Class 3 Readings

[Maria Mazurova]

I will reflect on our first article (Davidson), a great read for those trying to figure out what humanistic psychology is all about. I found it interesting that the author first noted that it may be a question “whether or not, or to what extent, humanistic psychology belongs within the humanist traditions”. To me it seemed like a natural fit, at least the way that I view it. However, reading further into the article about the humanist tradition, I found quotes such as:

“humanists have typically accepted that there are many ways to the truth, and that they way, the practices themselves, are more important than any possible destination”

                -I do agree with this to some extent, I mentioned in class that I don’t 100% back psychoanalysis as the one true way, instead, I see the opportunity for many roads to lead to the same destination, or different destinations altogether, but all likely equally valid.

Another quote I found interesting: “…growth and development can be achieved by enabling the person to listen to his/her own inner voice rather than by encouraging conformity to external notions of normality.”

                -This begins to clash with the Freudian beginnings of psychology, at least the ones discussed in our last class, especially the “doctor is always right” mentality.

However, I mildly disagree with the interpretations of some of what Freud might have been saying, I happen to think it’s not so black and white. I mean sure, he could have been a pompous ass who is always right, but maybe he was more insightful than that. Some of the quotes in the very same Freud article from last week lead me to believe he had more faith in the human beings ability to sort themselves out than he is given credit for. That being said, as greatly different as the topics in this and last weeks articles may appear, I actually think they might have many underlying similarities.

Either way, I do believe there is a place for both, or even both combined into humanistic psychology, in the field of mental health care. There is probably a lot more room for a lot of other interesting things than the current culture currently accepts and/or teaches…

[James T. Hansen]

Maria:

Great points!  You're right - the humanistic emphasis on the person listening to his/her own inner voice is completely inconsistent with psychoanalytic thought.  Inner voices for traditional psychoanalysts are defensive deceptions that hide the underlying content.  Inner voices for humanists are true and authentic representations of the person's experience.  This is a very big difference.

I hope everyone is enjoying the readings - the counseling program is essentially humanistic.  However, few people (even trained humanists) are aware of the philosophical foundations of humanism or have read Rogers' classic paper on humanism (which, to me, is one of the top five papers ever written in the history of our profession).  I hope you enjoy these readings.  Also, Masson provides an interesting critique of Rogerian theory.

Let me know what you think.

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CNS 687 Fall 2013" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cns-687-fall-2...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cns-687-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cns-687-fall-2013.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Kurtis Kirkpatrick]

Reading through Davidson, there is one aspect of the humanist movement I must take issue with. The idea that humans are set apart from all other organisms is absurd, in my opinion. Davidson presents an argument against this, as well. But I think it is wholly misguided for us as a collective to view ourselves as somehow different from all other organisms. Even later, one approach "... argues that human beings have become so evolutionarily advance that they have crossed a qualitative boundary, typically represented by such achievements as the capacity for language, self-reflection, that sets them apart from other organisms." The issue is that we're starting to discover these things aren't distinctly human. Animal research is beginning to show all sorts of animals capable of similar things. Dolphins, for instance, have unique sounds dedicated for each individual (i.e., names) and have a language system incredibly adept, including organizational and social behavior. I suppose, one could then say well these other species have also crossed this qualitative boundary. But I also have an issue with this. In all reality, we aren't incredibly evolutionarily adept, we are incredibly vulnerable in many, many ways. Other organisms are much better at living in certain circumstances, such as extreme heat or cold, low oxygen environments, incredible pressure environments, etc.

I think this portion of the foundation of humanism relates a bit to what Chris was talking about in his post. I think humans have a history of being very species-centric because we are the ones putting the requirements on what it means to be "more advanced". I have a similar perspective to Chris that, if we do not change this in some respects, we are doomed. When it comes to species existence or not, you either evolve or go extinct (save for some catastrophe ala the dinosaurs). Maybe we're in a different type of evolution, one of technological and engineering evolution, which may be able to serve a similar purpose. But we're a long way from being able to survive many different types of extinction events.

Lots of rambling starting from one issue taken to one foundation of humanism, so I'll go back to reading now.

Kurt

[James T. Hansen]

Kurt:

These are great points about humanism!  They probably have too many implications to discuss over email, but I look forward to a very active discussion about them during the next class.

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu

[Jeanine Gruschow]

I agree with Kurt that in our current context as humans, our general understanding of the earth and it's creatures as well as our larger universe make the argument of "humans set apart from all other organisms" absurd.  So I won't weigh in there.  However, the end of the article begins to talk about taking humanism into psychology and how that can look in practice.  Davidson illustrates three areas: 1. Place humans in right world context to material and spiritual dimensions and from this placement begin our 'science', 2. Use the humanistic belief that humans share a "basic image of human being" and focus research on understanding and helping marginalized persons. And 3. Develop empirical methods to study human experience.  

First, if I throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak, I potentially loose the unique grounding of humans as meaning makers that are distinctly different than other species (a very literal reading of the article), I do believe that we are unique in our ability to create meaning, contemplate truth, etc.  Humans as a race have been rather ruthless in defining and controlling their perceived reality--perhaps we have to listen to the humanistic possibility of multiple truths--that can be experienced by multiple species?.  That to me begins to place humans into a more appropriate life context to begin to 'study ourselves'.  And to be a little less, human centric.

With Davidson's second direction, using humanism to recognized 'human' and then focus on helping groups that need assistance; those who are marginalized by our institutions etc…this type of practice is currently advocated by modern day counseling.  I realize that it relies on some predetermined agreements by humanists on what constitutes 'human', normal, and marginalized.  Part of me questions my 'rightness' in helping an alcoholic or drug addict….just because my reality is different, is it right? I use this example because it is one that I have familial struggles with and over 31 years have been unable to 'help' my loved one.  I have been partially successful and reaching my own self-actualization, but I wonder if my attempts at helping my loved one are misguided…sometimes just being present and nonjudgmental rather than offering assistance seems more effective.  So I am left with wondering even if my loved one appears to be unhappy by my definition, do they need help? 

On Davidson's third new objective, that of developing empirical methods to appropriately study human experience seems to me what the counseling movement is currently trying to do.  The big issue I see is the ongoing impossibility of pinning down the subjective human experience.  It the discussion last week I felt that there was some consensus that Psychoanalysis fitting into a pure 'scientific' model was questionable and to me fitting or adjusting science to fit humanism in continues to be problematic...

I know that  I am not articulating super well.  I found more robustness in humanistic reasoning and it resonates with my perceptions of reality, however, I find many truisms of psychoanalytic theory to be equally compelling in my personal psyche.  I am forced to wonder then if tenets of both humanism and psychoanalysis are so deeply rooted in western culture that they are incorporated into my own person and knowing of myself that I am unable to adequately separate them, or if to know a client I have to?

Jeanine

[Kurtis Kirkpatrick]

The Rogers piece is seriously amazing. I don't want to sit here and type for an hour about the things I have highlighted, so I'll just wait for class. But I wanted to share my opinion about the paper. I loved it.

[James T. Hansen]

Thank you, everyone, for sharing your wonderful thoughts about the readings!  

Jeanine - just like Kurtis' thoughts on Davidson, your observations are very intriguing and complex - it would be difficult to respond to your many thoughts via this group, but I really look forward to discussing them in class.  

I'm glad that the Davidson article stimulated so much thought - as humanistic practitioners, it is helpful to know the philosophical origins of humanism - it really is a unique worldview.  The psychological humanism that emerged in the mid-20th century with Rogers, Maslow, etc. can be understood as the psychological manifestation of this centuries old humanistic philosophy (although not everyone would agree with this).

Kurtis - I am very pleased that you enjoyed the Rogers' article - to me, this is one of the great classics of all time in the psychological literature.  In my opinion, no one should get a degree in the helping professions without studying this article thoroughly.

Anyone read Masson yet?  I put Masson as the third reading because he has some compelling (let me know if you find them compelling) critiques of Rogerian humanism (I wanted to include a critical article about humanism, just as I included the critical Fancher article about psychoanalysis).

Please continue to make use of the discussion board - I am very pleased that the class has used it so actively - it keeps the discussion alive between classes.

Again, I look forward to discussing these rich ideas in class on Tuesday night - and, discussing the implications of the current readings for the central question that guides this portion of the course: What does it mean to know a client?

James T. Hansen, Ph.D.
Professor

Coordinator, Mental Health Specialization
Oakland University
Department of Counseling
450E Pawley Hall
Rochester, MI 48309

James T. Hansen website

 

 

Phone: (248) 370-3071

Email: jtha...@oakland.edu