08873267%2E1991%2E9986754

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 22 August 2015, At: 19:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,London, SW1P 1WG

The Humanistic PsychologistPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hthp20

The humanistic paradigm in educationRoy José DeCarvalho aa Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome , State University of New York , Utica, NY,13504–3050Published online: 16 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Roy José DeCarvalho (1991) The humanistic paradigm in education, The Humanistic Psychologist, 19:1,88-104, DOI: 10.1080/08873267.1991.9986754

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08873267.1991.9986754

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Humanistic Psychologist, VoL 19,No.l,pp. 88-104©1991 Division 32, American Psychologcal Association

FOUNDATIONS OF THE HUMAN SCIENCES^

The Humanistic Paradigm in Education

Roy Jos6 DeCarvalho

State University of New York

Abstract

This essay revives the humanistic paradigm in education ofAbraham Maslow and Carl Rogers that in the 1960's fueled theestablishment of the humanistic movement in Americanpsychology. The essay discusses how Maslow and Rogers' viewson human nature, more specifically their understanding of thegrowth hypothesis of Kurt Goldstein, apply to education. Theintellectual development of their humanistic thoughts on educa-tion, Maslow's concepts of expressive and intrinsic learning andRogers' student-centered education are also discussed. It isargued that Maslow's and Rogers' critiques and advocacy of thebehavioristic and humanistic educational paradigms, respec-tively, are still meaningful in the 1990's, and that the continuingcrisis in American education ensues in part from the failure toaddress Maslow and Rogers' concerns and introduce ahumanistic dimension to the educational system.

Some psychologists during the "golden age" of behaviorism of postWorld War II, discontented with behaviorism's view of human natureand method, drew upon a long traditional linking psychology withhumanities and, in a rebellious manner, institutionally foundedhumanistic psychology. They regarded themselves as a "third force,"

1 Editor's Note: This article is the ninth in a continuing series examining thehumanistic foundations of each of the human sciences, in the hope that reflectionof the shared core issues will be beneficial to all.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 89

thus, alluding to the fact that they were an alternative to the dominantbehavioristic and psychoanalytical orientation in psychology. Some keypsychologists of the period, such as Gordon Allport, Rollo May, HenryMurray, Gardner Murphy, Carl Rogers, and Abraham Maslow, joinedthe movement (DeCarvalho, 1990b).

Unknowingly, they also had an impact on other fields, educationprimarily, that had fallen under the monopoly of behaviorism. As theyrecognized this impact, they extended their agenda to education creat-ing a humanistic paradigm in that field. In reference to education, twohumanistic psychologists stand out: Carl Rogers (1902-1987) who isknown for his student-centered approach, and Abraham Maslow(1908-1970) who is known for his views on self-actualization andhumanistic education. A close study of their humanistic paradigm andthe problems in education they addressed is still as meaningful as it wastwo decades ago. It is suggested that the continuous deterioration ofAmerican education ensues in part from its failure to address Rogersand Maslow's humanistic concerns.

Maslow (1959a, p. viii, 1959b, 1964, pp. 338,82,1971, p. 377) andRogers (1961b, 1964; Evans, 1975, p. 101) were certain that humansneed a value system, a system of understanding, or frame of orientationthat gives life meaning and reason. But unfortunately, they argued, welive in an age where the ultimate disease is amorality, rootlessness,emptiness, hopelessness, lack of something to believe, and be devotedto. They blamed this modern uncertainty in value orientation on theanachronism between rigid ethical systems of the past and the ethicalrelativism of science. No longer unquestionably accepting the value ofsystems of our upbringing, we find ourselves in the dilemma of havingto choose between various and at times even contradictory values. Welive in an age of valuelessness and this is obviously reflected in theeducational system (DeCarvalho, 1989,1991).

The conflict and confusion in American education, they argued,results from the lack of values concerning the purpose and goal, e.g.,the ultimate value, of the acquisition of knowledge (Maslow, 1964, p.49; Rogers, 1961b, 1964; Evans, 1975, p. 101). In order to evade issuesof values in the curriculum, educators turned to what they mistakenlybelieve is a value-free mechanistic and technological education. BothRogers and Maslow thus bitterly complained about the over technologi-cal and behavioristic emphasis in American education as if education ismerely technological training for the acquisition of skills that arevalue-free or amoral. Instead of educating the whole child and facilitat-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

90 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

ing personal growth, educators rather train children in skills that makethem efficient and adjusted to a technological society which, althoughunrecognized, is in itself also a value. Rogers and Maslow's answer tothis problem and their humanistic paradigm of education, ensues fromtheir views on human nature. They thought that the ultimate goal ofeducation was to facilitate the students' self-actualization and fulfill-ment of their full potential, e.g., to help them become (Maslow, 1961c,1968a, 1968b, 1968c, 1963d, 1968e), or in Rogers' words "to be that selfwhich one truly is" (1957a, 1957b, 1961b, 1964; DeCarvalho, 1991).

The Development of Maslow's Views on Education

Maslow's college education was in the best behavioristic traditionin Madison, Wisconsin. His M.A. thesis, an experimental study of theeffect of varying simple external conditions on learning, was also his firsteducation-related research. Soon after graduation, however, he.departed from the behavioristic approach to study dominance amongcollege women and developed the needs hierarchy theory of humanmotivation that made him famous. These studies, most of themgathered in Motivation and Personality (1954a), advanced a humanisticview of human nature that became an important pillar of the humanisticmovement in American psychology (Hoffman, 1988). His distinction inMotivation between expressive and coping behavior, and views onself-actualization became the bases of his later discussion of intrinsicand expressive learning. While coping behavior is a mere response tooperant conditioning dealing with matters of basic survival, expressivebehavior is a spontaneous expression of a person's basic characterleading to the actualization of inner potential.

In the 1960's, Maslow wrote on creativity and the significance ofteaching students to utilize their creativity. He argued that teachingcreativity through art should become the paradigm for all other fieldsof education. Most of these works were compiled in Farther Reaches ofHuman Nature (1971) published posthumously. The Farther Reachesalso contained a section on the values, goals and implications ofhumanistic education. Drawing on the early distinction between ex-pressive and coping behavior, he wrote on intrinsic learning as thehumanistic paradigm of education. Arguing that educators should forman alliance with the organismic forces conducive to the fulfillment ofthe students' potential and growth toward self-actualization, hecriticized extrinsic learning and coping behavior, blaming these coreconcepts of the behavioristic paradigm for the failures of education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 91

The Development of Rogers' Views on Education

By 1952, Rogers was pessimistic about his teaching and educationin general. Losing interest in education, he believed that it was impos-sible to really teach anything to anyone (Rogers, 1957d, 1959). Sevenyears later, in 1959, he was more optimistic; he published an articleentitled "The Significant Learning: In Psychotherapy and in Educa-tion," applying the process of learning in psychotherapy to education(Rogers, 1967a, 1967b). During the next eight years, he expanded andrefined the ideas advanced in this article.

At the age of sixty-two, disappointed with the educational systemat the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rogers joined the WesternBehavioral Sciences Institute in LaJolla, California, and during the nextthree years, (1965-1968) he tried out his education program in practice.He proposed a plan adaptable to any educational system interested ininnovative change. Several educational systems answered Rogers' calland when grants from different sources were available, Rogers chosethe Immaculate Heart College that comprised several high schools andmany elementary schools in the Los Angeles area. Three years later,Rogers proudly claimed having initiated self-directed change in a largeeducational system; the college had been successfully working underRogers' plan independent of personal contact with Rogers or his groupfor two years (Rogers, 1976c, 1968,1974a).

Believing that he had accomplished a revolution in education,Rogers collected reports of educators who tried to practice his ideas. In1969, he compiled some of these reports vaFreedom to Learn —A ViewofWhat Education Mitftf Become (1969), a book that became the bibleof humanistic education. Selling 40,000 copies in the first year ofpublication, Freedom to Leant showed how educators could be per-sonal, innovative, and facilitative of learning even within an antiquatedsystem. After freedom to Learn, Rogers continued to write for teachers'periodicals on personal growth, ideas and feelings about teaching,questions he would ask himself if he was a teacher, and the future ofeducation. He told them that they were not teachers, but humanfacilitators (Rogers, 1971a, 1971b, 1972b, 1974c).

Views on Human Nature

Maslow and Rogers thought that it was impossible for an educator,teacher or psychologist to be objective and not to have a view of humannature (DeCarvalho, 1990b). A well articulated view of human nature

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

92 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

was, in their understanding, the most important value in education. Anyeducational system deserving the name entails a view of human nature,they argued. Every educator has, whether consciously stated or not, anunderstanding of people. The issue, they thought, is not whether tohave a philosophy of education but whether to have one that is con-scious or unconscious. The unconscious understandings or theories ofhuman nature are particularly dangerous since they guide the collectionof data and research more profoundly than laboriously acquired em-pirical knowledge. Rogers (1955, p. 248, 1961a, p. 391) and Maslow(1955, p. 6-12,1956, pp. 17-33,1962a, chap. 1, pp. 189-214; Rick, 1971,pp. 22-32) argued, in other words, that there are prior personal subjec-tive views of human nature and choices of the purpose or value ofeducation. It is important that these values be stated and clarified sincethey cannot be tested, evaluated or denied by scientific means. (Rogers& Skinner, 1956; Evans, 1975, p. 101). In their case, they, indeed,dedicated much effort to the delineation of a view of human nature.

The cornerstone of Maslow and Rogers' views on human natureand consequently their naturalistic system of ethics and humanisticparadigm in education was the growth hypothesis. Maslow explainedthat an "instinctoid" inner core of human nature contains potentialitiespressing for actualization. Similarly, Rogers stated that the humanorganism has a directional and actualizing tendency towards the fulfill-ment of inner potential. Both were inspired by Kurt Goldstein, theJewish-German psychiatrist World War II emigre who first coined theterm self-actualization to denote the reorganizational capability of theorganism after injury (DeCarvalho, 1990a). Goldstein argued that aninjured organism reorganizes itself into a new unit that incorporates thedamages. Maslow and Rogers acknowledged to have adopted theconcept of self-actualization from Goldstein, although they used itmore broadly. In his version of Goldstein's growth hypothesis, Maslow(1954a, pp. 107-122,146-154,183,379,1961a) argued that persons havebasic needs, emotions, and capacities that are neutral, pre-moral, posi-tive and good. If they guide our lives, we grow healthier and happier;but if we deny or suppress them, sickness is virtually a certainty, In thisview, there are higher and lower needs arranged in levels of potency,where the fulfillment of less potent needs relies upon the gratificationof the more potent ones. The higher aspects of human nature, in otherwords, rest upon the fulfillment of the lower nature.

Physiological needs related to basic survival, such as food, shelter,safety and security, belong to the lower aspects of human nature and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 93

dominate the organism at the elementary leveL When satisfied, how-ever, the next higher need emerges and organizes personality different-ly. Belonging, affection, love, respect and self-esteem belong to the nextlevel, self-actualization to another, and spiritual and transcendentalneeds constitute a last category. A healthy person is, according toMaslow, one who develops and actualizes his or her full potentialitiesand capacities by gratifying the ascending hierarchy of needs; Maslowcalled them self-actualizers because they sought to fulfill inner poten-tial When a persistent active basic need, however, is not satisfied theperson is not free to grow and fulfill the higher needs, and is, thus, saidto be ill (Maslow, 1948,1955, pp. 1-9,1966, pp. 119-127). All needs,including the higher needs, are as "instinctoid" or physiological as, forexample, the need for vitamins. Deprivation of safety, love, truth, joy,and justice generates a pathological state similar to the deprivation ofvitamin C (Maslow, 1949, p. 179,1955, pp. 1-30,1961b, 1962, p. 206;Frick, 1971, pp. 32; Roberts, 1973).

Rogers' version of the growth hypothesis shares much in commonwith Maslow's self-actualization (c£ Rogers, 1956,1978). Rogers (1951,pp. 139,141,522,1961b, 1964, p. 166) thought that infants have a clearset of values. Infants choose experiences that maintain, induce growth,and actualize their organismic potential and reject what is contrary totheir well-being. Since the values that guide their actualization liestrictly within their organism, they are thus naturalistic and objective.But, Rogers argued, as infants grow their efficient valuing process is lostand slowly transformed into rigid artificial and organismically inefficientvalue systems. Their naive conception that what feels good is good isdistorted by the assimilation of the evaluation of adults, who make themfeel sorry, fearful, and guilty about their values in exchange for love. Inthis process, they loose the wisdom of organismic awareness and incor-porate the values set by the immediate human environment The valuescarried along with the love, esteem, and approval from adults forcesthem to distrust the experiencing of their own organism's guiding valuesystem. They relinquish their trust of organismic wisdom.

The belief that the individual has the capacity for self-under-standing and reorganization in satisfying ways if they are only providedthe necessary and sufficient conditions for personality change was thefoundation of Rogers' client-centered therapy (Rogers, 1942,1943, p.285). Given an appropriate growth inducing environment in which oneis unconditionally accepted, one learns the causes of behavior and newways of perceiving and reacting to these causes. Once the denied

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

94 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

attitudes and behavior become conscious and accepted, the self assimi-lates them and reorganizes itself, consequently, altering the entirepersonality structure and behavior (Rogers, 1948,1951, p. 71,1961a, p.87). If given freedom to become what one truly is, one naturallyactualizes one's true identity, which, Rogers argued, could only posi-tively enhance one's nature and existence (Rogers, 1947, P-113,1950b,p. 236,1951, pp. 75,149,157,530). Each one of us has a capacity forself-understanding and to initiate change in the direction of psychologi-cal growth and maturity, providing only that we are genuinely free andtreated with worth and significance. In this sense, he argued, thetherapist merely makes an alliance with the person's organismic forcesfor growth and self-actualization (Rogers, 1950a, 1963,1972a, p. 108).

