Culturally Inclusive Psychology from a Constructionist Standpoint

To illuminate the life of a single individual is a contribution to history; to illuminate what is true of all human beings is to make history. Such is the underlying logic of psychological science since its inception. The major search has been—and continues to be—toward establishing fundamental principles or laws of perception, cognition, motivation, emotion, learning, aggression, and so on. In contrast, case studies, biographical research, and life-history research occupy but a minor and typically neglected niche in disciplinary structure. Psychology is not alone in this penchant within the social or behavioral sciences. Particularly within sociology and economics, the search for general theories is dominant. This universalizing posture owes its existence, in important part, to natural science research and to the supporting role of 20 century philosophy of science. As the 20 century unfolded, the generalizing sciences of chemistry, physics, biology, and medicine had demonstrated substantial productivity, and logical positivist metatheory provided a congenial rationale for privileging the general over the specific. In effect, a fully sophisticated and empirically grounded theory of the general would be able to account for all particulars, while a focus on particulars could never yield a general theory. Here was indeed a first step toward inclusion, as psychological scientists from all cultures could be welcomed into participation. Yet, in recent decades this search for universals has come under increasing criticism. Specifically, in its exclusive focus on human nature in general, specific cultural configurations are erased from view. Not only do cultural differences fail to figure in these generalized formulations, but the specific concepts, values, and practices of the many cultures of the world are silenced. As increasingly voiced, Western psychology has defined itself as a universal psychology, and has thus functioned as a suppressive form of colonization. Increasingly, then, attempts have been made to recognize and appreciate specific cultural variations. At the same time, the attraction of culture specific psychologies has not been without its pitfalls. Most specifically, should each culture establish its own form of psychology, there would be a resulting balkanization of the discipline. In effect, psychology Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour ••:•• DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12059