carl rogers is among the small group essay
Excerpt coming from Essay:
Carl Rogers is among the small group of educated, visionary individuals that stand because giants in neuro-scientific psychology. Because of the theories that Rogers developed not only in mindset but in hypotheses of education, he is deemed, as Constance Holden
produces, “one with the grand old men of American mindset and a respected figure in the postwar advancement humanistic psychology” (Holden, 97, p. 31). This paper reviews his theory of personality, his approach to therapy and the contributions he made to the field of psychology all together.
Rogers’ Theory of Personality
Rogers’ theory of persona was actually a theory that embraces rendering the client having a “roadway toward self-actualization while an unfolding process of self-discovery and self-awareness, ” in respect to Jeffrey S. Nevid (Nevid, 2011, p. 403). Rogers thought that personality is indicated through “conscious experience of leading ourselves toward fulfilling our unique potentials” as individuals (Nevid, 403). The personal is the centre of the man experience, Rogers posited, although that does not seem very original or exceptional as a concept, the psychiatrist went on to clarify that “self is the exec part of the personality” (Nevid, 403). That is, the exec part of the persona – just like the executive within a corporation – organizes points. In this case the executive portion sifts away how the person relates to the earth as “I” or “me” – that each that looks back at you in the looking glass (Nevid, 403).
The do it yourself determines their likes, disfavors, values, demands, and it includes the “impressions you have of yourself, impressions that constitute your self-concept, ” Nevid continues in explaining Rogers theory of personality.
He was adamant in the assertion that the primary function of the self is to develop self-esteem, or at least “a amount of liking pertaining to ourselves”; it should not always mirror how others value all of us, or avoid value all of us, he described, hence it is “crucial for the patients parents to bestow “unconditional confident regard” on their children whether the children’s behavior isn’t pleasing (Nevid, 403).
The condition that many individuals encounter someday is a lack of self-respect or perhaps self-esteem, Nevid continues (404), and Rogers tried to get involved prior to children becoming adults by showing that that too various parents just show “conditional positive regard” towards their offspring. That is certainly, when the kid behaves based on the parents’ dictates, the child is given positive reviews, but only when they are performing in “socially” and parental approved ways. Later in life the consumer that has just received conditional positive regard may find his self-esteem turning into pretty “shaky, ” Nevid goes on (404).
And hence, to be able to maintain a few semblance of self-esteem later in life the individual may well deny feelings and needs or even figure out how to wear a mask and set on “social facades to please others” (Nevid, 404). Rogers, ever the optimist, believed in the “essential well worth and amazing benefits of human nature” and he assumed that people become “hurtful toward each other” only during those occasions when “their own pathways toward self-actualization are blocked or stymied by obstacles” (Nevid, 404).
Rogers’ Approach to Remedy
Constance Holden introduces visitors to Rogers by pointing out what happened in the American Psychological Association meeting in San Francisco in March, 1977, a convention that was organized to prize Rogers in the 75th birthday. Rogers was there with his psychologist little girl Natalie, and in turn of sitting behind a table within the stage, Rogers and his child, typical of his easy-going approach to scholarship and people, got their chair moved down on the floor next to the audience of 800 or so persons. Instead of delivering the research documents they had designed to share, they will announced these people were just likely to talk, largely about a “person-centered” workshop that they recently gave.
Rogers believes in “communities, not really conventions – and not institutions, ” relating to Holden’s piece inside the journal Research (Holden, 31). Institutions use “frozen ideas” Holden goes on, and Rogers avoided institutions and highlighted the fact that “people happen to be basically good” and their normal tendency, just like plants, is to “grow and express their very own potential” (31).
The difference between Sigmund Freud and Rogers, Holden notes, is significant, and this is a crucial point in virtually any research vis-a-vis Rogers’ theory of persona. Freud seen the mind as “a battleground of conflicting hard drives, including infantile and hostile ones, ” Holden talks about (31). All those conflicting hard drives needed to be “sublimated for a maturely functioning ego, ” Freud believed, and he went on to assert the fact that psychotherapist must “dig in the [patient’s] past” through evaluation and the psychotherapist must fully understand the “repressed urges” prior to patient can become well once again (31).
Rogers, on the other hand, was far more thinking about the patient’s feelings and turned issues around by what Freud believed; if anyone is truly the “analyst” inside the therapy program, it’s the sufferer, not the therapist, because “only the client possesses the wisdom thus to their own expansion, ” Holden.
As for Skinner’s approach to therapy – called “behaviorism” – he is cited saying that “Rogers wants to transform things inside people, and i also want to improve the world by which people live” (Holden, 31). Skinner believed his theory was the “all-embracing one” Holden continues; Skinner said that “People don’t action because of claims they feel, ” but rather, he was adament, people work “from conditions that produce those states” (31). To Holden, Skinner’s approach is that the patient’s tendencies must be altered in order for the person to treat, and once the behavior is transformed, it will bring about a “permanent positive” change (31).
On the other hand, comparing Rogers’ approach to remedies are to “concentrate on offering an responsive environment” and that environment the client will probably be “free expressing his feelings” (Holden, 31). The presumption in this genre is that the affected person will change his own tendencies due to the “increased self-acceptance and self-knowledge” which the empathic environment has allowed and fostered intended for the patient (Holden, 31).
Additionally, the patient is going to benefit from 3 conditions the therapist clothing within the context of the remedy session. The first is “the ability to listen” – and he is talking about “empathic listening” which will entails having “inside the field of the client” to see points as they appear to the client (Holden, 31). The 2nd condition, “authenticity, ” means the specialist (or facilitator) must completely behave as “a person” together with the client – and not like a professional with all the answers – and this allows the therapist to acquire deeply involved with the patient’s feelings and also the client’s intelligence (Holden, 31). The third condition is “unconditional positive regard, ” which is what it sounds like: the facilitator is ” nonjudgmental ” and makes sure your customer knows that “he is accepted” which Rogers believed may be the only approach the client will “begin to accept himself” (Holden, 31).
Rogers and Empathy
Meanwhile Geoff Goodman
produces in the Journal of Religion and Health that Rogers’ initial approach to sympathy (on or perhaps about 1959) was pretty many from his later approach. His early approach entailed (Goodman estimates Rogers here) “perceiving the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy, inches and in the method being particular to use the “emotional elements and meanings which apply thereto as if one were the person” (Goodman, 1991, p. 192). In other words, at that time in Rogers’ career, to him accord related to understanding all the customer’s thoughts and emotions in the client’s point of view while “at the same time keeping in close contact with their own perspective” (Goodman, 192).
Rogers likewise emphasized at that time the value of preserving an “as if” strategy: the assisting therapist recognizes the patient’s problem and identifies with it “as if” he, the specialist, were the one hurt or confused or otherwise in need of treatment. This approach though came with a lot of risk, Goodman explains, and it was with some reservation that Rogers would allow himself to “flow out and in of the realms of specialist and client” (192). However , by the year 1980 Rogers no longer feared becoming discovered with the customer’s weird or perhaps confused internal condition. His 1980 description for sympathy became more along the lines of this passage (quoted from Rogers by Goodman): Only these therapists which can be “secure enough in themselves that they can know they do not get lost in what may turn out to be the strange or bizarre world of the other” should adopt this strategy (192).
Moreover, only those practitioners who can be sure of perfectly returning “to their own world when they wish” could be ready to “empathize with their clients anyway” (Goodman, 192). By 80 Rogers’ explanation had 3 other salient aspects, Goodman continues: a) Rogers no longer held the fact that empathy is a “static state in which specialist and customer exist”; somewhat, he assumed empathy was “a regularly changing process – just one way of being – in a particular moment”; b) Rogers adjusted his approach, believing in the revised approach that the specialist should not just move into the client’s community
