Critiquing Carl Rogers; On Becoming a Person.

This Old River
Sep 6, 2018 · 16 min read

On Becoming a Person by author Carl Rogers is a seminal text that most students of psychotherapy will be made familar with… and in some cases endoctrinated to worship as gospel. Now this worship is not necessarily unwarranted! For its time it was a paradigm shifting work as it laid the foundation of Therapeutic Change, the fundamentals of which are largely presvered today by practicing psychotherapists and educators of psychotherapy. However, these tenets of Person Centered Therapy that Rogers has enumerated in this book have grown larger than the book itself to the extent that they have become principles in which Humanistic Therapists (and humanists in general) are recommended to live by, not just to adopt as part of a daily job skill. This essay offers an critical examination of some chapters, fundamentals of humanistic therapy and the ground these fundamentals are predicated upon.

Throughout chapters 2 and 3, Carl Rogers elaborates the fundamental approach to facilitating change. Here, Rogers advises that Person-Centred Therapy (PCT) is not to ask oneself ‘what treatment or cure can one provide?’ but ‘how may one provide a relationship to a person that would be advantageous to their growth?’ Rogers extends this question beyond the therapist-client relationship into all relationships (Rogers, 1961. p.32). Rogers believed that ‘helping’ a person didactically, such as intellectually ‘explaining a person’ to that very person, is not conducive to orientating them toward change. This risks a person perceiving themselves as an inactive agent in their process, further undermining their self-adequacy. Thus, an important tenet of PCT is not for the client to see themselves as a recipient of cure or something to be fixed by an expert, nor to be stripped of their sense of personhood (Rogers, 1961. p.33; Sanders, 2006. p.8).

Rogers formulated the hypothesis that the capacity for change and development in the client can only happen within a relationship based on conditions that the therapist can provide.

In the role of the therapist, Rogers advises that one not only has to present with a reflexive awareness to their own psychological and visceral feelings, but to also have a genuine willingness to express those attitudes within oneself, for oneself. These feelings and attitudes constitute the person’s experience, which essentially constitutes their reality. Thus only with the therapist having consistency with the presentation of authentic feelings within themselves does it provide a freedom for the client to seek and express the reality within themselves (Rogers, 1961. p.33).

While it is not explicitly stated in Chapter 2, what Rogers is referring to in these chapters is the condition of Congruence; having no discrepancy or façade between one’s words or representation and one’s inner self-experience. From reading the theory and application in practice it is implicit that the therapist at least be more congruent than the client at the beginning of the process; however, this should not be misconstrued as an expert-approach, rather that the therapist, by comparison to the client, has preparation as a person in their role of providing the right conditions (Sanders, 2006. p.53).

The application of this ties closely into Unconditional Positive Regard (UPR) in practice, whereby Rogers speaks of prizing the person as someone with value and worth, as a separate individual, despite how they may act or behave. Most importantly in UPR is that a relationship works only by acceptance; which involves understanding that for the clients, their own attitudes or feelings (i.e. their realities) are legitimate for them even if they may seem contradictory, infantile or bizarre to the therapist. Fundamentally the person is free to explore their own experience. It is reiterated that the role of the therapist in practice is to “become a companion [to the client] … …in their frightening search for themselves” (Rogers, 1961. p.34) and not necessarily a leader.

Congruence and UPR are by no means the only conditions for facilitating change but their salience in this chapter emphasises their importance for the therapeutic relationship and how when combined, openness to one’s own experience affords an acceptance and preparedness for the challenging expressions of clients (Rogers, 1961 p.51; Sanders, 2006. p55).

Rogers expands on this principle with a clear degree of humility. Neither himself nor the therapist are to be seen as a paragon of actualisation, but as a person who is also in the process of growing and must also keep growing in order to help the growth of others, by having acceptance and sensitivity toward one’s own feelings (Rogers, 1961. p.51). This demonstrates psychological maturity, not only measuring the growth in oneself but facilitating in others the suitable climate for the potential of moving towards maturity to becoming actual movement (Rogers, 1961 p.35).

Critique

When reading further (specifically through Chapter 5) it helps to be discerning how Rogers cites research in attempting to support the theory and the rationale of the therapeutic relationship. Rogers himself posits that research has validity only on some unverified probability (Rogers, 1961. P.42), this may read as speculation to Phenomenology and the structure of experience as their reality, rather than subjectivity as reality as far as the client is concerned. Yet the application, it is suggested, has more direct validity to the therapeutic relationship as Roger’s demonstrates how using the studies, by comparing them to our own experience to test our own personal relationships, can be fruitful for both theory and practice (Rogers, 1961. p.50).

