ABSTRACT
Sociology as a science has strong connections with psychology as they are both concerned with human behaviour and what causes it. For sociologists and psychologists alike, it is important to discuss what makes people act and what the repercussions are of such actions. The interest of the psychologist is largely confined to a more personal level, whereas for the sociologist it is important to assess how the commingling of human actions have shaped history. At this point the questions “What is the difference between the biological and psychological constraints?” and “Is the brain not a biological matter?” are legitimate questions. Even at this early stage we have to make an observation. Passer and Smith (2007) claim that “the three pounds of protein, fat and fluid that you carry around inside of your skull is the real you” (p. 82). That is incorrect. Although I agree that the vast majority of psychological processes deal with issues that involve the brain, it is noteworthy to also refer to the spinal reflexes. Of course, psychological processes are actions that are performed by biological matter, but as the memory is a physical capacity ascribed to the brain, the act of learning is in this sense often considered to be both a matter of biological and psychological investigation. At first look it would appear that biology studies ‘the brain’ whereas psychology studies ‘the mind’. From a brain surgeon’s point of view, the science of psychology would therefore be illegitimate as he or she would never have come across a ‘mind’ in surgery. Elias also raised questions on the artificial separation of the body and the mind resulting from his experiences in dissecting corpses (Dunning & Hughes, 2013, p. 28). The major difference between the two disciplines with regards to the study of the brain lies not in the names employed or the biological matter itself, but much more in the approach to the study matter that is the brain. The approaches of both medicine and psychology offer advantages over one another. Medicine or biology are very much focused on the idea of scientific atomism, whereby the whole is studied as a sum of the functions of its component parts. This is apparent in the study of microbiology, histology, physiology and anatomy (dissection). No decent psychologist would ever argue that the principle matter of his interest, namely the brain, is not a biological issue. He or she may, however, claim that there is more to the science of psychology than the mere dissection of the brain, and perhaps advocates of both 23disciplines would plague the other with the charge of reductionism. This matter was also discussed previously. Psychology is much more based on observational research, whereby an entirely different research design is employed. Biological research offers more possibilities in the field of substance manipulation and is more precise (or quantitative) in nature. Yet psychology is a science that offers the advantages of explaining phenomena on human behaviour that are still biologically unexplained, or that the human being simply cannot comprehend by referring to biological processes due to its own intellectual limitations. The methodology of the science of biology may theoretically be well equipped to more accurately explain a person’s behaviour; it still does not account for the differences between people’s behaviour by referring to learned processes. Psychology does, although on occasion results may lack a great deal of accuracy as it is more difficult to control the different variables involved. Biology has perhaps only started touching upon this subject. The psychological approaches, however, are not impermeable to criticism either, where biology rightly poses a number of solid questions (as will appear in the ensuing sections). In the study of social behaviour and contemporary sociology, it is far better to rely on the explanations of psychology to determine a number of important issues such as the changes of individual behaviour from infant to adulthood and the individual’s motivations for acting or reacting. This is more ‘workable’ for the sociologist. The ‘gap’ between psychology and sociology is easier to bridge than that between biology and sociology.
