The Crisis in Psychology

257

Now let us suppose that we have various centers as in the case of a debate

between separate disciplines that aspire to become the center, or in the case of

different ideas claiming to be the central explanatory principle. It is obvious that

to these will correspond different circumferences and each new center will at the

same time be a peripheral point on the former circumference. Consequently, we

get several circumferences that intersect with each other. In our example this new

position of each circumference graphically represents the special area of knowledge

that is covered by psychology depending on the center, i.e., the general discipline.

Whoever takes the viewpoint of the general discipline, i.e., deals with the facts

of the special disciplines not on a footing of equality, but as the material of a

science, just as these disciplines themselves deals with the facts of reality, will im-

mediately change the viewpoint of critique for the viewpoint of investigation. Criti-

cism is on the same level as what is being criticized; it proceeds fully within the

given discipline; its goal is exclusively critical and not positive; it wishes to know

only whether and to what extent some theory is correct; it evaluates and judges,

but does not investigate. A criticizes B, but both Occupy the same position as to

the facts. Things change when A begins to deal with B as B does with the facts,

i.e., when he does not criticize B, but investigates him. The investigation already

belongs to general science, its tasks are not critical, but positive. It does not wish

to evaluate some theory, but to learn something new about the facts themselves

which are represented in the theory. While science uses critique as a means, the

course [of the investigation, Russian eds.] and the result of this process nevertheless

differ fundamentally from a critical examination. Critique, in the fmal analysis, for-

mulates an opinion about an opinion, albeit a very solid and well-founded ppinion.

A general investigation establishes, ultimately, objective laws and facts.

Only he who elevates his analysis from the level of the critical discussion of

some system of views to the level of a fundamental investigation by means of the

general science will understand the objective meaning of the crisis that is taking

place in psychology. He will see the lawfulness of the clash of ideas and opinions

that is taking place, which is determined by the development of the science itself

and by the nature of the reality it studies at a given level of knowledge. Instead

of a chaos of heterogeneous opinions, a motley discordance of subjective utterances,

he will see an orderly blueprint of the fundamental opinions concerning the devel-

opment of the science, a system of the objective tendencies which are inherent in

the historical tasks brought forward by the development of the science and which

act behind the backs of the various investigators and theorists with the force of a

steel spring. Instead of critically discussing and evaluating some author, instead of

establishing that this author is guilty of inconsistency and contradictions, he will

devote a positive investigation to the question what the objective tendencies in sci-

ence require. And as a result, instead of opinions about an opinion he will get an

outline of the skeleton of the general science as a system of defining laws, principles

and facts.

Only such an investigator realizes the real and correct meaning of the catas-

trophe that is taking place and has a clear idea of the role, place, and meaning of

each different theory or school. Rather than by the impressionism and subjectivism

inevitable in each criticism, he will be led by scientific reliability and veracity. For

him (and this will be the first result of the new viewpoint) the individual differences

will vanish—he will understand the role of personality in history. He will understand

that to explain reflexology’s claims to be a universal science from the personal mis-

takes, opinions, particularities, and ignorance of its founders is as impossible as to

explain the French revolution from the corruption of the king or court. He will see

what and how much in the development of science depends upon the good and