Psychology as a discipline today is merely going around in circles. It has its head in the sand. People who call themselves psychologists merely flaunt the additional letters after their name or collect good noodle stars to climb the academe ladder while rubbing elbows at expensive conventions and exchanging silly jargons. In truth, they are blind and deaf to the needs of those who need psychology most.
People suffer and die from mental illnesses. People different from the norm, living in outlier conditions, seek help from so called experts expecting real and meaningful advice, but receive only empty platitudes, truisms, and fluff from those who only care about the next line to pad their bloated CVs or the next big payout. I know for I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears the condescension and ignorant arrogance they throw so casually around, and I want nothing to do with it.
They will say that there is a time honored process within each discipline to carefully and meticulously gather evidence and build ideas to progress it, but maybe in truth, it is merely all about building a "name" for yourself, a "brand". It is this brand that you can sell for profit and make yourself comfortable with. So comfortable that you begin to forget the soul of your valued discipline and embrace and protect the status quo like a cult. You become so sensitive to any different voice and ready to attack any alternative. But this time, you are already within the establishment and you have all its tools at your disposal to silence new ideas which you do not think "fit" with your dogma.
But I do believe in psychology as a discipline -- as a tool to advance the welfare of those who may find the status quo distressing and lacking, and those who feel like there should be more than just trendy catchphrases or run-of-the-mill journal articles or just another infantalizing therapy program to the practice of psychology.
Psychology can be integrative and reflective of the present, as well as, of the future. But, to be able to expound on the complex, we must start with something simple. Let's try to cut through the noise. I do not need recognition. I need to get an idea across to those who will see value in it, here or in the future. So here's the way I see it: I think all current dominant paradigm in personality psychology have already hit on certain truths that need to be accepted as such, so psychology can move on from its current predicament of eating its own bloat. We need to start with certain assumptions to hold true in order to start any meaningful research, that is the scientific way. This would take conviction on the part of a researcher, but convictions are exactly what is weakened when you worship the cult of the status quo.
I see Freud's unconscious as explainable by and tied to biological personality traits and evolutionary drives and instinct. In addition, the Id likely contains not only destructive forces, but also creative forces which can be the source of human beings' potential for genius. Ego is explainable by and tied to the concept of cognitive awareness. The SuperEgo is future-looking and possibly involves the construct of optimism. The model may be visualized as involving an x and y axis, where instead of a hierarchical structure for Freud's personality model of Id/Ego/SuperEgo, they can be placed instead on a spectrum on the x axis. The y axis may be for the concept of time/life events. The corresponding reaction of the outside environment/social setting, facilitated by actions/overt behaviors, forms a loop which feedbacks into the x and y axis. This personality model in action can develop as either an adaptive personhood or a maladaptive one.
The psychological construct of "Kapwa" is the superodinate construct as the goal of human development is to move towards a better version of itself. As much as we would like to get up in arms and assert that morality has no place in a scientific discipline, the truth is that psychology deals with human beings and human beings do not behave like neat, abstract, experimental, and isolated scientific constructs; we deal with ourselves and others, and the consequences of these dealings feedback into each of our personhood. Kapwa encompasses the self and others. I think that when we lose ourselves and only conform with others, we lose the sense of Kapwa and form a maladaptive personhood. When we lose others and only think of ourselves, we also lose the sense of Kapwa and form a maladaptive personhood. Only when we are able to function with full regard to others as we regard ourselves do we move towards the goal of forming a healthy personhood. I visualize this concept with Kapwa in the middle, and on two opposite ends are Walang Pagka-kapwa. Both ends represent a maladaptive personhood, and only the center represents adaptive personhood.
And, finally, here are two things to ponder: One, I think that Freud was one of the pre-eminent feminist of his time as he was the only medical professional in the field to value women enough to actually listen to them, and take them seriously enough to actually publish his findings on their psychological conditions. Yes he had difficulties understanding women, but that is only because he actually tried to. Two, Dr. Virgilio Enriquez had already unearthed the essence of the Filipino psyche. It is Kapwa. What is a Filipino and how do we explain his psychology? A Filipino is someone who puts the highest value to the act of seeing others as he sees himself; fair and kind, but knows when to draw the line when their very personhood is maligned. A Filipino is someone with dignity and pride in their culture, and the tempered intellect to know the difference between merely pakikisama and true pagka-Kapwa.
