Éisteach Volume 14 l Issue 2 l Summer 2014 Carl Rogers, , and

Relationship by Ian Woods

Abstract This article gives a brief biographical sketch of Carl Rogers (1902-1987) and Martin Buber (1878-1965) and summarises their respective views on relationship before outlining the public dialogue in which they engaged in 1957. The outline concentrates on the part of the dialogue dealing with the therapist-client relationship and indicates some of the essential points of the exchanges between the two men, drawing out their differing perspectives. As well as commenting also on Brian Thorne’s view of the dialogue, the author’s own views are indicated both on the content of the dialogue and its implications for practice.

The two men. assumption of power in 1933. He 1937 was published in English as “I arl Rogers and Martin Buber met had by then become the leading and Thou”. Cin public dialogue on 18 April interpreter of Hasidism and Jewish Following an enforced departure 1957 in the University of Michigan, mysticism and had begun what from Germany in 1938 (the same U.S.A. There was an age difference became a lifetime’s large literary year as Freud’s move to England), of 24 years between them, Buber output including more than sixty Buber became professor at the being 79 and Rogers 55 at the volumes on religious, philosophical Hebrew University of Jerusalem until time. The difference in background and related subjects. In 1923 he his retirement in 1951. During the between the two men was even more published “Ich und Du” which in early years of the State of Israel, he considerable. Buber had been born in Vienna in 1878, grown up in a wealthy Jewish uber had been born in Vienna in 1878, grown up in family in Poland and returned to a wealthy Jewish family in Poland and returned to Vienna to attend university as a B young man. Following further studies Vienna to attend university as a young man... became the at other universities, in 1923 he leading interpreter of Hasidism and Jewish mysticism and... became professor of Jewish theology, a lifetime’s large literary output including more than sixty history of , and ethics at the volumes on religious, philosophical and related subjects. University of Frankfurt until the Nazi

14 Irish for Counselling and Volume 14 l Issue 2 l Summer 2014 Éisteach worked in assisting the assimilation ogers spent two years at Union Theological Seminary of the many Jewish immigrants to the R in New York during which, as well as his difficulty new State. Like Rogers, he enjoyed with adherence to religious dogma, his life-long interest in a life-long marriage and family life. human developed. During retirement, he travelled and lectured widely including in the U.S. family life, these activities continued people, in particular between and his work achieved international to be amongst the main features of therapist and client, which offers recognition in both Jewish and his life until his death in 1987. By the therapeutic benefit seems to be Christian circles. At his funeral in time of his dialogue with Buber in one characterised by congruence 1965, his mourners included Arab 1957, he – like Buber – had already in which the therapist relates, in all students of the Hebrew University become an established figure in his their realness, to the client so that whose rights he had consistently field. the client’s congruence evolves advocated. Their views of relationship in response in the relationship Rogers, having been born in between them both as persons. The in 1902, from the age of 12 Buber’s “I and Thou” (the English translation) is written in quite therapist’s realness involves their grew up on the family farm, deep in being open to all aspects of their the countryside west of the city. The abstract and at times poetic language which is difficult to own experiencing and willing to family was close knit, characterised communicate this, as appropriate, by a strict Evangelical moral code paraphrase briefly for the purpose of this article. In Part One of the book, to the client; their relating to the including no alcohol, much hard client includes a continual attempt work, and little social contact with humans are described as having only two primary ways of relating, I-Thou to understand them empathically the outside world… though also a at the same time as valuing them setting in which the young Rogers and I-It. We live mostly in the world of I-It relations in which we relate to the in a positive and unconditional way. developed a close interest in the life (Rogers 1961; Kirschenbaum & of the natural world. people and things in our environment as objects which we can use for our Henderson 1990) Following the liberating experience benefit and view in an systematised The dialogue of his undergraduate years at the way. We can have moments of I-Thou Reading the text of the dialogue University of Wisconsin, Rogers relation which are characterised by (compiled verbatim from a spent two years at Union Theological mutual giving of ourselves to one recording), I was struck by the Seminary in New York during another with no separation between humanity of the interaction between which, as well as his difficulty with us. We need to live in the world of I-It the two in conversation with one adherence to religious dogma, relations but without I-Thou relations another. They related to each his life-long interest in human we are not fully human. We can another with courtesy, restraint psychology developed. After studies move between times of I-Thou and and humour during their hour–long in psychology to doctoral level, I-It relations with different people as conversation in front of an audience. he worked for over ten years as a well as with the same person over I don’t propose to cover all the issues with delinquent young time, the I-Thou moments tending to raised during the dialogue but to people. Starting in 1940 with Ohio be more short-lived than the times of concentrate on those germane to the State University, he was appointed to I-It. (Buber 1937). question of relationship, particularly a series of professorial positions at a in the therapeutic context. In the number of American universities and Neither is it easy to summarise following abbreviated account, I was later involved in other institutes Rogers’s view of optimal have highlighted the points which such as the Centre for Studies of the relationships given how often, as his seem (to me) to be essential, with Person - which he helped found - at understanding evolved over many an occasional commentary. Those , . During these years, he expressed it in different of you who read the full text of years (the 1930s and decades ways and with varying emphases. the dialogue – which I heartily following), there evolved his unique For him, the relationship between approach to working with clients umans are described as having only two primary ways combined with ongoing research and the publishing of his many works, H of relating, I-Thou and I-It. We live mostly in the world including on the theory and practice of I-It relations... We can have moments of I-Thou relation of the person-centred approach. which are characterised by mutual giving of ourselves to one Together with a happily-married another with no separation between us.

Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy 15 Éisteach Volume 14 l Issue 2 l Summer 2014 recommend – will see that I have to a greater extent and in a he kernel of the followed its wording quite closely way in which the client cannot T difference between their with certain phrases quoted see the therapist; two approaches. For Rogers, verbatim, and put between inverted • the client is not interested when another person is commas, for purpose of emphasis. in the therapist as a person really expressing himself (Kirschenbaum & Henderson 1990) in anything like the same The single largest component of way in which the therapist is and his experience, he the dialogue deals with the nature interested in him. (Rogers) doesn’t feel different of the therapist-client relationship. This is Buber’s initial response from him in the way Buber It begins with Rogers outlining his which he sums up as the therapist describes; in that moment, understanding of this relationship being a “detached presence”… Rogers can look on the other and wondering how it compares with which Rogers clarifies so that he person’s experience as having the I-Thou relation as understood understands accurately but to which equal authority and validity by Buber. Rogers describes his he doesn’t immediately respond. relationship with the client as with the way Rogers sees life Buber goes on to make, as a effective when he, Rogers, and experience. For Rogers, second response, that: • enters the relationship as a there is a real sense of • in the therapist-client situation, subjective person; the therapist sees and equality between the two. • is relatively whole and experiences the situation from transparent in the relationship; both his own side and from is a real sense of equality between • has a real willingness for the that of the client; the client, the two. client to have the and however, remains as his own Buber doesn’t doubt Rogers’s attitudes that he has and to be side only of the situation. in the situation but, rather the person that he is; They each have a necessarily than focussing on Rogers’s feeling, • is able to sense with a good different stance to the rejoins that in the given situation deal of clarity the way the situation. “You are not equals involving the two persons: “Neither client’s experience seems to and cannot be”, Buber says to you nor he look on your experience. him (the client). Rogers. The subject is exclusively he [the client] and his experience”. And And, on the client’s part, • while the therapist may wish themselves, in relation to there is something, Buber says, • if he (the client) is able to the client, to be “alike to one about the given situation that is sense some of these attitudes another, on the same plane” “objectively real that confronts you in the therapist, as in “I and my partner”, [the therapist]”. Rogers’s response Then, there is a real experiential they cannot be; there is an goes, I feel, to the heart of the meeting of persons in which each of objective situation involving difference between the two men. them is changed. difference, perhaps of tragedy He agrees that there is an objective In response, Buber identifies on the client’s side, which the situation, that is real and measurable some aspects of the therapist-client therapist cannot change. but that, in his experience, “ that is reality when it is viewed from the relationship which he sees as lacking With Rogers’s response to Buber’s outside and… that has nothing to do in mutuality and equality (and, analysis, their conversation moves with the relationship that produces therefore, by implication – though to the kernel of the difference therapy”. For Rogers, that therapy- he doesn’t say so explicitly- is not an between their two approaches. For producing relationship is “something I-Thou relation). In particular, Buber Rogers, when another person is immediate, equal, a meeting of two points out that: really expressing himself and his persons on an equal basis – even • the client comes to the experience, he (Rogers) doesn’t feel though, in the world of I-It, it could be therapist for help, the therapist different from him in the way Buber seen as a very unequal relationship”. doesn’t come to the client; describes; in that moment, Rogers At this point, the two men agree to can look on the other person’s • the therapist can, more or less, disagree… help the client which the client experience as having equal authority Later in the dialogue, the two cannot reciprocate; and validity with the way Rogers sees life and experience. For Rogers, there return to the question of reciprocity in • the therapist can see the client

16 Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Volume 14 l Issue 2 l Summer 2014 Éisteach the therapist-client relationship with ogers gives the client is “permission to be… which is Rogers wondering, “if the moment R a little different from bestowing something on him”. where real change takes place… To which Buber replies: “I think no human being can give isn’t reciprocal in the sense that I am more that this. Making life possible for the other, if only for a able to see the individual as he is in that moment and he really senses moment. I’m with you” my understanding and acceptance of him”. Buber (again) acknowledges Summary that person-centred therapy can lead Rogers’s experience but needs to I’m aware that I have given a to a discernible benefit to the client look at the whole situation including quite close textual account of the in their personal life as well as their the client’s experience. He (Buber) component of the therapist-client life in society (and often, incidentally, understands Rogers, the therapist, relationship with little or no attempt to me as well). as giving the client what he (the at interpretation or summation. Another view client) needs in order to be able to be I offer my understanding of the Implicit in my summary is to on the same place as him – and this respective positions of the two men, see the dialogue as an evenly is a situation not of an hour but only as conveyed in the dialogue, in these balanced exchange between the of minutes. To this Rogers responds terms: that what he (Rogers) gives the client • while accepting that, viewed either is it easy to is “permission to be… which is a little from the outside as an N summarise Rogers’s different from bestowing something objective situation, there view of optimal relationships on him”. To which Buber replies: “I may be many differences think no human being can give more given how often, as his amounting to inequality understanding evolved over that this. Making life possible for the between therapist and client, other, if only for a moment. I’m with for Rogers the inter-subjective many years, he expressed it you”. “Well, if we don’t look out, we’ll reality that can happen in different ways and with agree”, Rogers remarks, followed, the between them produces real varying emphases. text says, by laughter which I assume therapeutic benefit for the is shared between them… Have they client (and may also change two participants without either view resolved their earlier disagreement ? the therapist); prevailing or the dialogue leaving Other components • for Buber, notwithstanding any dominant implication other than I have concentrated this article what movement the therapist perhaps a desire to explore further on the specific question of the may facilitate in the client, the the issues involved. Brian Thorne, on therapist-client relationship as the given situation in which they the other hand, feels that Buber, in largest component of the dialogue find themselves remains, in the closing moments of the dialogue, and as that of most interest to a objective terms, a reality in “implies that the therapeutic readership of therapists. For the sake which they are unequal and relationship resulting from person- of completeness, I should mention unreciprocal and which, on centred therapy may produce that the other related components the client’s side, cannot be individuals rather than persons”, include: changed by the therapist. that is, people well-developed in their individual life and identities but less • the question of a person’s I see these two perspectives on than human (by implication as social relationship to themselves; the therapist-client relationship as, beings). Thorne attributes this view • whether a person’s basic each in their own way, valid. I can say to Buber being unconvinced about nature, when its deepest levels “yes” to both of them. At the same the reciprocity of the therapist-client are accessed, is to be trusted; time, I have to say that, of the two relationship as described by Rogers. and perspectives, I am drawn to that of (Thorne 1992). While recognising • whether Rogers and Buber Rogers in light of my own experience mean the same or different things by their respective f the two perspectives, I am drawn to that of Rogers terms “acceptance” and O in light of my own experience that person-centred “confirmation”. therapy can lead to a discernible benefit to the client in their personal life.

Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy 17 Éisteach Volume 14 l Issue 2 l Summer 2014

hile Buber’s statement can be read as a reflection on References W what Rogers has been saying, it can also, I feel, be read as standing in its own terms as a statement advocating Buber, M, (1937) I and Thou; T and T persons being capable of full reciprocity with the world of Clark Kirschenbaum, H and Henderson, people and all other points of contact – a statement with V, (1990), The Carl Rogers Reader; which Rogers would seem likely to agree. Constable. Rogers, C (1961) On Becoming a Person: Thorne’s overriding sympathy with the inter-subjective reality of which A therapist’s view of psychotherapy: Constable Rogers and his approach, I can’t Rogers speaks (without expressing Kirschenbaum, H and Henderson, entirely agree with his reading of it in exactly that way) can happen V (1990) Carl Rogers – Dialogues; the text of the dialogue. Personally, I between therapist and client and that Constable didn’t read Buber’s closing remarks the therapeutic benefits which he Thorne, B (1992) Carl Rogers; Sage as an implied criticism of Rogers’s describes can flow as a result. This Thorne, B (1991) Person-Centred approach on the basis of its deficient encourages me to continue, in Brian Counselling: therapeutic and spiritual reciprocity. While Buber’s statement Thorne’s words, to be “concerned dimensions; Whurr can be read as a reflection on what with inner worlds, with the validation Rogers has been saying, it can also, of subjective reality and with the I feel, be read as standing in its own healing power of relationships”. Ian Woods terms as a statement advocating (Thorne 1991). persons being capable of full Ian Woods qualified from the Tivoli reciprocity with the world of people Institute in 1999 and has been involved and all other points of contact – a in one-to-one client work since then, statement with which Rogers would mainly in private practice, currently seem likely to agree. The text doesn’t seeing clients at his home in Swords, Co. Dublin. He is accredited with the IACP. give any indication how Rogers Ian’s orientation has evolved over time understood these final remarks of with post-qualification trainings in the Buber’s as the dialogue ends at that Gestalt Process and Integrative Bodywork point. To paraphrase Jane Austen (I and a long-standing Jungian interest wonder what she would have thought in dreams and imagery before settling of the dialogue ?): “I leave it to you, into the person-centred approach. He is involved at Committee level in IAPCA. Gentle Reader, to decide”. His interest in the person-centred Implications for practice approach combined with an interest in I’ve been wondering, writing this the spiritual (including Jewish spirituality) article, what implications (if any) drew him to study the dialogue which is this dialogue might have for the the subject of this article. practice of therapy. We will each, no Ian Woods doubt, (especially if we read the full [email protected] text of the dialogue) draw our own ianwoodscounselling.com implications from it in our own ways. 01-8904176; 086-396 3462 Personally, I found that Buber’s comments challenged me to remember that each client lives in their own world of objective circumstances, that there are inequalities between us just as Buber describes, that we both have to face a reality, perhaps of tragedy on the client’s side, which confronts us and that there are limits to what is humanly possible. At the same time, I know from experience, that

18 Irish Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy