Toward a Transpersonal Child
Psychology:
Theoretic
Openings and Therapeutic Opportunities
Douglas Peter-Frank
Transpersonal psychology has been developing for the past 40
years, elaborating theories of human development and providing guidance to help
people, adults in particular, navigate the challenging but promising terrain of
psychospiritual development. The time may be ripe for the emergence of a
transpersonally-informed child psychology. In this article, transpersonal
theorists’ views of child psychospiritual development are surveyed and the
prospects of a transpersonal child psychology are explored. Some transpersonal
theories appear to be more conducive to such a new approach to child
psychology, while others either fail to address children’s issues or explicitly
caution against putting the cart (spiritual unfolding) before the horse
(psychological development). Emerging data of early childhood experiences,
however, call into question long-held beliefs about children’s limited
developmental capacities and subjective experiences, thus providing an entrée
for transpersonal understandings of children. A broader view of the child is
necessary for such a movement in child psychology to emerge and the recognition
that development may not progress in rigid, sequential steps supports this
advance. If a transpersonally-informed approach to working with children is
feasible, important questions remain about its potential value and the forms it
might take. Ideas for nurturing children’s desire to go beyond this
world while learning to function in this world are explored. Cautions
are offered to counteract careless and potentially harmful “transpersonal work”
with children.
Under the banner of transpersonal
psychology we have developed and continue to refine theoretical models and
professional practices to serve myriad objectives. We seek to nurture and
develop our natural endowments as human beings. We aspire to make contact with
our essence and/or transcend our ego’s individuality. And as psychologists and
healing professionals we endeavor to support the development of those we serve
in all aspects of their lives. Transpersonal psychology has served as a
touchstone for theorists concerned with the full range of human development and
for clinicians supporting people in their personal and spiritual growth.
However, the scope of transpersonal psychology has been severely, and perhaps
unnecessarily, limited. To date, transpersonal psychology has addressed the
issues of adulthood, focusing on models of adult development and
psychotherapeutic practices for adult clients only. Children are conspicuously
neglected in this field. No one speaks of a transpersonally-oriented or
spiritually informed therapy for children. No one has proposed a transpersonal
child psychology
Given the developmental processes
underway in the field of transpersonal psychology, however, the emergence of a
transpersonal child psychology would seem an historical inevitability. The
prospect of a transpersonal child psychology is an exciting one, both because
of its potential benefits and feared risks. At the same time, the need for such
a model of child psychology is not a pressing one and, perhaps more importantly,
such a revolutionary approach may be alarming to some writers and clinicians.
Nevertheless, as people have looked to transpersonal theory to understand how
to best navigate the spiritual domains of human development to fulfill their
own potential, they will undoubtedly seek ways to support this kind of growth
in their progeny. Opportunities to intervene to foster spiritual growth in
children will be easier to recognize and assess in light of a comprehensive
theory of transpersonal child psychology. Avoidance of the potential pitfalls
of such an approach will also be more possible with the guidance of a
well-developed theory. Although such a literature does not yet exist, all the
ingredients are available and the time may be ripe for its creation. This paper
is offered in support of the emergence of a transpersonal child psychology,
outlining why it is feasible given our present understanding of psychospiritual
development, what the obstacles are to its emergence and how these translate
into cautions for clinicians, and what it might look like in clinical practice.
Transpersonal
psychology is what Abraham Maslow called the “fourth force” in psychology (the
first three being behavioral, psychoanalytic, and humanistic-existential).
Maslow sought to go beyond individual identity and even beyond
self-actualization and humanness, and to this end he studied peak experiences
and spiritual values or “Being values” (Maslow, 1968, in Hastings, 1999).
Cortright describes how transpersonal psychology integrates modern academic
psychology and traditional spiritual practices for a comprehensive view of
human development. This integration provides a stronger approach to healing
than academic psychology because, “Only by looking to the spiritual dimension
that includes and transcends heredity and environment can we discover an
adequate answer to the problems of human existence” (Cortright, 1997). In fact,
numerous writers and clinical psychologists have (a) placed spiritual processes
in the context of developmental growth and (b) asserted that many aspects of
healthy human development come under the rubric of transpersonal psychology
(Tart and Deikman, 1991; Washburn, 1988; Walsh, 1983; Welwood, 2000; Wilber,
1977, 1984, 1999).
Transpersonal theory is a
relatively new development in the history of psychology. One of its most
influential advocates, Ken Wilber, began elaborating his theories in 1977 with
the publication of The Spectrum of Consciousness. He presents a model of
human development that takes into account the Western academic understanding of
stages of psychological development and Eastern religious and philosophical
beliefs regarding paths of spiritual development. Wilber (1983/1990) asserts
that human development proceeds from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal[1]
and has developed a framework with which to understand this trajectory. His
work has been a source of inspiration to many as well as the subject of
extensive debate.
Many writers take issue with
Wilber’s hierarchical framework[2].
Transpersonal theories proposed by Washburn (1988) and Almaas (1986), for
example, provide alternatives to Wilber’s linear model of human development.
Unlike Wilber, they assert that, when born, children are in a mostly
unconscious transpersonal state and that children’s egoic, or psychological,
development invariably moves them away from such transpersonal emersion, a
process that must take place before they can return (not ascend) to the
transpersonal realm later in life. Wilber’s developmental hierarchy, or
“holarchy,” while not explicitly addressing children’s spiritual capacities,
may not necessarily be inconsistent with a transpersonal child psychology. The
theories of the other prominent writers, however, clearly provide for the possibility
of a transpersonal child psychology. Given that theory has made way for, or at
least has not blocked the way for, such an emergence in the field of
psychology, new questions naturally arise: Would a transpersonal child
psychology be possible? And if possible, would it be meaningful? In other
words, would such an orientation to clinical work benefit children? Finally,
how might such an approach look?
