1. Carl Rogers’s therapy techniques were obviously influenced by his faith. His ultimate goal in therapy is to enable the client to grow by “provide(ing) a relationship which this person may use for his own personal growth” (p. 32). In order to facilitate this kind of relationship he endeavors to provide the client with unconditional positive regard and empathy which will free the client’s “inborn tendency to move towards maturity,” (pg 35). These three things are Biblically based. The love of God is unconditional; He loved us while we were still sinners. Jesus is empathetic in His ministry; it is His understanding that moves him to perform miracles, and God created us to mature, to grow in relationship with Him.
2. On speaking about teaching the client different techniques to help them achieve change, Rogers said “The most they can accomplish is some temporary change, which soon disappears, leaving the individual more than ever convinced of his inadequacy (pg 33). Successful long-lasting change is achieved only when the individual is changed from the inside out. The techniques are an external effort to change the individual from the outside in. Roger believed that the individual must first be convinced of their capacity for change by providing a relationship based in unconditional regard and empathy (pg35). With this technique, the individual can “discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change, and personal development,” (pg 33).Once the capacity for change is understood then an internal reorganization takes place which enables the individual to finally change ( pg 36).
1. Rogers states that genuineness, among other factors, will affect the outcome of therapy. In your opinion, how can we as Christian psychologists be genuine about our beliefs about homosexuality or abortion when working with a client who is in a same sex relationship or is contemplating abortion? According to Rogers, what is the best way to help our patient without compromising the relationship? (Rogers, 37).
2. As we continue to learn about client centered therapy, it seems like such an easy concept to learn and be familiar with. However, the more I process it the more difficult I feel like it is to learn to be genuine, real, acccepting, transparent, sensitive, and empathetic. It is even that much more difficult to have this attitude when we know that our values clearly clash with our clients' beliefs. On the other hand, it's a relief to know that the person causing change in our clients is not me. It is Christ who is capable of this kind of transformation, and this is something I'll continually have to remind myself when I become discouraged when my client is stagnant in their growth for weeks, months, or even years. (Rogers, 37-38).
Sarah Moon, October 8, 2009.
In response to Rebecca Kulzer:
Rebecca- I also can see how Rogers' faith influenced his ideas for the client centered therapy, especially in his belief that change happens from the inside out. Just as Jesus calls us to have the right heart motivation, we desire long lasting heart change for our clients. There are models of therapy that require clients to change their behavior in hopes that it will change their inner attitude. But I personally believe that the heart change must come before the behavioral transformation in order for successful long term improvement. (Rogers, 33).
1. Rogers (1961) asserts his experience has lead him to whittle down all his clients’ questions to one main question – “Who am I, really?... How can I become myself?” (108). What do you think of Rogers assessment of human psychopathology? Does this humanistic framework provide clients with all the tools and resources needed to answer this question?
2. Rogers (1961) reports the freedom of client self exploration to be an important product of unconditional positive regard. He also refers to this exploration as a “dangerous quest” (p.34). I agree that freedom to explore is vital and can be ‘dangerous’ for a variety of reasons. Therefore, a balance of appropriate limits and boundaries to create a safe place for the client to explore are also required. What would appropriate limits and boundaries in therapy look like in Rogers client-centered approach? What are some circumstances in which freedom of self exploration in therapy, without appropriate limits and boundaries, could be dangerous for clients and/or therapists?
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Melissa Gardner Curri, October 9, 2009
Response to Sarah’s post.
Great questions Sarah! I too grapple with how to fit all the pieces of this theory together. Is it possible for therapists to be truly genuine in the therapy relationship, expressing “words and behaviors, the various feelings and attitudes which exist in me” (p. Rogers, p. 33), without communicating “any type of moral and diagnostic evaluation” (p. 34)? In integration class, we have heard it is impossible to facilitate value free therapy (Dueck, 2009). Genuine reactions and responses could communicate value judgments. For example, a 40 year old married teacher discloses he had an affair with the school librarian. The genuine expressions (body language, facial expression, words, feelings, attitudes) of a therapist who believes this is immoral compared to one who does not will likely look different. If a therapist were to censor his or her natural reaction or attitudes about the client’s behavior, would this be considered disingenuous?
As a classmate mentioned last class, the picture of Christ on the cross – with outstretched arms- comes to mind as a powerful example of unconditional positive regard and acceptance. Jesus was also genuine and authentic. So how did he do it? I’m guessing he had different views from the people crucifying him, yet he endured in loving pursuit of his people. How did he offer unconditional positive regard while being genuine at the same time? I think to a certain degree, it is possible for therapists to extend deep and genuine caring for clients and be genuine at the same time, but because of the limitations of the model and our own humanity, it won’t work perfectly.
Some therapists have a desire to work with certain populations and others feel they cannot due to ethical/personal reasons - it is possible for a therapist with clashing beliefs to block the effectiveness of therapy and harm the client. Hopefully, therapists maintain enough self awareness to recognize their personal conflicts and work through them or refer clients in an appropriate and ethical manner if needed. Informed consent and self-disclosure at the beginning of therapy are wonderful tools for therapists as appropriate and when warranted. I do not have this issue figured out, but more often than not, therapists and clients will have different views (even among the Christian community) so this issue of congruence and unconditional positive regard is significant within the context of Rogers model. Thanks for posting the question!
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1.) Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I am frustrated by some of Rogers’ assertions. Last week some of us discussed Rogers’ admission that his own experience was of paramount importance to him. At the beginning of the second chapter he states that any method that relies on knowledge, technique or training is useless. I do think I understand what he is really trying to get to but at the same time his blatant claim here is illogical. If he is correct about this, why should we read his book or learn his “necessary and sufficient conditions”? It all amounts to just another technique and another book to learn. If we are really Rogers’ students in this aspect then shouldn’t we forsake everything he has said and written and rely only on our own experience, feelings and emotions to guide us? (Rogers, pp. 23-24, 32-33).
2.) Similarly, Rogers states that part of the process of becoming a person is moving to “an internal locus of evaluation” as opposed to allowing society or family members to tell you who you are. Does this seem like a therapeutic benefit to you? On one hand, allowing another’s negative views to handicap you or their version of who you should be force you to into poor choices would obviously be unhealthy. However, if your own experience from moment to moment is all that guides you, how can you ever be in a healthy relationship with anyone as all such relationships take compromise, understanding of the other, and sometimes even self-sacrifice. Rogers’ in my opinion focuses too much on the self in a vacuum and not the self in real context with other people. The idealistic therapist-client relationship does not translate that easily to the real world. (Rogers, pp. 119).
Jonathan Wellman, October 10, 2009
Response to Melissa question 1:
I think Rogers’ assertion is fine for “run of the mill” relationship, work, or family issues, perhaps even addictive behaviors. However, the whole of his therapy requires a person who is capable of healthy self-reflection, introspection and ability to growth. Indeed he assumes everyone has these abilities. But as shown from research with people with schizophrenia mentioned in class his methods fall short when dealing with more severe psychopathology. This makes sense as motivation for change or an internal locus of evaluation is useless when dealing with delusions and hallucinations. If you can’t determine "What is real?", “Who am I?” is not nearly as pressing a concern.
1. In talking about the relationship between client and therapist, Rogers states that the more genuine the therapist, the more helpful s/he will be. I am uneasy with accepting that statement just as it stands. We are going to see many different clients with many different mental illnesses. Honesty can actually be hurtful when it's used inappropriately, say just for the sake of being honest. (Rogers, 33)
2. I did, however, love the part on applying his general statement to all human relationships. I do believe, as Christians, we can all agree that God calls us to love unconditionally and that relationships grow when we can be genuine and transparent with one another. Even though many of our clients will probably require a lot more than unconditional positive regard to grow, it will be a futile attempt if we do not begin by believing in the worth and value of that person that does not change regardless of behavior, mental state, etc. (Rogers, 34, 37).
Response to Sarah Moon's first question: This is a very difficult question and one that I believe we will have to listen to the Holy Spirit for each and every time. I do believe we can start with loving the person, regardless of our beliefs about the issue(s), and then try to discern how to speak to that person and treat that person genuinely, but without compromising our own beliefs. My half-brother, for example,is a homosexual and knows that I believe God designed sex only for one man and one woman in the context of marriage. However, he also knows that I love him and that I admit I cannot begin to understand his feelings of "being born this way."
1)Rogers (1961) shows great humility as a helping professional when he transitions from asking the question “how can I treat this individual?” to “how can I help this individual heal through relationship?” (p. 32-33). This humble response from a therapist who possesses so much training and an incredible knowledge is an example for new therapists, coming directly out of clinical programs and even for the seasoned professional who prides herself on “giving great treatment” to her clients. The responsibility of healing is placed on the individual to empower him or her and help real change occur. The therapist becomes a support to stand alongside the client instead of the illusive figure sitting behind the couch in a smoking jacket.
2)In chapter 6, Rogers (1961) uses case examples to illustrate his meaning on how one becomes a person. The example of the young woman who was a grad student was especially poignant to me. Rogers asks her about her role in getting her education and she slowly, hesitantly works out what that means for her (p. 120-122). It occurs to me while reading about this process that Rogers empowers this individual to take responsibility for her actions or lack thereof. It is only after she has admitted to herself that she has not been able to do so that then she is finally able to accept her role in her educational goals. It seems that therapists are quite often in a situation where control could be taken, answers given, analysis made. However if the therapist is able to find humility and take a more humble approach as one coming alongside the patient in relationship, she may truly help the client create lasting change in her life.
Response to Sarah Moon’s post:
I am so glad Sarah mentioned some of the very same questions and admittedly fears that I too have regarding CCT. I think it is important to remember (as she stated) that the work we do with our clients is actually Christ’s work in an individual. The client’s values are not going to change, solely by being in a relationship with the therapist. That kind of change is a work in the heart. Though I do believe we as therapists are “agents-of-change,” we cannot take on the client’s refusal or inability to open their hearts in certain situations. It is a comfort to know that God has each and every individual in His care because He knows “even the tiny sparrows” and cares about them. How much more must He care about those made in His image?
1) I have heard in previous psychology classes that personality traits are relatively stable over time. However, Rogers asserts that relatively few hours of counseling will produce “significant changes in personality” and “there can be no longer any doubt as to the effectiveness of such a relationship in producing personality change” (Rogers, p. 36). Is he referring to a client’s attitudes and/or behavior, or is he actually claiming to be able to alter one’s personality?
2) Rogers talks of valuing clients no matter how hurt they are, no matter what they think, and no matter how rebellious their actions (Rogers, p. 34). Last week I was struggling with the idea of a therapist being perfectly warm and empathetic because it might confuse clients or give them unrealistic expectations of human friendship. Today, however, I began thinking of the kind of friendship that God wants to have with each and every human being. As therapists, perhaps we are to give our clients a better view of the Divine. It would be wonderful to wake up every morning with the goal of preparing my client’s hearts to be able to take a step closer to God.
In response to Nikki’s post: I, too, struggled with Roger’s comments on genuineness. He claims that we should express our feelings and attitudes so that our relationship with clients can have “reality” (Rogers, p. 33). Yet isn’t therapy about the client? I agree that we shouldn’t lie to clients and that we shouldn’t try to be someone we’re not, but shouldn’t we keep our attitudes out of therapy? How “real” can we be without taking the focus off the client or causing our client to be anxious?
1. Carl Rogers’s therapy techniques were obviously influenced by his faith. His ultimate goal in therapy is to enable the client to grow by “provide(ing) a relationship which this person may use for his own personal growth” (p. 32). In order to facilitate this kind of relationship he endeavors to provide the client with unconditional positive regard and empathy which will free the client’s “inborn tendency to move towards maturity,” (pg 35). These three things are Biblically based. The love of God is unconditional; He loved us while we were still sinners. Jesus is empathetic in His ministry; it is His understanding that moves him to perform miracles, and God created us to mature, to grow in relationship with Him.
2. On speaking about teaching the client different techniques to help them achieve change, Rogers said “The most they can accomplish is some temporary change, which soon disappears, leaving the individual more than ever convinced of his inadequacy (pg 33). Successful long-lasting change is achieved only when the individual is changed from the inside out. The techniques are an external effort to change the individual from the outside in. Roger believed that the individual must first be convinced of their capacity for change by providing a relationship based in unconditional regard and empathy (pg35). With this technique, the individual can “discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change, and personal development,” (pg 33).Once the capacity for change is understood then an internal reorganization takes place which enables the individual to finally change ( pg 36).
