Religious-Type Experience in the Context of Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology

RELIGIOUS-TYPE EXPERIENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMANISTIC AND TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY

Peter A. Campbell Edwin M. McMahon UniversityofOttawa,Ontario,Canada

The purpose of this article is to propose: (1) that a basic distinction made by Andras Angyal may serve as a convenient way to distinguish the general areas of experience which interest humanistic and transpersonal psychology; (2) that some humanistic psychologists may have allowed personal prejudices regarding the nature and alleged origins of tran scendent or religious-type experiences to inhibit engaging in valid psychologicalstudy of such phenomena.

In a thoughtful article titled "A Theoretical Model for Per sonality Studies," Andras Angyal (1956)noted that the overall pattern of personality functioning may be described from two different vantage points which express two fundamentally diverse tendencies.

Viewed from one of these vantage points, the human being seems to be striving basically to assert and to expand his self-determina first tion. He is an autonomous being, a self-governing entity that tendency asserts itself actively instead of reacting passively like a physical body to the impacts of the surrounding world. This fundamental tendency expresses itself in a striving of the person to consolidate and increase his self-government, in other words to exercise his freedom and to organize the relevant items of his world out of the autonomous center of government that is his self. This tenden cy-which I have termed "the trend toward increased auton omy"-expresses itself in spontaneity, self-assertiveness, striving for freedom and for mastery [pp. 44-45J.

It appears to us that facilitation of this first tendency toward increased autonomy or self-determination has been a major

11 second goal and concern of humanistic psychology. This does not tendency seem to be the case, however, with the second tendency.

Seen from another vantage pomt, human life reveals a very different basic pattern from the one described above. From this point of view the person appears to seek a place for himself in a larger unit of which he strives to become a part. In the first ten dency we see him struggling for centrality in his world, trying to mold, to organize, the objects and events of his world, to bring them under his own jurisdiction and government. In the second tendency he seems rather to surrender himself willingly to seek a home for himself in and to becomean organicpart of something thathe conceivesasgreaterthanhimself.The super-individual unit of which one feels oneself a part, or wishes to become a part, may be variously formulated according to one's cultural background and personal understanding. The superordinate whole may be represented for a person by a social unit-family, clan, nation-by a cause, by an ideology, or by a meaningfully ordered universe. In the realm of aesthetic, social. and moral attitudes this basic human tendency has a central significance. Its clearest manifestation, however, is in the religious attitude and religious experience [po 45-46].

It seems to us that the recent development of a transpersonal effort is primarily directed toward an understanding and en couragement of this second tendency.

Angyal focused attention on the religious attitude and mystical experience as the clearest example of the second tendency. tradition This was probably because the experience of unity and unification, of "becoming an organic part of something con ceived as greater than self' lies at the heart of mystical con sciousness. Most authors qualified to discuss these matters bear out such a conclusion. As William James (1958) noted,

One may say truly, I think, that personal religious experience has its root and centre in mystical states of consciousness .... This overcoming of all the usual barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystic achievement. In mystic states we become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition hardly altered by differences of clime or creed. In Hinduism, in Nco-Platonism, in SUfism, in Christian mysticism, in Whit manism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make the critic stop and think [p. 292].

W. T. Stace (1961) succinctly summarized the tendency toward unitary union and religious-type experience: "The sense of the unity of viewpoints all things, the 'unifying vision' ... is not only a characteristic of all mystical experience but is the nuclear and essential

12 characteristic." It is this serious investigation of the unitary viewpoint-perhaps most clearly manifested within religious experience but by no means restricted to it-that has caught the attention of transpersonal psychology as a legitimate area of study. This brings us to the second point we wish to make.

When considered from the vantage point of therapeutic process, a higher level of self-determination is regarded as a goal to be attained and hence as a kind of end state to the actual process of therapy. Moreover, in the practical order, before a person can maturely "surrender himself willingly to seek a home for himself in and to become an organic part of something that he conceives as greater than himself," it would seem that he must first enjoy a degree of self-possession, au tonomy and self-determination. Yet, these are some of the precise qualities generally lacking in the person who comes for therapy. It seems to us that humanistic psychology has evolved practical, effective means for achieving a quality of self-deter mination consistent with its open-ended, developmental view principal of man and human potential. The principal focus of hu focus of manistic effort has been to foster that type of self-possession humanistic and capacity for self-determination which is a necessary first effort practical step along the path toward fuller human functioning.

However, a rather serious question must also be asked regarding some psychologists' attitudes toward what may well prove to he a more extensive process of personal development. It appears today that some psychologists are still influenced by preconceived notions and prejudices concerning what have been called transcendent or religious-type experiences-most prejudices often because of the traditional religious connotations as relatedto sociated with such phenomena. Unfortunately, such preju transcendent dicial attitudes can diminish openness and lead them to experience repress, deny, or in some other way block their personal development of "second tendency" or transpersonal exper iences. In this way, they run the risk of cutting themselves off from both investigating and experiencing what may be an important and integral element of fuller human functioning. Moreover, such cutting off is frequently extraneous to the human value inherent in a development of this kind of experience. Rejection seems to be based upon the historical fact that such experience has often been associated with religion and anti-scientific or anti-humanistic thinking.

Such an attitude then tends to make an ultimate or final goal out of self-determination itself. But this is inconsistent with the the basic basic concept of man as a becoming-an open-ended process, a conceptof man continual-going-beyond his present level of self-actualization.

13 A personal investment in holding to an admittedly important but, nonetheless, limited tendency toward self-determination as the ultimate value and goal in the growth process may close one off to the more extensive implications of "a growth-cen tered attitude" (Sutich, 1967).

Abraham Maslow realized the problems involved in any problems serious psychological investigation of the "second tendency" relatedto described by Angyal. Becoming an organic part of something "second conceived as greater than oneself inevitably tends toward the tendency" generally murky domain of mysticism with the myriad over beliefs and dogmatic systems which have developed to explain the "ultimate cause" for this type of human experience.

There is a crucial language problem associated with studies in the transpersonal realm. While psychologists may have crucial evolved certain concepts and explanations to describe the language process and experience of self-determination, they still have problem extremely vague terms for the experience of "becoming an organic part of something that we conceive as greater than ourselves." Usually, this latter type experience has been left in the hands of theologians and religious leaders. Unfortunately, their quite different and sometimes highly elaborate over beliefs about the essential nature of that ultimate "superor dinate whole" with which/whom we become one, often tend to cloud the issue when attempts are made to scientificallydiscuss the actual human experience of transcendence and union.

Maslow (1964) found the identification of transpersonal experience with religion and the language difficulties it raised to be extremely problematic when he attempted serious study in this area.

As a matter of fact, this identity is so profoundly built into the English language that it is almost impossible to speak of the "spiritual life" (a distasteful phrase to a scientist, and especially to a psychologist) without using the vocabulary of traditional religion. There just isn't any other satisfactory language yet. A trip to the thesaurus willdemonstrate this very quickly. This makes an almost insoluble problem for the writer who is intent on demon strating that the common base for all religions is human, natural, empirical, and that so-called spiritual values are also naturally derivable. But I have available only a theistic language for this "scientific" job. One of Maslow's chief concerns was, as he put it:

... to demonstrate that spiritual values have naturalistic meaning, that they are not the exclusive possession of organized churches, that they do not need supernatural concepts to validate them, that

14 they are wellwithin thejurisdiction of a suitably enlargedscience, a suitably and that, therefore, they are the general responsibility of all enlarged mankind. science

Study and research carried out under the broa umbrella of transpersonal psychology, with its more positive image of the nature of man, would seem to provide just such a "suitably enlarged science."

