Humanistic Psychology

It is important to mention, at the beginning, that humanistic psychology

appeared as a reaction to both psychoanalytic and behavioristic psychology. In other
words, humanistic psychology rejects the theoretical propositions upon which
psychoanalysis and behaviorism establish their interpretations of man's behavior; that
is the focus on man's unconscious and reading man's behavior as determined by some
external environmental forces. The proponents of humanistis psychology uphold the
view that both psychoanalysis and behaviorism have actually turned a blind eye to an
important aspect that can influence man's behavior. This aspect is man's capacities to
direct his/her own behavior or, in other words, man's will to act freely. Thus, what
consolidates the view of humanistic psychologists is a rejection of the main principles
of both psychoanalysis and behaviorism, which minimize the role of man's inner
potentialities, in favor of discovering the real inner capacities of human beings which
enable them to determine the shape of their life styles. This tendency to explore man's
inner strength to act upon his/her surroundings is even reflected in the overwhelming
vocabulary which characterizes the identity of humanistic psychology. Expressions
like "authenticity, self-actualization, search for meaning, credibility, personal growth,
values, love, identity" (Crapps 138) come to outline the basic features of humanistic
psychology with its special focus on man's determinate nature to organize his/her own
world without being submissive to some basic instinct drives or external forces. On
celebrating the establishment of The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Abraham
Maslow comments that the journal "is being founded by a group of psychologists and
professional men and women from other fields who are interested in those human
capacities and potentialities that have no systematic place either in positivistic or
behavioristic theory or in classical psychoanalytic theory" (1). This comment
highlights the fact that humanistic psychologists seek to read man's behavior from
within the lens of man's inner strength to determine his/her behavior. Moreover,
humanistic psychology tends to interpret man's behavior or actions on a personal
level. Two major humanistic psychologists attempted to explore how religion
functions on man's personal level: William James (yr) and Gordon Allport (yr). On
one hand, James interprets religious behavior in light of man's exposure to some
overwhelming subjective experience, while Allport interprets religious behavior in
light of his view that man is in a permanent state of "becoming". It is worth
mentioning that the study's focus, on this level of analysis, will be on investigating the
actions of characters as being determined by their inner capacities. A reading to the
characters' actions from within the theoretical framework of both theorists will expose
how religion functions on a personal level and how also the religious turn by
characters springs from their inner strength to determine their religious conduct.
William James: Religion as a Subjective Experience
The contribution of James to the psychology of religion lies in his book The
Varieties of Religious Experiences (1902) in which he investigates reasons that might
lead one to adopt a certain type of religious behavior. It is important also to mention
that his works dominated the scene in psychology until psychoanalysis took over by
the 1920s. an important concept in James' psychological investigations is the "stream
of consciousness". In psychology, stream of consciousness can be defined as the
natural flow of thoughts which overwhelms one's thinking. This process can take the
form of some mental images or even some ideas. The term has been borrowed by
literary critics in order to read how some literary figures, especially novelists and
dramatists, employed the concept as a technique of writing in order to set forth how a
fictional character thinks about its feelings, consciousness and attitudes. In the literary
field the term has been known under the name of interior monologue. The Oxford
Dictionary of Literary Terms defines it as follows "in the first (psychological) sense,
the stream of consciousness is the subject matter while interior monologue is the
technique of presenting it" (318). The significance of this concept is that it puts
forward James psychological agenda with its special focus on man's consciousness as
a means to understand man's behavior. In opposition to the psychoanalytic tradition
which mainly ignored the capacities of man's consciousness and elevated the power of
man's unconscious level, James perceives man's consciousness as the main channel
through which the underlying mechanisms beneath man's behavior can be identified.
This focus on man's consciousness is made explicit by James when he declares that
"the plain truth is that to interpret religion one must in the end look at the immediate
content of the religious consciousness" (my emphasis) (13). This means that, for
James, man's tendency to behave religiously can best be accounted for in examining
the spheres which individuals consciously categorize and identify as religious. In
other words, James contends that an individual's religious life-style or behavior can be
understood through examining what he/she consciously approves as religious. Thus,
James, in the Varieties, examines man's religious consciousness through the
"subjective experiences reported in the works of piety and autobiography by articulate
and full self-conscious men" (JAMES PG), moreover he adds that the "royal road to
religious consciousness is through what persons described their experience to be "
(Crapps 133). In examining some reported speeches about people's subjective
religious experiences, James came to the conclusion that man's religiosity springs
from their exposure to an overwhelming experience that has been imprinted in their
consciousness and around which they pattern their lives.
In his analysis of the various subjective religious experiences which one might
experience, James, according to Crapps, explains that there are three main common
characteristics which characterize a religious experience. It is personal, densely full
of emotions and variable. James observes that upholding a religious perspective is a
personal process through which individuals delve into in order to place them in
contact with whatever they regard as divine. This focus on the personal level is made
clear when James speaks of the nature of religion saying "religion… mean(s) for us,
the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual man in their solitude, so far they
apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider divine" (31-
2). In defining religion from within the lens of some individualistic feelings, James is,
implicitly, critiquing the institutional forms of religion which aim at imposing some
doctrines on their followers. Adopting a religious attitude in one's life should not be
imposed by any force, rather religion is a subjective experience through which man is
able to experience the presence of whatever he/she considers divine.
