Community-Building Forces
For Community Classroom
part 8

Dr. Leon James
Dr. Diane Nahl
(c)1979

SPECIAL SECTION: A FIELD-THEORETIC ANALYSIS

OF THE INTELLECTUAL CURRENTS IN PSYCHOLOGY TODAY

(3.1.a) (4.2.c.3) (2.3.b.1) (1.2.b.4) (2.1.c.1)

HOW TO READ THIS SPECIAL SECTION

Read through the numbered frames (1 - 12) steadily without stopping irrespective of what you think you are grasping or not grasping. Next, read a second time more slowly while trying to figure out as much as you can. Finally, re-read a third time. See how much more easily you can follow this third time. The whole process will prove useful since, at the end of it, you'll be able to make meaningful statements on the topic spectrum and ideology of psychology today. Knowing the ideological background of an academic field is essential for understanding its sentences.

1. Every era in a scientific field is characterized by an intellectual climate which may be called a Worldview (or in German: "Weltaanschaung") (2.3.b.1) or "ideological context" (2.3.b). To understand the intellectual life of psychology as currently known to American psychologists, you can view all of psychology as falling in a "field" in which dynamic forces operate to affect the thinking of psychologists. Thus, whatever psychologists say today can be rightly understood by the student only if the student knows some details about the basic issues of the field: its point-of-view, its premises or unquestioned assumptions, its past problems, and its future directions (l.l.c). All these issues will now be addressed through a graph notation system to be explained (l.l.b.4).

2. A graph always has a notation system, i.e., some conventions as to how to read it. We will present a field theory graph (l.b.2.4) and show you how to read it. As a result, you'll be able to write and speak sentences which represent actual scientific arguments on subject matters ordinarily reserved for graduate students and professionals. The reason this is possible is that you actually know much more than you make use of. The field theory graph is a psycholinguistic application developed by Jakobovits and Nahl. Like the glossary chart, its purpose is to help you utter scientifically valid and informative sentences. It accomplishes this by using notational conventions already familiar to the college student (1.3.b.1). The graph acts as a prompting device for sentences (1.3.b.2). These sentences, though self-produced, need to be figured out by you, and this processing establishes your new skills.

3 Let us agree to refer to the whole field of psychology as an intellectual field defined by the following graph (or "Cartesian Coordinate System") (see accompanying figure 1). Note that the two dynamic intellectual forces of scientific rigor and materialism, when aligned to form a coordinate system, yield four locations or quadrants. The Upper-Left Quadrant (I) is a dynamic field characterized by HIGH MATERIALISM combined with LOW RIGOR. The Lower-Left Quadrant (II) is low on both RIGOR and MATERIALISM. The Upper-Right Quadrant (III) is high on MATERIALISM while it is also high on RIGOR. The Lower-Right Quadrant (IV) is low on MATERIALISM but high on RIGOR. This means that the overall field of psychology is divided up into four sub-zones, with different sub-fields falling in each zone, depending on the degree of their rigor and the degree to which they use materialistic or reductionistic explanations of people (1.2.c.1).

Field Graph 1

4. Without the background of the field, it is not possible to grasp in a right way, the sentences written by specialists of that field (i.e., their verbal behavior). Hence, we offer a point of view which will allow you to interpret what each sentence presupposes and, what each sentence implies. Only then can you attach meaning to the sentence. By adopting the conventions we propose for reading field graphs, you will be able to figure out for yourself what is the relevant background context you need to add yourself, when reading sentences in psychology. Practice using the graph in Figure 1 by reading its various parts, and reasoning it out. You might say the following sorts of things: "Upper-Left means HIGH MATERIALISM plus LOW RIGOR while Upper-Right means HIGH MATERIALISM with HIGH RIGOR." And again: "HIGH RIGOR combined with HIGH MATERIALISM gives me Quadrant III but combined with LOW MATERIALISM, HIGH RIGOR gives Quadrant IV." And so on. Practice until it's automatic. Then go on to the next frame.

