This paper will address Ian Burtitt’s epistemological
This paper will supply a critical reappraisal of Ian Burkitt’s epistemic place as discussed in his 1991 book “Social Selfs: Theories of the Social Formation of Personality” . It will chiefly concentrate on the epistemic place held by Burkitt, nevertheless other theoreticians will be discussed to pull out the strengths and failing of Burkitt’s theory. These theoreticians will include Eysenck, Bandura and Kelly. Further issues that will be discussed are Burkitt’s position on dualist impressions and his place sing constructionist position points discussed within his book. This paper will reason with a critical reappraisal of Burkitt’s position of the societal ego.
To logically open this treatment it is necessary to sketch Burkitt’s position of the ego. Burkitt ( 1991, p. 2 ) argues that the ego is in world a societal ego which is developed through interaction with the societal universe, this is non to state worlds are non persons. Burkitt ( 1991, p. 2 ) argues that every facet of the person is derived from the societal word in which they live. He offers the undermentioned statement to explicate his theory, “Like the dealingss we have to others which make up our society, the interconnectednesss between different facets of the ego do non ever appear as evident” ( Burkitt, 1991, p. 2 ) . Furthermore it is claimed that it is the single differences in these interconnectednesss that make up single personalities. It is besides claimed that these interconnectednesss are learned through interaction with others, non something which is congenital ( Burkitt, 1991, p. 2-3 ) .
Burkitt offers ratings of two types of dualism within his book, the first being the division between head and organic structure and the 2nd being a division between the societal ego and the person. Burkitt ( 1991, p. 2 ) argues that both are wrong and should non be accepted. Burkitt ( 1991, p. 1 ) commences his treatment by challenging that worlds are monads, this has been described as worlds are so persons which are separate from the society in which they live. Burkitt strongly disagrees with this place and claims there is no such boundary between the two egos. The 2nd dualism discussed by Burkitt ( 1991, 1 ) is the more philosophical of the two and is the head and organic structure split. This split Burkitt ( 1991, p. 1 ) claims encompasses the quandary faced when ideas and feelings do non match with behaviour, such as when the ‘rational’ head draws our behaviour in one way and emotions seem to be drawing in the opposite way. It is Burkitt’s belief that this is non two opposing egos, instead it is one ego which can be explained by sing the person as a societal ego, whose cognition and personality come from the societal universe in which they live. In reasoning this treatment of the Burkitt beliefs on dualism it is of import to province that he denies they have any usage in the apprehension of the formation of the ego and his farther work will do no usage of them ( Burkitt 1991, p. 3 ) .
Burkitt gave some value to the work of constructionists as they, in some manner, were in understanding with his theory as they province that some of an individual’s personality is shaped by the society and environment in which the person lives. However, he believed most of them suffered the same destiny or job with their work, believing in a type of dualism, they still had a spliting line between the ‘social individual’ and ‘private individual’ , seeing these as two separate types of persons, non a portion of the whole. Constructionists hold this position steadfastly and some believe it is an indispensable division in understanding the development of ego. This stands in struggle with Burkitt’s theory, as he believed there is no differentiation between the two ( Burkitt 1991, p. 13 ) . Burkitt argues this point repeatedly against many authors including Weber ( Burkitt 1991, p. 15 ) and Durkheim ( Burkitt 1991, p. 13 ) , clearly showing how he sees that they have spilt the societal and single elements of the personality. Burkitt claims to heighten the explanatory power of the constructionist theories, it is necessary to widen these theories to embrace “social action and communication” ( Burkitt 1991, p. 81 ) . This would let for the value and place of linguistic communication and communicating to be given its rightful topographic point in the development of the ego within society, as Burkitt feels it plays an of import function in the construction of society ( Burkitt 1991, p. 81 ) . Burkitt ( 1991, p. 114 ) besides suggests that constructionists ignore the ‘sensuous’ portion of the human experience. This, in Burkitt’s belief, causes them to overlook an of import factor when understanding those issues which consequence human behaviour. He claims that the ‘sensuous’ component of worlds plays a of import function in the interactions persons have with the universe and therefore the development of the ego. However it must be remembered that this is merely Burkitt’s position, others have disagreed with him, such as Mancuso ( 1996, p. 1 ) who states that constructionist accounts are the most recognized by scientific discipline in general.
This paper will now briefly discourse some differing stances sing the ego to the 1 offered by Burkitt. The first of those is George Kelly, who offers a slightly similar account to the development of the ego in his Personal Construct Theory ( Monte & A ; Sollod 2003, p. 528 ) . Kelly worked under the premiss that worlds have an innate demand to derive cognition and therefore all worlds work every bit naif scientists analyzing their universe, larning to do anticipations and hence experiencing they have some signifier of control over their universe ( Kelly 1955, p5 as cited in Monte & A ; Sollod 2003, p. 536 ) . This theory shows similarities to Burkitt’s theory as it states that all cognition is derived from the environment.
The 2nd theoretician discussed who offered a different account of the ego is Hans Eysenck. He offers a biological underpinning of the ego and personality. His claims include that behaviour is chiefly controlled by the cardinal nervous system and it is the operation of the cardinal nervous system. The activity of the cardinal nervous system harmonizing to Eysenck is either stimulus craving or withdrawn. The reaction to stimulus determines if behaviour will be extraverted stimulus craving or introspective stimulation withdrawn ( Monte & A ; Sollod 2003, p. 584 ) .
The concluding theoretician to be discussed that offers a differing sentiment to Burkitt is Albert Bandura, who is a laminitis of the societal acquisition theory ( Woolfolk 2004, p. 315 ) . The footing of Bandura’s work is patterning that is, he states, that persons observe behaviour and so reiterate it, therefore behaviour is learned. Burkitt ( 1991, p24 ) disputes the ability of this theory to explicate behavior because it fails to account for societal interaction in which people learn. However, societal larning theory does do an attempt to explicate this interaction, it offers self efficaciousness, which is the individual’s assessment of their ability to finish undertakings ( Monte & A ; Sollod 2003, p. 562 ) . Bandura states that ego efficaciousness is an of import factor in understanding behaviour. The degree of an persons self efficaciousness is affected by the societal universe through the provender back, wages or penalty of any sort which an person has received in the yesteryear from the societal universe on undertakings or behaviours ( Bandura & A ; Locke 2003, p. 87-88 )
Burkitt’s theory fails to take into history any biological foundation to human personality or the ego and fails to offer any statement against theoreticians such as Eysenck who support such thoughts. Furthermore it fails to take into history legion twin surveies which show strong support of a biological nexus in formation of ego and personality such as Zawadzki et Al ( 2001, p. 1 ) . Zawadzki et Al ( 2001, p. 1 ) claim their survey demonstrates that there are both biological and environmental issues involved in the development of the ego and personality.
There are limited differences between Burkitt’s and Kelly’s theory, nevertheless it could be argued that Kelly’s is the more comprehensives of the two as it offers a clear account of how environmental or society forces are incorporated into the ego. Burkitt’s theory could be found missing in an account of precisely how the society an single resides in effects the formation of the ego.
However Burkitt should be commended for the figure of theories and issues which are references within his book. Few, if any, writers address such a broad scope of theories covering sociology, doctrine and psychological science. It is clear that an thorough effort has been made to cover all possible schools of idea.
In decision Burkitt has produced a well discussed and outlined theory that attempts to make full some spreads in the understating of the ego. Burkitt offers a comprehensive comparing with many theories including some from sociology, doctrine and psychological science. It has besides been shown that even with this comprehensives coverage some issues have been overlooked by Burkitt, such as the biological facet and a clear account of precisely how society has its consequence of the ego and the personality.
Bandura, A & A ; Locke, E 2003, Negative Self-Efficacy and Goal Effects RevisitedJournal of Applied Psychologyvol. 88, no. 1, pp. 87-99.
Burkitt, I 1991,Social egos: Theories of the societal formation of personality,Sage Publications, London.
Mancuso, J 1996, ‘Constructionism, personal concept psychological science and narrative psychology’ ,Theory & A ; psychological science,vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 47-70.
Monte, C 2003,Beneath the mask: An debut to theories of personality,7th edn, Wiley, USA.
Woolfolk, A 2004,Educational psychological science,9th edn, Pearson, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Zawadzki, B, Strelau, J, Oniszczenko, W, Riemann, R, & A ; Angleither, A 2001, ‘Genetic and environmental influences on disposition: the Polish-German twin survey, based on self study and peer-rating’ ,European Psychologist, vol. 6, no. 4 pp 272-286.