On the level of emotionality, James upholds the view that what characterizes a
personal religious experience is the intensity of emotions which subjects experience
of the divine. Unlike the mainstream of thought of approaching religion during his
time, like the Kantian and the Hegelian metaphysical rationalistic methods of
investigating the nature of God, James advocated the focus on emotions which are felt
by subjects in religious experiences rather than the "thinking of religious experience"
(Crapps 134). James, in effect, opposed any intellectualized method which seeks to
define religion or religious behavior from within the perspective of some rationalistic
theoretical frameworks. For example, James, at some point, expresses his
disagreement with a metaphysical approach to define the nature of God. He says that
"what is their deduction of metaphysical attributes but a shaffling and matching of
pedantic dictionary adjectives, aloof from morals, aloof from human needs…did such
conglomeration of abstract terms give really the gist of our knowledge of the deity"
(436-37). James is actually against approaches which tend to centralize the study of
religion and religious behavior on God as in philosophy of religion. James, on the
contrary, believed that what acted as a common feature among all religion is worth of
investigating. This common feature, in the view of James, is man's emotions. He
clearly echoes such view saying "when we survey the whole field of religion we find
a great variety of in the thoughts that have prevailed there; but the feelings on the one
hand and the conduct on the other are almost always the same for stoic, Christian, and
Buddhist saints are practically indistinguishable in their lives" (494). In this manner, it
should be clear how James believes that the essence of religion is to be found in man's
emotions. This focus on the personal emotional intuition which are felt by subjects
represent the corner stone upon which humanistic psychology paves the way for
man's will to be a determinant drive to his/her actions.
As for the variable feature which characterizes religious experiences, James
attempted to classify the types of religious experiences through his examination of a
number of reported experiences. James reached the conclusion that four types of
religious experiences an individual might experience or define his/her religious
system through. Those four experiences are: saintliness, mysticism, healthy
mindedness and sick soul. In explaining the features of a saintliness experience, James
points out that "ripe fruits of religion in a character is saintliness", moreover he adds
that such saintly character "is the character for which spiritual emotions are the
habitual centre of personal energy" (272). It should be clear how James characterize
the saintly character as filled with emotions; those emotions are like a store which
boosts the energy of man's actions. James goes on to explain in detail what sort of
emotions is felt by subjects in a saintly religious experience. The first emotion is ''the
feeling of being in a wider life than that of this world's selfish little interests; and a
conviction, not merely intellectual, but as it were sensible of the existence of an Ideal
power" (James 272). This means that a subject can experience the presence of
whatever ideal power he/she praises. The second feeling is a "sense of the friendly
continuity of the ideal power with our own life, and a willing self-surrender to its
control" (James 273). This feeling entails that subjects do not only experience the
presence of an ideal power but they enjoy a special companionship with the divine.
Moreover, they willingly submit themselves to the power of such ideal power.
Thirdly, subjects experience "an immense elation and freedom, as the outlines of the
confining selfhood melt down'' (James 273). This means that subjects can experience
a state of happiness as they give up the bodily materialistic pleasures in favor of
orienting their lives towards achieving some higher values. Finally, a saintly
experience enables subjects to enjoy some "loving and harmonious affections,
towards 'yes yes' and away from "no", where the claims of non-ego are concerned"
(James 273). This means that the experienced emotions prevent subjects from
satisfying their egos at the expense others, rather they seek non egoist goals.

(PART WRITTEN AT HOME)

Based on the above explanation, the study is keen on reading the behavior of
the characters, in the three texts, from within James' insights on man's turn to religion.
Therefore, the study will attempt to analyze moments when characters consciously
bring about their personal religious experiences. The study will also shed light on how
such religious experiences are, as James would classify them, personal and full of
emotions. Moreover, the study will also attempt to detect the effects of those religious
experiences on the behavior of the characters in light of James' classifications of the
variable feature of religious experience. In other words, measuring how far such
subjective experiences create a saintly, mystic, and healthy minded or sick soul
characters.
In order to decode the characters' religious experiences, the study makes use of
the theory of possible worlds. It is well known that plays which leave an influential
effect on readers or spectators are those which are usually structured dialectically. In
other words, the more a drama is structured on the clash of views or ideas, the more it
is anticipated to increase the audience's enthusiasm in terms of the aesthetics of
reception. The ability to play upon the audience's feelings can be detected in
measuring how far the dynamics of the dramatic world creating system is being
processed among characters. This world creating process is built through creating
possible world or fictional dramatic worlds in which characters attempt to establish a
communicative system with their surroundings. This might include the plethora of
various systems which make up the whole structure of drama like characters, setting,
costume, manners of behavior etc… the dynamics through which such possible
worlds are created is through "hypotheses, through the expression of wishes, through
orders (which project a situation different from the currently existing), or through
counterfact (CHEK) conditionals" (Elam 61). In this manner, dramatic worlds are
perceived by the audience as non-real constructs that are realized on stage as if they
are actual moments which express something about the fictional dramatic character.
