The following is a position paper that I prepared for the OS2 (Old Saybrook 2) Conference that took place at the University of West Georgia, USA, 11 – 14th  May, in 2000.
 © Dave Hiles 2000 


Defining the Paradigm of Humanistic-Existential Psychology

Dave Hiles
(Psychology Department, De Montfort University, Leicester. LE1 9BH. UK.)
(Email:    drhiles@dmu.ac.uk  )

 

Introduction

The field of Humanistic-Existential psychology has played an important role in the intellectual history of Western psychology. It has drawn attention to many crucial issues that the discipline  had all but ignored during the first half of the last century. And in response, psychology has grown to include the study of human lived experience and the exploration of practices for promoting human growth and potential. There also has been recognition of the importance of recent developments in Western philosophical thought, that the rest of psychology has either found an embarrassment, or to which it has chosen simply to turn a blind eye. Important challenges to scientism have been made, and the relevance of a human science approach to psychology has been demonstrated. These are major achievements. And yet, especially in the UK, the field enjoys still only a low academic status. I view the discipline, in which I was trained, sometimes with despair. Psychology ignores at its peril the content, the philosophical issues and the methodological approaches that the humanistic movement has embraced.  

The argument I want to make here is an attempt to reconcile both my passionate commitment to the vision of Humanistic-Existential psychology and what is a widely held concern for its lack of  recognition and progress. While it is inevitable that any emerging field will define itself through criticism of other approaches (Aanstoos, 1994; Moss, 1999a), the coherent identity of this new field will depend largely upon the success with which it is able to define itself and establish its core concerns and values. In the case of Humanistic-Existential psychology this has two chief components: (i) the need to define and redefine the underlying paradigm that unifies the field, and (ii) the need to select and refine the appropriate research methodologies. Much has been written about both of these, and while I do not want to underestimate the importance of tackling the methodological issues, I do want to argue that these are secondary to the issue of defining the paradigm. This is basically the same position that Donald Polkinghorne has taken when he argued that what makes research humanistic is not its research methods, but the particular perspective (i.e. the paradigm) it adopts towards human behaviour and experience (Polkinghorne, 1982). What is offered here is a way of defining the paradigm around five core themes, expressed as simple questions.
 

Reinventing Humanistic-Existential psychology
The discipline of psychology seems to be forever reinventing itself. What I mean by this is that new ideas and developments come along, only to be identified later as having been anticipated, and sometimes very well worked out in the work of the pioneers of the discipline, such as William James, Wilhelm Wundt and Wilhelm Dilthey, etc. This may very well be due to the nature of human knowledge itself. In all disciplines, theories and ideas go into decline, they get forgotten, only to be rediscovered at some later point in history, often in ignorance of the earlier  versions of the same theories and ideas. 

Although I do not believe that the ideas and findings of Humanistic-Existential psychology have as yet been forgotten, what I do believe is that if they were forgotten then they would certainly need to be reinvented. That the field is in decline is illustrated well by the following estimate of the current state of the field taken from the entry in the Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology (Sutherland, 1989):- 

humanistic psychology. The doctrine that psychologists should concentrate on conscious processes, particularly emotional ones, and should encourage others to be autonomous and to seek personal growth. Many humanistic psychologists hold the optimistic belief that all men are naturally good and only need the right environment to develop their potential. Humanistic psychology was fed by the cult of irrationalism prevalent in the USA in the 1960s. The cult is now receding and so is it. 

Notwithstanding the sexist and opinionated language, and the flippant and dismissive tone, this definition offers a worrying position. It does demonstrate the confused reputation that the field has gained in the eyes of those not directly involved. The overall message conveyed is that the humanistic movement, notable for its identification as the third force in psychology, and in turn instrumental in giving rise to a fourth force (Transpersonal psychology), enjoyed a high profile during the 60's and 70's, but has now rather waned in popularity and influence, at least from an academic perspective. 

A cursory glance at encyclopaedia and dictionaries of psychology, publisher's catalogues, bookshops, professional and international conference programmes, could lead to the impression that the field is practically non-existent. Introductory textbooks usually, but not always, mention the field, albeit not very thoroughly. In some later editions of these texts there has even been the  tendency to rename the field as phenomenological psychology, and in one instance I found the entire field renamed counselling psychology. In Frederick Wertz's recent study of textbooks offering a history of psychology, a similar pattern emerges, with third force psychology frequently being given little more than only a marginal status (Wertz, 1994).  

While it may be true that much of the criticism that has originated from outside the field is often unfair, it is also true that the field does seem to have lost its identity, and has become fragmented and sometimes rather superficial. Re-inventing the field need not wait for it to be forgotten, although there is the suggestion of a pressing need to re-invent the field now in the light of social constructionist and postmodern perspectives. What does seem to be very clear is that many of the ideas and influences that did inspire the growth of the movement still remain as relevant and inspiring as they ever were. And perhaps the disturbing fragmentation, to be seen in the current state of the field, may reflect as much its success as its demise.
 

Ideas and influences that inspired the field
The story is that the humanistic psychology movement grew out of a mailing list, kept by Abraham Maslow in the early 50's, of psychologists who were disillusioned with the then current climate in psychology. Maslow had taken up the chair of the new psychology department at Brandeis University in 1951. He published his landmark, Motivation and Personality, in 1954. From the attention it received he was able to compile a list of like-minded psychologists who were discontented with the theory and methods of the dominant behavioural approach, and who saw in the psychodynamic approach an overly deterministic and negative view of humanity. The individuals on this list became the first subscribers and contributors to the Journal of Humanistic Psychology (1st  issue: Spring, 1961), and the first members of the American Association of Humanistic Psychology (AAHP), which held its founding meeting in Philadelphia, in the summer of 1963. The UK association began in 1969 (for a useful summary of the development of the humanistic movement in the UK and Europe, see Rowan, 1988).  

That Humanistic-Existential psychology simply grew out of an opposition to behavioural and psychodynamic psychology is only a part of the story. The movement was much more than an expression of dissatisfaction, it was a brave and concerted attempt to define a new approach to psychology, that was concerned with what seemed to be new issues, and offering new theories within which these issues could be examined and taken seriously. Of course, nothing develops out of a vacuum, and while Humanistic-Existential psychology as a movement began in the way outlined above, it is quite clear that humanistic themes have prevailed throughout the history of psychology, even if the term "humanistic" has not always been used to describe them.  

For example, William James was clearly a major forerunner in the humanistic field. He was notably holistic in his thinking, embracing a radical empiricism that was concerned not only with sensory experiences, but affective, intuitive, imaginative and spiritual experiences as well. His interest in human consciousness, his classic study Varieties of Religious Experience, (James, 1902) and the treatment of personal discourses on living, all reinforce this view (see Taylor, 1999).  

In psychodynamic psychology, much of the divergence and breaking with Freud in the neo-Freudian and post-Freudian areas can be seen to relate to disagreements over humanistic themes, especially a more optimistic view of what human potential could achieve. Notably, Carl Jung contributed major humanistic concepts such as:- the Self, individuation, active imagination, and a style of therapy that was less aloof and dogmatic and much more human in style. Alfred Adler, who played a significant role in directly influencing both Rollo May and Abraham Maslow in their early careers, was concerned with human purpose, the striving towards goals, and individual life styles. Many key figures in the humanistic approach originally trained as psychoanalysts, but either diverged from, or became so disillusioned with Freud's ideas, that they developed their own different schools of thought, e.g. Roberto Assagioli, Wilhelm Reich, Jacob Moreno, Fritz Perls, Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, etc. 

There were other areas of psychology that anticipated many of the concerns of the humanistic movement. Gestalt psychology, with its emphasis on wholeness, was important. Max Wertheimer, Kurt Goldstein and Kurt Koffka, all key figures in the Gestalt school, would have a formative influence on the ideas of Abraham Maslow during his time at Columbia before he moved to Brandeis. Another area of psychology that was significant was personality theory, where the work of Gordon Allport and Henry Murray in the 30's, Gardner Murphy in the 40's, and George Kelly in the 50's was to challenge the behaviourist/positivist view, anticipating the humanistic and human science developments yet to come. Early work on consciousness and altered states associated with Alduous Huxley and Ernest Hilgard also played their part.  

In addition, significant influences on the newly forming movement included developments in Western philosophy, particularly Phenomenology and Existentialism, the developments in critical theory associated with the Frankfurt School, as well as the obvious links with Eastern philosophies, and the humanist tradition in Western culture.  

The issues raised by each of these areas influenced and inspired the birth and growth of the humanistic movement in psychology, but they have not gone away. They are still as relevant and important as they ever were, and none of these issues could be said to have been resolved. Although some may have become a little obscured by the current state of the field, there is no other area of psychology that has made any significant effort to address them.
 

Observations on the current state of the field
The observations made here are not an attempt at a comprehensive review of the field, but reflect my own preoccupations and concerns on the current state of the field. Nevertheless, they are issues that are shared with many. 

(1)   Some of the problems with the current state of the field stem from its overwhelming success and the consequent fragmentation that has weakened the field. Many new developments in the discipline, either directly or indirectly, owe their progress to the humanistic movement, e.g. Existential psychology, Phenomenological psychology, Counselling psychology, Transpersonal psychology, all important fields in their own right. There also has been remarkable diversification in counselling and therapeutic practices (e.g. existential, person-centred, Gestalt, etc., etc.). The crucial issue here concerns the conflict between striving to keep these unified under one general paradigm, or, accepting the fragmentation into separate fields as inevitable.  

(2)   The philosophical roots of the field are not widely appreciated, while positivism is uncritically established in the general public mind. Inherent in much of the critical thinking that the humanistic perspective draws upon are the views of the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), who proposes that the real world is ultimately unknowable. At best all that we can deal with are mere appearances, i.e. descriptions and interpretations of reality, not physical reality itself (whatever that may be!). Furthermore, Kant recognizes that these descriptions and interpretations reflect as much the properties of the human mind as the external events that give rise to our experience. It is the categories of thought that the human mind brings to bear on events that are as important as the events themselves. Kant’s philosophical position does not radically undermine the natural sciences, but it does caution the claims that can be made. Much of what is recognized as modern psychology ignores the post-Kantian revolution, and its major implications for a study of human behaviour and experience. 

(3)   As noted above, the growth in the application of humanistic theory in generating a wide range of therapeutic practice has been a runaway success. However, in addition to the resulting fragmentation, there is the further concern that this has been achieved without what could be recognized as a matching progress in theory. This could have many consequences, including the adoption of poorly understood and untested practices, and the continuing divergence of counselling from psychology. 

(4)   There has been, from the early beginnings of the humanistic movement, a tradition for a focussing on the individual. This has sometimes been at the expense of a consideration of  the rich and full context of what constitutes being human, where cultural, discursive and narrative issues are continuously being raised as crucial to the contextualization of human behaviour and experience. Furthermore, in the humanities there has seen a major revolution in the theorizing of the human subject. This involves a challenge to the modernist concept of the individual as lying at the centre of human values and knowledge. Instead, the view has been adopted of the human subject as situated in relation to the 'world', to the 'other', and positioned by discourse, narrative and the signifying practices that constitute human culture. I suggest below that this will require a rethinking of the humanistic approach, or at least a redefining of the concept of the 'individual'.  

(5)   Viktor Frankl makes the important claim that what characterizes the human subject is a "will to meaning" (Frankl, 1969). Clearly, the issue of meaning is central to the humanistic-existential approach, human beings respond to the meanings of objects and events, and not to the objects and events themselves. Meaning is neither a property of the physical world, nor a simple product of the individual human mind. Meaning is negotiated, deferred, and appropriated. Meaning can be subtle or unconscious. If the humanistic movement is to take such issues seriously then it is necessary to recognize the significant progress that has been made in the human sciences since the movement first founded itself, i.e. developments in such areas as semiotics, linguistics, structuralism, post-structuralism, postmodernism, social constructionism and critical theory.  

(6)   Recently, there has been a noticeable revival of interest in psychology focussed on alternative models and research methods that contrast with the mechanical/positivistic/ quantitative approach. However, in the recent attention given to "rethinking psychology" (e.g. Smith, Harré & Langenhove, 1995a, 1995b), and despite the clamor for the recognition of qualitative methods, there is hardly a mention, or a whisper, of the humanistic perspective. Furthermore, such developments as social constructionism and discursive psychology clearly share with the existentialist-phenomenological perspective a very similar criticism of positivist science and determinist models. Yet this shared position is rarely acknowledged (Hiles, 1997a). If there is one obstacle to a major theoretical shift in the psychological sciences, then it is in the failure of psychologists with similar perspectives to come together within a clearly declared paradigm.   

(7)   Humanistic-Existential psychology is perceived as a threat by those areas of psychology that take an uncritical positivist position. This sense of being threatened is then expressed as defensiveness, or more often as arrogance. There is no necessity in this, and, although the humanistic movement initially developed out of a dissatisfaction with the two dominant schools of thought in psychology, behaviourism and psychodynamic psychology, there is an obvious basis for it to define itself on its own terms. What is required is a clear definition of the Humanistic-Existential paradigm, and a clear demonstration of the crucial insights this provides. 

Of course, any one of the above issues could be the subject of a whole paper, let alone a whole conference. These issues inter-relate and are not intended to be comprehensive. What follows is an attempt to directly tackle the last of these issues, drawing on the other issues as necessary.
 

Defining the Paradigm: Five questions
I use the term paradigm in the sense defined by Guba & Lincoln (1994), i.e. as a set of basic beliefs that deals with ultimates or first principles, assumptions adopted towards truth, reality, knowledge, and how knowledge is to be used. The point is that the questions originally raised in the creation of a humanistic movement in psychology are just as relevant now (and may be even more urgent now than ever). The philosophical issues that influenced and inspired the movement have not been resolved, and clearly have not gone away. The focus that the field of humanistic psychology developed in the 60's, 70's and the early 80's is still very much alive (see Moss, 1999b). The challenge remains to clearly define the paradigm in such a way that it commands serious treatment by the discipline of psychology as a whole.  

I have borrowed an idea from Rollo May (1992 [1939]), and I have expanded upon it. I have attempted to offer a definition of the Humanistic-Existential paradigm around five themes, which are expressed as five basic questions. The first of these themes will repeatedly echo in the discussion of the other four:- 

          "What is a human being?"                                                 (existential theme)

          "What is the nature of subjective, lived-experience?"      (phenomenological theme)

          "What is our potential?"                                                   (actualization theme)

          "How can we best promote growth and change?"            (growth/clinical theme)

          "What are we a part of?"                                                   (spiritual/transpersonal theme)

What is proposed here is that what sets Humanistic-Existential psychology apart is the types of question it poses about human nature, human potential, human action, and the diverse contexts of human behaviour and experience. These questions were the driving force behind the emergence of this field of psychology, and remain just as relevant today. Of course, the point is not to reduce the field to just five questions or themes, but to construct a focus, and establish something to build upon. Neither is the idea to suggest that these alone comprise the central questions of psychology. Each field of psychology generates its own set of core questions. But certainly, any psychology that fails to consider these five themes/questions is a pretty poor psychology. 

I will examine each theme in turn, and I will incorporate issues where appropriate that have been a part of my own focus. There is really very little that is new here, except the emphasis that is offered. The purpose is to stimulate debate, ask what is left out, and move towards inventing a possible future.
 

THEME (1): What is a human being?
This is the existential theme. Most of the pioneers of the approach implicitly or explicitly address this question. It is the question that Rollo May poses at the start of his fine text  The Art of Counselling, published in 1939. It is a question as old as philosophy itself (Eastern and Western). Of course there is no simple answer, but it is a question we must ask, and must keep asking. It is an important question, indeed the important question, and like all good questions, it is the range of answers that it throws up that makes it important. For the past few years, I have routinely asked my students at the start of a module entitled "Humanistic-Existential Psychology", whether any other module they have taken in psychology has addressed this question. Their answer is invariably "no." It seems that so many areas of modern psychology do not even seem to think of this question, let alone consider the possible answers to the question. Imagine a psychology that cannot even answer the question, What is a human being?!!?! 

The use of the term: Humanistic-Existential psychology to denote the field, offers an explicit acknowledgement of the roots that the humanistic approach has in some of the radical developments in 19th and 20th century European philosophy, known as Existentialism. It is the French philosopher and intellectual, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), who is generally credited with coining the term, Existentialism, to describe a movement in European philosophy concerned with the ontological issues of human existence. However, the philosophers generally associated with this area of thinking begin much earlier with the work of Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), followed by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). The approach is also associated with the work of Marcel, Camus, Buber, Tillich, de Beauvoir, etc. At the core of existential thought is the question, What is a human being?  (i.e. what is it to exist?), which, more or less, focuses on two central concerns:- (1) existential givens and needs, i.e. what is given about human existence, what can we be certain about, and the related issue of what is authentic in human existence?, and (2) the phenomenological premise, i.e. the idea that all knowledge begins with human experience. The point is that however one agrees with the answers given by Nietzsche, by Heidegger, or by Sartre to the question, What is a human being?, it is clear that psychology cannot ignore the debate that Existentialism has fuelled. 

However, there is here a crucial challenge to Humanistic-Existential psychology in recognizing the major developments in critical thought that have occurred over the second half of the last century. The influence of Existentialism, although often unacknowledged, has clearly been felt in other areas of psychology, such as social constructionism (HarrJ & Secord, 1972; Gergen, 1985, 1999; Burr, 1995), critical psychology (Parker, 1999) and the postmodernist point of view in psychology (Kvale, 1992). All of these developments have major implications for the question, What is a human being?, but they do not always sit well with the humanistic perspective.

What these various developments have in common is best understood in their contrast with modernity, which refers to the historical period which began with the Age of Enlightenment towards the end of the 18th Century, with the secularization of societies and the rise of scientific and philosophical rationalism. The three pillars of this Age of Reason were: (1) reason, (2) nature, (3) progress. Most of modern psychology is a direct descendent of this modernist tradition of thought, i.e. a positivist, empiricist (experimental), materialist, mechanical, determinist approach to behaviour. Modernism represents a commitment to truth, rationality, progress, the belief that scientific method is the means by which the world will come to be known, and that an unmediated knowledge of the world is possible. Modernity, however, is also associated with humanism - the centering of the human subject as the wellspring of knowledge and good. But, it is precisely this idea which is the source of so much confusion for humanistic psychology.  

By contrast, postmodernism and the social constructionist perspective are characterized by a loss of belief in an objective world, and claim that there can be no knowledge beyond discourse, nothing outside of the text. Knowledge is invented and is not discovered. Language is seen as an unavoidable mediator between the object of study and a description of that object, and, furthermore, language, and the knowledge it expresses, is seen as profoundly unstable. The human subject is positioned with respect to the discourses that circulate in the socio-cultural environment. It is my own view that this remains perfectly consistent with the perspective of humanism, but does require a redefining of how the centering of the human subject is to be theorized.  

The challenge here is for Humanistic-Existential psychology to accept a postmodernist perspective, whilst retaining the claim to a position that places the human subject clearly at the centre of the discursive environment, and acknowledging the inevitable tensions that this throws up. Such a position does fit remarkably well with the work of Charles Taylor (1992), and we would do well to consider the following remark by Arthur Schopenhauer (1995 [1851], p. 25):    " . . we forfeit three fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people."                                               

What I take Schopenhauer to be saying is that a very large part of our “self” is socially constructed (i.e. being like others), while just a small part is retained as our “real self” (i.e. our authentic part). It is my suspicion that it is this issue which probably lies at the very centre of the question, What is a human being?


THEME (2): What is the nature of subjective, lived experience?
This is the phenomenological theme, and is inextricably linked with the first theme discussed above. This theme is concerned with the nature of subjective conscious experience. The key assumption that follows from the philosophical school of Phenomenology is that human consciousness is structured by the principle of intentionality. A human thought always exists in relationship to a world of some kind. Basic to being human is the fact that we live in relationship to a world (intentionality), to other persons (interpersonality), and other subjects (intersubjectivity). Clearly, these issues have direct relevance to psychology. Indeed, any psychology interested in the study of human subjectivity, lived experience, consciousness, and is genuinely interested in asking the question: What is a human being?, cannot ignore the field of Phenomenology and the issues it raises. 

The founder of the modern school of Phenomenology is the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859 - 1938), who has offered perhaps the most sustained critique of objective knowledge, and the positivist approach to science, in this century. Following Franz Brentano (1838 -1917), Husserl realized that intentionality was the distinctive mark of the human mind and not consciousness per se. I do not simply think (and therefore I am), but always think of something, human thought is always intentional. The mind and its object are inextricably linked.

Phenomenology rejects the privileging of reality over experience, and consequently rejects scientific realism. There is also a rejection of philosophical realism, which straightforwardly claims that there can exist an external reality quite separate from our knowledge of it. Furthermore, it rejects mind-body dualism, mind and matter do not exist independently, they entail each other.  

Although it is important to make a distinction between Phenomenology as it is studied by philosophers and as it is applied in psychology, there is no underestimating its contribution to the establishment of a qualitative, human science approach to research (Giorgi, 1970, 1985, 1994, 1995; Moustakas, 1994; Polkinghorne, 1989, 1994; Valle, 1998). Without an understanding of human experience, it is difficult to imagine how psychology as a discipline can ever be taken seriously by the other sciences. And, within this area of concern, there is the pressing problem of intersubjectivity, which lies at the heart of every human encounter, especially the therapeutic encounter. I am reminded here of the point made by Rollo May: 

" . . . there is something going on in one human being relating to another [ . . ] something infinitely  more complex, subtle, rich, and powerful than we have realized. The chief reason this hasn't been studied [ . . ] is that we have no concept of encounter, for it was covered up by Freud's concept of transference. As one consequence, we have had all kinds of studies of transference, which tell us everything except what really goes on between two human beings. We are justified in looking to phenomenology for help in arriving at a concept which will enable us to perceive encounter itself when so far we have only perceived distortion, transference" (May, 1983, p. 23). 

At the heart of every human encounter between two people lies this basic mystery (Buber, 1958). We do not relate to another person as if they were simply an object, rather we perceive another person as a conscious being, but without ever being able to directly experience their consciousness. The general claim is that our sense of self, our identity, and experience of our own individual subjectivity is only possible within the context of this intersubjective experience with others. Our individual experience is enriched and confirmed by sharing with another person. Our experience is inescapably interwoven with that of others. If there is one area in the field of Humanistic-Existential psychology that is shouting out for a major research investigation, then it is in the understanding of human intersubjectivity (Hiles, 1997b).
 

THEME (3): What is our potential?
This is the actualization theme, and although this theme is so very familiar, and needs little discussion here, its place in the scheme that is being presented needs to be clearly articulated. This is the theme most closely associated with the work of Abraham Maslow, that many would see as defining the field, and is certainly central to the idea of the humanistic approach (see Moss, 1999c). The point to make here, is that any psychology that has seriously considered the question, What is a human being?, must be concerned with the potential that humans can achieve. Psychology, if it is to be seen as the study of human behaviour and experience, should not only be concerned with the description and understanding of normal behaviour, and with psychopathology/disorder/dysfunction, but should also include descriptions of "the farther reaches of human nature", the goals of human growth and achievement (Maslow, 1971). Part of the project of psychology must be concerned with the promotion of wellbeing, the optimization of social and cultural structures, the exploration of human consciousness and lived experience to the full, and must be concerned with identifying the obstacles that frustrate human growth.  

Of course, much progress has been made here in the study of human agency, creativity, consciousness, authenticity, etc., but there is still a great deal to be done simply in establishing the area. If there has been one omission, it is in the need to study not only actualization defined in terms of status, reputation and material wealth, but also in terms of growth achieved through overcoming conflict, working through crises, and in facing pain, loss and suffering (Hiles, 1999a).
 

THEME (4): How can we best promote growth and change?
This is the growth/clinical theme, which acknowledges both the development of resources for the promotion of personal empowerment and human growth, as well as the therapeutic practices that are concerned with the exposure and removal of the obstacles to growth, wellbeing and potential. The reference here to the clinical theme implies a much broader perspective than that of psychoanalysis or abnormal psychology. 

