Disillusioned II (Redemption)

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has been so kind to leave comments in my blog particularly those that were made on my previous post. I wish to clarify a few things about that post and simultaneously respond to some of the comments made.

Students who took the course History & Philosophy of Psychology with me would probably recall my fascination with the ideas of a certain philosopher of science named Paul Feyerabend. Feyerabend was a controversial figure who advocated the argument that science does not need strict methodologies. His most famous book was aptly titled Against Method in which his main thesis was, in science "anything goes".

As someone who has always been quite uncomfortable with strict adherence with methods and methodologies, Feyerabend's ideas were certainly very appealing. Here is a philosopher who has written exactly about what I've been struggling with philosophically and intellectually. In all these years that I've been a student and teacher of psychology, I've never been able to really embrace the conventional notion of what is scientific and what is not. I certainly do not think that pure objectivity is ever possible and I find many of the so called 'scientific' arguments in the humanities and social sciences very pedantic and superficial.

This is the 'demon' that has haunted me for many years that no matter how much I read and try to impress myself with 'scientific' academic work, almost always I end up feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned. Haunted by this still I am as I continue to struggle this past year conceptualising my doctoral research. The dilemma here is, how to remain true and honest to my philosophical beliefs while accepting that adherence to certain rules and principles is mandatory?

That is me and my confused state of thinking. While I continue with my own internal struggle, I have never and will never look at it as a way to elevate myself above others. Others are entitled to form their own opinion and I respect them for that. Allow me to put it on record here that my previous post was never intended to criticise in any way any of my colleagues and friends. If indeed I have hurt anyone's feelings, please accept my apology.

Let me now explain the context behind my general criticism against academicians written in my previous post. Since my doctoral research is essentially about ethnic relations in Malaysia, I've been reading various literatures on the issue available across all fields of social sciences. I was impressed by many of these work but cannot honestly say the same for some others. What I find to be very disconcerting on one hand, are scholars/writers who pass simplistic and bias conclusions. And on the other, those who dwell too much on fancy terminologies and theories while offering little in real substance. Of course, one is entitled to express his/her subjective opinions. But an academic by right should know how to refrain him/herself from passing unfair judgments against others.

If I may briefly offer an example, on the issue of the education system in Malaysia particularly the argument for and against national schools and vernacular schools, I do not think for once there are any sides who are totally right or totally wrong. Such a complex issue should be analysed in all its complexities. I can understand if a politician argues in such a way that he projects the blame totally to a particular group. Politicians are concern about being popular hence they often resort to petty and simplistic arguments. But when an academician resorts to the same sort of argument, I find that very sad and annoying.

I hope this post will help clarify a few things. Certainly, many things I've written here have touched the surface of various intellectual and philosophical issues that I hope to discuss and write more about in the future. Ma'as salamah!

FIFA World Cup: The Moral Equivalent of War

It was William James who first called for a moral equivalent of war. In his article published in 1910, James wrote:

"I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skilful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."

Football (or soccer) was probably the last thing in James' mind when he wrote this classic piece. In fact, what he suggested then was, we should all go to work at coal and iron mines, and spend our energies for dish-washing, clothes-washing, window-washing, road-building and tunnel-making! He also did not mention anything about the Olympic Games, which at the time was beginning to grow as a major international sporting event.

James himself was rather clueless about what the moral equivalent of war is, but there is no doubt today that sports is the closest to James' vision. While many would argue that the Olympic Games is the biggest sporting event of all, I have no doubt that as far as the moral equivalent of war is concern, the FIFA World Cup is the better candidate.

There are too many different games in the Olympics which means only a few big nations can realistically become the overall champion. In the World Cup however, all the 32 teams competing in the finals have the same number of players and play the same number of matches in the opening round. That puts all the teams more-or-less on equal footing.

Moreover, football as a game embodies a lot of our psychological nature. Psychologists have for long believe that human beings have an innate desire to compete. And in addition, with reference to the Freudian perspective, have the need for catharsis; to release some of the overabundance psychic energy.

People in the past went to war because that was probably the only social event which gives them the opportunity to compete and collectively release some psychic energy. Understandably, war is filled with aggressive and destructive behaviours that are simply the manifestations of the energy released.

Football provides the same opportunity. In this game, players need to be aggressive to win. Similar to a battle in a war, a football game cannot be won by strength and skills alone. It must be supported by clever tactics and strategies. And most importantly, football is a team game where teamwork is of paramount importance although the heroics of individuals can prove to be crucial; again very similar to what happens in war battles.

We no longer live in times where envy, pride and jealousy would propel someone to physically destroy the enemy (at least not most of the time). These 'sins' still exist between and against people of different nations. But rather than going to war against the enemy, the battle can be fought on the football field. Players representing each nation are the soldiers who battle to preserve the honour of the country, while the spectators are the common citizens who watch with pride the valiancy of their 'warriors' fighting on their behalf. And the best thing of all about football is, there is minimal chance of civilian casualties.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa offers the prospect of some tantalising encounters. As early as the second round, either England or the United States may battle against Germany. Of course, none of the players of these countries were around during the First and Second World Wars, but the memories of both would surely spice-up the build-up to such an encounter.

Meanwhile, at the quarter-final stage; if both teams advance as expected, England and Argentina will do battle, a match that would surely bring up memories of the bitter Falklands War fought by the two nations. Argentinian football legend and current national head coach Diego Maradona has repeatedly said that beating England in the 1986 World Cup was the sweetest moment in his football career. No doubt this was largely because of the bitterness carried over from the Falklands War. If the two nations do meet again this year, the reciprocal animosity between players and fans from both countries will again be the focus of attention.

If England advances to the semi-final stage, their likely opponent is Holland, which is another juicy encounter. After more than a century where people from both countries fought a long and bitter war in South Africa (the Second Boer War), they may do battle again on the very same soil, this time for the honour and pride of advancing to a world cup final match.

Football may well be a silly old game where 22 grown-ups run like crazy chasing after a white ball. But football today is more than just a game. The FIFA World Cup, football's biggest tournament is the moral equivalent of war where people of different nations battle for their nations' pride and glory. There is no need to bludgeon your opponents to win this 'war'. All you need is the right tactics and strategies and to fight on the field in the name your country. And the satisfaction of winning would be just as sweet.

Existential Vaccum Revisited

One of my favourite books of all time is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. Dr. Frankl, who founded the clinical psychological technique called logotherapy, was a resident at the Nazi-German's concentration camps during World War II. In the first part of the book, Dr. Frankl wrote about his observation of how some of his fellow inmates were able to withstand all the sufferrings while some others quite simply gave up, refused to try, and eventually die. Those who survived, according to Dr. Frankl, had one thing in common - they all had reasons to live and those reasons kept them alive no matter what.

In the second part of his book, Dr. Frankl explains what he believes to be a modern phenomenon - the existential vacuum. Dr. Frankl believes the reason why many people today are stressful and depressed is because they do not have a reason to live. Today, there are many who live their lives based on hedonistic principles where everyday is just like any other day to maximise pleasure and minimise stress. Not much thought is given on how one may contribute to more profound goals in live, and on how to carry one's responsiblities beyond the essential and necessary.

We are servants of God, children of our parents, parents to our children, members of our organisations etc. All these ought to give us many reasons to live to fill-up the existential vacuum which Dr. Frankl had explained.

Perhaps Dr. Frankl wasn't quite right to say that there is a vacuum. The reasons to live are there and they are part of our existence regardless of whether we know and understand them. Perhaps the real challenge is to be conscious of and internalise the right reasons to live. When a fanatical football fan kills himself when the team he supports loses a championship game, his problem is not that he does not have a reason to live. His problem was having the wrong reason for his existence.

My life today revolves almost entirely around my family. My children especially, are my reasons to live and persevere come whatever may. But sometimes I do wonder, is that a good enough reason to define my existence?

Freudian Personality Psychology

Psychoanalysis is the first formal approach in the study of personality psychology. The emphasis of this approach is on unconscious forces within an individual. Sigmund Freud is universally considered the founder of the psychoanalytic school. According to Freud, the basic elements of personality are instincts, a driving force or impulses that mediate between the mind and the body (Schultz & Schultz, 2001). In addition, Freud proposed the three levels of personality: the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious, while the structures of personality were explained by the concepts id, ego and superego.

In analysing the psychoanalytic approach to the study of personality from the Islamic perspective, one has to first consider the differences in the understanding of the concept of human nature. The psychoanalytic approach has a very pessimistic view of human nature as the ultimate goal of all human behaviours according to Freud is to reduce anxiety (Freud, 1926). In addition, on the issue of free will and determinism, Freud believed that human personality is determined by the life and death instincts, and the invincible and inaccessible unconscious forces within an individual.

Islam believes man's nature is inclined towards good since the essence of man is spiritual goodness (Ali, 1995). On free will and determinism, the emphasis is more on free will. An essential element of man's free will is imbued in the term ikhtiyar, derived from the root word khayr (good). Hence ikhtiyar is not merely about exercising choice but choosing what is good and beneficial (Al-Attas, 1990).

On the influence of unconscious forces, Ibn al-Qayyim in his book Al-Fawa'id acknowledged that all behavioural actions begin with wasawis (concealed whispers) (Badri, 200). This unconscious element however, is not viewed as the powerful deterministic force in the magnitude described by Freud. These inner fleeting thoughts, which may incline towards both good and bad behaviour, can be easily steered towards good and away from evil by an individual's deep sense of faith (iman) and religiosity.

In explaining personality development, Freud introduced the five psychosexual stages starting with the oral stage followed by the anal, phallic, latency and genital stages. Freud believed that an individual's personality is largely shaped by the experiences in the first five years of a person’s life (encompassing the first three stages of the theory).

This huge emphasis on early childhood experiences is not in harmony with the perspective of Islam. Islam's view on human nature is more optimistic where human beings are deemed to be naturally incline towards goodness and are always capable of improving. Every living individual has continuous potential for growth and self-development which can never be exhausted. The spectacular transformation in the personalities of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Umar al-Khattab and Abu Dhar al-Ghifari in particular; transformed from the greatest of bullies during the Jahiliyyah period to amongst the most pious Muslims upon conversion to Islam, are outstanding examples of how radical personality changes and improvements can occur even during adulthood.

(The above is an excerpt from an unpublished paper entitled 'Personality Psychology From An Islamic Perspective' written in 2007)

Classics in Psychology

I have been teaching the course History and Philosophy of Psychology at the university for the last three semesters. Although I can never claim to be an authority on the subject, many of the issues covered are of great interest to my academic inquiry and personal curiosity. Most importantly, having spent many hours reading classical works in psychology; books written by Freud, Jung, James, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, and Frankl, during my undergraduate years, I realised how important it is to read the original works of these luminous figures to have a better grasp of their scholarly ideas and thoughts. Textbooks attempt to compress and summarise thus what we often get are simplistic views that do not do justice to the complexity and sheer enormity of the thoughts of these great thinkers.

Take Freud for example; a man whose colourful background is matched only by his colourful ideas. In an earlier posting, I gave my views on why Freud will always be an important component in any psychology syllabus. That had to be argued because Freud is by far the most vilified figure in critical psychology. It’s fine to argue against his ideas but I certainly find personal attacks against him (drug addict, sex-maniac etc) distasteful. And I’m very sure anyone who has read any of Freud’s original work, though may still disagree with his ideas thereafter, would at least appreciate his detailed and sophisticated arguments.

In teaching History and Philosophy of Psychology, I have asked my students to read the classical works in psychology and compare their impression and understanding upon reading these primary sources with what they have understood about the same issues from their readings of contemporary textbooks. I am happy to note that some of the reviews and analyses produced were quite impressive. Most notably are the more fair and mature analyses from the Islamic perspective. Rather than cliché statements that these ‘Western’ psychologists are secular, atheist, anti-religion etc without ever trying to understand what they meant in the first place, I was very happy to note that some students were able to express intellectual arguments and even concede that some of these ‘Western’ psychological ideas are in fact Islamic.

Islamization of knowledge as propounded by both Al-Attas and al-Faruqi was never about labelling knowledge as Islamic or un-Islamic. It is a meticulous process of understanding and mastering a particular field of study as prerequisite before any attempt to criticise and challenge it. One cannot criticise something that one does not understand. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali was a strong critic of Greek philosophy and he was able to do that with credibility due to his undisputed knowledge of philosophy. That therefore is the standard that we should aspire to achieve.

Why We Still Study Freud...

One of my dilemmas as a Muslim teacher of psychology is whether I should or should not teach Freudian psychology. As a person, my religion, Islam, is what defines me first-and-foremost. That I am bounded by the standards of professionalism as a teacher, though of paramount importance, to me does not supersede my religious values and obligations. With that in mind, how then can I justify teaching my students that during their pre-school years they all had romantic feelings towards their parents, that when they were infants they all obtained sexual pleasure when breast-fed by their mothers, that young girls are envious of boys for their genitals and young boys envious of girls for having a womb, that religions are nothing but illusions and neurotic compulsions etc. All these, very obviously are NOT Islamic, hence the argument for Islamization of knowledge. Even then, rather than Islamizing Freud, why not discard totally Freud and psychoanalysis from our syllabus?

Well, the reason why we don’t do this is because, although Freud was not right on many issues, he was also not totally wrong. There are two books that I often refer to for an in-depth scholarly critic against Freudian psychology: ‘Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire’ by Hans Eysenck, and ‘Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud’s Theory’ by E. Fuller Torrey. Both, though highly commendable work, contain some very cruelly unfair and negative remarks against Freud and his ideas.

I was an undergraduate student when I first read both books. I was a psychology major but was (maybe am still) suffering from an acute intellectual identity crisis. Reading these two books didn’t help much to resolve the conflict. In fact, it made me feel even more confused and disillusioned to the extent that at one point I even considered quitting psychology and reinvent myself with studies of religions, spirituality, mysticism and philosophy (in addition to my ever burning interest in politics and history).

Now, with almost five years of experience teaching psychology, I like to believe that my level of understanding of psychological theories has grown more sophisticated. In the case of Freud and his psychoanalytic school, having read some of the primary sources in the last few years, I believe I can now understand and appreciate better Freud’s ideas. I can only claim to have read three books authored by Freud himself: ‘Totem & Taboo’, ‘The Future of an Illusion’, and ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’. But even from reading these three books, it was very clear to me that Freud has not always been fairly depicted in contemporary psychology text books.

I certainly believe Freud was quite right to say that the unconscious is the key to understand one’s personality. And his deliberation on the id, ego and superego to me was a fair reflection of man’s constant battles against his own whims and desires. Of course, I won’t go as far to say that it is exactly the same with the Quranic depiction on the nafs (mutmainnah, al-ammarah, al-lawwamah). There are indeed some fundamental differences between them both philosophically and operationally.

One of Freud’s most brilliant assertions was his defence mechanisms. I do not think that there is any doubt that all of us do try to repress (if not forget) painful and embarrassing memories, we do sometimes project our anger not to the person we are angry with but to others weaker and more vulnerable, and we do to sometimes quite strangely embrace the very habit and behaviours that we openly denounce as immoral and unacceptable.

Some things are just so eerily true, which, in the case of Freud’s views on war and aggression, even Albert Einstein was greatly impressed. Below is an excerpt from Freud’s famous letter to Einstein:

Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed.

(Sigmund Freud’s letter to Albert Einstein dated September 1932. Click here to read the entire Einstein-Freud correspondence)

So, where was Freud wrong? The mistakes Freud made are in fact the same mistakes made by many others who came after him; the mistake of overemphasizing and overgeneralizing his claims. Yes, he was wrong to overemphasize on human sexuality, and he was wrong to present his theories as a universal theory despite the very small number of case studies from which he derived almost all his ideas from. But then, didn’t Skinner overemphasize on learning factors (hence largely ignoring biological and genetic factors), Hull on drive-reduction as the basis of all reinforcements, and Maslow on self-actualisation and peak experiences? They were all scholars who promoted their own theories and approaches and all of them believed theirs were without flaws and most superior.

Why then that Freud continues to be the most convenient target of criticism? His ideas I guess were just too explicit and radical. Be-as-that-may, I am quite sure Freud will forever remain an important part of any psychology syllabus.