"Man is the measure
of all things", reasoned the philosophers of the Renaissance. "Be
all that you can be",
reasons the U.S. Army of today. In either case, the emphasis is
on celebrating the individual, and the development of the
whole person. For that
reason, this is sometimes known as "Person-Centered" theory. The
goal of the Humanistic model is for every person to become their
absolute best, whatever that may be. It accepts as fact that we
cannot all excel at
everything
we attempt, but every one of us will excel at
some things. We are
viewed as strong, capable people with the
innate ability to grow, develop, and
resolve our own problems. The counselor is expected to be
compassionate, a sensitive listener, and helpful as the subject works
through their difficulties.
Reality
is seen not as an objective situation that can be measured or
quantified, but as a condition that is somewhat different for each
person. Thus, two teammates, involved in the same game, having
statistically the same performance, may
still have experienced a
different
reality. One
may be confident that they have succeeded marvelously, while the other
feels like an abject failure. Humanistic psychology endeavors to
help people define their reality more clearly, and in a way that will
help them feel good, and perform at a high level.
At the forefront of the Humanistic movement was Carl
Rogers, though ideas from Abraham Maslow and Karen Horney are
incorporated in the process. Like the other models, later
theorists branched off from the main model to emphasize certain aspects
of the model. The
Gestalt
branch is named for the German word which means "whole". It looks
at the whole person, and believes that problems occur when we become
separated from important parts of ourselves. Fritz & Laura
Perls and Erving & Miriam Polster were the primary developers of
this branch. The
Existential
branch is sometimes considered to have picked up where Carl Rogers left
off, and has a broad range of proponents, including authors (Camus,
Sartre, Kafka) and philosophers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche), but the
therapeutic approach owes its development to Victor Frankl, Rollo May,
and Irvin Yalom. [If you want to see how wacky those darned
Existentialists are, go
HERE.]
Terms commonly associated with Humanistic psychology
include:
Self-Actualization,
Self,
Locus
of Evaluation,
Social
Comparison,
Experiencing,
Reflection,
Peak Performance,
Peak
Experience,
Flow,
Empathy,
Therapeutic Alliance,
Congruence,
Being in
the Present, and
Homeostasis.
In Humanistic psychology,
everything that we
are contributes to our
thoughts and
feelings about everything we
encounter. Physically, we may be in
seemingly perfect
homeostasis,
while emotionally or mentally we are a wreck. The object is to
help people become
self-actualized
- capable of achieving their complete best in every possible way.
With this model, we are seeking internal changes that will have
external results - inner changes in thoughts and feelings that result
in positive changes in behavior.
This theory teaches that all people are unique and
special, and therefore not easily studied or categorized (as
Behaviorists might think). You are
not a lab rat or guinea pig,
but are expected to be an active participant in your entire therapy
process. Because it takes into account the whole person, the
Humanistic model is more concerned with the overall
quality of a person's life
than with statistics or other measureable data. Unfortunately,
this also means that many other schools of thought downplay the value
of the Humanistic model, because it does not lend itself well to the
kinds of measurement scientific study usually demands.
When Carl Rogers began Humanistic psychology, he
was, like most who delve into the human mind, heavily influenced by his
own personal history and values. As he grew older, he changed
from a person with strict "rules" for behavior and a highly judgemental
attitude about others' motivations and values to a caring,
compassionate
individual, seeking out the good in others and sincerely trying to help
them live better lives. He was renowned as an excellent listener,
and learned to carefully sort out the mixed and overwhelming emotions
some folks were experiencing to help them find the keys they needed to
repair their
dysfunctions.
Rogers claimed that he could see the need for
self-actualization even in small
children as early as when they were learning to walk. He saw it
as one of the earliest examples of our inner desire to reach for the
full extent of our potential skills. Why lie still if you can
crawl? -crawl if you can stand? -stand if you can walk? -walk if you
can run? Little children are constantly changing because, as
Rogers would explain it, they are constantly moving toward
self-actualization, and the changes
are obvious because they have
so far to go. As we become older, we begin to think that we have
conquered all of our problems and accomplished all our skills, but the
truth is that they have just become more complex and difficult to
figure out. If we continue to strive for
self-actualization, we will have a
goal that will carry on throughout our lives.
According to Humanists, it is our concept of
Self that most influences our
behaviors. Our
Self
develops as we interact with our environment and struggle to maintain
what we have achieved while moving on to conquer more. Happiness,
then, is the result of how closely our
ideal (best)
Self corresponds to our
behaving Self. In other words, if we
always imagine ourself serving an ace to win a key match, but in actual
competition our serve always goes "out", we are unhappy. If the
real-life serve
does
become an ace, we are very happy, because our ideal matches the reality.
It is also shown that we are happier when our
locus of evaluation is internal
rather than external. When we have our
own standards of
performance, we know exactly what we need to do in order to feel
fulfilled. As long as we set our goals realistically and give an
appropriate effort to accomplish them, we can find satisfaction with
our
Self. If we attempt
to find satisfaction through
social
comparison however, we are usually likely to end up unhappy and
dissatisfied, because we have looked to external motives, which are
much more inconsistent.
Humanism also contributes to the
Cognitive concept
of
achievement orientation,
by showing that
task orientation
is usually more satisfying than
ego
orientation. When we focus on "trying hard" and "getting
better" in our sport, we are more likely to succeed according to our
own measurements than we are if our only emphases are on
ego-oriented standards like
"winning" and "outperforming that other player". One of the basic
problems with
ego orientation,
as pointed out by this, is that we can achieve our goals yet still end
up unsatisfied because we have left out the "how" the method.
(For example,
if "win the game" is your
only
goal, and the team wins but you
fumble 6 times, it's pretty unlikely that you'll feel fully satisfied.)
