Sigmund Freud…Erik Erikson…Carl Jung…Abraham Maslow…Jean Piaget…Heinz Kohut…Carl Rogers…these are all names that can come up in conversation when exploring the word psychology. These names also represent the evolution of psychology throughout the 20th century and until today. And they show that the field of psychology does not live in a vacuum. After all, it deals primarily with the human mind – which is an extraordinarily complex organ when compared to all other species of life, and one that has been an equally complex subject in just about every discourse throughout human history.
When we hear the word “psychology”, that may also prompt us to think about the now wide range of methods used to treat mental health issues. Sigmund Freud, who is considered the “grandfather of psychology”, pioneered one of the first approaches, which he called psychoanalysis. In conjunction with that method, he developed a series of theories to explain personality development during infancy and early childhood (Cherry, 2020).
Of course, Freud’s theories – particularly because they focus on the relationship between sexual needs and human development – have been highly controversial since their inception well over 100 years ago. So controversial, in fact, that the many other psychologists who also emerged in the 20th century either spent a good portion of their life’s work refuting or revamping Freud’s theories, or moving away from psychoanalysis all together and trying other methods to provide effective therapy.
Carl Rogers, for example, is considered an icon in his approach to psychology. That is, he radically shifted away from methods of probing the unconscious mind to showing how humans, as individuals, have the ability to sort through their issues, grow from them by learning how to understand subjective experiences, and then eventually achieve self-actualization (McLeod, 2019).
But how are the vastly difference approaches between Carl Rogers and Sigmund Freud understood today? Let’s explore two articles, one about Freud and the other about Rogers, that study Freud’s and Roger’s individual contributions to psychology, how Freud and Rogers each viewed human nature and its underpinnings, how culture and society may have shaped their respective views, and perhaps how their theories/views may have been shaped If they were alive today.
In Kendra Cherry’s article, “An Overview of Sigmund Freud’s Theories”, Cherry summarizes some of the key terms – the unconscious mind, defense mechanisms, fixations – synonymous to Freudian psychology. Cherry then explains Freud’s use of talk therapy as a foundational means to work through mental health issues; that Freud applied the ego, the id, and the super ego to understanding how humans perceive reality and its links to the libido; and that Freud elaborated on the libido through his famous (or infamous?) breakdown on the psychosexual stages of development (Cherry, 2020).
Cherry concludes the article by explaining that while modern-day psychologists do not accept Freud’s theories on psychosexual development, they do recognize that, nevertheless, Freud made a significant footprint in the history of psychology, including introducing talk therapy to the field and showing that psychological issues do not always correlate with physiological ones (Cherry, 2020).
Yet Freud’s influence on the field of psychology is still significantly different Carl Roger’s contributions, as illustrated in Saul McCleod’s article, “Person Centered Therapy”. McLeod immediately distinguishes Rogers by not only showing that Rogers radically strayed from the psychodynamic focus – which was quite heavily perpetuated during the first half of the 20th century – but that his approach was much more humanistic. Rogers believed in having a caring, authentic connection with his clients. And that word, in a way, has also been revolutionary. That is, prior to Roger’s influence on psychology, clients were typically referred to as “patients”: Rogers saw a barrier in the word’s semantics and thought the word “client” was more correct in building a connective form of therapy (McLeod, 2019).
McLeod then expands on the concept of “person centered therapy”, highlighting that individuals each have their own subjective experiences; therefore, it is necessary to get to the root of any issues with those experiences, and that individuals are ultimately in charge of their personal growth. This reinforces the distinction between “patient” and “client”, as the former is treated diagnostically, while the latter is treated as a partner to the therapist – that is, both are working through the client’s issues together and coming up with solutions that empower the client’s self-growth (McLeod, 2019).
The article wraps up by re-summarizing the clear distinction between the psychoanalytic and person-centered approaches to therapy. In addition, because the person-centered approach is not rooted in structurally detailed theories, that it relies more on the individual’s commitment to personal growth / self-actualization, the therapist and client must create clear expectations with each other. Further, the therapist serves more as guide-through the process, and not a decision-maker (McLeod, 2019).
From the above-mentioned articles, we can see that the psychodynamic and person-centered approaches to therapy are on two ends of a spectrum. But why are those approaches so diametrically different? How were Freud and Rogers each influenced in developing their respective theories and approaches?
It appears that Freud was largely influenced by his decision to enter medical school in the early 1870’s, followed by his developing interest in what was then broadly defined as “hysteria,” and then his witnessing hypnotherapy as a way to treat patients with mental health issues. From there, and as he eventually transitioned from hypnotherapy to creating the foundation for psychoanalysis, Freud built out his psychosexual theories from what he thought the unconscious mind projects, represses, and rejects (Bradford, 2016).
Rogers, on the other hand, was directly influenced by his upbringing and experiences interacting with other people. As a deeply religious person, Rogers incorporated some values from his Christian faith into his person-centered approach to therapy. Also, because Roger’s early work mostly involved helping children with emotional issues, and that he had discovered that the more traditional, psychodynamic approaches proved often to be ineffective, Roger’s instead use his compassionate care approach as the basis for person-centered therapy (Kelland, 2017).
Now, what if Freud and Rogers were alive today? Would they still cleave to their individual theories? In Freud’s case, I think he would possibly drift from his psychosexual theories – or at least not dump all of human development into the sexual needs bucket. However, because he did essentially start out as a physician, and he did have a well-grounded understanding of neurological function and anatomy / physiology, he possibly would have gravitated more towards recent advances in neuroscience, biopsychology, or even evolutionary psychology. Not that science is making a return to Freud’s theories per say; however, it does draw, if even in a small way, from the dawn of evolutionary theory and Freud’s first forays into understanding the relationship between biology and the mind (Marcaggi & Guenole, 2018).
As for Rogers, I think he would have felt quite a home, so to speak, with modern-day psychologists. Namely, being that the person-centered approach to therapy is now a staple in clinical psychology, and factoring that if Rogers still had the same values today as when he was alive, he would have embraced modern-day psychology and perhaps even helped advance it.
References
McLeod, S. (2019). Person Centered Therapy. https://www.simplypsychology.org/client-centred-therapy.html
Cherry, K. (2020). An Overview of Sigmund Freud’s Theories. https://www.verywellmind.com/freudian-theory-2795845
Bradford, A. (2016). Sigmund Freud: Life, Work & Theories. https://www.livescience.com/54723-sigmund-freud-biography.html
Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/22859-personality-theory/15/view
Marcaggi, G., Guenole, F. (2018). Freudarwin: Evolutionary Thinking as a Root of Psychoanalysis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018481/