SOME

QUESTIONS

AND CHALLENGES FACING A HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY*

CARL R. ROGERS
Western Behavioral Sciences Institute

I BELIEVE there is no doubt that this Association, the American Association for Humanistic Psychology, is part of a developing trend. I feel sure that a concern with, and a belief in, the subjective human being

active agent in his own life, and in life in general, is to be a growing part of the wave of the future. I feel that my past record indicates that I have a fairly good intuition as to the next developments in psychology and this intuition informs me that the humanistic emphasis is a coming trend. I feel quite certain that it is one manifestation of a developing direction in our whole culture. The important question for us as an organization is whether we will be able to meet the challenges posed by such a trend. Will we be adequate and worthy representatives of a direction which will, I am sure, be evident in art and literature, in education, and in science? Here I am somewhat less sure. I have to face the possibility that perhaps this organization is only a protest group of temporary value. It certainly serves a useful function to deplore the sterility of most present-day psychological science, to oppose a completely S-R psychology, to resist the way in which man is treated as an object in present-day behavioral science, to protest against the view of man as completely mechanical, and to disavow the view that the world is a clock already wound up and running its completely determined course. These protests need to be made and this group is making them. We are part of a growing body of belief which stresses that man is more than is encompassed in these views. But if deploring and resisting is all that we do, then we are only a temporary protestant group soon to be superseded. If we are to be more viable, then we must make positive contributions - must discover constructive resolutions for some terribly perplexing problems. I would like to talk of some of the challenges which I see facing us. Perhaps in this audience there are individuals, especially perhaps some younger individuals, who may make significant contributions in the coming years to the answering of these challenges. Here, then, are some of the basic questions I see, questions which we will either meet and help to resolve, or fail to meet and hence die out as a significant force in psychology. 1. Can we develop an adequate concept of psychology as a discipline ? Will it be a discipline like physics? Physics has gone from one
as an

*Informal remarks addressed to Humanistic Psychology, Los Angeles,

September 3,
1

meeting

of the American Association for 1964.

order in relationships. It has been true of physics that the order which has been so discerned generalizes into areas initially undreamed of. Thus, this is a discipline in which new discoveries give order to vast areas of natural events. Is psychology this kind of a science? Or is psychology, as Michael Scriven has suggested, a science such as geography or oceanography? Since in my new home I look down upon the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, I will choose that as an example of a science quite different from physics. Oceanography keeps exploring new areas, coming up with new findings, adding a great deal of useful information. There is no doubt that its findings may change our economics and our way of life. It is not, however, a science which is likely to have a breakthrough because its discoveries and findings have limited generalization. Perhaps this is the kind of science which psychology will be. In any event, we need a great deal more thoughtful and sound thinking as to the basic conceptual picture of our discipline. 2. The second challenge is as to whether we can develop a science which is humanistic. Can we develop an adequate philosophy of science and an adequate methodology of science which will truly add to verified knowledge and at the same time . truly recognize the place of the subjective human being? We are not fond of a mechanistically oriented, hard-headed, empiricism. But what will we put in its placc ? An existential mysticism will not, in my judgment, be good enougli. Private subjective opinion will not be good enough. What is to be our way of knowing, of adding to knowledge ? Will we be able to combine a logical positivism with some more human view? Will we develop some new formulation of what it means to add to knowledge? This is an area in which I am deeply interested and in which I hope to work. To me this seems like a vital area of concern and one in which psychologists are weak at the present time. Perhaps in this audience or in this convention there may be some brilliant young thinker who will see his way through to a new way of meeting this challenge. It is all very well to be opposed to the atomistic scientific approach which characterizes most of psychology. It is all very well to be opposed to the shaping up of human behavior as being the ultimate goal of psychological science. But it is simply not enough, in my estimation, to settle comfortably back into the principle that since we appreciate the mysterious and the unique in man we are, therefore, somehow superior. William James wrestled with this issue long ago and said of these two both an atomistic empiricism and a subjective mysticism extremes &dquo;they are but spiritual chloroform.&dquo; I heartily agree with his view. What will we contribute that will avoid these extremes? Will we incorporate the methods of phenomenology? Will we discover generally new modes of knowing upon which we can build? I am not certain. I am only sure that if we are to exist in a scientific world of DNA and RNA
-

discovery to another, from the law of the lever to atomic fission and fusion to the structure of the nucleus of the atom. Each of its discoveries has been characterized by the discernment of invariant lawful

molecules, a world of microbiology, of electronic stimulation of the brain, of chemical analyses of psychological states, we must develop a mode of knowing which has promise.

closcly. related issue on which I will dwell only briefly is this : develop humanistic scientists who are capable of the dedication, the commitment, the creative thinking, the bold theories and hypotheses, the toughness of thinking in regard to problems and paradoxes which the &dquo;hard&dquo; sciences have developed? This is our challenge and it is still an unanswered question. But the answer given by time
3. A
can we

will determine whether we arc a flash in the cultural pan or whether we are a continuing flame which will illuminate modern life. 4. Still another challenge has to do with our vicws of education. Can we develop a philosophy of education and methods of education which are consistent with our concern with the human being? Can we effectively put such a philosophy and such methods to work? What is a vicw of education which humanistic psychologists could buy, could approve of? How would this new psychology facilitate learning? We have little love for teaching machines as a complete view of education, nor do we believe that the shaping up of behavioral responses to meet preconceived goals is a sufficient picture of teaching and learning. Very well, what do we put in place of these alternatives? First, what is our overall view or philosophy of education, and, second, what arc the metlods we would employ? When I look at what this Association has achieved thus far in this field I find I am not only skeptical, I am somewhat discouraged. This present conference is set up in a fashion slightly different from conventional conferences, but the differences are not great. If this is a sample we seem to have little really new to contribute. Let me mention another aspect of my skepticism. I was pleased that the Association was able to obtain funds for a long-range planning conference for humanistic psychology. Approximately 25 distinguished people have accepted invitations to attend this conference. How do we organize it? What plans do we make to insure that the greatest amount of learning will come from this conference? The answer is that we have these distinguished people deliver lectures to each other. I have protested the procedure, but I am down on the program to give a paper myself. inc seem to be saying in very loud terms that we have nothing to offer in
.

this ~c11-worn field. This last example is essentially what frightens me about this organization. We talk a good protesting game but can we do anything new behave in new ways, think in new terms? It is too early to know but the signs thus far would make no one unduly optimistic. 5. Can we develop approaches to interpersonal relationships which arc actually more effective than those now in use or those prescribed by a hard-nosed American psychology? This is another challenge of an

essentially practical sort.

If
-

our

taneity

interest in the unique human being is real, if we value sponand creativity and expressivenc.s.s, are we able to facilitate the

kind of interpersonal relationships in which these qualities arc released? This, it seems to me, is one of the real tests of our position. Here there are exciting developments all over the country. The intensive group experience is coming to be used more and more widely with delinquents, with business executives, in Synanon, with educators, even at times with psychologists. I know that some individuals in this organization are playing an important part in this development. I hope that the organization as a whole will aid in meeting this challenge. Again, I trust it is clear that what I am saying is that protest is not enough, promise is not enough; we will have to be able to deliver in ways the common man can understand and in ways that the culture can assimilate and use if we are to grow and become important. 6. Still another challenge which I see is of a much more general nature. Will we be able to make a significant contribution to a philosophy of life? There is no doubt that sub-groups in our American culture, much of the Japanese culture, and many of the cultural groups in Europe no longer have a viable philosophy of life, a meaningful way by which to live. Existentialism is endeavoring to provide this. It has both strengths and weaknesses. Groups such as this organization and the new APA Division of Philosophical Psychology should be concerned with the philosophy of life which will be suitable for tomorrow. Do we have the individuals who will be able to contribute to it? I
-

sincerely hope

so.

What will this newer philosophy of life be? I certainly cannot answer this question but I would guess that it will have a certain man choosing himself, man the architect of himexistential flavor self. It will stress the value of the individual. It will, I think, center itself in the individual as the evaluating agent. These are, of course, only my opinions. I am very well aware of the strong counter-forces in the world which see the individual as existing only to serve the group, the corporation, or the state. I believe that this newer philosophy will have a process quality, not a static quality. We will recognize that the value of living is in the process of living, not in some static goal to be reached. I have a dim recognition of what this process view would mean in many fields. It would make a difference in the questions asked. Instead of asking, &dquo;Have you learned fractions or biology or mathematics?&dquo; the question might be, &dquo;What is there in the process of these learnings which you find valuable?&dquo; Instead of the question, &dquo;Have you achieved a happy marriage?&dquo; it might be, &dquo;~1hat is the process of your marriage? Are its process qualities viable, satisfying, growth promoting?&dquo; Instead of the question, &dquo;What is the goal for our country?&dquo; it might be, &dquo;Are we pleased with the process characteristics of our country at this time?&dquo; Instead of the question, &dquo;What are the absolute values and absolute truths in which we find security?&dquo; there might be the question, &dquo;Can we find security in being involved in the forward-moving process of

change?&dquo;
Let
me

illustrate

bit of what I
4

mean

by this process quality.

The

scientist does not find security in the knowledge which has been because he knows that any day that knowledge may be contradicted by some new finding. His sccurity lies in the scientific method, a process of arriving at approximations to the truth. I believe that in this same sense we must learn to live in a process mode. To me, it seems that our culture and our civilization will probably perish unless we can achieve this. In a world which is changing at an incredible rate in knowledge and technology we can find security only in a knowable process, not in knowable certainties. That at least is my
true

accumulated,

judgment..
.

SUMMARY

I hope that the questions I have raised will stimulate discussion, both here and later. Let me review briefly the issues or problems which I have raised.

1. What kind of a discipline Oceanography? Religion? Or?

are

we ? Do

we

resemble

physics?

2. What is to be the nature of our science and what are the methods of that science to be? Or more deeply, how do we contribute

effectively

to

knowing?
1

3. Can we develop tough, dedicated, persistent, humanistic scientists ? 4. How do we plan to contribute to the process of learning? What is education? What is a suitable philosophy of education? What do we propose as the methods of education? 5. Do we have the skills actually to promote more effective and creative interpersonal relationships? 6. What is to be our view as to what makes life worth living? What is the philosophy of life and living which we will contribute to our culture? Will it have an existential flavor? Will it be a philosophy of process? Or?
In conclusion I would just like to say that in my judgment the American Association for Humanistic Psychology will never go down in history for what it is against. The important question is, what are we for? I am sure we cannot answer this question today or in any official statement, but over the coming years this is where we will stand or fall. If we are for views which the culture finds valuable and freeing and life-giving, then we will survive and will deserve to survive. If we cannot meet these various challenges then we are just an interesting, protesting, splinter group. Time will tell which we are. I should like to make a final confession. When I am speaking to outsiders I present the American Association for Humanistic Psychology as a glowing hope for the future. But within the bosom of our family I have been trying to say that we have no reason whatsoever for feeling

complacent as we look toward the future....

5