Three Models of Spiritually Informed Approaches
to Art Therapy Based Upon
Archetypal Psychology, Existentialism, and Developmental Theory
Christine Doyle
A Research Paper
in
The Department
of
Art Education and Creative Arts Therapies
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Arts
Concordia University
Montréal, Québec, Canada
May 1999
© Christine Doyle, 1999
1
ABSTRACT
Three Models of Spiritually Informed Approaches
to Art Therapy Based Upon
Archetypal Psychology, Existentialism, and Developmental Theory
Christine Doyle
In recent years, there has been a dramatic shift in Western society’s most fundamental paradigm, that of the
sacred and the profane. Quantum physics, feminist discourse and environmental issues have all been
intrinsically involved in transforming our understandings of mind and body, matter and energy, female and
male, transcendent and immanent, and science and religion. Encompassing all three domains of art, science
and religion, spiritually informed approaches to art therapy reveal a full and intense engagement in the
many theoretical and practical challenges that arise from this dynamic process of change. Three different
models of spiritually informed art therapy are seen to draw from archetypal psychology, existentialism and
developmental theory. Upon consideration of these three models, it appears that the paradigm shift is, to a
large extent, being expressed in the concepts of “soul” and “spirit”. A more thorough understanding of the
ethical and pragmatic ramifications of the theoretical assumptions which underly these spiritually informed
approaches to art therapy is recommended.
iii
2
The art therapy discipline was created through a partnership
between art and science and I trust that future research will
build creatively upon this foundation.
- Shaun McNiff, 1998
When you have art and science you have religion.
- Goethe
3
Contents
1. Introduction / 1
2. The Paradigm Shift / 4
2.1 New Science and the Spiritual Dimension of Psychology / 5
2.2 Feminist Spirituality and Sacred Art / 7
2.3 Ecology: The Activism of Art Therapy / 11
3. Theoretical Perspectives / 14
3.1 Archetypal Psychology / 14
3.2 Existentialism / 18
3.3 Developmental Theory / 20
4. Concluding Remarks / 24
5. References / 26
4
1. Introduction
Rooted in the traditions of both the ineffable, subjective mysteries of art and the objective,
positivism of modern psychology, art therapy is equally invested in both sacred and profane realms. This
twin identification has, at times, resulted in something of an uneasy schism within the community (Byrne,
1987; Spring, 1994; Woddis, 1986). Having attended the 27th Annual Conference of the American Art
Therapy Association in 1996, British art therapists Andrea Gilroy and Sally Skaife (1997) commented
American art therapy seemed to us to be quite polarized: on the one hand art is used to elicit
material for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, whilst on the other hand the making of art is
viewed as inherently healing via a shamanic, spiritual and soul-making, studio-based tradition.
There appeared to be some conflict between these two main approaches. (p. 58)
Likewise, tensions surface within the literature as Shaun McNiff (1992) criticizes art therapy’s use of
diagnosis, adding that “when the images in art are labeled, my reactions are emotional. There is a sense that
something sacred has been violated” (p. 80). Responding with some resentment, Vija Lusebrink (1993)
dismisses McNiff for making “derogatory, inaccurate, and undocumented statements” about the field of art
therapy (p. 102). Indeed, the precise nature of art therapy has been hard to pin down. Janet Bush (1994)
has summarized that “in essence the history of art therapy has been the history of a profession seeking an
acceptable identity” (p. 32). Accordingly, efforts to define the spiritual dimension of art therapy seem to be
a matter of some debate.
A number of art therapists enthuse about the spiritual potency inherent in art therapy. McNiff
(1992) encourages us to distinguish art therapy as an approach that is highly unique and highly valued
amongst contemporary psychotherapies. His vision and passion are readily apparent when he writes, “art is
a medicine that can revolutionize therapy, and its transformative impact will be realized only if it
continuously offers a radically different paradigm” (p. 11). Strong proponents of soul-minded approaches
may find a welcoming role to fulfill amongst their psychotherapeutic peers who have collectively shown an
increasing desire to incorporate spirituality into the clinical setting (Dennis, 1995; Elkins, 1995).
5
However, there are certain social and economic realities that confront art therapists who wish to
join the larger community of fellow psychotherapists. Indeed, art therapists do not always experience a
warm reception from their colleagues, particularly when they tread on ground falling outside the more
conventional boundaries of the mental health field. Wadeson (1994) recounts how “our profession has
generated more heat than light around viewing art therapy as creativity- rather than as pathology-oriented”
(p. 28). Perhaps Wadeson (1987) herself was clamoring to safer ground when she previously described art
therapy that deals with “soul, spirituality, or meaning in life” as “beyond therapy” (p. 293). Veteran art
therapist Gladys Agell (1994) also adopted a cautious posture when she envisioned the future of art therapy
in the 21st century. She forecasted, “if we can relinquish our promotion of questionable idolatory, our selfimage of being healers and shamans...only then do I see a viable future for art therapy that is not
subordinate to mental health counselors, family therapists, or special educators” (p. 29). Our vulnerability
to being alienated and overlooked by our peers may underlie the concern that many express about how the
spiritual dimension will “become manifest in the practice of art therapy” (Moon, 1993, p. 21).
Differences in attitudes, experiences and expectations within the art therapy community are evident
as its members struggle to position themselves with respect to the matter of incorporating a spiritual
dimension into their therapeutic practices. Yet, those who do not actively or overtly include spirituality in
their work may not necessarily be opposed to it in principle. In anticipation of the 24th Annual Conference
of the American Art Therapy Association, entitled “Common Ground: The Arts, Therapy, Spirituality”,
Cathy Moon surveyed seventy-five art therapists about the relationship between art therapy and spirituality.
Some of the results were reported in her speech at the conference. She noted that “the responses leaned
heavily toward the side of acknowledging if not an inherent connection between art therapy and spirituality,
then at least an interrelationship” (Moon, 1993, p. 20). Overall, published proceedings of the conference
indicate that the majority of presenters addressed the topic by encouraging and supporting the ideal of
providing art therapy within a spiritual context (American Art Therapy Association, Inc., 1993).
Unquestionably, the spiritual aspect of art therapy is a significant matter which is worthy of indepth consideration. The primary goal of this literature review is to explore the philosophical issues and
assumptions associated with spiritually informed approaches to art therapy. To this end, detailed attention
will be given to the dramatic shifts that are presently occurring in Western society’s views about spirituality,
6
especially as they are seen in the areas of psychology, feminism and ecology. Special regard will be given
to the implications that these changing modes of thought have for spiritually informed approaches to art
therapy. Subsequently, three different examples of art therapy practices which adopt a spiritual perspective
are examined in theoretical terms. These three distinct approaches draw from archetypal psychology,
existentialism and developmental theory. In addition to profiling each of these three perspectives, some
comparisons will be made between them, particularly as they position themselves with regard to the
concepts of “soul” and “spirit”. Although it is understood that variations in these theoretical frameworks
have profound consequences for the actual practicing of spiritually informed art therapy, this research paper
will not address such practical matters as technique, ethics, or therapeutic frame. Instead, this work will be
limited to a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings associated with each of the three perspectives.
However, it is hoped that this body of work will then provide a conceptual base for understanding,
evaluating and contextualizing the wide array of practical elements and issues that arise when adopting a
spiritually informed approach to art therapy. A detailed analysis of the practical matters involved in
implementing spiritually informed art therapy will, therefore, be the main focus of my forthcoming thesis.
7
2. The Paradigm Shift
Comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell observed that “all things in the field of time are pairs of
opposites” (1988, p. 48). As such, up defines down, hot defines cold, knowing defines not knowing, and so
forth. Our experience as human beings rests upon the foundations of these dualisms. When we are in the
field of opposites all our energies become involved in the interplay, the drama, that takes place between
these opposing pairs. Our paradigms are defined by our understanding of the interactive dynamic that exists
between the many dualisms that constitute our reality .
Durkheim (1972) has said that “all things, real and ideal, of which men think [are classified] into
two classes or opposed groups, generally designated by two distinct terms which are translated well enough
by the words profane and sacred” (p. 29). In recent years it would seem that our “sacred-profane’ paradigm
is undergoing a dramatic shift (Dennis, 1995; Elkins, 1995; Horovitz-Darby, 1994). This shift makes for
exciting but confusing times as Sperry (1995) notes that “beyond a growing sense that we are in a period of
fundamental change, we lack any consensus regarding the precise nature of this change, its exact cause,
what it means, or where it may be leading” (p. 8).
The introduction of quantum physics early in this century has played an important role in fostering
this “fundamental change”. For more than two centuries, Newtonian physics has been the dominant, if not
exclusive, view within the scientific community. As such, science has been almost exclusively aligned with
the profane, adopting a materialistic, mechanistic philosophy. In a polarized manner, religion has been
essentially limited to the domain of the sacred, restricting itself to transcendent, non-physical concerns
(Dennis, 1995). However, the theoretical tenets of modern or quantum physics have blurred the dividing
line that has previously been separating physical and non-physical realms. Matter and energy are no longer
held as distinct phenomenon. Body and mind have become unified. The sacred and the profane may now
be regarded as two sides to the same coin.
The concepts associated with the new physics have been slowly filtering into the broader scientific
and non-scientific community. This includes the discipline of modern psychology, which is also
demonstrating a radical transformation in its sacred-profane paradigm. Likewise, the continued efforts of
the feminist movement, as well as the grim realities presented by our accumulating environmental issues,
have both served as powerful catalysts for changing our sacred-profane paradigm. The following chapter
8
will look at the nature of this paradigm shift as it occurs within the context of psychology, the feminist
movement and the ecological movement. Moreover, it will consider the particular relationship that each of
these three areas has to the practical and theoretical development of spiritually informed approaches to art
therapy.
2.1 New Science and the Spiritual Dimension of Psychology
During the latter half of the nineteenth century, the discipline of psychology began to align itself
strongly with an orthodox scientific perspective. At the time, science was based on classical or Newtonian
physics, which was characterized by materialism, mechanism, and objectivity (Dennis, 1995). By the early
1900’s science and religion were commonly considered to be mutually exclusive, if not antagonistic
domains. Simultaneously, Freud attributed religious thinking to immaturity (Noam & Wolf, 1993) and for
the entirety of his career “remained unalterably convinced that theological thinking and scientific thinking
were absolutely and irrevocably incompatible systems” (Randour, 1993, p. 5). By identifying psychology
as a classically-based science and religious thought as a developmental shortcoming, issues of spiritual
growth and healing were rarely addressed within a psychotherapeutic setting.
Throughout the mid-1900’s American psychology became dominated by behaviorism that clung
fiercely to the reductionistic positivism of classical science. Recently, however, modern physics has been
making inroads into the theoretical hearts of many disciplines, including psychology. Dennis (1995)
comments that the new physics “strikingly contradicts behaviorists conceptions that the scientific method is
restricted to the physical and sensory, that scientific knowledge is direct and exact, that we observe real
things, and that the split between objective/natural and subjective/supernatural is a given” (p. 40). To the
lament of some of its strongest advocates, orthodox behaviorism has been largely abandoned (Skinner,
1987). Moreover, psychology has opened its doors generously to mentality and, more reservedly, to
spirituality (Dennis, 1995; Elkins, 1995). Consequently, integrated models of mind and body are emerging.
The field of neuroscience has been at the forefront of this work, proposing such theories as “emergent
interactionism” in which “mind and brain are no longer treated dualistically as separate entities or processes
that somehow must be put together as required by classical science. Rather than brain and mind, we now
have brain-mind, comparable to mass and energy giving way to mass-energy in the new physics” (Dennis,
1995, p. 45). New fields such as “psychobiology of religion” and “neurobiology of meaning” have
9
appeared amidst a growing number of collaborative efforts between community members of religion,
neuroscience and psychology (Ashbrook & Rausch, 1997; Dennis, 1995).
Art therapist Shaun McNiff (1992) is cognizant of the implications and possibilities presented by
modern physics. As one of the leading thinkers in the field of soul-minded art therapy, he regards paintings
as autonomous, ensouled beings that he frequently refers to as angels. Typically resistant to classicallybased science, he speculates, “that experiencing images as angels may be closer to the new physics of
interacting energies than we realize. We need an advanced physics of art therapy which expands our
reflections on the interaction between matter and energy” (McNiff, 1993, p. 13). Nevertheless, the
neuroscientific community may not readily welcome McNiff’s vitalist regard for images any time soon.
One of the key figures, Roger Sperry (1995), staunchly asserts that acceptance of mentality and spirituality,
as seen within the field of neuroscience “does not—as frequently inferred—open the doors of science to the
supernatural, the mystical, the paranormal, the occult, the other worldly—nor, in short, to any form of
unembodied mind or spirit” (p. 9). Still, there is reason for McNiff to remain optimistic as Sperry also
notes that “the odds against further change in today’s additionally strengthened paradigm appear
correspondingly even more unlikely” (p. 10).
Recent surveys show promising indications that spiritually informed art therapy is likely to find
increasingly gracious accommodation within the psychotherapeutic community. Research studies
conducted during the last fifteen years indicate that the majority of marriage and family therapists,
psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and social workers find spirituality to be of significance in their
personal lives and their clinical work (Bergin, 1991; Elkins, 1995). Studies also suggest that, while having
a lower involvement in religious institutions than other mental health professionals and the public, a
growing number of psychologists are “holding religious beliefs and that these clinicians are explicitly using
religious interventions in their professional practice” (Shafranske & Malony, 1990, p. 77). Furthermore,
Gallup surveys indicate that one third of the American lay public consider religious commitment to be the
single most important aspect of their life, while an additional third consider it to be very important (Religion
in America, 1985 reported in Bergin & Jensen, 1990). In their book Megatrends 2000, Naisbitt &
Aburdene (1988) named increased interest in spirituality as one of the top ten megatrends in America.
Additionally, “ninety-four percent of the U.S. population above age 18 believes in God ‘or a universal
10
spirit’ ” (Spretnak, 1986, p. 37). The professional literature demonstrates a growing desire on the part of
psychotherapists to respond to this interest by integrating the spiritual dimension into its theories and
practices (Bergin, 1991; Dennis, 1995; Elkins, 1995; Hart, 1994; Lovinger, 1984; Randour, 1993; Salmons
& Clarke, 1987; Spero, 1990).
In spite of the enthusiasm by lay persons and professionals alike, the blending of spiritual and
psychological dimensions may not be an easy one. The cautionary words of Dennis (1995) should be kept
in mind.
