Harris Friedman advocates for
transpersonal psychology to be circumscribed as a scientific field, suggesting
that nonscientific approaches could legitimately belong to “transpersonal
studies” but not “transpersonal psychology” (Friedman, 2002). He argues that
psychology is generally treated as a science, that transpersonal psychology was
originally developed along those scientific lines, and that using the word
“psychology” to define the field carries an expectation of scientific
methodology, particularly in clinical settings. He describes three major
attitudes that diminish the scientific reputation of the field: romanticism,
scientism, and constructivism.
Friedman
(2005) describes romanticism as “rejection of rationality, fascination for the
so-called exotic, erosion of all basis for discriminating among truth claims,
fixation of idyllic images regarding humanity's relationship with nature, and
attributions of supernatural claims without evidentiary support.” Examples
include using astrology in a clinical practice or interpreting Eastern
religious concepts as corresponding to particular states of consciousness
(Friedman, 2002). Indeed, he demonstrates the issue quite succinctly in a
non-paper in which he proposes to describe “all cogent scientific
conceptualizations of the non-dual” (Friedman, 2018a) and presents the reader
with a blank page. The abstract to the “article” explains that characterization
of psychological states as non-dual depends on metaphysical constructs, which
cannot be scientifically evaluated.
Friedman
(2002) goes on to say that scientism is more of a concern outside the field
than within; it is characterized by a narrow conception of what can and should
be studied using scientific methods and frequently carries the assumption that
romanticism is all transpersonal psychology has to offer. Transpersonal
psychology is practically taboo in conventional psychology departments
(Friedman, 2018b), possibly due to scientistic prejudice.
Constructivism,
meanwhile, is the extreme postmodern view that because all human
knowledge-building is influenced by culture and subject to bias and blind
spots, no meaningful concept of reality is possible. While recognition of the
limits of objectivity is certainly useful, science cannot proceed without some
sense that methodology matters, that evidence means something beyond personal
preference (Friedman, 2002).
Of
course, much of the subject matter important to transpersonal psychology is
outside the realm of science: transcendence, divinity, and nonduality are
metaphysical concepts that cannot be directly probed. Science can, however,
explore areas such as the effect of subjectively transcendent experiences on
people’s lives or the influence of culture on one’s concept of transcendence.
We can study the “phenomena,” the material available to our senses, including
reports of others’ experience, without claiming access to the “noumena,” the
things in themselves, such as the ontological validity of subjective experience
(Friedman, 2002). Although Friedman takes a strong stance in favor of
transpersonal psychology as a science, he also accepts that nonscientific
sources, such as spiritual teachers or traditions, may well be valuable sources
of knowledge in one’s personal life. Although Friedman is a psychologist rather
than a paleontologist, his stance seems to approximate Gould’s (1997) position
of “nonoverlapping magisteria.”
Western Romanticism Towards Aikido
As a practitioner of aikido,
Friedman (2005) uses it as a case study of the kind of romanticism he finds
objectionable in the transpersonal field. He begins by noting that the roots of
the martial art are in the training needed for a disarmed samurai to have a
chance of surviving against his opponents long enough to escape. The character
traits of courage and present-moment focus emphasized by the practice would
also have been specifically adaptive in combat conditions.
Friedman
notes that in cross-cultural situations, Westerners interested in transpersonal
systems frequently romanticize traditional lines of authority and teaching
styles, assuming without evidence that because the tradition demonstrates some
benefits, it is correct in all things. As an example, he refers to the primary
global school of aikido, leadership of which has been handed down from father
to son. The current head of the school is the grandson of the man who developed
much of modern aikido but is young and inexperienced. Friedman sees
unquestioning acceptance of the current leader’s qualifications as a form of
romanticism.
He also
challenges the tendency to romanticize Japan as the spiritual home or truest
expression of aikido simply because the practice developed there: today, aikido
has many more practitioners outside Japan, where baseball is far more popular.
Finally, he explains that the effectiveness of aikido can be understood without
reference to the supernatural. The martial art does take a transpersonal
perspective of viewing self and opponent as one system, and Friedman argues
that doing so results in greater attunement to the opponent and a more
effective defense. Impressive feats like the “unbendable arm” don’t rely on a
conceptually nebulous “energy” but on physiological relaxation of opposing
muscles and the prevention of inhibitory nerve impulses through clarity of
intent (Friedman, 2005).
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikyo_omote.jpeg
(This is not an image of Friedman, just a representative image of people practicing aikido)
References
Friedman, H. (2002).
Transpersonal psychology as a scientific field. International Journal of
Transpersonal Studies, 21(1), 175-187.
Friedman, H. (2005).
Problems of romanticism in transpersonal psychology: a case study of aikido. The
Humanistic Psychologist, 33(1), 3-24.
Friedman, H.L. (2018a).
An explication of all cogent scientific conceptualizations regarding the
non-dual: finding nothing to write. International Journal of Transpersonal
Studies, 37(2), 116-118.
Friedman, H.L. (2018b).
Transpersonal psychology as a heterodox approach to psychological science:
focus on the construct of self-expansiveness and its measure. Archives of
Scientific Psychology 6, 230-242.
Gould, S.J. (1997).
Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16-22.
