Existential Psychology Weblog by Louis Hoffman

A Depth Psychology Perspective on the Immigration Issue

In the beginning we create the enemy. Before the weapons comes the image. We thinkothers to death and then invent the battle-axe or the ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them. Propaganda precedes technology... Instead of being hypnotized by the enemy we need to begin looking at the eyes with which we see the enemy… We need to become conscious of…“the shadow.” The heroes and leaders toward peace in our time will be those men and women who have the courage to plunge into the darkness at the bottom of the personal and corporate psyche and face the enemy within. Depth psychology has presented us with the undeniable wisdom that the enemy is constructed from denied aspects of the self. ~ Sam Keen

Since the election of Barak Obama as president of the United States, some have proclaimed that we are living in a post-racial society. Despite these claims, an abundance of evidence suggests that much latent racism still exists and now is rising to the surface. One example is the increased intensity over immigration and illegal alien issues. As a preface and to decrease the amount of ire and possibility hate directed at me that this post could stimulate, I am not saying that all who are calling for stricter immigration rules or who support the new Arizona law are racist. Yet, I think racism, conscious or unconscious, is a primary motivator for many in their support of the Arizona law. I also believe there are other reasons for these positions, too. 

The quote from Sam Keen above I believe to be one of the most important quotes for our society today. Essentially, Keen is arguing that hate, strong criticalness of others, and the labeling of other groups as bad or evil has its roots in the person voicing these positions more than in the individual or group who is the recipient of these labels and attacks. Before we condemn, we should always look inward with a close examination of ourselves. Most often, I believe, we will find that we are part of the problem, too. 

A fairly obvious example of this is illustrated through many of the homosexuality scandals within the evangelical church. Numerous times in the past several years, some of the evangelical leaders voicing the strongest condemnation of homosexuality and same-sex marriage/partnerships have been caught engaging in homosexual behavior. Depth psychology would suggest that the passion, and I would say hate, directed toward gay and lesbian individuals was likely rooted in their own inability to accept aspects of themselves, or what Jung would call the shadow and May would call the daimonic. I am not saying they are gay or lesbian, or even bisexual. Maybe these are heterosexual individuals unable to accept some same-sex directed impulses. Of course, this is impossible to know, but yet a very plausible explanation. 

Returning to the immigration/illegal alien issue, other groups of people are often the recipient of negative projections that serve as the basis for prejudice against them. For instance, the target of the immigration issue is often the Latino/a population, who are mischaracterized as criminals, lazy and trying to take advantage of the system. Ironically, the vast majority hold conservative family values, come to the United States to work, and work hard, and are very willing to contribute to the system. The evidence against these stereotypes of the Latino/a population is overwhelming, yet they exist and seem to grow stronger over time. From the depth psychology perspective, it can be maintained that many of these beliefs again begin with the self. Fears are projected upon the Latina/o population and used to justify one's position. Even the frequently used argument that "they are here illegally" has little basis. Ignoring that most individuals going through the process established by our government to get citizenship or permanent residency status will need to spend a portion of their time being here illegally in order to be here legally, we can also be thankful that those of us who are here legally do not have to face the possibility of deportation every time we break the law (speeding) or bend it (taking liberties and bending the law with our tax deductions). These are blatant double standards and double binds.

Blaming immigrants for the problems in the United States is simply a way for us to avoid taking collective responsibility for the problems we have created in this country. Some argue that the immigrants are taking "our" jobs, yet we refuse to take collective responsibility for the economic crisis which has created the greatest job crisis in recent American history. We blame illegal aliens and immigrants for health care issues, yet we too long have failed to address the problems with our own health care system. We blame illegal aliens for crime yet we cannot address the extraordinarily high rates of violent crime in the United States or the overcrowded prison system. 

If we want to solve the economic and crime problems in the United States, we need to be willing to take an honest look at ourselves and recognize that we are the problem. Neither of our political parties are showing the leadership that is needed in this vein. They are too busy pointing fingers at each other and blaming instead of looking at themselves. We need both political parties to be responsible and accountable for the corruption that exists in politics today. It is impossible, if we are to be honest, to say that one party or the other has the moral high ground. Both political parties, at their best, have good intentions with different plans about how to address problems. The difference in the parties often is more about pragmatics than morals, but we turn it into moral issues. Yet, both parties are filled with corruption, power struggles, and resistance to taking responsibility for their own problems and failures. We need political and other leaders in this country to show the type of heroism that Keen talks about -- the courage to look within and take personal responsibility instead of projecting our failures and shortcomings on others and then condemning them. 

Existential Psychology and Religion: A Response

As an existential psychologist interested in religious and spiritual issues, I have heard many interesting comments from people who have been taught inaccuracies about existentialism. Often, these individuals have been taught to be fearful of it. For example, I had one student who, while on break, mentioned to their minister that they took a class on existential psychology with me and really enjoyed it. Her minister quickly informed her that existentialism is atheism and that I was probably secretly trying to persuade her away from her faith. She was warned to be weary of me (that pastor had never met me and knew nothing about me except I taught a class on existential psychology). The student obeyed for a while before sharing with me what her minister said. Gradually, she began to trust, at least to a degree, that I was "safe" and that I respected her beliefs, but she always seemed leery. 

Recently, there was an article published in a peer-reviewed professional psychology journal on integrating a religious perspective into existential psychology. At first, I was excited to read this article; however, I quickly became disappointed. The article, to be blunt, was poor scholarship that does not meet proper academic standards in addition to misrepresenting existential psychology. The only references to existential psychology within the last 30-years were to Yalom. There were also two references to Frankl within the last 30-years, but one was inaccurately cited (it was published much earlier) and the other was a publication after Frankl's death comprised of revised articles he had written and published much earlier. There was not a single reference anywhere in the article about the numerous contemporary perspectives on religious/spiritual issues in existential thought. The journal should have been responsible enough to find an existential scholar to review the article and any contemporary existential scholar easily would have pointed out the many problems in this article. 

