Deficiencies Of The Science Of Psychology
by Ron Dultz
Few people realize that the current knowledge-base, or theoretical foundation, of the science of Psychology is insufficient to understand human psychology, or human mental health. This reality was starkly summarized by the great American psychologist, William James, when he said about Psychology, “This is no science, it is only the hope of a science.” (James, Psychology, the Briefer Course, 1892, pp. 334-335). Prominent Harvard psychologist, Gordon Allport, reaffirmed Jame’s skepticism with these words, “The goal of psychology is to reduce discord among our philosophies of man, and to establish a scale of probable truth, so that we can feel increasingly certain that one interpretation is truer than another. That goal is as yet unattained, and as our discussion suggests, it probably lies far in the future.” (Allport, Becoming: Basic Considerations for a Psychology of Personality, 1955, p. 17). As if validating the previous comments, internationally known psychologist, Erich Fromm, stated, “Our knowledge of man is still so incomplete that we cannot yet give a satisfactory definition of man in a psychological sense.” (Fromm, The Sane Society, 1955, pp. 12-13). Weighing in, beloved American Psychologist, Abraham Maslow, added these words to the topic, “It is extremely important for psychologists that the existentialists may supply psychology with the underlying philosophy which it now lacks.” (Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, Second Edition, 1968, p.10). Contributing to the conversation, eminent psychologist, Rollo May, said, “We still do not have a working science of man on which we can base psychotherapy. Nobody has a very clear idea of what this animal, man, is whom we psychotherapists study and try to help, or even of what help consists in.” (May, Psychology and the Human Dilemma, 1979, pp. 182-183). More doubts about the efficacy of Psychology surfaced with these words of world renowned psychologist, Carl Rogers, “Until we develop this authentic human science, psychology will become more and more irrelevant to the search for the truth of man” (Rogers, The Carl Roger’s Reader, 1989, pp. 360-361).
Two Unsolved Problems
Contemporary Psychology is at a crossroads. If its leaders and practitioners do not widely acknowledge, and lock horns with, the two greatest deficiencies within the theoretical foundation of the science of psychology, Psychology will remain a fledgling science, not to be taken seriously by future generations. Those two deficiencies (unsolved problems) are:
a. Determining the identity, structure and functions of the human Psyche, or Self.
b. Determining the characteristics of human mental health, and the ingredients which contribute to it.
Identity, Structure and Functions of the Human Psyche, or Self
Past President of the APA, Abraham Maslow made a very important observation (discovery) about the psychological (mental/emotional) essence of human nature, which serves as a superb point of departure for understanding the identity, structure and functions of the human Psyche, or Self. He said, “First of all, and most important of all, is that man has an essential nature of his own, some skeleton of psychological structure that may be treated and discussed analogously with his physical structure.” (Maslow, Motivation and Personality, 1954, pp. 340-341). Maslow is stating that humans have a native, psychological identity that is different from, or at variance with, the identity of their physical body.
Maslow’s observation/discovery is astute, and has many scientific implications. If humans have a separate psychological identity, then that identity can be researched and studied. Since every existing entity must have a form and component parts, and every living entity must also have functions, Maslow’s concept that a human has “some skeleton of psychological structure that may be treated and discussed analogously with his or her physical structure” is good for science and for psychology because it provides the impetus for research, analysis, experimentation and discovery.
I believe this “skeleton of psychological structure” to which Maslow refers is best identified by the commonplace term, “Self,” although the more technical term of “Psyche” can also be used. According to my understanding, a person’s Self is a person’s mental and emotional essence. A person’s Self is composed of all the things a person thinks and feels. A person’s Self is also a person’s compass (direction finder) regarding all a person thinks about, feels or does. A person’s Self is what enables a person to: make sense of things; take positions in thought and action; participate; interact; communicate; seek specific results or consequences. In determining what one will say or do, or how one will respond; in trying to analyze, understand, plan or strategize – the Self must be consulted. Totally spontaneous behavior may or may not be first filtered through the Self before occurring, but it may nonetheless be an outgrowth of one’s Self, or a result of it.
In giving the psychological (mental and emotional) essence of human nature an identity, which I have called Self, I am not in sync with the psychology community. Currently the psychology community has no common term for identifying the mental/emotional essence of human nature. According to Who’s Who listees I questioned, and my own research, the leading contenders for a term which identifies the psychological human being are Self, Psyche, Mind, Consciousness, Ego and Personality; but none is especially popular among psychologists as a candidate for identifying the entity which comprises or encompasses the psychological essence of human nature. In fact, some psychologists would likely dispute that the psychological essence of human nature can be identified, summarized or defined.
