by Giano Rocca
Chapter 27:
Psychology inherent: to human nature and to the humanity, succumbus of the contingent structural reality
Comte and Spencer hey were aware of the fact that also the psychology to their contemporary was only fake scientific, because it was not capable of abstracting human nature from the structural conditioning on individuals and, then, he did not know study human nature authentic and the psychic laws of components intellectuals, namely of the determinants of the “human spirit” (1).
Psychologists are opposed, generally, at the “physicalism”, since they include, darkly, that this theory would lead to consider human behavior as a fact resulting from determinants outsiders at the human nature. The “physicalism” is in contraposition, then, with large part of the theories of the fake sciences, of the humans beings and social. Either, as much the theories “physicalists”, as the psychological theories, who are opposed to the first; are, in reality, consistent with the logic of reality structural statual. The theories “physicalists” they have done naturalized, simply, the reality structural historical. For this purpose, they avoid ruling on deep psychology, with the only purpose to deny the opposition between nature and historical structures. Opponents at the “physicalism”they tend, instead, to grasp the distinction between determination of reality structural statual and the determination of a specific social system. Tend, therefore, at consider of the deep psychology, as an expression of the structures Statual, which they consider, therefore, as naturals. At the same time, they consider the behavior of the surface as determined by the culture of the various social systems, which are in continuous evolution.
The “new Freudians” refuse the Freudian theory on the dualism between aggressive instincts and sexual and substitute it with the theory of “force of growth”, according to which the human being possesses inherent potentialities, that are, then, distorted by the social reality (2). The complexes: of Oedipus and of Electra, theorized by Freud, they are not universals or biologically determined, but depend, instead, totally from the culture. The general presence of the incest taboo does not prove the existence of the complexes of Oedipus and of Electra, but the existence of a general trend of the human being to establish sexual relations with those members of the environment of the knowledges of which, more intensely and mutually, they are attracted sexually. This fact, if not prevented, does not give rise, in itself, as theorized by Freud, at an permanent conflict between the components of the social nucleus, but simply a conflict ecologically positive, as occurs in natural society of the animals, where life takes place under the guidance of the instincts. At the human level, namely at the Rationalized level, in the absence of coercion, aimed at the preservation of social hierarchy, would be determined, according to these theories, a general and continuous conflict, not caused by sexual needs, but by the desire of social domain. If it deduces, therefore, as the institution of the incest taboo has functions strictly structural, as they constitute the basis for all forms of historical structures. This conception is, at least in part, supported by the theorisation of social psychologists and sociologists, like: Linton, Sarbin and G. H. Mead, which they had formulated the theory of the role, as a structural function of the subject (3). The “Freudian psychoanalysis” was born when he was prevailing the “Positivism”, that theorized the full autonomy of the human being, considered sole maker, and rational, of their own destiny. Freud, on the contrary, he theorised how the elements determinants of the human being, were the irrationality and the unconscious. The irrationality, in the human being, derives, partly, from its own primary instinct. He, namely, had sensed as the causes of the social reality in act are internals at the nature itself human, and of the living being, more in general (4).
Many psychologists tended, in the XX century, to replace at, rare, elements scientific existing in the psychology, with ideology “Marxist Leninist”, although they arrived to recognize, then, as the structural reality is substantially detached from the “psychological mechanisms of the individuals”.
The psychology received a great impulse, to its development, in the period in which it occurred, in some regions of the Earth, the transition to a new feudal phase, in the course of the twentieth century, for the need, which was resulted from this, to establish a total control on human beings. Its development had found, however, a limit, which it prevented him from reaching real characteristics of scientificity, that would finish to reveal the unnaturalness, in relation to humans, of reality structural statual and historical in general. With the arrival of a new feudal phase, the psychology develops itself in some of its aspects, namely, in those places where can return useful for the realisation of total control on human beings. However, in its more general aspects, it dries up and stops, as occurs for any other branch of science.
Some psychologists use, in the study of the personality, concepts of structure and processes. With the first concept, they indicate, the psychological categories, more or less stable, consistent with a given social system or structural universe, with the second: intend the functions performed by the parties of the psyche, how they interact and change over time. These concepts are also useful in the analysis of reality structural statual (5).
Minguzzi had stated that: one who occupies a central position with respect to the communication, purchases, necessarily, a form of power. He had recognized as the same emotional bonds constitute the bases for power. The research conducted on the social power provide the following elements:
- The ordering of the positions or definition of the persons in the condition of dependence,
- The index of the intensity of the dependency, comprising the limits and the scope of the power, namely, if it is limited to the duty of group or if he oversteps the same.
The “formula Socio – Dynamic” (6) theorized by Schindler, represents the “emotional structure unconscious of each group” and consists in four positions characteristics:
Alpha = emotional leader of the group;
Beta = rational stimulant of the group (or councillor of “alpha”, of which is an ally);
Y = mass passive in the face of “alpha” and, partially, to “beta”;
Omega = those who, seeing beyond the boundaries of the group and, then, not accepting, entirely, the leadership of “alpha”, they go at preparing themselves to become the scapegoat of “y”, and at find support outside the group: leadership seen as hostile by the ensemble of the group itself.
In the “unconscious structure”, therefore, becomes part also the external opposition, which constitutes, in this way, a fifth position. Schindler had stated that this “structure” is dynamic, in the sense that the hierarchy of power can mutate: for example “beta” can assume the leadership, in the event of tension with the outside. “Omega” can become a leader, with character of tyranny or authoritarianism: without the consent. If, then, the leadership is held by “y”, occurs “the institutionalization” group (with the creation of mechanisms of representation or with charismatic leadership or with authoritarian power, although equipped with consensus).
Kurt Lewin criticized the “associational psychology”, in so far as the latter, wishing avoid both “the idealism”, that what is considered the “metaphysics of teleology”, rejects every dynamic factor oriented to a goal (Not only in relation to historical reality, but also in relation to human nature), giving value only to the past of man, in a conception of the present as if it was a simple “repetition”. Lewin, who refused this logic, had stated that the field psychological has a temporal properties, for the which comprises: the past psychological, the psychological present and the future psychological, the which times constitute one of the dimensions of the space of life existing, in a given period. In this way he avoided (what it called) the “injury of teleology”. However, had stated that, the fact of considering the existence of factors oriented to a goal, is not a characteristic of teleology, because the causal explanations, in physics, do not avoid such conditions, since the physical force is a
entity oriented in a certain direction: a vector. In this way he had circumvented the risk of be accused of pursuing a teleology of metaphysical order, with the contradiction in logic, tht is common in the academic world contemporary.
Jacques Lacan recognized the existence of a contradiction between the human naturalness and the reality of the human condition. He identified the reality of the human condition with the “Es” and the “I Real”, while identified the naturalness with the “I Potential”, or initial. He believed inevitable the passage from “imaginary”, or reality natural, next to the birth, at the “symbolic”, namely, the acquisition of language and of the logic of reality. In truth, as there is a natural authority, in childhood, and since this passage, implies the passage to the subjugation to the authority and to the structural power, constitutes a contingent need, but not inevitable ontologically. The latter hired is, however, demonstrated by the fact that the critics of Lacan they are afraid of the its theoretical danger, recognizing the danger, inherent in his theory, of locate the overcoming actual of structural reality historical and that someone, following his example, may proposes the path of an actual overcoming of the reality structural historical (7). The “psychoanalysis Lacanian” speaks of “disappearance” or "Replacing the subject”, when the subject natural, which Lacan defined the “because of the need”, is “replaced” by subject (of structural determination), whom subject is defined the “cause of desire”. Lacan in fact, had identified the needs with the instincts or the “tendencies” natural and the desires with the “desires of the other”, namely, the structural determinations. He spoke of a “original subject”, defined as “subject of the need” or “subject full” in the sense of an undivided subject, “subject in itself”, “subject without signifiers” and finally “subject identified with the primordial object”. He contrasted this subject at the “subject of desire”, “subject divided”, “subject replaced” by the “signifier of the other”, “subject touched by castration”, namely, subject that accepts the castration, the which last, replaces (the original essence of the) subject. He relegated the “original subject” in the realm of myth, as well as he intended to lock the needs. Had defined the neurotic as one who refuses to “submit himself to the desire of the other” and namely refuses the acceptance, although it is in its aware, of the its own castration, refusing, at the same time, the castration of others. The neurotic person tends to avoid the encounter with the other, “detector of the object which is the because of desire” (namely, the detector of the logic of the structural reality). Lacan stated that the “analytical process” of the “psychoanalysis” makes the neurotics incurables, because it induces them to accept the castration, and not lead them to healing. The unconscious, the tendencies natural, the which it substantiate him, according to the “Lacanian theory", are definable as the natural rationality or of base of the individual.
