Carl Rogers and Humanistic Psychology. Historical Background and Key Figure

Transcription

1 Carl Rogers and Humanistic Psychology Historical Background and Key Figure In the 1950 s, humanistic psychology, the core of the human potential movement emerged as a third force or alternative to Freudian psychoanalysis on the one hand and behaviorist psychology on the other. The humanists, more philosophical than scientific, objected to the psychoanalytic doctrine that the individual s personality and behavior are totally determined by his or her life experiences, especially those of childhood, and also to the behaviorist view that the individual s behavior is only a set of conditioned response to stimuli. Humanistic psychology stressed the individual s power to choose how to behave and the right to fulfill oneself in one s own way. It held that behavior should be judged not in terms of supposedly objective scientific standards but in terms of an individual s own frame of reference. The most important of the humanistic therapies, was the creation of Carl Rogers. An incurably optimistic man, Rogers felt that therapy should focus on present problems, not past causative factors. He also believed that people are naturally good and can solve their own problems once they accept that they are in charge of their fate (Corsini & Wedding, 2000). Rogers believed that human beings have the gift of awareness, and if the therapist could provide the appropriate conditions, clients could become aware of their own perceptions of inner and outer reality and thus could increasingly guide their own life choices in fulfilling directions. The emphasis is on trying to establish optimal conditions for inner exploration, rather than providing insight, or trying to understand the 1

2 choices that the client needs to make, or pushing for choice. Emphatic reflection of the client s moment-by-moment inner awareness is viewed as the most effective way of enabling clients to discover for themselves the awareness that will motivate and guide their choices (Corsini & Wedding, 2000). Viewing clients as experts on their own experience is a central aspect of the client-centered process. The therapist s reflections carry the message of emphatic understanding and also the explicit or implicit expectation that the client will correct that reflected understanding and will carry it further. The assumption is that the personal meaning of the client s experience is in the experience itself, and under optimal conditions, the client can grasp the meanings for themselves. The therapist works consistently within the client s frame of reference, reflecting what it is like to be the person at that moment and making sure never to assume the position of being more expert than the client about the client s experience. The therapist conveys to clients that they are the best judges of their own reality. This is a very important active ingredient of the client-centered therapy because the process provides an experience which is viewed as an antidote to one of clients major psychological problems - not trusting their own experience because of learned conditions of worth (Wachtel & Messer, 1998). Evaluation Roger s belief in a fundamental human motivation toward growth, toward developing autonomy, seeking new experience, and developing one s own potentialities is central in understanding the process in Rogerian therapy. Like other humanistic theorists, Rogers, took a teleological position, viewing human beings as influenced by 2

3 vision of the future rather than being directed wholly by the experiences of the past. There is assumed to be a strong motivation toward becoming what one truly can become. Rogerians do not try to push the client to confront the future and make choices. Rather, the therapist s focus is on enabling clients to turn inward, to get in touch with their own present organismic experience and to evaluate it as a trustworthy guide, rather than having their perceptions and feelings screened by their learned criteria of worth. The emphasis is therefore on process rather than on goals, and it is not viewed primarily as a struggle against opposing forces, but as something that can be achieved under the right conditions. The therapeutic conditions of empathy, unconditional prizing, and genuineness are viewed as being sufficient to release and foster the actualizing tendency. Rogers assumed that, in an atmosphere of non-contingent caring, the client could get in touch with and acknowledge feelings and other inner experiences that are organismically experienced, even though they are inconsistent with the learned selfconcept. Compared to some traditions, person-centered therapy is explicit about its philosophical presuppositions. Many aspects of these assumptions can be appreciated. The insistence on seeing people holistically and as purposeful, the appreciation of other ways of knowing beyond rationality, and the profound respect of what it means to be a person are all positive in many ways. But there are also some concerns with personcentered therapy. The verbatim account of a demonstration interview in Corey (1996, pp ), is almost a parody of therapy, and it is understandable why many therapists would be unimpressed with Roger s method. 3

4 Additionally, person-centered therapy assumes that we are the ultimate force and the sole masters of our own destiny. In other words, all authority is within. The self assumes the position of supreme importance. The strongly experiential, individualistic and relativistic core assertions of person-centered therapy can lead to inflated notions of the self. Self is not all there is, and should not be the center of what is. Rogers does not sufficiently value social interest. The emphasis on self is not only a problem for ontology, but for epistemology as well. Person-centered therapy boldly states that when one s self-actualizing tendency is in tune with the organismic valuing process, trustworthy self-knowledge is fully obtainable and should take precedence over all else. There is some doubt as to whether the organismic valuing process is an inerrant guide. In addition, there are other ways of knowing beyond self-knowledge. Rogers is optimistic about one s experience as the basis of determining truth, but rather pessimistic about the value of culture, traditions and systems of morality. Person-centered therapy is also implicitly a system of ethics. In it, one is ultimately responsible only to oneself. Personal wholeness assumes primacy. It becomes a moral imperative, often at the expense of a proper appreciation of our responsibilities to others. Focusing only on removing our own barriers to our personal growth potential can lead to regarding ourselves too highly or to naïve optimism about the human condition. The emphasis in person-centered therapy on individual freedom and responsibility is positive. Individual choice and the capacity to change are affirmed in the Rogerian tradition. People are seen as having the potential to act and make decisions despite their 4

5 situations. This theory may risk blaming the client for all their problems or regarding them as having more freedom than they actually possess. Additionally, person-centered therapy reduces human growth to the process of pursuing self-actualization by following the direction of one s instinctual organismic valuing process. Rogers renders the intricate and complex task of moral decision making to the instinctual. A more complete view of freedom requires that we choose responsibly between real options. But in the Rogerian therapy there is always one real option, and that is following our biologically rooted instincts. Morality then runs the risk of becoming a matter of following the instinctual compass, rather than being a rigorous and demanding process in response to the real person. To conclude, in his book, p. 214, Corey (1996), states that in roundtable discussions on the issue Why do you think there are so few person-centered practitioners or scholars considering that literally thousands of persons throughout the world attest to the enormous impact Carl Rogers has had on their personal and professional lives? the following responses by participants reflected some of the sources of criticisms of this approach: 1) Person-centered therapy is too simple. 2) It is limited to techniques of attending and reflecting. 3) The approach is ineffective and leads to undirected rambling by the client. 4) It is not necessarily true that individuals have within them a growth potential and/or actualizing tendency. 5

6 References Corey, G. (1996). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy. (5 th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Corsini, R., & Wedding, D. (2000). Current psychotherapies. (6 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Wachtel, P., & Messer, S. (1998). Theories of psychotherapy: Origins and evolution. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 6