The Problem With Conceptions of Spiritual Intelligence
The discussion of the use of the terms “spiritual” and “spirituality” helps to redirect much of the current discourse toward a more critical consideration of how “spiritual” is employed and defined in the literature, whether spirituality is synonymous with spiritual intelligence, or whether it is a new concept, separate and apart from traditional and historical notions of "spiritual." What is critically important here is the insight that the term “spiritual” is being understood in a new way that (a) borrowed ideas and concepts from traditional religion; (b) reinterpreted and redefined them; and (c) ignored the rigors and structures that have helped to make sense of them. How can inquirers make sense of authors’ assumptions and conceptions of spiritual intelligence?
Ontology and Epistemology
The link between ontology (the study of being, i.e. origins) and epistemology (the study of knowing, i.e. how we know) is the search for meaning. They are critical to deciphering views of spiritual intelligence, to the degree that our conceptions of the origin of life have implications for who and what we are, whether there is a purpose for life collectively and individually, what can be known, how it can be known, and, by extension, how we theorize, define, assess, and speculate about spiritual intelligence. Furthermore, it provides a context from which authors’ perspectives can be assessed. Clarity about the underlying philosophical assumptions will remove much of the ambiguity surrounding the use of the term “spiritual” and also the philosophical tensions within various authors’ views.
The link between ontology (the study of being, i.e. origins) and epistemology (the study of knowing, i.e. how we know) is the search for meaning. They are critical to deciphering views of spiritual intelligence, to the degree that our conceptions of the origin of life have implications for who and what we are, whether there is a purpose for life collectively and individually, what can be known, how it can be known, and, by extension, how we theorize, define, assess, and speculate about spiritual intelligence. Furthermore, it provides a context from which authors’ perspectives can be assessed. Clarity about the underlying philosophical assumptions will remove much of the ambiguity surrounding the use of the term “spiritual” and also the philosophical tensions within various authors’ views.
Three factors contribute to mystifying spiritual intelligence as a paradigm: (a) the absence of data beyond mere anecdote, (b) a lack of clear attention to the philosophical underpinnings of authors’ conceptions of it, and (c) confusion concerning how the term “spiritual” is being employed. These three factors must be addressed if a clear conception of spiritual intelligence is to be postulated. Having data on spiritual intelligence and its philosophical underpinnings, and understanding how the term “spiritual” are employed by the authors, is critical to establishing a framework from which to address the philosophical issues that arise out of conceptions of spiritual intelligence. The underlying philosophical assumptions are the means by which authors’ views of spiritual intelligence can be deciphered. The ontological and epistemological assumptions, explicitly stated, help to remove the ambiguity in the use and appropriation of terms that authors employ arbitrarily to convey their conceptions of spiritual intelligence.
How the concept of “spiritual” is employed in the designation “spiritual intelligence” ultimately determines the worldview of its author. The vast majority of authors have used the postmodern concept of "spirituality," though they have used the traditional term “spiritual” as an adjective to modify the noun “intelligence.” A growing trend emerged from the work of Enlightenment philosopher Kant, who unsuccessfully postulated a moral theory apart from religion and based on reason alone. Kant’s influence in raising existential questions about the nature of morality had a profound influence on philosophy, particularly on the question: Does or can spirituality exist apart from religion? Much of the current thinking on spirituality is rooted in a notion of spirituality apart from religion and is indebted to Kant. Efforts to construct a concept of spirituality that exists apart from religion have resulted in a universalistic spirituality that is epitomized by subjectivity. Wolman (2001) articulated the crux of the issue in one brief sentence: “We now live in a time of personalized spirituality” (p. 16). The insistence of some authors that spirituality and religion are not synonymous raises the question of the nature of the relationship between spirituality and religion and the concepts they embody.
The Heart of the Issue
Whereas the Christian notion of the term “spiritual” involves the external influence of the Holy Spirit bringing about a regeneration or change on the inside of an individual, in universalistic and humanistic/postmodern notions of the term “spiritual,” there is no need for regeneration. Personal transformation, change, or connecting with the transcendent comes instead from an inner seeking that leads to enlightenment, self-actualization, or ultimate meaning. The term “spirituality” and how it is appropriated ilies at the heart of the issue.
The New Testament concept of the term “spiritual” presupposes a fallen human nature which is redeemed and reborn through a personal experience with Christ, whereas the postmodern notions do not presuppose a fallen human nature and are not dependent on a transformation initiated by God and resulting in a virtuous life. The historical context out of which the term “spiritual” and its primary connotations emerged can be traced back to the religious cultus and culture of the Hebrews and Christians respectively. It is apparent that there is a disparity between the word spiritual's historical theological use and its contemporary philosophical use as evidenced by much of the spiritual intelligence literature. Referring to the noun "spirit," author Houston Smith (2001) observes:
"It is a bad sign when spiritual[,] an adjective[,] gets turned into a noun. Spirituality, for this[,] has a dog chasing its own tail. Grammatically, spirit is the noun in question, and spiritual, its adjective. Spirituality is a neologism that has come into existence because spirit has no reference in science’s world[,] and without grounding there; we are left unsure as to what the word denotes." (pp. 255-256)
The use of the term “spiritual” in most of the spiritual intelligence literature assumes a socially constructed postmodern, philosophical worldview. The traditional or theological definition is laid aside and a new meaning is poured into the adjective “spiritual” in order to accommodate its use as a noun (spirituality) over against its historical use and applications. This critical insight highlights what lies at the heart of the challenge to make sense of the various views on spirituality as these views are used in relationship to spiritual intelligence. In other words, the noun form “spirituality” is connoted to the adjective form “spiritual” to create in a very literal sense “spirituality intelligence” rather than spiritual intelligence. It does not logically or grammatically follow that the terms “spirituality” and “spiritual” are synonymous, as they clearly represent divergent worldviews. Wolman (2001) characterized this perspective succinctly when he stated:
"Whether we view spirituality as a quest across cultures and traditions, or as an introspective journey within, a defining characteristic of the modern form of this concept is that we focus on an extraordinary amount of self-improvement . . . the drive for spiritual self-improvement is basically a desire for self-actualization rooted in a hoped-for personal epiphany, understanding, and a peacefulness with the world in which we live." (p. 15)
Wolman also observes:
"Spirituality in contemporary culture is a designer spirituality, tailored to the needs of individual tastes and preferences. Unlike the experiences of spirituality and religion of former times, which yielded to preexisting molds and structures and to which personal need and taste were subordinated, current spirituality has reversed the situation entirely. It is now the spiritual that must fit our needs, or be discarded like a suit of clothes that neither fits nor is any longer stylish." (p. 21)
Social Construction
In an article on research assumptions, Bouffard, Strean & Davis (1998) observed that “ontological and epistemological assumptions often serve as the starting point for developing theories” (p. 251). The qualification “often” (p. 251) allows for the approach that most spiritual intelligence authors have assumedly taken, namely, a constructionist approach. The constructionist approach appears to be the preferred approach of postmoderns who focus on social processes and who postulate an epistemology apart from the empiricist epistemology that is presently more common to research. Slife and Williams (1995) provided insight on this approach when they stated that
"social constructionists are principally concerned with explaining how people experience and describe the world in which they live. Social constructionists look for common forms of understanding, common “constructs,” or views of the world, that are created and shared by most people in a society—hence the term social construction." (p. 78).
A social constructionist approach may provide insights that are helpful in studying current perceptions of spiritual intelligence that are rooted in the neologism "spirituality" but only when its philosophical assumptions, i.e., its ontology and epistemology are made explicit.
