1. Carl Rogers cites 10 questions a therapist can ask themselves in order to ensure that they are facilitating a helping relationship for their client. In his ninth question he asks “Can I free him from the threat of external evaluation? (Rogers, 55).” He continues, “…the more I can keep a relationship free of judgment and evaluation, the more this will permit the other person to reach the point where he recognizes that the locus of evaluation, the center of responsibility lies within himself, (Rogers, 55).” Rogers is saying that no one should be bound by the judgments of an external source. It is important to be defined by one’s own viewpoints, not the viewpoints of others. He wants to keep clients from internalizing external evaluations, but rather that they learn to evaluate themselves and create their own “last analysis… (something which) no amount of external judgment can alter (Rogers, 55).”
2. Rogers says “Whatever feeling or attitude I am experiencing would be matched by my awareness f that attitude (51).” He then later says “Now acceptantly to be what I am, in this sense, and to permit this to show through to the other person, is the most difficult tasks I know… (51).” How is a therapist to show the client unconditional regard if he is showing his personal feeling towards the client. If the therapist is feeling annoyed at the client, should the client show this? It seems like that would be placing conditions of worth on the client. Or is he talking specifically about feeling annoyed because the client has shared something that merits feeling annoyed? For example someone is routinely purposefully harming the client. Which is he referring to?
1. One of the studies that Rogers presented found that it was “unhelpful” when therapists “emphasized past history rather than present problems” (Rogers, 43). I found this interesting because we often find that past experiences, whether painful or positive, shape the way we respond to our current situations. I have always thought that until we deal with how the past has affected us, it is difficult to move forward in a healthy way. I would love to hear thoughts or comments about this.
2. After I read this chapter, I kept coming back to the idea that we are giving our clients freedom to be who they are at that moment in their life. Whatever they bring to the table (whether or not they are being honest, genuine, or truthful), they are telling us something about who they are. As a therapist, I want to keep coming back to this and remember that my clients need the space and freedom to explore who they are, who they have been, what they’ve experienced, and offer them a safe place to process who they want to be. (Rogers, 53)
Sarah Moon, October 16, 2009.
In Response to Rebekah Kilman Liu:
I believe that this is why we need a strong support system/community around us as we enter into this field. Although we can’t share information about our clients, it is so important for all of us to have people around us who are praying for us and encouraging us. There is also a high value placed on having a balanced life. We definitely need things in our lives that give us life, especially when we are feeling discouraged or tired.
1. I found it insightful when Rogers writes that having positive feelings towards a client can be scary. He points out that we may fear demands being placed on us or dissapointing the client (Rogers, 52). I think there is a difficult balance between maintaining the proper distance while remaining genuine and engaged. I respect Rogers' humility in saying that he has these fears as well.
2. My next question relates to the experimental design of the Halkides study (Rogers, 47-49). First, I find it curious that she only selected three judges to rate the interactions. It seems hard to tell how subjective or objective the scoring of the variables are with such a small number of judges. Second, I wonder how we can be sure that the nine samples she picked were representative of the entire interview.
David Choi, October 17, 2009.
Response to Rebekah's 1:
I agree that this is important. I think being "strong enough" is part of our personal growth as people, which Rogers says influences our ability to help our clients. I think we have an ethical responsibility to grow in our identity and maintin our own mental health.
1. I found this chapter to be a wonderful foundation for all therapists, but especially us as Christians. I believe God has called us to "help" others by engaging in genuine and non-judgmental relationships. One point that really hit home for me was the section on being trustworthy. Rogers states "I have come to recognize that being trustworthy does not demand that I be rigidly consistent but that I be dependably real" (1961, p.50).
2.Rogers speaks of an aloofness that we may be prone to as therapists in an attempt to be or appear professional (1961, p.52). I think it will be difficult to create an empathetic and genuine relationship if we become overly worried about appearing professional. Since we want to remain ethical and in a wholesome relationship, I think it may be tempting for us at times to "obsess" or overthink the relationship instead of allowing it to be natural and sincere.
Nikki Frederick 10/17/09
In response to Sarah Moon's comment #2: I think it will be challenging, yet probably more necessary, to allow this freedom with clients who we were hoping would want to be someone different that who they've chosen to be. I hope I will have the patience and grace to allow them to figure out who they were meant to be, even if it takes some detours along their way.
1) I found it interesting that Rogers emphasized the importance of non-evaluative relationships. It occurs to me that what we often think of as encouragement is also positive reinforcement which does indeed tend to rank certain responses while devaluing other parts of the therapeutic conversation that may be just as important. Rogers (1961) noted that even positive encouragement is detrimental in the long run because it is apparent that if some behavior is good then correspondingly, other behavior must be bad (p. 55). 2) Another very powerful question Rogers asked was whether we can accept the client as “becoming,” or a work in progress if you will. This concept was thought provoking to me as I have often wondered how we as believers accept non-believers in the place they are at and still hold onto hope that they are on their personal journey to belief. In therapy, Rogers suggest we keep an open mind and limit our diagnoses, confirmed theories, etc. and allow the person to evolve through the process (Rogers, p. 55)
In response to Rebekah Kilman-Liu’s post:
I too thought this was a thought provoking idea: that we must maintain our identity through profound stories of crisis told by our clients in therapy. Protecting one’s own mind and finding strength in modes of positive reinforcement outside of the role as therapist (i.e., being part of a body of believers, seeking personal therapy as a therapist, taking personal time for restoration, etc.) is hugely important in maintaining one’s professional ability and identity.
1) Rogers mentions that machines seemed helpful at first in classically conditioning mental patients to increase their pro-social behaviors. Lindsley had a patient who improved significantly upon interacting with a machine, but then lost his pro-social behaviors gradually. According to Rogers, this indicates that “trustworthiness is important” for a relationship to help (Rogers, p. 46). Is he saying that if a trustworthy, genuine therapist classically conditioned a mental patient to increase positive behaviors that extinction would not occur upon termination of the relationship? Or is he saying that conditioning is not the answer, whether it comes from a human or a machine?
2) The ideal helping relationship, according to Rogers, can only be created by one who is “psychologically mature” (Rogers, p. 56). At Fuller, we are expected to grow spiritually both the help ourselves and our clients. I agree that growing in Christ does give us wisdom that will be vital to being therapists. Are there any aspects of psychological maturity that do not relate directly to spirituality?
In response to Nikki: I, too, agree that acting “professional” and being genuine often do not go together easily. Rogers mentions the fear of getting to close to a client because we do not want to be “trapped” (Rogers, p. 52). I do not want to see my clients as objects, but I am wondering how we can be genuinely empathetic without taking all of their problems home with us each evening. How closely can we align our feelings with theirs without causing ourselves unhealthy stress?
1. Rogers (1961) notes, “if I am to facilitate the personal growth of others in relation to me, then I must grow” (p. 51). What are some tools therapists can utilize to facilitate their own growth?
2. In highlighting the importance of genuineness, Rogers (1961) encourages therapists to be as they are perceived by the client – congruent on the inside with what is on the outside. Rogers notes this requires self awareness and is “a reality which I find others experience as dependable” (p. 51). Beyond dependability, being on the outside as we are on the inside is largely significant and relevant to Christian character. What are some possible struggles a therapist might face in attempting to be congruent with clients?
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Response to Amber’s second comment:
Whether one is Christian or not, I believe we are all works in progress. I accept this because I was once dead in my sin as well. Putting Rogers’s discussion about diagnosis aside, I think his comment about “the person he has been…created to become” (p. 55) taken out of context is helpful when placed in the context of your comment. God created mankind to be in relationship with him. We are all created to worship the living God. I feel there is wonderful hope in this truth. Praying for clients is helpful too. I think your question is more complex than my response, but from what we are learning about the therapeutic relationship’s impact on clients, I have great hope that your future clients will progress on their journeys towards truth
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1) Rogers gives us ten questions or considerations to ask ourselves as a way of evaluating whether we are facilitating a helping relationship. His third point is that "we are afraid that if we let ourselves freely experience these positive feelings toward another we may be trapped by them(Rogers, 52)." He also states that "professionalism" serves to distance us from one another and in clinical settings diagnosis leads to "seeing the person as an object" (Rogers, 55). As i read these points, I could not help but notice the undertones of modernism. The fear of being trapped has to do with individual freedom, professionalism came about as a product of industry and seeing the other as an object is reminiscent of objectivity and science. It is interesting that psychology also arose in the modern era. It is sad to see the way in which our world has become systematically impersonalized in many ways. We have so many more ways today of avoiding being engaged with people than in Rogers' time--text, e-mail, myspace, facebook, etc...I guess this means that our jobs as client-centered therapists is that much harder and that much more important.
2. Rogers states that, "a positive evaluation is as threatening in the long run as a negative one, since to inform someone that he is good implies that you also have the right to tell him he is bad (Rogers, 55)." In response to this, he says that keeping judgment out of the equation enables the client to control evaluation rather than being controlled by something external from himself. This means that the client is the agent of change. When we believe that we have control over our worth or that we are worthy despite what we do or do not do, we are free to simply be. I think this is such a powerful concept yet a very difficult one to employ. In such a value-laden world, how do we not evaluate?
In response to Sarah... Your question about the importance of a client's history... I think what Rogers is saying is that the clinician should not only focus on a client's history as a means of promoting health. Sometimes it can feel to a client that their present state is being discounted when a clinician is only focusing on his or her past. I think that Rogers is so focused on having the client present in the room that to have the client look back to the past would take the client out of the room. However, I agree with you that a client's past can be a vital component to the therapeutic process.
In response to Rachel’s question “How closely can we align our feelings with theirs without causing ourselves unhealthy stress?” I think that this is when compartmentalization is crucial. It is necessary to creating a helpful relationship to empathize and relate personally to one’s client (Rogers, 44), however, a therapist has a responsibility to themselves as well. They need to be available to provide a helpful relationship and cannot do so if they are bogged down by all their clients’ problems. I think there is a difference between empathizing with a client and taking on their problems.
1. Rogers poses a series of good questions that left me musing about what it was within my power to do. I don't know if it is possible to completely free a client from feeling threatened by external evaluation (Rogers 54). Whether or not we as therapists can create a space where the client can grow and develop a sense of themselves as not contingent of others, there are invariably going to be conditions in the world that will threaten the client. Those may be threatening in the sense that the client will be compared to others based on qualification or appearance, or something that we as the therapists cannot see coming. I guess the question that plagues me is how much of a protective barrier is it reasonable to expect the client to develop, and should be keep going until that barrier is established?
2. The "process of becoming" seems to be a really good way for us to conceptualize our clients (Rogers 55). One of the most clear messages that came out of my undergraduate experience came directly from this part of Rogers' ideology, and that is that the person is not their diagnosis. As Christians, I think it is even more important for us to work from an understanding that the broken parts of our clients do not define the entirety of the client's existence. Each person is influenced by that brokenness, but they are in the process, aided by us when in therapy, of becoming more whole, more healthy, and more able to reflect to others that wholeness. What an integral idea!
Response to Sarah: Maybe I can clarify the idea about focusing on the present... When I see that, my initial reaction is much the same as yours. What I come to is that the present is more important because how they are acting in the present is what is affecting them the most. That present reality is the interaction of each past event with other events and other conditions. The present is highly influenced by the past, but if the client is not bringing up something from the past, then it is not the first thing on their mind. I guess, when they are ready to think about those past events, specifically the ones that are hurtful, then they will, but until then, the present is more urgent to them. I know I rambled a little, but hopefully that makes sense.
1. I was extremely intrigued by the Halkides study, in reference to which it was stated that therapists who were high on qualities such as empathy early on in the treatment and clinicians who were low on genuineness early on, remained high or low respectively, throughout the duration of their interactions with their client (Rogers , 49). I was particularly struck by the latter half of this statement, since it indicates that a therapist does not innately improve in or gain client centered techniques simply as a result of spending more time with the client. Thus, it seems that a therapeutic relationship does not automatically elicit the “liking” of one’s client. Consequently, this seems to further emphasize the importance of intentionally fostering these qualities within one’s self as a therapist. Additionally, it seems to reinforce the importance of one’s initial interactions with a client, as one’s feelings toward the client are readily apparent from the outset of the treatment.
2. I was struck by the way Rogers described being trustworthy as not demanding that one be rigidly consistent, but rather requiring that one be dependably real (Rogers, 50). I particularly like that this allows the therapist the freedom to be truly and genuinely themselves in the therapy room, flaws and weaknesses included. Consequently, I was struck by this idea that one must allow themselves the same unconditional positive regard as they are supposed to extend to their client, which means allowing one’s self to have limitations and make mistakes, even as a therapist. However, this raises the question: If one cannot have unconditional positive regard for themselves, how can they have it toward a client?
3. Response to Melissa’s 2nd Question:
I think that one of the ways that a therapist can facilitate their own growth is by being in therapy themselves with a clinician who employs client centered techniques, for if we believe that CCT provides the context for growth, than why not intentionally place one’s self in such a helping relationship?
1. In the section, " How Can I Create A Helping Relationship?", Rogers says, "...if I am to facilitate the personal growth of others in relation to me, then I must grow, and while this is often painful it is also enriching (Rogers, 51)". This statement amazes me because it's pure honesty and the depth of the challenge to which it speaks. Do you think it is possible to facilitate the personal growth of someone else without you, the therapist, having to change? I also like how Rogers uses the word "facilitate". It strikes me as meaning I, the therapist, am not responsible for the personal growth of the client. My responsibility is to make sure there is a proper place for it to occur.
2. In the section entitled, "Manufactured" Relationships, Rogers discusses the operant conditioning experiment done by Lindsey using those suffering from chronic schizophrenia as test subjects to demonstrate "helping relationship" with a machine (Rogers,45). Rogers begins by saying that we may find some of the research presented rather abhorrent but it nevertheless has a bearing upon the nature of a facilitating relationship. He was right! As I read this study I was quite disturbed. Essentially, Lindsey placed human beings in a life-size Skinner box and ran them through tests as if they were rats. The fact that you can dehumanize someone and take advantage of them due to their illness for the benefit your research alone disturbs me at the deepest level of my being.
Response to David's first comment,
I agree with you and Rogers. I too think its a difficult to maintain a proper distance and remain engaged with the client. Since we are developing a friendship with them, it is natural for the lines to get a little blurry after a while. Appreciate the fact that Rogers acknowledges his fears concerning this. Especially since this is likely to be experienced when doing client centered therapy.
1. Rogers' theories are very difficult for me to conceptualize but they seem much more practical when put in practice. This seems more an more the case for me as I read his work. I find myself thinking, how can a therapist uphold all of Rogers' warnings and advice? Rogers mentions an instance where certain language will be used more often by the client if that language is reinforced (Rogers, 45). So, if the therapist nods or says, "mhm" after certain types of language the client feels reinforced and will unconsciously use more of that language. I wonder, how can we be genuine and empathetic while being careful not to reinforce too much when certain emotions or words come out of the client? In other words, how can we be non-directive and empathetic at the same time with our nods?
2. Rogers' second question really made an impression on me. He talks about trying to achieve a level of acceptance of your own feelings as a therapist (Rogers, 51). This enables the therapist to be at ease with himself or herself. Once this ease is achieved, the therapist can display empathy and warmth toward the client without seeming disingenuous or ambiguous. As budding therapists, I think the message here is that we need to start to become comfortable in our own skin, whether this means personal-growth wise, psychologically, theologically, or spiritually, etc. This is the only way that we can carry on in listening actively to our clients without exhibiting the "annoyance" that Rogers cited in some of his failed helping relationships.
Response to Nikki's #1:
I agree completely, Nikki. I think the qualities of being non-judgmental and genuine are strong convictions or goals that all Christians should have. The challenge, at least for me personally, will be in not having to think of this as a cap I'll wear while conducting psychotherapy. I wake up every morning and pray for the wisdom to be genuine and non-judgmental in my life as a follower of Christ, not just as someone who wants to cultivate strong client-centered therapy skills.
1)I thought that it was interesting that when Rogers sums up the information that he discusses through his literature review, he states that, “it is the attitudes and feelings of the therapist, rather than his theoretical orientation, which is important” (44). I would have to agree with this to a certain extent. I think that some theoretical orientations that a therapist holds will not always for a particular client. However, the attitudes and feelings you have are a part of what goes into building the helping relationship. I think that negative attitudes and feelings will not be beneficial to the client. 2)I think that Rogers ask a serious of difficult and challenging questions at the end of this chapter. I think that these questions may all seem to have easy answers. Yes, I can put myself in my client’s shoes to understand him/her and his/her world. But, I don’t think this will always come as easily as we expect it to. It takes work and practice. That’s what Live Team is for, right? (Rogers, 53)
Response to Sarah first comment… Rogers makes his statement about past experiences being brought up in the context of a study he is discussing. Clients did not always think that this was helpful. I think this might be the case because clients want to deal with the here and the now. I think it would be better to make connections for the client. For example, connect the current problem or situation to a past problem or situation. This might help the client process at a deeper level.
1. Many health related professions seem to find it valuable to have good relationship with the client to be beneficial. Yet, it is possible to treat a patient with just the right means of treatment (surgical, medicated, or others) even without a good relationship with the client. I don't know about other people but I have certainly met some doctors who were the least friendly, yet was able to help treat my sickness. It might be the fact that there is no set procedures to mental treatment that makes it essential to establish a trusting relationship between a therapist and a client to see healing in mental health (Rogers, 42-43).
2. Referring to previous research, Rogers explains that it is possible to operantly condition the client to enhance certain behaviors by just a simple reinforcement from the therapist, such as "Mmm" (Rogers, 45). Wouldn't it be counter client-centered therapy if the therapist unknowingly reinforces the client into talking about certain topics with his or her responses?
Response to Rachael Wittern: Relationship of psychological maturity and spirituality corresponds to the beliefs of that person. In the case of those who are deeply spiritual and understands that the spiritual realm has influence on the physical realm, their spiritual growth would probably help mature their psychological growth as well. However, for those who has views spirituality as being less influential on our daily lives, will in the first place not invest much effort and time to one's spiritual maturity, and even if one those so, won't have profound psychological impact.
1. Rogers reviewed a number of studies that examined attitudes of the therapist (the helping person) as either growth-promoting or growth-inhibiting (p 41). After reviewing these studies, Rogers concluded that the therapists theoretical orientation and technique were less important in helping clients improve, than his or her attitude and feelings (p 44). Considering the fact that the therapists character (attitude and feelings) is such an integral part in the helping relationship, what additional ways, if any, can graduate schools prepare/develop future therapists in this area?
2. The fifth question/consideration raised by Rogers was about the therapist being secure enough to allow the client his or her separateness (p 52-53). This was very poignant for me because it reminds me that even though we are helpers, we are not to be molders. Generally speaking, sometimes in the effort to help we may find ourselves influencing the outcome, whether intentionally or unintentionally. With this fifth question/consideration in mind, we must intentionally be non-influencing therapists.
In response to Stephen’s 1st question:
I don’t think it is possible to facilitate the personal growth of someone else without the therapist ever changing. I think we are constantly presented with opportunities to evolve when we make new discoveries about our surroundings, our relationships, ourselves, etc.; both positive and negative. If we don’t change or evolve, then we could potentially become incongruent, which could negatively affect our relationships with our clients.
I found myself very deeply challenged by many of Rogers' 10 listed characteristics of a helping relationship, framed as essential questions a therapist must ask herself. I'll go into a little more detail on two of his points:
1) The second point addresses congruence, which involves an attitude of genuineness and a sense of self-awareness (p. 51). He asserts that a therapist (or any person in a position to provide a helping relationship to another) must be, first of all, attuned to his or her inner attitudes toward the client and in general, and secondly, willing to be "transparently real" about these attitudes. I think it can be extremely difficult not only to recognize quite possibly harmful or immature attitudes within yourself, but also to accept and sit with and authentically express those attitudes. This is something I definitely struggle with personally, so I can appreciate Rogers' perspective that this struggle is enriching because it forces us to grow.
2) In Rogers' eighth point he instructs us that it is threatening to the client when we use language that is "just a little stronger than the client's feelings" (p. 54). This exaggeration, he says, can lead to physiological distress and ultimately impede the client's personal growth. How is this consistent with the therapeutic technique of "extreme" reflection statements?
Response to Sarah's first comment/question:
I absolutely agree that our past experiences shape the way we respond to present challenges and often even constitute our present challenges. From personal experience as well as familiarity with psychodynamic concepts, I think we all tend to internalize some aspect of our painful (as well as constructive) experiences and carry that with us as we move forward. I think it would be a mistake to discount that influence altogether in the context of therapy, because the residual influences of the past need to be faced and dealt with just as much as the emotions of the present, and in fact I think that the former is most likely directly contributing to the latter.
1. If I am in a therapy session with a client and am frustrated/annoyed by what he or she is saying, how do I remain congruent without damaging the therapeutic relationship (Rogers, 1989, 51)?
2. I feel like there are clients I will work with that I would have a very hard time refraining from judgement. For example, someone who victimizes women. I cannot imagine myself being able to enter into his subjective reality to such an extent that I loose all desire to judge (53).
Is this where you would need to draw the line in terms of whether or not you work with a client? Or could you still develop a therapeutic relationship built on other characteristics that compensate?
Response to Sarah's 1st comment I think that if a client is experiencing distress related to a past event or wants to talk about something from the past, then it would be appropriate to address that in counseling.
I think a lot of things happen in life that you have to learn to accept, learn from, and move on. For example, you may not have had a good relationship with your father or mother during childhood and the memories of that probably hurt. However, there is nothing you can do about that now. Continuing to revisit that when the client has learned to accept it is not helpful.
I think I would be frustrated if I came in for help with anxiety and my therapist wanted to talk about an embarrassing event in 3rd grade.
1)Rogers talks about accepting the other person as "in the process of becoming" someone more actualized (Rogers, 55). This implies that the person in therapy understands that they have this capacity. It still strikes me as difficult that people can facilitate their own growth by a therapist simply reflecting affect and content statements. While some, or even most individuals may benefit from this, I find it difficult to see this as effective in all cases.
2) Rogers asks the question "can I permit him to be what he is?" (Rogers, 53) This strikes me as something difficult because I find that we as people tend to reach a point where we think we know someone and we understand them well enough. The trick in therapy is to remain interested in them and constantly pushing oneself to be eternally curious about the client, and this allows him to be what he is.
3) Melissa Gardner Curri's first question is about how we can continue to grow as therapists. I think that our own therapy is just one aspect of that. I think that part of growing is in the doing, so go out into the world and DO things. Read a book (trashy or important literature), go camping, try new foods, make new friends, engage new ideas, adopt a pet, see a comedy show at the Ice House. Anything you can do to live life more deeply, to expand your horizons, to force yourself to think about yourself as better and more than you were yesterday (however you define that) is what matters. Further, Jesus came to give us abundant life. He didn't intend for you to wait until you die to experience that.
1. Though not directly related to clinet-entered therapy, I am amazed by some of the methods used to gain the psychological understanding we currently possess. When Rogers described the "relationship with a machine" experiment done with schizophrenic patients, I was abhorred, especially with the patient who grew and then regressed when all the rewards were taken away. Treating human beings like rats is never acceptable and is of course why we now have IRBs. But we still shouldn't forget that a lot of our knowledge comes from horrible experiments on other humans and that psychology, even as a "helping profession" is not immune to treating other humans inhumanely (Rogers, pp. 45-46).
2. Rogers fifth question is whether or not the therapist os strong enough to be allow the client to be himself and not force him to model himself after the therapist. So then what is our goal? If our goal is to allow the other to be himself then why do therapy at all? I agree that we should not be trying to make clones of ourselves, but if we take Rogers questions as a whole then these clients need to be free of evaluation, be allowed to be themselves and have every "facet" of their personalities accepted. However, a person who is coming to therapy is having issues that they want to get rid of or at least lessen. They don't want to be the "him/herself" that they have been and they are often looking to us as their thearpist for acceptance, true, but also for an evaluation, a diagnosis, something to help them understand what is going on. If we are strict Rogerians we cannot always give them what they need (Rogers, pp. 52-55).
Jonathan Wellman, October 20, 2009
Response to Sarah:
I agree with Rogers that we are better off dealing with current issues than past causes in most cases. To be a bit sarcastic, speculating that your client's mother did not hold her enough will not help her relate better to her spouse. If a clear past issue is presenting a current problem, then it should be dealt with. But if your clients are having marital difficulty, for example, exploring the way they communicate with each other and helping them pursue healthier ways of communication is more important than exploring the way they learned to communicate by watching their parents.
1. In studies of relationships developed earlier in life, such as the parent-child relationships that Rogers explains are “acceptant-democratic” (42), Rogers also explains that these relationships facilitate helping. This is described as conditioning to grow, be original, and experience emotional stability. In cases where a person has not experienced a helping relationship, is there a link between unhealthy early relationships (parent-child) or later traumatic relationship (abuse) and the result of non-growth? Are earlier relationships more vital for future helping relationships?
2. In the series of Rogers’ “how to create helping relationships,” one question is “can I really see the world through his eyes, be in his shoes” (54). Was Rogers aware of integrating culture and are current therapists asking the same questions today with the priority of culture?
3. In response to Melissa Gardner Curri: For growth, therapists should take the posture of “client” so that they can experience the side of the relationship that facilitates growth in their own lives. They can only understand growth once they experience that same growth themselves.
1. Rogers states that the therapeutic relationship should be nonjudgmental, meaning a client or his/her actions should never be regarded as good or bad. He states that it is the client's responsibility to be a "self-responsible person (Rogers, 54-55)." I wonder if this is valid for a person with a psychopathology so great that all he/she wants to do is rid the world of anything that is not to his/her liking? Are we sure that all people will become responsible on their own without any guidance?
2. I am never able to fully grasp Roger's concept of congruency. He states, "If in a given relationship I am reasonably congruent, if no feelings relevant to the relationship are hidden either to me or the other person...the relationship will be a helpful one (Rogers, 51)." This to me means, if I am frustrated with a client, I should express my frustration. However, I feel this contradicts unconditional positive regard. What does Rogers mean when he talks about congruency?
In response to Ashley Wilkins first question, I believe that a person can disregard most feelings of worth within a culture. A person can become self-confident enough and realize that what others think or judge is not important; what is important is how the person views him/herself. Obviously, the only relationship with the capacity for unconditional positive regard is a relationship with Christ, but I believe the therapist can help a client to become more self-confident.
1) I am struck by the amount of language Rogers uses to describe the therapist rather than the client. Rogers is different than many other theoretical founders I have read about in that he emphasizes the therapist’s problems more than those of the clients. I think that this stems from his overwhelming trust in human beings and their ability to thrive given the proper conditions. The only problem I have with this idea is that God gives us advice and guidance on many occasions. He enables his disciples in many ways and encourages them to counsel and lead his flock. I think that there must be some instances in which it is wise and well-meaning to give well informed advice. (This is more of a question than a conclusion.)
2) In chapter 3 (this week’s reading), Rogers says that one mode of change within the client comes from expressing the “hidden and awful aspects of himself” and finding the “therapist showing a consistent and unconditional positive regard” (Rogers, 1961, 63). I can’t help but see the similarities between this message and the one God gives us in confession and fellowship with accountable fellow believers. It seems that without this ability to speak about such inner thoughts and guilt ridden memories such memories begin to erode at our ability to not only follow Christ but also our ability to live fully. However, Rogers puts it perfectly when he describes the necessary environment in which this type of disclosure can occur; only in a truly “safe” place where they feel comfortable and assured the listener will not be judgmental can an individual divulge and begin healing.
3) In response to Nikki Frederick:
I think that Nikki had an interesting point this week. I feel that one of my most salient concerns regarding therapy is my need to be true to myself as well as respecting the clients autonomy and freedom of thought. Rogers hit the nail on the head, so to speak, in the quotation given by Nikki. We don’t have to align ourselves within a standard of living, loving, or counseling in order to remain truthful or “trustworthy.” We only need to represent ourselves honestly and respectfully (and always be aware of the clients welfare).
An aspect of the reading that I found interesting is when Rogers said, "In the clinical areas we develop elaborate diagnostic formulations, seeing the person as an object" (Rogers, 52). Rogers believes that viewing the client as an object prevents the therapist from really caring about them. Personally, I think that this is a little extreme. By giving a client a diagnosis does not necessarily reduce them to an object in the therapists eyes. Sometimes diagnoses are important in establishing a treatment plan (and sometimes they are not.) Does this mean that clients are not diagnosed in Client Centered Therapy?
2. Rogers suggests that the clients perceptions of how the therapist is understanding and responding to them is more important than what the therapist may be really experiencing (Rogers, 44). This surprises me because it contradicts Rogers emphasis on the importance of congruency. Rogers defines congruency as "genuine and without "front" or facade, openly being the feelings and attitudes which at that moment are flowing in him (Rogers, 61). So if it is true that the client only needs to perceive genuineness then congruency would not be essential to therapy. And because I think congruency is so important, I would be interested to learn more about this.
In response to Sarah:
I experienced very similar thoughts when reading that section. Often it is very helpful in therapy to explore past experiences because it helps the client to better understand how they have become the person they are. Also, it is by reshaping perceptions of the past that people can then decide to move on from a certain experience that has negatively effected them.
1) Rogers asks a good question: can the therapist let himself or herself experience feelings of unconditional positive regard despite fear and an instinct to protect against it (52)? Some clients with disappoint, break our trust, not show any progress, or even worsen and yet we still need to actually feel warmth toward them when we show them this regard so that we are congruent. In everyday life there are people that we say are “extra grace required” in Christian circles, but how often is that shown in a congruent way where the kindness and patience is shown out of the heart instead of faked?
2) I found the study on the “necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic change” interesting because while I have come to believe the conditions identified are necessary, but not sufficient (47). The results showed significant associations between high degrees of empathy, warmth, and congruence with the most successful cases. While these conditions might have been sufficient in these successful cases, there are cases where they are not enough, for example in schizophrenic clients. I am stuck on the point that there must be many cases and people for which nondirective therapy does not work. I am interested to hear what cases client centered therapy does work well with.
Response to Candace: I have similar questions about congruency. How do you know how much to keep below the surface, to omit from therapy? When you deliberately withhold the truth isn’t it still lying by omission? How can you be truly congruent if you do not voice any of your negative feelings toward your clients?
1. One of the questions Rogers raises really struck me. I am not in this program to become a therapist. The idea of sitting in an office with clients coming in and out all day looking to me for help exhausts me. Then I read question #4, "Can i be strong enough as a person to separate from the other? Am I strong enough in my own separateness that I will not be downcast by his depression, frightened by his fear, nor engulfed by his dependency?" (Rogers,52)And, I don't think I am strong enough, maybe that is just my insecurities, but maybe it is a fair personal evaluation. 2.Rogerian therapy reminds me so much of the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, patience, gentleness, self control. Rogers first question to ask is : "Can I be perceived by the other person as trustworthy?" Rather than just be perceived, I think we are to be trustworthy. Our ethics, our character development as Christians, plays into our ability to be a good therapist. Principles overlap and enhance.(Rogers, 50)
Response to Sarah: Our past does shape our present. But I know by being on the other side of the chair that sometimes I don't want to talk about my past friendships and heartaches and family dynamics, I am stressed now and emotional now in this room. Rogers seems to allow for that space to feel the present without pressuring to look into the past (which I agree seems to influence the way i perceive things). Does that make sense?
1. In Carl Rogers' sixth question he utilizes to determine the helpfulness of the relationship he is engaging in, he wonders if he can enter into the client's world so fully, that his desires to evaluate and judge are undetected. He asks: "Can I let myself enter fully into the world of his feelings and personal meanings and see these as he does? Can I step into his private world so completely that I lose all desire to evaluate or judge it? Can I enter it so sensitively that I can move about in it freely...?" (Rogers, pg 53). First, Rogers is describing a joining with the client that is essential in establishing rapport and conceptualizing where a client might need to go in therapy, however, at the same time, it is committing the very error that Roger's criticizes analysts that view the therapist as a blank projection screen: it renders the therapist personless. How does Rogers expect to enter into the clients' world undetected, while still eminating his true self, or as he would call it, practicing genuineness and congruence?
2. In building upon my last question in which Roger's attempts to tip-toe unnoticed in the client's world of meaning and experience, I wonder about other seemingly contradictory aspirations Rogers holds as a therapist. Namely, his ability to be a strong presence without overpowering the client's presence. Rogers asks, "Can I be strong enough as a person to be separate from the other?" then follows that question with the question, " Am I secure enough to permit him his separateness?" (Rogers, pg. 52-53). Rogers identifies that he sets before himself a task that seems nearly in-achievable. The balance and self awareness needed to monitor oneself so closely as a therapist- for example, having awareness of one's own needs so they don't get in the way of understanding the clients needs while at the same time, fully entering into experiencing the client's needs free of personal judgment and meaning- seems to be contradictory as if a person could not possibly be both "aware" and "unaware" at the same time. Without being a skeptic of Roger's well tested and presumably effective theories, the complexity of the ideal helping relationship as he describes it is no short of remarkable. It is worth noting that in the conclusion, Rogers himself admits that he finds it difficult to imagine being able to complete all necessary tasks in forming his described helping relationship. (Rogers, pg. 56).
1. In one of Rogers' studies, he learned that the perception of the therapeutic relationship by the client can determine how helpful therapy is. I found it very interesting that an "over-degree of sympathy" was noted by clients as unhelpful. How then, can we as therapists show an appropriate level of sympathy to our clients who are enduring hard situations without expressing an overage of sympathy (Rogers, p. 43)?
2. In Rogers' third question about helping relationships, he asks about letting himself "experience positive attitudes toward this other person" and notes that it is "not easy" (Rogers, p. 52). I feel that one of the biggest issues we might face as new therapists is breaking down the facade that we are inclined to show in the name of professionalism. I believe that Rogers is saying that we need to get out of our own way in order to show genuine regard for our clients.
In response to Sarah Moon's 2nd thought: I completely agree that the therapeutic space needs to be a safe haven for clients to experiment and think and process. This actually reminds me of the "transitional space" idea that we have been talking about in LifeSpan Development.
1) One of the questions/struggles/inconsistencies I see in Rogers’ explanation of the therapeutic relationship is the fact that he uncompromisingly assumes that the client-therapy relationship should be the same “lawfulness [that] governs all such relationships” (Rogers, 39). Does this conflict with the guideline that the client-therapy relationship is completely separate from that of a friendship and that boundaries in the client-therapy relationship are different than that of a friendship relationship or parent-child relationship. Does Rogers lack clarification in this area? (Rogers, 40). Also, on the topic of “manufactured relationships” makes me question whether Rogers would categorize the client-therapy relationship as “manufactured” (the client seeks you out for service, payment for service, etc.) and how Rogers would think this influences maintaining the foundation of genuineness. (Rogers, 39-40)
2) I appreciate Rogers’ sincerity, his seemingly neutral view of his own theory in the sense that he acknowledges its limitations and realizes that it is impossible to be “wholly objective or wholly subjective” (Rogers, 39) but still thinks that it is important to try even if he is unable to get to a completely concrete answer, he is still willing to ask the question (Rogers, 39). I think this is the foundation of the qualities that he finds useful in therapy and therefore exhibits them himself in his approach to his theory: genuineness. (Rogers, 39)
Kim Richardson, October 22, 2009
Response to Rebekah Liu’s 1st comment: I agree whole-heartedly that being able to separate ourselves from our clients is extremely important and sometimes might catch a person off-guard as a difficult thing to do (when so much focus is placed on empathizing with the client that sometimes perhaps maintaining balance can be difficult). This is why personal therapy is so important in order to determine what is “ours” and what is “theirs” so that we can more easily acknowledge the ways in which to separate from the client (emotions and experiences). This is also why self-care is so important, to remember that we are our own person who also has needs to be met and that we cannot “sacrifice” ourselves in service to others, in fact, when we take care of ourselves we are able to gain the very strength and resources to help facilitate that depth with the client that creates the helping relationship. Identity is really important and is a constant re-evaluation, although always from the foundation of our relationship with Christ.
1.) Rogers’ articulation of “congruence” intrigues me. He writes that we must go beyond the obvious motions of dependability in order to earn the trust of a patient and in deed to create a “helpful” space for the patient. He says that keeping appointments, respecting confidentiality, and acting the same during sessions are important, but not adequate in and of themselves. Even if we are acting in an accepting manner, the actual way we feel may be trumping our efforts. (Rogers, pg 50)
2.) Drawing from his emphasis on “congruence,” Rogers goes beyond this to state that we must be intentionally in tune toward our own feelings so that no ambiguity can corrupt the healing environment. If our words as a therapist are accepting, while our subconscious attitude is annoyance, this discrepancy “confuses the other person and makes [her/]him distrustful.” Whereas, if we can be “sensitively aware of and acceptant toward [our] own feelings--- then the likelihood is great that [we] can form a helping relationship toward another.” (Rogers, pg 51)
2) I appreciate Rogers’ sincerity, his seemingly neutral view of his own theory in the sense that he acknowledges its limitations and realizes that it is impossible to be “wholly objective or wholly subjective” (Rogers, 39) but still thinks that it is important to try even if he is unable to get to a completely concrete answer, he is still willing to ask the question (Rogers, 39). I think this is the foundation of the qualities that he finds useful in therapy and therefore exhibits them himself in his approach to his theory: genuineness. (Rogers, 39)
In response to Kim's 2nd post, I also appreciate Rogers' ability to display his misgivings and the possible and real challenges surrounding his approach. I was surprised and impressed by the fact that he doesn't oversimplify it, or over-sell. He shows both sides and explains the difficulty that arises when he fails. He genuinely seems to see himself [even as the therapist] as a human within a process. It seems he is honestly trying to lay out what his experiences have truly led him to believe.
1. One of the things I have encountered in Live Team and in thinking about actually doing therapy, is the tendency to want to be more directive and sometimes even offer advice, as I would to a friend. So it is noteworthy to me that when discussing one of the studies, it was found that unhelpful qualities in a therapist included “direct specific advice”. I can see that this may be a temptation for some therapists, but also that it is crucial in most settings, that the therapist simply listen and seek to both gain and communicate understanding to the client, which is reported as helpful (Rogers, 43). 2. In regard to the recent study done with hospitalized patients who struggled with alcoholism, it was reported that something which damaged the therapeutic relationship, was when the therapist withheld themselves and permitted “as little of his own personality to intrude as is humanly possible” (Rogers, 47). This is so important to consider when thinking about how much of oneself a therapist should bring into therapy and I think is solved when a therapist acts in congruence. It is a reminder to me of the necessity of being myself and the impact withholding myself has on therapy. 3. In response to Bobby, I completely agree and appreciate your thoughts on the therapist accepting his or her own feelings. I think that this is especially important to ensure that the therapist isn’t distracted (or at least as little as possibly) by what they are thinking and feeling and can instead direct all energy to what the client is communicating.
1.Roger's states that one way of being an expressive and unambiguous therapist is to “form a helping relationship” to oneself (Rogers, pp.51). What are some ways in which a person would be able to do this? What would the dialog of a helping relationship with oneself sound like?
2.The optimal helping relationship, according to Rogers, is fostered by a therapist who is “psychologically mature” (Rogers, pp.56). Since the degree to which a therapist “can facilitate the growth of others is a measure of the growth” that the therapist has achieved in themselves, does this require a constant self-examination of the self-growth of the therapist in each specific growth-area of each client? Stated another way, must the therapist be mature in the way that each client is immature in order to facilitate growth?
3.Rogers asks the question, “Can I be in some way which will be perceived by the other person as trustworthy, as dependable or consistent in some deep sense?” (Rogers, pp.50). How might this look different in cultures other than the culture in which the therapist is from? Should the therapist seek to express these attributes in the client's culture or should the therapist express these characteristics in the way that he/she is familiar with as a way of being authentic?
Response to Melissa #1: As we have been told by many, if not all, of our professors that seeking our own psychotherapy is an important way to foster our own growth. In addition to that, I believe it should be an on-going process and not simply a goal that we achieve and then no longer have obligation to. Seeking our own growth requires a state of humility. I believe humility must be apart of who we are as people and as therapist regardless of how much education or experience we may acquire. Understanding that we do not have all people figured out and are on our own personal journey should be apart of who we are as therapist. I believe that humility fosters openness.
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.
34 comments:
1. Carl Rogers cites 10 questions a therapist can ask themselves in order to ensure that they are facilitating a helping relationship for their client. In his ninth question he asks “Can I free him from the threat of external evaluation? (Rogers, 55).” He continues, “…the more I can keep a relationship free of judgment and evaluation, the more this will permit the other person to reach the point where he recognizes that the locus of evaluation, the center of responsibility lies within himself, (Rogers, 55).” Rogers is saying that no one should be bound by the judgments of an external source. It is important to be defined by one’s own viewpoints, not the viewpoints of others. He wants to keep clients from internalizing external evaluations, but rather that they learn to evaluate themselves and create their own “last analysis… (something which) no amount of external judgment can alter (Rogers, 55).”
2. Rogers says “Whatever feeling or attitude I am experiencing would be matched by my awareness f that attitude (51).” He then later says “Now acceptantly to be what I am, in this sense, and to permit this to show through to the other person, is the most difficult tasks I know… (51).” How is a therapist to show the client unconditional regard if he is showing his personal feeling towards the client. If the therapist is feeling annoyed at the client, should the client show this? It seems like that would be placing conditions of worth on the client. Or is he talking specifically about feeling annoyed because the client has shared something that merits feeling annoyed? For example someone is routinely purposefully harming the client. Which is he referring to?
1. One of the studies that Rogers presented found that it was “unhelpful” when therapists “emphasized past history rather than present problems” (Rogers, 43). I found this interesting because we often find that past experiences, whether painful or positive, shape the way we respond to our current situations. I have always thought that until we deal with how the past has affected us, it is difficult to move forward in a healthy way. I would love to hear thoughts or comments about this.
2. After I read this chapter, I kept coming back to the idea that we are giving our clients freedom to be who they are at that moment in their life. Whatever they bring to the table (whether or not they are being honest, genuine, or truthful), they are telling us something about who they are. As a therapist, I want to keep coming back to this and remember that my clients need the space and freedom to explore who they are, who they have been, what they’ve experienced, and offer them a safe place to process who they want to be. (Rogers, 53)
Sarah Moon, October 16, 2009.
In Response to Rebekah Kilman Liu:
I believe that this is why we need a strong support system/community around us as we enter into this field. Although we can’t share information about our clients, it is so important for all of us to have people around us who are praying for us and encouraging us. There is also a high value placed on having a balanced life. We definitely need things in our lives that give us life, especially when we are feeling discouraged or tired.
1. I found it insightful when Rogers writes that having positive feelings towards a client can be scary. He points out that we may fear demands being placed on us or dissapointing the client (Rogers, 52). I think there is a difficult balance between maintaining the proper distance while remaining genuine and engaged. I respect Rogers' humility in saying that he has these fears as well.
2. My next question relates to the experimental design of the Halkides study (Rogers, 47-49). First, I find it curious that she only selected three judges to rate the interactions. It seems hard to tell how subjective or objective the scoring of the variables are with such a small number of judges. Second, I wonder how we can be sure that the nine samples she picked were representative of the entire interview.
David Choi, October 17, 2009.
Response to Rebekah's 1:
I agree that this is important. I think being "strong enough" is part of our personal growth as people, which Rogers says influences our ability to help our clients. I think we have an ethical responsibility to grow in our identity and maintin our own mental health.
1. I found this chapter to be a wonderful foundation for all therapists, but especially us as Christians. I believe God has called us to "help" others by engaging in genuine and non-judgmental relationships. One point that really hit home for me was the section on being trustworthy. Rogers states "I have come to recognize that being trustworthy does not demand that I be rigidly consistent but that I be dependably real" (1961, p.50).
2.Rogers speaks of an aloofness that we may be prone to as therapists in an attempt to be or appear professional (1961, p.52). I think it will be difficult to create an empathetic and genuine relationship if we become overly worried about appearing professional. Since we want to remain ethical and in a wholesome relationship, I think it may be tempting for us at times to "obsess" or overthink the relationship instead of allowing it to be natural and sincere.
Nikki Frederick
10/17/09
In response to Sarah Moon's comment #2: I think it will be challenging, yet probably more necessary, to allow this freedom with clients who we were hoping would want to be someone different that who they've chosen to be. I hope I will have the patience and grace to allow them to figure out who they were meant to be, even if it takes some detours along their way.
1) I found it interesting that Rogers emphasized the importance of non-evaluative relationships. It occurs to me that what we often think of as encouragement is also positive reinforcement which does indeed tend to rank certain responses while devaluing other parts of the therapeutic conversation that may be just as important. Rogers (1961) noted that even positive encouragement is detrimental in the long run because it is apparent that if some behavior is good then correspondingly, other behavior must be bad (p. 55).
2) Another very powerful question Rogers asked was whether we can accept the client as “becoming,” or a work in progress if you will. This concept was thought provoking to me as I have often wondered how we as believers accept non-believers in the place they are at and still hold onto hope that they are on their personal journey to belief. In therapy, Rogers suggest we keep an open mind and limit our diagnoses, confirmed theories, etc. and allow the person to evolve through the process (Rogers, p. 55)
In response to Rebekah Kilman-Liu’s post:
I too thought this was a thought provoking idea: that we must maintain our identity through profound stories of crisis told by our clients in therapy. Protecting one’s own mind and finding strength in modes of positive reinforcement outside of the role as therapist (i.e., being part of a body of believers, seeking personal therapy as a therapist, taking personal time for restoration, etc.) is hugely important in maintaining one’s professional ability and identity.
Amber Blews, October 18, 2009
1) Rogers mentions that machines seemed helpful at first in classically conditioning mental patients to increase their pro-social behaviors. Lindsley had a patient who improved significantly upon interacting with a machine, but then lost his pro-social behaviors gradually. According to Rogers, this indicates that “trustworthiness is important” for a relationship to help (Rogers, p. 46). Is he saying that if a trustworthy, genuine therapist classically conditioned a mental patient to increase positive behaviors that extinction would not occur upon termination of the relationship? Or is he saying that conditioning is not the answer, whether it comes from a human or a machine?
2) The ideal helping relationship, according to Rogers, can only be created by one who is “psychologically mature” (Rogers, p. 56). At Fuller, we are expected to grow spiritually both the help ourselves and our clients. I agree that growing in Christ does give us wisdom that will be vital to being therapists. Are there any aspects of psychological maturity that do not relate directly to spirituality?
In response to Nikki:
I, too, agree that acting “professional” and being genuine often do not go together easily. Rogers mentions the fear of getting to close to a client because we do not want to be “trapped” (Rogers, p. 52). I do not want to see my clients as objects, but I am wondering how we can be genuinely empathetic without taking all of their problems home with us each evening. How closely can we align our feelings with theirs without causing ourselves unhealthy stress?
Rachael Wittern, October 18, 2009
1. Rogers (1961) notes, “if I am to facilitate the personal growth of others in relation to me, then I must grow” (p. 51). What are some tools therapists can utilize to facilitate their own growth?
2. In highlighting the importance of genuineness, Rogers (1961) encourages therapists to be as they are perceived by the client – congruent on the inside with what is on the outside. Rogers notes this requires self awareness and is “a reality which I find others experience as dependable” (p. 51). Beyond dependability, being on the outside as we are on the inside is largely significant and relevant to Christian character. What are some possible struggles a therapist might face in attempting to be congruent with clients?
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Response to Amber’s second comment:
Whether one is Christian or not, I believe we are all works in progress. I accept this because I was once dead in my sin as well. Putting Rogers’s discussion about diagnosis aside, I think his comment about “the person he has been…created to become” (p. 55) taken out of context is helpful when placed in the context of your comment. God created mankind to be in relationship with him. We are all created to worship the living God. I feel there is wonderful hope in this truth. Praying for clients is helpful too. I think your question is more complex than my response, but from what we are learning about the therapeutic relationship’s impact on clients, I have great hope that your future clients will progress on their journeys towards truth
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Melissa Gardner Curri, Oct 18, 2009
1) Rogers gives us ten questions or considerations to ask ourselves as a way of evaluating whether we are facilitating a helping relationship. His third point is that "we are afraid that if we let ourselves freely experience these positive feelings toward another we may be trapped by them(Rogers, 52)." He also states that "professionalism" serves to distance us from one another and in clinical settings diagnosis leads to "seeing the person as an object" (Rogers, 55). As i read these points, I could not help but notice the undertones of modernism. The fear of being trapped has to do with individual freedom, professionalism came about as a product of industry and seeing the other as an object is reminiscent of objectivity and science. It is interesting that psychology also arose in the modern era. It is sad to see the way in which our world has become systematically impersonalized in many ways. We have so many more ways today of avoiding being engaged with people than in Rogers' time--text, e-mail, myspace, facebook, etc...I guess this means that our jobs as client-centered therapists is that much harder and that much more important.
2. Rogers states that, "a positive evaluation is as threatening in the long run as a negative one, since to inform someone that he is good implies that you also have the right to tell him he is bad (Rogers, 55)." In response to this, he says that keeping judgment out of the equation enables the client to control evaluation rather than being controlled by something external from himself. This means that the client is the agent of change. When we believe that we have control over our worth or that we are worthy despite what we do or do not do, we are free to simply be. I think this is such a powerful concept yet a very difficult one to employ. In such a value-laden world, how do we not evaluate?
In response to Sarah... Your question about the importance of a client's history... I think what Rogers is saying is that the clinician should not only focus on a client's history as a means of promoting health. Sometimes it can feel to a client that their present state is being discounted when a clinician is only focusing on his or her past. I think that Rogers is so focused on having the client present in the room that to have the client look back to the past would take the client out of the room. However, I agree with you that a client's past can be a vital component to the therapeutic process.
the last comment was by Hannah Jones.
In response to Rachel’s question “How closely can we align our feelings with theirs without causing ourselves unhealthy stress?” I think that this is when compartmentalization is crucial. It is necessary to creating a helpful relationship to empathize and relate personally to one’s client (Rogers, 44), however, a therapist has a responsibility to themselves as well. They need to be available to provide a helpful relationship and cannot do so if they are bogged down by all their clients’ problems. I think there is a difference between empathizing with a client and taking on their problems.
1. Rogers poses a series of good questions that left me musing about what it was within my power to do. I don't know if it is possible to completely free a client from feeling threatened by external evaluation (Rogers 54). Whether or not we as therapists can create a space where the client can grow and develop a sense of themselves as not contingent of others, there are invariably going to be conditions in the world that will threaten the client. Those may be threatening in the sense that the client will be compared to others based on qualification or appearance, or something that we as the therapists cannot see coming. I guess the question that plagues me is how much of a protective barrier is it reasonable to expect the client to develop, and should be keep going until that barrier is established?
2. The "process of becoming" seems to be a really good way for us to conceptualize our clients (Rogers 55). One of the most clear messages that came out of my undergraduate experience came directly from this part of Rogers' ideology, and that is that the person is not their diagnosis. As Christians, I think it is even more important for us to work from an understanding that the broken parts of our clients do not define the entirety of the client's existence. Each person is influenced by that brokenness, but they are in the process, aided by us when in therapy, of becoming more whole, more healthy, and more able to reflect to others that wholeness. What an integral idea!
Response to Sarah:
Maybe I can clarify the idea about focusing on the present... When I see that, my initial reaction is much the same as yours. What I come to is that the present is more important because how they are acting in the present is what is affecting them the most. That present reality is the interaction of each past event with other events and other conditions. The present is highly influenced by the past, but if the client is not bringing up something from the past, then it is not the first thing on their mind. I guess, when they are ready to think about those past events, specifically the ones that are hurtful, then they will, but until then, the present is more urgent to them. I know I rambled a little, but hopefully that makes sense.
1. I was extremely intrigued by the Halkides study, in reference to which it was stated that therapists who were high on qualities such as empathy early on in the treatment and clinicians who were low on genuineness early on, remained high or low respectively, throughout the duration of their interactions with their client (Rogers , 49). I was particularly struck by the latter half of this statement, since it indicates that a therapist does not innately improve in or gain client centered techniques simply as a result of spending more time with the client. Thus, it seems that a therapeutic relationship does not automatically elicit the “liking” of one’s client. Consequently, this seems to further emphasize the importance of intentionally fostering these qualities within one’s self as a therapist. Additionally, it seems to reinforce the importance of one’s initial interactions with a client, as one’s feelings toward the client are readily apparent from the outset of the treatment.
2. I was struck by the way Rogers described being trustworthy as not demanding that one be rigidly consistent, but rather requiring that one be dependably real (Rogers, 50). I particularly like that this allows the therapist the freedom to be truly and genuinely themselves in the therapy room, flaws and weaknesses included. Consequently, I was struck by this idea that one must allow themselves the same unconditional positive regard as they are supposed to extend to their client, which means allowing one’s self to have limitations and make mistakes, even as a therapist. However, this raises the question: If one cannot have unconditional positive regard for themselves, how can they have it toward a client?
3. Response to Melissa’s 2nd Question:
I think that one of the ways that a therapist can facilitate their own growth is by being in therapy themselves with a clinician who employs client centered techniques, for if we believe that CCT provides the context for growth, than why not intentionally place one’s self in such a helping relationship?
Jessica Nunnally, October 19, 2009
1. In the section, " How Can I Create A Helping Relationship?", Rogers says, "...if I am to facilitate the personal growth of others in relation to me, then I must grow, and while this is often painful it is also enriching (Rogers, 51)". This statement amazes me because it's pure honesty and the depth of the challenge to which it speaks. Do you think it is possible to facilitate the personal growth of someone else without you, the therapist, having to change?
I also like how Rogers uses the word "facilitate". It strikes me as meaning I, the therapist, am not responsible for the personal growth of the client. My responsibility is to make sure there is a proper place for it to occur.
2. In the section entitled, "Manufactured" Relationships, Rogers discusses the operant conditioning experiment done by Lindsey using those suffering from chronic schizophrenia as test subjects to demonstrate "helping relationship" with a machine (Rogers,45). Rogers begins by saying that we may find some of the research presented rather abhorrent but it nevertheless has a bearing upon the nature of a facilitating relationship. He was right! As I read this study I was quite disturbed. Essentially, Lindsey placed human beings in a life-size Skinner box and ran them through tests as if they were rats. The fact that you can dehumanize someone and take advantage of them due to their illness for the benefit your research alone disturbs me at the deepest level of my being.
Response to David's first comment,
I agree with you and Rogers. I too think its a difficult to maintain a proper distance and remain engaged with the client. Since we are developing a friendship with them, it is natural for the lines to get a little blurry after a while. Appreciate the fact that Rogers acknowledges his fears concerning this. Especially since this is likely to be experienced when doing client centered therapy.
Stephen McGee, October 19, 2009
1. Rogers' theories are very difficult for me to conceptualize but they seem much more practical when put in practice. This seems more an more the case for me as I read his work. I find myself thinking, how can a therapist uphold all of Rogers' warnings and advice? Rogers mentions an instance where certain language will be used more often by the client if that language is reinforced (Rogers, 45). So, if the therapist nods or says, "mhm" after certain types of language the client feels reinforced and will unconsciously use more of that language. I wonder, how can we be genuine and empathetic while being careful not to reinforce too much when certain emotions or words come out of the client? In other words, how can we be non-directive and empathetic at the same time with our nods?
2. Rogers' second question really made an impression on me. He talks about trying to achieve a level of acceptance of your own feelings as a therapist (Rogers, 51). This enables the therapist to be at ease with himself or herself. Once this ease is achieved, the therapist can display empathy and warmth toward the client without seeming disingenuous or ambiguous. As budding therapists, I think the message here is that we need to start to become comfortable in our own skin, whether this means personal-growth wise, psychologically, theologically, or spiritually, etc. This is the only way that we can carry on in listening actively to our clients without exhibiting the "annoyance" that Rogers cited in some of his failed helping relationships.
Response to Nikki's #1:
I agree completely, Nikki. I think the qualities of being non-judgmental and genuine are strong convictions or goals that all Christians should have. The challenge, at least for me personally, will be in not having to think of this as a cap I'll wear while conducting psychotherapy. I wake up every morning and pray for the wisdom to be genuine and non-judgmental in my life as a follower of Christ, not just as someone who wants to cultivate strong client-centered therapy skills.
1)I thought that it was interesting that when Rogers sums up the information that he discusses through his literature review, he states that, “it is the attitudes and feelings of the therapist, rather than his theoretical orientation, which is important” (44). I would have to agree with this to a certain extent. I think that some theoretical orientations that a therapist holds will not always for a particular client. However, the attitudes and feelings you have are a part of what goes into building the helping relationship. I think that negative attitudes and feelings will not be beneficial to the client.
2)I think that Rogers ask a serious of difficult and challenging questions at the end of this chapter. I think that these questions may all seem to have easy answers. Yes, I can put myself in my client’s shoes to understand him/her and his/her world. But, I don’t think this will always come as easily as we expect it to. It takes work and practice. That’s what Live Team is for, right?
(Rogers, 53)
Response to Sarah first comment…
Rogers makes his statement about past experiences being brought up in the context of a study he is discussing. Clients did not always think that this was helpful. I think this might be the case because clients want to deal with the here and the now. I think it would be better to make connections for the client. For example, connect the current problem or situation to a past problem or situation. This might help the client process at a deeper level.
Lauren Brighton Oct. 19, 2009
1. Many health related professions seem to find it valuable to have good relationship with the client to be beneficial. Yet, it is possible to treat a patient with just the right means of treatment (surgical, medicated, or others) even without a good relationship with the client. I don't know about other people but I have certainly met some doctors who were the least friendly, yet was able to help treat my sickness.
It might be the fact that there is no set procedures to mental treatment that makes it essential to establish a trusting relationship between a therapist and a client to see healing in mental health (Rogers, 42-43).
2. Referring to previous research, Rogers explains that it is possible to operantly condition the client to enhance certain behaviors by just a simple reinforcement from the therapist, such as "Mmm" (Rogers, 45). Wouldn't it be counter client-centered therapy if the therapist unknowingly reinforces the client into talking about certain topics with his or her responses?
Response to Rachael Wittern:
Relationship of psychological maturity and spirituality corresponds to the beliefs of that person. In the case of those who are deeply spiritual and understands that the spiritual realm has influence on the physical realm, their spiritual growth would probably help mature their psychological growth as well. However, for those who has views spirituality as being less influential on our daily lives, will in the first place not invest much effort and time to one's spiritual maturity, and even if one those so, won't have profound psychological impact.
Woo C. Kim, October 19, 2009
1. Rogers reviewed a number of studies that examined attitudes of the therapist (the helping person) as either growth-promoting or growth-inhibiting (p 41). After reviewing these studies, Rogers concluded that the therapists theoretical orientation and technique were less important in helping clients improve, than his or her attitude and feelings (p 44). Considering the fact that the therapists character (attitude and feelings) is such an integral part in the helping relationship, what additional ways, if any, can graduate schools prepare/develop future therapists in this area?
2. The fifth question/consideration raised by Rogers was about the therapist being secure enough to allow the client his or her separateness (p 52-53). This was very poignant for me because it reminds me that even though we are helpers, we are not to be molders. Generally speaking, sometimes in the effort to help we may find ourselves influencing the outcome, whether intentionally or unintentionally. With this fifth question/consideration in mind, we must intentionally be non-influencing therapists.
In response to Stephen’s 1st question:
I don’t think it is possible to facilitate the personal growth of someone else without the therapist ever changing. I think we are constantly presented with opportunities to evolve when we make new discoveries about our surroundings, our relationships, ourselves, etc.; both positive and negative. If we don’t change or evolve, then we could potentially become incongruent, which could negatively affect our relationships with our clients.
I found myself very deeply challenged by many of Rogers' 10 listed characteristics of a helping relationship, framed as essential questions a therapist must ask herself. I'll go into a little more detail on two of his points:
1) The second point addresses congruence, which involves an attitude of genuineness and a sense of self-awareness (p. 51). He asserts that a therapist (or any person in a position to provide a helping relationship to another) must be, first of all, attuned to his or her inner attitudes toward the client and in general, and secondly, willing to be "transparently real" about these attitudes. I think it can be extremely difficult not only to recognize quite possibly harmful or immature attitudes within yourself, but also to accept and sit with and authentically express those attitudes. This is something I definitely struggle with personally, so I can appreciate Rogers' perspective that this struggle is enriching because it forces us to grow.
2) In Rogers' eighth point he instructs us that it is threatening to the client when we use language that is "just a little stronger than the client's feelings" (p. 54). This exaggeration, he says, can lead to physiological distress and ultimately impede the client's personal growth. How is this consistent with the therapeutic technique of "extreme" reflection statements?
Response to Sarah's first comment/question:
I absolutely agree that our past experiences shape the way we respond to present challenges and often even constitute our present challenges. From personal experience as well as familiarity with psychodynamic concepts, I think we all tend to internalize some aspect of our painful (as well as constructive) experiences and carry that with us as we move forward. I think it would be a mistake to discount that influence altogether in the context of therapy, because the residual influences of the past need to be faced and dealt with just as much as the emotions of the present, and in fact I think that the former is most likely directly contributing to the latter.
1. If I am in a therapy session with a client and am frustrated/annoyed by what he or she is saying, how do I remain congruent without damaging the therapeutic relationship (Rogers, 1989, 51)?
2. I feel like there are clients I will work with that I would have a very hard time refraining from judgement. For example, someone who victimizes women. I cannot imagine myself being able to enter into his subjective reality to such an extent that I loose all desire to judge (53).
Is this where you would need to draw the line in terms of whether or not you work with a client? Or could you still develop a therapeutic relationship built on other characteristics that compensate?
Response to Sarah's 1st comment
I think that if a client is experiencing distress related to a past event or wants to talk about something from the past, then it would be appropriate to address that in counseling.
I think a lot of things happen in life that you have to learn to accept, learn from, and move on. For example, you may not have had a good relationship with your father or mother during childhood and the memories of that probably hurt. However, there is nothing you can do about that now. Continuing to revisit that when the client has learned to accept it is not helpful.
I think I would be frustrated if I came in for help with anxiety and my therapist wanted to talk about an embarrassing event in 3rd grade.
1)Rogers talks about accepting the other person as "in the process of becoming" someone more actualized (Rogers, 55). This implies that the person in therapy understands that they have this capacity. It still strikes me as difficult that people can facilitate their own growth by a therapist simply reflecting affect and content statements. While some, or even most individuals may benefit from this, I find it difficult to see this as effective in all cases.
2) Rogers asks the question "can I permit him to be what he is?" (Rogers, 53) This strikes me as something difficult because I find that we as people tend to reach a point where we think we know someone and we understand them well enough. The trick in therapy is to remain interested in them and constantly pushing oneself to be eternally curious about the client, and this allows him to be what he is.
3) Melissa Gardner Curri's first question is about how we can continue to grow as therapists. I think that our own therapy is just one aspect of that. I think that part of growing is in the doing, so go out into the world and DO things. Read a book (trashy or important literature), go camping, try new foods, make new friends, engage new ideas, adopt a pet, see a comedy show at the Ice House. Anything you can do to live life more deeply, to expand your horizons, to force yourself to think about yourself as better and more than you were yesterday (however you define that) is what matters. Further, Jesus came to give us abundant life. He didn't intend for you to wait until you die to experience that.
1. Though not directly related to clinet-entered therapy, I am amazed by some of the methods used to gain the psychological understanding we currently possess. When Rogers described the "relationship with a machine" experiment done with schizophrenic patients, I was abhorred, especially with the patient who grew and then regressed when all the rewards were taken away. Treating human beings like rats is never acceptable and is of course why we now have IRBs. But we still shouldn't forget that a lot of our knowledge comes from horrible experiments on other humans and that psychology, even as a "helping profession" is not immune to treating other humans inhumanely (Rogers, pp. 45-46).
2. Rogers fifth question is whether or not the therapist os strong enough to be allow the client to be himself and not force him to model himself after the therapist. So then what is our goal? If our goal is to allow the other to be himself then why do therapy at all? I agree that we should not be trying to make clones of ourselves, but if we take Rogers questions as a whole then these clients need to be free of evaluation, be allowed to be themselves and have every "facet" of their personalities accepted. However, a person who is coming to therapy is having issues that they want to get rid of or at least lessen. They don't want to be the "him/herself" that they have been and they are often looking to us as their thearpist for acceptance, true, but also for an evaluation, a diagnosis, something to help them understand what is going on. If we are strict Rogerians we cannot always give them what they need (Rogers, pp. 52-55).
Jonathan Wellman, October 20, 2009
Response to Sarah:
I agree with Rogers that we are better off dealing with current issues than past causes in most cases. To be a bit sarcastic, speculating that your client's mother did not hold her enough will not help her relate better to her spouse. If a clear past issue is presenting a current problem, then it should be dealt with. But if your clients are having marital difficulty, for example, exploring the way they communicate with each other and helping them pursue healthier ways of communication is more important than exploring the way they learned to communicate by watching their parents.
1. In studies of relationships developed earlier in life, such as the parent-child relationships that Rogers explains are “acceptant-democratic” (42), Rogers also explains that these relationships facilitate helping. This is described as conditioning to grow, be original, and experience emotional stability. In cases where a person has not experienced a helping relationship, is there a link between unhealthy early relationships (parent-child) or later traumatic relationship (abuse) and the result of non-growth? Are earlier relationships more vital for future helping relationships?
2. In the series of Rogers’ “how to create helping relationships,” one question is “can I really see the world through his eyes, be in his shoes” (54). Was Rogers aware of integrating culture and are current therapists asking the same questions today with the priority of culture?
3. In response to Melissa Gardner Curri: For growth, therapists should take the posture of “client” so that they can experience the side of the relationship that facilitates growth in their own lives. They can only understand growth once they experience that same growth themselves.
1. Rogers states that the therapeutic relationship should be nonjudgmental, meaning a client or his/her actions should never be regarded as good or bad. He states that it is the client's responsibility to be a "self-responsible person (Rogers, 54-55)." I wonder if this is valid for a person with a psychopathology so great that all he/she wants to do is rid the world of anything that is not to his/her liking? Are we sure that all people will become responsible on their own without any guidance?
2. I am never able to fully grasp Roger's concept of congruency. He states, "If in a given relationship I am reasonably congruent, if no feelings relevant to the relationship are hidden either to me or the other person...the relationship will be a helpful one (Rogers, 51)." This to me means, if I am frustrated with a client, I should express my frustration. However, I feel this contradicts unconditional positive regard. What does Rogers mean when he talks about congruency?
In response to Ashley Wilkins first question, I believe that a person can disregard most feelings of worth within a culture. A person can become self-confident enough and realize that what others think or judge is not important; what is important is how the person views him/herself. Obviously, the only relationship with the capacity for unconditional positive regard is a relationship with Christ, but I believe the therapist can help a client to become more self-confident.
October 21, 2009 6:00PM
1) I am struck by the amount of language Rogers uses to describe the therapist rather than the client. Rogers is different than many other theoretical founders I have read about in that he emphasizes the therapist’s problems more than those of the clients. I think that this stems from his overwhelming trust in human beings and their ability to thrive given the proper conditions. The only problem I have with this idea is that God gives us advice and guidance on many occasions. He enables his disciples in many ways and encourages them to counsel and lead his flock. I think that there must be some instances in which it is wise and well-meaning to give well informed advice. (This is more of a question than a conclusion.)
2) In chapter 3 (this week’s reading), Rogers says that one mode of change within the client comes from expressing the “hidden and awful aspects of himself” and finding the “therapist showing a consistent and unconditional positive regard” (Rogers, 1961, 63). I can’t help but see the similarities between this message and the one God gives us in confession and fellowship with accountable fellow believers. It seems that without this ability to speak about such inner thoughts and guilt ridden memories such memories begin to erode at our ability to not only follow Christ but also our ability to live fully. However, Rogers puts it perfectly when he describes the necessary environment in which this type of disclosure can occur; only in a truly “safe” place where they feel comfortable and assured the listener will not be judgmental can an individual divulge and begin healing.
3) In response to Nikki Frederick:
I think that Nikki had an interesting point this week. I feel that one of my most salient concerns regarding therapy is my need to be true to myself as well as respecting the clients autonomy and freedom of thought. Rogers hit the nail on the head, so to speak, in the quotation given by Nikki. We don’t have to align ourselves within a standard of living, loving, or counseling in order to remain truthful or “trustworthy.” We only need to represent ourselves honestly and respectfully (and always be aware of the clients welfare).
An aspect of the reading that I found interesting is when Rogers said, "In the clinical areas we develop elaborate diagnostic formulations, seeing the person as an object" (Rogers, 52). Rogers believes that viewing the client as an object prevents the therapist from really caring about them. Personally, I think that this is a little extreme. By giving a client a diagnosis does not necessarily reduce them to an object in the therapists eyes. Sometimes diagnoses are important in establishing a treatment plan (and sometimes they are not.) Does this mean that clients are not diagnosed in Client Centered Therapy?
2. Rogers suggests that the clients perceptions of how the therapist is understanding and responding to them is more important than what the therapist may be really experiencing (Rogers, 44). This surprises me because it contradicts Rogers emphasis on the importance of congruency. Rogers defines congruency as "genuine and without "front" or facade, openly being the feelings and attitudes which at that moment are flowing in him (Rogers, 61). So if it is true that the client only needs to perceive genuineness then congruency would not be essential to therapy. And because I think congruency is so important, I would be interested to learn more about this.
In response to Sarah:
I experienced very similar thoughts when reading that section. Often it is very helpful in therapy to explore past experiences because it helps the client to better understand how they have become the person they are. Also, it is by reshaping perceptions of the past that people can then decide to move on from a certain experience that has negatively effected them.
Clinical Foundations Blog Week 4
1) Rogers asks a good question: can the therapist let himself or herself experience feelings of unconditional positive regard despite fear and an instinct to protect against it (52)? Some clients with disappoint, break our trust, not show any progress, or even worsen and yet we still need to actually feel warmth toward them when we show them this regard so that we are congruent. In everyday life there are people that we say are “extra grace required” in Christian circles, but how often is that shown in a congruent way where the kindness and patience is shown out of the heart instead of faked?
2) I found the study on the “necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic change” interesting because while I have come to believe the conditions identified are necessary, but not sufficient (47). The results showed significant associations between high degrees of empathy, warmth, and congruence with the most successful cases. While these conditions might have been sufficient in these successful cases, there are cases where they are not enough, for example in schizophrenic clients. I am stuck on the point that there must be many cases and people for which nondirective therapy does not work. I am interested to hear what cases client centered therapy does work well with.
Response to Candace:
I have similar questions about congruency. How do you know how much to keep below the surface, to omit from therapy? When you deliberately withhold the truth isn’t it still lying by omission? How can you be truly congruent if you do not voice any of your negative feelings toward your clients?
Jenn Greiner 10/21
1.
One of the questions Rogers raises really struck me. I am not in this program to become a therapist. The idea of sitting in an office with clients coming in and out all day looking to me for help exhausts me. Then I read question #4, "Can i be strong enough as a person to separate from the other? Am I strong enough in my own separateness that I will not be downcast by his depression, frightened by his fear, nor engulfed by his dependency?" (Rogers,52)And, I don't think I am strong enough, maybe that is just my insecurities, but maybe it is a fair personal evaluation.
2.Rogerian therapy reminds me so much of the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, patience, gentleness, self control. Rogers first question to ask is : "Can I be perceived by the other person as trustworthy?" Rather than just be perceived, I think we are to be trustworthy. Our ethics, our character development as Christians, plays into our ability to be a good therapist. Principles overlap and enhance.(Rogers, 50)
Response to Sarah:
Our past does shape our present. But I know by being on the other side of the chair that sometimes I don't want to talk about my past friendships and heartaches and family dynamics, I am stressed now and emotional now in this room. Rogers seems to allow for that space to feel the present without pressuring to look into the past (which I agree seems to influence the way i perceive things). Does that make sense?
1. In Carl Rogers' sixth question he utilizes to determine the helpfulness of the relationship he is engaging in, he wonders if he can enter into the client's world so fully, that his desires to evaluate and judge are undetected. He asks: "Can I let myself enter fully into the world of his feelings and personal meanings and see these as he does? Can I step into his private world so completely that I lose all desire to evaluate or judge it? Can I enter it so sensitively that I can move about in it freely...?" (Rogers, pg 53). First, Rogers is describing a joining with the client that is essential in establishing rapport and conceptualizing where a client might need to go in therapy, however, at the same time, it is committing the very error that Roger's criticizes analysts that view the therapist as a blank projection screen: it renders the therapist personless. How does Rogers expect to enter into the clients' world undetected, while still eminating his true self, or as he would call it, practicing genuineness and congruence?
2. In building upon my last question in which Roger's attempts to tip-toe unnoticed in the client's world of meaning and experience, I wonder about other seemingly contradictory aspirations Rogers holds as a therapist. Namely, his ability to be a strong presence without overpowering the client's presence. Rogers asks, "Can I be strong enough as a person to be separate from the other?" then follows that question with the question, " Am I secure enough to permit him his separateness?" (Rogers, pg. 52-53). Rogers identifies that he sets before himself a task that seems nearly in-achievable. The balance and self awareness needed to monitor oneself so closely as a therapist- for example, having awareness of one's own needs so they don't get in the way of understanding the clients needs while at the same time, fully entering into experiencing the client's needs free of personal judgment and meaning- seems to be contradictory as if a person could not possibly be both "aware" and "unaware" at the same time. Without being a skeptic of Roger's well tested and presumably effective theories, the complexity of the ideal helping relationship as he describes it is no short of remarkable. It is worth noting that in the conclusion, Rogers himself admits that he finds it difficult to imagine being able to complete all necessary tasks in forming his described helping relationship. (Rogers, pg. 56).
1. In one of Rogers' studies, he learned that the perception of the therapeutic relationship by the client can determine how helpful therapy is. I found it very interesting that an "over-degree of sympathy" was noted by clients as unhelpful. How then, can we as therapists show an appropriate level of sympathy to our clients who are enduring hard situations without expressing an overage of sympathy (Rogers, p. 43)?
2. In Rogers' third question about helping relationships, he asks about letting himself "experience positive attitudes toward this other person" and notes that it is "not easy" (Rogers, p. 52). I feel that one of the biggest issues we might face as new therapists is breaking down the facade that we are inclined to show in the name of professionalism. I believe that Rogers is saying that we need to get out of our own way in order to show genuine regard for our clients.
In response to Sarah Moon's 2nd thought:
I completely agree that the therapeutic space needs to be a safe haven for clients to experiment and think and process. This actually reminds me of the "transitional space" idea that we have been talking about in LifeSpan Development.
--posted by Heather Patterson Meyer
1) One of the questions/struggles/inconsistencies I see in Rogers’ explanation of the therapeutic relationship is the fact that he uncompromisingly assumes that the client-therapy relationship should be the same “lawfulness [that] governs all such relationships” (Rogers, 39). Does this conflict with the guideline that the client-therapy relationship is completely separate from that of a friendship and that boundaries in the client-therapy relationship are different than that of a friendship relationship or parent-child relationship. Does Rogers lack clarification in this area? (Rogers, 40). Also, on the topic of “manufactured relationships” makes me question whether Rogers would categorize the client-therapy relationship as “manufactured” (the client seeks you out for service, payment for service, etc.) and how Rogers would think this influences maintaining the foundation of genuineness. (Rogers, 39-40)
2) I appreciate Rogers’ sincerity, his seemingly neutral view of his own theory in the sense that he acknowledges its limitations and realizes that it is impossible to be “wholly objective or wholly subjective” (Rogers, 39) but still thinks that it is important to try even if he is unable to get to a completely concrete answer, he is still willing to ask the question (Rogers, 39). I think this is the foundation of the qualities that he finds useful in therapy and therefore exhibits them himself in his approach to his theory: genuineness. (Rogers, 39)
Kim Richardson, October 22, 2009
Response to Rebekah Liu’s 1st comment:
I agree whole-heartedly that being able to separate ourselves from our clients is extremely important and sometimes might catch a person off-guard as a difficult thing to do (when so much focus is placed on empathizing with the client that sometimes perhaps maintaining balance can be difficult). This is why personal therapy is so important in order to determine what is “ours” and what is “theirs” so that we can more easily acknowledge the ways in which to separate from the client (emotions and experiences). This is also why self-care is so important, to remember that we are our own person who also has needs to be met and that we cannot “sacrifice” ourselves in service to others, in fact, when we take care of ourselves we are able to gain the very strength and resources to help facilitate that depth with the client that creates the helping relationship. Identity is really important and is a constant re-evaluation, although always from the foundation of our relationship with Christ.
Kim Richardson, October 22, 2009
Clinical Rogers 3
1.) Rogers’ articulation of “congruence” intrigues me. He writes that we must go beyond the obvious motions of dependability in order to earn the trust of a patient and in deed to create a “helpful” space for the patient. He says that keeping appointments, respecting confidentiality, and acting the same during sessions are important, but not adequate in and of themselves. Even if we are acting in an accepting manner, the actual way we feel may be trumping our efforts. (Rogers, pg 50)
2.) Drawing from his emphasis on “congruence,” Rogers goes beyond this to state that we must be intentionally in tune toward our own feelings so that no ambiguity can corrupt the healing environment. If our words as a therapist are accepting, while our subconscious attitude is annoyance, this discrepancy “confuses the other person and makes [her/]him distrustful.” Whereas, if we can be “sensitively aware of and acceptant toward [our] own feelings--- then the likelihood is great that [we] can form a helping relationship toward another.” (Rogers, pg 51)
MJ Jacobs, October 22nd 2009
2) I appreciate Rogers’ sincerity, his seemingly neutral view of his own theory in the sense that he acknowledges its limitations and realizes that it is impossible to be “wholly objective or wholly subjective” (Rogers, 39) but still thinks that it is important to try even if he is unable to get to a completely concrete answer, he is still willing to ask the question (Rogers, 39). I think this is the foundation of the qualities that he finds useful in therapy and therefore exhibits them himself in his approach to his theory: genuineness. (Rogers, 39)
In response to Kim's 2nd post, I also appreciate Rogers' ability to display his misgivings and the possible and real challenges surrounding his approach. I was surprised and impressed by the fact that he doesn't oversimplify it, or over-sell. He shows both sides and explains the difficulty that arises when he fails. He genuinely seems to see himself [even as the therapist] as a human within a process. It seems he is honestly trying to lay out what his experiences have truly led him to believe.
MJ Jacobs, October 22nd, 2009
1. One of the things I have encountered in Live Team and in thinking about actually doing therapy, is the tendency to want to be more directive and sometimes even offer advice, as I would to a friend. So it is noteworthy to me that when discussing one of the studies, it was found that unhelpful qualities in a therapist included “direct specific advice”. I can see that this may be a temptation for some therapists, but also that it is crucial in most settings, that the therapist simply listen and seek to both gain and communicate understanding to the client, which is reported as helpful (Rogers, 43).
2. In regard to the recent study done with hospitalized patients who struggled with alcoholism, it was reported that something which damaged the therapeutic relationship, was when the therapist withheld themselves and permitted “as little of his own personality to intrude as is humanly possible” (Rogers, 47). This is so important to consider when thinking about how much of oneself a therapist should bring into therapy and I think is solved when a therapist acts in congruence. It is a reminder to me of the necessity of being myself and the impact withholding myself has on therapy.
3. In response to Bobby, I completely agree and appreciate your thoughts on the therapist accepting his or her own feelings. I think that this is especially important to ensure that the therapist isn’t distracted (or at least as little as possibly) by what they are thinking and feeling and can instead direct all energy to what the client is communicating.
Brittany Rice October 22, 2009
1.Roger's states that one way of being an expressive and unambiguous therapist is to “form a helping relationship” to oneself (Rogers, pp.51). What are some ways in which a person would be able to do this? What would the dialog of a helping relationship with oneself sound like?
2.The optimal helping relationship, according to Rogers, is fostered by a therapist who is “psychologically mature” (Rogers, pp.56). Since the degree to which a therapist “can facilitate the growth of others is a measure of the growth” that the therapist has achieved in themselves, does this require a constant self-examination of the self-growth of the therapist in each specific growth-area of each client? Stated another way, must the therapist be mature in the way that each client is immature in order to facilitate growth?
3.Rogers asks the question, “Can I be in some way which will be perceived by the other person as trustworthy, as dependable or consistent in some deep sense?” (Rogers, pp.50). How might this look different in cultures other than the culture in which the therapist is from? Should the therapist seek to express these attributes in the client's culture or should the therapist express these characteristics in the way that he/she is familiar with as a way of being authentic?
Response to Melissa #1:
As we have been told by many, if not all, of our professors that seeking our own psychotherapy is an important way to foster our own growth. In addition to that, I believe it should be an on-going process and not simply a goal that we achieve and then no longer have obligation to. Seeking our own growth requires a state of humility. I believe humility must be apart of who we are as people and as therapist regardless of how much education or experience we may acquire. Understanding that we do not have all people figured out and are on our own personal journey should be apart of who we are as therapist. I believe that humility fosters openness.
Post a Comment