Should the History of Psychology be X Rated - Essay Example

Should the History of Psychology be X Rated? 2008 Should the History of Psychology be X Rated? According to the belief supported by several outstanding thinkers, including Auguste Comte, George Sarton and Charles Gillespie and shared by majority of scientists (Brush, 1974) history of science is of great value for next generations of scientists. The purpose of the historian is recording both collecting positive knowledge and also the errors made by previous generations of scientists during this process. Knowledge of such information facilitates perception of modern theories, concepts and methodologies by students. As Erns Mach (1960) puts it, “They [students] that know the entire course of the development of science, will, as a matter of course, judge more freely and more correctly of the significance of any present scientific movement than they, who, limited in the views to the age in which their own lives have been spent, contemplate merely the momentary trend that the course of intellectual events takes at the present moment” (pp. 8-9). The idea of rationality which is the ability to provide a logical, consistent and understandable explanation of and justification for anything is the cornerstone of Western civilization. In the twentieth century, representatives of the positivist tradition founded by Augustus Comte made an attempt to refine the essence of rationality inherent in science by designing a set of methods that could be applied to any area of human life and behavior. This attempt was successful and from the middle of the last century had been influencing psychology tremendously (Brush, 1974). However, this conventional view on the role of history in teaching science in general and psychology in particular has been recently put in question. The main point of the criticism relates to the claim of science to be a uniquely ‘uniquely rational enterprise’: this assumption has been also questioned heavily, and history of science played an essential role in the process. Many believe that learning about history of science may have negative influence for the training of the next generation of scientists because it detracts students from genuinely scientific approach (Brush, 1974). The essence of this belief is brilliantly worded by J. B. Conant (1960) who claims that “while knowledge of the history of science may help a scientist to function better outside the laboratory, it has nothing to teach him about the methods of research he will need in order to make new discoveries” (Conant, 1960 cited in Brush, 1974, p.1166). In similar vein, Thomas S. Kuhn (1963) claims that the student “might discover other ways of regarding the problems discussed in his textbook, but he would also meet problems, concepts, and standards of solution that his future profession has long since discarded and replaced” (p.344). While this may be the case with the natural sciences such as physics, for example, where history of science does pose challenges to the conventional view of that science, the case of psychology seems to be entirely different. This is largely because the integrate science of psychology is still the question of future: for now psychology is a conglomerate of different, sometimes exceptive, approaches. The same Thomas Kuhn (1963) claimed that psychology was still in a pre-paradigm state and lacked the agreement on integrate approach/theory such mature sciences as physics had. The scientific nature of psychology has also been questioned because this science explores such phenomena as thinking, cognition, mind, personality, etc that are impossible to measure directly and can be studied only using highly subjective information. Besides, methods and approaches taken by representatives of different schools varied vastly. Even superficial overview of the history of psychology provides sufficient information to understand relevance of the criticism. Currently, there are several major theories explaining psychological phenomena. John Watson (1878 – 1958), the founding father of behavioral approach, was one of the first psychologists who tried to explain psychological processes, particularly psychological development of human being. He confined the whole process to acquisition of behavioral patterns that gradually, as a child grows up, become more and more complex. Perhaps the weakest point in Watson’s theory was his negation of conscious as such. In his account, the consciousness entirely depends upon external factors, which are the only determinants of behavior (Vander Zanden, 1993). Today the existence of consciousness as specific psychological phenomenon absolutely different from behavior is hardly disputable. But despite such major drawback, Watson was the first who emphasized the great importance of external determinants in human life. Skinner, another famous representative of behaviorism, paid attention exclusively to behavioral determinants of human development and invalidated consciousness – this is the main drawback of his theory. However, Skinner’s extensive studies of behavior helped him to create a very effective method of so-called “programmed learning” that laid a foundation to the interactive computer learning technique (Skinner, 1958). Moreover, his theory helps effectively forecast behavior of people under given circumstances. These strong points make Skinner’s theory especially valuable, despite its apparent drawbacks. Although Albert Bandura also paid much attention to external determinants of human behavior, his theory of human development stands apart from Skinner’s or Watson’s. In Bandura’s account human personality is shaped by a group of three determinants: cognition, behavior, and external influence. Perhaps the main difference of Bandura’s theory from other behaviorist theories was his persuasion that people could learn not only reacting to stimuli but also observing reactions of other people (Bandura, 1978). The strong point of Bandura’s theory was his attempt to combine traditions behaviorist views on development of personality and cognitive approach that paid much attention to the role of inner characteristics, such as cognition, abstract thinking, plasticity of consciousness, etc. Nonetheless, Bandura failed to avoid main drawbacks of behaviorists: he proceeded from the assumption that there is no principle difference between the behavior of human beings and animals; despite recognition of the role of introspection and cognition, Bandura failed to notice their crucial role in determining human behavior. The essence of Abraham Maslow’s theory of human development is the hierarchy of needs and the concept of “self-actualization”, which is development and self-improvement of personality. From the moment of our birth we have some basic needs (food, warmth, etc.) we must satisfy to stay alive. Gradually the needs become more complex as well as the means of their satisfaction (Vander Zanden, 1993). The weakest point of Maslow’s theory is its abstraction and absence of practical value, although it describes all stages a person passes on his way to self-actualization. There is no method that would show the degree of a person’s satisfaction in physiological, moral or other needs, and that is why there is no possibility to measure transition between different levels of needs. Carl Rogers’ theory views human being as a “field of experience”, which includes conscious and unconscious experiences. In the course of development one part of the field separates, and turns into a person’s “self”, which is the central point in Rogers’ theory. The need for positive attitude from others and positive self-attitude is the moving force of psychological development (Frager, & Fadiman, 2000). Rogers’ theory was based upon clinical observations and his experimental data was very persuasive. The weak point of his theory is literally infinite believe in positive potential of human nature: he was repeatedly accused of denying negative aspects of human nature. Freud viewed human development as continuous struggle between between socially approved behavioral norms and unconscious impulses coming from inborn aggressive instincts and sexual desires. In distinction to Rogers and Maslow, he neglected positive potential of human nature understanding personal growth as a set of sexual conflicts. However, Freud’s contribution to psychology can hardly be exaggerated: he was the first who paid attention to the energy of unconscious in this process. His theory represented a powerful challenge that stimulated further extensive research of the subject (Frager, & Fadiman, 2000). Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky created their outstanding theories based upon observation of children. Piaget focused upon the great importance of cognitive processes within the child, i.e. he viewed the process of psychological development as development of cognitive abilities. He proposed a new methodology of psychological research, outlined several stages of development, and discovered the mechanism of human learning. Perhaps the only drawback of Piaget’s theory is his undervaluation of social factors in human development while overvaluation of inner psychological and biological characteristics (Vander Zanden, 1993). Vygotsky on the contrary paid particular attention to social determination of human development and learning. Thus language played a crucial role in Vygotsky’s theory: he considered it a primary mean of human learning and development of cognitive abilities (Hausfather, 1966). Vygotsky’s accomplishments are very helpful in understanding of what is going on inside human brain during the process of learning. As for weak points, the theories of Vygotsky and Piaget are narrow: they focus exceptionally on the children’s cognition while the process of human development is not confined to childhood. L. Kohlberg also contributed to studies of human development due to comprehensive research of moral development. He studied the development of moral reasoning – deciding what is right and what is wrong – by presenting children and adolescents with a set of moral dilemmas. Depending upon the age of testees their answers differed, which gave Kohlberg an opportunity to outline several stages of moral development (Fedorko, 1986). However, his conclusions are rather controversial: the cultural difference should be taken into account as well as the living conditions, social background, etc. After consideration of all these aspects it turns out that higher level of moral development are not necessarily better than lower, and visa versa (Vander Zanden, 1993). Given such state of psychological science, it is difficult to deny the role of history not only in teaching psychology but also in making new discoveries. The question posed by Graeme Gooday, John M. Lynch, Kenneth G. Wilson, and Constance K. Barsky (1999) “Have any Nobel Prize winners declared that history of science was the secret of their creative success?” (p. 322) may be answered negatively by a physicist or chemist but in the history of psychology the answer will definitely be positive: the list of authors whose research supplemented, stimulated and/or guided further research in the field is huge starting with such names as Piaget, Kohlberg, Bandura and others. References Bandura, A. (1978). “The self system in reciprocal determinism”, American Psychologist, 3, pp. 356 – 357. Brush, S. G. (1974). “Should the history of science be rated X?”, Science, 183, pp. 1164-1172. Conant, J. B. (1960). “History in the Education of Scientist”, American Scientist 48(4), pp. 528- 543. Fedorko, L. (ed.) (1986). Understanding Psychology. New York: Random House Frager, R., & Fadiman, J. (2000). Personality and Personal Growth. Longman Gooday, G., Lynch, J. M., Wilson, K. G., Barsky, C. K. (1999). “Does science education need the history of science?” Isis 99(2), pp. 322-30. Hausfather, S. (1966). “Vygotsky and Schooling: Creating a Social Contest for Learning”, Action in Teacher Education, 18, pp.1-10. Kuhn, T. S. (1963). In Taylor, C. W., & Barron, F. (eds.), Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, New York: Wiley and Sons, pp. 341-354. Mach, E. (1960). The science of Mechanics [translated by T. J. McCormack]. Open Court, La Salle. Skinner, B. (1958). “Teaching Machines”, Science 128, pp. 969-977. Vander Zanden, J. W., & Wilfrid, J. (1993). Human development. McGraw-Hill Inc. Read More