Careful and tentative reading is particularly required in Chapter 5 as it seems there could be conflation of phenomenology with ontology; as Rogers is speaking of the core of personality and not the nature of being, yet he does state it in terms of man’s basic animal nature (p.91).

In analysing the literature, these chapters alone don’t overtly clarify why the nature of man must be good or socialised, except by contrasting his assertion to Freud’s theories. Nor is it inversely explained why the prevailing worldview at the time (negative) is necessarily correct either, only that it was popular in the culture at the time (Rogers, 1961. P.91).

Expanding on this point further; Rogers assumes that culture at the time deduced man’s core inherent state as undesirable due to the anti-social expressions that manifest during contemporary therapy, particularly Freudian psychoanalysis. One point of criticism here is that there could be more of an argument made as to bolster why this assumption persisted at the time or the presumed flaws of this ontological outlook, as in this example it seems to be framed as mutually exclusive 'opposite' yet doesn’t serve to build a compelling conclusion to the argument of humanism put forward in the book.

For these brief chapters it isn’t made obvious why believing in an undesirable nature of human beings is necessarily exclusive from believing in the potential for growth beyond this undesirable nature, considering the main achievement of the PCA is to accept nuanced experiences of self. In the book Rogers uses the case of Mrs. Oak as evidence that deeper than the hostility, which arises in therapy, is a self-preserving and socialised organism (Rogers 1961. p 92).

I reiterate; If the fundamental tenets of PCT is that any person can grow or work towards an actualising potential if the right circumstances/conditions are provided by the therapist (Rogers, 1961) then it doesn’t explain the implicit assumption that undesirable nature of human beings is necessarily exclusory from believing in the potential for growth and change or how it can still be possible.

Without careful discretion, these chapters may be interpreted as a capitulation that the undesirable nature of man must mean that growth is a futile endeavour. Rogers tenets or therapeutic effectiveness is stronger in their instrumentality for the theory and its application to practice but is weaker as a principled philosophy.

Again, Rogers uses only a single example from therapy to illustrate Maslow’s theory that mans’ anchoring to a negative nature results from the frustration of foundational impulses that are socially desirable (Rogers, 1961. p.96). Basing the hypothesis of ethical nature on the organism by only citing singular case studies seems contradictory, particularly while earlier in the book Rogers mentions that thorough on-going inquiry, of the empirical kind, is encouraged (Rogers. 1961. p.91). However, Rogers (1961. p.103) himself did acknowledge these margins of validity as a tentative theory when stating that we are ‘daring to generalise’ from clinical experiences, yet it would be clearer for the reader to conceptualise the book as a hypothesis rather than valid theory.

Rogers (1961. p.105) acknowledges there may be margins of validity “if observations have validity” yet this relies on the clients understanding of themselves being sensory and constructively realistic. However, it helps to keep in mind that this book was published while the Cognitive Revolution was in its infancy, so it was not validated against the breadth of knowledge that would the account for the errors in people’s sensory and perceptual processing. Rogers (1961. p.91) himself stated about being a good scientist, regarding that observations “should not be accepted without thorough going inquiry



From the reading it may be tempting to view the core of personality could as neutral, seeing as accepting disposition of Mrs. Oak towards herself and others’ experiences at the final stages of the change process is “neither punishing nor rewarding” (Rogers, 1961. p.103), albeit belief in the positive theory does emphasise at least two important tenets of Rogerian Humanism which directly influences both the therapeutic relationship and UPR in practice; firstly, the therapist is allowing the range of experiences, desirable or otherwise, to present within the client while not feeling judged in terms of good or bad, but accepted. Secondly, this belief is useful to the therapist as it can convey a depth of genuineness in their attitude of not defining the client as a ‘problem’ to be fixed. The human organism, while fallible, has a richness whereby man is still human in all his vicissitudes (Rogers, 1961. p.105; Sanders, 2006. p.64).

For the student learning to utilise Rogerian principles, this means not viewing the client in terms of good or bad, but you accept them either way. It is a way of not defining the client by their “problem” the human organism has a richness, man is man. Not beast.

Therapeutic Change Process

With the above criticism in mind, being genuinely non-judgemental is important for the model of the change process Roger’s presents in psychotherapy. In Chatper 7, Rogers formulates this process as continuum of seven stages ranging from fixity to ‘changingess’. The most important aspect that persists throughout the model is that the client is being ‘fully received’ in the therapeutic relationship. Fully Received denotes an experience the client is having about themselves in regard to the therapist, with the implication of the client being accepted and understood psychologically by the therapist on an empathic level with whatever feelings or expressions are there (Rogers, 1961. p.131). If this circumstance is optimal, a beginning of the change process is assumed to be inevitable (Sanders, 2006. p.88) and can keep progressing as the continuum emerges as it is an on-going climate the therapist provides (Rogers, 1961. p.133)

Rogers clarifies that the stages should be considered by therapists a rudimentary framework of what a therapy trajectory might look like, and how the flow of the change process (going from a stage of fragmentation to unity) could progress if all conditions are ideally met. However, not all clients are expected go from stages one to seven in lockstep (ibid. p.155).



Rogers looks at this realistically, based on his experience and the case writings of others; from a basic reading of the stage model there appears to be an assumption that a client is beginning from zero or a “maximum of incongruence” (ibid. p.157), yet Rogers attests that clients can begin their therapeutic change from stages 2 to 4 depending on their recognition of their rigidities towards their feelings and self-concepts (e.g. self-criticism, defences or experiential openness). What this model serves is a way to illustrate that the clients quality of experiencing is most important as the process continues (Rogers 1961 p.139).



Among the achievements of full reception in PCA is the person’s realization that they can have nuanced feelings, even opposing feelings, at the same time. Rogers speaks of this aspect as finding a realism in constructing differentiated experiences and having ownership one’s visceral and psychological feelings with increased internal communication, yet emphasises the realistic balancing that is eventually reached is unique for the individual. This is the potentiality of the human organism.



When Rogers (1961. p.158) states “volition is simply the subjective following of harmonious balance of organismic direction” there is a risk of reading this as contradiction. However, taking into account the whole range of stages (from fixity to flow) as well as the fundamental principles that the client is an active agent in their process of change; it could be stated more clearly for the reader that the choice in the volition stated above is choosing not to inhibit oneself from experiencing the cues that the integrated organism is experiencing. Rogers illustrates this by stage 7, the person is flowing with a balance of satisfaction and dissatisfaction that has a symbolic, significant meaning and a sense of worth for them. Volition (Choice) is the subjective following of the balance of free-flowing internal communication with ourselves. Balance here further includes the ability to be focused on oneself and others simultaneously.

Change

Rogers saw personality and change as differences in the ways that experiences were apprehended. Personality and Change are both processes; while other therapies claimed that personality is the structure which must be restructured (or that personality is the product of learning which can be unlearned or reprogrammed), Rogers saw personality and change as differences in the ways that experiences were comprehended and understood within the organism. Person centred therapy sees personality and change as separate processes (Sanders, 2006).

It is important to understand the distinction between personality and change as PCT does attempt to cure the illness, rather it aims to facilitate the process of growth, which is believed to be innate in the organism. As such, PCT does not support “illness- diagnosis- treatment-cure” medical model. There is tendency in 21st century for people to put responsibility for personal distress to physiological or genetic sphere, however Person Centred Therapy views depression as consequence of internal and environmental conditions that are based on a person’s sense of their conditions of worth (Sanders, 2006).



The role of the therapist in PCT is facilitating a process of growth already inherent in the organism by providing the therapeutic conditions. With an implicit combination of Unconditional Positive Regard, Empathy and Therapist Congruence, the process of change itself hinges on the extent that the client experiences these conditions for construing themselves as being received in the ‘here and now’ of the therapy.

The Seven Stages are only a formulation to provide structure to a concept of a change 'processing' which is inherently intangible and fluid which is understood through abstract inferences from Roger’s naturalist observational approach. As previously stated, Rogers himself formulised the stages this way to lend the hypotheses to falsifiability.



"The process involves change in the manner of experiencing... ...a person becomes a unity of flow." — Carl Rogers.

In the PCT parlance, this quote is taken to mean that the client themselves will become an integrated process of changingness at the culmination of an optimal therapeutic relationship. That a client will literally be open for and accepting of the variety of ways in which they experience their feelings.

This is not to be considered an exclusively psychological process either; it is holistic through the incorporation of the whole organism. As far as the body is involved, a person in a change process may suffer fewer symptoms and present more physical manifestations of ease.

Seven Stages, taken from Sanders (2006).

From this diagram alone one would be forgiven if they interpreted as representing one state of fixity to a polarised opposite fixed state, however it is crudely meant to represent a continuum from fixity to an increasingly changing and flow-like way of experiencing one’s own organism. From Stasis to Process, which the client is to be conceptualised as a 'whole' somewhere within this process.

The necessity of this elaboration is in response to another limitation within the text regarding Change in On Becoming a Person. It has been stated more clearly by Thorne (2007) who described the process of psychotherapy as a journey where the client and therapist undergo a joint process of exploration and reflection. Rogers (1961) describes the process of psychotherapy or the process by which personality change takes place as an ‘ongoing movement’.

Critiquing how Change is described.

Rogers (1961) did not claim this to be the only a process of change, rather what he witnessed to occur after the client is consistently experiencing themselves as 'fully received’. A reminder, this structure was a hypothesis (a prediction) which he put forward for testing.

The process of changingness and fluidity may not be valued by all people, or all cultures. Neither is it necessary to 'go through' the whole spectrum for effective therapy. As previously stated, a person may start at stage 2 and end at stage 4. Rogers (1961) even stated that a full spectrum process is rare.

After a lot of research and academic deliberation Rogers (1958) settled to accumulate his methodology for the personality change process through what he called a naturalist observational descriptive approach. This was done phenomenologically, meaning he drew inferences of the process from within therapy from having the privileged position of being both a therapist and a client himself. By this, Roger’s could gradually infer what observations emerge that invite change to occur whilst also preserving the individual differences that get lost among the research that only looks to quantify change as a post-therapy outcome (Tudor & Worrall, 2006)

Rogers himself never set out to prove the causality of this formula this but did openly lend the formulate to be incorporated by researcher in their own study.

Because therapy itself (regardless of change) can be so varied and bespoke, the limitations inherent in language make it even more difficult to articulate any form of process in a way that preserves its richness, fluency and nuance (Tudor & Worrell, 2006)

Tudor and Worrell (2006) assert Roger’s descriptive language of Change in his literature straddles both a qualitative and quantitative line which reads as both objective and subjective. For example, he describes the client’s expression based on what he can see (objective) but what he is referring to is the change the individual experiences subjectively. For example, “Reaching” or “achieving” and “stage” may be a little misleading as terms also as they can imply this sense of evaluation, i.e. that it’s “better” to be at a certain way or stage.

Although Rogers did make it more attainable to describe elemental characteristics of process (piece-by-piece) unfortunately to the reader this description loses its essence of seamless continuity. Which by many standards among PCT practitioners find unhelpful as it emphasises arbitrary stages, the notion of ‘progress’ over process rather than the idea of the continua it’s supposed to represent. Roger’s did note the inadequacy of language while also emphasising the value of the process fluidity.

For Clarification, Fluidity itself can be defined as a quality of the organism, an expression for this organism’s tendency to actualise. The key characteristics of which is the experience of Immediacy; feeling and cognition interpenetrate one another, self is subjectively present in the experience. That we feel and think simultaneously, this is stated to have an integrative perspective of oneself and one’s feelings as they arise in the present (Rogers, 1961; Sanders, 2006).

It is worth emphasising here that while Rogers did state that he valued fluidity as a desirable state, (yet by placing no evaluation, judgement or conditions of worth on a client at any “stage” in the therapeutic process), it also implies that a client’s fixity should also be valued and welcomed by the therapist if clients are to be supported in their distress and stuckness (Tudor & Worrall, 2006. p.228)



“The person is never wholly at one stage or another of the Process. Some characteristics of a middling stage may occur next to a preceding stage” — Carl Rogers, 1961.

This is a time-lapse of 365 days in one image. Personally, I thought this was a nice visual metaphor to illustrate the idea of continua in the process, the time it takes is irrelevant for the most part yet it serves to emphasise approximate differences and overlap along the way. For example, you can see that there are ‘sunnier’ days in winter among the cold days and how prominent objects in the spring (e.g. the branches) tend to fade into the foreground and allow prominence for other objects in the summer (the leaves). Again, it’s not to say that this is better than Roger’s description but to provide a way how show that change process of personality is a fluidity in itself that ebbs and flows.

“The process of change is a continuum whether we discriminate three stages or fifty” - Carl Rogers, 1961

Personal Addendum:

For any students of psychotherapy reading this, I would like to share an important idea that is NOT explicitly stated in the book (maybe rightly so, but) what I feel Rogers is implying in On Becoming a Person is that therapists using the humanistic method are not in a position to say what a client can or can’t do with their consciousness or their experience. Essentially for every client who seeks the services and relationship with Humanistic therapist, your client has a right to stay who you they are.... even if they overtly state that they have no wish to change. Ironically, it’s not about change. Nor is it about a therapist encouraging (or forcing) the client to change in a way the therapist wants to see. It’s about the therapist providing an environment that gets the client tuned into themselves. Facilitating their awareness and increasing the acceptance of their own experience which builds their congruence and thus their sense of authentic self… the proof of whether this facilitates change or not is in the therapeutic process.

References

Rogers, C.R. (1958). The characteristics of a helping relationship. Journal of Counselling & Development. 37(1), 6-16



Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychology. London: Constable.



Sanders, P. (2006). The person-centred counselling primer. a concise, accessible, comprehensive introduction. PCCS Books.



Thome, B. (2007). Person-centred therapy. Dryden’s handbook of individual therapy, 144.



Tudor, K. & Worrall, M. (2006) Person-centred therapy: A clinical philosophy. Routledge.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade