This document discusses humanistic and scientific approaches in psychology. It provides background on humanistic psychology, including its key assumptions, history, and differences from behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Humanistic psychology focuses on the whole person and subjective experiences, using qualitative research methods. It rejects scientific methodology and views humans as fundamentally different from other animals due to consciousness. The document also discusses how language acts as the medium for literature and how works can be more or less translatable depending on whether they draw from the general content of language or the specific features of a given language.

1. EDUCATION HOLE PRESENTS
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION
Unit-V

2. Value-Based Text Readings ..................................................................................................... 2
(i) Humanistic and Scientific Approaches..........................................................................................2
Humanistic Psychology Assumptions....................................................................................................................3
The History of Humanistic Psychology...........................................................................................4
(ii) The Language of Literature and Science.......................................................................................4
(iv) The Social Function of Literature ................................................................................................6
(IV) Science and Survival ..................................................................................................................7
(vii) The Effect of Scientific Temper on Man .....................................................................................8
Value-Based Text Readings
(i) Humanistic and Scientific Approaches
Humanistic, humanism and humanist are terms in psychology relating to an approach which
studies the whole person, and the uniqueness of each individual. Essentially, these terms refer
the same approach in psychology. Humanism is a psychological approach that emphasizes the
study of the whole person. Humanistic psychologists look at human behavior not only through
the eyes of the observer, but through the eyes of the person doing the behaving. Humanistic
psychologists believe that an individual's behavior is connected to their inner feelings and self
concept. The humanistic approach in psychology developed as a rebellion against what some
psychologists saw as limitations of the behaviorist and psychodynamic psychology. The
humanistic approach is thus often called the “third force” in psychology after psychoanalysis and
behaviorism (Maslow, 1968). Humanism rejected the assumption of the behaviorist perspective
which is characterized as deterministic, focused on reinforcement of stimulus-response behavior
and heavily dependent on animal research. Humanistic psychology also rejected the
psychodynamic approach because it also is deterministic, with unconscious irrational and
instinctive forces determining human thought and behavior. Both behaviorism and
psychoanalysis are regarded as dehumanizing by humanistic psychologists.

3. Humanistic psychology expanded its influence throughout the 1970s and the 1980s. Its impact
can be understood in terms of three major areas:
1) It offered a new set of values for approaching an understanding of human nature and the
human condition.
2) It offered an expanded horizon of methods of inquiry in the study of human behavior.
3) It offered a broader range of more effective methods in the professional practice of
psychotherapy.
Humanistic Psychology Assumptions
Humanistic psychology begins with the existential assumptions that phenomenology is central
and that people have free will. Personal agency is the humanistic term for the exercise of free
will. Personal agency refers to the choices we make in life, the paths we go down and their
consequences. A further assumption is then added - people are basically good, and have an
innate need to make themselves and the world better. The humanistic approach emphasizes the
personal worth of the individual, the centrality of human values, and the creative, active nature of
human beings. The approach is optimistic and focuses on noble human capacity to overcome
hardship, pain and despair.
Both Rogers and Maslow regarded personal growth and fulfillment in life as a basic human
motive. This means that each person, in different ways, seeks to grow psychologically and
continuously enhance themselves. This has been captured by the term self-actualization which is
about psychological growth, fulfillment and satisfaction in life. However, Rogers and Maslow
both describe different ways of how self-actualization can be achieved. Central to the humanist
theories of Rogers (1959) and Maslow (1943) are the subjective, conscious experiences of the
individual. Humanistic psychologists argue that objective reality is less important than a
person's subjective perception and understanding of the world. Because of this, Rogers and
Maslow placed little value on scientific psychology especially the use of the psychology
laboratory to investigate both human and other animal behavior. Humanism rejects scientific
methodology like experiments and typically uses qualitative research methods. For example,
diary accounts, open-ended questionnaires, unstructured interviews and unstructured
observations. Qualitative research is useful for studies at the individual level, and to find out, in
depth, the ways in which people think or feel (e.g. case studies). Humanism views human beings
as fundamentally different from other animals mainly because humans are conscious beings
capable of thought, reason and language. For humanistic psychologists’ research on animals,
such as rats, pigeons, or monkeys held little value. Research on such animals can tell us, so they
argued, very little about human thought, behavior and experience. Humanistic psychologists
rejected a rigorous scientific approach to psychology because they saw it as dehumanizing and

4. unable to capture the richness of conscious experience. In many ways the rejection of scientific
psychology in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a backlash to the dominance of the behaviorist
approach in North American psychology.
The History of Humanistic Psychology
* Maslow (1943) developed a hierarchical theory of human motivation. * Carl Rogers (1946)
publishes Significant aspects of client-centered therapy (also called person centered therapy).
* In 1957 and 1958, at the invitation of Abraham Maslow and Clark Moustakas, two meetings
were held in Detroit among psychologists who were interested in founding a professional
association dedicated to a more meaningful, more humanistic vision.
* In 1962, with the sponsorship of Brandeis University, this movement was formally launched as
the Association for Humanistic Psychology.
* The first issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology appeared in the Spring of 1961.
(ii) The Language of Literature and Science
Languages are more to us than systems of thought-transference. They are invisible garments that
drape themselves about our spirit and give a predetermined form to all its symbolic expression.
When the expression is of unusual significance, we call it literature. 1 Art is so personal an
expression that we do not like to feel that it is bound to predetermined form of any sort. The
possibilities of individual expression are infinite, language in particular is the most fluid of
mediums. Yet some limitation there must be to this freedom, some resistance of the medium. In
great art there is the illusion of absolute freedom. The formal restraints imposed by the
material—paint, black and white, marble, piano tones, or whatever it may be—are not perceived;
it is as though there were a limitless margin of elbow-room between the artist’s fullest utilization
of form and the most that the material is innately capable of. The artist has intuitively
surrendered to the inescapable tyranny of the material, made its brute nature fuse easily with his
conception. 2 The material “disappears” precisely because there is nothing in the artist’s
conception to indicate that any other material exists. For the time being, he, and we with him,
move in the artistic medium as a fish moves in the water, oblivious of the existence of an alien
atmosphere. No sooner, however, does the artist transgress the law of his medium than we realize
with a start that there is a medium to obey. 1 Language is the medium of literature as marble
or bronze or clay are the materials of the sculptor. Since every language has its distinctive
peculiarities, the innate formal limitations—and possibilities—of one literature are never quite
the same as those of another. The literature fashioned out of the form and substance of a
language has the color and the texture of its matrix. The literary artist may never be conscious of
just how he is hindered or helped or otherwise guided by the matrix, but when it is a question of
translating his work into another language, the nature of the original matrix manifests itself at

