Psychology Words: Wisdom
June 8th, 2008by Eric Johnson, Director of the SCP. This is his second post for the month of June. Dr. Johnson teaches at Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY and is the author of a recent text, Foundations for Soul Care, available from InterVarsity Press.
This month we are considering how words function in a human science like psychology, where one’s interpretations are often necessarily shaped by one’s worldview beliefs. This week we shall consider two levels at which words (and concepts) operate: a generic level, where different worldview communities can share a general definition of a concept, and a community-specific level, where the same topic is viewed within one worldview community. Let us consider the subject of wisdom. Over the past 20 years, wisdom has been the focus of increasing interest in psychology, especially in positive psychology. Of special note is the Berlin wisdom paradigm, in which wisdom is defined as “an expertise in the conduct and meaning of life” (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, p. 124). This is a fine, broad definition for the general category of wisdom, under which every worldview community’s understanding of wisdom could presumably fit.
However, most well-developed worldview communities will have a distinct understanding of wise conduct and the meaning of life. A Christian psychology, for example, will define the meaning of life in theocentric terms, emphasizing some features over others. So a definition of Christian wisdom might be that it consists of excellent knowledge and love of the triune God, of others, and of oneself in Christ, formed in Christian community through grace-based, skilled practice, that enables one to work at overcoming evil and suffering in oneself, others, and the world.
This Christian definition is more wordy, but it is just as psychological as is the more generic definition. Neither the general concept nor the community-specific concept is more scientific than the other; they simply refer to different levels of the concept—one is broader in its application, the other applies only to a specific community with certain worldview beliefs that shape its understanding of wisdom. But both kinds of definition are necessarily part of a comprehensive, pluralistic psychology that aims at describing the wisdom of all human beings. And a Christian psychology can affirm them both.
The mistake of modernism (and modern psychology) has been to think that only the general (universal?) kind of definition was scientific—implicitly supposing that psychological concepts that only applied to one community would not be scientific. But that bias was due to positivist assumptions, and was a result of insufficient awareness of how worldview beliefs shape the human sciences. From a postmodern standpoint, such assumptions are no longer valid.
Reference
Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 122-136.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Whether “the mistake of modernism (and modern psychology)” is simply an intentionally broad, vague statement or a premeditated removal of worldview understanding, it’s a fairly significant misunderstanding of the concept of wisdom. Even an anthropologically uneducated individual, such as myself, knows that there are cultures in the Amazon jungle (see “The Spirit of the Rain Forest” by Mark Ritchie) and elsewhere around the world that consider lying, deceit and betrayal to be laudable characteristics while the Christian worldview sees truth, honesty and self-sacrifice to be the highest calling.
Therefore, while the Christian definition may be more wordy, it is a more truthful, scientific definition of wisdom based upon the worldview of a subset of people.
I also would go so far as to say that, from any standpoint, postmodern or otherwise, the modernist and modern psychological definition (as was stated in the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm) was never valid because of its incomplete nature. Furthermore, the Empirical Assessment was rooted in a Judeo/Christian ethic that was not acknowledged, and possibly not even realized. To say that wisdom “involves good intentions” and that it is the, “knowledge and judgment about the essence of the human condition and the ways and means of planning, managing, and understanding a good life.” [italics mine] without defining “good” is short-sighted and, frankly, rather ethnocentric. Then again, to define “good” would be to either state a cultural understanding of good or to state an absolute and, therefore, impossible for many of those involved.
Quotes taken from:
http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/institut/dok/full/Baltes/wisdomam/
June 21st, 2008 at 1:39 am
Thanks for responding. I appreciate your concerns that 1) Christian wisdom is the only true wisdom, 2) the full Berlin wisdom model is misleading, and 3) the Judeo/Christian ethic influenced it.
However, I would suggest that well-developed non-Christian models of wisdom like the Berlin paradigm are not totally bogus, in spite of being based on a different (and I would argue, false) worldview. At the very least, it describes well modern wisdom. But I disagree that the single sentence definition of wisdom from the Berlin model was never valid because of its incomplete nature. I chose it because it seems to me to be a good “general” definition of wisdom, one that can be agreed to by members of many communities. It’s the same with many general words like ethics, religion, personality, and psychotherapy. General concepts have to be defined in general ways, in order to encompass all the cases to which they refer, but because they are general, they are not equipped to cover all the examples of the concept. A comprehensive discussion of a topic like wisdom would require the work of many different intellectual communities to articulate the unique features of particular examples of wisdom, all of which ought to fit under a good general definition.
Moreover, while I agree that a Christian model of wisdom would be the best, 1) the Christian psychology community is far from developing its own model that would compare favorably with the Berlin paradigm in complexity and sophistication, 2) even our Christian articulations of wisdom will necessarily be incomplete, compared with God’s, and 3) I also think that we need to be able to appreciate the role that creation grace plays in the intellectual endeavors of those in other communities, which glorifies God when he blesses people who do not know him, and indirectly demonstrates his pursuit of them (Ro 2:4). And Christian wisdom is also seen in thoughtful dialogue, so thanks for sharing.