In both his posthumous works (1971/2002) and (1978/2005), Clare W Graves equated his G-T (YELLOW) level to Self-Actualisation. However, there is some need to clarify our understanding of ‘Self-Actualisation’ before we can benefit fully from this equation.

 

The term ‘Self-Actualisation’ was originally introduced by the Organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein (1934) for the motive to realise all of one's potentialities - the actualising tendency, according to Carl Rogers (1951). (In this respect, Self-Actualisation is very similar to Carl Gustav Jung’s (1923) concept of Self-Realisation.)

 

In Goldstein’s view, it is the master motive - indeed, the only real motive a person has, all others being merely manifestations of it. However, the concept was brought to greater prominence in Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (1943) as the final level of psychological development that can be achieved when all basic and meta needs are fulfilled and the ‘actualisation’ of the full personal potential takes place.

 

Goldstein’s Self-Actualisation

According to Goldstein, actualisation is "the tendency to actualise, as much as possible, [the organism's] individual capacities" in the world. The tendency to self-actualisation is "the only drive by which the life of an organism is determined.” Goldstein defined Self-Actualisation as a driving life force that will ultimately lead to maximising one's abilities and determine the path of one's life.

 

Maslow’s Self-Actualisation

Maslow explicitly defines Self-Actualisation to be "the desire for self-fulfilment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualised in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming."

 

Self-Actualisation involves the need for personal growth which is present throughout someone’s life. For Maslow, a person is always ‘becoming’ and never static. In Self-Actualisation a person comes to find a meaning in life that is important to them.

 

A more explicit definition of Self-Actualisation, according to Maslow (1954), is “intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately of what is the organism itself...self-actualisation is growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated.” This explanation emphasises the fact that Self-Actualisation cannot normally be reached until other lower order necessities of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are satisfied. While Goldstein defined self-actualisation as a driving force, Maslow preferred to describe personal growth that takes place once lower order needs have been met.

 

According to Maslow (1956) people that have reached Self-Actualisation are characterised by certain behaviours and ways of thinking. He identified 14 characteristics of Self-Actualisation. In doing so, he effectively moved beyond the ‘be-all-that-you-be’ concept of Jung, Goldstein, Rogers (thus far) and even his own early writings and described a new way of thinking and being. In some ways, more than Graves, he characterised the 7th level of thinking. The 14 characteristics below are accompanied in parentheses by complementary comments based on the work of Graves and the Spiral Dynamics build by Don Beck & Chris Cowan (1996)....

 

1. Self-actualising people have both a more efficient perception of reality and more comfortable relations with it. This includes the detection of what is phoney and/or dishonest and the accurate perception of what really exists – rather than a distortion of perception by one's needs. (Graves saw 1st Tier levels as  not having an accurate grip on reality. Only with G-T (YELLOW) are you able to see people as they really are.)
   Self-actualising people are more aware of their environment, both human and non-human. They are not afraid of the unknown and can tolerate the doubt, uncertainty, and tentativeness accompanying the perception of the new and unfamiliar. (The certainties of life held by the nodal vMEMES of the 1st Tier are revealed to be so much delusion. YELLOW can live with paradoxes and ‘conflicting truths’.)

 

1. Self-actualisers accept themselves, others and nature. They are not ashamed or guilty about being human, with its shortcomings, imperfections, frailties, and weaknesses. Nor are they critical of these aspects in other people. They respect and esteem themselves and others.
   Moreover, they tend to be honest, open and genuine; they will not put on a front just to impress. They are not, however, self-satisfied and smug. They tend to be concerned about discrepancies between what is and what should be in themselves, others, and society. (Since YELLOW never knows when it might need people or things, the inclination is to look after all resources.)

 

1. Self-actualisers are spontaneous. They are not hampered by convention, but they do not flout it either. They are not conformists; but neither are they non-conformist for the sake of it. (YELLOW has  no need for status as such but accepts it is important to others.)
   They are not externally motivated or even goal-directed. Rather, their motivation is the internal one of growth and development, the actualisation of themselves and their potentialities. (YELLOW is not goal-oriented - as ORANGE is - in the sense of being able to achieve. Rather it pursues what interests it.)

 

1. The self-actualising person enjoys solitude and privacy. They can also seem detached. It is possible for them to remain unruffled and undisturbed by what upsets others. (YELLOW will walk away from ‘lost causes’, how ever noble they might be.) They may even appear to be asocial. This characteristic is related to a sense of security and self-sufficiency.

 

1. Self-actualising people have a continued freshness of appreciation. Repeatedly, though not continuously, they experience awe, pleasure, and wonder in their everyday world.

 

1. In varying degrees and with varying frequencies, self-actualising persons have experiences of ecstasy, awe, and wonder with feelings of limitless horizons opening up. These experiences are followed by the conviction that the experience was important and has a carry-over into everyday life.
   Maslow called these ‘peak experiences’ and can seem religious or mystical. Sometimes they can be life-changing.

 

1. Self-actualisers are autonomous and are independent of culture and environment. Though dependent on others for the satisfaction of the basic needs of love, belongingness, safety and respect, they get their principal satisfactions from their own development and continued growth. (The motif, in the Life Conditions, GREEN has brought about, is to make the best for yourself - this vMEME is very much on the self-expressive side of the Spiral!)

 

1. Self-actualising people tend to have deep interpersonal relations with others. They are selective, however, and their circle of friends may be small, usually consisting of others capable of self-actualising. In spite of their tendency to privacy, they often attract others to them as admirers or disciples.

 

1. The self-actualising person does not discriminate on the basis of class, education, race, or colour. They are humble in their recognition of what they know in comparison with what they don’t know; and they are ready and willing to learn from anyone. They respect everyone as potential contributors to their knowledge, merely because they are human beings.

 

1. Self-actualisers are highly creative. It is a creativity potentially inherent in everyone but usually suffocated by acculturation. It is a fresh, naive, direct way of looking at things. (Interestingly, in problem-solving tasks, Graves found that G-T thinkers were 4 times more effective than F-S (GREEN) thinkers and conceptually had more problem-solving capability than all the vMEMES of the 1st Tier put together.)

 

1. Self-actualisers are usually highly ethical. They clearly distinguish between means and ends and subordinate means to the ends. (YELLOW will be democratic when it is appropriate and authoritarian when it is necessary.)

 

1. The sense of humour of a self-actualiser is not of the ordinary (1st Tier) type. Their sense of humour is the spontaneous, thoughtful type, intrinsic to the situation. Their humour does not involve hostility, superiority, or sarcasm

 

1. Such people are not ego-centered but focus on problems outside themselves. They are mission-oriented, often on the basis of a sense of responsibility, duty, or obligation rather than personal choice. including acceptance and respect. (Graves (1970) wrote: “His thema for existence is now ‘express self so that all others, all beings can continue to exist.’”)

 

1. These people have a deep feeling of empathy, sympathy and/or compassion for human beings in general. This feeling is, in a sense, unconditional in that it exists along with the recognition of the existence in others of negative qualities that provoke occasional anger, impatience, and disgust. (Graves (1978/2005) wrote: “[He] will explode at what he does  not like, but he will not be worked up or angry about it...He accepts and lives with the fact of difference and of relating to people who are different.”)

 

Maslow stated there were 3 pre-conditions to Self-Actualisation:-

1. An absence of restraints

2. No or little distraction from D-Needs

3. A good knowledge of yourself

 

Although many of the ‘self-actualised’ figures Maslow studied were highly intelligent, he did not believe great intelligence was a prerequisite for Self-Actualisation. Neither did Graves.

 

Michael Daniels (1988) found that the absence of psychological disorders, relationship difficulties and drug dependence correlated to Self-Actualisation. Graves  (1978/2005) claimed that his G-T level – which he equated with Self-Actualisation – was free from both fear and compulsiveness. Since Hans J Eysenck (1967, 1976) equated fear with Neuroticism and compulsiveness with Psychoticism in his Dimensions of Temperament, the loss of fear and compulsiveness when Self-Actualisation takes place carries with it the implication that accessing the 7th level in thinking carries you beyond those temperamental influences.

 

Carl Rogers: Full Function & Locus of Control

By 1961 Carl Rogers was describing Self-Actualisation - or Full Function - as ways of thinking and being that echoed much of Maslow. Rogers believed that every human being had the potential to achieve their goals, wishes and desires in life. When they did so, then Self-Actualisation took place. For Rogers, this actualising tendency is an inner biological need to grow and develop both physically and psychologically. (This is paralleled to some extent in Don Beck’s 2002 concept of  the Prime Directive.) Self-actualised people, according to Rogers, are fully functioning persons.

 

Such people are in touch with the here and now, their subjective experiences and feelings, and are continually growing and changing. Full Function was, for Rogers, something of an ideal – a process of always becoming and changing, rather than a final state. Effectively, for Rogers, Self-Actualisation is a process of being,

 

Fully functioning people are well-adjusted, well-balanced and interesting to know. Rogers (1961) identified 5 characteristics of the fully functioning person:-

 

1. Open to experience – Both positive and negative emotions are accepted. Negative feelings are not denied but worked through.

 

2. Existential living – In touch with different experiences as they occur in life; avoiding prejudging and preconceptions.

 

3. Trust feelings – Feelings, instincts and gut reactions are paid attention to and trusted.

 

4. Creativity – Creative thinking and risk-taking are features of a person’s life. Person does not play safe all the time.

 

5. Fulfilled life – Person is happy and satisfied with life and always looking for new challenges and experiences.

 

Unfortunately many people lose touch with their actualising tendency. Rogers attributed this to social pressures resulting in a distorted and limited self-concept.

 

Rogers used the idea of locus of control  to explain the difference between being free to respond to your own inner actualising tendency or being restricted by the views and beliefs of others.

 

People with an internal locus of control are controlled by their own personal values. People with an external locus of control are controlled by the desire to live up to the expectations of others. Their sense of self-worth by their perception of how well they are doing in living up to the expectations of others. They are likely to have had a significant amount of conditional positive regard in their life.

 

Linking this to Attribution Theory, people with an internal locus are much more likely to be dispositionalist while those with an external locus are more likely to be situationalist. The concept also relates to the meta-programmes of internally-referenced (internal locus) and externally-referenced (external locus).

 

One criticism of Rogers’ concept - as of Maslow - is that it is culturally biased - a product of Western culture which represents an individualistic and selfish approach to understanding human nature. In other cultures, such as Eastern ones, more value may be put upon the achievement of a group of people than any one individual. However, if Self-Actualisation is reframed within Graves’ Spiral, then yes, Self-Actualisation does appear to reflect Western self-expressive orientation. However, the level below, Aesthetic, if reframed as F-S GREEN, and Self-Transcedence, if reframed as H-U TURQUOISE, are much more on the conformist/collective side of the Spiral.

 

While much more research is needed to determine how well these concepts travel across cultures, according to Don Beck (2000), in research conducted by John L Peterson of the Arlington Institute in 1999, around 10,000 Spiral Dynamics assessments were conducted across several different cultures and “no significant variations” were found.

 

‘Be all you can be’ or a higher level of thinking?

For all that Graves (1971/2002, 1978/2005) matched his seventh level of thinking to Maslow’s Self-Actualisation, according to Don Beck (2006) and Chris Cowan & Natasha Todorovic (2005), Graves also talked about people self-actualising on each level of the Spiral. At first this appears to be a paradox. However, the paradox is resolved by thinking of Self-Actualisation as having two different but related meanings:-

• Being all that you can be - fulfilling your potential
• A way of being/thinking when the D-needs have been met (Maslow) or the subsistence levels surpassed (Graves)

 

Since Graves (1978/2005) describes the psychology of the individual as becoming markedly different when the next vMEME emerges, Self-Actualisation in the sense of being all you can be takes place when that nodal vMEME meets the needs of its Life Conditions and, thus, creates conceptual space for the next vMEME to start to emerge.

 

Self-Actualisation, as a way of thinking and being - ie: G-T YELLOW -  can only take place, according to both Maslow and Graves, when the lower needs have been met.

 

While ‘Self-Actualisation’ tends to be used in the text books more as ‘be-all-you-can-be’, in Integrated SocioPsychology it is used more in the sense Maslow (1956) described it.

 

The Jonah Complex

Maslow (1962) thought some people actually fear Self-Actualisation since it brings about duties and responsibilities for the individual. He called this the ‘Jonah Complex’.

 

L W Hoffman (1974) - clearly thinking of Self-Actualisation as ‘be-all-you-can-be’ - attributed the Jonah Complex in males as a wish to avoid responsibilities or a belief that success does not bring social recognition. For females, it is said to be a reluctance to use their intellectual abilities and a fear of what a successful career might mean. Mary Crawford & Jeanne Marecek (1989) disputed the idea that females fear success, arguing that they are wrongly judged against male norms of competition and winning. M E Hyland (1989) says that females do not display the Jonah Complex if judged against female norms such as making friends and socialising.

 

Research on Self-Actualisation

Maslow conducted extensive biographical research and case studies of people he considered to be self-actualisers. However, his methodologies cannot be considered ‘scientific’. Moreover, his criteria for describing a ‘self-actualiser’ could be argued as highly subjective. He did not compare self-actualisers with self-actualisers. Nevertheless his work has provided valuable insights into the higher achievements of people. In his near 30 years of research, Graves did conduct investigations of a much more scientific nature.

 

Everett Shostrum (1963, 1977) developed the Personal Orientation Questionnaire to create a standardised approach to identifying self-actualisers.

 

The results of scoring the questionnaire reveal the extent (high or low) to which a person self-actualises in their life. Michael Sheffield, James Carey, William Patenaude & Michael Lambert (1995) used it to find that those low in Self-Actualisation tend to have poor interpersonal relationships. Mark Runco, Peter Ebersole & Wayne Mraz (1995) found that creative thinking is more associated with high Self-Actualisation.

 

L E Thomas & P E Cooper (1980) found that self-actualisers are more likely to be open to experiences and accepting of those experiences.  They are also more likely to recognise a peak experience and to use such experiences to enhance personal growth. Karen Dion & Kenneth Dion (1985) related Self-Actualisation to participants’ overall satisfaction with their love lives. Those who scored high in Self-Actualisation were more inclined to be satisfied with either a current or past relationship and to be more intensely involved and more open than those with low scores. However, self-actualisers were more realistic in their expectations and seemed to show lower levels of need and caring for their lovers.

 

Final State?

In 1943 Maslow, like Jung, Goldstein and, later, Rogers held Self-Actualisation was the final state of psychological maturity for the human being. When Graves started his research in 1952, he expected to confirm this view. However, in 1971 Graves described how, in 1959, he met his first participants who described a way of thinking clearly more complex than the Self-Actualisation Maslow described. How much Graves and Maslow corresponded over this is unknown but in 1971 Graves claimed that the recently-deceased Maslow “came around to my point of view”* that there was higher level of Self-Actualisation which the latter dubbed ‘Self-Transcendence’.

(Graves, 1971/2002,p52)