Trying to touch the divine: Michelangelo's Angel and Social Consciousness
As the immortal artist, Michelangelo profoundly observed about art and the act of creation: “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free!” Carl Jung, William James, as Well as Viktor Frankl all emphasize symbols and "abstractions" - as William James calls them - are vital in human consciousness. What they are - in essence - are images or pictures. How we envision or picture the world, reality, and truth is important and can lead to success or failure depending how one envisions reality. Imagine how Michelangelo's angel would have turned out if his inner picture was in reality an image of the hunchback of Notre Dame. What - and how - we "envision" is pivotal, in my view, to the ability to function effectively - and with some modicum of balance. So, our "awareness" of pictures, symbols and symbolism in our minds - and how we envision "reality and the "truth" is vital! Michelangelo is also an excellent illustration of the human desire to "touch" or "be touched" by the divine!
Abstract: Human beings live in an unbelievably complex and intricately sophisticated society and world. Social media is a would unto itself with an almost unlimited capacity to access information and communicate. So, it would stand to reason and seem an inescapable conclusion that human beings - simply in order to function in any reasonably efficient manner must -without question - have some form of social consciousness. Just to process the massive amounts of social-political-religious information, a human being would require some social consciousness. In fact, John Bargh, an Unconscious researcher, argues that stereotypes and norms form a social consciousness or structure of some sort.
Western Civilization – compared to Asian culture – is well known to [over]emphasize the individual. Hazel Markus, Shinobu Kitayama, Rachel Heiman, the authors of the chapter Culture and “Basic” Psychological Principles, of the over 700 plus page Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles, state rather boldly – and unequivocally - that “Psychologists who study groups approach the idea of a group as an entity only very gingerly." Floyd Allport, with the "help" of his brother Gordon Allport, in 1927 stated unequivocally that “Only within the individual can we find the behavior mechanisms and the consciousness which are fundamental in the interactions between people ………There is no psychology of groups which is not essentially and entirely a psychology of individuals.” In the book, Mossbridge and Barušs briefly talk about the materialist understanding of consciousness as a “byproduct of the neurology and biochemistry of the brain” (p. 24) and how modern science has actually produced dogma, generally lacking in objectivity, which is “impervious to mere evidence.” (p. 24)
In my view, Maslow’s concept of “self-actualization” is, to a large degree a reflection of this dogmatic nonsense that consciousness is confined entirely to the firing of neurons in the brain. It would also likely be a reason why the “Psychology of Religion” appears to have bypassed or overlooked the “Teachings of Religion!” Furthermore, I advocate several "new" concepts such as the "Teachings of Religion such as compassion, righteousness, justice, duty-covenant, sacred, etc as a Social consciousness. In the five Psychology of Religion books I have, there is no mention of the 'Teachings of Religion." One book did have 6 or 7 references to "compassion" - but no mention was made of "teachings." Furthermore, there were an equal number of references to Freud. On top of that I google searched "teachings of religions" several times and found only one essay comparing Christianity to Hinduism. In my view, teaching about religion and leaving out the "teachings of religions" would be like educating people about birds and leaving out the fact that they have wings. Lastly it would incredibly clear to me that the teachings of religions are a form of social consciousness.
Setting the Stage
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was a “theory” drawn up by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Maslow focused on the psychological forces at work in human lives of physiological, safety, belonging and love, self-esteem, and self-actualization characteristics. Later he added "self-transcendence." Maslow's theory sets forth the principle of stepping stones or stages a person must move through and that the basic needs must be met before a person will desire higher level needs.
