Introduction
The primary association with the name of Carl Rogers is the inspiration he gave to the so-called person-centered, or client-centered, approach in psychotherapy. In brief, the essence of Rogerian method lies in establishing a maximally respectful, hence intimate, relationship between therapist and client. The purpose of that is to create an atmosphere that would favor personal growth, notably, where clients could express their thoughts and, as a result, discover their own identity. I mostly agree with Rogers’ main ideas but find some theories that are partly dissonant to them also suitable, for instance, those by Alfred Adler.
Main body
Rogers is known to have believed that any living creature has a subjacent tendency to fulfil their potential, which a therapist actually had to help their clients in. This is, presumably, the logical continuation of Adler’s theories of individual psychology, accordance to which, a psychologist is to “fully understand a person” (Hoffman, 2020). Such a perspective opposed the hierarchical one that was dominant in psychotherapy in the middle of the 20th century and involved “a distant […] relationship between psychiatrist and patient” (Ackerman, 2021). Rogers’ recognition of the uniqueness of each client and his view of therapist’s role superseded the previous approach in the course of time and became the basics of modern psychotherapy.
As a former client, I can confirm the essentiality of a friendly atmosphere, which means that my therapist should treat me as an equal. If they, for instance, had indicated my incompetence, due to which I had no right to interfere with the process of therapy, there would have been hardly any result. I would have behaved in a reserved manner interview after interview, which would apparently have deprived me of a chance to discover and realize my potential.
Relationship between the therapist and the client is in the list of the conditions that promote personality change in person-centered therapy. According to Rodriguez, two other central ones are “an unconditional positive regard for […] clients” and “a genuine sympathetic understanding” (2018, p. 4). Simply put, the therapist is to accept all nuances of the client’s past, behavior, and personality as an integral part of their self and not ever judge them. My therapist followed those recommendations, which actually became the initial point of my transformation and, eventually, return to normal. Now, I can proclaim that evaluative judgement is unacceptable in psychotherapy, as it demotivates the client and aggravates their self-rejection.
By contrast, I also agree with Adler who does not use a concept of personality change at all. He describes “a sense of inferiority” instead, which is peculiar to the absolute majority of infants at the early stages of their development, therefore, not pathological (Hoffman, 2020). The task of a therapist, according to Adler, is to assist the client in overcoming that feeling, primarily, by educational means. Meanwhile, Rogerian perspective involves general personal growth, not simply solving the particular problem.
I personally find both narratives close to reality and even combinable, despite the doubtless asynchrony in understanding what is or is not normal. Notably, I see from the client’s position that I used to have an inferiority complex, which corresponds to the Adlerian theory. However, I did not need any special assistance with it, as the development of my personality within the Rogerian framework smoothed it gradually.
Both perspectives root at the assumption that every personality is inimitable due to the unique experience that has formed it. Ackerman with a reference to Kensit emphasizes that, considering this statement, “a one-size-fits-all process would not, in fact, fit all” (2021). The client’s own experience should serve as the vital criterion to rely upon in designing the individual therapy program. Since the absolute majority of the problems people face root at the past, it is needless to point at the reasonability of considering experience before everything else.
Although the approach of this kind is apparently as humanistic as one could be, it has a serious weakness, specifically, unpredictability. Having applied some classification to the client in order to identify at least the type of their personality, the therapist can anticipate their behavior as well as assess the possible risks. Meanwhile, if no typology is presupposed, it is impossible to plan for any vagaries, which may threaten the efficiency of therapy or prolong it.
Another limitation of the client-centered approach is the tendency towards extrapolation, which means that all spheres of the client’s life are regarded through the same lens. Such a generalization may bear a treat of unnecessary simplifying, in other words, a particular issue may seem to be easier to solve than it actually is. This along with the above makes Rogerian psychotherapy challenging for less experienced therapists, who are still in search for the appropriate balance between theoretical knowledge and empathy.
Conclusion
To summarize, Carl Roger is the author of the client-centered theory, which has inspired the cognominal approach to psychotherapy and remains topical to this day. Modern therapists are to consider the key principles of the theory, notably, show their empathy to clients and avoid judging them in order to develop a trusted partnership. This aligns partly with the views of Alfred Adler, although the theorists use different conceptual systems, hence, different opinions on the therapist’s role. Notwithstanding a few limitations, such as excessive generality and the lack of predictability, respect towards the client’s individuality proves to be a key to the successful psychotherapy.
References
Ackerman, C. E. (2021). 10 person-centered therapy techniques inspired by Carl Rogers. Positive Psychology. Web.
Hoffman, R. (2020). Alfred Adler’s theories of individual psychology and Adlerian therapy. Simply Psychology. Web.
Rodriguez, J. (2018). Carl Rogers. Post University.