In On Becoming a Person (1967), Carl Rogers describes the process of personal
acceptance as a kind of harmonizing of different emotional elements. He
remarks, “the more he (sic) [the patient] is able to permit these feelings to
flow and to be in him, the more they take their appropriate place in a total
harmony of his feelings.” (p.177) Rogers characterizes the process of emotional
acceptance as placing feelings within
a totality of emotions. I am reminded of
a similar process that I had observed in walking through the Toronto Music
Gardens two years ago. At that time, I noted how all the flowers in the garden ‘work’
together to somehow enhance each other. The beauty of each flower is in seeing
it as part of a totality of balancing forces.
Similarly, Rogers uses a balancing metaphor to describe how emotions can
be accepted.
Although Rogers never calls this delicate
process 'mindfulness', I often wonder about the parallels between Rogers’
philosophies of person and the experience of meditative practices. He offers a
very concise metaphor here of harmonizing emotions, which is quite different
from the way I sometimes conceptualize the therapeutic process. While I
sometimes think that therapy might involve releasing 'volatile' emotions (which
can be dangerous and risky), Rogers re-frames the process as seeing that my
anger, frustration etc. are only parts in a totality of holistic experience.
Seeing that these emotions are only parts of a whole, I am less attached to
those experiences that I initially find unacceptable. Furthermore, a truly
released, authentic person (Stage Seven in Rogers' framework, p. 125-128) would
have such a keen awareness of the flow of being, that she would not think to
identify one part with a fixed self. Again, I am seeing parallels with a Zen Buddhist
way of seeing that stresses process and direct contemplation of experiences.
It does take a sustained effort
and a certain environment to flow the way Rogers describes. From my own
experience, the process of accepting the process of being is tricky, and it is
no wonder that it takes many years of therapy to do this. I think one of the
biggest misconceptions about Rogers' therapy model is that it means that one
does not need to reflect on one's own practices and feelings, since 'everything
is okay as it is'. In other words, some might think that Rogers is
suggesting that we just stew in our thoughts, however they are. The problem I
see with this misapplication of Rogers is that it ignores the model of being as process that
is so fundamental to Rogers' technique. It is too easy to identify and get
caught up in notions of self, when we become enmeshed in relationships. Why?
It's because our relationships with people aren't just about emotions. They are
also about negotiating complex self-image and roles. As much as we can
emphasize the changing aspect of who we are from moment to moment, there is no
denying that our relationships communicate self-concepts and expectations that
others have of us. The person in flow has to be able to realize that they are
not the image that appears in their mind. Even if one agrees with those images,
still, it is advisable not to confuse the image with one's being. So again,
emphasis on the process of being and becoming appears to be an important aspect
of Rogers' philosophy of personhood and therapy.
Finally, I am not 100% certain
that self-acceptance naturally leads to other-acceptance, as I had mentioned in
an earlier entry I had written. Rogers tries to evoke Maslow’s comparison, “One
does not complain about water because it is wet, nor about rocks because they
are hard.” (cited in Rogers, p.174). Rogers suggests that the more deeply I can
accept the deep nuances of my being, the more I can naturally behold others in
the same way. One reason I am not convinced by this logic is that people are
quite different from the water and rocks that Maslow describes! There is a
whole universe of difference between how we accept the natural world of
physical objects and how we come to accept the fact that others cannot be
reduced to fixed, predictable characteristics. Another reason for my hesitation
is that I think that people need to be very clear that other beings are
separate from them to begin with. And I am not sure if Rogers' therapy really
acknowledges that sovereignty of the "other". I have a feeling that
not enough has been done or said to explore the ways we honor the sovereign
other , rather than treating other people as 'subsets' of our own experience.
That is, other beings don't exist to satisfy my needs, even if we mutually
consent to a relationship. There is a certain part of aspect of the other being
that cannot be explained, and it doesn't necessarily follow that accepting my
own inner flow will lead to acknowledging the separate flow of the other. What
is equally confusing is how one can acknowledge and accept one's own feelings,
while simultaneously knowing that someone else's feelings and beliefs differ
from mine. I think the line of thought might have to be something like “I know
that my feelings are this way, but this does not mean that the other person
should necessarily acknowledge or account for my feelings.” Navigating these
differences in beliefs and still being able to sustain community seem to be
vital skills to learn as we harmonize with other cultures and beings.
I
believe that Rogers gives a remarkable account of a psychotherapist’s journey.
I see parallels with Albert Ellis, because both therapists offer pretty convincing
models of unconditional acceptance (of both self and others). They also stress
the notion of letting go of strenuous inner demands to live up to a demanding
self-image. I think the letting go aspect also ties in with Buddhist
phenomenology. Rogers seems to tackle it
from a point of view of letting all emotional states to be what they are
without judgment. And it involves tolerating all emotions as part of a very
wonderful totality of experiences happening in the present. Ellis also stresses
tolerance by letting go of constricting thoughts, particularly ones that demand
that things go a certain way. The only difference
I can see here is in methodology. Rogers is asking that his clients directly
experience their emotional world, without constricting self-structures or
previous memories and judgments. Ellis, on the other hand, is asking his clients to actively and
rationally challenge defeating or absolutistic statements. Of the two
therapists, Rogers seems to stress direct awareness the most. Ellis, on the
other hand, is convinced that reason can influence the quality of direct
experience, to such an extent that he focused on disputing irrational thinking.
References
Rogers, Carl (1967), On
Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. London: Constable.
No comments:
Post a Comment