Disenchantment, Buffering, and Spiritual Reductionism: A Pedagogy of Secularism for Counseling and Psychotherapy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors address an important topic, and their analytical lens brings resources into conversation with it that enhance the conversation and link it to other fields in ways not often considered by authors. The central problem being discussed--the reduction of R/S to immanent/therapeutic matters and the resultant exclusion of voices from "approved" dialogue--is worth considering from this perspective.
Thus, while the central argument and statement of the problem is sound, it could be made stronger through:
- Being more precise in the sense in which "secular" is being used. Taylor describes three senses, and at times, the authors seem to cross the boundaries between phenomena such as disaffiliation, liberal detraditionalization, and the immanent frame. The arguments about how acceptable discourse is policed by secularism involve all of these, but the solutions would seem to differ depending on which aspect is being considered.
- Likewise, it is unclear how much the phenomenon might depend on broader social and cultural forces which are not uniform in counselor training programs. Consider the background of students in Montreal (which has a tradition of laicite) vs Seattle (which is largely detraditioned) vs Birmingham (which has much higher levels of adherence among potential students).
- The case of Buddhism and mindfulness seems like a worthwhile counterpoint to examine--what makes it so widely accepted (at least as therapeutic/immanent practice) vs. the ascetic practices of Islam or Adventism? And moreover, ascetical traditions have ways of addressing their use in times of ill health that would illuminate the case example--they realize that these practices can be unhealthy, but have transformative potential as well.
- The major critique that is being pursued through the examples is that the immanent frame flattens and excludes certain ways of experiencing and acting on the world. But it is unclear how the practices in the cases are reductionist rather than inhospitable? That is, how would the basic intellectual framework need to change vs just giving people more exposure?
- How would this critique be different if the identity being suppressed were gender or race? It is not clear that this is unique to secularism.
- Is this lack of training a sin of omission or commission? How (using Asad) does the regulation of the secular academy impact this?
- What concrete policy proposals do you have? How would they differ from what ASERVIC and others have proposed?
Some additional scholarship might help refine the authors' critique:
- There has been a reaction to the disenchantment thesis in Weber and also in Taylor through pointing out the persistence of the enchanted and magical in Western civilization despite philosophical claims that it is not tenable--see Hans Joas's recent work or Latour's We have never been modern or Inquiry into modes of existence, or Josephson-Storm's Myth of disenchantment.
- Stewart-Sicking, Fox, and Deal's Bringing Religion and Spirituality into Therapy, (especially chapters on ways of intervening, diversity, and ethics) examine a similar critique.
- Dueck & Reimer's A Peaceable Psychology also shares several concerns, and its distinguishing between mother tongue and trade language seems directly to bear on the critique being offered here.
Author Response
Please see attached. I have uploaded our revised manuscript and our response to the comments. Hopefully, you will see them addressed adequately and succinctly. Thank you so much for your time, effort, and care in offering comprehensive and robust feedback. As a doctoral student, this has been an incredible learning exercise and I want to thank you profusely in aiding my development, and helping to add crucial knowledge to our discipline.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached file for comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached. I have uploaded our revised manuscript and our response to the comments. Hopefully, you will see them addressed adequately and succinctly. Thank you so much for your time, effort, and care in offering comprehensive and robust feedback. As a doctoral student, this has been an incredible learning exercise and I want to thank you profusely in aiding my development, and helping to add crucial knowledge to our discipline.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
