Category Archives: New Existentialist Blog

Education’s Lost Citizenship

This blog was originally published April 27, 2012 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

Anyone in higher education today knows that the field is drastically changing. Nervous academics and
administrators are engaging in intense debate regarding the causes of the problems and scrambling to find solutions before they become imposed upon the academy by accreditation bodies. It is evident that a myriad of factors contributed to the current state of education. I will focus on a few important contributing factors and their role in one of the most substantial sacrifices being made in higher education today: the preparation for citizenship.

Historically, education was about much more than preparing the student for successful employment. Education was about preparing students to be good citizens of their country, the world, and their professional community. With all the public debate about education today, rarely does the idea of citizenship enter the conversation. I worry that if we prepare individuals to be successful in their careers without preparing them to be successful in their roles as citizens that we are moving toward a period of moral and ethical crisis.

Reasons for the Loss of Citizenship

I would like to begin with a brief analysis of some of what prompted the changes in education.
First, the economic recession has played an important role in focusing education on a cost-benefit analysis of education defined in purely economic terms. Listening to students share their fears about their ever-increasing debt, I am quite sympathetic with this issue. Institutions of higher education need to be responsible and accountable for the product they are offering, especially with the rising costs of education. My concern is that this reality has caused a shift toward focusing solely on the economic aspects of education while forgetting citizenship.

Second, the changing landscape of higher education with the emergence of the for-profit schools has led to a cry for greater accountability. While not all for-profit schools are bad, it is evident that a significant number of them have been exploiting students and the education system. The media has focused on a number of issues with these for-profit institutions including high tuition rates, high levels of attrition, high default rates on student loans, poor placement rates, and a poor quality of education. However, a number of other issues are often ignored. For instance, the for-profit schools often spend an exorbitant amount of money on advertising. Traditional schools, in response, have needed to spend more money on advertising to compete with the very aggressive marketing and recruitment techniques of these for-profit schools. Many higher education institutions are increasing marketing budgets and personnel while decreasing funding spent on academics, faculty salaries, and faculty development. Faculty struggle with increased workloads, decreased professional development funds, decreased job security, and decreased support staff and resources while having higher expectations placed upon them. Obviously, this is not a context that helps faculty thrive at teaching and mentoring.

Third, I would be remiss not to mention the impingement of capitalism into education, which also has been influenced by the for-profit model becoming more prominent. When education becomes another cog in a capitalist machine, a degree becomes a product that is purchased. Students become consumers, and the ethos of the institutions becomes one of customer service. This sounds nice until we consider the implications. The customer support model values students because they are important for the financial security of the institution and job security, not because they are fellow citizens being mentored into a professional community. Faculty and administrators want to keep students happy and satisfied because of what they offer to the institution economically, not because they are respected as human beings. A degree is a product bought, not a privilege earned. In the end, the intrusion of capitalism into education often turns students into objects and degrees into products, both of which leave little room for the idea of citizenship.

Fourth, many changes in accreditation have been implemented with the threat of more coming. Two important factors are particularly relevant here. First, the exploitations of certain for-profit schools, sometimes labeled as the “bad players,” has led to pressure on accrediting institutions to call for greater accountability. Second, the emergence of online education has changed how education is implemented, even when the primary medium is the traditional classroom. Accrediting bodies now must consider what this means for education. As accrediting bodies respond to the challenges of the “bad players” while considering the dire job market and increasing levels of student loans, they have focused in on career advancement and increased salaries, leaving out citizenship.

Fifth, in many fields, the breadth of what is needed to be a generalist is ever-expanding, restricting any room for the liberal arts and critical thinking. Educators are under increasing pressure to make sure students accumulate a breadth of knowledge without consideration of their ability to think about this knowledge or use it in a responsible manner. As a graduate instructor, I am frequently amazed at the stories students share about how they have been discouraged from critical thinking or even integrating their own ideas. For instance, often students are discouraged from integrating their ideas into scholarly papers and, instead, are pushed to make sure that they focus on the ideas of “appropriately vetted scholars.” The implicit message is that students with their fresh perspectives do not have anything of substance to offer, at least not until they have been appropriately cultured to think like everyone else.

Similarly, a role of the liberal arts and humanities was to place knowledge in the context of citizenship, or who we are beyond our professional identities. The liberal arts connected us to the meaning level of existence and to social ethics. Too often, this is reduced with learning an ethics code in today’s educational system.

Citizenship and Psychology

The field of psychology ought be particularly concerned as these forces uniquely impact it. The accreditation requirements of the American Psychological Association (APA) for doctoral programs in psychology and internships are increasingly full, allowing for little room for variation. As part of this, students have little room to pursue their own interests until after they graduate. APA justifies this saying its accreditation is for generalists, and their requirements are the knowledge needed to be a generalist psychologist. Yet, in reality a significant percentage of psychologists do not utilize many of APA’s requirements because they are not relevant to what they are doing professionally. Similarly, this restrictive understanding of what it means to be a generalist does not meet the needs of the consumers of mental health who come from various backgrounds with a diverse set of values and expectations of what they want when seeking assistance from mental health professionals. APA, through its narrow focus in training, is essentially dictating what consumers ought to want from mental health professionals, not preparing psychologists to meet the diverse values and needs of the citizens who come to them.

Professional psychology is also the field that, at the doctorate level, is being heavily influenced by for-profit institutions. While, again, not all for-profit institutions are bad, this has a negative influence on the reputation of professional psychology and potentially may have a negative impact on the quality of education students are receiving. Mental health has always had a precarious relationship within the broader health field and does not need additional reasons to question its credibility.

Conclusion

Existential psychology is interested in a holistic understanding of the individual in the context of community. Furthermore, existential psychology has always had an interest in the ethical dimensions of being human. In today’s educational system, there is a great need for an existential critique, but it must not stop here. We need to have a voice in identifying solutions and addressing the current problems in a constructive manner. Right now, most critically, we need to provide a voice advocating for the protection and restoration of citizenship in education.

Higher education is moving in a direction that removes the person from educational process. Instead, people are being trained to function much like machines in a complex system—without critical thought, without creativity, without soul. People are being trained to be professionals without preparations to be citizens in the world in which they serve as professionals. This is a dangerous reality. The fight to restore citizenship in education is really a fight to restore humanity in education.

Dogs and Existential Psychology

This blog was originally published June 2, 2014 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog as discontinued.

Dog lovers know that picking a breed is often an important part of responsible pet ownership. It also says a lot about ourselves and can be a source of self-awareness. Choosing a pet that is a good fit is important for the family as well as for the dog. Too often, a wrong match can lead to the pet being mislabeled as a “bad dog” or not having the life that they deserve.

Dogs and Spirituality

People have often scoffed when I have said that dogs are an important part of my spirituality. I am a dog lover. I enjoy their companionship and have fun playing with dogs, but it is more than that for me. My first dog was a Siberian Husky, and my current dog is an Alaskan Malamute. These are beautiful dogs. When watching them run or pull, looking into their eyes, or being out in nature with them, I am so often amazed that these beautiful creatures have such strong human connections.

My relationship with my dogs has helped me stay connected to nature and to the earth. They remind me that we are connected with something more than ourselves and more than our species. To love and be loved in this way is powerful.

Amaya

Siberian Huskies: An Existential Breed

I had been drawn to the northern breeds, particularly Siberian Huskies, since I was a child. However, I did not get my first dog, Amaya, until I was in graduate school. We had a very deep bond, one that some of my friends and family found strange and were even critical of at times.

I learned a lot from Amaya, which I began to recognize increasingly as I used her more and more to illustrate aspects of psychotherapy. She was, in ways, a therapist and even mentor to me. She was with me through many difficult transitions in my life, including several major moves, the ending of a longterm
relationship, and the loss of some people very close to me. She also was a muse, of sorts, as she served as inspiration for some lectures, professional writing, and poetry.

Over time, I began to reflect upon what drew me to the breed of Siberian Huskies. As I did, I realized that huskies tended to share many qualities of my own temperament and personality. Also, I think they represent qualities common in existential psychology.

First, Siberian Huskies are known for being pack animals, but they are also quite independent and stubborn. In this way, they provide a balance to the being a-part-of and apart-from that Bugental (1999) speaks to. Although existential psychology is often misperceived as being highly individualistic, this is not necessarily so. While some existentialists represent a more extreme individualist perspective, there tends to be a strong relational focus that balances the individualist tendency.

Amaya was a very stubborn dog. She quickly learned many commands, but she decided when she wanted to respond to them and when she would ignore them. But she was also a great companion and fiercely loyal. When I was going through a difficult period she always stayed close. Amaya was also protective, as a skunk who had the misfortunate showing an aggressive posture toward me discovered. That was not a pleasant lesson for any of us.

Huskies are considered a “working breed.” As someone who has often struggled with workaholic tendencies, this seemed fitting. Though Amaya was never trained to pull a sled or the roles often thought of with the working breed, some of the traits associated with this often showed in her perseverance.

Last, huskies are also known to be fairly intelligent and creative. In particular, they are known to be great escape artists and can be difficult to contain. Although Amaya did show that she could use these skills to get out on a few occasions, she used them more frequently to learn how to get inside as she learned to open a variety of doors over the years. Creativity, too, is a common theme in existential psychology.

Dante and Amaya

While some of these qualities were frustrating at times, I also knew that they were a part of my deep love for Amaya. I did not want a dog that was completely compliant, nor did I want a dog that was aloof. Amaya had a personality and I wouldn’t have wanted to change this. This, too, I see as being very existential. While some approaches to psychology focus on trying to change people to better fit in, the existential approach tends to help people find out who they are and want to be. There were ways that Amaya conformed to my desires, but she was always herself, too.

Conclusion

When people speak of dogs and pets in such ways, it is common to hear some scoff that this is nothing more than projection. I suppose this is a possibility and I’m sure there are times when this is true. Yet, I think there is much we can learn and discover if we are open to learning from our pets. We can learn from their way of being, but we can also learn from our relationship with them and why we are drawn to loving them the way we do.

References

Bugental, J. F. T. (1999). Psychotherapy isn’t what you think: Bringing psychotherapy engagement into the present moment. Zieg, Tucker, & Theisen.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Embodied Racism

This blog was originally published April 3, 2014 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here on after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued. Some updates to the article were made.

“Racism is located in your body.” I first heard this stated when I was struggling with the realization that someone very important to me was having a difficult time accepting that I was engaged to a Black woman. As I was talking about how painful it was for me that this person, who I knew was a good person with strong character, could not seem to get past their prejudice, it was gently pointed out to me that, “Racism is located in your body. If it was just in one’s mind, it would be easy to overcome and change. But it is not easy, because racism is in our body.”

I was trying to change my friend’s mind through logical arguments, along with some attempts to motivate the change by pointing out that he was hurting the woman I loved through his prejudices. My approach was not effective. Although my fiancée (now my wife) also advised, “Just let him get to know me. Once he gets to know me, he’ll get over it,” it was not until this insight that racism is in the body set in that I began to accept that I could not change my friend through logical argument. As I let this go and trusted the relational process (primarily the relationship between him and my fiancée), he was able to gradually work through most of his prejudices.

Racists Are Not Necessarily Bad People

We often want to categorize racists as bad people; however, there are several problems with this. For one, to label people “good” or “bad” is an oversimplification. No one is all good or all bad. Second, I would affirm the common assertion that everyone has prejudices to some degree. But these are more philosophical suppositions that could take us away from the point I would like to make.

Many intelligent people with strong character, good intentions, and solid morals struggle with racism and other forms of prejudice. If racism were simple enough that we could rationally disprove it, and through this process, end racism, the destructiveness of racism would be much more contained. If all good people, and all people who would like to have no racism, could easily overcome it, there would be much less racism in the world. The problem lies deeper; it is in our bodies.

How does racism get in the body? One way that racism gets in our body is through experience. This can be role modeling as well as direct experience. For instance, children are often exposed to racism. Regardless of whether this is through word or action, it can begin to become internalized through this modeling. Second, it can occur through bad experiences with individuals or small groups from different cultures, which then gets generalized to all people from the culture. Often this bad experience may be rooted in being uncomfortable with differences or difficulty understanding soemone from a different culture.

Many would argue that the roots of racism are encoded in our genes. It is not that there is a racist gene in our DNA, but rather a tendency to identify with one’s own group for safety reasons while being distrustful or suspicious of those identified as other. Terror Management Theory, which is an existential social psychology based upon the work of Ernest Becker, maintains that particularly when we are reminded of our mortality we tend to identify more closely with our own group and often against other groups.

Empathy for Racists

As I will discuss, I am not suggesting that people who are causing harm with their racism deserve empathy, nor am I suggesting people who have had racism directed at them should have empathy for those who have harmed them. People causing harm due to racism need to be held accountable. However, accountability and empathy can, at times, coexist.

I consider myself to be a highly empathetic person. Yet, it is difficult for me to be empathetic with racists, in part because I generally don’t want to be empathetic with them. However, for those who would like to overcome their racism, empathy can be a powerful tool of change. Empathy takes us beyond the surface level. One of the reasons that empathy is effective in bringing about change is precisely because it takes us beyond the rational; it takes us to the embodiment of the struggle.

