My Experience with Psychology 101 and Classical History

Introduction

One of the interesting common points that Psychology 101 and Roman History share is that they both build on what has come before. The Roman civilization owed a big debt to the influence of the ancient Greeks. The field of psychology also owes a big debt to humanism. Although psychology is often associated with Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, humanism helped to move psychology in a more practical direction. Psychologists like Adler, Piaget, Erikson, Bandura and many others have focused on the role that human society plays in nurturing or shaping human development. Instead of looking at the suppression of urges that drive human behavior, Adler asserted that everyone human being is responsible for his own actions and can know what he wants and can take steps to achieve what he wants. The idea that the human psyche was somehow unknown or unknowable was rejected by the humanists. From them came they very common application of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is often used in therapy today because it focuses mainly on helping people to identify behavioral and thought patterns that get them to engage in negative or destructive actions and to counter these triggers with positive alternatives to thought and action. Roman likewise owed a great deal to the mythology, philosophy and learning of Greece. Rome renounced its kings after Tarquin the Proud: Junius Brutus led the revolt against the corrupt king and Rome established its Republic—building on the democratic system that Athens had initiated that same century. Rome, however, was not really a democratic republic but rather a fusion of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy. The Republic eventually became an Empire under Caesar Augustus. So just as Rome developed ideas over time and constantly reinvented itself, the field of psychology has done the same. Indeed, it also relates to the division of academic knowledge and this paper will explain how.

The Importance of Inclusion

What made Rome great from the beginning was the fact that it was so inclusive: it started out a lot like America did—welcoming everyone and anyone who wanted to come and live there. People from other places flocked to Rome because there was a spirit of freedom and equity with the Roman culture in the early days. No one tried to lord it over others or insist that everyone adapt to a certain set of pre-conceived values. Universal values and ideals were allowed to be fostered in a way that allowed for an openness of discussion and a fertility of ideas. Rome became great because it did not box itself in to any narrow conception of the way things ought to be. It welcomed life in all its various aspects and simply looked to nurture a good life for all. Of course, there were problems and challenges and conflicts along the way, but Roman history is filled with the stories of heroes who rose to the occasion—people like Cincinnatus, who left his farm to lead Rome in battle, and returned to his farm rather than stay on in a political capacity after he had done his service to the state. The most important thing, however, is that Rome was inclusive and open-minded.

This inclusivity relates to the division of academic knowledge. In school it is often the case that people are pushed into corners or into boxes; they are told to become specialists in this field or in this branch of such-and-such field, and all they know and look at is this narrow field that has a very tiny view of things. They acquire a great deal of academic knowledge about this specific field or branch, but they are somewhat cut off from other fields and branches and disciplines of study. They do not acquire a holistic view of things, but rather a compartmentalized view of things. What would have happened to Rome if it had set about developing itself in a compartmentalized way? If it had, instead of throwing its doors open to all people, it had instead restricted who could be part of Rome and what Romans could do? It would never have risen in the ancient world as it did. It would have basically cut itself off from the various forces of life that sustained it and allowed it to cultivate ideas and make advances on a large stage. The division of academic knowledge is not something that should lead to compartmentalize but rather something that should open doors and windows to myriad ideas and systems of thought so that the most holistic view of life possible can be obtained. The various disciplines can actually complement one another and help one to understand how fields develop, how one field can enhance another when it is related and so on. This is what has happened for me when I have looked at Psychology 101 and Roman History courses and thought of them in terms of being compatible instead of as exclusive. Being inclusive is helpful in the division of academic knowledge because it allows one to apply what is learned in one field to another that may seem completely unrelated. Yet in reality everything is related because life is one, large integrated albeit complex phenomenon, wherein history, philosophy, psychology, politics, religion, economics and sociology all interact inextricably.

How Things Relate

Education has to be inclusive—but when most people hear the word inclusion they think of including people of all backgrounds and ethnicities into a classroom and not being biased towards anyone because of differences. But what about in academics? Shouldn’t we be academically inclusive as well? Why should someone studying Roman History be biased against psychology or vice versa? There is a lot to learn from every field that can help one to see more fully into another field. It is about enlarging one’s vision and scope so as to be able to take in more, understand more, and arrive at a great degree of appreciation and insight.

Roman history is significant for many reasons. Western society grew out of the Roman Empire, so learning about Roman history is like learning where today’s society came from. One does not get the whole picture of course, because the Roman Empire eventually collapsed when Odoacer sacked Rome—but it also lived on in a sense through the Dark Ages and was brought back to some extent by Charlemagne, who was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor in 800 AD. So that started off a new chapter in the story of Rome, but the story had changed. What had been a pagan empire under Caesar Augustus had become a Christian Empire by 800 AD thanks to various factors and influences. From 800 AD, history marched on and the human drama continued to unfold. Wars and arguments and corruption continued, as is the age-old story of human life, and the West fragmented—but by the 19th century and even before then great writers were reflecting a rather nuanced view of what it means to be human. Dostoevsky probed the mind of man in his numerous works, all of them with keen psychological insights. Shakespeare also did this a few centuries before him. What is interesting is that Shakespeare often used plots from Roman history to convey stories to his own people in his own time and place in England in 1600. He saw parallels between what had happened in Roman history and what was happening in England with the religious wars and the political upheavals. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is one of the greatest English plays of all time, but it is not about England: it is about ancient Rome and the start of the Roman Empire. It is also full of profound psychological insights, with characters like Brutus, Cassius and Marc Antony.

