Psychosocial Studies - Assignment Example

What is Psychosocial Studies? How can this type of approach help us to a better understanding of the self and society? In the context of modern society, the needs of individuals and social groups are addressed using a particular framework, known as psychosocial studies; these studies can be described in general terms as an amalgamation of psychology and sociology. The understanding of the role of psychosocial studies requires the identification of the context of psychology and sociology – as sectors influencing the development of social critical thinking. In accordance with Johnson (1960) the sociology can be defined as ‘the science that deals with social groups’ (Johnson, 1960, 2); in the context of this mission, sociology tends to be ‘empirical, theoretical and cumulative’ (Johnson, 1960, 2). Sociology, in the above context, is a discipline studying the impacts of society on individuals. As for psychology, this can has been described as ‘the science of the soul’ (Goelenius in Banerjee, 1994, 225) and as ‘the science of consciousness’ (Banerjee, 1994, 225); at this point the content of consciousness should be described. Banerjee (1994) refers to the Locke’s definition of consciousness; Locke supported that ‘consciousness is the perception of what passes in man’s own mind’ (Banerjee, 1994, 225). The relationship between psychology and consciousness reveals the point of differentiation between sociology and psychology: the former addresses the social groups while the latter focuses on the individual – as the subject of consciousness, in the context of the definitions mentioned above. In other words, sociology and psychology are two disciplines, which are basically developed independently having different priorities and serving different needs. On the other hand, the points of interaction between sociology and psychology are also revealed: both disciplines are related at the point that all individuals are members of the society – as set by Aristotle. On the other hand, the responses of individuals to their environment may be differentiated under the influence of a series of factors; usually, the personal experiences and views have a crucial role in the development of specific human behaviour. However, certain times, the reactions to events of the personal or the social life are not aligned with the personal characteristics and attitudes but they are rather formulated in accordance with the rules and the ethics held in the society. It is clear that the framework in which the person can act independently has to be clearly defined – setting the borders of personal acting. Moreover, concepts like the agency need to be clarified as they can affect the level of independency of the ‘self’ – referring to the member of the society who has to face the following dilemma: to set limits in his freedom – which is any case developed in accordance with the existing social rules – or to keep his independency in acting within the society – a decision which could define his future powers to participate in critical social decisions. The understanding of the framework of psychosocial studies requires the reference to the concepts of self and society, which tend to continuously interact. The reference to the historical development of social psychology – as related with sociology and psychology – frameworks would be also required – offering the necessary theoretical basis in order to understand current nature and role of psychosocial studies. The term ‘self’ is used for referring to the person as independent unit within the society; ‘self’ is differentiated from the term ‘citizen’ as the latter is clearly related with certain society while the ‘self’ emphasizes on the independency of person to develop social and personal activities, including its potential to live in another country and become member of another society. In other words, ‘self’ is used for highlighting the independency of person within a specific social environment (Τhompson, 2004, 38). The ‘self’ as a person can be restricted by limitations imposed under specific political and social orders – or else, for being aligned with the local political and social trends; those factors influencing the independency – known also as agency – of a ‘self’ are known as structure. Agency, as the freedom to act independently, is considered as a primary right of ‘self’ (Hersen et al., 2004, 441); however, under the influence of various factors (or else structure) the independency of the ‘self’ can be restricted; however, this restriction will be the result of personal willingness – for being member of a specific society; it cannot exist by nature, as in the case of agency. The role of ‘self’ within the society should be also explored; in accordance with Leydesdorff (1993, 331) ‘the society should be considered a self-organizing system’; in other words, the society reflects the ‘self’; furthermore, the ‘self’ can develop a series of social practices that will be incorporated in the culture of a particular society – at this point, the ‘self’ becomes ‘an agent for the development of social processes’ (Fiske, 1989, 2) taking a role that further proves the interaction between the self and the society; at the next level, the characteristics and the needs of the ‘self’ cannot be totally independent from the society. From this point of view, psychosocial studies are of particular importance reflecting the needs of the ‘self’ both as individual and as member of a social group. The relationship and the interaction between the ‘self’ and the society would be used in order to understand the value of psychosocial studies within specific social conditions; however, it would be necessary to refer primarily to the historical development of sociology – as part of psychosocial studies; under these terms, the potential interaction between sociology and psychology would become clear. Hewstone et al. (2001) noted that the history of social thought is characterized by two major trends/ opposite interests: ‘a) the influence