Empathy is also effective at disarming defenses. When someone voices, “I know I am prejudice toward black people, but I don’t want to be,” and are met with empathy, this may allow them to explore this and begin a healing process. Yet, this is not always the case. When they are met with condemnation and judgment, or pushing them to quickly overcome these struggles, they often put defenses up to emotionally protect themselves from the perceived attack. In protecting themselves, they also protect their racism, even if inadvertently so.

It should not be expected for someone who is the target of racism to be empathetic with the person who harmed them. To place the responsibility of change on people who have experienced racism is an unfair burden that can cause more harm. Too often, society expects people of color to carry the burden of change in addressing racism. This is addressing injustice with further injustice. For White individuals such as myself, there may be times where the use of empathy combined with holding people accountable can be effective in promoting change.

I am not suggesting that there is not a place for the rational or impassioned arguments in the struggle to overcome racism. Nor am I suggesting that we should be soft on people who do hurtful things—intentionally or unintentionally—because of their prejudices. Quite to the contrary, I believe it is necessary at times to be confrontational and speak from our righteous indignation. Yet, while the confrontation may help someone recognize the need to change, rarely is it successful in helping implement the change. Confrontation must be followed by empathy, and it is the empathy that generally empowers the change. For advocates and activists, the shift from confrontation to empathy is difficult, but an important part of the art of promoting social change.

Conclusion

Racism is complex. This is a primary reason why racism continues to thrive even though it is no longer considered socially acceptable. Because racism is complex, any attempt to counter or overcome racism requires something more than simple or superficial solutions; it even requires something more than sophisticated logical arguments. Like most forms of deeper change, overcoming racism requires relationship. The relationships required to overcome racism are, in many ways, risky relationships and they are not for everyone. It is hard to open oneself up to someone who demonstrates racism. For us to overcome racism, we a wide array of strategies with different people playing different roles. Without compassion, concern, and empathy for racists, we will never succeed in the goal of eradicating racism. Timing is important when considering compassion and empathy for people struggling with racism. If it is offered when someone is still entrenched in racism, it can pacify them and work against overcoming their racism. However, when someone authentically accepts their struggles with racism and commits to change, compassion and empathy in the right context may help them attain the change they are seeking.

On Being an Existential Psychology Evangelist

This blog was originally published on September 18, 2013 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

Several years ago I was teaching at a university in Colorado and a small group of us were working to fan the fire of interest in existential psychology with some success. Each year, we brought Kirk Schneider to co­-teach a seminar on existential psychology. Mark Yang began joining us from China, often with some Chinese colleagues. I fondly remember one evening having dinner with Kirk and Mark in one of my favorite restaurants in Manitou Springs. Our conversation drifted to the idea of being existential evangelists. The use of “evangelist” was, in part, in jest. Yet, the idea of this always stuck with me.

The idea of “evangelism” is generally connected with trying to convert people to a particular religious perspective, most often Christianity. As hopefully is evident, our use of the idea of being an “evangelist” was not intended to in any way to suggest we wanted to convert people to or from a religious perspective, but rather to draw people into identifying as an existential therapist.

Respective Existential Evangelism

A primary challenge of any type of evangelism is to try to convert or draw people into affiliation with a perspective while being respectful of differences. Most people who know me at least fairly well recognize that I have a strong passion for the existential psychology. It is not just what I do in my professional world, it is part of who I am and part of my way of being.

Yet, I firmly believe that the world would be worse off if everyone was an existentialist. There is beauty in diversity, and this beauty is important for the world. In psychology, the diverse perspectives are essential in being able to meet the needs of diverse clientele. The dialogue between different perspectives helps advance each while too much agreement easily falls prey to group think.

The research on psychotherapy effectiveness suggests that all bona fide therapy approaches are about equally effective (Cleare­Hoffman, Hoffman, & Wilson, 2013; Elkins, 2009; Wampold, 2001). Yet, this does not mean that it does not matter what approach to therapy one provides. The research also suggests that believing in one’s approach to therapy is more predictive of successful therapy outcomes than what we do. Thus, having a therapy orientation that one believes in is vitally important in becoming an effective therapist.

The client buying into the therapy approach is also an important predictive factor of therapeutic success, regardless of therapy orientation (Elkins, 2009; Wampold, 2001). I believe that this suggests that we should not be searching for which therapy is the most effective with which diagnosis or demographic, but rather which therapy is the best fit for a client’s values and desired way of being. If we can match the therapeutic approach that provides the best fit with who the client is, then it is more likely to be effective, and they are less likely to drop out of therapy. The different therapy approaches represent, at times, significantly different ways of being.

For instance, Cognitive Behavioral approaches to therapy implicitly value a more rational approach to living that values thinking over feeling or experience. While some existential approaches can be fairly cognitive or rational as well, in general, existential approaches value a fuller and deeper embracing of one’s emotions as well as their thoughts. Obviously, there is much more to the similarities and differences than illustrated in this one simplified example, but it does give some perspective on the implications of different therapy approaches.

As therapists, it is important for us to respect what could be termed “ontological diversity,” or different ways of being, and recognize the connection of this to different types of therapy or, at the least, different ways of implementing therapy approaches. This realm has largely been ignored as therapists go about imposing ontological perspectives on their clients without considering the implications of this and possibly without even recognizing that they are doing this. Respectful existential evangelism, or recruitment, recognizes and respects these differences while trying to avoid such ontological impositions.

Authenticity

Evangelism is often associated with coercion, converting, or attempting to change someone’s beliefs and/or values. I have never had much interest in this. Thus, it might seem that I am a rather poor existential evangelist. However, instead of trying to convert people to an existential approach, my desire to is to speak passionately about existential psychology in order to attract people individuals for whom this is a good fit.

When I have taught classes such as Theories of Personality, I will often state that I believe that I have done a very poor job teaching if everyone leaves the class identifying as an existential therapist. If all the students agree with me, I most likely have been more successful at coercion than illumination, which is never my goal.

I deeply believe that existential psychology is important, and that it can play an important role for changing the world for the better. It is from this belief and the associated passion that I hope to draw people in to existential psychology. I am confident that I have been able to do this with at least some success in my career thus far.

Conclusion

The best evangelism is not coercion or convincing others that one’s perspective is right or the best view; it is helping people explore their values and discover who they are. My experience is that when people are able to come to an understanding of what existential psychology represents as a way of being without the distortions of how it is often misrepresented, many find themselves deeply drawn to this approach. Yet, misconceptions about existential therapy are common and must be clarified. In the end, however, just sharing our passion and helping people understand the implications of existential psychology can be a very effective and authentic way of being an existential evangelist.

References

Cleare­-Hoffman, L., Hoffman, L., & Willson, S. (2013, August). Existential therapy, culture, and therapist factors in evidence-­based practice. In K. Keenan (Chair), Evidence in support of existential ­humanistic psychotherapy: Revitalizing the third force. Symposium presented at the 121st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

Elkins, D. E. (2009). Humanistic psychology: A clinical manifesto. University of the Rockies Press.

Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Mark Yang: Living a Taoist Model of Leadership in Existential Psychology

This blog was originally published June 29, 2012 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

Over the last five years, I have worked closely with Mark Yang and Xuefu Wang on developing existential psychology in China. This has been the most rewarding, transforming, and important work of my career. We have been deeply blessed with success, and now I think it is fair to claim that there is nowhere in the world where existential psychology is growing at a more rapid pace than in China.

We have always believed that this work was as important for the United States and Western psychology as it was for China. Our often stated purpose is that we hope to identify indigenous Chinese approaches to existential psychology and bring them into conversation with Western existential psychology. The goal has always been dialogue, not the exportation of Western existential psychology.

Mark Yang & Louis Hoffman at the Fourth International Conference of Existential Psychology

The unsung and underrecognized champion of this work is Mark Yang. As the person in the United States who has been speaking about this work, I have appreciated the reception and recognition that I have received. Xuefu Wang’s scholarship has helped him gain increasing recognition in the United States. Xuefu’s institute, the Zhi Mian Institute for Psychotherapy, has been selected to receive the Charlotte and Karl Buhler Award from the Society of Humanistic Psychology (APA Division 32). While Mark’s name is often included in the acknowledgments from various people, I believe he has often not received due credit for the work he has done.

And Mark would most likely be the last person to be concerned about this lack of recognition. Those who have come to know Mark are not likely surprised by the lack of recognition he has received. It is not that it is undeserved, but rather that it is not sought after and, in many ways, diverted before he has the chance to receive it. Those who know Mark recognize that he is a living embodiment of a Taoist approach to leadership, which emphasizes that the leader is often an unseen and unrecognized figure, even if a powerful force.

The Tao Te Ching states, “When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists… The Master doesn’t talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, ‘Amazing, we did it, all by ourselves’” (Tao Te Ching, 17). Elsewhere, “the Master” is translated as “the leader.” I cannot think of a better description of Mark Yang’s influence than these words. But let me give a few more examples of Mark’s embodied Taoist leadership.

Through the years, Mark has often played a guiding role while thrusting me along with others into the leadership and more prominent roles. In part, this was his awareness of cultural issues. He recognized that because I was a Western scholar, people in China would respond to me differently than another scholar from China. In part, this was also because Mark had more confidence in me than I sometimes had in myself. But mostly, I think this was a Taoist approach to leadership that was just innate in Mark. He always thought first about what would be the most effective in supporting the mission we were trying to achieve. When needed, he would step forward, but he preferred to be in the background.

At the Second International Conference on Existential Psychology, Mark Yang was undoubtedly the most important person contributing to the success of the conference, yet this was hardly known by most people in attendance. Mark did not give a keynote address. He did not speak at the opening or closing ceremony. He did not make himself prominent. It was not known that the theme of the conference, which a focus of most presentations at the conference, was Mark’s idea—an idea that placed more focus on Xuefu’s work. Instead, he quietly advocated for others to be seen, heard, and recognized. I am certain that many of the people who directly benefited from Mark are not, and never will be, fully aware of what Mark did for them. It did not even need to be known that he was advocating for them to have the roles that they had.

Through the years, I have known this side of Mark and deeply appreciated it. I have often told people that Mark does more than what is recognized. Yet, this year I gained a deeper appreciation for it as I finally heard it through the recognition of another wise observer. Jason Dias came to China for a third time as part of our group, making him the most seasoned participant on these trips besides Mark, Xuefu, and myself. One evening, he commented that he was amazed at how much Mark was doing behind the scenes. In the evenings, when most people were spending time with friends or sleeping, Mark was emailing and making phone calls about large and small details to make the conference go more smoothly. Mark avoided and repaired many potential problems, yet no one, except maybe Jason and myself, had much knowledge of this.

Mark is not just a great leader, he is also a great scholar and trainer. For many years I have heard Mark’s passionate and compassionate presentations. He always brings deep soul to his presentations along with a beautiful presence. Yet, he avoids the lead roles when presenting. Even when in the spotlight, Mark points to others. Although Mark’s scholarship has received some appreciation, once again it is not to the degree deserved. The humbleness in his approach, and his focus on bringing existential psychology to the forefront, often allows him to not be seen even in his own contributions.

Mark readily gives up his time to make sure everyone else is seen and given an opportunity to shine. Frequently, I have seen Mark give of his limited presentation time to allow someone else a chance to present. Often, this was a student who we did not schedule until seeing their level of comfort while on the trip. Other times, he has taken great effort to organize meaningful activities and exchanges for students who came along. When I have asked Mark to try to fit something or someone into the schedule, even though it is often difficult and inconvenient, Mark always works to try to make this happen.

A final example of Mark’s leadership is in the personal touch he brings. At the end of presentations, while most people are shaking hands and taking pictures, Mark often can be found off to the side in deep conversation with someone who others may overlook. Often, during these conversations, I am struck by the intensity of the look on Mark’s face as he listens. I have also noticed that many of these individuals return and gradually seem more confident to engage more deeply in the dialogues. No doubt, Mark’s attention and encouragement helped bring them forward. Again, the Taoist leadership shines.

It has not been a surprise to me that Mark’s presentations have increasingly included Taoist themes and references. I do not believe that Mark has long been a Taoist scholar, though I have not had this conversation with him. Yet, the convergence is evident. And the convergence with existential psychology is also evident. Mark’s message is always embodied as much as it is spoken, lived as much as it is talked about. If one wants to know existential psychology, it would be just as valuable to spend a week observing Mark during one of these trips as it would be to read a book by Rollo May or James Bugental. One would learn about Taoist leadership and one would learn about existential psychology. At the end, one would observe everyone feeling great about what they did and maybe for the first time recognize that nothing much would have occurred without this happily underrecognized, humble figure living his message.

I owe Mark a great deal for my success in China and the lessons I have taken from my time in China. He has often advised and guided the direction of my presentations, just happy with their eventual success for which I am generally assumed to have sole credit. In many ways, this piece is one small payment in the huge debt that I owe to Mark. I know that it is not a payment Mark would ever want or expect. Yet, it is what I have to offer. I hope that Mark will accept this gift as one that I must give, even if insufficient to pay the full debt. In the future years of collaboration and friendship, I hope that I can continue to repay this debt. Yet, I imagine that despite my efforts, the debt will only continue to grow.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

***

Check out Mark Yang’s books, too! Click on the book cover for more information or to purchase.

