About

William Parsons is the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University. His research focuses on the intersections of religion, psychology, and culture, with particular interest in mysticism, modern spirituality, and the psychoanalytic understanding of religious phenomena. Parsons has authored and edited several influential books, including 'The Enigma of the Oceanic Feeling,' 'Teaching Mysticism,' 'Religion and Psychology: Mapping the Terrain,' 'Mourning Religion,' and 'Freud in Dialogue with Augustine,' contributing significantly to the academic discourse on mysticism, psychoanalysis, and religious experience. Throughout his career, Parsons has held prominent academic and leadership roles, such as Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Rice University, Director of the Humanities Research Center, and editor positions within the field of psychology of religion. He has been recognized for his teaching excellence with awards like the George R. Brown Prize for Superior Teaching and has served as a Fellow at esteemed institutions including the University of Chicago's Martin Marty Center and the Institute for Advanced Studies at Hebrew University. His educational background includes a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, an M.Div. from Yale University, and a B.A. from Brandeis University.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Social Science
• Psychoanalysis
• Psychology
• Philosophy
• Epistemology
• Theology
• Gender studies

Selected publications

• Sudhir Kakar on mysticism, psychoanalysis, and culture

  Culture & Psychology · 2025-08-28

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  This essay is designed to illumine Sudhir Kakar’s contributions with regard to psychoanalytic theorizing about mysticism and culture. It proceeds in five interrelated parts: (1) presents a broad definitional and comparative context with respect to the academically contested term “mysticism”; (2) explores the initial entry of the psychoanalytic engagement with mysticism (i.e., Freud’s famous analysis of the oceanic feeling); (3) describes the psychoanalytic models (classic, adaptive and transformational) of mysticism which developed out of and after Freud; (4) places Kakar within this development, unpacking his specific contributions, advances and debates with other reigning psychoanalysts; (5) discusses Kakar’s contributions and indeed psychoanalysis as a whole relative to the wider, contemporary academic study of mysticism.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Freud's Monotheism

  2022 · 11 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • Psychoanalysis
  • Sociology

  This Element consists of three interrelated parts. 'What Freud Said' summarizes the salient details of Freud's psychology of religion: his views on the origins and development of western religions; on contemporary western monotheisms; on the 'unpsychological' proceedings of the religio-cultural super-ego; his qualified endorsement of religious forms of psychotherapy; and his cursory analysis of eastern religions.'What Freud got Wrong' surveys the history of the multidisciplinary critiques (anthropological, sociological, later psychoanalytic, theological/philosophical) that have been levelled at his interpretative strategies. 'Towards a Revised Psychoanalytic Theory of Religion' suggests that the best way forward is to employ a psychoanalytic theory of religion which, taking its cue from the history of its critique, houses reflective, inclusive and dialogical elements. It presents illustrations taken from a variety of contemporary religio-cultural phenomena (marvel movies; issues concerning religion, sexuality and gender; the Megachurch; QAnon) as portable lessons for such applications.

  PublisherDOI

• Religion in the Twenty-First Century

  CR The New Centennial Review · 2022-07-01 · 5 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Speaking to religion in the twenty-first century is a near-impossible task. For one, there is the long-standing definitional debate over what exactly is meant by “religion.” Surely there is some validity to the oft-noted adage that academics have done much to invent the term. Even so, acclaimed studies on its history and genealogy, surveys of the variety of definitional debates, awareness of its colonialist and orientalist assumptions, and continued use in academic discourse indicate that, properly contextualized and qualified, the term is both useful and impossible to avoid (see Smith 1998). A similar state of affairs exists with respect to the topic of the present essay, that of being “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR). At first glance the notion of being SBNR seems unproblematic. After all, while the polling data over the years have evinced some variability, multiple recent surveys indicate that at least 18% of the current U.S. population confess to being SBNR.1 Another study concluded that being SBNR cuts across multiple segments of the American population, noting that this change is taking place “across the religious landscape, affecting all regions of the country and many demographic groups. While the drop in Christian affiliation is particularly pronounced among young adults, it is occurring among Americans of all ages. The same trends are seen among whites, blacks and Latinos; among both college graduates and adults with only a high school education; and among women as well as men” (Richey 2015). But one may ponder further: What exactly is it that constitutes being SBNR? The pollsters seem to take it for granted. But, as with the term “religion,” are we so sure of its definition and scope? Is it clear-cut and easy to identify or is it more like what Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland, California, namely, “There is no there there.”To navigate such difficulties one could, of course, begin with the easy: One can say what it is not. It does not refer to those who have definitively settled in a particular religious tradition, believe in its ideological trappings, and consistently observe its services and rituals. If this is the case, then it suggests that being SBNR refers to those who are disillusioned with institutional religion even if they feel that those same traditions contain deep wisdom about the human condition. To say “I'm spiritual but not religious” would then indicate that a person might choose to integrate that wisdom without committing to what are perceived to be the false trappings and mendacity of religious accoutrements of all kinds (i.e., dogma, ideologies, rituals, hierarchies, etc.). Befitting spiritual shoppers in a consumer age, it also speaks to those who canvass multiple religions, mining their spiritual wisdom and introspective techniques in order to foster a spiritual journey tailored to their individual needs.The problem is that such a wide circumscription of what it means to be SBNR is subject to the same critique Clifford Geertz once leveled at a term widely utilized in the academic study of religion, namely, any generic definition of faith (e.g., Paul Tillich's “ultimate concern”)—a critique that, by calling attention to its general character, renders such formulations insipid and thus prescriptively useless (as evinced, for example, in the differences of “being faithful” found between a ritualized Aztec human sacrifice and a meditator in a Zen garden [see Geertz 1973]). In other words, whatever one might initially think being SBNR is, one is more likely than not to be partially right but also, as Humphrey Bogart once said in Casablanca, misinformed.Here a discernable group of studies (historical, psychological, sociological) comes to our aid. Through empirical data, surveys, ethnographic material, and scholarly research, they offer a more precise insight into what constitutes the present nature of being SBNR. For example, most are familiar with Max Weber's ideal type of the Protestant inner-worldly ascetic. Being SBNR, on the other is by notion of inner-worldly by the inner-worldly is as a of to a by the of a religious and to multiple of introspective the of this to the the to the while for and the of the and the to religion are and of inner-worldly well with that those who to being SBNR are to of the is to say that their spiritual by a that once said of this like the and the have to the the and the To of the as being high in the for and a of and into other in the recent scholarly those who being SBNR any to and with to institutional of religion, to their in of and also to and and a are more to as the of are in of in institutional the the Zen even the are on the in a and are more likely to the of so, those who to being SBNR have subject to as we in the seem to be if not to the we may for a and that being SBNR not of It a and we would well to one of the to about to a more about what being spiritual but not religious means is to into it and it to the of the and both of have to of being SBNR, is of the term is to be found in the being first in the At first the any to the only to the or of by the it in a being with respect to To be in the Christian and the notion that one into with a it is to that such be only the of and tradition, a religious For not of generic religious but the of a and the of the the to in the into we the To this are in the of in religious is as but in and to and this there is no or of that exists or its in a religious In that it is more to of as is a term with assumptions, its is even if useful as a of not the and that one the of as a the of the topic in of a and tradition, the and of such a in the of religion like and The of the as by the generic term of perceived or as a a of religions, and In the that Protestant the use of the and its and as and of as of human with a of generic (e.g., of and of of this can be found than in the of to in with nature as well as who in a to that found in the that in is as the subject of our religion, of for the as and of individual in their so as they to in to whatever they may the and the of and its by meant and the of all for to the of for the by as the as in the and thus for to the In we have a the of its religious in the of its and the term a similar The as in the of a person by the of the who It in the the of and in the Christian To be the there the one to and who but in the to its psychological, and religious to its much of current in refers to religious a particular (e.g., the of of In this (as some refer to and what we to as the of a are both refer to and a religious and the are that we take as a term the of and by the Christian to its to the present in the then we can as the and of a of or more the Christian is the to spiritual on to that while the is it is one, it is in the of the Christian and the that and its and this one a of that, like is with similar and to this recent of It once those traditions (e.g., their (e.g., and of religious and their (e.g., that a American of for this by of even the in the and of may the of religion at the one can and have are seen as if not the the spiritual if to of and then the of and (as in the to its being SBNR. One of the not the to SBNR in a The American of all the then of the as as spiritual but not While (e.g., in in the in about the one for the as “spiritual but not it the of a that of and that the the of the term. by the of a for a of that and in the of as as but and as spiritual than a religious and a with a the of the into at the term widely it is we in the who a and as “spiritual but not in as a “spiritual but not religious and a a as a spiritual but not is the of the human (see and In the by the one of for SBNR or SBNR to to the in the this be by the that to the of being SBNR. What we are for are those that might not a as would have of to of and to the in institutional religion to our to the this is and the are many to at the of but a of and there are a that taking into the studies by and and the term is not found in many of the and it is, it is being in and religious a one say that being SBNR is a and one be to avoid and colonialist use of such a term. to and the in one can to the American for or what refers to as and the of the as the of being SBNR. are the of the of and the of the of the by religious (e.g., the and those (e.g., the and and respect to the as of religion at the and their in a to and study of religious a of religious To be of is, or to be with of and in to in of religious of and a of of religion are the of the of a of and is with those who the of of religion as religion even religious like being the of the is one the of this on the SBNR than the of evinced in data and on the and of that SBNR with respect to human nature and the In on human that they to the for their of that human nature is if not for and as the of are with like and all of are the of the of being utilized in the of that constitutes the of more in of the SBNR take on and the that some of to of of as and while of the as to and to of this with our in the is the of in the of the of what a namely, that between the and and over the nature of the debate in the of and it for it is that in to a the a of and to the that for many in formulations have utilized for the of and the for and like those of and have those who a of religious In other words, is not only a or of being SBNR but also a and of is to of and is but is not a for at to any such as the SBNR with the of in of a the is not only of the of in and the of such but also of the of in they their What is the in the is but in the that it and more than it (see also and to the even in those who being SBNR have in it is not to the of who and what they are in in is a case, as is initially then on a spiritual a of then to in to change and the One also the one might the on at that of no as comes with a like to the a that, in by a group as the the of its being to and to the of to to the one might a recent that the of the SBNR as and being SBNR to and its consumer It is this that in many the in no at least as as is by the by and of being SBNR that the on the of religion and on the the of in tailored individual for for the of the of and as one might the and by and But their is of In they as a in the of both and its on the In it is who both and religious and then and in a and the of and their is with a of as one say that to the that, by of as its all but their and of term the of being as well as the by in The of that have to a by and a for the and of found in of religion, the of a of the While it is to in the of they also for a of that is among the and their is on a more of than it is in its in a there is some in their they for is on who a of term and not a that that, properly the that If and utilized to their they have between a of spiritual by that well with and a more of a on this a is that is by a of in of the to be and the to for the and a of is to and its and and to to the that have as a In the of and that means calling attention to a of and such a spiritual But and that for a that in the for and the to such a religion we in the this of a but no empirical to such does In and data on the SBNR on the between and a on and of that no empirical studies have to between on the namely, what they refer to as the with and and the with of that to a more and In with our in between a of to be into the studies that some of their the it is to a and or the other their not the general that is to and they any that between and for with what they or is the of they that the of their study in that such with a of by with for the of In other words, as there exists a wide of to being SBNR, of and on the of but one is that we have to group of in who that being SBNR many well over a century to the and of of the like and this more of the of being SBNR to what to be of as well as and on its with (see In of in ethnographic and that those who to being SBNR have a of to institutional religion, those the to those who have a of to even to the of a religion their but multiple other religious and to their for spiritual In other words, being SBNR into being spiritual and religious on being SBNR that it is not a but of of that we more ethnographic studies as well as more on what constitutes being in being SBNR the of we are in the term at At the one is to in what one is if such to the and present of being SBNR, then more so with respect to its One might with that being SBNR some to as in to the multiple we the of (e.g., and to a or In a more other have on the of the and about the of its For example, on the on in the of and on the SBNR with In that their of of that can be as and for a SBNR of spiritual and the it can in on the other that a for being SBNR in the of that, religious have not well with respect to of of and The at the of is a of all kinds a more and can be a of those who being studies to be in that of change and are of what many would to be the of the SBNR it to be a useful term of they the by and of exactly what is meant by being SBNR. The of this essay, in as they that and a of and the scholarly and that are to such by the with the that it is not on the but the and of the To be it not only the of a of being SBNR is and but also its in even more the by the of inner-worldly and the that the of the SBNR, it can be said that the that at the of being SBNR to the of If being SBNR is by of and then the for its not in the for what or what and refer to as “spiritual but in the of that to the of the of all and the to that its the of the for is a of being can be in with a and a is a between the of and the of (i.e., what the and into more The is noting the of can be as and in To be this does not the for and that are in nature (e.g., the Christian the problem with not so much in their for as it does in the that they are subject for their and to those who are of it is the continued of the mendacity of religious that are at the for many who being SBNR. The on and the of are to such one this than subject to what are to a of the Christian that of on to observe that while it is to think that the with the and that a might well be to as the