Carl Rogers On Personal Power

CARL

ROGERSon

PERSONAL

POWER

Carl R. Rogers, Ph.D.

Srishti

PUBUSHEaS & DlSmiBUTOKS
1960

Srish ri Publishers &. Distributors
64-A, Adhchini Sri Aurobindo Marg
New Delhi 110017

Content6

Introduction xi

Part I A quiet revolution: the impact of a peraon-centered

approach

Chapter i. The politics of the helping

professions 3

Chapter 2. The new family — ^and the old . . 29

Chapter 3. The revolution in marriage and

partnerships 42

Chapter 4. Power or persons: two trends in

education 69

Chapter 5. The politics of administration. . 90

Chapter 6. The person-centered approach and
the oppressed 105

Chapter 7. Resolving intercultural tensions: a

beginning 115

vii

CONTCNn

Pwt II

Part HI

Part IV

PaH V

The pmoxmtcred approach ia action

Chapter 8

A person-centered workshop

Its

planning and fruition

143

Chapter 9

The power of the powerless

186

Chapter 10

Without jealousy*’

205

Toward a theoretical foundatioa

Chapter it A political base the actualiring

tendency 237

A new political figure

Chapter 12 The emerging person
the quiet revolution

spearhead of
2 S 5

Conclusion

Chapter 13 In a nutshell

285

References

Index

300

VMI

P6pectal

note

I have been greatly perplexed by the pronoun problem, or,
more exactly, the “he-she" issue. 1 am totally in sympathy with
the view that women are subtly demeaned by the use of the
masculine pronoun when speaking in general of a member of
the human species. On the other hand I enjoy forceful writing,
and a “himself/herself’ in the middle of a sentence often de-
stroys its impact. I do not believe a satisfactory solution will be
found until someone comes up with an acceptable set of nonsex*
ual pronouns.

1 have chosen to deal with the problem in this way: In one
chapter all general references to members of our species are put
in feminine terms — in the next chapter masculine. Thus the first
chapter uses feminine pronouns where the reference is general,
the second chapter uses masculine pronouns for the same pur-
pose, alternating similarly throughout the book. It is the best
solution I could find to serve both of my purposes, an
equalitarian aim and a desire for forcefulness.

— Carl Rogers

IX

Introduction

Some months ago a strange thing happened to me. I think it
was the nearest I have ever come to having a psychic experi-
ence. I was intent on some work I was doing at my desk, when
suddenly there flashed into my mind a complete sentence:
walk softly through life.** I was puzzled by the intrusion, but
since it had nothing to do with the work at hand I shrugged it
off. A bit later the peculiar nature of this **flash** struck me. and
I began to speculate about it.

All sorts of associations crowded in. As a boy Td read hun-
dreds of books about frontiersmen and Indians, men who could
glide noiselessly through the forest without stepping on a dead
twig or disturbing the foliage. No one knew their whereabouts
until they had reached their destination and accomplished their
purpose, whether they were on an errand of mercy or a warlike
mission. 1 realized my professional life had had that same qual-
ity. I haven*t wanted to make a fuss about where I am going
until 1 have arrived. I have avoided noisy confrontations when-
ever possible. When I was told, early in my career, that it was
absolutely impossible for a psychologist to carry on psychother-
apy. because this was the province of the psychiatrist, I made
no attempt to meet the issue head-on. Instep, 1 first used Uw
term treatment interviews to describe what we were doing.

XI

iNTlKWUCnON

Later the label counseling seemed more accqMable. Only after
years of experience, and the amassing of a considerable body of
research by me and my colleagues, did I openly speak of the fact
— by then obvious — that we were doing psychotherapy. I had
walked softly through life, making relatively little noise until 1
had arrived at my destination — ^and it was too late to stop me.
1 do have a stubborn streak.

One disadvantage of this way of proceeding is that I have not
always realized the full significance of the pathway that I, and
an increasing number of others, have taken. It is only in recent
years that I have come to recognize how "radical” and “revolu-
tionai^” our work has been. 1 use those terms in their original,
not their popular, meanings. Our work has "gone to the root
of " many of the concepts and values of our culture and has
brought about “a complete or marked change" in many princi-
ples and procedures. Most notably it has altered the thinking
about power and control in relationships between persons. That
is what this book is about.

So you will find in these pages many men and women who
are walking softly through life — and creating a revolution as
they do so. The book tells of homes and schools and indus-
tries and interfaces between races and cultures, all of which
have been drastically changed by persons who trust their own
power, do not feel a need to have "power over,” and who are
willing to foster and facilitate the latent strength in the other
person. It tells of specific instances — a family relationship, a
workshop, a day camp, a group of Catholics and Protestants
from Belfast — where ordinary ways of proceeding have been
turned upside down by a ba.sic trust in the constructive poten-
tial of the person.

As Gertrude Stein said of Paris, "It is not what Paris gives
you; it is what she does not take away." This can be para-
phrased to become a definition of the person-centered ap-
proach, the value-laden concept central to this book. "It is not
that this approach gives power to the person; it never takes it
•away." That such a seemingly innocent base can be so truly

xii

lNTRODUCTK>N

revdutiolury in its implications may seem surprising. It is.
however, the central theme what I have written.

I have endeavored to give examples — both anecdotal and
research — ^to illustrate the force of the person-centered ap-
proach. Such a way changes the very nature of psychotherapy,
of marriage, of education, of administration, even of politics.

These changes indicate that a quiet revolution is already
under way. They point to a future of a very different nature,
built around a new type of self-empowered person who is
emerging.

XIII

Port P quiet

I re¥olution:
the impQCt
of Q person-
centered
opprocich

Chapter

1

The politiC6
of the helping
pfofe66ion6

Three years ago 1 was first asked about the politics of the
client -centered approach to psychotherapy. I replied that there
was no politics in client-centered therapy, an answer which was
greeted with a loud guffaw. When I asked my questioner to
explain, he replied, “I spent three years of graduate school
learning to be an expert in clinical psychology. I learned to
make accurate diagnostic judgments. I learned the various tech-
niques of altering the subject’s attitudes and behavior. I learned
subtle modes of manipulation, under the labels of interpretation
and guidance. Then I began to read your material, which upset
everything I had learned. You were saying that the power rests
not in my mind but in his organism. You completely reversed
the relationship of power and control which had been built up
in me over three years. And then you say there is no politics
in the client-centered approach!”

This was the beginning — perhaps a late beginning— of my
education regarding the politics of interpersonal relationships.
The more I thought and read, and the more I sensed the pre-
sent-day concern with power and control, the more new facets
I experienced in my relationships in therapy, in intensive
groups, in families, and among friends. Gradually I realized my
experience ran parallel to the old story of the uneducated man

3

Caul Rogers on Personal Power

and his first exposure to a course in literature. “You know,” he
tcrid his friends later. “I’ve found out I’ve been speaking prose
all my life and never knew it." In similar vein I could now say
“I’ve been practicing and teaching politics all my professional
life and never realised it fully until now.” So 1 am no longer
surprised when Parson, in an appraisal of my work, says, “Carl
Rogers is not known for his politics. People are more likely to
associate his name with widely acclaimed innovations in coun-
seling technique, personality theory, philosophy of science, psy-
chotherapy research, encounter groups, student-centered
teaching. . But in recent years, I have come to think of him
more as a political figure, a man whose cumulative effect on
society has made him one of the . . . social revolutionaries of
our time.’’* It is not just that I am a slow learner, that I have
only recently realized my political impact. It is partly that a
new concept has been in the process of construction in our
language. It is not just a new label. It brings together a cluster
of meanings into a powerful new concept.

The use of the word “politics” in such contexts as “the
politics of the family,” “the politics of therapy.” “sexual poli-
tics.” “the politics of experience” is new. I have not found any
dictionary definition that even suggests the way in which the
word is currently utilized. The American Heritage Dictionary
still gives definitions only of this sort: politics: “The methods
or tactics involved in managing a state or government.”'

Yet the word has acquired a new set of meanings. Politics,
in present-day psychological and social usage, has to do with
power and control: with the extent to which persons desire,
attempt to obtain, possess, share, or surrender power and con-
trol over others and/or themselves. It has to do with the ma-
neuvers, the strategies and tactics, witting or unwitting, by which
such power and control over one's own life and others’ lives is
sought and gained— or shared or relinquished. It has to do with
the hcus pf decision-making power: who makes the decisions
which, consciously or unconsciously, rr^ulate or control the
thoughts, feelings, or behavior of others or oneself. It has to do

4

A Quiet Revolution

with the effects of these decisions and these strategies, whether
proceeding from an individual or a group, whether aimed at
gaining or relinquishing control upon the person himself, upon
others, and upon the various systems of society and its institu-
tions.

In sum it is the process of gaining, using, sharing or relin-
quishing power, control, decision-making. It is the process of
the highly complex interactions and effects of these elements as
they exist in relationships between persons, between a person
and a group, or between groups.

This new construct has had a powerful influence on me. It
has caused me to take a fresh look at my professional life work.
I've had a role in initiating the person-centered approach. This
view developed first in counseling and psychotherapy, where it
was known as client-centered, meaning a person seeking help
was not treated as a dependent patient but as a responsible
client. Extended to education, it was called student-centered
teaching. As it has moved into a wide vanety of fields, far from
Its point of origin — intensive groups, marriage, family relation-
ships, administration, minority groups, interracial, intercul-
tural, and even international relationships — it seems best to
adopt as broad a term as possible: person-centered.

It is the psychological dynamics of this approach that has
interested me — how it is seen by and how it affects the individ-
ual. 1 have been interested in observing this approach from a
scientific and empirical point of view; what conditions make it
possible for a person to change and develop, and what are the
specific effects or outcomes of these conditions. But I have never
given careful consideration to the interpersonal politics set in
motion by such an approach. Now I begin to see the revolution-
ary nature of those political forces. 1 have found myself com-
pelled to reassess and reevaluate all my work I wish to ask what
are the political effects (in the new sense of political) of all that
I, and my many colleagues throughout the world, have done
and are doing.

What is the impact of a client-centered point of view on the

5

Cabl lUMnms on Pemcmal Powe*

iSMMt of power uid control in individual psychotherapy? We
than explofe the p(riitics of various approaches to helping peo*
pte, whether through one-to-one therapy, or through encounter
or other intensive groups. We diall confront openly a subject
not often discussed: the issue of power and control in the so-
called helping professions.

In 1940 I began to try to change what I would now call the
politics of therapy. Describing an emerging trend, I said. ^‘This
newer approach differs from the older one in that it has a
genuinely different goal. It aims directly toward the greater
independence and integration of the individual rather than hop-
ing that such results will accrue if the counselor assists in
solving the problem. The individual and not the problem is the
focus. The aim is not to solve one particular problem but to
assist the individual to grow, so that he can cope with the
present problem and with later problems in a better integrated
fashion. If he can gain enough integration to handle one prob-
lem in more independent, more responsible, less confused, bet-
ter organized ways, then he will also handle new problems in
that manner.

“If this seems a little vague, it may be made more specific.
... It relies much more heavily on the individual drive toward
growth, health, and adjustment. Therapy is not a matter of
doing something to the individual, or of inducing him to do
something about himself. It is instead a matter of freeing him
for normal growth and development, of removing obstacles so
that he can again move forward."’

When they were enunciated first in 1940, great furor was
aroused by these statements. I had described various counseling
techniques much in use at that time — such as suggestions, ad-
vice, persuasion, and interpretation — and had pointed out that
these rested on two basic assumptions: that “the counselor
knows best,” and that he can find techniques by which to move
his client most efficiently to the counselor-chosen goal.

I see now that 1 had dealt a double-edged political blow. 1 had

6

A Quiet Revolution

said that most counselors saw themselves as competent to con-
trol the lives of their clients. And 1 had advanced the view that
it was preferable simply to free the client to become an indepen-
dent, self-directing person I was making it clear that if they
agreed with me. it would mean the complete disruption and
reversal of their personal control in their counseling relation-
ships

Over the years, the point of view I advanced so tentatively
in 1940 became enlarged, deepened, and reinforced, both by
clinical expenence and research It became known as client-
centered psychotherapy, and in the intervening years it has
been buttressed by more empirical studies than any other thera-
peutic approach

From the perspective of politics, power, and control, person-
centered therapy is based on a premise which at first seemed
nsky and uncertain a view of man as at core a trustworthy
organism This base has over the years been strengthened by
expenence with troubled individuals, psychotic persons, small
intensive groups, students in classes, and staff groups. It has
become more and more firmly established as a basic stance,
though each person must learn it step by step for himself, to be
convinced of its soundness. I have recently descnbed it as “the
gradually formed and tested hypothesis that the individual has
within himself vast resources for self-understanding, for alter-
ing his self-concept his attitudes, and his self-directed behavior
— and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable
climate of faalitative psychological attitudes can be provided

Is there any basis for tins premise other than wishfiil thinking
and the expenence of a few people? I believe so Biologists,
neurophysiologists, and other scientists, including psycholo-
gists, have evidence that adds up to one conclusion There is in
every organism, at whatever level, an underlying flow of move-
ment toward constructive fulfillment of its inherent possibili-
ties There is a natural tendency toward complete development
in man. The term that has most often been used for this is the

7

Carl Rogers on Personai Power

actualizing tendency, and it is present in all living organisms.
It is the foundation on which the person-centered approach is
built.

The actualizing tendency can of course be thwarted, but it
cannot be destroyed without destroying the organism. 1 remem-
ber that in my boyhood the potato bin in which we stored our
winter supply of potatoes was in the basement, several feet
below a small basement window. The conditions were unfavor-
able, but the potatoes would begin to sprout — pale white
sprouts, so unlike the healthy green shoots they sent up when
planted in the soil in the spring. But these sad, spindly sprouts
would grow two or three feet in length as they reached toward
the distant light of the window. They were, in their bizarre,
futile growth, a sort of desperate expression of the directional
tendency 1 have been describing. They would never become a
plant, never mature, never fulfill their real potentiality. But
under the most adverse circumstances they were striving to
become. Life would not give up, even if it could not flourish.
In dealing with clients whose lives have been terribly warped,
in working with men and women on the back wards of state
hospitals. I often think of those potato sprouts. So unfavorable
have been the conditions in which these people have developed
that their lives often seem abnormal, twisted, scarcely human.
Yet the directional tendency in them is to be trusted. The clue
to understanding their behavior is that they are striving, in the
only ways available to them, to move toward growth, toward
becoming. To us the results may seem bizarre and futile, but
they are life's desperate attempt to become itself. It is this
potent tendency which is the underlying basis of client-centered
therapy and all that has grown out of it.

It is obvious that even this premise of client-centered therapy,
without going further, has enormous political implications. Our
educational system, our industrial and military organizations,
and many other aspects of our culture take the view that the
nature of the individual is such that he cannot be trusted — that
he must be guided, instructed, rewarded, punished, and con-

A Quiet RsvcMLimcm

trolled by those who are wiser or higlwr in status. To be sure»
we give lip service to a democratic |^ilos<^y in which all
power is vested in the people, but this philosophy is “honored
more in the breach than in the observance.” Hence simply
describing the fundamental premise of client*centered therapy
is to make a challenging political statement.

What psychological climate makes possible the release of the
individual's capacity for understanding and managing his life?
There are three conditions for this growth-promoting climate,
whether it is in the therapist and client relationship or parent
and child, leader and group, teacher and students, administra-
tor and staff— in fact, in any situation in which the development
of the person is a goal.

The first has to do with genuineness, realness — congruence.
The more the therapist is herself in the relationship, putting up
no professional front or personal facade, the greater is the
likelihood that the client will change and grow in a constructive
manner. It means that the therapist is openly being the feelings
and attitudes that are flowing within at the moment. The term
transparent catches the flavor of this element — the therapist
makes herself transparent to the client; the client can see right
through what the therapist is in the relationship; the client
experiences no holding back on the part of the therapist. As for
the therapist, what she is experiencing is available to awareness,
can be lived in the relationship, and can be communicated if
appropriate. Thus there is a close matching, or congruence,
between what is being experienced at the gut level, what is
present in awareness, ana what is expressed to the client.

What does this mean in practical terms? It means that when
the client is in pain or distress, the therapist is likely to be
experiencing warmth or compassion or understanding. But at
other times in the relationship she may be experiencing bore-
dom or anger or even fear of a destructive client. The more the
therapist can be aware of — and can become and express these
feelings, whether positive or negative — the more likely she is to
be helpful to the client. It is the feeling and attitudes that are

9

Ca«l Rooem on Personal Power

hdf^ul when expressed, not opinions or judgments about the
other. Thus the therapist cannot know that the client is a boring
conversationalist or a demanding bastard or a beautiful person.
All these are debatable points. The therapist can only be con-
gruent and helpful in expressing^ the fedings she owns. To the
extent that the therapist experiences, owns, knows, expresses
what is going on within — to that extent she is likely to facilitate
growth in the client.

From the perspective of interpersonal politics, this first ele-
ment of the relationship — congruence — gives a maximum
space to be — for the client and for the therapist. The therapist
is saying, in effect, “Here I am, as 1 am." There is no hint of
any kind of control over the client’s response to her way of
being. To the contrary, finding that the therapist is permitting
herself to be as she is, the client tends to discover that same
freedom.

The second attitude of importance in creating a climate for
change is acceptance, or caring or prizing — unconditional posi-
tive regard. It means that when the therapist is experiencing a
positive, acceptant attitude toward whatever the client is at that
moment, therapeutic movement or change is more likely. It
involves the therapist’s willingness for the client to be whatever
feeling is going on at that moment — confusion, resentment,
fear, anger, courage, love, or pride. It is a nonpossessive caring.
The therapist prizes the client in a total rather than a condi-
tional way. This resembles the love the parent sometimes feels
toward an infant. Research indicates that the more this attitude
is experienced by the therapist, the greater the probability that
therapy will be successful.

It is not, of course, possible to feel such an unconditional
caring all of the time. A therapist who is real will often have
very different feelings, negative feelings toward the client.
Hence it is not to be regarded as a "should,” that the therapist
should have an unconditional positive re^uti for the client. It
is simply a fact that unless this is a reasonably frequent ingredi-
ent in the relationship, constructive client change is less likely.

10

A Quiet Revolutkw

What of the interpersonal politics of such an attitude? It is
a powerful factor, but it is in no way manipulative or control*
ling in the relationship. There is no judgment or evaluation
involved. Power over her own life is left completely in the hands
of the client. It provides a nurturant atmosphere but not a
forcing one.

The third facilitative aspect oi the relationship is empathic
understanding. This means that the therapist senses accurately
the feelings and personal meanings that are being experienced
by the client and communicates this understanding to the cli-
ent. At its best the therapist is so much inside the private world
of the other that she can clarify not only the meanings of which
the client is aware but even those Just below the level of aware-
ness. When she responds at such a level the client's reaction is
of this sort: “Perhaps that is what I've been trying to say. 1
haven’t realized it, but yes, that's how I do feel!" This third
element of the relationship is perhaps the most easily improved
through even brief training. Therapists can learn, quite quickly,
to be better, more sensitive listeners, more empathic. It is in
part a skill as well as an attitude. To become more genuine or
more caring, however, the therapist must change experientially,
and this is a slower and more complex process.

Being empathic involves a choice on the part of the therapist
as to what she will pay attention to, namely the inner world of
the client as that individual perceives it. Thus it does change the
interpersonal politics of the relationship. It in no way, however,
exercises control over the client. On the contrary it a.ssists the
client in gaining a clearer understanding of, and hence a greater
control over, her own world and her own behavior.

You may well ask why a person seeking help changes for the
better when she is involved in a relationship with a therapist
that contains these elements. Over the years I have come to sec
more and more clearly that the process, of change in the client
is a reciprocal of the attitudes of the therapist.

As the client finds the therapist listening acceptantly to her
feelings, she becomes able to listen acceptantly to herself— to

It

Carl Rogers on Personai Power

hetr and accept the anger, the fear, the tenderness, the courage
that 1 $ being experienced As the client finds the therapist pnz>
ing and valuing even the hidden and awful aspects which have
been expressed, she experiences a pnzing and liking of herself
As the therapist is experienced as being real, the client is able
to drop facades, to more openly be the expenencing within

Politically, by listening to the feelings within, the client
reduces the power others have had in inculcating guilts and
fears and inhibitions, and is slowly extending the understanding
of, and control over, self As the client is more acceptant of self,
the possibility of being in command of self becomes greater and
greater The client possesses herself to a degree that has never
occurred before The sense of power is growing As the client
becomes more self-aware, more self-acceptant, less defensive
and more open, she finds at last some of the freedom to grow
and change in the directions natural to the human organism
Life IS now in her hands, to be lived as an individual

I tned years ago to describe the process of change as it is
inwardly experienced by the client in a person-centered therapy
with a male therapist

“I'm afraid of the therapist I want help, but I don’t know
whether to trust him He might see things which I don’t know
in myself — frightening and bad elements He seems not to be
judging me, but I'm sure he is I can't tell him what really
concerns me, but I can tell him about some past experiences
that are related to my concern He seems to understand those,
so I can reveal a bit more of myself

“But now that I've shared with him some of this bad side of
me, he despises me I’m sure of it, but it's strange I can find little
evidence of it Do you suppose that what I’ve told him isn’t so
bad^ Is It possible that 1 need not be ashamed of it as a part of
me’’ I no longer feel that he despises me It makes me feel that
I want to go further, exploring me, perhaps expressing more of
myself 1 find him a sort of companion as I do this — he seems
really to understand

“But now I’m getting frightened again, and this time deeply

12

A Quiet Revot uTioN

frightened. I didn’t realize that exploring the unknown recesses
of myself would make me feel feelings I've never experienced
before. It’s very strange because in one way these aren’t new
feelings. I sense that they've always been there. But they seem
so bad and disturbing I’ve never dared to let them flow in me.
And now as I live these feelings in the hours with him, I feel
terribly shaky, as though my world is failing apart. It used to
be sure and firm. Now it is loose, permeable and vulnerable. It
isn't pleasant to feel things I’ve always been frightened of be-
fore. It’s his fault. Yet curiously I’m eager to see him and I feel
more safe when I’m with him.

“I don’t know who I am any more, but sometimes when I
feel things I seem solid and real for a moment. I'm troubled by
the contradictions I find in myself— I act one way and feel
another — I think one thing and feel another. It is very discon-
certing. It’s also sometimes adventurous and exhilarating to be
trying to discover who I am. Sometimes I catch myself feeling
that perhaps the person I am is worth being, whatever that
means.

“I'm beginning to find it very satisfying, though often pain-
ful, to share just what it is I’m feeling at this moment. You
know, it is really helpful to try to listen to myself, to hear what
is going on in me. I’m not so frightened any more of what is
going on in me. It seems pretty trustworthy. I use some of my
hours with him to dig deep into myself to know what I am
feeling. It’s scary work, but I want to know. And I do trust him
most of the time, and that helps. I feel pretty vulnerable and
raw, but I know he doesn’t want to hurt me, and I even believe
he cares. It occurs to me as I try to let myself down and down.
Jeep into myself, that maybe if I could sense what is going on
in me, and could realize its meaning, I would know who I am,
and I would also know what to do. At least I feel this knowing
sometimes with him.

“I can even tell him just how I’m feeling toward him at any
given moment, and instead of this killing the relationship, as I
used to fear, it seems to deepen it. Do you suppose I could be

13

Caul Rogers on I^rsonai. Power

my feelings with other people also? Perhaps that wouldn’t be
too dangerous either.

’’You know, I feel as if I’m floating altmg on the current of
life, very adventurously, being me. 1 get defeated sometimes, I
get hurt sometimes, but I'm learning that those experiences are
not fatal. I don't know exactly who I am, but I can feel my
reactions at any given moment, and they seem to work out
pretty well as a basis for my behavior from moment to moment.
Maybe this is what it means to be me. But of course I can only
do this because I feci safe in the relationship with my therapist.
Or could I be myself this way outside of this relationship? 1
wonder I wonder. Perhaps I could.”'

The politics of the client-centered approach is a conscious
renunciation and avoidance by the therapist of all control over,
or decision-making for, the client. It is the facilitation of self-
ownership by the client and the strategies by which this can be
achieved; the placing of the Ukus of decision-making and the
responsibility for the effects of these decisions. It is politically
centered in the client.

Client-centered therapy has forever changed the politics of
psychotherapy by the recording and publishing of transcribed
therapeutic interviews. The mysterious, unknowable operations
of the therapist are now wide open for ail to see. This has let
a breath of fresh air and common sense pervade the therapeutic
world. The individual is'lible at least to choose a school of
therapy that appears congenial to him. And where, at first, only
client-centered interviews were available for discussion and
criticism, there are now available on tape recordings expert
therapists of a variety of orientations.’

Tom Hanna summarizes well the effect of this, and places a
person<entered psychotherapy in a broader context. “Human-
istic psychology has served to demystify the nature of therapy.
Both the theory and the practice d* therapeutic change should

14

A Quiet Revolution

be made public, so that this knowledge can be be shaied in
common by both the patient and the therai^t. ... It is not a
matter of the therapist following the old authoritarian medical
model of keeping the patient in the dark as a iMtriarch might
treat a child. ... It is a matter of the habituated, unhappy
individual regaining self<control and self>maintenance of his
own wholeness and health.

"Of course, this is a most ‘unprofessional’ procedure, for it
gives away the authority, the secrecy and the unquestionability
of the professional healer and therapist. And it gives these
things away to the patient. The center of the therapeutic action
is not, therefore, considered to be within the therapist's deci-
sions but within the patient’s decisions.’"

It is hardly necessary to say that the person-centered view
drastically alters the therapist-patient relationship, as previ-
ously conceived. The therapist becomes the “midwife" of
change, not its originator. She places the final authority in the
hands of the client, whether in small things such as the correct-
ness of a therapist response, or large decisions like the course
of one’s life direction. The locus of evaluation, of decision, rests
clearly in the client’s hands.

A person-centered approach is based on the premise that the
human being is basically a trustworthy organism, capable of
evaluating the outer and inner situation, understanding herself
in its context, making constructive choices as to the next steps
in life, and acting on those choices.

A facilitative person can aid in releasing these capacities
when relating as a real person to the other, owning and expres.s-
ing her own feelings; when experiencing a nonpossessive caring
and love for the other; and when acceptantly understanding the
inner world of the other. When this approach is made to an
individual or a group, it is discovered that, over time, the
choices made, the directions pursued, the actions taken are
increasingly constructive personally and tend toward a more
realistic social harmony with others.

So familiar has this humanistic, person-centred concept be-

15

Cakl Rogers on Personai Power

Over the years. Freudian analysts have softened their views
of the politics of therapy. Along with Gestalt therapists. Jun-
gians, rational emotive therapists, advocates of transactional
analysis, and many other new therapies, they now take a mid-
dle-of-the-road view. The expert is at times definitely the au-
thority (as in the Gestalt therapist dealing with the person in
the "hot seat"), but there is also a recognition of the right of
the individual to be responsible for himself. There has been no
attempt to ralionalire these contradictions. These therapists
take a paternalistic stance, or follow the medical model, believ-
ing that at times control is best vested in the therapist, at other
times (to be decided by the therapist) control and responsibility
are best placed in the client's, or patient's, hands.

One approach which has been very definite in the politics of
relationships is behaviorism. Its clear purpose is outlined in
Skinner's famous Walden II. '- For the gotxl of the person
(individually or collectiv'ely). an elitist techniKracy of behavio-
rists sets the goats that will make the person happy and produc-
tive It then shapes her behavior by operant conditioning (with
or without the "subject's" knowledge) to achieve those goals.
One's behavior is. after all. completely determined by environ-
ment, and this might better be planned so as to make one happy,
socialised, and moral Who it is that sets the environment for
the planners so that their completely determined behavior
causes them to operate us such a wise and good elite is a
question always deftly avoided. Nevertheless it is assumed that
their goals will be constructively social, and the shaping of
behavior will be for the go<xl of the person as well as society.

Yet at times, when applied to aberrant behavior, this ap-
proach seems a little startling. In ' Criminals Can Be Brain-
washed — Ni>w." McConnell says; "We'd assume that a felony
was clear evidence that the criminal had somehow acquired a
full-blown soaal neurosis and needed to be cured, not punished.
We'd send him to a rehabilitation center where he'd undergo
positive brainwashing until we were quite sure he had becemte
a law-atnding citizen who would not again commit an antisocial

n

A Quiet Revoluthm

act. We’d |HX)bably have to restructure his entire personality.”'*
McConnell seems coroptetely oblivious to the political implica*
tkms of what he is saying. Clearly psychologists who bdieve as
he does would be the first to be subsidized and employed by a
dictator, who would be very happy to have them “cure” various
“felonies” that threatened the state.

In fairness to behaviohsts it should be said that many of them
have come to adopt a greatly changed view of the politics of
relationships. In the commune Twin Oaks, patterned initially
after Walden II, the residents often choose for themselves
which behaviors they wish to change, and select the rewards
which will be most reinforcing. Clearly this is completely op*
posed to the politics of the strict behaviorist, since it is self*
initiated, self-evaluated change. It is not the environment shap-
ing the individual’s behavior, but the individual choosing to
shape the environment for her own personal development.

Some behaviorists have gone even further. Several recent
books depart completely from the basic Skinnerian view.
Rather than controlling the individual, they are helping the
person learn to achieve her own betterment. The title of the
latest book to come to my attention is sufficient in itself to show
that its philosophy is far removed from that of Walden II. The
title is Self-Control: Power to the Person!" In its politics this is
the reverse of strict behaviorism.

The foregoing paragraphs may give the impression that ther-
apists, in the interpersonal politics of their therapies, are gradu-
ally drifting toward a more humanistic view, and may not
actually differ very much from each other in the pattern of their
relationships. Nothing could be further from the truth, as is
dramatically illustrated by a landmark study by Raskin,"
begun more than a decade ago but only recently appearing in
published form.

Raskin took six recorded interviews, conducted by six widely
known and experienced therapists, each from a different school
of thought. Each therapist approved a selected segment of his
interview as being representative of his way of working. These

19

Ca«l Roocm om Pemonal Powe«

•egments were rated by eighty-three therapists, who clashed
themselves as bdongtng to twelve different therapeutic orienta-
tions. The sqpnents were rated (Hi many variables drawn from
dilTering therapeutic theories and practices. Looked at politi-
cally. those who rated high on such variables as “therapist-
directed" or "systematically reinforces” arc clearly therapists
whose behavior is controlling, and who make important choices
for the client. Those who rate high on such variables as "warm
and giving,” “equalitanan,” and "empathic" obviously leave
power and choice in the hands of the client.

When these eighty-three therapists used the same variables
to give their picture of the “ideal" therapist, there was very
substantial agreement, and the outstanding characteristics were
all non -controlling. In other words they desire to behave in
ways that treat the client as an autonomous person.

Yrt in practice the picture is very different. Of the six expert
therapists rated, only two— the client-centered and experiential
therapists — showed any great similarity to the ideal therapist.
The other four — including the rational emotive, the psy-
choanalytic, the Jungian— correlated negatively with the ideal,
some sharply so. In other words, in practice four of the six were
more opposite to than like the ideal therapist as perceived by
the cighty-three practicing therapists. The politics of the thera-
peutic relationship thus not only differs sharply from therapist
to therapist, but in the same therapist may show a sharp differ-
ence between the professed ideal of the group and the way she
actually behaves.

Most procedures in psychotherapy may be placed on a scale
having to do with power and control. At one end of the scale
stand orthodox Freudians and orthodox behaviorists, believing
in a politics of authonunan or elitist control of persons “for
their own good.” either to produce better adjustment to the
status quo or happiness or contentment or productivity or ail
of these, in the middle are most of the contemporary schools
of psychotherapy, confused, ambiguous, or paternalistic in the
pohtics of tieir relationships (though they may be very clear

20

A Quiet Revolution

r^arding their therapeutic strategies). At the other end of the
scale is the client-centered, experiential, person-centered ap-
proach, consistently stresang tlw capacity and autonomy of the
person, her right to choose the directions she wilt move in her
behavior, and her ultimate responsibility for herself in the ther-
apeutic relationship, with the therapist’s person playing a real
but primarity catalytic part in that relationship.'*

This same scale can be applied to the interpersonal relation-
ships in intensive groups. These are so multiform — ^T-groups,
encounter groups, sensitivity training, sensory awareness
groups. Gestalt groups, and the like — that generalization is
well-nigh impossible. The outstanding fact is that different
group leaders vary enormously in the way of relating. Some are
highly authoritarian and directive. Others make maximum use
of exercises and games to reach goals they have chosen. Others
feel little responsibility toward group members: “I do my thing
and you do your thing.” Others, including me. endeavor to be
faciiitative, but in no way controlling.'’ Each leader should
probably be considered as an individual if we are to assess the
politics of her approach.

One new approach appears to be sweeping the country. This
IS the Erhard Seminars Training, founded by Werner Erhard,
and better know as “est." It is the extreme of the leader-
dominated type of group. Members are held to an absolute
discipline, subjected to long hours of ridicule and abuse. All
their beliefs are “bullshit,” and they themselves are “assholes.”
This leads to such confusion that eventually the unquestioned
authority of the leader is established. The final damning state-
ment is that “You are nothing but a goddamn machine! And
you can’t be anything but what you are.” Then comes the
optimistic revelation that “if you accept the nature of your
mind . . . and take responsibility for having created ail the
. . . mechanisms it comprises, then in effect you have freely
chosen to do everything you have ever done and to be precisely
what you are. In that instant you become exactly what you
always wanted to be!”“

21

CaRI. ilOGCRS ON PCRSONAI POWER

A great many of the group experience conversion-type ex-
periences and feel their lives have been greatly changed for the
better. From the point of view of interpersonal politics, two
things impress me. One is the leader's assumption of absolute
control. Though some resent this, the majority who surrender
to the will of the leader indicates what a large proportion of
persons desires to be dependent on a guru. The second point is
that in Erhard's voluminous speeches, where he describes in
many ways the outcomes of his work, he never once refers to
the authoritarian process by which these changes arc brought
about. As in all authoritarian approaches, the end justifies the
means. In the person -centered approach, the process is all-
important. and the changes are only partially predictable.

While est is an extreme example, there is much political
.significance in the increasing use of games and exercises in all
types of intensive groups. There must by now be hundreds of
such exercises, and many who are active in the intensive group
movement use them constantly.

There are many varieties of the fantasy trip. “I’m going to
play some music, and I w ant each of you to have a fantasy while
you listen. Then we can each share our fantasies with the oth-
ers." There arc also many exercises involving touching. Here is
one that involves both touching and feedback. “One at a time,
go around the circle. Touch each person, look in his eyes, and
tell him what you feel about him." And of course this one: “We
will speak only of our feelings in the here and now, with no
references to the past or to the outside world.”

The politics of these exercises depend very much on how they
are used. If the leader describes the game and its purpose, asks
the members if they wish to participate, permits individuals to
opt out if they desire, it is clearly not a coercive move. On the
other hand, if the leader declares "Now we will all ..." the
impact is very different indeed. There is no doubt that in general
the use of exercises or games makes the group leader-centered
rather than member-centered.

I rarely use such exercises. I prefer to start an encounter

22

A Quiet Revolution

group with some brief statement such as, “This is our group.
We’re going to be spending about fifteen hours together, and we
can make of this experience what we wish.” Then I listen,
attentively and acceptantly, to whatever is expressed. 1 dislike
using any procedure that is planned. But sometimes I have tried
to use an exercise. In one apathetic group I suggested that we
try to get out of our doldrums by doing as other groups had
done: forming an inner circle and an outer one, with the person
in the outer circle prepared to speak up for the real feelings of
the individual in front of him. The group paid absolutely no
attention to the suggestion and went on as though it had never
been made. But within an hour, one man picked up the central
aspect of this device and used it. saying, “1 want to speak for
John and say what I believe he is actually feeling.” At least a
dozen times in the next day or two, others used it — but in their
own spontaneous ways, not as a crude or stiff device.'* This
shows how knowledge of different exercises can feed into the
realness and spontaneity that is the essence of a person-centered
group.

Here is an example that indicates the efficacy of the person-
centered approach. Diabasis is a center for dealing with acutely
schizophrenic young persons that was established by John W.
Perry, M.D., a respected Jungian analyst. Diabasis is a Greek
word meaning “crossing over."

Perry had had twenty-fiv^ears of experience in dealing with
psychotics in various settings. He had b^me increasingly con-
vinced that most schizophrenic episodes were actually a chaotic
but vital attempt at growth and self-healing, and that if such an
“Individual” (he dropped the term patient) were treated as a
person and provided with a close and trusting relationship, she
could, in a relatively short time, live through this crisis and
emerge stronger and healthier.^

Dr. Perry and Dr. Howard Levine, another Jungian analyst.

23

Caki. Roceuon Personal Powfr

set up Dtabesis to implonent this view more fully than could
be done in a psychiatrk hospital. The first step was to select a
stair Paper credentials were disregarded. The criteria for selec-
tion consisted of attitudes. They chose people, mostly young
who showed in their training seminars an ability to relate to
withdrawn individuals who were preoccupied' with events in
their inner worlds. Many of these young volunteers were mem-
ber. of the counter-culture. They knew what it was to be alien-
ated. Often they had been on drug trips — good and bad. They
were not frightened by bizarre thoughts or behavior.

Th< home that housed Diabasis had room for only six In-
dividuals, plus volunteers and minimal house staff. It “is a
non-authoritanan, non-judgmental milieu in which each indi-
vidual (staff as well as client) is allowed to express himself in
whatever modes he chcnises. emotionally, arti.stically, and
physically. Clients at every point of their psychosis are regarded
as being in a 'legitimate' state and are not compelled ... to
conform to 'rational’ modes of behavior."^' Instead the
psychotic individual is accepted in two important ways. He is
accepted by everyone in the house as going through a stressful
peruxl of growth during which he needs understanding and
companionship.

Of equal importance is the special relationship with one staff
person, who thoroughly invests herself in building a trusting
closeness with the troubled person. Whenever possible the Indi-
vidual selects this special person with whom to work. Dr. Perry
describes well the reason for this special staff member. “The
inner journey or renewal process tends to remain scattered,
fragmented, and incoherent until the point at which the individ-
ual begins to open up to another person enough to entrust to
him his inno- experience as it unfolds. When this happens the
content of his symbolic experience becomes more intensified,
and thereupon apparently moves ahead in a more progressive
fiohion toward its conclusion. It is often surprising how
'psychotic' and yet at the same time coherent the patient’s

24

A Quiet Revolution

communication can be, providing he feels related to the thera*
pist.””

The same point is made by a young man who worked for two
years at Diabasis, first as a volunteer, recently on the paid staff.
He says: “We feel that what is called madness can best be
understood as a journey of exploration and discovery, regulated
by the psyche, in which the various elements of the personality
can be reorganized in a more fruitful and self-fulfilling way.
This process can only occur, however, in an environment in
which these altered states of consciousness are respected as
valid ways of being, rather than being derided as 'crazy' and of
no value."'*

The contrast with the medical model of treatment of psycho-
sis could scarcely be greater. Under the medical model, this
individual is first of all a patient rather than a person. She is
diagnosed, and either explicitly or implicitly is given to know
that she has an “illness,’* a craziness, which is to be eliminated
by heavy medication or shock therapy, or even restraint if
necessary, until her “illness" is eradicated. It is clear that there
IS something “wrong” with her state, and she must somehow
be brought around into a “right” state. “In the traditional
settings there is massive use of medication and behavioral re-
straint in the early phase of the treatment to suppress the
psychotic material. There is no attempt to sre the material as
useful to the individual involved. Thus, after control of the
psychosis has been established, no e^orts are made to integrate
the material into the ongoing life of the individual.”” It is a
politics of suppression and control by professional power, and
it has a very poor record, as indicated by the “revolving door”
syndrome of psychiatric hospitals.

In Diabasis, as in any person-centered therapy, the politics
is completely reversed. As Perry says, "The philosophy of ther-
apy is, in this case, not one of imposing order from above
downwards by a regimen of strict management, but rather it is
a more fluid one of sensitively following the Individual’s con-

2S

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

cems as they evt^ve through the process in order to catalyze it.
Then a democratic structure of the ward community is the
appropriate form, in which ordering and integrating are ex-
pected to emerge from the spontaneous concerns and feelings
and insights of both resident Individuals and staff together.”*’
This means that the Individual provides the leads, points the
directions she needs to go. Empathically. the therapist and the
Mher house staff Kt as companions in following those leads,
without sacrificing their own feelings or their own personhood.
“The non-rational concerns of the client are given a full hearing
and, to the best of the staffs ability (which increases with
experience) are empathically understood, as a necessary and
deeply meaningful inner journey."** The nurses take their cues
from the Individual and these closer staff companions. The
psychiatrist aids in helping them all understand the directions
they are taking, but in no sense directs the process. Essential
power and control thus flow upward from the psychotic person
and her needs, to the dedicated house staff, to the nurses and
psychiatrists. It is a complete reversal of traditional hierarchi-
cal. psychiatric treatment.

This focus on the person is evident in the highly equalitarian
atmosphere. Staff and Individuals eat together, dress as they
desire. The casual visitor would have no way of knowing who
was client and who was staff.

This whole atmosphere has permeated the organization as
well. From the first the administration of Diabasis became the
province of the whole staff rather than of a director. The power,
responsibility, and decision-making are shared by all. “Democ-
racy can be recognized as a state of psychic development in
which the ordering and ruling principle is realized as belonging
essentially within the psychic life of the individual. . . . The
social structure and culture esublished in the therapeutic mi-
lieu should be a reflection of this natural need, a fitting external
expressioo of what is hailing in depth.”*’ In person-centered
therapy, the tnuhtitmal organization, with power flowing down
from the top, becomes totally inappropriate and ridiculous.

2fi

A Quiet Revolution

The immediate result of this whole pn^ram on the psychotic
individual is dramatic. “What has most remarkable and
beyond all of our expectations, is that individuals in acutely
psychotic turmoils very rapidly settle down and become clear
and coherent, usually within a period of a few days to a week,
and without the use of medication. Thus severely disturbed
behavior becomes manageable when staff relate with feeling to
the individual’s emotional state."'*

Although the history of this unique place is brief, the out-
comes appear to be good. One indication is that four former
clients (Individuals) are already on the staff of a conceptually
similar small institution. They are now able to use their own
past experience to help others. The cost is far less than in the
usual facility. And it seems to have left behind the “revolving
door" experience of the state hospital.

It is reasonable to suppose that this innovative, helpful new
mode of dealing with the young person during her first
psychotic episode would be widely hailed and eagerly sup-
ported. Not so. To understand the reasons, we need to look at
the politics of Diabasis, and the threat it constitutes to the
traditional politics.

It is easy to see why orthodox psychiatrists and even Jungian
colleagues look upon Diabasis with uneasiness and criticism. At
Diabasis the best therapists often have proven to be relatively
untrained paraprofessionals. This is disturbing to the ordinary
professional. They are mostly volunteers, thus posing a vague
economic threat. There is no strict medical control, in the
ordinary sense. This offends physicians. The doctors do not
even use their prerogative to prescribe medication. Dr. Perry
thinks he has given two tranquilizers in the past ten months!
The organization itself is not directed by physicians. They are
simply facilitators of a process. This is a staggering dqMUture
from tradition.

Consequently there is grumbling and criticism about “low
standards." Financial support is very difficult to come by. Like
all person-centered therapy, it is revolutionary in its implica-

27

Caul Rooeiu on Pemonal Power

ttons, and the profesnoiMJ establishment is fearful of it. To see
psychiatrists rdinquishing control of “patients" and staff, to see
thm serving only as successful facilitators of personal growth
fw deeply troubled “insane" persons rather than being in
c/iarge of these people is, 1 am sad to say. a very frightening
scene to psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health
professionals. Revolutionaries are seen as dangerous — and
there is no doubt that they are dangerous to the established
order.

A person-centered approach, when utilized to encourage the
growth and development of the psychotic, the troubled, or the
normal individual, revolutionizes the customary behaviors of
ntembers of the helping professions It illustrates many things:
(l) A sensitive person, trying to be of help, becomes more per-
son-centered. no matter what orientation she starts from, be-
cause she finds that approach more effective. (2) When you are
focused on the person, diagnostic labels become largely irrele-
vant. 0) traditional medical model in psychotherapy is
discovered to be largely in opposition to person-centeredness.
(4) It is found that those who can create an effective person-
centered relationship do not necessarily come from the profes-
sionaliy trained group. (5) The more this person-centered ap-
proach is implemented and put into practice, the more it is
found to challenge hierarchical models of “treatment” and hier-
archical methods of organization. (6) The very effectiveness of
this unified person-centered approach constitutes a threat to
professkmals, administrators, and others, and steps are taken —
consciously and unconsciously — to destroy it. It is too revolu-
tionary.

Chapter

The neuLj family—
and the old

An individual who is attempting to live his life in a person'
centered way brings about a politics of family relationships, and
marriage or partner relationships, which is drastically different
from the traditional model. The child is treated as a unique
person, worthy of respect, possessing the right to evaluate his
experience in his own way, with wide powers of autonomous
choice. The parent respects himself also, with rights which
cannot be overridden by the child. In the relationship between
partners, married or otherwise, issues are confronted with as
much openness as the partners are capable of. In other realms
there is much freedom for each partner to pursue a life direc-
tion, to make choices, to engage in work or other aaivities in
his own way.

In these relationships ihe eventual choice lies in the person,
as does the responsibility for that choice. The relationship is one
of a changing expression of feelings and attitudes, with the
other endeavoring to hear and to listen acceptantly, but with a
right to his own feelings and attitudes as well, which also need
to be acceptantly beard. It is a most difficult kind of relationship
to achieve, which would certainly not be worth the investment
were the results not so rewarding.

One facet of this complex scene is the manner of relating to

29

CaRI ROCiF.RS ON Pfrronai Powi r

(I was going to say the rearing of) children. I am acquainted
with a number of parents m their twenties, thirties, and forties
who have been exposed to a person-centered approach —
through student-centered classes, workshops, encounter
groups, therapy or a combinaimn of these experiences. These
parents have a new way of dealing with the child, from infancy
through late adolescence. His earliest tears and wails, his begin-
ning smiles and his mouthing of sounds are efforts to communi-
cate, and an earnest and respectful attention is given to'those
primitive communications The effort is also made to allow the
child the right to choose, in any situation in which he seems
capable of bearing the consequences of his choice. This is an
expanding process, in which increasing autonomy is given to
the child and adolescent, autonomy bounded only by the feel-
ings of those who are close to the youngster.

If this sounds like a completely child-centered family, it is
not. The parent has feelings and attitudes too. and tries to
communicate these to the child in a way this smaller person can
understand. The results are fantastic. Because they are continu-
ally aware of many of their own feelings and those of their
parents, and because these feelings have been expressed and
accepted, the children develop as highly social creatures. They
are responsive to other people, open in expressing their feelings,
scornful of being talked down to, creative and independent in
their activities. They are sensitive to the feelings of others about
them, and though at times they may be confronting, it is only
occasionally that they consciously attempt to hurt another.
Thus there are two disciplines in their lives; the self-discipline
that is always inherent in autonomy with responsibility, and the
flexible boundaries — and hence discipline — set by the feelings
of those who are close to them.

These children are not good material for a traditional school,
which expects to mold them into conforming robots, but they
are extremely eager learners when exposed to a climate that
encourages learning. They are a great hope for the future. They
are accustomed to living as independent beings, openly relating

30

A Quiet Revoi.ution

to others, and they expect to continue in that fashion — in their
school life, their work life, and in their relationship te partners.
These children are growing up with a minimum of repressed
feehngs — feelings denied to awareness out of guilt or fear— and
with a minimum of inhibitions imposed by others through ex-
ternal controls. They come closer to being truly free creatures
than any adults 1 know.

I don't wish to paint too rosy a picture. I have seen some of
these parents forget, temporarily, that they have rights, with
resultant spoiling of the child. I have seen parents and children
revert temporarily to the old ways — the parent commanding,
the child resisting. Both parents and children are sometimes
exhausted, and react badly. There are always frictions and diffi-
culties to be communicated and worked through. But all in all,
in these families we find parent and child in a continuous prch
cess of relating, a developing series of changes whose final
outcome is not known but is being shaped by an infinite number
of daily choices and actions. The politics of control and obedi-
ence, with Its pleasing static security, is gone. The politics of a
process relationship between unique persons, a very different
politics, takes its place.

How early can this relationship between unique persons be-
gin? While I have been fascinated by the horizontal spread of
the person-centered approach into so many areas of our life,
others have been more interested in the vertical direction and
are discovering the profound value of treating the infant, dur-
ing the whole birth process, as a person who should be under-
stmxi, whose communications should be treated with respect,
who should be dealt with empathicaliy. This is the new and
stimulating contribution of Frederick Leboyer,' a French obste-
trician who, after delivering thousands of babies, began to
change his methods in very striking ways and who has assisted
in the delivery of at least a thousand infants in what can only-
be called a person-centered way.

Leboyer has become indignant at our failure to understand,
empathicaliy, the struggles and cries, the fear and pain of the

31

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

newborn. He points out that the newly arriving infant is not
blind, as is often supposed. He is instead ultrasensitive to light
after nine months in the dark womb, and we blind him with
floodlights in the delivery room. We assume that it makes no
difference what he hears, and hence loud conversations and
exhortations to the mother in labor to “Push! Push harder,” are
unimportant. Yet the baby is very sensitive to sound, and for
some time after birth can te soothed and put to sleep by a tape
recording of the sounds from inside the uterus — the movonents
of joints and muscles, the rumblings of stomach and intestines,
and above all the steady rhythm of the mother’s heartbeat. We
assume that the baby’s skin can stand the touch of dry cloth,
when actually it is almost as raw as tissue that has suffered a
burn. We assume that the first breaths are exhilarating, when
the child’s cries indicate that they are probably extremely pain*
ful.

Above all, the individuals involved are concerned with their
own feelings, not those of the newly bom. The doctor has com*
pleted his delivery — ^and is pleased with himself. The mother is
smiling because the ordeal is over; she hears her baby crying
and IS proud of herself. The father is happy for having sired a
son or daughter. So who pays attention to the infant’s reac*
tions? No one. He is too immature to have feelings or reactions.
It IS assumed. The infant is picked up by the feet, forcefully
straightening a spine which has always been curved, slapped on
the buttocks to force him to brathe, cut off from his alternate
source of oxygen by snipping the umbilical cord, often placed
on a cold metal scale for weighing, and then wrapped in dry
cloth. The photographs of the screaming, terrified, blinded in-
fants handled in this customary fashion are damning.

And what does Lcboyer do about all this? He enters into the
trauma of birth and new life and tries to understand this nascent
person. In so doing he changes almost every step of handling
an infant’s birth.

First IS the training of the mother for a natural childbirth.
She IS prepared for the steps the doctor will take. She will not

32

A Quiet Revolution

be frightened by the fact that her baby will not loudly cry, but
may simply utter one or two small cries or gasps as it starts to
breathe. She is encouraged to feel "I am a mother, " not “This
is my child. **

Then come the changes in the methods of delivery. As soon
as the head appears, and it seems the birth will be normal, all
the bright lights are extinguished, leaving only one soft light.
During this time and afterward, the delivery room is silent. If
there must be conversation, it ts whispered.

As the child emerges, care is taken not to touch the head,
which has borne the brunt of the pain of the birth canal. The
child is then settled immediately on the mother's belly, now so
hollow, where the warmth and the inner gurgles and the heart-
beat can again be experienced. This placement makes it un-
necessary to cut the umbilical cord, thus leaving the infant with
two sources of oxygen, avoiding brain damage from anoxia. The
baby, usually after a cry or two, begins to breathe. Sometimes,
too, he stops breathing for a bit, and then starts again at his own
pace. Since oxygen is still being received from the placenta, this
IS not dangerous. By the time the umbilical cord stops pulsating
— usually after four or five minutes — ^the infant’s breathing
apparatus is working, he is cradled in the most comfortable
place, second only to the womb, and is beginning to move and
stretch. The baby has not been rushed. His natural pace has
been respected. The umbilicus is now cut, having ceased to
function. Leboyer adds, “We must behave with the utmost
respect toward this instant of birth, this fragile moment."

As the child begins to use its limbs to explore the new space
on the mowier’s abdomen, touch becomes the means of commu-
nication. Hands — preferably the mother’s — ^are placed quietly
and softly on the infant, or the back is stroked rhythmically as
a reminder of the internal rhythms previously experienced. Tliis
touching assures the baby that “We are both still here; we are
both alive.”

When the infant seems ready, it is lifted from the mother’s
body and lowered dowly and gently into water that is heated

33

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

to body temperstiire--98 or 99 d^rees. Here it begins to move
Its limbs, to turn its heul from skk to side. Then the eyes are
opened! Photogra|dis of these newborn show them to look as*
tonishingly older than we would expect. They are calm and
exploratory, not in panic or fear, nor sobbing in pain. They
begin clearly to enjoy themselves and their movements. Only
when the child seems fully relaxed, and showing a welcoming
attitude toward these tremendous new discoveries, is he
removed from the water and placed in warmed cloth. The
transfer from the womb to the world has been successfully
begun.

Though it is loo soon to know the long-term effects, this new
way of handling the birth process is profoundly important. By
respecting the infant, and endeavoring to deal with him under-
standingly, the psychological scars of the birth trauma have
been enormously reduced. To come into the new life so gradu-
ally, with security and a caring, loving touch is much better for
the child’s psychological development than for him to be sud-
denly exposed to all sorts of ternfying stimuli and forced into
a fearful new way of being. A French study of 120 of these
infants up to the age of three shows them to be astonishingly
free of feeding and sleeping problems, and to be more alert,
coordinated, and playful than other children. They are also
relaxed and agreeable.

What happens when parents regard their children as unique
persons in an ever changing communicative relationship? The
story of Ben and Claire illustrates the dynamics of this process.’
Claire had raised her children along authoritarian lines until
her divorce and remamage to a man who was committed to the
person<entered approach. Each partner brought to this mar-
nage children by previous marriages, and there were many new
lelationships with varying degrees of trust and communication.
Claire found herself changing.

34

A Quiet Revolution

In trying to resolve some of the new issues, Ben end Cfaure
decided to have meetings in whidi every member of the fiimUy,
no matter how young or dd. was free to express his feelings —
the comfdaints, satisfactions, or reactions — to the others.

The father of Walter. Claire’s oldest son, had disappeared
from Walter’s life with little warning. Otherwise Oaire’s state-
ment is self-explanatory. I simply asked her how their family
group meetings had started.

Claire: We scheduled them. We picked a time. It turned out
that it was every Tuesday. And nothing interfered with Tues-
day — not a business meeting or a movie or entertaining, or if
somebody came over we had to ask them to leave and come over
another day. The children learned to count on that. There were
a lot of adjustments to be made between me and Ben, between
Ben and my children, and me and his children, and between the
children. And Ben had been involved in group work before and
wanted this kind of experience — the closeness and sharing and
expression of feelings — to be a natural part of the family unit.
He called a meeting following dinner. We ail stayed at the table
— the children wondering what was going to happen. He
started it by trying to teach them how to express feelings and
get away from accusations, you know — "You are a bully,’’ or
"You pick on me." I was picked to be the first one to start going
around the circle. There were eight of us at the table and I had
seven people to cover and to tell them how I felt about them,
each one. And not only the positive but some of the negative
things, some of my concerns and worries that were very differ-
ent with each child. And it was really the first time I had talked
about negative things in a constructive way in front of every-
body else. That usually is a private thing. 1 could say to one of
the boys how proud 1 felt of his scholastic accomplishments but
at the same time how worried I was about what I perceived as
selfishness — that I didn’t really understand where it came from
and I wanted to talk to him more about it so that we could
resolve it or I could understand it better. It was the first time

33

Cam. Roous on PBatoNAt Power

I hadn't just shouted at him and said, "Share dm with your
sister, what’s the matter with youT' And he could Aeor me The
children were restless and embarrassed at first And then Ben.
my husband, was neat and he was a lot more skilled than I and
totaled off what I had said from his point of view By that time
the children had settled down and one of them was first and
went around the circle--they really did a darned good job I
was surpnsed and very pleased And they were proud and
surprised and pleased with themselves
And then an important thing happened My oldest son. Wal-
ter, had had the hMdest time with my divorce He was the one
who was chewing his fingernails and having nightmares And
not doing very well in school He adored Ben He was so happy
to have Ben for his father — his stepfather When he went
around in the circle he said a lot of things about all of us. but
when he got to Ben he just said. "And of course I love you."
and passed right on And we were all aware of something
missing there But as soon as Walter was finished. Ben was the
first one to say. "Gee. Walter. 1 feel cheated Everyone seemed
to get so much more from you. and 1 love hearing that you love
me but there must be more and I really want some of that " And
Walter in kind of a cool way said. "Well, ah I don’t want
to give you any more I don’t want to love you too much or get
too close to you because I am afraid you are going to leave me ’’
Wow' Tears started all around the table We never would have
heard that coming from Walter, would never even have known
that was a part of him if we hadn’t had this kind of structured
scene to get in touch with this sort of thing It gave Ben an
opportunity to let Walter know he understood him. like. I know
how you loved your father and trusted him to be with you
always and he left you and then your mother has had two other
men she was seriously interested in who claimed to love you and
they left And now here I am and 1 claim to love you and you
don't have any guarantees about me And then he said, "But
rU tell you something 1 want you to know that 1 am going to
love you just as long as 1 live and you can trust me to be

A Quiet Revolutxin

available to you and never leave you for as long as you want
me.” And Walter looked at him and started to cry and got up
and walked around the table and just threw himself in Ben's
arms and they sobbed. And everybody did. And the children
at the table ... got up and touched Waiter. It was just a natural
thing for them to do. At any rate, you can imagine it was
something.

This family meeting offers some astonishing contrasts with
the usual family relationships: (i) The focus on relationships
between the members of the family had higher priority than any
other engagement of any kind. (2) The effort was made to focus
on owned feelings, not accusations of judgments of another. (3)
This shift was fully as hard for the parents as for the children.
For Claire to change from “Share that with your sisteri” to “I
don’t understand your (as it appears to me) selfishness" is an
enormous change. (4) The new approach is not initially trusted.
Everyone is uneasy, a bit suspicious, except possibly Ben. (5)
The respect for the children is highly rewarded, because they
turn out to be worthy of respect. (6) The openness which devel*
ops leads to a totally unexpected self-revelation, and a deep
communication. (7) The relationship between all members of
the family as separate but interdependent persons is much
strengthened.

