Social Psychoanalytic Perspective - Assignment Example

SOCIAL PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE Question Human beings are social beings and this therefore explains the essence of social interactions as shown by human at all levels in the society. The family is seen as the building block on which a family is made and hence would be used as the basis of the discussion of social interactions. For instance, children are wholly seen to rely on the family unit in understanding their physical, social as well as emotional development. In fact, through family ties and relation, human beings are able to make sense of own self through one appreciate the world we live in. In developmental psychology, the family unit has been used in previous studies to form the basis of the study of relational attachments, personality, intelligence, educational achievement, mental well-being as well as occupational and emotional success. However, consistent to the previous studies and the modern day social psychological studies are on the relationships between mother and child. Educationists’ points towards linking children early development and the parental care offered at home hence the family unit is perceived as a basic feature in a child’s development. The family institution has often been shown as important in formation of individual identity as well as for socialization especially when studying children development. Social psychoanalytic perspective aid our understanding of sibling relationships through various ways as revealed through research studies. It is however to be acknowledged that past studies has been partial in the study where much attention has been accorded to the mother child relationship and neglected the study of adolescents and father-chid relations. For instance, studying the classical psychoanalytic thought shows that siblings are not only marginalized figures within the society but also contradictory figures. However, studying the social psychoanalytic perspective views, children are seen as basic and important figures in the development of the ‘self’ hence not as contradictory or marginalized as otherwise depicted. Moreover, the social analytic perspective of study depicts that social life, psychological life is inseparable in humans and this position therefore underpins the concept of the dynamic unconscious. Besides, the studies have been effective in analyzing single living as against family living as important tenets to understanding the sibling relationships. Unlike as otherwise would be thought, men and women perceive singleness as personal deficit or failure as against healthy choice. Nevertheless, psychoanalytic perspective in studying children presents a rather contradictory phase in that children are ‘individual’, ‘social’, ‘same’ as well as ‘different’ and should be understood so in study. The perspective aids in the understanding that conscious mind only present a relatively little sense in understanding the residence of individual ideas, motive, emotions as well as desires and hence the unconscious thoughts count much. Understanding that social life and psychological life are inseparable, the psychoanalytic perspective illustrates the case of the five sisters (Hollway, Lucey, Phoenix & Lewis, 2012). In the illustration, though the elder sister is married and living away from the rest in the family, they idealize her from her morality and hence perceive her as an epitome to morality. She is therefore perceived as an ‘ego-ideal’ to represent the moral authority she commands into them and they perceive her as a ‘police’ internally and hence, despite the physical separation, they would always dread disappointing her. This therefore shows that the psychoanalytic perspective in studying sibling relations is most effective in understanding family relations as a representation of the wider social perspectives, which are guided by cultural expectations, ethics, morals, as well as norms, which are all learnt in upbringing. Question 2: Attitudes are nothing but talk Controversies in understanding and interpretation of what attitudes mean have been a common phenomena. In some instances, attitude is perceived as ‘a point along a graduated scale’, which would be interpreted as not at all, very much, strongly agree or even completely disagree. Nevertheless, an actual nature of an attitude may not be defined hence the abstract nature of it. There is the common perception of researchers that attitudes would be understood better through a model comprising of thoughts, behaviour as well as feelings and that the attributes are in some manner interconnected. Nevertheless, as Langdridge, Taylor & Mahendran (2012) points, in some instances, there lacks the coordination of the three and this is the case when a person feels like doing something but a counter feeling prevents him/her from doing it hence interfering with the behaviour part of the attitude model. The theory of ‘reasoned behaviour ‘ commonly referred to as TRA elaborates in detail the connections in the three attributes of the attitude model shown with particular attention on the behaviour aspect. Many researchers in psychology has encountered a challenge in understanding attitude in matters of where or what it is as against explaining how attitude works. This explains why attitude is often discussed in hypothetical perspective or in unobservable constructs represented often by measures that are observable. In fact, through the TRA, people can sometimes (to some