DOPT:UNIT 1

Understanding Psyche

PSYCHOLOGY AND ITS HISTORY

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline that involves the scientific

study of mental functions and behaviours. Psychologists attempt to understand
the role of mental functions in individual and social behaviour, while also
exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive
functions and behaviours.

Psychology did not emerge as a separate and distinct discipline until the late
1800s. It stemmed from philosophy and physiology and its earliest history can
be dated back to the time of the early Greeks. The Greek physician,
Hippocrates, theorized that mental disorders were of physical, rather than
divine, nature, and few other Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle
covered the workings of the minds in their writings.

Rene Descartes, a French Philosopher, introduced the idea of dualism, which

asserted that the mind and the body were two separate entities that interact
to form the human experience. He suggested that the mind is the source of
ideas and thoughts and the body is a machine-like structure to be studied and
understood.

It was during the mid-1800s that psychology started to be identified as a

separate discipline. German physiologist Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920) founded
the first psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany, in 1879 and also
Voluntarism. He perceived psychology as the study of the human consciousness
and he was interested in studying the mind and conscious experience. He
believed that a rigorous program of introspection could be used to report the
processes at work in the inner consciousness. Introspection was a technique
used by researchers to describe and analyse their own inner thoughts and
feelings during a research experience. While introspection is seen as unreliable
and unscientific today, his early work in psychology helped set the stage for
future experimental methods.
Edward Bradford Titchener (1867-1927), a student of Wundt then went on to
found psychology’s first major school of thought – structuralism. Structuralism
is the study of the anatomy of the mind and as a system of psychology, it shares
some common characteristics with Wundt’s ideas. According to structuralists,
human consciousness could be broken down into much smaller parts. It sees
introspection as the only method available for experimental inquiry, and applied
rigorous standards in its use. Although the pursuit of structuralism essentially
died with Titchener, he provided a concrete system of psychology which would
later be the subject and focus of major changes in psychology, resulting in an
alternative approach to psychology: functionalism.

William James (1842-1910) emerged as one of the major American psychologists

during the mid- to late-1800s and the publication of his book, The Principles of
Psychology, established him as the father of psychology. His ideas eventually
served as the basis for a functionalism. Functionalists are interested in how the
mind works, what mental processes accomplish, and what role consciousness
plays in our behaviour. Functionalism would go on to influence later psychologists
and theories of human thought and behaviour.

Austrian physicist, Sigmund Freud, proposed a psychoanalytic theory of

personality that emphasized the importance of the unconscious mind. In his
book, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Freud detailed how unconscious
thoughts and impulses are expressed, often through slips of the tongue
(“Freudian slips”) and dreams. According to him, psychological disorders are the
result of these unconscious conflicts becoming extreme or unbalanced. While
many of his ideas are viewed today with skepticism, his influence on psychology
is undeniable.

Psychology changed dramatically during the early 20th century as another school
of thought known as behaviourism rose to dominance. Behaviourism had its
earliest start with the work of a Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936)
and John B. Watson (1878-1958), an American psychologist, soon became one of
its strongest advocates. Behaviourism rejected the emphasis on the conscious
and the unconscious mind and instead focused purely on overt behaviour because
that could be easily quantified and easily measured; it was objective.

The final decades of the 20th century saw the rise of cognitive psychology.
Cognitive science again considers the ‘mind’ as a subject for investigation, using
the tools of evolutionary psychology, linguistics, computer
science, philosophy, behaviourism, and neurobiology. This form of investigation
has proposed that a wide understanding of the human mind is possible, and that
such an understanding may be applied to other research domains, such
as artificial intelligence.

INDIAN VIEWS ON CONSCIOUSNESS

In the Brahmanical Philosophy, there are six major schools that are
representative of a full range of Indian perspectives. Two of these six schools,
namely YOGA and ADVÃITA VEDÃNTA provide a comprehensive perception of
the views on consciousness. These perspectives emphasize the "superior" states
of consciousness, which are generally neglected by Western psychologists. In
contrast to most of the Western theories, the Indian approaches to
consciousness have developed in the context of adhyatma or spiritual life.

Yoga of Patanjali emphasizes psychological issues to an extent that it is

considered more of a psychological theory than a philosophical system. It covers
a broad range of Indian perspectives that are fairly divergent in their scope.
Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand, embraces a monistic doctrine, propounded
by Sankara, that has made this perspective the most dominant and popular
school of Indian Philosophy.

Q.1 Discuss the Yogic views on Consciousness. (15)

The cryptic style of the Yoga aphorisms, the meaning and significance of the
original compact text have been explained through well-known commentaries.
Vyasa is known for holding the most important and well-known commentaries of
the Yoga aphorisms.

Ɯ Patanjali, a sage in the ancient times of India, authored 196 of his works
under a broad collection of Yoga Sutras. According to Patanjali, human
condition can be seen as being full of misery. He has shown the analogy
between Yoga and medicine, which is clarified by Vyasa as “The misery
involved in the unending cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is considered
similar to a disease”. Patanjali's theory suggests that the root cause of
 this disease is the identification of the real Self or the Knower with the
objects of his knowledge. Patanjali believes that the Self can be restored
to a state of health by acquiring knowledge of its real nature. But even
the very sketchy account of the medical analogy used by the exponents
of Yoga is enough to suggest that Yoga did not emerge from the type of
clinical situation from which the Freudian model emerged. In Yoga we are
not talking about a therapeutic program aimed simply at helping a patient
who is suffering from physical or neurotic symptoms, but a spiritual quest
for the ultimate release from miseries of life.

Ɯ Yoga is concerned with the mental processes or the process of the

consciousness. Patanjali defines Yoga as the control or restraint of the
processes of consciousness. Upon attainment of a complete restraint of
these processes, the Self is said to be restored to its original state,
devoid of all experience of the misery that usually accompanies the
common mental states listed above. To put it simply, an ideal human
condition, free from all miseries, is said to be attained through the
control of mental processes. This, of course, is what is claimed by the
yogis; we shall examine the theoretical basis of this claim. On the
practical side, Yoga offers a systematic method of attaining mastery over
one's mental processes. There is a clear emphasis on the processual,
dynamic aspect of consciousness in the Yogic approach.

Ɯ System which suggests two ontological categories or basic principles of

reality:
✓ Prakrti- which underlies the material world. The continual modifications in
the world of Prakrti are governed by the regulative principle of karma.
✓ Purusa - which manifests itself in the form of innumerable "souls"
residing in all kinds of living creatures. The Purusa is metaphorically
described as an immutable "light" because it accounts for the
"illuminating" character of consciousness. In Yoga, as in Sankhya, the
essential characteristic of Purusa is an absolute, pure sentience or
simply the capacity to become aware and to experience. When the term
Purusa is used with reference to human beings, it is often considered
synonymous with the real Self.
Although Purusa and Prakrti are essentially separate principles, they
have become entangled with one another due to primeval ignorance
 (avidya). There is no explanation of the cause of this ignorance. It is
considered beginningless--although it can be ended by realizing the true
nature of the Self.

Ɯ The first product of the contact of Purusa with Prakrti is called Mahat or
Buddhi in Sankhya, and the same is generally called citta in Yoga. This
union is the original cause from which originate the individual phenomenal
selves which become involved in a perpetual journey from one life cycle to
the next. The effect of this cause manifests itself in the form of
separate phenomenal selves associated with each individual Purusa. Citta
stands for all that is psychological in man. It is primarily the seat of all
experiences and the repository of their residual effects. It includes the
living principle within human beings. It also refers to the totality of the
senses, the ego, and the intellect. The term citta may, therefore, be
translated generally as the mind. Vyasa considers citta to be a part of
the world of Prakrti. Like everything else in the domain of Prakrti, the
citta involves the three basic qualities: sattva or luminosity, rajas or
activity, and tamas or heaviness and inertia. Due to the constant interplay
of these qualities, the citta is involved in incessant modifications. These
modifications, called vrttis, are classified by Patanjali into five major
categories. The vrttis include a broad variety of mental processes
including perceiving, thinking, imagining, sleeping, and recollecting.
✓ The first category of vrttis is called pramana. The word prama
means valid cognition, and pramana is a means of acquiring valid
cognition. Patanjali lists direct perception or inference or anumana,
and verbal testimony from a trustworthy person or agama as
categories of the means of obtaining valid knowledge.
✓ The second category of vrttis listed by Patanjali- viparyaya is
defined as the types of cognitive processes that lead to erroneous
cognition. Vyasa gives perception of two moons as an example of
viparyaya. What is referred to here is a set of cognitive processes
that are involved in perceptual illusions.
✓ The third category of vrttis, called vikalpa, refers to imagination
or fantasy. The term is defined in terms of entities that have no
counterparts in the objective world. Vijnana gives a typical Indian
example of this category, namely, the horns of a rabbit. Western
examples might be centaurs, unicorns, or other products of
 fantasy. The making of hypothetical "constructs" is also a part of
this category of vrttis.
✓ The fourth category is nidra or sleep. This is considered a special
kind of modification of the citta because, unlike in other states,
during sleeping there seems to be an absence of direct, cognitive
experience. Yet, one must be having some kind of experience during
sleep since, upon awakening, one often says: "I had a good night's
sleep," or "I didn't sleep well," and so on.
✓ The fifth and final category of vrttis is smrti or "recollection,"
which is simply defined as the "not dropping off" of what is once
experienced.

Ɯ Vyasa describes several "stages" or conditions of citta, characterizing

the way in which the mind predominantly functions during a given period
of time. These are:
✓ wandering (ksipta)- refers to a restless condition, wherein a person
follows his momentary predilection in thought and action while
engaging himself actively in any business of life.
✓ stupefied (mudha)- refers to a relatively lethargic condition, as in a
state of drowsiness or sleep. Here the mind is not active, but
slowing down. A person in this condition is clearly far from having
his mind under control.
✓ occasionally steady (viksipta)- refers to the condition of an
occasionally steady but easily distracted mind.
✓ one-pointed (ekagra)- described as one-pointed, which means that
a person in this condition is so deeply involved in something that he
cannot easily be distracted. The mental and physical activities are
completely harnessed to accomplish whatever task is undertaken.
Any and every desire or action tendency that might interfere with
the focused attention is kept under control.
✓ restrained (niruddha)- the hallmark of this plane is that technique
of Yoga is designed to facilitate the attainment of a condition of
complete restraint of all mental activities.
Ɯ Practical aspects of yoga (kriyayoga) include a brief account of the
techniques of systematic control of the processes of consciousness.
There are 2 goals that are clearly set goals of practicing the techniques:
(i) The first goal is the attenuation of miseries;
(ii) the second, the attainment of samadhi or trance states.
The practical aspect of Yoga is divided into eight parts or "limbs" that
can be listed under the following labels:
✓ Restraints (yama)- This aspect involves a set of prescriptions that
require an initiate to abstain from the following: inflicting injuries,
falsehood, theft, incontinence or lust, and avarice.
✓ Observances (niyama)- This aspect recommends the cultivation of
the following virtues: cleanliness, contentment, ascetic self-
control, study, and devotion to God.
✓ Posture (asana)- Patanjali mentions stability (sthira) and comfort
(sukha) as the criteria for the right posture. The strategy here is
somewhat similar to that of conventional psychoanalytic therapy,
where the patient is asked to recline comfortably on a sofa so that
he will not be distracted while engaging in free association.
✓ Breathing Exercises (pranayama)- Patanjali explains the nature and
significance of breathing exercises in four aphorisms. These
exercises involve the systematic regulation of inhalation,
exhalation, and the holding of breath. According to Vyasa, "the
karma capable of covering the discriminative thinking dwindles
away" as a result of practicing breath control. The purpose of Yoga,
however, is to retard and ultimately to stop the stream of
thoughts. It follows, therefore, that Yoga prescribes such
practices as are believed to dampen one's enthusiasm to continue
thinking.
✓ Withdrawing of the Senses from Their Objects (pratyahara)-
Withdrawal of the senses means simply that a person does not
allow his eyes to wander around looking for things, nor his ears to
pick up sounds from the environment, and so on.

The five aspects of Yogic practices described so far are

considered "external" or peripheral aspects of Yoga relative to the
next three, which form the inner core.
 ✓ Concentration (dharana)- This is literally defined as the "binding"
of the processes of consciousness (citta, vrttis) to a particular
place.
✓ Contemplation (dhyana)- The next step involves an attempt to hold
onto thoughts, ideas, or an image (pratyaya) of whatever object
one has chosen to concentrate his attention upon.
✓ Samadhi- The term samadhi has often been translated as "trance."
The term samadhi refers to a complex concept requiring an
elaborate discussion.

Concentration, contemplation, and samadhi, are collectively called

restraint (samyama). It should be clear that these three must
occur one after another in the particular sequence in which they
are mentioned.

Ɯ In this day and age, applications of the diverse form of Yoga have been
into use as alternative therapeutic approaches. Some of them are:
✓ Yoga either refers to only the asanas or body posture component
or to breathing practices or pranayama or to a combination of the
two. Meditation refers to the practice of focusing attention on
breath or an object or though or a mantra.
✓ In Vipasana meditation, also known as mindfulness-based
meditation, the person passively observes the various bodily
sensations and thoughts that are passing through in his or her
awareness. It aids the prevention of repeated episodes of
depression.
✓ Sudarshana Kriya Yoga (SKY) is found to be a low-cost, low-risk,
beneficial adjunct to the treatment of stress, anxiety, PTSD,
depression, stress-related mental illnesses. substance abuse and
rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
✓ Kundalini Yoga combines pranayama with chanting of mantras. The
Institute for Non-linear Science, University of California has found
that Kundalini Yoga has been effective in the treatment of
obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Q2. Discuss the Vedantic views of consciousness. (15)

or
Describe the non-dualistic view of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta.
Ɯ Vedanta is perhaps the most popular and dominant of all the schools of
Indian thought. The word Vedanta literally means the end of the Vedas
which are the most ancient scriptural texts of the Hindus. Such
nomenclature follows from the idea that this school of philosophy
represents the highest culmination of the philosophic thought of the
Vedic sages.

Ɯ Many of the Vedantic concepts are expressed succinctly in the

philosophical discourses called the Upanishads. The Upanishads form the
basic authoritative source of Vedantic doctrines. In a later period, these
doctrines were summarized by Badarayana in the form of a set of
aphorisms. A third important source of Vedanta philosophy is the
Bhagavad Gita, which appears in the form of Lord Krishna exhortations to
the heroic warrior Arjuna in the epic Mahabharata.

Ɯ During the early 9th century, Sankara wrote definitive commentaries on

all the sources of Vedantic thought. He established his particular non-
dualistic interpretation of the Vedanta philosophy by trenchantly
refuting rival schools of thought prevalent in his day. Sankara's writings
are voluminous. His philosophical thoughts manifest profound insight,
subtle logic, and remorseless dialectic. He was far from a disinterested
intellectual playing a mere game of logic; he was a man of great
compassion and rich, emotional temperament. He was also a poet with a
great mastery of the Sanskrit language, which is illustrated by the
beautiful verses credited to him.

Ɯ Sankara’s ideas regarding the individual and the nature of the human
psychic apparatus are explained as a distinction between the gross body
(sthula sarira) and the subtle body (suksma sarira). The latter includes
the five sense organs, the five motor organs, and an "inner instrument"
(antahkarana). The inner instrument, in turn, is said to be composed of
the following four components that refer to a kind of an inner "agency”:
✓ The mind (manas), which manifests itself in the form of the
processes of doubting and decision making, and in the processes of
analysis and synthesis of ideas, or in other words, the processes of
cognitive differentiation and integration.
 ✓ The intellect (buddhi), which is involved in determining a course of
action (niscayatmika), willing, and the like.
✓ The ego (ahamkara) as manifest in self-awareness and also in self-
seeking, conceit, and so on.
✓ The psyche (citta), which is involved in remembering or in the of
the traces left behind by past actions and experiences.

Ɯ Vedanta follows the Upanishads in the conceptualization of consciousness

primarily in terms of its states. The following are the four states of
consciousness according to Vedanta:
✓ wakefulness (jagrti)- In the wakeful state, the gross as well as the
subtle aspects of the body remain active.
✓ dream (svapna)- The dream state is believed to be an intermediary
state between wakefulness and deep sleep. Here the gross body as
well as the senses are at rest; but the subtle body is still active. In
his commentary on the Vedanta aphorisms, Sankara discusses the
nature of dreams at some length. He recognizes that things seen in
dreams are like those seen in the waking state and attributes this
similarity to the impressions and desires (vasana) formed as a
result of experiences during the wakeful state. In recognizing the
role of desires, Sankara adopts a view similar to that of Freudian
theory, which stresses the wish-fulfilling character of dreams.
✓ deep sleep (susupti)
✓ the "Fourth" state (turiya)- The word turiya literally means "the
fourth" and is commonly used by Vedantists to refer to the trance
state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

Ɯ The Fourth State of Consciousness is not different from the

Asamprajnata samadhi of Yoga. Like most samadhi states, the Fourth
State of Consciousness does not last long. One who attains the Fourth
State of Consciousness realizes that the world as he saw it during the
wakeful state is also relatively unreal or illusory.

Ɯ Vedantists suggest four basic means by which anyone can attain the
Fourth State of Consciousness or the state of liberation. The four means
are:
✓ The first means involves the correct discrimination between the
everlasting and the impermanent. The Brahman is to be recognized
as the only permanent form of existence; the phenomenal world is
impermanent. This would imply that one must learn to identify
oneself as the everlasting Atman and not identify oneself with the
body which is impermanent. It would also mean that one begins to
realize that there is some lasting form of happiness different from
the worldly gains of wealth and power, which are as transient as
the pleasures that they can bring. Striving for the more permanent
is a necessary precondition for the journey to liberation. (The
concept of delayed gratification is familiar to most contemporary
psychologists, as it has been borrowed from the Puritan sects of
Protestantism and adapted to contemporary theory and
methodology.) Delayed gratification brings more rewards of the
same type, even if it would tend to bring them on a relatively
permanent basis. Vedanta, by contrast, implies a different type of
gratification when it refers to lasting forms of happiness.
✓ The second means involves maintaining an attitude of detachment.
More specifically, it means that one refrains from hankering for
enjoyments expected either in this world or in the existence after
death. It should be possible to maintain an attitude of detachment
when most forms of enjoyment are recognized to be temporary at
best.
✓ Acquisition of the following six virtues is the third means:
a. controlling the mind so as to rest it steadily on one's objective
(sama),
b. withdrawing the senses from the objects of their pleasure
(dama)
c. preventing the mind from modifying itself as it becomes
modified when controlled by the external objects (uparati),
d. enduring hardships and pain without lamenting or becoming
anxious (titiksa)
e. adopting an attitude of conviction that the theory explained by
the scriptures and the directions provided by the teacher (guru)
are the correct means for the knowledge of Reality (sraddha), and
f. the firm resting of the mind on the formless Brahman without
indulging the mind (samadhana).
 ✓ The fourth means is the cultivation of an intense desire for
liberation from the bonds created by egoism and ignorance.

Ɯ There are some techniques of psychotherapy that can be derived from

the principles and techniques of Vedanta as explained in its basic
writings:
✓ The primary goal of Vedanta, namely self-realization, is more akin
to the concern of attaining "positive mental health" or a higher
sense of fulfilment in life, than to the restoration of an average
level of health among those who are clearly in a "pathological"
condition.
✓ Sophisticated techniques of counselling based on the principles of
Vedanta have already been developed and are used by holy persons
or "gurus."

Identify the similarities and differences between Yoga

and Vedanta (8).

In the Brahmanical Philosophy, there are six major schools that are
representative of a full range of Indian perspectives. Two of these six schools,
namely YOGA and ADVÃITA VEDÃNTA provide a comprehensive perception of
the views on consciousness. These perspectives emphasize the "superior" states
of consciousness, which are generally neglected by Western psychologists. In
contrast to most of the Western theories, the Indian approaches to
consciousness have developed in the context of adhyatma or spiritual life.

Yoga of Patanjali emphasizes psychological issues to an extent that it is

considered more of a psychological theory than a philosophical system. It covers
a broad range of Indian perspectives that are fairly divergent in their scope.
Advaita Vedanta, on the other hand, embraces a monistic doctrine, propounded
by Sankara, that has made this perspective the most dominant and popular
school of Indian Philosophy.

Ɯ Some sources of similarities between the Vedantic and the Yogic

approaches to consciousness are:
✓ Attainment of Samadhi
 The resemblance between the means and strategies for the
attainment of an ideal human condition recommended by both
should be particularly clear. Thus, both Yoga and Vedanta
recommend refraining from the pursuit of worldly pleasures and
from the accumulation of their means, cultivation of the attitude
of detachment, studying the doctrines of one's chosen discipline,
withdrawing the senses from the objects of their pleasure and
ascetic self-control.
✓ Radhakrishnan has pointed out that the Vedantic strategy of
studying the principles of Vedanta and their contemplation
correspond to the Yogic concentration and the steps leading to it,
and that the Vedantic description of persistent contemplation of
the non-dual principle is a close equivalent of the Yogic description
of an unswerving contemplation.
✓ The well-known Vedantist Sadananda recommends the adoption of a
full-scale Yogic approach including all the eight "limbs" of Yoga as
described by Patantjali (except that he advises concentration on
the non-dual principle of Vedanta rather than any object of the
yogi's choice as recommended by Patantjali). Nrsimhasarasvati, who
has written a commentary on Sadananda's Vedantasara, has even
recommended specific postures described in Hatha Yoga as
appropriate methods in the attainment of Nirvikalpa samadhi.

Ɯ The differences between the ontological and cosmological doctrines of

Yoga and Vedanta are fundamental and irreconcilable.
✓ Sankara vehemently opposed the ontological stand of Samkhya-
Yoga and criticised Yoga as a school of philosophy in his
commentary on Brahmasutra.
✓ Notwithstanding the similarities between their views of the ideal
human condition, the Yogic ideal of the isolation of the Purusa from
Prakrti (kaivalya) is said to be different from the Vedantic ideal of
self-realization, in that the former is said to emphasize the
release from misery while the latter emphasizes the attainment of
an infinite bliss as well as the adoption of attitudes and behaviours
characteristic of a "sthitaprajna."
Vedanta, like Yoga, expects its followers to observe ascetic self-restraint;
recommends "faith" in its conventional doctrines; and also expects the followers
to take what they get without becoming anxious or feeling miserable. From the
viewpoint of contemporary Western psychology and psychotherapy, one might
have the same reservations regarding the acceptance of the Vedanta approach
as regarding the acceptance of the Yogic approach.

Compare and contrast the eastern and western notions of

consciousness.

INTRODUCTION
Though the word 'Mind' is very often used in scientific literature, the exact
definition has never been easy. In most of the scientific literature, particularly
conventional psychology, mind is considered an epiphenomenon on the body
(particularly the brain). Brain is considered the seat of mind. The
neurobiological approach tries to explain the mind as a by-product of
physicochemical processes involving the billions of neurons in the human brain
and its various components are the thought process, emotions, intelligence and
awareness. The word 'Consciousness' refers to one's awareness of his unique
thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment.

Consciousness and mind are often considered synonymous. The body and mind
have always been considered to be two different manifestations of the same
grosser and less gross aspects of the same reality a position taken over
centuries by the thinkers of the Orient.

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE
The studies of 'Mind' as well as 'Consciousness' through established scientific
methods of research are often difficult due to the observed (object) and the
observer (subject) dichotomy. Most of such interpretations are based on the
dualistic and the reductionist approach of Rene Descartes, who considered mind
and matter as two different entities.

Sigmund Freud, a neurologist to begin with, explained the human mind as a multi-
layered entity consisting of id, ego and superego. Freudian, Neo-Freudian
approaches held their sway over European psychology for years. Pre-occupation
with drive reduction remained the theme of these schools. Carl Jung though
widened the scope of human existence by bringing in the concept of collective
unconscious ended up giving his own idiosyncratic explanations about various
aphorisms of the Upanishads.

Behaviourists like Watson and Skinner completely shifted the emphasis in the
opposite direction almost denying the existence of a conscious will. They
described every behaviour based on S-R (Stimulus- Response) theory. The
Sociocentric theories gave lot of importance to social determinants of human
behaviour again discounting the 'free will' in human behaviour.

Cognitive schools which came in later primarily emphasized on mental processes

like memory, perception, imagery and thinking, which were also influenced by
factors like culture, education, state of health of the individual. But, they too
failed to explain the nature of 'cognizer' behind the process of cognition, the
'man behind the machine'.

