|
from Theological Issues
Why Psychology Must Change
By David Blakeslee, Psy.D.
Since its inception, mainstream psychology has largely attempted to present
itself as a value-free science of human behavior. As a profession, it has often
viewed religion as being both value-laden and inherently an illusion. It
appears that the profession quickly chose to emphasize its role as an objective
science while encouraging the general public to devalue its reliance on other
forms of authority. Some might argue that this was a backlash against a
powerful set of institutions which had, at times interfered with scientific
inquiry. Perhaps the most widely known example of this is the Catholic Church's
"condemning of Galileo as a heretic (Carrol and Shifflett, 2002)," and, in the
20th century, William Jennings Bryan's attempts to suppress the teaching of
evolution (Larson, 1997). A stronger argument can be made, however, that
Judeo-Christian values were far more beneficial to science than restrictive.
They introduced a linear view of history, they challenged the notion of fate and
determinism, they preserved Classical thought during the Dark Ages and during
the Age of Enlightenment created and organized hundreds of colleges and
universities that ignited scientific inquiry.
Nonetheless, a growing body of philosophers and theorists perceived faith, and
therefore religion, as a threat to the search for knowledge. If they were
correct, they were obliged to diminish the power of the church while increasing
psychology's value to the general population. Freud came to the forefront of
this effort when he challenged the role of religion saying, "Religious ideas
have arisen from the same need as have all other achievements of civilization:
from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of
nature." In one powerful tome, Freud postulated that faith in God and religion
and following its precepts was a form of existential neurosis (Freud, 1961).
As a "founding father" of our profession, Freud's impact appears to have been
significant. For example, psychologists, when compared with all academicians,
are the least religious. Only 33% of psychologists describe religious faith as
the most important influence in their lives, as compared to 72% of the general
population. Fifty percent of psychologists indicate that they have no religious
preference as compared with only 10% of the general population (Jones, 1994).
These discrepancies may have led to two significant problems for our profession:
a deep lack of attunement with our clients in perhaps the most central way they
understand themselves and the world, and a search for truth that automatically
excludes religion as a meaningful source of information.
The Notion Of A Values-Free Psychology Has Been Illusory
In the short run, this perspective has given psychology the impression of being
free of bias in its efforts to understand and improve human behavior and
experience. This notion has been further promulgated by the experimental model
with its fundamental premise that, for the search for truth to be valid, we must
first be willing to abandon our preconceived attitudes, instruction,
expectations and beliefs. Psychologists have held that, unfettered by
prejudiced human myths and superstitions, they are free to explore human
behavior more objectively, and thereby be better able to help people. The
notion of a value-free, objective psychology has itself been largely an
illusion, resulting in many unintended consequences in both psychological
practice and social policy. At a more fundamental level, these perspectives
have led to what I would call a forced na•vetˇ that wrongly risks reducing
religion to a historic relic and elevating psychology to assume the mantle of
authority in most matters of human existence.
I say na•vetˇ because, in the last decade, an abundance of troubling statistics
have emerged which call into question the presumed benefits of a value-free or
neutral psychology for the consumers of psychology at both individual and
societal levels. This alleged value-free psychology has undermined the role of
established religious faith in the lives of Americans. Consequently, the
institutions of marriage and family have also been greatly weakened, exposing
women and children to increased risks of poverty and abuse. I am sure that our
intentions were good, but the outcome of those intentions do not bode well for
our children, our families, ourselves, and the society at large.
For example, psychology has a long history of authors who have devalued the
importance of marriage as a significant general factor in improving the human
condition. In 1972, pop psychology books suggested, "If it comes down to
marriage and identity, your identity is more important (O'Neill and O'Neill,
1972; see also Bernard, 1983; Gettleman and Markowitz, 1974). In many books of
this era, which clearly reflect the prevailing values, marriage is often seen as
an archaic institution that empowers men, exploits women and abuses children.
