IBPS: Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 2007, 41, 1, 1-5

Editorial for

IPBS: INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

Jaan Valsiner Jvalsiner@clarku.edu With this issue, our Journal enters into a new stage of its development. It is marked by a small change in its name from Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science to the present new focus on psychology. That name change goes along with the development of the behavioral sciences, The behavioral science of the 20th century was characterized by the narrow focus on relationships of behavior with their physiological bases. Of course there were notable exceptionssuch as Vladimir Bekhterevs efforts to build general theory of associative reflexes (Bekhterev, 2001), but the main focus in the study of behavioral phenomena has remained narrow in both its theoretical and empirical realms. We now in the 21st century face a more elaborate set of tasks to understand the complexity of relationships within which behavioral phenomena are embedded. These include both behaviors downward ties with the physiological, neuronal, and genetic levels, and its upward ties with social units of organization of lifebe it in groups of animals, or with communities, identities, and consumer fashions in human society. Human culture is solidly based on its biological foundationsbut not explainable solely by those. We can see how in phylogeny new levels of organization of the ways of living emerge-- language and other semiotic systems dramatically change the ways human beingsand some talking apes like Kanzi make sense of their own (and others) behavior. All these levels are mutually relatedyet how these relations work is not yet known. Contemporary sciencesboth biological and socialhave paid lip service to the notion of integration, while in reality they have continued along the lines of their specific ways of creating knowledge within their disciplinary confines. Much important work has emerged in the different areas of inquiryin a way, the fragmentation and segregation has its positive facet for our knowledge. The past of this Journal provides a good example--in its past has been characterized by high quality experimental work in the best laboratory traditions of the heritage of Ivan P. Pavlov and other physiologically grounded perspectives. Pavlovsas well as Bekhterevsbasic ideas of the conditional or associative reflexes remain forever among the basic discoveries of the 1

functioning of the organisms with nervous systems. Yet the behavior of these organisms is not equal to the ways in which their nervous systems function. Each of the levels of organization has its own quality. Hence, all the various forms of social life are not reducible to the basic principles of behavioryet the latter are universally valid within the level of behavior. The focal interests of considering behavior as genetically determined--or of culture as a result of behavioral principles-- would amount to the reduction of one level of organization to anotherrather than systemic coverage of the functional ties between the various levels. If the notion of integration is to be provide solutions to questions of dynamic complexitywhich behavioral and psychological systems entail our sciences need to address the structure of functioning relations between (at least) three consecutive levels. Sofor the study of behavior, the investigation of its meaning (i.e., the level of social cognition, or human culture) as well as of the biological (physiological, neuronal, even genetic) substratesall need to be considered in a truly integrative scheme (Gottlieb, 1999; Valsiner & Rosa, 2006). Organic lifeincluding psychological and social phenomenaexists in complex organisms where different levels of organizationgenetic, neuronal, physiological, behavioral, psychological, sociocultural, political, and aestheticoperate together. Yet in their joint operation they remain differentiated from one another. Maintaining their differences leads to integrated joint work of the levels within the organismhence theoretical reduction of one level into another (e.g., all psychological phenomena are behavioral or all behavioral phenomena are physiologicalor a case of what could be called upward reduction as the claim that all persons are texts can be found in post-modern social sciences) are scientifically not tenable. Psychologys future lies in the integration of careful empirical investigations with basic scientific ideas. The creativity of search for new basic ideas is currently undergoing explosive growth in the biological and social sciences. It is time for a new synthesis of knowledge also in psychology, and in all of behavioral sciences. New perspectivesDynamic Systems Theory (van Geert, 2003), various new ideas in Idiographic Science (Molenaar, 2004), new frontiers in the study of higher primates who can master sophisticated problem solving and language skills (Segerdahl et al, 2005) and the discovery of mirror neuronshave been opened. All these exciting scientific events bring behavioral scientists to be at the leading edge of contemporary behavioral, cognitive, and cultural sciences. The future of human sciences belongs to breakthroughs in psychology yet in ways that unites it with concerns in human genetics, cellular mechanisms of development, neurosciences, evolutionary theories, andlast but not least cultural psychology, anthropology, and sociology. All these different disciplines are united by their general concerns about the open systemic nature of complex phenomena. Open systemsbiological, physiological, psychological, and socialall depend on their exchange relationships with their environments. This

