What is functionalism? Trace its historical origins, discuss its principals and explain its contribution to the broader field of psychology.
Functionalism originally stemmed from structuralism, using an eclectic approach it suggests that thoughts provoke humans into specific modes of behavior. Any behavioral response cultivates an emotional affect, giving each individual the ability to cognitively rationalize his or her actions. Behaviors must serve a justifiable purpose to be deemed worthy, the ends must justify the means. Functionalism adopts a pragmatic philosophy on the concept of truth, “the ‘true’ is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the ‘right’ is only the expedient in our way of behaving.” (James, W., 1909). This idea that truth is a belief that corresponds to the context of ones life, allows for subjectivity That is, the way in which we individually perceive our subjective reality is strongly based on the way in which we are fundamentally ‘groomed’.
Functionalism conceives morals and ethics not as deeply prolific things, but as practical, learnt ideologies, fed in order to allow man to survive and function. “Could the young realise how soon they will become mere walking bundles of habits, they could give more heed to their conduct while in the plastic state. We are spinning our own fates, good or evil, and never to be undone.”(James, 1890, p. 127) The knowledge we ascertain is limited only to that of which is congruent to ones subjective reality. This is seen especially in social context, rules are bred from structure, rigidity and fear, they enable the achievement of a ‘greater good’. One must look past themselves and their immediate needs, to serve a greater purpose. In short the ends must justify the means. Ironically our personal context is where the constitutes of subjective meaning are developed. As creatures of habit, humans act according to what they are taught is of worth, ethical or purposeful. Here it becomes evident that habitual behaviors manifest into a circular paradigm, where we constantly seek out and adopt similar ideas, accepting what is familiar and often dismissing that which fails to ‘fit’ into our primary beliefs.
Functionalism articulates the notion that we cultivate a foundation of paradigms from our first years of life. Depending on our social, historical and environmental context we adopt various core beliefs. These remain with us throughout our lives as our “primary” belief system. Pragmatic philosophy states that the universe is in a constant state of flux; information, ideas and stimuli is constantly evolving. It would prove futile attempting to account for every concept presented to us throughout our lives, instead the mind adopts a state of selective omission as form of self preservation. This enables us the function throughout the course of out daily existence without constant deliberation. The constant bombardment of paradoxal concepts is pushed aside and we act habitually based on our “primary” beliefs (James, 1890.). These core beliefs are re-enforced as we adapt habitual behavioral responses, we continue the same idiosyncrasies unless they cease to prove effective. When old response systems fail other possibilities are explored, adopting theories that nicely coincide with ones original paradigms. That is what is meant by ‘survival of the fittest’, it does not pertain to the strongest or smartest; rather the way in which one that fits or assimilates new concepts into the original foundation of thought and can continue to “fit” into society.
This pragmatic approach, later evolved into a framework of educational and practical psychology by Dewy throughout the 1930s. The idea that unhelpful or disruptive idiosyncratic behaviors may be acquiescent to pre-existing paradigms, allows one to rationalize and continue such behaviors. The theory that thoughts motivate actions and produce an emotional response, can be positively employed. “Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.” (James, W., 1880). By constructing situations with sufficient obstacles, a person may exult in perceived mastery over a situation. These flow activities, devised by James were extensively employed by Dewy, cultivating a positive self esteem, establishing a healthy pretension and sense of empowerment.
William James had laid a sound pragmatic foundation for the likes of John Dewey, Mead, Carr and Angell to develop functional psychology in America at the University of Chicago. Cattell, Woodworth and Thorndike during the same era propelled aspects of functionalism in Columbia. Although they may been speculative, regarding functionalism, their critiques and studies helped to shape the American Psychological Association, and many of the theories and ideas we still hold today. In acquiring and debating such prolific concepts, they field of psychology has branched out into a rich and multifaceted discipline.
Functionalism is without doubt one of the most prominent strands of psychology today, however conjecture on functionalisms broad concept of what constitutes a “mind” is still being developed among some analysis’s including Block, Putnam, Chalmers and Fodor. For a behavior or thought to be deemed functionalistic, it must serve a function or purpose of which is determined by ones own conscious or mind. The philosophy identifies that mental states (values, needs, emotions, etc.) are wholly comprised by their functional roles, these roles have a causal relationship to other mental states, sensory inputs, and behavioral outputs. (Block, 1996). Our instincts are not devoid of free-will, although our “free-will” is in some sense predetermined by the foundation of primary beliefs we are assigned from birth. Therefore two individuals could perform in a similar manner to produce the same result, but their reasoning would be different because each human experience is unique. Conjecture regarding “free will” and “the mind” are still to be defined, however a pragmatist might debate the subjective nature of the human mind would ever be capable for a completely objective position on consciousness and cognition.
*I am not sure any of this makes sense or is laid out correctly, I am stressing out a little. I have re-witten this three times and now I feel like I’m tripping over my own convoluted thoughts 
Help?
Kate Pearson
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
