[Note: this essay began with the last
posting (9/6/16). In order to understand the context for what follows, I
suggest that if you have not read that posting, click on that entry by using
the archival feature found on the right side of this page.]
As a holistic approach, humanist psychology focuses on the
whole instructional setting when its study turns to instruction. Part of that concern is what a person, a
student or a teacher, naturally contends to be his/her felt needs. And this leads us to look at the first of two
influential theorists of this psychology, Abraham Maslow.[1]
I have, in this blog, referred to Maslow’s model on the hierarchy
of needs. As with Piaget’s and
Kohlberg’s models (described in the 9/2/16 posting), Maslow’s model has a
developmental dimension to it. Basically,
this model claims that from birth, humans have needs and those needs can be
categorized as types which follow a progression.
That progression is as follows: physiological needs (food, water, etc.),
safety/security needs, belongingness and love needs (friendship, intimacy,
etc.), esteem needs (prestige and feelings of accomplishment), and
self-actualization needs (achieving one’s full potential). A summarized way of describing this
progression can be from basic to psychological to self-actualizing.
The more basic needs need to be sufficiently satisfied before
the psychological needs become stridently felt and, in turn, the psychological
needs need to be sufficiently satisfied before self-actualizing needs become
stridently felt. As with Kohlberg’s model of moral development,
not all individuals arrive at the highest levels indicated by this model.
As with the other developmental models, I sense there is a
progression from the concrete and parochial to the abstract and universal. One can define maturation by these
progressions. And whether one is
concerned with cognitive ability, moral reasoning, or motivational needs,
teachers and curriculum developers need to know about these changes and account
for them in their plans and actual teaching practices.
Throughout, the dignity of the person, the experiences the
person has had, and the person’s march toward knowing and understanding who
he/she is provide the focal concerns upon which this particular development of
needs is fixed. Accounting for the
dynamic nature of the development can be challenging to a teacher as he/she
prepares lessons and interacts with students.
The other theorist is Carl Rogers. His main psychological model is concerned
with self-perceptions. His
“perceptionalism” heightens, as a determinant force, how a person perceives
him/herself and how that perception affects the manner in which that subject engages
in challenging activities such as learning.
In terms of children, how they perceive they are wanted, liked, and loved
are very important to their success in the classroom.
Teachers need to develop a personal relationship with the child
so that the young one feels emotionally safe in the school setting. With this security, he/she can progress. A student who falters is either not
sufficiently prepared intellectually or is suffering from some psychological
hindrance obstructing his/her growth in developing a positive self-perception.
The self-esteem movement found its origins in how Rogers’ theoretical
work was received by the general public.
His message seemed to congeal with a general reaction to the more
Puritanical traditions that used to characterize American educational modes of
operations. I have previously made the
case,[2] that
this shift coincided with the upgrading of the natural rights construct as the
main perspective that guided our substantive beliefs concerning politics and,
therefore, authority.
Perceptionalism, under the influence of Rogers, ushers in a
softer, more student-friendly approach and discards such practices as paddling
and other forms of punishments that were deemed to demean a student’s self-definition
of his/her worth. Concerns for dignity
became more prominent in the strategic planning of school officials and even in
laws governing teacher disciplinary practices.
Positively, humanistic psychology would emphasize the more
artistic educational activities a curriculum could offer. The arts, literature, dance, and other
expressive subjects work well with this increased focus on self-defining
aims. It is through these subjects that
students are assisted in learning who they are.
I would point out, though, that with this concentration on
the individual – in his or her determining life-defining values and other decisions
– humanistic psychology shares an important attribute with the more behaviorally
oriented perspective of the natural rights construct. Both promote an emphasis on the
individual. This heightened individualism
has been castigated, in this blog, as an enabling factor which contributes to a
more narcissistic culture.
Many have pointed out that this concentration on the self is a
counterproductive influence in regard to our striving to attain the common good
or social capital; that is, promoting a societal quality, which
is characterized by having an active, public-spirited citizenry, egalitarian
political relations, and a social environment of trust and cooperation.[3]
The concern is one of balance: how weighted should one’s beliefs be in terms
of placing importance on oneself? How
positive does a self-image have to be in order for a person to accomplish
learning objectives or succeed in other, self-defining activities? Yes, one needs a sufficiently healthy view of
oneself, but are there prudent and constructive limits? If yes, what are they?
These questions do not seem to be asked by the adherents of
humanistic psychology. Their language
speaks of authoritarian school systems that avoid humanistic relations and
interactions with students. This, I
would submit, is not accurate in the main.
Are there over-oppressive teachers?
Surely, but overall my experience has been that most of the teachers I
encountered were reasonable, caring people who seek positive relationships with
their students. While most teachers are
not adherents to humanistic psychology – they tend to be behaviorists – they
can still care for their students and want the best for them.
One can attribute many positive results from the influence humanist/phenomenological
psychology has had. And many of these
results can be found in our nation’s schools.
But there have been detrimental effects as well.
One of these negative results has been a language by which a selfish
and self-centered youth culture has been justified and promoted. Perhaps what is worrisome is not so much the
message this psychology communicates, but the degree to which this message is
carried out by a good many teachers, a good many school officials, and in some
cases, a good many school policies.
Balance is the key to achieving and maintaining sound educational
practice.
[1] Abraham Maslow, Toward
a Psychology of Being, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Van Norstrand Reinhold, 1968).
[2] As stated in the last posting: As I described in the posting, “Formal
Critique of Critical Theory,” what I named reconceptualism is a branch of critical theory,
the leftist, to varying degrees, Marxist construct. Most educators who ascribe to critical theory
today adhere to this line of thought. A
quip that I believe summarizes this view is to just marry Marxian thought to
natural rights biases that idolize the individual, and you have
reconceptualism. With reconceptualism
and its reliance on postmodernism and post structuralism, there is a call for
self-referentiality and a rejection of any grand narratives or ideologies. It is subjectivism on “steroids.” Adherents call for a serious approach to
seeking the truth through historical interpretation that relies heavily on
contextualizing the information gathered and delving into subjective forces
about historical characters and the researchers themselves.
[3] A la,
Robert Putnam. See Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