extent) explain intentions of people through close examination of particular attitudes as they relate to a behaviour, understand the subjective norms while at the same understand the relative importance between attitudes and intentions in explaining a behaviour. In investigative studies on usefulness/effectiveness of using a questionnaire in studying attitude, LaPiere notes on subjective limitation of the tools. The cognitive social approach and discursive psychological approach have been in use in such a study where the cognitive social approach adopts a statistical methodology in the study while the discursive psychological approach adopts a qualitative methodology in the study of attitudes. A qualitative textual as well as conversational analysis is adopted in studying attitude through the discursive approach while controlled conditioning through scientific paradigms characterizes the statistical analysis adopted in the cognitive social perspective. The discursive psychological perspective therefore clearly depicts the support that attitudes would not be quantifiable and hence could not be easily studied quantitatively (Hollway, Lucey, Phoenix & Lewis, 2012). The discursive approach therefore conflicts within the position of the social cognitive researchers who purport that questionnaires would be effective in studying attitudes. It appears therefore that attitudes are mere internal constructs of the heads though illustratable from the outside and hence are mere talks. Question 3: Any social psychology of the body needs to take account of power relations. The body represent the physical structure through which humans interact with each other and the structure through which all functions are carried out. Social psychology has in the past perceived the human body as an ‘object’ whose importance is only perceived through brain as well as human development and nothing else (Hollway, Lucey, Phoenix & Lewis, 2012). However, development and change of perspectives have led to birth of various other perspectives as presented in the discussion, which perceive the body rather differently. Understanding the human body would only be possible through perceiving it as individual, personal as well as social. The definition of individuals through mere body inclinations has triggered numerous debates especially in the academic circles where it is now clear that people can now (in the West) make conscious decisions for body changes through surgery drugs and such other artificial procedures intended to have the physical body changed. Nevertheless, critical analysis of human bodies reveals that the body partly represents who we are as well as what we have. Although individuals would always undertake personal initiative in ‘shaping’, own body through free choice, the degree of this ‘personal’ will is under question in this analysis. This is because social pressures and cultural influences such as trends in fashion has an absolute effect on an individual towards own body. The scientists ascribed to phenomenological perspective reasons that people are better understood through lived experiences conclusions and meanings that are both subjective as well as relational. Phenomenological psychologists reasons that though the social pressures are real, own capacity to make choices by itself presents human beings with an inherent internal capacity to make choices and decisions as against having full influence by external pressures. Personal lived experiences works great to influence own decisions as shown by the phenomenological perspective. Nevertheless, the discursive perspective shows absolute effect by the social pressure towards such decisions that individual make towards own body. This discursive perspective therefore shows that our bodies are inherently ‘discursive’ to imply that they show direct cultural ideals as well as ideologies and as such, the free choices purported by the phenomenology perspective does not exist. Understanding power relations reveals human beings as subjects that are embedded within social constructs and organizational discourses. ‘Normality’ as produced by social creations often gets people easily and unknowingly soaked into common perceptions where for instance, state of poor health would be easily understood across the relations. Foucault therefore rightfully perceives power relations to be central to human interactions as embedded within human cultures as well as social discourses and organizations. For instance, social understanding and legitimization leads to having such occurrences as diagnosed diseases socially understandable as against any ailment that lacks social recognition. This therefore supports that lived experiences of embodiment are directly a creation of power relations as the Foucault’s discursive psychological perspective points. Power relations are therefore mandatory while considering any discursive psychological perspective as Foucault emphasizes through the social embodiment. This therefore shows his position that nothing against the discourse would be meaningful while understanding power relations. Power relations therefore presents the only tool that would be comprehensive in analyzing human social psychology as presented within the discussion. References Hollway W., Lucey H., Phoenix A. & Lewis G., (2012). Social Psychology Matters Book 1. Milton Keynes: The Open University Langdridge D., Taylor S. & Mahendran K. (2012). Critical Readings in Social Psychology Book 2. Milton Keynes: The Open University Read More