James Fowler's Faith Development Theory

[heretic888]

In today's religiously polarized world, I thought this would be an interesting topic to bring to The Study....

In 1981, psychologist Dr. James Fowler published a book entitled Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. While there is still some debate about the validity of his Faith Development Theory (FDT) among the psychological community, empirical research has generally supported Dr. Fowler's ideas and it has demonstrated success in psychotherapuetic applications. In essence, FTD concerns the development of an individual's "faith" over the course of his or her lifetime through a series of six invariant, sequential, hierarchical stages (comparable to the cognitive development theory of Jean Piaget, the moral development theory of Lawrence Kohlberg, or the ego development theory of Jane Loevinger).

"Faith", in this context, is not necessarily religious in content (although it often is), but concerns how an individual makes sense of life and where he or she places a concern for ultimacy (whatever that may be). Fowler's "faith" is similar in many respects to the "existential intelligence" that Dr. Howard Gardner has suggested in his recent update to Multiple Intelligences Theory.

The following is a brief summarization of Fowler's stages of faith:

1) Intuitive-Projective Faith: Typical of children between 2 and 7 years of age; characterized by emotional narcissism and a domination by one's impulses; fantasy and reality are poorly distinguished; one's faith is a projection of oneself and one's intuitions; drawn to imaginative stories involving fantastical beings.

2) Mythic-Literal Faith: Typical of children between 7 to 12 years of age; sees the world in a very orderly and dependable way; able to reason inductively and deductively; can begin to take the perspectives of others; has a very literal outlook and interprets reality in a very literal way; adopts a reciprocal view of morality ("eye for an eye", reward & punishment).

3) Synthetic-Conventional Faith: Typically found at age 12 and beyond; individual defines oneself on the basis of his or her relationships with others (parents, peers, teachers, etc.); a strongly sociocentric outlook on life; individual identifies exclusively with one group as opposed to others; adopts the morals and norms of the in-group; this is the "unexamined" faith.

4) Individuative-Reflective Faith: Typically found in the early 20's and beyond; one begins to move beyond the group identity and adopt individual views; a "de-mythologizing" stage of faith; translates the symbols and images of one's tradition into personal concepts and ideas; beginning of post-conventional morality.

5) Conjunctive Faith: Typically found at midlife and beyond; begin to distinguish between what is true and what one believes; realizes the stories, symbols, and teachings of one's tradition are inherently partial and incomplete; seeks truth/wisdom from a multitude of sources (i.e., other traditions) in order to complement and/or correct one's own; characterized by a "radical openness" to other viewpoints, acceptance of pluralistic views, and use of paradox for understanding; deepening of post-conventional morality.

6) Universalizing Faith: Extremely rare; concepts of "relevent irrelevance" and "decentration of self" become important; have a detached but passionate view of life; identify with the whole of humanity, regardless of tradition or in-group; selfless compassion for all others; characterized by a unitive experience with being.

So, then, any thoughts???

 

[Makalakumu]

I can see how the last one would be very rare. I can also see how lots of very religious people would be offended by the fact that their faith lands them on stage two or three on this scale. Of course, they would further label themselves by calling it a bunch of liberal crap and move on. Oh the irony...

 

[heretic888]

I can see how the last one would be very rare. I can also see how lots of very religious people would be offended by the fact that their faith lands them on stage two or three on this scale. Of course, they would further label themselves by calling it a bunch of liberal crap and move on. Oh the irony...

In all honesty, it's a very common reaction.

I am suddenly reminded of the traditional trinity of critiques against Kohlberg's moral development theory --- that it is biased against women, non-Westerners, and conservatives --- and how pervasive these accusations have been in psychological literature over the past few decades. People rarely look at the data or attempt to refute the theory with their own studies. Instead, they just disagree with the theorist's conclusions in an a priori fashion and move on from there.

Of course, enough data and subsequent study has been conducted on moral reasoning to demonstrate that Kohlberg was reasonably accurate in his theoretical formulations. We are finding a similar case Fowler's FTD, as well. It seems that appealing to ideology can only take you so far in peer-reviewed environments. Science requires something more substantial than philosophical preferences....

 

[heretic888]

John,

As an Unitarian-Universalist, I think you might find the following links to be of some interest. They concern the relation of your faith in the context of Fowler's theories.

Developmentally Challenged: Understanding Unitarian Universalism's Lack of Mass Appeal

James Fowler's Stages of Faith & The Stages of Faith: A Stage Five Church

Additionally, the following is a good table for summarizing Fowler's stages and comparing them to other stage-development theories:

Stages Table

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

I haven't read the book. The description of the FDT is interesting, but does not particularly describe the stages that I went through in my own faith development; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't describe what most people (or most people that Fowler studied) go through.

 

[Makalakumu]

Heretic888

Thanks for the resources. They are excellent.

One question that popped up when I read more about Fowler's theory is that it seems to imply that certain faith traditions could impede someones faith development. If a tradition appealed to people in stage two or three and people started to grow out of those stages, one would find themselves struggling with that faith. Also, this phenomenon would explain why so many faith traditions have rules that actively attempt to retard someones faith development.

 

[heretic888]

I haven't read the book. The description of the FDT is interesting, but does not particularly describe the stages that I went through in my own faith development; but that doesn't mean that it doesn't describe what most people (or most people that Fowler studied) go through.

Well, a few points should be made here.

The following applies to stage-developmental theories in general (i.e., Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Kegan, Loevinger, Selman, Cook-Greuter, Wilber, etc.), not just Fowler's model specifically.

One, individuals rarely (if ever) consciously recognize themselves as having progressed through a series of 'stages' or 'levels' in their own development. For the most part, individuals tend to unconsciously 'reconstruct' their memories and experiences in the context of the newly-formed schema. This is readily evident in studies of Piagetian cognitive development. Children at, say, concrete-operations that are shown earlier videos of themselves from previous years (at, say, pre-operations/representative thinking) will resolutely claim that the footage is doctored or is of someone else. They will often add comments to the effect of, "That can't be me! Nobody is that stupid!!"

As such, stage-developmental hierarchies like Piaget's or Fowler's tend to only be identifiable through in-depth hermeneutic comparisons from longitudinal studies. The stages or levels in a given developmental hierarchy are rarely self-evident from a mere phenomenological examination. In essence, the researcher will compare your responses today to your responses from, say, five years ago and then make note of the differences. He will do this with a large number of people (sometimes numbering in the hundreds), then make note of any definitive trends in people's responses over time. Again, none of this is necessarily going to be self-evident (altough it may be, who knows?) from merely scanning your own memories of life-events.

Two, people don't just progress inevitably in an upward direction. Regressions can and will happen, especially if the environment that supported a given level is changed to being more conducive to an earlier level. This seems to happen quite often, for example, when people leave the intellectually-stimulating environment of college, or when their socioeconomic status drops (in general, a higher SES correlates with intellectual and social complexity).

Three, as hinted at in my second point, certain stages of development tend to be optimized within certain environments. You probably won't develop beyond your given level if it is not necessitated by an correlating intellectual and interpersonal complexity within your environment. Stereotypically, such environments are provided by with higher educational institutions (i.e., people in college tend to score higher on, say, Loevinger's ego-development scale than the normal population) and are also highly correlated with socioeconomic status (i.e., people in higher-paying, college-educated jobs tend to be more stimulated by intellectual and social complexity than people in lower-paying, GED-educated jobs). In other words, if you are in the same environment over a long course of time, it is highly unlikely that you will either progress or regress from a given stage.

In summation, these three variables (schema/memory reconstruction, regression, and stage/environment interaction) could all account for why one would not experience a hierarchical progression in exactly the same way that Fowler describes in this theory.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Heretic888

Thanks for the resources. They are excellent.

No problem.

One question that popped up when I read more about Fowler's theory is that it seems to imply that certain faith traditions could impede someones faith development. If a tradition appealed to people in stage two or three and people started to grow out of those stages, one would find themselves struggling with that faith. Also, this phenomenon would explain why so many faith traditions have rules that actively attempt to retard someones faith development.

Indeed, as I mentioned in my response to Ray, there seems to be a stage/environment interaction that warrants further research and study.

This is readily apparent in studies involving Kohlberg's moral reasoning or Loevinger's ego development scales. In general, we find that both educational level and socioeconomic status (SES) correlate significantly with one's stage of development. I would expect a similar trend in regards to Fowler's stages of faith. The general explanation for this is that increasingly complex intellectual/social environments are very conducive to increasingly complex levels of development. This is why the higher stages are practically non-existent (although not impossible) in many preindustrial societies.

This may also account for the correlation between poverty and criminal/antisocial behavior that we observe in industrial societies.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Another thought on this is that scores on this 1-5 scale are normally distributed. Perhaps the reason why so many faith tradtions fall into the 2-3 range is because most people locked developmentally into that stage.