It is in the approach to sports that the Humanistic
model is most different from other models. To achieve true
self-actualization, the
quality of our life must
almost continually improve. Sport is seen as a wonderful vehicle
toward this end, if we use it as an expression of our joy at being
alive. By playfully expressing our happiness, and through
balancing the technical and expressive aspects of our sport, we get
self-fulfillment and a liberation of our spirit. A significant
study (Fitts) shows that when two athletes of nearly equal ability
compete, the one with the
better
self-concept nearly
always
performs better, because they have more positive expectation, fewer
negative emotions, and less anxiety. Humanists would say that
those athletes are
experiencing
life much more fully.
A really radical concept is Humanism's view of
contests as a completely "win-win" proposition, where
everyone profits from the
competition. First, is the idea that if we compete primarily
against our own past achievements and strive for our
personal best, we will be more
self-actualized and therefore
happier than other athletes, regardless of the outcome of the
game. (As an added plus, imagine the outcome of a game in which
your entire team reached its personal best!)
The game itself is viewed as a
cooperative activity, in
which the players are all working together so that
everyone will perform their
best. The reasoning is that none of us can create our best
possible performance alone, otherwise we would simply play by ourselves
all the time. Those of us who have competed know that games have
much more intensity and a much higher level of technical performance
than practices or pick-up games. It is for that reason that so
many coaches try to make practices as game-like as possible. If
we wish to reach our full potential, we actually
require a capable opponent
to draw that performance out of us. In an environment regulated
by rules and officials, each participant reaches to develop their
full potential. In this larger sense,
every person present at the
game
is an agent in helping
you
become the most successful player you can possibly be.
Several Humanistic concepts have been applied
closely to sports situations:
(1) The idea of
Peak
Experience comes from this theory, and is applicable to many
aspects of life. When we are fully focused on the task at hand,
firmly connected to our present, feeling a sense of control over
ourselves and our environment, and feel that we are transcending our
self-imposed limits, we are having a
peak
experience. Thus, when we are having the feeling of a
creative outburst, spiritual epiphany, the euphoria of love, or sensory
maximization, we are having a
peak
experience in other areas of our life.
(2) During a
peak
experience, we may be fortunate enough to reach a
Personal Best. To reach this
level of performance, several elements
must be in place: we
must be clearly focused on our task; we must have an
intrinsic interest
in success; we must
intend to
perform at a high level and act strongly on our intentions; we must be
absorbed in our personal involvement; we must spontaneously adapt to
activity situations and change our strategy in response to game
conditions; and we must experience a superior performance.
(3) Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi developed the concept of
Flow, to describe the feeling
we experience when "everything comes together." It is the
ultimate moment, when all our physical, intellectual, and emotional
skills are fluid, coordinated, and operating at peak efficiency.
Other theorists have used terms like "The White Moment" to describe
such times, but it is an experience no one easily forgets.
Unfortunately,
flow is easier
to describe than it is to duplicate. In fact, there is no
evidence that
any
athlete, no matter how accomplished, can summon
flow at will. We can,
however, learn to recognize
flow
and perhaps help it flourish when the time is right. There are
considered to be 9 elements to
flow:
(1) a balance between the challenge and our skill level ["I
know I can do this."]; (2)
smooth coordination of body & mind with our
environment ["I feel
fluid and totall aware."]; (3) knowledge of exactly what needs to be
done, minute-by-minute ["I can see everything that's going to
happen."]; (4) clear, objective feedback ["I need to do
that more smoothly next
time."]; (5) unwavering concentration ["It's as though it's only me and
the ball."]; (6) an effortless sense of control over our
environment
["Everything is going exactly how I intended it to."]; (7) the loss of
all self-consciousness ["I'm insulated from everything."]; (8) there
are distortions in time or other measurements ["It's like everything is
happening in slow motion. The game is almost over so fast?
The hoop seems
so big
tonight!"]; (9)
Autotelic
Experience ["This is worth doing just for the
fun of it!"]
(4) Humanists recognize some truisms about
arousal
too. Athletes who are
most often successful are the ones who are most able to attain their
personal preferred level of
arousal
before, during, and after competition. Additionally, we can use
Humanistic techniques to
discover
our preferred emotional state, by asking, "How did I feel during my
best ever performance? How did I feel during my worst?"
Then we work on strategies that will put us in the proper state.
As with all models, there are criticisms of
Humanistic theory too. One of the biggest ones is that it is
qualitative rather than
quantitative. Since the goal
is to get you to have the highest
quality
experience, Humanists believe that your interpretation of your
experience is the most valid way to measure your success. More
scientific thinkers prefer specific data that can be recorded,
measured, and tested. Since
flow
and
peak experience cannot be
measured without the subjective view of the individual to which it
occurred, many scientists consider the data invalid.
Further, some criticize Humanism because subjects
are expected to help themselves, while the counselor acts mostly as a
companion, rather than a guide or director as other models suggest.
The reality is that most of us would like to believe
that we are rational, normal people who can solve our own problems if
we are given the proper tools to do so. (And statistically, most
of us are.) Humanism suggests ways that we can take charge of the
situations we face, and our thoughts & emotions in facing
them. By doing so, we can overcome obstacles that prevent us from
being our very best, and succeed in ways we previously had not thought
possible.
ASSIGNMENT:
~ (1) Print out the
Humanist Performance Characteristics Worksheet. [
WORD format]
~ (2) Do a journal on
one
of the following topics:
(A) During contests in your sport, how closely
does your
behaving self
resemble your
ideal self?
(B) Where is your usual
locus of evaluation for your sport,
and how does that effect your feelings about your performance?
(C) How close do you come to the true meaning
of sport as defined by the Humanistic model? What could you do to
get closer to those ideals?
Back to the
Models page
Back to the
Mainpage