Abstract
This article assesses the accuracy of and limitations of Maslow’s and Rogers’ understanding and application of Daoist thought. First, Maslow’s articulation of Daoist objectivity in his writings on humanistic science and psychotherapy is analyzed, along with the relationship between Rogers’ three principles of psychotherapy and Daoist philosophy. To further explore the relationship between humanistic psychology and Daoism, the author briefly introduces his proposed TongXin triad,1 a theory that advances Maslow’s understanding of Daoism and also incorporates Rogers’ three principles of psychotherapy.
An initial intention of humanistic psychology was to critique the deficiencies of traditional psychology and offer a supplement. Abraham H. Maslow did a great deal of work for this cause. He believed that “traditional science is ethnocentric, it is Western, not global” (Maslow, 1966, p. 1). Maslow (1966, 1969, 1971) used his understanding of ancient Daoist philosophy from China to support his new psychological research propositions—especially in what he referred to as “Daoist objectivity.” Maslow even thought that there needed to be a major shift in the scientist’s image, toward the “image of a Daoist.” In multiple places in Maslow’s (1966, 1971) later works, he mentions that we can achieve this special objectivity by not interfering, not controlling, not intruding, etc.: What Maslow emphasized comes from Laozi’s (2013) Dao De Jing. For example: I take no action and the people transform themselves, I prefer quietude and the people naturally become correct, I do not interfere, and the people become rich. (Chapter 57)
Although Maslow did not directly quote Laozi’s words, he indeed grasped part of the essence of Daoist philosophy. Maslow (1971) pointed out the limitations of traditional science in understanding objectivity: The traditional concept of “objectivity” stems from early sciences that dealt with inanimate research subjects. When our personal desires, fears, and expectations are excluded from observation, and when the supernatural will or arrangements of deities are dismissed, we consider ourselves objective. This has been a significant advancement, making modern science possible. This even proves beneficial when dealing with lower forms of life. The movement of an amoeba or a worm’s preference for one type of material over another is of no great consequence to us. However, as we ascend the ladder of species, maintaining this detachment becomes increasingly challenging. When we study dogs or cats, monkeys or apes, and even as we continue to study humans, it becomes almost impossible for us to remain calm, tranquil, detached, uninvolved, and noninterfering observers. (p. 16)
Here, Maslow points out the difference between studying inanimate objects and nonlife subjects and studying lower or higher life forms. As we ascend the species ladder and approach human study, the difficulty of maintaining neutrality (a characteristic of traditional science) increases. Maslow perceives this neutrality as a limitation.
Therefore, Maslow (1971) further proposed another path toward objectivity, represented by the concepts of “loving understanding” and “knowledge of love,” which he termed as “Daoist objectivity.” He thought this could be a more authentic form of objectivity. For instance, Maslow (1966) believed that a good mother, with her “loving understanding,” often knows her child better than a pediatrician or a psychologist. If these professionals are wise, they should consider the mother as the translator for the child, often asking her what the child wishes to express. Although this example might not be a result of an experiment, it resonates more readily with a wider audience. Maslow seems to have grasped an essential aspect: our understanding of things is closely related to our own energy state. To have a deep understanding of something, we must have a loving understanding, or what can be called unconditional love. Rogers referred to this as “unconditional positive regard.”
The Limitations of Maslow’s Understandings of Daoism
By introducing the concept of “Daoist objectivity,” Maslow powerfully critiqued the traditional scientific understanding of objectivity, highlighting its shortcomings. However, his understanding of Daoism appears to be incomplete, which also makes his idea of proposing a new scientific paradigm less clear. Maslow’s main deficiencies in this regard are twofold.
First, he overly praised the love of a mother obsessed with her baby and the love between individuals in a romantic relationship. Without a doubt, a mother infatuated with her child and individuals in love can perceive and feel more than outsiders. However, they do not always manage to do so, and they may also experience times of frustration and numbness. How do we interpret these situations? What would be the Daoist attitude in similar circumstances?
Facing objectivity, Daoism does not believe that there is only a harmonious relationship between mother and child, or between lovers. In reality, relationships can have different levels, and for these different relationships, different treatments are needed. This requires following the principle of “Dao follows nature” or “conforming to nature.” In my TongXin theory (Xu, 2010, 2019), these relationships can be divided into six levels: (1) relationship with “Dao” and “God”; (2) harmonious relationships (strong mutually beneficial relationships); (3) weak, mutually beneficial relationships; (4) general relationships; (5) competitive relationships; and (6) adversarial relationships. In these relationships, the TongXin triad is applicable, but there is a distinction in the element of “effective influence.” In ascending order, the likelihood of a win-win outcome diminishes. For instance, in an adversarial relationship, the effective influence may be a total victory over the other party.
Furthermore, these six levels can transform into each other in certain situations. For example, the original harmonious relationship between mother and child, as well as between lovers, may also be transformed and downgraded to a competitive relationship. In these cases, clear boundaries are needed. For instance, a mother’s care for her child cannot be endless and should have a limit. As the psychoanalyst Winnicott (1965) put it, being a “good enough mother” is adequate. The reason for this is fundamentally due to human limitations. In the aspect of “clarifying oneself,” one’s stance cannot possibly treat all objects the same way as “Dao” or “God” relates to all things. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, we should try to transform relationships at levels 5 and 6 upward as much as possible.
Second, Daoism holds that the effectiveness of cognition and action principles is not inherently related to whether the object of cognition is living or not, or at which stage of life it is in. This includes all things, such as stones and amoebas. The spirituality of all things gradually increases from nonliving to living, which applies to all things. Indeed, a stone may lack life, and an amoeba may be considered a lower life form, but we can still align ourselves with the Dao and empathize with them. This is something that Maslow did not clearly articulate. In this regard, Wilber’s (1996) discussion is more aligned with Daoism. He points out that everything possesses spirituality, and the spirituality ascends from lower life forms to higher life forms. In highly evolved humans, spirituality ascends to the ability to comprehend the Great Spirit, which, in the context of Daoism, refers to living in accordance with the Dao. It could be argued that Wilber’s discourse supports Zhuangzi’s (2013) concepts of qiwu (equality of things, universal equality) and wuhua (transformation, objectification, and becoming one with things). Zhuangzi believes that humans can empathize with everything, that is, by temporarily becoming or objectifying the object to achieve unity with it. However, Wilber excels in pointing out that there are levels in the spirituality of all things, and there are differences in difficulty and degree in human objectification and empathy.
Why did Maslow have these limitations? I have reviewed almost all of Maslow’s works, including his diaries, and he has never directly quoted the Dao De Jing. It seems that he only read books about Daoism introduced by others, and he did not read the complete translation of the Dao De Jing. In addition, I did not find him mentioning Zhuangzi. To fully understand Taoism, Zhuangzi is indispensable. Nevertheless, this did not stop Maslow from reaching the depth of Taoism at the time.
Rogers and Daoism
Similar to Maslow, Carl Rogers was also deeply influenced by Chinese Daoist philosophy. However, unlike Maslow, he directly quoted the Dao De Jing in his own works (Rogers, 1980). Although Maslow also deeply and vividly involved consistency, unconditional positive regard, and empathy, and he (Maslow, 1966) proposed distinctions such as experiential versus spectator knowledge and suchness versus abstractness meaning, he did not generalize the three principles of person-centered therapy like Rogers.
Compared to other psychological orientations, Rogers placed a stronger emphasis on empathy—which he continuously studied and practiced throughout his career. So, what is the relationship between Rogers’ understanding of “empathy” and the Daoist principles of objectivity and “going with the flow”? In his later work, A Way of Being (Rogers, 1980), Rogers still highlighted the importance of continually perceiving the frame of reference of others after entering the client’s private perceptual world. This includes the meanings of fear, anger, vulnerability, or confusion that the client is experiencing. It means experiencing others’ subtle lives from their frame of reference, including meanings that the clients are barely conscious of, without attempting to articulate them, maintaining a nonthreatening perspective on these elements. However, Rogers’ understanding does not reach the level of Daoism’s “no fixed law.” That is, Rogers overlooked the infinite flexibility embodied in Daoism. Maslow, on the other hand, cleverly used dance as a metaphor to explain the meaning of wuwei, vividly revealing that it is not about doing nothing, but rather a state of “helpful let it be,” where one joyfully goes with the flow. It is like a dancer who harmonizes with their partner, encompassing both the flexibility to follow the dance partner and the initiative to lead when appropriate.
According to Daoist principles, the therapist’s role is not just to avoid making the client feel “forced.” If applying a certain level of pressure can help the client grow better, why not do it? If in this case, the therapist still does not apply pressure, it is contrary to the Daoist principle of “governing by doing nothing.” This actually complements Rogers’ understanding of Daoism. The spirit of Zan Buddhism’s “wake-up call,” or “a swift strike of enlightenment,” is perfectly embodied here. In Zen Buddhism, Dang Tou Bang He refers to a forceful wake-up call or a powerful reminder. It often involves suddenly raising one’s voice and shouting loudly or even giving a firm tap on the other person’s head. The purpose is to make the other person become more authentic or awaken from a state of being disconnected from the present moment. It interrupts the other person’s purely rational state and helps them find their true feelings. This method is frequently used in Zen to awaken people’s mindfulness and make them aware of the importance of the present moment. 2
The TongXin Triad
In his later years, Rogers made some developments in his understanding of empathy, but it did not reach the depth of Daoist philosophy. Rogers’ three principles of psychotherapy still differ from the Daoist concept of Wu Wei Er Zhi. To better integrate the essence of Daoist thought, it might be beneficial to adjust and complement Rogers’ three principles. I propose the TongXin triad, which incorporates consistency and unconditional positive regard into the requirement of clear self, while retaining empathy as another element and adding effective influence as the third element. These three elements can be considered as the “sufficient and necessary conditions” for effective psychotherapy. It is worth noting that effective influence is an important part of the Daoist “governance without doing anything,” which is vividly illustrated by Zhuangzi’s Bao Ding Jie Niu. A good butcher dissects and cuts a cow not by inaction, but by following the structure and gap of the cow’s bones, using the knife as gracefully as listening to music and dancing. It is indeed a manifestation of “free and easy wandering.”
For therapists in psychotherapy, a fuller expression of these conditions should be:
Clear Self: Clearly comprehending and adjusting one’s own stance, emotions, and states. The minimum standard is to achieve neutrality, and a higher standard could be expressed by Laozi’s teaching of “reach utmost emptiness, maintain steadfast quietness.”
Empathic Understanding: Standing in the client’s shoes, experiencing their emotions and states, both conscious and subconscious. The minimum standard is to grasp the client’s emotions and states. A higher standard is to find the client’s growth point and breakthrough.
Effectively influencing the client in a way they can accept or even happily accept. The minimum standard is to facilitate some growth in the client, and a higher standard is to enable as much growth as possible in the client. (Xu, 2019)
The TongXin triad also better explains and summarizes the Daoist attitude and approach to the objective world. It can not only guide us in psychotherapy but also be widely applied in human proactive behaviors beyond psychotherapy. It is suitable not only for understanding individual behaviors but also for group dynamics such as sports competitions and policymaking by the governmental policymaking. For example, in the context of a group sports competition, Clear Self might involve each participant’s understanding of their role and objectives and how they view the overall team strategy. Empathic Understanding might involve understanding and predicting the strategies of opponents and empathizing with and understanding the emotions and needs of teammates and coaches. Effective Influence might involve how to execute strategies effectively in the competition to achieve the desired outcome. In the case of governmental policymaking, Clear Self might involve a clear and definite objective and expected outcome of the policy. Empathic Understanding might involve understanding the public’s needs and feedback, as well as understanding the stance of other governmental departments or international partners in a particular policy environment. Effective Influence might involve how to implement and promote the policy effectively to generate the intended social impact.
Conclusion
Heavily influenced by Daoist philosophy and drawing on Buber’s I-Thou philosophy, Maslow (1966) posed a more radical question about a “new scientific paradigm.” He postulated that the “understanding of love” was not only applicable to psychotherapy but could be extended to all sciences. Both Maslow and Rogers had a significant impact on the theoretical research and practical application of humanistic psychology by introducing Daoist principles, promoting the significance of cross-cultural exchange. However, their understanding of Daoism still had some limitations. The proposed TongXin theory may further advance their research and facilitate the integration of modern humanistic psychology with Daoism. Yet, for full acceptance, it requires extensive criticism and continued research.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
