Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain
The Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin called for a “psychological ecology” that would bring to light the social structures serving as the context for individual action and choice in everyday life. He envisioned social and physical environmental structures affecting the individual at a “boundary” withi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
Éditions Kimé
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | Philosophia Scientiæ |
| Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/3643 |
| _version_ | 1797402575015772160 |
|---|---|
| author | Harry Heft |
| author_facet | Harry Heft |
| author_sort | Harry Heft |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin called for a “psychological ecology” that would bring to light the social structures serving as the context for individual action and choice in everyday life. He envisioned social and physical environmental structures affecting the individual at a “boundary” within psychological experience (“the life space”). But how are we to conceptualize the manner in which such environmental structures influence individual experience and action? After all, the “nonpsychological” and the psychological domains are typically framed in quite different conceptual language, and, in some cases, at different levels of analysis. This paper examines this question with respect to two bodies of work. In the case of perception, Fritz Heider’s pioneering analysis of perception, followed decades later by James Gibson’s ecological approach to perception, illuminated the significance of a medium for perceiving that conveys structure specific to environmental entities. As for action among community structures, Roger Barker’s research revealed the significance of the hierarchical structure of the environment of community life, and how some higher-order structures (behavior settings) can influence and constrain individual constituent actions nested within them. Recent treatment of the psychological boundary within the 4E cognition literature is also briefly and critically examined. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T02:27:15Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fbd529d97e1c4ad3a32ffc46bdf6b168 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1281-2463 1775-4283 |
| language | deu |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T02:27:15Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | Éditions Kimé |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Philosophia Scientiæ |
| spelling | doaj.art-fbd529d97e1c4ad3a32ffc46bdf6b1682023-12-06T15:53:58ZdeuÉditions KiméPhilosophia Scientiæ1281-24631775-42832022-11-0126318921010.4000/philosophiascientiae.3643Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological DomainHarry HeftThe Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin called for a “psychological ecology” that would bring to light the social structures serving as the context for individual action and choice in everyday life. He envisioned social and physical environmental structures affecting the individual at a “boundary” within psychological experience (“the life space”). But how are we to conceptualize the manner in which such environmental structures influence individual experience and action? After all, the “nonpsychological” and the psychological domains are typically framed in quite different conceptual language, and, in some cases, at different levels of analysis. This paper examines this question with respect to two bodies of work. In the case of perception, Fritz Heider’s pioneering analysis of perception, followed decades later by James Gibson’s ecological approach to perception, illuminated the significance of a medium for perceiving that conveys structure specific to environmental entities. As for action among community structures, Roger Barker’s research revealed the significance of the hierarchical structure of the environment of community life, and how some higher-order structures (behavior settings) can influence and constrain individual constituent actions nested within them. Recent treatment of the psychological boundary within the 4E cognition literature is also briefly and critically examined.http://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/3643 |
| spellingShingle | Harry Heft Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain Philosophia Scientiæ |
| title | Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain |
| title_full | Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain |
| title_fullStr | Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain |
| title_full_unstemmed | Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain |
| title_short | Lewin’s “Psychological Ecology” and the Boundary of the Psychological Domain |
| title_sort | lewin s psychological ecology and the boundary of the psychological domain |
| url | http://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/3643 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT harryheft lewinspsychologicalecologyandtheboundaryofthepsychologicaldomain |