5. Now that you've established a background context in the form of Field Graph 1, consider in greater detail what is each quadrant's main theme, as defined by the marginal titles (i.e., MATERIALISM--low/high and RIGOR--low/high). Q I: In this quadrant, the dynamic field of HIGH MATERIALISM is intersected by the dynamic field of LOW RIGOR. Try to elaborate this theme. For example, you can say, "High in materialism means that behavior is explained exclusively in materialistic terms." Or you can say, "Some areas in psychology explain behavior by using materialistic explanations, while others use less materialistic explanations. Now less materialistic means more wholistic, more molar, more closely related to educated common sense." Or you can say, "Some areas in psychology are more molecular while others are more molar. Now, the more molecular the explanations of behavior that are given in that area, the more fragmentary and mechanistic and materialistic these explanations will be. But in other areas of psychology, more molar, more wholistic, less-reductionistic explanations of behavior will be found." Now you can do the same with the dimension of RIGOR, and say such things as: "Some areas in psychology are more rigorous than other areas in terms of how precisely, how validly, and how completely they describe behavior as it occurs in natural settings. Or you may say: "A less precise area in psychology is less rigorous; it refers to descriptions of behavior that are vague, incomplete, and not valid." And so on. After practicing saying such sentences as implied in the field graph in Figure 1, you may go on to the next frame which will introduce the second field graph you are to study.

6. When first looking at field graph 2 you may have an impression of great complexity. But actually, it is like a slide, or photograph of many objects or faces in a heap: gradually, as you continue to look at it, it becomes less and less complex, until the whole is as familiar as a wall map in your bedroom. You may similarly be bewildered when you first look at a building directory, airline schedule, or knitting instructions. With continued looking at, however, the whole becomes entirely familiar and simplified (2.1.b.3). At that point, you can read the map or schedule, i.e., you know its notation system. Similarly, by looking at field graph 2 and reading the instructions on the ensuing frames, you will soon be able to read it with ease. Then you'll be able to use the graph, i.e., it will prompt you to make historically valid and informative sentences.

Field Graph 2

Note first the similarity between field graph 1 and 2: the same marginal titles, the same four guadrants. This means that field graph 1 is the background for field graph 2. You might also view them as superimposed, or as field graph 2 being the "filled" part, while field graph 1 is still "unfilled." And you can see that the four quadrants now have an entry in each:

Upper-Left Quadrant I = Clinical Psychology
Lower-Left Quadrant II = Psychiatry
Upper-Right Quadrant III = Psychobiology
Lower-Right Quadrant IV = Sociobiology

Now you have a chance to practice using the field graph. Let's say you don't know what PSYCHOBIOLOGY is (5.2.b). Though you know nothing about it, the fact that we placed it in the Upper-Right Quadrant (III), should inform you that PSYCHOBIOLOGY is more rigorous than CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY and PSYCHIATRY. Also, PSYCHOBIOLOGY is as molecular as CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, but more molecular or mechanistic than PSYCHIATRY. Similarly, you can say about SOCIOBIOLOGY (5.2.b) that it is as precise and complete as PSYCHOBIOLOGY, but is, however, less reductionistic, less mechanical than PSYCHOBIOLOGY. Likewise you can say that PSYCHIATRY is less materialistic, more wholistic than CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY is, though it is equally rigorous. Thus, by reading field graph 2 you begin to realize that the various areas in psychology today are interrelated in the Worldview they all share (1.3.a) (2.3.b.1), namely, the balance each field strikes between the forces regarding SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and those regarding MATERIALISM. Now let us further "fill" the four quadrants by choosing four particular fields in psychology to represent the four corners of each quadrant.

7. Now if you look at field graph 3, you might find it possible to read it immediately in such a way that the sentences you utter will be historical statements of interest to you and your listeners. Thus, you might look at field graph 3, and knowing nothing about PSYCHOLINGUISTICS (1.3), yet because of its location on the field graph, you might say the following to your pycholinguistics teacher: "Your field is a sub-field in Psychology, and in particular is interdisciplinary with both Psychiatry and Sociobiology. As well, your field of psycholinguistics is more precise and rigorous than psychoanalysis, though not as much as comparative psychology. Finally, your field is close enough to some other fields such as behaviorism and social psychology, that the three together can form the basis for a course in social psychology such as 222 (2)."

