Exploring the Complexities of Human Action

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/exploring-the-complexities-of-human-action/

Click Download Now

 . . . we live within traditions that may or may not be adequate to the
contingencies of today.
—​Kenneth J. Gergen (2009a)

. . . psychology is fundamentally a theoretical enterprise, as all sci-

ences are. Even the attempt to derive a disciplinary identity from sci-
entific method cannot alter the discipline’s fundamental theoretical
nature.
—​Brent D. Slife and Richard N. Williams (1997)

Of course, changes in conceptual frameworks do not occur over-

night, nor do they proceed without controversy.
—​Evelyn Fox Keller (2014)

Psychologists have tried to stretch their scientific understanding of

the material universe to cover human actions that simply cannot be
captured in the same terms.
—​Joseph F. Rychlak (2003)

. . . the relations that exist among the multiple levels of organization

make up the substance of human life.
—​Richard M. Lerner (1996)
 Contents

Acknowledgments ix
Introduction: Some Complexities xi

PA RT I . SE T T I N G T H E STAG E
1. Introducing Psychology 3
2. Taking a Theoretical Turn 32
3. Questioning Convention 56

PA RT I I . C O N C E P T UA L I Z I N G AC T IO N
4. Systems Theory and Introducing Action 91
5. Constitutive Processes 113
6. Psychological Processes 144
7. Developmental Processes 199

PA RT I I I . I M P L IC AT IO N S A N D A P P L IC AT IO N S
8. Implications for Understanding Human Functioning
Integratively and Actively 225
9. Implications for Thinking about Individuality and Variability 252
10. Implications for Pondering Some Complexities of
Causality and Meaning 275
11. Evidence and Research Implications 304
12. Casting a Wide Net 332
13. Complex and Empathic Understanding 374

References 399
Index 419
 Acknowledgments

I have been pondering the issues discussed in this book for a very long time,
and even though I finished the book (or stopped working on it), I continue
to ponder. Along the way, my pondering has been facilitated, supported, and
challenged in varied ways by varied people with whom I have engaged di-
rectly, as well as indirectly through reading their work.
I am grateful for the intellectual milieu of my childhood where I first began
to ponder. I am grateful that in the late 1980s I went to graduate school at
Clark University, where discussing and questioning ideas provided a strong
foundation for ongoing pondering. I am grateful that in recent years, I have
been fortunate to be in contact with Richard M. Lerner, whose generosity
and support of my work are invaluable and keep me pondering despite nag-
ging doubts about the point of it all.
I thank IUP graduate student Molly Bernoski for diligently proofreading
and checking and rechecking references. I am indebted to artist Jen Blalock
for her illustrations, which transformed my abstract ideas into lively images
of people acting, as well as for her infectious good cheer.
Thank you to Abby Gross at Oxford University Press for taking on this
project and supporting pondering outside the box. I also thank Katharine
Pratt for her hard work and for shepherding this book through the publica-
tion process, along with the production team at Oxford University Press.
And last, as well as probably most (but why quantify?), I am grateful for
long walks with my sister, Anne Raeff. From New York City and the suburbs
of northern New Jersey, to San Francisco and its scenic surrounds, our
conversations never fail to provoke and inspire continued pondering.

Catherine Raeff
 Introduction
Some Complexities

Human beings are complex creatures who live complex lives amidst complex
circumstances in all corners of a complex world. To begin thinking about
some human complexities, let us consider the word complex, and what it
means with regard to human functioning. According to my trusty Webster’s
New Collegiate Dictionary, complex refers to “a whole made up of compli-
cated or interrelated parts,” as well as to “a complex substance . . . in which the
constituents are more intimately associated than in a simple mixture.” These
definitions seem quite apt for human functioning, which can be understood
in terms of varied parts, from thinking, remembering, and knowing, to
feeling and constructing self/​identity, to interacting with others, to cultural
and neurological processes, to development. These parts are just the tip of
the iceberg, and they do not seem to be simply mixed together. But how can
we get at and understand how they are more intimately associated? As an ad-
jective, complex means that a phenomenon is “hard to separate, analyze, or
solve.” Synonyms (again, from Webster’s) for complex include “complicated,
intricate, involved, knotty” with the “shared meaning element: having con-
fusingly interrelated parts.” Human affairs can be quite intricate and knotty.
Certainly, human functioning is hard to analyze, and some of the problems
that plague humanity are hard to solve. And aspects of human functioning
are also utterly intertwined and hard to separate. Complexity in the sense of
hard to analyze is evident in the dynamics, variability, individuality, and de-
velopment of what people do as they go about their lives in all corners of the
world. We are all human beings who act in some common ways, yet we also
lead individual lives and act in culturally particular ways. It can sometimes
be overwhelmingly confusing to make sense of it all.
This book is about what people do as they go about their complex lives in
all corners of the world. I wrote this book because I have long been befuddled
by the complexities of what people do. It represents my attempt to explore
some of those complexities, and my attempt to articulate a theoretical

