Jacey Ferrara's Archive

George Kelly had quite an adventurous childhood and young adulthood.  His life consisted of multiple moves, schooling in a one-room school, tutoring from his parents, attendance to four different high schools, giving speech classes to immigrants wishing to become U.S. citizens, becoming a member of the Navy in World War II, and living during the Great Depression.  It is interesting also to note that at one point Kelly taught drama. His life was filled with many different roles and opportunities.  Then, once the Great Depression hit, he gained a passion for psychology.  He desperately wanted to help all of the troubled people.  And shortly after, he got the opportunity to do so.  Kelly began working with students and teachers both, and they all experienced a variety of emotional problems.  Because Kelly didn’t have an extensive background in psychology nor was he trained in any therapeutic approaches, “he began to experiment with a variety of approaches, and he discovered that anything that caused his clients to view themselves or their problems differently improved the situation” (p. 545).  This is why I would argue that George Kelly informs us about redemption.  In his theories, I see hope.  In his theories, I see a glimpse of a brighter future.

One thing I really like about Kelly is that, yes, he recognizes human fault.  He sees the “fall” of humans.  He recognizes emotional disturbances, limitations on human perspectives, and different ways humans process events and situations.  But, Kelly doesn’t think we have to stay there.  He thinks if we can just begin to see ourselves differently, if we can continue to play “make-believe” as adults, then we can pull ourselves out of the pits.  Kelly’s therapeutic approach reflected his belief that psychological problems are largely related to perceptual problems, meaning the goal of therapy is to help the client view themselves and situations differently.  I love this quote by Kelly:

We take the stand that there are always some alternative constructions available to choose among in dealing with the world. No one needs to paint himself into a corner; no one needs to be completely hemmed in by circumstances; no one needs to be the victim of his biography.

We don’t have to play the victim, and because of that I see freedom, hope, and redemption.

I think Clark Leonard Hull informs us mostly about the fall and creation.  His life circumstances alone are enough to inform us of the fall, additionally though his work informs us on his thoughts of mankind and human concepts of learning.  Hull was born to “an uneducated father and quiet mother” (412).  When he was younger, he contracted typhoid fever and felt that his memory suffered as a result.  Not much later in life, at the age of 24, Hull contracted poliomyelitis, which left him forever partially paralyzed.  He had to walk with crutches or a cane the remainder of his life.  As far as physical conditions go, Hull also suffered two heart attacks in his lifetime, one which resulted in his death.  A lot of Hull’s life circumstances remind me of down falls of humans — our imperfections, weaknesses, and our inability to control all that is around us.  I find it interesting also that at first Hull was uninterested in psychology.  He explains why he chose the field:

[I wanted] an occupation in a field allied to philosophy in the sense of involving theory: one which was new enough to permit rapid growth so that a young man would not need to wait for his predecessors to die before his work could find recognition, and one which would provide an opportunity to design and work with automatic apparatus. Psychology seemed to satisfy this unique set of requirements.

Hull’s life and career remind me of how fragile and needy the human is.  Hull had physical impairments that affected his entire life and function.  He was raised by uneducated parents.  He wanted recognition and attention.  He wanted to enter into a field that gave him control, power, and the opportunity to make a lasting differences.  This reminds me so much of the fall because although Hull was examining human functioning in an effort to better understand people, it seems to me that he was completing this kind of work for attention and out of selfish desires.

The reason I also see Hull as a man who informs us about creation is because much of his work was focused on learning processes and the creation of machines that could learn and think (413).  Hull’s focus on more systematically and mechanically identifying behavior helps me understand his perspective on humans and the way we were created.  He believed that the adaptive behaviors in humans could be explained in terms of mechanistic principles.  Hull has sprinkles of Darwinian tradition as he believes that the mechanistic principles (drive of a human) and adaptive behaviors are contributors to an organism’s survival (413).  An interesting comment about his more mechanical approach to human behavior is that it worked for Hull.  He had a desire to be known and enter into a field that would give him recognition.  And recognition he did find.  In 1936 he served as the 44th president of the APA (413).  Hull’s Principles of Behavior were referenced 105 times between 1949 and 1952 in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.  The next most commonly cited work had only 25 references.  In 1945 Hull was also awarded the Warren Medal by the Society of Experimental Psychologists.  Hull also had many well-known disciples and students that continued making extensions and modifications on Hull’s theory (415-416).

Melanie Klein is fascinating to me because of her emphasis on children.  As we saw on the study guide, Klein believed that “a child’s free, undirected play reveals unconscious conflicts” (516).  She believed that as early as age two, children could be analyzed.  Although many of Klein’s views did not prevail, she did contribute to the development of child analysis and play therapy.  As I think about which category to place her under – Creation, Fall, Redemption, New Creation – I can see where she may have contributed to each of these.  I think she touches on creation when she emphasizes the mother-child relationship and the mother’s breast.  I think she touches on the fall because she is talking about 2 year old conflicted children here!  I would also argue that she touches on redemption and new creation because analyzing a very young child is hopefully for the purposes of helping them overcome whatever “unconscious conflicts” they are experiencing.  However, I am going to say that Melanie Klein mostly informs us of the fall.

Klein informs us of the fall for a number of reasons in my mind.  First of all, she placed more emphasis on interpersonal relationships than she did on biological drives.  I think she takes a good step here, widening her perspective beyond solely the biological.  But, I think it’s peculiar that she places the earliest and most interpersonal relationship with the mother and breast-feeding child.  I definitely agree with her, that  a mother and child’s relationship is critical.  We know that through history, as undernourished and under nurtured babies experience failure to thrive and death.  Where Klein is different though is that she believes that an infant views the mother’s breast as either good and satisfying or as frustrating and bad.  If the baby associates the breast as good, then he/she experiences feelings of love and of creativity.  Contrastingly, the baby that views the mother’s breast as frustrating experiences feelings of hate and destruction.  Klein continues on to say that “the emotions caused by the interaction of the infant’s experiences with the mother’s breast and with life and death instincts provide the prototype used to evaluate all subsequent experiences.”

Why does this inform us of the fall?  Well, Klein’s emphasis on the infant’s view of the mother’s breast is a fault in itself.  What determines whether the baby’s experience is a positive or negative?  The baby?  Also, Klein is suggesting that based on that interpretation, at the oral stage of life, the infant will then grow up using those life or death instincts for every following experience.  I believe that thinking also speaks to the fall.  That is a very pessimistic way to view a person’s life experiences I think.  Additionally, I know that young children really can have psychological problems.  Again, I think that speaks to the fall.  A two year old that needs to be analyzed for unconscious conflicts speaks on behalf of the human weaknesses, human dependencies, and human faults.  I do believe Klein’s views are helpful and got the ball rolling on some child analysis and therapy, however she mostly informs us of the fall of children and human development.

I would place Pierre Flourens primarily in the category of creation.  I think Flourens most significant contributions are related to creation.  As we’ve moved further into the text, it seems that many people are trying to understand and comprehend our minds and our brains.  Are they one and of the same?  Or are they completely separate entities?  What is this whole brain-mind relationship and how does it effect my actions and my body?

Flourens was genius in deciding to use the method of ablation or extirpation to discover more about the brain.  Rather than assuming different parts of the brain and their functions, Flourens decides to try the reverse.  He tries to see what exactly different parts of the brain do.  He tested this by using dogs and pigeons (like the one pictured above), which he thought were similar to humans.  His researcher is fascinating because it shed some light on the situation.  For example, Flourens says that the removal of the cerebellum disturbed the coordination and equilibrium of that organism. He goes on to list other observations, too.  Some animals that lost part of their functioning due to ablation sometimes regained their functioning.

