The Humanistic approach to Psychology
Carl Rogers founded the humanistic approach in the 1950s as a reaction to the determinism and pessimism of Psychoanalysis and Behaviourism, which had been dominating the field of Psychology for the past 50 years or so.
The humanistic approach believes that as humans we have free will; that we have the power to choose and control our own futures. It is also coined the theory of self-actualization, which Maslow defined in his book ‘Toward a psychology of being’, as the “…ongoing actualization of potentials, capacities and talents, as fulfillment of mission (or call, fate, destiny, or vocation).” He also stated that as humans we strive for ‘full humaness’ which means our human nature has a biological basis; our journey towards growth and self-actualization should conform to this, not historical, cultural or social pressures. Maslow uses this theory to argue that ‘’ destructive or malicious aspects of human behaviour’ (1) are a sign of frustration at the deviation from the journey of self-actualization and growth. Maslow explains growth as such; ‘growth is not in the pure case a goal out ahead … it just happens.” (1) In essence our growth is not a destination; we do not ‘achieve’ growth, but it is a journey, based on the consistent presentation of choices.
The humanistic perspective is a very complex approach to Psychology and has many advantages such as the positivity of this perspective. Psychoanalysis and Behaviourism were criticised for being too negative; claiming our behaviour was out of our control often due to our subconscious or learnt behaviours. This is largely deterministic, whereas the humanists challenge this believing we control our own destiny; giving us hope when confronted with negative experiences, mental illness or challenging behaviours. A second advantage is ‘client centred psychotherapy’ (CCT) a highly affective form of therapy founded by Carl Rogers. CCT is one of the few non-directive therapies available today; this means that the client controls the therapy, allowing them to grow, discover themselves, and journey to self-actualization at their own pace. The effectiveness of CCT has been proved by an abundance of research; proving particularly effective for clients suffering with depression or relationship difficulties.
However it would be naïve to ignore the disadvantages of this perspective. The first I’m going to mention is how reductionist it is. This approach is only concerned with the aspects I mentioned earlier; it ignores the role of biology such as hormones, neurotransmitters and chemical levels in the brain, despite research supporting the role of these factors in many mental disorders. I believe it is impossible to explain the human mind, personality and behaviours as a whole if it is only interested in one small isolated fragment of the self. Another disadvantage is the difficulty it presents in proving or disproving theories as they are too vague in their definitions. This perspective is hugely subjective in both theories and applications; making it impossible to measure as all information gained is from the client (self-report) which is notoriously unreliable due to unavoidable indivdual differences. It is also impossible to collect empirical data when concerned with emotions, feelings and opinions. The humanistic approach is flawed, but are any of it’s contradictory co-existing perspectives any less so? This perspective is hugely interesting, sometimes challenging and unique in its theories.
References:
(1) Toward a psychology of being (Arthur Maslow)
rebeccag92 
sigmafreud said,
October 11, 2011 @ 10:40 am
This was an enjoyable and informative read.
Firstly, I’d like to address the point you made about freewill and determinism. Do you think determinism plays an important role in research? That is to say; If all psychologists ignored the concept of determinism, and acknowledged free will and individual differences, would the field become complacent? Surely determinism is warranted in research otherwise no definitive conclusion could be made. It would always be a case of : “This is the theory we have come up with, but individuals may differ.” Making the reserch completely pointless.
The humanistic approach is, in many ways, completely different from other perpectives and yes, I agree that it is hugely reductionist. Perhaps it takes too much of a postive attitude to Psychology? Can there ever be too much of a postive attitude?
Many people find solace in the notion that their behaviour is “out of their control” and therefore, not their fault. It is merely a result of chemical or hormonal inbalances or other things of the sort. You do raise a valid point however. The hope that they can change their behaviour can be considered an immense positive of the approach.
rebeccag92 said,
October 11, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Thank you 🙂
I think determinism is important as you said; in some cases such as people with serious chemical imbalances in their chances of developing mental illnesses like depression are out of their control (determined for them) and I think in such cases accepting the determied situation can actually be helpful in the progression of treatment for their illness. If it accepted that the cause has been found a treatment/therapy can be devised on that conclusion, which provides a hope different to that of the humanistic approach-which argues you can change your fate (to developm depression) whereas determinism could provide hope of a full recovery. I also think determinism is usefull to research as it takes some of the personal responsibility away from the client, the humanistic approach may argue that the person has ultimate control over their lives; and therefore if they are experiencing huge difficulties in their lives it is somehow their fault, whereas being told it was determined that this would happen would alleviate some of the stress associated with ‘failing’.
So I’m basically saying I completely agree with you; determinism is important to the way we study, research and practise psychology yet the optimism that the humanistic approach provides does have it’s benefits; perhaps more in terms of applied psychology rather than research as the arguable ‘naivety’ of the humanistic perspective I believe woul ignore vital factors such as environmetal influences like learnt behaviour and biological elements like hormone and chemical imbalances in favour of their theory that we can control our lives; despite evidence suggesting this is not the case.
hcrettie said,
October 11, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
It is true the humanistic’s unique approaches have provided a positive new perspective to psychology! This is why however I slightly disagree with the comments above. The problem with a deterministic, labelling approach to psychological disorders is that although the patient may initially find comfort in giving their psychological difficulties a label, it can produce a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some people may often subconsciously ‘act up’ to their labels, and believe their status as, for example a schizophrenic is inescapable. Other people will also react accordingly to the person’s label, making them feel abnormal and isolated.
An example of this is the Rosenham study on being sane in insane places (1973). Participants got themselves falsely admitted to a psychiatric ward with schizophrenia, and even after acting normal the nurses still treated them as if they were patients, and once released were given the label of “schizophrenic in remission” – even though they had never had it in the first place! This study shows the powerful influence of deterministic labelling, and how the humanistic approach helps prevent this.
However the humanistic approach in my opinion does have one major flaw – it cannot be falsified. How can the approach develop alongside the other perspectives if it does not allow its research to be improved upon?
sigmafreud said,
October 11, 2011 @ 7:58 pm
I admit I hadn’t considered the effects of “labelling” that goes hand in hand with determinism in many cases. And again, I do agree that self-fulfilling prophecy is present in the use of labels.
Rosenham’s study does emphasise the problem with labelling, in relation to the reliability of diagnosis of individuals with Schizophrenia (or in this case, people who do not have Schizophrenia).If I remember correctly, the study based itself around one symptom of Schizophrenia- hearing voices (dull, hollow, thud?), and it was concluded that whoever hears voices (in this case non-existant voices) must therefore be Schizophrenic. Yes, the participants did not display abnormal symptoms after admission, but is it completely unreasonable to suggest that an individual who hears voices isn’t Schizophrenic because they don’t display other symptoms? In many ways labelling is often used too frequently. Deterministic labelling can be dangerous.