The other self-actualization: What's the difference between Maslow and Rogers?

Carl Rogers believed that reality for an individual (which he refers to as an organism) is the sum of subjective perceptions that the organism experiences. This idea of what counts as the self and what doesn’t isn’t fixed; it’s fluid. Different concepts, perceptions, and experiences occur as a result of interacting with the environment, and the organism has to sort out how to relate their identity to these experiences.

Naturally, this isn’t a smooth process. As a result of these interactions, most of us invent an “ideal” self, the person we think we should be, rather than the person we actually are. In Rogers’ system, the broader the gap between the real self and the ideal self, the greater the sense of incongruence. All sorts of behaviors and experiences might occur that seem unacceptable to who we think we are. If this incongruence is severe enough, the organism might develop a psychopathology. If, on the other hand, the person we actually are and the person we think we should be are congruent with one another, we become more open to experiences and have to do less work defending ourselves from the outside world.

Where does self-actualization fit into all of this? Where Maslow had self-actualization at the very top of a hierarchy of motivations, Rogers argued that self-actualization was the only motivation and that it was constantly driving the organism forward. In Rogers’ system, self-actualization is sort of just the default way of life — the only way of life, in fact. And where Maslow’s version is sort of an endpoint, Rogers saw self-actualization as a never-ending process. But Rogers does have his own version of an ideal way of living, which he called, appropriately enough, “the good life.”

In order to live the good life, an organism must symbolically assimilate all experiences into a consistent relationship with the self. In this regard, somebody living the good life matches up neatly with Maslow’s idea of the self-actualized individual. Like Maslow, Rogers also believed that individuals living the good life would exemplify certain characteristics that would make them distinct from the fragile, neurotic, rank-and-file folks that most of us are. According to Rogers, the fully functioning person living the good life would have these characteristics:

An increasing openness to experience, as no experience would threaten the individual’s self-concept;
An increasingly existential and present lifestyle, since they wouldn’t need to distort the present in a way that fits with their self-concept;
Greater trust in their own values rather than those imposed upon them by, say, their parents or their society;
Openness to a wide variety of choices, as they wouldn’t be restricted by possible threats to their self-concept (such as a narcissist might be if they engaged in some activity that could make them appear foolish);
More creativity, as they wouldn’t feel the need to conform;
More frequently constructive rather than destructive;
And living a rich and full life.