Spirituality has to do with the extension of humanity into the divine realms in one way or another. But it has been pointed out in recent years (Wilber 2000) that there are different levels of understanding of what spirituality is all about.
At level one, spirituality is seen as having to do with the supernatural. There is often a high degree of fear associated with this level of consciousness. Often no distinction is made between what is genuinely divine and what is merely paranormal. And at this level there is often a great deal of fear of other groups with rival definitions and there may be a great deal of prejudice and narrowness about one’s view of spirituality. There may also be a high degree of reliance on ritual and ceremony as keeping the purity of the doctrine. Gender is taken for granted as divided into masculine and feminine domains, in a conventional way.
At level two, spirituality is seen as nothing to do with the supernatural, but everything to do with authenticity. To be fully human, to be a fully functioning person, to be a mensch—these are the highest we can aspire to. At this level we have an existential approach to life, seeing it as something we have to create from moment to moment, and where we are personally responsible for our own destiny. This can even sometimes be a completely atheistic position, but it does not have to be. Its definition of spirituality is anything to do with ultimate concerns. At this level gender is not taken for granted, and may be radically questioned. It is more important to be a self-actualised person than to be a man or a woman.
At level three, which Wilber calls the Subtle, spirituality is seen as an approach to the divine through symbols and images. To be contacted by the divine in some shape or form is desirable and achievable. Intuition can be cultivated, and so can creativity, but in both cases it is a surrendered form which looks to outside inspiration rather than personal achievement. Archetypes may be encountered and valued. We are now in the realm of mysticism considered as a personal quest. Here gender runs right through everything, and it is common to refer to gods and goddesses for inspiration and guidance.
At level four, which Wilber calls the Causal, spirituality is seen as identification with the divine. All the symbols and images, all the intermediaries, are not needed. There is a direct contact with the divine without signposts or landmarks. We see things as they are, not as we are, without definitions and without categories. No longer do we look for meaning. We may talk in terms of God, or we may talk in terms of Emptiness, but in both cases it is not a limited definition. Here gender is not an issue worth considering, because it defmes us too narrowly.
These distinctions help us to keep separate and distinct what kind of spirituality we are talking about. Some have argued—and I am one of them—that it is better to use the word ‘transpersonal’, which clearly refers to levels three and four, rather than using a broad word like ‘spirituality’, which means so many different things to so many different people.
In recent years it has become much more respectable to talk about spirituality, because the above definitions make it clear that there is more to spirituality than superstition and god-fear.
It is also clear that there can be a downside to spirituality. Fukuyama and Sevig (1999) have an interesting chapter on positive and negative expressions of spirituality. It is important to recognise, they say, that there are unhealthy expressions of spirituality as well as the more healthy ones which are often mentioned to the exclusion of anything else. Spirituality, like anything else, can be defensive as well as transformative. Some examples:
• when anger is suppressed on the grounds that to do so is morally superior: this is called the ‘spiritual bypass’;
• submission to others, rationalised as being loving, but actually being much more like co-dependency;
• failure to ask for support and nurturance, rationalised by such views as ‘God is all I need’;
• failure to deal with interpersonal or sexual needs, rationalised as ascetic practice;
• failure to deal with interpersonal problems, rationalised as ‘lt’s all a spiritual lesson’;
• claiming special treatment, because of spiritual superiority, known as ‘narcissistic spirituality’;
• offensive spirituality, which consists often in criticising others for not being spiritual enough—often this goes with spiritual perfectionism;
• spiritual avoidance, such as refusing to go in for counselling because it might involve criticising parents, which is forbidden;
• compulsive religiosity, which puts correct observances before healthy and productive personal relationships;
• resorting to dangerous practices such as exorcism instead of more modest means, such as counselling.
It is important, they say, to recognise that not everything that goes by the name of spirituality is positive or worthwhile. Other people have said this too: for example, John Battista (1996) has an entire chapter on ‘Offensive spirituality and spiritual defences’. And Weinhold and Hendricks (1993) say: ‘As one of my clients put it, “As soon as my ex-husband started meditating and doing The Course in Miracles, he stopped sending his child support payments’” (p. 80)
Spirituality is perhaps particularly important for men to understand, since in the past they have been the guardians of religion but their spirituality has been rare and sparse. Of course spirituality and religion are not the same thing. If we ignore the distinctions mentioned above, we are condemned to life in Flatland, where the divine is not even considered.
References and further reading
Battista, J.R. (1996) ‘Offensive spirituality and spiritual defences’, in B.W.Scotton, A.B.Chinen and J.R.Battista (eds) Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology, New York: Basic Books.
Fukuyama, M.A. and Sevig, T.D. (1999) Integrating Spirituality into Multicultural Counselling, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weinhold, B.K. and Hendricks, G. (1993) Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Transpersonal Approach, 2nd edn, Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Wilber, K. (2000) Integral Psychology, Boston, MA: Shambhala.
