Wisdom, Spirituality and the Search for Meaning

WisdomManuscriptFried/9/06 1

Wisdom, Spirituality and the Search for Meaning

Jane Fried, Ph.D.Professor, Department of Counseling and Family

TherapyCentral Connecticut State University

(prepublication document- Reproduce only with consent ofauthor)

Introduction

The capacity to retain one’s balance in the presence of

conflicts or changing circumstances and pressures might be

considered the essence of wisdom. Wisdom also suggests an

ability to keep one’s focus in the face of uncertainty as

well as the capacity for thoughtful reflection in moments of

intense pressure and the ability to resist demands for

speedy action before all aspects of a situation can be

considered. Above all wisdom implies respect for persons and

perspectives that appear, at first glance, to be in

conflict. Wisdom is in short supply in a world where people

are willing to go to war, ideologically or militarily, over

differing ideas about the ways in which societies and


relationships should be organized. Balance and equanimity

are obscured by extremism.

In eras and cultures where there is a clear consensus

about social and personal values, wisdom can flow from

social consensus. Wisdom, in that context, can be understood

as the ability to make decisions and manage relationships

from a perspective rooted in the common values of the

culture. Most cultures transmit wisdom traditions through

stories, often rooted in a religious tradition, that

illustrate widely accepted virtues, in aphorisms and in a

consensus about guidelines for good behavior and decision-

making. Wisdom traditions are expressed in fables and myths

used shape beliefs and relationships, in religious books

such as the Bible or the Koran and in the preserved sayings

and legends of the ancestors. Wisdom embodies the highest

values of a particular culture. In our current, post-

modernist era there is very little historical wisdom that is

widely accepted. We live in a period where the

fundamentalist and liberal wings of Judaism and Christianity

are often in conflict with each other. In addition, the


voices of the Moslem, Hindu and Buddhist traditions have

become much stronger in the west and all of these compete

with our modernist, scientific tradition of positivist

epistemology and a number of other belief systems that shape

the ways in which we live together in the world.

Perspectives and epistemologies: wisdom, spirituality

and positivism

In cultures where religion is woven into the fabric of

the society, as Christianity is in Europe and Islam in the

Middle East, wisdom and spirituality are interconnected and

almost inextricable. In the United States religion is

intentionally excluded from the constitution and our general

approach to public discourse. Therefore a discussion of

spirituality in higher education in the United States, where

the majority of post-secondary students are enrolled in

state sponsored institutions, is problematic and complex.

Since ideas about spirituality are interconnected with

religion, discussions of religious beliefs qua personal

beliefs are excluded from the classroom. The dominant pubic

belief system in the United States is positivist, a


perspective which excludes religion and all forms of

transcendence. Positivism is philosophical perspective that

relies on the observation of activities and events in the

material world as its ultimate source of knowledge. Data are

observed , described and arranged conceptually into causal

relationships which evolve into more general theories that

describe the laws of the behavior of matter and observable

phenomena. All these laws are subject to revision, through

the acquisition of additional data and analysis via the

scientific method.

Positivist epistemology provides the fundamental

perspective upon which valid knowledge is constructed in

public discourse, including such places as classrooms,

businesses and government. The shorthand term for the

positivist perspective is “ What’s the bottom line?” which

means “How do we organize the data ( money, grades,

demographics) to find reliable conclusions about what is

happening?” Positivism frames most research in the sciences

and social sciences. Only data that have been gathered

systematically and organized into hypothesized relationships


are considered valid academic knowledge. The observer

organizes data and presents observations as knowledge. The

observer’s point of view is considered distorting to

accurate factual presentation and all efforts are made to

exclude the influence of any individual perspective on

interpretation. Positivist epistemology also excludes any

potential spiritual explanations of data. Most spiritual

traditions offer the possibility of arriving at universal

truth through various religious beliefs and practices.

Positivism excludes the notion that universal truth exists.

The positivist approach presents problems for

discussions of spirituality in college classrooms.

Positivism is concerned with data that are measured

scientifically and validated objectively. This epistemology

excludes discussions of personal meaning and emotional

responses from the domain of valid data since both of these

elements are individual and cannot be predictably

replicated. The notion of spirituality suggests a

discussion of subjective concerns in contrast to the

objective and material nature of positivist discussions.


Student desires to discuss personally meaningful spiritual

issues in the classroom have been extensively documented

(using positivist method) along with faculty unwillingness

to do so (Lindholm, Astin & Astin, 2006).

Positivism, constructivism, learning and

meaning

We seem to have a conundrum. Students learn more

effectively and powerfully when they can incorporate

consideration of multiple perspectives and emotional

reactions into the learning process. Our pedagogies,

research approaches and epistemology are based on the

assumption that all of those considerations interfere with

accuracy of understanding, a term which is considered

synonymous with learning. The well-documented student

concern with having opportunities to discuss spirituality is

fundamentally at odds with our entire approach to teaching

and learning in the secular domain. Is there another way to

understand and explore the issues that students want to

discuss without asking the professoriate to throw out their

academic epistemologies and the beliefs that have guided


their own work? An alternative approach to addressing this

need is through the incorporation of wisdom studies into the

appropriate curricula in both academic disciplines and

student affairs educational programs. The search for wisdom

is grounded in constructivist epistemology, an approach

which incorporates respect for data, but does not exclude

multiple interpretations of its meaning or the emotional

consequences of any particular interpretation.

By asking for public discussions of spirituality, I

believe that students are searching for ways to find

patterns of meaning in their own lives. Human beings need a

sense of meaning and order to feel comfortable in their

lives. This need seems to be “hardwired” into our organisms.

According to Sharon Daloz Parks ( 2000) “The purpose of an

organism is to organize and what human beings organize is

meaning…To be human is to seek coherence and correspondence”

(p.19). “Whatever pattern of meaning we ultimately depend

upon functions as ‘God’ for us” (p.21), helping us to orient

ourselves to the world we live in, so that we see and feel

the relationships among the various parts of our lives from


a perspective which provides coherence. Students are not

necessarily searching for sectarian, religious truths

although sectarian approaches do provide one way of finding

meaning. There may be two different definitions of truth

operating simultaneously. One defines truth as accurate

understanding of the material world. The other embodies a

search for guiding principles, a vision of what is good or

wise, a sense of purpose and meaning for the human

enterprise. The concept of spirituality is the term being

used to signify a desire to find pattern, meaning and

wholeness. However, spiritual inquiries are not the only

path in a search for wholeness. The notion of wisdom also

provides an approach to finding patterns , based on both

data and interpretation, acknowledgment of external

observations and internal, personal reactions. Wisdom as an

area of inquiry and a source of meaning is far more

compatible with Western epistemological traditions than is

spirituality and either area of inquiry can lead students to

the same goal- a process by which they can define meaning in

their lives.


Wisdom, spirituality and coherence

Spirituality and wisdom both refer to the exploration

of inner states leading to understanding and a sense of

meaning (Lindholm, Astin & Astin, 2006). The difference

between these two terms is that spirituality supports the

search for patterns that are based on external and invoked

meaning, often referred to as God. Wisdom, on the other

hand, is generally considered a search for Sophia

contemplation of the truth. A philos-sophia, or person who

loves truth, is one who searches for the timeless,

unchanging truths that exist beneath the flow of material

phenomena (Robinson, 1990). Patterns in a wisdom inquiry are

evoked and inferred from experience and often expressed in

extended conceptual metaphors. Such metaphors provide the

interpretive coherence which is fundamental to the

neurological workings of the brain (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999).

Wisdom neither requires nor excludes the divine, since the

extended metaphors of divinity also provide coherence and

patterning. An external source of meaning is not required in

a search for wisdom. Spiritual inquiry tends to ask


theological questions, to search for certain knowledge that

transcends human experience, and creates communities of

faith in which these inquiries can occur. Wisdom inquiries

are more likely to ask epistemological (Can we trust what we

think we know?) and cosmological questions (Can we infer

patterns of order from studying the physical universe?).

Wisdom also inquires about the limits of knowledge in a

doubt/faith dialogue (Kitchener & Brenner, 1990). At its

most coherent and integrated level the search for wisdom can

also create communities of inquiry, application and

evaluation through constructivist classroom pedagogies.

Spirit tends to posit a Divine Other which provides meaning.

Wisdom also searches for meaning, but meaning is metaphoric

and emerges in dialogue with other people. Wisdom, as a

construct and practice, seems more compatible with the

positivist traditions of most of our institutions than is

spirituality because it avoids the almost inevitable

invocation of sectarian religious beliefs. Wisdom also has

the potential of serving as an organizing approach to

teaching which can satisfy student needs for discussions of


meaning and pattern in life without establishing an

epistemological stance that completely contradicts our

positivist academic traditions. In short, faculty can help

students search for wisdom even when they don’t want to talk

about spirituality.

The quest for either wisdom or spiritual coherence

tends to focus on the following: 1) a desire for insight and

explanatory principles, 2) an understanding of complexity

and multiple perspectives, 3) the experience of compassion

or empathy both as givers and receivers, 4) an ability to

imagine the consequences of our behavior, 5) a sense of

balance in our lives, 6) the ability to remain prudent in

our decision-making and behavior, not to go off to extremes

at a level of intensity that is insupportable over the long

run and finally 7) extensive and intensive knowledge about

the worlds we live in, both the internal world of self-

awareness and the external world of increasing complexity

and reciprocity. The key difference between a spiritual

search and a search for wisdom is in the origin of the myth

or metaphor that lends coherence.


Psychological studies on the topic of wisdom have

proliferated over the past 25 years. The director of the

Berlin Wisdom Project, Dr. Paul Baltes, acknowledges “Wisdom

may be beyond what psychological methods and concepts can

achieve,” (2000, p.123) but he and his group have persisted

in using positivist research methods to understand this very

significant human value and to place it in an historical

context, using language that fits into the modern research

paradigm and meets modern epistemological criteria.

The Berlin Wisdom Paradigm describes wisdom as “an

expert knowledge system concerning the fundamental

pragmatics of life…[including] knowledge and judgment about

the meaning and conduct of life and the orchestration of

human development toward excellence while attending

conjointly to personal and collective well-being” (Baltes &

Staudinger, 2000, p. 122). “[Wise persons excel] in the task

of existential life management and the criterion of value

relativism” (Baltes, Staudinger, Maerke & Smith 1995). The

phrase “fundamental pragmatics of life,” indicates that wise

persons are good at making significant life decisions,


taking skillful action and taking the exigencies of human

difference into account and achieving a balance of

individual concerns with concern about the welfare of the

group. Wise people can see or create patterns of behavior

and meaning that provide balance between individual and

group welfare.

The Berlin Paradigm identifies two types of basic

criteria for wisdom: factual knowledge and procedural knowledge.

Factual knowledge is conceptual- having information about

specific topics, such as human development, interpersonal

relationships, economics, sociology, science, the impact or

consequences of public events and trends on private lives,

and so forth. Procedural knowledge generally refers to

understanding of good ways to make decisions, how to take

context into account when attempting to understand events,

conflict management and so forth.

Three meta-criteria characterize wisdom: lifespan

contextualism, relativism of values and life priorities, and recognition and

management of uncertainty. All of these meta-criteria require

awareness of cognitive/affective integration because they


all assume that high levels of cognitive complexity and the

insights which they yield are often emotionally disruptive

or disorienting. These meta-criteria have several things in

common. They recognize the effect of context and life

experience on framing issues and making judgments. They

acknowledge the role of explicit values and priorities in

influencing judgments. They acknowledge that no judgment of

decision is final. They demonstrate a level of comfort with

contradiction and paradox, recognizing that “contradictory

judgments could ensue from different sets of criteria for

evaluation” (Kramer, 1990, p. 290). Wise persons demonstrate

an ability to engage in “problem finding” or raising

important questions. Problem finding involves an awareness

of a need for new methods of understanding for which old

understandings are no longer functional. They are willing

and able to shift frames of reference, and to struggle with

problems that are of fundamental importance. These problem-

finding, paradox-embracing capacities lead ultimately to an

awareness of the limits of one’s own knowledge and the

limits of what it is possible to know as well as the


ability to identify “ill-structured problems,” whose

solutions are unclear and call for the organization of

complex information around an evaluative process based on

self-chosen values (Kitchener & Brenner, 1990).

People who satisfy the meta-criteria of wisdom are

similar to individuals who have developed reflective

judgment (Kitchener & Brenner, 1990) at the 7th level of

epistemic cognition. This level is characterized by a

constructivist approach to knowledge and a set of criteria

for effective assessment of available information. They

realize that there is never a final or best answer to a

problem but that a good answer has certain characteristics

and is satisfactory. A good answer is “one that does the

most good while doing the least harm [and is]…synthesize[ed]

from the breadth and depth of the body of available

knowledge [as] the best possible judgment.” (1990, p. 222).

Considering the similar needs which the pursuit of

either wisdom or spirituality can meet, it seems reasonable

to infer that we can teach in ways that help students become

wise without necessarily stepping into the forbidden domain


of religion. We can find ways to teach that increase

students’ possibilities for becoming wise and discerning or

creating patterns of meaning in their lives. We can develop

methods and approaches in our secular classrooms to support

our students’ search for meaning in ways that are consistent

with our mission as educators in a culturally diverse and

pluralistic society? We know we can teach students knowledge

and information. We can teach analytic and synthetic methods

of inquiry. We have methods for exposing people to examples

of all of the traits and skills included in most of the

descriptions of wisdom and for giving them practice in using

constructivist elements of cognition to develop the

intellectual skills of wise persons. We can help students

become aware of the limits of knowledge, demonstrate the

ability to deal with paradox and learn to search for

significant problems that expand our boundaries. However,

our positivist approaches to teaching tend to exclude

intentional exposure to the non-cognitive elements of wisdom

such as cognitive/affective integration, the development of

empathy and compassion, interpersonal communication skills


and social unobtrusiveness. Those elements of learning, the

social glue that integrates a person’s ability to manage the

fundamental pragmatics of life and teach it to others, are

simply not part of the curricula of most disciplines as they

are currently conceptualized or taught.

Integrating the search for patterns with

positivism

One solution to the dilemma of integrating students’

needs to find patterns and personal meaning with the

positivist tradition of learning impersonal information is

to combine constructivist epistemology and transformative

pedagogy. Constructivism recognizes the value of data as a

foundation for inquiry but also acknowledges the role of

perspective and personal frames of reference as the data are

interpreted. Constructivism uses dialogue as a method for

“opening up possibilities rather than drawing conclusions”

(Baxter Magolda, 1992, p.17). This epistemology questions

the possibility of finding universal generalizations, but

acknowledges that flexible patterns of interpretation can

help to create meaning. Constructivism requires dialogue and


dialogue incorporates processes that help students to learn

the interpersonal processes associated with wisdom –

toleration of ambiguity, empathy, problem-finding, paradox-

embracing, the ability to identify “ill-structured

problems,” whose solutions are unclear and call for the

organization of complex information around an evaluative

process based on self-chosen values (Kitchener & Brenner,

1990). “judgment and communication skills” ((Holliday and

Chandler, 1986, p. 80), kindness and unselfishness and

finally, “social unobtrusiveness” or a non-judgmental style

of interaction.

Constructivist epistemology supports transformative

learning , an approach which helps students learn

information and simultaneously and critique their own

perspective and interpretation in using information to

construct knowledge or find patterns. Transformative

learning encourages students to become conscious of their

own perspectives and reframe their perspectives as knowledge

increases and circumstances demand more complex modes of

understanding. The combination of cognitive and affective


learning along with the interpersonal skills required to

explore multiple perspectives makes transformative learning

pedagogy combined with constructivist epistemology one of

the most powerful approaches available for the development

of the skills identified as contributing to wisdom ( Caine,

Caine, McClintic & Klimek, 2005; Kramer, 1990).

The search for and discussion of meaning remains

troublesome for many in an academic context. These

discussions require acknowledgement of affect, the

willingness to abandon the search for the right answer and

the ability to listen carefully while suspending judgment at

least for the moment. Discussions of meaning replace

objectivity as an evaluative standard with respect for and

examination of many subjectivities and the ability to

organize facts in support of an argument. These

conversations also make a virtue of taking culture, age,

relationships and family, economic status and other

variables into account as influences on the perspective of

the person who is learning to place academic information

into her or his personal meaning patterns.


Teaching to evoke wisdom

I believe that we cannot teach wisdom, but we can

create environments in which students are exposed to the

knowledge, skill and cognitive capacities which allow people

to become wise over the course of the life-span. We, as

faculty members, can evoke patterns of student behavior and

inquiry to support the development of wisdom. Some students

will choose a path of philos-sophia and some will choose a path

of spiritual inquiry. All who are exposed to these

opportunities, in any discipline or in any other area of

student life, will have an opportunity to learn

experientially, using means that are both instructive and

intrinsically rewarding. A number of modifications in our

traditional approaches to pedagogy and epistemology must be

made if we are to create this transformation. Academic

faculty must begin to think about their own epistemic

assumptions – 1) What kind of knowledge is appropriate to

discuss in academic settings?; 2) What kind of personal

experience and valuing or meaning making (their own and


their students) is appropriate to discuss in these settings?

3) Do we need to teach as if all problems had solutions? 4)

Are we, as faculty, qualified and willing to cross the

ephemeral bridge between affect and cognition that shakes

when a student realizes that a previous way of making

meaning is no longer working and the student has no

ontological ground to stand on? Is referral to the

counseling center the most appropriate response or is a

meaning making conversation with a respected teacher an

equally effective response? This kind of challenge to the

meaning making organism is not pathology- it is normal

development. Can we expose students to the depth of

understanding about life that they are asking for when they

say they want to talk about spiritual issues in the

classroom or will we continue to shy away from those

conversations because of lack of skill in conducting them,

fear of personal exposure or a deep-seated belief in

positivist epistemology that simply excludes these

conversations from our academic lives? If we develop a broad

enough viewpoint to begin to understand the role which these


conversations can play in student learning, the conflict

will transform into a new paradigm in which discussions of

meaning and discussions of information become two sides of

the same coin instead of two different coins. The journey to

help our students find or create meaning in our increasingly

fragmented and dangerous world is an important one. Whatever

path we choose, we must challenge ourselves to begin.

References

Arlin, P. 1990. Wisdom: The art of problem finding. In

Wisdom: it’s nature, origins and development, ed.R. Sternberg. 230-243.

NY: Cambridge University Press

Baltes, P. & Staudinger, U. 2000. Wisdom: A

metaheuristic ( pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue

toward excellence. American Psychologist. 55, 122-136

Baltes, P., Staudinger, U., Maerke, A. & Smith, J.1995.

People nominated as wise: A comparative study of wisdom

related knowledge. Psychology and Aging. 10, 155-166. (Digital

object 10.1037/0882-7974.10.2.155, downloaded 11/17/05)

Baxter Magolda, M. 1992. Knowing and reasoning in college. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass


Caine, R., Caine, G., McClintic, C. & Klimek, K. 2005.

Brain/Mind learning principles in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications

Chandler, M. & Holliday, S. 1990. Wisdom in a post-

apocalyptic age. In Wisdom: it’s nature, origins and development, ed.

R. Sternberg , 121-141. NY: Cambridge University Press

Chandler, M. & Holliday, S. 1986 Wisdom: Explorations in adult

competence. NY: Karger

Kitchener, K. & Brenner, H. 1990. Wisdom and reflective

judgment: Knowing in the face of uncertainty, In Wisdom: it’s

nature, origins and development, ed. R. Sternberg.212-229. NY:

Cambridge University Press

Kramer, D. 1990. Conceptualizing wisdom: The primacy of

affect-cognition relations. In Wisdom: it’s nature, origins and

development, ed. R. Sternberg .279-313. NY: Cambridge

University Press

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The

embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. NY: Basic Books

Lindholm, J., Astin, H. & Astin, A. 2006. Spirituality and

the professoriate. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research


Institute. http://spirituality.ucla.edu/faq.html, (accessed May 1,

2006).

Parks, S. 2000. Big questions, worthy dreams. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass

Robinson, D. 1990. Wisdom through the ages. In Wisdom:

it’s nature, origins and development, ed. R. Sternberg. 13-24. NY:

Cambridge University Press

Wisdom, Spirituality and the Search for Meaning

Documents

Transcript of Wisdom, Spirituality and the Search for Meaning