I am concerned about Psychology because, so often now, we seem to leach out what is mystical about it in order to confine it to the glass case of Science. But I am not fully convinced that this is the correct course of action.
The main fallacy seems to be in our concept of Science. Many today view it as an entity, a determiner of truth and fact. But this is not the case. Science is an expansive and wonderful thing that has changed the world, mostly for the better, but it is not the maker or determiner of truth and should not be thought of as such.
Science is a tool of thought. It is a very specific way of thinking that has been devised in order to root out specific kinds of truth. That is not to say that Science can root out all truth, it can't, but that it intentionally focuses and limits its field of vision in order to see with greater clarity a very specific form of truth. From this truth we can build many things but the fault comes when we start believing that through science alone we can discover all truth. Science is limited, and it is limited on purpose. That is why it works so well. One must remember that there are other methods of thought as well which are useful in rooting out other truths, just as true as the truths discovered by scientific thought.
How does this connect to Psychology? There is a great push today by many in the field of Psychology to be recognized as a Science. This recognition seems to come largely from the view of science as an end-all-be-all entity. That being a cold, hard science makes it more real that if it were tainted by some other way of thinking. I would argue that Psychology is in very nature more than science. Yes, science can be applied to Psychology and be useful and Psychology is not strictly not a Science and is not a pseudoscience. But when you are working with individual human being in clinical practice most psychologists instinctively find that they will have to step beyond the blessed hand of Science.
But what is this great ether not illuminated by the light of our modern world? People will disagree on what to call it but I think I can comfortably label it as mystical if not spiritual. There are fantastic and paradoxical nuances to human nature, and to individuals particularly, that can not be sifted by classic science. This means clinicians must devise other tools, beyond science, to work with individuals in these intimate and vulnerable places. When people interact in deeply emotional circumstances there opens a space for wonder. Wonder at the intricacy of the individual which cannot be grouped and labeled and neatly fitted with the right sample size and most vetted questions. There is much left to be curious about, there are subtle beats of the heart which must be measured by something more than the pulse.
But can I often any inkling as to what other method of thought, and what other form of measurement can be employed as to better serve those in need of mental and emotional treatment? There comes in to play issues which clash with spirituality and, even worse, religion. These terms are the bane of those psychologists who wish to have Psychology neatly labeled as a Science. They are likewise swept neatly beneath the rug and that rug then tightly rolled up and hidden in some mildewy attic of a liberal arts college's underfunded Philosophy Department. When thusly entering the realm of humanities to the dark corners of philosophy and spirituality we must abandon our classical, scientific ideas of measurement and method entirely. (Not with the intent of never returning, but to glimpse some new way of looking at the world.) We might take advise from Victorian poets and Greek philosophers. Why do we not study their ways of questioning humanity? Might they have also tapped in to some useful well of insight into the human condition? And might this insight help us in communicating with and better understanding those seeking mental health treatment? Think of Melville, who in his great epic, Moby-Dick, ponders depression, anxiety, bias, and revenge. He remembers the humanity of others, and wonders: what is humanity anyway? In the beginning of his book he speaks of the healing power of the ocean, of allowing space for thought, of soul-ish restlessness that needs some outlet.
We try to put these ideas into the frame of Science. We know that one must talk about there inner doubts and fears, and that this can help. Science is a boon to psychology, but it cannot be its only facet. If it were talk therapy would never work. Science does not allow for and cannot make reasoning for why talk therapy works (for some). But might it be that the catharsis of human connection, human understanding, and human acceptance shifts the soul in such a way that it can begin to heal?
The mystery of the human condition cannot be fully answered or confined by psychology and science wed together. If ever people could be fully reduced by science we would loose all of our humanity. It is a marvelous paradox. It is necessary that there is some pondering, something mystical about us all. This is what some consider to be spiritual about us, but spirit is something that science has no jurisdiction over and psychology works everyday on the line between the physical and the spiritual. It is gravely important that we do this, in order to better draw that line, blur it, cross it, and in order to help those who find themselves so confused, disturbed, distraught, and in abandon. But if Psychology were to forget that it walks a border, if it were to fall to either side and no longer draw with awe and gratitude from both sides, it would fail entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment