We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Carl Rogers’ Person-Centered Approach

essay
The whole doc is available only for registered users

A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

Order Now

Although popular representations of therapy and counselling frequently present an antiseptic approach to the individual— as exemplified by condescension-leaning analytical types— there does exist a positive and humanistic approach to client treatment. One was developed by Carl Ransom Rogers, the Nobel Prize nominated American psychologist, renowned for his non-negative approach to psychology.

            Blessed with a healthy amount of respect and concern for the dignity of the individual, Rogers maintained an interest in the individual not as an object of study, but a subject of treatment. He studied the individual from a phenomenological and idiographic perspective, and viewed the nature of man to be essentially positive and trustworthy. This contrasts him against the likes of Sigmund Freud, the highly influential but sexually fixated psychiatrist who generally regarded people to be ridden with psychological malaise and illness. (Pescitelli, 1996b)

            Freud’s theories were both, depending on perspective, exceedingly elaborate and needlessly complex. He viewed the human psyche to be ridden with unconscious desires subjected to self repression to maintain the illusion of normalcy, that dreams were the means of identifying these latent desires and that sexual desire is the primary motivational energy of human life that ends up being directed and channeled through all other actions. (Boeree, 2006)

            Rogers on the other hand, believed in the idea that the human organism is driven by a positive force, an “actualizing tendency” that aims for the improvement of the self and the development of its abilities. As such, the human organism is a being that is not only inherently purposeful, but constructive as well. Pescitelli (1996b) observes that “the actualizing tendency is the only motive force in the theory. It encompasses all motivations; tension, need, or drive reductions; and creative as well as pleasure-seeking tendencies […] Every person thus has a fundamental mandate to fulfill their potential.

Boeree (2006) notes that Roger’s conception of actualization, unlike Abraham Maslow’s is not limited to human beings and that in his earliest examples, he applied it to mushrooms and seaweed. “Think about it:  Doesn’t it sometimes amaze you the way weeds will grow through the sidewalk, or saplings crack boulders, or animals survive desert conditions or the frozen north?” Furthermore, actualization applies to ecosystems, where a biologically homogenous ecosystem like a corn field is more likely to become extinguished by corn blight while a biologically diverse one like a forest is more likely to survive the extinction of one organism.

That said, Roger’s approach does not rest solely on the capacity for self-actualization. He also presumes that organisms have a psychologically evolved understanding of what is good for them. As such, organisms are inherently able to attend to their own physical and psychological needs in a balanced fashion. However, the creation of civilization and the resulting present day complexities are so far removed from the environment that we evolved in that our psychologically evolved ability to appraise the organismic value of such things ceases to function properly. Boeree (2006) notes that things like refined sugar and chocolate appeal to our valuing systems, but “do not serve our actualization well.”

As such, the present manifestations of dysfunction and neurosis in man are largely a result of the conflict between our individual need for actualization and the stresses that society places upon it, what could essentially be termed an “incongruity” between the real self and the ideal self that we construct for ourselves under the influence of society. (Boeree, 2006) For Rogers, a “fully-functioning” individual is possessed of five qualities:

First, he is open to experience, rather than being defensive. This is not merely a banal trait of being receptive to new ideas, but rather an ability to accurately perceive experiences and feelings in such a manner as to accept reality as it exists. This is crucial, because without an honest appraisal of feelings and reality, true actualization is difficult.

Second, a fully functioning individual lives in the present, acknowledging that while planning for the future and learning from the past is important, they should not interfere with the ability to confront present realities properly.

Third, one should be capable of trusting instinct, that is to say, our individual valuing processes. In other words, trust the real self, the one that results from acknowledging present reality and being open to experience and being in touch with one’s own actualizing tendencies

Fourth, a fully functioning individual possesses experiential freedom. That is to say that regardless of whether free will exists or not, we most experience freedom in the face of choices and options. As such, the fully functioning individual recognizes the freedom that is there in the act of making choices and decisions and as such, does not abnegate the responsibility inherent in recognizing such freedom.

Fifth, the fully functioning person who is in contact with self-actualization, acknowledges responsibility for his actions and participates in the present reality will feel obligated to contribute to society by enabling the actualization of others and promoting life. As such, this person will endeavor towards creativity, whether it is through sciences or the humanities, parenting or social work, or simply doing his best at work. Boeree describes this creativity as being “very close to Erikson’s generativity.”

Rogers’ developed a person-centered approach to therapy. Surprisingly enough, this approach did not result from his conception of the fully-functioning individual. Rather, these theories arose from his experiences in therapy. It was initially conceived and named as the “non-directive” approach, in the sense that the therapist does not lead the client. This approach operates under the presumption that the therapist is NOT the highest authority on the client’s issues and needs. Rather, the client is to determine the direction of his own therapy. Hence, Rogers renamed his therapeutic approach as “client-centered” or “person-centered” (Boeree, 2006)

Rogers described person-centered therapy to be “supportive, not reconstructive,” and Boeree (2006) notes the analogy of learning to ride a bicycle: “When you help a child to learn to ride a bike, you can’t just tell them how.  They have to try it for themselves.  And you can’t hold them up the whole time either.  There comes a point when you have to let them go.  If they fall, they fall, but if you hang on, they never learn.”

As such, the autonomous actualization of a client can only be obtained by promoting independent thinking rather than dependence. By disowning the authoritarian role traditionally accorded to therapists, the person-centered approach encourages independence.

Rogers’ person-centered approach is renowned for the technique of reflection, which is employed in order to mirror the emotional communication of the client. This, coupled with the aforementioned conditions required for positive therapy, which as Pescitelli (1996a) observes, “involves the therapist’s entry into the client’s unique phenomenological world. In mirroring this world, the therapist does not disagree or point out neither contradictions nor attempt to delve into the unconscious. The focus is on immediate conscious experience.”

As such, person-centered therapy involves freeing a person of the obstacles that impede self-development and independence, namely, a rigidity of self-perception that restricts his or her behavior to non-constructive actions. As Mulhauser (2008) observed, “the person-centered approach views the client as their own best authority on their own experience, and it views the client as being fully capable of fulfilling their own potential for growth.”

I find myself largely in agreement with the person-centered approach, as it certainly endorses a more empathetic view which regards the client as someone who is empowered to enable his own development, rather than presume that he is an impotent prisoner of his own neuroses.

Of course, the employment of reflection and empowerment in person-centered therapy is not without its caveats. I don’t believe it would be successful without a therapist who is capable of employing the techniques responsibly rather than merely reiterating the client’s own words back to him. My research found that many writers noted three requirements for proper person-centered therapy:

First is congruence. That is to say that there is a sense of authentic/genuine honesty with the client. (Boeree, 2006). The therapist does not present himself as aloofly professional, but sincerely engaged in the furtherance of the client’s well-being, and as such maintains transparency as to minimize the possibility that the client hold the therapist’s sincerity and interest suspect. (Mulhauser, 2008)

Secondly, the therapist must be empathetic. In effect, the therapist is able to truly understand and comprehend the feelings of the client not just on an objective level, but from the perspective of the client. It is “when the counsellor perceives what the world is like from the client’s point of view” that he “demonstrates […] that that view has value” and “that the client is being accepted.” (Mulhauser, 2008)

Thirdly, the therapist must be respectful in the sense that he regards the client positively and accepting him unconditionally. This is crucial because in order to truly further the client’s well being, he must be able to operate without being judgmental. Since the success of the person-centered approach to therapy is largely contingent on the client’s ability to freely explore thoughts and feelings, whether positive or negative, a therapist who is able to evaluate the client without condemning the client for his neuroses is critical as well. As Mulhauser notes, it is crucial for the client be free of “having to do anything in particular or meet any particular standards of behaviour to ‘earn’ positive regard…”

I don’t mean to be perverse. But, because I find that all individuals regardless of peculiarities and quirks, fascinate me and find it difficult to be offended or regard them in a negative fashion. Thus, I am capable of executing person-centered therapy without judgment. Any client who would decide to seek such counseling from me would not have to worry that I would seek to measure them against my own beliefs, and judge them accordingly.

Additionally, this egalitarian understanding of the diversity of human quirks and peculiarities is derived from what I believe is my own ability to maintain empathy towards all. As such, I would be able to comprehend what a potential client feels regardless of how alien his situation might be to my own experiences. I can identify without having been in his place, and perceive the world from his unique perspective.

Finally, I think I would make a good person-centered therapist simply because I would never pretend that this ability to identify or remove myself from judgment would necessarily deny my ability to maintain interest in a client. I think this is an important quality, for crucial is not only acknowledging his uniqueness as a person and the sincere interest in his well-being, but an honest ability to recognize that therapist or not, I do not have all the answers.

Works Cited

Boeree, C. G. (2006). Carl Rogers. Personality Theories. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rogers.html

Mulhauser, G. (2008, April 22). An Introduction to Person-Centered Counselling. Counselling Resource. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from: http://counsellingresource.com/types/person-centred/

Pescitelli, D. (1996). Rogerian Therapy. Personality & Consciousness. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from: http://pandc.ca/?cat=carl_rogers&page=rogerian_therapy

Pescitelli, D. (1996). An Analysis of Carl Rogers’ Theory of Personality. Personality & Consciousness. Retrieved May 11, 2008 from: http://pandc.ca/?cat=carl_rogers&page=rogerian_theory

Related Topics

We can write a custom essay

According to Your Specific Requirements

Order an essay
icon
300+
Materials Daily
icon
100,000+ Subjects
2000+ Topics
icon
Free Plagiarism
Checker
icon
All Materials
are Cataloged Well

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email.

By clicking "SEND", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
Sorry, but only registered users have full access

How about getting this access
immediately?

Your Answer Is Very Helpful For Us
Thank You A Lot!

logo

Emma Taylor

online

Hi there!
Would you like to get such a paper?
How about getting a customized one?

Can't find What you were Looking for?

Get access to our huge, continuously updated knowledge base

The next update will be in:
14 : 59 : 59