15 The Dark-Side of Humanistic Psychology: The Blackfoot Confederacy’s Un-Recognized Contributions

1 Introduction

Humanistic psychology is a movement that is known for the positive approaches it has to the development of human beings. This field supports the notion that humans, as individuals, are unique beings that strive to reach their fullest human potentials and should be recognized and appreciated for this by psychologists (Britannica, 2020). Abraham Maslow, one of the pioneers of humanistic psychology, developed ground-breaking humanistic theories that have been recognized and praised in European and Western educational resources. What is not well known about his theories, is that throughout Maslow’s time in developing cultural research in 1938, he ventured to the Northern Blackfoot Confederacy where he visited the Siksika Nation. During his time there, he was inspired by the Siksika people’s way of life, eventually basing important humanistic theories off of their knowledge and ways of being. Because of this, the Blackfoot Confederacy had an enormous contribution to the history of humanistic psychology that has not yet been recognized and acknowledged. This section will highlight how and why Maslow failed to acknowledge their contributions and will discuss the importance of the Blackfoot Confederacy in the development of humanistic psychology.

1.1 Background

The History of the Blackfoot

In order to understand what occurred throughout Maslow’s visit in 1938, it’s important to acknowledge the history of the Blackfoot Confederacy or the Siksikaitsitapi. The Blackfoot confederacy, established in 2000, has brought the four Blackfoot Nations together to deal with common issues (Blackfoot Confederacy, 2021). Siksikaitsitapi have always shared values of respect, wisdom from elders, courage from beliefs and history, and hope for their youth (Blackfoot Confederacy, 2021). It’s important to recognize that these four Nations have experienced many historical traumas that have shaped the ways in which they live their lives and the ways they treat themselves and fellow community members (Feigenbaum et al., 2020). Examples of these traumas are systemic racism and oppression, destruction of bison, the implementation of residential schools, and the impacts of treaties signed in the US and Canada (Feigenbaum et al., 2020). These traumas have ultimately shaped the strong core community values that these four nations hold. The strength and wisdom of these Nations have influenced the US and Canada, and in many ways, these contributions have gone un-recognized in Western and European educational settings, specifically in the history of psychology. More about colonization

The History of Maslow and The Blackfoot

In 1938, Maslow travelled to Northern Alberta, where one of four Blackfoot Nations is located, the traditional territory of the Siksika Nation. Maslow spent a whole of six weeks with the Siksika Nation, with his main purpose being to gather cultural research (Feigenbaum et al., 2020).) At the time, Maslow sustained a belief that social hierarchies are maintained by dominance of people, but he did not witness the quest for dominance within Blackfoot society (Ravilochan et al., 2021). What Maslow saw was a community filled with resilience and strength which upheld a respect for Elders and love for all people on a mutual level. Broomé (2017) shares that the Blackfoot’s wisdom and knowledge changed Maslow’s perspective as the stereotypes that he once knew regarding Indigenous peoples quickly became disproved (Broomé, 2017, p. 398). Maslow was not intending to be so inspired by the Blackfoot’s way of life, but through his time spent there, his social, cultural, and developmental perspectives shifted (Ravilochan et al., 2017). This inspiration lead Maslow to develop many humanistic theories, including his famous hierarchy of needs. Unfortunately, Maslow failed to mention the contributions of the Blackfoot in his research, and therefore, plagiarized his infamous humanistic ideologies.

1.2 Gaps in Literature

Little information regarding the Blackfoot Confederations contributions to humanistic psychology and Maslow’s plagiarism of their teachings can be found in educational resources and textbooks regarding the history of humanistic psychology. The Blackfoot should be acknowledged and recognized for their contributions to Maslow’s theories, specifically the concept of self-actualization and the hierarchy of needs that has become one of the most recognized and prevalent humanistic theories of our time. Through this analysis, there will be an un-ravelling of Maslow’s concepts to showcase the gaps in research regarding this prevalent and important topic.

1.3 Blackfoot Beliefs and Ways of Being used in Humanistic Psychology

Blackfoot beliefs and ways of being inspired Maslow during his six-week period spent with the Siksika peoples. During Maslow’s time at Blackfoot, he witnessed what he would later coin as self-actualization, one of the most well-known theories in humanistic psychology. Maslow was inspired by the Blackfoot (Siksika) Nation through the elder’s wisdom, community cooperation, restorative justice, and full bellies, and this pushed him to continue his humanistic research (Ravilochan et al., 2021). Self-actualization is the main concept in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which remains at the top of the layered pyramid. This concept is rooted in existential and humanistic psychology and entails the realization or fulfillment of one’s potential and is a drive or need that remains present in every individual (Broomé, 2017, p. 397). The word self-actualization did not exist in Blackfoot knowledge, it was merely an interpretation of what Maslow thought he had learned from Blackfoot Elders and the community. What Maslow was witnessing was a community strong enough to meet the people’s basic needs while ensuring safety and creating the conditions for the expression and purpose of the people (Ravilochan et al., 2021).

Blackstock (2011) states that Maslow made the mistake of putting emphasis on the individual, and not the community, which is the source of actualization within the Blackfoot Confederacy (Blackstock et al., 2011). Maslow’s interpretation of self-actualization and the other hierarchies did not incorporate Indigenous understandings of ancestral knowledge, spirituality, and the individual within the context of community (Blackstock, 2011). Community is extremely important for growth and development, and for Maslow to over-look this large factor within Blackfoot knowledge is unfortunate to say the least. While there are strong belief systems and traditions in place within the Blackfoot Confederacy, there is no layered pyramid or model that represents their ways of life. Although this is the case, Cindy Blackstock reinterprets Maslow’s understanding of Blackfoot way of life, and states self-actualization should be placed at the bottom, community actualization in the middle, and cultural perpetuity at the top (Michel, 2014). It’s important that self-actualization remains at the bottom of the pyramid, as this is how Blackfoot recognizes self-actualization. While Maslow saw self-actualization as something that the individual needs to earn, Blackfoot ways of being suggest that self-actualization is innate in all beings (Ravilochan et al., 2021). It is clear that the Blackfoot taught Maslow that actualization is not only for the self, but for the benefit of others as it prepares each person for their spiritual purpose and invites them to become spiritually actualized (Broomé, 2007, p. 399).

1.4 Maslow’s Failure to Acknowledge Blackfoot’s Contributions

The unfortunate truth about Maslow’s contributions to humanistic psychology is that they were rooted in Blackfoot wisdom, and the Blackfoot were never credited (Broomé, 2017, p. 398). Broomé (2017) states that Maslow took ideas and values from the Blackfoot elders, and incorporated it into a pyramid model, twisting the knowledge to fit Euro-American colonized ideologies (Broomé, 2017, p. 398). This unfortunate twist of information sheds light on just how much un-credited Indigenous knowledge has influenced the field of psychology. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs would go on to become one of the most influential and famous humanistic psychology theories because of the inspiration he acquired from Blackfoot, yet he failed to acknowledge this. Broomé (2017) shares that at the time, Maslow was covert about sharing his source for the humanistic theory because of the academic politics and colonized notions regarding Indigenous peoples. The failure to cite the Blackfoot’s contributions occurred because little importance was given to Indigenous communities outside of the field of cultural research due to systemic racism and colonized notions within research and psychology (Feigenbaum et al., 2020).

It is suggested that Maslow could not credit Blackfoot for their contributions as their philosophies and values would not be taken seriously (Broomé, 2017, p. 399). Even in Maslow’s most recent work, he still failed to credit the Blackfoot’s contributions; the famous humanistic psychologist has still yet to acknowledge the important contributions of the Blackfoot Confederacy. According to Broomé (2017), Maslow got it wrong. He published information from the Blackfoot elders that had been twisted to embrace scientific knowledge and ignored the bigger picture of Blackfoot’s teachings. It’s evident that through Maslow’s plagiarism of self-actualization and the hierarchy of needs, there was a dehumanization of Blackfoot knowledge and values through scientific research and understanding (Feigenbaum et al., 2020).

1.5 What We Can Learn from the Blackfoot in Relation to Humanistic Psychology

What we now know, is that there is so much to learn from Blackfoot and other Indigenous teachings that have not been recognized in psychology due to colonized ideologies of education and science. In relation to humanistic psychology, it’s important recognize the Blackfoot’s teachings of innate self-actualization. We are born with innate actualized tendencies, and through community, we are able to express these and develop them further (Ravilochan et al., 2021). Instead of using the term self-actualization, we can contrast it with community actualization. The importance of community-actualization needs to be recognized further in humanistic teachings. As well as community-actualization, the importance of child-rearing is significant in the Blackfoot’s teachings. Ravilochan et al. (2021) explains that Blackfoot children are raised with permissiveness and treated as equal members of Siksika society, leading to the respect of elders and of their community at young ages. In Maslow’s recognition of Blackfoot’s strength in raising their children, he wondered if producing high self-actualization came from the values this community placed on child-rearing (Ravilochan et al., 2021).

Additionally, cultural perpetuity is another concept that is passed from Indigenous knowledge such as Blackfoot teachings. This concept states that each generation must see it as their own responsibility to perpetuate their culture by adding to communal wisdom such as the passing of ancestral teachings to children and grandchildren (Ravilochan et al., 2021). Examples of these teachings can be described as the skills to nourish a community-wide family, live in harmony with the land, and minimize internal and external conflicts (Ravilochan et al., 2021). To imagine a world that emphasizes community values such as these is difficult, as westernized mindsets of individuality have been emphasized in the world of psychology. Although, through the recognition of teachings such as the ones from Blackfoot, education can be changed for the better.

1.6 Conclusion

Throughout this section, it’s been shown that Maslow ventured to the Northern Blackfoot Confederacy where he visited the Siksika Nation. During his time there, he was inspired by the Siksika people’s way of life, eventually basing important humanistic theories off of their knowledge and ways of being. Due to this, the Blackfoot Confederacy had an enormous contribution to the history of humanistic psychology that has not yet been recognized and acknowledged. The next steps to acknowledging the Blackfoot’s contributions further would be to implement their knowledge, values, and beliefs, into educational resources when learning about humanistic psychology or psychology in general. The importance of their knowledge goes beyond any western educational resources and needs to be shared to acknowledge the importance of Indigenous teachings within psychology. Implementing the Indigenous worldview and knowledge would create a culturally safe and diverse practice that would emphasize the role and importance of community, love, acceptance, and belonging.

2 Dorothea Dix: The Mental Health Reformer of the Humanist Movement

2.1 The State of Mental Institutions At the Time

In the 1800s, the main – and possibly the only – form of mental health treatment was to send an individual to a mental health institution; known as asylums at the time. These institutions were mainly seen as places for people with psychological disorders to become socially isolated, and to remain out of the public eye (Modak, Sarkar, & Sagar, 2016). Patients in these institutions were far from ideal; many were kept in unhygienic, overcrowded areas and kept in place with chains or straightjackets (Modak et. al, 2016), dorming in cramped quarters – even in cages in some cases (Dix, 2006). Treatment to these patients was outright abusive, with Dorothea Dix’s (2006) personal account recalling patients being “beaten with rods, and lashed into obedience (Dix, 2006)”. Therapies offered were barbaric by today’s standards, with early forms of electroshock therapy, insulin coma therapy, and even lombotomies being some options administered to patients (Modak et. al, 2016). Due to negative publicity and stigma towards mental institutions at the time, treatment and living conditions of mental institutions were largely kept away from public knowledge (Modak et. al, 2016).

2.2 Dorothea Dix

Born in 1802 in Maine, USA, Dorothea Dix was born to an alcoholic father, and lived with her grandmother for most of her childhood. By the time she was 22, she had moved to Boston and became a schoolteacher, teaching other young women.  It was around this time that she had also taken up the vocation of authorship, to moderate success, but continued in being a schoolteacher (Field, 1999). In 1836, she had travelled to England for medical retreat after experiencing a form of a mental breakdown (Gollaher, 1993). Eventually, she had settled her location of retreat on the estate of William Rathbone II, a wealthy philanthropist in Liverpool. From there, it was how Dix learned of the “Lunacy Reform Movement”, a movement at the time that had vouched for the humane treatment of people with psychological disorders (Modak et. al, 2016). This movement had aimed to reform the social welfare of these people and have it brought through government bodies to oversee the system (Gollaher, 1993). Following the death of her grandmother in 1837, Dix had returned to America, now with the knowledge of the reform movement (Gollaher, 1993).

2.3 Dorothea Dix’s Advocacy

Dix had advocated for the establishment of state-run mental hospitals in Northeast USA (Modak et. al, 2016), and had even gone as far as conducting visits to assess the state of existing mental hospitals and prisons in the State of Massachusetts (Dix, 2006). Her findings had found mass neglect and abuse across Massachusetts mental hospitals and reported them to the state legislature of Massachusetts (Dix, 2006). Dix was successful in her lobbying, with state-run mental hospitals opening in New Jersey, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania, to name a few. She also continued her investigations of mental hospitals, even going as far to Nova Scotia and even Scotland (Modak et. al, 2016). Her work had earned her the position of the superintendent of women nurses from 1842 to 1861; a role appointed by then-American president, Abhraham Lincoln, and a role that Dix had carried with her thought the country’s civil war period (Field, 1999).

2.4 Systemic Changes

In Massachusetts, the state legislature had repealed a law stating that it was permittable to house people with psychological disorders in prisons, and instead house them in state-run mental hospitals (Gollaher, 1993). In general, Dix was influential in the nationalization of mental hospitals, and had advocated that these places had humane, and reasonable accommodations (Field, 1999). In 1854, she championed a bill that would set aside federal land with the intention of establishing mental hospitals – while the bill was passed by government representatives, the then-president of the time, Franklin Pierce, had vetoed the bill (Modak et. al, 2016). One year later, in Scotland, her advocacy work influenced the formation of the Scottish Lunacy Commission, which laid the foundations of setting up state-run mental hospitals around Scotland (Gollaher, 1993). In modern-day standards, it was through Dix’s advocacy in humane treatment of mental hospital patients that most institutions today not only have a code of conduct for patient welfare, but also framework for patient rights, to ensure that proper treatment and monitoring can take place (Modak et. al, 2016).

2.5 Something to Note 

Dix had become a feminist figure during a time when neither women nor people with psychological disorders were highly regarded in society (Gollaher, 1993). She harnessed her status as a woman to convey a public image of the then-novel ideal of a strong, powerful woman, which she then used extensively in her advocating work (Field, 1999). While Dix was mostly estranged by her immediate family members, her grandmother was quite wealthy – in fact, Dix was due to inherit her grandmother’s estate after her grandmother’s death (Gollaher, 1993).  Dix also had the luxury of being able to travel trans-Atlantic for a mental retreat, and had even been able to stay at a wealthy acquaintance’s estate for the duration of her retreat (Field, 1999). It’s safe to assume that Dix had been in a socio-economic privileged place to conduct the work she did. However, as a product of her time, Dix was known to be a bigot in today’s societal standards. Her sentiments towards slavery in America and race-related issues at that time were extremely racist; disliking the notion of abolishing slavery, and even thought that sending African Americans back to Africa would solve the race issues in the country (Gollaher, 1993). Her bigotry even extended outside of race and into classism and religious discrimination, as many of her military colleagues during the American civil war disliked her nurse recruitment requirements, seeing that the nurses under her care be upper class and not Catholic (Field, 1999).

3 Psychology’s Past: Asserting Charlotte Buhler’s Deserving Place Among the Humanist Pioneers.

The humanist movement brought forth an integrated way of viewing the person and consciousness through a dynamic focus on personal authenticity and responsibility to experience full human potential (Schneider et al., 2015). Influenced by previous philosophy and psychological theories and the need for a more positive perspective, humanistic ways of understanding psychology and treating patients began to emerge in the 20th century (Schneider et al., 2015). Several pioneers continue to be recognized and appreciated for their contributions, primarily Carl Rogers, Rollo May, and Abraham Maslow, often called the “fathers of humanistic psychology” (Schneider et al., 2015). It is through analyzing the notable accomplishments and contributions of Charlotte Buhler, in which it becomes apparent that her impact on the formation of humanistic psychology qualifies her to be ranked among her male counterparts despite her potential experience of society’s limitation and stigmatization on women at this time and the continued disparity in historical gender representation. Buhler’s contributions and theories were significant and profound as well as formative in the creation of humanistic psychology, leaving a lasting mark on psychology and society.

3.1 Background

Historical overview of humanism and recognized pioneers.

Humanist ideas resurfaced prominently in the 19th and 20th century as the need for understanding human existence within philosophy, psychiatry and psychology increased (Schneider et al., p 6, 2015). Humanistic psychology shifted from a focus on psychoanalytic and behaviorist perspectives to the idea of the “whole person” in relation to creativity, free will, and the positive human potential through holistic treatment approaches. Rogers presented his client-centered therapy, May introduced his existential and phenomenological views, and Maslow defined the self-actualizing personality and the hierarchy of needs (Schneider et al., 2015). In 1961 the Journal of Humanistic Psychology was published, followed by the formation of the American Association for Humanistic Psychology. In 1964, the first historic Old Saybrook conference was held, in which the “grandfathers” passed along the movement to Maslow, Rogers and May, legitimizing Humanist Psychology (Schneider et al, 2015).

• History of Charlotte Buhler.

Charlotte Buhler was born in 1893 in Berlin, Germany. She had broad psychological interests and was very curious early on (Gavin, 1990). She studied under Oswald Kulpe, who was later replaced by Karl Buhler, whom she very much admired and ended up marrying (Gavin, 1990). Her ideas were in line with Buhler’s as he combined his thoughts with Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological work, and often worked alongside him and his theories (Woodward, 2012). She worked with Maslow and Rogers among others and used and credited others for their ideas to further develop concepts within humanistic frameworks particularly in developmental psychology (Kass, 2012). Charlotte Buhler contributed to the formation of humanistic psychology through her collaborations with important figures and partaking in the official formation and conferences of the field (DeRobertis, 2006).

• Gaps in Research.

Charlotte Buhler contributed immensely to the formation of humanistic psychology yet is not generally recognized as a founder of humanism, nor given equal literature attention as the other pioneers and remains relatively unknown (DeRobertis, p 3, 2006). History written regarding the formation of humanistic psychology generally describes the input of the fathers and forefathers and continues to lack in providing fair gender representation. It is through a feminist lens from which this analysis aims to demonstrate the need for additional resources highlighting Charlotte Buhler’s notable contributions to the formation of this field.

3.2 Charlotte Buhler’s Theoretic Contributions to the humanistic framework

According to Masserik (1974), Charlotte Bühler was a humanistic psychologist long before a clearly distinguishable field had emerged (Kass, 2013). Buhler’s theories were foundational to humanistic psychology and unique in the way she incorporated the self, motivation, intentionality into the human development stages, crediting and using of other people’s theories and constructs to either contrast or build from. Buhler may have been the first to focus on the human life as a “whole” in relation to structure and goals, which was particularly revolutionary as she did it over developmental life stages in child psychology (Kass, 2013). Buhler was inspired by Freud’s ideas and developed them further with a more humanistic perspective, considering topics such as the Id, the ego, the self and the relationship of the unconscious to free will and choice (DeRobertis, p 10, 2006). Buhler focused on the healthy fully functioning individual to understand choices and goals, and described people as positive, active, and purposeful mediators of their own lives (DeRobertis, p 11, 2006). She gave credit to Karen Horney in evolving the concept of “self” as “whole” person, compared to Freud’s subdivided personality (DeRobertis, p 11, 2006). Further, her work with children helped her develop ideas regarding healthy development of the self, which includes conditions suitable for change, purpose, creativity, identity, and sense of meaning adding humanistic theories to developmental psychology studying the healthy child, during the same time that Piaget developed his developmental theories (DeRobertis, p 9, 2006). Buhler considered self-actualization, which she connected with the term fulfillment, as well as focuses on intentionality in her theories. Through an analysis of her humanistic theories, it becomes apparent some may have in fact predated Maslow’s ideas (DeRobertis, p 4, 2006).

Although her theories on self and personality differed in ways with the other humanists, this demonstrates Buhler and the other pioneers were on a trajectory path of philosophizing about personality and motivation creating the framework of the future field of humanism (DeRobertis, p 10, 2006). Unfortunately, the fact that she theorized in such a collaborative way may have given her a less distinct and complete construct to her own ideas (Woodward, 2012).

3.4 Charlotte Buhler’s contribution to the formation of Humanistic Psychology  

Charlotte Buhler contributed to the formation of humanistic psychology through her participation in launching and forming humanistic psychology through collaborations with prominent individuals, hosting and lecturing in conferences and publishing materials (Woodward, 2012). Buhler developed a close friendship with Maslow and collaborated with both Maslow and Rogers in developing humanistic psychology, in which she was influential in distinguishing humanistic psychology into the “third force” (Woodward, 2012). Together they founded the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, further establishing the field in 1961, yet it is mostly Abraham Maslow that is credited as a founder. Subsequently, Buhler was the president of the American Association for Humanistic Psychology in 1965 and 1966 and presided over the First International Conference on Humanistic Psychology in 1970 where she also lectured her humanistic theories and findings (Woodward, 2012).

Buhler also published and co-authored a widely used psychology textbook titled “Introduction to Humanistic Psychology” in 1972 in a collaboration with Melanie Allen (Woodward, 2012). These events and Buhler’s presence and participation were instrumental in the formation of humanistic psychology.

3.4 Charlotte Buhler’s lasting impact on society and psychology

Buhler’s work left a lasting impact on the place of women in psychology and their impressive and needed contribution to the field, giving a more balanced and fair perspective that is needed across the span of history. Buhler was part of the late first generation of women in psychology, breaking free from the construct of choosing family over career (Woodward, 2012). Buhler broke free from this early on when she graduated with a PhD in 1918, while giving birth to two children while continuing to work in a time where women were still stigmatized under Prussian ideals on women (Woodward, 2012). Emphasis on the accomplishment of securing her prestigious 10-year fellowship in 1926 is particularly noteworthy for this time (Woodward, 2012). It is important to note that she was a woman of her era, a wife of a psychologist and eventually a refugee during her growing career and continued contributions leaving a lasting impact on society and history highlighting the additional need for recognition of her work and contributions (Woodward, 2012).

Finally, her work left a lasting impact on psychology and society. Buhler was many things, she was a scientific manager, a writer, clinician, and a theoretician, who added material and knowledge to areas such as life span development, education, child psychology, family psychology, testing and psychotherapy (Woodward, 2012). Her humanistic efforts helped grow the movement which was needed at this time to evolve from behaviorist and psychoanalytic limitations to a more subjective understanding of the whole human being (DeRobertis, 2006).

Conclusion

Charlotte Buhler should continue to be included as a founder to humanist psychology in greater literary resources, and deserves a prominent spot next to Maslow, Rogers, and May in the recognition of this field. It becomes clear that she contributed to the field theoretically, through establishing the field, and by her lasting impact on psychology (Woodward, 2012). The question remains why she is not currently still included to a greater scale into the history of the emergence of humanistic psychology. Like her fellow male humanist pioneers, she was influenced by people who came before her, and used this with her life experience and passion to help further society’s understanding of the fully experiencing human being (Kass, 2013). Buhler provided us with extensive and systematic research to back up therapeutic applications and theories (Kass, 2013). Finally, she left a lasting impression on our society today, enhancing how we understand the self and personality within the developmental stages while breaking free from patriarchal societal expectations of her time (Woodward, 2012). Lack of literary inclusion may be considered due to her place in time as a woman, as well as the way she worked in such collaborative ways with other pioneers, often keeping theories intact and crediting generously, and finally that maybe her scope was quite broad (Woodward, 2012). Nevertheless, society needs to continue asserting Charlotte Buhler’s important and formative impacts on the formation of humanistic psychology into psychology’s past.