Rollo May was writing in 1953 when he published Man’s Search for Himself, and the crisis he identified then hasn’t resolved in the seventy years since. It’s intensified. The inner emptiness he described — not knowing who you are or what you want, going through the motions of a life that doesn’t feel like yours, being unable to draw on genuine conviction even when you desperately need it — is more common now than when he first named it. His diagnosis and prescription are correspondingly more urgent.
May was a practicing psychotherapist and one of the founders of the existential psychology movement in America. He had read Freud and learned from him, but found the strictly deterministic, bio-mechanistic model of the psyche insufficient to account for what he actually encountered in his consulting room: human beings suffering not primarily from suppressed drives or childhood wounds but from the absence of meaning, the failure of courage, the inability to live as genuine persons in the fullest sense.
This book is his attempt to describe that condition and point toward its resolution. One of the most honest books about the human condition written in the twentieth century. Its honesty doesn’t age.
The Experience of Emptiness
May begins where he found his patients beginning: in emptiness. Not depression in the clinical sense, though depression often accompanies it. Not anxiety in the sense of a specific fear, though anxiety permeates it. Emptiness — the hollow feeling of a self that can’t find its own substance, the person who looks in the mirror and sees a face without a center behind it.
This emptiness isn’t exotic. May found it everywhere in mid-century American life, and the social conditions he identified as producing it have only become more entrenched. The conformity pressure of mass society — the demand that individuals fit themselves to pre-formed roles and expectations, that they be productive and agreeable and legible to institutional systems — is antagonistic to the development of genuine personhood. The person who has succeeded in fitting themselves perfectly to their role has, in some important sense, traded their self for the role.
The fit is accomplished at the cost of the fit person.
May distinguishes carefully between the normal, healthy emptiness that accompanies genuine transition — the fallow period between one chapter of life and another, the pause between accomplishment and the next aspiration — and the pathological emptiness of the person who has never fully inhabited their own life. The former is creative. The latter is a symptom of failed selfhood. And the two can look identical from the outside while being entirely different in their internal structure.
The cause of pathological emptiness, May argues, is the failure of the self to undergo genuine encounter with the problems of existence. The person in authentic emptiness has avoided the hard questions — about what they value, what they actually want, what kind of life they find genuinely meaningful — by staying busy, by conforming, by substituting activity for reflection and performance for being. The busyness isn’t accidental. It’s a strategy for not having to face the emptiness, which produces more emptiness, which requires more busyness. Self-reinforcing. Self-deepening.
The Anxiety of Being Human
May’s treatment of anxiety is one of the most carefully developed in the existential tradition. He distinguishes sharply between neurotic anxiety and normal existential anxiety, and argues that failing to make this distinction is one of the most consequential errors of both clinical psychology and ordinary life.
Normal existential anxiety arises from the fundamental conditions of human existence: finitude, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness. Not problems to be solved. Structures of the human situation that must be confronted and integrated. The person who has genuinely faced their own mortality, who has accepted the weight and responsibility of their freedom, who has tolerated the irreducible isolation of being a separate self, and who has made the effort to construct meaning in the face of its absence — this person has anxiety. But the anxiety is the companion of full existence, not its impediment.
Neurotic anxiety, by contrast, results from failed encounter with these existential conditions. The person who can’t face their mortality, who can’t tolerate the weight of their freedom, who can’t bear the isolation of selfhood, and who can’t do the work of constructing meaning — this person is also anxious. But their anxiety isn’t the companion of full existence. It’s the consequence of avoiding it. And the avoidance makes the anxiety worse, not better, because the unmet challenge doesn’t go away. It grows.
The practical implication of this distinction is profound. If anxiety is a symptom of neurosis, the goal is to eliminate it. But if existential anxiety is the companion of full personhood, the goal is to develop enough of a relationship with it that it can be tolerated and even used — to build the internal ground from which the anxiety of being alive can be experienced without being overwhelming. Not the elimination of anxiety. The integration of it. The work of a lifetime.
The Loss of the Individual
May was deeply concerned with what he saw as the erosion of individuality in modern mass society — not individuality in the shallow sense of personal style or consumer preference, but genuine personhood: the capacity to think for oneself, to feel one’s own feelings, to want what one actually wants rather than what one has been taught to want.
The psychological mechanism he identifies is conformism — not just social conformity in the obvious sense, but a deeper orientation toward other people as the primary reference point for one’s own experience. The conformist doesn’t ask “what do I think?” They ask “what are we supposed to think?” They don’t ask “what do I want?” They ask “what are people like me supposed to want?” The self that could answer the first pair of questions is underdeveloped, because it’s never been exercised. The external reference has always been available, and always more comfortable than the internal one.
