336 Part III Humanistic/Existential Theories
Care, Love, and Will
Philip had a history of taking care of others, especially women. He had given
Nicole a “job” with his company that permitted her to work at home and earn
enough money to live on. In addition, after she ended her affair with Craig and
gave up her “crazy” plan to move across the country, Philip gave her several
thousand dollars. He previously had felt a duty to take care of his two wives and,
before that, his mother and sister.
In spite of Philip’s pattern of taking care of women, he never really learned
to care for them. 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 an
active process, the opposite of apathy. “Care is a state in which something does
matter” (May, 1969b, p. 289).
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 (1953) defined love as a “delight in the
presence of the other person and an affirming of [that person’s] value and develop-
ment as much as one’s own” (p. 206). Without care there can be no love—only
empty sentimentality or transient sexual arousal. Care is also the source of will.
May (1969b) called will “the capacity to organize one’s self so that move-
ment in a certain direction or toward a certain goal may take place” (p. 218). He
distinguished between will and wish, saying that
“will” requires self-consciousness; “wish” does not. “Will” implies some
possibility of either/or choice; “wish” does not. “Wish” gives the warmth, the
content, the imagination, the child’s play, the freshness, and the richness to
“will.” “Will” gives the self-direction, the maturity to “wish.” “Will” protects
“wish,” permits it to continue without running risks which are too great. (p. 218)Union of Love and Will
Modern society, May (1969b) claimed, is suffering from an unhealthy division of
love and will. 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 tem-
porary 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.
There are biological reasons why love and will are separated. When children
first come into the world, they are at one with the universe (Umwelt), their mother
(Mitwelt), and themselves (Eigenwelt). “Our needs are met without self-conscious
effort on our part, as, biologically, in the early condition of nursing at the mother’s
breast. This is the first freedom, the first ‘yes’ ” (May, 1969b, p. 284).
Later, as will begins to develop, it manifests itself as opposition, the first
“no.” The blissful existence of early infancy is now opposed by the emerging
willfulness of late infancy. The “no” should not be seen as a statement against
the parents but rather as a positive assertion of self. Unfortunately, parents often
interpret the “no” negatively and therefore stifle the child’s self-assertion. As a