Some Radical Questions
for Psychology
by Dr. Eric Dodson
In my Human Growth and Potential class
last week, I sensed that a relatively large fraction of the class is new
to our program. So, I created the following "provocation" as a way of loosening
up our thinking about what psychology necessarily is, as well as what psychology
(and our involvement in it) possibly could be.
My basic thesis is that humanistic psychology
in its central import is not so much a school of psychology among other
schools, but an entry point into a fundamental paradigm shift for all psychology.
Why is a paradigm shift necessary? Most importantly because of the fact
that the truths that psychologists reveal only rarely matter to people
in a deep and abiding way. They mostly fail to touch people where they
live and breathe. Psychology today is in an unhealthy state of imbalance;
it's too often preoccupied with researching inconsequential minutiae at
the expense of directly engaging the large, powerful issues of life. As
a quick, empirical test, try looking through articles drawn from the broad
range of psychological journals. Notice what proportion really move you
powerfully at your core and center.
Instead of a psychology that...
Aims mostly at revealing factual truths about psychological reality,
Why not a psychology that...
Aims mostly at amplifying life itself (where the quest for factual
verities is in the larger service of intensifying and deepening our lives)?
Comment:
Who cares how many factual truths we know if our lives are left small
and dry?
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Values mostly thinking and knowing that progresses from point to point
(a linear value-structure aimed at increasing the number of truths -- progress
as the dominant model),
Why not a psychology that...
Values dwelling patiently and with what's most profound about being
human (a circular value-structure aimed at deepening truth already present
-- hence not progressive as such)?
Comment:
Why should good thinking necessarily be about producing more, more
and more? Psychological thinking too often falls prey to an implicit ethic
of productivity, and in the process truncates its own potential. "Circular
thinking" (such as simply staying repetitively with what's profound) is
usually automatically bad thinking (since it doesn't "get anywhere"). How
so?
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Mostly values a mood of seriousness and sobriety (as in "serious psychological
scholarship"),
Why not a psychology that...
Equally values celebration, laugher and play as valid modalities of
psychological inquiry?
Comment:
Seriousness is seriously over-rated! Following Nietzsche, I would only
believe in a Psychology that can dance, and that can invite me to dance,
as well. Perhaps we need a "laughing psychology" as a vital, countervailing
force to today's predominantly serious psychology.
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Tries to be mostly cool, dispassionate -- possibly even cold,
Why not a psychology that...
Aspires to be warm, passionate -- possibly even hot?
Comment:
"Cool" and "Cold" are the temperatures of corpses; live human beings
are warm or hot. Why shouldn't grappling with the core riddle of human
existence excite us and fill us with passion? Passion and excitement are
hallmarks of any psychology worthy of the name.
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Takes correspondence with reality as the primary measure of its truth,
Why not a psychology that...
Takes the qualities of psychologists' very lives and persons as the
primary measure of its truth?
Comment:
How many jerky "psychologists" are there? What does this say about
psychology?
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Seeks to understand the human condition,
Why not a psychology that...
Seeks to fathom the human condition?
Comment:
Understanding and fathoming aren't necessarily the same thing. I personally
would rather fathom something than understand it. As Heidegger notes, it's
all too easy to take the "merely correct" as the be-all-end-all of truth.
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Aims mostly at knowledge that seems small and highly detailed,
Why not a psychology that...
Aims mostly at the big picture -- thinking made large, not small?
Comment:
Is adopting an ethos of specialization really the best way for psychology
to proceed? Isn't something vital passed-over in this?
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Increases complex knowledge (and hence mostly broadens knowledge),
Why not a psychology that...
Dwells with simple truth (and hence mostly deepens knowledge)?
Comment:
Again, broader knowledge is not necessarily deeper knowledge. Why disparage
simple truth? When it comes to fathoming the human condition, complex rationalistic
acrobatics are over-rated.
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Is mostly an act of the intellect,
Why not a psychology that...
Is mostly an act of the soul (or the "psyche" -- psychology's topic
matter in the first place)?
Comment:
Isn't psychology also properly an act of the very "psyche" is seeks
to study? Perhaps we've lost a sense for what an act of the soul really
feels like.
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Seeks mostly to answer questions
Why not a psychology that...
Seeks mostly to pose questions?
Comment:
The project of answering questions probably has more "cash value" in
our culture, but isn't posing and dwelling with a good question (which
tends to open up inquiry) at least as powerful as answering a good question
(which tends to shut down inquiry)?
|
Instead of a psychology that...
Implicitly tends to make its students feel guilty about not finding
it terribly inspiring,
Why not a psychology that...
Speaks so powerfully and so directly to students' reality that students
don't feel much need to flagellate themselves into the appearance of intrinsic
interest?
Comment:
Psychology students often enter into psychology with the hope that
they'll be mostly concerned with issues that can make profound differences
in their lives. In my view, they're disappointed far too often. Perhaps
those students' "naive" desire is really a marker of psychology's more
noble, more powerful purpose. Sure, the academy as a whole is a great breeding
ground for certain kinds of pathology, but why should psychology (which
ought to know better) simply participate in it?
|
Return
to Eric's Page