Peter F. Schmid, Paper "A way of being with" (C. Rogers). Prospects on further developments of a radical paradigm

Article Psychotherapy

Peter F. Schmid

"A way of being with" (C. Rogers)
Prospects on further developments of a radical paradigm

Keynote lecture at the 2nd World Conference for Psychotherapy, Vienna, July 1999¹
(c) 1999 by Peter F. Schmid

Overview, contents
Abstract, keywords
Paper
Endnotes
References

Overview

The varying importance of relationship in psychotherapy
The paradigm shift of Carl Rogers: The person–centered relationship as im–media–te encounter
Challenges for the person–centered approach as an encounter approach

The Other
An understanding of the human being quite fundamentally focusing the other’s view, in which the other is no longer an alter ego but truly a different person

Beyond "egology"
A socio–ethical dimension leading from the categories "response" and "response–ability" to a new understanding of self–realization

Dialogic ethics
Engaged and solidary service to the fellow person ("diakonia")

Im–media–te encounter
instead of preconceived methods, client–centered ones included

Creative ways of understanding and acting
especially of play and art

Unspectacular inclusion of the body
in the understanding and practice of a truly personal therapy

Group therapy
as the therapeutic setting often to be chosen first

Large groups and communities
developing a theory of their understanding & practice

Creative ways in training and research
directed towards the unexpected and the surprise

Towards a dialogic and social therapy, a creative and kairologic approach
Towards a basic consensus beyond schools

Abstract, Keywords

While goal- and skill-oriented approaches in psychotherapy are en vogue mainly because of socio-political claims for efficiency, open and holistic concepts and a relationship-orientated understanding become more important in various schools. In a radical paradigm change, not yet fully sounded out, the person-centered approach focussed on the human being as person and on the art of encounter half a century ago. Thus, this approach commits itself to an image of the human being rooted in the European Jewish-Christian tradition the claim of which still has to be met in theory and practice in spite of tendencies towards eclectically watering down or underrating it.

In the person-centered approach both traditional lines of understanding of the term »person« (the individualistic view of being a person which emphazises autonomy, freedom and dignity, and the relational view of becoming a person which stresses the inclination to relationship, encounter and dialogue) are connected in a unique way - in a tension which is to be endured (»Become who you are«). Thus, personhood, ethically founded, is conceptualized as response in a communication into which men and women are born, from where his or her respons-ability evolves. In the sense of encounter philosophy, in particular the radical understanding of Emmanuel Lévinas, the client is focussed as actually being an Other, which makes of the therapist not only an alter ego but a partner in the encounter. Therapy becomes a mutual experience of encounter proceeding from the enclosed »I-Thou« to the open »We«. In this perspective the importance of the group and of group therapy at the interface between person and society becomes obvious.

Actual tendencies and necessary further developments, the ongoing challenge of the person-centered approach in anthropology, theory and practice of psychotherapy and its relation to other approaches are discussed.

Ladies and gentlemen!

No doubt: In psychotherapy an increasing trend exists towards the importance of the actual relationship for the therapeutic endeavor. While goal– and skill–oriented approaches in psychotherapy are en vogue mainly because of socio–political claims for efficiency, open and holistic concepts and a relationship–orientated understanding become more important in various schools. Obviously a convergence of very different orientations can be found (not just among the original and traditional relationship therapies!) — a convergence stressing the importance of the relationship between client and therapist in the very moment of therapy. Putting the focus on the actual present therapeutic relationship implies or even explicitly means also to stress the importance of the person and his or her basic attitudes, yet more: his or her way of being in the relationship. In spite of this convergence fundamental differences exist about the meaning of this remarkable new consideration of the person and the personal relationship.

The varying importance of relationship in psychotherapy

Psychodynamic and humanistic traditions always have been emphasizing the relationship as such as a central force of therapy — both, individual and in groups. In the course of the development of psychoanalytical theory the relationship of the persons involved beyond transference and counter–transference, the intersubjective point of view became more important. What once was merely called an object relation more and more has been viewed as a process between subjects. Behavior therapists and systemic practitioners and theoreticians increasingly deal with the therapeutic personal relationship. The latter although putting the focus on the system as such and thus paying attention to relationships from the very beginning also started to explore the person him– and herself.

I was quite impressed at the First World Congress three years ago to learn how crucial it had become to very different representatives of various orientations to deal with the issue of the present relationship in therapy and with the personal qualities necessary for this venture. My impression this year is very similar. As a person-centered therapist and theoretician I observe with a smile and a grin that these developments are often praised as a most recent achievement, that they are promoted and pushed as new positions, as something at the edge of the theory of therapy — and I observe with astonishment the level of ignorance towards an already quite old paradigm: the only one which is based on the conviction that the actual relationship between client and therapist and thus the way the therapist acts as a real person beyond role, function and methods is not only a precondition or a basis of the therapeutic work but is the very essence of therapy.

Without doubt it is a valuable merit of the person-centered approach that the orientations mentioned encounter the importance of the personal and of the core conditions and attitudes conducive to therapeutic movement first postulated and accurately described by Carl Rogers (1957a). Probably almost no therapist who had not heard about the trias of a person-centered relationship offered by the therapist: authenticity and genuineness, unconditional acceptance and sensitive empathy. "Without these nothing goes in therapy" a vast majority of therapists probably agree on. "We all do this kind of relationship work", a lot of colleagues think and say, "we have learned our lesson; we integrated Carl Rogers. His approach has completed a historic mission; as a separate approach it is outdated." As likely as they think this kind of relationship to be necessary they hold the position that it is insufficient. So they would add something like: "These are the foundations, this is the starting point, the precondition, but then ... then the real therapeutic work has to start, then we need diagnostics, methods, expertise, specific know how about different diseases, patterns, techniques, interventions, behavior etc. etc. — to conduct at least the process (if not the client)."

No, a clear "no" from a person–centered point of view, there is no "then", no "first the relationship, then the therapy as such". There is no person-centered relationship as a means to, no relationship in order to. The genuine, accepting and empathic presence of the therapist in the relationship is not only necessary but sufficient, Carl Rogers postulated — was ignored at first, got tremendous support from résearch, became a celebrity and was "zu Tode gefeiert", as we would say in German, "praised to death" — so much applauded that the radical core was not even heard, was underrated, eclectically watered down, so called "integrated", neglected, and even ignored. Carl Rogers got a first class funeral.

So even if some of the person-centered positions seem to be adopted, this by no means is an expression that the radical core of the approach, its very nature, was even understood. — And, embarrassingly enough, let me add critically, not even by a lot of therapists who call themselves Gesprächstherapeuten und –therapeutinnen, client–centered or person–centered.

I am convinced that the essence of the Person–Centered Approach, the revolutionary paradigm shift of Carl Rogers, has not yet been sounded out by far, let alone has it been put into effect, in its radicalism, its profound humanism and in its critical potential, a potential towards emancipation — individually as well as politically. Carl Rogers’ positions and visions are not at all outdated, they have not even been caught up with.

What Carl Rogers initiated was a truly person-centered approach focussed on the human being as a person and thus therapy as the art of encounter — as relationship person to person.

What does this mean precisely?

The paradigm shift of Carl Rogers:
The person–centered relationship as im–media–te encounter

The time given here is much too short to elaborate on the anthropology and epistemology in the necessary details. A few sentences must do.

As already expressed by its name the Person–Centered Approach is orientated by the person of the human being. This is a clear statement about the image of man that underlies person–centered thinking and acting. What is denoted by "person" according to the western history of anthropology, deeply rooted in the Jewish-Christian tradition, is the human being in both, his or her unparalleled unexchangability and in his or her social interconnectedness, that is, as person within society, within his or her respective system; the individual and the relational dimension of being and of becoming a person, independence and orientation towards relations are dialectically related to each other and are equally important to a personal view (Schmid 1991; 1997 b; 1997e; 1998a; 1998c). In the person-centered understanding of the person the individualistic view of being a person which emphazises autonomy, freedom and dignity, and the relational view of becoming a person which stresses the inclination to relationship, encounter, dialogue, responsibilty and solidarity are connected in a unique way — in a tension which is to be endured. The task is to "become who you are". The basic axiom in person–centered anthropology are the dialectics of the actualizing tendency of the individual organism and the interconnectedness of the human being. They form the foundations of the understanding of personalisation — of "on becoming a person" (Rogers 1961a).

