<H17>
(1).
An economics student in her early twenties traveled to Spain with a young man, who talked intimately to her on the train journey about his life and troubles.
On arrival at the villa they were joined by a girl-friend of hers.
Some days later the student began to have a depressive attack accompanied by a feeling of self-hated, which she described as ‘like descending into a pit’.
After some hours there began to emerge in her mind her intense jealousy of her girl-friend, to whom the young man had been paying more attention than to her, and she went to her room and broke down into an uncontrollable fit of weeping.
The other two heard her and came in, and she was able to pour out her feelings to them.
The depressive attack disappeared, and from then on not only in the short term did the holiday go well, but in the long term she found herself able to relate to groups of people in a new way – no longer as an outsider, but as a participant.
In many ways this is a every ordinary and everyday story, but in many ways also it bears very close examination.
First of all, it needs no very deep insight into human nature to suggest that the basic situation on this holiday, a young man and two girls, was loaded with potential trouble.
One of the girls was likely to feel jealous and left out, in this case the student, and subsequent events would depend on how well she coped with this.
Many possibilities can be envisaged, one of which might have been to have redoubled her efforts to make herself attractive and then to have won the young man back again ; or , failing this, to have angrily taxed him with his faithlessness and lack of consideration, and then to have put herself in a situation where she could snap her fingers at him and find someone else.
In this latter way she could have got her anger of her chest and consoled herself by getting what she wanted elsewhere.
Instead she developed symptoms, which illustrates at once the contrast between what may be called ‘adaptive’ and ‘maladaptive’ behavior.
However, once this had happened she was in fact able to express her feelings and to resolve the situation satisfactorily.
So in the end her behaviour was adaptive after all.
(2). Rogers spent his whole life not only asserting the importance of the democratic and libertarian ideal in all human relationships, but seeking ways to accomplish that ideal.
He innovated, he described, he tested, he modified, he even proselytized.
For that he won hundreds of thousands of appreciative students whose work touches millions of lives each year.
At the same time, however, he also won thousands of influential critics who have prevented Carl Rogers and the person-centered approach from becoming the mainstay of professional training in the academic institutions of the United States.
It is not only academia that has resisted Roger’s works.
In a sense, the concern for creative human development competes for attention with an extremely strong current in modern society.
For our technological age is increasingly impressed by new wonders of telecommunication, new drugs and cures, new hardware and software, new gadgets for work and leisure – the latest advances modern science and capitalism have to offer.
Rogers’s message points us in a different direction, at first glance much less exciting and more difficult : The answer to most of our problems lies not in technology but in relationships.
What really matters is trust in ourselves and others, in communication, in how we handle our feelings and conflicts, in how we find meaning in our lives.
In the twentieth century we have learned an enormous amount about how to get along with ourselves and with others.
Put that knowledge to work and we may yet save the planet.
Disregard it, as we focus our lives and fortunes on the next technological quick fix, and we may not survive.
That Carl Rogers has dramatically and permanently influenced the major helping profession of our society is beyond question.
That his work has influenced millions in how they perceive the quality of life is also clear.
For years to come, that work will undoubtedly continue to spread, as Rogers’s colleagues and students and others working in similar directions continue to develop and promote the person-centered philosophy throughout the world.
Whether the person-centered approach to human relationships ultimately has a profound and lasting influence on American society and the world is much less certain.
At this point, how the world decides to handle its human problems – crime, drugs, intergroup and international conflict, to name a few – will determine whether there will be societies or even a world in which person-centered approaches can survive.
How large a part the work of Carl Rogers will play in influencing those decisions remains to be seen.
PR
