HOW VIKTOR FRANKL MISUNDERSTOOD MEANING

I recently re-read one of Viktor Frankl’s books as part of my research into the Human Potential Movement. His 1978 book, The Unheard Cry for Meaning is an excellent work on Logo- Therapy and two of the primary techniques of Logo-therapy. Yet in exploring that book again and now from the perspective of “Whatever happened to the Human Potential Movement,” I recognized some of the things I’ve seen in every one of the leaders with the exception of Maslow. And now what I’ve been seeing through the lens of history provides a tremendous warning to those of us in the legacy of NLP and Neuro-Semantics.

I began re-reading Frankl because I knew that he did not miss the role of meaning in self- actualization as Maslow did. I also began reading to see if I could understand through the lens of Frankl perhaps how Maslow missed meaning. If you haven’t read Self-Actualization Psychology, I have a whole chapter on this subject along with my proposals as to how Maslow missed meaning. He certainly did not miss it as a theme. He put meaning and meaningfulness at the top of the pyramid—as the heart and soul of self-actualizing. But he did miss it in terms of the processes inside the hierarchy of needs—conditioning the needs. And yet in saying that, he did catch it, only in different terminology.

In The Unheard Cry for Meaning Frankl talks about Logo-Therapy being accounted as part of Humanistic Psychology and he quotes Maslow and Maslow’s acknowledgment of “the will to meaning” as “man’s primary concern.” (page 29). Twice in the book, Frankl quotes Maslow’s approval of his work. But never does he return the favor. Reflecting upon that stunned me. I know it shouldn’t— Will Schultz didn’t, Carl Rogers didn’t. But I thought Frankl would. But he also did not.

And to make matters worse he misunderstood Maslow as he certainly mis-represented Maslow’s hierarchy. To put the best spin on this as I can, I have to say that Frankl probably never read Motivation and Personality (1954) by Maslow and so just did not understand the Hierarchy of needs. Here’s what he wrote: “Maslow’s motivation theory does not suffice here, for what is needed is not so much the distinction between higher and lower needs, but rather an answer to the question of whether individual goals are mere means, or meanings.” (pp. 32-33)

“I thereby understand the primordial anthropological fact that being human is being always directed, and pointing, to something or someone other than oneself: to a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter, a cause to serve or a person to love. Only to the extent that someone is living out this self-transcendence of human existence, is he truly human or does he become his true self. He becomes so, not by concerning himself with himself-actualization, but by forgetting himself and giving himself, overlooking himself and focusing outward.” (p. 35)

Here Frankl presents the choice between self-actualization and self-forgetfulness in the format of an either-or: Not lower and higher needs distinction — but means or meanings. Self-actualization — or self-transcendence.

As much as I like Frankl, and in fact made Frankl’s work part of my dissertation, in re-reading his work I see that he completely misunderstood what Maslow meant by self-actualization. For Maslow, the actualizing of oneself means living for something bigger than oneself. What Frankl defines as “self-transcendence” Maslow called “self-actualization.” But Frankl seemed to need to make a contrast and make Maslow wrong so that he could present self-transcendence as something that went beyond self-actualization.

As Frankl continued to define self-transcendence he said that it means reaching out not only for a meaning to fulfill, but also for another human being to love. He said that we transcend ourselves by either meaning fulfillment in some work or achievement or by a loving encounter with another human being. He then wrote the following as part of the way he defined self-transcendence: “Self-Actualization is possible only as a byproduct of self-transcendence.’ (p. 94)

But for Maslow, self-actualization is not for the self and not even by the self. He constantly wrote and emphasized that we actualize with and through others, and that we do so by finding a larger meaning in other things—contribution, justice, fairness, mathematics, music, learning, love, etc. We actualize by getting out of ourselves, forgetting ourselves, and getting lost in an engagement that completely consumes our interest and attention. It is in that way that we transcend ourselves. So for Maslow these two terms were inter-changeable, not contrasts. So by dichotomizing them, Frankl perpetuates an unfounded mis-representation of Maslow.

Frankl also criticized the Hierarchy of Needs model: “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs appears to apply here: first one must achieve a satisfactory standard of living and only then may he approach the task of finding a purpose and meaning in life.”

But he disagreed and talked about exceptions—when someone didn’t have their lower needs met and still went after meaning. Of course, Maslow wrote about that extensively in Motivation and Personality. And he commented repeatedly that the Hierarchy is not as hierarchical or rigid as it might at first appear.

Upon reading Frankl I was stunned that he had to make Maslow wrong in order to highlight his contribution of the importance of meaning. Unlike Maslow, who was so inclusive and so ready to find the value and contribution of others, Frankl did not.

What I have not found in my readings and research into Maslow—not in the two biographies of him, not in his Journals, nor his Memories is an explanation of his inclusiveness, his non- competitiveness, his willingness to embrace others who differed, and his belief in the possibilities of others, even colleagues. I would not have thought that that leadership trait would be that rare, that unique, and that missing in the lives of other leaders. But it seems to be. And perhaps that’s one of the highest qualities we need today.