Offering help in a person–centered understanding means letting oneself in for a personal relation. Deeply standing in the tradition of personalistic philosophy (also called dialogic or encounter philosophy) that implies putting oneself into play² and trusting in the possibility that such an encounter from person to person, be it among two persons or within a group (Schmid 1994; 1996a; 1997b; 1997f; 1998b; 1998c), is the most important contribution to fostering those seeking for help to make better use of their so far unused or temporarily blocked inner resources, thus, developing their own personality and widening their scope of action as well (Rogers 1961a; 1970a; 1980a; Schmid 1989). Explicitly connected with it is a personality theory which considers every human being capable of living and organizing his or her life and solving the problems and, on account of their own potential, expects him or her to actualize the ability to develop in an individually and socially constructive direction, if he or she feels accepted and understood in principle, that is, in a social environment in which they may feel and behave quite authentically (Rogers 1959a). Thus, an essential trust in the experiential world of the client and its centrality for psychotherapy is unrenounceable for the Person–Centered Approach.

Such an approach quite fundamentally rules out any conception of oneself on part of the therapist or helper or teacher or social worker or pastoral worker etc. as an expert on the problems or on the person of the partner in counseling, therapy, education, supervision or any other helpful relation whatsoever. Such an approach also rules out that the therapist considers himself as an expert in the correct usage of methods and means, and even excludes any preconceived use of methods and techniques, a use which is not rooted in the immediate experience of the relationship. The only "means" or "instrument" employed is the person of the therapist him– or herself. And only where "any means has fallen apart" encounter takes place, as Martin Buber (1923,19) stated unsurpassably and precisely also grasping the process of such a relationship.

Therefore the Person–Centered Approach differs radically from all other approaches which in the meantime have all more or less found their way to the core conditions. However, these approaches consider Rogers’ conditions, attitudes and definitions only as preparatory design of relations meant to establish a certain climate or rapport, as obviously–human preconditions so to speak, upon which the actual therapeutic work still has to be constructed. From a person–centered stance the basic attitudes need no supplementation by specific methods reserved for the expert. "Expertism", if it has to be described, lies exactly in the ability to resist the temptation of behaving like an expert (even against the client’s wishes) — that means, solving problems with the help of techniques rather than facing them as persons.

In Carl Rogers' words: To work as person-centered therapist is not only "a way of being", but "a way of being with" — in German to describe this philosophy of life we use, according to Ludwig Binswanger e.g., the term "Miteinandersein", not only "Mitsein".

The existential and im–media–te presence as understood by encounter philosophy, the personal being–with which leads to a togetherness means that, in his or her psychophysical presence, the person who offers a person–centered relation opens up to his partner(s) the possibility to concentrate on the fertile instant and thus on oneself and his or her relations. In the "kairos" (which the very instant is called according to the Greek god of "the favorable opportunity", who had to be seized by his mop of hair, when hurrying past — in the back he was close–cropped — in the German language we have the phrase "eine Gelegenheit beim Schopf packen") — in the kairos it is important to take advantage of fallow potential and to seize the opportunity. A person–centered "way of being with" is applied kairology.

In spite of all inflation the term "encounter" in general and in the Person–Centered Approach in special has undergone, it has to be stated that the essential element of encounter consists in the fact that the human being meets a reality which moves him or her deeply, which is counter him or her. Encounter is not simply an experience, it is an "experience counter" which opposes the affected one. En–counter is an essentially different experience from what an idealistic and subjectivistic understanding of (solely intrinsic development) presupposes, from an understanding of development or fulfillment coming completely from itself. However, it is an alien, an Other, another reality, another person, which or who en–counters my reality, which or who encounters me. This makes up the existential dimension and unavoidability of encounter.

Thus the person–centered relationship is to be regarded as a process providing room valuing spontaneity and creativity, a process in which both client(s) and therapist(s) develop towards a personal encounter. Where the person of the therapist or/and of the client expose himself or herself to the given Other, he or she can enter in a dialogue — even more so, he or she is called to do so.

Challenges for the Person–Centered Approach as an encounter approach

Rogers gave such a decisive impulse and left us such a rich legacy that a concrete realization of a number of consequences is yet to come. If the approach is taken seriously as an "approach" (and not as a ready–made doctrine), "not as a ‘school’ or dogma but as a set of tentative principles" (Rogers/Wood 1974, 213), and if we take the implications seriously — which are a consequence of the understanding of the human being as a person within society and which above all arise from the experience of person–centered group work and group–psychotherapy, and if the paradigm shall remain true to its principles under circumstances different from those of the America at the time of the New Deal a range of necessary and far–reaching changes in the sense of further developments of the approach regarding the image of man, the theory and the practice crowd into my mind.

Some of these challenges for the approach, as I see them, shall be summarized in form of theses without claiming to be complete.

The interconnectedness of the human being enforces to not only to radically stress the non–directive element and, with that, the uniqueness, dignity and freedom of the person, it is also necessary to pay attention to the being–from–the–other and the being–towards–the–other in theory and in practice. Therefore it seems to be correct to formulate the basic person–centered axiom as a dialectic principle: The tendency of actualizing his or her potential in a constructive way lives in the human being, but a specific kind of relationship from the outside is needed to make this development possible. This leads to an understanding of the human being quite fundamentally focusing the other’s view, in which the other is no longer an alter ego but truly a different person. Just as encounter philosophy has reached beyond Buber and — with Emmanuel Lévinas (1961; 1974; 1983), a thinker of tremendous importance who has hardly been discovered for the Person–Centered Approach, yet — has made a paradigm shift from the "I" to the "Thou" only managing to get closer to the verge of the "We", so the Person–Centered Approach has to give serious thoughts to what it means giving response to a suffering human being’s cry for help, a response–ability rooting in fundamental ethics.
Thus, all psychosocial, pedagogic, political, and pastoral etc. acting receives a socio–ethical dimension leading from the categories "response" and "responsibility" to a new understanding of self–realization which can only become reality in what Lévinas called "diakonia [diakony]" — a term with the same meaning as "therapy", i.e. "service". In the interpersonal encounter, which we call therapy, addressed and asked to respond, we assume a deep responsibility, an obligation in which our fellow man expects us to render the service we owe to each other.³

The above mentioned Lithuanian philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas again and again points out that all of occidental philosophy (and this also applies for psychology as its "daughter" and psychotherapy as its "grand–daughter") including its so–called humanistic orientation in this century has remained "egology". And, indeed, this fixation on the I is clearly predominant in the terminology of the numerous self–terms in Humanistic Psychology and despite all positioning against an objectivation and instrumentalization it finally indicates a reduction of the other, of what the other means to me. In this connection even a well–known sentence by Martin Buber (1923, 18) like "I become through the Thou" all of a sudden sounds quite different: even here, as is to be suspected, everything is still focused on me. This, however, presents the ideals of the humanistic movement as such in a new light. And according to Lévinas the following applies: "What once seemed to be a distinctive human quality, the absolute desire to determine and realize oneself, "self–determination" and "self–realization", has proved the reason of violence against the other human being. Not the enforcement of the ego’s objectives must become the basis [...] but the perception of the other. This is an ethical relation." (Waldschütz 1993)

The Person–Centered Approach includes a number of ethic implications which definitely prepare for getting beyond "egology". In doing so ethics cannot be deduced from anthropology but we have to realize that person–centered anthropology has always been ethics at first. Traditional ethics orient acting by principles which are deduced from philosophic ideas. However, a philosophy orienting itself by experience, as it undoubtedly corresponds to the Person–Centered Approach, realizes from the experience in the encounter, which is taken seriously down to the roots, ethics as the first philosophy. Especially out of the personal experience of encounter — being addressed and thus encouraged by the Other — a legitimate claim to an answer and to acting in the kairos is derived — and this is where person–centered ethics come in.

– Person–centered ethics is dialogic ethics. In so far it is ethics which never degrades a fellow being to an alter ego but sees him or her as a call and a provocation. In doing so the fellow being is the Other on principle, the one strange to me, who surprises me, and who I find myself opposed to, who I have to face — neither monopolizing nor rejecting him — face to face. "Encountering a human being means being kept awake by an enigma" states Lévinas (1959, 120). The presence of the Other which always "comes first" is a call for a respond which I cannot escape because nobody can respond in my place. We are obliged and responsible to the Other and owe him an answer. This causes a " priority" of the Other. From that follows a new — non–individualistic — understanding of self–realization as realization in and out of the relations, in which the individual lives, and which is never possible without the realization of the Other.

– Any help whatsoever is to be understood on principle as such a response to the misery of the Other. Love, which fundamentally is experienced from the very beginning in the development of the human being (just think of the child, "conceived" and born into relations), is the deposit of solidarity that has to be made. In empathy communication becomes encouragement, becomes advocacy and becomes community.