Exploring the Complexities of Human Action. Catherine Raeff, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford
University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190050436.001.0001
xii Introduction

framework for thinking systematically about what people do as they live

their complex lives in all corners of the world. It is for anyone who is inter-
ested in making sense of what people do. I also wrote this book to raise some
constructively critical questions about the field of psychology’s traditional
and conventional ways of conceptualizing and investigating human func-
tioning. I see questioning some practices in psychology as a first step toward
exploring the complexities of human action, because it provides a basis for
identifying some topics and issues that could benefit from conceptual elabo-
ration. Then, one can go on to articulate a theoretical framework that hope-
fully gets at some of those topics and issues. The theoretical framework that
I will be articulating in this book is born not only out of questioning tra-
ditional and conventional practices in psychology. I also take this endeavor
to be primarily constructive—​that is, I am not gratuitously criticizing psy-
chology. Rather, I am questioning traditional assumptions and practices con-
structively and constructing a theoretical framework for addressing some
complexities of human functioning. In addition, this theoretical framework
does not come out of the blue, as I have worked to synthesize and build on
varied theoretical and empirical traditions, some of which exist mostly on
the fringes of mainstream psychology, such as systems theory, social con-
structionism, and organismic-​developmental theory. I want to bring some
neglected perspectives out of the shadows and use them to advance under-
standing of the complexities of human action.
As a brief preview, the theoretical framework offered here makes the fol-
lowing basic claims. It first holds that much of what people do is act in rela-
tion to others, and that such action is made up of multiple and interrelated
processes. Throughout their lives, people act in relation to others in all kinds
of ways, in all kinds of settings. For example, people eat in different settings;
people work in varied settings; people gather to celebrate all kinds of events;
people learn in varied settings; people text and tweet; people create art and
behold art; people cooperate with, support, and take care of each other; and,
alas, people exploit and fight with each other. Second, this approach holds
that such action is constituted by simultaneously occurring and interrelated
individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. Third, such
action is taken to be made up of multiple and interrelated psychological pro-
cesses, including but not limited to perceiving, thinking, feeling, interacting,
and constructing self/​identity. Fourth, this theoretical framework holds that
action develops.
 Introduction xiii

Of course, human beings the world over have been trying to make sense of
human functioning for millennia. People think about themselves and others
every day as they go about their complex lives in all corners of the world. And
within varied jobs and careers, some people ponder and investigate aspects
of human functioning professionally. Artists—​from novelists and poets, to
playwrights and film makers, to painters and songwriters—​ponder and illu-
minate aspects of human functioning. Since the field of psychology emerged
in the late 19th century as a distinct science, academic discipline, and profes-
sion, it has contributed to our understanding of human functioning in varied
important ways.
Today, one can detect some restlessness in some corners of psychology
that points to the utility of reflecting on the field and considering alterna-
tive theoretical frameworks. For example, one indication of restlessness in
psychology can be found in discussions about why it is so difficult to rep-
licate research results (Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012). In addition, psy-
chology has become a vast and fragmented discipline in which psychologists
study aspects of human functioning in relative isolation. Within this context,
some are calling for collaboration among psychologists who work on dis-
parate topics, as well as between psychology and other disciplines. In 2015,
the Association for Psychological Science inaugurated the International
Convention of Psychological Science as a forum for “scientific advances that
are integrative” (https://​www.psychologicalscience.org/​conventions/​icps/​
about). There are calls for integrative approaches to conceptualize human
functioning holistically and to conceptualize the functioning of the whole
person (Diriwächter & Valsiner, 2008; Raeff, 2016, 2017a; Robinson, 2007;
Shotter, 1975). The term intersectionality seems to crop up a lot to address
how people function at the intersection of varied characteristics, such as race,
gender, socioeconomic status, and sexuality. In 1989, Crenshaw conceptu-
alized intersectionality to refer to how Black women experience overlap-
ping or intersecting forms of discrimination, that is, racism and sexism. She
uses intersectionality to counteract the “tendency to treat race and gender
as mutually exclusive categories of experience and analysis” (p. 139). Using
the analogy of a four-​way traffic intersection, she explains that when traffic
flows into and out of an intersection, an accident can happen there “by cars
traveling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them”
(p. 149). It may be difficult to assign blame to one particular driver because
more than one contributed to the accident simultaneously.
xiv Introduction

