Humanistic Application To Peter Keating And Howard Roark Essay, Research Paper

Real independence is a trait of mind. It is a commitment to one’s own perception of reality as an absolute standard of thought and action. Why was this so hard for Peter Keating to distinguish between “Self” (what I am) and “Ideal Self” (what I wish I were)? It is evident that Peter Keating’s incongruent self-concept is the result of Keatings’ beliefs that conditional love from others could only be obtained by distorting his experiences in order to portray the “Ideal Self”.

This form of personality development starts from childhood experiences and can be directly connected to the amount of congruence or incongruence of one’s experience in life. Keating is a prime example of incongruency or someone that registers every little move within the environment. Keating has a constant fear of what is perceived within the consciousness of others, which he spends his entire life trying to appease and control. (Rogers, 1961) Keating is basically a hypocrite, by saying one thing and acting in an opposite manner. Keating is not the only hypocrite. Keating is relieved when he notices that Guy Francon is putting on a front for his benefit. It means that Francon too is a man like Keating, with the same attitude toward the consciousness of others. This way of thinking was accurately described as Ayn Rand uses Roark’s words in his last courtroom speech, “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to reality – the man who lives to serve others – is the slave.” ( Fountainhead, p. 680)

When Keating first proposes to Dominique, he speaks rapidly, easily, and so sure of himself it was not difficult. A lie is described as an effort to manipulate the consciousness of others, a way that comes too natural to Keating. Though he is an intelligent man, not without some heart, he is fundamentally incapable of being honest. The concept of truth, the grasp of reality in Keating’s mind is different and frightening. Rand uses the terminology “second-hander” to describe the Peter Keatings’ of the world. “The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the second-hander.” ( Fountainhead, p.681)

Roark’s independence is the source of his strength. The reader is able see the nature of Roark’s consciousness, as an almost equally intense perception of their own consciousness. We recognize that we can love and be loyal to an individual by giving them complete independence and self-responsibility, as was the case with Roark and Dominique’s relationship. We understand that an individual has a greater opportunity to achieve self-actualization and maximize their potential for growth if we let them use their own free will or inner direction. We acknowledge with the help of Roark that each one of us has that flame that burns inside, the fire that others try to extinguish through words or actions. The premise is that man’s integrity could grow only from following his own truth and ego, serving his own purpose and passion.

This is why Roark never faltered within his mental state. Whether Roark was working at the rock quarry in Connecticut or landing the most coveted architectural commission in New York, his frame of mind remained constant in his own belief. Roark’s congruence between self-concept and actual experience never strayed. (Rogers, 1980) This enabled Roark to grow as a person not only professionally, but more important emotional and mentally. Roark was able to continually progress until he reached self-actualization or the realization of his potential. (Maslow, 1968)

The sharp contrast between Howard Roark and Peter Keating is evident throughout the novel Fountainhead. Rand leaves it up to the reader to come up with the realization of what motivates these two men two men in their quest for greatness. Roark to achieve greatness through personal reflection of his own work. Keating’s desire to be perceived great through societies’ eyes. Taking the humanistic approach, it is rather obvious that Keating lives a lifestyle of incongruency and unfulfillment of self-actualization. On the other hand, Roark’s congruency and self-actualization never waver. The reader is left to question what lifestyle he/she has been living up to date, one of incongruency or of self-actualization.

Bibliography

Refrences

Rogers, C.R. (1961) On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Maslow, A.H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand.

Rogers, C.R. (1980) A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Rand, Ayn (1943) The Fountainhead. New York: Signet

Refrences

Rogers, C.R. (1961) On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Maslow, A.H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand.

Rogers, C.R. (1980) A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Rand, Ayn (1943) The Fountainhead. New York: Signet