The entire field doesn't fall under this umbrella, Jon. As an undergraduate psychology student, your curriculum is skewed toward those psychological disciplines rooted primarily in the scientific method; it was the same for me, too, many moons ago, and academia is inherently biased in this way at the undergraduate level. -Cindy
Hmmm. Perhaps I was being too rigid in my attempt to draw a line. I generally, at least these days, tend to think that everything is interconnected, so drawing lines is generally an exercise in futility in my view...however, without definitions,
anything can mean
anything to
anyone, right? What a world that would be!
I do understand the differences between the empirically driven undergraduate course work and graduate level experience. It is quite dull actually. My personal reading has taken me well beyond the simple deterministic "book knowledge" of plugging away toward finishing the undergrad work...those additional readings keep me engaged. While I have not yet entered the grad school level, I do think that I understand the difference and I think that I identified it in the above sentence...it is
experience. I have been given an opportunity recently to do some work at the lab and gain some valuable clinical/experimental experience, which is generally not my leaning, but I believe that one must experience anything before knowing whether or not that is the path to consider.
But, is it not important to try to draw that line of distinction between what the goal of psychology is versus the goal of spirituality? Even if we become a counselor, are we not still a scientist? Just a more "human", or
humane, scientist? (not that scientists are inhumane). Maybe I have the ideas wrong, but I have tended to view a hard scientist (researchers, clinical psychologists) as being a bit more "cold", distant, and rational in their approach. In the name of gaining verifiable information, they are generally well-equipped to take a more distant view of a "subject", whether it is a rat, a dog, a monkey, or even a person.
I see counseling as very much closely related to the relationships that often develop in the spiritual traditions. However, the goal of a therapist should be to
release the person from this relationship as a healthier, better coping, individual. The "scientist" in the counselor is driven to mine out the mode of faulty thinking, if it is not biologically driven, and help the individual learn to think in a more adaptive and open ways. The methods used, while most often eclectic and very much being an art form of sorts, are essentially driven by methods that have been tested and refined over time based on the successes or failures of the results. To "experiment" on a client without using some sort of guidance that has its roots based in science is unethical (with some extenuating circumstances...ie: a client specifically requests that the counselor try a less empirically driven technique such as a shamanistic practice, etc).
And so, as a counselor, we are bound to a method of science as well. And this drive is supported by good ethics and the desire to help release a fellow human from the bonds of unnecessary suffering and rumination.
The community of spirituality is, at least generally speaking in the West, not a relationship of
release, but rather a relationship of
continuity. That being said, I am not trying to pass judgment on this idea, but rather to keep digging to get to some kernel of truth. Most spiritual traditions work on a program of establishing and then continuing a relationship
without the intention of sending the individual out to discover
their own truths. The tallest towers (church bell towers, etc) in many of our large and small towns are a testament to this fact. The buildings stand as physical representations of the continuity of the relationship between the spiritual adviser and the client, or parishioner, if you will. The spiritual traditions also emphasize the importance of being a part of a community that identifies with a
specific belief systems. This is not an eclectic approach. This is a dogmatic approach.
Dogma, whether it exists in science or spirituality is a misguided (IMHO) adherence to believing that the shadows on the wall of the cave are
real...
fixed in time....
truth. The best spiritual traditions provide the individual with a sense of purpose and an appreciation for the experience of existence...as do the best therapeutic traditions in psychology. Psychology experiences dogma, right? Psychoanalysts, primarily in the past, are often extremely dogmatic in their approach and philosophy, as are Behaviorists, Researchers, and Clinicians...to name a few. But psychology, whether one is a counselor or a researcher, is bound by laws of ethics and practices based on science, often informed by intuition (therein lies the "art"), with the goal of releasing an individual from the relationship, while keeping the door open for future interaction. As a scientist, it would unethical for us to continue a counseling relationship with a person for any reason outside of their needs. AND...this is important...whether or not that person has reached the point of being able to be released needs to have as
clear of a definition as possible for what it is to be "healthy" enough to be released. This is where science joins the party...informed by our experience and intuition.
Maybe we can continue to explore and parse this idea further, no? I think it is an interesting area to explore because there are so many similarities between psychology and spiritual guidance. To attempt to discover where the distinction lies only helps to inform the goals and motives of the discipline in the future.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams