Interesting Quotes, Vol. 13

A Theoretical and Empirical Approach to the Study of Development

Today’s quotes come from Dr. Michael M. Piechowski’s 1975 monograph, A Theoretical and Empirical Approach to the Study of Development. We talked about this work in Episode 48. It’s the one he called “totally overlooked. Forgotten.”

This was one of the first things I read from Michael when I began studying the theory. Because it’s a monograph, it’s long, and I found it a little overwhelming. It took time to get through everything he was saying, and I returned to it a couple of months later and reread it. On Christmas 2016, I spent hours reformatting it in QDA Miner while building the first Piechowski project file. I’ve learned to love this piece, and I’m glad to share excerpts here on Substack.

It begins with a foreword by Dr. Dąbrowski that you won’t want to miss. Here’s a link where you can read it in a browser.

Let’s begin with the summary, which introduces this document in a nutshell:

“Developmental psychology, in spite of its dynamic growth, has not, thus far, generated a general theory of human development. Present developmental theories are either cognitive or ontogenetic, or both. All are descriptive. Their powers of explanation are limited. None of them include emotional development.

It is argued that a theory of development in order to claim generality must (a) include emotional development, and (b) offer means of explaining, rather than only describing, developmental transformations. A nonontogenetic theory of development, called theory of positive disintegration, appears to fulfill these conditions. It is built on Jacksonian principles of evolution of levels of functioning.

The central concept of the theory is that of multilevelness of developmental phenomena. Development is seen to be a function of the level of behavioral organization. The theory defines five levels. Each level constitutes a distinct structure. The dynamic elements of the structure of each level are identified. Positive disintegration is the name for the process by which the structure of a higher level replaces the structure of a lower one.

The theory explains different developmental patterns by introducing the concept of developmental potential (DP). Although DP is a purely logical notion, it is given observable dimensions designated as dimensions of mental functioning. There are five of these and they correspond to psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, intellectual, and emotional modes of functioning.

The first half of the monograph is devoted to the conceptual structure of the theory. The second half to empirical tests of the theory. Three such tests were made on data generated from an atomistic analysis of autobiographies.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 239)

I’m going to share excerpts out of order and begin with these paragraphs describing the challenges Dąbrowski faced while developing his theory:

“The invasion of Poland in 1939 eliminated the possibility of any research or publication during the war. The postwar conditions, initially very difficult because of the devastation of the country and irreparable losses in highly educated and trained cadre, improved briefly only to deteriorate again because of political changes and pressures. In consequence, systematic research to test the developmental paradigm of the theory was not possible until 1969 when Canada Council awarded a three-year grant to Dr. Dabrowski, who at the time was a member of the Department of Psychology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. The empirical studies described here relate a portion of the results of that three year research period.

In 1969 the constructs of developmental dynamisms and levels existed only in Dabrowski's description. One of the goals of the research was to relate the conceptual categories of the theory to verbally expressed behavior. To do this self-reports of subjects were submitted to complete analysis rather than being scrutinized only for typical expressions corresponding to the theoretical categories. Only in this way could one hope to demonstrate how to recognize a given dynamism or level of functioning in a variety of behavioral expressions. (Piechowski, 1975, p. 267)

The monograph offers a complete introduction to the theory of positive disintegration, supported by research. There is nothing else like it in the literature on Dąbrowski’s theory, which is sad to realize, considering that it was written fifty years ago.

If you want a fuller understanding of the theory of positive disintegration, I strongly recommend downloading this monograph and reading it carefully.

On Multilevelness

“Making multilevelness the central concept in the approach to development means that we now have a new key, or paradigm, with which to approach human behavior and its development. It becomes less meaningful to consider, for instance, aggression, inferiority, empathy, or sexual behavior as unitary phenomena, but it becomes more meaningful to examine their different levels. Love and aggression at the lowest level of development differ less than the lowest and the highest level of love, or the lowest and the highest level of aggression; at the highest level aggression is replaced by empathy.

At the lowest level of development different behaviors have a fairly simple underlying structure. With the progress of development toward higher levels the process of differentiation becomes so extensive that the differences between levels are by far greater and far more significant than differences between particular behaviors.

The concept of multilevelness is thus the starting point for the analysis of all forms of behavior and their development. It represents a “new system of thought,” suited to represent developmental approach on the official map of psychology.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 246)

Positive Disintegration

In the next section, he discussed positive disintegration as a general developmental principle.

The importance of inhibition can be found here.

“In the process of individual evolution conflict with one's milieu and with oneself plays a decisive role in inhibiting primitive impulses. Internal conflict appears as a factor of control. The conflict is more complex than the impulse it inhibits. The impulse represents a lower level of functioning, while the internal conflict, by virtue of its complexity and controlling effect, represents a higher level of functioning.

Inhibition is a fundamental feature of hierarchical control in biological systems. It comes in many different and quite complex patterns. It appears, for example, in the control of movements in early development, where the level of control migrates by progressive inhibition of the brain stem and the mid brain to the cortex.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 246)

In Episode 8, Surviving Disintegration, I shared this excerpt from the monograph describing positive disintegration:

“Positive disintegration means restructuring of the organization of affective and cognitive functions. It is called disintegration because the lower levels of functioning must break down before it is replaced by a new organization of a higher level. The term positive is used in the same sense of when we speak of evolution from lower to higher forms of life. Rather than in terms of age or learning, development is measured in terms of structural and functional reorganizations. By this definition, if there is no restructuring, there is no development.” (Piechowski, 1975a, p. 247)

Here’s more on positive disintegration from that page:

“Individual development may follow the maturational stages of the life cycle without any profound psychological transformation (i.e., without change in the emotional-cognitive structure). In such case there is no development in the sense of reorganization, and this adevelopmental structure has been called primary, or primitive, integration. In such a life history an individual follows the path of environmental adaptation. He learns, works, and fits in, but he does not suffer mental breakdown or experience ecstasy. In contrast, when in a life history mental breakdown or true ecstasy does take place we have a disintegration.

Disintegration may be positive or negative. Development is associated with positive disintegration, dissolution of mental functions with negative disintegration, absence of development with primary integration. Levels of integration and disintegration constitute a hierarchy. Primary integration is at the bottom, then three levels of disintegration (one unilevel, two of multilevel) and at the top secondary integration.

The concept of development through positive disintegration means that development occurs when there is movement (i.e., restructuring) at least from one level to another. The least development occurs from primary integration to the first level of disintegration. Development is more extensive when it proceeds through several levels of positive disintegration. Development is most extensive when it reaches secondary integration.” (Piechowski, 1975, pp. 247-248)

What leads to positive disintegration, and how does developmental potential factor in?

“Dabrowski described and analyzed a wide range of phenomena of disintegration in relation to periods of life: e.g., adolescence or climacteric, particularly stressful experiences such as the loss of property, position, youth or beauty, spouse or child, or the event of a serious illness, and in relation to psychoneurotic, gifted, creative and eminent personalities. External events triggering periods of disintegration cannot account for the great individual differences in how these events and their consequences are experienced and handled. Even less can they be invoked to account for those instances where a person deliberately seeks frustration and stressful conditions so that he would not stagnate in his development. Such development, propelled, as it were, from within, is a function of a strong developmental potential, and is not bound or determined by advancing age or environmental pressures. Such development, called accelerated, is particularly rich in positive disintegrations.” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 248)