Restlessness is not new in psychology. There were debates about how the
field of psychology should proceed when it was being established as a dis-
tinct and scientific discipline in the late 19th century. Although research in
psychology came to be dominated by and identified with quantitative and ex-
perimental methods, some psychologists continued to advocate for other re-
search methods. Drawing on those traditions, and in keeping with the social
and political movements of the 1960s, critically analyzing psychology gained
ground from the 1970s through the 1990s. For example, social construc-
tionist and feminist perspectives were being used to question psychology’s
dominant assumptions and methods. To counteract the hegemony of white,
middle-​class American values within psychology, there were calls to focus
on cultural diversity and indigenous psychologies. In the 1980s and 1990s,
questioning truth claims was the wider postmodern order of the day. Critical
analyses raised questions about defining psychology in terms of strict adher-
ence to a particular scientific method that originated in the natural sciences.
During this time, some classics of critical psychology were published, in-
cluding Seymour Sarason’s Psychology Misdirected, in 1981; Carol Gilligan’s
In a Different Voice, in 1982; Kurt Danziger’s Constructing the Subject, in
1990; and Kenneth Gergen’s The Saturated Self, in 1991.
Critical analyses in the 1980s and 1990s also pointed to a need for more
elaborate theorizing in psychology. At the time, I was in graduate school at
Clark University (from 1988 to 1993), where many psychology department
faculty emphasized theory. There was also no shortage of classes that explored
and embraced a variety of critical perspectives. There was much arguing over
how to define terms and how to conceptualize varied topics in psychology.
We talked about how methods are not theory neutral. We talked about how
theory and science are historically situated and ideologically infused. We
talked about how psychologists study objects that they themselves construct
conceptually, as well as through using particular methods. I was hooked by
these discussions. (And I remain particularly indebted to Ina Č. Užgiris,
Bernard Kaplan, James V. Wertsch, Nancy Budwig, Michael Bamberg, and
Seymour Wapner.) I began to see that how we understand human func-
tioning depends on the theoretical frameworks we use. I came to understand
that different ways of conceptualizing human functioning may demand dif-
ferent methods of empirical validation. Theory comes first, then method.
And the method does not necessarily have to be experimental or quantita-
tive. I embraced it all. I left Clark and continued to question psychology’s
dominant practices. I became increasingly overwhelmed by the increasing
 Introduction xv

fragmentation of psychology. I wanted to put it all together. I continued to

think about theoretical issues and tried to figure out how to emphasize the-
orizing in my own work. I kept reading, and I kept saying, “It’s complex.”
I worked on articulating a theoretical framework for exploring the dynamics
of human development (Raeff, 2016). In that work, I argued that, to under-
stand development, we need to first conceptualize action as the phenomenon
that develops during development. I presented a rather sketchy conceptual-
ization of action and theorized about it in subsequent articles (Raeff, 2017a,
2017b). I am still saying, “It’s complex,” and in this book I extend my previous
work to theorize further about the complexities of action.
However, emphasizing theory is not what most of psychology is about,
and critical psychology continues to hover on the fringes of the field.
Historically, psychology was founded and has proceeded on the basis of “two
beliefs,” namely, “(a) that a single method for apprehending truth should
be used in answering psychological questions, and (b) that the appropriate
method for psychological investigation is, in all cases, some variant of the
natural scientific method” (Yanchar & Slife, 1997, p. 245). Psychologists
may study different topics and aspects of human functioning, but they are
united by a commitment to studying human functioning experimentally and
statistically.
As such, method serves as a paradigm for psychologists. In other words,
psychology is paradigmatic in its adherence to some variant of the natural
science method (Danziger, 1985). As we will see, this methodological par-
adigm is based on prior and implicit theoretical premises and conceptions
of human functioning. Thus, some shared theory lurks in psychology, and
it is embedded in the dominant methodological paradigm. Kuhn (1962/​
1970) argued that science proceeds when an accepted theoretical paradigm
is questioned because it cannot account for anomalous empirical findings.
Sometimes, an accepted paradigm is replaced by another paradigm that can
account for the anomalous findings. Although there are debates about Kuhn’s
claims, I think that they suggest some intriguing possibilities for psychology.
That is, one can ask if there are some findings in psychology that are difficult
to account for with the dominant methodological paradigm and its founda-
tional theoretical assumptions. If yes, one can go on to think about alternative
theoretical and methodological paradigms. For psychology, an alternative
paradigm does not necessarily have to fully replace a previous one. Rather,
alternative paradigms can be viewed as providing different perspectives on
complex human phenomena that cannot be encompassed by one perspective
xvi Introduction

