Existential Influences on Person-Centered Psychotherapy

Existential philosophy and psychotherapy in various forms have influenced the thinking of client-centered therapists for several decades, beginning with Carl Rogers. Rogers had dialogues with existential philosophers Martin Buber in 1957 and with Paul Tillich in 1965. Over many years, Rogers corresponded and dialogued in person with Rollo May and had some contact with R. D. Laing. He was also appreciative of the ideas of existential philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. Regarding the relationship of existential thought to client-centered therapy, Rogers (1980) wrote, “I felt greatly supported in my new approach, which I found to my surprise was a home-grown brand of existential philosophy” (p. 39). Both person-centered therapy and existential philosophy are fundamentally grounded in Husserl’s phenomenological view, which takes the position that human beings need to be understood in terms of their tangible, lived experience. Relatedly, existential philosophers emphasized the uniqueness of each person, a position that contrasts with a positivistic scientific worldview that tends to define persons in terms of their general or average characteristics. Both Rogers and existentialists view the person as a process, a moving and changing being, as opposed to a static entity that can be categorized.

Mick Cooper (2004) summarizes what he sees as the similarities of existential and client-centered views. He suggests that both approaches tend to (a) emphasize the uniqueness and individuality of each client and of each therapeutic encounter; (b) understand clients in terms of their “subjective,” lived experiences, rather than from an external, diagnostic perspective; (c) see psychological problems as a result of the distortion or denial of experiences and assert that an acknowledgement of one’s true being can lead to a greater intensity and fullness of living; (d) reject or de-emphasize the use of techniques in therapy, emphasizing instead the importance of a genuine, spontaneous, human encounter; and (e) emphasize the importance of accepting and validating clients, however bizarre or maladaptive their behavior might seem. To these points I would add that both positions trust the client’s capacity or potential to make positive and constructive choices. They also embrace such concepts as freedom, choice, autonomy, personal responsibility, and finding meaning in life.

There are also concepts in existential therapeutic approaches that may serve to heighten person-centered therapists’ awareness of fundamental life issues with which all persons must grapple. In Existential Psychotherapy (1980), a text that is considered by many to be the most comprehensive, in-depth explication of the existential approach to psychotherapy, Irvin Yalom identified four of these issues, which he termed ultimate concerns: (a) death, (b) freedom, (c) isolation, and (d) meaninglessness. Other issues identified by existential therapists include “thrownness” (forces or events beyond one’s control), capacity for awareness, anxiety as an inevitable aspect of the human condition, and the fact that we are essentially embodied. While the client in person-centered therapy determines the direction and focus of therapy, a greater sensitivity to such existential issues and challenges will enable the person-centered therapist to recognize and respond with greater understanding and depth when these issues arise.

Existential therapists tend to engage various aspects of themselves in an attempt to engage their clients with fundamental life issues. They are generally more active in style and more willing and inclined to confront clients with their self-deceptions and avoidance of critical aspects of their lives and the consequences of how they choose to live. Their manner of encounter is often more challenging and proactive in relationship to their clients than their person-centered counterparts, though their intent is in the service of awareness and growth. In an analysis of the differences and similarities of existential and classical client-centered therapists, Cooper concludes that “despite the divergences in philosophical and psychological opinion, both approaches are fundamentally committed to understanding human beings in the most dignified, respectful and validating way possible” (2003, p. 54).