Thus, any psychology interested in asking: What is a human being? - What is the nature of human experience? and What is our potential?, must also ask: How can human growth and change be best promoted? If anything, this is another defining question and the real success story of humanistic psychology. It is the area most closely associated with the work of Carl Rogers (1951, 1961), where the emergence of counselling psychology as a major field, the diversity of different psychotherapies on offer, and the varied techniques for personal growth, etc., all have been a part of the runaway success. But, this can also be seen as the demise of the field, and the number of counselling styles and psychotherapies has almost become an embarrassment. There is no generally held view of what can and cannot call itself a therapeutic practice, there is little agreement on what are the sufficient conditions for human growth, there is no core underlying theory, and in many instances there is very little appeal to principles derived from psychology.  

There is an urgent need here to give priority to theorizing the human encounter in order to understand its contribution to maximizing interpersonal relationship and individual human growth. There is a need to marginalize the divisions in the field, to seek out what is in common, and to reinterpret the major insights of psychoanalytic, cognitive and humanistic practice and combine then with the phenomenological, discursive and narrative perspectives.  

Counselling and psychotherapy also need to be placed within the wider perspective of critical theory, where psychological theories could be seen as not simply concerned with understanding and explaining human behaviour and experience. Critical theory is explanatory, normative, practical and self-reflexive. It is quite clear that such a type of critical theory is continuously at work in psychotherapeutic practice and in personal growth work, but this is rarely explicitly acknowledged. Crucially, such theory, while being no less scientific or rigorous, also offers the insight that can empower an individual or group to bring about social change, challenge the forces that create and maintain human subjectivity, remove the limits to human freedom and overcome the causes of human suffering.
 

THEME (5): What are we a part of?
However you pose the question: What is a human being? - whatever the answers you come up with, the more seriously you take the question, and the longer you spend exploring the issues it throws up, the more likely it is that you will come to consider a range of questions that are best described as spiritual. Of course, for many, spirituality does not sit very comfortably with psychology. This may be for several reasons, but chiefly it is because there seems to be a total opposition between the scientific approach to knowledge and research, on the one hand, and spirituality on the other. Neither does it help that spirituality is so often confused with religion.  

At the heart of spirituality, lies the historical roots of a psychology that attempts to place human life and experience in its widest possible context. I cannot see that it matters in the least that different cultures and groups of people, at different times in human history, have come up with very different visions of this profound issue. What does matter is the recognition by psychology of the role that spiritual beliefs and practices plays in peoples’ lives, and the important place this can have in explaining and understanding an individual’s experience, actions, growth and development.  

The question: What are we a part of?  is simply one way of expressing this concern, a way of trying to place human experience and behaviour in its widest possible context, and the area of psychology that deals with this question, with spiritual issues and experiences, is called Transpersonal psychology (see Bynum, 1994; May, Krippner, Doyle, 1994; Taylor, 1994; Hastings, 1999).  

Before modern psychology, it was the spiritual traditions and practices of the wide range of cultures that offered an understanding of human consciousness, and the possibilities of human experience. Transpersonal psychology can be seen as an attempt to bring the world’s great spiritual traditions together with the basic ideas of (Western) modern psychology, although to a large extent this has already been achieved in Eastern psychology (we have come late to this in the West!!). The pioneering vision of Ken Wilber (1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1997, 1998), the research on spiritual emergence/emergency and the model of the holotropic mind developed by Stanislav Grof (1985, 1988, 1993, 1998; and with Christina Grof 1989, 1990), and the work to integrate psychodynamic and transpersonal perspectives by Michael Washburn (1994, 1995) and A.H. Almaas (1986, 1988, 1996), demonstrate the vitality and enormous scope of this field. 

The aim of Transpersonal psychology, then, is to offer a synthesis of what may seem on the surface to be two quite different traditions - science and spiritual practice, and what has emerged is a new field offering new approaches to psychotherapy, human development, crisis, etc. The Transpersonal psychology that I envisage is wide in scope, and needs to explore other metaphors than those derived from the simplistic notion of 'levels' or 'realms' of consciousness. There are also a number of trans-historical, trans-cultural and trans-species issues that need to be given far more emphasis than they receive at present.
 

Inventing the future
The five themes have come full circle. It is simply not possible to ask the question: What is a human being? without asking the question: What are we a part of? These five themes, more or less, define the paradigm as a coherent theoretical approach that demands a place in the discipline of psychology. At stake here is not just the future of Humanistic-Existential psychology, but the future of the entire discipline. 

However, it is clear that any theoretical approach, which specifically challenges the very edifice upon which scientific psychology has based itself, is very likely to come under considerable rearguard attach. Positivism is too well established in the general public mind to yield to minor criticisms. Despite the superficial popular appeal, the general credibility of humanistic psychology has clearly suffered in this respect, and too often its criticisms of mainstream psychology have been easily brushed aside, despite their seriousness. The inherent weakness that humanistic psychology has persevered under is also all too obvious. It does not really have a significant research output, and therefore has difficulty in demonstrating its worth. It has a low status in the politics of academia.  

It is in the growing recognition of psychology as a human science that real hope must lie. There are very good reasons for seeing psychology, in addition to being an experimental science, as also being both a human science (Giorgi, 1970; Wertz & Aanstoos, 1999), and a cultural science (Bruner, 1986, 1990; Hiles, 1996). What characterizes this approach, is not its use of qualitative research methods per se, but in its approach to the human subject as human (Giorgi, 1994), and in clearly defining the paradigm within which research can take place (Hiles, 1999b). Furthermore, it is proposed that all this can be done without departure from a systematic, rigorous, scientific approach. Some departure from the natural science model, with its emphasis on causal deterministic explanations, will be required by those areas of psychology that need to address humanistic, existential, phenomenological, critical theory, postmodern and social constructionist perspectives. 

The basic impetus for a human science approach to research is the utilization of methods that are appropriate to the study of human action and experience, and not simply borrowed uncritically from the pre-existing natural sciences. The view of psychology as being a human science aligns it with the concerns and methods of the other human and social sciences. Crucial to a human science approach is the recognition that the explanation and understanding of human behaviour must include normative as well as causal explanations. Human behaviour needs also to be understood in terms of reasons, meanings, and the arbitrary codes that cultures use to regulate individual and social praxis. An emphasis on human action, rather than behaviour, must be made, in order to stress the goal-directed and purposeful qualities of human action, which is informed by human agency, choice and the particular significance or interpretation an individual may have for an object or event. Human subjectivity, reflectivity, consciousness and experience must be valued. The uniqueness of human events must be respected. It is simply a fallacy that events in history (e.g. the 1st World War), or episodes recounted in clinical case material (e.g. experience of loss of a loved person/object), can be explained by universal laws. Since they are unique, they can only be understood within an interpretive, hermeneutic framework.  

In the natural science approach, the notion of the search for some objective truth is implicit. Conflict between competing theories is resolved by a research enterprise that leads to rejection of one theory and the acceptance of another. But in the human sciences, controversy and competition among divergent theories, or between different schools, is the norm. Such theories need not overthrow each other, but can coexist in healthy tension. The adoption of a human science approach to psychology needs to convince those with a positivist outlook that there is no threat. The future of science, as it is with humanity, must always lie in the peaceable coexistence of multiple viewpoints, and not with the imposition of a single perspective on human knowledge and practice.
 

Putting experience and open-mindedness first
Returning to the main theme of this paper, the future of Humanistic-Existential psychology lies in clearly defining its paradigm, in clarifying the most appropriate approaches to human research, and then in setting about the business of demonstrating the genuine insights into human behaviour and experience that this generates. 

At the heart of the paradigm lies the claim that Humanistic-Existential psychology is concerned with an openness to human experience. This quality of openness to experience is a necessary requirement for healthy development and wellbeing, as well as a necessary requirement for the scientist who wishes to study human behaviour and experience. This openness to the wonder of the human sense of being is central. Indeed, it is this quality of openness that I believe is the necessary and sufficient condition for human growth. This openness does not place any one experience and perspective above or before any other, but simply puts human experience first, and seeks the exploration of feelings, thoughts and understanding, wherever this may lead, as inevitably the main task to be faced. Several years ago, during my training as a transpersonal psychotherapist, I wrote these words. They still seem relevant and complete:- 

            “ . . at the core of the psychology that I seek to practice is an openness to feelings of hope, of well-being, of doubt, of loss, of anger; openness to feelings of personal power, of self-hood, of aloneness, of paradox and confusion; openness to thoughts and ideas, to possibilities, states of unknowing, and levels of consciousness; openness to the commonplace, and to the extraordinary; openness to grace, to the meaning of pain and suffering; openness to darkness and light, to a sense of otherness, of wonder, and of spiritual presence.”
 

 References
Almaas, A.H. (1986) The Void: Inner spaciousness and ego structure. (Diamond Mind Series, Vol. 1). Berkeley: Diamond Books.

Almaas, A.H. (1988) The Pearl Beyond Price: Integration of personality into being - an object relations approach. (Diamond Mind Series, Vol. 2). Berkeley: Diamond Books.

Almaas, A.H. (1996) The Point of Existence: Transformations of narcissism in self-realization. (Diamond Mind Series, Vol. 3). Berkeley: Diamond Books.

Aanstoos, C.M. (1994) Mainstream psychology and the humanistic alternative. In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Buber, M. (1958) I and Thou. New York: Scribners.

Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.

Bynum, E.B. (1994) Brief overview of transpersonal psychology. In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Frankl, V. (1969) The Will to Meaning: Foundations and applications of Logotherapy. New York: Meridian.

Gergen, K.J. (1985) The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. Amer. Psychologist, 40, 266-75.

Gergen, K.J. (1999) An Invitation to Social Constructionism. London: Sage.

Giorgi, A. (1970) Psychology as a Human Science: A phenomenologically based approach. New York: Harper and Row.

Giorgi, A. (Ed.) (1985) Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A. (1994) The idea of human science. In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Giorgi, A. (1995) Phenomenological psychology. In J. Smith, R. Harré & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.) Rethinking Psychology. London: Sage.

Grof, C. & Grof, S. (1990) The Stormy Search for the Self: A guide to personal growth through transformational crisis. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Grof, S. (1985) Beyond the Brain: Birth, death and transcendence in psychotherapy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Grof, S. (1988) The Adventure of Self-Discovery: Dimensions of consciousness and new perspectives in psychotherapy and inner exploration. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Grof, S. (1993) The Holotropic Mind: The three levels of human consciousness and how they shape our lives. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Grof, S. (1998) The Cosmic Game: Explorations of the frontiers of human consciousness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Grof, S. & Grof, C. (Eds.) (1989) Spiritual Emergency: When personal transformation becomes a crisis. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.

HarrJ, R. & Secord, P.F. (1972) The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Blackwell.

Hastings, A. (1999) Transpersonal Psychology: The fourth force. In D. Moss (Ed.) Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hiles, D.R. (1996) Cultural Psychology and the Centre ground of Psychology. Paper presented at
             26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, August 16 - 21, 1996.

Hiles, D.R. (1997a) Social constuctionism - A critique. Paper presented to 5th European Congress of Psychology, Dublin, July 6 - 11, 1997.

Hiles, D.R. (1997b) Intersubjectivity and the Healing Dialogue in Counselling Practice. Paper
              presented to BAC 3rd  Annual Counselling Research Conference, Birmingham, June 1997.

Hiles, D.R. (1999a) Loss, grief and transformation: A heuristic inquiry. Paper presented to 18th International Human Science Conference, Sheffield, July 26 -29, 1999.

Hiles, D.R. (1999b) Paradigms lost, Paradigms regained. Paper presented to 18th International Human Science Conference, Sheffield, July 26 -29, 1999.

James, W. (1902) Varieties of Religious Experience. London: Collier Macmillan.

Kvale, S. (Ed.) (1992) Psychology and Postmodernism. London: Sage.

Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.

Maslow, A.H. (1971) The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Viking.

May, R. (1983) The Discovery of Being: Writings in existential psychology. New York: W.W. Norton.

May, R. (1992 [1939]) The Art of Counselling. London: Souvenir Press.

May, R., Krippner, S. & Doyle, J. (1994) The role of transpersonal psychology as a whole: A discussion. In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Moss, D. (1999a) The scientific and philosophical  context of humanistic psychology.In D. Moss (Ed.) Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Moss, D. (1999b) The continuing need for a humanistic and transpersonal psychology. In D. Moss (Ed.) Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Moss, D. (1999c) Abraham Maslow and the emergence of humanistic psychology. In D. Moss (Ed.) Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Moustakas, C. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage.

Parker, I. (1999) Critical reflexive humanism and critical constructionist psychology. In D.J. Nightingale & J. Cromby, (Eds.) Social Constructionist Psychology: A critical analysis of theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1982) What makes research humanistic? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22, 47-54.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1989) Phenomenological research methods. In R.S. Valle & S. Halling,
             (Eds.) Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology: Exploring the breadth
              of human experience. Plenum.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1994) Research methodology in humanistic psychology? In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Rogers, C. (1951) Client-centred Therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1961) On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rowan, J. (1988) Ordinary Ecstasy: Humanistic psychology in action. (2nd  Edition). London: Routledge.

Schopenhauer, A. (1995 [1851]) Counsels and Maxims. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Smith, J., Harré, R. & Van Langhenhove, L. (1995a) Rethinking Psychology. London: Sage.

Smith, J., Harré, R. & Van Langhenhove, L. (1995b) Rethinking Methods in Psychology.
               London: Sage.

Sutherland, N.S. (Ed.) (1989) Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology. London: Macmillan.

Taylor, C. (1992) The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, E.I. (1994) Transpersonal psychology: Its several virtues. In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Taylor, E.I. (1999) On psychology as a person centered science: William James and his relation to the humanistic tradition.  In D. Moss (Ed.) Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Valle, R. (1998) (Ed.) Phenomenological Inquiry in Psychology: Existential and transpersonal dimensions. New York: Plenum.

Washburn, M. (1994) Transpersonal Psychology in Psychoanalytic Perspective. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Washburn, M. (1995) The Ego and the Dynamic Ground: A transpersonal theory of human development. (2nd Edition). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Wertz, F. (1994) Representations of the "Third Force" in history of psychology textbooks. In F. Wertz, (Ed.) The Humanistic Movement: Recovering the person in psychology. Lake Worth: Gardner Press.

Wertz, F. & Aanstoos, C.M. (1999) Amedeo Giorgi and the project of a human science. In D. Moss (Ed.) Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Wilber, K. (1977) The Spectrum of Consciousness. Wheaton, Ill: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1980) The Atman Project. Wheaton, Ill: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1981) Up from Eden. Wheaton, Ill: Quest Books.

Wilber, K. (1982)  A Sociable God: Toward a new understanding of religion. Boston: Shambala Publications.

Wilber, K. (1983) Eye to Eye: The quest for the new paradigm. Boston: Shambala Publications.

Wilber, K. (1997) The Eye of Spirit: An integral vision for a world gone slightly mad. Boston: Shambala Publications.

Wilber, K. (1998) The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating science and religion. New York:
              Random House.

 

© Dave Hiles 2000