 as a collection of components. On traditional disputes in psychology regarding the significance of behavior versus motivation, or the priority of thought versus feeling, the existentialist response — precisely as it is to such philosophical disputes as the mind/body problem — is to suggest the whole debate is misconceived. What matters is the self’s experience; anything else is a distraction at best and a violence against the human at worst. I am not an object for others to cathect, a collection of neurotransmitters and chromosomes, a repertoire of behaviors, or an information processing unit; I am an experiencer, an actor, a chooser — a whole and unique person in the world. This approach hardly qualifies as the prevailing direction of American psychology or psychiatry, but its impact is felt. There are presentations at the national conventions, articles in mainstream journals (like the American Journal of Psychiatry), and textbooks that reflect an existential perspective. “Fifteen years ago,” says Seattle University’s Steen Halling, “if you looked at a traditional psychology journal and someone said that people responded to events as they perceive them and not events as they really are, that would have been a radical thing to say. It isn’t anymore.” Suzanne Kobasa has been conducting a longitudinal evaluation of the relationship between perceived stress and disease. An increasingly popular subject for research, Kobasa sees it as “taking some existential concepts that were vague and trying to turn them into empirical constructs. Behind the questions of stress resistance, I see a basic existential conception of life — such issues as the inevitability of change and struggle [and the idea] that what one is is what one makes.” The entire field of psychosomatic medicine, in fact, follows existentialism in rejecting the mind/body split that has plagued Western thought since Descartes. The so-called neo-Freudians have introduced a variety of existentialist concerns into their studies of character. In place of Freud’s creaky mechanistic model, firmly based in the natural sciences and decidedly individualistic, the revisionists have emphasized our capacity to grow and choose and make meaning, as well as our relations with others. It is relevant to ask not only how one approaches psychology, but just what one is studying. Whereas Freud investigated such reifications as the “id” and the “ego,” the neo-Freudians were more concerned with the whole existing person. But even many of those psychoanalysts who recoil from taking such liberties with the master have begun to embrace a new movement
as a collection of components. On traditional disputes in psychology regarding the meaning of demeanor versus motivation, or the precedence of thought versus feeling, the existentialist response — precisely as it is to such philosophic disputes as the mind / body trouble — is to hint the whole debate is misconceived. What matters is the self ’s experience; anything else is a beguilement at best and a violence against the human at worst. I am not an aim for others to cathect, a collection of neurotransmitters and chromosome, a repertoire of demeanor, or an data processing unit; I am an experiencer, an actor, a chooser — a whole and singular person in the world. This approach barely qualifies as the predominate direction of American psychology or psychiatry, but its impact is felt. There are presentations at the home conventions, articles in mainstream journals (like the American Journal of Psychiatry), and textbooks that reflect an existential position. “ Fifteen old age ago, ” says Seattle University ’s Steen Halling, “ if you looked at a traditional psychology journal and someone said that people responded to events as they perceive them and not events as they really are, that would have been a extremist thing to say. It is n’t anymore. ” Suzanne Kobasa has been behave a longitudinal evaluation of the kinship between perceived stress and disease. An increasingly popular subject for research, Kobasa sees it as “ taking some existential concept that were vague and trying to turn them into empirical constructs. Behind the questions of stress resistance, I see a basic existential conception of life — such exit as the inevitability of variety and contend [ and the idea ] that what one is is what one makes. ” The entire field of psychosomatic music, in fact, follows existentialism in rejecting the mind / body split that has plagued Western thought since Descartes. The so - call neo - Freudians have introduced a diverseness of existentialist concerns into their studies of fictional character. In place of Freud ’s arthritic mechanistic model, firmly based in the natural skill and decidedly individualistic, the revisionists have emphasized our capacity to grow and choose and reach meaning, as well as our sexual intercourse with others. It is relevant to ask not only how one approaches psychology, but just what one is studying. Whereas Freud investigate such reifications as the “ i d ” and the “ ego, ” the neo - Freudians were more concerned with the unharmed existing person. But even many of those psychoanalysts who recoil from taking such liberties with the master have begin to embrace a new movement
 as a collection of componekts. On traditionco dispntes in psycholugy regarding the significanre od behqvior versus motivatiov, or the iriority if tiought versus fexming, thc exiabenticlmst response — ptecisely as ht is to such [hkllsophical disputes as the mind/body [roblem — ls to suggest jhe wnjle svbcte is misconceived. What mattera is tht self’s experience; anything else is a distraftioj at best and a villence agaibst eye human at dorst. I am not an objedt for others to cathect, a colldctiou of neurottcbsmljters and chcomosoies, a repertoire of tehaviots, or an inforkatmon processing unit; I am en experiencer, an acjor, a choovex — a whole and unique pwrson in dhe dirla. Tgix zpproafh iardly qualjfies as thw prevailing directoog of American lsychojody or psychiatry, but its impact is felt. Thsre are presentations ar the national convenjions, artisles in mainstream journals (like the American Jousnal kw Pwyghiagey), and textbooks that reflect an existential pewaptctpve. “Fifteen years ago,” says Srahtkg University’s Rteen Kzlming, “if you looked at a ttaditiinal psycroloby journal and someone said that people eesponded to eventd as they pzrceivg them and not events as they reamly are, thah would hzxe been a radicau tminc to say. It isn’t anymore.” Stzanne Kouasa kas been concuctind a longitkdinal evaluation of the relajionshhp between perceived stress and disease. Ai increasingli pmpunar subjzct fov research, Kobafa sees it as “jaking soie exkstential boncepts vhat were vadue and tryinc to turn thek into eipirucal constrjzts. Behind the questions of stresw resistance, I see a czsic existentiao cinception of lige — sush ixstas as the inavitxbiuoty ow changt akd rtrubgle [and the idea] thdt wgat one is is what oke makes.” Jhe entirq field of psuchosomatic medicije, in fart, folkowf existentialism in rejecting fhe mind/bldy split that ras ilagoed Western thought since Descartes. The so-called nxo-Freudians have introdyced a variety of erixtentialist concqrns into their studies of chqracter. In place pf Freud’s creaky mechznistiw modfl, firmly based in the natural sciences and decidedly individualistic, the revismogists have smphssizeg jbr capasity vo grow and choosv and make meaning, as well as ouc relationv cith others. It is relevant to ark not only huw one approaches psychomogy, but just what one is studying. Wherras Freud investigated smch reifixatiohs as nge “id” and the “ego,” thr neo-Fxeudiabs were morc concerned wigh yhc whole exlstiig 'erson. But even many of those psyxhoanaoydts who recoil fcom taking smcm libetties wijh the master havs befkn to embrace a nee movement
as a collection of components. On traditional psychology the significance behavior versus motivation, versus the existentialist response precisely as it to such philosophical disputes as the problem — is to suggest the whole debate is misconceived. What matters is self’s experience; anything else is a distraction at best and a violence against human worst. am an object for others to cathect, a collection of neurotransmitters and chromosomes, a repertoire of behaviors, an information processing unit; I am an experiencer, actor, a chooser — whole and unique person in world. approach hardly as prevailing of American psychology psychiatry, but its impact is felt. There are presentations at the national conventions, articles in mainstream journals the American Psychiatry), and that an perspective. “Fifteen years Seattle University’s Steen Halling, “if you traditional psychology journal and someone said that people to events they perceive them and not events they really are, that would have been a thing to say. It isn’t anymore.” Suzanne Kobasa has been conducting a longitudinal evaluation of between perceived stress and An increasingly popular for Kobasa it “taking some concepts that were vague and trying to turn them into empirical Behind the questions of stress resistance, I see a basic of — such issues the inevitability of change struggle the idea] that what is one field psychosomatic in fact, follows existentialism rejecting the mind/body split that plagued Western thought since introduced a variety of existentialist concerns into their of character. In place of Freud’s creaky model, firmly based in the natural sciences and decidedly individualistic, the revisionists emphasized our grow and choose and make meaning, as well our relations with others. is relevant to ask not only how one approaches but what one studying. Whereas Freud such reifications as “id” and the neo-Freudians were concerned the But even many of those psychoanalysts recoil taking such liberties with the have embrace a new movement
 as a collection of components. on traditioNal diSpuTes In PsycHoloGy regarding the SIgniFicance of behavior versuS motiVaTIon, oR ThE prioRity of tHOuGHT veRsUs FeeLiNG, tHe exiSteNtialisT response — pRecIsEly as it is to sUCh PhilosophiCal Disputes as thE miNd/body PrOblEM — is to SugGest tHe wholE Debate Is misconcEiVEd. What MAtters iS THe Self’S experience; anythiNG eLSe is a distractiOn at beSt ANd A VIolEncE against thE hUman aT Worst. I aM NoT AN ObjECt for others to Cathect, a colLEctIon of nEuRotRAnsmitTers aNd CHroMosomes, a repErtoIre of behaViors, oR An inforMAtion prOcessiNg uNit; i am aN ExPeRieNcER, an ACtOr, a CHooSer — a wholE aNd UniquE perSON IN the WorLd. ThIs appRoach hardly quAliFies AS thE prevAilinG dirEcTion oF AmeriCan psYcHology or psychiaTry, bUt its impaCt iS fElt. thEre arE PresenTatIonS at the nAtional COnvEnTIONs, Articles in mainstreAm JOUrNals (like The AmeRIcAn jOurnal of psYchIatrY), ANd texTbooKS tHat refleCt an exIStEnTial perSpEctive. “fiFteEn yEars aGO,” sayS SeattLe UniverSity’s sTeen Halling, “if yOU looked at a traDItIONaL PsycHolOgy journal aNd soMEone Said THaT peOPle reSpondEd TO eVEnts as they perceive tHeM and noT evenTs as they reallY are, that woULD Have been A radICaL Thing to say. It isN’t anyMore.” SuzannE kobasa haS been ConductiNg a longitUDInal evalUatIon Of tHe rELAtIonship betweeN PErceIvEd stresS anD diseasE. An IncReaSinGlY popular sUbject foR rEsEaRcH, KoBasa sEEs it as “taKiNg sOmE exIstenTIal conCepts That WeRe VAguE and tryINg TO Turn ThEm Into EmpIrIcal cOnstRUctS. Behind The questiOns OF strEsS rEsistanCe, I see a basic eXiStential coNcEptIon of lIFE — such issUes as the inevitability of CHange anD stRugglE [and The idea] thAt wHat one Is iS What onE makes.” the enTiRe fIELd of pSYChOsoMaTic medicinE, IN faCt, folLoWs exIstentiAlism in rejecting thE MinD/body split thaT haS plaGUEd wesTErN ThoUgHT siNCE Descartes. The so-Called neo-FReUDiAns have intROduCeD a varieTy of exiStentIAlist coNcerns intO their stuDiEs of CHAraCter. In placE of Freud’S creaky meCHanisTIc Model, FirMly basEd In tHe natUral scIEncEs and DecideDlY indivIdualIsTic, the reVisionists have emphasizeD our caPacitY to Grow and chOosE And Make meaniNg, as Well as our rElaTioNs witH otHErs. It Is reLEvAnt TO ask nOt onLY how one apPRoAchES PsYchology, but JUST whAt one Is sTUdying. wherEas Freud investigaTEd such reificatIons AS The “Id” aND the “EgO,” the neo-FreudiaNs wErE MOre conceRnEd with the whOle existInG PersoN. But evEn many Of those PSYcHOanalySts wHo rEcoil from TakInG Such libErTiES with tHe maStEr have Begun tO EmbrACE a new movement
 as a collection of compon ents. On t radit ion aldi sput es i n psychology r e gard ing the significance o f beh av i or v e rs us mo tivatio n ,o r  th epr ior it y  o f tho ugh t versu s feeling,  th eexistentiali s tresponse —  pr ecisely as i t i s to s uc h p h iloso phi cal d ispute s  as th e mind/bo dy proble m  — is t o su gges t the whole debat e  i s  misconceived.  Whatma t te r s  is  th e self’s e xp erien c e; anyt h in g e lse is a distract ion at best and  a vio le nce agains t the  h u man  at worst.I am  not an o bjectf or othe r s to ca thect,  acol lect i on  o f n eu r otr a ns mit t ers  and chr om os omes,  a r e p e r toir e o f be havio rs, or an inf orm atio n  pr ocess ing u nit;  I  am a n expe rienc er , an actor, a c hoos er — a wh ole  a ndun iquep ersoninthe  world.  This a p pro ac h h ar dly qualifies as t he p re vailingdirect i on  o f  America npsy chol o g y orpsyc h ia try, but  its i m pa ct  is fel t.  There  a repre senta t ions  at th e nation al co n ventions, arti c les in mainst r ea m jo u rnal s ( like the Am eric a n Jo urna l  o f P s ychia try),  a n dt extbooks that refle ct  an ex isten tial perspect ive. “Fift e e n  years a go,” sa y s Seattle Univ ersit y’s SteenH alling,“if y ou looke d at a tr a d itionalpsy cho log y j o u rn al and someon e said  t hat peo ple  respon ded  to  ev ent sas they p erceiveth em  a nd  no t eve n ts as th ey  re al lyare,t hat wo uld h avebe en a r adicalt hi n g  tosa y.  Itisn ’t  anym ore. ”  Su zanne K obasa has  be e n co nd uc ting alongitudinalev aluation o fthe  relat i o nship be tween perceived stressa nd dise ase . Anincr easinglypop ular s ubj e ct for  resea rch,Ko bas a seesi t  a s “ ta king somee x ist entia lconc epts th at were vague andt ryi ng to turn th eminto e mp iri c al con st r uct s .  Behind the que stions ofst r es s resistan c e,Isee a b asic ex isten t ial con ception o f life —su ch i s s ues  as the in evitabil ity of ch a nge a n dstrug gle  [andth e i dea]that w h atone i s is w ha t onemakes .”  The ent ire field of psychosoma tic me dicin e,in fact,fol l ows  existent iali sm in reje cti ngthe m ind / bodyspli t  t hat has p lagu e d Western th oug h t  s ince Descar t e s . T he so -ca l led ne o-Fr eudians have intr o duced a variet y of e xis ten t iali st  concerns into  th ei r studiesof  character.  In plac eo f Fre ud’s c reakymechani s t ic model,  fir mly  based in  th en aturalsc ie n ces an d de ci dedlyindivi d uali s t ic, the revision istsh a ve em p has izedou r capac i ty t o grow and  choose and  makemean ing,as well  a s ourrel at ions witho thers. It  is r elevant  t o as k n ot onl y ho w one a ppro ac hes  psycholo g y ,b ut  j u stwhat  oneis  stu dying. Wh e reas Fre udi nvestig at eds u ch rei f ic a t ions as th e “ id” a n d  the “ego, ”  the ne o -Freu dianswere m ore con c ern ed  with t hew h ole exist ing perso n . B ut  eve n many o fthos epsy ch oanalysts who r ecoil fr om takin g such l ibe r ties with t he  master have  begu nt o embra c e  anew mov e men t
 as_a collection_of components. On traditional_disputes in_psychology_regarding the_significance_of behavior versus_motivation, or the_priority of thought versus_feeling, the existentialist_response_— precisely as it is to such philosophical disputes as the mind/body problem —_is_to suggest_the_whole_debate is misconceived. What matters_is the self’s experience; anything_else is_a distraction at best and a violence against_the_human at worst._I am not an object for others to cathect,_a collection of neurotransmitters and chromosomes,_a repertoire of_behaviors,_or_an information processing unit;_I am an experiencer, an actor,_a chooser — a whole and_unique person in the world. This approach_hardly qualifies as the prevailing direction_of American psychology or psychiatry,_but its_impact is felt. There are_presentations at the_national conventions,_articles in mainstream_journals (like the American Journal of_Psychiatry), and textbooks_that reflect an existential perspective. “Fifteen_years_ago,” says Seattle_University’s_Steen_Halling, “if_you looked at_a_traditional psychology_journal_and someone said that people responded_to_events as they perceive them and not_events as they really_are,_that would have been_a radical thing to say._It isn’t anymore.” Suzanne Kobasa has_been conducting_a longitudinal_evaluation of the relationship between perceived stress and disease. An increasingly_popular subject for research, Kobasa sees_it as “taking some_existential concepts_that_were vague and_trying_to turn_them into empirical constructs. Behind the questions_of stress_resistance, I see a basic existential_conception of life —_such_issues as the inevitability of change_and struggle [and the idea] that_what one is is what_one_makes.”_The entire field of psychosomatic_medicine, in fact, follows existentialism in_rejecting the mind/body_split that has plagued Western thought since_Descartes._The so-called neo-Freudians have introduced a_variety_of existentialist concerns into their studies_of_character._In place of Freud’s creaky_mechanistic model, firmly based in the_natural sciences and decidedly individualistic, the revisionists have emphasized_our capacity to_grow and choose and make_meaning,_as_well as our relations with others. It is relevant to_ask not_only how one_approaches psychology, but just what one is studying. Whereas Freud_investigated such reifications as the “id” and_the “ego,” the neo-Freudians were more concerned with the whole existing_person. But even many of those psychoanalysts who_recoil from taking such liberties with the_master have begun to_embrace_a new movement