Structuralism Versus Functionalism: Comparative Essay

The end of the nineteenth century leading into the next century saw major developments in the field of American academic psychology. Psychology as a discipline was established at universities. After studying under Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig for two years, Edward Titchener created a laboratory for studying mental structures at Cornell University. Titchener formally developed structuralism or structural psychology – the first-ever organized, defined school of psychology. Functionalism or functional psychology began as a protest movement against Titchener’s structuralism, but over time, it matured into a broad, all-encompassing school of psychology. Functionalism not only appeared in the realm of academic psychology but expanded into fields of applied psychology including the psychology of education and business (Benjafield, 2015). In order to appreciate the development of psychology into the scientific discipline we see today, we must study the opposing approaches of structuralism and functionalism that were used to investigate the conscious mind.

Structuralism focuses on examining what the mind is comprised of. Titchener’s structuralism is modelled after Wundt’s ideas on psychology. Wundt asserted that mental processes can be measured and scientifically studied. Titchener’s interest lay in examining the “building blocks” of the conscious mind and discovering how these components make up our mind (“Structuralism”, 2016). Thus, structuralism worked to uncover the elementary structure of the mind. Titchener argued that in order to understand what something does or how it functions, one must first understand its structural components. For example, one cannot study how the cells in an organism interact and carry out physiological functions before learning the structure of a cell itself. This idea can be applied to psychology, specifically that one must know what consciousness is before one can examine what it is for (Benjafield, 2015).

Titchener used introspective experimentation in order to discover the structure of consciousness. He used a standardized method of introspection to scientifically study the basic elements of perceptions, ideas, and emotions. Using careful language that is neither too familiar nor unfamiliar, he encouraged participants to describe the experience of perceiving a stimulus, specifically the individual components. Through this method, he concluded that the elementary structure of consciousness is comprised of sensations and affection (Benjafield, 2015). Therefore, thought processes should be thought of as sensations of the current experience and emotions from prior experiences (“Structuralism”, 2016).

In structural psychology, Titchener left little to be discovered by future generations of psychologists. It has been argued that one of Titchener’s greatest contributions to American psychology was not the theory of structuralism itself but how it led to the development of opposing theories. By defining his position so narrowly and concretely, he served as the perfect “rock” that others could push against to develop a contrasting approach. This gave way to examining what the mind does, an approach known as functionalism (Benjafield, 2015; “Structuralism”, 2016).

Functionalism is regarded as a set of principles that can be broadly applied, unlike the organized school of structuralism. Functionalists initially set out to criticize Titchener’s claims about psychology. Despite Titchener’s attempt to establish introspection as an objective measure, later psychologists found the language of experimental introspection imprecise and perhaps unreliable. Rather, functionalists used methods that best suited the particular problem. This allowed them to borrow methods as needed (Benjafield, 2015).

The origin of functionalism is typically attributed to American psychologist William James. He approached psychology from an evolutionary sense as he believed that consciousness serves an adaptive function. A mind is actually a tool that rapidly adapts to a wide array of situations, promoting survival. Later functionalists set out to examine the function of consciousness. American psychologist John Dewey argued that how an individual responds to a stimulus depends on what they are doing at that moment. This should be understood in terms of functionality with the function being the organism working to achieve its goals. James Angell adds that consciousness should be appreciated for its ability to adapt to novel situations. Mental processes are actually more durable than what Titchener suggests (Benjafield, 2015).

The schools of structural and functional psychology do not exist as they once did upon their conception. Despite this, these schools of psychology is of great historical significance in the greater field of Psychology. As mentioned, structuralism was the first established school of American psychology. Titchener’s assertion that psychology should be treated as an experimental discipline has had lasting effects on what the field of psychology is today, including the new field of Cognitive Neuroscience. Functionalism never became a formalized, defined school of psychology but it led to the emergence of evolutionary psychology (“Functionalism”, 2017). Both Cognitive Neuroscience and evolutionary psychology work towards understanding the mental processes and behaviours in humans but take opposing approaches.

Cognitive Neuroscience has adopted a structuralist approach when examining mental processes in relation to brain areas or neural networks. This approach argues that the structure of the brain determines what the mind is capable of doing. For example, if we had different genes that coded for different taste receptors, we would perceive different tastes. Neuroscience emphasizes first understanding the molecular and structural components before understanding how the structure maps onto our mental capabilities. Knowing the structure of the brain and nervous system can support predictions of a given behaviour. Ultimately, our mental processes are a result of the organization of the elements in our mind that determine the possibilities of consciousness (Pereira, 2007).

We also see how basic principles of functionalism have been incorporated into the relatively recent field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology emphasizes the importance of using the theory of natural selection to understand the function of the mind and explain behaviours. They accept the functionalist argument that our mental processes serve key adaptive functions. However, the field of evolutionary psychology goes beyond just taking a functionalist approach (“Functionalism, Behaviorism”, 2013). It also works towards uniting the fragmented pieces of psychology, to create a more holistic, integrated understanding of psychological phenomena.

Our choice of how we approach studying psychology can influence the types of conclusions we reach about the mind’s mental processes. The study of structuralism and functionalism is just one example of how different approaches of how to study the conscious mind led to different conclusions about mental processes. This reveals the importance of becoming aware of the perspective we take when looking at any given topic. The approach we take can greatly bias how we treat any data we collect as well as the conclusions we draw from it. Nonetheless, it is of great value to take a specific approach when studying any psychological topic because it allows one to draw concrete conclusions that help create or further develop psychological theories. We are then able to integrate the conclusions we reach through different approaches to explain any given psychological phenomenon. Integrating the knowledge from varying schools of psychology takes us one step close to having a more comprehensive understanding of complex human capabilities.

Bibliography

1. Benjafield, J. G. (2015). A history of psychology. Ontario: Oxford University Press. Nelson
2. Education. Functionalism. (2017). In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/functionalism-psychology
3. Functionalism, behaviorism and evolutionary psychology essay. (2013). UKEssays. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/functionalism-behaviorism-and-evolutionary-psychology-psychology-essay.php?cref=1
4. Pereira, A. (2007). What the cognitive neurosciences mean to me. Mens Sana Monographs, 5(1), 158–168. http://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1229.32160
5. Structuralism. (2016). In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/structuralism-psychology