Richard Maurice Bucke, William James, Abraham Maslow, and what came next

Richard Maurice Bucke lived an extraordinary life. He would have been fascinated by our work - and we would have liked to have met him.

Richard Maurice Bucke (1837-1902)

Bucke was born in 1837, not long before his family emigrated from England to Canada. He grew up on a backwoods farm, uneducated, where his mother died while he was still young, followed shortly afterwards by his father. He travelled to the United States, aged 16, where he experienced five years of frontier adventures. He worked on railways and steamboats, fought for his life during an attack by Shoshone Indians, then almost froze to death in the mountains of California, the only survivor of a mining party, leading to the amputation of one foot and other toes because of frostbite.

Returning to Canada, Bucke studied medicine at McGill University, Montreal, before specialising in psychiatry. He did his internship at University College Hospital, London. In addition to his prominence in Canada, he was appointed President of the American Medico-Psychological Association and President of the Psychological Section of the British Medical Association.

Richard Maurice Bucke is rightly remembered for the first scientific study of oneness experiences. His landmark book Cosmic Consciousness was published in 1900. Earlier, aged 36, Bucke personally experienced a state of unity, when he “learned more within the few seconds during which the illumination lasted than in previous years of study”. He subsequently discussed this higher state of being with several others who had also experienced it, including the poet Walt Whitman. Although Bucke’s pioneering study has faults - such as him thinking this phenomenon happens mostly to men, which is untrue - it nevertheless marked a worthy beginning.

William James, “Father of American psychology” (1842-1910) Credit: Houghton Library, Harvard University

William James was another giant of his time. He initially studied to be a physician, but realised that his interests lay in philosophy and psychology rather than medicine. He’s recognised as a leading thinker of the nineteenth century, one of the most influential philosophers of the United States, and the “Father of American psychology”.

His famous collection of lectures were published in 1902 as The Varieties of Religious Experience. James identified mysticism as being central to religion. His work was similar to Bucke’s. He identified the ineffable quality of a mystical or oneness experience - that “no adequate report of its contents can be given in words” and “its quality must be directly experienced”. He considered it to be “a state of knowledge”. “They are states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority for after-time.” Again confirming Bucke’s analysis, James pointed to their transiency: “Mystical states cannot be sustained for long.” He also recognised the temporary suspension of the smaller “self”.

Aldous Huxley, the English writer and philosopher (Brave New World, Island, and The Doors of Perception), developed a keen interest in philosophical mysticism, writing: “The mystical experience is doubly valuable; it is valuable because it gives the experiencer a better understanding of himself and the world and because it may help him to lead a less self-centered and more creative life.” His book The Perennial Philosophy, published in 1945, was described as “an attempt to present this Highest Common Factor of all theologies by assembling passages from the writings of those saints and prophets who have approached a direct spiritual knowledge of the Divine”. (To be clear, this topic is not in any way dependent upon spiritual or religious belief; we view it as a simple matter of psychology and evolutionary potential.)

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)

Abraham Maslow was another pioneering psychologist, best known today for his hierarchy of needs theory relating to psychological health. His most profound contribution, however, was his work on what he called peak experiences and self-actualisation, including The Farther Reaches of Human Nature.

He wrote: “The fully developed (and very fortunate) human being, working under the best conditions, tends to be motivated by values which transcend his self. They are not selfish anymore in the old sense of that term.” And again: “Certainly it seems more and more clear that what we call ‘normal’ in psychology is really a psychopathology of the average, so undramatic and so widely spread that we don’t even notice it ordinarily.”

In 1968, Maslow was among a group of people who announced transpersonal psychology as a "fourth force" in psychology, so as to distinguish it from the three other forces of psychology: psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and humanistic psychology.

Sir Alister Hardy (1896-1985) - with thanks for permission from the Hardy family and Bettina/RERC

Meanwhile, here in the UK, Sir Alister Hardy was a distinguished marine biologist. After retiring from his zoological academic work in 1969, he founded the Religious Experience Research Unit (later changed to Centre) in Oxford. The unit collected and collated approximately 6,000 accounts of spiritual and religious experiences - many of which fall within the category that we prefer to call oneness experiences. We’ll shortly be writing a separate article specifically about these experiences, with the link appearing here.

In the 1980s, there were three attempts to get transpersonal psychology formally recognised as a division of the American Psychological Association, without success. Here in the UK, it wasn’t until 1996 that the British Psychological Society established a Transpersonal Psychology Section, co-founded by David Fontana.

At this point, we need to be blunt. Richard Maurice Bucke and William James were great pioneers in an age when the values of honour and curiosity were often seen as linked. Fortunately, they were later followed by the mighty Maslow. Since then, there’s been a drought of brave and intelligent individuals of similar stature within academic psychology, sufficiently capable to make progress in this area. A promising leap forward got stuck and has slipped backwards with the passing of decades. Transpersonal psychology has had little or no influence in the past 50 years. Disappointing, but true. A whole area of human potential remains largely ignored by so-called “experts”. A small minority of psychologists remain interested, but they largely stick within their cliques - achieving nothing worthwhile.

There’s a parallel here between this lack of uptake and how psychological avoidance is still being largely overlooked. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) did a great job in identifying the various types of psychological avoidance - albeit mistakenly thinking that these were fixed attributes, rather than learned behavioural patterns that can be unlearned (provided sufficient effort is applied). Today, well into the twenty-first century, the extent to which psychological avoidance still causes dysfunction and behavioural limitations - as well as frustrating attempts to change for the better - is simply shocking. It’s as if humanity has learned nothing. Not only does avoidance dominate people’s psychology, it goes largely unnoticed and unchallenged. The extent of this is massively underestimated, even by psychologists. There’s a clear tendency to dumb down - whether it be sticking within the normalised mindset or avoiding avoidance.

More recently, positive psychology took off when Martin Seligman chose it as his theme when he became president of the American Psychological Association in 1998. (Actually, the term had been first used by Maslow back in the late 1960s.) The focus is on well-being, rather than on the previous obsession with mental illness. Great. Only it’s not so great. It’s somewhat fluffy. And where’s an equal focus on avoidance? Going further, it doesn’t get anywhere near the depths - or should that be “heights” - of human potential that were initially examined over 120 years ago.

Others have rightly criticised positive psychology. In a piece for Forbes in 2018, Michael Schein wrote “positive psychology is garbage”. Referring to Martin Seligman, he continued: “Only a true marketing wizard could transform his image from that of a guy best known for torturing dogs into the world’s foremost apostle of happiness.” Schein correctly flags up the inconsistency and inaccuracy of self-reporting personality questionnaire tests, which continue to be widely used despite being discredited. Others have raised their eyebrows at the commercialisation of the positive psychology bandwagon.

Before we finish, it’s appropriate to conclude this article with a heartfelt, practical, and logically-sound plea to academic psychologists. And, realistically, we’re likely talking about the next generation of psychologists here - those who haven’t yet become stuffed, still with a bit of spark and enthusiasm to make a better tomorrow. Are you willing to work hard, be brave and smart, to become the next Bucke, James, or Maslow?

The subject needs to be studied with a sharp mind, getting up to speed with everything that was understood yesteryear but within a modern context. Our own pioneering, practical work also has much to offer. There’s been a few bits and pieces of useful research during the years of slumber - topics which are relevant to the bigger picture, such as error-focused learning and deliberate practice. And neuroscience is getting better at brain mapping, although the issue remains of needing to understand any data within a deeper context.

It’s all about expanding horizons, going beyond the ubiquitous self-orientated psychology. There’s a need for maturity - for taking the next evolutionary step forward. And there’s a big difference between a peak or oneness experience and a constant state of no-avoidance; a detailed psychological framework is needed to sustain the greater understanding and love that can otherwise only be momentarily glimpsed. What’s needed is a similar preciseness to that of a mechanical engineer. The reality we’re talking about here is as exact in detail as it is big. And “fluffy” has no place in such an examination.

So, there you have it: a quick summary of the past 120 years, plus a challenge for today and tomorrow. Will someone read this, prepared to hammer and forge themselves into the next worthy pioneer - to get the ball rolling once again?

Written by Iain Scott & Victoria de las Heras, 14th May 2021