Hitler, Purpose in Life, and Access to My Most Beloved Scientific Article
Hitler, Purpose in Life, and Access to My Most Beloved Scientific Article
A 50 Page Resolution on the Science of Purpose in Life
An analogy to Hitler.
On March 5, 2007, this was the sin that led the American Psychologist to reject a conceptual paper on purpose in life by Dr. Patrick McKnight and me (it eventually was published here and cited over 1,000 times).1
Patrick and I have joked about this experience. Until now, I have never shared what we cut from the paper. You be the judge of whether we crossed the line of acceptability.
How Shall We Judge The Merit of Another Person’s Purpose in Life?
A person's purpose may not necessarily be socially acceptable but we expect a different effect over time for purposes that run contra to social norms. Consider two extreme examples to illustrate this point. As repugnant as this might sound to most of us, Hitler had a purpose that was originally positive - to simulate nationalism in Germany (Toland, 1976). During the period where nationalism was his focus, Hitler found that over time he was better able to carry out his purpose without much resistance. As Hitler's purpose slowly changed into a more obvious, socially repugnant act, he met with resistance from many different social entities and as the resistance grew, Hitler was less able to carry out the activities consistent with his purpose. Gandhi, on the other hand, had a struggle that met far greater resistance early on in his life. He faced social and economic hardship while he struggled to push for India's independence from Britain. In contrast to Hitler, Gandhi soon found that he was no longer alone in pursuing his purpose and that purpose became both socially acceptable and socially supported. Hitler's support came from the power he wielded and not necessarily from his purposeful behaviors. Where both of these exemplars converge is that both individuals died from those who objected to their purposes. Where they are different is that Hitler probably experienced far more stress in his later life because his nefarious purpose was no longer easily achieved whereas Gandhi's purpose, while just as broad and far-reaching as Hitler's, offered him hope of achievement and less stress. Thus, social acceptance of purposes likely affects the person who lives for the purpose by imposing or reducing barriers. When barriers are increased, we expect people to experience far greater stress when pursuing a purpose. Those without a purpose might find other activities or pursuits to satisfy them if the resistance gets too great (Segerstrom, 2005). What separates those with purpose is the increased stress but consistent strivings toward that purpose.
It is problematic to contrast younger and older Hitler, or Hitler and Gandhi? We believe a great loss occurs when we silo quantitative and qualitative research. When scientists refuse to tell stories, bringing the work to life for readers, they reduce their impact.
A Surge of Interest in Purpose
Since that rejection, I have yet to submit an article to this most prestigious journal of the American Psychological Association. Until now. With Drs. Fallon Goodman and Patrick McKnight, and early career researchers Bradley Brown and Ruba Rum, we created the 14 year follow-up to that initial conceptual article on purpose in life.
In the past 14 years, there has been a surge of research, best selling books, media articles, and of course, TED talks on purpose in life. There have been competing theories and a shit ton of productive conflicts - signs of a healthy discipline.
A Synthesis of Knowns and Unknowns About Purpose
With this backdrop, it is with great pleasure to finally share the article that we have been working on for years. As loyal readers of Provoked, you are the first to hear of this article and the first to read it.
Kashdan, T.B., Goodman, F.R., McKnight, P.E., Brown, B., & Rum, R. (in press). Purpose in Life: A Resolution on the Definition, Conceptual Model, and Optimal Measurement. American Psychologist
Click this link to download our work:
Enjoy our laborious pursuit. Please do not hesitate to offer whatever natural reaction occurs. Leave a comment with your thoughts and criticisms. There is plenty to discuss and debate, with pleasure.
If you enjoyed this issue, please share it with your social world! At least, click the heart button (always appreciated). And thank you for providing the support that allows me to devote time to creating Provoked.
Here is what one reviewer said: “While reading the manuscript, I
recognized some highly questionable statements, such as ‘Hitler had a purpose
that was originally positive’ (see page 13). This statement will supposedly be
perceived as very offensive by many readers and is historically incorrect. In
addition, I do not think that the American Psychological Association would like
to publish, or be associated with, statements like this.” This anonymous person felt comfortable speaking on behalf of tens of thousands of scientists. Mansplaining to the 42nd power.
Fascinating response from the reviewer. I've had a similar response from someone who argued that 'exercise for health' was part of the eugenics movement (which it was) and therefore the idea of using exercise in healthcare should be rejected. Whatever the original background of exercise (and the moral movement in mental health, 'perfect posture', and all those ideals), today we know there are excellent reasons for employing exercise, and for including purposeful and meaningful 'doing' (occupation) as both process and outcome of therapy. I love looking at history and how common beliefs have developed from these origins, but it doesn't mean I agree with them! Nuance and a pragmatic view of how things play out over time is hard to do but invaluable.
Anonymous reviewer… But no courage, strength manifestation there!