1. Carl Rogers proposes a positive relationship between empathetic, non-judgmental and congruent therapeutic qualities and the client’s growth (p. 66). Meaning that as the therapists continues to show unconditional positive, empathy and congruence, the client will begin to grow in their self-understanding and acceptance of themselves. When the therapist models true acceptance to the client, the client is discipled in how to understand and embrace their true self. (p.66)
2. The first step in the therapeutic process I for the client to begin to understand themselves. They must learn to introspect and as they begin to understand and learn to identify their emotions, they can vocalize their deep thoughts, even the “unacceptable” feelings. As the therapists continues to show unconditional positive regard and the client does not feel judged or condemned, they learn that those feelings are acceptable. The client then learns to accept themselves as they are. Instead of trying to upkeep a false identity, they become more congruent with themselves and embrace their true self (p.63). As I was reading over this page I realized that Rogers is arguing that self-repression is the cause of stunted inner growth and feelings of self-loathing. Self-expression is the beginning to learning to accept oneself as one truly is, and after this step is made, healing is possible.
1. I appreciated that Rogers expressed the thoughts that would run through a client's head while going through therapy. I knew that building trust was an important aspect of the client-patient relationship, but never thought about the fact that the trust that the client has for me may sway back and forth. I'm finding that patience is such a big part of how my client will begin to trust me, and that I need to give him or her the space and time to start to trust me, be angry with me, trust me a little bit more, get frustrated with me, and to trust me some more after a while. (Rogers, 67-69)
2. "Perhaps I can make it a safer world for him" (Rogers 66-67). This line really resonated with the way I would want my clients to feel when they come to see me. The challenge I see is that this "safe" place means something different for each person. What do you think are some ways that therapists can negatively affect a client's search for safety within the therapy session? And do you think we're able to rebuild that safe place if we were to make a mistake?
Sarah Moon, October 23, 2009.
In response to Rebecca Kulzer's 2nd comment:
I think one of my biggest fear is to have a client who won't be able to vocalize any of their thoughts. What would I do if a client walked into the session and just sat there for an hour? I would be afraid to say anything because I would want to give them the freedom and space to process their thoughts, but at the same time I would want my client to actually vocalize these things. I think I just need to be okay with the silence, even if the silence lasts the entire session. Maybe that's exactly what my client needs.
1. The part on the client’s experience was very helpful/insightful. I had previously been worried that a client might start to become disillusioned after therapy and be angry that nobody else was as empathetic and understanding as his/her therapist. However, this made it seem that the therapist’s unconditional positive regard would give a client hope about forming positive relationships with others (Rogers, 67-68). I enjoyed reading what might go on in a client’s mind and it made me realize how important empathy and unconditional positive regard can be.
2. Rogers warns therapists to not be like a TV announcer who is trying to sell things, but clearly does not believe what he is saying (Rogers, 61). I am afraid that advertising and deception continues to be normalized in our materialistic culture, and that clients will definitely be affected by this. Congruence might be even more important for therapy today than it was in Roger’s time.
In response to Sarah Moon: I’ve also been wondering about the idea of “safety” in therapy. The last part about the client’s experience seems to say that acceptance is one of the most important parts of a safe space (Rogers, 67-69). I suppose there may be some clients who will leave if we mess up, but we aren’t expected to be the best therapist for everyone. Perhaps we typically have hour-long sessions so that we have time to make up for dumb comments in the first half. If we are being genuine, one wrong comment shouldn’t threaten a client. I hope that if they feel accepted, the feeling of safety will eventually follow.
1. Rogers makes a bold statement in this chapter by saying "what I am and what I feel are good enough to be a basis for therapy"(67). Most people are afraid to make this type of bold statement either because they want to be humble or they really don't believe they are enough. This is often what leads us into therapy by the handfuls--we do not believe deep down that we are enough. We are not enough for our spouses, for our families, for our graduate school programs, or for God. Many criticize Rogers for being too simplistic but at the same time Rogers is hitting on something that, as Rebecca pointed out, is essential for healing--self-acceptance. Rogers goes on to say that this enables the client to "be what he is, openly and without fear" (67). I think that our society and especially Christian communities have so interwoven shame with self-acceptance that we feel we cannot be confident or proud and we cannot be immoral or weak. If we are not struggling to lose weight, we have "let ourselves go" and if we our not struggling to overcome sin then we are "taking advantage of grace" (Rom. 6:1). We must be perfectly in the middle which is basically, not enough. Rogers reminds us that there is unconditional positive regard and ultimately unconditional love which allow us to sit in wretchedness and still have substance--be "enough".
2. Another role the therapist plays in Rogerian therapy is to provide safety for self-exploration. Now that the client knows that his worth is not based on what he does or doesn't do, he is free to be whatever he truly is. This is very scary as Rogers explains, "I feel more safe when I'm with him (68)." The client is now free to experience who he or she is and may even start to like it--"perhaps the person I am is worth being" (68).
In response to Rachel... That is a really good point that congruence may even be more important than in Roger's time due to the influence of advertising and the media. Especially with the explosion of industry, technology, and corporate America we are encouraged to do whatever we can to get ahead.
1. In reading this chapter, the idea of client centered therapy has become much clearer to me with regard to what the therapist is actually supposed to be doing. Rogers says, " When the therapist can grasp the moment-to-moment experiencing which occurs in the inner world of the client as the client sees it and feels it, without losing the separateness of his own identity in this empathic process, then change is likely to occur"(Rogers, pp.62-63). In this one statement, I see how empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence all work together for the healing of the client.
2. In the section entitled, "The Dynamics of Change", Rogers discusses working of unconditional positive regard (pg.63). As I read this section, I came to the understanding that as therapists, we are actually leading the client to a better place within themselves. They follow us to that place but they enter into it on their own. I find that to be pretty amazing.
In response to Rachel's 2nd comment,
I agree with you. I think that because we in this society are bombarded with so many different images of what we should be rather than who we are, the illusion of reality that we are presented with is highly deceiving. This makes client centered model all the more important.
1. Client motivation often plays a key role in positive therapeutic outcomes. Rogers (1961) notes, “Psychotherapy does not supply the motivation for such development or growth. This seems to be inherent in the organism…” (p. 60). What happens if a client is not motivated to change? How would a therapist work with unmotivated clients, such as an unmotivated client who has been legally mandated to therapy? (Disclaimer: I am not implying that all clients who are legally mandated to therapy are not motivated, because many are – just using this as an example).
2. While I agree that genuineness, warmth and accurate empathy are important, in some cases, the lack of direction on the part of the therapist could contribute to increased frustration and anxiety for clients. Issues such as cultural differences, personality differences, illness severity and level of functioning can present challenges in practice.
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Response to Rachel W’s second question: You make an interesting observation about congruence in therapy today. Due to the normalized deception, I wonder if Christian counselors have greater difficulty gaining clients’ trust because it has become so difficult to believe in our society that kindness and professionalism can be genuine and not a front. There are many clients who have been so hurt by others that they have a hard time believing that anyone is genuinely kind and authentic… and then they sit down in your office. This is what I think is one of the most exciting aspects of being a Christian counselor whether in a Christian or secular setting – that clients will experience genuine compassion, respect and service because it is the Christ in us-Christ working though us. If we are truly being ourselves in therapy, than somehow the compassion of Christ that flows out of our lives outside the counseling office will also be communicated in it. This brings up another thought – how blessed Christians are to have the Holy Spirit to assist with congruence, empathy and unconditional positive regard in practice. I’ve wondered at times what it is like to have to do and be this consistently in one’s own strength – and I don’t think I could last long.
1)Rogers states that as a person is in relationship with someone who acceptingly listens to his or her feelings, the person will “little by little [be] able to listen to himself” (Rogers, 63). I would have to agree with this. I think that being in therapy allows someone to become self aware, to become aware of his/her feelings and how he/she interacts with others. Having a high sense of self awareness can be a liberating experience.
2)“I would like to go with him on the fearful journey into himself” (Rogers, 67). The journey is unpredictable. But at the same time, I think it is an exciting journey. Yes, I am fearful of the depth of fear, hate, and anger that the client has never or rarely expressed. But, I am also excited to be a part of my client’s healing. I think it is best to approach the journey fully aware of these feelings of fear and excitement. What are some ways that we can use or express these feelings to benefit our client?
