Adorabun

At the moment, for my counselling course, I’m working on an essay comparing the psychodynamic approach to the person-centred approach in therapy.  Essentially this boils down to Sigmund Freud vs Carl Rogers.  We all know of Freud and his importance in psychology (the common phrase “Freudian slip” can be attributed to him and his method of free-association), but Carl Rogers isn’t as well known or recognised beyond psychological circles.  This is really a shame, since as I read more of his work, I find his theory of “becoming a person” really resonates.

Freud viewed people as little more than bags of neuroses, their ego struggling to keep their primal urges (id) in check.  He was all about pathology (being a doctor) and paid little heed to creativity, spirituality, philosophy or existentialism.  He also focused on a person’s psychological past (particularly childhood) with little future outlook.

Rogers creates a more holistic view of the person.  He embraced creativity, joyfulness, spirituality, and believed that each person has an innate “actualizing” or self-fulfilment tendency.  Psychological difficulties arise when a person is subjected to “conditions of worth” ie. when other people impose their conditions upon that person (eg. conditional love).  These conditions, if at odds with that person’s “self concept” or self image (who “I am…” eg. kind, trustworthy, intelligent, athletic etc.) could cause a person to become “incongruent”.  In other words, others can create situations which push the person to act out of character, go against their personal ideals etc. to meet another’s demands.  Being continuously subjected to and influenced by others’ conditions of worth creates dependency, self-denial and despair.

Rogers believed that people have an inbuilt morality, an innate awareness of what is right and wrong for that person.  To be congruent, one should follow their innate “organismic valuing process”.   An actualized, fully functioning person is one which, according to Rogers

is able to experience all of his feelings, and is afraid of none of his feelings.  He is his own sifter of evidence, but is open to evidence from all sources; he is completely engaged in the process of being and becoming himself, and thus discovers that he is soundly and realistically social; he lives completely in this moment, but learns that this is the soundest living for all time.  He is a fully functioning organism, and because of the awareness of himself which flows freely in and through his experiences, he is a fully functioning person

I prefer this “image of the person” to that created by psychoanalysis, of the anxious, dependent person, struggling to keep their impulses under control, having to build up psychological defences to protect themselves from the world. Despite my scientific training I must be a humanist at heart!