Indeed, the sometimes stormy, and more frequently estranged, relations between religion and
psychology should temper hasty tendencies to find these areas compatible. Overly ambitious
programs calling for an integrated religion and psychology in the absence of cautious and critical
deliberation likely will do more harm than to help the status of spirituality in psychology over the long
term. (p. 62)
While a revolutionary shift in our sacred-profane paradigm appears to be prompting many clients and
therapists to unite the dimensions of spirituality and psychology into a single process, it is wise to keep in
mind that these two domains have been evolving independently for a good number of years. Consequently,
it would seem advisable that we first examine the aims and assumptions of both spirituality and
psychotherapy as comprehensively and profoundly as possible before launching into practices that marry
the two.
2.2 Feminist Spirituality and Sacred Art
In addition to his observation regarding the duality of all things within the field of time and space,
Joseph Campbell (1988) also observed that the “ultimate pair in the imagination are male and female” (p.
66). Since the beginning of recorded history, the dramatic interplay of these two aspects has generally taken
place within a patriarchal framework. During the past century, however the feminist movement has been
steadily dismantling the patriarchal structure of our Western culture. In effect, feminism has been revising
and replacing the female-male paradigm that is woven into the fabric of our society’s many disciplines and
institutions.
Our changing conceptions of the female-male paradigm are intersecting and interacting with our
notions of the sacred and the profane, particularly as new ways of thinking are adopted by our psychological
11
and religious organizations. Hunt (1995) has commented that “just as male constructed psychologies are
giving way to feminist critiques, so too are paradigms shifting in religion” (p. 23). She has described this
transformative action as the “feministization” of religion to connote that it is feminist doctrine that is being
manifest in our religious communities and not the feminine principle per se. Hunt concludes that these
changes are occurring in three main ways: women are becoming protagonists of religion, women are serving
as role models in religious communities and, thirdly, religions are modifying their literary and visual content
in order to equally represent all members of their congregations. As protagonists of religion, she reports,
women are altering the fundamental structures and procedures of religious organizations. For example, the
hierarchical form of leadership gives way to egalitarian models in which the spiritual value of every member
is recognized by establishing systems of rotating leadership. By extension, this means replacing the
“theology in which answers are given to questions we did not ask, with an invitation to women to ask and
answer our own questions of ultimate meaning and value” (p. 30). Although the feminist movement is
“declericalizing” religion, Hunt also notes that the second trend in the “feministization or religion” involves
an increasing number of women role models in positions of religious leadership. Currently, these women
are embedded in the patriarchal context of traditional religious institutions. However, she predicts that
“over time there will be discernible progress toward feminist models of ministry, academic collaboration
and religious leadership” (p. 30). The third shift Hunt describes concerns the feminist revisions of
theological content which are primarily focussed on eradicating the biases of language and imagery.
In our Western culture, the ultimate expression of patriarchy is embodied in the Judeo-Christian
image of a paternalistic God. In the early 1970’s, Naomi Goldenberg anticipated that the feminist
movement would eventually result in the “fall of the father” with many associated changes to our society’s
religious beliefs and practices (Goldenberg, 1979, p. 118). Indeed, Hunt’s observations give credence to
the fact that feminism is effecting change within many of our religious organizations as Western society
reconsiders its traditionally held notions of theology and spirituality (Barker, 1996).
In her book Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions Goldenberg’s
tone was frequently predictive in nature and it is interesting to reflect upon her insightful comments a full
two decades later. Throughout her work, she defined many of the fundamental tenets associated with
feminist spirituality that she felt would eventually replace those underlying patriarchically ensconced
12
religions. Current literature indicates that many of her expectations are coming to fruition. (Ballou, 1995;
Bolen & Clausson, 1995; Hunt, 1995; Starhawk & Connor, 1995). Moreover, it is of great interest to
observe that these principles are echoed by those which seem to be embodied in the “shamanic, spiritual and
soul-making, studio-based” approaches to art therapy (Gilroy & Skaife, 1997, p. 58).
Goldenberg anticipated that changes in our spiritual attitudes and practices would emerge in three
areas, resulting in a unified view of body and mind, a valuing of personal experience, and a greater
appreciation for an immanent perspective of spirituality. Indeed, these changes seem to be reflected in the
writings of art therapists who assume a spiritual approach to their work. Joseph Campbell (1973) explained
that all religions align themselves with either an immanent or transcendent point of view. In the
transcendent perspective the deity is conceived to be separate or outside the world. The Mosaic tradition,
which has prevailed in Judeo-Christian thinking since the 4th Century onward, is a transcendent viewpoint.
Whereas, in the immanent perspective which is from the ‘hermetic’ tradition, “divinity inhabits and is the
very essence of the substance of the universe” (p. 53). In her chapter When Fathers Die We All Turn
Inward, Goldenberg (1979) refers to this transcendent viewpoint when she observes that “we, in Western
culture, have placed a great deal of value on forces of comfort and salvation thought of outside ourselves”.
Predicting that our society will turn increasingly towards immanence, she adds that, as we adopt this
perspective, “seeing a god or other mythical being as a force within the mind will not diminish the
importance of that being to any appreciable extent” (p. 43). One of the better-known advocates of a
spiritual approach to art therapy, Pat Allen, voices her strongly immanent understanding of her work.
Writing from a very personal standpoint, she remarks, “what I seek is within...In the inward journey to the
river, the images are my maps...I begin to understand that what I am seeking has something to do with the
feminine and that my soul is the soul of a woman” (Allen, 1995, p. 72).
Goldenberg (1979) also forecasted that “the distinction between mind and body will begin to wane
in Western culture as the women’s movement continues to advance” (p. 25). As already discussed, this is
certainly becoming the case as modern physics encourages us to reconceptualize a “mind and brain”
dualism into a unified notion of “mind-brain” (Dennis, 1995). This way of thinking resonates in the work of
McNiff (1992) who states that “the arts affirm that every object or gesture has a spiritual as well as physical
nature which depends upon one another” (p. 14).
13
Goldenberg’s (1979) third prediction held that society would place increasing importance on the
personal experience of spirituality. Unquestionably, this endorsement of personal experience is at the very
heart of art therapy which holds creative expression of the individual in highest esteem. Dissanayake
(1992) has noted that, since the introduction of aesthetics and the making of “art for art’s sake,” art has been
elevated to a status that places it beyond ordinary life. In considering this reverence for art, Thomas Moore
(1992) cautions that “one of the most effective forms of repression is to give a thing excessive honor” (p.
285-286). Therefore, not only has the establishment of the “fine arts” diminished the presence of art
making in everyday life but, ironically, it also results in our loss of “the original internal impulse to create,
that is, a transcendent one pointing to the doubleness and paradox of human existence” (Landy, 1998, p.
299). Still, Landy (1998) contends that some artists still remain sensitive to the sacred dimension of art
making. However, in her book The Reenchantment of Art, Suzi Gablik criticizes the dominant patriarchal
art world’s “material, object-oriented, aggressive, cold, confrontational, expensive, imposing nature” and
calls for a “return of art to its rightful place in the realm of magic, enchantment and social usefulness” (cited
in Lachman-Chapin, 1993, p. 142). In contemplating Gablik’s elaborated vision for the feminist future of
art, Lachman-Chapin (1993) says, “What captured my attention was that in talking about art as interaction,
healing, dialogue, and helping, Gablik was describing some of the essential and inherent qualities of art
therapy” (p. 142). This is an interesting observation, which may have much relevance for another, equally
interesting observation. That is, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of art therapists are women, there
is a decided absence of feminist theory in the field (Abbenante, 1993; Halifax, 1997; Hogan, 1997). In lieu
of the parallels highlighted here, perhaps it is worth considering that art therapy may be a feminist response
to the art world and, quite possibly, to the religious community as well.
