Who Belongs in Maslow’s Vision of a Good Society?

What is it about?

This article describes Maslow’s vision of a Good Society and how engrained a humanistically oriented psychological science aimed at creating a Good Society has become in the contemporary practice of humanistic psychologists and psychologists more broadly. Although Maslow’s vision of a humanistically influenced psychology aimed at creating a Good Society has led to progress, it is not without fault. One major limitation of Maslow’s argument for a humanistically oriented psychological science aimed at creating a Good Society is Maslow’s pathologizing views regarding sexually diverse individuals and his contention that their sexual orientation or behaviors make those individuals unhealthy. This limitation is discussed, and current humanistic psychologists are encouraged to draw from Maslow’s vision for a Good Society to make further progress in the field of psychology while recognizing that, as humanistic psychologists, we must neither exclude any group of individuals from a part of a Good Society nor deem those individuals unfit for self-actualization.

Featured Image

Photo by Ernest Ojeh on Unsplash

Photo by Ernest Ojeh on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Although Maslow’s (1969) article has shortcomings regarding who should be approached using a humanistic stance and who should be part of the Good Society, his words remain influential for humanistic psychologists today. His view that humanistic psychologists should be approving, nonintrusive, and nonmanipulating serves as a foundation for humanistic psychological practice today, with some of the sexually diverse individuals he pathologized (Bridges & New, 2020). The stances of approval, nonintrusion, and nonmanipulation also drive the sex-positive and sexual and gender diversity movements for equality and move our country closer to the ideal of a Good Society (Bridges & New, 2020). The major limitation associated with Maslow’s Good Society is that humanistic psychologists today must be careful not to pathologize and exclude individuals as Maslow did when we perceive them as engaging in “unhealthy” pleasures. If humanistic psychologists do not heed that advice, we may repeat some of Maslow’s mistakes rather than focus on continuing to carry forward his wisdom that has positively moved our field forward.

Perspectives