Some humanistic psychologists, obviously, have chosen to focus their attention primarily on augmenting self-determina tion as the next practicalstep in implementing the process of self-actualization. This is a praiseworthy and legitimate goal. However, given the open-ended view of the nature of man espoused by humanistic psychology, others within the hu manistic orientation are beginning to explore the "second tendency" described by Angyal. If such a move is distasteful for some because of implied religious overtones or past his torical associations, it must be remembered that this is hardly sufficientreason to hinder psychological research by diverting time and energy into intramural bickering and name-calling.

The issue for transpersonal psychology is not whether the God of various religions exists or does not exist. It is, rather, the empirical empirical fact that man acts and believes as if a God or "the fact One," "the AU," "the superordinate whole" somehow exists and that man feels called, impelled, destined or meant by his very nature to extend himself into and in some way to become one with this larger reality.

People actively seek degrees of unitive experience which are not reducible to their self-assertive, autonomous tendencies. unitive This is a fact which cannot be overlooked by psychology. experience Angyal stated the perspective clearly when reflecting on the meaning of love-which also cannot be reduced to man's self assertive tendency.

When two persons love one another they clearly or dimly have the feeling that something greater is involved therein than their limited individualities, that they are one in something greater than themselves or, as the religious person says, they are "one in God." ... This statement does not have to be understood in a theological sense. In this context it is not our concern, e.g., whether or not the "superordinate whole" is reality or not; we state only that man appearsto function asifhe were or would experience himself as a part of a superordinate whole [p, 48).

No doubt, for some the phrase as ifmight seem to constitute a rather shaky foundation upon which to build an empirically

15 based science. However, we would stress once again that the proper concern proper concern of transpersonal psychology is not to validate of the existence or non-existence of the ultimate superordinate transpersonal whole in itself. Rather, the starting point for psychological psychology research is the fact "that man appears to function as ifhe were or would experience himself as a part of a superordinate whole." Such a powerful source of human motivation cannot be disregarded by psychology or disdainfully relegated to the dustbin of pathology.

Furthermore, we must not confuse empirical evidence for unitive experience which appears to go beyond man's self-as clarification sertive tendency, with validation of what may be postulated or of empirical believed in as the "Ultimate Cause" of such experience. The evidenceand latter may truly be called a beliefas far as psychology is con belief cerned and one may, for personal reasons, label such an atti tude anti-humanistic. Investigation of unitive-type experience may be confused with an effort to establish the existence of that which is sometimes interpreted to be the "Ultimate Cause" of such experience. Obviously, this need not be the case. Such experience and the motivation which it produces is not merely an unverifiable belief but an observable fact open to empirical investigation.

When transpersonal psychology seeks to better understand the universal human tendency to become an organic part of something conceived as greater than oneself, there is no conflict between pursuit of this purely secular, empirical goal and the fact that what is often interpreted as "religious" experience may be involved.

In conclusion, we have attempted to show that Andras An gyal's distinction of two tendencies in the over-all pattern of personality functioning may point to the need for serious study of religious-type experience by humanistic and transpersonal psychologists. Despite the problems arising from only having available at present a "theistic language" for such a "scientific job," we feel, as did Abraham Maslow, that the issues involved are too important either to neglect them or leave them in the hands of those lacking scientific expertise for an adequate investigation.

Humanistic and transpersonal psychology appear to be well on the way toward becoming the kind of "suitably enlarged science" that can handle such a delicate scientific task. It would, indeed, be a great tragedy if we bypassed the oppor tunity to work together in accepting the responsibilities and challenges of such a new venture.

16 REFERENCES

ANGYAL,A. A theoretical model for personality studies. In C. Moustakas (Ed.), The self:Explorationinpersonalgrowth. New York: Harper, 1956. JAMES,W. The varieties of religious experience. New York: Mentor, 1958. MASLOW,A. H. Religions, values, and peak-experiences. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1964. MASLOW,A.H. Motivation and personality. (2nd ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1970. STACE,W. T. Mysticism andphilosophy. London: Macmillan, 1961. SUTICH,A. J. The growth-experience and the growth-centered attitude. J. Humanistic Psychol., 1967, 7,2, 155-162.