Just as the psychology community offers no common term for identifying the mental/emotional essence of human nature, the psychology community seems to resist offering concrete and clearcut avenues for understanding the mental and emotional essence of human nature. I suspect that many contemporary psychologists are not much interested in understanding the psychological essence of human nature, or have given up trying to understand it.
I have realized that the best avenue for understanding the mental and emotional essence of human nature is by carefully observing and documenting the motivation, behavior and responses of people who are fully engaged in the process of living their lives, for it is there that the complexity and fullness of human nature is best revealed. In spite of the fact that so much about human nature is observable in the daily activities of people, and can be deduced from analyzing their thinking and motivation, there has not yet been devised sound methodology for explaining the psychological essence of human nature. Important principles have not yet been discovered or articulated. Needed perspectives are still lacking. Exciting points of departure for research have been abandoned as topics for conversation. Research projects that could captivate the imagination and lead to important discoveries are not even proposed. Philosophy, the king of all disciplines, has been largely abandoned by Psychology as an important tool for research and discovery.
I challenge anyone who thinks the science of psychology has a good grasp of the mental and emotional essence of human nature to send a questionnaire to psychologists containing the following list of questions, which should provide ample proof of the theoretical confusion existing in psychology today:
(1) By what term (or name) can you identify the combined mental and emotional essence of human nature? (Note: in questions 2-7, the words it and its refer to the combined mental and emotional essence of human nature).
(2) What is its form or structure?
(3) What are its characteristics, components and parameters?
(4) How does it function?
(5) What does it need to develop fully and satisfactorily?
(6) In what context, or circumstances, can it best be observed and studied?
(7) What principles govern its behavior?
Based upon my own informal polls of Who’s Who listees in psychology, I am quite certain the results obtained from the just provided list of questions would be plain for all to see. The results would indicate that there exists great theoretical confusion within the science of psychology about the mental and emotional essence of human nature, and about all aspects of the development and functioning of the human Psyche, or Self.
Characteristics of Mental Health, and Ingredients Contributing to it.
Abraham Maslow made a another important observation about human mental health, which serves as a superb point of departure for understanding human mental health, and the ingredients which contribute to it. Referring to Freud’s lifetime of work trying to understand and classify human mental illness, Maslow said, “It is as if Freud supplied us with the sick half of psychology, and we must now fill it in with the healthy half.” (Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, 1968, p. 5).
But Maslow’s insight either did not take root, or its growth became severely stunted, because thirty-five years later, in 2003, I received the following email from a psychologist listed in Marquis’ Who’s Who in the World, “You have made a worthwhile suggestion in calling for a focus on the healthy aspects of humanness, as opposed to the unhealthy and dysfunctional aspects. Of course, this call is not new, but it simply has not caught on (in contemporary psychology).” He also said, “It should be obvious that there is no standard profile of mental health.” An informal poll I took of psychologists listed in Marquis’ Who’s Who in America confirmed that there is no consensus of opinion, or wide agreement, among psychologists about the nature of mental health.
As worthwhile and important as it might be to try to understand mental illness, it is equally as important to try to understand mental health. It cannot be possible for psychotherapists, or other types of psychologists, to reliably or consistently guide people in the direction of mental health if the science of psychology has not yet determined such things as: the components and characteristics of human mental health; what its reinforcing and detracting factors are; and the type of mindset and emotions of people who consistently maintain a high degree of mental and emotional health. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the official system of classification of psychological and psychiatric disorders prepared by and published by the American Psychiatric Association; but there is no comparable manual (or even a rudimentary primer) widely in use by psychologists for the purpose of identifying and explaining mental health. A psychologist listed in Marquis’ Who’s Who in the World told me in an email, “Psychologists should be able to do better than the psychiatrists DSM.”
Without at least a rudimentary manual presenting the characteristics and manifestations of human mental health, as well as the environmental ingredients that foster and encourage human mental health, there can be no solid and reliable science of psychotherapy.
Conclusion
If Psychology is to succeed in becoming a field of study worthy of being called a Science, I believe large numbers of its leaders and practitioners must become fully engaged in developing a science of mental health, not just of mental illness. And they must become fully engaged in trying to understand the characteristics, motivation, structure, functions, response patterns, sensitivities, capacities, strengths and shortcomings of the human psyche, or Self – when it is fully engaged in the process of living life.
Leave Your Comments