Disclaimer: I am writing here as a philosopher and as a historian, not as a psychologist. That is, I freely admit that I am not an “expert” in psychology, although I do have some minimal exposure to the subject. My intent here is only to show how psychology fits into the broader history of philosophy, by talking about how psychology became a separate discipline in the last two centuries.
Psychology has long been one of the most popular majors in the United States. By some measurements, it is second only to business in its popularity among college students. And it’s easy to see why the subject is so popular. It has a strong human interest element, and helps you to understand all kinds of human behavior. Classes focused on psychological disorders are often so popular that there are waitlists to get into them. Many want to enter the mental health professions, and use their training to help people in the most personal way. And it has long drawn students interested in the scientific side of things, who want to do research – or, at least, to benefit from the prior research of others. But psychology as we know it has only been around since 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt’s Laboratory was founded in Leipzig. And the discipline has many predecessors from back in antiquity, in various attempts to make a distinction between the mind and the body.
Wilhelm Wundt
Psychology has roots in the discipline of philosophy, as well as in biology and in medicine
The earliest predecessors of psychology come from Ancient Egypt. Egyptian documents give us an early description of the brain, with speculations on its various functions. But they did not yet have any hard data with which to answer these kinds of questions. Nonetheless, the mere asking of these kinds of questions was itself an important beginning for the discipline. Other ancient cultures to study the brain include Persia, Greece, China, and India. For many cultures, there were attempts to clarify the “mind-body problem,” a key concept in the philosophy of mind. Philosophy is known for asking broad questions about the meaning of life. But early scientists also asked what “life” might be in the first place. In so doing, they laid the foundations for the separate discipline of biology, which asks what it means to be a “living” thing. Medicine was founded much earlier than any of these other disciplines, although the medicine of that time was primitive and ineffective. At times, it actually made things worse for their unfortunate patients, throughout the entire Middle Ages (and beyond). Speculations on all of these things continued into the Islamic Golden Age, the European Renaissance, and the Age of Enlightenment. There were developments in human anatomy and physiology, which helped to place medical science on a more solid footing. Many Enlightenment-era philosophers also tried to clarify the “mind-body problem,” with varying degrees of success. And, as Wikipedia puts it, Ferdinand Ueberwasser “designated himself Professor of Empirical Psychology and Logic in 1783 and gave lectures on empirical psychology at the Old University of Münster, Germany” (Source: Their page on the “History of psychology”) Colleges and universities already offered specialized medical schools for the training of future doctors. But biology only became a separate discipline in the nineteenth century. And, until the middle of the nineteenth century, psychology was widely regarded as being just another branch of philosophy. It was in Germany that the world’s first psychological experiments were conducted. Specifically, they were conducted by Gustav Fechner, in the city of Leipzig.
Gustav Fechner
Psychological experiments, and laboratory for psychological research (nineteenth century)
As Wikipedia puts it, “Gustav Fechner created the first theory of how judgments about sensory experiences are made and how to experiment on them. Fechner's theory, recognized today as Signal Detection Theory, foreshadowed the development of statistical theories of comparative judgment and thousands of experiments based on his ideas” (Source: Their page on the “History of psychology”) This laid the groundwork for the later founding of psychology as a separate field. By some accounts, this came later in 1879, with another German researcher named Wilhelm Wundt. Like Fechner, Wilhelm Wundt was based in Leipzig. Wundt had a medical background, from graduating with a doctorate degree in medicine. But he was actually interested in the more specific study of the human mind. Wilhelm Wundt was the first person ever to call himself a “psychologist.” In 1879, Professor Wundt was then working at the University of Leipzig. In that setting, he founded the world’s first laboratory for psychological research. Some believe that Wilhelm Wundt, rather than the later Sigmund Freud, was the true founder of psychology. This may help to explain how psychology began in scientific investigation, rather than in attempts to apply that science to real-world problems. Regardless, as Wikipedia puts it, “Other important early contributors to the field include Hermann Ebbinghaus (a pioneer in the study of memory), William James (the American father of pragmatism), and Ivan Pavlov (who developed the procedures associated with classical conditioning).” (Source: Their page on the “History of psychology”)
Wilhelm Wundt (seated) with colleagues in his psychological laboratory, the first of its kind
Psychological developments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