Transpersonal child psychology does
not exist as such but the environment appears primed for such a contribution.
The study of transpersonal experiences of children provides a clear push in
this direction (Armstrong, 1984). That almost all transpersonal theorists
address how the transpersonal is manifest and/or latent in children provides
more impetus for this new clinical development. Moreover, that
transpersonally-influenced therapists are already undoubtedly working with
children makes the call for a transpersonal child psychology all the more
important. While the various transpersonal theories are certainly influencing
the practice of child psychology, no one has elucidated a theory of
transpersonal psychology explicitly for children. Pulling together several
different threads in transpersonal theory, it is clear that a theory of
transpersonal child psychology is not only inevitable – it is also necessary.
The predominant focus of
transpersonal theorists is on health and human potential rather than pathology
or mental illness. They look at how growth can continue beyond the stages
outlined by Western psychologists. Transpersonalists contend that
object-constancy (Mahler, 1975, in Engler, 1984)[3]
or a cohesive and integrated sense of self are not the ends of psychological
development but important stepping stones. In Buddhist psychology, for example,
these “achievements” eventually constitute a problem to be overcome on the path
to liberation. Samkhara-dukkha, or “suffering as conditioned states” as Engler
(1984) describes, could result from the self-object recruitment[4]
that Kohut asserts is normal and healthy throughout the life-span (Kohut, 1984,
p. 49-50). But from a Buddhist perspective the unending pursuit of external
sources of support, even if they are increasingly mature self-objects,
represents a kind of arrested development (Engler, 1984). The objectives of
transpersonal psychology are not short-term symptom relief, although this may
occur. Rather the goal is for a permanent release from suffering that follows
from liberation, salvation, or enlightenment.
In the pursuit of this liberation,
transpersonal psychology has emphasized two aspects of life: transpersonal
experiences and transpersonal development (Boucouvalas, 1999). Experiences,
also known as realizations, represent temporary shifts in consciousness.
Development, or actualization, on the other hand, refers to relatively stable
structural shifts of consciousness in which realizations are fully integrated.
Although children are thought to have transpersonal experiences, it is commonly
believed that they are unable to integrate the experiences because they do not
have the requisite structures to accommodate such realizations. Armstrong
(1984), however, proposes that some children are able to integrate experiences
and others hold on to spiritual experiences until they are able to integrate
them later in life.
Engler (1984) presents an opposing
view when he proposes what has become an axiom in the field: “you have to be
somebody before you can be nobody.” Based on his experience as a spiritual
teacher and psychologist working with psychotic and borderline patients, he
articulates the importance of egoic development preceding endeavors to
transcend ego. In this view, the achievement of a cohesive, integrated self (à
la Kohut’s cohesive firmness) is a precondition for achieving higher states of
consciousness in which identity and object-constancy are challenged and
uprooted.
Since it takes many years for the
ego to develop fully, there is an implication that transpersonal psychology is
for adults only. Transpersonal psychologists whose practice and/or theories
usually involve the “melding of the wisdom of the world’s spiritual traditions
with the learning of modern psychology” (Cortright, 1997) naturally look to the
spiritual traditions for guidance in integrating spirituality into clinical
work. These two traditions tend to reinforce the message that it is for adults,
not children. Followers of the spiritual traditions are typically expected to
engage in serious practice (e.g., meditation, mantra, Yoga) only after a
certain age. Until that time, spiritual authorities have little to offer in the
way of child rearing recommendations. Of course, there are exceptions to this
general rule. Throughout Asia, young children are known to enter monasteries
and become monks. The Dalai Lama, for example, was taken into the monastery at
a young age and apparently was reared in such a way as to cultivate his
spiritual potential (and it seems to have worked). For the most part, however,
spiritual authorities of the East do not address child development. Similarly,
transpersonal psychologists have also remained silent about child development,
Washburn (1994) being the possible exception. No one as yet has proposed a
framework for preparing a young person for the spiritual challenges and
opportunities awaiting them in the world.
Contrary to the spiritual
traditions and transpersonal theory thus far, modern psychology rigorously
studies the early development of human beings and has much advice (implicitly
as well as explicitly) to give to people involved in child rearing and child
therapy. According to Western psychology, if all goes well in one’s childhood
and adolescence, there is little perceived need for psychotherapeutic services
later in life, barring the occurrence of traumatic events or other such
difficulties that may present in adulthood. Modern psychology, however, has
little to recommend in the way of helping individuals reach the exalted states
described by the spiritual traditions. Furthermore, orthodox psychology provides
support for spiritual potential only to the extent that healthy psychological
development is conducive to later spiritual growth.
Transpersonal psychology, on the
other hand, is concerned with “developing a self while also honoring the urge to
go beyond the self,” as Cortright (1997) states. These separate processes occur
simultaneously and may persist throughout the life span, even in the very
young. It could then be argued that for a parent to allow a child to engage in
the mystery of being, to allow children the taste of the divine no-self (Tao,
emptiness, essence), would be to give a great gift indeed. For a parent to
model an openness to existential issues as well as higher states of
consciousness may make these experiences much more accessible to the child. For
a child psychologist to embrace the child’s full potential as a spiritual being
and to be able to meet them at that level may provide for a deeper kind of
healing and open greater developmental potential than is available through other
approaches. Just as it is never too late to undertake psychological and
spiritual work, it may also never be too early. That transpersonal
psychologists have focused on more mature clients without venturing into work
with children appears to be an unfortunate state of things. There may be no
need to wait to introduce a person to the field of transpersonal potential.
