Questions to consider:

 

"Why We Are " : The Organismic Perspective

 

Summary of Primary Characteristics

- Development is best understood as a qualitative process involving the progressive, active construction and reconstruction of levels of organization

- Development is a universal, unidirectional process typical of all humans

- There is an idealized end point toward which all development proceeds

- Individuals actively attribute meaning to their experiences

- Development proceeds through a series of syntheses, each leading to a greater potential for effective adaptation to life experiences

Discussion Question 1:

The main premise of this perspective is that behavioral change is inherent in the living organism itself rather than externally driven. Development, therefore, is a unique form of change with discrete defining characteristics. Pepper's (1961) metaphor for the organismic perspective is the living organism - a synergistic whole that is more than the sum of its parts, and development consists of the continuing integration of fragments into larger wholes. Development therefore, is unidirectional - one can develop, but not "undevelop."

One are in which this issue of "undeveloping" is debated is with respect to behavioral changes observed in adolescents. On some experimental and social measures, they respond in the same manner as do young children, while in other contexts or situations, they behave as adults (e.g., behavioral regression). Does this imply that, because the behaviors as similar, the mechanisms governing them are similar?

Discussion Question 2:

Organicists would argue that others with more externally driven or contextualist perspectives are looking in the wrong places in their attempts to develop theory about human development. They feel that the process of theory building should start not with observation but with reflection. In particular, it starts with reflection on "what one must necessarily assume about the nature of the organism in order for it to have the behaviors that it does exhibit" (Overton, 1985, p.16). For organicists, this assumptive process is a crucial step in theory building. Only when one knows what she is looking for will she find it, and she shouldn't look "out there" but "in here." So, what is it that organicists claim is "in here"?

Discussion Question 3:

An analogy might be helpful in describing some of the issues involved in the organismic perspective. When we mix two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen, we get the substance called water. Water has certain defining characteristics; for example, it feels "wet" to the touch, and I can extinguish certain types of fires. But where do these two properties (wetness and extinguishability) come from? Is one contributed by the oxygen, and the other by the hydrogen? If so, which comes from which? Or do both come from one, with the other acting as some sort of filler or binder? Neither oxygen nor hydrogen alone feels wet, and adding oxygen to a fire would make it stronger not weaker. So where do the defining characteristics of water come from? They emerge out of the interaction of two elements that are not reducible to either of its contributing elements.

Piaget would argue similarly, that psychological activity occurs on a unique, nonreducible level or plane of action. This can be unsettling in some ways. For instance while others can point directly to behavioral causes and their effects, organicists can only know them indirectly. There is nothing "tangible" that explains how one person's behavior serves as the cause of another, such as contextual factors. Further, while we know genes are real (we have pictures of them), the organismic perspective provides nothing we can absolutely point out as causes and mechanisms. However, this perspective is one that is supported by much empirical study. What might some of implications of using this perspective alone in studying adolescence? What might be some of the objections to this approach? What types of questions does this perspective not address for this developmental group specifically?

Discussion Question 4:

Related to the question above - the organismic approach focuses on (1) identifying the status of an individual at any particular time and (2) assessing how that organization structure changes over time. How might this approach be reflected in the way that organicists study youth? What types of methods might be seen as useful or less useful in studying youth? What, for instance, would be the implications of using highly controlled, experimental procedures and statistical analyses versus more clinical strategies?

Discussion Question 5:

Let's take an example of a relevant issue for adolescents. An organicist studying moral development would more likely ask individuals their reasons for believing some act was right or wrong while those with a more mechanistic (reductionist) perspective might observe the frequency with which individuals transgress under different experimental conditions. Which approach would be the "correct" one? What might the "answers" provided by the organismic approach be useful for? Less useful for?

Discussion Question 6:

Piaget did not pursue the study of development beyond adolescence, and most people have the impression that he believed that the formal operational cognitive structures (the fourth of his developmental stages), that emerge during adolescence, serve as the basis for mature thought. What are some issues related to adolescent development and transitions to adulthood that call this notion into question?

Discussion Question 7:

Neither the work of Erikson and Freud is at the forefront of developmental research today (and neither has the stature of Piaget). Both are usually relegated to developmental texts in sections related to historical roots of development. Although few today accept literally Freud's explanations of individual development from childhood to adulthood, what elements of his work can be applied to adolescent development (e.g., parent-child socialization, attachment)? What aspects of Erikson's work can provide guidance in the areas of adolescent and young-adult identity and intimacy?