alone. I want to make it clear that by offering an alternative theoretical frame-

work here, I am not trying to destroy traditional practices in psychology. The
point is to expand how psychologists do psychology.
I think that there are indeed some anomalies in psychological research that
warrant considering and constructing alternative paradigms. For example,
in research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, parenting practices were not
consistently predicting children’s outcomes (Užgiris, 1989). Another example
comes from research that has not revealed straightforward links from genes
to behavior (Simons & Klopack, 2015). These findings (or lack thereof) are
anomalous in the context of conceptualizing human functioning in terms of
linear causality, whereby single, stable, independent, and antecedent factors
directly and predictably cause behavior. Both areas of inquiry have been fruit-
fully reconceptualized in terms of ongoing dynamic processes and multidi-
rectional influences. That is, child development is conceptualized in terms of
bidirectional influences between parents (and others) and active children.
With regard to genes and behavior, current epigenetic approaches conceptu-
alize genes and behavior in terms of reciprocal influences, whereby genes not
only affect behavior, but can themselves be affected by what a person does. It
is also interesting that years of research have not revealed a terrorist “profile”
that can be used to predict the likelihood of someone becoming a terrorist.
The idea that such a profile is even possible to identify is based on conceptu-
alizing behavior as the straightforward and stable outcome of particular an-
tecedent and stable factors. Reconceptualizing behavior in terms of dynamic,
variable, and diverse processes that are played out in individualized ways
could provide new insights into how and why some people become engaged
in terrorist activities (Borum, 2011a; Horgan, 2008, 2009, 2017). There will
be more to say about all of these issues in subsequent chapters. The point here
is to start thinking about possible alternative paradigms. Some are moving
toward alternative paradigms by using connectionism and systems theory to
conceptualize the dynamic complexities of human functioning integratively
and holistically. Conducting qualitative research represents moving in alter-
native directions as well.
Taken together, some limitations of conventional psychology’s ways of
conceptualizing and investigating human functioning have been and con-
tinue to be exposed. It is thus useful to constructively question some of
psychology’s long-​standing practices and to articulate alternative theoret-
ical frameworks. And that is what I will do in this book. I want to encourage
thinking differently about human functioning, I want to encourage different
 Introduction xvii

ways of doing psychology, and I want to ask different questions. I want to

provoke discussing how to conceptualize human functioning and experi-
ence. I want to tackle some of the ambiguous, fuzzy, and shifting phenomena
that comprise human functioning and experience. I want to offer a way of
thinking holistically and integratively about human functioning that is rel-
evant to any area of psychology. I also hope to speak to some of the issues of
the day. The world seems to be coming apart at the seams. I am writing this
book as an American who sees the United States coming apart at the seams.
At the same time that separation and divisiveness are rampant, globalization
and the internet make us all ever more connected. Thinking about the com-
plexities of human action integratively and holistically in terms of multiple
and interrelated processes may provide ways of bringing people together and
fostering mutual understanding.
I imagine that some readers will agree with my questioning stance, even if
they do not agree with some of the details of my approach. At the same time,
I know that some will resist what I am doing here. Many will not take kindly
to questioning the traditional assumptions and practices that comprise
psychology and that are integral to how psychologists define themselves as
psychologists. I respectfully ask you, the reader, to please keep reading an-
yway. Once again, I am not out to destroy mainstream psychology, and I do
not mean to offend anyone. In constructing my theoretical framework, I did
not spurn traditional psychological research. Rather, I drew on some classic
and contemporary research in psychology, as well as other fields, and I have
built on ideas with long histories. I also use examples from everyday life to
illustrate and support varied claims. I am not anti-​science. The point here
is that there are varied ways to do science, as well as varied ways to con-
ceptualize and investigate human functioning. It is further important to be
mindful of history, and to remember that “the” scientific method was itself
born out of questioning tradition, as well as questioning authority-​based
truth claims. Ultimately, thinking outside the box of conventional and tra-
ditional practices can lead to new insights into the complexities of human
functioning.
The book proceeds in three parts. In Part I (Chapters 1–​3), the stage is
set for articulating a theoretical framework that addresses the complexities
of action, and in Part II (Chapters 4–​7), I articulate that theoretical frame-
work. In Part III (Chapters 8–​13), I consider some its varied applications and
implications for exploring the complexities of action and for thinking about
varied vexing human issues.
xviii Introduction

