The object of knowledge for the evolutionary perspective is how the development and process of language has evolved, and our similarities and differences to non-human animals through scientific methods. Whether this has evolved as Pinker (as cited in Cooper et al, Ch 2 pp 81) suggests and is a unique human ability allowing humans to transmit communication and thus helping within their physical environment, which offers adaptional advantage such as our throat anatomy being unique among mammals; or is a by-products of other cognitive processes as Sperber puts forward in our
TMA 06
capacity for metarepresentation , ...’creating a favourable environement for the evolution of a new adaption, a linguistic ability’ (as cited by Sperber in Cooper et al, Ch 2, pp 87) and the theory of mind.
As these three perspectives all research language they can be seen as broadly complementary, but their objects of knowledge vary in how they approach this topic. The evolutionary perspective compares us to other non-humans at the species level and our ability to create meaning, but this is difficult to gain evidence through observation of primates as in whether primates lack the ability to communicate further than ‘here and now’, and therefore is language a distinct human ability. The latter two perspectives can be seen in some ways as complementary as they both look for meaning, but conflict due to when the meaning takes place, before and after the spoken word, but social constructionism has no particular stance in the relationship of language to thought as the cognitive perspective does.
Within the complicated area of sex and gender, psychological perspectives are used to understand the differences between men and women, what makes us uniquely human and the issue of gender and how it is linked to human’s identity.
Biological psychology, asking what effects the biological processes have on behavioural differences using scientific processes such as cellular and biochemical data collection.
Evolutionary psychology asks how evolution might have shaped humans thinking and behaviour, and selection of sexual behaviour, testing with evolutionary reasoning.
Social constructionist psychology examines how the construction of sex and gender has been defined within historical and social contexts, using evidence mostly taken from what people say and write as in Mac an Ghallil’s study of four masculine identities ( as cited in Cooper et al, Ch 3, pp155).
Finally psychoanalytic psychology asks how girls and boys gain a sense of what gender the child acquires for themselves from birth, and the psychic development and therefore ongoing sexual differences and their meanings are the object of knowledge. The methods used are mostly clinical observation and the analysis of interpretations between analyst and patient.
The evolutionary perspective theorises that sexual behaviour and partner choice have been determined by human behaviours and encoded in our genes to serve an evolutionary function, that of survival such as sexual and partner choice with greater parental investment (as cited by Trivers in Cooper et al, Ch 3, pp 143). The biological perspective at the level of physicality looks for answers to sex and gender by studying levels of hormones, genetic inheritance and differences in the brains of men and women. As these two scientific based perspectives both view the differences in gender arising from biological features evolved through time they can be seen as complementary. The hermeneutic methods of the social constructionist perspective conflict with the former two perspectives arguing they do not explain the meaning of what is ‘to be’ a man or a woman, and how gender is defined by social interaction through historical and social contexts. Social identification is
TMA 06
seen as being created through discourses, resulting in gender-appropriate behaviours and being continually dynamic. The psychodynamic perspective combines both biological and cultural explanations of gender, with a strong influence on following the development of humans, with its focus on early relationships, psychosexual stages and our consequent sexual behaviour. Concentrating on the meaning of biological differences and how these are internalized in a child’s mind. Freuds’s theory that anatomical differences were enough to explain the psychological differences between girls and boys (as cited in Cooper et al. Ch 3 ,pp162), have been disputed by theorists such as Karen Horney and Melanie Klein (as cited in Cooper et al Ch 3, pp 163) and led to critical developments in the defining of sex and gender. That of the symbolism of the penis to men’s privilege and the woman’s creative capacity to give birth, and the envy this causes whilst affecting gender. This perspective contradicts the former perspectives in that family dynamics and anatomical differences are studied, and look for how the internal conceptualisation of gender is formed. The latter two perspectives can be seen as complementary in their hermeneutic methods in understanding the meanings and experiences of gender.
The strengths and weaknesses of each perspective are that in the two scientific approaches, evolutionary and biological evolutionary data uses varied methods including experimentation and question-based studies to provide evidence of genetic variation over long periods of time to promote reproductive success. Due to their models being theoretical, and their evidence being empirical there is controversy about whether this perspective conforms to scientific procedures, also that no evidence is provided at the genetic level to prove behavioural patterns. The use of material data in the biological view is a strength, but it is difficult to provide the evidence of change due to the constant influences of physical and cultural environments. It provides the genetic make-up, hormones and brain imagery of sexual differences but does not provide a psychology of sex and gender. The strength of the methods based on the hermeneutic principles are that social constructionist’s view of the meaning-making activities of humans, and the historical and cultural influences, their values and meaning and intention through discourse. Culltural lenses through which men and women establish their own sexual behavious such as Clark and Hatfield’s findings (as cited in Cooper et al, Ch 3, pp 146). The weakness here is the failure of this perspective to explain the origins of gender differences, and that gender cannot be due to social influences entirely, and does not explain resistance and change through time. The psychoanalytical perspective by combining social and biological forces examines both nature and nurture, starting with the anatomical differences leading to different psychic paths, and the meaning of this difference shaped by unconscious forces and desires. Critically this perspective cannot demonstrate the validity of its claims, and raises questions about its evidence. These perspectives cal also lead to political conflict between them as in the interpretation of behavioural differences such as Hyde (as cited in Cooper et al, Ch3, pp 133).
In summary within the topics discussed each perspective is valid and useful contributing its own object of knowledge, and cannot be linked without establishing how they interact to form a whole
TMA 06
picture. They can be complementary, contradictory or co-existing, showing psychology to be a multi-perspective discipline.
(Word count 1520)
References:
T. Cooper and H. Kaye, (2007), ‘Language and Meaning’. In T. Cooper, and I. Roth,, ‘Challenging Psychological Issues’ (2nd ed. pp 71 – 123), Milton Keynes: The Open University
W. Holloway, T. Cooper, A Johnston and R. Stevens (2007), ‘The psychology of sex and gender’. In T. Cooper and I. Roth, ‘Challenging Psychological Issues’ (2nd ed. pp 125 – 186), Milton Keynes: The Open University
by
pitstop71 (student)
