Rethinking Existential Psychology in a Global Context

A Reflection for Philosophical Counseling

Today, I would like to share my reflections on an article my colleague Emma von Druzen, philosopher, psychologist, existential therapist, author, artist, and singer-songwriter, shared with me. 

The article, written by Louis Hoffman, Ph.D., is titled “Understanding Existential Psychology in a Global Context.”

It provides an important discussion on the cultural and philosophical aspects of existential psychology and raises questions especially relevant for those involved in philosophical counseling.

At the heart of Hoffman’s argument lies a provocative claim: while existential psychology may have been named and systematized in the West, it does not belong exclusively to the West. This distinction between origin and ownership is crucial.

Hoffman reminds us that philosophical labels often develop within particular intellectual traditions, but the existential questions they explore—meaning, freedom, responsibility, suffering, and authenticity—are universal human concerns.

The historical discussion in the article clearly illustrates this point. Although figures like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche are often seen as early existentialists, the term “existentialism” itself was introduced later, especially by Gabriel Marcel in the 1940s, and became popular through Jean-Paul Sartre. Even before the phrase gained widespread use, existential ideas were already emerging in various philosophical and psychological fields, including Daseinsanalysis in the 1930s.

Hoffman also highlights an important conceptual point: existentialism is not a single, unified doctrine. Unlike many philosophical schools that center around a common set of principles, existential thought is better seen as a collection of ideas and themes. Existential thinkers differ on many key issues, including religion, metaphysics, and ethics. For example, Kierkegaard and Marcel developed their existential views within a Christian context, while Nietzsche, Sartre, and Simone de Beauvoir offered atheistic or atheistic-inclined interpretations of human existence.

Even the relationship between existentialism and phenomenology—often treated as closely intertwined—is more complex than commonly assumed. As Hoffman notes, thinkers such as Rollo May and Thomas Flynn argued that existentialism cannot be reduced to phenomenology, nor can phenomenology be reduced to existentialism. The two traditions overlap, but they remain distinct intellectual approaches.

For philosophical counselors, this diversity within existential thought is not a weakness but rather a source of intellectual richness. It reflects the complexity of human experience and enables practitioners to explore existential themes that resonate with diverse cultural, spiritual, and philosophical backgrounds.

One of the most compelling aspects of Hoffman’s article is his critique of Western intellectual dominance in existential psychology. If existentialism is seen as a purely Western creation, attempts to globalize it risk becoming a subtle form of intellectual colonization—where Western ideas are exported to other cultures rather than engaging in genuine dialogue with them.

Hoffman gives examples of alternative traditions, such as Xuefu Wang’s “zhi mian therapy,” inspired by the Chinese writer Lu Xun, which can be seen as a form of native Chinese existential psychology. Likewise, scholars like Lewis Gordon have examined Black existentialism, broadening the field through viewpoints shaped by the historical experiences of race and oppression.

From a philosophical counseling perspective, these developments are especially important. Philosophical counseling is naturally dialogic and influenced by culture. Clients bring not only personal struggles but also cultural stories, religious beliefs, and philosophical ideas that shape how they understand the meaning of life.

Hoffman concludes by emphasizing the importance of cultural humility in global discussions about existential psychology. International talks about philosophy and psychology can help us better understand ourselves and others. However, they can also recreate the hierarchical patterns of colonial history if approached without openness and self-awareness.

For those of us involved in philosophical counseling, this message is highly relevant. The existential questions that arise in counseling—about meaning, suffering, freedom, and responsibility—aren't limited to any one philosophical tradition. They are part of the human experience as a whole.

The future of existential psychology and philosophical counseling isn't about defending a specific tradition, but about fostering a worldwide philosophical dialogue in which diverse cultural voices help build a deeper, more humane understanding of existence.