Non Scientific Psychological Approaches: Structuralism And Humanistic Approach

Prevalence of Structuralism

Discuss about the Non Scientific Psychological Approaches.

The structuralism is the method, which is used to understand the common behaviour of human behaviour. Humans live with the entangled relationship, which constitutes the structure of the abstract culture. In the early 1900s, structuralism was developed in Europe. The term structuralism is related to literary texts with a larger structure. Being reductive is structuralism’s one of the main problems. Following ideas given by Schultz and Schultz (2015), it can be said that a meaningful action’s occurrence has only proved the presence of signification. Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure first brought structuralism to everyone’s attention. 

 Structuralism points one action to a thought process. It is a one to one mapping. A thought process takes the help of significance in order to be aligned with an action. It works as a system. Because of the significance related to structuralism, it is used to analyze an action. Following the ideas of Parker and Shotter (2015), it can be stated that the thought process behind an action is determined easily by the structuralism due to its scientific approach. The scientific approach talks about a causal relationship. Here, tracing the end action or result one can get back to the initial action, which triggered a series of actions and thoughts.  The use of logic used in structuralism is similar to the use of logic in mathematics. It gives the birth of various subfields like conflict, culture, development, criminology and others. Once an action starts a thought process, various reactions may follow. It can start a conflict. Structuralism can be analyzed with the help of various methods like quantitative, qualitative, mathematical, and others.

At present, structuralism might take many forms, but as the post-structuralism suggests, it gives the inner strength of a though process. With time the upgraded definition of structuralism, now it adds more value to the thought process due to its added analytical characteristics. It proves the prevalence of structuralism. It is derived from a mathematical concept of one to one mapping. It speaks to the relevance of the theory of structuralism. This is not present in the other approaches like humanistic approach. In those cases, the relation between the end and primary variables can be numerous. It makes finding a causal relationship with rational logic between the variables difficult. To address this problem, one needs other approaches as well.

 The scientific merit of structuralism can be questioned due to the various assumptions are made in the process. According to ideas given by Piaget (2015), it can be said that the assumptions mitigate the uncertainty in the study of the human behaviours regarding structuralism. Hence, one can say structuralism finds its answers through controlled experimental methods. Losing the control over the experimental methods might lead to a new outcome, which might be unanswerable for the presently available methods. The methods are used in this research are typically restricted in statistical and mathematical fields. There are many loopholes in these methods, which might tamper with the results of the study. The assumptions work as constraints to the usage of these methods. Because of these limitations, the results, which are gathered through working on the structuralism, can be considered as not important and of less significance.

Structuralism’s Degree of Scientific merit

As stated by psychologists like McLeod, the importance of the structuralism depends on the passive effects of the results (Piaget, Fraisse & Reuchlin, 2014). The results that can be gathered by using the statistical or mathematical tools and methods can be used in other studies. The results of these studies can be used as raw data for others’ studies. Hence, one cannot just say that this method has no scientific significance. It places a broad context with several layers of significance. The significance of the study subject can be analyzed putting the subjects in a wider context. This is one of the basic principles of the approach.

The results of the studies might differ for the same subject even if the same tools are used. The reason behind this is the difference between the languages. Different languages represent different cultures. It changes the pattern creating unique identities in the languages. Hence, the results following the same response might lead to different outcomes, which can complicate any further studies. It mainly provides the structure of the conscious process. Classifying the sensations for the purpose of observing to a minimum extent is not what structuralism is. The structuralism states that it is not easy to understand actions in isolation. To understand those actions properly one has to check the actions according to the whole context. This way the degree of scientific merit has to be checked under that totality.

In the mid-twentieth century, as an answer for the limitations for Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, humanistic approach came in to existence. The initiation of this theory was before the Renaissance of Europe. The main properties of humanistic approach include a holistic view of the behaviours. Humanistic approach by nature does not preach for mathematical research, as human behaviour is far too complex for Cartesian-Newtonian scientific research. Hence, quantitative approach for the humanistic approach is not fruitful. There are no proper qualitative methods to assess humanistic approach as well. It makes preparing a one to one correspondence between two actions with their behaviour hard. According to the views of Waterman (2013), one might conclude that general logic might not be applied in these scenarios. It is also fruitful in the case of the humanistic approach to derive the methods from the subject matter rather than looking for logic through natural science.

As stated by Schneider, Pierson and Bugental (2014), it can be stated that, in most of the cases of humanistic approach, the usage of the general Cartesian-Newtonian scientific concepts will not yield any logical explanation making it tough for understanding for the commoners. In general, a scientific research requires a theory backed model that can interpret the situation, issues, as well as the results. This is missing in humanistic approach, as there are no simple one to one mapping of logic is possible in this approach. To build a theory, much knowledge is required, which is not present in the case of the humanistic approach. Moreover, the causal relationship is missing in this approach making it impossible to quantify the data scientifically. According to ideas given by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2014) even if subjects are chosen for a data collection process, the variables of the same attribute might differ for each of the cases. A researcher might feel something while studying a subject, but without a scientific process to narrow down that feeling, the data cannot be recorded, which is not possible in the case of humanistic approach. For this reason, the researchers differentiate this approach from the others on the basis of non-scientific backgrounds. As it has minimal or no scientific method involved, it makes the reliability of the results difficult. The results are also can be interpreted differently by different viewers.   

Humanistic Psychological Approach

The humanistic approach requires fist person experience to analyze a certain action and the rationale behind it. There are no other quantitative methods that can be used in order to understand the theories related to it. There might be several cases where the same theory is used at different levels of understanding human behaviour. In this case, one researcher handling both the behaviours might work as he can differentiate or find the similarities between the two behaviours, which are not possible if two different sets of indicators were used for analyzing the behaviours. Angus et al. (2015)have suggested that there are no general data recording processes for this type of cases, making it difficult to convey the message regarding a studied behaviour. It can also create issues with the same researcher in two periods. In the short run, the researcher might analyze two different behaviours with ease but as time passes by it will be difficult for the researcher to judge one behaviour by a previously noticed behaviour.

In the long run, a same person’s behaviour changes. The same person can react differently to the same situation every time he or she faces it. Due to this, there is no causal relationship between the reaction and the situation and one to one mapping is not possible. Recording data of such kind is thus also not possible. These are the basic requirements for making a scientific approach. As the humanistic approach is not fulfilling these criteria, it is not regarded as a scientific approach. Not being a scientific approach does not reduce the importance of the humanistic approach. People use this approach in their daily lives without any scientific data and yield a positive result. The results of the humanistic approach can change creating the possibility of many outcomes, with a slight movement of the internal issues. A person using the humanistic approach cannot record and use the results again.

Although the humanistic approach is a non-scientific approach, it has a significant hold over the interpersonal relationship theories. With time and experience, the humanistic approach and its results become clear to the researchers. Otherwise, just a scientific view towards the approach will not yield any results.

The humanistic approach was never meant to be a scientific approach. A scientific approach by definition requires a question and a background research. It is followed by a hypothesis which again requires an experiment. Based on the results of the experiments the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. Then it inspires further studies and experiments. The whole process is recorded in such a way that it can be done again and a similar result will follow. This is not the case of humanistic approach. The objectives and perspectives in the case of humanistic approach are not clear. The structure of the approach solely relies on the natural instinct of a person. Hence, the findings are the reflections of individuality in this approach. According to ideas given by Pascual-Leone, Paivio and Harrington (2016), the works of Maslow support this statement. In his study of self-actualization, he clearly stated that the study was not meant to be a scientific one. He argued that the study was not well planned; hence, the opportunity of making a scientific approach was out of the available options. The validity of the data cannot be judged, as the study was reflective. The point of this argument is that a humanistic approach is not bounded by a structure. Personal growth and fulfilment are responsible for this.

Humanistic Approach

 Subjective common sense is prioritized while adopting the structure of a humanistic approach instead of scientific objectivity and analysis. This makes the structure free from all the constraints. This requires the reader of the humanistic approach to study the concept and related works without any constrained vision. Only following this approach, the structure of the humanistic approach can be understood. Understanding this is highly prioritized as humanistic approach answers various issues, which are not answered, by common scientific theories and hypotheses. Cartesian-Newtonian scientific researchers have a minimum or no role in creating a structure of humanistic approach. On the other hand, the structure of work based on humanistic approach is free of any constraints by scientific rationality. Hence, it gets the opportunity of displaying the randomness of the human mind. Making assumptions to reach a conclusion does not fall under the structure of this approach. Thus, finding rationality in the randomness is tough in the case of humanistic approach.

Freud’s perception on psychological analysis has raised many controversies as well as ways of finding a solution to an unsolvable problem. The different schools of thoughts like structuralism, functionalism, Gestalt psychology, psychoanalysis, and humanistic psychology have tried to solve the issues regarding the psychology. The analyses are not always scientific. In fact, most of the approaches have no scientific rules and regulations. Structuralism has somewhat scientific base as it shows a one to one mapping of behaviours and actions. According to views of Shields (2016), it can be said that functionalism states that mental life of a person depends highly on the adaptation of the environment a subject lives in. In the late 19^th century, the concept of functionalism came into the picture as an alternative of structuralism. It has no one-to-one mapping as the functionalism states that much behaviour can come out of the same action. The functionalism considers behaviourism to answer the causal relationship between an action and behaviour. Following the views of Koffka (2013), it can be stated that the Gestalt psychology finds out the reason behind a certain move, which might be otherwise considered as random. The base of the approach is not sound leaving many loopholes in the theories and results. It is assumed that the unconscious mind of a person replies most to a set of therapeutic techniques termed as psychoanalysis. In the early 1890s, Sigmund Freud established this discipline. He used the techniques to interpret the behaviour by the subconscious mind. Following the views of Lemberger and Hutchison (2014), the humanistic psychology records the changes in behaviour in the same environment. The reasons behind the changes are analyzed in this method.

As stated by Freud (2013), the data recorded was interpreted by psychoanalysis, which did not give any concrete result. Hence following the result will not yield the same outcomes each time the subject changes (Freud, 2014). Thus making universal predictions based on the works of Freud will not help in analyzing behaviour. The objectivity in the works of Freud was not concrete as the considerations of biases due to cultural, personal, and others were not removed before publishing the outcomes. Hence, it can be seen that the outcomes and the processes used by the famous neurologist were not scientifically proven. This makes measuring the works of Freud objectively impossible.

References:

Angus, L., Watson, J. C., Elliott, R., Schneider, K., & Timulak, L. (2015). Humanistic psychotherapy research 1990–2015: From methodological innovation to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond. Psychotherapy Research, 25(3), 330-347.

Freud, S. (2013). The interpretation of dreams. Read Books Ltd.

Freud, S. (2014). The neuro-psychoses of defence. Read Books Ltd.

Koffka, K. (2013). Principles of Gestalt psychology (Vol. 44). Routledge.

Lemberger, M. E., & Hutchison, B. (2014). Advocating student-within-environment: A humanistic approach for therapists to animate social justice in the schools. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 54(1), 28-44.

Parker, I., & Shotter, J. (Eds.). (2015). Deconstructing social psychology (Vol. 21). Psychology Press.

Pascual-Leone, A., Paivio, S., & Harrington, S. (2016). Emotion in psychotherapy: An experiential-humanistic perspective. Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice,.

Piaget, J. (2015). Structuralism (Psychology Revivals). Psychology Press.

Piaget, J., Fraisse, P., & Reuchlin, M. (2014). Experimental Psychology Its Scope and Method: Volume I (Psychology Revivals): History and Method. Psychology Press.

Schneider, K. J., Pierson, J. F., & Bugental, J. F. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and practice. Sage Publications.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). A history of modern psychology. Cengage Learning.

Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction (pp. 279-298). Springer Netherlands.

Shields, S. A. (2016). Functionalism, Darwinism, and advances in the psychology of women and gender: From the 19th century to the 21st. Feminism & Psychology, 26(4), 397-404.

Waterman, A. S. (2013). The humanistic psychology–positive psychology divide: Contrasts in philosophical foundations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 124.