Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • Chapter 4 - Esteeming Entities

  • Paul van Geert, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands, Naomi de Ruiter, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Book:
    Toward a Process Approach in Psychology
    Published online:
    14 July 2022
    Print publication:
    28 July 2022, pp 61-85

  • Summary

    This chapter demonstrates how concrete practices align and form a praxis, using the field of self-esteem research as a case study – as one of the most popular concepts in both academic and pseudo psychology. The mainstream praxis of self-esteem research is dissected in the context of enacting a substance ontology. Here Aristotle’s distinction between particulars (i.e., primary substances) and universals (i.e., secondary substances) is applied as a way of making sense of various dominant practices in self-esteem research. The tendency to reify self-esteem is discussed, including how this relates to objectivist measurement-standards of self-esteem, an emphasis on predicting ‘levels’ of self-esteem, and a societal need and felt-responsibility to ‘boost’ self-esteem. I discuss how the mainstream praxis of self-esteem research demonstrates an attempt to position our field (and individual scientist identities) as ‘scientific’, thus revealing a (inaccurate) natural-science envy.