The Concept of Field Theory and Its Characteristics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Generic Characteristics of Field Theory
Field Theory Position: Differences between Subjective and Objective Approaches
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Attempts to explain how individuals interact with the environment and how such interactions influence the process of decision-making have been made in psychology. In its summation, field theory holds that the coexisting factors in any surrounding play a critical role in controlling the manner in which people behave and eventually reason out (Embree, 2003).

This paper seeks to discuss the concept of field theory elaborately. The paper will review the numerous generic characteristics that apply in varying domains. The paper also evaluates the differences that exist between subjectivity and objectivity based on the theory’s constructs.

The Generic Characteristics of Field Theory

Field theory offers to give explanations about changes that occur in the states of given elements, such as a static field inducing movements in a particle that is charged (Kline, 1996). The theory, however, does not appeal to the changes that occur in the states of different elements. This characteristic is often likened to a vector, which may also be referred to in other quarters as a gradient or slope. The explanation falls outside the framework of sociology.

For instance, it is difficult in attempting to persuade people how possible it is to describe occupational mobility. This has often been done through choosing an option, which ends up registering no changes. It is prudent to note that upward mobility also occurs in other varying forms, which are inherent in careers. The expectation among many people is that the upward mobility in particular careers will often affect people occupying given positions as long as ‘nothing happens.’

For change in state to occur, there has to be an interaction involving the field on the one hand, and the element’s existing state on the other. For instance, a particle that is positively charged moves in a different direction compared to one that is negatively charged. This characteristic closely relates to the third one, which complements the whole point.

The elements often have specific characteristics that eventually render them vulnerable to the effects of the field. In other words, different particles have different degrees, as well as directions of charge. From this characteristic, it can be argued that bodies without any mass are not by any means affected by a force within a gravitational field. In physics, there is no existent of a field that is known that has an effect on virtually all the particles.

In this regard, therefore, the fact that there is a cluster of people unsusceptible to the effects of a social field does not succeed to disapprove claims concerning the field’s existence. It should not be a hard task trying to identify the right person to be subjected to the field. It acts in a similar fashion to the magnetic field, which affects only some substances.

When there are no elements within the field, then there emerges a likelihood of the force being created. However, this happens without the existent of any force. With reference to the field, it should be noted that an internal energy often operates, which has the power to influence an element even where the two are not coming into contact.

In addition, field theory mainly applies in cases where the substitute explanation entails action at a distance. This form of explanation, however, has had mixed reactions from different groups of people, with the western world mainly treating it with suspicious dislike as opposed to how the eastern world treats it (Delprato & Smith, 2009).

Although this distinction may seem hard to understand, a field takes up action, whereupon X affects Y although the two never come into contact. What the field does to Y is direct inducement of potential energy. A continuous medium, such as a fluid, may be considered sufficient in aiding this, although its presence may not be of necessity for the local action. With X somehow having the potential to anchor the field, it is not, however, described that it actually affects Y.

From the explanations on the fourth characteristic above, it can be concluded that it is not possible to directly measure the field itself. This, in addition to the discomfort that the West has over the idea of hard particles colliding with each other, is the main reason behind the idea of analysts only resorting to field theories after they have considered all the other options.

A fifth characteristic of the field theory touches on it being organized and differential. According to Kline (1996), the field can be attributed to a vector whose force is possible, although the vectors do not resemble each other and their distribution is not random.

The field, in this case, may be regarded in terms of topology owing to the fact that its deviations may include strength as well as direction of motion, which may be by mode of induction in a particle. This means that the field is made up of a slope upon which an object will definitely roll downwards. The field, therefore, is a representation of comprehensive regular occurrences within the social set up, which can be equated to the structures or systems of the organization.

Field Theory Position: Differences between Subjective and Objective Approaches

Field theory does not fully offer an explanation on the existing differences between subjective approach and objective approach. The modern day theories that include field theory only consider giving regular answers as opposed to elaborating on the links between constructivism and specific patterns.

This they do by only zeroing in on abstract patterns and their respective intersubjectivity. Alternatively, field theory also attempts to disregard the significance of intersubjectivity by pressing that constructivism and phenomena are actually one and should never be regarded as distinct.

The main principle upon which field theory is founded actually fails to recognize the fact that phenomenology and objective description are two distinct concepts (Kahn, 2003). Field theorists strongly consider the world to be objective in the most absolute terms possible. The move by the theorists is informed more by their need to explain the ability of people to pilot the field.

Such efforts only result in the admission that the field only contributes to the entire regularity as well as structure that is of desire, despite being a phenomenological construct worth being described as so. In other words, it can only be regarded as what is immediately encountered. The mapping of the field is not only arbitrary, but incomplete as well. What it turns out to be is reclamation of information that is needed for action, which is only organized based on the current position of an individual.

What we retrieve from the environment directly is an urgent need for action. Because there lacks a need to arrange in category, the urge to change position is given priority, while the cognitive perception takes a lesser consideration. In this case, therefore, consciousness refers to the power to apprehend.

However, the apprehension involves the concepts that make part of the world and its surrounding environment. The way we understand the social field can also be termed as direct, as well as couched within the socially built categories, which turn out to be relevant in as far as our conduct is concerned.

There is the aspect of field theory drawing the implication that can be construed as knowledge of social perception, which flies in the dominant pseudo-Durkheimian orthodoxy face (Martin, 2003). Such an implication senses data coming in a form that is relatively disorganized and sorted on the basis of culture.

What can be deduced from the above analysis is the fact that field theory implication offers a totally varying account. There is an obvious attempt to fundamentally organize percepts owing to the fact that they belong to an environment or world that contains unique principles of organization.

Thus, all the perceiver does in this instance is to establish an ontological complicity to benefit from the pre-existing structural principles that make up the social order. This, in sociological circles, has been referred to as “causal texture of the environment”.

Field theory fails to establish a cognitive map that is complete, which would allow one to consider any object that is unique and put it into other category set. Instead, a general assumption is held to the effect that everybody has the capacity to say what is expected of them at any given time. The general rule of this theory can be assumed to imply that things are what they are, or what they look like, and their looks instruct us on what to do with them.

Looking at actors within an organization, the main force influencing their actions is not their own feelings but rather the environment within which they operate. In other words, they act in a cognitive manner that is devoid of cultural schemes, existing independently from their psyches. As Khan (2003) argues in support of this idea, the actions can be considered to be only complimentary of what the environment offers.

The other principal idea of field theory, which limits its effectiveness in explaining the difference between subjective and objective approaches, lies in its wedding of perception and apperception in a rich dualism that is theoretical. This is in itself interospecific visual information rather than exterospecific (Martin, 2003). In both cases, the person taking in information concerning the world remains relative to the person’s position in as far as the field is concerned.

Conclusion

Field theory forms a part of the numerous approaches that have been formulated to explain different phenomenon within the psychological world. The theory mainly expounds on the regularities within an individual action with regard to position. There are common characteristics about field theory, which include explaining the changes that take place in given elements when their state changes and the interaction between the existing states of elements, and the interaction they have with the field.

Other characteristics include the elements having specific attributes that make them vulnerable to the field, as well as the field being differential and organized. However, field theory is inadequate in its explanation of the existing difference between subjective and objective approaches.

References

Delprato, D. J., & Smith, N. W. (2009). Sketch of J. R. Kantor’s psychological interbehavioral field theory. The Psychological Record, 59(4), 671-678.

Embree, L. (2003). Aron Gurwitsch’s theory of cultural-scientific phenomenological psychology. Husserl Studies, 19(1), 43-70.

Kahn, P. H. Jr. (2003). Ape cognition and why it matters for the field of psychology. Human Development, 46(2-3), 161-168

Kline, T. J. (1996). Defining the field of industrial-organizational psychology. Canadian Psychology, 37(4), 205-209.

Martin, J. L. (2003). What is Field Theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 1-49

Click Here To Order Now!