The Role and Scope of Transpersonal Psychology

In a previous article (Daniels and McNutt, 1997) we raised a number of issues related to the role and scope of transpersonal psychology. Two seminal articles written by Fontana and Slack (1996a, 1996b) initially prompted our discussion. These articles were instrumental in facilitating the formation of the Transpersonal Psychology Section of the BPS. In their reply to our paper, which was published in the same issue, Fontana and Slack (1997) expressed surprise that we should focus our criticisms on their work. Our justification for this is the central role that these articles have played in helping to acquaint the broad population of British psychologists with transpersonal psychology and also in clarifying the terms of reference for the newly established Transpersonal Psychology Section. As such, many people have without doubt looked to these articles to define the field of transpersonal psychology and to elucidate its concerns and methods. We repeat what we said in our previous article- that we applaud Fontana and Slack's substantial efforts. Transpersonal psychologists in Britain, including us, owe them a major debt of gratitude. In this context, their protest that we should focus on their work is surprising. We should also not forget the leading positions that these two individuals occupy within the Transpersonal Psychology Section. This means that many people will continue to approach Fontana and Slack for direction and guidance in this area. In their reply, Fontana and Slack raise a number of substantive and forcefully argued objections to our own criticisms. We feel that these objections deserve to be addressed, not only in the interests of clarity and lively debate, but also because there are important issues at stake both for the Transpersonal Psychology Section and for the field as a whole