This paper needs to1st. have the pros and cons of humanistic psychology using all articles2. show how it has changed through the years3. how was the change established4. make connection to of development of the school of thought (humanistic psy)5. providechanges in values, principles, subject6.how changes brought about by a school of thought affected psychologists' ways of understanding human behavior supported with examples.7.discussion of research methods8. USE APA Writing
COMMENTARY Scientology Is the Antithesis of Humanistic Psychology: Comment on Wolfe’s (2017) “Common Sense Scientology” and Friedman’s (2017) Related Commentary Elliot Benjamin Capella University This article is a comment on Wolfe’s (2017) THP article “Common Sense Scientology” and Friedman’s (2017) related commentary. I have utilized my background in Scientology in the 1970s, as well as my experience as a humanistic psychologist, to convey two main areas of concern that I have about Wolfe’s article. These areas of concern encompass a need to know the background of the author in relation to Scientology, and my problems with the author’s comparison of Scientology with the tenets of Rogers’ nondirective counseling. However, I am in agreement with Friedman’s statement that all areas related to psychology, even if they are controversial, should be studied, and Scientology is no exception to this. But doing so in a complete context of knowledge about Scientology is what I am focusing on in this commentary. Keywords: humanistic psychology, Scientology, Scientology auditing, nondirective counsel- ing, Scientology training routines I would first off like to convey my appreciation to John Wolfe (2017) for his article “Common Sense Scientology” that appeared in the March 2017 issue of The Humanistic Psychologist, to Harris Friedman (2017) for his related commentary in the June 2017 issue of The Humanistic Psychologist, and to The Humanistic Psychologist Editor in Chief Scott Churchill for his decision to publish this Scientology material in a humanistic psychology publication. However, I have two significant concerns about Wolfe’s article, both from my experiences in Scientology in the 1970s and from my current perspective as a humanistic psychologist. My first concern is that in Wolfe’s article there was absolutely no mention of his background related to Scientology, and it was left to the reader to wonder if Wolfe had personal experience with Scientology, or rather was approaching the subject in the role of an analytical detached professional observer. Given that humanistic psychology com- monly engages in qualitative research, this is no small matter, as one of the tenets of This article was published Online First August 2, 2018. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elliot Benjamin, Department of Psychology, Capella University, 135 Meadow Road, Winterport, ME 04496. E-mail: ben496@ prexar.com T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an Ps yc ho lo gi ca l A ss oc ia tio n or on e of its al lie d pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. The Humanistic Psychologist © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 46, No. 3, 281–286 0887-3267/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hum0000095 281 qualitative research is that it is imperative that the related background and perspectives of the researcher to the research be disclosed, as the person and the research are not separate entities, but rather there may be subtle, or not so subtle, influences of the researcher on what is being researched (Creswell, 2013). However, I was glad to see that this kind of related personal disclosure was given by Harris Friedman (2017) in his Commentary to Wolfe’s article, as Friedman disclosed how Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s foundational text Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (Hubbard, 1950) was influential in developing Friedman’s interest in psychology while he was still in high school. I strongly encourage The Humanistic Psychologist to include this kind of related author background in all their authors’ articles and in any future publications of articles on Scientology, or any other topic for that matter. Consequently I decided to attempt to find out for myself what Wolfe’s background in Scientology was, as I was quite sure that he had a significant background in Scientology, based upon the detailed accounts he gave of various Scientology processes (Wolfe, 2017), and I suspected that he was essentially well-disposed toward Scientology. To his credit, Wolfe was very responsive to my inquiry, and disclosed to me an outline of his lifelong involvement in Scientology, which included far more high-level Scientology immersion than I had imagined. In respect to Wolfe not feeling comfortable with me circulating widely a second-hand account of his experiences with Scientology, I will not say any more in detail about his immersion in Scientology. However, I will say that it appears to me that what I suspected about Wolfe essentially being well-disposed to Scientology is fairly accurate, and I think this has significant bearing on my second concern about Wolfe’s article. My second concern about Wolfe’s article can be seen from how I have chosen to title this Commentary: “Scientology is the Antithesis of Humanistic Psychology.” When I say that Scientology is the antithesis of humanistic psychology, I am basing this both on my experiences in Scientology in the 1970s (Benjamin, 2013) and from my current perspective as a humanistic psychologist. It disturbed me to no small measure to read in Wolfe’s (2017) abstract that “Scientology shares many of the goals and methods of humanistic psychology” (p. 84) and especially in the text of the article that “In its general philosophy and approach, auditing [Scientology psychotherapy/ personal growth processes] is closest to the nondirective therapy of Carl Rogers (1961)” (p. 87). Wolfe continues on in both these excerpts to also say that Scientology differs from humanistic psychology and Rogers’ approach in significant ways, but I take issue with his preliminary affirmative statement of the similarity of Scientology and auditing with humanistic psychology and Rogers’ nondirective therapy. I can understand how there may be similarities between Scientology/auditing and human- istic psychology/Rogers’ nondirective approach to psychotherapy in terms of seeking personal awareness and an expansion of consciousness, which is the crux of what Wolfe describes in his article. However, when it comes to the “methods” of Scien- tology and auditing, this is where I contend that Scientology is the antithesis of humanistic psychology. What I believe is the most essential ingredient in Rogers’ (1961) nondirective approach to psychotherapy, and from my perspective for much of humanistic psychology as well, is the genuine and empathic relationship between the therapist and the client. In humanistic psychology the therapist is a “real” person, engaging in a caring relationship with the client, and most importantly, acting out of his or her genuine feelings, with “freedom” an essential ingredient in this whole relationship context (Schneider, Pierson, & Bugental, 2015). In contrast, it has been widely publicized that Scientology goes to T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an Ps yc ho lo gi ca l A ss oc ia tio n or on e of its al lie d pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. 282 BENJAMIN incredible measures to control, manipulate, threaten, and intimidate people who progress in their organization. This is not just rumor and hearsay, as it is well documented in some of the Scientology references that Wolfe himself includes in his article, is readily available in a number of articles and books about Scientology, and is consistent with my own experiences in Scientology in the 1970s (Benjamin, 2013). Thus, it is not the aspect of studying and analyzing Scientology processes themselves that I take issue with in Wolfe’s (2017) article or Friedman’s (2017) Commentary, but rather with Wolfe’s statements of similarity between Scientology/auditing and humanistic psychology/Rogers’ nondirective approach to psychotherapy. To look at some of these ramifications in more detail, the essential context of personal growth and freedom in Rogers’ (1961) nondirective approach to psychotherapy is for the therapist to foster a comfortable therapeutic environment for the client to find what is true for him or her in the depths of his or her being. Now the crux of Wolfe’s (2017) article focuses on the merits of the auditing communication cycle, in the context of a completed cycle of action. I can agree with Wolfe, up to a point, that it may be helpful to encourage people to complete their actions and stay with their inner processes on the same topic they began their inner therapeutic journey on, but the key word here is “may.” I can easily envision that in some circumstances, which may not be at all uncommon, it may be most helpful for a client to start with a particular topic that stimulates his or her insights about a different topic, and come to a major beneficial realization about something very different from what he or she began his or her inner therapeutic journey on. This is part and parcel of Rogers’ (1961) nondirective approach to psychotherapy, as well as of what I believe commonly occurs in the therapeutic processes in various forms of humanistic psychology (Schneider et al., 2015), but is com- pletely against the doctrines of Scientology auditing, as Wolfe (2017) describes in his article. As I have written about in regard to my experiences with the Misunderstood Word technology (a technology that Wolfe, 2017, hints about in his article) in Scientology in the 1970s (Benjamin, 2013), Like so many other parts of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard has taken a basically good idea, has gone to extremes with it, has made it into a rigid authoritarian decree, and has built up a formidable machine-like technology. If only we were intellectual robots, I would have no quarrel with the misunderstood word technology or with anything else in Scientology. But Mr. Hubbard has put in 100% where 70% should be. This is his great flaw, and this is why I am afraid I must write the way I am writing. (p. 234) Similarly, Wolfe (2017) describes the benefits of the Scientology TR (Training Routines) processes, and I can agree, up to a point, that these can be helpful. But once again, there is a rigid authoritarian degree in regard to how they are instituted in Scientology, which Wolfe does not discuss, that I think is very relevant here to distinguish between Scientology and the central aspects of humanistic psychology, inclusive of Rogers’ nondirective approach to psychotherapy. To illustrate once again from my own experiences with Scientology in the 1970s, I believe, in my own developing theory of psychology, that I would use Hubbard’s TR’s, but in conjunction with perhaps some principles from Gestalt and Rogerian psychology. Of course, this would be ultrataboo to Hubbard and Scientology, and I would be branded as a “squirrel” (one who alters Scientology and does off-beat practices). (Benjamin, 2013, p.