| 1962 book by Abraham Maslow, which appeared in its second edition in 1968. In it, Maslow outlines the axiomata of a new kind of existential psychology, the "Third Psychology" as Maslow calls it.
The assumptions Maslow makes to formulate his psychology are as follows:
1: Each of us has an inner nature. This nature is instinctual or, to use Maslow's term, "instinctoid," and defines our potential for personal change. This inner nature has some aspects which are shared by everyone in the species (a sort of "human nature"), and to a certain extent is unique to the person.
2: It is possible to scientifically study this nature.
3: This inner nature is primarily oriented to the health of the organism. Therefore, it is best to let our natures guide our lives, and thereby grow and prosper. "The pressure toward health makes therapy possible." (23)
4: If this "core" is suppressed, illness results. This illness can be quite overt and psychosomatic, manifesting all at once, or it can be subtle and neurotic, manifesting over the course of years.
5: This inner nature is "weak" and "delicate," but rarely entirely goes away. Unlike the instincts of animals, our inner natures can be disabused from our behaviour. However, even if it is denied, it still continues to push the organism to "self-actualization."
6: All assumptions about the "happiness" of self-actualisation must also reflect the necessity of tragedy and pain. Hence "self-actualisation" instead of "happiness" or "utility."
I challenge Maslow's proposition #2. Maslow assumes too great a common ground between people. He also makes therapy into a mission, and enshrines science as a grounds for final appeal -- thereby betraying definite modernist undertones to an ostensibly postmodernist project. In Maslow's words, "Science is the only way we have of shoving truth down the reluctant throat." (viii) This statement betrays a radical misunderstanding of the limits of discourse in power relations.
This misunderstanding is also evinced by Malsow's propositions #4 and #5. Maslow portrays an "inner nature" which is the source of all power and potential for an organism, and yet there is some sort of "outer" force which can "suppress" it. This doesn't make any sense to me. If personal development is made on the basis of the internal force, what "external" force could you possibly posit that's going to effect change? Maslow should pick and choose: Either he's a humanist, or he's a behaviorist. Obviously, he wants to be the former, but he's still hung up on many of the concepts of the latter.
Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology of Being. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York: 1968. | 
