When moving straight from Freudian psychoanalytic thought into Rogerian person-centered thought, it’s almost shocking how fundamentally different the two theories are. But, remember that the foundation of Freud’s thinking related to the mechanistic views popular at the time and instilled in him during medical school, while Rogers came to prominence during the 20th century in the United States, a society emphasizing a sense of personal self-esteem at the time. Again, we see in this the importance of considering the sociohistorical context and influences on the theory and theorist, and how it’s likely impossible to create a theory of personality that is immune to sociohistorical influences.

That said, elements of Freudian psychology remain widespread across the discipline, with defense mechanisms – as we discussed last week – being widely recognized by practicing clinicians, regardless of theoretical orientation. As well, elements of Rogerian psychology remain widespread across the discipline, with the principles of unconditional positive regard, genuineness, and empathy being of paramount importance for many practicing clinicians. So, while each and every clinician may seek guidance from many theoretical approaches to hone their therapeutic skills, we still have fundamental ideas about human behavior and pathology that tend to align us with the philosophical underpinnings of a particular school of thought.

Let’s break it down this way. Based on what you have learned so far about Freud and Rogers in this and other psychology courses, consider how one should go about solving interpersonal problems and relieving psychological distress. Should one try to identify the original causes of the distress, as Freud did? Or should one focus on here-and-now feelings and possibilities for change, as did Rogers? Discuss the benefits and limitations of BOTH approaches. Share your thoughts, linking them back to the textbook, weekly resources, and other external sources you feel support your claims.