– Accordingly, psychotherapy means engaged and solidary service to the fellow person, is "diakony". Like any psycho–social activity it has a radical service–character. The suffering person demands. This corresponds with the duty of response–ability. From "diakony" emerges dialogue, from person–centeredness room for personal encounter. This commitment towards the Other — cf. the not enough appreciated commitment–concept of Binder and Binder (1981, 179–274) — , a responsibility which originates in the basic dependency of the human being on his fellow beings, calls for acting — also in communication — and not for talking. Therefore there can no longer be any discussion about the understandimng of the Person–Centered Approach as an action approach [Handlungsansatz] and not merely as a verbal approach, misleadingly called "Gesprächstherapie [talking therapy]".

If encounter becomes clear as a central category of the approach in principle the use of preconceived methods, techniques or tools, the client–centered ones included, is ruled out, as already stated — their use, e.g. the use out of a repertoire in case of difficult situations, only shows the lack of trust of the therapist in the client — and in him– or herself.
A person–centered way of being–with demands an inclusion of creative ways of understanding and acting in an unspectacular way, especially of play and art, into the understanding and the actual realization of therapy as a form of action. Consequently the approach takes seriously that its aim is not towards "making" something or towards effects or presupposed goals of any kind (not to be used in order to), but — in the sense of an "actualization therapy"— it is a matter of creative open rooms emerging where human beings are open, accepting and empathic, living together as persons, playful and curious, free of purpose, where they get involved and bring themselves at stake, get engaged, take risks, and where they do not hesitate to confront each other as the persons they are.
Thus, the holistic view of the human being is taken seriously. Among that counts his or her corporality and the unspectacular inclusion of the body in the view of the person and, thus, in the practice of a truly personal therapy which neither "adds" the body to psychotherapeutic work or concentrates on the body instead of the psyche nor does it use it, in order to "heal the soul by the body" thus instrumentalizing it (cf. Schmid 1994; 1996b; 1997d). So the separation of body and soul would all the more be fixed. Instead of this the point is to overcome the misguiding occidental separation of body and spirit and the separation of psychotherapy and body therapy, which derives from this, towards a truly anthropological therapy. (I am aware of formulating a challenge that will not be met tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.)
Taking the human seriously as a social being results in a re–evaluation of the indication for single and group therapy. Because of the fundamental understanding of the human being in his or her social relations, as a person in the group, because of the realization of the fact that working on conflicts is best done where conflicts originate, namely in groups, the question is in how far the group is the therapeutic place to be chosen first, whereas the single relationship — as a special and especially protected relationship — is indicated only when special protection is needed or other specific reasons call for it. One can prove that the Person–Centered Approach is a deeply social and thus actually a group approach contrary to what it is regarded because of its historical development. At the same time the group is considered to be a central aspect in the future of the approach. This opposes also the "pathology" of over–emphasizing single therapy, e.g. in German speaking countries, to be seen especially in training programs, different from those in Anglo–American countries. (Schmid 1996a; 1996d)
This also means the necessity of developing a theory of the understanding and the practice of large groups and communities — a first rank socio–political and peace establishing activity. The task is to continue Carl Rogers’ engagement for peace and cross–cultural communication.

Creative ways in training and research are necessary, offering a broad range of new possibilities for individual development in the social context. By no means does such a further development render a careful and diligent theoretical and practical training superfluous. On the contrary: only after having received an appropriate, qualified training, are we enabled to act as a person even in difficult situations. Although the trend lies with an arrangement with the social security system and the adaptation to traditional concepts of disorder and illness and although the temptation very much goes towards administrating conflictuous processes during a person’s lifetime — i.e. they are called "illnesses" and we are ensured against illnesses — a Person–Centered Approach focuses on recognizing the chance of a so called "disorder" as crisis. Thus, it is regarded as a decision. In the understanding of the uniqueness of the kairos which calls for a change — oneself, the others, society as a whole — it is creativity which is provoked and demanded instead of classification. The same applies to research: New things are to be found out in a kind of research directed towards the unexpected instead of the confirmation of the expected. The task is to re–learn the ability of letting oneself be taken by surprise: "One of its best hidden secrets is that the person–centered approach seems to function best where conventional methods (the application of the principles of client–centered therapy included) have failed." (Wood 1994b, 6).

