History of Theories in Psychology (PSYC 493)

C.S. Lewis says in his popular Mere Christianity, “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”

While Lewis was not referring to the same idea as Clark Leonard Hull, to me, his idea of an innate desire resonated similarly to Hull’s theory of reinforcement. For Hull, “a biological need creates a drive in the organism” (p. 437). The individual lives in a state of tension with unsatisfied desires. As they seek to relieve the tension, behaviors and motivations are reinforced.

I think that Hull’s Drive Reduction Theory aligns with both the Fall and Redemption. In the Fall, there is like Lewis describes, a desire that cannot be satisfied. We live in a state of tension. For Hull, the individual is perpetually in need (cold, thirsty, lonely), wanting to satisfy desires. Thankfully, because of Redemption we not only get a glimpse of “another world” but we actually are restored with God. Considering the Hull’s theory, an individual alleviates the tension as they engage in behaviors that restore them to balance (dressing warmer, getting a drink, making a friend). Motivation or the behaviors that relieve tension fuel humanity to seek restoration, Another World.

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.

Williams James reversing the traditional belief that emotion results from the perception of an event, should be placed under the fall category. As humans we go through different emotions a thousand times a day. Whether it be happy, sad, angry, depressed, or frightened we cannot stop ourselves from feeling some type of way. As James said the emotions we feel depends on what we do. Besides the beat example, when some people are in a relationship and they are cheating on their significant other, they just might be as happy as they are with the person they are cheating on their spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend, but once they get caught they are sad, angry, maybe depressed. The emotions we feel depend on what we do. We necessarily do not act the way we feel. I think that if we did a lot of things out of emotion everything would be different. Especially if others actually expressed their anger to the max. We are tricled in ways to make ourselves feel the opposite of how we actually feel, even if we are happy, somehow we end up being sad with the snap of a finger. Our emotions can either make us or break us, we can either learn for our mistakes or just let it kills us, but in the end our emotions will have some type of effect on our lives.

I hate being unoriginal, and Freud is about the most uncreative and overdone topic in the history of psychology writing assignments. Nevertheless, I can’t resist the urge this evening to defend Freud from a bit of the undue hate he gets.

I would suggest that Freud can be associated not with creation or fall, as his theories on the nature of man were mostly unsubstantiated, but with redemption. Psychoanalytic therapy laid the foundations for a healing process in which people could sew up old wounds. Though it has been suggested by critics that past traumas were often fabricated during the therapy, the psychological issues with which these experiences became associated were far from imaginary. The fact that this could even work says a lot about therapy in general: We go there not to cut the tree from which a problem hangs, but rather to find a boat (any boat) onto which it can sail away. This same idea is seen in virtually every modern therapy. Problems are addressed in the present, not through the past.

Though Freud would say psychoanalytic therapy worked because it dealt with problems in the past, its immediate effect was one of redemptive value in the present. It created a pathway through which neuroses and “hysteria” could escape and let a person feel free. It’s easy to claim that, because therapy doesn’t always “stick,” that the method is useless, but, if you’re a Christian, I would urge you to consider this: Is it so much difference from the “redemptive” experiences seen at a Church camp or other emotionally charged religious event? Both (usually) involve initial feelings of regret over some kind of “brokenness” followed by an epiphany (described by many religious devotees as the experienced love of God) and then feelings of restoration and freedom from psychosis (sin). The psychological events taking place in both scenarios are unproven and not falsifiable.

It’s because of this kind of comparison that I wonder if Freud would have many more surviving followers if he had, like many thinkers before him, spent time kissing the collective butt of mainstream Christianity and adapted his theory to support, rather than attack, religion. He didn’t do this, fortunately, so the only dogma standing in the way of his critics was that of his own followers. Even if you reject everything else Freud did and said, you have to give him brownie points for not selling out. He wasn’t a con-artist; he genuinely believed in his work. And I believe that the patients of psychoanalytic therapy do see genuine healing, even though it may be scientific hogwash.

What do we make of Freud’s depiction of humans? He brings us the idea of the unconscious mind. A scary thought. A new thought. An awakening thought. Freud sees into each individual, diving deeper than others before him to explain why we act the way we do. What drives us. What motivates us.

Freudian thought falls under many categories. Under Creation, we see Freud’s view of man, that man possesses innate tendencies and instincts that want to act out. How does this fit into our view of God’s creation of man? Are we born with original sin, or are we born good? Is our id, as Freud calls it, our sinful nature? Do we constantly struggle against our id, try to overcome it and act in a more righteous way? This sounds a lot like the book of Romans to me. So Freudian thought falls under the category of the Fall too, that man has these desires that are primal, sexual, lead to potentially bad things. That man makes mistakes and wants for selfish things. Then we add the ego and superego, redemptive qualities to complete Freud’s theories. Qualities that find parallels with religious morality, values, faith. Would you consider your moral code to be your superego? Is it defined by your faith and religion, or other things as well?

I would have to say that Freud brings us ideas about the Restoration category as well, for he presents psychoanalysis as a pathway towards healing. It is relieving- after all his explanations about how we are truly thinking, how we really feel, even if we might be suppressing or repressing those feelings- that he provides a type of therapy to work through those feelings, process and try to understand ourselves. One very positive thing about Freudian thought is realizing even if we do not know where our desires and motivations come from, we have a chance to understand and pay attention to them.

Gestalt therapy is holistic, focusing on the whole of the person in order to be understood. The therapist does not simple view the client as sick or in need of interpreting or fixing, but develops a relationship that the client can find comfort in so they can interpret their experiences themselves. Gestalt therapy stresses factors such as authentic dialog, gentleness, and presence to help client gain awareness of their experience.

