ACTUALIZATION REFRAMED

Changing the Lens: Actualization Reframed

John R. Tracy, PhD Ed, MSW, MA Ed, LCSW

Abstract

Introduced is the Actualization Diagnostic Construct (ADC). Included is a brief discussion of actualization, with emphasis upon Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and other perspectives. Promoted with the construct are the concepts of relational and worldview competency and logical reframes of linear time, logic and polarity. Background and theory of the ADC are followed by a description of how the ADC works, suggested uses and further development of the construct. 

Keywords: actualization, competency, dualism, worldview, logic, assessment

Introduction

We seem to have a natural desire to look at ourselves and our world through multiple lenses. We look from different angles and positions, trying to see something that maybe we did not see or know before. For example, we use different camera lenses and photo-editing software designed to display different looks. This is what the Actualization Diagnostic Construct (ADC) (Tracy, J. , 1976, 1986, 2005) is designed to do. Like most personality assessment frameworks, it allows us to perceive self and others differently and in a way that can enhance the therapeutic and change process toward healthier living as well as help determine readiness for a variety of situations, such as interpersonal relations, school and work. 

This article introduces the ADC as a tool for practitioners and educators and promotes a shift toward relational-based practice. The ADC provides a framework that allows practitioners to explore with clients, individually and as groups, how relational perceptions of knowing influence person and relationships. The framework is flexible in that the practitioner can guide the process as needed. The ADC may be used with individuals, families, groups and organizational systems (small to large, public or private). Shifting the focus to relationship increases the ability to understand and address specific content subjects and issues while simultaneously addressing the larger systemic relational environment. 

In order to set the stage for the ADC, I include a brief discussion of actualization theories, with emphasis upon Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and perspectives of Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Paulo Freire, and Michael Daniels. This is followed by three major logical reframes: linear time, logic and polarity. Following background and theory are an overview of the ADC, a description of how the ADC works, suggested uses of the ADC, and plans for further development and testing of the ADC. 

Actualization, Self-Actualization and the Ongoing Here-and-Now

Actualization theory encompasses humanistic and existential personality theories as well as motivational theories. Actualization perspectives hold in common the desire to promote human growth, development, and realization of our highest potential. In this way, actualization theories focus upon positive strengths rather than weaknesses. This is compatible with a strengths-based systems approach as is commonly used in human services (Morales, Sheafor & Scott, 2012). 

Theory building is not about finding the most recent sources, it is about connecting with original sources (as in historiography), no matter where they are in the timeline, and thus joining and continuing the dialogue from there. When it comes to actualization, there are few theories that are not a variation of the theories of humanist Abraham Maslow (1970) who popularized the concept of self-actualization. Maslow’s theory of self-actualization is based upon his theory of human motivation illustrated by a hierarchy of needs (Figure 1) in which a self-actualizing individual is one who has all of these needs met and is thus positioned to realize his or her maximum potential. 

Maslow(1970)claimed that only when our basic physiological and safety needs are met, can we address love and belonging. According to Maslow, the need for love and belonging motivates people to socialize. Maslow identified self-actualization as a growth need. He claims that, after satisfying the bodily and interpersonal needs, we give our attention to higher needs. Thus, it would seem that he saw self-actualization as a process and not an end. This is important, as the hierarchy implies self-actualization as an achievement rather than an on-going process. 

Maslow (1970) used personality traits to define an actualized person. Among these traits was openness to experience, which is also critical in the Actualization Diagnostic Construct (ADC). Interestingly, Maslow identified both rational and intuitive thinking as playing roles in actualization and yet did not differentiate them. Maslow claimed no difference between what individuals experienced or felt intuitively and what they thought rationally. In the ADC, as discussed later, the difference is highly significant.

Alfred Adler (1963), as a leader of the movement toward humanism, promoted cognitive constructivism and emphasized social equality. Adler declared that social interpersonal inequality is debilitating. For Adler, life was about becoming, that is, developing our greatest potential. Erich Fromm (1976) reflects similar perspectives in his book, To Have or To Be. For Fromm, the having and becoming modes focus mostly upon possession and achievement, while the being mode was presented as a way of life that was more actualized and in balance with nature. 

Fromm (1976), like Paulo Freire (1990), identified the need for liberation from oppressive forces, both outside and inside one’s perceptual framework. Freire identified internalized oppression as “the oppressor within” (p. 33). Freire, joining his theory with that of Fromm, writes that having is generally at the expense of those who have nothing. Freire writes what wives of men who are oppressed, said, “He can’t say what he wants… He lets off steam at home, he shouts at his children, beats them, and despairs. He complains about his wife…. He doesn’t let off steam with his boss because he thinks his boss is a superior being” (p. 51). The oppressor, then, becomes the model or ideal to emulate. In this way, those who are oppressed internalize the perceptions of the oppressor. 

I embrace the notion that it is not an either/or (dualistic) matter regarding being or becoming. I reframe these (having been, being and becoming) as an ongoing here-and-now creative process in which the past and future are merging to co-create the present (Tracy, J. , 2005). Typically, the here-and-now is used as reference to someone who blocks the past and future and who lives for the moment. The concept of ongoingreframes the perception and experience. The ongoing here-and-now is consciousness interacting and interconnecting with consciousness (seen and unseen) wherein the so-called past and future are deconstructed and reconstructed to form the present (Tracy, J. , 2005). 

