Last fall, I chose Old Saybrook 3 (OS3) as the theme for this year's SHP annual conference, which took place in March 2024 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. First, it commemorated the 60th anniversary of the original Old Saybrook (OS1) conference in 1964, where the vision for the then-new humanistic psychology was clarified (Aanstoos et al., 2000; Bugental, 1965; DeCarvalho, 1991; Elkins, 2000). Second, OS3 served as a follow-up to the Old Saybrook 2 (OS2) conference in 2000, which aimed to both rekindle the Third Force vision of psychology articulated at OS1 and re-vision humanistic psychology for the new millennium (Elkins, 2000; State University of West Georgia, 2000). Almost a quarter-century after OS2, the aim for OS3 was to further recontextualize our movement in and for the 2020s to keep it relevant for new and future generations and to consider how, as we navigate today's uncertain future and seemingly impossible quandaries, we might draw inspiration from our founders and, in so doing, advocate for a pressing of the proverbial reset button.
Indeed, there are parallels between where humanistic psychology stands today and where we have been in the past. First, as noted in the speeches delivered at OS1 (see Dubos, 1965; Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 1965; Taylor, 2000), our founders saw HP as a pressing of the reset button to correct psychology's missed opportunities in the tradition of William James. They called for an I-Thou stance to both science and society and the synergistic relationship between the two—a vision that re-humanizes, re-sacralizes, and re-contextualizes by honoring the serious study of subjective and intersubjective lived experience and of the whole person in context. And they called for integration of that holistic/systemic perspective into a dialogue with conventional natural science psychology and medical model psychotherapy. As discussed further below, today, despite some movement in that direction in the field at large, much work remains to implement it more fully.
A second parallel between OS1 and today is that there both was and is more agreement as to what humanistic psychology is not (that is, deterministic and reductionistic) than what it actually is. Sixty years ago, despite the enthusiasm of some OS1 attendees, others were left doubtful about humanistic psychology's ability to effect meaningful change in mainstream psychology (Knapp, 1965). Then, over a third of a century later, OS2 took place "to examine the historical contributions of humanistic psychology, to redefine [its] structure, and find direction in light of … changing conditions and states of consciousness" as of Y2K (State University of West Georgia, 2000). It was clear that a more coherent vision for humanistic psychology was needed for the movement to gain more exposure, to move beyond insularity, and to engage more with society at large (Cain, 2003)."
Yet another quarter-century later, humanistic psychology once again is faced with the need to "establish itself anew for [the up-and-coming] generation" and, in so doing, "fulfill its own potential [in order] to have a positive effect on global well-being" (Criswell, 2003, p. 43). To illustrate, in 2000, the question was, "How is humanistic psychology engaging our changing world [which] has grown increasingly technological, multicultural, and postmodern?" (State University of West Georgia, 2000). Today, that question is arguably even more relevant, with the added dimensions of AI, mis/dis/mal information, Anthropocene antihumanism (fatalistic belief that “our self-destruction is now inevitable,” Kirsch, 2023, p. 60), and transhumanism(“the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens,” Kirsch, 2023, p. 60). Further, in 2000, humanistic psychologists were concerned about managed care’s constraints on mental health services (Rabasca, 2000). Now, add measurement-based care and the need for humanistic/existential therapy to be included on some insurance providers’ lists of approved therapies. At OS2, humanistic psychologists argued that collectivistic cultures could shine light on the development of the person in the family/community context (Criswell, 2003). Today, psychology (including humanistic psychology) could benefit from even greater honoring and integration of indigenous and Global South perspectives. Further, around the time of OS2, Purkey and Aspy (2003) identified the challenge for humanistic psychologists being not so much the further development of theoretical constructs but, rather, to develop theories of practice that move from abstract formulations to concrete models. That brings us to the paradox faced by humanistic psychologists today.
On one hand, the humanistic perspective has become more accepted and integrated into the mainstream than ever. Lifespan development, resilience, meaning-making, mindfulness, creativity, psychological flexibility, awe, wisdom, and emotional and spiritual intelligences—and the relational and ecological conditions that promote them—are mainstay topics for mainstream psychology researchers, while expressive arts therapies and positive psychology 2.0 are gaining traction. On the other hand, humanistic psychology also is facing monoculture in the curriculum, with strong leanings toward social cognitive theory, behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, and CBT. In that educational climate, humanistic psychology is more at risk than ever of becoming atrophied (Bland, 2024). Its principles often are presented in textbooks in diluted, incomplete, or even outright inaccurate form (Bland, 2023; Henry, 2017) that becomes uncritically repeated by instructors. Despite the increasing legitimization of qualitative research and an idiographic stance in, especially, graduate training programs, the foundational psychology curriculum remains predominantly quantitative with often-explicit animosity toward self-report. Thus, humanistic psychology often is dismissed as lacking in research evidence and, therefore, unscientific (Bland, 2023; DeRobertis & Bland, 2021). Meanwhile, a decade ago, fewer than 5% of psychotherapy training faculty identified as humanistic (Levy & Anderson, as cited in Levitt & Whelton, 2024). I daresay that proportion is much lower today.
All the while, there is a thirst for what humanistic psychologists have to offer—that is, an I-Thou way of being in an I-it world. “Authentic” was Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year in 2023 (Italie, 2023). However, without proper background and foundation, many primary source writings in humanistic psychology are regarded as esoteric (Bland, 2024). Today, humanistic psychologists need to make ourselves accessible to a new generation interested most in practical application and people who are already unsure about what we have to offer. And, remembering the slogan from Cars 3 (Fee & Reher, 2017), how can humanistic psychology continue to “sneak through the window”? That is, what existential freedom can we cultivate in these circumstances?
Again, with our movement’s identity having been based from the start more on what it is not, the question remains as to what it is. In the 1960s, we helped broaden psychology. Thirty years later, in the 1990s, we deepened our canon via more robust understandings of existential/phenomenological and Asian philosophies (Aanstoos et al., 2000). Now, another 30 years later, there are opportunities for further integration of OS1 and OS2 both within our movement and with mainstream psychology. The question to be mindful of is, what do we want it to look like? I submit that a good starting place is Charlotte Bühler’s (1971) observation about humanistic psychologists’ preparedness to choose 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, in my experience, it’s a both/and. To that point, I was pleased by the way the OS3 presentations also centered around that principle, ranging from defining and evolving humanistic theory for the 21st century to highlighting humanistic psychology’s accomplishments to building bridges between humanistic/existential psychotherapies and emerging models of helping/healing to addressing cultural and social justice issues. I also offer that promoting an I-Thou way of being in an I-it world—authenticity, intentionality, mindful presence, humility, and trusting relationships that promote safety, empowerment, and transformative change, both individually and collectively—seems to have been a common goal shared by the multiple generations and iterations of humanistic psychologists who attended OS1, OS2, and OS3.
That said, it also is worth acknowledging shifts being made within APA and identifying the potential inroads for connection with psychology at large. In an American Psychologist article published just a few weeks before OS3, Westra and Di Bartolomeo (2024) made the case for psychotherapy training to focus more on psychotherapy process (including relational dimensions) to complement manualized content (client outcomes of which have not always shown improvement). Also, around the time of OS2, Chris Aanstoos (2003) noted mainstream psychology’s tendency to abandon community psychology in favor of the medical model. Today, APA is focusing all the more on social determinants of mental health. A perusal of the January 2024 issue of APA Monitor along with emails from APA Science since fall 2023 includes articles on the roles of identity, stigma, and equity in resilience; precarities and possibilities of AI; impacts of social media on youth and of exposure to violence and children’s brain development; fighting misinformation; addressing mental illness stigma and policymaking that impacts the mental health of women and sexual-, gender-, and racial/ethnic-diverse individuals; removing barriers to access to mental health care; and promoting meaning and stability in the workplace as well as quality of life in an aging population. I-Thou in an I-it world is implicated in all of these.
Moreover, cultural variations of humanistic psychology principles (Hoffman et al., 2019; Ortiz, 2020) have further opened new understandings of and possibilities for well-established ideas, especially regarding the way one approaches existential givens based on the context in which one is nested. These perspectives also further expand on the updated perspectives on self in light of postmodern contributions from OS2. From there, humanistic psychologists can employ those perspectives to further contribute to the deepening of multicultural psychology at the mainstream level.
Taking all these opportunities together, the task for humanistic psychologists is to approach these openings to sneak through the window as moments to get a seat at the table. Then we can introduce the “more” that we have to offer once we are there and firmly established. To assist with that venture, as an outgrowth of OS3, Shawn Rubin and I are developing an Epistemological Diversity Task Force to prepare responses to APA’s ongoing calls for comments on educational and practice guidelines from a humanistic vantage point.
As you continue practicing as a humanistic psychologist, in whatever capacity and setting, how can you keep the dialogues and the inspirations that came from OS3 going into the future, especially in terms of practical action steps?
References
Aanstoos, C. (2003). The relevance of humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167803043003010
Aanstoos, C., Serlin, I., & Greening, T. (2000). History of Division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. In D. Dewsbury (Ed.), Unification through Division: Histories of the Divisions of the American Psychological Association, Vol. V. American Psychological Association. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-32/about/history.pdf
Bland, A. M. (2023). Review of the book Profiles of personality: Integration, paradox, and the process of becoming (2nd ed.), by E. M. DeRobertis. The Humanistic Psychologist, 51(1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000299
Bland, A. M. (2024). Review of the book Life-enhancing anxiety: Key to a sane world, by K. J. Schneider. The Humanistic Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000361
Bugental, J. F. T. (1965). First invitational conference on humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 5(2), 180-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216786500500206
Bühler, C. (1971). Basic theoretical concepts of humanistic psychology. American Psychologist, 26(4), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032049
Cain, D. J. (2003). Advancing humanistic psychology and psychotherapy: Some challenges and proposed solutions. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 10-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167803043003003
Criswell, E. (2003). A challenge to humanistic psychology in the 21st century. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167803043003004
DeCarvalho, R. J. (1991). The founders of humanistic psychology. Praeger.
DeRobertis, E. M., & Bland, A. M. (2021). Humanistic and positive psychologies: The continuing narrative after two decades. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678211008353
Dubos, R. (1965). Humanistic biology. American Scientist, 53(1), 4–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27835899
Elkins, D. N. (2000). Old Saybrook I and II: The visioning and re-visioning of humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 40(2), 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167800402002 Fee, B. (Director), & Reher, K. (Producer). (2017). Cars 3 [DVD]. Pixar.
Italie, L. (2023, November 27). What’s Merriam-Webster’s word of the year for 2023? Hint: Be true to yourself. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/merriam-webster-word-of-year-2023-a9fea610cb32ed913bc15533acab71cc
Hoffman, L., Yang, M., Kaklauskas, F. J., Chan, A., Mansilla, M., Dias, J., Moats, M., & Claypool, T. (Eds.). (2019). Existential psychology East-West (rev. ed.; 2 vols.). University Professors Press.
Kirsch, A. (2023, January). The end of us. The Atlantic, 331(1), 58-65.
Knapp, R. H. (1965, March). Humanistic psychology: An effort to organize a broader study of the full human being is described by one of its leaders. The Wesleyan University Alumnus, 49(3), 16-18.
Levitt, H. M., & Whelton, W. J. (2024). On the need to reconcile cultural and professional power in psychotherapy: Humanistic principles that are foundational for feminist multicultural practice. The Humanistic Psychologist, 52(2), 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000327
Ortiz, F. A. (2020). Self-actualization in the Latino/Hispanic culture. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 60(3), 418–435. doi:10.1177/0022167817741785
Purkey, W. W., & Aspy, D. (2003). Overcoming tough challenges: An invitational theory of practice for humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 146-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167803043003012
Rabasca, L. (2000, March). Humanistic psychologists look to revamp their image. APA Monitor on Psychology, 31(3), 54-55.
State University of West Georgia. (2000). Old Saybrook 2: “Coming home to the third millennium” [conference brochure]. Anne C. Richards Papers, Box 63, Folder 2, University of West Georgia Special Collections, Carrollton, GA, USA.
Taylor, E. (2000). “What is man, psychologist, that thou art so unmindful of him?”: Henry A. Murray on the historical relation between classical personality theory and humanistic psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 40(3), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167800403003 Westra, H. A., & Di Bartolomeo, A. A. (2024). Developing expertise in psychotherapy: The case for process coding as clinical training. American Psychologist, 79(2), 163–174. https://doi. org/10.1037/amp0001139