Rogers and Goldstein redux: the actualizing person responding to trauma and loss

Abstract

Carl Rogers’ concept of actualization is discussed in relation to neuropsychiatrist Kurt Goldstein’s concept of self-actualization, both of which explain the inherent capacity of the human organism for growth through adversity. It is argued that Rogers’ organismic perspective is compatible with the existential-ontological elements of Goldstein’s holistic, biological conception of the human organism. There is, however, a fundamental difference in their concepts of actualization and their metaphors of self-healing that reflects their dissimilar clinical milieus and philosophico-existential perspectives. Rogers’ metaphor of self-healing calls up the client’s organismic experiencing in a therapeutic relationship whereas Goldstein’s refers to the patient and pathology that is an indication of lawful variations of the normal self-regulating process. Their concepts of actualization are considered in relation to six existential-ontological dimensions of human experience delineated by Hersch. It is argued that they provide a more in-depth understanding of an individual’s experience than the dominant biomedical models of disease. This process is illustrated by drawing on the self-reported experiences of persons with traumatic brain injury concerning the extent of their recovery and post-traumatic growth. Considered together, the legacies of Goldstein and Rogers span biology and phenomenology, existential philosophy and humanistic psychology.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.