What_Are_the_Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Rogers’_Understanding_of_the_Person__How_Does_This_Understanding_Fit_with_Your_Own_Experiences_and_Beliefs_

Title: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Rogers’ understanding of the person' How does this understanding fit with your own experiences and beliefs' Person - centered approach has been developed by Dr Carl Rogers (1902-1987). Nowadays, he is still considered to be as the main figure of humanistic counselling (Palmer, Dainow & Milner, 1996). Rogers has been philosophically influenced by existential philosophy, which has been greatly exemplified in his approach as they share similar values and concepts (Ziegler 2002; Cervone & Pervin, 2008). Rogers believed that all human beings are trustworthy, that they are capable of understanding themselves and being able to solve their personal issues, with no need of direction from the counsellor (Corey, 2009). According to him, people can self-direct on their own. If the therapist establishes a therapeutic relationship that would effectively provide empathy, unconditional positive regards and last but far not least congruence (core conditions); there is a great chance that the client will gradually rediscover their personality (Corey, 2009). In the current essay I will attempt to identify the strengths and the weaknesses of Rogers understanding of the person and also try to fit his approach with my own beliefs and experiences. The main concept of Roger’s theory was ‘Actualisation Tendency’. Roger’s approach sees people as positive forward- moving. Actualisation tendency can be suppressed but cannot be destroyed without the obliteration of the organism (Engler,1995). He proposed that all people have the tendency towards growth, a chance for an integrated life that he defined as ‘actualisation’. This vast need for actualisation can be divided into two levels: a) on a physical level which are required to stay alive and b) on a psychological level were the self – actualization involves the need of testing and satisfying ones experiences, searching for new ones, engaging new skills e.t.c. (Engler,1995). To satisfy the actualisation tendency it is vital to know what it is value of that growth. When the individual is in the process of engaging the self- actualisation simultaneously he experiences what he called as ‘organismic valuing process’. In other terms, experiencers that are perceived to be helpful and enhancing are valued as ‘good’, yet, experiences that are thought not to be beneficial enough and enhancing are valued ‘bad’ (Carver and Scheier, 2000). Taking into account the information above, all human beings are capable of acknowledging what is positive and what is negative for them through their organismic self (Rogers, 1959; Merry, 2002). Due to adverse circumstances such as conditional positive regards (usually provided from parents) people tend pursue the acceptable values by making them their own that makes them procure ‘conditions of worth’ (Rogers, 1959; Merry, 2002). Thus, the self- concept is developed by these values instead of the organism evaluation. With regards to this theory, Rogers believed that when a person is self –actualizing, then he / she can consider being as a ‘Fully Functioning Person’. This means that when people receive only ‘unconditional positive regards’, instead of ‘conditions of worth’, they have a greater prospect of developing the best of themselves and avoid the prior descriptions (Rogers, 1959). Consequently, when people’s desire for positive regard from others and positive self-regard meets the organismic evaluation; it results in congruence between self and experience. This would aid the person to reach their ideal self, which is embodied in the "fully functioning person" (Rogers, 1961). Additionally, as with psychodynamic theory, Roger supported that childhood experiences can have an enormous impact on people’s personality development (whether the person will turn into being self –actualised). He believed that individuals through their childhood should be provided with positive regard. For instance, children should get, especially from their parents who can be considered as central figures into their life, acceptance support without conditions and affection (Rogers, 1959). It is important to mention that he specified that if the parents provide relative few and reasonable conditions to the children, it would not affect the child’s life. But if the conditions are a lot, then self –actualization is bound to be obstructed. Acknowledging the importance of childhood, Rogers believed that people who have not experienced ‘optimal’ childhood; have a chance for developing themselves and change during personal therapy. In therapy they could rediscover their personality by identifying the conditions of worth and repairing the organismic self (Rogers, 1959). One of the main differences between person- centered approach and the other approaches (psychoanalysis and behaviourism) is that Rogers refers to people in therapy as ‘clients’ and not as ‘patients’, that seek a diagnose and treatment from the ‘doctor’(Cervone & Pervin, 2008; Merry, 2002). From my point of view, this is a major strength of Rogers’ theory, because he treats the person as equal. Not as an expert who would ‘treat’ another condition. Through my experience of being a client with a counsellor, who had a combination of two orientations (psychodynamic and person – centered ) there were moments when I felt that my counsellor would approach me more as a patient instead of a client. In times that I would discuss about my childhood there were moments that I had mixture feelings. I felt that I had to protect myself especially the time that I was depressed and I felt that he was treating me as if I was a crazy person. On the other hand, when he illustrated more empathy and unconditional positive regard, I found it more beneficial. I felt that I was accepted, understood, loved and more importantly I was not alone in that difficult time of my life. I had someone there for me as a companion to this hard and demanding journey. Many authors have pointed out as strength, the distinction that Rogers does of between client and a patient. As stated by them, the way that the counsellor introduces themselves to the individual is highly important. Calling the individual as a client they establish an environment of safety where the client doesn’t need to defence himself/herself. This point can be considered as a significant strength, because if it is practised properly, it's a catalytic environment for change is provided. Besides this, no other forms of therapy provide as effectively as, person centered approach, an environment for empathy, understanding and unconditional positive regards. The environment above places the client at the heart of the process of change, rather than identifying them as a victim of circumstances or external factors. (Cervone & Pervin, 2008; Merry, 2002, Means & Thorne, 1988; Means & Thorne, 2007). Roger focuses mainly on the quality of the relationship between the client and the counsellor. Being there for the client and seeing the world through his/her eyes (internal frame of reference) for me is the most difficult and the most valuable thing that a counsellor can provide. The counsellor does not let external frame of reference of directing, judging or sympathising to affect the client. He/she is not there to direct, judge or sympathize, but to help and accept people as who they are. From my point of view, this approach, also, challenges people to take over their responsibilities for their own life instead of blaming other people. They reinforce individuals to trust their inner self that I believe is vital, since it is hard to achieve due to past experiences. By the time the individual decides to go for counselling, he has a great opportunity to explore his real self. This goes along with self- acceptance and self – awareness, which I consider to be a milestone in people’s life in order to feel complete. ‘Optimism’ is an issue which has brought up quite a lot of discussion about Rogers theory. For some therapists, his theory of optimism, believing to people, their potentials, the uniqueness of the individual and their ability to solve their own problems is an additional important aspect of person – centered approach (Carver and Scheier 2000; Palmer, Dainow & Milner, 1996). Optimism is another important value of person – centered approach, which means that it is all about loving the person whoever he/she is or choose to be. This is also supported, by the meaning that Rogers gives to ‘Phenomenology’. Displaying and appreciating peoples own reality and maintaining a close contact with one’s inner feelings (Carver and Scheier 2000; Palmer, Dainow & Milner, 1996). As Mearns and Thorne (1988) point out, we cannot understand person-centred counselling only by its techniques (Mearns & Thorne, 1988). Providing to the client a more optimistic view, showing to them that they can achieve to go forward into their life by coming in touch with their inner feelings, can make the person to gain the best of them, instead of being pessimistic ( usually about the past) and blaming oneself for what he/ she is to other people. After experiencing counselling myself I agree with the principles mentioned above. When my counsellor provided to me with the person centered orientation and he was more optimistic, his approach made me feel that I had the power and the control of myself and I did not felt vulnerable. From his optimistic approach I believe that I have developed more my personality in a more positive way and instead of being pessimistic about almost everything, I found myself reacting more positive at things that might happen into my life. Before getting in touch with my true feelings in periods of crisis I could not perceive reality in an optimistic way, but after doing personal therapy I can say that my view has change and the way I front situations has changed. At these moments now I feel that I can take something good of it that can help me develop more myself constructively. Conversely, there is another perspective about this subject, which supports that Rogers theory is too optimistic in the point of being misguidedly optimistic, as in the real world it is too difficult to be so optimistic and change. Sometimes the everyday and past problems may not let us go forward, even if people have self – acceptance and self- awareness (Carver and Scheier 2000; Means & Thorne, 1988). Thus, coming to this point, a question rises, does this approach eventually can be applicable to all people' According to Corey (2009) some people may need a more direction. Sometimes going to a therapist might be their last option and especially some clients deal with crisis which appears to have psychosomatic symptoms or affects skills in dealing with everyday problems. This approach does not provide direction for some them. So, this approach may not be applicable, as Rogers said, to all people. Consequently it could be considered to be as a weakness as some people can be off if the counsellor may not provide direction (Corey, 2009). Moreover, another limitation of this approach is that it takes no notice of other determinants of individual’s behaviours such as genetic. According to Rogers, person – centered therapy is effective to everybody; but if it helps everyone how does it come that it cannot help people with serious mental health disorders' Client – centered therapy has its origins in an era where the centre of attention was on peoples ‘freedom’ from traditional values (van Blarikom, 2008). Nowadays, in the modern world, there are different psychiatric disorders as ‘borderline personality disorder’. Traditional therapy cannot be fully applied because traditional bonds have lost their initial meaning (van Blarikom, 2008). Borderline personality disorder is a ‘serious mental disorder’ (Lieb, Zanarini, Schmahl, Linehal, & Bohus, 2004, p. 453). Comparing, with other mental health disorders like: schizophrenia and mood disorders, borderline personality disorder has been described as Axis II, while the other disorders as Axis I. Similar to schizophrenia and mood disorders, borderline personality disorder demonstrates different stages of psychosocial functioning and suicidal behaviour (Lieb, Zanarini, Schmahl, Linehal, & Bohus, 2004). Person- centered therapy has been found to be effective with some disorders as with others (schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder) it has no effect or only a minnor effect. Greenberg, Elliont, and Lietaer (2004) investigation illustrates that person- centered therapy had a larger effect on people with depression and anxiety disorders rather than to people with chronic problems such as schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder. Those were found to have smaller effects by this approach (cited in, van Blarikom, 2008). An additional study by Turner (2000) proposed that people with borderline personality disorder need training skills that are more practical and more useful for people with these problems. Even though personal growth is really important, in cases of people suffering from strong feelings of loneliness, abandonment and have self – destructive actions, it is better for them to lean as fast as possible alternatives to cope with their issues. This is because it can help them to cope with their everyday life (cited in, van Blarikom, 2008). Thus, the presented research about person – centered therapy shows that this approach is not applied to every person which I think that we should process the reasons of this outcome. From my perspective this theory could have both negative and positive aspects depending on the psychological background of the person. For instance, in case the client suffers from everyday stress put by his/her social environment, from personal experience, I could say that the client could not handle extra challenge from the therapist. On the other hand, if the client suffers from long term psychological mental illness; challenging could be perceived as beneficial for this type of client that would like more direction or knowledge about their illness. Non – directing counselling can be seen as strength for some cases (depression); alternatively for other cases such as serious mental illness this approach can be perceived as a process without any positive outcome. So, Rogers theory could be greatest applied to healthy psychological people rather than to people who suffer from mental health issues. Since I don’t have any experience with people who suffer from mental health issues, I would wish in the future to have some experience in that area in order to have a closer knowledge. Another point that it is worth to be mentioned about Rogers understanding of the person is the emphasis that he gives to the concept of motivation. He states that ‘‘all the effective elements exist in the present’’ (Rogers, 1951 p. 492). Roger believes that people’s behaviours do not come from past experiences. Present needs trigger the organism to reduce or satisfy them. Experiences are important since they modify the meaning of our present experiences, however in current behaviour there is not a great connection with the past (Rogers, 1951). For some people Rogers’ concept of motivation might be helpful. In my case though, because I had a lot issues originated from the past and more specifically from my childhood the combination of psychodynamic and person - centered approach helped me more. My counsellor would not only focus on the present he would also focus in a deep level to my past (that Freud suggested). Furthermore, due to the challenge provided by my counsellor I discovered more about myself, rather than I would with a person –centered approach. At the begging I felt defensive, however I realized that being challenged did helped me a lot. In moments he offered the combination of the core conditions, the session was much more effective. If I was only counselled with Rogers approach, in my case, I don’t believe that it would be so beneficial for me. Indeed I needed some guidance provided through challenging which made me process things that I could not think by self. I went to a deeper level with my past that person centered therapy does not provide. Hence, I cannot state that this aspect of Rogers’ theory is just a strength or a weakness. It is more of a combination. It depends of the clients past, and present experiences and what he/she seeks from the relationship of the counsellor. From my point of view I believe that a combination of the two orientations would be the best. Person - centered therapy for me is the foundation of counselling and can be applied everywhere. Having knowledge from another orientation could help the counsellor handle more cases that may have a need that person - centered therapy cannot offer or fulfil. In conclusion, on the basis of the research and personal experiences I state that I mostly agree with Rogers’ theory; as I believe that this theory is more beneficial to people’s modern issues than other approaches. Even though this theory may seem easy to understand and apply, from my experience I could say that it is very difficult to be a pure person centered therapist. This approach may have as much as strengths as weaknesses but I believe that the most important aspect of this approach that makes me appreciate it, is that Rogers does not focus on his techniques for understanding the person. He centres his attention in the development of the relationship between counsellor and client; which through there the counsellor would understand and accept the way the person perceives their reality and be there for them. References Blarikom, J. Van (2008). A Person – Centered Approach to Borderline Personality Disorder. Person – Centered and Experiential Psychotherapy, Volume7 , Number 1. Corey, G. (2009). Theory and Practice of Counselling and Psychotherapy (8th ed.). USA: Thomson Brooks / Cole Carvone, D., & Pervin, L. (2008).  Personality Theory and Research (10th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Carver, C.S., and Scheier, M.F. (2000). Perspectives on personality (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Engler, B. (1995). Personality theories: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Lieb, K., Zanarini, M., Schmahl, C., Lineham, M., & Bohus, M. (2004). Bordline personality disorder. The Lancet, 364, 435-461 Mearns, D., & Thorne, B. (1988). Person- Centred Counselling in Action. Sage, London. Mearns, D., & Thorne, B. (2007). Person - Centred Counselling in Action (3rd ed.). Sage, London. Merry, T. (2002). Learning and Being in Person – Centered Counselling (2nd ed.). UK: Ross-on-Wye, PCCS Books. Palmer, S., Dainow, S.,  Milner, P. (1996). Counselling: The BAC Counselling Reader. London: Sage Publications. Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In Koch, S. (Ed.). Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. III. Formulations of the person and the social context. New York: McGraw Hill. Rogers, C. R. (1961) On Becoming a Person. A therapist's view of psychotherapy, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ziegler, D. J. (2002). Freud, Rogers and Ellis: A comparative theoretical analysis. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, 20(2), 75-91.