In response to Sarah Moon's first response:
I would venture that one can still be genuinely concerened about ones client even if thier beliefs differ from our own. While I agree it would be a difficult situation, you can still empathize with them on an emotional level. They are still individuals in need of healing; they desire to be changed for the better; they need help to successfully navigate difficult choices. With that perspective I think it might be easier to be genuine with one’s client.
I would venture that one can still be genuinely concerened about ones client even if thier beliefs differ from our own. While I agree it would be a difficult situation, you can still empathize with them on an emotional level. They are still individuals in need of healing; they desire to be changed for the better; they need help to successfully navigate difficult choices. With that perspective I think it might be easier to be genuine with one’s client.
I would venture that one can still be genuinely concerened about ones client even if thier beliefs differ from our own. While I agree it would be a difficult situation, you can still empathize with them on an emotional level. They are still individuals in need of healing; they desire to be changed for the better; they need help to successfully navigate difficult choices. With that perspective I think it might be easier to be genuine with one’s client.
1.Rogers discusses that there is a tendency of humans “to expand, extend, become autonomous, develop, mature” which can be hidden deep within a person behind many facades. I would argue that this desire can also be learned from culture. And in a more direct way, the desire can be learned from the behaviors and feelings of the psychologist. The psychologist desires for the client to be healthy and to self-actualize. In turn, the client will desire this for themselves. (Rogers, 35)
2.I find it interesting that Rogers generalizes his model of the psychologist-client relationship to a variety of relationships. For example, he states that if a teacher creates this relationship in class, the student will be more responsible. I think the one thing missing is that the relationship Rogers talks about (between the psychologist and client) is very personal and intimate. It flourishes in an intimate setting. I think it would be hard for a teacher or an administrator to create this type of relationship when oversee many people at a time. (Rogers, 37)
Response to Nikki’s first comment: Nikki, I agree with you about being genuine. I think that it takes discernment to know when and what to say. Sometimes it is good to be genuine and real, transparent. But at other times, the client is not ready to hear what you really think or what the reality of their situation is.
1) Rogers' underlying belief that all people have value and are worthy in and of themselves nomatter what "his condition, his behavior, or his feelings" is countercultural and counter-religion in many ways (Rogers, p.34). This belief carries with it a power that transforms therapy and the therapeutic relationship in sometimes unexplainable ways. However, many "conditions" are unavoidable and fairly unchangeable in human nature. I am sure that not all Rogerian therapists are clean slates in terms of their unconditional positive regard for their clients. Rogers, from what we have read, may have had a super-human ability to have unconditional positive regard but this is simply not the case in most of humanity--though we would like it to be and as Christians we strive for it to be. I wonder about how much the model is affected by our humanness in this way.
2) Rogers states that the therapist should "be real" within the therapeutic relationship (Rogers, p.33). It is obvious that a therapist should be aware of him or herself while in the therapy room in any modality (countertransference,values, etc.) but I got the impression from Rogers that this is a different kind of self-awareness. The therapist needs to be aware of unconscious attitudes and of his or her own tendencies towards putting up a facade(Rogers, p. 33). I was wondering if a therapist would need to be engaged in relationships like the one that Rogers is promoting for the client to be in him or herself? Is client-centered therapy something Rogers would promote for therapists to go through before practicing themselves. I think this would be especially imortant because of the way in which Rogers emphasizes experience as the key component for real change.
In response to Amber Blews... I agree that Rogers' humility is a beautiful example for us. He considers himself a "companion" to his client "accompanying him in the frightening search for himself" (Rogers, p. 34).
To add on to response to Amber Blews... (I posted it before finishing)....
It would be so difficult to be humble enough to feel that you are a companion to a seriously disturbed sexual offender (for example). It is so easy to look down on the behaviors and "sins" that seems so much worse than our own. However, at the same time, Jesus came to correct this kind of pride. In Matthew 5 we see Jesus level the playing field in order to show us all that we are depraved.
1. I think that my questions regarding Rogers' client-centered therapy are similar to what many of my classmates are saying. Namely, I have a hang up about how to reconcile Rogers' concepts of transparency and unconditional positive regard. He says, "...is characterized by a sort of transparency on my part, in which my real feelings are evident; by an acceptance of this other person..." (Rogers, 34). I feel like I understand what he means. If he genuinely cares about his clients, then nothing other than that genuine care can be shown-thus he can be transparent. But I wonder how realistic this is. Is there a situation that the Rogers' transparency might actually manifest in contempt or dislike for a client?
2. I find it quite apt and self-aware of Rogers to be able to identify where his theory is "his" and where it is empirically supported, or both. He says, "but it is my belief that it exists in every individual , and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed" (Rogers, 35). Here, Rogers refers to his view that all persons if given the proper climate will move forward toward a health development, improvement, and growth. This seems to be informed by his faith and his worldview. Other psychologists may clearly shape their theories from the context of an entirely different worldview (i.e. Jung and Freud) and thus the client is seen in a completely different light.
Response to Sarah Moon (and others who responded to Sarah):
Sarah and others...Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points of view and would love to hear more about your opinions if I am misled. Having said that, forgive me if I end up posting a critique of something you didn't actually mean to say...
What I am curious about is why you (and several others who concur with you) seem to assume that all Christians have the same views on homosexuality and abortion? After rereading your first reflection several times, I find that it seems to imply that we all agree on these matters. So, while I believe you have a great question in wondering how your beliefs about homosexuality and abortion may influence a psychotherapy session for you, I would urge you to consider that my beliefs toward homosexuality and abortion may look nothing like yours-even though we both fall under the broad category of "Christian."
1. Most psychological approaches do not require the therapist to be genuine in therapy. It is more like wearing a therapist mask during sessions, and taking it off when the therapist leaves office. However, it is interesting that Rogers emphasizes the importance for therapist to be oneself. Also instead of having the therapist to act out being accepting and liking the client, Rogers sees it essential that the therapist actually understand and like the client as a person for proper therapeutic setting (pp 34).
2. Roger's view that a properly established relationship alone can function to help the growth of an individual is interesting (pp. 33). His emphasis of a need to grow through proper relationship made me wonder how Roger's would interpret the Harlow's monkey experiment. Perhaps he may understand that the monkey needs a relationship more than the actual physical touch, which is why the monkeys were unable to have a sound relationship with other live monkeys.
In response to Rebecca Kulzer: I'm not sure whether the growth and maturity that Rogers is thinking of is the same concept of maturity the Bible implies. I see Rogers' understanding of growth as more of a being mentally and relationally healthy, with a self-reliant and self-fulfilling life, which is more closely related to secular understanding of growth.
1) Rogers states that a person exposed to attitudes of acceptance, genuineness, and deep empathic understanding will "invariably" change and grow. Interestingly, he feels the need to defend his word choice by saying it was "only after long and careful consideration" that he chose to use that word. I wonder what some of those considerations were. Surely, not all of his patients got "better." In addition, how would he explain disorders such as schizophrenia that seem to require more than client-centered therapy? (Rogers, 35)
2) I found it interesting that Rogers extends his basic principles for therapy to all relationships where there is a desire for growth. He mentions family and school as two other contexts in which positive regard, empathy, and genuineness can help develop people. It seems almost too obvious to me now, but perhaps we can extend many principles of therapy into other areas of life. (Rogers, 38)
David Choi, Oct. 12, 2009
Response to Bobby's 1:
I think that'll always be a tough issue. The sense that I got from Dr. Simpson in class is that even if we feel negative (or inappropriate) feelings toward the client, we should "contain" them. Perhaps we can still be genuine without revealing everything that we're thinking. If the disgust becomes so great that it cannot be contained, then I would consider referring.
1. One of the burning questions that has always presented itself to me is how a person, having internalized so many conditions of worth, could come to decide who it is they truly want to be, even in the context of a warm and accepting relationship. Rogers speaks of actualizing to become the person you ultimately want to be, and I still cannot fathom how someone in our world, with all of the different options there are could choose one person to be. If I were coming through a very orientation-specific form of this therapy, I think my various interests would pull me into so many directions that I would fragment into pieces. Does Rogers possibly assume that we have a singular and uniting underlying authentic personality? (pp. 35-37)
2. The idea of having two levels of masks (pp. 109-111) to work through in therapy is an interesting idea in that it shows the true complicated natures that people are willing and unwilling to see in themselves. The Kierkegaard quote in the middle of that section states, “the most common despair is to be in despair at not choosing, or willing, to be oneself; but that the deepest form of despair is to choose ‘to be another than himself.’” I wonder, looking at the pressures to perform that are placed on the youth of today, and on the young adults and the workforce to perform and be productive and live hyper-content and hyper-meaningful existences, if some of the non-biological depression that people face is a reflection of this despair. It seems plausible that in trying to become the best that we can, we often prostitute the simpler person that we long to be.
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Response to Rachel Question 1
I think that he is referring to what would, confusingly be a combination of the two. Certainly, Rogers would be looking at the change in the attributes that are presented to the outside world, because those would have been developed to meet conditions of worth and gain acceptance artificially. I am not certain, but based on the idea of two masks in Chapter 6, I would say he also looks for a change in personality in that the forced personality of the person, or the self they thought they were in order to reduce distress, would change and become more who they were meant to be from the beginning had they received proper acceptance and warmth from childhood. I know I have worded that poorly, but I think that would be plausible.
1. So I am curious, did Rogers actually never encounter a client who, when offered a therapeutic relationship that is described in chapter 2, did not show a tendency to develop, mature, self actualize, etc. (Rogers, 1989, p. 35). After reading Prochaska & Norcross (2007) last week, it seems that either his sample was incredibly biased or perhaps he saw change (or clients reported change) that did not really occur.
2. One of the criticisms of Client Centered Therapy in Prochaska & Norcross (2007) is that in Rogers research "an untreated control group [was omitted]" (p.153). However, Rogers says on page 36 of On Becoming A Person that "individuals who live in such a relationship [characterized by client centered therapy techniques] even for a relatively limited number of hours show profound and significant changes in personality, attitudes, and behavior, changes that DO NOT HAPPEN IN MATCHED CONTROLS" (emphasis mine).
Clearly I do not think either of these authors are being deceitful. However, how should I interpret this? Was the omission of controls for comparison more the exception than the rule (or vise versa)?
1.) I find it fascinating that Rogers suggests not only that this way of interacting and being is good for therapy, but also imagines that all people would benefit from this way of interacting with each other. While I can see the good that can come from this way of interacting with others, I don't know if would actually be great for society. How does one confront those who harm you, or do you wrong if you need to show everyone empathy and unconditional positive regard? pg 37)
2.) I am curious as to what Rogers means when he says that we have a tendency "to move forwards towards maturity" (pg 35). While I assume that he means that we actualize ourselves to the best of our potential, there seems to me to be an unspoken ideal that is never named and might in fact be an unspoken push from the therapist on to the client. I would like to know what his end goal for the client would be in light of this unnamed goal.
3.) In response to Bobby's last comment. I agree. My beliefs do not line up with what I see to be the majority of respondents here. My views on homosexuality (biblically described as something ONLY men can do) and abortion, as well as issues with stem cell research or other "hot button" issues are probably different that others. Karkkainen (a Fuller professor) has written a wonderful book on contextual theologies from a ecclesiological view point (how we do church, what does Church mean) that you can pick up in the book store that stresses that your cultural lens will color how you experience all aspects of Christianity. Personally, my empathic trouble in therapy would be someone who is a fundamentalist coming into therapy with me and wanting to read the Bible literally and who takes a hard-line conservative approach.
I say this not to say that we shouldn't talk about these things. Let's face it, it will come up at some point in the next half decade that we are together. Rather, to affirm Bobby's point, maybe we could not make assumptions about what we all believe as Christians, just like we wouldn't believe that all women or all men think the same thing about either subject.
I also want to say thank you for disagreeing with me about these issues (to those who do) as it forces me to reassess (for a moment at least) what it is that I believe and why. I hope I can do the same for you.
I am not going to attempt to answer your question but rather comment on what you said leading up to it. I have got the impression in my own personal experience with therapy that my therapist was trying to weed out what he recognized as the expectations of others and highlight and even emphasize who I wanted to be.
I have certainly been inundated with opinions on what I should do with my life and how I should respond to various situations. However, at least for me, I had not yet completely lost the ability to differentiate between what I wanted to do and what I thought was expected of me. Sometimes there was not a clear distinction but at times there was.
I think it is an ongoing process discovering who you "want to be". Clearly there are all kinds of messages, pushing you in various directions. Making that distinction between what I should do and what I want to do is key. Sometimes there is a clear distinction while other times there is not. But, these are the things you wrestle with in between sessions, talk with your therapist about, and report on any progress that has been made.
1) I resonate with Rogers' assertion that effective and lasting change can never come about simply through explaining very rationally what is wrong with a client and how they ought to rectify it (p. 33). The true change, he says, comes in the context of the therapist-client relationship. I think this is true in general - as we discussed in integration earlier today, it's one thing to cognitively recognize what is true or right and an entirely different thing to internalize and practice it. I think that the experience of relationship with others is what shows us that we need growth and then teaches us how to grow.
2) I struggle with the idea of maintaining "complete freedom from any type of moral or diagnostic evaluation" within the context of therapy while remaining genuine (p. 34). If a therapist is to be authentic and real in therapy, how can she disguise her values and opinions about moral or diagnostic questions? The "genuine reality which is in me" (p. 33) may be contrary or even offensive to the client - so what happens then?
Response to Jay Wellman (#1):
You make a really good point about Rogers' bold assertion at the beginning of the chapter. Publishing this book detailing his theory and techniques seems quite contradictory, and I'm not sure what to make of it either. I feel that Rogers makes many extreme claims throughout this chapter, presenting them as if they are fact, and I think it's wise to take these assertions with a grain of salt and develop our own perspective by drawing on a wider base of knowledge and personal experience.
#1 I have struggled with Rogers approach to therapy over these past few weeks. It seemed it would be difficult to maintain unconditional positive regard toward a client that may have committed some act that was considered grotesque or violent. However, I am beginning to see this approach from a different perspective. Rogers must have had a significant knowledge about ministry and the bible because according to Prochaska and Norcross, he spent two preparing for a career in ministry before beginning his PhD studies at Columbia University (p 130). It would seem only natural for there to be traces of his ministry training in his psychotherapy model. So, when Rogers says “by acceptance I mean a warm regard for him [the client] as a person of unconditional self-worth—of value no matter what his condition, his behavior, or his feeling (Rogers p 34);” is he asking us to look at our clients the same way Christ looks at us? As a vessel eligible to receive His unconditional love and grace in spite of our current and/or past behaviors; no matter how grotesque or violent?
#2 According to Rogers, defensiveness and inner fear can lead to individuals behaving in really terrible ways such as being cruel to others, acting immature, become destructive, etc. (Rogers p 27). Are these the only two conditions (defensiveness and inner fear) that Rogers believes can lead to a person engaging in disturbing or anti-social behaviors? If not, what are other antecedent conditions?
In response to Jamie’s comments:
I wonder the same thing. I believe it is impossible for there to have been 100% positive outcome for every client that Rogers met with for psychotherapy.
1. Rogers asserts that it is important to be genuine even "when the attitudes I feel are not attitudes with which I am pleased, or attitudes which seem conducive to a good relationship" (33). However, he does not really address the issue of how much one should divulge with clients and other individuals. While I understand the concept of not putting on a facade, or being fake with one's clients, it seems from this comment that one should not conceal any of their emotions even if negative. Thus, my question is where is the line between maintaining one's authenticity with a client, and not divulging things/emotions that might be detrimental to the client-therapist relationship?
2. When discussing how to create an environment in which the client has total freedom to explore them selves Rogers asserts "There is also a complete freedom from any type of moral or diagnostic evaluation..." contending that these elements are threatening to the client (34). However, we have been talking about integration of our faith into our professional role as psychologists, thus, how does this aspect of client centered therapy work from an integrative approach, especially if one is to be fully genuine with their clients?
3. In response to Sarah Moon:
I think that as Christians we often make the mistake of assuming that because we believe something is wrong or a sin, we have a responsibility to inform non-Christians (or even other Christians) of our beliefs and hold them to our standard of behavior. However, reality is, sin is sin regardless of how socially stigmatized our un-stigmatized that behavior is. Thus, all sin result in separation from God. Consequently, as far as the therapist who believes homosexuality or abortion is a sin is concerned, I do not believe that one should take greater issue with one sin over another, thus, the client who identifies themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transexual should be viewed as any other client one sees (granted, we have to acknowledge the perspective they are coming from and their world view...), and the same goes for a client who is considering abortion. Thus, one should not be opposed to working such clients. There is a quote from Billy Graham, that applies well to the therapy relationship. Graham states: "Its God's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's job to convict, and it's my job to love". However, if after a client becomes aware that you are a Christian and feels uncomfortable working with the therapist has a responsibility to refer that client out.
(1) Rogers states that using a relationship for growth leads to “becoming a unique and self-expressive person” (Rogers, 37). What does the posture of the person in the relationship that facilitates such growth? I think one aspect that is vital to self-expression is being aware of the capacity of the self to develop differences that can benefit the self and the relationship.
(2) What is the expression of the self? Does that include self-expression shaped by the surrounding environment? Rogers states, “The real self is something which is confortable discovered in one’s experiences, not something imposed upon it” (114). I cannot see a significant difference between one’s experiences and imposed experiences. There are several factors that impose on an individual that I would say can be viewed as part of their genuine experience that leads to the real self.
(3) Response to Takisha: In regards to your question about other conditions to disturbing behavior, I would say that one other conditions is not acknowledging limitations. This too can lead to immature behavior or self-destruction.
1)I feel like when I am reading Rogers, I am reading the Bible. And by that I mean that I think Rogers touches on Biblical principles of community and relationships. He says, "I become a companion to my client, accompanying him in the frightening search for himself" (34). He also says that because of that relationship, the client feels freedom to explore. (34) We, as Christians,are supposed to carry one another's burdens. We also talk about the freedom there is in Christ and i think that freedom exists because we are safe and not living in fear.
2) I tend to contradict myself. Sometimes I feel strongly one way about an issue and then another day, when the extreme has passed, i feel a different way.I can handle that shift in myself, but when other people contradict themselves, I get so frustrated. However, Rogers points out that in CCT I, as the therapist, need to acceptance of the client "no matter how much they may contradict other attitudes he or she has had in the past." (34) Wow, that is a hard to accept.
Response to Jay: When Roger says we cannot rely on any intellectual training to change the person, I do not think he is saying "throw out technique and knowledge" instead he is emphasizing that what truly changes someone is not a list of reasons and examples. Change comes through a conversion (not necessarily in the sense of salvation). We were discussing in Dr. Garrel's research lab that educating on our tendency to scapegoat does not stop the violent acts against the scapegoat, it just means we have a more informed scapegoat (Dr. Dueck's example). So techniques, reasons, proof can only do so much to change a person, something deeper has to happen and i think that is what Rogers is touching on.
1. I found Rogers's concept of negative learning interesting. In regard to clinical training he states, "No approach which relies upon knowledge, upon training, upon the acceptance of something that is taught, is of any use" (Rogers, 32). I appreciate this statement in that it emphasizes the person of the therapist as the most important quality to effective therapy, but I also believe that a therapist does need to have a foundational knowledge of psychology and therapy that is learned.
2. Rogers's describes being genuine as "the willingness to be and to express, in my words and my behavior, the various feelings and attitudes which exist in me ...even when the attitudes I feel are not attitudes with which I am pleased..." (Rogers, 33. My question is what if the therapist is experiencing negative feelings toward the client, such as annoyance? And not as a result of countertransferance. Is it really beneficial for the therapist to reveal this to the client?
In response to Sarah:
Sarah brings up a very good question. I think that we as Christian therapists can be genuine in our beliefs about sin, especially the more sensitive ones that you mentioned, if we can remember to not treat some sin as worse than other sin.
1) Rogers says that the motivation for change in an individual is a “drive toward self-actualization” that comes from within each person (Rogers, p. 35). This may be the case to some extent with most of the people that Rogers encountered, but what about extreme psychopathology like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? Also, what about the biblical understanding of the fall? I think that Adam and Eve had an actualizing tendency to become all that God made them to be. But we are under a curse that will not be lifted until Christ returns. I think we may have vestiges of that growth tendency as a reflection of God’s image in us and of life before the fall, but I do not think that it is as universal as Rogers says.
2) The relationship that Rogers says allows people to discover their ability to grow involves congruence, empathy, and warmth (Rogers, p. 33). He says that he now embodies those qualities in everyday relationships and finds them useful. How ethical is it to charge a fee, usually an expensive one, to be a good friend and listen, be authentic, and to put oneself in their shoes? It would seem more ethical to provide widespread training to all in how to be a better friend, mother, father, son, daughter, coworker so that everyone could provide this kind of healing and growth promotion relationship to those close to them.
Response to Sarah Moon: Regarding genuineness, also, what do you do when you honestly do not like your client and have trouble being warm toward them? And by definition, isn’t it sometimes not genuine to show unconditional positive regard. People’s actions sometimes break your trust in them, and it would be going against your feelings to affirm them despite what they do.
1. Rogers obviously makes the assumption that on a fundamental level all people are good. He states that through understanding himself, the client will "cope with life more constructively" (Rogers, 36). This must be Roger's world view, but what if a client does not want to better themselves? For example, what if a client with severe psychopathology, such as antisocial personality disorder, only discovers that he/she does really hate people and wants nothing to do with them?
2. An idea central to Rogers is the concept of being genuine. He explains that it is extremely important that the therapist be "real" and relate his/her own feelings. At the same time, he says that the therapist should accept all of the client's feelings, no matter how outrageous (Rogers 33-34). I think being genuine is important. However for me, if a client took pleasure in hurting others, I would react with shock. Is this okay in the Rogerian model, or does it contradict the idea of accepting the client as they are?
In response to Bobby Salimi #2-
I find your comment quite interesting. For example, I have a world view where I believe we are created in the image of God, but at the same time are sinful creatures. Though I believe that everyone can change, I have accepted the fact that some people will never change for the good. In a Rogerian sense, I am not sure that these people have room the be helped. I wonder if Roger's ever came across a person such as that. Imagine if he came across the Pharaoh in Egypt during the time of Moses. No matter how much he developed a relationship with the Pharaoh, I do not believe that would have changed the Pharaoh.
1) I really appreciate Rogers’ foundation of connectedness, that the experience of one person (in this case himself) can be used by others to learn and create meaning because we are all involved in human relationships and share the foundation of humanity. In reading this chapter, it surprised me how postmodern Rogers’ thoughts, ideas, and theories are when he was writing during a time primarily influenced by modernity. Rogers focuses on experience of the individual even while encouraging the importance of relationship/community. This idea extends to his belief that the basic principles of his theory should not simply be applied to the client-therapist relationship but should be the foundation of every relationship. He encourages us to imagine what people would be like if this foundation was primary in the relationships that shape us the most as we mature (parent/child, teacher/student, administrator/staff, military officer/soldier, leader/member, etc.). (Rogers, pp. 32, 33 & 37)
2) I appreciate Rogers’ theory, the hope that he holds for the potential healing within human relationships. I agree with Rogers’ theory as an ideal, as the way things should be and would have been from the beginning if sin hadn’t been introduced into the world. Part of restoration is returning to that relationship, that central understanding that allows a person freedom to explore the different aspects of who they are, which leads to learned change/repair in that safe environment. However, I don’t believe that this relationship alone is sufficient for change, as Rogers’ believed. The foundation of healing and restoration is Christ; Christ is the healer. No healing comes apart from Him, from His truth. Therefore, even the relationship that Rogers’ explains as the ideal environment for change in a client is simply mimicking, to a certain extent, the kind of relationship Christ came to build with us. For the most part, I agree with Rogers’ theories and techniques but would argue that the foundation from which these techniques and basic principles come from are Christ and not simply the relationship between two people (therapist and client). The foundation of relationship between two people is the commonality of humanity between them and humanity is our being created in the image of God. (Rogers, pp. 34)
Sarah, I think that is a really important question. I think its important to keep in mind that Rogers himself specified that acceptance (and genuineness) is not necessarily agreeing with all of the thoughts and behaviors of the client. “By acceptance I mean a warm regard for him as a person of unconditional self-worth-of value no matter what his condition, his behavior, or his feelings. It means a respect and liking for him as a separate person, willingness for him to possess his own feelings in his own way. It means acceptance of and regard for his attitudes of the moment, no matter how negative” (Rogers, pp. 34). I think as Christians we have the potential to come from this foundation more so than other therapists would because we understand that every human has inherent worth in the fact that they were made in the image of God. Whereas culture defines a person’s worth based on physical appearances or wealth accumulation (or the lack of these things), as Christians we are called to look past these aspects to the heart of the person. We are called to embrace those that are shunned by society. Jesus exampled this for us when he ate with the tax collector and defended the woman caught in adultery. Also, it brings to mind something that Dr. Dueck said in class. He begins his sessions by being open and honest with the client about his own religious beliefs and moral standing, yet expresses with sincerity that he still desires to engage in dialogue with that person if they choose to. Being accepted as a person is sometimes more of what is needed than being agreed with. Additionally, as Christians we should come from a place of humility, realizing that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and therefore all are in need of Christ’s grace. We are commanded to forgive and give mercy and grace to others, just as we received mercy and grace from Christ. Hopefully, from the context of our own humility and realization of the grace we’ve received, we can gain a deeper and more genuine sense of empathy for our client struggling with those difficult issues (though not condoning those behaviors).
