Psychological Theorising in Transdisciplinary Perspective

  • Wolfgang Maiers


The call for interdisciplinarity within psychology appears to be an ambivalent one. The integration of investigative practices and knowledge from other academic realms into psychology has recurrently been tantamount to sacrificing an independent understanding of the psychological. It is not only with respect to the (wishful) emulation of physics or to the advance of computer-scientific metaphors, with the cognitive turn, that psychology’s history can be written as the history of an “imitative science”. The same holds true for alternative designs of psychology as an interpretative investigation in strict analogy to the hermeneutics of textual material. Interdisciplinarity raises issues of the possible unity of the sciences and of how this relates to reality. The scientific program of materialist dialectics, while facing up to the philosophical problem of realism, opens a new perspective for an explanatory understanding of the totality of nature and society that does not concern itself with disciplinary entrenchments. In this vein, Critical Psychology builds its own specifically psychological conceptual and methodological system within a truly “transdisciplinary” framework.


Evolutionary Psychology Human Consciousness Interdisciplinary Cooperation Materialist Dialectic Critical Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brockmeier, J. (1997). Narrative realities, human possibilities. In Brockmeier, J. (Ed.) Narrative realities:Perspectives on the self, 4–17. Vienna: Internationales Forschungszentrum Kulturw i ssenschaften.Google Scholar
  2. Brockmeier, J. and Harré, R. (1997). Narrative: Problems and promises of an alternative paradigm. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30 (4), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Leontiev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness & personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  4. Maiers, W. (1988). Has psychology exaggerated its ‘natural scientific character’? Remarks concerning an empirical topic and a methodological desideratum of ‘theoretical psychology’. In W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. van Rappard & H.J. Stam (Eds) Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 133–143 ). New York/Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Maiers, W. (1999). Critical Psychology — an unfinished modern project. In W. Maiers, B. Bayer, B. D. Esgalhado, R. Jorna & E. Schraube (Eds) Challenges to theoretical psychology (pp. 457–466 ). North York: Captus Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ratner, C. (1988). Psychology’s relation to biology: qualitatively distinct levels. In W. J. Baker, L. P. Mos, H. van Rappard & H.J. Stain (Eds) Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 95–105 ). New York/Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rose, H. (1998). Evolutionary psychology: Social Darwinism and the standard social science model. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
  8. Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1992). Psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds) The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136 ). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Maiers
    • 1
  1. 1.Free University of BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations