Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 1:01am
Saying yes to spirituality when you really mean no
Column: Spiritual Psychology
The spiritual path is strewn with obstacles. One of the greatest impediments is self-deception: good intentions and deeply felt sentiments but actions that give lie to a genuine spiritual quest. We saw that last week in a psychology organization's expressed desire for embracing spirituality and incorporating it with more traditional psychological practice. But when push came to shove, or to put it more delicately, when basic spiritual principles were offered, the door was slammed. They had not bargained for "the real thing" and were unconsciously hoping to maintain the comfort of their old ways with a "touch" of spirituality that would enable them to feel spiritual and advertise a spiritual persona.
Here's the follow-up letter that I wrote to expose this "near enemy" of spirituality - "near," because the quest looks so genuine and close to the heart but on close examination is a self-deception.
"Dear Dr. ——-: (I left the name blank because I don't want to embarrass or single out one person in the organization.)
"Here are a few comments about the spirituality niche paper. When Marcella and I first undertook the task, we had great reservations. We wondered how spirituality and psychology could be truly integrated when their basic assumptions conflict — a point that most books on the subject skirt around. But the reality of present-day psychotherapy persuaded us to accept the assignment: Psychologists are using spiritual concepts and practices in therapy, patients are increasingly seeking a spiritual component in treatment, religious and spiritual counselors also employ psychological approaches, and therapists are concerned about losing patients to more strictly spiritual paths.
"How to accomplish the difficult task of integration called our attention not only to the inherent theoretical problems, but also the fact that spiritual and psychological schools are diverse and often at odds within their own camps? Would it be possible to come up with a set of guidelines and principles that could bridge all the contradictions and diversity and still be meaningful and useful, we asked ourselves? What we finally settled on were a set of general principles that we thought both spiritual and psychological practitioners could live with that embraced an authentic spirit of integration and concrete content.
"We eagerly awaited a response to get some feedback on our strategy since we anticipated a number of possible objections. Never did we consider that our guidelines would be called 'too religious.' First, neither of us thinks, writes, or lives by traditional religious conceptions. That's why in devising the general principles for integration we carefully avoided any references to or citations of specific religions or religious doctrines. For the same reason, we didn't reference a number of popular books that propose integrating a particular religious path like Buddhism. Consultation with religious scholars convinced us that the specific doctrines of any religion are likely to offend (in some instances would be called blasphemous) other religions.
"The 'suggested readings' were confined to books on spirituality and religious traditions on the assumption that it was those realms that required guidance for psychologists — particularly initiates. We did not think it would be relevant or welcome to recommend psychology or therapy texts and books to therapists who, we assumed, are familiar with important works in their chosen disciplines or theoretical schools — the spiritual was the dimension that needed filling, we decided.
"From these brief comments, you can see why the tag 'too religious' surprised us. It makes us wonder if you are clear about what the Division actually wants in an integration of spirituality and psychotherapy practice. To make it all psychological would negate the spiritual. It might then come across as a gratuitous effort to appease those interested in spirituality — but the lack of sincerity would not go unnoticed. At best such an approach would miss the mark; at worst it would be deceptive.
"There is simply no avoiding the fact that spirituality speaks to transcendent forces that traditional psychologies do not embrace, or may even view as pathological. This issue must be squarely addressed for a legitimate integration. Can bridges be constructed that enable psychologists to accept both realms and the inherent contradictions? We thought our guidelines accomplished that minimal goal.
"Be assured that we don't regret working on this task. It was helpful in clarifying our own thinking. More important, it has alerted us to the formidable obstacles still ahead for the rapprochement of psychology and spirituality. We hope your future efforts will find the key to pave the way."
This "near enemy" that I exposed is only one — and perhaps a more transparent one — than the near enemies that flourish in everyday "spiritual" practices — often clever and difficult to uproot self-deceptions that fiercely protect their entrenched ego operating system. In my recently published book, listed below, I identify 14 near enemies — the ego lurking behind what appears on the surface as genuine, even passionate, spiritual practices. I will report on them in future columns.
In case you missed the last two Columns on integrating spirituality and psychology practice:
Spirituality and psychology: Marriage or friendly divorce?
Faking spirituality with a spiritual glow
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the president of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.
Here's the follow-up letter that I wrote to expose this "near enemy" of spirituality - "near," because the quest looks so genuine and close to the heart but on close examination is a self-deception.
"Dear Dr. ——-: (I left the name blank because I don't want to embarrass or single out one person in the organization.)
"Here are a few comments about the spirituality niche paper. When Marcella and I first undertook the task, we had great reservations. We wondered how spirituality and psychology could be truly integrated when their basic assumptions conflict — a point that most books on the subject skirt around. But the reality of present-day psychotherapy persuaded us to accept the assignment: Psychologists are using spiritual concepts and practices in therapy, patients are increasingly seeking a spiritual component in treatment, religious and spiritual counselors also employ psychological approaches, and therapists are concerned about losing patients to more strictly spiritual paths.
"How to accomplish the difficult task of integration called our attention not only to the inherent theoretical problems, but also the fact that spiritual and psychological schools are diverse and often at odds within their own camps? Would it be possible to come up with a set of guidelines and principles that could bridge all the contradictions and diversity and still be meaningful and useful, we asked ourselves? What we finally settled on were a set of general principles that we thought both spiritual and psychological practitioners could live with that embraced an authentic spirit of integration and concrete content.
"We eagerly awaited a response to get some feedback on our strategy since we anticipated a number of possible objections. Never did we consider that our guidelines would be called 'too religious.' First, neither of us thinks, writes, or lives by traditional religious conceptions. That's why in devising the general principles for integration we carefully avoided any references to or citations of specific religions or religious doctrines. For the same reason, we didn't reference a number of popular books that propose integrating a particular religious path like Buddhism. Consultation with religious scholars convinced us that the specific doctrines of any religion are likely to offend (in some instances would be called blasphemous) other religions.
"The 'suggested readings' were confined to books on spirituality and religious traditions on the assumption that it was those realms that required guidance for psychologists — particularly initiates. We did not think it would be relevant or welcome to recommend psychology or therapy texts and books to therapists who, we assumed, are familiar with important works in their chosen disciplines or theoretical schools — the spiritual was the dimension that needed filling, we decided.
"From these brief comments, you can see why the tag 'too religious' surprised us. It makes us wonder if you are clear about what the Division actually wants in an integration of spirituality and psychotherapy practice. To make it all psychological would negate the spiritual. It might then come across as a gratuitous effort to appease those interested in spirituality — but the lack of sincerity would not go unnoticed. At best such an approach would miss the mark; at worst it would be deceptive.
"There is simply no avoiding the fact that spirituality speaks to transcendent forces that traditional psychologies do not embrace, or may even view as pathological. This issue must be squarely addressed for a legitimate integration. Can bridges be constructed that enable psychologists to accept both realms and the inherent contradictions? We thought our guidelines accomplished that minimal goal.
"Be assured that we don't regret working on this task. It was helpful in clarifying our own thinking. More important, it has alerted us to the formidable obstacles still ahead for the rapprochement of psychology and spirituality. We hope your future efforts will find the key to pave the way."
This "near enemy" that I exposed is only one — and perhaps a more transparent one — than the near enemies that flourish in everyday "spiritual" practices — often clever and difficult to uproot self-deceptions that fiercely protect their entrenched ego operating system. In my recently published book, listed below, I identify 14 near enemies — the ego lurking behind what appears on the surface as genuine, even passionate, spiritual practices. I will report on them in future columns.
In case you missed the last two Columns on integrating spirituality and psychology practice:
Spirituality and psychology: Marriage or friendly divorce?
Faking spirituality with a spiritual glow
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the president of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.