|
Article Excerpt
The present article is a response to E. Christian Brugger's 2008 article, Anthropological Foundations of Clinical Psychology, published in the Journal of Psychology & Theology (Volume 36, Number 1). In the article, Brugger argued that all psychological theories contain implicit anthropologies complete with values and ethics. Brugger called on theoreticians to overtly explicate their philosophical and theological model. He then presented such a system from his own Catholic tradition and invited authors from other Christian traditions to constructively interact. The authors of this article dialogue with Brugger's model using Reformed and Wesleyan theology and Relational Psychoanalysis.
**********
In the Spring 2008 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Theology (Volume 36, Number 1), E. Christian Brugger and the faculty of the Institute for the Psychological Sciences published an article entitled Anthropological Foundations for Clinical Psychology: A Proposal. In their article, they argued that embedded within all psychologies and theories of psychotherapy arc implicit anthropological assumptions which contain value systems and judgments that are ethical in nature. Brugger further remarks that the values/judgments in these theories are often unacknowledged. While theories explicate what is considered pathological, the antecedent theories of normative behavior, or in ethical language, "the good," are rarely explicitly stated.
Brugger is not the first to espouse this type of critique. Don Browning (1987) in his seminal book, "Religious Thought and the Modern Psychologies", (now in its second edition, Browning and Cooper (2004) persuasively argues a similar position, suggesting that each theory of psychotherapy contains latent "metaphors of ultimacy" (1987, p. 20). Browning examined several of the most popular schools of psychotherapy and demonstrated that each theory assumes unacknowledged, forgotten, and/or dissociated metaphors of ultimacy which actually make each theory a religio-ethical system replete with an implicit anthropology, values, morals, and derivatively a system of ethics. More recently, Richardson, Fowers, and Guignon (1999) as well as Cushman (1995) have also deconstructed modern psychology and psychotherapies, exposing their unacknowledged ethics and biases.
In the wake of this deconstruction, Brugger challenges contemporary theorists to explicitly acknowledge the theological and philosophical anthropologies couched in his theory construction. Brugger believes there are three reasons why it would be helpful for theoreticians and clinicians to develop explicit accounts of the human person (i.e., an anthropology). "First, it is a way of evaluating the coherence of the ideas" (p. 5). "Second, it can assist the project of theory development" (p. 5). And third, "... formulating and publishing an account of human nature sets forth an example and invitation, even as a challenge, to other scholars forthrightly to follow suit" (p. 6). The present authors agree with Brugger's assertion that ethical psychological theory construction should be explicit with respect to anthropologies that animate those theories.
We believe that Brugger's challenge to theoreticians and clinicians also contains implications that transcend academic and clinical settings. The Christian sub-cultures, and culture at large, are adrift on seas of pragmatism that engulf the human spirit in solution-seeking activities based on inadequate theological and anthropological assumptions. One need only read the current headlines to encounter the latest demise of a Christian minister/leader informed by such inadequate assumptions, with disappointing and even calamitous results. A return to mindful moorings of our narratives of ultimacy can anchor us and thereby deter perilous drifting.
Brugger's call for full disclosure by theoreticians is consistent with contemporary philosophical hermeneutics, which recognizes the inevitability of embedded beliefs within every tradition. We are grateful for this article by Brugger, and we accept his challenge to offer constructive alternatives and additions to his project in the form of a response paper, which highlights areas of difference in a fashion that is not intended to be exhaustive. While Brugger is writing from within the Catholic tradition, the present authors are a Presbyterian and a Wesleyan (strange bedfellows indeed!). Nevertheless, being in the larger "Protestant" tradition, we conceptualize issues more alike than not. We are also both trained and practice from a psychoanalytic perspective, particularly the relational psychoanalytic tradition. Both our religious and clinical traditions will shape the anthropology that we articulate.
SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
Brugger takes up his own challenge in the second half of his article, by explicating a theory of the human person. He suggests three theological anthropological premises (each with multiple corollaries), which then lead to 5 philosophical anthropological premises (also with multiple corollaries). The three theological premises are: a) human persons are created, b) human persons are fallen, and c) human persons are redeemed. The five philosophical premises are: a) humans are substantially one, b) humans are bodily, c) humans are interpersonally relational, d) humans are rational, and e) humans are volitional and free. While we will principally embrace his eight foundational anthropological premises, we will focus in this article on our points of difference.
Theological Anthropology
Premise One. We agree with the first theological anthropological premise that "the human person is created ... 'in the image' and after the likeness' of God," (p. 12) and we particularly appreciate the emphasis in corollary three (p. 12) upon our Creator God as a "communion of Persons" (cf. Zizoulas, (1985) and LaCugna, (1992)) for we believe that a social God made us first and foremost as relational beings to love and be loved. "The doctrine of the Trinity is not ultimately [or simply] a teaching about 'God' but a teaching about God's life with us and our life with each other. It is the life of communion and indwelling, God in us, we in God, all of us in each other" (La Cugna, 1992, p. 223 emphasis in original). We do however question the author's linking of human communion with God and each other to the assertion that" ... humans are created as per sons to know all truth, especially about...
|
