HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY:

A NEW BREAK-THROUGH *
J. F. T. BUGENTAL
Psychological Service Associates, Los Angeles

WANT to present the thesis that a major sonality from our existing orientations, the press
break-through is occurring at the present time of public interest in, and need for, psychological
in psychology. Like man's other major changes science and service. One may speculate also that
the introduction of the steam engine, the decline just as when a single organism encounters a threat
of feudalism, the beginnings of the laboratory to its life maintenance, it evokes counter forces
method in psychologyits presence and potentiali- (e.g., antibodies), so this development may be part
ties are difficult to recognize for those of us who of an evolutionary response to the biology-threatenare so deep in daily concerns. Yet, I am convinced ing forces of nuclear destruction.
that the parallels I cite are not vainglorious. I
think we are on the verge of a new era in man's PSYCHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS UNDERGOING CHANGE
concern about man which mayif allowed to run
Let us examine eight parameters which have been
its courseproduce as profound changes in the hu- traditionally accepted as given in psychology but
man condition as those we have seen the physical which, I think, are being questioned increasingly
sciences bring about in the last century. The es- as a result of the wave of change which is now ocsence of this change is, I believe, the eroding away curring.
of some of the familiar parameters of psychological
These eight parameters are:
science and the concurrent emergence of a new ap1. The model of man as a composite of part
preciation for the fundamental inviolability of the functions
human experience.
2. The model of a science taken over from physPsychology, as any social institution, is a con- ics
stantly evolving set of assumptions, information,
3. The model of a practitioner taken over from
and speculations. As with any institution, it has medicine
its periods of stability and of rapid change. Some4. The pattern of a compartmentalized, subtimes the change may be clearly dated from a par- divided graduate school faculty and curriculum as
ticular event, as with the rise of behaviorism after the appropriate agency for preparing students for
Watson's epochal book appeared. Sometimes the psychological careers
forces producing the change are more scattered, as
5. The criterion of statistical frequency as a
in the rise of the mental testing wave. In either demonstration of truth or reality
instance, hindsight reveals numerous stirrings be6. The illusion that research precedes practice
fore the change process became clearly apparent.
7. The myth of the "clinical team"
This is certainly so at the present. Writings by
8. The fallacy that diagnosis is basic to treatmany social scientists have prepared the way for ment
what is now emerging (viz., James, Allport, Cantril,
What I want to do now is to examine each of
May, Maslow, Fromm, Rogers, and many others). these models with a view to recognizing what
What has brought this development to the fore now changes may be occurring in them.
may be argued, but certainly some of the influences
will include: the large number of psychologists now 1. The Model of Man as a Composite of Part
involved in the practice of psychotherapy, the fail- Functions
ure of many promising approaches to produce a
What has been said above already indicates my
truly embracing and adequate theory of human per- view that this fundamental conception of the na1
Adapted from address presented at Orange County ture of man is in the process of basic alteration.
So long as we sought mental elements, in whatever
(California) Psychological Association, December 7, 1962.

563

564

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

form and given whatever sophistication of naming,

we operated on the basis that the total human being could be sufficiently understood if only we had
an inclusive catalogue of his parts. This is at root
inevitably a structuralistic conception. Today we
are more and more recognizing that we need a
process conception of the human being. So basic
do I feel this difference to be that I would propose
that in the coming years we will increasingly recognize that the study of the part functions of human
behavior is indeed a different science than is the
study of the whole human being. We are familiar
with making this sort of division between psychology and physiology. It seems to me that part functions of what we have traditionally thought of as
psychologythat is, such segments as habits, test
scores, single percepts, learned itemsdiffer more
from the functioning of the total person than does
the reflex arc from memory for nonsense syllables.
I propose that the defining concept of man basic
to the new humanistic movement in psychology is
that man is the process thai supersedes Ike sum of
his part junctions.
2. The, Model oj a Science Taken Over jrom Physics
So long as we accepted the model of man as a
composite of his part functions then it was appropriate for us to seek for the ultimate units of
behavior. Such attempts followed the two main
lines of the search for mental elements under
Titchner or for the simple stimulus-response bond
under the behaviorists, or on the other side the
seeking for basic instincts or primary cathexes under the orthodox psychoanalytic banner. Physics
has demonstrated tremendous versatility in increasing our knowledge of the physical world by analytic methods. But physics has built its record because of the fundamental interchangeability of the
units which it studied. A true psychology of human
beings is a psychology of noninterchangcable units.
The past SO years have seen a tremendous accumulation of data about people treated as interchangeable units. And yet it is clearly the case that only
where we are concerned with masses of persons do
these data yield useful results. This may seem a
harsh judgment, but I think it is an accurate one.
If psychology is the study of the whole human
being, and this I believe is its primary mission, then
results which are only true of people in groups arc
not truly psychological but more sociological. Just

as psychology is emerging as distinct from the

study of part functions, so it is distinguishing itself from the study of group phenomena.
Before leaving these comments on a model of a
science taken over from physics, it would be worthwhile noting that physics itself has found that it
must move beyond logical positivism and the
mechanistic causality which long were its guideposts. Attention to process and to the experimenter's interconnection with the experiment are
beginning to be recognized as essential to the further development of pure physics. How much more
pertinent are they to psychology!
3. The Model oj a Practitioner Taken Over jrom
Medicine
The medical model for the practitioner has a long
history which dates back, of course, to the shaman,
the medicine man, and the occult priest. Psychological practitioners have taken it for granted that
they must function in a similar fashion. This is
increasingly being found to be a false assumption.
Indeed many practitioners of psychotherapy find
that such a pattern is all too readily accepted by
patients and used as a resistance to taking responsibility in their own lives. A new concept of
the practitioner is emerging to which it is difficult
yet to give an adequate name. Lowell Kelly (1961)
has suggested the term "consultants in living"
which has much to commend it, though it does
seem somewhat pretentious. Certainly the point is
that we cannot follow a pattern of csoterically diagnosing our patients' difficulties and writing prescriptions in Latin and an illegible scrawl, which the patient dutifully carries to the pharmacist for compounding and then takes with complete ignorance
of the preparation or its intended effects. We arc
recognizing more and more that essential to the
psychotherapeutic course is the patient's own responsible involvement in the change process.
4. The Pattern oj a Compartmentalized, Subdivided
Graduate School Faculty and Curriculum as the
Appropriate Agency jor Preparing Students for Psychological Careers
Something of the ferment within psychology has
been represented in the typical graduate school
faculty. Especially in our larger schools, there has
been a pattern of subdivision of the department into
various specialties. Sometimes these reach rather
extreme numbers of subpsychologies. The result

HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY
has been a fragmented approach to our field which
has created much confusion and threat for graduate
students. I wish I could report that I see as many
signs of healthful change in this area as in some of
the others upon which I report; nevertheless, there
are stirrings which indicate a recognition that our
pattern of many specialtiesclinical, counseling,
industrial, childis proving more self-defeating
than implementing. My own feeling is that we
must move toward recognizing three basic subdivisions of psychology: that concerned with part
functions, that concerned with group functions, and
that concerned with the total person as the unit.
Quite probably for each of these there will need to
be a research and teaching phase and a practitioner
phase. All three are increasingly being employed
in the solution of practical problems, and the number of practitioners in all three is sure to grow tremendously in the coming years. Much of the resentment of our experimental brothers toward the
practitioners is apt gradually to fade away as more
and more of the experimentalists themselves are
drawn into consulting functions. Tryon (1963) has
written his prediction that the academic ivory
tower is a thing of the past and that the experimentalists soon will be deeply involved in practitioner roles. This will certainly have a profound
effect on our graduate school educational philosophies.
5. The Criterion of Statistical Frequency as a
Demonstration of Truth
In the abstract, the criterion of statistical frequency seems to be an excellent one. Certainly
those things that happen regularly and uniformly
seem to be self-evident samples of the nature of
reality. However, in actual practice this is not
borne out. Despite increasing elaboration of statistical methodologies, despite greater and greater
refinement of laboratory procedure, the product of
years of conscientious effort has not been such as
to warrant confidence that we will eventually arrive
at a genuine understanding of human behavior by
this route. And this is not surprising when we
look back to the model on which these efforts are
founded. The effort to find the basic subperson
unit of behavior has been vain. The total person
is the basic unit. Only as we find ways to understand the behaving person can we understand his
behavior. It is manifestly impossible with present
techniques to control all factors involved in any

565

behavioral sequence in which the human normally

engages. Nor is this simply a matter of developing more and more tests and using larger and larger
computers. Our definition of the human being as
the process that supersedes the sum of its factors
indicates that there is still a nonmeasurable aspect.
There is still the person himself. It is not a matter
of more time being needed; it is a matter of recognizing that we are following an unprofitable course.
Another way of conceptualizing the problem may
throw light on it: This is to recognize that our
traditional scientific approach as represented in so
many journal articles, dissertations, and master's
theses, has been founded on a finite universe conception. That is to say, implicitly it is postulated
that the universe is a closed system in which there
is a fixed quantum of potential knowledge. Today
science generallywhether physical, biological, or
socialis coming to recognize that knowledge is
infinite even as the universe is infinite. Once we
could study any isolated correlation between two
psychological variables with the hope that eventually that correlation would link up with other such
isolated studies and some embracing systematization would emerge inductively. We must recognize
today that this is not so. Within a universe of
infinite variability we can go on infinitely collecting isolated items of data, of correlations and variation, and no link-up will necessarily emerge. Investigators who have repeated experiments conducted by other investigators have not uniformly
been able to replicate their findings, because of the
infinite variety of variables, because of the infiniteness of potential knowledge.
6. The Illusion that Research Precedes Practice
We have long had the popular myth that the scientist develops knowledge and the engineer applies
it. For this we could substitute that the researcher
develops knowledge and the practitioner applies it.
This has not been so in psychology, and it has
never been so in physics and engineering either.
More than one authority in the physical sciences
has recognized that physics has received more contributions from engineering than it has given to engineering. Similarly, in clinical psychology, we
have made more contributions to the body of psychological knowledge from the practitioner's end
than have been received by the practitioner from
the research investigators. One need hardly elaborate this point beyond citing the work of Freud as

566

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

an overriding example. Perhaps one additional

highly important instance is the reintroduction of
humanism into psychology. This reintroduction
which is the revitalizing, indeed the saving event of
this period in the history of psychologyis in
large part due to the contribution of clinical practice. More particularly it is in great part due to
the experience of psychologists who have been engaged in the practice of psychotherapy. The names
of the leaders in the field who are in the forefront
of this development are the names of people who
have had intensive immersion in the work of psychotherapy: Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo
May, Erich Fromm, and so on.
Again we can point to the influence of the model
of the finite universe in which knowledge can be
accumulated at random and eventually integrated
and made available for the practitioner. Since we
have disavowed this model, since we recognize that
it is not veridical with the universe, then we must
recognize that we need the practitioners' contributions to highlight those areas of greatest significance
socially. We need the practitioners' testing of findings for pertinence and applicability; we need the
practitioners' contribution of proposing questions
for research inquiry.
7. The Myth of the Clinical Team
Let me make clear at the outset that I do know
that in some settings the clinical team has proven
a very useful and productive concept, but 1 am
equally convinced that in most settings it is not,
that in many instances it has been a disguise for
the domination of the team by one or another of
the professionals. Similarly, many times it has resulted in the subordination of the potential contributions of the two professionals not in the dominant role. But most importantly, the clinical team
is founded again on the segmentalist view of human
beings. The three-headed monster of the clinical
team is not able, by its very nature, to meet the
patient in genuine interpersonal encounter. The
clinical team may be an excellent device to gather
information about people, chiefly information which
treats people as representatives of various classes
or groupings of society. It may be a useful administrative tool to make case assignments or dispositions, but it is not a therapeutically useful tool.
I am convinced that psychotherapy, which is truly
depth psychotherapy, requires an authentic encounter between two human beings and that the

divided responsibility, and relationships which the

clinical team presupposes militate against such an
authentic encounter.
One may also note that the clinical team is of
questionable social viability. Today when the
number of persons needing treatment so far exceeds the number of practitioners to meet this demand, the multiplication of persons working with
any one patient is of dubious utility. Some work
now being done on the use of lay persons capable
of genuine interpersonal relationships suggests that
there may be better ways of meeting this problem.
Work such as that of Margaret Rioch at the National Institute of Mental Health, in training mature women to serve as counselors without requiring them to go through the usual professional curriculum, illustrates this possibility. True, these
people need supervision and help, but they have
demonstrated that they can make a genuine contribution. Again, some studies reported informally
by Fillmore Sanford arc pertinent. He told of
sending a research team into a community and asking at random of the citizens, "To whom would
you talk if you had an important personal problem?" In this manner they were able to triangulate
and locate a small group of mature human people
who, in a native and unschooled way, could give
meaningful help to their fellows. If these people
then are given help from professional sources and
not contaminated in what they can do, they can
meet human need also. Finally, some work (Tannenbaum & Bugental, 1963) may be mentioned
in which we are investigating the possibility of
using paired people involved in a sensitivity training experience to intensify the "product" of that
experience. Our results are most encouraging,
though most preliminary, at this time.
8. The Fallacy that Diagnosis is Basic to Treatment
We have traditionally thought that we could only
help the person when we had accumulated a great
deal of information about that person. At one time
we made elaborate diagnostic studies of each applicant for psychotherapy. Today we know that
the accumulation of diagnostic information for most
people contributes little to the actual therapeutic
work, when that therapeutic work is of an outpatient, interview type. Diagnostic information is
inevitably part-function information, while psychotherapy that is most effective is whole-person, rela-

567

HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY
tionship centered. Diagnostic information is knowledge about the patient, the most effective psychotherapy requires knowledge oj the patient. This
difference is more than a play on words. Knowledge about a patient treats that patient as an object, or a thing to be studied and manipulated.
Knowledge of the patient recognizes the patient's
essential humanity and individuality. It involves
a knowing and relating, a being with, as opposed
to a manipulating. Diagnostic information is useful when the need is to treat people as objects, as
representatives of classes, rather than as individuals. For administrative functions, it often is essential. For research purposes it may be crucial, but
for the psychotherapeutic purpose itself, diagnosis
is not important once the grosser disturbances have
been ruled out.
CONCLUSION
I have tried to give one view of a tremendously
exciting development in our field of psychology.
If I see it correctly, we are leaving the stage of
preoccupation with part functions and getting back
to what psychology seemed to most of us to mean
when we first entered the field. We are returning
to what psychology still seems to mean to the average, intelligent layman, that is, the functioning
and experience of a whole human being.
Psychology has been going through an adolescence. This is an analogy we have often made.
As an adolescent, psychology has little valued what
its parents could give, while it has modeled itself
on the glamorous outsider, physics. Now I hope

that psychology has matured and at last is coming

into its adulthood. As with most adolescents reaching maturity, it begins to look back at the old
folks with some appreciation. (Was it Mark Twain
who said that at 14 he didn't realize someone could
be as stupid as his father and still live, while at 21
he was amazed at how much the old man had
learned in 7 years?) Perhaps this can be so with
psychology, and psychology can turn again to its
parents, the humanities and philosophy, and from
these take new strength to meet the challenges of
our day.
Two great human traditions are converging, and
from their convergence we may expect a tremendous
outpouring of new awareness about ourselves in our
world. One such tradition is that of science; the
other is the humanities. It is as though we are
suddenly made heirs to a tremendous storehouse of
data which has been but little utilized scientifically
before, orto use a different analogyas though
a whole new hemisphere of our globe had been discovered by some new Columbus. Certainly much
exploration and development must be done, but at
last we are reaching its shores.
REFERENCES
KELLY, E. L. Clinical psychology1960: Report of survey findings. Amer. Psychol. Ass. Div. Clin. Psychol.
Newsltr., 1961, 14(1), 1-11.
TANNENBAUM, R., & BUGENTAL, J. F. T. Dyads, dans, and
tribes: A new design for sensitivity training. Nat. Train.
Lab. hum. rel. Train. News, 1963, 7(Spring, No. 1), 1-3.
TRYON, R. C. Psychology in flux: The academic-professional bipolarity. Amer. Psychologist, 1963, 18, 134-143.