Viktor Frankl,
observed, back in the 1940’s, “The pictures by which the individual sciences
depict reality have become so disparate, so different from each other, that it
has become more and more difficult to obtain a fusion of the different
pictures.” (p. 7 will) That is, the different disciplines and schools of thought
in science, and it seems especially in psychology, effectively become largely separate and disconnected
entities! Furthermore, t he current trend seems, generally, to be toward "specialization" which only aggravates the disconnect, as it were.
Brief Summary and Abstract:
Frankl’s insight was very prophetic. To illustrate his point I highlight the content of a textbook on Aging taken from a local university. First, it is important to grasp that the Need for Meaning, which is advocated by Viktor Frankl, Roy Baumeister, Paul Wong, as well as Clifford Geertz, is excluded completely from the Aging textbook. Further, the idea of meaning is for all practical purposes pretty much left out altogether. Also, one should consider that, for instance, The Human Quest for Meaning,
which is an anthology of 46 existential and positive psychologists is also excluded. Not one existential or positive psychologist is mentioned at all. Further, the most salient concept in social psychology
today, most probably, would be the “Need to Belong” which is also not mentioned in the Aging textbook. Lastly, even though the textbook is about Aging, there is no real focus on grief psychologists and no mention is made of the famous grief psychologist, Neimeyer who emphasizes the process of “meaning reconstruction” during bereavement and grieving. The different schools of thought in psychology, on the face of it, appear so separate, and so disconnected, it would seem almost as if the different schools of thought are, in truth, from different planets.
Psychology is Not Psychology!
In order to grasp the larger picture of psychology and see how psychologists understand and portray the human being, I feel it is necessary to understand that psychology is not psychology - as most people would understand it. Many people would assume that one psychologist would be much like any other psychologist. That is not true at all. Viktor Frankl, observed back in the 1940’s “The pictures by which the individual sciences depict reality have become so disparate, so different from each other, that it has become more and more difficult to obtain a fusion of the different pictures.” (p. 7 will) Nowhere does that seem more true than in the "science" of psychology. Psychology is actually several Psychologies . For instance there is "mainstream" psychology, Jungian psychology, social psychology, self and identity psychology, narrative psychology, the 'nonconscious' school of psychology, cognitive psychology, which held sway for the longest time, grief psychology, existential psychology, positive psychology, and finally, last but not "least", parapsychology. Some people I speak with seem to take the assumption that psychology 'knows' what they are doing and further assume psychology has some unified "model" or comprehensive theory of what the human being is all about. With the disjointed nature of the psychology's different schools of thought that would simply not be realistically feasible.
An Illustration of Frankl's Disconnect
To illustrate my point, an analysis of the textbook on Aging that is offered in a course at Towson University should shed some light on the subject. The prominent social psychologist, Roy Baumeister, the famous anthropologist Clifford Geertz, Viktor Frankl, and Paul Wong, the iconic positive psychologist, as well as other existential and positive psychologists all argue that human being have a powerful Need for Meaning, or drive to understand. In spite of this, in the ‘Aging’ textbook there is no mention at all of this Need for Meaning, Yet existential and positive psychologists have done numerous studies of the pivotal role of meaning in a person's sense of well-being and mental health. In fact, there was hardly any mention of "meaning" at all. This is actually true of four Introduction to Psychology (older) textbooks I purchased (used). In Introductory textbooks, one might think the first chapter would be about meaning and the Need for Meaning.
Also, in Existential and Positive psychology, largely inspired by Viktor Frankl's pivotal concept of man's Will to Meaning, there are almost innumerable studies, not only about meaning, but numerous studies about the pivotal role of spirituality as well. In the anthology, The Human Quest For Meaning, involving 46 psychologists edited by Paul Wong, much of this researched is laid out and articulated. Yet in the textbook on ‘Aging’, as I mentioned earlier, not a single positive or existential psychologist is mentioned. It is like Existential and Positive psychology is from a different planet that “Mainstream” psychology.
It is also ironic that the prominent grief psychologist Neimeyer is not brought up in a book about ‘Aging.’ It is very salient, in my mind, that Neimeyer also emphasizes the role of meaning and argues that the process of grieving and bereavement is a process of meaning reconstruction and he also argues that spirituality also plays a role. While the ‘Aging’ textbook has a brief and rather bland summation of religious beliefs there is nothing like how the existential and positive psychologist portray the role of religious beliefs and spirituality in human thought and consciousness. meaning reconstruction and spirituality are pivotal in grieving and bereavement processes.
It is also significant that, while the book discusses relationships there is no discussion of the need to belong which has been very successfully promulgated by the prominent social psychologist, Roy Baumeister. From my research into social psychologist, I would only remark that any social psychologist who is anybody in social psychology quotes Baumeister’s need to belong. Again, it is as if social psychology, as well as grief psychology, are from a different planet from psychology. Of course there weren't any references to Jungian psychology either.
"Body-Mind-Spirit" Medicine and Psychology versus the Physiological Bias in Psychology
The bottom line is that the research into spirituality and meaning are not getting into “mainstream” or orthodox psychology. As Carl Jung and several existential and positive psychologists have highlighted, mainstream psychology has a definite bias toward understanding the human mind largely in terms of physiology. It is interesting that in medical science there is a trend in viewing a human being in terms of a “body-mind-spirit” paradigm. For instance, there is the book, Body, Mind, Spirit, written by Keith Karren, PHD which highlights all the studies and research into spirituality which has been done that shows spirituality produces beneficial health-responses. For instance, Karren argues that the emotion of “optimism” has a profound beneficial effect on the immunes system and states “that has been a consistent finding of more than five hundred studies conducted over a period of more than thirty years….” (p. 62)
It is interesting to note that the ancient Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, initially proposed the “body-mind-spirit” paradigm though thousands of years earlier primitive peoples had three levels for their idea of “spirit” roughly equivalent to the body-mind-spirit paradigm. Dr. Harold G. Koenig of Duke University Medical Center, a prolific author and researcher argues in his article, Religion And Medicine IV: Religion, Physical health, and Clinical Implications (1), that spirituality is pivotal in peoples’ health, citing evidence such as studies of blood pressure. The Mayo clinic doctor, Dr. Amit Sood, wrote a book which emphasizes that spirituality is pivotal in resilience to sickness and disease and helpful in reducing stress, as well as for a strong sense of well-being.
Mainstream Psychology - Self and Identity Psychology:An Illustration of Frankl's Disconnect!
In 1882, Stanley Hall published studies of adolescences who have spiritual experiences in which he demonstrated convincingly that adolescents do seem to have a tendency and predisposition for having spiritual experiences. Currently there is even a journal that specializes in childhood and adolescents' spiritual experiences. However, in a rather comprehensive handbook of studies and concepts about self and Identity (of over 700 pages), there is not one single reference to either "spirit" or "spirituality." The superstitious stigma attached to spirit and spirituality is incredibly powerful and, in my view, seriously negatively affected psychology both scientifically as well as ethically.
A Precursory View of Maryland Universities
When I took a precursory look at courses offered by Maryland Universities, and in spite of the fact that the medical doctor and author, Harold Koenig, states that half of the medical universities in the US now offer courses in spirituality, I could find no spirituality courses offered at Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins Hospital is, of course, world famous. I should mention in passing that from what my daughter, who is a nurse, says, nursing colleges do offer courses in spirituality. Besides finding no spirituality courses at Johns Hopkins University (an employee I am an acquaintance of also said to her knowledge, there are no course in spirituality at Johns Hopkins University), I also found no courses in spirituality offered at University of Maryland Baltimore County, Towson University, or even at Loyola University. Though Loyola University, probably because it is a Catholic University does offer a course in 'The Psychology of Religion.' Also a Towson University student did mention in passing that Towson University does require what the student seemed to describe as a 'history' course in the major religions. Lastly, I should mention that, in talking with a mathematics professor from the University of Maryland, when I brought up the issue of Frankl's disconnect in psychology, the mathematics professor, said that there are largely separate and distinct schools of thought in the mathematics field, as well.
Bringing in 'Outside' Ideas into Jung's Concept of the Collective Unconscious
I should note that I am self-taught. For six or seven years I researched the question of religious beliefs and spirituality, by going to the library each and every day and reading research material. I studied the whole gamut of social sciences: psychology, social psychology, sociology neuroscience, anthropology, primatology, ethology, parapsychology, religions, a bit of theology, some Biblical studies (especially Jeremiah), and some philosophy. If I had been trained or educated through ordinary academic channels, I would not have grasped that the different schools of thought in psychology and social psychology are so disconnected.
Being diverse with a broad base of knowledge gives me an edge over some normal psychologists. At times, it is possible to connect the dots between the different schools of thought. For instance, when it comes to the Collective Unconscious, especially as espoused by Carl Jung with his archetypes, it appears, on the face of it, that the recent research into unconscious and nonconscious processes has not yet been fully applied to the concept of a collective unconscious. So, in the essay-blog about the Collective Unconscious, it was possible to take the research in nonconscious processes, combining that with the sociologist Durkheim’s “emotional effervescence” (which could perhaps be better or more accurately expressed as an expression of Collective Consciousness), as well as social psychologist Roy Baumeister’s concept of "Sharedness," and adding in the iconic psychologist William James ideas of connectedness - which produces a more fully developed concept of the Collective Unconscious. On the face of it, bringing in those concepts would appear to add a dimension to the concept of the collective unconscious as it is currently presented by Carl Jung’s concept. https://www.spirittruthandmeaning.com/collective-consciousness-and-the-holy-spirit
Footnotes and References
(1)International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine,
Vol 31 (3) 321-336, 2001)
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktor-frankl.com/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://medicine.duke.edu/faculty/harold-g-koenig-md
Roy Baumeister: http://www.roybaumeister.com/
Roy Baumeister: https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeisterr/baumeister.dp.php
Dr. Paul Wong: http://www.drpaulwong.com/
Dr. Paul Wong: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/paul-wong-biography/
Clifford Geertz: https://www.biography.com/people/clifford-geertz-9308224
Carl Jung: https://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134
Carl Jung: https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/carl-jung-analytical-psychology
12 common Archetypes: http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html
Emile Durkheim: http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/
Emile Durkheim: http://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Durkheim/index2.htm
William James: https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726
William James: https://study.com/academy/lesson/william-james-psychology-theories-lesson-quiz.html
Keith Karren – Body, Mind, Spirit: http://pgrpdf.abhappybooks.com/mind-body-health-keith-j-karren-ph-d-pdf-5716009.pdf
All content © Charlie Peck 2018