Person-Centered Social Justice
By Daniel Beton
The German philosopher and theologian, Paul Tillich (2014), eloquently stated the predicament which the 21st century people finds themselves in: “The man-created world of objects has drawn into itself him who created it and who now loses his subjectivity in it. He has sacrificed himself to his own productions” (p. 129). Tillich illustrated the universal breakdown of meaning, the establishment of materialism, and more pertinent to psychotherapy, the loss of the individual.
Humanistic psychotherapy stands in opposition to a tyrannical objectivity of the likes laid out by Tillich. It values the subjectivity of experience and the irreducibility of human beings. Along with these values emanate themes such as agency, personhood, free will and self-actualization. These ideas are worth highlighting not only to provide a better contextual understanding of the philosophical underpinnings that govern humanistic modalities, but also, to lay the groundwork for the exploration of some of the practical challenges which come with reconciling them with modern psychotherapeutic requirements — specifically social justice and the primacy of individuality.
Person-centered therapy (PCT), being phenomenological in character, provides us with an apt avenue to explore the nature of individuality as it relates to psychotherapy. How we orient ourselves psychologically, how we derive meaning, and how we relate to ourselves and to others, all emanate from the central tenet that “truth” resides in one’s own experience. This idea is perhaps captured more directly by an early collaborator of Carl Rogers from the University of Chicago, Eugene Gendlin, who through his own work developed a phenomenological technique called Focusing. As Gendlin (1973, as cited in Sharma, 2011) argued, there is a difference between statements that are true, and statements that have an impact experientially. This position is rather controversial from a scientific perspective. It forces us to re-conceptualize truth as something externally established and explicitly validated, to something internally sensed and implicitly understood.
The phenomenological aspects of PCT perhaps also shed some light on the challenges the approach has faced in finding its footing amongst an increased demand for empirically validated therapies. The scientific world is typified by objectivity, meaning anything subjective is inherently biased and therefore invalid. However, applying this form of thinking too relentlessly to personal dimensions presents a real problem. — as we saw from Tillich’s dystopian narrative. People are all subjects, and subjective paradigm has real therapeutic value.
The humanistic approach can be described as affirmations of the individual experience. In Rogers’ own words: “Experience is, for me, the highest authority” (Rogers, 1995, p. 23). The use of the word “authority” is telling, as with much of what Rogers says, there is often more being implied than is immediately obvious. Beyond stating the value of personal experience, by Rogers establishing experience as the ultimate source of authority. Perhaps in other words, truth. He is also alluding to the primacy of individuality. The connection between experience and individuality may not be immediately obvious; however, it can become more clear in the context of conversations about intersectionality.
Intersectionality contends that social categories (e.g., race, gender, religion, disability) intersect in such a way as to create unique modes of discrimination. For instance, it is not the same to be African American and Catholic, as it is to be African American and Muslim. It would be wrong to assume that by virtue of two people being African American, their experienced lives are the same. To reduce either person to their race, religion, or any one group identity, would be to ignore the totality of the person.
Intersectionality is further complicated by the fact that beyond social categories, there are an infinite number of ways in which people can be advantaged or disadvantaged in life. Height, intelligence, age, attractiveness, trauma, mental health, quality of relationships, illness, tragedy, and an infinite number of ways exemplified in a way factors can fractionate and intersect. Perhaps put differently, the ultimate resolution by which to understand, empathize, and encounter people resides at the level of the individual.
A person-centered perspective emphasizes the importance of clients’ worldview. By empathizing with a disenfranchised member of a society and simultaneously wanting to facilitate self-actualization, the person-centered counselor is, in a manner, compelled towards social justice in order to “to remain congruent and not deny a part of their valuing system” (Swan & Ceballos, 2020, p. 11). Social justice, its role in therapy, and how counselors more generally can facilitate positive change in the world, is becoming more and more a feature of counseling.
Ratts et al. (2016) emphasized the necessity for counsellors to take a contextual approach to therapy, viewing clients as part of a larger ecosystem. A person-centered perspective presents a unique challenge. The counselor has to simultaneously encounter a person as an individual entirely unique and irreducible. At the same time, reducing the person to a set of sociocultural traits in order to acknowledge the very real impediments to agency and self-actualization.
However, the degree to which person-centered principles can be extrapolated in this manner is not obvious. Perhaps more importantly, to what degree it is helpful to do so within the context of psychotherapy is not obvious, as the more a person-centered counselor views the world, others and themselves through the lens of groups or categories, the further they drift from the principles of individuality and irreducibility which the approach is founded upon. In describing “Rogerian Empathy”, distinguishing it from empathy more generally, Cheung (2014) stated: “we have to learn how to see people not from the outside, but from the inside” (p. 319). Reconciling this position with an increased demand to factor social justice into therapy presents a unique challenge for the person-centered counselor.
The words “how can I be of help” denote the opening to a section discussing the elements of the therapeutic relationship and personal growth in Rogers’ classic text, On Becoming a Person. The question is deceptively simple, but captures the good nature and humanity found throughout Rogers works. With the additional context of social justice, this question becomes twofold: How do I provide a therapeutic relationship that facilitates an individual’s agency and self-actualization? How do I play a role in shaping a society that promotes an individual’s agency and self-actualization? The degree to which the latter can be integrated into the counselling relationship from a person-centered perspective is not obvious.
One could ask whether that integration is valuable as long as the therapist is honoring the totality of the person. All experiences of injustice and societal inequity live within a person embrace the totality of the person. Perhaps the fear of not directly acknowledging social justice issues in some explicit manner is perceived as indifference on the counselor's behalf, but if the Core Conditions set out by Rogers’ are in place, indifference is not possible. Empathy disrupts indifference, and as previously stated, the tenet of congruence arguably places upon the person-centered therapist a demand to act at the level of society in order to remain genuine within the relationship.
Meaningfully incorporating social justice into the person-centered perspective presents a unique challenge for practitioners. One could argue that it is precisely because the person-centered counselor encounters people as individuals viewing them not through the lens of society, but simply as a fellow person, that this approach is effective.
With social justice comes a new landscape of concepts, language, and philosophies. It forces us to consider not only what the role and responsibility of counseling is within society, but also what it means to “help.” Perhaps it is by being in service of the individual, that counseling works to serve the society at large.
References
Cheung, J. C. (2014). Behind the mirror: What Rogerian “Technique” is NOT. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 13(4), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2014.924429
Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-Mcmillan, S., Butler, S. K., & Mccullough, J. R. (2016). Multicultural and social justice counseling Competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12035
Rogers, C. R., & Kramer, P. D. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist's view on psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
Swan, A. M., & Ceballos, P. (2020). Person-centered conceptualization of multiculturalism and social justice in counseling. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 19(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2020.1717981
Tillich, P. (2014). The courage to be. Yale University Press.