Abstract
In a recent article Fowers and Richardson raised epistemological eyebrows by recasting the cognitive aggression formulation of Huesmann, Eron and associates within a critical hermeneutic analysis. They highlighted certain ideological and value choices, especially of `liberal individualism', linked to violence and its control; these constrained research and limited the range of questions asked. This `hermeneutic' vs `naturalistic, empiricist' debate offers a valuable starting-point for a broader, critical-historical, multi-level analysis of phenomena such as aggression. After historically situating Huesmann and Eron's research programme within mainstream psychology, the development of a consensus about aggression research strategies is traced at three levels-scientific, meta-scientific and extra-scientific. Such historical and multi-level analyses point to a need for both traditional positivist and alternative perspectives to reconceptualize, for both their research and practice, the moral dimension of scientific psychology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
