Transpersonal psychology: Encyclopedia II - Transpersonal psychology - Criticisms of Transpersonal psychology

Transpersonal psychology - Criticisms of Transpersonal psychology

Criticisms of transpersonal psychology has come from several commentators. One of the earliest criticisms of the field was issued by the Humanistic psychologist Rollo May, who disputed the conceptual foundations of transpersonal psychology (Aanstos, Serling & Greening, 2000). May was particularly concerned about the low level of reflection on the dark side of human nature, and on human suffering, among the early transpersonal theorists. A similar critique was also put forward by Alexander (1980) who thought that Transpersonal Psychology, in light of the thinking of William James, represented a philosophy that failed to take evil adequately into account. This serious criticism has been absorbed by later Transpersonal theory, who has been more willing to reflect on these important dimensions of human existence (Scotton, Chinen and Battista, 1996). Criticism has also come from the cognitive psychologist, and humanist, Albert Ellis (1989) who has questioned transpersonal psychology's scientific status and its relationship to religion and mysticism. This criticism has been answered by Wilber (1989) and Walsh (1989).

Doctrines or ideas of many colorful personalities, who were or are spiritual teachers in the Western world, such as Gurdjieff or Alice Bailey, are often assimilated in the transpersonal psychology mainstream scene. This development is, generally, seen as detrimental to the aspiration of transpersonal psychologists to gain a firm and respectable academic status. However, Scotton, Chinen and Battista (1996) believes that much of this criticism can be nuanced if one differentiates between the field of Transpersonal Psychology on the one hand, and a popular mainstream scene that operates outside of an academic context, on the other.

It could also be argued that most psychologists do not hold strictly to traditional schools of psychology — most psychologists take an eclectic approach. This could mean that the transpersonal categories listed are considered by standard subdisciplines of psychology; religious conversion falling within the ambit of social psychology, altered states of consciousness within physiological psychology, and spiritual life within the psychology of religion. Transpersonal psychologists, however, disagree with the approach to such phenomena taken by traditional psychology, and claim that transpersonal categories have typically been dismissed either as signs of various kinds of mental illnesses, or as a regression to infantile stages of psychosomatic development. Thus, as illustrated by the pre/trans fallacy, religious and spiritual experiences have in the past been seen as either regressive or pathological and treated as such.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Criticisms of Transpersonal psychology", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki