Editorial introduction

Health Psychology has been with us “officially” for about a decade and its development has been rapid and influential. With any new area, particularly one which has developed so quickly, it becomes necessary to take stock in order to assess progress and to identify critical issues. To some extent, this task has been attempted in the United States (see Stone er al.,1987) but there has been no systematic attempt to look at international developments in health psychology. I was therefore particularly pleased when Mary Jansen, Gerda Methorst and Ad Kerkhof offered to act as guest editors for a special issue on this topic.

Any collection of papers which attempts the task of an international overview is bound to be selective. Although the present collection is no exception in this respect, certain key themes are explored very successfully. These include the nature of the development of the discipline and the professional perspective, as revealed in the emergence of different types of training program. Added to this there is a most valuable opportunity to compare the development and application of health psychology in contrasting countries around the world. In addition to ensuring that the papers cover an appropriate range of areas, the guest editors have been particularly fortunate in obtaining contributions from a very impressive collection of authors from many countries and professional contexts.

At present health psychology holds many promises both as a research area and as an emerging profession. The planning of good quality research and of appropriately structured training programs is necessary to convert the promises into a reality. In our attempts to do this, we will need to cooperate and to learn from each other and this collection of papers provides an excellent basis for this. I am extremely grateful to the contributing authors and to Mary Jansen, Gerda Methorst and Ad Kerkhof for all their hard work.     

Editorial introduction

Abstract

Three views of “self” have emerged as part of the same Zeitgeist: the “self that humanistic psychology salvaged from the reductionisms of behaviorism and psychoanalysis; the “selves” postmodern critics find as they deconstruct hegemonies of modernity; and the “illusion of separate selfhood” of transpersonal theory. The differences and overlaps of these views are examined in an effort to find a coherence without compromising the differences. This examination begins with a recognition of the splitting views as part of the same recent Zeitgeist, and of a longer philosophical history which grounds these. Next, recent critiques of the humanistic sense of self are surveyed, followed by distinction between “self,” “identity,” and “life.” Then a contextualization follows in classical terms of “fate” and “destiny” as well as the values inherent in these views of humanness, notably happiness and fulfillment. Finally, a single example, offered by Bergson, is used to illustrate the compatibility, even necessity of a compatibility, of differences.