Field Graph 3

8. Consider now the field of behavioral genetics. You can say, "The field of behavioral genetics is a sub-field of psychobiology. The other three sub-fields are: statistics-psychometrics, behaviorism, and social psychology. Of the four sub-fields of psychobiology, behavioral genetics is an upper right force. This means that it is more rigorous and precise than statistics-psychometrics and behaviorism; also, behavioral genetics is more mechanistic in its explanations of behavior than social psychology or behaviorism. Finally, behavioral genetics is allied to STATISTICS-PSYCHOMETRICS and COGNITIVISM in terms of its materialistic and fragmentary explanations of behavior; but at the same time, behavioral genetics contrasts with the more molar and wholistic sub-fields such as psychoanalysis (from psychiatry), and psycholinguistics and comparative psychology (from sociobiology). This may be quite a mouthful of a sentence, but it is informative as to the inter-relationships of the fields of psychology.

9. The overall spectrum revealed in field graph 3 shows American Psychology today divided into the four quadrants as previously discussed, and now can be summarized as follows:

I: The Arena of Individual Behavior (its mechanisms and controls)

is the scientific and professional field of clinical psychology.
This field has four intellectually dynamic corners:
(i) upper-left: COGNITIVISM
(ii) lower-left: HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY
(iii) upper-right: STATISTICS-PSYCHOMETRICS
(iv) lower-right: BEHAVIORISM
These four ideological directions permeate clinical psychology today.

II: The Arena of the Cultural Rituals(emanating from man's inner essence)

is the medical field of psychiatry.
The four dynamic forces in this arena originate from:
(i) upper-left: HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY
(ii) lower-left: PSYCHO-ANALYSIS
(iii) upper-right: BEHAVIORISM
(iv) lower-right: PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

III: The Arena of Population Characteristics (the long-term and indirect control)

is the modern new science of psychobiology.
The four dynamic forces forming this area of investigation are defined by:
(i) upper-left: STATISTICS & PSYCHOMETRICS
(ii) lower-left: BEHAVIORISM
(iii) upper-right: BEHAVIORAL GENETICS
(iv) lower-right: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

IV: The Arena of How Community Life Evolves through Social Organization and Collective Evolution

is the new modern science emerging as sociobiology.
This arena may be understood by viewing the 4 dynamic influences in it:
(i) upper-left: BEHAVIORISM
(ii) lower-left: PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
(iii) upper-right: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
(iv) lower-right: COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Note that Community-Classroom of Psych 222 (2) has a topical spectrum for Fall 1979 that is bounded by the triangle: BEHAVIORISM/PSYCHOLINGUISTICS/SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY. By studying the dynamic relationships expressed in field graph 3, you will gradually evolve a context within which to figure out the meaning of sentences in psychology. To help you study the graph's dynamic properties, consider the following facts pointed to by the graph:

Note that BEHAVIORISM is at the center, and therefore it is a component
in all four arenas of American Psychology today. Note, however,
that BEHAVIORISM represents a very different directional component
in the four intellectual arenas of psychology:

I. In clinical psychology, BEHAVIORISM is a lower-right dynamic
force: as "molar" as HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY yet more precise than
COGNITIVISM.

II. In psychiatry, BEHAVIORISM is an upper-right dynamic force:
as precise as experimental PSYCHOLINGUISTICS is today, yet more
molecular than it is, more inclined towards reductionism for the sake of
materialism.

III. In psychobiology, BEHAVIORISM is a lower-left dynamic
force: it is more "molar" than PSYCHOMETRICS and BEHAVIORAL
GENETICS, yet less precise in its references to community life than are
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY or BEHAVIORAL GENETICS.

IV. In sociobiology, BEHAVIORISM is an upper-left dynamic force:
it is more molecular in its view of behavior than
PSYCHOLINGUISTICS or COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, yet less
precise.

Summing it up, field graph 3 points to the fact that you can approach the four Historical Arenas of psychology through the study of the dynamic directional component of BEHAVIORISM in each Arena. In clinical psychology and psychiatry, BEHAVIORISM acts as an influence from the right: it stands for more precise descriptions. However, in psychobiology and sociobiology, BEHAVIORISM acts as a leftist influence: it stands for less precise descriptions.