Something I think is different about Pierre Flourens is that it never really seems like he’s trying to make this big drawn out point to defeat and put down someone else’s idea.  He just appears to be looking for further understanding on the human brain and mind.  I don’t think he was necessarily looking for research so that he could fix every problem all of us stupid humans.  Instead, I think Flourens wanted to understand the basic creation of his and others bodies.  I can also see how you could put Flourens in the fall category because chances are he’s seen faults… in someone’s coordination, personality, balance,etc.  He also sees that we fail to some aspect whenever certain parts of our brain are missing.  Something missing from our brains  can effect our character traits, moods, personalities, etc. and those things speak to the truth that there is a fall.

I think it can be argued that Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and theologian, has something to say about creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.  However, I would like to place my focus on two of these in particular.  I think that Kierkegaard really contributes significantly to the fall and to restoration.  Soren Kierkegaard’s father taught him quickly about the fall of man.  For awhile, Kierkegaard equated his father with God.  That was, until his father confessed his rebellion and sinfulness.  The book describes that Kierkegaard was rebellious after the earth-shattering news of his sinful father, but then later accepted God back into his life and experienced much joy.  It seems that throughout his life, Soren Kierkegaard, constantly battled himself and the actions/beliefs of others.  In addition to this troubling time with his father, he called off an engagement with his dearly loved women because he felt God was veto-ing it.  Kierkegaard rejected church ideals and believed “that the most meaningful relationship with God was a purely personal one that was arrived at through an individual’s free choice, not one whose nature and content were dictated by the church.”  Additionally, he thought religion was too rational and mechanical and that we needed to experience the irrational and emotional side to fully connect with God.  It appears as though Kierkegaard was in touch with his emotional side, and perhaps this causes his internal emotional struggle.  He internally battled his feelings, sharing that he often felt like the life of the party and knew everyone loved and admired him, but he recalled feeling like he “wanted to shoot himself” (206).

It seems to me that Soren Kierkegaard was well in touch with the fall.  He knew of his father’s sinfulness, and that crushed his world.  He believe the church was failing people, and that was a fall.  He hurt a woman he loved very much, and that recognizes the fall of man.  He discusses relationship with God as a Love Affair because “it is simultaneously passionate, happy, and painful” (207).  He struggles with the way he thinks and feels about himself, therefore being an example of the fall of mankind. He even had a physical impairment, a hunchback, which again, teaches us that we are not perfect creations, rather broken and faulted human beings.

On a more positive note, I believe Kierkegaard also teaches us about restoration.  He teaches us about faith.  The book explains some of Kierkegaard’s ideas:

“Attempting to understand Jesus objectively reveals a number of paradoxes. Christ is both God and man; he is eternal truth existing in finite time; he lived almost 2,000 years ago but also exists presently; and he violates natural law with his miracles. Facts or logic do not remove these paradoxes; they create them.  Belief alone can resolve them; subjectivity, not objectivity, is truth.  Christian faith is something that must be lived; it must be felt emotionally. For it can be neither understood nor truly appreciated as rational abstraction.”

This quote holds a theme of faith that Kierkegaard seems to have.  Kierkegaard talks about the love affair with God, and about the faith that it takes to be in an effective relationship with God.  He speaks about God being unfathomable, and untamable.  He even discusses stages of personal freedom.  In my opinion, these things speak to the longing in Kierkegaard’s heart to know more about God, to desire Him, to be in awe of Him, to recognize His greatness.  All of these things remind me of restoration. That one day we will be restored to our Father.  But until then, we will continue to long and not be able to understand.  We must use faith. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”  Restoration includes future hope, and I think Kierkegaard demonstrates future hope through his ideologies of a great love affair with God that requires faith, is personal, emotional, and maybe even irrational.

