"1 have little s y m p a t h y with the p r e v a l e n t con-

c e p t that m a n is basically irrational . . . Man's

b e h a v i o r is exquisitely rational, m o v i n g with
subtle and o r d e r e d c o m p l e x i t y toward the goals
his o r g a n i s m is e n d e a v o r i n g to achieve."

The Nature of Man

[Editor's Note. This statement by Dr. CARL R. ROGERS

Rogers, published in "The Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology," Fall, 1957, represents a Professor of
reply to an article by Professor Donald E. Psychology and Psychiatry
Walker of San Diego State College on "Carl University of Wisconsin
Rogers and the Nature of Man," which ap-
peared in the Summer, 1956 issue of the same inherent in his species, and the terms
journal, in which Dr. Walker stresses the which have at different times seemed to
similarity of the philosophy of Carl Rogers me descriptive of these characteristics
to Rousseau and its dissimilarity to the
philosophy of Sigmund Freud:] are such terms as positive, forward-
moving, constructive, realistic, trust-
worthy.
MYcharacteristics
V I E W S of man's most basic
have been formed Let me see if I can take the discus-
by my experience in psychotherapy. sion of these points of view into a fresh
They include certain observations as to area where perhaps we have somewhat
what man is not, as well as some de- fewer preconceived biases. Suppose we
scription of what, in my experience, he turn to the animal world and ask our-
is. Let me state these very briefly and selves what is the basic nature of the
then endeavor to clarify my meanings. lion, or the sheep, or the dog, or the
I do not discover man to be well mouse. To say that any one or all of
characterized in his basic nature by these are basically hostile or antisocial
such terms as fundamentally hostile, or carnal seems to be ridiculous. To say
antisocial, destructive, evil. that we view their nature as neutral
I do not discover man to be, in his means either that it is neutral in terms
basic nature, completely without a of some unspecified set of values, or
nature, a tabula rasa on which anything that their natures are all alike, all putty
may be written, nor malleable putty waiting to receive a shape. This view
which can be shaped into any form. seems to me equally ridiculous. I main-
I do not discover man to be essen- tain that each has a basic nature, a
tially a perfect being, sadly warped and common set of attributes generally
corrupted by society. characteristic of the species. Thus the
In my experience I have discovered sheep is by far the most gregarious or
man to have characteristics which seem group-minded, the mouse the most gen-
24 PASTORAL PSYCHOLOGY May
erally timorous. N o amount of train- sheep, the mouse. To be sure each be-
ing - - therapeutic or otherwise - - will haves in ways which from some spe-
make a lion out of the mouse, or vice cific point of view are destructive. W e
versa,, even though a wide degree of wince to see the lion kill the antelope;
change is possible. There is a basic we are annoyed when the sheep eats
substratum of species characteristics our garden; we complain when the
which we will do well to accept: mouse eats the cheese we were saving
W e might take a closer look at some for our picnic; I regard the dog as de-
of those characteristics. Since the lion structive when he bites me, a strang-
has the most pronounced reputation for er; but surely none of these behaviors
being a "ravening beast," let us choose justifies us in thinking of any of these
him. W h a t are the characteristics of his animals as basically evil. If I en-
common nature, his basic nature ? H e d e a v o r e d to explain to you that if the
kills an antelope when he is hungry, "lion-ness" of the lion were to be re-
but he does not go on a wild rampage leased, or the "sheep-ness" of the
of killing. H e eats his fill after the kill- sheep, that these animals would then be
ing, but there are no obese lions on impelled by insatiable lusts, uncontrol-
the veldt. H e is helpless and dependent lable aggressions, wild and excessive
in his puppyhood, but he does not cling sexual behaviors, and tendencies of in-
to the dependent relationship. He be- nate destructiveness, you would quite
comes increasingly independent and properly laugh at me. Obviously, such
autonomous. In the infant state he is a view is pure nonsense.
completely selfish and self-centered, I would like now to consider again
but as he matures he shows, in addi- the nature (ff man in the light of this
tion to such impulses, a reasonable de- discussion of the nature of animals. I
gree of cooperativeness in the hunt. have come to know men most deeply in
The lioness feeds, cares for, protects, a relationship which is characterized
and seems to enjoy her young. Lions by all that I can give of safety, absence
satisfy their sexual needs, but this does of threat, and complete freedom to be
not mean they go on wild and lustful and to choose. In such a relationship
orgies. His v a r i o u s tendencies and men express all kinds of bitter and
urges come to a continually changing murderous feelings, abnormal im-
balance in himself, and in that sense pulses, bizarre and anti-social desires.
he is very satisfactorily self-controlled But as they live in such a relationship,
and self-regulated. H e is in basic ways expressing and being more of them-
a constructive, a trustworthy member selves, I gind that man, like the lion,
of the species Fells leo. His funda- has a nature. My experience is that he
mental tendencies are in the direction is a basically trustworthy member of
of development, differentiation, inde- the human species, whose deepest char-
pendence, self-responsibility, coopera- acteristies tend toward development,
tion, maturity. In general the expres- differentiation, cooperative relation-
sion of his basic nature makes for the ships; whose life tends fundamentally
continuation and enhancement of him- to move from dependence to independ-
self and his species. ence; whose impulses tend naturally to
harmonize into a complex and chang-

