The History of Positive : Truth Be Told

Jeffrey J. Froh St. Joseph’s College

Martin E. P. Seligman, in his 1998 APA Presidential and development (Hall, 2003). They feel that the central Address, is said to have introduced concerns of psychology should include positive phenom- to the American Psychological . However, ena, such as , , and . overwhelming evidence suggests that the principal com- ponents of positive psychology date back at least to These beliefs led them to turn away from traditional . More recently, spoke psychology and toward and phenomenol- of a psychology in which should be given not ogy for a more comprehensive understanding of only to what is, but also to what could be. Maslow even development and existence (Misiak & Sexton, 1966). used the words “positive psychology” for a chapter title in These same were also in disagreement, the 1950s. Contemporary positive psychologists seem to with both the psychoanalysts and the behaviorists; have distanced themselves from Maslow’s humanistic especially because of the “mechanomorphic” and reduc- approach largely because they believe that its experien- tionistic view of held by the latter. In effect, tial lacks scientific rigor. It is argued here these beliefs robbed man of his essence (Misiak & that positive psychology will only -actualize when it Sexton, 1973). According to humanists, man is more embraces its history. than the sum of his parts, and can only be studied prop- erly as a whole. Key Words: positive psychology, Maslow, , , phenomenology, existentialism, Views that clearly reflect humanism go back to the William James modern origins of psychology and can be found in the work of William James, , and G. Stanley Hall (Rathunde, 2001; Shaffer, 1978). William James, in ositive psychology is the study of how human particular, argued that in order to study optimal human prosper in the face of adversity (Seligman functioning thoroughly, one has to consider the subjec- P & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Its are to identify tive experience of an individual. For that , and oth- and enhance the human strengths and that make ers, James is considered by some to be “America’s first life worth living, and allow individuals and communities to positive ” (Taylor, 2001, p.15). James saw thrive. Martin E. P. Seligman and , the importance of using a positivistic methodology in its leading proponents, have been accused of not giving science; however, he maintained “good science” must enough credit to “humanistic psychology” for the origins also employ methods grounded in phenomenology. This of positive psychology (Rich, 2001; Taylor, 2001). As a combination of positivistic and phenomenological method- means of bridging the two, the Journal of Humanistic ology was known as “radical .” Not only was Psychology dedicated a special issue (2001 Winter edi- James interested in what was objective and observable, tion) to “re-center the discourse in positive psychology so but also in what was subjective because “objectivity is that the movement recognizes the historical importance based on intense ” (Gilky, 1990, as cited in of humanistic psychology” (Rich, 2001, p. 8). Rathunde, 2001).

Historical Perspective In his presidential address to the American Psychological Association in 1906, William James asked why some The of phenomenology and existentialism individuals were able to utilize their resources to their had a significant impact on the development and growth fullest capacity and others were not. In order to under- of humanistic psychology (Misiak & Sexton, 1966; 1973); stand this, he said two more questions must be answered: however, phenomenology was more influential to the “(a) What were the limits of human energy? and (b) How humanist movement because existentialism was consid- could this energy be stimulated and released so it could ered to be “overly pessimistic” (DeCarvalho, 1991, p. 68). Many psychologists, unhappy with the disease model Jeffrey J. Froh, M.S. is an adjunct professor at St. Joseph’s that drives much of psychology, maintain that all people College, a school psychologist at Shorham Wading-River High have an innate tendency to strive for perpetual growth School, and a doctoral candidate at St. John’s University.

