A History of Modern Psychology - Research Paper Example

A History of Modern Psychology Introduction Sociological theories are significant in analyzing and giving an explanation regarding education. The theories have been applied in history to elucidate the functions of education. They are still in use in the contemporary society and are mainly used as important component for the debate concerning the purpose of education. Various theories present different view points, each based on certain assumptions. This paper presents a critique of the manner in which the functionalist, conflict and interractionalist theories apply to education as a social institution. The differences in the impact of the three theories as well as how each affects the approach to social change in education have been highlighted. The paper also illustrates the views of the society within education. The Functionalist Theory The functionalist theory deals with the manner in which the requirements of the society are accomplished through education. The obvious role of education is viewed as passing the fundamental knowledge and ability from one generation to the other. According to functionalists, education provides an opportunity for people from varied social backgrounds to share common objectives and values. They share common believes and strive to accomplish a shared vision. In education, the learners keep their differences aside and are socially controlled by a common power, where they are believed to be active and industrious when they accomplish the common purpose of learning. The functionalists identify education as a path through which social control and the mainstream principles are passed on (Schultz & Schultz, 2008). For example, the mainstream standards of education in America mirror the political and the economic aspects of the society, which were fundamental to the development of education. For success to be accomplished, the rules and regulations have to be followed in learning. Individualism and the sense of self are significant principles that the functionalist theory focuses on in education. The result is that the schools reward individuals and not groups. The learners who score the best are rewarded and move to the next level. Even when the learners are involved in a team activity, individuals strive to emerge the best among the whole group, and he/she is the one that the society recognizes. Individualism leads to the development of personal identity and self-esteem. Laird (2007) observes that the overall result is competition among the learners, who are encouraged through reward schemes. In essence, the views of students in educational institutions are based on the sense of self and uniqueness. The functionalist perspective also focuses on patriotism in school as a key factor contributing to the success of education. The students are taught to pledge their loyalty to the nation and its leadership as well as recognizing the heroes who have contributed to its growth. In essence, political aspects of the society are preserved through education. Functionalism is further focused on grading students in terms of merit thereby sorting them out to present to the society highly capable individuals who will contribute to economic development and political governance. In essence, as Miller et al. (2009) argued, functionalism is fundamental to social placement. Education in the functionalist perspective further leads to increased interactions and networking among students especially those in the same class or similar courses. As much as education is viewed as a way of preserving knowledge through passing it from one generation to the other, it is also a major contributor to the changes that occur in the society. Educated members of the society are usually open-minded and are likely to be liberal than the conservative people who are usually uneducated. The functionalist perspective discourages social change and therefore people do not need to be dynamically drawn in changing their social background regardless of the gains associated with the change. The theory presumes that dynamic social change is overridden by the natural reimbursement of the various components whenever issues arise. The society views education as the key to economic development and a necessity to maintain progress (Schultz & Schultz, 2008). The Conflict Theory The functionalist and conflict theorists agree that education helps in sorting out the students. However, the latter contends the argument that sorting is based on merit, viewing the structure of the society based on education as a derivative of class and ethnicity among other privileges that distinguish members a community. To support this assumption, conflict theorists argue that the various schools that students attend are distinguished by affluence and class in the society, which means that the students from rich families attend good schools, meaning that they are not separated depending on merit. As Spring (2000) observes, the separation in terms of affluence demonstrates the hidden curriculum, which the conflict theorists regard as one of the functions of education. They consider cultural differences and exposure as a major factor that puts the students from various regions at disadvantage in terms of the tests that are used for sorting out the students to classify them according to capabilities. In contrast to the functionalist theory, the conflict theory is based on the assumption that social inequality and dominance in the society is due to education. It is viewed as a means of maintaining the educated in power. While the functionalists credit education for the contribution it makes in improving the welfare of the society, the conflict theorists view it as undermining the uneducated and compelling them to remain loyal to the elite in education. The conflict theorists presume that the status quo that education focuses to maintain is unexciting to the lower classes that may not have the power acquired through education. They further argue that education has no benefit to the society, neither does it present opportunities. Rather, it is viewed as a means of stratifying the society and promoting capitalism through maintaining a submissive workforce in the lower strata. This deviates from the functionalist perspective of education as an advantage to the society (Laird, 2007). Social change is according to the conflict theory a fast and consistent process that is unavoidable as the different social groups make efforts to replace each other, which is the basis for social change. The conflict theory affects education in the sense that students tend to believe that their performance is based on their social class and the region in which the school is situated. In essence, inferiority complex largely affects performance in school. If a student believes that he/she undertakes studies in an inferior school as categorized under the conflict theory, there is little effort since the outcome is pre-determined. The perception of the teachers in regard to the performance of students is also based on considerations of the social class. On the other hand, the society views the elite schools as the ones that offer good education. In essence, schools in the lower social class usually raise eye brows in the society when they accomplish extra-ordinary performance. This is an indicator of the society’s negative perception (Spring, 2000). The Symbolic Interactionist Theory The theory is based on the assumption that human beings are flexible in nature and are able to change their behavior depending on how others act. Whenever, people are able to deduce meaning from these actions, they can easily adjust. The people who undertake these actions are regarded as symbols of those actions. Humans are able to creatively rehearse and eventually act perfectly. In contrast to the conflict theory, humans are regarded as dynamic and creative members who have the capacity to develop their own social environment. Symbolic interactionists assume that the performance of students in school is dependent on the manner of interaction between the teacher and the students. The teacher is a symbol, and all the class activities are viewed as having an influence on the success of students in educational institutions. In this theory, the teacher plays a significant role in controlling the students’ point of view, understanding as well as their attitude towards life in general (Shana, 2005). In contrast to the functionalist and conflict theorists, the interactionists education does not sort out the students. Rather, they perform well or accomplish the educational objectives depending on the teacher’s expectation. Charon (2009) argues that a change in the students’ IQ is based on the teachers’ expectations at the beginning of learning. The theorists assume that the greater the expectations of the teacher, the better the performance. The theory draws some views of the conflict theory in the sense that the teacher expects more from the students who are presumed to be good in class and less from the weak students. The similarity of the interractionists’ perspective to the conflict theory is the fact that the expectations in interractionist theory, which are a major determinant of the final performance, are based on the assumptions that certain students will perform better than others and as Shana (2005) observes, the students from a higher social class show prospects compared to students in the lower social class. This means that the perception and expectations of the teacher will be influenced by the social classes from which the students are drawn. In regard to social change, symbolic interractionists presume that humans influence and are also influenced by others to change. The regular interactions within the society are significant factors of change. The principles and behaviors of society change with the continuous rules that emerge from the interactions. This indicates that the society is capable of recreating itself through regular interactions and cooperation in meaningful engagements. The teacher influences the understanding of students through his/her expectations. The society views education as a significant aspect supporting its advancement and capacity to make good decisions. Educational institutions are symbols of knowledge (Charon, 2009). Conclusion The functionalists view education as the key to satisfaction of the needs of the society. It focuses on individualism and maintenance of self esteem in education. Students are sorted in order of merit, after which the society is presented with highly capable individuals who assist the society to accomplish its desires. Functionalists defend against social change arguing that any emerging issues can be solved naturally. The similarity between the functionalists and the conflict theorists is that education helps to sort out individuals, but they contend on the manner in which they are sorted. They also disagree in regard to functions of education especially in regard to social inequality that is asserted by conflict theorists. Social classes affect education according to the conflict theorists. Symbolic interractionalism assumes that humans are rational beings who are able to influence and also be influenced by other people. Students are not sorted in terms of merit or class but rather the teacher influences their performance depending on his/her expectations. The three sociological theories are significant in analyzing and giving an explanation concerning education as a social institution. References Charon, J. M. (2009). Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration, 10th Ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Laird J. D. (2007). Feelings: the perception of self. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F. & McBrewster, J. (2009). Structural Functionalism, Ney Yolk City: Alphascript Publishing Schultz, D. P. & Schultz, S. E. (2008). A History of Modern Psychology, 9th Ed. California: Thomas Wadsworth. Shana C. K. (2005). “Some neglected contributions of Wilhelm Wundt to the psychology of Memory”. Psychological reports Vol. 97 (1) pp 63–73. Spring, J. (2000). Deculturalization and the struggle for Equality: A brief history of the education of dominant cultures in the U.S.  New York City: McGraw Hill Read More