Humanistic Psychology - Essay Example

? Humanistic Psychology Humanistic Psychology As a psychological perspective, humanistic psychology is an approach that has an emphasis on studying the human being as a whole person. This is achieved by psychologists by not only looking at human behaviour through their viewpoint as observers, but also through the viewpoint of the persons exhibiting certain behaviour and each individual’s uniqueness (Sotillos, 2013). This notion stems from the humanistic psychologists’ belief that there is a deep-set connection between a person’s behaviour and both his inner feelings and self concept. In this sense, self concept is used in reference to how people think about themselves and also how they evaluate themselves, including their attributes and what and who the self is. Therefore, psychologists believe that in order for self awareness, an individual must possess the concept of oneself. Having developed in the 1950s from the rebellion that rejected the assumptions of the behaviorist and psychoanalysis approaches, humanistic psychology is also referred to as the third force (McLeod, 2007). Humanistic psychologists termed the behaviorist perspective as deterministic, with a focus on animal research and reinforcing the stimulus-response behaviour. According to them, the psychoanalysis approach was also deterministic, using instinctive, irrational and unconscious forces to determine human behaviour and thought. Consequently, proponents of humanistic psychologists based their proposals on their own sets of assumptions. Their assumptions focused on an individual’s uniqueness alongside the groups they identify with such as religion, and insisting that humans are rational beings influenced by their past, although not determined by it because they are capable of changing (Sotillos, 2013). However, their results are also weakened by the fact that they are vague and cannot be measured because of their non-scientific nature. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the core assumptions of humanistic psychology. Humanistic psychologists viewed both behaviorism and psychoanalysis as being too pessimistic by their focus on either the most tragic aspects of emotions or their failure to consider the role played by personal choice, hence coming up with their own assumptions. Four of the core assumptions on which humanistic psychology is founded include: humans are of free will, since not all behaviour can be determined; all persons are unique and possess an inborn motivation to attain their maximum potential; humans can only be understood properly by studying them and not animals; and, rather than studying the average or nomothetic performance of groups, psychology should focus on studying the individual or idiographic cases (McLeod, 2007). The significance of these assumptions is that they are suitably applicable in areas of person-centred therapy, abnormal behaviour such as incongruent and low self-esteem, qualitative methods and motivation. The concepts of person-centred therapy can be held as true because most people have been shown to possess a trustworthy nature and are capable of understanding themselves, hence, can resolve most of their own problem. Further, this can be supported by the fact that when humans are involved in therapeutic relationships that are trusting and respectful, they exhibit growth that is self-directed. The theory of humanistic psychology is holistic because it explains the tendencies of human behaviour within the environment while it allows for variation and fluidity and grants autonomy, ultimately leading to self-actualization. However, this also makes the perspective of humanistic psychology useful in a relatively narrow scope of psychology in comparison to the preceding two approaches, which are behaviorist and psychoanalysis. This notion of failing to considerably impact on some areas of academic psychology can sufficiently be explained by the fact that humanistic psychology deliberately took on a non-scientific approach to the study of humans (Sotillos, 2013). The areas humanistic psychology investigates, such as emotion and consciousness, are difficult to study scientifically, giving vague outcomes. For instance, it is characterised by a belief in free-will, which directly opposes the deterministic science laws. The result of such scientific constraints implies that there is no sufficient empirical verification to support the approach’s core theories. Critics have also faulted it for its prevalent falsifiability, which is a characteristic that exposes it to being logically proven as being false. On the other hand, humanistic psychology is also known to be rooted in phenomenology, behaviorism and existentialism (Noebel, 2006). More importantly, phenomenology is a philosophy founded on the instinctive experience of phenomena as well as the assertion that reality comprises of events and objects as perceived consciously by conscious beings. This point of view has resulted in advances in educational, industrial and positive psychology, gaining successful application in social issues and psychotherapy. This has helped in removing the stigma associated with therapy, making it more acceptable for healthy and normal persons to explore their potential and abilities via therapy. One of its key strengths is its emphasis on the individual’s role, a school of psychology that accord people sufficient credit in determining and controlling the state of their own mental health. Further, rather that placing focus solely on internal desires and thought, it also takes environmental influencing factors into account. According to Carl Rogers, one of the pioneer proponents of humanistic psychology, the organising or executive centre of personality lies in the self, which is also the determinant of how individuals pursue their goals and relate to the world (Milton, 2002). This principle can be held as true, because it best explains individuals who are not given encouragement to develop their uniqueness and individuality in their upbringing but are, instead, only valued after they meet the expectations of other people. Therefore, Rogers correctly opines that such people have a tendency of developing distorted self-concepts. In the same manner, Abraham Maslow, also a proponent of humanistic psychology, believed self-actualization to be a key element of human motivation and personality. This belief points to the realisation that when given the opportunity, humans will endeavor to achieve self-actualization. The significance here is that this is perceived as an ongoing journey rather than an ultimate destination. In denouncing the study of psychopathological persons, he strongly believed that only psychologically healthy humans must be studied in order to achieve an understanding of human nature (Noebel, 2006). His proposal was that people must go through a hierarchy of needs, passing from lower levels up to the highest attainable one. With each level considered as a basic need,, it must be fulfilled before one can move up. In spite of its positive contributions to the field of psychology, the humanistic perspective has equally attracted a backlash of disapproval (Noebel, 2006). It may have provided the momentum for wide social movements and renewed the debate on determinism and free will with a focus on conscious or subjective experiences of individuals, but still remained open to criticism. This is mainly because its strengths in the focus on conscious experience also form its greatest setback when viewed as a scientific undertaking. For instance, Maslow’s view of self-actualizing people as productive, self-accepting, spontaneous, open and loving cannot truly be quantified or described scientifically. Critics could correctly be supported for terming such attributes as Maslow’s own personal ideals and values drawn from his own heroes’ impressions. The underlying implication in this argument must, therefore, mean that an individual’s conscious experience will ultimately be known or knowable to only one audience of the self. Humanistic psychologists have not yet proven that they are actually measuring the private and subjective experience of an individual, let alone the aspect of such measurements being precise. However, they have proposed for efforts towards the scientific study of conscious experience since going short of that would, quite agreeably, result in ignoring the subject matter of human experience that all psychologists seek to answer. On Rogers’ part, he opined that humans only need to ask themselves whether they are living in ways that satisfy them deeply and are a true expression of themselves (Milton, 2002). It is agreeable that insensitivity and hostility can be traced to a poor self-concept, and that loving oneself actually forms the first step towards extending that love to others. However, this notion is also open to criticism because it is very difficult to get the much needed social support in order to cope with stress and enjoy life when individuals are only focused on addressing their own deep satisfaction. Another aspect of criticism may also point at humanistic psychology’s failure to acknowledge the reality of human aptitude for evil. This is manifest in Rogers’ concept of people basically being good and everything eventually working out. However, faced with naturally occurring dangers of the modern world such as overpopulation, the environment and naive optimism, the concept of being basically good may not hold. This is mainly because it only offers the necessary hope and encouragement but fails to put forward the equally essential realism (McLeod, 2007). Lastly, it can be seen that the emphasis by Rogers on self-fulfillment may be self-destructive as it may actually produce self-indulgent individuals who become so self-absorbed that they are no longer concerned with others. On the same measure, Maslow’s self-actualization concept is a motivational drive to achieve higher purposes. Yet, since self-actualization has different meaning to different people, there is no known existence of a standardized measure of the drive. References McLeod, S. (2007). Humanism. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/humanistic.html Milton, J. (2002). The Road to Malpsychia: Humanistic Psychology and our Discontents (San Francisco, CA: En counter Books, 2002). Noebel, D. (2006). Understanding the times: The collision of today’s competing worldviews. New York: Summit Press. Sotillos, B. (2013). Psychology and the perennial philosophy: Studies in comparative religion. Indiana: World Wisdom. Read More