Comments on: Psychoanalysis as spirituality

By: Deb McNish

Deb McNish — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:45:17 +0000

The strength of the psychoanalytic approach is in its emphasis on answering ‘why’ questions; Christianity doesn’t answer these, or, where it does, it gives an inadequate answer with respect to “a growth in wisdom and a higher view of the world.” Sin, after all, is a given and has no deeper ‘why’ to it than a biblical story of the Fall. It presupposes human failure as an inherent and inescapable fact of who we are, and therefore stifles moral development both for the individual and the community. We become focused only on our actions, not on the condition of what might be called our moral ’soul’ or character.

Understanding ‘why’ is both the cause and effect of therapy, and it interweaves matters of moral character, agency, self-understanding with personal transcendence. While it’s certainly the case that the founding practitioners took a pessimistic view of what might be called human nature (possibly influenced by Christian ideas of original sin??) psychotherapy as it is most often practiced today sees the unease and discontent in the human condition as products of a lack of both self-knowledge and the ability to pose ‘why’ questions, and the concomitant crippling of the faculty of self-transcendence, which a spiritual matter sine qua non.

By: David K. Allen

David K. Allen — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:01:32 +0000

The foundational need…configure the integration of Christianity within the unconscious/conscious mind and the unconscious/conscious within Christianity. The need to be ‘born again,’ ontologically be a ‘new creation in Christ”, clarifies, enabling phenomenological epistemological reconstitution of unconscious/conscious relational emotional fault and conflict.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:48:18 +0000

The self-knowledge and self-awareness encouraged in the psychoanalytic setting are necessary conditions for spiritual praxis, as in the consolidation of the ego or sense of coherent (i.e., not fragmented) self-identity. However, as Freud himself would have argued, psychoanalysis does not itself attempt to answer those sorts of existential and spiritual questions that are traditionally found within the boundaries of religious worldviews and some forms of philosophy (specifically, the ‘therapeutic’ varieties discussed by Pierre Hadot, Martha Nussbaum, and John Haldane). In this sense, then, I would prefer to see psychoanalysis as providing something along the lines of the necessary yet not sufficient conditions of spiritual praxis, especially insofar as it is (and was) intended to bring about a minimal condition of mental health and personal well-being.

With Erich Fromm (and the Stoics…), I happen to think that low-grade mental pathologies of one sort or another are ubiquitous in contemporary affluent societies (in addition to but apart from the insidious effects on rationality that arise from the various biases and heuristics identified by cognitive and social psychologists), but these are, typically, nowhere near as personally and socially debilitating as the forms of mental illness that cry out for psychoanalytic or other forms of psychological treatment.

Finally, with John Cottingham (among others; see his Philosophy and the Good Life: Reason and the Passions in Greek, Cartesian and Psychoanalytic Ethics, 1998: 104-166), I think psychoanalytic theory has much to offer by way of a critique and transcendence of philosophical ethics of a predominantly “rationalist” orientation that would likewise be intrinsic to the “necessary but not sufficient condition” of psychoanalysis to spirituality.

(Incidentally…or not, I’ve put together a bibliography on ‘Freudian and Post-Freudian Psychology’ that should prove useful in addressing the questions raised by this post in a fairly sophisticated if not philosophical manner that does justice to the Freudian legacy.)

By: David K. Allen

David K. Allen — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:50:18 +0000

Scripture is required to clarify psychoanalytic theory ontologically and epistemologically within precise biblical logic. The unconscious mind system, the heart and mind of in-depth analysis, formed within God’s grace and mercy. The first human lost relationship with God by disregarding concerned love relatedness. Having been warned he would ’surely die’…in a fear-filled response, he evoked a projective identification enactment with God asking for mercy. It was granted in the capacity and use of unconscious repression in non-communion grace relationship, suppressing the death instinct out of the conscious mind. The negative effects when unconscious loss arousal is activated constitutes the foundation of human psychopathology.

By: Mark Logan

Mark Logan — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:49:26 +0000

Psychoanalysis designates concomitantly three things:

A method of mind investigation.

A therapy of neurosis inspired from the above method.

A discipline based on the knowledge acquired from applying the investigation method and clinical experiences.

Psychoanalysis or alike (known by many other labels), as a means to combat spiritual sickness may be possible, as spiritual problems seem to have a wide array of symptoms psychoanalysis may uncover and address.

However, a true spiritual solution is forming an intimate bond….connecting with others and environment in a caring, nurturing way. This seems to be a method many are using with great success.

RE: MC) I agree, it is very necessary to distinguish religion from spirituality, modern culture has confused the two for decades. However, they can be one in the same for some, not just an avenue.

By: Kirk Vandenberghe

Kirk Vandenberghe — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:51:37 +0000

Modern Psychoanalysis is a holistic treatment for relieving mental and emotional distress. Isn’t that exactly what people are looking for in their religion? Are some analysands atheists who believe? The Freudian approach to religion has more to do with anthropology than with theology. On the other hand, it is reported that C.G. Jung “… had never, he claimed, had a patient whose neurosis was not due to his lack of religion, nor had he ever cured a patient whose cure was not due to his return to religion.” (Bartemeier). And would we be talking about this if we believed that religion and psychoanalysis were completely irreconcilable?

By: Marybeth Cohowicz

Marybeth Cohowicz — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:45:53 +0000

First it is necessary to distinguish religion from spirituality. Durkheim defines religion as a set of beliefs and practices related to sacred things that unites adherents into a single moral community. Using this as a template, it would seem psychoanalysis may fall short. However, I would agree that it does offer the same psychological health that meditation or prayer might in a religion. William Irwin Thompson states “Religion is not identical with spirituality, rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization.” So as religion may be one avenue taken to reach spirituality, psychoanalysis proves to be just another. It would seem that both religion and psychoanalysis may offer the same results, such as self awareness, finding one’s true self, and establishing a connection with others, but I don’t think I would characterize psychoanalysis as a religion.

By: Kimberly Thompson

Kimberly Thompson — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:12:22 +0000

I have never posted here before, but I felt compelled to comment … as a doctoral student in clinical psychology, I was originally interested in psychoanalysis as a theoretical orientation because it seemed to be more holistic in nature than some of the alternatives. However, after reading some of the literature in this area, I concluded that it was too much of a religion for me, and that I already had a religion and wasn’t interested in another one, either in exchange or as an adjunct.

By: Robin Leslie

Robin Leslie — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:11:16 +0000

Christian spirituality, when truly mystical, is communal and, as embodied in Thomas Merton, it is communal. Even though Merton developed a cenobitic life outside his Cistercian monastery, he always maintained that this was the mature development of his communal membership. The great fallacy in the so-called “post-modern” period is that spirituality is regarded as an extension of individualism, as in esotericism or New Age stuff. However, there is little depth or rootedness to hold and cohere and so perversions soon manifest themselves in all of this.

The surrender of the ego is genetic to a communal spiritual life and an entry into the mystery of life, where it is beyond mastery. This does not necessarily entail ceasing to reason. What it does entail is seeing consciousness as an awakening in God, and not independent of that mystery.

By: Iljas Baker

Iljas Baker — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:59:56 +0000

That psychoanalysis is a commodity bought from a psychoanalyst is problematic if we are to think of it as spirituality. If the analysand cannot pay, the relationship is immediately severed. Moreover, the therapy is locked into a very lengthy and profitable relationship between the analyst and analysand who meet for just under an hour weekly for years. This is too materialistic/mechanical for it to be called a form of spirituality.

It does not (unless it is Jungian analysis) look to a higher source of help/grace than the reason of both participants. Psychoanalysis has no communal dimension. It doesn’t try to develop the spirit, it tries to solve problems so that the analysand can lead a more or less normal life. Spirituality uses problems to develop the spirit, often in a communal context.

Psychonalysis has some similarities with spirituality, but it should not be confused with spirituality.