Menu

Unbound Posts

Reflections on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

8 October 2013
T12 Titans
No comments

One of the most recognizable legacies of the humanistic psychology tradition is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Ask any manager or HR professional and they know it. Like many legacy theories, people see it as self-evident and generally would say that they agree with it.

It is one of the most useful and well-known achievements in the field of humanistic psychology that have been adopted by management. Stated simply, Maslow suggested that human needs can be placed into a graded hierarchy. If people are not able to satisfy a “lower” need, they will remain at that level and not ascend to “higher” level needs. The implication is that a workplace has to make sure that employees are able to satisfy lower needs to allow them to satisfy the higher and presumably more meaningful ones.

The wise man Stephen Colbert has coined the word “truthiness” to refer to an idea that makes so much sense that it must be true, even though it isn’t. I want to suggest that there are some elements of truthiness in the Maslow’s view, and that, while some elements of this model are useful, its universal adoption represents a triumph of truthiness over careful reflection.

When we look more closely at the hierarchy, several aspects emerge. It is a model of a neat system where we have a need; then it is satisfied and sort of goes away as another pops up for our focus. People are nice, orderly beings with on-off switches when their needs are satisfied, in a uniform and easy way. The example everyone uses to show the reasonableness of the hierarchy is that of course people can’t think about higher needs if they are starving or fear for their lives.

But wait. Do we reach a point where we have enough appreciation or friendship that we are satisfied, and then the switch goes on for other activities? Are artists all deeply satisfied in their lives, reaching for higher levels of meaning and truth? What about the tortured artist who uses art to deal with pain and loss?

What has happened with this model, and many other models that are cleverly suggested by researchers, is that the train stops right there. Here is a model. Maslow was a brilliant person. Therefore we can accept it and use it. And for 50 years, we have used the model with very little consideration of what it means or whether or not it describes something that really reflects reality. We like it because it is “truthy,” not because it is true.

Maslow was one of my mentors. I attended one of his courses, and he was a masterful teacher and engaging us all in questioning. He would laugh knowing we were still using his theory rather than asking what we can learn from it, and what it can and cannot do. His view, like that of real generative thinkers, is that a theory is like a pointer, showing us some connections we can make and leading to further reflection.

Maslow was trying to understand that nature of motivation, and how and why people were not simply pleasure-seeking animals who were sent to please themselves and do what feels good. He was concerned that the concept of the person as just interested in him or herself did not make room for altruism, for personal growth, and for the most important human achievements. He wanted to look at what made people want to do things that engaged their deepest and highest level of potential. His theory was (for him) a stepping-stone to look at questions, as he does continually in his book of field notes, republished recently as “Maslow on Management.” He meant the hierarchy to pose questions, not answer them.

Some later theorists, like Arnold Mitchell who applied this theory to consumer behavior and marketing, added to the model. Mitchell amended it into two paths that met at the top (his model was called a “tulip”) and suggested that people could take outer-directed and inner-directed pathways up the hierarchy. He gathered data from detailed values and marketing surveys to profile preferences according to the level of need. What he found led him to adapt the hierarchy rather than just accept it.

He questioned the hierarchy and added to it, rather than keep trying to use it as it was. If we have any sort of model in social science, we can use it to guide our thinking, but we have to be careful to ask questions about it, gather data, grow, and develop the model to fit reality—not fit reality to the model.

Creation through destruction: Embracing our identities as creative destroyers

7 August 2013
T12 Titans
No comments

Every act of creation is also an act of destruction. The creation of something new and different, something that has not yet been, demands the destruction of the old and the typical, what is now and what has come before. The presence of destruction is at the core of the creative process itself.

Our most serious difficulties with being creative as human beings are not a result of deficiencies in imagination nor are they principally due to apathy or indifference. While these are often central factors, the ultimate problem lies elsewhere—we don’t want to destroy, we don’t want to participate in destruction. Because we will not destroy, we are unable to create. Because we are unwilling to become destroyers, we cannot become creators. One could in fact say that we don’t dare to imagine new possibilities and realities as doing so inherently destroys our cherished but limiting actualities and current modes of being. Apathy and indifference may just be an insidiously clever disguise to escape the call to create through destroying.

Now, to be clear, in speaking of “destruction” in this way, I of course do not mean destructive acts that result in harm toward self or others, emotionally/physically damaging behavior, violence, etc. There is no argument here to justify such manifestations of destruction, which are certainly not creative, at least not in any positive or healthy sense. However, while there is tragically an excess of destructive incidents that are opposed and antithetical to the process of constructive creation, our experience of our existence as human beings provides a compelling argument for the dynamic of destruction at the heart of creation.

Consider the creative movement of the will in the processes of choosing, deciding, valuing, and believing. Every choice for something is a choice against something else, and every decision for a particular direction or path in life is a decision not to explore other directions or take other paths. Actively identifying with certain values means not identifying with other values, and maintaining certain beliefs means that other beliefs must be sacrificed, according to Rollo May’s “The Courage to Create.”

The mere acts of willing and choosing, which are so essentially characteristic of our human existence, imply a simultaneous affirmation and negation. Therefore, every affirmation is a hidden negation, and every negation is a hidden affirmation. We want to affirm but find that to do so, we must also negate. We cannot affirm without negating, and at the core of affirmation lies the dynamic of negation. In simpler terms, we cannot say “yes” without also saying “no.” We cannot say “no” without also saying “yes.” As we affirm through negating, we create through destroying.

The essence of our difficulties with creativity, though, must surely extend beyond a merely academic or intellectual misunderstanding of the nature of the creative process or resistance to participating in the destructive dynamic. Indeed, it seems that these difficulties are most deeply rooted within our identities as human beings. In creating, I am doing more than merely performing a creative action.

Even more than intentionally engaging in a creative process, I am a person who is creating—I become a creator. In destroying, I am doing much more than merely exhibiting a destructive behavior or actively participating in a destructive process. I am a person who is destroying—I become a destroyer. While assuming the identity of a creator can be anxiety-provoking and frightening, I believe that at a core level of our humanity we all desire and yearn to be creators, to be people who from out of their creative depths bring forth new and original ideas, possibilities, visions, material and technological inventions, and art forms.

However, the identity of the destroyer terrifies and repulses us. We can’t bear to be and see ourselves as the destroyers of ideals and beliefs, values and dreams, structures and forms, complacencies, and false comforts. Even if we understand and acknowledge that such things need to be destroyed in order to create something higher or better, we often would rather someone else be responsible for their destruction because we do not want to be the destroyers.

The nature of our existence as human beings demands that we accept and meaningfully integrate a dual, dynamic identity that is constituted by images of both the creator and the destroyer. As Friedrich Nietzsche states in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” “And, whoever must be a creator in good and evil, verily, he must first be an annihilator and break values. Thus the highest evil belongs to the highest goodness: but this is creative.”

Perhaps what we most need in helping us to embrace the dual identity of our nature is a deep and constant awareness of the critically vital “why” underlying the destructive dynamic within the creative process and the inseparable union of creator and destroyer. We destroy in order to create; we become destroyers so that we can ultimately become creators. We don’t destroy for the mere sake of destruction itself and we must not remain destroyers only. Our responsibility is to participate in destruction that leads to productive creation, not that merely perpetuates further destruction. We will likely be better able to integrate the destroyer aspect of our identity if we can see ourselves as “creative destroyers,” those who destroy in the service of creation. In the end, this may be the secret key to unlocking and releasing the floodgates of our creative potential for growth and constructive transformation.

Charles Cannady, Professor of Psychology, has passed away

10 June 2013
T12 Titans
No comments
Charles Cannady

Saybrook University is sad to report the passing of faculty member Charles Cannady, PhD.
He died peacefully Friday morning, surrounded by family and friends, of complications from a long fight with cancer.

A gifted scholar who worked across several schools at Saybrook, Charles was a founding faculty member of our MFT program, a recognized international expert on Sandtray Therapy, and a dedicated healer He worked with youth in crisis, families in need, and men’s groups – particularly for those with anger management issues. He made a difference in many lives.

“The quality and dedication of Charles’ work and relationships is, perhaps, best exemplified by the long term work he had been doing with the Academy of Counselors Japan,” said Saybrook Provost Dan Sewell. “The Academy sent a group of counselors to our offices in San Francisco every year for a five day workshop. Charles started working with this group in 2007; and, his work with them on Sandtray Therapy was considered a highlight of the workshop. This past year, as I awarded certificates to the students, their expressions of gratitude for the workshop and for Charles’ work was astounding.”

An ordained minister with a Master’s Degree in Theology, specializing in Clinical Pastoral Education, from the San Francisco Theological Seminary, Charles was the former President of the American Association of Anger Management Providers in California, and (in addition to his work here) a member of the faculty at Merritt College in Oakland. He earned his PhD in Clinical Psychology from The Wright Institute.

We will miss his expertise greatly, and his presence even more.

A memorial service will be held at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, June 19, at Clinton Avenue Baptist Church, 3017 Clinton Ave., Richmond, CA 94804-1499,

We hope you will use this “virtual memorial” to Charles to share memories, best wishes, and support with the rest of the Saybrook community.


Comments

What I remember most vividly about Dr. Cannady was the Experiential he facilitated for Semester I students. His gift in that setting was imparting to me the ability to trust my intuitive hunches about the therapy mock-ups we role played. That, to me, is the humanistic educational process in a nutshell. I’m very sad to hear of Charles’ passing and send condolences to his family.

Posted by Michael McCarthy (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 12:35 PM
It was a blessing to know Charles. I will miss his warmth and enthusiasm for life.

Posted by Kathia Laszlo (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 01:27 PM
Although I was not in his program I did sneak up one time and Charles was open enough to allow me a tour of his sand trays. What he was able to teach me in just a few minutes will always stay with me. I know he was a gifted healer and he will be missed.

Posted by Anne Vanderlaan (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 01:38 PM
Charles was a singer. Opera, I believe. My dream is shattered. It was to ask Dr. Cannady to sing some opera or sacred music with me at my graduation, which has been slow in coming. He was my adviser for many years and I felt very comfortable and supported by him. I am also a play therapist so as regards the singing and the sand tray work we were well suited. He took pains to put me in contact with a Californian who could supply me with just the right sand-trays to take back to my homeland. Even though he’s no longer my adviser, as I’m now working on my dissertation, I will greatly miss him. I found him a kind and loving “gentle”man and our advisory meetings were always fun. I am so sorry to hear of his illness and his passing and send my condolences to his family. He was a wonderful, blessed man, and I will always remember and be thankful that he was the one who welcomed me and made me feel “at home” in Saybrook. I’m sure he touched a lot of lives positively, including mine. Thank you so much Charles.
Val Kendall

Posted by Val Kendall (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 03:21 PM
Charles was always wonderfully gentle, sweet and kind, and devoted on a very deep, personal level to his students. How he was who he was is one of his most meaningful lessons to all of us.

Posted by Joel Federman (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 06:44 PM
I worked with Charles for many years as an adviser. His love and presence were always so genuine and warm. He will be missed by many, of this I am sure. Love you Charles.

Posted by Joshua Schwartz (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 10:02 PM
Charles was a legend at Saybrook with those of us who gleaned play therapy and sandplay skills. He was a force of peace in the Bay Area and his gifts will continue to ripple across the globe as we carry on in his name. My sentiments to his family and advisees.E

Posted by JoAnne MacTaggart (not verified) | 06/10/2013 @ 10:48 PM
Chalres leaves us in the quiet, warm and gentle manners in which he conducted his life. As a colleague and friend he was always very supportive, instructive and helpful with the pragmatics of the professional practice of psychology and higher education. It turns out that he had cousin I had known as a graduate student at New York University. Lydia was a principal ballerina with the Dance Theatre of Harlem, lovely, and a cousin to Charles. After a few years of knowing and working with Charles, he came to lunch at my art studio. As I was showing him some paintings and photographs I had taken while living in New York, he saw Lydia’s picture and shrieked in excitement that she was his cousin. I told him the story of our friendship in New York, how I met her, and how she agreed to be a model for the photographs. I asked about her. He was so delighted by the synchronicity, the photographs and the story that I could not resist giving one to him. I was in fact grateful to Charles for explaining how Saybrook and the community college system actually worked. He was always very agreeable and never let on that he was so gravely ill. The world is a sadder place without him. I will miss his smile, his laughter, reassurances and his optimism. Farewell my friend, fare the well.
Alan

Posted by Alan G.Vaughan (not verified) | 06/11/2013 @ 09:31 AM
Charles was a good friend and colleague. He faced his illness with bravery; I will miss him.

Chriss

Posted by Dr. Chriss Warren Foster (not verified) | 06/11/2013 @ 08:38 PM
I want to thank charles for his gentle friendly invitation each time I peaked in to his sand tray demonstration at an RC. Mostly I want to thank him for his dedication working to help one of our students with her essays and dissertation dealing with origins and practices of the Afro-American church. His knowledge was great and his willingness to keep working between treatments and surgeries, until his last weeks to help this student illustrates his commitment to helping others. This gentle caring man will be missed.

Posted by Marc Pilisuk (not verified) | 06/11/2013 @ 11:16 PM
Dr. Cannady was my first introduction to Saybrook. Having
bee out of school for many years & traveling from out of State
I was nervous to say the least. He was so warm and Hillarious
Via his “sand tray therapy” I felt encouraged to reach my full potential
& in part because of him I went on to earning both my MA & PhD via Saybrook.
May u rest in peace until we meet again.

Posted by Janice (not verified) | 06/13/2013 @ 02:53 PM
The words you whispered to me that day have offered me years of comfort and self assurance on those days we all have when we doubt our abilities to serve. All the schlepping of all the sand play stuff….good grief Charles I just love how exuberant, classy, generous and and wonderful your energy is/was. I’m so grateful for your beautiful presence on this planet.
The world is better for having you in it. I’m talking my walk and whatever heaven is; I’m guessing you’re there in it. Thank you.

Posted by Debbie Devine (not verified) | 06/13/2013 @ 03:14 PM
Dr.Cannady I will always love you and the Sandtray course. It in 2004 I took the Sandtray course it was there I learned my mother had passed away. My mom presence was heavily felt that day.
Your love and compassion I will never forget.
In 2008 you reached out to me when you learned I had had stroke.
Dr.Cannady you will never be erase from my heart
Peace

Posted by phyllis jackson (not verified) | 06/17/2013 @ 05:34 PM
My motivation for learning….Dr. Cannady

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 06/29/2013 @ 02:57 AM
dear dear charles…
i have been having the feeling that you have made your death transition…
i have been feeling you so much the past few months…as i wrote to you from
vienna with no response from you…i have been feeling you …feeling your smile and
very gentle presence…
i wanted so much to see you when i come to berkeley in nov to sing in berkeley…

i remember that you told me how you wanted me to come to play your piano
and how you wanted a voice session…

dear charles..,
i know that you were not afraid…to die…
and some how i feel so proud of you…
i have the feeling that we will be communicating soon…

i will never forget when i met you at the sf conservatory when i was 17…
and how you played the piano for me…
i might have played flute with you as well…

yes …im seeing your face now…
you look good dear friend…
thank you for showing me your office when i was in calif three years ago…
and thanks for the little statues of mary and joseph and the baby jesus that
you gave to me from your collection….

i am sure that you are still doing what you did when you were with us here on this
side of the veil…

thanks for the inspiration…
and thanks for being a friend…
love and blessings on your journey …
hannibal means..

Posted by hannibal means (not verified) | 09/09/2013 @ 01:31 PM

Marginalization: The Pendulum Swings Both Ways

5 April 2013
T12 Titans
No comments

To marginalize is the process of relegating or confining to a lower or outer limit or edge, as of social standing. Hence, marginalization is the social process of becoming or being made marginal (especially as a group within the larger society): “the marginalization of the underclass” or “the marginalization of literature.” Although marginalization is often defined as the process of making a group or class of people less important or relegated to a secondary position, (e.g., when one class of people is grouped together as second class citizens), this article intends to illuminate the implications of marginalization at the opposite end of the spectrum—outer limit or edge—patronization.

Request info

“The marginal man … is one whom fate has condemned to live in two societies and in two, not merely different but antagonistic cultures…. his mind is the crucible in which two different and refractory cultures may be said to melt and, either wholly or in part, fuse.” (Source: E.V. Stonequist)

Marginalization at the individual level results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in society. An example of marginalization at the individual level is the exclusion of single mothers from the welfare system prior to the welfare reform of the 1900s. The modern welfare system is based on the concept of entitlement to the basic means of being a productive member of society, both as an organic function of society and as compensation for the socially useful labor provided.

A single mother’s contribution to society is not based on formal employment, but on the notion that provision of welfare for children is a necessary social expense. Single mothers were previously marginalized in spite of their significant role in the socialization of children due to two main views:

  1. An individual can only contribute meaningfully to society through “gainful” employment.
  2. Cultural bias against unwed mothers.

Today, marginalization is primarily a function of class conditions.

Recommended read: “Embodied racism”

Another example of individual marginalization is the exclusion of individuals with disabilities from the labor force. In Dr. Wes Shera’s book “Emerging Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Practice,” Grandz discusses an employer’s viewpoint about hiring individuals living with disabilities as jeopardizing productivity, increasing the rate of absenteeism, and creating more accidents in the workplace. Also in this publication, Cantor discusses employer concern about the excessively high cost of accommodating people with disabilities. The marginalization of individuals with disabilities is prevalent today, despite the legislation intended to prevent it in most Western countries, and the academic achievements, skills, and training of many disabled people.

There are also exclusions of lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) and other intersexual people because of their sexual orientations and gender identities as individual marginalization. The Yogyakarta Principles require that the states and communities abolish any stereotypes about LGBT people as well as stereotyped gender roles.

Request info

One of the most difficult feelings to rid oneself of is the emotional turmoil associated with being marginalized by a person or group in the position of power. Feelings of anger and confusion are often followed with those of inferiority. The internal struggle is exacerbated when it seems obvious that the perpetrator had no ill intent in conveying the denigrating message, particularly when patronizing. Society is replete with these microaggressions that more often than not go unnoticed but have a lasting impact on the recipient.

In “Perceptions of Racial Microaggressions Among African American Males in Higher Education: A Heuristic Inquiry,” Solórzano, Ceja, and Yosso define microaggressions as brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership (people of color, women, the LGBT community). The term was first coined by Chester M. Pierce in 1970 in his work with African-Americans, where he defined it as “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges which are ‘put-downs’.” They have also been described as “subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/or visual) directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously.”

Derald Wing Sue’s research related to the psychology of microaggressions indicates that white individuals are often unaware of the cumulative harm that people of color experience from being routinely subjected to various racial microaggressions. According to Sue, these are microinvalidations characterized by communications or environmental cues that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of certain groups, such as people of color, women, and the LGBT community. In many ways, microinvalidations may potentially represent the most damaging form of microaggressions because they directly and insidiously deny the racial, gender, or sexual-orientation reality of these groups.

According to Sue, the power to impose reality on marginalized groups represents the ultimate form of oppression. Examples of microinvalidations can be heard in everyday statements such as “Low man on the totem pole,” and in everyday actions such as over-validation, a form of patronization.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva defined subtle forms of racial bias, referred to as color-blind racism, which refers to the conception among white individuals that considerations of race are presently no longer relevant in people’s lives in the United States. Contemporary color-blind racism is expressed in everyday beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that are considered acceptable, and even commendable, by white individuals who use them. Accordingly, such attitudes are so deeply embedded in societal values and practices that they lie outside the consciousness of many well-intentioned white people who may genuinely consider themselves to be non-racist.

Request info

Despite the continuum of racial biases and marginalization of other disenfranchised groups, great strides are being taken by individuals and special interest groups to “fix” the problems associated with discrimination of marginalized groups. However, in attempting to ameliorate the problem, patronization is often the resulting bandage over an infected wound.

To be patronized is to be treated as if you are less intelligent or knowledgeable than the person you’re speaking with, and it can be one of the most frustrating experiences you can have in life.

Anyone can be patronized—men, women, seniors, young people—and patronization can take on many forms, such as:

  • Addressing someone by his or her first name when others are addressed more properly
  • Patting a person in a wheelchair on the head or soldier
  • Giving excess praise to someone for a fairly simple action
  • Assigning someone remedial tasks at work or at home
  • Speaking slowly or excessively loudly to an elderly person
  • Talking “down” to someone

Another example of patronization can be found in the Time article “It’s No Big Deal,” referencing the Supreme Court’s decision on gay rights:

“It was sweet of Justice Kennedy to say gays can now ‘enter upon [a] relationship in the confines of their homes … and still retain their dignity as free persons.’ Apparently, gay-activist lawyers wept in court upon hearing this. But they should know that dignity is not the court’s to give. Gays have found their own dignity through decades of refusing to hide. For the court to come around, at this late date, to acknowledge our existence as ‘free persons’ is shockingly patronizing; it’s condescension that has been cast as liberation. I’m glad those two Texas fellas can freely have sex, but they still can’t visit each other in certain hospitals, serve openly in the military or get married. Let’s save the banner headlines for when they can.”

Thankfully, there are advancements due to recent changes in legislation.

Request info

Being patronized is more than just frustrating. It can lead to issues with self-esteem and can negatively affect your performance at work. In fact, according to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, male bosses who patronized their female employees undermined their performance. The bosses patronized the women workers by offering them excessive praise but no “valued resources” such as raises or promotions.

“The patronizing behavior of male bosses created gender differences in performance where they otherwise did not exist,” said Theresa Vescio, a Penn State University assistant professor of psychology who led the study.
Perhaps the most damaging form of patronization is that of excessive praise to select members of marginalized groups. This not only undermines the group from which the recipient of the praise is from but also alienates the representative of that group by singling out him or her. This consequently leads to shame, embarrassment, and more often than not disconnectedness from one’s group, which in turn perpetuates the familiar emotion of feeling invisible within and without one’s given group.

It is my premise that because these attitudes often lie outside the consciousness of many well-intended people who consider themselves to be unbiased, an attempt by such to compensate/overcorrect leads to the pendulum that swings in the direction toward oppression and ostracization to swing opposingly toward patronization. As well-intended, non-disenfranchised groups endeavor to make marginalized groups feel less marginalized by incorporating adequate representation, one must be mindful not to make the representative an “expert” on that particular group’s cultural affairs or patronize the representative by giving excessive praise. Hence, this too becomes marginalization. A key tenet is finding a fulcrum and maintaining a balance between ostracization and patronization. I submit that balance candidly and simply be humanized.

References:  

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Cloud, J. (2003). It’s no big deal. Time Magazine. New York, NY.

Granger, N. (2011). Perceptions of racial microaggressions among African American males in higher education: A heuristic inquiry.

Leslie, D.R., Leslie K. & Murphy M. (2003). Inclusion by design: The challenge for social work in workplace accommodation for people with disabilities. In W. Shera (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on anti-oppression practice (pp. 157–169). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholar’s Press.

Park, R. E. (1937). Cultural conflict and the marginal man. In E. V. Stonequist, The marginal man, (introduction). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Pierce, C., Carew, J., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Willis, D. (1978). An experiment in racism: TV commercials. In C. Pierce (Ed.), Television and education (pp. 62-88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73.

Sue, D.W. (2003). Overcoming our racism: The journey to liberation. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Boss.

Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Vescio, T. (2005) Patronizing conduct can negatively affect women employees’ performance. Penn State University, Live: The University Official News Source.

_

 Guest contributor Dr. Nathaniel Granger Jr. works as a psychology instructor at Pikes Peak Community College and is the founder/pastor and CEO of Be REAL Ministries, Inc. in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Equal rights and civil rights along with his doctoral dissertation, “Perceptions of Racial Microaggressions among African American Males in Higher Education: A Heuristic Inquiry” form the substratum upon which a majority of his work is predicated.

Are you a Saybrook University alumna or faculty member who is interested in submitting a blog post for potential publication on UNBOUND? You may do so by submitting your finished piece or pitch on the right-hand side panel of UNBOUND pages. 

Are you interested in learning about graduate-level programs available at Saybrook University? Request more information by filling out the form below or click here to learn how you can apply today.

Eugene Taylor, Professor of Psychology, has passed away

30 January 2013
T12 Titans
No comments
Eugene Taylor

Saybrook University, with deep sadness, is announcing today the death of Dr. Eugene Taylor, a noted scholar and 20-year member of our executive faculty.

“We are sorry to see Eugene go,” said Mark Schulman, President of Saybrook University, “He was a scholar and a teacher respected by all with whom he came in contact. He is, truly, irreplacable.”

Taylor died on January 30 at 10:30 a.m. EST with his family in attendance. He was 66.

Taylor was a prominent historian of psychology. The author of books including Shadow Culture: Psychology and Spirituality in America; The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic Theories; and William James on Consciousness Beyond the Margins, he was a research historian at Harvard Medical School, the curator of Gordon Allport’s papers, and an internationally renowned scholar on the work of William James. He was also the founder of the Cambridge Institute of Psychology and Religion, a board member of the Philemon Foundation, a fellow in two APA divisions, and a founding member of The New Existentialists.

He held degrees from Southern Methodist University, Harvard Divinity School (where he was the 1983 William James Lecturer), and a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Psychology from Boston University.

An early student of humanistic psychology, Taylor was present at some of the earliest transpersonal psychology conferences in the 1970s. Combined with his long-standing interest in Eastern religions, this exposure helped develop his scholarly interest in the study of consciousness itself, which he placed at the center of the psychological experience. Psychology, he emphasized, is a “person centered science,” in which the subjective experiences of everyone involved are at the center of best practice. He held that the current “neuro-revolution” in science will further affirm this: that the effort to study the neurons of the brain for the stirrings of consciousness will lead to the realization that there is no “empirical” way to study consciousness without involving radical subjectivity. To take that subjectivity into account as central to understanding rather than futilely trying to dismiss it was, he said, the essence of good science.

“There is no science anywhere that does not involve someone’s personal consciousness somewhere,” he wrote.

His work at Saybrook, where he at various times chaired the programs in Consciousness Studies and Humanistic & Transpersonal Psychology, inspired many to follow in his footsteps and put existential psychology at the center of their own work and practice.

“Eugene gave much of his life to humanistic psychology, and served in many ways as our historian,” said Louis Hoffman, the President of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (APA Division 32) and a colleague of Taylor’s on Saybrook’s executive faculty. “His passion for humanistic psychology was evident to anyone who knew him. His scholarship and, more importantly, the man, will be dearly missed by his students, colleagues, and the whole humanistic community.”


Comments

Although I did not get to meet Dr. Taylor I sense that the loss to our Saybrook community and beyond will be great. I am sad I didn’t have the opportunity to attend a lecture, or hear him speak at some conference. My condolences go out to his family and our family at Saybrook I know he will be missed.

Posted by ldaniels1 (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:22 PM
We have all lost a giant presence and a friend in humanistic psychology. How very sad. My prayers are with Eugene and his family and his students and his Saybrook colleagues.

Posted by John Adams (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:27 PM
Eugene was a true scholar and placed so much value on helping our students at Saybrook become true scholars. He had a passion for telling the story of humanistic psychology and his knowledge and presence will be greatly missed. My sympathies go out to his family and all who were close to him.

Nancy Southern, EdD

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:40 PM
Hey Eugene, say hi to William James for me. I know you guys have a lot to talk about in the great hereafter. Until we meet again.

Love,
Brent Robbins

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:00 PM
A great loss for humanistic psychology and particularly for Saybrook. Eugene was a true original. I treasured my colleagueship at Saybrook and Division of Humanistic Psychology and learned a great deal from him over the years we worked together. My thoughts are with his family, the Saybrook community and everyone he loved and who loved him.
Maureen O’Hara,

Posted by Maureen O’Hara (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:29 PM
It must be incredibly frustrating for him to know the truth now and NOT be able to tell us! Or he may just be amused that we think he is “gone” when he is very much “here.” May his memory on this earth be eternal and may we all feel the impact his soul on our profession!

Posted by mtaheny (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:39 PM
I first encountered Eugene Taylor through his written works and was deeply impressed by his scholarship and clear-eyed vision of the centrality of spirituality and consciousness to the study of psychology. He was a trailblazer in both the history of psychology and the fusing of Asian and western psychologies. I had the good fortune of meeting him in Cambridge at his study where we had a wide-ranging discussion on all topics relating to psychology’s history. Thereafter we went to the Swedenborg Church. History of psychology has lost a vital voice. Peace to you, Eugene! Thank you for your gifts!
-David Schmit
St. Catherine University

Posted by David Schmit (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:54 PM
Gene’s passing comes as a great shock to me. Although in recent years our paths have diverged, I count Gene as one of the most congenial and articulate colleagues in the history of psychology I have known, especially in my association with him through Cheiron meetings. I knew him particularly when he was at Harvard immersed as he was in his studies on William James. He seemed to have a particular gift of transporting his colleagues, including me, into James’ thoughts and insights into human consciousness through his conference papers and in more intimate conversation. Anyone was captivated by his affable and gracious manner – a true humanist professionally and personally.

Posted by Peter Behrens (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 07:08 PM
Prof.Eugene Taylor will be greatly missed. He was one of the finest that Saybrook University had. He was a great mentor to me, and chair of my dissertation committee. Eugene Taylor was passionate about teaching, and meticulous about his work.I learned a great deal from this patient,wonderful man. He had a beautiful mind and conveyed ideas with such clarity, you got the picture right away!. I’m sad that we were not able to complete the work we started. He was kind and very intuitive. Goodnight my friend may God in heaven hold you close. Rest in Peace.
My wishes to his family.

Posted by Ebie Okonkwo (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 09:46 PM
How we will miss Eugene! Unbelievable. Eugene was my first contact with Saybrook, when he came and spoke at McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School while I was working clinically there. Fascinating individual. I got to have lunch with him at the time…and…also thanks to Mike Arons…I ended up at Saybrook some years later. How could anyone not be impressed with this highly learned and often passionate individual with such extensive knowledge, commitment to humanistic psychology, extraordinary expertise on William James, extensive bibliography and wish to keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge, both himself and with his students. He was sometimes controversial and determined, and a tough taskmaster with students, but he was always present, available, and willing to discuss. For Saybrook and humanistic psychology in general, his work as historian has been invaluable. May we all keep Eugene in our thoughts, and our prayers, at this difficult and important time. And may we remember him well with all the honor he deserves at Saybrook.

Posted by Dr. Ruth Richards (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:03 PM
To live in hearts we leave behind is not to die.
~Thomas Campbell~

Dr. Taylor will certainly live in the many hearts and minds of the students and colleagues that he worked with and within the Saybrook, Humanistic, and Existential Psychology family.

Posted by Heather McQueen (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:49 PM
I am in shock. It seems impossible. Eugene was one our best and brightest, a true individual who spoke his truth with authenticity. I feel privileged to have known him. My thoughts and love are with his family and all those who hold him close to their hearts.

Posted by David Elkins (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:53 PM
Awe…and wonder in a scholarly, brotherly mentor. I first met Dr Taylor through his writings. I share the gift he bestowed as my professor with hunbdreds of other fortunate scholar practitioners.
He brought William James to the surface in my stream of consciousness and the three streams of psychological history into a confluence & eddies through hours of inspiring and supportive telephone calls—coast to coast. What a teacher!!!!
In the last 10 months, my husband, mother,father, best friend and now the most amazing scholarly presence have become imprinted on my soul, in their passing. If not for the way he evoked the best in me, I would be crushed. Rather I will be lifted even higher!

Dr Eugene Taylor, I will keep writing—and making(!)- history in the 4th Stream.
Until we meet again,
JoAnne MacTaggart

Posted by JoAnne MacTaggart, MA PsyD Candidate (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 11:01 PM
Eugene, I am so sad, but I will always be grateful for the time you spent with me. You were such an inspirational storyteller, and above all else you were a teacher who truly loved his students.

James Regan

Posted by jregan (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 11:22 PM
I share with Eugene a love of history and theory and the confluence of psychology, philosophy, personality and the healing traditions. It was an honor to meet Eugene, to learn from him and for him to lend his astute mind to my own work and aspirations. I can see his deep and kind eyes looking with a little twinkle that would often form subtly (though obvious) across his face as he spoke and told stories. A most engaging soul, who was the quintessential professor, with a capital P, and the immortal scholar. Like many, his scholarly writings were my initial introduction. I never expected that my relatively recent opportunity to know Eugene as a student at Saybrook would be cut so short. It is said that we live on in the memories of those dear and in one’s indelible contributions.. No shortage there in the case of Dr. Eugene Taylor. May our praises sing to the heavens!
With Blessings
-Larry Graber

Posted by lgraber1 (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 12:22 AM
Dr. Eugene Taylor, a man of profound brilliance, was very generous with his time. As Chair of my dissertation committee he was demanding, but also wise and encouraging. His research resulted in many books and his inspiration led and will lead to countless further contributions to the field of psychology. I will miss him greatly as one of the handful of truly great mentors in my life. Forever when I think of Saybrook I will think of Dr. Taylor. May he rest in peace. May his family know that he touched many souls with his graceful style, albeit delivered every now and then with a metaphorical sledge-hammer.

Posted by Eric Kreuter (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 05:00 AM
What a lovely man, his writings “There is no science anywhere that does not involve someone’s personal consciousness somewhere,” how insightful, his heart was in the right place.

Posted by tlc (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 06:47 AM
Oh, dear…My mentor, my dissertation chair, a challenger to do things better, an inspirational thinker and person whose confidence in me led me to tackle some seriously difficult material for my PhD …
This has me in shock and I am deeply, deeply saddened. Prof. Taylor was a giant in the understanding of the Existential-Humanistic and Transpersonal psychology which is the hallmark of Saybrook University and a man whose broad mind was an ever-constant source of wonder. I am shattered over his loss.

Posted by Jose M. Tirado (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 07:45 AM
I can’t believe he’s gone. He taught me all I know about our history as a field and I loved his approach to teaching. He encouraged critical thinking and creativity. I respected him and looked up to him.

Posted by Mavis Ring (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 07:55 AM
I recently became a student with Professor Taylor last August in the classroom and as my mentor. Even though I did not know him long I was left with a lasting impression. He told me he was a rebel. I think of him as a rebel with a cause. I am going to continue his ideas in my career in Saybrook. I will truly miss him. My best wishes to his family and all who knew him. Blessed be.

Richard Schloe

Posted by Richard Schloe (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 08:09 AM
Whether you agreed with Eugene of disagreed with him, in discussing figures like William James or the role of consciousness he always invoked a larger and deeper world, and insisted that our work and our discourse needs to connect to that world. It is hard for me to realize that we will no longer be present (at least physically) to goad, to argue, to challenge, and to inspire.

Fred Weizmann

Posted by Fredric Weizmann (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 08:57 AM
Eugene, rest in peace, released in spirit to sun light and the expanse of the universe beyond time.
Your were quite a presence and an intellectual force at Saybrook.
My sympathies to your family who suffer more, the loss of you.

In good faith,
Alan

Posted by Alan G.Vaughan (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 09:31 AM
I regret never meeting Dr. Taylor. As I entered my first semester in PII this Spring, I very much looked forward to meeting the man in person after “meeting” him first through his writings and our few online exchanges. I could sense a kindred spirit in him. And now looking back at the inspiration and guidance he provided over the last few weeks and realizing the tremendous effort it must has been for him to reach out to his new students, I am indebted. I know he will be deeply missed. I wish the best to his family and friends.

Alex

Posted by abaker5 (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 09:58 AM
This is a HUGE loss for Saybrook. Eugene was thee best.

Posted by Eric Lindblom (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 10:03 AM
I am so sorry to hear of Eugene’s passing. He was a brilliant scholar and an inspiration to fellow faculty. May he have deep and interesting conversations with William James in the afterlife. My deepest condolences to his family.

Jacquie Lewis

Posted by jlewis (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 11:25 AM
EUGENE TAYLOR

Eugene was…how shall I say this?
…large…in his body, mind, ego, and
most of all, spirit.
Karate, lecturing, writing, drumming, eating—
he could play profoundly at all.
How did I know the moment
he slipped out of his coma
and off to that transpersonal world
he already knew well?
As I hurried though Los Angeles’ samsara
I saw his largeness distilled and compressed
into the form of a small black bird
perched alone on a high branch
silhouetted against the sky,
gazing down at me.
On the car stereo I played
George Kahumoku’s “Hawai’i Aloha”
and the bird flew slowly away,
and I miss him very much.

Tom Greening

Posted by Tom Greening (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 12:22 PM
I am deeply saddened to hear this news of Professor Eugene Taylor’s passing. He was brilliant and although his persona reflected a toughness, he was genuinely soft at heart and had a wonderful sense of humor.

I am grateful for the time I spent with him in his courses and after he agreed to be the Chairperson of my final project. It was a true honor learning from him. I would not have survived such the analysis of Jung’s Red Book without Professor Taylor’s guidance throughout.

Rest in Peace Professor Taylor. I am forever grateful and will plan to see you in my dreams for continued guidance.

Theresa Stern Valentic

Posted by Theresa Valentic (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 01:34 PM
At my very first Cheiron Society meeting, in 1980 at Bowdoin College, I attended a session that included a presentation by a scholar on William James who looked awfully like him. As I listened, I became convinced that the presenter was channeling William James’ spirit and had direct access to his thoughts on the wild side of conscious life. I was amazed and intrigued by my introduction to the history of psychology and one of its singular and colorful personalities. I’m not talking about William James here, but Eugene Taylor. Never becoming good friends, Gene and I were cordial colleagues for 33 years. I appreciated his unshakable insistence that the person was at the center of psychology, and for his many scholarly contributions. Ave atque vale!

Posted by James Capshew (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 02:45 PM
In these moments of mourning, I am drawn to reflect on the subtler aspects of Eugene’s character. Subtler, because he was much more than a charismatic apologetic. He was no saint, and would disdain being considered so. However, he was steadfast in his project, honest, direct, and tender. One had only to have seen the glimmer in his eye, or caught a glimpse of his smile — usually offering a joke about a certain fellow named Wilber — to have known this. I offer this line as a kind of reflection for my teacher: “As for me,” to quote Melville, a spirit with whom Eugene often convened, “I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas, and land on barbarous coasts.” With love, respect, and sadness.

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 02:49 PM
At my very first Cheiron Society meeting, in 1980 at Bowdoin College, I attended a session that included a presentation by a scholar on William James who looked awfully like him. As I listened, I became convinced that the presenter was channeling William James’ spirit and had direct access to his thoughts on the wild side of conscious life. I was amazed and intrigued by my introduction to the history of psychology and one of its singular and colorful personalities. I’m not talking about William James here, but Eugene Taylor. Never becoming good friends, Gene and I were cordial colleagues for 33 years. I appreciated his unshakable insistence that the person was at the center of psychology, and for his many scholarly contributions. Ave atque vale!

“We are sorry to see Eugene go,” said Mark Schulman, President of Saybrook University, “He was a scholar and a teacher respected by all with whom he came in contact. He is, truly, irreplacable.”

Taylor died on January 30 at 10:30 a.m. EST with his family in attendance. He was 66.

Taylor was a prominent historian of psychology. The author of books including Shadow Culture: Psychology and Spirituality in America; The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic Theories; and William James on Consciousness Beyond the Margins, he was a research historian at Harvard Medical School, the curator of Gordon Allport’s papers, and an internationally renowned scholar on the work of William James. He was also the founder of the Cambridge Institute of Psychology and Religion, a board member of the Philemon Foundation, a fellow in two APA divisions, and a founding member of The New Existentialists.

He held degrees from Southern Methodist University, Harvard Divinity School (where he was the 1983 William James Lecturer), and a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Psychology from Boston University.

An early student of humanistic psychology, Taylor was present at some of the earliest transpersonal psychology conferences in the 1970s. Combined with his long-standing interest in Eastern religions, this exposure helped develop his scholarly interest in the study of consciousness itself, which he placed at the center of the psychological experience. Psychology, he emphasized, is a “person centered science,” in which the subjective experiences of everyone involved are at the center of best practice. He held that the current “neuro-revolution” in science will further affirm this: that the effort to study the neurons of the brain for the stirrings of consciousness will lead to the realization that there is no “empirical” way to study consciousness without involving radical subjectivity. To take that subjectivity into account as central to understanding rather than futilely trying to dismiss it was, he said, the essence of good science.

“There is no science anywhere that does not involve someone’s personal consciousness somewhere,” he wrote.

His work at Saybrook, where he at various times chaired the programs in Consciousness Studies and Humanistic & Transpersonal Psychology, inspired many to follow in his footsteps and put existential psychology at the center of their own work and practice.

“Eugene gave much of his life to humanistic psychology, and served in many ways as our historian,” said Louis Hoffman, the President of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (APA Division 32) and a colleague of Taylor’s on Saybrook’s executive faculty. “His passion for humanistic psychology was evident to anyone who knew him. His scholarship and, more importantly, the man, will be dearly missed by his students, colleagues, and the whole humanistic community.”


Comments

Although I did not get to meet Dr. Taylor I sense that the loss to our Saybrook community and beyond will be great. I am sad I didn’t have the opportunity to attend a lecture, or hear him speak at some conference. My condolences go out to his family and our family at Saybrook I know he will be missed.

Posted by ldaniels1 (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:22 PM
We have all lost a giant presence and a friend in humanistic psychology. How very sad. My prayers are with Eugene and his family and his students and his Saybrook colleagues.

Posted by John Adams (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:27 PM
Eugene was a true scholar and placed so much value on helping our students at Saybrook become true scholars. He had a passion for telling the story of humanistic psychology and his knowledge and presence will be greatly missed. My sympathies go out to his family and all who were close to him.

Nancy Southern, EdD

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:40 PM
Hey Eugene, say hi to William James for me. I know you guys have a lot to talk about in the great hereafter. Until we meet again.

Love,
Brent Robbins

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:00 PM
A great loss for humanistic psychology and particularly for Saybrook. Eugene was a true original. I treasured my colleagueship at Saybrook and Division of Humanistic Psychology and learned a great deal from him over the years we worked together. My thoughts are with his family, the Saybrook community and everyone he loved and who loved him.
Maureen O’Hara,

Posted by Maureen O’Hara (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:29 PM
It must be incredibly frustrating for him to know the truth now and NOT be able to tell us! Or he may just be amused that we think he is “gone” when he is very much “here.” May his memory on this earth be eternal and may we all feel the impact his soul on our profession!

Posted by mtaheny (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:39 PM
I first encountered Eugene Taylor through his written works and was deeply impressed by his scholarship and clear-eyed vision of the centrality of spirituality and consciousness to the study of psychology. He was a trailblazer in both the history of psychology and the fusing of Asian and western psychologies. I had the good fortune of meeting him in Cambridge at his study where we had a wide-ranging discussion on all topics relating to psychology’s history. Thereafter we went to the Swedenborg Church. History of psychology has lost a vital voice. Peace to you, Eugene! Thank you for your gifts!
-David Schmit
St. Catherine University

Posted by David Schmit (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:54 PM
Gene’s passing comes as a great shock to me. Although in recent years our paths have diverged, I count Gene as one of the most congenial and articulate colleagues in the history of psychology I have known, especially in my association with him through Cheiron meetings. I knew him particularly when he was at Harvard immersed as he was in his studies on William James. He seemed to have a particular gift of transporting his colleagues, including me, into James’ thoughts and insights into human consciousness through his conference papers and in more intimate conversation. Anyone was captivated by his affable and gracious manner – a true humanist professionally and personally.

Posted by Peter Behrens (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 07:08 PM
Prof.Eugene Taylor will be greatly missed. He was one of the finest that Saybrook University had. He was a great mentor to me, and chair of my dissertation committee. Eugene Taylor was passionate about teaching, and meticulous about his work.I learned a great deal from this patient,wonderful man. He had a beautiful mind and conveyed ideas with such clarity, you got the picture right away!. I’m sad that we were not able to complete the work we started. He was kind and very intuitive. Goodnight my friend may God in heaven hold you close. Rest in Peace.
My wishes to his family.

Posted by Ebie Okonkwo (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 09:46 PM
How we will miss Eugene! Unbelievable. Eugene was my first contact with Saybrook, when he came and spoke at McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School while I was working clinically there. Fascinating individual. I got to have lunch with him at the time…and…also thanks to Mike Arons…I ended up at Saybrook some years later. How could anyone not be impressed with this highly learned and often passionate individual with such extensive knowledge, commitment to humanistic psychology, extraordinary expertise on William James, extensive bibliography and wish to keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge, both himself and with his students. He was sometimes controversial and determined, and a tough taskmaster with students, but he was always present, available, and willing to discuss. For Saybrook and humanistic psychology in general, his work as historian has been invaluable. May we all keep Eugene in our thoughts, and our prayers, at this difficult and important time. And may we remember him well with all the honor he deserves at Saybrook.

Posted by Dr. Ruth Richards (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:03 PM
To live in hearts we leave behind is not to die.
~Thomas Campbell~

Dr. Taylor will certainly live in the many hearts and minds of the students and colleagues that he worked with and within the Saybrook, Humanistic, and Existential Psychology family.

Posted by Heather McQueen (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:49 PM
I am in shock. It seems impossible. Eugene was one our best and brightest, a true individual who spoke his truth with authenticity. I feel privileged to have known him. My thoughts and love are with his family and all those who hold him close to their hearts.

Posted by David Elkins (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:53 PM
Awe…and wonder in a scholarly, brotherly mentor. I first met Dr Taylor through his writings. I share the gift he bestowed as my professor with hunbdreds of other fortunate scholar practitioners.
He brought William James to the surface in my stream of consciousness and the three streams of psychological history into a confluence & eddies through hours of inspiring and supportive telephone calls—coast to coast. What a teacher!!!!
In the last 10 months, my husband, mother,father, best friend and now the most amazing scholarly presence have become imprinted on my soul, in their passing. If not for the way he evoked the best in me, I would be crushed. Rather I will be lifted even higher!

Dr Eugene Taylor, I will keep writing—and making(!)- history in the 4th Stream.
Until we meet again,
JoAnne MacTaggart

Posted by JoAnne MacTaggart, MA PsyD Candidate (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 11:01 PM
Eugene, I am so sad, but I will always be grateful for the time you spent with me. You were such an inspirational storyteller, and above all else you were a teacher who truly loved his students.

James Regan

Posted by jregan (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 11:22 PM
I share with Eugene a love of history and theory and the confluence of psychology, philosophy, personality and the healing traditions. It was an honor to meet Eugene, to learn from him and for him to lend his astute mind to my own work and aspirations. I can see his deep and kind eyes looking with a little twinkle that would often form subtly (though obvious) across his face as he spoke and told stories. A most engaging soul, who was the quintessential professor, with a capital P, and the immortal scholar. Like many, his scholarly writings were my initial introduction. I never expected that my relatively recent opportunity to know Eugene as a student at Saybrook would be cut so short. It is said that we live on in the memories of those dear and in one’s indelible contributions.. No shortage there in the case of Dr. Eugene Taylor. May our praises sing to the heavens!
With Blessings
-Larry Graber

Posted by lgraber1 (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 12:22 AM
Dr. Eugene Taylor, a man of profound brilliance, was very generous with his time. As Chair of my dissertation committee he was demanding, but also wise and encouraging. His research resulted in many books and his inspiration led and will lead to countless further contributions to the field of psychology. I will miss him greatly as one of the handful of truly great mentors in my life. Forever when I think of Saybrook I will think of Dr. Taylor. May he rest in peace. May his family know that he touched many souls with his graceful style, albeit delivered every now and then with a metaphorical sledge-hammer.

Posted by Eric Kreuter (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 05:00 AM
What a lovely man, his writings “There is no science anywhere that does not involve someone’s personal consciousness somewhere,” how insightful, his heart was in the right place.

Posted by tlc (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 06:47 AM
Oh, dear…My mentor, my dissertation chair, a challenger to do things better, an inspirational thinker and person whose confidence in me led me to tackle some seriously difficult material for my PhD …
This has me in shock and I am deeply, deeply saddened. Prof. Taylor was a giant in the understanding of the Existential-Humanistic and Transpersonal psychology which is the hallmark of Saybrook University and a man whose broad mind was an ever-constant source of wonder. I am shattered over his loss.

Posted by Jose M. Tirado (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 07:45 AM
I can’t believe he’s gone. He taught me all I know about our history as a field and I loved his approach to teaching. He encouraged critical thinking and creativity. I respected him and looked up to him.

Posted by Mavis Ring (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 07:55 AM
I recently became a student with Professor Taylor last August in the classroom and as my mentor. Even though I did not know him long I was left with a lasting impression. He told me he was a rebel. I think of him as a rebel with a cause. I am going to continue his ideas in my career in Saybrook. I will truly miss him. My best wishes to his family and all who knew him. Blessed be.

Richard Schloe

Posted by Richard Schloe (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 08:09 AM
Whether you agreed with Eugene of disagreed with him, in discussing figures like William James or the role of consciousness he always invoked a larger and deeper world, and insisted that our work and our discourse needs to connect to that world. It is hard for me to realize that we will no longer be present (at least physically) to goad, to argue, to challenge, and to inspire.

Fred Weizmann

Posted by Fredric Weizmann (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 08:57 AM
Eugene, rest in peace, released in spirit to sun light and the expanse of the universe beyond time.
Your were quite a presence and an intellectual force at Saybrook.
My sympathies to your family who suffer more, the loss of you.

In good faith,
Alan

Posted by Alan G.Vaughan (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 09:31 AM
I regret never meeting Dr. Taylor. As I entered my first semester in PII this Spring, I very much looked forward to meeting the man in person after “meeting” him first through his writings and our few online exchanges. I could sense a kindred spirit in him. And now looking back at the inspiration and guidance he provided over the last few weeks and realizing the tremendous effort it must has been for him to reach out to his new students, I am indebted. I know he will be deeply missed. I wish the best to his family and friends.

Alex

Posted by abaker5 (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 09:58 AM
This is a HUGE loss for Saybrook. Eugene was thee best.

Posted by Eric Lindblom (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 10:03 AM
I am so sorry to hear of Eugene’s passing. He was a brilliant scholar and an inspiration to fellow faculty. May he have deep and interesting conversations with William James in the afterlife. My deepest condolences to his family.

Jacquie Lewis

Posted by jlewis (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 11:25 AM
EUGENE TAYLOR

Eugene was…how shall I say this?
…large…in his body, mind, ego, and
most of all, spirit.
Karate, lecturing, writing, drumming, eating—
he could play profoundly at all.
How did I know the moment
he slipped out of his coma
and off to that transpersonal world
he already knew well?
As I hurried though Los Angeles’ samsara
I saw his largeness distilled and compressed
into the form of a small black bird
perched alone on a high branch
silhouetted against the sky,
gazing down at me.
On the car stereo I played
George Kahumoku’s “Hawai’i Aloha”
and the bird flew slowly away,
and I miss him very much.

Tom Greening

Posted by Tom Greening (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 12:22 PM
I am deeply saddened to hear this news of Professor Eugene Taylor’s passing. He was brilliant and although his persona reflected a toughness, he was genuinely soft at heart and had a wonderful sense of humor.

I am grateful for the time I spent with him in his courses and after he agreed to be the Chairperson of my final project. It was a true honor learning from him. I would not have survived such the analysis of Jung’s Red Book without Professor Taylor’s guidance throughout.

Rest in Peace Professor Taylor. I am forever grateful and will plan to see you in my dreams for continued guidance.

Theresa Stern Valentic

Posted by Theresa Valentic (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 01:34 PM
At my very first Cheiron Society meeting, in 1980 at Bowdoin College, I attended a session that included a presentation by a scholar on William James who looked awfully like him. As I listened, I became convinced that the presenter was channeling William James’ spirit and had direct access to his thoughts on the wild side of conscious life. I was amazed and intrigued by my introduction to the history of psychology and one of its singular and colorful personalities. I’m not talking about William James here, but Eugene Taylor. Never becoming good friends, Gene and I were cordial colleagues for 33 years. I appreciated his unshakable insistence that the person was at the center of psychology, and for his many scholarly contributions. Ave atque vale!

Posted by James Capshew (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 02:45 PM
In these moments of mourning, I am drawn to reflect on the subtler aspects of Eugene’s character. Subtler, because he was much more than a charismatic apologetic. He was no saint, and would disdain being considered so. However, he was steadfast in his project, honest, direct, and tender. One had only to have seen the glimmer in his eye, or caught a glimpse of his smile — usually offering a joke about a certain fellow named Wilber — to have known this. I offer this line as a kind of reflection for my teacher: “As for me,” to quote Melville, a spirit with whom Eugene often convened, “I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas, and land on barbarous coasts.” With love, respect, and sadness.

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 02:49 PM
At my very first Cheiron Society meeting, in 1980 at Bowdoin College, I attended a session that included a presentation by a scholar on William James who looked awfully like him. As I listened, I became convinced that the presenter was channeling William James’ spirit and had direct access to his thoughts on the wild side of conscious life. I was amazed and intrigued by my introduction to the history of psychology and one of its singular and colorful personalities. I’m not talking about William James here, but Eugene Taylor. Never becoming good friends, Gene and I were cordial colleagues for 33 years. I appreciated his unshakable insistence that the person was at the center of psychology, and for his many scholarly contributions. Ave atque vale!

“We are sorry to see Eugene go,” said Mark Schulman, President of Saybrook University, “He was a scholar and a teacher respected by all with whom he came in contact. He is, truly, irreplacable.”

Taylor died on January 30 at 10:30 a.m. EST with his family in attendance. He was 66.

Taylor was a prominent historian of psychology. The author of books including Shadow Culture: Psychology and Spirituality in America; The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic Theories; and William James on Consciousness Beyond the Margins, he was a research historian at Harvard Medical School, the curator of Gordon Allport’s papers, and an internationally renowned scholar on the work of William James. He was also the founder of the Cambridge Institute of Psychology and Religion, a board member of the Philemon Foundation, a fellow in two APA divisions, and a founding member of The New Existentialists.

He held degrees from Southern Methodist University, Harvard Divinity School (where he was the 1983 William James Lecturer), and a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Psychology from Boston University.

An early student of humanistic psychology, Taylor was present at some of the earliest transpersonal psychology conferences in the 1970s. Combined with his long-standing interest in Eastern religions, this exposure helped develop his scholarly interest in the study of consciousness itself, which he placed at the center of the psychological experience. Psychology, he emphasized, is a “person centered science,” in which the subjective experiences of everyone involved are at the center of best practice. He held that the current “neuro-revolution” in science will further affirm this: that the effort to study the neurons of the brain for the stirrings of consciousness will lead to the realization that there is no “empirical” way to study consciousness without involving radical subjectivity. To take that subjectivity into account as central to understanding rather than futilely trying to dismiss it was, he said, the essence of good science.

“There is no science anywhere that does not involve someone’s personal consciousness somewhere,” he wrote.

His work at Saybrook, where he at various times chaired the programs in Consciousness Studies and Humanistic & Transpersonal Psychology, inspired many to follow in his footsteps and put existential psychology at the center of their own work and practice.

“Eugene gave much of his life to humanistic psychology, and served in many ways as our historian,” said Louis Hoffman, the President of the Society for Humanistic Psychology (APA Division 32) and a colleague of Taylor’s on Saybrook’s executive faculty. “His passion for humanistic psychology was evident to anyone who knew him. His scholarship and, more importantly, the man, will be dearly missed by his students, colleagues, and the whole humanistic community.”


Comments

Although I did not get to meet Dr. Taylor I sense that the loss to our Saybrook community and beyond will be great. I am sad I didn’t have the opportunity to attend a lecture, or hear him speak at some conference. My condolences go out to his family and our family at Saybrook I know he will be missed.

Posted by ldaniels1 (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:22 PM
We have all lost a giant presence and a friend in humanistic psychology. How very sad. My prayers are with Eugene and his family and his students and his Saybrook colleagues.

Posted by John Adams (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:27 PM
Eugene was a true scholar and placed so much value on helping our students at Saybrook become true scholars. He had a passion for telling the story of humanistic psychology and his knowledge and presence will be greatly missed. My sympathies go out to his family and all who were close to him.

Nancy Southern, EdD

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 05:40 PM
Hey Eugene, say hi to William James for me. I know you guys have a lot to talk about in the great hereafter. Until we meet again.

Love,
Brent Robbins

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:00 PM
A great loss for humanistic psychology and particularly for Saybrook. Eugene was a true original. I treasured my colleagueship at Saybrook and Division of Humanistic Psychology and learned a great deal from him over the years we worked together. My thoughts are with his family, the Saybrook community and everyone he loved and who loved him.
Maureen O’Hara,

Posted by Maureen O’Hara (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:29 PM
It must be incredibly frustrating for him to know the truth now and NOT be able to tell us! Or he may just be amused that we think he is “gone” when he is very much “here.” May his memory on this earth be eternal and may we all feel the impact his soul on our profession!

Posted by mtaheny (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:39 PM
I first encountered Eugene Taylor through his written works and was deeply impressed by his scholarship and clear-eyed vision of the centrality of spirituality and consciousness to the study of psychology. He was a trailblazer in both the history of psychology and the fusing of Asian and western psychologies. I had the good fortune of meeting him in Cambridge at his study where we had a wide-ranging discussion on all topics relating to psychology’s history. Thereafter we went to the Swedenborg Church. History of psychology has lost a vital voice. Peace to you, Eugene! Thank you for your gifts!
-David Schmit
St. Catherine University

Posted by David Schmit (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 06:54 PM
Gene’s passing comes as a great shock to me. Although in recent years our paths have diverged, I count Gene as one of the most congenial and articulate colleagues in the history of psychology I have known, especially in my association with him through Cheiron meetings. I knew him particularly when he was at Harvard immersed as he was in his studies on William James. He seemed to have a particular gift of transporting his colleagues, including me, into James’ thoughts and insights into human consciousness through his conference papers and in more intimate conversation. Anyone was captivated by his affable and gracious manner – a true humanist professionally and personally.

Posted by Peter Behrens (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 07:08 PM
Prof.Eugene Taylor will be greatly missed. He was one of the finest that Saybrook University had. He was a great mentor to me, and chair of my dissertation committee. Eugene Taylor was passionate about teaching, and meticulous about his work.I learned a great deal from this patient,wonderful man. He had a beautiful mind and conveyed ideas with such clarity, you got the picture right away!. I’m sad that we were not able to complete the work we started. He was kind and very intuitive. Goodnight my friend may God in heaven hold you close. Rest in Peace.
My wishes to his family.

Posted by Ebie Okonkwo (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 09:46 PM
How we will miss Eugene! Unbelievable. Eugene was my first contact with Saybrook, when he came and spoke at McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School while I was working clinically there. Fascinating individual. I got to have lunch with him at the time…and…also thanks to Mike Arons…I ended up at Saybrook some years later. How could anyone not be impressed with this highly learned and often passionate individual with such extensive knowledge, commitment to humanistic psychology, extraordinary expertise on William James, extensive bibliography and wish to keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge, both himself and with his students. He was sometimes controversial and determined, and a tough taskmaster with students, but he was always present, available, and willing to discuss. For Saybrook and humanistic psychology in general, his work as historian has been invaluable. May we all keep Eugene in our thoughts, and our prayers, at this difficult and important time. And may we remember him well with all the honor he deserves at Saybrook.

Posted by Dr. Ruth Richards (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:03 PM
To live in hearts we leave behind is not to die.
~Thomas Campbell~

Dr. Taylor will certainly live in the many hearts and minds of the students and colleagues that he worked with and within the Saybrook, Humanistic, and Existential Psychology family.

Posted by Heather McQueen (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:49 PM
I am in shock. It seems impossible. Eugene was one our best and brightest, a true individual who spoke his truth with authenticity. I feel privileged to have known him. My thoughts and love are with his family and all those who hold him close to their hearts.

Posted by David Elkins (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 10:53 PM
Awe…and wonder in a scholarly, brotherly mentor. I first met Dr Taylor through his writings. I share the gift he bestowed as my professor with hunbdreds of other fortunate scholar practitioners.
He brought William James to the surface in my stream of consciousness and the three streams of psychological history into a confluence & eddies through hours of inspiring and supportive telephone calls—coast to coast. What a teacher!!!!
In the last 10 months, my husband, mother,father, best friend and now the most amazing scholarly presence have become imprinted on my soul, in their passing. If not for the way he evoked the best in me, I would be crushed. Rather I will be lifted even higher!

Dr Eugene Taylor, I will keep writing—and making(!)- history in the 4th Stream.
Until we meet again,
JoAnne MacTaggart

Posted by JoAnne MacTaggart, MA PsyD Candidate (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 11:01 PM
Eugene, I am so sad, but I will always be grateful for the time you spent with me. You were such an inspirational storyteller, and above all else you were a teacher who truly loved his students.

James Regan

Posted by jregan (not verified) | 01/30/2013 @ 11:22 PM
I share with Eugene a love of history and theory and the confluence of psychology, philosophy, personality and the healing traditions. It was an honor to meet Eugene, to learn from him and for him to lend his astute mind to my own work and aspirations. I can see his deep and kind eyes looking with a little twinkle that would often form subtly (though obvious) across his face as he spoke and told stories. A most engaging soul, who was the quintessential professor, with a capital P, and the immortal scholar. Like many, his scholarly writings were my initial introduction. I never expected that my relatively recent opportunity to know Eugene as a student at Saybrook would be cut so short. It is said that we live on in the memories of those dear and in one’s indelible contributions.. No shortage there in the case of Dr. Eugene Taylor. May our praises sing to the heavens!
With Blessings
-Larry Graber

Posted by lgraber1 (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 12:22 AM
Dr. Eugene Taylor, a man of profound brilliance, was very generous with his time. As Chair of my dissertation committee he was demanding, but also wise and encouraging. His research resulted in many books and his inspiration led and will lead to countless further contributions to the field of psychology. I will miss him greatly as one of the handful of truly great mentors in my life. Forever when I think of Saybrook I will think of Dr. Taylor. May he rest in peace. May his family know that he touched many souls with his graceful style, albeit delivered every now and then with a metaphorical sledge-hammer.

Posted by Eric Kreuter (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 05:00 AM
What a lovely man, his writings “There is no science anywhere that does not involve someone’s personal consciousness somewhere,” how insightful, his heart was in the right place.

Posted by tlc (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 06:47 AM
Oh, dear…My mentor, my dissertation chair, a challenger to do things better, an inspirational thinker and person whose confidence in me led me to tackle some seriously difficult material for my PhD …
This has me in shock and I am deeply, deeply saddened. Prof. Taylor was a giant in the understanding of the Existential-Humanistic and Transpersonal psychology which is the hallmark of Saybrook University and a man whose broad mind was an ever-constant source of wonder. I am shattered over his loss.

Posted by Jose M. Tirado (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 07:45 AM
I can’t believe he’s gone. He taught me all I know about our history as a field and I loved his approach to teaching. He encouraged critical thinking and creativity. I respected him and looked up to him.

Posted by Mavis Ring (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 07:55 AM
I recently became a student with Professor Taylor last August in the classroom and as my mentor. Even though I did not know him long I was left with a lasting impression. He told me he was a rebel. I think of him as a rebel with a cause. I am going to continue his ideas in my career in Saybrook. I will truly miss him. My best wishes to his family and all who knew him. Blessed be.

Richard Schloe

Posted by Richard Schloe (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 08:09 AM
Whether you agreed with Eugene of disagreed with him, in discussing figures like William James or the role of consciousness he always invoked a larger and deeper world, and insisted that our work and our discourse needs to connect to that world. It is hard for me to realize that we will no longer be present (at least physically) to goad, to argue, to challenge, and to inspire.

Fred Weizmann

Posted by Fredric Weizmann (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 08:57 AM
Eugene, rest in peace, released in spirit to sun light and the expanse of the universe beyond time.
Your were quite a presence and an intellectual force at Saybrook.
My sympathies to your family who suffer more, the loss of you.

In good faith,
Alan

Posted by Alan G.Vaughan (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 09:31 AM
I regret never meeting Dr. Taylor. As I entered my first semester in PII this Spring, I very much looked forward to meeting the man in person after “meeting” him first through his writings and our few online exchanges. I could sense a kindred spirit in him. And now looking back at the inspiration and guidance he provided over the last few weeks and realizing the tremendous effort it must has been for him to reach out to his new students, I am indebted. I know he will be deeply missed. I wish the best to his family and friends.

Alex

Posted by abaker5 (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 09:58 AM
This is a HUGE loss for Saybrook. Eugene was thee best.

Posted by Eric Lindblom (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 10:03 AM
I am so sorry to hear of Eugene’s passing. He was a brilliant scholar and an inspiration to fellow faculty. May he have deep and interesting conversations with William James in the afterlife. My deepest condolences to his family.

Jacquie Lewis

Posted by jlewis (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 11:25 AM
EUGENE TAYLOR

Eugene was…how shall I say this?
…large…in his body, mind, ego, and
most of all, spirit.
Karate, lecturing, writing, drumming, eating—
he could play profoundly at all.
How did I know the moment
he slipped out of his coma
and off to that transpersonal world
he already knew well?
As I hurried though Los Angeles’ samsara
I saw his largeness distilled and compressed
into the form of a small black bird
perched alone on a high branch
silhouetted against the sky,
gazing down at me.
On the car stereo I played
George Kahumoku’s “Hawai’i Aloha”
and the bird flew slowly away,
and I miss him very much.

Tom Greening

Posted by Tom Greening (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 12:22 PM
I am deeply saddened to hear this news of Professor Eugene Taylor’s passing. He was brilliant and although his persona reflected a toughness, he was genuinely soft at heart and had a wonderful sense of humor.

I am grateful for the time I spent with him in his courses and after he agreed to be the Chairperson of my final project. It was a true honor learning from him. I would not have survived such the analysis of Jung’s Red Book without Professor Taylor’s guidance throughout.

Rest in Peace Professor Taylor. I am forever grateful and will plan to see you in my dreams for continued guidance.

Theresa Stern Valentic

Posted by Theresa Valentic (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 01:34 PM
At my very first Cheiron Society meeting, in 1980 at Bowdoin College, I attended a session that included a presentation by a scholar on William James who looked awfully like him. As I listened, I became convinced that the presenter was channeling William James’ spirit and had direct access to his thoughts on the wild side of conscious life. I was amazed and intrigued by my introduction to the history of psychology and one of its singular and colorful personalities. I’m not talking about William James here, but Eugene Taylor. Never becoming good friends, Gene and I were cordial colleagues for 33 years. I appreciated his unshakable insistence that the person was at the center of psychology, and for his many scholarly contributions. Ave atque vale!

Posted by James Capshew (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 02:45 PM
In these moments of mourning, I am drawn to reflect on the subtler aspects of Eugene’s character. Subtler, because he was much more than a charismatic apologetic. He was no saint, and would disdain being considered so. However, he was steadfast in his project, honest, direct, and tender. One had only to have seen the glimmer in his eye, or caught a glimpse of his smile — usually offering a joke about a certain fellow named Wilber — to have known this. I offer this line as a kind of reflection for my teacher: “As for me,” to quote Melville, a spirit with whom Eugene often convened, “I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas, and land on barbarous coasts.” With love, respect, and sadness.

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 02:49 PM
At my very first Cheiron Society meeting, in 1980 at Bowdoin College, I attended a session that included a presentation by a scholar on William James who looked awfully like him. As I listened, I became convinced that the presenter was channeling William James’ spirit and had direct access to his thoughts on the wild side of conscious life. I was amazed and intrigued by my introduction to the history of psychology and one of its singular and colorful personalities. I’m not talking about William James here, but Eugene Taylor. Never becoming good friends, Gene and I were cordial colleagues for 33 years. I appreciated his unshakable insistence that the person was at the center of psychology, and for his many scholarly contributions. Ave atque vale!

James Capshew
Indiana University

Posted by James Capshew (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 04:16 PM
Over a decade a ago, I started to know Dr Eugence Taylor while I was writing a research paper on stream of consciousness for my class (Self and Identity) offered by Erin Driver-Linn at Harvard. I was enrolled at Harvard Divinity School then concentrating on Buddhist studies and trying to find whehter James’s stream of consciousness concept was primed in one way or another by the similar concept and practice in Yogacara Buddhism (Vijnanapada, the mind only ). Dr Taylor was recommended for my consultation and he was very approachable and helpful in providing background info. He ended up saying we have so far found “the smoking gun” only. I finally met him in person at the SHP 2011 in DC …without asking if there has been any update … May Peace and Luminosity Be with You for good!

Posted by caifang Jeremy Zhu, Ph.D. in Beijing (not verified) | 01/31/2013 @ 10:29 PM
A brilliant mind, an indomitable spirit. Dr. Taylor was my professor for two classes. Immensely knowledgable. I feel extremely sad.

Posted by Constance Avery-Clark (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 09:01 AM
The sad news of Dr. Taylor’s death arrived by email this morning. What immediately came to mind was the memory of our last visit during the Tucson, AZ conference on consciousness. That was just one of several simple, informal, unplanned exchanges that I had with him–brief conversations that touched me, guided me, and sometimes helped me to find my way. Whatever he may have been to others, to me he was a scholar, a warrior, and a gentleman. Peace and Blessings to you Dr. Eugene! Peace and Blessings to you.

Posted by Timothy Storlie (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 09:08 AM
Professor Taylor and I shared passionate discussions about the need to build strong bridges between philosophy and psychology. At the August 2012 RC, it seemed to me that Eugene was somehow transcending, changing form, perhaps preparing to shift consciousness. And only days ago, I saw his face in a meditation. That was the day he passed away. With respect for the lessons learned and for the insights and scholarship given to our profession, I honor the transition of an amazing man.

Posted by Carol Veizer (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 09:26 AM
Hello dear friends:

This is a shock.

I remember Eugene’s great energies for what he loved and his willingness to keep learning. He was passionate about humanistic and transpersonal psychology, made important contributions, and brought more clarity, rigor, bridges with mainstream fields, and energy into these fields.

We sometimes had different views, while sharing the “big picture,” but I remember him as someone who was willing to dialogue and sometimes temper his views through such dialogue.

May we remember his contributions to our communities, our fields of inquiry, and to our lives.

Blessings and best wishes, Donald

Posted by Donald Rothberg (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 09:27 AM
Dr. Taylor!The last time we talked in was in a large circle regarding cultural competency. Thank you for your openess. Thank you for all of your gifts and talents. You made an incredible impact on everyone who came in contact with you. Always, I was given much food for thought. My deepest condolences to your beloved.

Posted by Victoria Navarro Oana (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 09:34 AM
Dr. Taylor,

Thank you very much for your contribution in humanistic psychology. Your vigor in that field will surely be missed. Rest in Peace.

Posted by Jiselle Esparza (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 09:55 AM
I’ve known Eugene as a colleague in the psychology of religion and the history of psychology for 30 years or more. I benefitted greatly from his access to the Gordon Allport papers, and from the many meals we shared at meetings of the American Psychological Association, as well as extensive correspondence. I especially apprecited his personal kindness. At one APA meeting I received word that my brother had died, and it was Eugene who saw me through the long evening before I could go home. On another occasion he guided me through Boston traffic all the way to my destination in the suburbs. I will miss him!

Posted by Hendrika Vande Kemp (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 04:33 PM
Whoa. There are so many more conversations I intended to have with you. About humanistic psychology, about matters subversive, iconoclastic, challenging. I didn’t always agree with you, but you did challenge me to think deeper and keep carrying on. Thanks for supporting my research interests. Thanks for being a great mentor. Thanks…for the classes you passionately engaged in with your students. For expecting and demanding the best of all of us. Now you are free and I hope you are conversing with William James as we speak!

Posted by Lael Curtis (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 05:03 PM
Eugene was the profoundly learned and fluidly articulate coyote of Saybrook, standing on the edge (of groups of people, of research, of terrain) from which he laubed his sharp arrows of insight and critique. Eugene was one of Saybrook’s esteemed elders and now joins Arne Collen and Jeanne Achterberg as the historic golden era of Saybrook wanes.

Posted by Denita Benyshek (not verified) | 02/02/2013 @ 07:13 PM
I am shocked and saddened to hear of Dr. Taylor’s passing. I remember well the chart on the streams of consciousness, and his remark that if we ever meet again on the street, he will want us to be able to identify each and explain its origins. Well, Eugene, I guess the street we meet on will be a different one than originally pictured. You will be sadly missed. Thank you for your many contributions to the history of psychology. We were inspired by your passion.

Posted by Donna King (not verified) | 02/03/2013 @ 06:06 AM
I was shocked to hear about Dr. Taylor’s passing. I had the privilege of being his student for the past year, he was working with me in Research practicum and had accepted to be my essay lead reader and dissertation chair. I met him at his Boston office this past November and enjoyed an afternoon of talking about William James, and the influence of his works in modern physics. It was such a joy!

Thank you Dr. Taylor for being a wonderful teacher, and for being an inspiration! You will be greatly missed!!

Posted by eochoa (not verified) | 02/04/2013 @ 05:49 PM
I had the great honor and pleasure of working with Eugene for both my MA (1995) and Ph.D. (2002); he was my doctoral chair and he was ungodly demanding. So much so, that my pet name for him became “Mean Gene” and that was given in fond gratitude because his high standards showed me what I was capable of and left me a far better scholar than I ever dreamed possible. I first met Eugene in 1995 after wandering by chance into a lecture he was giving on how the Freudians essentially rewrote the history of psychology. He spoke for two hours with only a cup of water in one hand and a slide projector clicker in the other and I was mesmerized. That experience literally changed my life as I abandoned my previous research direction and went with him. Eugene was a brilliant person, an incredible character, and just a lovely human being to be with. My world and the field of psychology is far poorer place now that he is gone. I’m going to miss you, Gene.

Posted by Paul Shane, Ph.D. (not verified) | 02/05/2013 @ 04:38 AM
Challenging and robust in his Jamesian studies, Dr. Taylor held to a standard all that was remarkable in scholasticism. A simple conversation became a Harvard feast. Enjoy your visit among the stars, Eugene. James is waiting for your arrival.

Posted by Kate Kobylarz (not verified) | 02/05/2013 @ 06:02 AM
I cherish the short-time I got to know Dr. Taylor. I first met him at my first RC in August of 2012. I took his seminars in Boston Psychopathology. I could listen to his personal experiences for hours. He was a brilliant person and compassionate man. I took his History and Systems course last semester. I gained knowledge not only on the history of psychology, but learned more about myself as a person. I appreciated the time he took to provide me feedback on my writing. I felt he was trying to help me improve to become a better writer. I was shocked and saddened to learn of his passing. To the people who knew him for a long-time, you are lucky. Though my encounter with Dr. Taylor was short, I feel blessed. I send my condolences to his family and friends.

To a wonderful man!
Joni Weldon

Posted by jweldon1 (not verified) | 02/06/2013 @ 02:22 PM
I was shocked and saddened by Dr. Taylor’s passing. I had been away from Saybrook for a while, and when I returned two RC’s ago, it was great to see Dr. Taylor and speak with him briefly. I wish I would have taken more time now. We never know how long we have, do we? I will miss him. I have one of his books on my bookshelf right now…. Good-bye, Dr. Taylor. You’ll be missed.

Tammy Summers

Posted by tsummers (not verified) | 02/06/2013 @ 07:59 PM
I am deeply sorry to hear of Professor Taylor’s passing. Although I did not have the opportunity to meet him face-to-face, I feel that via both his writings and a brief email correspondence we shared two years ago, that the integrity with which he moved through this world was radiantly evident. As a lover of William James myself, it brought me great peace to know that someone with Eugene’s character was in the acting role of representing this important historical figure in our field. My heart goes out to his family and to the entire Saybrook community. He surely leaves behind a wonderful example of a life well-lived.

Posted by Jonathan Reynolds (not verified) | 02/09/2013 @ 08:15 AM
I am going to miss you Dr. Taylor. I cannot believe that i will never get to talk to you…this hurts a lot. Thank you for everything. Because of you today “I am a Doctor.” Thank you for believeing in me. I will miss you dearly and most of all i will miss our converstations.

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) | 02/13/2013 @ 09:55 PM
ET has influenced me significantly both professionally and personally
– an experience that I have held close to my heart,
and made possible only by his magic elixir that clearly has touched so many !
This will remain a part of my consciousness, and cherished for years to come.
I have been deeply preoccupied and deeply saddened, in disbelief,
by his experiences, as well as the circumstances of his death.
Posted by Ancy Abraham (not verified) | 06/18/2013 @ 05:33 PM


Empowering marginalized women through digital storytelling

20 October 2012
T12 Titans
No comments

In a blog post on the website GenderIT.org, German researcher Sigrid Kannengießer describes how digital storytelling provides a powerful way of using information and communication technologies to empower marginalized women. Digital stories are produced and distributed by digital media. In digital storytelling workshops, marginalized women and women’s rights activists develop a forum to tell their stories and share their experiences by producing short films about themselves. Kannengießer conducted interviews with employees and members of The Association for Progressive Communications Women’s Networking Support Programme (APC WNSP) to understand what digital storytelling brings to the feminist movement.

In this context a digital story can be defined as a “short, first-person video-narrative created by combining recorded voice, still and moving images, and music or other sounds” (Center for Digital Storytelling). Digital stories are produced with non-professional equipment. Therefore, non-professional media practitioners can raise their voices through these stories. By producing their own stories marginalized women have new tools for self-representation: The storyteller tells her story with her own voice, with her own words, and also chooses the pictures that visualize the story. Having its origin in the U.S.-American Center for Digital Storytelling, the practice of these workshops has spread all over the world. The main aim of the workshops is to empower the workshop participants. The digital storytelling workshops that APC WNSP conducts are seminars in which marginalized women or women’s rights activists produce digital stories, short films in which the participants talk about their experiences. At the beginning of the workshop, every participant speaks about her experiences within a story circle. After this sharing of stories among like-minded people, which is already very intense and supportive, the participants write down their stories, then read them aloud while recording them digitally. This becomes the audio stream for the film.

To visualize the story, the participants use either still or moving images, they bring photos of themselves, or of other things they want to use to illustrate their story into the workshop, or they can take pictures within the workshop. The women also scan drawings or newspaper articles and they search for online pictures published under a creative commons license. With Windows Movie Maker, they edit the pictures and the audio stream; some also insert music or other sound effects. At the end of each workshop all digital stories are shown back to all the participants and each participant gets supportive feedback and solidarity for the story produced.

Digital storytelling for capacity building and as media competence training

One goal of the workshops is to empower women with computer and internet skills and to build capacity among women’s rights activists. Teaching the activists the method of digital storytelling, APC WNSP aims to enable them to integrate digital storytelling into their work. For women who have never used a computer before or who rarely have access to computers or the internet, the digital storytelling workshop is a chance to engage with new media.

Digital storytelling as self-representation

Conducting workshops for digital storytelling with marginalized groups, stories that are usually not heard can be recorded. Also topics and concerns that are taboo get the chance to be reported. Especially for victims of violence, this is a chance to speak about their experiences. The qualitative self-representations of the victims give them faces, make them subjects rather than objects, which is the danger when quantitative studies and statistics are used to represent facts about violence against women. Personal experiences get a forum in the workshops and through publishing the digital stories online the stories might also reach a broader public.

Digital storytelling as a feminist practice

Being media trainings and providing the chance of self-representation, of sharing experiences with like-minded people, of publishing their own stories and through that process then influence debate and discourse, digital storytelling and the workshops in which these short films are produced become tools of empowerment. Moreover, the separation between a female private sphere and a male public sphere, which has been criticized by the feminist movement since the idea was articulated, can be destabilized as marginalized women become visible through their films. But even though a feminist public sphere can be created though publishing these stories, the problem remains that these stories might not enter the mainstream, the public sphere which is still dominated by male (media) producers.

Still, the storytellers are the owners of their stories, as explained above, they agree on publishing their films or not. Being in this position itself is empowering, as women are often not the owner of the goods they produce. Moreover, the participants also learn to use the technology needed for producing the story and through that also get a sense of control. These experiences might last after the workshop and encourage the women to stand up for their rights even in situations where they struggle for equality and justice.

For more information, see Kannengießer’s original post.

Modern day existentialism

11 September 2012
T12 Titans
No comments

Existential themes permeate our society, supporting the notion that no matter how many ways we try to hide, there is no running from what it means to be human. Although our society is quick to assuage the anxiety brought on by existential awareness, the themes are there, and it is up to us as the new existentialists to tease the awareness out and into consciousness.

One of my passions is to make heady philosophical themes accessible to the general public. After all, isn’t that who we are attempting to reach? In many ways, we have limited our reach by remaining in our Ivory Towers discussing themes that one needs extensive education to understand such as “Dasein.” We also limit our reach by discussing philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Soren Kierkegaard when many of the people we desire to impact are unfamiliar with philosophy and how it may apply to their lives and who simply want to know what help is available.

The world needs what existential psychotherapy has to offer; the culture is crying out for vivification, for enlightenment and to awaken and to transform. In order to meet that need, we as the modern existentialists must learn to speak the language of the people and introduce them to the works of existentialism on their terms.

Recently, I was watching a television show entitled “The Vampire Diaries.” In this particular episode, one character was transforming into a werewolf for the first time. His friend, a vampire and fellow high school student, stayed with him during this painful first transformation. Although she (the vampire) knew the risk posed to her if she were to be bitten by the werewolf, she refused to abandon her friend in his time of need. Throughout his transformation from human to vampire, during which he was deeply tormented and ashamed, she stayed with him and retreated only when the situation became dire. When the danger passed, she returned to the friend/werewolf and held him.

I was struck by this scene because it reminded me much of what happens in existential psychotherapy: The client struggles to (or against) transformation while the therapist creates a safe place for them to do so. Indeed, the therapist is not interested in moving the client to transform but is tasked with the much more challenging call of bearing witness to another’s pain with what Schneider (2009) calls “effortful nonattachment,” meaning that one is deeply engaged in the present moment without an agenda or desired outcome (p. 169). Trying to describe this process to a person who has never experienced it or something very similar to it is, at best, an exercise in futility. One can, however, point a potential client (or students in training) to scenes similar to the one described above that illustrate the process in a different and perhaps more relatable way.

There are many other existential thinkers in our world who are saying the same things but in a different language. Take, for instance, Paulo Coelho, a Brazilian novelist. Coelho has written books such as “Veronika Decides to Die,” which tells the tale of a young woman who attempts suicide. It isn’t until she is told that she is not going to live that she decides to truly live. Many of Coelho’s books carry deeply existential messages, and because he is such a beloved author, it is easy to introduce existential themes to readers. Indeed, there are many books, movies, television shows, and musicians who are speaking to existential themes if we only have an ear to hear. These newer, more modern existentialists can bridge the gap between past philosophy and present-day need.

Key ideas in phenomenology: The natural attitude

20 August 2012
T12 Titans
No comments

Updated September 13, 2023

From a phenomenological perspective, in everyday life, we see the objects of our experience such as physical objects, other people, and even ideas as simply real and straightforwardly existent. In other words, they are “just there.” We don’t question their existence; we view them as facts.

When we leave our house in the morning, we take the objects we see around us as simply real, factual things—this tree, neighboring buildings, cars, etcetera. This attitude or perspective, which is usually unrecognized as a perspective, Edmund Husserl terms the “natural attitude” or the “natural theoretical attitude.”

When Husserl uses the word “natural” to describe this attitude, he doesn’t mean that it is “good” (or bad), he means simply that this way of seeing reflects an “everyday” or “ordinary” way of being-in-the-world. When I see the world within this natural attitude, I am solely aware of what is factually present to me. My surrounding world, viewed naturally, is the familiar world, the domain of my everyday life. Why is this a problem?

From a phenomenological perspective, this naturalizing attitude conceals a profound naïveté. Husserl claimed that “being” can never be collapsed entirely into being in the empirical world: any instance of actual being, he argued, is necessarily encountered upon a horizon that encompasses facticity but is larger than facticity. Indeed, the very sense of facts of consciousness as such, from a phenomenological perspective, depends on a wider horizon of consciousness that usually remains unexamined. Any individual object, Husserl wrote:

“Is not merely an individual object as such, a ‘This here,’ an object never repeatable; as qualified ‘in itself‘ thus and so, it has its own specific character, its stock of essential predictables which must belong to it … if other, secondary, relative determinations can belong to it.”

Hence, any individual object necessarily belongs to multiple “essential species,” or essential structures of consciousness, and “everything belonging to the essence of the individuum another individuum can have too…”

The gray cat I notice crossing the street is both unique and, if investigated phenomenologically, reveals a common structure or essence “cat” that can apply equally well to other members of the species. Indeed, without the structure “cat” in some sense accompanying or preceding the experience of this particular gray cat, I would be unable to identify it as such. There would still be an animal present to me, but even this identification is dependent upon another essence, that of “animal.”

The point here is that seeing the individual cat presupposes a meaningful structure that is inclusive of a wider horizon of possible cats—black, spotted, green-eyed; big, small, healthy, sick, four-legged and three-legged, etc.—and the empirical cat, the individuum, is the empirical foreground upon a background of possible cats unified by the structure “cat.”

No empirical object, Husserl insisted, is sui generis. The idea or essence is a “necessary general form,” Husserl wrote in “Experience and Judgment,” a structure of and for consciousness that can be grasped within the reduction, that which makes the very seeing of individual empirical objects as objects possible for us. In other words, “that without which an object of a particular kind cannot be thought, i.e., without which the object cannot be imagined as such.”

All of this is evident once one begins to actively phenomenologize. Yet, from the natural attitude, we see everything at face value: There is simply this cat, this tree, this house, simply accepted in their facticity as self-evidently present; we do not inquire further into our perceptions, our intuitions.

Expanding on this theme, Husserl wrote in Eugen Fink’s book “Sixth Cartesian Meditation: The Idea of a Transcendental Theory of Method (Studies in Continental Thought)“:

“In the natural attitude, in which for ourselves and for others we are called and are humans, to everything worldly there belongs the being-acceptedness: existent in the world, in the world that is always existent beforehand as constant acceptedness of a basis. So also man’s being is being in the world that is existent beforehand. In phenomenology, this being-beforehand is itself a problem.”

Within the natural attitude, the world is experienced as always already present, prior to my reflection upon it. Yet, this theoretical attitude—for as Husserl noted, there is a theorizing about the world implicit in this attitude—represents a fundamental naïveté.

Simply put, from an empirical or natural standpoint, I see my ego as fundamentally separate from the world around me, a world that is obviously already here, quite apart from me, and which has no relation to me other than as my context and the container for other objects of interest to me.

In essence, the entire theoretical structure of positivist thought is implicit in the seemingly self-evident assertion that the world is fundamentally separate from me and preexists me. In beginning to tease out the implications of natural attitude, this description may appear questionable as a description of the life-world, though it is recognizable as the world of the natural sciences. One of phenomenology’s primary claims is that the ego is never severed from the world, that the sense of “world” is always more than a collection of empirical objects, that I am always implicated in the world and vice versa.

What is Phenomenology Reduction?

For Husserl, the process he calls the phenomenological reduction is the means by which the phenomenologist frees himself from the reifications of the natural attitude, gaining a standpoint from which to view and explicate both real (Ger: real) and irreal (Ger: reel) objects, having bracketed their facticity, in pure phenomenal flow. The word “reduction” is used philosophically. It doesn’t mean diminishing something but instead relies upon one of the meanings of reduction’s Latin root: to restore or return something to a more primordial mode.

Husserl uses the term reduction to signify a specific shift in attitude that can be employed by the researcher in a variety of contexts. Hence, Husserl referred to phenomenological, philosophical, psychological, eidetic, transcendental, ethical, and intersubjective reductions, according to Joseph J. Kockelmans’ “A First Introduction to Husserl’s Phenomenology.” Not only is my perception of external objects transformed when I adopt the attitude of the reduction, but likewise my perception of the most intimate of objects: my personal ego. Phenomenology’s reductions reveal not only the phenomenal nature of objects but also, Husserl claimed, transcendental subjectivity and intersubjectivity.

The researcher “reduces” everyday, empirical reality through use of the phenomenological epoché or “bracketing.” The meaning of ἐποχή(epoché) is “to hold back” or “to withhold”; in affecting the epoché, I withhold my assent to the ontological status of the perceived: I “bracket” its facticity. In E. Spiegelberg’s “The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction (Phaenomenologica),” the author wrote that the reduction is the conscious act in which the:

General thesis of belief in factual existence characteristic of the natural attitude is inhibited, suspended, bracketed … or turned off, and which uncovers in transcendental subjectivity the acts which constitute pure phenomena.

Edmund Husserl’s “Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology (Husserliana: Edmund Husserl – Collected Works)” explained the reduction’s rigor in his discussion of the “Principle of all Principles”: “Everything originarily … offered to us in ‘intuition’ is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being, but also only within the limits in which it is presented there.”
Employing the phenomenological reduction, I take no position with respect to the ultimate (existential) reality of what I see. Instead, I simply witness it just as it presents itself to me and describe it as such. This instance of the reduction is properly termed the phenomenological reduction because facts are “reduced” to the way they stand out to me as presences.

Phenomenology uses the reduction to entirely set aside existential questions and shift from existential affirmation or negation to description. It is a method involving a bracketing or parenthesizing (in German: “Einklammerung”) of something that had formerly been taken for granted in the natural attitude.

In order, therefore, to examine psychic subjectivity, the researcher must perform a phenomenological-psychological reduction, suspending the “taking-for-grantedness” of psychological phenomena. In the psychological reduction, Husserl wrote, “psychic subjectivity, the concretely grasped ‘I’ and ‘we’ of ordinary conversation, is experienced in its pure psychic owness…” (1973, p. 62, in Zaner & Idhe). Gurwitsch (1966) explained that performing the psychological reduction means a shift in attitude toward everything normally perceived as a mundane existent in the life world (Lebenswelt). Rather than taking them for granted:

All persons, including the psychologist himself, inasmuch as they perceive themselves as human beings, hence as mundane existents, are transformed into phenomena, and by the same token disclosed as subjects of intentional conscious life. (p. 443)

This particular reduction (as has been noted, there are many kinds of reductions for Husserl) leads the researcher to recognize his or her embeddedness in intersubjectivity. Husserl claimed that when one examines the phenomenal ground of what it means to be an “I,” one discovers that it is impossible to have a sense of “I-ness” without an accompanying sense and expectation of “you-ness”—indeed, at the core of the sense of “I,” there is the experience of a plurality of “you’s”—what Husserl termed “co-subjectivity” (Mitsubjectivität).
Moreover, I immediately recognize others as similar to myself—i.e. they are not just objects, they are subjects like myself—and the world I live in is a world of commonly (intersubjectively) recognizable people, places, and things. Gurwitsch (1966) summarized Husserl’s view of intersubjectivity by stating that:

Performing the [psychological] reduction upon himself, the psychologist, in analyzing his own conscious life, becomes aware of its relationship to and connectedness with, the conscious life of other persons…in his very experience of himself as human being are implied references to other human beings, to an open horizon of humanity…and co-subjectivity (Mitsubjectivität). Experience of oneself proves to be inseparable from that of others. (p. 443)

This collectivity is an open horizon of transcendental subjects, that is, subjects whose conscious acts (noesis) transcend the factual objects of experience. Since, Husserl argued, the co-subjectivity of transcendental others is an indispensable constituent of the life world, he concludes that the life world is a field of transcendental intersubjectivity. These insights are close to the foundation of the phenomenological study of empathy by Scheler, Husserl, and Stein, a topic Zahavi (2010) has recently explored.
Therefore, the primacy of one’s ego-pole in experience is not absolute: that is to say, there is never, from Husserl’s standpoint, the experience of a solus ipse. An ego utterly detached and unrelated to others is not even strictly speaking imaginable, in Husserl’s view, if we are true to the essential structure of what it means to be an “I,” namely, to be always located in an intersubjective field. This intersubjectivity can be experienced empirically as the world of other people in their concreteness, psychologically-phenomenally, as the world of other psychological consciousnesses, or transcendentally, as the world of other transcendental subjects. Transcendental intersubjectivity, Gurwitsch (1966) wrote, is:

The community of ego-poles to which my own ego-pole also belongs, though it enjoys a privileged position, since it remains forever the ego-pole with respect to which every other ego-pole appears as an alter ego-pole. (p. 435)

It is in this context that Husserl spoke of a “transcendental reduction” or an “intersubjective reduction.” For Husserl, transcendental subjectivity, always embedded in intersubjectivity, constitutes and bestows sense to the psychological and natural domains (Gurwitsch, 1966, p. 111). Therefore, transcendental subjectivity “can be called the primal basis for all legitimacy and validity…” (Ibid., p. 111). Consequently, it is the transcendental reduction that differentiates phenomenology decisively from every other kind of psychology.

Are you interested in learning about graduate-level programs available at Saybrook University? Request more information by filling out the form below or click here to learn how you can apply today.

References and Further Reading:
Gurwitsch, A. (1966). Studies in phenomenology and psychology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Husserl, E. (1973). Phenomenology. In R. M. Zaner and D. Ihde, Phenomenology and existentialism. (pp. 46-70). New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book, General introduction to a pure phenomenology. (F. Kersten, Trans.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kockelmans, J. (1967). A first introduction to Husserl’s phenomenology. Louvain: Duquesne University Press.
Spiegelberg, H. (1965). The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction. (2 Vols.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Zahavi, D. (2010). Empathy, embodiment, and interpersonal understanding: Empathy from Lipps to Schutz. Inquiry 55 (3), 285-306.

Why Niccolò Machiavelli May Have Been Right About Leadership

29 June 2012
T12 Titans
No comments

I’m going to make a bold, sacrilegious assertion in a sea of humanistic theorists: I believe Niccolò Machiavelli had it right when he defined leadership 499 years ago—in a bare-bones sort of way. At the very least, he set a foundation for the plethora of leadership theories that exist today. In this post, I intend to deconstruct ‘Machiavellian leadership’ before bringing him into the 21st century.

When Machiavelli retreated to his Florentine study in 1513 and feverishly jotted down his abstract reflections on how the world ought to be in his book “Il Principe: The Prince,” he noted five aspects of a good leader that are still discussed (and even relished) in business and management literature today. These publications typically refrain from referencing him directly for the sake of not proposing workplace theories that may come off as deceitful, cunning, immoral, self-serving, dishonest or Machiavellian, but Machiavelli’s basic premise of a good leader is still there.

In a nutshell, the medieval Italian philosopher asserted that a good leader:

  1. Should be feared rather than loved “if you cannot be both” in order to avoid a revolt.

  2. Should have the support of the people because it’s difficult to take action without their support.

  3. Should hold good virtues.

  4. Should never turn to outside auxiliary or mercenary units, but always rely on his (or her) own arms.

  5. Should be intelligent.

If we translate Machiavelli’s five-point laundry list into modern parlance, a good leader is essentially someone who is respected and supported by the people they guide because this person is smart enough to authentically know, trust, value, and encourage the flourishing of the skills that each individual brings to the group. Consequently, the leader is able to rely on the group because they work to help each member continue to polish and refine their unique skills and abilities, which can only work to make the team stronger as time brings a constant stream of change. As an MBA recipient, I believe any manager who takes time to understand, nurture, cultivate and accentuate the skills and traits of colleagues and support staff is virtuous.

And, yes, I used the word “authentically” in my translation of Machiavelli’s principles. Why? Because, believe it or not, the man didn’t appreciate dishonesty.

As a leader, “there is no other way to guard yourself against flattery,” Machiavelli wrote, “than by making men understand that telling you the truth will not offend you.”

To Machiavelli, authenticity—or at least openness—is essential to good leadership. After all, any leader “who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.” And, in the long run, that never turns out well.

Machiavelli’s got a bad rap for being a ruthless, cutthroat kind of guy. But, in this context, his vision of leadership softens and his description of a good leader actually sounds transformational, which is the style of leadership coveted by management circles today.

There’s one modern-day distinction I’d like to make that possibly inspired Machiavelli’s laundry list five centuries ago: A leader isn’t always in a position of authority and an authority figure doesn’t always hold the qualities of a leader. As Annabel Beerel, professor of social ethics at Southern New Hampshire University, wrote in her 2009 book “Leadership and Change Management,” “Leadership cannot function effectively without its fellow partner, authority, whereas authority can exist (not for long) without the activities of leadership.”

In other words, a person who embodies the qualities of a transformational leader but holds no authority is the equivalent of a king or queen without a throne. They may influence the people around them positively as they all work to fulfill daily obligations, but his or her reach is very limited.

By contrast, a person in a position of authority who fails to recognize, trust, value, and encourage the flourishing of skills among his or her colleagues and staff will quickly lose respect and support from these people. And when they go, the manager’s stuck in the transactional limbo they created. In this limbo bent on preserving the status quo, morale is low, turnover rates are high, and workers are grumpy among other things.

In 1513, Machiavelli wrote, “I’m not interested in preserving the status quo. I want to overthrow it.” So in addition to having a low tolerance for dishonesty, he apparently didn’t buy into transactional management theory either.
The key ingredient that distinguishes a leader from an authority figure is power, according to Beerel. To the traditional Machiavellian, power makes the ends justify the means, to paraphrase one of Machiavelli’s famous quotations.

But in a frail world where leadership consists of power grabs for the sake of power-grabbing, leadership will ultimately fall apart for, as Machiavelli wrote, “It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.” Any leader who focuses solely on the accrual of power is acting disingenuously and, when the people revolt against this behavior, this leader’s employment status may meet a tragic end.

To Machiavelli, true leaders strive to shatter false pretenses.

“Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel,” he wrote. “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.”

So if you really want to be a transformational leader in Machiavelli’s book, what everyone sees should be your authentic self-guiding and working alongside your colleagues and staff. Are there any leaders that fall into this category, and if so, who is a Machiavellian leader? Well, looking back in history there might not be one single person who checks off every box in Machiavelli’s book. One person that does come to mind for some of Machiavelli’s virtues is George Washington. He had the full support of the people, he had mostly good virtues, he always preached about neutrality, and he was intelligent. The only questionable one is being feared rather than liked. 

Looking to more modern times, a person that embodied Machiavellian values was Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs was feared by his employees and his competitors, he was intelligent, he was able to avoid confrontation with major stakeholders of the company as well as prevent conflicts with employees.

Machiavelli may not have been such a bad guy after all. He may have just been a little too fervent. I think that the medieval word befits this Italian philosopher.

Learn more about Saybrook University 

At Saybrook University, we offer a variety of programs online. Visit our Areas of Study page to explore our options and pick the perfect one for you to continue your education. Already have one in mind? Apply today through our application portal!

What is the DSM-5 Definition of a Mental Disorder?

11 May 2012
T12 Titans
No comments

Understanding mental disorders is key for students, educators, and professionals in Saybrook University’s psychology and counseling programs. We provide a breakdown of how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision defines mental disorders, why it adopts an “atheoretical” approach to causes, and the challenges this creates in linking behavior to underlying biological or psychological factors. Saybrook University encourages our students to analyze mental conditions and consider potential influences on behavior, preparing them for careers in academia, research, or clinical practice.

What is a mental disorder?

The American Psychiatric Association kept this question in mind while preparing their latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Definitions of mental disorders in the DSM-5-TR consider these 5 factors:

  1. A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
  2. Reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
  3. The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
  4. Must not be merely an expected response to common stressors and losses (ex. the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (ex. trance states in religious rituals)
  5. Primarily a result of social deviance or conflicts with society

To many people, these criteria for mental illness sound pretty good at first read. But how readily does this definition allow us to truly distinguish what is or isn’t a disorder? What are the underlying assumptions that this definition implies? Let’s consider the first two criteria, which when combined hold that a mental disorder is “a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction.”

Why Doesn’t the DSM Explain the Causes of Mental Disorders?

The DSM has long claimed to be “atheoretical” about the causes of mental disorders. This makes sense if you think about all the constituencies the DSM has to please. Mental health professionals have many different (often conflicting) ideas about what causes people to experience psychological problems in their day-to-day lives.

Professionals also often disagree on how best to alleviate such problems. Should they rely on medication, psychoanalysis, behavioral conditioning, rational argument, extended family discussions, sociopolitical consciousness-raising, or any number of other possible intervention strategies to help those they serve?

Request info

In order to avoid alienating any particular constituency of mental health professionals, the DSM has strategically adopted an atheoretical stance on the etiology or causes of mental disorders in its definitions. At the same time, the DSM conforms to a medical model by organizing mental disorders into discrete categories, just as medicine does with diseases. That is, the DSM is a medical-model manual that is nonetheless atheoretical about the causes of the mental disorders it catalogs. This may be confusing but important to keep in mind.

Trying to be atheoretical about causes makes defining mental disorders difficult. This is readily apparent in the DSM-5-TR’s proposed definition, which says that a mental disorder is “a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual.” What does this mean? To start with, it means that disorders are internal. They are things people “have.” Can I have a psychological syndrome or pattern inside me? Even though we can’t observe it directly, the idea that our “psychology” is inside us seems would make sense to most people. But what about our behavior? Is it also inside us?

No. Behavior is something people do. It is observable, not inside us. Thus, to say that behavior is something that occurs in an individual doesn’t quite hold together theoretically. At the very least, it might irritate died-in-the-wool behaviorists, who discourage us from relying on abstract mental concepts to explain behavior.

Does the DSM Define Mental Disorders as Biological?

However, things get hairy when we shift to the second definitional criterion, which holds that these “behavioral or psychological syndromes or patterns” reflect an “underlying psychobiological dysfunction.” First, this marks a clear shift away from the aforementioned “atheoretical” position that has been a hallmark of the DSM for more than 30 years. Second, in claiming that mental disorders are psychobiological, the DSM’s reach clearly exceeds its grasp. Let’s take these two points one at a time.

The first point concerns the move away from an atheoretical stance on the causes of disorders. As already noted, the DSM has long sought to keep the peace among professionals of varying theoretical orientations by remaining mute when it comes to specifying the causes of mental disorders. It has prided itself on sticking to descriptions of mental disorders and avoiding speculation about causes.

Discovering etiology, according to past DSMs, is best left to researchers. Given this longstanding commitment to an atheoretical position on etiology, the prospect of changing the definition of mental disorders to one that explicitly defines them as “psychobiological dysfunctions” is big news because doing so is overtly theoretical.

Psychobiology conceptualizes human psychology as something that can be reduced to and explained exclusively in biological terms. As such, the proposed new definition of mental disorders contends that all DSM disorders have biological causes. The goal of being atheoretical goes out the window if the DSM explicitly defines mental disorders as biological.

The second point is that by moving so explicitly in a biological direction, the DSM’s reach exceeds its grasp. Moving in an openly biological direction might make sense, but only if the DSM restricts itself to defining mental disorders where the underlying biological causes are known. In other words, if the DSM plans to shift from an atheoretical to a psychobiological stance, it should probably have pretty clear evidence that the disorders it contains can be diagnosed using biological tests or markers.

Yet, this is not the case. The DSM-5-TR will carry on the long tradition of diagnosing mental disorders using behavioral criteria alone. These criteria will continue to take the form of lists of behaviors. Biological indicators will not be used to diagnose mental disorders because we simply don’t have the ability to do that at the moment.

Request info

Are Mental Disorders Brain Diseases?

This is why the DSM’s reach exceeds its grasp. It wants to define mental disorders as having underlying psychobiological dysfunctions, but very few of the disorders it contains can be diagnosed biologically. The DSM makes diagnoses based on what people do, not tests of biological functioning.

Even in cases where people take drugs for a disorder and feel better, we cannot say with certainty that an underlying biological cause is being remedied. Improved mood notwithstanding, whether we have cured something remains the subject of speculation because, when it comes down to it, we just don’t know enough to say with certainty what the underlying biological cause of any given DSM disorder actually is in the first place.

We must keep in mind that changing a person’s behavior (whether through drugs or other methods) doesn’t necessarily mean we have corrected a psychobiological dysfunction. One might smoke a joint and feel more relaxed, but this doesn’t mean marijuana cures anxiety disorders or that the person was suffering from a marijuana deficiency. It just means that drugs can alter experience. To feel confident that a drug cures an underlying disorder, we need to know what the biological etiology of the disorder is and how the drug “fixes” that etiology. Even if we believe drugs can be helpful, their effectiveness doesn’t necessarily resolve the etiological uncertainty about what mental disorders are.

All the confusion about what defines a mental disorder makes sense when one thinks about the term more carefully. Mental has to do with the mind, and disorder is often (though not always) a euphemism for disease. Therefore, another way to think about mental disorder is as some kind of “mind disease.” Of course, as Thomas Szasz pointed out more than 50 years ago, minds—unlike brains—are not biological, and in a literal sense, cannot be afflicted by diseases.

Most of the disorders listed in the DSM, therefore, fall into two likely categories:

(a) everyday problems in living that warrant professional attention but are not diseases, and

(b) suspected brain diseases whose etiologies may one day be uncovered but currently remain unknown.

When it comes to mental disorders, the psychobiological definition being considered for the DSM-5-TR is not only overtly theoretical but also poorly drawn. The things we presently call mental disorders have not been convincingly explained in psychobiological terms, even if the authors of the DSM-5-TR would like to insist otherwise.

Learn more about Saybrook University

By exploring how the DSM-5-TR categorizes disorders, its atheoretical stance on causes, and the challenges in linking behavior to biology, our psychology and counseling degree students are better prepared to critically analyze mental health conditions and consider multiple influences on human behavior.

Are you interested in learning about graduate-level programs available at Saybrook University? Request more information by filling out the form below or click here to learn how you can apply today.