// you’re reading...

Lifestyle

Carl Rogers: pros and cons

Note from Rowland: I’ve learned something from Carl Rogers’ ‘non-directive’ therapeutic approach: how to listen empathetically to someone’s story without being invasive/intrusive with my own questions and comments. Something I didn’t learn: Rogers’ idea that the solutions to pretty-well all of a person’s problems lie within themselves, and shouldn’t be imposed from outside/above/anywhere else…

Update (May 2011): I’ve just learned from a friend whom I trust that Rogers ‘repudiated his major psychotherapeutic approach/es towards the end of his life’ and wanted to write an addendum to his major work ‘Client-Centred Therapy’ but the publishers refused… Now, that led me on a Google search to find out what he actually said in that context. I used the words –  Carl Rogers addendum renounce – but I don’t think I came up with anything substantive.

Anyone got anything better than the following?

Excerpts:

****

‘Carl Rogers, a pioneering psychotherapist and the most influential psychologist in American history (Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989b), was a man ahead of his time. Rogers had many firsts: He was the first to offer an alternative to psychiatry and psychoanalysis and the first to record and publish therapy sessions. He was among the first to use personal expression and informal style in his writings. And, he was the first to challenge the “sacred cows” (Rogers, 1980, p. 235) of mainstream psychology, being particularly critical of research based on logical positivism, traditional modes of education, and certification of therapists–challenges he continued until his death. A caveat: In this space I cannot do justice to the philosophy and practices of a man who authored 16 books and over 200 articles across a nearly 50 year span. These pages contain only my selection and interpretation of bits and pieces of Rogers’ gifts…

Rogers constantly reflected on his professional and personal life experiences, on the client-therapist relationship, and on the process of therapy–continually testing and refining his hypothesis or explanatory principle:

All individuals have within themselves the ability to guide their own lives in a manner that is both personally satisfying and socially constructive. In a particular type of helping relationship, we free the individuals to find their inner wisdom and confidence, and they will make increasingly healthier and more constructive choices. (Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989b, p. xiv)…

Rogers initially believed that three interrelated therapist characteristics were essential to creating a climate that supported and promoted this client-directed competence and growth: genuineness or congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989a). He later added a fourth characteristic that he called spiritual or transcendental, describing it as the special way that a therapist can be spontaneously present with another when the therapist is “closest to his inner, intuitive self and is in touch with the unknown me …then simply my presence is releasing and helpful” (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989b, p. 137). He believed these therapist characteristics or expressions of attitudes and behaviors were a “way of being,” a “philosophy” (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989a). And, when a therapist lived this philosophy it helped each the client and the therapist to “expand the development of his or her capabilities” (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989a, p. 138). Rogers, thus, thought of his approach as a philosophy and his therapist stance as a person-centered way of being. Rogers soon expanded these characteristics to six, presenting them as necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic personality change, regardless of methodology (Rogers, 1966)…

In his later writings, Rogers (1980) asked, “Do we need ‘a’ reality?” (p. 96). Having a reality, he came to believe, was a luxury and myth that we could no longer afford (Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989b). ” Realty when it is viewed from the outside,” said Rogers, “has nothing to do with the relationship that produces therapy” (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989a, p. 51-52). He continued, stressing that what is important, however, is how the therapist responds to the client’s reality. On a global level, Rogers viewed differing realities as a promising resource for humankind to learn from one another without fear–paving the way for change (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989a). I agree with Rogers that differences hold richness and possibility and I have long been more interested in learning about differences rather than trying to negotiate or resolve them (Anderson, 1997). Rogers did not fully address how he thought reality was created. He seemed, however, to view reality as constructed, but as an individual construct similar to a constructivist view rather than as a communal or social construction. This is a difference…

Whereas I talk about the therapist as a conversational partner, Rogers talked about himself as a companion. Although similar therapist positions, the intent, the process, and the destination of the journey are different. As mentioned above, for Rogers, the therapist accompanied the client on a journey toward the core of self and personality change. As a conversation partner I imagine that I am more active than Rogers was based on my interpretations of his writings and viewing of his videotapes. For instance, I am more interactively engaged, there is more back and forth, with the client as I join with them in a mutual or shared inquiry…

Rogers also firmly believed that, “The answer to most of our problems lies not in technology [diagnosis and objectifying] but in relationships” (Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989b, p. xvi). “Taking people apart as objects,” Rogers said, “is already having a genuine cultural effect which I don’t see as healthy” (Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989a, p. 166). Although in his earlier writings Rogers (1951) talked about the techniques of client-centered therapy, he later renounced them, qualifying interesting enough, that he believed it was okay to use a technique if the technique was to foster one of the six conditions for therapeutic personality change (Kirchenbaum & Henderson, 1989a)…

Rogers’ life work focused on the individual. He did not work with or write about couples and families. From my interpretation of his words, he believed that it would be difficult to be present, have the needed focus, and achieve the kind of relationship and subsequent personality change that he strived for if there were multiple people in the room. In addition, he took the position that the changes made by the client, for instance their more realistic and accurate perceptions, their acceptance of others, and the associated behavioral changes, would have positive influences on their family or other significant relational systems.

More… and footnotes/references – http://www.harleneanderson.org/Pages/rogers.htm

****

‘Third Force psychology was founded by, among others, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers [1], and William Glasser.  The term “Third Force” was coined by Abraham Maslow.  Third Force psychology is based on the premise that all people are inherently good; that through a conscious evolution of attitudes, values, and beliefs, one becomes a self actualized individual with the inner wisdom and confidence to guide their own life in a manner that is personally satisfying and socially constructive.  Even though Third Force psychology was developed to be used on mentally ill people, Third Force practices have found their way into the classroom and are being used on healthy children. [2]  In this setting, Third Force practices are being used to change the child’s existing belief system, the assumption being that such will result in a changed society.

Dr William Coulson, ethnopsychologist, was an associate of Dr Carl Rogers.  Together they developed non-directive education based on the same premise as values clarification [3] — another application of Third Force psychology.  The underlying premise of values clarification is that there are no absolutes, no right or wrong answers; that reality is a matter of perception, not a matter of standards and values passed from generation to generation as are the tribal truths that perpetuate a culture and ensure its continued prosperity.  Dr WilliamCoulson later denounced values clarification as an abysmal failure.  He was horrified to learn that schools were using curriculums incorporating values clarification in the classroom to teach children about sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.  In his latter years, Dr Coulson has tried to warn parents of the dangers of values clarification, the name of which he states has been changed to critical thinking, problem solving, or decision making — or any combination thereof.

Abraham Maslow, before his death, denounced Third Force psychology, stating that it was based on false premises; that it failed to take into account the evil (or sin) nature of man.

Carl Rogers, author of Freedom to Learn, disciple of socialist John Dewey at Columbia University, was also known as the “father of the human potential movement.” [9]  Those who knew Carl Rogers knew him as a very emotionally stable individual.  Before his death, in 1987, he spoke of the havoc that twelve years of experimenting with Third Force practices had played on his emotional stability; describing his feelings as increasingly “volatile.”  This has been confirmed by his colleague, Dr Coulson.

The first edition of Freedom to Learn was published in 1969.  Since then two more editions have been published — the second edition in 1983, the third edition in 1994 with H. Jerome Freiberg, who revised the book, taking care to maintain the philosophical integrity of its original author, Carl Rogers, but removing the chapter in which Rogers effectively renounced Third Force psychology describing the experiments in which he had been involved with Maslow as “a pattern of failure.”

The later writings of Maslow and Rogers, disclosing the problems with Third Force psychology and Third Force practices, have been largely ignored by opportunistic behaviorists and educators, eager to bring Third Force practices to the classroom.

More… including footnote references: http://www.learn-usa.com/education_transformation/er005.htm

****

‘Carl Rogers is another example of one of those influential pioneers. While attending
Union Theological Seminary, he and some of his fellow classmates “thought themselves
right out of religious work.” 11 He did not find what he was looking for in Christianity and
thus turned away from his Christian upbringing and Christian calling. 12 Carl Rogers
renounced Christianity and became one of the most respected leaders of humanistic
psychology. He confessed, “I could not work in a field where I would be required to believe insome specified religious doctrine.” 13 Psychology was attractive to him since he was interested in the “questions as to the meaning of life,” but did not want to be restricted by the doctrines of Christianity. 14 Not only did Carl Rogers embrace another religion, secular humanism; he later turned to the occult. Rogers engaged in the forbidden practice of necromancy, which is communication with the dead through a medium. 15
What does a man who has repudiated Christianity have to offer the church about how to live?

Bernie Zilbergeld, in his book The Shrinking of America: Myths of Psychological Change, says:
‘Psychology has become something of a substitute for old belief systems. Different
schools of therapy offer visions of the good life and how to live it, and those whose
ancestors took comfort from the words of God and worshipped at the altars of Christ
and Yahweh now take solace from and worship at the altars of Freud, Jung, Carl
Rogers, Albert Ellis, Werner Erhard, and a host of similar authorities. While in the
past the common reference point was the Bible and its commentaries and
commentators, the reference today is a therapeutic language and the success stories
of mostly secular people changers. 37’

[Note: Footnote references are available at the end of the book PsychoHeresy: The
Psychological Seduction of Christianity. See http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/images/Psych_02.pdf]

****

See also (suggested by Facebook friends):

http://tinyurl.com/4497xcz

http://www.allanturner.co.uk/papers/transpersonal.html

http://myauz.com/ianr/articles/lect10rogers07.pdf

Discussion

Comments are disallowed for this post.

Comments are closed.