|
Rogerian Therapy by Dagmar Pescitelli
Rogerian therapy involves the therapist's entry into the client's
unique phenomenological world. In mirroring this world, the therapist
does not disagree or point out contradictions (Shaffer, 1978).
Neither does he/she attempt to delve into the unconscious. The
focus is on immediate conscious experience. Rogers (1977) describes
therapy as a process of freeing a person and removing obstacles
so that normal growth and development can proceed and the client
can become independent and self-directed. During the course of
therapy the client moves from rigidly of self-perception to fluidity.
Certain conditions are necessary for this process. A ""growth
promoting climate""requires the therapist to be congruent,
have unconditional positive regard for the client as well as show
empathic understanding (Rogers, 1961). Congruence on the part
of the therapist refers to her/his ability to be completely genuine
whatever the self of the moment. While it is necessary during
therapy h/she is not expected to be a completely congruent person
all the time, as such perfection is impossible (Rogers, 1959).
Empathy refers to understanding the client's feelings and personal
meanings as they are experienced and communicating this back to
the person. While unconditional positive regard involves relating
from therapist to client not as a scientist to an object of study, but as a person to a person. He feels this client to be a person of self-worth; of value no matter what his condition, his behavior or his feelings. He respects him for what he is, and accepts him as he is, with his potentialities (Rogers, 1965, p.22)
Rogers' strong belief in the positive nature of human beings is
based on his many years of clinical experience, working with a
wide variety of individuals (1961, 1965, 1977). The theory of
person-centered therapy suggests any client, no matter what the
problem, can improve without being taught anything specific by
the therapist, once he/she accepts and respects themselves (Shaffer,
1978). The resources all lie within the client. While this may
be so, this type of therapy many not be effective for severe psychopathologies
such as schizophrenia (which today is considered to have strong
biological component) or other disorders such as phobias, obsessive-compulsive
disorder or even depression (currently effectively treated with
drugs and cognitive therapy). In one meta-analysis of psychotherapy
effectiveness that looked at 400 studies, person-centered therapy
was found least effective. In fact, it was no more effective
than the placebo condition (Glass 1983; cited in Krebs & Blackman,
1988).
Rogers is reputed to have been a very gifted clinician. However,
it is difficult to know whether the therapists that follow his
model (or use some of the techniques) are truly practicing Rogerian
therapy as it was intended. The concepts of congruence, empathy
and unconditional positive regard allow too much room for interpretation,
although Rogers likely possessed these qualities. To Rogers credit,
he took the revolutionary step of recording his sessions and opened
up the previously private domain of therapy for empirical study
and assessment (Ryckmann, 1993). That few can match his stature
is not due to a lack of sharing techniques.
Rogers (1959) himself noted that every theory, including his own,
contains "an unknown (and perhaps at that time unknowable)
amount of error and mistaken inference" (p.190). His belief
was that a theory should serve as a stimulus to further creative
thinking. I believe he has succeeded in this intention. This
theory has very strong heuristic value and continues to generate
debate and interest (Krebs & Blackman, 1988; Ryckmann, 1993).
The theory further focuses on the whole individual as he/she
experiences the world. Agency and free will are not undermined
in this model. It gives considerable attention to the concept
of self and the suggestion that we can all overcome damages inflicted
in childhood is very appealing. Full functioning is no the exclusive
domain of a very lucky few. It is, at least theoretically, attainable
for many. Rogers does not assume women are inferior to men and
his "sexist" language was corrected in his later writings.
Another strength is that Rogerian theory is grounded in the study
of persons (not pigeons), leading to its strong applied value
in many areas of life.
The main problems with this theory of personality are related
to the lack of precision and specificity regarding some of the
terms and concepts. Krebs & Blackman (1988) also rate the
logical consistency as only "fair", maintaining that
some connections are not completely clear. While this theory
has become increasingly comprehensive over time, a major weakness
is that it does not sufficiently address stages of development
(Krebs & Blackman, 1988; Maddi, 1996). Due to his emphasis
on conscious experience, Rogers has also been criticized for a
lack of attention to the unconscious (Hall & Lindzey, 1985;
Nietzel, Benstein, Milich, 1994). This criticism is not entirely
justified. He directly acknowledges the unconscious in later
writings, seeing it as "positive" (Rogers, 1977, p.246).
Furthermore, the whole idea of congruence/incongruence and organic
wisdom involves the idea of an unconscious and he clearly posits
an organism that has many experiences of which the person is not
aware (Hall & Lindzey, 1985). While Rogers contribution in
the area of psychotherapy is substantial, clinical applicability
of his therapy may be limited to those segments of the population
whose intellectual and cultural backgrounds are compatible with
this therapy (Nietzel et. Al, 1994). This theory's development
from therapeutic practice may be both a blessing a curse. It
keeps it practical and bases it in human experience, yet leads
to the extension of concepts that while appropriate to therapy
may not be comprehensive or specific enough to apply to all people.
Some human conditions, such as psychopathy, do not make much sense according to this theory. The psychopath apparently feels no guilt, discomfort or remorse for his/her actions. There is no anxiety. Incongruence is not apparent, although the theory suggests it would be substantial indeed. I also wonder about those human beings that have limited potentialities in the first place. Is one "fully functioning" if one has fulfilled all potential, even though there is an extremely limited amount in the first place? The capacity for creativity and free expression might not exist in such a case. Despite my questions and criticism, this theory's value is substantial and should not be minimized. It offers a reasonable alternative to dominant theories that would have us objectify and control human beings. It also recognizes persons as the most important focus in the study of personality. Comments/Thoughts/Observations? © 1996 Dagmar Pescitelli
|