Humanistic psychology: Criticism and debate
Criticism of the field has come from Isaac Prilleltensky (1992) who argues that humanistic psychology - inadvertently - is affirming the social and political status quo, and therefore has remained fairly silent about social change.
Further, in their review of different approaches to positive psychology, Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (2000) note that the early incarnations of humanistic psychology lacked a cumulative empirical base, and that some directions encouraged self-centeredness. However, according to mainstream humanistic thinkers, humanistic psychology must not be understood to promote such ideas as narcissism, egotism, or selfishness (Bohart & Greening, 2001).
The association of humanistic discourse with narcissistic and overly optimistic worldviews is a misreading of humanistic theory. In their response to Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (2000), Bohart & Greening (2001) note that along with pieces on self-actualization and individual fulfillment, humanistic psychologists have also published papers on a wide range of social issues and topics, such as the promotion of international peace and understanding, awareness of the holocaust, the reduction of violence, and the promotion of social welfare and justice for all.
Humanistic Psychology has been criticized because its theories are impossible to falsify (Karl Popper, 1969) and lacks predictive power and therefore is not a science. For instance the psychology of Adler could describe almost any action as a sign that an individual has overcome their feelings of inferiority or alternatively that same behaviour could be described as a failure in this respect. These theories are the scientific equivalent of saying ‘either it is raining or it is not’. A good scientific theory should be falsifiable and have predictive power (Chalmers, 1999); therefore humanistic psychology is not a science. Nonetheless, it remains to be determined whether the therapeutic dimension of psychology is exclusively, or even best, served by positivist approaches to psychology. Humanistic Psychology does not reject such methods and research programs as invalid; however, these approaches do not further its own project, which involves cooperatively affirming and balancing the human values whose conflict or imbalance in the identity of a patient can lead to suffering. Humanistic Psychology recognizes that this project puts it outside the realm of falsifiability; it does not aspire to the status of a science in Karl Popper’s sense.
On a further note, humanistic psychology presents a fascinating psychological and philosophical outlook on life. While its proponents have not presented it as a science, they recognize that rather than being objective, science is the least subjective understanding of the world of which the largest number of people are aware. Humanistic psychology addresses the nature of the human experience, calling into question the nature of objectivity and the role of objective knowledge in the personal experience of life.
Related posts
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Leave your response!