Is Psychology A Science? (Re: Zizek and Peterson)

By Raymond E Perrier (Front Porch Philosopher)

For some readers, this question might be perplexing. In fact, the very implication that psychology might not be a science could be offensive. Maybe you took a Psyche 101 class and loved it. Maybe you're a psychologist or have a psyche degree and believe that psychology is a science without qualification. In any case, this question gets debatedon the world wide web from time to time and I always find the arguments interesting. The reason that I am posing the question here and now is to prep for an upcoming series of podcast episodes that will analyze, critique, and explain a future debate (April 19, 2019) between Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson. (If you aren't familiar with either person, don't be alarmed they both have plenty of YouTube videos and podcast appearances that you can consume before the debate airs.) My main interest in talking about this question is in regards to these two public intellectuals. Premise: psychology includes a sub-discipline called psychoanalysis (for now at least) and both Peterson and Zizek depend heavily on psychoanalytic theory to defend their political and cultural philosophies.

As I prepare for our pre-debate episodes it seemed prudent to contemplate Zizek's and Peterson's psychological methodologies in order to determine just how scientific, if at all, they actually are.   SO, are Zizek and Peterson scientists in any sense of the term? To answer that question I think we need to quickly ask the original question: 

Is Psychology a Science? 

Answer: Psychology is a science of intangibles. (I will admit that this is a weird definition--potentially problematic---in fact, it might not hold up upon further discussion on the front porch but here it is anyways....sorry Michael!!) 

Definition: I am going to skirt around standard methodological considerations and go straight to defining "intangible." An intangible science is one that, simply stated, studies the intangible stuff like experiences/events of human (and animal) emotions, behaviors, interactions between multiple psyches, maturation of psyches, etc. On the other side, are those sciences that focus primarily on the tangible stuff (i.e., the physical not the psychical phenomena). One thinks of disciplines like physics, biology, neurobiology, chemistry, so forth and so on. Tangible stuff would be the materialistic and include all measurable phenomenon like chemical states of the brain that are associated with emotion, or brain scans that measure differences in social interactions and human maturity. 

TO BE CLEAR, for anyone getting fidgety about this distinction (again, Michael), I'm only saying that the primary focus of psychology is to study the intangible stuff.  Psychological studies are not limited in scope to intangibles any more than physicists, biologists, and chemists are limited to the study of tangible phenomenon, though that is still their primary scope of research and methodological basis. Psychology, like other disciplines that are not purely tangible, frequently use the research methods and theories/discoveries from other sciences. But the tangible grounds of research are not its home either, which is why people often question the 'scientific' validity of psychology. (See this LA Times article for example). Psychologists are trying to help/understand human beings, some of whom are in need of psychiatric care, so while there is a tangible component to their research the primary goal is pragmatic and deals heavily with intangible experiences. 

Importance of Asking the Question: Why is this question important? I will limit my response here to the psychological sub-discipline in which Zizek and Peterson ground most of their work, namely, psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis is a contentious area of psychological studies (if it can even be called that anymore...sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't).  It was made famous by individuals from the 20th century like Freud, Jung, and Lacan. But while the sub-discipline's psychological contributions are important and historically relevant, the field as a whole is arguably antiquated and less useful today as a paradigm for psychological studies as a whole and psychiatric care in particular. The reason for this turn away from psychoanalysis, especially in the clinical context of psychology, is varied. As it stands right now there is no clear view of how psychoanalysis will fit into the larger scientific context in years to come. (I leave the question open here because a new field of study, neuropsychoanalysis, is reviving some interest in the possibility of salvaging some psychoanalytic principles.)

So where does that leave Zizek and Peterson? I will end this post with a brief summation of my current thoughts.

-   Zizek would cringe at the thought of being called a scientist. He uses psychoanalysis to bolster his literary analysis and develop his political, cultural, and economic philosophies.

-   Peterson....is a scientist, BUT ONLY, when he submits academic papers in peer review journals. When he uses psychoanalysis to develop commentary on biblical literature or to create broad sweeping theories about society, culture, and politics then he definitely isn't a scientists in those moments.

How does this impact their debate? Watch out for our upcoming pre-debate episode to here more on that subject.