Man's Search for Meaning

I was checking out a friend’s blog today, when I noticed some interesting posts regarding self-actualization and Maslow’s hierarchy.

For those unfamiliar with this behavioral model, in the 1950’s, Abraham Maslow synthesized a large amount of motivational data from animals and humans into this hierarchy of human needs (Figure). He postulated that a person would only seek to meet the “higher needs” if their “lower needs” were met (i.e. you would not be concerned about gaining esteem from your peers if you were starving to death). At the top of the pyramid, Maslow placed self-actualization which he defined as: to find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential. (He later went on to subdivide self-actualization into 4 different levels: cognitive needs, aesthetic needs, self-actualization, and self-transcendence). Maslow stated that self-actualized individuals were characterized by: 1) being problem-focused; 2) incorporating an ongoing freshness of appreciation of life; 3) a concern about personal growth; and 4) the ability to have peak experiences. Some of the people Maslow considered as self-actualized included Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

The following is a comment I wanted to leave on my friend’s blog that got a bit lengthy. I’m sure more intelligent and well-trained people have commented on Maslow’s model, but this is my take on it:

I remember learning about Malsow's pyramid in freshman psychology back in college. At the time, I took his model to be useful in understanding human behavior, but now that I am thinking more critically about human behavior, I have to say that I think Maslow's model misses the mark of describing human behavior at the top of the pyramid.

I really don't see how self-actualization is on the same continuum or dimension as these other needs. The model makes sense to me below self-actualization, because all of these needs from "physiologic" to "esteem" represent the things the people do to serve themselves...Self actualization, on the other hand, seems to be related to how people observe and impact the world around them. If you look at the list of people that Maslow uses to represent self-actualized individuals, these are folks who were able to touch others or able to maintain their values despite the unpopularity of those values. Even the characteristics that Maslow noted characterize ways of relating with other people and the world around them more than how they meet some internal need.

My point is this: According to Maslow's model, people will not engage in self-actualization when their "lower needs" are not met, but I just don't think this is true. Does one really need to be well-fed and feel safe and loved to strive to "find self-fulfillment and realize one's potential"?

Historically, populations of people with unmet needs have often produced many self-actualized people. I am thinking of the civil rights participants of the 50’ and 60's whose safety needs and esteem needs were constantly undermined by a white supremacist culture. I would argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was highly self-actualized despite living under the threat of violence at all times. Speaking of practitioners of non-violence, Gandhi even starved himself intentionally...He seemed to achieve self-actualization by denying his physical needs.

Perhaps the best example of self-actualization in the midst of unmet "lower" needs is that of Holocaust survivor and psychoanalyst Viktor Frankl. I have recently been re-reading his book, Man's Search for Meaning where Frankl gives a very insightful account of the psychology of the concentration camp inmate. Frankl notes that despite the physical conditions of starvation and bitter cold and the even more overwhelming emotional conditions of Auschwitz, some individuals were still able to maintain their values, and were able to use their suffering to "self-actualize". Frankl comments that this self-actualization was rare (his modesty does not allow him to include himself among those to achieve it), but he notes that it was no more rare than outside of camp life. One could argue that concentration camp life was a crucible that actually tested how "self-actualized" someone really was. Were they merely playing the part of a self-actualized person outwardly to have people respect them (and meet their esteem needs) or were they honestly seeking to reach their own personal potential despite their surroundings and circumstances. One might say that a chivalrous and generous man who degenerates into a self-centered thief at the mere thought of "going without" is not actually so chivalrous or generous at all.


My re-reading of Viktor Frankl’s book has been a very powerful reminder of how powerfully important the human will is. His depiction of the mental life of a concentration camp inmate reveals that these men and women had everything taken away from them that would seem to make life worth living, yet many found a way to maintain their desire to survive. There seemed to be some inner quality that was more important than the horror of the outward circumstances that determined whether people would give up or keep fighting to stay alive. Frankl eloquently describes his main theme, when he says:

Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him - mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp. I became acquainted with those martyrs whose behavior in camp, whose suffering and death, bore witness to the fact that the last inner freedom cannot be lost.

Condtions and circumstances could not possibly be worse than what they were in these camps, as everything was stripped from these individuals, but the the ability to survive was based on something that even the SS men could not forecable take away: “The last of the human freedoms is to choose one's attitudes”.

Frankl who was trained as a psychiatrist at the time of his interment in the concentration camps used his extreme experiences to develop a new psychoanalytic paradigm. Frankl’s contribution to psychoanalytic theory is that contrary to the Freudian or Adlerian point-of view that man’s most important internal conflicts are related to gratifying sexual desires (Freud’s “Pleasure Principle”) or empowering oneself relative to others is that man’s most important conflict is a need for meaning. His so-called “logotherapy (from the Greek word logos for meaning), outlines a psychotherapeutic strategy that is focused more on future goals and satisfying the will to meaning than other psychoanalytic approaches which often focus on past conflicts and the unalterable circumstances of our surroundings. Frankl’s therapeutic approach is considered existential since it focuses of the freedom of the will and personal responsibility and stoic since it holds that our attitude is more important than our surroundings in determining our well-being. The Stoic Epictetus held that 'Men are not moved by events but by their interpretations'. Even in facing death and suffering, by showing courage we can turn a situation into a supremely meaningful one. Frankl concedes that this therapeutic approach can be rigorous since it places so much responsibility on the patient, but if anyone is in a position to de-emphasize circumstance and past conflicts, a Holocaust survivor surely is.

Frankl’s unique training and profoundly intense experience with human suffering and deprivation shed light onto Maslow’s model of hierarchical needs. The model just does not seem to fit the observations we have of highly self-actualized individuals. While some people might not be able to spend any of their energy "self-actualizing" when their “lower needs” are not being met, others have proven to be able to self-actualize in spite of or even because of unmet need. As MLK pointed out, suffering can be redemptive. I would hate to think that my potential for self-fulfillment could only be realized if I was physically and emotionally comfortable, because this is a state that cannot be controlled. Disease, loss of loved ones, financial trouble, and every other type of human suffering is bound to come knocking. I hope that like Frankl, I can find meaning in that suffering when I answer the door.

Yours in getting to the top of the pyramid,
chad

"When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves."
~Victor Frankl