W Itions,
T H T H E appropriate varia-
the same sort of statements
ing pattern of self-regulation; whose
total character is such as to tend to
could be made about the dog, the preserve and enhance himself and his
1960 NATURE OF MAN 25

species, and perhaps to move it toward I have little sympathy with the rather
its ,further evolution. In my experi- prevalent concept that man is basically
irrational, and that his impulses, if not
ence, to discover that an individual is controlled, will lead to destruction of
truly and deeply a unique member of others and self. Man's behavior is ex-
the human species is not a discovery quisitely rational, moving with subtle
to excite horror. R a t h e r I am inclined and ordered complexity toward the goals
to believe that fully to be a human be- his organism is endeavoring to achieve.
The tragedy for most of us is that our
ing is to enter into the complex process defenses keep us from being aware of
of being one of t h e m o s t widely sensi- this rationality, so that consciously we
tive, responsive, creative, and adaptive are moving in one direction, while or-
creatures on this planet. ganismically we are moving in another.
But in our person who is living the
So when a F r e u d l a n such as K a r l process of the good life there would be
M e n n i n g e r tells me (as he has, in a a decreasing ntunber of such barriers,
discussion of this issue) that he per- and he would be increasingly a partici-
ceives man as "innately evil," or more pant in the rationality of his organism.
The only control of impulses which
precisely, "innately destructive," I can would exist or which would prove nec-
only shake m y head in wonderment. It essary is the natural and internal balanc-
leads me to all kinds of perplexing ing of one need against another, and the
questions. H o w could it be that M e n - discovery of behaviors which follow the
ninger a n d I , working with such a vector most closely approximating the
satisfaction of all needs. The experience
similar purpose in such intimate rela- of extreme satisfaction of one need (for
tionships with individuals in distress, aggression, or sex, etc.) in such a way
experence people so differently? P e r - as to do violence to the satisfaction of
haps these deep differences do not mat- other needs (for companionship, tender
relationships, etc.)--an experience very
ter if the therapist really cares for his common in the defensively organized
patient or client. But how can the person--would be greatly decreased. H e
analyst feel a positive caring for his would participate in the vastly complex
patient, if his own innate tendency is self-regulatory activiHes of his organ-
ism--the psychological as well as physi-
to destroy? A n d even if his own de- ological thermostatic controls--in such
structive tendencies were properly in- a fashion as to live in increasing har-
hibited and controlled by his analyst, mony with himself and with others.
who controlled the destructiveness of
that analyst ? A n d so on ad in,finitum. I H A V E puzzled as to the reasons
for the wide discrepancy between
It will be clear that my experience
the F r e u d i a n v i e w of man's nature and
provides no evidence for believing that
that which has seemed justified by ex-
if the deepest elements in man's nature perience in client centered therapy. I
were released we would have an un- have two hypotheses which I should
controlled and destructive id un- like to present for consideration,
leashed in the world. T o me this makes though they m a y seem shocking to de-
as little sense as to say that the "lion- voted ,followers of psychoanalysis.
ness" of the lion would be an evil First, it appears to me that F r e u d
thing. I respect the men who hold such was understandably very much excited
views, but I find no evidence in my ex- by his d i s c o v e r y - - a tremendous dis-
perience to support them. I stand covery for his t i m e - - t h a t beneath a
by a statement m a d e in an earlier pa- conventional o r " g o o d " exterior, man
per, "A Therapist's V i e w of the Good harbored all kinds of aggressive and
L i f e , " (The Humanist, 1957): sexual feelings and impulses which he
26 PASTORAL PSYCHOLOGY

