MARINERS POLYTECHNIC FOUNDATION OF CANAMAN

BARAS, CANAMAN,CAMARINERS SUR

The Spiritual Self

In recent decades there has been a tendency for spiritual

paths to develop which deny and dissociate from emotions
and the messy, earthly reality of who we are. These
approaches emphasise enlightening and awakening yet
often lead to radical dissociation. The training will outline
the work of James Fowler and Scott Peck, Erik Erikson &
Lawerence Kohlberg all of whom wrote about the
psychological stages of faith. We will also study the writings
of mystic and religious teachers including Osho, Rumi,
Mahareshi, Buddha and Jesus. Based upon the framework
of Fowler and Peck, as well as many other influences,
Andrew Wallas has developed a new model of spirituality.
The four stages are as follows:

Stage 1 – Anything Goes: This stage represents undeveloped spirituality; individuals in Stage I of
spiritual growth are manipulative and self-serving. Though they may pretend or even think they
are loving toward others, they are narcissistic and don’t really love themselves or others. There
are no values (such as truth or love) important enough to these people to override their own
desires, hence there is a lack of integrity and a chaos to their existence that they remain
unaware of.

Stage 2 – Rigid: As an over-compensation to Stage 1, we often find ourselves entering into a

strict, rigid framework which we feel provides safety and protection. All institutionalised
religion provides this kind of rigid structure. This stage is characterised by a rigid set of external
rules which need to be followed. The prescriptive nature of this stage provides comfort, as the
individual does not have to think for him or herself. In religion, people in Stage 2 will mainly
view their God as an external, transcendent Being. They generally need a legalistic God, who
will punish misdeeds, to keep them from chaotic behaviour.

Stage 3 – Questioning: Those who move beyond Stage 2, suddenly find themselves questioning
all the doctrines of the framework which they have previously adopted. This is a difficult,
troubling stage as what we have taken to be sacrosanct is now being challenged. The biggest
stumbling block in this stage is the fear that we are falling back to Stage I and hence we often
retreat into the perceived safety of the second stage. Whereas, whilst many people in this stage
describe themselves as atheist or agnostic, in reality they are active seekers of truth. People in
Stage 3 are actually more spiritually developed than most of those content to remain in Stage 2
because they are seeking the truth and internalising their own values rather than simply
accepting an external authority.

Stage 4 – Free Flowing: Through the struggle and insecurity of Stage III, either suddenly or
slowly, we emerge into the final stage which is characterised by an acceptance and peace with
who we are. We discover an alignment with the flow of life. We recognise, not as an intellectual
concept but as a lived experience, the true unity and interconnectedness of all things.

Read more at The School for Wizards

Spirituality
Spirituality can mean different things to different people. For some, it's primarily about
participation in organized religion. For others, it's a non-religious experience that involves
getting in touch with their spiritual selves through private prayer, yoga, meditation, quiet
reflection, or time in nature.

An instinct toward spirituality appears to be deeply ingrained in humans. People can't help but
ask big questions—research shows that even declared skeptics can't stifle a sense that there is
something greater than the physical world they see.

As the brain processes sensory experiences, it naturally looks for patterns—and people's
conscious selves often seek meaning in those patterns. This can lead to the phenomenon
known as "cognitive dissonance," which describes how, once one believes in something, one is
strongly inclined to try to explain away anything that conflicts with it. Cognitive dissonance is
not unique to religion or spirituality, but often occurs in the context of such beliefs.

The Political Self

Abstract

The theoretical tradition of symbolic interactionism is often criticized by more macro-oriented

sociologists for its failure to consider and develop issues of power that go beyond the dynamics
of interpersonal relations. During the decades of the 1960’s and 70’s critics such as (1970) and
(1973) chastised symbolic interactionists and microoriented sociologists such as Goffman, as
irrelevant, and naive when it came to the larger and more central concerns of sociology. The
publication of (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version, can be read at least in
part as a response to these criticisms. By merging key elements of role theory with a symbolic
interactionist theory of self, Stryker was able to construct a conceptual framework more open
to mainstream (i.e. macro) sociological concerns. While his theory does not explicitly focus on
social forces of domination and control, (1980: 151) does stress that “there is nothing inherent
in symbolic interactionism that necessitates either naivete with reference to, or denial of the
facts of differentially distributed power.”

The Political Self

Identity Resourcesfor Radical Democracy

PETER L. CALLERO

THE POLITICAL SELF: IDENTITY RESOURCES FOR RADICAL DEMOCRACY

 The theoretical tradition ofsymbolic interactionism is often criticized by more macro-oriented
sociologists for its failure to consider and develop issues of power that go beyond the dynamics
of interpersonal relations. During the decades of the 1960's and 70's critics such as Gouldner
(1970) and Huber (1973) chastised symbolic interactionists and microoriented sociologists such
as Goffman, as irrelevant, and naive when it came to the larger and more central concerns of
sociology. The publication of Stryker's (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural
Version, can be read at least in part as a response to these criticisms. By merging key elements
of role theory with a symbolic interactionist theory ofself, Stryker was able to construct a
conceptual framework more open to mainstream (i.e. macro) sociological concerns. While his
theory does not explicitly focus on social forces ofdomination and control, Stryker (1980: 151)
does stress that "there is nothing inherent in symbolic interactionism that necessitates either
naivete with reference to, or denial of the facts of differentially distributed power." Stryker was
correct in his assertion that the tradition ofsymbol ic interactionism does not preclude an
analysis ofthe political, nevertheless, it is still very much the case that institutionally sustained
power is a secondary concern for most symbolic interactionists. This deficiency is clearly
evident in contemporary conceptualizations of the self-the central concept in most symbolic
interactionist frameworks. Influential theorists such as Stryker, Burke, Rosenberg and Blumer,
have generally followed the paradigm established by Mead, which is to focus on the cognitive
and intersubjective processes of the self independent of the actual, historically specific events,
social forces and institutions that provide for particular selves in specific economies of power
and politics. Although it is not fair to say that Mead's social psychology is completely apolitical
(as some critics charge), it is true that his naturalism and behaviorist orientation directs
attention away from social structural processes and particular political forces. For Mead and
many contemporary theorists of the self, 57 P. J. Burke et al. (eds.), Advances in Identity Theory
and Research © Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers 2003 58 Peter L. Callero politics is an
exogenous force that varies in intensity. The political in this manner is no different from any
other variable that mayor may not influence the actor's identity, social network or social action.
To be sure, there are some exceptions to this delimited approach to the political. I Some studies
working from a symbolic interactionist framework do hint at a more fundamental importance
of historically specific events tied to a political economy that come to define the structure ofself
development. Turner's (1976) study ofthe self as institution and impulse suggests that the very
structure ofthe self can be tied to shifts in cultural process - es. Hochschild (1983) shows how
similar cultural shifts and basic emotional responses can be linked to alternations in markets
from industrial production to service orientation. And Elder's (1974) longitudinal study of a
cohort of depression era youth reveals the fundamental impact that this particular political
economy had on "personality." But all ofthese examples are missing a sophisticated conceptual
understanding of the self in which the political is built into the very framework of the theory
and where relations of power are presumed to be constitutive. In this chapter I propose a
conceptualization ofthe selfin which the political is seen as constitutive. More specifically, I call
for a return to the central political themes found in the tradition ofAmerican pragmatism and
the Enlightenment values of classical sociology. I also push for the adoption of an emancipatory
agenda and a praxis orientation toward theory. In building this framework I am guided by the
following principles: The conceptualization of the self must be historically grounded It must
have a normative standpoint from which a foundation ofsocial and political critique can be built
It should address the social and political conditions that facilitate positive self development It
should speak to the identity resources required of an emancipatory political system My intent is
to develop a conceptualization of the political self that privileges a radical, deliberative
democracy for the development of critical identities that can serve both as resources for
insurgent movements and anchors for a normative standpoint.

VIDAL,MARIANNE C.

BSCA1A2