Producing such dramatic worlds falls upon the shoulders of characters as Elam
explains that "dramatic worlds has to be specified from within by means of references
made to it by the very individuals who constitute it", moreover he continues to say
"dramatic worlds, the, are revealed through the persons, actions and statements which
make them up, and not through external commentary. This principle might be called
of the reflexivity of WD" (68). Pfister classifies this technique of reflexivity as
moments when characters comment on themselves, their world, their feelings or even
their psychological dispositions. Thus, in bringing about the characters' subjective
religious experiences, the study will focus on those self-commentaries in which
characters consciously reflect upon their dramatic religious experience. Moreover,
analyzing the nature of their personal religious experiences will aid in identifying also
the major effects brought about by such experiences on the way characters perceive
themselves, others and their world.
In St Joan, Joan takes over the stage from Dunois, her dialogue partner, and
delivers a lengthy utterance through which the audience/reader is capable of
identifying the main dimensions which shape Joan's subjective religious experience:
That is why I had to steal away to pray here alone after the
coronation. I'll tell you something, Jack. It is in the bells I
hear my voices. Not today, when they all rang: that was
nothing but jangling. But here in this corner, where the bells
come down from heaven, and the echoes linger, or in the
fields, where they come from a distance through the quiet of
the countryside, my voices are in them. [The cathedral clock
chimes the quarter] Hark! [She becomes rapt] Do you hear?
'Dear-child-of-God': just what you said. At the half-hour they
will say 'Be-brave-go-on'. At the three-quarters they will say
'I-am-thy-Help'. But it is at the hour, when the great bell goes
after 'God-will-save-France': it is then that St Margaret and St
Catherine and sometimes even the blessed Michael will say
things that I cannot tell beforehand. (Sc V 88)
It is worth mentioning that although such dialogue is dialogically structured, it is
intrinsically monological since the utterance is both lengthy and tackles a mono-
centered topic; that is Joan's religious experience. I would like to argue that the above
reported religious experience by Joan is in complete correspondence with the
elements James had prescribed for a religious experience. First of all, it is clear how
Joan's experience is so personal to the extent that it is only she who is capable of
hearing the voices of St. Catherine and St. Margaret. Joan even specifies the place
where she usually hears the voices saying "but here in this corner where the bells
come down from heaven". On the level of emotions, it should be clear how Joan's
personal religious experience is full of emotions to the extent that she "loses all
heart". Thirdly, as for the variable principle, the study argues that Joan's religious
experience has powerful effects on her behavior through out the play. Those effects
are shown in Joan's perception of herself, God and others in the play. The upcoming
lines will expose how Joan's conscious segmentation of her dramatic world is in
correspondence with the features which make up a saintly and a mystic character.
As for the saintly features, the above reported experience shows how Joan is
emotionally submissive to an Ideal power; that is God. Joan not only experiences the
presence of God but she also experiences His companionship through out the events
of the play. This is quite evident in the opening scene of the play. It can be said that in
almost every utterance Joan refers explicitly or implicitly to God's presence:
"My Lord is the King of Heaven", "it is the will of God to do
what He has put into my mind", "God is very merciful", 'I
hear voices telling me what to do. They come from God",
"that is how the messages of God come to us", "I do not think
it can be difficult if God is on your side", "God made them
just like us", "I will teach them all to fight that the will of
God may be done in France" (Sc I 45-52)
The above utterances are clear manifestations that Joan is an ascetic character. An
ascetic character, according to James, is a one who experiences both the presence and
companionship of an ideal power. Joan's remarks on God shows how she articulates
a specific perception of Him. Joan perceives God not as a transcendent Being who is
totally detached from man's world, rather God, for Joan, is present and His presence
can be felt in being in His company. This is actually what Joan seeks to make other
characters understand as shown in the above utterances. Joan wants other French
characters not only to acknowledge God's presence but also to experience His
companionship. The effects of Joan's feeling in being in company with God are
reflected in her valiant behavior in motivating other characters to revolt against the
English army. In fact, Joan's companionship to God enables her to overcome any sort
of fears or anxieties. This is quite clear in how both Joan and Robert speak about the
powerful aspects of the English army. Robert, on one hand, says "do you know why
they are called goddams?...it is because they are always calling upon their God to
condemn their souls to perdition…that is why the goddams will take Orleans. And
you cannot stop them, nor ten thousand like you" (Sc I 52). It should be clear how
Robert's fears and anxieties dominate his perception of the English army. This is due
to the fat that Robert, unlike a saintly character, is attached to the materialistic world.
This attachment to some worldly matters is even mocked by Joan when she explains
why the French soldiers are being defeated by the English army. Joan says "our
soldiers are always beaten because they are only fighting to save their skins and the
shortest way to save your skin is to run away" (Sc I 52). In this description, Joan is
implicitly mocking Robert as a soldier. Unlike a saintly character, Robert, like other
soldiers, fears losing his life in fighting the English soldiers. On the other hand, Joan
perceives the English army as ordinary men who are created by God. In replying to
Robert's question if she had ever seen an English soldier fighting, Joan calmly replies
"they are only men. God made them just like us" (Sc I 53). Joan, as a saintly
character, does not care about losing her life in fulfillment of a higher value like
setting France free. In this manner, Joan embodies another feature of a saintly
character which is purity. This feature entails that the individual gives upon some
worldly pleasures in favor of employing some higher values. This feature is even
magnified in the scene where Joan prefers to be burnt rather than living eternally in
prison. In choosing to be burnt, Joan is actually giving upon her life for the sake of
showing God her loyalty. This act of giving upon bodily or worldly pleasures is
shown in her final utterance in the trial scene as she says:
You think that life is nothing but not being stone dead. It is
not the bread and water I fear: I can live on bread: when have
I asked for more? It is no hardship to drink water if the water
be clean. Bread has no sorrow for me, and water no
affliction. But to shut me from the light of the sky and the
sight of the fields and flowers; to chain my feet so that I can
never again ride with the soldiers nor climb the hills; to make
me breathe foul damp darkness, and keep from me
 everything that brings me back to the love of God when your
wickedness and foolishness tempt me to hate Him. (Sc IV)
In the above lines, Joan articulates how bodily or worldly matters like suffering from
hunger or thirsty does not make her anxious, rather she is completely worried about
satisfying some other spiritual matters. Joan worries that if she is imprisoned she
won't be able to delve into the subjective religious experiences which allow her to
experience the presence and companionship of God. Those subjective experiences are
made clear in the above utterance, for example seeing the light of the sky, the fields,
the flowers and climbing hills. All these objects make up Joan's personal religious
subjective experience which places her in contact with the divine and even experience
some emotions like "the love of God".
The final aspect of a saintly character which is shown in Joan's behavior is
that of charity. This is clearly shown in her humanitarian attitude towards other
characters even her enemies. In Joan's dialogue with Robert, she clearly manifests for
him how it would be a murder to kill an English outside the field of a battle. Joan says
"we are all subjects to the King of Heaven; and He gave us our countires and
languages and meant us to keep them. If it were not so it would be murder to kill an
Englishman" (Sc I 51). In this manner, Joan, as a saintly character, is capable of
showing love even to those who are in deep conflict with.
Joan's behavior also foregrounds some mystical features. Two mystical
features dominate Joan's behavior: the ineffability and the noetic quality. Both
mystical features are shown in Joan's commentary on her subjective religious
experience especially when she says "it is then that St Margaret and St Catherine and
sometimes even the blessed Michael will say things that I cannot tell beforehand
(my emphasis). (Sc V 88). An important feature of a mystical experience is the
subject's inability to put into words the details of his/her experience. The previous
utterance highlights the ineffability feature as Joan is unable to describe the words
which she receives from the Saints. The inability of Joan to transfer her own
experience of receiving messages from God to Dunois highlights James' proposition
that religious experiences are both personal and experienced in solitude. On the other
hand, the noetic quality is shown in the fact that in reporting her mystical religious
experience, Joan reveals how she is being enlightened with some knowledge that is
sent to her by God through St. Catherine and St. Margaret. This is made clear in
utterances like "Be brave go on", "Iam thy help" and God will save France". These
pieces of information bear some knowledge which motivates Joan to continue her
struggle against the English occupation. Based on the above, it can be said that the
effects of Joan's subjective religious experience is reflected in how she employs both
a saintly and a mystical form of consciousness. Both types of consciousness are
reflected in the manner through which she shapes her own perception of herself, God
and other characters throughout the play.
Gordon Allport
The second representative of the humanistic psychological tradition is Gordon
Allport. It is important to note that Allport does not categorize himself or even his
work in psychology as belonging to any school, rather he perceives his work as the
permanent "search for a theoretical system- for one that will allow for truth wherever
found, one that will encompass the totality of human experience and do full justice to
the nature of man" (Allport "The Person in Psychology" 406). Thus, it might be
questionable why does the study read Allport's psychological investigations on
religion from within the framework of humanistic psychology? To answer such a
question, it is tempting to expose Allport's treatment of religion "against the backdrop
of his general view that every person is to be seen as an individual combination of
factors that are in a continuous process of change" (Crapps 151).
Allport, according to Crapps, identified a polarity which dominates the
psychological approach to understand man's personality. On one hand, there is the
behavioristic psychological approach with its belief that human beings are born
passive without any knowledge and that man's behavior is a natural response to the
effects of the surrounding reality. On the other hand of the polarity stands the view
that human beings are determinant actors who can guide their lives, future and even
fate. Advocating the latter view, Allport claims that an individual is not "a collection
of acts, nor simply the locus of acts; the person is the source of acts" (Becoming:
Basic consideration for a psychology of personality 12). As a result, it can be said that
Allport believes in man's inner capacities and abilities to determine his/her own
future. In believing that man is the "source of acts", Allport is actually paving the way
to make man's consciousness the main locus around which the mechanisms of man's
behavior can be fathomed out. This is even clear in how Allport implicitly attacks the
psychoanalytic tradition, which totally ignores man's consciousness, with its special
focus on man's unconscious level. Allpport mentions that "people, it seems are busy
leading their lives into the future whereas psychology for the most part is busy tracing
them into the past" (Becoming: Basic consideration for a psychology of personality
12). In this manner, Allport attacks the Freudian psychoanalytic tradition which
attempts to read man's behavior as the psychological resurrections of an apprehensive
past.
In order to understand Allport's psychological treatment of personality, it is
tempting to understand his crucial articulation of the concept of "becoming". This
concept means that "persons are always becoming more than being" (Crapps 152). At
this point, it is prompting to make a brief comment on the difference between "being"
and "becoming". Being, as most philosophers would define it, is this status when man
can reach a full understanding of his/her own surroundings. Moreover, the question of
man's being attempts to measure up how far man is capable of not only reaching a
fully conscious state of the objects surrounding him/her but also to be able to
understand himself/herself in a certain position in the world and in relation to others.
Investigating man's being means measuring up how far he/she is fully conscious of
his/her position in the world in the present time. On the other hand, becoming, for
Allport, means that people are usually active in some sort of a future oriented activity
in which they are planning, expecting, striving etc… Allport comments on the
concept of becoming saying, "the possession of a long-range goals, regarded as
central to one's personal existence, distinguishes the human being from the animal,
the adult from the child, and in many cases, the healthy personality from the sick"
(Becoming: Basic consideration for a psychology of personality 50). Thus, it should
be clear that although both terms, being and becoming, pay a special focus on man's
consciousness but they both differ in the time zone through which man's
consciousness is activated. On one hand, investigating man's being means examining
the sharpness of man's conscious to identify himself/herself in the world and in
relation to others in the present time. On the other hand, reading man's becoming
process means investigating those long term goals which man's consciousness has set
to reach. Based on the above, it is, thus, questionable how does Allport conceive the
role of religion in man's permanent becoming process?
Allport attempts to identify the relationship between religion and individuals
in an important book which is called The Individual and his Religion (yr). The most
powerful comment which is often quoted by researchers in this book is Allport's
conception of religion as sex. Allport explains that "religion, like sex, is an almost
universal interest of the human race" (1-2). In this manner, religion is perceived by
Allport to be a worldly phenomenon which attracts the attention of various theorists
from different disciplines. In fact, Allport articulates a special point of view about
religion. For him, religion can be discovered in man's sentiments. Crapps explains
Allport's view of religion as located in man's sentiments as follows:
Allport points to an established tradition in personality theory
that attempts analysis in terms of small units. Talk of
attitudes, values, habits, faculties, dispositions, and factors
illustrates this trend. Allport himself discusses the conception
of trait. Yet he believed to these units or even clusters of
them must be added larger configurations or systems by
which personality is organized and motivated. These are
sentiments, those relatively stable units of personality that
entail many components and are attached to some object of
value and devotion, either concrete or abstract. (153-54)
In light of the above quotation, Allport locates religion within man's subjective
feelings. Moreover, he admits the fact that sentiments are made up of small units
which make up man's personality. Those units are like values, attitudes and faculties.
For Allport, man's sentiments are the largest system which organizes man's
personality and motivations. This central perception of the sentiments' role is so clear
in Allport's definition of sentiments in which he regards it as "a disposition (which is)
built up through experience, to respond favorably, and in certain habitual ways, to
conceptual objects and principles that the individual regards as of ultimate importance
in his own life" (DOC PG). Thus, it can be said that Allport perceives sentiments as
the individual's ability to develop a certain disposition towards a certain object,
whether concrete or abstract, which the individual highly regards. Although
sentiments are made up of several aspects but, for Allport, in man's process of
becoming which includes planning, thinking and striving, a certain type of sentiment
acts as a governing one among others. In this manner, Allport opposes
Shleiermacher's view that religious people, from different religions, share the same
emotional state. For Allport, on the other hand, several factors work together in
determining the pattern through which religious sentiments/emotions are released.
Factors like the need of safety, the need for values, seeking a meaning in life and the
role of culture can determine one's religious sentiments differently (Reid 108). In
other words, individuals may experience different religious sentiments depending on
the context in which they exist. In this manner, Allport's psychology elevates man's
inner capacities and asserts that each person can possess a subjective religious
sentiment that organizes his/her world view in relation to what man regards of
ultimate meaning.
In order to identify the ruling sentiment which organizes the hierarchy of
sentiments, Allport borrows the concept of "intentionality" from phenomenology.
This concept entails that "human life is essentially characterized by mental acts.
Intending, aiming at, stretching to an object which is the goal of our intention is what
is meant by mental act" (Fuller 121). For Allport, identifying the intentional act aids
in identifying an individual's governing sentiment as he explains "in terms of
intentionality, a sentiment is a dynamic source of intentions (my emphasis) which
aim at actualizing the values that make up the sentiment" (Allport GET DOC
FROM REID). This means that what builds up a sentiment is the individual's
intentional act to attain a certain value. Moreover, Allport goes on to say that the
intention's object "is always present as an idea" (Fuller 123). This means that what an
individual seeks or intends to accomplish may exist externally or internally, as an
idea, in the form of a worldly object, concrete, or as an inward belief, abstract, within
man's consciousness.
Based on the above explanation of Allport's psychology of religion, it should
be clear that his psychology is oriented towards man's future rather than man's past.
Thus, the study will attempt to read the behavior of characters, in the three texts, from
within the framework of Allport's articulation that religion exists in man's subjective
feelings/sentiments. In order to detect the sentiment which motivates characters to
behave religiously, it is tempting to detect, in light of Allport's psychology, the
characters' intentions through out the events of the plays. Theorists of dramatic texts
have actually made use of what is called in philosophy the "theory of action" in order
to decode the plethora of intentions which govern the motivations of characters on
stage. This theory has specified certain elements which make up an action on stage.
