Carl Rogers Self-Actualization Personality Theory - Research Paper Example

 Carl Rogers’ actualisation personality theory A. Introduction Carl Ransom Rogers was one of the leaders of humanistic psychology. According to his theory, the fundamental component of the structure of personality is the “self-concept” that is formed in the process of person’s interaction with the surrounding social environment, and that is the integral component of the self-regulation of the person’s behaviour. Rogers made a big impact upon the development of person-centred psychotherapy – and in his works he tells about the importance of client. In fact, he is the first to have begun calling patients “clients”. Basing of the existing personality theories and his own practical experience, Carl Rogers created his own theory of personality. During the course of his life, a human being acquires the experience that is based on processed perceptions. This experience is unique and individual, and only this particular person can comprehend it fully. The essence of any human being is positive, realistic and trustworthy. The striving to move forward is natural for a person. One of Rogers’ hypotheses is that all human behaviour is inspired and regulated by a certain motive that he called tendency to actualisation. According to Rogers, the human being has a tendency to develop all of his abilities in order to completely uncover his personality. Therefore, from the psychiatrist’s viewpoint, the main motive of a human life is actualisation – i.e. developing the best traits of one’s personality that are immanent to it. This fundamental tendency to actualisation is the only motivational force. People are naturally meant to develop and enhance their capabilities in the positive direction: this does not mean, of course, that it will actually happen this way, but the potential is definitely positive. Rogers emphasizes that it is our subjective experience that is crucial and that determines our valuation and consequent behaviour, not some postulated objective environment apart from the organism. For example, a stranger might speak to two infants in exactly the same voice, but one infant might experience the sound as stimulating and so smile, whereas the other experiences the same sound as aversive and so cries. (Demature 2005, p. 141) With development, the individual becomes increasingly autonomous and differentiated in line with the actualizing tendency. An important consequence of this development is the differentiation of the self. A portion of our experience gets elaborated into a concept of what is “I” or “me” or “myself”. This self-concept consists of those qualities we perceive ourselves to have, the relationships we perceive between ourselves and other people and objects, and the values we attach to these perceived characteristics. It is through our interactions with the environment, especially interactions with other people, that the conceptual pattern of a self is formed. (Demature 2005, p. 141) B. Actualisation personality theory 1. Strengths and weaknesses of Carl Rogers’ theory Let us now consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of Carl Rogers’ actualisation personality theory. First of all, it is very important that according to Rogers, human behaviour cannot be explained merely by means of primary instincts (sexual instinct, self-protection, hunger) – like it happened in Freudian psychoanalysis. Solely these instincts cannot be the reasons for behaviour or factors for anxiety, depression or neuroses. If we compare Freudian and Rogers’ view upon, say, hunger, we will discover that Freudian psychoanalysis regarded it as a separate inclination or motive; whereas in Rogers’ philosophy hunger is one of the specific implementations of the wider motive – “maintaining” a human being. Sexual instinct in this theory serves for “intensifying” a human being. The call to achieve something, for example, can be traced to the tendency of actualisation – as this desire is a method of implementing one’s inner power and resources and creates the basis for successful psychotherapy. According to Carl Rogers, provided that there are no significant external limitations or antagonistic influences, the tendency to actualisation will naturally result in a variety of behaviours. For him, the tendency to actualisation is the only central source of energy in a human body. It originates in organism’s physiological processes (i.e. it is a fact of physiology rather than psychology); not only does it “maintain” the body (by causing the striving to satisfy basic needs, such as breathing, eating, drinking) but also develops it by ensuring differentiation and evolutions of functions of the body, its growth and renovation. Concerning the motivational power produced by the tendency to actualisation upon psychological processes, its influence can hardly be overestimated. The tendency to actualisation is the active process, and it is due to this process the human being is always aiming to achieve certain goals: from using creativity to starting businesses or playing games. The tendency to actualisation ensures a person’s self-efficiency and independency, and helps him overcome stress, depression, neuroses, etc. However, it would be wrong to make a conclusion that the tendency to actualisation brings the tension down by merely maintaining life processes in a human organism and ensuring its comfort. The other side of this tendency is that it increases the tension. Therefore, Rogers does not state that the paramount goal of any human behaviour is to decrease the tension: it is rather determined by the human’s drive to develop and enhance him. A person is driven by the process of growth, during which his potential is fulfilled. Beside humans, according to Rogers, the same tendency is common for all living beings. The tendency to actualisation turns out to be the essence of life! In the works of Carl Rogers one would hardly to find the particular examples of how the tendency to actualisation reveals itself in human behaviour. However, it can be characterized in terms of desire to achieve something that will make the person’s life more diverse, satisfying and fulfilling. This striving to actualisation is often accompanied by inner (and outer) struggles and sufferings, however the desire, the motive is really irresistible, and a human being goes on trying ready to struggle with pain, neuroses, stress, failures, or fear. All in all, the position of Rogers is that the entire complex of human behaviour is aimed at increasing a person’s competency in a certain sphere – i.e. actualisation. The most useful aspect of tendency towards actualisation, from the viewpoint of personality, is the person’s aiming at self-actualisation. In the context of Rogers’ theory, the tendency towards self-actualisation is the process of a person developing all of his abilities in the course of all his life, with the goal to become as much developed personality as possible. Trying to achieve this, a human being fills his life with meaning, and search for this meaning. A self-actualised person is able to enjoy every moment of life fully participating in it. Carl Rogers does not consider it necessary to have any special motives for a human being to be active and aim at personal development – everyone is motivated simply by the fact that he exists. People are seen as active and self-actualising throughout all their lives just because of their own nature. Basing on this idea, it is possible to understand that self-actualisation as such is not the final stage of perfection. According to Rogers, no human is “completely and totally” self-actualised: everyone always has some more talents to be developed, skills to be practiced, etc. However, the degree of people’s achieved self-actualisation is certainly different: some are at much higher stages than others, and they moved closer to independent creative functioning in their lives. The obvious advantage of Rogers’ theory is that whereas in many other doctrines (including some religious ones) people were shown as naturally evil and sinful, and the same negative view upon the nature of a human being was enforced by S. Freud whose personality was thought to be driven by the “Id” and the sub consciousness, therefore being irrational, selfish and destructive, Rogers presumed that even though people might sometimes experience aggression and anger, these impulses are antagonistic to their true inner nature. (Watson et. Al. 1984, p. 257) When people are free in their choices and able to show their true inner nature, they are positive and kind creatures, sincerely wanting to live in harmony with the outer world. The critiques of Rogers’ theory would call this approach a naïve one, however as it was based on a vast experience of the author as a psychotherapist. Carl Rogers in his theory postulated that people naturally tend to develop their innate capabilities, and he had deep respect to the human nature. One of the disadgantage of Rogers’ theory is that for the scientist, the whole human experience of life is evaluated from the standpoint of how well it serves the tendency to self-actualisation. People, says Rogers, are searching for the experiences that bring their personality to actualisation or enhance it. They tend to evaluate such experiences positively, and feel satisfied when encountering them. By the same token, people tend to avoid and call “negative” those experiences that, as they consider, prevent them from actualisation. This evaluation process allows people evaluate their experiences in life from the viewpoint of whether they assist in people’s actualisation or interfere with it – and naturally people will pay more attention to “self-actualising” experience and avoid those that are otherwise. In the course of actualisation process, the person does not only rely on his own evaluation of his experiences but also upon the evaluations of other people. It is very important for a human being to feel compassion, acceptance, and respect on the part of others. Hence a potential conflict arises, as it may happen that the positive evaluation of a certain experience of behaviour on the part of other person might be evaluated otherwise by the person himself. (Demature 2005, p. 141) According to Rogers, people would normally prefer the behaviours that had been evaluated positively by the others rather than those that their own organism experiences as positive. That is how the values of the society being affecting personal development – unless humans live in accordance with them, they simply cannot evaluate themselves and their behaviour positively. However, this solution of the conflict results in emerging state of incongruence between a person’s own “self” and his experience: “Experiences that are congruent with the conditions of worth are conceptualized accurately in awareness. But those experiences that run contrary to these conditions of worth are felt as threatening and must be distorted or denied to awareness. This leads to the common neurosis of humanity: We live not as whole persons open to all experiences but rather in estrangement from basic aspects of our experience”. (Demature 2005, p. 142) In case this incongruence is significant, the person can experience stress and anxiety; and as a result even psychological breakdown. It means that even though the person’s innate tendency to actualisation is trustworthy and is only supposed to do him good, there should be no obstacles preventing this tendency from development. 2. Current applications of the theory According to Kirshenbaum, the greatest interest in Rogers’ work has been outside the USA. In many European countries, “the person-centred approach has become one of the leading counselling and therapeutic approaches of the twenty-first century, with major organizations and centres for person-centred research and practice throughout Western and Central Europe. Equally significant, there has also been a great deal of interest in the person-centred approach in emerging democracies in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Latin America”. (Kirschenbaum 2004, np) One of the issues of paramount importance and interest for the global science is leadership at all levels – from personal to team. R. Сassel, who examined in his works the basic principles for effective leadership, clearly shows the connection between these principles and Carl Rogers’ approach to human nature and personal development. Because “leadership deals with people, the new "person-centred" approach has important implications for the role of the leader”. In his article Cassel summarizes what principles are crucial for an effective leader, and a lot of them bear references to Rogers’ actualisation theory. Person-centred approach being one of the main prerequisites of true and successful leadership, it is logical that the modern leadership theories rely upon this theory. (Cassel 1999, np) Moreover, the ideas of Rogers had significant impact upon political sphere as it “demonstrated how supportive, growth-producing conditions can unleash healing, responsible self-direction, and creativity in individuals and groups in all walks of life. As countries around the world strive to resolve intergroup tensions and practice self-government and self-determination, many have recognized in Rogers's work not only useful methods for helping professionals, but also a positive, person-centred, empowering, democratic philosophy consistent with their national aspirations.”(Kirschenbaum 2004, np) Rogers’ belief that all people have potential to development, and each and every person if born with the ability to live their life in a way that keeps them satisfied while being socially acceptable, is reflected in the ideas of social responsibility and leadership on an interpersonal level. This basic concept of the central importance of the leader in relation to the group has not changed, but scientific research in recent years has contributed much in relation to fostering motivation, and building trust in leadership practices. Because leadership deals with people, the new "person-centred" approach has important implications for the role of the leader as well. () It is because of this humanistic approach of a human being, possessing natural potential and able to self-actualise; it became possible to shift the focus in psychotherapy from “psychoanalyst-patient” relationships to “psychoanalyst-client” ones. The importance of this step can hardly be neglected: whereas a “patient” is a person seeking help who does not have to know the reasons for his problem, a “client” is an active participant of the psychotherapy sessions: An important element of using cognitive interventions in a person-centred framework lies in allowing clients to learn to identify and dispute irrational thoughts, rather than telling clients their thoughts are irrational or maladaptive and disputing the thoughts for them. (Tursi & Cochran 1996, p. 387) A client knows himself and his own personality much better than a psychoanalyst, and therefore it is the analyst who has to “follow” the client, mirroring his experiences and feelings, so that the client can understand himself better. As Amy Demorest has it: …it was typical in that era to use the language of “doctor” and “patient” when referring to the psychotherapy relationship, and with it to employ the attendant presumption of a hierarchical relationship between authority and subordinate. Whether in a psychodynamic therapy where the therapist was expected to be viewed as a parent-substitute, a behavioural therapy where the therapist gave homework assignments akin to a teacher, or in a medical approach where the therapist prescribed drugs, no prevailing therapy was free of the assumption that it was the therapist who knew best. Rogers was seeking to dismantle the authority of the “doctor” and to empower the “patient,” and he introduced the terms counsellor and client to mark this departure from the prevailing convention”. (Demorest 2005, p. 137) Therefore, one of the important outcomes and implementations of Rogers’ actualisation personality theory is client-centred therapy. The approach to psychological consultancy that is based on Rogers’ theory presupposes that all people are initially good and aim at self-actualisation and self-perfection, naturally moving towards independency and maturity. This concept of growth that is concentrated upon the process of actualizing innate capabilities and personal potential of a human being is perhaps one of the main findings of Carl Rogers’ theory that is being widely used nowadays in personal development programs and trainings. It puts emphasis upon the importance of those tendencies that facilitate personal growth. The influence of Rogers’ personality theory is not restricted to theory of psychology: in fact, he played the key role in the development of groups of therapy as a way to provide psychological help to people from all layers of the society. His ideas produced powerful influence upon psychological consultancy, social work sphere, nursing practices, family consultancy, studies of group dynamics, education sphere. The importance of Rogers’ influence upon the modern therapeutic and educational strategies used nowadays by professional psychologist and psychoanalyst can hardly be overestimated. 3. Critique A human being is viewed by Carl Rogers as an active creature that is goal-oriented and able to achieve these goals; not a poor wretch torn by uncontrolled forces causing phobias, depressions and stresses. Such an approach correlates with J.-J. Rousseau’s belief in human’s innately good nature, and his theory that in case a person is allowed to fully develop his natural capabilities, his personal development will be effective and socially adequate. Carl Rogers’ theory of actualisation has a lot in common with A. Maslow’s self-actualisation concept; however they also have some major differences. First of all, according to Rogers, the human personality and behaviour are the products of this human’s unique perception of the environment. At the same time, Maslow had the opinion that the behaviour of a person is regulated by the famous hierarchy of needs. Secondly, Rogers’ actualisation theory was based upon this experience of work with people having certain psychological problems and seeking professional help. The findings of his therapeutic experience were later transferred into the general personality theory. In contrast to this, Maslow had never done therapy, and insisted that psychology should study totally healthy people without any psychological problems. Even though the difference of views between the two views is obvious, both Rogers and Maslow viewed people as creatures that are always aiming at development and actualize all their innate capabilities provided that the environment allows them to do that. 4. Suggestions for future research Carl Rogers’ actualisation personality theory has one more very important idea: that every human is responsible for his own life and able to determine its flow. People are free to choose how their life will be – and they are only limited by their innate abilities. This belief that self-determination and self-actualisation are extremely important parts of human nature brings us to the conclusion that people are at the end bear total responsibility for their own personality, as well as their psychological state. This idea looms very natural with regard to the concept of emotional intelligence that is extremely widespread nowadays. Emotional intelligence is now studied by famous researchers, its implementations being used in different spheres of personal and social life. (http://www.eiconsortium.org/) So it is possible that some of the useful and interesting research in future might dwell more upon how the ideas of Carl Rogers correlate with the concept of emotional intelligence, and how the latter should be developed. Works Cited Cassel, Russell N. «Examining the Basic Principles for Effective Leadership», College Student Journal, Vol. 33, 1999. Retrieved on March 29, 2009 from www.questia.com Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Official website: http://www.eiconsortium.org Demorest, Amy. Psychology's Grand Theorists: How Personal Experiences Shaped Professional Ideas, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005. Tursi, Michael M. & Cochran, Jeff L. “Cognitive-Behavioural Tasks Accomplished in a Person-Centered Relational Framework”, Journal of Counseling and Development, 2006, Vol. 84, Issue 4, P. 387 Kirschenbaum, Howard. “Carl Rogers's Life and Work: An Assessment on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth”, Journal of Counseling and Development, 2004 Vol. 82, Issue 1, P. 116. Retrieved on March 30, 2009 from www.questia.com Watson, P. J, Hood, Ralph W., Morris, Ronald J. “Religious Orientation, Humanistic Values and Narcissism”, Review of Religious Research, 1984, Vol. 25, Issue 3, P. 257-263. Read More