Further reflections on the humanistic psychology-positive psychology divide

Replies to comments by Morley (see record 2014-01475-010), Serlin (see record 2014-01475-011), Friedman (see record 2014-01475-012), Churchill and Mruk (see record 2014-01475-013), and Schneider (see record 2014-01475-014) on the current author's original article "The humanistic psychology-positive psychology divide: Contrasts in philosophical foundations" (see record 2013-12501-001). The article contrasting humanistic psychology and positive psychology with respect to their ontological, epistemological, and practical philosophical foundations has generated commentaries from leading proponents of varying perspectives within humanistic psychology. There is a great deal of material within those commentaries with which the current author is in full accord. It is worth noting at the outset that no one appears to be challenging the observations (a) that published exchanges between proponents of humanistic and positive psychology have been marked by tension and ambivalence, albeit with occasional efforts at reconciliation and rapprochement; (b) that proponents of the two perspectives differ with respect to the philosophers they most frequently cite in their writings; or (c) that such citations reflect the philosophical assumptions serving as foundations for the theoretical, research, and counseling/therapeutic endeavors of psychologists in both groups. The principal points of concurrence in the critiques published here are that the current underestimates the extent to which mutually supportive, collaborative work can be accomplished across the philosophical divide and that the recommendations the current author has made has advanced serious potential negative consequences for the field. The current author will address these points here in the reply, although space does not permit him to address other substantive points raised by individual commentators.