had successfully hidden from himself relationship. Hence, though he might

as well as ,from others. This discovery come to know and to some extent to
was shocking to the culture of that pe- understand the hidden and denied as-
riod and hence both his critics and pects of himself, I question whether
Freud himself focussed on the "evil" he could ever come to accept them
feelings in man which lay beneath the fully, to embrace them as a meaning-
surface. This continued to be the focus ful, acceptable, and constructive part
even though Freud's own experience of himself. More likely he continued to
with his patients must have shown him perceive them as unacceptable aspects
that once these "evil" feelings were of himself--enemies, whom knowing
known, accepted, and understood by he could control--rather than as im-
the individual, he could be trusted to pulses which, when existing ~reely in
be a normally self-controlled, socialized balance with his other impulses, were
person. I n the furor of the contro- constructive. A t any rate I regard this
versy over psychoanalysis this latter as a hypothesis worthy of considera-
point was overlooked, and F r e u d set- tion. It does not, I admit, explain why
tled for what is, in my estimation, a his followers have continued to accept
too-superficial view of human nature. his view.
It was of course a much more deeply In closing I would like to agree with
informed view than that held by his W a l k e r that the view the therapist
contemporaries, but it was not so pro- holds of human nature does have con-
found a concept as his own experience sequences in his therapy. Hence I be-
would have justified. lieve it is important for each therapist
My second hypothesis would explain to abstract for himself from his own
why Freud did not assimilate this experience those trends or tendencies
deeper meaning which he might have which seem most deeply characteristic
perceived in the therapy he carried on. of the human being. I have indicated
It has been my experience that though
that for myself man appears to be an
clients can, to some degree, independ-
awesomely complex creature who can
ently discover some of their denied or
repressed,feelings, they cannot on their go very terribly awry, but whose
own achieve full emotional acceptance deepest tendencies make for his own
of these feelings. It is only in a car- enhancement and that of other mem-
ing relationship that these "awful" bers of his species. I find that he can
feelings a r e first fully accepted by the be trusted to move in this constructive
therapist and can then be accepted by direction when he lives, even briefly, in
the client. Freud in his sel~-analysis a non-threatening climate where he is
was deprived of this warmly acceptant free to choose any direction.

We Talk and Write Too Much

I N psychotherapy, we have tended to commit the error Of placing too much weight on
verbalization. I am one of those who believe, along with many other psychologists,
that we intellectuals write too much, p,ublish too much, and no doubt talk too much,
Verbalization, like formulation in the psychotherapentic session, is useful only so long as
it is an integral part of experiencing. People in therapy often talk because they are afraid
of silence, or afraid of directly experiencing themselves and the other person, the therapist.
Indeed, when a person gets an insight, he may talk at length and with enthusiasm about
it in order precisely to dilute it and thus avoid the full force of its consequence.--Ror-Lo
MAY, "A Psychologicai Approach to Anti-Intellectuaiism." in "The Journal of Social Issues"