Políticas de ensañamiento y prácticas de relevo de la enseñanza de la Psicología en Rosario

Abstract

Partiendo de la diferencia mínima y la solidaridad mutua que la lengua castellana asigna a enseñar y ensañar, se propone aquí un relevamiento del estado actual en que se encuentran los planes de estudio de las carreras de Psicología de Rosario, merced a los lineamientos consensuados entre las Universidades públicas y privadas del país, y exigidos por los organismos evaluadores comunes a las mismas. La orientación de los planes de estudio remite a una formación cuya hegemonía histórica bascula entre la perspectiva individualista del psiquismo y su parcelación en áreas de trabajo o campos de saber, perfectamente delimitados y diferenciados entre sí. En ello radica lo que podría denominarse un ensañamiento inherente a la enseñanza universitaria en Psicología, en tanto se supone, según la lógica vigente, que el ordenamiento de heterogéneos saberes confluirá en la ecuánime repartición de prácticas profesionales según cinco áreas de conocimiento (laboral, clínica, forense, educacional, y social comunitaria) que propician su ajustado saber-hacer en presunta coincidencia con los campos laborales de ejercicio profesional legitimados.

Based on the minimal difference and mutual solidarity that spanish language assigned to teach and enrage, we suggest a survey of the current state in which they find the curriculums of psychology careers in Rosario city, thanks to the guidelines agreed between the public and private universities, and required by evaluators common agencies to them. The orientation of the curriculums refers to a training whose historical hegemony shifts between the individualistic perspective of the psychism and its subdivision in work areas or fields of knowledge, perfectly defined and differentiated from each other. Therein lies what might be called an inherent enragement in psychology university education, as it should according to the current logic, that the system of heterogeneous knowledge will converge on the fair distribution of professional practice according to five areas of knowledge (work, clinic, forensic, educational and social community) that favor its adjusted know-how in alleged match to labor camps legitimate practice. However, a critical look reveals what the political-academic history of psychology is constantly invisible: power struggles into a disciplinary field as complex and heterogeneous, favor and exclude certain practices, following the guidelines of a saturated and in permanent growth market. So, it seems that the psi practical acquire consistency from its adjectives (Labor and Clinical Psychology, Forensic, Educational, Social and Community), or its substantive (Psychology of Labor, Health, Education, etc.), keeping a centenary medical model that divides the profession in specialties and then aspiring to a integral approach as a mechanism for integration of those alleged first fragmented knowledge.