Noam Chomsky Behaviourist Theory Analysis

987 Words2 Pages

In the late 1960’s in the Unites States, a now renown philosopher, Noam Chomsky; posited a new concept of generative grammar. Behaviourists had asserted that, the role of science was to observe and report on perceptible aspects of the psychological mechanisms that relate impetus and response; it was not the role of science to venture into the realm of conjecture or speculation. Furthermore, behaviourists attempted to modify the abnormal or maladjusted behaviour directly, analysing the conditions causing the individual’s current symptoms, not their possible historical origin. They also aspired to show that such attempts had the potential for success without the substitution of symptoms predicted by Freudian theories (Encyclopedia Britannica, …show more content…

Chomsky’s concept however greatly undermined the viability of the behaviourist theory which was, at the time, the primary and dominant paradigm. Chomsky, and indeed other generativists contended that behaviourism lacked enough scientific adequacy to be a foundational theory upon which a deeper and more inherent understanding of human behaviour and psychological processes could be understood. Apart from lack of scientific adequacy, there were also some political aspects to the argument. Chomsky argued that behaviourism allows social and political oppression to thrive by cloaking their interpretation (Chomsky 2004 165). Most of the proponents of behaviourism believed that society could only be reformed by managing the causative factors of behavioural manifestations (Diessel, …show more content…

He did some of the most extensive and earliest research on the human mind. He also introduced the premise of self-deception as a factor that hinders people from perceiving their real personality. He explained that it is the human super ego through which morality is developed and that therefore, this is then transfused in mainstream society, politics and the arts Which are substrates of collective morality and social conscience. This demonstrates considerable contrast to the ideas that skinner developed. However, Freud’s theory dated hypotheses suffer paucity of sufficient scientific credibility and evidence to support the premises. Moreover Freud’s suppositions do not have the capability to predict human behaviour, rather they endeavour to explain it. They cannot be used to control a society, or offr a great deal of insight into the inner psychological machinations of humans. Freud’s theory is therefore inapplicable or incompatible with politics, social sciences and in most cases

Open Document