Thursday, July 17, 2008

Existential Vs Humanistic Therapy

Existential and Humanistic theories have a lot in common, but are also fairly different. In what ways are they similar, and in what ways are they different? Cite references.


Existential and Humanistic psychological theories have a great deal in common, but there are some notable differences between them. Existential and humanistic psychologies are similar in that they both emphasize life meaning, objective reality and human potential. However, these two psychologies are not interchangeable with one another. Generally, humanistic psychology is seen as having a more positive view on humanity, whereas existential psychology delves more into the darkness of humanity.

Since Freud, who is known as the father of modern day psychology, there have been a few “forces” which have shaped the field of psychology. The first force of psychology focused on psychodynamics- theories developed by Freud. Psychodynamic psychologists believe that humans consist of an id, ego and superego. Put more simply, the first force state that as humans, our internal cravings come into conflict with societal constructs, and the issues that develop because of this may become pathological.

After a few decades of first force psychology dominating the field, second force psychology, or behaviorism, developed. This force was popular from the 1930s to the 1950s, and its emphasis went from internal psychodynamics to a more observable and scientific approach. Behaviorism, as developed by Watson and Skinner, stated that human behavior was no different from animal behavior, in that humans have behaviors and instincts that can be shaped through punishment, reward and modeling. Corey (2005) says, “The behavior therapy movement differed from other therapeutic approaches in its application of principles of classical and operant conditioning to the treatment of a variety of problems.”

In the 1960s and 1970s the third force in psychology developed, as a backlash and alternative to the extreme scientific focus of behaviorism and the strictness of psycholoanalysis. Peavy (1996) says the third force, “in their multi-fold variations, [is] a partial antidote to the emphasis on conformity to normative values which characterises both psychoanalytic and cognitive-behavioural perspectives.” Third force psychology focuses on existential and humanistic philosophies, which state that individuals have unique inherent capabilities and can live fully actualized lives when they are valued, supported, provided with meaningful life activity and can express their emotions. Existential psychology comes from turn of the 20th century existential European philosophers, such as Kierkegaard and Sartre. These philosophies became more prevalent after World War II, as the horrific results of the war produced questioning as to the purpose of human existence. Existential philosophers believe that there is no absolute life meaning, and thus life has no purpose. However, from this dark statement, existential philosophers find a great deal of value in life and the freedom of choice that arises from having no absolute meaning.

Victor Frankl, the most famous existential psychologist, was a Jewish doctor and therapist in Vienna before living for years in a few Nazi concentration camps during World War II. From the experiences Frankl had while living in concentration camps, Frankl developed a form of existential psychology called Logotherapy, which is deeply rooted in existential philosophy. Logotherapy’s premise is that a striving to find meaning in ones life is mans’ primary motivational force. Frankl (1959) says, “[In] Logotherapy the patient is actually confronted with and reoriented toward the meaning of his life. And to make him aware of this meaning can contribute much to his ability to overcome his neurosis.” Keshen (2006) further explains existentialism and Logotherapy, stating,
[Human] beings have a will to purpose, or in other words, a need to engage in something that gives their life purpose. If this will to purpose cannot be fulfilled, an existential vacuum, or void, is created and this may in turn cause an existential neurosis. In order to cope with this existential neurosis, people will often engage in activities, which I view as defense mechanisms, to fill their existential vacuum.

As noted by Frankl and Keshen, existential psychologists generally strive to help individuals find their own subjective life meaning in a world with no absolute purpose.
Similarly, humanistic psychology studies “qualities unique to human life, such as love, personal freedom, greed, lust for power, mortality, art, philosophy, religion and literature, as well as science” (Charnofsky, 2006). Peavy (1996) states that humanistic counseling views human existence as an acorn. He says, “A person contains endless possibilities for development and simply needs a nurturing, facilitative environment which fosters growth. There is little stress on conformity to normative values and standards, and unrealistic stress on 'you can become whatever you want to become.”
Humanistic psychology takes a nurturing and supportive stance on human development, and on the limitless possibilities for growth within each of us. Humanistic counseling also emphasizes change, evolution and self-determination.

Humanistic and existential psychology have a great deal in common, and are often referenced together, using the term “humanistic-existential therapy.” Cain (2002) states that many modern day existential therapists “refer to themselves as existential-humanistic practitioners, indicating that their roots are in existential philosophy but that they have incorporated many aspect of North American humanistic psychotherapies.” One reason they are referenced together is because they share similar theoretical backgrounds. Corey (2005) states that humanistic and existential therapies overlap in that they both “share a respect for the client’s subjective experience and a trust in the capacity of the client to make positive and constructive conscious choices. They have in common an emphasis on concepts such as freedom, choice, values, personal responsibility, autonomy, purpose and meaning.” These types of therapy highly value individuality, as they emphasize subjectivity, personal meaning and personal choice.

Charnofsky (2006) notes the definition of existential-humanistic psychology by quoting Thomas Greening, the editor of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology for 30 years. Greening says,
Existential-Humanistic psychotherapy is a meeting and conversation between two people in which they confront finiteness and death, determinism and chaotic freedom, isolation and enmeshment, dogma, absurdity and meaninglessness… When the meeting goes well there is a movement from nonbeing to being, reactivity to intentionality, estrangement to engagement, deficiency motivation to creativity.
Put more simply, existentialism and humanistic psychology overlap in that they are both concerned with how humans can lead a meaningful life and how they handle the inevitability of death.
Bugental (1992) speaks about several postulates that are crucial to the hybrid of an existential-humanistic perspective. One important postulate, as noted above, is that the only way significant life change can occur is through the subjectivity of the client. Another is that both the client and therapist are fully present and committed to the therapy process. Bugental also states that the task of existential-humanistic therapy is to assist clients in noting how they “constrict their awareness and, thus, their lives.” This allows them to see “alternatives not previously available and to follow through on choices with greater resolution.”
Hoffman (2004) also notes many similarities between humanistic and existential psychology. Both psychological theories are phenomenological, meaning that “they value personal experience and subjectivity.” He states that in an attempt to become more scientific, Psychology often values objective reality rather than subjective. Phenomenological approaches, on the other hand, “focus on the limitations of objectivity. This… means objective knowledge is only one part of the big picture.” Another similarity between the two psychologies is the focus on the “here-and-now” in therapy. While the past is viewed as important, it is necessary for the client to stay in the present moment, to process, understand and value the current therapeutic relationship. “While many psychoanalytic approaches see the therapy relationship as primarily a product of transference, humanistic and existential approaches focus on the real in the relationship in addition to the transference/countertransference patterns.” By focusing on the current client-therapist relationship, transference and countertransference can serve as an important microcosm in the macrocosm of the client’s interpersonal relationship world.

Lastly, Hoffman (2004) says that humanistic and existential approaches both value the basic goodness in people and the human potential. “Part of the therapy process is understood as freeing the individual up to embrace their basic goodness and potential. In doing this, it is believed they will be happier and satisfied with life.” As noted by Corey, Greening, Bugental and Hoffman, both existential and humanistic psychologies allow client’s to experience their individual potentials, by embracing the limitless possibilities of human existence.
Because existential and humanist psychologies have a great deal in common, some may find it unclear as to how they differ. Corey (2005 says) says,
Partly because of this historical connection and partly because of representative of existentialist thinking and humanistic thinking have not always clearly sorted out their views, the connection between the terms existentialism and humanism have tended to be confusing for students and theorists alike. The two viewpoints have much in common, yet there are also significant philosophical differences between them.

Corey (2005) speaks of how humanistic and existential psychologies differ by referencing humanistic psychology’s acorn metaphor, where the acorn will automatically grow into an oak if given the appropriate conditions. Humanistic psychology focuses on growth and stimulating positive change in others. Existentialists, on the other hand, believe that humans do not have an internal nature we can count on. They believe that at every moment, we are given the choice about what to make of our conditions. Similarly, Milton (1993) states that although humanistic psychology is rooted in existential thought, humanistic and existential psychologists value different aspects of human existence. For example, existentialism “emphasizes the boundaries of human existence while the humanistic stance puts the accent on human choice.”
Hoffman (2004) expands on the differences between humanistic and existential psychologies, as noted by Corey and Milton. He says that while both psychologies believe in individual potential and goodness, “existentialism has focused more on the potential for evil and human limitation… In other words, humanistic psychology typically espouses a similar position to existentialism, but humanistic therapists have not spent as much time dwelling in the shadow or demonic.” Hoffman states that because of these differing focuses, humanistic psychologists have been accused of being too “warm and fuzzy,” whereas existential psychologists have been known to be attracted to the darkness and bleakness of humanity.

In conclusion, both humanistic and existential psychologies are highly similar in terms of theories and practice. Generally, they both focus on life meaning, subjective reality and human potential. On the other hand, these theories are not to be confused with one another, even though some psychologists use them in combination. Humanistic psychology tends to focus more on limitless possibilities and goodness, whereas existential psychology emphasizes evil and the shadow sides of existence. In general, however, these theories seem to have more similarities than differences, and can be used together to form a more balanced and holistic perspective on the human experience.




References

Bugental, J.F.T (1992). The future of existential-humanistic psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 29 (1), 28-33
Charnofsky. S. (2006). Therapy with couples. Madison: Thomson Corporation.
Corey, G. (2005). Theory and practice of counseling & psychotherapy: seventh edition.
Belmont: Brooks/Cole- Thomson Learning.
Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Pocket Books.
Hoffman, L. (2004). Humanistic psychotherapy. Retrieved May 26, 2008, from
http://www.existential-therapy.com/HumanisticPsychotherapy.htm
Keshen, A. (2006). A new look at existential psychotherapy. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 60 (3), 285-298.
Milton, M. J. (1993). Existential thought and client centered therapy. Counseling
Psychology Quarterly, 6 (3), 239-248.
Peavy, R.V. (1996). Counseling as a culture of healing. British Journal of Guidance &
Counseling, 24 (1), 141-150.

No comments: