and the rest. with references.
August 30th 2007 20:24
Rogers’s concept of growth-motivated person is a person with the fundamental desire to be better in every sense.
It is a person using his full creativity and inner forces to better adaptation, better insight and self-esteem, and realization of own potential.
A growth-motivated person chooses to live in the present. It is a person in touch with his emotions, using the power of his creativity to explore the experiences of life. It is someone who trusts his thoughts.
Rogers is a humanist and his point of view is that people are essentially good and constructive, with an inherent tendency of self actualization.
The purpose is to help the person to achieve personal growth, which means helping someone to reach fulfilment and to aim to the realization of one’s potential.
So one can say it is a process concentrate on the present rather than the past, but will eventually consider the investigation of past experiences if necessary.
It is the study of healthy individuals as opposed to individuals who are neurotic and pathologic.
While for Freud it is all quite different.
He believed in a tension reducing process, meaning the relief of discomfort and uneasiness. He seemed to reduce the whole concept of personality into this tension and presented it as the base of all.
According to Freud the ID, the centre of our personality system, where our inherent factors of psychology are located, cannot tolerate increases of energy caused by either external or internal stimuli.
The tension resides then with the conflict between the ID and the superego while the ego tries to find compromises to satisfy both sides.
Freud with his psychoanalysis has the purpose basically to bring to consciousness the repressed thoughts, and feelings of the patient. He will encourage the person to talk freely in order to bring the unconscious thoughts to consciousness
It is a journey into one’s psychological data base.
Rogers and Freud theories are technically similar in their process of free talking, but for Rogers the need to solve past traumas and analyse of the unconscious is less dominant, as for Freud it seems to be a priority.
Rogers would say entering a therapy with a person, as same as a new personal relationship. (Nye, 2000) (Rogers, 1961)
And both believed of the need of great trust between the patient and the therapist, in order to help him or her for freely expressing what sometimes could be embarrassing to say.
Among other differences, one cannot help but notice that both of them have very opposite views on human nature.
Rogers had immense faith in human beings, and he saw people basically as good nature, while Freud had a more pessimistic view towards humanity.
Rogers believed in the self-actualization, which means the natural power of growth, while Freud believed in tension-reducing process, a control of human’s primitive drives for a better self functioning.
It is like, one wants to free one’s soul, while the other wants to control it.
Rogers was basically very optimistic about human nature.
He believed people were naturally of good nature, with an inherent desire of growth and fulfilment.
He also did not seem to believe in an evil side in humans, but suggested a balanced personality.
He did not deny the dark side of people, sexual drives and others so called problematic instinctual behaviours from Freud, but in his point of view, those feelings do not need to be destructive.
“The more he (the person) is able to permit these feelings to flow and to be in him, the more they take appropriate place in a total harmony of his feelings.” (Rogers, 1961)
For Rogers, it is all about finding the balance within one’s self.
“His feelings, when he (the person) lives closely and acceptingly with their complexity, operate in a constructive harmony rather than sweeping him into uncontrollably evil path.”
This is comparing to Freud a more peaceful approach to the problem.
Freud believed our basic nature was mainly dominated by sexual and aggressive drives.
He would say that the id is overwhelmed with the sum of those two elements creating strong tensions in need of relief reduction.
The id, part of our unconscious is in a simple way of speaking the primitive us, our basic instincts which enabled us to survive and reproduce at the early stages of human civilization.
Also called the biological instincts, those are seen by both men very differently.
Rogers saw them as natural elements, part of human growth, while Freud would express the need to control them. He would call this part of human beings “the savage beast”, and believed that we could save ourselves from this basic state of being via strict structure of life. (Nye, 2000)
A tension residing within human’s personality was not unfamiliar to Rogers. He, with his congruence and incongruence theory, would also express the knowledge of a so-called tension between the self and the ideal self.
In other words than Freud, he would point out that if conditional love has been applied, a person would grow with a dysfunctional need of others acceptance to fill the gap of an unstable organismic self.
The difference with him and Freud is that he did not believe it was every human’s case. He did not think as it was the base of human personality. Only in cases of conditional love in the first years of a child would tension or incongruence take place.
So, yes dysfunction might occur if one’s self has not been able to grow in harmony with itself. And unless cases of neurotic and pathologic individuals were the problems are more serious and probably related to genetic deficiency, Rogers believed in a less generalized pathologic personality concept.
He also believed that through his therapy, with all positive elements required a person would find harmony within itself. He was no less to say not as dramatic as Freud.
Freud believed in sublimation, which means redirecting an unacceptable desire into an acceptable social activity, for example expressing aggressive drives on a football field.
In civilization and its discontents, Freud would say that humans have created activities as work, art, sport, and many more in order not only to develop themselves but mainly to have a control against their primal destructive drives, and unconscious sexual obsessions. He doesn’t deny the importance of one’s personal development but would add a deeper meaning to it.
While for Rogers, those activities are a natural part of the individual growth, sort of tools for achieving one’s own potential. He believed in one primitive motive: the self tendency, which is a natural orientation towards whether family, work or other social activities. He thought that by nature humans have a desire for a better self and those general social activities is a way to develop personal growth, but comparing to Freud he doesn’t dig further into the problem.
Freud believed in identification figures like parents, caretakers, teachers and other important authority figures to provide role models for a child while in early developing years. It is undeniable important for any child to grow up with role figures, but for Freud it was a way to minimize the tension, or control it, while Rogers saw it as a elementary help without interfering with the true self of the child.
To simplify if possible, human nature is basically in need of self control to become good or at least functional within the society.
A society, according to Freud, that human created to protect themselves from each other. (Nye, 2000)
On a greater scale he would also express a love-hate relationship between society and its subjects. It helps humans to civilize themselves and live among each others, but it can alienate them and drive them to destruction if too restrictive.
Back to the individual, Freud with the super ego said it is on the conscious level, and that we are mainly aware of it.
But when we are experiencing guilt, feeling of inferiority, self doubts, insecurity without being able to understand the reasons on a conscious level, the unconscious is then working on the superego.
It means that many of our basics values are incorporate during the first years of our life by our parents, authority figures and still remains very influent in affecting our thoughts and actions.
Rogers would say that if discomfort exists it is then the probability of a contradiction between what’s been taught and one’s inner true self valuing system.
One can see here again that Freud does not deny the positive and natural influence of authority figures as long as it has not been too restrictive.
What he says is one needs help to grow, like Rogers would express it but for Freud it has a more complex meaning and purpose.
With Freud’s theory in order to deal with undesirable, unpleasant, discomforting impulses, feelings and thoughts that create anxiety, our ego will repress on an unconscious level painful memory or completely suppress it on a conscious level.
When the ego is weak, meaning it has not develop properly his sense of reality, contrary of the ID who is subjective, and just wants what’s pleasurable, the ego helps to reduce the tensions of the ID in order to balance with the superego. If the ego is weak and can’t operate properly, he will create self defense systems.
For Freud it is then, when one develops an ego defense mechanism to deal with anxieties. Those strategies called defenses help us to keep out of awareness unacceptable and disturbing thoughts and feelings.
Rogers does include anxiety and self defense mechanism in his theory but again with a less dramatic and fatalist approach.
The ego acts as the control centre of our personality, releasing (reducing tension) or blocking our instinctual energy.
Rogers and Freud meet at this point but with different words.
If the ego is repressed, affected by unfair, overly harsh treatments, conditional positive regard, limitation in love and affective demonstrations, it will limit its development.
For Freud, it will alienate the child potential to develop effective ways for his ego to release his basic, primitive energy.
For Rogers, the child is out of touch with his organismic-self.
For Freud when there are internal conflicts, when the ego is weak and cannot function properly to balance the whole personality; it is then when the person should seek help.
Even if Freud had pessimistic views of humans, he believed in the flexibility of the human personality. He believed that changes could occur eventually via a therapy work.
The problem with Freud is that he did not seem to consider a different way of functioning in human personality. He believed every human to be trapped in the same pattern and did not see the natural potentiality of people.
He seemed to see every human being as neurotics, creating a society with rules, laws and restrictions, incorporating sublimation to turn away from a somehow disturb general state of mind.
Rogers’s theory was based on the beliefs of and the motivations on personal growth. Some would say quite naïve, but without a doubt more positive.
A growth-motivated person chooses to live in the present, has the desire to become better, more functional, and sets goals.
It is a move towards positive thinking, in the present to structure tomorrow, the future. It is a psychological theory interested to solve the problem of the here and now, a lighter behaviorist study comparing to Freud who would focused more on a deeper research of the dysfunctional human behavior.
Rogers work seem to be turned more towards bringing to the light the healthy sides of people, while Freud on the contrary seemed to focus on damaged sides, where people dig inside themselves for the search of bad memories.
Freud was more specialized in neurotic and pathologic individuals which might have affect the way he generalized his theories.
It is important to notify that psychoanalysis was a great help during the world war I, while treating or trying at least to treat traumatized soldiers or other individuals at the time when so little was known on human’s psychological dysfunctions.
Most of Freud’s patients were severe dysfunctional individuals; most of his work was also based on his own self-analysis.
In civilization and its discontent, he would describe happiness as an unrealistic goal. Again he believed that humans were neurotics alienated in childhood traumas and sexual disturbing impulses.
The Oedipus complex or the girls the Electra complex, primary causes of the origin of neuroses, which he held to be universal, was based on his own analysis of his relation love and hate feelings towards his mother and father.
Rogers had a more holistic vision, a vision of the whole. For example, instead of concentrating on pathology, negative feelings, accumulation of hurts, frustrations and patterns related to the past. He would work on emotionally, interpersonally, intellectually, spiritually orientations, which seems to be a more constructive approach, or again more naïve.
The client-centered therapy is based on the idea that a person can fully function without having necessarily to solve the past.
It is based on the awaking of one ‘self and deal on a personal level in terms of feelings, hopes, struggles and goals.
Rogers believed in everyone’s potential.
A growth is an experience of the whole person in many areas. We can feel the spiritual essence which is the dynamic of Rogers’s therapy.
As already said, Freud believed in the development of a strong ego in order to function properly. He also believed that feelings of indecision; guilt and anxiety are inevitable periodically in a person’s life even with a strong ego.
But real problems occur when the ego is weak, and will then create defense mechanisms in order to deal with painful experiences and unpleasant emotions.
Rogers’s ideas on defense mechanisms are quite similar.
They both called the two main defenses, denial for Rogers and Freud.
Also called repression for Freud.
Perceptual distortion. Similar to Freud rationalization.
Rogers did not believe in humans being “basically irrational” under the influence of impulses and if not controlled “will lead them to destruction of others and self.” (On becoming a person, 1961)
He believed that a person “functioning freely” could express constructively and trustworthily his basic good nature.
It is when trapped in a defensiveness pattern that the person is out of his rationality.
Again from his experience and years of work with patients, Rogers would say that “the innermost core of man’s nature, the deepest layers of his personality, and the base of his “animal nature” is positive in nature. Humans are basically socialized, forward-moving, rational and realistic.”
He there disagrees with Freud’s view point of “that man had best be kept under control.” And on, “Freud’s arguments that the ID, man’s basic nature and unconscious nature, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, result in incest, murder, and other crimes.” (Rogers, 1961)
For Rogers the true good nature of humans is very often “buried under layers of psychological defenses”, awaiting for “proper conditions to be released and expressed”.
Again with the debate of children’s emotional needs, Rogers believed children have an innate need of love and affection, something Freud would not argue against but in contrast with Freud, Rogers thought that the incorporation of parents and other authority figures values and standards toward a child tend to alienate one’s organismic valuing process.
For him, parental authority and society imposing their values and morals on children who is in a process of personal growth, this will tend to have him ignoring his own inner experiences, peculiar to him or her.
There is usurpation when one’s ignoring once own experience.
(Nye, 2000, p107)
It does not mean that there should not be any structure and education but, if there is withhold of love and acceptance, the child may be forced to please his or her parents in order to gain this love and affection that is so much needed.
The child will turn off his own inner voice and standards external settings.
He will learn to view himself as others view him.
For Rogers imposed standards are in contradiction with the organismic valuing process.
He believed it was important to let one’s self discovering its own personal values.
A person is at risk of unhealthy state of mind, a cause of tension and anxiety, when there is a gap between outsider expectation of one’s self and personal inner values.
Rogers believed in the importance of the unconditional positive regard from parents toward children, a technique also used in his therapy.
If unconditional positive regard is applied it means for the other the possibility to experience, trust and be aware of the full range of his inner experiencing.
The child, for example, does not have to deny his own inner self to gain love, affection and acceptance.
The true self, inner self is worth loving the ways it is.
On the other hand, even if Freud would agree with Rogers in the fact that a too harsh parental and social environment is damaging for the child’s growth, he also believed in the need of authority to help humans to control their primitive drives.
Rogers saw the society, the rigidness of the system having damaging impact on people’s self valuing process.
He believed that too much oppression and control from society and parents is against natural growth process of humans.
He also thought that if we do not try to mould our children into social rigidness, they will eventually growth as they should. He believed in the need to accept people the way they are.
Therefore they will have a better understanding of themselves and have the ability to make their own choices in life.
Have a better perception of one’s own reality.
(Nye, 2000)
“…Also if not caught in the “restricting, corrupting social influences” human nature has a potential to achieve “personal and interpersonal functioning”. (Rogers, 1961)
If one bring the subject to freedom and free will, the concept that humans are not ruled by cause and effect and have the capacity to make their own independent decisions and choices.
Rogers believed in freedom as a quality of courage that enables a person to venture into the unknown when the person chooses to. (On becoming a person, 1961)
Freud and Rogers meet and not meet at this point.
Rogers would suggest that even if a behaviour is determined by factors outside a person’s control on a general level, objectively believing in determinism, free will still exists as long as the person, functioning well, was aware accurately at his internal factors, stimuli, as much as the external ones.
And then, this person would be able to match internal and external factors simultaneously.
In other words, people do have freedom, or free will, as long as they understand what they are feeling, their inner truth, and can act in effective ways.
A person who is not functioning properly will feel alienated; disturbed within itself while struggling with their inner conflicts and would not be able to make appropriate actions.
On the other hand, Freud had a science point of view, totally deterministic.
He suggested that all behaviour is determined by factors outside the person’s control.
He did not believe in free will as he believed that we are not entirely aware of what we think and often act for reasons the conscious thoughts know little about.
CONCLUSION
On one side Rogers sees a person, an individual as growth motivated, which means a human with the inherent desire to realize its own growth potentialities. He believed in the self concept.
On the other side Freud believed humans to be in a process of tension reducing, an intrinsic desire to avoid pain and to gain pleasure.
It is certainly two different approaches of human psychology but in spite of their differences it has been possible to also notice some similarities.
Both men have worked in the same field with the sincere desire to help humanity to solve their inner problems.
Both schools of thought are dealing with a common goal of humans moving towards a state of calm for Freud and happiness for Rogers.
It is very much possible to say that Freud and Rogers have not really study human’s psychology the same way, as one was a scientist at heart, and the other one more a modern therapist.
Freud concentrate on the unconscious, believing introspection was everything. He did put all his efforts in trying to decode the unconscious via the interpretation of his patient’s dreams and free talk.
The understanding of the past traumas was a major point in his work.
It is also important to say that probably most of his theories have been greatly influenced by the strongly deterministic society of the 19th century.
Knowing that Freud based most of his work on his own personal analysis, maybe one has to study his life to understand his point of view.
Freud was looking for solutions to his own neurosis, while Rogers obviously unsatisfied by religion was maybe in the search of a holistic vision of human beings.
Maybe Rogers was in denial of something, or very naïve or very idealistic… because even if Freud seemed to be very pessimistic about human nature, one cannot deny his theories as realistic, accurate and were important discoveries in human psychology field… but one also has to take in consideration the dramatic events at this time in Europe.
Maybe both men’s studies go where they had theirs needs met. In contrary to certain other work fields, the life experience of a psychological theorist has a certain impact on his study.
Their own family and environment has influenced the way they approached human psychology study.
Maybe Rogers emphasizing the self has something to do with his strict religious and lonely upbringing.
And it is also possible to understand certain pessimism in Freud’s view of humanity while the world was at this time going through two world wars.
The persecution of the Jews in Europe and their extermination was without a doubt showing an undeniable extreme evil side of human nature.
And to say it was probably quite difficult to be objective with human nature at this time of history is possible.
Rogers, who, did not feel any need to dig into the past, had a more forwarded approach with his theories. He believed in the present, here and now, and that a person could solve his problems and feel better by looking in front of him, being in touch with his emotions.
He did not deny a possible tension in people’s personality, if unstable and unloved up bringing occurred.
He did not deny anxiety, defence mechanism and the importance of the unconscious, but he also did not focus on those points as much as Freud, as for him the principle goal was the natural growth of every persons.
For him the tensions between biological instincts and society values and morals were not general and also not as dramatic as Freud would express it.
So, yes they both are quite different with a common desire to serve humanity at its best.
But it is important not to forget the influence of the society and the time of their lives within their respective countries.
Maybe a Freud at the time of Rogers would have had a different approach of human psychology.
REFERENCES:
- Infantile sexuality, Freud 1969
- Persons or science? A philosophical question, Rogers 1968
- Civilization and discontents, Freud 1931
- Decline and fall of the Freudian empire, Eysenck 1991
- On becoming a person, Rogers 1961
- Psychology, Gray 5th edition
- Theories of personalities, Hall 1978
- Three psychologies, Nye 1981
- Beneath the mask, F. Monte 2003
- Facts and fantasy in Freudian theory, Kline, 1972
| 74 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
