Crisi della politica e ruolo della psicologia: le nostre "variazioni sul tema"

In a recent publication, Carli and Paniccia have identified two different approaches in Psychological Sciences. On one hand, the aim of Psychology would be to formulate general laws which may scientifically explainhuman behavior. On the other hand, Psychology would be regarded as a science of intervention, whose aim is to produce changes in individuals inrelation to their background.These are undoubtedly opposing perspectives. Although the first one is traditionally the most widely adopted, Carli and Paniccia observe that its effects on people’s lives and well-being, on coexistence and on communities have been minimal.For years our interest has focused on the current role of Psychology too. As a matter of fact, the only negative effect of such an excessive interest on scientific strictness is the gradual isolation ofPsychological Sciences. Unlike Carliand Paniccia, in our opinion Psychology –in order to foster their development –needs to concentrate on both individuals and their background (2004, p. 126). Moreover, it is vital for Psychology to reinforce its status of ‘politically involved science ofcoexistence’ (Di Maria, 2000). Namely, it means acknowledging that the political sphere has an influence on individuals’ lives (Elias, 1991) and that Psychological Sciences inevitably have a ‘political function and responsibility’ (Pagliarani, 1977).After all, itwould not be possible to analyze cultural and social changes and their impact on individuals without offering first a political consideration of such changes. Our ‘variations on the theme’ support this vision, stating the crucial role of politics in human existence and, in general, in the development of valuable relationships inside the polis.A clarification of our interpretation of politically-structured intervention is also provided, through the description of the research/intervention we have recently conducte