Interdisciplinary Approach in the Social Sciences - Essay Example

dear client, this is not yet the actual paper. Please do not submit this yet. This is only one of the parts that I will include in the discussion of cold war, nationalism, and climate change. I will upload the finalized paper on Thursday or Friday. Please ignore the completed status of your order. I will inform you once the finalized paper is uploaded. Thanks =) Interdisciplinary Approach in the Social Sciences Every academic discipline is related to other fields of study, especially in the human behavioral sciences. The interrelatedness of sociology, anthropology, and psychology is a perfect example. These three major fields in the human behavioral sciences generally focus on humanity. Usually, the emphasis of each field is somewhat similar to one or the other. To a layperson, these three fields may seem to be the identical. Nevertheless, even though they overlap one another, each is a distinct field or science in its own right. When characterizing the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, and psychology, it is apparent that a certain extent of overlapping of the topics arises (Marginson, 2002). However, there are accurate descriptions that demonstrate the various areas of humanity that are unique to each discipline. This essay presents a critical comparison between the human behavior disciplines anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Auguste Comte introduced sociology in the nineteenth century. The insights of Comte about sociology were rooted in his assumptions about political theory, economics, and psychology. He regarded sociology the most far-reaching social science (Kendall, 2012). Eventually, scholars created the different social sciences, particularly anthropology and psychology. Anthropology is the social science that is almost similar to sociology. Traditionally, anthropologists have focused on the exploration of primitive cultures, while sociologists have studied modern, industrial Western societies (Kendall, 2012). Due to the fact that anthropologists focus mainly on small primitive, nonindustrial cultures, they are likely to investigate societies on the whole. On the contrary, sociologists study more specific features of industrial societies, like gender inequality or political changes. Recently, a number of anthropologists have broadened their research to involve examinations of modern societies, studying, for example, cultural features of communities and social groups (Becker et al., 1954). Psychology, on the other hand, addresses emotional and mental functioning and development in individuals. While anthropology and sociology focus on human groups, psychology makes the individual the main unit of its analysis. Psychology and sociology have a certain extent of commonality within the field of social psychology, a discipline that explores the interactions and relationships between groups and individuals (Becker et al., 1954). For instance, a social psychologist studies how social groups build and maintain compliance among their members. Anthropology resembles but is not the same as sociology. Sociology has concentrated on industrial societies, while anthropology focuses on pre-industrial cultures; sociologists studied their own societies, employed qualitative and quantitative approaches, and seldom tried to verify their findings using cross-cultural methods, while anthropologists studied other cultures, used the participant observation method, and promoted cross-cultural or comparative analysis (Sharma, 1996). Obviously, there have been several deviations from these patterns making anthropologists look more like sociologists in their works, and vice versa. Meanwhile, British social anthropology has long been criticizing psychology. Basically, social anthropology embraces anti-reductionism, which suggests that it is against the reduction of knowledge and interpretation of social life to other disciplines like psychology (Sharma, 1996). This point of view is largely attributed to Emile Durkheim, who claimed that a psychological interpretation of a social phenomenon would definitely be erroneous. On the other hand, American cultural anthropology has been more open to psychology, particularly the emphasis on the individual. For instance, Boas studied the connection between the society and individual, and later on there was the personality and culture model (Horowitz, 2005). Recently, according to Valsiner (2012), a different discipline named psychological anthropology has appeared, with an emphasis on adolescence, values, and attitudes. Psychology studies the individual, while anthropology focuses on the group. Psychology places emphasis on the dynamics of personality, and in mental mechanisms like emotions, learning, cognition, and motives, while anthropology concentrates on culture or social systems. Psychologists view the social system as a fixed entity, and identify differences in the personality dynamics as basis for their study, while anthropologists view the personality dynamics as a fixed phenomenon, and identify differences in the social system as the basis for their research (Valsiner, 2012). In a similar manner, psychology examines human behavior while sociology explores society. As stated by Thouless, “Psychology is the positive science of human experience and behavior” (Sharma, 1996, p. 36). Thus, the breadth of psychology and sociology somewhat overlaps; both use the scientific method and both are based on fact. And, ultimately, it is hard to sustain objectivity in both. However, despite such similarities, psychology and sociology still have major differences. First, the approach of sociology is social, while that of psychology is individualistic. Second, the unit of sociology is the society, while psychology considers the individual as a unit (Sharma, 1996). Thus sociology explores the individual as a member of society, while psychology views human beings as individuals in constant interaction with their physical and cultural environment. Third, the methodology of psychology and sociology is not similar. An anthropologist and sociologist conducting a study in a similar field—for instance, indigenous research—may have problems communicating with each other. Nevertheless, there is another way of studying the connection between fields of study—logic. It is important to examine how two disciplines have developed over time and how they were differentiated logically. This method results in a different finding: sociology and anthropology are one and the same because they engage in a similar theoretical domain, study the same phenomenon or institutions, and depend on the same ideas (Edwards & Bloch, 2010). Furthermore, the dissimilarities that have emerged, like the focus of anthropologists on pre-industrial cultures and qualitative approaches like participant observation, are fundamentally subjective instead of logically correct. Even though the difference between anthropology and psychology has been particularly prevalent in Britain, the underlying principle is not that strong. Take for instance the idea that anthropology places emphasis on the group. It is perhaps right, as claimed by Durkheim and others, to assert that the group cannot be reduced to psychology. However, the truth is the actual subjects examined by anthropologists are the individuals. All other ideas like norms, roles, and institutions are mere concepts (Edwards & Bloch, 2010). Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that anthropologists do not consider individuals. What differentiates them from psychologists is their effort to make generalizations based on groups, and to interpret collective dynamics in terms of established practices and norms. This model may explain group dynamics, but apparently it cannot clarify individual differences in the group. Cultural diversity is a central tenet in sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Understanding how cultural diversity influences people’s lives is integral to the field of sociology. As society becomes more diverse, and interaction among people of different cultures more widespread and common, the importance of cultural diversity and how individuals in other cultures perceive their world has also grew. Sociologists believe that culture is vital for individuals and the continued existence of societies. Sociology defines culture as “the common denominator that makes the actions of individuals intelligible to the group” (Kendall, 2012, p. 62). The sociology of cultural diversity, alongside cultural studies in psychology and anthropology, has developed over time. Cultural aspects, particularly diversity, have been given much importance in all forms of social analyses; the importance of cultural diversity has been increasingly acknowledged by sociologists trying to identify its role and impact on almost all facets of human life. As the world becomes more diverse, it becomes more and more essential to gain knowledge of cultural diversity and human behavior, particularly as this influences the everyday existence of humankind. Anthropology is the social science that is deeply engaged in the study of cultural diversity. One of core objectives of anthropologists is to contribute to the understanding of the ways cultural diversity has developed and affected the growth of human societies (Valsiner, 2012). Cultural anthropology surfaced as a discipline after the period of European expedition, when cultural diversity became evident across the globe. Anthropologists usually view culture as a set of interrelated systems that build and preserve cultural norms through time (Valsiner, 2012). In the present intellectual context in psychology, there are vital explanations for the analysis of cultural diversity. For instance, over the recent decades, evolutionary models of psychology have received much attention from the academic community. The exploration of cultural diversity has a natural advantage. Analyzing cultural diversity explains differences between individuals across cultures. These investigations also reveal the unpredictability or changeability of mental and emotional processes within a culture (Oishi, Kesebir, & Snyder, 2009). A great part of psychology is in fact centered on normal behavior. In essence, psychologists try to determine how individuals on the whole behave, think, and interact socially. Psychologists and even ordinary people are aware that the individuals are different. Psychologists recognize these differences most openly in disciplines such as personality psychology, where they try to determine how individuals differ from one another (Oishi et al., 2009). Examining cultural diversity allows social scientists to identify that there could be uniquely different cultural norms. It is easier to identify these differences through cross-cultural or comparative approaches. Research on cultural diversity generates knowledge about how individuals and/or groups across cultures are different from one another and how people in a particular culture differ from the majority. Because of these facts, it becomes apparent that it is vital for sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists to examine cultural diversity. The growing cultural diversity in numerous countries, like in the United States, has raised the value and essence of a multicultural paradigm, particularly in the major fields of the human behavior discipline. The United States, in particular, is widely recognized as a ‘melting-pot’ because of its culturally diverse society (Kendall, 2012). Populations belonging to ethnic groups are frequently confronted by the need to adjust to their new social and cultural contexts while appreciating and preserving their own cultures. Conclusions Nobody is certain when an integrated and inclusive science of human behavior will emerge. This would be a greatly desirable development. Nothing is pleasing in the continuous fragmentation of human knowledge. If one is largely engaged in the application of knowledge to the mitigation of current issues in human relations, a methodical use and organization of scientific means would be the most favorable way. Then again, if one desires to merely enhance knowledge of humankind and their activities, without trying to apply this knowledge to ‘actual’ crises, it also appears beyond doubt that such a goal can be more completely and successfully attained if knowledge of the discipline is inclusively and logically structured. A more comprehensive, more in-depth, and more trustworthy explanation of human life is a valuable objective in itself. Hence, we should recognize the fact that there are problems, methodological and of psychological, social, and cultural in nature, in efforts to achieve a comprehensive theory and broader alliance among social scientists in the human behavior discipline. However, those problems are not insurmountable. At present we have a wide array of information and knowledge about humankind produced by the fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Based on the achievements of these three disciplines, it becomes evident that over and over humanity has realized its objectives despite what appeared to be overwhelming problems. References Becker, H. et al. (1954). For a Science of Social Man: Convergences in Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology. New York: Macmillan. Edwards, C.P. & Bloch, M. (2010). The Whitings’ Concepts of Culture and How they have Fared in Contemporary Psychology and Anthropology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(4), 485-498. Horowitz, I.L. (2005). Cultural Contradictions of Contemporary Sociology. Michigan Quarterly Review, 44(3), 481+ Kendall, D. (2012). Sociology in Our Times. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Marginson, S. (2002). Postgraduate Training in the Social Sciences: Knowledge, Engagement, Vocation. Journal of Australian Studies, 7+ Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Snyder, B. (2009). Sociology: A Lost Connection in Social Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 334-353. Sharma, R.K. (1996). Fundamentals of Sociology. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers & Dist. Valsiner, J. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More