The Failure of Self-Actualization Theory

Abstract

This inquiry critically examines the self-actualization theories of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Neither theory, it is argued, is correct. The fundamental claims of each, especially about the self and the human condition, are shown to be radically mistaken. Rogers's theory is unacceptable insofar as his conception of the touchstone or standard of self-actualization is false, incoherent, and unworkable in practice. Maslow's theory must be rejected because of an inadequate anthropodicy (theory of evil) and ontology. First, Maslow's explanation of one major form of human diminution, what he calls the "metapathologies" of contemporary life, undermines the normative foundations of his theory. Second, the logic of human development upon which the entire edifice of his theory rests is shown to be essentially reductionist and radically mistaken. Because of this commitment to a reductionist logic, Maslow is unable in principle to offer an adequate account of the origin and nature of the self and human needs. Beyond considerations of truth, each theory is exposed has having a strong ideological character insofar as it expresses and supports relationships of dehumanization. Beyond critiquing Rogers and Maslow, I attempt to establish the general presumption that self-actualization theory as such has very little to offer toward understanding and improving the human condition within late-twentieth-century Western society.