The humanistic perspective as a reaction came into being in psychology during the 1950s and 1960s against the dominating schools of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Various humanist psychologists, including Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, and Rollo May, condemned the deterministic and reductionist views of human nature as proposed by psychoanalysis and behaviorism (May 1979). They stressed the inborn potential for constructive development and self-realization in all people (Rogers, 1975). The humanistic perspective plans to see the human experience as a whole, emphasizing an individual’s perceptions, values, and ambitions. This outlook treats humans as autonomous agents endowed with free will, in contrast to the view of humans as passively formed by their environment or unconscious drives.
Thesis statement: While the humanistic approach focuses on the development of potential inherent in all human beings, research on social, contextual, and neurological factors tells us that development is subject to various competing influences. Balancing the viewpoint means that humanistic ideals should be combined with knowledge of contextual forces that influence developmental processes.
What the humanistic point of view does for psychology is enormously important because it recognizes the human personality’s dignity and the human person’s freedom and responsibility. However, Maslow’s theory has pointed out that it negates the social, cultural, economic, and biological contexts that have had much to say regarding development (Acevedo, 2018). Over the past few decades, a vast outpouring of research has laid particular focus on the rich body of environmental factors that, jointly or in very loose alliances, give formation to human evolution. By narrowing it down to the principles of humanistic psychology and the outcomes of study findings on contextual influences, an acceptably generalized view of the developing person can be achieved. In this essay, I will discuss the humanistic tradition by summarizing its main principles and proponents. It will then summarize the leading research that discusses social, neurological, and other contextual effects on development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). Last, it will advance an integrative, ecologically cognizant developmental perspective that reconciles human agency and multidimensional environmental impact
Humanistic View of the Person
The humanistic view emerged as a reaction to the shortcomings of the festering psychological paradigms of psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Humanistic philosophers found these systems painted a picture of human nature deterministic and dehumanizing. The main foundations of psychoanalysis are that it focuses on the unconscious influences of personality and early childhood experiences. Behaviorism perceives man as a response to conditioning factors. On the other hand, humanistic psychology focuses on the study of the entire person, knowing that this is where consciousness experience comes in free will, spirituality, and the human’s potential (Tudor, 2017). Humanistic psychology prioritizes the subjective significance of human life – the thoughts, emotions, values, aspirations, and a person’s future visions. It was dissimilar to behaviorism, which placed more interest in observable behavior, and psychoanalytical psychology, which highlights the unconscious drives.
Humanistic theorists of self-depicted human beings as equally active beings with the capacity for self-consciousness, alternatives, and accountability. This needed the conception of humans as passive reactors to conditioning or unconscious conflict (Acevedo, 2018). The viewpoint of humanistic psychology accommodated a belief that every human being is genetically predisposed to self-actualization – the complete actualization of their creative faculties. When the conditions are right, people will always be driven to be better and aspire towards more significant achievements.
Humanistic thinkers highlighted human free will and self-determination. They also addressed spiritual aspects of human existence, transcending naturalistic paradigms. Person-centered therapy was actualized by Carl Rogers, which has emerged among the techniques on human actualization. Maslow gave a hierarchy of human needs that apex self-actualization. Rollo May studied existential undercurrents of human living (Acevedo, 2018). The humanistic principles were applied in therapy through experiential therapies, student-centered education focused on growth, and humanistic management practices.
Social Influences on Development
Attachment theory focusing on attachment patterns formed with caregivers during early childhood helps us to understand the importance of such early attachment relationships for socio-emotional development. Research has also frequented the cause-and-effect interrelations of the styles of parents and results obtained by children (Ainsworth et al., 2015). For instance, authority-oriented parenting is connected to independence and efficacy compared to eventually relatively permissive or restrictive parenting. Vast research describes the negative impact of poverty, abuse, discrimination, and other traumatic stressors on development. Such experiences can limit cognitive, affective, and social functioning. It emphasizes social interventions that aim at preventing trauma.
The ecological model conceived by Urie Bronfenbrenner encompasses microsystems, mesosystems, ecosystems, and macrosystems that, as a whole, ensure human development. It becomes clear that people are intrinsic in multilayered environmental situations. Children learn attitudes, behaviors, and emotional reactions by observing them and imitating them, incredibly influential models like parents and peers. Others’ social reactions encourage and discourage behaviors (Mak & Iacovou, 2019). Social interactions are critical for cognitive development because, during this interaction, the component acquires skills and can emerge through dialogue with mentors. It is contrary to the views of development as the individual discovery process. It is social influences research that is illustrative of the interpersonal setting required in formulating a self-concept, morals, emotions, and other developmental outcomes. Healthy development requires nurturing relationships and communities.
Contextual Influences on Development
Child and adolescent development is an increasing field of study into the re-effects of physical environment factors. Recent research has discovered advantages for cognitive function, mental health, and social-emotional development associated with nature and green space exposure. On the other hand, neurological toxins such as lead and pollutants cause adverse neurocognitive in youth. Traffic, airports, and overcrowded areas contribute to noise pollution that interferes with study and leads to psychological stress. Spatial density and impaired privacy played out in a home and classroom setting have social effects on development. Studies show that a positive school climate and carefully considered architectural design are fundamental in developing student engagement and learning. They emphasize that where children grow considerably affects their developmental trajectory (Evans, 2021).
Cross-cultural research also shows that different cultural groups do not necessarily have the same developmental paths due to their distinct values, practices, and beliefs regarding gender roles. For instance, western cultures value autonomy and independence, while most African and Asian cultures emphasize interdependent self-construals (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). Emotional descriptors also vary in different sociocultural settings founded on principles of masculinity and femininity. There are also differences in the parenting practices that promote parental authority, whereas those that promote autonomy are pretty different from those mentioned above. Both neuroscience and social science research provide captivating evidence as to how the cultural production of neural pathways happens through socialization in various ecological settings.
The Cohort and generational effects research shows that critical historical events and social changes are indelibly printed in the worldviews and identities of people who grew up during such eras. Such events as wars, social movements, economic depressions or booms, and technological advances influence ideology, attitudes, and development paths (Ito et al., 2019). For instance, Generation Baby Boomers, who reached maturity in a time of post-war affluence and jubilation, usually have different opinions and values against the Generation Millennials, who came of age during a less stable period. The researchers must appreciate intergenerational differences influenced by formative historical settings.
The last couple of decades have seen a rise in debates, discussions, and research regarding the impact of the evolution of digital technologies and media on the development of children. A number of studies raise issues of reduced concentration, ruined human-to-human relating abilities, false optics regarding body pictures, and digital addiction. On the contrary, results are inconclusive as other researchers found no harm or cognitive benefits to digital media when used in moderation (Ito et al., 2019). Further research is required, but extreme technocentric or technophobic views should be avoided; balanced insight is desired. What is needed is wise integration of technology supported by human needs and ethics.
It is evidenced that public policies regulating access to quality healthcare, education, childcare, and other social services have a role in child advancement outcomes. Alas, the provision of necessary public services such as education, mental health care, child protective services, and juvenile justice systems are grossly unequal across social and community groups. This results in long-term structural challenges to healthy growth among disadvantaged youth. A progressive approach to public policy reform is necessary as institutionally supported opportunities promote equitable growth (Shonkoff et al., 2021)
People live inside several layers of the social context simultaneously – gender, racial-ethnic, socioeconomic, national, and religious affiliation being only a few. These varied identity affiliations and their encompassing settings are interlocking, so their analysis must be delicate. For instance, the developmental implications of being female vary greatly based on racial identity, economic status, and cultural context. As such, intersectional approaches are required to address the implications of belonging to multiple marginalizing or privileging social groups concurrently on development trajectories and outcomes.
Research on Neurological Factors in Development
Neuroscience reveals the dynamicity of brain development. Although the brain is plastic to environmental input, there are definite situations with critical periods during which specific capacities must mature, or they will be subverted. It explains some complicated interactions between neural maturation and ecological stimuli (Cisneros-Franco et al., 2020).
New disciplines, such as epigenetics, show that the environmental context forms the evolutionary context for genetic expression. Genes do not work on development in isolation but in an associational, coevolutionary approach. Developing features are selectively based on gene expression. Thus, genes express themselves differentially in response to lived realities (Ashe et al., 2021). Such recent paradigms as the neurodiversity approach accentuate the natural variation of neurological functioning. Developmental disorders are reconstructed as conditioned with other styles of cognition, not defects. This counters deficit-based models.
Social bonding is molded by neurotransmitters such as oxytocin. Prenatal stress hormones impinge on temperament. Chemical exposure impairs neurofunction (Cisneros-Franco et al., 2020). More research on biochemical agents in development is required. Technologies such as MRI scans can be used to study neural pathways under the developmental milestones. The studies chart processes of brain maturation that underpin such capacities as facial recognition, language, empathy, and abstract reasoning across the lifespan (Ashe et al., 2021). A biopsychosocial integrative paradigm relates to biological, psychological, and social dimensions. This framework offers a more comprehensive insight into human development than reductionist biological or sociocultural models individually.
Towards an Integrative Understanding of Development
Various developmental studies reveal a panorama of the factors that drive human life courses. Evolution results from reciprocal transactions between biological maturation, psychological needs and abilities, and stratified social-environmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). The most holistic, integrative paradigm enables mapping the multidimensional psychosocial pathways that human development entails.
Nature vs nurture, self-other, and individual-society antagonism have a long history behind themselves in development theories. However, analysis shows that human development cannot be constricted onto any pole of the abovementioned dichotomies. The work to be done is in overcoming these pseudo-gulfs and establishing models of development that are based upon the integrative interaction between biology, mind, relationships, and environment (Mak & Iacovou, 2019).
Meaningful practice applications are evident under integrative developmental frameworks. Education systems allow both intrinsic motivation of students and culturally responsive teaching. The ability of therapists to foster self-actualization in a healing community is an essential element. Policies have fostered both individual and collective welfare. Personhood is honored through developmentally informed social change efforts, which also help to effect further systemic reform.
Developmental optimization has two prongs. Empowering voice, choice, and agency fosters self-determination. However, development is also transformed into dysfunctional surroundings and widening chances (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007). Such a dual emphasis on human potentialities and environmental affordances provides a foundation for an applicable developmental science. An ecological-informed, holistic paradigm offers the best map for this upcoming age with a philosophy of respect for the whole child (Evans, 2021). This framework produces a more elaborate yet sophisticated but comprehensive knowing of how the realizing person in real time dynamically wrestles with multilayered sociocultural, institutional, and physical ecosphere throughout the life span.
Conclusion
This study has outlined how the humanistic perspective focuses on the theme of Human Potential: subjective experience and self-determination. After that, social, cultural, physical, and neurological literature about the different influences of such factors on developmental pathways was studied. These contextual perspectives of development reflect development as a complex dance between human agency and multiple interacting aspects of the environment. A better understanding of a developing person is acquired when the humanistic values based on contextual research are integrated with a paradigm.
Due to the broad scale of the research addressed, it is clear that human development needs theoretical integration beyond the nature-nurture dichotomy, the self/ other divide, and the mind-context split. Concerning the transactional processes that develop human life trajectories, no deterministic theory is substantial enough to cover the whole aspect of the transaction. We must embrace multidimensional, ecologically focused frameworks.
In the end, this implies that human development has to be a personalization of the self and the environment, which enables all to develop. Going ahead, we should always look forward to humanism beyond human merit codes and developmental science that considers an individual’s autonomy at the interdependence level that defines human progress. From this position, policies, education, and practices can be provided that allow individuals to realize their potential and build a commonwealth.
References
Acevedo, A. (2018). A personalistic appraisal of Maslow’s needs theory of motivation: From “humanistic” psychology to integral humanism. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 741-763.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (2015). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press.
Ashe, A., Colot, V., & Oldroyd, B. P. (2021). How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution?. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1826), 20200111.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of child psychology, 1.
Cisneros-Franco, J. M., Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., & de Villers-Sidani, E. (2020). Critical periods of brain development. In Handbook of clinical neurology (Vol. 173, pp. 75-88). Elsevier.
Evans, G. W. (2021). The physical context of child development. Current directions in psychological science, 30(1), 41-48.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A., Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martínez, K. Z., Pascoe, C. J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C., & Tripp, L. (2019). The connected learning research network: Reflections on a decade of engaged scholarship. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
Mak, H. W., & Iacovou, M. (2019). Dimensions of the parent–child relationship: Effects on substance use in adolescence and adulthood. Substance use & misuse, 54(5), 724-736.
May, R. (1979). Psychology and the human dilemma. WW Norton & Company.
Rogers, C. R. (1975). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. CE Merrill.
Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., Levitt, P., Martinez, F. D., & McEwen, B. (2021). Leveraging the biology of adversity and resilience to transform pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 147(2).
Tudor, K. (2017). From humanism to humanistic psychology and back again. Humanistic Psychology, 222-236.
write