Both humanistic and existential psychology have had similar problems. Seligman, in the article that is considered the birthing of positive psychology, drastically misrepresented and discounted humanistic psychology. Both humanistic and existential psychology are frequently misrepresented in undergraduate and even graduate psychology courses. . 

So why are these perspectives so misrepresented? Well, there are many reasons. The primary reason is that they have not had much of a popular voice in the past 20-years. This is beginning to change and the last several years has evidenced a resurgence of existential and humanistic psychology. Most of the critiques I have run into are not even familiar with the majority of major contributors to these fields, yet feel confident in their critique. There is also the problem of history. Many will cling to one or two historical representatives of existential psychology, or maybe even mix in 1 or 2 contemporary figures, and then use this as their view of existentialism. Existentialism is a broad, complex collection of perspectives that share some common values and beliefs; however, there is not full agreement on any one issue. 

When it comes to religion, there a many different perspectives. Still, when existentialism is talked about from religious leaders and scholars they draw almost exclusively on Nietzsche and Sartre, occasionally recognizing Kierkegaard as an existential thinker. Using Nietzsche and Sartre, and maybe Yalom as the recent journal article did, as representatives of existential thought, they will often present a case against existential thought that condemns it as anti-religion, excessively individualistic, and morally dangerous, possibly even the same as relativism. 

Religion, in my experience, has been the biggest culprit misrepresenting existential thought. This often is a fear-based response. An example can be drawn from the popular bumper sticker, "Nietzsche: 'God is dead.' God: 'Nietzsche is dead.'" I find this quite humorous as it really demonstrates a drastic misunderstanding of Nietzsche's point. Never did Nietzsche intend this to be a metaphysical statement about the reality of God. Indeed, this would make no sense as Nietzsche did not believe in God (Nietzsche was more of a non-believing agnostic than a true atheist). Instead, Nietzsche was really arguing that faith, or belief in God, was no longer impacting how Christians lived their lives. This critique is not far off from what often is said in the pulpits on Sunday morning. To put it in theological terms, Nietzsche was really saying that Christian faith was no longer producing works or that Christians were not living in accordance with their beliefs. Most voicing an objection to this statement of Nietzsche have never read more than "God is dead" from "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and, if they have, they often read it too defensively to ever understand Nietzsche's point! 

I would like to address one last issue related to ethics, relativism, and guilt. In the journal article referenced, it was essentially claimed that existentialists have had nothing to say about guilt and no moral ground for ethics. There are many problems and inaccuracies in this statement, which deserve a blog on their own, but I will briefly clarify. First, it is quite audacious to claim that existentialists have nothing to say about guilt. In fact, I doubt that any psychological orientation has spent more time talking about guilt than existential psychology! There basis for this, however, is different than many traditional religious views. 

From an existential perspective, guilt and ethics do not have to do with some external set of rules. Instead, morality is rooted in our existence, in being human (in theological terms, this would be a form of natural theology). To appeal to a set of external, concrete rules can only limit ethics. Instead, existential thought appeals to a set of abstract principles that can only be applied in context. In other words, ethics is always an applied ethics from an existential perspective. We can talk about ethics and morality, but detached from a context, it is meaningless and primarily just an intellectual exercise. 

Let's take an example of the most frequently cited objection to this: 'Thou shall not kill.' Some will respond saying that existential thought is unable to make a moral statement about murder. This is not true. First, drawing on a natural ethics, or natural theology, there is a basic principle of respecting life and human dignity that is part of an existential morality. How, then, does this fit in a view that murder is wrong if there is a claim that ethics are always applied and contextually understood? As an example, most ethics systems allow for different interpretations of what murder is. We differentiate between 'involuntary manslaughter' and 'murder' in the United States. Also, we do not consider capital punishment murder, even though it is taking someone's life. In other countries, our stance on allowing capital punishment is a form of state sanctioned murder and morally wrong.

Let me now return to the problem of guilt. What is guilt from an existential perspective? Existentialists distinguish existential guilt from normal guilt and neurotic guilt. However, in essence, most or all forms of guilt are rooted in an existential guilt. Camus is the true genius when discussing guilt, although he addresses it more implicitly than explicitly. For Camus, guilt is part of the human condition: to be human is to be guilty. This, although rooted in a natural theology as opposed to many Christian perspectives, has many parallels to the idea of original sin. But Camus, in contrast to Sartre, did not have just a pessimistic view of human nature. In fact, it was this issue that caused his separation from Sartre and his resistance to being called an existentialist. Camus, as many existentialists do, believed that human limitation should be balanced with human potential. The theological parallel could be cited as Luther's idea of the sinner-saint (Indeed, it is quite evident to see the influences of Lutheranism throughout much of existential thought, particularly through the influences on Kierkegaard and Tillich, who had Lutheran ties). 

To conclude, existentialism in it many variations -- philosophy, psychology, theology, and the many variations within each of these -- has always had a complex relationship with religion. Increasingly today, existentialists seem to be very interested in religion/spirituality through addressing religious and spiritual issues; however, there also remain some existentialists who take a very negative view on religion. Yalom is maybe the best known representative of this view. To pit existentialism against religion, or to discount the significant work existentialism has done with religion and spirituality, is really misinformed and based upon a limited view of the existential literature. Instead, there is a exciting realm of scholarship addressing spiritual and religious issues in existential thought with a long history that continues through today.