1.Rogers asserts that his therapeutic techniques are meaningful not only in a therapist-client role, but in "all my human relationships" (pp. 37). As clinicians, how far do we take Roger's idea of using therapeutic techniques in our personal relationships as well. Where does appropriate self-care come into play when we are genuinely focusing on others with warmth and empathy without the expectation of a give-and-take relationship? Are there ethical conflicts with this paradigm for the relationship between therapist and client aka- should the therapeutic relationship look different from friendships)? 2. I very much like Roger's ideas about a genuineness and warm as a catalyst for empowering the client. However, I wonder if clients who have been diagnosed with more severe personality disorders or psychosis disorders would still be able to use the therapeutic relationship for growth (pp.35). I am still wrestling with the idea of not giving firm boundaries about the therapeutic relationship with some clients who may need firm boundary setting.
In response to Melissa #1: I am not sure that I agree with Roger's framework for the more severe forms of psychopathology. I believe that what makes his therapeutic technique so beneficial is that it bridges a gap in our individualistic and self-centered culture more than anything. In that regard, I believe his therapeutic technique is perfect for the average person with a relationship issue. I am not sure about tools and resources, however I do believe that fostering deep character questions such as "Who am I?" could the therapeutic. Sometimes giving voice to questions is therapeutic in and of itself without needing an answer. Maybe the question of "Who am I?" is asked throughout the life span by a healthy person adapting to life as it comes.
Katherine Strong Woods
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1. “How can I be of help?” Part II of the text is entitled with this question. It is this question that I think is ultimately addressed in chapter 2 when Rogers says that when approaching therapy, his main focus shifted from “How can I treat, or cure, or change this person?” (32), to “How can I provide a relationship which this person may use for his own personal growth?” (32). There have definitely been times in which I have viewed the therapeutic encounter as a means for the therapist to treat or in some way shape and change their client in a positive way in order that they may move toward growth, rather than, as a process in which, through the very nature of the client-therapist relationship, the person in therapy may utilize the therapist as a tool in growing. I think Rogers' question “how can I provide…” is profound and as much as he lies a foundation for this kind of therapy, much is left up to the individual therapist to figure out. Just as we have discussed in class, people are sometimes confused because they think that client-centered therapy offers tangible techniques for therapy, and while it does offer some as tools, Rogers' clearly focused on broader concepts and laying a foundation of the therapeutic relationship.
2. One thing that I have been trying to sort out in my mind, is the conflict of communicating unconditional positive regard, and yet still being my whole self in the therapeutic relationship, not neglecting or discarding my personal convictions. Especially, for example, when it involves something surrounding sin. Some people, particularly those in the secular world, view Christians as judgmental and as hypocrites. Many times, we have proven to be both. How can we be upfront about our values going into therapy, not pushing them aside, and at the same time, communicate how can we (as Christians) have the attitude that we are all sinners, all have fallen short, all need grace, saved or unsaved, each and every day without actually saying and explaining all of this to the client, which in most cases, is inappropriate and there is no space for that kind of discussion in therapy. It is not that I doubt I will be able to have unconditional positive regard for another, it is more a matter of communicating that, while at the same time, not being afraid to be transparent, or real, which as Roger’s discusses in the text, is fundamental (33). I know that how a therapist interacts with their clients depends largely on the individual differences of the client, but how does one do this?
In response to Jessica- I too, have wondered where that line is. It seems rather difficult to be completely real and upfront, but at the same time, not divulge too much. In my thinking about this, I have developed one idea, which is that, as we act a true friend, and a sounding board to the client, in order that they may see themselves more clearly, or in a new way, we are to be honest and sincere in our reactions, thoughts and feelings, however only revealing what is absolutely necessary for the clients growth. I still do not know exactly what this means, but it is the best I have come up with. ☺
1. Right now, I am feeling a strong disconnect between Rogers urging us to be genuine and real while also urging us to exhibit unconditional positive regard. Rogers asks us to be aware of our own feelings "rather than presenting an outward facade of one attitude, while actually holding another attitude at a deeper or unconscious level" (p. 33). How can I be genuine in my feelings and express those honestly when a client is exhibiting behavior that I don't think I can show positive regard for? I do understand that unconditional positive regard is toward the person and not their behavior, but I am still experiencing a disconnect in imagining how this would play out in therapy.
2. There is a strong parallel between Rogers' explanation of a therapeutic relationship as a means for positive, long-lasting change in a person instead of "upon knowledge, upon training", or "something that is taught" and Jesus' invitation to come into relationship with Him (p. 32). It is through our relationship with Christ and not just the head knowledge of Scripture and religion that we have learned along the way that leads our heart to change.
In response to Melissa's 2nd question: I agree that appropriate boundaries are probably essential when one is exploring the "dangerous quest" of the inner psyche. Timing is probably of the essence with exploration such as this because it might be harmful to the client to start exploring something and open up the proverbial can of worms only to be told that their "time is up" for the session that day. I don't know where those boundaries lie, but I do agree that we will need to learn where they are once we start seeing clients.
1) Many posts this week center around the conflict between personal beliefs and the need to show unconditional positive regard in the therapy room. Perhaps we are confusing the idea of unconditional positive regard with unconditional approval. I think that if we are to look at Rogerian theory through a theological lens, it makes sense to examine God’s type of love. In my opinion, God loves us all for our inherent worth as his children, but that does not mean that he sanctions every action or word we speak. I think that Rogers is trying to get us to show warmth and love towards the person as a whole, even while we might not agree with how they live their life.
2) Secondly, I have struggled with Roger’s idea that all people possess “the capacity and the tendency, latent if not evident, to move forward toward maturity” (Rogers, 1961, 35). Most people from a Christian background would take such a statement and hold it up against Biblical texts citing that man is inherently evil in nature. (The following is simply speculation.) If we assume the theory of the Reciprocating Self that we have been studying in Lifespan, then man’s evil nature ONLY plays out in the context of social relationships. If this is the case, then perhaps it is not the man or woman (singular) who is evil, but that the quality of evilness is expressed only when in social interaction. Now assume that Roger’s has stumbled upon the closest thing to a God-child relationship, and he is now able to provide a social environment where the sin of the client may be taken in and allowed to resonate. That is, we have removed the reacting sin from the other party, and now the clients sin simply disappears as they begin to understand a new way of relating to the world. I apologize for the long post, and thank you for letting me meander through these ideas.
3) In Response to Hannah #1: I think that our humanness will most certainly “get in the way” of our expressing unconditional positive regard, but unfortunately I don’t think that it stops there. Our experience of empathy is also obstructed by our cultural limitations both in what we hear and how we interpret what we hear as well as in how we would assume the client would be feeling given that set of circumstances. I think that Dr. Simpson has emphasized that the transformation from person to therapist is a long one, and we should simply be patient in those changes. As a side note, fortunately and unfortunately we have to work under the framework of a theory which has been empirically supported. This will at times mean that we work against our own selves and relinquish parts of us in the attempt to help the client as best as we can.
“I can state the overall hypothesis in one sentence, as follows. If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within him[/her]self the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change and personal development will occur.” (Rogers, pg. 33)
In this statement, Carl Rogers poses an interesting proposal. He seems to claim that the relational aspect of human interaction (if full of genuine and unconditional positive regard) can be more powerful than all neuroses, pathologies, damages, distortions that have come before. He seems confident that within this safe space growth and self-actualization is inevitable. I genuinely want to believe that this power exists. I even indulge in pondering that perhaps this healing haven is what Jesus from Galilee had in mind when he urged relentless forgiveness and commanded self-sacrificial love. However, a part of me remains skeptical. I wonder if this idea is too good to be true.
2.)
“I should like to point out one final characteristic of these individuals as they strive to discover and become themselves. It is that the individual seems to become more content to be a process rather than a product.” (Rogers, pg. 122)
This statement truly struck me. After reading it, my mind screamed, ‘I thought I was the only one!’ In my own personal development I have reached a point of acceptance of myself as a process. With trust, with integrity, with work, with creativity, with God, friends, family, I am the me I am today, but hopefully not the less developed me I was yesterday, nor the more self-actualized me I may be tomorrow. I would like to afford other people with the supportive space to healthily accept themselves as processes.
In Response to Sarah Moon)
I agree that we need to work carefully to consciously shelf our clashing selves and realize that the healing power will not be of us, but God who hopefully can work through us, if we really empty ourselves and let Him. As Carl Rogers said, “One reason for stressing the tentative nature of what I have said is that I wish to make it clear that I am not saying, “this is what you should become; here is the goal for you.” Rather, I am saying that these are some of the meanings I see in the experiences that my clients and I have shared. Perhaps this picture of the experience of others may illuminate or give more meaning to some of your own experience. (Rogers, pg. 123) Hopefully, we can take Rogers’ tactics and let the lead us into a place where we can be used not as a healer, but as a small patient gardener in the greenhouse of growth.
1. Carl Rogers makes the hypothesis, "If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth and change, and personal development will occur." His underlying assumption is that "ability to grow and mature is inherent in a person"(Rogers, pg 33). Therefore, his model for human change places responsibility on the client. So in other words, the functional statement of his theory is that by expecting growth from the client, growth will occur. Although I will confess that I share Carl Rogers experience of the healing power of relationships, I can help but notice that in the field of experimental psychology, "creating a change through expecting one" is the very definition of confounding due to experimenter's bias. Rather than try to reconcile a phenomenological theory to research method, I would rather just accept that there may be several ways to arrive at truth. Carl Rogers theory gives us a touchstone in the debate for and against the efficacy of psychological study in an age of science and empiricism.
2. In discussing the therapeutic outcomes when the relationship the client centered therapist sets out to create is adequately established, Rogers focuses on acceptance. His ends his description of a person's growth with, "He becomes more accepting in his attitudes toward others, seeing others as more similar to himself" (Rogers, pg 36). While I too value acceptance, I recognize that this is a personal value that might not be desired by all people. Some cultures may not wish to see others as similar to themselves to keep their communal bond intact. It is easy to overlook the fact that "acceptance" may be a cultural value that skews this therapy to be more appropriate for people within the same cultural context. In this case, the reason why acceptance of self and others is so important is because it makes the person more adaptive to the culture and experience less dissonance and anxiety as a result.
In response to Sarah's question of genuineness in the face of differences in value:
I agree that being transparent would be difficult when the therapist is aware that their client is pursuing something that feels "wrong" to the therapist. Based off of Roger's statment, "Acceptance doesn't mean much until it involves understanding" (Rogers, pg 34). He describes the relationship as being effective as long as he feels a continuing desire to understand the client's perspective. If the therapist was more aware of their value-disagreement rather than what the client is feeling and experiencing surrounding the issue in question (sexual orientation or abortion decision), it might indicate that the relationship was no longer therapeutic, and the therapist would need to refer out due to countertransference. Ideally, even a therapist who believes that abortion involves murder, might be able to stay with the client in the present as they experience feelings that are leading them to consider an abortion.
I'm the author of Assaulted by Joy: The Redemption of a Cynic, What Women Wish You Knew about Dating, and co-author of What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew about Sex.
41 comments:
1. Carl Rogers’s therapy techniques were obviously influenced by his faith. His ultimate goal in therapy is to enable the client to grow by “provide(ing) a relationship which this person may use for his own personal growth” (p. 32). In order to facilitate this kind of relationship he endeavors to provide the client with unconditional positive regard and empathy which will free the client’s “inborn tendency to move towards maturity,” (pg 35). These three things are Biblically based. The love of God is unconditional; He loved us while we were still sinners. Jesus is empathetic in His ministry; it is His understanding that moves him to perform miracles, and God created us to mature, to grow in relationship with Him.
2. On speaking about teaching the client different techniques to help them achieve change, Rogers said “The most they can accomplish is some temporary change, which soon disappears, leaving the individual more than ever convinced of his inadequacy (pg 33). Successful long-lasting change is achieved only when the individual is changed from the inside out. The techniques are an external effort to change the individual from the outside in. Roger believed that the individual must first be convinced of their capacity for change by providing a relationship based in unconditional regard and empathy (pg35). With this technique, the individual can “discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change, and personal development,” (pg 33).Once the capacity for change is understood then an internal reorganization takes place which enables the individual to finally change ( pg 36).
1. Rogers states that genuineness, among other factors, will affect the outcome of therapy. In your opinion, how can we as Christian psychologists be genuine about our beliefs about homosexuality or abortion when working with a client who is in a same sex relationship or is contemplating abortion? According to Rogers, what is the best way to help our patient without compromising the relationship? (Rogers, 37).
2. As we continue to learn about client centered therapy, it seems like such an easy concept to learn and be familiar with. However, the more I process it the more difficult I feel like it is to learn to be genuine, real, acccepting, transparent, sensitive, and empathetic. It is even that much more difficult to have this attitude when we know that our values clearly clash with our clients' beliefs.
On the other hand, it's a relief to know that the person causing change in our clients is not me. It is Christ who is capable of this kind of transformation, and this is something I'll continually have to remind myself when I become discouraged when my client is stagnant in their growth for weeks, months, or even years. (Rogers, 37-38).
Sarah Moon, October 8, 2009.
In response to Rebecca Kulzer:
Rebecca- I also can see how Rogers' faith influenced his ideas for the client centered therapy, especially in his belief that change happens from the inside out. Just as Jesus calls us to have the right heart motivation, we desire long lasting heart change for our clients. There are models of therapy that require clients to change their behavior in hopes that it will change their inner attitude. But I personally believe that the heart change must come before the behavioral transformation in order for successful long term improvement. (Rogers, 33).
1. Rogers (1961) asserts his experience has lead him to whittle down all his clients’ questions to one main question – “Who am I, really?... How can I become myself?” (108). What do you think of Rogers assessment of human psychopathology? Does this humanistic framework provide clients with all the tools and resources needed to answer this question?
2. Rogers (1961) reports the freedom of client self exploration to be an important product of unconditional positive regard. He also refers to this exploration as a “dangerous quest” (p.34). I agree that freedom to explore is vital and can be ‘dangerous’ for a variety of reasons. Therefore, a balance of appropriate limits and boundaries to create a safe place for the client to explore are also required. What would appropriate limits and boundaries in therapy look like in Rogers client-centered approach? What are some circumstances in which freedom of self exploration in therapy, without appropriate limits and boundaries, could be dangerous for clients and/or therapists?
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Melissa Gardner Curri, October 9, 2009
Response to Sarah’s post.
Great questions Sarah! I too grapple with how to fit all the pieces of this theory together. Is it possible for therapists to be truly genuine in the therapy relationship, expressing “words and behaviors, the various feelings and attitudes which exist in me” (p. Rogers, p. 33), without communicating “any type of moral and diagnostic evaluation” (p. 34)? In integration class, we have heard it is impossible to facilitate value free therapy (Dueck, 2009). Genuine reactions and responses could communicate value judgments. For example, a 40 year old married teacher discloses he had an affair with the school librarian. The genuine expressions (body language, facial expression, words, feelings, attitudes) of a therapist who believes this is immoral compared to one who does not will likely look different. If a therapist were to censor his or her natural reaction or attitudes about the client’s behavior, would this be considered disingenuous?
As a classmate mentioned last class, the picture of Christ on the cross – with outstretched arms- comes to mind as a powerful example of unconditional positive regard and acceptance. Jesus was also genuine and authentic. So how did he do it? I’m guessing he had different views from the people crucifying him, yet he endured in loving pursuit of his people. How did he offer unconditional positive regard while being genuine at the same time? I think to a certain degree, it is possible for therapists to extend deep and genuine caring for clients and be genuine at the same time, but because of the limitations of the model and our own humanity, it won’t work perfectly.
Some therapists have a desire to work with certain populations and others feel they cannot due to ethical/personal reasons - it is possible for a therapist with clashing beliefs to block the effectiveness of therapy and harm the client. Hopefully, therapists maintain enough self awareness to recognize their personal conflicts and work through them or refer clients in an appropriate and ethical manner if needed. Informed consent and self-disclosure at the beginning of therapy are wonderful tools for therapists as appropriate and when warranted. I do not have this issue figured out, but more often than not, therapists and clients will have different views (even among the Christian community) so this issue of congruence and unconditional positive regard is significant within the context of Rogers model. Thanks for posting the question!
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1.) Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I am frustrated by some of Rogers’ assertions. Last week some of us discussed Rogers’ admission that his own experience was of paramount importance to him. At the beginning of the second chapter he states that any method that relies on knowledge, technique or training is useless. I do think I understand what he is really trying to get to but at the same time his blatant claim here is illogical. If he is correct about this, why should we read his book or learn his “necessary and sufficient conditions”? It all amounts to just another technique and another book to learn. If we are really Rogers’ students in this aspect then shouldn’t we forsake everything he has said and written and rely only on our own experience, feelings and emotions to guide us? (Rogers, pp. 23-24, 32-33).
2.) Similarly, Rogers states that part of the process of becoming a person is moving to “an internal locus of evaluation” as opposed to allowing society or family members to tell you who you are. Does this seem like a therapeutic benefit to you? On one hand, allowing another’s negative views to handicap you or their version of who you should be force you to into poor choices would obviously be unhealthy. However, if your own experience from moment to moment is all that guides you, how can you ever be in a healthy relationship with anyone as all such relationships take compromise, understanding of the other, and sometimes even self-sacrifice. Rogers’ in my opinion focuses too much on the self in a vacuum and not the self in real context with other people. The idealistic therapist-client relationship does not translate that easily to the real world. (Rogers, pp. 119).
Jonathan Wellman, October 10, 2009
Response to Melissa question 1:
I think Rogers’ assertion is fine for “run of the mill” relationship, work, or family issues, perhaps even addictive behaviors. However, the whole of his therapy requires a person who is capable of healthy self-reflection, introspection and ability to growth. Indeed he assumes everyone has these abilities. But as shown from research with people with schizophrenia mentioned in class his methods fall short when dealing with more severe psychopathology. This makes sense as motivation for change or an internal locus of evaluation is useless when dealing with delusions and hallucinations. If you can’t determine "What is real?", “Who am I?” is not nearly as pressing a concern.
1. In talking about the relationship between client and therapist, Rogers states that the more genuine the therapist, the more helpful s/he will be. I am uneasy with accepting that statement just as it stands. We are going to see many different clients with many different mental illnesses. Honesty can actually be hurtful when it's used inappropriately, say just for the sake of being honest. (Rogers, 33)
2. I did, however, love the part on applying his general statement to all human relationships. I do believe, as Christians, we can all agree that God calls us to love unconditionally and that relationships grow when we can be genuine and transparent with one another. Even though many of our clients will probably require a lot more than unconditional positive regard to grow, it will be a futile attempt if we do not begin by believing in the worth and value of that person that does not change regardless of behavior, mental state, etc. (Rogers, 34, 37).
Response to Sarah Moon's first question:
This is a very difficult question and one that I believe we will have to listen to the Holy Spirit for each and every time. I do believe we can start with loving the person, regardless of our beliefs about the issue(s), and then try to discern how to speak to that person and treat that person genuinely, but without compromising our own beliefs. My half-brother, for example,is a homosexual and knows that I believe God designed sex only for one man and one woman in the context of marriage. However, he also knows that I love him and that I admit I cannot begin to understand his feelings of "being born this way."
1)Rogers (1961) shows great humility as a helping professional when he transitions from asking the question “how can I treat this individual?” to “how can I help this individual heal through relationship?” (p. 32-33). This humble response from a therapist who possesses so much training and an incredible knowledge is an example for new therapists, coming directly out of clinical programs and even for the seasoned professional who prides herself on “giving great treatment” to her clients. The responsibility of healing is placed on the individual to empower him or her and help real change occur. The therapist becomes a support to stand alongside the client instead of the illusive figure sitting behind the couch in a smoking jacket.
2)In chapter 6, Rogers (1961) uses case examples to illustrate his meaning on how one becomes a person. The example of the young woman who was a grad student was especially poignant to me. Rogers asks her about her role in getting her education and she slowly, hesitantly works out what that means for her (p. 120-122). It occurs to me while reading about this process that Rogers empowers this individual to take responsibility for her actions or lack thereof. It is only after she has admitted to herself that she has not been able to do so that then she is finally able to accept her role in her educational goals. It seems that therapists are quite often in a situation where control could be taken, answers given, analysis made. However if the therapist is able to find humility and take a more humble approach as one coming alongside the patient in relationship, she may truly help the client create lasting change in her life.
Response to Sarah Moon’s post:
I am so glad Sarah mentioned some of the very same questions and admittedly fears that I too have regarding CCT. I think it is important to remember (as she stated) that the work we do with our clients is actually Christ’s work in an individual. The client’s values are not going to change, solely by being in a relationship with the therapist. That kind of change is a work in the heart. Though I do believe we as therapists are “agents-of-change,” we cannot take on the client’s refusal or inability to open their hearts in certain situations. It is a comfort to know that God has each and every individual in His care because He knows “even the tiny sparrows” and cares about them. How much more must He care about those made in His image?
Amber Blews October 11, 2009
1) I have heard in previous psychology classes that personality traits are relatively stable over time. However, Rogers asserts that relatively few hours of counseling will produce “significant changes in personality” and “there can be no longer any doubt as to the effectiveness of such a relationship in producing personality change” (Rogers, p. 36). Is he referring to a client’s attitudes and/or behavior, or is he actually claiming to be able to alter one’s personality?
2) Rogers talks of valuing clients no matter how hurt they are, no matter what they think, and no matter how rebellious their actions (Rogers, p. 34). Last week I was struggling with the idea of a therapist being perfectly warm and empathetic because it might confuse clients or give them unrealistic expectations of human friendship. Today, however, I began thinking of the kind of friendship that God wants to have with each and every human being. As therapists, perhaps we are to give our clients a better view of the Divine. It would be wonderful to wake up every morning with the goal of preparing my client’s hearts to be able to take a step closer to God.
In response to Nikki’s post:
I, too, struggled with Roger’s comments on genuineness. He claims that we should express our feelings and attitudes so that our relationship with clients can have “reality” (Rogers, p. 33). Yet isn’t therapy about the client? I agree that we shouldn’t lie to clients and that we shouldn’t try to be someone we’re not, but shouldn’t we keep our attitudes out of therapy? How “real” can we be without taking the focus off the client or causing our client to be anxious?
Rachael Wittern
1. Carl Rogers’s therapy techniques were obviously influenced by his faith. His ultimate goal in therapy is to enable the client to grow by “provide(ing) a relationship which this person may use for his own personal growth” (p. 32). In order to facilitate this kind of relationship he endeavors to provide the client with unconditional positive regard and empathy which will free the client’s “inborn tendency to move towards maturity,” (pg 35). These three things are Biblically based. The love of God is unconditional; He loved us while we were still sinners. Jesus is empathetic in His ministry; it is His understanding that moves him to perform miracles, and God created us to mature, to grow in relationship with Him.
2. On speaking about teaching the client different techniques to help them achieve change, Rogers said “The most they can accomplish is some temporary change, which soon disappears, leaving the individual more than ever convinced of his inadequacy (pg 33). Successful long-lasting change is achieved only when the individual is changed from the inside out. The techniques are an external effort to change the individual from the outside in. Roger believed that the individual must first be convinced of their capacity for change by providing a relationship based in unconditional regard and empathy (pg35). With this technique, the individual can “discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change, and personal development,” (pg 33).Once the capacity for change is understood then an internal reorganization takes place which enables the individual to finally change ( pg 36).
In response to Sarah Moon's first response:
I would venture that one can still be genuinely concerened about ones client even if thier beliefs differ from our own. While I agree it would be a difficult situation, you can still empathize with them on an emotional level. They are still individuals in need of healing; they desire to be changed for the better; they need help to successfully navigate difficult choices. With that perspective I think it might be easier to be genuine with one’s client.
In response to Sarah Moon's first question
I would venture that one can still be genuinely concerened about ones client even if thier beliefs differ from our own. While I agree it would be a difficult situation, you can still empathize with them on an emotional level. They are still individuals in need of healing; they desire to be changed for the better; they need help to successfully navigate difficult choices. With that perspective I think it might be easier to be genuine with one’s client.
In response to Sarah Moon's first question
I would venture that one can still be genuinely concerened about ones client even if thier beliefs differ from our own. While I agree it would be a difficult situation, you can still empathize with them on an emotional level. They are still individuals in need of healing; they desire to be changed for the better; they need help to successfully navigate difficult choices. With that perspective I think it might be easier to be genuine with one’s client.
1.Rogers discusses that there is a tendency of humans “to expand, extend, become autonomous, develop, mature” which can be hidden deep within a person behind many facades. I would argue that this desire can also be learned from culture. And in a more direct way, the desire can be learned from the behaviors and feelings of the psychologist. The psychologist desires for the client to be healthy and to self-actualize. In turn, the client will desire this for themselves. (Rogers, 35)
2.I find it interesting that Rogers generalizes his model of the psychologist-client relationship to a variety of relationships. For example, he states that if a teacher creates this relationship in class, the student will be more responsible. I think the one thing missing is that the relationship Rogers talks about (between the psychologist and client) is very personal and intimate. It flourishes in an intimate setting. I think it would be hard for a teacher or an administrator to create this type of relationship when oversee many people at a time. (Rogers, 37)
Response to Nikki’s first comment:
Nikki, I agree with you about being genuine. I think that it takes discernment to know when and what to say. Sometimes it is good to be genuine and real, transparent. But at other times, the client is not ready to hear what you really think or what the reality of their situation is.
Lauren Brighton
1) Rogers' underlying belief that all people have value and are worthy in and of themselves nomatter what "his condition, his behavior, or his feelings" is countercultural and counter-religion in many ways (Rogers, p.34). This belief carries with it a power that transforms therapy and the therapeutic relationship in sometimes unexplainable ways. However, many "conditions" are unavoidable and fairly unchangeable in human nature. I am sure that not all Rogerian therapists are clean slates in terms of their unconditional positive regard for their clients. Rogers, from what we have read, may have had a super-human ability to have unconditional positive regard but this is simply not the case in most of humanity--though we would like it to be and as Christians we strive for it to be. I wonder about how much the model is affected by our humanness in this way.
2) Rogers states that the therapist should "be real" within the therapeutic relationship (Rogers, p.33). It is obvious that a therapist should be aware of him or herself while in the therapy room in any modality (countertransference,values, etc.) but I got the impression from Rogers that this is a different kind of self-awareness. The therapist needs to be aware of unconscious attitudes and of his or her own tendencies towards putting up a facade(Rogers, p. 33). I was wondering if a therapist would need to be engaged in relationships like the one that Rogers is promoting for the client to be in him or herself? Is client-centered therapy something Rogers would promote for therapists to go through before practicing themselves. I think this would be especially imortant because of the way in which Rogers emphasizes experience as the key component for real change.
In response to Amber Blews...
I agree that Rogers' humility is a beautiful example for us. He considers himself a "companion" to his client "accompanying him in the frightening search for himself" (Rogers, p. 34).
To add on to response to Amber Blews... (I posted it before finishing)....
It would be so difficult to be humble enough to feel that you are a companion to a seriously disturbed sexual offender (for example). It is so easy to look down on the behaviors and "sins" that seems so much worse than our own. However, at the same time, Jesus came to correct this kind of pride. In Matthew 5 we see Jesus level the playing field in order to show us all that we are depraved.
1. I think that my questions regarding Rogers' client-centered therapy are similar to what many of my classmates are saying. Namely, I have a hang up about how to reconcile Rogers' concepts of transparency and unconditional positive regard. He says, "...is characterized by a sort of transparency on my part, in which my real feelings are evident; by an acceptance of this other person..." (Rogers, 34). I feel like I understand what he means. If he genuinely cares about his clients, then nothing other than that genuine care can be shown-thus he can be transparent. But I wonder how realistic this is. Is there a situation that the Rogers' transparency might actually manifest in contempt or dislike for a client?
2. I find it quite apt and self-aware of Rogers to be able to identify where his theory is "his" and where it is empirically supported, or both. He says, "but it is my belief that it exists in every individual , and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed" (Rogers, 35). Here, Rogers refers to his view that all persons if given the proper climate will move forward toward a health development, improvement, and growth. This seems to be informed by his faith and his worldview. Other psychologists may clearly shape their theories from the context of an entirely different worldview (i.e. Jung and Freud) and thus the client is seen in a completely different light.
Response to Sarah Moon (and others who responded to Sarah):
Sarah and others...Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points of view and would love to hear more about your opinions if I am misled. Having said that, forgive me if I end up posting a critique of something you didn't actually mean to say...
What I am curious about is why you (and several others who concur with you) seem to assume that all Christians have the same views on homosexuality and abortion? After rereading your first reflection several times, I find that it seems to imply that we all agree on these matters. So, while I believe you have a great question in wondering how your beliefs about homosexuality and abortion may influence a psychotherapy session for you, I would urge you to consider that my beliefs toward homosexuality and abortion may look nothing like yours-even though we both fall under the broad category of "Christian."
1. Most psychological approaches do not require the therapist to be genuine in therapy. It is more like wearing a therapist mask during sessions, and taking it off when the therapist leaves office. However, it is interesting that Rogers emphasizes the importance for therapist to be oneself. Also instead of having the therapist to act out being accepting and liking the client, Rogers sees it essential that the therapist actually understand and like the client as a person for proper therapeutic setting (pp 34).
2. Roger's view that a properly established relationship alone can function to help the growth of an individual is interesting (pp. 33). His emphasis of a need to grow through proper relationship made me wonder how Roger's would interpret the Harlow's monkey experiment. Perhaps he may understand that the monkey needs a relationship more than the actual physical touch, which is why the monkeys were unable to have a sound relationship with other live monkeys.
In response to Rebecca Kulzer:
I'm not sure whether the growth and maturity that Rogers is thinking of is the same concept of maturity the Bible implies. I see Rogers' understanding of growth as more of a being mentally and relationally healthy, with a self-reliant and self-fulfilling life, which is more closely related to secular understanding of growth.
Woo C. Kim
1) Rogers states that a person exposed to attitudes of acceptance, genuineness, and deep empathic understanding will "invariably" change and grow. Interestingly, he feels the need to defend his word choice by saying it was "only after long and careful consideration" that he chose to use that word. I wonder what some of those considerations were. Surely, not all of his patients got "better." In addition, how would he explain disorders such as schizophrenia that seem to require more than client-centered therapy? (Rogers, 35)
2) I found it interesting that Rogers extends his basic principles for therapy to all relationships where there is a desire for growth. He mentions family and school as two other contexts in which positive regard, empathy, and genuineness can help develop people. It seems almost too obvious to me now, but perhaps we can extend many principles of therapy into other areas of life. (Rogers, 38)
David Choi, Oct. 12, 2009
Response to Bobby's 1:
I think that'll always be a tough issue. The sense that I got from Dr. Simpson in class is that even if we feel negative (or inappropriate) feelings toward the client, we should "contain" them. Perhaps we can still be genuine without revealing everything that we're thinking. If the disgust becomes so great that it cannot be contained, then I would consider referring.
1. One of the burning questions that has always presented itself to me is how a person, having internalized so many conditions of worth, could come to decide who it is they truly want to be, even in the context of a warm and accepting relationship. Rogers speaks of actualizing to become the person you ultimately want to be, and I still cannot fathom how someone in our world, with all of the different options there are could choose one person to be. If I were coming through a very orientation-specific form of this therapy, I think my various interests would pull me into so many directions that I would fragment into pieces. Does Rogers possibly assume that we have a singular and uniting underlying authentic personality?
(pp. 35-37)
2. The idea of having two levels of masks (pp. 109-111) to work through in therapy is an interesting idea in that it shows the true complicated natures that people are willing and unwilling to see in themselves. The Kierkegaard quote in the middle of that section states, “the most common despair is to be in despair at not choosing, or willing, to be oneself; but that the deepest form of despair is to choose ‘to be another than himself.’” I wonder, looking at the pressures to perform that are placed on the youth of today, and on the young adults and the workforce to perform and be productive and live hyper-content and hyper-meaningful existences, if some of the non-biological depression that people face is a reflection of this despair. It seems plausible that in trying to become the best that we can, we often prostitute the simpler person that we long to be.
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Response to Rachel Question 1
I think that he is referring to what would, confusingly be a combination of the two. Certainly, Rogers would be looking at the change in the attributes that are presented to the outside world, because those would have been developed to meet conditions of worth and gain acceptance artificially. I am not certain, but based on the idea of two masks in Chapter 6, I would say he also looks for a change in personality in that the forced personality of the person, or the self they thought they were in order to reduce distress, would change and become more who they were meant to be from the beginning had they received proper acceptance and warmth from childhood. I know I have worded that poorly, but I think that would be plausible.
1. So I am curious, did Rogers actually never encounter a client who, when offered a therapeutic relationship that is described in chapter 2, did not show a tendency to develop, mature, self actualize, etc. (Rogers, 1989, p. 35). After reading Prochaska & Norcross (2007) last week, it seems that either his sample was incredibly biased or perhaps he saw change (or clients reported change) that did not really occur.
2. One of the criticisms of Client Centered Therapy in Prochaska & Norcross (2007) is that in Rogers research "an untreated control group [was omitted]" (p.153). However, Rogers says on page 36 of On Becoming A Person that "individuals who live in such a relationship [characterized by client centered therapy techniques] even for a relatively limited number of hours show profound and significant changes in personality, attitudes, and behavior, changes that DO NOT HAPPEN IN MATCHED CONTROLS" (emphasis mine).
Clearly I do not think either of these authors are being deceitful. However, how should I interpret this? Was the omission of controls for comparison more the exception than the rule (or vise versa)?
Jamie Rehmel
1.) I find it fascinating that Rogers suggests not only that this way of interacting and being is good for therapy, but also imagines that all people would benefit from this way of interacting with each other. While I can see the good that can come from this way of interacting with others, I don't know if would actually be great for society. How does one confront those who harm you, or do you wrong if you need to show everyone empathy and unconditional positive regard? pg 37)
2.) I am curious as to what Rogers means when he says that we have a tendency "to move forwards towards maturity" (pg 35). While I assume that he means that we actualize ourselves to the best of our potential, there seems to me to be an unspoken ideal that is never named and might in fact be an unspoken push from the therapist on to the client. I would like to know what his end goal for the client would be in light of this unnamed goal.
3.) In response to Bobby's last comment. I agree. My beliefs do not line up with what I see to be the majority of respondents here. My views on homosexuality (biblically described as something ONLY men can do) and abortion, as well as issues with stem cell research or other "hot button" issues are probably different that others. Karkkainen (a Fuller professor) has written a wonderful book on contextual theologies from a ecclesiological view point (how we do church, what does Church mean) that you can pick up in the book store that stresses that your cultural lens will color how you experience all aspects of Christianity. Personally, my empathic trouble in therapy would be someone who is a fundamentalist coming into therapy with me and wanting to read the Bible literally and who takes a hard-line conservative approach.
I say this not to say that we shouldn't talk about these things. Let's face it, it will come up at some point in the next half decade that we are together. Rather, to affirm Bobby's point, maybe we could not make assumptions about what we all believe as Christians, just like we wouldn't believe that all women or all men think the same thing about either subject.
I also want to say thank you for disagreeing with me about these issues (to those who do) as it forces me to reassess (for a moment at least) what it is that I believe and why. I hope I can do the same for you.
Ashley Wilkins comment to question 1
I am not going to attempt to answer your question but rather comment on what you said leading up to it. I have got the impression in my own personal experience with therapy that my therapist was trying to weed out what he recognized as the expectations of others and highlight and even emphasize who I wanted to be.
I have certainly been inundated with opinions on what I should do with my life and how I should respond to various situations. However, at least for me, I had not yet completely lost the ability to differentiate between what I wanted to do and what I thought was expected of me. Sometimes there was not a clear distinction but at times there was.
I think it is an ongoing process discovering who you "want to be". Clearly there are all kinds of messages, pushing you in various directions. Making that distinction between what I should do and what I want to do is key. Sometimes there is a clear distinction while other times there is not. But, these are the things you wrestle with in between sessions, talk with your therapist about, and report on any progress that has been made.
1) I resonate with Rogers' assertion that effective and lasting change can never come about simply through explaining very rationally what is wrong with a client and how they ought to rectify it (p. 33). The true change, he says, comes in the context of the therapist-client relationship. I think this is true in general - as we discussed in integration earlier today, it's one thing to cognitively recognize what is true or right and an entirely different thing to internalize and practice it. I think that the experience of relationship with others is what shows us that we need growth and then teaches us how to grow.
2) I struggle with the idea of maintaining "complete freedom from any type of moral or diagnostic evaluation" within the context of therapy while remaining genuine (p. 34). If a therapist is to be authentic and real in therapy, how can she disguise her values and opinions about moral or diagnostic questions? The "genuine reality which is in me" (p. 33) may be contrary or even offensive to the client - so what happens then?
Response to Jay Wellman (#1):
You make a really good point about Rogers' bold assertion at the beginning of the chapter. Publishing this book detailing his theory and techniques seems quite contradictory, and I'm not sure what to make of it either. I feel that Rogers makes many extreme claims throughout this chapter, presenting them as if they are fact, and I think it's wise to take these assertions with a grain of salt and develop our own perspective by drawing on a wider base of knowledge and personal experience.
#1 I have struggled with Rogers approach to therapy over these past few weeks. It seemed it would be difficult to maintain unconditional positive regard toward a client that may have committed some act that was considered grotesque or violent. However, I am beginning to see this approach from a different perspective. Rogers must have had a significant knowledge about ministry and the bible because according to Prochaska and Norcross, he spent two preparing for a career in ministry before beginning his PhD studies at Columbia University (p 130). It would seem only natural for there to be traces of his ministry training in his psychotherapy model. So, when Rogers says “by acceptance I mean a warm regard for him [the client] as a person of unconditional self-worth—of value no matter what his condition, his behavior, or his feeling (Rogers p 34);” is he asking us to look at our clients the same way Christ looks at us? As a vessel eligible to receive His unconditional love and grace in spite of our current and/or past behaviors; no matter how grotesque or violent?
#2 According to Rogers, defensiveness and inner fear can lead to individuals behaving in really terrible ways such as being cruel to others, acting immature, become destructive, etc. (Rogers p 27). Are these the only two conditions (defensiveness and inner fear) that Rogers believes can lead to a person engaging in disturbing or anti-social behaviors? If not, what are other antecedent conditions?
In response to Jamie’s comments:
I wonder the same thing. I believe it is impossible for there to have been 100% positive outcome for every client that Rogers met with for psychotherapy.
I am using my free pass.
1. Rogers asserts that it is important to be genuine even "when the attitudes I feel are not attitudes with which I am pleased, or attitudes which seem conducive to a good relationship" (33). However, he does not really address the issue of how much one should divulge with clients and other individuals. While I understand the concept of not putting on a facade, or being fake with one's clients, it seems from this comment that one should not conceal any of their emotions even if negative. Thus, my question is where is the line between maintaining one's authenticity with a client, and not divulging things/emotions that might be detrimental to the client-therapist relationship?
2. When discussing how to create an environment in which the client has total freedom to explore them selves Rogers asserts "There is also a complete freedom from any type of moral or diagnostic evaluation..." contending that these elements are threatening to the client (34). However, we have been talking about integration of our faith into our professional role as psychologists, thus, how does this aspect of client centered therapy work from an integrative approach, especially if one is to be fully genuine with their clients?
3. In response to Sarah Moon:
I think that as Christians we often make the mistake of assuming that because we believe something is wrong or a sin, we have a responsibility to inform non-Christians (or even other Christians) of our beliefs and hold them to our standard of behavior. However, reality is, sin is sin regardless of how socially stigmatized our un-stigmatized that behavior is. Thus, all sin result in separation from God. Consequently, as far as the therapist who believes homosexuality or abortion is a sin is concerned, I do not believe that one should take greater issue with one sin over another, thus, the client who identifies themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transexual should be viewed as any other client one sees (granted, we have to acknowledge the perspective they are coming from and their world view...), and the same goes for a client who is considering abortion. Thus, one should not be opposed to working such clients. There is a quote from Billy Graham, that applies well to the therapy relationship. Graham states: "Its God's job to judge, the Holy Spirit's job to convict, and it's my job to love". However, if after a client becomes aware that you are a Christian and feels uncomfortable working with the therapist has a responsibility to refer that client out.
(1) Rogers states that using a relationship for growth leads to “becoming a unique and self-expressive person” (Rogers, 37). What does the posture of the person in the relationship that facilitates such growth? I think one aspect that is vital to self-expression is being aware of the capacity of the self to develop differences that can benefit the self and the relationship.
(2) What is the expression of the self? Does that include self-expression shaped by the surrounding environment? Rogers states, “The real self is something which is confortable discovered in one’s experiences, not something imposed upon it” (114). I cannot see a significant difference between one’s experiences and imposed experiences. There are several factors that impose on an individual that I would say can be viewed as part of their genuine experience that leads to the real self.
(3) Response to Takisha: In regards to your question about other conditions to disturbing behavior, I would say that one other conditions is not acknowledging limitations. This too can lead to immature behavior or self-destruction.
1)I feel like when I am reading Rogers, I am reading the Bible. And by that I mean that I think Rogers touches on Biblical principles of community and relationships. He says, "I become a companion to my client, accompanying him in the frightening search for himself" (34). He also says that because of that relationship, the client feels freedom to explore. (34) We, as Christians,are supposed to carry one another's burdens. We also talk about the freedom there is in Christ and i think that freedom exists because we are safe and not living in fear.
2) I tend to contradict myself. Sometimes I feel strongly one way about an issue and then another day, when the extreme has passed, i feel a different way.I can handle that shift in myself, but when other people contradict themselves, I get so frustrated. However, Rogers points out that in CCT I, as the therapist, need to acceptance of the client "no matter how much they may contradict other attitudes he or she has had in the past." (34) Wow, that is a hard to accept.
Response to Jay:
When Roger says we cannot rely on any intellectual training to change the person, I do not think he is saying "throw out technique and knowledge" instead he is emphasizing that what truly changes someone is not a list of reasons and examples. Change comes through a conversion (not necessarily in the sense of salvation). We were discussing in Dr. Garrel's research lab that educating on our tendency to scapegoat does not stop the violent acts against the scapegoat, it just means we have a more informed scapegoat (Dr. Dueck's example). So techniques, reasons, proof can only do so much to change a person, something deeper has to happen and i think that is what Rogers is touching on.
1. I found Rogers's concept of negative learning interesting. In regard to clinical training he states, "No approach which relies upon knowledge, upon training, upon the acceptance of something that is taught, is of any use" (Rogers, 32). I appreciate this statement in that it emphasizes the person of the therapist as the most important quality to effective therapy, but I also believe that a therapist does need to have a foundational knowledge of psychology and therapy that is learned.
2. Rogers's describes being genuine as "the willingness to be and to express, in my words and my behavior, the various feelings and attitudes which exist in me ...even when the attitudes I feel are not attitudes with which I am pleased..." (Rogers, 33. My question is what if the therapist is experiencing negative feelings toward the client, such as annoyance? And not as a result of countertransferance. Is it really beneficial for the therapist to reveal this to the client?
In response to Sarah:
Sarah brings up a very good question. I think that we as Christian therapists can be genuine in our beliefs about sin, especially the more sensitive ones that you mentioned, if we can remember to not treat some sin as worse than other sin.
1) Rogers says that the motivation for change in an individual is a “drive toward self-actualization” that comes from within each person (Rogers, p. 35). This may be the case to some extent with most of the people that Rogers encountered, but what about extreme psychopathology like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? Also, what about the biblical understanding of the fall? I think that Adam and Eve had an actualizing tendency to become all that God made them to be. But we are under a curse that will not be lifted until Christ returns. I think we may have vestiges of that growth tendency as a reflection of God’s image in us and of life before the fall, but I do not think that it is as universal as Rogers says.
2) The relationship that Rogers says allows people to discover their ability to grow involves congruence, empathy, and warmth (Rogers, p. 33). He says that he now embodies those qualities in everyday relationships and finds them useful. How ethical is it to charge a fee, usually an expensive one, to be a good friend and listen, be authentic, and to put oneself in their shoes? It would seem more ethical to provide widespread training to all in how to be a better friend, mother, father, son, daughter, coworker so that everyone could provide this kind of healing and growth promotion relationship to those close to them.
Response to Sarah Moon:
Regarding genuineness, also, what do you do when you honestly do not like your client and have trouble being warm toward them? And by definition, isn’t it sometimes not genuine to show unconditional positive regard. People’s actions sometimes break your trust in them, and it would be going against your feelings to affirm them despite what they do.
Jenn Greiner 10/14
1. Rogers obviously makes the assumption that on a fundamental level all people are good. He states that through understanding himself, the client will "cope with life more constructively" (Rogers, 36). This must be Roger's world view, but what if a client does not want to better themselves? For example, what if a client with severe psychopathology, such as antisocial personality disorder, only discovers that he/she does really hate people and wants nothing to do with them?
2. An idea central to Rogers is the concept of being genuine. He explains that it is extremely important that the therapist be "real" and relate his/her own feelings. At the same time, he says that the therapist should accept all of the client's feelings, no matter how outrageous (Rogers 33-34). I think being genuine is important. However for me, if a client took pleasure in hurting others, I would react with shock. Is this okay in the Rogerian model, or does it contradict the idea of accepting the client as they are?
In response to Bobby Salimi #2-
I find your comment quite interesting. For example, I have a world view where I believe we are created in the image of God, but at the same time are sinful creatures. Though I believe that everyone can change, I have accepted the fact that some people will never change for the good. In a Rogerian sense, I am not sure that these people have room the be helped. I wonder if Roger's ever came across a person such as that. Imagine if he came across the Pharaoh in Egypt during the time of Moses. No matter how much he developed a relationship with the Pharaoh, I do not believe that would have changed the Pharaoh.
1) I really appreciate Rogers’ foundation of connectedness, that the experience of one person (in this case himself) can be used by others to learn and create meaning because we are all involved in human relationships and share the foundation of humanity. In reading this chapter, it surprised me how postmodern Rogers’ thoughts, ideas, and theories are when he was writing during a time primarily influenced by modernity. Rogers focuses on experience of the individual even while encouraging the importance of relationship/community. This idea extends to his belief that the basic principles of his theory should not simply be applied to the client-therapist relationship but should be the foundation of every relationship. He encourages us to imagine what people would be like if this foundation was primary in the relationships that shape us the most as we mature (parent/child, teacher/student, administrator/staff, military officer/soldier, leader/member, etc.). (Rogers, pp. 32, 33 & 37)
2) I appreciate Rogers’ theory, the hope that he holds for the potential healing within human relationships. I agree with Rogers’ theory as an ideal, as the way things should be and would have been from the beginning if sin hadn’t been introduced into the world. Part of restoration is returning to that relationship, that central understanding that allows a person freedom to explore the different aspects of who they are, which leads to learned change/repair in that safe environment. However, I don’t believe that this relationship alone is sufficient for change, as Rogers’ believed. The foundation of healing and restoration is Christ; Christ is the healer. No healing comes apart from Him, from His truth. Therefore, even the relationship that Rogers’ explains as the ideal environment for change in a client is simply mimicking, to a certain extent, the kind of relationship Christ came to build with us. For the most part, I agree with Rogers’ theories and techniques but would argue that the foundation from which these techniques and basic principles come from are Christ and not simply the relationship between two people (therapist and client). The foundation of relationship between two people is the commonality of humanity between them and humanity is our being created in the image of God. (Rogers, pp. 34)
Kim Richardson, October 14, 2009
Response to Sarah’s comment:
Sarah, I think that is a really important question. I think its important to keep in mind that Rogers himself specified that acceptance (and genuineness) is not necessarily agreeing with all of the thoughts and behaviors of the client. “By acceptance I mean a warm regard for him as a person of unconditional self-worth-of value no matter what his condition, his behavior, or his feelings. It means a respect and liking for him as a separate person, willingness for him to possess his own feelings in his own way. It means acceptance of and regard for his attitudes of the moment, no matter how negative” (Rogers, pp. 34). I think as Christians we have the potential to come from this foundation more so than other therapists would because we understand that every human has inherent worth in the fact that they were made in the image of God. Whereas culture defines a person’s worth based on physical appearances or wealth accumulation (or the lack of these things), as Christians we are called to look past these aspects to the heart of the person. We are called to embrace those that are shunned by society. Jesus exampled this for us when he ate with the tax collector and defended the woman caught in adultery. Also, it brings to mind something that Dr. Dueck said in class. He begins his sessions by being open and honest with the client about his own religious beliefs and moral standing, yet expresses with sincerity that he still desires to engage in dialogue with that person if they choose to. Being accepted as a person is sometimes more of what is needed than being agreed with. Additionally, as Christians we should come from a place of humility, realizing that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and therefore all are in need of Christ’s grace. We are commanded to forgive and give mercy and grace to others, just as we received mercy and grace from Christ. Hopefully, from the context of our own humility and realization of the grace we’ve received, we can gain a deeper and more genuine sense of empathy for our client struggling with those difficult issues (though not condoning those behaviors).
Kim Richardson, October 14, 2009
1.Rogers asserts that his therapeutic techniques are meaningful not only in a therapist-client role, but in "all my human relationships" (pp. 37). As clinicians, how far do we take Roger's idea of using therapeutic techniques in our personal relationships as well. Where does appropriate self-care come into play when we are genuinely focusing on others with warmth and empathy without the expectation of a give-and-take relationship? Are there ethical conflicts with this paradigm for the relationship between therapist and client aka- should the therapeutic relationship look different from friendships)?
2. I very much like Roger's ideas about a genuineness and warm as a catalyst for empowering the client. However, I wonder if clients who have been diagnosed with more severe personality disorders or psychosis disorders would still be able to use the therapeutic relationship for growth (pp.35). I am still wrestling with the idea of not giving firm boundaries about the therapeutic relationship with some clients who may need firm boundary setting.
In response to Melissa #1:
I am not sure that I agree with Roger's framework for the more severe forms of psychopathology. I believe that what makes his therapeutic technique so beneficial is that it bridges a gap in our individualistic and self-centered culture more than anything. In that regard, I believe his therapeutic technique is perfect for the average person with a relationship issue. I am not sure about tools and resources, however I do believe that fostering deep character questions such as "Who am I?" could the therapeutic. Sometimes giving voice to questions is therapeutic in and of itself without needing an answer. Maybe the question of "Who am I?" is asked throughout the life span by a healthy person adapting to life as it comes.
Katherine Strong Woods
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1. “How can I be of help?” Part II of the text is entitled with this question. It is this question that I think is ultimately addressed in chapter 2 when Rogers says that when approaching therapy, his main focus shifted from “How can I treat, or cure, or change this person?” (32), to “How can I provide a relationship which this person may use for his own personal growth?” (32). There have definitely been times in which I have viewed the therapeutic encounter as a means for the therapist to treat or in some way shape and change their client in a positive way in order that they may move toward growth, rather than, as a process in which, through the very nature of the client-therapist relationship, the person in therapy may utilize the therapist as a tool in growing. I think Rogers' question “how can I provide…” is profound and as much as he lies a foundation for this kind of therapy, much is left up to the individual therapist to figure out. Just as we have discussed in class, people are sometimes confused because they think that client-centered therapy offers tangible techniques for therapy, and while it does offer some as tools, Rogers' clearly focused on broader concepts and laying a foundation of the therapeutic relationship.
2. One thing that I have been trying to sort out in my mind, is the conflict of communicating unconditional positive regard, and yet still being my whole self in the therapeutic relationship, not neglecting or discarding my personal convictions. Especially, for example, when it involves something surrounding sin. Some people, particularly those in the secular world, view Christians as judgmental and as hypocrites. Many times, we have proven to be both. How can we be upfront about our values going into therapy, not pushing them aside, and at the same time, communicate how can we (as Christians) have the attitude that we are all sinners, all have fallen short, all need grace, saved or unsaved, each and every day without actually saying and explaining all of this to the client, which in most cases, is inappropriate and there is no space for that kind of discussion in therapy. It is not that I doubt I will be able to have unconditional positive regard for another, it is more a matter of communicating that, while at the same time, not being afraid to be transparent, or real, which as Roger’s discusses in the text, is fundamental (33). I know that how a therapist interacts with their clients depends largely on the individual differences of the client, but how does one do this?
In response to Jessica- I too, have wondered where that line is. It seems rather difficult to be completely real and upfront, but at the same time, not divulge too much. In my thinking about this, I have developed one idea, which is that, as we act a true friend, and a sounding board to the client, in order that they may see themselves more clearly, or in a new way, we are to be honest and sincere in our reactions, thoughts and feelings, however only revealing what is absolutely necessary for the clients growth. I still do not know exactly what this means, but it is the best I have come up with. ☺
-Brittany Rice October 14, 2009
1. Right now, I am feeling a strong disconnect between Rogers urging us to be genuine and real while also urging us to exhibit unconditional positive regard. Rogers asks us to be aware of our own feelings "rather than presenting an outward facade of one attitude, while actually holding another attitude at a deeper or unconscious level" (p. 33). How can I be genuine in my feelings and express those honestly when a client is exhibiting behavior that I don't think I can show positive regard for? I do understand that unconditional positive regard is toward the person and not their behavior, but I am still experiencing a disconnect in imagining how this would play out in therapy.
2. There is a strong parallel between Rogers' explanation of a therapeutic relationship as a means for positive, long-lasting change in a person instead of "upon knowledge, upon training", or "something that is taught" and Jesus' invitation to come into relationship with Him (p. 32). It is through our relationship with Christ and not just the head knowledge of Scripture and religion that we have learned along the way that leads our heart to change.
In response to Melissa's 2nd question:
I agree that appropriate boundaries are probably essential when one is exploring the "dangerous quest" of the inner psyche. Timing is probably of the essence with exploration such as this because it might be harmful to the client to start exploring something and open up the proverbial can of worms only to be told that their "time is up" for the session that day. I don't know where those boundaries lie, but I do agree that we will need to learn where they are once we start seeing clients.
This is Heather Patterson Meyer, by the way.
1) Many posts this week center around the conflict between personal beliefs and the need to show unconditional positive regard in the therapy room. Perhaps we are confusing the idea of unconditional positive regard with unconditional approval. I think that if we are to look at Rogerian theory through a theological lens, it makes sense to examine God’s type of love. In my opinion, God loves us all for our inherent worth as his children, but that does not mean that he sanctions every action or word we speak. I think that Rogers is trying to get us to show warmth and love towards the person as a whole, even while we might not agree with how they live their life.
2) Secondly, I have struggled with Roger’s idea that all people possess “the capacity and the tendency, latent if not evident, to move forward toward maturity” (Rogers, 1961, 35). Most people from a Christian background would take such a statement and hold it up against Biblical texts citing that man is inherently evil in nature. (The following is simply speculation.) If we assume the theory of the Reciprocating Self that we have been studying in Lifespan, then man’s evil nature ONLY plays out in the context of social relationships. If this is the case, then perhaps it is not the man or woman (singular) who is evil, but that the quality of evilness is expressed only when in social interaction. Now assume that Roger’s has stumbled upon the closest thing to a God-child relationship, and he is now able to provide a social environment where the sin of the client may be taken in and allowed to resonate. That is, we have removed the reacting sin from the other party, and now the clients sin simply disappears as they begin to understand a new way of relating to the world. I apologize for the long post, and thank you for letting me meander through these ideas.
3) In Response to Hannah #1:
I think that our humanness will most certainly “get in the way” of our expressing unconditional positive regard, but unfortunately I don’t think that it stops there. Our experience of empathy is also obstructed by our cultural limitations both in what we hear and how we interpret what we hear as well as in how we would assume the client would be feeling given that set of circumstances. I think that Dr. Simpson has emphasized that the transformation from person to therapist is a long one, and we should simply be patient in those changes. As a side note, fortunately and unfortunately we have to work under the framework of a theory which has been empirically supported. This will at times mean that we work against our own selves and relinquish parts of us in the attempt to help the client as best as we can.
1.)
“I can state the overall hypothesis in one sentence, as follows. If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within him[/her]self the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change and personal development will occur.” (Rogers, pg. 33)
In this statement, Carl Rogers poses an interesting proposal. He seems to claim that the relational aspect of human interaction (if full of genuine and unconditional positive regard) can be more powerful than all neuroses, pathologies, damages, distortions that have come before. He seems confident that within this safe space growth and self-actualization is inevitable. I genuinely want to believe that this power exists. I even indulge in pondering that perhaps this healing haven is what Jesus from Galilee had in mind when he urged relentless forgiveness and commanded self-sacrificial love. However, a part of me remains skeptical. I wonder if this idea is too good to be true.
2.)
“I should like to point out one final characteristic of these individuals as they strive to discover and become themselves. It is that the individual seems to become more content to be a process rather than a product.” (Rogers, pg. 122)
This statement truly struck me. After reading it, my mind screamed, ‘I thought I was the only one!’ In my own personal development I have reached a point of acceptance of myself as a process. With trust, with integrity, with work, with creativity, with God, friends, family, I am the me I am today, but hopefully not the less developed me I was yesterday, nor the more self-actualized me I may be tomorrow. I would like to afford other people with the supportive space to healthily accept themselves as processes.
In Response to Sarah Moon)
I agree that we need to work carefully to consciously shelf our clashing selves and realize that the healing power will not be of us, but God who hopefully can work through us, if we really empty ourselves and let Him. As Carl Rogers said, “One reason for stressing the tentative nature of what I have said is that I wish to make it clear that I am not saying, “this is what you should become; here is the goal for you.” Rather, I am saying that these are some of the meanings I see in the experiences that my clients and I have shared. Perhaps this picture of the experience of others may illuminate or give more meaning to some of your own experience. (Rogers, pg. 123) Hopefully, we can take Rogers’ tactics and let the lead us into a place where we can be used not as a healer, but as a small patient gardener in the greenhouse of growth.
Mary [MJ] Jacobs, October 15 2009
1. Carl Rogers makes the hypothesis, "If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth and change, and personal development will occur." His underlying assumption is that "ability to grow and mature is inherent in a person"(Rogers, pg 33). Therefore, his model for human change places responsibility on the client. So in other words, the functional statement of his theory is that by expecting growth from the client, growth will occur. Although I will confess that I share Carl Rogers experience of the healing power of relationships, I can help but notice that in the field of experimental psychology, "creating a change through expecting one" is the very definition of confounding due to experimenter's bias. Rather than try to reconcile a phenomenological theory to research method, I would rather just accept that there may be several ways to arrive at truth. Carl Rogers theory gives us a touchstone in the debate for and against the efficacy of psychological study in an age of science and empiricism.
2. In discussing the therapeutic outcomes when the relationship the client centered therapist sets out to create is adequately established, Rogers focuses on acceptance. His ends his description of a person's growth with, "He becomes more accepting in his attitudes toward others, seeing others as more similar to himself" (Rogers, pg 36). While I too value acceptance, I recognize that this is a personal value that might not be desired by all people. Some cultures may not wish to see others as similar to themselves to keep their communal bond intact. It is easy to overlook the fact that "acceptance" may be a cultural value that skews this therapy to be more appropriate for people within the same cultural context. In this case, the reason why acceptance of self and others is so important is because it makes the person more adaptive to the culture and experience less dissonance and anxiety as a result.
In response to Sarah's question of genuineness in the face of differences in value:
I agree that being transparent would be difficult when the therapist is aware that their client is pursuing something that feels "wrong" to the therapist. Based off of Roger's statment, "Acceptance doesn't mean much until it involves understanding" (Rogers, pg 34). He describes the relationship as being effective as long as he feels a continuing desire to understand the client's perspective. If the therapist was more aware of their value-disagreement rather than what the client is feeling and experiencing surrounding the issue in question (sexual orientation or abortion decision), it might indicate that the relationship was no longer therapeutic, and the therapist would need to refer out due to countertransference. Ideally, even a therapist who believes that abortion involves murder, might be able to stay with the client in the present as they experience feelings that are leading them to consider an abortion.
Post a Comment