-
Psychology and Daoism: Resisting Psychologization—Assisting Dialogue
- Journal of Daoist Studies
- University of Hawai'i Press
- Volume 3, 2010
- pp. 151-162
- 10.1353/dao.2009.0022
- Article
- Additional Information
151 Psychology and Daoism Resisting Psychologization—Assisting Dialogue ELLIOT COHEN Daoism must not allow itself to be merely harvested for its psychological insights whilst having the rest of its fields de‑ clared fallow. This paper, I hope, performs three functions: summarize my presenta‑ tion at the International Daoism Conference on Mount Wudang in June, 2009; reflect on some of the other papers delivered in the session on “Psychology and Daoism;” and introduce the aims and objectives of the newly founded Northern Institute of Daoist Studies. My conference pa‑ per highlighted some potential pitfalls which may await any dialogue between Daoism, psychology, and psychotherapy. I was delighted to receive a complimentary copy of conference presenter Lü Xichen’s publi‑ cation Daoxue jianxin zhihui 道学健心智慧 (Daoist Wisdom and Mental Health, 2008), which explores parallels and interactions between Daoism and different psychotherapeutic approaches. My paper also explored which domains of psychology and psycho‑ therapy were beginning to lay claim to and compete for Daoism, notably analytic psychology (Rosen 1997), cognitive‑behavioral therapy (Young, Zhou and Zhu 2008), and humanistic approaches (Johanson and Kurtz 1994). Rather than serve as a complete analysis and evaluation of these attempts at synthesis leading to the creation of a Daoist psychology or psychotherapy I would like to take a step back and consider some impor‑ tant factors that must precede such an endeavor. To me, Daoism represents a rich and varied tradition, a historically and culturally located collection of philosophies, liturgies, ethical teach‑ ings, meditative methodologies, ritual practices, and cultivation exercises 152 / Journal of Daoist Studies 3 (2010) (Kohn 2001). Daoism does not reduce into neat little Western packages such as “philosophy” or “psychology” irrespective of how internally di‑ verse these disciplines may be. Any dialogue with Daoism must accord‑ ingly take into account the depth and breadth of the tradition. Psychology Psychology is variously defined as a “science of the mind,” and/or as a “study of human behavior” by such national bodies as the British Psy‑ chological Society (BPS), American Psychological Association (APA), Australian Psychological Society (APS), and Chinese Psychological Soci‑ ety (CPS). The appearance that these various organizations are keen to maintain, under the overall auspices of the International Union of Psy‑ chological Science, is that psychology is ‘scientific” and relatively unified in its vision and purpose. In contrast, psychology is far from being a unified discipline; in fact one of the things that excites me most about psychology is its multi‑ paradigmatic character. The etymology of ʹPsychologyʹ reveals that its initial focus was the human psyche, translated as soul, spirit, or even breath. The goddess Psyche herself was originally a mortal woman whose love of, and relationship with, the god Eros led to her own ascen‑ sion into the ranks of the divine Olympian hierarchy (Lowenthal 2004), and her transformation from mortal to immortal may excite some specu‑ lation among Daoist practitioners. One of the earliest arguments against the existence of a “science” of psychology, well articulated by Galileo, was that the human soul/mind could not be measured in any meaningful way (Hergenhahn 2000). He is often presented as an early empiricist and quoted as saying: “measure what can be measured and make measurable what is not so.” This state‑ ment typifies the earliest forms of experimental psychology students of‑ ten believe is the origin of modern psychology (rather than recognizing its roots in theology, philosophy or even mythology). Beginning in the University of Leipzig laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt, psychology came to be understood as a science that observes and measures (Rieber and Robinson 2001). His Outlines of Psychology published in 1897, presents psychology as a positivistic and nomothetic endeavor, moving away from metaphysical speculation or subjective Cohen, “Daoism and Psychology” / 153 relativism. It is perhaps significant that one of the commonly identified founders of Chinese psychology, Cai Yuanpei, attended and studied with Wundt and consequently set up his own laboratory in Beijing in 1917 (Jing 1994). Several years before Wundt’s book, William James set forth his “Principles of Psychology” (1890), which presented a more phenomenol‑ ogical and experiential approach to psychology, emphasizing conscious‑ ness and using expressions such as ”stream of thought.” James’s later work, “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” soon...