DIFFERENT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OFOPTIMUM DEVELOPMENTSummaryThis article discusses different conceptualizations of optimumdevelopment in adulthood. The existential perspective of Rollo Mayis compared to the self-actualization theory of Abraham Maslowand to transpersonal psychology. The paradigms and valueassumptions underlying the different theories of personality areexplicated, and social constructionism is used as an organizingframe of reference. The principal argument is that in addition torepeating viewpoints in a philosophical debate about values, weneed to substantiate our claims with evidence from the existingresearch and explore how well-designed empirical studies can helpus answer lingering questions of what is desirable and possible inregard to optimal development. The author examines the existingresearch literature in regard to how the disagreements of theabove-named schools of thought could be clarified. Suggestions forfuture directions in humanistic research are presented.

Keywords: humanistic; existential; personality theory; selfactualization;adult development

The focus of this article is on theories of optimal adult development.Theoretical orientations guide the conceptualization of researchprojects and consequently exercise a far-reaching influence overhow a field evolves. Contemporary psychology is strongly influencedby a hedonistic perspective (Slife, 2004); consequently psychologicalhealth is usually defined as the achievement of happiness and theabsence of problems. This approach currently dominates contemporarypersonality research.I am interested in alternate positions, those based on maturityand eudaemonic, meaning-centered definitions of psychologicalhealth. Three approaches are chosen for closer examination: theexistential position of Rollo May (1983) and Kirk Schneider(2004), the self-actualization theory of Abraham Maslow (1971),and transpersonal psychology (Wilber, 2000). They representcompeting truth claims within the field of humanistic psychology.This article is an attempt to explicate the values and similaritiesamong the three theories in regard to what constitutes healthand optimum development in adulthood.These divergent theories have been debated over severaldecades. My principal argument is that instead of repeating viewpointsin a philosophical debate about values, we need to substantiatetruth claims with evidence based on existing researchand explore how well-designed empirical studies can help usanswer lingering questions of what is desirable and possible inregard to optimal development. To achieve this objective, I presentfindings from relevant research projects and discuss howfuture research could contribute to a more differentiated understanding.This may pave the way for well-conceived researchefforts that emphasize the contributions of humanistic psychologyto the fields of personality theory and lifespan development.THE EXISTENTIAL POSITION OF ROLLO MAYSince the 1958 publication of Existence, Rollo May has been atthe forefront of existential psychology in America. The existentialperspective emphasizes understanding persons in their beingness.According to May (1983) the term “existence” means “to

emerge,” and denotes not a static concept of the person but aprocess of becoming. May actively rejects the position of traditionalpsychology, which is focused on dynamisms, such as drivesor overt behavior in an isolated manner.The existential position understands individuals in a dialecticmanner and embraces paradox (May, 1958). We can understandothers and ourselves in both an objective and a subjective manner.The objective perspective of another person would beexplanatory; we intellectually grasp a problem with which theother person is struggling.We treat ourselves as objects when weintellectualize about problems in our lives. The subjective perspectiveis a direct experience, being present with our emotions.In regard to the other person, we can “grasp their being” andunderstand their subjective position through empathy. May(1958) sees the simultaneous occurrence of subjective and objectiveawareness, the oscillation between the two, as the process ofconsciousness itself. “Existentialism, in short, is the endeavor tounderstand man by cutting below the cleavage between subjectand object which has bedeviled Western thought and sciencesince shortly after the Renaissance” (May, 1983, p. 49).Central to May’s (1981) conceptualization of psychologicalhealth is the dialectic relationship between freedom and destiny.Destiny is associated with the objective experience of being. Maynoted that the awareness of one’s own death, actually the creationof a word for death, allows us to see our own finitude, ourlimitations, and the objective aspect of our lives. Freedom is associatedmore with the subjective aspect of experiencing, and alsowith the ability to relate to both aspects of this dichotomy.Freedom is expressed through directing our attention, being ableto choose and act, and consequently through valuing. “Freedom isthus more than a value itself: it underlies the possibility of valuing;it is basic to our capacity to value” (May, 1981, p. 6).Our gifts and possibilities are real, but they exist only withinthe contexts and constraints of our lives, because our capacities,our time, our energies are limited. The awareness of our limitations,the threat of nonbeing, the ever-presentness of death itselfheightens the preciousness of our potential, and the need to makechoices and to act on them. Nonbeing is thus enhancing ourawareness. In this way freedom and destiny facilitate each other,create each other.May (1958) argued that we can accept hostility, aggression,and anxiety in our lives if we accept our limitations and the realityof death itself. Instead of creating an allegiance to only oneside of life—the positive, expansive side—and repressing all negativity,a fuller, more real and conscious life can be created if weacknowledge both sides. According to May (1982) human natureis daimonic; this means containing destructive and constructiveelements. We can consciously strive to integrate destructiveimpulses, which results in the expression of creativity. If we denythe existence of aggressive elements in human nature, we runthe risk of facilitating their inappropriate expression, leading toviolence and evil on an individual and collective scale. The awarenessand recognition of the dichotomy between constructive anddestructive elements allow for a greater actualization of ourpotential, for the expression of who we truly are. Meaning in life

is created through making conscious choices about how we confrontour own finitude and express our potential. Not only do weneed to become conscious and make choices, but we also mustcommit to our values by acting on them.In May’s (1950/1977) view of psychological dynamics, anxietyhas a pivotal place. Anxiety is tied to creativity, especially the creativeact. Psychological health is closely connected to being ableto tolerate the anxiety that arises with the creative act. Anxietyis also associated with freedom and choosing, because any choiceinevitably denies many other possibilities and futures. Neuroticanxiety is connected to an inability to decide, to feelings of powerlessnessand alienation. Existential anxiety, however, arisesfrom our awareness of the dynamic tension between freedom anddestiny. The increasing willingness to embrace the paradox, totolerate the anxiety, to allow it to be present in our lives is forMay (1958) one of the most significant signs of psychologicalgrowth and maturity. May distrusted easy answers; psychologicalhealth for him was a complex process of struggle and integration.In addition to May, several contemporary psychologists haveelaborated the existential position. In a recent contribution,Schneider (2004) delineated how within the field of psychology,different schools of thought have emerged and aligned themselveswith the extremist positions of complete freedom anddeterminism. Biological psychology and the adjacent practice ofpsychopharmacology are associated with determinism, whereasthe New Age approaches of limitless self-fulfillment are associatedwith unlimited freedom. Schneider suggested that the fieldof psychology would become more capable of assisting clients if itcould adopt an understanding of the person as being suspendedin a dynamic tension of realizing “dread, veneration, and wonder,termed awe” (p. xv). Schneider called for a reorientation in thefield of psychology, a reorientation that accepts values and purposesbased on the existential orientation.Clinical commentaries have delineated how the rather philosophical,abstract ideas of existentialism can be brought to bearfruitfully on the practice of psychology. Schneider, in collaborationwith May, presented a detailed discussion of therapeuticapproaches and techniques (Schneider & May, 1995). Bugental(1976) offered case histories and gave exquisitely detailedaccounts about how existential concerns of being present with thewhole person can be expressed in the clinical encounter. Yalom(1980) discussed how four existential dichotomies are significantin our lives: freedom versus destiny, meaning versus meaninglessness,isolation versus connectedness, and death versus existence.According to Yalom, we must accept and consistently relateto each one of these dichotomies to have excellent health in adulthood.Greening (2004) illustrated how these principles can bebrought into therapeutic practice and help us understand thestruggles of persons in psychotherapy.THE HUMANISTIC PERSONALITY THEORIES OFABRAHAM MASLOW AND CARL ROGERSMaslow (1954/1970) suggested that psychological health ismore than being well adjusted and free from psychopathology.Individuals strive to satisfy their needs for survival, safety,belongingness, and esteem. These needs are arranged in a hierarchical

order and decrease in immediacy when persons come toexpect that their needs are reliably gratified. A failure to experienceneed satisfaction fixes attention at the respective level andleads, according to Maslow, to psychopathology.Once the lower needs are satisfied, higher needs for selfactualizationmay emerge. Maslow (1971) termed these themetaneeds or Being-needs. They include strivings to be creative,to grow, to acquire knowledge, and to develop one’s abilities.Maslow noted that metaneeds function in a qualitatively differentmanner from the lower needs. Instead of striving for gratificationand relief from disequilibria, Being-needs are ends inthemselves. People come to enjoy the process and the intrinsicrewards of seeking knowledge and growth. These so-called metamotivationsoffer a sense of meaning and purpose in life. Masloworiginally assumed that Being-needs and the associated metamotivationswould emerge spontaneously once the lower needs havebeen met. After many years of observation and qualitativeresearch he came to conclude that the gratification of the lowerneeds is a necessary but insufficient condition for further growth.To progress, people need to consciously embrace the so-calledBeing-values, such as justice and truth, and become motivated toactively seek growth and knowledge. According to Maslow (1968),self-actualization often requires that a person leave familiar circumstancesbehind and explore new possibilities in life. Thisrequires courage, commitment, and an ability to take risks. Maslownoted individual differences in regard to people’s strength, will, anddetermination. Self-actualizers are creative and spontaneous, andthey have a continued freshness of appreciation. Maslow observedthat self-actualizers have deeper, healthier interpersonal relationshipsthan other adults. They respect the autonomy and individualityof others and express genuine empathy. Self-actualizers havepeak experiences, moments of awe, of being profoundly at one withthe universe. Maslow devoted a significant amount of attention tothis phenomenon and became interested in exploring the transpersonaldimensions of development later in his life. This projectremained incomplete because of his premature death in 1970.The personality theories of Carl Rogers and Abraham Masloware often discussed together (see DeCarvalho, 1992, for anexample), which may have resulted from the fact that they areseen together as the founders of humanistic psychology. Their terminologiesalso bear similarities. This overlooks the two theorists’important differences in regard to optimal development. Rogers(1951) shared Maslow’s optimism about positive potential fordevelopment, but his emphasis was different. Rogers felt thatpeople could increasingly learn to attune to what is internally,organismically, right for them. Given empathy and support, theycould learn to not restrict their sensing of their needs and emotionsbecause of preconceived notions of how they should be. Rogers discussedactualizing tendencies to describe this growing awareness ofwhat is personally right for oneself. He conceptualized a growingindividual as becoming increasingly aware of a process of ongoinginternal change, coupled with an acceptance of oneself and others.He termed this openness to experience existential living, andreferred to people who have achieved this ability as persons oftomorrow. Rogers emphasized that individuals will inevitably

experience positive development if they are exposed to supportiveenvironmental conditions.An important difference between the two theories is that Rogersstayed closer to a concept of excellent psychological health. Maslowmoved beyond that; he saw self-actualization as a distinct stage ofadvanced psychological development. His theory has been shown tobe a good fit with the ideas of the post-Piagetian stage theorists.The post-Piagetians promulgate the idea that personality developmentprogresses in a similar manner as cognitive development.Higher cognitive stages contain the abilities of lower stages, but addsomething that is qualitatively different. In her theory of ego development,Jane Loevinger (1976) has delineated how people progressin distinct stages from self-interest to social conformity, and then togreater complexity and personal autonomy. She cogently argued thather highest stages, Autonomous and Integrated, are analogous toself-actualization. Empirical research has shown support for thishypothesis (Cook-Greuter, 1999; Helson, Mitchell, & Hart, 1985).Loevinger’s (1976) semiprojective instrument, the WashingtonUniversity Sentence Completion Test (SCT), allows for the assessmentof advanced development. It translates qualitative data intoquantitative stage designations. Based on the completion of rudimentarysentence stems, a person is assigned a developmental stageon a scale from two to nine. The test has facilitated research in thearea of advanced personality development and offered a richness ofnew data about optimal development in adulthood (see Alexander,Heaton, & Chandler, 1994; Cook-Greuter, 1999; M. E. Miller,1994). Empirical research offers support for the notion that athigher stages of ego development people tend to display thecharacteristics Maslow described, such as creativity, cognitiveflexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, and increased concerns withself-expression and authenticity (M. E. Miller & Cook-Greuter,1994). As Maslow noted, self-actualization is indeed rare; fewpeople in our culture progress to this stage of development.A COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTENTIALPSYCHOLOGY AND THE HUMANISTIC THEORIES1The personality theories of Maslow and May share similarities,but they also have significant differences. Maslow (1968)explicitly acknowledged the contributions of existentialism tohumanistic psychology, namely the emphases on the livingperson, on the evolving potential of the person, and on the phenomenologicalapproach to understanding individuals.Commonalities between the two theories include that May (1958)and Maslow (1954/1970) consider maturity as being associated withDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

508 Optimum Adulthoodgreater complexity and the ability to tolerate paradox. Both theoristsdiscussed creativity and the commitment to goals as aspects ofmaturity. Growth is not necessarily seen as being easy; individualsmay have to leave comfortable, familiar circumstances behind toembrace a new reality and express their potential. Maslow and Mayagreed that maturity involves having core values, an inner senseof knowing of what is right for oneself. How this inner knowingevolves and the appreciation of the process of development areusually more important to the mature personality than reachinga specific goal (Maslow 1954/1970; May, 1980). In this way boththeorists emphasized the dynamic aspects of maturity; it is a

process of becoming, of consistently expressing values. The theoriesalso have significant differences, in regard to (1) humannature and (2) what stimulates growth.Human nature. Maslow (1968), Rogers (1982), and May (1982)agreed that we need to bring awareness to the social environment,because social factors lead to the expression of humantraits, either for better or for worse. Maslow (1954/1970) emphasizedthat everybody has the potential for self-actualization; thushe was strongly focused on aspects of positive potential in humandevelopment. Rogers (1982) emphatically stated that in his opinion,all humans will display compassion and cooperation if theyare provided with the appropriate environmental supports. Thiswas evidence for him that human nature is good and needs to benurtured properly. May (1982), on the other hand, was concernedwith the existence of negative and positive forces within the individual,and emphasized that the acknowledgement of both tendenciesallows for the integration and embracing of dichotomies,which leads to creativity and positive, constructive choices(Greening, 1984). Destructive tendencies need to be acknowledgedbecause the negative potential can become expressed asviolence and aggression. In sum, the main difference between theexistential position and the humanistic position concerns humannature. Is human nature to be seen as all positive, thrivingtoward ever better development, or does human nature containdestructive, evil tendencies that need to be acknowledged andworked with? To examine the merit of the respective positions, Iwill examine the nature of the arguments and the availableresearch-based literature.May’s (1982) argument is premised on the observation that theenvironment is made up of individuals, and that the existence ofDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

Angela Pfaffenberger 509violence and war proves that evil exists in humans. This viewignores the perspective of systems theory that living systems arenot the additive sum of their individual components but a dynamicexpression of forces that results from complex interactions of theparts (Goldberg & Goldberg, 2000). Maslow (1971) noted thatthat our culture is low in regard to synergy, meaning that theinterests of the individual and of society as a whole are not wellaligned. He pointed to the studies of anthropologists that showthat low synergy is often associated with societal unrest and,especially, war. This means that negativity and aggression maynot be because of evil tendencies within individuals; they may bestructural aspects of societal organization. Maslow never deniedthat people may behave self-centeredly, given bad circumstances,but that does not negate the fact that they can and will make constructivechoices under better circumstances. May and Maslowthus differed in regard to where their attentions rested. May sawa half-empty glass, emphasizing that evil will be expressed if thecircumstances allow for it. Rogers and Maslow saw a half-fullglass and stressed that constructive, life-affirming choices will bemade under the right circumstances.In a review of the available literature on aggression and antisocialbehavior, Green (1998) noted that rivaling theories of whetheraggression is because of social context or dispositional factors havebrought about inconsistent research results. Current research supports

the conclusion that biological processes influence aggressivebehavior by interacting with conditions in the social environment.Green pointed out that contemporary researchers have moved awayfrom a nature-versus-nurture debate. The research emphasis is onthe situatedness of the aggressive behavior: “What processes areinitiated by exposure to an aversive interpersonal situation suchthat aggression against the other person is the outcome?” (Green,1998, p. 318).Growth stimulators. The second major difference between the theoristsconcerns what factors they consider as stimulating growth.May saw the acknowledgement of freedom and of limitations, ofnonbeing, as the main aspect that prompts development to higherlevels of personal maturity, which is expressed as the embracing ofa paradox. Maslow (1954/1970) did not emphasize this point.Maslow’s focus is on the satisfaction of the lower needs as the prerequisiteof further development, as well as on the individual’sDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

510 Optimum Adulthooddetermination and aspiration. Rogers’ (1982) emphasis is ongrowth-enhancing relationships that facilitate inner awarenessand congruence. Maslow (1968), nevertheless, explicitly acknowledgedthat difficult circumstances can be growth enhancing. Inthis way, the differences between Rogers, Maslow, and May maybe because of their differing emphases rather than beingdifferences in principle.Two interesting research projects have inquired into thenature of existential concerns, psychological health, and personalitydevelopment. Debats (1999) combined quantitative andqualitative methods in a research project that inquired intosources of meaning in the lives of young adults. She found thatthe participants were primarily oriented toward fulfilling theirrelational needs in addition to being concerned with issues oflivelihood and professional identity. Other-directed service waslargely absent from their concerns. Debats speculates that thisconfirms the theories of Maslow and Erik Erikson, (1978) whichstate that generative concerns emerge in midlife, after moreimmediate, need-based issues have been addressed. Debats alsofound that lack of meaning interacts with psychopathology, leavingthe question about the directionality of this effect unanswered.Based on her research findings, she cogently argued thatthe perception of purposes and goals does not impart vitality andmeaning, but that the level of commitment and active engagementwith the perceived goals are the crucial factors. This studycan be seen as confirming both Maslow’s and May’s theories ofpsychological maturation. In addition to illustrating the importanceof need satisfaction, which is a cornerstone of Maslow’stheory of self-actualization, it confirms May’s assumption thatcommitment, as the result of an active valuing process, impartsmeaning and interacts with psychological health.In a different research study, King (2001) investigated theinfluence of challenging and limiting life events on personalitydevelopment as measured by Loevinger’s (1976) SCT. She foundthat the occurrence of difficulty in itself is not associated withgrowth. The author enrolled research participants who had livedthrough significant difficulties in life, such as having a child withDown’s syndrome, and women who experienced divorce after 20

years of marriage. She coded stories that the participants told ofdifficult events. She particularly noted signs of assimilation andaccommodation, terms from Piaget’s (1977) theory about howcognitive stage change happens. According to Block (1982), whoDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

Angela Pfaffenberger 511adjusted this aspect of Piaget’s theory to personality development,assimilation means fitting an event into an existing structure.If assimilation fails, because of the severity of the event orthe constraints of the existing structures, the individual will useaccommodation, which is a reworking of the internal frame ofreference.As expected, King (2001) found that assimilation was not associatedwith gains in personality growth, as measured by the SCT.Accommodation and gains in maturity resulted when individualsnot only experienced events as difficult, but also saw them aschallenging to their worldview. The author suggested that thisactive engagement with difficulties resulted in the emergence ofnew personality structures that lead to higher ego stages. Kingproposed that people are motivated by a desire to experience positivestates of well-being, which prompts them to cognitivelyrestructure a negative event into one that creates meaning intheir lives and contributes to their growth. This research allowsfor the conclusion that cognitive abilities and personality structuresinteract with life circumstances, and that the nature of thisinteraction is relevant to whether growth occurs.This project lends strong support to May’s (1958) theory ofexistential therapy, which is intended to teach clients to constructivelywork with their limitations and to create freedom sothat they can choose values, meanings, and commitments.TRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGYTranspersonal psychology is concerned with the entire rangeof human functioning, especially processes related to spiritualpractices, altered states of consciousness, and peak experiences.Ken Wilber (2000) has emerged as the most prominent theorist inthe field.He proposed a model of advanced development that includestranspersonal stages and defines what constitutes transpersonaldevelopment (Wilber, 1986). This model, like Loevinger’s (1976)theory of ego development, is based on a Piagetian model ofinvariant, qualitative stages that are arranged hierarchically.According to Wilber’s theory, all development falls into three consecutivetiers: the prepersonal, the personal, and the transpersonal;each of those contains three stages. His final stage in thepersonal realm is called Vision-logic, and he likens it to Maslow’sDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

512 Optimum Adulthoodself-actualization, to existential awareness, and to Loevinger’sAutonomous and Integrated stages.Wilber emphasized advancedcognitive abilities here, such as dialectic thinking and postformalthought. This stage is followed by the first of his transpersonalstages, called Psychic. Individuals become conscious of how themind works. They start to take an interest in how their perceptionsof the self and the world are influenced by cognitive patternsand by the incessant stream of thoughts.The shift in consciousness that takes place at the Psychic stageis comparable in nature to the qualitative change that, according

to Loevinger (1976), occurred at earlier levels of ego development.Individuals at the Psychic stage start to notice that they “have”an ego, just as they understood earlier that they “have” a socialrole. Stage progression occurs when individuals can go beyondthe constraining sense of “being” a social role or an ego. They needto become able to shift their attention from being inside the socialrole or the ego to a perspective that is larger and more panoramic.The shift in consciousness that is necessary to see the ego is significantlyharder to accomplish than earlier ones, because thereare few cultural supports available; and individuals are oftenwithout assistance, because this level of development is so rare.Further stages of development are usually only achievablethrough meditation, and most of the descriptions we have availablerely on Eastern sources such as Buddhist and Hindu scriptures.Wilber (1986) calls the next stage Subtle and associates itwith meditative stabilization, experiences of bliss and samadhi,and an experiential understanding of the collective archetypes.The following stage is termed Causal and is associated with theexperience of effortlessness in meditative absorption, of enlightenmentand detachment.Wilber’s final stage, Unitive, constitutesmoving beyond all experiences of dichotomy, of being inseparablefrom cosmic consciousness.The important contribution of transpersonal psychology to theoriesof optimal functioning in adulthood lies in the conceptualizationof development beyond the ego structures that Westernpsychology ordinarily assumes to be the personality. In this wayit is a new paradigm; it has expanded our awareness of how personalitycan be understood and defined. Social constructionism(Gergen, 1985) arrives at a similar conclusion coming from a differentdirection. According to this school of thought, whatever we consider“the person” in Western psychology is but a cultural constructrather than an observation of actual processes. This viewpoint hasDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

Angela Pfaffenberger 513been further elaborated by Cushman (1990, 1991), who arguedthat our construction of childhood development is nothing but avalue-laden cultural interpretation of what occurs in early childhood,rather than being an objective observation of events.MASLOW’S THEORY OF SELF-ACTUALIZATION ANDTRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGYMaslow’s (1954/1970) and Wilber’s (1986) models of developmentshare many similarities; both accept stage theory as anunderlying frame of reference. This agreement has increased theacceptance of those models within humanistic psychology, butseveral aspects of the theories are not sufficiently supported byexisting research and should therefore be considered preliminary.First, both theorists propose that ordinary mental health is aprerequisite for higher development (Maslow, 1954/1970; Wilber,1986). Empirically, however, we know very little about what motivatespeople to explore transpersonal interests. Engler (1986)presented convincing arguments that the motivation to explorethe transpersonal realm is not necessarily based on psychologicalhealth and maturity. Based on his clinical observations, he notedthat people with narcissistic or borderline conformations arefrequently drawn to transpersonal practices out of a desire tofeel special and to overcome their inner sense of emptiness.

Nevertheless, they may experience genuine transpersonal statesof consciousness. As Cortright (1997) pointed out, the transpersonalliterature is full of accounts that transpersonal interestscan emerge at any developmental stage, often unexpectedly forthe individual. Many such individuals do not show signs of exceptionalpsychological health. They may be struggling with substanceabuse or have prejudiced, sexist attitudes that bespeakcultural embeddedness, which, according to Maslow, is transcendedin self-actualization.Second, the stage model accepts an implicit assumption of a unidirectionalmovement up a developmental ladder. Helson et al.(1985) noted that a significant number of the women who attainedadvanced stages of ego development, such as self-actualization,showed a consistent interest in spiritual practice, and that thesewomen considered this an important aspect of their adult lives.Thewomen may have attained the advanced stage of ego developmentexactly because of their spiritual practice, instead of engaging inDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

514 Optimum Adulthoodspiritual practice because of their advanced ego stage, which wouldbe Wilber’s (1989) line of argumentation. Alexander, Rainforth, andGelderloos’ (1991) research showed that meditation promotes egodevelopment, as defined by Loevinger (1976), regardless of theinitial ego stage. This suggests that transpersonal experiencemay lead to a restructuring within the domain of personality.Consequently, self-actualization does not seem to be a requirementfor benefiting from transpersonal practices. Instead personalmaturity and transpersonal experiences seem to have abidirectional relationship.Wilber’s (2000) conceptualization of growth relies to a significantdegree on cognitive structures. He sees evolving cognitive structures,such as increased complexity and systems thinking, as theleading edge of development, a position previously advanced byKohlberg (1969). However, Skoe and von der Lippe (2002) cogentlyargue that cognitive complexity and socio-emotional development,as reflected in ego stage, are separate strands of development.Wilber’s (1986) argument that they form a continuous line of developmentcertainly makes for a plausible-sounding theory, but it isnot supported by cross-cultural observations or contemporaryresearch. Nothing in the research-based literature suggests thatindividuals need postformal cognitive development and dialecticalreasoning to progress in their transpersonal development. Meditationappears to be a method of gaining understanding and insightthat is not mediated through ordinary cognitive structures. TheEastern literature leaves no doubt that many people of high spiritualattainment, such as the historical Buddha, were illiterate(Kanai, 1995). It is an imposition of Western cultural values toassume that only those who are well educated can have access tospiritual development. Transpersonal psychology appears to be acultural narrative with its own values and assumptions about whata person is and what is desirable and possible in development.Wilber’s attempt to cross the paradigmatic boundaries of Westernpsychology and Eastern mysticism has not been entirely successful.In sum, we can say that the relationships among advancedpsychological development, as conceptualized by Maslow (1971)and Loevinger (1976), the underlying cognitive structures, and

transpersonal development are more complex and dynamic thanhas so far been explicated in psychological research. This forms anexiting area of research for future study. The research questionsthat readily emerge from the above discussion are as follows: (1) Doindividuals need mental health to progress to higher stages ofDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

Angela Pfaffenberger 515development? (2) Do people need to achieve self-actualization beforethey can progress to transpersonal stages of development? (3) Whatis the relationship between cognitive complexity and developmentin the realm of personal and spiritual development? The mostpromising approach to this exploration would certainly be a longitudinalproject that follows individuals’ developmental pathsover several decades. We could assess cognitive development,personality as measured by ego stage, and spiritual maturitylongitudinally and compare how the different developmentstrands interact. In light of the fact that such projects are hardto carry out, it would be interesting to explore if an availablearchival data set, like the one Block (1993) assembled over a 30-year time frame, offers information that could be analyzed fromthis perspective.EXISTENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY ANDTRANSPERSONAL PSYCHOLOGYThe existential and transpersonal psychologies are separatetheories that differ in important aspects, most prominently aboutend stages of development. Transpersonal psychology posits thatthe ego should be seen as a form, an idea, that the individualidentifies with, and the end stage of development in this paradigmis conceptualized as a complete resolution of the individualself-sense within either the godhead or the void (Walsh, 2000). Asa means of achieving this stage, transpersonal developmentalistsadvocate the use of methods such as meditation that impartinsights that are usually not achievable with any other means.Existential psychology is more closely focused on optimum developmentwithin what is conventionally defined as the personality.The highest stage of development is seen as the maturity to recognizethe dynamic tension that exists between freedom and destiny,to make conscious choices in the face of finitude, whatSchneider (2004) calls “the fluid center of life” (p. 11). Existentialpsychologists acknowledge the benefits of peak experiences, suchas awe and the I-thou encounter, but they do not see these as ameans of moving beyond a bounded self in a progressive manner.Existential and transpersonal psychologists have had an intense,multifaceted relationship that has spanned many decades. In his1958 publication Existence (p. 18), May specifically noted the similaritiesbetween existentialism and Eastern thought, such as theDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

516 Optimum Adulthoodshared emphasis on ontology and beingness, as well as the attemptto overcome the duality of subject and object. According to May, existentialistsand oriental philosophers view the subjugation of natureas the reason that humans have become estranged from themselves.He argued that the interest in Eastern mysticism arisesfor the same reason that the existential psychology movementhas emerged, namely the conflicting, dichotomous relationship ofhumans and nature, and the consequent loss of meaning.Once the transpersonal psychology movement came into its

own in the 1970s and 80s, such rapprochement and sharing ofideas were quickly lost in what became an antagonistic, acrimoniousdialogue. May and his colleague Schneider took front seatsopposite Wilber. May (1989) started with a full-blown assault onWilber, whom many transpersonal and humanistic psychologistsconsidered to be the leading thinker in the field (Fischer, 1997;Vaughan & Walsh, 1994). May challenged the absolutist truthclaims of the transpersonalists, the decadence of the emergingspiritual groups, and the Pollyannaish attitudes in regard to howwe can all achieve perfection through transpersonal practices. InMay’s view, transpersonal psychology is a naïve allegiance to theexpansive side of human nature and a denial of the daimonic,dichotomous aspects of existence. He expressed adamantly thatthis denial would eventually exert a price in terms of our culturaldevelopment, because the dark side of human nature cannot bedenied or repressed; it needs to be acknowledged and integrated.May was concerned with the overemphasis within the field ofpsychology on that which is individual experience at the expenseof considerations of how communal change can be affected.Schneider (1987, 1989) criticized Wilber’s (1986) model of personalityand development on the grounds that a complete transcendenceof the self is neither possible nor desirable, and thatsuch transcendence may hide an inability to confront existentialissues of finitude. He also argued that there is no ultimate truththat is uncovered by higher development as Wilber postulated. Inhis rebuttal Wilber (1989a, 1989b) argued that transpersonalpsychology has its own epistemology and ways of knowing. Hedefended his model of a qualitative value hierarchy and reiteratedhis view that transpersonal realization is a higher, moreadvanced stage of development. Wilber’s response was highlytechnical, overly detailed, and hard to follow. He showed a thinlyveiled sarcasm toward existentialism, portraying it as an inferiorform of thought that cannot go beyond its own limitations. OtherDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

Angela Pfaffenberger 517theorists (Koltko, 1989; Vaughan & Walsh, 1994) jumped into thedebate to say, yes, Wilber is arrogant and confusing, but neverthelessright. In a more recent exchange between Walsh (2001)and Schneider (2001), the former carefully delineates the commonalitiesbetween existential and transpersonal psychologists,such as the rejection of superficiality and conformity, and anemphasis on living an examined life. Both authors acknowledgedthat the existential and transpersonal psychologies are ratherseparate fields of study at this time. Theorists and practitionerswithin one of the fields are usually not well educated in the otherdiscipline, which has led to mutual misunderstandings and aninability to properly appreciate the other perspective from withinits own context.It might be possible to clarify the divergent perspectives of existentialversus transpersonal psychology through empirical research.Principal issues concern developmental goals and the validity ofstage theory. Transpersonalists tend to treat the qualitative stagehierarchy as real and objective, similar to grades in a school (Wilber,2000). They argue that tenth grade is inevitably more sophisticatedthan second grade; therefore progression in an objective manner istaking place. This ascertainment is true, but it is made true by a

societal context that creates specific learning objectives anddesigns a curriculum to achieve those goals.Without agreement onthe goals, the stages or grades, the school itself would have nomeaning. Consequently, we can see that stage theory is a means oforganizing information after we have defined what is to be valuedin development. At this time, transpersonal and existential psychologistshave no such agreement about values and, without it,neither researchable questions nor methods can be arrived at.Consequently, the principal disagreements between the two groupsabout endpoints in development cannot be explored through systematicinquiry, although both groups do carry out projects withintheir own frames of reference that they see as confirmatory (seeWalsh, 2001, for an example).Social constructionism (Gergen, 1985) can serve as a usefulframework, or metanarrative, that allows us to see the subjectivityof values and perspectives that exist within different reality constructions.Constructionism has its own implicit values, such as thevalue of respecting subjectivity and the context-dependent natureof all viewpoints. The existential and transpersonal psychologiesare thus seen as narratives that rely on differing views of what isto be valued in human development. Interestingly enough,WilberDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

518 Optimum Adulthood(2000) and Schneider (2004) share a certain disdain for constructionism.They base their views on the argument that constructionismis devoid of values and presents a form of relativism.Wilber tends to rely on reasoning advanced by the Germanphilosopher and critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1988), whosuggested that values are intrinsic to human nature and what isgood can be explicated through dialogue. This position is a rejectionof constructionism in its entirety.Wilber insisted that absolutetruth and an absolute, knowable reality exist. Schneider agreedthat values are desirable and should guide psychological theory,but he did not agree with Wilber about what those values are andhow they are arrived at. Neither author has contributed to adebate of how they ground the values that they are advancing andthat ultimately represent the foundation of the paradigms.In short, both theories affirm certain values but they do notwant to acknowledge the subjectivity of values as it is taughtin social constructionism (Gergen, 1985). Constructionism seestruth as a social product negotiated between people; differentgroups of people socially construct different truths. Consequently,instead of placing emphasis on using empirical research to clarifywhich is “right,” we could investigate how different values andbeliefs lead to differential experiences in the lived experience ofpeople. Possible research projects might delineate how an existentialversus a transpersonal focus in the lives of individualsleads to outcomes that may have differential rewards in the lifecourse.We could enroll some research participants who were chosenby existential psychologists and others who were chosen bytranspersonalists as embodying desirable aspects of developmentwithin their respective schools of thought. Researchers from bothtraditions would be involved in the design, which would emphasizea qualitative, interpretive approach.We could collect a life narrativefrom every participant (Josselson, Lieblich, & McAdams, 2003).Researchers from both orientations could code the stories and offer

interpretations. This would probably be best designed as an openendedkind of inquiry where the outcome, that is, the reporting ofthe findings, might be less significant than the process of researchand the enrichment of the mutual dialogue.CONCLUSIONOptimum development in adulthood can be seen from manydifferent perspectives. What is considered desirable depends onDownloaded from http://jhp.sagepub.com at PONTIFICA UNIV CATOLICA CHILE on April 13, 2009

Angela Pfaffenberger 519the viewpoint taken. The three approaches discussed above sharean emphasis on the individual’s intrapsychic development. Theywere chosen because they are comparable based on this similarity,not because other approaches of personality development aredeemed less worthy of our attention. Alternative positions mayemphasize the person’s social or relational capacities. An exampleof the former would be McAdams and de St. Austin’s (1999) elaborationof Erikson’s (1978) theory of generativity, which is focused onhow well adults can accept their responsibilities of caring for othersand society as a whole. Examples of the latter would be the relational,feminist psychologies (J. B. Miller, 1986; Spencer, 2000) thatstress the individual’s ability to connect, empathize, and grow in arelationship. For optimum adulthood, a person needs to grow inmany different areas. The interrelatedness of the different streamsof development remains a field in need of further elaboration.Empirical research remains sparse within the three areas discussedin the main part of this article. This appears to be due to themarginalized position of humanistic psychology as a whole, thelack of research funding, and the fact that few graduate schoolsoffer support for relevant research projects. The most significantamount of research has accumulated in regard to self-actualizationtheory because Loevinger’s (1976) development of the SCT hasallowed for the operationalization and assessment of higher stagesof development. Most of those projects were carried out byresearchers who have no allegiance to humanistic personalitytheory. The projects usually emphasized a variable-centered asopposed to a person-centered view within a quantitative researchdesign. Consequently important aspects have been neglected,such as the fact that Loevinger’s test is a method that does notgrasp the whole person; instead it relies on the interpretation of verbalmaterial. Labouvie-Vief and Diehl (1998) and Schultz andSelman (1998) have convincingly argued that the SCT is predominantlyan assessment of cognitive complexity and that importantdimensions of personality are not sufficiently described throughthis method. If we want to respect the humanistic worldviews of theabove-presented theories, it would advisable to flesh out the quantitativedata with qualitative methods, such as life stories(McAdams, 1993, 1996) or interview materials (Hewlett, 2004), togain a better understanding of advanced development. Humanisticresearchers of optimal development will need to rely on their creativityand the courage to try new ways of exploration if they wantto advance the field.