You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
What, at present, seems to be needed in psychology more than anything else is that psychotheraphy enter the human dimension, the dimension of the human phenomena. Let us, therefore, ask whether this step has really been taken by what has come to be called the “humanistic psychology” movement. Although logotherapy is said to have “joined” this movement (Charlotte Bühler and Melanie Allen, 1972) it may, for heuristic reasons, be wise to detach logotherapy from humanistic psychology in order to make it possible to take a critical stand to it, and critically to comment on it. When so doing, however, we will place special emphasis on that aspect of the movement which is hinging on the concept of encounter, since it is particularly this concept which has been so misunderstood, not to say misused, by many of those who advocate it.
Actually, the concept of encounter has been derived from existentialist rather than humanistic psychological literature. Originally it had been introduced by Martin Buber, Ferdinand Ebner, and Jacob L. Moreno. More specifically, we might say that the contribution of these thinkers to the existentialist thought boils down to an interpretation of existence in terms of co-existence. In this context, encounter is understood as a relationship between an I and a Thou—a relationship which, by its very nature, can be established only on the human and personal level.
The fact remains that in this view something has been left out, and it is no more or less than a whole dimension. This becomes understandable once that we remember and apply the theory of language propounded by Karl Bühler. His is the differentiation between a three-fold function of language. First, language allows the speaker to express himself—it serves as a vehicle of self-expression; second, language is an appeal addressed by the speaker to the person to whom he speaks, and third, language always represents something, that “something” of which one speaks. In other words, whenever one sets o