In the early 1880s, G. Stanley Hall brought the teaching of psychological science from Germany to the United States. In the 1890s, Lightner Witmer founded the world’s first psychological clinic – some time before the creation of psychotherapy by Sigmund Freud. And, as Wikipedia puts it, “James McKeen Cattell adapted Francis Galton's anthropometric methods to generate the first program of mental testing in the 1890s. In Vienna, meanwhile, Sigmund Freud independently developed an approach to the study of the mind called psychoanalysis, which became a highly influential theory in psychology.” (Source: Their page on the “History of psychology”) Thus, the foundations of psychology were laid in the mid- to late-nineteenth century. Why, then, do we tend to think of psychology as beginning a little later – sometime in the twentieth century? In part, this may be because psychology really did take off somewhat in the twentieth century. There was an explosion of interest in psychological phenomena, both among researchers and in the general public. Psychologists entered the public mind, with the stereotype of the patient sitting on the couch in front of a bearded psychologist listening to their problems. Tell someone on the street that you’re taking an “anthropology” class, and they’re likely to say “What’s that?” But tell someone on the street that you’re taking a “psychology” class, and they’ll instantly understand. They may or may not know that there are psychologists who do other things besides treating mental illnesses, but at least they will have heard the word before. It seems to have been in the twentieth century that the public thus became aware of psychology, and interested in its scientific insights into human nature. There were also more classes being offered in psychology. Again, psychology eventually became the second most popular college major in the United States, as mentioned earlier.
Sigmund Freud
Continued connections with biology, especially in things like the “nature-nurture” debate
I should acknowledge that I’m having to skip over many important developments in the history of psychology, from both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Thus, I should just mention that psychology remains connected with biology, to a degree that some other social sciences are not. For example, the subfields of psychology include physiological psychology, cognitive psychology, and the psychology of mental illness – which includes “abnormal psychology,” and counseling or clinical psychology. (Incidentally, I should mention my personal appreciation for clinical and counseling psychology, since I struggle with some mental illnesses myself.) Interestingly, psychology’s connections to biology may be most notable in their take on the “nature-nurture” debate, or the debate about whether humans are more influenced by their genetics or their environment. Most other social sciences (such as sociology and cultural anthropology) have historically advocated the idea that virtually every aspect of human behavior is environmentally determined. This theory is known as the “tabula rasa” (or “blank slate”), and it dates back to John Locke in the seventeenth century. It was also popular in many parts of the twentieth century. Some of my blank-slater friends do make some exceptions for mental illness and sexual orientation. That is, they believe that people have no choice in these matters, and thus cannot be condemned on these grounds. But, overall, most other social sciences seem to believe that most human behavior is environmentally determined. For example, this would seem to include the anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen.
Steven Pinker, a psychologist who acknowledges a role for both nature and nurture
In general, psychologists and biologists believe that both nature and nurture are important
The view of psychology, by contrast, is much more nuanced – acknowledging a role for both “nature” and “nurture.” Many university psychology departments even offer classes in “genetic” psychology. Among other things, these kinds of classes give their overviews of the famous twin studies, which suggest that genetics has an important influence on human behavior. These studies acknowledge that the environment also plays an important role, but suggest that human nature may not be quite as “malleable” as it has sometimes been represented to be. For example, this was the view of the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker, who expounded on these views in a book entitled “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” (published 2002). I should acknowledge that there were some psychologists (and even biologists) who disagreed with Pinker’s take on this. But there were many others who were more supportive – including the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. This has important implications for various utopian ideologies, which seek radical and fundamental changes in human nature.
Richard Dawkins, a biologist who acknowledges a role for both nature and nurture
Conclusion: Psychology remains a true science, more than do most other social sciences
In conclusion, psychology has roots in philosophy, as well as in biology and medicine. It has brought many previously-untestable claims into the empirical realm for the first time. That is, it has allowed them to be investigated scientifically, when this was not even possible before. Psychology is not perfect, and may sometimes be vulnerable to the biases of individual researchers. But it still remains a true science, to a degree that most other social sciences do not. Psychology gives us some priceless insights into human nature, and addresses all kinds of practical problems – including insanity defenses in courts of law, and (most famously) with the treatment of mental illnesses. And it has had an influence upon subsequent developments in other areas – both in academia, and in our larger society. Psychology continues to fascinate several generations of both college students and ordinary people. Our world would be much worse off without these insights, and their applications to the modern world.
Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate marketer, and can sometimes make money when you buy the product using the link(s) above.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment