John Lennon (1971) sang, “How can I go forward when I don’t know which way I’m facing?” Today, we live in disoriented and disorienting times characterized by survival mode. To name just a few of the inter-related challenges we face, first, rampant social and existential threats abound: (a) a tendency to regard what is different both from and within ourselves as threatening, which manifests as xenophobia, polarization, violence, and living perpetually on edge; (b) in light of nuclear threats, climate change, and pandemics, the Doomsday Clock is closer than ever to midnight (Mecklin, 2023); (c) the threat of chaos and nihilism has spurred a worldwide rise in authoritarianism; (d) a history of an objectifying stance combined with power and privilege that, over the centuries, contributed to marginalization and colonization has culminated in precarious mistrust of science and expertise; (e) critical thinking has become confused for being critical; and (f) entertainment value and soundbites have become favored over quality and depth of thought. Second, systemic inequities upheld by social policies that preclude basic need fulfillment parallel a confusion of self-actualization for actualization of the self (Bazzano, 2017)—which Maslow (1971/1993) would have described as D-esteem. Third, technologies designed to make us more connected actually have promoted more isolation than ever, while automation, surveillance capitalism, spread of mis-/dis-/mal-information, and uncritical use of AI all are on the rise. Taken together, these issues pose threats to democracy, to attention span, to inter- and intra-personal presence, and to our ability to handle complexity and challenge (see Bland, 2023). And as creative pursuits have become replaced by passive consumption and curation (Questlove, 2018), researchers have noted that materialistic values in a late capitalistic society have spurred abysmal engagement with nature and aesthetic beauty (Howell, 2020).
In such a climate, self-development for its own sake is undervalued (Rowan & Glouberman, 2018). It can be seen as out of reach on multiple levels, leading to helplessness, to forfeiting human potential, etc. So, where does that leave humanistic psychology (broadly defined to include existential, transpersonal, constructivist, and multicultural perspectives) (Bland & DeRobertis, 2020b)? While I don’t pretend to have an easy answer, I would say that humanistic psychology’s grounding in the arts and humanities offers a guiding framework for enhancing psychological science and healing. First, regarding art, founding humanistic psychologist Mike Arons (2020) noted that it pulls us “beyond the immediate to the universal, beyond ourselves to an experience sharable with others in our space,” reflecting “the advancing progress of deepening and unifying consciousness” both backward to our mysterious origins and forward to our equally-mysterious destiny (pp. 124, 82). Second, during the mid-20th century, founding humanistic psychologists intentionally revived and infused principles from the humanities into psychology in the modern era (Arons, 2020; Bland & DeRobertis, 2020b; Moss, 2015; Schneider, 1998, 2023; Wertz, 1998; Wyatt, 1967) in order to introduce relevant human problems and questions that had been ignored or distorted by the field. How might we approach life as a journey of psycho-spiritual integration? How might we value dialogue as a means of seeking deeper truths and ethical examination from everyday situations? How might we employ self-reflection, self-discipline, self-determination, self-compassion, and self-challenging as tools for the good life characterized by authentic freedom, awe-based creative living, and social justice (Dillon, 2020)? Today, those questions seem more relevant than ever.
As I prepared for my presidential year this summer, I met 1:1 with each of the SHP board members. There was unanimous agreement about our collective goals. First, of paramount importance is welcoming and supporting up-and-coming generations of humanistic psychologists, for whom there is a thirst for the contributions of our movement to address the needs and challenges of our times. To that end, this year, we are setting up a Task Force on Student Engagement that will involve updating our Directory of Graduate Programs in Humanistic Psychology and developing student mentoring positions. Second, also key is preserving and advancing our core value of cultivating the courage to enact I-Thou ways of being in an increasingly I-it world—authenticity, humility, intentionality, presence, mindfulness, creative being-in-becoming-in-relation, and trusting relationships that promote safety, empowerment, and transformative change, both individually and collectively.
From there, just as self-actualization involves an ongoing, unfolding, creative process, the same principle holds for humanistic psychology. From the beginning, humanistic psychology was envisioned not as a separate school but as a philosophical and relational foundation for all psychology, “a unique amalgam of what today would be considered developmental, cognitive, and cultural psychologies, without being reducible to any one” (DeRobertis, 2021, p. 8). Since the mid-20th century, humanistic psychologists have been instrumental in introducing developmental (Bland & DeRobertis, 2020b; DeRobertis & Bland, 2020) and cognitive (Aanstoos, 2015) theorizing and research to psychology at large. From there, with regard to the synergistic relationship between healthy individuals and healthy society, recently, humanistic psychologists (Hoffman et al., 2015; Jackson, 2020) have noted that, although founding humanistic psychologists made calls for steps toward social justice, historically, follow-up in subsequent decades has been limited. Therefore, humanistic psychology has been inadequately translated into social and political action and, thus, has inadvertently upheld the status quo it aimed to overcome (Prilleltensky, 1992). Accordingly, though the characteristics of psychological health as defined by our founders have been unequivocally empirically supported without need for substantial revision, today, there is a need for greater contextualization and recognition of the influence of social, cultural, and historical factors beyond mid-20th century U.S. culture to which humanistic psychology began as a response and an alternative (Compton, in press). For just one example, traditional humanistic theorizing could be complemented by and integrated with an intersectionallens to critically consider overlapping axes of identity as situated in multiple systems of power, privilege, and oppression (Jackson, 2020).
Indeed, early in our movement, Charlotte Bühler (1971) acknowledged the need “to keep things open and flexible” (p. 378), with the deliberate goal of continuous revision and elaboration of humanistic psychology in order to “establish itself anew for each generation” (Criswell, 2003, p. 43). Bühler also emphasized the importance of choosing the best approach to meet the demands of situations. That is, sometimes it is fitting to focus on individuality, at other times on our common humanity, and at yet other times on dimensions of culture. In the end, it’s a both/and. It’s all about paradox and dialogue and the wisdom to know which perspective on which to zero in and from which to draw inspiration.
For that reason, I have chosen Old Saybrook 3 as the theme of our annual conference at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on March 28-30, 2024. It commemorates the 60th anniversary of the original Old Saybrook conference in 1964, where humanistic psychology was formalized. It also serves as a follow-up to the Old Saybrook 2 conference in 2000, which aimed both to rekindle the Third Force vision of psychology articulated at Old Saybrook 1 and to re-vision humanistic psychology for the new millennium. Now, almost a quarter-century later, to keep humanistic psychology relevant for new and future generations, it is again time to recontextualize our movement in and for the 2020s. How can humanistic psychology actualize itself today to meet the needs of a fast-paced, distracted, survival-focused, experientially-avoidant, interpersonally-isolated, rating- and metric-centered, systems-blind, toxically-masculine, xenophobic, inequitized, traumatized, polarized, technocratic, post-truth, post-pandemic society-in-transition? Paradoxically, to accomplish that undertaking, Old Saybrook 3 also celebrates the wisdom of our elders and reminds us not to turn a blind eye to their rich and enriching intellectual and experiential contributions. How might we demonstrate that humanistic psychology is, far from being a mere historical relic, well-equipped in its core values and theory/philosophy, pluralistic methods, and robust, decades-long canon of research/scholarship to resonate with the 2020s zeitgeist? I invite you to submit proposals pertaining to theory, research, and/or practical application of emerging directions in humanistic psychology. As part of your proposal, please give attention to how it both reflects and advances our core humanistic values and intellectual foundations. I look forward to being with you!
References
Aanstoos, C. (2015). Humanistic psychology in dialogue with cognitive science and technological culture. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 243-254). Sage.
Arons, M. (2020). The new–old: Recollections, reflections, and reconnoiterings of Mike Arons (A. M. Bland & S. M. Arons, Eds.). University Professors Press.
Bazzano, M. (2017). A bid for freedom: The actualizing tendency updated. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 16(4), 303-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2017.1361860opens in new window
Bland, A. M. (2023). I-it versus I-thou science and society: Introduction to special feature on Maslow’s (1969) “Toward a humanistic biology.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678231197862opens in new window
Bland, A. M., & DeRobertis, E. M. (2020a). Maslow’s unacknowledged contributions to developmental psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(6), 934–958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167817739732opens in new window
Bland, A. M., & DeRobertis, E. M. (2020b). The humanistic perspective. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1484-2opens in new window
Bühler, C. (1971). Basic theoretical concepts of humanistic psychology. American Psychologist, 26(4), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032049opens in new window
Compton, W. C. (in press). Maslow and the good person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology.
Criswell, E. (2003). A challenge to humanistic psychology in the 21st century. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167803043003004opens in new window
DeRobertis, E. M. (2021). The humanistic revolution in psychology: Its inaugural vision. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(1), 8–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820956785opens in new window
DeRobertis, E. M., & Bland, A. M. (2020). Lifespan human development and “the humanistic perspective”: A contribution toward inclusion. The Humanistic Psychologist, 48(1), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000141opens in new window
Dillon, J. J. (2020). Humanistic psychology and the good: A forgotten link. The Humanistic Psychologist, 48(3), 244-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000149opens in new window
Hoffman, L., Cleare-Hoffman, H., & Jackson, T. (2015). Humanistic psychology and multiculturalism: History, current status, advancements. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 41-55). Sage.
Howell, B. M., Diessner, R., & Robinson, R. M. (2020). Self-actualization and the tragedy of beauty. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167817696836opens in new window
Jackson, T. (2020). The history of Black psychology and humanistic psychology. In L. Hoffman, H. P. Cleare-Hoffman, N. Granger, Jr., & D. St. John (Eds.), Humanistic approaches to multiculturalism and diversity (pp. 29-44). Routledge.
Lennon, J. (1971). How? On Imagine [LP]. Apple.
Maslow, A. H. (1993). The farther reaches of human nature. Penguin-Arkana. (Original work published 1971).
Mecklin, J. (Ed.). (2023). 2023 Doomsday Clock Statement. https://storage.pardot.com/878782/1674512728rAkm0Vt3/2023_doomsday_clock_statement.pdfopens in new window
Moss, D. (2015). The roots and genealogy of humanistic psychology. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3-18). Sage.
Prilleltensky, I. (1992). Humanistic psychology, human welfare, and the social order. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 13(4), 315–327.
Questlove. (2018). Creative Quest. Ecco.
Rowan, J., & Glouberman, D. (2018). What is humanistic psychology? In R. House, D. Kalisch, & J. Maidman (Eds.), Humanistic psychology: Current trends and future prospects (pp. 17-33). Routledge.
Schneider, K. J. (1998). Toward a science of the heart: Romanticism and the revival of psychology. American Psychologist, 53(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.3.277opens in new window
Schneider, K. J. (2023). Life-enhancing anxiety: Key to a sane world. University Professors Press.
Wertz, F. J. (1998). The role of the humanistic movement in the history of psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 38, 42-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00221678980381006opens in new window
Wyatt, F. (1967). Psychology and the humanities: A case of no-relationship. In J. F. T. Bugental (Ed.), Challenges of humanistic psychology (pp. 290-310). McGraw-Hill.
Author note: Portions of this article are adapted from my incoming presidential address to Division 32 at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, in August 2023.