Who Is Included in Maslow’s Good Society?

Abstract

This article describes Maslow’s vision of a Good Society and how engrained a humanistically oriented psychological science aimed at creating a Good Society has become in the contemporary practice of humanistic psychologists and psychologists more broadly. Although Maslow’s vision of a humanistically influenced psychology aimed at creating a Good Society has led to progress, it is not without fault. One major limitation of Maslow’s argument for a humanistically oriented psychological science aimed at creating a Good Society is Maslow’s pathologizing views regarding sexually diverse individuals and his contention that their sexual orientation or behaviors make those individuals unhealthy. This limitation is discussed, and current humanistic psychologists are encouraged to draw from Maslow’s vision for a Good Society to make further progress in the field of psychology while recognizing that, as humanistic psychologists, we must neither exclude any group of individuals from a part of a Good Society nor deem those individuals unfit for self-actualization.

Overview

Maslow’s (1969) article, Toward a Humanistic Biology, argued for a bridge between humanistically oriented biology and the onus of psychologists to create a Good Society. He argued that the two concepts are inextricably linked and that “the goodness or badness of a person depends upon the social institutions and arrangements in which [they] find [themselves]” (Maslow, 1969, p. 732). Thus, a society with equitable and moral social institutions is necessary for people to be good or healthy. Like Maslow, contemporary humanistic psychologists such as Johnson (2013) have advocated recognizing the need for a healthy society for the psychological health of individuals. For instance, she stated that governments must offer benefits, such as paid leave, to create a healthy society where individuals report better well-being. Also, like Maslow (1969), Johnson (2013, 2019) argued that we need a healthy society that encourages healthy living (i.e., connection to others), which is important for building a secure connection to oneself, self-love, and ultimately self-actualizing. In addition, Maslow’s argument against a morally neutral psychological science has been something the field of psychology has been progressing toward more broadly. For example, the American Psychological Association (2021, 2022) recently released a policy statement affirming and building on support for reproductive rights and issued an apology to People of Color for failing to challenge systemic racism in the United States. Both are steps by the field of psychology more broadly against a morally neutral psychological science and are similar to how Maslow (1969) called for the voice of psychological science to solve large problems such as income inequality. There are also now alternative models to the traditional training models for psychologists; these models encourage emerging from the laboratory into society to work toward a vision similar to that of Maslow’s Good Society. One such model is Mallinckrodt et al.’s (2014) scientist–practitioner–advocate model, which encourages psychologists to engage in social justice advocacy and challenge oppression and inequity that contribute to presenting problems in therapy (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). Trends over time suggest that more psychologists are adopting advocacy-based models of psychological science and incorporating them into their research and practice (Miles & Fassinger, 2021).

Limitation of Maslow’s Vision

Although Maslow’s voice has been influential in shifting the field of psychology to one that is more humanistic and advocates for the creation of a Good Society, he was mistaken about some things. Notably, when writing about the Mind–Body connection, in his article, Toward a Humanistic Biology, he asked, “how shall we handle the fact that sadists, perverts, masochists, homosexuals . . . make different choices than do ‘healthy human beings’?” (Maslow, 1969, p. 729). Maslow described the referenced groups of individuals as experiencing unhealthy pleasures that cause anguish and pain and even went as far as calling those “unhealthy pleasures” “stupid, ineffective, clumsy gropings toward health” (Maslow, 1969, p. 730). However, contemporary humanistic psychologists are steadfastly opposed to labeling individuals consensually expressing sexual behavior with another person as unhealthy (Barker, 2011; Bridges & New, 2020). According to the Society for Humanistic Psychology’s (n.d.) Position Statement on Sexual and Gender Diversity, “any statement suggesting that sexual- and gender-diverse individuals, when compared to heterosexual individuals, are not equally able to self-actualize and develop to their full potential as human beings stands contrary to the basic beliefs and values of humanistic psychology.” Humanistic psychologists are encouraged to bracket their understanding of sexuality and encourage individuals they work with to authentically express their sexuality (Kleinplatz, 2013).

Maslow subsequently argued for the self-regulation and self-choice of individuals, which is a Taoistic and humanistic point of view rooted in a lack of intrusion. However, the stigmatizing statements in Maslow’s article about sexually diverse individuals could have (and likely were) used to support the control of those individuals and stymie their self-expression, similar to how pathologizing a gay identity in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) led to control and lack of freedom for many gay individuals (Drescher, 2015). It is as if, regarding sexuality, Maslow assumed a similar role of being in charge of and controlling individuals, like the example that he cited about the classic role of a scientist that invokes fear in high school girls, rather than assuming a role grounded in “techniques for getting them [clients] to tell us what is best for them” (Maslow, 1969, p. 730). Maslow appears to have been arguing for a Good Society, but only for those who were deemed “healthy” at the time. It was common for homophobia and sex-negativity (e.g., kink-shaming and homophobia) to exist in Maslow’s time in the mid-20th century (Ericksen & Steffen, 2001). Nonetheless, Maslow (1969) argued that self-actualized individuals would not be swayed by or confused by individuals who disagree with them regarding what is morally right, even if most people disagree with that person (p. 727). Self-actualized individuals resist acculturation and are open to experience. These characteristics are evidenced by the self-expression of sexually diverse individuals. Thus, even considering the time period, it is a serious limitation that Maslow pathologized sexually diverse individuals rather than being open to their experiences and encouraging them to self-actualize.

Summary

Although Maslow’s (1969) article has shortcomings regarding who should be approached using a humanistic stance and who should be part of the Good Society, his words remain influential for humanistic psychologists today. His view that humanistic psychologists should be approving, nonintrusive, and nonmanipulating serves as a foundation for humanistic psychological practice today, with some of the sexually diverse individuals he pathologized (Bridges & New, 2020). The stances of approval, nonintrusion, and nonmanipulation also drive the sex-positive and sexual and gender diversity movements for equality and move our country closer to the ideal of a Good Society (Bridges & New, 2020). The major limitation associated with Maslow’s Good Society is that humanistic psychologists today must be careful not to pathologize and exclude individuals as Maslow did when we perceive them as engaging in “unhealthy” pleasures. If humanistic psychologists do not heed that advice, we may repeat some of Maslow’s mistakes rather than focus on continuing to carry forward his wisdom that has positively moved our field forward.