Carl Rogers Questions and Challenges

8/3/2019 Carl Rogers Questions and Challenges

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/carl-rogers-questions-and-challenges 1/5

1

SOME QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES FACING

A HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY*

CARL R. ROGERS

Western Behavioral Sciences Institute

I BELIEVE there is no doubt that this Association, the American Asso-

ciation for Humanistic Psychology, is part of a developing trend. I feel

sure that a concern with, and a belief in, the subjective human beingas an active agent in his own life, and in life in general, is to be a

growing part of the wave of the future. I feel that my past record indi-

cates that I have a fairly good intuition as to the next developments in

psychology and this intuition informs me that the humanistic emphasisis a coming trend. I feel quite certain that it is one manifestation of a

developing direction in our whole culture.

The important question for us as an organization is whether we willbe able to meet the challenges posed by such a trend. Will we be ade-

quate and worthy representatives of a direction which will, I am sure,

be evident in art and literature, in education, and in science? Here I

am somewhat less sure.

I have to face the possibility that perhaps this organization is only a

protest group of temporary value. It certainly serves a useful functionto deplore the sterility of most present-day psychological science, to

oppose a completely S-R psychology, to resist the way in which man

is treated as an object in present-day behavioral science, to protestagainst the view of man as completely mechanical, and to disavow theview that the world is a clock

alreadywound

up

and

runningits com-

pletely determined course. These protests need to be made and this

group is making them. We are part of a growing body of belief which

stresses that man is more than is encompassed in these views. But if

deploring and resisting is all that we do, then we are only a temporaryprotestant group soon to be superseded.

If we are to be more viable, then we must make positive contribu-tions - must discover constructive resolutions for some terribly per-

plexing problems. I would like to talk of some of the challenges which

I see facing us. Perhaps in this audience there are individuals, espe-

cially perhaps some younger individuals, who may make significantcontributions in the coming years to the answering of these challenges.

Here, then, are some of the basic questions I see, questions which wewill either meet and help to resolve, or fail to meet and hence die out

as a significant force in psychology.1. Can we develop an adequate concept of psychology as a disci-

pline ? Will it be a discipline like physics? Physics has gone from one

*Informal remarks addressed to a meeting of the American Association forHumanistic Psychology, Los Angeles, September 3, 1964.



2

discovery to another, from the law of the lever to atomic fission and

fusion to the structure of the nucleus of the atom. Each of its dis-

coveries has been characterized by the discernment of invariant lawful

order in relationships. It has been true of physics that the order which

has been so discerned generalizes into areas initially undreamed of.

Thus, this is a discipline in which new discoveries give order to vast

areas of natural events. Is

psychologythis kind of a science? Or is

psychology, as Michael Scriven has suggested, a science such as geo-

graphy or oceanography? Since in my new home I look down upon the

Scripps Institute of Oceanography, I will choose that as an exampleof a science quite different from physics. Oceanography keeps explor-ing new areas, coming up with new findings, adding a great deal ofuseful information. There is no doubt that its findings may changeour economics and our way of life. It is not, however, a science which

is likely to have a breakthrough because its discoveries and findingshave limited generalization. Perhaps this is the kind of science which

psychology will be.

In any event, we need a great deal more thoughtful and sound

thinking as to the basic conceptual picture of our discipline.2. The second challenge is as to whether we can develop a science

which is humanistic. Can we develop an adequate philosophy of

science and an adequate methodology of science which will truly addto verified knowledge and at the same time . truly recognize the placeof the subjective human being? We are not fond of a mechanisticallyoriented, hard-headed, empiricism. But what will we put in its placc ?

An existential mysticism will not, in my judgment, be good enougli.Private subjective opinion will not be good enough. What is to be our .

way of knowing, of adding to knowledge ? Will we be able to combine

a logical positivism with some more human view? Will we developsome new formulation of what it means to add to knowledge? This isan area in which I am deeply interested and in which I hope to work.

To me this seems like a vital area of concern and one in which

psychologists are weak at the present time. Perhaps in this audience or

in this convention there may be some brilliant young thinker who will

see his way through to a new way of meeting this challenge. It is all

very well to be opposed to the atomistic scientific approach which

characterizes most of psychology. It is all very well to be opposed to the

shaping up of human behavior as being the ultimate goal of psycho-logical science. But it is simply not enough, in my estimation, to settle

comfortably back into the principle that since we appreciate the mys-terious and the

uniquein man we

are, therefore,somehow

superior.William James wrestled with this issue long ago and said of these two

extremes- both an atomistic empiricism and a subjective mysticism- &dquo;they are but spiritual chloroform.&dquo; I heartily agree with his view.

What will we contribute that will avoid these extremes? Will we incor-

porate the methods of phenomenology? Will we discover generally newmodes of knowing upon which we can build? I am not certain. I am

only sure that if we are to exist in a scientific world of DNA and RNA



3

molecules, a world of microbiology, of electronic stimulation of the

brain, of chemical analyses of psychological states, we must develop a

mode of knowing which has promise.3. A closcly. related issue on which I will dwell only briefly is this :

can we develop humanistic scientists who are capable of the dedica-

tion, the commitment, the creative thinking, the bold theories and

hypotheses,the

toughnessof

thinkingin

regardto

problemsand

para-doxes which the &dquo;hard&dquo; sciences have developed? This is our challengeand it is still an unanswered question. But the answer given by timewill determine whether we arc a flash in the cultural pan or whether

we are a continuing flame which will illuminate modern life.’

4. Still another challenge has to do with our vicws of education.

Can we develop a philosophy of education and methods of educationwhich are consistent with our concern with the human being? Can we

effectively put such a philosophy and such methods to work? .

What is a vicw of education which humanistic psychologists could

buy, could approve of? How would this new psychology facilitate

learning? We have little love for teaching machines as a complete view

of education, nor do we believe that the shaping up of behavioralresponses to meet preconceived goals is a sufficient picture of teachingand learning. Very well, what do we put in place of these alternatives?

First, what is our overall view or philosophy of education, and, second,what arc the metlods we would employ?When I look at what this Association has achieved thus far in this

field I find I am not only skeptical, I am somewhat discouraged. This

present conference is set up in a fashion slightly different from conven-

tional conferences, but the differences are not great. If this is a samplewe seem to have little really new to contribute. Let me mention another

aspect of my skepticism. I was pleased that the Association was able

to obtain funds for a long-range planning conference for humanisticpsychology. Approximately 25 distinguished people have accepted in-

vitations to attend this conference. How do we organize it? What

plans do we make to insure that the greatest amount of learning will

come from this conference? The answer is that we have these dis-

tinguished people deliver lectures to each other. I have protested the

procedure, but I am down on the program to give a paper myself. inc

seem to be saying in very loud terms that we have nothing to offer in

this «~c11-worn field.’

This last example is essentially what frightens me about this organ-ization. We talk a good protesting game but can we do anything new- behave in new ways, think in new terms? It is too

earlyto know but

the signs thus far would make no one unduly optimistic.5. Can we develop approaches to interpersonal relationships which

arc actually more effective than those now in use or those prescribedby a hard-nosed American psychology? This is another challenge of an

essentially practical sort.

-

If our interest in the unique human being is real, if we value spon-

taneity and creativity and expressivenc.s.s, are we able to facilitate the



4

kind of interpersonal relationships in which these qualities arc released?

This, it seems to me, is one of the real tests of our position.Here there are exciting developments all over the country. The in-

tensive group experience is coming to be used more and more widely-

with delinquents, with business executives, in Synanon, with educators,even at times with psychologists. I know that some individuals in this

organizationare

playingan

important partin this

development.I

hopethat the organization as a whole will aid in meeting this challenge. Again, I trust it is clear that what I am saying is that protest is not

enough, promise is not enough; we will have to be able to deliver in

ways the common man can understand and in ways that the culture

can assimilate and use if we are to grow and become important.6. Still another challenge which I see is of a much more general

nature. Will we be able to make a significant contribution to a philo-sophy of life? There is no doubt that sub-groups in our American cul-

ture, much of the Japanese culture, and many of the cultural groups in

Europe no longer have a viable philosophy of life, a meaningful wayby which to live. Existentialism is endeavoring to provide this. It has

both strengths and weaknesses. Groups such as this organization andthe new APA Division of Philosophical Psychology should be con-

cerned with the philosophy of life which will be suitable for tomorrow.

Do we have the individuals who will be able to contribute to it? I

sincerely hope so.

What will this newer philosophy of life be? I certainly cannot

answer this question but I would guess that it will have a certain

existential flavor- man choosing himself, man the architect of him-

self. It will stress the value of the individual. It will, I think, center

itself in the individual as the evaluating agent. These are, of course,

only my opinions. I am very well aware of the strong counter-forces in

the world which see the individual as existing only to serve the group,the corporation, or the state.

’

I believe that this newer philosophy will have a process quality, not

a static quality. We will recognize that the value of living is in the

process of living, not in some static goal to be reached. I have a dim

recognition of what this process view would mean in many fields. It

would make a difference in the questions asked. Instead of asking,&dquo;Have you learned fractions or biology or mathematics?&dquo; the questionmight be, &dquo;What is there in the process of these learnings which youfind valuable?&dquo; Instead of the question, &dquo;Have you achieved a happymarriage?&dquo; it might be, &dquo;~1’hat is the process of your marriage? Areits

process qualities viable, satisfying, growth promoting?&dquo;Instead of

the question, &dquo;What is the goal for our country?&dquo; it might be, &dquo;Are

we pleased with the process characteristics of our country at this time?&dquo;Instead of the question, &dquo;What are the absolute values and absolute

truths in which we find security?&dquo; there might be the question, &dquo;Canwe find security in being involved in the forward-moving process of

change?&dquo;Let me illustrate a bit of what I mean by this process quality. The



5

true scientist does not find security in the knowledge which has been

accumulated, because he knows that any day that knowledge may be

contradicted by some new finding. His sccurity lies in the scientific

method, a process of arriving at approximations to the truth. I believe

that in this same sense we must learn to live in a process mode. To me,

it seems that our culture and our civilization will probably perish

unless we can achieve this. In a world which is changing at an in-credible rate in knowledge and technology we can find security onlyin a knowable process, not in knowable certainties. That at least is my

judgment..

. SUMMARY

,

I hope that the questions I have raised will stimulate discussion,both here and later. Let me review briefly the issues or problems whichI have raised.

1. What kind of a discipline are we ? Do we resemble physics?Oceanography? Religion? Or?2. What is to be the nature of our science and what are the

methods of that science to be? Or more deeply, how do we contribute

effectively to knowing?3. Can we develop tough, dedicated, persistent, humanistic scien-

tists ?1

4. How do we plan to contribute to the process of learning? Whatis education? What is a suitable philosophy of education? What do we

propose as the methods of education?

5. Do we have the skills actually to promote more effective and

creative

interpersonal relationships?6. What is to be our view as to what makes life worth living?What is the philosophy of life and living which we will contribute to

our culture? Will it have an existential flavor? Will it be a philosophyof process? Or?

In conclusion I would just like to say that in my judgment the American Association for Humanistic Psychology will never go down

in history for what it is against. The important question is, what are

we for? I am sure we cannot answer this question today or in anyofficial statement, but over the coming years this is where we will standor fall. If we are for views which the culture finds valuable and freeingand

life-giving, thenwe will survive and will deserve to

survive. Ifwe

cannot meet these various challenges then we are just an interesting,protesting, splinter group. Time will tell which we are.

I should like to make a final confession. When I am speaking to out-

siders I present the American Association for Humanistic Psychologyas a glowing hope for the future. But within the bosom of our familyI have been trying to say that we have no reason whatsoever for feelingcomplacent as we look toward the future.... ’

Carl Rogers Questions and Challenges

Documents

Transcript of Carl Rogers Questions and Challenges