A brief review of some of
psychology’s prevailing theories will be offered here in order to highlight the
fundamental difficulty psychology has had in adopting the objective component
of scientific methods to the often subjective field of human behavior.
Psychoanalysis
has had some initial success in explaining and understanding human behavior. Kline
(1989), for instance, argues that Freudian psychoanalytic theory can be
systematized into testable hypotheses that are empirically verifiable. Yet
critics of this model, Karl Popper being one of them (Grünbaum, 1979), cite its
failure to be a significant lack in prediction of behavior, and instead merely
explaining behavior inductively and post facto. Kline’s post facto
restructuring of psychoanalytic theories is a prime example of this. In a now
somewhat infamous study, Scrodel (1957) hypothesized that orally dependent men
would in fact prefer women with larger breasts, yet his research revealed the
opposite conclusion, and there was no correlation between orally dependent men
and their breast size preference. Kline explains away Scrodel’s findings by
arguing that the orality hypothesis must
be correct, and the subjects were merely experiencing reaction formation.
Similarly,
Behaviorism attempted to structure it’s methodology as scientific as possible.
The hallmark of behaviorist theories was not only the fact that only a few
theories were needed to explain a variety of behavior from language acquisition
to moral development, but more importantly, they also provided verifiable
results. They were able to both control and predict human (and non-human) behavior,
while remaining faithful to the scientific principles outlined above. Yet,
despite their best efforts, behaviorists were ultimately unable to account for
both the plethora of variables that interact and affect human behavior as well
as their underlying assumptions about the deterministic nature of the
environment at the neglect of personal agency.
Finally,
cognitive psychology has made impressive progress in its attempt to understand unobservable
mental processes by formulating models and conducting experiments upon behavior
to confirm or refute them.
On
the other end of the spectrum, theorists such as Carl Rogers (1962) and Abraham
Maslow are representational of the humanistic approach to psychology. Such an
approach places a higher value on the individual’s subjective experience than
on empirical testing in a scientific laboratory environment. Again, the
humanistic approach is less interested in controlling and predicting behavior,
and is more concerned with an empathic, “client-centered” approach. Within this
heuristic, the therapist, attempting to put aside her own values and schemas,
views the client not as an object to be diagnosed and treated, but instead sees
the client’s behavior as subject. The scientific pursuit of psychology is
rejected by the humanistic approach on the grounds that it dehumanizes people,
and ultimately, is unable to capture fullness of human experience.
While
some of the above examples exhibit instances of meeting some of the scientific
criteria outlined above, no one theory is yet to offer full control and
predictability of human behavior. The following section, therefore, will examine
the humanistic approaches to psychology, in order to highlight the way in which
psychology has historically grappled with the objective—subjective dissonance.
Psychology
is not alone in their attempt to bridge the objective—subjective rift. Indeed,
even the so called hard sciences like physics grapple with this issue.
Heisenberg (1958) put it this way:
Science no longer
confronts nature as an objective observer, but sees itself as an actor in this
interplay between man and nature. The scientific method of analyzing,
explaining and classifying has become conscious of its limitations, which arise
out of the fact that by its intervention science alters and refashions the
object of investigation (p. 29).
This
issue becomes more pronounced in the field of psychology, where therapists are
urged to be objective and scientific. Attempting to climb to a level of
objectivity, very often the therapist ends up objectifying their client. That
is, the client ceases to be an individual with distinct needs and conations, but
rather becomes data to be collected for diagnosis. Further, the subjective,
inner experience of the client is seen in contradistinction to the cool,
detached and objective position of the therapist. It is supposed that with pure
objectivity, the therapist has a fuller understanding of the subject’s affects
and cognitions—and indeed, it is assumed that the objective therapist has a
more fuller understanding of the client’s affects and cognitions than the
client himself!
As
was highlighted above, the field of psychology is no stranger to this
dichotomy. The differing theoretical thrusts of the behaviorists compared to
the humanistic approach indicate quite accurately this opposition. Smith (1997),
for example, provides an excellent portrayal of the long history of these
opposing anthropologies. Similarly, Polkinghorne (1982) has noted how such
anthropological and methodological differences have tended to center on the
question of whether the human sciences should emulate the methods of the
natural sciences, or should they rather develop their own unique methodology. Philosophers
like Husserl (1977) would argue that human beings are quite distinct from any
other type of object found in the physical world, and therefore require a
unique methodology for accurate study. In that vein, our next entry will turn
to Bernard Lonergan’s Transcendental Method (TM) in an attempt to bridge this objective—subjective
lacunae in psychological methodology.
by Phillip J. Kuna
for John G. Kuna, Psy.D. and Associates Counseling
No comments:
Post a Comment