Beyond the details of how feminism is manifesting itself in our society, there is little doubt that it is
one of the major forces involved in the transformation of our many disciplines and institutions. In its
broadest sense, the feminist critique is playing a pivotal role in restructuring our society’s sacred-profane
paradigm. Specifically, these changes have appeared as an increased valuing of personal experience, a
unified view of body and mind, and an immanent perspective of divinity. The literature indicates that these
three principles are being affirmed by proponents of spiritually informed approaches to art therapy.
2.3 Ecology: The Activism of Art Therapy
14
The effects of the feminist movement have been far-reaching and profound. By challenging the
many assumptions and assertions fundamental to patriarchy, feminist thinking offers a radically different
worldview. Some have argued that our survival on this planet may actually rely on our adoption of this
alternative perspective (Coleman, 1994; Hallen, 1995). Living in the ever-escalating manifestation of
environmental disaster has led many to conclude that we are being propelled along a destructive path by our
own beliefs and values. Identified as “ecofeminism” or “feminist ecology”, the revolutionary tenets of
feminism have become integral to such environmental groups as deep ecology, Earth First! and the Green
party (Coleman, 1994: Dowie, 1995; Lee, 1994; Zimmerman, 1994). Similarly, many environmentalists
have stressed the urgent need for drastically reformulating the core of our prevailing spiritual beliefs
(Dowie, 1995; Spretnak, 1986).
Questioning our paradigms of both sacred-profane and female-male, Green politics has emerged as
one of the leading organizations actively working to establish the much needed changes in our philosophies,
policies and practices. As a member of this environmentally committed political group, Charlene Spretnak
has called for radical transformation of our spiritual attitudes and assumptions. Encapsulating these insights
in her book The Spiritual Dimensions of Green Politics, Spretnak (1986) states that there are three basic
philosophical assertions underlying the spiritual viewpoint advocated by Green politics. These are
expressed as fundamental repudiations of humanism, modernism and patriarchy. Humanism is rejected for
its anthropocentric perspective which “posits that humans have the ability to confront and solve the many
problems we face...so that human life will prosper” (p. 27). Spretnak goes on to add that “in rejecting
humanism, Green politics separates itself from much of the ‘New Age’ movement and the belief that human
beings are the epitome of creation rather than being part of the far more glorious unfolding universe” (p.
28). Likewise, modernism is rejected as it is based on “mechanistic analysis and control of human systems
as well as Nature” (p. 29). Patriarchy is the final aspect that is refuted. More specifically, Spretnak (1986)
emphatically rejects patriarchal religions which promote the idea of a transcendent sky-god whose essence
advocates that spiritual goodness is realized by rising above the mundane aspects of life. Such doctrines,
she explains, preclude the sacredness of Nature and give humans permission to exploit the earth without
reservation. Thus, it is seen that patriarchy is contending with another adversary in the form of
environmentally active change-agents.
15
The values and beliefs endorsed by Green politics have many sympathetic counterparts in Western
society. Among them are ecopsychologists who “work toward integrating body, mind, spirit and soul and
fostering sustainable, mutually enhancing relationships among humans and the more-than-human natural
world” (Kellen-Taylor, 1998, p. 306). Kellen-Taylor, an expressive arts therapist herself, proposes “that
our professions can be encouraged to see themselves as both embedded in a culture in desperate need of
change and also as change-agents, particularly when combined with a systemic theoretical framework such
as deep ecology” (p. 306). That art therapy might have something special to contribute amidst the wider
community of therapies is suggested by Junge, Alvarez, Kellogg and Volker (1993) who recognize that
“psychotherapists, unlike artists, have not tended to be activists, but rather agents of social control.” Even
with the broadened view of family systems theory, “most therapists have not yet taken to the streets or
viewed our territory to include the community, society, and the larger world environment” (p. 149).
Perhaps, partially owing to our activist roots as artists, Kellen-Taylor (1998) has recently declared, “We can
take arts processes out of the studio in to ‘Nature’ with the intention of hearing and dancing with the soul of
the world” (p. 308). Indeed, other art therapists are sharing in her enthusiasm for venturing out into the
world (Davis, 1999; Gerity, 1998). Overall, it would seem that art therapy, with its reverential appreciation
for the physical, material world and its traditions of healing and activism, promises to offer much in the way
of advancing ecologically informed approaches to spirituality.
In conclusion of this chapter it has been seen that, as the millenium comes to a close, the fabric of
our society’s thinking is being unfurled at a remarkable rate. The many unraveled threads that represent our
various dualisms are being re-woven into very new patterns of understanding. Mind and body,
transcendence and immanence, female and male, are all coming together to create a new vision of our
sacred-profane paradigm. Challenges are abundant as this new vision reshapes our disciplines and
institutions. These changes are likely to be an intense experience for those whose work is most directly
involved with the sacred-profane paradigm. In this regard, spiritually informed approaches to art therapy
promise to be fully engaged in this process of transformation.
16
3. Theoretical Perspectives
It has been seen that the world’s paradigm is certainly shifting. The changing flows and forces of
this shift are being felt in the arts, science and religion. By encompassing all three domains, it would seem
that spiritually informed approaches to art therapy have potential to be the focal point of dynamic change
and, thus, become powerful forms of healing and growth in our society. This raises many questions about
the nature of art therapy and how it will function within a spiritual context. It is interesting to consider what
theoretical frameworks and assumptions it will adopt. In the next section, consideration is given to three
spiritually informed approaches that have emerged within the art therapy community. These approaches
draw upon the understandings and principles associated with archetypal psychology, existentialism, and
developmental theory.
3.1 Archetypal Psychology
The writings of Carl Jung, the originator of archetypal theory, continues to exercise a tremendous
influence on the thoughts and practices of many art therapists. His theoretical emphasis on myth, symbol
and archetype, coupled with his clinical exploration of imagery through ‘active imagination’, have led Gray
(1993) to suggest that “Carl Jung was the first, (and founding) Professional Art Therapist of our century” (p.
30). Certainly his teachings and techniques have been abundantly incorporated into a wider number of
contemporary psychotherapeutic theories and practices, including those of art therapy. Quite overlooked by
the psychological community of his day, Jung’s legacy seems to be enjoying something of a revitalized
growth spurt in recent years (Edwards, 1987). James Hillman has been one of the key figures to extend the
work of Jung into what is popularly known as “archetypal psychology” (Hillman, 1975; McConeghey,
1993). A number of prominent writers and practitioners in the psychotherapeutic community, including art
therapy, cite him with almost apostolic devotion (Allen, 1992; Elkins, 1995; McNiff, 1992; Moon, 1997;
Moore, 1992).
Perhaps the single most important concept considered by archetypal psychology is that of the
‘soul’. Well-versed in Hillman’s notion of soul, Elkins (1995) remarks that “soul cannot be defined in
operational language...each of us must seek to know the soul personally and experientially, and only from
this kind of knowing can the common understanding we seek emerge” (p. 84). Nevertheless, much ink has
been poured onto paper in precisely this effort. Echoing the earlier observation by Joseph Campbell
17
regarding definitions by opposites, the soul archetype is frequently described in terms of its contrast with
the archetype of spirit. While they are used interchangeably in common language, Hillman distinguishes
between the soul and spirit by way of a spatial metaphor. Sharing the same vertical plane, he holds that soul
has to do with depth and “down”, whereas spirit is associated with ascendancy and “up”. Hillman (1989)
further distinguishes the two, observing that
Soul sticks to the realm of experience and to reflections within experience. It moves indirectly in
circular reasonings, where retreats are as important as advances, prefering labyrinths and corners,
giving a metaphorical sense to life through such words as close, near, slow, and deep...It is the
“patient” part of us. Soul is vulnerable and suffers; it is passive and remembers. (p. 122)
On the other hand, when describing spirit he explains
It is masculine, the active principle, making forms, order, and clear distinctions. Although there
are
many spirits, and many kinds of spirit, more and more the notion of spirit has come to be carried
by
the Apollonian archetype, the sublimations of higher and abstract disciplines, the intellectual mind,
refinements, and purifications. (p. 122)
On the basis of this difference, Hillman (1989) contends that both imagination and psychopathology fall
within the province of the soul rather than spirit. For this reason, McConeghey (1993) concludes that “the
archetypal distinction between spirit and soul is basic to art therapy” (p. 72).
Hillman (1989) also claims that soul has been repressed by spirit in our society via our dominant
spiritual disciplines which try to cure the pathology of soul by reforming it into the ways of spirit. Spirit
aims to transcend the mundane, for example, the call to “imitate Christ” is an expression of this aspiration.
“Now there are other models” Hillman says, “gurus from the Far East or Far West, who, if followed to the
letter, put one’s soul on a spiritual path which supposedly leads to freedom from pathologies” (p. 123).
This effort effectively squelches the essential nature of soul.
Those who concur with Hillman’s perspective have uniformly identified the ‘loss of soul’ as one of
the major problems of our society (Allen, 1992; Elkins, 1995; McNiff, 1992; Moon, 1997; Moore, 1992).
Consequently, recovering soul within ourselves and our communities has become a primary goal for these
therapists. They also agree that art has a special role to play in this respect. Bruce Moon (1994) expresses
this perspective by the simple statement that “making art is making soul” (p. 120). Referring to the process
18
as “care of the soul,” Thomas Moore (1992) also recognizes the integral relationship between art and soul
when he mentions that “we can also serve religion’s soul by discovering the ‘natural religion’ in all things.
The route to this discovery is art, both the fine arts and those of everyday life” (p. 289).
Dwelling in the sacredness of art is by no means a new concept. Rather, it is a return to one which
is deeply rooted in our history as human beings (Dissanayake, 1992; Gablik as cited in Lachman-Chapin,
1993). Although its practice has been largely lost in ordinary life, many contemporary artists continue to
recognize the divine quality of the creative process. Anecdotally, Matisse acknowledged this experience
when asked whether or not he believed in God. “Yes, when I work” he replied (Flann, 1995).
Insights into the numinous quality of art can be gained by contemplating its nature in terms of
ritual. Proposing that religion is essentially comprised of two aspects, belief and ritual, Ewa Wasilewska
(1992) holds that art can also be conceived of as a two-fold phenomenon. In this sense, belief is equated
with the idea that is to be expressed in the art and ritual is likened to the art making process. She points out
that “the main purpose of each and every ritual is communication between the world of the profane and of
the sacred” (p. 198). Moreover, she proposes that all rites of passage demonstrate three main stages:
separation, transition and incorporation. Separation involves the preparation of resources needed, transition
entails the actual performance of the ritual, and incorporation results in “something which is finished, and
adds a new dimension to an individual and/or to a group” (p. 199). These three stages can also be seen to
have parallels in art as one gathers the necessary materials, engages in the art making and reflects on the
process and/or product.
Wasilewska (1992) adds that the only stage in rituals that is considered to be sacral is the transition
stage, which corresponds to the art making process. This stage is characterized by a communication
between the sacred and the profane. During transition, certain individuals commonly provide a special
functionary role in this communication process. The role has typically fallen to shamans and
priests/priestesses, but she suggests that it could easily be ascribed to artists in modern society as they are
often “both curers and vehicles for transmission of the past, the present, and the future, through the rituals of
art making” (p. 199).
Looking at art in this context brings new understanding to the practical and theoretical work of art
therapist Shaun McNiff who is, unquestionably, one of the more zealous and better-known advocates of
19
Hillman’s philosophy. Envisioning art therapy as a return to the shamanic origins of art, McNiff introduces
a host of “shamanic enactments” to his studio including drumming, movement, costuming, painting and so
forth. In an effort to recover the soul, he encourages a profound investment in the art making process,
which Wasilewska (1992) identifies as the only sacral stage. Rather than moving into the third stage of
“incorporation”, Hillman and McNiff have collaborated to develop methods which extend the creative
experience by keeping the interaction with the art work in the imaginal realm where it originates. The
technique which they employ, called image dialoguing, “is a creative process that follows picture making
and creates yet another series of expressions” (McNiff, 1992, p. 145). Similar to McNiff, Pat Allen (1995)
and Bruce Moon (1994, 1997) also emphasize the art making process as the principal therapeutic feature of
art therapy.
Both Hillman and McNiff are insistent that the view stay in the imaginal realm when reflecting on
images. By “sticking with the image” they refrain from temptation to “ground the image outside itself”. An
image is ground outside itself, for example, when “a dream takes its meaning and weight from a past
memory or a current problem” (Moore, in Hillman, 1989, p. 51). When this happens the image is being
literalized. Goldenberg (1979) has expressed some reservations about this stance. She cautions that, in
some cases, the terms “imaginal” and “literal” have been used in reference to material and non-material and
this reinstates the mind-body split, “a dualism which Hillman says he abhors” (p. 124). She adds that
Hillman seems to want to “deliteralize” everything and this, she feels, is a mistaken pursuit as it implies that
the material world is inferior rather than integral to our experience.
While it is good to keep Goldenberg’s concern in mind, it is also important to note that the model
which draws upon archetypal psychology appears to be the most popular amongst those art therapists who
overtly espouse a spiritually informed approach to their work. Indeed, there seems to be a natural alliance
between soul and art, particularly through the notion of the feminine principle. For example, Robbins
(1987) has observed that art can serve as a container, whilst Sullivan (1989) proposes that the static aspect
of the feminine principle is represented by the “containing womb” (p. 17). Indeed, the relationship between
these concepts emerges in a comment by David Elkins (1995) who believes that “art is the perfect container
for the soul” (p. 87). Sullivan (1989) reinforces the connection between art and the feminine principle by
explaining that “the dynamic side of the feminine principle is the basis of play and playfulness, the main
20
element in the creative process” (p. 18). Perhaps the most obvious way in which art emulates the feminine
principle is by virtue of it’s engagement with the material world, the body, earth. The very act of creating
an image, a being, out of matter is a primary aspect of the feminine principle. Thus, it seems that archetypal
psychology, with its emphasis on the soul, can provide a highly useful theoretical frame to art therapists
who are concerned with the spiritual dimension of their work.
3.2 Existentialism
Joseph Campbell (1988) believed that we are not so much interested in the meaning of life as we
are in the experience of being alive. In juxtaposing these two pursuits, he draws attention to a primary
difference between the underlying philosophies of archetypal psychology and existentialism. The
archetypal approach to art therapy has centered on the process of art making and sticking to the image.
