Vol. 27
No.2-3
Fall 2004
|
|||||||||||
This issue is also available in Adobe Acrobat format.
Advance copies of session papers are available here
| NEWS FROM PCR MEMBERS |
Chris Ross (Wilfred Laurier University) has just completed a chapter titled "Jungian Typology and Religion" for The Handbook of the Psychology of Religion, edited by David Wulff and to be published by Oxford University Press in 2005. Jill McNish (Union Theological Seminary) is speaking on November 13 at a conference at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine Stern Auditorium, 5th Ave and 100th St., NYC sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis entitled "Sexual Betrayal and Scandal in the Catholic Church." Her talk will be about the shame dynamic in the pedophilia scandal. Jill is also teaching Pastoral Theology and Psychology at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Felicity Kelcourse (Christian Theological Seminary) has a new book being published: Human Development and Faith, F. Kelcourse, Ed. St. Louis: Chalice Press. ISBN 0-8272-1442-1 The book is a multi-authored textbook for use in human development courses. 15 chapters— the first three chapters authored by the editor, 368 pages, $36.99. Nancy Grace will be teaching a course titled "Dreams, Problem-Solving and Self-Understanding" this January at Williams College, for the second year in row. On February 12th she'll be speaking in Boston on "Group Dreamwork Methods," as part of the Cambridge Health Alliance Department of Psychiatry's 1-day continuing education program on Sleeping and Dreaming. More information about the program can be found at www.cambridgecme.org. Hendrika Vande Kemp has recently published a book chapter on power which reflects the integration of theoretical ideas shaped over 25 years of teaching courses on family psychology, family therapy, and interpersonal psychology. It's included in a fascinating interdisciplinary collection: Vande Kemp, H. (2004). Power in interpersonal and family relationships. In S. Durlabhji (Ed.), Power in focus: Perspectives from multiple disciplines (pp. 165-202). Lima, OH: Wyndham Hall Press. In November, Praeger Press will publish Psychology and the Bible: A New Way to Read the Scriptures, edited by PCR members J. Harold Ellens and Wayne Rollins. The four-volume series originated in the Psychology and Biblical Studies Section of the SBL, and includes essays by several PCR folk, including Schuyler Brown, Donald Capps, D. Andrew Kille, Jill McNish, Dan Merkur, Robert Neuwohner, Ralph Underwood, and Michael Willett-Newheart. The four volumes are "From Freud to Kohut," "From Genesis to Apocalyptic Vision," "From Gospels to Gnostics," and "From Christ to Jesus." |
|
|
||
Noted psychologist David Bakan, a longtime faculty member in the Department of Psychology at York University, passed away following a short illness on Oct. 18 at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Bakan was 83 years old. He retired from York University in 1991. David's contributions to the history and theory of psychology are legion St. Augustine, Maimonides, Sigmund Freud, null hypothesis testing, the "mytery-mastery complex," "methodolatry," suicide, war, evil, religion.... Many PCR members are especially familiar with his Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition (Beacon Press, 1975). A very partial list of his publications can be found at www.yorku.ca/christo/papers/HTbiblio.htm |
||
|
|
||
Calls for Papers |
Journal of Healing Ministry This is a call for papers and op-eds for the Journal of Healing Ministry with a deadline of November 19th, 2004. Please pass this message along to colleagues. The journal comes out four times per year, and has a distinguished editorial board. Manuscripts may be emailed to me as a microsoft word document attachment at chris_rowland@pnpco.com, and advice for authors is on our website: www.pnpco.com. Mail: Prime National Publishing Corp., 470 Boston Post Road, Weston, MA 02493. USA. Many thanks, Christopher V. Rowland, Jr, M.D., Consulting Editor. Stirling Prize Announcement The Society for Psychological Anthropology is pleased to announce the 2005 Stirling Prize Competition. The Stirling Prize is awarded to a previously published work (article or book, in alternate years) that makes an outstanding contribution to any area of psychological anthropology. This year journal articles and chapters in edited volumes published in 2003 and 2004, including those scheduled for publication later in 2004, are eligible. Articles published in Ethos, the journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, are automatically eligible. Unpublished manuscripts, microfilm, xerox, or web publications are not eligible. Authors are welcome to nominate one of their own publications; additional publications by an author should be submitted by other nominators. Nominators should submit three copies of the work and a cover letter, postmarked on or before December 1, 2004, to: SPA STIRLING PRIZE, c/o Sec.-Treas. Claudia Strauss, Pitzer College, 1050 N. Mills Ave., Claremont, CA 91711 The prize will be announced at both the 2005 SPA Biennial meeting and the 2005 AAA meeting. The winner will receive a $200 cash prize. |
|
|
|
||
|
Job Openings |
|
|
| PCR
Commentary:
|
What's In a Name? Kelly Bulkeley, Graduate Theological Union The recent issue of the Psychology of Religion Newsletter (vo. 29, no. 4) announced a membership election to decide whether or not to change the name of the American Psychological Association's Division 36 from its current The Psychology of Religion to The Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Here are the published statements of the pro and con side of the debate: Arguments in Favor of the Change Broadening the name of the Division will create a greater congruence between who we are and what we do as Division members. Research and theory on spirituality are a major focus of divisional members. Many of the writings (books, chapters, journal articles) are centrally concerned with spirituality and spiritual issues, and have spirituality in the title. This change will also make the Division more inclusive and appealing to potential members who are interested in spirituality, but not necessarily religion. A growing number of individuals in the public and in the profession make the distinction between religion and spirituality, and the new name will reflect this growing trend. Arguments Opposing the Change The Psychology of Religion has a long and distinguished history. It represents an amalgam of social and clinical psychology, sociology, and, more recently, cognitive psychology (among other fields) to produce a significant body of empirical research. Long years of effort have finally come to fruition to allow recognition of religiousness as an important psychological construct. In contrast, there is no corollary body of research to lend credence to a separate concept of "spirituality." Linking it with "psychology of religion" grants it an undeserved credibility. The term is also trendy and faddish. The Division will lower its credibility if it appears to be jumping on a cultural bandwagon. These arguments raise the broader question of why we choose certain words and not others to define our scholarly pursuits. What should we call what we do? The PCR group has been through this before. In 1981 the group changed its name from its original "Psycho-Social Interpretations of Theology" (PSIT) to "Person, Culture, and Religion." The shift in nomenclature was driven by a desire of members to expand the group's interests to include more than just theology (with its Christian emphasis) and more than just psychology and sociology, reaching out to other religious traditions and other academic disciplines. The PCR group has over the subsequent two decades devoted considerable attention to the issue of how conventional notions of religion are related to the diverse beliefs, practices, and experiences gathered under the rubric "spirituality." Indeed, the 2004 PCR program includes two sessions on this very topic, titled "Spirituality: Psychology? Religion? Both? Neither?" However, the PCR group has not yet felt the collective need to change its name in order to establish more officially its interest in these matters. That at least some members of APA Division 36 do feel such a need is revealing, as is the evident resistance against the proposed change by other Division 36 members. In this heated US political season, I cannot help glossing the pro and con statements as liberal vs. conservative positions the blue states and red states of our scholarly community. Those in favor of adding spirituality to the name emphasize the positive benefits of the growing centrality of spirituality in the research and writing of Division 36 members. No effort is made in this pro statement to specify how spirituality is different from yet related to religion. The rise of spirituality is simply accepted as a given, and the proposed name change is a progressive effort to accommodate that new reality. The appeal here is to the virtues of inclusiveness, social relevance, and openness to change. Those opposed to the name change call attention to the historical success of the traditional "Psychology of Religion" appellation. The efforts of past generations of scholars are honored for their significant achievements in establishing a field that is recognized and credible (the key terms in this argument). By contrast, the study of spirituality does not have a comparably strong research foundation, and it is accused of being "trendy and faddish," i.e., reflecting transitory cultural whims rather than enduring scholarly interests. This leads to the dark warning that the Division as a whole will suffer a blow to its hard-won credibility if the proposed name change is adopted. The appeal here combines a respect for elders with a threat to social identity. So the one side seeks a fresh start, while the other side emphasizes consistent leadership. The one calls for a strategic change, the other insists on a steady course. Openness to new realities is contrasted with the responsible preservation of gains already made. No televised debates about the proposal are currently planned, but one can easily imagine the pro-change advocates demanding greater attention to the new realities of the scholarly landscape, while the proposal's opponents would just as surely emphasize the riskiness of abandoning time-honored research principles. The seemingly inescapable laws of political gravity thus lead to a classic ideological opposition. It's "I have a plan for change" vs. "the hard work of staying the course," all over again. |
| PCR NEWS Volume 27 No. 2-3 Fall 2004 |
Editor: Kelly Bulkeley Layout: D. Andrew Kille |