5. once. All his effects have been calculated, or intuitively felt, with reference to the formal
“genius” of his own language; they cannot be carried over without loss or modification. Croce 3
is therefore perfectly right in saying that a work of literary art can never be translated.
Nevertheless literature does get itself translated, sometimes with astonishing adequacy. This
brings up the question whether in the art of literature there are not intertwined two distinct kinds
or levels of art—a generalized, non-linguistic art, which can be transferred without loss into an
alien linguistic medium, and a specifically linguistic art that is not transferable. 4 I believe the
distinction is entirely valid, though we never get the two levels pure in practice. Literature moves
in language as a medium, but that medium comprises two layers, the latent content of
language—our intuitive record of experience—and the particular conformation of a given
language—the specific how of our record of experience. Literature that draws its sustenance
mainly—never entirely—from the lower level, say a play of Shakespeare’s, is translatable
without too great a loss of character. If it moves in the upper rather than in the lower level—a
fair example is a lyric of Swinburne’s—it is as good as untranslatable. Both types of literary
expression may be great or mediocre. 2 There is really no mystery in the distinction. It can be
clarified a little by comparing literature with science. A scientific truth is impersonal, in its
essence it is untinctured by the particular linguistic medium in which it finds expression. It can
as readily deliver its message in Chinese 5 as in English. Nevertheless it must have some
expression, and that expression must needs be a linguistic one. Indeed the apprehension of the
scientific truth is itself a linguistic process, for thought is nothing but language denuded of its
outward garb. The proper medium of scientific expression is therefore a generalized language
that may be defined as a symbolic algebra of which all known languages are translations. One
can adequately translate scientific literature because the original scientific expression is itself a
translation. Literary expression is personal and concrete, but this does not mean that its
significance is altogether bound up with the accidental qualities of the medium. A truly deep
symbolism, for instance, does not depend on the verbal associations of a particular language but
rests securely on an intuitive basis that underlies all linguistic expression. The artist’s “intuition,”
to use Croce’s term, is immediately fashioned out of a generalized human experience—thought
and feeling—of which his own individual experience is a highly personalized selection. The
thought relations in this deeper level have no specific linguistic vesture; the rhythms are free, not
bound, in the first instance, to the traditional rhythms of the artist’s language. Certain artists
whose spirit moves largely in the non-linguistic (better, in the generalized linguistic) layer even
find a certain difficulty in getting themselves expressed in the rigidly set terms of their accepted
idiom. One feels that they are unconsciously striving for a generalized art language, a literary
algebra, that is related to the sum of all known languages as a perfect mathematical symbolism is
related to all the roundabout reports of mathematical relations that normal speech is capable of
conveying. Their art expression is frequently strained, it sounds at times like a translation from
an unknown original—which, indeed, is precisely what it is. These artists—Whitmans and
Brownings—impress us rather by the greatness of their spirit than the felicity of their art. Their
relative failure is of the greatest diagnostic value as an index of the pervasive presence in

6. literature of a larger, more intuitive linguistic medium than any particular language. 3
Nevertheless, human expression being what it is, the greatest—or shall we say the most
satisfying—literary artists, the Shakespeares and Heines, are those who have known
subconsciously to fit or trim the deeper intuition to the provincial accents of their daily speech.
In them there is no effect of strain. Their personal “intuition” appears as a completed synthesis of
the absolute art of intuition and the innate, specialized art of the linguistic medium. With Heine,
for instance, one is under the illusion that the universe speaks German. The material
“disappears.” 4 Every language is itself a collective art of expression. There is concealed in it
a particular set of esthetic factors—phonetic, rhythmic, symbolic, morphological—which it does
not completely share with any other language. These factors may either merge their potencies
with those of that unknown, absolute language to which I have referred—this is the method of
Shakespeare and Heine—or they may weave a private, technical art fabric of their own, the
innate art of the language intensified or sublimated. The latter type, the more technically
“literary” art of Swinburne and of hosts of delicate “minor” poets, is too fragile for endurance. It
is built out of spiritualized material, not out of spirit. The successes of the Swinburnes are as
valuable for diagnostic purposes as the semi-failures of the Brownings. They show to what
extent literary art may lean on the collective art of the language itself. The more extreme
technical practitioners may so over-individualize this collective art as to make it almost
unendurable. One is not always thankful to have one’s flesh and blood frozen to ivory. 5 An
artist must utilize the native esthetic resources of his speech. He may be thankful if the given
palette of colors is rich, if the springboard is light. But he deserves no special credit for felicities
that are the language’s own. We must take for granted this language with all its qualities of
flexibility or rigidity and see the artist’s work in relation to it. A cathedral on the lowlands is
higher than a stick on Mont Blanc. In other words, we must not commit the folly of admiring a
French sonnet because the vowels are more sonorous than our own or of condemning
Nietzsche’s prose because it harbors in its texture combinations of consonants that would affright
on English soil. To so judge literature would be tantamount to loving “Tristan und Isolde”
because one is fond of the timbre of horns.
(iv) The Social Function of Literature
There are many different types of literature, such as prose, theatre or poetry, and each example of
these will have been written to fulfil a specific function.
On the whole, literature is a type of entertainment, and its forms were created for the reader to
enjoy. Entertainment and escapism is one of its main functions, and this could be the reason that
many works of fiction can, at first, be related to real life, but then rapidly change. This is
demonstrated in violent thrillers, romance novels full of deceit and betrayal, or stories of other
dimensions and magic. The tales of ˜Narnia' by C.S Lewis, tell the story of children who find a
route through a wardrobe into another world and have dramatic adventures there. It does
however, begin with the real life setting of evacuees during the Second World War.

7. Entertainment is the reason so much money is spent at the cinema each year. Films are another
aspect of literature, one which takes this distraction a step further by providing the imagery that
is only described in a novel. This escape from fact into a fictional world created by the writer is
an opportunity for diversion for the reader and this is an important
(IV) Science and Survival
The “Graph of Survival,” revealing a scale from death and ultimate pain at the bottom to
potential immortality and ultimate pleasure at the top. With this as his point of departure,
L. Ron Hubbard commenced an investigation into the underlying principles monitoring a being’s
level on the scale—thus providing the means to raise it.
His ensuing research, conducted in early 1951 at his Palm Springs, California home, soon
yielded a discovery of sweeping importance. In fact, it was there and then he revealed an entirely
new view of Man as a Life Force (designated by the Greek letter theta) enmeshed in the physical
universe of matter, energy, space and time (MEST). From this pivotal Theta–MEST Theory, all
else began to rapidly unfold, revealing the complete manifestations of human emotion, character
and behavior at every level.
Soon, that simple Graph of Survival had expanded to encompass all facets of human action and
reaction, and thus came the monumental Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation. Next,
Mr. Hubbard authored the comprehensive, all-encompassing text—describing in detail every
column of the Chart and its use: Science of Survival.
Here, then, were not only the “simpler, faster Dianetic techniques” L. Ron Hubbard had searched
for, but a breakthrough that would provide a new direction for the subject resulting in gains
beyond even those envisioned in Dianetics.
To spearhead this advance, Mr. Hubbard established a centralized headquarters, accessible to
both East and West coasts, in Wichita, Kansas. Dianeticists from across the nation joined him at
the new Foundation located at 211 Douglas Avenue, which featured twenty-six rooms and a
large lecture hall.
On 21 May, that hall was filled to capacity with professional course students eagerly awaiting
L. Ron Hubbard’s first lecture, “Theta–MEST Theory.” In this monumental address, he
described in full the central breakthrough from which the Chart and the entire technology of
human behavior derived. Then in further lectures he built upon this foundation, exploring the
ramifications of the Theta–MEST Theory in both life and auditing. Conveying a new perspective
on the Reactive Mind by defining aberration in terms of ARC and the dynamics, he detailed how
the discovery of the Theta–MEST Theory had entirely shifted the auditor’s emphasis. Instead of
attacking entheta, the aim was to validate theta:

8. “You want this person to be as high as possible on the scale, validate him. And the way you
validate him is to pick up the highest-level ARC which is available on this case, because that’s
life.” To illustrate the new technique, he ended with a demonstration session that provided a
glimpse of its potential—relieving a preclear of a persistent headache that had been troubling the
man for almost a month. Next, following these initial lectures, he then wrote to all Hubbard
Dianetics Auditors announcing the formation of a national practitioners’ group to both assist
them and enforce the highest standards of auditing. To just that end, he convened the First
International Conference of Hubbard Dianetics Auditors, in June, and at that Conference gave
another landmark lecture on the Chart itself, “The Chart of Human Evaluation.”These lectures
stand as L. Ron Hubbard’s most expansive description of all that lay behind the Chart and its full
application, providing the first accurate prediction of human behavior. Here, too, is the full
explanation of what determines one’s position on the Tone Scale—and thus the means to ascend
to higher states.
(vii) The Effect of Scientific Temper on Man
Our age is essentially an age of transition where all things are changing, and changing so rapidly
that many feel somewhat lost. There is much of bewilderment, a feeling of insecurity, and a
sense of fear and anxiety, and these make for restlessness. This need not be so if we understand
what it is all about, and if we retain a true sense of direction. Old forms must die to make room
for better ones. Progress means change and we all need greater flexibility of mind and
preparedness to face all changes, while retaining our faith in that which changes not.
Adaptability is essential to meet the challenge of our era, the era of science and technology, with
both wisdom and courage.
There is so much of confusion as to the role of science itself, and we hear contrary views. Some
say: "Science will save us from superstition and fraud." Others declare: "Science is the greatest
menace yet invented by man. It will destroy the human race." Some blame all the evils of gross
and brutal materialism on science. Science is responsible, they claim, for the threat of total war,
for the contamination of our planet by artificial increase of radiation, for the squandering of our
earth's resources, for the destruction of wild life etc. Others worship at the shrine of science, and
firmly believe science will free us from all evils and usher in an age of social justice, democracy
and well-being for all.
Both these extremes views, however, are erroneous. Science has given us vast knowledge, and
this knowledge has brought us immense power. But it is man who uses that knowledge and man
who wields that power. Science is neither good nor evil per se. But man is a moral being, and on
his choice depends the course of science and the future destiny of humanity. The crisis we face is
a moral one, for it is the outcome of the conflict within man himself. Bertrand Russell has rightly
said:

9. We are in the middle of a race between human skills as to means and human folly as to
ends....Unless men increase in wisdom as much as in knowledge, increase of knowledge will be
increase in sorrow.
True moral values, which alone can survive the outward changes brought about by the impact of
science, the explosion of scientific knowledge belong to wisdom. The need of the hour is for men
of wisdom. Mere knowledge without wisdom to guide us in the utilization of that knowledge will
make for greater sorrow.
We have grasped the mystery of the atom [General Omar Bradley once said] and rejected the
Sermon on the Mount. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, and power without
conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than
we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.
The real danger then is that of knowledge without wisdom and power without conscience. We
need that moral perception which will enable us to resist the temptation to misuse power.
The spectacular advance of scientific knowledge has shaken, nay, swept away, beliefs and
dogmas rooted in ignorance, and with these have gone surface moral values with no permanent
basis. Revealing the errors and false dogmas of narrow theologies, it has left many with no
religion at all. But if the false values have gone, the true moral values remain. If man wishes to
do so, he can purge himself of egotism; he can turn from a life of self to a life of service. The
things that obstruct man's true progress are of his own making: his greed, his ambition, his
selfishness. These are his enemies which he must fight and conquer. Gandhiji tells us:
All selfish desires are immoral, while the desire to improve ourselves for the sake of doing good
to others is truly moral. The highest moral law is that we should unremittingly work for the good
of mankind.
True moral values thus spring from the vision of the oneness of humanity. We need to abandon
moral values based on the false parallel between nations and individuals and follow instead those
eternal values based on the recognition that all men are brothers. Such values have nothing to
fear from science. If the religion we follow is that of Brotherhood, science will give us the means
of applying our moral principles more effectively in the service of our fellow beings.
No, we need not fear science! We need fear only our own folly and stupidity, our greed and
selfishness. The power which science has put into our hands can be used beneficently and
constructively if we become wise and unselfish. Let our moral values be those eternal values
which transcend all sects and creeds and belong to the realm of the spirit. Anchored firmly in the
One Spirit, we can meet all challenges with confidence and with courage. True morality lies in

10. the awareness of the Spiritual Reality and calls for a disciplined life, a clean and useful life
dedicated to disinterested service.
Such a life is not opposed to science. In fact we should all cultivate a truly scientific attitude,
which makes for tolerance and, breaking artificial barriers, enables us to eradicate sectarianism,
provincialism, and isolationism. The scientific temper blends modesty and humility with self-
reliance and initiative.
Science has dominated the Western world and everyone there pays tribute to it, and yet the West
is still far from having developed the real temper of science. It has still to bring the spirit and the
flesh into creative harmony. In India, in many obvious ways we have a greater distance to travel.
And yet there may be fewer major obstructions on our way, for the essential basis of Indian
thought for ages past, though not its later manifestation, fits in with the scientific temper and
approach, as well as with internationalism. It is based on a fearless search for truth, on the
solidarity of man, even on the divinity of everything living, and on the free and co-operative
development of the individual and the species, ever to greater freedom and higher stages of
human growth.