I have just recently finished reading an expertly compiled article by the user 
WHAT IS HUMANISTIC THEORY?
The Humanistic psychology movement arose in the mid 20th century as a response to two factors - The first being that Freud’s Psychodynamic theory and B.F. Skinner’s Behaviorism was pessimistic and “inhibitive”, and the need for a school in therapy that was more efficient to treat the overwhelming population of WWII veterans. In particular, Humanistic psychological theory and philosophy sought to end the admittedly patronizing practice in Psychodynamic and Behavioral psychology of trapping patients in a box; effectively attacking the roots of determinism underlying the two schools of thought. After all, Humanistic theory is considered the forefront psychological school when it comes to free will. One of the most important tenets of Humanistic theory (which I will henceforth refer to as H.T. for ease) is that the patient has the capability to utilize true and complete free will, and that most ailments that befall ourselves are due to a societal pressure. While this may sound a reasonable leap forward in terms of progress, I will discuss later on the unintended side effects that may befall an individual who comes to adopt this belief.
Multiple intellectuals and psychologists of the 50’s and 60’s devoted themselves to the development of this new school, but the two most notable were Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Carl Rogers is often considered the progenitor of H.T., and his views were rightfully revolutionary. He rejected the most deeply ingrained principle of Freudian Psychodynamics: the idea that the subconscious holds influence over the individual. Instead, he proposed all that there was to consciousness is our perception. It logically follows, when there is no division of conscious information and the unconscious, that the potential patient has complete access to all processes occurring within them - and as you can imagine, is a pathway that is directly aligned with the idea of people having total complete will. To explain why people suffer psychological ailments, Rogers proposed that there was a disconnect between the full consciousness of a person and the empirical reality of the outside world - a concept he would later term “self-incongruence”. It then followed in his theory that in order for a patient to develop a better outlook on life, they could take advantage of their true free will at their disposal as a means of saying “I have a choice on how I want to feel”. Furthermore, Roger stressed that in order for a patient to successfully adopt an optimistic view of life, the therapist should make it his sole aim to convince his patient that the world possesses an inherently good quality, and that it is the confines of practical culture that forces humans to act in despicable ways. This supposedly promotes a healthy sense of idealism and optimism in their patient. Abraham Maslow is perhaps most credited for the creation of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow carried out Roger’s idea that self-actualization is achievable by everyone (self-actualization meaning the total repair and integration of the self-incongruence, in the context of H.T.) if only they can fully fulfill all the prior needs in a “multistep plan”, more or less. This extends the invitation of psychological self-actualization to everyone, especially when in taking into account that in H.T., all facets of the personality are conscious. This in turn has lead Carl Rogers and Abe Maslow with being credited for the creation of the commercially successful “self-help” plans that have been found across all forms of media. According to the conjecture of Maslow, the thoughts of an individual would predominantly be focused on the most basic tier until it is satisfied, before they are able to move up. The process of traversing the levels of needs satisfies ‘the need to fulfil one’s potential’. With this basic grasp of Humanistic Theory, I will go into detail with where I specifically disagree and am critical of the multiple facets of it.
#1: HUMANISTIC THEORY INCORRECTLY DISREGARDS THE SUBCONSCIOUS
This issue is my primary disagreement with H.T. Reducing all the actions of the impressively complex human mind is an arrogant action, even if it means improving the confidence of an unassuming potential patient. Further so, the conscious mind is not built for processing all perceived data acquired from the domains of the unknown, nor is it made to consistently keep track of all perceived data in the past domains of the known. For example, one of the reasons sleep is so important is because it gives your brain a chance to not only allocate learned value over the day, but to shrink or truncate information it deems irrelevant or unimportant. Thanks to the horrific studies of the Nazis and USSR, we know that true sleep deprivation will lead to madness, and eventually, death. The madness and hallucinations associated with sleep deprivation must be due to the brain attempting to operate its subconscious and conscious functions - and it is there that we see the overlap. To quote the Swiss clinical psychologist and philosopher, Carl Jung:
Such material has mostly become unconscious because — in a manner of speaking — there is no room for it in the conscious mind. Some of one's thoughts lose their emotional energy and become subliminal (that is to say, they no longer receive so much of our conscious attention) because they have come to seem uninteresting or irrelevant, or because there is some reason why we wish to push them out of sight. It is, in fact, normal and necessary for us to "forget" in this fashion, in order to make room in our conscious minds for new impressions and ideas. If this did not happen, everything we experienced would remain above the threshold of consciousness and our minds would become impossibly cluttered.
To claim that no subconscious exists, or that is has no sway over the actions of people, is to utterly ignore over 100 years worth of scientific research in in sociobiology. Again, I will provide an example of the clash: In this hypothetical scenario, a young and timid woman wants to become a successful business person, but because of her proclivity to decline confrontation, she attends an assertiveness training session with a H.T.-school therapist. Declining to mention that females are genetically predisposed to be more open and agreeable than males, the H.T. therapist ignores that statistic and convinces the young woman that she has the free will capability to accomplish whatever she should endeavor. Instead of integrating subconscious resentment she might have acquired over a lifetime of being a push-over, the therapist tells her that not only can she attain any goal, she can help her coworkers become more reasonable and empathic like her in the process. Skip forward 20 years later: The not-so-young woman is still left in her office cubicle while most of the coworkers she started with have already moved on. Still believing that all of her choices and feelings have been completely conscious, she diverts her resentment into the ever growing pool of suppressed emotion, thinking that she can will away anger without consequence. However, on this particular day 20 years later, her suppressed emotions have risen for high tide, and like a dam that has been overflowed, all her past resentment comes overflowing in one indomitable wave. This unprecedented anger forces her to think, to a logical and cynical conclusion: If I had done everything right, what had stopped me from moving up the corporate chain? She concludes that the only way she could have stayed so low for so long is because there was a systematic oppression in place, or because everyone was biased or prejudiced against her. Her discontent thus runs rampant and is dished out equally to undeserving coworkers, all in effort spite the system that has kept her down. I understand this is an oddly specific example, but ask yourself: Have you not seen this happen to a coworker you once knew or know, or perhaps a fellow student at school? I would be surprised to see if you say otherwise, and would feel tempted to call you lucky or unaware.
#2: HUMANISTIC THEORY IGNORES PATHOLOGY
One of the primary principles used in H.T. for therapy is the idea that you want to convince the patient that their fate is truly within their own hands, and not submissive to any outside elements. This was a counter-idea directly to the Freudian theory stating that sometimes, an individual's subconscious was too deeply repressed and thus irredeemable. Hopeful and idealistic in its own right, H.T. seeks to dispel the idea that their factors beyond the control of the individual. However, this blatant disregard for the potential pathology of the patient could prove disastrously dangerous. To be fair, the knowledge of neurological conditions were exponentially limited when compared to what we know as of the 21st century. However, both the core presumptions of Psychodynamic theory and H.T. are that the problems of the brain are holistically “software” problems, so to speak. While I would assume (and hope on any potential client’s behalf) most modern day psychologists, psychiatrists, and therapists overlook this defining feature of H.T., it is among the scientific consensus that many of the problems once thought of as mentally “software” were actually malfunctions with the “hardware”. What this translates to in action is that, a lot of times, you cannot simply overcome your Bipolar Disorder, Autism, or Depression through changing your mindset alone. Sometimes you DO need medical and chemical supplements to make up for the fact that there are battles occurring within your brain outside of your power.
#3: HUMANISTIC THEORY CAN BE USED TO JUSTIFY IMMORALITY
This section is perhaps more so dedicated to the philosophy of humanism, the philosophy that was reinvigorated by Humanistic theory, than it is to H.T. itself. Nonetheless, H.T. still espouses the same basic dogma as the humanist philosophy. The idea that a person should use their free will to the fullest extent to find value in their lives, or that the human mind is not actually moved by subconscious or “primal” desires can be used to horrific results. The idea that the human mind, fully self-actualized (again, in the H.T. sense of the word), is a logical and reasonable animal is not even inherently a fact to be proud of, if it could be stated as factual. One could assert that humanism posits an overarching and excessively abstract notion of humanity or universal human nature, which can then be used as a pretext for imperialism and domination of those deemed somehow less than human. In Timothy N. Laurie’s critique of humanist axioms, he states:
Humanism fabricates the human as much as it fabricates the nonhuman animal, turning the human into what he calls "a placeholder for a range of attributes that have been considered most virtuous among humans (e.g. rationality, altruism), rather than most commonplace (e.g. hunger, anger).
Further still, it should be impossible to call to mind phrases such as “the triumph of reason” without an instant recollection of the brutality carried with it. When presented with complete free will and the right to do whatever is necessary to alleviate the externally-induced misfortunes of the world burdened upon yourself - what do you think a human being would be capable of doing?
#4: MASLOW’S HIERARCHY IS FOUNDED ON FALSE AXIOMS
The idea that it is necessary to fulfill the lower tiers of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is patently and easily demonstratively false. I believe Maslow has overlooked two important factors - Human spirituality and its overcoming of incredible odds, and the relativism of happiness. Firstly, one needs to look no farther than the ascetics of historical fame and current standing. It is not uncommon that one will devote their life to being abstemious in all of its aspects, with clerics of both the East and West sacrificing all material possessions in seeking for the “superior spiritual” life. I will concede, however, that these are people (Coptic Christians and Buddhist monks, for specific example) who have either made the choice to live in radically minimalist styles or have been culturally conditioned for that way of life. Lastly, though, I will compare Maslow’s Hierarchy with my experiences travelling the world. I have been to five developing countries (Nepal, Mexico, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Panama), and, while this is technically anecdotal, not once have I seen people in those countries who were not grateful for what little they had. In fact, as someone who had initially gone to underdeveloped or impoverished villages believing Maslow’s Hierarchy, you can imagine the culture shock that would ensue to find they were all happy. While next to no-one were “self-actualized”, there were at least notable portions of the population that had made it the fourth tier of fulfillment without knowing where or when the next meal come from. Happiness is relative to the context of the extent of your knowledge. If there is a comparable situation with which you can look up to, which is the case in many developed countries (particularly those with large differences in distribution of wealth), of course you might be unhappy knowing what your life could be like. If you were raised in a small ocean side house without electricity or running water, and your awareness does not extend past your country’s province, the ideal state for attaining happiness, comfort, and respect may very well be anything as simple as getting a paddle for your canoe.
CONCLUSION & SOURCES
If you have made it this far, congratulations. As much as I enjoy criticism, I would enjoy tips concerning the content as a whole just as a much. If you found it too tedious to read something of this length: Please, let me know. It is important to know how concise I can be (so I don’t spend 3 hours on a relatively arbitrary essay, if that's the case, next time). Please also keep in my mind that this essay does not represent a professional opinion whatsoever, and are the formulations of a youth's mind. Thank you all!
www.focusing.org/gendlin_celebrations.html
“Maps of Meaning: An Architecture of Belief”, by Jordan B. Peterson
“Man and his Symbols”, by Carl G. Jung
"Five basic postulates of humanistic psychology”, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, by T. Greening
https://www.academia.edu/10912960/2015_Becoming-Animal_Is_a_Trap_for_Humans_Deleuze_and_Guattari_in_Madagascar
https://steemit.com/psychology/@nolnocuap/theories-of-personality-part-3-humanistic-theory