Critique of Behaviorism

Rogers and Maslow carried a persistent and at times bitter debatewith behaviorists on the nature and scope of the social sciences. Whenthey turned to education, they also criticized behaviorism. Behaviorists,such as Skinner, thought that advances in the study and control ofbehavior would make education a new "branch of technologicalscience." In "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching" (1954),Skinner stated that certain techniques of reinforcement shape thebehavior of an organism at the will of the experimenter. The precisionof control is proportional to the precision of the manipulation ofcomplex techniques of reinforcement consisting of carefully designedmultiple schedule of reinforcement followed by changing contingen-cies. Education for democracy and for life were trivial pursuits that soonwould be replaced by the principles of scientific technological education(Skinner, 1954,1961). Moreover, the advances in scientific technologi-cal education, he argued, made human teachers outdated. He thusdescribed in some detail the designing and marketing of teachingmachines. In other words, Skinner was arguing for the dehumanizationof education. Indeed, his social Utopia, Wdlden Two (1948), pictured acivilization whose members had been brought up by a complex controlof machinery and a cast of expert social technicians.

Rogers (1957d, 1959,1969) and Maslow (1968a, 1968d, 1969)werenot only critical of Skinner's behavioristic educational philosophy, butalso blamed such a philosophy for the failures of American education.They thought that behaviorism lacked systematic and valid concepts ofhuman behavior and learning, aiming to cultivate enforced desiredbehavior, as if people were pigeons or laboratory rats. The consequence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 95

was that education becamea mere impinging of a chosen technological,mechanistic and valueless curriculum so the individual might not followhis or her own mistaken way.

In contrast, Rogers and Maslow held the growth hypothesis under-standing of human nature and believed that true learning is possibleonly when it is intrinsic, experiential, significant or meaningfuL Whenone learns something, one is describing a process of discovery that isreal and an integral part of the character structure. A good illustrationis a child who, in his free will, goes to the library in order to satisfy hiscuriosity about earthworms or sex. The essence of this type of learningis its personal intrinsic meaning. When one has a need to learn and isfree to choose what to learn, the knowledge acquired becomes mean-ingful and a source of satisfaction. Self-initiated knowledge has thequality of personal involvement The purpose of education, thus, ar-gued Rogers (1959, 1967a, 1976, 1977) and Maslow (1954a, p. I l l ,1961b, p. 8,1968d, 1968e), was not external conditioning and enforce-ment of learning habits, as Skinner had argued, but rather to stimulatecuriosity, the inner need to discover and explore, facilitate personalinvolvement and, of course, also to supply the necessary resources.

The most important value and goal of education according toMaslow (1954a, p. 111. 1961b, p. 8,,1968d) and Rogers' (1957d, 1959,1967a) humanistic paradigm is to facilitate the students' discovery andactualization of their nature, vocation, what they are good for, and whatthey enjoy doing. The learning resulting from this need has subjectivemeaning and results in expressive and creative behavior that is personal-ly satisfying. In this sense, the goal of education is to make an alliancewith the student's natural wonder and to facilitate the process oflearning. This type of learning changes a person from within, enablingpsychological health and growth towards the actualization of theirhuman potential. Intrinsic learning and self-discovery, they argued, arerelated concepts in the sense that the latter enables students to lookinward and from inner knowledge derive their own subjective values(Maslow, 1968e; Rogers, 1959,1964,1967a). Education becomes a vitalmean of discovery of identity, training in authenticity and self-fulfill-ment A good example is the discovery of one's professional vocation.When found, the ensuing acquired learning has personal meaning thatbecomes an integral part of personality and independent of reinforcingstimulus. Maslow (1964; Frick, 1971, p. 33) and Rogers (1967a, 1978)concluded that it is important that the educational system inducesstudents to explore their organismic potential and, by forming an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

96 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

alliance with it, properly train them in their self-chosen professional orscholarly field. An educational system based on these principles, theyargued, will turn out much more creative people.

Maslow's Intrinsic Learning

Maslow thought that American education failed because it focusedon extrinsic and coping behavior rather than expressive behavior andintrinsic learning (Maslow, 1968a, 1969). His later distinction betweenextrinsic and intrinsic learning followed his understanding of expressiveand coping behavior first argued within terms of the need-hierarchytheoryofmotivation.Maslow(1943,p. 103,1949,1954b, p. 291) blamedbehaviorists for studying exclusively coping behavior, which, he argued,was the least significant part of personality. Coping behavior is func-tional, instrumental, adaptive, and the product of an interaction of thecharacter-structure with the world. Coping behavior is learned oracquired in order to deal with specific environmental situations, anddies out if not rewarded or continuously bombarded with stimulus.Since the extrinsic knowledge ensuing from coping behavior is force-fully implanted by operant conditioning or indoctrination, it is never anintegral part of personality and thus not perceived as meaningful. Theconditioning must be reinforced continuously or the learning disap-pears. This type of learning focuses on techniques that are interchan-geable and results in automatic habits such as driving or swimming. It isa useful learning, but meaningless for the growth and actualization ofthe inner character structure. Problem solving, for example, ensuesfrom a memorized response rather than from understanding the prob-lem and reacting creatively. In fact, understanding is inimical to be-havioral operant conditioning. When people understand that they arevictims of conditioning, they rebel and dispose of the enforced learning.Earning a degree, reward for scholarly achievement, and other similarpractices are by-products of extrinsic education.