This conformism has several sources May identifies: the anxious need for belonging in a fragmented society that no longer provides organic community; the vulnerability of the self that hasn’t developed enough internal substance to weather social disapproval; the institutional pressure of a technological society that requires predictable, standardized human inputs and therefore incentivizes the suppression of individual variation; and the cultural message, pervasive in twentieth-century American life, that adjustment to one’s social role is the mark of mental health rather than its sacrifice.
The cost of conformism isn’t primarily social or political, though those costs are real. It’s personal: the person who has adjusted themselves out of their own authentic existence has purchased social acceptance at the cost of the genuine life that social acceptance was supposed to make possible. They belong, but don’t know what they belong for. They’re liked, but don’t know who is being liked.
The Nature of Courage
The specific forms of ontological courage May identifies: the courage to know yourself — to look honestly at what you find inside and not turn away from the uncomfortable parts; the courage to face your mortality — not as an abstract fact but as a lived awareness that shapes how you spend your finite time; the courage to love — to open yourself to genuine connection despite the vulnerability that connection requires; and the courage to be creative — to bring something new into the world, which requires both the vulnerability of authentic expression and the willingness to be wrong.
Courage, in May’s framework, is not the absence of fear. It’s the capacity to act in the presence of fear — to feel the anxiety of genuine engagement with the world and continue engaging anyway. The person without fear isn’t courageous. They’re either numb or naive. Genuine courage requires the full experience of the fear and the choice to proceed anyway. A second-order act — an act about how to respond to experience rather than an act that bypasses experience altogether.
He also makes a point about the relationship between courage and integrity worth sitting with: the act of courage isn’t only a response to external difficulty. It’s a response to the internal demand for consistency between what one believes and how one lives. The person who knows what they value and consistently fails to live by those values is suffering a specific and corrosive form of self-betrayal. The courage that repairs this isn’t dramatic. It’s the quiet, daily courage of acting in accordance with what’s actually known to be true, regardless of how much social friction that produces.
Freedom and Destiny
One of the most philosophically rich sections of the book addresses the tension between freedom and destiny — between the human capacity for choice and the given conditions of existence within which that choice operates. May refuses both extremes: the complete determinism that denies genuine freedom, and the unconditioned freedom that denies genuine limits.
Every human being is born into a particular body, a particular family, a particular culture, a particular historical moment. The given conditions — the destiny within which freedom operates. Not chosen. Can’t be willed away. The freedom is always freedom within these conditions, not freedom from them. The existentialist who proclaims radical freedom — the Sartrean claim that people are condemned to be free and that there are no excuses — is pointing to something real: the irreducible fact that interpretation and response always involve a choice. But the choice is always conditioned. Never made from nowhere.
The mature person, in May’s account, has made peace with both sides of this tension. They’ve accepted the genuine limits of their situation — their history, their body, their capacities, their time — without using those limits as an excuse for abandoning genuine choice. And they’ve accepted the genuine weight of their freedom — the responsibility for how they interpret and respond to their situation — without the narcissism of believing that everything is within their power.
This integration of freedom and destiny relates to what May calls “intentionality” — the capacity to direct oneself toward a genuine future rather than simply being buffeted by the currents of present circumstance. The person with strong intentionality isn’t rigidly committed to a plan. They’re oriented — directed by a genuine sense of what they’re trying to build and why. This orientation provides the stability to work through the unexpected without losing the thread of genuine purpose.
The Creative Act and the Self
Creativity, in this sense, is not a special talent some people have and others lack. It’s a capacity all genuine persons exercise in every domain of their life. The person who brings genuine presence and genuine thinking to their work, their relationships, and their engagement with the world is being creative in this fundamental sense. Not simply executing a pre-established program. Creating their response to what they find.
The connection between creativity and courage is central to May’s argument. Every genuine creative act — every act of bringing something new into the world — involves vulnerability. What you create is an expression of who you are, and its exposure to the world is an exposure of the self. The person who protects themselves from this vulnerability by never creating anything genuinely new has protected themselves from something real. But the protection is accomplished at the cost of the aliveness that genuine creation produces.
May makes the provocative claim that the capacity for creative response is precisely what’s threatened by the conformist pressures of modern life. Mass society doesn’t want creative individuals. It wants reliable consumers, predictable workers, manageable citizens. The pressure to conform isn’t merely social; it’s institutional and economic. The recovery of genuine selfhood is therefore not only a personal project but a somewhat countercultural one — a refusal of the normative pressure to reduce the self to its social function.
Love and Will
May’s later work developed a thorough treatment of love and will as the two fundamental dimensions of genuine selfhood, and their relationship is already visible in this earlier book. Love without will is sentiment — beautiful but ineffectual, unable to sustain itself through difficulty. Will without love is power — effective but hollow, directed toward goals that ultimately can’t satisfy because they carry no meaning beyond the satisfaction of attaining them.
The integration of love and will — the capacity to care deeply about something and act effectively in its service — is the signature of the mature, fully developed person. Also genuinely rare. The dissociation of feeling from action, of care from effectiveness, of the inner life from the outer one, is one of the central pathologies May identifies in modern life. People who feel much but do little. People who do much but feel little. The integration that produces genuine aliveness — that makes the action the expression of the feeling and the feeling the energy of the action — requires the developmental work this book is pointing toward.
The Therapeutic Relationship as Model
This quality of presence — genuine, engaged, non-manipulative, not agenda-driven — is the medium through which psychological development occurs. It’s also the quality that most healing relationships, therapeutic or otherwise, depend on. The teacher who is genuinely present to their students. The friend who is genuinely present to your struggle. The parent who is genuinely present to their child’s experience. Not professionals exercising techniques. Persons in genuine encounter with other persons, and the encounter itself is the healing.
May’s argument is that the capacity for this kind of presence — for genuine encounter — is the practical fruit of the inner development he’s describing throughout the book. Nobody can be genuinely present to another person without first being genuinely present to themselves. The person who has done the work of self-knowledge, who has faced their own anxiety and integrated it, who has developed the internal substance of genuine selfhood — this person has something to bring to an encounter. The person who has avoided that work is always, to some degree, performing a version of themselves oriented toward management of others’ perceptions rather than genuine meeting.
Rediscovering the Self
The book ends not with a technique but with a direction. The recovery of the self — the discovery of genuine personhood in the midst of the conditions that erode it — isn’t accomplished once and held forever. It’s a continuous practice, a daily recommitment, a repeated willingness to face the difficulty of genuine existence rather than retreating into the comfort of conformist emptiness.
May is not optimistic in the sentimental sense. He knows the conditions of modern life are genuinely hostile to genuine selfhood, and doesn’t pretend otherwise. But he’s fundamentally hopeful in the deeper sense: he believes the capacity for genuine existence isn’t destroyed by the conditions that suppress it. It’s waiting, underneath the performance and the conformity and the busyness, to be recovered. The anxiety that drives the avoidance is itself evidence of the self’s presence — only a self that exists can be anxious about its own existence.
The path he points toward isn’t simple or comfortable. It requires the willingness to sit with emptiness rather than filling it, to face anxiety rather than fleeing it, to tolerate the discomfort of genuine self-knowledge rather than the comfort of performed identity. It requires, above all, courage — the ontological courage to be fully what you are, including the parts that are unfinished, uncertain, and afraid.
That courage is the beginning of everything else. It’s where the genuine life starts. And May’s great contribution is making the case, with precision and care and genuine compassion, that it’s available to every person willing to stop running from themselves long enough to discover what they find there.
The Loss of Values and the Hollow Self
May writes with urgency about the crisis of values in modern life — not in the moralistic sense of a cultural commentator lamenting declining standards, but in the psychological sense of a clinician watching patients who have lost their internal compass. The person without genuine values — without commitments they’ve actually examined, tested, and chosen — is not free. They’re untethered. The absence of genuine value commitments doesn’t produce the experience of liberation. It produces emptiness: the hollow feeling of being adrift in a world that offers infinite options but no genuine direction.
The values crisis May identified in 1953 has intensified precisely because the culture has become better at offering the external markers of value — success, status, consumption, entertainment — without the internal substance that makes those markers meaningful. The person who has achieved the culturally prescribed markers of success and still feels empty is experiencing this disconnect directly. The achievement is real. The emptiness is also real. And the emptiness points to the fact that the achievement was in service of externally prescribed values rather than genuinely chosen ones.
The development of genuine values requires the kind of inner examination that most of modern life is structured to prevent. Constant stimulation, perpetual availability of distraction, the social pressure to perform rather than to be — all conditions under which genuine self-examination can’t occur. The recovery of genuine values requires conditions of genuine quiet and genuine honesty: the willingness to ask, in the absence of external noise, what actually matters, and to sit with the uncertainty of that question until an honest answer begins to emerge.
Loneliness as a Modern Epidemic
The person who is lonely in this sense has learned, often from very early experience, that genuine self-disclosure is dangerous. That the authentic presentation of the self — including its fears, its uncertainties, its genuine needs and genuine feelings — produces rejection rather than connection. The armor of social performance, of managed impression, of the self optimized for others’ approval, was built in response to that learning. And the armor works, in the narrow sense of preventing the specific rejection that was feared. It also prevents the genuine connection the self longs for — the connection loneliness is signaling the absence of.
The resolution of this loneliness requires what May calls genuine encounter — the willingness to be actually present to another person, including the aspects of self that are uncertain, vulnerable, and unfinished, and to receive their genuine presence in return. Terrifying in the specific way genuine vulnerability is terrifying. Also, as nearly every tradition of human wisdom from psychology to philosophy to spiritual practice confirms, the only path out of the loneliness — not through eliminating the risk, but through taking it, repeatedly, until the genuine connection it produces begins to replace the performance of connection that preceded it.
The Creative Life as the Examined Life
May’s vision of the good life — the psychologically healthy, genuinely alive human existence — is a creative life in the deepest sense. Not necessarily the life of the artist, though that’s one form. The life in which a person brings genuine presence, genuine thinking, and genuine engagement to everything they do — in which their responses to the world are authentically theirs rather than scripted by convention, in which their relationships are genuinely reciprocal rather than transactional, in which their work is an expression of who they are rather than simply a performance for external reward.
This is what the examined life looks like in practice. Not the life of constant philosophical reflection, which would be as paralyzing as constant self-consciousness. The examined life is the life in which a person has done enough inner work to have genuine access to their own experience — to know what they actually feel rather than what they’re supposed to feel, what they actually want rather than what they’re supposed to want, what they actually value rather than what they’ve been taught to value. That access is the foundation of everything else. Without it, all the activity and achievement in the world is a performance for an audience rather than a life being genuinely lived.
May’s book doesn’t offer a technique for achieving this. It offers something more valuable: a clear description of what’s at stake, a precise diagnosis of what prevents it, and an honest account of what developing it requires. The rest is up to the reader — which is, appropriately, exactly the kind of freedom and responsibility Rollo May believed was at the heart of what it meant to be genuinely human.
The Crisis of Authenticity in Modern Institutions
May extends his analysis of the individual’s psychological crisis to the institutional level, arguing that the same conformist pressures producing individual emptiness also produce institutional pathology. The organization that rewards performance over genuine engagement, that treats disagreement as disloyalty, that substitutes metrics for meaning in evaluating its members — this organization is systematically selecting against the qualities that would make it genuinely excellent. It’s building a culture of managed appearance rather than genuine performance, and the gap between appearance and reality compounds over time.
He’s particularly sharp on the relationship between bureaucracy and the suppression of individual judgment. The bureaucratic response to complexity is the proliferation of rules — procedures that specify behavior so completely that individual judgment becomes unnecessary and potentially disruptive. The result is an institution that can function adequately in precisely the conditions the rules were written for, and that’s helpless in the face of any situation the rules didn’t anticipate. The creative, flexible, judgmental response to the unprecedented situation — exactly what novel challenges require — is precisely what bureaucratic institutions are structured to prevent.
The solution May points toward isn’t the abolition of institutional structure. It’s the recovery of genuine individual judgment within institutional contexts — the recognition that rules are always provisional tools for managing predictable situations, not substitutes for the genuine intelligence and genuine values of the people who must apply them to the unpredictable situations real life continuously produces. This requires institutions that treat their members as genuine persons rather than role-fillers, that reward honest engagement over managed compliance, and that recognize that the person who can say “I don’t know, but let me think about it” is more valuable than the person who can recite the approved response.
Finding the Center: Practical Exercises in Self-Discovery
May doesn’t offer a self-help program, and his book isn’t organized around practical exercises. But the clinical and philosophical content he provides implies a set of questions practically useful for anyone engaged in the kind of self-examination the book is pointing toward. Not questions to be answered once and filed away. Questions to be returned to repeatedly, because the honest answers change over time as the person changes.
What do you feel, right now, that you’re not allowing yourself to feel? Most people carry a significant backlog of emotion — grief, anger, fear, longing — that’s been deferred in the service of functioning. The deferral is sometimes necessary and sometimes a habit that’s extended well past necessity. The willingness to create the conditions in which deferred emotion can surface — in solitude, in therapy, in genuine conversation with trusted others — is itself an act of courage the book is implicitly recommending.
What do you actually want, independent of what you’ve been taught to want? Harder than it appears, because the culturally prescribed wants and the genuine ones have often been so thoroughly mixed that distinguishing them requires a quality of honest attention most people rarely bring to themselves. The genuine want tends to be quieter and more insistent than the performed one — it doesn’t need to be argued for or justified; it simply is. Developing the attentiveness to hear it underneath the noise of the performed wants is a significant piece of the inner work May is describing.
What would you do if you weren’t afraid of what others would think? This question cuts directly to the relationship between courage and conformism that’s the book’s central theme. The honest answer often reveals a significant gap between the life being lived and the life that would be lived in the absence of social anxiety. That gap isn’t necessarily a practical plan — acting on every answer to this question immediately would be reckless and counterproductive. But the gap is information. It points toward the direction of greater authenticity, which is the direction of genuine psychological health in May’s account.
May’s Legacy and the Continuing Relevance of the Existential Turn
Rollo May was one of the people most responsible for bringing the existential tradition in European philosophy — Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus — into the American psychological mainstream. He translated a body of thought that had been largely inaccessible to non-specialists into the clinical and practical language of American psychology, and in doing so, opened a dimension of the field that has remained productive ever since.
The existential tradition in psychology — which includes not just May but Viktor Frankl, Irvin Yalom, and a substantial number of subsequent practitioners — takes seriously the questions mainstream clinical psychology has tended to set aside as too philosophical: the questions of meaning, freedom, death, and isolation that constitute the fundamental structure of human existence. These questions aren’t pathological. They’re the conditions within which pathology either develops or is transcended. Ignoring them in the name of clinical rigor isn’t rigorous. It’s an amputation that removes the most important part of what’s being studied.
May’s specific contribution — the insistence that anxiety is not primarily a symptom to be eliminated but a signal to be understood, that the suppression of genuine selfhood in the service of social approval is itself a form of illness, that courage is a prerequisite for psychological health rather than a nice addition to it — remains as relevant as it was when he wrote it. The conditions he was responding to have intensified, not resolved. The screens and algorithms of the twenty-first century are more efficient at managing attention and suppressing genuine self-examination than anything available in 1953. The need for the kind of inner turn he describes hasn’t diminished. If anything, the shrillness of the external world makes the quietness and honesty he’s pointing toward more necessary and more difficult than ever before.
The Wellspring of Genuine Motivation
May’s final implicit argument — running beneath the explicit psychological analysis — is about the source of genuine motivation. The empty person, the conformist, the approval-seeker — these are people driven by borrowed motivations. Their energy goes toward goals prescribed by culture, family, or social expectation rather than discovered in genuine encounter with their own nature and values. The resulting achievement, when it comes, doesn’t satisfy the way achievement is supposed to satisfy, because the achievement wasn’t in the service of anything genuinely the person’s own.
The person who has done the inner work May describes — who has faced their anxiety honestly, who has developed genuine values through genuine self-examination, who has found the courage to act in accordance with those values in the face of social pressure — is driven by motivation that’s genuinely theirs. Not motivated by the desire for others’ approval, or the fear of others’ disapproval, or the cultural prescription of what a person in their position should want. Motivated by genuine care for what’s been genuinely found to matter.
This is both the outcome and the ongoing practice of the psychological development May is describing. Not a fixed destination but a direction — increasingly authentic engagement with one’s own life, increasingly honest relationship with one’s own experience, increasingly genuine expression of what’s been genuinely found to be true and valuable. The work doesn’t end. But it deepens, and as it deepens it produces a quality of aliveness — a sense of genuine participation in one’s own existence — categorically different from the mechanical going-through-the-motions of a life lived primarily in response to others’ expectations.
That aliveness — May calls it “being” rather than “existing,” genuine presence rather than mere function — is both the goal and the ongoing reward of the work he’s describing. Available to everyone. Requires courage. And it begins, as all genuine beginnings do, with an honest look at where a person actually is and who they actually are within the life they’re actually living. From there, everything else becomes possible. From nowhere else, nothing essential can begin.
Related: The Way of Men Summary
FROM THE LIBRARY ›
Man's Search for Meaning Summary: Key Takeaways and What to Do Next
References
Editorial StandardsCorrectionsMedical DisclaimerAbout Our ContentAffiliate DisclosureSite Map