Part Two
The more I read of Rogers, the more uncertain I get about his work. I am very fond of his idea of client-centered therapy and being focused on what is happening in the now. However, I can definitely see that he is on the psychologist side of the therapeutic fence, where Rollo May is on the philosophy/phenomenological side. I don’t think that this is a “balance” but I do think that it is a good to have such influential figures (for Humanistic Psychology) having similar ideas, but very different principles. It was mentioned in class that Education / Counseling programs run with Rogers’ methodology for its procedural standpoints. I actually thought that this was the case with Rogers in general. I am much more into the phenomenological aspects of psychology and still got this feeling from Rogers.
I like that Rogers stays on path with May, emphasizing the self as being in a state of being. He writes on page 118, “He can fully live the experiences of his total organism, rather than shutting them out of his awareness.” I think that this fits best in the context of Jung’s shadow. Our shadow is something we don’t like about ourselves, nevertheless it is part of our being. It must be, not merely acknowledged, but embraced and integrated into how we think about ourselves. While Rogers points out that this is the case for therapeutic clients, I would have liked to seem him apply this principle to counselors, or people in general. I think that this is a dangerous trap for Rogers. What I find in his writing, while I enjoy much of it, it seems too “warm and fuzzy.” The attitude of “always put on a (artificial) smile” is an aspect of Rogerian though that Positive Psychologists have run with, but there are certain points where Rogers expresses a “warm love.” This is in contrast to the colder and grittier phenomenological context of Rollo May. While I am more of a proponent of May, the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. Rather, they complement each other quite well. Being too optimistic runs the risk of living and experiencing as a facade; too realistic and you run the risk of slipping to mechanistic determinism or at least a feverish depression.
I also like that Rogers asserts that “I am the one who chooses... I am the one who determines the value of an experience for me” (122). This is a great way of avoiding the causal conundrum. That being, what is the cause of our experiences or why do we experience them the way we do. Those matters of fact are irrelevant. The quintessential point here is that you are experiencing them and you are interpreting those experiences in a specific manner.
Rollo May largely emphasizes the questions “Who are you?” and “Who do you want to become?” Rogers, on the other hand, asks “What is happening in this moment?” and “Where have you and your experiences been?” My question then is if there can be a fusion between the two. Surely there can be by asking “What does what you've experienced say about you now?”, “Who are you now?”, and “Where will you go?” The real concern, unfortunately, is whether or not something would be lost for each standpoint if they were combined? Summaries do not give detail, they are merely supplemental.
Follow me on Twitter @Savaged_Zen (link)
No comments:
Post a Comment