Table of Contents
Introduction and Core Existential Principles
The theory of personality developed by Rollo May stands as the most influential and widely recognized contribution to Existential Psychology originating from the United States. At its core, May’s framework defines human existence not through deterministic drives or fixed traits, but through the continuous, often painful process of confronting fundamental realities: freedom, responsibility, isolation, and death. May posited that the central challenge of the human condition is the tension between potentiality and actuality—the drive toward growth and self-realization colliding with the inherent limitations and anxieties of existence. His theoretical approach successfully synthesized European existential philosophy, particularly the works of figures like Ludwig Binswanger and Søren Kierkegaard, with a distinctly American emphasis on humanism and clinical application, setting him slightly apart from his European contemporaries by attempting to reconcile existential concepts with traditional psychoanalytic thought, especially that of Freud.
The fundamental mechanism underlying May’s theory is the concept of striving for meaning and authenticity in a meaningless universe. He viewed the person as perpetually “becoming,” rather than being a static entity defined by past experiences. This constant state of becoming necessitates courage—the ability to face the inevitable Anxiety that arises when one chooses to live authentically, rejecting the comfort of conformity and traditional values. While other existentialists focused purely on concepts like “authenticity,” May frequently employed the term courage to encapsulate the active, willful decision to rise above the apprehension cued off by threats to one’s essential values, thus making his theory highly relevant to clinical practice centered on empowering the individual.
Historical Context and Influences
Rollo May was born in Ada, Ohio, in 1909, and his early life was marked by significant familial strife, including his parents’ eventual divorce and a sister’s psychotic breakdown, experiences that undoubtedly shaped his later focus on human suffering and inner conflict. His academic journey included study at Oberlin College, followed by a period teaching English in Greece, where he briefly studied under the psychoanalyst Alfred Adler. This eclectic early exposure to both classical philosophy and early psychoanalytic thought laid the groundwork for his eventual theoretical synthesis.
A critical turning point in May’s intellectual and personal development occurred after he returned to the US and earned his BD from Union Theological Seminary in 1938, where he befriended the existential theologian Paul Tillich, a profound influence on his philosophical outlook. Soon after, May was diagnosed with tuberculosis, forcing him to spend three years convalescing in a sanatorium. Facing the stark possibility of death during this period was transformative. He immersed himself in the writings of the Danish religious philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, whose explorations of dread, freedom, and self-choice provided the foundational inspiration for May’s unique blend of psychology and philosophy.
Upon recovering, May pursued further study at the White Institute, engaging with figures like Harry Stack Sullivan and Erich Fromm. He culminated his formal education at Columbia University, where, in 1949, he was awarded the institution’s first-ever PhD in clinical psychology. His doctoral dissertation, focusing on the concepts of dread and Anxiety (2/5), was heavily influenced by Kierkegaard’s work and became the basis for his seminal book, The Meaning of Anxiety. Furthermore, his collaborative effort in editing the 1958 book Existence, alongside Ernest Angel and Henri Ellenberger, was instrumental in formally introducing and establishing existential psychology as a recognized school of thought within the American psychological landscape.
Key Concepts: Destiny, Courage, and Anxiety
May often utilized or redefined traditional existential terminology to suit his clinical focus. One such concept is Destiny, which he employed as a combination of the classic existential ideas of thrownness (the facts of our birth and environment we cannot change) and fallenness (the tendency to retreat from freedom into conventionality). Destiny represents the raw materials of our lives—our biological makeup, cultural context, and unavoidable limitations. It is the determined portion of existence that serves as the foundation upon which the individual must build the project of creating a meaningful life. Recognizing and accepting destiny is the prerequisite for exercising freedom.
His definition of Anxiety is crucial to understanding the existential crisis. May defined it as “the apprehension cued off by a threat to some value which the individual holds essential to his existence as a self.” This definition moves beyond simple neurotic fear; it encompasses the dread of non-being, the fear of losing one’s identity, or the threat to one’s core values. In this sense, anxiety is not necessarily pathological but an intrinsic component of authentic living. It is the natural reaction to confronting one’s freedom and the responsibility that accompanies it.
May argued that Courage is the active response to this existential anxiety. Where traditional existentialists might focus on achieving “authenticity,” May emphasized the active decision to face the “dizziness of freedom”—a phrase he borrowed from Kierkegaard. Courage allows the individual to acknowledge the limitations imposed by destiny while simultaneously choosing how to respond to those limitations, thereby transcending them through conscious choice and action.
The Stages of Consciousness Development
Unlike most pure existentialists, who typically reject categorical developmental models, May proposed a set of four developmental stages or modes of consciousness. Importantly, he stressed that these are not rigid, age-dependent stages in the strict Freudian sense, but rather modes of being that can be salient at different points in life, even if they tend to dominate certain chronological periods. An adult, for instance, might regress to a rebellious mode, and a child might exhibit moments of creative self-actualization.
These four modes illustrate the individual’s gradual awareness and confrontation with self-consciousness and responsibility:
- Innocence: This is the pre-egoic, pre-self-conscious stage characteristic of infancy. The innocent person is premoral, operating purely on necessity and instinct. Like an animal acting on survival needs, the innocent is neither good nor bad but possesses a basic drive (a degree of will) to fulfill needs without conscious malice or ethical reflection.
- Rebellion: Typically manifesting strongly during childhood (the “no” of the toddler) and adolescence, this stage is defined by the process of developing a distinct ego or self-consciousness through contrast with adult authority. The rebellious person desperately desires freedom but lacks a full understanding of the accompanying responsibility. They demand autonomy but still expect the safety net and provision of others, leading to complaints of unfairness when demands are unmet.
- Ordinary: This is the conventional adult stage. The individual has learned responsibility but finds it overwhelming and demanding. Consequently, they seek refuge in conformity, traditional values, and societal expectations. This mode is characterized by a slight boredom or lack of vitality, as the individual sacrifices authentic self-expression for the security of fitting in.
- Creative: This represents the authentic, existential adult—the self-actualizing mode of being. The creative person moves beyond the constraints of the ordinary, accepts destiny, and faces existential Anxiety (3/5) with courage. This individual is actively engaged in self-creation and meaning-making, representing the highest level of psychological maturity in May’s framework.
The Daimonic: Motivation, Love, and Will
In his seminal work, Love and Will, May addressed the concept of motivation, attempting to bridge existentialism with psychoanalysis. His central motivational construct is The Daimonic, defined as the entire system of motives inherent in an individual, which is unique to each person. This system is composed of specific motives called daimons, a term derived from the Greek word meaning “little god,” which can be either constructive or destructive. Daimons encompass all needs, ranging from lower, biological drives like hunger and sex, to higher, complex needs such as the drive for love and creation.
A daimon becomes problematic when it leads to daimonic possession—a state where a single motive takes over the entire personality, disrupting the necessary balance among all motives. It is only when this balance is lost that a daimon should be considered “evil” or destructive, as the individual loses their capacity for free choice and becomes enslaved by the obsessive motive. This concept is vital for understanding pathology, as it shifts focus from external causes of neurosis to internal imbalances of powerful, innate human drives.
Two of the most crucial daimons May explored are Eros and Will. Eros (3/5), as May defines it, is not merely sexual drive but the profound human need for love—the drive toward union and “becoming one” with another person. He references the ancient Greek story of Aristophanes, suggesting that humans are cursed with an unending desire to recover a lost, missing half, fueling the powerful, unifying force of eros. Like any daimon, eros is inherently positive, but when it becomes obsessive and unbalanced—leading to codependency or obsession—it assumes a destructive, daimonic form.
Will is another essential daimon, defined as the capacity to organize oneself toward achieving one’s goals. May viewed Will (3/5) as roughly synonymous with the ego and reality-testing functions, but possessing its own inherent energy store. Closely related to will are wishes, which May described as “playful imaginings of possibilities.” Wishes are manifestations of our various daimons (including eros) and provide the raw material for motivation, but they require the disciplined force of will to transform those imaginings into reality.
Balancing Eros and Will: A Practical Example
The practical application and significance of May’s theory often center on the necessary balance between the wish for connection (Eros/Love) and the capacity for disciplined action (Will (4/5)). May argued that human fulfillment—the move toward the Creative stage—requires the integration of these two forces. He outlined three archetypal styles of relating to love and will, demonstrating how imbalance leads to psychological stagnation or pathology.
The first style is the “neo-Puritan” type, characterized by excessive will but a lack of wishes or love.
- The How-To Application (Neo-Puritan): This individual possesses immense self-discipline, organization, and the ability to “make things happen” (high will). However, because they repress or deny their deep wishes and emotional needs (low eros), their achievements feel empty. They become perfectionistic, disciplined, but ultimately emotionally “dried-up.” An archetypal example is the fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge before his transformation, demonstrating incredible financial will but zero capacity for human connection or playful wishing.
The second style is the “infantile” type, characterized by an abundance of wishes but an absence of will.
- The How-To Application (Infantile): This person is filled with dreams, desires, and wishes for love and success (high eros/wishes), but lacks the self-discipline, organization, or courage to act upon them (low will). They become dependent, conformist, and unable to actualize their potential. Their love is often passive and their potential remains unrealized. A simple example might be a person who constantly plans ambitious creative projects but never starts the work, relying instead on others for structure and motivation—perhaps best exemplified by Homer Simpson in his frequent, unrealized schemes.
The third style, the “creative” type, successfully unites love and will. May’s ultimate recommendation was that “Man’s task is to unite love and will.” This integration allows the individual to experience deep connection and desire while maintaining the disciplined autonomy necessary to realize those desires responsibly. This concept holds significant importance in psychotherapy, where the goal is often to help clients either assert their autonomy (build will) or connect authentically (cultivate eros), depending on which daimon has been repressed. This idea of balancing opposing forces—such as communion and agency, or affiliation and achievement—is a recurring theme across many humanistic and psychodynamic theories.
The Role of Myths and Guiding Narratives
In his later work, The Cry for Myth, May addressed the profound sociological impact of the existential crisis. He argued that a major problem in modern society is the loss of universally shared values, stemming from the erosion of religious and traditional structures (Nietzsche’s declaration that “God is dead”). When absolutes are gone, individuals are forced to create their own values, a difficult task that often leads to pervasive feelings of meaninglessness and an increase in Anxiety (4/5).
To combat this, May introduced the critical role of Myths, defining them as “guiding narratives” that help individuals and cultures “make sense” of their lives. These myths resemble Jungian archetypes to some extent, operating on both conscious and unconscious levels, and serving as essential frameworks for structuring reality and guiding moral behavior. For example, many people structure their lives around narratives found in religious texts, classical literature, or even modern cinematic epics.
May stressed that not all stories function as healthy myths. He criticized many modern narratives for promoting either the infantile promise of magical wish fulfillment or the neo-Puritan promise of success achieved through rigid self-sacrifice. Instead, he urged for the active creation of new, vital myths that support individuals’ efforts to live authentically and make the best of life, rather than undermining their capacity for courage and responsibility. While some pure existentialists might find the reliance on “myths” too close to inauthenticity or conventionality, May viewed them as necessary cultural tools for grounding the individual in a meaningful context, thus connecting his psychological theory directly to the broader field of Humanistic Psychology and its focus on meaning and self-actualization.