Rollo Reese May was born on April 21, 1909, in Ada, Ohio.

May contracted tuberculosis during his late 30s,

his fight against his formidable illness proved to be a turning point in his life. At that time, effective medication
had not yet been develope. So he waited hour by hour and day by day in an upstate New York Sanitarium for
the verdict that would spell either a return to health, life long individualism or death. When May recovered
from his illness he devoted his research to existential approach to personality

Basic concepts
Being-in-the-world:
Existentialists adopt a phenomenological approach to understanding humanity. To them, we exist in a world
that can be best understood from our own perspective. Each of us has an inherent need to exist in the world into
which we are born, and to achieve a conscious and unconscious sense of ourselves as an autonomous and
distinct entity. The basis unity of person and environment is expressed in the German word Dasein which
literally means to exist in the world and is generally written as being-in-the-world. The hyphens in this term
imply a oneness of subject and object, of person and world. The stronger this being-in-the-world or Dasein, the
healthier the personality.
Many people suffer from anxiety and despair brought on by their alienation for themselves or from their world.
Either they have no clear image of themselves or they feel isolated from a world that seems distant and foreign.
They have no sense of Dasein, no unity of self and world. As people strive to gain power over nature, they lose
touch with their relationship to the natural world. This feeling of isolation and alienation of self from the world
id suffered not only by pathologically disturbed individuals but also by most individuals in modern societies.
Alienation is the illness of our time, and it manifests itself in three areas: (1) separation from nature, (2) lack of
meaningful interpersonal relations, and (3) alienation from one’s authentic self. Thus, people experience three
simultaneous modes in their being-in-the-world: Umwelt, Mitwelt, and Eigenwelt. Umwelt is the world of
objects and things that would exist even if people had no awareness. It is the world of nature and natural law
and includes biological drives, such as hunger and sleep, and such natural phenomena as birth and death. We
cannot escape Umwelt; we must learn to live in the world around us and to adjust to changes within this world.
But we do not only live with Umwelt, we also live in world with people, that is Mitwelt. We must relate to
people as people, not as things. If we treat people as objects, then we are living solely in Umwelt.
Eigenwelt refers to one’s relationship with oneself. To live in Eigenwelt means to be aware of oneself as a
human being and to grasp who we are as we relate to the world of things and to the world of people. Healthy
people live in Umwelt, Mitwelt, and Eigenwelt simultaneously. They adapt to the natural world, relate to others
as humans, and have a keen awareness of what all these experiences mean to them.

Nonbeing:
Being-in-the-world necessitates an awareness of self as a living, emerging being. This awareness, in turn, leads
to the dread of not being: that is nonbeing or nothingness. Death is not the only avenue of nonbeing, but it is the
most obvious one. Life becomes more vital, more meaningful when we confront the possibility of death. When
we do not courageously confront our nonbeing by contemplating death, we nevertheless will experience
nonbeing in other forms, including addiction to alcohol or other drugs, promiscuous sexual activity, and other
compulsive behaviors. Our nonbeing can also be expressed as blind conformity to society’s expectations. The
fear of death or nonbeing often provokes us to live defensively and to receive less from life than if we would
confront the issue of our nonexistence. We flee from making active choices: that is ‘we make choices without
considering who we are and what we want. We may try to avoid the dread of nonbeing by dimming our self-
awareness and denying our individuality, but such choices leave us with feelings of despair and emptiness.
Thus, we escape the dread of nonbeing at expense of a constricted existence. A healthier alternative is to face
the inevitability of death and to realize that nonbeing is an inseparable part of being.

Anxiety:
People experience anxiety when they become aware that their existence or some value identified with it might
be destroyed. May define anxiety as “the subjective state of the individual’s becoming aware of his or her
existence can be destroyed, that he can become ‘nothing’ At another time, May called anxiety a threat to some
important value. Anxiety, then, can stem either from an awareness of one’s nonbeing or from a threat to some
value essential to one’s existence. It exists when one confronts the issue of fulfilling one’s potentialities. This
confrontation can lead to stagnation and decay, but it can also result in growth and change. The acquisition of
freedom inevitably leads to anxiety. Freedom cannot exist without anxiety, nor can anxiety exist without
freedom. Anxiety can be either normal or neurotic.
May defined normal anxiety as that “which is proportionate to the threat, does not involve repression, and can
be confronted constructively on conscious level.” As people grow from infancy to old age, their values change,
and with each step, they experience normal anxiety. Normal anxiety is also experienced when an artist, a
scientist, or a philosopher suddenly achieves an insight that leads to recognition that one’s life, and perhaps the
lives of countless others, will be permanently changed.
May defined neurotic anxiety as “a reaction which is disproportionate to the threat, involves repression and
other forms of intrapsychic conflict, and is managed by various kinds of blocking off activity and awareness”
whereas normal anxiety is felt whenever values are threatened, neurotic anxiety is experienced whenever values
become transformed into dogma. to be absolutely right in one’s beliefs provides temporary security, but it is
security bought at the price of surrendering opportunity for fresh and new growth.
For May, the goal in helping people to maximize their mental health is not to free the person from all anxiety. It
is rather to help free them from neurotic anxiety, so that they can confront normal anxiety constructively.
Normal anxiety is an integral part of growth and creativity.

Guilt:
Guilt arises when people deny their potentialities, fail to accurately perceive the needs of fellow humans, or
remain oblivious to their dependence on the natural world. Just as May used the term ‘anxiety’ to refer to large
issues dealing with one’s being-in-the-world, he also employed the concept of guilt. In this sense, both anxiety
and guilt are ontological: that is, they refer to the nature of being not to feelings arising from specific situations
or transgressions. May recognized three forms of ontological guilt corresponding to one of the three modes of
being-in-the-world, that is, Umwelt, Mitwelt, Eigenwelt. Form of guilt that corresponds to Umwelt arises from
lack of awareness of one’s being-in-the-world and not from one’s own actions or failures to act. As civilization
advances technologically, people become more removed from nature that is from Umwelt. This alienation leads
to a form of ontological guilt that is especially prevalent in “advanced” societies where people live in heated or
cooled dwellings, use motorized means of transportation, and consume food gathered and prepared by others.
People’s undiscerning reliance on others for these and other needs contributes to one’s first form of ontological
guilt. Since this type of guilt is because of our separation from nature, May referred to it as separation guilt.
The second form of guilt that corresponds to Mitwelt stems from our inability to perceive accurately the world
of others. We can see other people only through our own eyes and can never perfectly judge the needs of these
other people. Thus, we do violence to their true identity. Because we cannot unerring anticipate the needs of
others, we feel inadequate in our relations with them. This then leads to a pervasive condition of guilt, which is
experienced by all of us to some extent.
The third form of ontological guilt is associated with our denial of our own potentialities or with our failure to
fulfill them. In other words, this guilt is grounded in our relationship with self that corresponds with Eigenwelt.
This form of guilt is universal, because none of us can completely fulfill our potentials. This third type of guilt
is reminiscent of Maslow’s concept of the Jonah complex.
Like anxiety, ontological guilt can have either a positive or a negative effect on personality. We can use this
guilt to develop a healthy sense of humility, to improve our relations with others, and to creatively use our
potentialities. However, when we refuse to accept ontological guilt, it becomes neurotic or morbid. Neurotic
guilt, like neurotic anxiety, leads to nonproductive or neurotic symptoms such as sexual impotence, depression,
cruelty to others, or inability to make choices.

Intentionality
The structure that gives meaning to experience and allows people to make decisions about the future is called
intentionality. Without intentionality, people could neither choose nor act on their choice. Action implies
intentionality, just as intentionality implies action; the two are inseparable. May used the term “intentionality”
to bridge the gap between subject and object. Intentionality is “the structure of meaning which makes it possible
for us, subjects that we are, to see and understand the outside world, objective that it is. In intentionality, the
dichotomy between subject and object is partially overcome”.
May used a simple example of a man (the subject) seated at his desk observing a piece of paper (the object).
The man can write on the paper, fold it into a paper airplane for his grandson, or sketch a picture on it. In all
three instances, the man and paper are identical, but the man’s actions depend on his intentions and on the
meaning he gives to his experience. That meaning is a function of both himself (subject) and his environment
(object).

Care, Love, and Will

May defined care as a state in which something does matter. To care for someone means to recognize that
person as a fellow human being, to identify with that person’s pain or joy, guilt or pity.
Care is not the same as love, but it is the source of love. To love means to care, to recognize the essential
humanity of the other person, to have an active regard for that person’s development. May defined love as a
“delight in the presence of the other person and an affirming of that person’s value and development as much as
one’s own”.
Care is also the source of will. May called will “the capacity to organize one’s self so that movement in a
certain direction or toward a certain goal may take place”.
Examples to understand care, love and will.
1) Customers’ choices and preferences does matter to companies and manufacturing industries. Hence
most of them have customer care facilities to understand every customer’s difficulty, complaints and
suggestions.
2) For love, you need to accept each other’s strengths as well as weaknesses. A is said to be in love, when
he values the other person same and in similar way as he values himself. So a couple who respects each
other’s space, privacy, their work and see their partner as human is said to be in love.
3) A student should have will to study his subjects in order to score good grades in his exams.
4) A doctor should have will to treat his patients, must care for his patients but may not love them.
In modern society, Love has become associated with sensual love or sex, whereas will has come to mean a
dogged determination or will power. Neither concept captures the true meaning of these two terms. When love
is seen as sex, it becomes temporary and lacking in commitment; there is no will, but only wish. When will is
seen as will power, it becomes self-serving and lacking in passion; there is no care, but only manipulation.
Hence it is our task to unite true sense of will and love which should neither be blissful love nor self-serving
will.

Forms of love
SEX
Sex is a biological function that can be satisfied through sexual intercourse or some other release of sexual
tension. May defines sex as “the power of procreation, the drive which perpetuates the race, the source at once
of the human being’s most intense pleasure and his [or her] most pervasive anxiety”.
EROS
Sex is a physiological need that seeks gratification through the release of tension. Eros is a psychological desire
that seeks procreation or creation through an enduring union with a loved one. Eros is built on care and
tenderness. It longs to establish an enduring union with the other person, such that both partners experience
delight and passion and both are broadened and deepened by the experience. It can be regarded as the salvation
of sex.
PHILIA
Eros, the salvation of sex, is built on the foundation of philia, that is, an intimate nonsexual friendship between
two people. Philia cannot be rushed; it takes time to grow, to develop, to sink its roots. Examples of philia
would be the slowly evolving love between siblings or between lifelong friends.
AGAPE
May defined agape as “esteem for the other, the concern for the other’s welfare beyond any gain that one can
get out of it; disinterested love, typically, the love of God for man”. Agape is altruistic love. It is a kind of
spiritual love that carries with it the risk of playing God. It does not depend on any behaviours or characteristics
of the other person. In this sense, it is undeserved and unconditional.
In summary, healthy adult relationships blend all four forms of love. They are based on sexual satisfaction, a
desire for an enduring union, genuine friendship, and an unselfish concern for the welfare of the other person. It
also requires an assertion of one’s freedom and a confrontation with one’s destiny.

Freedom and Destiny

Freedom “entails being able to harbour different possibilities in one’s mind even though it is not clear at the
moment which way one must act”. This condition often leads to increases in anxiety, but it is normal anxiety,
the kind that healthy people welcome and are able to manage. There are two forms of freedom:
EXISTENTIAL FREEDOM
Existential freedom should not be identified with existential philosophy. It is the freedom of action—the
freedom of doing. We can freely choose what we need from the shopping stores. We have full freedom to
choose our own career. As being an Indian citizen we all have freedom to choose our own representatives in
government. We have freedom to travel anywhere within the boundaries of India.
ESSENTIAL FREEDOM
Freedom to act, to move around does not ensure essential freedom: that is, freedom of being. In fact, existential
freedom often makes essential freedom more difficult. For example, prisoners and inmates in concentration
camps often speak enthusiastically of their “inner freedom,” despite experiencing very limited existential
freedom. Thus, physical confinement or the denial of liberty seems to allow people to face their destiny and to
gain their freedom of being.
DESTINY
May defined destiny as “the design of the universe speaking through the design of each one of us”. Our ultimate
destiny is death, but on a lesser scale our destiny includes other biological properties such as intelligence,
gender, size and strength, and genetic predisposition toward certain illnesses. In addition, psychological and
cultural factors contribute to our destiny. Within the boundaries of our destiny, we have the power to choose,
and this power allows us to confront and challenge our destiny. It does not, however, permit any change we
wish. For example : we cannot change other people’s mind set. But we can modify our perspective, our
behaviour, our responses towards other people and events altogether.
Both freedom and destiny can be considered as paradox of life. The paradox is that freedom owes its vitality to
destiny, and destiny owes its significance to freedom.

Power of myth
Myths are not falsehoods; rather, they are conscious and unconscious belief systems that provide explanations
for personal and social problems. From earliest times and in diverse civilizations, people have found meaning in
their lives by the myths they share with others in their culture. Myths are the stories that unify a society; “they
are essential to the process of keeping our souls alive and bringing us new meaning in a difficult and often
meaningless world”. May believed that people communicate with one another on two levels. The first is
rationalistic language, and on this level, truth takes precedence over the people who are communicating. The
second is through myths, and on this level, the total human experience is more important than the empirical
accuracy of the communication. People use myths and symbols to transcend the immediate concrete situation,
to expand self-awareness, and to search for identity. May’s concept of myths is comparable to Carl Jung’s idea
of a collective unconscious in that myths are archetypal patterns in the human experience; they are avenues to
universal images that lie beyond individual experience. And like archetypes, myths can contribute to
psychological growth if people will embrace them and allow them to open up a new reality. Tragically, many
people deny their universal myths and thus risk alienation, apathy, and emptiness—the principal ingredients of
psychopathology.

Psychopathology
According to May, apathy and emptiness—not anxiety and guilt—are the malaise of modern times. When
people deny their destiny or abandon their myths, they lose their purpose for being; they become directionless.
Without some goal or destination, people become sick and engage in a variety of self-defeating and self-
destructive behaviours.
Many people in modern Western societies feel alienated from the world (Umwelt), from others (Mitwelt), and
especially from themselves (Eigenwelt). They feel helpless to prevent natural disasters, to reverse
industrialization, or to make con- tact with another human being. They feel insignificant in a world that
increasingly dehumanizes the individual. This sense of insignificance leads to apathy and to a state of
diminished consciousness.
May saw psychopathology as lack of communication—the inability to know others and to share oneself with
them. Psychologically disturbed individuals deny their destiny and thus lose their freedom. They erect a variety
of neurotic symptoms, not to regain their freedom, but to renounce it. Symptoms narrow the person’s
phenomenological world to the size that makes coping easier. The compulsive person adopts a rigid routine,
thereby making new choices unnecessary.
Symptoms may be temporary, as when stress produces a headache, or they may be relatively permanent, as
when early childhood experiences produce apathy and emptiness. Philip’s psychopathology was tied to his
early environment with a disturbed mother and a schizophrenic sister. These experiences did not cause his
pathology in the sense that they alone produced it. However, they did set up Philip to learn to adjust to his
world by suppressing his anger, by developing a sense of apathy, and by trying to be a “good little boy.”
Neurotic symptoms, therefore, do not represent a failure of adjustment, but rather a proper and necessary
adjustment by which one’s Dasein can be preserved. Philip’s behavior toward his two wives and Nicole
represents a denial of his freedom and a self-defeating attempt to escape from his destiny.

Psychotherapy
Unlike Freud, Adler, Rogers, and other clinically oriented personality theorists, May did not establish a school
of psychotherapy with avid followers and identifiable techniques. Nevertheless, he wrote extensively on the
subject, rejecting the idea that psychotherapy should reduce anxiety and ease feelings of guilt. Instead, he
suggested that psychotherapy should make people more human: that is, help them expand their
consciousness so that they will be in a better position to make choices. These choices, then, lead to the
simultaneous growth of freedom and responsibility.
May believed that the purpose of psychotherapy is to set people free. He argued that therapists who concentrate
on a patient’s symptoms are missing the more important picture. Neurotic symptoms are simply ways of
running away from freedom and an indication that patients’ inner possibilities are not being used. When
patients become more free, more human, their neurotic symptoms usually disappear, their neurotic anxiety
gives way to normal anxiety, and their neurotic guilt is replaced by normal guilt. But these gains are secondary
and not the central purpose of therapy. May insisted that psychotherapy must be concerned with helping people
experience their existence, and that relieving symptoms is merely a by-product of that experience.
How does a therapist help patients become free, responsible human beings? May did not offer many specific
directions for therapists to follow. They must establish a one-to-one relationship (Mitwelt) that enables patients
to become more aware of themselves and to live more fully in their own world (Eigenwelt). This approach may
mean challenging patients to confront their destiny, to experience despair, anxiety, and guilt. But it also means
establishing an I-thou encounter in which both therapist and patient are viewed as subjects rather than objects.
In an I-thou relationship, the therapist has empathy for the patient’s experience and is open to the patient’s
subjective world.
May also described therapy as partly religion, partly science, and partly friendship. The friendship, however, is
not an ordinary social relationship; rather, it calls for the therapist to be confronting and to challenge the patient.
May believed that the relationship itself is therapeutic, and its transforming effects are independent of anything
therapists might say or any theoretical orientation they might have.

Critique of May
Existentialism in general and May’s psychology in particular have been criticized as being anti-intellectual and
antitheoretical. May acknowledged the claim that his views did not conform to the traditional concept of theory,
but he staunchly defended his psychology against the charge of being anti-intellectual or antiscientific. He
pointed to the sterility of conventional scientific methods and their inability to unlock the ontological character
of willing, caring, and acting human beings.
May held that a new scientific psychology must recognize such human characteristics as uniqueness, personal
freedom, destiny, phenomenological experiences, and especially our capacity to relate to ourselves as both
object and subject. A new science of humans must also include ethics. “The actions of living, self-aware human
beings are never automatic, but involve some weighing of consequences, some potentiality for good or ill”.
Until this new science acquires greater maturity, we must evaluate May’s views by the same criteria used for
each of the other personality theorists. First, have May’s ideas generated scientific research? May did not
formulate his views in a theoretical structure, and a paucity of hypotheses is suggested by his writings. On this
first criterion of a useful theory, therefore, May’s existential psychology receives a very low score.
Second, can May’s ideas be verified or falsified? Again, existential psychology in general and May’s theory in
particular must be rated very low on this criterion. The theory is too amorphous to suggest specific hypotheses
that could either confirm or disconfirm its major concepts.
Third, does May’s philosophically oriented psychology help organize what is currently known about human
nature? On this criterion, May would receive an average rating. Compared with most theorists discussed in this
book, May has more closely followed Gordon Allport’s dictum, “Do not forget what you have decided to
neglect” . May did not forget that he excluded discourses on developmental stages, basic motivational forces,
and other factors that tend to segment the human experience. May’s philosophical writings have reached deep
into the far recesses of the human experience and have explored aspects of humanity not examined by other
personality theorists. His popularity has been due in part to his ability to touch individual readers, to connect
with their humanity. Although his ideas may affect people in ways that other theorists do not, his use of certain
concepts was at times inconsistent and confusing. Moreover, he decided to neglect several important topics in
human personality: for example, development, cognition, learning, and motivation.
As a practical guide to action, May’s theory is quite weak. Although he possessed a keen understanding of
human personality, May gathered his views more from philosophical than from scientific sources. In fact, he
had no objection to being called a philosopher and frequently referred to himself as a philosopher- therapist.
On the criterion of internal consistency, May’s existential psychology again falls short. He offered a variety of
definitions for such concepts as anxiety, guilt, intentionality, will, and destiny. Unfortunately, he never
presented operational definitions of these terms.
The final criterion of a useful theory is parsimony, and on this standard, May’s psychology receives a moderate
rating. His writings at times were cumbersome and awkward, but to his credit, he dealt with complex issues and
did not attempt to over simplify human personality.