DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT

Phenomenological approach to psychopathology is the approach that seeks to focus

on the subjective symptoms of pathology that are gained through subjective means.
In pathology, subjective symptoms include emotions and inner process such as fear,
sorrow, joy which we can feel we can grasp immediately from their physical
concomitants. Others include all these psychic experiences and phenomena which
patients describe to us and which only become accessible to us at second hand
through the patient’s own judgement and presentation. Lastly, subjective symptoms
of pathology also include those mental processes which we have to infer from
fragments of the 2 previous kinds of data, manifest by the patients actions and the
way he conducts his life. British Journal of psychology (1968; 1313). Phenomenology
seeks t make a glimpse of the whole person not just fragmented parts of cognitive
functioning or personality, therefore, the approach rejected determination and
emphasize subjective meaning (www.allpsychology.co.org).

The phenomenological approach includes both existential and humanistic

theories. The theorists are concerned with human values above all
individuality. They also stress people’s capacity for growth, their freedom to
choose their lives and their responsibility for their choices. Bootzin et al
(1993;52) said the phenomenological approach explain pathology not as
reducible to forces outside of human consciousness (biological drives or
environmental influences) but abnormality as a problem in relating to the
world and others.

Rathus and Nevid(1991;7) defined abnormal behavior as when behavior

meets some combination of criterion like unusual behavior, socially
unacceptable behavior or behavior that violates social norms, faulty
interpretation of reality, when a person is on severe personal distress, when
behavior is maladaptive , self defeating and dangerous. This has taken
cultural and sub cultural norms into consideration.

HISTORY OF PHENOMENOLOGY

Phenomenological approach sprouted out in two different places that is

Humanistic in America and Existential in Europe. It came as a reaction to the
dissatisfaction with the psychodynamic approach. In general the theorists
were trained as psychoanalysts and they were repelled by Freud’s idea that
good adjustment meant “fitting in” to ones society. They questioned the
emphasis on cause and result, analytical breakdown of thought and behavior
into discrete components, ignoring the psychodynamic approach which
postulated that human action is a product of forces beyond control that is
beyond knowledge of the individual. On the other hand, western thinkers
began to express serious alarm over modern technologies threat to human
values, the crisis which psychodynamic and behaviorism failed to give an
answer.

Psychodynamic theory failed to adequately address issues like the meaning

of behavior and the nature of healthy growth. The phenomenological
approach emphasized on subjective meaning, rejection of determination and
a concern for growth rather than pathology. Most psychologist believe that
behavior can be understood objectively (by an impartial observer) but
phenomenologist believe that it results in concluding than an individual is
incapable of understanding his /her own behavior- its paradoxical and
dangerous to well being.

The humanistic paradigm is an American child that sprouts as a result of

world war two (WWII), bewildering changes in the workplace and alienation
that resulted because tasks were becoming more specialized and narrow.
According to humanists, workers were now replaceable parts in the big
machine of society. In light of this, humanists sought to restore to
psychology those aspects of distinctly human experience that they felt were
being ignored. One such aspect was people’s innate capacity for creativity
and goodness.

On the other side, existential paradigm came as a response to

dehumanization on large scale. Western thought underwent a severe crisis
with the rise of industrialization, fall of European powers and the challenge of
religion by Darwin’s ideology.

Humanists were influenced by both psychoanalytic and behaviorist

perspectives but it is in significant disagreement with both of them. Behavior
is seen as an oversimplification that underrates the importance of
individual’s psychological makeup, inner experience and potential for
direction. They also disagree with the negative and pessimistic picture
portrayed by psychoanalytic theory and its stress on the overwhelming
power of irrational unconscious impulses (Caleman et al 1980, 66).

Both the humanistic and existential paradigm subscribes to the

phenomenological approach, the one that deals with one’s personal
experiences and perspectives on the world. To these theorists, the causes of
pathology are different from what psychoanalysts and behaviorists believe.
May (1959) outlined that , “ can we be sure … that we are seeing the patient
as he is , knowing him in his own reality or are we seeing merely a projection
of our own theories about him .” One can only understand pathology in
someone by exploring the phenomenology of one’s reality. Therapists must
avoid attending to evidence that fits their own theoretical bias, but to see
the world through the patient’s eye.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE APPROACH

1. The phenomenological approach in explaining psychopathology has

put its basic assumptions. They put forward that individuals are not the
same but are unique. This is so because each person perceives the
world in a special way and participates in his /her own self creation.
Reducing a person to a set of formulas is to see a limited portion of
his / her being. While human behavior may follow certain rules, such
rules can never define a human life for each person is utterly singular.

2. They also assumed that a human is a process rather than a product.

Human life is a matter of growth through experience. This expresses
the human potential that is individuals have the ability to become what
they want to be to fulfill their abilities.

3. Lastly the phenomenological approach put forward that humans are

gifted and burdened with self awareness. Their awareness allows them
to transcend their existence. Our existence is the result of our own free
choosing. Animals unlike humans are affected by external events
beyond their control.

OVERVIEW OF THE CAUSES OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

1. Basing on the above mentioned assumptions psychopathology is a

result of thwarting of individuals innate goodness to realize his fullest
 potential by society’s expectations on him or her such that there is an
in congruency between the real self and ideal self set by the society.

2. Also the approach enunciated the problem, claiming that the human
condition was by nature one of uncertainty and anxiety. Anxiety is
caused by the fact that we are alone and need to make decisions in
life. So in as much people have freedom and take responsibility of
inevitable life events. The paper shall further explore how each theorist
under the phenomenological approach explains psychopathology.

The Existential Theory in explaining Psychopathology

Existentialist like May, Franklin and Laing had also their basic tenent in
respect to psychopathology. They emphasized the uniqueness of people,
quest for value, meaning and existence of freedom for self direction and self
fulfillment .The basic tenents for existential psychology are discussed below.

Firstly there is existence and essence. Existence is given and not optional.
What one will become is what we make. One is responsible for shaping the
kind of person he is to become and live to a meaningful life. They also
expressed the need for choice, freedom and courage. Essence is created by
our choices, for choices reflect the values on which we base and order our
lives that is, “ I am the sum of my choices”. In choosing what to become, we
are seen as having absolute freedom, even refusing to choose is a choice in
itself. The third tenent is meaning, value and obligation. The will- to-
meaning. Life is a matter of finding satisfying values and guiding one’s life by
them. The process is individualistic and difficult because values that give
meaning to life are different. Each has to find his own pattern of values. But
there is an obligation. What we can contribute to life is a factor. Our lives can
only be constructive if they involve socially constructive choices and values.
Last tenent is existential anxiety and the encounter with nothingness. It’s our
awareness of our inevitable death and its implications for our living that can
lead to existential anxiety – the deep concern over whether we are living a
meaning and fulfilling life.

Carson et al (1988,76) outlined that according to the above mentioned

tenents it is the avoidance of and refusing to deal with such issues that
creates corrupted , meaningless and wasted lives. And psychopathology is a
product of failure to deal constructively with existential despair and
frustration.
Frankil (1965) in dealing with prison inmates who were his family members
found out that prisoners who were able to survive psychologically, resisting
despair were those who could find some spiritual meaning in their suffering.
He concluded that the prime motive of human behavior is not pleasure
seeking (Freud) but the will-to-meaning that is the struggle of human beings
to find some reason for their troubled, complicated and finite existence.
Frankil put forward that such meanings are only discovered by experiencing
values. The values are discovered through work; love of other people and of
the world and confronting their own suffering. Frankil (1962) views the
process of pursuing values as a moral obligation. Man should not ask the
meaning of life but life asks us questions and we must respond by being
responsible. Failure to be responsible brings in pathology and existential
despair.

A British Psychiatrist named Laing (1967) put forward the theory of false and
true self to explain pathology based on the mentioned tenents. The central
issue is our being in the world, that is our personal relationships with
significant others. Through the inter-experience, the mind becomes divided a
divide entity comprising the false self covering the true unexpressed inner
self. Laing (1967) blamed the split on the falsity of modern social
communication that is the family in particular by surrounding us with “double
messages” and by requiring us to stifle our feelings and pursue meaningless
goals and this discourages authentic behavior. Authentic behavior means to
freely establish and act according to one’s own goals and inauthentic means
to let other people dictate those goals. So by the time one reaches
adulthood, they are cut off from their true selves. In his study with
schizophrenic patients, Laing (1967) postulated that abnormal behavior is a
function of relationships and pathology occur not in a person but in a
relationship.

In his study with schizophrenic patients, Laing (1968) concluded that the
whole world seemingly normal, we are deeply impaired, half crazed
creatures, more or less adjusted to a mad world. He pointed out that
schizophrenia is not so much a disorder as other people think, it is a special
strategy that the person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation.
Individuals when faced with overwhelming interpersonal stresses, combined
with biochemical handicap find themselves no longer able to maintain the
false self that society requires of them(Sedgwick 1982). Hence they retreat
from reality, plunging into their own inner worlds and this causes them to
produce the kind of behavior that we call schizophrenia. This strategy to
cope in the unlivable world offers individuals to relocate their true selves and
to heal the split between the inner and outer self, thereby carrying them far
beyond the pseudo-normality of those who never make this plunge.

May (1963) also point out the importance of understanding what makes a
person- a person in explaining psychopathology? He insisted that facts about
a person only have meaning in the ontological context that is only in the
context of the living being of the patient. In identifying pathology, therapist
must ask themselves what are the essential characteristics that constitute
this self as a self. According to May (1961; 74), he claims that all people
need to preserve a centre which is a stable foundation for existence.
This can be equated to Laing’s idea of personal goals that constitute the true
self . This centre is highly valued because that is ones personal reality which
is not defined by the society. So when faced with perceived and real threats
to the centre, one engages into strategies for protecting the centre and it’s
viewed and perceived as abnormal behavior. The person shrinks the range of
higher world, stops thinking or doing certain things in order that some little
being may be preserved.

The humanistic theory in explaining psychopathology

In the same vein, the humanistic psychology rests emphatically on the

positive vision of the human being. Freud saw the individual as motivated at
bottom by the selfish, irrational id, which can be constantly checked,
humanists hold that individuals are allowed to develop freely, without undue
restraints, become rational and socialized beings. Furthermore individuals
will become constructive, with an intention of fulfilling not only their
biological needs but also some higher vision of their capability. Because
individuals are aware of themselves, they are constantly striving to express
their potentials through the process of self actualization. Self actualization is
defined by Sarason and Sarason (1996; 88) as striving to be all that you can
be. When human personality unfolds in an environment that gives these
creative forces free reign, the positive inner nature of the human being
emerges. Human misery and psychopathology according to the humanists
are fostered by environments that frustrates the individuals tendencies
towards self actualization (Sarason and Sarason.1996; 88).in light of the
above causes of psychopathology different humanists uses different terms to
explain this aspect.

Carl Rogers’ theory

Carl Rogers (1980) postulated the organism and the self theory to explain
psychopathology. He saw behavior as motivated by a single overriding
factor, the actualizing tendency. Self actualizing tendency is an aspect that
he termed at the centerpiece of his perspective on personality development.
Self actualizing tendency is the desire to preserve and enhance self, taking
the sky as the limit. On lower levels, it includes avoiding danger and the
drive to stay alive through eating and keeping self warm. On higher levels,
it’s the desire to test and fulfill their capabilities, expose themselves to new
experiences, master new skills and even to meet new people.

In the course of actualization, people engage in the valuing process.

Experiences perceived as enhancing the valued as good and are sought
after. Conversely experiences perceived as not enhancing are valued as bad
and are avoided. The valuing process depends on the interaction of 2 basic
units of personality that is the organism and the self. The organism is our
total perception of our experiences, both external and internal. The
self is our image of us. So actualization depends on the degree of
congruence between the self and the organism. If the image of the self is
flexible and realistic enough to allow acknowledgement and to evaluate all
experiences of the organism, then the person pursue those most enhancing
experiences. Rogers quoted in Bootzin et al (1993; 48) reiterated that the
self can either be flexible or rigid and it’s determined by childhood
experiences. As children grow up and become aware of them, they develop
positive regard that is affection and approved from important people in their
lives.

However positive regard comes with string attached like some expected
behaviors e.g. behaving girlish, not aggressive etc. These values dictating
which of the child’s experiences are good and bad are incorporated into the
child’s self as conditions of worth. If such conditions are few, they enhance
flexibility in entertaining a variety of experiences and judge independently
which are enhancing and which are not. If however, the conditions are
severely limiting, they impede seriously self actualization. This is the source
of pathology and abnormal behavior. Abnormal behavior then, is essentially
one of perception, the self’s perception of the experiences of the organism.
Rogers (1980), said the self cramped by unrealistic conditions of worth,
attempts to filter out whatever organismic experiences that do not conform
to those conditions.
Although Rogers underscored the childhood experiences in explaining
abnormal behavior. His stand point is different from the deterministic point
of Freud.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs

Maslow (1968) supported Rogers’s idea of self actualization as the single

human’s master motive. In his theory, Maslow explained the hierarchy of
needs which is composed of a series of needs that must be met for one to
actualize. He proposed 5 levels of which include biological need at the
bottom and it includes need for comfort and survival. Safety needs follow on
the hierarchy which includes the need for a stable and predictable
environment. Third level include need for belongingness and love that is
warm relationships with family and friends. Fourth level includes the esteem
needs. Having fulfilled the prior needs, the person proceeds to the fifth level
which is self actualization which Maslow defined as ongoing actualization of
potential, capacities and talents.

Maslow like Rogers proposed that abnormality consists existentially of being

blocked in the drive towards self actualization. However Maslow was not
concerned with real abnormality but rather the failure to progress beyond
the minimum acceptable standards of normality (Sarason and Sarason). A
man might hold down a job, take care of children and yet still feel lonely,
alienated and ineffectual which Maslow termed the psychopathology of
the normal.

In a nutshell , pathology according to the phenomenological approach

include anxiety caused by inevitable human events like frailty of reason ,
death and estrangement. These inevitabilities are not something to be
remedied, but something that must be accepted and navigated. People are
in a constant struggle to live authentically and congruently to their self
concept and their personal goals versus the conditions set by the society.
Also if there is a discrepancy between the real self and the ideal self set by
the society, it creates anxiety since conditions of worth enhance rigidity of
the self to evaluate freely the organismic experiences. Individuals have the
need to express their innate goodness and to explore new adventures but
the society is always thwarting such a process and this is causing abnormal
behavior.

EVALUATION(Contributions made by phenomenology to

psychopathology)

In explaining psychopathology and abnormal behavior, the

phenomenological approach like any other approach has made remarkable
contributions. Although other theoretical approaches had already been
known, the phenomenological paradigm took certain steps and put forward
the above mentioned ideas to explain the problems of abnormal behavior. In
as much as it contributed a lot it also had its own weakness and gaps in
information that were also addressed by other theoretical approaches.

The approach and its underlying paradigms underscored the need to focus
on conscious experiences and they innovated therapy methods that assist
people along pathways of self discovery and self acceptance. For example,
the client centered therapy. This brought another fact as a third force in
psychology since both psychodynamic and behaviorism had focused on
unconscious motives that motivates behavior and treating humans as
passive subjects who are dragged into abnormal behavior by such external
forces that they cannot control.
The phenomenological approach sees humans as being free to make
authentic choices that give meaning to their lives. It’s not only the childhood
id impulses that shapes ones personality only , but humans are conscious
beings who have the freedom and are responsible for their choices. Although
the humanists underscored the contribution of childhood experiences to
abnormal behavior , it did not follow the deterministic view of the
psychodynamic and behaviorism. Instead they asserted that thwarting of
such freedom of choice causes pathology.

According to Fuller (1982) quoted by Renal and Comer (1998) postulate that,
humanistic / existential models focused on broad human issues rather than a
single aspect of psychological functioning. Broad human issues include
innate goodness, tendency to self actualize, inevitable life events like death,
being in the world, estrangement, power of choice and responsibility. These
aspects have been looked into and their contribution to psychopathology.
This is unlike psychodynamics that focused only on the influence of the
unconscious mind and the behaviorists that focused on learning process in
which the subject is passive.

In recognizing the special features and challenges of human existence,

phenomenologist taps into a dimension of psychological life that is typically
missing from other models.

Coleman et al (1980) put forward that, factors that phenomenologist’s say

are essential to effective psychological functioning like self acceptance,
personal values, personal meaning and choice. These factors are undeniably
lacking in many people with psychological disturbances. Apart from that,
they offer great hope when they assert that despite the often overwhelming
pressures of modern society, we can make our own choices, determine our
own destiny and accomplish much.

Cowen (1991) as quoted by Renal (1998; 85) said that the model
emphasized on health rather than illness. Unlike Freud who saw people as
patients with psychological illness, the phenomenologist view them as
people whose special potential has yet to be fulfilled. Although they
acknowledge the impact of past events on present behavior, they do not
hold a deterministic view of behavior. They believe our behavior can be
influenced by our innate goodness and potential and by our willingness to
take responsibility more than by any factor in our past.
Although the phenomenological approach contributed a lot to psychology
and in explaining what causes pathology, the approach has some criticisms
have been leveled against the approach Sue et al (1994).

Weaknesses /Critics of Phenomenology as a whole

In as much as the phenomenologist came up with brilliant concepts to add to

the explanation of abnormal behavior , it was found that the issues that they
majored in, lacked scientific grounding because of its reliance upon the
unique subjective experiences of individuals to describe the inner world.
Such data are difficult to quantify and test.

Comer (1998) also supported the same idea that phenomenologist focused
on abstract issues of human fulfillment that give rise to a significant
problem. The problem is that issues and concepts are resistant to research.
They tend to reject the investigative approach that now dominates the field
of psychology. They believe that such investigative methods cannot
accurately evaluate their ideas. In such a way, the theorists tried to
establish merits of their news by appealing primarily to logic,
introspection and individual case histories. This results in the
vagueness of the approach because of untestable hypothesis. Although
Rogers expressed many of his ideas as researchable propositions, it is
difficult to verify scientifically the humanistic concept of people as rational,
inherently good and moving towards self fulfillment.

Linked to lack of scientific grounding is the issue that phenomenological

approach mainly focuses on conscious experience of which conscious
experience is private. Therefore, validity of formulating the theory in terms
of consciousness is questionable. How can someone be certain that they
accurately perceive the world through the eyes of their clients? Halgin and
Whitebourne (1994) added that de-emphasizing unconscious process is one
of the phenomenological approach’s weaknesses. This is because people do
not fully accept psychodynamic model but generally agree that people often
are unaware of some factors influencing their behavior. Therefore there was
no need to rule out unconscious motivations.

Sue et al (1994) authored that , the approach do not work well with severely
disturbed clients because it fit well with clients not patients who are
intelligent , well educated and relatively normal who may be suffering from
adjustment problems. This is because some of the research work was based
on college students who were bright, articulate and psychologically minded
what others call the “worried well”. This is evident in Maslow’s statement
that, “ he was interested in explaining the concept of psychopathology of the
normal”. Halgin and Whitebourne (1994) also noted that especially
humanistic theory relied heavily on individual self report of psychological
functioning. But what about psychological disorders that do not involve
distress? A question without answer, but to be answered.

Theories and theorists falling under the banner of phenomenological

approach are so numerous and so varied that it’s almost misleading to lump
them together into one single category. This poses the problem of
heterogeneity. Even in the accounting of the causes of pathology, such
theorists are many and use different and confusing concepts that are difficult
to grasp. Psychodynamic and behaviorism have no such problem
heterogeneity (Coleman et al 1980)

Written and uploaded by

Emmanuel Maziti