Human Action:
Troublemaker and troubleshooter in psychological theorizing – and beyond?
Normative concepts play a central role in human conduct and at the same time they are understood as differentia specifica for cultures. Hence the exceptional position of human agency as being intentional, potentially self-reflective and a creator of culture (symbolic meaning and rule systems) was at all times a challenge for psychological theorizing. This is true from the very beginning of the foundation of a “scientific” psychology at the end of the 19th century, and it still is. Since that time the concept of the human action, which seems to be so self-evident and “natural” in daily life, has been troublesome for psychological theorizing, particularly if psychology is considered a natural science like physics of biology. The discussion of action theory will be done from two angles: (a) from a meta-theoretical (epistemological) angle, which focuses on the general status of the interrelationship between agency, action and culture (b) from an integrative angle (which is analytical and empirical), which interrelates cognition and affects, behaviour and cognition, behaviour and control, action and agency.
- The meta-theoretical/epistemological level: Four leading perspectives or paradigms in psychology are distinguished thereby localizing the field of “troubles” more precisely. action theory is contrasted with competing paradigms/perspectives. Several “splits” or “dichotomies” implied in different theoretical perspectives are elaborated (nature/culture; causes/reasons; matter/mind; individual/social aggregate, matter/life), which help to show that these perspective can be understood as being mutually exclusive/incommensurable in Kuhn’s sense. But it is argued that they should basically be understood as being complementary. Additionally, a “moral/ethical” dimension is identified because complementarity implies not only recognizing but also respecting different paradigms in principle. By elaborating on the possible links of the different perspectives and human action, and by following arguments of some philosophers it is proposed to use human action (which also includes reflective processes, see below) quite generally as the basis for science and scientific work, thereby also interrelating the four paradigms distinguished through the human action. It is therefore argued that the very same concept of human action as troublemaker can also be (dialectically) understood as a troubleshooter.
- The integrating perspective aimes at incorporating a variety of psychological concepts into an integrated psychological theory, which at the same time is open for application. Basically this theoretical framework represents a three level model of human actions, all levels are defines by agency activities but also by cultural ressources.
(a) a first level consists of world oriented actions (which lead to goal structures, cognitive schemata, personal preferences and emotional attachments in the agency, and concepts about nature and body, social rites and material culture in the culture);
(b) a second level contains action oriented actions – reflections and regulations – triggered by the experience of some impediments or barriers to first level actions result in normative frameworks/standards – logical, technical, esthetical and scientific – in the agency; and culturally shared patterns of interpretation of nature, cosmos, etc. and rule systems – laws, conventions, sciences, arts – in culture;
(c) a third level is made up of agency oriented actions, self-reflections, implying maintenance and development of personal standards, development of identity, and self-representation, meaning of life morality and religion as well as understanding of co-agency by the agency. At the same time they lead to philosophical principles and religion as well as “personhood” in culture.
These levels imply primary and secondary (symbolic) structurations. The latter are subjectivated concepts at all levels, and symbolizations in cultures at all levels. This theoretical framework will primarily be elaborated and discussed in the meeting.