This is a family communicating as psychological equals. It is
a far cry from both the traditional family, which is slowly dying
today, but still prevalent, and the more modem family that is
the norm in our culture. In the traditional family, the father is
head of the household. He makes all the decisions. No one
undertakes any significant action without his permission. Nega-
tive feelings or resentments, whether by spouse or children, are
not permissible, and consequently almost everything important
IS kept secret from him. In the modem family, the father and
mother jointly make all the important decisions. They attempt
to control all the actions of their childien, often unsuccessfully,
espenally with teenagers. Consequently the relationship oftm

37

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

resembles guerrilla warfare. Between these familtes.and the
family of Ben and Claire sitting around the table there lies a
politioil revolution.

In the traditional family the politics of the situation is very
clear. The father's authority is backed by religious and legal
sanctions. The only way that family members can to any degree
live independent lives is to do so secretly, deceiving him.

in the usual present-day family, control is theoretically
unified in the hands of both parents, but in practice they often
disagree. This opens the way for a power struggle between
family members, with temporary or permanent factions form-
ing. Subtle strategies are used by the children to set the parents
against each other. The sanctions for parental authority are no
longer so strong, further weakening the control structure. Con-
sequently one of the most frequent characteristics is a continual
wrangle over decisions involving control. “Why do 1 have to
help with the dishes?" “Why can’t I have the car tonight?” “I
want to wear my blue jeans!" “Why do I have to come htune
at eleven, when my friend Suzy can stay out till midnight?” The
children are struggling for more independence of parental au-
thonty. The parents are in the position of a weak government,
alternatively being very firm and then giving in to demands.
The politics of the family is very unstable.

Ren and Claire often fall into this same pattern. But at its best
the politics of their family life sets a whole new pattern. This
IS not a family trying to make the traditional family structure
work better. It is an entirely new and revolutionary way of
being together in a family.

So much for the person-centered approach as it applies to the
emotional interactions in a family. Is it capable of dealing with
practical, everyday problems of behavior and discipline?

Clairf: Definitely. I can give you an example of one that I
think is just marvelous. I would come home from work and
walk in the door, anxious to be there. I really dig my fam-
ily. and 1 like to be with them, but the first things I'd see

38

A Quiet Revoi utioh

would be coats and sweaters and books and baseball mitts
and dirty glasses and cookie crumbs The kids were glad to
see me but I’d begin with “Good heavens, what's going on?
Pick this up and put that away," and I’d be punishing and
ugly and the kids didn’t like me and 1 didn’t like me and
they felt guilty and ashamed. I began to think about it and I
realized that they really didn’t notice the things, because if I
pointed to them they would pick them up and if 1 didn’t
point to the thing three feet away they didn’t see it. it was
strange But they really didn’t see it. And st> I called a
meeting. We had regular meetings, but you can also call
one And I called a meeting and for the first time really
owned this as niy own problem. I have a problem. 1 can’t
bear to have the house cluttered the way it is

CsRi . It wasn't a problem to them but it was very much of a
problem for you

Cl AlRi. Exactly They didn't care They didn't care how
messed up the house was It wasn’t their problem. It was mine
I’m a member of the family and have a right to some considera-
tion here They accept that I said, “I need some help with this
problem ’’ We must have been at the table an hour and half. The
children came up with the solution to my problem. It was
ultimately called the “disappear box.’’ We had a box, and any
Item found by anyone in the common rooms — the kitchen,
living room, bathrooms, the hallway — was thrown in this mar-
velous old cardboard box and it would disappear And they
decided that it would stay there for a week. Whatever it was.
I didn't have to enforce it The kids made it, and there’s no
percentage in beating their own system. They were delighted
with It and they policed each other. Beautifully, you know. A
twelve-year-<rfd knew just when a fourteen-year-old had lost
something in the box, and if he took it out twenty-five minutes
early it was ... it just wasn’t going to happen.

Carl: It had to be there the whole week . .

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

Claire: Right. Exactly. To the minute. At any rate things just
disappeared like magic. The box was absolutely overflowing.
And it was tested. There were a lot of times when we could have
just blown the whole thing. For instance, one of the boys lost
his school shoes the first day. He came home from school and
took them off and they disappeared. And the next day he
searched and couldn’t find them and nobody told him. and he
finally realized, oh. Good Lord, they were in the “disappear
box." So he wears dirty old smelly tennis shoes and the n;xt day
he lost those. And you know, here’s the test. What’s mother
going to do? He kind of looked to me. OK. 1 have to go to
school and I don’t have any shoes. And it was just not my
problem. I turned and walked away from it. And the kids told
him absolutely not. You don’t get those shoes and you don’t get
the tennis shoes and what are you going to do? Anyway they
came up with his house slippers. That's all he had left. He went
to school in his slippers. And it was hard for me to do that. But
1 let him do it. . . . And it worked.

But another thing that happened as a result of this was
something 1 didn't realize. When 1 walked in from work 1 took
my shoes off and left them by the door. 1 didn’t see my own
shoes, but they did. I had three pair of shoes, green ones, blue
ones, and black ones. I lost my blue and 1 lost my black and
1 wore green shoes to work for a week with every color of outfit.
Ben lost two of his sports jackets, several ties, and a pair of
shoes. Oh, they just gathered up all of our things that we left
around. It really worked both ways and it was great. It was a
lesson for me.

Carl: I think that what makes it really great is that it did work
both ways and that it was their solution. I have often been
impressed with the fact that kids faced with a problem are a
good deid more ingenious than adults in thinking up ways of
solving it.

Claire: 1 never would have thought to leave things there a

40

A Quiet Rev<h.ution

week. They are harder on themselves, but it’s fair. They’re
great.

The politics of the relationships here is clear. First is Claire’s
typical nagging parental control. Then comes her recognition
that she is spoiling her relaticmship to her children, a result she
doesn’t wish. Then the realization that, incomprehensibly, it
doesn’t seem a problem to them, but it is to her, and she has
rights. Next comes the risk — process is always a risk — of rsking
for help in solving her problem. Then the ingenious solution
created by the whole family — the “disappear box.”

This is a marvelous example of letting children (and adults)
bear the responsibility for choices (even unconscious ones)
where they can bear the consequences.

The final learning is that every problem is largely in the eye
of the beholder. Her shoes had not been “a household mess,”
but the children's things obviously were. To learn that she too
"makes a mess” is a painful lesson. But now the power is truly
equalized and experienced as such.

A person-centered approach, wherever it exists in family life,
changes markedly the politics of child-parent and parent-child
relationships. It is a new pattern for family living.

41

Chcv>tcr

The revdutfon

hnnoffioge

ofKJpoftnef6hip6

So many deq>ly significant social factors have influenced the
marriage relationship that it is virtiully impossible to isolate the
specific impact of a person-centered approach. Each of these
factors has made a difference m the “politics" of marriage.

First of all there is the effect of greatly improved methods of
contraception. The tremendous impact of contraception was
imxi^t home to me in reading Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate
Biography, by Fawn Brodie.' Jefferson and his wife, Martha,
were very much in love, and very close to each other. During
their marriage, according to Jefferson, he lived “ten years in
unchecquered happiness." But it is hardly an exaggeration to,
say that she was killed by their love. She was physically fragile,
pregnant most of the time, had serious difficulties in childbear-
ing, and died from the complications of childbirth a few months
after the birth of their sixth child. Three of the six died before
she did. Jefferson was thirty-nine, she was thirty-four at the
time of her death. The story is not unusual. Martha's mother
had died three weeks after Martha’s birth. Her father then took
another wife, who lived only a few years, and a third, who
survived for only eleven months. After this her father turned
to one of his female mulatto slaves, who, seemingly less vulnera-
ble to infections than his white wives, bore him six children.

42

A Quiet REVoumoN

These are not isolated stories. With variations, they are re-
peated throughout Brodie’s book, and involve the families of
Jefferson's relatives and friends. Being a wife was certainly one
of the most hazardous occupations of the tune. Wives were
expendable because there seemed no other alternative. Only
celibate or infertile women had a reasonable life expectancy.

Now all that is changed. The availability of effective con-
traception means that marriage can become more of a partner-
ship, since the wife is no longer fully occupied with pregnancy,
nursing, and child-rearing. It also means that physically she is
as free as her husband to explore relationships outside of mar-
riage. Premarital sex and sexual relations outside of marriage
have increased markedly among women. She also has a chance
to choose between family and career, or to balance the two. For
the first time in history she is physically a free agent. Effective
contraception has made possible the release of woman from her
subjugated role. The impact on the politics of the family has
been incalculable.

A second circumstance has also greatly affected marriage.
This is the lengthened life span of both men and women and the
consequent lengthening of the potential span of marriage. In
less than a hundred years our life expectancy has doubled. In
the United States a white woman may expect to live to age
seventy-six, a white man to sixty-nine. Non-whites have a some-
what shorter life expectancy. The actuarial expectancy for the ,
length of any marriage was over thirty-one years in 1971, the
latest year for which figures ate available, ^mpared to the
historical past, this is an unheard-of span. A marriage of the
past, with a possibility of lasting ten to fifteen years before being
broken by death, is very different from a marriage of today,
where it is possible that the two may live for fifty years before
death takes either one. The flaws in a relationship which might
be endured for ten years will not be endured for fifty. Hie
number of elements that can change lives and nuke a relation-
ship unstable is multiplied, unless the couple grows together
and adjusts well to a continually changing relationship.

43

Carl Rogers on Perscwal Power

Another social factor that has entered in is the increasing
social acceptance of divorce. No longer does either partner
necessarily feel bound to the other “till death do us part."
Neither partner any longer has lasting power or control over
the other. Each individual always has the power of choice over
whether to preserve the nurriage.

Family mobility and transiency have had a profound eflect
on the interpersonal relationship of marriage. This puts the
emphasis of the marriage on the quality of the relationship
between two people. No longer is there an extended family to
buffer the strains. Hence any deficiencies in the relationship
bectmie highlighted.

One iittie*reoognized factor deserves mention. In 1940 17 per-
cent of wives held jobs. In 1972 it was 42 percent, with 7 percent
earning more than their husbands. The woman is more inde-
pendent of her spouse, and she is much more likely to be in
contact with other men at work. Again the possibilities of strain
in the relationship are decidedly increased.

Increased sexual freedom has profoundly affected marriage.
It is reported that 90 percent of the young people approaching
their first marriage have engaged in intercourse, though only 37
percent of the population believe such behavior is permissible.
Furthermore one study shows that where the partners in a first
marriage are from twenty to twenty-five years of age, they
engage in more extramarital sex during the first two years of
marriage than during an entire married lifetime for older in-
dividuals.’ The significance of these facts for the future of mar-
riage patterns can hardly be exaggerated.

All these factors make a person-centered marriage or part-
nership more possible. But they also make marriage more risky,
more open to tensions, less likely to endure. We face the di-
lemma that the more person-centered the sexual partnership
becomes, the more it is open to disruption; on the other hand
the more person-centered it becomes the more it is open to
fulfillment and enrichment for each of the partners.

Each of these social circumstances gives the woman more

44

A Quiet Revolution

options, more chance for dignity, more possibility of discover-
ing her own self-worth. They have all come together in one of
the most rapid and effective “quiet revoluticms” of our time— -
the women's liberation movement. Here we find an insistence
on doing away with discrimination against women — in job op-
portunities, in property laws, in civil rights, in pay. Even in less
obvious situations like our language — mankind, chairman,
homage to Him — we are being made sensitive to the subtle way
of holding down the self-esteem of women.

In Its consciousness-raising efforts, as well as in its political
and legal activities, the women’s liberation movement is essen-
tially person-centered. At its philosophical best it carries with
It a deep trust in the capacity of the individual woman to live
a life of her own choosing, to become an independent and
creative person, if society will only create an acceptant climate
for growth. The individual man may also become much more
of a whole person — tender, loving, and emotional as well as
intellectual and achieving— if the social climate can make room
for this. Yet many men see “women’s lib” as nothing but a
threat — to their masculinity, to their position in the family, to
their jobs. It is thus obvious that the women’s liberation move-
ment and its implications constitute an extraordinary force in
altering the dynamics and the politics of marriage.

Here are some learnings I have gained from partners who
have been involved in~a person-centered climate — couples
groups, encounter groups, individual therapy, or reading. These
partners have found more of an acceptance of their own unique
selves. The person-centered approach has had a variety of
effects on these partnerships:

Difficulties already present in the partnership are brought into
the open. A young couple had been living together and were
planning to marry. They were together in an encounter group
and asked the group’s permission to explore their relationship

45

CaRI ROCihRS ON PMISONAI POWt.R

With the help of the participants. As they began to open up to
each other, it was clear that they knew each other hardly at all.
They had differing goals and sharply differing perceptions. For
esample. the young woman thought of herself as reasonably
adequate, certainly not mferior. She was astonished and hurt to
find that her lover saw her as much inferior to him in social
status and intellect. As they explored their differences, they
became much more open with each mher. but their partnership
seemed highly precarious. Yet a letter more than a year later
told me of their marriage, their growing areas of mutual interest
and work, and their current satisfaction with their relationship.
Evidently the risk they took in exploring their profound differ-
ences had deepened the bonds of partnership rather than break-
ing them.

The areas of difference may occur in a variety of fields. In one
couple the husband is hedonistic, works when he has to, regards
himself as essentially "a lary bum," while his wife is strongly
imbued with a work ethic. Says she, "My heart skips a beat
when i hear him say, T just want to be rich and have fun.’ ”
She thinks he should be more serious about his work. It is an
indication of the incredible complexity of human relationships
that the work-oriented wife is, with her husband’s consent, a
topies.s go-go dancer, while the "lazy bum" is in business! But
exploration of their differing goals is helping to bring them
together.

The gulf that exists between partners may be due to old hurts.
Hal and Jane have been married for fifteen years, have worked
out many difficulties due to differing religious and cultural
backgrounds, and their relationship now seems quite stable. Yet
in an interview she reveals that she has held back much of her
affection, and is not now freely giving toward him, because of
an old resentment. During the early years of marriage Jane felt
she did qo percent of the giving, Hal to percent. She has never
talked out her resentment, and has carried evidence of this old
scar into her present relationship with him. Both of them are

46

A Quiet Revolution

now sad that she didn’t expreM her feelings much earlier — ^the
partnership might have been much improved.

Another effect is that communiratkm becomes more open,
more real, with more mutual listening. One can sometimes see
the exact moment in which this process is taking place. In a
couples group a husband and wife were constantly attacking
each other. The group tried to help them to listen more, to
express their own feelings, not their judgments. The hust»nd
seemed to absorb something of this, and took the risk of stating,
rather poignantly, the trap he felt he was in. The moment he
ceased speaking, his wife took olT in her attack on his motives
and his behavior toward her. The facilitator interrupted, “Did
you hear what your husband was trying to tell you?" “Of course
I did.“ The facilitator said. “Would you just tell him the essence
of what he said, so that he knows you heard him?” She fell
silent, obviously searching her memory. She began to look very
embarrassed. Finally she said to her husband, in the softest
voice she had used since the group began, “What did you say?"
It was the beginning of more listening.

In the climate of a person-centered approach the partners
come to recognize the value of separateness. Carol and Bob had
all the external trappings of a happy marriage. Both were edu-
cated, and things went well for them — they had a suburban
house, a baby, and a new car. They did everything together.
Everyone regarded theirs as a very successful marriage. In-
wardly they both found the marriage dull and frustrating. They
were disillusioned and angry — at each other, but especially at
life.'

They attended a couples group, and began to realize that they
had stopped growing when they married, and more important,
that they were not communicating. Finally Bob risked reveal-
ing himself and told Carol of the affairs he had been having with
other women. She was frightened and jealous. She had assumed
that there was security in her world, and now that world had
collapsed. Her marriage was out of her control, and she was

47

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

very ihrestened. But even in her fright there was a dawning
realization. “If he can be separate, perhaps 1 can too.'* She
became much more open in the group, and hence was seen u
more lovable. But to see that she was lovable in the eyes of the
group members was scary to Bob. He in his turn felt threatened
and hurt.

But his courage in being open about his affairs led her to be
more courageous. Soon they were talking all night, each discov-
ering new and interesting facets of the other. More and more
each became aware of their separateness. They now can permit
each other to date and pursue other relationships. Carol espe-
cially has dropped her “nice” image and become more of a real
self, a self in which she f^ls much more confidence.

For Carol and Bob, a growth-promoting climate has meant
a complete alteration in the politics of their marriage. No longer
are they controlled by society's expectations — that they must
do everything together, must follow a conventional pattern,
must submerge their lives in each other. They arc becoming
unique and separate persons, pursuing diflering path.s, and
bound together by communication and mutual love, not by
some imagined conventional pattern from outside.

Another result of such a climate is that the woman 's growing
independence is recognized as valuable in the relationship. This
is another example of the separateness we have just been noting,
but it is such an important part of modern partnerships that it
deserves special mention.

Jerry recently experienced what he called a "bkvkbuster” in
his marriage. He has been pretKcupied with his work. Jane has
carried the difficult task of raising their son, not without buried
resentment. As her time became more free with the passing
years, she returned to the university for further education, be-
ing exposed to several person-centered influences. She decided
that she wanted to take a professional position in the town
where they had formerly lived. She told 5e^, but he simply
could not take it seriously. When it did hit home that she meant
it. and that he would either have to give her up or change jobs

48

A Quiet Rev(m,ution

himself, it was. as he says, a “l^kbuster.** Hie fiuntly discus*
sions were heated, and Jane fonunately talked out some of her
resentments, becoming more willing to make accommodations.
But the family is moving, Jerry is changing jobs, and the dy-
namics thdr relationship has altered dramatically. Jorry has
more respect for his wife; he sees more clearly the role he has
played of being married to his and the ability of each of
them to share their feelings has been markedly increased. Even
in regard to their sexual relatimiships, which have never been
ideal, there is more communication and hope. Part of the prob-
lem is that successful sexual intimacy has been difficult when
Jane has been harboring a buried resentment toward her hus-
band.

The problem of where to live, when both husband and wife
are working and have attractive opportunities in different com-
munities. IS an increasing one. Solving it demands the utmost
of shared feelings, exploration of all the options, and willingness
to reach a solution that may not be ideal for either. SuCh prob-
lems are certain to occur more frequently as marriage is seen
as an equalitarian partnership, with each spouse being re-
spected as able to make important choices.

This new trend is often especially threatening to the husband
of the developing professional woman. Her increased indepen-
dence makes him feel unneeded as a provider, his old role.
There is always the possibility that she may earn more than he.
Where both are in the same or similar professions, competition
becomes implicit in their relationship. As a consequence the
quality of their sexual relationship, the degree to which each is
growing, the extent to which they are developing mutual inter-
ests — all of these become far more important than in conven-
tional marriages.

Inevitably, in a person-centered situation, there is increasing
recognition of the importance of feelings, as well as reason, of
emotitms as well as intellect.

A feeling is “an emotionally tinged experience, together with
its personal meaning. Thus it includes the emotion but also the

49

Cakl Rogers on Personal Power

cognitive content of the mesning of that emotion in its experioi-
tiai context. (They are] experioiced inseparably in the mo>
ment."* Including as it does both emotion and meaning, feeling
is the broader term. The stress that recent centuries have placed
upon reason, thinking, and rationality is the attempt to divorce
the two actually inseparable components of experience, to the
detriment of our humanity.

This divorce of reason from feeling is one of the first myths
to disappear in a person-centered approach. Individuals find
them.seives communicating with their whole beings, expressing
their experiences, not some desiccated intellectual representa-
tion of them.

This IS one of the major rea.sons why a person-centered ap-
proach has been so valuable to married couples and those living
together in relationships. "Pure” reason and “objective” evalu-
ation are not a basis on which two human beings can effectively
live together It means that they are attempting to exclude half
of their experience (and perhaps the most important halO from
their communication. Through intensive groups, student-cen-
tered classes, books, couples groups, and other sources more
and more pervins are learning the folly of such pseudo-com-
munication. They are rediscovering what it means to communi-
cate themselves as they are. I will not attempt to deal here with
the ways in which such real communication can be thwarted by
jargon or by an encounter-group ritual. ”1 want to know what
you really feel.” can be as much a pseudo-communication as
any other, if it is not based on what the speaker is experiencing
at the moment. Our American culture has been so corrupted by
Madison Avenue that anything can be turned into a “gim-
mick.” There is no doubt that this has often happened in the
encounter groups and in the training of parents to be “real.”
These false notes do not. however, change the importance of
true communication, which is also on the increase.

Exposure to a person-centered approach means that there is
a thrust toward the experiencing of greater mutual trust, per-
sonal growth. and shared interests. Ilie partners tend to develop

50

A Quiet Revolution

more trust in each other as they are mine real with each other.
Being more real, they take more ridis in being open, and thus
enhance their growth as persons. As they communicate more
deeply, they are likely to discover, and to wish to develop, more
interests that they do or can share.

Experience in a person-centered psychological atmosphere
has another result. Roles, and role expectations, tend to drop
away and are replaced by the person, choosing her own way of
behaving. Here are the expected roles of the male in the partner-
ship. The man is head of the family. He is the sole provider. He
is the stronger, the superior individual in the pair, though
helped by “the little woman.” His life is governed by intellect,
not by emotion. He alone may occasionally have need of an
outside “affair." He takes the lead in all sexual activity. He is
the stern disciplinarian of his children. All these roles and
expectations collapse in a person -centered experience. The fo-
cus becomes the man as an individual person — human, fluc-
tuating. behaving in the light of his immediate feelings and his
long-range goals.

The expectations for the woman are likewise op<*n to chal-
lenge. The wife is submissive to her husband. She finds complete
satisfaction in her home and children. She docs all the tasks of
making and keeping a home. She is the ncst-builder In compar-
ison with her husband she is weak physically and inferior intel-
lectually. She is capable of feelings, but not of organized
thought. She subordinates her interests to those of her spouse
Her sexual urges are weaker than those of her husband. She is
not to engage in extramarital sex

Again, the behavior that is expected in playing these roles
collapses in an encounter group or in person-centered therapy
or in a women’s consciousness-raising group. The individual
woman emerges, with a sharply defined personality that is hers
alone, behavingin the way that suits her needs and her choices.
The sociological role loses its force in a person-centered experi-
ence.

The male and female roles are rarely put forw'ard so bluntly

51

Cam. Roons on Pcmonal Powek

in today’s culture. They have already been weakened by social
forces. But. we find them implicit in our social structure. Why
are men paid more than women for the same job? Why are
women permitted to weep when hurt, but not men? These roles
are still very much alive and functioning, even though weak-
ened. But they lose their force completely in a person-centered
encountM group. Here we find a man weeping, and a woman
wiUi the strength to help him find his way out of sorrow. Here
we find a man who feels secure only in his present nest, with
an adventurous wife who takes steps toward a new life. We find
all of the usual role expectations being contradicted in the
experience of men and women struggling to be thetr own ex-
periencing. This leads to behavior that is sometimes in line with
role expectations, and sometimes not, but at no time is the
behavior governed by the role the person is expected to pla>.

There is a more realistic appraisal of the needs each can
meet in the other. When a man is thinking of his partner as a
person, it becomes apparent that it is most unlikely that he
can meet all of her needs — social, sexual, emotional, intellec-
tual. With equal force it strikes the woman that she cannot be
everything to this man. These statements become especially
true when we are thinking not just of today but of years of
being together.

So it becomes only realistic to recognize that each partner
will need to grant the other more living space for outside inter-
ests, outside relationships, time alone — all of the elements that
enrich life. This in no way contradicts the continuing search for
a wider and deeper mutual life. It simply means that, as Bob
and Carol learned, they do not have to do everything together.
Experiencing that greater freedom leads them to a more re-
warding life together.

So-called satellite relationships may be formed by either part-
ner, and this often causes great pain as well as enriching growth.
Satellite relationship means a close secondary relationship out-
side the marriage which may or may not involve sexual inter-
course. but which is valued for itself. It seems much preferable

32

A Quiet Revolution

to such terms as “extramarital sex" or “an affair" or “mistress"
or “lover."’

When two persons in a partnership kam to look upon each
other as separate persons, with separate as well as mutual inter-
ests and needs, they are likely to discover that outside relation-
ships are one of those needs. And when that outside relation-
ship involves the possibility (ff sexual intimacy, it poses
problems for the primary partners. Nancy, for example, gives
her partner, John, the freedom to date other women, and knows
that the dating can lead to sex. Intellectually this has her full
approval, but her emotions lag behind this logical stance. She
IS often jealous and hurt, yet also feels confirmed by the fact that
John always prefers her, returns to her.

I often observe in encounter groups, or groups where couples
are involved, the beginning development of such satellite rela-
tionships. An emotional, volatile wife who is resentful of her
husband's compulsive dedication to his research forms a new
relationship with another man in the group. He is playful,
which her husband is not. He is feelingful and expressive of
emotions, qualities lacking in her husband. The relationship
becomes very close. The woman is very open with both her
husband and her new-found love about her excitement and
satisfaction in the new alliance, and also the confusion and
conflict it generates in her. Her husband had a great many giKxl
qualities, and she feels disloyal to him, but — . As for her re-
searcher-husband. who has described himself in the group as
being without feelings, he discovers a depth of jealousy and
anger in himself that frightens him. He is suffering intensely. He
and his wife talk and talk, sometimes bitterly, sometimes car-
ingly, at times really understanding one another, at other times
experiencing nothing but anger.

Because all of this was so much in the open, the group and
I were a part of the situation. We could not help but observe
the sharp swings in mood between husband and wife, the alter-
nating closeness and distancing in the satellite relationship.
Different members of the group listened understandingly to all

53

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

three members of the irisngle, especially to the pain and anger
and conflict experienced by the wife and her husband. As the
group experience came to an end, I wondered whether a persbn-
centered approach would be responsible for breaking up a mar-
riage which, with all its flaws, had lasted for many years. It is
a heavy question to ponder.

Months later a member of the group told me of a letter she
had received from the wife. Their marriage, she said, had never
been better. They were talking with each other in ways they had
never done before, sharing feelings they would previously have
hidden. The marriage had more value, to each of them, than in
all its previous years. The dynamics of their marriage has dras
tically changed. Previously the hard-working, achieving hus-
band cared for and liHiked aAer the woman he regarded as
overcmotional and needing restraint. Meanwhile his wife re-
sented his dedication to his work, felt unfulfilled, regarded
herself as definitely his inferior Now it has come much closer
to being a partnership of equals.

This IS a pattern 1 have observetl on numerous occasions.
There is no doubt in m> mind that when partnerships are
exposed to a person-centered approach satellite relationships
become more likely. Individuals — both men and women — dis-
cover that It is possible to feci love for more than one perwn
at a time. One or both may experience a second love, outside
of their primary relationship This nearly always leads to jeal-
ousy. pain, and fear of loss. Ye! that crisis can be lived through
with a consequent enrichment of the partnership.

The core of the problem is jealousy, and the depth of its roots
For Rollo May. “Jealousy characterizes the relationship in
which one seeks more power than love.”* The O'Neills .say.
"We do not believe jealousy has any place in open marnage.”'
I have admitted much more uncertainty.* The frequency of
jealousy has made me wonder whether it is simply the result of
cultural conditioning, in which case it might disappear in a
generation or two. or whether it has some basic biological foun-
dation. like the territoriality that we find in animals, birds, and

54

A Ot*«KT RliVOl.UTION

ourselves. There is evidence in the lives of many couples to
indicate that feelings of jealousy can be modified and worked
through, though not without feelings of hurt.

To the extent that jealousy is made up of a sense of pos.ses-
siveness, any alteration in that feeling makes a profound differ-
ence in the politics of the marriage relationship. To the degree
that each partner becomes truly a free agent, then the relation-
ship only has permanence if the partners are committed to each
other, are in good communication with each other, accept
themselves as separate persons, and live together as persons, not
roles.* This is a new and mature kind of relationship toward
which many couples are striving.

One woman, speaking out of her own personal experience in
her marriage and also as a counselor, expresses a point of view
full of person-centered wisdom: “I think that there is one essen-
tial condition for living through the crises and enriching the
rciatioii.ship. It is the ability to believe that you have the right
to experience what you are experiencing, and that you don't
need the permission of your partner to do it. At the same time,
you care enough for your partner to stay with him while he is
having his feelings, and listen to them without feeling overre
sponsible and letting them control your behavior. What 1 see
frequently happening is that the partner who is involved in
another relationship feels controlled, guilty, and angry when he
is not received unconditionally by his mate. That increases the
feeling of threat and abandonment in the other, who becomes
more clinging. Pretty soon they are involved in a terrible vicious
cycle that is very hard to break. I think the ideal situation is
when one can tell the partner: 'I need and I owe it to myself
to experience this other relationship now. I’m hearing your
hurt, your jealousy, your fear, your anger; I do not like to
receive them, but they are a consequence of the choice I'm
making, and I love you enough to want to be available to work
through them with you. If I decide not to have this other
experience it is because I choose to do so, and not because I let
you stop me. In that way I won't feel resentful of you, and I

55

Ca«l Rogers on Personai Power

won't punish you for my lack of courage in making my choices
and being responsible for the consequences.’ "

This is a mature kind of striving for both independence and
richness.

Here is a marriage that was highly conventional in its orien-
tation at first but changed markedly as the partners were ex-
posed to a vancty of person -centered influences. In response to
my writings 1 receive a great number of letters, many of them
highly personal. I have chosen the letter that follows because
it is such a vivid account of the process of the partnership
between Ruth and Jay over a number of years. It also reveals
the changing politics of the relationship. In view of the purpose
of this book, this is the aspect on which I wish to focus — the
ways n which amtrol is exercised, consciously or uncon-
sciously; the locus of decision-making about oneself and one's
partner or partners; the consequences of those choices on the
dynamics of the whole system of which the marriage is one part.
My comments on the changing politics of her experience are
bracketed and in italics.

Dear Carl:

I feel as if I know you. Though I've never seen you. your
mind has touched mine and I am changed. It is scary but it is
great, and I feel a need to write to you and give you yet another
story of human life and evolvmcnt. [Though she has been ex-
posed to a person-centered approach through my writings, it
is clear from her account that this is very recent. Alt of the
first portion of her love life is quite untouched by any such con-
cepts.}

I will begin at the beginning of my marriage. While a junior
in college I met and loved a fellow student. He was not my first
love, nor will he be the last, but he is my only completing love.
I became pregnant and we were forced to marry I doubted that

A Quiet Revolution

he loved me and felt he had married me only because I was
pregnant. (However, he later convinced me this was not true.)
[Here the loots of decision-making is almost entirely external
One "must bear the child. ” One "must marry the father. " She
felt forced into these steps, and since the decisions were not really
hers or Jay's, she did not feel sure of him. ] Jay. my husband,
tried so hard that first year but I was miserafaie in my self-pity
and was not ready for marriage or a baby. 1 made life very
difficult for him and turned off my love for my own protection.
[feeling martyred by the decisions that life has forced on her, she
rebels She is not ready for marriage or a child, so she withholds
the love she feels for a loving husband. "Turning ofT' her love
seems to be the only choice that gives her a feeling of being
responsible for herself It does preserve her as an autonomous
person, sad though it is for their relationship. ]

After our child, Gordon, was bom things were better. Jay
went into the army and we moved near his army base. After a
year and a half of marriage, he left for Vietnam. [Here again the
decision about separation is made by the government, and is not
a choice either can feel responsible for. ]

That was a very difficult year. I finished my B.S. and started
work on my M. A. I devoted all my energies to Gordon and later
to my pupils when I began teaching that fall. 1 always feared
Jay would not return, but he did. [5Ae is beginning to become
a more independent and giving person. ]

But the Jay I thought I knew did not return. Jay had always
been quiet and rather withdrawn, but he came back from a year
at war and isolated himself completely. He gave to no one. For
a year and a half things went on. I taught and enjoyed my world
of students. Jay disliked his job and himself. I finished my M.A.
and began teaching at a small university near our town the next
year.{7%e relationship appears to be dying. Jay is off in his own
(probably tortured) world, and she is invested in her work. It
would seem the end of the partnership is not far off.]

Then we met Doug and Mary. They were so (^>en, so honest,
so loving. We learned to really talk to each other and to them.

57

CaHl Rocxrs on Pewkwal Power

1 admitted to my fears of domination and my disgust with my
body. Everything was beautiful. We loved aad were loved. Then
we went to bed with each other’s spouses. [The open communi-
cation with Doug and Mary is her first exposure to a person-
centered approach, and as so often happens. Ruth began to blos-
som. particularly in the acceptance of herself and in the mutual
communication with Jay and the other couple. ]

The first two or three times were beautiful. We all felt good,
but Jay was impotent with Mary. This really bothered him. We
Miked some, but not enough. Suddenly one night I was watch-
ing Jay and Mary talking and being very loving. 1 became very
frightened and cried. I could see Jay giving to Mary all the love
and affection I had wanted from him but had not taken when
he gave it (the first year) and now he didn’t give it to me.
Necdies.s tu say we stopped the physical part and almost broke
up our relationship with Doug and Mary because I felt so
threatened. [As sometimes happens when two couples are mutu-
ally close, the closeness finds expression in physical and sexual
ways. The sexual relations were evidently threatening to no one.

[The fact that Jay cares for and communicates with Mary
proves terribly threatening to Ruth. She imposes control, evi-
dently unconsciously. 'W'eedless to say, we stopped the physical
part. ” She appears to feel this doe.\n V even need discussion,
though obviously she brought it about. She further distances
Doug and Mary to quell her fears. She is not condemning of Jay,
because she realizes that here is his loving self, the self she had
rejected early in the marriage.

[It is fascinating that she does not even mention Jay's reaction
to this breakup of a relationship that was becoming meaningful
to him. She evidently does not see this as an issue and decision
in which they both have a stake. ]

Then the next spring one of my students fell in love with me.

I had always given much love and understanding to students,
but I had never had college students. I was twenty-six and John
was twenty. Before I knew it, we loved each other. Jay and I
were talking then but evidently not saying all. My love for John

38

A Quiet Revolution

(Mily made my love for Jay stronger. But Jay was not able to
accept John. He did really try. It was a great emotional strain
on all of us. 1 loved Jay too much to see him so miserable. So
I gave up John and went to teach at another cdl^ in the fall.
John and 1 never went to bed together. [A^ow Ruth finds that
it is possible to love two persons at the same time in different ways.
She also discovers that being giving and understanding and self-
revealing to other persons can sometimes lead to love— as it did
to her love for John. But now the jealousy comes from her hus-
band. and though all three are trying hard to communicate, it
doesn't seem possible to work it through. So again the same
solution to Jealousy is utilised — drop the "satellite" relationship.
She seems to attach considerable importance to the fact that she
and her lover never went "all the way. ”]

The whole incident left a grave effect on me. I found myself
afraid to give to my new students for fear of another such
encounter and hurting Jay ail over again. I began to narrow my
world and refused to give as much of myself. [What Ruth
appears to have learned from this is that being open and giving
is risky business. Don V give of yourself and all will be wellf]
Jay's dissatisfaction with his job led him to begin graduate
school. My and Doug's interest in and talk of education proba-
bly influenced him in that direction. All of this time we had
been reading and talking and growing some intellectually, but
not much emotionally. [Throughout this whole account it is
evident that Ruth and Jay are continually trying to improve their
communication — a good sign fw the future,]

Then the bomb dropped. Jay took an education class this fall
and a group consisting of Jay, seven fellow students, and a
faculty facilitator began an encounter group. They met once a
week for six or seven weeks and then all day one Saturday.

How to explain how 1 felt? I wanted Jay to grow and learn
to give to others and to be happy. Yet this threatened me
because I saw a new Jay and fear^ he no longer needed me and
would not stay with me when I needed him more than ever. I
had narrowed my own world and his was widening. [When Jay

59

Caki. Rogers on Personai. Power

hat a chance in a person-centered climate, he responds, but any
change in a system of relationships is upsetting. Here is exactly
what Ruth has been hoping for — that Jay would come out of his
shell and be more expressive, but the realization of that goal
terrifies her. The fear is that she will no longer he necessary to
his life. 1

Communication broke down at home. We got angry and
upset and hurt instead of talking and understanding. 1 feared
I was losing him and in a way must have been driving him away .

Jay formed a close relationship with one of the girls in the
group, Laura. Her own marriage was breaking up and she
needed someone desperately. Jay went to her He didn't tell me
about Laura but I suspected the worst. Maybe even 1 subcon-
sciously drove him to it. At least an affair was something I
could understand or try to deal with [Interc'^ting the way the
learnings bounce back and forth in this relationship. Ruth had
learned that being open, giving, and expressive could lead to love,
and now Jay too rediscovers it. more deeply than with Mary . )

Then I left Jay one weekend for a visit with my mother. I
wanted him to decide what we were going to do about our
marriage. He spent Saturday with Laura and they went to bed.
He wa,s impotent at first but then he overcame it. He came to
me that night in my mother's house. I was happy because I
thought he wanted to stay with me and make our marriage
work. I wanted to make love but he didn't and I was confused.

The next week was good and bad. Jay still didn’t tell me
about Laura and I knew something was wrong. [ Though this is
Ruth's account of her own pain. Jay's uncertainty, confusion,
and agony .show through as well. ] We hurt each other and took
everything the other si.ij in the wrong way. [This is an example
of the fact that when a couple has tried to communicate openly,
a conscious holding back (in this case by Jay) leads almost
certainly to miscommunication and hurt. \ Finally on Sunday
Jay said he needed to get away for a week by himself He was
going to stay in a nearby town with Doug and Mary. I was
scared and miserable but I wanted him to be happy and he

A Quiet Revdlutkmm

wasn't. 1 let him go without a tear. But after he left, that day
and the next two days were pure misery for me. 1 wallowed in
fear and self-pity. 1 was afraid he was gone for good, and I was
so lonely. But I did not call him or try to make him feef guilty.
I didn’t even tell him about how this was affecting our son so
adversely. I really wanted to give him the freedom he needed.
[Clearly Ruth is trying so hard to be what she would intellectu-
ally like to be — willing to give her husband freedom — that her
real feelings drive her to despair.]

Jay came back on Tuesday night. We talked almost ail night
and each night after. He confessed on Saturday about Laura.
She loves him and he loves her. It was all I had feared, but the
knowing was somehow easier than all the fears and doubts.
[Somehow, because of the commitment each feels to the other,
communication is reestablished. And when communication is
open, the facts are never as devastating as imagination without
the facts.]

I began reading your book about encounter groups. [Here is
Ruth 's second exposure to a person-centered approach. J If I had
only understood earlier it might never have gone so far. But it's
not too late.

Jay is a changed person. He feels Laura needs him and he will
go to her at times. He is able to give of himself in ways he never
could. He is a loving person.

And what about me? Well, I love him more than ever. 1 want
him to give to and love others. Oh, I still feel threatened and
lonely at times. I still want a security that is never possible. But
1 am understanding more and more. I am giving more of myself
both physically and emotionally to Jay now than at any other
time in our marriage. I still have occasional relapses of fear and
loneliness, but the biggest battle is over. [ The growth toward 6
mature and nonpossessive love, which is so briefly covered in this
paragraph, is tremendous. ]

Your books have helped me to reach an understanding of
myself and Jay and Laura. It is a little fearful, and change
isn't ever easy, but I am changing. Instead of forcing Jay

61

CaRI R«(.i RS ON Pl RSONAI POWI-.R

into a decision between me and Laura, I chose to let him
have love for us both. At this moment 1 feel full of love and
good will. Tonight, while Jay is with Laura, the old doubts
may come back, but 1 am much better able to deal with
them. I once more find my.velf more loving and giving with
my students. And it is worthwhile. [This is a daring, risky,
growthful way that Ruth is choosing. Will ii “work"? Who
knows what that word means? Bui Ruth and Jay a'c in bet-
ter communication, they are more giving, and life goes ’on. It
is especially noteworthy that now she can again he her open,
loving self with her students as well as with Jay. Life does not
seem quite so frightening . )

This is probably far from the last chapter in our lives. We are
both young and will experience many more changes and emo-
tions. Hut I am belter able to deal with them now than ever.
And Jay and I are talking and are giving to each oltier. Right
now I'm doing most of the giving, but in time I feel he will give
more and more to me. Thank you for helping.

Ruth

There have been astonishing shifts in the locus of power, of
influence, of control in this relationship, and it is a dramatic
example of the fact that a change in one facet of the relationship
alters the dynamics of the whole system

At different times circumstances were in control. The un-
wanted pregnancy made Ruth a self-doubt ing, suspicious, un-
giving wife. The draft and Jay's year in Vietnam appear to have
had devastating effects on him, but led to much greater inde-
pendence and satisfaction on Ruth's part as she pursued her
own life and built her own confidence.

Each time either of the partners has been involved in a rela-
tionship including caring, openness, and respect it has brought
closeness, pain, and growth. The first was their experience with
their friends, Doug and Mary. For Jay this led to a giving,
communicating kind of love. For Ruth it led to fear and jeal-
outiy tmd withdrawal. But then came Ruth’s openness with her

«2

A Quiet Revolution

students, which led to love both for John — the student — and
Jay. her husband. But for Jay it meant threat, and they both
withdrew. Next came Jay’s exposure to the openness and caring
of an encounter group. Here he found himself again as a giving,
loving oerson, which changed the whole dynamics of the rela-
tionship because he had changed. Then his love for Laura
confus^ him and upset Ruth. Through pain and hurt there
gradually came more and more real communication. Jay be-
came a loving person: Ruth is taking the risk of letting him love
two women, and has become far more mature in the whole
process. She is trying to understand and accept not only her
own needs, but those of Jay and Laura. She is risking a difficult
but person-centered relationship. She has come a long way,
and. from her account, so has Jay.

As in every person-centered relationship, the exact course of
the future cannot be predicted. All that we can safely say about
the future is that it is being faced openly by two trusting,
communicative partners, endeavoring to face life and its diffi-
cultie.s and rewards in relationships, without trying to control
each other. And in that way it is prcibable that each of them,
and Laura, and Ruth's students, will benefit.

I fell that I should try to discover the next chapters in the
life of Ruth and Jay. Now. two years later, I was not optimistic
about locating Ruth in view of the transiency of modern life,
but my letter of inquiry was forwarded, and I received re-
sponses from both Ruth and Jay.

Ruth, in her letter, goes back over some of her experiences
and amplifies the story a bit. She mentions that several months
after meeting Jay they became lovers, and three months later
*i discovered I was pregnant (pills were not so easy to gel in
our area in those days!). I really did not want to get married —
I hadn't really planned to ever marry because I wanted a career
— but Jay very much did want to get married. He was ready and

63

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

he loved me, so with (Mrental pressure from both sides we did
many."

During much of the time Jay was in the army, and while he
was in Vietnam, Ruth lived with his parents, her in-laws —
"they are really the most, best, everything 1 can say." During
the year he was in Vietnam. “1 started work on my M.A., and
taught school. I was lonesome and wrote him every day. 1 don’t
think it ever really occurred to me to be unfaithful that year.
At that point such extramarital activities just never really en-
tered my mind. I know some people would find that difficult to
believe, but it's true.

"Jay returned after a year. He was changed and it was almost
like discovering each other for the first time. 1 finally relaxed
enough to have orgasms when we made love and things got
better and better. Jay got out of the army and took a job in his
hometown. He was going through a lot then (he is a very
peaceful, mild, considerate man for whom having to go to war
was almost too much) but we were very contented with our
lives."

She passes briefly over the three-year period which included
their experience with Doug and Mary, and Jay's beginning his
graduate .work, knowing she has covered this before. Here let
Jay pick up the story; "1 will begin with my feelings that led
to my involvement with Laura. After returning from Vietnam.
I suppose outwardly I appeared to readjust. I went to work,
made money, came home, watched TV. read some, spent
money and did the things that are supposed to make you happy.
Although I loved Ruth and Gordon very much I was not
pleased with my.seif. 1 continued to torture myself about Viet-
nam and the nagging feelings it left in me. Attempting to break
out of this, I decided to take a few graduate classes at night. The
more involved in graduate school I became, the more new
feelings of excitement over the learning process began to build.
It is difficult for me to now realize the joy and excitement that
can be found through learning. I discovered how many un-
necessary limits we place on ourselves by saying I don’t know.

64

A Quiet Revolution

So I committed myself to never again place limits on the things
I was willing to learn about my world or the people in it.

“It was at thK time that as part of one of my courses I decided
to investigate encounter groups. Five other students and myself
decided to actually experience an encounter group rather than
read about them. We asked help from a professor in the psy>
chology department to facilitate for us. Laura, also a student,
became another member of this group. This was a very emo-
tional encounter for all of the participants. Laura and I became
very close and eventually became lovers. 1 rationalized that
everything was fine with Laura and me and Ruth and me. Ruth
realized something was wrong with me so we began to talk
about Laura. Just going through the process of talking to Ruth
about Laura diminished the intensity of the affair. After con-
fessing the affair to Ruth, Laura and 1 did not go to bed again
although we still saw a lot of each other at school. I suppose
this was the hardest part for Ruth to understand. I told Ruth
we were not going to bed anymore, but it was impossible for her
to understand why we were still seeing each other. This 1 don't
understand either; we tiLst couldn’t turn loose."

Ruth takes up the account at about this time. It was now
summer. Jay was working full time on his master’s degree, and
she felt his relationship with Laura had cooled. She went to
Europe for five weeks with a girl friend. “I was still wounded
(in pride only) but my vacation was fantastic and the long
absence made both of us see things differently. Ever since I
returned that summer things have been better and better. We
are closer and more in love than we’ve ever been. We are no
longer just contented but truly happy. Our sex life is better than
ever and 1 am actually aggressive many times."

Jay also gives his version of this period and brings us up to
date on his love, his life, and his work. “That summer Ruth
took her trip to Europe while I was still attending graduate
school. Laura was still around although I did not see her while
Ruth was away. 1 think Laura realized how much 1 loved Ruth
and knew 1 would not want to see her while Ruth was away.

6S

CAtL Rogers on Personal Power

Whoi Ruth returned I think we both decided to commit our-
sdves to our relationship which had always been very good. No
verbal commitments were made, it was simply (me of those
ncmverbal communicatirms that people who love each other can
make."

Laura's need for someeme with whom she could communi-
cate intimately at the time her marriage was breaking iip was
very great, "desperate." Ruth and Jay were not communicating
well. As often happens, the sharing of feelings in (he satellite
rdatiemship was alnuMt certainly deeper, more honest, more
feelingful than in the marriage. There is no doubt that Laura
enriched lay’s life — and (his led, after a stormy peri(xl. to an
enrichment of his marriage. How did Laura feel? Was she full
of (mnflict and guilt for her intimacy with Jay? Or did she
regard their relationship as natural? Was she content with the
distance Jay put between them when Ruth went to Europe, or
resentful? Could she accept the gradual demise of the relation-
ship, or did she suffer great pain? We tend to be so concerned
with the marital partners that we forget that the outsider is a
person also, with, in Laura’s case, a real and genuine love. Jay
recognizes the depth of their involvement when he says, “We
just couldn't turn loose." It is clear that Laura, by talking with
and loving Jay, brought Ruth and Jay much closer together and
restored their marriage. But I wish we knew more of what the
whole experience meant for Laura herself

Jay continues his account by telling of his professional activ-
ity. “Now I’m teaching elementary school in a small rural
school with a group of children I truly love. You know, if you
love a bunch of kids and are willing to show them you do, they
will learn from you in spite of ail your clumsy efforts and
failures ’Freedom to Learn’ has been and continues to be a big
help in my teaching. Be good to yourself and those in your
world and thanks for helping Ruth during a time when I could
not."

Ruth is in agreement that Jay is “an unbelievably excellent
elementary sch(x>l teacher!” They have moved, but she is still

66

A Quiet Revolution

teaching and working toward her doctor’s (fa^ree. She makes
two statements that give a very clear picture of their current
relationship. “We have been married ^most nine years and I
wouldn’t trade my life for any other life that 1 know! If I had
planned to get pregnant back in college, I couldn't have picked
a better father and husband and person.

“Neither one of us would dare say that we will not perhaps
try an affair or swapping or something else someday. Who
knows what we will do? But right now we just don’t need it and
aren’t looking for anything else. Maybe in a few years we will
want to try something else entirely, but I know now that we are
closer and happier than ever. I don’t think either one of us will
ever be afraid of ‘losing’ the other. (I know you can’t lose what
you don’t own but you know what I mean, anyway!) Everything
that has occurred in our marriage has worked to strengthen it
in the end. Maybe we’re just lucky; maybe we had good parent
models (both of us came from happy marriages); maybe we are
just suited to each other. It doesn’t really matter to me why; I’m
just glad we have what we have.’’

As I have studied these current letters, it has become clear
to me that I had to follow up on the later experiences of Ruth
and Jay. I am often criticized for being too optimistic about
human nature, about communicative relationships, about the
growth process. I had ended my commentary about Ruth and
Jay optimistically and 1 could hear critics saying, “Ridiculous!
Here is an initially forced marriage, presently in a mess because
the husband is in love with two women, and you have the nerve
to picture the situation as constructive!” As 1 thought it over,
while I believed what 1 had said, I realized that my critics could
be right. The marriage might have broken up in bitterness. They
each might be feeling terrible guilt. Their career hopes might
have been destroyed. I had to find out! I could not leave the
story there.

Once again, as so often before, the experience justifies a con- •
stnictive view. Ruth and Jay show, as clearly as can be shown,
that partners committed to a process relationship, partners who

67

Cam. Rocem on Peksonal Power

take the risk of <^pen communicatioii of feeling, who try to build
rdatkmships rather than guarantee the future, are going to find
life enriching and rewarding, though certainly not always
smooth. They can, as Ruth says, be “glad we have what we
have."

So I have no apology for my earlier summary. 1 would sus-
pect that Laura regards her experience with Jay as a growth
experience in her life, and hope that John feels the same way
about his closeness to Ruth. I am sure Ruth’s students gain
from the person-centeredness she has attained. The thing I did
not foresee was that Jay’s openness of being would be a great
boon to his students as well. Like Ruth. I am quite content to
leave the future as an unknown, but not a fearful unknown.

Here is a partnership in which initially a great deal of the
control was from outside: the circumstance of pregnancy, par-
ental pressures, social expectations, the draft — to mention a
few. We have been privileged to watch it change over a period
of nine years. In spite of periods when Ruth tried to control Jay,
when Jay tried the strategy of deceit, we have seen each expo-
sure to a person-centered approach lead to a weakening of the
power of external controls and a relinquishing of attempts to
control each other. As they have each grown, through periods
of stress and pain as well as .satisfaction, they have had less and
less need to control. As a consequence they each have increas-
in^y supplied a growth-promoting climate for the other. Where
at first they wo’e pawns, now they are persons. They have a
great and loving influence on each other, but each is a respected
person in his own right. The politics of their relationship is now
thoroughly equalitarian, with each partner clearly in control of
his and her own life and behavior. They have developed a
perscm-coitered politics in their marriage.

Chapter

4

PouLier Of pef6on6:
tuuo trencfe
in education

The educational system is probably the most influential of all
institutions — outranking the family, the church, the police, and
the government — in shaping the interpersonal politics of the
growing person. We will take a look at the politics of education
as it is and has been in this country and compare it with the
politics of an educational enterprise when it has become infused
with a person-centered approach.

Here is how the politics of the traditional school is ex-
perienced:

The teacher is the possessor of knowledge, the student the
recipient. There is a great difference in status between instructor
and student.

The lecture, as the means of pouring knowledge into the recipi-
ent, and the examination as the measure of the extent to which
he has received it, are the central elements of this education.

The teacher is the possessor of power, the student the one who
obeys. The administrator is also the possessor of power, and
both the teacher and the student are the ones who obey. Control
is always exercised downward.

Authoritarian rule is the accepted policy in the classroom.
New teachers are often advised, “Make sure you get control cf
your students the very first day.”

«9

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

Trust is at a minimum. Most notable is the teacher's distrust
of the student. The student cannot be expected to work satisfac-
torily without the teacher constantly supervising and checking
on him. The student's distrust of the teacher is more diffuse —
a lack trust in teacher's motives, honesty, fairness, compe-
tence. There may be a real rapport between an entertaining
lecturer and those who are being entertained. There may be
admiration for the instructor, but mutual trust is not a notice-
able ingredient.

The subjects (the students) are best governed by being kept in
an intermittent or constant state of fear. There is today not
much physical punishment, but public criticism and ridicule,
and a constant fair of failure, are even more potent. This state
of fear appears to increase as we go up the educational scheme,
because the student has more to lose. In elementary school the
individual may be an object of scorn, pr scolded as stupid or
bad. In high school there is added to this the fear of failure to
graduate, with its vocational, economic and educational disad-
vantages. In college all these consequences are magnified and
intensified. In graduate school, sponsorship by one professor
offers even greater opportunities for extreme punishment due to
some autcKratic whim. Many graduate students have failed to
receive their degrees because they have refused to obey every
wish of their major profes,sor. They are like slaves, subject to
the life and death power of an Oriental despot. It is the recogni'>
tion of this abjectness which caused Farber to title his biting
criticism of education The Student as Nigger . '

Democracy and its values are ignored and scorned in practice.
The student docs not participate in choosing his goals, his
curriculum, his manner of working. They are chosen for him.
He has no part in the choice of teaching personnel or in educa-
tional policy. Likewise the teachers have no choice in choosing
their principal or other administrative officers. Often they, too,
have no participation in forming educational policy. The politi-
cal practices of the school are in striking contrast to what is

70

A Quiet REvot unoN

taught about the virtues of democracy and the importance of
freedmn and responsibility.

There is no place for the -whole person in the educational
system, only for the intellect. In elementary school the bursting
curiosity of the normal child and his excess of physical energy
are curbed and, if possible, stifled. In secondary school the one
overriding interest of ail the students — sex and the relationships
between the sexes — is almost totally ignored and certainly not
regarded as a major area for learning. In college the situation
IS the same — it is only the mind that is welcomed.

if you think that such views have vanished, or that I am
exaggerating, we have only to turn to the Los Angeles Times
of December 13, 1974. Here we find that the University of Cali-
fornia (embracing all of the state universities — Berkeley,
UCLA, and others) is lobbying to keep John Vasconcellos, a
state legislator, off of any committees having to do with univer-
sity policy. Vasconcellos for the past three years headed, with
distinction, a legislative study of higher education. And why is
the university trying to keep him from having anything to do
with university policy? Because of two changes he favors. First,
he favors setting aside a percentage of the budget for innovative
educational programs. This is strongly opposed. But the most
important reason for opposing him is that he favors the inclu-
sion of both “affective and cognitive" learning, according to Dr.
Jay Michael, a vice-president of the university. Says Michael,
“We believe . . . there is knowledge that exists separate and
apart from how a person feels . . . and that accumulated knowl-
edge of mankind is cognitive. It can be transmitted, it can be
taught and learned, and the pursuit of that kind of knowledge
IS academic research." He continues, “It appears to us that
he [Vasconcellos] would like to abandon cognitive learning,
or at least reduce its importance to a level unacceptable to
scholars. . . .”

In reply Vasconcellos says he values cognitive skills, “but I
also believe that the affective, the emotional component ... is

71

Cakl Rogers on Personal Power

terribly importRnt” He bdteves ct^itive skills should be com-
bined with better knowledge of self and of interpersonal behav-
ior.

The politics tit this diffierence is quite fascinating. The vice-
president clearly holds to the "mug and jug” theory of educa-
tion. where the faculty possesses the knowledge and transfers
it to the passive recipient. So threatened is he by the possibility
of change that he opposes any innovation in educational proce-
dure. But most threatening of all is the idea that faculty and
students alike are human in their experiencing of a feeling
component in all knowledge. If this were even partially admit-
ted, students and faculty would be on a more equal level, and
the politics of domination would be weakened. This was the
position of one of the “great” university systems in 1975.

Although this traditional picture of education is exceedingly
common, it is no longer the one and only way by which educa-
tion may proceed. A decade ago, only a few lonely, quiet pio-
neers offered an alternative to the traditional picture. Today, in
every major city in the United Slates, there are dozens of “alter-
native schools," “free schools,” "universities without walls" in
which humanistic, person-centered, process-oriented learning
is taking place.

Here are the fundamental conditions that may be observed
when person-centered learning develops in a school, college, or
graduate school. —

Precondition. A leader or a person who is perceived as an
authority figure in the situation is sufficiently secure within
himself and in his relationship to others that he experiences an
essential trust in the capacity of others to think for themselves,
to learn for themselves. If this precondition exists, then the
following aspects become possible.

The facilitative person shares with the others — students and
possibly also parents or community members — the responsibility

72

A Quiet Revcmlution

for the teaming process. Curricular planning, tiie mode of ad-
ministration and operation, the Ainding, and the policy making
are all the responsibility o( the particular group involved. Thus
a class may be responsible for its own curriculum, but the total
group may be responsible for overall policy.

The facilitator provides teaming resources— from within him-
self and his own experience, from books or materials or commu-
nity experiences. He encourages the learners to add resources
of which they have knowledge, or in which they have experi-
ence. He opens doors to resources outside the experience of the
group.

The student develops his own program of learning, alone or in
cooperation with others. Exploring his own interests, facing the
wealth of resources, he makes the choices as to his own learning
direction and carries the responsibility for the consequences of
those choices.

A facilitative learning climate is provided. In meetings of the
class or of the school as a whole, an atmosphere of realness, of
caring, and of understanding listening is evident. This climate
may spring initially from the person who is the perceived
leader. As the learning process continues, it is more and more
often provided by the learners for one another. Learning from
one another becomes as important as learning from books or
films or community experiences, or from the facilitator.

It can be seen that the focus is primarily on fostering the
continuing process of learning. The content of the learning,
while significant, falls into a secondary place. Thus a course is
successfully ended not when the student has “learned all he
needs to know,” but when he has made significant progress in
learning how to learn what he wants to know.

The discipline necessary to reach the student’s goals is a self-
discipline and is recogniz^ and accepted by the learner as being
his own responsibility.

7%e evaluation of the extent and significance of the student’s
learning is made primarily by the learner himself, though his
self-evaluation may be influenced and enriched by caring feed-

73

Caul Rocem on Personai. Power

back from other members of the group and from the facilitator.

tn this growth-promoting climate, the learning is deeper, pro-
ceeds at a more rapid rate, and is more pervasive in the life and
behavior of the student than learning acquired in the traditional
classroom. This comes about because the direction is self-
chosen, the learning is self-initiated, and the whole person, with
feelings and passions as well as intellect, is invested in the
process.

The political implications of person-centered education are
clear: the student retains his own power and the control over
himself; he shares in the responsible choices and decisions; the
facilitator provides the climate for these aims. The growing,
seeking person is the politically powerful force. This process of
learning represents a revolutionary about-face from the politics
of traditional education.

What is it that causes a teacher to reverse the politics of the
classroom? The reasons are multiple.

First I cite my own experience. As my point of view in
therapy became more and more trusting of the capacity of the
individual, 1 could not help but question my teaching approach.
If 1 saw clients as trustworthy and basically capable of discover-
ing themselves and guiding their lives in an ambience I was able-
to create, why could I not create the same kind of climate with
graduate students and foster a .fe(^guid^ process of learning?
So, at the University of Chicago, I began to tfy. I ran into far
more resistance and hostility than 1 did with my clients. I
believe this had the result of making me more defensively rigid,
putting all the re^nsibility on the class rather than recogniz-
ing myself as a part of the learning group. 1 made many mis-
takes. and sometimes doubted the wisdom of the whole ap-
proach. Yet with all my initial clumsiness the results were
astonishing. Students worked harder, learned more, did more

74

A Quiet Revcm-ution

creative thinking than in any (rf* my previous classes. So 1 per-
severed. and improved. 1 believe, in my ability as a facilitator.

Although 1 began to talk and write about my experience, and
some of my students worked in similar ways with classes they
were conducting, there was always the nagging doubt that per-
haps this procedure worked simply because of something in me.
or some peculiar attitudes we had developed in the Counseling
Center at Chicago. Consequently it was enormously supportive
to find that others had gone through similar struggles, were
adopting the principles we had outlined, and were having paral-
lel— indeed almost identical — experiences.

An English teacher named Jacqueline Carr, with whom I had
had no contact, recorded her own account of the ambivalent
way in which she “took the plunge."' Here is how the political
climate in her classroom shifted, and why.

“Recently, while reading some material written by Carl Ro-
gers. 1 became increasingly excited, frustrated, and obsessed
with some of the ‘idealistic* concepts he presents. I asked my-
self. 'Just how much freedom can be given to high school stu-
dents? How much responsibility can they accept for their own
education?’

“I wanted to believe that if given freedom, high school stu-
dents could accept some responsibility for their own education.
But I kept thinking. ‘It just won’t work ■ . . impossible to put
into practice ... the kids will go wild ... the administration
won’t allow it . . . etc.’ I was disturbed by the hypocrisy of
believing what 1 read, yet refusing to act upon these beliefs."

Clearly the basis for change lies in a questioning, doubting,
gestation period in the person of the teacher. Little by little the
groundwork is laid for taking the risk, for changing from
teacher to facilitator.

“Then one Friday I announced that Monday we were going
to begin reading Romeo and Juliet. One boy complained, ’How
come we never get to read anything good . . . anything different
. . just Shakespeare, Dickens, Hugo . .’ I justified class reading

75

Caul Rooem on Rensonal Powe*

on the basis of district requirements, curriculum guides, college
espectations, cultural demands, and personal satisfactions.

’*As soon u 1 had finished my explanation, one of the girls
said, *How come we never get to do what we want?’ Questions
similar to these two have been asked of teachers for generations.
I stopped talking, took a deep breath, sat down on the top of
my d^, and looked around. Every student was watching for
my reactions. 1 said ‘OK? Monday, each of you can bring to
class an individual plan of study for the next six weeks. You can
study any area that interests you, providing it involves reading
and writing.’ ”

In one statement she has turned upside down the politics of
the interpersonal relationships in her class.

"There was a dead silence. Then one youngster said, ‘But
then how are you going to test us?' I answered. ‘No tests for six
weeks.' Another student asked. ‘Then, how will you grade us?'
I said, ‘We'll work out something by mutual agreemoit ba.sed
on what you've accomplished, how much you think you've
learned in comparison to the last six weeks, and how much
you've done in relation to other students in your class.’

"Several of the students were worried, confused, and upset.
One boy asked, 'Could we just follow the work you had already
planned to do for the next six weeks?’ Some of the students were
obviously afraid they couldn't handle the freedom, the responsi-
bility.”

The reactions to this political upset are those that I, and
many others in Ms. Carr's position, have met. The students who
have been clamoring for freedom are definitely frightened when
they realize that it also means responsibility. There is also a
healthy skepticism as to the reality of the change. Won’t the
teacher still dominate through grades and exams? Isn't this a
pseudo>freedom? As they become convinced that it is real, a
new spirit is released.

*T suggested we talk about things they might like to do. One
boy said. T'd like to spend the whole six weeks reading about

7fi

A Quiet Revolution

writing short stories and then trying to write one.' Another
student said. *l'd like to spend six weeks just reading all the
books I've wanted to read but haven't had time for.' Several
students wanted to spend their six weeks reading books by one
author. One girl wanted to read material on semantics, another
on psychology, another on Communism. One boy was inter-
ested in investigating the concepts of Tree will' and ‘determi-
nism.’

“This same kind of excited discussion went on. . . . The
’average' students seemed far more excited than the college-
prep group. I imagined I could hear their comments when they
left the classroom. ‘Mrs. Carr is going to let us do anything we
want, and what’s more we get to grade ourselves.' So I went
directly to the head of the English Department and also to the
principal. Their cooperative and interested responses convinced
me that we teachers often use the ‘administration won't let us’
excuse for our own supposed lack of freedom.”

Ms. Carr’s students did much more creative work than they
had done before. “Students came to class before school, at
lunch time, and after school. During classtime, they worked
industriously all period long.” But, as she says, "the subject
matter of the student products seemed less important than their
personal reactions to the projects.”

Here are four quotations from the statements of her students.
The first two indicate how placing the power of choice in the
hands of the student brings a totally different sense of responsi-
bility, and much greater effort. The third indicates the increase
in self-insight, the fourth the growing sense of maturity. All of
these are typical outcomes when there is a person-centered
approach to the classroom.

“Because I disliked school, 1 was surprised to find out how
well 1 can study and learn when I’m not forced to do it.”

“rvc never read so much in my life.”

“Various ‘fcee’ discussions have helped me a lot to under-
stand myself.”

17

Cakl ItOGEU ON Personal Power

dtsoMsed. the faciUtstivc ipproach she was using with their
children.

A new approach to education demands new ways of being
and new methods of handling problems. Individuals are also
finding that tf they are to carry out a quiet revolution in the
schools, they definitely need a support group. This can be small,
perhaps only two or three people, but a resource of persons
where one does not need to defend one's point of view, and can
freely discuss the successes and failures, the problems faced, the
difficulties unresolved.

I have spoken mostly of the risks the teacher takes in the
teacher-student relationship when the politics of the classroom
changes. But a facilitator ts also taking the risk of threatening
the administration. How is this dealt with?

In many states and communities, instructors are being held
more and more accountable. They are expected to write down
"behavioral objectives'* for each student or for each course, and
later to give evidence that these objectives have been achieved.
The anxiety that underlies these demands — ^sometimes encased
in law — is understandable. The public hopes that young people
arc learning, and this has been the only way they can see of
determining whether learning is taking place.

From the viewpoint of any good teacher, conventional or
innovative, this becomes a new strait jacket which prevents any
deviance from the expected, any ventures into exciting bypaths
of learning. Dr. David Malcolm, a university professor, tells
how he met this request for behavioral objectives.'

“My university is on an 'accountability' kick right now, and
wnting 'behavioral objectives* for students is the big thing. Both
do total violence to all my personal beliefs about learning and
what people are for. My protest has been to refuse to write
objectives for ‘my* (what arrogance!) classes. Instead 1 wrote
down some toitative idea.s trying to express objectives for my
own behavior. They fell into place pretty well, and I'd like to
share them with you.*'

Here they are. in shortened form.

80

A Quiet Revolution

A SET OF BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES WRITTEN BY
AND FOR DA VE MALCOLM
(The following is written on the assumption that behavioral
objectives begin at home.)

Question: Okay, just what does the faculty member (specifi*
cally, me) do in my idealized “learning place;" i.e., one not
contaminated by gate<keeping?

Answer: Well . . .first, 1 have to give the learners accessibility
to me as a person, to my experience, to my expertise . . . second,
I have to be as ready as I can to suggest experiences (materials
to read, things to do, people to touch, processes to observe,
ideas to ponder, practices to try, whatever) that they might not
otherwise have thought of. thereby increasing the options open
to them; third, I have to respect each learner's autonomy and
freedom, including the freedom to fail; and finally, 1 have to be
willing to (perhaps, better, I should say have the courage to)
give each learner honest feedback, as straight as possible, to the
very best of my ability, on as many of the following as I can:

(He describes nine areas, including ability to conceptualize;
demonstrated skill in practice; effectiveness in oral and written
communication; degree of self-understanding, insight and skill
in interpersonal relationships; innovativeness; my best judg-
ment as to his progress or growth. He is willing to give feedback
in these areas if the student desires.)

Here is a conscientious and inspiring statement of the true
"objectives" of one person-centered facilitator of learning. Mal-
colm is up against the impossible task of defining his aims for
students, being expected to follow the old conventional authori-
tarian framework. His own politics of education simply does
not permit this. So he bravely sets forth, thoughtfully and pre-
cisely, the objectives he has for himself, not the student. His
statement can be a guideline for teachers. Most of all, however,
It shows the complete incompatibility of the old politics and the
new, and t(ius fits a definition that has been given of revolution.

81

Caul Rogem on Pebsonai. Poweb

"Whit is a revolution? A redefinition the facts of life, such
that the new definition and the old ddlnition of the same facts
cannot coexist."* Clearly, to advance a revolution threatens the
power of a conventional administration, and a consequent risk
to the facilitator, who is a radical in the true sense of going to
the root of the problem This risk cannot be ignored.

Too little attention has been paid to the problems of the
student in meeting the challenge of a person-centered way of
education. Initially students feel suspicion, frustration, and an-
ger, and then excitement and creativity replace those feelings.
No one has caught these changing reactions better than Dr.
Samuel Tenenbaum, who wav a member of a seminar I offered
at Brandeis University in 1958. Hts account indicates the impact
upon the learner of a sharp change in the power relationship in
a class *

1 have often pondered the reasons why, in this seminar, the
reactions were more strongly negative, and eventually more
strongly positive, than in any other cla.ss 1 have led. I believe
It is due in part to the fact that they were so eager to learn from
the “master,” the “guru,” that they were loath to accept any
shift in authority. Perhaps another reason is that they were all
graduate students, most of them already employed profession-
ally, or, like Dr. Tenenbaum, taking the course as a postdoc-
toral seminar. Such students arc, I believe, even more depen-
dent upon authority than arc elementary schcxil children.

I took up most of the first meeting of the seminar (about
twenty-five students) by introduang myself and my purpose
and asking if others wished to do the same. After some awk-
ward silences, the students told what brought them to the semi •
nar. I told the group about the many resources I had brought
with me — reprints, mimeographed matenal. books, a list of
recommended reading (no requirements), tapes of therapeutic
interviews, and films. I asked for volunteers to organize and
lend out these materials, to run the tapes, and find a movie
projector. All of this was easily handled, and the session ended.
As Dr. Tenenbaum takes up the story:

A Quiet Revolution

Thereafter followed four hard, fnisttating sessions. During this
period, the class didn’t seem to get anywhere. Students spoke
at random, saying whatever came into their heads. It all seemed
chaotic, aimless, a waste of time. A’ student would bring up
some aspect erf Rogers' f^ilosophy; and the next student, com*
pleteiy disregarding the first, would take the group away in
another direction; and a third, completely disregarding the first
two. would start fresh on something else altogether. At times
there were some faint efforts at a cohesive discussion, but for
the most part the classroom proceedings seemed to lack conti-
nuity and direction. The instructor received every contribution
with attention and regard. He did not find any student's contri-
bution in order or out of order.

The class was not prepared for such a totally unstructured
approach. They did not know how to proceed. In their perplex-
ity and frustration, they demanded that the teacher play the
role assigned to him by custom and tradition; that he set forth
for us in authoritative language what was right and wrong,
what was good and bad. Had they not come from far distances
to learn from the oracle himself? Were they not fortunate? Were
they not about to be initiated in the right rituals and practices
by the great man himself, the founder of the movement that
bears his name? The notebooks were poised for the climactic
moment when the oracle would give forth, but mostly they
remained untouched.

Queerly enough, from the outset,. even in their anger, the
members of the group felt joined together, and outside the
classroom, there was an excitement and a ferment, for even in
their frustration, they had communicated as never before in any
cia.ssroom. and probably never before in quite the way they had.
... In the Rogers cla», they had spoken their minds; the words
did not come from a book, nor were they the reflection of the
insthictor’s thinking, nor that of any other authority. The ideas,
emotions, and feelings came from themselves; and this was the
releasing and the exciting process.

in this atmosphere of freedom, something for which they had

83

Carl Rooers on Personal Power

not bArgalned and for which they were not prepared, the stu-
dentt spcd(e up as students seldom do. During this period, the
instructor took many blows; and it seemed to me that many
tioMS he appeared to be shaken; and although he was the source
of our irritation, we had. strange as it may seem, a great affec-
tion for him, for it did not seem right to be angry with a man
who was so sympathetic, so sensitive to the feelings and ideas
of others. We all fell that what was involved was some slight
misunderstanding which once understood and remedied would
midie everything nghi again. But our instructor, gentle enough
on the surface, had a “whim of steel." He didn’t seem to under-
stand; and if he did, he was obstinate and obdurate; he refused
to come around. Thus did this tug-of-war continue. We all
looked to Rogers and Rogers looked to us. One student, amid
general approbation, obsened: “We are Rogers-centered, not
student-centered. We have come to learn from Rogers.”

After more of this, individual students attempted to take
leadership and organize the seminar around certain topics or
ways of planning, but these attempts at structure were largely
disregarded. Gradually the group became insistent that I lec-
ture. 1 told them that I was just completing a paper, and would
be willing to give that as a lecture, but 1 also informed them that
I was quite willing to have it duplicated so that each could read
it. They insisted that I give it as a talk, and I agreed. It was a
topic I was much involved in, and 1 believe I delivered it as well
as 1 was able, taking somewhat more than an hour. Tenenbaum
reports the results.

After the vivid and acrimonious exchanges to which we had
been accustomed, this was certainly a letdown, dull and sopo-
rific to the extreme. This experience squelched all further de-
mands for lecturing.

By the fifth session, something definite had happened; there
was no mistaking that. Students spoke to one another; they
by*passed Rogers. Stud«its asked to be heard and wanted to be

84

A Quiet Revolution

heard, and what before was a halting, stammering, self*con-
scions group became an interacting group, a brand'new c<^e>
sive unit, carrying cm in a unique way; and from them came
discussion and thinking such as no other group but this could
repeat or duplicate. The instructor also Joined in, but his role,
more important than any in the group, somehow became
merged with the group; the group was important, the center,
the base of operation, not the instructor.

What caused it? 1 can only conjecture as to the reason. I
believe that what happened was this: For four sessions students
refused to believe that the instructor would refuse to play the
traditional role. They still believed that he would set the tasks;
that he would be the center of whatever happened and that he
would manipulate the group. It t(X>k the class four sessions to
realize that they were wrong; that he came to them with noth-
ing outside of himself, outside of his own person; that if they
really wanted something to happen, it was they who had to
provide the content — an uncomfortable, challenging situation
indeed. It was they who had to speak up. with all the risks that
that entailed. As part of the process, they shared, they took
exception, they agreed, they disagreed. At any rate, their per-
sons, their deepest selves were involved; and from this situation,
this special, unique group, this new creation was born. . . .

After the fourth session, and progres-sively thereafter, this
group, haphazardly thrown together, became close to one an-
other and their true selves appeared. As they interacted, there
were moments of insight and revelation and understanding that
were almost awesome in nature; they were what, I believe,
Rogers would describe as “moments of therapy," those preg-
nant moments when you see a human soul revealed before you.
in all its breathless wonder; and then a silence, almost like
reverence, would overtake the class. And each member of the
class became enveloped with a warmth and a loveliness that
border on the mystic. 1 for one, and I am quite sure the others
also, never had an expoience quite Uke this. It was learning and
therapy; and by therapy I do not mean illness, but what might

ts

Cakl Roc£KI on Rkisonai Power

be characlerizcd by a healthy change in the person, an increase
in his flexibility, his openness, his willingness to listen. In the
process, we all felt elevated, freer, more accepting of ourselves
and others, more open to new ideas, trying hard to understand
and accept.

This I.S not a perfect world, and there was evidence of hostil-
ity as members differed. Somehow in this setting every blow was
softened, as if the sharp edges had been removed: if undeserved,
students would go off to something else; and the blow was
somehow lost. In my own case, even those students who origi-
nally irritated me, with further acquaintance I began to accept
and respect: and the thought occurred to me as 1 tried to
understand what was happening: Once you come close to
a person, perceive his thoughts, his emotions, his feelings,
he becomes not only understandable but good and desir-
able . . .

In the course of this process, I saw hard, inflexible, dogmatic
persons, in the brief pcnod of several weeks, change in front of
my eyes and become sympathetic, understanding and to a
marked degree nonjudgmental. 1 saw neurotic, compulsive per-
vms ease up and become more accepting of themselves ahd
others. In one instance, a student who particularly impressed
me by his change, told me when 1 mentioned this; "It is true.
I feel less rigid, more open to the world. And I like myself better
for It. I don‘t believe I ever learned so much anywhere." I saw
shy persons become less shy and aggressive persons more sensi-
tive and moderate

One might say that this appears to be essentially an emotional
process. But that, I believe, would be altogether inaccurate in
describing it. There was a great deal of intellectual content, but
the intellectual content was meaningful and crucial to the per-
son. In fact, one student brought up this very question. “Should
we be concerned," he a.sked, “only with the emotions? Has the
intellect no play?" It was my turn to ask, “Is there any student
who has read as much or thought as much for any other
coume?"

A Quiet Revch ution

The answer was obvious. We had spent hours and hours
reading; the room reserved for us had occupants until ten o'-
clock at night, and then many Id) only because the university
guards wanted to close the building. Students listened to re-
cordings; they saw motion pictures; but best of all. they talked
and talked and talked. . . .

The Rogers method was free and flowing and open and per-
missive. A student would start an interesting discussion: it
would be taken up by a second; but a third student might take
us away in another direction, bringing up a personal matter of
no interest to the class; and we would all feel f^rustrated. But this
was like life, flowing on like a nver, seemingly futile, with never
the same water there, flowing on, with no one knowing what
would happen the next moment. But in this there was an ex-
pectancy, an alertness, an aliveness; it seemed to me as near a
smear of life as one could get in a classroom. For the authoritar-
ian person, who puts his faith in neatly piled up facts, this
method 1 believe can be threatening, for here he gets no reassur-
ance, only an openness, a flowing, no closure.

I have nowhere found such a vivid account of the initially
chaotic, gradually more fluid way in which the group, as it
fearfully takes responsibility for itself, becomes a constructive
organism, listening and responding sensitively to its own needs.
It is the outwardly confused, inwardly organized, politics of an
ever-changing group purpose, as the cla.ss moves to meet its
intellectual, personal, and emotional needs.

Does a person-centered education bring results? We have a
definitive answer from research. For ten years Dr. David Aspy
has led research studies aimed at finding out whether human,
person-centered attitudes in the classroom have any measurable
effects and if so what these effects are.’ He collected 3.700
recorded classroom hours from 550 elementary and high school
teachers and used rigorous scientific methods to analyze the
results. He and his adleague. Dr. fHora Roebuck, have found
that students of more person-centered teachers contrast sharply

g7

CAitt. RoofiJis ON Persona t Power

with students of teachers who are less person-centered. They
showed greater gains in learning conventional subjects. They
were more adept at using their higher cognitive processes, such
as problem solving. They had a more positive self-concept than
was found in the other groups. They initiated more behavior in
the classroom They exhibited fewer discipline problems. They
had a lower rate of absence from school. They even showed an
increase in I.Q. among their students.

Teachers can improve their facilitative, person-centered atti-
tudes with as little as fifteen hours of intensive training. Of
significance for all of education is the finding that teachers
improve in these attitudes only when their trainers exhibit a
high level of these facilitative conditions. In ordinary terms this
means that such attitudes are ’’caught." experienttally, from
another. They are not simply intellectual learnings. These
teachers have a more positive self-concept than less person-
centered teachers. They are more self-disclosing to their stu-
dents. They respond more to students’ feelings. They give more
praise. They arc more responsive to student ideas. They lecture
less often

Geographical location of the classes, racial composition, or
race of the teacher have not altered these feelings. Whether we
are speaking of black or white or Chicano teachers, black,
white, or Chicano students, classes in the North, the South, the
Virgin Islands. England. Canada, or Israel, the findings are
essentially the same.

Aspy’s findings are confirmed in practical experience in med-
ical education. The Medical School of McMaster University
has taken a person-centered facilitative approach to the training
of physicians. Though these young men and women have never
had the conventional medical courses, they have learned inten-
sively for three years the medical knowledge they need to deal
with patients. They show up very well on the tough Canadian

IS

A Quiet Revoi ution

licensing exam, and in addition are more creative and humane.

As another example, nine hundred top-ranking medical
educators in the United States, concerned about the dehuman-
i7ing effects of medical training, have enlisted in (he program,
Human Dimensions in .Medical Education. In intensive four-
day and ten-day conferences they have learned to listen, to be
more person-centered in their teaching, to be more communica-
tive in their personal relationships. The changes in some of the
medical schools are already striking.

In short, whether at the elementary, high school, college or
graduate level, person-centered altitudes pay off, changing the
politics of education in the process.

Ohoptcf 1 1 Th)0

5l|politfc6of
’ 'odminbtrotbn

Organizations — whether governmental, industrial, educa-
tional. or medical — have traditionally been administered
through a hierarchical distribution of power. At the top is one
person, as in a corporation or in the Catholic Church, or a small
group, as in the Communist party. Though in various ways
power flows to the top from those who are governed, the organi-
zation IS usually experienced as a process of control flowing
down from the top. This may be through the medium of orders
and regulations, or through selectively given rewards such as
promotions and salary increases.

In recent years many large American corporations have been
modifying this extreme hierarchical control. They have endeav-
ored to diffuse authority, responsibility, and initiative through-
out the organization, especially in all levels of management, in
other countries — notably Sweden— experimentation is being
carried further to the worker level. In all these efforts, those in
control have tned to increase open communication in all direc-
tions: from below upward; from top management downward;
horizontally from department to department, and from skilled
specialist to skilled specialist. Constructive effects have been felt
io certain industries. Much has depended upon the genuineness
of the desire of top management to create opportunities for

90

A QUIFT REVCH fTION

indtviduais in the organization to maximize their personal de-
velopment.

Such constructive trends, however, are often neutralized or
contradicted by two elements. One is the fact that almost with-
out exception management retains the "right" to hire and fire.
The second u the fact that increasing profits, rather than the
growing of persons, is seen as the primary goal.

A few years ago I had ihe opportunity to present to the heads
of large corporations the possibility of a person-centered ap-
proach to administration. 1 distributed to the group in advance
of our meeting some notes to provoke discussion. These notes
represent my personal view of the meaning of a person-centered
administration

Somt' \ote\ on Leadership:
TWO EXTREMES

Influence and Impact
Giving autonomy to persons
and groups

Freeing people to “do their
thing"

Expressing own ideas and
feelings as one aspect of the
group data

Facilitating learning

Stimulating independence, in
thought and action

Accepting the "unacceptable”
innovative creations that
emerge

Delegating, giving full respon-
sibility

Power and Control
Making decisions

Giving orders

Directing subordinates* be-
havior

Keeping own ideas and feel-
ings "close to the vest”
Exercising authority over peo-
ple and organi/.ation

Dominating when necessary

Coercing when necessary

91

Carl Roorrs on Pi-rsonal Powlr

Offienng rccdtwck. and receiv-
ing it

Encouraging and relying on
setf>evaluation

Finding rewards in the devel-
opment and achievements of
others

Teaching, instructing, advis-
ing

Evaluating others

Giving rewards

Being rewarded by own

achievements

Here are my persona! preferences, convictions
and experiences, which focus on the left end
of the leadership continuum.

I want very much to have influence and impact — by influence
and impact I mean behavior on my part which makes a differ-
ence in the behavior of others, but not through imposing my
views on them, or exercising control over them—but I have
rarely desired to, or known how to, exercise control or power.

My influence has always been increased when I have shared my
power or authority.

By refusing to coerce or direct, I think I have stimulated learn-
ing. creativity, and self-direction. These are some of the pro-
ducts in which I am most interested.

I have found my greatest reward in being able to say “I made
It possible for this person to be and achieve something he could
not have been or achieved before." In short I gain a great deal
of satisfaction in being a facilitator of becoming.

By encouraging people's ability to evaluate themselves, 1 have
stimulated autonomy, self-responsibility, and maturity.

By freeing people to “do their thing." I have enriched their life
and learning, and my own as well.

The element in myself 1 pnze most is the degree of ability I have
to create a climate of real personal freedom and communication
around me.

92

A Quiet Revoi.ution

I love to be in contact with younger pe(^, with their capacity
for fresh thcnight and creative action, or with the fresh and
growing portion of a person of any age.

These were not simply theoretical ideas. They had grown out
of a revolution in my own way of being as an administrator, a
way of being which changed markedly about 1945, when 1
founded the Counseling Center of the University of Chicago. It
was a person-centered approach to therapy which changed my
view of administration. In a talk in 1948 I said. “For nearly
twenty years 1 have had administrative responsibility for staff
groups of one sort or another. I had developed ways of handling
administrative problems — ways which had become fairly well
fixed. Certainly as I became more and more deeply interested
in a client-centered type of counseling, it was furthest from my
mind that it would ever affect the way in which I dealt with
organizational problems. It is only in the last two or three years
that I have been really aware of the revolution in administrative
procedure which it might bring about. I would mention again
a point 1 made at the outset, that the effectiveness of a client-
centered approach in counseling means that these concepts
continually force themselves into other areas where one had not
thought of using them.

“For myself. I have found it both difficult and rewarding to
attempt to apply these concepts in administration."'

I did indeed find it both puzzling and difficult to practice a
person-centered administration at the Counseling Center. We
followed many direction^ in our attempts, and even some of
those which seemed blind alleys at the time later proved to have
value. In a staff group which grew to approximately fifty, there
was always excitement and change and personal growth. I have
never seen such dedicated group loyalty, such productive and
creative effort, as I saw during those twelve years. Working
hours meant nothing, and at all hours of the day, far into the
night, and on weekends and holidays, staff members were work-
ing because they wanted to.

CMit Roc£ia ON Personai Power

i learned many strange things frmn the expeiicnce at the
Counseling Onter. It was quite dismaying to me at first that
we never seemed to be able to find the right way of operating
the Center. First all decisions were made by consensus. That
was too burdensome. We delegated decision-making to a small
group. That proved slow. We chose a coordinator, and agreed
to abide by her decisions, though like a prime minister she could
be given a vote of no confidence. Only gradually did I realize
that there is no nght way. The life and vitality and growing
capacity of the Center was closely bound up with its lack of
rigidity, with its continually surprising capacity to change its
collective mind, and to utilize a new mode of operation.

I found that when power was distributed, it was no big thing
to be the coordinator or chairman of the budget committee or
whatever. Consequently administrative tasks were very often
sought by the newest members of the stalT, because it was an
avenue of becoming acquainted with the workings of the opera-
tion. An intern might chair a group making up next year's
budget The newest staff member might head a planning group,
or a group to pass on membership or promotions. We never did
do away entirely with distinctions between secretanal stalT.
graduate students in training, interns, and staff members. Sen-
ior members of the group were freed to spend more time on
research and therapy, knowing that if the various administra-
tive task groups failed accurately to represent the sentiment of
the members, their decisions would be rejected by the staff as
a whole

1 found the enormous importance of personal feelings in
administrative matters. Often the staff would spend hours (or
so it seemed) in arguing some trivial issue, until a perceptive
member would see and state the feelings underlying the issue
— a personal animosity, a feeling of insecurity, a competition
between two would-be leaders, or just the resentment of some-
one who had never really been heard. Once the feelings were
out in the open, the issue which had seemed so important
became a nothing. On the other hand when the staff was in open

94

A Quiet Revoi.ution

communication with one anMher. heavy issues such as the
allocation of the budget for the following year, the election.trf'
a coordinator, the adoption of an important policy might take
only minutes to decide.

In a working group with close and often intimate communi-
cation. it is very difficult to terminate a member of the group.
Only once in the twelve years was a person fired, and that after
many attempts to help him. and after several warnings that his
questionable work and practices simply could not be tolerated
by the group. On the other hand many of our appointments
were to one-year internships, and we could not take all of these
people onto our permanent staff. Consequently in this area it
might be a problem of selecting two people, and terminating
four or five. This loo was a very painful experience for the staff,
and many were the compromises in the way of nominal and
unpaid appointments, or part-time assignments, in order to find
a human solution to a potentially hurtful termination.

We developed quite effective ways of dealing with crises.
When the threat or crisis arose from outside the group— a
drastic budget cut or an attack by the department of psychiatry,
for example —the group tended to coalesce immediately and to
delegate full authonty to a member or members to deal with the
crisis on the basis of their best judgment When the crisis was
internal — a smoldering feud between two staff members, or a
question about the ethics of a staff member's actions — then the
tendency was always to call special meetings of the whole staff
to air the personal feelings involved and to faalitate some sort
of acceptable interpersonal solution.

It IS very rare for the impact of a person-centered approach
to move upward in the organization. Our way of working in the
Counseling Center did not change the administrative practices
of the dean under whose supervision we operated. Certainly we
had no effect on the total administration of the university,
which was decidedly hierarchical. I believe this learning is sim-
ply one of the facts of life. An individual with a person-centered
phik>s<q>hy can often carve out an area of freedom of action, as

95

Ca«l Rooem oh Peesonal Powee

I did in my rdstioftship with the dean, and then implement this
philost^y to the full with those who are, in the organization
chart, "under" him. But it is not likely that this approach will
seep upward in the organization unless there is a high degree
of receptiveness to innovation amcHig those in the top posts.

There is one other learning which comes partially from my
experience at the Counseling Center, but even more from expe-
rience with other groups. If 1 am somewhat insecure, not quite
witling to share power and authority with the group, feeling
some need to control, then I must be open about it. It is per-
fectly possible for an organization or a group to function with
some freedom and some control if it knows, clearly and un-
equiv«K*ally. those behaviors which will be controlled by the one
in power and those areas in which the individual or the group
IS free to chtKise. This may not be an ideal situation, but it is
a perfectly viable one I have found, however, from bitter expe-
rience. that to grant to the group pseudo-control, which I may
take from them in a cnsis, is a devastating experience for all
concerned. I have learned that my wish to vest authority in the
group must, above all else, be genuine.

Is there any evidence that an organization which focuses on
persons and their potential can function as effectively as a con-
ventional hierarchical outfit? There is indeed
A team of investigators under Rensis Likert made a study of
supervision in an insurance company.* First they measured
productivity and morale in the supervised groups and divided
them into those that were high and low on these measures. They
found significant differences in the behavior, methods, and per-
sonalities of supervisors of the high-productivity, high-morale
groups and the qualities of the supervisors of the low groups,
in the working units with high records, supervisors and group
leaders were interested primarily in the workers as people, and
interest m production was secondary. Supervisors encouraged

A Quiet Revolution

group participation and discussion, and decision-making about
work problems and policies was a shared process. Interestingly,
supervisors in these “high" units did not supervise closely the
work being done, but trusted the worker to carry the responsi-
bility for doing good work. The supervisors of units where
productivity and morale were low showed the opposite behav-
iors. They were concerned primarily with production, they
made the decisions without consultation, and they supervised
the work very closely. One could hardly find clearer evidence
of the results of a person-centered approach.

Later this initial study was extended by Likert to some five
thousand assorted organizations.' Again, he had gone into these
companies and identified the high-producing managers and the
low-producers, ignoring, for purposes of his study, all those in
between. Harold Lyon,* who endeavored not very successfully
to introduce a person-centered approach into the administra-
tion of a government bureaucracy in a federal department, gives
an excellent summary of Likert's findings.

The high-producers were very “people-oriented." People were
unique individuals to them. The low-producers, on the other
hand, were “production-onented." People were tools to get the
job done.

The high -producers were good delegators; the low-producers
were not.

The high-producers allowed their subordinates to participate
in decisions. The low-producers were very autocratic.

The high-producers were relatively nonpunitive. The low-
producers were quite punitive.

The high-producers had good. open, two-way personal com-
munication flow. The low-producers were closed and relatively
inaccessible.

The high-producers had few formal meetings at which only
one or two people spoke. They didn’t have to meet often, since
they had such open communicatitm flow. This is interesting,
judging by the frequency of meetings in the bureaucracy. The

97

Ca«L ROGEM on PEKSCM^Ai. POWEA

bm^prodttccn had frequent formal meetingK at which only the
chiefs spcAe. usually giving explicit instructions.

The high-producers had a lot of pride in their work groups.
The low-producers were plagued by low morale.

The high-producers planned ahead effectively. They weren’t
just soft or goody-goody human-relations types. The low-pro-
ducers didn't plan well.

In times of crisis, the high-producers maintained their super-
visory roles, whereas the low-producers rolled up their sleeves
and pitched in with the work. If there was a hole in the dike,
the low-producer would go down and put hts finger in it. Then,
when another hole developed, there was no supervisor to send
to the cnsis area.'

A quite different type of study was completed by G.W.
Cherry in 1975-* He utilized highly sophisticated research meth-
ods and appropriate statistical techniques to study the following
questions and their interrelationships;

What kind of person is the “fully functKining person" (Rogers)
or the "seif-actualized person" (Maslow)? Can behavioral
scientists objectively define this person?

What kind of person docs the large organization — private or
public — wish to have as a high-level manager? Can this person
be objectively defined?

How does the desired manager of question 2 compare with
the fully functioning person of question 1?

How do the characteristics of the folly functioning person
relate to the real productivity, creativity, interpersonal coopera-
tion. and job satisfaction of actual managers?

Without going into his methods I will try to state his findings
in a simplified fashion. He found in the first place that ex-
perienced behavioral scientists were in very substantial agree-
ment in giving an objective descnption of the fully functioning
person.

n

A Quiet Revolution

He found that thirty>seven saiior level nuuu^ers, in signifi-
cant executive posts, were able to give an objective picture of
the kind of manager desired by the organizations they worked
for.

Not too surprisingly, there was a considerable difference be-
tween the two pictures. The sharpest differences:

The self-actualizing person has significantly more of these char-
acteristics than the desirable manager.

Engages in personal fantasy, daydreams, and fictional specu-
lations.

Expresses hostile feelings directly.

Enjoys sensuous experiences (including touch, taste, smell,
phy. steal contact).

Thinks and associates to ideas in unusual ways; has uncon-
ventional thought processes.

Is concerned with philosophical problems; e.g., religion, val-
ues, the meaning of life, etc.

Enjoys esthetic impressions, is esthetically reactive.

Has insight into own motives and behavior.

Is skilled in social techniques of imaginative play, pretending,
and humor.

Values own independence and autonomy.

Clearly, from these examples one gets a picture of the
self- actualizing person as a warmer, more original, more
open, expressive individual, with broad philosophical and ar-
tistic interest.s, with more appreciation of his psychological
and physical self. The “ideal” manager, for instance, holds
back negative and positive feelings. The fully functioning
person expresses both warm and hostile feelings openly. The
“ideal” manager is much closer to the public stereotype of a
“leader”— dependable, productive, serious, candid, someone
you can lean on, but not a dreamer or a philosopher, nor an
entirely autmiomous person.

One may wdl react, “So what? These are simply two diflierent

Ca»i Rogeks on Pcmonal Power

tdcalE. The Klf*actualizmg person probibly wouldn't be a good
nutnager.*’

Here Cherry’s answer to his fourth question is of interest.
Would a self-actuahzmg person be a good manager'* By an
ingenious method he was able to answer this qitestion.

He discovered that the cluster of traits having to do with
warmth, capacity for close interpersonal relationships, compas-
sion, and considerateness correlated very significantly with the
qualities of productivity, creativity, cnoperativeness and job
satisfaction. A person-centered manager, it would seem, would
be of more value to the organiration than a stereotypical leader

Another finding was that the person who recognizes and
shares negative feelings and information (as well as positive),
who IS feelingful but not ovcrprotective. is more likely to be
productive~and less likely to be satisfied with his job!

Finally, a cluster of characteristics often asscxriated w.th
management — power-oriented, aggressive, exploitative, achiev-
ing goals by manipulation and/or deceit — is not correlated w ith
pnxluctiviiy, and has a negative correlation with creativity,
cooperativeness, and job satisfaction

All of this seems to point to the stvmewhal surprising conclu-
sion that the person who is able to develop close interpervmal
relationships, who is primarily person-centered, who does not
place a high value on power, who is a growing person with
understanding of himself, i.s, all in all, likely to be the most
effective and productive manager of an enterpnse

The skeptic — and there are many of these in administrative
posts — may still have many questions. "These research studies
are all very well, but would such ideas really work in a typical
industrial situation? And above all. would such an organization
be able to maintain itself financially? Would it be profitable?”
For such individuals the following story may be of interest. I
vouch for its accuracy.

100

A Quiet Revolution

1 know E man who has, hr many yeais, been a consultant for
a very large industrial firm. The business of this firm is diver*
sified. but for the most |Mirt its units of manufacture are small
and widely used.

This man has, by his way of being, by his training approach,
and through cognitive methods, brought into being in this orga*
nization a person-centered way of management — not with the
whole organization, of course, but with a sizable number of
middle and upper management personnel.

So highly has he been regarded, and so effective the managers
who had trained with him. that a number of years ago he was
permitted to set up an "experiment.” Certain factories were set
aside as experimental manufacturing plants, where the consul-
tant had trained, and continued to work with, management and
nonmanagement personnel. Other plants were designated as
cnntrol units. It should be stressed that this is a very modem
industrial giant, with generally good labor relations, a high level
of efficiency compared with other firms manufacturing the same
types of items, and of course a rigorous cost-accounting system.
Hence both the control and experimental plants started the
experiment as "well run” systems.

During the past seven years the people in the experimental
plants have become more and more deeply involved with a
person-centered philosophy. Employees tend to be trusted by
those in charge, rather than having their work closely super-
vised, inspected, and scrutinized. Likewise, employees tend to
trust each other. The degree of mutual regard among the em-
ployees is unusually high, as is their respect for each other's
capabilities. The emphasis of the consultant and of the plant
personnel has been upon building up good interpersonal rela-
tions. vertical and horizontal two-way communication, and a
dispersion of responsibility, choice, and decision-making.

Now the results are clearly apparent. In the experimental
plants the average cost of a particular unit is about zze. In the
centred plants the average cost of the same item is 70^! In the
experimental plants there are now three to five managers, in the

101

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

control units oX comparabte size there tre seventeen to twenty-
three managersf In the experimentRl units workers end supervi-
sors come sauntering itr from the parking lots in earnest conver-
sation. generally about their work. In the control plants they
ctme in quickly, mostly singly, to punch the time clock.

What is the name of the company? Who is the consultant?
When I told my acquaintance thiu these findings must be pub-
lished. he said he was not permitted to publish them. The profit
gam to the company is so great that this is regarded as a trade
secret which must not be leaked to other firms m their highly
competitive industry! When I exclaimed over the irony of this
--that treating people as persons was a trade secret!— he ex-
plained that top management has little understanding itT his
work. They see only the balance sheet. “Once a year I get
dressed up for lunch with the president. He tells nie he is greatly
impressed by the work I have done in the plants and wants to
know what budget 1 need for the coming year. That is about the
limit of his understanding."

Since I cannot give the documentation for this story, I can
readily understand the skepticism of any reader Yet the story
IS true, and I have checked it. The fact that it cannot openly be
told is a reflection on the confused purposes of a modern capi-
talistic enterprise — truly interested in pervins. so long as that
interest turns a profit.

As 1 have collected the foregoing evidence, theoretical, prac-
tical. field-tested, 1 find I am asking myself, why do I want to
present it? That question stans an inner dialogue. Is it because
1 want to convince you, intellectually, that a person-centered
approach is best? No, ba.ause even if intellectually convinced,
you would not have the basis for the attitudes that are essential,
the gut-level learnings that make such an approach possible. Is
it because 1 believe that reading such evidence would cause your

102

A Quiet Revch ution

bdiavtor to become person-centered? No. I believe it rare in-
deed that behavior changes to a significant degree just from
reading something. Why then?

As I mull it over, 1 have come to believe that the presentation
of factual evidence — whether from empirical studies, action
research, case examples, or subjective report — may have one
effect that makes it worthwhile: it may intrigue you into open-
ing your mind to new possibilities. And this may increaiie the
chance that you will try out, in your own experience, in a small
way. some of the hypotheses of a person-centered approach.
You may try them out to prove they are wrong. But if you try
them at all, you open yourself to visceral learnings that may
change your behavior and change you.

You may begin to be more open, cmpathic, and trusting of
an adolescent son or daughter. You may, if you are an execu-
ti\e. see what happens if you give more responsible autonomy
to one or two of your subordinates. Or you may try understand-
ing your wife (or husband) purely from his or her point of view,
not trying to change or control those pe'ceptions. You may, if
you are a teacher, give your students freedom of choice in some
small part of their learning where you feel comfortable in doing
so. In every case you would be altering the politics of the
relationship in some small way, and then carefully observing
the atlitudinal and behavioral consequences, it is this slight
opening of the door to possible sharing of power and control,
to more communicative and human ways of being, which, for
me, justifies the presentation of evidence.

1 hope I have made clear that it is entirely possible to have
a person -centered organization in which the basis of power and
control is experienced by each individual as residing within
himself Solid evidence indicates that in such an organization
these individuals can and do work responsibly together to sM

103

Cam Robi^^Ki rm PiJtsoNAi Pow»r

fosk. 10 determine policy, to deni with adminuteative details,
to utilize a variety of organizational modes, and to handle the
crises that inevitably arise. The group is more capable of wise
decisions than one person, because il is calling on the leadership
polenlialilics of ail.

1 believe the problems of a person-centered organization are
fully as compies and diflkult as those of a hierarchical organi-
zation. They are, however, quite different in kind, and with far
more personal growth involved in their resolution. I believe a
pervin-centered organization never Zooks particularly efficient.
Routine procedures are frequently disrupted for human rea-
sons The organization never Zooks very good to the outsider,
because he can't readily find who's “in charge." Its efficiency
IS human, its leadership is multi-faceted, and one of its most
important “products" is the development of perstms toward
their full capacity.

I have not often used the term “politics" in this description,
but It should be clear that the politics of a person-centered
organization is i8o degrees removed from that of a traditional
organization. It is based on different values, works on different
principles, achieves effectiveness through different operations.
A person-centered organization is not a niodificatioii of a tradi-
tional one. It IS a collective organism, totally unlike present-day
organizations, it is a revolution m the achievement of human
purposes.

104

Chopter

The

pef6on-centefed
approach and
theoppfe66ed

Frequently, the issue of the expressed comes up when I speak
to large audiences, and even more bluntly in workshops. The
point is made that a person-centered approach is a luxury
which may be appropriate for an affluent middle class, but that
It can have no meaning in dealing with an oppressed minority.
Whether with blacks, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, women, stu-
dents, or other alienated and relatively powerless groups, it is
said that such a “soft” approach has no relevance. What these
groups need are jobs or equal pay or civil rights or educational
opportunities — things that must be wrested from the oppressor,
that he will not give up willingly. Therefore a person-centered
approach is too “weak” to deal with these situations.

I could respond that though my opportunity for work with
racial and ethnic minorities has been limited, my experience
runs directly counter to these assertions. But I believe the best
answer comes from the thinking of Paulo Freire, who has
worked with illiterate Brazilian peasants whose state was only
slightly better than the medieval seifs. Frdre's book. The
Pedt^ogy of the (^^ressed, ' was first published in Portuguese
in 1968 and tran^ted into English in 1970. My book. Freedom
to Learn , ' was published in 1969. There is no indication that he
had evo- heard (rf^my work, and I had never heard oThis. I was

IDS

Cari Roci^.rs oh Ft RsoHAt Power

Rddressing vtudents in educaiitmal institutions. He is telling
about work with fnghtened. downtrodden peasant.^ 1 tried to
use a style that would reach students and their teachers. He
writes to communicate with Marxists, i like to give concrete
examples. He is almtist completely abstract. Yet the principles
he has come lo build his work on are sti completely similar to
the principles of Freedom to Learn that 1 found myself open-
mouthed with astonishment.

Here is how he worked and the cfTccts that he had on the
peasants. He had only five years to work in Brazil before he was
jailed, the old order and the military' junta that twk o\er in 1964
feared him He was “encouraged” lo leave the country and
went to Chile, and has since worked with various international
organizations. I base often said that if a dictatorship tiKik over
in this country, one of their first acts — if they were at all intelli-
gent — would be to jail me and others who hold a person-cen-
tered point of view.

Freire bitterly opposes the “banking” type of education in
which the teacher knows everyihiiig and teaches, and the stu-
dents know nothing and are taught. He moves on to a new
concept which, developed in practice, means that an interdisci-
plinary team goes into a geographical area of, say. a high degree
of illiteracy and apathetic dependence. In informal meetings the
team slates its amis, endeavors to begin building trust, and
enlists volunteer assistants. I he team members act "as sympa-
thetic observers with an altitude of understanding toward what
they see,”' They do not attempt to impose any values, but to
see the people from the inside— how they talk, the way they
think and construct their thought, the nature of their interper-
sonal relationships. This is dtscus.sed with the volunteer assist-
ants, who participate in all the activities of the team. Particu-
larly, they lixvk for the contradictions, problems, and issues that
exist in the minds and lives of the poor. These issues they try
to place before groups of the local pcv>ple, often in pictorial
form

For example, working with a group of tenement residents.

106

A Quiet Revoi utken

ihe investigator — with the intent of focusing on the problem of
alcoholism — showed a scene in which a drunken man was
walking on the street and three young men were standing on the
corner talking together. The group participants were in agree-
ment that “the only one there who is productive and useful to
his country is the souse who is returning home after working
all day for low wages and who is worried about his family
because he can’t take care of their needs. He is the only worker.
He is a decent worker and a souse like us."* Wisely the investi-
gator (1 would call him a facilitator) dropped his initial aim,
and drew from the group more of their real feelings — about low
wages, about being exploited, about dnnking as an escape from
rcalit> and the frustration of powerlessness.

In the process of discussion, the facilitator runs into the same
problems any student-centered teacher encounters. After a bit
of lively discus.sion, a group may suddenly slop and say to the
leader, "Excuse us. we ought to keep quiet and let you talk. You
are the one who knows, we don’t know anything." In another
group a peasant says, “Why don’t you explain the pictures to
us'^ That way it’ll take less time and won’t give us a headache."'
But Freire has developed the realization that only by letting the
people face these problem situations in their own way will true
seif-initiated learning take place. Gradually they become fully
aware of their world and its problems. Then they begin to seek
answers. The issues “which have come from the people return
to them — not as contents to be deposited, but as problems to
be solved.”*

Though Freire tells little of the general outcomes, the
changes in attitudes are clear. At first, "The peasant feels in-
ferior to the boss because the boss seems to be the only one who
knows things and is able to run things.’’’ They regard them-
selves as lazy, unfit, worthless, less free than an animal. Because
of this they feel attracted to the oppres.sor and his way of life,
and their highest dream is to be like him, and oppress others.
But gradually the self-concept and the goal change. Peasants
make such statements as these; "I now realize I am a man, an

107

Cami Rogers on Fersonm Kwver

educated man." "We were blind, now our eyes have beat
Ofiened." "Now we will no longin' be a dead weight on the
cooperative farm." "I work, and working I transform the
world."*

Fretre's approach follows this process. First the curriculum
for learning is drawn from the problems as the peasant secs
them, the staff facilitating that process. Then resource materials
are prepared to point up the issues and contradictions, and free
discussions gradually emerge in groups that have never before
articulated thar thoughts or feelings. Now the excitement of
self'initiated ieaming occurs. The members, as they reveal
themselves to one another, begin to trust themselves as persons,
and other members of the group as well. They change their
goats. Instead of simply aspinng to become oppressors them-
selves, they envision a new type of social system, more human.
Finally, they begin to take considered steps to change the terri-
ble conditions under which they live.

You may say that Freire failed, since he was expelled from
the country as a dangerous revolutionary. Perhaps. But my
experience with a person-centered approach is that for every
person who is fired or expelled, a dozen agents of change,
independent in thought and action, have been created.

The experience I've had with oppressed groups — students,
first of all. but including blacks, Chicanos, and women — causes
me to agree with Freire that this approach is a basically revolu-
tionary process, subversive of any authoritarian structure. Here
arc four of his major points. First is a statement about the
change m power relationships. Speaking of breaking the vertical
authority patterns charactenstic of "banking" education, he
se.ys. “Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the
students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges;
tcacher>student with students-teachers. The teacher is no
longer merely theone-who-teaches, but one who is himself
taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being
taught also teach. They become jointly respimsiUe for a process
in which all grow,”*

lOli

A Quiet Revolution

His belief in the importance of this shift in power is very deep.
'‘The important thing, from the point view of Hbertarian
education, is for men to come to feel like mastm of their
thinking and views of the world explicitly or implicitly manifest
in their own suggesticms and those of their comrades. Because
this view of education starts with the conviction that it cannot
present its own program but must search for this program
dialogically with the people, it serves to introduce the pedagogy
of the oppressed, in the elaboration of which the oppressed
must participate.*’'"

In a third statement, he refutes the notion that a revolution-
ary movement can succeed only by insisting first on a propa-
gandistic. dogmatic leadership. ‘*Problem-posing education
does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No
oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to ques-
tion: Why? While only a revolutionary society can carry out
this education in systematic terms, the revolutionary leaders
need not take full power before they can employ the method.
In the revolutionary process, the leaders cannot utilize the
banking method as an interim measure, justified on grounds of
expediency, with the intention of later behaving in a genuinely
revolutionary fashion. They must be revolutionary — that is to
say, dialogical — from the outset.""

Finally, in the foreword is a glimpse of the far-reaching
implications of this work. “A distinguished Brazilian student of
national development recently affirmed that this type of educa-
tional work among the people represents a new factor in social
change and development, .la new instrument of conduct for the
Third World, by which it can overcome traditional structures
and enter the modern world.’ ""

I concur with Freire’s basic views. 1 have already indicated,
in speaking of education, that 1 would extend the basic princi-
ples, on which we both seem to agree, to all learning situations.

109

Caki. ltoGf.«s ON Personal Power

The Nttional Health Council is an organization made up of
representatives of the American Medical Association, the
American Dental Association, nurses’ organizations, health in-
surance companies, health-oriented agencies, and many other
similar groups, A few years ago these “health providers.” as
they termed themselves, decided to include in their annual
conference a group of “health consumers" from the urhan ghet-
tos and the rural underprivileged. They should receive full
credit for this humane and courageous decisum, which clearly
involved risk to themselves. The health consumers were elected
or selected hy local groups in their own areas. They were ail
poor, many black, some Mexican* American. As the time of the
conference approached, the planners became uneasy and in-
vited the staff of the Center for Studies of the Person to act as
facilitators of groups at the conference. The invitation was
accepted.

When the conference opened, the hostility of the “consum-
ers” was so thick it was palpable. After the usual bland opening
events, the conference threatened to split wide open. The “con-
sumers” were going to withdraw. The conference was seen as
just another attempt by the establishment group to give a mean-
ingless token representation to the poor. They would have none
of It Only the statements of the facilitators that they had come
all the way across the country, for no fee. simply to make
certain that everyone in the conference would be heard, that
everyone would have a truly representative voice, held the con-
ference together temporarily.

Twenty groups of twenty to twenty-five each were formed,
with “providers” and “consumers” in each group. 1 remember
the group I facilitated. The bitterness of the poor erupted in full
force. Their anger at white profcs.sionals. at the lack of health
services, at the lack of any voice in their own health care was
so strong that some of the professionals were frightened, while
others were self-nghteously angry in response. The value of a
facilitator, who could truly understand and clarify the feelings
exfMressed. was most clearly demonstrated. Without the facilita-

110

A Quiet Revoi ution

tors there is no doubt the conference would have blown apart.
Vexing his hatred of oppression, one black man said that the
Marines had trained him to kill, and if need be he would use
ihai training against the people and institutions that were hold-
ing him down. A black woman with little formal education was
undoubtedly the most influential person in the group. Highly
skeptical of everyone's motives, including mine, she spoke out
of a long and terrible personal struggle again.st poverty, preju-
dice, and oppression. Whenever she spoke, everyone listened —
and learned.

As the group sessions continued, there was a small but signifi-
cant growth in understanding. The white professionals began
really to see their functioning as it appeared to the recipient. A
ghetto member who hated health insurance companic's realized
that the insurance company executive in our group was not all
bad, and that they could communicate A white scKial worker
finally gained the courage to tell how she had constructed a
“cover story" for herself as an unemployed worker needing
health care, and how. playing this role, she had approached
sanous health-oriented "helping" agencies. The appalling
treatment she had received had disillusioned her about her own
profession, but now she could begin to sec some hope. Some
blacks began to differ with others of their color, to their great
embarrassment, because they fell they should keep a united
front against whites. A Mexican- American woman finally told
tearfully of how she felt totally scorned and uncared for by ho(h
blacks and whites

To put the process in more general terms, the existing con-
flicts. such as those between haves and have-nots, between
blacks and whites, between professionals and recipients, be-
tween establishment and radicals, burst into the open. Rut these
violent outpourings occurred in a climate in which each person
was n»pected and permitted to state his feelings without inter-
ruption; a climate in which the facilitators showed that their
caring concern was for the dignity of each person, and their
primary purpose was to foster open communication. In this

HI

Cam. Rooets on Reuonal Power

RtmoEiiriMre the isMies becRine greatly clariAed. uid, what is
perhaps equally important, persons emerged as separate,
unique individuals, each with his own perception of those is-
sues. Little by little real interpersonal communication began.

At this point, some radicals will say, “See, what you are
accomplishing is better, less angry communication! You are
destroying the possibility of revolutionary change! You are
defusing the hatred and bitterness which alone can spark any
real change for the oppressed!" I would only ask such readers
to hear the rest of the story.

Although the “health consumers" had never known one an-
other before, they quickly coalesced and began to formulate
resolutions which were circulated to the various grour*s, where
they were discussed, revised, amended. Then we were ail told
that it was "the established policy" of the National Health
Council to be a forum only, and that it did not take stands on
health issues, so no resolutions could be adopted. Undaunted,
the "consumers" waited until the long final meeting of the
whole conference, which was scheduled to be a senes of talks
"summanzing" the conference, though some of the speakers
had not even attended. A "consumer" spokesman immediately
moved that the whole program be dropped and that the time
be spent considering and voting on the resolutions that had
been circulating. Excitement was high, and the pros and cons
emotional. The motion earned by a large majority, and the
would-be speakers were thanked and dismissed. The conference
then, after heated discussions, passed a long senes of resolu-
tions, with no mention of “established policy." The conference
ended with highly affirmative feelings, not only on the part of
the "consumers" but on the part of most of the establishment
members as well. The surprising result was that in the ensuing
year a very large number of these resolutions were carried out.

Here are my own conclusions from Fretre's work, as well as
from my experience with the "consumers," summanzed in an
"if-then” form.

u:

A Quiet Revolution

In a situation involving minority groups, the on»ressed. or
anyone who feels powerless, I conclude that:

If a person with faciiitative attitudes can gain entry into the
group;

If this facilitator is genuinely free of a desire to control the
outcome, respects the capacity of the group to deal with
its own problems, and has skills in releasing individual
expression;

If a respectful hearing is given to all attitudes and feelings,
no matter how “extreme" or “unrealistic";

If the problems experienced by the group are accepted and
clearly defined as issues;

If the group and ns members are permitted to choose, collec-
tively and individually, their own next steps;

Then a process is set in motion that has these characteristics-

From some members long-suppressed feelings will pour out
— mostly negative, hostile, bitter feelings

Finding these attitudes accepted and understmx), more and
more members of the group feel free to express the
whole range of experienced feelings.

With more complete expression individual persons are recog-
nized for their uniqueness and strengths, and mutual
trust begins to develop.

The most irrational of the feelings are somewhat defused by
being fully expressed, and by the feedback from group
members.

The feelings based on experiences common to the group are
clarified and strengthened.

Confidence grows — self-confidence in the individual, and
general confidence in the group.

There is a more realistic collective consideration of the issues,
with less overload of irrationality.

Trusting each other more, there are fewer "ego trips,” with
members competing for leadership, or trying to tidee
cr«lit for, or defend, a proposed solution.

Cam. Rooeks PkRSONAi, Powlr

The group moves toward innovative, responsible, and often
revolutionary steps, steps whtch can be taken now, in an
atmosphere of realism.

Leadership in the group multiplies. Each individual tends to
respect himself and the leadership qualities he has.

Constructive action is taken, both by the group and by the
individual members, to change the situation they are in.

Individuals feel enough support by the group to take actions
they know will be regarded as radical, even when high
nsk to themselves is involved.

114

Chapter

7

Reedving

intercdtufol

ten6ion6:

Q beginning

Am I fiddling while Rome bums? What possible difference
can a new approach to family life or to psychotherapy make
when our very planet is threatened with dissolution? If our
schcxils become more person-centered, will that be important if
a nuclear war wipes out all schools, all students, all teachers,
all advocates of any educational philosophy— of whatever
brand? We cannot dodge the fact that our world — the planet
I-Iarth — is in mortal danger. In 1969 U Thant, Secretary General
of ihe United Nations, .said, “1 do not wish to seem over-
dramatic. but 1 can only conclude from the information availa-
ble to me . . . that members of the United Nations have perhaps
ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and
launch a global partnership.” Somewhat more optimistic, the
authors of a powerful recent volume on international relations
iitle their book 7^04 to indicate that there are only 7,304 days
in the twenty-year period in which they believe the fate of the
planet will be decided.'

Topping the list of world problems which will decide
whether we have a future are the ancient as well as the
modem feuds that divide cultures, ideologies, religions, and
nations. No one knows whether the hatred between Arab
and Israeli will spark a new — and possibly catastrophic —

ns

Ca«l Rocfciis ON Remonal Power

wftr. The cefitune»H>ld feud between Protestants and Cathol>
ICS in Northern Ireland may at any moment become an un>
restrained deadly explosion. The situation in South Africa is
a lethal time bomb. The tensions between the Soviet Union
and the People's Republic of China constitute a smoldering
threat of unknown proportions. The discrepancy in wealth
and income between the “haves" and “have-nots" of the
world is laying a basis for present as well as future hatreds.
Here at home, whites have been warring with blacks over
busing and other issues around integration. On a broader
scale, terronst groups roam the world, wreaking violence on
totally innocent people. There seems no end to the list of
undying feuds between races, cultures and nations.

Our shrinking world and our burgeoning technology make
each of these feuds a life-and-death issue for every citizen of the
globe

Does a person-centered approach have anything useful to
offer in solving these immense and dangerous global issues?
There are already significant models on a small scale for han-
dling these tensions; there is every reason to believe these could
be imaginatively expanded and utilized. The cost would be
infinitesimal compared to the zfio hUHon dollars that the world
as a whole spent on arms in 1975.’

Political scientists are themselves beginning to point in the
direction of the person -centered approach. Finla> and Hovet
say that “to deal constructively with world problems a global
strategy is necessary'. Such a strategy must attempt the seem-
ingly impossible; to establish a sense of common cause among
the vastly disparate and ampcUng nations of the world. It re-
quires that nations move beyond self-interest defined in terms
of power and concentrate on common interests defined in terms
of realizing man's fullest potentialities."' While the authors
italicize the second sentence of the paragraph, I would strongly
underscore the final sentence. A desire for their citizens to
develop their potentialities is one of the few items on which
most of the nations of the world might agree. And it is precisely

A Quiet Revocutkin

St this point that experience with s person-centoed approach
may have something to offer.

In a time of major social change, there ts a long quiet period
of gestation, experimentation, and model building before any-
thing happens. Information is gathered, solutions are discov-
ered. and often unsuccessful attempts are made to promulgate
these solutions. Meanwhile the average citizen is becoming
acutely aware of the problem and frustrated by the superficial
attempts at correction. Then, sometimes suddenly, the public as
a whole sees the problem clearly, looks more deeply for solu-
tions, and discovers that the answers, on a small scale, are
already at hand. There develops a clear public will to deal with
the problem, and enormous forces are set in motion. This does
not mean that a miraculous solution is quickly reached, because
most social problems — and technological problems too— are
highly complex, and many unforeseen difficulties arise. But
once the corner has been turned, once that amorphous creature
"the public” has made a decision to attack the problem, there
IS a great deal of forward movement.

The telephone, the radio, the automobile all went through a
slow gestation period before the public realized the value of
each, and demanded their rapid development.

Margaret Sanger established the first birth-control clinic in
1916. The public displayed negative interest in its bitter opposi-
tion. Nevertheless, due to a dedicated group working on a small
scale, many of the problems of contraception were faced and
resolved, and an enormous amount of data gathered on the
exploding population rate and its effects. It was not until the
1960s and overpopulation was a serious problem that the public
woke up. Now nations are taking positive action to promote
family planning and control reproduction.

We have known of pollution by factories, mines, and automo-
biles for years. Masses of data were accumulated. But suddenly
— dramatized most strongly, perhaps, by smog in Los Angeles
and the death of Lake Erie — pollution became a national con-
cern. The public had decided to deal with pollution.

117

Carl Rogers on Personal Poater

For ^nersikms blacks were denied the right to vote end
could not hope to receive equal justice before the law. In the
1950s and 60s the public decid^ to do something about it
Changes began to occur, sometimes with surprising speed,
sometimes with tragic slowness. But they are being made.

Just when it seems too late, the great social collective mind
grasps the $eriousne» of a problem and begins to move
dramatically ahead. Because the collective decision is so late,
the outcome is always in doubt — the world may still be
drowned by overpopulation, we may still die of pollution, we
may still see violent racial strife — but at least we are making
massive efforts to deal with those issues. It is this knowledge of
the past that gives me courage to propose methods for dealing
with intercult ural, interracial, and international tensions. I be-
lieve that if the public becomes truly aware that present-day
policies are targeted directly toward the destruction of all of us.
then they may decide to look for alternatives. And the person-
centered approach offers just such an alternative.

In presenting this alternative, I begin with the most minute
esampl<:& of resolution and conffict, first within the individual,
then between individuals, then between small groups, and
finally with the bitter feuds and tensions between large groups.
We already have available small-scale solutions, minute solu-
tions, to some of the most baffling of international feuds. I am
well aware that these small-scale models will run into enormous
difficulties if translated into global terms, but these will be
technological difficulties, which our culture is most adept at
solving. Some of the baste principles have a coherence, a con-
sistency. and a demonstrated cfTectiveness that deserve scru-
tiny. Many of these underlying pnneipies involve the person-
centered approach to the problem of power, control, and
decision-making.

Conflict within the individual is the most basic of ail feuds
and tensions. One of the commonest problems I faced as a
psychotherapist was the individual who feels at war within
herself: “Outwardly I'm a reasonably acceptable person; I'm

lift

A Quiet RevoLimoH

able to make a living (or a hcrnie]; I have some degree of recogni-
tion from pei^le in my world. But inwardly I feel I’m a fraud.
I'm worthless, incompetent, full of bad impulses and evil inten-
tions. There is an irreconcilable discrepancy between what I
ieem to be and what I really am. If people knew me as 1 am,
the> would reject me.*'

Here is a power struggle within the person. In order to “get
by" she must keep up her facade, yet this fraudulent front is
continually undermined by “the real me." She is sure that,
ishichever might win out. life will be dis.satisfying oa frighten-
ing. or both.

As a therapist, I learned to accept each of these flatly contra-
dictory feelings. There was one young man who just “went
blank" at crucial points — his mind failed to function, he be-
came confused and almost disoriented, he flubbed important
examinations, was unable to carry out important duties. For a
time 1 was unable to see why this seemed to him such conclusive
evidence of a bad and evil aspect of his nature, though I ac-
cepted his very contradictory feelings. Then he revealed more
about his relationship to his father and others in authority.
Finally I ventured, "1 wonder if what you arc telling me is that
you have, through this blankness, found a sure-fire way of
defeating ail of those who want to control you and mold you
into the image they have fashioned for you?" After a moment
of silence in which he seemed to be digesting this, he broke into
wildly uncontrollable laughter, which was very embarrassing to
him — and puzzling to me. Then haltingly, and with .some feel-
ing of shame, he recognized that not only was my statement
accurate but that the wild laughter was a full experiencing, for
the first time in his life, of the glee he had felt in defeating his
father and everyone else through these distressing periods of
"blankness."

In subsequent interviews came the slower and more difficult
recognition that these two parts of himself could each be ac-
cepted, that they could live comfortably in one person, that they
were not fundamentally incompatible. He began to see that it

119

Caul Rogem on PERsoNAt Power

WRS not true that one part of him wa» bad. another part good;
one part right and one wrong. More specifically he came to
realize that he could work openly for approval of others and
could strive for recognition, but that he could also resist control
by others. He recognized that he could do what he wished, and
not simply what others expected or demanded of him. The two
elements of his emotional life, formerly so incompatible they
were not even in touch with each other, could perhapj live
comfortably within one person.

How can the chasm between individuals be bridged? Some of
the forces that create nfts between people are marital conflict,
sibling rivalry, athletic or academic cutthroat competition, and
racial and educational dtflercnces. Look for a moment at the
enormous gap in life experience between a member of a black
ghetto in one of our inner cities and the educated white profes-
sicmal person who has never known a day of real hunger, who
has never lived a street life, never been the victim o<' unreason-
ing prejudice. How could these individuals possibly feel any
commonality? Recently I received very touching evidence that
such a gap can be bridged An instructor in an adult education
class sent me a paper turned in by Michael, an uneducated and
inarticulate black man who was a student in one of his cla.sses.
Michael had read and been moved by the chapter entitled ‘This
Is Me" from my book On Becoming a Person * "This Is Me"
describes the struggles and learnings that have had meaning for
me, my internal, personal life. There is nothing that would seem
to connect it with ghetto experience or the black man's struggle
for personhood. And yet. here is Michael’s illiterate but power-
ful report:

I backed up and returned to the first chapter I read for this
course. This chapter was a well written piece of literiture which
had come so close with defining myself as 1 am existing today.

120

A Quiet Revolution

1 have been on that same frequency this author is unfolding in
this piece of his work. I have delt with these same ideas. con>
cepts. and expehnces the author is talking about. 1 am also
puzzled by the story that I have claimed to understand up to
now [by this chapter that 1 am claiming to understand] for the
simple reason, 1 feel that the author is a well educatoi white
person that is so far from being a poor black man according to
society today. So if society places us upon two different levels
of being, then I should not be thinking on the same level as this
fine writer. The capability [possibility] of me thinking on the
same level as this man isn't [cannot be], so a question have been
put inside me from reading this chapter, and that is why can
I understand what this author has written that fits me like my
skin?

1 also got some positive feelings from reading this mans work
and those were a feeling that me and this man was no different
from each other realy because I have found out that the only
thing in a persons life that makes him different from some body
else are the thoughts in your mind that you know of an no one
else do. Now I got the feeling that this author knows this also
from the way he came on with his willingness to let you inside
of hiself, so that you would be able to know the real him that
he had discovered in hisself.

I understood what he was saying about hisself because 1
understood myself to that point which he was talking about in
hisself. It was like reading something formiua [a formula?] that
1 hadn't read before, but 1 had lived the exact experinces of this
mans trip inside hisself. Now if by chance this 'wonderful man
did not write [had not written] about his trip inside hisself then
the chances of me figuring out that what had been drilled into
[me] earlier by society was wrong [would have been almost nil]
and that's why there had seemed at the time something wasn’t
right with what society was saying about all men being alike
within. If this [chapter] had not crossed my path when it did
then I would still be searching for that cleariftcation. I thank
his person for the understanding he has shared with me.

121

Caki. Roceiis on Personal Power

Though I have never met him, I feel close to Michael, just
as be feels close to me. Why? Because it is in our humanness
—the shared conflicts, and feelings, learnings, perplexities,
"experinces” — that we can come together, in spite of lives that
in their externals probably have nothing in common, except
that we were both bom and have both lived. Yet he feels that
what 1 wrote fits him “like my skin,” even though he cannot
understand why an educated white man can possibly have
anything in common with a ghetto>taughi black man.

I have seen this demonstrated before. As human beings try-
ing to cope with life, to understand it and learn from it. we have
vast pools of commonality to draw on. It makes no difference
that I am an older white middle-class American male, and you
may be yellow or black or communist or Israeli or Arab or
Russian or young or female, if we are openly willing to share,
then there is a large area in which understanding is possible. It
is in the “thoughts in your mind that you know of and no one
else do” that wc can begin open and intimate communication.

One learning stands out clearly from Michael's statement. To
the degree that I. in my writing, was able to open myself to him
—with no desire to lead, direct, or persuade — he was able to
open himself and to empower himself as a separate and worthy
person.

If by .some tragic chance. Michael and I found ourselves on
opp(N>ile sides of the barricades in a race riot, could we still
communicate, could we discover a pathway to constructive
resolution of the crrsis? If we could get into physical communi-
cation — yes. Wc have, between us, the human basis for resolv-
ing issues of economics, ideology, civil justice, and revolution-
ary violence.

y®

in tension situations, the pattern is simple. Each of the par-
ties involved holds, with equal conviction, an identical view: “1
am nght and you are wrong: I am good and you are bad." This

122

A Quiet Revolution

holds for tension between individiuils and between groups,
where it becomes are right and you are wrong; we are good
and you are bad." One of our greatest difficulties in any dispute
is to recognize or, even more difficult, to accept that the certi-
tude we feel about our own rightness and goodness is equaled
by the certitude of the opposing individual or group about their
rightness and goodness. If tension is to be reduced, it is this
pattern that must somehow be dissolved. Here is where a
person-centered approach is at its most powerful.

A number of years ago, a "helping" community called
Changes was formed in a neighborhood on the South Side of
Chicago by Eugene Gendlin and other individuals who had
been associated with the Counseling Center. It reached out to
the inhabitants of the neighborhood, many of them alienated or
members of the counter-culture. It trained its members in "ab-
solute listening,” putting out a “Rap Manual” and conducting
sessions on the same topic. How can a concept like empathy be
explained to the average person? Here is a paragraph from the
"Manual" about listening:

“This is not laying trips on people. You only listen and say
back the other person's thing, step by step, just as that person
seems to have it at that moment. You never mix into it any of
your own things or ideas, never lay on the other person any-
thing that person didn’t express. . . To show that you under-
stand exactly, make a sentence or two which gets exactly at the
personal meaning this person wanted to put across. This might
be in your own words, usually, but use that person's own words
for the touchy main things.”

Another aspect of their training, "focusing,” helps a person
attain “conscious moment-to-moment touch with what goes on
in you, how you feel, what affects that and how, what's really
important, all the complex parts of it.”' So the members of
Changes are helped to b^me skillful in listening — to the other
— and focusing — on what is going on within themselves. A
member tells how these attitudes affect intergroup tension:

123

Cam. ftocEM on PtustWAi Powt*

ThcM techniques can radically improve group interactions. It
happened who* the women m our South Side Chicago Gay
LibMatton group were negotiating a monthly Gay Women’s
Coffee House with a local church that supported a number of
rwiicai community groups A problem was the deeply rooted
desire of the women to ban men, and the church commune’s
policy of keeping an open door to everyone at their coffee
houses, regardless of who was sponsoring it that week. Most of
the negotiation Kxik place between a hypersensitive lesbian,
who felt overrun by men in both gay and straight worlds, and
a male member of the church commune staff, who wanted to
prottt:t the trusting, transcendent view of the open-door policy,
and did luit understand the history and necessity behind the
defensive, strictly all- female approach to a lesbian coffee house.

There were perstmality clashes and strain in trying to work
out a policy suitable to bt>th sides; a number of events caused
tension to escalate mostly through misunderstanding, until the
existence of the »:offec house was threatened, and a general
meeting was called Without advance planning, it just happened
that members of both groups present were involved in the
radis'al therapy community Changes and they had learned and
incorporated these techniques in their behavior. Because of this,
the two ptvoral figures who had the history of difficulty nego-
tiating were able, not only to state their positions, but to go into
iheir hurt, misunderstood, distrustful feeling with the help of
the rest of the group. That stopped the polarization, shifted the
defensive energy inward for each, and cleared the air for a new
negotiation, based on a clear, open, thorough sense of the un-
derlying needs and fears of each group, from which developed
a specific prtxredure for the Coffee House which compromised
neither group’s ideals The incident, m fact, opened up possibili-
ties of communication between the two groups at a level deeper
than would have been likely given their original social aliena-
tion from each other. The Gay W'omcn’s Coffee House became
and remained a flourishing community institution for the rest
of this past year. All of this stuff does work.‘

124

A Quiet Revolutkin

This small event demonstrates that initially the pattern is as
usual: “The decision must be made my way, bwause 1 am
standing on the good principle that oppressed gay women have
a right to a closed meeting." "No, the decision must be made
my way because I am standing on the good principle that
meetings in this church are open to anyone." It is a head-on
conflict between irreconcilable principles. The fact that some
members of each of the conflicting groups had been trained by
Changes in a person-centered approach gives the little struggle
all the significance of a pure laboratory experiment. Through
listening to the two main antagonists, through helping them
focus on their own feelings of hurt and distrust, the conflict over
“pnnciples" becomes completely redefined. It is now a question
of the feelings, the needs, the fears of each group and of the two
primary figures. Redefined, each group now finds that it can
meet its needs without violating the needs of the other group.
New channels of realistic communication are opened up. The
politics of a head-on collision over decision-making changes
completely when each person is empowered to be all of himself
— feelings, fears, ideas, hopes, distrusts. .\ decision is then
reached on a human basis, not as a result of a political clash.

Judy Henderson, who told me the coffee-house incident, is a
self-styled member of the radical Left. She believes the person-
centered approach is useful in revolutionary activity but often
she has seen radical groups destroy themselves through inter-
personal tensions. She says that "these groups, in the name of
radicalism, practiced on me both explicit and tacit kinds of
authoritarianism. I’m talking about the tyranny of unspoken
norms and roles subtly controlling what kind of thing gets said
and what doesn’t, who speaks most and who listens, who ends
up supporting someone else’s need or ideas, but nut his or her
own."

She realizes that concern for a person’s feelings is considered
counterrevolutionary. "Most of us have heard slogans such as:
'This is politics, not therapy! There is no solution but the collec-
tive one; individual solutions are cooptation.’ 1 have been

125

Caw. Roocmi on Peksonal Rowe*

around a number of groups where the idea of dealing with
personal experience and interaction was looked down on as
worse than useless, as a drain on energy, a digression from ‘the
real issues.’ even as ‘elitist, pampered. self>indulgent.‘'’ But
Henderson has come to see these ways of “listening" and
“fixusing" as new instruments for change. "They provide ger-
minal tools for a radical self-experience, interaction, and group
prtxess. To me these techniques are the material basis for dis-
covering a new politics and a new approach to politicizing
others, coming from a rich, as yet untapped, understanding of
and access to the locus of power in the individual. . . . But it
doesn't happen without back-sliding and exhaustion. I say this
after struggling for a year now. together with a number of
people, to integrate these attitudes and processes into our per-
sonal. collective, political lives. It goes slowly; it requires large
belief and perseverance. The beginning seems to last a long
time; there is need to relearn what it means to be myself, then
to be with another, and then to form a group. 1 have to keep
sight of long-range goals when I feel mired down in persona!
hang-ups. I have to keep hold of the processes I have learned
to trust, even when 1 am fearing and doubting everyone around
me and what we are doing. I have to keep remembering, with
some relief, what a new thing we are trying to find and how
much we are up against, when I start envying the efficiency of
established institutions and the easy action of groups that orga-
nize their power in the showy, familiar ways. . . . But it seems
tt) me, after a year, to be very much worth it, because I see in
myself, and in the real challenges we have begun to face as a
community, real change and possibilities of a new social system
that gets at the roots of our disease. ... I feel good and right
doing this particular struggle in a way that I never have before.
There is something about clarity in myself, and about human
beauty available to me in anyone I might work with, that 1 have
a grip on now, that is strongly infusing my political vision and
action, and bringing me great joy, in the oddest, unexpected
ways, even when 1 ‘love.’

126

A Quiet Revolution

Here is someone who has learned that revolutitmary changes
in social groups are best and most lastingly brought about by
the subtle, difficult, seemingly “inefficient” attitudes embodied
in a person-centered approach.

Community tensions, racial and otherwise, can be eased by
using the person-centered approach to empower the people on
both sides of the conflict.

A young minister in a Wyoming town of about nine thousand
was disturbed by the sharp division between the Chicanos and
Angk>s and decided to try to do something about it. The town
was divided by a railroad and the Chicanos (about a quarter of
the population) lived on the south side and the Anglos on the
other. The white Ame/icans thought that everything was fine
in the town, because there was no very overt discrimination.
The Mexican-Americans, on the other hand, felt that they were
discriminated against. They felt oppressed, believed that the
community was not responsive to their needs, and harbored
feelings ranging from passive resignation to burning resent-
ment.

Lloyd Henderson, the minister, was able to get a mtxiest
grant to finance a program for the improvement of communica-
tion. First he chose nine leaders from the community, repre-
senting a cross-section — Anglo; Chicano; upper, middle, and
lower class, men and women. He invited a facilitator from the
Center for Studies of the Person to give an intensive weekend
of training to the leaders. It helped them to discover that they
were not expected to be leaders in the conventional sense, but
facilitators of expression and communication. The groups were
to be focused on communication, not on taking action. Then the
nine groups were set up, with an attendance of eight to fifteen
in each group. They met once a week for twelve weeks and they
had an optional weekend together, which some of them chose
to utilize and others did not. The groups, too, were cross-

127

Caul Rogers on Personai Power

sectional: the local judge, in fact, was in with some Chicano
youths who had always regarded him as their worst enemy.

First the groups turned to the leaders, expecting them to take
responsibility, but gradually they realized that if the groups
were to function, they had to take responsibility for themselves
and for their own expression. The conversation was personal
but focused on communit> issues There was talk about unem-
ployment. There was an airing of frustration with the railroad,
which was a very central feature in the community. They dis-
cussed educational problems that their children were having.
Thus, the mapr topics were community issues but set in a
personal framework The Chicanos were disheartened to be
reconfronted with the lack of solidarity in their own group.
Although the Anglos often thought of the Chicanos as a united
group, the Chicanos themselves were aware of their disunity as
a barrier to improving their situation.

One of the most characteristic discoveries in these meetings
was that the attitudes of the participants, no matter what their
backgrounds or ages, were more similar than they had sup-
posed. When they discussed their children or the need for jobs,
feelings were the same on both sides of the track. A look of
wonder and awe came over the faces of two mothers, one Anglo
and one Chicano. when they discovered how very much alike
they were in their hopes for, and their problems with, their
children.

Members of the groups were invited to participate on a local
television show, telling of what they were doing and the prog-
ress they were making. This helped to keep the community in
touch with the project and to give it some investment in better
communication.

Gradually changes began to occur. Individuals who in the
normal course of events would never have met built friendships
acros.s cultural and age barriers. The judge came to have a
better understanding of the young people he was dealing with
in his court Toward the end, some groups did take action — for
example, ulkiiig to employers about theii hiring practices.

128

A' Quiet Revolution

After the sessions had ended, the Chicanos banded together
into a group, wrote a proposal and got a grant from the federal
government, which had as its aims reducing school dropouts,
providing job training, and taking Mexican-American parents
to see the state university, to raise their educational goals. These
are samples of the group's activities. They hired a director to
manage this program. It was a decided morale booster for the
south side of the tracks.

All this was accomplished through a person-centered ap-
proach on a budget of less than five thousand dollars. The
minister had believed in placing responsibility on the local lead-
ership. Then he had provided these leaders, and himself, with
a very brief but intensive training period in listening skills and
facilitative skills. He was able to start enough groups to create
a “critical mass." One group might have been helpful to the
individuals involved, but almost certainly would not have
affected the community. But nine groups, involving only a little
over one hundred persons out of nine thousand, proved to be
a sufficient mass to initiate creative social action. The results
speak for themselves, indicative of what can be accomplished
when tensions are not too great and biiterness not ttw deep.
Individuals on both sides of the track experienced and used
their power because they were able to realize their strengths
through open expression and personal communication.

■ ,y<T>- ..

1 experienced a deep feud when I worked with a group from
Belfast, Northern Ireland. It was possible to observe what hap-
pens in a group where the bitterness involves generations of
economic, religious, and cultural hatred. There were five Prot-
estants — including one Englishman — and four Catholics in the
group. The nine were chosen to include extremists and moder-
ates on both sides, men and women, older and younger. The
Englishman was a retired army colonel. We wanted to facilitate
straightforward communication and to film this interaction.*

129

Caw Roorm on Prmonal Powr*

In the early sessions the bitterness, horror, and despair of
everyday life in Belfast was abundantly clear. Tom's sister was
blown to bits by a bomb which might have been thrown by
terrorists of either side. Dennis and his family have hidden
behind mattresses as bullets struck their home during a wild
burst of shooting on their street. Dennis has on several occa*
sions had to help carry away the tom bodies, living and dead,
from bomb explosions. Becky spoke repeatedly of the brutality
of the Bntish army patrols to her teenaged sons. After one
episode where the boy was made to believe he would be shot,
"that child came in and 1 never saw fear like it on anybody's
face in my whole life."

Gilda. young and attractive, spoke of the hopelessness. “1
just get so full of despair. I just give up. you know." Becky said,
“1 really feel hopeless. ... If something is not done the bitter-
ness IS just going to keep eating away at those kids and eventu-
ally they could become IRA men."

The bitterness was on both sides. Pretty Protestant Gilda
said, "If I seen an IRA man lying on the ground — this is the
wrong thing I suppose in your eyes — 1 would step on him,
because to me he has just went out and taken the lives of
inncKent people."

All the violent feelings leave their mark. Sean, a sensitive
young Catholic teacher, told how he had been forced to puli
down a "steel shutter" between his functioning self and the
seething feelings within. Otherwise he would go berserk. In a
very quiet, soft voice he spoke of this inner wild beast; "Yeah,
1 know myself. I'm quite aware of this kind of thing, and it
scares me to know that it is there. 'Cause it is violent and
emotional and daR. ... I take long walks and let this thing
inside of me talk. It isn't quite the same as human feelings —
it isn’t quite the same as having a beast inside you — some sort
of animal feelings, you know — ”

The whole mixed stream of hatred and violence, of fear and
despair, seems so powerful that to think one weekend could
possibly make any difference seems incredibly quixotic. Yet

130

A Quiet Revolutxw

changes did occur. One small example composed of two inter-
changes between Dennis, a Protestant, and Becky. Cathtriic:

Dennis (speaking about Becky): The general impression back
in Belfast is, if she is a Catholic she is a Catholic and you Just
put her in a wee box and that is the end of it. But you just can't
do that. She has communicated to me that she is in a worse
position than what I am. ... I would hate to be sitting in
Becky's chair . . . because 1 feel that she feels the absolute
despair that I would feel. 1 don’t know how I would react if I
were one of her lads. 1 would probably go out end get a gun and
finish up doing something radical and end up dead.

Becky (later): Words couldn't describe what 1 feel towards
Dennis from the discussion we had at dinner time. We spoke
quietly for about ten minutes and 1 felt that here I have got a
friend and that was it,

Dennis; We sat here at dinner time and had a wee bit of a yam
quietly when you were all away for your dinner —

Becky; I think he fully understands me as a person.

Dennis; 1 do, there is no question about that —

Becky: And for that reason I am very grateful and I think 1
have found a friend.

During our sessions the hatreds, the suspicions, the mistrusts
of the two feuding groups were very evident, sometimes in
covert form, gradually becoming more open in their expression.
The individuals were speaking not only for themselves but for
generations of resentment and prejudice. There were only six-
teen hours of group interaction, yet during that incredibly short
period these centuries-old hatreds were not only softened but
in some instances deeply changed. It is evidence that facilitative
attituiks can create an atmosphere in which open expression
can occur. Open expression, in this kind of a climate, leads to

111

CAKt. Rocem on Pehsonai Power

comnmnicatton. Better communicatum very often leads to un-
derstanding, and understanding washes away many of the an-
cient twrricrs. So rapid was the progress, so significant the
changes, that some of the statements I have quoted here had to
be deleted from the film. To show such understanding of the
opposition would have endangered the lives of the speakers
when it was shown in Belfast.

When the group returned to Belfast, almost all of them con-
tinued to meet at the home of the British colonel, whose neigh-
borhood was the safest. After the film was completed they
formed teams — one Protestant, one Catholic — and showed the
film to many church groups of both sects, and led discussions.
None of this had been planned. There were no funds to help out.
It was done on their own spontaneous initiative.

For one group to make progress toward reconciliation hasn’t
ended the killings in Belfa.st. True, but suppose there had been
a thousand or two thousand groups. The expense w'ould be a
fraciidn of what private Catholic armies, the British occupation
army, and private Protestant armies have cost. As for facilita-
tors, there are hundreds already sufficiently trained, and with
three months' notice, they could be on the job.

This whole view is thoroughly confirmed In a recent inter-
view with two Belfast men, very knowledgeable in the commu-
nity. who have been acquainted with the project and who have
seen the impact of the film on small audiences. They arc all for
training large numbers of Irish as facilitators. "We’ve got to get
thousands of people involved. Once wc do. it gets harder for the
two percent of paramilitary gunmen (to control the public
mindj. The whole idea of encounter groups — this is it! Encoun-
ter groups need to be done at a strcet-by-street level."

When will this come about? It will happen when the con-
cerned public makes up its mind that the problem is so serious
that something must be done. It is not experience or personnel
or solid evidence that is lacking. It is the public will. The public
is not yet convinced that there are any possible solutions, and
even if there were, it is not wilting— yet — to take the risk. When

152

A Quiet Revolution

it is, a humanistic. per$on*centered approach has something to
offer, even in situations of deadly antagonism.

I have had some experience working with black/white
groups, groups composed of Chicanos and whites, and mixed
groups with whites mingled with blacks. Chicanos. Filipinos,
and others. Minority group members feel tremendous rage and
bitterness toward the whites. With facilitative leadership, the
group becomes a place for violent verbal expression of these
feelings. Whites feel vilified as the abuse is heaped on them. The
rage is overwhelming. There are several natural reactions on the
part of white Americans which are of no help whatsoever; “1
can understand your bitterness because I've been oppressed
tix)": “Yes. yes. I can understand how you feel, but I have never
personally been a part of your oppression. It is the white society
which has oppressed you." Whites who are effective seem to
learn two attitudes— one toward self and one toward the minor-
ity members. The first is the realization and ownership of the
fact that "I think white." For men trying to deal with women’s
rage, it may be helpful for the man to recognize "1 think male."
In spite of all our efforts to seem unprejudiced, we actually
carry within us many prejudiced attitudes.

Rage needs to be heard. This does not mean that it simply
needs to be listened to. It needs to be accepted, taken within,
and understood empathically. While the diatribes and accusa-
tions appear to be deliberate attempts to hurt the whites — an
act of catharsis to dissolve centuries of abuse, oppression, and
injustice — the truth about rage is that it only dissolves when it
is really heard and understood, without reservations. After-
ward, the blacks or other minority members change in what
seems a miraculous way, as though a weight has been lifted
from their shoulders.

To achieve this kind of empathic listening the white needs to
listen to his own feelings too, his feelings of anger and resent -

133

Ca*i. Rogers on Personai Power

ment at **unjust*’ accusations. At stwie point he too will need
to express these, but the primary task is to enter empathically
the minonty world of hate and bitterness and resentment and
to know that world as an understandable, acceptable part of
reality

In working with international groups it is fascinating to
watch the development of appreciation for the customs and
beliefs of very diverse nationalities, races, and cultures. The
reactions of the participants and facilitators to the person-
centered approach has been overwhelmingly positive They
speak of loss of fear in trying to communicate, a feeling of being
heard, and an awareness of the beauty and richness of cultural
differences

I want to give the reader some feeling of what it is like to
participate in a group that cuts across cultural, religious, racial,
and national lines. Here is the report of a Sw'edish woman.
Rinnie Kristal-Andersson.' who speak.s very personally of her
experience in a ten-day group.

KkiH'I Ai -Andersson: I had had one previous experience with
a three-day intercultural communication workshop in St(x:k-
holm, K>74. It was there I met Charles Devonshire when he
came for this first pilot workshop in Sweden, and I fell those
three days were for me one of the most meaningful experiences
of my life— -meeting and getting to know a group of totally
different people from several different nations and talking abi>ut
everything from fear of death to fear of living, and everything
in between. We shared tears, laughter, anger, thoughts, fears,
and insecurities, learned an openness to one another’s values
and customs, even if they were ccimplctcly different from our
own. Warned to express feelings to pet^ple we normally would
not open ourselves to, to listen, to express our inner needs
without ambiguous or confusing signals. We experienced each

A Quiet Revolution

other with a growing awareness, that we are more alike than
different.

Could this ten-day encounter in Furudal be as rich an experi-
ence again? I had just finished a two-year psycho-dynamic ori-
ented group (one and a half hours once a week). Within myself
I felt that I had learned more about myself and other people in
the client-centered three-day workshop than I had learned in
the two-year group experience. 1 wanted to see again if 1 would
feel this way.

The group gathered in front of a fire the first evening —
sixteen very, very different people; organizational executives,
psychologists, a black-American teacher working in Germany,
a German woman working with mentally retarded children in
Hamburg, a nineteen-year-old American university student,
journalists from Swedish radio, two academically educated
American housewives, a social worker and a Dutch psycholo-
gist. We ranged in age from nineteen to fifly-two. We ranged
in different interests from tennis playing to writing poetry. We
were different races, different natiorialities — Dutch. German,
American, black and white, Swedist.. Malaysian. We had to-
tally different religious beliefs — from the deeply religious
American housewife, to the cool Swedish Protestants, to radical
atheists. Different political colors, different political interests,
and as many life-styles as there were participants. As one of the
participants put it: “When I heard the different backgrounds of
the group, then I thought this must go to hell, it couldn’t
work.” And we all seemed to have very different motives for
coming. . . .

Hard feelings came out in the beginning, the first days, ag-
gression. cliches, false impressions about the person or his race
or nationality. But these slowly disappear, explained away or
become unimportant, as the person behind the nationality, thf
accent, the race or color is discovered. . . . When a woman
described herself as an extension of her husband, another
woman got angry and asked her if ^e was listening to the words
she said and what they meant. The first woman got sad and then

I3S

Caul Rocem on Peksonal Power

»tarted talking about her anger toward her husband and some-
times her children, because of having sacrificed her life to them.

The girl of Chinese background has meekly asked for permis-
sion every time she wanted to say something in the group. “May
I . . “Could I . . .“ Another girl asks her why she has to excuse
herself every time she has to say something — to ask for permis-
sion to say something. She gets very flustered at the comment,
IS silent for a while, and then angry and crying. The other girl
says that she didn’t mean to hurt her, but she did remind her
of all the meek little well brought up girls who have to excuse
themselves, feel guilty for having something to say, for being
anything else than a picture someone painted for them. The
Malaysian girl then started talking of her upbringing — in a
bourgeois Chinese home — taught from early childhood to be
silent, polite, to dedicate life to an eventual man, to learn, to go
to school, even university — waiting for marriage. At the end of
the group session these two women hug each other, walk away
hand in hand. . . .

Charles Devonshire,'*’ the facilitator of the group, is attacked
from time to time by several members in the group for not
leading, for not helping or mediating an argument, for not
explaining, or calming anger, but he calmly repeats again and
again that he cannot take responsibility for the group, but they
must themselves — that he doesn't want to be made into their
leader, their god — no, they could find answers themselves.
Some thought it was a trick or he was just pretending or that
he was waiting for the right moment to take over the lead. Even
when he said that he felt^ry afraid and insecure one day, one
member laughed at him and didn’t believe it, wouldn’t believe
it. . . .

The large group often broke up into smaller groups, where
the conversations continued from the larger group, often with
a deeper, more intense contact, sometimes into the early morn-
ing hours. There was very little sleeping those ten days. The
straightness and honesty of what we said constantly to each
other gave an intensity to every situation— even the wordless

136

A Quiet Revolution

ones, running, swimming, bonting. dancing, listening to fiddle
music in an ancient ‘Tabod" high in the mountains — we could
no longer avoid confrontation, tension, closeness — both posi-
tive and negative — wherever we went. . . .

Difficult to describe in words — the giving of ourselves, the
dropping of masks, and all feelings of having to be nice, of
having to do anything. The fullness of being able to say from
morning to night what one is thinking and feeling. . . .

The last days, 1 interviewed the participants. All left with
some insight into themselves, their lives, the culture they live
in, their different roles in society, how other people see them as
people, and as a part of a culture. . . .

When 1 came to the group I was afraid of not being accepted.
I was looking for a space I felt I could not find within the group
(or in the world). I was afraid of not being accepted, and then
I found acceptance and a space and I realized that I did not
want to be accepted, didn’t need to be accepted by everyone in
the group. I learned to accept rejection as well as acceptance,
and not be afraid of my strength, as a woman and as a person.
I could show so many different sides of myself, test them out,
and SM that some were accepted and some were rejected. When
1 was rejected one day by someone 1 was very fond of, I could,
after running away, come back, and I never came back before.

One of the most striking things about international groups is
that they are so similar to every other encounter group. As
Binnie says, the national and racial and cultural differences
come to seem unimpoaant as the person is discovered. In spite
of all the differences, there is a great potential for understanding
and closeness in the human issues we are all trying to cope with.
The participants in this workshop do not speak much of the
cultural issues. Instead they speak of things like ‘T’ve found my
family again"; "I was not being honest with myself”; ‘T can
cry, show feeling, instead of constantly joking”: **If 1 am gmng
to change, can change, or dare to change, 1 don't know yet, but
I am surer of myself; “I am more self-confident”; “I have

137

CARt Rooem on Personal PI>wf.r

learned to betto' trust my feelings.” Think of these statements.
Which was made by a Mack, by a German, by a man. by a
Swede? It is impossible even to gu«». These are human state-
ments, and that seems to be the outcome typical of such person-
centered groups. It is being human which dissMves the terriers
and brings closeness.

This appears to be the result when persons of highly diver-
gent cultures are empowered by being heard and accepted and
permitted to be self-directed. This is the interpersonal politics
of a cross-cultural application of the person-centered approach.

I hope I have been successful in demonstrating that models
do exist for the constructive handling of almost every variety
of intergroup tension. Whether we are speaking of religious
differences or of bitterness based in poverty versus wealth or
mistrust rooted in differing cultural customs or the seething
rage growing out of racial discrimination or deadly centuries-
old feuds involving a number of these elements, we are not
without knowledge of, and experience in. utilizing interpersonal
skills which help to resolve these tensions. Wc need to improve
our skills. We need to recognize the problems that will emerge
if these efforts are multiplied loo- or i.ooo-fold. But experience
With a person-centered approach indicates that there is no basic
reason for despair. We have made progress in setting up test-
tube solutions. When the world is ready, we can say tentatively
and with humility that we are ready to begin.

Throughout every example there runs a consistent thread of
interpersonal politics. The individual is not manipulated by
powerful leadership; is not converted by some charismatic
figure; is enabled to become more of self, more expressive, more
open to feelings, good and ted. And it is out of that more
complete and powerful humanness that person touches person,
ctnnmunicatitm becomes real, tensions are reduced, and rela-

138

A Oulf.T RF.Vm UTION

ikmships become expressive and understanding, with an ac-
ceptance of the negative as well as the positive. This is the end
result of a person-centered politics in intergroup frictions.

My purpose in this whole first section of the book has been
to show that a new politics of relationships is possible. From the
intimacies of marriage to disputes between countries, there are
living, effective examples of what a person-centered approach
means in practice.

In this new politics it has been discovered that the most
powerful stance one can take in any relationship is, paradoxi-
cally. to leave responsible power in the hands of each person or
each group. Then this self-empowered relationship can become
constructively changing and growthful if one party or the other
is able to take steps in the direction of providing facilitativc
conditions. Where power is relatively equal, either party can
provide the conditions for change. Where power is unequal, or
where one is perceived as more powerful — the teacher or ad-
ministrator are examples — the first steps mu.st be taken by the
perceived leader, the perceived power

The attitudes that make for change and growth and im-
proved relationships are not mysterious, even though they may
be difficult to attain. One is the willingness to “indwell'* in the
perceived reality of the other; a willingness to step into his nr
her private world and perceive it as if it were one’s own. The
more such profound understanding occurs, the more tensions
relax, fresh insights occur, and communication becomes possi-
ble. Another faciiitative attitude is the valuing and respecting
and caring for the other person. The more this exists, the more
the individual gains in self-esteem, and hence in a mure respon-
sible and responsive stance toward others. Finally, reainess and
absence of faqade in one party draws out reainess in the other,
and genuine meeting (to use Buber's term) becomes possible.

139

Casl Rogers on Personal Power

1 hsve not used a theoretical mode to present this new inter-
personal politics. I have drawn on my own experience and that
of others to show that functioning examples, living models,
exist at every level and in every major area of our lives —
whether we consider ourselves to be parents, spouses, thera-
pists, teachers, administrators, social activists, or international
mediators.

Perhaps most important of all, I have tried to indicate the
revolutionary nature of this seemingly simple, straightforward
approach. It threatens family life as it has existed in the past.
It turns education topsy-turvy. It changes the whole pattern of
the helping professions. It threatens the number, the power, and
the importance of supervisors and administrators in industry or
any other organization. It is threatening to both militants and
conservatives alike in social issues, interracial tensions, interna-
tional disputes. It is a genuinely new approach, though not
necessarily in Its ideas, which can be shown to have old roots.
What IS new and highly threatening to the establishment is that
it presents evidence to show that it works. It is not a pie-in-the-
sky ideology that can be ignored as unrealistic. In every area
I have mentioned, it has been shown to be practical, construc-
tive, and effective. It is the realization that it is a viable alterna-
live to our present ways of seizing and using power that makes
It most threatening of all. It is. not only in principle but in cold
/act, a quiet revolution.

140

Port

II

The person
centered
QpproQch
In action

I

Chapter

P perdon-centered
uuorkahop:
it6 planning
and fr uitfon

During the past ten days I have become accustomed to the
cavernous hali with its dark-paneled wood walls and the intri-
cate beams supporting the high gabled ceiling. And I have met
many of the 135 people who crowd together in an irregular
mass, occupying the middle portion of the great room. Their
faces are illuminated by the soft ceiling lights. They are rest-
lessly settling themselves for a community meeting, the major-
ity sitting close together on the floor so that they can hear each
other, but ringed by a roughly circular fringe of chairs and
couches which hold those who are too old or stiff to enjoy the
carpeted floor. I see Clancy is here, he of the bright, merry spirit
and the tiny, wasted body. He unstraps his artificial leg, lays
down his crutch, and sits on the floor. And Rachel from Brazil,
aristocratic and gentle: wild-bearded Frank from Argentina;
smiling Betsy from Vermont; Jane, the clear-eyed horse lover
from the Bay Area; Don, the dedicated music teacher from
Kansas; Julia of the Netherlands, with placid face; and Cltf-
ton, whose diocolate skin only emphasizes her large, soulful
eyes.

There is no one in charge. No one called the meeting. We just
came together. Two or three people make announcements
about meetings, about plans, llien Vicente stands up and

143

Ca«i Rook ks on Pkii»>nai Powi»

•ipeaksi. making an emotional siatement about the desperately
poor people he works with in the Mexican ghettos. His English
IS mit giKid. but his message is that we must be more socially
conscious It will not do just to understand ourselves while
enpying an affluent life He questions whether, a person-
centered approach has any meaning in his oppres.sed and pover-
ty-stricken barrios He is struggling to convey the pain and the
urgenc> of his situation

He makes the mistake of pausing for a moment, and someone
speaks up to rebut him “There are oppres.sors and oppressed
here, too If we can make progress in ourselves, if we can get
beyond the fietly things here, we will be better able to deal with
the petty things and the large things in the world outside “
Someone else ilinches the rebuttal. "By changing ourselves we
arc working to change the whole issue of wealth versus poverty
111 the world " Vicente has been effectively silenced. He sits
down, but there is a sad, wry look on his face.

I he issue is not dead, however. Another speaker stands and
IS siHin silenced. The pros and cons of th.s issUe tangle up in
themselves

Another theme comes up. “When the oppressors are over-
thrown. the revolutionaries just lake over the old oppressive
roles. Hut we have an opportunity here to alter the nature of
the revolution. This group i,v the revolution. We will be carrying
on a continuous dialogue with all kinds of institutions. Educa-
tors are learning to revotutioni/e schools. Some of us are learn-
ing how to inhllralc hospitals. Others are changing the
churches. . ." The speaker goes on, carried away by his
thoughts

Then Gary — bushy-haircd, open-faced Gary — speaks up so
quietly it is difficult to hear him. He works in a nearby clinic
of strictly orthodox psychoanalytic ideology, very authontanan
in Its structure He had asked permission to come to this work-
shop under a policy of brief leaves for educational credit. Per-
mission denied; “Rogers* ideas are speculative and of no value.*'
Gary decided to act on his own. He made plans to take care of

144

TMfc Person-Centered Approach in Action

all hts therapy cases in hours he could get away Trom the
workshop. He brought all his reports, statistics, and paperwork
up to date. He made arrangements to do any current reports
immediately after the workshop. Then he came, without asking
further permission. Today he was called on the carpet by the
director “I see you did not put in a full forty hours last week.’*
Gary explained that he wars being a fully responsible, profes-
sional person. He had taken care of. or had arranged to take
care of, all his professional responsibilities. He was attending
the workshop because he thought his learnings here about the
process of growihful relationships would contribute to his work
uifh his patients, to the clinical service, and to the larger hospi-
tal community, as well as benefiting himself

This set off much discussion between the director and Gary.
Finally the director indicated that Gary could be asked to leave
for not following the rules and time schedule of the clinic Gary
replied passuinatel> (though in this clinic feelings arc always
ctuisidered indications of immaturity, dependence, transfer-
ence. narcissism or rebellion against father figures): “Tve dealt
rcspHUisibly with my work; I will make up the time Fve lost; I
am having experiences which will improve my work with my
paiienis, help the clinic, and be full of learning for me. The only
aspect I haven’t dealt with is your p(wer and authority over me.
I urn acting on mv own respiiiisibiliiy, and I know you have the
pt>wcr tt) punish me " The director looked at him, seemed about
t(' fire him, then dropped his ga/e. His chin dropped to his chcsi
and he was silent

"I guess there’s nothing more to say ” Gary got up, left, and
came to this community meeting where he is now telling us of
the confrontation He has no idea if he will be fired

Individuals respond in a variety of supportive ways, but soon
fragmented conversations start up again. People offer positive
evaluations of their experience thus far “Fm increasing my
listening skills.** “I have a gicater tolerance for ambiguity,**
"Fm getting in touch with me "

But then Denny — tense, dramatic, very pt^litically oriented

Carl Rocf.rs on Personal Power

— takes the floor. **Self'actttalization is not enough! We have
only three or four years to control the spread of incredibly
dangerous nuclear power plants! lt*s not enough to be feeling
and thinking! We must be active! I need your bodies to block
the roads where they are constructing these plants! I need your
energy to fight this battle! The time is terribly short!"

Protests are immediate. This is not a group of followers, and
Denny is made keenly aware of this fact. One person says, "This
is the first time in this workshop that anyone has tried to tell
me what I must do. I resent it." Denny sits down, squelched.

And then Anne speaks up. I have talked with her several
limes. She is in her late sixties, but in the last three or four years
has remade her life. She is astonishingly adventurous and spon-
taneous in her way of being. She has become independent in her
thinking and her interests. Sexually too she is more free, and she
tells me that her marriage with her husband of thirty-five years
IS richer and more exciting than ever, with more freedom for
growth for both of 'hem, and an increasing ability to deal with
the negative aspects of their relationship. She somehow learned
to live her own life— a refreshing example of what the older
years can be. She speaks softly, but with an unmistakable
firmness. "I'sc been feeling distressed, because we never heard
Vicente. We paid no attention to the fact that when he sat down
he said, *1 wasn't finished.’ He has been hurting ever since. I
want to hear him."

The whole character of the meeting changes at this point. We
pay attention to Vicente and hear his passionate despair. Then
we listen to each of tht>se who had been so summarily cut off
—to IX’iiny. who had antagonized so many with her crusade.
Wc underuand her urgency, without putting her down. What
has been, up to this point, a disconnected clu.ster of 136 people
gradually becomes a unified social organism. We are willing to
receive, and learn from, and be nouri.shed by the highly diverse
individuals ixho arc here. There is a very different spint in the
air. And it has happened intuitively, without anyone charting
tite course or leading the way. It seems to have happened be-

146

The Pekson-Centereo Approach in Action

cause collectively an inner sense, operating in the group, wants
il this way.

I feel very moved — and also very tired. I leave the meeting
and go to my room to rest and sleep. But sleep will not come.
So I get up and write these notes.

August II. I97S
11:30 P.M.

I left the community meeting simply because I already had
much more than I could digest; and 1 wanted to try to clarify
some of my own feelings, which were getting jumbled by the
fullness of the events. And I left comfortably because I knew
that the community had the capacity for handling anything that
might come up, and handling it far more wisely than I — or any
one person here — could handle it.

And the first of my feelings that became clear to me was
pride. I was proud to be a member of a community where there
was so much caring concern for others, a canng that was
broader and more sensitive than I, or any one person here, was
capable of. 1 thought of Vicente, and the fact that someone
finally realized—which 1 had not— that he had not been fully
heard or accepted. I heard a community which insisted,
through a number of its members, that Denny, her anger and
her passion, be heard, even though she had expressed it in ways
many resented. The resentment too was heard and accepted. 1
watched people really listening to one another. There was an-
guish and pain and anger and frustration — and a mixture of
pride, joy, and sorrow around Gary’s courageous confronta-
tion. There were ideas and causes and solutions to problems —
and we listened, whether we agreed or violently di.sagreed.

1 don't mean we all listened, ail heard. There were interrup-
tions, misinterpretation, distortions, an inability to understand
and sometimes no desire to understand. I was part of ail that,
too, in me. But finally, in almost every case, it seemed to me,
someone heard. And I felt proud of us and of the stretching of
myself into new areas, having to face new and sometimes over-

147

Cam RocfKi on Ffrsonai Powlr

whelming iv^ucv. but moving, in process, getting better at what-
ever the hell we're d»>ing

1 thought of one thing in m> own experience that relates to
all this I had a part in mitiating the attitude, the philosophy,
the approach, which seems to me to be prevalent here. I didn’t
have the foggiest notion that it would spread beyond individual
therapy. But there was one conviction I held that I now realize
was very significant It was this: I believed that if we could
discover even one significant truth about the relationships be-
tween fnv (Koplc. It might turn out to be much more widely
applicable. And of course I didn’t mean truth with a capital T,
but juvt an approximation to one truth about what goes on
between a pcrs«in with problems and a person who is trying to
help If we could discover that truth, that orderliness, that
lawfulness, it might have many implications. And in my judg-
ment that has proven to be true. What we discovered has had
widespread application.

I like to remember that when the early astronomers began to
discover that the earth was not the center of the universe but
revolved around the sun, their discoveries were full of errors,
but they had profound effects nonetheless. Their findings were
absolutely revolutionary in their impact on all aspects of life —
on religion, philosophy, art and culture. And just possibly we
may be making discoveries like that.

As I participate in the struggling, difficult, trying, painful
process of our beginning to become a community, 1 have two
reactions. One is that at times I am so frustrated that I wonder
if it’s worth it. But the other reaction is much stronger. I watch
with awe the birth pangs of something new in the world. And
my earlier conviction returns. If we can find even one partial
truth about the process by which 136 people can live together
without destroying one another, can live together with a caring
concern for the full development of each person, can live to-
gether in the richness of diversity instead of the sterility of
conformity, then we may have found a truth with many, many
implications.

148

The PERSON<CENTEItED APPROACH IN ACTION

I don't know how to solve the problems of the exploitation
of the poor by the rich, nor the horror of the nuclear shadow,
nor the incredible social injustices of the world. I devoutly wish
I did. But if we can discover one truth about the process of
building community. I'm not going to despair. The discovery
of anything that is approximately true has an earthshaking
revolutionary power. And I believe we are making some such
discovery, though I can't define it, and can only observe some
of its characteristics. So I have hope that some of the over-
whelming world issues may be touched, in ways I can't even
dream of now, by what we are doing.

The foregoing is a slice out of the middle of a sixteen-day
intensive workshop in the person-centered approach. It is my
perception of the meeting that night. I have come to believe that
there were 136 different workshops going on, and that each of
us saw the events somewhat diflTcrently, and found different
meanings in them. This chapter is largely the planning and the
process of the workshop as I perceived and experienced it in
myself I have, however, where possible, used material given to
me by other participants to show some of the varying individual
perceptions.

What led up to this project? In what ways is such a workshop
different from any other conference, workshop, or seminar? 1
believe there are profound differences, and these will emerge as
I describe the distinctive steps that led to the building of a vital,
if temporary, community. The methods were the complete op-
posite of procedures us«l in conventional enterprises.

First was the matter of choosing to hold a workshop. There
were three of us who had been together as staff members in two
workshops the previous summer, John, Natalie, and myself We
decided we would aim for one larger workshop in the summer-
time. with approximately a hundred participants, lasting for
sixteen days. For such a large number we wanted a staff of nine

149

CaHI RcK.I KS on Pt ttSitNAI Fowl R

—if wnaH inlenMVe groups were part of the experience, each
sia^ member could facihiatc a group of eleven.

We met to chixisc six more staff members and were surprised
when we each made lists cf people we would like to work with
and discovered there was a good deal of consensus on four
names. These were agreed upon, but there were difficulties over
two of them We talked out these differences until we had
reached a vilution genuinely satisfying to all We also agreed
that Joann, who had been the coordinator for administrative
matters the previous summer, should be invited again, and if
she accepted, would be made a full-fledged staff member, par-
ta'ipating in all decisions. We were unhappy at the thought of
having someone who was simply "hired to do a job ”

All this may seem quite unremarkable, but I would like to
point to the power aspects. The three of us functioned as equals.
No one was in charge. No single person's ideas prevailed. 1 was
the senior member of the group in age and professional status,
but my ideas and feelings carried weight only when they made
sense to the others.

Joann and the six others — Maria. Jared. Maureen, David,
Marion, and Dick — were immediately invited, all but two by
long-distance phone, and to our delight we had, within a day,
seven acceptances.

Those in the vicinity of La Jolla met for the next planning
steps People offered to lake on different responsibilities, and
these offers, with mixiifications. were accepted. I offered to
draft the briKhure. The responsibilities could not possibly be
evenly divided, so it was decided that each person keep track of
the number of hours expended in pre-workshop activity and re-
ceive compensation on that ba.sis, ail with the same hourly rate.

At this point active work began. No important decisions were
made without getting staff approval by mail or phone. Since our
staff was geographically much divided — four m the La Jolla
area, three in the San Francisco area, and one each in Ohio,
Texas and Maine — obtaining group approval was not always
easy, but we felt it important.

ISO

ThI; PF.RSON>CCNTrilED APPROACH IN ACTION

1 drafted a brief brochure, sent it to the staff and was aston-
ished to be bombarded with demands for major changes. There
IS such a thing as pride of authorship, and mine was a bit
bruised. After a short cooling-<^ period, I realized how these
changes would improve the brochure, and what a challenge it
was to try to meld together the sometimes contradictory views.
So a second draft, which elicited a smaller number of suggested
changes. By this time the title of the workshop, our purpose, the
description of the form it might take, and the qualifications of
the participants had all been drastically changed. The third
draft was accepted by all.

This may seem a very wasteful way of putting together a
briKhure But again let me point to its politics. Ten people, only
a few of whom have ever worked together, where no one of us
IS well acquainted with all of the other nine, have now come
together by mail, as equals. Furthermore, the workshop is now
Dwm d by every one of the ten, because all have contributed to
Its preliminary description. No one feels "I have been hired to
be on the staff of the workshop": everyone feels "1 am sharing
the responsibility for our workshop."

Because the brochure played an impcirtant part in the way
the group developed, here are the salient paragraphs.

.4 PERSO\ CE\TERED APPROACH THE PROCESS OF
ISDIVIDVAL GROWTH AND ITS SOCIAL
IMPLICATIONS

A Summer Workshop, August i-i6, 1975

Pi MPOSI-

The aim will be to build a workshop around an approach to
human relationships and human growth which recognizes that
the potential to learn and the power to act lie withm the person
—rather than in an expert dealing with him or her, or in a
system controlling him or her.

The workshop will provide a place where people who believe
in the worth and dignity of the individual and in each person's

151

CaKI. ROCF.RS on pFRSONAt POWF.R

capacity for !^if>directiofi can come together to create a com-
munity. The workshop values what each partknpanL has to
offer. Wc welcome every way of releasing the inner strength of
the pervm. The community will, we hope, provide for a sharing
tif our profc-sumal worlds, our personal questions, problems,
and satisfactions, our creativity and our innovations. We trust
the workshop will demonstrate the psychological climate which
we iviiow can evoke self-understanding and self-directed behav-
ior It IS hoped that the experience will not only lead to inner
personal growth but to an increased understanding of one's
respt>nMbilii> in the world, and how one can act on that sense
of rcsp«>nsibiliiy.

It IS anticipated that in pursuing its purpose the community
may consider such topics as the politics of the person -centered
approach, the facilitation of problem-solving change in stxriety
and Its institutions; the new roles of women and men, ways of
liv ing. working and relating with people who are different, ways
of living in one's alonencss and in one’s intimacy with others:
the problems of life transitions, changes in life-styles; psycho-
therapy and healing, the "other worlds" of psychic phenomena,
the development of a broader person -centered thet)ry and phi-
losophy, the problems of humanistic research

Finally it is our belief that all of us — participants and facilita-
tors- will gain support, and develop support, systems which
will give us vitality, energy, and renewal as we i;tke our learn-
ings into the "back-home" situation.

Till Form A I

The aim will be to combine experiential and cognitive learn-
ing — the personal and the inlelleclual approach. Consequently
community meetings, interest groups, encounter groups, semi-
nars, books, tapes, films, opportunities to practice and develop
one's interpersonal skills, designed experiences for eliciting al-
ternative ways of behaving — all will be available as elements
upon which the group can draw as we work together in the
construction of a program The initial steps will be planned by

152

The Person-Centered Approach in Action

the staff, but the total design and format will be a mutual
product, created to meet the needs of the participants, including
the facilitators.

In order to have the workshop open to individuals of different
ages, races, occupations and socioeconomic statuses it was
made clear that selection would not be on the basis of paper
credentials. The major criterion would be "the degree of impact
the individual is having, or potentially has, on persons involved
in the crucial issues of the day." To further enrich the work-
shop, spouses/partners were encouraged to apply. As for tui-
tion. we said, "We are attempting something new but some-
thing which is definitely in accord with the philosophy
underpinning a person-centered approach. The tuition fee will
be based on the participant’s personal decision, based on
his/her situation. Some persons will pay up to three or four
times the average fee. some will pay much less."

The diversity of the staff experience was described, and the
fact that they were not narrowly committed to any fixed ap-
proach and 'hat each brought spectali/.ed knowledge and expe-
rience to the workshop.

This is not only an announcement of a workshop. It is a
significant political statement, and was intended as such. There
IS no group of experts who are to instruct the participants. It
IS made clear that the control of plans and program will rest
with the whole group. There will be no first-class and second-
class person.s — paper credentials are disregarded. It is political
in the social as well as the interpersonal sense. It points to the
social implications of this" kind of an approach, to the in-
dividual's "responsibility in the world,” and the problem of
how to “act on that sense of responsibility." It aimed to make
very clear the fact that power will be shared among all of us —
staff and participants — ^and that we feel an obligation to use that
personal power in the social milieu.

Even more unconventional in its politics was the manner of
setting the tuition fee. It was a grave risk, but we decided to let

Cam Rocfciis CMM Puiional Powkk

people set iheif own fees. In this "rip-oir* society that’s indeed
a gamble. Could people be trusted to be honest about their
incomes? Especially in a recession year? We simply could not
be sure, but we chose to find out We agreed on a carefully
worded “Financial Statement” to be considered by each appli-
cant.

We explained our desire to break the pattern of having work-
shops and other learning experiences available only to the afflu-
ent. We wanted a broader socioeconomic and educational mix.

But we also made clear our need for an average tuition of
$325 per person. Then a number of questions were raised, the
most important being. “What is my total usable yearly in-
come?" Applicants were encouraged to consider whether they
had a financial backlog, and how great were the needs of their
dependents. A table suggested fees based on income considera-
tions. for example, incomes under ss>ooo. S50 to $150 tuition;
$20,000 to $30,000, tuition of $600 to $900.

Finally the applicant was asked to .sign a statement which
concluded, "Having given careful thought to all of the above,
I believe 1 am paying my appropriate share by paying a total
tuition fee of $

Our enterprise was ready for launching. The brochures were
sent out to a modest mailing list in the United States. We had
decided we would not try for foreign enrollments. We also
placed notices in several journals and newsletters, including
the newsletter of the l,a Jolla Program. This is a program
for training group facilitators, sponsored by the Center for
Studies of the Person, which during its nine-year history has
attracted many foreign participants. Then we sat back and
waited.

Soon the applications started arriving in a steady stream.
Over a hundred and seventy applications came in from the
United States and. to our astonishment, from twelve foreign
countries. The selection committee was impressed by the diver-
sity: penniless graduate students, the director of a conservatory
of music, peqiile with little education but working in very sig-

tS 4

The PEHSOTD^ENTERFn AWROM M IN ACIION

nificant jobs, psychiatrists, educators; all ages from iwcniy-two
to seventy-two; men and women about e\enly disided. Wc had
achieved our hope for a wide range of interests, ivcupations and
ages, and had found an unexpected range of nationalities as
well.

The financial statements were kept from the selection com-
mittee so that they would not be influenced b> that factor. As
the weelcs went by, my feelings about finances isent up and
down with each new batch of applications. By early May. it was
clear we were at a crisis point. The average fee was only slightly
over szoo. The staff met, determined we would tun cancel the
workshop, decided to increase the size of the workshop from
too to 126. and to write the accepted applicants of our plight
They were asked to increase their tuition by 20 percent if possi-
ble. The response was most heartening. Some raised their fees
by more than 20 percent, most by 20 percent, and those who
could not called or wrote to explain the reasons.

Thus, to a degree beyond tuir expectations, the politics of the
self-determined fee was important It treated the applicant as
a trustworthy person, responsible for his or her actions. An
unexpected result was that because of the crisis it gave a sense
of ownership of the program.

The thinking of the applicants about the policy was evident
m their reactions, which we requested on the financial state-
ment;

"1 think this system is a very g(H)d one. At the same time,
however, I have a strong need of wanting to explain why I have
chosen such a small amount to pay. It looks so stingy and ptwr
and this does not correspond to the worth that coming to your
workshop has for me. The reason is that . . ."

*’I believe this is the only way to handle a situation like this,
and though I am not used to it and it hurts to pay more than
the minimum that would be established in the conventional
manner of charging, I feel good about it. I sure hope that it
works and that it allows you to continue operating in this
fashion. When wniing these lines I had not decided on the exact

155

Cari RoCft Rs cm Pfrsonai Power

ctuantity 1 wished to pay\ and the more 1 wnte the higher my
thoughiR go. »o I decided to Mop now.'*

**My first reaction was 'That’s great,’ Then when I began to
figure out. I considered a little dishonesty, then decided on S —
— wfhich was the lowest I could pay and stay honest. After two

days of thinking (and some squirming) I decided on $ . a

larger amount. It was an interesting experience. I feel gtxxl
about the idea and (now that the decision-making is over) gcxx)
about the whole deal ’’

A few women raised the question of the fee for a wife whose
husband makes a fairly high income bin who wants this to be
her workshop, not something that he is financing Some coun-
ter-culture perwins had difficulty because they knew they could
earn more money (and hence pay more) if they were willing to
work at some convcniional iKCupaiion. hut “I nnl> work until
I have a little money ahead, then I live on that while I write or
play . , so I earn less than I’m capable of earning.”

To our ama/ement, the fee structure never came up as a topic
for discussion in the whole sixteen days of the workshop. To our
surprise and pleasure, we broke even (iiiancialty — barely so--
and the staff did not have to take a salarv cut

Because a number of the staff were not at all acquainted with
one another, we got together for four da>s of relaxation and
planning. We met on the Mills College campus, which had been
chosen as the most suitable location for the wxirkshup.

Here again is an instance of the seeming wastefulness of a
person-centered approach. If we had been providing a cluster
of courses, one day or less of advance planning would have been
sufficient, because each of us would have known what he could
leach. And by such a proces.s we would have cut ourselves oflT
from learning — from each other and from the participants.

As we met and worked and played together, the purposes of
the four days emerged;

156

The Person-Centeked Awroach in Action

We wanted to be ourselves with each other, with our prob*
iems, our pain, our competency, and our creativity, so
we could be ourselves with the whole group.

We considered how we could create a climate in the work-
shop that would encourage a diversity of being and a
self-responsible attitude. We planned carefully for the
initial moments and hours of the workshop because they
are important in setting the tone for what follows.

We took steps to make resources available for all kinds of
learnings.

We chose to set aside two “free days” during the sixteen to
allow all of us to relax.

We chose to set a simple schedule for the first three and a half
days which structured the blocks of time but did nothing
to structure the content.

We brainstormed about expenences and ideas we each
wanted to contribute, but left the scheduling to the fu-
ture so that we could feel our way, rather than plan our
way into the workshop.

Here is the simple schedule we adopted and had duplicated
for the opening meeting.

Friday

Saturday Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Morning j

: Small i Commu-

Small

Commu-

1 Groups 1 nity

, Groups

nity

1 j^mccting

meeting

Afternoon Registra*

Rest A 1 Rest &

' Small

1-5:30 I tion

recreation, recreation.

Groups

! Resources: * Resources

! library, i available

i films, etc., I

j i available ^

Evening ; Commu- ■ Small ‘ Small ■ Party

7-10 nity ; Groups | Groups

meeting . ‘

CAHt RO(<t.llS> OM Pl.|tSOMAl PflWtR

We had deeiJcd to set aside time for small intensive groups
because we believed that when people know each other in
depth, they can better work K^ether, learn, and contribute. We
thought it unlikely that the small groups would continue for
more than a few days, and mc provided a stafl* member to meet
with those who wanted no part of small groups. Likewise, even
this simple schedule was to be adopted only if the whole group
so elected. In other words, choices were to be honored.

John K Wood was on the staff and here is his account of the
experience "We began h> convening the staff — ten talented
and unique pcrvins Wc spoke with each other of our personal
lives, our desires, our fears, our fantasies of the workshop We
talked of what wc wanted to offer as resources and teachers and
what we wanted to gam from the experience. We shared our
commonalities and oui differences We laughed and cried and
got drunk together " And finally we could ‘’breathe together,”
experience together "W'c cerluiiily did not all have similar
feelings, thoughts, beliefs, or expectations about being together
or doing the workshop," hut we could be together as living,
breathing perstms W'c had reached some sensing of a unity, an
unspoken agreement as to viur intent, which was deeper than
an> of our disagreements

"When wc met together, the ten of us. simicthing happened "
We “decided" on a "design" -an altitude, a philosophy that
reflected our different personalities and attitudes, and our
“unity," our oneness in expencncing "I,atcr, in the community
of 136, our individual personalities and moods were reflected. In
a way each of the staff, by being who they were at the moment,
sanctioned that way of being, and thus made it possible for
person.s in the community to be that way also For example, if
one of the staff was indifferent, then indifference became an
altitude permitted by the staff and therefore available for any-
one to express who had such feelings." When one of the staff
was angry, this clearly permitted anger to be expressed. "The
community reflected all the splits and polanties and indul-
gences of the staff, all the creative and facihtative and loving

ThI Pf.HSON-CFNimF.D AFPROACM IN ACTION

attributes as well, and since the staff breathed together, the
community also reflected this unity."

I believe this catches the extremely subtle influence the staff
had in making it possible for each person to be his feelings, his
experiences, his thoughts of the moment. In this sense each
person was empowered to be himself. I be!’ '''e this influence
would not have been nearly so strong if the staff had not ex*
plored their own very human aspects, and the issues which
strongly divided them — for we were certainly not of one mind
— before the workshop began.

Some of the most detailed advance planning had to do with
the afternoon of registration. We wanted the person -centered
atmosphere to be immediately felt. Joann, the cwrdinator, is
likable and outgoing, and we fell gixxl about having her handle
the actual registration and fees. Some people arrived early and
we asked them to take over various tasks, which they gladly did,
such as meeting later arrivals at the bus and taking them to our
complex of dormitory rooms We permitted each person to
select his own room. I thought this a bit silly, as the dormitory
rmims were quite alike, but it proved very worthwhile. All the
room doors were opened. Each new arrival was given a lour of
the complex, chose a room, closed the door, and came back to
complete registration. Early arrivals were asked to serve as
guides for those who came later.

Then, to aid recognition and getting acquainted, a mammoth
chart had been made (by an early arrival) with each par-
ticipant's name, a place for a photo, and a space for the room
number. The staff took turns taking a Polaroid picture of each
person on arrival. This was pasted over the name. As soon as
a room was chosen, the room number was listed loo. Staff
photos and rooms were listed also — at the bottom of the chart.

Why all this attention to detail? It had very important effects.
Being pul to work meant that you were a part of the enterprise,
not a passive recipient. Choosing a room meant that you were
in control, not being ordered. Having all the pictures up demon-
strated strongly that interaction between participants was seen

159

CaKI ftnCii llSON Ptll!«ONAt PoWF.il

a« JUM imponant m> interaction with staff. It was a politics
of cqualilarian. self-responsiblc. self-directed activity from the
very outset

fine of the sharpest differences in the staff had to do with the
question of how to open the first meeting. There was no lack
of opinions. It should be agendatess It should be bpened with
a chart listing the issues to be faced by the workshop. Carl
should open it Carl didn't want to open it-— it would look as
though It was A/< workshop 'fhc siaff should sit in a circle in
ihc middle, discussing ihc possibilities for ihe work.shop. We
could not agree, and no one wanted the responsibility. Finally,
after a whispered consultaiion. Jared and Maureen, the two
youngest staff members, said that if they could do it together,
they would open the meeting. Wc agreed with relief, not know-
ing how they would handle it.

It may seem surprising that we gave so much thought to the
inilial steps. But expcnence had shown that a mind-set is devel-
oped in the first hours™<»ftcn in the first few minutes- -of any
conference, which tends to set the p<-iv'na! and political form
of the whole conference

When opening night came, and 126 nervous participants and
to uneasy staff members had gathered informally m the audito-
rium. Maureen and Jared spoke up. i don't remember what
they said, but it was so transparently honest, so unassuming, so
expressive of their own hopes and uncertainties, that the atmo-
sphere became at once easy and welcoming They had hardly
finished before members were eagerly speaking up to tell of
thetr own hopes and expectations, the reasons for their coming,
all sons of personal expressions. The evening Rowed smoothly.
At an appKipriate moment the tentative schedule for the next
three days was brought up and accepted by the group. A
method of selecting the sm.'ili groups so as to have a diversity
of age, geographical location and sex was described, and was
accepted with relief, panicipants saying they had been uneasy
as to how the groups would be formed. The meeting ended with
a number of necessary annount^ments. and the answering of

IfiO

The Person<Centeiiei> Approach in Action

questions about meal tickets and ail the minutiae of living
together. The participants had already accepted a large share
of responsibility and decision-making for themselves. The staff
had played a relatively small faciliiative role, and certainly no
controlling role.

Every encounter group is different, and 1 have only a vague
impression of what went on in the other eight small groups, so
I’ll limit myself to the one I attended. I can only tell of a few
small incidents without breaking confidences, but these minute
episodes show how the small groups contributed to the work-
shop as a whole.

I met with our group the second morning — fifteen of us,
including four foreigners. I opened the group, simply saying
that the tentative schedule gave us fifteen hours together and
that I hoped we could come to know each other well. Things
seemed to me to start very slowly. This was one of the times
I seemed to feel resp<nisible for the group. Gradually my stom-
ach began to churn with impatience and frustration, as I wished
things would move faster. I said almost nothing, but I was
inwardly pushing. Among the early speakers in the group was
Ben, an elderly psychiatrist, whose contributions were of two
sorts. On the one hand he wanted to quiz me, the authority,
about therapy. This kind of dependence always annoys me. I
told him I wasn’t in the mood to answer his questions now. but
if there was sufficient concern with such questions we might set
up an interest group later. But he still raised the questions.
Along with this he wanted to expound his philosophy of ther-
apy and living, which was that feelings interfered with rea.son-
able living, and he was proud that he had, for many years, been
able to hold his feelings in check. Members of the group were
at first incredulous, then probing and critical of his stance. Ben
met these attacks with calm, Bu^halike responses. He was not,
he said, touched by any of this. This lack of responsiveness

161

Cabi. Roceks on Pemonal Power

infuriated some of the women, and the attacks were sharper. I
felt a need to let Ben know that I understood his point of view,
though I could not agree with it The more he revealed how he
had handled his close relationships, especially with his former
wife, the more skeptical and angry the group became, until he
admitted he did have .some feelings about the attacks, but that
he was successfully suppressing these emotions.

There were many other expressions by group members dur*
ing that first session, but I still fell it had all gone too slowly.

During the afternoon (of rest, recreation, and resources) I
came to terms with my own feelings of responsibility for the
group. When the evening session started I led offby telling them
how responsible I had fell, and that 1 didn't like the fact that
my viscera had been trying to bring more rapid movement into
our process. I had come to realize this was ridiculous. I am not
responsible for the group It is our group, and I want to partici-
pate. but not push, even internally. Someone .said, “Welcome
to the group," and that was that From that point on, individu-
als were much more expressive. Probably my unspoken over-
concern had been felt and experienced as a burden. I don’t
know.

Michele, an attractive woman in her late thirties, gradually
and painfully disclosed her conflict. She is lonely since her
divorce two years ago and both wants and fears closeness with
a man. She has been hurt too much. She finds this conflict
unbearably present here at the workshop. This afternoon she
went with a man to join the group at the swimming pool. After
a time she felt she had to escape. Without a word to him, and
without his knowledge, she left and went to a movie the work-
shop was showing. But she was so much in turmoil that she left
that too. A member of the workshop — a man — who saw her
leave thought she looked disturbed and followed her. She was
angry that she had not been able to shake him off, but it
sounded as if she had gained scunething from talking with him.
She said the workshop experience was stirnng up all her conflict
over being ahnf. She had finally chosen that route — to be alone

162

The Person-Centered Approach in Action

with her children and her job and to isolate herself from hurtful
relationships. But now her desire for closeness, which had
brought her nothing but pain, was reasserting itself. "I'm al-
ways doing this puU-push thing. It's awful. 1 can't bear this

stress.”

1, and the group, tried to be understanding of her and to be
with her in her feeling of being tom in two directions. 1 wasn't
sure we were helpful.

Then Ben asked to be heard. He said he had spent a most
difficult afternoon. He had come to realize that perhaps he was
mistaken, that holding down his feelings might not be construc-
tive. He saw what this stance had done to his relationship with
members of the group — that he had seemed to them cold and
unfeeling. He remembered that his wife had bitterly complained
in just these terms. He thought he was not achieving what he
wanted, and he was changing his policy of many years. He was
going to try to be aware of and express his feelings instead of
suppressing them

1 listened to his statements with interest, but with a good deal
of skepticism. The about-face seemed too sudden, and a bit
unbelievable. The group welcomed his new attitude. Then oth-
ers .spoke up. one after another occupying the focus of the group
for a time.

Toward the end of the evening 1 found myself thinking about
Michele and the painful tug of war within her. 1 felt a very
strong impulse to hug her. This set off a dialogue within me, my
mind being full of reasons why I should do no such thing. "Isn’t
sexual attraction one reason you want to embrace her? What
makes you titink she would accept it when her greatest fear is
of closeness? This is only the second meeting of the group and
It would seem by some (and perhaps correctly) as a ridiculous
'Touchie-feelie' thing. She hasn’t indicated any desire for any-
thing of that sort, so forget the whole stupid impulse!" And
then I found myself saying to her (in a somewhat cowardly and
indirect expression of what I was feeling); “Michele, if 1 should
tell you I’d like to give you a good hug, what would you say?"

163

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

To ray Rstonishmeni she quickly replied. “I’d love it.” So we
stood up snd gave each other a strong, close embrace in the
middle of the circle. We returned to our places, 1 feeling defi-
nitely embarrassed, but somehow pleased that 1 had been able
to follow an inner feeling, whether right or wrong. Then I was
bowled over by her quiet statement, almost an aside: “Maybe
I won't fly home tomorrow after alt.” I could scarcely believe
that my intuitive impulse, so scorned by my intellect, had been
to much on target. I certainly could not have dreamed that I
was acting out, in myself, what was to be a major learning for
the whole community

Days later I checked with Michele. 1 had doubted whether
she had meant what she said. But she told me she hadn't even
unpacked her bags for the first days of the workshop, so painful
were the old conflicts it aroused, and that she had indeed been
on the verge of taking the next plane home.

Even in this fragment of the first two meetings, the power
aspects are clear

The group pnxeeds at its own pace. It is not manipulated or
pressured or pushed.

Risk-taking leads to interpersonal trust. 1 took the risk of
sharing my confused feelings about responsibility and
was even more accepted.

Ben look the risk of sharing his philosophy and found the
group trustworthy and caring, even though critical.

Michele took the risk of sharing her pain and conflicts and
felt accepted and cared for

I took the risk of acting on an intuition and found both my
inner feelings and the reaction of the group worthy of
trust.

It is discovered that intimacy is safe. Lessons are learned
about personal and group responsibility.

The group realized it is accountable to itself. Each member
learns that he must be responsible for expressing himself
if the group is to be useful for self-growth.

IM

The Person-Centfreo Approach in Acthm«i

Thus in important ways the small group helps the person to
recognize his potency, ability to influence, capacity for com-
municating and participating. Power resides definitely in the
individual. The possibility of forming a larger unified commu-
nity of powerful persons is sharply increased.

On Sunday, after everyone had spent two sessions in small
groups, there was a second community meeting. For a time
everyone sat chattering and conversing. Nervous confusion was
evident. I believe the unspoken question was "Who's in
charge?" Then Ben — of all people — clapped his hands to begin
the meeting. It seemed clear he wished to speak, but someone
else wanted to know what people were feeling, and various
attitudes toward the small group experience — positive and neg-
ative — were expressed. Then Ben told about his experience in
our small group. He said, “I finally fell asleep last night some-
where between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. The feelings that I had denied
had gradually come to the surface— confusion, hurt feelings,
anxiety, resentment. I doubted the value of any theory of per-
sonality. The only thing that I knew to be valid was that I have
a need for human contact and will do anything to get it, even
express negative feelings if I have to. I still feel that it is love
that IS the force that helps us survive the difficulties in the
world, but the view that love is what I have to feel, always, is
now m doubt." He said he had made a very sharp change in his
theory and philosophy of living.

After he f.poke, many shared the personal experiences they
had been having. Others — the more politically oriented — spoke
of important social issues, and these were discussed, but not at
great length.

The group turned to what it wanted to do at the end of the
three-day schedule. It was clear that there were many special
interests they wanted to pursue, and the suggestion evolved that

I6S

CARt RcKiKRS cm PKRSONAI Powf R

at the end Ihu meeting anyone who wanted to convene a
special-interest group write out the topic, his name, and the
protnible time allotment needed — one two-hour session, two
three-hour sessions, etc —and a place for people to sign up.
Joann said she would put up a large piece of paper on the wall
of the main lounge for this purpose

Several people volunteered to serve as a program committee
which would schedule these interest groups to avoid overlap-
ping, and arrange other activities as well This idea was not
adequately discussed, and was neither approved nor disap-
proved, but the program committee set a lime for its meeting
nonetheless

Immrdiateiv following the breakup t>f the meeting there was
a rush for the mam lounge, where several people helped Joann
cover a whole wail with butcher paper Inside of a half hour
there were at least thirty special-interest groups listed, and
people were busily signing up for those they hoped to attend

Notice the flow of power and control m this meeting When
It was clear that the staff did noi regard itself as being m charge,
a member who had urgent business with the group called it to
order Then the community, without conscious inleni. began
taking care of iis needs First there was personal sharing and
a development of greater trust. Then began the planning for the
life of the community, and a real consensus was reached about
having interest groups and the manner of forming them The
eagerness with which people rushed to do this seemed to indi-
cate how rare it is lhat they can chinise fwly to follow their
own interests, to volunteer what they can contribute, to set their
own plans for learning

As It turned out, the groups that attracted the most serious
and continuing involvement were, m no particular order, the
couples group, which merged with the men-women relations
group; the power group, concerned with political i,ssues of con-
trol; the healing group, especially involved in psychic healing;
a women’s group; a men’s grinip; a group interested in innova-
tive education; a research group, endeavoring to evolve new

166

The Person-Centeked Approach in Action

methods for hunuinistic research: a group looking into prob-
lems of life transitions; an assertiveness training group: a client-
centered gestalt therapy group; a group to organize mental
health centers staffed by laymen.

The story of the program committee is pertinent here. They
were offering to take part in structuring the future life of the
community. Their offer had not been refused, but neither had
It been accepted. What happened next shows how extremely
sensitive persons are to any possible loss of control. By the next
morning I had heard a number of rumors about the program
committee, stated with such assurance that I wondered if they
were true. The committee, it was said, was composed of the
power-hungry members of the workshop. They were making
plans to alter the whole nature of the conference. They were
trying to take over. I did not even know who was on this
committee, so I looked forward to discovering the truth on the
following day, Tuesday, at the third community meeting, the
last event suggested by the staff.

We gathered that morning, and Jane, the spokeswoman for
the program committee, began a presentation. She was clear,
articulate, considerate of questions and differences. She ex-
plained all of the factors they had tried to take into account, so
that everyone would have the opportunity to choose what he or
she wanted to do, without serious conflicts of interest. She
unveiled the schedule they were suggesting. It provided for the
interest groups in an excellent way. It gave time for the small
groups to continue if they wished. It was the most flexible and
complete plan I could have imagined, and presented in a mas-
terful way. I laughed when 1 thought of the rumors, and felt
pride in the trustworthiness of our whole group.

The workshop clearly felt the same way. There were mur-
murs of "That's great," “It’s just what we need." There were
a tew questions, and then someone said, “I^t’s adopt it!" and
there was a chorus of positive response, and almost every hand,
including mine, went up. A group of 136 people had quickly
reached consensus on a most difficult issue. The program com-

167

Caiii Rogers on Personae Power

mittee was to be congrRtulated. It had done something the staff
probably could not tuive done.

Then to my dismay I heard. “Let’s not act too rapidly on this.
I have some questions." I was really annoyed. I couldn't listen.
But then some others spoke up. and I began to hear. They were
not objecting to the schedule— they thought it was excellent—
but they were questioning the whole idea of having a schedule!
As John Wtx»d describes that cruaal moment: “The intellect,
the planner, the schedute-maker, created a schedule— an arti-
fact— which would guarantee that we lived our sixteen days by
the inh’Hect . . . . The weak voice of intuition was saying collec-
tively. 'This way of doing things, of following a schedule, is not
new. It's secure, for sure. But what I would like to do. for a
while, with others in the community, is to live in a new way,
governed by inner feelings and choices . ' What was being

suggested was ‘Let’s see if we can all go our own ways together. ’
The amazing thing, to me. was not so much that these small
voices arose, for they arc always present, but that they were
heard and that as a group we resp»>nded and acted to test this
new way of being in community— by intuition— and we stuck
to It ”

it was true. The almost complete consensus in favor of the
schedule changed to an almost complete consensus for being
and coming together in an intuitive way I had found it very
meaningful to act on my intuition in our small group. But what
did It mean to act on intuition with 135 other people? The idea
was mind-boggling. The meeting broke up with no schedule for
the future, not even a time set for the next community meeting,
i felt completely adnft. As 1 walked back to my room I thought
about the fact that every time 1 trust a group to be self-directing
I lind myself being pushed into frightening new areas of learn-
ing. I had thought 1 knew reasonably well the general directions
in which a person-centered workshop would go. But here I was,
going along with something far beyond my wildest imagination.
It fitted in with my thinking in many ways, but . . . ! I had said.
“Man is wiser than his intellect.” but it certainly had not oc-

m

ThK PfRSON-Cl-NTEHED APPROACH IN ACTION

curred to me to put intuition in the driver's seat and relegate
intellect to second place in a group of 136 peopiel 1 had agreed
with John Wood that unless w.e decrease our emphasis on the
intellectual, the scientific, the technological, and give more
place to the intuition that allowed so many centuries of “prirni*
live" man. including the American Indian, to live in harmony
with his world, we are doomed as a culture. But actually to
experience this surrender to intuition was a fearful thing.
Would the workshop continue? Would we ever get together
again? It was most assuredly an insecure feeling. If this was
learning, it was certainly a painful learning.

We did come together again. All that I clearly remember is
that I had the vague sense, “I think we should be meeting." I
had talked to no one about it. When I gut to the auditorium at
least a hundred people were there, and others kept coming in.
Somehow we had done it! Our intuition had not failed us.

It was a good meeting John Wood meditates on its signifi*
cance. "The direction taken by this community encourages me
to think that it is evidence that perhaps we are beginning to
evolve new organs of perception for s'irvival. The undilTeren*
tiated silent, intuitive nature of persons is beginning to come to
awareness and challenge the control of the intellect. We evi-
dently are becoming willing not only to listen to this inner voice
and arrange our individual lives by it but also actually to live
in community by it.”

After this meeting the workshop moved along constructive
lines, following intuition, but using intellect as a planning ser-
vant. The smalt groups continued. There were one or two com-
munity meetings, but my memory of them is hazy. Most of the
interest groups were exciting places for learning. One person
writes, “I spent much time in the interest groups, where I was
very impressed by how efficiently they were working. In these
and in personal exchanges I learned more about counseling,
groups, and psychology than through the last two years of
journals and books.” Ail in all the woritshop seemed busily in
process.

169

Cam. Ro(4Fii.s Pfasonai Powfii

On ihc ninth day, a large notice appeared on the bulletin
board: "Community Meeting Tonight at 7:30." No one seemed
to knots just who was calling the meeting, but it sounded ur-
gent. and we all gathered.

People wanted to know who had called the meeting. The
staff? No Who. then? Finally Mary spoke up to say that the
group she belonged to. Group X. had called it, because they
were in conflict abtiut some suggested plans for Sunday, the
nest day. There was a great deal of annoyance that such a
meeting had been called without indicating who was calling it.
There was even more anger when it was learned that the small
group had not itself been unanimous. Gradually the other mem-
bers of the group spoke up to accept their share of the responsi-
bility for the decision, and to accept the criticism and anger.
Finally, Angelina, a member of the group, a shy, sensitive
young woman from another country, said, ' I was the one who
made the sign and pul it up.” I think no one responded to her
statement

From then on the meeitng w.is a continuous wrangle — about
plans, about scheduling, about the options for Sundiiy. about
when to hold the next community meeting. F'rustration rose to
screaming levels Three members grabbed a large sheet of paper
and some crayons and sal on the floor drawing their feelings of
frustration. There was competition for "air time." Someone
suggeated each speaker summarize the statement of the preced-
ing speaker before making his own statement. Rejected as too
"gimmicky." Another suggested that each speaker, when
finished, designate the next speaker by choosing one of the
up-raised hands. This procedure was followed for a time, until
one man abused the privilege when he was chosen by calling on
two of his friends to speak before he made use of his own turn
to speak. A staff member, Mana. was enraged by hts manipula-
tion and blew up at him in an angry outburst. People couldn't

170

THt PliR!iON-CtNTERf-f> APPROACH IN ACTION

agree on anything. The group seemed to be falling apart. Wim.
who had been skeptical all along about the lack of structure,
said vehemenlly that it was impossible to build a community
without a leader, a facilitator. He kept looking at me accusingly
a.s he spoke. Others disagreed with this. Several spoke, express-
ing the theme that nothing was happening.

Then Angelina, who had printed the announcement for the
meeting, began to weep and moan. She really “freaked out" in
an extreme way, beginning to shake and shiver. People hugged
her. Natalie came over and held her in her lap. comforting her.
Kveryone paid complete attention to her for the next half hour
-all concerned, some undoubtedly frightened. People put
coals and jackets over her to keep her warm. Persons from her
own country clustered around, speaking gently to her in her
own language and asking questions. Her main response was
repeated several times, “I don’t know what's going on. I'm
frightened of everybody.” There was not a sound in the r(x>m
as we waited for her to express her fears. I tried to respond to
stime of her fragmentary statements, I remember saying to her,
“I can let you have your fear, and own your fear, but for me
you are one of us, no matter how you feel. 1 care for you, no
matter what you are feeling.’’ It was a few moments later, as
she was calming, that she said, "I feel better, much better.” You
could feel the sigh of relief in the group.

There followed a discussion of our failure to listen to her, and
even more our failure to listen to each other. Someone sug-
gested we meet for a brief community meeting the next morn-
ing, and without a word of argument or discussion, consensus
was reached. The group was reluctant to break up. We wanted
to be together. Finally some started a loud boisterous snake
dance — obviously to relieve the tension — and gradually people
left.

1 have puzzled over Angelina’s episode. 1 suspect that it was
due to two factors. Having made and put up the notice for the
meeting, she must have felt very vulnerable and guilty in the
face of all the attacks. Then, being very sensitive and not espe-

171

CAIII. ROCiPJIS ON Pf.HSONAt. POWER

cistty articuUite. Ute experienced all of the anger and frustration
and divisiveness of the meeting in herself, until it became un-
bearable.

Certainly, without any conscious intent on her part, she be-
came the first person to be listened to with total attention by
the whole community. It is probably a natural sequence that it
was in the next long community m^ing, on the eleventh night
of the workshop (described in the beginning of this chapter),
that we all began listening to each other. The organism that was
the workshop achieved the task it had — without words — set for
Itself It became a community.

I can’t begin to tell of all that happened except that the group
continued to progress, the warmth and liking between members
was even more marked, and persims in the small groups went
on to make hard, new decisions about actions they were going
to take when they returned home.

There was the community meeting where three gay people,
two men and a woman who had discovered each other, sat in
the middle of the group and said they wanted to make a state-
ment. Each man spoke up. telling of his gay life-style, the
problems it had created for him. and the uncertainty he felt as
to whether the workshop could accept him. One of them had
joined the special-interest men’s group, concealing the fact that
he was gay. Then that night a horrible nightmare made him
realize that he was temfied of “straight" men. He was working
on this new insight.

It was with the greatest difficulty that the woman spoke
up, with a voice slightly above a whisper, and many tears.
She had not revealed her life-style even to her small group,
and it took enormous courage for her to tell the workshop.
The response to her, and to the men, was very acceptant
and suf^rtive. Their statements opened up whole new
areas of discussion.

The Person-Centered Areroach in Action

There was the surprising impact of the ’Silent” group. A
Mzabte number of members got together and decided to spend
twenty-four hours without uttering a word, communicating by
gestures when communication was necessary. It was an aston-
ishingly powerful experience not only for the participants but
for the workshop as a whole.

Then there was what someone called the “mid-life {wnic*’ of
the group, when people realized there were only a few days left.
Some were disappointed in themselves because they had not yet
offered or contributed what they wanted to. Others were fearful
they were not going to learn some of the things they came to
learn. The feeling was, as John Wood says. “That on the day
of judgment (the closing day] I would stand lacking in my own
eyes, disappointed at lost chances."

Finally there was the unforgettable last morning, when peo-
ple shared more than ever before what the experience had
meant to them. Although the great majority were highly posi-
tive, the meeting was open and free enough that those who were
disappointed in the lack of structure, and those who were criti-
cal of different aspects of what we had done, or angry at our
failures, also spoke up. And then there were the tearful fare-
wells of a group which had come to know and care for one
another.

The workshop was over.

1 should like to give my perspective on the chaotic, frustrat-
ing, uneven process by which we became a unity. I suspect
many readers must have felt, “What is the sen.se of this disor-
derly confusion? No topic gets adequately considered! The
waste of time is enormous! Why, in God’s name, doesn’t some-
one take charge and organize the thing so that the participants
can at leaa learn something.’?!*’ I can assure you there watt
times when every one of us shared just such feelings, and some
like Wim, from Holland, shared them almost to the end. But

173

CaHI RCK.F.IISON PmSONAI. pDWfil

I would like lo poinl to several elements which for me are
fascinating to contemplate.

This group of ijh people was entirely responsible for

Itself

They could at any time have asked someone, or some group,
lo lake charge They did not

They could, at any time, have decided to do away with
community meetings and get together as a whole simply
for necessary announcements They did not

They could have eiccicd a chairman pro tem and settled
issues on a parliamentary basis They did noi.

In some unformulaied. iniuiiivc manner they chose to strug-
gle together until they developed a process of being
logether that was satisfying — not always harmonious,
but a way that met the collective need

Certainly this end result was in no way brought about by
intelk'ctual means or insights it was accomplished by gut-level
learnings, a “feeling in our bones." a nonverbal sensing of the
direction we wished to go. And what were these learnings? It
seems to me they were both personal and siK'ial, and that in
their significance they went far beyond any learning that could
have been arranged /<«• the group. As one member of the group
put It.

"Community meeting . a place where 1 realize my own
power. It's up to me. 1 feci like whatever I need in the group,
from the group, it is there for me . and I have time to figure
out what It IS I need or want. There is always rtxim for me It
is a boundary-expanding time. And ergo, there is always nxim
for you. Someone else hasn't planned the agenda. No one is
going to tell me what to do. It puts me in touch with my power.
I take this with me wherever I am. 1 am — ME."

The social learning is suggested by a participant whose letter
I quote. For her, it was an earthshaking learning. “The fact that
It was possible to establish, at least for a limited time, the type
of cmnmunity we grew into has shattered my whole view of
social alternatives and has given me anew a cause to believe in

174

The PF.iisoN<CENTEREt> Approach in Action

and work for.’' I tried to state my own experience of discovery
in the memo I wrote aAer the meeting on the eleventh night.
"1 watch with awe the birth pangs of something new in the
world. And my earlier conviction returns. If we can find even
one partial truth about the process by which 136 (leople can live
together without destroying one another, can live together with
a caring crncem for the full development of each person, can
live together in the nchness of diversity instead of the sterility
of conformity, then we may have found a truth with many,
many implications."

Let me summarize the politics of the situation in a slightly
different way. In a group where control is shared by all. where,
by means of a preceding facilitative climate (in the small
groups), every person is empowered, a new type of community
K'comes possible, an organic kind of flow with individuals liv-
ing together in an ecologically related fashion. Here every indi-
sidual leads; no one leads. The locus of choice resides in each
person, and intuitively the community choice becomes a con-
sensus taking each of these individual choices into account.
Power and leadership and control flow easily from one person
to another as the differing needs arise. The only analogies which
come to mind are from nature. The sap rises or falls in the tree
when conditions make one direction or the other appropriate
1 he bud opens when it is ready — not in an effort to beat compe-
tition. The cactus shrinks in the drought and glare, swells to
bursting after the rain — in each case the action serving its own
survival. And one final analogy which to me fits so many of the
persons in our group (in all-groups?). The seeds of many plants
can lie dormant for years. But when conditions are right, they
sprout and grow and come into full bloom. For me, that helps
to describe our process of community.

Earlier, 1 told of what happened to Ben. of some risks I had
taken, of Michele and her “pull-push" conflict about men. For

175

CaKI. RCX]ifclUi ON PERSON At POWt.il

those who ask. “What happened ne*l?” I add these bnef notes.

Ben, the elderly psychiatrist, maintained his new intention of
becoming a feehngfui person -in the group. He told me he no
longer needed the answers to his intellectual questions about
theories of therapy — he was finding the answers in his own
experience. He related to the members of the group in a way
astonishingly different from his first impassive manner He was
a ( great value to the workshop in convening and giving fgciliia-
tive leadership to the interest group centered around the task
of organir.ing mental health centers staffed by lay paraprofes-
sionals

As for me, I continued to he a participant in the group in the
same fashion as the others — namely, being facilitaiivc to others
when that met my need, and exploring my problems in the
group when those were uppermost for me

The most stnking example of the latter is one I hnd myself
hesitating to describe. I have mentioned several times the meet-
ing on the eleventh evening of the workshop, and have given the
notes I wrote that night I went to bed elated, feeling very
excited and pleased at the way the workshop was going, and
about the new spaces into which I was being drawn.

1 woke up in the morning quite depressed. It seemed so
unreasonable and ndiculouv—just when everything was going
swimmingly I itxik a long walk before breakfast, trying to sort
out my feelings There seemed no doubt about it — I was feeling
sorry for myselP How absurd could I get? But I couldn't shake
the feeling, and when we met after breakfast it was so urgent
for me that I had to share it with the group. As they helped me
explore it, two of them with their arms around me. it gradually
became dear to me.

I cannot deny that I have had a definitely significant part in
initiating the trend toward a person -centered approach to many
facets of living. Many, many people are moving in this direc-
tion. That IS satisfying, of course, but it also constitutes a great
burden of responsibility. How do / know that this direction is
sound? Every movement and trend in history has its unseen

176

The Pemson-Centeeeo Apmioach in action

flaws and contradictkms which tend to bring about its downfall.
What are the (taws that I am too stupid to see? To what degree
am I misle<uiing people through my ideas and my writings?
There is absolutely no one to say, and 1 was feeling the burden
uf being out in front. Writing this later. I also see the reason
why the down feelings hit me at just this time. The whole
process of the community, as exemplified in the meeting the
night before, was pushing me into unknown areas. 1 had helped
to start a trend that now had a life of its own and was taking
me I knew not where. We were “getting better at whatever the
hell we're doing.’* I explored this burdened feeling tearfully
with the group — I weep easily — felt guilty at taking so much of
their time (just like every other participant) and was temporar-
ily relieved. It was only later in the day that 1 realized the
burden had completely dropped away, and I again had the
courage to move with the flow.

As for Michele, 1 will try to approximate her own words, in
a group meeting in the later part of the workshop, as she told
of an incident that for me illustrates her own progress. “I’ve
learned so much! I’ve learned I don’t have to try to please men.
I can rely on my own feelings. I had a date last night with a
man [not a member of the workshop]. 1 was reluctant to go. I
thought we didn't have much in common. On the way to his
apartment we stopped at the supermarket to buy things to
barbecue. He bought a steak for seven dollars. I thought, ‘Buy-
ing that seven-doliar steak is not going to get me into your bed!'
We got to his place. The talk was superficial. Each time I tried
to respond in terms of my own feelings. For instance, he said.
’Don’t you want to help me in the kitchen?’ and I said, ‘No, I’m
enjoying listening to this music and reading poetry.' There was
more surface talk, and finally he said, ’What is this encounter-
ing. anyway?’ So 1 tried to tell him— seriously. We began really
to talk. I let him know early on that 1 was not going to end up
in his bed We had a better and better conversation. We found
we had a great deal in common, and I had a fine time. Then 1
stayed the night in his apartment." [Aha! goes my suspicious

177

Cahi R<x>tiis on PmsoNAi Pdwkii

mind. So much for inieniioti?;! But I was wrong. She had slept
m his apatlmeni, but she had not slept with him.]

She continued: ’‘So often Tvc spent the whole lime on a date
being superficial and worrying all the time about how the eve-
ning wi>uld end. Now I realize I can act from my own feelings.
I can cnjo> the experience for itself, and rely on what 1 feel It
felt so ftood to he m\ own person/*

There is runhing that I can add. Michele has empowered
herself

The workshop is onlv a few months behind us, but already
I and other participants and members of the staff have received
many letters indicating the impact it has had Without any
cliiini t<^ complotcncsN. or an\ attempt at an i^hjectivc finding.
I shall simpiv quote frinii a few of these letters 1 will first gi\c
the most sironcK negative reaction I have received It intercNis
me that the fechng is \\o{ at all Cimsistcntlv negative

“As I hH>k back on the workshop. I have mixed negative and
positive feelings, hut mostly I feel that it was a verv valuable
exfK'riencc ” (He quotes from his journal, written at the time,
regarding the ncxt to-thedasi communitv meeting j “1 fell sad
that we were alrcadv saving gi>od-bvc with one half dav still
left I felt angrv because I had vime negative feelings, mainlv
disapfvoinimenl. and was afraid to express it among all the
sweetness I tinallv said, *1 would like to acknowledge that I feel
some negative feelings as well as some |'H>siiive ' Carl said. ’I
would like to hear them and I think the group would ' I said.
*! UH> often lake the na> saver role * Suzanne s;iid. ‘I appreciate
>our naysfiyer role * So finally I said. ’.Mainlv I wanted more of
an ongoing gnvup or i>rganizaiion I don't feel a part of the
w:ommunity, or rather I feel pan of one now hut didn’t this
morning* did last night, but not yesterday I am up and down,
in and out/ '*

One perwn tries to express the pervasiveness of the impact.

The Person-Centciieo AmoACM m action

'T've told you tiothing of what has actually happened — tt*$

everything, everything I do, everything 1 say A good friend

tells me I’ve become quietly but strongly assertive. 1 feel that
ail over in my life, but especially at work.' I can’t believe some
of what ! said in staff yesterday! I am so in touch with my
power, though saying that and seeing it on paper still seems
scary — not scary enough to deter me, though.”

A mother gives some very positive reactions, ending with this
series of statements.

“Somehow a support group right now is less urgent than I
expected, because there is so much more of me!” [Tells of new
steps she has taken toward getting a graduate degree, which had
seemed almost impossible previously.] “I wanted to mention
my children to you. I had a long talk with them about the next
few months and how hard it might be for all of us. They are
so understanding! We are making time to be together over
breakfast in the morning, and to meditate together, before their
school and my work. Somehow the quality of our relationship
IS better now than it has ever been. Such unexpected happenings
are happening to me!”

Denny, the social crusader, she who said, ”1 need your bodies
to block the roads.” wrote me a most moving letter more than
two months after the workshop. She tells of the enormous
frustration she felt at first. “HARDLY ANYONE WAS SAY-
ING ANYTHING ABOUT SOCIAL CHANGE! I felt alien,
lost, unconnected. Compared to the warmth and sensitivity
around me, I felt unloving, insensitive, and inadequate. Peelings
of political and social concern, mine and others’, came to
be regularly rejected by the group. 1 felt hurt and buried the
hurt. . . .”

She almost left the community meetings. “1 felt increa.singly
dead and distant at community meetings. Finally 1 despaired
of belonging. I considered giving up the community to
devote myself entirely to interest groups, especially the politi-
cal group. Then I realized that I cared about belonging. In lis-
tening to the community I had made, unawares, a deep com-

179

Cam. Rooeu on Perional Power

Ruimcni to process — to staying with what is happoiing.”

Then in the meeting on the eleventh night, as she heard
person after person expressing social concerns and being put
down, her anger rose to the boiling point and Anally, **My anger
exploded. They had each been speaking of my concerns. As
th^ had not been heard, so I had not been heard, and I had
now to take care of my own feelings. If 1 did not share my anger,
I risked not becoming a member of the community for the rest
of the workshop; I would leave behind part of my life unlived,
a very sad thing to think about.

“Hearing the ugly sound of my anger, 1 felt: This is it — I'm
going to die.' The dreaded thing was happening — I was being
revealed. But I did not die. 1 survived the humiliating shame
of my unlovely nakedness, and from that time on felt a member
of the community. Had I been fully aware of the hurt and
vulnerability behind the anger. I hope 1 would have tried to
communicate that too, instead of concealing it with words
about other things."

She tells how, after she returned home, she was involved in
three very signiAcant political confrontations. Perhaps the most
important was at a public county school-board meeting around
the issue of racial integration. "Listening and hearing were not
going on at this meeting! I tried unsuccessfully and inappropri-
ately to bring it about. Outwardly, before eight hundred people,
I was frustrated, helpless and 'un-together.' Inwardly, I was
shaky but absolutely centered on the importance of what I was
trying to do. I felt the strength of ail 135 people of the workshop
backing me up there in that huge room and felt the wonderful
release of myself into the larger Other. Ail the attention focused
on my face, my clothes, my body, my communication failure
was of no consequence. I felt only slight personal embarrass-
ment. What was happening was so much greater than any of
that. I was not diminished. 1 fell, more fully than ever before,
my strength and conAdenM in my organism. I was told later
that my action had had a positive effect on the board's leading,
in part, to support of the merger proposal.

ISO

The Person-Centered Aptroach in Action

"For me, for a while, the cmiflict I felt at the workshop
between political concerns and personal concerns is resolved.
The greater knowing of myself that 1 experience, the more
politically effective 1 will be. It will just come. I ‘know* it.”

For me, her tetter is extremely meaningful. It confirms me in
my conviction that lasting revolutions are brought about not by
propaganda or massed demonstrations but by changed people.
Denny is a changed person, and hence more — not less — socially
effective as a revolutionary.

But for me there is one letter, from a member of our small
group, a professional woman in a Latin American country, that
seems to encompass beautifully all that 1 have heard from
participants.

During the last session of the workshop three of the research-
oriented individuals were making a plea to the participants to
be sure to turn in the questionnaires the research group had
devised and distributed. Someone asked if the questionnaires
were important. A woman said. "The study is important to me
because I’m not sure whether this workshop is really significant
and people have really changed, or whether this is just a sophis-
ticated way of spending a vacation." It is this woman who
writes the following letter.

August 30. 1975

Carl,

Would you be interested in knowing some of the things hap-
pening under the Southern Cross after the workshop?

I had decided to take my time in starting anything new: I’ve
seen them, all those people who return from therapeutic or
religious encounters, full of short-lived "touchie-feelte, disgust-
ing" behaviors and sentimental babble about love, peace, and
the rest — so I wanted to keep my head. Well, it doesn’t seem
as if I ever will again; I’ve already talked to individuals, groups
and masses (150 unknown students can be a mass) and, to my
extreme surprise, 1 feel I'm being heard and sometimes even
believed. The proposal of a new. unthought -of kind of social

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

fonii is being perceived as possible by tough, scientific minds!
Tm rather amazed at my own apparent persuasiveness, as it is
indeed not feasible to translate what we lived through into mere
words. The only conclusion to be drawn is that people know,
at some level, what Tm talking about; it’s as if I were only
adding to an inner conviction a statement that their beliefs,
wishes, or tendencies are in fact not irrational.

Of course, and although such eflects are probably very small.
I’m scared, which is something nobody knows about but you;
am I selling a mirage, misleading starved people by making an
unfulfillable promise? The fear is not able to stop me. but leads
to an attempt to understate, to voice doubts, and to welcome
criticisms against my own too strong faith. It's hard to contain
what are like two earthquakes inside me, the community and
our group.

The experiences in our Dear Group, and coming so close to
you, went so far beyond my most daring previous expectations
that they keep echoing inside, like bells that I suddenly hear at
the most unexpected moments, and although I'm still not sure
of what they will bnng to the future, I feel continuous waves
taking up every cell of me, transforming me “forever." They
come as feelings very pure, without words, as I seem to have
forgotten what exactly was said by either you. me, or the others
at the most significant moments. What is here, and is incredibly
vivid, a thing of now, is what resulted at those moments, how
it felt at the instant it was new. the realizing of dumb, obvious
things like “I’m free," "I’m a woman." “I don’t have to be
followed by adjectives such as nice, efficient, etc.,” "Now I'm
angry." "Now I’m soft." Carl, is this the millionth time it's been
told? You made me feel you would care to know even so.

September 19

I still want to send this letter because it’s so very true in each
word almost three weeks later, except I’m surer of it all staying
with me. And now. I want to speak very quickly of the second
"earthquake" that renewed me in another way. The fact that

182

The PF.i(soN<CENTEKeo AmoACH IN Action

It was possible to establish, at least for a limited time, the type
of community we grew into, has shattered my whole view of
social alternatives and has given me anew a cause to believe in
and work for. There was a former hope, that at a speed of one
h> one (client or student), some change could be gained for the
larger community, but there was also a realization that such
limited action had little chance of overcoming present domi*
nant forces and trends. Perhaps we can’t do more than light
candles in a dark forest, but my own candle seems now much
more reliable in showing the way.

In spite of my suspicions regarding overambitious planning,
things are happening in every corner — like a weekend commu-
nity experience on aging I'll hold m October, starting swim-
ming lessons for myself, gathering friend.s and colleagues every
Friday at my home, entering a course on workshops. These arc
a few concrete innovations but, in a way, no more than natural
consequences of how I feel and interact in a qualitatively difler-
enl manner.

I'm glad you arc such an understander, as I could never rely
upon words to let you know how very deeply I feel you with
me or (will you shudder’) how grateful I am to have you.
.Although I feel the need here to tell you about my.self, I think
of you a lot, with love and caring.

In writing this b<x)k. it had never occurred to me that I might
include a chapter on a workshop. Nor did the thought occur to
me while this workshop was in progress. But afterward I began
to want to write about it— a few pages. I thought. As I got into
It I became more and more absorbed, until a lengthy chapter
tinaily wrote itself For me it has been one of the most reward-
ing portions of the book, and I wish to explain why.

I realized that of all the ventures in which I have ever been
involved, this was the most thoioughly person-centered, from
Its inception, through its planning, in its initial phases, and in

m

Cakl Rocem on Pemonai Power

iu totai process of personal interaction and community build*
tng. Consequently it has been, for me. a thoroughgoing test of
the value of person-centeredness. It was, in my judgment, sue*
oesshil beyond any reasonable expectation. It was a most im-
portant validation of a person-centered way of being.

For one thing it enhanced learning by the whole person —
experiential, cognitive, and, now I must add, intuitive learning.
It showed the great advantage of a person-centered learning
which pushed us beyond what we had ever dreamed of. into
areas where we had not expected to go.

I have sometimes thought about what the workshop would
have been like if I had been its guru, its leader Over the years
I certainly could have become a guru, with the always ready
help of loving admirers. But it is a path I have avoided When
people arc too worshipful I remind them of the Zen saying, "If
you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!" What would have
happened if I had accepted the role of the active leader, the
authority figure? I could have taken the group to the uttermost
limit of my thoughts and feelings — but I could not have taken
them beyond those limits. I could have told them — and perhaps
partially showed them — how to live in a person -centered way.
The results? They would have learned what I know, and the
way 1 am They would have found in me the answers to some
of thar questions, and would be ready to turn to me for more
answers. Thus there would have been definite limits to their
learning, and an encouragement of dependence

But l(x>k at what happened in the person-centered prcKess as
it actually occurred. I was less active than ever before in a
workshop, content to learn from the priKCSs in the large group,
and only speaking when I thought I could be facilitative in the
small group. So we ail became facilitators of learning for each
other, taking ourselves into new pathways, learning viscerally,
learning intellectually, and in this process teaming an indepen-
dence of thought and being. There was no one to lean on. ^ch
of us became an independent learner.

1 like the behavioral outcomes. We didn't team a person-

The Pehson-Centehed Approach in action

centered way being. Each person is in process of defining his
own way ofbeing himself. The outcome is pluralistic in the very
best sen.se of that word, and yet unified in that each of us is able
to say, in a little more confident, a little more sensitive, way, “1
am my own person." For one woman this means facing eight
hundred people with her convictions cm a social issue. For
another it means a more open relationship with her children.
Fur one man it means a difficult confrontation with an authori-
tarian boss. For another it meant initiating a "song fest" on a
boring transcontinental plane flight, with passengers and stew-
ardesses actually getting to know one another! For still an-
other It means opening up his life to more love. Another person
IS trying to change a traditional organization into a community,
and then says "and so, in 136 places all over the world this inner
power and this trust are at work, spreading out and out, and
down, and up to — who knows what limits?” The number 136
IS no doubt an exaggeration — not everyone was deeply affected
—but the words catch very well the feeling I have. A ferment
%as started in that group, a yeast, a catalyst, which cannot help
but have profound effects in marriages, families, schools, indus-
tries, mental health centers, political movements. It has indeed
been an exciting, growing experience in which to be involved.
Like many of those who have written to me, I treasure it.

Chapter i ; The poujer of
Q ; the pouuefle66

i

*

{ 7 Vr/\ chaptvr /s the jot nt work of Alan Sclson and mrvW/. )

Ordinarily v^c dim*! ihink children and young people from
niiddlc-elas^^ families as l>eing an oppressed group. Hut under
certain circumstances they can he exactly that, as this exciting
realdife story indicates. Such a group >xas dictated to and
manipulated I heir rights \serc igiu'reu, their voices unheard
And they were completely powerless no mo.Hy no clout, no
part in the rvu! decisions Or were they powerless ’ The answer
that emerges fascinates me

One thing that, for me. stands out m this account is that
freedom is irmrr\thU\ Once a person child or adult has
expertcnct*d responsible freedom, she will continue to strive for
It. It may be completely suppressed in behavior by a maximum
use of every kind of control including force, but it lanniU be
etiminatcd or extinguished.

Another striking element is something I trust is already clear
from the preceding chapters. Any pcrstm-ccniered enterprise is.
of necessity, extremely threatening to 99 percent of the estab-
lished insHtutions in western culture, whether a schiK)!. a mar-
riage. or — as in this case— a well-inlcmioned community cen-
ter. If you are still in doubt as to the revolutionary character
of pcrson-centcredness. perhaps this account will convince you.

I was present when Alan Nelson asked for time to tell this

m

The PersonCentereo Aprroach in AnrioN

story, ll simply pound out of him, as though he had been
waiting a long time to present it to a group whose members
might understand fully what he and the others had been
through. 1 strongly encouraged him to make more public that
impassioned account. The pnnted word can't quite capture the
white heal of those moments, but Alan's deep involvement and
his equally strong desire to be fair about and understanding of
those who in this instance were the “oppres.sors" come through
even on the pnnted page. 1 hope you get as much enjoyment
out of Alan's account, and as much learning from it, as 1 have.
I will lei Alan speak:

I told the following story at an interest group on politics and
the client-centered approach at a summer workshop in 1074. At
the time we were talking about how the client-centered ap-
proach relates to political situations, especially those where
there is an imbalance of power — where some persons have and
exercise the ptiwer to control the lives of others.

My thanks go to Eva Cossack, who taped that meeting and
who gave me a copy of her recording from which this material
was transenbed. I have rewritten some of what I said then, both
to make the story more clear and to insure the anonymity of
the community and the other people m the story. But I've tried
to leave what Carl called the "urgency and rush of it" as it came
out then, so some of the rough edges of story-telling are still
intact.

C\Rt.; Alan, the way I feel is that you've given us several things
that the client-centered approach is not — in your estimation it's
not a strategy or a technique, or that kind of thing. But I feel
as though you haven’t yet given us your view of what it is in
the power sphere.

At.AN; Okay. I think it would help if . . . well. I know it was
helpful for lots of us when you used a concrete example, so
maybe I could.

CAtL Rogers on Personal Power

Coukt pco|de hang with about a five>tmnute example? I think
it couM illustrate some of what I mean by person-centered
politics, it will also tell you how I lir« got involved in trying
to understand the way this approach is very immediately politi-
cal. both in Its results and in its process.

Others: Yes, okay.

Alan: Okay. . . . About four or five years ago, when I was a
divinity student considering entering the ministry, I got a sum-
mer job directing a day camp in a wealthy suburb of Boston.

. . . Let me start by giving you some information about the
community—l didn’t know all this when I look the job; 1
learned it during my working and living there.

The community, which I’ll call Graceville, is one of the
oldest in Massachusetts. A lot of Massachusetts' money is said
to be centralized in that community In fact, it is tied up in one
part of the community. Graceville is divided into five political
precincts. Most of the wealthy people in the community are in
precinct one. The other four precincts are not nearly so
wealthy. The disparity is huge— that’s the picture I’m trying to
give you. But the poor people by this community’s standards
are not poor by most standards. They are primarily middle-
income families.

The community was schirophrenic. The people who had the
political power had the least to do with the community itself.
Graceville had one of the highest per capita expenditures on
garbage collection in Massachusetts — yet the lowest on public
education. That was because the rich people sent their kids to
private schools.

A number of years ago. in great liberal fashion, the wealthy
precinct started the Graceville Community House, and the
Community House sponsored the day camp that I was going
to direct. I see now that it was a kind of liberal gesture on the
pan oTthe community, well motivated and in some ways help-
ful. The camp was relatively inexpensive, and was used mostly

IM

The P£iison<Centeiied AmoACH in Action

by fiuniiies in tire other four precincts as a place to send their
kids during the day for all or part of the summer. There were
also a few scholarships for the camp offered to black kids from
Roxbury. the ghetto of Boston. There were almost no racial
minorities in Gracevilie.

Control of the Community House resided mostly in the first
precinct. Of about fifty members on the board of directors, I
think only two were from outside precinct one. And only two
were under fifty years of age. All of the people on the executive
board of the Community House were horn the first precinct.
Most precinct >one kids went to another camp nearby — a better*
equipped, more expensive, residential camp.

The man who hired me as the day camp director was the
executive director of Gracevilie Community House. I didn't
know it at the time, but his hiring me was sort of his parting
act. He was too liberal a director for the people in control. He
was catching a lot of flak and was leaving for a better job. But
he and I talked at length about my directing the day camp, and
It was very attractive to me. I was to have full control of the
camp, hiring the assistant director and counselors and schedul-
ing activities. We signed my contract in April , . . then he left.