of society on its members and b) the role of individuals as constituents of society’ (Hewstone et al., 2001, 3); social thought has been developed within societies worldwide under the influence of a series of political and social events. As a term, social thought refers the perceptions of individuals as members of the society; in this context, social thought can be related with personal thought, a term referring to the personal views as developed in the context of a specific social environment. Under these terms, social thought can interact with psychology, the science that focus on the mental activities of persons, as individuals and as groups. It is expected, therefore, that the historical development of social thought can reflect elements of the relevant history of psychology – which appeared significantly later. Hewstone et al (2001) noted that in its initial appearance, social thought had two forms, known as ‘Platonic’ and ‘Aristotelian’ (Hewstone et al., 2001, 5); in accordance with Plato social thought should emphasize on the obligation of individual to follow the rules set by the authorities. Through the specific view, the superiority of state over the individual is established; however, this superiority does not lead to the extinction of ‘self’; rather the person as member of the community has the power to control the authorities – by voting and participating in all political activities. In this way, authorities – which are characterized by morality – do not negatively influence the ‘self’; moreover, the ‘agency’, i.e. the limitations of the independency of ‘self’ – can be considered as justified, responding to political and social needs that are aligned with existing ethics. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that a person cannot live outside of the society – he is necessarily part of the society; in this context, the mission of ‘self’ is to develop social relationships, which are expected to benefit not only himself but also the state (Hewstone et al., 2001, 5). In modern societies, the views of sociologists on society and self have been slightly differentiated; however, still these two concepts interact – even if not at the same level in societies worldwide. In the study of Elchardus (2009) ‘the post-tradition is equalized with a social order characterized by a strong degree of individualization’ (Elchardus, 2009, 146); this view can lead to the assumption that in modern societies the power of self towards the society has been increased; individualism cannot lead to the elimination of the interaction between self and society; such outcome would negative affect the psychosocial studies which are based on the rules of sociology and of psychology addressing the needs both of individuals and the society. A similar issue is noted in the study of Martin et al. (1997); in this study also the turbulences in the relationship between the self and the society are highlighted; emphasis is given on the concept of ‘dualism’ as referring to ‘the relation of psychological mind to sociocultural world’ (Martin et al., 1997, 120); the development of dualism cannot lead to the limitation of the relationship between the pcychology and the sociology; these two concepts may have own characteristics and targets however they both refer to the ‘self’ either as an individual person or as a member of a team. In accordance with the issues developed above, all humans are likely to be influenced by two different sets of factors: their needs and their perceptions. The effort to evaluate the human behaviour in regard to the above factors has led to the development of the psychosocial studies, a term used, as explained above, in order to describe a series of studies addressing two different disciplines: sociology and psychology. These two disciplines have been proved to have many common points; however, they are also likely to interact in order to address specific needs: this is the case of psychosocial studies, a framework established in order to enhance the rules of sociology and those of psychology within a specific social environment. In this way, the concepts of ‘self’ and ‘society’ have been better understood; these two concepts have been considered as reflecting two different social conditions; however, they are closely related in terms that each one of them cannot exist independently from the other – as the Aristotelian view on sociology states. References Banerjee, J. (1994) Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Psychological Terms. M.D. Publications Bilton et al, (2002) Introductory Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan Elchardus, M. (2009) Self-control as social control: The emergence of symbolic society. Poetics, Volume 37, Issue 2, 146-161 Fiske.J (1989) Reading the Popular. Routledge Hersen, M., Hilsenroth, M.,Segal, D. (2004) Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment: Personality assessment. John Wiley and Sons Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. (2001) Introduction to social psychology: a European perspective. Wiley-Blackwell Hogg.M and Vaughan.G. (2005) Social Psychology. Pearson Education Johnson, H. (1960) Sociology : A Systematic Introduction. Allied Publishers Kopp, M., Skrabski, A., Szedmak, S. (2000) Psychosocial risk factors, inequality and self-rated morbidity in a changing society. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 51, Issue 9, 1351-1361 Leydesdorff, L. (1993) Is society a self-organizing system? Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, Volume 16, Issue 3, 331-349 Martin, J., Sugarman, J. (1997) Societal-Psychological Constructionism: Societies, Selves, Traditions, and Fusions. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, Volume 17, Issue 2, 120-136 Raphael, B., Wilson, J. (2000) Psychological debriefing: theory, practice, and evidence. Cambridge University Press Swingewood,A.(2000) A Short History of Sociological Thought. Macmillan Τhompson, W. (2004) Self and society: studies in the evolution of consciousness. Imprint Academic Read More