Khái niệm về con người

Like Erik Erikson (see Chapter 9), May offered a new way of looking at things.
His view of humanity is both broader and deeper than the views of most
other personality theorists. He saw people as complex beings, capable of
both tremendous good and immense evil.

According to May, people have become estranged from the natural world,
from other people, and most of all, from themselves. As people become more
alienated from other people and from themselves, they surrender portions of
their consciousness. They become less aware of themselves as a subject,
that is, the person who is aware of the experiencing self. As the subjective
self becomes obscured, people lose some of their capacity to make choices.
This progression, however, is not inevitable. May believed that people, within
the confines of their destiny, have the ability to make free choices. Each
choice pushes back the boundaries of determinism and permits new choices.
People generally have much more potential for freedom than they realize.
However, free choice does not come without anxiety. Choice demands the
courage to confront one’s destiny, to look within and to recognize the evil as
well as the good.

Choice also implies action. Without action, choice is merely a wish, an idle
desire. With action comes responsibility. Freedom and responsibility are
always commensurable. A person cannot have more freedom than
responsibility, nor can one be shackled with more responsibility than
freedom. Healthy individuals welcome both freedom and responsibility, but
they realize that choice is often painful, anxiety-provoking, and difficult.

May believed that many people have surrendered some of their ability to
choose, but that capitulation itself, he insisted, is a choice. Ultimately, each
of us is responsible for the choices we make, and those choices define each
of us as a unique human being. May, therefore, must be rated high on the
dimension of free choice.

Is May’s theory optimistic or pessimistic? Although he sometimes painted a

rather gloomy picture of humanity, May was not pessimistic. He saw the
present age as merely a plateau in humanity’s quest for new symbols and
new myths that will engender the species with renewed spirit.

Although May recognized the potential impact of childhood experiences on

adult personality, he clearly favored teleology over causality. Each of us has
a particular goal or destiny that we must discover and challenge or else risk
alienation and neurosis.
May assumed a moderate stance on the issue of conscious versus
unconscious forces in personality development. By their nature, people have
enormous capacity for self-awareness, but often that capacity remains fallow.
People sometimes lack the courage to face their destiny or to recognize the
evil that exists within their culture as well as within themselves.
Consciousness and choices are interrelated. As people make more free
choices, they gain more insight into who they are; that is, they develop a
greater sense of being. This sharpened sense of being, in turn, facilitates the
ability to make further choices. An awareness of self and a capacity for free
choice are hallmarks of psychological health.

May also took an intermediate position on social versus biological influences.

Society contributes to personality principally through interpersonal
relationships. Our relations with other people can have either a freeing or an
enslaving effect. Sick relationships, such as those Philip experienced with his
mother and sister, can stifle personal growth and leave us with an inability to
participate in a healthy encounter with another person. Without the capacity
to relate to people as people, life becomes meaningless and we develop a
sense of alienation not only from others but from ourselves as well. Biology
also contributes to personality. Biological factors such as gender, physical
size, predisposition to illnesses, and ultimately death itself, shape a person’s
destiny. Everyone must live within the confines of destiny, but those confines
can be expanded.

On the dimension of uniqueness versus similarities, May’s view of humanity

definitely leans toward uniqueness. Each of us is responsible for shaping our
own personality within the limits imposed by destiny. No two of us make the
same sequence of choices, and no two develop identical ways of looking at
things. May’s emphasis on phenomenology implies individual perceptions
and therefore unique personalities.

Các ý chính và khái niệm

 A basic tenet of existentialism is that existence precedes essence,

meaning that what people do is more important than what they are.
 A second assumption is that people are both subjective and objective:
that is, they are thinking as well as acting beings.
 People are motivated to search for answers to important questions
regarding the meaning of life.
 People have an equal degree of both freedom and responsibility.
 The unity of people and their phenomenological world is expressed by
the term Dasein, or being-in-the-world.
 Three modes of being-in-the-world are Umwelt, one’s relationship with
the world of things; Mitwelt, one’s relationship with the world of
people; and Eigenwelt, one’s relationship with oneself.
 Nonbeing, or nothingness, is an awareness of the possibility of one’s
not being, through death or loss of awareness.
 People experience anxiety when they are aware of the possibility of
their nonbeing as well as when they are aware that they are free to
choose.
 Normal anxiety is experienced by everyone and is proportionate to the
threat.
 Neurotic anxiety is disproportionate to the threat, involves repression,
and is handled in a self-defeating manner.
 People experience guilt as a result of their (1) separation from the
natural world, (2) inability to judge the needs of others, and (3) denial
of their own potentials.
 Intentionality is the underlying structure that gives meaning to
experience and allows people to make decisions about the future.
 Love means taking delight in the presence of the other person and
affirming that person’s value as much as one’s own.
 Sex, a basic form of love, is a biological function that seeks satisfaction
through the release of sexual tension.
 Eros, a higher form of love, seeks an enduring union with a loved one.
 Philia is the form of love that seeks a nonsexual friendship with another
person.
 Agape, the highest form of love, is altruistic and seeks nothing from
the other person.
 Freedom is gained through confrontation with one’s destiny and
through an understanding that death or nonbeing is a possibility at any
moment.
 Existential freedom is freedom of action, freedom to move about, to
pursue tangible goals.
 Essential freedom is freedom of being, freedom to think, to plan, to
hope.
 Cultural myths are belief systems, both conscious and unconscious,
that provide explanations for personal and social problems.