Psychology as a profession appeared to indulge rather than critically evaluate
such assertions. As late as 1996, texts on sociology and psychology discuss
spousal abuse, but not co-habitation abuse. This omission leads the neophyte
student to conclude that domestic violence is correlated with the "oppressive
nature of marriage," rather than plain old misogyny. Furthermore, they lead to
an ill-informed educated class that recommend poorly and naively. The
statistics below document some of the psychological costs of these "value-free"
recommendations:
- From 1950 to 1995 the marriage rate decreased from 11.1 to 7.6 per thousand. From 1940 to 1990 the divorce rate doubled from 2.0 to 4.7 per thousand (CDC, 1995).
- Boys raised in single parent families are twice as likely to have committed a crime that leads to incarceration by the time they reach their thirties when compared with boys raised by both their parents (Wait and Gallagher, 2000).
- Between 1965 and 1992 there was an explosion in the rate of violent crimes by youth. Though the murder rate has decreased in recent years, this may be an artifact of longer prison terms and improved emergency room procedures. Arrests for aggravated assaults remain at all time highs (Satcher, 2001).
- Divorce in one generation leads to an increase in illegitimacy in the next. Young women whose parents divorced, for example, were more than three times as likely to have an out-of-wedlock child (5% vs. 17%). Illegitimacy poses risks of poverty, and increased risks of sexual and physical abuse for the child (Waite and Gallagher, 2000).
- Children raised in single parent homes are twice as likely to drop out of high school and these numbers do not improve when a second adult is providing income to the family (McLanahan, 1995).
- No one questions that there has been an increase in reports of child abuse and sexual abuse of children over the past three decades. Clearly, this is partly due to a campaign to increase awareness and therefore reporting of child abuse. What is rarely, if ever emphasized in such reports is that step-fathers, mothers' boyfriends and foster fathers are seven times more likely to sexually abuse female children they supervise when compared to biological fathers (Wyatt, 1985).
- Women in cohabiting relationships are much more likely to be severely physically abused than those in either dating or marital relationships (Stets and Strauss, 1989). It is not marriage that is the "hitting license," but co-habitation.
- The suicide rate for white males age 15-24 has tripled since 1950. For African American males aged 15-19 it has increased an alarming 105% from 1980 to 1996 (CDC, 1999).
- Women and men in marriages are likely to suffer lower levels of mental illness than their single or divorced counterparts and, contrary to Bernard's (1983) research, wives do not suffer greater levels of mental illness when compared with their husbands (Popenoe, 2002).
Creating A Nightmare Of Self-Destructive Children
Freud accused religion of sacrificing "reality to the projected dream (Freud,
1961)." It appears, however, that during the era of professional psychology, our
society has created a nightmare of more asocial, antisocial and self-destructive
children. In addition, in its efforts to liberate women, we have exposed them
and their children to a nightmare of more abuse and poverty. If this rejection
of religion as a guide to moral life is a better reality, I struggle to see it.
If any other profession, during its ascension, had observed such a decline in
the quality of life of its proposed beneficiaries, critics would rightly
challenge the value of that profession.
At best, psychology has maintained a stance of neutrality, and demonstrated its
impotence in improving the human condition in the face of prevailing social
demands. At worst, psychology has significantly contributed to the endangerment
of children and women through the propagation of a "value-free" myth that
dismantles the overwhelming benefits of marriage and family. Both views are
terrible but plausible verdicts as to the usefulness of our profession. In
either case, it is time for us as a profession to seriously reconsider the
consequences of our own value system and our suspicion of established religious
and moral beliefs as an important means of bettering the human condition.
Stanton Jones wrote, "Even if we think about our religious beliefs as biases
that we bring to psychological science and practice, we must come to realize
first that such biases are intrinsic to our professional activities in that it
is our biases that allow us to perceive and understand anything at all, and
second, that the most limiting and dangerous biases are those that are
unexamined and hence exert their effect in an unreflective manner" (Jones,
1994). It is time for psychologists to examine our "neutral, objective and
value-free" bias. It is especially important to do so because our less
sophisticated audiences, the general media, our clients and our students, think
that when we say we are "value-free," that we are actually value-free and
therefore our words can be trusted implicitly. Very often we are asked
important questions by those who count on us, and our "value-free" bias colors
our recommendations to parents, adolescents, students, politicians, minorities
and the poor.
Americans Cannot Afford A Value-Free Psychology
So, why then must psychology change? Because most Americans, and the world,
cannot afford a value-free psychology. At the very least, the active ignoring
or rejection of religious tenets is a grandiose assertion that religion provides
little to no "intelligence" about the human condition. It also flies in the
face of the actual data about the positive role that religious beliefs play in
the lives of a huge majority of Americans. But even on a practical level, most
Americans can only afford a short-term course of psychotherapy. Indeed, most of
the world population is very unlikely to be able to afford any form of
psychotherapy. The people who need the benefits of our science, the poor and
vulnerable, are the least able to afford the treatment. Teaching at our
universities and colleges must focus on values that work independent of costly
psychological intervention. These "truths" can be shared widely through
self-help groups, churches, schools and political groups. The world at large is
interested, not in opening psychological clinics everywhere, but in
understanding which large parts of their culture and faith have been adaptive in
advancing them as a people. In essence, they would benefit from understanding
the "built-in" adaptive, healing psychology that has been present in their
culture and faith for hundreds and maybe thousands of years.
So, as we consider the role of psychology in the next thirty years, we have to
ask whether we will merely be witness to the destructive elements of our culture
or actually be able to help improve the human condition. As individual
psychologists we have to ask what role we will play with each of our clients in
treatment beyond just reducing problematic symptoms. It is reasonable to assert
that the data now suggest that we have an increased responsibility and a broader
set of obligations as advisors to our clients and the general public.
Psychologists Must Rethink Values-Free Therapy
We have the obligation to explain that many times immoral acts lead to or
exacerbate psychological disturbance and reductions in their quality of life.
We have an obligation to ponder the ramifications of our neutrality when a
growing body of evidence exists which should encourage us to inform married
couples of the importance, not only for them, but for their children and our
society at large, of working on their marriage, and that this effort has rewards
beyond their own immediate happiness. We have an obligation to warn our
adolescent clients of the growing body of evidence that suggests that their
"experimentation" with drugs, premature ventures into sexual behavior and
opposition to authority figures in general threatens to lower the quality of
their lives (Mash and Barkley, 1996).
We have an obligation to criticize the materialism and hedonism of our popular
culture, especially when our professional stance of being "value-free" and
non-judgmental is exploited so that all values are treated as equal regardless
of their long-term effect. We have an obligation to say that we know much less
than we purport to know, that some our information turns out to be horribly
biased and that the potential wisdom of religion in the lives of our clients and
the general public can play a much more powerful role in changing their lives
for the better, than can psychology.
In the future, the credibility of psychology as a profession will rightly be
assessed by the general improvements in our society. The health of marriages
and the family are inextricably tied together: researchers correctly note, "Each
divorce is the death of a small civilization (Wallerstein and Blakeslee, 1990)."
Lowering poverty, crime, violence against women, physical and sexual abuse of
children are all related to how we value the family. Over the next thirty
years, psychology should deeply invest in marriage and the family, through
research and advocacy. Here are some ways we can shape things through the APA:
- We should present and organize a Public Interest Initiative on the benefits of marriage, similar to the ACT project on violence, made available to churches, schools, self-help groups and others. Part of that project should urge couples to seek marital therapy early in conflict, while motivation for reconciliation is still high. In addition to public interest information, it should have three other focuses:
- The APA should advocate for a premarital counseling curriculum for prospective couples that includes education about anger management and domestic violence, communication training skills, financial planning, sex education and parenting skill training.