Critique of Maslow

While there are many recent critiques of Maslow’s theory within academia, I focus on Michael Daniels’ 1988 article because he seems to reflect much of what others are saying. He cites Friedman (1976), Hendlin (1983), Geller (1982) and others as claiming, “… the practice of self-actualization, exemplified in the Human Potential Movement… has become so diverse, eclectic, and possibly degenerate… that it is no longer certain…” (p. 8). Daniels asserts that there is no valid system of constructs. Daniels cites Peters (1960) and Geller (1982) as arguing that approaches to self-actualization are primarily assumptions about a person’s ultimate good. Daniels goes on to suggest that it would be better to move the concept of self-actualization to include the formation of myths. Daniels describes myth as the narrative journey (historical, personal and contextual) that emerges as “the true quest… to realize the human good (shared because the quest can… only… take place in the context of a living tradition that is itself a social-cultural-historical phenomenon)” (p. 35-36). The difficulty, according to Daniels, is to create a new myth that truly represents the times and that is not disconnected from the past or unable to move forward. I really like the idea of narrative journey. Unfortunately, this left Daniels in a linear position while attempting to be nonlinear. He came ever so close to an ongoing-here-and-now narrative journey. 

Self-actualization, as framed by Maslow, according to Daniels (1988), was “surrender to the pleasure principle, egocentrism, individualism, contempt for the opinions of other people, and a Machiavellian exploitation of social relationships for personal ends” (p. 33). The hierarchy creates the perception that it is mostly those of affluence, who can climb the ladder of self-actualization. 

Interestingly, while Maslow’s theory has been heavily criticized, elements of his theory are deeply embedded in professional practice today. For example, human service professionals overwhelmingly promote self-determination and self-responsibility. This is a direct tie-in into self-actualization. In so doing, it has placed an even greater burden on those it sees as not actualized. Many human service textbooks, such as Social Work: A Profession of Many Faces(Morales, Sheafor & Scott, 2012) still refer to Maslow’s (1970) Hierarchy of Needs as a standard in human behavior and social development. Mostly, human service texts identify physiological and safety needs as those of most human service clients, with the emphasis on the profession’s goal to empower clients toward a level of self-determination and self-fulfillment. 

Daniels (1988) does not appear to reject self-actualization. He holds on to the self and wants to “… redefine it as a process of our creating a new narrative to realize the human good” (p. 35). Daniels acknowledges, as do I, that in reading Maslow, we can see that Maslow was not as rigid as the typical interpretation of his hierarchy implies. Maslow was searching for a way to promote human growth and development. 

Others have critiqued Maslow’s work as poor research methodology, unclear, and untestable. Maslow (1971) wrote, “I… selected good specimens (superior specimens) as biological assays for studying the best capabilities that the human species has” p. 6). Maslow (1971) handpicked from the freshman class at Brandeis University and conducted psychiatric interviews and administered personality and intelligence tests to the healthiest 2 percent, the middle 2 percent and the least healthy 2 percent. He also developed profiles and criteria based upon some historical figures whom he considered as actualized. While there were clear limits to his research, Maslow did follow the standards of his time. However, Maslow wrote, “It is my personally chosen task to ‘speculate freely,’ to theorize, to play hunches, intuitions, and in general to try to extrapolate into the future” (1971, p. 4.).

Everett Shostrom (1965) designed an assessment tool (Personal Orientation Inventory, POI) that measured somewhat according to Maslow’s framework. My investigation of this instrument found that its items do not differentiate between rational and intuitive logic and in failing to do so, resulted in profiles with a biased perspective in favor of the dominant rational logical perceptual worldview. I have found this to be a common logical error in most psychometric and intelligence assessment tools. Thus, Shostrom’s POI, as well as Maslow’s hierarchy, are not what I identify as relational or worldview competent (Tracy, J. , 2012). Relational worldview competency (Tracy, J. , 2012) requires inclusion and differentiation of both types of logical worldviews. Maslow (1970) did include both the rational and intuitive, although it appears he did not perceive them as logical worldviews, but more as left-brain and right-brain features.  

Maslow’s (1970) Hierarchy of Needs was not a psychometric assessment tool with multiple scales. He was suggesting a framework for consideration for those in the field. He proposed a framework that could possibly help better understand human growth and development. The fact that he identified the two types of logic (rational and intuitive) as integral to actualization was in itself a breakthrough. His work represents significant insight and his writing includes key concepts needed in an actualization framework, such as homeostasis and recognition of rational and intuitive logic.

Logic Reframed

I identify logic as a cognitive process of reasoning (thought formation and organization) founded primarily upon natural biological capacity and one’s perceptions (e.g., symbols, beliefs, definitions, rules, values, emotions, feelings) of both self (individual and/or group) and other (everything and/or everyone outside of self). Review of history, anthropology and sociology informs that there are essentially two primary ways people tend to perceive reality. The first is seeing reality as interconnected and the second is perceiving reality as separate and disconnected. These perceptions form the basis for what I respectively call natural intuitive logic and rational logic. Both are relational. Each entails a different relational perception of self and other. Even in research, these forms of logical perceptions are about relationship, whether quantitative or qualitative. 

I define rational perceptual logic as the perception of self and other as separate and disconnected (Tracy, J. , 1986, 2005, 2012). When we perceive self and other in this way, certain automatic relationship aspects come into play. These include objectifying both self and other and a host of relationship issues centered dualistic perceptions, such as trust versus mistrust, right versus wrong, male versus female, black versus white, rich versus poor, and actualized  versus unactualized. Interestingly, most of society’s social and economic issues center around these and other dualisms embraced in the rational worldview (Tracy, J. , 2012). When we interact according to these perceptions, we form walls (literal and/or mental) that separate and estrange us from the natural interconnected world (Figure 2, Tracy, J. , 2012). We promote individualism, self-determination and self-actualization. We not only deny the natural intuitive as our lifeblood (as indicated by the X’d-out aspects in Figure 2), we have sought to conquer, destroy, deny and/or marginalize natural-intuitively oriented individuals and cultures whenever we have encountered them. We have been not only hurting others, we have been cutting ourselves off from our very nature, as illustrated in Figure 2. It is like climbing onto dry land to build forts only to find we are no longer in the life-giving river.The rational logical framework is rooted in history, taught and embedded in core thinking, and acted out behaviorally toward both self and other (human and nonhuman). Figure 2 [INSERT FIGURE 2 AND CAPTION]shows how the rational logical perception, at its extreme, estranges the Tao symbol of natural reality, the yin and yang. It is broken, divided, and essentially killing its very essence. The rational is evidenced in what we say (verbally and nonverbally) and in what we do and do not do. It sets our limits and potential. It is measurable and observable, and is a powerful indicator of that for which we stand, for whom we work, for what we work, and how we treat both self and others. To the extent that we are unchecked in this way of thinking and relating, we are estranged from our natural uniqueness and in our natural interconnections. 

            In Figure 3, the Tracy, J. ’s (2012) drawing of the yin and yang symbol is neither estranged nor disconnected. In it, the rational is transformed from being separate, individualistic, dualistic and disconnected to being interconnected uniqueness (individual and collective). The natural intuitive worldview is the core  perception of self and other as [INSERT FIGURE 3 AND CAPTION] intimately interconnected according to natural individual and collective uniqueness as the ongoing here-and-now creative process. 

Reframing Polarity

Whenever one is developing theories and frameworks, insight is at best incremental and without guarantee. Complex theory development takes years of reflection and trying out multiple ideas. The process probably never ends, as reality is always changing and shifting, so much so that what was perhaps true a moment ago has already changed. 

Just last week, I came to the realization that a key in logical perception is how we define polarity. While a history major as an undergraduate, I focused upon ancient and medieval history. In James Pritchard’s book, The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament(1969), virtually every historical ancient Near-Eastern document (the foundation of Western thinking) reflected the concept of polarity as dualism. In preparing a presentation on peace, I revisited the Tao symbol of natural reality. I had previously rejected this symbol as being dualistic. However, I realized that from within the natural intuitive worldview, the yin and yang are not dualistic. According to natural intuitive logic, polarity is not perceived as dualistic, as it is in the rational lens, but rather as an intimate dance of difference interconnecting and co-creating meaning (Tracy, J. , 2012). This is portrayed in Figure 3. This is another significant reframe having to do with understanding human behavior. This reframe, along with identifying the two types of perceptual relational logic themselves, may be the most important fundamental feature involved in how the two worldviews each serve as a foundation for rational and intuitive based societies and their many cultures and sub-cultures (Tracy, J. , 2012). The natural intuitive worldview keeps the yin and yang from being perceived and experienced as dualistic (oppositional). Masculine and feminine are not gender specific. A part of each exists in the other. The dots represent a mix of these in everything; a part of you is in me and a part of me is in you. The circle that embraces the entire symbol represents natural intuitive interconnected reality.

Actualization is not about self, but rather about self and other. Self-actualization represents a rational dualistic and hierarchical-valued system of human growth, development and motivation. Actualization as used in the ADC is not about achievement nor is it hierarchical. I define the concept of actualizationas a process of actualizing. Actualizing is interacting with self and other from within the perspective of polarity as the intimate dance of difference co-creating, even when we are in an estranged and estranging environment. Actualizing is not just individual, but rather systemic and relational. It is inclusive of person and environment and is the ongoing here-and-now process of consciousness interconnecting with consciousness at all levels of existence (Tracy, J. , 2005). 

Introducing the ADC

Because it is sometimes helpful to know how a theory emerged, I provide the following description of when I discovered the relational perceptual Actualization Diagnostic Construct(ADC) (1976, 2005). See Figure 4. This occurred when I was a student in Professor Jack Reiske’s Theories and Techniques of Counseling class at Truman State University in 1976 during a review for a mid-term examination. 

The usual chitchat struck me differently. I started jotting down what I was hearing, such as I don’t knowwith an implied message of and I don’t care, and I knowwith an implied message of and I’m right, by God!I heard I don’t know, but I would like to know and Oh, so that is what it means!I heard some confusion. As I jotted these down, it came to me that this was a construct and I laid it out in its current form of five pentads (Figure 4). I scribbled in each pentad a number of possible descriptors, some of which have since been deleted and others added. 

I was under the influence of the theories we studied, a class in measurement and evaluation, and participation in three of Esalen Institute’s Human Potential Workshops (1974-76), one of which was just days before this class. I had workshops and discussions with Rollo May, Werner Erhard, William Schultz, Ilana Rubenfeld, Sam Keen, Chungliang Al Huang and a number of others, which included some introductory training in the Feldenkrais Method, Alexander Technique, Gestalt Therapy, EST (Erhard Seminar Training), creative movement and body sculpting. These experiences made me more open to conceptualizing student comments as a construct. 

The Actualization Diagnostic Construct emerged at the peak of the Human Potential Movement. Though tempted to remove the word diagnostic from the name, I left it in because the construct does have clinical diagnostic indicators involved with it and its use. I used the construct from 1976 to the present in micro, mezzo and macro practice and found it helpful in assessing problems from a systemic relational perspective and in developing systemic interventions. The construct itself has served as a tool to help clients move from a content-problem-solving focus to a relational-problem-solving focus. This in particular has been beneficial in not only speeding treatment, but also enhancing healthier relations.

[INSERT FIGURE 4 AND CAPTION]

 How the Actualization Diagnostic Construct (ADC) Works

The ADC (Tracy, J. , 1976, 2005) acts as a sort of lens that allows practitioners and clients to perceive the presenting problem(s) from a relational nonhierarchical, nonlinear systemic perspective. The ADC allows practitioners to include other content from their clients. For example, the categories of family, morality, intimacy, economics, society, and work (or any one or combination) can be explored from within the context of the construct as a whole and from within each pentad. This adds greater flexibility and insight about and for clients, especially since people are often simultaneously in different pentad positions. 

As in most behavioral constructs, there is a range of possible behavior potential in every pentad. Individuals vary within each as to what is specific for them. For example, in Pentad 4 (IDK-IDC), behavior can range from a mild pretense of not knowing in a single specific subject to severe existential despair with suicidal or homicidal ideation. 

Diagnostically, administrators of the construct must, as in any diagnostic process, exercise caution and do a reality check of what they observe with the consumer, and use other assessment tools and criteria as needed. For example, when exploring possible major depression, it is common to refer an elderly consumer (with permission) for a thyroid-stimulating-hormone (TSH) blood test to rule out the thyroid as possible etiology. 

In the ADC, actualization is not defined as hierarchical (see Figure 4) or as self-actualization as it is in Maslow’s (1970)Hierarchyof Needs. Actualizing requires a shift in focus, a shift in definition. As indicated, a defining difference is in how one perceives and defines polarity. From the rational worldview, polarity is perceived and defined essentially as dualistic and valued hierarchically, while in the natural intuitive, it is not. The focus of the ADC is on actualizing. Actualizing occurs when an individual, group and/or organization embraces the natural intuitive worldview enough so that they begin to reframe and redefine the rational worldview and its related behavior. When we are open and seeking, we have the opportunity to gain new insights that allow us to change.

It is important to realize that we need to have some structure in our life just to be functional in a highly structured society. We need a certain amount of structure that allows us to cope with life’s rapid changes. However, too much structure limits our flexibility. The same is true for openness: if we are too open,we may not have sufficient structure to guide us or if we are not open enough, we limit our flexibility to address the changing world. These things naturally vary considerably from individual to individual and according to other systemic situational factors. Each position entails a broad range of possible perceptions and thus possible related behavior. Therefore, we need a degree of flexibility overall and in each pentad. 

Actualizing is growth in wisdom and not just information. Actualizing does not mean being problem free, becoming enlightened or achieving sainthood. When we are actualizing, we are in a position that allows for healthier maturational development and relational competence. Health necessitates a certain amount of functionality. Yet, being functional (i.e., maintaining a socially and economically successful life) does not guarantee better health. Being functional also does not mean being free of problems, but suggests that the person is within a range that allows for appropriate function as constructed and defined by a society. 

However, there appears to be a correlation in the degree of ill health and dysfunction to the degree of estrangement from natural reality. Observation of clients and ourselves demonstrates that we have a range of tolerance of dysfunction and ill health, but not without consequence over time. Our bodies, social relations, and functioning eventually reach a breaking point when estranged from our natural essence and needs. This is true of individuals and groups and in the natural environment.

The Pentads

Framed in a relational context of knowing, the pentads (Figure 4) are Pentad 5 (I know & I’m right!, IK-IR), Pentad 4 (I don’t know & I don’t care, IDK-IDC), Pentad 3 (I can’t decide, ICD), Pentad 2 (I don’t know, but I want to know, IDK-IWTK), and Pentad 1 (I know! Eureka!, IK-E). Each pentad includes descriptors that help define the position while not overlapping with the descriptors of the other four, which is essential for assessment and for establishment of both content and construct validity (Morgan & Gliner, 2000). 

Each of us can be in one or more of the pentads at any one time. The important thing is that we are not stuck in any one. The process can become blocked due to fear or confusion; then growth and personal development can also become blocked and the individual or organization will soon discover personal and relationship problems.

There is no hierarchy or particular order when looking at the pentads, but starting with Pentad 5 (IK-IR) helps to better understand how they each connect. When you read the descriptors (Figure 4), you can see how various people you know may fit some, but not necessarily all, descriptions. The descriptors are meant to reveal a broad range of possible behavioral perceptions within each pentad, similar to diagnosis, as in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders IV-TR (4th ed., text rev.; DSM–IV–TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), which requires the presence of a certain number, frequency, and persistence of the criteria, but usually not all criteria. 

The pentads are written according to a relational logical perspective in terms of how one sees self and others through the lens of relational knowing. In 1986, I identified them as literal and symbolic and have since identified them as rational and natural intuitive logic with each being a distinct logical perceptual worldview (Tracy, J. ). In the ADC, these perceptions are visible in the pentads. Pentads 3 to 5 are founded upon the rational and Pentads 1 and 2 are founded upon the natural intuitive. 

A healthy relational systemic growth process includes physical, mental, spiritual and emotional aspects. Wisdom, which comes through insight, is the growth point of transition and change – the type of change that Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) called “second order change” (pp. 10-11). First order change is similar to rearranging furniture in a room, but not making substantive or structural change. First order change tends to dominate in Pentads 4 and 5 and is founded primarily upon new information rather upon insight. 

Pentads 3, 4 and 5 are essentially grounded in rational logical perceptions, first order change, and a multitude of possible fears and perceived security wants and needs. Pentad 3 is a mixed bag, so to speak, as it can be anywhere from simple choice anxiety to paradoxical binds involving both types of logic. Descriptors in each pentad are not just concrete factors, but also relational. For example, when we perceive self and other as separate, certain dualistic relationship issues come into play, such as power and control versus no control or out of control, male versus female, right versus wrong, and trust versus mistrust. Relational perceptions link with our fears and security wants and needs and become embedded into concrete issues, such as who makes the decisions. At the extreme, fear and desire can become pathological and destructive of both person and relationships. 

            Critical to understanding and using the pentads is the idea that humans, as natural creatures, are part of natural reality. Our psychological, biological and social makeup is fully linked with the natural environment around us and to our primary logical orientation, be it dominated by the rational or the intuitive or a mix of each. The more out of balance we are with natural reality internally and externally, the unhealthier we become as individuals and in our relationships. This applies both individually and collectively. 

Pentad 5: I know and I'm right (IK-IR)

I know and I’m rightessentially represents a rational logical worldview in which people are especially dualistic in their thinking and security conscious (physically, socially, and spiritually) due to basic fears such as incompleteness and insecurity, which includes a strong need to present as knowing and fearless. “They are rooted in external certainty more than internal certainty,” said Werner Erhard at an Esalen Institute workshop in Lincoln, Nebraska (personal notes, 1976). For example, the concrete physical realities of a nice home, good neighbors, a nice car, a faithful spouse, smart substance-free heterosexual children, a good solid job, long-term friends, and religious membership are all used to reinforce the belief that they are in control of their world and their relations with others who matter to them. Success is often used to justify rightness. If their physical-social reality is going well, they generally have over-inflated confidence and greater personal and social rigidity (Erhard).

While claiming to live in the present, people in this pentad tend to focus on the past or future. They tend toward dualistic either/or (right/wrong, good/bad, black/white, male/female) in their thinking and behavior. They tend to be possessive as in what Erich Fromm (1976) called the having mode. Relationship issues center mostly upon power and control, and trust or mistrust. People in this position tend see others as allies, competitors, or foes. They demand loyalty and respect. Learning is about gaining information, but they tend to resist anything or anyone that might require the kind of openness that leads to second order change. 

            Who has not spent time around someone who always seems to need to be right and who does not like it if anyone disagrees with him or her? We hear things such as “not in my house” and “I’m the boss! You do as I say!” Fortunately, not everyone in this position is at this extreme. 

In a rational-dominated society, a person needs some of this thinking in order to be functional in relations with others, especially in the workplace. Employers want people who can make a decision with decisiveness and confidence. They want someone who has a strong sense of moral values, a competitive edge, and an orientation toward achieving goals. They want employees who are knowledgeable and well informed. However, they do not want someone who goes overboard, makes significant errors, and drives people away. They do not usually want people who are power and property hungry at the expense of others or whose morality is bent to benefit them and hardly anyone else. 

Some in this position are not always seeking independence and/or dominance. Some will accept a dependent or interdependent relationship, if they believe that is their place. People in Pentad 5 can and often do present as “right” no matter what relationship they believe they should have. 

As in all of the pentads, the degree of rigidity and amount of time in a pentad is important. The more extremely an individual (or group) holds this position, the more likely it is disrupting their relationships, health, functionality and well-being. It is important to realize that for as long as we are in Pentad 5, we are not in a position wherein we have the opportunity to gain wisdom or critical insight. Learning here is at the level of first order change, similar to that found in behavioral modification wherein insight is limited to either/or choices and thinking. Decisions made while in this pentad are founded mostly upon fear and/or perceived security wants and needs. Practitioners need to bear in mind that most people still need some sort of security blanket and that is acceptable as long as they are aware of the limits of their perceptions in their life and relations with others. 

Pentad 4: I don’t know & I don’t care (IDK-IDC)

The more estranged we are from our natural individual and collective uniqueness and the less satisfaction we experience from life and our relationships, the more we tend to come to some level of despair and a sense of hopelessness. The longer and deeper we are in this position, the more we tend to want to avoid and/or escape our reality. We tend to move from existential despair to transcendental escape (Tracy, J. , 2005). At the extreme, people in this position feel that nothing matters and nobody can really change, so they stop caring. This is not self-pity. It is hopelessness – from mild indifference to severe indifference to self and/or other. Behavior ranges from living it up because this is it, to severe withdrawal (depression), suicide and/or homicide. In Transactional Analysis(1969), Harris identifies this position as, “I’m not OK; you’re not OK” (pp. 69-71). There is no hope – just despair – and at times (or all of the time) a desire to escape. Behaviors in this pentad can include avoidance, gaming, dishonesty, irresponsibility, apathy, insensitivity to others, contradiction, low self-worth, and low opinion of most other people. People in this position tend to fear commitments and be insensitive and fatalistic. 

Perhaps no one is capable of knowing or caring about everything. It is normal to have some degree of indifference or apathy. However, not being able to think about everything does not necessarily imply apathy. Not caring is just that; not caring about something, self and/or others. The degree we do not care is significant as to how it influences our lives and those around us. The higher the degree of not caring, the deeper into existential despair we move and the more we become a danger to self and/or others. If we embrace Pentad 4 too long and too rigidly, personal and relational problems will escalate. 

Pentad 3: I can’t decide (ICD)

This is the position in which a person is stuck and cannot choose between options or positions. For example, he or she wants to be freer and exploratory but is afraid to leave security to do so. He or she may fear both letting go and the vulnerability that goes with letting go. Not only do they see possible vulnerability if they let go, but they also see the dangers and risks as to what they might lose. 

This position can also mean confusion about what is or is not, as well as choice anxiety about what he or she should or should not do. Individuals tend to get caught in either/or binds that are experienced all the way from simple dilemmas to paradoxical binds, “dammed if you do and damned if you don’t” as described by Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974, pp. 62-73). The work of the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California and of others such as Jay Haley (2003), provide treatment approachesthat address paradoxical binds. In working with clients for over 30 years, I found that not only do clients (and others) experience the types of logical binds, dilemmas, and paradoxes as described by Watzlawick et al., but they can also experience what I call directional paralysis (Tracy, J. , 1986, 2005) in which they cannot think or act due to perceiving and experiencing the two perspectives (rational and natural intuitive) as opposites and trying to think or act according to each simultaneously. I also found that clients generally are unaware of the nature of this conflict as it takes place on a subconscious level, which they usually experience without understanding. This conflict is a constant one in a rational-dominated society. It tends to peak at times that others have called identity crisis or mid-life crisis. 

Almost everyone has likely experienced some confusion in life. However, the nature and degree of confusion are important to identify. Confusion itself can become a model of relationship, whereby it forms the basis for interaction. Here, watch for significant degrees of confusion regarding indecision, fear of possible outcomes, serious dilemmas, or paradox. Obviously, when and to the extent that we cannot decide or are caught in logical binds, the process of actualization has become blocked or obstructed. The goal then is to identify the blockages or binds and conduct appropriate interventions to encourage the person to begin to move.  

Pentad 2: I don’t know but I want to know (IDK-IWTK)

            This way of knowing is represented in the description of someone to whom the world is a sensual interconnected reality. The world is home. Individuals see life as a system no longer based upon “fear of freedom” (Freire, 1990, pp. 20-21) but rather supported by that freedom in greater unity with others. In this position, the rational is guided by the natural intuitive. Individuals seek to join others in the exploration of life itself. They do not have a pretense of knowing; they would rather acknowledge that they do not know but want to find out, and they rarely let most risks deter them. They seem to embrace a version of Kierkegaard’s (1985) claim that the rational is, at best, never certain. 

            This pentad tends to conform most to Maslow’s (1970) level of self-actualization except that it is not a state of enlightenment but rather a position essential to not only learning but also gaining wisdom. It is a position of critical thinking in which we look systemically – including between the gaps – to understand from multiple perspectives inclusive of context and potential. Critical thinking in this pentad is not judgmental, but rather open and exploratory in a natural inquiry-based mode. 

            Pentad 2 represents the only position in which a person is actively ready for second-order learning and discovery of new meanings and possibilities. There is no guarantee that one will gain wisdom in this position, but this is the required position for second order learning. Yet, no one can, practically speaking, be in this position at all times. As indicated in the description of Pentad 5, we all need some structure or security in our lives to be functional, even if we know the structure is not always healthy. 

Pentad 1: I know! Eureka! (IK-E)

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary(2005) states that the word eurekacomes from Archimedes of ancient Greece and was used to express “I found it” (p. 431). It is used to express triumph or a discovery, new insight or epiphany. Abraham Maslow (1970) referred to it as a peak experience. This level or type of insight is more than just the discovery of new information, but rather realization and knowing; it is wisdom. Wisdom here is reflected in the formula of A x B = C (not AB). It is a second-order realization that allows for second-order change. Pentad 1 is not a position in which a person can place himself or herself. Insight of this order can come only when a person is in Pentad 2: “I don’t know, but I want to know.” 

People typically tend to interpret the wisdom they experience in Pentad 1 in two ways: first, as some absolute or eternal truth or second, as temporary dynamic wisdom that is evolving and changing. The moment an insight is interpreted as absolute, the individual is instantly back in the “I know and I’m right” position and the wisdom is lost. Many of the absolutes held in Pentad 5 are derived from this type of interpretation of eureka experience (either directly or passed on). Individuals usually experience joy, the connection of being, and love in an experience of insight (Fromm, 1976; May, 2007). This experiential position tends to include the perception of we-ness and solidarity linked with a holistic intuitive worldview. Wisdom, like love, must be rediscovered repeatedly as it is different each time. It is weaving difference into co-created meaning.

For some, a peak experience can be problematic, especially if they do not understand what is happening. What is experienced may differ from what people think they might experience. For example, a person might seek a vision or guidance only to discover a side of themselves they did not know existed. Generally, insights come when people are not looking for them, but are rather holding themselves mentally and perceptually open to knowing, which requires a non-judgmental Pentad 2 position.

Uses of the ADC

Every tool has its limits and potential according to its design and natural capacity. Sometimes a tool is discovered to have uses other than for what it was intended. The ADC is designed to allow clients (and practitioners) to perceive how a person or group embraces the rational and intuitive perceptions (e.g., symbols, beliefs, values, definitions, rules, emotions, feelings) of self and others in the pentads. It is designed to allow for exploration around multiple relational and systemic content areas, identify relational problems or concerns,  and develop intervention plans and techniques. Use of the ADC is purposively educational as a tool meant to promote logical reframes and second order change.

The ADC, like any tool, depends on the purpose and maturity of those who use it. Additionally, the ADC is not meant to be used in every situation, but rather selectively as needed and as applies. For example, when someone asks for directions, it is not necessary to pull out the ADC, but rather provide them the directions they desire. 

The ADC opens the door and provides a framework that allows practitioners to explore with clients, individually and as groups, how their perceptions of knowing influence them and their relationships. Because the ADC is structured to include personal, cultural and societal worldview, it is possible to address any topic or problem of concern in a relational  context. It is excellent for use in working with individuals, families and organizational systems (small, large, public or private). Shifting the focus to relationship allows greater ability to understand and address specific content subjects and issues while simultaneously addressing the larger systemic relational environment. 

            It is essential that the practitioner is professionally and cognitively able to use the instrument as designed, as with any assessment tool. In this case, it is imperative that the practitioner is actualizing enough so as not to purposely or accidentally cause harm. For example, if your relational perceptions toward knowledge and learning are 100% within Pentad 4 (IDK-IDC), then you should not use this instrument and probably should not be seeing clients. If and to the extent that any of us are out of balance, then we need to be aware of our relational estrangement and ethically be prepared to do something about it. 

            Each person is different and there is a range (pending situation) of percent (approximated without instrumentation) that is acceptable to hold within each pentad for someone who is essentially actualizing. This range, pending situation, can be very broad or very tight. 

When working with a consumer, it is important to do a typical intake regarding information, consents, referrals, and the presenting problem or problems. Pending the problem, you may or may not directly use the ADC. The ADC is used primarily when the person presents with relational issues or wanting to work on growth and awareness. I have found that it helps if the practitioner takes a few physical or mental notes, during the interview, of terms and concepts that fit with the descriptors found in the ADC construct. After you have completed the interview and are beginning to develop a treatment approach, you may turn to the consumer and say something like, “In listening to you, I noticed you used some words or phrases that are very interesting. They remind me of a construct that I’ve found useful in addressing the kind of problems you present. Let me show you and let’s see what you think.” You likely have the person’s curiosity by now. 

Take a blank piece of paper and draw the construct frame on it and turn it so the consumer can see. Write in each pentad the primary descriptors of “I know & I’m right” and so forth (Figure 5). Do not write the sub-descriptors. [INSERT FIGURE 5 AND CAPTION]Make sure the consumer is watching. Briefly explain each pentad as to what each heading means. To add humor, which can help a lot, ask if she or he knows anyone who is like the descriptions in Pentad 1, 2, or 3. This allows you to see whether the person understands what you explained and prepares the consumer to look at himself/herself in relation to others. Then, you may ask, “Given what you have told me about your problem(s) and the words you used, such as loyalty, which section do you think this fits?” Then, discuss how and if it fits and slowly add some of the other words/phrases the person used and discuss each. Do not proceed quickly. The tool is not the point, but rather a way to help shift the process. I have found that use of the ADC helps to shift the gears from your session being content-based to relational-based. Now you can start asking about and discussing relational aspects of what is going on with the consumer and explain the shift and how it helps to better understand. The consumer becomes a partner with you in learning and change. 

In the classroom, the ADC may be used to identify the perspective from which the instructor is teaching and the students are learning. If the instructor is teaching according to the “I know and I’m right” pentad (5), he or she is essentially using what Paulo Freire (1990) calls the banking system of education. If the instructor were teaching more from the“I don’t know, but I want to know” pentad, the pedagogy is more participatory and has greater potential of liberation and new insights. The ADC encourages people to develop the capacity to let go of absoluteness and to embrace uncertainty and vulnerability. 

The ADC works especially well with systemic human communication theory and general systems theory. It has allowed therapy clients, as well as organizations, the opportunity to see themselves in a way that allows for new ways to relate and structure. 

Further Development of the Construct

I have created an inventory designed to assess the percent that individuals and groups hold of each of the pentads per content areas, which include morality, family, general intimacy, economics, society and relational logic. As indicated previously, the descriptors in each pentad conform to construct development, inasmuch as each is positioned so as not to overlap with other pentads, which is essential for assessment and establishment of content and construct validity (Morgan & Gliner, 2000). This is especially necessary when developing an assessment inventory based upon the construct.This ongoing research, since 2005, has included graduate and undergraduate university students in three medium-sized universities. However, more group norms are needed before publication. The ADC inventory is currently being used in a study regarding its use in academic advisement in terms of occupational choice, needed courses, identification of problems that may need referred for professional assistance, determination of worldview competency, and a pre and post measure of progress. 

The ADC allows a logical reframe from first order to second order change. It also serves as a sort of mirror in which to see self and others differently. While it may challenge those dominated by the rational worldview, it allows us, as professionals and educators, to be more open and responsive to both the rational and natural intuitive worldviews and to help consumers realize polarity is not about dualism. The ADC provides a picture of person and or group that allows us, as professionals, to help reframe identity and perception of reality (self and other). It helps normalize actualizing as an ongoing here and now creative relational process in which all (human, nonhuman and institutions) participate. The ADC allows for some distinction between healthy and functional. It is useful in doing program and organizational consultation and assessment and it allows professionals to look at self, individually and collectively. 

            

References

Tracy, J.  (1976). Actualization Diagnostic Construct. A partial thesis in Counseling Education at Truman State University. Unpublished material.

Tracy, J.  (1986). Symbolic and literal: A logical reframe. Thesis (M.S.W.) School of Social Work, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 

Tracy, J.  (2005). Toward a relationship paradigm: An auto-narrative reflexive ethnography of co-participation and co-construction of the culture of meaning(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 305010842 ).

Tracy, J.  (2012). A source of injustice: Critical error by CSWE. Manuscript submitted for publication.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(4thed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Tracy, J. .

Adler, A. (1963). Understanding human nature.New York: Premier. 

Daniels, M. (1988). The myth of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 28:7-38. doi: 10.1177/0022167888281002

Freire, P. (1990).Pedagogy of the oppressed.(M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. 

Friedman, M. (1976). Aiming at the self: The paradox of encounter and the human potential movement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 16(2), 5-34.

Fromm, E. (1976).To have or to be? New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Geller, L. (1982). The failure of self-actualization theory: A critique of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22 (2), 56-73.

Harris, T. A. (1969). I’m ok—you’re ok.New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Haley, J., & Richeport-Haley, M. (2003). The art of strategic therapy. New York: Brunner-Routledge. 

Hendlin, S. J. (1983). Pernicious oneness. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 23(3), 61-81.

Kierkegaard, S. (1985). Fear and trembling: Dialectical lyric by Johannes de Silentio. (A. Hannay, Trans.) Suffolk, Great Britain: Richard Clay (The Chaucer Press) Ltd. 

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality(2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. 

Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press. 

May, R. (2007). Love and will. New York: W. W. Norton.   

Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary(11thed.) (2005). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Morales, A. T., Sheafor, B. W., & Scott, M. E. (2012). Social work: A profession of many faces(12thed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Morgan, G. A., & Gliner, J. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 

Peters, R. S. (1960). The concept of motivation(2nded.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pritchard, J. B. (1969). The ancient Near East: Supplementary texts and pictures relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Shostrom, E. (1965). An inventory for the measurement of self-actualization, Educational and Psychological Measurement 24, 207-218. 

Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 

Figure 2: Rational Logic Reflected in Tao Symbol of Nature. (Tracy, J. , 2012). Demonstrates great estrangement of natural reality (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Tracy, J. 's drawing of the Tao Symbol of Nature that is inclusive of the rational and natural intuitive logical worldviews (Tracy, J. , 2012). Reflects natural ongoing creative process without estrangement.

Growth Based

Pentad 2: I don’t know, but I want to know. Seeks to know and understand meaning. Is sharing, experiential, honest, sensual, sensitive, open, courageous, risk-taking, exploratory, horizontal (egalitarian) in most relationships as opposed to vertical (hierarchical). Has flexible values of knowing. Non-judgmental. Is more reflexive and accepting of vulnerability. Shows systemic perceptions and thinking, team learning, discipline, genuine commitment. Uses dialogue. Is lifelong learner, sees value of relationships, sees creative tension between vision and reality, integrates reason and intuition, is compassionate and participant observer. Embraces strength and weakness, pays attention to heart and meaning, reciprocity, is truthful without blaming, and has a strong appreciation and engagement in the arts. Sees here-and-now as an ongoing creative process in which past and future merge to form the present. 

Pentad 1: I know- Eureka or Aha experience. 

Insight, wisdom, temporary knowing and realization that truth is not static but evolving and changing. The moment a person interprets insight as an absolute truth, she or he automatically shifts to Pentad 5. A truth must be rediscovered repeatedly as it changes (e.g., love is not changeless, but must be rediscovered again and is new and different each time). Shared vision, metanoia (shift of mind); recognition of need for balance and synergy. Power of choice, celebrative, accepting of other, intuitive, connected, creative, visionary, healing, teaching, leading, in touch with consciousness at every level of existence (seen and unseen). 

Pentad 3: Impasse/Confusion

Indecision, afraid to move or make decisions. Can experience anxiety, dilemma, paradox or directional paralysis.

Pentad 4: I don’t know and I don't care. Presents with or without a pretense of caring or not caring. Can include avoidance, gaming, dishonesty, irresponsibility, apathy, insensitivity to other, and contradiction. Tends toward existential despair or transcendental escape. Has low self-worth and low opinion of most other people. Is afraid to make commitments. Represents degrees of disillusionment, despair, loss, disappointment, and frustration. Ranges from being somewhat overwhelmed to full-blown existential despair. Seeks invisibility, self-denial, self-abandonment, projection (unclaimed self-perceptions), smoking mirror (hoping we are not like others we don’t like) and resistance to inclusion. Believes in powerlessness, unworthiness, takes the easy way out, shifts the burden. Exhibits emotional tension, noncompliance, apathy, and lack of trust. 

Pentad 5: I know and I'm right. Has a sense of certainty and is decisive and firm in beliefs and what they think they know. Has values that tend to be moralistic, concrete, rigid, dualistic, competitive, legalistic, and Tracy, J. itative and unbendable. Will accept a dependent or interdependent role if they believe that is their place. Tends toward being possessive, sees most people as basically faulted, lives mostly in past or future, goal oriented, is defensive and offensive, is proactive and reactive,. Uses words such as should, ought, have to, my job. May express phobia. Considers power, control and trust as relationship issues. Sees others as allies or competition or as mad or bad (Watzlawick et al., 1967, 1974). Demands loyalty, respect and compliance. Believes in survival of the fittest, the enemy is out there, quick fixes, scapegoating. Is resistant to change. Experiences significant emotional tension. Shows poverty of knowledge, fear and limited trust with need for control, and security consciousness. Presents  as incomplete non-integrated self and projects Tracy, J. ity. 

Fear/Security Based

Figure 4: The Actualization Diagnostic Construct, ADC (Tracy, J. , 1976) with descriptors.

Figure 5: Simple Figure of the ADC (Actualization Diagnostic Construct)