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