Talk:Structural stage theory

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology

Philosophy: Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Scope

@Biogeographist: it looks like we've different ideas about the scope of this article. As I understand it, structuralstage theories refers to theories like Piaget's, Loevinger's, etc., not to a broader range of stage theories. Not all the theories described at Developmental stage theories are structural stage theories; how are we going to resolve this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I see your rationale. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I restored books recently removed from Structural stage theory § List of books formulating stage theories that are mentioned in the following reference that I added: White, Sheldon H. (1983). "The idea of development in developmental psychology". In Lerner, Richard M. (ed.). Developmental psychology: historical and philosophical perspectives. Child psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 55–77. doi:10.4324/9780367816247-3. ISBN 089859247X. OCLC 9217948. Romanes's stages of cognitive development, it will be remembered, were versions of the three logics of August Comte. Sechenov took his stages from Herber Spencer. Baldwin's formulation, more complex and original, still is linked backward by him to Spencer's and Romanes's work. ... Comte argued for a law of three stages through which societies, and branches of human knowledge, must pass during the course of their development. ... One hundred years before Comte, Giambattista Vico had argued in his New Science that humans have three natures. ... There is an invariant genetic order in which men can contend with the world around them because they must use one nature and then the next and the next. ... Both Vico and Comte said that the stages of human history resembled the stages of growth of a child's mind. ... Hegel's proposal of a mechanism of history, amended somewhat by Marx and Engels, was to have a very large political influence. ... In the 1860s and 1870s, there begins a kind of explosive culmination of the movement toward developmental histories. The idea that human history is principled, orderly, and developmental ... I have elsewhere argued (White, 1976) that a great deal of what we call "developmental theory" is generic, a form of control systems analysis or organizational theory.

Since there is another article specifically about Developmental stage theories in psychology, this article is about the more general topic of stage theory as a kind of generic metaphysical theory, or what White in the aforementioned reference (and elsewhere) calls a kind of organizational theory. This is currently a stub-class article and so there is obviously much more to say about this. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]