Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Self-Actualization and Maslow and you.. (long!)
Message-ID: <1442@peora.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:37:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: peora.1442
Posted: Tue Aug  6 09:37:21 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:48:03 EDT
References: <3065@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 46

Huzzah for Chuqui (or Ms. Sefton; is that a pseudomym? I am confused.) for
pointing out Maslow as the origin of the term "Self Actualization".

Sadly, the notion of "Self Actualization" has recently become a sort of
elite club which people aspire to join, or claim to have joined; and there
are many courses and books that attempt to aid this effort (as well as
popular psychologists who have adapted the term to their own ends).  As a
result, I tend to feel that the term "Self Actualization" has lost meaning,
and is almost an empty phrase.

I don't agree with Maslow's hierarchy, though.  I've always found it ironic
that if I mention Maslow, either people don't know who he is, or make vague
reference to this hierarchy.  While I do think maybe there is a partial
ordering of sorts, I hardly think it is a hierarchy.

In support of this, you must remember that Maslow throughout his life warned
people that he was still evolving his ideas.  And, in particular, he
warned that his samples were based on older people who had long ago attained
this "self actualization," and that thus he had little information on the
mechanisms by which it was attained.  (This is one reason why people who
try to describe means of attaining "self actualization", in my opinion,
tend not to accomplish much.)  I tend to suspect that, in people who are
subjected to less stable environments, elements of this hierarchy get
mixed up, so that it is no longer truly hierarchical.  This is not to
suggest I disagree with the underlying principles, at all; only with this
superficial attempt to impose an order on them.

One thing in this article puzzles me:

> The hierarchical theory of human motivation developed by Abraham Maslow
> {3,4,5} is the most paradoxical of all the current approaches to work
> motivation.

What's this "work motivation"?  Maslow had a great interest in creative
motivations; he also had a theory of "eupsychian management," which causes
his writings to appear mysteriously in the libraries of business schools.
Yet, this was a very small part of his interest; recall that he first became
interested in this whole subject through his acquaintance with two of his
professors, who he perceived to be very special individuals.  I don't think
he was so concerned with their "work motivations," though, as with them as
people as a whole.
-- 
Shyy-Anzr:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642