FUNCTIONALISM & STRUCTURALISM

                         FUNCTIONALISM AND STRUCTURALISM

Introduction

Psychology as science has passed through many developmental stages, many theories and schools have been created and disappeared, and however most of them have influenced what is called today psychology. Structuralism and Functionalism were two very influential schools. The work of Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt in Structuralism and Voluntarism, the work of Edward Bradford Titchener in Structuralism and the work of William James in Functionalism are significant and determinant of later developments in psychology. In this paper I will summarize the main tenets and differences of these schools and I will suggest why structuralism draws my support.

Presentation of theory

Wundt’s theory

William Wundt viewed psychology as an experimental science, Wundt founded first Voluntarism in 1890 which was later confused with Structuralism. The concept of voluntarism was used because he believed that voluntarism is a vital concept that has to be examined in order to understand all psychological problems. Psychology is an experimental science, however experiments can be used only for the basic functions of the mind and not for higher mental functions. Higher mental functions can be studied only through various types of naturalistic observation. Furthermore he divided experience in immediate and mediate experience and he suggested that psychology is the only science that examines immediate experience(Hergenhahn,2005).

According to Wundt psychology’s goals are the following:

The discovery of the fundamental elements of thought and the discovery of the laws through which mental elements are combined creating more multifaceted mental experiences (Hergenhahn,2005).

Furthermore Wundt used introspection in order to study the basic mental functions that take part in the active experience. However introspection for Wundt couldn’t be used for the study of higher mental functions. Wundt also divided experience into two types: sensations and feelings. Sensation is produced by the stimulation of a sense organ and can be described by modality and intensity and then it can be analyzed into its further qualities. He suggested that sensation are accompanied by feelings, he suggested the tridimensional theory of feeling according to which feelings can be described by pleasantness-unpleasantness, excitement-calm and strain-relaxation. Wundt showed perception as a result of sensation and feelings which depends on the physical stimulation, the anatomical makeup of the person and the person’s previous experiences. The phenomenon of paying attention to elements voluntarily was called apperception and when these elements are modified at will, the phenomenon was called creative synthesis(Hergenhahn,2005).

Wudnt believed that psychological and physical causation were different because the physical events can be understood  according to previous condition whereas psychological could not. He also used certain principles such as the principle of the heterogeny of ends which suggests that an activity that is directed towards one goal rarely achieves this goal and nothing also, the principle of contrasts according to which suggests that opposite experiences intensify one another and the principle toward the development of opposites which suggests that after intense experience of one time, people tend to desire to experience its opposite(Hergenhahn,2005).

Titchener’s theory

Structuralism was identified by Titchener and confused with voluntarism as being the same thing. However, where Wundt sought to explain conscious

experience in terms of unobservable cognitive

processes, Titchener was interested only in describing conscious processes.

Titchener wanted to describe the structure of the mind, by introspection he tried to search for the elemental ingredients of an experience. He concluded that elemental processes of consciousness consist of sensations, images and affections.  Titchener rejected Wundt’s apperception & creative synthesis, focusing on associationism.Voluntarism can be met in modern psychology however structuralism failed to survive largely because of its untrustworthy use of introspection, its ignorance on developments in other sciences and its failure to assimilate the doctrine of evolution(Hergenhahn,2005).

Functionalism

William James was the psychologist who founded functionalism. He  suggested the concept of stream of consciousness which proposes that consciousness is personal constantly changing, selective and functional. By this suggestion he opposed to the theory of the elements of thought. William James also suggested that instincts govern much human behavior however such behavior can be modified. He suggested habits as repeated activities which are learned. James talked about self, self-esteem and self as knower. James suggested that perceptions subsequently cause action, he claimed that perceptions first cause reactions and these are then experienced as emotions. Moreover his believed in the free will, according to his ideo-motor theory of behavior the action occurs because of an idea in other words ideas of actions most of the time lead to specific behaviors. Finally he talked about pragmatism; he suggested that beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors have to be considered according to their consequences. James’ theories managed to incorporate evolutionary theory in psychology and helped the development of applied psychology (Hergenhahn,2005)..

In theory, structuralism and functionalism had similarities. The most evident connection is that they both concentrated in the mental functions; after all functionalism was shaped as a response to the wounds of structuralism. Additionally, both used introspection as a technique to investigate their ideas. finally, both structuralism and functionalism had the common goal for psychology to turn out to be scientific.

At the same time there were some differences between these two schools of psychology, there were certainly more differences in the two.  Functionalism developed, to a certain amount, as a response against structuralism. It was considered that psychological functions could be best understood in relation to their function rather than their structure. In other words, structuralism studied what happens when an individual does something, and functionalism studied how and why. Functionalism developed according to evolutionary theory when structuralism focused on modeling psychological procedures on the grouping of mental elements. Behaviorism dealt with visible behavior as a consequence of external stimuli. This process was against the study of internal mental process which discarded introspection and looked for a more scientific method.
Structuralism did not survive  and soon disappeared . The experimental methods used in structuralism would not be able to co-exist with today’s standards; the experiments were too biased and the outcomes were therefore invalid . Functionalism focused on the function, or purposes, of behavior and soon moved out as a separate school because it lacked the kind of precision needed to smooth the progress of its theory. Although it’s vanishing as a separate school of psychology “functionalism never really died, it became part of the mainstream psychology” (Oxford Companion, 2006). The meaning of looking at process rather than structure is an ordinary feature of contemporary psychology. As an individual approach it lacked a comprehensible formulation and inherited problems from the structuralism dependence on introspection, nevertheless the theory of functionalism is still alive today (Structuralism vs. Functionalism).

Discussion

I believe that functionalism is far better school than structuralism as it is more flexible and scientific in nature. I support the idea that consciousness has to be studied as a whole and that sciences of other field can help to do so. The assumption that instincts govern behavior however they can be modified remind the theory of psychoanalysis that suggest that id’s drives govern behavior but they are modified by the functions of ego and superego. The use of introspection in structuralism is definitely an unreliable form of studying conscience, I believe that consciousness is a too complex subject that cannot be explained in such a way. Finally the fact that functionalism can be found in contemporary psychology is the evidence that strengthens the fact that structuralism’s assumptions were invalid . There have been schools and applications of psychology which emerged from functionalism, some of them are developmental psychology, clinical psychology, psychological testing, industrial or vocational psychology. Moreover functionalism used as a basis for behaviorism to develop (Green, 2009).

Conclusion

Wundt, Titchener and James made the first steps in the development of psychology; Wundt specially created the first school of psychology. His contributions although they were confused with structuralism and fought by functionalism served psychology to be developed and consciousness to be studied scientifically. Structuralism on the other hand failed to survive as its emphasis on the structure did not satisfied the needs of human being to solve problems. On the other hand functionalism was closer to these needs and managed not only to survive but to serve as a basis for later developments.