Category Archives: New Existentialist Blog

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.

Violence in the United States: Standing in the Shadow of Our Greatest Lie

This blog was originally published on December 18, 2012, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

“The citizens of a city are not guilty of the crimes committed in their city; but they are guilty as participants in the destiny of [humanity] as a whole and in the destiny of their city in particular; for their acts in which freedom was united with destiny have contributed to the destiny in which they participate. They are guilty, not of committing the crimes of which their group is accused, but of contributing to the destiny in which these crimes happened.”
~ Paul Tillich (1957)

“I call a lie: wanting not to see something one does see, wanting not to see something as one sees it…. The most common lie is the lie one tells to oneself; lying to others is relatively the exception.”
~ Nietzsche (1894/1990)

“Twenty seven dead in a Connecticut school.” Like many, I read with horror. I turned on the TV, my eyes filled with tears, and I considered picking my sons up early from school. But my sadness quickly turned to anger. In the United States, we love to talk about supposedly being the greatest country in the world. Yet, gun violence, mass killings, and our prison population are among the highest in the world. We are living in a dangerous delusion. I am not just angry at the shooter in Connecticut, but at our society for continuing to live in this mass delusion of our greatness while doing little to address the depth of our depravity.

What Existential Psychology Has to Say

One of the first things that drew me to existential psychology was its willingness to face evil without relegating evil to the other. Instead, it recognized that evil was a potential inherent in the human condition, a potential we all bear. For Rollo May (1969; 1982), the root of evil is in the daimonic, which he defines as, “any natural function that has the power to take over the whole person” (May, 1969, p. 65). Our emotional pain and suffering can easily become such a force. The daimonic, which bears conceptual similarity to Jung’s shadow, is not necessarily a destructive force. The daimonic can be a source of destruction and evil, but can also be a source for growth, creativity, and beauty.

What distinguishes whether the daimonic is used destructively or constructively is largely dependent upon our awareness and what we do with that awareness. When we repress, deny, or distort it, the daimonic becomes more powerful and the potential for evil grows (Hoffman, Warner, Gregory, & Fehl, 2011). This is why, from an existential perspective, the willingness to look at our dark side is so important. It is not just that such self-examination can lead to a more fulfilled life; it is also an ethical imperative.

For the betterment of ourselves and society, we must temper our belief in human potential with an honest accounting for our potential for evil. As William James (1902/1997) stated:

…there is no doubt that healthy mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and they are after all be the best key to life’s significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth. (p. 140)

The Exploitation of Tragedy

The tragedy of the school shootings is already transitioning to the search for answers. Yet, we will only find the answers we are willing to find. Religious leaders already ignorantly have proclaimed the cause was removing prayer from public schools while politicians have begun exploiting the tragedy with partisan politics. Blame is much easier to tolerate than self-reflection. Without doubt, the “mental illness” of the shooter will carelessly be blamed as the cause.

The tragedy of the school shootings is already transitioning to the search for answers. Yet, we will only find the answers we are willing to find. Religious leaders already ignorantly have proclaimed the cause was removing prayer from public schools while politicians have begun exploiting the tragedy with partisan politics. Blame is much easier to tolerate than self-reflection. Without doubt, the “mental illness” of the shooter will carelessly be blamed as the cause.

Most attempts to explain evil do so by identifying it outside of our individual and social identity. Evil is “them,” not “me” or “we.” If we can explain a school shooting through sin, political failure of the “other” party, or mental illness, we feel safer. If we can place the sole blame on the shooter, then we do not have to bear the brunt of the collective responsibility to which Tillich speaks. We ought hold the shooter responsible, but not in service of justifying our own irresponsibility. The etiology of violence is always more complicated than a single cause.

For instance, most people diagnosed with or meeting the criteria for mental illness are not violent. At most, mental illness may be a small contributing factor to violence, but never is it the sole cause. Violence is abnormal for those individuals diagnosed with mental illness and those who do not meet such criteria.

When we rush to diagnose these violent individuals, we quickly discount the other factors contributing to the violence. Whether perpetrated by someone diagnosable with a mental illness or not, there are always many factors that come together leading up to the act of violence.

It is tragic that we do not consider the impact of the millions of people in the nonviolent majority diagnosed with mental illness when we rush to diagnose the shooter with some type of psychiatric disorder. Many of these clients feel ashamed to be categorized with the perpetrator, further intensifying the stigmatization of mental illness.

We do not consider that many will readily lump all people diagnosed with mental disorders into the category of “dangerous,” thus further isolating these individuals. Ironically, it is such isolation that often plays a major role in causing and maintaining the psychological suffering that is diagnosed as “mental illness.” Furthermore, it is likely that isolation often is a contributing factor to violence.

Collective Responsibility

The world will not become a safer place as long as we only look to the shooter for answers. It will not be a safer place until we are willing to look inside on a personal level, and a collective level. We need to honestly examine why more mass shootings happen in the United States than any other country in the world. We need to consider why our prison population dwarfs most other countries. We need to consider why other countries, such as China, are experiencing a rise in violence as they become more influenced by the West. Though not as prominent in the news media, the same day as the school shooting in Connecticut occurred, there was a mass stabbing in China in which 22 children were stabbed. Such occurrences that once were unheard of in China are becoming increasingly common.

An honest look at contributing factors of violence in the United States means considering what we hold precious, what comforts us, what entertains us, and what we enjoy, with an openness to acknowledge that these, too, may be factors contributing to violence. A few examples may help illustrate.

First, in the United States, many enjoy violent movies, television, video games, and music, but are these worth protecting if they contribute to violence and serve as a threat to our children’s safety? Yet, not all violence is equal. Violent shows tend to impact children more than adults and violence in which the individual identifies with the perpetrator of violence is more likely to contribute to violence (Huesmann, MoiseTitus, Podolski & Eron, 2003).

Furthermore, when parents can limit exposure to violence as well as talking with children about the realistic consequences of violence and empathy for the victims, the impact may be lessoned or even reversed (Hughes & Hasbrouck, 1996). In general, moderate exposure to violence that portrays the emotional consequences for victims (as opposed to the graphic portrayal of consequences) combined with discussion of the consequences and responses to violence are less likely to be harmful. However, rarely is exposure to violence managed in this way.

Second, many people in the United States enjoy gun ownership and are responsible with their guns. However, gun ownership is higher in the United States than anywhere in the world, and we have more gun violence than anywhere in the world. Rarely does gun ownership save anyone’s life in the United States, and never has it been necessary to protect us from a tyrannical leader. However, guns regularly and frequently are used for violent crime. It may not be necessary to completely eliminate gun ownership to decrease violent crime; stricter laws on what guns can be owned, who has access to them, and how guns need to be stored may suffice. It seems evident that something, however, needs to change with gun control in the United States.

Lastly, economic disparity has regularly been connected to violent crime (Elgar & Aitken, 2011; Hsieh, 1993). At the same time, economic disparity in the United States continues at extreme levels. Are we willing to cash in an American dream that focuses on individual material success for one that places greater concern on social harmony and concern for others if it leads to significantly fewer victims of violent crime? In stating this, I am not advocating for socialism, but rather a more balanced capitalism.

Conclusion

Our first priority in response to the tragedy of the school shooting in Connecticut needs to be individual and collective grieving for the children and their families. However, we also must not allow another tragedy like this to occur without us seeking to learn from it. Our grieving ought lead to a collective, honest reflection upon the causes of violence in the United States. From this reflection, we are called to make difficult decisions about what truths we are willing to accept and what choices we will make based upon these truths. My hope is that this time we, collectively, will be wiser in how we choose to respond to tragedy.

References

Elgar, F. J. & Aitken, N. (2011). Income inequality, trust, and homicide in 33 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 21, 241246.

Hsieh, C. (1993). Poverty, income inequality, and violent crime: A meta-analysis of recent
aggregate data studies. Criminal Justice Reviews, 18, 182202.

Hoffman, L., Warner, H. J., Gregory, C., & Fehl, S. (2011). Existential-integrative perspectives
on the psychology of evil. In J. H. Ellens (Ed.), Explaining evil (Vol. 3: Approaches, responses, solutions; pp. 263286). Praeger.

Huesmann, L. F., MoiseTitus, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201221.

Hughes, J. N. & Hasbrouck, J. E. (1996). Television violence: Implication for violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 25, 134151.

James, W. (1997). The varieties of religious experience. Touchstone (Original work published in 1902)

May, R. (1969). Love and will. Delta.

May, R. (1982). The problem of evil: An open letter to Carl Rogers. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22, 1021.

Nietzsche, F. (1990). The antichrist. In R. J. Hollingsdale (Ed. & Trans.). Twilight of the idols/The antichrist. Penguin Books. (Original work published in 1894)

Tillich, P. (1957). Systematic theology (Vol. 2). University of Chicago Press.

~ 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.

What the Zimmerman Verdict Means to Me

This Blog was originally published July 15, 2013 on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

I was surprised by the intensity of my emotions when I heard the news of the Zimmerman verdict earlier this evening. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American youth. After a highly publicized trial, he was found not guilty. As I read the news alert, I immediately responded in anger. The next several minutes my emotions quickly shifted back and forth between anger and sadness while my thoughts were continually drawn to my sons. As I write this, I feel much less safe in the world, particularly in regard to my children.

Being a Father

I am the father of three biracial children. I am a white male, born of privilege. My wife is black; any privilege she has now was hard won. Our three sons will be labeled as black, African American, and biracial. I always knew that I had much to learn about raising biracial children, but I clearly remember a series of events that really brought this home to me. Shortly after the birth of my first son, I went to hear Derald Wing Sue speak at a conference. Although I had been familiar with Sue’s work, it was on this day that I came to admire him much more deeply. His presentation not only reflected impressive scholarship, but it was honest, vulnerable, and powerful. He shared about his reaction to a shooting of an unarmed black man in New York City. Although I no longer remember specifically, I believe the story was the shooting of Amadou Diallo, the same incident that inspired Bruce Springsteen’s powerful song,
“American Skin (41 Shots).” Sue shared about how he did not know what it was like for the mother of an African American son to have to teach him to keep his hands in sight if pulled over by the police. This is not because of anything negative about the police, and it is not intended to suggest the police are more racist than the general population. Rather, it is asserting that they are no different than everyone else. At that moment of Sue’s story, I realized some of the very painful lessons that I would have to teach my sons. As I sat there, I just wanted to weep.

A few weeks later, I was pulled over for speeding. I was acutely aware of my privilege at that moment. I have never had to think twice about reaching for my wallet or reaching to the glove compartment for my insurance. I never kept my hands on the wheel as the officer approached. I never felt I had to be nice for purpose of my safety, just general courtesy. I tried to envision what it would be like in several years when I would have to tell my son that he could not do the things I can—that if he was pulled over by the police, he should not reach for his wallet or insurance, and that he should be extra nice. Again, I just wanted to weep.

Tonight, as I read the verdict, I thought of my sons, so innocent and loving. I thought of my freedoms that they won’t have; I thought of their safety and the lessons they would some day need to learn. Once more, I just wanted to weep.

Racial Profiling

As a white male, I often hear talk of racial profiling. I hear what everyone hears, and I hear what my wife and sons will never hear because it is only said in groups that look very much like me. In a conversation about neighborhood safety, I hear talk of “people who don’t belong around here,” knowing that the implicit part of the message is often about the color of their skin. I hear how the color of skin is emphasized when a crime is perpetrated by a Black or Latino individual, but inconspicuously unmentioned when the person is White. Like microaggressions, it is easy to deny any racial profiling is occurring, and it easy to ridicule those who would dare suggest such a thing.

I get that it is difficult to be accused of racial profiling. At times, people are falsely accused of racial profiling and this is unfortunate. Yet, how much more difficult is it to be accused of a crime and placed in jail for the color of your skin? How much more difficult is it to fear for your life because of racial profiling? How much more difficult is it to grieve for one’s innocent son, and to do so while his murderer goes free.

The same week that Zimmerman was found not guilty in Florida, CNN reported that Marissa Alexander, a Black woman, was sentenced to 20 years in Florida for firing warning shots when her husband, against whom she had a obtained a restraining order, was coming after her. CNN also reported that Zimmerman’s lawyer, O’Mara, shortly after the verdict, made the audacious claim that Zimmerman would never had been charged with a crime if he was a Black man. And I have to think, would Zimmerman have been found not guilty had he killed an unarmed White teenager. We are not all equal in the United States; it doesn’t take much honesty to admit that.

We must not forget the potential implications of this verdict. This can be interpreted as saying that it is legal to shoot and kill an unarmed Black man, or even a teenager, for appearing suspicious or out of place if the shooter feels threatened by them, even if there is no evidence the victim was doing anything wrong. For many, just the presence of a Black man or teenager in many settings will bring the feeling of being threatened. Rarely, however, is there discussion of where that fear comes from. We need a more thorough examination and discussion of the phenomenology of this fear. It is often has little, if anything, to do with the individual who is feared.

Conclusion

We don’t all have the same freedoms. If, as existential psychologists, we don’t recognize this reality, we don’t really understand what freedom means politically or existentially. This is a painful recognition that is all too present in my life. I can’t help but believe that tonight, in the Zimmerman verdict, freedom was cheapened. As I sat down to write this piece and process my own emotions at the verdict, I just wanted to weep. Yet, I knew that, instead, I needed to scream.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Work-Life Balance, Authenticity, and Existential Values

This was originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on March 4, 2014. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

I deeply believe that one of our greatest crises in the United States, as well as much of the world, is our inability to achieve work-life balance. Although “crisis” may sound dramatic, I believe there is a case for it. The psychological and physical health costs are quite significant, despite the difficulty in calculating them. These costs are hidden under personal and family stress, fast food and other poor eating habits, and habitual stress.

I come from a family of workaholics. Early in my career, 80 hour workweeks were not unusual for me and 60 hour plus work weeks were the norm. I would often hear, “I don’t know how you do it all,” and would appreciate this as a compliment. It was not until later that I began realizing this was an indictment of a problem. My personal change came through love, relationships, and reflection upon existential values.

While I spent many of my days talking about the importance of love, compassion, and relationships, I had trouble authentically living these because by all accounts, what was driving my life, or my ultimate concern, had become work and the development of existential psychology. Yet, the existential psychology I adhere to drives us to something beyond existential psychology; its ultimate concern is love and relationship. Yet, paradoxically, my commitment to existential psychology and work was interfering with my ability to authentically live it. This parallels what I’ve routinely witnessed in advocates of self-care: frequently, the individuals who teach and advocate for self-care are those who are the poorest at it and need it the most.

As I recognized my inauthentic lifestyle, I reflected upon what were the deepest values I wanted to live in my life. The top priority was easy: my sons, my wife, and my family. Next in line were my friendships. The third value in my big three was living a life of passionate compassion, which included direct expressions of compassion and concern along with advocacy and activism. I recognized that until I began living these values, I had no right to teach and train people in existential psychology as I could not do it authentically.

The shift is not easy. One of my first commitments in this change was that I began rarely working in the evenings or weekends, including appointments, phone calls, or emails. When I began implementing this, I would often have frustrated and angry emails on Monday because I had not responded to emails from Friday or the weekend. Over time, as I made my commitments to balance clear to colleagues and students, this boundary began to be respected. Yet, the volume of emails I have on Monday often still feels overwhelming. Frequently, all day Monday is nothing but catching up on email. I am also less efficient and responding to emails and everyone’s demands of me, including semi-frequently
missing an email. While I feel bad for aspects of this trend, knowing that it comes out of a commitment to balance helps me accept this personal limitation. In a world where receiving 50 or more emails a day is common, a commitment to balance sometimes means that things will fall through the cracks.

Challenges

Trying to live a balanced life in an unbalanced world is not easy. I recognize that my ability to achieve some semblance of it is connected to my privilege. It is less easy for many, including my students who have to work, often full-time, to be able to go to school, and my colleagues who have to work two or more jobs to make ends meet. This is a sign of a broken system. We need a cultural change.

The economy in the United States is one of the biggest challenges. Many individuals have to work multiple part-time jobs, or add part-time employment onto their full-time job, to make ends meet. Many employers are asking their employees to work more hours, take on more tasks, and be more efficient for the good of the company or to protect their jobs. Some fear that they will not have a job without working excessive hours. Furthermore, the willingness to put in many hours often seems more prized by employers than the ability to do good work. Yet, if the only way a company can survive is by exploiting its employees and putting their psychological and physical health at risk, then it should be asked whether it should survive. This is particularly true in mental health agencies where often therapists and other providers are worked to the point of severe costs to their own psychological and even physical health.

For many, like myself, the love of what one does is a challenge. I love teaching, writing, and providing psychotherapy and supervision. They are not just things that I do for a paycheck— they are things I do out of love for these tasks and recognition of their meaning. If I were independently wealthy so that I never needed to work again and was not allowed to take a paycheck, I would still want to do this work for free. But I must recognize that I am better at this work when I live a balanced life. It negatively impacts myself, my students, my clients, and even my employer when I do too much.

Conclusion

I am often not as efficient as I used to be and not as productive. For those used to my prior levels of productivity, they are sometimes frustrated with me for not doing as much or responding as quickly as they are used to. While I wish this wasn’t true, I am glad the reason for these limitations is that love of family and friends, concern for myself, and an authentic commitment to my existential values have taken over as my lived ultimate concerns.

~ Louis Hoffman, PhD

Would the True Existential Therapy Please Stand Up? Eclectic, Antagonistic, or Integrative?

Originally published on the New Existentialist Blog on September 5, 2013. Republished after the New Existential Blog was discontinued.

One of the interesting aspects of being an existential therapist is learning the perceptions that others have about what it means to be existential. After having taught about existential psychology at seven universities, I have heard quite a few different perspectives. However, the diversity within existential psychology is maybe as diverse as the perceptions from outside.

I have advocated that there is no one existential psychology, and that to advocate for a single or pure existential psychology is actually quite unexistential (Hoffman, 2009). In many ways, it is better to see existential psychology as a mosaic in which there are a number of different values and positions that most existential therapist ascribe to; however, there are not any essential ideas or values that serve as a litmus test to identify a true existential therapist.

The Relationship of Existential Psychology to Other Therapy Orientations

Although there may not be a singular existential approach, it is important to consider the relationship of existential psychology to other approaches. Existential and humanistic psychology has a reputation of being antagonistic to other approaches to therapy. It is often pointed out that humanistic and existential psychology began as a reaction against behavioral and psychoanalytic approaches and has always had a bit of a rebellious flair.

Certainly, there is some truth in this characteristic of existential psychology. However, as Grogan (2013) points out, this was not the intent of many of the early founders of the third force movement. Maslow and Rogers did not see humanistic psychology as opposed to mainstream approaches (i.e., behavioral and psychoanalytic, at that time), but rather as building from them while addressing some of their limitations. Similarly, May (as cited in Grogan, 2013) said,

“…if humanistic psychology is only a protest, we can be sure that its demise will be assured” (p. 291).

While humanistic and existential psychology always intended to provide a critique of the mainstream, we must keep in mind what the best critiques are all about. It seems that in contemporary times, many associate critical thinking or offering a critique as simply finding the weaknesses, being critical, and maybe even attacking the position being considered. However, this is often the exact opposite—the lack of critical thinking! To critique or provide critical thinking means to think deeply and consider the strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and applications—not merely to be critical. At times, the best critiques are quite positive. If existential and humanistic psychology are nothing but critical of mainstream psychology and other approaches then our credibility ought to be called into question. When we rebel, it is vital that we have a cause and that we offer an alternative. We must, particularly given our reputation, make sure that our critiques are well grounded and balanced, lest we not be taken seriously by anyone but ourselves.

At the same time, it is important to stand for something. My concern about eclectic approaches to therapy is that they often have no foundation from which to stand. The idea of eclectic is essentially,
“we use what works,” but often insufficiently considers what it means to work. Additionally, it does not consider whether what is deemed to works fits with the values of those for whom it is purported to work. As C. S. Lewis stated:

Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.… To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. (as cited in Szasz, 1997).

It is dangerous to proclaim a cure without ever discussing with the client what the cure looks like or if they want it.

Toward Integration

We must stand for something, but in doing so, it is important that we do not stand against everything else. In moving toward an integrative perspective, existential therapists are able to maintain a solid grounding in existential psychology while considering, dialoging, and integrating other approaches. It is important that this is done with thoughtful consideration and critique. If one tries to integrate what does not fit with one’s foundation, then the therapist is likely to confuse the client while working against oneself.

Schneider’s (2008) existential-­integrative approach is not only a solid model for existential therapy, but it is also an important model of integration at its best. Some approaches to integrative therapy really are nothing more than eclectic approaches in a dressed-up language. Other times, the integrations have so many internal contradictions that they are no longer intelligible as a consistent approach to therapy.

Integration, when done right, combines the strength of having a consistent foundation for clinical practice with the adaptability that comes from drawing upon the strengths of different therapeutic approaches. Yet, it avoids the problems inherent with eclectic approaches or sloppy integrations.

Conclusion

Existential therapy is a natural integrative approach. From the early origins of existential thought, it has always been opposed to rigidity and fundamentalisms. Furthermore, integrative approaches avoid the errors of antagonism and being overly rebellious on one hand, while avoiding the groundlessness of eclectic approaches. Additionally, the focus on integration provides a corrective to some of the problems of extremes that has been associated with existential psychology in the past, regardless of whether these problems were based upon reality or not.

References

Grogan, J. (2013). Encountering America: Humanistic psychology, sixties culture, and the shaping of the modern self. HarperPerennial.

Hoffman, L. (2009). Introduction to existential psychotherapy in a cross-cultural context: An East-­West dialogue. In L. Hoffman, M. Yang, F. J. Kaklauskas, & A. Chan (Eds.), Existential psychology-East ­West (pp. 1­67). University of the Rockies Press.

Schneider, K. J. (2008). Existential integrative psychotherapy: Guideposts to the core of practice. Routledge.

Szasz, T. (1997). Mental illness is still a myth. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, 23, 70­-80.

~ 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.

Privilege, Existential Guilt, and Responsibility

Nanjing Masacre Museum. Photo taken by Louis Hoffman

Note: This is an update of a blog published on the New Existentialist Blog on July 23, 2013. This version contains minor changes. The blog was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued.

As I write this, it has been 12-years since I obtained my PhD in clinical psychology. In many ways, I feel quite proud of what was accomplished during this year; in other ways I struggle with the existential guilt associated with the privilege that allowed for that success. I write this as I near the end of my term as president of the Society for Humanistic Psychology. The focus of my presidency was on multiculturalism and diversity. Yet, this piece was inspired in part by an email I received recently confronting me on my own mistake when, in a recent article I wrote, I easily focused on the accomplishments and status of two White males instead of choosing to be more inclusive in the people I identified. I am very appreciative of that feedback. Even though diversity is one of the primary passions of my career, I am regularly humbled by my mistakes and how much I have yet to learn.

Existential Guilt
Existential guilt can be thought of as referring to when one lives inauthentically, or fails to seek out achieving one’s potential. However, it can also be understood as something connected deeply to human nature (i.e., something ontological) or who one is as a person. Tillich (1957) distinguishes between a more particular guilt and the guilt not from particular acts, but one’s participation in a larger system:

The citizens of a city are not guilty of the crimes committed in their city; but they are guilty as participants in the destiny of [humanity] as a whole and in the destiny of their city in particular…. They are guilty, not of committing the crimes of which their group is accused, but of contributing to the destiny in which these crimes happened. (p. 58)

May (1961), however, cautions that one should not be too judgmental about deserving this guilt:

…because of this interplay of conscious and unconscious factors in guilt and the impossibility of legalistic blame, we are forced into an attitude of acceptance of the universal human situation and a recognition of the participation of every one of us in man’s [sic] inhumanity to man [sic]. (p. 50).

Existential Guilt and Responsibility

The notion of ambiguity must not be confused with that of absurdity. To declare that existence is absurd is to deny that it can ever be given a meaning; to say that it is ambiguous is to assert that its meaning is never fixed, that it must be constantly won. Absurdity challenges every ethics; but also the finished rationalization of the real would leave no room for ethics; it is because man’s [sic] condition is ambiguous that he [sic] seeks, through failure and outrageousness, to save his [sic] existence.  (de Beauvior, 1948, p. 129)

If, as Tillich points out, one cannot escape being existentially guilty and, as May points out, one should not be too harsh on oneself about this, what does this mean? It seems the easiest choice would be to become cynical, apathetic, or both. Yet, from an existential perspective, this is seen as a call to live more responsibility in the face of one’s guilt. Existential thinkers are often creating meaning out of paradox, and it is often from the tension of these seeming contradictions that the deepest forms of meaning emerge.

Tom Greening addresses this beautifully:

I finally went to a concentration camp for the first time in my life last August… I wanted to do that, and am glad I did. It was a very powerful experience. It sort of felt like paying one’s existential dues… if you are going to be alive in the 20th or 21st century, that you are going to claim to be alive and had lived in that time, then what should you be aware of, or in touch with?… There are a whole bunch of existential facts that one ought to really… embrace, or acknowledge, even feel existential guilt about. (as cited in Claypool, 2010, p. 110)

One’s guilt is not their final condemnation, but rather it is what frees one to respond authentically and responsibly to the inevitability of failure in one’s limited, finite state. When the redemptive purpose of guilt is embraced, it is possible to no longer experience this as a burden, but rather a positive element of responsibility.

Existential Responsibility and Privilege
My life has been one of privilege, and for this, I gladly experience existential guilt. Guilt can be a healthier alternative to the other possibilities of shame or fear. Many people of privilege, when recognizing how their privilege has benefitted them and harmed others, feel a sense a shame. This can be a normal and even healthy phase in one’s cultural identity development. However, if stuck in shame, it can lead to defensiveness or an inability to respond. Similarly, many people of privilege live in fear of being identified as a “racist” or “sexist.” However, as Granger (2013) point out, fear is often the root of many forms of racism, particularly microaggressions. When one’s fear and guilt is embraced, they are freed to become part of a powerful personal transformation.

Guilt has the potential to be redemptive in the context of privilege. If guilt is embraced it can motivate individuals to live responsibly with the reality of privilege.

Conclusion

What we experience as an essential quality of authenticity is humility, of allowing ourselves to not know and be humbled by the not knowing for others and ourselves. (Heery, 2009)

I could never identify, let alone reject, all of my privilege. Privilege is such a thing that one has it, even when it is not recognized. If individuals can face their prilivege directly (i.e., zhi mian), then they can be empowered to use their existential guilt in a way to counteract their privilege. Thus, the calling is to reduce and eliminate privilege where one can and, when one cannot, to use it honestly, responsibly, and authentically.

References
Claypool, T. (2010). On becoming an existential psychologist: Journeys of contemporary leaders. ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing (3412340).

Beauvior, S. d. (1948). The ethics of ambiguity (B. Frechtmsn, Trans.). Citadel Press.

Granger, N. , Jr., (2013, February 21). The future of existential psychology: Fear the boogie man, not the negro. Retrieved from https://www.saybrook.edu/newexistentialists/posts/02-21-13.

Heery, M. (2009). Global authenticity. In L. Hoffman, M. Yang, F. J. Kaklauskas, & A. Chan (Eds.), Existential psychology east-west (pp. 205-219). University of the Rockies Press.

May, R. (1961). The meaning of the Oedipus myth. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 44-52.

Tillich, P. (1957). Systematic theology (Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

~ 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 Proper Use of Tradition and Scholarly Authority

This blog was originally published June 1, 2014, the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existential Blog was discontinued.

Lu Xun

Quick to kindle, quick to calm down, an even quick to grow decadent, men of letters [i.e., a type of scholar] can always find reasons and precedents from the classics to justify their shifts of allegiance. (Lu Xun, 1931/2003)

One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. (Nietzsche, 1892/1966)

The impulse in contemporary times, and really through all of history, is to either vilify or idealize history, tradition, and the scholars of old. We see this in our classroom, our political debates, our movies, and our books and journals. Yet, whether the impulse is to vilify or glorify, such simplistic ways of engaging tradition and history are problematic and potentially destructive.

I have long appreciated the approach of Lu Xun, an influential Chinese literary figure of the early to mid-20th century, in regard to this issue. However, as I have been working through a four-volume collection of his works, this appreciation has deepened. Lu Xun was known as a powerful critic of the cultural problems of China during his life, but this really only touches the surface of Lu Xun’s thought and work.

Lu Xun (1931/2003) wrote, “The sole hope of development for our literature lies in understanding the old and seeing the new, in comprehending the past and deducing the future” (pp. 138139). Similarly, he was highly critical of those who were critical or defensive of tradition without understanding its history. Before we can critique any period and any scholarship or tradition from the beginning of recorded history through contemporary times, we must first seek to understand. This, too often, is missing. We are quick to debate and assert a correct position, slow to ask questions and seek to understand. And even our questions, when they are asked, are really just trickery, pretending to seek understanding while seeking to find a weakness in the position of the other. Such processes serve no constructive purposes; they only tear down and reinforce what we believe we know to be truth.

The Use of Idols

All those from ancient times till now who hold no definitive views and have no guiding principle for the changes they advocate, but make use of the arguments of different schools, deserve to be called hooligans. Take a Shanghai hooligan. If he sees a man and a woman from the country walking together, he calls out, “Hey! You’re immoral—you’ve broken the law!” Here he uses Chinese law. If a peasant makes water by the roadside he shouts, “Hey! That’s not allowed. You’ve broken the law, and deserve to be locked up!” Here he is using foreign law. But in the end the law can go by the board—if you grease his palm he will let the matter drop. (Lu Xun, 1931/2003, pp. 134-135)

I grew up in a conservative religious environment, and my early studies of psychology, philosophy, and theology began in this context. From early on, I learned the law well. Yet, I also quickly became troubled by it. I remember watching it being used to harm others and justify oneself, which to me seemed inconsistent with the deeper messages of grace. It seemed there were many ways to condemn, but few routes to understanding and forgiveness. While I believe hypocrisy to be a given for all people, as no human being can live up to what they profess or even develop a complete and coherent belief system, this hypocrisy for me was too great. It was not so much the hypocrisy, but the way the hypocrisy was used and the hurt it caused.

Yet, I’ve seen these patterns recreated in each new spiritual and intellectual home that I have found, even my beloved existential and humanistic psychology. In my own approach to existential psychology, I see love, compassion, and relationship as essential foundations. Yet, too often, I have seen “humanistic” and “existential” used as a weapon. Most often, this occurs when certain important figures in the history of our movement become elevated to the level of becoming idols. I have seen this occur with Heidegger, Rollo May, James Bugental, and other leaders in our field. I have seen our students and early career professionals fearful to present or even speak up at conferences because they fear they will be harshly criticized for not having the orthodox interpretation of one of these figures.

This is a tragedy worthy of one of Nietzsche’s tirades. We dishonor those early influential thinkers in our movement when we turn them into idols. We distort the message they were bringing to us and the message they lived in their lives. I believe (and hope) that if these figures were around today their harshest critiques would be of the way we over-revere their contributions. We love and honor our heroes when we recognize their humanity. To be revered as an idol or infallible scholar is much less of an honor than to be revered as a human who within all the limitations of being human rose to contribute a unique voice and make an important, though imperfect, contribution worthy of a lasting influence on the history of humankind. When we look closely, the heroes of existential and humanistic psychology certainly were “human, all too human.”

Conclusion

I have long found it interesting that many outside of existential and humanistic psychology view them as outdated and label them as “dead theories” because they believe they have not changed since their inception. Too often, there is some truth to this; we often use historical ideas and figures as the measure or standard of truth. Yet, arguably more than any other major school of psychology, such a belief or process contradicts our theory.

Our history, tradition, and influential early voices are an essential foundation to the contemporary humanistic and existential psychology movement. Yet, if we treat them like idols or view their ideas as beyond reproach, they become our greatest and most powerful adversary. Even our good values hold the potential of evil when we become bound to them and cling to them so closely that we can no longer properly see them.

Lu Xun is a good model for us. Although he is known more for his critiquing of the culture and ideas of his time, a closer reading shows that he greatly values history and tradition. He honored and revered his culture and the people of China. Yet, he was very critical when people became bound to their ideas. There must be balance. We must revere, but not over-revere; we must honor, but not create idols; we must critique, but not destroy; we must preserve, but not stagnate. This honors history and tradition. Yet, many who seek to preserve tradition destroy it by holding on too tightly. We must let our history be freer than this.

References

Lu Xun (2003). A glance at Shanghai literature. In Y. Xianyia & G. Yang, Ed. & Trans.), Lu Xun: Selected works (Vol. 3; pp. 127-141).  Foreign Language Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1966). Thus spoke Zarathustra: A work for none and all (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Penguin. (Original work published in 1892)

~ 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.

Finding Oneself and Creating Oneself: Implications of the Psychotherapy Folklore

This blog was originally published October 1, 2014, on the New Existentialist Blog. It was republished here after the New Existentialist Blog was discontinued. 

“Perhaps, as we say in America, I wanted to find myself. This is an interesting phrase, not current as far as I know in the language of any other people, which certainly does not mean what it says but betrays a nagging suspicion that something has been misplaced.”
~ James Baldwin (Giovanni’s Room, 1956/1984)

“I am going to therapy [or on a spiritual quest] to find myself.” Phrases of this sort are common in the folklore and history of psychotherapy, particularly humanistic, existential, and other depth psychotherapies. I have even heard many therapists say this is a good reason for entering therapy as well as others who use the idea of “finding oneself” as a way of distinguishing depth psychotherapy from solution-focused therapies. While the idea of going to therapy to find oneself may not be as popular as it was in the 60s and 70s, this idea continues through contemporary times. Given it is sometimes associated with existential and humanistic psychology, it is good to consider its implications.

The Meaning of “Finding Oneself”

The idea of trying to find oneself suggests that there is some essential self that lies outside of one’s awareness or, at the very least, some essential nature that one is trying to discover. I consider both options below. Finding One’s Essential Self The essential self in this context is a typically an idealized self that, by the very idealization, remains elusive if not a burden through serving as a constant reminder of one’s inability to measure up to this ideal. Yet, the vision of the search and journey toward finding oneself is often highly romanticized. Once this self is found, it is assumed that peace and happiness will come with it.

If considered in the context of humanistic psychology, it is often purported that the self is essentially good. Some humanistic perspectives can contribute to this idealization; however, this tends more common with “pop psychology” versions of humanistic psychology (see Hoffman & Rubin, 2013). Existential psychology tends to place more of an emphasis upon the paradoxical nature of being human, including the potential for good as well as the potential for evil (Hoffman, Lopez, & Moats, 2013). This suggests that any self would likely be different from the idealized self that may initiate or inspire the search.

Deeper issues lie in the assumption that there is some essential self to be found. At quick glance, it may seem that much of existential and humanistic psychology is based upon the idea of an essential self. After all, we often talk about the idea of authenticity, which is sometimes conceived of being connected to an essential self. Sometimes we talk of soul, and soul is frequently conceived of as that essential self, though not necessarily so. The soul, in particular, can be conceived as an essential self that may go beyond the bounds of biology in some spiritual, religious, and/or transpersonal perspectives.

The self, and whether there is an essential self, also has important religious, spiritual, and cultural implications. Hoffman, Stewart, Warren, and Meek (2014) maintain that the idea of the self is socially constructed with different constructions in different theories, religions, and cultures. We refer to different “myths of self” to reflect these different conceptions and maintain that there is no one understanding of the self that is “healthiest” for all people. While the nature of the self and existence of an essential self may long be debated by philosophers, theologians, and psychologists, in the more practical, lived experience, different understandings of the self have a place.

Hoffman and colleagues (2014) further suggest that there can be problems with imposing a view of the self upon people. For example, it can be very problematic and counterproductive from a mental health perspective to impose a Western conception of the self upon someone from an Eastern culture, particularly individuals holding certain spiritual perspectives about the self.

Although it may be prudent to be cautious about imposing a particular view of self, it may at the same time be wise to be skeptical about seeking an essential self. As a therapist, I have had clients begin therapy saying that they want to find themselves. When this occurs, I believe it is important for me to be upfront with them in saying that I am not sure that this is a realistic therapy goal. Even if such a self exists, I am not sure it can be found. Furthermore, I worry that seeking an essential self that is believed to innately exist can, at times, work against a client’s agency and taking responsibility for themselves and who they become.

When clients present with the desire to find oneself, I will say that I do believe gaining a better understanding of oneself is important and something for which I can offer help. I also will typically add that I believe that there are aspects of oneself that can be changed or are under the influence of the individual. It is not necessary that the client and I agree about the nature or definition of the self or engage in a philosophical discussion about this; however, I think it is important that we be honest in our conversations relevant to this topic, especially if it is connected to their reason for entering therapy. At times, if beliefs are held rigidly enough, it may signify that we are not a good fit to work together. However, I find most of the time that there are ways we can work together while honoring these differences.

Finding One’s Nature

Seeking to discover one’s nature is different than seeking an essential self. It is not searching for something as specific. Instead, it could be conceived as seeking an understanding of the human condition as well as how one personally relates to or situates oneself in connection with the human condition. This weaves together the social and person with the nature of being human. I believe this is part of what Baldwin is getting at when he states in the quote from the beginning of this article that finding oneself, “does not mean what it says but betrays a nagging suspicion that something has been misplaced.” This suggests that there is something missing in one’s awareness or experience that is being sought rather than seeking the discovery of some essential self.

Existential and humanistic psychology both tend to purport that human nature is connected to potential and an innate growth orientation. In other words, there is something good in human nature. However, existential in particular as well as many humanistic viewpoints also acknowledge that there is innate limitation (i.e., finiteness) that is part of being human, or even the potential for destructiveness and/or evil. Awareness of both potentials can be understood as an important aspect of living in the fullness of responsibility (Hoffman, Lopez, & Moats, 2013).

The search to find how one is situated in connection to their human nature is a journey that most likely does not have a definitive destination. Yet, the search can still be valuable, and maybe more valuable, if one recognizes that one may never reach the end, or, if one does, they may not realize it.

Creating Oneself

An existential perspective is better represented as a dual process of seeking self-understanding or self-awareness and creating oneself. This is part of what Rollo May (1981) was pointing toward with his conception of freedom and destiny. There are aspects of what it means to be human (i.e., human nature) and what it means to be oneself (our personal nature, including our genes, our family, our culture, etc.) that cannot be controlled. These comprise our destiny that we cannot choose. However, we are also free. May believed that even if our freedom was minuscule in comparison to our destiny, it still makes things quite interesting. In this conception, finding oneself is also, at least to some degree, creating oneself. No matter how small the creating aspect may be, it is the one for which we have the most responsibility and the one that makes the journey to “finding” oneself the most interesting. May’s conception could be integrated with the idea of myths of self. This would suggest that there are many different conceptions of the self that can be considered valid or healthy; however, within each of them there is some degree of freedom and destiny.

Conclusion

The idea of “finding oneself” has a long and complicated history in psychotherapy. It is a process often misunderstood, and it may even misrepresent what psychotherapy is about. This is particularly true within an existential and humanistic paradigm. Yet, the self-discovery process, especially when combined with the recognition that we also play a role in creating who we are to become, is an exhilarating and valuable journey.

References

Baldwin, J. (1984). Giovanni’s room. Vintage. (Original work published in 1956)

Hoffman, L., Lopez, A., & Moats, M. (2013). Humanistic psychology and selfacceptance. In M. Bernard (Ed.), The strength of self-acceptance: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 317). Springer.

Hoffman, L. & Rubin, S. (2013, December 25). Rediscovering humanistic psychology: Understanding its complicated history. [Review of Encountering America: Humanistic psychology, sixties culture, & the shaping of the modern self]. PsycCRITIQUESContemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 58(no. 50). doi 10.1037/a0034938.

Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D., & Meek, L. (2014). Toward a sustainable myth of self: An existential response to the postmodern condition. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edition; pp. 105133). Sage.

May, R. (1981). Freedom and destiny. W. W. Norton.

~ 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.