It is the 'Humanist Existential theories' ' or 'Third force psychologies'

revolutionized western thinking in the recent years and accepted the concept of
free will and its importance as a motivator of change. Roger's 'empathy'
Maslow's 'self-actualization' Fromm's 'ultimate union' and Assagioli's
'transcending the self to achieve higher self' are much closer to even though
not identical to what Oriental philosophies consider as 'liberation' or 'moksha'
or 'nirvana'.

The west with its scientific – reductionist orientations has long avoided
discussions on consciousness as a metaphysical ontological issue. The reasons are
twofold: Firstly, this issue by its very nature are not open to investigations by
usual scientific methods. Secondly, a reductionist explanation of this concept, in
essence is impossible. On the other hand, the eastern theorists, in their quest
for spirituality and transcendence, have invariably ignored the essentially
phenomenal nature of human experiences, as a starting point.

Most psychiatrists whose initial training in psychiatry is based on Western

dualistic thinking and detailed study of theories with little transcultural
applicability cannot help but feel uncomfortable with the universal theories of
Vedanta.

EASTERN PERSPECTIVE
Two of the six schools in Brahmanical philosophy, namely YOGA and AdvÃita
VEDÃNTA provide a comprehensive perception of the views on consciousness.
These perspectives emphasize the "superior" states of consciousness, which are
generally neglected by Western psychologists. In contrast to most of the
Western theories, the Eastern approaches to consciousness have developed in
the context of adhyatma or spiritual life.

Vedanta, like Yoga, expects its followers to observe ascetic self-restraint;

recommends "faith" in its conventional doctrines; and also expects the followers
to take what they get without becoming anxious or feeling miserable. From the
viewpoint of contemporary Western psychology and psychotherapy, one might
have the same reservations regarding the acceptance of the Vedanta approach
as regarding the acceptance of the Yogic approach.

YOGA: Sage Patanjali an ancient seer had enunciated as early as 400 B.C. the
practical steps of such introspection in his 196 aphorisms in the form of
'Patanjali Yoga sutras'. Treatises have been written elaborately explaining what
has been in these cryptic statements of Patanjali. Patanjali maintains that the
goal of existence is liberation from this ephemeral world of existence and
exiting from the cycle of birth and death and attaining the central core of
existence, which is a transcendental state of 'Purusha'. This is stated as a
trans-ego state going beyond the phenomenal world of 'ego' which is at the
periphery of awareness.

VEDANTA: The Oriental psychologies considered mind and body as the gross
and grosser aspect of the underlying unitary reality which is described in
vedantic texts as 'soul' or 'atman' or 'brahman'. Here consciousness is
explained in the singular and as the only reality but appearing in its
manifestations as plural due to ignorance (Avidya) or false identification as self
(Asmitha). The Vedanta philosophy has considered mind as the subtle form of
matter where in the body and its components are considered the grossest
forms. Consciousness, on the other hand, is considered finer than 'mind matter'
and is considered all pervasive, omnipresent and omniscient. The ancient seers
(the rishis) claimed that such truths are revealed only by intuitive research by
diving deep in to the self in the process of absorption (Samadhi).

Revival of the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahmasutras was started by

Acharya Shankara in the 8 th Century A.D. and in later years by Acharya
Ramanuja, Acharya Madhwa and various others. The modern-day philosopher-
yogis and thinkers like Mahrshi Dayananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami
Vivekananda, Maharshi Aurobindo and Paramahamsa have revived the interest of
the masses in to this area.

Swami Vivekananda explained the mind-body relationship from his own

transcendental experience 'The body is just the external crust of the mind.
They are not two different things; they are just as the oyster and its shell,
they are but two aspects of one thing; the internal substance of the oyster
takes up matter from outside, and manufactures the shell. When the mind is
disturbed, the body also becomes disturbed.

Many of the treatises of Buddhism and Jainism too emphasized on the

subjective and transcendental nature of mind and consciousness.

Oriental philosophies of mind, matter and spirituality often have been ridiculed
as being esoteric, unscientific and not verifiable by the rigorous standards of
present-day science. In studies of mind and consciousness, the difficulty of
using conventional scientific indices of deduction based on the principle of
observability, repeatability and demonstrability of a phenomenon is immediately
apparent as the subject of observation and study is the one that is being used
as a measure too.

Seers of the East proclaimed in the Upanishads the Unitary approach of Non-
duality and considered the outer world as an extension of 'self'. They argue
that the only thing that exists is 'Consciousness'. The world as we see is just a
projection of the unitary consciousness. The individualized consciousness is
explained as a perceptual error due to ignorance which begets a feeling of 'I'
ness. The individualized consciousness then because of attachment to objects
by way of love, desire, attachment or liking and hatred dislike or aversion gets
entangled in the web of the world there by forgetting the true nature of self as
universal consciousness. The individualized consciousness thus also is fearful of
losing its existence and that 'desire to cling to life' and that fear is described
as 'Abhinivesha'. The liberation (Moksha) is thus explained as the final goal of
every being. Death or disappearance of form is not considered the end of
existence.

Yogic texts and Vedanta explain that there is a superconscious state which
encompasses all other three states of consciousness-the 'Jagrat'(awake),
'Swapna' (dream) and 'Sushupti' (deep sleep). There is no object-subject
polarity (duality) in this universal state and it is unitary or singular.

CONCLUSION
What Alan Watts said in his treatise 'Psychotherapy East and West' seems
most appropriate-"If we look deeply into such ways of life as Buddhism and
Taoism, Vedanta and Yoga, we do not find either philosophy or religion as these
are understood in the West. We find something more nearly resembling
psychotherapy. This may seem surprising, for we think of the latter as a form
of science, somewhat practical and materialistic in attitude and of the former
as extremely esoteric (secret) religions concerned with regions of the spirit
almost entirely out of this world. This is because the combination of our
unfamiliarity with Eastern cultures and their sophistication gives them an aura
of mystery into which we project fantasies of our own making."

The revised concept of consciousness as causal, with its recognition of mental

phenomena as explanatory constructs in science, has brought a marked change
during the past decade in the scientific status of consciousness and of mental
and cognitive phenomena generally.

Reasons are advanced to show that the latest mind-brain model is fundamentally
monistic and not only fails to support dualism, but serves to further discount
fading prospects for finding dualist forms or domains of conscious experience
not embodied in a functioning brain.

CONSCIOUSNESS and MIND/BODY RELATIONSHIP

NOTE** views of some schools on the topic of self is written but you do not have to learn it
from the viewpoint of exam.

MIND/BODY RELATIONSHIP
The question of whether there is a mind and, if so, how it is related to the body
is as old as psychology itself. Through the years, almost every conceivable
position has been taken on the mind-body relationship.

Some psychologists attempt to explain everything in physical terms; for them,

even so-called mental events are ultimately explained by the laws of physics or
chemistry. These individuals are called materialists because they believe that
matter is the only reality, and therefore everything in the universe, including
the behaviour of organisms, must be explained in terms of matter. They are also
called monists because they attempt to explain everything in terms of one type
of reality—matter.

Other psychologists are at the opposite extreme, saying that even the so-called
physical world consists of ideas. These individuals are called idealists, and they,
too, are monists because they attempt to explain everything in terms of
consciousness.

Many psychologists, however, accept the existence of both physical and mental
events and assume that the two are governed by different principles. Such a
position is called dualism. The dualist believes that there are physical events
and mental events. Once it is assumed that both a physical and a mental realm
exist, the question becomes how the two are related.

- INTERACTIONISM: One form of dualism, called interactionism, claims

that the mind and body interact. That is, the mind influences the body,
and the body influences the mind. According to this interactionistic
conception, the mind is capable of initiating behaviour. This was the
position taken by Descartes and is the one taken by most members of the
humanistic-existential camp. The psychoanalysts, from Freud to the
present, are also interactionists. For them, many bodily ailments are
psychogenic, caused by mental events such as conflict, anxiety, or
frustration.
- EMERGENTISM: A currently popular way of explaining mind-body
relationships is through emergentism, which claims that mental states
emerge from brain states. One kind of emergentism claims that once
mental events emerge from brain activity, the mental events can
influence subsequent brain activity and thus behaviour. Because of the
postulated reciprocal influence between brain activity (body) and mental
events (mind), this kind of emergentism represents interactionism.
Sperry (1993), for example, accepted this kind of emergentism.

- EPIPHENOMENALISM: According to the epiphenomenalist, the brain

causes mental events but mental events cannot cause behaviour. In this
view, mental events are simply behaviourally irrelevant by-products
(epiphenomena) of brain processes.

- PSYCHOPHYSICAL PARALLELISM: Another dualist position is that an

environmental experience causes both mental events and bodily responses
simultaneously and that the two are totally independent of each other.
This position is referred to as psychophysical parallelism.

- DOUBLE ASPECTISM: According to another dualist position, called

double aspectism, a person cannot be divided into a mind and a body but is
 a unity that simultaneously experiences events physiologically and
mentally. Mind and body do not interact, nor can they ever be separated.
They are simply two aspects of each experience we have as humans.

- PRE-ESTABLISHED HARMONY: Other dualists maintain that there is a

preestablished harmony between bodily and mental events. That is, the
two types of events are different and separate but are coordinated by
some external agent— for example, God.

- OCCASIONALISM: In the 17th century, Nicolas de Malebranche (1638–

1715) suggested that when a desire occurs in the mind, God causes the
body to act. Similarly, when something happens to the body, God causes
the corresponding mental experience. Malebranche’s position on the mind-
body relationship is called occasionalism.

Structuralism

Wilhelm Wundt made phenomenal contributions in the field of psychology,

including the foundation of the first school of Psychology, but despite of all the
major contributions laid down by Wundt, he cannot be seen as the procreator of
the ‘structuralism’ paradigm. This is because Wundt had a different name for
the approach that he used to study human consciousness, i.e Voluntarism.
Structuralism emerged as a rival school to voluntarism that was started by
Edward Titchener who was one of Wundt’s students.

Understanding the human consciousness has always been a stated goal in the
treatise of renowned structuralists, most of which concerned Edward Bradford
Titchener. Structuralism describes human consciousness as parts or structures
of mind.

• Titchener, the founder of structuralism school of thought, agreed with

Wundt that psychology should study immediate experience—that is,
consciousness and he defined consciousness as the sum total of mental
experience at any given moment and mind as the accumulated experiences
of a lifetime. Titchener, accepting the positivism of Ernst Mach, believed
that speculation concerning unobservable events has no place in science
and he focused on observable conscious events.
• In order to study human consciousness, Titchener employed the method
of Introspection which was significantly different from the idea of
Wundt’s introspection. While Wundt marked a clear demarcating line
between pure introspection and experimental introspection, Titchener
believed in more complex ways of using the methodology of introspection.
According to Titchener, introspectionists had to search for the elemental
ingredients of their experiences than to simply report them. They had to
look for basic and raw elemental experiences from which specific
cognitive experience was built. Titchener moved with the idea of focusing
more on perceptions rather than sensations and coined the term ‘stimulus
error’ to describe the ignorance and negligence of the subjects [towards
not reporting the exact meaning of a stimulus] during the course of
introspective analysis. However, as Titchener progressed towards the
termination of his career, he developed a more liberal approach in his use
of introspection.
• From his introspective studies, Titchener concluded that the elemental
processes of consciousness consist of sensations (elements of
perceptions), images (elements of ideas), and affections (elements of
emotions). According to Titchener, an element could be known only by
listing its attributes. The attributes of sensations and images (remnants
of sensations) are quality, intensity, duration, clearness, and extensity.
Extensity is the impression that a sensation or image is more or less
spread out in space. Affections could have the attributes of quality,
intensity, and duration but neither clearness nor extensity.
• Critiques of structuralism claim that the method to study and understand
consciousness, introspection, encourages the scope of subjectivity in
interpreting the distressing experiences of individuals.
• Structuralism also attracted criticisms from the functionalism and
gestalt school of psychology. Functionalists believed that in order to
study human mind, psychology should focus on the role played by and
functions of the human mind, rather than the structure. ‘Behaviour’ was
the area of primary concern in functionalism. The Gestalt school of
psychology argues that the mind cannot be broken down into individual
elements and should instead be viewed from a ‘holistic’ perspective.

Functionalism
Some people mark the beginning of Functionalism with John Dewey’s article
“The Reflex Arc in Psychology” in 1896, while others believe it to be with
William James’s book “The Principles of Psychology” in 1890.

William James is the first advocate of Functionalism who staunchly opposed the
ideas of structuralism and advanced inch-perfect alternatives. William James
also took an active part in describing human consciousness as a stream of
consciousness. This view can be seen as representing the contemplation of
Functionalism as a school of thought. With his concept of stream of
consciousness, James opposed those who were busy searching for the elements
of thought.

• In the first place, said James, consciousness is personal. It reflects the

experiences of an individual, and therefore it is foolhardy to search for
elements common to all minds.
• Second, consciousness is continuous and cannot be divided up for analysis.
• Third, consciousness is constantly changing. Even though consciousness is
continuous and can be characterized as a steady stream from birth to
death, it is also constantly changing. One can never have exactly the same
idea twice because the stream of consciousness that provides the
context for the idea is ever-changing.
• Fourth, consciousness is selective. Some of the many events entering
consciousness are selected for further consideration and others are
inhibited
• Finally, and perhaps most important, consciousness is functional. This idea
permeates all of James’s writing, and it is the point from which the school
of functionalism developed. According to James, the most important thing
about consciousness—and the thing the elementists overlooked—is that
its purpose is to aid the individual in adapting to the environment.

• Very little in this view is compatible with the view held by Wundt the
experimentalist. James reached the following famous conclusion
concerning consciousness:
• “A “river” or a “stream” are the metaphors by which the consciousness is
most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the
stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life”.

James believed that bodily events cause thoughts and that thoughts cause
behaviour. Thus, on the mind-body question, he was an interactionist. Exactly
how the mind and body interacted was not known to James and, to him, the
 nature of the interaction may never be known. He said, “Nature in her
unfathomable designs has mixed us of clay and flame, of brain and mind, that
the two things hang indubitably together and determine each other’s being,
but how or why, no mortal may ever know”.

Gestalt Psychology

German word for “configuration,” “form,” or “whole” is Gestalt and keeping it as

a base, this new type of psychology was called Gestalt psychology. Major CONSCIOU-
proponents of the school were Wertheimer, Kohler, and Koffka. SNESS

• Consciousness, said the German rebels, could not be reduced to elements

without distorting the true meaning of the conscious experience. For
them, the investigation of conscious experience through the introspective
method was an essential part of psychology, but the type of conscious
experience Wundt and the U.S. structuralists investigated was artificial.
• This group of young German psychologists believed that we do not
experience things in isolated pieces but in meaningful, intact
configurations. We do not see patches of green, blue, and red; we see
people, cars, trees, and clouds. These meaningful, intact, conscious
experiences are what the introspective method should concentrate on.
• Wundt (as experimentalist), Titchener, Pavlov, and Watson used the
molecular approach to psychology as an attempt to reduce either
consciousness or behaviour to the basic elements. The Gestaltists argued
that a molar approach should be taken. Taking the molar approach in
studying consciousness would mean concentrating on phenomenological
experience (mental experience as it occurred to the naive observer,
without further analysis).
• The term phenomenon means “that which appears” or “that which is
given,” and so phenomenology, the technique used by the Gestaltists, is
the study of that which naturally appears in consciousness.
SELF

Fredrick S. Perls, a prominent Gestalt psychologist accused philosophers

and anthropologists of glorifying self to include things beyond everyday
manifestations of who we are. For Perls the self was synonymous with ‘I’
and was neither a static, nor objectifiable notion. I or self was “the
emerging gestalt of totality of identifications including all aspects of a
healthy organism”.

Rene Descartes

The studies of 'Mind' as well as 'Consciousness' through established

scientific methods of research are often difficult due to the observed
(object) and the observer (subject) dichotomy. The difficulty of
objectivizing an entity which is purely in the experiential domain is
immediately apparent. The root of the problem is that most of such
interpretations are based on the dualistic and the reductionist approach
of Rene Descartes, who considered mind and matter as two different
entities.

By saying that the nonphysical mind could influence the physical body,
Descartes confronted the ancient mind-body problem head on. What had
been implicit in many philosophies from the time of Pythagoras was
explicit in Descartes’s philosophy. He clearly stated that humans possess
a body that operates according to physical principles and a mind that does
not and that the two interact (influence each other). So, on the mind-
body problem, Descartes was a dualist, and the type of dualism that he
subscribed to was interactionism.

Descartes believed that the mind permeated the entire body. That the
mind is not housed in the body as a captain is housed in a ship is
demonstrated by the fact that our sensory experiences embellish our
cognitive experiences—with colour for example—and by the fact that we
consciously feel bodily states such as hunger, thirst, and pain. None of
these experiences or feelings would be possible if the mind were not
closely related to the body.

Freudian and Neo-Freudian Approach

CONSCIOUSNESS
• Sigmund Freud, a neurologist to begin with, explained the human mind as a
multi-layered entity consisting of id, ego and superego. Many of his
theories on aggression, Oedipus and Electra complexes were influenced
by 19th century Victorian culture and mindset with poor transcultural
applicability. The consciousness in the Freudian model is not used
synonymously with mind. Consciousness is only a small part of the mind. It
is equated with awareness in the predicate form.
• Freudian, Neo-Freudian approaches held their sway over European
psychology for years. Pre-occupation with drive reduction remained the
theme of these schools. Carl Jung though widened the scope of human
existence by bringing in the concept of collective unconscious ended up
giving his own idiosyncratic explanations about various aphorisms of the
Upanishads.

SELF
• Sigmund Freud’s work never addressed the issue of self directly. At the
very outset it is evident that a self-independent from body or detached
from it has no place in the essentially biological orientations of Freud.
The self in his theory is the total being: the body, the instincts and the
conscious and unconscious process. Freud’s theory seems antithetical to
the Indian perspective on Self in several ways: The Freudian individual is
pure Id at birth. Thus, in the absence of reality orientation and maturity,
children would not be able to attain self –realization and that in the
absence of any reflective awareness; a child may not even have a self at
all.
• Any reference to Psychic energy in the Freudian system is in the form of
Libido-an essentially material-oriented agency busy in procuring realistic
solutions to intra psychic conflicts. Transcendence– motivation is ruled
out in more than one way in the Freudian conceptualization. The
materialist orientation comes across in the biological innateness of all
structures of mind-the Id, Ego and Super-ego.
• Freud has identified hunger, sex appetite etc. among other things as life-
instincts. The ‘Selfhood’, if any, in the Freudian system would refer to a
state of mental and physical harmony and a no conflict situation with
adequate gratification of instincts.
• Jung replaced the term personality with ‘psyche’10. Jung specifically
addressed the issue of Self in his formulations. The Jungian Self was the
central archetype of the psyche. The conscious and unconscious
 complimented each other to form a totality which is Self. The Self thus,
becomes a deep inner guiding factor, different from the ego and
consciousness. Ego, which is the centre of consciousness, received light
from the self.
• Karen Horney, with her predominant emphasis on the social influences in
shaping personality, her conceptualized self primarily in the form of the
Self–concept as against self as a concept. Her conceptions of twin self
were limited to the predicated awareness and reflexivity and were not
very different from the Freudian conception of harmony and homeostasis.
• Besides Horney and Jung, Alfred Adler another prominent Neo-Freudian,
conceptualized self as synonymous with an Individual’s style of life. Adler
viewed the integrated personality as the self. For Adler, self was a
dynamic unifying principle rather than a structure of psyche. The self
was, separate entity to be actualized but present in the transactions
within the world.

Behaviourism

CONSCIOUSNESS
Behaviourists like Watson and Skinner completely shifted the emphasis in
the opposite direction almost denying the existence of a conscious will.
They described every behaviour based on S-R (Stimulus- Response)
theory. The Sociocentric theories gave lot of importance to social
determinants of human behaviour again discounting the 'free will' in
human behaviour.

SELF
The advent of Behaviourism almost eliminated the concept of self from
every day psychology. Skinner’s views on self are illustrative of this
development in psychology. Skinner considered self as an explanatory
fiction. He concluded that: “If we cannot show what is responsible for a
man’s behaviour, then we say he himself is responsible for it.”

Cognitive Psychology

CONSCIOUSNESS
 Cognitive schools which came in later primarily emphasized on mental
processes like memory, perception, imagery and thinking, which were also
influenced by factors like culture, education, state of health of the
individual. But, they too failed to explain the nature of 'cognizer' behind
the process of cognition, the 'man behind the machine'.

Humanistic-Existential Approach

CONSCIOUSNESS
• It is the 'Humanist Existential theories' ' or 'Third force psychologies'
revolutionized western thinking in the recent years and accepted the
concept of free will and its importance as a motivator of change. They
gave importance to abstract concepts like empathy, love, altruism, truth
and beauty.
• The theories of Carl Rogers, Gordon Allport, Abraham Maslow, Eric
Fromm and Roberto Assagioli, particularly the last were closer to the
theories of the oriental philosophies. Roger's 'empathy' Maslow's 'self-
actualization' Fromm's 'ultimate union' and Assagioli's 'transcending the
self to achieve higher self' are much closer to even though not identical
to what Oriental philosophies consider as 'liberation' or 'moksha' or
'nirvana'.

SELF

• Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow’s contribution in re-establishing the

significance of Self was seminal and rendered them into established self-
theorists.
• The third wave psychology did well to restore Self as a construct, yet the
overarching western preoccupations with individualism, materialism and an
empiricist, analytical attitude could not be overthrown by them in their
own theories too. Selfhood was at best defined as more sophisticated
reflective awareness.
• The Rogerian self is a dynamic entity in one’s field of experiences. The
field includes all that goes on in the envelope of an organism at any given
moment.
• The Maslowian conception is no different. The individual’s inherent nature
i.e. one’s own tastes; values and goals must be understood to be
 actualized. Self-actualized individuals act in accordance with their true
nature.
• Erich Fromm’s grounding in Existentialism brought him closer to
metaphysical, ontological issues. He suggested that each individual has,
among other needs, a need for transcendence-- to rise above their
passive roles as creatures and realize their own creative, proactive,
nondeterministic nature.

STRUCTURALISM and FUNCTIONALISM

Q. Discuss the contributions of structuralism towards the evolution

of psychology as a discipline
.

INTRODUCTION
In the year 1862, a book written by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, ‘Contributions
to the theory of self-perception’, articulated the need for a new field of
physiological [experimental] psychology that would uncover the facts of human
consciousness. Commencement of the first laboratory of psychology, ‘Institute
for Experimental Psychology’, in the year 1879, by Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig,
Germany is considered to be the foundational stone in the world of psychology.

Despite of all the major contributions laid down by Wilhelm Wundt, he cannot
be seen as the procreator of the ‘structuralism’ paradigm. This is because
Wundt had a different name for the approach that he used to study human
consciousness, i.e Voluntarism [which is also the first school of psychology].
Structuralism emerged as a rival school to voluntarism that was started by
Edward Titchener who was one of Wundt’s students. Apart from studying 2
years under Wundt, Titchener also made a translation of the 3rd edition of
Wundt’s book, ‘Principles of Physiological Psychology’ into English. Titchener
showed active participation to oppose the idea of behaviourism introduced by
John. B. Watson, claiming that it was merely a ‘technology of behaviour’ and has
no role in psychology.
Edward Titchener named his version of psychology ‘structuralism’, as he wanted
to describe the structure of mind and place emphasis on the observable
conscious experiences via the method of introspection. In the year 1899,
Titchener attempted to explain the goal of structuralism as describing the ‘is’
of mental life, while he left the ‘is for’ of mental life for others to ponder.

INTROSPECTION
Wundt and Titchener had contrasting views on the employment of introspection
as a method of understanding human consciousness. While Wundt marked a
clear demarcating line between pure introspection and experimental
introspection, Titchener believed in more complex ways of using the
methodology of introspection. According to Titchener, introspectionists had to
search for the elemental ingredients of their experiences than to simply report
them. They had to look for basic and raw elemental experiences from which
specific cognitive experience was built. Titchener moved with the idea of
focusing more on perceptions rather than sensations and coined the term
‘stimulus error’ to describe the ignorance and negligence of the subjects
[towards not reporting the exact meaning of a stimulus] during the course of
introspective analysis. However, as Titchener progressed towards the
termination of his career, he developed a more liberal approach in his use of
introspection.

OTHER AREAS OF CONTRIBUTION

Another major contribution made by Titchener’s structuralism changed the
what of psychology and ‘included the sensations and images that can be
described in terms of quality, intensity, duration, clearness, and extensity along
with the feelings that varied in terms of pleasantness.’ Titchener reached a
conclusion from his introspective studies that the elemental processes of
consciousness embraces affections, images and sensations. Titchener placed his
firm belief in the fact that listing the attributes of an element is the only way
of knowing it. Titchener and his students prioritized the study of sensations and
gave little importance to images and affections. Wundt’s tri-dimensional theory
of feelings was strongly condemned by Titchener as he only thought the
dimension of pleasantness - unpleasantness to be of some significance in
describing feelings accurately.
 Structuralism grew to determine how the specific elements of our thoughts
combined together to form more complex mental processes. Structuralism
rejected Wundt’s ideas of creative synthesis and association. The proponent of
this school, Titchener gave the law of contiguity and made it his basic law of
association. The school of thought gave minimal importance to the concept of
attention and thought of it as simply being an attribute of clearness or
sensation. As accepted by Titchener, the how of mental processes was
traditional associationism, which also oriented him to the British Empiricists (an
empiricist is someone who believes that sensation is the sole source of
knowledge and experience).

Structuralism also gave psychology the why of mental processes (causal factors
of mental processes), i.e, neurophysiological processes. Titchener believed that
“physiological processes provide a continuous substratum that give psychological
processes a continuity they otherwise would not have”. According to Titchener,
mental events cannot be attributed to nervous system, however it can definitely
offer an explanation to the characteristics of mental events.

FALL of STRUCTURALISM
Wundt’s voluntarism as opposed to Titchener’s structuralism is still evident in
the present day. Some believe that the dwindling of structuralism was inevitable
in many ways. Every aspect of structuralism was in inherited from the past in
some or the other way.

1. The interest of structuralism in studying the subjective concept of mind has

been in existence from ancient times.

2. The increased emphasis on the notion and theories of sensation has also been
assumed from the earliest gateways of mind.

3. The major tool used by structuralists and its opponents, introspection, is also
a product of the past. Introspectionists could not reach a consensus concerning
the ‘right’ description of the stimulus. However, the results greatly varied
depending upon who used the methodology. Critiques of introspection also
acknowledged that it is actually retrospection that the structuralists were
talking about.

4. Studying non-human animals as a way of learning more about humans, was not
appreciated and cultivated by Structuralism.
5. Aspects like personality, learning, abnormal behaviour, psychological
development, individual differences, cognition did not have a significant place in
Structuralism.

One of the foremost important developments of human history, the evolution

doctrine, found no place in any work associated with structuralism. The varsity
also did not accommodate the postulation of applying knowledge to hunt answers
associated with practical, real-life problems. The criticisms and condemnation
presented by the opponents of structuralism also played a paramount role in
evolving Psychology as a discipline. New insights and challenges were raised and
acted upon, that gave newer dimensions to Psychology.

RELEVANCE in today’s world

A book on the history of psychology quoted that, “As long as Titchener was
healthy, structuralism flourished; but when he died on August 3, structuralism
essentially died with him.” In the contemporary world of psychology,
researchers are still finding to deliver some objective offers that explain the
methods used to measure conscious experiences. In doing so, the researchers
are maintaining and continuing with the beacon of ideas presented by Titchener.
The methodologies of introspection are seen as retrospective and are almost
always conducted under highly controlled situations. Some individuals believe
that introspection is still admissible in the current scenario but under different
names such as self-report surveys, interviews and fMRIs. Structuralism has also
had an impact on the modern-day experimental psychology.

Q. Contributions of Functionalism towards the evolution of

psychology as a discipline.

INTRODUCTION

In the course of history, there were several events that took place and marked
the beginning of a psychology that was to emphasize individual differences,
adaptation to the environment, and practicality—in other words, a psychology
that was perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory. One of it was John
Dewey publishing a paper in 1886 to describe the new empirical science. Next in
1887 came the first issue of the American Journal of Psychology, the first
psychology journal in the United States, and finally in 1890 William James’s The
Principles of Psychology was published. It was also during this stage that
Titchener began his highly influential structuralist program at Cornell
University (1892), which successfully competed with functionalism for several
years.

During the stage of U.S. functionalism, science, concern for practicality,

emphasis on the individual, and evolutionary theory combined into the school of
functionalism. Sahakian (1975) marks the beginning of functionalism at 1896,
with the publication of John Dewey’s article “The Reflex Arc in Psychology.
Others mark the formal beginning of functionalism with the 1890 publication of
James’s book The Principles of Psychology.

CHARACTERISTICS
Keller, in 1973, delineated some themes and characteristics of the functionalist
psychology. These are:

• The functionalists opposed what they considered the sterile search for
the elements of consciousness in which the structuralists engaged.
• The functionalists wanted to understand the function of the mind rather
than provide a static description of its contents. They believed that
mental processes had a function—to aid the organism in adapting to the
environment. That is, they were interested in the “is for” of the mind
rather than the “is,” its function rather than its structure.
• The functionalists wanted psychology to be a practical science, not a pure
science, and they sought to apply their findings to the improvement of
personal life, education, industry, and so on. The structuralists actively
avoided practicality.
• The functionalists urged the broadening of psychology to include
research on animals, children, and abnormal humans. They also urged a
broadening of methodology to include anything that was useful, such as
puzzle boxes, mazes, and mental tests.
• The functionalists’ interest in the “why” of mental processes and
behaviour led directly to a concern with motivation. Because an organism
will act differently in the same environment as its needs change, these
 needs must be understood before the organism’s behavior can be
understood.
• The functionalists accepted both mental processes and behavior as
legitimate subject matter for psychology, and most of them viewed
introspection as one of many valid research tools.
• The functionalists were more interested in what made organisms
different from one another than what made them similar.
• All functionalists were directly or indirectly influenced by William James,
who had been strongly influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution.

WILLIAM JAMES
William James (1842–1910) represents the transition between European
psychology and U.S. psychology. His ideas contained the seeds that were
to grow into the school of functionalism. James had already brought
prominence to U.S. psychology through the publication of Principles two
years before Titchener arrived at Cornell. For James, it was not proper
for science to determine which aspects of human experience are worthy
of investigation and which are not.

• METHODOLOGY

Functionalism was never a well-defined school of thought with one

recognized leader or an agreed-on methodology.
James’s pragmatic philosophy appears in his description of the methods
that psychology should employ. He urged the use of both introspection
and experimentation, as well as the study of animals, children, preliterate
humans, and abnormal humans.
In short, he encouraged the use of any method that would shed light on
the complexities of human existence; he believed that nothing useful
should be omitted.
If something about humans—for example, free will—could not be studied
effectively using a certain method, James said, one did not throw out
that aspect of human existence. Rather, one sought alternative methods
of investigation.

• FREE WILL and DETERMINISM

At the age of 27, James was deeply affected by a state of depression.
One reason for his depression was the implications of the German
materialistic physiology and psychology that had so impressed him. It was
clear to James that if the materialistic philosophy was correct, it applied
to him as well. This meant that anything that happened to him was
predetermined and thus beyond his control. James’s acceptance of
Darwin’s theory of evolution exacerbated the problem. In Darwin’s view,
there is variation, natural selection, and survival of the fittest; there is
no freedom, hope, or choice.

When James came across an essay on free will by Charles Renouvier, he

mentioned in his diary that “The sustaining of a thought because I choose
to when I might have other thoughts” and that “My first act of free will
shall be to believe in free will”.

James also perceived a conflict between the objective, scientific

viewpoint based on determinism and personal, subjective feelings, such as
the feeling that one’s will is free. James used pragmatism to solve the
problem. While using the scientific method in psychology, he said, it was
necessary to assume that human behaviour is determined. As useful as
this assumption was, however, it had limits. Therefore, according to
James, both a scientific and a philosophical approach must be used in the
study of human behaviour and thought.

Although James did not solve the free will– determinism controversy, he
did arrive at a position with which he was comfortable. He noted that
without the assumption of determinism, science would be impossible, and
insofar as psychology was to be a science, it too must assume
determinism. Science, however, is not everything, and for certain
approaches to the study of humans, the assumption of free will might be
very fruitful.

According to James’s ideo-motor theory of behaviour, an idea of a certain

action causes that action to occur. For James, voluntary action and mental
effort were inseparable. The ideas of various behavioural possibilities are
retained from previous experience, and their recollection is a
prerequisite to voluntary behaviour.
 The will functions by selecting one from among many ideas of action we
are interested in doing. By fiat (consent, or literally “let it be”), the will
expends energy to hold the idea of interest in consciousness, thus
inhibiting other ideas: “Effort of attention is thus the essential
phenomenon of will”.
If we combine James’s theories of volition and emotion, what we think
determines what we do, and what we do determines how we feel.

• RATIONALISM vs EMPIRICISM

James proposed a radical empiricism by which all consistently reported

aspects of human experience are worthy of study. James’s willingness to
accept methods ranging from anecdotes to rigorous experimentation was
further testimony to his belief in pragmatism and radical empiricism.

Following his radical empiricism, James was always willing to entertain a

wide variety of ideas ranging from religion, mysticism, faith healing, and
psychic phenomena to the most rigorous scientific facts and methods
available in psychology at the time.

Rationalism sticks to logic and the empyrean [lofty, abstract]. Empiricism

sticks to the external senses. Pragmatism is willing to take anything, to
follow either logic or the senses and to count the humblest and most
personal experiences. She will count mystical experiences if they have
practical consequences.

• CONSCIOUSNESS

William James is the first advocate of Functionalism who staunchly

opposed the ideas of structuralism and advanced inch-perfect
alternatives. William James also took an active part in describing human
consciousness as a stream of consciousness. With his concept of stream
of consciousness, James opposed those who were busy searching for the
elements of thought.

In the first place, said James, consciousness is personal. It reflects the

experiences of an individual, and therefore it is foolhardy to search for
elements common to all minds.
 Second, consciousness is continuous and cannot be divided up for analysis.
Third, consciousness is constantly changing. Even though consciousness is
continuous and can be characterized as a steady stream from birth to
death, it is also constantly changing. One can never have exactly the same
idea twice because the stream of consciousness that provides the
context for the idea is ever-changing.
Fourth, consciousness is selective. Some of the many events entering
consciousness are selected for further consideration and others are
inhibited
Finally, and perhaps most important, consciousness is functional. This idea
permeates all of James’s writing, and it is the point from which the school
of functionalism developed. According to James, the most important thing
about consciousness—and the thing the elementists overlooked—is that
its purpose is to aid the individual in adapting to the environment.

Very little in this view is compatible with the view held by Wundt the
experimentalist. James reached the following famous conclusion
concerning consciousness:
“A “river” or a “stream” are the metaphors by which the consciousness is
most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the
stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life”.
James believed that bodily events cause thoughts and that thoughts
cause behaviour. Thus, on the mind-body question, he was an
interactionist. Exactly how the mind and body interacted was not known
to James and, to him, the nature of the interaction may never be known.
He said, “Nature in her unfathomable designs has mixed us of clay and
flame, of brain and mind, that the two things hang indubitably together
and determine each other’s being, but how or why, no mortal may ever
know”.

• OPPOSITION to Wundt’s Psychology

Almost everything in Principles can be seen as a criticism of what James
perceived Wundt’s approach to psychology to be. That approach, James
thought, consisted of a search for the elements of consciousness.
(For more, look at the question on differences between structuralism and
functionalism)

• HABITS
 James did not believe that instinctive behaviour is “blind and invariable.”
Rather, he believed that such behaviour is modifiable by experience.
Furthermore, he believed that new instinct like patterns of behaviour
develop within the lifetime of the organism. James called these learned
patterns of behaviour habits.

Habits are functional because they simplify the movements required to

achieve a result, increase the accuracy of behaviour, reduce fatigue, and
diminish the need to consciously attend to performed actions.

• CONTRIBUTIONS
James helped incorporate evolutionary theory into psychology. By
stressing what is useful, he represented a major departure from the pure
psychology of both voluntarism and structuralism. In fact, the pragmatic
spirit in James’s psychology quite naturally led to the development of
applied psychology.

James expanded research techniques in psychology by not only accepting

introspection but also encouraging any technique that promised to yield
useful information about people.

By studying all aspects of human existence—including behaviour,

cognition, emotions, volition, and even religious experience—James also
expanded the subject matter of psychology.

FATE OF FUNCTIONALISM

It did not die as a school as structuralism had but was absorbed.

According to Chaplin and Krawiec (1979), As a systematic point of view,
functionalism was an overwhelming success, but largely because of this
success it is no longer a distinct school of psychology. It was absorbed
into the mainstream psychology. No happier fate could await any
psychological point of view.
Similarly, Hilgard (1987) said, “[Functionalism] declined as a recognized
school, destroyed by its success, and, in part, by the success of its
intellectual progeny, behaviourism”.
 Q. Points of differentiation between structuralism and
functionalism

INTRODUCTION

Structuralism and Functionalism are two of the earliest approaches to the field
of psychology. Both the schools have witnessed an era of conflicting ideas and
tension between each other. Whether it is about the methodology to be used,
scope of study, consciousness or any other debate, both the paradigms have
seldomly shown congruence with each other’s ideas. Here are certain aspects in
which structuralism significantly differs from functionalism. Functionalism
appeared as a reaction to the theories proposed by structuralism to study
human mind and behaviour.

Some people mark the beginning of Functionalism with John Dewey’s article
“The Reflex Arc in Psychology” in 1896, while others believe it to be with
William James’s book “The Principles of Psychology” in 1890.

William James is the first advocate of Functionalism who staunchly opposed the
ideas of structuralism and advanced inch-perfect alternatives.

DELIMITATIONS
Structuralism made an attempt to study human mind by looking at the structural
units of the mind. The technique of introspection was employed. Soon after this
was introduced, Functionalists critiqued introspection to have an inherently
subjective foundation. They believed that in order to study human mind,
psychology should focus on the role played by and functions of the human mind,
rather than the structure. ‘Behaviour’ was the area of primary concern in
functionalism.

Structuralists saw British and French empiricism as the main source of

assumptions concerning the mind. With introspection as their primary research
tool, understanding the structure of mind was the primary goal of
structuralists. On the contrary, the functionalists relied on the evolutionary
theory [ majorly of Darwin] to derive the assumptions concerning mind. The
research tool practised by them ranged from the use of introspection, to the
study of mentally ill and the study of non-human or animal behaviour.
Functionalists described the goal of their school as understanding the working
of mind and behaviour to support and branch an organism’s adaptability or
adjustment level to the environment.

Engagement of structuralists in the search for elements of consciousness was

opposed by the proponents of functionalism.

Inclination of functionalists towards understanding the functions of mind in

place of structural elements of mind can be seen in their interest in the ‘is for’
of mind rather than the ‘is’ of the mind.

Practicality was something that was not actively encouraged by structuralists,

whereas, functionalism strived in the direction of making psychology a practical
science as opposed to pure science.

Structuralists refuted to acknowledge the convictions of abnormal behaviour,

individual differences, research on animals, motivation, etc, all of which were
the matters of great importance and concern to functionalists while studying
the human mind and behaviour.

William James displayed his slight belief about introspection being one of the
methods of studying mental activities and consciousness, however sooner he
turned back to objective and concrete measures for studying mind,
consciousness and behaviour.

William James wrote an essay expressing his harsh words of criticism towards
the structuralist methods adopted by Wundt and other psychologists. He
mentioned Wundt’s approach to psychology as ‘microscopic psychology. James
critiqued introspection as a method that ‘taxes patience to the utmost’. The
chivalry displayed by German psychologists like Wundt, Titchener, Fechner, etc
was juxtaposed to business.

CONCLUSION
The basic difference between these influential schools of thought was in the
scope of what they study.

In the historical realm, both Structuralism and Functionalism are of immense

significance and had a long-lasting impact on developing the milestones in the
discipline of Psychology. Although Functionalism came into existence as an
answer to Structuralism, it grew to build an identity of its own and laid the
groundwork for a revolutionary paradigm, i.e, Behaviourism.

In the year 1906, the first female president of APA [American Psychological
Association] published an article that seemed supportive of the idea
“functionalism and structuralism were not very different as they were
concerned with the concept of consciousness of the thought”.

GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

About the same time that the behaviourists were rebelling against structuralism
and functionalism in the United States, a group of young German psychologists
was rebelling against Wundt’s experimental program that featured a search for
the elements of consciousness. Whereas the focus of the behaviourists’ attack
was the study of consciousness and the associated method of introspection, the
German protesters focused their attack on Wundt’s elementism. Behaviourism
was the dominant theme in U.S. psychology as the Gestaltists were attempting
to make inroads

German word for “configuration,” “form,” or “whole” is Gestalt and keeping it as

a base, this new type of psychology was called Gestalt psychology. The
Gestaltists attempted to show that in every aspect of psychology, it is more
beneficial to concentrate on wholes than on parts.

Some significant antecedents of gestalt psychology are Immanuel Kant, Ernst

Mach, Christian von Ehrenfels, and William James, and all of them differ in
their conceptualisations of the mind, brain or consciousness amongst other
notable differences. Major proponents of the school were Wertheimer, Kohler,
and Koffka.

In 1912 Wertheimer discovered the phi phenomenon, an optical illusion in which

stationary objects shown in rapid succession, transcending the threshold at
which they can be perceived separately, appear to move. His 1912 article
“Experimental Studies of the Perception of Movement” describing this
phenomenon is usually taken as the formal beginning of the school of Gestalt
psychology.
METHODOLOGY

• The Gestaltists believe in using a phenomenological approach to

understanding human consciousness. In its most general form,
phenomenology refers to any methodology that focuses on cognitive
experience as it occurs, without attempting to reduce that experience to
its component parts.

• The Gestaltists argued that a molar approach should be taken. Taking the
molar approach in studying consciousness would mean concentrating on
phenomenological experience (mental experience as it occurred to the
naive observer, without further analysis). Taking the molar, or
phenomenological, approach while studying behaviour means concentrating
on goal-directed (purposive) behaviour.

• Those taking a molar approach to the study of behaviour or psychological

phenomena are called holists, in contrast to the elementists or atomists,
who study complex phenomena by seeking simpler components that
compose those phenomena. The Gestaltists were clearly holists.

• Early Gestaltists favoured the type of introspection that focuses on the

acts of perceiving, sensing, or problem solving. They were against using
introspection to search for mental elements, and they directed their
more liberal brand of introspection toward mental phenomena.

• Explanation of psychological phenomena is provided by the Gestaltists as

an answer that the brain contains structured fields of electrochemical
forces that exist prior to sensory stimulation. Upon entering such a field,
sensory data both modify the structure of the field and are modified by
it. What we experience consciously results from the interaction of the
sensory data and the force fields in the brain. The situation is similar to
one in which metal particles are placed into a magnetic field. The nature
of the field will have a strong influence on how the particles are
distributed, but the characteristics of the particles will also influence
the distribution.
 CONSCIOUSNESS

• Consciousness, said the German rebels, could not be reduced to elements

without distorting the true meaning of the conscious experience. For
them, the investigation of conscious experience through the introspective
method was an essential part of psychology, but the type of conscious
experience Wundt and the U.S. structuralists investigated was artificial.

• This group of young German psychologists believed that we do not

experience things in isolated pieces but in meaningful, intact
configurations. We do not see patches of green, blue, and red; we see
people, cars, trees, and clouds. These meaningful, intact, conscious
experiences are what the introspective method should concentrate on.

• Wundt (as experimentalist), Titchener, Pavlov, and Watson used the

molecular approach to psychology as an attempt to reduce either
consciousness or behaviour to the basic elements. The Gestaltists argued
that a molar approach should be taken. Taking the molar approach in
studying consciousness would mean concentrating on phenomenological
experience (mental experience as it occurred to the naive observer,
without further analysis).

• The term phenomenon means “that which appears” or “that which is

given,” and so phenomenology, the technique used by the Gestaltists, is
the study of that which naturally appears in consciousness.

• The Gestaltists agreed with James’s anti-elementistic stand of a stream

of consciousness but thought that he had gone too far.

SELF
• Fredrick S. Perls, a prominent Gestalt psychologist accused philosophers
and anthropologists of glorifying self to include things beyond everyday
manifestations of who we are. For Perls the self was synonymous with ‘I’
and was neither a static, nor objectifiable notion. I or self was “the
emerging gestalt of totality of identifications including all aspects of a
healthy organism”.

PERCEPTUAL GESTALTEN
 Through the years, the Gestaltists have isolated over 100 configurations
(Gestalten) into which visual information is arranged. A few of them are:

• THE FIGURE-GROUND RELATIONSHIP

According to Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin (1886–1951), the most basic
type of perception is the division of the perceptual field into two parts:
the figure, which is clear and unified and is the object of attention, and
the ground, which is diffuse and consists of everything that is not being
attended to. Such a division creates what is called a figure– ground
relationship. Thus, what is the figure and what is the ground can be
changed by shifting one’s attention.

• PRINCIPLES OF PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION

According to the principle of continuity: stimuli that have continuity with

one another will be experienced as a perceptual unit. To describe this
principle, Wertheimer used the terms intrinsic togetherness, imminent
necessity, and good continuation.

When stimuli are close together, they tend to be grouped together as a

perceptual unit. This is known as the principle of proximity.

According to the principle of inclusiveness, when there is more than one

figure, we are most likely to see the figure that contains the greatest
number of stimuli.

Objects that are similar in some way tend to form perceptual units. This
is known as the principle of similarity. Twins, for example, stand out in a
crowd, and teams wearing different uniforms stand out as two groups on
the field.

The principle of closure, states that incomplete figures in the physical

world are perceived as complete ones. An explanation for this principle is
embedded in the beliefs of Gestalt psychologists into the psychophysical
isomorphism, according to which our conscious experience is directly
related to patterns of brain activity, and the brain activity organizes
itself into patterns according to the law of Prägnanz. Thus, it is quite
likely that the patterns of brain activity are often better organized than
 the stimuli that enter them. This is because the brain transforms the
stimuli into organized configurations that are then experienced
cognitively.

KURT LEWIN
• Born on September 9 in Mogilno, Germany, Kurt Lewin is usually not
considered a founder of Gestalt psychology, he was an early disciple, and
most of his work can be seen as an extension or application of Gestalt
principles to the topics of motivation, personality, and group dynamics.
• In explaining the causation of human behaviour, Lewin switched from an
Aristotelian to a Galilean perspective an it meant that he was
deemphasizing such notions as instincts, types, and even averages (which
imply the existence of distinct categories) and emphasizing the complex,
dynamic forces acting on an individual at any given moment. For Lewin,
these dynamic forces—and not any type of inner essences—explain human
behaviour.
• Lewin summarized his belief concerning psychological facts in his principle
of contemporaneity, which states that only those facts that are currently
present in the life space can influence a person’s thinking and behaviour.
Unlike Freud and others, Lewin believed that experiences from infancy or
childhood can influence adult behaviour only if those experiences are
reflected in a person’s current awareness.
• For Lewin subjective reality governs behaviour, not physical reality.
Again, Lewin believed that a person’s thinking and behaviour at any given
moment are governed by the totality of psychological facts (real or
imagined) present, and that totality constitutes a person’s life space and
that if a need arises the life space is articulated with facts that are
relevant to the satisfaction of that need.
• In context of group dynamics, Lewin et al. concluded that group
leadership influenced the Gestalt characterizing the group and, in turn,
the attitude and productivity of the group’s members.

RELEVANCE and IMPACT

• Gestalt psychology has had its share of criticism. Critics have said that
many of its central terms and concepts are vague and therefore hard to
pin down experimentally. Even the term Gestalt, the critics say, has never
been defined precisely. The same is true for the law of Prägnanz for
 insight and for cognitive equilibrium and disequilibrium. As might be
expected, the behaviourists attacked the Gestaltists’ concern with
consciousness, claiming that such a concern was a regression to the old
metaphysical position that had caused psychology so many problems.

• Despite these and other criticisms, however, Gestalt theory has clearly
influenced almost every aspect of modern psychology. Sokal (1984) said
something about the influence of Gestalt psychology: [Gestalt psychology]
enriched American psychology greatly and did much to counter the
attractions of extreme behaviourism.

