Transcending the Limitations of Abraham Maslow

Abstract

The following is my reaction to Abraham Maslow’s article, “Toward a Humanistic Biology.” This reflection follows my initial excitement about the opportunity to learn more about Maslow, who is a central figure in humanistic psychology. The article then illustrates the dissonance and disillusion I experienced after reading a passage discrepant with Maslow’s wisdom and values while using a social justice lens to reconcile my concerns. The commentary concludes with a community-oriented solution as a call to update and transcend the limitations of Maslow’s contributions to reflect modern humanistic values and practices.

Abraham Maslow is an undeniably influential and celebrated figure in the history of psychology (Feigenbaum & Smith, 2020). When someone is curious about humanistic psychology, I will likely bring up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, knowing that he is one of the few humanistic figures that the average person may be able to identify. Although Maslow did not create the famous pyramid representing the hierarchy of needs that bears his name (Eaton, 2012), Maslow’s contribution to theorizing self-actualization still rings relevant and valuable in modern psychology (Choate et al., 2022). Admittedly, I knew very little about Maslow before beginning this project. I have never written a paper on him, or read a book by him, and I had only Googled on a surface level anything about his history and contributions to the field of psychology. So, when I was invited to write a reaction to Maslow’s (1969) article, “Toward a Humanistic Biology,” I saw it as an opportunity to learn more about the man beyond the hierarchy.

Excitement Through Opportunity

As I set out on an evening walk, I paired earbuds to my phone, uploaded a PDF copy of “Toward a Humanistic Biology” to a text-to-speech app, and began listening to the words of Maslow personified through the voice of my robotic Welsh reader named Geraint. As Geraint’s soothingly digital voice entered my ears, I was immediately enchanted by Maslow’s attitude toward humanistic psychology and psychology as a whole. I related to his declaration that psychology is “torn and riven” (p. 724) by noncommunicating sciences and was impressed with his perspective toward the integration of theories, referring to the process as “transcendence” (p. 724). I was further impressed that Maslow called out his humanistic colleagues for being anti-science and even anti-rational, which hints at a thoughtfully-rebellious side that resonated with my value of speaking up when something doesn’t feel right.

Dissonance Through Disillusion

However, my excitement about Maslow’s progressive ideas was suddenly halted when I heard Geraint’s robotically-kind voice say, “How shall we handle the fact the sadists, perverts, masochists, homosexuals, neurotics, psychotics, suicidals make different choices than do ‘healthy human beings’?” (p. 729). As someone who identifies in the LGBTQIA+ community, I was shocked and felt upended by Maslow’s statement. I thought Maslow was supposed to embody the humanistic spirit, and here he is being insensitive and homophobic. I understand that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1968), which pathologized homosexuality as a mental disorder, was only released a year before the publishing of this article, but was this how Maslow thought? In a state of disillusionment, I listened to the rest of the article and attempted a second read another day, but I couldn’t help but feel disappointed that one of humanistic psychology’s most iconic figures was such a man of his time.

To avoid throwing Maslow out with the bathwater, which is not an uncommon trend in how younger generations approach cancel culture (Norris, 2023), it took time to reflect on the dissonance I was encountering with Maslow’s troubling position on “healthy human beings” (Maslow, 1969, p. 729). Experiencing a microaggression voiced by the innocent Geraint was unpleasant enough. However, the discrepancies between Maslow’s values versus his words were more disturbing and difficult to grapple with on a critical level. On the one hand, Maslow advocates for a Taoistic direction of the social sciences, which promotes a noninterfering and unintrusive style of observation over the classical objectivity valued by dominant natural sciences. Maslow implies that there is a benefit to giving studied subjects “greater trust as autonomous, self-governing, and self-choosing” (p. 730) individuals and that what is best for someone is not prescriptive but subjective to an individual’s experience. On the other hand, by categorically defining who is unhealthy, Maslow pathologizes sexual diversity and mental illness in a way that hints at preconceived biases that inherently clash with the Taoistic observation he endorses. I believe reconciliation of these discrepancies is possible but may require a further evaluation of Maslow’s more fallible elements through the social justice lens.

Reconciliation Through Social Justice

Maslow was known to value social justice (Bland & DeRobertis, 2020; Hoffman, 1999), which is evident by his dedication to fostering a society that nourishes all people equally, as well as his belief that social scientists “must examine [their] own prejudices and preconceptions before going in to work with any society or a subcultural group” (Maslow, 1969, p. 730). However, Maslow’s views on sexual diversity and mental illness—as well as a long-standing debate over perceptions regarding whether Maslow appropriated the Blackfoot Tribe’s wisdom and culture for his theories without giving due credit (Feigenbaum & Smith, 2020)—signal that there may not be congruency between Maslow’s intentions and actions. Social justice is not unidimensional, and Maslow’s beliefs of the importance of a common good for all do still ring true, but social justice importantly aims to ensure “that all groups are given opportunities for full and equal participation” (Bhatia, 2018, p. 244). If Maslow’s dated beliefs and inflammatory statements are left unchecked, I argue that an unnecessary barrier is being erected that may prevent unrestricted and equitable involvement of everyone who might be interested in Maslow’s contributions to psychology.

However, Maslow’s dedication to growth and social justice hints that he might have welcomed the idea of growing past some of his controversial opinions and datedly divisive beliefs. In an interview transcript from the first volume of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology titled “Eupsychia-The Good Society,” Maslow (1961) states, “The creative person sticks his neck out when he has an idea. He may be defying the whole culture, even the whole history” (p. 4). Maslow valued ongoing improvement for the sake of a culture’s psychological health, and I believe that acknowledgment of uncomfortable truths is critical for the psychological health of humanistic psychology. Unfortunately, having passed away in 1970, Maslow cannot rework his writings and social views to reflect current social justice efforts. However, today’s humanistic psychologists can update what Maslow cannot.

Transcendence Through Community

As I conclude this reaction, a question still remains unsatiated: How do we, as humanistic psychologists, transcend Maslow’s harmful words while honoring his contributions that have helped keep psychology balanced against the dehumanization of natural science models that dominate the social sciences? I have doubts that an academic journal article alone will enact substantial change and growth regarding my concerns with Maslow’s dated views on sexual diversity, especially countering someone of Maslow’s tremendous status in humanistic psychology’s history and culture. Maslow is not the only figure in psychology’s history that has required transcendence. In 2019, a group of Jungians addressed a long-standing silence on Carl Jung’s racism by publishing an open letter, which addressed their regret that “no adequate acknowledgment or apology for what Jung wrote . . . has been forthcoming from the field of analytical psychology and Jungian analysis” (“Open Letter from a Group of Jungians on the Question of Jung’s Writings on and Theories about ‘Africans,’” 2019, p. 361). What if it is time for humanistic psychology to embrace a community approach to address the problematic aspects of Maslow’s legacy by creating opportunities for dynamic discussion among willing humanistic scholars and practitioners? Maslow (1965; see also Bland & Swords, 2023) pointed out that societal change requires a slow simmer, but what sparks would emerge from an organized panel and participating audience? I would gladly partake in that discourse.