Why psychology has negelected symbolism and what a realist approach can offer

Symbolism and symbolic activity, as part of the wider field of meaning, dominate human behaviour and mental life. Yet mainstream psychology has neglected them. In the first part of this paper I consider the reasons for this neglect, showing how the conclusions in the extensive extra-psychological literature on symbolism were shared and reinforced during the development of scientific psychology. Although recent new movements in psychology, pushing towards expansion and integration, have provided a climate favourable for the return of meaning and symbolism, there remains the major hurdle of finding a coherent metatheoretical framework. All frameworks proposed, including the supposed realism of mainstream psychology, are tainted by Cartesianism and antirealism. In the second part of the paper I explore the potential of a thoroughgoing realist approach, as characterised by practical consistency with respect to the logic of discourse, a relational view of mind, adherence to the distinction between relations and the terms related, ontological egalitarianism, and a broader conception of scientific method as critical inquiry. This realist framework entails the legitimacy of relational phenomena such as symbolism for scientific investigation. It also leads to the identification of a number of logical constraints and psychological requirements which any theory of symbolism must meet. These requirements are violated or neglected in traditional approaches to symbolism across various disciplines. In contrast, a version of psychoanalytic theory can be offered which not only adheres to the aspects of a thoroughgoing realism, but also provides the basis for a theory of symbolism in which the logical constraints are respected and the psychological requirements met. In this way, realism promotes the rehabilitation of symbolism within mainstream psychology.