Becoming, Being, & Self-Actualization

6 April 2022

Regular readers of this blog may recall earlier discussions of self-actualization.  This term can be equated with ontological intensity.  Ontological intensity is the strength and courage we bring to being as fully ourselves as we can.

Self-actualization is a term used by Aristotle, Maslow, Rogers, and Erikson.  While there are shades of difference in their usages, all are about becoming, and the striving to become, a human being in full, radiant bloom.  It is, in my experience, the rarest of phenomena.

Training psychotherapists are introduced to what are deemed the most historically pervasive and effective theories of counselling psychology.  A heavy hitter in that pantheon is Carl Rogers (1902-1987).  The intent of this blog is to focus on Rogers’ notion of congruence, as it relates to ontological intensity, and Gabor Maté’s description of self-mastery.  I believe all three notions circle about the concept of adulthood (Cf. earlier blogs: Boundaries & Adulthood, 16.iii.22; Assumptions IV: Assessment, 2.iii.22; Recovery & Identity II, 5.v.21; and, Mirror, Mirror, 22.vii.20).

The simplest definition of adulthood is a state of being in which we take full responsibility for ourselves.  While I am happy to acknowledge that there is a great deal outside of our control, our response, to most of the floats in life’s parade, is within our control. More importantly, being who we really are, in the deepest, most honest parts of ourselves, is also largely within our control. 

When people are not being true to their own internal senses for making value judgments and instead behave in a manner that they think is expected of them or will please other people, they are considered to be incongruent.  Relationships cannot grow in this environment because the person is not being honest with him- or herself.  Rather, he or she has built up defense mechanisms and created barriers that prevent effective communication.  The greater the truth, honesty, and authenticity in a relationship, the more the other person is likely to express the same, and the end result is an increase in intimacy. 

—Seligman & Reichenberg (2014, p. 151, Chapter: “Carl Rogers and Person-Centered Counselling”)

That sentiment can be looked at another way.  The less true a person is to himself, the less likely his relationships are to last—as they are built on misperceptions or illusions.  I cannot imagine a greater argument in favour of congruence for a species entirely dependent on connection.  

Maté (2016, pp. 377-8, bold emphasis added) wrote beautifully on moving from addiction to congruence.

            Purity and impurity belong to oneself.  No one else can purify another.

            —Buddha, The Dhammapada

To live with an addict [sic] of any kind is frustrating, emotionally painful, and often infuriating.  Family, friends, and spouse may feel they are dealing with a double personality: one sane and loveable, the other devious and uncaring.  They believe the first is real and hope the second will go away.  In truth, the second is the shadow side of the first and will no sooner leave than will a shadow abandon the object whose shape it traces on the ground—not unless the light comes from a different angle.

While it is natural for the loved ones of an addict [sic] to wish to reform him, it cannot be done.  [...] Any attempts to shame him will also trigger rage.  Until a person is willing to take on the task of self-mastery, no one else will induce him to do so...psychologist Edward Deci has written, ‘Motivation must come from within, not from techniques.  It comes from their deciding they are ready to take responsibility for themselves.’

Per the last statement, we’ve come nearly full circle.  Accepting responsibility for self is to assume the role of an adult.  Does this mean that those who refuse the yoke of self-responsibility are still children?  In years, no; in thinking, emoting, and acting, yes.  Rogers (1961 in Seligman & Reichenberg, 2014, p. 151-2) wrote: “He is free—to become himself or to hide behind a façade; to move forward, or to retrogress; to behave in ways which are destructive of self and others, or in ways which are enhancing; quite literally free to live or die, in both the physiological and psychological meaning of those terms.”

Ontological intensity, congruence, and self-mastery are never fully accomplished, waxing and waning each hour, day, and week.  The decision taken, to give your best to engaging in that struggle with life, self, and the universe is what I believe we are called on, from within, to do. And while we cannot bring it about in others, we can, per Maté, above, alter the angle at which the light (love) creates shadows (or self-reflections) permitting others to see themselves—differently.

Dan Chalykoff is working toward an M.Ed. in Counselling Psychology and accreditation in Professional Addiction Studies.  He writes these blogs to increase (and share) his own evolving understandings of ideas.  Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery.

References

Maté, G. (2018). In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction.  Vintage Canada.

Seligman, L., & Reichenberg, L. W. (2014). Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy: Systems, Strategies, and Skills.  Pearson.