“The universal thought has no voice, and anyone who says that speaks on its behalf, just gives it his own voice. How can one speak with a universal point of view, when he|she is not universal? Person can not have any other point of view except their own. “It seems to me a very appropriate introduction to this quote from the essay ” Pierre and Cineas ” Simone de Beauvoir. On the one hand there is already a reflection of the abyss and the similarity between scientism and antiscience tradition in clinical psychology, and on the other it is an expression of my personal position, which will permeate further arguments.
Before we disclose position of clinical psychology in this matter, I will give the definition. Scientism – is ideology that was born in the second half of the 18th century and still exists. It is claims that the truth can be found only in scientific progress. A striking example of scientism is Eugenics: in 1984 one of the cities of the world developed one of the highlights programs to “improve” society. People were selected according to the level of intellect and social status, the birth rate was artificially regulated through the best deals for people with not hight intellectual level, according to their opinion, this deal was sterilization. It is important that this people have developed the concept of “normal people” and thus artificially created those who is not included to this concep . All of this was based on a scientific dogmas, wich were arrogant in the ideal. In clinical psychology the same thing happens with the concept of normlity and pathology, where experts are abusing them. Clinical psychologist has a set of standard tests (memory, attention, thinking), when persone comes to a psychiatric hospital, often doctors can only see a patient in him, they are give to him the standard set and waiting when he will fulfill it, after checking the results and writing standard conclusion. The principle of individualization is almost lost. They always look only at what is “not normal” or “broken”, a subject-object interaction. Few, but fortunately, such psychologists are exists, who are looking on him as a person, with his individual characteristics, history and emotions. They are trying to help, not to do him together with a psychiatrist quiet, that he will not interfere. They takes years of psychotherapy and always asking what this person wants.
Antistsientizm- is philosophical world view, which suggests that scientific knowledge should be strictly limited by itself and it is not something more than other variations of knowledge (everyday, religious, etc.). This is the direction in which the person takes for itself the decision and also responsible for each of them. For example, if a clinical psychologist is going to conduct a study, one of the questions that it sets itself – it is a question of wich results will come out, why do they need, how they can influence and what he will do with them in the future and what responsibility he will carry. Anti-scientism can be divided into moderate and extreme. Extreme characterized in that it is opposed to science itself at whole.
Clinical psychology is often placed higher in professional community, than religion or esoterics. I’m talking about such thing when the client makes its deliberate choice of a particular practice. It is still echoes of the scientistic tradition.
All pathopsychology was based on the basis of qualitative research rather than quantitative. As an example antiscience tradition can lead Ludwig Binswanger, who proposed an existential psychiatry “… science can not confirm the value, as it confirms the theory – if only she can not potentially reduce this value to the” fact “..”.
Another representative of existentialism, a psychologist and psychiatrist Karl Jaspers. He wrote that the truth in philosophy is purely personal nature and is presented in the form of activities having the character of existence (the subject who says “I” through the activities in which he is an independent and at the same time unable to see his ego).
With regard to such method in clinical psychology as psychotherapy, to my mind it is quite difficult to make a comparative analysis, because a representative of any school may modify his own approach in one direction or another, it rather depends on the personality of a psychologist, his relationship to the people which are in the hospital, as well as the workload (if a clinical psychologist is responsibile for several departments at the same time and he needs to conduct neuro, pathological diagnosis, write a conclusion, and even psychotherapy, here we can more talk about the profesional burnout than about individualizing approach to the people who come to the reception). In general, such areas as psychoanalysis, cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy belong rather to scientistic tradition.
While finishing university and communicating with colleagues from other universities is not difficult to trace research trends. Works such as case studies are very rare and students are also do not think about the responsibility for their studies. Also in the research results sometimes appear conclusions about human nature, which is doubtful, because while doing research, we already have some psychological, physiological performance. If the coordinates are already set, it is not surprising that the point is one to which we came.