Page 18 May/June 2004 z NYS Psychologist be put to optimal use?” (Rathunde, 2001, p. 136). These Apparently, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi have questions are a clear demonstration of William James’ chosen to distance themselves from humanistic psychol- interest in the study of optimal human functioning and ogy because of what they call its use of unscientific its relationship to experience, a common thread woven and its inadequate empirical foundation. throughout positive psychology literature. They write: “Unfortunately, humanistic psychology did not attract much of a cumulative empirical base” (2000, Humanistic psychology, often known as the “third p. 7). However, Taylor (2001) suggests that these remarks, force,” began formally in the 1950’s in Europe and the which imply that humanistic psychology is anti-scientific, . Maslow believed that humanistic psy- are actually the result of differing ideas of what consti- chology should be based on the study of healthy, cre- tutes research. Had Seligman not rigidly defined research ative individuals and attempted to investigate empiri- as solely encompassing positivistic methodologies, he cally the lives and patterns of self-actualized persons would have discovered that humanistic psychology has (Moss, 2001). The term “positive psychology” first appeared an extensive research base that uses both positivistic in the last chapter of Maslow’s book and and phenomenological designs (Misiak & Sexton, 1973). (1954), the title of which was, “Toward a Positive Psychology.” In this chapter, Maslow maintains The suggestion that humanistic psychology ignores that psychology itself does not have an accurate under- rigorous research has been disputed by many. Bohart standing of , and that the field tends and Greening (2001) have written that humanism “values not to raise the proverbial bar high enough with respect research, although this is defined broadly to include to maximum attainment. He wrote: both positivistic and qualitative or phenomenological methods” (p. 82). Shapiro (2001) suggests that Seligman The science of psychology has been far more successful on the and Cszikszentmihalyi have ignored the large body of negative than on the positive side; it has revealed to us much about man’s shortcomings, his illnesses, his sins, but little about research published in scholarly journals, such as the his potentialities, his virtues, his achievable aspirations, or his Journal of Humanistic Psychology (where, by-the-way, full psychological height. It is as if psychology had voluntarily some of Csikszentmihalyi’s early works were published) restricted itself to only half its rightful jurisdiction, and that the and the Humanistic Psychologist. They also have darker, meaner half (Maslow, 1954, p. 354). ignored the considerable quantitative and qualitative that has been completed by members Positive Psychology and Humanism: of several APA divisions, including Division 32 (the Similarities Division of Humanistic Psychology). In writing about the special issue of the American Psychologist (2000) Humanistic psychology is largely concerned with the devoted to “happiness, excellence, and optimal human quality of human experience and can be defined as functioning,” Shapiro (2001) says: “...primarily an orientation toward the whole of psychology rather than a distinct area or school...concerned with In the 16 articles, 178 pages, and over 1,300 references in this issue, I found extremely few (approximately 6, or 0.4%) refer- topics having little place in existing theories and systems: ences to the seminal and foundational works of Rogers, Maslow, e.g., love, , growth, self-actualization, peak expe- May, Bugental, Buhler, Combs, Carkuff, and many others, some rience, courage, and related topics” (Misiak & Sexton, of whom have done widely respected quantitative investigations. 1966, p. 454). One must only be slightly familiar with (p. 82). the work of positive psychologists to see the similarities between those areas mentioned above and what Seligman Future Directions and Conclusions (2002), refers to as signature strengths and virtues. There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi have argued that that positive psychology has roots going at least as far psychology has “forgotten about its roots” when it comes back as William James. Furthermore, it is very clear to making the lives of all people more fulfilling and that positive psychology and humanistic psychology enhancing and identifying human excellence (Seligman, share common goals and interests. The main difference 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). But this between these two “movements” appears to be their par- argument does not hold true when we review Maslow’s tiality to different research methodologies. The human- work. Indeed, the three pillars proposed by Seligman (2002), ists tend to opt for more qualitative methods so as to those that serve as guides to positive psychology, are increase the chance they are assessing the “whole man;” ideas that mimic those of James, Maslow, and other positive psychologists, in contrast, tend to employ more humanists. For instance, William James spoke about the rigorous, quantitative, and reductionistic methods. importance of positive subjective experiences (Seligman’s pillar 1) in order to achieve personal growth. Maslow Maslow (1954) maintained that investigating human (1954) states that in order for individuals to thrive and potential only through positivistic methods was similar excel, a -fostering culture (Seligman’s pillar 3) must to measuring a six foot tall individual in a room with a be created. five foot ceiling — the conditions have already been

May/June 2004 z NYS Psychologist Page 19 for the individual not to reach his/her maximum “height” Hall, K. J. (2003). . Retrieved March 2, 2003, (a.k.a., “low-ceiling” psychology). In order to measure hyperlink: http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/ human excellence and potential fully, humanists tend to psycweb/history/rogers/html employ both positivistic and phenomenological research Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New methodologies. As Rich (2001) plaintively asks: “can we York: Harper & Row, Publishers. understand creativity...or the good life through struc- tural equation modeling” (p. 8)? Misiak, H., & Sexton, V. S. (1966). : An overview. : Grune & Stratton. Without a doubt, Seligman and his colleagues have Misiak, H., & Sexton, V. S. (1973). Phenomenological, worked hard to further the study of human excellence existential, and humanistic psychologies: A histori- and optimal functioning. As a result of their efforts and cal survey. New York: Grune & Stratton. influence, several relevant projects have been started to help us understand what makes the lives of all people Moss, D. (2001). The roots and genealogy of humanistic more satisfying, and to know what areas need improve- psychology. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. T. Bugental, & ment, e.g., the Telos Taxonomy Project, begun in July J. F. Pierson (Eds.). The handbook of humanistic 2000. Subsequently, in 2004, Seligman and Peterson psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and published Human Strengths: A Classification Manual. practice (pp. 5-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage It is an authoritative positive nosology, developed so Publications, Inc. that concepts such as , love, and humor can be Rathunde, K. (2001). Toward a psychology of optimal measured validly and reliably (Seligman, 2002). human functioning: What positive psychology can learn from the “experiential turns” of James, It is argued here that positive psychology will not Dewey, and Maslow. Journal of Humanistic self-actualize itself until it embraces its history and is Psychology, 41, 135-153. more accepting of phenomenology. As Rathunde (2001) writes: “Adopting an experiential perspective may help Rich, G. J. (2001). Positive psychology: An introduction. build a more unified psychology of optimal human func- Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 8-12. tioning and avoid misunderstandings concerning the Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the role of scientific research in humanistic and positive new positive psychology to realize your potential for psychology” (p. 135). Moreover, using phenomenological- lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press. existential methodology is “essential to explore ques- Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive tions about what makes life fulfilling or meaningful” (p. psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 136). If humanistic and positive psychology can only join 55, 5-14. together, perhaps psychology will witness the rise of a Seligman, M., & Peterson, C. (Eds.) (2004). Human powerful and important “fourth force.” strengths: A classification manual. New York: Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES Shaffer, J.B.P. (1978). Humanistic psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bohart, A.C., & Greening, T. (2001). Humanistic psycholo- Shapiro, S. (2001). Illogical . American gy and positive psychology. American Psychologist, Psychologist, 56, 82. 56, 81-82. Taylor, E. (2001). Positive psychology and humanistic DeCarvalho, R. J. (1991). The founders of humanistic psychology: A reply to Seligman. Journal of psychology. New York: Praeger. Humanistic Psychology, 41, 13-29.

Page 20 May/June 2004 z NYS Psychologist