The field graph shows further dynamic facts that you may explore (see below).

10. Note from inspecting field graph 3 that clinical psychology is more materialistic, more reductionistic, than psychiatry. Behaviorism influences clinical psychology by pulling along with humanistic psychology for a less reductionistic, more molar outlook on behavior. But in psychiatry, behaviorism pulls towards more mechanical, less "spiritual" and wholistic explanations of behavior. In the same manner, note that the study of social psychology may be pursued from two different corners of American Psychology today. In psychobiology, social psychology acts as a force on the lower-right: it is more molar and strives towards greater precision. But in sociobiology, social psychology acts from the upper-right: it still acts towards more precision, but it is more reductionistic and fragmentary. The issue then becomes: given that we want more precision, do we want to be more molecular or more molar? The former gets you into psychobiology, the latter into sociobiology. Which way we go depends on our intentions. For the Fall 1979 Generation, Jakobovits and Gordon chose the sociobiology route for social psychology.

11. Now we shall give an overall characterization of the four Arenas in Psychology today using the four quadrants of field graph 3. The following dynamic directions will be commented on:

Field Graph 4

Quadrant I: CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

Clinical Psychology is by far the largest and, politically, most significant of all psychology sub-groupings. In this arena, four dynamic forces are simultaneously operating. Humanistic Psychology (see: Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow); and Behaviorism (see: B.F. Skinner, G.H. Mead) define, respectively, the extreme left and the extreme right of clinical psychology today. On this base line, Cognitivism is on the left because it contains many sentences that refer to hypothetical entities (e.g., "conflictual attitudes" and "intermediate associations") while Psychometrics and Statistics are made up exclusively of numbers, and are therefore on the right. Cognitivism and Psychometrics are both molecular in that their explanatory sentences refer to laboratory tests; this is in contrast to Humanistic Psychology and Behaviorism, both of which are molar in that their explanatory sentences refer to on-going behavior outside the laboratory. It can be seen that the dynamic direction of Behaviorism in Clinical Psychology is toward non-statistical field methodology (see field graph 4).

TOPIC SPECTRUM refers to the intellectual climate of a scientific subject. By viewing this climate as an "ideology," we can discuss the "forces" that operate in the thinking process of scientists as revealed in the sentences they write and study. To understand the background context of this ideology is essential. Without it, you can only memorize and rote-learn the sentences, but you cannot apply them or use them with your own observations. Two principal ideologies or Worldviews exist in the science of Psychology today. One is Humanistic Ideology whose political leftism is libertarian. The other is Materialistic Orientation whose strongest reductionism of social behavior is towards material entities or molecular and fragmentary explanations, and whose least reductionism is expressed in sentences referring to molar or wholistic views of man.

12 The Topic Spectrum of American Psychology today can be divided into four Cartesian guadrants as defined by the two dynamic intellectual forces of our day, namely humanistic ideology and materialistic orientation.

The four quadrants may be represented as separated into sentences whose concerns are contrastive with regard to the two worldviews of humanism and materialism (See field graph 5).

Thus, the four intellectual arenas that reveal the topical organization of American Psychology are:
I. The Arena of Individual Behavior: Its Mechanisms and Its Control;
II. The Arena of Man's Inner Essence: Its Description and Nurturant Care;
III. The Arena of Population Characteristics;
IV. The Arena of Community Evolution and Social Organization.

Field Graph 5

The importance of knowing the topic spectrum of American Psychology today lies in this important psycholinguistic principle: that the meaning of a sentence cannot be rightly figured out without knowing the "ideological context within which the sentence was written (2.3.b). For example, if you read the sentence: "BEHAVIOR IS THE OUTCOME OF ENVlRONMENTAL INFLUENCES," one can draw four different interpretations, each with different implications:

I. Upper-left Context Presupposed: "Therefore: we can control individual behavior through right training and re-training." (l.l.a.4)

II. Lower-left Context Presupposed: "Therefore: let us study the socio-cultural environment as man's own creative product." (4.1)

Navigation Chart