Desiderius Erasmus is a man the textbook described as depressed all of his life, a believer in free will, author of  the book The Praise of Folly, critical of the organized church, complimentary of the simple life Jesus lived, and an observer of the world (95-97).  At first glance, Erasmus sounds just kind of sad.  He was depressed, “fond of pointing out mistakes,” and disturbed by certain things about the church, such as how bishops became rich and famous.  Erasmus appears to focus on the negative.  But, I think what this informs us about is the fall of humans.  Erasmus reasons that “anything created by humans could not be perfect.”  He also discusses in his book, The Praise of  Folly, that those who are “fools” are happier, able to live and act on their true feelings, and do not fear death.  His book implies that those who are not “fools” are unhappy, incapable of making good decisions without the pressure of religious doctrines, etc.  In other words, again Erasmus is informing us about the fall of man, the imperfections, the inconsistencies of our nature.

However, that is not all there is to Erasmus’ contribution to history.  Erasmus talks about following Jesus’ example, therefore admitting that he approves of Jesus’ simple life and thinks there is value in the way He lived and set the example.  I think by telling people to look at Jesus as an example, Erasmus is admitting that he believes there is more than the human brokenness and fallen state (95).  I think he is admitting that we can be redeemed and don’t have to continue living in a life of ignorance. His ideas are further promoted when we examine his thoughts on free will versus pre-destination.  Erasmus writes to someone who might believe in pre-destination:

“Doesn’t the reader of such passages ask: why do you [God] make conditional promises, when it depends solely on your will?  Why do you blame me, when all my works, good or bad, are accomplished by you, and I am only your tool?… Why bless me, as if I had done my duty, when everything is your achievement?  Why do you curse me, when I have merely sinned through necessity?”

What I really like about Erasmus is that he doesn’t seem to sit in this fallen idea and just wallow in it. Rather, he looks to scriptures and says, basically, “I see where God says we get to choose whether we want to do what is good or what is evil.”  In this way, I believe Erasmus teachers us about Redemption.  Through scripture, through looking at the simple life of Jesus Christ, we can change our ways.  We can choose to make decisions that are for the good.  One example of this recognition of the fall, but use of redemption is actually in Erasmus’ life.  The textbook tells us that all of his life he struggles with depression.  And yet, when the book talks about the disagreeing views of Erasmus and Martin Luther, it says that Erasmus was respectful, kind, and conciliatory throughout his debates with Martin Luther.  Martin Luther on the other hand is described as mean, disrespectful, and dogmatic.  So although his depression could have resulted in excuses for ugly behavior, Erasmus chooses redemption.  It appears to me that he chooses to reflect Christ in his responses.

Hippocrates has much to teach us about the fall of man.  However, he also makes suggestions that lead me to believe he believed in the restoration of people and a different kind of hope.  Usually, we associate the fall of man with things such as sickness, death, childbearing pains, etc.  Likewise, Hippocrates recognizes disease.  We know that Hippocrates was skilled at diagnosing, giving a prognosis, and suggesting treatment for disease.  One thing that’s different about Hippocratics though, is that they did not believe in any supernatural causes for disease.  Instead, they believe all illnesses were a result of natural causes.  For example, the Hippocratics believed in the four humors of the body, (black bile, yellow bile, blood, and phlegm), and if the humors were somehow out of balance, illness resulted.  Although the fall of man in the Bible includes an encounter between man and an evil spiritual force, the serpent, Hippocratics don’t recognize the latter force.  In fact, Hippocrates says, “It is my opinion that those who first called this disease ‘sacred’ were the sort of people we now call witchdoctors, faith-healers, quacks, and charlatans…By invoking a divine element they were able to screen their own failure to give suitable treatment…” (37).   I think it is noteworthy that  in both the case of Adam and Eve and in the case of Hippocratics, Satan can be viewed as deceiving man.  In Genesis, the serpent deceives Adam and Eve into eating the fruit from the forbidden tree.  In the case of Hippocrates, we could say that he is deceived into thinking man can solve all of his own problems.