• Henle (1985) and Murray (1995) discuss several important relationships

that exist between Gestalt psychology and contemporary cognitive
psychology.

FREE WILL and DETERMINISM

INTRODUCTION

Since the ancient Greeks, one of the most provocative and oft-discussed
questions in philosophy has been whether we have free will in determining
the course of our actions, or whether our actions are determined by
forces beyond our control.

Free will is necessary for the notion of personal responsibility. If

people do not have free will, then it is difficult to argue that they are
personally and morally responsible for their actions - and if that is the
case, how can they be punished for their misdeeds?
Others, however, argue that if the universe itself is deterministic in
nature, then human actions must also be deterministic. If human actions
simply follow the course of natural law, then it is difficult to hold that
those actions can be ‘freely’ chosen (as natural saw is determined).
If it is true that nothing is freely chosen, then those who believe in the
existence of free will do not do so by choice.
Philosopher J. J. C. Smart denies free will irrespective of whether
determinism is true or not. On one hand, if determinism is true, all our
actions are predicted and we are assumed not to be free; on the other
hand, if determinism is false, our actions are presumed to be random and
as such we do not seem free because we had no part in controlling what
happened (since its random).

DETERMINISM

The assumption that what is being studied can be understood in terms of

causal laws is called determinism. Taylor (1967) defined determinism as
the philosophical doctrine that “states that for everything that ever
happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could
happen” (p. 359). The determinist, then, assumes that everything that
occurs is a function of a finite number of causes and that, if these causes
were known, an event could be predicted with complete accuracy.

Scientifically oriented psychologists are willing to assume determinism

while studying humans. Although all determinists believe that all
behaviour is caused, there are different types of determinism assumed
by different schools of thought.

Although determinists assume that behaviour is caused, they generally

agree that it is virtually impossible to know all causes of behaviour. There
are at least two reasons for this limitation.
First, behaviour typically has many causes. A multitude of interacting
events typically causes behaviour.
Second, some causes of behaviour may be fortuitous. Fortuitous
circumstances do not violate a deterministic analysis of behaviour; they
simply make it more complicated. By definition, fortuitous circumstances
are not predictable relative to one’s life, but when they occur, they are
causally related to one’s behaviour.

Determinists maintain that it is the complexity of the causation of human

behaviour that explains why predictions concerning human behaviour must
be probabilistic.

Limitations of deterministic approach:

(i) a problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society’s
ideas of responsibility and self-control that form the basis of our moral
and legal obligations.
(ii) Psychologists cannot predict a person’s behaviour with 100% accuracy
due to the complex interaction of variables that can influence behaviour.

FREE WILL

The non-determinists believe that the most important causes of

behaviour are self-generated. For this group, behaviour is freely chosen
and thus independent of physical or psychical causes. This belief in free
will is contrary to the assumption of determinism, and therefore the
endeavors of these psychologists are non-scientific. For them, because
the individual freely chooses courses of action, he or she alone is
responsible for them.

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain

factors. In other words, we have the ability to make our own choices
without being influenced by certain factors. Though it is a commonly-held
intuition that we have free will, it has been widely debated throughout
history not only whether the notion of free will is true, but also how to
define the concept of free will. How exactly must will be free, what
exactly must the will be free from, in order for us to have free will?

THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

Biological approach emphasizes the importance of physiological conditions

or genetic predispositions in the explanation of behaviour. It is driven by
the physiological or biological determinism. For example, evolutionary
psychologists claim that much human behaviour, as well as that of
nonhuman animals, reflects dispositions inherited from our long
evolutionary past like mental disorders such as schizophrenia are often
hereditary and have been found to be caused by high levels of dopamine
within the brain which is classed as an internal factor.
Biological determinism has been associated with movements in science and
society including eugenics, scientific racism, and the debates around the
heritability of IQ, the basis of sexual orientation, and socio-biology.

Neurological and hormonal processes within the body trigger personality

traits like extraversion and neuroticism, and the behaviour associated
with them. There is no need for the concept of an autonomous human
being. Ultimately this view sees humans as no more than biological
machines and even consciousness itself is interpreted as a level of arousal
in the nervous system.

BEHAVIOURISM

Behaviourists are strong believers in determinism. Concepts like “free

will” and “motivation” are dismissed as illusions that disguise the real
causes of human behaviour. The behaviourist approach proposes that all
behaviour is learned and can be explained solely in terms of external
(environmental) factors. This is environmental determinism and it
stresses the importance of environmental stimuli as determinants of
behaviour.

Behaviour theory emphasizes that environmental events play the key role
in determining human behaviour. The source of action lies not inside the
person, but in the environment. By developing a full understanding of how
environmental events influence behaviour, we will arrive at a complete
understanding of behaviour.

B.F SKINNER
The behaviourist approach states that human behaviour can be predicted
through looking at past behaviour and their current situation. One
psychologist who supported this was Skinner who believed that our
behaviour is determined by reinforcement and environmental factors. It
is only because we are not aware of the environmental causes of our own
behaviour or others’ that we are tricked into believing in our ability to
choose.
In Skinner’s scheme of things, the person who commits a crime has no
real choice. (S)he is propelled in this direction by environmental
circumstances and a personal history, which makes breaking the law
natural and inevitable. For the law-abiding an accumulation of reinforcers
has the opposite effect. Having been rewards for following rules in the
past, the individual does so in the future. There is no moral evaluation or
even mental calculation involved; all behaviour is under stimulus control.

Skinner (1971) developed his ideas about hard determinism most fully
in his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity. He argued that common
beliefs about free will and personal moral responsibility (which he
called “dignity”) were wrong and should be abandoned for the sake of
improving society. According to Skinner, the way to change human
behaviour is by structuring the environment so that people are
rewarded for behaving in desirable ways (i.e., operant conditioning)
rather than by focusing on meaningless notions like freedom and
dignity.

ALBERT BANDURA
Skinner’s approach was criticised by Bandura (1977) who
stated that ‘if people’s actions were solely determined by external
rewards and punishments then people would be like weather vanes
constantly changing direction to conform to the whims of others.
Instead Bandura believed that people have long-term goals and try to
meet them instead of following what others say. This criticism applies
more forcefully to the human species than to non-human species, because
we are much more likely to act in line with long-term goals.

Bandura also highlighted an important delimitation of Skinner’s approach,

that was the failure to consider the influence of human behaviour on
environment. For example, if someone commits a crime and goes to prison,
their behaviour had influenced their environment.

LIMITATIONS
There are multiple determinants of behaviour, but Skinner largely ignored
most of them for the sake of focusing on environmental factors.
 In addition to this, he also failed to credit the reciprocity of our
behaviour in determining the environment.

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

The cognitive approach is mechanistic, and any mechanistic explanation is

determinist because it suggests that a particular action will result in a
predictable result. Cognitive psychologists are also inclined to attribute
importance to free will, and adopt a soft determinism view. They tend to focus
more on the choice of means (i.e. personal responsibility to the internal choice
we make to the deterministic physical world). In other words, for them it is the
rational processing of information which goes into the making of a decision
which is their main interest.

PSYCHODYANAMIC APPROACH

Some scientific psychologists emphasize the importance of cognitive and

emotional experience in their explanation of human behaviour. For them, the
most important determinants of human behaviour are subjective and include a
person’s beliefs, emotions, sensations, perceptions, ideas, values, and goals.
These psychologists emphasize psychical determinism rather than physical
determinism.

Among the psychologists assuming psychical determinism are those who stress
the importance of mental events of which we are conscious and those, like
Freud, who stress the importance of mental events of which we are not
conscious.

The psychodynamic approach suggests that adult behaviour or personality is

predetermined by events in early childhood. This is called psychic determinism
because the causes of our behaviour are psychological and not freely chosen.
Freud, like Skinner, believed that free will was an illusion. Freud believed this
was because the actual causes of our behaviour are unconscious and therefore
hidden from us. The psychodynamic approach believes in determinism, with
Freud being a strong supporter. This approach states that our internal systems,
such as defence mechanisms determine our behaviour.

Freud was also a strong believer in hard determinism, claiming that none of our
behaviour “just happens” or is due to free will. He even argued that trivial
phenomena, such as missing an appointment, calling someone by the wrong name,
or humming a particular tune had definite causes within the individual’s
motivational system.

Freud’s emphasis on determinism and rejection of free will may well owe
something to the fact that he focused on individuals suffering from mental
disorders (especially anxiety disorders). Such individuals are presumably highly
motivated to change their behaviour and eliminate their disorder but are often
unable to do so—this seems somewhat difficult to explain if they possess free
will.

One of the distinguishing features of Freud’s deterministic approach was his

emphasis on unconscious forces influencing our behaviour—according to him, we
are often unaware of what causes us to behave in certain ways.

However, Freud also believed that people have some potential for free will—
psychoanalysis is based on the principle that people can change. Freud proposed
the principle of “overdetermination” and said that behaviour has multiple causes,
some of which are conscious and these would be subject to free will.

This insight has been taken up by several neo-Freudians. One of the most
influential has been Erich Fromm (1900-980). In Fear of Freedom, he argues
that all of us have the potential to control our own lives but that many of us are
too afraid to do so. As a result, we give up our freedom and allow our lives to be
governed by circumstance, other people, political ideology or irrational feelings.
However, determinism is not inevitable and in the very choice we all have to do
good or evil, Fromm sees the essence of human freedom.

HUMANISTIC-EXISTENTIAL APPROACH

The humanistic approach embraces free will. One of the main assumptions of
the humanistic approach is that humans have free will; not all behaviour is
determined. Personal agency is the humanistic term for the exercise of free
will. Personal agency refers to the choices we make in life, the paths we go down
and their consequences.

Rogers believed that humans have an innate drive towards positive growth and
self-actualisation. Individuals who deny aspects of themselves are unable to do
this. If one disowns a part of one’s behaviour (“That’s not like me to do such a
thing”) then that behaviour is not part of one’s self-concept and therefore
cannot be controlled. Your behaviour is then not self-determined. Healthy
psychological development and adjustment depend on “owning” all of your
behaviour. In this way you are exercising free will, and are able to reach your
full potential.

In addition to this, the humanistic approach stresses the responsibility each of

us has for our own actions. Rather than seeking explanations for our behaviour
in terms of other influences, each of us must accept the moral responsibility for
our actions.

Apart from Rogers, Abraham Maslow also believed that behaviour is not
determined by external forces and that people have free will and can choose
how they wish to behave. Rogers and Maslow also stated that our actions are
free within a framework. Based on this Rogers developed his own theory called
client-centred therapy (1951) which aimed to help patients to exercise free will.

Rogers’ client-centred therapy is based on the assumption that the client has
free will. The therapist is called a “facilitator” precisely because his/her role is
to make it easier for the client to exercise free will in such a way as to
maximise the reward potential of the client’s life.

Rogers emphasised the notion that we are motivated to minimise the

discrepancy between our self-concept and our ideal self. If we have free will
and our behaviour isn’t determined by external forces, it might be expected
that we would have little difficulty in reducing any discrepancy between our
self-concept and ideal self.

Humanistic psychologists argue that regarding human behaviour as being

determined by external forces is “de-humanising” and incorrect.

CONCLUSION
Psychologists who take the free will view suggest that determinism removes
freedom and dignity, and devalues human behaviour. By creating general laws of
behaviour, deterministic psychology underestimates the uniqueness of human
beings and their freedom to choose their own destiny.

Deterministic explanations for behaviour reduce individual responsibility. A

person arrested for a violent attack for example might plead that they were not
responsible for their behaviour – it was due to their upbringing, a bang on the
head they received earlier in life, recent relationship stresses, or a psychiatric
problem. In other words, their behaviour was determined.

Clearly, a pure deterministic or free will approach does not seem appropriate
when studying human behaviour. Most psychologists use the concept of free will
to express the idea that behaviour is not a passive reaction to forces, but that
individuals actively respond to internal and external forces. The term soft
determinism is often used to describe this position, whereby people do have a
choice, but their behaviour is always subject to some form of biological or
environmental pressure. There will always be external factors affecting human
behaviour but also our own thought processes that will help us come to a
decision.

RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which
we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and
knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that
sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

The rational aspect of science prevents it from simply collecting an endless

array of disconnected empirical facts. Because the scientist must somehow
make sense out of what he or she observes, theories are formulated.

A scientific theory has two main functions: (1) It organizes empirical

observations, and (2) it acts as a guide for future observations. The latter
function of a scientific theory generates confirmable propositions. In other
words, a theory suggests propositions that are tested experimentally. If the
propositions generated by a theory are confirmed through experimentation, the
theory gains strength; if the propositions are not confirmed by
experimentation, the theory loses strength.
If the theory generates too many erroneous propositions, it must be either
revised or abandoned. Thus, scientific theories must be testable. That is, they
must generate hypotheses that can be validated or invalidated empirically. In
science, then, the direct observation of nature is important, but such
observation is often guided by theory.
note**: To know a proposition, we must believe it and it must be true, but something more is
required, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let’s call this additional
element ‘warrant’.

INTRODUCTION
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that
there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the
information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts
of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about
the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they
develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists
cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. Second, empiricists attack the
rationalists’ accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism takes place within epistemology,
the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of
knowledge. The defining questions of epistemology revolve around these themes
of nature, sources. and limits of knowledge. The disagreement between
rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the question regarding the
sources of our concepts and knowledge. In some instances, their disagreement
on this topic leads them to give conflicting responses to the other questions as
well.

RATIONALISM
To be a rationalist is to adopt at least one of three claims.

• INTUITION/DEDUCTION THESIS

The Intuition/Deduction thesis concerns how we become warranted in believing

propositions in a particular subject area.

Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a proposition, we

just “see” it to be true in such a way as to form a true, warranted belief in it.
Deduction is a process in which we derive conclusions from intuited premises
through valid arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true if the
premises are true. We intuit, for example, that the number three is prime and
that it is greater than two. We then deduce from this knowledge that there is a
prime number greater than two. Intuition and deduction thus provide us with
knowledge a priori, which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense
experience.

Rationalists also vary the strength of their view by adjusting their

understanding of warrant. Some take warranted beliefs to be beyond even the
slightest doubt and claim that intuition and deduction provide beliefs of this
high epistemic status. Others interpret warrant more conservatively, say as
belief beyond a reasonable doubt, and claim that intuition and deduction provide
beliefs of that calibre. Still another dimension of rationalism depends on how its
proponents understand the connection between intuition, on the one hand, and
truth, on the other. Some take intuition to be infallible, claiming that whatever
we intuit must be true. Others allow for the possibility of false intuited
propositions.

• INNATE KNOWLEDGE THESIS

The Innate Knowledge thesis asserts the existence of knowledge gained a

priori, independently of experience. The Innate Knowledge thesis offers our
rational nature. Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense
experience or intuition and deduction. It is just part of our nature. Experiences
may trigger a process by which we bring this knowledge to consciousness, but
the experiences do not provide us with the knowledge itself. It has in some way
been with us all along.

According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in an earlier existence.

According to others, God provided us with it at creation. Still others say it is
part of our nature through natural selection.

Stronger and weaker understandings of warrant yield stronger and weaker

versions of the thesis as well.

• INNATE CONCEPT THESIS

According to the Innate Concept thesis, some of our concepts are not gained
from experience. They are part of our rational nature in such a way that, while
sense experiences may trigger a process by which they are brought to
consciousness, experience does not provide the concepts or determine the
information they contain.

Some, like Locke, claim that the Innate Concept thesis is entailed by the Innate
Knowledge Thesis; a particular instance of knowledge can only be innate if the
concepts that are contained in the known proposition are also innate. Others,
such as Carruthers, argue against this connection.

The content and strength of the Innate Concept thesis varies with the concepts
claimed to be innate. The more a concept seems removed from experience and
the mental operations we can perform on experience the more plausibly it may
be claimed to be innate. Since we do not experience perfect triangles but do
experience pains, our concept of the former is a more promising candidate for
being innate than our concept of the latter.

Two other closely related theses are generally adopted by rationalists.

• The first is that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason:
The Indispensability Thesis

• The second is that reason is superior to experience as a source of

knowledge: The Superiority of Reason Thesis

How reason is superior needs explanation, and rationalists have offered

different accounts. One view, generally associated with Descartes is that what
we know a priori is certain, beyond even the slightest doubt, while what we
believe, or even know, on the basis of sense experience is at least somewhat
uncertain. Another view, generally associated with Plato know by reason alone, a
Platonic form, say, is superior in an important metaphysical way, e.g. unchanging,
eternal, perfect, a higher degree of being, to what we are aware of through
sense experience.

EMPIRICISM
• THE EMPIRICISM THESIS

Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version

of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar
as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori,
dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of
the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the
subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas. They reject
the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis. Since
reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give us
superior knowledge. Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of
Reason thesis, though they need not.

The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge.
It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience.
Empiricists may assert, as some do for some subjects, that the
rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us
knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is that
we do not know at all.

RELEVANCE
Historically, the rationalist/empiricist dispute in epistemology has
extended into the area of metaphysics, where philosophers are concerned
with the basic nature of reality, including the existence of God and such
aspects of our nature as freewill and the relation between the mind and
body. Major rationalists presented metaphysical theories, which they
have claimed to know by reason alone. Major empiricists have rejected
the theories as either speculation, beyond what we can learn from
experience, or nonsensical attempts to describe aspects of the world
beyond the concepts experience can provide. The debate raises the issue
of metaphysics as an area of knowledge.

The debate also extends into ethics. Some moral objectives take us to
know some fundamental objective moral truths by intuition, while some
moral skeptics, who reject such knowledge, find the appeal to a faculty of
moral intuition utterly implausible.

More recently, the rationalist/empiricist debate has extended to

discussions of the very nature of philosophical inquiry: to what extent are
philosophical questions to be answered by appeals to reason or
experience?

CONCLUSION
 Rationalism and empiricism only conflict when formulated to cover the
same subject. Then the debate, Rationalism vs. Empiricism, is joined. The
fact that philosophers can be both rationalists and empiricists has
implications for the classification schemes often employed in the history
of philosophy, especially the one traditionally used to describe the Early
Modern Period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries leading up to
Kant.

The rationalist/empiricist classification also encourages us to expect the

philosophers on each side of the divide to have common research
programs in areas beyond epistemology. Thus, Descartes, Spinoza and
Leibniz are mistakenly seen as applying a reason-centred epistemology to
a common metaphysical agenda, with each trying to improve on the
efforts of the one before, while Locke, Berkeley and Hume are
mistakenly seen as gradually rejecting those metaphysical claims, with
each consciously trying to improve on the efforts of his predecessors.

METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Since the mid-19th century, psychology has, to a large extent, embraced

the scientific method, many highly influential psychologists did not feel
compelled to follow the dictates of the scientific method. Their work
cannot be ignored.

From the earliest times to the contemporary psychology world, issues of

methodology and content have come to light that have developed
psychology to what it is today. Amongst the issues of content, there are
3 prevailing debates:
- Consciousness and Mind/Body relationship
- Free will and Determinism
- Rationalism versus Empiricism

The methodological issues that form a part of all the main issues are:

- Introspection
- Experimental Method
- Clinical Methods
- Phenomenological Method
INTROSPECTION
The term introspection can be used to describe both an informal reflection
process and a more formalized experimental approach that was used early on in
psychology's history.

Introspection is seen as one of the first attempts at experimental psychology,

it was introduced by Wilhelm Wundt and promoted by Edward Bradford
Titchener. Although both of them had contrasting opinions on the conduction of
this methodology to study human consciousness, the foundational goals and
methods were accepted by both the proponents of Volunatrism and
Structuralism respectively.

Introspection, by definition, is a technique to study the structure of the mind

by looking within and describing the events and experiences in detail. In
psychology, the process of introspection relies on the observation of one's
mental state, while in a spiritual context it may refer to the examination of
one's soul.

Wundt used experimental introspection, he wanted to make internal perception

as accurate as the external perception, thus introducing an element of
objectivity to the technique. Titchener's version of introspection involved
reporting description of raw, basic elemental details of objects, events, and
experiences without naming it.

Nonetheless, introspection was criticised for its lack of objectivity and

verifiability. Also, it was pointed out that what structuralists called
introspection was really retrospection. Some individuals believe that
introspection is still admissible in the current scenario but under different
names such as self-report surveys, interviews and fMRIs.

However, due to its various demerits, the method only gained popularity
amongst the primitive schools of psychology and faded out with the decline of
structuralism.

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Experimental method can be considered as the cornerstone of scientific
psychology because of its characteristics such as objectivity, reliability,
validity, norms, generalisability, etc.
It is a scientific method that combines the philosophical schools of empiricism
and rationalism by linking empirical observations and theories. Science assumes
determinism and seeks general laws. Deterministic schools of psychology such as
behaviourism (based on environmental determinism), psychodynamic school
(based on psychic determinism), cognitive perspective, socio-cognitive
perspective (based on reciprocal determinism), biological perspective (based on
biological determinism), etc. use experimental methods such as psychological
tests, interviews, observation, case studies, correlation, and others.

The main feature of the experimental method is that it establishes a cause and
effect relationship, that explains and helps the psychologist predict certain
mental processes and behaviours. Since its inception, empirical observation has
been the ultimate authority of science, which is an integral part of the
experimental method. In the present scenario too, a wide variety of tests,
survey, questionnaires are used as a part of qualitative and quantitative
researches as well as in clinical, organisational, educational settings.

CLINICAL METHOD

Psychology has its roots in philosophy and physiology. Since its inception, it has
been a clinical discipline, with psychiatry, physiology, neurology being the
recognised clinical form until various psychological therapies were invented.

The scope of psychology was broadened to include applied psychology by the

functionalists. Functionalism was the first school to include treatment of the
mentally ill as a means to study mental processes and behaviours.

Freud advanced towards this methodology with his introduction of

psychoanalysis, which is both a set of psychological theories as well as a form of
psychodynamic therapy. The aim of psychoanalysis was to bring the unconscious
material to the consciousness by surfacing the repressed memories and
emotions. In this therapy, Freud would ask the clients to relax and lie down on a
couch with the aim to freely talk about whatever comes to their mind. The
analyst would read out a list of words and the client would associate with it
whatever comes to their mind first. This technique is called free association.
Another technique employed by Freud was that of dream analysis where the
client would be asked to write down their dreams upon waking up and the
therapist would analyse them as symbols of the unconscious mind (as considered
by Freud). These kinds of analysis would help the therapist troubleshoot the
client's problems and then work towards providing a solution.
Other clinical therapeutic approaches include the client centred therapy,
developed by Carl Rogers, which focuses on free will and personal growth with
the therapist being a mere facilitator. Behavioural therapies include CBT, REBT,
DBT, ABA, and the like. Most of these therapies have practical applications and
are being used by various practitioners in this day and age.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD
In contrast to Freud, the humanistic theorists believed that behaviour is not a
reaction to the unconscious but rather a response to our immediate conscious
experience of self and environment. This emphasis on the primacy of immediate
experience is known as phenomenology, and it focuses our attention on the
present instead of the past.

The Gestaltists believe in using a phenomenological approach to understanding

human consciousness. In its most general form, phenomenology refers to any
methodology that focuses on cognitive experience as it occurs, without
attempting to reduce that experience to its component parts. The Gestaltists
argued that a molar approach should be taken. Taking the molar approach in
studying consciousness would mean concentrating on phenomenological
experience (mental experience as it occurred to the naive observer, without
further analysis). Taking the molar, or phenomenological, approach while
studying behaviour means concentrating on goal-directed (purposive) behaviour.

The phenomenological method aims at studying the objective components in a

subjective experience. Darren Langbridge suggests in Phenomenological
Psychology: Theory, Research, and Method, “when applying phenomenological
philosophy to psychology, we aim to focus on people's perceptions of the world
in which they live and what this means to them: a focus on people's lived
experience".

A number of research approaches employ phenomenological methods such the

qualitative approach of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, which aims to
provide detailed examinations of a person's lived experiences. It is particularly
useful for examining complex, ambiguous and emotionally laden topics such as
pain, happiness, etc.

Another method called Descriptive Phenomenology developed by Amedeo Giorgi

in 1970, is used for qualitative research in psychology. In this method, the
subject selects a situation and describes it as faithfully as possible and the
researcher intuits what is essential to the phenomenon being studied. Intuition
here is used to get a sense of the lived meaning of each description so as to
relate them to what is known about the phenomenon in general.