Kurt Lewin stated that the reality of social structures and its evolution, they do not enter to constitute the psychological field of an individual. He was only in charge of the study of the “area of life” (8) of the individual himself, without distinguishing between what is the fruit of the inner area of the psychological field and what is the fruit of the outer zone (or the structural reality). He was aware of the need to know the “psychological ecology” (9) or structural reality which he had believed that it can be modified with “means different from those psychological”. The topological psychology of Lewin accepts the determinism, both of the structural type or historical, both in relation to human nature, recognizing the homogeneity of human nature or the “specific character of the behavior” (10).
Lewin fought against the idea that makes every reality extra-natural (or extra-physics) a metaphysical fact and, therefore (according to the current idea of metaphysics): imaginary. He supported that the social reality, such as that psychological, either natural (or physically consistent) such as that of type physic or mathematic. This last concept derives clearly by a concern not to be accused to believe in metaphysics, fearing, so, to place themselves outside of the field of things “existing” (namely: what are considered the only the possible objects of the scientific investigation). The metaphysical prejudice (namely: against metaphysics), the victims of which are researchers in the structural field and psychic, influence every approach to structural reality or psychic, making it impossible the scientific progress of these. Lewin had defined scientifically, the one that we defined the structural reality historical: “The structural properties are characterized by the relationship between the parties rather than by the parties or by the elements themselves”. The social structures historical, thus characterized as: relationships between physical subjects or between living beings, acquire a valence of reality, which should be analyzed as a true fact, and not as a methodological construct or form attributed to reality (11). He, in order to break the taboo about the existence of the structural reality, had proposed to overcome the moment of the classification, passing to experimentation, in order to locate the constituent elements of the reality of social structures and of the psychic reality. Lewin compared the “Field Theory” and the use of the “spaces of phase” (or Cartesian diagrams) with “the mathematics economy” or the economy “formalist”, stating that “if you it is conscious of the limit of the analytical investigation separated of certain aspects of the social field, this inquiry then becomes an upper stage useful and actually necessary”. He theorized three development phases, for the study of social forces:
1) Development of analytical concepts and theories;
2) Their theoretical quantification, by means of equations;
3) Measurement of specific cases.
He stated, optimistically, that the first point was, by now, reached and that for the other two, it is necessary to achieve the interdisciplinary study of social sciences. Lewin enounced the conditions of a theory of thumb:
1) the existence of constructs that:
A) are related to observable facts (symptoms), by means of operational definitions, corresponding to the possibilities of observation, in different circumstances;
B) have properties conceptual, clearly defined.
In order to draw inferences strict it is necessary that these properties are coordinated with certain mathematical concepts.
2) Laws (which are defined as the ratio between the behavior, on the one hand, and the field characterized by certain constructs, on the other hand; or between the various factors that determine the camp) should be verified experimentally, and deemed valid: only in the case in which they are not contradicted by any given, in any field of psychology. The laws have, obviously, a general character, from which deviate, partially, the individual cases. The individual case constitutes the specific value, which assumes, from time to time, the general law (12).
Klaus Holzkamp had explaining the fundamental criteria, necessary to carry out scientific research in the field of structural reality and of human nature:
- reliability of empirical assumptions,
- integration of theory (or of the theories) in a theoretical framework more general,
- Relevance “internal” the hypothesis to be tested and of the concepts that are used to formulate the hypotheses,
- Relevance “external”: namely, the meaning of the object of study in the context of anthropological and wider social (the general context of the structural sciences and humanities) (13).
Lewin noted that these criteria, in particular that of “integration of the theory in a theoretical framework more general”, has been progressively abandoned, and this is a clear symptom of poor scientificity of various gills sciences “social”. In this way it is condemned psychology, as the other human sciences and structural: to irrelevance scientific, or anyway such a scientific content very limited.
