Transpersonal Psychology - Criticism

Criticism

Criticisms of transpersonal psychology have come from several commentators. One of the earliest criticisms of the field was issued by the Humanistic psychologist Rollo May, who disputed the conceptual foundations of transpersonal psychology. Another early criticism regarded the relationship between Transpersonal Psychology and the ideas of William James. Although the ideas of James are central to the Transpersonal field, Alexander thought that Transpersonal Psychology did not have a clear understanding of the negative dimensions of consciousness (such as evil) expressed in James' philosophy. This serious criticism has been absorbed by later Transpersonal theory, which has been more willing to reflect on these important dimensions of human existence. Criticism has also come from the cognitive psychologist and humanist Albert Ellis, who has questioned the results of transpersonal psychotherapy, the scientific status of transpersonal psychology, and its relationship to religion and mysticism. Friedman has criticized the field of Transpersonal psychology for being underdeveloped as a field of science, placing it at the intersection between the broader domain of inquiry known as transpersonal studies (which may include a number of unscientific approaches) and the scientific discipline of psychology. Ferrer has criticized Transpersonal Psychology for being too loyal to the perennial philosophy, for introducing a subtle Cartesianism, and for being too preoccupied with intrasubjective spiritual states (inner empiricism). As an alternative to these trends he suggests a revision of transpersonal theory. That is, a participatory vision of human spirituality that honors a wide assortment of spiritual insights, spiritual worlds and places.

Also, philosopher Ken Wilber, one of the early profiles within the transpersonal field, has repeatedly announced the demise of transpersonal psychology.

From the standpoint of Buddhism and Dzogchen, Elías Capriles has objected that transpersonal psychology fails to distinguish between the transpersonal condition of nirvana, which is inherently liberating, those transpersonal conditions which are within samsara and which as such are new forms of bondage (such as the four realms of the arupyadhatu or four arupa lokas of Buddhism, in which the figure-ground division dissolves but there is still a subject-object duality), and the neutral condition in which neither nirvana nor samsara are active that the Dzogchen teachings call kun gzhi (in which there is no subject-object duality but the true condition of all phenomena (dharmata) is not patent (and which includes all conditions involving nirodh or cessation, including nirodh samapatti, nirvikalpa samadhis and the samadhi or turiya that is the supreme realization of Patañjali's Yoga darshana). In the process of elaborating what he calls a meta-transpersonal psychology, Capriles has carried out conscientious refutations of Wilber, Grof and Washburn, which according to Macdonald & Friedman will have important repercusions on the future of transpersonal psychology.

Doctrines or ideas of many colorful personalities, who were or are spiritual teachers in the Western world, such as Gurdjieff or Alice Bailey, are often assimilated into the transpersonal psychology mainstream scene. This development is, generally, seen as detrimental to the aspiration of transpersonal psychologists to gain a firm and respectable academic status. It could also be argued that most psychologists do not hold strictly to traditional schools of psychology — most psychologists take an eclectic approach. This could mean that some of the transpersonal categories listed above are considered by standard subdisciplines of psychology; religious conversion falling within the ambit of social psychology, altered states of consciousness within physiological psychology, and spiritual life within the psychology of religion. Transpersonal psychologists, however, disagree with the approach to such phenomena taken by traditional psychology, and claim that transpersonal categories have typically been dismissed either as signs of various kinds of mental illnesses, or as a regression to infantile stages of psychosomatic development. Thus, as illustrated by the pre/trans fallacy, religious and spiritual experiences have in the past been seen as either regressive or pathological and treated as such.