According to archetypal psychology it is the “experience”, or what Wasilewska (1992) calls the “transition
stage,” that has primacy in our lives. In contrast, the existential perspective focusses on our inherent need
to derive meaning from life. Viktor Frankl (1948/1975) refers to this need as “the will to meaning” (p. 80).
As such, the “incorporation stage” outlined by Wasilewska takes on importance as it provides an
opportunity to reflect consciously on the meaning of our experiences and actions.
Campbell’s postulation receives some support from the fact that an archetypal philosophy is by far
the most popular amongst art therapists who frame their work in a spiritual context. Nevertheless,
existentialism also has a significant contribution to make with respect to spiritually informed approaches to
art therapy. This section will first look at the spiritual dimensions of existential theory as outlined by Viktor
Frankl. Important differences between the existential and archetypal perspectives will be discussed.
Additionally, consideration will be given to the work of Bruce Moon, who identifies himself as an
existential art therapist.
Viktor Frankl is one of the most prominent thinkers in existential analysis. In his book The
Unconscious God, Frankl (1948/ 1975) presents his ideas regarding the spiritual nature of “man”. Frankl
holds that human beings are conscious, responsible individuals with an inherent need for meaning in their
lives. He feels that people have a spiritual as well as instinctual unconscious. Within the spiritual
unconscious, there is a religious unconscious and an unconscious God which he sees as being profoundly
personal. This is not to say that the unconscious is divine. Frankl (1948/1975) stresses, “that man has an
21
unconscious relation to God does not at all mean that God is ‘within us,’ that he ‘inhabits our unconscious”
(p. 62). He reasons that a divine unconscious would eliminate our free choice, hence our responsibleness
and our ability to create meaning in our lives through our decisions and actions. We would not have the
responsibility to choose God if we were God. Thus, it can be seen that the spirituality of existentialism
requires a transcendent God. Thinking back to the description given by James Hillman (1989) we see that
spirit is represented in the basic postulates of existentialism. To recall, “it is masculine, the active principle,
making forms, order, and clear distinctions” (p. 122). Moreover, Hillman says that, whereas soul finds a
place for everything, spirit chooses. Just as archetypal psychology seems to be rooted in the notion of soul,
existential philosophy appears to be drawing on the notion of spirit.
Interestingly, Frankl (1948/1975) proposes that there exists an artistic conscience within the
spiritual unconscious. He elaborates
In fact, in his creative work the artist is dependent on sources and resources deriving from the
spiritual unconscious....Artistic creation emerges out of recesses in a realm that can never be fully
illuminated. We clinicians observe time and again that excessive reflection on the creative process
proves to be harmful. Forced self-observation may become a severe handicap to the creativity of
the artist. An attempt to produce on a conscious level what must grow in unconscious depths, the
attempt to manipulate the primal creative process by reflecting on it, is doomed to failure.
Reflection comes in only later. (p. 37).
Thus, it can be seen that Frankl recognizes the need to preserve the ‘imaginal’ realm. However, he also
notes that reflection does eventually follow as well. This inclusion of reflection returns us to Wasilewska’s
(1992) concept of “incorporation”. It is during this “incorporation” stage or reflection that the meaning of
one’s actions becomes consciously known.
One of the interesting aspects of Bruce Moon’s approach is that he seems to simultaneously
espouse archetypal psychology and existentialism. Soul and spirit are both evident in his work. He
integrates the concepts quite naturally in his writing. Equating “loss of soul” with “existential emptiness”,
spirit and soul are both able to come the rescue (Moon, 1997, p. 5). Declaring that “making art is making
soul”, he also observes that art is about creating meaning, being responsible, exercising freedom and
autonomy, and creating order out of chaos. His broadminded inclusion of traditional spiritual disciplines is
22
clearly expressed when he asserts that “regardless of the form of one’s faith finds, Judaic, Christian, Zen,
Islamic, or secular humanism it is reflected in the art we create” (Moon, 1994, p. 20). By inference, it
would seem that Moon sees spirit in the image as well as soul. Although both aspects are apparent in his
thinking, he consistently chooses to use the word soul in reference to art. It is not clear why he has this
preference, but the absence is intriguing given that he supports many spirit-oriented ideals and qualities.
Perhaps it is unfashionable amongst art therapists to use this word. Conflicting sensitivities and opinions
were expressed at the 24th Annual Conference of the American Art Therapy Association, Common Ground:
Art, Therapy, Spirituality. Summarizing survey results, conference organizer Cathy Moon stated that while
art therapists seemed to accept the idea of a relationship between spirituality and art, many had trouble with
the word “spirituality” itself. Moon (1993) acknowledged, “ ‘Spirituality’ is a loaded word. It is loaded
with ancient history and trendy New-Ageism....It is loaded with the good and bad of religion. It is loaded
with hope and meaning and mistrust and cynicism” (p. 21). It may be that “spirit” is even more loaded, in
which case, one is led to wonder what, exactly, is being suppressed?
3.3 Developmental Theory
A developmental framework underlies the third approach to a spiritually-informed practice of art
therapy. Ellen Horovitz-Darby (1993) seems to be standing quite alone amongst her colleagues in this
effort. In her book Spiritual Art Therapy she presents an assessment tool for estimating the spiritual belief
or disbelief in God. The Belief Art Therapy Assessment (BATA) is based on the work of James Fowler
(1981) who proposed that there are six stages or levels of faith that humans can achieve.
As an assessment tool, the BATA is clearly grounded in the traditions of the medical model.
While Horovitz-Darby recognizes that “assessment and diagnosis may not be the axis point for all art
therapists” she contends that adequate treatment cannot take place without “assessing whatever nodal events
contributed to the disorder and disease of the person” (p. 11-12). The BATA is comprised of a “History
Taking” section and two art making tasks. The first task involves the making of an image that represents
whatever the individual believes in or derives meaning from in life. The second task asks for a
representation of whatever the individual regards as the opposite of their first image. The art making
process and products are evaluated in terms of formal qualities and content. These results are considered in
conjunction with the individual’s verbal responses and a developmental baseline is established on the basis
23
of James Fowler’s six stages of faith. Elkins (1995) raises an interesting point when he observes that “in
dealing with the soul, the great danger of any ‘technique’ or program is that the soul will not be present” (p.
94). Assuming this is true for the moment, what then, in spiritual terms, is being assessed by the BATA?
Although it is a subjective measure, Horovitz-Darby realizes that the art work produced in the
course of administering the BATA could be scored cognitively according to Lowenfeld and Brittain (1975).
This procedure would result in the assignment of “a developmental stage and approximate age range of
cognitive level of functioning” (p. 33). However, the author feels that it would be inappropriate. She adds
that her consultations with other professionals led her to conclude that “assigning a developmental score
contradicts the notion of utilizing the art work as a way to embrace a client’s spiritual need” (p. 33).
Specifically, she states, “ In the words of one colleague, Elyse Capell, any attempt to ‘concretely score and
categorize an abstract relationship seems to in fact despiritualize and demystify the nature of God’ (personal
conversation)” (p. 34). This conviction seems to be transgressed as Horovitz-Darby later deliberates what
level of spiritual development to ascribe to those who participated in pilot testing the BATA. She ponders,
“So what about dear Caitlin? Where does her artwork place her in the index of spiritual dimension? Like
Robert, is she, too, stuck in Stage 3, the Synthetic-Conventional stage?” (p. 79).