Shakespeare did not develop a systematic way of thinking about psychology the way Freud did with psychoanalysis. However, he did develop interesting psychological insights into human beings, and he did use history to convey ideas that were relevant in his own time and that are still relevant in today’s world. Themes of honor, betrayal, power, corruption, honesty, and manipulation—all of these can be found in Shakespeare’s play and all of them are themes that can be found in every age. So the lesson here is that the history of ancient Rome is not something that needs to be compartmentalized. Rather, it is something that one can use to illuminate other fields and disciplines of study because whenever the human person is concerned one can find the same old story over and over again. People have been commenting on this story for thousands of years and it is worth investigating what others have said or written to obtain a better understanding of things overall.

Psychology, Roman History and Social Science vs. the Humanities

Social science is the study of human society and social relationships. The humanities can be defined as a discipline that focuses on the nature of the human being, or what it means to be human. This subject can be approached from a political angle, a philosophical angle, a literary angle, and so on. There is no reason, however, to take an either/or position—as in, either social science or humanities, as though there were no way for them to live in harmony or to be compatible. Actually, the two disciplines can complement one another very well. Psychology as a field is proof enough of this because it has been influenced both by the humanities and by social science. Social psychology is a branch of study and humanism was very influential in psychology from Adler on. In fact, social science helps to explain some aspects of psychology that were not very well explained before. Albert Bandura is a social psychologist who explains how people are influenced in their cognitive development by peers, groups and media. Clearly there is an interaction between people, social groups, individuals and how relationships are formed. That is an important thing to keep in mind. What I have learned from Psychology 101 and Roman History with respect to the notion of social science and the humanities is that people are always looking for ways to express themselves, and the humanities are an area where the expressions of people over time have been gathered and studied. Whether one is looking at a speech of Cicero or an epic poem by Virgil, one can see that this expression of human ideas and values is present. Whether one is reading Seneca or Augustine’s City of God, one can see that the humanities are vital in understanding human nature and how people have thought about themselves through time. The humanities offer a way to look at things that is based on human expression, human values, human feeling, and human experience. Looking at Roman history without exploring the humanities that were produced during the age of Roman history would be like going to an enormous supermarket and avoiding one portion of the store completely and acting as though it was not there.

Psychology 101 is the same in the sense that one must have a sense of how social science has come along. Whether one is discussing the theories of Max Weber or Marx or other theorists like Foucault, it is all the same: social science plays a part in how people think because people are part of a greater network of society. Psychology and social science have come together in fields like criminology where criminologists have developed theories for why people commit crimes. Theories like Broken Windows Theory or life course theory or social bond theory are all valid approaches to the subject of crime and help to explain how individuals relate to others in the context of criminality. Other theories like labeling theory and social strain theory do the same in the sense that they try to explain how groups interact and impact individuals. Conflict theory and critical theory are all approaches that have developed that help to explain social organization and why society is the way it is. There are many different views of society that have come along, and each one can serve as a framework for analyzing psychological insights that have also been developed over time. One can look at the work of Jung, for example, or the work of Carl Rogers and make some comment about the individual psychology of a person but by approaching it from the standpoint of social science. Or vice versa.

The humanities are also helpful for understanding psychology because psychology is ultimately about understanding human beings, how they think, act and develop, and how the mind operates. The humanities offer insights into human thinking in an artistic way, but they can also be used to show people what they are like. After all, it was Shakespeare’s argument in Hamlet that the artist should hold the mirror up to nature to show the audience who it truly is. Sometimes a good book, movie or song can pry open things better than any psychoanalyst or psychologist because the artist is painting a whole picture on a specific theme and forcing one to look long and hard at what is there. The play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles shows that tragic fall of a hero and why and how it happened. That play is just as helpful as Julius Caesar by Shakespeare in allowing an individual to obtain a sense of self: one recognizes certain aspects of characters and plot and can identify with them because one has his own experiences to go on. The author is presenting a vision of life and understanding and communicating it to the individual and so there is a kind of meeting of the minds. Is it really any different from a client receiving counseling or therapy from a professional psychologist or counselor? It is the same, except in the humanities the experience is often described as catharsis, the purging of the emotions. In counseling or therapy the goal can be different but in the end the same objective exists—to help the individual return to the world in a better state than when he left it to take part in viewing the drama on the stage or in receiving counseling in an office.

Psychology 101 relates to the social sciences and the humanities because it can be informed by both but also because it can inform both. Some humanities can be read with more insight when one applies key understanding from psychology. For instance, Freud’s theories were shaped by the play of Oedipus in which the son marries the mother; but his theories can also be applied to other plays like Hamlet, in which the son is angry with the mother for marrying his uncle. Is there a certain complex going on in Hamlet? One could argue that there is if one adopts a Freudian psychology approach to the play. But other approaches in psychology can also be used to plumb the depths of other works. Adler’s approach could be used to explain some of the motives of Captain Ahab in Moby-Dick, for instance. Carl Rogers’ approach could be used to explain the actions of the main character of Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye. Erik Erikson’s theory of psycho-social development could be used to explain the developmental stages of various characters in the books by Charles Dickens. At the same time, many works within the humanities could be used to illuminate the meaning of psychological theories. For instance, one could turn to a book like The Lord of the Rings to explain certain aspects of Erikson’s model. Or one could use a book like American Psycho to discuss the meaning of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. The humanities can be like a ray of light that helps to explain the psychological theories with concrete examples.