In reaction to him, the board of directors and executive board
of the Community House hired a guy who had been eight years
in the Air Force directing Air Force day camps a.s the person
to be executive director of the Community House. By the time
I met this new director, what he knew was that there was this
bearded freak coming from Harvard to direct his day camp.

This was the first year 1 was ensconced in a client-centered
approach, and I thought: “All right, I am going to try to do a
client-centered day camp.’* The opponunity to do that, to do
what 1 believed in, was a large part of why I took the job. 1
looked forward to an exciting summer with a lot of excited kids
in camp. I had never done anything quite like this before, but
1 figuF^ what was most important for me was to really try to
hear and understand what others in the camp were concerned
with and cared about. 1 thought most important was my trust-

189

Caul Rcx;em on Personal Power

ing others to really be responsive and responsible when given
the chance. I trusted that the people would be able to create a
good camp. In a way I considered the staff people to be my
clients. ... In some ways I also saw the campers that way.

So I hired an assistant director. Jean, who had worked in the
camp for four years ... a woman who is just really, really fine
and knew everyone and was very, very . . well she was wonder-
ful. We had talked a lot about what was important to us in being
with kids and running a camp, and 1 hired her. Together we
interviewed all the applicants for the other staff positions.

The structure of the staff was set and we could not affect it.
The staff was divided into two groups, the nonpatd counselurs-
in-training, aged thirteen to fifteen, and the paid counselors,
aged sixteen to twenty-two. The paid group averaged about $35
a week Most of the people had been on the staff before, and
many were turning down better-paying jobs to be a part of the
camp because they loved working with kids. Altogether there
was a staff of twenty-five, and we anticipated between sixty and
one hundred campers each week, ranging in age from six to
thirteen.

When Jean and I did the interviews we tried to understand
what was important to these people who wanted to be on the
staff—to listen and pay attention to them. At a staff meeting
later we said; “This is your camp. Nearly all of you have been
here before. What shall we do with it? How do you want our
camp to be?" We tried to convey to them that we trusted them,
we would try to understand them, and we cared about what
they wanted.

At first they were a little di.sbelteving. But gradually we were
all just brainstorming about what we wanted to do with the
camp, what we wanted it to be. Everyone was talking about
what they didn't like about past camps, how they wanted to run
this one. It was very, very exciting. The energy was really
getting up; people were being creative and responsive to each
Other.

We decided together that the camp would be more coopera-

190

The PtRsoN-CtNTEiiCD Approach in Action

live than competitive. In the past thme had been awards each
Friday which hardly anyone on the staff liked — a lot of feelings
Mcrc hurt and the whole spirit of competition seemed to per-
vade the camp, even to the point where counselors and assist-
ants could hardly get along because they were competing. Sepa-
rate meetings were often held in the past with the paid
counselors at one and the volunteer assistants at another.

When the newly hired executive director for the Community
House came from the Air Force, Jean and I went to have our
hrst meeting with him. It was a disaster!

He — call him Kenneth Barnes — came on hostile and aggres-
si\e. I guess he was bothered to find his day camp being directed
hv a wild young student from Harvard who, with an assistant
director, had already hired the staff. He told us our previous
contracts were invalid and that we had to renegotiate our con-
tracts with him, since he was now the director of the Commu-
nils House. He wanted us to be his assistants and to serve his
wishes and commands in running the camp the way he wanted
■t run — obviously quite differently from the way Jean and I
envisioned it. Fortunately for us, it was also quite different from
the work for which we had been contracted.

After about an hour, in which hardly a friendly word passed
between us. our meeting ended when we said we would not
renegotiate our contracts and considered them valid. Jean and
I almost pleaded for a more friendly, less authoritarian relation-
ship, and then wc left. Outside, we considered resigning, but
decided to do the camp as best wc could in the face of our
obvious difficulties with Mr. Barnes. It was too late to find other
jobs, we were really excited about the camp, and we felt some
obligation to the staff wc had hired.

By the time camp started wc, as a staff, were excited about
our summer together Camp began really well. Everyone in-
volved was pleased, from all indications. Enrollment and at-
tendance were higher than ever, parents of both campers and
staff exprevsed pleasant surprise over how well the camp was
going and how excited the kids were with it. Perhaps most

191

Carl Rocers on Personal Power

important, the campm and staff p«>ple themselves were happy.
Jean and I were pleased. Everyone was working hard and it was
great.

The camp felt like an open and free place to be. People were
responsive and open with each other. I think partly because
Jean and I were and responsive to the folks on the staff, they
were more interested in the kids they worked with, and more
enthusiastic than anyone could remember. The staff had some
freedom to choose and be responsible for what they were doing,
and they were being very creative together. It was. all in all.
very wonderful.

And the campers — I wish I could show you the campers.
They were really fine! Those kids were being so alive and hon-
est. I mean 1 got tired and cranky sometimes — we ail did. But
we were really cooperating with each other in being together,
having fun and getting to know each other and ourselves.

Meanwhile, problems were getting worse with me and Mr.
Barnes (as he preferred to be called, rather than by his first
name). From his perspective, the camp isas a problem. He kept
telling me there was no discipline — which for him meant people
standing in straight lines, for a long time. The staff had decided
they did not want the whole camp standing in lines saying the
pledge of allegiance each morning as the flag rolled up the
flagpole. It was bonng; it was a hoax. So we didn’t do that. We
also didn't do it because the way Mr. Barnes had scheduled the
camp's use of the swimming pool, one group would hardly get
to use the pool' at all. The compromise solution to the flag
problem was that each morning camp counselors would raise
it . . . each evening someone from the camp would take it back
down, fold it, and return it to the main ofike.

There were other changes too. The kids chose more than
before what they wanted to do. such as more field trips. Because
of the campers and staff involved, we made consensual or com-
promise decisions; nothing was ramrodded. The major deci-
sions. within the limit established by the budgm and the set
structure, were made by those most directly affected by them.

192

The Pekson-Centeiied Approach in Action

That was what was most important to os — how decisions were
made and how we related with each other.

Mr. Barnes kefH insisting that 1 take control of things, or else
he would. And he did where he could. He set up a bureaucracy
of three people so that it took ten days to get chocolate milk
for the kids who wanted it— even though milk was delivered
daily. The milkman kept saying; *‘We have lots of chocolate
milk, but 1 can’t leave it until I get the order from the people
upstairs." Mr. Barnes also changed every lock in the house and
kept the only keys. Jean and I couldn't even have a key to the
soda room because he thought we would steal some of the soda
— someone said he told them this. Every day we had to go to
him and get the key to put the day's ration of soda in the cooler
for the campers. When he couldn't be found — which was fairly
often — the soda was served warm. He even had a lock pul on
the cabinet that held the instant coffee, and he had the only key
to that'

I explained to him that we were trying to develop self-control
in the camp. The importance of discipline wasn’t being over-
iixikcd, but the fsKus was on .re//-dtscipline. rather than on a
system imposed from above to below.

This didn't impress Mr. Barnes at all. and as camp pro-
seeded, our relations were increasingly strained. As the s'amp's
administrators, Jean and I tried to see that the camp's facilities
were used maximally and without schedule conflicts. We also
arranged field trips and bought supplies. W'hcn we were lucky,
we were with the kids, just getting to know them and playing.
But we had to spend too much time being buffers between Mr.
Barnes and the camp. He would make an (X'casinnal appear-
ance to tell us what we were doing wrong — that was the extent
of his relating to staff and campers alike. He never commented
on what we were doing right. His idea of being educational was
to ask people if they knew the right names for things, like:
"What do you call the feathers on an arrow?" We found it
important to protect the camp from him as much as we could.

1 admit that 1 was poor at empathizing with a man who had

Cam. Rogem on Pemonal Pgweh

come from eight yean in the service, and in some ways, eatly
on, I started seeing him as an enemy. And I was pretty stupid.
I didn't get to know anybody on the executive board. In retro-
spect that was poor strategy, and I fault myself on that. But I
didn’t sense the desperation of this man.

Anyway, from all our feedback, camp was successful. On the
hnl overnight— every other week we had an overnight, in
which campers could stay over from Thursday to Friday — we
had more than So percent of the campers there. In the past,
attendance had been about 30 per^nt.

By the third week, our very success was threatening to Mr.
Barnes. He had never seen a camp like this — so open and warm
— where people hugged, cried, and talked about what they
wanted. That everyone seemed happy with it made it worse for
him.

We had another overnight that week which was again very
good and attended by nearly the whole camp. But Mr. Barnes
came around, yelled at a couple of kids, locked a bunch of doors
to which he had the only keys, and left, saying he'd be back later
to see how we were doing. Well, he locked us out of the room
containing the telephone, so we couldn't even talk to parents
who called to see how their kids were doing. And he didn't
come back until the next day!

The next afternoon (Fnday), Barnes and I had a blowup over
some orange peels he'd found under a table. In his frustration
over larger issues he'd seized on this tiny infraction. The camp
at the time was almost immaculate — since we had all just done
a big cleanup— except for those orange peels. 1 confess I was
more concerned about the campers and their parents. After
overnights there were always lost clothes to be found, questions
to be answered, and parents to be reassured.

Mr. Barnes informed me that he and 1 would mixt on Mon-
day with Mr. Smith, the treasurer of the executive board, to
discuss the conflict. I was a little nervous, since 1 had never
talked to Mr. Smith before. But I also looked forward to the
meeting as a chance to explain what was going on, to talk about

The PEiisoN>CENTEii£D AmtOACH IN Action

all the difficulties Mr. Barnes was causing for us and fix' the
Community House generally. 1 spent much of the weekend
preparing incident notes on what had happened, so 1 would
have the facts straight when we talked.

I walked into Mr. Barnes' upstairs office on Monday morning
of the fourth week of camp and found Mr. Smith there along
with Mr. Barnes and some other people I didn’t recognize. I
was told that everyone was not there yet and that they would
come and get me when everyone was there and they were ready
for me.

“What!” I thought. “This was supposed to be a meeting
between three people!” But 1 went back downstairs to camp,
and when everyone was there, they came and got me. I walked
into a room full of about eight people.

This. 1 learned, was most of the esecutive board of the Com-
munity House. The executive director of the board was a sixty-
six-year-old woman who could hardly walk, who was a nice
person, and who had, in her way. given a lot of her life to doing
things for the community — but in a kind of blind liberal way,
which was absolutely unresponsive. She knew what people
should have and what should be done and nobody should rcK'k
her boat and nobody should challenge her because she was an
.iwTully nice lady And she was. She really was.

When Mr. Barnes was introducing me to the rest of the
executive board, he was letting me know how much these peo-
ple cared about kids legitimately, by telling me who taught
Sunday school, how many years, and so on. And I really do not
want to leave the impression that these were awful people be-
cause they were not. They were concerned about the kids in the
camp and they were very concerned about their Community
House. They thought I was destroying both.

1 learned later that by this time there were some fantastic
rumors going around about me: I was a homosexual and was
assaulting the men on the staff; I was seducing the women and
was caught making love with one of them in the sandbox; I was
part of a Communist conspiracy, trained in a camp in Canada

W5

Carl Roocrs on Personal Power

to take over this oommunity, starting with the kids — that last
one came directiy from Mr. Barnes, according to three people.
I was seen sort o( like a conspiratorial Pied Piper.

They fired me. I walked into this meeting and. after the
introductions. I was read my termination notice. I was blown
away. They said they would give me the money for the rest of
the summer, but they wanted me out, gtme.

And they didn't want to talk with me about anything. None
of them had talked to me beforr, none of them had ever talked
to anyone having anything to do with the camp — campers,
staffers, Jean, or, so far as I ever learned, anyone's parents — but
they had heard enough.

1 was fired at 9:30 in the morning that Monday. It was the
biggest morning of the camp, first morning of the week with the
largest registration-— over a hundred kids. 1 hung around for
about half an hour, gathering some of my stuff together, men-
tioning to a couple of counselors that I’d been fired, and then
1 went home. Jean had been called into a meeting with the same
people, so I couldn't talk to her. I went home, just hurt and
bewildered. I had no idea what to do.

later I found out that they offered Jean the camp director's
title, but she was to take orders from Mr. Barnes. She refused,
saying she wanted me rehired

By 10:30 it was raining and all one hundred campers and
twenty-five staff people had to be crowded into the camp's
indoor facilities, which were pretty bad — the Community
House basement and a small gymnasium I was home just
really, really hurt. My response to being fired was: ‘Tve never
been treated so by a community of adults. “ They had never
even spoken with me. I almost couldn't believe this was happen-
ing.

By 11:30 that morning the entire camp was on strike, and the
Community House was being picketed with signs made in arts
and crafts. All but one person on the staff signed a petition
saying they wouldn't go back to work until 1 was rehired.

None of these staff people had ever been involved with any-

196

The Person-Cehtekeo Apekoach in Action

thing like this in their lives. They had never been on strike for
anything before. And I had nothing to do with the strike. I
didn't even know it was happening. Nobody told these people
what to do. They knew what they wanted. They had lived in
this environment for three weeks — the staff people for some
time longer — where they were trusted and dealt with as people,
and they were not going to be told what to do by officials who
didn't even know what was going on.

What most impressed me was that it wasn't me they were
striking for . . . it was themselves. In some ways there was maybe
charisma or something, or perhaps a style that I possessed that
they liked. But I really believe, in my heart of hearts, that most
fundamentally it was themselves they were not going to give up.
They weren’t going to submit to another kind of process for the
camp— another way of being, really— once they had ex-
perienced an alternative. They had experienced it and that is
where they were standing. And I was so proud of them it was
incredible. I cned about three times that day. How proud 1 was
of those kids, how much I cared for them. 1 was amazed, 1 was
just amazed

Anyway . . I'm going to try and shorten this story. . . .
(Many voices from the group: "Don't shorten it!"]

Okay. ... By one that afternoon the director was calling to
tell me to come down to the Community House. I didn't gel the
call because 1 was already on my way. I’d been at home think-
ing. bewildered, not hearing anything from anyone at camp. I
didn't know what to do, and I was afraid that the staff was being
talked into compromising away what camp meant to us to get
me back.

When I got there the oldest campers were walking around the
Community House in the rain carrying signs saying, "We want
Al." People ran out to meet me. and I just stood there amazed.
I had tears rolling down my cheeks. What a day this was!
Absolutely wonderful.

Someone told me that Mr. Barnes had been calling me; he
wanted to talk to me. First 1 went to the gym and the house

197

CAitt Rockm on PF,itsoNAi Power

bRsonent to be with everyone again — that was a joyous reunion
— and then I went upstairs to see Mr. Barnes.

He was just in a rage' He blew up at me, saying; “Get this
camp back in order." I said, “I can’t do anything. I’m fired. I
don't work here anymore." And he said, ’'Okay, you’re
rehired ’’

I went downstairs, and the camp re-formed itself into its
regular groups very quickly. We were all very happy. Then I
went back upstairs and had a two-hour conference with Mr.
Barnes. One thing I haven't mentioned yet is that Mr. Barnes
still lived with his mother. While we were talking in his office
that afternoon she burst through his office door She was red
in the face and screaming at me; “What you need is your bare
bottom paddled'” And she yelled about how difficult I was
making life for her and her wonderful son. Kenneth, who loved
kids so much, 1 never saw him w embarrassed. He kepi saying.
•’Mother Mothcrl . MOTHER I’ll take care of this ”

After the campers went home, he and Jean and I and the rest
of the stair had a conference I think Mr Smith was there too
I was rchirod. and the camp would go on as usual Mr Barnes
.and Jean and I decided to meet for an hour every day to keep
things straight .Hid clear between us Mr Barnes then esplained
hispcssition to the staff rnfortunatcly he lied about events that
the staff had been part of. so they knew he was lying .M that
time I saw him as stupid, incompetent, and bumbling, rather
than as really in tikvuble and pretty desperate

After that, camp was better than ever e had a lot of energy
from all that had happened and we felt closer than ever. But
the better things went in camp the worse they got with Mr.
Barnes Now, of course, the whole camp knew of our trouble
and I think that made it worse li>r him He only showed up for
one of the scheduled meetings with Jean and me, and in a
midweek burst he yelled. “Things are never going to get better
between you and me ”

During that week 1 also wrote a letter to the people on the
executive hoard, sharing my wish to be wiih the camp and the

I9B

The PERSOM-CENTEltED AmtOACH IN ACTION

kids for the rest of the summ«, saying 1 hoped we could put
the bad feelings of Monday behind us. and offering to talk with
any of them if they wanted to. 1 saw a cmipte of board members
that week and told them directly I would talk to them if they
thought that might be helpful. Nothing doing!'

The staff* had planned a retreat. It was a five-day camp and
we were going to spend the weekend at the cabin of the parents
of two of the staff* people. That, during the course of the fourth
week, got incredibly fouled up. Parents of the staff people would
call to talk with lean or me about the weekend, and the upstairs
people — Ken Barnes and the assistant director of the Commu-
nity House — would take the call, saying we were unavailable.
We weren't allowed our own phone, and we never even knew
these parents had called; nor did we get messages.

They would intercept the calls upstairs and say to the par-
ent.s, “This is a lerribie thing. We don’t stand behind it. The
camp doesn't have anything to do with it. There is not going
to be any adult supervision." Neither Jean nor I were marned,
so we weren't going to be adult supervisors. I guess they pic-
tured an orgy.

Welt, we went, about half of us. after 1 spent an entire after-
niKin at home, where 1 could use the phone, calling parents of
staffers and straightening things out. During that week staff
persons would go home and their parents would land on them,
saying: "You lied to me about this whole thing." Because the
parents had talked to the people in the front office. And I would
have to call the parents to get the kids out of hot water "Your
kids didn't lie to you,” I'd say. “I can't explain to you what is
going on. but this is a retreat for the people on the staff who
can and want to come, and 1 am going up there, and Jean is
going up there." Fortunately, most of the staff persons' parents
had met Jean and me and knew who we were. We were persons
to them, and I had some reality besides bang the Pied Piper or
I don’t know what.

Anyway, we went on that weekend, had a wonderful time,
and came back for the fifth week of camp. We were kicking

199

CAitt RootM ON PensoNAL Power

forward to the but half of our summer together. Monday morn-
ing t ovenkpt a bit. rather than getting to camp early as I
usually did. While 1 was rushing to get there I received a phom
call from one of the staffers. She said: “Al, you've got to get
(k>wn here right away’ There is a whole new staff iMre! They’re
telling us we can’t go near the kids and they’re herding all of
them into the tennis courts with the new staff.”

The executive board had met secretly with Mr. Barnes on
Tuesday of the fourth week of camp~the day after I was fired
the fini time~and decided to hire an entirely new staff. When
I got to camp I found our staff already there and beside them-
selves They were confused and shocked, angry, sad. and afraid.
They weren't allowed near the campers, some of whom were
crying for them. It was a mess

Twenty-five staff people were blown away. The campers were
blown away I was blown away
The executive board called me into a private meeting again
and said I was fired and would be arrested if I ever set foot on
the property again and to get the hell out of there. 1 said I would
not leave until I knew w hat was going on with the campers and
the staff people So we had a meeting with Mr Smith, the
treasurer of the executive board, Mr. Barnes, and our staff.
Smith and Barnes said: "You ail signed this petition saying that
you would not work until Alan was rehired. You've resigned
and we are just now accepting your resignations."

It was like these kids had no rights! l ike they weren't persons
worth respecting at all! I pointed out that before the whole staff
they had said they'd rehired me And they said just blatantly.
"Well, we lied about that to protect the campers "

I informed them that I was going to sue them for fraudulent
contract negotiations That blew thtm away. They said: “This
IS the end of this meeting. Wc are going to talk to our attorney "
Not to see what they were going to do; they had to talk to their
attorney to figure out what they had done They told the staf
to come back 1 uesday to find out what was decided about them.
I tiipuldn'i believe these people. They were firing iwenty-

200

ThI- PEftSON<CENT£tED AfEROACH IN ACTION

five kids becRUse they were so uptight about an open, person*
centered camp. This is a radical idea, and when people see it,
It scares the hell out of them,

Cari.: I will summanze the final part of Alan’s story, following
which, he gives some of his learnings.

The "fired” staff decided to meet frequently.

The new director couldn’t handle the camp, and she and the
whole new staff resigned after one week.

That day the whole situation burst wide open in the local
newspapers, with articles and letters on both sides.

Mr. Smith came once, and parents of staff members came
often, to the meetings of the "fired staff.” He and they began
to hear the person-centered philosophy that was being imple-
mented. They also saw that Alan "was a human being and that
these staff people were not being pulled around by my seductive
strings.”

When a meeting was called by Mr. Smith. Mr. Barnes failed
to show up. There were many indications that he was a
thoroughly frightened, insecure persoi. Mr. Smith — after some
dramatic moments of uncertainty — took the responsibility for
rehinng Alan and the original staff and reopening camp. All of
the preregistered children (and more) showed up and they had
a good last two weeks.

At AN; I think very real changes took place in a lot of people
— changes that are subtle and irreversible. People — perhaps
especially on the staff— realized, “Oh, this is how I want to live
my life.” “This is how I am.” “This is how I want to relate to
others.” ’’I have something to say about my life.”

I think a lot of us learned some things that will stay with us.
I sure did. And the people I worked with on the staff and in the
camp were just amazing to me. I think they amazed a lot of
people — including themselves — with what they could do when
they were givoi a chance.

In telling this story I’ve described the most dramatic events

201

CaKL RoOEM on PEIUONAt PoWE*

->-those easicsf to talk about. What is most important, however,
then as well as now as I took back on that very full summer,
is harder to talk about Yet the hard to talk about things are
what gave meaning to the events, and I think they are what
allowed the spontaneity, courage, and integrity of the people on
the stair to emerge

What IS difficult to describe are our feelings for each other,
the sense we shared that what we were doing was important to
us. and we were doing it fully It is hard to talk about our caring
for each other and the way we cared about the kids in camp.
We were relating to each other as whole people, trusting each
other, and sharing the energy of our lives in meaningful, honest
ways In the milieu of trust and openness we created, 1 think
we all discovered more capacities in ourselves and in each other
than wc had thought possible.

Our way of being together turned out to be pretty threatening
and, I think, well it should! I see more clearly now the political
implications of pcrson-ccnteredness. It is a far cry from the
practiced politics of most institutions and communities, even
those so close to the historic origins of our democracy as Gracc-
viile, Massachusetts. Yet the spirit of self-determination, free-
dom, and growth (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)
lives on in people like a hre wailing to be kindled with a spark
of trust, understanding, compa-ssion, or awareness.

I think the ideals of democracy are still pretty revolutionary.
To me. a person -centered approach is the embodiment of these
ideals in the immediacy of human relationships. It cannot be
reduced to a strategy or a technique. It is an attitude embodying
a respect for the integrity and worth of persons, it is a way of
seeing and relating to the world and others. It is a way of being
either lived in the present or denied, for person-centered politics
is as immediate as people and relationships. A person-centered
af^mtach provides a perspective from which it can be clearly
seen that democratic traditions and values are neither preserved
nor fostered by authontanan systems.

202

1 HF. Pkrson-Cknteiieo Appiioach in Action

Cari.: Th» has been a story of what can be seen as a relatively
insignificant “tempest in a day camp." but which can also be
seen as a microscopic example of arbitrary and impersonal
power versus a group of powerless individuals who have tasted
the heady experience of responsible freedom.

By a chance incident (the departure of the previous director
and his replacement by Mr. Barnes) this experience of the day
camp was turned into a clearcut and classic social experiment.
A person-centered enterprise was introduced, full blown, into
a conventionally organized enterprise. The person-centered ap-
proach being revolutionary in the extreme, the two systems
absolutely could not coexist, and the quiet (or not so quiet)
revolution was inevitable.

There are two contra.sting ways of utilizing power. In his
dealings with the staff and the children, Alan trusted them, had
no desire to control or manipulate them, shared responsibility
completely His primary question was, “How do you want our
camp to be?" He was met with initial disbelief and distrust.
These attitudes rapidly changed to mutual trust, openness,
sharing, excitement, creative and self- responsible actions. Co-
operation replaced competition. Self-discipline took the place of
external discipline Each person — camper or staff — experienced
and freely utilized his own power.

Then comes the authoritative mode of power. Up to the point
wheie Alan was called in to the board meeting and summarily
dismissed, there was no “oppression” of anyone, in spite of the
emerging realiz.ation of enormous differences in "political" be-
liefs. But the firing represents the exercise of arbitrary imper-
sonal power, with no attempt to investigate, to uncover the facts
— simply a surgical operation to eliminate a disturbing pres-
ence.

Alan tells of the smarting hurt, the feeling of being “blown
away," exterminated, by the injustice of the action. It gives us
a tiny view of the destruction of seif that has been felt by
hundreds of thousands of persons who have been the object of
the crushing force of impersonal, arbitrary, blind power. The

203

Ca«l Room ON Pessonal Powek

fiM:t that in thit imtanoe — and probably many others — the
power was winded tqr ooutandini^y well intentiooed pwph,
makes it ail the more striking. The politics of power and control
can be devastating, even when exercised by those who are only
trying to protect and care for the young.

The reaction of the adolescent stalT and the still younger
campers to the first linng and to the succeeding and escalating
events deserves close attention. The reaction to arbitrary au-
thority by persons who have experienced the excitement and
responsibility of freedom is entirely predictable, though always
astonishing. Leadership, creativity, imagination spring up
everywhere as individuals resist this encroachment on their
nghts as persons. This is true even though in this case they had
experienced responsible freedom for only a few weeks, and
probably had never experienced anything quite like it before in
home, school, or community. The energy that is released seems
boundless.

It should be clearly recognized that without Mr. Smith, or
even with him. the story could have had a very different ending
Here the outcome is supportive of the persons who wanted to
be responsible for their own actions, but it could easily have
turned out in a completely different way. As has been stressed
before, to be person-centered in your behavior, in any system,
involves risk.

But the major lesson 1 glean from all this is that the powerless
have power. Though things might have turned out badly for
Alan, the staff, and the campers, they found and used a power
they did not know they had. Afto- the firing of Alan, they
learned that even in a situaticm in which officially they had no
voice, no control, no authority, by acting on what they believed
in and by accepting and demanding the recognition of them-
selves as responsive free persons, they were able to have a
mqjor impact. They were able to affect the circumstances of
their mvn lives and the lives of othrn. This is a clue to the
polittcs the powerless.

204

ChQpt^^ i

10 !

Without

jeQlou6y?

i I

Fred and Trish endeavored to make their marriage a relation-
ship in which primary value is placed on each of them as
persons. They have tried to share in decision-making, the
desires of each having equal weight. Each seems to have av-
oided, to an unusual degree, any need to possess or control the
other. They have developed a partnership in which their lives
are both separate and together. They have each developed rela-
tionships outside of marriage, and these intimate interactions
have often been sexual in nature. They have communicated
openly about these relationships and appear to have accepted
them as a natural and rewarding part of their individual lives
and of their marriage. They like their life-style. Theirs is a
mamage both person-centered and far from conventional.

In spite of their openness with each other, communication
failed them at a crucial point, and a trauma occurred, which
had no obvious connection with their outside relationships. The
marriage still continues to be a close one, and still involves
outside lovers. This serious flaw, in their lives and in their
communication, makes their history even more provocative.

What a partnership is based on growing, evolving choice,
when its interpersonal politics is free of a desire to control, it
develops in a unique, idiosynaatic way. It shows that when two

205

Caiii Roceu ON Personal Power

people are qpeniy and freely endeavonng to be themselves,
highly individual patterns emerge. It is not a model, it cannot
be txipted. but provides much food for thought.

Des|Mle their cxtramanial relationships, there was very little
jealousy The fact that the grecn'cyed monster is missing high-
lights the whole issue of jealousy more sharply than if he were
present.

In the autumn of 1973 I received a long letter from a young
husband, a graduate student in a Bay Area university, telling
of the unusual marrtage in which he and his wife were involved.
Although It was highly articulate, it was written entirely by him
and I wished I knew the wife's reactions Frankly, the account
seemed to me tcxi giKxl to be true.

Three years later I was fortunate in obtaining further infor-
mation from them and visited them in their community for an
interview of several hours

in appearance, dress, and manner Fred and Trish arc not
markedly different from other couples their age. They are at-
tractive. the husband somewhat slender, his wife more on the
plump side. They dress informally and arc quiet in their speech
and respectful of each other in conversation. They seem de-
voted to each other. They do not m any way stand out as
"different "

They are a couple with broad, rich interests outside their
relationship, and these outside interests are decidedly separate,
with only a partial overlap. Trish enjoys ouidmirs activities;
F'red's tnteresis are more aesthetic, and he hopes to devote more
lime to them as soon as he gets his coveted doctorate. In short
they are creative, multifaceted individuals. Here is Fred's first
letter.

Fri,i>; I am writing in response to your book Becoming Fort-
ners. We fell you were itxi pessimistic about a person's ability
to overcome possessiveness and jealousy. Our own experience
proves that jealousy is not inherent. We hope that writing this
letter will help us — that the process of out having to articulate

206

The PFRsaN*CENTEiii-o Aptkoach in Action

how we see our relationship will better define our feelings to-
ward it. We hope it will also help you in your study.

I am twenty-five years old and Trish is twenty-four. We've
been marned three years. We graduated from college and have
lived here six years. Tm in my third year of graduate study in
[a technical field] and hope to teach upon completion of my
Ph.D. Trish is a registered nurse and works m the local hospi-
tal.

When we were first married we both felt that our marriage
was ideal. At that time we still viewed marriage as a "stale”
rather than a "process.” We both felt some misgiving-s. how-
ever, over what appeared to be the inviolable siKial law that
marital happiness would decline with the passage of lime. This
feeling was the natural result of the increasing frustration m
marriage which wa.s all around us. However, our relationship
did seem different from others in that we could communicate
with each other. Because of this we talked about Irish being
intimate with one of my college friends. At that lime it was
possible for me to conuder such a ihmg without getting jealous.
The reasons are many. 1 have always been a secure person. My
parents were supportive and loving. As a result I've never felt
threatened by other people. My marriage was very healthy,
with no areas of unresolved frustration. Through our communi-
cation we were able to maintain constant coiitact/feedback
with each other and resolve conflicts as they arose. Our rela-
tionship IS a source of great jov and our point of reference and
security in our dealings with the outside world We've had a
satisfying sexual relationsfup both before and during the mar-
riage Sex IS a great source of emotionally satisfying intimacy
and sharing. In this context you can see why, theoretically at
lea.st, we didn't feel insecure like many of the couples in your
book. 1 had no real rca.son to feel that Trish was rejecting me
either sexually or as a person.

I feel I've understood Trish from early m our relationship
and accepted her needs as a person. 1 was attracted to her in
the first place because she is a physically oriented person—

207

Caul Rockiu on Reasonai. Rowe*

ittermlly a wmuous wcmtan. She communicatea her feeling of
concern and love for other persons by physically touching
them. Since I too am physically demonstrative this contributes
to our compatibility. But the fact that I recognized and loved
this trait in Trish w&s very important It would have been
unreasonable to demand that she have these feelings only when
around me and not others. I would have had to deny something
in the Trish 1 loved. Alvi the fact that I loved and cared for my
fnends enabled me to sec why she could love them also. The
mam difference was that she could love them sexually, while it
was not culturally possible for me to do this.

I have been emphasizing the theoretical nature of our discus-
sions. The opportunity to actualize them never arose during the
first two years of our marriage due to the shyness of my friends
and our own emotional uncertainty

Early in our marriage it was difficult for Trish to accept the
idea of me having sexuul relations oulside marriage. We dis-
cussed this and da'ided that her povsessivcncss came from her
lack of confidence in herself as a unique and valuable person.
In her upbringing she was iu>l accepted for herself nor was she
told that she was attractive. There was a restrictive religious
atmosphere and she was expected to live according to an exter-
nally imposed moral code

These circumstances made her unsure of herself. She viewed
a hypothetical sexual relation by me outside of marriage as a
threat to her security At that time she still felt that a wife
should be able to fulfill all of her husband's needs. If I desired
extramarital sex it could only mean that she had failed some-
where.

This ail'began lo change with a period of new growth for our
relationship about a year ago I was in my second year of
graduate study and Tnsh became interested in one of m> new
fnends. I agreed in pnnciplc that it would be okay for her to
have sex with him if that situation ever arose. The emotional
results could only be guessed at. but we decided to forge ahead.
With open communication and honesty at each point, we bn^e

m

Thf PfrsoN'Cf.nteiiko Approach in Action

new emcHional ground. The going was not always easy. I hgd
to reassure my fnend that this new dimension would not jeopat-
due our friendship. As we proceeded we gained more confi-
dence. Soon there were unexpected benefits. Trish began to
discover herself as a person. She was forced to relate to this
fnend as an individual rather than falling back into her com-
fiirtable role as my wife. She became aggressive toward life and
this new altitude spilled over into our marriage. Her sexual
behavior was danng and experimental. We discovered to our
delight that our marriage was better than ever.

It was chronologically important to the evolution of our
relationship that Tnsh have this expenencc first. She saw that
loving more people than your spouse doesn't decrease the love
in marnage. In fact, her outside expenences have increased her
love and intimacy with me. With the benefit of this experience
It was possible for her to accept my subsequent involvement
wuh other women Our relationship has grown to the point that
we actively encourage each other to seek out other relationships
because of the beneficial effects it has on us individually and
together When she has a gtxxl time with another man and
joyously relates that to me, I share and benefit vicartousiy I
also benefit directly by having a more interesting, exciting, and
self-fulfilled spouse In this way the energy and growth of the
outside involvements are fed into the marriage, keeping it grow-
ing and alive.

It IS on the basis of this past and ongoing experience that we
disagree with the contention that jealousy might have a basic
biological foundation. Our only difficulty has come in trying to
find time to devote to outside relationships A few hurl feelings
have resulted when one of us has wanted to be with the other
partner despite some outside engagement In nearly ail cases,
we were able through honest expressiott of our feelings to distin-
guish in.stances of petty unreasonableness from a real emolionai
need in the other partner. Both of us strongly believe that the
spouse must come first when they are experiencing a genuine
"emotional down" period. In these instances we would always

209

C«iii Roo£its ON Personal Power

give etnoiionai support to CRch otho’, eltminating Roy real con-
flict.

The most successful “estended" relationships we have ex-
perienced have been with other couples. It is possible for all four
persons to relate umulianeously. either as a foursome or as two
separate sets. No conflicts were encountered and a greater sense
of parity was achieved by all. Also, having individual relation-
ships with members of another couple made it possible to ex-
tend our synergistic interaction with that couple. In other
word.H my relationship with the wife made it possible for me to
more intimately relate to the hu-sband and vice versa Since it
IS our desire to establish deep, meaningful and multidimen-
sional rrlalmns with other people this four-way interaction has
proved very rewarding It is essential, however, that the other
couple have a healthy and open relationship with each other in
order for this process to work.

I hope I’ve given you an insight into our relationship as we
see It and feel about it The open and honest repoits from the
couples in ytiur btxik have given me considerable motivation.
It IS not always easy to be candid about oneself However the
warmth and simple ‘’gcKid vibrations” that you show toward
the couples in your book made Trish remark. “Let's write to
Carl Rogers about our own relationship!” I hope it will be of
benefit ut you

Cahi In iU7b I wrote to this couple ”1 would like very much
to know what has happened in the nearly three years since you
wrote me, Whether the news is gixxl or bad, whatever your own
relationship is, or your relationship with outside individuals, I
would really like very much to hear from you. The one special
request 1 would make this lime is that i hope you, Tnsh, will
put down your roiciions to the situation in your own terms.
Fred gave a very articulate account of your development as a
couple and your various relationships, but I should like to get
your perspective too. directly in your own words if you are
willing." After some months Fred replied:

210

The PERsoN>CENTEReo AmtoACH IN Action

Fred: Since our rehtionship has spanned many years* time, as
welt as ranged through ^h tragic and ecstatic periods, we
hope that it will serve as a learning ground for others. To us it's
been an intensely human experience full of growth — we hope
we can convey it in that way to you. Our response will be in
veveral parts; A description of ourselves and the relationships
we're involved in; an account of a very bad penod in my life;
Trish’s reactions to our relationships; my individual reactions
10 Trish, and the way we as joint partners see our partnership
and the way ^e feet about it. Since first writing you. much has
happened. In countless ways we have been changed by the
experiences we've had in the last three years. New altitudes,
fragile and untested when we first corresponded, have now
become solidified and strong. Our feelings about the new. ex-
panded directions in our relationship arc still gixxl. We are glad
about the choices we've made. We're both happy about our
partnership and very much in love.

frush's outside relationship lasted two years. She gained in
terms of close companionship, intellectual stimulation, sexual
involvement, and emotional growth. When the relationship
ended, the emotional toll was heavy. The man was a college
fnend of mine He got involved with another girl and things fell
apart His new girl friend was possessive and couldn't share him
with Trish Tnsh felt emotionally rejected and refused to get
involved with anyone else for six months. Gradually she began
seeing other people again

My own outside relationship is still going on. Janet is in her
early forties, has been marned for twenty years and has two
children in high school. Janet and I met in a sense through
Tnsh. Janet's hu.sband is a local dentist and Tnsh had an ap-
pointment with him. They became interested in each other and
eventually Tnsh told him about our open relationship. He said
he'd like the same arrangement with his wife, and he invited us
both over to meet Janet. I was immediately attracted to her and
We soon had a strong, intense involvement. She's older and has
a family to look after, but nothing interfered with the develop-

Carl Roolrs on Personal Power

ment of our relationship. Her marvelous, free-flowing personal-
ity and childlike openness, cunosity. and enthusiasm for life
make me fMl like the older one.

The relationship between Janet's husband and Tnsh dimin-
ished to a casual friendship and they have only occasional
contact now. My involvement with Janet has only increased
with lime. She has opened up whole new avenues of life previ-
ously closed to me. Having her family as well as herself to relate
to has given me a broad and nch source of contacts/vahdations.
There’s been sorrow, i(xi. Five months after we became in-
volved. she fell ill She has a rare, incurable disease, usually not
fatal. There are periodic attacks which cause great pain. I've
spent some agonizingly difficult hours w iih her when she's been
in excruciating pain and under drugs while I did what I could
to comfort her. Despite all this, she and 1 IcHik at our relation-
ship as very worthwhile and rewarding.

Tnsh and Janet have become close friends and confidantes
over the last three years. They share their good times and bad
limes With each other. During periods when either Janet's hus-
band or 1 were down emotionally, they have given each other
supptrri They are both remarkably open and loving people, free
of jealousy

Now for the current state of our relationship; it involves four
people — Tnsh, myself. Janet, and a new person. His name is
Clifford, nicknamed Chip, and he is thirty-eight years old and
single.

Tnsh met Chip a year ago and found him a sensitive, strong,
caring person. Tnsh has similar characteristics which make
them very compatible. I look upon Chip as a member of the
family; I too am compatible with him. He spends much time
with us at our house, but since he has a place of his own he
doesn't live full time with us. Next to Tnsh, who is my best
fnend. Janet is my best female fnend and Chip is easily my best
male fnend. 1 can tell him anything. And there is nothing 1
wouldn’t do for him.

212

THt Pr RSON-CENTtHEO APPROACH IN ACTION

There is an equal amount of involvement between Trish,
Chip, and myself. While our relationship would be triangular
or triad in nature, we wouldn’t call our arrangement or living
communal since Chip doesn't live exclusively at our house.
Also the primary mode of interaction between us is still based
on the one-to-one, person-to-person, model. Added to these
relationships would be my relationship to Janet.

There is a secondary relationship between Janets husband,
family and myself On many occasions the three of us. or the
four of us— Trish, Janet, Chip, and 1 — will go out to dinner or
have some other joint activity. 1 should point out that the sexual
expressions which arise in our relationships are on a one-to-one
Icsel. and are heterosexual.

There are tremendous advantages for growth, support, and
community in our present relationships. If one of us gets de-
pressed, there are three others to give him support. Also the
potential sources for validation arc tripled — a significant emo-
tional benefit in expanded partnerships.

C-SKi . In the interview with Fred and Trish, I clarified some
things that had puzzled me in Fred's description. I wondered
how he handled his relationship with Janet when she had ado-
lescent children at home. He said that they get together at his
house, and on these occasions Tnsh usually went over to Chip's
home “if we want to see each other in a totally alone time"
Sometimes, however, Fred goes to Janet's house.

Janet’s visits to their home are known to her children, and
It is not unusual for one of them to call Janet there about
vimething, while the next call may be from Janet's son asking
Fred's advice about some electronic equipment. The children
obviously feel the closeness of the two homes

I asked about the attitude of Joe, Janet's husband He has
another relationship himself with a single woman— “He’s not
sitting at home. It's a balanced situation. Like us, they’re very
open with each other about this relationship.” This woman is

213

CARI ROGI.RS (W Pl.RM)NAl POWI.R

not. however, clotely interme&hed in the foursome of Fred.
Tnsh. Janet, and Chip, although they all know and like her. She
IS a part, but not such a close part, of the large extended family
that has been created

1 wondered if the children of Janet and Joe were aware of the
various sexual involvements. Trish said they were not aware;
Janet and Joe had chosen to keep it that way. The children are
accustomed to the fact that their parents lead separate lives, arc
often away, and they are accustomed “to seeing lots of physical
contact" between the various members of the group. Since the
children are adolescent, I wondered about their lack of aware-
ness. Both Fred and Tnsh thought they probably knew of their
parents' sexual involvements and would accept these if they
were discussed. "They know there's no danger their parents will
break up," and this is their security. "It’s never a secret that
Janet comes to our house, or that Fred and Janet go on hiking
trips together "

Here is Fred's account of a disaster in his life

Fki I) 1 should tell something of painful and insecure times
as well. I,asl year, we all went through a traumatic event 1
realize now I'd set myself up for this emotional crisis While
I'm accepting and free with others. I'm terribly demanding
of myself As a graduate student I always had to be the best
and the fastest and I'd set impos.sible deadlines for myself.
Somehow I linked my sense of personal well-being to the
achievement of these external goals and I became depressed
when nothing happened on schedule. Last summer I took
my Ph.D. candidacy examination under great emotional
stress. My parents were separating, my grandmother was fa-
tally ill. Chip lost his job. my favorite pet died To make
matters worse, my exam had to be taken early, leaving me
cmly five days to prepare.

I passed it Emotionally, however. 1 felt unfinished, as if I'd
somehow manipulated the committee into passing me. 1 was
filled with guilt. I looked at my four years of research and it

214

The PutSON-CENTEEEO AmtOACH IN ACTION

seemed worthless. Could i ever finish my thesis in this state?
Then 1 became depressed over the fear 1 might the dq^ree
but no job. The state of the world was pretty gnm, too, and that
only further saddened me. Everything in my environment
seemed depressing. Four weeks later my grandmother died.
Tnsh and 1 went to the funeral and stayed at my parents* house.
Somehow I managed to hide my hopeless depression. Back
home. I received notice that I was to present my research at a
national meeting. Panic and emotional paralysis ensued

I was in an acute depression. 1 have never in my life ex-
perienced myself as 1 did then. I was totally unable to function
physically or emotionally. The only escape seemed to be death.
I waited until 1 knew Trish would be gone for twenty-four
hours. Then I took massive overdoses of two drugs.

How 1 survived i don't know, but something kept my heart
beating and my respiration functioning for those twenty-four
hours. Tnsh and Chip found me and rushed me to the hospital.
The doctors couldn't revive me and I was unconscious in an
intensive-care unit for seven days. Trish was with me when,
over eight days after my overdose. I regained consciousness. I
slowly began making my recovery, until one month later tests
showed that there was fortunately no detectable mental or
physical damage.

Many of our fnends. upon hearing of my suicide attempt,
naturally assumed that the rea.son was our unconventional rela-
tionship. I can clearly say that this absolutely was not the case.
To the contrary, it was the constant support ofTrish, Janet, and
Chip which kept me going despite the sclf-impos«l pressure I
lived under. Trish, Chip, and Janet were the first ones I wanted
to see when I regained consciousness.

My altered perception of myself and my world during that
penod of deep depres.sion did affect my feelings toward our
relationship. 1 became insecure and defensive; I felt threatenexJ
by Chip; 1 fell threatened by Trish. Janet, my university col-
leagues, and everyone ebe I came into contact with. I feel now
that my temporary insecurity about our relationship then was

215

Car I Roc>t.((s on PiRsoNAi Powt.R

(imply a reflection of my total insecurity about myself as a
person

Here is the suicide note I left for Trish “I just want you to
know that this is something Tm doing totally on my own. It has
nothing to do with our chtwicn iife'.style. You always have been
the best matc<'p4rtner/fricnd and you continue to be even at
this moment. Don't let the .stresses of society and friends or
parents who don't understand what great things we’ve achieved
ihrmighout our relationship wear you down — hang in there.

"Setting yourself up to be an achiever or someone that every-
one perceives as always together is a dangerous proposition
You begin to believe that you arc capable of anything The
coming down is very hard.

"My greatest fear is hurting those around me I don't want
them to think that they, through something which they did. or
in vime way which they acted, have contributed to where I am
at now

"My greatest concern, of course, is with you. Irish With you
Tve achieved or shared my highest moments You've seen me
at my hc^st I want you to remember us in that way

"I love you Keep light with your friends, L*spccially Chip
Please reassure my friends, especially Janet, that they have not
contributed to iny state."

It was a horrible interlude in my life, but there were positive
cITects ttx>. I feel much belter about myself as a total person-
more cmpalhic with others in distress My view of my research
was distorted during my depression. At a recent national meet-
ing the reception toward my work was positive and encourag-
ing 1'he trauma we all went through has for me cemented my
bonds to those three people in my relationship. I feel closer to
them all now than ever before.

Cari ; The first of my many questions about this near-fatal
episiKie had to do with Fred's fantastically high expectations for
himself. They had not come from his family, who had not even
urged him to attend college. In seven years of university and

THf. PmSON-CFNTI-RyO AWIOACH IN ACTION

gr«luate school, the atmosphere of competition with peers, and
his recognition of professional and societal demands and expec*
tations, built up the pressure. "Subtle things made me focused
on this very high goal When you’ve done well, there’s no place
to go but up. But when I w as knocked off of that plateau, it was
shattering."

Why hadn't he let Tnsh know the depth of his depression?
When communication was so open between them, why did he
hide his deeply disturbed feelings? Fred said. "I felt guilty that
1 was depressed Part of me knew this was silly. I fell I had to
overcome it myself. During the week I thought of suicide. I was
ashamed to speak of it. It .seemed incredible It seemed as
though someone else was feeling this. Yes. I have a hard tune
calling for help." Irish joined in, "Always! He won't even take
an aspirin for a headache. He thinks he has to lick it by him-
self."

Fred continued, "I had a real fear of psychiainc institutional-
iration. I was afraid that if I told what I was feeling they’d put
me in a locked-up place." Irish says, "I knew he was depressed
I couldn't get him to see a psychiatrist. But it was a shiK'k to
me. I’m a nurse, and I missed all the classical signs. I guess he
didn’t talk because he was afraid they'd take him away and lock
him up for life." Fred adds. “I hated that part of me. It was
horrible I didn’t want to let it out."

Fred had to give up on his first thesis and now is writing one
that Will be less than world-shaking. "I’ve shattered my illu-
sions, and I accept me as a person that can fail. Irish, Janet,
and my other friends have helped me a lot ’’

Here is Tnsh's perception of their relationship and of this
ensis:

iRtSH: I can’t say what the future will bring. I’ve been throuj^
so many changes in the past year— -from ecstasy to terror— that
now 1 try to accept each day as it comes. But I feel very good
about my present life-style. I cannot imagine myself living a
closed, posse^ve, and jealous existence. I have the freedom to

217

CaRI ROOI'.RS on Pt RSONAI POWf-R

»impiy a reflection of my total insecunty about mysdf as a
person.

Here o the suicide note I left for Trish "I just want you to
know that this is something I'm doing totally on my own. It ha.s
nothing to do with our chosen life-style You always have been
the best male/partncr/friend and you continue to be even at
this moment. Don't let the stresses of society and friends or
parent N who don't understand what great things we'sc achieved
throughout our relationship wear you down — hang in there.

"Setting yourself up to be an achiever or someone that every-
one perceives as always together is a dangerous proposition.
You begin to believe that you are capable of anything. The
coming down is very hard

"My greatest fear is hurting those around me 1 don't want
them to think that they, through something which they did <>r
in some way which they acted, have contributed to where I urn
at now

"My greatest concern, of course, is with you, Irish With you
I've achieved or shared my highest moments. You've seen me
at my best I want you to remember us in th,u way

"I love you. Keep tight with your friends, especially Chip.
Please reassure my friends, especially Janet, that they have not
contnhuted to my state,"

It was a horrible interlude in my life, but there were positive
effects t(M) I feel much better about myself as a total person—
muic empathic with others in distress. My view of my research
was distorted during my depression. At a recent national meet-
ing the reception toward my work was positive and encourag-
ing. The trauma wc alt went through has for me cemented my
bonds to those three people in my relationship. I feel closer to
them all now than ever before

CaRI : The flrsi of my many questions about this near-fatal
episode had to do with Fred's fantastically high expectations for
himself. They had not come from his family, who had not even
urged him to attend college. In seven years of university and

216

Thf Pfrson-Cfntfiic:o Apfko^ch in Action

graduate school, the atmosphere of competition with peers, and
his recognition of professional and societal demands and expec*
tations. built up the pressure. ’*Subtle things made me fiKUsed
on this very high goal. When you've done well, there's no place
to go but up. But when I was kncK’ked off of that plateau, it was
shattering."

Why hadn't he let Tnsh know the depth d" his depression?
When communication was so open between them, why did he
hide his deeply disturbed feelings? Fred said. "1 felt guilty that
I was depressed. Part of me knew this was silly. I felt I had to
overcome it myself. During the week I thought of suicide. I was
ashamed to speak of it. It seemed incredible It seemed as
though someone else was feeling this. Yes, I have a hard time
calling for help.” Trish joined in, “Always! He won’t even lake
an aspirin for a headache He thinks he has to lick it by him-
self"

Fred continued, "I had a real fear of psychiatric institutional-
i/ation. I was afraid that if I told what I was feeling they'd put
me in a liKked-up place." Trish says, “I knew he was depressed.
I couldn't gel him to see a psychiatrist. But it was a shock to
me I'm a nurse, and I missed all the classical signs. I guess he
didn't talk because he was afraid they'd take him away and lock
him up for life.” Fred adds. “I hatol that part of me. It was
horrible. I didn't want to let it out "

Fred had to give up on his first thesis and now is wnting one
that will be less than world-shaking. “I’ve shattered my illu-
sions. and I accept me as a person that can fail. Trish. Janet,
and my other friends have helped me a lot.”

Here is Trish's perception of their relationship and of this
crisis.

Trish; I can't say what the future will bring. I've been through
so many changes in the past year — from ecstasy to terror — that
now I try to aedept each day as it comes. But I feet very good
about my present life-style. I cannot imagine myself living a
closed, possessive, and j^ous existence. I have the freedom to

21

Cakl Rogsrs on Personai. Power

be me; to explore the many facets of my personality with many
people without fear of ‘*being caught" or criticiz^.

1 am now seeing a change among some couples where the
wife has gone back to school or is involved in some other
activities outside the relationship. The general impression is
(hat the husband has allowed the wife these "privileges.” Fred
and I don't speak of privileges. Rather, we encourage each
other to explore new ideas, activities, or feelings; not only with
each other but with others as well.

The last three and a half years have been growing, changing
years for me. I've learned a lot about myself, met many new
pet^le and enjoyed myself immensely. I don't think I would
have had these experiences in any other than an open-ended
relationship.

How can I explain to you where 1 am nght now? It's very
difficult for me. I am in love with two men I care about them
very much. I am married to one^ — Fred — and we have been
close for many years Chip and I have developed a very close
relationship also. Lucky for me they both love me too!

Fred and I have weathered some heavy stress this past year.
I'm still feeling the effects. We are still close and communicate
freely and openly. But as a result of the depression and suicide
attempt nearly a year ago and the manic episode a few months
ago. I’m afraid of what the next day will bring. I try to live each
day as it comes, but it's herd. It's getting better each day.
though. Fred has given me support and not pushed me to act
in any particular way. At first I wanted to run; I was scared.
But I realized that I didnTwant to give up that easily. Fred and
I have worked hard to make our relationship work; there is too
much love between us to run when the going gets rough. I am
very optimistic about our future.

Now. about Chip. The longer I’ve known him the more
iflaportant he's become to me. He’s gentle, loving, caring— and
a realist where I’m a total idealist. We balance each other
somewhat. I urge him to be less cynical and he encourages me
to be more real»tic about the wtu-ld vound me.

218

The PEits(m<CENTEiiEO AmtOACH m Action

When Fred was sick. Chip gave me suf^rt and love. I'm n<M
sure 1 could have gone through that ordeal without him. Aside
from all the love between us. I've learned a great deal from him.
He shares hts past as well as present life with me; both the sad
and happy tiroes.

Our present state is just as Fred described. We each have a
relationship in addition to our own. I differ from Fred only in
that I feel I have two primary relationships: one with Fred and
one with Chip. They are both important to me. The most
amazing thing is that the three of us care so much for each
other. Three years ago I wouldn't have believoi this possible yet
here we arc — I am so happy.

On Thanksgiving last year. Janet and Joe. her husband, in-
vited Fred, Chip, and me to their home for Thanksgiving din-
ner. It was a warm, beautiful day; happiness among us all —
including Janet and Joe's kids — was just as warm and beautiful,
ii makes me glad to be alive to know that people can be this
happy, relating freely without jealousy and possessiveness.

Cari. Trish's mention of a "manic episode" surprised me.
l^ter, they explained that Fred had bKn helped by lithium
after his suicide attempt. The dosage had to be carefully moni-
tored medically. Things went so smoothly he neglected to take
It. Then several months after the crisis, he went to Chicago to
give a paper on his research. He got caught up in the excitement
of the conference, couldn't sleep, got manic, developed delu-
sions. and finally checked into the hospital. Trish found him “so
hyper he had to be drugged to get him on the plane."

Trish speaks of “the real trauma” of the suicide attempt,
and the eight days of unconsciousness. “Nothing else mat-
tered to me for two weeks.” As to her reaction, “I imme-
diately felt guilt. What had 1 done? Or not done? Now I
realize that I just did my best. But there are painful spots
like that. Janet wondered, too, 'What didn’t 1 do?' Fred's
folks fdt guilty. 'What did we do to him while he was a
boyT" Fred adds, “Lots of peo|:4e thought our life-style

219

CaKI R(X*f.KSOtM Pl-RSONAl PoWfcR

was of a>urse the cause of ii all. I didn't fed that way.”

Trish spoke of another reason why she was vulnerable to
guilt feelings at this time. ”1 was really getting involved with
Chip. At such a time you spend a lot of tune together, exploring
each other— your feelings and reactions, your past and present,
and we were just at that stage. So of course I wondered if that
had something to do with Fred's attempt. It's awful to come
home and find your husband sprawled on the carpel."

The manic episode was a further shock to Trish. ”1 have to
be honest. I’m going to be hxiking. 1 missed the signs twice. So
I phone him to ask, ‘How are you”* What are you doing?' and
I make sure he's taking his medicine. It's going to take me a lot
of lime to get over ii '' Fred says, "I realirc where she is I don't
object to her phoning to find out how I am " It was clear that
Tnsh has been deeply shaken hy these experiences, and that
Fred recognizes her fears as only natural They both sec that
It was a very positive step for Fred to realize, m Chicago, that
he wa% sick, and to go to a hospital for help. Still. Tnsh's fears
persist, and she finds herself thinking of him as a patient, as well
as relating to him as her husband. She doesn't like this in
herself, but she can’t help it

When I received F'red’s first letter, three years ago, it seemed
clear that Trish was involved in outside relationships because
Fred wanted bvuh of them to. I had wondered whether she was
now really involved as a person, on her own initiative, in this
life-style. Both her letter and the interview left me in no doubt
on this point. Though she might have had her first experiences
because of Fred, she now enjoys and finds support in these
outside relationships, and is happy that they have this openness
in their marriage. It was also my impression that up until this
past year her outside loves had for her deepened and enriched
the marriage. Now, with Fred’s attempt to take his life, and her
increasingly close and deep love for Chip, her relationship with
Fred seemed to me to have perceptibly changed, though her
devotion to her husband was also evident.

220

TMR PEUSQN-CENTEIIEO AmtOACH IN ACTION

Fred: 1 would like to share some of my own personal feelings
about Trish and ho- telaiionship to me. I have known her
mtimateiy now for almost ten years. As the primary person I've
loved during those years I've seen some remarkable and beauti*
ful changes come over her. In that lime I feel she has steadily
grown toward a fuller expression of her own unique person-
hood. Every day she is exhibiting more of the qualities of the
person she has the potential to be. She is a very impressive
person; strong, sensitive, capable, a fun-loving child, potent,
unsure, powerful, loving, giving. She is someone of great confi-
dence and autonomy. And yet she is related and involved with
the people she loves in a very committed, canng way. While
most of these qualities were always within her. I feel that .some
were latent and unexpressed when we first met. It's my belief
that the open, facilitative environment of our partnership al-
lowed her to grow into the person she has become.

Another key ingredient has been our commitment to total
communication. We felt that we must be able to share the most
intimate, painful, or insecure feelings just as freely as we could
express the tender, loving, and joyful feelings. As we learned to
do this we were able to communicate the growth and develop-
ment each of us experienced separately as individuals into the
expenence of our relationship together. In this way I feel we
have minimized the possibility of ather of us outgrowing the
other in our partnership.

Carl: Fred’s loving devotion to Tnsh has been evident in
everything he has written about them, and it was clear in the
interview. When he speaks about “our commitment to total
communication'' he is obviously overlooking his failure to tell
her of his depressed feelings. As I drew them out on this, it
came clearer to me that thar commitment to total communica-
tion was seen as having to do with everything about their own
relationship, or their relationships with others. Fred certainly
had not seen that cmnmuiucation of his own deqiest private
feelings was even more relevant to their partnership than

221

CaRI. R€)G(.RS on Pf.RS<mAl. POWI^R

communication about some new attachment he might form.

One other point that stood out in the interview was Fred's
total dedication to his work.. It was customary for him to spend
several nights a week at the lab — in addition to his days —
working on his research until one or two in the morning. He
seems almost as much wedded to his research as to Tnsh or
Janet. Tnsh summed this up succinctly in a statement that
sheds light not only on her relationship to Fred but to Janet as
well. "He's working so hard that both Janet and I are beginning
to object to these one-night stands." Chip frequently comes
over when Fred is working so late, and this has eased her
loneliness. Roih Tnsh and Janet look forward to the time when
Fred will be finished with his doctorate and can live a normal
life

Trish's love for Fred is very clear. Yet she makes it plain that
for her there are iwu primary loves. Fred and Chip. Alsu as she
makes evident in her statement her love is currently suffused
with fear and ansiety about Fred's psychological processes.

Fred and Tnsh arc not swingers, and they never feel they
must engage in a sexual encounter. "Sexual relations with oth-
ers evolve fr(>m our natural feeling of love, concern and involve-
ment. We value relationships outside marriage as they develop
naturally with integrated, holistic persons whose physical feel-
ings are arrayed in a continuous spectrum from the simplest
touching to sexual intercourse. The growth which we have
encouraged each other to experience has been continuously
infused back into our partnership, keeping it strong and alive
— a process rather than a fixed entity."

This idealistic description was borne out in our interview.
Tnsh said. "People ask me. ‘Do you recommend this for every-
one?' and I say, 'Certainly not!' " It has not always been easy,
but they like it.

1 asked. "If you could start a program of family or marital
education for high school or coi^e students, what would you
wuit to stress?" Fred said he would want to expose them to
many life-styles. He would also want them to recognize that

222

iMt PEB'SON-CtNtniRO AM^ROACH IN ACTION

many things we assume are simply not true — that being jealous
of your mate proves love, for example, or that if your spouse
can't fill all your needs, there's something wrong with your
marriage.

Trish said, “I'd want them always to keep an open mind.
When I was in high school, there was always just one way to
feel about a thing. I'd want them to observe different couples
and see how they are working things out.''

They described the uncertainty they felt in the early years.
“Are we doing the right thing?" "Is monogamy better?" “Do
we know what we are doing, taking these risks?* They felt they
were on untrodden ground, “but now we feel we’ve chosen the
path for us."

Their life has narrowed down in that the number of outside
relationships is smaller than when they first wrote me. Fred and
Trish came to reaiire that depth and involvement were what
they wanted in a relationship, and these qualities can he
achieved only in a few instances. Tnsh said, "I have two deep
relationships now. and that's all I can handle."

I had thought they might speak about the possibility of a
family, but since they had not. I said, "What about children?”
Their answers revealed some fresh issues in their life-style. Fred
said, "We're really not sure.” Trish explained "At first we were
sure we didn't want children — with Fred in grad school and me
working. We were perfectly happy the way we were. Selfish,
perhaps, but we were just not willing to give up that amount
of time. But now I’m beginning to have little things tug at me,
saying that, yes, having children would be a nice thing." Fred
commented that he would like to have children and to see a
child, a person, develop and grow. Both of them are well aware
that children constitute a very long term commitment, and are
astonished at young people w'ho think a child will only change
their lives for a few years.

But they have special problems. Tri.sh said, "1 have two
permanent relationships, and a child would have two fathers.
I'd have to work that out."

223

CaRI RfXilRS ON Pt’.RSONAl POWER

Then they both commented on the pri^lem a child would
create with their parents, since their life-Myle could then hardly
be concealed from them “We would have to deal with our
parents Fred's mother probably realizes how we live, though
we haven't discussed it openly with her." “But,” said Trish,
“my parents have no idea of the way we live." She comes from
a very religious, strict home background. “I’m not willing to
give up my life-style for them, hut it would be a difficult thing
to work out “

They have made beginnings in opening up their complex of
relationships to the knowledge of others. "Most of our fnends
already know of our involvements Recently we took Chip to
a big party put on b> Fred's sister, and he was accepted and
liked by her and her children. It's going to take little steps like
that Hut It's a beginning."

I invited comments from several colleagues on the experience
of Fred and Trish Here is one from Maureen Miller, authority
on human sexuality and the changing aspects of marriage:

Mai:ri i.N: I am delighted that you have chosen to include in
your bixtk material related to jealousy. In my own life, my
teaching, and counseling, there is no issue in which interper-
sonal power IS so dramatically experienced. It seems to me that
there is more interpersonal abuse and enppling coming from
Cither the avoidance of jealousy or the experience of it than
almost any other feelings we have about each other.

Because of this and becau.se of my own struggles in living a
marned life which is not sexually exclusive I am very glad you
gave me this opportunity to comment on the story of Fred and
Trish.

1 responded as 1 read it on both a “hunch" level and an
analytical level In recent years I have been discovering that
often my intuition and my intellect have similar perceptions, so
I will give you my reactions as a mixture of hunch and analysis.

My strongest reaction to reading the descriptions by Fred
and Tnsh was like your first response: “It's too good to be

224

The PEitsoN-CENTEitEP aph»oach in Action

irue." This was followed by a feeling of self>criticisin because
I do espenence jealousy in myself

I was disappointed by my reaction because 1 do believe that
nonmonogamous partnerships which are satisfying to those in>
solved are possible, even within a culture which stresses mo<
nogamy as the •‘norm." Fred says that jealousy and possessive*
ness are not innate. 1 am inclined, because of personal and
professional experience, to agree What 1 cannot agree with,
however, is the assertion made by Fred that they are evidence
of some intraperMvnal difficulty, such as a lack of self-confi*
dence. The fact is we know very little about what feelings and
behaviors are part of our biological heritage and what are
learned from womb to tomb in interaction with the environ-
ment. in our battle to survive.

I find that often there seems to be an unwillingness to enter-
tain the possibility that jealousy might be an appropriate re-
sponse to some interpersonal situations and that in some situa-
tions the feeling of it, learned or innate, might have strong
survival value, biologically, psychologically, and culturally.

I am drawn repeatedly as 1 retead the material to the story
of Fred's suicide attempt. It plagues me as I try to understand
my feelings about this couple and their lives. What is so disturb-
ing IS that in the midst of a description of marital and iionman*
tal blivs, where everything is described in terms like "growth,"
"richness." "joy." "healthy." "validation," "intimacy." and the
like, suddenly comes this disaster The disaster was vi complete
that F'rcd considered his life no longer worth living I want to
believe his suicide note, which exonerates everyone and the
relationship, but I can’t.

In all the descriptions of the lives of the participants there is
heavy emphasis on the lighter elements of human experience.
The emphasis is on those characteristics we label as virtuous.
What 1 am aware of, however, is that in each of as. in addition
to the angels of faith, hope, chanty, wisdom, and loving, are
also the angels of doubt, despair, need, passion, and hate. The
darker angels are part of us all. 1 believe. I see no mention of

225

Caki. Roccm on Pemonal Power

these charsctefisiics in the descriptions of these people. They
come across as pre>iUphaeiite saints!

Commonly in “nice” families one individual becomes the
barometer of these unacknowledged darker elements. The sys*
tern demands a sponge for this energy if that family is to con*
tinue to function at this ’Tight" pole of human interaction. Fred
doesn’t say what his demons were, although he alludes to recog-
nizing unacceptable impulses and feelings. My guess would be
that he was becoming aware of his dark side. In an environment
where jealousy, greed, competitiveness, and anger are equated
with bang imperfect, Fred has no choice but to label himself
unacceptable. His culture demands it! Because his feelings don't
seem to be experienced by all the other people in hts environ-
ment he blames himself My a>nclu»ons about the heavy value
of positive feelings and the denial of others comes from Fred's
inability to share any of his turmoil with those people with
whom he has "open and honest communication.” 1 see Fred as
the “grief eater." the person who in the face of difficulties
convinces everyone else that everything is fine so they are
spared anxiety, fear, and gnef, whilst at the same time he ex-
periences, deep down, all the collective pain of the system.
"Grief eaters" commonly experience themselves on an aware
level as stronger than the rest, only to crumble when they
themselves have to face problems alone and stoically.

So Fred believes his suicide had nothing to do with his inter-
personal situation. I certainly agree that he undoubtedly knows
more about this than I do. but accepting that, my doubts re-
main. The emotions which are missing from these descriptions
are the emotions of anger, fear, rivalry, lust, and neediness. All
these emotions have enormous survival value. To not allow
oneself or others the right to both feel and express these emo-
tions is to hold the person in an emotional strait jacket. When
these emotions are allowed to be a legitimate and valued part
of interaction, difficulties can be dealt with more flexibly and
more humanely than when they are suppressed. It is my guess,
and I admit it is a guess, that if Fred had been in touch with

236

The PEitsoN<C£i<rreKEo AmiOACN m AcnoN

his darker energies eariter, md saw them matched and met
the others in his extended family, he might never have tried to
end his life, or suffered the mental agonies he describes.

It IS impoitant for me to stress that 1 do nm believe it was
the nonmonogamous nature of the system that created the
Stress. I know from my own life that a nonexclusive marriage
can be a satisfying way to live. It would be easy for people who
value monogamy above any other form of partner^ip to
pounce on my arguments to add to their convictions that such
open marnag« inevitably result in disaster. This would be a
pity because I certainly don't believe that. If my interpretation
of the imbalance on the side of “lightness" is valid, then the
same stress could and does occur in completely exclusive rela-
tionships.

This brings me back to jealousy and interpersonal politics. It
IS common to put jealousy down these days, just as it used to
be common to put down anger and sexual feelings. Whether
learned or innate, it is deeply felt. My own experience tells me
that for many people, along with the intense pain of jealousy,
comes a shame at having the feeling at ail. That used to be true
.for me. instead of expenenang and owning my jealousy 1
would try to find other rationalizatirms for my pain, trying to
hnd some way of making sense of my feelings. I guess I don't
feci I can make any sense of my jealousy; it comes from a place
deeper in me than my “sense*' goes. Indeed it has its own sense,
and my mind has little understanding of it.

Deeply as 1 feel it, 1 find 1 don't have to be incapacitated by
It My husband and I have found that each other's jealous
feelings are important. We care enough about each other to be
halted by any pain the other is feeling. We halt to validate the
other’s feelings, to give whatever care and reassurance are
needed by the other; then we decide if we wish to continue
doing whatever precipitated the jealousy. We do not try to
ensure that jealous feelings never surface; we do not feel obliged
to capitulMe to them when they do. What we do feel, however,
IS that the experien^ of the other is unconditionally valid. We

227

Cakl Rooeas on Pbmmonal Powat

give each other the right to feel our own feelings Wecareabout
them yet we are not willing to respond as though it were always
our fault

What we have discovered in this process is that there sre
times when jealousy is an important indicator that things are
amiss in our relationshtp Ck>M as we have been, there are still
times when it is easier to establish a relationship with another
than to confront problems between us At these times the one
bang avoided experiences jealousy We fear being abandoned
because we are bang abandoned In this kind of situation only
by exploring the jealousy and its dimensions can the abandon-
ment be discovered and reckoned with In my expenence, jeal-
ousy ts not always the destructive demon Fred and Tnsh seem
to believe it to be What has been more of a demon in my life
has been unacknowledged jealousy disguised as sophisticated
put-downs of the other person or of myself

1 admire Fred, Tnsh, Jana, and Chip for thar courage They
are taking on an enormously powerful mythology around mar-
nage and what is possible I find their courage and openness
inspinng, especwlly when I read that thar own parents are so
Strongly entrenched in a different value system 1 feel caution,
however Not only do 1 agree that thar story cannot be a model
for others, I wonda if their last year can be a model for thar
next year

Any new relationship that matters always brings with it the
possibility that it might one day supplant the present one Tnsh
acknowledges she has two pnmary relationships and would not
want to have to choose between Fred and Chip The possibility
of bang left is always in the air, however unlikely it may seem
at first 1 am wondenng for me. and for Tnsh, Fred, and Chip,
what the consequences are How much depth of intimacy is
possible in that state of ambiguity’’ There is freedom and power
in nooexclusisity, is there perhaps another freedom and power
in fidelity^

I don't have an answer. Carl, but I am asktng the question

221

The Pekson-Cehteeed AmoACH in Action

I felt as 1 wrote that the whole subject of jMinnefship, mar*
rtage. love, sex. jealousy, and commitment is a very important
one at this time in our culture. I feel that this material opens
up the issue in a new and important context It has generated
much thought and discussion in myself and my close fnends
I imagine it is going to do the same in many other places!

CsRi I cannot arrive at any solid conclusions from the story
of Fred and Tnsh, but there are provocative questions aplenty
A marriage with a number of satellite relationships, gradually
deepening in significance, can exist for years uithoul either
partner having more than a twinge of jealousy Jealousy then
may not be an instinctive reaction — not a biological dn /e that
makes a man want to kill his wife's lover, or a wife bitterly
jealous of her husband's attachment to another woman Per-
haps one learns to be jealous, and in our culture this is a swially
approved lesson One can also learn not to be jealous, as seems
to have been the case with Fnsh

5kx:ial anthropology won't help much here in many cultures
possessiveness is extreme, most often on the part of th: man,
but frequently on the part of the woman too There ar< also a
number of cultures — early Hawaiian is one — in which jealou.sy
IS infrequent, and sexual freedom is much more accepted

Biology won't settle the point either There arc species of
animals and birds where monogamy and fidelity arc the rule
Ihcie are others more marked by possessivencss There are
some species where jealousy is unknown Seals come to mind
as a confusing example The bull seal literally wears himself out.
during mating season, willing to fight to the death to keep
intruding males away from his harem By contrast the females
are not jealous of each other, and are willingly receptive to the
approaches of another male — if the bull is not watchful

So white the general question remains open, one thing is clear
from the story of Fred and Tnsh It is possible to love more
than one person at a time, sexual love included, without arouv

229

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

ing observable jealous or possesiuve behaviors. Tnsh not only
ts not jealous Janet, but they are clearly close friends. Fred
not only shows no jealousy of Chip, but they too are close
friends.

The politics of a marriage can be one of equality, shared
responsibilities, mutual support, and shared decision-making,
as Tnsh movingly demonstrates when she says that she and
Fred do not so much allow each other the “pnvilege" of free-
dom as actually enaiurage it. This is not the irresponsibility of
‘i'll do my thing, and you do yours." It is in the context of an
equal relationship that they go forth to explore and then return
to the relationship an enriched person. It has helped to build
their independent strengths

The politics of equality, with primary value attached to the
person, extends into the sexual realm. Sexual self-determination
is successfully maintained only because communication is wide
open. With trusting communication there is. as Tnsh says, no
fear "of ‘being caught' or criticired.”

There are risks in this as in all innovative living Tnsh loses
her first lover to another woman and is deeply hurt Fred has
h^id the pain of dealing with Janet's illness. Both of them have
found how complex and time-consuming it is to maintain more
than one deep relationship. The greatest risk is that Tri.sh is now
involved in two primary relationships. If she should ever feel
compelled to choose one as more important than the other,
which would she choose? 1 believe neither we nor she can be
sure. Fortunately for her the question has not arisen. There is
some ambivalence in her statement of her (eelings after Fred’s
suicide attempt — "I wanted to run." Her double tie only em-
phasires Maureen Miller's point that "the possibility of being
left IS always in the air, however unlikely it may seem at first "

F.ven in a marriage of open communication, you can have
feelings so shameful they can't be shared with your partner.
There are limits — tiften unknown limits— to sharing. The kind
of feelings Fred had about his depressed state are very familiar

230

TNE PEItSON*ClNTUIf D AmtOACH IN ACTION

to me The commonest theme m therapy a this *Tf you really
knew me. my horrible thoughts and feelings, you couldn’t ac-
cept me. and would confirm my fear that 1 am insane and/or
hopeless " This comes very close to the fears that kept Fred
from speaking of his desperation Here is an attempt to state
them schematically “The feelings arising in me are so wrong,
so unbelievable, so shameful that they cannot be a part of me,
and I hate and fear them so much that 1 can't let them out—
to anyone Death is preferable "

What were these horrible feelings'* Maureen Miller suggests
that they may have been unexpressed anger, competitiveness,
jealousy, elements of Fred's “dark side “ This is possible in a
marriage so free — perhaps suspiciously free— of these emo-
iKins Rut 1 feel there is another possibility
I regard it as somewhat more likely that Fred's deepest hor-
ror was a feeling that he was a complete fraud It is clear that
he came to believe he was a fraud professionally He was not
the “hot shot" he thought himself to be It was a fluke that he
had passed his exam His research was just an attempt to put
a gotxj face on a bad reality The people who believed in him
were being duped And now he would be found out

lo what extent did he feel fraudulent in his personal life**
There is just a hint He says. “Setting yourself up to be an
achiever or wmeone who n always together is a dangerous prop-
osition" (italics mine) He had indeed set himself up as a “to-
gether person." taking the lead in marriage and moving them
toward an unconventional life-style Everything was great
There is scarcely a hint of self-doubt anywhere But when the
internal gestalt changes from “I am a remarkable person" to “I
am a fraud" it must have raised the unspoken feelings of doubt
that were always present at some level “Maybe I'm not so
much together Perhaps I'm not sure at all Possibly I have been
a big fraud in my personal as well as my professional life “ Fine
distinctions go by the board, from being all positive, you can
quite suddenly see nothing but the negative, and since this hat

231

Cakl Rogem oh Personal Power

never been expreued. itt horror is multiplied many times. This
IS my speculation in regard to his inner work) at the time of his
deep depression. Fearing that someone may discover the fraud,
it is entirely understandable that everyone close to him would
seem threatening.

There is one other perspective on Fred's downward emo-
tional spiral which I, and most other humanistic psychologists,
are reluctant to admit. This is the possibility that there was a
chemical factor in his depression. His positive responses to a
correct lithium dosage occurred twice — once in his depression
and once when he was manic — ^and forces me to consider this
possibility. There is no way of knowing whether his down feel-
ings brought about a need for lithium, or whether such a need
magnified those feelings. But that it was somehow and to some
degree a factor seems a reasonable conclusion from his response
to the medication. My clinical experience with individuals un-
dergoing a manic-depressive cycle — which is not extensive —
has often perplexed me. I have found these situations very
difiicull to explain in entirely psychological terms 1 have re-
garded It as possible that genetic or chemical factors may play
a real part, whereas 1 do not feel this way about so-called
schizophrenia or other "mental disorders."

Fred — and all of us — can be thankful that his very deter-
mined attempt at suicide failed and left his mind and body
undamaged. Has he learned that it is always better to share
horrible feelings than to hide them and let them fester? He has
taken a minor step in this direction, seeking help in his manic
stale. He has made progress in accepting himself as an imp^-
fect person and one capable of hartx>ring “unspeakable" feel-
ings. He could doubtle^ profit from a more complete explora-
tion of his inner world in a relationship with a therapist who
shares his person-centered views. The test of the adequacy of
his self-understanding lies in the future.

One thing that 1 have relearned from my contacts with this
pair is the strong underlying desire on the part of every individ-
ual for depth and permanence in any close relationship. They

232

THI; Pr.tSON-CtNTI-IIED AmtOACH IN ACTION

:;ave demonMrated in their own lives a wish which 1 have come
lo believe is almost universal — a wish for a lasting relationship
in which tvne can know the other as a whole, complex person,
and III which the one can ht' known in the same way. As both
Irish and Fred are well aware, this does not occur overnight,
nor with a large number of people

Port Towordo
llljltheoreticQl
! I foundation

Chapter I iPpotitiCOl

11 j I bo6e:
iltheoctuolizinq
i tendency

Any view of the politics of huinnn relationships must rest
hasically upon the conception of the human organism and what
makes it “tick" — the nature and motivation of that organism.
I have, for years, held a more and more sharply defined stance
as to these points. 1 should like to present these views as clearly
as I can. drawing on previous formulations, and considering the
political implications of ms perspective on the nature of human
motivation.'

I see the actualizing tendency in the human organism as
being basic to motivation. Let me begin with a personal experi-
ence that made a strong impression, and lead from that into a
vanety of observations that support my view.

During a vacation weekend some months ago I was standing
on a headland overlooking (me of the rugged coves that dot the
coastline (^ northern California. Several large r(Kk outcrop-
pings were at the mouth of the cove, and these received the full
force of the great Pacific combers, which, beating upcm them,
broke into nKmntains of spray before surging in to the clifT-lined
shore. As 1 watched the waves breaking over these Urge rocks
in the distance, 1 noticed with $ur|mse what appeared to be tiny
palm trees on the rocks, no more than two or three feet higb,
taking the pounding of the breakers. Throi^ my binaculars 1

237

CaR. 1 ROCiF.aS ON Pf RSONAI POWtR

saw that these were some type of seaweed, with a slender
“trunk" topped off with a head of leaves. As one examined a
specimen in the intervals between the waves it seemed clear that
this fragile, erect, top-heavy plant would be utterly crushed and
broken by the next breaker. When the wave crunched down
upon it, the trunk bent almost flat, the leaves were whipped into
a straight line by the torrent of the water, yet the moment the
wave had passed, here was the plant again, erect, tough, resil-
ient. it seemed incredible that it was able to take this incessant
pounding hour after hour, day and night, week after week,
perhaps year after year, and all the lime nourishing itself, ex-
tending Its domain, reproducing itself, in short, maintaining
and enhancing itself in this process which, in our shorthand, we
call growth. Here in this palmlike seaweed was the tenacity of
life, the forward thrust of life, the ability to push into an incredi-
bly hostile environment and not only to hold its own but to
adapt, develop, become itself

Now I am very well aware that we can “explain" many
aspects of this phenomenon. Thus we can explain that the weed
grows on top of the rock rather than on the protected side
because it is phototropic. We can even attempt some biochemi-
cal explanations of phototropism. We can say that the plant
grows where it does because there is an ecological niche that it
fills, and that if this plant had not developed to fill this niche,
the process of evolution would have favored some other orga-
nism that would gradually have developed much these same
characteristics. I am aware that we can now begin to explain
why this plant assumes- the form it docs, and why. if it is
damaged in some storm, it will repair itself in a way ccmsistent
with its own basic species form. This will all come about be- ^
cause the DNA molecule — as long as it is a part of, and is
interacting with, a living cell— carries within it. like a program
for guiding a computer, instructions to each emergent ceil as to
the form and function it will assume in order to make the whole
a functioning organism.

238

TOWaMO a TMH)ltr.TtCAt Fouwoation

Such knowledge explains nothing, in any fundamental sense.
Yet It IS very valuable as a pan of the continuing diflereniialion,
the Aner descnpfion. the more accurate picture of functional
relatitmships, which our cunosiiy demands, and which gives us
at least a deeper respect for and understanding of the compicxi*
tics of life.

But my reason for telling this story is to call attention to a
more general characteristic. Whether we are speaking of this
sea plant or of an oak tree, of an eanhworm or a great night-
f!>tng moth, of an ape or a man, we will do well to recogni/e
that life IS an active procevs, not a passive one Whether the
stimulus arises from within or without, whether the environ-
ment IS favorable or unfavorable, the behaviors of an organism
can be counted on to be in the direction of maintaining, enhanc-
ing. and reproducing itself. This i.s the very nature of the process
AC call life. Speaking of the totality of these reactions within an
organism, Bertalanffy says, "We find that all parts and pro-
cesses are so ordered that they guarantee the maintenance,
ciMistruclion. restitution, and reprixluclion of organic sys-
lems.”* When we speak in any basic way of what "motivates"
the behavtor of organisms, it is this directional tendency that
IS fundamental This tendency is operative at all times, in all
organisms Indeed it is only the presence or absence of this total
directional procevs that enables us to tell whether a given orga-
nism IS alive or dead.

I am not alone in seeing such an actualiring tendency as the
fundamental answer to the question of what makes an organism
tick Goldstein.’ Maslow,* Angyal,' and others have held simi-
lar views and have influenced my own thinking I have pointed
out that thts tendency involves a development toward the diffe-
rentiation of organs and functions; it involves enhancement
through reproduction; it means a trend toward self-regulation
and away from control by external forces.

Here, then, at the very heart of the mystery of what m^es
organisms "tick," is an important foundation stone for our

2)9

Carl Rogers on Personal Power

pdttkaJ thinking. The orgenism is self<ontr(dled. In its normal
state it moves toward its own enhancement and toward an
independence from external control.

But is this view supported other evidettce? Let me point
to some of the work in biology that supports the concept ^ the
actualizing tendency. One example, replicated with different
species, is the work of Dnesch with sea urchins many years ago.
Driesch learned how to tease apart the two cells that are formed
after the first division of the fertilized egg. Had they been left
to develop normally, it is clear that each of these two cells
would have grown into a portion of a sea urchin larva, the
contributions of both being needed to form a whole creature.
So It seems equally obvious that when the two cells are skillfully
separated, each, if it grows, will simply develop into some por-
tion of a sea urchin. But this is overUxiking the directional and
actualizing tendency characteristic of all organic growth. It is
found that each cell, if it can be kept alive, now develops into
a whole sea urchin larva — a bit smaller than usual, but normal
and complete.

I choose this example because it seems so closely analogous
to my experience in dealing with individuals in a therapeutic
relationship, my experience in facilitating intensive groups, my
expenence of providing “freedom to learn” for students in
classes. In these situations the most impressive fact about the
individual human being seems to be the directional tendency,
toward wholeness, tow*ard actualization of potentialities. I have
not found psychotherapy or group experience effective when 1
have tried to create in another individual something that is not
there, but I have found that if 1 can provide the conditions that
make for growth, then this positive directional tendency brings
about constructive results. The scientist with the divided sea
urchin egg is in the same situation. He cannot cause the cell to
develop in one way or another, he cannot (as yet, at least) shape
or ctmtrol the DNA molecule, but if he focuses his skill on
providing the conditions that permit the cell to survive and
grow, then the tendency for growth and the direction of growth

240

Toward a THFjORETtCAL FovNOATtcm

will be evident, and will come from withiit the organism. 1
cannot think of a better analogy for therapy or the group expert'
ence. where, if I can supply a psychological amniotic fluid,
forward movement of a constructive sort will occur.

Support for the concept of an actualizing tendency comes at
times from surprising quarters, as in the simple but unusual
experiments that show that rats prefer an environment involv-
ing more complex stimuli over an environment involving less
complex stimuli. It seems striking that even the lowly labora-
t(>rv rat, within the range of complexity that he can appreciate,
prefers a more richly stimulating setting to a more impover-
ished one. Dember, Earl, and Paradise stale that "a shift in
preference, if it occurs, will be unidirectional, toward stimuli of
greater complexity.”* Given the opportunity, a living organism
tends to fulfill its more complex potentialities rather than settle
for simpler satisfactions

The work in the field of sensory deprivation underscores even
more strongly the fact that tension reduction or the absence of
stimulation is a far cry from being the desired state of the
organism. Freud could not have been more wrong in his postu-
late that "the nervous system is ... an apparatus which would
even, if this were feasible, maintain itself in an altogether un-
siimulated condition.”’ On the contrary, when deprived of ex-
ternal stimuli, the human organism produces a flood of internal
stimuli sometimes of the most bizarre sort. John Lilly has told
of his expenences when suspended weightless in a soundproof
tank of water. He speaks of the trancelike states, the mystical
expenences, the sense of being tuned in to communication net-
works not available to ordinary consciousness, of experiences
which can only be called hallucinatory.* It is very clear that
when you receive an absolute minimum of any external stimuli,
you open yourself to a flood of internal experiencing that goes
far beyond that everyday living. You most certainly do not
lapse into homeostasis, into a passive equilibrium. This only
occurs in diseased organisms.

When it comes to motivation, the organism k an active initia-

241

CaRI ROGI-ltSON Pr.ftSCyNAt POWtR

tor Mid exhibits a directional tendency. R.W. White puts this
in very ai^iealing terms when he says. "Even when its primary
needs are satisfied and its homeostatic chores are done, an
organism is alive, active, and up to something.”'

As a consequence of these and other developments in psycho-
logical and biological research. I feel secure in calling attention
to the significance of this direction in the human organism
which accounts for its maintenance and enhancement

Sometimes this tendency is spoken of as if it involved the
development of all of the potentialiiies of the organism This is
clearly not true. The organism does not, as someone has pointed
out, tend toward developing its capacity for nausea, nor does
It actualire its potenitality for self-destruction, nor ns ability to
bear pain. Only under unusual or perverse circumstances do
these polentialilics become actualized. It is clear ihal the actu-
alizing tendency is selective and directional, a constructive
tendency, if you will

The substratum of all human motivation is the organismic
tendency toward fulfillment. This tendency may express itself
in the widest range of behaviors and in respvinsc to a very wide
variety of needs Certain wants of a basic son must be at least
partially met before other needs become urgent. Consequently
the tendency of the organusm to actualize itself may at one
moment lead to the seeking of foexi or sexual satisfaction, and
yet nnlevs these needs are overpowenngly great, even these
satisfactions will be sought in ways that enhance rather than
dimmish self-esteem. And other fulfillments will also be sought
in the transactions with the environment: the need for explora-
tion. for producing change in the environment, for play, foi
self-exploration when that is perceived as an avenue to fulfill-
ment— all of these and many other behaviors are basically
"motivated" by the actualizing tendency.

We are. in short, dealing with an organism that is aiwayt
motivated, is always “up to something." always seeking. So i
reaffirm, even more strongly than when I first advanced thi
notion, my belief that there is one central source of energy ii

242

Toward a Tmeoreticai Foundatmm

the homan oqfanisjn; that it is a trustworthy function of the
whole organism rather than of some portion of it; and that it
IN perhaps best conceptualized as a tendency toward fulfillment,
toward actualization, not only toward the maintenance but also
toward the enhancement of the organism.

What 1 have said thus far pictures a solid, constructive base
of human motivation. This is a base that would empower the
person, would fit him for a harmonious politics of interpersonal
relationships. But I have omitted reference to the great puzzle
that faces anyone who delves at all into the dynamics of human
behavior. This puzzle has to do with the fact that persons are
often at war within themselves, estranged from their own or*
ganisms. White the organism may be constructively motivated,
ceriainiy the conscious aspects often seem the reverse. What
ab«>ui the all too common rift between the organismic aspect
.ind the conscious self? How do we account for what often
appears to be two conflicting motivational systems in the mdi*
\ (dual’’

To take a very simple example, how is it that a woman can
consciously be a very submissive and compliant person and
(hen at times blow up in abnormally hostile and resentful be-
havior that greatly surpnses her and that she does not own as
.1 part of herself? Clearly her organism has been experiencing
both submission and aggression, and moving toward the expres-
sion of both. Yet at the conscious level she has no awareness
and no acceptance of one aspect of this process going on within
her. This is a simple example of the rift with which every
psychologist interested injiuman behavior must come to terms.

I do not see any clear solution to the problem, but 1 think
perhaps 1 have come to see the issues in a larger context. In
nature, the working out of the actualizing tendency shows a
surprising efficiency. The organism makes errors, to be sure, but
these are corrected on the basis of feedback. A classic experi-
ment showed that even the human infant eventually does a
quite satisfactory job of balancing her diet. She may go on a
protein "binge,’* for a lime, or devour too much fat, but soon

243

Carl Rogcrs on Personal Power

evens out these errors, showing s "wisdom of the body" in
ntsintaining and enhancing her development. This type of reia*
lively integrated. self>regulaitng behavior, directed toward
maintenance and fulfillment, seems to be the rule in nature
rather than the exception. One can. of course, point to serious
mistakes over evolutionary time. Evidently the dinosaurs, by
becoming very efficiently and rigidly actualized in terms of a
given environment, could not adapt, and thus effectively de-
stroyed themselves through the perfection with which thby had
fulfilled themselves in a given environment. On the whole, how-
ever. organisms, through adaptations, mutations, and adjust-
ments. behave in ways that make an awesome degree of direc-
tional sense Life flows into ever more diverse forms, correcting
Its errors, and moving toward its own enhancement

In the human being, however— perhaps particularly in our
culture — the potentiality for awareness of her functioning can
go so persistently awry as to make her truly estranged from her
organismic experiencing. She can become self-defeating, as in
neurosis: incapable of coping with life, a* m psychosis; unhappy
and divided, as in the maladjustments (hat occur in all of us.
Why this division? How is it that a person can be consciously
struggling toward one goal while her whole organic direction
IS at cross purposes with this?

In puzzling over this issue. I find myself trying to take a fresh
look at the place and function of awareness m life. The ability
to focus conscious attention seems to be one of the latest evolu-
tionary developments in our species. It is a tiny peak of aware-
ness, of symbolizing capacity, topping a vast pyramid of non-
conscious organismic functioning. Perhaps a better analogy,
more indipalive of the continual change going on, is to think of
the individual's functioning as a large pyramidal fountain. The
very tip of the fountain it intermittently illuminated with the
iliekenng light of consciousness, but the constant flow of life
goes on in the darkness as wei: in nonconsetous as well at
eonscKHis ways.

in the person who is functioning well, awareneu tends to be

2a

Toward a THECWETtCAL Foundation

a reflexive thing, rather than a sharp spotlight of focused atten«
tion. Perhaps if is more accurate to say that in such a person
awareness is simply a reflection of something of the flow of the
organism at that moment. It is only when the functioning is
disrupted that a sharply self>conscious awareness arises. Speak-
ing of the different aspects of awareness in this well-functioning
person. 1 have said. *T do not mean that this individual would
be self-consciously aware of all that was going on within herself,
like the centipede that became aware of all its legs. On the
contrary, she would be free to live a feeling subjectively, as well
as be aware of it. She might experience love or pain or fear living
in this attitude subjectively. Or she might abstract herself from
this subjectivity and realize in awareness, T am in pain'; T am
afraid'; ‘I do love.' The crucial point is that there would be no
barners, no inhibitions, which would prevent the full experienc-
ing of whatever was organismicaliy present."”'

In this way. as in various other ways, my thinking is similar
to that of Lancelot Whyte, who comes at the same problem
from a very different perspective, that of the philosopher of
science and historian of ideas. He too feels that in the person '
who IS functioning well “the free play of spontaneous vitality
— as in the transitory rhythms of eating, drinking, walking,
loving, making things, working well, thinking, and dreaming —
evokes no persistent differentiated awareness. We feel right
while It IS going on, and then forget it, as a rule.""

When functioning in this manner the person is whole, inte-
grated. unitary. This appears to be the desirable and efficient
human way. Sharpened self-consciousness in such functioning
arises, according to Whyte, only as a result of contrast or clash
between the organism and its environment, and the function of
such self-awareness is to eliminate the clash by modifying the
environment or altenng the behavior of the individual His
viewpoint IS startling but challenging when he says, ‘*The mam
purpose of conscious thought, its neo-biol(^cal function, may
be first to identify, and then to eliminate, the factors which
evoke it."''

24S

Caul no & m $ on Peiuomal Powea

It will probtbty be evident tlut views such ss the foregtnng
could be held only by individuals who see the luntconscious
asfMcts d our hving in a postive light. I have myself stressed
the idea that man is wiser than his intellect, and that well-
functioning persons come to trust their experiencing as an ap-
propriate guide to their behavior. They find that the meanings
discovered in their openness to their experiencing constitute a
wise and satisfying means of directing their actitms. Whyte
places this same idea in a larger context when he says, **Crys-
tals, plants and animaLs grow without any conscious fuss, and
the strangeness of our own history disappears once we assume
that the same kind of natural ordering process that guides their
growth also guided the development of man and of his mind,
and does so still.’*" These views are very remote from Freud’s
distrust of the unconscious, and his general view that it was
antisocial in its direction. Instead, when a person is functioning
in an integrated, unified, effective manner, she has confidence
in the directions she unconsciously chooses, and trusts her
experiencing, of which, even if she is fortunate, she has only-
partial glimpses in her awareness.

If this IS a reasonable description of the functioning of con-
sciousness when all is going well, why docs the rift develop in
so many of uv. to the point that organismically we arc moving
in one direetKin and in our conscious lives arc struggling in
another? My own explanation" has to dt> with the personal
dynamics of the individuai Love by the parent or significant
other is made conditional It ts given only on the condition that
the child inin^'t certain constructs and values as his own.
Otherwise be will not be perceived as worthwhile, as worthy of
love. Thus, for example, the construct "you love your mother”
IS made a condition for a child receiving her mother’s love.
Hence her occasional feelings of rage and hatred toward her
mother are denied to awareness, as if they did not exist Her
organism may behave in ways that show her anger, such as
spilling her food cm the floor, but this is an “accident ** She does
not permit the real feeling into awareness. Or I think cf a young

24b

Towako a TH»MtmcAL Foundation

adolescent boy, brought up in a stricily religious home, where
It was clear that he was acceptable to his parents only if he
believed that sexual thoughts, impulses, and behaviors were evil
and awful. When he was caught one night in the home of the
next-door neighbor, trying to tear the nightdress off their sleep-
ing daughter, he could say. with a firm belief that he was telling
the truth, that he had not done it — it was not hu behavior. Here
his organism — with its natural curiosity, fantasies, and im-
pulses in the area of sex — had been so thoroughly denied that
he was quite unaware of these aspects of his physical being. So
his organism went on endeavoring to meet these needs, while
hts conscious mind could say quite accurately that his self had
not been involved in the behavior

In this example the introjected beliefs or constructs are rigid
and static because they are taken in from outside They arc not
subject to the child's normal process of evaluating his experi-
ence in a fluid, changing way The child tends to disregard his
own cxpenencing prcKcss wherever it conflicts with these con-
structs, and thus to this degree cuts himself off from his organic
functioning, becoming to this degree disscKialed. If the condi-
tions of worth imposed on a child are numerous and significant,
then the dissociation can become very great, and the psycholog-
ical consequences, as we have seen, very serious indeed.

I have gradually come to sec this dissociation, nft, estrange-
ment. as something learned, a perverse channeling of some of
the actualizing tendency into behaviors that do not actualize.
In this respect it would be similar to the situation in which
sexual urges can, through learning, be channeled into behaviors
far removed from the physiological and evolutionary ends of
these impulses. In this respect my thinking has changed. Years
ago I saw the nft between self and experience, between con-
scious goals and organismic directions, as something natural
and necessary, albeit unfortunate. Now I believe that individu-
als are culturally conditioned, rewarded, reinforced, for behav-
iors that are in fact perversions of the natural directions of the
unitary actualizing tendency.

247

Cam ftoGUaoN Peksonal Powek

Tbe ditiocuted pencm is best described as one consctousfy
bdiavtftf in terms of inirqjected static, ngtd constructs, and
uttanuciomly behaving in terms of the actualizing tatdency.
This is in idiarp contrast to the healthy. welUfunctioning person
who lives in close and confident relationship to her own ongoing
oryanisintc processes, nonconscious as well as conscious. 1 see
constructive outcomes in therapy or in groups as possible only
in terms of the human individual who has come to trust her own
inner directions, and whose awareness is a part of and inte-
grated with the process nature of her organic functioning. I
have dcscnbed the functioning of the psychologically mature
individual as being similar in many ways to that of the infant,
except that the fluid process of experiencing has more scope and
sweep, and that the mature individual, like the child, “trusts
and uses the wisdom of her organism, with the difference that
she IS able to do so knowingly.

The extrmely common estrangement of the human being
from her directional organtsmic processes is not a neces.sary
part of our nature, It is instead something learned, and learned
to an especially high degree in our Western culture It is charac-
terized by behaviors that arc guided by ngid concepts and
constructs, interrupted at times by behaviors guided by the
organismic processes The satisfaction or fulfillment of the actu-
alizing tendency has become bifurcated into incompatible be-
havioral systems, of which one may be dominant at one mo-
ment. and the other dominant at another moment, but at a
continual cost of strain and inefficiency. This dissociation that
exists in most of us is the pattern and the basts of all psychologi-
cal pathology in humankind, and the basis of all his siKial
pathology as well.

The natural and efficient mode of living as a human being
does not involve this dissociation, this bifurcation. The psycho-
logically mature person exhibits a trust in the directions of
inner organismic processes which, with ctmsciousness par-
tkipating in a coordinated rather than a conqietitive fashion.

24 «

Toward a Theoretical FOundatkin

carry one forward in a total, unified, intc^tnl, adaiHtve, and
changing OMOonter with life and itt challenges.

The tragk; condition of humankind is that it has kxi confi-
dence in iu own noncoitscious inner directions. As Whyte has
written; “Weston man stands out as a highly developed but
bizarre distortion of the human animal.”'* To me the remedy
for this situation is the incredibly difficult but not impossible
task of permitting the human individual to grow and develop
in a continuing confident relationship to the formative actualiz-
ing tendency and process in herself. If awareness and conscious
thought are seen as a part of bfe — not its master nor its oppo-
nent but an illumination of the developing processes within the
individual — then our total life can be the unified and unifying
experience that seems characteristic in nature. If our magnifi-
cent symbolizing capacity can develop as a part of and be
guided by the tendency toward fulfillment that exists in us both
at the conscious and nonconscious levels, then the organic har-
mony IS never lost and becomes a human harmony and human
wholeness simply because our species is capable of greater rich-
ness of experience than any other.

And if the skeptical and natural question is raised. "Yes, but
how'’ How could this possibly come about?" then it seems to
me that science suggest.s an answer We have already been able
to specify and even to measure the attitudinal conditions that
bring about growthful effects in both therapy and education.
Scientific investigation can help us still further. Having itfen-
tified the conditions that are as.sociated with the restoration of
unity and integration in the individual, we should be able to
move ahead and identify empirKaliy those elements that pro-
mote dissociation, that bifurcate the actualizing tendency. One
testable hypothesis is that dissociation occurs when love and
esteem are made conditional. If we can identify the environ-
mental influences that promote a continuing internal harmony
in children, without the all too common learning of dissocia-
tion, these findings could be put to preventive use. We can

249

Cakl Rooeiu ON Rcioonal Powe«

prevoit the nft from occurring. Wc can. if we will, use our
icieniiflc skills to help us keep the person whtrie and unified, a
creature whose actualizihg tendency will be continually form-
ing her in the direction of a richer and more fulfilling relation-
ship to life.

I believe the political significance of this view of human
nature and its motivating force is enormous. I have tried to
sketch the view that the human species is composed of basically
trustworthy organisms, trustworthy persons. I have pointed out
that the actualizing tendency, when operating freely, tends to-
ward an integrated wholeness in which behavior is guided as
much by the esperienctngs within as by the consciousness that
flutlerv over these esperienctngs. But what does this mean from
the point of view of the politics of interpersonal relationships?

It leads me to the conclusion that the most trustworthy entity
in our uncertain world is an individual who is fully open to the
two major sources the data from internal espencncing, and the
data from experiencing of the externa) world. This person is at
the opposite pole from the dissociated individual Either he or
she was fortunate m not developing the inienial nft between the
experiencing organism and the conscious self or this nft has
been eliminated in helping relationships or by healing life ex-
periences

In such an individual, functioning in a unitied way, we have
the best possible base for wise action It is a privess ba.se. not
a static authority base It is a trustworthiness that dt^ not rest
on static "scientific" knowledge On the other hand, in its reli-
ance on being fully open to all of the relevant data, it represents
the very essence of the scientific approach to life, as science has
been understood by its truly great minds it represents a contin-
ual process of testing hypotheses in thought and action, dis-
carding some, hut following others It recognizes that there is
no such thing us static truth, only a senes of changing approxi-
mations to the truth.

Poitttcaily. then, if we arc in search of a trustworthy ha.se to
operate from, our major aim would be to discover and possibly

230

Toward a Tneoretical Foundation

to increase the number of individuals who are coming closer to
being whole persmis — who are moving toward a knowledge of,
and harmony with, their innermost experience, and who sense,
with an equal lack of ddensiveness, all the data from the per-
sons and (Ejects in their external environment. These persons
would constitute an increasing flow of wisdom in action. Their
directions would be wiser than the commandments of gods or
the directives of governments. They might become the vitaliz-
ing stream of a constructive future.

I’m aware that this vision will sran to some hopelessly ideal-
istic, to others a dangerous flouting of sacred authonties, and
to others simply bizarre. Yet for me, it is the closest approxima-
tion to truth I have been able to achieve, and I And it exciting
and hopeful.

251

Port

IV

Chopter

12

I The emerging
pef6on:
6peQrl’ieod of
the quiet revolution

A person-centered approach to many aspects of our life
would lead to a desirable, constructive, and viable way of being.
I do not, however, deceive myself about the degree of support
that this view currently commands in this country. Our nation’s
future direction now hangs in the balance; we are living in a
time of crucial choices — both conscious and unconscious — that
will determine our fate. Here are some of the factors weighing
against valuing the person, against self-direction, against indi-
vidual responsible power.

The principles of our Constitution, especially the Bill of
Rights — both decidedly person-centered in thar values — are
increasingly questioned There is a growing disbelief by the
average man in the workability of any kind of political democ-
racy, let alone an approach that would diffuse power, control,
and decision-making in every area of living. There is evidence
that if the Bill of Rights to our Constitution were rewritten in
modem language and put to popular vote, it would be rejected.
The nghts and responsibilities of the citizen are no longer held
precious.

The nghts to freedom of thought and speech, the right to
advocate any point of view in which one believes — these free-
doms are not highly regarded today. Even universities, where

255

Ca«l Roceiis <m Pemonai Power

these freedoms are of the essence, often refuse to permit speak-
ers to appear because their views are opposed by some influen-
tial group. And it is not only administrators who limit these
freedoms but faculty and students as well

In government, supposedly the viurce and protector of per-
sonal freedom, the erositm democratic values is even worse.
The average cili/en does not trust his elected officials. A cynical
and suspicious attitude toward the government and all its mem-
bers runs deep throughout the citizenry The attitude is recip-
rocated Our government shows a profound distrust of its citi-
zens The evidence is clear that both the FBI and the CIA —
agencies whose function is to protect the nation and its citizens
"have been engaged in massive elforts to hara.s.s and crush
dissent by any means — legal or illegal, ethical or unethical The
means ranged from guns- resulting in the killings at Kent State
and at three less-publicized black campuses — to the spread of
forged letters and dcKuments to bring about divisiveness in
dissenting groups The Watergate exposure of the federal elite,
from the President down, shows an open official contempt for
the person and his rights Lies, deceit, criminal invasion of
pnvacy. flouting of the law. surveillance and imprisonment of
dissenters — ail these have been tools used to control the popu-
lace and to hold power over persons

It IS not in government alone that we see a decline in the
valuing tvf persons The rot extends further, and shows up in the
decay of our institutions. Our public educational system is os-
silied. failing to meet the needs of society Innovation is stifled,
and innovators squeezed out In a rapidly changing world,
faculty members and their governing boards— whether local
school boards or college trustees— -cling tenaciously to the past,
making only token changes Our schools are more damaging
than helpful to personality development and are a negative
influence on creative thinking They arc primarily institutions
for incarcerating or taking care of the young, to keep them out
of the adult world

A New PtH ITICAL Figuiie

Economically, the picture is bizarre. The wealthiest nation in
the wtwld is said to be unable to afford firoper health care for
Its people. The efforts to eliminate poverty are themselves being
eliminated, while the top 8 percent of the pc^ulace receives
more income than the bottom 50 percent. The gap between the
nch and poor in this country, and between the nch nations and
poor nations in the world, grows steadily wider Great corpora*
tions have an inordinate influence on our government and on
our life and even presumptuously interfere in the affairs of
foreign countnes. High office now goes preponderantly to men
of wealth, so that of our one hundred senators, supposedly
representing the people, forty are reported to be millionaires.
The ordinary person has sensitive and compa.ssionate represen-
tation neither in the corporation for which he works nor in the
government that rules him.

Our churches are currently lacking in any significant societal
influence. What impact they do have is generally opposed to a
person-centered point of view. Their politics is either strictly
hierarchical, laying down rules for the faithful, or based on a
leader-follower relationship, the leader being prized for his cha-
nsmatic qualities

The family is in a stale of disarray and confusion. In most
mamages spouse is alienated from spouse and parent from
adolescent. To the extent that it exerts any influence at all. it
IS generally authority-centered rather than person-centered

No one can deny the incredibly rapid growth and spread of
violence In our large cities people double- and tnple-lock their
doors. Walking on the street in the evening ranges from a
hazardous to a highly dangerous occupation. The parks, set
aside for the enjoyment of the public, are places for ambush and
mugging. Senseless siabbings and killings occur every day. In
addition to all this there is the development of organized terror-
ism. with a real or pseudo-political base.

There are many theories as to the causes all this violence
and of the vandalism that accompanies it — the attacks on both

257

Ca«l Rocwas on Peimnal Powek

penooE aad property. 1 do not claim any qwcial capertiM in
tlm field, and 1 wiU not add to tlie ^)eculation about causes. I
would, however, point out two relationslitps.

Random violent against persons cannot and does not occur
in a culture where each individual feels he is a part of an
ongoing, purpoaeful process. One must be thoroughly alienated
from the mainstream of society for impersonal violence to be-
come possible. In China, a culture very difereni from our own,
the impersonal random violence of our cities is. from all reports,
virtually unknown. This is not because the Chinese are inci^-
ble of violence. There have been fanatic purposeful drives to kill
landlords or opponents of the Cultural Revolution and the like.
But in day-to^ay living the Chinese are organized into local
groups with a good deal of self-government. Furthermore they
feel, to a surprising degree, a stake in building their country
anew. This sense of a unifying purpose seems almost completely
lacking in our country today. The purposes that are voiced are
mostly to maintain the status quo or to become bigger and
belter in every technology. These goals do not command the
loyalty of our people, nor do they supply a unifying force.

1 will leave it to others, more knowledgeable, to explain why
such a large part of our population feels no such inclusion in
the social enterprise and is thoroughly alien to it, so much so
that some of them rob. stab, kill these "others” without any
obvious compunctions. The fact of their alienation is, however,
clear.

The other point 1 make is that for violence to become possi-
ble. any belief in the woitlrand dignity of each person must first
disappear. Unprovoked violence cannot occur where there is a
conviction that each individual has an inalienable right to "life,
liberty, and the pursuit haf^xness.*' Person-centeredness
must have flown out the window before senseless interpersonal
attacks can become possible. The victim is not a person to the
assailant, or he could not attack.

The disarray m our culture makes it less than surprising that
these has been a steady trend toward abandoning personal frM-

2S8

A New FM,niCAi. Bgvke

doim and permitting stronger hands to take over. There is a
drift toward authoritarian control.

The nation was shocked, not too long ago, by the massive
efforts of President Nixon and his colleagues to subvert the
Constitution and take control into their own hands. Yet we
cannot avoid responsibility for this. It was the will of the people.
A steady drift toward increasing the power of the Presidency
had been evident for years. Not only that. Mr. Nixtm’s past
rrcord was clear. He believed — and acted on that belief time
.mJ again — that any means could and should be used to gather
piiwer into his own hands. The use of lies and subtler forms of
deceit and the employment of aides who were expert at building
an “image" with no resemblance to reality had been the basis
of his political life. A large sign in the offices of the Committee
to Reelect the President in 1972 summed up the philosophy:
"Winning in Politics Isn’t Everything. It’s the Only Thing!"
Yet we elected him with an overwhelming vote We wanted
him. The fact that later we couldn't stomach his lies and forced
his resignation is of importance, but it is of no more importance
than the fact that we knowingly chose him, not once but twice.
And there is no reason to suppose that we have rid ourselves
of our desire for a strong, oppressive leader. It is doubtful that
our people really desire the participatory democracy that was
envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. It seems proba*
ble that a majority would vote for a powerful leader who could
impose his will on the people. Or if they would not vote for this,
the overwhelming apathy and cynicism of the majority indi-
cates their permission for it to happen. In a recent California
election 80 percent of the eligible voters age eighteen to twenty-
one — the young people whme futures are at stake — failed to
vote. Undoubtedly their attitude is “What’s the use?" They
have no belief that they can partiapate in government in any
meaningful way. This is the perfect soil for developing a dicta-
torship.

Not only in government is there a trend toward an increasing
cooMntratkm of authoritarian contnrf. In our great corpora-

239

Caul Roous dm r*EitaoNAL Ptmu

tiom. especially tti the mammoih multinatkma] ones, we see a
deveJopRimt of pomts and contrid that causes the individual to
feel impotent. He » simply a pawn at the m«cy of faceless
gfXMips that determine his life.

Tom Hanna, in his slashing book The End 0/ Tyranny, gives
a label to this general dnft toward dictatorial rule. He calls it
“Dysamenca.'* since it‘s utterly opposed to the goals, ideals,
and politicsl structure embtxlMd in the Constitution. It is
"Dysamerican** as opposed to “American.”

Many social historians, economists, and forecasters agree
that the disillusionment with democracy is growing, and they
see it coming to fruition in the future. They say a controlled
society is inevitable.' The problems will be too complex for
democracy to handle. The hard and unpopular decisions that
will have to be made to bnng an overafliuent society back to a
simpler, less wasteful, less polluting way of life can. they be-
lieve, only be made by an autocrat or a ruling elite. We will all
have to give up our freedom, so the argument goes, in order to
survive.

So why not go along with the trend, recognize that the demo-
cratic way is dying, that society cannot function if based on the
belief in a responsible person who participates in decision-mak-
ing? Why not relax and enjoy the controls that are or will be
exercised by authoritarian government, profit-controlled multi-
natumai corporations, a ngidly prescribed educational system,
an elitist conircd of individual behavior? Why fight this sup-
posedly inevitable shift?

I cannot go along with this thinking.

Even under the stnctest totalitarian regimes, where govern-
ment policy, economic organizauon, personal behavior, and
individual thought arc all contrcdled by a central group, persons
onerge. In Russia, the luune of Solzhenitsyn has been but a
symbol of a much larger movement He flcHirished against in-
credible oppression and survives. Many cMhers have not sur-
vived and wiU not survive. Yet public opinion the world over
atfanires and rgoioa in a man who dira to vidue his own

2fl0

A New Political PioimE

penon and that of othen. and from that value base expresses
bis own thoughts, refuses — to the death — ^to be controlled, and
dares to challenge our system too. Belief in the worth of the free
person is not something that can be extinguished even by all the
niodem technological devices — bugging of conversations, use
of "mental hospitals" to recondition behavior, electric torture,
and all the rest. Nothing can extinguish tiM human organism's
dnve to be itself — to actualixe itself in individual and creative
ways We recognize this by applauding a Solzhenitsyn even as
w'c permit our own government to move in the direction of
totalitarian control over our own behavior.

There's also the possibility that Americans are choosing a
new kind of democracy. A survey made for the People’s Bicen-
tennial Commission turned up some surprising attitudes.' A
representative sample of over twelve hundred individuals from
all parts of the country and including all income levels shows
that 58 percent believe that America's great corporations tend
to dominate and determine the actions of our federal officials.
Only 25 percent believe the reverse — that government officials
determine the actions of the corporations. A majonty — nearly
two-thirds — favor employee ownership and control of Ameri-
can corporations, with employees owning most of the stock and
determining broad policies, including the selection of manage-
ment. Seventy-four percent favor having consumers in local
communities represented on the boards of companies operating
in those communities. Fifty-six percent say that they would
definitely or probably support a Presidential candidate who
stood for employee control of American corporations.

Here is certainly an instance in which the inarticulate
groundswell of public t^nion has gone far beytmd the stand of
the political leaders of our country. None of the candidates in
1976 represented any such view. Yet here is evidence that people
in general are making a strong statement on two points: they
distrust large corporations whose maruigement does not seem
accountable to thdr owners, the competitive marketplace, the
govemroent. or their employees; they believe responsibie and

261

Ca«I. ROOKIIS OM PRRSONAI PnWKII

humane behavior on the part of thOK companies is more likely
if they are owned and controlled by the employees. This would
bring about a partiapatory economic democrKy. As lohn
Adams said in 1815, the war was “no part of the Revolution It
was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was
in the minds of the people, a change in their .sentiments, their
duties and obligations. . This radical change in the principles,
opinions, sentiments, and affectioas of the people was the real
American Revolution."

What the survey is saying is that here, in one segment of
public thinking -the economic area— we arc seeing a "radical
change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of
the people’ that may be a part of the new revolution And it's
a change from a profit-centered, organization-centered view to
a person-centered view. It is closer to the original American
view and away from a Dysamcrica.

But IS this simply an isolated csample’^ Is there sufficient
reason to believe that our seemingly declining stKiel) has any
possibtliiy of saving itselP I wish to explore these questions

One lesson I have often learned in my garden is that the
brown and rotting mess of this year's plant is a mulch in which
next year's new shixits may be discovered. So. tixi. I believe that
m our decaying culture we see the dim outlines of new growth,
of a new revolution, of a culture of a sharply^ different sort. I
see that revolution as coming not in some great organized
movement, nut in a gun-carrying army with banners, not in
manifestos and declarations, hut through the emergence of a
new kind of person, thrusting up through the dying, yellowing,
putrefying leav«k and stalks of our fading institutions

A number of years ago 1 gave a short, brash talk on “The
Person of Tomorrow." 1 did not submit it for publication be-
cause I fell very unsure of my perceptions of this new person,
and whether indeed he was emerging, or whether he was simply
a wild fanta.sy of my own. But since that time my experience
has only confirmed what seemed then to be a far-out thesis.
Also, encouragingly for me. there has been a spate of books.

262

A New POLtTtCAL PmUKE

from widely different sources, each from its own perspective
seeing our culture undergoing some sort of drastic change and
producmg a type of individual, a type of consciousness, a way
of being and behaving, that will reshape our world. We have a
solid nuedkal scientist. Ren6 Dubos,’ emphasizing that man’s
very make>up means that the future belongs to the “unique.
unpreced«ited. and unrepeatable person.” and that “trend is
not destiny." W'e have a poetic joumalist«educator, George B.
Leonard,* setting forth an almost ecstatic vision of the human
species undertaking “an awesome journey into a higher state of
being." a transformation he regards as inevitable. From a differ-
ent vantage point, philanthropist-financier John D. Rockefeller
Iir pictures the second American Revolution already in prog-
ress, caused partially by our much sharper and clearer aware-
ness of ourselves and our world, and leading to a humanistic
fulfillment of the Amencan dream. A philosopher-psycholo-
gist. Thomas Hanna,* wntes a hymn to the wholeness of the
pulsing, growing human soma — body and mind united — and to
the new human mutants who are living that realization, leading
us toward a new goal. He describes these mutants as the “New
American freemen."' A noted microbiologist, Jonas Salk.' leads
us through his biological perspective to see an intellectual and
spiritual evolution of man’s unfolding potential. The Stanford
Research Institute, through its social policy center, has issued
an exhaustive report that asks how we may “facilitate the emer-
gence of new images" of man, convinced that we must have a
new and more adequate image if we are to survive.' Two psy-
chologist-educators. FrSd and Anne Richards, state the theme
of that book in their one- word title. “Homonovus,” the new
man. A far-out young medical researcher. Andrew Weil.",
builds a case for the new man by pointing out the advantages
of intuitive thinking — the natural mind — based on unconscious
factors and altered states of consciousness, over the conven-
tional rational thinking of the average man and the academic.
Provocatively, he says the future will bekmg to “stoned" rather
than to "straight” thinking (though by “stoned” he docs not

263

Cam. KoGEts on Pemonal Powei

inif^ 4rug>ind»ced). A novelist. Joyce Carol Oates,'* beUeves
we ate in a ’’crisis of transition,” between the end of the Renais*
sance and the "higher humanism” man n evolving toward. She
uses the marvelous quotation from Sir James Jeans, the physi-
cist-philosopher, which I have given earlier. It expresses a
theme that runs through all of the writers 1 have mentioned,
who seem to be tollmg the knell OT a narrowly mechanistic view.
Jeans says, “The universe begins to look more like a great
thought than like a great machine.”

Such a diversity of strangely convergent perceptions of the
future have emboldened me to present with more confidence —
and with, I hope, more depth — my view of the radical new
budding of persons that may change the fundamental nature of
our society. What I say is based on wide personal observation,
on interactions with diverse individuals and groups, on my
reading. It is an informal speculation, with all the possibility of
bias and error that that implies. It is not empirical science, nor
IS It intended to be, though 1 hope it may contain some elements
of observation that will inspire further study.

It spnngs primarily from my expenenc'^ with what I have
come to think of as new persons. Where have I found them? I
find them among corporation executives who have given up the
gray-flannel rat race, the lure of high salanes and stock options,
to live a simpler life in a new way." I find them among simply
dreased. long-haired young men and women who have defied
most of the values of today's culture and formed a counter
culture. 1 find them among priests and nuns and mmistm who
have left behind the dogmas of their institutions to live lives of
more meaning I find them among women who are vigorously
rising above. the limitations that society has placed on their
personhood. 1 find them among blacks and Chicanos and mher
minority members who are puling out from generations of
passivity into assertive, positive lives. I find them among those
who have experienced encounter groups, who are finding a
place for feelings as well as thou^ts in their lives. 1 find them

2«4

A New Political PtoutE

•BMing creative school dropouts who are thrusUi^ into higher
reaches than their sterile schooling permits. 1 reatiae. too, that
I saw something of these persons in myyears as psychother*
apist, when clients were choosing freer, richer, more self-
directed lives for themselves. The above are a few of the places
in which I have glirnfMed something of these emerging par-
sons.'*

Though the sources of my perceptions are incredibly diverse,
I find a certain unity in the individuals I am perceiving. The
configuration seems similar, even though there are many minor
differences. These persons present a new face to the world, a
pattern which has not, in my judgment, ever been seen before,
except perhaps in rare individuals.

1 find these persons first of all to have a deep concern for
authenticity. Communication is especially valued as a means of
telling It the way it is, with feelings, ideas, gestures, speech, and
bodily movement all conveying the same message. They have
been brought up in a climate of hypocrisy, deceit, and mixed
messages, and are sick to death of double-think and double-
talk They know the falsehoods and guile of Madison Avenue
They have heard consciously deceitful statements from "the
highest official sources" in our government. They have ob-
served the word “peace" used to mean "war," and the phrase
"law and order" used to mean "repression of dis.sent by illegal
means." They have listened to the double messages of parents
and teachers. Ail of these add up to the admonition, "Don’t
watch what I am or what 1 do; listen to what 1 say." They reject
this current hypocritical culture, and long to establish interper-
sonal relations in which communications are real and complete,
rather than phony or partial. Astonishing progress is shown in
this respect They are open, for example, about sexual relation-
ships rather than leading secretive or double lives. Parents,
teachers, government officials are confronted with their views,
rather than false impressions of agreement being given. They
are learning to handle conflict, even in organizations~>how to

269

Out Rootas ON Pemunal Powek

carry on cooiinoing rdattonshipt in a climate of trust built on
openness, rather than on a basis of fai^e. These persons are
for real.

This desire for straightforwardness is expressed in public and
in private ways. There is no doubt that the brutal war in Vi^-
nam was finally brought to a halt by the insistent uncovering,
by these new persons, of the hypocrisy of that war. They made
it clear that we were not fighting against communist villains to
uphold a democracy, but to prop up a corrupt, unpopular, and
dictatorial government. It was straight speaking which eventu-
ally stopped our massive war machinery.

On the personal side a young woman, Donna Lee Ryan, a
senior -class speaker at Sonoma State, says, "This is the time to
begin to speak frankly of the things which concern us. . . . This
IS the time to live the way we talk. This is the time for more
action and fewer words. As students we have learned to piay
the game of iniellectualization, and we know that it is a com-
fortable way to avoid life. But this is the time . . to stand firmly
opposed to that form of compromise which causes us to lose our
self-respect "

A highly honored young man, Meldon Levine, in his com-
mencement address to the Harvard Law School, said to the
assembled faculty and parents. "You have told us repeatedly
that trust and courage were standards to emulate You have
convinced us that equality and justice were inviolable concepts
You have taught us that authority should be guided by reason
and tempered by fairness. We have taken you senously. . .
Now, for attempting to achieve the values which you have
taught us to cherish, your response has been astounding." He
points out how the efforts of young people to correct injustices
and change the system have been met by disapproval, harass-
ment. and oppression. “When this type of violent repression
replaces the search for reasonable alternatives Americans are
allowing thetr most fundamental ideals to be compromised."
He is challenging our two-faced culture.

One of the deepest antipathies of emerging persons is directed

266

A New Political Piouiif.

toward instituttons. They are opposed to all highly structured,
inflexible, bureaucratic instituttons. The firm belief is that insti*
tutions exist for persems, and not the reverse.

One of the most sinking cultural developments our time
IS the decline of the power and authoniy of the institution — in
government, the military, the church, the corporation, the
school. This is certainly due in part to the attitude of new
emerging perstms. They will not pul up with order for order's
sake, form for form's sake, rules for the sake of having rules.
Every aspect of formal structure is questioned and discarded
unless It serves a human purpose. Every inflexibility of any sort
is suspect, for ngidity cannot serve the changing human being.

Beliefs on this score are not idle talk Emerging persons will
leave an institution rather than give in to meaningless dictates
Faculty members drop out of universities, students out of col-
leges. dtx'tors out of the AMA. priests out of ihcir churches,
executives out of corporations, air force pilots out of bombing
groups, spies out of the CIA, scientists out of corporations
making nuclear ptiwer plants

Many of these actions arc taken quietly, without fanfare. The
institution of marriage is being deserted by thousands of cou-
ples. both young and middle-aged, who have chosen to ignore
customs, ritual. ,ind law. to live togethet as partners without the
sanction of marriage This is done openly, but without dcfuaticc
These couples simply believe that a partnership has significance
only if It IS a mutually enhancing, growing relationship

in a survey of Catholic wives, of those under the age of thirty,
over 75 percent are using methods of birth control of which the
church disappnives. To the best of my knowledge there have
been no demonstrations against the pope's ig 6 K encyclical.
There is no wave of protest These women arc simply disregard-
ing the institutional pronouncement, and acting in ways that
they see as best for persons, not for the structure. It is a striking
instance of the new attitude toward institutions.

What will take the place of the institution for this new per-
son? It IS too SOCHI to say. One trend that I see is toward small.

267

Cail Koom ON Pbmonal Powu

iotforaitl. nonhierarchical troupt. Studenu and facutoy liave
•taitad himdrada of ‘tree •choote,” “exfwnniaital adMola,**
iofonnal, often tboft-lived, (to ci de dl y uaaiructuKd, full of ex>
ettement and kaming. Several graduate Khook of high ttan*
dardi permit a idudent to achieve a doctond degree through a
program of todepoident study devised by the student. The
candidate is advised and aided by a group of faculty and peers
who help him make sure that the study is thorough, of sufficient
depth and magnitude, and makes a contribution to knowledge.
Two such graduate schools known to me personally are Union
Graduate School and The Humanistic ^ychology Institute.
These programs are swamped with applications and attract a
high type of independently minded scholars, but all are trying
to stay small.

Business executives who have dropped out start personal
enterprises, limited in size, where relationships are direct and
face to face, rather than at second— or fifth — hand. An ex-navy
and Pan Am pilot sets up a pottery shop to sell his own crea-
tions. A public relations executive becomes a farmer and free-
lance writer. A sales manager in a construction company
becomes the propnetor of a small wine and cheese shop. Per-
sons of all types join communes, where the relationships are
personal, and structure and authority are called into being only
to accomplish a specific purpose. Some new professional
groups, like the Center to which I am privileged to belong, are
bound by a sense of community with no lasting tines of author-
ity and no desire to expand, but carrying on diverse and creative
projects.

Another trend is to humanize the institution from inside,
simply disregarding meaningless rules. Thus factory assembly-
line workers ignore their assigned, routinized jobs and form
teams in which they trade off duties, handle two jobs at a time,
and in other ways pronounce, by their «;tions, that they are
self-directing persons whose interests come first, not cogs in a
great technological wheel.

In government and ptditics. too— that quagmire in which so

26$

A New PoLmcAL Figuae

many men have sunk — some are endeavoring to take a human
apfiroach. Here is a successful state lepslator writing to his
constituents to say that “institutions must become life^Miented
rather than death-onented . . . persons in politics [must) be
committed to . . . self-realization rather than sdf-dimial. In-
creasingly I come to realize that the discovery of a new politics
for our culture depends upon my living and experieneing and
discovering a ‘new politics' within myself-^^getting so much in
touch with alt the parts of my own being, that out of the
resultant oneness within me. I will increasingly live disclosingly
so as to expose the institutions and customs of our culture
which stand in the way of oneness — within ourselves, between
ourselves, between us and the earth."'* This is indeed a fresh
breeze in the political world — an authentic person seeking elec-
toral support, getting it. and changing a time-honored institu-
tion from the inside.

Emerging persons are indifferent to material comforts and
rewards. The machines, comforts, and luxuries of the affluent
society are no longer a necessity. Blue jeans, a sleeping bag, and
natural food are valued as much as-~and sometimes more than
— expensive clothing, fine lodging, and gourmet meals. We find
corporation men who have become very comfortable as explor-
ers, or ski instructors, because they prefer those lives. We find
young people with no interest in accumulating money, but only
in using money for constructive personal or social u.ses Money
and material status symbols are no longer the primary goals of
these people.

Emerging persons are neither power-hungry nor achieve-
ment-hungry. When they seek power, it is for other than purely
selfish purposes. Much has been made of the fact that many of
the most visible protesters of the sixties — Tom Hayden, for
example — are now working within the establishment. But it is
not usually pointed out that this is merely another step in a
consistent ptocess. In the sixties they demonstrated, marched,
staged sit-ins. They found these tactics efiTective — to a point.
They did alert the public, helped to sharpen the basic issues.

269

Caiii, tm PihftSONAt fowiu

But they were not pantcularly f^ucces&ful in bnnging lasting
change. So now many of the individuals are indeed working
from within the establishment to bnng about change. Whether
these efforts are through the machinery of politics, through
legal services for the poor, or working on a farm*labor board,
the changes they arc working for arc still in the direction of
giving individual perstins more power over their lives,

I hesc persons are caring persons They have a deep desire to
be of help lo others, lo ‘'brothers and sisters/* and to SiKiety,
when Its need for help is clear These persons arc. however,
defjutely suspicious of the "helping professions." where
"shrinks/* MKial workers, and drug ctmnselorscarn ihcir liveli-
hrxxl by offering help for pa>. and tix) often hide behind a
professional facade They tend lo take a more direct route
Young men and women man hotdines lo aid those in crisis, and
they do ft voluntanl>. They share fiH>d or IcKlging without
question When "straight people" are m emergency situations,
they respond In recent rivet fltKxls, long-haired young men and
women have rushed in. sometimes from hundreds of miles
away, to till sandbags, shtirc up levees, take care of families.
And in all of this, financial ccmipcnsation is a nimcxisient or
very mim>r consideration

The help so freely given by emerging persons is a gentle,
subtle, nonmoralistic canng When a person is helped down
from a bad drug trip, the touch is soft and supptuiive, without
overtones of preaching W hen an individual is caught in a crime
he IS helped, nol lectured or hassled These persons arc accept-
ant of the individual in distress, wnh an awareness that the roles
might easily be reversed They fly in the face of the mixies of
"helping" mosi pivpular in our culture - the diagnostic, evalua-
tive, interpretive, prescriptive, and punitive approaches

These persons arc seeking new forms of community , of ck">se-
ness, of intimacy, 4>f shared purpose He and she are seeking
new forms of communication in such a community— verbal and
nonverbal, fcelingful as well as intcilectual There is a rccogni-
fK>n that personal life will be transient, meetly in temporary

270

A N£W PcM ITICAL FlGUftE

rdattonshi|s, and that they must be able to estaUh^ closeness
quickly. In this mobile wcH'ld perscms do not live kmg in one
community. These individuals are not surrounded by family
and relatives. They are a part of the temporary society.'* There
is a realization that if they are to live in a human context, th^
must be an ability to establish intimate, communicative, per-
sonal bonds with others in a very short space of time. They must
be able to leave these close relationships behind, without exces-
sive conflict or mourning

One attitude held by emerging persons runs strongly counter
to the prevailing view of the current and past decades. It is the
deep distrust of a cognitively based science, and a technology
that uses that science to conquer the world of nature and the
world of people There is no longer trust in the abstractions of
science, or the uses to which they are put. fhcrc is an intuitive
belief that significanl discoveries and learnings involve feelings
These persons were not especially thrilled by the space pro-
gram; they questioned the littering of space and of the moon
with priceless junk They think that technology should exist for
some purpose other than conquest.

One of the manifestations of this distrust of science as we
have known it is the interest and belief in the tKcult. in astrol-
ogy, in the I-Ching, and in Tarot cards — the sciences of the
past. But emerging persons have also been more than willing to
engage in modern science and technology when coin meed these
serve human purposes. Their expertise in electronics as a means
of creating and transmitting music is obvious The eagerness to
use biofeedback as a means of enlarging self-awareness, and to
bring changes in behavior, is another instance of this willing-
nevs.

The general distrust of scientific “progress" should not be
misinterpreted. These persons are not dogmatic They are eager
to find truth These are searching persons, without any neat
answers. The only certainly is that we are uncertain. These
person.s are sharply aware of the fact that each one of us is only
a speck of life on a small blue-and- white planet (whose days

271

CaKL KOCEM on PE«S(M4AL Powe«

may be numbered) floating in an enormous universe. Like many
previous searchers, they are uncertain as to whether there is a
purpose in this universe, or only the puirposes we create. The
persons of tomorrow are willing to live with this anxious uncer-
tainty as they strive to learn more of the two universes, outer
and inner.

For another characteristic of these persons is the clear desire
to explore inner space They are more willing than previous
man to be aware of self, of inner feelings, of hang-ups. These
individuals are able to communicate with themselves more
freely, with less fear The barriers of repression, which shut otT
so much of the individual from awareness, are definitely lower
than III preceding generations These are highly aware persons.

The willingness to look within has led these new persons into
many new areas -drug-induced slates of altered consciousnes.s,
a fresh interest in dreams, the use of a variety of types of
meditation, a concern with all types of |»>ychic phenomena, an
interest in evitenc and transcendental religious views They are
convinced that within themselves lie undiscovered worlds and
hidden capacities- -that day-dreaming, fantasy, and intuition
are hut gateways to much more. Cosmic consciousness, thought
transmis.sion, and Kirlian aura.s given off by living things are
not nonsensical ravings, but arc regarded as within the bounds
of ptmibility, and there is no hesitation to upset a conventional
world view by exploring them.

They realire, as I do, that just as the exploding galaxies and
“black holes” of outer space haie been the focus of much
exploration in recent decades, tomorrow is the day of inner
space There mil need to be courageous pioneenng into the
mysterious and currently unfathomable separate realities,
which appear to exist, incredibly diflerent from our present
objective world These emerging persons have the danng and
the freedom of thought to begin such explorations. They could
And support from Einstein's statement; "The supreme task
. . IS to amve at those universal elementary laws from which
the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no

272

A New PoLirKTAt FIcuee

logicEl ptth to those laws; only intuition, rusting on sympathetic
understanding o/ expenenee, can reach them’*" (italics mine).
These new persons already have the intuitive conviction that
mysterious laws, operating in the world of the psychic, simply
do not fit into the present framework of scientific thinking.

In quite another area these persons feel a closeness to elemen'
tal nature. There is a respect for nature and its ways, and a
relearning of lessons from ancient tribes on how to live, in a
balance of man’s mutuality with nature, each sustaining the
other. In these persons’ recreation, the surfboard, the ski, the
sailboat, the glider are more symbolic of their interests than the
speedboat, the dune buggy, or the racing car. The first cluster
bases its excitement on a thrilling alliance with natural forces
— waves. snow<overed slopes, the wind and its air currents —
the second on the determined conquest of nature, with destruc-
tion and pollution as results. In this respect for nature the new
persons have rediscovered the value of patiently waiting upon
the inhabitants of wilderness and desert in order to learn. We
have men and women devoting long years of hardship to live
with pnmitive tribes, or with gorillas. lion.> chimpanzees, sim-
ply to learn from them. It is a new and respectful attitude, a
more humble one.

These are persons who are aware that they are continually in
proces.s — always changing. In this process they are spontane-
ous. vitally alive, willing to risk. Likes and dislikes, pys and
sorrows are passionate and are passionately expressed. The
adventuresomeness has an almost Elizabethan quality — every^
thing is possible, anything can be tried

Because these new persons are always in process, they simply
will not tolecate fixity. These individuals can see no reason why
rigid schools, glaring maldistribution of wealth, depressed
ghetto areas, unfair racial or sexual discnmination, unjust wart
should remain unchanged. They expect to change these situa-
tions. and want to change them in human directions. I believe
this person is the first instance in history of man being fully
aware that changingncss is the one constant in life.

273

Carl Rooeia on Personal Power

These new penom have a trust in their own experience and
a profound distrust of ail external authority. Neither pope nor
judge nor scholar can convince these individuals erf' anything
that IS not borne out by personal experience. So they often
decide to obey those laws that are personally regarded as sound
and just, and to disobey those that seem unsound and unjust,
taking the consequences of their actions. On a minor issue, they
smoke marijuana in defiance of laws regarded as unreasonable
and unfair, and risk being busted On major issues they refuse
to be drafted when they regard a war as reprehensible; they give
out secret government diKuments when convinced the people
should know what has been going on, they refuse to reveal the
sources of news reptirts for the same reason. This is a new
phenomenon. We have had a few Thoreaus, but we have never
had hundreds and thousands of people, young and old alike,
willing to obey some laws and disobey others on the basis of
their own personal moral judgment, and living with the conse-
quences of their choice These persons have a high regard for
self, and for their competence to discriminate in issues involving
authonty.

These are some of the charactertstics 1 sec in emerging per-
sons. 1 am well aware that few individuals possess all of these
characteristics, and 1 know that I am describing a small minor-
ity of the population as a whole. Yet these persons appear to
me to be having an impact entirely out of proportion to their
numbers, and this has, 1 believe, significance for the future.

The view seems prevalent that while persons of the sort I
have been describing were evident in the turbulent and protest-
ing sixties, all is now changed. Students and young people, I am
told, are now interested only in security in jobs. They want the
big salaries. tlM big cars, the pensions. They are no longer
interested in change — only in stability.

1 cannot agree. These emoging persons have never con-

274

A New POLITtCAt FlCUItE

stituted a majority of the young, nor a majority of any age tevel.
So while the mi^rity of young people may be rntwe security-
minded than the demonstrators of a decade ago, t find many
younger people who still fit the general picture I have given.
Perhaps even more significant is the fact that a larger propor-
tion of those who can no longer be classed as youth are becom-
ing process persons. The numbers are larger, not smaller, of
those who are deserting the established institutions to live freer,
more risky, more uncertain, simpler, and more changing lives.

Another element, often unrecognized, is that most of the
causes supported hy the radicals of the sixties have now become
an accepted part of the mainstream of American life. Students
have much more voice in university aflairs. The civil nghts
movement has made great gains There are now many elected
officials of black, Chicano. and other ethnic origins. Affirma-
tive-action programs providing job opportunities for minorities
and women arc commonplace Those w ho suffered in protesting
the Vietnam War have lived to see the United States making an
agoni/ed search of its past foreign interventions, and an ex-
tremely cautious scrutiny of every impulse to intervene in the
affairs of another country ttxlay And there are other changes.
Homosexuality, bisexuality, and sexual freedom are given far
greater social acceptance. One need only mention people’s law
collectives, free health clinics, radical therapy, alternative
schools, the progress toward equal nghts for women, to suggest
some of the other changes which arc in process. Even in minor
aspects of life, blue jeans, long hair, beards, mustaches, and the
smoking of manjuana no longer cause excited comment. The
politics of yesterday's demonstrators is now the politics of a
great mass of the population. So perhaps it is not surprising that
in a period of recession young people are finding less to (H-otest
about. But this by no means indicates that the ferment of
change is dying out.

275

CaKL RoGEIU on PfeMONAL POWER

In early 1975 a group including John Vasconcetloa, the legta*
laior, began to dream of a new political force — not a new party,
but a humani»ltc network of persons cutting across all party
lines, giving a new emphasis to the importance of persons in the
prtKess of political action. After a year of groundwork involv-
ing seventy’hve different groups, a pattern tegan to emerge and
IS now taking form as a nonprofit organization termed
"Self Determination. A P'iin Network." Its sponsors
include a half-dozen California legislators — state and national
—educators, including two college presidents, several business-
men. some social activists, and a journalist-writcr

The initial siaicinent of Self Determination, Inc , ‘ is so much
in accord with the thinking expressed in this btxik and in this
chapter that I read it with some astonishment;

We chose to form a “network” to signify a lateral and largely
leader-less process for empowering persons in their own places
to live more effectively, in their personal lives and in the realm
of "politics." , . Simply, our network provides a vehicle

for people who want to attend simultaneously to their own
personal growth and to their concern for humanistic social
change

SELF DETERMINATION is not an organization that’s
going to do something to you; rather, it's a participatory net-
work through which we will enable each other to do things
better for ourselves. ... It is time we overcome our cynicism
and take the risks and responsibility for becoming the authors
of our own bang and doing. . . .

SELF DETERMINATION proposes a practical and power-
ful alternative; changing ourselves and society, by transforming
the most basic myth by which we live — our assumptKNis about
our nature and penential — from negative and self-denying to
positive and self-actualizing. . . . Many persons are living a
positive vision of self and society. We want now to give it vital,
public visibility by creating a statewide alliance of such persons.
Our purpose is facilitating personal and political consoous-

276

A New Political FicuitE

nm>raistng. by educating about the politiod dimension of per*
sonal vision, and about the human dimension of political lives
and social issues. All this we call humanistic politics. . . .

We realize our proposal is idealistic, but it is time we live our
ideals, and make them pragmatic. What began only a year ago
as a dream is now a living reality. It’s remarkable how far we've
come operationally and grown personally, through our shared
efforts. That is because we trusted ourselves, trusted each other,
and chose to act.

Whether this movement reaches beyond California, whether
It succeeds, or whether it falters and fails — these things are to
some extent matters of secondary importance. It is the fact that
a totally new type of political force is being bom that is worthy
of note. Even in its process it is person-centered There is no one
pet son in charge, no hig name It met with more than twenty-
five hundred people in small group meetings to try to gel grass-
roots desires built ml > the new organization. It did not start
with a drive for ptiwer. out in a workshop of twenty-one persons
from across California, a workshop facilitated by persons with
experience in intensive groups and organization development
“During that scs.sion. we further clarified our goals, deepened
our commitments to SELF DETERMINATION and to each
other, and determined the .specific services and a limclabie for
implementing our programs over the next year,"

This development comes closer to being an expression of, and
an organization for. the persons of tomorrow than anything else
I know It IS a .strong indication that the emerging individuals
I have tned to desenbe do, m fad. exist and are becoming aware
of like-minded others.

Such a fresh and pertinent example should not blind us to the
many profound questions that remain unanswered about these
new persons. Can these individuals survive m our culture?
What kinds of opposition can be expected? To the extent that
these persons survive, what will be the influence on our culture?
1 should like first to look at some of the negative answers to

27 ?

Ca«l Rocem oh PKCsdNAi

these questions, both from the point of view of history and from
the point of view of built-in cultural opposition
One line cX thought which casts doubt upon the survival of
these individuals is a consideration of histor)-. These emerging
persons bear little resemblance to the types of man who have
shown survival qualities. These persons would not be congenial
to the practical, disciplined, soldier-ruler produced by the Ro-
man Empire. They bear little resemblance to the dichotomous
medieval man — the man of faith and force, of mona.stenes and
crusades. These persons are almost the antithesis of the Pun-
tans who founded our country, with their strict beliefs and
strong controls over behavior. These persons are very different
from the men who brought about the industnal revolution, with
their ambition, productivity, greed, and competitiveness. These
persons are deeply opposite to the communist culture, with its
controls on individual thought and behavior in the interest of
the state. The characteristics and the behavior of these individu-
als run strongly counter to the orthodoxies and dogmas of the
major western religions — Catholicism, Protestantism, and Ju-
daism. These persons certainly do not fit into our present-day
culture^ — Its government and military and management bureau-
cracies. its rigid education. These persons are not at home in
our present American society, dominated as it is by computer-
ized technology and the man in uniform— the military, the
police, (he intelligence agent, and the faceless men in control.

is there any parallel? During the brief flowenng of Greek
culture it was believed that the highest form of art and ultimate
justification of the community was to create persons of human
excellence Today's emerging persons would be rather congen-
ial to that goal, lliey would also. I believe, have been more or
less at home in the world of Renaissance man, during another
painful and exciting pert<xi of transformation. But clearly their
characteristics have not dominated past history. If they survive,
this will be the exception and not the rule.

The emergence of these new persons will be opposed. Let me
suggest the opposition by a series of sloganistic statements that

27 »

A New Pm iTicAt Ficune

may cmnmumcate something of the sources of antagonism.

First, “The Stale above all.** The t»st decade has giv«t us
ample evidence that in this country — as well as in others, both
communist and free world — the governing elite and the massive
bureaucracy which surrounds them have no place for dis.seniers
or those with different values and goals. These new persons
have been and will be harassed, denied freedom of expression,
accused of conspiracy, imprisoned for unwillingness to con-
form. It would take a massive — and perhaps unlikely — awaken-
ing of the Amencan public to reverse this trend Acceptance of
diversity of values and life-styles and opinions is the heart of the
democratic process, but it no longer flourishes well here. So
these emerging persons will certainly be repressed, if possible,
by government.

Second. “Tradition above all.*' The institutions of our society
— educational, corporate, religious, familial — stand in direct
opposition to anyone who defies tradition. Universities and
local public schivils are the institutions likely to be the most
hostile to the persons of tomorrow. They do not fit their tradi-
tion and will be ostracized and ejected whenever possible. Cor-
porations. in spite of their conservative image, are somewhat
more responsive to public trends. Even so. they will be in oppo-
sition to persons who put self-realization ahead of achievement,
personal growth above salary or profit, cooperation with nature
ahead of its conquest. The church is a less formidable opponent,
and family and marital traditions are already in such a state of
confusion that the antagonism, though existent, is not likely to
be effectively implemented.

Third. “The intellect above all.'* The fact that these emerging
individuals are attempting to be whole persons — body, mind,
feelings, spirit, and psychic powers integrated — will be seen as
one of their most presumptuous offenses. Not only science and
academia, but government as well, are constructed on the as-
sumption that cognitive reasonmg is the only important func-
tion of man. As Halberstam" pointed out several years ago. it
was the conviction of **ihe best and the brightest*' that intdli-

279

Caki Rogi^ms o<^ Ffksonai Powir

gence and ratninal thinking could M>lve anything that led us
into the ternbkr morass of V letnam This same conviction is still
held by scienliMs, faculty members, and policy-makers at all
levels. They will be the first to pour contempt and scorn on
anyone who by word or deed challenges that credo

Fourth. "The individual should be shaped," As the Stanford
report points out. a vision of the individual may logically be
extrapolated from our present technological culture, li would
involve the application of social and psychological technology
to control nonconforming behavior in the interest of a regulated
postindusirial society. Such controls would be exercised not by
some one institutional force but by what the wnters term the
“warfare-welfare-induslnal-communicalions-police bureaucra-
cies One of the first aims of this complex web, if this con-
forming image prevails, would be to control or eliminate the
persons I have been describing.

Such shaping may be brought about not only by subtle coer-
cive control but even by the steady advance of scientific knowl-
edge Itself The biologist and biiKhemist nre learning the pos-
sibilities of genetic shaping and of chemically induced
alterations in behavior These advances may, like social and
psychological knowledge, be used as controlling or freeing
potentialities 1 he physicists have long since lost their inno-
cence in regard to the uses of their di,scoveries. The biological
and psychological sciences are next. They too may easily be-
come the tools of this massive bureaucratic complex in which
movement toward control appears inevitable, with no one per-
son responsible for any given step — a hydra-headed creeping
monster that would engulf the sort of persons 1 have described
Fifth, "The status quo forever.” Change threatens, and its
possibility creates frightened, angry people They are found in
thetr purest essence on the extreme right, but in all of us there
is some fear of process, of change. So the vocal attacks on these
new persons will come from the highly conservative right, who
are understandably terrified as they see their secure world dis-

280

A Nf.w Political Piguhe

solve, but there will be much silent opposition from the whole
population. Change is painful and uncertain. Who wants it?
The answer is. few.

Sixth, ’“Our truth is the truth.” The true believer is also the
enemy of change and will be found on the left, on the right, and
in the middle. This true believer will not be able to tolerate
searching, uncertain, gentle persons. Whether young or old,
fanatic left wing or rigidly right wing, such individuals must
oppose process persons who search for truth. Such true believ-
ers possess the truth, and others must agree

So, as these persons of tomorrow continue to journey into the
light, they will find increasing resistance and htHtility from
these SIX important sources. They may very well overwhelm
them

'^‘et, as history has shown many times, an emergent evolution
IS not easily stopped. These new persons' arrival on the scene
in greater numbers may be delayed by any one or all of the
forces mentioned The quiet revolution of which they are the
essence may be slowed. They’ may be suppressed Fxistence may
be possible only in an underground. But a potent ferment has
been let Iwse in the world by the qualities these persons exhibit.
It will be difficult to put this genie back in the bottle. It will be
doubly difficult because here are persons who hve their values.
Such living of a new and divergent value system is the most
revolutionary action a person can lake, and it is not easily
defeated

Suppose then that there is an outside chance of these persons
coming into the light, of gaining influence, of changing our
culture What would the picture be? Is it as threatening or awful
as many people might fear?

Emerging persons would not bring Utopia. They would make
mistakes, be partially cut rupted. go overboard in certain direc-
tions But these new persons would foster a culture that would
emphasize certain trends, a culture that would be moving in
these directions.

2SI

Cam. Rocfiits on PtMONAi. Powf.ii

Toward a nondefensive openness in all tnierpersonal relation*
ships— Within the family, the working task force, the
system of leadership.

Toward the exploration of self, and the development of the
nchnm of the total, individtial. responsible human
soma — mind and body.

Toward the prizing of individuals for what they are. regard*
less of sex. race, status, or material possessions.

Toward human*sized groupings in our communities, our
educational facilities, our productive units.

Toward a close, respectful, balanced, reciprocal relationship
to the natural world

Toward the perception of material gtxids as rewarding only
when they enhance the quality of personal living.

Toward a more even distnbution of material goods.

Toward a society with minimal structure — human needs tak-
ing priority over any tentative structure that develops.

Toward leadership as a temporary, shifting function, based
on competence for meeting a specific social need.

Toward a more genuine and canng concern for those who
need help.

Toward a human conception of science — in its creative
phase, the testing of its hypotheses, the valuing of the
humanness of its applications.

Toward creativity of all sorts — in thinking and exploring —
in the areas of ssKial relationships, the arts, scKial de-
sign, architecture, urban and regional planning, science,
and the study of psychic phenomena.

To me these are not fnghtening trends but exciting ones. In
spite of the darkness of the present, our culture may be on the
verge of a great evolutionary-revolutionary leap.

282

Port Conclusion

V

Chapter

llnonutahell

}

Every social revolution is preceded by, or brings uiih it, a
change in the perception of the world or a change in the percep-
tion of the possible or both Just as inevitably, these altered
perceptions are first seen as ridiculous nonsense or worse by the
collective common sense of the time.

The Copernican revolution is no doubt the prime example
To think that the earth was not the center of the universe, that
if orbiti^ the sun and was part of a vast galaxy, was not only
absurd, it was a heresy undermining religion and civilization
There are also lesser examples. The thought that invisible or-
ganisms, whom no one could sec, were the cause of illness, w as
the most patent nonsense. The belief that slaves were not chat-
tels to be bought and sold like cattle but were persons with full
personal rights was not only a mischievous thought that was
contrary to history and the Bible, it was economically upsetting
and dangerous. The notion that an obscure mathematical for-
mula showed that a most minute form of matter, the atom,
could, if split, release incalculable power was clearly just a
bizarre offshoot of science fiction

Yet every one of these “ridiculous” perceptual changes al*
tered the face and the nature of our world. It is the “common
sense” that gradually came to be seen as ridiculous.

28S

Cari Rogers cm Phrsonai Powi.r

me mention a familiar instance of the way this change
comes about. It was a fact perfectly obvious to everyone — and
furthermore supported by Holy Wnt — that the earth was flat,
and those who suggested it was spherical were dangerous heret-
ics But when Columbus sailed to the New World, without
falling olT the edge of the earth, this actual experience, this
evidence that the previously accepted view w'as in error, forced
a change in the way the earth was perceived. And this change
was a change not only in geography It made for a reevaluation
of this new-fangled field termed science. The place of man in
the larger scheme of things was brought into question. It even
called into question the Bible as an encyclopedia of factual
knowledge It opened the human mind to possibilities hitherto
unknown It led to visions of continents to be discovered and
countries to he explored It altered the whole perceptual frame-
work of life, and men and women were frightened and excited
and changed by the prospect The impossible became possible.

All this was brought about not by the theories concerning the
globe. These had been around for a long time. The change was
forced by evidence that the theories had validity.

In somewhat similar fashion, I believe, it is the evidence of
the effectiveness of a person-centered approach that may turn
a very small and quiet revolution into a far more significant
change in the way humankind perceives the possible. I am
much ttx) close to the situation to know whether this will be a
minor or major event, but I believe it represents a radical
change. Like every stream that flows around the roots of the
culture, threatening to undermine its cherished views and its
long established ways, it constitutes a frightening force, a force
that IS, as usual, met with all the weight of the common sense
of the culture

What I want to do is to contrast various elements of that
common sense with the evidence which contradicts it. 1 do this
in very condensed form, since the evidence has already been
covered in this book.

COWtUMW

It is hopelessly idealistic to think that the human organism
is basically trustworthy.

— But--

The research and the actions based on this hypothesis tend
to confirm the view— even strongly confirm it.

It IS absurd to think that we can know the elements that make
human psychological development possible

— Bui—

Such elements have been defined, identified as altitudinal
conditions, measured, and shown to be eficclivc

It is nonsensical to think that therapy can be democrati/cd.

— But —

When the therapy relationship is cqualitanan, when each
lakes responsibility for himself in the relationship, independent
(and mutual) growth is much more rapid.

It IS unreasonable to think that a troubled person can make
progress without the guidance and direction of a wise psycho-
therapist.

— Bui —

There is ample evidence that in a relationship mariced by the
facilitative conditions, the troubled person can engage in self-
exploration, and become self-directing in profoundly wise ways.

It IS dangerous to think that psychotic individuals can be
treated as persons.

—But—

The evidence shows that this is the most rapid road to the
psychotic’s utilizing the breakdown itself as material to be as-
similated into personal growth.

It IS fuzzy-minded and weak not to take control over persons.

—But—

It is found that when power is left with perstms. and when

287

CA»t Rookm on Ft ksonai Powm

we are real with them, undersundtng of them, canng toward
them, constructive behavior changes occur, and they exhibit
more strength and power and responsibility.

A family or marriage without a recognized strong authority
IS doomed to failure.

— Bui —

Where control is shared, where the facilitative conditions are
present, it has been demonstrated that vital, sound, enriching
relationships occur.

We must assume responsibility for young people, since they
are nut capable of self-government. It is stupid to think other-
wise.

— Bui —

In a facilitative climate, responsible behavior develops and
flowers, in young and old alike.

Teachers must be in control of their students.

— Bui —

. It has been established that where teachers share their power,
and trust their students, self-directed learning takes place at a
greater rate than in teacher-controlled classrooms.

Teachers must be Arm, discipline strict, evaluation tough, if
learning is to take place.

— But —

It has been proven that the teacher who empathically under-
stands the meaning of school to the student, who respects the
student as a person, who is genuine in relationships, fosters a
learning climate definitely superior in its effects to the “com-
monsense” teacher.

Teachers must teach what students ought to know.

—But—

Si^ificant Ittming is greater when students choose, frmn a

288

COMCLUMON

wide varkiy of options and resources, what thej' need and want
to know.

It IS obvious that in any organization there has to be one boss
Any other idea is preposterous.

—But—

It has been substantiated that leaders who trust organization
members, who share and diffuse power, and who maintain open
personal communication have better morale, have more pro-
ductive organizations, and facilitate the development of new
leaders.

Oppressed groups must revolt. Violent revolution is the only
way for the oppressed to gain power and improve their lives.

— But —

History bears out the view that even if successful, this simply
leads to a new tyranny replacing the old. A nonviolent revolu-
tion, based on a person-centered approach that empowers the
oppressed, appears to have far more promise.

Deep religious feuds, cultural and racial bitternesses are
hopeless. It is a fantasy to think they can be reconciled

— But—

The fact is that small-scale examples exist in abundance to
show that improved communication, reduction in hostility,
steps toward resolving the tensions are entirely possible and rest
upon tried intensive group approaches.

A conference or a workshop has to be organized and run by
one or more leaders who are in charge. Any ot cr vie
unrealistic and quixotic.

—Bui-
lt has been demonstrated that a
can be person-centered from start
Hs operation, in its results — and
persons sensing their own power

large and complex enterprise
i to finish— in its planning, in
that such a concentration of
can move creatively into new

289

Carl RocrJis on Personal Power

and unexplored areas — a result that could not have been
achieved by commonsense methods.

It IS obvious that in a strictly controlled situation, with abso*
lute power at the lop. the powerless ones can exert no significant
influence.

—But-
in an almost perfect laboratory situation, the powerless
members of a day camp, who had come to respect their own
strength because treated in a person-centered way, showed
themselves to be extremely powerful.

in the sixties there was a trend toward basic social change,
but that has now died out Only a dreamer would fail to recog-
nire this

— But—

More and more people with a person-centered approach to
life are infiltrating our schools, our political life, our organiza-
tions. as well as setting up alternate life-styles. They are living
new salues and constitute a continuing and growing ferment of
s<Kiai change.

People don't change

— But-

A new type of person, with values very different from those
of our present culture, is emerging in increasing numbers, and
living and being in ways that break with the past.

Our culture is becoming more and more chaotic. We must
turn t»ck.

— But —

A quiet revolution is under way in almost every field It holds
prtvmise of moving us forward to a more human, more person-
centered workl.

290

Index

actuali/mg icndency, S. 237 51. 161
John, 26a

administration. 69, 70, 73. 75, 80.

90 104. 140. 25^^* 274
artcctfvc teaming, 71 - a
adYuence, 260, 269

aggmsion. $ 6 , 100. 134. 191. 209. 243
akoholiMn, 107

American I>cntat Association, 1 10
American Medical Association (a m.a t
no. 267
anger, see rage
•Anglos', 127 9
Ang)al, A.. 239
Arab Israeli war. 115
Aspy, David, S'* 8
astrology, 27 1
awareness, 244 5t. 272

Becoming Partnen (Rogers). 206
behavior, 24. 25, 27, 88, 99. and
convention, 44. 48, 51. 52, $6 7, 64,
68, 136. 137. and environment,
t8 19, 25. 208, 221,225, 226. 238 51,
258, 288. influences on. 92. 97,

103. 124. 184 6, 208, 260. 271, 278,
280. 288

behavioral objectives, in education,
80 i

behavioral scientists, 98
behaviorists. 18 19. 20
Belfast, 129 33
Bertanlanffy, I 239
birrh-controi. tee contraception
bisexuality. 275

Boston. Massachusetts. 188-204

brainwashing, 18 19

Brandeis Uni verity. 82 *7
Brazil, peasants, 105 9
Brodie, Fawn. 42- 3
Buber, Martin. 139

California, 237 8. 259. 27^7
California, Univcnity of, 71
Carr, Jacqueline,

Catholics, 90. m 6 . *78

Center for Studies 01 the Renoo, La
Jdta. iio»i2, 127, 150. * 54 . *68
^Changes* Communiiy. 123-5
Cherry, G.W.. 98“*oo
Chicafo. 133-5. 319 . 330

Chicago. Uiifversity of, 74-5. 93
* 3 ?

•Clticanos'. 88 . 105, lot. 137*9. *33.
364. 2-5

child-birth, 31 4. 43. 43
children and day camps. 188 304,
and diwtpline. 30, 34, 37 4U 5*.
192. »93» 3M 4^ rearing of. 39'4*-
43^ 57. 78 % 103, i?9. 213 *4. 319.
223 4. 246 7, 249. 25-*, *ee h/m?
infants

t'hina, ti6. 258

churches, influence of the. 2S7, 247,
279 * *ee of so religion
t i.A , 256. 26?

cognitive learning, 71 2. 88. 101, 152
184. 279

C olumbus, C hristopher, 286
communes. rS. 19. 268
C'tMnmunist Party. 90
community, sense of. 268 71
C'ommunity House, BsHlon, 186-204
community meetings. 143 9. >57.

165 6. |47. 169, 170 2. 174. *78, 179
cotnpetiiiveness. lyi, 203. 217, 226.

251. 249

conAKi. Ill, 115 40. 162, 164. 175 6.

265. 271

conscious, 245 51. 263, 272
contraception. 42 3. 63, 117, 267
convcntKins, social. 44. 48. 51 2, 56 7.

64. 68. 136. 137. 225. 275
C opcrnicus. Nicolas. 285
corporations. 90^ 2. 257. 360, 361 3,

264. 267. 279

Cossack, f va, 187

counseling. 4. ^ 7. 9 23, 93 4. 169

couples groups. 45- 47 *8. 50. 166
creativity. 98. 100, 152. 157, 193, 303,
204, 256, 268, 282, 290
crime, la 19. 25“! -8. 270
culture. 46, 5a- 54^ 225 9. 248. 158-9.
262 82, 386. 2B9. 390

day c?»mps. 188-304, 390
decision-making, 4 5* *4. 36. 37, 56.
57. 74, 9*. 94, 97. lOI, ir8. 135. 161.
193 • 3, 330. 360
detusKms, 319
Demher, ^ 14*

democracy, 355' 82

301

<kfxm4iM>n, JM 20. 22K 230 2
Drvomhire. Clt2rk%. 134. 136
t «fiter, 23 8

JincHmirs. 244

JO* 37 41. 5«. 69 72*
73, 79* W. 97, 192. 193* 202-4. 2 U
4l(%%4K:uition. 24?'S
iifvurt^e. 34, JA, 44. 162*3
n s* 4 m^vioctik. 2j8. 240
drug'tjiking. 24. 270. 272. 274. 275
l>yh(M, Rcnc, 263

260. 262

Mrl, K ^ . 24i
Ci'ology. 238

cci>fu»mK imhaigfKc. 257. 273. 282
cilucatiofi, 48. 57, 64 69 89. 115.

120, U9. 140. 144. 166, i7«i, 26< 8.
2**^. 275, 2?K. 279. 282 Admtnturd*
uon, 69 70, 73 *»5, 8c. 90. 95 6.
2 s6. 2^>o. behavioral objoenve^.

It> I, ^.hiiii rcttrmg aiHl. 30 1. 249-
v^uimtilum. 73. toll, rnedteaf, 88 9:
roic .of feathers. -*2, 76. Hi 7. 107 9.
2HH 9. vfudenKcnfcrcii, 4, 5, 30.
so, 89, i<j6 9, 240, 268. i88 9.

09 72. 74. Ho. Hi. 106.
iv^, u*f ahtt learning

I instnn, AllKii. 272 3
ctiiisf control, 18, 20. 260. 279
emonons. 49 si, 59. 61. 62. 6s, 72 3.

83, 86, 120. 162. 207 15. 226, 231
empathy, 11. 2t\ 26. 31. 103, 123,

1 33 4. 2 16, 2H8

emptoymeni. 98. too, 128. 129, 222.
267. 26H, 27 ^, 282. \rt aho jOh
saiivfactum

erwounter groups. 4, 6. 21 3, 30. 45 6,
SO, St, 52. S3. 59,60, 61, 62. 65.
132. 137. 152/161 < 177, 264
LnJof fwtffini. TlielHannaK 260
envifimmcm. and IvehavKir, 18 19, 25.

208. 221. 225. 226. 238 SI. 258. 288
frhard, Werner, 21 2
l;rhard Seminars Training ('est*). 21 2
eserttses. group. 22 3
espcrienita) learning. 152, 184. 24^.
2 so, 274

experiential (hemprsis, 20. 21

family relationships. 3, 5. 9. 10. 16.
29 41* 44* 78 9. *40. 257. 279. 282.
288. tre aho diildrtn, marriage omi
paienfs

fantasy. 22. 99. 272
Farbcf. J , ?o
k arson. R . 4
fathers. Jier parents

f » 258

Ming». 9 to. 49-50. 83. 84. 86. 91.
94. til. 121. 162. 163, 176. 182.
202. 218. 220. 22t. 225* 31, 264, 265*

270 , 27 *. 279
Tiltpinoi. 133
fmtay, DJ.. ti6
*fociKing\ 123. 126
freedewn. r86. 202. 204. 255 82
/rerdbm io Learm (Rogrrsl, 105 *6
I reirc. Paolo. 105 -9. 112
I reud. Signsund. 16 37. 241, 246
Tretidtans. 18. 20
I yrudat. 135

Ocmtlm, [ugene. 123
gene Ik: engineering, 280
Ciestalf therapy, 18. 21. 167
CioMstem, K . 239
gcwcrnnicnt, 90. 97 8, 256 69, 274
*<jj Jicsdic’ < ommunii) House, 188
204

group fclaiionships. 3. 5. 6. 7. 9. 17.
20, 35. 97* 106 14. 123 40. 240-1,
\rr iiht* \pnih( ernapj. for rxampit
etwoOnicr griiups
guiil 219 2^^

Haibcrstan, l> . 279 Ho
h;iliucinat»s>ns. 241
Hanna. Ihornas. 14 15, 260. 263
Harvard I ass Sch(x>l. 266
Havsaitan culiure, 229
Hnvden, Tom. 209
health services, iio 12. 257
Hendersrm. Judy. 12s -
Henderson. I losj, 127 9
hicrafthicv. 90. 95 6, 104. 257
Hiikr, AdoH. 17
homesisusis. 241. 242
Moffh^mnux (Richardsi. 263
homosesualifv, 124-5. *“'3* ^75

h<*siilily, 86, 99, lio. 111-12, 113,
129 33. t9t. 281. 289
Hosef, t . 1 16
numanisiic politics. 277
Humanist K Psychology Institute. 268

impotence. 58. 60

individuat responsihiliiv. %er personal
rcspcmsibilii)

induslnal adminisiraiKvn. 90. 100 102,
140

infants. 31 4. 243 4. 248
inhibitions, 31
imttalrve, 90
imccufify, 215 19, 221
insifiutKMn, (^'lining povser of» 267-9.
275 * 279

tmurance compantei. 96-7* tto

302

mwllcct. 46. 49. 51. 5*. 5j. 59. 6i. 71.
86. 88. 104. 164, (68-9. 174. 176.
ill. 124. 44^. 266. ;2?0. IT^-lto
mtcmivc 3* 21 ^o. 15$, 240.

27*?. 2K^

intcrcuUuitil rcUtH>n\hi|H. ^.115 401
tmcrvst groups, IS2. t6*. 166. 169. 176.
179, >87

intern^tiimdl rcUiuonships. tu t6.
>54*40

mtcrwul rcUfkm%h4p%, ill. 115.
116, 118, 120. 122 !2"» 9, i\3. 140.
2-»3. 289

miiHiion. i6H'9. 184. 224, 263. 172 %
I R A , no

-S3* ^4 59* ft2, 206 53

icanv N i JjnKN. 264
itflTfrM>ii. Vtarihj. 42
JetTetMin. 1ht'1rtu^*42 3
job san>f*tvi»on. 98. 100. 222

iiKtjisin. 2^8

iunguns. iS. 20, 23 8

Kcni Stale 2^6

KriNial* ^ndcr\son, Httinic. 134 H

ia JoMa. ( abfotniJk. i
Studies ot the Person, no J2, 1
150. t<4 2bS
I akc t r»c (>.*1(11111*11 u-
kadcrship. 99. iocj, 104, i5»* 113.
114 *2"* 9. 133 J3''. t38 139. 184
214. 282. 2Kv

(earning, "'i 89. *j!, 92. 9\. lor. 103.
io*» H isi rs2, IS4 tb4, 16 m. 174.
184. 24^, 24H 2sO 2*^4, 2 •'9, 288 9
I cNnti I rcdcrn.k, )i 4
I conatd <K\*»ge H , 263

JeshT.ins, 124 5. t"5

I cv:ne. HiHijrvI 234
I evim*. Mcld»*fi. 26r>
l.ikcri R^.mms. 96 7

) i((> lobn, 241
I ipshires. Joann, 78 9
’lisicnuiK'. >21. >2*^. *11 4 , f 4 <. >80
la*’* ‘Nngeies, !i‘»

Ivon. HaroM. 9-* 8

Met irnnell, J 18 19
MvMjstcr I nocrMi>* H8 g
Makolm, l)jv»d. Ho 1
managcrTKnt. 90 *. yv 104 261 2.

278

mama, 218 20 252

marnage. 5. 29. 34. 42 tWi. i03. 120.

146. !62. >63. 205 33. 267, 279. 288
Marxists. 106
Maskm, A H . 239

Mj>. ROII0, 44
m^itieal 89 9

meJKaium, 25. 27. 219. 220. au
irien . life expevuno. 45. role ot |7 9.
43, 48 9. 7> 2. >52

Mennuige* |7

n^cnul heafth. nC»*». m
Mexican^ Americans. 110. ni, I27“9
M«.hael. Ja). ’i 2
Vldicr. Maureen. 224 9, 230. 231
mimsfifv groufK. 5. 98, 104 I4« 127 9.

1 33. 2CM. 2^X

immogamv. 223. 223. 22*’. 229

mothers lee (larmts uttJ viomcn
nH*fo.tt>on 2 3“^ SI

Njtuiiut Hcjhh < (HitHd, no 12
nature res(vet tu 2-3, 2^. 282

NeKt*f» M.oi I SO 204

iH'Utosts. 86 244
Nixon, kKhaiJ, 2<6. 2x9
Northern Ifilan.i. 116, 129 33

Oalcs Jovvc i .iiol 21*4

(ht ii* i ii /Vru»## iRivgersl. 120

0‘Ni ill 1 1 . X4
(or O \cill N x4

I'lNianl vt*nilihiHiing, t8

oppre^Mon. lox ra. 133. >44. >86 204.

26c-. 2^6 2 Kg
t*scr|*i»piilation 11“’, llH

Parjtlise, N , 241

p*tr*n»s, 3^' 41, xn. tH He* 103. (19 20.
I2K, I •*9. io-r 2 -'4 22H. 246 7, ax",
j 6 x 266

fxa?rr>vi 'hfp' . 29, 42 6H 267
h «Aie''ev f'f thr Oftprrwrti, thr ( f retfC6

g

People s HKs’ntcnniai ( ornmrxshw
26 1 2

Pvrrv, John VX 2 3 «

(x*rst>ti.iiu\ i.MnftKt xiihin. ii9 2?,
162, 164. I'x 6. drxrloprnenl. J9

28 XI 104 1x2 iHx. 218 221, 2x6.
2 "'6. 2 "*9. ;H. ^ 2H7. r CM r IK (unrig,
iH 19. 2x,26t (hcorx,4 18. I6x

prfs**nil n.'v,**Mtj»^(('iiiU. K 21, 25, 26.

29 V 39 4> 97. 101, 103. ia8.

139 m i ni >64, 195. 205.

28-

perstf'-i**n. 24'’
j^*nolfopisni. 338
pidluiion 117. 118. 260
(TfiTiJiKlixily, 96 9 . too
promotion. 90. 94
pnHtxi. 269 70, 274. 175

Rroicxiamx. t!6, 129*51. >55- *78

303

p«««Kkxsontrof, 76, ft

mycfiic plicfiomm. 15J, ttt, a?!-).

^)N;fiopailH. 17

mychoMu, 7. aj •, 244. 2I7
Puerto Ricint, 105

race rctatiom ter tnterractal rclaiiofi*

racial imefrtiion. ito

racuil prajiMlice, tii, ii4, iil. 127-9.

133.273

t33*4. iSo. 19I. 226. 227. 231.
246

‘Rap Manual*. 123
Rankin. N.. 19 20
raiionat emotive therapiM!i. tS
rau. 241
reaum. 49 50

religion. 46. 272. 272. 279. 285 6. 289.

irr ai$0 churches
reprc*!(siom. 31. 266. 272
reMrch groups. r67. 181
rnenimem. 46 7. 48<9. 94. >34. <47.
<65

re%p<Mitibiiity. personal ire perumat
f'esponstbiliiy

revolution. 109. tti, 114. 125. 144,
181. 203. 2h2. 263. 281. 282. 285 6.
289-290

Richanh. Anne. 263
Richartfs. Fred. 163
Rockefeller. John D.. 2^3
Roebuck. Flora. 87 8
roles, 55 ; of mm. 37*8. 45. 48 9. 51 2,
152, of teachers. 72. 76. 81 7.
107 9. 288-9, of wtimen, 37 8. 41.
44 5. 48-9. 5* a. <52
Roxbury. Boston, 189
Russia snr Soviet Union
Ryan. Donna Lee. abb

Salk. Jonas. 263

Sanger. Margaret, ti?

satellite reiatKMtships, 52 4. 57-b8.

205. 206. 208- 33
schiiophrenics. 23-8. 232
science. 282. 285 4: distrust of. 271 3
scats, 229
sea urchins, 240 t

sdf^acitialuration. 98»ioo. 146, 276.
279

self-confidence, 113. 137-8
M!:if •control. 193. 203
MM' {Hrtroi, Power fn #Ar Perwn
CMahoncy and Thcrauel, 19
Self-Determination Inc . 27^ 7
setf-direcfion, 92. 287
artf dtscipliiie, 73* ?9

tetf-cvahiation. 92
icff-eaploratfon. 12-13. 282. 287
letf^xpfguiofi. 17* 24-8
letr-fcficnvlcdgc. 72. 77. 78*9
self-respect. 114
sensitiviiy training groups. 21
sensory awareness groups. 21
senuiry deprivation, 241
sensuality. 99

seauai relations, 265. 275; extra-
marital. 43. 44* 47-81* 51-4. 58-68.
205. 206. 208-33. mamal. 49. 5<*
57. 61. 84. 65, 207-33; premarital.
43. 44* 56-7. 62-4, 87. ao7
shock therapy. 25
Skinner. B F.. 18. 19
social convennons fee conventKms.
social

social neurosis, 18

Sol/heniisyn. Akksandr Isayevich.
260 I

Sonoma State Universits. 266

South Africa, tib

Soviet Union. 1 16. 260

Stanford report. 280

Stanford Research InMiiute. 263

status symbols. 269. 274. of teachers.

#9, of vkomen, 46. 489
stimulation, 241
Stockholm. 134

Stydrnt as Stager, The (farber). 70
sludenis; as an oppressed minority.

105 9; irr a/K> education
suicide. Its- <9. 225-6, 230. 232
super-ego control, 16
support groups. 179
Siseden, 90. 1 34

teaching see education
technology, distrust of. 258, 271
Tenenhaum, Samuel. 82 7
terrorism, 257
T-grciups, 21

Thomas Jefferson, an intimate Buh
graphs (Brodicl. 42 3
transactional analysis, 18
Tvkin Oaks. 19

unconscKHis. 246. 248, 263
Union Graduate Scboiil, 268
United Nations. 115
i\s. Bill of Rights. 255
v s. ConstitutKm, 255. 259
U Thant, 115

vandaltsm. 257-8
Vasconcellos, John, 71-2. 274
Vietnam war. 57, 246, 275, 280
viuterice. 257-8

304

Wokkm U (SkmncrK it.

Wttcrptte, 256

weihK distriburkm i»r. 257. n). 2 ta

\iveekefid camps, 199

Wc»L Amifcw, 361

White. R W,. 243

Whyte. UncekM. 245-6. 249

wiwe» see parents omf ttromen

women and careen, 44. 45. 46-9. 5*.

57-9, 6j. 67. 275; chitdhiflh.

31-4, 42, 43. discrimination agaimt.
45. 53. *05. ^’5

funher cdneatNMi 61 . 46. $7* 64,

179; Mseratfon momiefiii. 45^ m
expectancy, 4): »«de of,. 4 i.
44 - 5 . 4 i- 9 . 5**2, 153; iWtUi oT, 46.
4l-9

womens comcioitsficai-ratsmi groiipa.
5*

Wood, lohn 1 C . 156, *66. 175
workshops. ptnon«ccntcfed. *43*^65,
Il7. 277. 2t9

Wyominp. 127-9

305