Existential humanistic psychology postulates certain basic challenges inherent in the human condition, and studies how people come to terms with these paradoxical "givens" (Bugental, 1971;May, 1961;Greening, 1971;Yalom, 1980). Thus, it includes the study of pathological reactions, normal responses,*and creative initiatives by individuals, groups and cultures. Using the insights from social constructionism, we must acknowledge that the assignment of these evaluative descriptive labels may also say as much about the labeler as the person or behavior being labeled. This paper considers four existential challenges:1) Life (and Death). We are alive but we will die, and we live in a world that both supports and negates life. 2) Meaning (and Absurdity). We have a conscious capacity and desire for meaning, but we live in a confusing and sometimes chaotic world that offers many meaning systems and also denies meaning. 3) Freedom (and Determinism). We are free and determined, and we live in a world that allows and constricts our freedom. 4) Community (and Aloneness). We experience the human desire and capacity for authentic relatedness countered by inauthenticity, alienation and loneliness.Each challenge consists of a blessing and a curse, a capacity for being that entails non-being, an opening restricted by finiteness. We are endowed with "some" but not "enough." Our glasses are half full and half empty, and we can't agree on what "hair is. We must choose what to do with the "some" and how to endure the "not enough."To each of the four existential givens or challenges we have a choice of three possible responses:
less worthwhile than, doing the right thing because it is the right thing (philosopher Robert Nozick's, 1974, justly famous critical discussion of "experience machines," pp. 42-45, is relevant here). Resnick and Ahuvia may have been led to believe that I thought happiness was the ultimate standard for assessing a human life because I speculated about the relation between excessive choice and depression, but that is not my view.Resnick ( 2001) also suggested that I am guilty, in talking about the good life, of usurping the prerogatives of philosophy and religion. That is not my intention, but to suggest that questions about what makes a life good are the exclusive domain of philosophy and religion is to suggest that "what is a good life?" is a question without empirical content. All I am suggesting is that the answer to this crucial question has empirical content, and thus that psychology might contribute (along with philosophy and religion) to its answer. Brand ( 2001) nicely described Plato's three fundamental questions: What is the meaning or purpose of life, what is a good or successful life, and how should we be governed? If, in its efforts to become a proper science, psychology has distanced itself from the first two of these questions, as Brand suggests, then it is so much the worse for psychology. My hope is that a future positive psychology can contribute, modestly of course, to answering them-if not once and for all, then at least for our time and place.
As with most complex human endeavors, the history of APA Division 32 (Humanistic Psychology) has many facets and lends itself to many narratives and interpretations. Presented here is one version, resulting from the input of three authors and many other people. Our audience may wish to read between the lines or project onto the text other versions. In humanistic psychology, in writing the division's history, and indeed in psychology itself, there are always texts and subtexts and multiple "stories" and interpretations. Right and left brains play their parts in the making of history and in the recording and interpretation of it. Other fascinating chapters besides this one could be written about the people involved in this division] the intellectual and interpersonal currents, and the creative, socially responsible, and sometimes spontaneous and chaotic events that underlay this history.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.