Remove this ad

Lead

May 28 12 6:30 PM

Tags : :

Hi All,

I feel like I should already know this, nevertheless, does anyone know if Carl Rogers ever entered into a therapeutic relationship as a client? Also, did he ever express an opinion on the benefits (or otherwise) of trainee PC therapists going for counselling as part of their training?

I'd be grateful for any info anyone is able to offer.

Thanks, Steve.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

May 28 12 8:09 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

I can't remember the details but I know there was a time when he took some time out (precipitated if I recall correctly by some difficult experience with a client) and got some intensive support from a colleague (or colleagues). I've never heard it referred to as him having been a client in the formal sense. Anybody got Howard Kirschenbaum's biography to hand?

As for your other question, I've no recollection there either (not much use here Steve!) but either Ray or I will post these questions more widely and see if we can shed any further light.

Good stuff.

Paul

Paul | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

May 28 12 9:59 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Hi again Steve

I put your questions out there and, in order of response, this is what I got back so far. I'm sure there'll be more.

[quote]Nat Raskin served as therapist for Carl at one point, for a brief period.
Jerry Bauman

[quote]By deduction. Rogers was trained at a time of great influence by the psychoanalytic (not just Freudian) model. For him to escape being in therapy at the time would have been incredibly unusual and next to impossible, unless he was exposed to a very very liberal program. I emphasized the word escape because it would have been virtually a miracle not to have to be a patient while a student. To deal with conscious, unconscious, transference, countertransference issues would have required the student to be in a situation to engage those in his/her life, otherwise, the student wouldn't have been regarded as competent enough to offer therapy to patients, he/she would be seen as too resistant to be seen as competent.

Further, I cannot image that Rogers would have much to bounce off of in regards to his writing had he not personally been in therapy.

One would be hard pressed to say that Rogers did not ever enter into therapy since it would have been expected of students. I am not saying it would have been impossible, but not very likely not to have been a patient as a student training in psychology or similar field.
Doug Bower

[quote]Yes, he did find himself deeply involved with a client, which was troublesome for him; so he sought the help of a colleague, I believe. And that colleague may have been John Schlien. I assume you'll get more explicit information from others, such as Howie. I'm guessing that he had no need for a typical client-therapist relationship, since he was surrounded by colleagues well able to assist him. I believe that as a result of his having got in uncomfortably deep with his client, he modified his thinking about empathy...adding something about not feeling her feelings as though he were she.

All this is foggy to me, for it's been many years since I have embraced your question(s).
Chuck Stuart

[quote]He did have therapy after an horrible experience with a very difficult client in Chicago. He went on a long vacation with Helen, and was considering leaving the field. I know Nat was his therapist for a while, and I believe there was someone else at the Counseling Center. It is describe in Howie's book, and John Shlien wrote about it in his article "Empathy in Psychotherapy: A Vital Mechanism? Yes. Therapist's Conceit? All Too Often. By Itself Enough? No " in the Bohart and Greenberg book "Empathy Reconsidered."
Ed(win) Kahn

ATTACHED: [attachment=0]Shlien, John - Empathy In Psychotherapy.pdf[/attachment]

[quote]I believe Nat Raskin was Rogers' therapist. Maybe others could confirm this. I don't know about the second question, I'm afraid.
Pete Sanders

[quote]Carl writes about this somewhere himself. He was in therapy with Ollie Bown. (I'm not sure about the spelling.)
Bruce Allen

[quote]'The life and works of Carl Rogers' , Kirschenbaum, 2007, 183 - 187, (Personal Crisis).

Records Rogers being in therapy with Nat Raskin and then with Oliver Bown for over a year.
There is also comment on how his own therapy helped in his own working as a therapist.
Ruth Moore

[quote]...when Jerold [Bozarth] and I attended an extended workshop organized by Bill Coulson in La Jolla in 1981, Rogers gave a talk in which he compared two therapists that he had seen as a client. He spoke of them both being capable person-centred therapists, but got more from the one whom he described, if I remember correctly, as the more 'active'. Somewhere I picked up the idea that Nat Raskin was one of these therapists and Maria Bowen the other.
Ivan Ellingham

[quote]I think Howie has a whole section in his book on this crisis Rogers had. In May of 1949 Rogers was feeling distressed and reported that he had seen the client 5 times a week in the previous six months. Rogers did see Nat for awhile. I agree with Bruce (?); I think he subsequently saw Ollie Bown -- the guy who posed "love" rather than UPR.

I'm very unclear about the following. I think he maybe also went to see Whittaker? Or maybe that was a separate work trip?
Kathy Moon


AND ON THE SUBJECT OF ROGERS' VIEWS ON PERSONAL THERAPY FOR TRAINEES:

[quote]Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.

