Submitted by author; formatted by Juan Cole for posting at
http://h-net2.msu.edu/~bahai/diglib/books/F-J/H/herzog.htm
Herzog, Laura M. A Preliminary Analysis of the Baha'i Concept of Mental Health. A Clinical Research Project submitted to the faculty of the Illinois School of Professional Psychology/Chicago Campus in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, May, 1998
Marjorie Witty, Ph.D.
Member
Stanislav G. O’Jack, Ph.D.
Member
A Clinical Research Project submitted
to the faculty of the
Illinois School of Professional
Psychology/Chicago Campus
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Psychology in Clinical
Psychology
Chicago, Illinois
May, 1998
© copyright 1998 by Laura M. Herzog
All rights reserved.
Dedication........................................... i Acknowledgments..................................... ii Abstract............................................. 1 Introduction......................................... 2 Carl Rogers: Fully-Functioning...................... 13 Abraham Maslow: Self-Actualization.................. 25 Carl Jung: Individuation............................ 37 Baha'i Spiritual Development.........................51 The Baha'i Faith: In Response to the Psychologists.. 67 Conclusion.......................................... 88 References.......................................... 94
ii
Although the present study represents but a preliminary analysis of the Bahá’í concept of mental health, delimited to translated Scriptures and by the author’s understanding of Divine Revelation, numerous contributions made by others assisted this process. The Universal House of Justice, the administrative head of the Bahá’í Faith, responded to a number of questions and provided access to selected published materials, further contributing to my previous indebtedness for its kind support, which I might never manage to deserve. The encouragement of Mr. ‘Alí Nakhjavání, in response to my original query concerning the Bahá’í concept of mental health, became a sustaining memory throughout the process of this study, after echoing in my mind for a period of fifteen years; I remain grateful to be one of the many he has inspired. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Stanislav O’Jack, the Bahá’í member of my committee, for once again guiding me, as he did at the beginning of my spiritual journey. Dr. Frank Gruba-McCallister and Dr. Marjorie Witty, understanding of my interests and professional need to weigh psychological theory and practice in the balance of religious beliefs, allowed focus upon the vast universe within the person and the purpose of being, rather than requiring a narrow impersonal topic involving the writing of more and more about less and less in greater detail. Dr. Eleanor Criswell, ever-supportive of my efforts, somehow found time to review and comment upon the material, while Dr. Phillip Zediker and Sheila King offered valuable observations from their respective religious persuasions. Lee Nelson, Rebecca Pourroy, and Sharon DiGiacomo provided greatly appreciated technical support.
A preliminary Bahá’í concept of mental health developed from the translated Scriptures of the religion utilizes the published works of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, as well as those of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice. This conceptualization, initially formulated following examination of psychological theories concerning the healthy personality taken from the works of Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Jung, is further developed through identification of areas of similarity and difference with respect to definitions of human nature, personality, and developmental trajectory, and with regard to functioning in society. Findings indicate the religion’s general agreement concerning the importance of lifelong development of the individual’s higher nature, increase of internal locus of control, decrease of blind imitation, and social involvement and responsibility; departures from psychological concepts include theological constructs concerning the dual purpose of existence, the interrelated functioning of soul, mind, and spirit, and the critical role of detachment from the lower nature for the purpose of developing the higher nature.
Throughout mankind’s recorded history, religion has played an integral part in the shaping of the behavior of individuals and of the societies that they comprise. The spires of cathedrals and the minarets of mosques stand in silent testimony to humanity’s loftiest sentiments, aspirations, and ideals, while the ovens of concentration camps and the remains of moldering mass graves are expressions of its basest nature and blindness of heart. The waning of the vitality of belief in religion as a guiding force for moral conduct and the blatant use of religion as excuse for evil purposes, evidenced by both individual and societal expressions of intolerance and the prevalence of blind imitation and irreligious ideologies, can enhance perception of an overall pattern of Divine Revelation during recorded history, as well as providing insight into the conflictual views concerning true nature of the person and the limited credence given to the important role of spiritual development by the field of psychology at this time. The present study, an analysis of a concept of mental health derived from the Sacred Writings of the Bahá’í Faith, examines the individual and select psychological theories with reference to social evolution, utilizing the religion’s teachings on human nature and spiritual development to shape a preliminary definition of the healthy personality, for the reference and possible use of Bahá’í clinicians.
According to the perspective offered by the Bahá’í Faith, a succession of Prophets, appearing to humanity in different lands and at different historical times, all identified Themselves as representing a link to God, affirmed in authentic Scriptures the Divine origin of the Prophets that preceded Them, and proffered Teachings that both restated and elaborated upon fundamental spiritual verities intended to guide human conduct, while providing social laws designed to address the exigencies of Their respective religious dispensations. The cyclical nature of the renewal of religion through a series of Prophets, the corresponding development and increasing complexity of the societies in which They have appeared, as well as the role of clergy-prompted prejudice in furthering the expression of blind imitation and intolerance, have at this point in human history combined to obscure the light of the “lamp of religion” (Bahá’u’lláh, 1978, p. 125) in human hearts.
Regarding present societal circumstances of deterioration and progress as expressive of a process in which there is a concurrent rolling up of an old order while a new order is being rolled out in its place (Bahá’u’lláh, 1972), the Bahá’í Faith affirms that the originating impulse for change is the appearance of a new Prophet and His revelation. To its members, it asserts the fundamentally spiritual purpose of human existence, the excellence of the individual’s reality, the importance of the use of difficult life experiences as a means of development, and the transcendent, transformative character of an evolving relationship with God as serving as basis for the advancement of both the individual and society. As such, the Bahá’í view of the person essentially defines optimal mental health of the individual in terms of relationship to God and adherence to religious teachings and spiritual principles, while guiding a relationship to a society now in a turbulent stage of adolescence, but on the threshold of its age of maturity. Through explication of the religion’s concepts of the reality of the person and higher nature, as they pertain to the healthy personality, the present study provides preliminary analysis.
Largely silent about the efflorescence of civilization that has followed the appearance of each Prophet of God, as well as the relationship between the loss of spiritual belief and the deterioration of societal institutions prior to such appearances, the nascent field of psychology has generally examined human behavior without reference to religion, while endeavoring to define mental health within a context of bewilderingly rapid social change. Attempting to address a multitude of mental health problems emerging as a result of the strain on social systems, the breakdown of family values, the evolution of gender roles, and long-standing, neglected racial prejudices and economic inequities, psychology has largely focused on the assessment and treatment of psychopathology in its most serious and debilitating expressions, refraining from comment on mounting evidence of moral bankruptcy and disequilibrium within the larger social context. The task of addressing the person as his or her most bizarre or base self for the purpose of alleviating mental suffering has remained focal and often without reference to the individual’s higher self and transcendent capacities, long recognized by the major religions of the world, and without definition of the true nature of the human being and mental health.
The emphasis placed on purely intrapsychic mechanisms of human functioning and mental illness by certain schools of psychological thought, which may be of undebatable relevance to an understanding of particular individual cases, as well as of a person’s lower nature, is a response to symptoms akin to the medical model, but limited in its conceptualization of a state of psychological health. In keeping with such models of the human being, broader social causes are necessarily outside of the purview of their respective theoretical considerations and therapeutic modalities. However, thorough exploration of and expatiation about instinctual drives cannot negate the existence of a higher nature or the volitional subordination of drives through which it is partially expressed. This must be brought to bear upon definitions of mental health and illness. Indeed, having emerged at what the religion regards as a spiritual low-water mark in human history, drive theory may accurately reflect the ebbing influence of religious faith and practice on human conduct, as well as an adolescent stage of societal development in which the capacity to love and work is shaped by motivations revolving around self- gratification.
Comparison of some of the major definitions of mental health, as found in the corpus of the psychological literature, reveals a diverse, conflicting, and somewhat overlapping body of thought concerning human capacity, development, and potentiality, while expressing divergent opinions concerning social functioning in a complex world. Reflecting both the evolution of thought concerning human nature as refracted through the lens of contemporary societal values, as well as a growing body of research on consciousness, a consensus of opinion has yet to be reached with regard to what constitutes a healthy personality or what might be identified as an optimal psychological condition of the individual in an ongoing process of experiencing an evolving life within a complex milieu. As though grasping different parts of an elephant, theorists point to aspects of human functioning that might be brought to bear on the question of psychological health. A few disparate examples may serve to illustrate the complexity of the task.
Concepts, such as that of hardiness postulated by Kobasa (1981), underscore the presence of personality factors that provide for resilience in the face of adversity, while the work of Taylor (1983) indicated the role of self-deception in the ongoing maintenance of an optimistic, positive sense of self. A large body of empirical research on internal and external locus of control holds implications for the clinical study of depression and its treatment, while current developmental theory includes the study of change throughout the life cycle (Erikson, 1950; Levinson, 1978) that essentially argues against regarding the human being as achieving and maintaining a psychological steady state. Given the vastness of the literature conceivably considered in this connection, an adequate definition of mental health is perhaps no less difficult to devise than one for mental illness.
A growing number of theorists, disinclined to regard psychology as a form of secular religion without salvation, and unwilling to circumscribe their understanding of the individual and the useful application of psychological thought to management of a few instinctual drives within a limited developmental path, have directed their attention to more holistic perspectives of the person and toward understanding of the farther reaches of human nature. While generally lacking in identification of an overarching purpose for existence, as found in the Scriptures of the world’s religions, such theories point to manifold aspects of human potentialities, a trajectory of development that spans the lifetime, a spiritual dimension of the person’s being and realms of consciousness that encourage both self-realization and self-actualization, as well as a heightened sense of social responsibility. Those whose writings address issues concerning the individual’s healthy personality, higher nature, and consciousness include, but are not limited to, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Jung. The concepts of mental health that appear in the writings of these well-known authors appear in the present work, examined with reference to their respective views on religion, as both backdrop to and contrast with a preliminary definition derived from the translated Bahá’í Writings.
Carl Rogers, humanistic psychologist, educator, and researcher, is best-known for his development of client-centered therapy, through which he developed his concept of the fully-functioning person. He regarded the person as having a fundamentally positive nature and directionality of growth, identifying human development as being fostered by the experience of unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence within the context of interrelationship, entailing development of an internal locus of evaluation. His work included his vision of the person of tomorrow.
The work of Abraham Maslow, a humanistic psychologist, provided his concept of the self-actualizing person, identified as the psychologically healthy individual who has raised the self to fullest stature as a human being. Maslow identified the process of self- actualization as one in which the person uncovers potentialities through efforts at a calling or mission, striving toward being-values that reflect a state of perfection. He identified these values as being readily available perceptions within mystical or “peak-experiences”. Maslow further identified the good society as being a necessary matrix for the development of the self-actualized, good person.
The voluminous writings of Carl Jung, a psychoanalytic psychologist, explicated a comprehensive personality theory. His work included detailing his conceptualization of the psyche’s conscious and unconscious components, derived through examination of his own clinical work, as well as through exploration of different religions, cultures, and sciences and classical scholarship. Jung’s concept identified individuation as a process of development of the healthy personality.
From the religious perspective in question, the Bahá’í Faith identifies the person’s essential nature as being fundamentally spiritual and essential reality as being the individual’s thought (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, 1972). Reaffirming earlier religions, the Writings of the Bahá’í Faith indicate that “man” was created in the image and likeness of God, having both mind and spirit as properties of an inherently incomprehensible soul. The Bahá’í concept of the individual affirms capacity to reflect, like a mirror, either divine attributes or satanic qualities. Polishing the mirror of the obscuring dust and dross of worldly desires and imperfections enables the person to display his or her true nature and inherent capacities.
According to the Bahá’í Writings, focus of the mirror on worldly attachments, efforts toward self-aggrandizement and ease, and concern with the satiation of instincts prevent recognition of the human’s essential purpose, obscure knowledge of a “gem-like reality” (Bahá’u’lláh, 1976, p. 72) and unbounded potential, dissipate personal energy, and limit motivation for advancement beyond materialistic and ephemeral interests. Identifying heaven and hell as conditions of proximity to God that exist within the individual, regarding the ego as the animalistic side of the individual’s nature, and recognizing the importance of self-knowledge for personal transformation and the development of spiritual qualities that result from a search for God, the Writings emphasize endeavor and detachment as means of polishing and focusing the mirror. In the Bahá’í perspective, service to humanity is a tool that supplants self-interest while spiritualizing the civilization that influences the person. In keeping with this, to disregard a condition of social disease in the community is tantamount to ignoring gangrene in one’s foot on the basis of its remoteness from one’s head.
As with the theologies of other religions, the Bahá’í Faith identifies the purpose of existence as one of attaining nearness to God, which continues beyond earthly existence in an afterlife. Essentially identifying the world as a workshop, the religion regards human development as inclusive of the growth of spiritual capacities throughout the life-span, in interaction with the social milieu. Parallel to and participant in the advancement of the civilization, it has identified present human capacities as consistent with the developmental stage of adolescence. Maturation of both requires the development of spiritual susceptibilities and transcendent capabilities, in addition to the regulation of impulses, the assumption of responsibility, and the recognition of authority, in keeping with adulthood. Given its conception of salvation as motion, rather than as spiritual homeostasis or a steady state (Hatcher, 1987), and a perspective of divine perfections as infinite, the Bahá’í definition of the healthy personality therefore must necessarily evolve with humanity’s individual and collective reflection of the Absolute in the world of existence.
In advancing an initial concept of mental health as reflecting a condition of development that includes both conscious knowledge and faith, the Writings of the Bahá’í religion are predictive of an evolution of consciousness that is both unitive and universal in nature, and in which the excellence of human reality will be progressively revealed. The Bahá’í principle of independent investigation of truth, the absence of clergy, prohibition of pulpits, and discouragement of blind imitation are but a few elements of the religion that point to the importance of an internal locus of control, in which God is both aim and helper, on a pathway directed toward self-realization and responsible adulthood. Regarding the individual as the “supreme talisman” (Bahá’u’lláh, 1983, p. 259) in need of education to progress, the Writings of the Bahá’í Faith identify the person’s evolving higher nature as fundamental to healthy functioning and essential for the advancement of civilization. The potentiality of divinity in the individual’s nature (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, 1982), a capacity to respond to divine teachings as the “choice Wine” (Bahá’u’lláh, 1992, p. 21) for personal transformation rather than as a set of laws, the ability to utilize prayer and meditation as wings for spiritual ascent and transcendental experience, the option to exercise volition with regard to that which degrades the person’s station, the prerogative of utilizing suffering as impetus to growth, and the capacity to recognize the existence of timeless and placeless realms within the self as evidenced by dreams call into question the adequacy of current definitions of mental health and normal functioning, from which conceptualizations of mental illness derived.
Shoghi Effendi (1984) quoted Bahá’u’lláh, the Prophet of the Bahá’í Faith, as stating that the Revelation represents “an eye to past ages and centuries, and a light to the darkness of the times” (p. 79). The definition of mental health derived from its Writings is not one based upon standards of conformity to what the author referred to as a “tottering civilization” (1974, p. 89) careless of God, but emerges from its identification of the manifold potentialities of the individual’s spiritual reality and from an apprehension of Divine will and purpose for this day. The topic is therefore identified as being of particular clinical relevance to mental health professionals whose provision of services to members of this religion requires grasp of the Bahá’í conceptual framework. Further, in a letter written on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith indicated that “as the world becomes more spiritually minded and scientists understand the true nature of man, more humane and permanent cures for mental diseases will be found” (Hornby, 1988, p. 282). The subject is identified as contributory to the development of paradigms that recognize that the emergence of psychology within a historical context of the ebb and flow of religion has circumscribed its understanding of the true nature of the person, and consequently, the utility of models geared for a humanity in adolescence to address an emerging adulthood.
As previously stated, the following study identifies a preliminary concept of mental health from the translated Scriptures of the Bahá’í religion, giving credence to divine Authority over that of human conceptions, in analysis of germane constructs from three psychological theories that accord to the person a higher nature. Delimitations of the study include restriction of research to the translated, published Bahá’í Writings, as well as the apparent silence of the religion’s teachings concerning particular psychological concepts. Contrast of the Bahá’í teachings with current psychological theories identifies common ground, as well as departures from prevailing concepts that indicate uniqueness, while identifying areas for further study.
The theoretical perspectives of psychologists Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Jung concerning the healthy personality appear in separate chapters. Carl Rogers’ views of human nature and directionality preface an outline of his concept of the fully- functioning person, developed through unconditional positive regard, empathy, congruence, and an internal locus of control. Abraham Maslow’s concept of the self- actualizing person follows presentation of his views on science and religion, given the extent to which the latter shaped his theory, as well as his basic position concerning human motivation and the process of uncovering potentialities, as reflected in being-values experienced in states of transcendence. The process of individuation postulated by Carl Jung follows an outline of his personality theory, including consciousness, the collective unconscious, the ego, instincts, and archetypes, as well as the author’s views concerning sex and religion. Each of the chapters includes a brief treatment of the theorist’s perspective on societal functioning.
The chapters on fully-functioning, self-actualization, and individuation precede a chapter on the Bahá’í concept of spiritual development, primarily drawn from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Examination of this process follows brief sections on major concepts of evolution, human nature, the soul, mind, and spirit, and it precedes a short discussion of spiritual civilization. A chapter that responds to the main formulations presented by the psychologists from a Bahá’í perspective provides further illustration of the religion’s concept of mental health, while suggesting areas for further study identified in the concluding chapter.
Carl Rogers, acclaimed as one of America’s foremost psychologists, is further credited as a prolific writer, educator, and researcher. He is best known for his development of client-centered therapy, which utilizes a phenomenological approach for assisting individuals within the context of psychotherapy. Rogers’ fundamentally positive perspective of human nature and his belief that the human being has an inherent directionality toward growth is in clear evidence in the therapy that he pioneered; as researcher, he was fortified in his views by clinical data obtained from an emerging technology of recording. The basic concepts that Rogers originally identified as critical to successful therapy he later identified as having broader application to human relationships and personal growth, including education, encounter groups, management, conflict resolution, and international affairs.
Jourard attributed Rogers’ greatness not to the development of techniques, research, or theory, but to “his conquest of the upbringing that would limit his growth” (Jourard, 1974, p. 346). In his text on the healthy personality, he further identified Rogers as a model for the development of authentic relationships, noting consistency between his beliefs and his actions, as well as citing the author’s critical views concerning group experience and education as a matter of a “therapist ‘gone prophet’” (Jourard, 1974, p. 347) for the good of others. Rogers’ impetus was not that of self-aggrandizement, but of fostering healing and self-direction, as a mature, psychologically-trained person-in-process.
Prior to his study of psychology, Rogers engaged in formal theological education as preparation for a career in religious work. After two years in a seminary, Rogers recognized that he could not remain in a field that required him to endorse a particular religious doctrine or circumscribed his own freedom of thought. He later related that through examination of his own questions, he thought his way out of the seminary (Rogers, 1989f). Ultimately, Rogers identified himself as an agnostic, while retaining a serious interest in theological questions and discussions, including human nature, values, and the concept of evil (Kirschenbaum and Henderson, 1989a, 1989b; Kirschenbaum, 1979). A growing interest in the nature of reality, existential issues, and social problems appears to be reflected in his evolving work.
Personality Theory
In the 1950's, Rogers outlined his early conceptualization of human personality in a major work on client-centered therapy, formulating nineteen propositions derived from his clinical experiences. In so doing, he acknowledged the contributions to his thinking made by numerous authors. To outline briefly his theory, the following represents a paraphrased condensation of the propositions (Rogers, 1951, pp. 481-533).
The individual exists in a world of experience, or phenomenal field, identifying it as reality and reacting to it as an organized whole. The organism has the tendency to actualize, maintain, and enhance itself, resulting in goal-directed behavior attended by emotions commensurate with the perceived significance of the activity. Understanding of the behavior is best reached through grasp of the internal frame of reference of the individual. Gradually, a portion of the perceptual field becomes differentiated as the self, through evaluation of others and interaction in the environment; the self is organized and fluid. Both through experience and introjection, values are experienced by the organism; in some instances, values are distorted. Experiences of the individual are either symbolized, perceived, and organized into a relationship with the self, ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self-structure, or denied accurate symbolization due to inconsistency with the self.
Most of the individual’s behaviors are consistent with his or her concept of self; however, behavior may be brought about by experiences and needs that have not been symbolized. Psychological maladjustment occurs when the individual denies to awareness sensory and visceral experiences consequently not symbolized and organized into the gestalt of the self-structure. Experiences that are inconsistent with the organization or structure of the self may be perceived as a threat; in the absence of perceived threat, the structure of the self is revised to include the experiences. The individual is more understanding of others when able to perceive and accept all sensory and visceral experiences. The process of perception and acceptance includes replacement of the introjected value system with a continuing organismic valuing process.
Although Rogers wrote a second piece on his theory of personality during that decade, his later works reflected an evolving view that placed increased emphasis upon the person as a process; he attributed his disinclination to elaborate on his theory further to a lack of interest in personality as a structure shaped by the past (Rogers, 1961, 1989a). Further, Rogers did not identify specific developmental stages occurring during the human life- span, but conceptualized the human being as an individual in an ongoing process of becoming, within a life that is evolving in a fluid manner. Writing of himself and others within the context of therapy, Rogers (1961) expressed the following perspective in his characteristically personal style:
Life, at its best, is a flowing, changing process in which nothing is fixed. In my clients and in myself I find that when life is at its richest and most rewarding it is a flowing process. To experience this is both fascinating and a little frightening. I find that I am at my best when I can let the flow of my experience carry me, in a direction which appears to be forward, toward goals of which I am dimly aware. In thus floating with the complex stream of my experiencing, and in trying to understand its ever-changing complexity, it should be evident that there are no fixed points. When I am thus able to be in process, it is clear that there can be no closed system of beliefs, no unchanging set of principles which I hold. Life is guided by a changing understanding of and understanding of my experience. It is always in process of becoming. (p. 27)
Human Nature
In one of his early statements about human nature, largely derived from his experiences in therapy, Rogers indicated that he did not identify the person as a tabula rosa on which anything could be written, nor did he posit that the individual is totally malleable; rather, he believed that members of the human species have inherent characteristics described by the terms “positive, forward-moving, constructive, realistic, trustworthy” (Rogers, 1989c, p. 403). The author noted in this connection the valuing process of the infant, who expresses actualizing preferences from birth (Rogers, 1989g). Rogers denied having a Pollyanna view of human nature, acknowledging that defensiveness and fear can provoke individuals to maliciousness, destructiveness, and anti-social behavior. The author’s perspective, as quoted by his biographer (Kirschenbaum, 1979), is largely expressed as follows:
My experience is that he is a basically trustworthy member of the human species, whose deepest characteristics tend toward development, differentiation, cooperative relationships; whose life tends fundamentally to move from dependence to independence; whose impulses tend naturally to harmonize into a complex and changing pattern of self-regulation; whose total character is such as to tend to preserve and enhance himself and his species, and perhaps to move it toward its further evolution. In my experience, to discover that an individual is truly and deeply a unique member of the human species is not a discovery to excite horror. Rather I am inclined to believe that fully to be a human being is to enter into the complex process of being one of the most widely sensitive, responsive, creative and adaptive creatures on this planet. (p. 250)
Rogers clearly believed that the therapist expresses a view of human nature and value orientation within the context of therapy. In this connection, he regarded Freud’s emphasis on aggressive and sexual impulses as having left him with a dark and superficial view of human nature. The author did not view individuals as being dominated by id impulses, nor did he characterize people by terms such as “fundamentally hostile, antisocial, destructive” (Rogers, 1989c, p. 403). Of human nature, Rogers (1989c) stated:
I have little sympathy with the rather prevalent concept that man is basically irrational, and that his impulses, if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and self. Man’s behavior is exquisitely rational, moving with subtle and ordered complexity toward the goals his organism is endeavoring to achieve. The tragedy for most of us is that our defenses keep us from being aware of this rationality, so that consciously we are moving in one direction, while organismically we are moving in another. But in our person who is living the process of the good life there would be a decreasing number of such barriers, and he would be increasingly a participant in the rationality of his organism. The only control of impulses which would exist or which would prove necessary is the natural and internal balancing of one need against another, and the discovery of behaviors which follow the vector most closely approximating the satisfaction of all needs. (p. 406)
In an exchange of letters with existential psychologist Rollo May, Rogers indicated that he did not believe that human nature includes an inherently evil element, but rather, that cultural influences are the major factor in negative behavioral expressions (Rogers, 1989d). Consistent with his view that humans are by nature social beings, Rogers (1989d) further stated that “In a psychological climate which is nurturant of growth and choice, I have never known an individual to choose the cruel or destructive path. Choice always seems to be in the direction of greater socialization, improved relationships with others” (p. 218). The author clearly placed emphasis on the nature of the environment as critical to the expression of the true nature of the individual, which does not have a condition of depravity at its core. Identifying the person as moving toward wholeness and integration, Rogers (1989a) wrote:
When [man] is most fully man, when he is his complete organism, when awareness of experience, that peculiarly human attribute, is most fully operating, then he is to be trusted, then his behavior is constructive. It is not always conventional. It will not always be conforming. It will be individualized. But it will also be socialized. (p. 27)
Fully-Functioning
In his theory of personality as well as in his view of human nature, Rogers identified the person as having an inherent tendency toward psychological growth, rather than conceptualizing an ultimate, optimum condition of homeostasis. This basic concept is pivotal to both Rogers’ perspective of the healthy personality, as well as to the facilitation of its development in therapy and during the course of daily human interactions. Concerning what would come to be identified as “the growth hypothesis” Rogers (1989a) stated:
in most if not all individuals there exist growth forces, tendencies toward self- actualization, which may act as the sole motivation for therapy....The individual has the capacity and the strength to devise, quite unaided, the steps which will lead him to a more mature and more comfortable relationship to his reality. (p. 26)
Human growth as an intrinsic aspect of the person throughout his or her life cycle is but one component of the healthy personality. Rogers identified this as largely occurring in a socially interactive process; in therapy, the characteristics of the therapist of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathy internalized by the client are integral to the process of unfolding. Quoting Kierkegaard, Rogers (1961) referred to this development of potentiality as becoming “the self which one truly is” (p. 166), through which the good life evolves. Further, having emphasized a basic trust in human nature and an inherently positive directionality, Rogers indicated that the process entails the development of an internal locus of evaluation, in which organisms connect with their own feelings and bodily sensations concerning relevant circumstances and respond to and from a fuller perceptual field. With regard to self-actualization, Rogers underscored the presence of external stimulation as an important element for learning and development (Frick, 1971).
