Theories of Mysticism and Creativity

Psychoanalysis and Mysticism

Within the field of psychology of religion, interest in mysticism is threefold: a) exploration of its origins in brain processes, b) study of its healing versus pathological effects, and c) investigations of whether mysticism is the defining feature of religious experience or but one component of it (Wulff, 1991). Moreover, attempts to define mysticism in terms of universal characteristics predominate the field. For our purposes a distinction is made between being a mystic and having mystical experiences - namely, that a mystic owns his or her experiences as mystical and integrates them into her or his life in a meaningful way.

There is no universally agreed-upon definition of mysticism. There are, however, a number of definitions that stress unity as a central feature of mystical experience. WT. Stace (1960), for example, described unity as the "central experience and central concept of all mysticism" (p. 66). Alternatively, R.C. Zaehner (1957) recognized that an experience of union - though not necessarily

34 Creativity, Spirituality, and Mental Health

identity - is basic to all forms of mystical experience. This experience of union, in his view, need not be religious in the common understanding of the term, so that the heightened sense some people have of being "at one" with nature would qualify as mystical. While mystical union may have "lost its exclusive claim to the name of mysticism" (Merkur, 1999, p. 22), nevertheless much scholarly interest remains focused on the study of unitive experiences.

William Parsons (1999), in The Enigma of the Oceanic Feeling: Revisiting the Psychoanalytic Theory of Mysticism, provides a helpful overview of psychoanalytic perspectives on mysticism. In particular, he notes an important debate between the perennialists (those who adhere to the view that all mysticism points to a transcendent unity and a common core) and the constructivists (those who hold that mysticism is irreducibly diverse). Parsons outlines three categories encompassing various psychoanalytic approaches to mysticism: classic, adaptive, and transformational. The classic perspective views mysticism as regressive and pathological. The adaptive school ultimately sees mysticism as healing and therapeutic. The transformationalists allow for dialogue with the transcendent, noetic claims of mystics.

Because the transformationalist school has only recently emerged within the psychoanalytic community, most psychoanalytic approaches to mysticism fall into one of the first two categories. Freud (1930/1985), for example, represented a classic approach in his view that mystical states signify oceanic consciousness - a state in which the distinction between subject and object dissolves. He states in Civilization and Its Discontents:

Our present ego-feeling is, therefore, only a shrunken residue of a much more inclusive - indeed, an all-embracing - feeling which corresponded to a more intimate bond between the ego and the world about it... the ideational contents appropriate to it would be precisely those of limitless and of a bond with the universe - the same ideas which my friend elucidated the oceanic feeling, (p. 255)

As Eigen (1998) explains, it is uncertain whether Freud realized the importance that would be attached in future psychoanalytic discussions of mysticism to the phrase "oceanic feeling," the allusion being to a letter of Romain Rolland.

As indicated, most psychoanalytic views on mysticism that acknowledge its healing potential fall into the adaptive rather than the transformationalist category. The adaptivist perspective (a) permits explanation of mystical states in terms of psychological categories and (b) is sufficiently ambiguous regarding the existence of a transcendent reality. Paul Horton (1974), for example, argued that mystical experience occurs in the transitional area of experience described by Winnicott and functions as a potentially adaptive ego mechanism of defense; its origin is an "upsurge of residual primary narcissism" (pp. 377-8). Other adaptivists remain quite wary of reductionism. David Aberbach (1987), while noting that mystical or semi-mystical experiences often can be associated with loss or severe upheaval in childhood, argued that there is no proof that mysticism necessarily stems from loss,

Spirituality and Creativity: Theory and Practice 35

distorted relationships, illness, trauma, or family breakup. Moreover, he explains, whatever its origins, mysticism can serve a healing function in cases of unresolved grief. Parsons (1999) adds Prince, Savage, Fingarette, Fromm, Miessner, and Kakar as members of the adaptive school. Briefly, the transformationalist school is most frequently associated with the Jungian tradition and its notions of archetypes and the collective unconscious. Parsons also cites the work of Rolland, Bion, Deikman, and Kripal, among others, as containing transformationalist features.