In the 1951 book there are four entries in the index about personal therapy for trainees. Rogers seems to be in favour of offering it in any training program, but not in favour of requiring it.
Lisbeth Sommerbeck

[quote]About therapists getting therapy. I don't remember where I read it. Maybe Rogers and Russell -- I think Rogers was in favor of therapists getting therapy for themselves, but against requiring it. That may be wishful remembering on my part, since it is my bias.
Kathy Moon

[quote]Kathy
Just a quick note on the subject of your bias – I agree with you on this issue, but don’t see it as a bias (I would say that!!). My question is simply this: if someone is forced to see a therapist as a ‘requirement’ of training, is it still therapy? There would be so many ways to not engage or subvert the process on the part of the trainee that it is, to me, just not possible. I can see no point in making it a ‘requirement’. Therapy under duress is not ethical, not therapy, not possible.
Pete Sanders

Paul | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

May 29 12 7:40 AM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Paul,

What an amazing reply! Thank you so much for taking the time & effort to put this together. I notice that you've put this out on the pcintel listserve too - I lurk there regularly (I do wish there was another word for reading without posting!) but frankly I've felt a bit too intimidated by the level & (occasional) intensity of discussion/debate/contributors to post there myself.

Thanks again Paul, I really appreciate this.

(As an aside, is it just me or does anyone else find it surprising that this info - whether Rogers was ever a client & his views on therapy as part of PC training - isn't more widely known or discussed?)

Best wishes, Steve.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

May 29 12 10:44 AM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Folks on those lists (PCINTL/NDSU/ADPCA) are just so incredibly helpful, generous, knowledgeable (I could go on). I have some more info and the Shlien paper which I'll add to my post above, just to keep it all together. I'm glad you asked the questions - asking good questions is always welcome here! And yes, like you, I'm surprised that the answers in this case are not more widely known.

As for being a 'lurker' (substitute 'listener', 'reader'?) - most are (including MUCH more qualified folks than you or I). My own preference is to shoot my mouth off and repent at leisure but each to their own

Paul

Paul | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Jun 19 12 9:08 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Hi Steve,
I've just come across the following and remembered your question about Roger's view on therapy requirements for trainees :

Client centered therapy, 1951, p437-438
'The experience of personal therapy is, as has been mentioned, a valuable experience for the student. Whether it should precede formal training in therapy, or be concomitant with it,seems a matter of little consequence. In the writer's opinion, the time when it comes should rest upon the needs of the student. It does not seem consistent with the whole viewpoint of client centered therapy to require indvidual therapy of the trainee. Rather, opportunities for personal therapy should be available, to be utilized when the student feels the need. When he makes further steps in his own experience in providing therapy for others, it is quite possible that he may wish further help for himself.' (Rogers)
Regards,
Ruth

Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Jun 27 12 5:36 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

I have found this question and its answers really interesting- thanks for that Steve.

I notice i really struggle with the idea of trainee counsellors or in deed qualified counsellors not wishing to have therapy.
I understand that there are other ways to attend to our person development- but i dont get why a therapist would not want therapy.
It feels really important for me as a client that my counsellor has had counselling themselves- and not just as a course requirement but as a matter of choice. . I know some trainees embark on the training not realising how much of themselves they need to invest but some therapists go through their whole trianing just ticking the boxes where therapy is concerned and revealing very little about themselves in the personal process groups. I think as counsellors we need to be willing to show our vulnerability if thats what we are expecting our clients to do. Otherwise it just seems voyeuristic to me and i feel really uncomfortable with that.
Be interesting to hear others views on this as id like to understand why counsellors would rather not have therapy.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jul 5 12 10:55 AM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Hi integrity1,

Sorry that it's taken me a while to reply. Your post has got me thinking - would I be happy to be a client of someone who hadn't (or didn't want to have) been a client his/herself?

Ruthm1uk (above) was kind enough to post the Rogers quote, part of which states:

[quote]It does not seem consistent with the whole viewpoint of client centered therapy to require indvidual therapy of the trainee.

I take this to mean that as CCT is predicated on the actualising tendency, it would be untherapeutic to compel someone to enter into a therapeutic relationship and would involve the potential client responding to an external locus of evaluation rather than their own sense of what they need.

Having said that, I remember - all of 3 years ago - my own (and quite a few other trainee's)feelings at the thought of 20 hours of personal therapy as part of my training - 'What the hell are we going to talk about for 20 HOURS?!'. I ended up doing a few more than 20. If it hadn't have been a course requirement, I'm not sure that I would have considered therapy for myself (or maybe I'd have considered it and rejected it on financial grounds) and would have missed out on a useful and growthful experience.

A final point, I wouldn't say that I ever expect my clients to show their vulnerability but I hope that I can and do co-create a relationship with him/her where their vulnerability would be empathically accepted. I further hope that my own capacity for vulnerability would be communicated through empathy. I believe it's possible for a student or counsellor to attend many hours of therapy without it affecting their practice if they don't engage with it - in a kind of 'talking the talk' without 'walking the walk' way.

Best wishes, Steve.

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jul 8 12 3:18 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Hi Steve, all
Thanks for your reply.

In terms of you not expecting your clients to show their vulnerability, I think the very nature of us seeking help makes us vulnerable to some extent.

I'm really interested in the point you make about your capacity for vulnerability hopefully being communicated through empathy. There is something about that, that makes sense to me but wondered if you could say more about what you mean?

Thanks

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#10 [url]

Jul 18 12 5:49 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Hi integrity1,

Thanks for your patience in waiting for my reply again (I'm not doing it on purpose, honest!).

What I was trying to get at was that if I'm being accurately and genuinely empathic with my client in his/her vulnerability and I'm communicating that to my client, the accuracy and genuineness of my reponses will also communicate that I have a similar capacity for vulnerability.

Reading that (above) back, I wonder if I'm expecting too much of a client in the middle of their own process to notice the subtleties & nuances of my responses . Nevertheless, it still feels sort of right to me.

I'd be glad to read and respond to any thoughts/criticism/muffled sniggering anyone's got about this.

Best wishes, Steve.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Jul 19 12 5:12 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

just thinking about that from a client perspective- i think my counsellors empathy and willingness to stay with me no matter what ,conveys his/her acceptance and postive regard for me Im not sure it conveys their vulnerability? will ponder on that more. What does convey vulnerability for me is my counsellors willingness to be transparent in terms of sharing what might be happening for them in the moment and in relationship with me. Taking risks- I guess for me its perhaps congruence that conveys vulnerability more than empathy.

i know it can feel a bit odd having a two way conversation on these formats where it feels everyone else is watching in- it requires a sense of vulnerabilty!
So thanks for helping me explore this a bit further on here
have a good summer

Simone

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Jul 19 12 11:50 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

The point you make Simone about everyone else watching in is a fair one. 72 people were online here at the same time on the 18th of July (see stats at bottom of index page) - and yet maybe one or two persons actually engaged in any kind of 'two way conversation' with anyone else. So there is definitely a sense of being a spectator sport when you post something here. I don't know if it necessarily requires a sense of vulnerability to do that - although it may do for some (and possibly does for you, or you probably wouldn't have said that).

For myself, I am reminded of Brian Thorne's words in 'The Gift and Cost of Being Fully Present' where he speaks of self acceptance and the risk of being transparent, as:

[quote]
...the unremitting task of seeking to embrace and then hold onto a profound level of self-acceptance that I am no longer a problem to myself and can therefore be utterly self-forgetful. This is a self-love which is the very contrary of selfishness for it does not desire self-aggrandisement but wishes rather to be the servant whose reputation is of no account...

Ray | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Jul 20 12 7:22 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

thanks personcentred for the quote- im not quite there yet with the 'profound level of self acceptance' when it comes to faceless forums but hopefully somewhat there in face to face contact- although profound might be taking it too far!

And yes, i agree, that it may require a sense of vulnerability for 'some people' ( myself included) to engage in one to one discussions on forums rather than for everyone.


'

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Jul 21 12 12:13 PM

Re:participating in on line forums

been thinking about vulnerability in terms of actively participating in on- line forums and i have alot of compassion for those that dont participate (like myself mostly)
because of where my not participating comes from. Something about being shamed and humiliated by adults at school and within my family. So there is something about these environments for me that run a higher risk of shaming than in my every day life where i speak out quite alot.
Also im interested in power and entitlement- and the lessons we all learn about who is entitled to have a voice etc.
I think the issues of participating in forums (or indeed society) can be quite deep rooted in some cases but of course not in all.
Simone

Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Jul 21 12 8:35 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Without some research we are left to speculate as to why persons 'lurk' on email and web-based forums. Sometimes they pop up and explain themselves - mostly not. I hope that none of the non- (or restricted) participation is to do with any kind of not knowing how to or needing support in the practicalities. As admins we are totally committed to helping people beyond technical barriers to the extent of active involvement to which they aspire.

I also get that many people struggle just to keep up-to-date with new posts (however few there may be these days) and would start to panic if they felt they had to find the time to reply 'properly'.

Beyond that lies a whole world of variagatedness and complexity, I reckon - impacting on how we all relate within an 'online community'. All that 'group dynamics' stuff; all our 'baggage'; current readings on our selfesteemometers... you name it.

Ray

Ray | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Jul 21 12 8:44 PM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

Also forgot to share my opinion - for what it's worth - that BT is a bit of a luvvie by P-C standards and 'profound' is very much part of his stock luvvie lexicon. Things tend to the hyperbolic when he writes about them, I find (and much prefer my PCA in a more down-to-earth language). But neither of us are in disagreement with the essence of what he's saying.

Ray | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Oct 28 13 11:02 AM

Re: Was Rogers ever a client?

On the subject of personal therapy as a training requirement, I think we forgot to add the following from Lisbeth Sommerbeck via PCINTL (follows on from quotes above):

[quote]
Kathy and Pete,

I perfectly agree.

I have had an argument with the Danish Psychological Association, which does require personal therapy for trainees, but to no avail.

The irony is that research in the area shows no positive correlation between therapists having had personal therapy on the one hand and positive outcomes for clients on the other hand. Actually there is a tendency in the direction of a negative correlation. (Macran, S. & Shapiro, D.A. (1998). The role of personal therapy for therapists. A review. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 71, 13-25) This review included 8 separate investigations and is the most comprehensive to date, to my knowledge.

I am afraid though, that the myth of the necessity of personal therapy for therapists is one of those set in stone.

Lisbeth [Sommerbeck]

Ray | Forum Admin 'Team'
All replies welcome - registration required.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help