Overview of Existential Psychology

We return to Philip’s story at several points in this chapter. But first, we

present a brief overview of existential psychology.
Shortly after World War II, a new psychology—existential psychology—
began to spread from Europe to the United States. Existential psychology
is rooted in the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche,
Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and other European philosophers. The
first existential psychologists and psychiatrists were also Europeans, and
these included Ludwig Binswanger, Medard Boss, Victor Frankl, and others

For nearly 50 years, the foremost spokesperson for existential psychology

in the United States was Rollo May. During his years as a psychotherapist,
May evolved a new way of looking at human beings. His approach was not
based on any controlled scientific research but rather on clinical
experience. He saw people as living in the world of present experiences
and ultimately being responsible for who they become. May’s penetrating
insights and profound analyses of the human condition made him a
popular writer among laypeople as well as professional psychologists.

Many people, May believed, lack the courage to face their destiny, and in
the process of fleeing from it, they give up much of their freedom. Having
negated their freedom, they likewise run away from their responsibility.
Not being willing to make choices, they lose sight of who they are and
develop a sense of insignificance and alienation. In contrast, healthy
people challenge their destiny, cherish their freedom, and live
authentically with other people and with themselves. They recognize the
inevitability of death and have the courage to live life in the present.

Background of Existentialism

Modern existential psychology has roots in the writings of Søren

Kierkegaard (1813–1855), Danish philosopher and theologian. Kierkegaard
was concerned with the increasing trend in postindustrial societies toward
the dehumanization of people. He opposed any attempt to see people
merely as objects, but at the same time, he opposed the view that
subjective perceptions are one’s only reality. Instead, Kierkegaard was
concerned with both the experiencing person and the person’s
experience. He wished to understand people as they exist in the world as
thinking, active, and willing beings. As May (1967) put it, “Kierkegaard
sought to overcome the dichotomy of reason and emotion by turning
[people’s] attentions to the reality of the immediate experience which
underlies both subjectivity and objectivity” (p. 67).

Kierkegaard, like later existentialists, emphasized a balance between

freedom and responsibility. People acquire freedom of action through
expanding their selfawareness and then by assuming responsibility for
their actions. The acquisition of freedom and responsibility, however, is
achieved only at the expense of anxiety. As people realize that, ultimately,
they are in charge of their own destiny, they experience the burden of
freedom and the pain of responsibility.

Kierkegaard’s views had little effect on philosophical thought during his

comparatively short lifetime (he died at age 42); but the work of two
German philosophers, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and Martin
Heidegger (1899–1976), helped popularize existential philosophy during
the 20th century. Heidegger exerted considerable influence on two Swiss
psychiatrists, Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss. Binswanger and Boss,
along with Karl Jaspers, Victor Frankl, and others, adapted the philosophy
of existentialism to the practice of psychotherapy.

Existentialism also permeated 20th-century literature through the work of

the French writer Jean-Paul Sartre and the French-Algerian novelist Albert
Camus; religion through the writings of Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, and
others; and the world of art through the work of Cezanne, Matisse, and
Picasso, whose paintings break through the boundaries of realism and
demonstrate a freedom of being rather than the freedom of doing (May,
1981).

After World War II, European existentialism in its various forms spread to
the United States and became even more diversified as it was taken up by
an assorted collection of writers, artists, dissidents, college professors and
students, playwrights, clergy, and others.

What Is Existentialism?

Although philosophers and psychologists interpret existentialism in a

variety of ways, some common elements are found among most
existential thinkers. First, existence takes precedence over essence.
Existence means to emerge or to become; essence implies a static
immutable substance. Existence suggests process; essence refers to a
product. Existence is associated with growth and change; essence
signifies stagnation and finality. Western civilization, and particularly
Western science, has traditionally valued essence over existence. It has
sought to understand the essential composition of things, including
humans. By contrast, existentialists affirm that people’s essence is their
power to continually redefine themselves through the choices they make.
Second, existentialism opposes the split between subject and object.
According to Kierkegaard, people are more than mere cogs in the
machinery of an industrialized society, but they are also more than
subjective thinking beings living passively through armchair speculation.
Instead, people are both subjective and objective and must search for
truth by living active and authentic lives.

Third, people search for some meaning to their lives. They ask (though
not always consciously) the important questions concerning their being:
Who am I? Is life worth living? Does it have a meaning? How can I realize
my humanity?

Fourth, existentialists hold that ultimately each of us is responsible for

who we are and what we become. We cannot blame parents, teachers,
employers, God, or circumstances. As Sartre (1957) said, “Man is nothing
else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of
existentialism” (p. 15). Although we may associate with others in
productive and healthy relationships, in the end, we are each alone. We
can choose to become what we can be or we can choose to avoid
commitment and choice, but ultimately, it is our choice.

Fifth, existentialists are basically antitheoretical. To them, theories

further dehumanize people and render them as objects. As we mentioned
in Chapter 1, theories are constructed in part to explain phenomena.
Existentialists are generally opposed to this approach. Authentic
experience takes precedence over artificial explanations. When
experiences are molded into some preexisting theoretical model, they
lose their authenticity and become divorced from the individual who
experienced them.

Basic Concepts

Before proceeding to Rollo May’s view of humanity, we pause to look at

two basic concepts of existentialism, namely, being-in-the-world and
nonbeing.

Being-in-the-World