In the late 1960’s Abraham Maslow, Anthony Sutich and others wrote about what they called the four forces in American psychology. The psychological forces they identified were behaviorism, psychoanalysis, humanistic, and transpersonal. Known as the fourth force, transpersonal was viewed as emerging at the time. In the first issue of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology (1969), Sutich provided a lengthy, detailed, and comprehensive definition of transpersonal psychology. In the same journal a few decades later (1993), Roger Walsh and Francis Vaughan gave a shorter definition of transpersonal psychology (known also as spiritual psychology), defining it as “a sub-field or school of psychology that integrates the spiritual and transcendent aspects of the human experience with the framework of modern psychology. The transpersonal is defined as experiences in which the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos.”
Although this way of thinking about humanity is relatively new within mainstream Western psychology, the underlying perspective is ancient and widespread across many cultural traditions. It is central to African worldviews that’s regularly discussed and applied in the writings of African-centered transpersonal psychologist Linda James Myers. It can be traced back hundreds to thousands of years to an ancient Egyptian (Kemetic) understanding of the human being that viewed spirituality and psychology as inseparable and recognized the intimate relationship between human life and the cosmos. Comparable holistic perspectives can also be found in many Indigenous traditions of the Americas, in Asian philosophical and spiritual systems, and in strands of classical European thought, all of which understand the human psyche as embedded within a sacred and meaningful universe
Maslow, Sutich and others effectively argued that the four forces in psychology were four unique approaches to studying human beings. As a student I was interested in learning about each of these approaches to varying degrees. I began studying increasing amounts of the material from year to year as a graduate student, when much to my delight, there came a moment when I believed a case could be made for arguing that the four psychological forces aligned with (and are means of expressions for) the four psychological functions Carl Jung identified as sensing, thinking, feeling, and intuiting.
Jung described the four functions in his book Psychological Types as follows: “Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going (1971, pp. 540-541).”
The functions are configured in the human psyche with thinking and feeling existing at the opposite ends of the same axis. Existing at the opposing ends of a second overlapping axis are sensing and intuiting. Together, the four functions represent our means and ways of knowing and understanding reality and all aspects of the human experience while mirroring aspects of the fourfold structure of the psyche. Worthy of note is that the two overlapping axes form a cross which can be referred to as a Jungian cross.
The single function (which can be any one of the four) situated at the north end of the cross is called the superior function. It represents the most dominant and developed function. Opposed to this function is the inferior function which has a special and unique role to play in an individual’s movement towards wholeness. Superior and inferior functions can also be identified in “the psyche” of the people of a nation or culture; and so, too, when identified, the inferior function may potentially, if not surprisingly, reveal a means to wholeness for an individual and/or the people of a nation—and yet, there is typically a price to pay on the journey to wholeness, as there are often considerable challenges to overcome in trying to integrate the inferior function with the other three in an effort to bring about a robust fully functioning psyche—especially, when elements of the shadow (a prominent archetype in Jungian psychology) are attached to the inferior function. According to Jung, the shadow contains repressed qualities that are unacceptable or undesirable—and, thus, are readily rejected by the conscious mind.
Regarding an individual in relation to the four functions, the ego generally comes to experience three of the psychological functions as helpful. They must, however, occupy the positions of superior, first auxiliary, and second auxiliary functions—or in other words, the positions of North, West and East, respectively, on the Jungian cross. The ego experiences its greatest comfort with the superior function (i.e., the one that develops first in consciousness) while over a period of time, a person’s ego learns to recognize the usefulness of a second function (usually called the first auxiliary function), and a third function that may be called the second auxiliary or tertiary function.
The fourth remaining function (i.e., the one located at the South point of the Jungian Cross) is always the inferior function. Although it ultimately offers an important pathway toward psychological wholeness, it frequently generates discomfort, frustration, and anxiety whenever the ego encounters it or attempts to rely upon it. From the standpoint of the ego, the inferior function often appears unreliable or deficient, regularly falling short of the standards established by the dominant function. Because it is inferior and therefore the opposite of the superior, dominant function, the domain of experience to which it provides access is typically the least valued or least trusted by the conscious personality. Situated close to the unconscious, the inferior function may also serve as a channel through which aspects of what Jung called the shadow can emerge into awareness, bringing with it both the disturbances and developmental possibilities that accompany encounters with previously unrecognized parts of the psyche. At times, similar dynamics can also appear at the cultural level. For example, when certain human qualities or ways of knowing are collectively devalued, they may be projected outward onto others or onto marginalized groups, becoming part of what analytical psychology would describe as the collective shadow of a society.
In my book Passages Beyond the Gate (2010, ebook 2012), I discuss how these four psychological functions give rise to four strikingly different ways of knowing which we find in psychology. In American psychology they unfold in a dynamic and readily identifiable way.
As the functions begin to differentiate within the psyche of an individual, the order is such that the first to develop is the superior or dominant function. This dynamic process determines which function will become the “troublesome,” unruly function, and that function is always the opposite function of the superior function. Two more functions will over time differentiate and become controllable and reliable (to varying degrees).
Over time things stabilize, and the ego realizes it has three functions that it can effectively use, but one that is unreliable, difficult to manage, and thus often devalued. This dynamic is aptly named the problem of the three and the one. It is a dynamic process that can be seen not only in an individual, but in a discipline—such as psychology, which in itself mirrors and identifies dynamics and those things of importance in the psyche of groups that comprise cultures and nations.
If the first force in American psychology, represented by behaviorism, is grounded in the function Jung called sensation—then the alignments of the three remaining functions with the three remaining psychological forces point to psychoanalysis (the original psychodynamic psychology) being grounded in thinking, and humanistic (sometimes referred to as humanistic-existential psychology) being grounded in the feeling function. Transpersonal psychology grounded in intuition represents the inferior function in American psychology; consequently, being on the same axis, it is opposite behaviorism which is grounded in sensation. With this in mind, the argument can be made that behaviorism (essentially, the tenets it rests upon that are consistent with the traditional scientific method) is not only the first force in American psychology, it also is a manifestation of sensation, the superior function in American psychology.
There is a split in the thinking among transpersonalists regarding the means and ways one should go about studying transpersonal phenomena. On the one hand, there are those adherents, practitioners, and researchers who are compelled to explore ideas, acquire knowledge, and gather information gained only from identifying and exploring measurable phenomena. There are others who embrace a different, if not, expanded or broader view of the transpersonal that calls for the exploration and gathering of information in realms that go beyond the concrete, and measurable aspects of reality. Still, some transpersonalists, like myself, believe both approaches are important, and should be pursued.
In order for transpersonal psychology to provide its ideal and unique contribution to American psychology, it must establish and maintain a firm foothold in the metaphysical dimensions of knowledge and reality. This requirement, however, reveals the central paradox captured in the title of this article: the very condition that gives transpersonal psychology its greatest promise is also the source of its greatest problem. Its commitment to metaphysical inquiry and spiritual values when integrated with the practical applications of scientific understanding positions it to offer a more complete vision of human life. Yet, this same commitment places it at odds with the dominant assumptions of American psychology.
This tension is not unique to transpersonal psychology, but reflects a deeper and long-standing question within the discipline itself: What is psychology? Is it properly defined as a science, or is it more accurately understood as a field that can be approached through both scientific and non-scientific modes of inquiry? Some of the most influential figures in the history of psychology have resisted reducing the discipline to a purely natural science. William James, often regarded as the father of American psychology, realized psychology aspires to scientific rigor, but its subject matter resists reduction to the methods of natural science. Further, he recognized psychological life cannot be separated from religion, philosophy, and lived experience.
This broader view continued into the humanistic and existential traditions. Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow argued that scientific methods alone are insufficient to capture the full reality of the person, particularly those dimensions involving meaning, value, and self-transcendence. Likewise, Rollo May emphasized that psychology must also engage interpretive and phenomenological modes of understanding if it is to remain faithful to human existence. From this historical perspective, psychology emerges not as a discipline reducible to science, but as one that can be studied scientifically while also requiring modes of inquiry that extend beyond empirical measurement.
The problem, then, becomes more clearly defined within the context of American psychology. As reflected in its leading academic institutions and dominant research paradigms, American psychology places a disproportionately high value on the sensing function. While indispensable, this emphasis fosters a materialistic view of reality and promotes an overreliance on science as the primary—if not exclusive means of understanding and improving human life. Traditional science, grounded in this framework, tends to deny or disregard the spiritual dimension of existence. It seeks to describe human beings through observable phenomena and measurable processes, and yet, repeatedly, human experience itself points beyond these limits, affirming the enduring truth that “man shall not live by bread alone” (Matthew 4:4).
Historically, this dominance of sensation has taken different forms. It was once most clearly expressed in behaviorism, and today it is reinforced through the widespread insistence on exclusively evidence-based approaches—methods that privilege quantification, measurement, and empirical verification. Within such a framework, transpersonal psychology is often marginalized precisely because it is grounded in intuition and remains open to metaphysical realities. Here again, its promise and its problem are inseparable: what enables it to expand the horizons of psychological knowledge simultaneously renders it suspect in the eyes of the mainstream.
A complete understanding of human nature requires the integration of all four psychological functions, corresponding to the four major forces in psychology. From this perspective, transpersonal psychology cannot be dismissed without impoverishing the field as a whole. Yet, in practice, it is the very approach most frequently ignored, resisted, or even ridiculed. In response, some transpersonalists, seeking broader acceptance, have attempted to align more closely with mainstream expectations by minimizing or abandoning the metaphysical dimension. In doing so, however, they risk diminishing the very essence of what gives transpersonal psychology its transformative potential.
At leading academic institutions across the United States, dominant approaches—behavioral, cognitive, biological, and related scientific frameworks—continue to reflect the primacy of sensation-based inquiry. Alongside these, psychodynamic and humanistic-existential perspectives maintain an important presence. Each of these approaches holds a legitimate place within the discipline; yet, without transpersonal psychology, the field remains fundamentally incomplete. Its exclusion is not incidental, but symptomatic of the deeper tension identified here: the difficulty of integrating a mode of knowing that challenges the epistemological boundaries of conventional science.
For American psychology to move toward wholeness, transpersonal psychology must be granted not only recognition but genuine inclusion. Only then can its contributions be fully realized. Over time, it may come to be understood that the insights derived from an intuitively grounded, spiritually informed psychology are not peripheral, but essential—complementing and completing the contributions of sensation, thinking, and feeling-oriented approaches.
Ultimately, American psychology should strive to embody the fullest expression of all four functions—to measure and quantify the material dimensions of existence; to interpret and explain, with clarity and rigor, the meaning of lived experience; to articulate the values that give direction and significance to human life; and to explore the metaphysical questions of purpose, origin, interconnectedness, and the human spiritual journey. From a transpersonal perspective, engaging these metaphysical questions—both symbolically and, where possible, scientifically, rather than avoiding them, is essential, for they illuminate a deeper truth: that human beings are not merely biological organisms, but fundamentally spiritual beings. It is precisely this vision that constitutes both the enduring challenge and the profound promise of transpersonal psychology.
Note: An earlier version of this article was published in the Association for Transpersonal Psychology Newsletter in 2021.
Journal of Transpersonal Psychology: https://atpweb.org/journal.aspx
Jung, C. G. (1971). The collected works of C. G. Jung: Vol. 6. Psychological types (H. Read et al., Eds.; R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton University Press.
Bloomsbury Academic: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/passages-beyond-the-gate-9780761851639/
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Passages-Beyond-Gate-Understanding-Psychology-ebook/dp/B009D0N3Z2
passagesbeyondthegate 