Search

To clarify the historical origins of theoretical and methodological problems faced by Argentinian psychology today, this article describes the philosophical and epistemological ideas held by psychoanalytically oriented professors and transmitted to undergraduate students during the institutionalization and professionalization of psychology at Argentinian universities between 1962 and 1983. Drawing from primary sources such as official publications and undergraduate syllabi, we analyze the systematic and normative perspective of those psychoanalysts on issues such as the nature of science, the scientific method, and the legitimate ways to do research. We argue that the philosophical approach they defended within psychology programs was markedly relativistic, solipsistic, and often recursive, leading them to conceive of psychoanalysis both as a meta‐theory and a self‐sufficient science. The fact that this "theory‐laden" philosophy of science was gradually adopted by psychology graduates (or undergraduates) throughout their education could thus help explain several epistemological beliefs currently held by a majority of Argentinian psychologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary Argentinian psychology has a unique characteristic: it is identified with psychoanalysis. Nonpsychoanalytic theories and therapies are difficult to find. In addition, there is an overt antiscientific attitude within many psychology programs. How should this be explained? In this paper, we claim that a philosophical history of psychology can shed new light on the development of Argentinian psychology by showing that early Argentinian psychoanalysts held positions in the newborn psychology programs and a distinctive stance toward scientific research in general and psychology in particular. In the absence of an explicit and articulate philosophical position, psychoanalysts developed an implicit meta‐theory that helped shape the context that led to the institutionalization and professionalization of psychology in Argentina. Although we do not establish or even suggest a monocausal link between their ideas and the current state of Argentinian psychology, we do claim that their impact should be explored. Finally, we discuss some limitations of our study and suggest future complementary investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]