of in of many have or even no or of done and of What meant is that such all the and of the (i.e., and a even the of and the in of the general that for many they even the most and those in of in a in by meant those by the in the of and for and the with a who the can only their at right to even there are of the nature of a more even of that among the found in the that of between the and that can be as To that is but can be by of the of both a of (as is of many religious and what as the of the for the of of that could, in their be to be In case, the of not one or but on what the one and only of that found in the data of namely, the of In about the of that general being and In other words, a as for the of that to by attention the of or by being in the then a to such The is to in a in one person the same in person The with other such as in and by would then be It would seem to that by the between what is and what the for the of such as One is to a that this is the of between the might have in the and be to into it is a of to this in of that what this of of in a of the of as to the awareness of in a it is that this is not a person also a similar of in the of to the of one say that the and to and religion is the awareness and of a of this awareness can be found in of with the a with to In to by with to the on the It would not be a to say that what we have is a of and for the in the of and this of this on and a into a that be by those who to being SBNR. The of in of the of to with in the first of and to in of the the to a of in a and It the individual and one without or in a with a by the with one In by that to a the for a religion, what as of take the place of the of the then to of of who have a of their into a that have to such in in order to to who might such to the of the who in of this in the is a state of and of the the of religion is a of a religious as such we would have to of of that would a of and a of in the of a of that can be once to the of While into the that faith in to the and what to as the of that a to in and the the of many a and with to a variety of and religious as a of with the of in the to the of and It there found the of and what to be for the of that the of and a task. a for a in this that the for a that and In to about the that would to and what a While the continued to for the for in and of the of the of for and to at the of the [see of and religious with on the of American of being SBNR among and The with and of the (e.g., can be as as of being SBNR, and on such as the the the such as the and can as that being this it be said that the in the the as a its But to it at that would be to what may well be the most the of this century for being SBNR for that any religious is the that we are not the only with in this much the with and (as in the any of But the is one and on the of and with of of the and that it in or current to religion in of it is that religious or or a of the and place in it that as a for their than religious and and But the of this the that we are not both those who are SBNR and those to traditions in a one that to a in the in and the of our After all, in the there is only one that of the human to be that any of it be or at the (as with (as in in the or of all and But we have a not that in the even to their about and are to to the if not of with To offer a we of and and present in that are to that are to that we have the a of of we think we the of the the than the academics like in the and and of in the that we exactly what they and have and are the empirical the of of if of the is to be is and the familiar and there the that the one one this is the it and “There are some there that seem to some of The and in about of that while in to the and of with have to even while the have about a of then there are the and the at and the of that a in the as being and the school at the being a group by about who in some with no of their and so of a there is a history of the of at one to (as with but is seen as even a The some to about the of for of a Speaking to this that both the and the the and the the so to may be of The some of a that the of the (as well as can be as with in a general as a in speaks to its and all observe that and the they are to the One might to that those who have to a of are more of with of (e.g., can be as a of as well as the to a data as seems to and even the differences between and religious so to our then the to a that both religion and in that be much like a its on its to a of To it that the it the as to they have to the what we the and this is in the and the with the of the the of to on and to and we are to be (as seem to have to to the of think to have of a and think to have to 2015). the at the that we of by is with the have that there may be of of in our by seems like a but have the that is in and this to being in with the that is a or even one that well be or of years our a to the that have course, this not the and of the may choose to can to a that does not their like the that we are not the in the more In of the of found of for the of empirical in what to as the and the of the of the with respect to religion, the as and by In case, it the of that the the of can to that the so to be even to of the it is a of empirical or For their religious are in a that can any to for it is with a of in the and by and for that is at the to on the and be with and about one have for such even as the would such have To offer have a the of of the and that its have not on and there are multiple and that the of many of is a and and are not But if some in such it is those who to being SBNR a who are to with and have the to the of is with to religion or and is with those who are religious” or spiritual but not say the of religion is this in but not what the we that the are in this and a for the of all who as but not have the of by of a with of to one as a of a to the that being SBNR is the of by the and to religion, one to be more and to of and and for that in the those who to be SBNR would well to integrate the of in their tradition, who the to navigate its to our once it is not the case, as is by many religious that there is a (e.g., term that subject to of and of the that the It as and more be on the order of a is more likely than not to multiple once to of the in its be without taking into multiple by the of In this it is that a with and to the who techniques for the and the term (see One of such a is that we can no that are the of as it is likely that in much the same to the of the as our and to the of human take in of they have no in it is the human who are the and in a with a of and some at then it is the and the they they may be to those who are more in their that the to into with In any such suggests that our and religious are at least if not and the other of more have in and (e.g., the being the of [see also One that the are to integrate the in to as a there be much to critique in the and more than for those who to to the general if even in its to to a for the of being SBNR, of the is Is the the and of one is in its of the to of and take our place in a the for the of the the it well be The

  PublisherDOI

• Freud’s <i>Moses</i>

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2021-05-07

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  When one first opens the pages of Moses and Monotheism one is struck by Freud’s employment of a curious organizational strategy. The volume consists of three independent essays with the third having two sections, the first of which has two prefaces and the second introduced by a “summary.” Given Freud’s sterling reputation as a prose writer, such disorganization is at first perplexing. The prefaces explain why this might be the case. Faced with old age and cancer (the book was published in 1939, the year of his death), the rise of fascism in Germany, the fear of persecution, and subsequent forced move from Vienna to London (in 1938), Freud was doubtful the book would ever be finished, much less see the public light of day. Indeed, with some hesitation he decided to publish the first two essays independently (“Moses an Egyptian,” “If Moses Was an Egyptian …”) in the psychoanalytic journal Imago in 1937, thinking that would be the end of it. The third essay (“Moses, His People, and Monotheistic Religion”), which deals more provocatively with the identity of Moses and origins of monotheism, was deemed too sensitive to publish. The rise of Nazism in conjunction with the risk of offending both Jews and Christians was too great a risk not only to Freud but also to the profession of psychoanalysis and its many adherents, analysts, and friends. However, once safely situated in London, Freud had a change of heart and, apologizing for the many repetitions and organizational problems, decided to include the previously published essays along with the new, third essay in a single volume.

  PublisherDOI

• Totem and Taboo

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2021-05-07

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  Freud was invested in translating abstract, experience-distant “metaphysics” into the more existentially accessible, experience-near dimensions of human experience. Psychoanalysis did this by providing a “function” (projection) tied to a “developmental infrastructure” (the interplay between id, ego, and super-ego as they are determined by the stages of childhood development) to any metaphysical abstraction. In other words, as noted in the introductory chapter, religion is not from the hand of the divine but the very human projection of complex developmental issues and unconscious wishes. One can subsume all of Freud’s varied analyses of the expressions of religion (be they myths, symbols, scripture, faith, conversion, mysticism, etc.) under this general methodological umbrella.

  PublisherDOI

• Future of an Illusion

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2021-05-07

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  If Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism can be framed as “the bookends” (being the first and last of Freud’s works on religion), then Future of an Illusion and Civilization and Its Discontents can be called “the twins.” Written a scant three years apart (1927 and 1930, respectively), they form the essential core, the most widely known and influential of Freud’s varied analyses of religion. While the two works are joined by central themes that continue to preoccupy Freud’s ruminations on the relation between the individual, civilization, religion, and the historical process, they also evince a striking disparity in tone. Future of an Illusion exudes an enlightenment agenda, valorizing the power of reason, the efficacy of psychoanalytic modes of personal transformation, and the eventual victory of humanism, science, and tolerance. Civilization and Its Discontents, on the other hand, prescient in what was to come (namely, World War II), is more pessimistic, warning of the ascendancy of the darker forces of human nature, the “unpsychological” structures of social institutions, and the growing uneasiness of humans in civilization. In this chapter we will focus on Future of an Illusion, leaving our treatment of Civilization and Its Discontents for Chapter 5.

  PublisherDOI

• Freud and Religion

  2021 · 6 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • Psychoanalysis
  • Social Science

  We live in an era that often described as 'therapeutic.' Our culture is suffused with unconscious fantasies and psychoanalytic ways of thinking about self, other, and society. Aspects of the Freudian cultural universe have also had an impact on how we think about religion. In this volume, William Parsons explores the relationship between religion and psychoanalysis through multiple, linked investigations. Why did Freud write about religion and what did he say? What were the multiple critiques levelled at his work? What were the post-Freudian psychoanalytic advances? How can we still apply psychoanalytic ideas going forward? In answering these and related questions, Parsons distinguishes between classic-reductive, adaptive, and transformational psychoanalytic models. He also argues that the psychoanalytic theory of religion needs to integrate reflexive, dialogical, and inclusive elements as part of its toolkit. Offering illustrations and applications of such revisions, Parsons creates new capacities for thinking psychologically and critically about religion.

  PublisherDOI

• Index

  Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2021-05-07

  paratext1st authorCorresponding

  A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

  PublisherDOI

• Freud and Religion: Advancing the Dialogue

  2021 · 2 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Sociology
  • Psychoanalysis
  • Social Science

  We live in an era that often described as 'therapeutic.' Our culture is suffused with unconscious fantasies and psychoanalytic ways of thinking about self, other, and society. Aspects of the Freudian cultural universe have also had an impact on how we think about religion. In this volume, William Parsons explores the relationship between religion and psychoanalysis through multiple, linked investigations. Why did Freud write about religion and what did he say? What were the multiple critiques levelled at his work? What were the post-Freudian psychoanalytic advances? How can we still apply psychoanalytic ideas going forward? In answering these and related questions, Parsons distinguishes between classic-reductive, adaptive, and transformational psychoanalytic models. He also argues that the psychoanalytic theory of religion needs to integrate reflexive, dialogical, and inclusive elements as part of its toolkit. Offering illustrations and applications of such revisions, Parsons creates new capacities for thinking psychologically and critically about religion

  Publisher

• Flesh and Blood: Interrogating Freud on Human Sacrifice, Real and Imagined

  International Journal for the Psychology of Religion · 2020-07-30 · 1 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  "Flesh and Blood: Interrogating Freud on Human Sacrifice, Real and Imagined." The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 31(2), pp. 149–150

  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• JoAnn M. Sperl‐Hillen

  HealthPartners

  23 shared

• Emily D. Parker

  Augusta University

  21 shared

• Jodi Lavin-Tompkins

  21 shared

• Sarah J. Beaton

  20 shared

• C. Victor Spain

  20 shared

• Herbert Davis

  20 shared

• Ann Von Worley

  20 shared

• Omar D. Fernandes

  19 shared

Awards & honors

• Favorite Professor Award (2012-13)
• George R. Brown Prize for Superior Teaching (2010-11)
• Outstanding Teaching Award in the Humanities and Social Scie…
• Outstanding Teaching Award in the Humanities and Social Scie…
• Outstanding Teaching Award in the Humanities and Social Scie…