Transpersonal Psychology

← Encyclopedia

Psychology spent its first half-century deciding what it would not look at. The unconscious, observable behavior, the healthy striving self — each “force” drew a frame, and each frame had an edge. By the late 1960s a handful of psychologists who had built the third frame, the humanistic one, concluded that their own edge cut off something they could not in conscience leave outside: the moment when a person’s sense of who they are stops at the boundary of the self and reaches past it. Mystical states, unitive experience, the feeling of being dissolved into something larger. Transpersonal psychology is the discipline those psychologists proposed to study exactly that — the trans, the across, the beyond — without first ruling it pathology or fantasy.

Abraham Maslow named it the fourth force. He was speaking in sequence: psychoanalysis first, with Freud’s drives and depths; behaviorism second, with its conditioned and observable acts; humanistic psychology third, the movement he and Carl Rogers had led toward growth, potential, and the self-actualized person. The fourth would grow out of the third the way the third grew out of a dissatisfaction with the first two — by extending the concern with human potential past the well-functioning individual into the spiritual and the transcendent. Maslow used the phrase in dialogue, around 1967 and 1968, with two collaborators: Anthony Sutich, who had edited the Journal of Humanistic Psychology and would edit the new field’s journal too, and Stanislav Grof, a Czech psychiatrist whose early research had carried him deep into non-ordinary states of consciousness. The term transpersonal itself is generally credited to Grof and Sutich. The complaint behind it was specific. Humanistic psychology had restored the healthy person to a discipline obsessed with the sick one, and then stopped at the self — and the self, these men felt, was not the end of the story.

The institutions came fast and bear watching, because a field is partly its infrastructure. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology published its first issue in 1969, Sutich editing, Maslow and Grof among its founders; it remains the field’s leading academic outlet, and the discipline is often dated to it. The Association for Transpersonal Psychology followed in 1972, the International Transpersonal Association in 1973 under Grof’s presidency, the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in 1975. The geography is worth noting too. The academic programs clustered in California, near a second center of gravity that was not academic at all: the Esalen Institute at Big Sur, founded in 1962 by Michael Murphy and Dick Price, where Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley and Fritz Perls and Joseph Campbell passed through, and where the human-potential movement took something like a headquarters. Grof would later live there as scholar-in-residence. The proximity is real and the distinction is exact: the academic discipline and the Esalen milieu overlap in people and mood but are not the same thing, and the field’s reputation has suffered, fairly or not, from being read as the second when it claimed to be the first.

Its lineage runs older than its institutions. Two precursors are named again and again. William James is the first — The Varieties of Religious Experience, drawn from his 1901–02 Gifford Lectures, treated conversion and mysticism and “religious” states as data, things a psychologist could study without either mocking or kneeling. James’s interest in a marginal or subliminal consciousness beneath ordinary awareness prefigures the whole enterprise, and one of the field’s sharpest internal critics has argued it should be rebuilt along Jamesian lines and along no others. The second precursor is Carl Jung, whose collective unconscious, archetypes, and lifelong attention to the numinous made him the obvious ancestor; the proto-transpersonal substrate, in the field’s self-understanding, is largely his. Behind both stand Roberto Assagioli’s psychosynthesis and Richard Bucke’s Cosmic Consciousness of 1901 — the older psychology-of-religion tradition the new field claimed as inheritance.

The concepts the founders supplied have a family resemblance: each tries to give a transcendent experience a place on a map. Maslow’s contribution was the peak experience — a transient, intense moment of joy and awe and unity in which ordinary self-concern drops away. It began as a humanistic idea and became a transpersonal load-bearing one. Late in his life, in 1969, Maslow revised his own famous hierarchy, placing self-transcendence above self-actualization as the highest reach of human motivation. In the posthumous Farther Reaches of Human Nature he defined transcendence as “the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness,” oriented as ends rather than means toward others, toward nature, toward the cosmos. He distinguished the brief emotional peak from the calmer, more lasting plateau experience, and wrote of “transcenders” for whom such states become central — the man who built the psychology of the healthy person had decided, at the end, that health was not the ceiling.

Grof supplied the field’s most elaborate cartography, and here the report must be careful. His early career, in Prague and then in the United States, involved clinical research with psychoactive substances, work that belongs to the psychedelic era of the 1950s and 1960s and is named here as history and nothing more. From it he drew a model of the psyche extending past the biographical into what he called perinatal and transpersonal domains, and a distinction between two modes of mind: the hylotropic, ordinary and matter-oriented, and the holotropic, “moving toward wholeness,” the mode of meditative, mystical, and drug-occasioned states. When the legal climate closed psychedelic research, Grof and his wife Christina developed a non-pharmacological method, Holotropic Breathwork, to occasion such states — a method named here, and historically placed, with no description of its practice. His cartography is presented as Grof’s model. It is offered by the field as a map of the psyche; it is not established psychology, and the entry does not present it as such.

Ken Wilber, younger than the founders, gave the field its most ambitious architecture. The Spectrum of Consciousness, his first book, appeared in 1977 and tried to fuse Western developmental psychology with Eastern contemplative traditions, treating consciousness as a graded spectrum rather than a single level. He sorted human development into pre-personal, personal, and transpersonal bands, and warned against what he called the pre/trans fallacy: the error of mistaking the pre-rational for the trans-rational because both lie outside ordinary reason. His later integral theory, the four-quadrant AQAL system mapping interior and exterior against individual and collective, claims to organize the whole of human knowledge — a totalizing ambition that has earned him devoted readers in the integral milieu and little traction in departmental psychology. The pattern across all three men holds: each took an experience the contemplative traditions had described for millennia and tried to give it coordinates a psychologist could use.

Whether the coordinates are science is the field’s permanent quarrel, and the honest report includes the verdict against it. Transpersonal psychology has not been widely accepted by mainstream academic psychology; it is routinely called marginal, and it is charged with lacking conceptual, evidentiary, and scientific rigor. The critics are named and varied. Albert Ellis questioned the therapy’s results and its entanglement with religion and authoritarian belief. Ernest Hilgard of Stanford called it a fringe movement drawing the more extreme followers of humanistic psychology. Eugene Taylor, broadly sympathetic, still judged it “philosophically naive, poorly financed, at times almost anti-intellectual.” Philosophers fault its metaphysics, biologists its inattention to biological foundation, physicists its habit of borrowing quantum language to explain consciousness. The deepest critique comes from inside: Harris Friedman argues that much transpersonal work is “romanticist,” credulous toward magical worldviews, even as mainstream science can be “scientistic,” and calls — like a Jamesian returning to the source — for the field to be reinvented as a rigorous science of consciousness. One worry recurs beneath the rest: the difficulty of telling a genuine spiritual experience from a psychiatric one, and the risk of carrying untested metaphysics into a clinical room. The field’s own answer is Grof’s concept of “spiritual emergency,” a name for the transformative crisis it wishes to distinguish from psychosis — reported here as the field’s distinction, not a settled one.

What earns the field a place in this encyclopedia is the shape of its ambition. The Hermetic and esoteric traditions described an ascent — the soul rising through the spheres, the gnosis that unites the knower with what is known, the vision of the All. Transpersonal psychology took those same experiences, stripped them of the cosmology, and tried to study them with questionnaires, journals, and developmental charts: the old ascent re-described as a branch of a modern human science. The continuity is in the subject; the break is in the method, and the break is the whole point of the experiment. Where the Hermetist asserted the unitive vision as truth about the cosmos, the transpersonalist set out to observe it as a fact about the mind — and then found that mainstream psychology would not grant even that the standing it asked. A discipline built to bring the beyond inside the laboratory has spent half a century mostly outside the door it was knocking on.

→ Related: Collective Unconscious · Psilocybin Research · Mysticism · Near Death Experience · Hard Problem Of Consciousness · Mdma Assisted Therapy