Carl Rogers Theory Application - Term Paper Example

Carl Roger's Theory Carl Roger's assertion that the ive experience is the axis of reality puts him firmly in the tradition of phenomenology. Phenomenologists have varied in their conceptualisations but generally assert that what can be known is that which is perceived. No external reality can be proven. Rogers stands out in his field through his determination to apply this belief to therapy. His person centred counselling focuses on the individual in the client and treats them as the most important source of information about themselves. Furthermore Rogers believed that if the clients turned inwards and examined themselves they would find the means to end hurting. This treats persons as inimitable, values their dreams and goals and elevates their particular feelings about the world. Rogers sees the role of the therapist primarily as an empathic listener who must enters into the client's journey of self-actualisation. Jones and Butman in Modern Psychotherapies succinctly describe the goal of the self-actualisation process. It is the ongoing process of bringing self-view, the ideal self and the real self into line with one another. Pastoral Ministry DeMarinis in her book, Pastoral Care, Existential Health and Existential Epidemiology attempts to conceptualise pastoral care. In her research she noted several themes that most people accept as belonging to pastoral care. The main ones of these are care of the soul and inner life, primarily Christian, spanning the complete life cycle, under the direction of God, providing a shelter from a hard world, connects God to life, is part of the whole work of the church not only in specific sessions and is not to be confused with psychology. This essay will keep in mind these main themes as it explores the helpfulness of Roger's approach. Generally Appeal of the Theory Jones and Butman begin their exploration of Roger's theory by claiming that the emotional content of person centred therapy is intuitively appealing. They have a valid point here. Person centred counselling differs from the mainstream notion of psychotherapists as distant experts and is alluring in its humanity based ideas. It promotes a positive view of humankind and its central tenet is that humans are, at heart, good and filled with the possibility to change and achieve anything. Furthermore it concentrates on goals and dreams and endorses the need for positive regard for others. In addition Roger's theories are based on his clinical work and endless research. Rather than remaining a fixed theory he developed his ideas as they were tried out, constantly responding to criticism and results. This dedication to base his hypothesis on what actually worked enhances the appeal of the theory and lessens the distance between pure theory and practical administration. Finally, the simplicity of Roger's theory and the fact that it is accessible to everyone gives it credibility. Its founding principles are not complicated and so the majority of people can follow his train of logic and see how he came up with his conclusions. Person Centred Therapy's Contributions to Pastoral Ministry Roger's contribution to psychotherapy has traditionally been attractive to a religious audience because his formulation of a helping relationship embodies the Christian ideal of a loving servant to others. Rogers and Butman notice how it, 'appears to give us valuable clues and guidance on how to respond to those in misery or distress, or how to concretely 'love the brothers and sisters'.1 It is a guide for the pastoral worker because it treats people as inimitable, complete beings in the same way that Christianity would. The pastoral worker takes this view because she believes humans are made in God's image and must be treated with the appropriate respect. The qualities that a therapist must have to undertake this kind of help are almost identical with the qualities the Bible describes a Christian should have; grace, unconditional love, servant-like. Moreover it focuses on 'unconditional regard' which is equivalent to the love that is a central tenet of pastoral ministry. It is part of humans' role on earth to convey God's love. Furthermore people are made in God's image so loving one another unconditionally is an expression of one's love of God and people can redirect the overflow of God's love. Secondly, person centred therapy avoids the problems of taking a deterministic, behavioural view of humanity. Christians do not take the ubiquitous view that human action is merely a product of a series of causal events. From a Christian perspective humans are free and can make the choice to accept Christ whatever their past so they cannot use a behavioural model to base pastoral care upon. Person centred counselling provides a method to apply to pastoral care that does not entail behaviourism. Moreover, it focuses on the ever-changing nature of the self and places growth and individuality at the centre of therapy. This is similar to the Christian idea of self. God's plan for everyone is different and equally important. In the context of a pastoral ministry change and growth are central to the ideal self. The two schools agree that an ideal self is not a fixed thing that everyone aims for but a range of traits and goals. Each person has a different formulation of the ideal self. Roger's methods are helpful in expounding the Christian vision of self. They can help explain that not the same goals are appropriate for everyone but an individual path must be found. Finally, a pastoral ministry is founded on a deep relationship between helper and distressed. It is dependent on trust, understanding, openness and patience. A pastoral worker could become enlightened on how to achieve this special relationship using Roger's theory. His theory centres on the personhood of both the client and the therapist. Rather than learning special techniques to help a client, the therapist is dedicated to pursuing basic human skills and honing her ability to listen, understand and empathise. General Criticism of Rogers The most common criticism of Roger's model is that self-actualisation and the popularity of this kind of method has led to a disintegration of responsibility towards society and a growth in the worship of the self. A culture of narcissism and selfishness has developed, based on a phenomenological epistemology. The morality of this system is simplistic and unrealistic. It claims that the way to self-realisation is by introspection and a study of your instincts and feelings. This reduces sophisticated moral decisions to a simple process of obeying your instincts. Furthermore, it provides no fixed definition of self except as a continuing changing unit defined only in terms of its perceptions. This model is unhelpful in dealing with serious psychological problems. It trivialises them by claiming that perceptions or feelings are at the root of moral life and giving validity to all perceptions. It fails to address seriously the extent to which humans can be cruel, depraved and violent. Furthermore it provides no method of analysing psychological illness because all information must be derived from the client. This is problematic because the client may not understand their own perceptions in order to describe them accurately, they may not have the language to describe them sufficiently or they may undertake, consciously or not, a distortion of them. One of the most powerful arguments that have been directed at Rogers is that the very act of taking a deliberate empathic, attentive and quiet stance may confuse the client. It is an unusual way to behave. Most human relationships are two-way, providing analysis, argument and response. There is the danger that this stance may result in dependence by confusing the client. The client never experiences this behaviour in any other part of life so becomes unhealthily fixated on the therapist. It may be the only place that the client has someone who listens. Finally Buber brings up the point that by focusing on the distinctiveness of people Rogers may be missing the point of being human. Buber purports that true humanness is achieved through functioning relationships because humans are essentially social beings. He says of emphasised individuality, 'I have a lot of examples of man having become very, very individual, very distinct of others, very developed in their such-and-such-ness without being at all what I would like to call a man.'2 Any person who achieves total identification with their most unique parts runs the risk of becoming completely disjointed from society. Moreover, Buber challenges the reciprocity of Roger's relation with his clients. This argument is developed by looking at the true nature of the relationship and if it is ever possible to always be this genuine, empathic, listening figure. The therapist, who is only human, will sometimes be bored or dislike the client. In those circumstances the relationship is being faked and this is the opposite of what Rogers sets out to do because it then changes the balance of the power. It is dangerous for the relationship to be fake. All the power is left in the hands of the therapist and then becomes open to abuse. Limitations as a Guide for Pastoral Ministry The biggest problem faced by Christians taking on Roger's person based counselling as a guide for pastoral care is that it ignores the problem of evil. It accounts for human capacity to change by formulating a picture of humans as essentially good. On the other hand pastoral ministry is founded on the status of humans as fallen creatures. Jones and Butman pick up on this point and show that this is the fundamental difference between the two approaches. The relationship between man and God is centred on original sin. God's grace is viewed as being exceptional because he chooses to forget about the evil in people. The application of Roger's ideas in a Christian context is problematic because it lacks a reference to original sin. It is difficult for a pastoral worker to take a theory based on the fact that humans are good when they come from a tradition that focuses on the inherent sinfulness of humanity. Conflict is a central theme in Christianity whether it is with oneself, with others, with God or with the devil. Christian guidance addresses inevitable conflicts and aims to give Christians methods of dealing with it. Challenge and discipline is an important feature of the counsellor/client relationship. In a pastoral context, the therapist, can appeal to certain external authorities, such as the Bible, and present a challenge. Traditionally religious guides have been strict as well as caring because there exists an external truth. The conflict between the two is important in the Christian's development. Furthermore the pastoral relationship is based on interpretation of an external source. For Roger's the source cannot be argued about because it is completely subjective. On the other hand Roger's trivialises conflict by allowing no room for the therapist to present a challenge to the client. The therapist cannot challenge subjectivity because, according to Rogers, there is nothing except that. However conflict does exist in the real world. The relationship provides no guidance and no techniques for dealing with conflict in the real world. In addition it has an incomplete emphasis on responsibility in the individual. It redirects blame to external sources. The theory discusses blocks to self-actualisation and associates these with those who do not provide unconditional positive regard. According to Rogers, the inability to line up ideal-self, self-perceived and real self never stems from the individuals themselves. A pastoral ministry centres on the teachings of the Bible, which emphasises the importance of recognising the flawed nature of the self. It specifically focuses on the act of repentance, admitting fault and asking for forgiveness. A pastoral minister will have problems drawing out a sense of responsibility from the individual by following Roger's theory. Instead the session would concentrate on removing external blocks. Of particular importance are the foundational theological assumptions of pastoral ministry. They put God at the centre of everything and human purpose and human nature derive from this. Roger's on the other hand circles his entire theory around the self. Everything derives from this and the self is the best source of knowledge about the individual. It is difficult for a pastoral worker to reconcile this phenomenological theory with pastoral ministry. There are three major parts to Roger's belief. The first is that Roger's believes that we are ultimately masters of our own destiny. Secondly, his view claims that true knowledge comes only from introspection. The only way to truly understand the world is through what we perceive and there is no way to have objective knowledge of the world. Finally purpose of self-actualisation is to uncover the true self. Christians do not agree with these three major claims. Firstly, although humans are able to choose between evil and good there is a limit to our powers as humans to be masters of our own destinies. The example of Jonah in the Old Testament is typical of a human trying to go against the destiny God has chosen. Secondly, Christians trust in at least two external methods of acquiring knowledge: divine revelation and the word of the Bible. Roger's theory has no commitment to a universal truth which is in direct contrast to the claims Christians make that there is an eternal, universal truth in God. Lastly Christians believe the purpose of spiritual life is to build a relationship with God and form the self through this relation. It seems intuitively mistaken to base a pastoral ministry on techniques that are derived from opposite theological, ontological and epistemological beliefs. The ethical consequences of person based counselling also differ wildly from the value system of pastoral ministry. Roger's provides no source of responsibility to others and only responsibility to the self is explored. Roger's argues that a completely developed being would have this sense of accountability as well as love and respect for others. However this achievement may not occur until the client has completed self-actualisation which is a process that might not ever finish. According to Christians the development of the self, including a thorough exploration of how to behave to others, must occur during this journey. It is relationships with others that help shape the final outcome. One of the primary elements of Christianity is its story. Christians develop an identity in relation to Christ. They focus on events in his life and it is its own particular historical, social and cultural world. Roger's theory embraces the now, the present moment with no real relationship with the past or society in general. A pastoral worker utilising Roger's theory would find a gap when trying to help a client form an identity in relation to a collective story. Roger's Rebuttals Firstly, Roger's responds to the charge that this person centred trend is producing a worship of the self and a culture of narcissism by appealing to his direct experience. He has discovered that rather than producing narcissism it leads to, 'social action of a realistic nature'3 Furthermore he promotes the idea that a human that is fully self-actualised has an awareness of others, love, charity and understands the complexity of morals. Although subjectivity is the route to self-awareness, such feelings do not make up the moral content. Roger's presents several strong defences of his theory. Firstly he claims nothing more than what he has witnessed. His theories are grounded in years of work and his claim that human nature is fundamentally good comes directly from experience. He writes that he has found that mankind seems to have qualities inherent to them and describes the characteristics he has found, 'positive, forward-moving, constructive, realistic, trustworthy.'4 He continues by also refuting the argument that he trivialises violence and depravity in humans, 'My whole professional experience has been with the dark and often sordid side of life, and I know, better than most, the incredibly destructive behaviour of which man is capable.'5 However he goes on to add that he has discovered that even in their worst states man is not evil. The most significant thing about Roger's work is that, until he died, it was constantly evolving. He would develop his theories based on new evidence and he was able to admit when he did not have an answer. This attitude of his should be taken by pastoral workers because it is through exploration and admittance of ignorance that trust is developed. Roger's answer to Buber and others who questioned the mutuality of the relationship admits that at some point he did probably partake in an unequal relationship. However his clinical practices changed over his life as he became more willing to involve himself as an equal part of the clinical relationship. He aimed to create a genuine relationship without imposing any sort of values on his client. Brian Thorne thinks that this it, 'the most powerful reply to those who accuse Rogers of creating one-sided relationships Through his increasing emphasis on the congruence of the therapist Rogers acknowledges that self-revelation, without imposition, can help to bring about the reciprocity of relationship which engenders mutual respect and avoids the dangers confused dependence.'6 Jones and Butman's Analysis Jones and Butman provide a solid critique of Roger. They emphasise the parts of the critique which aid a Christian pastoral ministry, such as unconditional love and the deep relationship that should exist between client and pastor. Furthermore they draw attention to the major criticisms of Roger. However they are guilty of making generalisations about certain issues and fail to explore some responses of Roger fully. Jones and Butman begin their Christian critique of Roger's by claiming that, 'The strongly experiential, individualistic and relativistic "core assertions" of person-centred therapy unquestionably lead to inflated notions of the self.7 As we have seen above this criticism has been come from several places. Their claim is incredibly strongly worded, using 'unquestionably'. Furthermore they do not explore the different possibilities of what they mean nor do they look at Roger's own reply to this criticism. His reply is that, rather than lead to worship of the self, his ideas put into practice allow a more fully developed, realistic and aware individual to come into being. Roger's rebuttal is reasonable because it is based on empirical evidence and should be taken into account in this essay. Furthermore their examination of Roger's epistemology is minimal. All they say is, 'He is optimistic about one's experience as the basis of determining truth, but rather pessimistic about the value of culture, dogma, traditions and systems of morality.'8 This is an incredibly generalised statement. It provides neither analysis of nor evidence for their claim nor touches on the ambiguities of Roger's meaning. Furthermore it is not entirely correct because Roger's envisions the picture of a fully developed being as a person with a complete moral system. Although this point does not defeat Jones and Butman, they miss out an important part to examine. Finally, Jones and Butman generalise about the lack of relation to the past in Roger's theory. One important part of person centred theory is removing external blocks and this involves dealing directly with the past. Christianity needs a theory of counselling that incorporates their collective story and past and future. Although Roger's client's dealings with the past are insufficient for a pastoral minister's needs Jones and Butman should explore what kind of relationship Roger's has with past. They omit this. Conclusion Roger's theory of person centred counselling is helpful as a guide for pastoral ministry in so far as it outlines methods in which to help people based on love. It demonstrates the importance of an empathic relationship and its simplicity makes it accessible to many. Furthermore it has strong roots in practice and experience. However although it avoids the problems of taking a deterministic view of human behaviour there are still many fundamental problems with it as a method of pastoral care. It is not rooted in the same epistemology as Christianity and disagrees with fundamental points such as original sin, God being the centre of everything, the Christian story and moral system of Christians. Overall it provides some illuminating ideas but cannot be taken as a whole system by a pastoral minister. References Clark, Walter Houston, The Psychology of Religion: an Introduction to Religious Experience and Behaviour, Toronto, the MacMillan Company, 1958. DeMarinis, Valerie, Pastoral Care, Existential Health, and Existential Epidemiology, Stockholm, Verbum Frlag AB, 2003. Jones, S and Butman, R, Modern Psychotherapies, Downers Grove, IVP, 1991. Oden, Thomas, 'The Agent of Pardon', in Clinical Pyschology of Religion: Emerging cultural and multicultural questions from European and North American voices, ed. By DeMarinis, Valerie and Wikstrm, Owe, Stockholm, Forsokningsrdsnmnden, 1996. Rogers, Carl, On Becoming a Person, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Thorne, Brian, Carl Rogers, London, Sage Publications, 1992. Read More