Extrinsic learning and coping behavior, he argued, have becamethe bases and failures of contemporary American Education (Maslow,1968d). Students not only drop out of school because they find littlepersonal meaning in the process of learning, but also rebel against thesystem in order to assert their identity. The solution, he suggested, wasto shift the educational system to the paradigm of intrinsic learning andexpressive behavior. Expressive behavior, such as artistic creation, play,wonder, and love, is a reflection of personality (Maslow, 1949). Since itis non-functional and persists without reward, it is an epiphenomenon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 97

of inner character-structure. Expressive behavior resulting from intrin-sic learning has meaningful personal value and remains an integral partof the self even when external stimuli ceases.

Comparing the two types in their ability to predict behavior,Maslow (1966, pp. 40-44) compared external scientific control of thebehavioristic type with the internal self-knowledge posited by humanis-tic psychology. He argued that people resent and rebel against externalscientific control, but they accept the increase of self-knowledge thatallows them to control their own behavior. Self-knowledge of thehumanistic type has thus much more personal meaning and predictivepower.

A related and significant goal of education, according to Maslow(1963, pp. 57-61,1965), is to teach students skills that are vital in allfields of learning and professional activities, such as creativity. Anyeducational system deserving the name should cultivate creativity instudents. Creativity is an inspired, expressive behavior, it comes inflashes and furor, it is a product of fascination and inventiveness, ofinner exploration, and self-discovery. Creativity requires the ability tolisten and follow inner impulses or voices telling what is right and wrong.Only a system based on intrinsic learning wUl develop the students'ability to reach their creativity when confronted with problems.Creativity can neither be taught by operant conditioning nor it willensue as a product of method. Method is a technique whereby non-creative people create. Arts and music education, as against criticalthinking and method, for example, offer intuitive glimpses into innervalues and should be the paradigm for all fields of eduction wherebystudents' learn to express themselves creatively (Maslow, 1963, pp.57-61, 1965, 1968a, 1968d). Once intrinsically acquainted with theircreativity, students learn how to reach for and release it in theirself-chosen vocational fields. l ike creativity there are other skills neces-sary in all fields of learning. Experts in any field should be comfortableand enjoy change, be able to improvise and face with confidence,strength and courage situations that emerge without forewarning.

We should not, however, argued Maslow (1969,1970),devaluatespecific professional skills and knowledge of the various disciplines. Itis not enough just to be creative and intrinsically willing to become acivil engineer. Concrete knowledge of engineering, mathematics andphysics is also a prerequisite. Hie ideal, thus, was to integrate intrinsiclearning and the traditional extrinsic learning such as training forprofessional skills or education for competence in any field. The main

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

98 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

difference is whether this knowledge is sought out of personal need andmeaning or as a response to rewarding and punishing stimuli.Knowledge gathered out of personal meaning translates into a lastingexpressive behavior that is independent of reinforcing external stimuli

Rogers' Student-Centered Learning

Rogers' views on education were an outgrowth of his client-centered therapy, more precisely, the concept of "significant learning"(Rogers, 1951, 1957c, 1959). Significant learning in client-centeredtherapy penetrates the whole character structure of the individual,deeply changing the individual's mode of being. When this type oflearning occurs in psychotherapy, one's self-image improves; one ac-cepts one's own feelings and way of being, adopts realistic goals andmature behavior, and develops a better awareness of inner and outerworlds. Rogers postulated that the therapist must provide five necessaryand sufficient conditions, so that significant learning occurs. The firstcondition is the congruence of the therapist's relationship with theclient. By congruence, Rogers meant awareness and expression of whatthe therapist is experiencing in the relationship. In other words, thetherapist is perceived as an integrated and authentic person, not afacade or role. The second condition is the therapist's free expressionand acceptance of his or her own immediate feelings. The third condi-

• tion is the therapist's expression of a warm care for the client ss a personin his or her own right, thus, providing a secure climate of unconditionalpositive regard. By "unconditional positive regard," Rogers meant thetherapist's acceptance of the client's expression of negative or "bad"and positive or "good" feelings without evaluating these feelings. In thissense, the client is given permission to express and find meaning in hisor her own feelings. The fourth condition states that the therapist mustexperience an accurate empathic understanding of the client's privateworld~his or her anger, fear and confusion, as if these were thetherapist's own feelings. This condition in turn enables the therapist toreflect back to the client his or her understanding of what is alreadyknown, thus, awakening the client to the meanings he or she is scarcelyaware of. The fifth and final condition is the ability of the therapist tocommunicate to the client his or her own congruence, acceptance andempathy. When these five conditions are met, significant learninginduces a constructive process of personality change and growth. Thereason, wrote Rogers, is that when the organism is integrated and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 99

allowed free and authentic expression, it releases a "self-actualizingtendency" to grow and fulfill all its potential.

When Rogers (1957c, 1971a, 1972b, 1974b) applied this reasoningto education, he argued that if significant learning is to occur in theclassroom, the teacher, like the therapist, must create a facilitatingclimate that meets the same five conditions. Rogers also pointed outthat in education, like in therapy, it is essential that the student iscurious, explorative, in touch with the problem, and conscious that itssolution has personal significance. If the student lives through theproblem and the five necessary and sufficient conditions are met, anastonishing amount of significant learning takes place.

The first implication of Rogers' psychotherapy to education is therealness of the teacher (Rogers, 1967a, 1976,1977). The teacher is notsupposed to be a mere "faceless embodiment of a curricular require-ment," or a "sterile pipe" of knowledge transmission, but rather acongruent person, authentic in the classroom, who accepts andmanifests his or her feelings. Secondly, the teacher must warmly accept,understand and empathize with the student in his or her own terms;and, among other things, the teacher must unconditionally accept thestudent's feelings of fear and discouragement which are always presentwhen learning something new. Thirdly, the instructional resources mustbe readily available, but never forced upon the student The teachershould let the students know that his or her personal knowledge isavailable to them in whatever form they want, whether in a lectureformat or as a resource-finder. The student will not perceive thelearning experience as the teachers expectations, commands, imposi-tions or requirements. The task of the teacher is merely to facilitate thestudent's satisfaction of his or her own intellectual curiosity.

Conclusion

Although most educators in the late 1950's and 1960's readSkinner's Walden Two (1948) and other education related writings,Skinner's impact on education was insignificant The radical behavioris-tic educational program was, in general terms, regarded as a Utopia,indeed, a fearful Utopia for some. The teaching-machines and the castof social technicians failed to relate to the human aspects of education.It was absurd to treat children as behaving organisms whose educationwas to follow the lines of control and prediction of behavior of rats,pigeons and apes. But in an age that over estimated the social applica-tions of science, the scientism appeal of behaviorism and concrete

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

100 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

results in extreme cases as occupational therapy and behavioral dis-abilities were powerful arguments against teachers talk about thehuman aspects of education. Torn between the scientific credibility ofbehaviorism and the human aspects of the classroom when the 1960'scountercultural revolution was under way, educators were ready for analternative philosophy.

Not surprisingly, by the 1970's Rogers' and Maslow's humanisticparadigm of education was well established. Most educators today havea notion of Rogerian student-centered education and Maslow's intrin-sic learning and expressive behavior. Both Rogers and Maslowreawakened educators to the need of humanizing education and, indoing so, they helped to dismantle the monopoly enjoyed by be-haviorism in the American social sciences of mid-20th Century.

The growth hypothesis of Kurt Goldstein was a source of inspira-tion for Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, whose studies on self-ac-tualization served as a breeding ground for the establishment of thehumanistic movement in American psychology. Their versions of thegrowth hypothesis also dictated their understanding of human nature,naturalistic ethics and the humanistic paradigm in education.

Their views on education stemmed from a basic trust of theworthiness of human nature. They argued that when people are authen-tic, experience their inner worlds, and function freely from internal andexternal barrier, they value and choose (from an organismic point ofview) what is good for them. "To be that self which one truly is," a phraseRogers borrowed from Kierkegaard and synonymous with the seekingof authenticity, was the highest value in Rogers and Maslow's naturalis-tic system of ethics. In Maslow's words, authenticity was "truthfulnessto one's own nature."

Although two decades old, Maslow and Rogers' humanistic mes-sage is still valid for the 1990's. The success of any educational systemdepends on its ability to involve students in the process of learning andperceive meaning in the acquisition of knowledge. Without thestudent's wonder, curiosity and personal need to learn, good teachersand well-funded schools will fail Students are not merely rat-likeresponse organisms that learn technological knowledge and skills inresponse to rewarding stimuli. According to Maslow and Rogers, theyrather learn only when they seek to actualize their inner human poten-tial The teacher should thus make an alliance with the student's naturalcuriosity and organismic forces pressing for growth, and facilitate theprocess of self-discovery, so they may find which vocation and skills they

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

RoyJose DeCarvalho 101

are intrinsically good for. Once this alliance has been made it is also theeducator's responsibility to make extrinsic knowledge available andteach specific skills. Teachers themselves should serve as role models ofpeople who are authentic, curious, explorative and perplexed by thewonders of their disciplines.

According to Maslow and Rogers, the reason of the crisis inAmerican education is in the behavioristic extrinsic learning and copingbehavior paradigm. The solution, they argued, is a shift to a paradigmthat is student-centered, trusts and empowers the child with choice,value and dignity. Perhaps, education in the United States continues todeteriorate since Maslow and Rogers first proposed the humanisticparadigm in education three decades ago, because it failed to introducea more humanistic dimension to teaching and learning.

References

DeCarvalho, R. J. (1989). Carl Rogers naturalistic system of ethics.Psychological Reports, 65, 1155-1162.

DeCarvalho, R. J. (1990a). The growth hypothesis and self-actualization: anexistential alternative. The Humanistic Psychologist, 18, 252-258.

DeCarvalho, R. J. (1990b). The "third force" in psychology. Journal ofHumanistic Psychology, 30, 22-44.

DeCarvalho, R. J. (1991). The ehtics of the growth hypothesis of AbrahamMaslow and Carl Rogers. Journal of Ethical Studies, 6, 3-17.

Evans, R. I. (1975). Carl Rogers: The man and his ideas. New York: Dutton.Frick, W. B. (1971). Humanistic psychology: Interview with Maslow, Murphy

and Rogers. Columbus: Merrill.Hoffman, E. (1988). The right to be human: A biography of Abraham Maslow.

Los Angeles: Tarcher.Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. In A. H. Maslow,

Motivation and personality (pp. 80-100). New York: Harper.Maslow, A. H. (1948). Some theoretical consequences of basic need-

gratification. In A. H. Maslow, Motivation and personality (pp. 107-122). New York: Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1949). The expressive component of behavior. In A. H.Maslow, Motivation and personality (pp. 179-198). New York: Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.Maslow, A. H. (1954b). Unmotivated and purposeless reactions. In A.H.

Maslow, Motivation and personality (pp. 291-304). New York: Harper.Maslow, A. H. (1955). Deficiency motivation and growth motivation. In M.

R. Jones (Ed), Nebraska symposium in motivation (pp. 1-30). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1956). A philosophy of psychology. In F. T. Severin (Ed),Humanistic viewpoints in psychology (pp. 17-33). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

702 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

Maslow, A. H., (Ed.). (1959a). New knowledge in human values. New York:Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1959b). Psychological data and human values. In A. H.Maslow (Ed.), New knowledge in human values (pp. 119-136). NewYork, Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1961a). Health as transcendence of the environment. In A.H. Maslow, Toward a psychology of being (pp. 179-185). New York:Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1961b). Some frontier problems in mental health. In A.Combs (Ed.), Personality theory and counseling practice (pp. 1-13).University of Florida Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1961c). Eupsychia — The good society. Journal of Humanis-tic Psychology, 1, 1-11.

Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Nostrand.Maslow, A. H. (1963). The creative attitude. In A. H. Maslow, Farther

reaches of human nature (pp. 57-71). New York: Viking.Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religion, values and peak-experiences. Columbus:

Ohio State University Press.Maslow, A. H. (1965). The need for creative people. In A. H. Maslow,

Farther reaches of human nature (pp. 96-101). New York: Viking.Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science. New York: Harper & Row.Maslow, A. H. (1968a). Music, education and peak-experiences. In A. H.

Maslow, Farther reaches of human nature (pp. 168-179). New York:Viking.

Maslow, A. H. (1968b). The farther reaches of human nature. Journal ofTranspersonal Psychology, 1, 1-9.

Maslow, A. H. (1968c). Conversation with Abraham H. Maslow. PsychologyToday, 2, 34-37, 54-57.

Maslow, A. H. (1968d). Goals in humanistic education. Esalen Papers. BigSur, CA: Esalen Institute.

Maslow, A. H. (1968e). Some educational implications of the humanisticpsychologies. In A. H. Maslow, Farther reaches of human nature (pp.180-195). New York: Viking.

Maslow, A. H. (1969). Humanistic education vs. professional education.New Directions in Teaching, 2, 6-8.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Humanistic education vs. professional education:Further comments. New Directions in Teaching, 2, 3-10.

Maslow, A. H. (1971). Farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking.Roberts, T. B. (1973). Maslow's motivation needs hierarchy: a bibliography.

Research in Education, Ed-069-591.Rogers, C. R. (1942). Counseling and psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.Rogers, C. R. (1943). Therapy in guidance clinics. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 38, 284-289.Rogers, C. R. (1947). Psychotherapy. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in

psychotherapy (pp. 109-137). Pittsburgh: University of PittsburghPress.

Rogers, C. R. (1948). The role of self-understanding in the prediction ofbehavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 174-186.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Roy Jose DeCarvalho 103

Rogers, C. R. (1950a). A basic orientation for counseling. Pastoral Psychol-ogy, 1, 26-34.

Rogers, C. R. (1950b). What is to be our basic professional relationship?Annals of Allergy, 8, 234-239.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: its current practice, implica-tions, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1955). A personal view of some issues facing psychologists.American Psychologist, 10, 247-249.

Rogers, C. R. (1956). What it means to become a person. In C. E. Moustakas(Ed.), The self (pp. 195-211). New York: Harper.

Rogers, C. R. (1957a). A therapist view of the good life. The Humanist, 17,291-300.

Rogers, C. R. (1957b). To be that self which one truly is: A therapist's viewof personal goals. (Transcript of a talk at the college of Wooster onMarch 14, 1957). Wooster, OH.

Rogers, C. R. (1957c). The necessary and sufficient conditions oftherapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21,95-103.

Rogers, C. R. (1957d). Personal thoughts on teaching and learning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 3, 241-243.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). Significant learning: In therapy and in education.Educational Leadership, 16, 232-242.

Rogers, C. R. (1961a). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Rogers, C. R. (1961b). The developing values of the growing person. The

Psychiatric Institute Bulletin (University of Wisconsin), 1, 1-15.Rogers, C. R. (1963). Learning to be free. In S. M. Farber & R. H. Wilson

(Eds.), Conflict and creativity: Control of the mind (part 2, pp. 268-288).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, C. R. (1964). Toward a modern approach to values: The valuingprocess in the mature person. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,68, 160-167.

Rogers, C. R. (1967a). The facilitation of significant learning. In L. Siegel(Ed.), Contemporary Theories of Instruction (pp. 37-54). San Francisco:Chandler.

Rogers, C. R. (1967b). The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation oflearning. In R. Leeper (Ed.), Humanizing Education (pp. 1-18). Na-tional Education Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Rogers, C. R. (1968). A practical plan for educational revolution. In R. R.Goulet (Ed.), Educational change: The reality and the promise, a reporton the national seminar on innovation (pp. 120-135). New York: Cita-tion Press.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education mightbecome. Columbus: Merrill.

Rogers, C. R. (1971a). Can schools grow persons. Educational Leadership,29,215-217.

Rogers, C. R. (1971b). Forget you are a teacher. Carl Rogers tells why.Instructor, August/September, 65-66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

104 The Humanistic Psychologist, 19, Spring 1991

Rogers, C. R. (1972a). Becoming partners: Marriage and its alternatives. NewYork: Delacorte.

Rogers, C. R. (1972b). Bringing together ideas and feelings in learning.Learning Today, 5, 32-43.

Rogers, C. R. (1974a). The project at immaculate heart: An experiment inself-directed change. Education, 95, 172-196.

Rogers, C. R. (1974b). Can learning encompass both ideas and feelings.Education, 95, 103-114.

Rogers, C. R. (1974c). Questions I would ask myself if I were a teacher.Education, 95, 134-139.

Rogers, C. R. (1976). Beyond the watershed in education. Teaching-Learn-ing Journal, Winter/Spring, 43-49.

Rogers, C. R. (1977). Beyond the watershed: and where now? EducationalLeadership, 34, 623-631.

Rogers, C. R. (1978). The formative tendency. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 18, 23-26.

Rogers, C. R. & Skinner, B. F. (1956). Some issues concerning the controlof human behavior. In R. I. Evans, Carl Rogers: The man and his ideas(pp. xiiv-lxxxviii). New York: Dutton, 1975.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: MacMillan.Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.

Harvard Educational Review, 24, 84-97.Skinner, B. F. (1961). Why we need teaching machines. Harvard Educational

Review, 31, 377-398.

Roy DeCarvalho received his Ph.D. in history of science from the Universityof Wisconsin, and is currently an assistant professor in the Institute of Tech-nology at the Utica/Rome campus of the State University of New York. He isa frequent contributor of articles on the history of humanistic psychology, andhas recently completed two books: The Founders of Humanistic Psychology(Praeger) and The Growth Hypothesis in Psychology: The Humanistic Psychol-ogy of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers (Mellen Research University Press).This essay was supported by a New York State/United University ProfessionsDr. Nuala McGann Drescher Affirmative Action Leave Award. Addresscorrespondence to: Roy DeCarvalho, SUNY-Institute of Technology atUtica/Rome, Utica, NY 13504-3050.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

19:

59 2

2 A

ugus

t 201

5