Darwin Cartwright had stated that the process of “conceptualization” (14) of psychology has received a considerable boost by Kurt Lewin, which, in the elaboration of a theoretica
l system poses the following conditions for the use of the various concepts:
1) which make it possible to take into consideration both the qualitative aspects that quantities of the phenomena;
2) that represent adequately the attributes genetic-conditional (or causal) of the phenomena;
3) that facilitate the measurement (or the operational definition) of these attributes (or cause);
4) which allow: both the generalisation at universal laws, both the concrete examination of the specific case.
To process these concepts he proposed the mathematical method of the “elements constructive... (of the) genetic definition”, which highlights the relationship between mutations qualitative and quantitative mutations. Cartwright had stated that the analysis performed by Lewin, of “conceptual dimensions” (15) of the constructs is useful, because these dimensions conceptual determine the way in which a given construct may be combined with other, as well as the way in which it can be measured. Through the conceptual analysis, Lewin, is able to analyze, scientifically, concepts such as: conflict and frustration, managing to make it the object of experimental researches.
Lewin stated that the constructs become truly scientific and scientifically measurable only when it becomes definable their “conceptual nature or conceptual dimension”, namely, when their nature (or essence) is due to known entities and measurable (such as physical terms: time, distance, etc.). Reached this result, it will be possible to compare, with respect to their magnitude, entities having the same size conceptual, with the same metro or unit of measure. In psychology, this is obtained by placing in relationship each construction conceptual with the psychological elements fundamental chosen by the conceptual construction. Lewin had recognized that this operation, in psychology, was not yet possible, if not in embryo, or in a manner not rigorous, or referable at quantitative equations. Lewin insisted on formal properties of the scientific constructs and on the mathematics representability rigorous of the human behavior. However, he preserved a basic attitude of practical type toward science, fearing that the “Formalism” is transformed into voids verbalisms. His “formalism” was dictated by the need to expose and analyze in a rigorous way the subject of science, in order to promote the progress of science itself. The “formal constructions” constitute tools (Guidelines) of further scientific progress. He, therefore, had theorised about the “formalization” and the “mathematization”, only after reaching concrete results through the empirical investigation, using them then to continue the journey, however avoiding the "formalizations”, too soon, or earlier of the empirical analysis. To this end he refused, consistently, of endure unsolvable problems with the techniques employed, namely, he had feared, rightly, that could be formed priori theories, and they could be smuggled in place of science. Kurt Lewin stated that the logical sequence theorized by Clark Hull: definitions, assumptions, conclusions; despite being valid, must be based on the constructs that are well defined, namely, on some conceptual properties well defined. Must, namely, have properties of: Vector, scalar quantity, tensor, region of field, model of the region (namely: to change between the different regions). The lack of the definition of these conceptual properties of the constructs, namely of the their interdependence logic, excludes any logical deduction, with the consequence of leave in the vague the constructs dynamics, that have a leading role at the level deductive. Lewin stated that the conceptualization cannot consist in the “formalization” of statements that have already been made but should draw up constructs, involving both the representation of the empirical data both the formal elaborations, given that there is a close relationship between the logical form and the content. Therefore, the “formal constructs” cannot be arbitraries, but adjusted to reality analyzed, with its internal coherences. Moreover, the various constructs must be processed in such a way as to constitute a “system logically consistent and empirically adequate” (16). He had proposed to identify the “concepts formalized” (17) and to postpone to a later time the “formalization” or systematization in a “formal system”, because he feared that such a systematization could be crippling, since it would not yet reached a sufficient level of empirical verification and scientific.
Lewin stated that, currently (given the level of scientific knowledge that have been reached), instead of arranging some conceptual elements of the constructs, you may have some “conceptual types” (18) of the latters. Through the use of such types conceptual, Lewin had thought you could, gradually, reach to the scientific knowledge of the conceptual dimensions.
Lewin and his collaborators have enuncited psychological laws, in which it highlighted the nature of the human psyche and its behavior: both natural that subordinate on the structural reality. He, in addition to the needs, he theorised about the “valence” and “values of satisfaction” (19). The various valences were defined as employees: in part by the nature of its object, and in part by the state of the needs of the subject, in that moment. Therefore, if the need is a psychological state and has several possibilities of satisfaction, the valence is the specific connection of a given subject to the need of the person as units psycho-somatic complete. He stated that there is a report, but not identification, between valence and value of satisfaction, the latter being the ability of satisfaction of a given object. There is therefore a value of consumption, closely connected with the value of satisfaction.