04 Nov Transpersonal Catfight
When I began my graduate work in transpersonal psychology in 1983, Ken Wilber was the glowing sun in the center of the field. His view of the hierarchical structure of spiritual development was intoxicating and gave us something to shoot for. It had all seemed rather vague before reading him, and now there were particular steps to climb. This was what Combs (2013) terms Wilber’s “Romantic Period,” before he developed his famous “transcend and include.” The graph of spiritual development and the psychotherapies appropriate for each level informed my clinical work for decades.
The perennialist philosophy seemed irrefutable, after all, Aldous Huxley had endorsed it. The ideas of evolution, Wilber’s synthesis of the ideas of Aurobindo and Gebser, and his structuring of consciousness were clear and easy to understand, despite the pre/trans fallacy which always appeared a bit head scratching.
Head scratching indeed. When Jorge Ferrar’s book participatory theory burst on the scene in 2002, as he and Hartelius recount (2015) the whole field was disrupted. Suddenly the perennial philosophy was seen as sexist, racist, ethnocentric and elitist. A new paradigm was needed to reflect the worldviews offered to us by postmodern thought. I can barely say how shocking this was at the time – when I read Ferrar’s book in about 2008 I could barely get up off the couch and was impelled to read it in almost one sitting.
The debate has continued, unfortunately it seems by this week’s recommended readings, descending to the level of a catfight between Abramson (2014, 2015) and Hartelius (2015), neither of whose original work this is. Apparently, for these theoreticians there is not room for both points of view, an expansive view agreed upon in other disciplines similar to the coexistence of both particles and waves in physics. Instead, perennialsm and participatory thought are positioned as in opposition and seemingly at war.
Over the years, I had developed the uncomfortable suspicion that my beloved discipline of transpersonal psychology had devolved into a coterie of older white men in the Bay Area sitting around debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin. This week’s readings have done nothing to dispel that view.
References
Abramson, J. (2014). The misunderstanding and misinterpretation of key aspects of Ken Wilber’s work in Hartelius and Ferrer’s (2013) assessment. Transpersonal Psychology Review, 16(1), 3-12.
Abramson, J. (2015). The emperor’s new clothes: Ferrer isn’t wearing any—Participatory is perennial. A reply to Hartelius. Transpersonal Psychology Review, 17(1), 38- 48.
Hartelius, G. (2015). Participatory thought has no emperor and no absolute (A further response to Abramson). Transpersonal Psychology Review, 17(1), 49-53.
Hartelius, G., & Ferrer, J. N. (2015). Transpersonal philosophy: The participatory turn. In H. Friedman & G. Hartelius (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of transpersonal psychology (pp. 187–202).
© 2022 Catherine Auman
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.