Unfortunately, the assignment of value is intrinsic to the developmental model itself, which carries
with it the notion of “most” developed, “least” developed, and all the gradations in between. In other
words, developmental models contain an implicit ordinal numbering system. Once again, the patriarchal
building block of hierarchy emerges as Horovitz-Darby refers to Fowler’s six stages of faith, noting that
those who achieve the highest level seem “more lucid and more fully human than the rest of us....One
wonders if these traits can actually be attained by the mass” (p. 40). This viewpoint occupies a position
which is diametrically opposed to feminist ideology as presented by Ballou (1995) who contests the notion
that “evolved spirituality is a higher developmental stage won by very few” (p. 14).
By extending the logic of developmental models, Assagioli (1989) expresses the belief that a
therapist will not be able to assist the client beyond the limits of their own developmental achievements.
This contrasts with McNiff’s (1992) report that “as a leader [he] helped people do things that [he] had not
yet done [himself]” (p. 42). He encourages art therapists to continue their own personal process alongside
their clients. Acting within a theoretical framework of archetypal psychology, he stresses the “idea that we
24
are all involved in soul’s therapy [which] liberates the art therapist from the dualist relationship with
clients” (p. 40). In adopting this soul-minded egalitarian philosophy, it would seem that McNiff wants to
break down the structures that place clients and therapists into separate roles, thus eliminating the view that
therapists are somehow “better than” their clients. He contends that this sort of role division is only
required when art is used for diagnostic purposes. However, Vija Lusebrink (1993) is not so easily
convinced of his idealistic intentions. She observes that “application of McNiff’s approach appears to be
most appropriate for a clientele similar to himself—intelligent and functional individuals who have the
personal means to attend international self-exploratory workshops” (p. 102).
It would seem that disagreements, such as the one illustrated here, are inevitable as members of the
art therapy community strive to find their individual and collective balance in these changing times. Our
shifting paradigms of sacred-profane and female-male seem to be jointly reflected in art therapy’s diverse,
and at times conflicting, attitudes toward soul and spirit. It is worth remembering that dissension is not
necessarily a bad thing. In fact, healthy debate can enhance the viability of a discipline. One of the
commonly cited strengths of art concerns its ability to simultaneously contain opposing or contradictory
elements. Perhaps it is this very attribute that makes art therapy such a promising candidate for providing
spiritually-based psychotherapy. That is, owing to its ability to fully encompass opposing dualities such as
the sacred and the profane, female and male, as well as soul and spirit, art therapy may be able to offer a
framework that is flexible and comprehensive enough to include the complete range and combination of
spiritual and psychological perspectives.
25
4. Concluding Remarks
For the better part of the twentieth century, modern psychology has generally regarded spirituality
to be outside its domain. This assumption has a profound effect on determining the types of responses
clinicians will offer when spiritual matters are explicitly or implicitly presented in therapy. Overall, this
division has meant that spiritual issues are seldom explored within the psychotherapeutic setting. In recent
years, however, our society has been undergoing a shift in its paradigm of the sacred and the profane. The
dramatic force and sweeping scope of this change is evidenced by the transformations that are occurring in
many of our disciplines and institutions. In keeping with this shift, the discipline of psychology has begun
to espouse theoretical models which emphasize an integrated view of the various dimensions of our human
existence, including spirituality. Consequently, we are challenged to carefully examine these newly
emerging theories and ask what implications they will have for our definition of “wellness,” as well as for
the roles and functions we see ourselves serving as therapists.
It is important to keep in mind, also, that these theories are not, by any means, in stasis. On the
contrary, they are perpetually changing. Such continuous transformations are owed to the fact that the
catalysts for our paradigm shifts are, themselves, still evolving. That is to say that the future developments
occuring within feminist discourse, world ecology, and scientific research will very likely have an ongoing
influence on our sacred-profane paradigm. It is, therefore, reasonable to also anticipate that this will, in
turn, impact on the theoretical perspectives espoused by those who consider practicing a spiritually
informed approach to art therapy.
Clearly, there is an increasing demand to address the spiritual interests and concerns of both clients
and therapists within the psychotherapeutic milieu. Art therapy is revealing a passionate engagement in
both the controversies and opportunities arising from the challenge to meet this need. In looking at the
three approaches to spiritually informed art therapy, it appears that there are two qualitatively different
aspects under consideration: “spirit” on the one hand, which expresses a transcendent model of the divine,
holds a dualistic assumption of mind and body, and involves the masculine principle; and, on the other
hand, “soul” which encompasses an immanent perspective of the divine, favors a unified mind-body
concept, and entails the feminine principle. Rooted in developmental theory, Horovitz-Darby (1993)
appears to focus on the aspect of “spirit” when interacting with clients, whereas McNiff (1992)
26
unreservedly concentrates on “soul”. Bruce Moon (1994, 1997) draws on existentialism and archetypal
psychology in order to offer a model which embraces both “spirit” and “soul”.
In accordance with the limited scope of this research paper, the three models of spiritual art
therapy and their associated notions of “spirit” and “soul” have been considered from a theoretical
perspective only. Nevertheless, many practical consequences are likely to result when one favors one
position over another. For example, many questions arise about whether or not these theoretical variations
might play a role in determining the types of clients who participate in the therapy, the nature of the
therapeutic goals being set, the art making procedures being used and so forth. The current body of art
therapy literature, however, contains very little practical information on the drawbacks and advantages
associated with the three theoretical perspectives presented here. In an attempt to remedy this lack of
knowledge, my forthcoming thesis will be aimed at examining the ethical and pragmatic ramifications of
these spiritually informed approaches to art therapy.
27
References
Abbenante, J. (1993). Art therapy, feminism and archetypal psychology: something’s rumbling in
the swamp. In The American Art Therapy Association, Inc. 24th Annual Conference, Common ground: The
arts, therapy, spirituality (p. 79). Mundelein, IL: American Art Therapy Association.
Agell, G. (1994). Art therapy: The future. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 11 (1), 28-29.
Allen, P. B. (1992). Artist-in residence: An alternative to “clinification” for art therapists. Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 9 (1), 22-29.
Allen, P. B. (1995). Art is a way of knowing: A guide to self-knowledge and spiritual fulfillment
through creativity. Boston: Shambhala.
American Art Therapy Association, Inc. 24th Annual Conference, Common ground: The arts,
therapy, spirituality. Mundelein, IL: American Art Therapy Association.
Ashbrook, J., & Rausch, C. (1997). The humanizing brain. New York: Pilgrim Press.
Assagioli, R. (1989). Self-realization and psychological disturbances. In S. Grof & G. Grof (Eds.),
Spiritual emergency: When personal transformation becomes a crisis (pp. 27-48). Los Angeles: Jeremy P.
Tarcher.
Ballou, M. (1995). Women and spirit: Two nonfits in psychology. Women & Therapy, 16 (2/3), 920.
Barker, E. (1996). New religions and mental health. In D. Bhugra (Ed.), Psychiatry and Religion
(pp. 125-137). New York: Routledge.
Bergin, A. E. (1991). Values and religious issues in psychotherapy and mental health. American
Psychologist, 46, 394-403.
Bergin, A. E., & Jensen, J. P. (1990). Religiosity of psychotherapists: A national survey.
Psychotherapy , 27, 3-7.
Bolen, J. S., & Clausson, J. (1995). Women’s psychology, goddess archetypes, and patriarchy: A
Jungian analyst, feminist activist, visionary feminist foremother. Women & Therapy, 17 (1/2), 71-85.
Bush, J. (1994). My visualization for 21st century art therapy. Art Therapy: Journal of the
American Art Therapy Association, 11 (1), 31-32.
Byrne, P. (1987, Summer). Letter from LA. Inscape, 30-32.
Campbell, J. (1988). The power of myth. New York: Doubleday.
Campbell, J. (1973). Man and myth: Imagination and its relation to theological enquiry. Paris:
Desclee & Cie.
Coleman, D. A. (1994). Ecopolitics: Building a green society. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Davis, J. (1999). Report: Environmental art therapy—metaphors in the field. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 26 (1), 45-49.
28
Dennis, D. (1995). Humanistic neuroscience, mentality, and spirituality. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 35 (2), 34-72.
Dissanayake, E. (1992). Art for life’s sake. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 9 (4), 169-175.
Dowie, M. (1995). Losing Ground: American environmentalism at the close of the twentieth
century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Durkheim, E. (1972). The elementary forms of the religious life. In W. A. Lessa & E. Z. Vogt
(Eds.), Reader in comparative religion: An anthropological approach (pp. 28-36). New York: Harper and
Row.
Edwards, M. (1987). Jungian analytic art therapy. In J.A. Rubin (Ed.), Approaches to art therapy
(pp. 92 - 113). New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Elkins, D. N. (1995). Psychotherapy and spirituality: Toward a theory of the soul. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 35 (2), 78-98.
Flann, J. (1995). Matisse on art. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.
Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest of
meaning. San Francisco: Harper.
Frankl, V. E. (1975). The unconscious God. (V.E. Frankl, Trans.). New York: Simon and
Schuster. (Original work first published 1948).
Gerity, L. A. (1998). The healing garden; Art and nature. The Canadian Art Therapy Association
Journal, 12 (1), 2-10.
Gilroy, A., & Skaife, S. (1997). Taking the pulse of American art therapy. Inscape, 2 (2), 57-64.
Goldenberg, N. (1979). Changing of the gods: Feminism and the end of traditional religions.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Gray, E. J. (1993). Introduction to Jungian art therapy. In The American Art Therapy Association,
Inc. 24th Annual Conference, Common ground: The arts, therapy, spirituality (p. 30). Mundelein, IL:
American Art Therapy Association.
Halifax, N. V. D. (1997). Feminist art psychotherapy: Contributions from feminist theory and
contemporary art practice. American Journal of Art Therapy, 36, 49-55.
Hallen, P. (1994). Making peace with nature: Why ecology needs feminism. In A. Drengson & Y.
Inoue (Eds.), The deep ecology movement: An introductory anthology (pp. 198-218). Berkley, CA: North
Atlantic Books.
Hart, T. (1994). Hidden spring: The spiritual dimension of therapy. New York: Paulist Press.
Hillman, J. (1975). Re-visioning psychology. NewYork: Harper & Row.
Hillman, J. (1989). The essential James Hillman: A blue fire. London: Routledge.
Hogan, S. (Ed.). (1997). Feminist approaches to art therapy. New York: Routledge.
29
Horovitz-Darby, E.G. (1994). Spiritual art therapy: An alternative path. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Hunt, M.E. (1995). Psychological implications of women’s spiritual health. Women & Therapy, 16
(2/3), 21-32.
Junge, M. B., Alvarez, J. F., Kellogg, A., & Volker, C. (1993). The art therapist as social activist:
Reflections and visions. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 10 (3), 148-155.
Kellen-Taylor, M. (1998). Imagination and the world: A call for ecological expressive therapies.
The Arts in Psychotherapy, 25 (5), 303-311.
Lachman-Chapin, M. (1993). The art therapist as exhibiting artist: Messages from Joseph Beuys,
Suzi Gablik, and Donald Kuspit. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association 10 (3),
141-147.
Landy, R. (1998). Establishing a model of communication between artists and creative arts
therapists. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 25 (5), 299-302.
Lee, M. F. (1995). Earth first: Environmental apocalypse. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press.
Lovinger, R. J. (1984). Working with religious issues in therapy. New York: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, W. L. (1975). Creative and mental growth (6th ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Lusebrink, V.B. (1993). Review: Art as Medicine: Creating a Therapy of the Imagination. Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 10 (2), 100-102.
McConeghey, H. (1993). An archetypal approach to art therapy. In The American Art Therapy
Association, Inc. 24th Annual Conference, Common ground: The arts, therapy, spirituality (p. 72).
Mundelein, IL: American Art Therapy Association.
McNiff, S. (1998). Enlarging the vision of art therapy research. Art Therapy: Journal of the
American Art Therapy Association, 15 (2), 86-92.
McNiff, S. (1993). Images as angels. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 10 (4), 13-17.
McNiff, S. (1992). Art as medicine: Creating a therapy of the imagination. Boston: Shambhala.
Moon, B. L. (1997). Art and soul: Reflections on an artistic psychology. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
Moon, B. L. (1994). Introduction of art therapy: Faith in the product. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Moon, C. (1993). Mystery: The guiding image. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 10 (4), 18-22.
Moore, T. (1992). Care of the soul. New York: Harper Collins.
Naisbitt, J. & Aburdene, P. (1988). Megatrends 2000. New York: Viking.
30
Noam, G. G., & Wolf, M. (1993). Psychology and spirituality: Forging a new relationship. In M.L.
Randour (Ed.), Exploring sacred landscapes (pp. 194 - 207). New York: Columbia University Press.
Randour, M. L. (Ed.). (1993). Exploring sacred landscapes. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Robbins, A. (1987). An object relations approach to art therapy. In J.A. Rubin (Ed.),
Approaches to art therapy. (pp. 63-74). New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Salmons, P. H., & Clarke, D. J. (1987). Cacodemonomania. Psychiatry, 50, 50-54.
Shafranske, E. P., & Malony, H. N. (1990). Clinical psychologists’ religions and spiritual
orientations and their practice of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 27 (1), 72-78.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). Whatever happened to psychology as the science of behavior? American
Psychologist, 42, 780-786.
Spero, M.H. (1990). Parallel dimensions of experience in psychoanalytic psychotherapy of the
religious patient. Psychotherapy, 27 (1), 53-71.
Sperry, R. (1995). The riddle of consciousness and the changing scientific worldview. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 35 (2), 7-33.
Spretnak, C. (1986). The spiritual dimensions of Green politics. Sante Fe, NM: Bear & Company.
Spring, D. (1994). Progress or politics. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 11 (4), 282-288.
Starhawk, & Connor, J. (1995). Reclaiming the sacred. Women & Therapy, 17 (3/4), 469-476.
Stein, J. (Ed.). (1984). Random House College Dictionary (Revised Edition). New York, Random
House.
Sullivan, B.S. (1989). Psychotherapy grounded in the feminine principle. Wilmette, Ill.: Chiron
Publications.
Wadeson, H. (1987). The dynamics of art psychotherapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wadeson, H. (1994). Question: Will art therapy survive universal health coverage reform? Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 11 (1), 26-28.
Wasilewska, E. (1992). Ritual and art making. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy
Association, 9 (4), 198-200.
Woddis, J. (1986). Judging by appearances. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 13, 147-149.
Zimmerman, M. E. (1994). Feminism, deep ecology, and environmental ethics. In A. Drengson &
Y. Inoue (Eds.), The deep ecology movement: An introductory anthology (pp. 169-197). Berkley, CA:
North Atlantic Books
31