Gestalt therapy reminds me a lot of the concept of redemption. God sees each one of us from a holistic perspective where we are made up of much qualities and desires of this world. He knows that we need to people, love, and him to feel joy in our lives. He knows our mistakes, our successes and our hearts. Through his gentle and loving  presence in our daily lives, and his word, he gives us awareness that there is more than this world alone. He provides comfort to redeem us from our confusion of this world and to become aware of his great love. Gestalt therapy uses the same concept of awareness to redeem clients from their confusion of their being.

I want to take this past the initial level of the four pieces of Christianity and connect Munsterberg and Christianity in a unique way specifically tying into the aspect of community. Munsterberg was a key contributor in the development and creation of industrial, or organizational, psychology. He studied topics such as methods of personnel selection, increasing personal and team efficiency, and developing different marketing techniques (pg. 334-335). He worked to understand how people work together to accomplish a common goal. He was also curious about the things that bring people together as well as how to empower them in their gifting’s and skill sets. He observed how people work and how they work together, while analyzing their motivation, interests, and talents. These are all ideas that have been developed, researched, and have contributed greatly to efficiency in the marketplace. They have empowered leaders while improving teamwork and personal growth as companies try to accomplish a set goals.

The connection between these ideas and Christianity resides in the community of the body of Christ. As a student of psychology, business, and being a small-group leader at church, I have started to understand the connection between these three areas. Management is management whether it is leading in a marketing project or empowering people in the body of Christ. These thoughts and observations Munsterberg made are important in understanding how to encourage personal growth in relationship with Jesus, while observing the gifts and talents people have been blessed with and empowering them to serve others in those ways. Furthermore, his thoughts help leaders encourage the members to walk in the authority and influence they have been given in the Kingdom. Understanding leadership and management is important across all fields when there is a group of people and a common purpose or focus. That is why Munsterberg has helped leaders empower others in the kingdom of God.

James-Lange theory of emotion is very interesting. The common belief is that from the perception of an event, people first have an emotional experience and then respond. For example, if we lose our best friend, we are sad and we cry; if we see a bear, we are frightened and we run. James-Lange theory, however, is reversed. With William James, emotional experience occurs as a result of bodily reaction to events. Emotions depend on how we interpret the physiological reactions. According to the theory, when we lose our best friend, we begin to cry. We have increased heart rate and sweating. We then interpret our bodily manifestations and concluded that we are sad. Therefore, we are sad because we cry and we feel afraid because we run. Although this theory had been harshly criticized, there is something positive. It suggests the direct relationship between emotions and physical changes within the body. It also emphasizes the role of involuntary nervous system in having emotions. But it overemphasized the role of involuntary nervous system and misses out on the role central nervous system that are related to emotions.

I want to put James-Lange theory of emotion under the category of Redemption. An implication of the theory is that we should act according to the way we want to feel. I think of the process how we become Christians and saved by God. When we come across a religion called Christianity, we get to know the fact that we are all sinners and Jesus’s sacrificial death on the cross redeems us from our sins. Getting into heaven that filled with happiness and glory is only granted by God’s grace-Perception of an event. We want to be real and eternal happy. We first accept Jesus as our savior (to be Christians)-Act. We then feel real fulfilled and happy through the belief (develop faith)-Emotion. Although it may not be very appropriate, the process is similar with James Lange theory of emotion is some way.

The idea of Pragmatism was first proposed by the American psychologist William James. I had a hard time deciding which category I thought this idea fit under but I decided that it fit best under Redemption.  The reason I think that is that Pragmatism was James’ reaction to the idea that people should try and find if an idea is valid in all cases. He saw this as a flawed system and in that way it is comparable to the fall. He believed that one way to fix this problem was the belief of pragmatism. Pragmatism which says that all ideas should be judged on their usefulness in the current situation counteracted the problem James saw. In this way Pragmatism actually has hope connected to it. According to him there is no way to know for sure if an idea is true but that doesn’t matter as long as it is useful it has value. In fact you can even the redemptive quality of this idea in the life of William James. When he was young he went through spells of depression most of it seeming to come from his issues with the ideas of fatalism and whether or not anyone truly had free will. However when the idea of pragmatism came into his life it helped because he realized that no matter how much he would dwell on it he couldn’t prove whether or not he truly had free will but it was a useful assumption to think that he did so he chose to live his life as if nothing was predetermined and that the choices he made truly did matter. That change in his outlook embodies to me the reason that I believe Pragmatism fits well into redemption.

I find it interesting that many people scorn and mock evolution as a theory.  I feel that the very idea of evolution is one of immense faith.  Believing that creatures, especially human beings continue to evolve from their former more primitive brothers and sisters suggests that there is someone out there pursuing us and against all odds, keeping our best interest at heart.  Evolutionary psychology is an area that I was at first wary of, hence the reason I decided to try and work out my fears via this log.  I immediately sought to put evolutionary psychology in creation however, in truly thinking about what that area studies, I decided that I thought the title of Redemption more fitting.  Granted, evolutionary psychology focuses mainly on things such as biological predisposition and genetic factors.  There is however a point overlooked by many when they attempt to categorize evolutionary psychology within Christian concepts such as the Fall, Creation and Redemption. My proposition is this; If Christ gave us a genetic system equipped to mutate and adapt so that we as a creation can live on, there must be something special about us.  Because we are able to recognize certain traits within ourselves, find the root, and either keep and hone the ability, or obliterate it, we are a dominating species. God has redeemed us and reminds us every day of that gift by allowing us to evolve and adapt.