Elements like the existence of "a being (who is), conscious of his doings, who
intentionally brings about a change of some kind, to some end, in a given context"
(Elam 74). Elam specifies other elements in his investigation saying that an action on
stage must include "an agent, his intention in acting, the act or act type produced, the
modality of the action (manner and means), the setting (temporal, spatial and
circumstantial) and the purpose" (74). It is widely agreed that those are the mostly
common constitutive elements of an action. Thus, in evaluating an action on stage an
analysts must pay attention to the agent, his doings, the type of the action produced,
the manner through which it is produced and finally other temporal spatial elements.
But doesn't this mean that all types of actions, including minor and major ones, will
be considered actions which bear the actor's intentions on stage? Elam, in effect, take
notice of this point and even acknowledges the fact that such constitutive elements of
an action is too broad and includes almost every type of action on stage. As a result,
Elam furthers his investigation on the types of actions which can take place on stage.
He reached the conclusion that three types of actions can be performed on stage,
those are: basic actions, higher-order actions and interactions. He explains that basic
actions are "those which contain no further actions as components" like raising one's
arm for example, moreover those basic actions may "make up compound or higher
order actions (the complete act of opening a door, for instance) (Elam 74). On the
other hand, interactions are those higher order actions which "may be further
combined into sequences (where there is an over all purpose linking the distinct acts
involved)" (Elam 74). Thus, an important element that should be taken into
consideration in analyzing interactions onstage which is whether such interactions are
furthered combined to create a sequence of higher order actions with an overall
purpose or they remain static without any purpose. Higher order actions with an
overall purpose are perceived by Elam to be acts which bear the intentions of
characters. It is, thus, questionable, how will the study decode the intentions of
characters in order to identify the governing sentiment beneath their higher order
actions?
Elam contends that an analysis of the higher order actions of characters is
accessible through reading the events which shape the structure of a play's plot
especially that "at the level of plot or sujet, one is presented with a series of higher
order actions, more often than not interactions, which are recognizable as intentional
acts of a certain type but whose connection and ultimate purpose is not always
immediate apparent and still less fulfilled" (75). In light of this quotation, it should be
clear how Elam locates higher order actions/intentional acts which are not yet
fulfilled on the level of the plot. This also means that higher order actions are
compounds of distinct actions whose intentionality is made clear by agents, but
whose relationship with the agent's purpose remains vague. In other words, the
audience/reader remains in a suspicious position and questions whether an agent's
intentional series of acts will be successfully fulfilled or aborted. Based on the above,
the study will attempt to read the series of intentional acts which characters, in the
three plays, claim to fulfill on the hope that this will aid in identifying the governing
religious sentiment which motivates their actions throughout the events of the plays.
Finally, another element that the study will shed light on in dealing with a
character's intentional acts is how a character's language can represent an arena where
action among characters can take place. Perceiving language as actantial sphere of
positions among dialogue partners was first echoed by John Austen in his major work
How to Do Things with Words (YR). In this book, he explains that in producing an
utterance one is not simply speaking about a propositional content, rather one is
practically involved in some sphere of action through the use of tokens like asking,
commanding or even attempting to change a dialogue partner's mind. For Elam, it is
Jon Searle' taxonomy of illocutionary acts " which is perhaps most directly useful for
purposes of dramatic analyses" (102). Searle identifies five types of illocutionary acts
through language: the representatives, the directives, the commissive, the expressive
and declarative statements. Representative statements mean that the speaker is
committed to the truth of his proposition. Directive statements mean the connote the
maneuvering styles which a speaker employs in order to make his/her interlocutor
perform a deed. Expressive statements signify acts such as thanking, greeting and
congratulating, moreover it is a means to explore a character's psychological
disposition. Declarative statements are those utterances through which a character
declares some abundant information about their schemes (Elam 102). Reading the
characters' higher order actions, in light of Searle's taxonomy, will surely aid in
detecting the overriding intentions which will, therefore, help in identifying the nature
of a character's governing religious sentiment.
In St Joan, the over riding intention which orchestrates the direction of Joan's
higher order actions on the level of the plot is Joan's wish to set France free from the
English occupation. This is quite manifested in her early interactions with other
dialogue partners in the opening scenes of the play. In other words, the sequence
which bind the development of Joan's higher order actions is made clear, in the first
three scenes, in her conversations with Robert, Charles and Dunois. I would like to
argue that investigating Joan's intentions in each of those scenes will manifest Joan's
governing religious sentiment which dominates the development of her intentions
and, thus, the plot of the play. In fact, what constitutes the pattern through which the
series of actions in the play is Joan's persistent behavior to set France free. In the first
scene, Joan attempts to convince Robert that she wants to meet Charles, the Dauphin,
on the grounds that she bears a message from God:
JOAN [bobbing a curtsey] Good morning, captain squire.
Captain: you are to give me a horse and armor and some
soldiers, and send me to the Dauphin. Those are your orders
from my Lord.
ROBERT [outraged] Orders from your lord! And who the
devil may your lord be? Go back to him, and tell him that I
am neither duke nor peer at his orders: I am squire of
Baudricourt; and I take no orders except from the king.
JOAN [reassuringly] Yes, squire: that is all right. My Lord is
the King of Heaven.
ROBERT. Why, the girl's mad. [To the steward] Why didn't
you tell me so, you blockhead?
STEWARD. Sir: do not anger her: give her what she wants.
...
ROBERT. Hold your tongue, you.
STEWARD [abjectly] Yes, sir.
ROBERT [to Joan, with a sour loss of confidence] So you
are presuming on my seeing you, are you?
JOAN [sweetly] Yes, squire.
ROBERT [feeling that he has lost ground, brings down his
two fists squarely on the table, and inflates his chest
imposingly to cure the unwelcome and only too familiar
sensation] Now listen to me. I am going to assert myself.
JOAN [busily] Please do, squire. The horse will cost sixteen
francs. It is a good deal of money: but I can save it on the
armor. I can find a soldier's armor that will fit me well
enough: I am very hardy; and I do not need beautiful armor
made to my measure like you wear. I shall not want many
soldiers: the Dauphin will give me all I need to raise the
siege of Orleans. (Sc I 31-2)
The above dialogue exchange reveals how the intrinsic dynamics which govern the
turn taking system are structured to serve Joan's intention to meet Charles and inform
him with the message she bears. Joan's opening words on stage are clear directive
statements towards Robert. She does not even ask him politely, rather she commands
him to do what she asks for. Robert, who feels being insulted by Joan's orders,
outrageously reacts against Joan's commands and declares that he only receives
orders from the king. Joan responds to Robert's declarative statement with another
declarative statement in which she reveals that the only king from whom she receives
orders is the "King of Heaven". In this declarative statement Joan is, implicitly,
showing that her commands do not spring out of her own desires but rather they come
from God. This means that Joan's intentions are in correspondence with that of the
Divine. In articulating God as the source of her commands, Joan, in terms of dialogue
strategies, resorts to a higher power than that of Robert's point of reference which is
the king of France. As a result, Robert feels that he has lost the ground upon which he
establishes himself as a dominant dialogue partner. This is quite reflected in how he
withdraws from the conversation with Joan and directs his speech towards Steward.
This withdrawal paves the way for Joan to establish herself as a dominant dialogue
partner and, thus, she returns again to employ some directive statements towards
Robert in order to tempt him to fulfill her intentions. Joan asks Robert to give her a
horse, an armor and soldiers in order to meet Charles. Joan not only asks for those
properties but she also declares the purpose of meeting Charles; that is to raise the
seize of Orleans. The declaration of her purpose made Robert astonished as the stage
directions describes him "flabbergasted". It is worth mentioning that Robert, in effect,
submits to Joan's orders and by the end of the scene he provides her with all what she
asked for as he says "your orders are, that you are to go to Chinon under the escort of
this gentleman and three of his friends" and few lines later he declares "have what
you please. I wash my hands of it" (SC I PG). Thus, it can be said that those three
elements, the horse, the armor and the soldiers, represent some basic actions through
which Joan will be able to fulfill higher order actions like meeting Charles. Therefore,
Joan's interaction with Robert paves the way for the development of the plot in the
direction through which Joan's intentions are focused.
In scene two, Joan is capable of meeting Charles. In this scene, Joan employs
new intentions in order to reach upon her over riding intention which is raising the
seize of Orleans. In the following lines Joan attempts to encourage Charles to fight
the English:
JOAN [earnestly] Charlie: I come from the land, and have
gotten my strength working on the land; and I tell thee that
the land is thine to rule righteously and keep God's peace in,
and not to pledge at the pawnshop as a drunken woman
pledges her children's clothes. And I come from God to tell
thee to kneel in the cathedral and solemnly give thy kingdom
to Him forever and ever, and become the greatest king in the
world as His steward and His bailiff, His soldier and His
servant. The very clay of Francewill become holy: her
soldiers will be the soldiers of God: the rebel dukes will be
rebels against God: the English will fall on their knees and
beg thee let them return to their lawful homes in peace. Wilt
be a poor little Judas, and betray me and Him that sent me?
(Sc II 48-9)
The above utterance highlights the study's belief that Joan's intentions are centered
upon wiping out the English army out of France. Charles has been subjected to a
series of implicit commands by Joan on the grounds that such commands come from
God. Joan asks Charles to show his complete submissiveness to God through
kneeling in the cathedral and declaring that he is a loyal servant to God. I would like
to argue also that Joan's demands are, in light of Searle's taxonomy, representative
statements. This is due to the fact that Joan commits herself to the truth of her
proposition that if Charles accepts to be God's servant, the fruits of such submission
will be shown in how "the English will fall on their knees". The new intentions which
form Joan's higher order actions in this scene are so clear in the appellative language
that Joan employs in order to persuade Charles to fight the English forces. Joan, in
effect, uses several strategies in order to persuade Charles with her ideas. She keeps
introducing new arguments in order to change Charles mind. She sometimes tends to
provoke his nationalistic feelings as in saying "I tell thee the land is thine to rule
righteously". The predominance of the appellative function is foregrounded in Joan's
constant reference to God as an Almighty Being and in whose companionship victory
will be achieved. The intensity of her appeals are magnified in the last line as Joan
seeks to show Charles that in denying her commands he will be like Judas. In
bringing about all these new arguments, Joan attempts to influence Charles' thinking
and drive him to fulfill her intentions. In fact, not a single line that is not subordinate
to her over all intention to make Charles fight the English. The effects of those
appeals are successfully reflected in the behavior of Charles who, by the end of the
scene, declares "(rising) I have given the command of the army to The Maid. The
Maid is to do as she likes with it" (Sc III 136). In this manner, it should be clear how
the plot is being driven by Joan's intentions. Moreover, the means through which the
plot develops is through Joan's involvement in a sequence of some higher order
actions; that is through interacting with other characters.
