Correspondence on The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 2 - Special issue: "Taking Spirituality Seriously"
1. Letter from John Rowan
Letter from John Rowan
The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 3, 1, pp 69-71
IS THERE ORDER IN THE FIELD OF THE TRANSPERSONAL?
The issue of this Journal Vol.2 No.4 is mostly devoted to ‘Taking Spirituality Seriously’, but it comes across as a confusing mishmash. This is because, it seems to me, no one is taking the trouble to relate to anyone else, nor to the copious literature now available. Each one writes like a pioneer, as if no one had mapped this territory, and each new traveller had to mark the trees all over again. Let us look at each article in turn, to see how it adds to the confusion, rather than enabling more understanding, more clarity.
Peter Chadwick seems to think he has discovered something he calls the Borderline Slice ‘between sanity and madness’. He then goes on to endow this state of consciousness with virtually every characteristic of psychosis on the one hand and mysticism on the other. This seems highly inflationary to me, and I prefer the view of David Lukoff (1985) that it is actually possible to distinguish at least four different states of mind: mysticism; mysticism with psychotic features; psychosis with mystical features; and psychosis. Chadwick’s intensive mishmash does not help us to understand the realm of spirituality at all, it seems to me, but instead makes it even more hard to understand. And he does not refer to the relevant literature.
June Boyce-Tillman reduces our thinking to just two systems of thought; then we get three models of health; then we are given fourteen polarities; and then there is a more general point made about ‘subjugated ways of knowing’. But there is no attempt to reconcile these different frameworks, or bring them into any coherent shape. And she talks of what sound to me like spiritual emergencies, without any reference to the classic work of Grof & Grof (1990), which seems a grave omission. I don’t see the point of an article like this.
Jennifer Elam gives us a personal experience which appears to be a spiritual emergence, in this case of the Subtle stage of consciousness. But again she does not refer to the Grof work, which is so relevant to this. Nor does she refer to the work of Ken Wilber (2000) which has been so helpful in outlining the boundaries of the various states of consciousness which are possible. Hence her whole piece is left hanging in the air. Rachel Knight does much the same thing.
Nigel Mills does almost the opposite. Instead of concentrating on the Subtle stage, like the last two exponents, he ignores that totally. He goes straight from the unreconstructed everyday consciousness of the Mental Ego (which Wilber sometimes calls the stage of the Persona and Shadow) to the Causal and Nondual, which are the farther reaches of mysticism. Incidentally, this also leaves out the Centaur stage (which Jenny Wade (1996) calls the Authentic level of consciousness). This a typical move of those interested in Buddhism, because Buddhists generally do not recognise or describe this important level of consciousness. In fact, this refusal to recognise the Authentic level leads to a description of centredness which confuses the centredness of the Centaur stage with the centredness of the Causal stage, even though they are actually two very different things. To put in in other words, authentic centredness is one thing, mystical centredness is something else.
Mark Sutherland’s article is much better, and shows a clearer appreciation of the issues involved in spirituality and religion. However, it seems to me quite confusing to say that "spiritual discipline aims to produce in the practitioner a condition of managed schizotypy." This seems to me quite a weird statement.
Lyn Andrews speaks of a personal experience which led her to posit four layers of spirituality. But she does not take the trouble to relate these to other work in the field, and so they hang in space with no backing, no checking, no ancestors. The field does not need this sort of thing any more – we have moved on from this purely descripive work. This is 2003, not 1973.
Caroline Leyton again speaks of a personal experience, and again does not relate it to other experiences or anything of a theoretical nature. People were writing this sort of thing in the 60s, but this is 2003. A lot more is known now, and people writing about spirituality would do well to catch up with what is already well described and well known
Shirley Lane, again experiencing near-madness, made a much more thorough attempt to make sense of it all, but still does not make the crucial distinction between the transpersonal and the extrapersonal (Green & Green 1986). This says that phenomena such as clairvoyance are not necessarily transpersonal at all.
Ann Baring writes well about Parmenides (who she calls Parmeneides, I don’t know why), Dante and Jung as visionaries. Again she lays all the emphasis on their experiences, some of them quite shattering. And again she refuses to link her ideas with the mainstream of transpersonal thinking, choosing instead to leave us with a vague statement about ‘metaphysical reality’. Jorge Ferrer (2000) has made a very interesting critique of the whole idea of treating spirituality or the transpersonal as a set of experiences.
Kate Maguire gives us a wonderful article, showing a real understanding of spirituality. She does not give us, or even refer to, a theoretical framework, but she does show very clearly what good work can be done in therapy by someone who has a real grasp of Subtle consciousness.
Isabel Clarke tries to discuss spirituality, but is defeated by her refusal to admit that the term cannot be used in any precise sense – it is too vague. It is much better, in my view, to use the term transpersonal, which has a much better defined meaning, and is now used for the whole range of relevant studies in the literature.
It can be seen from this that the contributors are coming from wildly different places and have no real idea of any structure for the field of the transpersonal. But it is now twenty-odd years since Ken Wilber suggested that there was indeed a structure in the field. Of course his ideas are not the final word or the bees knees, but they have been the subject of deep discussion by people in the field, as witness the book Ken Wilber in Dialogue (Rothberg & Kelly 1998) which has contributions from people like Walsh, Grof, Kornfield, Washburn, Achterberg, Puhakka, Zimmerman and others. And it does seem from this as though there is a great deal of acceptance for his basic framework, based as it is on multiple sources from East and West.
But apart from all this, this is not a new field where we are struggling to find any coherence, as this whole issue suggests: it is a well researched and well described field, which has had many important contributions since The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology was founded in 1969. Any substantial discussion, I would suggest, must start from where we are now, not from where we were thirty years ago.
REFERENCES
Ferrer, Jorge N (2000) ‘Transpersonal knowledge: A Participatory Approach to Transpersonal Phenomena’ in T Hart, P L Nelson & K Puhakka (eds) Transpersonal Knowing: Exploring the Horizon of Consciousness Albany: SUNY Press
Green, Elmer E & Green, Alyce M (1986) ‘Biofeedback and states of consciousness’ in B B Wolman and M Ullman (eds) Handbook of States of ConsciousnessI New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Grof, Christina & Grof, Stanislav (1990) The Stormy Search for the Self: A guide to personal growth through transformational crisis Los Angeles: Jeremy Tarcher
Lukoff, David (1985) ‘The diagnosis of mystical experiences with psychotic features’ The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 17/2 155-181
Rothberg, Donald & Kelly, Sean (eds) Ken Wilber in Dialogue: Conversations with Leading Transpersonal Thinkers Wheaton: Quest
Wade, Jenny (1996) Changes of Mind Albany: SUNY Press
Wilber, Ken (2000) Integral Psychology Boston: Shambhala
John Rowan 31 January 2003
The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 3, 1, pp 69-71
I am sorry to have upset John Rowan, an established authority for whom I have great regard. Reading his response to our Special Issue, I am struck by his sense of outrage that a group of people should dare to publish their own reaction to their experience, and share their own attempts at meaning making, without reference to the wise gurus of the transpersonal pantheon. As a historian I am reminded of the reaction of 16th century clerics to the outrageous idea that ordinary people should read the bible and make of it what they will. June Boyce Tillman’s (2000) subjugated ways of knowing comes to mind. Here is a bunch of people, (mainly women) who are failing to subject their experience to the proper hierarchical scrutiny, which would assign them their true (insignificant or debased) status in the grand transpersonal order. In contrast to this dominant way of knowing, their "subjugated" vision is plural and anarchic – or "a confusing mishmash" as Rowan characterises it.
The critique is based on an assumption articulated in Rowan's criticism that I use the term "spirituality" in preference to his preferred term, namely "transpersonal". The assumption is that the transpersonal literature has a monopoly in this field. As I have put forward a possible alternative view, based on cognitive science (Clarke 2001), backed up by the research and perspective of others that give it credence, I must beg to differ. I fully acknowledge the problems with the term spirituality, and in my own writings, prefer the word "transliminal". The Special Issue arose from the conferences and email list that came out of my edited book, but the intention here was not to articulate that or any one viewpoint, but to let voices speak. Contributors were instructed to be brief, and experiential rather than theoretical – so I feel a little protective towards them when they are lambasted for keeping to this!
The assumption that Wilber et al. have said all there is to say about the spiritual would fare better if it were truly universally acknowledged as Rowan implies (and probably believes). I operate among therapists practising with people, often disabled by severe mental health problems, in a medically dominated NHS. In this world, my daring to name spirituality is more often than not welcomed with recognition and relief by staff and service users alike. When I confess that my ideas contradict those of Wilber, a blank "Who?" is the usual response. I will explain why I do not take this as an opportunity to enlighten them in the concluding paragraphs.
I found Rowan’s own works invaluable when first exploring spirituality psychologically in the late ‘80s. (e.g. Rowan 1978 and 1983). They helped me to acquaint myself with the field before launching out on my own, along with the important works of Wilber, Assagioli, Grof and many others. I was grateful that these authorities recognised the importance of the spiritual in human development, and much that they said rang true, but not all. I was intrigued by the "chalk and cheese" relationship between logical, scientific thought and spiritual experience, and increasingly sceptical of the validity of translating hard and fast systems into the spiritual sphere. Yes, the religious traditions of the world have found regularities, and this is helpful, but they shimmer and shift in the light of experience, like a mirage. Fixed diagrams on the page betray this reality. Further, I detect a tricksterish element in the transpersonal/transliminal which is subversive of hierarchies. Hierarchy is very comforting for those at the top. The spiritual, in my understanding, is a place of paradox, where top and bottom meet as in a loop, and nothing stays put where you left it.
I am aware of the debate around the hierarchy issue, and that, for instance, Wilber argues in Integral Psychology (Wilber 2000), with reference to Beck and Cowan’s (1996) spiral dynamics theory, that his is a nested actualisation hierarchy, and not a dominator hierarchy. I regard that argument as specious, as any hierarchy, however twisted about, has a top and a bottom! Since the validity of absolute hierarchy in this context is questionable, the damage that it does is all the more regrettable. Hierarchical classifications marginalise, exclude and "subjugate". In my experience the transpersonal/transliminal bursts forth in the most unexpected places. People referred to me for the chaos of their lives report experiences that I can only respect and honour – I have no wish to consign this wealth to a category, or (low) level. My aim is to validate, and help people navigate their lives. So, I confess I am a heretic – and because of my acquaintance with "the true faith", have knowingly led others into grievous error! Or, as I hope – sparked off a lively debate!
References.
Beck, D. & Cowan, C. (1996) Spiral Dynamics: mastering values, leadership and change. Blackwell publishing.
Boyce-Tillman, J.B. (2000) Constructing Musical Healing; the wounds that sing. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Clarke, I. (2001) Psychosis and Spirituality; exploring the new frontier. London: Whurr.
Rowan, J. (1978) The Reality Game: A Guide to Humanistic Counselling and Therapy. London: Routledge&KeganPaul
Rowan, J. (1983) Ordinary Ecstasy: Humanistic Psychology in Action London: Routledge,
Wilber, K. (2000) Integral Psychology. Boston: Shambhala.
17.2.03
I am offended at John Rowan’s aggressive attack on my article in the Special Issue of this journal (Volume 2 Number 4). I also resent having my experience trivialised and degraded in this curt and arrogant way. Rowan castigates us for not referring to the wider literature; he himself should be mindful of the wider literature of the people he is attacking. It is simply not true that I pile all the features of the mystical and the psychotic into the Borderline Slice; I, like Lukoff (Lukoff 1985) have always seen the boundaries of sanity, supersanity and insanity as graded. My book chapter (Chadwick 2001) was intended to convey this point. The Borderline is, after all, borderline to psychosis; it is not psychosis itself – if at times it is nearly so. I also am mindful of the relevant literature on the relations between psychosis and spirituality (see Chadwick 1992, Chapter 5 and Chadwick 1997, Chapter 2). But this was a deliberately experiential piece, which is what I was instructed to do. My positing of the Borderline slice between sanity and madness, as a zone of anomalous experiences is, as far as I know, original. It stands, in some respects, in relation to sanity and psychosis as the hypnopompic and hypnogogic states stand in relation to sleep and wakefulness – these too can be zones of anomalous as well as creative experiences. There may be important relations between these domains, but this is a topic for future research. It also is unfair to accuse me of presenting the spiritual domain as a "mishmash".
My path is to research this problem space by relating spirituality to cognitive, motivational, physiological and personality variables, as well as investigating the capricious, mercurial, nature of the experiences, and the character of the deeper realm of Meaning that I believe instantiates them. This seems to me to interdigitate with the efforts of Mike Jackson, Gordon Claridge (see Jackson and Claridge in Clarke 2001) and Isabel Clarke in many ways. We therefore are dissenters, heterodoxical, articulating a different paradigm (nascent though it is) to that of Wilber and Rowan, with a different language, a different conceptual armoury and different goals.
I think it exceedingly important that the experiences of people in the territory of the psychotic and the spiritual be reported (see Chadwick, 1996 and 2001 for further details of the Borderline domain, and Chadwick 1992, Chapter 4 for the first report of the experience). In contrast to Rowan, I applaud the other contributors for their honesty in disclosing what they have to say, and Isabel Clarke for organising the various meetings, conferences and publications in recent years which have given us a voice. This is by no means a thoroughly researched field, and readers should feel confident that new experiential reports are always welcome.
References.
Chadwick PK, (1992) Borderline: A psychological study of paranoia and delusional thinking. London and New York: Routledge.
Chadwick PK, (1996) A meeting place for science, art and spirituality: the perception of reality in insane and "supersane" states. Network: the Scientific and Medical Network Review. V 60 (April), 3-8.
Chadwick PK, (1997) Schizophrenia: The Positive Perspective - In search of dignity for schizophrenic people. London and New York: Routledge.
Chadwick PK, (2001) From Sanity to Supersanity to Insanity: A Personal Journey, in I. Clarke (ed.) Psychosis and Spirituality: Exploring the New Frontier, London: Whurr.
Clarke, I. (2001) Psychosis and Spirituality; exploring the new frontier. London: Whurr.
Lukoff, David (1985) ‘The diagnosis of mystical experiences with psychotic features’ The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 17/2 155-181
Reply from Dr. Jennifer Elam, Media, Pennsylvania, USA.
Rowan’s point of reference does not seem to be the place from where I start. I start from the point of having experiences in my inner life, for which I did not have words or frameworks, that led to a better quality of life. In choosing words and frameworks for my inner experiences, I look for those that will open my life to the richer, the fuller and the greater.
My sharing of experience is for the purpose of connecting with others having similar experiences. We support and validate one another. We may provide connection as a point of light in the darkness - ministry not intellectual pursuit. Therefore, I do not ground myself in intellectual models. I ground myself in intimate relationships with God and others. Knowledge of intellectual models ABOUT spiritual experiences are sometimes interesting, but are not the place of grounding and are not primary in the processing of experiences. So, it is not particularly important for me that my writing should fit into the literature because I am not buying into the psychological models as primary. Relating is primary.