Brooke Bentley and Dr. C. Terry Warner, Philosophy
Kierkegaard, the Danish, Christian, Existentialist of the 19th century is not only a philosopher, but also a psychologist. Kierkegaard’s interactions and responses to his audiences reveal a complex view of human freedom or agency that has far-reaching implications for psychotherapy. The assumptions about what it means to be a human being associated with this view differ radically from the traditionally naturalistic assumptions of psychology, which include ideas such as determinism and hedonism.1 Moreover, he does not restrict himself to writing about human conduct; he intends his writing to intervene therapeutically into the life of the reader in order to invite him or her to act as an agent, without evading responsibility for himself or herself. Thus, Kierkegaard’s interaction with his readers can be considered an alternative therapeutic model to traditional and naturalistic therapeutic approaches.2
Kierkegaard’s therapeutic literary intervention partly consists of representing himself as a “Socratic gadfly,” for every “single individual” who reads his works seriously. He reminds the reader of truths he or she might rather forget; he confronts the reader with religious and moral choices that he or she cannot evade. Kierkegaard, by means of his interventions, creates the occasion in which the reader is forced to accept and exercise his or her agency.
He conducts the intervention in two different ways. First, if the reader is merely unenlightened, and accepts the truth wholeheartedly as he or she discovers it, then Kierkegaard can proceed with direct communication. The reader is then edified and continues on the path to self-realization, which is to “rest transparently in God” and be God’s (and Christ’s) helper in love. Second, if the reader knows the truth, but still rejects it, then the reader immediately enters a state of self-deception and delusion.3 In this case, because there is untruth and delusion to dispel, Kierkegaard intervenes in the second way, indirectly. Thus it is by means of his style that he intervenes in ways appropriate to different psychological states.
In direct communication, the goal for the reader, “that single individual” who is seriously studying Kierkegaard’s works, is to deepen his or her relationship with God. So, the directly communicative works are primarily religious works: “discourses” that are not “sermons.” Kierkegaard reminds the reader that he has no authority to write sermons or talk like an apostle. He in no way professes to be a teacher, but rather an example of a man deepening his relationship with God. The reader is invited to read the words aloud to himself or herself, imagining that he or she is the person involved in the discourse, interacting with God. However, Kierkegaard does not allow anyone to blindly accept anything that he writes; he requires the reader to think for himself or herself. Kierkegaard has arranged it so that the reader must interact truly with God, by his or her own initiative, or dishonestly choose to stay “ignorant”, entering into self-deception. The “single individual” is left “alone” before God, with full responsibility for his or her choices and life.
Alone, a reader cannot escape into the anonymity and excuses of the crowd. The reader must face the truth, which is Christ. Here, Kierkegaard acts as a Socratic midwife, leading the reader to the edge of the choice, where he or she must choose for himself or herself. The reader must choose what he or she becomes, giving birth to himself or herself in relation to God; Kierkegaard sets up the choice for them and forces them to make the choice. The real action takes place between God and the reader; the midwife merely facilitates the opportunity. In this way, Kierkegaard hides himself in the process. As God’s instrument, he is invisible.
In indirect communication, there is untruth to dispel. Kierkegaard must first relieve the reader of the delusion or self-deception through indirect communication in order to proceed toward direct communication. In the form of pseudonymous works, Kierkegaard presents a variety of existential possibilities that fit different styles of living. He must help the individual sympathize with one particular pseudonym. The pseudonym captures the masses by producing such a book that takes up and glorifies the “esthetic,” or hedonistic, common way of life. Then, when the reader is caught up into the world of one of this pseudonym, which is his or her natural point of view, Kierkegaard suddenly introduces a different, higher possibility for life, confronting the audience with its own ambivalence and dissonance regarding these two points of view.
Kierkegaard refers to this process as “wounding from behind.” He confronts the audience with their perspective’s weaknesses and inadequacies, targeting the “single individual” as the serious audience that may emerge from the esthetic masses. Concurrently, Kierkegaard presents an alternative and confronts the reader a choice. The alternative existential possibility, which is the ethical way of life, represents a solution to the problems of the lower way of life. The reader must choose between these two paradigms.
In a process perfectly parallel to this one, Kierkegaard undermines the mentality of those committed to the ethical way of life by confronting it with the religious way, and the reader is “forced” to make a choice.
Last, Kierkegaard ensures that his audience does not merely read his works because they are popular. He does not want a person to blindly accept his work. Therefore, he writes with pseudonyms whose lifestyle fits the philosophy with which they write. Kierkegaard thereby takes no credit for writing the books: they are true because the author (the pseudonym) is reduplicated in, or consistent with, his message. Also, Kierkegaard creates scandals so that a reader would not choose Kierkegaard because he is popular, but because the reader is interested in deepening his or her relationship with God. All that Kierkegaard does is concerned with preserving the agency of the reader while guaranteeing that he or she does something with his or her life.
References
- Slife (2001) explains five assumptions of naturalism, outlines the problems with these assumptions, and suggests alternatives in the chapter, “Theoretical Challenges to Therapy Practice and Research: The Constraint of Naturalism,” in a book to be published. Kierkegaard suggests slightly different alternatives.
- The thesis in full investigates the relationship between Kierkegaard’s assumptions and the assumptions of naturalism, as reflected by their therapies.
- C. Terry Warner not only writes about how one becomes self-deceived, but he also writes about how to get out of self-deception and live a truthful life in “Bonds that Make Us Free.”