 

[Brother John]

I own a copy of that book, and I couldn't recomend it MORE!!
Seriously, try it out and keep an open mind. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

also: if that book and FDT appeals to you, check out the landmark work by Psychiastrist Victor E. Frankyl "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning". VERY VERY profound I think. Many of Dr. Frankyl's points and themes run a good paralel, if not being an absolute SUPPORT, to Dr. Fowlers own points and themes in "Stages of Faith"!!!! (ALSO: I'd highly recomend reading Dr. Frankyl's autobiography. VERY interesting how this Jewish Psychiatrist surived a Nazi concentration camp...with not only his sanity, but a Very powerful and enlightened outlook on life and how we use our minds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's inspirational!)

Good topic heretic!!! (OK...in the context of THIS thread, your handle there kinda gives me the giggles.....)

Your Brother
John

 

[Ray]

One, individuals rarely (if ever) consciously recognize themselves as having progressed through a series of 'stages' or 'levels' in their own development. For the most part, individuals tend to unconsciously 'reconstruct' their memories and experiences in the context of the newly-formed schema.

How convenient for the theory constructors.

In summation, these three variables (schema/memory reconstruction, regression, and stage/environment interaction) could all account for why one would not experience a hierarchical progression in exactly the same way that Fowler describes in this theory.

Mooja vu.

 

[heretic888]

How convenient for the theory constructors.

It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of evidence.

The simple fact of the matter is that people's memories are not as reliable as they think they are. It is very well-established in the cognitive literature that our memories are largely reconstructions based on information we have gained from multiple sources. The Piagetian schema-reconstruction is just part of a larger cognitive pattern.

In any event, a big difference between first-person memories and the data accumulated by researchers like Dr. Fowler is that the former is anecdotal, while the latter is empirical.

Mooja vu.

Ummm..... ok. :idunno:

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of evidence.

The simple fact of the matter is that people's memories are not as reliable as they think they are.

Perhaps it is the researchers who have the memory or cognitive reliablity issue?

Mooja vu

Ummm..... ok. :idunno:

Mooja vu is like Daja vu: The uncanny feeling that you've heard this bull before.

 

[Marginal]

Perhaps it is the researchers who have the memory or cognitive reliablity issue?



Mooja vu is like Daja vu: The uncanny feeling that you've heard this bull before.

So, you're in phase 1?

 

[Carol]

This has been criticized as being biased AGAINST non-Westerners? That is a surprise to me, because a lot of what I am reading seems to fit in well with what I see my faith. I"m a Westerner, yes...but Sikhism, the faith I follow, isn't a Western faith.

 

[stephen]

Great post.

It's amazing how well this describes some of the major differences of opinion/styles/type of people in the Bujinkan.

...I have a feeling that was your point...

 

[heretic888]

Perhaps it is the researchers who have the memory or cognitive reliablity issue?

Mooja vu is like Daja vu: The uncanny feeling that you've heard this bull before.

In other words, you're just going to make an a priori rejection of the theory (and associated theories), without reviewing the methodology or the data, solely on the basis the researchers in question say things you don't like.

No offense, but this is the logical equivalent of shouting, "You're a big, fat doody-head, so there!" on the school courtyard and storming off in illusory triumph.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

This has been criticized as being biased AGAINST non-Westerners? That is a surprise to me, because a lot of what I am reading seems to fit in well with what I see my faith. I"m a Westerner, yes...but Sikhism, the faith I follow, isn't a Western faith.

Well, this really gets into Kohlberg's research moreso than Fowler's, but the traditional "cultural" critiques of these theories have typically taken two general forms:

1) The ideal of post-conventional morality's emphasis of transcending the norms and values of one's social in-group to identify with universal principles of humanity is thought to privilege individualist (as opposed to collectivist) values typical in the West.

2) Individuals in non-industrial cultures typically score lower than those in industrial cultures on tests of moral reasoning and the like. However, there are also significant differences among individuals within industrialized cultures on the basis of education and socioeconomic status, so this seems less to do with "culture" and more to do with the complexity of an individual/environment interaction.

As I said, a lot of research seems to indicate that much of these "cultural" critiques are unfounded. At best, they seem to be an oversimplification of rather complex data. At worst, it's sheer social ideology at work.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Great post.

It's amazing how well this describes some of the major differences of opinion/styles/type of people in the Bujinkan.

...I have a feeling that was your point...

Actually, the internal politics of the Bujinkan had nothing to do with my discussion of Fowler's theories. I thought it was significant due to the religiously polarized climate we often find ourselves in today, that's all.

Laterz.

 

[stephen]

Oh, for some reason I thought this was posted in the ninjutsu section.

Must'of been those lines of metsubushi I've been sniffin'.

I do however, find it interesting that there are several groups withing the Bujinkan (and probably every other group out there) which make sense out of Soke's teachings using the filter of one of these stages.

I often noticed the different ways that people view their training; I never really thought to correlate it with their approach to their religious views.