Recognizing, nurturing, and cultivating a child’s capacity and need to go
beyond this world (without negating the opposing need to be in this world), to
experience oneness with everything (without denying individuality) may be
invaluable to their development at any stage.
Evidence is indeed beginning to
point to greater capacities in children than early psychologists understood.
Historically, Western psychologists have underestimated the capacity of
children, both in terms of their psychological development and their spiritual
capacities. This unfortunate misjudgment of the child is exemplified by
Margaret Mahler’s concept of the autistic phase of development. The child “is
at first absolutely, and remains later on - even ‘unto the grave’ - relatively
dependent on a mother” (Mahler, 1972). Mahler’s concept of human symbiosis, of
‘one-ness’ with the mother, precludes the child’s psychological existence: “The
biological birth of the human infant and the psychological birth of the
individual are not coincident in time. The former is a dramatic and readily
observable, well-circumscribed event; the latter, a slowly unfolding
interaction in situ” (Mahler, 1972, p. 333). The ramifications of this view of
children are especially detrimental to our affirmation of the spiritual
potential of the infant and child. In such an impoverished state, how could we
see children as spiritual beings? How could we view them as our teachers (as
some spiritual teachers might advise) or at least see them as equals in the
ultimate sense?
Fortunately, Mahler’s view of the
child has been challenged with a great deal of compelling data. The evidence points
to the child’s ability to do things that the aforementioned state of autistic
symbiosis would render impossible. For example:
During the three- to five-month period, mother gives the infant
control - or rather the infant takes control - over the initiations and
terminations of direct visual engagement in social activities (Stern, 1971,
1974, 1977; Beebe and Stern, 1977; Messer and Vietze, in press). (Stern, 1985,
p. 21). These experiments demonstrate that infants are more autonomous and
independent than is often understood.
Daniel Stern’s work helps pave the
way for transpersonal view of the child even though he does not explicitly
advocate for a transpersonal approach with children. On the contrary, one could
use his evidence to argue against using transpersonal theory for work
with children. He contends that “the infant is never totally undifferentiated
(symbiotic) from the mother, but is primed from the beginning to be interested
in and to distinguish itself from the world of others” (Stern in Benjamin,
1988, p. 18). If, in fact, the child has not experienced oneness with the
mother, it is not clear what would drive an individual to seek a mystical
oneness[5].
If there is no model or template for that experience then, one might argue, not
only is there no drive but the child has no internal means of verification and
validation of such superconscious states. On the other hand, this may mean that
children need our openness, guidance, and mentoring, that a great deal of
attention must be paid to this issue in order to empower children to prepare
for and accept higher developmental challenges.
More importantly, however, Stern
(1985) provides ample evidence that such a transpersonal approach to child
psychology may not be inappropriate. He states that for children, as with all
people, “the experience of intersubjective relatedness, like that of
core-relatedness, can only be alluded to; it cannot be described (although
poets can evoke it)” (p. 27). Children then have access to something akin to
mystical experiences. These experiences that cannot be described bring to mind
the Tao that is beyond words and the Buddhist concepts of emptiness and
voidness. Words can only point in the right direction, but these states must be
experienced directly. Intersubjective relatedness, like transpersonal
realizations, may therefore be experienced even without an internal template.
Thomas Armstrong (1984) provides
evidence of such capacities in children. He challenges our conceptions about
children’s spiritual lives by presenting examples of childhood experiences of
what would qualify for adults as mystical, religious or spiritual experiences.
He argues that under certain circumstances the child is able to perceive “the
larger whole” within which she or he is developing. In such a case, integration
of ego and the spiritual self, what he terms “ego-self integration,” happens
alongside the typical developmental states that are more limited in nature,
what he calls “ego-self separation” (Armstrong, 1984). Harry Hunt (1995) warns
us, however, that many of the experiences presented by Armstrong are recounted
by adults and therefore subject to later interpretations and understandings.
Nevertheless, Hunt cites Irwin’s (1989) research into near-death experiences of
children as support for the similarities between the experiences of children
compared to that of adults. In describing these experiences, the articulation
is childlike while the content is similar to adult near-death experiences. The
evidence appears quite strong that at least some children have the capacity to
experience spiritual states.
Hunt (1995) has taken the research
a step further by studying the people who evidence spiritual experiences in
their youth. He notes that there are generally two routes to early spiritual
experiences: (a) precocious development of visual-spatial abilities and (b)
trauma. The first group tends to be more prone to spiritual experiences in the
first five years of life and the second group tends to have mystical
experiences after undergoing traumatic life experiences. Studies (Hunt et. al,
1992, and Spadafora & Hunt, 1990, in Hunt, 1995) have demonstrated that the
first group exhibits lower than average levels of neuroticism later in life,
while the second group shows no such benefit. Hunt proposes that early
childhood spiritual experiences may demonstrate a kind of precocity whereby a
child’s development in one area surpasses what we would expect given the level
of development in others areas. He argues for the idea that spiritual
propensities might represent a kind of intelligence, along the lines of
Gardner’s (1993) multiple forms of intelligence. Although Gardner himself (2000) makes a case
against this concept, several writers support Hunt’s position in advancing the
idea of a “spiritual intelligence” (Noble,
2000; Pascual-Leone, 1990; Vaughan, 2002). Hunt’s conclusions about childhood
spirituality may have direct implications for child therapy, as outlined below.
Stern, Armstrong, and others have
helped us to blow open our assumptions about infants’ perceptions, experiences,
and abilities. Indeed, children are wondrous beings who may continue to
surprise us with their limitless potential. Let us, therefore, not
underestimate their ability to benefit from our openness to the infinite.