- The APA should advocate for a family development program to help new and maturing parents better understand the needs of their partner throughout the life cycle as well as the quickly changing needs of their children.
- The APA should officially encourage parents to participate in low conflict divorces, maintain high attunement to their children in the year or two after the divorce and avoid romantic entanglements, which easily marginalize their children's needs.
- We should encourage psychologists to receive advanced training in marital and family therapy. Many psychologists leave graduate school as competent individual therapists, teachers and administrators/interpreters of psychological tests. Psychologists who make marital and family therapy an area of expertise should be asked to demonstrate their training in this form of treatment and maintain their expertise through continuing education, consultation and supervision.
- The APA should advocate in Washington D.C. to require insurance companies to reimburse for marital therapy as a means of improving one's resistance to mental illness as well as lowering the probability of domestic violence during divorce and other periods of family stress.
- Educators who have access to public schools that teach about the family and sexual behavior should make sure that the full benefits of marriage, faith, and family are discussed when compared to cohabitation, divorce and infidelity.
Psychology Can Have A Profoundly Positive Effect
The next thirty years guarantees the expansion of psychology in every American's
life and to the larger world outside the Western Hemisphere. As a profession,
we have an opportunity to reevaluate what we are suggesting and whether those
who trust us will either suffer or benefit from our thoughtful suggestions.
Prior to Freud, the health of the individual, the family and our society was
often placed in the hands of religious institutions. Those institutions,
however flawed, guided man in establishing the rule of law, dismantling
polygamy, elevating children's status from property to people, establishing
democracy, abolishing slavery, and encouraging scientific inquiry. Psychology
will have a profoundly positive effect on the future as it understands and
respects how religion plays that profound role in our society.
David E. Blakeslee, Psy.D. is a clinical psychologist in private practice in Lake Oswego, OR.
References:
Ammerman, R.T. and Hersen, M (1992). Assessment of Family Violence: A Clinical and Legal Sourcebook. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bernard, Jessie, (1983). The Future of Marriage: 1982. Yale University Press.
Carroll, V and Shiflett, D. (2002). Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious
Bigotry. San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1995, 1999).
Freud, S. (1961) The Future of an Illusion. New York: Norton.
Gallagher, M. and Waite, L.J. (2000). The Case for Marriage. New York:
Broadway Books.
Gettleman, S and Markowitz, J (1974). The Courage to Divorce. Simon and Schuster.
(from Frum, D. (2000) How We Got Here: The 70's. New York: Basic Books).
Jones, Stanton L (1994). A Constructive Relationship for Religion with the Science and
the Profession of Psychology: Perhaps the Boldest Model Yet. American
Psychologist, 49 184-199.
Larson, E.J. (1997). Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing
Debate Over Science and Religion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mash, E.J. and Barkley, R., ed. (1996). Child Psychopathology. New York:
Guilford Press.
McLanahan, S.S. (1995). The Consequences of Nonmarital Childbearing for Women, Children, and Society. Report to Congress on Out of Wedlock Childbearing. Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS Pub. No (PHS) 95-1257.
O'Neill, N. and O'Neill, G. (1972) Open Marriage. M. Evans and Company. (from Frum,
D. (2000) How We Got Here: The 70's. New York: Basic Books).
Popenoe, David, co-director of the Family Research Project at Rutgers University.
Associated Press, October 4, 2002.
Wyatt, 1985 from Ammerman, R.T. and Hersen, M. ed. (1992) Assessment of family violence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, (page 98).
Satcher, David (2001) Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Department
of Health and Human Services.
Stets and Strauss, 1989 from Ammerman, R.T. and Hersen, M. ed. (1992) Assessment
of family violence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, (page 116).
Wallerstein, J.S. and Blakeslee, S. (1990). Second Chances. New York: Ticknor
and Fields.
Updated: 3 September 2008
|