Response to Sarah’s second comment:
I think the best way to build a safe place is transparency, being congruent. I also think that the safe environment can be rebuilt but this will definitely take time. It’s like rebuilding trust with a friend. When someone breaks your trust, you decide whether or not you want to give them another chance. And then, the trust is slowly rebuilt. Hopefully, if we mess up, our clients will allow us to regain their trust. And unfortunately, some clients will not give us that chance.
1) Rogers (1961) makes the “Dynamics of Change” clear through his explanation of what happens during the therapeutic process he prescribes. He maintains that while listening to the client talk about his various feelings, the client becomes aware of the genuine emotions behind the words. As he becomes aware of the emotions he is feeling, he accepts his feelings whether angry, sad, frightened, etc. Healing occurs through the relationship with the therapist, through feelings of acceptance, that he, the client is not being judged or evaluated. It is through this atmosphere of acceptance or unconditional positive regard, that the client becomes his true self (p.63).
2) I find it interesting that Rogers (1961) details the experience of the therapist (as well as that of the client) and normalizes the feelings of fear, inadequacy, doubt, etc. that most therapists undoubtedly feel. He also speaks to the desires, goals, and goodwill that most therapists have for the client and how the two opposing forces eventually work out in the healing relationship. Rogers conveys humility through the explanation of the therapist’s journey with the client. His emphasis on congruence between what the therapist thinks and how he speaks or acts is a key attribute to a successful, therapeutic relationship (p. 67).
Response to Melissa Gardner Curri’s second post:
I think Melissa makes a good point regarding the directional factor for therapy. I too can see how frustration might occur and how disappointment due to lack of progress (possibly attributed to one of the factors she mentioned, cultural differences, etc.) for a client might affect the therapeutic relationship. I also wonder if genuineness, unconditional positive regard and empathy are always enough to sustain the therapeutic process.
1. Rogers states, “It seems from our studies that it is attitudes such as these rather than the therapist’s technical knowledge and skill, which are primarily responsible for change” (63). He is discussing the attitudes of congruence, acceptance and empathy as the vehicles for therapeutic change in the client. I agree with Rogers sense that the therapist-client relationship is, in fact, a reciprocal relationship between two humans wishing to help each other grow.
2. I find Rogers discussion of “evidence” (67) of the therapist’s acceptance or shaming an important element to the shaping of the client’s experience of therapy. The client sees how the therapist reacts or responds to what the client discloses. I believe this is helpful to the therapist in that it opens more opportunities for the therapist to join the client in the client’s self-exploration.
3. Response to Amber Blews:
I also appreciate how Rogers normalizes the experience of the therapist. It is difficult to hold the tension that is felt in the therapist-client relationship, but hopeful (when referring to Rogers) once the therapist understands that the tension works out for the better in the relationship.
1. I like how Rogers acknowledges that despite practicing unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence, the therapist is still limited by how the client interprets these actions (Rogers,67). In other words, the therapist may be accurately applying all of the tools for client centered therapy, but the client may be viewing such actions through a negative lens which is affecting how he or she perceives the client. Consequently, despite the best efforts of the therapist, there will be an ebb and flow in their relationship with the client. Meaning, the client will not always like the therapist or feel positive towards them.
2. I love that Rogers acknowledges that initially a therapist is a little afraid of their client just as the client is fearful of the therapist. Consequently, in reference to the client, Rogers states: "I'm a little afraid of him, afraid of the depths in him as I am a little afraid of the depths in myself" (Rogers, 66). However, this raises the question, "If one is fearful of one's own depths, can one effectively help another explore their depths?"
3. Response to Sarah Moon's 2nd comment: You make a great observation that an environment which constitutes safety may not be the same for every client. Clearly, to be effective a therapist must cater to the clients world view and perspective. I think that is the challenge inherent in all aspects of the therapeutic relationship, how does one think outside of the box and get into the client's world, while still being genuine and true to themselves as the therapsit?
1.Carl Rogers speaks of a fear on the part of both the therapist and the client (pp. 66-67). I have found that to be very true in previous counseling experiences. It almost seems that the one who isn't trusted is the therapist, both by the client and by the therapist him/herself. I thought it was profound as he went through the "thoughts" of what the therapist would be thinking, as well as how the client is perceiving the entire course of therapy (Rogers,pp. 66-69).
2)As I read, this entire chapter has begged the question "Was Carl Rogers a Christian?" Although his methods may not apply in every situation, the theory behind the methods seems so congruent with Christ's teachings (Rogers, pp.59-69). If Rogers was not a Christian, I then wonder where he came up with such an accurate theory of how to treat others?
In Response to Hannah's first point: I agree that we do need to have the sense of self-acceptance in order to be motivated to move towards becoming that person that we're created to be. I have found it to be true, however, that most of the people I know who continue to grow towards becoming that person are those that have first accepted that we were dead without Christ. The Bible paints a pretty clear picture of the nothingness that we are without the saving grace of God. Interestingly though, the people who grasp that also seem to be the ones with the most self-esteem as some would call it.
1. On page 66, Rogers talks about the therapists experience during therapy. I got to thinking, I'm assuming congruence would become less of a priority when working with someone with a personality disorder. For example, would it be helpful to let someone who is anti social know you are scared while working with them? Perhaps with some this could lead to an interaction that facilitates growth and exploration. However, it seems more highly likely that this could be something this person used to manipulate the therapist.
2. On page 65 Rogers uses positive self affirmations by the client as one example of growth. What if the client was doing a lot of irresponsible things in his or her life. Attributing positive characteristics to yourself wouldn't seem to be growth in that situation. Something looking more like repentance seems to be more appropriate and psycholoically productive.
Response to Sarah's first question. I agree with what your saying about giving your client time to develop trust. I think I've experienced so much pressure to facilitate change in the clients I see that that has almost become secondary at times. That's an unfortunate admission.
1. The dynamics of change that Rogers describes was very interesting to me. It seems to me that the therapist is a type of leader in the sense that he/she first models congruence, positive regard, and empathy to the client. The client then is influenced to take on these traits with regards to him or herself. While certainly not authoritarian, I would consider this subtle leadership. (Rogers, 63-64)
2. A recurrent theme in both the therapist's and client's experience is fear. It was helpful to know that fear is a normal part of the process, even for the therapist. In addition, it was good to be reminded that the client may even blame the therapist at times. Knowing this can happen can make it easier to not take it personally when it does. I wonder how difficult it will be to not take a client's lack of progress personally. (Rogers, 68)
David Choi, October 26, 2009.
In response to Melissa's 1st comment:
I agree that it would be difficult if the client was lacking motivation. I suppose I would approach this by acknowledging his/her lack of motivation and make sure I am not judging the client. Then I would try to reflect the lack of motivation back and try to understand where it is coming from.
1. Rogers' attention and extreme emphasis on unconditional positive regard was illustrated very nicely in this chapter. "...he finds the therapist showing a consistent and unconditional positive regard for him and his feelings. Slowly he moves toward taking the same attitude toward himself" (Rogers, 63). He goes on to mention that this equips the client with the tools necessary to the process of becoming. I completely see the importance and value in what Rogers says here. I wonder, however, if the therapist (being that they are human too) were to make a mistake or momentarily have a lapse in unconditional positive regard, would this blow it? In other words, if a condition of worth is placed on the client (or some other type of slip up) how much of a setback might this be for the client's process of becoming? I imagine it would depend on how much personal regard for him/herself the client had to begin with.
2. I find it interesting how constant empathy, and constant unchanging positive regard and consistently present warmth can foster an inverse effect for the client. Rogers says that the more the client perceives these support systems from the therapist, the more likely they are to be comfortable with change and fluid shaping of relationships to self and others (Rogers, 66). I think of a person learning a new skill such as shooting a free throw in basketball. If someone was standing behind them constantly encouraging them with "you can do this" or "this must be hard for you right now trying to learn this new skill" or "gosh, missing the first 20 shots seems to be annoying you...that can't be easy". I imagine the person being much more open to trying different techniques, and more importantly sticking with the free throws until improvement is made, than the person who received a different type of coaching...such as "what do you think caused you to miss that last free throw?" This does not constitute unconditional positivity. Thus, the free throw shooter may be more likely to focus on their faults as opposed to cultivating strength. When I view Rogers' model in contexts outside of therapy, it rings even more true.
Response to Alex's #1...
Alex...your comment really got me thinking. Thank you. I am wondering if there was more you would say about it if you had the space (not on a short blog entry) because I'd love to hear more about how the reciprocal relationship plays out in your mind. In other words, when you say that it is a relationship of two "humans wishing to help each other grow" how literally do you mean that? Do you think that in therapy (and mainly westernized individual therapy) that the average client actually is wishing to help their therapist grow? I am sure it happens, but is it a rule of thumb? Thanks for sparking my curiosity with a cool observation.
1. A therapy based on congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding functions as a mirror in which the client is able to hear him/herself in a more objective viewpoint. This often times helps the client to hear him/herself differently than before and helps to acknowledge the self as who he/she is (Rogers, 62, 65)
2. I find it interesting how even though the cause of the fear for the therapist and the client may be different, the commonality of having fear, when properly acknowledged and accepted by the therapist can function as a bridge(Rogers, 66, 67).
Response to David's comment: Although our live team group is a safe setting, even then there is plenty of anxiety floating around. Anxiety for how I will perform as a therapist and perhaps how others will view me. Even in such safe setting it is somewhat stressful practicing the client centered model for therapy. Often times we only focus on the fear of the patient, but my experiences in live group is making me think of some fears that novice theapists may have. Such as fear of failure and fear of rejection.
1. A therapy based on congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding functions as a mirror in which the client is able to hear him/herself in a more objective viewpoint. This often times helps the client to hear him/herself differently than before and helps to acknowledge the self as who he/she is (Rogers, 62, 65)
2. I find it interesting how even though the cause of the fear for the therapist and the client may be different, the commonality of having fear, when properly acknowledged and accepted by the therapist can function as a bridge(Rogers, 66, 67).
Response to David's comment: Although our live team group is a safe setting, even then there is plenty of anxiety floating around. Anxiety for how I will perform as a therapist and perhaps how others will view me. Even in such safe setting it is somewhat stressful practicing the client centered model for therapy. Often times we only focus on the fear of the patient, but my experiences in live group is making me think of some fears that novice theapists may have. Such as fear of failure and fear of rejection.
1. Rogers mentions that empathic is both rare for us to give and rare for us to receive, one of the reasons that empathic understanding in a therapist is so important (62). Our understanding is often more prescriptive in nature, evaluating what is wrong with someone, or likening it to our own experience instead of seeing what is going on inside them and reacting to that within ourselves honestly. I think this was brought up in a conversation among a few of us one day, but what would happen if we actually tried to give empathic understanding to each other once and a while? How would that change the structure of social support within the Church and our friend networks?
2. It is important to think about how the therapist reacts to the client, and Rogers mentions that fear is one of the main reactions that a therapist experiences when coming into contact with the client. The fear seems to come both from how the client is going to impact the emotions of the therapist, and from the fear of inadequacy in reacting to the client well and properly (66). This is good for me to see, mainly because in some ways I have not had time to sit with the idea of what I may be experiencing when it comes to gaining a client, and how that could impact my emotional state. Much of my time has been spent in the classroom, so this is good preparation for training!
Response to Melissa's first comment
Honestly, if the client is not motivated to change, there is not much you can do. In this model, the client would be driving the sessions, so you may just have to let therapy be the kind of time they want it to be. Hopefully there would be an opportunity for a little more direction if the client were mandated for reasons such as a behavior or personality disorder which was hurting society, but there is no way to make them change.
1.) In chapter four, Rogers seems to make a pointed jab at Freud and psychoanalysis , “When someone understands how it feels to be me, without wanting to analyze me…then I can blossom and grow.” Do you think Rogers intended this as a slight against the prevailing psychoanalytic model he had originally been trained in or do you think it was just a poor choice of wording? I tend to think Rogers was a deliberate man who knew exactly what he was saying and wanted, in a small way here, to harass and embarrass what he felt was a poor model for psychological healing (Rogers, 62).
2.) Relating this reading to what we have been discussing in Integration, does Rogers seem to have the seeds of postmodern thought in some of his work? While his organismic principle of tendency toward progress is thoroughly modern, he states, “He moves towards a conception of himself as a person of worth, as a self-directing person, able to form his standards and values upon the basis of his own experience.” This self-defined value structure seems quite postmodern to me despite the modernistic nature of psychology in general. Anyone have any other thoughts? (Rogers, 65)
Jonathan Wellman, October 27, 2009
Response to Bobby’s first comment:
Rogers made the statement that none of us perfectly achieve congruence (61). I would think this is true of all the parts of the therapeutic triad including UPR. Therefore we all need to practice as much as possible to avoid “slip ups” as much as possible. If we simply lack positive regard at a moment then we can likely get that back with some work, however, if the client feels we have placed a condition of worth on him or her, then the therapeutic relationship may be irreparable as the therapists whole job from a client-centered perspective is to provide a space that allows for growth. Once that place has been injured we may be best to refer to allow the client to avoid dealing with the new conditions of worth. On the other hand, we might simply create more conditions of worth by “rejecting” the client (as they may see it) when we refer.
1) Rogers thinks that all people will naturally become less judgmental towards themselves and more positive and actualized as they progress (Chapter 4). I wonder if this can really always be the case. Certainly, there must be some times that exploring these feelings will run into other components within the client that they find unacceptable and will not be able to make peace with, in some situations.
2)The therapist's experience (p. 66,67)is an interesting read on how we sit in therapy. Paying attention to all the feelings that I have as well as trying to reflect and experience the clients feelings seems to be quite a challenge when I read about it, yet the role-plays and personal experience of it makes me wonder if I am "doing it right."
3) (In Response to Sarah Moon's 2nd)
I think that there is a difference between a safe environment for the client and a comfortable one. For me, I think that the client being safe to explore "negative" feelings is not something they will find comfortable, but making it safe does not require they feel "good" about it.
1. Rogers states that the three conditions necessary to facilitate psychological growth in a client are congruence, warmth/acceptance and emphatic understanding (Rogers, 61-62). Are there ever times where a client may need more or less than this? If not, is Rogers basically saying we are all pretty much the same regardless of the complexity of our presenting issue?
2. Rogers describes the process of therapy and how it moves away from remoteness, rigidity of self, fixity, etc. and moves toward chaningness, immediacy of feelings and experiences, fluidity, etc. (Rogers, 64). With this in mind, it seems like every client would touch the therapist in a very deep and profound way, which will lead to the therapist continually evolving throughout his or her career.
Response to Hannah’s 2nd comment: That is such a great point. The therapist gets the opportunity to go with the client on this journey of self –discovery. Rogers, as eloquent as always, really highlights how important the role of the therapist is to the client, in helping the client move toward who they really are.
1. I appreciate Carl Rogers idea that the goal of therapy for the client is to reorganize their self concept. Rogers says, "He moves away from perceiving himself as unacceptable to himself, as unworthy of respect, as having to live by the standards of others" (Rogers, 65). Regardless of whether or not other issues arise, the reorganization of the clients self concept is an important goal of therapy.
2. I found it really interesting to hear the thoughts of the client as therapy progresses in the section called "The Clients Experience". Perhaps it is because I have never been in that position so I have never experienced that for myself. However, I plan to start my own therapy soon, so it interesting to anticipate the types feelings I will soon be experiencing.
I agree with you in that it is nice to hear Rogers admit to being fearful of the client. As we start our "therapy" in live team, i am definitely experiencing some fear. It is nice to know that it is normal to feel that way. It is a just a part of the process, especially while we are still learning.
1) In this chapter, Rogers describes the "Results of Therapy" concluding that long term change usually occurs because the client is able to explore and accept themselves (Rogers, p. 65). I think this is one of the best qualities of client-centered therapy. I truly believe that most people must make their own decisions in order for change to be effective.
2) Rogers also discusses how the therapist feels during therapy. He says at times emotions in the client will bring out emotions in the therapist like fear (p. 67). This sounds like counter transference, and Rogers goes on to describe that he needs to "accept" these feelings (p.67). Is this his way of overcoming counter transference, or how do you think he would approach the subject?
In response to Takisha's first question.
I think that is exactly what Rogers is implying, I think he feels that client-centered therapy can be used with any person, whether clinically depressed or psychotic. However, we read earlier about how his experiment with schizophrenics and client-centered therapy. This therapy approach was found to not help schizophrenics. So, personally, I believe clients do need the empathy, congruency, and unconditional positive regard, but they also need more.
1) I think it’s important that Rogers differentiated between the understanding that says, “I too have experienced your trouble and I reacted very differently” (Rogers, 62) and true empathy, which strives to understand how it felt and seemed to the other person. The more I read about this topic and experience Live Team sessions, the more I realize how complex and difficult empathy really is. As Rogers says, “I suspect each of us has discovered that this kind of understanding is extremely rare. We neither receive it nor offer it with any great frequency” (Rogers, 62). Rogers’ distinction that empathy is having that sense of how it felt for the other person without trying to analyze or judge them, I think this is where it gets complicated. I think we’ve all learned that we shouldn’t judge others, but it seems impossible to not analyze the other person as the therapist, doesn’t it? I don’t mean analyze in a negative sense, but doesn’t it (on a certain level) take analysis to try to understand a person’s experience from their view (because we have to ask ourselves why they felt the way they did, in the context of their previous experiences, etc.) How do we BE present without, on some level, analyzing the client? Heck, I’m constantly analyzing myself, I have difficulty just BEing (with myself) without analyzing myself. (Rogers, 62)
2) Some people believe that Rogers’ theory can be simplified to making the client “feel good” about themselves and is therefore idealistic but not realistic. I think it’s important to note that Rogers acknowledges that the process can be painful: “the client finds himself painfully but definitely learning and growing” (Rogers, 63).
Kim Richardson, October 28, 2009
Response to Sarah Moon’s 1st Comment: I also resonated with Rogers’ emphasis on the therapists need for patience with the client as they go through the differing emotional stages of therapy, vacillating between trust and frustration, etc. I agree that this requires me as the therapist to create an atmosphere in myself of giving the client space to explore, and time (which I think for the therapist might be the more difficult of the two).
1) Rogers says that clients often have trouble recognizing or understanding their feelings, and that as the therapist listens to their feelings, they can then begin to listen to their own feelings (63). I have always been very introspective, and on the whole in touch with my feelings. It seems that this is not the case universally, as I have known people who do not seem to even be able to name their feelings, and Rogers says this as well. I am eager to learn how to create a safe place for people to get in touch with their feelings and grow and heal!
2) The outcomes of therapy that Rogers says are desirable (not “living by the standards of others” and becoming a “self directing person”) seem consistent to an independent culture, but what about interdependent cultures (65)? Would these goals be personally congruent for the client who is from somewhere like Japan, where interdependence and honoring your family and elders is important?
Response to Rachael Wittern: You are right; the falsity of advertising runs deep in our culture, especially this close to Hollywood. People are probably craving authenticity and congruence in other people, yet very suspicious that they are “faking it.” How can we convince clients that we are congruent and that it is safe to share their deepest and darkest with us as therapist?
1)This chapter really resonated with me. (I think it is because what Rogers is saying ties into my integration paper : ) yeah for another source!) When Rogers talks about the role of the therapist to enter into the client's world, ready to fully experience it, but differiented enough not to be afraid of it, the dots finally connect with client centered therapy. That "embrace" expresses to the client that "it is okay, who you are is okay, you can be here, we are going to look around together." It is that empathy, that UPR, genuineness that frees the client from their rigid judgments of themselves and allows them to be free to embrace themselves.(61-63. .. but basically the entire chapter)
2) I understand how healthy it can be for the client to experience this process. The client comes to a place where he can hear, know, and understand the feelings within him. But I wonder if this is good enough, couldn't a client just become content to know why he acts negatively towards woman (lets say abusive) and come to understand that and accept that and then stay there? Is acceptance of self the final goal then?
Response to Chris's response: I think you make a really good point when you say a safe environment is not necessarily a comfortable environment. Rogers says "therapeutic movement ensues, the client finds himself painfully but definitely learning and growing" (63). It is safe in the sense that i will not judge you evaluate you, force you to be somewhere you are not, but where you are at is a hard, painful place to explore and I will be here."
1. Rogers writes about congruence in a way that makes it seem both second nature and difficult to master. He writes that "no one fully achieves this condition, yet the more the therapist is able to listen acceptantly to what is going on within himself, and the more his is able to be the complexity of his feelings without fear, the higher the degree of his congruence" (p. 61). I think the key phrase for me is "without fear". My fear at the present moment is that I will be so caught up trying to process my reactions to the client that I will lose focus and be a disservice to my client.
2. It comforts me immensely to hear that Rogers was afraid of his clients, "afraid of the depths in him" (p. 66). It's nice to know that the expert in client-centered therapy was nervous to encounter new clients and the possibilities they may present. This reassures me going into our live team encounters with our "client" that I can be a little afraid, and it is ok to feel that way.
In response to Jay's first comment - That is an interesting observation! I agree that Rogers was a man of intentionality, so I tend to think that was a jab at Freud. When he adds that "research bears out this common observation", it almost feels like he is validating his jab with research...that it's ok to say something like that if he has data to back it up. -posted by Heather Patterson Meyer
1. On pages 64 and 65 Rogers discusses the results of therapy for his clients. He explains that the client is more able to express his/her feelings and the client begins to see him or herself as “a person of worth” (Rogers, 65). I wonder if the need for this type of therapy springs from our increasingly fragmented and isolated culture. As a people we have lost the ability to listen and connect with others on a personal way. Could the reason for the success of this therapy due to our busy and individualistic culture?
2. Rogers seems to speak and relate with a lot of humility. For example, “We are continually learning more about this process... and I am not sure that this very brief summary conveys much of the richness of our findings” (pg. 65). Is this an important characteristic for a therapist to have, or is this just an aspect of Rogers that he presents as being congruent for himself?
Response to Melissa #2: I agree with you that some clients may need a more directive approach in therapy, for example people who have phobias. I wonder if Rogers does leave room for diversity and cultural issues in his idea of "congruence" and "empathy"? Maybe there is not enough room there, sometimes this issues needs to be directly addressed. I believe Roger's therapeutic technique is very important and useful, but I wonder is this type of therapy is best for clients who do not have or have not had supportive loving environments.
1. Carl Rogers places great importance on the intra-psychic development of the client. "[after psychotherapeutic treatment] he develops much more positive attitudes towards himself". Rogers theorizes that this is crucial even in therapy where a client's goal is to improve social functioning, in that once a client has achieved more positive relationships and attitudes towards himself, " he perceives other individuals with more realism and more acceptance". In short, in order to get along better with others, a person must learn how to get along better with himself. Although this may be considered both common folk wisdom as well as demonstrated by Rogers' therapy, it seems that the change could occur in the opposite direction, where a person only learns to get along better with himself through getting along better with others. This becomes a chicken/egg dilemma, where it might be difficult to ascertain which is causing which. It might be, that both are happening at the same time, building upon each other in an interactional effect. So the question remains, what about Rogers therapy or psychotherapy in general actually causes this change?
1. Rogers' take on the power of his approach to the therapeutic relationship is dependent on principles and practices that are difficult (if not impossible) to nail down to a check list. I suppose this is appropriate because there probably doesn't exist a type of relationship where we could cross off some "to-dos" and then say, "Done! Successful relationship!" Given this, it's encouraging Rogers' fully embraces the subtleties and time-commitment of change. As he writes on page 63, the change comes gradually, as the client begins to internalize the accepting attitude of the therapist and starts to hear herself, see herself, see her feelings, desires, recognize and accept them.
2. The outcome of effective change due to therapy that Rogers' describes is really interesting to me because it almost seems obvious. It seems so simple and natural, I think, "Of course, why wouldn't this occur?" The therapist is just receptive and genuine and caring and consistent and accepting, and then the client in response to this treatment "reorganizes his concept of himself" (Rogers, pg. 65) and becomes more accepting and attuned to himself, then in turn more accepting and open to others. It's a win-win-win and everyone's healthier. It sounds so natural, almost effortless. Yet, the danger of assuming this outcome is easily or naturally reached is probably dangerous. What does it look like when a client relapses? Or strikes out? Or doesn't grow? Or is too damaged for your UPR to be taken seriously?
Response to Rebecca Kulzer 1.:
I understand this conceptually. Yet, I think I'm beginning to understand how Rogers would want be this to be implemented only superficially. I still don't truly have a feel of what this will be like experientially. How exactly we will cultivate and nurture this delicate, congruent, consistent relationship. Especially with all of the inhibitions of professionalism. It's one thing to be a loving friend/sister/brother in Christ who can show up at someone's door when they're feeling lonely... Or take them to coffee when they're feeling down... It's another to spend one hour a week with someone who doesn't know your middle name.
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.
32 comments:
1. Carl Rogers proposes a positive relationship between empathetic, non-judgmental and congruent therapeutic qualities and the client’s growth (p. 66). Meaning that as the therapists continues to show unconditional positive, empathy and congruence, the client will begin to grow in their self-understanding and acceptance of themselves. When the therapist models true acceptance to the client, the client is discipled in how to understand and embrace their true self. (p.66)
2. The first step in the therapeutic process I for the client to begin to understand themselves. They must learn to introspect and as they begin to understand and learn to identify their emotions, they can vocalize their deep thoughts, even the “unacceptable” feelings. As the therapists continues to show unconditional positive regard and the client does not feel judged or condemned, they learn that those feelings are acceptable. The client then learns to accept themselves as they are. Instead of trying to upkeep a false identity, they become more congruent with themselves and embrace their true self (p.63). As I was reading over this page I realized that Rogers is arguing that self-repression is the cause of stunted inner growth and feelings of self-loathing. Self-expression is the beginning to learning to accept oneself as one truly is, and after this step is made, healing is possible.
1. I appreciated that Rogers expressed the thoughts that would run through a client's head while going through therapy. I knew that building trust was an important aspect of the client-patient relationship, but never thought about the fact that the trust that the client has for me may sway back and forth. I'm finding that patience is such a big part of how my client will begin to trust me, and that I need to give him or her the space and time to start to trust me, be angry with me, trust me a little bit more, get frustrated with me, and to trust me some more after a while. (Rogers, 67-69)
2. "Perhaps I can make it a safer world for him" (Rogers 66-67). This line really resonated with the way I would want my clients to feel when they come to see me. The challenge I see is that this "safe" place means something different for each person. What do you think are some ways that therapists can negatively affect a client's search for safety within the therapy session? And do you think we're able to rebuild that safe place if we were to make a mistake?
Sarah Moon, October 23, 2009.
In response to Rebecca Kulzer's 2nd comment:
I think one of my biggest fear is to have a client who won't be able to vocalize any of their thoughts. What would I do if a client walked into the session and just sat there for an hour? I would be afraid to say anything because I would want to give them the freedom and space to process their thoughts, but at the same time I would want my client to actually vocalize these things. I think I just need to be okay with the silence, even if the silence lasts the entire session. Maybe that's exactly what my client needs.
1. The part on the client’s experience was very helpful/insightful. I had previously been worried that a client might start to become disillusioned after therapy and be angry that nobody else was as empathetic and understanding as his/her therapist. However, this made it seem that the therapist’s unconditional positive regard would give a client hope about forming positive relationships with others (Rogers, 67-68). I enjoyed reading what might go on in a client’s mind and it made me realize how important empathy and unconditional positive regard can be.
2. Rogers warns therapists to not be like a TV announcer who is trying to sell things, but clearly does not believe what he is saying (Rogers, 61). I am afraid that advertising and deception continues to be normalized in our materialistic culture, and that clients will definitely be affected by this. Congruence might be even more important for therapy today than it was in Roger’s time.
In response to Sarah Moon: I’ve also been wondering about the idea of “safety” in therapy. The last part about the client’s experience seems to say that acceptance is one of the most important parts of a safe space (Rogers, 67-69). I suppose there may be some clients who will leave if we mess up, but we aren’t expected to be the best therapist for everyone. Perhaps we typically have hour-long sessions so that we have time to make up for dumb comments in the first half. If we are being genuine, one wrong comment shouldn’t threaten a client. I hope that if they feel accepted, the feeling of safety will eventually follow.
Rachael Wittern
1. Rogers makes a bold statement in this chapter by saying "what I am and what I feel are good enough to be a basis for therapy"(67). Most people are afraid to make this type of bold statement either because they want to be humble or they really don't believe they are enough. This is often what leads us into therapy by the handfuls--we do not believe deep down that we are enough. We are not enough for our spouses, for our families, for our graduate school programs, or for God. Many criticize Rogers for being too simplistic but at the same time Rogers is hitting on something that, as Rebecca pointed out, is essential for healing--self-acceptance. Rogers goes on to say that this enables the client to "be what he is, openly and without fear" (67). I think that our society and especially Christian communities have so interwoven shame with self-acceptance that we feel we cannot be confident or proud and we cannot be immoral or weak. If we are not struggling to lose weight, we have "let ourselves go" and if we our not struggling to overcome sin then we are "taking advantage of grace" (Rom. 6:1). We must be perfectly in the middle which is basically, not enough. Rogers reminds us that there is unconditional positive regard and ultimately unconditional love which allow us to sit in wretchedness and still have substance--be "enough".
2. Another role the therapist plays in Rogerian therapy is to provide safety for self-exploration. Now that the client knows that his worth is not based on what he does or doesn't do, he is free to be whatever he truly is. This is very scary as Rogers explains, "I feel more safe when I'm with him (68)." The client is now free to experience who he or she is and may even start to like it--"perhaps the person I am is worth being" (68).
In response to Rachel...
That is a really good point that congruence may even be more important than in Roger's time due to the influence of advertising and the media. Especially with the explosion of industry, technology, and corporate America we are encouraged to do whatever we can to get ahead.
1. In reading this chapter, the idea of client centered therapy has become much clearer to me with regard to what the therapist is actually supposed to be doing. Rogers says, " When the therapist can grasp the moment-to-moment experiencing which occurs in the inner world of the client as the client sees it and feels it, without losing the separateness of his own identity in this empathic process, then change is likely to occur"(Rogers, pp.62-63). In this one statement, I see how empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence all work together for the healing of the client.
2. In the section entitled, "The Dynamics of Change", Rogers discusses working of unconditional positive regard (pg.63). As I read this section, I came to the understanding that as therapists, we are actually leading the client to a better place within themselves. They follow us to that place but they enter into it on their own. I find that to be pretty amazing.
In response to Rachel's 2nd comment,
I agree with you. I think that because we in this society are bombarded with so many different images of what we should be rather than who we are, the illusion of reality that we are presented with is highly deceiving. This makes client centered model all the more important.
1. Client motivation often plays a key role in positive therapeutic outcomes. Rogers (1961) notes, “Psychotherapy does not supply the motivation for such development or growth. This seems to be inherent in the organism…” (p. 60). What happens if a client is not motivated to change? How would a therapist work with unmotivated clients, such as an unmotivated client who has been legally mandated to therapy? (Disclaimer: I am not implying that all clients who are legally mandated to therapy are not motivated, because many are – just using this as an example).
2. While I agree that genuineness, warmth and accurate empathy are important, in some cases, the lack of direction on the part of the therapist could contribute to increased frustration and anxiety for clients. Issues such as cultural differences, personality differences, illness severity and level of functioning can present challenges in practice.
References
Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Response to Rachel W’s second question:
You make an interesting observation about congruence in therapy today. Due to the normalized deception, I wonder if Christian counselors have greater difficulty gaining clients’ trust because it has become so difficult to believe in our society that kindness and professionalism can be genuine and not a front. There are many clients who have been so hurt by others that they have a hard time believing that anyone is genuinely kind and authentic… and then they sit down in your office. This is what I think is one of the most exciting aspects of being a Christian counselor whether in a Christian or secular setting – that clients will experience genuine compassion, respect and service because it is the Christ in us-Christ working though us. If we are truly being ourselves in therapy, than somehow the compassion of Christ that flows out of our lives outside the counseling office will also be communicated in it. This brings up another thought – how blessed Christians are to have the Holy Spirit to assist with congruence, empathy and unconditional positive regard in practice. I’ve wondered at times what it is like to have to do and be this consistently in one’s own strength – and I don’t think I could last long.
Melissa Gardner Curri, October 24, 2009
1)Rogers states that as a person is in relationship with someone who acceptingly listens to his or her feelings, the person will “little by little [be] able to listen to himself” (Rogers, 63). I would have to agree with this. I think that being in therapy allows someone to become self aware, to become aware of his/her feelings and how he/she interacts with others. Having a high sense of self awareness can be a liberating experience.
2)“I would like to go with him on the fearful journey into himself” (Rogers, 67). The journey is unpredictable. But at the same time, I think it is an exciting journey. Yes, I am fearful of the depth of fear, hate, and anger that the client has never or rarely expressed. But, I am also excited to be a part of my client’s healing. I think it is best to approach the journey fully aware of these feelings of fear and excitement. What are some ways that we can use or express these feelings to benefit our client?
Response to Sarah’s second comment:
I think the best way to build a safe place is transparency, being congruent. I also think that the safe environment can be rebuilt but this will definitely take time. It’s like rebuilding trust with a friend. When someone breaks your trust, you decide whether or not you want to give them another chance. And then, the trust is slowly rebuilt. Hopefully, if we mess up, our clients will allow us to regain their trust. And unfortunately, some clients will not give us that chance.
Lauren Brighton October 25, 2009
1) Rogers (1961) makes the “Dynamics of Change” clear through his explanation of what happens during the therapeutic process he prescribes. He maintains that while listening to the client talk about his various feelings, the client becomes aware of the genuine emotions behind the words. As he becomes aware of the emotions he is feeling, he accepts his feelings whether angry, sad, frightened, etc. Healing occurs through the relationship with the therapist, through feelings of acceptance, that he, the client is not being judged or evaluated. It is through this atmosphere of acceptance or unconditional positive regard, that the client becomes his true self (p.63).
2) I find it interesting that Rogers (1961) details the experience of the therapist (as well as that of the client) and normalizes the feelings of fear, inadequacy, doubt, etc. that most therapists undoubtedly feel. He also speaks to the desires, goals, and goodwill that most therapists have for the client and how the two opposing forces eventually work out in the healing relationship. Rogers conveys humility through the explanation of the therapist’s journey with the client. His emphasis on congruence between what the therapist thinks and how he speaks or acts is a key attribute to a successful, therapeutic relationship (p. 67).
Response to Melissa Gardner Curri’s second post:
I think Melissa makes a good point regarding the directional factor for therapy. I too can see how frustration might occur and how disappointment due to lack of progress (possibly attributed to one of the factors she mentioned, cultural differences, etc.) for a client might affect the therapeutic relationship. I also wonder if genuineness, unconditional positive regard and empathy are always enough to sustain the therapeutic process.
Amber Blews, October 25, 2009
1. Rogers states, “It seems from our studies that it is attitudes such as these rather than the therapist’s technical knowledge and skill, which are primarily responsible for change” (63). He is discussing the attitudes of congruence, acceptance and empathy as the vehicles for therapeutic change in the client. I agree with Rogers sense that the therapist-client relationship is, in fact, a reciprocal relationship between two humans wishing to help each other grow.
2. I find Rogers discussion of “evidence” (67) of the therapist’s acceptance or shaming an important element to the shaping of the client’s experience of therapy. The client sees how the therapist reacts or responds to what the client discloses. I believe this is helpful to the therapist in that it opens more opportunities for the therapist to join the client in the client’s self-exploration.
3. Response to Amber Blews:
I also appreciate how Rogers normalizes the experience of the therapist. It is difficult to hold the tension that is felt in the therapist-client relationship, but hopeful (when referring to Rogers) once the therapist understands that the tension works out for the better in the relationship.
1. I like how Rogers acknowledges that despite practicing unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence, the therapist is still limited by how the client interprets these actions (Rogers,67). In other words, the therapist may be accurately applying all of the tools for client centered therapy, but the client may be viewing such actions through a negative lens which is affecting how he or she perceives the client. Consequently, despite the best efforts of the therapist, there will be an ebb and flow in their relationship with the client. Meaning, the client will not always like the therapist or feel positive towards them.
2. I love that Rogers acknowledges that initially a therapist is a little afraid of their client just as the client is fearful of the therapist. Consequently, in reference to the client, Rogers states: "I'm a little afraid of him, afraid of the depths in him as I am a little afraid of the depths in myself" (Rogers, 66). However, this raises the question, "If one is fearful of one's own depths, can one effectively help another explore their depths?"
3. Response to Sarah Moon's 2nd comment:
You make a great observation that an environment which constitutes safety may not be the same for every client. Clearly, to be effective a therapist must cater to the clients world view and perspective. I think that is the challenge inherent in all aspects of the therapeutic relationship, how does one think outside of the box and get into the client's world, while still being genuine and true to themselves as the therapsit?
1.Carl Rogers speaks of a fear on the part of both the therapist and the client (pp. 66-67). I have found that to be very true in previous counseling experiences. It almost seems that the one who isn't trusted is the therapist, both by the client and by the therapist him/herself. I thought it was profound as he went through the "thoughts" of what the therapist would be thinking, as well as how the client is perceiving the entire course of therapy (Rogers,pp. 66-69).
2)As I read, this entire chapter has begged the question "Was Carl Rogers a Christian?" Although his methods may not apply in every situation, the theory behind the methods seems so congruent with Christ's teachings (Rogers, pp.59-69). If Rogers was not a Christian, I then wonder where he came up with such an accurate theory of how to treat others?
In Response to Hannah's first point: I agree that we do need to have the sense of self-acceptance in order to be motivated to move towards becoming that person that we're created to be. I have found it to be true, however, that most of the people I know who continue to grow towards becoming that person are those that have first accepted that we were dead without Christ. The Bible paints a pretty clear picture of the nothingness that we are without the saving grace of God. Interestingly though, the people who grasp that also seem to be the ones with the most self-esteem as some would call it.
1. On page 66, Rogers talks about the therapists experience during therapy. I got to thinking, I'm assuming congruence would become less of a priority when working with someone with a personality disorder. For example, would it be helpful to let someone who is anti social know you are scared while working with them? Perhaps with some this could lead to an interaction that facilitates growth and exploration. However, it seems more highly likely that this could be something this person used to manipulate the therapist.
2. On page 65 Rogers uses positive self affirmations by the client as one example of growth. What if the client was doing a lot of irresponsible things in his or her life. Attributing positive characteristics to yourself wouldn't seem to be growth in that situation. Something looking more like repentance seems to be more appropriate and psycholoically productive.
Response to Sarah's first question.
I agree with what your saying about giving your client time to develop trust. I think I've experienced so much pressure to facilitate change in the clients I see that that has almost become secondary at times. That's an unfortunate admission.
1. The dynamics of change that Rogers describes was very interesting to me. It seems to me that the therapist is a type of leader in the sense that he/she first models congruence, positive regard, and empathy to the client. The client then is influenced to take on these traits with regards to him or herself. While certainly not authoritarian, I would consider this subtle leadership. (Rogers, 63-64)
2. A recurrent theme in both the therapist's and client's experience is fear. It was helpful to know that fear is a normal part of the process, even for the therapist. In addition, it was good to be reminded that the client may even blame the therapist at times. Knowing this can happen can make it easier to not take it personally when it does. I wonder how difficult it will be to not take a client's lack of progress personally. (Rogers, 68)
David Choi, October 26, 2009.
In response to Melissa's 1st comment:
I agree that it would be difficult if the client was lacking motivation. I suppose I would approach this by acknowledging his/her lack of motivation and make sure I am not judging the client. Then I would try to reflect the lack of motivation back and try to understand where it is coming from.
1. Rogers' attention and extreme emphasis on unconditional positive regard was illustrated very nicely in this chapter. "...he finds the therapist showing a consistent and unconditional positive regard for him and his feelings. Slowly he moves toward taking the same attitude toward himself" (Rogers, 63). He goes on to mention that this equips the client with the tools necessary to the process of becoming. I completely see the importance and value in what Rogers says here. I wonder, however, if the therapist (being that they are human too) were to make a mistake or momentarily have a lapse in unconditional positive regard, would this blow it? In other words, if a condition of worth is placed on the client (or some other type of slip up) how much of a setback might this be for the client's process of becoming? I imagine it would depend on how much personal regard for him/herself the client had to begin with.
2. I find it interesting how constant empathy, and constant unchanging positive regard and consistently present warmth can foster an inverse effect for the client. Rogers says that the more the client perceives these support systems from the therapist, the more likely they are to be comfortable with change and fluid shaping of relationships to self and others (Rogers, 66). I think of a person learning a new skill such as shooting a free throw in basketball. If someone was standing behind them constantly encouraging them with "you can do this" or "this must be hard for you right now trying to learn this new skill" or "gosh, missing the first 20 shots seems to be annoying you...that can't be easy". I imagine the person being much more open to trying different techniques, and more importantly sticking with the free throws until improvement is made, than the person who received a different type of coaching...such as "what do you think caused you to miss that last free throw?" This does not constitute unconditional positivity. Thus, the free throw shooter may be more likely to focus on their faults as opposed to cultivating strength. When I view Rogers' model in contexts outside of therapy, it rings even more true.
Response to Alex's #1...
Alex...your comment really got me thinking. Thank you. I am wondering if there was more you would say about it if you had the space (not on a short blog entry) because I'd love to hear more about how the reciprocal relationship plays out in your mind. In other words, when you say that it is a relationship of two "humans wishing to help each other grow" how literally do you mean that? Do you think that in therapy (and mainly westernized individual therapy) that the average client actually is wishing to help their therapist grow? I am sure it happens, but is it a rule of thumb? Thanks for sparking my curiosity with a cool observation.
1. A therapy based on congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding functions as a mirror in which the client is able to hear him/herself in a more objective viewpoint. This often times helps the client to hear him/herself differently than before and helps to acknowledge the self as who he/she is (Rogers, 62, 65)
2. I find it interesting how even though the cause of the fear for the therapist and the client may be different, the commonality of having fear, when properly acknowledged and accepted by the therapist can function as a bridge(Rogers, 66, 67).
Response to David's comment:
Although our live team group is a safe setting, even then there is plenty of anxiety floating around. Anxiety for how I will perform as a therapist and perhaps how others will view me. Even in such safe setting it is somewhat stressful practicing the client centered model for therapy. Often times we only focus on the fear of the patient, but my experiences in live group is making me think of some fears that novice theapists may have. Such as fear of failure and fear of rejection.
1. A therapy based on congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding functions as a mirror in which the client is able to hear him/herself in a more objective viewpoint. This often times helps the client to hear him/herself differently than before and helps to acknowledge the self as who he/she is (Rogers, 62, 65)
2. I find it interesting how even though the cause of the fear for the therapist and the client may be different, the commonality of having fear, when properly acknowledged and accepted by the therapist can function as a bridge(Rogers, 66, 67).
Response to David's comment:
Although our live team group is a safe setting, even then there is plenty of anxiety floating around. Anxiety for how I will perform as a therapist and perhaps how others will view me. Even in such safe setting it is somewhat stressful practicing the client centered model for therapy. Often times we only focus on the fear of the patient, but my experiences in live group is making me think of some fears that novice theapists may have. Such as fear of failure and fear of rejection.
1. Rogers mentions that empathic is both rare for us to give and rare for us to receive, one of the reasons that empathic understanding in a therapist is so important (62). Our understanding is often more prescriptive in nature, evaluating what is wrong with someone, or likening it to our own experience instead of seeing what is going on inside them and reacting to that within ourselves honestly. I think this was brought up in a conversation among a few of us one day, but what would happen if we actually tried to give empathic understanding to each other once and a while? How would that change the structure of social support within the Church and our friend networks?
2. It is important to think about how the therapist reacts to the client, and Rogers mentions that fear is one of the main reactions that a therapist experiences when coming into contact with the client. The fear seems to come both from how the client is going to impact the emotions of the therapist, and from the fear of inadequacy in reacting to the client well and properly (66). This is good for me to see, mainly because in some ways I have not had time to sit with the idea of what I may be experiencing when it comes to gaining a client, and how that could impact my emotional state. Much of my time has been spent in the classroom, so this is good preparation for training!
Response to Melissa's first comment
Honestly, if the client is not motivated to change, there is not much you can do. In this model, the client would be driving the sessions, so you may just have to let therapy be the kind of time they want it to be. Hopefully there would be an opportunity for a little more direction if the client were mandated for reasons such as a behavior or personality disorder which was hurting society, but there is no way to make them change.
1.) In chapter four, Rogers seems to make a pointed jab at Freud and psychoanalysis , “When someone understands how it feels to be me, without wanting to analyze me…then I can blossom and grow.” Do you think Rogers intended this as a slight against the prevailing psychoanalytic model he had originally been trained in or do you think it was just a poor choice of wording? I tend to think Rogers was a deliberate man who knew exactly what he was saying and wanted, in a small way here, to harass and embarrass what he felt was a poor model for psychological healing (Rogers, 62).
2.) Relating this reading to what we have been discussing in Integration, does Rogers seem to have the seeds of postmodern thought in some of his work? While his organismic principle of tendency toward progress is thoroughly modern, he states, “He moves towards a conception of himself as a person of worth, as a self-directing person, able to form his standards and values upon the basis of his own experience.” This self-defined value structure seems quite postmodern to me despite the modernistic nature of psychology in general. Anyone have any other thoughts? (Rogers, 65)
Jonathan Wellman, October 27, 2009
Response to Bobby’s first comment:
Rogers made the statement that none of us perfectly achieve congruence (61). I would think this is true of all the parts of the therapeutic triad including UPR. Therefore we all need to practice as much as possible to avoid “slip ups” as much as possible. If we simply lack positive regard at a moment then we can likely get that back with some work, however, if the client feels we have placed a condition of worth on him or her, then the therapeutic relationship may be irreparable as the therapists whole job from a client-centered perspective is to provide a space that allows for growth. Once that place has been injured we may be best to refer to allow the client to avoid dealing with the new conditions of worth. On the other hand, we might simply create more conditions of worth by “rejecting” the client (as they may see it) when we refer.
1) Rogers thinks that all people will naturally become less judgmental towards themselves and more positive and actualized as they progress (Chapter 4). I wonder if this can really always be the case. Certainly, there must be some times that exploring these feelings will run into other components within the client that they find unacceptable and will not be able to make peace with, in some situations.
2)The therapist's experience (p. 66,67)is an interesting read on how we sit in therapy. Paying attention to all the feelings that I have as well as trying to reflect and experience the clients feelings seems to be quite a challenge when I read about it, yet the role-plays and personal experience of it makes me wonder if I am "doing it right."
3) (In Response to Sarah Moon's 2nd)
I think that there is a difference between a safe environment for the client and a comfortable one. For me, I think that the client being safe to explore "negative" feelings is not something they will find comfortable, but making it safe does not require they feel "good" about it.
1. Rogers states that the three conditions necessary to facilitate psychological growth in a client are congruence, warmth/acceptance and emphatic understanding (Rogers, 61-62). Are there ever times where a client may need more or less than this? If not, is Rogers basically saying we are all pretty much the same regardless of the complexity of our presenting issue?
2. Rogers describes the process of therapy and how it moves away from remoteness, rigidity of self, fixity, etc. and moves toward chaningness, immediacy of feelings and experiences, fluidity, etc. (Rogers, 64). With this in mind, it seems like every client would touch the therapist in a very deep and profound way, which will lead to the therapist continually evolving throughout his or her career.
Response to Hannah’s 2nd comment:
That is such a great point. The therapist gets the opportunity to go with the client on this journey of self –discovery. Rogers, as eloquent as always, really highlights how important the role of the therapist is to the client, in helping the client move toward who they really are.
I am using one of my three freebies
1. I appreciate Carl Rogers idea that the goal of therapy for the client is to reorganize their self concept. Rogers says, "He moves away from perceiving himself as unacceptable to himself, as unworthy of respect, as having to live by the standards of others" (Rogers, 65). Regardless of whether or not other issues arise, the reorganization of the clients self concept is an important goal of therapy.
2. I found it really interesting to hear the thoughts of the client as therapy progresses in the section called "The Clients Experience". Perhaps it is because I have never been in that position so I have never experienced that for myself. However, I plan to start my own therapy soon, so it interesting to anticipate the types feelings I will soon be experiencing.
In response to Ashley's comment,
I agree with you in that it is nice to hear Rogers admit to being fearful of the client. As we start our "therapy" in live team, i am definitely experiencing some fear. It is nice to know that it is normal to feel that way. It is a just a part of the process, especially while we are still learning.
I'm using one of my free passes for this week. (1/3) Thank you.
1) In this chapter, Rogers describes the "Results of Therapy" concluding that long term change usually occurs because the client is able to explore and accept themselves (Rogers, p. 65). I think this is one of the best qualities of client-centered therapy. I truly believe that most people must make their own decisions in order for change to be effective.
2) Rogers also discusses how the therapist feels during therapy. He says at times emotions in the client will bring out emotions in the therapist like fear (p. 67). This sounds like counter transference, and Rogers goes on to describe that he needs to "accept" these feelings (p.67). Is this his way of overcoming counter transference, or how do you think he would approach the subject?
In response to Takisha's first question.
I think that is exactly what Rogers is implying, I think he feels that client-centered therapy can be used with any person, whether clinically depressed or psychotic. However, we read earlier about how his experiment with schizophrenics and client-centered therapy. This therapy approach was found to not help schizophrenics. So, personally, I believe clients do need the empathy, congruency, and unconditional positive regard, but they also need more.
-Candace Coppinger October 28, 2009
1) I think it’s important that Rogers differentiated between the understanding that says, “I too have experienced your trouble and I reacted very differently” (Rogers, 62) and true empathy, which strives to understand how it felt and seemed to the other person. The more I read about this topic and experience Live Team sessions, the more I realize how complex and difficult empathy really is. As Rogers says, “I suspect each of us has discovered that this kind of understanding is extremely rare. We neither receive it nor offer it with any great frequency” (Rogers, 62). Rogers’ distinction that empathy is having that sense of how it felt for the other person without trying to analyze or judge them, I think this is where it gets complicated. I think we’ve all learned that we shouldn’t judge others, but it seems impossible to not analyze the other person as the therapist, doesn’t it? I don’t mean analyze in a negative sense, but doesn’t it (on a certain level) take analysis to try to understand a person’s experience from their view (because we have to ask ourselves why they felt the way they did, in the context of their previous experiences, etc.) How do we BE present without, on some level, analyzing the client? Heck, I’m constantly analyzing myself, I have difficulty just BEing (with myself) without analyzing myself. (Rogers, 62)
2) Some people believe that Rogers’ theory can be simplified to making the client “feel good” about themselves and is therefore idealistic but not realistic. I think it’s important to note that Rogers acknowledges that the process can be painful: “the client finds himself painfully but definitely learning and growing” (Rogers, 63).
Kim Richardson, October 28, 2009
Response to Sarah Moon’s 1st Comment:
I also resonated with Rogers’ emphasis on the therapists need for patience with the client as they go through the differing emotional stages of therapy, vacillating between trust and frustration, etc. I agree that this requires me as the therapist to create an atmosphere in myself of giving the client space to explore, and time (which I think for the therapist might be the more difficult of the two).
Kim Richardson, October 28, 2009
1) Rogers says that clients often have trouble recognizing or understanding their feelings, and that as the therapist listens to their feelings, they can then begin to listen to their own feelings (63). I have always been very introspective, and on the whole in touch with my feelings. It seems that this is not the case universally, as I have known people who do not seem to even be able to name their feelings, and Rogers says this as well. I am eager to learn how to create a safe place for people to get in touch with their feelings and grow and heal!
2) The outcomes of therapy that Rogers says are desirable (not “living by the standards of others” and becoming a “self directing person”) seem consistent to an independent culture, but what about interdependent cultures (65)? Would these goals be personally congruent for the client who is from somewhere like Japan, where interdependence and honoring your family and elders is important?
Response to Rachael Wittern:
You are right; the falsity of advertising runs deep in our culture, especially this close to Hollywood. People are probably craving authenticity and congruence in other people, yet very suspicious that they are “faking it.” How can we convince clients that we are congruent and that it is safe to share their deepest and darkest with us as therapist?
Jenn Greiner 10/28
1)This chapter really resonated with me. (I think it is because what Rogers is saying ties into my integration paper : ) yeah for another source!) When Rogers talks about the role of the therapist to enter into the client's world, ready to fully experience it, but differiented enough not to be afraid of it, the dots finally connect with client centered therapy. That "embrace" expresses to the client that "it is okay, who you are is okay, you can be here, we are going to look around together." It is that empathy, that UPR, genuineness that frees the client from their rigid judgments of themselves and allows them to be free to embrace themselves.(61-63. .. but basically the entire chapter)
2) I understand how healthy it can be for the client to experience this process. The client comes to a place where he can hear, know, and understand the feelings within him. But I wonder if this is good enough, couldn't a client just become content to know why he acts negatively towards woman (lets say abusive) and come to understand that and accept that and then stay there? Is acceptance of self the final goal then?
Response to Chris's response:
I think you make a really good point when you say a safe environment is not necessarily a comfortable environment. Rogers says "therapeutic movement ensues, the client finds himself painfully but definitely learning and growing" (63). It is safe in the sense that i will not judge you evaluate you, force you to be somewhere you are not, but where you are at is a hard, painful place to explore and I will be here."
1. Rogers writes about congruence in a way that makes it seem both second nature and difficult to master. He writes that "no one fully achieves this condition, yet the more the therapist is able to listen acceptantly to what is going on within himself, and the more his is able to be the complexity of his feelings without fear, the higher the degree of his congruence" (p. 61). I think the key phrase for me is "without fear". My fear at the present moment is that I will be so caught up trying to process my reactions to the client that I will lose focus and be a disservice to my client.
2. It comforts me immensely to hear that Rogers was afraid of his clients, "afraid of the depths in him" (p. 66). It's nice to know that the expert in client-centered therapy was nervous to encounter new clients and the possibilities they may present. This reassures me going into our live team encounters with our "client" that I can be a little afraid, and it is ok to feel that way.
In response to Jay's first comment -
That is an interesting observation! I agree that Rogers was a man of intentionality, so I tend to think that was a jab at Freud. When he adds that "research bears out this common observation", it almost feels like he is validating his jab with research...that it's ok to say something like that if he has data to back it up.
-posted by Heather Patterson Meyer
1. On pages 64 and 65 Rogers discusses the results of therapy for his clients. He explains that the client is more able to express his/her feelings and the client begins to see him or herself as “a person of worth” (Rogers, 65). I wonder if the need for this type of therapy springs from our increasingly fragmented and isolated culture. As a people we have lost the ability to listen and connect with others on a personal way. Could the reason for the success of this therapy due to our busy and individualistic culture?
2. Rogers seems to speak and relate with a lot of humility. For example, “We are continually learning more about this process... and I am not sure that this very brief summary conveys much of the richness of our findings” (pg. 65). Is this an important characteristic for a therapist to have, or is this just an aspect of Rogers that he presents as being congruent for himself?
Response to Melissa #2:
I agree with you that some clients may need a more directive approach in therapy, for example people who have phobias. I wonder if Rogers does leave room for diversity and cultural issues in his idea of "congruence" and "empathy"? Maybe there is not enough room there, sometimes this issues needs to be directly addressed. I believe Roger's therapeutic technique is very important and useful, but I wonder is this type of therapy is best for clients who do not have or have not had supportive loving environments.
1. Carl Rogers places great importance on the intra-psychic development of the client. "[after psychotherapeutic treatment] he develops much more positive attitudes towards himself". Rogers theorizes that this is crucial even in therapy where a client's goal is to improve social functioning, in that once a client has achieved more positive relationships and attitudes towards himself, " he perceives other individuals with more realism and more acceptance". In short, in order to get along better with others, a person must learn how to get along better with himself. Although this may be considered both common folk wisdom as well as demonstrated by Rogers' therapy, it seems that the change could occur in the opposite direction, where a person only learns to get along better with himself through getting along better with others. This becomes a chicken/egg dilemma, where it might be difficult to ascertain which is causing which. It might be, that both are happening at the same time, building upon each other in an interactional effect. So the question remains, what about Rogers therapy or psychotherapy in general actually causes this change?
1. Rogers' take on the power of his approach to the therapeutic relationship is dependent on principles and practices that are difficult (if not impossible) to nail down to a check list. I suppose this is appropriate because there probably doesn't exist a type of relationship where we could cross off some "to-dos" and then say, "Done! Successful relationship!" Given this, it's encouraging Rogers' fully embraces the subtleties and time-commitment of change. As he writes on page 63, the change comes gradually, as the client begins to internalize the accepting attitude of the therapist and starts to hear herself, see herself, see her feelings, desires, recognize and accept them.
2. The outcome of effective change due to therapy that Rogers' describes is really interesting to me because it almost seems obvious. It seems so simple and natural, I think, "Of course, why wouldn't this occur?" The therapist is just receptive and genuine and caring and consistent and accepting, and then the client in response to this treatment "reorganizes his concept of himself" (Rogers, pg. 65) and becomes more accepting and attuned to himself, then in turn more accepting and open to others. It's a win-win-win and everyone's healthier. It sounds so natural, almost effortless. Yet, the danger of assuming this outcome is easily or naturally reached is probably dangerous. What does it look like when a client relapses? Or strikes out? Or doesn't grow? Or is too damaged for your UPR to be taken seriously?
Response to Rebecca Kulzer 1.:
I understand this conceptually. Yet, I think I'm beginning to understand how Rogers would want be this to be implemented only superficially. I still don't truly have a feel of what this will be like experientially. How exactly we will cultivate and nurture this delicate, congruent, consistent relationship. Especially with all of the inhibitions of professionalism. It's one thing to be a loving friend/sister/brother in Christ who can show up at someone's door when they're feeling lonely... Or take them to coffee when they're feeling down... It's another to spend one hour a week with someone who doesn't know your middle name.
Mary Alexandra Jacobs, October 29th, 2009
Post a Comment