Psychotherapy and new religions in a pluralistic society.

Kilbourne, Brock; Richardson, James T.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.3.237

Cited by 70 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These movements appear to represent the regeneration of religious forces that in their doctrines and practices do not tolerate or accommodate secular tendencies. Yet, from early Pauline Christianity to contemporary movements, the appeal of radical prophecy has been greatest among those who are most privileged and secure, especially the middle and the upper middle classes (Stark, 1986;Meeks, 1983;Kilbourne and Richardson, 1984). The middle class basis of religious innovation is consistent with the more general fact that cultural innovators have also been well above average in terms of income and education (Stark, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

The Secular Contribution to Religious Innovation: A Case Study of the Unification Church

Parsons¹

1989

Sociological Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the relation o… innovative religious movements to their secular host societies. A theoretical review suggests that these movements simultaneously con[orto to a principle of exclusion --separation [roto and rejection o… elements of their secular host culture, and to a principle of inclusion --the intensi… and radicalization o… elements o… that same culture; they do not simply renounce the.ir secular host culture. The Uni…Church offers an empirical demonstration o… the operation of these principles: it has appropriated and even rationalized pivotal elements of the contemporary secular culture of the emotions, and it has …205 opposed itself to much of secular society. Overall, elements o… secular culture ate appropriated by innovative religious movements in a dialectical process that simultaneously affirms, denies and transcends secular culture; religious innovation is less a reaction against than an organic growth of secular culture.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 81%

The Secular Contribution to Religious Innovation: A Case Study of the Unification Church

Parsons¹

1989

Sociological Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quite naturally scientists associated with this tradition have been suspicious of the kinds of intuitive insight and leaps of faith associated with religion and the form of social relations so justified. 9 While it would be incorrect to characterize the controversy over new religious groups as dividing strictly along disciplinary lines (Brorrdey, Hadden and Hammond, 1987), opposition has centered in psychology and psychiatry while religious studies and sociology have adopted a less critical stance (Kilbourne and Richardson, 1984). Psychotherapists tend to legitimate treatment in the terms of naturalistic science, but the nature of that treatment has been more political than practitioners have cared to acknowledge.…”

Section: Psychology Sociology and The New Religions Controversymentioning

confidence: 98%

Understanding the Structure of Contractual and Covenantal Social Relations: Implications for the Sociology of Religion

Bromley

Busching

1988

Sociological Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social scientists have largely abandoned the analysis of distinctions between tribal (family and clan) and industrial (marketplace and organizational) types of social relations.In this paper we draw a distinction between contractual and covenantal social relations which, we argue, parallels that societal level dichotomy on an interpersonal level. It is the thesis of this paper that contracts and covenants are alternative and qualitatively different types of social retations. As industrial societies have become increasingly contractual, the form and logic of the covenants have been ignored. In the present historical context of dominant power resting with individuals whose resources are created primarily within contractual social relations, covenantal forms tend largely to be denigrated. The social sciences, historically developed with presuppositions which also serve as the justification for contracts, have contributed to this denigration. We begin, therefore, by comparing the forra and logic covenants and contracts. Using thls distinction, we then analyze the controversy over new religions as iUustrative of the continuing structural conflict between these types of social relations. We conclude with a call for a sociology of religion which does not presuppose the logic of either type but rather is broad enough to encompass both contractual and covenantal social relations.Social scientists have largely abandoned the analysis of distinctions between tribal (family and clan) and industrial (marketplace and organizational) forms of social relations which informed the work of early theorists such as Toennies, Durkheim, Main, Redfield and Wirth. As contemporary theorists increasingly have come to rely upon theory appropriate only to the indust¡ form, ah important qualitative distinction has been obscured. The thesis developed "The authors wish to acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions on ah earlier draft of this paper by Lyrm Davidman, Lynn Nelson, James Spickard, and Stanley Strong. This research was partially supported by the Faculty Grant-in-Aid Program of Virginia Commonwealth University. Authorship in this paper is ordered alphabetically. 15Sat University of Exeter on July 28, 2015 http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 16S SOCIOLOGICAL ANALY$IS in this paper is that covenantal social relations, which characterize families, clans, and religious groups, are usefuUy tmderstood as an alternative and qualitatively different form of social relations from the contractual social relations which characterize markets and organizations.Recently there has been some renewed recognŸ by complex organization theorists that both qualitatively different forms of social relations similar to those we describe here are contained in many organizations and in various mixes. For example, in the process of empirically distinguishing between organizational forros, Ouichi and Johnson (1978: 293,310) note~l that the abstractions they formulated bote "a striking similarity to earlier and, by now, classic desc¡ of whole soci...

show abstract

“…This exemplifies a recurring theme in discussions on psychotherapy, as seen for example in Frank's (1961) comparison of modern psychotherapy to primitive forms of healing and religious conversions, and in Kilbourne and Richardson's (1984) suggestion that religious conversions may be functionally equivalent to psychotherapy.…”

Section: Common Factors According To Rosenzweigmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Search for Common Factors in Psychotherapy: Two Theoretical Models with Different Empirical Implications

Lundh¹

2014

PBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The difficulties of demonstrating that any specific form of psychotherapy is more effective than any other has led to the formulation of the so-called Dodo Bird Verdict (that all forms of therapy are equally effective) and to the suggestion that what really matters for therapeutic efficiency are factors that are common to different forms of therapy. The term "common factors", however, is seldom defined in an unambiguous way. In this paper, two different models of "common factors" are differentiated, and their implications are compared. The first model is referred to as the Relational-Procedural Persuasion (RPP) model and is primarily based on the writings of Frank and Wampold; according to this model effective psychotherapy requires a good therapeutic relationship, a specified therapeutic procedure, and a rhetorically skilful psychotherapist who persuades the client of a new explanation that provides new perspectives and meanings in life. The contents of these procedures and perspectives, however, are less important -according to this model, the treatment procedures are beneficial to the client because of the meaning attributed to these procedures rather than because of the specific nature of the procedures. The other model, the Methodological Principles and Skills (MPS) model, is based on the assumption that effective psychotherapy relies on common methodological principles that are instantiated in various ways in different forms of psychotherapy, and on the therapist's capacity of applying these principles in a skillful way. According to this model, method matters, and it is possible to improve existing methods. Whereas the MPS model carries a hope for the improvement of psychotherapy, the RPP model implies a more pessimistic view of psychotherapy as forever bound by the limits of the Dodo Bird Verdict. It is concluded that psychotherapy research may benefit from using the MPS model as a working hypothesis, but that a comprehensive model of common factors in psychotherapy also needs to integrate important insights from the RPP model, as well as an understanding of the structural characteristics that psychotherapy shares with other kinds of social interaction.

show abstract

Psychotherapy and new religions in a pluralistic society.

Cited by 70 publications

References 46 publications

The Secular Contribution to Religious Innovation: A Case Study of the Unification Church

The Secular Contribution to Religious Innovation: A Case Study of the Unification Church

Understanding the Structure of Contractual and Covenantal Social Relations: Implications for the Sociology of Religion

The Search for Common Factors in Psychotherapy: Two Theoretical Models with Different Empirical Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About