Transpersonalists hold many
different views of a child’s spiritual capacities, the least inspiring of which
is probably Wilber’s. It is important to explore this diversity of opinion to
better understand the prospects of a transpersonal child psychology. Although
Wilber has succeeded in bringing transpersonal psychology a measure of
theoretical respect he does little for the cause that I am advocating because
(a) he does not address children’s issues in his writing and (b) he argues very
convincingly that people develop through stages. Since an individual’s
transpersonal work does not come until the later stages of development, Wilber
asserts that the earliest we would expect spiritual development would be in
adolescence. Nevertheless, he recognizes that the drives that enable the self
to navigate all stages of development, including very early stages, are “agency
and communion, self-transcendence and self-dissolution (regression)” (1996).
Since these are the very drives that motivate spiritual quests, Wilber
acknowledges that children carry with them the seeds of their spiritual
blossoming. How and whether to recognize, protect and cultivate these seeds is
a topic of some import.
Michael Washburn (1988, 1995) is
prominent transpersonal theorist and philosopher whose views differ from
Wilber’s. He believes that newborns exist in a state of transpersonal rapture:
“Intrapsychically, the newborn is absorbed in the Dynamic Ground and in the
numinous power resident in the Ground. This state of absorption, which I shall
call original embedment, is a condition of dynamic plenitude. It is a state
that is overflowing with upwelling energy” (1988).
As the child
develops, however, she or he disconnects from the spiritual source because of
the need for egoic, or psychological, development. Washburn argues that this
disconnection is important and necessary not only for egoic growth but also for
ultimate transcendence, or return to the Dynamic Ground, to take place. He sees
that the dualistic division emerges in children, internally as egoic versus
nonegoic and interpersonally as self versus other. This division is
consolidated in the second or third year of life (1995, p. 45). From this point
of view, the child is then foreclosed from experiencing the transpersonal
Ground until later in life when the nonegoic potentials are accessed again.
Similar to Washburn, Almaas views
children as entering the world in a transcendent state. As an influential
teacher and practitioner of transpersonal psychotherapy, Almaas (1986) provides
a glorious depiction of children, newborns in particular. He asserts that we
are born with “essence” a presence that cannot be described (we are only told
what it is not), much like enlightenment, the Tao, suchness and oneness, as well
as Stern’s “core relatedness.” Essence is our true nature; it always remains
available to us, though usually it is buried ever deeper by our personality as
we develop and grow. In the words of Gurdjieff:
“It
must be understood that man consists of two parts: essence and personality.
Essence in man is what is his own. Personality in man is what is ‘not his own.’
A small child has no personality as yet. He is what he really is. He is
essence. His desires, tastes, likes, dislikes, express his being such as it
is.” (P. D. Ouspensky, 1949, as cited in Almaas, 1986, p. 84)
Unfortunately,
this purity is lost because “the child’s essence is always misunderstood,
ignored, or rejected, and frequently insulted, trampled, and hurt” (Almaas,
1986, p. 104). Contrary to Wilber’s view of personal evolvement, Almaas
proposes a kind of devolvement in childhood whereby spirit is lost in
the individual. Almaas is not alone in proposing such a view; Washburn and Stan
Grof both propose similar paths of falling away from, then returning to,
spirit.
Other supporters of such a
perspective include indigenous peoples. For the Dagara people of western
Africa, for example, the child enters the community first in spirit. While
pregnant, the mother channels the child’s spirit, providing an answer to the
question of why he or she is coming and revealing the purpose and meaning of
this new life. The elders then endeavor to make sure the child has all that is
needed in order to develop and fulfill her or his purpose. Similar to Almaas’
belief in the loss of essence, the Dagara believe that “growing up is a process
of forgetting; this body, as the elders say, takes away certain things from us
as we grow. Up until the age of five or six, children remember things
perfectly, but after that something starts to happen in the body that makes
them forget” (Somé, 1997). At the time of their initiation rites in
adolescence, the Dagara are called upon to return to the time before they were
born in order to remember their purpose. These rites may be a form of spiritual
inquiry that would be appropriate to people of other cultures as well. Perhaps
adolescents in our society would also respond to such a call with deeply
meaningful answers if they were given the opportunity.
Pearce (1992) offers a different perspective
altogether, although one that recognizes early spirituality. He maintains that
we are born with the necessary brain structure for higher states of
consciousness, but that we do not naturally act from that structure because the
higher capacity must be developed:
“We
have no choice at birth but to identify with those ancient functions since they
provide our primary body and world experience. The unknown higher state,
involving our most recent neural system, forms only as we participate with it,
operates from a different frequency than our physical basis, and can’t be
approached as an object.” (Pearce, 1992)
Interestingly,
like Almaas, Pearce asserts that there is a loss; we quickly lose the potential
to achieve higher states of being because it is not nurtured: “Our opening to a
fuller humanity closes before we even discover it really exists, leaving us
with an empty longing projected onto myths and dreams” (Pearce, 1992).
While many believe that humans
enter the world in a state of mystical union, some also propose the existence
of early spiritual gateways. Grof (1975, 1980, 1985) asserts that birth-related
experiences serve as central organizing principles of the psyche. These
experiences can be a source of great trauma, but they can also provide direct
access to higher experiences such as the bliss, heavenly paradise and unity
available in the womb. He likens the emergence from the birth canal to merging
into the light and liberation. Grof believes pre- and perinatal experiences
(from the time in gestation through birth and the first moments after birth) to
be actual gateways to transcendental states. In order to access such openings
later in life, Grof has pioneered therapeutic methods involving altered states
of consciousness. These techniques are upheld for their potential transpersonal
benefits, although they may also be therapeutic in the classical sense of
working through issues. Grof’s work is meaningful for the emergence of a
transpersonal child psychology for two reasons: (a) he suggests that humans do
have profoundly important spiritual experiences very early in their existence
and (b) these early life experiences may provide some of the most accessible
routes to transcendental experience. These points, however, give rise to many
new questions. If adults can truly access their birth-related experiences,
could not children access them more easily? And should they? From the
prevention side we will want to know whether there are ways we may be able to
minimize the trauma and maximize the possibility of powerful, spiritual
experiences during gestation and birth. What is lost when one’s birth-related
experiences are not blissful and how can such losses be counteracted? A
comprehensive transpersonal theory would address such questions.
Pearce, who provides practical
recommendations for child-rearing, also presents childbirth as miraculous and
filled with spiritual content. He asserts that we compromise the child’s
potential by introducing unnatural processes, technology and isolation into
what would otherwise be a spiritual awakening of sorts:
“Nature
has done everything possible to make the newborn’s venture into the unknown a
success and a great learning by guaranteeing a return to the known [the
mother]. What the infant actually learns at birth is what the process of
learning is like. S/he has moved from a soft, warm, dark, quiet, and totally
nourishing place into a harsh sensory overload. S/he is physically abused,
violated in a wide variety of ways, subjected to specific physical pain and
insult, all of which could still be overcome, but s/he is then isolated from
his/her mother.” (Pearce, 1977)
Like Wilber and Washburn, Pearce’s
model of human development includes stages. He outlines three distinct stages
of heart opening with the first developmental heart opening at birth, the
second at mid-adolescence and the final stage later in life. Unlike with other
stage models, however, Pearce maintains an idealistic view of a child’s
potential. He renounces the harm that many of our practices do to children.
Poor bonding is chief among these evils. When the mother-child bond fails
Pearce sees the child attaching to material objects and he draws the link with
larger social issues. “The long-range effects of the materially bonded child
are a breakdown of interpersonal relations and an obsessive-compulsive
attachment to material objects” (1977). Seeing the consumerism of our age as an
enormous obstacle to more widespread spiritual awakening, Pearce traces this
problem back to our earliest experiences. According to this view, even if
individuals do not carry the inherent essence that Almaas asserts, it is clear
that honoring the spirit from the earliest point in life may prove very
valuable.
As outlined above, beliefs about a
child’s spiritual potential are varied, but critically important, for clearly
influence when and how we act to help a person (child or adult) access and
develop their higher states of consciousness. The differences outlined above
are but a sampling of the diversity of opinion on this central issue. The
existence of such divergent views speaks to the improbability of there emerging
a single model of transpersonal child psychology.
Several, but not all, of the
perspectives on transpersonal development could be interpreted as advocating
for a delay in transpersonal work. Wilber’s (1996) understanding of steps, or
stages, on the ascent to full consciousness leads him to warn against the
pursuit of non-ego, mystical, or transcendent states prematurely. He criticizes
the “naïve notion of a one-step transformation” which ignores the important
aspects of ego development: “Many of the theories recommending not-ego are
really recommending regression, not transcendence. The standard pre/trans
fallacy, where pre-ego is confused with trans-ego simply because both are
non-ego.”[6]
This point is crucial for it provides an important caution to those who would
attempt to practice a transpersonal child psychology. Specifically, encouraging
a child to enter non-dual realms of experience may be regressive and harmful,
thus impeding needed ego development.
Wilber allows that these higher
states are possible at any time during the life span, yet he downplays
their value when more rudimentary developmental milestones have not been
achieved:
“So
people can have spiritual experiences and peak experiences, but they still have
to carry those experiences in their structure. They still have to grow and
develop to the point that they can actually accommodate the depth offered by
peak experiences. They still have to go from acorn to oak if they are going to
become one with the forest.” (Wilber, 1996)
Although
Wilber’s arguments are impeccable, the spirit and the tone of his assertions
lead to the narrowing of transpersonal applications. He is closing off to an
aspect of development that holds much promise, in particular, the possibility
to develop on several different levels simultaneously and the enormous capacity
we all hold to contain paradox. Having a flavor of the heights, or depths, of
human experience may influence and inspire the work done in the unresolved
domains, or incomplete developmental stages. That individuals must be mature
enough to handle and integrate experiences of higher consciousness, as Wilber
(1996) asserts, may make such experiences an inspiration for development, not
necessarily an impediment. Exploring the higher challenges earlier may,
actually, facilitate the development through the more primitive stages.
Wilber does not address the issue
of children’s spirituality directly, but we can guess that he would implore us
to postpone opening to the spiritual realm until a person has fully matured
through all stages of development. But, as many developmental theorists argue,
stages are not so distinct and linear. Stern, for example, delves into the gray
area that stage models avoid. He points out: “The traditional
clinical-developmental issues such as orality, autonomy, and trust are no
longer seen as occupying age-specific sensitive periods but as being issues for
the life span” (1985, p. 12). He
advocates using the term “domains” as opposed to stages or phases because they
are never lost to adult experience, they just get more elaborated:
“All
domains of relatedness remain active during development. The infant does not
grow out of any of them; none of them atrophy, none become developmentally
obsolete or get left behind. And once all domains are available, there is no
assurance that any one domain will necessarily claim preponderance during any
particular age period.” (Stern, 1985, p. 31)
Addressing a
slightly different issue, Robert Emde (1983) also argues against the notion of
rigid stages: “I believe we must avoid getting caught up in the idea of a
sharply focused age period in which the self emerges... I believe we must
remind ourselves that the self is a process” (p. 168). So indeed must be
the spiritual self.
Washburn is often critical of
Wilber’s hierarchical model of development. Washburn’s model, for example,
acknowledges the spirituality of children. Interestingly, however, his theory
could also be used to support the notion that it is pointless at best to
support spiritual development early in life. As mentioned above, Washburn
(1994) asserts that children undertake the task of differentiation and
individuation starting very early. This endeavor requires repression of inner
transcendental states, “nonegoic potentials,” and alienation from others,
phenomena he calls “primal repression and primal alienation.” He argues that duality,
the ultimate affliction according to Eastern spiritual traditions, is actually
an accomplishment for children.
When considering whether it is
important to wait for a certain stage of development before we endeavor to cultivate
spirit, we need to recognize that development, per se, might not occur
at all. The work of the spirit may actually be an issue of preservation rather
than development. Almaas maintains that although everyone loses essence,
each person undergoes a different process of loss. Since “different aspects are
more deeply buried in one person than in another,” according to Almaas (1986),
it would be reasonable to assume that there may be ways to prevent essence from
being buried in the first place or to keep it from being buried too deeply.
Regardless of the nature of human growth, whether by stages, cycles,
hierarchies or domains, there are reasons to question whether children may be
ready for spirituality; and yet, there may also be great potential in nurturing
spirit from a very young age.
Requiring that all aspects of ego
development be perfectly complete (Wilber) or critical phases of development be
achieved (Washburn) before the work of the spirit can begin may be an
unreasonable criterion. Few people make it through all developmental tasks
without some amount of impairment; yet many undertake a spiritual path. With
children, however, an important question is whether it would ever be too early,
or inappropriate, to facilitate spiritual awareness and higher states of
consciousness, or whether there are opportunities for preparation for these
realizations. Perhaps as important as whether this is appropriate for
children is the question of how this would be appropriately
accomplished. The constraint of stages is not necessarily the issue. Pearce,
for example, believes in stages of development, and yet he still advocates for
the spiritual potential of children. What is at issue is how to hold in check
the dangers to which Wilber and others alert us without missing the vast
opportunities to nurture spiritual intelligence.
There are important concerns and
cautions that need to be attended to if transpersonal child psychology is to be
used in clinical settings (concerns that undoubtedly help account for the
delayed emergence of this approach to child therapy). Presently, there may be
no need for such a clinical orientation. Child psychologists tend to be very
busy putting out fires in families. Attention to spiritual preparation may be
inappropriate for most children going to therapy and it may be misguided.
Recall Wilber’s warning about the pre/trans fallacy, mistaking regressive
material for transpersonal experiences and vice-versa. Supporting a child’s
experience of “emptiness” because it looks like a realization to which Buddhist
practitioners aspire may be a grave error. Instead of nurturing spiritual
development we may inadvertently foster dissociation, a mechanism that
obstructs development and precludes therapeutic progress.
Recall also Washburn’s proposal
that duality is a necessary precursor of personal development, which is in turn
needed for the successful return to the Dynamic Ground. From this perspective,
impeding personal growth (e.g., the development of duality) in the hope
of supporting spiritual growth would be a major mistake. Washburn’s
framework thus begs the question: can a child separate from her or his primary
objects while maintaining the internal experience of union and
interrelatedness? Washburn’s model leads us to acknowledge that supporting both
egoic and nonegoic development simultaneously may result in confusion, if not
worse difficulties in children. This having been said, my sense from Washburn’s
writing is that he would advocate for a transpersonally-informed child
psychology, not one that would focus on the nonegoic realm, but one that would
take all of a child’s developmental needs into account. His vision of such a
child therapy, however, will be for him to articulate.
Other caveats revolve around how
transpersonal therapy would take shape. A therapist needs to be very careful
not to impose spiritual beliefs or values onto children, especially when they
contradict the family’s beliefs. Finally, transpersonal clinicians must not be
lulled into thinking that whatever unfolds in therapy is for the best, thus
“surrendering” control to spirit without regard for a child’s basic
psychological needs.
The above cautions represent a few
of the important ethical concerns for the implementation of a transpersonal
child therapy. Ideally, this would be the treatment of choice for children only
when a full assessment of the child’s problems and capacities has been made.
Unfortunately, a model for transpersonal child psychotherapy has yet to be
developed, let alone evaluated. Clinicians therefore need to go to great
lengths to safeguard against potential problems and continually monitor for
signs of progress as well as sign of regress.
As with transpersonal psychology
for adults, there are enormous potential benefits to child clients too. It can
be argued that nothing is more important than support for spiritual
development. To do this, however, practitioners and care-givers must remain
diligent in guarding against pitfalls of the spiritual path. If this level of
care is possible, then it would be important to begin exploring and discussing
what forms such a therapy might take. The following is a start.
There is very little written about
how transpersonal theories would influence child-rearing, and even less about
its implications for clinical practice. Some authors, however, have ventured
out of theory into practical applications. Pearce is one of the writers who has
taken steps toward applying spiritual ideals to the raising of children.
Interestingly, the majority of his recommendations might well be based in
Western psychology. “Bonding is the issue, regardless of age,” he counsels.
More specifically he endorses the following:
“Holding,
with body molding, eye contact, smiling, and soothing sounds, is something all
of us can use. Anything that blocks bonding should be avoided. Hospitals for
delivery, bottles for feeding, cribs for sleeping, playpens and strollers for
isolation, day-care centers for not caring, nursery schools for not nurturing,
pre-schools - all create abandonment and weaken the bond. Surely, a parent
would do everything possible to protect the child from premature literacy and
be warned about television. To nurture the magical child is a full-time
responsibility.” (Pearce, 1977)
These may not
strike one as particularly transpersonal but rather as simplistic
prescriptions. It is important to note, however, that the essential element of
this approach is attitude or posture, not technique:
“Learning
to take our cues from the child and make a corresponding response means
learning to heed and respond to the primary process within ourselves as well. A
child can teach us an incredible amount if we are willing to learn, and because
s/he is biologically geared to take his/her cues from us, s/he learns as we
do.” (1977)
We will return
to the attitude, or frame, for working with children in a moment.
Almaas takes such recommendations a
bit further than Pearce:
“A
parent who is loving, caring, and supportive of the child helps the personality
to grow more balanced and healthy and is less opposed to the beingness of the
child. But this is still a far cry from actually seeing the essence,
understanding it, and encouraging it to grow according to its own truth.
Regardless of how loving the parents are toward their children, if the
personality is the center of their life, the same will happen to the children.
They will end up with the personality as the center, essence being buried.” (1986,
p. 105)
Almaas does not
elaborate an approach to working with children, but makes it clear that the
best way to help them is by working to retrieve our own essence and recognizing
and nurturing their essence[7].
Pearce support’s Almaas when he says: “No society or parent can give what they
don’t have or nurture what they have no knowledge of” (Pearce, 1992).
In developing a
transpersonally-informed child psychotherapy, we might also look for very
specific recommendations and interventions. Hunt’s findings about the
correlation between childhood spiritual experiences, visual-spatial abilities
and lower levels of neuroticism in adulthood (1995) lead one to wonder about
the role of visual-spatial abilities. Although Hunt does not demonstrate the
direction of causality between these cognitive abilities and spiritual
experiences, we might hypothesize that nurturing children’s visual and spatial
skills could provide greater opening for transpersonal experiences, either
early in life or later. Surely, supporting these skills carries little if any
risk. Moreover, studying them further could provide valuable insight for our
work with children
What else might the
transpersonally-oriented child therapist do differently from other kinds of
therapists? Such a therapist might honor the child’s drive to go beyond this
world and our conception of reality. She or he might allow a child to open the
scope of objects to identify with, including plants, animals and the earth and
sky, as well as spiritual concepts, spiritual leaders and saints. Bodily
experiences might be explored and children might even be allowed to receive
guidance from novel sources like spirit guides. The transpersonal child
psychologist might aim to develop a relationship in which a child experiences
being an equal, even a teacher to the therapist. Such pioneering ways of being
with a child might also translate into innovative approaches to parenting.
Having outlined a few possibilities, however, it is important to note that the
horse appears to be falling behind the cart. Clearly, research and debate are
needed, and practitioners must begin sharing their actual case experiences.
These ideas represent suggested areas of inquiry rather than recommendations
for ways of working. Any such recommendations need to be contextualized for
each child and they should be validated by theory, research, and clinical
experience.
Though specific interventions may
come out of transpersonal research, a transpersonal approach will not be
limited to them. Cortright (1997) emphasizes that the framework of
psychotherapy is what constitutes a transpersonal approach, “for all techniques
can be transpersonal, given a transpersonal approach…. Transpersonal content
often never arises in transpersonal therapy, yet the meaning-giving frame
provides the transpersonal orientation” (p. 15). This would be as true for work
with children as with adults. From the outside, a transpersonal child
psychology may not look any different from other models of child psychology.
From the inside, however, it should be profoundly different. This difference
has to do with an openness. It has to do with a different way of holding space,
so that the child is safe to manifest her or his essence. Without a doubt,
transpersonalists have an opportunity to influence the field of child
psychology in subtle but potentially profound ways.
In the end, I do not expect that a single
model of transpersonal child psychology would emerge given the diversity of
perspectives on child development and spirituality. Nor would I hope for just
one approach. I do hope, however, that the dearth of research and writing on
this topic is remedied. For us to truly engage the issues regarding whether and
how a transpersonal child psychology would be appropriate (a) theorists need to
clearly articulate their understanding of child development in all domains of
growth, (b) clinicians need to share openly about their work with children to
the extent that it is influenced by spiritual beliefs and/or transpersonal
theory, and (c) researchers need to assess the value of the models of child
development and child psychology that emerge. With the exciting development of
transpersonal psychology that holds great promise for therapeutic work with
adults, let us not miss the opportunity to advance our work with children as
well.
Alexander, F. (1931). Buddhist training as an
artificial catatonia. Psychoanalytic Review, 18, 129-145.
Almaas, A. H.
(1986). Essence: The diamond approach to inner realization. York Beach,
Maine: Samuel Weiser.
Armstrong, T.
(1984). Transpersonal experience in childhood. Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 16(2), 207-230.
Benjamin, J.
(1988). The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism and the problem of
domination. New York: Pantheon.
Boucouvalas, M. (1999).
Following the movement: From transpersonal psychology to a multi-disciplinary
transpersonal orientation. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 31(1),
27-39.
Cortright, B.
(1997). Psychotherapy and spirit: Theory and practice in transpersonal
psychotherapy. New York: SUNY Press.
Emde, R. N.
(1983). The prerepresentational self and its affective core. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 38, 165-192
Engler, J.
(1984). Therapeutic aims in psychotherapy and meditation: Developmental stages
in the representation of self. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1),
25-61.
Freud, S. (1961).
Civilization and its discontents (J. Strachey, Ed. and
Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
(Original work published 1930).
Gardner, H.
(1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). A case against spiritual
intelligence. International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 27-34.
Grof, S. (1975). Realms of the human unconscious.
New York: Viking Press.
Grof, S. (1980). LSD psychotherapy. Pomona, CA: Hunter House.
Grof, S. (1985). Beyond the brain. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Hastings, A.
(1999). Transpersonal psychology: The fourth force. In D. Moss (Ed.), Humanistic
and transpersonal psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook,
192-208. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.
Hunt, H. T.
(1995). Some developmental issues in transpersonal experience. Journal of
Mind and Behavior, 16(2), 115-134.
Kohut, H.
(1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mahler, M.
(1972). On the first three subphases of the separation-individuation process. International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 53, 333-338.
Noble, K. D. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence: A new
frame of mind. Advanced Development, 9, 1-29.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1990). Reflections on life-span
intelligence, consciousness, and ego development. In C. N. Alexander & J.
E. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Perspectives on adult
growth (pp. 258-285). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, J. C.
(1977). Magical child: Rediscovering nature’s plan for our children. New
York: E. P. Dutton.
Pearce, J. C.
(1992). Evolution’s end: Claiming the potential of our intelligence. San
Francisco: Harper.
Somé, S. E.
(1997). The spirit of intimacy: Ancient teachings in the ways of intimacy.
Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books.
Stern, D.
(1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic Book.
Tart, C. T.,
& Deikman, A. J. (1991). Mindfulness, spiritual seeking and psychotherapy. Journal
of Transpersonal Psychology, 23(1), 29-53.
Vaughan, F. (2002). What is spiritual intelligence? Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 42(2), 16-33.
Walsh, R.
(1983). The ten perfections: Qualities of the fully enlightened individual as
described in Buddhist psychology. In R. Walsh & D. H. Shapiro (Eds.), Beyond
health and normality (pp. 218-227). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Washburn, M.
(1988). The ego and the dynamic ground: A transpersonal theory of human
development. New York: State University of New York Press.
Washburn, M.
(1994). Transpersonal psychology in psychoanalytic perspective. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Washburn, M.
(1995). The ego and the dynamic ground: A transpersonal theory of human
development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Welwood, J.
(1984). Principles of inner work. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1),
63-73.
Welwood, J.
(2000). Toward a psychology of awakening: Buddhism, psychotherapy, and the
path of personal and spiritual transformation. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K.
(1977). The spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL: Quest.
Wilber, K. (1980).
The per/trans fallacy. ReVision, 3(Fall), 51-72.
Wilber, K. (1983/1990). The pre/trans fallacy. In K.
Wilber, Eye to eye (Expanded edition, pp. 215-260). Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (1984). The developmental spectrum and
psychopathology: Part I, stages and types of pathology. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 16(1),
75-118.
Wilber, K.
(1996). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (1999). Spirituality and developmental
lines: Are there stages? Journal of Transpersonal psychology, 31(1),
1-10.
Wolf, E. S. (1988). Treating the self: Elements
of clinical Self Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.
Douglas Peter-Frank is a
pre-doctoral psychology intern at Harvard
University's Bureau of Study Counsel, presently completing a Psy.D. at the
California Institute of Integral Studies. His dissertation is focused on
the psychological development of Western Buddhists, in particular examining
the impact of meditative practices on the coping strategies used to deal
with problems in living and psychological defenses. His undergraduate
degree is from U.C. Berkeley, completed in 1989.
He has lived and traveled extensively in Asia, studying yoga, meditation in
several traditions, and ordaining temporarily as a Buddhist monk in
Myanmar. He is particularly interested in transpersonal and psychodynamic
theories and how these can inform psychotherapeutic work with people of all
ages.
[1] Three general realms of being that humans have access to are prepersonal, personal and transpersonal. Other ways to state these three realms include: the sensory, the mental, and the spiritual; subconscious, self-conscious, and super-conscious; or prerational, rational, and transrational.
[2] Wilber argues that human development proceeds by stages or levels. Lower levels of development are transcended in order to achieve higher levels, in a process of “holarchical sequential development” (Wilber, 1999), whereby higher levels of development include rather than replace the achievements of lower stages. Each higher level can only be undertaken once the required tasks and achievements of the lower stages have been mastered or completed.
[3] “Objects” are internalized representations of others and of the self. Object-constancy refers to the achievement of whole, healthy representations that provide an individual with the capacity to recollect important others when they are not present and to maintain a stable sense of self. People with object-constancy are able to self-sooth in the face of difficulties.
[4] Kohut used the term selfobject similar to object relations theorists’ use of the term object. Selfobject recruitment requires a skill the use of which individuals develop healthy relationships that are incorporated into their internal world to serve increasingly more mature needs. Kohut writes: “We must be in a possession of available nuclear self-esteem and ambitions, on the one hand, and of core ideals and goals, on the other, in order to seek out mirroring selfobjects and be nourished by their response to us and in order to seek out idealizable selfobjects and be inlivened by the enthusiasm we feel for them” (1984, p. 77). Wolf, a student of Kohut, points out that mature selfobjects may include not only family and friends, but work, art and ideas (1988, p. 15).
[5] Freud (1930/1961) and others (e.g., Alexander, 1931) have construed religious pursuits to be an attempt to re-experience the “oceanic feeling” of infancy.
[6] Wilber (1980) describes the “pre/trans fallacy” in which he warns of the potential danger of elevating immature or regressed experiences to the level of the spiritual, a criticism he might level against many of the transpersonal theorists cited above. He also cautions against reductionism, often committed by psychoanalysts and other scholars, wherein truly mystical experiences and spiritual development are relegated to pathological phenomena with devaluing scientific explanations.
[7] It should be noted, however, that adults must engage their spiritual development with some caution. Welwood (1984), for example, has warned about “spiritual bypassing” whereby spirituality is used to forego important psychological work. Moreover, it is conceivable that an attempt to not focus on a child’s personality could take the form of what Kohut (1984) calls a failure in mirroring.