Analysis of the Humanistic Approach - Essay Example

? Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HUMANIST APPROACH AND PERSON-CENTERED THERAPY Critical Analysis of the Humanist Approach and Person-CenteredTherapy Introduction The humanistic approach focuses on an individual’s personal worth, the significance of human value systems and the creativity and active character of human beings. The approach is optimistic and emphasizes on righteous human capacities to prevail over difficulties, pain and misery. Personal growth and fulfillment in life were considered by both Maslow and Rogers to be essential human motives, which meant that all individuals seek and attempt in different ways to develop psychologically and to constantly enhance themselves and the satisfaction they get in life. This approach originates from the concept of self actualization that is concerned with psychological growth, satisfaction and accomplishment in life. However, the concept has been approached in different ways by Rogers and Maslow, in terms of the manner in which human beings can achieve self actualization. This paper makes a critical analysis of the Humanist Approach and the Person-Centered Therapy by examining the related concepts, theory and scientific basis on which they are based. Main Body The fundamental aspects of Rogers’ and Maslow’s theories pertain to the subjective and conscious experiences of people. It is argued by humanistic psychologists that an individual’s subjective perceptions and understandings of the world are more important than objective realities. In view of such beliefs, Rogers and Maslow focused a great deal on scientific psychology, particularly in the context of using psychological concepts to explore human as well as animal behaviors. The humanistic approach clearly rejects scientific methodologies such as experiments and focuses on using methods of qualitative research such as unstructured observations, un-structured interviews and open ended questionnaires. This approach is very useful in conducting research at the individual level to determine the ways in which people think and feel. Human beings are viewed as being entirely different from animals in view of human consciousness that allows people to think, reason and to use language. The humanistic approach rejects rigorous scientific approaches in psychological studies because they are perceived to dehumanize and to be incapable in capturing the strength relative to the experience of the human conscience. The humanistic approach begins with making assumptions that all human beings have their own unique individual ways of understanding and perceiving the world and all human actions take shape in keeping with such perceptions and attitudes. Hence the questions asked by humanists are different from those asked by psychologists using other approaches. It is known that other theorists assume objective views about people while humanists prioritize on understanding people and their subjectivity. Consequently, they discard objective scientific approaches as a means to study and understand people. Humanistic psychologists are clearly in favor of endorsing ideas that people have a free will and are thus competent to choose what actions they will take, although this may not be done consciously always. They also believe that human beings tend to grow and achieve satisfaction in keeping with their potential. Most of the research in this regard has focused on the ways in which people can be assisted to achieve their full potential and to live satisfied and contented lives. The humanistic approach on behavior focuses on the self, which is the individual’s consciousness relative to his or her own identity. Humanistic psychologists believe that individuals can achieve their full potential of growth only if they have a positive viewpoint about themselves, which is possible only if they are able to command absolute and positive respect from others. They should feel they are respected and valued by others without any reservations. Humanistic psychologists feel that most people do not have perceptions about the unconditional positive regard of others. Instead, they perceive that they will be valued and loved only if they are able to create an impression of their worthiness through good behavior and academic achievements etc. Such conditions lead to incongruity in the self amongst the real self and the ideal self, in terms of what a person is and what he perceives to become (Martin, 1973). According to Rogers (Kirschenbaum (1979), individuals attempt to close the gaps emanating between the ideal and the real self but such attempts prove to be faulty because they chase aspirations that will not give them contentment. Such attempts also distort their views about themselves and about the world. For instance, in today’s competitive environment a student believes that he or she is worth anything only if he or she gets excellent scores or grades. They perceive some outcomes as complete failures, thus depriving themselves of any sense of achievement. Or else they pass on the blame on others such as teachers or family, thereby avoiding actions that can be taken to improve their situation. Abraham Maslow’s viewpoints relative to human needs were more complicated as compared to Roger’s (1961) theory. While Rogers (1980) was of the belief that humans need to have absolute positive regard, Maslow’s theory held that people have varied needs, which vary in terms of immediacy in being required to be satisfied in different stages of an individual’s circumstances. Maslow categorized human needs in a hierarchy that classified the most immediate needs at the lowest end, whereby they took precedence over those that were higher up. For example, all individuals have a need for recognition but this need will be put aside if the immediate need is to have food. Maslow was of the belief that people that satisfied all their needs will eventually move towards self actualization. But this is possible only with rare and extraordinary individuals who achieve all their objectives in using their full potential. Maslow also held that in situations where individuals are unable to satisfy their needs for long periods, a stage of fixation occurs (Prochaska, 2007). The humanistic approach is distinguished from other approaches in psychology through a number of factors, prime being the focus on attaching subjective meaning. Additionally, the approach is different from others because it rejects determinism and displays more concern for positive development instead of pathology. Many theorists hold that the humanistic approach is not a science because behavior is best understood objectively by impartial observers (Whitton, 2003). Humanists have argued that the meanings of behavior are primarily subjective and personal in nature and that acceptance of this concept cannot be said to be unscientific because eventually all people are subjective. They assert that science is made reliable not because of the pure objectivity of scientists but because the nature of observed events is such that it can be agreed amongst different observers, which has been called as inter-subjective verification by Rogers (Mearns and Thorne, 2000). Person-Centered Therapy is considered to be the most well known and most extensive mode of humanistic psychotherapy in most parts of the world (Tudor and Worrall, 2006). Its founder was Carl Rogers (2003), who viewed a human being as a person in dialectical terms, relative to relational and substantial dimensions. Therefore, it is regarded as a practice in which the human being’s image depends on his interconnectedness and autonomy. Person-Centered Therapy positions the experiences of therapists and clients and the current immediate relationships amongst them at the center of consideration. In addition, Person-Centered Therapy attempts to find its work closely relative to the experiences of clients in the given relationships. The individual’s experience is given due importance without placing any conditions (Bruno, 1977). Principally, the Person-Centered Therapy involves breaking with conventional images and functions of therapists as experts in handling the client’s problems. In contrast, the therapist makes attempts to understand his client by placing himself in the role of an equal partner and collaborator in aiming to develop along with the client in a person to person encounter. Another feature of Person-Centered Therapy is that the person centered communication and theory remain confined to being informal experiences. In fact, the therapy has been an important element of the person centered traditions for several decades in openly encouraging constant research and development relative to practice and theory (Andrade and Autunes, 2000). The Person-Centered Therapy extends beyond psychotherapy and is widely used in areas where interpersonal relationships are important. It is used in relating with groups and individuals in programs that foster personal development, by using strategies of personal encounters. The theory assumes that individuals have the ability to use their personal competencies constructively, such as by living in satisfying ways by enhancing understanding of the self and by becoming less defensive towards the constant flows of experiences that every human being confronts. The given concepts develop specific characteristics that are used in processes of Person-Centered Therapy. Psychotherapy is viewed as an ethical enterprise and ethics thus becomes an important element of the therapy by involving political, social and individual perspectives (Wilkins, 2002). According to Rogers (1980), there are some basic conditions that must be necessarily complied with in order to bring positive therapeutic change. There has to be psychological contact amongst therapist and client; the client is considered incongruent in the relationships; the therapist is considered congruent in the relationships; the therapist has to demonstrate totally positive attitude towards the clients; and the client must display positivity and empathy at least to a certain degree. According to Cain, et al. (2002), the Person-Centered Therapy is very strong and gets most of its strength from a phenomenological epistemology in allowing several possibilities to understand and to realize in practice, which is theoretically referred to as being constructivist and pluralistic. The concept is holistic and personal and hence embraces the organism as an amalgamated totality, which means it is mainly concerned with empathetic, dialogical and hermeneutic modes of communicating (Greenberg, et al.1997). The Person-Centered Therapy is also considered a concept of interpersonal relationship and personal development, implying that its principles can be used in other kinds of relationships and areas of life. Person-Centered Therapy emphasizes on the process of developing a healthy personality because its principles are applicable to all individuals independent of psychological categories relative to terms such as normals, borderliners and psychotics (Cooper, Schmid, and Wyatt, 2007). Conclusion The humanistic approach and the Person-Centered Therapy clearly state that people have a free will. Some theorists have held in this context that the position of free will is not coherent because while insisting on the ability of people to decide on their own about their actions, it also raises the issue of how human behavior takes shape through people’s treatment by others and through people’s instinctive needs. In the debate relative to nature and nurturing, humanists prefer to focus on nurturing because of the impact experiences have on people’s perceptions and understanding of worldly affairs. But they also hold that human needs and biological necessities also drive human actions. The belief systems relative to exclusivity of every individual makes humanist psychologists to become inclined towards a more ideographic style of psychology. Given that humanist psychologists believe that human experiences should be engaged with such styles of psychology, they do not pursue in breaking or analyzing behaviors into detailed fundamental procedures. Therefore, it can be said that the approach of humanist psychologists is clearly holistic instead of being reductionist. List of References Andrade, N. and Autunes, S.(2000). Client-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapy.  Vale and Vale. Bruno, Frank J. (1977). Client-Centered Counseling: Becoming a Person. In Human Adjustment and Personal Growth: Seven Pathways, pp. 362–370. John Wiley and Sons. Cain, D. J., et al. (2002). Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice. Washington, D.C.: APA. Cooper, M., O'Hara, M, Schmid, P., and Wyatt, G. (2007). The Handbook of person-centered psychotherapy and counseling. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Greenberg, L. S. et al., G. (1997). Experiential psychotherapy: Different interventions. New York: Guilford. Kirschenbaum, H. (1979). On becoming Carl Rogers. New York: Delacorte. Martin, D. G. (1973) Learning–based client–centered therapy. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. Mearns, Dave and Brian Thorne. (2000). Person-Centred Therapy Today: New Frontiers in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications. Prochaska, J.O., and Norcross, J.C. (2007). Systems of Psychotherapy: A Transtheoretical Analysis. Thompson Books. Rogers, Carl (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Rogers, Carl (1961). Client-Centered Therapy. Cambridge: The Riverside Press Rogers, Carl. (2003). Client Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory, Constable. Rogers, Carl (1995). On Becoming a Person, Mariner Books. Tudor, Keith., and Mike Worrall. (2006). Person-Centered Therapy: A Clinical Philosophy, Routledge. Whitton, Eric. (2003). Humanistic Approach to Psychotherapy, Wiley-Blackwell. Wilkins, Paul. (2002). Person-Centered Therapy in Focus, Sage Publications. Read More