PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION-various approaches
Research Project
Throughout the years the field of psychology of religion never experienced a unified classification. There cannot be much wonder as to why the debates continue even up to this day. The multitude of approaches to the very field of psychology of the human mind topped with the enormous and very often subjective differences of opinion relating to the phenomenon of religion by no means contribute to the construction of unarguable conclusions. Frequently the theories of scholars drastically differ. Freud, Jung, Maslow, and James created distinct interpretations of what they understood the religion and the psychology of it are. Nevertheless, the differences in their perception at places become blurred and the worldviews that they create appear to overlap. The field of psychology of religion is never sharply classified.
Freud and Jung both belong to the group of the psychologists-scientists who entered the realm of the unconscious in order to find the themes, motivations, and possible explanations relating to the phenomenon of religion. Those who subscribe to this form of approaching religion will turn to the unconscious as the warehouse of drives motivating one to pursue his or her spiritual needs. Freud believed that the psychic processes leading to the emergence of one’s religiosity occur on the unconscious level and he aimed to uncover them. [1] Similarly Jung looked in the inaccessible directly dimension of the unconscious mind with its archetypes to understand more the religious experience.
Religion for Freud represented merely another motivating force present in the society, not easily distinguished from other cultural forms. [2] Therefore, his main objective in his psychoanalytical study of religion was the unveiling of the true motif underlying its existence. In other words, the discovery of the unconscious origin of the religious orientation in humans represented the aim of his as well as of his followers’ work [3]
At Freud’s times the association that the unconscious enjoyed was that of the storehouse of the repressed contents never dealt with properly by the conscious mind. [4] The concept of God, then, became for Freud nothing but the projection of unresolved fears, desires and guilt. According to this tradition the religious impulses represent simply a wish-fulfillment. They emerge out of the infantile desire to feel protected where God constitutes nothing but a “magnified father.” [5] The psychoanalytical approach perceives one’s religious experience as the copying mechanism triggered by the unresolved issues buried in the unconscious and it attempts to clinically uncover them. Religion represents one’s problem solving failed effort expressed as neurosis and Freudian analysts regard themselves as the medicine.
Jung, alike Freud, used clinical empirical methods to study the unconscious related to the religious experience. [6] Both agreed that symbology, dreams, and for Freud-free associations, represented the ways to communicate with the mysterious unconscious. However, Jung held the entire different approach towards the significance of religion. For him it was irreligion, and not religion, that equaled neurosis as it denied the unity of the self-the oneness of the conscious with the unconscious. [7]
In his positive outlook on the religious experience, despite his association with the tradition of the psychoanalysts of the unconscious, Jung’s ideas overlapped at this point those of the “Third Force” humanistic psychologists and writers such as Maslow, Rogers, Erikson, and others. [8] The distinction between the two traditions (psychoanalytical and humanistic) blurs here in the person of Jung who shared the ideas of the two.
The humanistic psychology centers its attention on the experiencing individual as well as on his or her experience as the primary focus of study. [9] It views human individuals in their uniqueness and complexity instead of reducing them to the “part reactions” [10] such as calling them “merely” animals or programmable computers, all of which contributes, according to Maslow, to the “desacralization of life.” [11] The aim of the humanistic psychology of religion is not to analyze the origins of the religious conscience but to observe the humans as creatures that develop and grow into their fullness in it. Classical psychoanalysis perceives the human mind as the product of the past whereas the humanistic psychology views it as the entity in becoming. [12] “Man, then, is not a mere creature of his past conditioning or merely a delicate homeostatic balance of the id and superego…, as Freud pictured him.” [13] “Instead of being a product, man becomes a creator of his environment.” [14]
The goal of everyone’s life, Maslow explains, is self-realization of which the climax represents the “peak-experience.” [15] It is the personal and ultimate actualization that “which ought to be is”, as Clippinger put it. [16] It embodies the full emergence of one’s truest nature. Rogers maintained that every human organism had the underlying “self actualizing” tendency urging one to always enhance its capacities and move it into autonomy. [17] The humanistic methods embrace and encourage the religious feelings as the self-realizing tool.
The “peak” or self-actualization experiences occur in the personal sphere. [18] In this regard the humanistic approach resembles the tradition of James and his so-called “differential psychology” [19] where focus of study is on the individual differences of the religious experience. For James or Allport, personal religion constituted a much more relevant area of study than the organized one. [20] For them the religious sentiment experienced in the solitary contemplation IS the origin of the true religion. [21] This is when the true religion begins.
According to this approach it is not the Freudian search for motivation and the origin of the religious orientation that becomes a focus of investigation and the area of importance but, quite opposite, the outcome of it. James grew strongly fascinated with the results of the religious experience such as compassion, clarity, or creativity. [22] He believed that it is only results and not its motivation that justify religion. [23] The methods, therefore, that this tradition applied to study the religious feelings were idiographic-concentrated on one personal experience without the need to classify and generalize. [24] He also used interviews, biographies and questionnaires and other non-experimental fact-finding techniques. [25] Since it was the personal, solitary and subjective experience that mattered the most, he tried to get as close as possible to their inner reality through investigating his subjects private reports, etc.
From this tremendously brief introduction to only three of the many approaches to the field of psychology of religion it appears that often the opinions drastically differ. Freudian tradition looks for the origin of the religious mind while James focuses on its practical outcome. Freud looks into the past and Maslow emphasizes the future. However, despite these distinct approaches, some views do overlap. Jung shared with Freud some of his ideas about the unconscious and viewed himself as the scientist as well. Nevertheless, his embracement of the religious sentiments as contributing to the individual health made him lean toward the humanists. Similarly the humanists with their emphasis on the subjective and personal experience of religion resembled somewhat the views of James. The approaches to the psychology of religion, just like the dimension of religion they attempt to classify, do not seem to render themselves to clear categorization. The phenomenon of religion seems too fleeting for the rational mind to easy captivate its essence. And it will remain so for centuries ahead for sure.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Brown, L. B., Advances in Psychology of Religion, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1985
Clark, W. H., The Psychology of Religion, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1958
Malony, H. N., Ed. by, Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion, Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977
Maslow, A. H., Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1976
Ostow, M. and Scharfstein, Ben-Ami, The Need to Believe; The Psychology of Religion, International Universities Press, Inc., New York, 1954
Pruyser, P. W., A Dynamic Psychology of Religion, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1968
Spinks, G. S., Psychology of Religion; An Introduction to Contemporary Views, Methuen & Co Ltd., London, 1963
White, V., God and the Unconscious, The Harvill Press, London, 1952
Internet sources:
D. Pescitelli, ‘An Analysis of Carl Roger’s Theory of Personality’ in Personality and Consciousness, http://pandc.ca/index.php?cat=carl_rogers&page=rogerian_theory, 1996, (accessed 4 September)