abstract scheme unifies all the biological, social, and behavioral sciences. Of course what the system and its environment mean at different levels of organization of the living matter takes very different concrete forms in different disciplines. Thus, the cellular environment for the processes of gene action differs cardinally from the social environment for the developing human (or primate) cognitive system, and the latter is different from the economic and political environments that are resources for the functioning and historical transformation of societies (Arunima, 2003). Yet behind these different contents are the same general ideasof maintenance of the given state of organization, its variability, and its potential for transformation (development). Behavioral scientists of the past and systemic thinkers such as Kurt Goldstein, Alexander Luria, James Mark Baldwin, Jakob von Uexkll, Kurt Lewin, Charles S. Peirce, and othersunderstood the unity of the biological and social worlds, by adhering to the credo of science as one, universal quest for basic knowledge. The move into dust-bowl empiricism in psychology in the U.S. after World War II, and its corresponding takeover of the social sciences by postmodernist philosophical viewpoints undermined the ideal of unified and basic science. Instead, what we encounter at the present time is increasing fragmentation in the behavioral and social sciences. Each of the sciences carves out its own list of research areas and proceeds to accumulate empirical evidence within these areas. Science becomes, this way, a horizontally proliferating business enterprise where new breakthroughs come by through discovery of previously unstudied content domainsrather than by way of overarching generalizations. Somebody like Albert Einstein would have hard time being appreciated in the psychological and behavioral sciences of the beginning of the 21st century! Our present perspective in the IPBS is to bring universal, general, and abstract science back to the field dominated by accumulation of empirical evidence of little generality. The basic science background of the myriad of careful Pavlovian studies published in the Journal over the past decade creates an excellent basis for widening of its scope, and working towards real integration of biological, psychological, and social theoretical ideas. We will continue to publish careful empirical studies based on single cases -- a legacy from the Pavlovian experimental practice that has survived the social fashions of psychology of the last 50 years. The definitive empirical basis for knowledge about a system is the study of individual casesa simple understanding that has been at the core of all natural sciences. However, it is rarely the case that generalizations based on single cases are carefully scrutinized. Hence we will introduce the practice of publication short commentaries together with empirical reportsto serve the function of integration of ideas triggered byor, better, proven due tothe particular empirical study. Hence the papers to be published in IPBS will be reviewed with such wider integration possibility in mind. We will also publish special issues on particularly relevant topics of the behavioral sciences that can lead our integration of ideas. Contemporary biological sciences bring to the center of scientific attention new possibilities of

solving old problems through analyses of the genome systems. But how does such analysis proceed? What is the general logic of geneticor psychological or socialregulatory processes? Present-day primate research demonstrates the behavioral potentials of higher primates to develop new behavioral techniques (Matsuzawa, 2001) and even sophisticated understanding of human language (Segerdahl, Fields & Savage-Rumbaugh, 2005)-- how can we make sense of such adaptations in terms of their basic principles? At the level of social groups of Homo sapienshow can we understand the transformation of their relationships between war and peace. Georg Simmel challenged the social sciences long ago (Simmel, 1904) to find general answers to such basic questions. He did not succeedbut neither has the whole caravan of social and political scientists since him. In the hyper-speedy world of internet and flashed brief news reports, the goal of creating integration of our basic ideas about the flux of behavioral, cultural, and genetic1 realities remains as viable as it was a century ago. The new IPBS is decidedly international in scope, and interdisciplinary in its focus. Our Editorial Board includes specialists from social and cultural psychology, evolutionary biology, and philosophy. The Editors also bring to the field their different perspectives. I myself am primarily a developmental and cultural psychologist interested in issues of biological organization of human psychology, and its social framing. I believe in the integration of the science of psychology through simultaneous inquiry at the philosophical, theoretical, methodological and phenomenological levels (Branco & Valsiner, 1997). I will bring to IBPS the focus of integration of the careful empirical investigations (the hallmark of IBPS up to now) with wider theoretical issues. I also bring to IBPS a major expansion of its international coverage of ideasand participation of idea carriers. My co-Editors specify that new feature of IBPS very clearlyMiki Takasuna brings to the Journal the expertise in the history of the behavioral sciences, together with the focus on the biological side of the study of psychological processes. Sergio Salvatore leads us to build a new relationship between the behavioral and the psycho-dynamic sides of human functioning. He is interested of developing a dialogue between socioconstructivism and psychodynamic perspectives. From this perspective, he works to re-interpret sub-conscious phenomena from the standpoint of a contexual and semiotic model of mind. On the other side, he extends the socialconstructivist theory of meaning to focus on the role of affective symbolization in the cultural processes of creating subjective personal worlds. These changes in our new version of the esteemed Journal are fitting the new ethos of interdisciplinary scholarship. The old wars of behavioral sciences with the psychodynamic orientation in psychologyusually centered on the
Our current fascination of hero-myth stories about ever new breakthroughs in the genetic science is likely to crumble in the futurewhen the whole extent of flexibility of the self-organization of the generic base becomes revealed. Already now we know of the multitude of mutationsand their self-repairsyet the implication of such flexibility for the limits of practical applicability of gene technologies in societies are not known.
1

archetypal figure of Sigmund Freudare well past. In our present state of science we are faced with the common goal of unraveling the complexity of hyper-dynamic organizational processes at all levels of biological, psychological, social, and cultural functioning. New directions in psychodynamic thought (e.g. Matte Blanco, 1998) or in cultural anthropology (Obeyesekere, 1990) as well as the focus on dynamic systems theory-- are all indicators of a major conceptual turn to the questionhow is dynamic complexity organized? From the efforts of forerunners of physiological psychologyWilhelm Wundt to Ivan Pavlov and Vladimir Bekhterevto our present-day discoveries of the mirror neurons in the brain that question has been crucial for the biological, behavioral, and social sciences. I hope that the new version of IBPS will help to build basic scientific knowledge of such dynamic complex processes. Jaan Valsiner Worcester, Ma. May, 2006 References Arunima, G. (2003). There comes papa: Colonialism and the transformation of matriliny in Kerala, Malabar c. 1850-1940. Hyderabad: Orient Longman. Bekhterev, V. M. (2001). Collective reflexology. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Branco, A. U., & Valsiner, J. (1997). Changing methodologies: A co-constructivist study of goal orientations in social interactions. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9, 1, 35-64. Diriwchter, R. (2004). Vlkerpsychologie: The synthesis that never was. Culture & Psychology, 10(1), 179-203. Gottlieb, G. (1999). Probabilistic epigenesis and evolution. 23rd Heinz Werner Lecture. Worcester, Ma.: Clark University Press. Matsuzawa, T. (Ed.) (2001). Primate origins of human cognition and behavior . Tokyo: Springer Matte Blanco, I. (1998). The unconscious as infinite sets. London: Karnac Books Obeyesekere, G. (1990). The work of culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Segerdahl, P., Fields, W. & Savage-Rumbaugh, S. (2005). Kanzis primal language: the cultural initiation of primates into language. New York: Palgrave. Simmel, G. (1904). The sociology of conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 9, 490-525 (I), 672-689 (II), 798-811 (III). Valsiner, J., & Rosa, A. (Eds.) (2007). The Cambridge handbook of sociocultural psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Van Geert, P. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. In J. Valsiner & K. J, Connolly (Eds), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 640-673). London: Sage.