To whom do the foundations of psychology belong and what is their
purpose? These questions are as old as
time. The original foundation dates back
over 2500 years to the first question asked by man about why he (or she)
thinks, feels, and reacts the way they do.
But as a science, William Wundt (1832-1920), founded the first
psychological laboratory as an offshoot of these philosophical questions that
were “unanswerable” using logic and argumentation (Kowalski & Westen, 2011,
p. 9). To grasp psychology and to
understand why people think, feel, and behave requires an understanding of
their biology, psychological experience, and cultural context. Thus there are several major schools of
thought: Structuralism, Functionalism, Behaviorism, Psychoanalysis, and
Sociobiology.
Structuralism, headed by Wundt and Titchener, a student of Wundt, was
the dominant school of thought in the latter half of the nineteenth century and
early twentieth century (Kowalski & Westen, 2011). They suggested psychology as a science was to
observe and analyze the basic elements of consciousness through introspection
using sensations and perceptions of sight, sound, and touch. Through such experiences they encouraged
their subjects to document their contemplations as a method of preparing a
“periodic table of the elements of human consciousness” (p. 9). Functionalism, on the-other-hand, veered away
from focusing on the content of the mind and into the mental processes of the
mind. Its major assumption is that
“consciousness exists because it serves a function” (p. 10). Both structuralism and functionalism derived
from early philosophical theories about human nature, leading to the discovery
of consciousness and functional processes.
Through the works of James Watson (1849-1936) and B.F. Skinner (1904-1990), psychology moved beyond the realm of the scientific into a psychological perspective (p. 15). In the early twentieth century behaviorism became the focus in psychology. Behaviorism focuses on human behavior as it relates to external surroundings and stimuli; suggesting that behavior is a result of the environment, by virtue of experience and gives characteristic content to one’s life. A recurring theme with behaviorism is its ideals of learning from pleasure and pain (e.g., classical conditioning) as demonstrated by Ivan Pavlov’s well known experiment; Pavlov’s Dogs. However, according to Albert Bandura (1977), “most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed…” (p. 22). Since the inception of the behavioral perspective, behaviorists have maintained that scientific knowledge can be obtained through the study of the relationship between environmental events and behavior.
A physician from Viennese, Sigmund Freud (1856-1936), is
responsible for developing a theory for treating psychological disorders
identified as psychoanalysis (Kowalski
& Westen, 2011, p. 13). Freud’s approach,
referred to as the psychodynamic perspective, maintains the theory that people’s
actions reflect thoughts, feelings, and wishes of the subconscious mind. There is further evidence that these
unconscious processes conflict with one another creating uncertainty in events
that lead to conscious thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. However, this perspective is widely
criticized because clinical subjects and analyses are subjective. Those theorists and researchers working with
psychodynamics rely heavily on the case study method of in-depth observation
and continue to incorporate experimental methods to “integrate psychodynamic
thinking with scientific psychology” (Kowalski & Westen, 2011, p. 15).
One of the most
controversial perspectives of psychology suggests a “possible evolutionary and
biological bases of human social behavior;” Sociobiology (Kowalski &
Westen, 2011, p. 22). Based on the analytic
nature of research involved and the lack of generalizations between relations
and variables, in not only this perspective but also in the other social
sciences, the scientific research community has yet to validate any of the
psychological schools of thought (Dreikurs, 1987). However, evolutionary factors (i.e., adaptive
significance) and biological factors (i.e., genetics, the nervous systems, the
cerebrum, and cerebellum, hormonal, and immune systems) all have an effect on
behavior based on the environment and stimulus in which they function. In a study on the biological contributions to
well-being, Hutchinson, et. al., (2010) found “that there is indeed a
biological element to psychological well-being…” (p. 8). The evolutionary factors, as suggested by Darwin’s
theory of evolution, are those biological elements and traits that have helped
the human race survive through the centuries to what it is today.
Although the leading minds in psychology have varied throughout
history, one thing remains constant; their contributions have all contributed
to understanding the beautiful complexities of the mind. Initially, introspection was the dominant
process in scientific psychology, called structuralism, while functionalists
view consciousness as a byproduct of human function. Moving psychology from the scientific realm,
the behaviorist perspective focuses on human behavior as it relates to external
surroundings and stimuli. Which leads to
the psychodynamic perspective; suggesting that thoughts, feelings, and wishes
are a reflection of the subconscious mind.
The most controversial perspective of psychology is that of the biological
and evolutionary elements, that man’s own biochemistry contributes or inhibits
his or her-own psychological makeup. As
quoted by renowned Psychologist Erich Fromm (1947), “Man is the only animal for
whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve…” (para. 1)
No comments:
Post a Comment