从McDougall的目的论主张到Lorenz与Tinbergen的动物行为学新进路,欧洲学派一直坚持本能研究的传统。以郭任远为奠基人,蔡乐生为继承者的反本能研究的复旦学派通过系列实验室证据批判欧洲学派的主张,否认本能存在的科学性。他们试图超越先天—后天的二分法,用系统发展的视角看待行为发生,进而构建一个能够解释人类行为动力发展的新理论——行为发展的或然渐成论。这既是对表观遗传学的丰富与发展,推动了后成表现型新进路的建立,更直接奠定了发展心理生物学这一新兴交叉学科的基础,对揭示有机体在发育过程中的生物行为发展差异具有重要意义。
Abstract
Instinct has been always an old controversial issue in the history of behavioral science. The European school has always maintained a tradition of instinct research from McDougall’s teleological claims of behavior to the approach of Lorenz and Tinbergen’s Ethology. Zing-yang Kuo, the Chinese psychologist who is the main architect of anti-instinct movement, explicitly denied that the concept of instinct was merely a label that could not explain how these behavioral patterns were formed over the course of an individual’s life. Since Kuo returning to China as a professor of Fudan University in 1923, he used his limited laboratory to conduct a series of methodologically innovative experiments on animal behavior to critique the European school’s instinct claims. Loh-Seng Tsai, a postgraduate student of Kuo at Fudan University, endeavored to promote Kuo’s early armchair ideas and complement his later experimental studies. This led to the formation of the Fudan school of anti-instinct studies with Kuo as its founder and Tsai as its successor.
The claims of this school include: (1) Using rigorous experimental evidence to address scientific problems, denying the scientific existence of the concept of instinct through a series of cat & rat experiments; (2)Rejecting teleology and using a systemic developmental perspective on behavior occurrence, and thus questioning Darwinism; (3) Attempting to go beyond the nature-nurture dichotomy and construct a new theory that could explain the dynamic development of human behavior, that is, probabilistic epigenesis of behavioral development. This theory proposed that individual’s behavior comes out of his or her own experience in the process of growth, which is thought to be probable but unable to forecast the course of individuals’ growth. Instead, one’s growth can be reflected in behavior gradients and behavior potentials. Based on these propositions, Kuo and Tsai opened up a new path for the Fudan school of anti-instinct behavior research. Invited by Gottlieb, Kuo returned to the America in the 1960s. His work also attracted a host of developmental psychologists such as Gottlieb, Schneirla, and Lehrman, who later became the backbone and core member of this camp.
When analyzed from the perspective of the history of psychological science, the Fudan school’s critique of instinct is undoubtedly interspersed with the strong dissatisfaction of the scientific psychological forces represented by the behaviorist movement with armchair psychology. Kuo’s idea of probabilistic epigenesis developed and polished a conceptual framework for systematic analysis of behavioral development. This framework viewed the organisms as a developing system, and the dynamic and bidirectional interactions among the elements, either internally or externally, and environment shape the emergent characteristics concerning genes, nervous system, environment and other factors that had a thorough and comprehensive influence on the development of behavior. The framework also facilitated the establishment and development of a new path of the epiphenotype epigenetics. The school developed around Kuo continues to regard development as the core theme of comparative psychology research and consciously distanced itself from the evolutionary perspective. Tsai, Schneirla, Lehrman and Gottlieb et al. criticized nativists and promoted behavioral development science directly based on Kuo’s theory system. During the process, they laid a solid foundation for the developmental psychobiology, an emerging inter-discipline, which is of immense significance to revealing developmental differences in biological behavior of organisms.
关键词
郭任远 /
蔡乐生 /
本能 /
行为渐成论 /
复旦学派
Key words
Zing-Yang Kuo /
Loh-Seng Tsai /
instinct /
behavior epigenetics /
Fudan school
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 陈巍, 王勇, 郭本禹. (2021). 未完结的本能: 郭任远与中国本能论战. 心理学报, 53(4), 431-444.
[2] 郭任远. (1971). 行为发展之动力形成论 (林悦恒译). 万年青书店.
[3] 胡寄南. (1985). 心理学论文选: 增补本. 学林出版社.
[4] 童第周. (2002). 童第周: 追求生命真相. 解放军出版社.
[5] 阎书昌. (2015). 中国近代心理学史 (1872-1949). 上海教育出版社..
[6] Amso, D., & Blumberg, M. S. (2019). 50th anniversary of developmental psychobiology. Developmental Psychobiology, 61(3), 315-316.
[7] Brumley M. R.,& Robinson, S. R. (2010). Experience in the perinatal development of action systems. In M. S. Blumberg, J. H. Freeman, & S. R. Robinson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of developmental behavioral neuroscience (pp. 181-209). Oxford University Press.
[8] Crews, D., & Gore, A. C. (2014). Transgenerational epigenetics: Current controversies and debates. In T. Tollefsbol (Ed.), Transgenerational epigenetics (pp. 371-390). Elsevier.
[9] Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture: Prenatal roots of instinctive behavior. Erlbaum.
[10] Gottlieb, G. (2000). Zing-Yang Kuo: Personal recollections and intimations of developmental science. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Thinking in psychological science: Ideas and their makers (pp. 299-313). Transaction Publishers.
[11] Greenberg, G., & Partridge, G. (2000). Prologemena to praxiology redux: The psychology of Zing-Yang Kuo. From Past to Future: Clark Papers on the History of Psychology, 2(2), 13-37.
[12] Hansen, E. (1968). Behavior as a continuous process. Science, 160(3823), 58-59.
[13] Kuo, Z. Y. (1921). Giving up instincts in psychology. The Journal of Philosophy, 18(24), 645-664.
[14] Kuo, Z. Y. (1922a). The nature of unsuccessful acts and their order of elimination in animal learning. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2(1), 1-27.
[15] Kuo, Z. Y. (1922b). How are our instincts acquired? Psychological Review, 29(5), 344-365.
[16] Kuo, Z. Y. (1924). A psychology without heredity. Psychological Review, 31(6), 427-448.
[17] Kuo, Z. Y. (1928). The fundamental error of the concept of purpose and the trial and error fallacy. Psychological Review, 35(5), 414-433.
[18] Kuo, Z. Y. (1929). The net result of the anti-heredity movement in psychology. Psychological Review, 36(3), 181-199.
[19] Kuo, Z. Y. (1930). The genesis of the cat's responses to the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 11(1), 1-36.
[20] Kuo, Z. Y. (1932). Ontogeny of embryonic behavior in Aves: IV. The influence of embryonic movements upon the behavior after hatching. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 14, 109-122.
[21] Kuo, Z. Y. (1938). Further study of the behavior of the cat toward the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 25(1), 1-8.
[22] Kuo, Z. Y. (1967). The dynamics of behavior development: An epigenetic view. Random House.
[23] Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz's theory of instinctive behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 28(4), 337-363.
[24] Lickliter, R. (2007). Kuo's epigenetic vision for psychological sciences: Dynamic developmental systems theory. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Thinking in psychological science: Ideas and their makers (pp. 315-329). Transaction Publishers.
[25] Logan, C. A., & Johnston, T. D. (2007). Synthesis and separation in the history of "nature" and "nurture". Developmental Psychobiology, 49(8), 758-769.
[26] Lorenz, K. (1939). Comparative study of behavior. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.), Instinctive behavior: The development of a modern concept (pp. 239-263). International Universities Press.
[27] Lorenz, K. (1950). The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. In J. F. Danelli & R. Brown (Eds.), Symposium of the society of experimental biology (pp. 221-268). Cambridge University Press.
[28] Lorenz, K. (1956). The objectivistic theory of instinct. In P. P. Grassé(Ed.) L'Instinct dans le comportement des animaux etde l'homme (pp. 51-76). Masson.
[29] Maier, N. R. F., & Schneirla, T. C. (1964). Principles of animal psychology. Dover.
[30] Maurer, S., & Tsai, L. S. (1930). Vitamin B deficiency and learning ability. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 11(1), 51-62.
[31] Maurer, S., & Tsai, L. S. (1931). The effect of partial depletion of vitamin B complex upon learning ability in rats. Journal of Nutrition, 4(4), 507-516.
[32] McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology. Methuen.
[33] McDougall, W. (1921). The use and abuse of instinct in social psychology. The Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 16(5-6), 285-333.
[34] McDougall, W., & McDougall, K. D. (1927). Notes on instinct and intelligence in rats and cats. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 7(2), 145-175.
[35] Richards R. J.(1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior. University of Chicago Press..
[36] Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), 1-109.
[37] Tolman, E. C. (1938). The determiners of behavior at a choice point. Psychological Review, 45(1), 1-41.
[38] Tsai, L. S. (1930). Gradual vs. abrupt withdrawal of guidance in maze learning. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 10(4), 325-331.
[39] Tsai, L. S. (1932). The laws of minimum effort and maximum satisfaction in animal behavior. Monographs of the National Research Institute of Psychology, 49(1), 1-47.
[40] Tsai, L. S. (1963). Peace and cooperation among natural enemies: Educating a rat-killing cat to cooperate with a hooded rat. Acta Psychological Taiwanica, 3(5), 1-5.
[41] Villagra, C., & Frías-Lasserre, D. (2020). Epigenetic molecular mechanisms in insects. Neotropical Entomology, 49(5), 615-642.
[42] Wang Y., Chen W., Li S., & Yin B. (2021). Darwinian rebel: The legacy of Loh-Seng Tsai—Chinese animal psychologist. Protein and Cell, 1-6.
[43] Yerkes, R. M., & Bloomfield, D. (1910). Do kittens instinctively kill mice? Psychological Bulletin, 7(8), 253-263.
基金
*本研究得到国家社科基金一般项目（21BZX005）和浙江省大学生科技创新活动计划项目（2021R432028）的资助
PDF(375 KB)
