As a graduate student studying counseling psychology I was provided with information on such individuals as Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, Jean Piaget, and John Bowlby. What I wasn’t provided with was information on how these individuals were part and parcel of specific conceptual revolutions.
- Sigmund Freud was caught up within the hydraulic conceptual revolution
- B.F. Skinner was a loud voice advocating for the behaviorism conceptual revolution
- Carl Rogers was greatly influenced by and a staunch supporter of the postmodern conceptual revolution
- Jean Piaget was closely associated with the developmental conceptual revolution
- John Bowlby embraced the ethological and organismic biological conceptual revolutions
Theories (and theorists) are held by conceptual frameworks. You really cannot separate the two. Sadly though, the two regularly are separated (and my masters experience mentioned above would be an example). You may well ask, “So what’s the harm in separating the individual from conceptual framework?” Simply put, conceptual frameworks give rise to such things as entailments and assumptions. Let me give you a quick example.
The 2005 edited volume Critical Thinking About Psychology—Hidden Assumptions and Plausible Alternatives (American Psychological Association Press) does a great job comparing and contrasting the Christian religion conceptual framework and the developmental conceptual framework. Here’s an excerpt from my partial summary of Critical Thinking About Psychology (use the Contact Us link above to request a copy):
— begin excerpt —
Here are the assumptions the authors associate with the development movement as contrasted with assumptions generally associated with the religious movement (specifically, the Christian religious movement):
- biological entities have no special meaning or significance whereas biblical entities have special significance and meaning (e.g., they are made in God’s image)
- development is code for “immanent and innate within the organism” (i.e., Bowlby’s idea that attachment is an innate behavioral system)
- adapt is code for derived from biological processes and not from anything approaching the divine
- development is concerned with one’s behavior whereas religion is concerned with one’s conduct
- development is concerned with one’s success whereas religion is concerned with one’s salvation
- development is concerned with environment whereas religion is concerned with the moral universe
- development focuses on change within an environment whereas religion focuses on the foreordained within a moral universe
According to the authors, the development movement overlooks questions of an existential nature such as Why are we here? and How do we understand death? According to the authors, the conceptual system that holds development is not setup to answer questions like these. It would appear that development and religion are framed by two entirely different systems. One could say that development fits within a body-based conceptual system whereas religion fits within a mind-based conceptual system.
— end excerpt —
OK, I tricked you a bit. The above excerpt points out that there is a big reason why individuals are often separated from conceptual frameworks (especially as a part of college or university coursework): By focusing in on the individual and not the conceptual framework (that holds the individual), you can avoid the messy business of assumptions and entailments. For instance, by separating the two you can avoid the discomfort that would naturally arise over the possibility that “adapt” is code for “derived from biological processes and not from anything approaching the divine.” The Critically Thinking About Psychology authors “diss” developmental theorists like Piaget and Bowlby because, 1) they’re understandably upset, and, 2) they want everyone to put their so-called “conceptual framework assumptions and entailments” cards on the table. Even Bowlby called for this type of conceptual framework transparency.
In volume II of his trilogy on attachment theory, Bowlby disses the Love Thy Mother and Father commandment, disses Freud for his Lamarckian evolution leanings, disses behaviorism (as that “simple little theory”), takes a dim view of postmodernism vis-à-via the self esteem movement, and on the list goes. Yes, Bowlby spent a lot of time looking at conceptual frameworks, the assumptions and entailments of said frameworks, and how his framework compared and contrasted with these others. Simply, you cannot compare and contrast theories without also comparing and contrasting the conceptual frameworks that hold them. And this is true even within the larger world of attachment. Consider these attachment framings:
- RAD (reactive attachment disorder)—held by behaviorism
- Neurobiology and attachment—held by reductionism
- Mindfulness—held by Buddhist religion
- Attachment parenting—held by New Ageism
- Self-esteem—held by postmodernism
- Attachment or holding therapy—held by conservative religion
- Bowlbian attachment—held by ethology and naturalistic systems
So, what does this all mean? It means that you cannot talk about self-esteem without also talking about the assumptions and entailments associated with the postmodern conceptual framework. You cannot talk about holding (attachment) therapy without considering the conservative religion conceptual framework. You cannot discuss attachment and neurology without also having a discussion about the reductionism conceptual framework. Sadly, there is a paucity of these types of messy discussions. It really is unfair to talk about Bowlby, the individual, without talking about the ethology and naturalistic systems frames that hold him and his work. It really is unfair to talk about Carl Rogers, the individual, without talking about the postmodern frame that holds him and his work. And on it goes.
If you do insist on talking about the individual divorced from conceptual frame, you risk exaggerating or even distorting the work of the individual. It may appear as so but an individual cannot bring about a conceptual revolution. Bowlby certainly did not bring about the ethology conceptual revolution on his own (although he did play a part). It takes a huge effort on the part of many people and many entities. If you focus in on the individual, you take your eye off the prize: the conceptual framework. Why has Bowlbian attachment theory faded? Answer: because the conceptual frames that hold it—ethology and naturalistic systems theory—have faded. To bring back Bowlbian attachment theory, one would have to spend time bringing back ethology and naturalistic systems theory. Sure, you could move attachment theory over to one of many other conceptual frames (see the list above) but then it wouldn’t be Bowlbian attachment theory. So, call it what it is: postmodern attachment theory, or New Age attachment theory, or even behavioristic attachment theory. Taking my cue from the Critically Thinking About Psychology authors, lets get transparent. The Intelligent Design (ID) group is upset because the evolution group (of which Bowlby was a member) seems to be stripping God out of the conceptual equation. Great! Lets talk about this. Bowlbians are upset at Freudians because Freudians don’t believe in “imaginary fear.” Great! Lets talk about this.
In my next post, I’ll take a quick look at a chapter by Roger Hart and Gary Moore entitled The Development of Spatial Cognition: A Review. This chapter appears in the 1973 edited volume Image & Environment—Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Why this chapter? Well, because the story Hart and Morre give us concerning cognitive mapping and spatial behavior reads like the story of Bowlbian attachment theory. And this makes sense when you stop to consider that attachment behavior is in effect spatial behavior. Jean Piaget and Bärbel Inhelder figure prominently in the story of cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. And who did Bowlby hang around with regularly during the 1950s? Yup, Piaget and Inhelder (among many others). As I have pointed out many times before, Bowlby was a part of an ethology and naturalistic systems conceptual revolution. If your field of view only includes Bowlby then you will miss out on the landscape that contains the conceptual revolution being waged by many others, like Piaget, Inhelder, Bertalanffy, Lorenz, Mead, etc., and in many other places other than just attachment (like in the areas of cognitive mapping and spatial behavior).
And, no , I have not forgotten about Nicholar Carr and his book The Shallows (see my post of August 25th, 2011). I would suggest that Carr, without knowing it, brings us back to the ethology and naturalistic systems conceptual revolution that Bowlby, Bertalanffy, Piaget, Inhelder, Mead, Lorenz, Erikson, and many others fought for. Just trying to lay more groundwork.