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Occupy Mental Health! Countering the “Business Model” of Psychotherapy

This blog was originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on November 8, 2011. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

The medical model draws a significant amount of critique in clinical psychology these days, especially from existential and humanistic psychologists, and for good reason. The medical model is deeply flawed in its basic assumptions, including its construction of mental illness and conceptualization of what it means to be human. Although ongoing critique of the medical model is needed, it is increasingly evident that another disconcerting model is also in need of our attention and critique: the business model.

The business model is nothing new in mental health. We were first introduced to it when managed care invaded mental health. Despite our complaints about the negative impacts of managed care, it is important for clinicians to recognize that it came about largely because of the abuses of the system perpetrated by many practitioners. With managed care, clinicians encountered lower pay and greater challenges in reimbursement, leading to the need for many therapists to give more attention to the business side of practice in order to survive.

Although often not acknowledged, managed care brought some needed reform. Individuals and groups that were exploiting the system were more closely regulated and many mental health organizations began emphasizing financial responsibility. Yet, this is not the business model I am addressing this article. In recent times, we have seen the introduction of for-profit companies, agencies, and models (including in nonprofit companies) into various levels of psychological training and practice. These for-profit models have infiltrated mental health hospitals, community mental health centers, prisons, education and training programs, and even hospice programs. The for-profits often have a different motivation than the traditional mental health worker: profit. Although it is important to emphasize that not all forprofits are problematic, increasingly it seems there are few exceptions.

The introduction of the for-profit model has changed the way people approach mental health. More emphasis is placed on marketing, “customer service,” the “product,” and how to increase profits and expand markets. These companies prioritize getting and keeping clients, making sure employees are working enough “billable hours,” and maintaining a good public image. The goal of making a positive difference in the world has shifted from being a lived reality to a tagline exploited for marketing purposes.

Existential and humanistic therapists should be particularly concerned about this. The for-profit model stands in opposition to many of our most dearly held values. Let me provide a few examples. First, existential psychology is a meaning-centered approach. Although money and profit are a popular sort of meaning sought, they are not a sustainable form of meaning. A sustainable meaning is one that helps people sustain in difficult times, transforms suffering into something manageable, and benefits the individual as well as the collective. Although in today’s modern world it is difficult to survive without some money, on the bigger issues of life, such as meaning, money is at best a means to an end. Too often, money just buys a bigger void that individuals seek to fill.

Second, humanistic and existential psychology speak of treating each other holistically, as other subjective beings. There has always been this tension in humanistic and existential psychology about the medical model language of “patients” and “clients,” as this brings the likelihood of treating people as things or objects. The business model language of customers is no better, and in many ways worse. As customers, mental health consumers are not only in danger of being treated like objects, they are also in danger of being treated as a means to an end. A certain level of exploitation is often inherent in the imperfections of the business model and readily tolerated in business ethics.

Third, existential and humanistic psychology has always adhered to a deep valuing of compassion. Yet, in the business model, compassion is too often replaced with what is financial viable. In a business model, caring too much is a liability. It may unduly influence people to make poor business decisions, such as helping someone in need when it may negatively impact the financial bottom line.

Last, reaching out to those in greatest need is often replaced by accessibility. Accessibility sounds nice and, when sought in a compassionate model, can be very good. However, in a business model, accessibility is about expanding into new markets, not compassionately meeting needs. Yes, they are often reaching people who were failed by the old system; unfortunately, too often, they are now being failed and exploited by a new one.

Humanistic and existential psychology flourished in the 1960s and 1970s in part because the moral issues of the time were urgently calling for the type of compassionate, person-centered ethics represented in existential and humanistic psychology. Now, again, we are experiencing such a time. The world needs us, and we cannot afford to fail by not speaking out loudly.

It is no wonder that we are seeing a renewed interest in humanistic and existential psychology right now; this is our fullness of time. We are emerging from a time of moral depravity witnessed by an unjust war. We are emerging from a time of financial irresponsibility and exploitation of the poor. And we are part of a coming together of the disenfranchised to stand up to the financial bullies of our time. This is our time. It is not just a time of expanding interest and growing societies. This is our time to once again change a world that desperately needs us.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Polarization and the DSM5: Conversations About the Politics of Diagnosis and Medication in Mental Health

This blog was originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on September 10, 2013. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

[Editor’s Note: Listen to Louis Hoffman speak about the DSM5 controversy on City Visions radio on KALW.]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is receiving a dramatic increase of attention since the new version (i.e., the DSM5) became available. This discussion is important given the DSM5 is not just another book; it is a book that impacts daily the lives of millions of people who are struggling with emotional difficulties. Yet, these conversations are not easy and it is important for us to explore why this is.

The Politics of Diagnosis

Lisa Cosgrove has been a leading voice in bringing to light concerns about the DSM-IV, DSMIV TR, and DSM-5. In a 2010 article, Cosgrove, drawing upon previous research, demonstrates how the DSM has displayed a growing conflict of interest. For instance, she documents a dramatic increase in the number of individuals on DSM panels with direct financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry from the DSM-III to the DSM5.

These concerns have led to increasing criticism from individuals within the mental health professions. The Society for Humanistic Psychology (SHP) has been very influential in building a coalition of professionals and professional organizations voicing concerns about the DSM5. In
particular, Sarah Kamens was the primary author of an important open letter to the DSM5
Task Force raising concerns about proposed changes. Under the leadership of Dave Elkins, Brent Robbins, Donna Rockwell, and others, the letter was converted into a petition that has now received more than 15,000 signatures and has been endorsed by many mental health groups and associations around the world, including the British Psychological Society, 15 divisions of the American Psychological Association, and the Association of Black Psychologists, among others. Despite the strong support for the open letter, the American Psychiatric Association moved forward undeterred.

I am very impressed with the leadership of the Society of Humanistic Psychology and proud to have been a board member during the time this occurred. In particular, the leadership of Sarah Kamens, Brent Robbins, Jonathan Raskin, Frank Farley, Donna Rockwell, and others is a beautiful model of advocacy. By avoiding the extremes and remaining open to dialogue, SHP has been able to build a coalition of very diverse mental health groups united in a strong voice.

Polarization

Kirk Schneider (2013) has defined polarization as, “the elevation of one point of view to the utter exclusion of competing points of view” (p. 1). Although similar to extremism, Schneider clarifies that it is distinct in that polarization is not just an extreme view, but one that discounts other perspectives and takes on a more oppositional nature. Extremism, while often dangerous, can represent a healthy position at times. The nature of polarization is more destructive as it represents an extremism that is devoid of critical thought and considerations of different points of view.

Although it seems that some would like to characterize the opposition to the DSM5, particularly the coalition that SHP has spearheaded, as an extremist, radical group, it is evident that this in not the case. This is demonstrated through the ability of SHP to bring together such diverse groups united in a single concern. It seems clear that the motivations to present the SHP coalition as extremists are political and not based in reality.

Instead, it is the position of the American Psychiatric Association that really represents a polarized viewpoint. The American Psychiatric Association, after being heavily criticized for the dual relationships and conflict of interest on the panels of the DSM-IV moved to a more extreme position of a higher percentage of panel members representing dual relationships and conflicts of interest.

Similarly, the SHP coalition advocated for an outside independent review of the DSM5 before
publication. In the American Psychiatric Association’s response, John Oldham, the president of the American Psychiatric Association states, “There is in fact no outside organization that has the capacity to replicate the range of expertise that the DSM-5 has assembled over the past decade to review diagnostic criteria for mental disorders.” This is an extremely bold and narcissistic statement. It is hard to imagine a clearer example of polarization than represented in this statement. If the American Psychiatric Association were truly open to dialogue and confident in the work represented in the DSM5, they ought to have no hesitation in subjecting their work to outside, independent review. They would be confident that any outside panel would confirm that, while the DSM-5 may not be perfect, it was based solidly upon the best science and scholarship available. This was not the case.

Of course, to subject the DSM-5 to such scrutiny, even if it was eventually supported, would be detrimental to the American Psychiatric Association in many ways. This would cost money and delay the significant income anticipated from DSM-5 sales. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association had already invested a substantial amount of money in the development of the DSM5.

If it was determined that even a small number of categories needed to be reconsidered, this would be a sizeable expense. Subjecting the DSM-5 to an outside review is a considerable risk and expense, and would likely negatively impact the American Psychiatric Association. Yet, the alternative is to publish a book that significantly influences the lives of millions of vulnerable people with important flaws that could have been prevented. The right choice seems obvious.

Conclusion

Based on the information, judge for yourself. Which perspective is reflective of polarization? Of course, it can easily be stated that the position articulated in this article is biased. This would be correct. I have been involved with the critiques of the DSM-5 and part of the coalition for change. Yet, I am confident that if one were to subject this matter to outside, independent review, it would withstand the test and demonstrate that the SHP coalition has maintained a strong, but balanced critique of the DSM-5
and sought out open dialogue and external review while the American Psychiatric Association has remained insular, polarized, and opposed to what would represent a true open and collaborative process.

References

Cosgrove, L. (2010). Diagnosing conflict of interest disorder: Big pharma works in subtle but powerful ways inside the pages of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Academe, 96(6). Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/diagnosing-conflict-interest-disorder#.Ui6pK2RAROe

Schneider, K. J. (2013). The polarized mind: Why it’s killing us and what we can do about it. University Professors Press.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Politics and Existentialism: Zhi Mian and United States Politics–Part 2: Empathy and Collective Responsibility

This blog was originally published on October 23, 2012 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

It is easy to become disgusted with politics in the United States today. Corruption seems to be the norm, and there does not appear to be any genuine hope for change. We blame the politicians, the politician system, the parties, and the media, but rarely do we consider our role—the role of the general public. In this blog, I am going to argue that we need to take a closer look at the role of the general public and the voters, and advocate for an empathetic interpretation of our political candidates. This is not intended to say that the politicians and media do not bear a great amount of responsibility; in a previous blog, I even stated that politicians ought not be considered role models for our children because of much of their behavior. Rather, I am advocating that we ought not blame them without considering our role.

Zhi Mian

Zhi mian, as noted in the previous blog I referred to, is a concept recently introduced to the existential psychology literature through Xuefu Wang. According to Wang (2011), zhi mian is not easily translated into English, but a literal translation would be “to face directly.” Essentially, it refers to facing oneself, facing others, and facing life honestly and directly. Furthermore, it unifies these different ways of facing directly, suggesting that the only way to face oneself directly is to also face life and others directly.

Clearly, zhi mian is something lacking in politics, which is more about spin and rhetoric than truth, responsibility, and authenticity. Yet, if we are going to zhi mian politics, it must involve looking honestly at various aspects of the political process, including the role of the general public and voters. In other words, zhi mian advocates for collective responsibility when considering the political problems in the United States.

The Expectation of Lying

The idea for this article has been building for several years, but the more recent inspiration came when reading an internet news article noting results from recent poll that indicated people felt Romney was more dishonest than Obama, but that they expected both candidates to lie. This is a sad state of affairs, but I could not help but wonder: Is this all the fault of the politicians? Could a truly honest politician, who spoke the truth, really be elected to a high office today? Isn’t there an expectation to lie, to tell us what we really want to hear?

Most people know politicians lie; yet, we still endorse this behavior. We know they cannot fulfill all their campaign promises; yet, we praise them on the campaign trail then attack them later for not living up to these unrealistic promises. Although some politicians are shady characters from the outset, many begin as honest individuals wanting to positively impact the world. Once introduced to the political system, they soon learn many painful realities, such as that they are expected to lie, spin the truth, and be vicious in their attacks of the other candidate if they want to win. If you are an honest, caring person when beginning as a politician, this is a difficult position.

Critical Thinking & Flip Flopping

In science and philosophy, keeping an open mind to be swayed by the data is an asset; in politics, it is a liability. The best politicians should change their mind fairly frequently, but they should do it for the right reasons. Politicians are routinely expected to vote and make decisions on areas outside of their expertise. As they review the data, and continue to learn about the various issues on which they need to vote, they should become better informed and able to make more educated decisions. Yet, we expect politicians to make good decisions with little knowledge and then stick to that position despite what the evidence says.

When politicians make mistakes today, they often are expected to defend the mistake instead of apologizing and correcting the mistake. They are rewarded more for sticking to a bad decision than they are from learning. In essence, this is a system that says we do not want our politicians to learn!

I am not defending all instances when politicians change their positions. As is evident, often politicians change their position, or at least their stated position, for the wrong reasons. They conform to what the big donors expect, to align with the polls, or to agree with what their party pressures them to say. This is not authentic learning or change and should be discouraged. Yet, this change, done for the wrong reasons, is better tolerated than changing because one has become more informed and thought through the issues more thoroughly.

Think Skinned Politicians & Empathy

I have great empathy for how painful it must be for the politicians and their families as they have to sit through day after day of character attacks, including many that come from deceptive political spin and outright lies. My father, who was a state legislator, experienced some of this in his campaigns at the state level. It was very painful for my mother and him to go through this, but I am proud that he did so without resorting to such tactics in return. He was lucky that at the state level at the time he was running—you could still get elected as an honest politician with integrity. I suspect that would be more difficult now.

I have also experienced situations in my own life where I was being regularly criticized with spun half-truths and outright lies. Much like with politics, I knew that responding to these would have little effect. Some people would believe me, and some would believe the person who was criticizing me. This was extremely painful, but in the end, I had to accept that all I could do was try to live with integrity and trust that my character would be seen and trusted by most people.

What I experienced, and even what my father experienced, was nothing in comparison to what politicians at the national level, and sometimes even the state and local level, experience today. To be able to withstand such consistent and extreme attacks, one must develop a thick skin and learn to not react to these attacks. Yet, I have to wonder, at what cost? When one develops a thick skin, it is easy to develop a thick skin in areas where it is better to be thin-skinned, where empathy and compassion is what is needed. This leads me to wonder, have we created a political system that makes it difficult to remain compassionate and empathetic? If so, it is no wonder that there is so little concern for many of the people truly suffering. Their stories are great for the rhetoric of political speeches, but not powerful enough to penetrate the thick skins of the politicians using them.

What Can We Do?

So how is this our fault? We participate in this system when we condone these behaviors. When we, as a society, tolerate the news media sensationalizing these problems and turning them into entertainment, we support this behavior. We complain about the news media, yet continue to watch Fox News and MSNBC, and shows that dramatize these problems. We do not confront politicians when they misbehave. We allow attack adds to work. We buy into spin. I am sure many would respond defending themselves saying they are good at criticizing the spin, the deceptions, and the dramatizations—and this is likely true when it is done by the politician and political party that is not our own.

If we want things to change, we need accountability and accountability always starts at home. As Lu Xun (1919/1961) stated, “you have to reform yourself before reforming society and the world” (p. 52). First, we need to acknowledge our personal role. Second, we need to work to hold our own party and the politicians we support to be accountable. We can have no authenticity or credibility criticizing others if we do not authentically look at how we are contributing to the problem and work to change that.

Conclusion

Politics in the United States is a mess, no doubt. I must acknowledge that it is much easier for me to find the fault in the candidate I do not support, and easier to justify the behaviors of my candidate. Sadly, I have to wonder, if my candidate ran his campaign with perfect honesty and integrity and I knew that his approach would likely cost him the election, would I prefer that he lie and deceive or be honest? In reality, this scenario may be the case. That terrifies me.

References

Lu Xun (1961). Random thoughts. In Y. Xianyi & G. Yang (Eds. & Trans.) Lu Xun selected works
(Vol. 2). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Press. (Original work published in 1919)

Wang, X. (2011). Zhi mian and existential psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 39, 20246.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

Politics and Existentialism: Zhi Mian and United States Politics–Part 1: Facing Conflict and Disagreement Directly

This blog was originally published on October 22, 2012 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

United States politics is fraught with conflict and disagreement as is evident even to the casual observer. These are natural occurrences in all organizations and political systems. They can be used poorly or for gain. Often, disagreement and conflict, when handled properly, can encourage creativity and development. When handled poorly, they can stifle any growth or development. Rarely in our political system do we witness them being used well today.

Stages of Conflict

Speed Leas (2002) developed a model for the levels of conflict based upon his work with churches, but it has relevance well beyond this setting. Although, as with any stage model, it has its limitations, it can help illuminate a common progression witness during the presidential and other political campaigns.

According to Leas, prior to the emergence of conflict, the focus typically is on sharing one’s ideas. Gradually, there is a shift to critiquing the ideas or others and/or defending one’s ideas. As the conflict escalates, the focus becomes being critical of the other person and defending oneself. Already at this point, the content is no longer the central focus; instead, the focus is now on the individuals in conflict. Often, this is where attacks on the person’s character emerge. As the conflict escalates, the desire is to emotionally or physically harm the other person, often reaching a point of intractability, where it seems impossible to continue to work collaboratively together.

More than three presidential elections ago, I began teaching about models of conflicts during a presidential campaign. I found that the campaign provided great illustrations of the levels of conflict. Since this time, I have observed each political election in relation to these stages of conflict. Not surprisingly, the model fits quite well, although there have been some changes over time. With each subsequent election cycle, it seems that the candidates move more quickly through the stages of conflict.

“I Am Not a Role Model”

Conflict is big entertainment in the United States. It sells our reality TV, sports, news media, and our politics. It often seems that the more sensationalized the conflict, the more interest. Yet, conflict in politics is much different than conflict in reality TV, and it is a sad state when they begin resembling each other. When Charles Barkley was playing in the NBA, he famously noted, “I am not a role model.” It is also sad when we need to urge our politicians, who should be role models, to make the same disclaimer.

Politicians today regularly model a type of violence to our children: an emotional violence. This violence can be extremely painful and leave deep, emotional scars just like physical violence. However, there is a more disturbing side to this. If you were to put children and even many young adults in similar conflicts in terms of the level and intensity, many would lack the resources to keep the violence at the verbal level. Politicians have years of practice at dealing with this conflict and have a constant support system surrounding them as outlets to vent and reminders to watch their tongue. In a very real way, it can be argued that politicians routinely model styles of conflict and behaviors that could easily be translated into physical violence if the individuals and contexts were changed. We ought to expect more from our political leaders. We ought expect from our politicians that they are able to deal with conflict in an honest, diplomatic, and respectful manner.

Zhi Mian and Political Conflict

“…we must dare look things in the face before we dare think, speak, act, or assume responsibility. If we dare not even look, what else are we good for?” (Lu Xun, 1925/1961, p. 198)

Zhi mian is a concept that is becoming better known in the existential literature in the United States. It is being popularized through Xuefu Wang (2011), who has introduced the term from the writing of Chinese literary figure Lu Xun. This term can be translated as “to face directly,” and symbolizes a unity of facing oneself, others, and life directly, honestly, and with integrity. This is lacking in United States politics.

Instead of looking honestly at conflict, it is routinely distorted and spun for political gain. Taking responsibility for one’s mistakes in most situations is considered political suicide. It is more advantageous to distort, deceive, and lie than to apologize or own one’s mistakes. If we were to zhi mian United States politics, even if just related to political conflict, it would require radical change in the behaviors of politicians and the news media. It would encourage asking what we can learn or gain as a country from these conflicts instead of focusing on how it can be used to the advantage of a politician or a political party. It would require listening to the other perspective and reflecting upon our own. It would require much of what Schneider (2004) advocates for his existentially rooted awebased
approach to politics.

Conclusion

My dream for United States politics is that we could attract and elect politicians that I would want my children to see as role models. However, today, I am embarrassed to say, politicians are one of the last professions to which I would look for role models for my children. If my children emulated many of the behaviors of politicians they would be sent to time out or grounded. It is sad when our children are the role models of morality for our politicians.

References

Leas, S. B. (2002). Moving your church through conflict. Alban Institute.

Lu Xun (1961). On looking facts in the face. In Y. Xianyi & G. Yang (Eds. & Trans.) Lu Xun selected works (Vol. 2). Foreign Language Press. (Original work published in 1919)

Schneider, K. J. (2004). Rediscovery of awe: Splendor, mystery, and the fluid center of life. Paragon House.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.

The Relationship in Academia

This blog was originally published May 12, 2014 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished after the New Existential Blog was discontinued. Minor edits were made in the last paragraph for accuracy due to changes that occurred over time.

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on May 6, 2014 reported on recent research suggesting that a connection with a caring professor may be an important contributing factor to college success (Carlson, 2014). For existential psychologists, this is not surprising. There is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that it is the relationship that heals in therapy (Elkins, 2009; Wampold,
2001). It is not surprising that the same is true in academia.

Yet, this is not as simple as just telling professors to be kind and caring. The article states, “College graduates… had double the changes of being engaged in their work and were three times as likely to be thriving in their well-being if they connected with a professor on campus who stimulated them, cared about them, and encouraged their hopes and dreams” (¶ 1). This suggests that the relationship is also about shared interest and a goodness of fit.

While I think this research is very important, I worry that colleges and universities could quickly try to implement this without really understanding what it entails to cultivate an academic environment where these relationships are common. Some colleges will likely translate this into being nice or “providing good customer service.” But a true, caring relationship is about more than just being nice or saying the right words; it is about cultivating the right type of relationship. In this blog, I’d like to discuss what building this environment really means.

A Time Commitment

Building caring relationships between professors and students takes time. In the past 10 years, I have been deeply bothered by how often I hear students say to professors, including myself, “I’m sorry, I know you are very busy.” Most of the time, the conversation that ensues is connected to why most of us are in academia. This is the good stuff. Yet, students too often worry about asking for anything from professors because they know how overworked and stressed out we are. This is a systemic problem within universities and academia in general.

Building caring relationships between professors and students takes time. In the past 10 years, I have been deeply bothered by how often I hear students say to professors, including myself, “I’m sorry, I know you are very busy.” Most of the time, the conversation that ensues is connected to why most of us are in academia. This is the good stuff. Yet, students too often worry about asking for anything from professors because they know how overworked and stressed out we are. This is a systemic problem within universities and academia in general.

If universities want professors to build healthy, nurturing relationships with students, it is imperative that they be given the time and support to do this. Being overworked and overloaded is now synonymous with the professors’ job description, and it is getting worse. Yet, it is common for these overworked professors to be blamed when students provide feedback that they do not have access to professors. Although sometimes professors do not make themselves available, more commonly this is a systemic problem in which professors are struggling to have time and energy for students. The two most common complaints I hear from fellow professors is that they do not have more time for students and that they do not have more time for professional development and writing.

A Commitment to the Right Type of Student Recruitment

Good relationships between students and professors emerge more readily when students are recruited and accepted into programs that are a good fit. Unfortunately, students tend to choose universities more due to marketing and convenience (primarily location) more so than a goodness of fit. Similarly, most universities do not focus on marketing in a way that brings in students that are a good fit. Rather, they focus on bringing in students who meet the requirements, can pay or receive financial aid, or look good for the university.

Students need to be encouraged to find the right program for them based upon their professional interests. When this occurs, they are more likely to have professors who share their passions and are able to stimulate their interests. When students choose a school because of a good marketing effort or convenience, too often they are just focused on obtaining the degree instead of building a passion about their professional interests and career trajectory.

Most colleges and universities are competing for students and thus reluctant to turn away qualified students, even if the fit isn’t the best. Yet, this is a big mistake. Students who are not a good fit are often less motivated, more likely to struggle, and require more time and energy from professors, which in turn takes away the professors’ time from working with students who are a better fit. It is not necessarily that the students are not able to be good students, but rather that they are not likely to thrive in a program that is not a good fit. Thus, the learning journey feels like a burden to the student and professor.

A Commitment to Stability

Too often universities see professors as easily replaceable. There are plenty of people looking for teaching positions, and often there are several good candidates applying for any given teaching position. However, good professors are not easily replaced even when there are other equally qualified and equally talented professors ready to step in.

Bringing on a new faculty member is a big investment of time and energy. It often takes two years or more for a professor to really hit their stride at a new school. They have to learn the system, the structure, their colleagues, and students before they thrive to the best of their ability. Additionally, when a professor leaves, this has a big negative impact upon students, especially if they chose the college or university to work with this professor.

If colleges and universities want to encourage good relationships between faculty and students, working hard to try to assure faculty stability is key. This means providing job security, competitive pay and benefits, a reasonable workload, and showing appreciation for the work the professors provide. If I were advising a student searching for a college or university, this is one of the key factors I would really encourage them to explore as they consider different schools. It is best to avoid colleges and universities with high faculty turnover rates. There typically is a reason for the turnover, and there is an increased chance that they, too, may experience faculty they are working with transitioning on.

Price

It costs more money to invest in the faculty-student relationship. At many schools, the faculty-to-student ratio is growing larger while professors are asked to take on more diverse roles and responsibilities within the university. As noted before, if universities are really committed to their faculty including faculty-student relationships, then they will protect the faculty members’ time and workload. Yet, financial considerations guide the reasons why faculty workloads are growing and they are asked to take on more tasks. Thus, it often comes with a financial cost when universities invest in faculty-student relationships.

Conclusion

I have been teaching full-time for well over 10 years now. Without a doubt, the part of my job that I value the most is the relationships I develop with students. I enjoy writing, teaching, training, and attending conferences, but what keeps me teaching at the graduate school level is the relationships. I have been blessed with many, many amazing students. Yet, I rarely have I felt that the universities I work at really value faculty building good mentoring relationships with students of the variety discussed in Carlson’s (2014) article. The concern normally is about good course evaluations and good student satisfaction surveys, especially on the years leading up to an accreditation visit.

My definition is different. I have taken students on trips to conferences and other countries. I have made a deep commitment to mentoring students in scholarly writing, including helping more than 100 students co-author conference papers, journal articles, and book chapters. I continue to stay in contact with and collaborate with many former students. Much of this, it seems, is beyond what most universities are interested in these days.

I am very pleased to have taught at a university that, at the time, highly valued the faculty-student relationship. Yet, even with the deep valuing of these relationships, it is often difficult to balance the economic cost of investing in these relationships. I am hopeful that there will be a cultural shift across the academy toward valuing the relationship. It is vital that we commit to creating the opportunity for students to experience caring, mentoring relationships with faculty if we are to keep academia strong.

References

Carlson, S. (2014, May 6). A caring professor may be the key in how a graduate thrives. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/ACaringProfessorMayBeKey/146409/.

Elkins, D. N. (2009). Humanistic psychology: A clinical manifesto. A critique of clinical psychology and the need for progressive alternatives. University of the Rockies Press.

Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Routledge.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Note: Although this site is owned by Louis Hoffman, it supports the Rocky Mountain Humanistic Counseling and Psychological Association (RMHCPA), which is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. As an Amazon Associate, RMHCPA earns from qualifying purchases made through the links on this page.