Indigenous Psychology in the Post- Colonial Context: An Historical Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many psychologists in India today have accepted the characterisation of India as a "develop ing" country that must emulate the "advanced" countries. This position implies that tech nological advance is the epitome of "progress". As noted by Bury, the "idea of progress" is a product of the intellectual history of Europe. It is not only Eurocentric, but is deeply coloured by Hegel's notions of the irreversible nature of history, and of the inevitable superiority of the European civilisation in the march of history. Hegel's understanding of India was the dialectical opposite of Schopenhauer's rather naive idealisation of ancient Indian culture, and both need a corrective. Influenced by Comtean positivism, presentism, and scientism, most psychologists in India today have developed an amnesia for the long history of the exchange of ideas between India and Europe. In contemporary Western thought, positivism has been declared dead; the idea of perpetual progress through technology is questioned due to the fear of a nuclear holocaust and impending ecological disaster; and the philosophy of science has taken a hermeneutic turn. The rise of interpretive social science and hermeneutic psychology signals the prospect of a holistic understanding of alien cultures. With its own rich tradition of textual interpretation and its practical use in personal edification, India has much to offer to enrich hermeneutic and existential psychologies. With the gradual fading of the colonial mentality in both the so-called "developing" and "developed" countries, the time is ripe for psychological insights of the hermeneutic traditions of India and Europe to converge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".