CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE

DEFENSIVE CONFORMITY
Conformity is actually a rather complex concept, and there are a number of different kinds:
1. The conformity to norms we discussed earlier is often quite unconscious. It has been internalized (learned well), probably in early childhood. Our societal norms are seldom doubted; rather, we take them as givens, as "the way things are." The learning is supported throughout life by the "validity" of the norm -- i.e. it works because it is the norm.
2. But sometimes we choose, consciously, to conform, as when we join a group voluntarily. We adopt certain norms because the group is attractive to us and we identify with the group and its values or goal. In its more dramatic forms, this is called conversion.
3. In other cases, we conform because we are forced to, i.e. we are conscious of our conformity but it seems a lot less voluntary. This is often called compliance, and it can be brought on by anything from a gun to the head or the promise of candy. In other words, it is conformity due to the sanctions the society or group has in effect.
4. But most of what we call conformity in the research literature concerns something "somewhat conscious" and "not quite voluntary." It is usually brought on by social anxiety -- fear of embarrassment, discomfort at confusion, a sense of inferiority, a desire to be liked, and so on. I think it should be called defensive conformity.


The basic research on this kind of conformity has been conducted by Solomon Asch and his students:
Imagine that you have volunteered for a psychology experiment, and you show up at the lab at the promised time. There is a table with four chairs around it, three already occupied by other students. So you take the last chair and prepare yourself for some kind of psychological bizarreness. Finally, the experimenter comes in carrying two stacks of rather large cardboard cards. He introduces himself and thanks you for volunteering and begins to explain: One set of cards, as evidenced by the top card, shows three lines at a time, each line of a different length. The other set shows one line at a time. The task is called "line-length judgment" and looks to be very easy: Even from a distance, the line among the three that matches the single line is very clear.
So we begin. The experimenter points at the first student. He looks at the lines, hems and haws a bit... and chooses the wrong match! Oh well, there's one in every crowd. The experimenter just nods sagely to himself. He points at the second volunteer, and he too hems and haws... and chooses the wrong line! Now you begin to feel a bit uncomfortable. The experimenter points at the third person -- your last chance -- and he, too, chooses the obviously wrong answer. Now it's your turn. Being a person of integrity, you clearly announce the correct answer -- at which point, all three volunteers and the experimenter give you a look like you're from outer space.
The experimenter reveals the second card of each stack, and starts again. And the students again start giving what to you seem like clearly wrong answers. But this time, when your turn comes, what do you do? Well, even in this rather unthreatening social situation, 35% of the time, subjects in this experiment gave what were clearly wrong responses. It's true that some 10% of the subjects never conformed; unfortunately another 10% conformed all the time or all but the first trial. And, although each of us firmly believes that they would be a part of that first 10% -- last of the rugged individualists and all that -- in fact, that's what everybody thinks. You don't quite know how you'll behave until you are there!
(Note: The other subjects were actually "stooges" or confederates of the experimenter -- usually graduate assistants.)
Asch and his students did many variations of this study to find out which variables had significant effects on the amount of conformity:
1. The difficulty or ambiguity of the task. For example, we might make the differences between line lengths much smaller and so the correct answer much less certain. As you might guess, the conformity increases under those circumstances. A similar experiment by Shaw used the counting of metronome clicks. He found that the faster the metronome, the more conformity.
What is happening is that we have more and more need for the group's input as the task becomes more difficult. If in the earlier situation we conformed because we didn't wish to be embarrassed, in the more ambiguous situation, we also "conform" because we are less sure of ourselves and the others become sources of information. Some call this a change from normative pressures to conform to informational pressures to conform.
It might be better, though, to see it as the overlap between two very different processes altogether: On the one hand, we are addressing our need to be accepted by others (and other social needs); on the other hand, we are addressing our need for an accurate understanding of what is going on around us.
2. The relative perceived competence of the subject and the group. In one study, they had the subjects perform the line-judgement task alone first, and they were given feedback on how well they did: "You did really well" or "You aren't very good at this, are you?". The feedback, however, was random, i.e. had nothing to do with performance. In other words, the experimenter manipulated people’s self-esteem.
Then the subjects were put into the regular Asch situation. If they had been told that they had done well -- i.e. felt competent -- they conformed less. If they had been told that they had done badly -- i.e. felt incompetent -- they conformed more. Notice how this also involves a measure of need for information: If you are not competent at something, you turn to others for guidance.
You can also manipulate the perceived competence of the group: Imagine going through the Asch situation with three guys wearing super-thick glasses, leaning forward, squinting furiously, and so on. If you believe them to be incompetent (at this task) you will conform less. Or we could do the reverse: Imagine being there with three architecture students, who should, of course, be rather good at lines....
3. Relative perceived status of the group and the subject. If the influence of competence involves the rational need for information, the influence of status is a lot less rational, and provides a clearer example of "defensive" conformity. If we are convinced that the group is of a higher perceived status (i.e. in our eyes), we conform more. If we are convinced they are of lower status, we conform less.
This is true as well of groups conforming to individuals: If we see a high-status person crossing against a don't walk sign, we are much more likely to follow him than if we see a low-class person doing so. This is even more true when status is combined with competence: Who is it better to follow into New York City traffic, an alert young executive or a bum reeking of gin?
4. Group cohesiveness. If the group is composed of friends, we conform more. Although in one way we have, in a group of friends, the freedom to "be ourselves," our desire to be a cohesive group is a part of what made us friends to begin with!
But we don't need to look only at our tendency to conform to groups we belong to; we also conform to groups we wish to belong to -- our reference groups. The more the subject is attracted to the group, the more conformity. Imagine, for example, a fraternity pledge with a group of fraternity brothers.
Perhaps the most important aspect of group cohesiveness is the sharing of goals. When the group has a common goal, there is more conformity. In one experiment, subjects were told that the group with the most accurate responses would win desirable theater tickets. You would think that everyone would make their most accurate guesses, even if the rest of the group seemed to disagree. Instead, we find more conformity than ever. Nobody wants to "stand out" when something of value is at stake. As the Japanese say, the nail that sticks out tends to get hammered!
5. Group composition. If the subject thinks that the group is made up of a number of different kinds of people, he or she will also conform more. If they were all the same, and they all made the same stupid mistake, you would figure, well, it must be something about them. (Remember attribution?)
But if you're a student and next to you is a banker, and across from you is a housewife, and there at the end is bricklayer -- what on earth could they all have in common to lead them to their bizarre behavior? It must be you who is mistaken, and so you conform.
6. Group size. The easiest variable to study is group size, but the results are disappointingly simple. Conformity is already high with 3 or 4 stooges; it gets a little higher with 6 or 7; it levels off at 15 or 16. Apparently, social pressures in the Asch situation don't increase linearly with group size.
Contrast this, however, with the effects of large crowds on behavior (mob behavior.) If you've seen films of Hitler's rallies or large-scale religious revivals or ever been to a football game, you know that emotional behavior is highly contagious in large crowds. There is something about a crowd that leads to a sense of anonymity or even depersonalization: You lose your sense of individuality and let the mob carry you away.
7. Group unanimity. Group unanimity is perhaps the strongest variable in Asch's research. In the original studies, the stooges were always in unanimous agreement. All you need is one stooge that doesn't conform with the others, and the spell is broken. You may feel free to deviate. This is true even when the non-conforming stooge is still giving a wrong answer!
This is a very important point. Most societies are very hard on non-conformists, because the non-conformist threatens the stability of the social structure. If the non-conformist exhibits his non-conformity with no negative results, others will follow. It is therefore the society's "duty" to make sure there are negative results! Mind you, this can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the society and the nature of the non-conformity.
Cultural variables
1. Nationality. When we compare Norwegians and Frenchmen regarding their tendencies to conformity, we find that the Norwegians conform more than do the French. This is no surprise to people familiar with these cultures: The Norwegians have traditionally emphasized social responsibility (since the Viking days!); the French have an equally ancient tradition of particularly colorful individualism. (It is joked that if you want to pick a fight with a Frenchman, pick a subject!)
2. Alienation. The Japanese culture, like the Norwegian, tends to emphasize tradition, cooperation, and responsibility, and, like Norwegians, the Japanese tend to conform more than, say, Americans. But when Japanese college students were compared with American college students, it was found that they conformed less! In fact, they had a tendency to anticonformity,i.e. the tendency to give incorrect answers when the group is giving correct ones (just to be difficult, we might say).
This is the effect of alienation. The Japanese students seemed to feel a bit lost, no longer a part of traditional Japanese culture, yet not a true part of the western culture that dominates university life and studies. We saw this same effect closer to home in the 1960's with the hippie movement: predominantly middle class students no longer felt a part of the dominant, success-oriented culture around them, and often defined themselves, not in terms of "this is what I am" but rather in terms of "I am not you," i.e. anticonformity.
3. Assigned status. Assigned status is status that you are born with, status that is assigned to you by society without any reference to your desires or abilities. The low status that has been assigned to blacks, women, and various ethnic groups are clear examples.
In the 1950's, it was found that, although there was no difference between whites and blacks in their overall tendency to conform, both black kids and white kids conformed more when the majority of the group they were in was white than when it was black. This goes back to things we've already looked at: relative perceived status and relative perceived competence, in the sense of the lower self-esteem that often accompanies low assigned status.
4. Gender differences. In the 1950's and 60's, research indicated almost invariably that women conform more than men. Social psychologists -- at least the male ones -- were ecstatic. After all, we don't come up with many results this strong in social psychology! But Sistrunk and McDavid (1971) reviewed the research and noticed something peculiar: The researchers were all male!
Sistrunk and McDavid started with 100 statements of opinion and fact, such as "Fords are better than Chevies," "cake is easier to make than pie," and "the earth moves around the sun." They then asked 53 people to judge whether a statement was "masculine" (e.g. "Fords..."), "feminine" (e.g. "cake..."), or "neutral" ("the earth..."). Any statement that 80% of the people agreed on was then included in a questionnaire. And with each statement, they included a fake (random) "majority response," e.g. "Most Americans agree."
They then gave the questionnaire to 270 male and female subjects. Here are the results: (The numbers represent "tendency to conform;" don't worry about the absolute number -- just look at the differences and similarities.)
Masc. Fem. Neutral Total
Items Items Items
Males 34.15 43.05 39.65 38.95
Females 42.75 34.55 39.10 38.80
What these figures mean is that, in our culture, women are quite conformist when it comes to sports and cars and other things they either don't know much about or don't care much about; and men are quite conformist about cooking and fashion and other things they don't know or care about. Otherwise, they conform about equally. The earlier results were due to the fact that the men constructing these studies used statements they found interesting -- i.e. male ones!
OBEDIENCE
Obedience is a very similar phenomenon to conformity. It can be distinguished by an emphasis on the impact of legitimacy (as opposed to other social pressures), and by the fact that it usually involves a single person -- the authority.
The most famous study concerning obedience is Stanley Milgram's. Picture yourself in this situation: You have volunteered for a psychology experiment, so you find yourself at Dr. Milgram's office one evening. Another student is already there with Dr. Milgram. Dr. Milgram thanks you both for volunteering and explains that this is a study of the effects of punishment on learning. One of you will be the teacher and the other the learner. To decide, he asks each of you to pick a slip of paper out of a hat: Your slip says teacher, the other volunteer's slip says learner.
So you and Dr. Milgram take the learner to a small room next door, where you help the good doctor strap the learner into what looks like an electric chair. You then paste electrodes to various parts of his body.
You and Dr. Milgram return to his office, where he puts you in front of a microphone, speaker, and a rather dangerous looking piece of electronic machinery with 30 toggle switches in a row along the bottom front, labeled from 30 volts to 450 volts. (The ones toward the end have a little sign above them that says "Danger: High Voltage!")
You are to read a list of nonsense syllables into the microphone to the learner in the next room, and he is to repeat them in the correct order back to you. If he makes a mistake, you are to pull the first switch. This switch will then lock in place, requiring you to use the next higher voltage if the learner makes a mistake the next time.
You read the list, and of course the learner makes a couple of mistakes, so you flick the first switch. You read the list again, but he makes a mistake again, so you flick the next switch. As you move up the line, the learner begins to complain. At 75 volts, he moans a bit. At 150 volts, he's begging to be let out of the experiment. Perhaps you turn to Dr. Milgram, who is sitting nearby correcting test papers, and ask him if it would be alright to stop. He explains that you both volunteered for this and he expects you both to complete the experiment.
At 180 volts, the learner is screaming that he can't stand the pain. You are shaking and sweating bullets. At 300 volts, you flick the switch and you hear the beginning of another scream form in the learner's throat, but it never quite comes out. When you read him the list again, he doesn't even attempt a response. He's unconscious! Perhaps he's even dead! You turn to Dr. Milgram for guidance, and he tells you: "No response is an incorrect response. Don't be concerned: There will be no permanent neurological damage. Please continue."
You continue to shock your fellow-volunteer all the way up to the maximum voltage of 450 volts, unaware, of course, that this was all a set-up and that the learner was a confederate of Dr. Milgram!
Before Milgram did this experiment, he asked several psychiatrists' opinions on what percentage of people would go how far. The psychiatrists (who we suppose would know about crazy behavior) suggested that most people would stop at 150 (when the learner asks to be let out), that only four percent would go up to 300, and that a mere one percent would go all the way to 450 volts.
In Milgram's study, 62 % went all the way.
This was quite a shock (no pun intended) to the psychological community (and well beyond!). This experiment was inspired by the Nurenburg trials, where Nazi officers would often plead that they were only following orders. People assumed that the kind of atrocities committed by these Nazis were the results of warped personalities encouraged by a warped culture, that red-blooded American men would never engage in those kinds of behaviors. We are, after all, rugged individualists! Milgram's study showed rather dramatically that we were not.
A knowledge of history, of course, would have made Milgram's study unnecessary: Obedience to authority and the atrocities that often go with it has been a part of human existence since as far back as we can go. Not very long ago, we have the Nazi example. More recently, we have Idi Amin's Uganda and Pol Pot's Cambodia, and "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. And even us red-blooded Americans have the massacre at Mai Lai in Vietnam on our conscience, not to mention the treatment received by Native Americans, African Americans, immigrants, and laborers over our mere two centuries of existence.
62 % is rather incredible. But let's say it's been exaggerated. Say it's only 10 %. Our population is roughly 250 million. 10 % of that is still 25 million, 25 million people who would follow orders to the point of hurting or even killing another human being.
When we combine this tendency to obey with immorality, lack of empathy, or sheer sadism.... A few years ago, the state of Texas advertised for two positions as lethal-injection executioners, paying $600 per death. They received over 30,000 applications. If the state of the world or the nation gets you down now and then, perhaps you should consider how well we are doing, given who we are working with!
Just like the Asch experiment, Milgram's has been altered to find the effects of other variables. One set of experiments looked at the effects of proximity of the learner. In the original experiment, the learner was in a separate room. What if he were in the same room, or right next to you? Or what if you actually had to touch the learner to apply the shock? As you might expect, proximity greatly reduced the amount of obedience: If they were in the same room, full obedience went down to 40%; if they were touching, it went down to 30%.
Milgram's original study was done at "a prestigious ivy-league school" (Yale). What if you did the experiment at a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut? Well, the percentage of full obedience goes down to 48 %.
In the original study, Milgram, PhD, professor, psychologist, scientist, sat there the entire time, the personification of authority. What if he weren't there? What if all the instructions were given over a phone? The absence of the authority figure reduced the full compliance to 21 %, including heart-breaking attempts to cheat by pretending to flick switches. Similarly, if an "ordinary" person were giving the orders, the obedience went down to 20%.
The variable that most reduced obedience, however, was the presence of an example of defiance. In this scenario, you see a fellow volunteer refuse to shock anyone before the start of the experiment. This reduces full compliance to 10 %. Again, the presence of a "non-conformist" has a powerful effect!
Other variables had little effect. Women were as likely to obey as men were. There were few major differences cross-culturally. And these studies aren't just restricted to the supposedly conformist 1950's: Recent studies show similar or even greater obedience today! (Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986, 1987)
Most of us would like to think that, in hard times, we would be freedom-fighters in the underground, or civil-rights marchers, or other such people-of-principle. Unfortunately, as people who have been in these situations will tell you, you don't really know how you'll act until you are in these situations. For most of us, disobedience of authorities or non-conformity to social pressures is very difficult. However, there is the enlightenment effect (or self-defeating prophecy): Knowing how difficult it is already gives you an edge.
NON-INVOLVEMENT
One more research area that has a strong relation to conformity is non-involvement, also known as bystander intervention research.
A favorite example of extreme non-involvement is the Kitty Genovese murder: At 3:00 in the morning, over a period of 30 minutes, Kitty Genovese was attacked three times in the courtyard of her apartment building. The man first mugged her, left, then returned to rape her, left again, and finally returned to kill her. This entire tragedy was witnessed, and her screams for help heard, by 38 of her neighbors, none of whom came to her rescue or even phoned to police! The lack of response on the part of the neighbors turned out to be a journalistic exaggeration, but the story got people - especially psychologists - interested.
The response to this was the usual: "Typical for New York City;" "Could never happen here;" and "It would have been different if I had been there." Social psychologists Bibb Latane' and John Darley and several of their students decided to put these assertions to the test.
In one of their studies, the volunteer was asked to wait for the experimenter in a waiting room. In this waiting room, there were already two students, reading magazines. After the volunteer had settled into his chair, a puff of smoke would enter the room through a crack in the wall near the volunteer. The other students (stooges, of course) showed no reaction. The puff became a stream; the stream became a flood; and eventually you couldn't see the other side of the room. Through all this, the stooges remained in their seats, reading their magazines... and so did most of the volunteers!
In fact, only 10% of the students responded within 6 minutes. Even if they used three actual students -- i.e., people who were not instructed to do nothing -- only 12 1/2 % responded. When alone, 75% of the students responded within 6 minutes.
Another experiment, by Bibb Latane and Judith Rodin, is even more dramatic. A female experimenter asks the volunteer to fill out a questionnaire, as another student is also (apparently) doing, and retreats behind a curtain into what appears to be a storage room. As the volunteer fills out the form, he or she hears the experimenter climbing a step ladder and struggling with what are apparently heavy boxes. Suddenly, she falls: the ladder clatters and her body thumps onto the concrete floor, and she cries out "Oh my God, my foot... I.. I can't move it!" This goes on for about a minute. The other student continues to fill out the form. So do 80% of the volunteers!
When with someone who doesn't respond to an apparent emergency, only 20% of us do respond. Even when we are alone, only 70% respond. It really makes you wonder about the other 30%, doesn't it? Are they so afraid of embarrassment that they can't even get up to ask if the experimenter is okay?
Well, it seems to be a bit more than a fear of embarrassment going on here -- although embarrassment is likely a component. First, most people seem to experience a degree of empathic fear -- a combination of identifying with the victim and being uncertain about what to do that causes many people to freeze or panic.
Robert Baron found that, when a victim is in pain and the subject felt that they could do something to ease the pain, then the more pain the victim shows, the more quickly the subject responds. But when the victim is in pain and the subject did not know what to do, the more pain, the more slowly the subject responds.
So, if we get a bit nervous and aren’t sure what to do, and there are other people around, we often hope that they will be the ones to respond, so we don't have to. In fact, the more people around, the less likely it is that we will respond. This seems to have been very much a part of the Kitty Genovese case: The apartments formed a U around the courtyard, so the residents could see each others' lights come on and window blinds open. Many of them simply assumed that someone else must have called the police.
If you think about it, it is rather logical: If I am there alone, I have 100% of the responsibility, and I should certainly help. If I am there with one other person, I have 50% of the responsibility, and I can flip a coin. But if I am there with 100 other people, I have only 1% of the responsibility, so it would be terribly presumptuous of me to try to help (and potentially terribly embarrassing!). They call this diffusion of responsibility.
And there are the purely selfish reasons for not helping: Some of Kitty Genovese's neighbors admitted that they didn't want to get involved -- the costs of involvement are too great. If you went out to help, you yourself could get hurt or killed (or sued, as occasionally happens to people who interfere in "domestic arguments.") Even if you only called the police, there'd be statements to make, line-ups to attend, trials to testify at, and possibly even retribution from the criminal, were he to get off on a technicality, say.
(Keep in mind that this is a world where a man who was attempting to commit suicide by throwing himself in front of a New York subway train successfully sued New York City, the subway system, and the brakeman who managed to stop the train in time, for millions of dollars!)
Now most of us like to think of ourselves as nice people, even if we do freeze, panic, leave things to others, or take care of ourselves first. So we have to make sure to justify our decisions. This is most easily done by the distortion of reality called reinterpretation of the situation.
For example, on Fifth Avenue in New York City, in broad daylight, a woman named Eleanor Bradley broke her leg while shopping. She lay there in shock for 40 minutes before someone helped her, while literally hundreds of people walked around her! Obviously, people explained her away: It can't be serious, she's probably a drunk, she's crazy, she's play acting, this is a Candid Camera stunt, whatever.
This is strongly reinforced by the diffusion of responsibility tendency mentioned above: If it were serious, all these other people wouldn't be walking around her, would they? We use others as a source of information, as well as bending to fears of embarrassment or desires to belong.
It might be valuable to consider ways we could counteract these unfortunate tendencies in ourselves. Some good clues can be found in Leonard Bickman's studies. In one, for example, people were engaged in a (phony) experiment involving the use of intercoms. They then heard a crash and screams over the intercom. Those subjects who thought everyone in the experiment was in same building tended to stay where they were; those who thought that only they and the victim were in the same building tended to try to get help.
In another study by Bickman, again using intercoms, a third of the subjects heard screams over the intercom, another third heard screams followed by the voice of a witness getting upset, and the last third heard the scream and the witness define the situation as an emergency. The first third were least likely to help, and the last third most likely.
Precisely because of their artificiality, these studies serve to emphasize that things like diffusion of responsibility and redefining the situation are, in fact, "in the mind of the bystander." We can therefore directly counter these tendencies by simply developing certain habits: Assume personal responsibility (unless someone more qualified is clearly present), and assume that the situation is an emergency (until you know better).
The problem of empathic fear also has a solution: Develop emergency competence. In a number of studies, it has been found that people with some knowledge of emergency procedures are much more likely to help, even in emergencies for which they were not trained! They, like professionals, don't lose their heads in emergencies.
Again, the enlightenment effect or self-defeating prophecy will play its part with you: Just knowing that we tend not to help makes it more likely that you will help. It may wreck future social psychology experiments, but it may save future Kitty Genoveses.
NON-CONFORMITY
If conformity is, quite literally, normal, then non-conformity is, for better or worse, abnormal or deviant. But you can be abnormal in many different ways:
Mental Illness
When people act strangely, one of the easiest things to do is to label them mentally ill. Many people, sadly, get this label only because they are irritating, annoying, or troublesome to others, especially when the others have power and the one getting labeled does not. They don't do what they are supposed to do, so we send them off to therapy or, better yet, an institution.
This is not to say that there is no such thing as mental illness. "True" mental illness usually carries the connotation that the behaviors, experiences, thoughts, or feelings that are so troublesome are not completely under that person's control. Someone who is eccentric, or a political dissident, or a criminal presumably chooses to do what they do. The mentally ill person is not completely free to choose, and is therefore not fully responsible.
Problems that have (1) strong genetic components to them (such as schizophrenia is believed to have), or ones involving (2) damage to the nervous system, (3) psychological traumas, (4) long-term conditioning, or (5) addiction, are more likely candidates for the term mental illness.
This doesn't make it that much easier to distinguish mental illness from other forms of non-conformity: We are, for example, far from establishing clear methods for distinguishing biological from psychological causes. Many people believe that criminals behave as they do because of early traumas and social conditioning. In the former Soviet Union, people with dissenting political opinions were considered insane, since political opinions are, at least in part, established through long-term conditioning. Further, culture itself is a matter of long-term conditioning. And people of principle -- Saint Francis is a particularly good example, or the student that stood in front of the tanks in Tienamen Square -- often act in ways most of us would consider insane!
One thing I should make clear at this point: We are, throughout this section, talking about deviation from norms, not from normality. Many unusual things are not considered deviant (red hair, for example) and some are even valued (beauty, intelligence, strength....).
Criminality
When non-conformity refers to formalized norms such as laws, we call it crime. It is usually assumed that crime is committed by choice, so that demonstrating mental incompetence, lack of intent, accident, or circumstances justifying the act will at least diminish the degree of guilt.
Some criminals can be understood as being undersocialized. They never developed much of a conscience or superego, perhaps because of a childhood filled with neglect, abuse, poverty, and so on. It is also possible that they lacked, from the beginning, the basic capacity for empathy that some consider the foundation for a conscience.
These people are sometimes called sociopaths. An older term was psychopath, but today that tends to bring images of the most extreme cases only. They have little concern for people's feelings, much less for society's norms and laws. Self-centered, they want what they want when they want it, and get what they want assuming they have sufficient skills to do so. We sometimes glorify them -- Billy the Kid, Bonny and Clyde, and so on -- as true non-conformists. But generally we see them as on the borders of mental illness, or past them.
Similar to these are the criminals who may well have a well-developed conscience, but who also have very demanding needs. A drug addict who steals to support his or her habit is one example. Someone who steals in order to eat might be another.
But many criminals are not truly non-conformist at all. Instead they conform to a different set of norms. That is to say, they belong to a criminal subculture. If you are brought up to believe that stealing is fine in many situations that the dominant culture finds criminal, or that killing someone for revenge is a moral duty, not a mortal sin, then it is the strength of your conformity that is the problem! Examples might include crime "families," urban gangs, and groups like the klan.
There are also people who define themselves negatively, that is, as whatever other people are not. This is anticonformity again, and may account for a great deal of purely destructive behavior such as vandalism. Some groups make anticonformity a part of their norms, so that throwing beer cans on people's lawns or spray painting your name everywhere or knocking over grave stones becomes “the thing to do."
The problems created by criminal subcultures and anticonformity can be made worse by the alienation that many of the people involved feel. If there is no place for urban youth to fit in, for example, their need for identity and belonging will make their commitment to the criminal subculture and the desire to strike out against the mainstream culture all the stronger. Note, for example, the increase in neo-Nazi or skinhead activity in Germany as unemployment and the influx of immigrant labor increased. Especially dangerous are those individuals whose weak personalities make them particularly desperate for membership and recognition from any source!
Self-actualizers
Some people who are different are mentally ill or criminals. Most people who are different are just conforming to different sets of norms -- i.e. they aren't "non-conformists" at all! But a few people are truly independent of conformity pressures and use their freedom for the good. The term that has become popular for these people is self-actualizers.
Abe Maslow believed that, when you are no longer pushed around by your physical needs, by your fears, by your social anxieties, or by your inferiority complexes, you are essentially free to do what you want to do -- you are free to "be all that you can be." You are a self-actualizer.
Maslow reviewed the lives of a number of people he felt were prime examples of self-actualizers, including some famous people such as Abraham Lincoln and Eleanor Roosevelt. He ended up with a list of characteristics these people seemed to have in common. I'm not going to give them all, but a number of them are quite significant to the idea of non-conformity at its best.
Self-actualizers strive for (1) autonomy and independence, and they (2) resist enculturation, that is, the social pressures most of us can't seem to resist. They are not impressed by authority or fashion. Instead, they rely on themselves, their values, conscience, reason, and experience.
They have (3) democratic values, meaning that they are open to and comfortable with cultural and individual variety. But they are not just tolerant, they are actually drawn towards variety. And they are more (4) accepting of others and themselves, as they are rather than as anyone says they should be.
More subtle indications of their non-conformity are their preferences for (5) spontaneity over the contrived or the calculated, and (6) simplicity over pretense and artificiality. They have the ability to (7) appreciate things that others take for granted, and a capacity for (8) creativity that allows them to rise above the mundane. All this doesn't mean we are dealing with someone flamboyant, however, or with radical non-conformists: Their love of simplicity often means that they appear rather ordinary on the surface, and their ability to accept self and others often means accepting much of the social order as it is.
But non-conformity is not, by any means, the only quality of the self-actualizer: They also enjoy warm (9) intimate relations with a few friends, and have a great capacity for (10) Gemeinschaftsgefühl -- social concern. In fact, running parallel to the element of non-conformity in their personalities is an even more important element of compassion.
________________________________________
Copyright 1999, C. George Boeree
Dr. C. George Boeree

SEJARAH DAN ALIRAN PSIKOLOGI OLEH: DRS. ARIF WIBISONO ADI, MM

TUJUAN PEMBAHASAN:
- Agar mahasiswa memahami latar belakang, tahap-tahap sejarah lahirnya psikologi sebagai disiplin ilmu baru, dan sejarah timbulnya aliran-aliran da1lam psikologi.
- Agar mahasiswa memahami macam-macam aliran psikologi tersebut, tokoh-tokohnya serta pandangan-pandangan pokoknya dan karakteristik-karakteristiknya yang menonjol.
- Agar mahasiswa memahami bahwa tiap timbul aliran baru tentu ada latar belakang semangat jaman yang sudah masak untuk mengadakan perubahan ke arah pandangan baru tersebut, atau ada tokoh besar yang membawa pandangan-pandangan yang baru.
- Agar mahasiswa memahami pengaruh sejarah pandangan masa lampau bagi pandangan-pandangan masa kini, dan pengaruh pandangan masa kini dalam memberi makna pada sejarah pandangan-pandangan di masa lampau.
- Agar mahasiswa dapat mempelajari sejarah dan aliran yang bermacam-macam sehingga dapat tumbuh menjadi seorang ilmuwan yang berwawasan luas, bukan hanya pandai, tapi juga bijak, terutama dalam menanggapi perbedaan-perbedaan pandangan dalam mengkaji perilaku manusia, mampu bersikap kritis, sikap tasamuh, toleran, penuh pemahaman, dinamis dan selalu berkembang secara kreatif dalam memandang manusia dan kehidupannya, tidak rigid atau kaku.



I. PENDAHULUAN

Teori pokok tentang timbulnya aliran-aliran baru dalam psikologi:
The Great Man Theory vs The “Zeitgeist” Theory.
Dalam Teori Orang Besar (The Great Man Theory), dikatakan timbulnya aliran baru karena lahir seorang tokoh besar yang membawa pandangan-pandangan baru, yang kemudian mendapat sambutan dan dukungan dari lingkungannya, sehingga menjadi tren jaman dan membawa perubahan serta timbullah aliran baru. Contoh Sigmund Freud dengan Psikoanalisanya.
Dalam Teori Semangat Jaman (Zeitgeist = the Spirit of the Time), dalam suatu komunitas atau opini publik, memang jamannya sudah masak untuk timbulnya pandangan-pandangan baru, yang akhirnya menjadi tren jaman, dan tokoh-tokoh justru dilahirkan oleh semangat jaman tersebut. Sehabis Perang Dunia II, semangat jaman menjadi masak untuk meluasnya pandangan untuk memanusiakan manusia, yang seolah pada peperangan yang kejam dan dahsyat itu, kemanusiaan sudah jatuh dan manusia seolah seperti hewan atau robot saja. Akhirnya lahirlah tokoh-tokoh yang dilahirkan oleh semangat jaman yang ingin memanusiakan manusia tersebut, seperti Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow dan Viktor Frankl.

II. TAHAP- TAHAP SEJARAH PERKEMBANGAN PSIKOLOGI

Ebbinghaus mengatakan : “Psychology has a long past, but only a short history”. Memang psikologi mempunyai masa lampau yang panjang, sudah mulai timbul beberapa abad sebelum Masehi, sewaktu jaman jayanya Filsafat Yunani, tapi psikologi diakui menjadi ilmu yang berdiri sendiri baru pada tahun 1879, jadi mempunyai sejarah yang pendek, belum ada satu setengah abad yang lalu.
Tahap-tahap sejarah perkembangan psikologi dapat diuraikan sebagai berikut:

1). PSIKOLOGI SEBAGAI BAGIAN DARI FILSAFAT
Dulunya para filsuf Yunani lebih memperhatikan bintang-bintang, gunung-gunung, sungai-sungai, tumbuh-tumbuhan, hewan-hewan, tapi yang pertama-tama memperhatikan manusia adalah filsuf Socrates dengan kata-katanya: “Gnothi Seauthon !” (Know Thyself ! = Kenalilah Dirimu Sendiri !), maka perhatian filsuf mulai ditujukan pada diri sendiri, untuk mengenal diri sendiri, mengenal manusia, maka muncullah kemudian ilmu tentang manusia, tentang jiwa manusia atau Psyche-Logos, Psychology.
Kemudian murid-murid Socrates mulai menguraikan tentang manusia. Plato membagi unsur-unsur manusia menjadi Materi dan Idea, Materi sebagai wadag akan rusak binasa, tapi Idea akan tetap abadi, dan kembali ke asalnya. Jadi yang langgeng adalah Idea, bukan Materi, maka pandangan Plato sering disebut sebagai Idealisme. Aristoteles sebaliknya membagi unsur manusia menjadi Hule, berupa Potensi atau Bibit, dan Morphe atau Bentuk aktualisasinya. Bibit pisang akan melahirkan bentuk pohon pisang dan bukan pohon mangga. Maka pandangan Aristoteles ini sering disebut Hule-Morphisme, Potensi dan Aktualisasinya.
Thomas Aquinas menganggap filsafat hanyalah sebagai pembantu theologi, waktu itu jaman skolastik kekuasaan Gereja sangat dominan, semua pandangan harus disesuaikan dengan dogma gereja, di bidang ilmu lebih cenderung ke metode deduktif. Dari dogma yang diyakini lebih dulu, semua pandangan harus diselaraskan dengan dogma tersebut secara deduktif. Inilah jaman kegelapan bagi ilmu di Barat.
Francis Bacon yang melihat kemajuan ilmu di dunia Islam pada saat itu, kemudian membawa metode induktif untuk dipakai di dunia Barat. Ilmu jadi maju pesat. Penelitian-penelitian induktif diadakan secara meluas, timbul kesimpulan-kesimpulan atau dalil baru.
Rene Descartes mula-mula mengalami keraguan dan kebimbangan, apa yang harus dipegang untuk mendapatkan kebenaran. Dia mengalami skeptisisme. Tapi waktu dia berpikir-pikir, mendadak timbullah pencerahan: “Cogito, Ergo Sum” (Saya berpikir, maka saya ada). Saya tahu saya ada karena saya berpikir, maka faktor berpikir atau Ratio ini merupakan faktor paling penting. Timbullah kemudian aliran rasionalisme, untuk mendapatkan kebenaran, alat utama adalah akal atau ratio. Hal-hal yang tidak rasional dianggap tidak benar.
John Locke menentang pandangan nativisme yang mengatakan bahwa manusia waktu lahir sudah membawa bakat-bakat tertentu. Menurut John Locke manusia waktu dilahirkan seperti “Tabula Rasa” (Papan Lilin atau Kertas yang masih putih polos), Empiri atau Pengalamanlah yang menulisi sehingga manusia berkembang seperti apa sesuai dengan pengalaman atau lingkungan yang “menulisi”nya. Lahirlah kemudian pandangan Empirisme. Empirisme mempengaruhi bidang ilmu dengan mengatakan bahwa kebenaran harus dapat dicek lewat pengalaman nyata, yang empiris itulah yang benar.
Auguste Comte membagi pengetahuan manusia menjadi tiga tingkatan:
- Theologi, kebenaran berasal dari kata-kata orang besar yang langsung dipercayai, tidak dicek lagi.
- Filsafat, kebenaran dari kata-kata orang perlu dicek lebih dulu, dengan berpikir secara radikal.
- Ilmu Positif, kebenaran harus dicek lebih dulu, terutama dengan indera. Ilmu yang ilmiah harus positif, datanya bisa diukur, dihitung, dan bisa dicek dengan indera. Maka lahirlah pandangan Positivisme. Untuk mempelajari manusia, maka yang dipelajari adalah bagian yang dapat diindera, berarti sisi material manusia saja, jiwa dan ruh hanyalah omong kosong.
- Di dunia Islam justru terbalik. Untuk mencari kebenaran maka alat yang digunakan pertama-tama adalah indera (An-Nahl: 78), kemudian kalau ada kelemahan, harus dicek dengan akal, kalau akal tak mampu, harus dibantu dengan wahyu.
- Pandangan Rasionalisme, Empirisme dan Positivisme yang berkembang di Barat makin menjauhkan ilmu dari agama, termasuk ilmu psikologi. Kemudian timbullah Sekulerisme, yang memisahkan ilmu dari agama, dan berkembang pula Materialisme, yang mengutamakan Materi saja.
2). PSIKOLOGI SEBAGAI BAGIAN DARI FISIOLOGI
Biologi dan kemudian Fisiologi berkembang pesat setelah Darwin mengajukan Teori Evolusinya. Dalam Fisiologi akhirnya dipelajari juga fungsi syaraf pusat yang terpengaruh kehendak manusia. Di samping penginderaan (sensation), mulai dipelajari pengamatan (perception). Di sinilah psikologi mulai tersentuh.
Salah seorang dari fisiolog terkemuka, Wilhelm Wundt, mulai meneliti tentang pengamatan. Selain Perception, dia mengemukakan adanya Apperception, yaitu pengamatan dengan memfokuskan diri pada pusat pengamatan. Di samping lapangan pengamatan (Blick-Veld), terdapat pula titik pengamatan (Blick-Punkt). Di sini faktor kehendak atau jiwa manusia mulai berperan. Wundt kemudian mengadakan eksperimen-eksperimen yang lebih cenderung di bidang psikologi dan bukan lagi bidang fisiologi. Dan dialah yang pertama-tama berani memasang di pintu laboratorium eksperimennya dengan memakai label “Laboratorium Psikologi” ketika teman-temannya masih memakai “Laboratorium Fisiologi”. Dipasangnya kata-kata “Laboratorium Psikologi” pertama kali di Universitas Leipzig, Jerman, pada tahun 1879 inilah kemudian dijadikan tonggak sejarah mulai diakuinya psikologi sebagai ilmu yang berdiri sendiri.
3). PSIKOLOGI DIAKUI SEBAGAI ILMU YANG BERDIRI SENDIRI
Setelah psikologi diakui sebagai ilmu yang berdiri sendiri, terlepas sebagai bagian dari filsafat dan terlepas pula sebagai bagian dari fisiologi, maka psikologi kemudian maju pesat. Kemudian mulai timbul aliran-aliran, pandangan-pandangan yang berbeda-beda dan saling bertentangan satu sama lain.
4). PSIKOLOGI MENDAPAT SUMBANGAN DARI HIPNOTISME

Sebelum membicarakan aliran-aliran yang saling bertentangan dalam psikologi, setelah psikologi diakui sebagai ilmu yang berdiri sendiri, terlebih dulu kita bicarakan lebih dulu, sumbangan dari hipnotisme bagi perkembangan psikologi, yang tak dapat diabaikan.
Mula-mula timbullah pandangan Magnetisme, yang menganggap dalam diri manusia, seperti juga di dalam bintang-bintang di langit, terdapat magnet-magnet, yang dapat dipancarkan keluar dan mempengaruhi perilaku orang-orang. Kemudian Anton Mesmer menggunakan Magnetisme ini untuk pengobatan. Diadakan demonstrasi terapi Magnetisme yang kemudian terkenal sebagai Mesmerisme.
Kemudian diketahui pengaruh terhadap perilaku seseorang itu lebih nyata, kalau seseorang itu sedang setengah tidur yang disebut dalam kondisi hypnose. Pada waktu itu orang tersebut sangat rentan terhadap pengaruh orang yang menidurkannya, mentaati perintah-perintahnya secara membuta. Mula-mula dianggap kondisi hypnose itu timbul kalau syarafnya menjadi lemah, tapi kemudian disadari bahwa yang lemah itu mentalnya secara psikologis, sehingga mudah sekali tersugesti oleh orang yang lebih berpengaruh. Timbullah kemudian istilah Sugesti dan Hipnotisme. Akhirnya banyak tokoh-tokoh tertarik untuk mempelajari Hipnotisme dan digunakan untuk Terapi. Tanpa obat-obatan dan tanpa menyentuh badannya, seseorang dapat dipengaruhi dan diterapi.
Termasuk tokoh Sigmund Freud dan dokter Breuer mulai belajar kepada seorang ahli hipnotis (Jean Martin Charcot) dan menggunakannya untuk terapi atau disebut Hipnoterapi. Tapi kemudian Hipnoterapi tidak dipakai lagi, karena mempunyai kelemahan-kelemahan: yang disembuhkan hanya symptomnya, bukan sumber penyakitnya; dan kesembuhannya ternyata temporer, tidak permanen; juga pasien sudah lemah kalau dihipnotis tambah lemah. Akhirnya Freud mengembangkan metode Catharsis atau Talking Out, dan kemudian mengembangkan Psikoterapi yang disebutnya Psikoanalisa. Juga Freud menyusun Teori Kepribadian yang disebut Psikoanalisa. Timbullah suatu aliran psikologi yang terkenal. Tapi perlu ditekankan sumbangan Hipnotisme atau Hipnoterapi yang mendorong dikembangkannya Psikoterapi lewat Freud tak dapat diabaikan.

III. TIMBULNYA ALIRAN-ALIRAN KECIL YANG SALING BERTENTANGAN

1. Strukturalisme versus Fungsionalisme
(Eropa Kontinental versus Eropa/Amerika Anglo-Saxon).
Aliran psikologi yang mula-mula timbul di Eropa adalah Strukturalisme, yang dikembangkan oleh Wilhelm Wundt, bapak Psikologi Eksperimen. Temannya antara lain Oswald Kuelpe.
Akhirnya aliran ini berkembang di Eropa Kontinental, antara lain di Jerman, Belanda, Perancis, karena sesuai dengan jiwa Kontinental. Yang diteliti dalam Psikologi lebih ke struktur jiwa, menguraikan masalah jiwa sedalam-dalamnya, dengan metode analitis, sintetis, lebih ke teori-teori, ilmu untuk ilmu, ilmu untuk pemahaman.
Tapi kemudian timbul aliran yang menentangnya, yaitu aliran Fungsionalisme. Yang diteliti bukanlah struktur tapi lebih fungsi jiwa, tak usah menguraikan jiwa sedalam-dalamnya, yang penting fungsi dan gunanya untuk apa. Ini sesuai dengan jiwa Anglo-Saxon yang bersifat praktis-pragmatis, yang penting memanfaatkan dan mengaplikasikan apa yang diketahui. Timbullah kemudian Psikologi Terapan. Ilmu untuk Aplikasi, untuk Kemanfaatan, bukan Ilmu untuk Ilmu lagi. Aliran ini berkembang di daerah Eropa Anglo-Saxon: Inggeris dan Amerika Serikat. Tokohnya William James dan John Dewey yang terkenal dengan Learning by Doing.

2. Asosiasionisme versus Psikologi Gestalt
(Elementalisme versus Holisme).
Menurut Elementalisme, manusia mengetahui sesuai dari elemen atau bagian-bagiannya lebih dulu, lewat proses asosiasi, digabung-gabung, akhirnya diketahui keseluruhannya.
Manusia belajar menurut Thorndike seperti seekor tikus yang dimasukkan ke dalam suatu kotak maze, dengan dilaparkan dan diberi makanan di tempat keluarnya, si tikus berusaha secepat-cepatnya keluar dari kotak itu. Karena banyak jalan-jalan yang ke arah jalan buntu, hanya ada satu jalan keluar, maka tikus kesasar-sasar memerlukan beberapa waktu untuk keluar (misal 10 menit). Tapi apabila diulangi lagi, ternyata tikus memerlukan waktu yang lebih sedikit (misal 1 menit, bahkan mungkin langsung menuju keluar), karena sudah terjadi proses belajar. Pertama-tama tikus seperti juga manusia dalam belajar menggunakan Trial and Error, coba-coba dan salah-salah, tapi kemudian jalan-jalan yang buntu didisosiasikan, sedangkan jalan yang menuju ke jalan keluar diasosiasikan, sehingga tikus dapat lebih cepat keluar.
`Pandangan ini kemudian ditentang oleh Psikologi Gestalt. Menurut Psikologi Gestalt, seseorang lebih dulu melihat keseluruhan, dan bukan elemen dulu. Juga keseluruhan itu lebih dari sekedar jumlah elemen-elemannya. Pandangan ini menekankan holisme dan bukan elementalisme.
Manusia belajar juga tidak dengan Trial and Error seperti tikus, tapi dengan Insight seperti simpanse. Wolfgang Kohler mengadakan percobaan dengan simpanse yang dimasukkan dalam kurungan, di depannya diletakkan pisang. Simpanse lapar dan akan mengambil pisang tersebut, tapi tangannya tak mampu meraih pisang tersebut. Kemudian di dalam kurungan, dimasukkan satu tongkat, si kera melihat tongkat, melihat pisang berkali-kali, dia lapar ingin mengambil pisang tersebut, tapi tangannya tak mampu meraihnya. Tiba-tiba si kera seperti kaget, menghubungkan tongkat dengan pisang, kemudian berteriak: Aha ! Kera tiba-tiba memahami hubungan antara tongkat dan pisang. Tongkat dapat digunakan untuk mengambil pisang ! Karl Buhler menyebut pencerahan seperti ini sebagai “Aha Erlebnis” atau “Insight”. Dengan cara inilah manusia belajar, tidak dengan Trial and Error.
Percobaan selanjutnya dengan memasukkan peti (tong) di dalam kurungan, dan pisang digantung di atasnya. Kera meloncat-loncat untuk mengambil pisang tapi tidak teraih, kemudian melihat tong dan pisang, timbul insight dengan naik di atas tong dapat meraih pisang. Kalau pisang digantung lebih tinggi, dan di dalam kurungan diletakkan beberapa tong. Kera pun dapat memahami, tong disusun-susun, kera naik di atasnya untuk mengambil pisang.
3. Psychology : the study of the mind versus the study of the behavior.
Kemudian timbul pertentangan antara mereka yang mendefinisikan psikologi sebagai ilmu yang mempelajari jiwa, dan yang mendefinisikan psikologi sebagai ilmu yang mempelajari perilaku, yaitu yang berpendapat jiwa itu tidak kelihatan dan tidak nyata, sedang perilaku itu tampak dan lebih dapat dipelajari secara nyata. Hal ini karena terpengaruh oleh Positivisme. Tapi akhir-akhir ini orang-orang mulai mensintesekan, psikologi ilmu yang mempelajari jiwa dan perilaku manusia.
IV. ALIRAN-ALIRAN UTAMA (MAZHAB) DALAM PSIKOLOGI

1). MAZHAB PERTAMA DALAM PSIKOLOGI: PSIKOLOGI DALAM
a). Psikoanalisa Sigmund Freud,
b). Psikologi Individual Alfred Adler,
c). Psikologi Analitik Carl Gustav Jung,
d). Neo-Freudian: - Karen Horney,
- Erich Fromm,
- William Stack Sullivan.
e). Post-Freudian: John Bowlby, Anna Freud.
2). MAZHAB KEDUA DALAM PSIKOLOGI: BEHAVIORISME
Watson, Pavlov, Skinner.
3). MAZHAB KETIGA DALAM PSIKOLOGI: PSIKOLOGI HUMANISTIK
- Carl Rogers,
- Viktor Frankl,
- Abraham Maslow.
4). MAZHAB KEEMPAT DALAM PSIKOLOGI: PSIKOLOGI TRANSPERSONAL

V. PENDEKATAN-PENDEKATAN KONTEMPORER DALAM PSIKOLOGI:
(Santrock, 2002)

1. Behavioral Approach,
2. Psychodynamic Approach,
3. Cognitive Approach,
4. Behavioral Neuroscience,
5. Evolutionary Psychology,
6. Sociocultural Approach,
7. Humanistic Movement and Positive Psychology.

---ooo0ooo---











DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Adi, Arif W. 2002. “Psikologi Transpersonal: Kasus Shalat”. Dalam Indigenous, volume 6 nomor 1 h.13, Mei 2002, Jurnal Fakultas Psikologi UMS. Surakarta.
Budiraharjo (editor). 1997. “Mengenal Teori Kepribadian Mutakhir”. Penerbit Kanisius, Yogyakarta.
Cortright, B. 1997. “Psychotherapy and Spirit; Theory and Practice in Transpersonal Psychotherapy”. State University of New York Press, New York.
Dirgagunarsa, Singgih. 1978. “Pengantar Psikologi”. Penerbit Mutiara, Jakarta.
Feldman, R.S. 1999. “Understanding Psychology”. McGraw-Hill College, Boston.
Hjelle, L.A. & Ziegler, D.J. 1976. “Personality Theories – Basic Assumption, Research, and Application”. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd. Tokyo.
Kohnstamm, Ph. & Palland,B.G. 1984. “Sejarah Ilmu Jiwa”. Disadur oleh: F.S. Juntak. Penerbit Jemmars, Yogyakarta.
Masrun. 1972. “Aliran-aliran Psikologi”. Penerbit Fakultas Psikologi UGM, Yogyakarta.
Nawawi, K.S. et al. 2000. “Metodologi Psikologi Islami”. Penerbit Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.
Santrock, J.W. 2002. “Psychology: Essentials”. McGraw-Hill, Boston.

---ooo0ooo---

PSIKOLOGI KONTEMPORER: PSIKOLOGI ISLAMI OLEH: DRS. ARIF WIBISONO ADI, MM

ZEITGEIST (SEMANGAT JAMAN) AKHIR ABAD 20 – AWAL ABAD 21
Post Modernisme yang timbul pada akhir abad 20 menimbulkan semangat Dekonstruksi (pembongkaran pemikiran) pada kemapanan yang menganggap Dunia Barat sebagai satu-satunya peradaban yang memonopoli kebenaran, termasuk di bidang ilmu. Timbullah kemudian pandangan-pandangan alternatif, yang berbeda dengan yang dianut oleh Barat. Pandangan hidup, budaya, agama yang sama sekali lain dengan yang berkembang di Barat mulai dihargai eksistensinya.
Selain itu semangat Globalisasi mulai meluas pula. Timbullah pandangan-pandangan yang bersifat Multikulturalisme. Budaya yang bermacam ragam pun diakui keberadaannya dan dihargai hak hidupnya.
Di kalangan umat Islam, setelah memasuki abad XV Hijriyah, mulai timbul pula semangat Kebangkitan Islam. Mereka mulai sadar, mereka tidak dapat terus menerus hanya sebagai buntutnya Barat. Setelah merdeka dari penjajahan militer, mereka pun ingin pula merdeka dari penjajahan di bidang-bidang yang lain, termasuk di bidang ilmu. Apalagi mulai timbul kesadaran di kalangan ilmuwan Islam, ternyata di bidang ilmu, Islam justru pernah mengalami kejayaannya, punya warisan yang cukup kaya, dan Barat justru pernah belajar dari Dunia Islam.
Maka ilmuwan Islam mulai kritis terhadap ilmu yang berkembang di Barat dan mulai menyadari kekurangan dan kelemahannya. Timbullah upaya untuk mengembangkan ilmu yang sesuai dengan pandangan hidup dan budaya Islam.
Dalam psikologi yang menjadikan jiwa atau perilaku manusia sebagai objek kajiannya, mulai timbul semangat untuk membangun psikologi yang didasarkan pada konsep manusia menurut Islam, bukan didasarkan pada konsep manusia menurut pandangan Barat.
Maka pada akhir abad 20 dan awal abad 21 ini berkembanglah Psikologi yang berwawasan Islam yang disebut: Psikologi Islami, tapi ada pula yang menyebutnya Psikologi Islam, Psikologi Profetik, Psikologi Qur’ani, Psikologi Ilahiah dan seterusnya.



LATAR BELAKANG PERLU DIKEMBANGKANNYA PSIKOLOGI ISLAMI
Setiap komunitas yang mengambil oper ilmu dari komunitas lain, akan selalu melakukan “Naturalisasi Ilmu” (Kartanegara, 2003, h. 111), suatu proses akulturasi dari sebuah ilmu yang datang dari luar terhadap budaya yang berlaku di ranah baru. Oleh karena itu, naturalisasi bisa dipakai dalam arti “mempribumikan” ilmu asing sehingga cocok dengan nilai-nilai budaya atau pandangan keagamaan sebuah negeri atau peradaban. Naturalisasi Ilmu terjadi di mana saja dan kapan saja di sepanjang sejarah perkembangan ilmu. Misalnya, ketika peradaban Mesopotamia menerima pelbagai corak budaya (bahkan agama) dari wilayah-wilayah di sekitarnya, di sana terjadi proses asimilasi dan akulturasi yang pada akhirnya menimbulkan corak budaya dan peradaban Mesopotamia yang khas.
Ketika dunia Islam mengalami kejayaannya, mereka melakukan naturalisasi ilmu dari ilmu-ilmu yang diambilnya dari Yunani, Cina, India, Mesir Kuno dan lain-lain. Inilah Islamisasi Ilmu tahap pertama.
Ketika dunia Barat yang waktu itu sedang mengalami “The Dark Ages” mengambil ilmu dari dunia terjadi akibat pemisahabnWesternisasi Ilmu yang hasilnya berupa Sekulerisasi Ilmu, karena pada waktu itu sedang terjadi konflik antara tokoh-tokoh ilmuwannya dengan tokoh-tokoh gereja (kasus Galileo Galilei), sehingga mereka memisahkan ilmu dari agama, tokoh ilmuwan urusi ilmu dan tokoh gereja urusi agama.
Saat ini umat Islam yag mengambil ilmu dari Barat, sesungguhnya perlu pula melakukan naturalisasi Ilmu, yaitu menyesuaikan ilmu yang diambilnya itu dengan wawasan dan pandangan hidup Islam. Inilah Islamisasi Ilmu tahap kedua. Dalam bidang psikologi, berkembanglah Psikologi Islami.
Selain itu, ilmu sekuler Barat yang sekarang mendominasi dunia sesungguhnya mulai dirasakan kelemahan dan kekurangannya. Banyak kritik-kritik kaum ilmuwan dilancarkan terhadap ilmu sekuler Barat ini, bahkan dari kalangan orang Barat sendiri (seperti Fritjof Capra, Thomas Kuhn dan lain-lain). Banyak terjadinya krisis-krisis global diyakini akibat penerapan ilmu yang sekuler ini, yang dikatakan bebas nilai, pragmatis, materialistis dan individualis saja, yang cenderung untuk kepentingan kelompok manusia sesaat saja tanpa memperhaitkan kepentingan global alam semssta, dan nilai-nilai ilahiah dicampakkan begitu saja. Seolah timbullah kemudian suatu Budaya Inderawi.
Psikolog Islam yang mempelajari Psikologi Barat yang sekuler mula-mula terpesona, kemudian menjadi sadar, dengan mengambil oper ajaran-ajaran psikologi Barat tanpa kritik, atau menelan bulat-bulat konsep-konsepnya, akhirnya akan menimbulkan kepribadian yang terpecah atau “Split Personality” . Hal ini a

MAZHAB KEEMPAT DALAM PSIKOLOGI PSIKOLOGI TRANSPERSONAL

Oleh: Drs. Arif Wibisono Adi, MM

ZEITGEIST (SEMANGAT JAMAN) YANG MELAHIRKAN PSIKOLOGI TRANSPERSONAL

Akhir abad 20 semangat Post Modernisme mulai meluas di kalangan ilmuwan, sehingga berkembanglah sikap Dekonstruksi atau pembongkaran kemapanan, terhadap pandangan-pandangan yang selama ini diyakini oleh Dunia Barat. Masalah-masalah yang dulu dianggap sebagai di luar lingkup ilmu mulai diperhatikan dan dipelajari, termasuk masalah-masalah spiritual dan hal-hal yang non-inderawi. Agama dan budaya-budaya yang berkembang di luar Dunia Barat pun mulai diperhatikan dan diakui eksistensinya.

SEJARAH PERKEMBANGAN PSIKOLOGI TRANSPERSONAL.
Pada sekitar tahun 1960-an, sehabis Perang Dunia Kedua, kehidupan orang-orang di Amerika Serikat banyak yang mengalami kekosongan. Mereka mencari-cari pengalaman-pengalaman yang baru dan mendapatkan makna hidup yang baru. Perubahan-perubahan zaman menimbulkan kegelisahan dan kecemasan. Banyak dari mereka kemudian lari ke obat-obat dan narkoba. Yang menimbulkan keheranan mereka, dengan mengkonsumsi obat dan narkoba itu, mereka dapat menghayati suatu “dunia lain” dan mendapatkan kesadaran yang berubah. Tapi efek samping dari obat dan narkoba itu mulai dirasakan, banyak yang kecanduan, rusak otak dan levernya. Kemudian ada yang mencoba-coba dengan menjalankan ritual - ritual agama Buddha dan Hindu seperti Meditasi dan Yoga, dan ternyata mereka dapat menghayati dunia lain dan kesadaran yang berubah seperti ketika mengkonsumsi obat dan narkoba, bahkan tanpa efek samping yang merusak. Maka meluaslah orang-orang yang menjalankan amal-amal agama Timur tersebut. Para psikolog pun mulai mempelajari perubahan perilaku dan kepribadian orang-orang yang menjalankan kegiatan agama Timur tersebut. Maka timbullah aliran psikologi yang disebut Psikologi Timur di Barat.
Ken Wilber yang mempelajari kesadaran yang berubah dan bertingkat-tingkat itu kemudian menguraikan adanya tiga tingkat kesadaran dalam tulisannya mengenai Spektrum Kesadaran: Prepersonal, Personal dan Transpersonal. Yang dimaksud Transpersonal yaitu di atas atau melampaui yang personal. Maka kemudian Psikologi Timur di Barat yang terutama mempelajari kesadaran yang tingkat tinggi itu kemudian disebut Psikologi Transpersonal

APA YANG DIMAKSUD PSIKOLOGI TRANSPERSONAL
Psikologi Transjpersonal dapat dipahami sebagai penggabungan antara tradisi kebijaksanaan dunia spiritual dengan kajian psikologi modern. Keduanya ingin mencari jawaban atas pertanyaan manusia yang fundamental: “Siapakah aku ?”
Tradisi dunia spiritual menatap kedalaman dan menjawab: “Suatu keberadaan spiritual, suatu ruh (soul), “ dan praktik-praktik agama ingin menghubungkan diri manusia dengan identitas yang lebih dalam di dalam dirinya. Sedangkan psikologi modern menjawab: “Suatu keakuan, Ego, eksistensi psikologis (self) dan psikoterapi berusaha untuk menelusuri ke arah perbaikan, kesehatan dan pertumbuhan dari keakuan ini.
Psikologi Transpersonal ingin menciptakan sintesis dari kedua jawaban di atas (Cortright, 1997). Psikologi Transpersonal mempelajari bagaimana yang spiritual diekspresikan di dalam dan melalui yang personal atau transendensi dari keakuan.
Vaughan, Wittine, dan Walsh (Rakhmat, 2003) menyebutkan empat asumsi dasar psikologi transpersonal:
1). Psikologi transpersonal adalah pendekatan kepada penyembuhan dan pertumbuhan yang menyentuh semua tingkat spektrum identitas – prapersonal, personal, dan transpersonal. Tahap prapersonal dimulai dalam rahim sampai usia 3-4 tahun. Pada tahap ini, kesadaran didorong oleh keinginan untuk bertahan hidup, memperoleh perlindungan, dan merasa terikat. Tahap personal meliputi kesadaran diri (sense of self) yang kohesif dan stabil. Pada tahap transpersonal, individu menjadi person yang menyadari kerinduannya akan pengetahuan diri yang lebih mendalam.
2). Psikologi transpersonal adalah “mengakui terurainya kesadaran diri terapis serta pandangan-dunia spiritualnya sebagai hal yang utama dalam membentuk sifat proses dan hasil terapi”. Asumsi ini merupakan ciri khas psikologi transpersonal yang mengharuskan terapis untuk memberikan komitmen pada orientasi spiritualnya terhadap kehidupan.
3). Psikologi transpersonal adalah proses “kebangkitan (pencerahan, awakening) dari identitas kecil menuju identitas yang lebih besar”. Psikologi transpersonal menganggap bahwa apa yang disebut Grof dan Grof sebagai spiritual emergency adalah proses spiritual yang akan mengantarkan orang kepada pertumbuhan yang lebih besar dan fungsi yang lebih tinggi.
4). Psikologi Transpersonal “membantu proses kebangkitan (pencerahan, awakening) dengan menggunakan teknik-teknik yang mempertajam intuisi dan memperdalam kesadaran personal dan transpersonal tentang diri“. Kearifan dan intuisi dibina dan dikembangkan melalui teknik-teknik, seperti meditasi, pencitraan, mimpi, dan altered state of consciousness. Psikologi transpersonal mengantarkan apa yang sekarang lazim disebut sebagai intervensi spiritual dalam psikoterapi,seperti doa, zikir, pertobatan, dan ritus-ritus keagamaan lainnya. Sampai di sini, integrasi psikologi dan agama mencapai bentuk barunya. Seperi tempo dulu, psikolog kini harus juga mengerti agama. Dan agamawan harus belajar dan mengambil manfaat dari psikologi.
Tahun 1969, Association of Transersonal Psychology untuk pertama kalinya menerbitkan The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology untuk memperkenalkan aliran ini kepada khalayak ramai (Nawawi et al, 2000). Dalam nomor perdana itu, Anthony Sutich salah seorang pencetus psikologi transpersonal di samping Maslow, memberikan penjelasan sebagai berikut:
“Psikologi transpersonal adalah nama yang diberikan kepada kekuatan yang baru timbul dalam bidang psikologi, dibentuk oleh sejumlah psikolog, ahli-ahli pria dan wanita dari bidang lain yang punya perhatian terhadap kemampuan-kemampuan dan kesanggupan-kesanggupan tertinggi manusia yang selama ini tidak dipelajari secara sistematis oleh psikologi perilaku atau teori-teori psikoanalisa yang klasik maupun oleh psikologi humanistik. Psikologi transpersonal secara khusus memberikan perhatian kepada studi ilmiah yang empiris dan kepada implementasi yang bertanggung jawab dari penemuan-penemuan yang relevan bagi pengaktualisasian diri, transendensi diri, kesadaran kosmis, fenomena-fenomena transendental yang terjadi pada (atau dialami oleh) perorangan-perorangan dan sebagainya”.
Setelah menelaah lebih dari 40 ragam definisi tentang psikologi transpersonal dalam kurun waktu 23 tahun, mengenai aliran ini, sebuah rumusan yang disusun oleh S.I. Shapiro & Denise H. Lajoie, kiranya cukup memberikan gambaran mengenai apa yang ditelaah psikologi transpersonal:
“Transpersonal psychology is concerned with the study of humanity’s highest potential, and with the recognation, understanding, and realization of unitive, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness”. (Psikologi transpersonal mempunyai perhatian terhadap studi potensial tertinggi umat manusia dan dengan pengakuan, pemahaman dan perealisasian keadaan-keadaan kesadaran yang mempersatukan, spiritual dan transenden).

ASUMSI-ASUMSI DASAR PSIKOLOGI TRANSPERSONAL

Beberapa asumsi dasar psikologi transpersonal yaitu:
1). Hakekat keberadaan manusia itu spiritual.
2). Kesadaran bersifat multidimensional. Kesadaran yang normal dan biasa pada kebanyakan orang itu hanyalah bagian paling luar dari kesadaran. Masih ada tingkat-tingkat kesadaran yang lebih dalam lainnya.
3). Manusia mempunyai dorongan yang wajar ke arah perjuangan spiritual yang diekspresikan sebagai pencarian akan “wholeness” melalui kesadaran individual, sosial dan transendental.
4). Bersentuhan dengan sumber yang lebih dalam dari Kebijaksanaan dan Tuntunan di dalam diri manusia, memungkinkan dan membantu ke arah pertumbuhannya.
5). Menyatukan kehendak kesadaran seseorang dengan aspirasi dorongan spiritual merupakan superordinat dari nilai kesehatan.
6). ASC (altered states of consciousness) merupakan suatu cara untuk mengakses pengalaman transpersonal dan dapat menjadi suatu bantuan untuk penyembuhan dan pertumbuhan.
7). Kehidupan dan perbuatan manusia sarat dengan makna. Membuka psyche manusia ke arah transformasi merupakan landasan spiritual bagi pengobatan.
8). Konteks transpersonal menentukan bagaimana klien itu dipandang. Pendekatan transpersonal (sesuai dengan kaum humanis) memandang klien, seperti juga terapisnya, sebagai seseorang yang selalu tumbuh berkembang dan selalu mencari kawan. Hubungan klien dengan terapis menjadi lebih berpusat pada hati (heart-centered) dalam praktik psikoterapinya. (Cortright, 1997)
Psikologi transpersonal menaruh perhatian pada dimensi spiritual manusia yang ternyata mengandung berbagai potensi dan kemampuan luar biasa yang sejauh ini terabaikan dari telaah psikologi kontemporer, terutama psikoanalisis dan psikologi perilaku. Bahkan dengan psikologi humanistik yang juga mengakui dan menaruh perhatian pada dimensi spiritual manusia ada bedanya, yakni psikologi humanistik lebih memanfaatkan potensi-potensi ini untukl peningkatan hubungan antarmanusia, sedangkan psikologi transpersonal lebih tertarik untuk meneliti pengalaman subyektif-transendental, serta pengalaman luar biasa dari potensi spiritual ini (Nawawi et