Jaynesian Psychology: Theories in Search of a Paradigm Shift

Posts by anthropologist, mental health counselor, and author Brian J. McVeigh on Julian Jaynes's theory and related topics.
bmcveigh
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:13 pm

Jaynesian Psychology: Theories in Search of a Paradigm Shift

Post by bmcveigh »

Jaynesian Psychology: Theories in Search of a Paradigm Shift

Science must guard against preconceptions, since seemingly objective research results and conclusions can be subtlety influenced by personal biases and the subjective worldview of individual researchers. But in his immensely influential The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Thomas Kuhn went one step further. He argued that science, rather than progressing in a linear way by accumulating more facts, undergoes periodic "paradigm shifts." Knowledge is not only established by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of the scientific community. Examples of important intellectual earthquakes include the transition from the geocentric model of the solar system to the heliocentric model; from Newtonian mechanics to quantum physics; from the miasma (bad air or mist) theory of epidemics to modern germ theory. Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection also marked a fundamental transformation of our view of species diversification and adaptation, as did Einstein’s revolutionizing of our definitions of space, time, and gravity. Besides these major breakthroughs there are other lesser-known developments that mark the march of scientific progress.

To illustrate how science advances within a Kuhnian perspective, we can list the following stages of intellectual structuration. First is the pre-paradigmatic stage, i.e., the period before a set of working assumptions is seriously challenged. Second comes “normal” science during which progress is achieved through experimentation and the collection of data within the confines of a relatively stable academic architecture. This is the stage of puzzle-solving and can be remarkably productive as it racks up discoveries and successes. During the period of normal science, the failure to confirm or conform to paradigmatic expectations is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as due to the mistakes of researchers. Arguably, competing paradigms can co-exist during the period of normal science, but these are incommensurable, that is, it is impossible to understand a certain fundamental framework through the theoretical lens and terminology of another.

The third stage sees researchers encounter mounting anomalies and crises. These chinks in the armor of conventionally-accepted concepts can no longer be tolerated. Such weaknesses in normal science lead to the final stage: “Revolutionary science.” A new structure is built that subsumes older knowledge along with inconsistent results within one edifice of knowledge. Disruptions to the foundational framework open new intellectual horizons, and scientists begin to appreciate what they would never have previously considered valid (my account of Kuhnian thought is admittedly simplistic. Debates surround the question of who first conceived the notion of paradigm shift; various accounts of the Kuhnian perspective; and what Kuhn himself meant by paradigm shift).

Is the psyche governed by natural laws (neurological, biological)? Or is it shaped by culture (historical, social)? One’s methodology, definition of data, and selection of type of evidence is determined by how one views psyche and its features, such as conscious interiority: Should psychology be approached objectively, i.e., what can be observed via experiments, tests, and measurements? Or subjectively, i.e., what people think as indicated by descriptions, meanings, and artifacts? Is the human mind a product of evolution? Or were its different facets socially constructed more recently in history? These aforementioned questions implicate the great conceptual chasm dividing modern scholarly endeavors that can be traced back to ancient Greece: Physis (workings of the cosmos, laws of nature) versus nomos (conventions and rules, cultural norms). The former falls under the purview of the natural sciences with their goal of delineating cause and effect. Nomos is associated with the social sciences and humanities and poses questions about heuristics and translation. Should researchers attempt to reduce psychological processes to their ultimate causes (relying on statistical modeling, neuroanatomical analyses, etc.)? Or try to interpret them (using the relatively recent archaeological record, learning ancient languages, etc.)?

The current conceptual foundation of mainstream psychology is informed by a naturalistic rather than a culturally-constructed view of mentality (though disciplines such as social psychology incorporate extra-psychic processes into their analyses, they nevertheless assume that cultural accretions are layered over a deeper, more basic psychic structure relatively immune to environmental forces). Jaynes’s theories will not gain traction until an academic sea change revolutionizes establishment psychology. But bedrock assumptions about mentality are preventing an upheaval in deeply-held beliefs in regards to the nature of conscious interiority. So what needs to be upended? At the most abstract level, a Jaynes-friendly paradigmatic rupture would see culture and history, not just neurology and natural selection, as indispensable ingredients of mind. One does not have to go back into humankind’s distant evolutionary past to find major ruptures in mentality; rather, significant alterations in the human psyche are discernible in our relatively recent past (ca. 1200 BCE). More specifically, acceptance of a Jaynesian perspective would mean a rejection of the unhelpful tendency to reduce conscious interiority to neuroanatomical structures, as well as a recognition that hallucinations (“divine voices and visions”) were not only not inherently pathological, but were once a positive adaptation.

A glance at the current scholarly landscape reveals that numerous fields, whether shaped by the physis or nomos perspective, can contribute to advancing a Jaynesian psychology. However, a more explicit disciplinary configuration is required to emphasize the radical import of Jaynes’s hypotheses. I submit that “archaeopsychology” (or “historical psychology”) is an appropriate specialization whose agenda — the reconstruction of earlier mentalities — that resonates with a much-needed rethink of fundamental notions. While acknowledging the role of evolutionary forces, genes, and neurology, archaeopsychology highlights recent historical-cultural changes as being just as consequential as natural-scientific principles to the emergence of conscious interiority.
benjamindavidsteele
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:07 am

Re: Jaynesian Psychology: Theories in Search of a Paradigm Shift

Post by benjamindavidsteele »

This is why, it could be argued, Jaynesian scholars need to seek mutual support and cross-pollination with scholars in certain other related fields that also take on an environmentalist and/or socio-cultural approach: philology, linguistic relativity, anthropology, media studies, etc. But this would require Jaynesian scholars to first acknowledge that this ultimately is what underlies Jaynes' own views and to recognize this is the most optimal way forward for the field to develop. Some would embrace this, while others might not.

It's potentially fraught with controversy, once we begin to consider what it means and really dig down into it. Such an approach is not ideologically and politically neutral, as it takes a clear position about the most accurate or useful way of understanding human nature and the world. This approach is particularly seen among left-wing and left-leaning scholars who tend to focus on larger conditions, systems, and structures; be they physical, political, economic, cultural, ecological, etc.

An early example of this is that of the early-to-mid 20th century anthropological and linguistic students who studied under Franz Boas. They challenged right-wing ideologies of their time, such as defending a cultural view against race realism and capitalist realism. And other of his students promoted an understanding of linguistic cultures shaping human mind and behavior that would later come into conflict with still other essentialist theories such as that of Noam Chomsky's language module, although Chomsky was a leftist of sorts.

There is a whole cadre of scientists, from leftist Stephen Jay Gould to liberal Steven Pinker, presently pushing back against various forms of ideological realism, essentialism, and determinism, in opposition to the positions typically favored by right-wing thinkers. Such leftists more often advocate the importance of nurture (parenting, alloparenting, etc), sociocultural systems, socioeconomic class, environmental influences, social programs, and epigenetics (e.g., slow violence). But anthropologists have long led the charge.

There are, of course, many Marxists in the social sciences since Marxism is all about how material conditions shape us; with Marx even having discussed environmentalism. But there are plenty of non-Marxists as well. If not always as neatly fitting into the left-right spectrum, there are anarchists who challenge ideological realism, just world hypothesis, and power structures; while interrogating assumptions and biases. Consider James C. Scott, an anarchist political scientist and anthropologist who wrote on statism.

So, it's not only a paradigm change but also often a typical ideological divide about how is understood humanity, society, and reality. This new paradigm of diverse alternative voices, slowly developing these past centuries, has more often been dismissed by the right-wing as moral relativism, postmodern Marxism, cultural Marxism, and such. Even in religious studies there is a similar divide between those conservative / fundamentalist defenders of Christianity as a unique, isolated religion and the more left-leaning critics who interpret it as having been influenced by and heavily borrowed from surrounding religions, philosophies, and cultures.

It simply has to do with the standard psychological profile of personality traits (high openness, low conscientiousness vs the opposite; or in other terms, thin boundaries vs thick). There is a ton of social science research that shows and explains why specific ideologies follow specific patterns of mind. Those on the left tend to be 'open' to seeing a more challenging, diverse, expansive, inclusive, and flexible view of info, connections, patterns, etc; whereas those on the right not so much. But in our present political climate, pointing out this can be politically incorrect, which is part of the pushback against the paradigm change.

It's literally a conflict between ideological worldviews, and so Jaynesian and similar scholars would do well to look into scholars who study ideologies and how they operate (e.g., Louis Althusser's theory of interpellation). As Kuhn makes clear, it isn't going to be resolved through scientific debate, at least not among the older generations entrenched in older views. As a case in point, it's taken a century for the theories of Boas' students to finally become reputably mainstream in the public mind. It's an extremely slow shift. Give it another century or so and cultural anthropology might be accepted without contest as simply the natural way of understanding society.

Paradigm shifts happen slowly and then all at once, and then the entire social order might be re-organized in following suit. That is the very reason those on the left tend to embrace such changes while those on the right resist. A personality trait like openness to experience isn't only about openness to intellectuality but also openness to anything and everything that is new, different, unfamiliar, or foreign. People high on this trait are more likely to think new thoughts, try new foods, experiment with new drugs, explore new cultures, and on and on. They will always be on the cutting edge of whatever new paradigm is forming.

So, it's not only about scientific ideas and theories. There are social, economic, and political implications. The inevitable and unavoidable politicization is because it will, ultimately, over time affect every aspect of our society. To change how we understand the world will lead us to changing our world, with as you argue elsewhere the mentality making possible different outward expressions. Mentalities are powerful things, particularly as entire paradigms that frame not only scientific endeavor but everything else as well. This will challenge and threaten the old paradigm, everyone enmeshed in it and identified with it, and everyone benefitting from it.

What all of it indicates is that ideological changes are happening in society with psychological import. New ways of thinking indicate new ways of experiencing, being, and relating. The fact that more openly context-dependent thinking is arising to challenge old thought means that nascent identities and worldviews are taken hold. As such, a theory like 5E cognition (embodied, embedded, extended, enacted, ecological) isn't only a theory but describing how some people are beginning to increasingly describe their own cognition. It's likely at least partly being caused by modern media and related changes: radio, television, cable, internet, texting, etc. Jaynesian scholarship is both part of this change and in a position to help explain it.
Post Reply

Return to “Brian J. McVeigh's Random Thoughts”