Behaviour, according to Rogers, Is a function not of external reality or of stimuli in the environment or in the person, but of subjective reality or the phenomenal field. Discuss.

Introduction and basic concept of the phenomenal field.

When I was a boy of about nine or ten, I had a peculiar argument with my best friend Mia, over my insistence to colour oranges in red. Mia asserted that my drawing was defective, and after a fierce defense from my part, we agreed to call in her Mother to rule, on whether my oranges looked “real”. I forget what Mia’s Mother concluded, but according to Rogers, at least for the purpose of psychology, there is no such thing as one reality. Instead we all have our own reality, to Mia real oranges were orange while my reality sated they were red.

This Phenomenal or Experiential Field, is built and constantly redefined by all that with which we come in contact, be it consciously or unconsciously perceived, this includes both psychological constructs such as drives, thoughts, emotions, as well as material objects and the environment. Rogers states that only a portion of this reality is conscious, the rest is mostly subconscious or unconscious. The foreground of our field “conscious experience”, is laid against a background of subliminally perceived reality, which may come into focus whenever this is deemed to be conducive to our actualisation [A concept which I will discuss further on]. e.g. The other day I was so immersed in study, I didn’t “realise” that I had not eaten anything for hours, upon sensing hunger, I suddenly became “aware” of the bowl of fruit laid right under my nose. The fruit bowl “Reality” was there all the time, but I only consciously perceived it, when the need arose i.e. hunger. (Rogers 1951:483,487) As mentioned above, the field is subjective and relative to the individual, no one can ever fully understand the field of an other, simply because the individual venturing into the other’s reality is he himself subject to his own frame of reference. Furthermore the complexity of each particular organism is such that it’s impossible to hold everything into account, even if one where in fact objective. Therefore only the subject in question can report what an experience feels like. Looking at a Picasso from close range, might be a moving experience for an art enthusiast but may equally prove a waist of time for an uninterested individual.

Comparison of classical Phenomenology and Existentialism to Rogers’ model.

Rogers was not the first to argue this proposition, the phenomenological movement started in Europe with the work of the German Philosopher Edmund Husserl. Husserl and early followers like Max Scheler emphasised the subjective reality of each individual and stated that experience determines disposition “existence precedes essence”. The concept was later incorporated in the existentialist movement, which took over Europe during the 1940’s and lingered on till the 60's. The protagonists, Soren Kierkegaard and Fredrich Netzsche later followed Martin Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre, stressed the basic ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Comparison of classical Phenomenology and Existentialism to Rogers’ model.

The basic concept of subjective reality is the same, but the context in which Rogers presents it, makes for markedly different implications. According to Rogers we are born with an actualising tendency, therefore contrary to Husserl, Rogers’ model of the phenomenal field is in some way predisposed by this innate drive. While experience will definitively modify the essence of the individual, the way we experience reality will, directly or indirectly, always be in the context of actualisation. The actualising tendency also differentiates between Rogers’ theory and the Existentialist version. In Rogerian theory the phenomenal field serves as a tool for the organism to achieve his means “self actualisation” in contrast Existentialists posit that it is our perception of being, which creates our existential angst. Thus the Phenomenal field in this case, is more like a problem we must cope with, enhancing experience in this case will only bring more grief.

The phenomenal field, it’s implications on behaviour compare to other theories.

The application of the Phenomenal Field on behaviour, is much too vast to be discussed comprehensively in this paper, especially when considering the possibilities created by Cybernetics and theories of self governing mechanisms. For this reason I will head the following discussion in a comparative direction, namely with the other two major perspectives of psychology, Depth psychology and Behaviourism.

Rogers’ model of the field, functions within a framework, which at least in part, makes use of Freudian concepts. Rogers accepts the notion of the unconscious, he also accepts that humans are born with a basic drive, albeit markedly different from Freud’s version. Defense mechanisms are a way of perceiving reality, and are also found in Rogerian theory (Rogers 1951:483, 487). The difference prompts in the determinants of behaviour.

Rogers’ posits a holistic model of the human psyche that is directed by the phenomenal field, with the pinnacle point being the conscious portion. This neither excludes the unconscious devices, nor the environmental factors on the contrary the phenomenal field takes into account all of this, but in the proportions decided by the conscious field. [see Par. 1.2.]

While Freudian Ego, is also a central, partly conscious construct, it’s function is to satisfy the ID’s instinctual urges, while acting within the guidelines of the Superego and the surrounding environment, thus the conscious behaviour of the individual, follows a course determined by his/her unconscious mechanisms [ID Superego]. In fact, Freudian therapy tries to unearth unconscious conflicts using methods that bypass the conscious individual. E.g. Dream interpretation, free association or even hypnosis etc. (Ewen 1940: 27-29, 56-59) The reason being, that the conscious “will” of the client “to be cured” will be overridden by the unconscious determinant. Conversely, Rogerian therapy seeks to bring about a change of “awareness” in the conscious individual, in the understanding that the whole organism will follow. (Rogers 1951:486)

On the other side of the spectrum, based on the debate initiated by John Watson, B.F. Skinner, the main exponent of the radical version of Behaviourism also argued that the conscious individual has no will. In sharp contrast with Freudian theory, Skinner excludes unconscious constructs, instead Skinner states that behaviour is determined by prior conditioning. The stimuli in our environment attract us in various directions, reinforcement or the lack of it will determine the way we respond to that same stimulus in the future. Skinner, even rules out teleology and any form of cognitive behvioural determinants.(Ewen 1940:450-452)

‘Instead of saying that man behaves because of the consequences which are to follow his behavior. [I] simply say that he behaves because of the consequences which have followed similar behavior in the past…’

(Skinner 1953: 87)

Conversely, Rogers is saying that, Man channels his/her behaviour in the direction he/she “perceives” as being more conducive to actualisation. The basic premise that reinforcement will encourage a particular behaviour is still there, actualisation is the ultimate reinforcement, but completely opposite to what skinner is saying above, the individual will perceive as stimulating only that which he/she deems will be reinforcing. E.g. if a 25 year old man, who has been smoking for the past five years, “from which he is constantly positively and negatively reinforced” suddenly finds out that his father is dying of lung cancer, he may well decide to stop smoking. An explanation, using the phenomenal field model, would be that the proximity of the negative effects of smoking changed his “outlook” from “cigarettes aren’t that bad” to “cigarettes kill”.

The possibilities offered by the phenomenal field acting both as a hub of information as well as a control centre for the delegation of behaviour are infinitely wide ranging. Wolfgang Metzger, calls it the central steering mechanism, in the sense that it provides the logistics needed to interact with the environment (Royce:1972: 241-265). Without such conceptualisation of their surroundings human beings would act like weathercocks, running from one stimulus to another searching for the most immediate reinforcement. Instead, as can be seen in everyday experience, most human behaviour is directed towards goals that take considerable planning, hard work and endurance to materialise and therefore reinforce, with countless examples of athletes, academics, family persons etc.

Conclusion

The brand of behaviourism I have discussed, is perhaps the antithesis of Rogers’ model. Albert Bandura solved the above problem with the concept of Self Reinforced Behaviour, which equates to a system by which we give guidelines to our own behaviour, based on what we have learned. Similarly John Dollard and Neal Miller talk of Cue Producing Responses, which also deal with the capacity of the organism conceptualise behaviour, striking great resemblance with Kelly’s Personal Constructs Theory. Indeed even many, post Freudian, theorists have gone in this direction. Jung forwarded, teleology, and the capacity of the organism to evolve through conceptualisation of self. Adler did the same but enphasised the environment instead. Erikson gave a measure of autonomy to the Ego while keeping most of Freud’s constructs. Sullivan even categorised human experience, Protaxic, Parataxic and Suntaxic.

By the above, I don’t mean to say that the mentioned theorists all had the Phenomenal field in mind, when presenting their concepts. Yet it seems to me, that the concept of the phenomenal field, offers the possibility to converge conflicting data and theories regarding environmental or genetic determinants of behaviour into a unified whole. The field, accounts for all of these factors, and therefore is the best vantage point to understand behaviour. The identification of influential factors, like unconscious conflicts or environmental conditioning is still relevant, but with the context of the each individual.

References:

EWEN, R.B. (1940), An introduction to theories of personality Ltd.

ROGERS, C.R. (1951), Client Centered Therapy, Constableand Company Ltd..

ROYCE J.R. (1972), The Psychology of Knowing, NewYork/Paris/London, Gordon and Breach.

SKINNER, B.F. (1953), Science and Human Behaviour, New York Macmillan.