Towards a truly dialogic and social approach

Therefore the approach, no longer just psychotherapy, claiming to be an overall philosophy of culture, is challenged to no less than increasingly understanding the conditio humana, the being human in general. (By the way, this needs to deal with ecological questions as well.)

Obviously a paradigm shift within the approach announces itself in all that. The Person–Centered Approach may well face a turning–point of its self–understanding. If the underlying image of man is taken seriously it becomes obvious that the approach needs further development to a truly dialogic and social approach (also in psychotherapy), a creative, flexible and kairologic approach which becomes also clear in the claim of the anthropology represented by Kierkegaard and Buber but even more so by Lévinas.

In respect to the above mentioned ethically founded anthropology — the step from the individual to the person, from relation to encounter will be made as a step from the view of the person–centered relationship as an I–Thou–relationship to a view as a We–relationship and therefore finally towards a social therapy. Then the I will not only be found as a respond to a Thou, but the I will be a respond to a We.

Then the approach will consequently be seen as a social approach. Sociotherapy besides psychotherapy will be ranked highly in the frame of an overall therapeutic point of view implying the communities man lives in. Thus the political significance becomes obvious.

Towards a basic consensus beyond schools

Developing the approach in this way a step could be taken towards a basic orientation⁴ without giving up independence, as Carl Rogers intended. What is aimed at is a basic consensus beyond schools which are obliged to a "way of being with", a dialogic understanding of therapy and group work, because they carry out the paradigm shift from treatment, caretaking and counseling to encounter. In doing so they transcend models which concentrate on the individualistic self as well as on models which exclusively concentrate on a simply systemic–oriented approach. As soon as this step is truly taken not the schools are the issue any more, but the issue is to really understand and practice therapy and group work as dialogue. Or expressed in a more provoking way: the Person–Centered Approach must intend and aim at making itself superfluous just as a good therapist has to do.

In order to reach that goal a lot still has to be done.

Thank you.

Endnotes

1 Partially translated by Josef Tihanyi and Lilly Schmid.
2 In the whole paper always men and women are meant and addressed. For the simplicity in reading, however, not always both formulations are used.
3 Such attempts to person–centered ethics constitute a very important task in respect to an ethic foundation of psychotherapy and psychosocial work, if one doesn’t want to get stuck in unfounded casuistics and doesn’t want to reduce ethics to the moral discussion of single cases, e.g. concerning abuse. Cf. Schmid 1996a, 521–532.
4 Cf. van Kalmthout 1997.

References

Binder, Ute / Binder Johannes (1981), Die klientenzentrierte Psychotherapie bei schweren psychischen Störungen, Frankfurt/M. (Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologie) ²1981

Buber, Martin (1923), Ich und Du, in: Dialogisches Leben, Zürich 1923; quoted after the edition Heidelberg (Lambert Schneider) ⁸1974

Fietkau, Hans–Joachim (1988), Von Möglichkeiten, Notwendigkeiten und Erfordernissen personenorientierter Politikberatung am Beispiel der Umweltpolitik, in: GwG (ed.) Orientierung an der Person. Bd. II: Jenseits von Psychotherapie, Cologne (GwG) 1988, 266–272

Fietkau, Hans–Joachim / Kessel, H. (1981) (eds.), Umweltlernen, Königstein/Taunus 1981

Frenzel, Peter / Schmid, Peter F. (1996), Von der Herausforderung, die eigene Power zu gebrauchen... Bericht über ein Treffen personzentrierter Wissenschafter, Bad Hall, Juli 1996, in: apg–kontakte 2 (1996) 37–54

Hutterer, Robert / Pawlowsky, Gerhard / Schmid, Peter F. / Stipsits, Reinhold (eds.), Client–Centered and Experiential Psychotherapy. A paradigm in motion, Frankfurt/M. (1996)

IAPCT 1996 (International Association for Person–Centered Therapy. An Association for the Science and Practice of Client–Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies and Counseling): From Participants at a Person–Centered Meeting at Bad Hall, Austria, July 1996, in: apg–kontakte 2 (1996) 55–57; v. a. in: Person–zentriert; Brennpunkt; GwG–Zeitschrift et al.

Keil, Wolfgang W. (1992), Grundlagen der Klientenzentrierten Psychotherapie, in: Personzentriert 2 (1992) 9–33

Lévinas, Emmanuel (1959), Der Untergang der Vorstellung, in: ibd. 1983, 120–139; orig. in: Husserl 1859–1959. Recueil commémoratif publié à l'occasion du centenaire du philosophe, (Phaenomenologica VI), Den Haag (Nijhoff) 1959

– (1961), Totalité et infini. Essai sur l'extériorité, Den Haag (Nijhoff) 1961, ⁷1980

– (1974), Autrement qu'être ou au delà de l'essence, Den Haag (Nijhoff) 1974, ²1978

– (1983), Die Spur des Anderen. Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Sozialphilosophie, Freiburg (Alber) 1983, ³1992

Pfeiffer, Wolfgang (1992), Gesundheitsförderung, Vorsorge und Begleitung im Rahmen der Sozialarbeit, in: Straumann, Ursula (ed.), Beratung und Krisenintervention. Materialien zu theoretischem Wissen und interdisziplinärem Bezug, Cologne (GwG) 1992, 84–99

Preuß, Sigrun (1990), Umweltkrise und personenzentrierter Ansatz, in: Deter, Detlev / Straumann, Ursula (eds.), Personenzentriert Verstehen, Gesellschaftsbezogen Denken, Verantwortlich Handeln. Theorie, Methodik und Umsetzung in die psychosoziale Praxis, Cologne (GwG) 1990, 85–104

Rogers, Carl R. (1940b), Some newer concepts of psychotherapy, (manuskript) 1940

– (1957a), The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, in: Journal of Consulting Psychology 21,2 (1957) 95–103

– (1959a) A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client–centered framework, in: Koch, Sigmund (ed.), Psychology. A study of a science. Vol. III: Formulations of the person and the social context, New York (McGraw Hill) 1959, 184–256

– (1961a), On becoming a person. A therapist's view of psychotherapy, Boston (Houghton Mifflin) 1961

– (1970a), On encounter groups, New York (Harper & Row) 1970;

– (1980a), A way of being, Boston (Houghton Mifflin) 1980

– (1986h), A client–centered / Person–Centered Approach to therapy, in: Kutash, I. L. / Wolf, A. (eds.), Psychotherapist's casebook. Theory and technique in the practice of modern times, San Francisco (Jossey–Bass) 1986, 197–208

– (1989d), An interview with Carl Rogers, by David Ryback, in: Person–Centered Review 4,1 (1989) 99–112

Rogers, Carl R. / Schmid, Peter F. (1991), Person–zentriert. Grundlagen von Theorie und Praxis, Mainz (Grünewald) 1991; 2^nd enlarged ed. 1995

Rogers, Carl R. / Wood, John Keith (1974), The changing theory of client–centered therapy, in: Burton, Arthur (ed.), Operational theories of personality, New York (Brunner/Mazel) 1974, 211–258

Schmid, Peter F. (1989), Personale Begegnung. Der personzentrierte Ansatz in Psychotherapie, Beratung, Gruppenarbeit und Seelsorge, Würzburg (Echter) 1989; 2^nd enlarged and act. ed. 1995

– (1991), Souveränität und Engagement. Zu einem personzentrierten Verständnis von »Person«, in: Rogers/Schmid 1991,15–164; 2^nd enlarged and act. ed. 1995

– (1994), Personzentrierte Gruppenpsychotherapie. Ein Handbuch. Vol. I: Solidarität und Autonomie, Cologne (Edition Humanistische Psychologie) 1994

– (1995), »Konkurrenz und Solidarität«. Der Personzentrierte Ansatz in Österreich und Europa. Inhaltliche und politische Überlegungen im Anschluß an den Europäischen Kongreß in Aachen und die Entwicklungen der letzten Zeit, Talk, Vienna, Oct. 4, 1995

– (1996a), Personzentrierte Gruppenpsychotherapie in der Praxis. Ein Handbuch. Vol. II: Die Kunst der Begegnung, Paderborn (Junfermann) 1996

– (1996b), Körper–orientiert oder Person–orientiert? Aspekte zur Inkompatibilität körpertherapeutischer und systematisch–übender Verfahren mit dem personzentrierten Ansatz, in: apg–kontakte 3 (1996) 5–41

– (1996c), "Intimacy, tenderness and lust". A person–centered approach to sexuality, in: Hutterer/Pawlowsky/Schmid/Stipsits 1996, 85–99

– (1996d), "Probably the most potent social invention of the century". Person–Centered Therapy is fundamentally group therapy, in: Hutterer/Pawlowsky/Schmid/Stipsits 1996, 611–625

– (1997a), "Einem Menschen begegnen, heißt von einem Rästel wachgehalten werden." (E. Lévinas). Perspektiven zur Weiterentwicklung des Personzentrierten Ansatzes, in: Person 1 (1997)

– (1997b), Personzentrierte Supervision. Berufliche Entwicklung durch Begegenung, in: Luif, Ingeborg (ed.), Supervision, Vienna (Orac) 1997, 175–188

– (1997c), Person–Centered Psychotherapy — State of the art. Plenary address, IVth ICCCEP, Lisbon (manuscript) 1997, in print: Brennpunkt 73 (1997)

– (1997d) "Mit dem Körper die Seele heilen"? Der Personzentrierte Ansatz im Gespräch mit der Körperpsychotherapie, in: Korunka, Christian (ed.), Begegnungen. Psychotherapeutische Schulen im Gespräch. Dialoge der Person–Centered Association in Austria (PCA), Vienna (WUV) 1997

– (1997e), Vom Individuum zur Person. Zur Anthropologie in der Psychotherapie und zur Entwicklung des Personzentrierten Ansatzes, to be published in: Psychotherapie Forum 1997/98

– (1997f), Begegnung von Person zu Person. Zum Beziehungsverständnis in der Personzentrierten Psychotherapie, to be published in: Psychotherapie Forum 1997/98

– (1998a), »On becoming a person–centred approach«. A person–centred understanding of the person, in: Thorne/Lambers 1998

– (1998b), »Face to face«. The art of encounter, in: Thorne/Lambers 1998

– (1998c), Im Anfang ist Gemeinschaft. Personzentrierte Gruppenarbeit in Seelsorge und Praktischer Theologie — Beiträge zu einer Theologie der Gruppe, Bd. III, Stuttgart (Kohlhammer) 1998

Swildens, Hans (1992), Die klientenzentrierte Therapie, die prozeßorientierte Gesprächstherapie und die personzentrierte Gesprächsführung: drei Töchter des gleichen Vaters, aber aus verschiedener Ehe, in: Stipsits, Reinhold / Hutterer, Robert (eds.), Perspektiven Rogerianischer Psychotherapie. Kritik und Würdigung zu ihrem 50jährigen Bestehen, Vienna (WUV Universitätsverlag) 1992, 54–70

Thorne, Brian / Lambers, Elke, Person–Centred Therapy. European perspectives, London (Sage) 1998

van Belle, Harry A. (1990), Rogers' later move toward mysticism: Implications for client–centered therapy, in: Lietaer, Germain / Rombauts, Jan / van Balen, Richard (eds.), Client–centered and experiential psychotherapy in the nineties, Leuven (Leuven University Press) 1990, 47–57

van Kalmthout, Martin (1997), Person–oriented psychotherapy. Toward integration of insight–oriented, experiential, client–centered, person–centered, interpersonal and existential therapies, paper given at the IVth ICCCEP, Lisbon (manuscript) 1997

Waldschütz, Erwin (1993), Was ist »Personalismus«?, in: Die Presse, Spectrum, Dec. 24, 1993, XII

Wood, John K. (1994a), A rehearsal for understanding the phenomenon of group, in: Person–Centered Journal 1,3 (1994) 18–32

– (1994b), From the Person–Centered Approach to client–centered therapy. Towards a psychology, keynote address IIIrd ICCCEP, revised version, Jaguariúna (manuscript) 1994; cf.: The Person–Centered Approach. Towards an understanding of its implications, in: Hutterer/Pawlowsky/Schmid/Stipsits 1996, 163–181

Author’s identification

Peter F. Schmid, Univ.Doz. Prof. Mag. Dr.
Founder of person–centered training in Austria 30 years ago, Universitätsdozent at the University of Graz, Styria; Professor at the Hochschule St. Gabriel / Mödling; person–centred psychotherapist; psychotherapy trainer and staff member of the "Academy for Counselling and Psychotherapy" of the "Institute for Person–Centred Studies" of the APG in Vienna, 10 books and numerous articles about further developments of the Person–Centered Approach.

Overview papers
Hauptseite English mainpage Top of page