Joan's success to reach upon her goals in the previous two scenes paves the
way for new intentions to appear on the level of plot. In scene three, Joan is
discovered while she is having a discussion with Dunois, another soldier, about the
means through which they can capture Orleans from the English. The major problem
which faces them is the fact that the wind is against them. Thus, Joan was asked by
Dunois to pray for a west wind:
JOAN. What business?
DUNOIS. To pray for a west wind. I have prayed; and I have
given two silver candlesticks; but my prayers are not
answered. Yours may be: you are young and innocent.
JOAN. Oh yes: you are right. I will pray: I will tell St
Catherine: she will make God give me a west wind. Quick:
shew me the way to the church.
THE PAGE [sneezes violently] At-cha!!!
JOAN. God bless you, child! Coom, Bastard.
They go out. The page rises to follow. He picks up the shield,
and is taking the spear as well when he notices the pennon,
which is now streaming eastward.
THE PAGE [dropping the shield and calling excitedly after
them] Seigneur! Seigneur! Mademoiselle!
DUNOIS [running back] What is it? The kingfisher? [He
looks eagerly for it up the river].
JOAN [joining them] Oh, a kingfisher! Where?
THE PAGE. No: the wind, the wind, the wind [pointing to
the pennon]: that is what made me sneeze.
 DUNOIS [looking at the pennon] The wind has changed.
[He crosses himself] God has spoken. [Kneeling and
handing his baton to Joan] You command the king's army. I
am your soldier. (Sc IV 52-3)
Joan's prayers in this scene represent a basic action which is intended to be performed
for a specific purpose. In this manner, the prayers move from being a simple gesture
to a complexity of higher order actions as it bears intentions. In other words, the
prayers, particularly in this scene, are needed to be performed to serve a particular
intention and not as a spiritual means to reach upon the Divine. Joan's commitment to
pray intensifies the study's proposition that prayers, in this scene, are resorted to serve
Joan's intentions rather than delving into a spiritual experience as in other scenes.
Based on the above analysis of those three scenes, it is questionable what is Joan's
governing sentiment and which also drives her actions.
The answer of such question lies in detecting the common idea which
consolidates Joan's intentions. From the study's perspective, the common idea which
acts as an energetic field to Joan's intentions is her persistent search for the value of
freedom. In fact, the most pervasive idea that dominates Joan's thought in the
previous three scenes is setting France free. Sentiments, as previously explained, are
usually presented to one's mind in the form of an idea. In the first scene, Joan's
requests to meet Charles are made based on the belief that she is sent by God to set
France free. In the second scene, Joan seeks to persuade Charles to fight the English
and wipe them out of France. In the third scene, Joan intends to pray to God in order
to send her a west wind which can aid her in eradicating the English army. As a
result, it should be clear that the governing sentiment which orchestrates Joan's
emotions and intentions is her deep appreciation of the importance of freedom. This
sentiment is not loosely left but rather, in light of Allport's psychology, it is attached
to a certain object of value. In this manner, the sentiment provides its holder with
much more energy to act. This is why Joan directs her enthusiastic feelings of setting
France free towards God. Crapps says that "sentiment incorporates both organization
and motivation and prepares a person to act; it is a system of readiness directed
toward and organized around some definable object of value" (154). For Joan, the
object of value around which she organizes her sentiment to set France free is God.
Joan's deep feelings to set France free place God at the centre of Joan's sentiments
and, thus according to Allport's interpretation of sentiments, He is the abstract object
of value which must be highly regarded. Moreover, it should also be clear how Joan's
sentiment to set France free is future oriented. This is manifested in the previous
analyzed scenes in which Joan always attempts to plan and strive for changing the
minds of her fellows and motivate them to resist the English occupation Joan's
feelings towards setting her country free is made the governing sentiment which
organizes her behavior throughout the play. She even prevents herself from making
any other egoist sentiments to be at the centre of her feelings. This is made clear
when she tells Dunois "I will never take a husband. A man in Toul took an action
against me for breach of promise; but I never promised him. I am a soldier: I do not
want to be thought of as a woman. I will not dress as a woman. I do not care for the
things women care for. They dream of lovers, and of money" (Sc III 51). It should be
clear how Joan's sentiment to set France free overrides other worldly intentions or
sentiments like for example being in love. Thus, it can be concluded that Joan's search
for freedom, as a sentiment, is in complete correspondence with Allport's psychology
of becoming which entails that people are always in search for change. In Joan's case,
she is eager to change the mind set of her French fellows from being passive to a one
which is energetic.