psychology. Projections, 2017, vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2017.110202
  2. Blatter J. Screening the psychological laboratory: Hugo Münsterberg, psychotechnics, and the cinema, 1892–1916. Science in Context, 2015, vol. 28, issue 1, pp. 53–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889714000325
  3. Brinkmann S. Humanism after posthumanism: or qualitative psychology after the “posts”. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2017, vol. 14, issue 2, pp. 109–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1282568
  4. Buchanan R. D. Epilogue: The redux of postmodernity. Science in Context, 2015, vol. 28, issue 1, pp. 163–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889714000362
  5. Chernorizov A. M., Asmolov A. G., Schechter E. D. From physiological psychology to psychological physiology: Postnonclassical approach to ethnocultural phenomena. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 2015, vol. 8, issue 4, pp. 4–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2015.0401
  6. Dalby J. T. Forensic psychology in Canada a century after Münsterberg. Canadian Psychology, 2014, vol. 55, issue 1, pp. 27–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035526
  7. Forman P. The Primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology. History and Technology, 2007, vol. 23, issue 1-2, pp. 1–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510601092191
  8. Graen G. B., Wakabayashi M., Hui C. What employers want: a postmodern framework. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2013, vol. 6, issue 1, pp. 32–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12006
  9. Hurlburt R. T., Knapp T. J. Münsterberg in 1898, not Allport in 1937, introduced the terms “idiographic” and “nomothetic” to American Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 2006, vol. 16, issue 2, pp. 287–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354306062541
  10. Jovanović G. Vicissitudes of history in Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory. History of the Human Sciences, 2015, vol. 28, issue 2, pp. 10–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695115577227
  11. Lektorskii V. A., Arshinov V. I., Kuznetsov V. Yu., Pruzhinin B. I. Postnonclassical science and the sociocultural context. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2016, vol. 86, issue 4, pp. 343–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331616040080
  12. Mülberger A. Mental association: testing individual differences before Binet. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 2017, vol. 53, issue 2, pp. 176–198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.21850
  13. Münsterberg H. Psychological atomism. Psychological Review, 1900, vol. 7, issue 1, pp. 1–17. DOI: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0068090
  14. Münsterberg H. Psychology and history. Psychological Review, 1899, vol. 6, issue 1, pp. 1–31. DOI: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0071306
  15. Quick T. Disciplining Physiological Psychology: Cinematographs as Epistemic Devices in the Work of Henri Bergson and Charles Scott Sherrington. Science in Context, 2017, vol. 30, issue 4, pp. 423–474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889717000254
  16. Stepin V. S. Historical types of scientific rationality. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 2015, vol. 53, issue 2, pp. 168–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2015.1096701
  17. Stoffers M. Münsterberg’s nightmare: Psychology and history in fin-de-siecle Germany and America. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 2003, vol. 39, issue 2, pp. 163–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.10107
  18. Weiss K. J., Xuan Y. You can’t do that! Hugo Münsterberg and misapplied psychology. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2015, vol. 42-43, pp. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.001
  19. Zinchenko Y. P., Pervichko E. I. Nonclassical and postnonclassical epistemology in Lev Vygotsky's cultural-historical approach to clinical psychology. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 2013, vol. 6 (1), pp. 43–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2013.0104
  20. Vachkov I. V., Vachkova S. N. Reproducibility of Psychological Experiments as a Problem of Post-Nonclassical Science. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2016, vol. 12, issue 1, pp. 97–101. (In Russian). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/chp.2016120110
  21. Zinchenko Y. P., Pervichko E. I. Postnonclassical methodology in clinical psychology: Vygotsky-Luria school. National Psychological Journal, 2012, no. 2, pp. 32–45. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21458925
  22. Munipov V. M. Hugo Munsterberg, founder of psychotechnics, as the precursor of L. S. Vygotsky in the methodology of psychological research. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2005, no. 2, pp. 48–62. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=13795100
  23. Petrenko V. F. To the Problem of the Collective Unconscious within the Framework of the Philosophy of Post-Non-Classical Rationality and Constructivist Psychology*. Voprosy Filosofii, 2018, no. 2, pp. 89–101. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32611550
  24. Fiodorov A. A. On irrelevance of history of psychology and philosophy of science (a commentary on M.S. Guseltseva's article Types of rationality as the basis for periodizing psychological knowledge). Voprosy Psichologii, 2014, no. 1, pp. 98–105. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21778527
  25. Chernikova I. V. Transdisciplinary Methodologies and Technologies of Contemporary Science. Voprosy Filosofii, 2015, vol. 4, pp. 26–35. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23324925
Date of the publication 30.06.2018