Congruence
Rogers defined congruence as a condition of genuineness or realness in the therapist that facilitates the process of the client. As such, it is a state of relating in which the therapist does not function from behind a mask of professionalism or persona, for the purpose of fostering a similar condition of authenticity in the client. As previously stated, Rogers’ phenomenological field-approach to the person accurately symbolizes the experience of the individual, for incorporation into the self-concept.
Of particular note regarding the concept of congruence as it pertains to the therapeutic relationship and other social interactions, such as those between parent and child or teacher and student, is the extent to which the author regarded the condition as indicative of the psychological health and adjustment of the individual. During an interview with Willard Frick (1971), Rogers stated:
if the individual is experiencing something in his organism, if he’s aware of it in himself and acceptant enough of that experiencing that he even would be able to express it if the situation was appropriate for it, then I think I would say that he is in as great a degree of psychological health as his organism would permit at that moment....I think the more an individual is fully aware of what’s going on within him at that point, the more he is making as healthy a reaction to that situation as is possible. (p. 92)
Elsewhere, Rogers (1989e) identified optimal psychological health as being synonymous with congruence of self and experience, but did not regard congruence as a steady state, as the ongoing change in experience necessitates a continually altering awareness.
Unconditional Positive Regard
Rogers identified the unconditional positive regard of the client, an acceptant and non- judgmental attitude toward the person, as important to a process of positive psychological development. His basic orientation prizes the individual and recognizes that conditions of worth set by early caregivers and significant others may have disinclined self-acceptance and promoted an unnecessarily defensive posture, while encouraging non-accepting attitudes toward others. Rogers likened unconditional positive regard to the theological concept of agape, a non-possessive caring for the person as a separate individual, noting that treating others as objects is not helpful (Rogers, 1989b).
Empathy
The empathic understanding of the client by the therapist is the third condition that fosters psychological maturity. Rogers (1980) defined empathy as follows:
The state of empathy, or being empathic, is to perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without ever losing the “as if” condition. Thus it means to sense the hurt or the pleasure of another as he senses it and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth. If this “as if” quality is lost, then the state is one of identification (pp. 140-141)
Rogers stated that this capacity enables the other person more freely to experience his or her own feelings and perceptions (1989a); through greater understanding and acceptance, the self becomes more congruent with experience. Moreover, the author linked increased openness and acceptance of personal experience to that of acceptance of the experience of others (Rogers, 1961).
Internal Locus of Evaluation
Rogers clearly identified the process of becoming a fully-functioning person with that of development of an internal locus of evaluation. He hypothesized that through enhanced awareness and acceptance of the self, including bodily sensations and feelings, there would be a reduction of the individual’s need to utilize defenses that distort perception. In this connection, Rogers postulated that individuals would engage in an increased examination of values of others introjected in an effort to gain love and approval that function to keep them in an unhealthy state of incongruence. Further, in keeping with his fundamental trust in the individual, Rogers’ therapy recognizes that clients are best able to choose constructive personal goals and indicate their own direction, on a course directed toward psychological maturity and independence.
The author viewed the process toward becoming a fully-functioning person as one in which the person recognizes that the evaluations of others are not a guide and that the center of responsibility is within oneself. Rogers (1961) stated:
Another trend which is evident in the process of becoming a person relates to the source or locus of choices and evaluations. The individual comes to increasingly feel that this locus of evaluation lies within himself. Less and less does he look to others for approval or disapproval; for standards to live by; for decisions and choices. He recognizes that it rests within him to choose; that the only question which matters is, “Am I living in a way which is deeply satisfying to me, and which truly expresses me?” (p. 119)
In keeping with this, he believed that the inherent nature of the fully-functioning person would supply personal values that would change in the light of ongoing experience, enhanced perception, and self-awareness.
Rogers noted the state of contradiction in current values and expressed doubt that universal values could occur in modern-day society. Rather, he believed that mature individuals themselves would value and choose that which would promote the survival, growth, and development of themselves and that of others. In this connection, Rogers (1989g) identified the psychologically mature person as being in a process of becoming “a worthy participant and guide in the process of human evolution” (p. 283). The author further stated:
Instead of universal values “out there”, or a universal value system imposed by some group--philosophers, rulers, or priests--we have the possibility of universal human value directions merging from the experiencing of the human organism. Evidence from therapy indicates that both personal and social values emerge as natural, and experienced, when the individual is close to his own organismic valuing process. The suggestion is that though modern man no longer trusts religion or science or philosophy or any system of beliefs to give him his values, he may find an organismic valuing base within himself, which, if he can learn again to be in touch with it, will prove to be an organized, adaptive, and social approach to the perplexing value issues which face all of us. (p. 184)
The Person of Tomorrow
For the fully-functioning person, the good life is a constructive process of movement toward responsible, self-directed goals. Commenting about what the good life is not, Rogers (1961) wrote:
It seems to me that the good life is not any fixed state. It is not, in my estimation, a state of virtue, or contentment, nirvana, or happiness. It is not a condition in which the individual is adjusted, or fulfilled, or actualized. To use psychological terms, it is not a state of drive-reduction, or tension-reduction, or homeostasis. (p. 186)
Rogers (1961) identified the general qualities of an increasing openness to experience, a growing tendency toward existential living, and a developing trust in one’s organism as part of the process of functioning more fully, in keeping with his definition of the healthy personality. These qualities are among those that the author attributed to the person of tomorrow, having recognized the present rapid change in society.
Rogers (1980) regarded the world as being in a transformational crisis, having potential future scenarios including nuclear war, development of technology to the extreme of separation from the natural world, and development of human potentialities leading to drastic social change. With regard to the last, he believed that the following additional characteristics would enable a person to live in a revolutionized world: caring, desire for authenticity, skepticism regarding science and technology, desire for wholeness, wish for intimacy, closeness to nature, antipathy for bureaucracy, indifference to material comforts and rewards, and yearning for the spiritual (Rogers, 1980). Of the future and the person of tomorrow, Rogers (1980) stated:
The reason for my optimism lies in the persistent development and flowering of all of the changes in scientific, social, and personal perspectives....The persons of tomorrow are the very ones who are capable of understanding that paradigm shift. They will be the ones capable of living in this new world, the outlines of which are still only dimly visible. But unless we blow ourselves up, that new world is inevitably coming, transforming our culture. This new world will be more human and humane. It will explore and develop the richness and capacities of the human mind and spirit. It will produce individuals who are more integrated and whole. It will be a world which prizes the individual person-- the greatest of our resources. It will be a more natural world, with a renewed love and respect for nature. It will develop a more human science, based on new and less rigid concepts. Its technology will be aimed at enhancing, rather than the exploitation, of persons and nature. It will release creativity as individuals sense their power, their capacities, their freedom. (pp. 355-356)
It would appear that through a basic orientation to
the self as a process, openness to experience, and
an internal locus of control, Rogers’ fully-functioning
person, having an essentially positive nature,
directionality, and sociability, would be more capable
of adapting to a rapidly evolving society and of becoming
the person of tomorrow.
Abraham Maslow, generally regarded as a father of third force or humanistic psychology, developed his concept of the healthy personality within a career trajectory that examined both animal and human behavior, explored issues pertaining to science and religion, questioned human motivation and values, probed minority and gender issues, and proffered concepts and schemes for a good society. While initially building his motivational theories upon a psychoanalytic foundation, as indicated in the preface of Motivation and Personality (1970a), Maslow later made substantial revisions reflecting an evolution in his thinking about human nature. As noted in his journal, he identified his own work as a system “that is not a contradiction of Freudian clinical findings but assimilates them, builds upon them, sometimes transforming them” (Maslow, 1979,
p. 201); the author further indicated that he did not regard Freud’s philosophy of humanity as being consistent with the goal of integration implied by the latter’s therapy.
Dissatisfied with the usage of “health” and “illness” as normative words having connotations of social approval and disapproval, Maslow chose to regard his work as a psychology of being and becoming that regarded the healthy personality as the self- actualized person (Maslow, 1970a, 1979). Although he clearly identified an understanding of psychopathology and pathogenesis as important to a grasp of human functioning, he did not believe that an accurate conception of true nature of a human being could derive from examination of the various mental illnesses to which the person is subject. Further, while not dismissing the instinctive drives set forward in classical psychoanalysis, and while regarding it as necessary to have a foundation upon which to build an upper floor, Maslow developed a conceptualization of the person in which he gave credence to the positive aspects of both the lower and higher nature, arguing for the potential existence of a cooperative relationship between the expressive facets of his or her being (Maslow, 1970a; 1979). To simplify his perspective, Maslow stated that “Freud supplied to us the sick half of psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy half” (Maslow, 1968b, p. 5). It was to the study of the fully-functioning person, including his or her needs, values, and experiences of transcendence, that Maslow dedicated most of his efforts.
In his journals, Maslow clearly identified himself as both a Utopian and an atheist (Maslow, 1979); his beliefs in the human’s capacity to shape the society in which he or she lives, as well as in the absence of what he regarded as supernatural influences, manifested in his image of the individual. The author’s conviction was that both science and religion require redefinition; he noted that each has been too narrowly conceived, dichotomized, and placed in separate worlds to the detriment of both (Maslow, 1966b; 1970b). His perspective of each is germane to adequate understanding of the self- actualized person.
Briefly stated, Maslow’s objection to the current definition of science was that its efforts to be value-free in the name of scientific objectivity have resulted in its having “mistakenly conceived of itself as having nothing to say about ends or ultimate values or spiritual values” (Maslow, 1970b, p. 11), relegating the field to a crippled role of amoral technology. Further, in his examination of the psychology of science, he noted that the study of the higher psychological processes of the person does not fit neatly into existing scientific procedures and schemas for acquiring reliable knowledge. The very predictability toward which science strives denies individual autonomy, while ignoring the extent to which such a condition commonly indicates the existence of severe pathology. Further, the desacralizing of science has resulted in “the banishment of all the experiences of transcendence from the realm of the respectably known and the respectably knowable” (Maslow, 1966b, p. 121).
In illustration of the foregoing, Maslow pointed out that self-actualizing people redefine words such as knowledge, determinism, truth, and control into both higher and lower meanings (Maslow, 1965). In keeping with this and arguing for a more inclusive and humanistic science, he examined the concept of control within the broader realm of human experience and identified it as potentially synergic with impulse, in which the goal of self-knowledge and inner-determination is closer to freedom than to suppressive self- control (Maslow, 1966b); he further noted that self-knowledge decreases external controls while increasing internal control, identifying surrender to the real self as entailing a transcendence of the dichotomies of freedom and determinism, which the present model of science does not address. Although identifying scientific work as a potential path to self- actualization, he pointed out that it can serve as a defense, and while “a kind of bomb- shelter against the vicissitudes of living among people” (Maslow, 1965, p. 222), it would “be tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail” (Maslow, 1966b, p. 16). His own mode of inquiry was essentially phenomenological.
Maslow’s atheism did not preclude his identifying the potentially positive impetus of religion, or his giving credence to the higher nature of the human being. In his journals, he expressed desire to “save everything worth saving in religion, everything real and true” (Maslow, 1979, p. 6). Differentiating between those plated with piety and those alloyed with it, he decried ceremonies and lighting candles, along with other historical accretions (Maslow, 1979), having observed that being religious in “only one part of life served to secularize the rest of it” (Maslow, 1970b, p. 31). In his early work, Maslow identified traditional value systems as failures and argued for a new system to believe in because the values are true, rather than due to exhortations to “believe and have faith” (Maslow, 1959, p. viii). His later writings extensively expressed his views on values of being, or B-values, to which he ascribed numerous definitions including “the far goals and the expression of some kinds of religion; the characteristics of the ideally good environment and of the ideally good society” (Maslow, 1962b, p. 54). Maslow did not believe that such values are the rightful property of churches or that the individual could rely on tradition or cultural habit to determine them; rather, he regarded these values as being rooted in human nature.
Contending that dichotomizing pathologizes and pathology dichotomizes, the author noted that the separation between science and religion significantly limited both and stated that the “splitting off of mutually exclusive jurisdictions must produce cripple-science and cripple-religion, cripple-facts and cripple-values” (Maslow, 1970b, p. 17). He believed that an expanded science should carefully examine core-religious or transcendent experiences, given the seeming antagonism of the churches to the very experiences upon which they were originally based. Maslow’s non-theistic views were necessarily ones that, likening the transcendent experiences of the person to that of the prophets, did not regard the latter as functioning as an intermediary between individual and God, for the purpose of transmission of a covenant and divine guidance. Rather, he believed that religion is dead (Maslow, 1979) and that identification of the most fully-functioning, self-actualized individuals would provide models for the further development of mankind (Maslow, 1970a).
In his conceptualization of human health and sickness, Maslow’s basic assumptions were that the individual has an essentially unchangeable inner nature, part of which is species-wide and part of which is unique to the person (Maslow, 1968b). It was his contention that this inner nature is not intrinsically evil, but that it is neutral or good, and further, that human happiness emerges from its growth, while illness results from its repression or suppression (Maslow, 1968b). In essence, he believed that human nature has been sold short, and that experiences of deprivation, frustration, tragedy, and pain are ones through which the development of the person’s inner nature is both facilitated and fulfilled. Maslow did not deny that growth and improvement can emerge from experience of pain and conflict; rather, his more existential perspective inclined him to borrow the term “accidie” from theology to describe the individual’s failure to do with one’s life all that he or she is capable of doing and becoming (Maslow, 1968b), while his explication of the “Jonah complex” (Maslow, 1973, p. 35) recognized the existential anxiety associated with meeting the call to one’s own greatness. Of human development, he (1972) stated:
Human life will never be understood unless its highest aspirations are taken into account. Growth, self-actualization, the striving toward health, the quest for identity and autonomy, the yearning for excellence (and other ways of phrasing the striving “upward”) must now be accepted beyond question as a widespread and perhaps universal tendency. And yet there are also other regressive, fearful, self-diminishing tendencies as well, and it is very easy to forget them in our intoxications with “personal growth”....We must appreciate that many people choose the worse rather than the better, that growth is often a painful process and may for this reason be shunned, that we are afraid of our own best possibilities in addition to loving them, and that we are all of us profoundly ambivalent about truth, beauty, virtue, loving them and fearing them too (pp. 12-3).
Self-Actualization
Self-actualization, a term first used by Kurt Goldstein, is one that Maslow adopted to define the experiential life process of the individual who has met basic needs (e.g., physical, safety, love, belonging, esteem), also termed deficiency needs or D-needs, and whose subsequent focus has turned to developing innate potentialities and becoming “fully human” (Maslow, 1970a, p. 95). The author viewed the D-needs as ones that take precedence over the higher B-needs, identifying humanity as essentially developing in a linear process. Although he indicated that this development is a general trend, Maslow did not exclude the possibility that individuals whose D-needs have not been met may actually aspire to higher needs (Maslow, 1973); however, the author generally regarded human needs as being addressed in a hierarchical manner, with the frustration of the lower needs resulting in the development of the psychopathologies that current psychoanalytic psychologists both describe and address. Maslow’s investigations were confined to older individuals, and he disclaimed knowledge of what self-actualization might mean in other cultures (Maslow, 1973).
According to Maslow, the process of self-actualization is one in which the individual is able to turn to his or her intrinsic nature and capacities, identify strengths and interests, and further his or her own development within both intrapersonal and interpersonal contexts. He placed emphasis on self-actualization as making real what the person actually is, albeit in potential form; it is a process of intrinsic growth not motivated by deficiency or D-needs (Maslow, 1970a). This process emerges as a result of involvement “in a cause outside their own skin, in something outside of themselves” (Maslow, 1973, p. 43) through which the individual develops his or her potentialities. Maslow further stated that the trajectory of the self-actualizing person is directed toward the B-values and that for these individuals, “motivation is just character growth, character expression, maturation and development” (Maslow, 1970a, p. 159).
As outlined by Jourard (1974), some of the traits characterizing the self-actualizing person include, but are not limited to, the following: a more adequate perception of and comfortable relations with reality; a high degree of acceptance of themselves, of others, and of the realities of human nature; spontaneity; problem-centeredness rather than ego- centeredness; a need for privacy; a high degree of autonomy; a continued freshness of appreciation of the goods of life; frequent mystical experiences; Gemeinschaftsgefühl or feeling of belonging to all mankind; close relationships with a few friends or loved ones; democratic character structures; unhostile senses of humor; a strong ethical sense; creativity; and a resistance to enculturation that permits perceptions of cultural inconsistencies and unfairness.
Being-Values and Needs
Maslow generally identified fourteen B-values toward which the self-actualizing person strives, although he acknowledged in his journal that there may be a greater number (Maslow, 1979). It was his view that preference for the B-values increases with the psychological health of the chooser, as well as with the synergy of the environment (Maslow, 1973). Further, the B-values are descriptions of the world perceived in mystical or peak experiences, a unitive consciousness that includes the self. Maslow stated that peak experiences could meaningfully replace “the immature concepts in which Heaven is like a country club in some specific place, perhaps above the clouds” (Maslow, 1962a, p. 18). Within such experiences, where B-values are perceptions of aspects of reality, the cognizer is without need to “desacralize as a defense” (Maslow, 1965, p. 223) against emotions of humility, wonder, and awe.
The B-values that the author identified were as follows: truth; goodness; beauty; wholeness; dichotomy-transcendence; aliveness; uniqueness; perfection; necessity; completion; justice; order; simplicity; richness; effortlessness; playfulness; and self- sufficiency. As previously stated, Maslow indicated that the B-values are “attributes or characteristics of the deepest, most essential, most intrinsic human nature” (Maslow, 1973, p. 139). As such, the B-values are characteristics of perfection and the ends of life, that may be defined in terms of each other (Maslow, 1979, 1963, 1970b).
According to Maslow, the B-values behave like needs, which he termed “meta-needs” (Bugental, 1967, p. 281). Just as deprivation and frustration of the D-needs breed psychopathology, the author postulated that deprivation of the meta-needs creates meta- pathologies, “the sicknesses of the soul which come, for example, from living among liars all the time and not trusting anyone” (Bugental, 1967, p. 281), elsewhere noting that these pathologies have been variously referred to as “spiritual, philosophical or existential ailments” (Maslow, 1969, p. 733). Maslow believed that the deprivation of such qualities as justice, truth, order, and goodness causes higher illnesses than neuroses, which result from deprivation of basic needs for security, love, and self-esteem (Maslow, 1966a, p. 112). For example, potential metapathologies emerging from injustice include insecurity, anger, cynicism, mistrust, lawlessness, a jungle world-view, and total selfishness (Maslow, 1969).
Maslow regarded human needs as biologically based, or “instinctoid”, arguing that the absence of such an instinct in an animal is not proof of its noninstinctive nature in a human being (Maslow, 1970a). He believed that error overemphasizes humanity’s continuity with the animal world, largely caused by an underemphasis on the enormous differences between the human species and others. Maslow also identified hostility and aggression as being primarily reactive or defensive, rather than instinctive (Maslow, 1970a). In this connection, he noted a marked change in the quality of aggression as one moves from psychological immaturity toward self-actualization. Meanness or cruelty found in undeveloped, neurotic, or immature individuals changes into “righteous indignation and self-affirmation, resistance to exploitation and domination, passion for justice, etc.” (Maslow, 1968a, p. 147) in the psychologically healthy person. He suggested that one aspect of psychopathology in individuals might be found in the absence of righteous indignation in response to evil (Maslow, 1963). He later wrote that “it seems quite clear that personality problems may sometimes be loud protests against the crushing of one’s psychological bones, of one’s true inner nature” (Maslow, 1968, p. 8).
The lower and higher needs Maslow identified as having a hierarchy, based on what he termed “the principle of relative potency” (Maslow, 1970a, p. 97). Attributing the following characteristics to the higher needs, the author clearly indicated the relatively greater strength of physiological and safety needs compared to those of love, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow, 1970a). Maslow regarded the higher needs as reflecting a later evolutionary and ontogenetic development, less important for survival and less subjectively urgent while more gratifying.
His schema identified higher needs as functioning at a higher level of biological efficiency, given the potentially adverse somatic consequences of psychopathology. The pursuit of these needs he saw as a healthy trend. Maslow contended that higher needs have more preconditions due to the existence of lower needs, and further, that better environmental conditions are required for their fulfillment. He believed that those who have experienced the satisfaction of both needs will prefer satisfaction of the higher need, despite deprivation and sacrifice, and that there is a greater degree of love identification at a higher need level, in which the other’s need becomes one’s own. Having contended that the motivation of the individual toward the acquisition of B-values and his or her identification with the highest values in the outer world result in a transcendence of the distinction between the self and not-self (Maslow, 1969), Maslow regarded the pursuit of higher needs to have positive social consequences, while leading to greater individualism and self-actualization.
The Good Society
While in agreement with Aristotle that a good life requires living in accordance with the individual’s true nature, Maslow (1970a) argued that Aristotle simply did not know enough about it to prevent him from developing a static conception, deriving incorrect inferences from a society that condoned slavery. Contrasting Aristotelian theory and modern conceptions, Maslow stated that the essential difference rests not only with the present greater understanding of the person, but in a fuller appreciation of his or her potentialities. He regarded psychological Utopia, in which all are psychologically healthy, as one that would “tend to be more Taoistic, nonintrusive, and basic need-gratifying” (Maslow, 1970a, p. 278). He envisioned a less controlling environment in which healthy individuals are able to exercise more freedom of choice, in keeping with his conviction that the person’s true nature would incline him or her toward self-actualization.
Noting that a good environment fosters good personalities, and identifying the better culture as one that both gratifies basic needs and permits self-actualization (Maslow, 1968), Maslow further stated that “the definition of good environment has to change markedly to stress spiritual and psychological as well as material and economic forces” (Maslow, 1970a, p. 279). Defining the self-actualizing person as the Good Person and identifying the Good Society as “ultimately one species, one world” (Maslow, 1973, p. 19), he argued that it is impossible to achieve one without the other, noting the existence of a feedback loop between them. Similarly, his journals reflected his belief that the process of individual betterment has to occur in tandem with societal betterment (Maslow, 1979).
Consistently identifying the B-value of the transcendence of dichotomies, and drawing on a social concept developed by Ruth Benedict, Maslow examined the application of the principle of synergy to the interaction of the individual and society. He (1964) stated:
Those societies have high synergy in which the social institutions are set up so as to transcend the polarity between selfishness and unselfishness, between self-interest and altruism, in which the person who is simply being selfish necessarily benefits other people, and in which the person who tries to be beneficial to others necessarily reaps rewards for himself. The society with high synergy is one in which virtue pays (Maslow, p. 156).
The individual in a high synergy society is markedly different from the psychologically insecure authoritarian personality, whose jungle world-view results in a misperception that there is constant threat from the prospect of being eaten and consequent aggressive response to ward off the possibility, furthering a process in which kindness is misidentified as weakness and existence degenerates into a zero-sum game of exploitation revolving around security needs (Maslow, 1943). Rather, with regard to functioning within society, the self-actualizing person has both a democratic character structure and Gemeinschaftsgefühl; through these and other B-values, there is a fusion between the desires for what is good for the self and for what is good for others (Maslow, 1964).
Dedication........................................... i Acknowledgments..................................... ii Abstract............................................. 1 Introduction......................................... 2 Carl Rogers: Fully-Functioning...................... 13 Abraham Maslow: Self-Actualization.................. 25 Carl Jung: Individuation............................ 37 Baha'i Spiritual Development.........................51 The Baha'i Faith: In Response to the Psychologists.. 67 Conclusion.......................................... 88 References.......................................... 94
|