Hermeneutic Approach to Psychology

Discussion Questions

Consider a society where abnormal was normal and anti-social behaviour was considered proper. How different would psychology be? Would the hermeneutic approach be our best shot at treating people?

How would you address the idea of free will using the natural science approach? Does autonomy and historic relevance exist within the current framework of mainstream psychology? Explain your answer why or why not.

Considering that people can interact with their own classifications and either wear them or turn away from them, how important is labeling someone (depressed, PTSD etc)? And does it help them treatment wise? How would a hermeneutic approach differ?

Strengths of Hermeneutic study of persons

Weaknesses of hermeneutic study

"All meaning systems are open-ended systems of signs referring to signs referring to signs. No concept can therefore have an ultimate, unequivocal meaning" (Waever 1996 pp. 171)

Non generalizable - meanings derivative of time and place, context and place in history.

Deals in particulars - what is unique about practical knowledge is that is deals is particulars (Aristotle in Phillips 1996)

Hermeneutics helpful to psychiatry and psychological study as its concerned with the general and the particular, as well as context

Hermeneutic approach to counseling would consider interpreting the meaning structures that play a role in any given condition

There is great emphasis on history, acknowledging that "there is no value-free or presuppositionless orientation" (Phillips 1996, pp. 68)

Hermeneutic biopsychosocial framework

Current philosophical underpinnings of DSM

- posivitist

- political assumptions about normal vs. abnormal

The weakness of the DSM exists within the "depersonalizing classificatory focus, the biopsychosocial template reinforces the need for attention for individual patients' meaning structures and lived experience" (Healy 2010 pp.171).

Clinical diagnosis calls for a balance between art and science - using reflective understanding and informed judgement - transcending '"rule determined, technical rationality" (Healy 2010 pp. 171) that the DSM provides.

Re cap - The need for a pluralistic approach

Hermeneutics explored

Hermeneutic method - NOT introspection or intuition but understanding human expression through being human

Hermeneutic circle (Schleiermacher) - 'Part/Whole' structure in the understanding of meaning not causal relations as in the physical science approach

for e.g. the part is understood because of the whole and the whole is understood because of the part - like a chapter in a book.

Physical science method unsuitable for understanding consciousness

Hacking - human kinds (persons) can be aware of their own classifications, change classifications and interact with them, however physical objects and animals cannot.

Distinctions made between objects of study and their suitable methodology of study -

objects of study = physical science method

persons = cultural/human science method

Explanations (natural science) vs Understanding (human sciences or the Geisteswissenschaften)

Causal relations only creates a 'knowing' from the outside

A network of meanings via human connection through human interpretation

The art and science of interpreting - "Whenever rules and systems of explaining, understanding, or diciphering texts arise, there is hermeneutics" - Thompson J, 1981

Moving towards a metaphysics of persons

Hermeneutics goes all the way back to ancient Greek Philosophy, and emerges as a crucial force in the middle ages for understanding and uncovering meaning in biblical texts

A shift occurs from "How to read?" to "How do we communicate at all?"

19th C saw hermeneutics broadened to understanding the human mental realm, championed by Wilhelm Dilthey - a response to the model that all knowledge must follow the physical science method

Hermeneutic Approach to Psychology