putting “positive” and “psychology” in perspective: the role of indian psychology

3
COMMENTARY Putting Positiveand PsychologyIn Perspective: The Role of Indian Psychology John Chambers Christopher Received: 15 August 2013 /Accepted: 18 August 2013 # National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2014 Abstract Rao (this issue) offers a trenchant critique of the field of positive psychology. He clearly shows the way posi- tive psychology, as it has been thus far considered, is clearly a product of a Westernized psychology. He goes further though and proposes that some of the limitations of positive psychol- ogy might be addressed by considering the insights of Indian indigenous psychology. In this commentary I suggest that these limitations of positive psychology can be fruitfully framed by considering the nature of the self and the nature of the positive or good that any understanding of positive psychology must presuppose. Keywords Positive psychology . Indigenous psychology . Cultural psychology . Critical psychology . Self . Well-being Professor Rao's article on positive psychology (PP) and Indian psychology (IP) is powerful and compelling. In it he offers a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the field of positive psychology. After scrutinizing the theoretical assumptions underlying such positive psychology notions as subjective well-being and flow and finding them lacking, Professor Rao makes the case that PP could be greatly strengthened through the contributions of Indian indigenous psychology. Professor Rao advocates a marriage that would integrate PPs empirical focus and IPs theoretical precision, inclusive theory of human nature, and long-standing repertoire of psycho- spiritual interventions. Professor Rao's discussion of IP is especially valuable in this article because he helps to apply the sometimes seemingly abstract perspectives of IP to a specific field of psychology in ways that ground IP and indicate it has clear contributions to make. From my perspective Professor Rao's critique of Western PP could be taken even further and Id like to take this opportunity to expand on his insights. As I see it the theoretical vagueness in PP that Professor Rao rightly mentions has two main foci: the view of the self and the view what is regarded as the good. In terms of the self, Western psychology has largely be- come mute about the nature of the self and the potential for radical transformation that is so central to virtually all of Asian psycho-spiritual-philosophical traditions. As Professor Rao mentions, in the Indian traditions the ego is seen as the problem-it is a mode of being that causes suffering but can be over-turned by either expanding our sense of identity, as in the Vedantic traditions, or deconstructing and dis-identifying from the self as in the Buddhist traditions. Yet currently the only places these issues are addressed are in the largely marginalized field of transpersonal psychology. But this kind of marginalization of discourse and interventions directed to the transformation of the self is a recent development within psychology. Beginning with William James, many of the seminal figures in Western psychology including Adler, Jung, Erickson, and Allport were keenly sensitive to the possibilities for self-transformation. Indeed, Adlers notion of social interest equates mental health with coming to identify with ever larger wholes of which one is a part. Adler writes that in favorable casesit extends not only to family mem- bers, but to the large group, to the nation, to all of mankind. It can even go further, extending itself to animals, plants, and inanimate objects and finally even to the cosmos(Adler 1956, p. 138). Deeply influenced by Adlers notion of social interest, Abraham Maslow (1954) found that self-actualizers have in general a deep feeling of identification, sympathy and affectionBecause of this they have a genuine desire to help the human race. It is as if they were all members of a single family(p. 217). Yet positive psychology has been silent on this topic. And in the opening manifesto for positive psychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) are clear J. C. Christopher (*) Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth College, Hanover Psychiatry, 23 S. Main St. #2B, Hanover, NH 03755, USA e-mail: [email protected] Psychol Stud DOI 10.1007/s12646-014-0256-8

Upload: john-chambers

Post on 24-Jan-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Putting “Positive” and “Psychology” In Perspective: The Role of Indian Psychology

COMMENTARY

Putting “Positive” and “Psychology” In Perspective: The Roleof Indian Psychology

John Chambers Christopher

Received: 15 August 2013 /Accepted: 18 August 2013# National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2014

Abstract Rao (this issue) offers a trenchant critique of thefield of positive psychology. He clearly shows the way posi-tive psychology, as it has been thus far considered, is clearly aproduct of a Westernized psychology. He goes further thoughand proposes that some of the limitations of positive psychol-ogy might be addressed by considering the insights of Indianindigenous psychology. In this commentary I suggest thatthese limitations of positive psychology can be fruitfullyframed by considering the nature of the self and the natureof the positive or good that any understanding of positivepsychology must presuppose.

Keywords Positive psychology . Indigenous psychology .

Cultural psychology . Critical psychology . Self .Well-being

Professor Rao's article on positive psychology (PP) and Indianpsychology (IP) is powerful and compelling. In it he offers asympathetic but penetrating critique of the field of positivepsychology. After scrutinizing the theoretical assumptionsunderlying such positive psychology notions as subjectivewell-being and flow and finding them lacking, ProfessorRao makes the case that PP could be greatly strengthenedthrough the contributions of Indian indigenous psychology.Professor Rao advocates a marriage that would integrate PP’sempirical focus and IP’s theoretical precision, inclusive theoryof human nature, and long-standing repertoire of psycho-spiritual interventions. Professor Rao's discussion of IP isespecially valuable in this article because he helps to applythe sometimes seemingly abstract perspectives of IP to aspecific field of psychology in ways that ground IP andindicate it has clear contributions to make. From my

perspective Professor Rao's critique of Western PP could betaken even further and I’d like to take this opportunity toexpand on his insights. As I see it the theoretical vaguenessin PP that Professor Rao rightly mentions has two main foci:the view of the self and the view what is regarded as the good.

In terms of the self, Western psychology has largely be-come mute about the nature of the self and the potential forradical transformation that is so central to virtually all of Asianpsycho-spiritual-philosophical traditions. As Professor Raomentions, in the Indian traditions the ego is seen as theproblem-it is a mode of being that causes suffering but canbe over-turned by either expanding our sense of identity, as inthe Vedantic traditions, or deconstructing and dis-identifyingfrom the self as in the Buddhist traditions. Yet currently theonly places these issues are addressed are in the largelymarginalized field of transpersonal psychology. But this kindof marginalization of discourse and interventions directed tothe transformation of the self is a recent development withinpsychology. Beginning with William James, many of theseminal figures in Western psychology including Adler,Jung, Erickson, and Allport were keenly sensitive to thepossibilities for self-transformation. Indeed, Adler’s notionof social interest equates mental health with coming to identifywith ever larger wholes of which one is a part. Adler writesthat “in favorable cases” it “extends not only to family mem-bers, but to the large group, to the nation, to all of mankind. Itcan even go further, extending itself to animals, plants, andinanimate objects and finally even to the cosmos” (Adler1956, p. 138). Deeply influenced by Adler’s notion of socialinterest, Abraham Maslow (1954) found that self-actualizershave “in general a deep feeling of identification, sympathyand affection… Because of this they have a genuine desire tohelp the human race. It is as if they were all members of asingle family” (p. 217). Yet positive psychology has beensilent on this topic. And in the opening manifesto for positivepsychology, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) are clear

J. C. Christopher (*)Department of Psychiatry, Dartmouth College, Hanover Psychiatry,23 S. Main St. #2B, Hanover, NH 03755, USAe-mail: [email protected]

Psychol StudDOI 10.1007/s12646-014-0256-8

Page 2: Putting “Positive” and “Psychology” In Perspective: The Role of Indian Psychology

to distance themselves from humanistic psychology—trans-personal psychology is never even mentioned.

So if these possibilities for self transformation are in a sensetaken away from PP, what is PP left to work with? Elsewhere,we've examined how PP ends up uncritically taking over andperpetuating a particular individualistic view of the self that isspecific to Western cultural history (Christopher andHickinbottom 2008; Christopher and Howe 2014). The resultmay be that much of PP could be thought of as aggrandizingthis individualistic self-providing more positive emotions,experiences, and meaning, seemingly without in any wayaltering the constitution of the kind of self who could be more"positive." While concepts like flow have the potential toundercut the legacy of the individualistic, “bounded and mas-terful self”, these implications have yet to be pursued. Theresult is a kind of impoverished view of human nature, espe-cially in contrast to the kind of potentials that the Indiantraditions envisage. Moreover, the kind of individualism thatPP presupposes is WEIRD– participants are from Western,educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies(Henrich et al. 2010). And Arnett (2008) has pointed out thatthe research samples from which US psychologists drawuniversal generalizations constitute only 5 % of the world’spopulation. Needless to say such participants in Western psy-chological data collection fail to capture the psychologicalrealities and phenomenology of most people in the world.And even within Western societies convincing argumentscan be made that individualism is not an accurate representa-tion of the experience of women and ethnic minorities. Byfailing to uncover its own presuppositions, PP thus far hasbeen limited by a one-sided view of the self that is not onlyculturally specific but fails to account for the kinds of trans-formation and development that in many traditions defines theessence of the positive.

The second area of theoretical vagueness in positive psy-chology has to do with howwe think about values, virtues, thegood, or in short, the nature of what is "positive." Psychologytrades in abstractions. Psychological concepts like self-efficacy or resilience or subjective well-being are studied ina decontextualized and procedural manner that often relies onself-report measures that abstract the concept in question awayfrom real world contexts that would ground the notion inculturally specific ways. When we look at values and virtuesin a decontextualized or "thin" manner as opposed to "thickly"describing and assessing them, it creates more room fordiminishing the actual impact of local cultures. In a sense,positive psychology looks for whether a person is caring orhas meaning but does not assess what they care about or whatbrings meaning—it is enough to report that one has thevirtues. Yet these virtues do not ever show up in our liveswithout a "horizon of meaning" that situates them in real lifesettings. Such a decontextualized orientation is harmoniouswith the kind of that individualism that the majority culture

within the United States takes for granted. The individual selfis expected to determine their own values and good throughinward reflection in a way that is unimaginable to people inancient and pre-modern societies, and to many today in col-lectivist societies. This includes the freedom to interpret anddefine the meaning of psychological terms as they appear inself-report measures.

In this way PP draws uncritically upon what Charles Taylor(2007) terms the “secular age” in which values and virtues arelargely no longer seen as qualities of the cosmos that arediscovered by human beings but rather as human meaningsthat are placed over or projected onto an objective, value- andmeaning-free reality. The individual in Western societies be-comes accordingly bestowed with the autonomy, freedom,and privacy necessary to cultivate the kind of reason or innerknowing that could be a guide to what is good and what istrue. However, for most human beings through history thesource of values is an external source (God, the natural order,the community or family) and the individual discovers theiridentity by looking outward and determining where they arelocated in social and cosmic orders. Western societies, incontrast, have lost these larger frameworks; God is dead asNietzsche put it, and so the highest criterion is whether par-ticular meanings and values lead to individual satisfaction.The satisfaction of personal desires and feelings becomes thehighest good. And as Professor Rao points out, this return tothe importance of individual satisfaction is at odds with theemphasis in IP upon altruism and ego-transcendence. Fromthe perspective of many non-Western traditions, PP’s individ-ually focused and defined sense of the good and meaningful isa kind of hubris that should be replaced by learning to surren-der, harmonize, or adapt to God’s will or the natural order.From these traditions, PP’s current vision of the good life isnot likely to be very compelling.

Professor Rao’s article initiates a dialogue about all thesematters. And as he points out, if PP is to be anything but apassing fad, it will need to more seriously grapple with it’sunderlying theoretical commitments. And as Professor Raoreminds us, IP has much to contribute in this endeavor.

References

Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. New York:Harper & Row.

Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychologyneeds to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.

Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology,ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism.Theory & Psychology, 18, 563–589.

Christopher, J. C., & Howe, K. (2014). Future directions for a moremulticulturally competent (and humble) positive psychology. In J.Teramoto-Pedrotti & L. M. Edwards (Eds.), Perspectives on the

Psychol Stud

Page 3: Putting “Positive” and “Psychology” In Perspective: The Role of Indian Psychology

Intersection of Multiculturalism & Positive Psychology (pp. 253–266). New York: Springer.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest peoplein the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harpers.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology:An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.5.

Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age.. Cambridge: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Psychol Stud