Comparing Structuralism and Functionalism
Critical Reaction Paper
- Compare and contrast structuralism and functionalism.
- The debate needs to be clear and critically described in the historical context. each theory is described fully, including methodological approach.
- Please use one of the sources as the text : A History of Modern Psychology eleventh edition. (the book has an orange cover) please do not just paraphrase (it has to be critical)
Structuralism and Functionalism
Psychology is a science that seeks to explain the human mind and his behavior. As such, structuralism and functionalism depict two approaches used to describe human behavior in different ways. This paper critically compares and contrasts the structuralism and functionalism theories. While structuralism explores the components of the human mind, functionalism focuses on the mindset perspective of human behavior, which is important in supporting human mind’s ability to adapt to various environments
Functionalism and structuralism are among the earliest theories of psychology that sought to explain the scientific basis of human behavior based on their mindset. Functionalism theory by William James views society as an orderly and stable but complex system with social patterns that aid in sustaining individuals. Simultaneously, structuralism is a theory of consciousness that defines the components of the mind (Novick, 2019). However, functionalism developed as a response to criticism of structuralism, which denoted significant differences and similarities. The two theories are similar in that they both studied the human mind and its functions at the conscious level.
Other comparisons are derived from the historical antecedents of the theories. For instance, functionalism emerged from Hobbe’s (1651) account of reasoning, which is reckoning the consequences of known names agreed-upon analysis of human thoughts (Calvo, 2018). Hobbes argued that reasoning integrates the concepts of sensing, imagining, and deliberating about action. In connection to this, functionalism asserts that the human mind synthesizes emotions and senses, to develop adaptability to various environments that enhance individuals’ chances of survival (Calvo, 2018). As such, this theory asserts that consciousness to the mind allows humans to perceive the best course of action in advance and increase the brain’s tendency to react accordingly. This claim is arguably authentic since the mind depicts the critical controller of human activities. Admittedly, human behavior and actions are influenced by the mindset that triggers reactions.
On the other hand, structuralism, which examines the underlying, unconscious regularities of human expression, was derived from the idea of voluntarism by Wilhelm Wundt. Wundt’s student Edward Titchner is credited with the theory of structuralism by advancing the beliefs of voluntarism (Rajpramukh, 2020). In this connection, Titchner described the human mind as a structure that must be discerned from an intensive interpretation of emotions, feelings, and sensations. He used the experimental technique called introspection and believed that anything that could not be analyzed through this technique defied the domain of psychology (Rajpramukh, 2020). However, this belief is debatable considering the fact that the human mind’s state is influenced by the degree of activities attached to the elements of feelings and sensations (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). Besides, the theory failed to consider that human behavior is dynamic and could be influenced by other factors such as stress and terrifying experiences hence disqualifying the ability to analyze sensations and feelings in exploring the human mind.
Methodological Approach
A significant difference also emerges from the methodological approaches used to develop the theories. Firstly, structuralism was developed through an experimental system whereby the psychologist designed external stimuli to produce scientifically observable results of the mind (Wolff, 2019). Trained observers were used to observe and report reactions immediately by subjecting the experimental requirements to eliminate interpretation in reporting the internal experiences (Wolff, 2019). However, this experiment’s results were significantly immeasurable because it is difficult to tell whether an individual is observing their mind or consciousness accurately since nobody else can see it.
In this case, Titchner failed to consider the possibility of an individual’s diversion of the mind’s concentration, altering the results. Further, due to extreme subjectivity, little agreement could emerge between individuals and hence impact the study’s outcomes. Correspondingly, the introspection method results could be detested on grounds that it mainly studied the internal behavior. Such is because internal behavior is not observable, and hence it is difficult to measure the results accurately. Contrary, although James acknowledged the legitimacy of the introspection approach in functionalism theory to study mental activities, and approved more objective measures such as using recording devices and examining concrete products of mental conditioning (Calvo, 2018). These approaches were considerably more accurate and systematic since they described the purpose of behavior and consciousness.
Further, the purpose of structuralism was to analyze the human mind and organize its conscious elements (thoughts) or basic units. This theory used self-reflective introspection to explore the link between the human mind and its function. In other words, the theory asserted that the human mind could be easily analyzed through the demonstration of inner experiences such as feelings, images, and sensations. Admittedly, this theory was significantly accurate since it influenced the first triumph to attain a scientific explanation about the human mind’s function. However, it is noteworthy that its overreliance on experimental processes poised some challenges since social behaviors are subject to defy logic, affecting the authenticity of these findings (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). In other words, the intended results could only be achieved if the participants concentrated on their sensations and emotions, holding other factors constant such as interruption of emotions by the external environment. Such negative aspects of structuralism influenced the development of functionalism theory as a responsive explanation.
Functionalism was an expansion of Darwin’s theory of evolution and asserted that the evolution of the human being’s conscious element was essential to adapt, survive, and flourish in a given environment. Functionalism postulated that human consciousness plays a critical role in enabling humanity to consider the past, adjust to the present, and plan for the future (Calvo, 2018). Unlike structuralism, functionalism bases its facts on systematic and accurate explanations of different behavior and consciousness elements to assess individuals’ mental capability to adapt to different environments. In other words, this theory less concerns the identification of human mind composition but instead concentrates on the human mind’s ability to adapt to various environments (Calvo, 2018). I contend with this theory’s facts because human beings seek to better their lives in all dimensions by surviving in nature by fulfilling their purpose for living.
In other words, the human mind works to identify the best approaches to enhance life in whichever environment. A significant benefit of this theory is that it explains how human beings maintain stability and internal cohesion that sparks their unremitting existence over time. However, functionalism’s concentration on objective matters and ignoring human behavior’s subjective tendencies significantly reduces its accuracy (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). In light of this claim, it becomes difficult to observe, study, and objectively analyze human behavior. Further, this theory fails to acknowledge the impacts of social change and the role of individual actions in determining the mind’s reactions.
Conclusion
In review, both structuralism and functionalism played a critical role in the development of modern psychology. Functionalism formed as a reactive response to structuralism theory, which poised similarities and differences between the two views. A significant similarity is that they both studied human mind behavior while a significant difference lies in the methodological approaches used to produce results. While structuralism explores the components of the human mind, functionalism focuses on the mindset perspective of human behavior, which is important in supporting human mind’s ability to adapt to various environments.
References
Calvo, E. (2018). From translation briefs to quality standards: Functionalist theories in today’s
translation processes. Translation & Interpreting, 10(1), 18-32. http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint/article/view/639
Novick, A. (2019). Cuvierian Functionalism. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 11.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ptpbio/16039257.0011.005?view=text;rgn=main
Rajpramukh, K. E. (2020). Unit-1 Functionalists and structuralists approach. Indira Gandhi
National Open University, New Delhi. http://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/58554/1/Unit1.pdf
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). A history of modern psychology. Cengage Learning.
Wolff, J. E. (2019). Representationalism in measurement theory. Structuralism or
Perspectivalism?. Understanding Perspectivism, 109.https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/25065/9781138503069_text.pdf?sequence=1#page=119