fei75766_ch11_345-376.indd 358  02/06/20 12:38 PM
Part III    Humanistic/Existential Theories358
“crazy” plantomove across thecountry, Philip gaveherseveral thousand dollars. He
previously hadfeltadutytotakecareofhistwowives and,before that,hismother 
andsister.
InspiteofPhilip’s pattern oftaking careofwomen, henever really learned to
careforthem. Tocareforsomeone means torecognize thatperson asafellow human 
being, toidentify withthatperson’s painorjoy,guilt,orpity.Care isanactive pro-
cess,theopposite ofapathy. “Care isastateinwhich something doesmatter ”(May, 
1969b, p.289).
Care isnotthesame aslove,butitisthesource oflove.Tolovemeans tocare, 
torecognize theessential humanity oftheother person, tohaveanactive regard for
thatperson’s development. May(1953) defined loveasa“delight inthepresence of
theother person andanaffirming of[that person’s] value anddevelopment asmuch 
asone’s own” (p.206). Without carethere canbenolove—only empty sentimentality 
ortransient sexual arousal. Care isalsothesource ofwill.
May(1969b) called will“thecapacity toorganize one’s selfsothatmovement 
inacertain direction ortoward acertain goalmaytakeplace” (p.218). Hedistin -
guished between willandwish, saying that
“will” requires self-consciousness; “wish” doesnot.“Will” implies some possibility 
ofeither/or choice; “wish” doesnot.“Wish” gives thewarmth, thecontent, the
imagination, thechild’s play,thefreshness, andtherichness to“will.” “Will” gives 
theself-direction, thematurity to“wish.” “Will” protects “wish,” permits itto
continue without running riskswhich aretoogreat. (p.218)
Union of Love and Will
Modern society, May(1969b) claimed, issuffering from anunhealthy division oflove
andwill.Love hasbecome associated withsensual loveorsex,whereas willhascome 
tomean adogged determination orwillpower. Neither concept captures thetrue
meaning ofthese twoterms. When loveisseenassex,itbecomes temporary andlack-
ingincommitment; there isnowill,butonlywish. When willisseenaswillpower, it
becomes self-serving andlacking inpassion; there isnocare, butonlymanipulation.
There arebiological reasons whyloveandwillareseparated. When children 
firstcome intotheworld, theyareatonewiththeuniverse (Umwelt ),theirmother 
(Mitwelt ),andthemselves (Eigenwelt ).“Our needs aremetwithout self-conscious 
effort onourpart,as,biologically, intheearly condition ofnursing atthemother’s 
breast. Thisisthefirstfreedom, thefirst‘yes’” (May, 1969b, p.284).
Later, aswillbegins todevelop, itmanifests itself asopposition, thefirst“no.” 
Theblissful existence ofearly infancy isnowopposed bytheemerging willfulness 
oflateinfancy. The“no”should notbeseenasastatement against theparents but
rather asapositive assertion ofself.Unfortunately, parents often interpret the“no”
negatively andtherefore stifle thechild’s self-assertion. Asaresult, children learn to
disassociate willfrom theblissful lovetheyhadpreviously enjoyed.
Ourtask,saidMay(1969b, 1990b), istounite loveandwill.Thistaskisnot
easy, butitispossible. Neither blissful lovenorself-serving willhavearoleintheunit-
ingofloveandwill.Forthemature person, bothloveandwillmean areaching out
toward another person. Both involve care, bothnecessitate choice, bothimply action, 
andbothrequire responsibility. Final PDF to printer