Customer Reviews

Structure of Behavior

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Merleau-Ponty is far better known for his second book, the monumental Phenomenology of Perception. The Structure of Behavior is an earlier stab at the same themes, and its philosophical views are less developed than on the latter work.

Does this make it optional reading for those seeking to understand Merleau-Ponty? Not at all. In the first two chapters of Structure of Behavior, Merleau-Ponty discusses and critiques the major currents of theoretical psychology in his time (Behaviorism and Gestalttheorie), at a level of detail far beyond that which he does in the Phenomenology of Perception. In fact, in the initial chapters of the latter work, he repeatedly refers the reader to the earlier one's discussion of psychology. While the Phenomenology of Perception is justly celebrated for its engagement with the facts and findings of empirical psychology, it surprisingly does not reveal Merleau-Ponty's knowledge of the discipline like the present book does.

In short, students of his latter work will do very well to read at least the first chapter of this book, probably the first two. One will find it much easier to understand his psychological background after reading them.

I would like to begin by saying I agree with Idiosyncrat in regard to the importance of this work for understanding Merleau-Ponty's philosophy as a whole.

I would like to add some reasons why I consider this particular work important especially for those who are interested in phenomenology. Merleau-Ponty was a phenomenologist in the tradition of Husserl and Heidegger. The path Merleau-Ponty follows to phenomenology, especially in The Structure of Behavior, is, however, unique.

Phenomenology as a general approach to philosophical questions begins with the work of Husserl. Merleau-Ponty belongs to this tradition to the degree that he uses the methods of phenomenology and phenomenological analysis in approaching philosophical problems. But there are some differences in approach between Husserl and Merleau-Ponty.

Unlike Husserl, Merleau-Ponty does not begin his analysis in The Structure of Behavior with a `phenomenological reduction' and he does not attempt to offer, at first, any philosophical arguments for the adoption of the transcendental (or phenomenological) attitude. Merleau-Ponty also does not choose to begin his analysis with "consciousness" as Husserl does, but with behavior which Merleau-Ponty believes is neutral in regard to the classical distinctions between 'mental' and 'physical' (pg. 4). This means that Merleau-Ponty, like Heidegger, will ultimately ground his phenomenology at a deeper (existential) level, as opposed to merely analyzing explicit, or theoretical, acts of consciousness.

Merleau-Ponty summarizes the uniqueness of his method best in his Phenomenology of Perception. He writes, "we shall take objective thought on its own terms and not ask it any questions which it does not ask itself. If we are led to rediscover experience behind it, this shift of ground will be attributable only to the difficulties which objective thought itself raises" (pg. 83). This is the method that I think is unique to Merleau-Ponty. Husserl is looking for an apodictic ground for philosophy, and Heidegger is interested in the question of the meaning of Being. Neither of these questions are questions which objective thought asks itself but require a more radical form of reflection (which may be motivated for its own reasons). Merleau-Ponty will only adopt the transcendental, or phenomenological, standpoint after objective thought has led itself into a number of aporias which it is unable to solve on its own. He will begin by simply taking objective thought on its own terms.

In order to take objective thought on its own terms Merleau-Ponty chooses to begin The Structure of Behavior with an analysis of the scientific theories of behavior themselves, rather than with some version of the phenomenological reduction. The Structure of Behavior analyzes these theories in some detail as well as the reasons for their failures.

There are a number of reasons that the scientific theories Merleau-Ponty examines fail to make behavior and perception intelligible; they treat behavior as based on a one way causal relation between stimulus and response, they believe that the stimulus acts on the organism through its own absolute properties as opposed to its place within a larger whole (or Gestalt), they attempt to build up complex behavior from simple reflexes, and they fail to perceive the immanent meaning within behavior treating it instead as meaningless mechanical reflexes built up through conditioning.

All of these failures are ultimately reducible to the fact that all of these theories base themselves on an inadequate ontology which treats consciousness as transparent self-presence and nature as purely external partes extra partes. Merleau-Ponty will take up the task of elaborating a more adequate ontology in his later works (Phenomenology of Perception, and The Visible and the Invisible); but his later work largely takes the conclusions of this work for granted. So this is a very important work for those who are interested in Merleau-Ponty and his unique method of phenomenology.

[As a sidenote: I should point out that Merleau-Ponty is not rejecting science. In The World of Perception he writes, "The question which [contemporary phenomenological] philosophy asks in relation to science is not intended to contest its right to exist or to close off any particular avenue to its inquiries. Rather, the question is whether science does, or ever could, present us with a picture of the world that is complete, self-sufficient and somehow closed in upon itself, such that there could no longer be any meaningful questions outside this picture" (pg. 43)]

And as one final note. A number of the reviewers have also drawn attention to the fact that this is a very dense book. That is definitely true. The Structure of Behavior is full of references to physiologists most of whom wrote in German or French and so are inaccessible to those of us who do not speak those languages. For those undertaking this book I would strongly suggest reading Gestalt Psychology by Wolfgang Kohler, and The Organism by Kurt Goldstein along with this book. I found those books extremely helpful in my attempts to understand Merleau-Ponty's text. I would also suggest Koffka's Principles of Gestalt Psychology if you have time (I have not had time myself yet, but it is one of the works that Merleau-Ponty references regularly and you should be able to get a used copy in English).

-Brian

Merleau-Ponty's The Structure of Behavior is a dense text book on clinical biology. One has to be astonished at the range of his scholarship having read his books on other subjects. By "behavior" he is mostly talking about animal behavior. He has only thrown in one or two references to inauthentic human behavior. I see Merleau-Ponty as a thinker who fought hard for the notion that human beings are not merely mechanical objects. It doesn't quite come across here. If we are going to study stimulus reaction tell us why carnival rides grab our erogenous zones or how young boys can be physically aroused around females before they know the facts of life. The book left me with other troubling thoughts. Should what the Nazis learned in their clincal studies be off limits? Where are the moral limits to research?