HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY:A NEW BREAK-THROUGH *

J. F. T. BUGENTALPsychological Service Associates, Los Angeles

IWANT to present the thesis that a majorbreak-through is occurring at the present timein psychology. Like man's other major changesthe introduction of the steam engine, the declineof feudalism, the beginnings of the laboratorymethod in psychologyits presence and potentiali-ties are difficult to recognize for those of us whoare so deep in daily concerns. Yet, I am convincedthat the parallels I cite are not vainglorious. Ithink we are on the verge of a new era in man'sconcern about man which mayif allowed to runits courseproduce as profound changes in the hu-man condition as those we have seen the physicalsciences bring about in the last century. The es-sence of this change is, I believe, the eroding awayof some of the familiar parameters of psychologicalscience and the concurrent emergence of a new ap-preciation for the fundamental inviolability of thehuman experience.

Psychology, as any social institution, is a con-stantly evolving set of assumptions, information,and speculations. As with any institution, it hasits periods of stability and of rapid change. Some-times the change may be clearly dated from a par-ticular event, as with the rise of behaviorism afterWatson's epochal book appeared. Sometimes theforces producing the change are more scattered, asin the rise of the mental testing wave. In eitherinstance, hindsight reveals numerous stirrings be-fore the change process became clearly apparent.This is certainly so at the present. Writings bymany social scientists have prepared the way forwhat is now emerging (viz., James, Allport, Cantril,May, Maslow, Fromm, Rogers, and many others).What has brought this development to the fore nowmay be argued, but certainly some of the influenceswill include: the large number of psychologists nowinvolved in the practice of psychotherapy, the fail-ure of many promising approaches to produce atruly embracing and adequate theory of human per-

1 Adapted from address presented at Orange County(California) Psychological Association, December 7, 1962.

sonality from our existing orientations, the pressof public interest in, and need for, psychologicalscience and service. One may speculate also thatjust as when a single organism encounters a threatto its life maintenance, it evokes counter forces(e.g., antibodies), so this development may be partof an evolutionary response to the biology-threaten-ing forces of nuclear destruction.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS UNDERGOING CHANGELet us examine eight parameters which have been

traditionally accepted as given in psychology butwhich, I think, are being questioned increasinglyas a result of the wave of change which is now oc-curring.

These eight parameters are:1. The model of man as a composite of part

functions2. The model of a science taken over from phys-

ics3. The model of a practitioner taken over from

medicine4. The pattern of a compartmentalized, sub-

divided graduate school faculty and curriculum asthe appropriate agency for preparing students forpsychological careers

5. The criterion of statistical frequency as ademonstration of truth or reality

6. The illusion that research precedes practice7. The myth of the "clinical team"8. The fallacy that diagnosis is basic to treat-

mentWhat I want to do now is to examine each of

these models with a view to recognizing whatchanges may be occurring in them.

1. The Model of Man as a Composite of PartFunctions

What has been said above already indicates myview that this fundamental conception of the na-ture of man is in the process of basic alteration.So long as we sought mental elements, in whatever

563

564 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

form and given whatever sophistication of naming,we operated on the basis that the total human be-ing could be sufficiently understood if only we hadan inclusive catalogue of his parts. This is at rootinevitably a structuralistic conception. Today weare more and more recognizing that we need aprocess conception of the human being. So basicdo I feel this difference to be that I would proposethat in the coming years we will increasingly recog-nize that the study of the part functions of humanbehavior is indeed a different science than is thestudy of the whole human being. We are familiarwith making this sort of division between psychol-ogy and physiology. It seems to me that part func-tions of what we have traditionally thought of aspsychologythat is, such segments as habits, testscores, single percepts, learned itemsdiffer morefrom the functioning of the total person than doesthe reflex arc from memory for nonsense syllables.

I propose that the defining concept of man basicto the new humanistic movement in psychology isthat man is the process thai supersedes Ike sum ofhis part junctions.2. The, Model oj a Science Taken Over jrom Phys-ics

So long as we accepted the model of man as acomposite of his part functions then it was ap-propriate for us to seek for the ultimate units ofbehavior. Such attempts followed the two mainlines of the search for mental elements underTitchner or for the simple stimulus-response bondunder the behaviorists, or on the other side theseeking for basic instincts or primary cathexes un-der the orthodox psychoanalytic banner. Physicshas demonstrated tremendous versatility in increas-ing our knowledge of the physical world by ana-lytic methods. But physics has built its record be-cause of the fundamental interchangeability of theunits which it studied. A true psychology of humanbeings is a psychology of noninterchangcable units.The past SO years have seen a tremendous accumu-lation of data about people treated as interchange-able units. And yet it is clearly the case that onlywhere we are concerned with masses of persons dothese data yield useful results. This may seem aharsh judgment, but I think it is an accurate one.If psychology is the study of the whole humanbeing, and this I believe is its primary mission, thenresults which are only true of people in groups arcnot truly psychological but more sociological. Just

as psychology is emerging as distinct from thestudy of part functions, so it is distinguishing it-self from the study of group phenomena.

Before leaving these comments on a model of ascience taken over from physics, it would be worth-while noting that physics itself has found that itmust move beyond logical positivism and themechanistic causality which long were its guide-posts. Attention to process and to the experi-menter's interconnection with the experiment arebeginning to be recognized as essential to the fur-ther development of pure physics. How much morepertinent are they to psychology!3. The Model oj a Practitioner Taken Over jromMedicine

The medical model for the practitioner has a longhistory which dates back, of course, to the shaman,the medicine man, and the occult priest. Psycho-logical practitioners have taken it for granted thatthey must function in a similar fashion. This isincreasingly being found to be a false assumption.Indeed many practitioners of psychotherapy findthat such a pattern is all too readily accepted bypatients and used as a resistance to taking re-sponsibility in their own lives. A new concept ofthe practitioner is emerging to which it is difficultyet to give an adequate name. Lowell Kelly (1961)has suggested the term "consultants in living"which has much to commend it, though it doesseem somewhat pretentious. Certainly the point isthat we cannot follow a pattern of csoterically diag-nosing our patients' difficulties and writing prescrip-tions in Latin and an illegible scrawl, which the pa-tient dutifully carries to the pharmacist for com-pounding and then takes with complete ignoranceof the preparation or its intended effects. We arcrecognizing more and more that essential to thepsychotherapeutic course is the patient's own re-sponsible involvement in the change process.4. The Pattern oj a Compartmentalized, SubdividedGraduate School Faculty and Curriculum as theAppropriate Agency jor Preparing Students for Psy-chological Careers

Something of the ferment within psychology hasbeen represented in the typical graduate schoolfaculty. Especially in our larger schools, there hasbeen a pattern of subdivision of the department intovarious specialties. Sometimes these reach ratherextreme numbers of subpsychologies. The result

HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY 565

has been a fragmented approach to our field whichhas created much confusion and threat for graduatestudents. I wish I could report that I see as manysigns of healthful change in this area as in some ofthe others upon which I report; nevertheless, thereare stirrings which indicate a recognition that ourpattern of many specialtiesclinical, counseling,industrial, childis proving more self-defeatingthan implementing. My own feeling is that wemust move toward recognizing three basic sub-divisions of psychology: that concerned with partfunctions, that concerned with group functions, andthat concerned with the total person as the unit.Quite probably for each of these there will need tobe a research and teaching phase and a practitionerphase. All three are increasingly being employedin the solution of practical problems, and the num-ber of practitioners in all three is sure to grow tre-mendously in the coming years. Much of the re-sentment of our experimental brothers toward thepractitioners is apt gradually to fade away as moreand more of the experimentalists themselves aredrawn into consulting functions. Tryon (1963) haswritten his prediction that the academic ivorytower is a thing of the past and that the experi-mentalists soon will be deeply involved in prac-titioner roles. This will certainly have a profoundeffect on our graduate school educational philoso-phies.5. The Criterion of Statistical Frequency as aDemonstration of Truth

In the abstract, the criterion of statistical fre-quency seems to be an excellent one. Certainlythose things that happen regularly and uniformlyseem to be self-evident samples of the nature ofreality. However, in actual practice this is notborne out. Despite increasing elaboration of sta-tistical methodologies, despite greater and greaterrefinement of laboratory procedure, the product ofyears of conscientious effort has not been such asto warrant confidence that we will eventually arriveat a genuine understanding of human behavior bythis route. And this is not surprising when welook back to the model on which these efforts arefounded. The effort to find the basic subpersonunit of behavior has been vain. The total personis the basic unit. Only as we find ways to under-stand the behaving person can we understand hisbehavior. It is manifestly impossible with presenttechniques to control all factors involved in any

behavioral sequence in which the human normallyengages. Nor is this simply a matter of develop-ing more and more tests and using larger and largercomputers. Our definition of the human being asthe process that supersedes the sum of its factorsindicates that there is still a nonmeasurable aspect.There is still the person himself. It is not a matterof more time being needed; it is a matter of recog-nizing that we are following an unprofitable course.

Another way of conceptualizing the problem maythrow light on it: This is to recognize that ourtraditional scientific approach as represented in somany journal articles, dissertations, and master'stheses, has been founded on a finite universe con-ception. That is to say, implicitly it is postulatedthat the universe is a closed system in which thereis a fixed quantum of potential knowledge. Todayscience generallywhether physical, biological, orsocialis coming to recognize that knowledge isinfinite even as the universe is infinite. Once wecould study any isolated correlation between twopsychological variables with the hope that eventu-ally that correlation would link up with other suchisolated studies and some embracing systematiza-tion would emerge inductively. We must recognizetoday that this is not so. Within a universe ofinfinite variability we can go on infinitely collect-ing isolated items of data, of correlations and varia-tion, and no link-up will necessarily emerge. In-vestigators who have repeated experiments con-ducted by other investigators have not uniformlybeen able to replicate their findings, because of theinfinite variety of variables, because of the infinite-ness of potential knowledge.6. The Illusion that Research Precedes Practice

We have long had the popular myth that the sci-entist develops knowledge and the engineer appliesit. For this we could substitute that the researcherdevelops knowledge and the practitioner applies it.This has not been so in psychology, and it hasnever been so in physics and engineering either.More than one authority in the physical scienceshas recognized that physics has received more con-tributions from engineering than it has given to en-gineering. Similarly, in clinical psychology, wehave made more contributions to the body of psy-chological knowledge from the practitioner's endthan have been received by the practitioner fromthe research investigators. One need hardly elabo-rate this point beyond citing the work of Freud as

566 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

an overriding example. Perhaps one additionalhighly important instance is the reintroduction ofhumanism into psychology. This reintroductionwhich is the revitalizing, indeed the saving event ofthis period in the history of psychologyis inlarge part due to the contribution of clinical prac-tice. More particularly it is in great part due tothe experience of psychologists who have been en-gaged in the practice of psychotherapy. The namesof the leaders in the field who are in the forefrontof this development are the names of people whohave had intensive immersion in the work of psy-chotherapy: Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, RolloMay, Erich Fromm, and so on.

Again we can point to the influence of the modelof the finite universe in which knowledge can beaccumulated at random and eventually integratedand made available for the practitioner. Since wehave disavowed this model, since we recognize thatit is not veridical with the universe, then we mustrecognize that we need the practitioners' contribu-tions to highlight those areas of greatest significancesocially. We need the practitioners' testing of find-ings for pertinence and applicability; we need thepractitioners' contribution of proposing questionsfor research inquiry.7. The Myth of the Clinical Team

Let me make clear at the outset that I do knowthat in some settings the clinical team has provena very useful and productive concept, but 1 amequally convinced that in most settings it is not,that in many instances it has been a disguise forthe domination of the team by one or another ofthe professionals. Similarly, many times it has re-sulted in the subordination of the potential con-tributions of the two professionals not in the domi-nant role. But most importantly, the clinical teamis founded again on the segmentalist view of humanbeings. The three-headed monster of the clinicalteam is not able, by its very nature, to meet thepatient in genuine interpersonal encounter. Theclinical team may be an excellent device to gatherinformation about people, chiefly information whichtreats people as representatives of various classesor groupings of society. It may be a useful ad-ministrative tool to make case assignments or dis-positions, but it is not a therapeutically useful tool.I am convinced that psychotherapy, which is trulydepth psychotherapy, requires an authentic en-counter between two human beings and that the

divided responsibility, and relationships which theclinical team presupposes militate against such anauthentic encounter.

One may also note that the clinical team is ofquestionable social viability. Today when thenumber of persons needing treatment so far ex-ceeds the number of practitioners to meet this de-mand, the multiplication of persons working withany one patient is of dubious utility. Some worknow being done on the use of lay persons capableof genuine interpersonal relationships suggests thatthere may be better ways of meeting this problem.Work such as that of Margaret Rioch at the Na-tional Institute of Mental Health, in training ma-ture women to serve as counselors without requir-ing them to go through the usual professional cur-riculum, illustrates this possibility. True, thesepeople need supervision and help, but they havedemonstrated that they can make a genuine con-tribution. Again, some studies reported informallyby Fillmore Sanford arc pertinent. He told ofsending a research team into a community and ask-ing at random of the citizens, "To whom wouldyou talk if you had an important personal prob-lem?" In this manner they were able to triangulateand locate a small group of mature human peoplewho, in a native and unschooled way, could givemeaningful help to their fellows. If these peoplethen are given help from professional sources andnot contaminated in what they can do, they canmeet human need also. Finally, some work (Tan-nenbaum & Bugental, 1963) may be mentionedin which we are investigating the possibility ofusing paired people involved in a sensitivity train-ing experience to intensify the "product" of thatexperience. Our results are most encouraging,though most preliminary, at this time.8. The Fallacy that Diagnosis is Basic to Treat-ment

We have traditionally thought that we could onlyhelp the person when we had accumulated a greatdeal of information about that person. At one timewe made elaborate diagnostic studies of each ap-plicant for psychotherapy. Today we know thatthe accumulation of diagnostic information for mostpeople contributes little to the actual therapeuticwork, when that therapeutic work is of an outpa-tient, interview type. Diagnostic information isinevitably part-function information, while psycho-therapy that is most effective is whole-person, rela-

HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY 567

tionship centered. Diagnostic information is knowl-edge about the patient, the most effective psycho-therapy requires knowledge oj the patient. Thisdifference is more than a play on words. Knowl-edge about a patient treats that patient as an ob-ject, or a thing to be studied and manipulated.Knowledge of the patient recognizes the patient'sessential humanity and individuality. It involvesa knowing and relating, a being with, as opposedto a manipulating. Diagnostic information is use-ful when the need is to treat people as objects, asrepresentatives of classes, rather than as individu-als. For administrative functions, it often is essen-tial. For research purposes it may be crucial, butfor the psychotherapeutic purpose itself, diagnosisis not important once the grosser disturbances havebeen ruled out.

CONCLUSIONI have tried to give one view of a tremendously

exciting development in our field of psychology.If I see it correctly, we are leaving the stage ofpreoccupation with part functions and getting backto what psychology seemed to most of us to meanwhen we first entered the field. We are returningto what psychology still seems to mean to the av-erage, intelligent layman, that is, the functioningand experience of a whole human being.

Psychology has been going through an adoles-cence. This is an analogy we have often made.As an adolescent, psychology has little valued whatits parents could give, while it has modeled itselfon the glamorous outsider, physics. Now I hope

that psychology has matured and at last is cominginto its adulthood. As with most adolescents reach-ing maturity, it begins to look back at the oldfolks with some appreciation. (Was it Mark Twainwho said that at 14 he didn't realize someone couldbe as stupid as his father and still live, while at 21he was amazed at how much the old man hadlearned in 7 years?) Perhaps this can be so withpsychology, and psychology can turn again to itsparents, the humanities and philosophy, and fromthese take new strength to meet the challenges ofour day.

Two great human traditions are converging, andfrom their convergence we may expect a tremendousoutpouring of new awareness about ourselves in ourworld. One such tradition is that of science; theother is the humanities. It is as though we aresuddenly made heirs to a tremendous storehouse ofdata which has been but little utilized scientificallybefore, orto use a different analogyas thougha whole new hemisphere of our globe had been dis-covered by some new Columbus. Certainly muchexploration and development must be done, but atlast we are reaching its shores.

REFERENCESKELLY, E. L. Clinical psychology1960: Report of sur-

vey findings. Amer. Psychol. Ass. Div. Clin. Psychol.Newsltr., 1961, 14(1), 1-11.

TANNENBAUM, R., & BUGENTAL, J. F. T. Dyads, dans, andtribes: A new design for sensitivity training. Nat. Train.Lab. hum. rel. Train. News, 1963, 7(Spring, No. 1), 1-3.

TRYON, R. C. Psychology in flux: The academic-profes-sional bipolarity. Amer. Psychologist, 1963, 18, 134-143.