The article deals with epistemic issues of modern psychology with the starting hypothesis being that scientific psychology must satisfy three main interests: scientific, practical and emancipatory interest. Particularly important is the emancipatory interest, which is based on the social reflection of scientific work and conclusions. Psychological knowledge involves not only neutral descriptions of facts, but also implicit rules, expectations regarding values or norms, and criticism of undesirable behavior. The traditional psychological model attempts to satisfy the scientific interest and partly practical interest, while avoiding emancipatory interest. But I believe modern socio-historical models of psychology to be significant precisely owing to the inclusion of emancipatory interest. The difference between these two models of psychology is most obvious in their perception of identity i.e. individuality. Conventional perceptions follow the logic of "possessive individualism" in which the individual is seen as an autonomous bearer and owner of his/her psychological states and processes. The conventional model of identity supports the modernist concept of the individual as being focused on his/her self or personal identity. Socio-historical models, on the other hand, see the individual as a being embedded in social relations and social interactions, and one who builds and expresses his/her individuality through the reflection on social interactions, discursive practices, and response to the hierarchy of power and social mechanisms of control. According to this model, identity evolves through a series of social constructions which are embodied in the individual and represent him/her in society. Identity thus becomes a notion that combines individuality and social context, subjectivation and objectivation of the individual, and historical and biographical time.