TY - JOUR

T1 - Concerning the Importance of Ontological Issues for Cultural Psychology

T2 - a Reply to Comments

AU - Mironenko, Irina A.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media New York.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - The paper continues the “ontological” discussion in IBPS, addressing the question of the importance of ontological issues for contemporary development of cultural psychology. The language psychological science speaks is considered as an ontological issue and a most topical one for cultural psychology, aiming at “constructing a psychology that is universal while being culture-inclusive” (Valsiner 2009, p.2). Ontological issues could stay implicit and neglected, as long as the ‘etant, “the mode of being”, “the particularities” were discussed within the circle of adherents of one and the same school, who implicitly had in mind the same ‘entre. However, as soon as the discussion involves representatives of different schools, ontological issues become crucial for mutual understanding and meanings of the words have to be explicated. Same words like “psyche”, “subjectivity”, “social”, “culture”, etc., − often mean different things when they are pronounces or written by representatives of different theoretical trends. The discussion of the ‘etant without clear indicating of the ‘entre under consideration is likely to turn into a Babel. Global modernity requires constant efforts and insistent desire for mutual understanding across the diversified global scientific community. Thus, creative collaboration in epistemological developments has to ground on clear comprehension of the ontological stances of the debaters.

AB - The paper continues the “ontological” discussion in IBPS, addressing the question of the importance of ontological issues for contemporary development of cultural psychology. The language psychological science speaks is considered as an ontological issue and a most topical one for cultural psychology, aiming at “constructing a psychology that is universal while being culture-inclusive” (Valsiner 2009, p.2). Ontological issues could stay implicit and neglected, as long as the ‘etant, “the mode of being”, “the particularities” were discussed within the circle of adherents of one and the same school, who implicitly had in mind the same ‘entre. However, as soon as the discussion involves representatives of different schools, ontological issues become crucial for mutual understanding and meanings of the words have to be explicated. Same words like “psyche”, “subjectivity”, “social”, “culture”, etc., − often mean different things when they are pronounces or written by representatives of different theoretical trends. The discussion of the ‘etant without clear indicating of the ‘entre under consideration is likely to turn into a Babel. Global modernity requires constant efforts and insistent desire for mutual understanding across the diversified global scientific community. Thus, creative collaboration in epistemological developments has to ground on clear comprehension of the ontological stances of the debaters.

KW - Conceptual apparatus

KW - Cultural psychology

KW - Global science

KW - Language of science

KW - Ontology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019723874&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12124-017-9397-3

DO - 10.1007/s12124-017-9397-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 28547379

VL - 51

SP - 496

EP - 504

JO - Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

JF - Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

SN - 1932-4502

IS - 3

ER -