Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paper Carl Rogers - Communication - Its Blocking and Its Facilitation
Paper Carl Rogers - Communication - Its Blocking and Its Facilitation
What
rclationmip is there: between providing therapeutic help to individuals with
emotional maladjustments and the concern of this conference with obstacles to
communication? Actually thc: relationship is vc:ry close indeed. The whole task
of psy<:hotherapy is the tuk of dealing with a failure in communication. The
emotiona.lly mab.djlUlt'd person, the "neurotic," is in difficulty first bc'Uusc com·
munication within himself hu broken down, and second bccalUC as a result of
this his communiution with others hu bc-en dun.lgN. If this sounds somewhat
Itnnge, then l� me put it in other terms. In the neurotic
" " individual, pam of
himself which hive been termed unconsciow, or repressed, or denied to aware
[leu, become blocked off so that they no longer communicate themselves to the
COJUCious or manasins part of himself. Al long as this is true, there ar c distor
tions in the way he communicates himself to others, and so he suffers both within
bimself, and in his interpersonal relations. The task: of psychotherapy is to help
tbe persoo Ichio-e, through a special relationship with a thcnpist, good com·
munication within himself. On ce this is achieved he can communicate more freely
and more effectively with others. We may say then that psychotherapy is good
communication, within and between men. We may also turn that statement
U'ounJ and it will stll be true. Good communication, frce communication,
i
� This �per "'1$ oriAinal!r pr��t«l on Oc:robff 11. 1911, �r North...est�rn Un;.
�rsity·s Cm�nnill Conftrmcc on Communications. It also Ippe-an in Ih� Nonhwestern
Uninnir, publication. C",.. ",...ir.-JiuJ j" T"J"':tJ W",lJ. which teSuhM from the Con.
fetencc. Dr. Jl.ogC1'1 il Prnfcuof of Psychology 111M University of o.;n8O and IUlhOf of
C..,...r'/i",nJ Pl1CIHUb"." (1942) .nd Clhll,.CuJ.mJ Tb,,4', (19H).
"
ETC.: A REVIEW OF GENERAL SEMANTICS VOL. IX, NO. 1
amples. /\.$ you lene the meeting tonight, one of the statements }'OU are likely
to hear is, " I didn't like that man's talk." Now what do you respond? Almost
invariably your reply will be either approval or disapprova.l of the attitude
expressed, Either you respond, "I didn't either. 1 thought it wu tt'crible," or else
you tend to reply, "Oh, I thought it was realJy good." In other words, your
primary reaction is to enlu.tte what has just � said to you, to evaltute it from
JDII' point of view, your own frame of reference.
Or take another example. Suppose 1 say with some feeling, "I think tht'
Republicaru are behaving in waY' that show a lot of good sound sense thC$C
days," what is tht' responSt' that arises in your mind as you listen? The ovt'r·
whelming likelihood is that it will be evaluative. You will find yourself agreeing,
or disagreeing, or making some judgmt'nt about me such u "He must be a
conservative," or "He seems solid in his thinking." Or let us tlke an illustration
from the internationll scene. Russ il says vt'hementiy, "The treaty with Japan
is a W;U' plot o n the part of the United States." We rise as one person to say
'"11u.t's a lie!"
view, tD unle how ;1 fuls 10 him, to tUhieve hiJ frllme of referenre ;n regard
10 Ihe thing hi is talkin flholil.
.� .. �..
.-.
..-
..�..
� � ..
.. �.
It means 10 Jet th� uprtued id�a and all;lude f10m Ih� �/h�r perron'J point of
/li�w, to unu how il fulr 10 him, l� IUhine hiJ fram� of "flrmCt in regard
10 Ih� thing he is talking abolll.
WIHTU 19�2 COMMUNICATION: ITS ULOCKING AND ITS F....OLlT....TlON
T"TEO briefly, this may sound absurdly simple, but it is not. It is an at>
S
$0
to him, if I can 5ee its personal meaning for him, if I can sense: the emotional
Ravor which i t hu for him, then I will be releasing potent forces of change: in
him. If I can really understand how he h�te5 his father. or hates the university,
or hates communists-if I can catch the flavor of his fear of inunity, or his
fear of atom bombs, or of Runia-it wjJI be of the greatest help to him i n
altering those very hatreds and fears. and i n establishing realistic and harmoni
ous relationships with the \' ery people and situations toward which he hu felt
hatred and fear. We know from our rescarch that such empathic understanding
understanding with a person, nOl about him-is such an effective approach that
it cln bring lbout major changes in personality.
Some of you may be feeling that you listen well to people, and that you
ha\'e never seen such results. The chances arc: very grelt indeed tlut your listen
ing has not been of the type I have described. Fortunately I can suggest a Hille
laboratory experiment which )'0\1 can try to test the quality of your under
standing. The next time }'ou get into an argument with your wife, or your
frirnd, or with a sma!! group of friends, just stop the discussion for a moment
and for an experiment, institute this rule. "Each pcrson can speak u p for him
self only a/I" he has first restated the ideas and feelings of the previow spaker
accurately, and to that speaker's satisfaction:' You see what this would mean.
It would simply mean that before presenting your own point of view, it would
be: necessary for you to really Ichieve the other speaker's frame of reference
to understand his thoughts and feelings so well that you could summarize them
for him. Sounds simple doesn't it? Out if )'00 try it you will discover it one
of the most difficult things you have ever tried to do. HO""ever, once you hive
been able to see the other's point of vicw, )'OI.Ir own comments will have to be
drastically reviJed. You will also find the emotion going out of the discussion,
the differenc� being reduced, and those: differences which remain being of l
and good relationships. a s I am quite sure you will agree if you try the experi.
ment I have mentioned, why is it not more widely tried and wed? I will try to
list the difficulties which k«p it from being utilized.
sions, and therapy groups in which many personal tensions are prnent. In thae
smaIl groups our experience. confinned by a limited amount o( rl'SC1rch, sho,"
that Ihis basic approach leads to improved commu nication, to greatt'r acceptam:e
of others and by others. and to attitudes which are more positive and more
problem·solving in nature. There is a decreue in defensiveness, in enggerated
statements, in evaluative and critical behavior. But these findings are from
small groups. What about trying to achieve understanding between larger groups
that are geographically remote? Or between face-to-race groups who are not
speaking (or themselves, but simply as representatives of otbers, like the dele
gates at Kaesang? Frankly we do not know the: answers to these questions.
I bt'lieve the situation might be put this way. As social scientists we have a
tentative test·tube solution of the: problem of breakdown in communication. But
to continn the validity of this te$l:-tuhl:' solution, and to adlpt it to the enormous
problems of rommunication·brealcdown between classes, groups, and nations,
would involve additional Cunds. much more rexarch, Ind creative thinking
a high order.
But even to describe such a first step is t o suggest another obstacle to this
approach of undeutmding. Our civiliution does not yd have enough faith in
the social sciences to utilize their findings. The opposite is true of the pbysic:al
sciences. During the war wht'n a test·tube solution was found to the: problem
of synthctic rubber. millions of dollars and an um, of talent was turned 100JC:
on lhe problem of using that finding. If syntheti rubber could be made in
milligrams, it could and would be made in the thousands of tons. And it w:as.
But in the social science r�lm. if a way is found of facilitating communication
Itld mutual understanding in s.maII group'. there is no guanntcc that the finding
ETC.: A REVieW OF GENERAL SEMANTICS VO�. IK, NO. 2
win be utilized. It may be a generation or more before the money and the brains
will be turned 1()()$C to �][ploit that finding.
I hav� said that our research and �xperienc� to dat� would make it .ppear
that br�akdowns in communication, and the evaluath'C tendency which is the
major i»nier to communication, can be avoided. The solution is provided by
creating a situation in which exh of the diJJ�rent parties come to understand
the other from the olh,r'J point of view. This has been achieved, in practice,
even when feelings run high, by the influence of a person who is willing to
und�rstand each point of view empathical1y, and who thus acts as a catalyst
to prcripitat� further understanding.
This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party,
without waiting for the other to be ready. I t can even be i nitiated by a nn/tn.!
third person, providing he can gain a minimum of cooperation from one of the
parties .
This procedure can deal with the insincerities, the defensive exaggerations,
the lies, the "false fronts" which characterize almost every failure in communi·
cation. Thest defe nsive distortions drop away with astonishing s�d as people
lind that the only intent is to understand, not judge.
This approach leads steadily and rapidly toward th� discovery of thc truth,
toward a realistic appraisal of the objective bacri�rs to communication. The
dropping of some defensivCllCS3 by one party leads to further dropping of dc·
fensiveness by the oth�r pa.rty, and truth is thus apprcnched.
This procedure gradually achieves mutual communication. Mutual communi·
cation tends to be pointed toward solving a problem rath�r than toward attack·
ing a person or group. It leads to a $ituation in which I see how the problem
appears to you, as well as to me, and you see how it appears 10 me, as well as
to you. Thus accurately and realistically d�fined, the problem is almost certain
to yield to intelligent attack, or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably
accepted as such.
vcstig.u� it further, refine it, develop it and apply it to the tragic and well.nigh
fatal failures of communication which threaten the very existence of our modem
world� It sc-ems to me that this is a possibility and a challenge which � should
explore.