Humanistic psychology can be traced to Abraham Maslow as the founding father, however through time has ended up being closely related to Carl Roger's Person-Centered Therapy (or Client-Centered Therapy). However, humanistic psychology today is much more comprehensive and more complicated than Maslow and Roger's foundational method. A broad meaning of humanistic psychology can include several techniques, consisting of person-centered treatment, emotion-focused treatment (EFT), Gestalt treatment, focusing, and existential-humanistic treatment.
Today, it prevails, at least in the United States, for specialists and scholars to view existential psychotherapy as one of the humanistic psychotherapies and research study suggests that it is among the more popular humanistic approaches (Paige et al., 2018). There are many factors for the convergence of these treatments. For one, considering that their development these two approaches have been in close discussion. Second, there have actually been lots of efforts to mix humanistic and existential therapy (i.e., Bugental's existential-humanistic psychotherapy). Lastly, both methods share many of the exact same worths.
Similarities to Existential Psychology
Both approaches are phenomenological. While the term phenomenology is a complex term which many psychologists and thinkers disagree about, the essence of what it indicates for these approaches is that they value personal experience and subjectivity. Psychology, in its attempt to become a science, has developed a preference for the goal. While phenomenological approaches don't discount the value of objective approaches, they believe it is essential to acknowledge the restrictions of objectivity. This, in part, suggests unbiased knowledge is only one part of the big picture.
The "here-and-now" or the restorative moment is a shared worth of these approaches. While the past is necessary, it is also crucial not to forget today. Consisted of in the here-and-now is a commitment to understanding, processing, and valuing the restorative relationship. This relationship is viewed as being a real relationship under unique restraints, limits, and contexts. To put it simply, while numerous psychoanalytic approaches see the treatment relationship as mostly a product of transfer, existential and humanistic techniques focus on the real in the relationship in addition to the transference/countertransference patterns.
Both techniques value self-awareness. In the more general sense, this is shared with all the depth psychiatric therapies. Nevertheless, there is another unique element to self-awareness within existential and humanistic idea. Self-awareness in the more basic sense refers to an understanding of the self that is primarily viewed as built up life experience and unconscious knowledge. In existential and humanistic thought, self-awareness is likewise deeply worried about the human condition and how this impacts the specific self.
Humanistic and existential approaches both value the standard goodness in individuals and the human capacity. Part of the therapy procedure is comprehended as releasing the individual as much as welcome their basic goodness and potential. In doing this, it is thought they will be happier and pleased with life.
Distinctions from Existential Psychology
While both approaches believe in the human potential and goodness, existentialism has actually focused more on the capacity for evil and human limitation. This is more of a distinction of process than standard values. In other words, humanistic psychology usually espouses a comparable position to existentialism, but humanistic therapists have actually not spent as much time dwelling in the shadow or daimonic. This difference should not be lessened regardless of the shared structure of their beliefs. Through time, humanistic psychology has been unjustly defined as being excessively "warm and fuzzy." Many people have actually avoided this theoretical technique because of the perception that it does not deal with the truth of the human condition. On the other hand, existentialists often get accused of costs too much time in the dark locations and being rather morbid. Neither characterization is accurate, yet these characterizations have, sometimes, influenced who has been drawn to the different theoretical positions and how they have actually developed over time.
An essential discussion in between Carl Rogers and Rollo May highlights and extends these distinctions. The discussion started with an article released by Carl Rogers in the Association for Humanistic Psychology's Perspectives. It was followed by a later short article published by May (1982) in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology along with a reply by Rogers (1982; both articles were republished in Miller, 1992). For Rogers, human evil stands out from human nature. It lies in the culture. For May, individuals innately have both the potential for good and for evil. For Rogers, and numerous humanistic psychologists, evil is an external reality which affects individuals through culture and socialization. Since he does not believe this properly deals with our own capacity for evil, May voices concern for this partly.