Journal of Humanistic Psychology

The tragedy of September 11 has had an unsettling effect on us. Assumptions about our safety and security have been shattered. The impact of this devastating event will affect all of us in many ways. For most of us, the disaster has caused us to reflect about the implications of this event. It has also presented us with a challenge, however unwelcome, to do considerable soul searching and reassess ourselves and our daily lives. Drawing from some of the fundamental learnings of existential philosophy and psychology, this article addresses the issues of (a) time, life, and death; (b) meaning; (c) freedom-choice-responsibility; and (d) aloneness and connection. By reflecting on these issues, we have an opportunity to recreate our lives in a manner that enables us to live with heightened awareness of the value of life, greater sensitivity to others, and renewed passion.

This article invites participants in the scientist-practitioner debate to reflect on the nature of psychotherapy. Contrary to the received notion of practice as “applied” theory, the author argues that practice has its own logic, the “prelogical logic” of the body. The author’s contention is that the so-called scientist-practitioner split in psychology cannot even begin to be addressed so long as we continue to hold the misguided notion that the psychotherapeutic practice is applied theory, and so long as we fail to recognize practice as instead a unique way of knowing, radically different from empirical science and technology. To correct this pandemic misperception, the author expounds the “logic of practice” in terms of the philosophy of “embodiment,”as articulated by three thinkers, Lévi-Strauss, Merleau-Ponty, and Bourdieu. Implications of this perspective for a mutually beneficial partnership between science and practice are discussed in the conclusion.

To provide competent counseling services to an increasingly diverse clientele, attention must be given to the applicability of the dominant theoretical orientations. Rogers’s person-centered approach is widely used, but the appropriateness of its diverse applications should not be assumed. This article considers the applicability of Rogers’s person-centered approach in multicultural counseling contexts.

This article rebuts Ed Kahn’s views of person-centered psychotherapy in his Journal of Humanistic Psychology article “A Critique of Nondirectivity in the Person-Centered Approach” published in Fall 1999. Kahn’s arguments are shown to be based on distortions and misunderstandings. The article shows that person-centered psychotherapists recognize the influence and thus “directivity” of all therapy and that nondirectivity in client-centered therapy refers to the therapist’s attitude and not technique. Kahn’s idea of a “one-person psychology” contradicts client-centered theory, and the basis for nondirectivity in Rogers’s theory is discussed. The article discusses a range of responses in client-centered work and shows the psycho-analytical premises in Kahn’s critique to be irrelevant to clientcentered nondirectivity. It discusses the humility of the therapist in relying on clients’ perceptions of their experiences and meanings as the basis for understanding. A segment from a person-centered session is presented as an illustration of nondirective process.

This article responds to a critique of nondirectivity in the person-centered approach by Edwin Kahn. Kahn contended (a) that it is impossible for a therapist to be consistently nondirective because theoretical and personal biases are unavoidable, (b) that the focus on the “psychology of the client” in person-centered therapy implies “a one-person rather than a two-person psychology,” and (c) that “fallible directivity may be useful.” The author considers Kahn’s arguments to be specious and a rehash of typical misunderstandings of the person-centered approach. Nondirectivity is not only a viable stance for the person-centered therapist but is also a direct result of adhering to the principles of the approach.

The author does not think Rogers wanted to make judgments about who is or who is not client centered, as some of his followers seem to do. Rogers wanted to develop a flexible theory to help people, where the human quality of the interaction was most important. In the therapeutic relationship, the author finds that on occasion, he offers a response from his framework, such as a tentative empathic interpretation. The author believes these responses reflect the three attitudes and the nondirective intent described by Rogers. These responses often help the therapeutic dialogue become more alive and real for both participants. The author continues to think of himself as person-centered because he values the ideals of this approach.