S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 7 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 1 3 1 Samuel Bendeck Sotillos scientism that is itself the damaged legacy of modern Western psychology and its dehumanizing ideology. Properly rehabilitating an adequate science of the soul requires it to be unshackled from the scientific point of view that denies the very existence of Spirit and the human soul. What is needed is to restore our true identity back to the earth and the Spirit, which is to say to its geomorphic and theomorphic origins. This can be facilitated by reflecting the Divine unity in our diverse societies and civilizations. What is crucial is the rediscovery of metaphysics, sacred science and its spiritual principles, all of which inform the fullness of any enduring science of the soul: It is also crucial for creating a new understanding between religion and science, and, with the help of traditional metaphysics, for integrating modern science into a hierarchy of knowledge wherein it could function without claims of exclusivity and without disrupting the essential relation between man and the cosmos, which possesses a reality beyond the realm of pure quantity and even beyond the empirical and the rational. (Nasr 1996, 275). American philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn (1922– 1996) has astutely pointed out that a new paradigm will not take place through individual conversions, here and there, in the scientific community but rather through a developed consensus over time that establishes a new paradigm “until … the last holdouts have died” (1996, 152). This speaks directly to the predicament facing contemporary psychology; any kind of metanoia will not be sudden even when its errors are admitted. That we are currently experiencing the “last holdouts” is suggested by the following: “The contemporary ‘Weltanschauung’ – which implicitly assumes bifurcation to be a scientific fact – has been disproved.” (Smith 2019, 16). Some might argue that even though abundant evidence has been provided to demonstrate the fissures in the so-called scientific underpinnings of contemporary psychology, this has no direct impact on how practitioners today work with people. For example, they may point out that they’re – not operating from its – cramped theoretical assumptions. For them, research has demonstrated the efficacy of psychotherapy regardless of the type of therapeutic modality or technique being employed. Indeed, it has been argued that the effectiveness of psychotherapy does not depend on one modality or technique being preferred over any other (see Smith and Glass 1977; Landman and Dawes 1982; Seligman 1995). As clinical psychologist Bruce Wampold (2001, 209) concludes, “[c]learly, the preponderance of the benefits of psychotherapy are due to factors incidental to the particular theoretical approach administered and dwarf the effects due to theoretically derived techniques.” For this reason, it has been proposed that the human relationship itself is what has primacy in the encounter and makes any treatment effective rather than the clinical methods used. American psychiatrist Irvin Yalom (1980, 401) has emphasized that the single most important lesson for a novice mental health therapist to learn is that “it is the relationship that heals”. Elsewhere, he has stressed his own personal mantra: “It’s the relationship that heals, the relationship that heals, the relationship that heals – my professional rosary.” (Yalom 2012, 112). At the same time, some may try to sidestep the issue by identifying an integrative or eclectic therapist that does not associate with a given therapeutic approach. “Integration suggests that the elements are part of one combined approach to theory and practice, as opposed to eclecticism which draws ad hoc from several approaches in the approach to a particular case.” (Martin and Margison 2009, 57). We need to note that this outlook arises due to the battle between the incompatible theoretical systems of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Yet it is important to realize that, while these approaches suggest openness and inclusivity, they do not resolve the fundamental dilemmas at hand: “These methodological considerations produce general agreement on the rules of the game rather than general acceptance of a specific theoretical position. They produce, as it were, a modus vivendi without cordiality.” (Williams 1954, 115). All of this is yet another example as to why the field is in crisis. This impasse clearly demonstrates that the present-day paradigm of contemporary psychology is now largely dysfunctional and slowly giving way. The situation is not as simple as it might appear, seeing as what constitutes a relationship is a much more complex and nuanced question. Furthermore, there are inherent obstacles implicit in the psychotherapeutic relationship that cannot be ignored (see Schofield 1964). It is that the phenomena of transference and countertransference – comprising a two-way, transactional process – are in fact unavoidable as these are challenges implicit in the horizontal realm of the human psyche that cannot be transcended or integrated without the presence of a vertical dimension. The very means by which the empirical ego perceives the phenomenal world is itself problematic, as its very starting point is an impediment to truly understanding oneself and the other (as both are unavoidably rooted in dualism). Our identification with the ego is rooted in a fictional, if not distorted, sense of Self that assumes an underlying split between the subject and object or the Self and the world. The dilemma of a self-divided from
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=