Maslow's Theory, published in 1943 - though mainstream psychology has largely abandoned Maslow - seems to have been not thoroughly critiqued since many still embrace Maslow. A theory of religion should in at least a minimal way somehow approximate the reality of spiritual and religious beliefs. When you look at the psychologies of religion, on close examination, generally, they do not include
Refutation of Geertz
Geertz's almost universally accepted definition of religion in which any concept of spirit was absent was not questioned or challenged for 50 years. As Ira Chernus pointed out in an essay-blog he has now pulled down, Chernus pointed out that Geertz's five-part definition has been universally accepted in the social sciences since it was first published in 1965. In reviewing Geertz's definition, I noticed that the five-part definition excluded "spirit" and from my research - to the best of my knowledge - every religion, including Buddhism, has some kind of concept of "spirit!" I happened to be reading Brian Hayden's book Shamans, Sorcerers and Saints, so, since he is an anthropologist like Geertz, I emailed him and asked him in light of the fact that all religions have a concept of "spirit" whether Geertz's definition of religion was incorrect. Much to my surprise, Hayden agreed - in spite of the fact that in his book Hayden cites Geertz's definition and states that he accepts Geertz's definition in his book.
A Refutation of Freud
A brief critique of another "great" - Freud would be in order. Although Frankl questioned a 1,000-page Freudian analysis of an artist since Freudian interpretation is really, in truth, all "interpretation," no one questioned Freud seriously until recently the 'unconscious' psychologist, Bargh, has astutely pointed out that Freud "demonizes" the unconscious needs, drives, and emotions - which can seriously mislead people in their understanding of themselves and others. So, for nearly 100 years no one questioned the seriously unprofessional - even skewed - ideas of Freud. Alfred Rupert Sheldrake, who is an author, and scientist who worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973, is among a number of psychologists and scientists (as well as my own personal observations), who observe that “[S]ome people have made science into a kind of religion and are often exceptionally dogmatic. They accept the scientific worldview on faith, impressed by the authority and prestige of scientists,….” (p.161) Some people do accept Freud at face value. For example, one aspect of Freud's Oedipal Complex is the story of a son who murders his father then fornicates with his mother.
Maslow
A close examination of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs would seem to reveal some legitimate questions that need to be asked. Before launching into a critique, I should emphasize that Viktor Frankl, Carl Jung, Clifford Geertz, Roy Baumeister, Paul Wong, as well as many existential and positive psychologists all agree that human beings have a powerful Need for Meaning. Besides Carl Jung, who had a working concept of "spirit" and argued that spiritual processes generate meaning(s), Viktor Frankl, the brilliant psychoanalyst, also highlighted and emphasized the importance of spirituality in human consciousness: "The noetic (spiritual, specifically human) dimension contains such qualities as our will to meaning, our goal orientation, ideas and ideals, creativity, imagination, faith, love that goes beyond the physical, a conscience beyond the superego, self-transcendence, commitments, responsibility, a sense of humor, and the freedom of choice making." (Batth anthology p. 156.) According to Frankl, meaning, compassion and other positive psychological resources belong to the spiritual dimension.” (p.156 Batth anthology) Paul Wong observes: “Park (2007) regards religion and spirituality as meaning systems.
Any objective view of religions and religious beliefs would reveal "structures" or "systems of symbols" (in Geertz's terminology) saturated with meaning and relationships. Religions would seem to consist of three things: meaning(s); others/relationships; and structures of meaning or ideology. Following that line of thought, then, the causes and drivers for the formation of religious beliefs and religions would be a Need for Meaning, a Need to Belong (which the prominent social psychologist Roy Baumeister argues is the most powerful need or drive in the human being), and a Need for Ideology (history shows humans are creatures of ideology much more than they are "rational individuals").
I should preface my critique of Maslow by saying there is much of what Maslow writes which would appear to be right on target - as it were. Maslow's description of the dichotomy of science and religion, in that science, as Einstein points out avoids "ideals" and values while religion frequently ignores much of rational analysis, would appear to be 100% correct. Maslow's Theory of a Hierarchy of Needs, however, would seem to be an oversimplification which appears somewhat artificial.
There would also seem to be a deeper philosophical conflict as well. Maslow states, in his book, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, "small r religion is quite compatible, at higher levels of personal development, with rationality, with social passion....[which can] easily integrate the healthily animal, material, and selfish with the naturalistically transcendent, spiritual, and axiological." (p.xiii) As a generalization Maslow would seem to portray religion as very worldly and ordinary. Personally, I see one aspect of spirit and spirituality as, for all practical purposes, a "force of nature" which in some circumstances is not easily tamed or civilized. In a nutshell Maslow appear to attempt to "normalize" religious beliefs and spirituality.
Hermann Hesse, the author of the iconic novel, Steppenwolf, through his character of Steppenwolf portrays the ordinary worldly individual as a person who is primarily concerned with constructing and maintaining their personal self - as well as being focused on "preservation and security" - which the ordinary person "prefers to being possessed by God." (p. 90) Hesse compares the "possession by God" and Spirit to a 'deathly inner consuming fire!" (p. 90) That is, Hesse portrays worldly "personal development" and "naturalistic transcendence" as antithetical to the inner "consuming fire" of spirit and spirituality. My personal grasp of spirit and spirituality is that it is, indeed, a force to contend with. In opposition to Maslow's "naturalistic transcendence", I would argue that there are transcendental spiritual experiences which are not necessarily "naturalistic" - or normal! I would argue that there will most likely always be an edge to spirit and spirituality which can never be normalized.
Esteem, Self-Esteem, and Psychological Needs
I must confess that, in all truth and honesty, at times, I cannot make heads or tails of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Take for instance the characteristic of esteem, including self-esteem and other psychological characteristics, as reflected in the lives of Lev Tolstoy and al Ghazali. Both the brilliant Russian novelist-thinker Lev Tolstoy and the famous Muslim Cleric, the "Proof of Islam," al Ghazali had severe spiritual crises which involved a drastic loss of confidence and self-esteem at the pinnacles of their careers. After writing War and Peace Tolstoy had a severe personal crisis and became despondent and depressed in spite of his spectacular success as a novelist as well as his popularity. As a result of his spiritual crisis, he rejected rationalism as providing a sufficient explanation of the "meaning of life." He concluded that embracing the meaning of life is an act of faith and went on to write about Christian beliefs and spirituality. The same thing happened to al Ghazali. At the pinnacle of his career as the head of the Bagdad University, known as the center of the Islamic world, that he also had a severe personal crisis. His spiritual crisis was so severe that he lost the ability to speak which undermined his position as a lecturer. He left his position and joined the Sufis, being in prayer and meditation for hours on end every day. He also rejected rationalized esteem, as a sufficient means for explaining spirit and God in his book, The Incoherence of Philosophy. On the face of it, it would seem to be that it was a loss of confidence and self-esteem which led to spiritual crises and put them on the path to "enlightenment" - the exact opposite of what Maslow says. In fact, one could argue that the spirit and spirituality "drive" would appear to be designed to transcend ego and self-esteem - which means, that, in a sense, that drive is arrayed in conflict with ordinary psychological needs. A very basic question is that Maslow, to my knowledge, does not cite any studies or evidence or facts to bolster his case - which is what science is all about.
Also, the concept of “self-esteem,” as used by Maslow on the ladder of the Hierarchy of Needs is, in essence, a fabricated or artificial concept. You cannot measure self-esteem or put it under a microscope. To my knowledge the only measurement of esteem and self-esteem is by self-reports, which are not the most reliable means of measurement. unreliable. In discussions about religious beliefs and spirituality, I often run across the argument that “spirit” cannot be measured and that is why psychology doesn’t deal with spirit – and it is true they have not dealt with spirit. In fact, psychology has not done a proper study of people who have spiritual or psychic experiences to find out how many people have experiences, what kind of experiences, how often and how these experiences affect their lives, since the inception of psychology (with the exception of an “exploratory” study by Kennedy. Secondly from studies by social psychologists, it has been demonstrated that self-esteem is NOT involved in motivations of people to JOIN groups - though self-esteem does play a role in peoples’ desire to stay in groups. So, the question is for what reason and why would Maslow think that self-esteem would be a stage leading to further spiritual development. Again, spiritual need would seem to be the driver not spiritual self-satisfaction. As the philosopher Solomon observed, it is the “drive” to achieve a goal that produces satisfaction and definitely Not the satisfaction from achievement of a goal. Another psychologist, whose name escapes me at the moment, highlighted a study of professionals like doctors and attorneys which showed that after they achieved the goal of becoming a doctor or attorney, they were actually pretty unhappy. He observed that the achievement of a goal does not necessarily produce happiness as much as the striving for the goal does.
Furthermore, Jung remarks about the Buddha: "In order to attain this final goal [enlightenment] it was necessary to pass through all the laborious exercises of mental reconstruction, to get free of the deluded ego-consciousness which is responsible for the sorrowful illusion of the world, and to reach that other pole of the psyche where the world as illusion is abolished." Self-esteem would seem to bring ego into play while Buddhism as well as the Christian principle of kenosis (emptying oneself) would indicate the opposite of self-esteem. Further, the prominent psychologists Mossbridge and Baruss, in their book, Transcendent Mind, who review studies of the "materialism-transcendent" consciousness continuum, note that, "Also scoring higher on transcendence was negatively correlated with social recognition, so that those who tended toward transcendence were less likely to care what others thought about them...." (p.28) It would seem likely then that a drive toward "self-esteem" would likely discourage "transcendence" and encourage actions directed at achieving social recognition. First, it should be noted that any generalization about religious beliefs is likely to fall short. In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Maslow makes a number of generalizations, and on top of that forces these generalizations into the very rigid and static format of a "hierarchy." So, on the merits of esteem and psychological needs, Maslow falls short. In evaluating the "science of psychology" overall, a very relevant question was why Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was never properly critiqued.
The Bottom Tier of the Pyramid: Physiological Needs
The article, Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations in The World Magazine. United States is among the rich countries that buck the trend, summarizes a study done by Gallup in 2010: “Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below $5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country's socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world's poorest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 -- is 47%.” (2) That directly controverts Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs principle that basic physiological needs need to be satisfied before “advancing in religious beliefs.”
So, one might ask why is this happening. Clifford Geertz, Roy Baumeister, Viktor Frankl, Paul Wong, as well as many other positive and existential psychologist argue forcefully that human beings have a powerful Need for Meaning which one could readily assume to be pivotal in religious beliefs. Further, Roy Baumeister noted that men who reach a dead end in their careers and at that point cannot find "meaning" in their jobs, then frequently turn to family affairs in order to get meaning, as it were, by more intimately connecting with their families. By analogy, I would argue that people who cannot find meaning in worldly affairs, people who are impoverished, and cannot achieve sufficient satisfaction from their material needs, then those very same poor people will be driven to find meaning in other ways – in “other worldly” or divine ways. That is, because man cannot achieve meaning through worldly ways man turns to finding meaning in the "other-worldly - the divine and transcendental spirituality.
It is significant to this discussion that a healthy portion of Christian theology advocates repressing physiological needs and the desires of the flesh. St. Gregory of Nyssa, an early Christian mystic who argues that God is beyond comprehension and beyond words, states in his work, Song of Songs, “The soul must transform passion into passionless so that when every corporeal affection has been quenched, our mind may seethe with passion for the spirit alone and be warmed by that fire which the Lord came to cast upon the earth. [Lk 12.49]” (p49) Also, it should be noted that some of Buddha’s “enlightenment” came to fruition in part as a result of his ascetic or self-denial state of mind. Furthermore, in Buddhism, the pivotal concept of detachment (and self-denial) expressed in the Pali word, “nekkhamma”, especially in early translations of Buddhist literature meant “detachment” or “renunciation.” Also, the [original] pinnacle of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was “self-actualization,” and Buddha’s concept of “anatta” means explicitly “no-self!”
Link to website: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/
Addendum
On a Biblical Theology Facebook Group, Michael Thweatt was kind enough to post an excellent article which highlighted the fact that at the end of Maslow's life, it is a little-known fact that Maslow revised his "Theory of the Hierarchy of Needs." At the end Maslow did alter his theory a little bit: "Although Maslow felt that intrinsic values are not ‘fully evident or actualized (made real and functionally existing) in most people’, he also wrote that the full definition of the person or of human nature must include them: ‘they are not excluded as potentials in any human being born into the world’ (pp.304–305). ‘The so-called spiritual…life is clearly rooted in the biological nature of the species’ (p.315)." That is, Maslow finally included some intrinsic values such as justice, order, universal acceptance of others - which could otherwise be described as compassion for other. And compassion is a vital and pivotal concept in every major religion.
The article goes on to say: "The fully developed (and very fortunate) human being, working under the best conditions tends to be motivated by values which transcend his self. They are not selfish anymore in the old sense of that term. Beauty is not within one’s skin nor is justice or order. One can hardly class these desires as selfish in the sense that my desire for food might be. My satisfaction with achieving or allowing justice is not within my own skin; it does not lie along my arteries. It is equally outside and inside: therefore, it has transcended the geographical limitations of the self. (Maslow, 1969, p.4)." That being said, I should note in passing that the religious scholar Fraser Watts, in his book, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality, observed, "the vast majority of religions have emphasized love and compassion, peace and reconciliation, and justice and fairness." (p.98)
Plus, the major criticism in my essay was that a rigid pyramid of a hierarchy of needs doesn't appear to stand up to a proper analysis of the facts and that a rigid progression from one stage to the next before proceeding further seems unwarranted. Further I have seen no studies or evidence that esteem, self-esteem, or psychological needs would play any truly significant role in a drive for self-attainment.
Lastly, I object that Maslow throws his theory together and puts forward, to my knowledge, no serious studies or facts to back it up. Furthermore, I would question Maslow's concept of transcendence (he uses transcending self-centered values with values based on compassion) and it doesn't appear to truly represent "transcendence" in its fullest meaning.
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-27/december-2014/maslows-hierarchy-needs-sixth-level?fbcli...
Post Mortem:
I would like to point out that for the definition of religion in terms of a Need for Meaning, a Need to Belong, and a Need for Ideology, contrary to Maslow's theory, there is an abundance of studies to support it. The existential and positive psychologists have done a ton of studies which demonstrate the pivotal significance of meaning for a sense of well-being, health, as well as for spirituality and religious beliefs. Lynch's book cites a huge (over many decades) medical study done of heart disease which demonstrated that lonely, widowed, or divorced people had a much higher mortality rate. That coupled with the obvious social nature of human beings would demonstrate a very powerful Need to Belong. And history shows that people have fought and died for nationalistic, ethnic, and religious ideologies since the dawn of civilization so it would seem rather self-evident that human beings have a strong instinct/need for ideologies related to group formation. Contrast that to the evidence Maslow presents.
Preface:
I should preface my critique of Maslow by saying there is much of what Maslow writes which would appear to be right on target - as it were. Maslow's description of the dichotomy of science and religion, in that science, as Einstein points out avoids "ideals" and values while religion frequently ignores much of rational analysis, would appear to be 100% correct. Maslow's Theory of a Hierarchy of Needs, however, would seem to be an oversimplification which appears somewhat artificial.
There would also seem to be a deeper philosophical conflict as well. Maslow states, in his book, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, "small r religion is quite compatible, at higher levels of personal development, with rationality, with social passion.....[which can] easily integrate the healthily animal, material, and selfish with the naturalistically transcendent, spiritual, and axiological." (p.xiii) As a generalization Maslow would seem to portray religion as very worldly and ordinary. Personally, I see one aspect of spirit and spirituality as, for all practical purposes, a "force of nature" which in some circumstances is not easily tamed or civilized. In a nutshell Maslow appear to attempt to "normalize" religious beliefs and spirituality.
Hermann Hesse, the author of the iconic novel, Steppenwolf, through his character of Steppenwolf portrays the ordinary worldly individual as a person who is primarily concerned with constructing and maintaining their personal self - as well as being focused on "preservation and security" - which the ordinary person "prefers to being possessed by God." (p. 90) Hesse compares the "possession by God" and Spirit to a 'deathly inner consuming fire!" (p. 90) That is, Hesse portrays worldly "personal development" and "naturalistic transcendence" as antithetical to the inner "consuming fire" of spirit and spirituality. My personal grasp of spirit and spirituality is that it is, indeed, a force to contend with. In opposition to Maslow's "naturalistic transcendence", I would argue that there are transcendental spiritual experiences which are not necessarily "naturalistic" - or normal! I would argue that there will most likely always be an edge to spirit and spirituality which can never be normalized.
Esteem, Self-Esteem, and Psychological Needs
I must confess that, in all truth and honesty, at times, I cannot make heads or tails of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Take for instance the characteristic of esteem, including self-esteem and other psychological characteristics, as reflected in the lives of Lev Tolstoy and al Gahazali. Both the brilliant Russian novelist-thinker Lev Tolstoy and the famous Muslim Cleric, the "Proof of Islam," al Ghazali had severe spiritual crises which involved a drastic loss of confidence and self esteem at the pinnacles of their careers. After writing War and Peace Tolstoy had a severe personal crisis and became despondent and depressed in spite of his spectacular success as a novelist as well as his popularity. As a result of his spiritual crisis he rejected rationalism as providing a sufficient explanation of the "meaning of life." He concluded that embracing the meaning of life is an act of faith and went on to write about Christian beliefs and spirituality. The same thing happened to al Ghazali. At the pinnacle of his career as the head of the Bagdad University, known as the center of the Islamic world, that he also had a severe personal crisis. His spiritual crisis was so severe that he lost the ability to speak which undermined his position as a lecturer. He left his position and joined the Sufis, being in prayer and meditation for hours on end every day. He also rejected rationaliesteem, sm as a sufficient means for explaining spirit and god in his book, The Incoherence of Philosophy. The would seem to be that it was a loss of confidence and self-esteem which led to spiritual crises and put them on the path to "enlightenment" - the exact opposite of what Maslow says. In fact one could argue that the spirit and spirituality "drive" would appear to be designed to transcend ego and self-esteem - which means, that, in a sense, that drive is arrayed in conflict with ordinary psychological needs. A very basic question is that Maslow, to my knowledge, does not cite any studies or evidence or facts to bolster his case - which is what science is all about.
Also, the concept of “self-esteem,” as used by Maslow on the ladder of the Hierarchy of Needs is, in essence, a fabricated or artificial concept. You cannot measure self-esteem or put it under a microscope. To my knowledge the only measurement of esteem and self-esteem is by self-reports, which are not the most reliable means of measurement. unreliable. In discussions about religious beliefs and spirituality, I often run across the argument that “spirit” cannot be measured and that is why psychology doesn’t deal with spirit – and it is true they have not dealt with spirit.
In researching spiritual-psychic experiences, studies mostly focus on "abstractions." Very few actually talk about peoples' personal experiences. One notable exception are two studies of peoples' experiences in the spirituality of grieving. Two studies actually shoed that spiritual and spiritual-psychic experiences do facilitate grieving. In general however finding peoples' real experiences or underlying attitudes are like hen's teeth. For instance a study of experiences in Iceland revealed numerous experiences of visions of deceased people but failed to mention the real life circumstances. It would seem likely may of these experiences were involved in grieving on one form or another. So, in my view, psychology has not done a proper study of people who have spiritual or psychic experiences to find out how many people have experiences, what kind of experiences, how often and how these experiences affect their lives, since the inception of psychology (with the exception of an “exploratory” study by Kennedy.
What is worse, Dr. Neal told me she ahs no training in peoples' spirituality which Kaiser Permanente quality management confirmed this fact. So, what (incomplete) studies that have been done are excluded from mainstream psychology due to materialist dogma that all spirituality is superstitious nonsense. Consistent studies demonstrate that somewhere between one third to one half of people have spiritual or spiritual-psychic experiences. In America that would mean that - minimally there would be 100 million America people (also know as citizens) who have spiritual experiences.
Secondly from studies by social psychologists, it has been demonstrated that self-esteem is NOT involved in motivations of people to JOIN groups - though self-esteem does play a role in peoples’ desire to stay in groups. So, the question is for what reason and why would Maslow think that self-esteem would be a stage leading to further spiritual development. Again, spiritual need would seem to be the driver not spiritual self-satisfaction. As the philosopher Solomon observed, it is the “drive” to achieve a goal that produces satisfaction and definitely Not the satisfaction from achievement of a goal. Another psychologist, whose name escapes me at the moment, highlighted a study of professionals like doctors and attorneys which showed that after they achieved the goal of becoming a doctor or attorney, they were actually pretty unhappy. He observed that the achievement of a goal does not necessarily produce happiness as much as the striving for the goal does.
Furthermore, Jung remarks about the Buddha: "In order to attain this final goal [enlightenment] it was necessary to pass through all the laborious exercises of mental reconstruction, to get free of the deluded ego-consciousness which is responsible for the sorrowful illusion of the world, and to reach that other pole of the psyche where the world as illusion is abolished." Self-esteem would seem to bring ego into play while Buddhism as well as the Christian principle of kenosis (emptying oneself) would indicate the opposite of self esteem. Further, the prominent psychologists Mossbridge and Baruss, in their book, Transcendent Mind, who review studies of the "materialism-transcendent" consciousness continuum, note that, "Also scoring higher on transcendence was negatively correlated with social recognition, so that those who tended toward transcendence were less likely to care what others thought thought about them...." (p.28)
It would seem likely then that a drive toward "self-esteem" would likely discourage "transcendence" and encourage actions directed at achieving social recognition. First, it should be noted that any generalization about religious beliefs is likely to fall short. In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Maslow makes a number of generalizations, and on top of that forces these generalizations into the very rigid and static format of a "hierarchy." So, on the merits of esteem and psychological needs, Maslow falls short. In evaluating the "science of psychology" overall, a very relevant question was why Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was never properly critiqued.
The Bottom Tier of the Pyramid: Physiological Needs
The World magazine’s article , Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations; United States is among the rich countries that buck the trend , summarizes a study done by Gallup in 2010: “Each of the most religious countries is relatively poor, with a per-capita GDP below $5,000. This reflects the strong relationship between a country's socioeconomic status and the religiosity of its residents. In the world's poorest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes of $2,000 or lower -- the median proportion who say religion is important in their daily lives is 95%. In contrast, the median for the richest countries -- those with average per-capita incomes higher than $25,000 -- is 47%.” (2) That directly controverts Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs principle that basic physiological needs need to be satisfied before “advancing in religious beliefs.”
So, one might ask why is this happening. Clifford Geertz, Roy Baumeister, Viktor Frankl, Paul Wong, as well as many other positive and existential psychologist argue forcefully that human beings have a powerful Need for Meaning which one could readily assume to be pivotal in religious beliefs. Further, Roy Baumeister noted that men who reach a dead end in their careers and at that point cannot find "meaning" in their jobs, then frequently turn to family affairs in order to get meaning, as it were, by more intimately connecting with their families. By analogy, I would argue that people who cannot find meaning in worldly affairs, people who are impoverished, and cannot achieve sufficient satisfaction from their material needs, then those very same poor people will be driven to find meaning in other ways – in “other worldly” or divine ways. That is, because man cannot achieve meaning through worldly ways man turns to finding meaning in the "other-worldly - the divine and transcendental spirituality.
It is significant to this discussion that a healthy portion of Christian theology advocates repressing physiological needs and the desires of the flesh. St. Gregory of Nyssa, an early Christian mystic who argues that God is beyond comprehension and beyond words, states in his work, Song of Songs, “The soul must transform passion into passionless so that when every corporeal affection has been quenched, our mind may seethe with passion for the spirit alone and be warmed by that fire which the Lord came to cast upon the earth. [Lk 12.49]” (p49) Also, it should be noted that some of Buddha’s “enlightenment” came to fruition in part as a result of his ascetic or self-denial state of mind. Furthermore, in Buddhism, the pivotal concept of detachment (and self-denial) expressed in the Pali word, “nekkhamma”, especially in early translations of Buddhist literature meant “detachment” or “renunciation.” Also, the [original] pinnacle of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was “self-actualization,” and Buddha’s concept of “anatta” means explicitly “no-self!”
Link to website: https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/
Addendum
On a Biblical Theology Facebook Group, Michael Thweatt was kind enough to post an excellent article which highlighted the fact that at the end of Maslow's life, it is a little known fact that Maslow revised his "Theory of the Hierarchy of Needs." At the end Maslow did alter his theory a little bit: "Although Maslow felt that intrinsic values are not ‘fully evident or actualized (made real and functionally existing) in most people’, he also wrote that the full definition of the person or of human nature must include them: ‘they are not excluded as potentials in any human being born into the world’ (pp.304–305). ‘The so-called spiritual…life is clearly rooted in the biological nature of the species’ (p.315)." That is, Maslow finally included some intrinsic values such as justice, order, universal acceptance of others - which could otherwise be described as compassion for other. And compassion is a vital and pivotal concept in every major religion.
The article goes on to say: "The fully developed (and very fortunate) human being, working under the best conditions tends to be motivated by values which transcend his self. They are not selfish anymore in the old sense of that term. Beauty is not within one’s skin nor is justice or order. One can hardly class these desires as selfish in the sense that my desire for food might be. My satisfaction with achieving or allowing justice is not within my own skin; it does not lie along my arteries. It is equally outside and inside: therefore, it has transcended the geographical limitations of the self.
(Maslow, 1969, p.4)." That being said, I should note im passing that the Religious scholar Fraser Watts, in his book, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality, observed, "the vast majority of religions have emphasized love and compassion, peace and reconciliation, and justice and fairness." (p.98)
Plus the major criticism in my essay was that a rigid pyramid of a hierarchy of needs doesn't appear to stand up to a proper analysis of the facts and that a rigid progression from one stage to the next before proceeding further seems unwarranted. Further I have seen no studies or evidence that esteem, self-esteem, or psychological needs would play any truly significant role in a drive for self-attainment.
Lastly, I object that Maslow throws his theory together and puts forward, to my knowledge, no serious studies or facts to back it up - except a study by a University which demonstrated that fulfilling spiritual needs produces happiness (not exactly earth shaking. Furthermore, I would question Maslow's concept of transcendence (he uses transcending self-centered values with values based on compassion) and it doesn't appear to truly represent "transcendence" in its fullest meaning.
Post Mortem:
I would like to point out that for the definition of religion in terms of a Need for Meaning, a Need to Belong, and a Need for Ideology, contrary to Maslow's theory, there is an abundance of studies to support it. The existential and positive psychologists have done a ton of studies which demonstrate the pivotal significance of meaning for a sense of well being, health, as well as for spirituality and religious beliefs. Lynch's book cites a huge (over many decades) medical study done of heart disease which demonstrated that lonely, widowed, or divorced people had a much higher mortality rate. That coupled with the obvious social nature of human beings would demonstrate a very powerful Need to Belong. And history shows that people have fought and died for nationalistic, ethnic, and religious ideologies since the dawn of civilization so it would seem rather self-evident that human beings have a strong instinct/need for ideologies related to group formation. Contrast that to the evidence Maslow presents.
written by Charles E Peck Jr.
Hopefully, you will consider making a donation! - Or, possibly becoming a Patron!
My writing and ideas are born of passion, which is inspired and driven by a few personal spiritual experiences. Many people find inspiration and creativity in spirituality. While I don’t claim to have The Answer, from personal experiences and from substantial research I can Help by providing tools and analyses which will help some envision "reality" a little better.
If any have found my writing helpful, please consider assisting my efforts to remain independent and able to focus on research and writing. I am retired and on fixed income. Your support would make all the difference.
Paypal Donation Button Below
Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck Jr. Copyright ©
References and Footnotes
Profile of Dr. James Doty: https://profiles.stanford.edu/james-doty
The Center for Compassion And Altruism Research And Education: http://ccare.stanford.edu/
American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/
John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
Viktor Frankl:
http://www.viktor-frankl.com/
Dr. Harold Koenig:
https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Roy Baumeister:
http://www.roybaumeister.com/
Dr. Paul Wong: http://www.drpaulwong.com/
Emile Durkheim: http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/
William James: https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726
Dr Amit Sood Mindfulness: https://www.mindfulleader.org/amit-sood
Keith Karren – Body, Mind, Spirit:
http://pgrpdf.abhappybooks.com/mind-body-health-keith-j-karren-ph-d-pdf-5716009.pdf
St. Augustine (Catholic source):
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418
St. Gregory of Nyssa (wikiorg):
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_of_Nyssa
Abraham Joshua Heschel:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abraham-joshua-heschel-a-prophets-prophet/