More specifically, the point of Chapter 1 is to draw attention to some of

the complexities of human functioning, as well as to provide a sense of my
own questioning stance toward what I refer to as conventional psychology.
I briefly summarize psychology’s historical roots in philosophy, and I explain
how psychology emerged in the late nineteenth century as the discipline in
which human functioning is studied scientifically according to the methods
of the natural sciences. The chapter then proceeds to explain some con-
ventional practices in psychology, namely, fragmenting, objectifying, and
aggregating, as well as deterministic conceptions of causality. I also begin to
consider how these practices are based on prior theoretical assumptions and
conceptions of human functioning, which comprise a particular image of
humanity that has implications for how we understand and treat people. In
doing so, the stage is set for taking a theoretical turn in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2 begins with a discussion of the critical necessity of theorizing,
and then summarizes some critical analyses which illuminate how theo-
rizing in conventional psychology is derived from and subordinated to its
dominant research methods. That is, contemporary conventional psy-
chology privileges theorizing in the form of articulating hypotheses that can
be tested experimentally and analyzed statistically. However, there are varied
ways to theorize, and I focus on explicating two forms of theorizing, namely,
critically analyzing psychology itself and articulating a theoretical approach
to human functioning. Explaining these two forms of theorizing permits en-
gaging in them in subsequent chapters.
The goal of Chapter 3 is to theorize by questioning some of psychology’s
conventional practices and to explain why alternative theoretical frameworks
are needed. I question the practice of fragmenting by arguing that although
analyzing psychological phenomena separately makes for nice packaging,
human functioning is complex and entangled. I question the practice of
objectifying by considering how human beings are not like physical objects.
Quantifying practices are questioned on the grounds that much of what
people do involves ongoing and dynamic processes that are not easily pinned
down and measured quantitatively. I also question aggregating practices on
the grounds that they obfuscate individuality and subjectivity in varied ways.
The chapter includes questioning conventional psychology’s conceptions of
deterministic and mechanistic causality. At the end of Chapter 3, I articu-
late my goal of constructing a theoretical framework that provides ways to
explore the complexities of human action by addressing a set of issues and
 Introduction xix

accompanying questions. I also explain particular criteria for good theo-

rizing that I aspire to meet.
The aim of Chapter 4 is to summarize the main points of systems theory,
which provides an overarching theoretical basis for the current conceptuali-
zation of action. According to systems theory, complex phenomena are made
up of multiple and interrelated constituent processes. I further explain how
systems involve multiple forms of causality. Chapter 4 ends by introducing
the concept of action, which is theorized in more detail in Chapters 5, 6, and
7. The point at the end of Chapter 4 is to provide an orienting overview of
action as the book’s central concept that will be used to represent the wider
whole or system of what people do.
In Chapter 5, I conceptualize action more specifically from a systems per-
spective in terms of varied and interrelated constitutive processes. I explain
that action is taken to be constituted by or to emerge through individual, so-
cial, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes. Each process is taken to
contribute 100% to action, and no process is primary or prior to the others.
Considering how these processes are organized enables us to explain what a
person is doing, to understand why a person is acting in some particular way,
and to discern what someone’s action means.
In Chapter 6, I continue conceptualizing action from an overall sys-
tems perspective in terms of psychological processes, which include (but
are not limited to) sensing, perceiving, thinking, feeling, interacting, and
constructing self/​identity. In this chapter, I conceptualize psychological pro-
cesses as active processes that people do, and there are sections on thinking,
feeling, constructing self/​identity, sensing and perceiving, and interacting
with others. Each of these psychological processes is explained in relation to
individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes.
The point of Chapter 7 is to conceptualize what happens during the devel-
opment of action and how action develops. Action certainly develops and the
psychological processes that comprise action also develop. I use organismic-​
developmental theory to conceptualize what happens during development
in terms of changes that involve increasing differentiation and integration of
action constituents, as well as progress toward cultural goals of development.
To conceptualize how development happens, I use sociocultural theory,
which posits that development happens as individuals participate with
others in cultural practices. I further explain how action develops through
individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes.