Kierkegaard's Conception of Psychology

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263937837

Kierkegaard's Conception of Psychology

Article in Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology · June 2012

DOI: 10.1037/a0029099

CITATIONS

1 author:

Brian Andrew Sharpless Goldsmiths, University of London 102 PUBLICATIONS 1,739 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

JournalofTheoreticalandPhilosophicalPsychology©2012AmericanPsychologicalAssociation 2013,Vol.33,No.2,90–106 1068-8471/13/$12.00DOI:10.1037/a0029099

Kierkegaard’sConceptionofPsychology

BrianA.Sharpless PennsylvaniaStateUniversity

ThisarticleexplicatesKierkegaard’sconceptionofpsychologyonitsowntermsand divorcedasmuchaspossiblefromcontemporaryfigurations.Hispseudonymousworks areofprimaryfocus.ItisarguedthatKierkegaardpresents2differentpsychologies:1 congruentwithhisunderstandingofscienceaspracticedatthebeginningsoftheage ofmodernity,andtheotherhis experimenting psychology.Thesepsychologiesdiffer withregardtotheirmodesofpsychologicalobservationandarefoundtoalsoinstantiatetheKierkegaardiandistinctionbetweenobjectivityandsubjectivity.Moreover, theyengendercontrastingresultsandaspiretodifferentlevelsofunderstandingand passionateengagementwiththeirintendedobjectsofstudy.Kierkegaardplacesintrospectionandself-analysisasthe sinequanon ofhispsychologyandusespsychological informationgainedfromtheintensivestudyof(andengagedinteractionwith)other individualstoelaborateontheresultsofintrospection.Healsoprovidesexamplesof psychologicalinterventions,oneofwhichcanleadtoapalliativeeffectandthe liberationofvitalenergies.Thesevariousthemessynthesizedfromhispseudonymous writingsarefoundtobeinaccordancewithotheraspectsofKierkegaard’sthought.

Keywords: Kierkegaard,philosophyofscience,continentalphilosophy,psychology

Inmyopinion,he[Kierkegaard]isoneofthemost profoundpsychologistswhoeverlived.(Georg Brandes,1881,inalettertoFriedrichNietzschequoted inKierkegaard,1844/TheConceptofAnxiety,p.xiv) [Kierkegaardwas]oneofthemostremarkablepsychologistsofalltime,indepth,ifnotinbreadth, superiortoNietzsche,andinpenetrationcomparable onlytoDostoievski.(WernerBrockquotedinMay, 1977,p.36)

OnecannotwriteonKierkegaardwithoutmakinga foolofoneself.(Jaspers,1981/1995,pp.190–191)

ThequotationsbyBrandesandBrockprovideaslightintimationoftherespectKierkegaardhasgarneredforhispsychologicalinsights. Althoughhewroteatthehistoricalbeginnings ofmodernscientificanddepthpsychologies, Kierkegaard’sideasremaininfluential.PhilosophersandpsychologistssuchasHeidegger, Sartre,Tillich,May,Binswanger,Yalom,and Lainghaveallappropriatedandusedaspectsof

histhought,albeitingenerallymoresecular forms.

Kierkegaard’spsychologicalinsightswere widerangingandlegion.Forexample,hisdiscussionsofanxietyasafundamentalhuman moodanditsrelationtofreedom’spossibility, hiscontroversialcriterionlessqualitativeleap anditsrelationtohumanexistence,despair(unconsciousandotherwise),“stages”ofdevelopment,andhismanyprefigurationsofFreudian psychologyanddefensemechanismshaveall providedfruitfulmaterialforageneralinquiry intomentallifeand,inparticular,ananalysisof humansuffering.However,inspiteofthe breadthofhisinquiriesandtheirwidespread appropriation,lessattentionhasbeendevotedto explicatingKierkegaard’sconceptionofpsychologyonitsowntermsanddivorced(asmuch aspossible)fromcontemporaryfigurations. Thisisthepurposeofthisarticle.

ThisarticlewaspublishedOnlineFirstJune25,2012. IthankDanielW.Conwayforhisdeepunderstandingof Kierkegaardandthoughtfulcommentaryonversionsofthis articleandJessicaL.Gromforherassistanceinpreparing thisforpublication.

CorrespondenceconcerningthisarticleshouldbeaddressedtoBrianA.Sharpless,DepartmentofPsychology, PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,317MooreBuilding,UniversityPark,PA16802.E-mail:bas171@psu.edu

However,thereareatleastthreemajorimpedimentstoaclearexpositionofKierkegaard’spsychology.First,thereisanoticeable paucityofsustaineddiscussionofpsychology inKierkegaard’stexts.Ideasandthemespertainingtohisconceptionofpsychology(and science)areoftendevelopedtoalimitedextent, onlytobeelaboratedoninsubsequenttextsor inlatersectionsofthesamework.Hisviewson

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

psychology,conceivedofaseithera Wissenschaft,analysisofthepsyche,orpracticeleadingtoemancipation(asdescribedbelow),are neverthesoleintentionsofhisworks,butare clearlyconjoinedwithhistheological,philosophical,anddevotionalliteratures.Moreover, positiveclaimsareoftenlacking,whereasconceptionsofpsychologyhewishestoreactagainstare demonstratedtobedeficientorincomplete.As such,asomewhatcircuitousrouteentailingboth negativeexpositions(inreferencetothatwhichit isnot)andpositiveexpositions(intermsofwhat Kierkegaardandhispseudonymousauthorsactuallysayanddo)isnecessary.

Second,asistypicalofKierkegaard’sdialecticalthought,heoftenseemstoeschewclarity andconcretenessinfavorofarichlyambiguous andmultifacetedpresentationthat,althoughnot exactlylendingitselftosystematicexposition, doesaffordan“openness”tohismajorconcepts andlimitswhatcanbegainedfromacareless readeror“gobblerofparagraphs”(Kierkegaard, 1843/1983,p.8).Moreover,hisoftenpoeticand lyricalpresentationsmaybemorethanstylistic innatureand,indeed,appeartobecriticalfor thesubjectmatteritself.

ThethirdimpedimenttograspingKierkegaard’spsychologyrequiresadditionalcommentaryandmustbeconstantlykeptinmindorelse confusionislikelytoresult.Throughthemajorityoftextsdirectlyrelevanttopsychology, hereliesonpseudonymousauthorship.Thisliterarytechniqueinevitablyraisesanumberof questions,nottheleastofwhichiswhetheror notKierkegaardiseveninagreementwiththe pseudonymousauthorheisusing.Onemight alsowonderwhetherheispresentingthe pseudonymousauthorataspecificstageofdevelopmentorasaninstantiationofaparticular category.Kierkegaardiswellknownforconstructingcategoriesthatappeartobeclearly delineated(e.g.,theestheticandtheethicalin Either/Or [Kierkegaard,1843/1987]).However, hispseudonymousauthorsthemselves,whoin somecasesaretheonespresentingthesevery categories,oftenrepresentbordercasesorcategoricalanomalies.Furthermore,theyareoften presentedinperiodsoftransition.Sowhy wouldKierkegaardusesuchapotentiallyobfuscatorymediumtoconveyhisthoughts?Itis myopinionthatKierkegaarddoessoinorderto gobeyondsimplyconveyingintellectualideas andinsteadenteringarealmofdoubleimagi-

nationinwhichfictionalauthorsandfictional statesofmindarecreated.Thisdoubleimaginationisexploitedtocreateasenseofindirectionanddistancewiththeintentionofdefining aspaceinwhichreadersmaydiscoverthemselves(orchoosenottodiscoverthemselves). Hispseudonymousauthorscanbetakenasabstractionsand/orcombinationsofcertaincategories,buttheseextreme,condensed,isolated, andquasi-caricaturedimaginaryindividuals mayalsoservethepurposeofcastingfundamentalhumanproblemsandchoicesintosharp relief.Thus,theyconfrontthereaderwiththese verysameproblemsandchoices.ForKierkegaardhimself,theliterarydistancebetweenhimselfandhispseudonymousauthors,andthe distancebetweenintellectuallanguageandwhat isexpressedinthelanguagesoffaith,anxiety, anddespair,affordhimacombinationofsubjectivityandobjectivitysothatheisnotjusta sufferingindividualoraneutralobserverbutis, inasense,bothapatientandaphysicianwhois abletomakeuseofinformationgainedfrom bothperspectives.Asishopefullyapparent, thesethreeimpedimentstoanexpositionof Kierkegaard’spsychologymaketheopening quotebyKarlJaspersmorecomprehensible. Thereflectionsthatfollowarenotintendedto present,nordotheyachieve,aclear,unified, andunivocalinterpretationofKierkegaard’s psychology.Whatisinsteadaccomplishedisan expositionofthemesthatappeartohavesalienceforanunderstandingofhisconceptionof psychologyandthatarealsoinaccordancewith otheraspectsofhisthought.Kierkegaardwrote beforepsychologywasconceivedofasawellbounded,autonomousdisciplineandfieldof scholarlyresearch.Althoughconceptionsof psychologyasaunitaryandfinelydemarcated disciplinehavebeensharplycriticized(e.g., Koch,1999;Robinson,1995),itwouldbedifficulttoargueagainstthefactthatcontemporary psychologypossessesnumerousconnotations (bothprofessionalandtheoretical)thatwould havebeenalientomanythinkersofthe1840s. Psychologyduringthistimewouldnothave beenconceivedofasbeingentirelyseparate fromtheology, Volkspsychologie, Ethnographie,Christiananthropology,andotherseeminglynonscientificmodesofexplanation (VandeKemp,1980).Thisisnottosaythat Kierkegaardwasunawareofthenascentstrivingstowardapsychologymodeledafterthe

physicalsciences,butpsychologywouldcertainlyhavebeenconceivedofindifferentterms thantoday,andKierkegaard’sparticularpsychologypartakesofrational,empirical(viz., observational),andbiblicalelements(Vande Kemp,2002).

Kierkegaard’sConceptionofScience

BeforeproceedingtoKierkegaard’spsychology,adiscussionofhisviewsonempirical scienceisprovidedforthepurposesofsituating hispsychologyinrelationtoitandmakinghis bifurcationofpsychologies(describedbelow) moreunderstandable.Aswillbedemonstrated, Kierkegaarddoesnotappeartobecriticalof scienceperse,butiscriticalofwhatsciencehas become,andhowitisused,atthebeginningsof modernity(e.g.,Boring,1929).Oneconcern relatestosituationsinwhichthelimitsand boundariesofscienceareunknowingly(or knowingly)transgressed.Forexample,in The ConceptofAnxiety (Kierkegaard,1844/1980a), KierkegaardviathepseudonymVigilius Haufniensis(or“TheWatchmanofCopenhagen”)warnsofsuchtransgressionsand,inan almostAristotelianfashion,holdsfasttoagoverningprincipleof appropriateness or belongingness fordisciplines,theirrespectivesubject matters,theirindividualcharacters,andtheir ownparticularlimitations(pp.9,35;Aristotle, trans.1947,403a–403b;trans.1979,980b–983a).Whensuchboundariesareignored,confusionislikelytofollow,andanoverzealous investigatormayendupwiththedisciplinein questionlosingitsvaluebybecomingeverythingandnothing.

Kierkegaardalsocallsintoquestionthestatus of objectivity usuallygrantedtosciencebylaymen(andsometimesevenbyscientiststhemselves).Anassumptionoftotaldispassion, disinterestedness,“scholarlyindifference,”or idealizedobjectivityinanydomainofinquiryis anathematoKierkegaard(e.g.,1849/1980b,p. 5).In FearandTrembling,JohannesdeSilentio statesthat“theconclusionsofpassionarethe onlydependableones—thatis,theonlyconvincingones”(Kierkegaard,1843/1983,p. 100).Thetenorofthisstatement,whichisin markedcontrasttothecaricaturedviewofscienceoftenheldbythegeneralpublic,echoes throughoutKierkegaard’scorpus.Truth is for anindividualonlyasitisproducedinaction (Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.138).Participationisnotadetriment,notafailureorashortcomingoranindicationofalackofrigorinthe senseofmistakenlyrupturingthewallseparatingthescientistfromhisobject,butisanecessaryprerequisiteforattainingtruthofanysort. Theseconceptsofactionandparticipationare theresultofwill.Willinturnrequirespassion andputtinganendtorationalcogitation.Rationalthoughtiscertainlynecessary,but,ifleft unchecked,inhibitsthepossibilityofactionand keepstheindividualfixatedandinastateof untruthedquiescence.

Suchextremerationalinhibitionofaction wasnotalwaysthestateofaffairs,butKierkegaardbelieveditwascertainlycharacteristicof thebeginningageofmodernityduringwhich theempiricalsciencesbegantoflourish(Kierkegaard,1846/1962).Duringthisage,passion waneswhilereflectiongrowsmorevirileand leadstoindividualsbeingstultifiedandina stateof tergiversation (viz.,theevasionof straightforwardactionthroughcognitivevacillation,p.34).Infact,Kierkegaardbelievesthat

Relatedtotheabove,Kierkegaardiscritical ofwhatmightbetermed scientism or scientificity.Inseveralpassages,Kierkegaard(viahis pseudonymousauthors)takesissuewiththe epistemologicalprimacyoftenaffordedtoscience.Inalettertoareviewerofhisbook Repetition (Kierkegaard,1843/1983),his pseudonymousauthorConstantinConstantius decriesthe“unscientific”wayscientificityis promulgatedandreferstosuchtalkas“hullabaloo”and“pontificatingtrivialities”(p.309). Inaslightlylesscausticpassage,Vigilius Haufniensisattemptstoequalizethelevelof authorityofthevarious Wissenschaften bystatingthat“everysciencelieseitherinalogical immanenceorinanimmanencewithinatranscendencethatitisunabletoexplain”(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.50).Assuch,itappears that,forKierkegaard,therearefoundational assumptionsinallorganizedbodiesofknowledgethatmaybeunassailableor,atthevery least,arerarelyinquiredinto.Empiricalscience isnoexception.Inlinewithviewslaterdevelopedbyphenomenologicalpsychologistsas wellasscholarssuchasPolanyi(1958),and Feyerabend(1993),Kierkegaardwishesto placeempiricalscienceonanequalplaying fieldwiththeotherdisciplinesandaccorditthe statusofoneusefuldiscourseamongmany.

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

themostdifficulttaskofhisageistoescapethe temptationsofexcessivereflection(p.42).Not onlydoesreflectiondampenanindividual’s abilitytoact(i.e.,toactwithpassion),but excessivereflectionandalackofpassionboth leadtothemaintenanceofexistingordersand inevitablyresultinwhatKierkegaardterms leveling,ortheretrogrademovementoftheageas awhole(pp.42,54,68).Therefore,agesdiffer withregardtotheirrespectiveproportionsof reflectionandaction,andKierkegaardbelieved thathisownwasskewedtowardtheformer. Althoughthereareclearandobviousdangers inherentwhenonediagnosespathologiesforan entireage,Kierkegaardsawthislackofpassion andactionasanimportantsymptomofillness.

Thediscussionsaboveregardingactioncould explicateacuriousstatementin TheConceptof Anxiety,whichcontendsthat“...anempirical observationcanneverbefinished”(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.60).WhereasthisanticipatessomeofKarlPopper’swork(e.g.,1935/ 2002)andmayimplysomesortofimplicit perspectivalismthat,inprincipleatleast,circumventsthepossibilityofdefinitiveandexhaustiveobservation,itmayalsobepointingto theneedforanactiveparticipationconducted withinterestedness.Thisparticipationconductedwithinterestednesswouldbringtolight onlythatwhichismeaningfultotheindividual withoutnecessarilydepletingtheobserved’s possibilitiesforothermeanings.Italsopoints directlytowardwhatKierkegaardwouldfeel arethenonempiricalaspectsofallempirical investigations.Forexample,theactivedecision toendthesystematiccollectionofdataand formulateconclusivesummationsforaninvestigationrestsonsuchnonempiricalgrounds. ThesedecisionsforKierkegaardcontainanirremovableelementoftheinterestedandthe personalthathasnothingtodowiththedata collected.Thepursuitofknowledgeisalways conductedwithinterestedness,evenifsuchinterestednessisclandestineandhidden.Inany case,gainingknowledgerequiresbothcourage towillanactionandacommitmenttoending ratiocination,andalackofeitherofthesetwo factorslimitsthepossibilitiesforattaining truths.

Alongwithcourageandaction,moodfor Kierkegaardisessentialforanydiscipline,includingtheempiricalsciences:

Thatscience,justasmuchaspoetryandart,presupposesamoodinthecreatoraswellastheobserver,and thatanerrorinthemodulationisjustasdisturbingas anerrorinthedevelopmentofthought,havebeen entirelyforgotteninourtime....(Kierkegaard,1844/ 1980a,p.14)

The“errorinmodulation”spokenofalsorelates tothenecessityofinvestmentandpersonalinterestintheinquiry,asalackofinvestment wouldmakeanyinquiryseeminglyimpossible. However,theotherextremeofabsoluteinvestmenttothepointoflosingoneselfinaninquiry wouldappeartobeequallyunappealing,and willbeshowntobesuchinthesectionentitled TheObserver.Ingeneral,Kierkegaardexpresslyintendshisworks,andespeciallycertain sectionsofhisworks,toelicitandinducevariousmoodsforthepurposeoffurtherinstantiatingwhatheattemptstoconvey.Forinstance, thereaderof FearandTrembling ispresented withanumberofeventswithinthecontextof pseudonymousauthorshipthatallowKierkegaardtosituateabsurdity(akeycomponentof hisconceptionoffaith)withintheworkitself.It isthusbothinformativeandevocative.Similarly,asdescribedbyR.Thompteinhiscommentaryto TheConceptofAnxiety,themoodof theworkitselfischaracterizedas“relentless andoftenoverwhelming,”astateofaffairsthat iscertainlyinkeepingwiththeubiquityand inescapabilityofKierkegaardiananxiety(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.xviii).Kierkegaard’s presentationsofscienceandscientismareno exceptiontothispattern,anddescriptionsof scientificobservationstendtobe colder and possessafeelingofdisconnectionandaloofness.ThisinstantiatesKierkegaard’ssensethat thescientistisnotengagedwith,butisdistinct from,theintendedobjectandmaynotreallybe seeingtheobjectatall(e.g.,JohannestheSeducerin Either/OrVolumeI,discussedbelow).

Needlesstosay,Kierkegaard’sconceptionof scienceisnotinkeepingwithanythingremotely approximatingapositivistepistemology.The ideathatthereareneutralfacts“outthere”independentoftheobserverwaitingtobediscoveredandcataloguedinanobjectivemanneris notatallconsonantwithKierkegaard’sthought (ormanydominantstrainsincontemporaryphilosophyofscience).Thisissofortwomain reasons.First,ashasbeenintimatedandis developedindepthbelow,Kierkegaardcriticizesthenotionof“pure”scientificobjectivity.

Inaddition,theideaofneutralitywouldappear tobenotonlyundesirableonKierkegaardian terms,butimpossibleinapplicationduetothe factthatnohumansareoutsideofhistory,their surroundings,andthevariouspresuppositions derivedfromthesetwofactors.Allhumansare situatedwithinahistoricalandculturalnexus. Thisnexusshapesallobservations,scientificor not. Therefore,themanywaysinwhichascientificobserverispredisposedandconstitutedare crucialdeterminantsforwhatheorsheactually sees.Asstatedin EighteenUpbuildingDiscourses (Kierkegaard,1843/1990),“Itdoesnotdepend... merelyonwhatonesees,butwhatoneseesdependsuponhowonesees;allobservationisnot justareceiving,adiscovering,butalsoabringing forth”(p.59).ForKierkegaard,then,neutralpositivisticfactswouldbechimerical,andwould probablybeconceivedofasflightsoffancyand fundamentalmisunderstandingsofthetypesof understanding.

ThereappeartobetwospecifictypesofunderstandingforKierkegaard:

Tounderstandaspeechisonething,andtounderstand whatitrefersto,namely,thepersonal,issomething else;foramantounderstandwhathehimselfsaysis onething,andtounderstandhimselfinwhatissaidis somethingelse.(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.142)

Theformertypeofunderstandingcouldbe viewedasrelatingtoanobjectiveanddisinterested(andpossiblyevendisembodied)inquiry, whereasthelatterreferstoaninquiryofpersonalinvestment,individualmeaningfulness, andinterrelatednesswiththeobjectorphenomenonofinterest.Asasimplisticinstantiationof hisbifurcationofunderstanding,aclinician couldattempttoobserveandcollecttheoutpouringsofanindividualinanacutedepressive statebycataloguingthemelancholicmoodsand thoughts,anhedonia,sleepdisturbances, thoughtsofdeath,andsoforth,andthusapproximatethefirsttypeofunderstanding.Alternatively,thelistenercouldbecomeinvestedand emotionallyengagedwiththedepressedindividualandlistentotheoutpouringswiththeir ownexperiencesoflossandpainconstantlyin mind(thiswouldbeaformofaction,asactions canpresumablybepurelyinternalaswellas external).Inthis,thelistenerisinapositionto achieveanunderstandingthatencompassesnot onlythecontentofwhatissaidbythedepressed individual,butalsotheresonancesandfeelings thatarisewithinthelisteningindividualandthat

manifestthemselvesintheveryactofinterrelatedness.Furthermore,thelistenercanusesuch anunderstandinggainedbyresonancetofurther thesufferer’sunderstandingandthusfurtherthe listener’sownunderstandingviathisdialectic ofinterrelatedness(morewillbesaidoftheuse ofempathicresonanceinthesectionPsychologyAimedatMotivation).

Alongwiththiswhatwemightnowterman antipositivist strainofthought,Kierkegaardis adamantthattherearephenomenaandobjects ofinquirythattheempiricalsciences/empirical philosophy(or,possiblythevariousscientific methods)areunabletoaddress.Assuch,he wouldseeminglybeagainstcertainreductionisticandtotalizingtrendsfoundinseveralmodernandcontemporaryscientific Weltanschauungs.Oneexamplewouldbetheself,ofwhich heclaimsthatsciencecansayverylittle(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,pp.78–79).Italso appearsunlikelythatempiricalsciencecould accountforfaith(anothercentralconceptin Kierkegaard’sthought)withoutfirstdevaluatingit,enervatingit,anddrainingitofitsvalue.

Anotherphenomenoninadequatelydealtwith byscienceisKierkegaard’smostfamouscontribution: thecriterionlessleap.Nosciencecan, orhas,explainedtheleap(Kierkegaard,1844/ 1980a,p.61).Ineffect,confirmationoftheleap isoutsidetheprinciplesofverificationusedby thesciences.Asaleapentailsaqualitative,and notaquantitativeshift,thereisnosmoothtransitionorstrictcontinuityfromthestateofpossibilitytoactuality(assciencewouldappearto assume),onlyasharpdisjunctionorrupture. Foranindividualwhomakesaleap,whoindeed makestheleapwithoutrecoursetoanysortof rationaldecisioncriteriawithwhichtochoose betweenhisorheroptions,ayawningabyssis experiencedbetweenthepre-andpostleap selves(e.g.,Kierkegaard,1843/1983,pp.36, 42;1844/1980a,pp.38,60,132;1844/1985,p. 138).Althoughempiricalsciencepresentslimitationstoitsavailableobjectsofinquiry,all disciplines,includingpsychology,manifest roughlyequivalentweaknessesand,asmentionedpreviously,becomeproblematicwhen theytransgresstheirbounds.

AsanumberofthemainpointsinKierkegaard’sgeneralphilosophyofsciencehavebeen discussed,intheremainderofthisarticleIfocus directlyonpsychologyanditsparticularstatus inhisthought.SeeinghowthreeofKierkeg-

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

aard’skeyworkscontainreferencesintheir titlestopsychology(Kierkegaard,1843/1983, 1844/1980a,1849/1980b),itappearsreasonable toconcludethatpsychologyasascience(inthe senseof Wissenschaft)holdsahighdegreeof intellectualimportance.IcontendtwoverydifferentpsychologiesarerepresentedanddiscussedbyKierkegaard,oneinaccordancewith hisunderstandingofappropriateinquiryinto subjectssuchasthehumanpsyche,andthe otherapproximatingandaspiringtotheideals ofempiricalscienceasconceivedofinthe modernage.

TwoPsychologies

Aswasthecasewithempiricalscience,Kierkegaardneverdirectlydefineshisconception ofpsychologyinanyonetext.Therefore,the followingtrendsinhispsychologywereextrapolatedandsynthesizedfromanumberofhis relevantworks.Thisexpositionprimarilyfocusesonthreebookswhosetitlesclearlyproclaimtheirpsychologicalimportance: Repetition:AVentureinExperimentingPsychology; TheConceptofAnxiety:ASimplePsychologicallyOrientingDeliberationontheDogmatic IssueofHereditarySin;and TheSicknessUnto Death:AChristianPsychologicalExposition forUpbuildingandAwakening.Asshowninthe firsttitle,theterm psychology forKierkegaard isoftenqualifiedby experimenting (incontrast to experimental),atermthatcouldalsobetranslatedas“imaginativelyconstructing.”This qualificationintimatessomeofthekeyfeatures ofKierkegaard’sapproachto,andunderstandingof,psychology.Theseare,namely,itscontrastwithscientificapproaches,itsfocusonthe individual,thenecessityofactiveparticipation onthepartofthe“psychologist”conductingthe inquiry,theultimatelynonobjectivenatureof psychology,anditsantistatisticalstance(in termsofthelimitedstatisticsavailableinthe mid-19thcentury).

Psychologyisfocusednotonnaturalphenomena,butonindividuals.AsConstantinConstantiusstatesinhisownreviewof Repetition, “apsychologist...turnsone’smindawayfrom allthisgreatandhigh-soundingtalkaboutthe heavensandworld-historytothesmaller,tothe inexhaustibleandblessedobjectsofhisconcern,toindividuals...”(Kierkegaard,1843/ 1983,p.288).Similarly,“whenanauthorven-

turesintoexperimentingpsychology,thereisno probabilitythatwhatwillpreoccupyhimwillbe sympathywiththephenomenaofnature”(p. 311).However,Kierkegaardiswellawareof thetendencytostudyindividualsasiftheywere indeedphenomenaofnature(e.g.,collecting/ tabulatingdemographicandeconomicdata).

Inconcertwiththebifurcationofthetypesof understandingdescribedpreviously,thereappearstobeasimilardistinctionwithregardto typesofpsychology(andmodesofobservation, asdiscussedbelow).Onetypeheterms scientificpsychology (Kierkegaard,1843/1983,p. 313)andtheother,hisalternative,hecallseither experimentingpsychology ormerely psychology.Thetypescanbedistinguishedfrom oneanotheraccordingtotheirobjectsandmethodsofinquiry.Scientificpsychologyisdescribedfirst.

ScientificPsychology

InKierkegaard’swork,scientificpsychology involvesaninductiveprocessinwhichfactsand observationsarecollectedandorganizedinto higherunities.Theseproceduresseeminglyparallelandshadowthepreviouslydescribedmodernmethodologicalapproachesoftheother empiricalsciencesandultimatelyaspiretoobjectivity.Kierkegaard,notsurprisingly,iscriticalofthis.AsVigiliusHaufniensisstates, oftentheexamplesmentionedinpsychologieslack truepsychological-poeticauthority.Theystandasisolated notarialiter [notarizedfacts],andasaresultone doesnotknowwhethertolaughortoweepatthe attemptsofsuchlonelyandobstinatepersonstoform somesortofrule.(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.54)

Thedepictionofsuchpersonsas“lonelyand obstinate”mayappeartoborderonanabusive adhominem argument,butbothqualitiespoint negativelytowardwhatKierkegaard’sownpsychologyaspiresto.Althoughtheremaybe manyreasonsforapersontopossesssuchundesirabletraitsaslonelinessandobstinacy,they couldcertainlybeindicativeof,orevenresultingfrom,apervasivelackofsympathy,an intentionaldistancingofoneselffromothers andobjects,oratypeofinflexibilitythatstultifiesanypossibilityforachievinganengaged, fluid,multifaceted,andopeninquiry.Furthermore,thedepictionoftheseindependentfacts as“notarized”pointstowardanotherdistinction betweenKierkegaard’stwopsychologies.Re-

quiringnotarizationimpliesthatthefactsin themselvesareinadequateontheirownterms andrequireanexternaljustificationorsealof approval.Whatsuchapprovalwouldmeanis unclear,butmayrefertosomesortofassurance thatamoodofdisinterestednessandobjectivity wassteadfastlyobservedduringthecollection andcataloguingoftheindividualfacts.Asis furtherdemonstratedbelow,Kierkegaardaspirestonosuchdistance.

Moreover,scientificpsychologyisdescribed asartificiallyandpreemptivelylimitingits availabledomainofinquirybecauseofitsaspirationsforobjectivityanditsdesireforsolid groundingand/orscientificrigor.AsHaufniensisstates,

themoreconcretepsychologybecomes,themorethe detailattainsascientificrepresentation.Inourday,this science,whichindeedmorethananyotherisallowed almosttointoxicateitselfinthefoamingmultifariousnessoflife,hasbecomeasabstemiousandasceticasa flagellant.However,thisisnotthefaultofscience,but itsdevotees.(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,pp.22–23)

So,inonesense,scientificpsychology(along withallotherdisciplines),isindangeroftransgressingitsboundsbyincludingthatwhichitis illpreparedtodeal,whereasontheotherhand, itartificiallyconstrictsitsavailabledomainby becoming“concrete.”Thissenseofconcretenesscontrastssharplywiththequalityof“ambiguity”inherentinKierkegaard’sownpsychology.Insummary,Kierkegaardappearsto bepositinganegativecorrelationbetweenthe humaninterestlevelofapsychologicalphenomenonandthescientificprecisionthatcanbe usedinitsmeasurement.

Ithasbeenshownthatphenomenaofpsychologicalinterestmanifestthemselvesandbecomevisibleforthescientificpsychologist throughaprocessofabstractionandinduction. Suchaprocessisseeminglydivorcedfromthe trueindividualityoftheindividualsinvolved, andholdstheparticularsituationofobservation/collectionasfairlyirrelevantsolongasitis (presumably)disinterested(Kierkegaard,1843/ 1983,pp.312–313).Relatedtothis,Kierkegaardiscriticalofwhatheterms“statistics”or the“tabulationoffacts.”Althoughthestatistics availableinthe1840swouldhavebeenvery differentfrompresentmethods,heviewedsuch techniquesascreatingdistanceandillusion,and feltthattheywereinappropriateforpsychologicalphenomena(p.361).Indiscussingthestudy

ofthepsychologicalpossibilityofsin,forexample,Haufniensisstatesthat“themeanand averagethatresult[fromastatisticalsurvey]are nonsenseofakindthathasnocomparisoninthe purelyempiricalsciences”(Kierkegaard,1844/ 1980a,p.63).Psychologicalphenomenafor Kierkegaardarenottobecalculatedasifthey werephysicalphenomenaakintoaverage yearlyrainfall.Thesecriticismsseemtofocus primarilyonthesenseofseparatenessentailed bysuchaprocedure,coupledwithwhathe wouldlikelyviewasstatistics’manifestinappropriatenessandirrelevanceforunderstanding internalandprivatelyexperiencedpsychologicalstates.

Aparallelargumentwithadifferentsubject mattercanbefoundinKierkegaard’s(1844/ 1985) PhilosophicalFragments.Inthiswork, thepseudonymousauthorJohannesClimacus discussesthesituationofcontemporariesof Christ’sincarnation.Ofhismanydistinctions, Climacuswritesofthosewhobecomefollowers byacceptingtheconditionforthepossibilityof understandingfromGodandthosewho(almost obsessively)collecthistoricalfactsandcatalogueallofChrist’sutteranceswhilenevertruly becomingfollowersthemselves.In fact,thisact ofdiligentlycollectingsuchminutiae(andthus, “knowing”Godinthefirsttypeofunderstanding) seemstoensurethattheindividualwillnever cometothepointwhereheorsheachievesfaith (andcomesto“know”godinthesecondsenseby acceptingthecondition)becauseofthedistance imposed betweentheselfandGod.Thissecond senseofknowing,likethatofunderstanding(and, asdiscussednext,subjectivityincontrasttoobjectivity),characterizesKierkegaard’sconception ofpsychology.

Kierkegaard’sPsychology

AstheprevioussectiondefinedKierkegaard’sconceptionofpsychologyprimarilynegatively,intermsofhowitwasnotakinto scientificpsychology,inthissection,Iattempt toelucidateKierkegaard’spsychologyinpositiveterms.Thesepositiveclaimsarefurther groundedanddiscussedinamorepracticallight inthefollowingtwosections.Statedsuccinctly, andinKierkegaard’sownwords,thedistinction betweenascientificapproachtopsychology andhisownapproachtopsychologyparallels thedistinctionbetweenobjectivityandsubjec-

tivity.Inanotefromadraftof Concluding UnscientificPostscripttoPhilosophicalFragments (citedinasupplementto Repetition [Kierkegaard,1843/1983,p.327]),Kierkegaard statesthefollowing:“objectivitystresseswhat issaid;thesummaryofthoughtdeterminants [whereas]subjectivitystresseshowitissaid; infinitepassioniscrucial.”Butwhatdoesthis “how”referto?AsKierkegaard’sexamplesof psychologicaldomainsofinterestwerelimited toonlyafewconceptsinhiswritings,itis difficulttosayhowwideranginghispsychologycouldbeorwhethersuchanemphasison the“how”exhauststhedomain.Assuch,my focusislimitedtowhathehimselfsaysinthe pseudonymouslyauthoredworks.

This“how”pointstotheobjectandthelimit ofpsychologicalinquiry.Aparadigmaticexamplederivedfromhiswritingswouldbeanxiety anditsrelationtothetransitionfrominnocence tosin.Forinstance, thatwhichcanbetheconcernofpsychologyandwith whichitcanoccupyitselfis notthat [emphasisadded] sincomesintoexistence,but how [emphasisadded]it cancomeintoexistence.Psychologycanbringits concerntothepointwhereitseemsasifsinwerethere, butthenextthing,thatsinisthere,isentirelydifferent fromthefirst.(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,pp.21–22)

Furthermore,

Innocenceisignorance,buthowisitlost?...the sciencethatdealswiththeexplanationispsychology,butitcanexplainonlyuptotheexplanationand aboveallmustguardagainstleavingtheimpression ofexplainingthatwhichnosciencecanexplain.(pp. 38–39)

Thus,itiswithinpsychology’scapabilitiesto reflectonanddirectattentiontowardsuchphenomenaasthestatethatprecedessin(i.e.,how sinispossible),butitisoutsidepsychology’s powertoexplainthefactthatwesinorwhywe sin.Assuch,anxietywouldbetheproperdomainofpsychologicalfocusinthisexample becauseitisthisverystatethatprecedessinand isthatwhichfallsbetweeninnocenceandguilt andcouldthereforebecalledtheintermediateor middleterm.

Thisintermediatestatepossessesanimportancenotjustbecauseitisbetweentheother two,butalsobecauseit,inasense,partakesof thequalitiesofbothinan“ambiguous”way (Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.43).Ambiguity forKierkegaard’spsychologyappearstohavea crucialimportanceforindicatingthepsycholog-

ical,butitremainsunclearwhetherallpsychologicalphenomenarequiresuchambiguityto warrantthetitle“psychological.”Someindicationthatthismaybethecase,however,canbe foundonpage41of TheConceptofAnxiety in whichconcupiscence(i.e.,strongsexualdesire) isgivenshortthriftasapsychologicalexplanationbecauseofitslackofsuchambiguity.Regardless,however,anxietydoesmanifestthis ambiguity.Whenoneisinsuchastateofanxiety,oneissimultaneouslyinnocentandguilty. Haufniensisinsiststhatpsychologyasadisciplineshouldnotattempttodisambiguateor reconcilethetwoseemingoppositesinsome sortofHegelianfashionbut,preferably,should remainandlivewiththeambiguity(p.41).An actofattemptedmediationwouldindicatefor Kierkegaardatransgressionofthediscipline’s limitsandwouldleadtodifficultiesakinto thosediscussedpreviously.

Anxietyisalsopsychologicallydescribedas a“sympatheticantipathy”andan“antipathetic sympathy.”Bythis,Haufniensis/Kierkegaard seemstobegesturingtowardadesireforwhat oneultimatelydreadsandadreadforwhatone ultimatelydesires. Thisconceptionofaversion mingledwithattractionappearstobewellsuited toanimaginativelyconstructedpsychologicalexplorationinwhichcontrariescaneasilyandmeaningfullycoexistwithinanindividual.Afterall, whatistheultimateoriginofsuchapsychologyif nottheindividual,andwhatindividualsdonot possesssuchinternalconflicts?

PsychologyforKierkegaardiscertainlynota mannerofobjectiveanddisinterestedinquiryin whichone,throughfactaccretion,buildstoa general,unambiguous,anddisinterestedrule, butatitscoreisapersonalexplorationbeginninginautobiography/introspectionandimaginativelyexpandedandenhancedwithother individuals.Thatpsychologycouldbebased entirelyonmereobservationofotherswouldbe inconceivableforKierkegaard.However,the emphasisonanappropriatemoodforeachdiscipline(inthecaseofpsychology,theappropriatemood,althoughnoteverclearlylaidout, appearstobesomethingalongthelinesofearnestness,acourageouselasticitywithregardto theobjectofpsychologicalfocus,andasteadfastresistancetoanyattemptstogooutside psychology’sbounds[Kierkegaard,1844/ 1980a,pp.15,41]),incombinationwiththe intimaterelationbetweentruthandaction,point

toKierkegaard’spsychologynotbeingjustan armchairspeculation(asmererationalspeculationandtheorizingwouldbejustasinadequate abasisforKierkegaard’spsychologyasmere observation),butinsteadalivedandlivingdialecticalinquiry.Onlyalivedexistenceofactionandtheactualizingofone’spotentialities canresultinanadequatepsychologicalbasis (R.Thompte,commentaryto TheConceptof Anxiety,Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.xv).As Haufniensisstates,“certitudeandinwardness ...canbeattainedonlybyandinaction”(p. 138).Suchactionencompassesnotpurelyphysicalacts,butactsofcourageintheformof ruthlessintrospectionand,presumably,theabilitytomakeone’sowncriterionlessleapsand personalprogressions.

Sowheredothepsychesofothersenterinto Kierkegaard’spsychology?Aswillbeshown, observationofothersislessimportantthanan empathicconnectionandabilitytoresonate withotherindividuals.However,thisabilityto connectwithothersispredicatedonselfunderstandingthroughwhatKierkegaardterms unamnoris,omnes, aphrasethatcouldbetranslatedas“ifyouknowone,youknowall”or “throughone,youknoweveryone”(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.183).ForKierkegaard,no objectivesciencecangainthisknowledge,and noobjectivesciencecanbuildonthisknowledge,asonlyindividualscanrecognizethepossibilitiescontainedwithintheirindividual selvesthatareactuallycontainedwithin all individuals(pp.73,183).Suchknowledgeisa processofworkingfromtheinside(i.e.,theself andknowledgegainedoftheself)totheoutside (i.e.,imaginativelyconstructedothersandactualotherselves).

Foranotherexampleofanapplicationof Kierkegaard’sintrospectivelybasedpsychology,onecanturntohisexperientialanalysisof thetypesofdespairinregardstotheselfthatare explicatedin TheSicknessUntoDeath (Kierkegaard,1849/1980b,pp.29–73).Astheconceptsinvolvedinafullexplicationofdespair aretoonumerousandlackingindefinitiverelevanceforthepresentwork,onlyathumbnail sketchisprovided.

ThehumanbeingforKierkegaard/AntiClimacusisasynthesisoftheinfiniteandthe finite(aswellasasynthesisofthetemporaland theeternalandasynthesisoffreedomandnecessity,asinKierkegaard,1849/1980b,p.13).

Thissynthesis,arelationbetweentwo,inandof itselfdoesnotmaketheindividualaself.Thisis becausetheselfisnottherelationshipbetween thesetwo(theinfiniteandthefinite),butisthe waytheserelationsrelatetothemselves.This relationthatrelatesitselftoitselfwasestablishedbyanother(viz.,God)and,assuch,itis aderivativerelationship(p.13).ForAntiClimacus,thisaspectiswhatleadstodespair. Despairisamisrelation,andalthoughthereare multipleformsandmanifestationsofdespair, allarereducibletoonebasicmisrelation. Namely,thisbasicformulation(termed“indespairtobeoneself”)

istheexpressionforthecompletedependenceofthe relation(oftheself),theexpressionfortheinabilityof theselftoarriveatortobeinequilibriumandrestby itself,inrelatingitselftoitself,byrelatingitselftothat whichhasestablishedtheentirerelation.(p.14)

Thecruxofthisdenseandunwieldypassageis thattheselfcanachieveanondespairingstate onlybyrelatingitselftoGod.Asisthecase withKierkegaard’sconceptionofanxiety,the selfbyitselfcannotremovedespair.And,as statedinthenextparagraph,wheninthestateof nondespair,“theselfreststransparentlyinthe powerthatestablishedit”(p.14).Thisentire sectionappearstoindicatea telos towardwhich aselfshouldbeorientedandprogressing.I emphasizethispointforthreereasons,onlythe lastofwhichholdsdirectrelevanceforthis article:(a)becausethisseemstodistanceKierkegaard’sworkfromcertainothersubsequent thinkerswhomayormaynothavebeencomfortablebeingcalled“existentialists,”(b)becausethisdemonstratestheimportanceofGod inKierkegaard’sthought,andfinally,(c)becausethisteleologydemonstratesforhisexperimentingpsychologytheimportanceofintrospectioninimaginaryconstructing,asall humansessentiallyhavethesametaskbefore themwithregardtoselfhood.“Everyhumanis primitivelyintendedtobeaself,destinedto becomehimself...”(p.33).Assuch,agreat dealofgeneralpsychologicalknowledgecanbe gatheredfrompersonalexperienceofone’sself augmentedandfortifiedby imagination,which isthepossibilityofanyandallreflection(p.31). Thus,theuseofpersonalexperience,imagination,andreflectionisakeycomponentofKierkegaard’spsychologicalapproachandcharacterizeshiswritingstyleingeneral.

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

AsAnti-Climacusstatesin TheSickness UntoDeath (Kierkegaard,1849/1980b),“aphysician’stask...firstandforemost,istoidentify thesickness”(p.23).Suchaclassificatorytask isundertakenwithrespecttothephenomenon ofdread.Anti-Climacusdetailshisdifferent modesofdescriptioninanearlierdraftof The SicknessUntoDeath thatwasnotincludedin thefinalversion(p.151).InPartAof The SicknessUntoDeath,despairwastreatedabstractly.InPartB,despairwastreatedwith regardtoconsciousness,namely,unconscious versusconsciousdespair.Anti-Climacusclearly writesthatsuchadistinctionisfoundationalfor hisclassificationscheme.Suchataskofclassificationcanbehamperedifoneonlylooksto theexperiencesreportedbyothers(Kierkegaard,1849/1980b,p.23).Assuch,whatRicoeur (1970)wouldterma“hermeneuticofsuspicion”appearstobeoperativetotheeffectthat Kierkegaarddoesnottakeatfacevaluethe claimsofthosewhoinexorablydenythefact thattheyareindespair.Furthermore,inPartC, Anti-Climacusattemptstogive“apsychologicaldescriptionoftheformsofdespairasthese appearinactuality,thatis,inactualpersons” (Kierkegaard,1849/1980b,p.151).AntiClimacus/Kierkegaardisnotmerelyabstractly drawingconclusionsfromothers’reports,butis basinghisvariousdelineationsoninternaland personalexperience(asallhumanshavethe sametasksetbeforethem),ontheexperiences ofothers,andhisimaginativelyconstructing capacitythatwouldappeartobebasedatleast inpartontheprecedingtwomethods(although moreextensivelyonthefirst).

Whereasinternalexperienceandimaginatively constructingcapacitieshavebeendealtwithin somedetail,relativelylessattentionhasbeendirectedtowardtheinfluenceof,andinteraction with,actualotherindividuals.Thistopicisdiscussednextinreferencetothe“observer.”

TheObserver

The“observer”inKierkegaard’sworksholds crucialimportanceforanunderstandingofhis psychologyandpsychologicalmethodology.In fact,itismyopinionthatwhatKierkegaard termsthe observer andthe psychologist can,in mostcases,betreatedroughlysynonymously. Assuch,therealsoappeartobetwotypesof observer,whichcorrespondtothetwotypesof

psychologiesdiscussedpreviously.Onetype ofobserver,forlackofabetterterm,couldbe labeledthe scientificobserver.Thistypefollowsthemethodologyofscientificpsychology byintentionallycreatingdistancebetweenthe observerandtheobjectofinquiry,observingin adisinterestedandnoninvestedmanner,and searchingfornonpersonalandnonrelational facts.Thiscanbecontrastedwiththeobserver inKierkegaard’spreferredsenseoftheterm.

However,tocomplicatemattersfurther,there appearstobea“false”orincompleteobserver/ psychologistpresentedin Repetition (Kierkegaard,1843/1983),which,iftakenasdefinitive oftheobserveringeneral,wouldobfuscateKierkegaard’sintendedmeaning.However,if takenandreadinthissenseofincompleteness, acknowledgingtheparticipationinbothmodes ofobservation,thistransitionalobservermay helptoexplicateaspectsofboththescientific andKierkegaardianpositions.

Asstatedintheintroduction,Kierkegaard oftenpresentspseudonymousauthorswhodo notfallwithinclearcategories,but,incontrast, whorepresentbordercasesorareshowntobe inastateoftransition.Itcanbearguedthat ConstantinConstantiusisonesuchauthorwith regardstohisobservationalstance.Suchaliterarytechniquewouldnotbeunprecedentedfor Kierkegaard,asin ALittleContributionbyConstantinConstantius,Constantinrevealshisdesiretoseetheconceptofrepetition(anotherof Kierkegaard’skeyconcepts)“battleitsway throughmisunderstandings”(Kierkegaard, 1843/1983,p.302).

Constantinspendsagoodbitoftimein Repetition discussingobservationingeneralandhis ownobservationsinparticular.Hereportsthat hehasspentyearstraininghimselfeverydayto haveonlyan“objectivetheoreticalinterest [emphasisadded]inpeople”(Kierkegaard,1843/ 1983,p.180).MoreevidenceofConstantin’s scientisticobservationalleaningscanbefound inhisrelationswiththeyoungmantowhomhe becomesaconfidant.Theyoungmansoughtout Constantinbecauseofhismelancholic(and seeminglyambivalent)longingforagirlwhom hefeltheloved,butwhoinrealityseemsonly tobeanidealizedrepresentationofanindividualwhoawakenedthepoeticwithinhim(pp. 135–138).Theyoungmanalsoneededsomeone inwhosepresencehecould“talkaloudtohimself”(p.135).In dealingwiththeyoungman

andhismelancholy,Constantindemonstrated anexperimental(incontrasttoexperimenting orexperiential)interestin“logging”orstatisticallytabulatingthemomentumandvalenceofhismelancholia.Almostasifhewere manipulatingindependentvariables,Constantinreported,

Isetthetonesforallpossibleeroticmoods—none.I exploredtheinfluenceofchangeintheenvironment—invain.Neitherthebroadboldassuranceofthe seanorthehushedsilenceoftheforestnorthebeckoningsolitudeoftheeveningcouldbringhimoutof themelancholylonginginwhichhenotsomuchdrew neartothebelovedaswithdrewfromher.(p.137)

Onecanclearlyseethedistanceimplicitinsuch anobservationbetweenConstantinandthe youngman.Constantin’sonlyapparentinterest seemstobeanaestheticcuriosityorameansof relievinghimselfofthenothingnessofboredom.However,therearesomeindicationsthat thisscientificobservationdoesnotexhaust Constantin.Heisabletoexperiencethesufferingoftheyoungmanatanauthenticlevel,but heisunabletodosowhileinanobservational mode(p.140).Moreover,heseemstocourt suchexperiencesthroughoutthecourseoftheir relationshipinspiteofthediscomfortandobservationalrupturetheseexperiencesentail.

Inlinewiththisideaofobservationalrupture, Constantinmakesgeneralremarksonthedichotomyofemotionsandobservationatseveral placesin Repetition (Kierkegaard,1843/1983, pp.134,162).Hespeaksofhowdeeplyhuman emotions“disarmtheobserver,”andhowobservationoccurswhensuchemotionsarelacking(p.134).Therefore,forConstantin,there appearstobeamutualexclusivity,oraneither/ or,withregardtoobservationsandemotions. Theoneisimpossibleinthepresenceofthe other.Heappearstobeincapableofasimultaneousemotionalparticipation/observation,or whatSullivan(1953)wouldcallthe“participant observer”stance.Suchaparticipantobserver seemstobeasynthesisofthetwoendsof Constantin’sdichotomy.Constantin’sobservationalskillslackthematureintegrationofobservationandresonance,althoughheappearsto befartheralongthanapurelyobjective/ radicallyneutralobservationalstance.Thus,he isintransition,orinastateofcategoricaland ontologicalflux.

Thisintegrationofobservationandresonance (whichmayindeedbeafalsedichotomy,as

Kierkegaard’sconceptionofobservationalreadyencompassesresonance)isinaccordance withtheaimsandmethodsofKierkegaard’s psychology.Furthermore,itappearstointegrate wellwithdescriptionsofobservationfromother worksandinothercontexts.Prefiguringhis laterdiscussionof unamnorisomnes,Kierkegaardwroteinhis GillelejeLetter of1835thata personmust“firstlearntoknowhimselfbefore learninganythingelse”(citedinKierkegaard, 1849/1980b,p.viv).Published9yearslater,a quotefrom TheConceptofAnxiety elaborates onthistheme:“Ifanobserverwillonlypay attentiontohimself,hewillhaveenoughwith fivemen,fivewomen,and10childrenforthe discoveryofallpossiblestatesofthehuman soul”(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,p.126). Clearly,suchstatementsdonotimplyadisinterestedextrapolationfromnumerouslooseand disconnectedneutralobservations,butpointto theneedforanintensivestudyofindividuals includingbutnotlimitedtoone’sself.Fromhis workasawhole,itappearsthatintrospection/ self-analysisisthenecessaryprolegomenonfor attaininganypsychologicalknowledge.Takena stepfurther,hisemphasisonintrospectionand theboldclaimthatallhumanstatescanbe foundinonly21individualsimpliesamassive degreeofoverlapinhumanitywithregardto psychologicalphenomena.

Furtherreflectionsonprospectsfortheintensivestudyofindividualscanbefoundin Fear andTrembling (Kierkegaard,1843/1983).In thiswork,JohannesdeSilentioquestionsthe relationshipbetweenmadnessandgeniusand theextenttowhichonecanbeconstruedfrom theother(p.107).Whilereflectingonhisreflections,hestatesthat

suchobservationsrequire love [emphasisadded]anda highdegreeofingenuity,forobservationofthesuperiorpersonisverydifficult.Ifonepaidattentiontothis inthereadingofafewauthorsofthegreatestgenius, itmightbepossiblejustonce,althoughwithgreat difficulty,tofindoutalittle.(p.107)

Althoughthispassagerelatesonlytostudying individualsinanindirectmanner(thatis,via theirwrittenworks),emphasizingthattheseobservationsbeconductedwithlove(ifthisterm istakeninanEmpedoclean,orevenFreudian senseasinLear,1990)impliesaconnectionand ajoiningtogetherforthepurposeofcreating higherunitiesthat,if conductedwiththerequisite interestedness,wouldbeanathematoascientifi-

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

callydistancedobservation.ItisalmostasifKierkegaardisadmonishingobserverstolooknotat but through otherindividualsineithertheirworks ortheirpersonallyexperiencedactualities.

Kierkegaard’sPsychology:Interventions

Kierkegaard’sconceptionofpsychologyhas beendealtwithasa Wissenschaft andasa meansofacquiringknowledgeofhuman psyches.Inaddition,majorthemesrelatingto itspersonal,observational,andimaginative componentshavebeenexpoundedonwithin thesecontexts.However,thequestionremains astohowKierkegaardenvisionedthepotential applications,ifany,ofhispsychological thought.Thisisthefocusofthissection.His psychologicalinterventionshavebeengrouped intotwomajorcategoriesaccordingtotheir intendedaimforotherindividuals:(1)psychologyaimedatmotivation,and(2)psychology aimedatmanipulation.

PsychologyAimedatMotivation: APotentialPalliative

FromthetenorofthepreviouscharacterizationsofKierkegaard’spsychology,itisapparentthatobservationinthenonscientificsenseof thetermmustbedonewithhumility,respect, and“sympathy.”Thisnotionofsympathy servesatherapeuticandmotivationalfunction. Beforeproceedingtothis,however,sympathy shouldbeexploredonitsownterms:first,negativelyinthesenseofa“bad”sympathy,followedbyapositivediscussionof“good”or “real”sympathy.

In FearandTrembling (Kierkegaard,1843/ 1983),sympathyinthisnegativesenseis discussed:

Theproudnoblenaturecanbeareverything,butone thingitcannotbear—itcannotbearsympathy.Init thereisahumiliationthatcanbeinflictedonaperson onlybyahigherpower,forhecanneverbecomethe objectofitbyhimself.(p.104)

Inthisreading,“sympathy”mightbebetter describedas“pity.”WhatdeSilentiobringsto lightistheprofoundpowerimbalanceenacted intheactofpitying,orfeelingbadsympathyfor another.Inthis,oneplacesoneselfabovethe otherandimposesadistancebetweenoneself andthepitied.However,thistypeofsympathy isnotwhatKierkegaardaspirestobecause,in

effect,itcircumventsthepossibilityforpsychologicalknowledgeduetotheseparatenessit entails.

Sympathyistrueandrealonlywhenoneis abletoadmittooneselfinagenuinemanner thattheplightofthesufferercouldbetheplight ofoneself(oranyotherindividual),andthat suffering,inwhateverfashionitmaymanifest itself,excludesnoonepreemptively.As Haufniensisstates,

Thephysicianataninsaneasylumwhoisfoolish enoughtobelievethatheiseternallyrightandthathis bitofreasonisensuredagainstallinjuryinthislifeis inasensewiserthanthedemented,butheisalsomore foolish,andwillsurelynothealmany.(Kierkegaard, 1844/1980a,p.54)

Thisphysician,inKierkegaard’sterms,would lacktruesympathy.Moreover,thispassage pointstotheultimatelyfragilestate,bordering onbrittleness,inwhichhumanbeingsexist. Givensuchastate,itisinevitablethatsomewill “break”andfallpreytoaprofoundpsychologicalsuffering.

KierkegaardviaHaufniensisappearstopresent,atleastinapreliminaryway,ahumanbasedresponseandpotentialcorrectivetopsychologicalsufferingthatfocusesonobservation andsympathy.Hedescribeshowobserversmay imitatewithinthemselveseverymoodandeverypsychicstatethattheydiscoverinother individuals(Kierkegaard,1844/1980a,pp.53, 55).Next,aftertheobserverhasadequately practicedsuchmoodsandstatesandhas,ina sense,madethem“real,”heorshecanpresent thesamemoodorstatetotheotherpersonata higherlevelofintensity.Ineffect,theobserver mustgotohellwiththesufferer,butmustgo forwardintothenexthighercircleoftheinferno.Takingthisanalogyfurther,itseemsasif theonlyguidesavailablearefellowunderworlders.Bethisasitmay,theintentionofthis actforHaufniensisistocarrythesuffering personforward(i.e.,toserveamotivational functionand/orincreasevitality).Hestatesthat, “ifthisisdonecorrectly,theindividualwillfeel anindescribablerelief,suchasaninsaneperson willfeelwhensomeonehasuncoveredand graspedhisfixationandthenproceedstodevelopitfurther”(p.56).Theexactmechanism bywhichthisinterventionaccomplishessucha progressioninanotherindividualwasnotelaboratedon,anditsexplanationonKierkegaard’s

owntermsremainsobtuse.However,apossible conjecturewillbepresented.

Ifthereaderattendstotheaspectofthis interventionthatcallsforanincreasedintensity oftheemotionorstate(calledbyHaufniensis the“preternaturalmagnitude”)intheobserver, a“Why?”maybetheresult.Why,afterall, wouldtherebetherequirementforanintensity thatwasnotpresentintheindividual’soriginal moodorstate,andhowwouldthisleadtoa palliativeeffect?Acluecanbefoundin The SicknessUntoDeath (Kierkegaard,1849/ 1980b).Presentinganaspectoftheothertothe otherinanexaggeratedorcaricaturedstatemay servethefunctionofbringingthisaspectofthe selfintosharprelief,thatis,intoconsciousness.

AsAnti-Climacuswrites,“themoreconsciousness,themoreself;themoreconsciousness,the morewill;themorewill,themoreself”(p.29).

Kierkegaardmaybeattemptingtoincreasevitalityinhisreadersbyacquaintingthem(or reacquaintingthem)withunacknowledgedor disavowedpsychicprocessesandenergies.He thusbringstoconsciousnessarangeofexperience,asrealasthevisibleworld,thattheindividualiscompletelyfreetorecoilfromandnot use,butwhoseexistencehe/shecannolonger denyingoodfaith.Stateddifferently,theinterventionservestopiqueone’svitality.Conceivably,increasingconsciousnessandliberating vitalenergiesthroughsuchamethodcouldpotentiallycreateperturbationsthatreverberate throughtheindividualandthatmayengendera lastingpositivechangeorforwardprogression inhis/herbeing.Infact,theself-conscious adoptionofatherapeuticstanceforthepurpose ofenactingpositivechangeswithinanotherpersonbearssomesimilaritytoAlexander’s“correctiveemotionalexperience”(e.g.,seeSharpless&Barber,2012,forananalysisofthe componentparts).

ThisnotionofvitalenergyisfoundinterspersedthroughoutKierkegaard’sotherworks (e.g.,in Repetition [Kierkegaard,1843/1983]), buthowisitlostordisavowed?Again,Kierkegaarddoesnotprovidedirectanswersto thisquestion,andpossibleanswersmustarise fromasynthesisofhisvariouswritings.

Bothself-deceptionandenvironmentalcontingenciesinchildhoodappeartoplaylarge rolesinthisconstrictionofexistence.Kierkegaardwouldseeminglyagreewith“mastersof suspicion”suchasNietzscheandFreud(Ri-

coeur,1970,pp.32–36)thatthesufferingperson’sconsciousunderstandingisoftennotparticularlyusefulforacompleteunderstanding (or,forthatmatter,aremediation)ofthesufferingitself.AkintoKierkegaard’sownpsychologicalexperiments,onemustgaina modicumofdistance,eitherthroughone’sselfexplorationorwiththeassistanceofanother,to gainanunderstandingthatcanbeusedforthe purposeofliberatingvitalenergies.Thisisa processofrecognition,takingresponsibility, andultimatelyacceptance.Apassagefrom PhilosophicalFragments (Kierkegaard,1844/ 1985),althoughdealingwithconversion,may beusefulhereifshiftedslightly.Init(pp.18–19),Climacusdiscusseshowrecognitionof one’sowncontributionsandtakingresponsibilityforthesecontributionsallowsonetotake leaveofone’spriorstateand,presumably, moveforward.However,Kierkegaarddoesnot believethatresponsibilityforsufferingshould alwaysfallsolelytothesufferer.Justasindividualsarealwaysbornwithinahistoricaland culturalnexus,individualsarealsobornwithin afamilialandparentalnexus.Thisbeingthe case,anegativeorunhealthyupbringingwill certainlyengenderconsequences.Hestatesina journalentrythat

itisfrightfultoseetherecklessnessandindifference andcertaintywithwhichchildrenarebroughtup,because,bythetimeheis10yearsold,everypersonis essentiallywhathewillbecome;andonewillfindthat nearlyeveryonehasaninfirmityfromtheirchildhood, whichtheydonotconquerevenbytheirseventieth year,andalsothatallunhappyindividualsareusually influencedbysomeincorrectchildhoodimpression. (quotedinNordentoft,1972/1978,p.67)

Such“infirmities”and“incorrectimpressions” presumablyresultinthedisavowalorlossof vitalenergiesand,intheextreme,madness.At theconclusionofNordentoft’s(1972/1978) analysisofKierkegaard’sviewofchildrearing, hestatesthattheultimatetaskinraisingachild istoprovidethechildachanceto liberate itself fromthedeprivationsentailedbyanylackof sovereigntyovertheselfthatarearesultof parentingandupbringing(p.70).Althoughnot statedwithinthecontextofenergicmetaphors, Nordentoftwouldnonethelessbewillingto positthenegativeconsequencesexperiencedfor theindividualasaresultoftheseexistential deprivations.Takenfurther,itappearslikely thatthepalliativemaneuversdescribedinthe

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

beginningofthissection,whichultimatelyare intendedtoresultinincreasesinconsciousness andtheliberationofvitalenergies,wouldprovideapotentialcorrectivetoindividualsina stateofself-inducedorpassivelyadoptedenergicconstrictionanddeprivation.However,this palliativeeffectforanotherisonlyachieved throughtheexerciseofsympatheticobservation inaKierkegaardiansense.Itisonlythroughthe genuinerecognitionofone’sownfragilitythata psychologistcansufficientlycrossthegulfthat existsbetweenindividualsinordertoobserve andresonatewithothersintherequisitemeaningfulway.Ifonecannotrecognizethefull,or evenpreliminary,feelingsofmadnessthatone hasexperiencedinone’sownprecariousexistence,howcouldonepossiblyrelatetoanother insuchastateorinaquantitativelymoreadvancedstate?

Insummary,amethodand Weltanschauung ofpsychologywithapotentialapplicabilityto remediatecertainmodesofhumansuffering canbelocatedwithinKierkegaard’sthought. However,Kierkegaardisnotnaı¨veenoughto believethatthefruitsofhismanypsychologicallaborscouldonlybeusedinanaltruistic manner.

PsychologyAimedatManipulation: TheSeducer’sDiary

ThepossibledangersofamanipulativeutilizationoftheprinciplesofKierkegaard’spsychologyhavebeenvividlyinstantiatedinthe “diary”ofJohannestheSeducer,thepseudonymousestheteof Either/OrVolumeI (Kierkegaard,1843/1987,pp.301–446),claimedtohave beeneditedby“A,”thepseudonymousauthor ofKierkegaard’sotheresthetictreatisesinthe samevolume(p.8).Theinclusionofthisdramaticportrayalof(estheticallydriven)manipulationcouldbeconstruedasafairlydirectwarningofthepotentialhumanconsequencesof certainpsychologicalinterventionsand/orcould beintendedtoindicatethatKierkegaardwas concernedaboutanexperimentingpsychology’sapplicationsintherealworld.Regardless ofhisultimateintent,Kierkegaardpresentsthe caseofanindividualwhoemotionally,intellectually,andsexuallyseducesawoman(named Cordelia)bymeansofanumberofpsychologicaltechniques.

LikeKierkegaard’sotherpseudonymousauthors,JohannestheSeducerpossessestheabilitytoexperiencevariousmoodsandemotionsat 103

ThepersonalityandcharacterofKierkegaard’spseudonymousesthetewarrantmention,astheyappeartobearrelevanceforwhy hischosenutilizationofpsychologyassumed theformthatitdidandalsoledtotheresults thatitdid.Asstatedpreviously,Johannes livesatanestheticlevelofexistence.Boredom(aboveallelse)istobeavoided,and couldbecalled“therootofallevil”(Kierkegaard,1843/1987,p.285).Thiswayofbeing intheworldcanbeseeninthecarefully chosentitleofhisdiary,“RunningCommentary,”atitlethatconveystheunendingnature oftheestheticdriveforstimulation(p.304). Thisdriveforstimulationpresumably promptedJohannestobeginhisobservations andimaginativeconstructionsofothers,and heappearstoviewotherindividualsmerely asopportunitiesforstimulation.Loneliness doesnotappeartobeamotivationalfactor and,atonepoint,Johannesintimatesthat lackingfriendsprovidesaninestimableadvantagebecauseitfreeshimfromtheircommentaryandadvice(p.371).Thisselfabsorptionispresentthroughouttheentirety of Either/Or ,isnoticeableintheseeming preponderanceoffirst-personpronounsand thecontentofhisletterstoCordelia(e.g.,pp. 387,406),andcanrisetoabsurdandalmost comiclevels(p.319).Combinedwiththese qualitiesareanoticeableintellectualacuity, earnestness,andperceptiveness.Meticulous planningandforethoughtgointoeveryaction,andallisconductedintheserviceof answeringhisoverarchingandongoingquestion,namely,“whichsituation[and]which moment...mayberegardedasthemost seductive?”(p.436).Ifthetenorofthisstatementwerewritlargeasaninstantiationofhis wholeexistence,thisquestioncouldberewordedas:whichsituationandwhichmomentmayberegardedascontributingmostto thealleviationoftheinsipidnothingnessof boredom,whichIfearmorethanevennonbeing?Johannesdeploysamultitudeofpsychologicaltoolsandmethodsintheserviceof thisquestion,manyofwhichhavealready beendescribed,buthisintentionisverydifferentfromtheliberationofvitalenergiesfor another.

will.“Hehasarangesuchasnoinstrumenthas” (Kierkegaard,1843/1987,p.310).ByJohannes’ ownaccount,healsopossessesanexquisite senseofwhatcouldbetermed impressionmanagement,ortheabilitytoknowwhatparticular impressiononeismakingandwhichparticular impressionwillelicitthedesiredresponse(p. 361).Alongwiththesepersonalcontributionsto theenvironmentofCordelia,healsogoesto greatlengthstocontrolandmanipulateother aspectsofitforthepurposeofplacingherin moodsreceptivetoJohannes’seductiveovertures.Inparticular,heuses(a)timeofyearto makehisvariousseductionsmorelikely(p. 440),(b)surroundingsanddecorativeambiance formood-enhancingeffects(pp.322,443),and (c)thepresenceorabsenceofotherstoinstill feelingsofuneasinessortranquility(p.322). Moreover,Johannesdescribesfeigningaffectionforothersinordertomakethemhisconfidants,usingtheminaninstrumental/meansdirectedfashion,anddiscardingthemwhen theirpurposehasbeenfulfilled(e.g.,thecaseof Edward[p.348]).

Ashepossessesagreatdealofperspicacity andpsychologicalacumen,Johannesiscapable ofusinghisownimaginativeconstructivecapacityinvariousways.Forinstance,hemakes referencetoimaginativelyconstructingaspects ofinwardexperiencethatCordeliaisnotconsciousof,presentstheseaspectstoherunderthe guiseofhisownpersonalexperience,and moveshertowardtheerotic(Kierkegaard, 1843/1987,pp.386–387).Onecanclearlysee inthisinstancetheuseofa“preternaturalmagnitude”tobringunconsciousexperiencestothe fore.Furthermore,beforeheevenconverses withCordeliaforthefirsttime,Johannesengagesinastream-of-consciousnessimaginative constructingofherthoughtsforthepurposeof elicitingaresonanceandsenseofconnectionto himduringachanceencounteronthestreet(pp. 317–319).Inthisparticularinstance,Johannes imaginativelyanticipatesCordelia’sinternal lifeandinternalreactionsforthepurposeof projectingandmanifestingsympatheticresonancesthatareeithercongruentorincongruent withherperceptions.Thechoicedependson whetherornotsuchperceptionsarefavorably directedtowardJohannesandcasthiminthe bestpossiblelight.

Itisclearthatthisinterventionbasedon observationalmethodsismarkedlydifferent

fromonewithamotivationalaim.Insteadof impellingCordeliaforwardtowardapotential liberationandindependence,Johannescreates withinherastateofdependenceonhimand hismanipulations.Thisresultsinconfusion astowhetherornotherthoughtsandfeelings arisefromwithinorwithout.Sheappearsto beinanenergicstasis.Inherunanswered finalletterstoJohannes,Cordeliaevenappearsundecidedastowhethersheshouldlove orhateherseducer(Kierkegaard,1843/1987, pp.312–313).

Useofpsychologicalmethodsresultedin Johannesachievinghisintendedaimsofseductionandthealleviationofboredom,but whatalsoresultedfromhisparticularapplicationofpsychology?Asmentionedabove, Cordeliareceivednovitalenergiesorliberation,andtheseductionledonlytoseriesof pleasures/distractionsforJohannes(the telos ofhispsychologicalinterventions).Oncefulfilled,hisestheticappetitespresumablyfocusedonnewhedonicdiversions,asnoindicationofachangedmodeofexistencewas evident.Noliberationoremancipationresultedforeitherofthetwo(and,infact,none wasdesiredonthepartofJohannes).

Itisinterestingthat,throughthewholeof Either/Or ,thereaderdoesnoteverdevelopan understandingofwhatCordelia(asanindividual)isactuallylike.Sheappearsmorelike afacelessentitydevoidofpersonalityinspite ofthefactthatsheismeticulouslydescribed byJohannes’imposingeruditionforovera hundredpagesoftext.Thislacunaistelling, anditprovidesanadditionalclueastowhy thisparticularpsychologicalinterventionled toitsparticularresults.Althoughobservation occurred,andflurriesofimaginativelyconstructedthoughtsandfeelingsweredescribed throughout,thecavernousdistancebetween JohannesandCordeliawasneverbridged. Johannesneverreally saw Cordelia,even thoughhewasabletoseethroughhereyes. Hisexperientialresonances,althoughcoming fromherand/orprojectedontoherfromimaginativeconstructions,wereonlyconductedwith self-focusedestheticaims.“Real”sympathy waslacking,andpowerdifferentialswereomnipresentthroughouttheaffair.Admittedly, powerdifferentialsbetweenpatientandtherapistarerealandomnipresentaswell,butthe therapistispresumablynotsolelyfocusedon

KIERKEGAARD’SCONCEPTIONOFPSYCHOLOGY

hisownhealthorhisdesirefordiversion.Just asJohanneswasKierkegaard’sexperiment, CordeliawasJohannes’experiment.However, Kierkegaard’simaginativeconstruction,ostensiblyaimedatedificationandincreasingthe vitalityofothers,lackedthedistanceandblindnessofJohannes’.

Conclusion

Inconclusion,variousaspectsofKierkegaard’sconceptionofpsychologyasa Wissenschaft havebeensynthesizedfromhisvarious writings.This explicationisobviouslyincomplete,butdoeselucidateanumberofthemes andtrendsthataccordwellwithKierkegaard’sthoughtasawhole.Onecanseeinhis psychologyadistinctlyantiscientisticandantipositivisticstrainofthoughtwithacorrespondingde-emphasisonpurerationality divorcedfromwill,passion,andaction.Kierkegaard’spsychologicalobservationisnot onethatisdestituteofinvestment,interest, subjectivity,understanding(inthesecond senseoftheterm),andsympathy,butalready containsandpresupposestheseconcepts,especiallyin(althoughnotlimitedto)theirrelationtotheobservationofotherindividuals. Moreover,Kierkegaardemphasizesthecourageittakestobeapsychologicalobserver andtherequisitehumilitytoplumbthe depths,weaknesses,andfragilitiesofone’s selfbeforeexploringthoseofanother. Throughsuchcourage,psychologycanbeappliedtoliberatesufferingindividualsfromconstrictedlivesthataretheresultofinaccessible vitalenergies.Assuch,hispsychologyis,at leastinsomerespects,anemancipatorypsychology.Moreover,throughtheentiretyofhis analysesandimaginativelyconstructedmethodologicalforays,theindividual,andthenumerousvicissitudesofeachindividualhumanexistence,areneverlostoroversimplified.

References

Aristotle(1947). Deanima (J.A.Smith,Trans.).In R.J.McKeon(Ed.), IntroductiontoAristotle (pp. 145–235).NewYork,NY:RandomHouse. Aristotle(1979). Metaphysics (H.G.Apostle, Trans.).Grinnell,IA:PeripateticPress. Boring,E.G.(1929). Ahistoryofexperimentalpsychology. NewYork,NY:Appleton-Century.

105

Feyerabend,P.K.(1993). Againstmethod (3rded.). London,England:Verso. Jaspers,K.(1995).Kierkegaard(E.Ehrlich&L. Ehrlich,Trans.).InM.Ermath&L.H.Ehrlich (Eds.), Thegreatphilosophers:Vol.4.Descartes, Pascal,Lessing,Kierkegaard,Nietzsche,Marx, Weber,Einstein. NewYork,NY:Harcourt.(Originalworkpublished1981)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1962). Thepresentage,andOf thedifferencebetweenageniusandanapostle (A. Dru,Trans.).NewYork,NY:Harper&Row. (Originalworkpublished1846)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1980a). Theconceptofanxiety:A simplepsychologicalorientingdeliberationonthe dogmaticissueofhereditarysin (R.Thompte, Trans,A.B.Anderson,Collaborator) Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.(Originalwork published1844)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1980b). Thesicknessuntodeath: AChristianpsychologicalexpositionforupbuildingandawakening (H.Hong&E.Hong,Eds.& Trans).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. (Originalworkpublished1849)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1983). Fearandtrembling,and Repetition (H.Hong&E.Hong,Eds.&Trans.). Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1843)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1985). Philosophicalfragments, orafragmentofphilosophy,andJohannesClimacus,orDeomnibusdubitandumest (H.Hong&E. Hong,Eds.&Trans.).Princeton,NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1844)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1987). Either/Or (in2volumes, H.Hong&E.Hong,Eds.&Trans.).Princeton, NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.(Originalwork published1843)

Kierkegaard,S.A.(1990). Eighteenupbuildingdiscourses (H.V.Hong&E.H.Hong,Eds.& Trans.).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. (Originalworkpublished1843)

Koch,S.(1999). Psychologyinhumancontext:Essaysindissidenceandreconstruction (D.Finkelman&F.Kessel,Eds.).Chicago,IL:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Lear,J.(1990). Loveanditsplaceinnature:A philosophicalinterpretationofFreudianpsychoanalysis. NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress. May,R.(1977). Themeaningofanxiety (rev.ed.). NewYork,NY:Norton.

Nordentoft,K.(1978). Kierkegaard’spsychology (B.H.Kirmmse,Trans.).Pittsburgh,PA:Duquesne UniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1972) Polanyi,M.(1958). Personalknowledge:Towardsa post-criticalphilosophy. Chicago,IL:University ofChicagoPress.

Popper,K.R.(2002).Thelogicofscientificdiscovery (2nded.).NewYork,NY:Routledge.(Original workpublished1935)

Ricoeur,P.(1970). Freudandphilosophy:Anessay oninterpretation (D.Savage,Trans.).NewHaven, CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Robinson,D.N.(1995). Anintellectualhistoryof psychology (3rded.).Madison,WI:Universityof WisconsinPress.

Sharpless,B.A.,&Barber,J.P.(2012).Corrective emotionalexperiencesfromapsychodynamic perspective.InC.Hill&L.G.Castonguay (Eds.), Transformationinpsychotherapy:Correctiveexperiencesacrosscognitivebehavioral, humanistic,andpsychodynamicapproaches (pp. 31–49).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Sullivan,H.S.(1953). Theinterpersonaltheoryof psychiatry (H.SPerry&M.L.Gawel,Eds.).New York,NY:Norton. VandeKemp,H.(1980).Theoriginandevolutionof theterm“psychology”:Addenda. AmericanPsychologist,35, 774. VandeKemp,H.(2002).Makingthehistoryofpsychologyclinicallyandphilosophicallyrelevant. HistoryofPsychology,5, 224–239.doi:10.1037/ 1093-4510.5.3.224

ReceivedFebruary15,2012

RevisionreceivedMay7,2012

AcceptedMay24,2012

MembersofUnderrepresentedGroups: ReviewersforJournalManuscriptsWanted

IfyouareinterestedinreviewingmanuscriptsforAPAjournals,theAPAPublications andCommunicationsBoardwouldliketoinviteyourparticipation.Manuscriptreviewers arevitaltothepublicationsprocess.Asareviewer,youwouldgainvaluableexperience inpublishing.TheP&CBoardisparticularlyinterestedinencouragingmembersof underrepresentedgroupstoparticipatemoreinthisprocess.

Ifyouareinterestedinreviewingmanuscripts,pleasewriteAPAJournalsat Reviewers@apa.org.Pleasenotethefollowingimportantpoints:

•Tobeselectedasareviewer,youmusthavepublishedarticlesinpeer-reviewed journals.Theexperienceofpublishingprovidesareviewerwiththebasisforpreparing athorough,objectivereview.

•Tobeselected,itiscriticaltobearegularreaderofthefivetosixempiricaljournals thataremostcentraltotheareaorjournalforwhichyouwouldliketoreview.Current knowledgeofrecentlypublishedresearchprovidesareviewerwiththeknowledgebase toevaluateanewsubmissionwithinthecontextofexistingresearch.

•Toselecttheappropriatereviewersforeachmanuscript,theeditorneedsdetailed information.Pleaseincludewithyourletteryourvita.Intheletter,pleaseidentifywhich APAjournal(s)youareinterestedin,anddescribeyourareaofexpertise.Beasspecific aspossible.Forexample,“socialpsychology”isnotsufficient—youwouldneedto specify“socialcognition”or“attitudechange”aswell.

•Reviewingamanuscripttakestime(1–4hourspermanuscriptreviewed).Ifyouare selectedtoreviewamanuscript,bepreparedtoinvestthenecessarytimetoevaluatethe manuscriptthoroughly.

APAnowhasanonlinevideocoursethatprovidesguidanceinreviewingmanuscripts.To learnmoreaboutthecourseandtoaccessthevideo,visithttp://www.apa.org/pubs/ authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx.