home » Plants » Positive psychology of family relations. Marriage and its alternatives

Positive psychology of family relations. Marriage and its alternatives

Carl Rogers - one of the founders of humanistic psychology, the creator of "client-centered" psychotherapy, the initiator of the "Meeting Groups" movement; his books and articles attracted numerous followers and students to him.

Although his views have changed considerably over the course of forty years, they have always remained consistently optimistic and humanistic. In 1969, he wrote: “I am not sympathetic to the widespread notion that man is inherently irrational and that, therefore, if his impulses are not controlled, they will lead to the destruction of himself and others. Human behavior is refined-rational, a person subtly and at the same time quite definitely moves towards the goals that his organism seeks to achieve. The tragedy of most of us is that our defenses keep us from being aware of this subtle rationality, so that we consciously move in a direction that is not natural for our organism.

Rogers' theoretical views have evolved over the years. He himself was the first to indicate where the point of view had changed, where the emphasis had shifted or the approach had changed. He encouraged others to check his statements, prevented the formation of a "school" mindlessly copying his conclusions. In his book Freedom to Learn, Rogers writes: "The view I present seems to suggest that the fundamental nature of man when he acts freely is constructive and trustworthy." his influence was not limited to psychology. It was one of the factors that changed the idea of management in industry (and even in the army), in practice social assistance, in the upbringing of children, in religion ... It even affected the students of the faculties of theology and philosophy. In the 1930s, this was a fickle but apparently successful way of dealing with clients; in the forties, Rogers, although not quite clearly, formulated this as his point of view ... The "technique" of counseling became the practice of psychotherapy, which gave rise to the theory of therapy and personality; the hypotheses of this theory opened up an entirely new field of research from which new approach to interpersonal relationships. Now this approach is making its way into the field of education as a way to facilitate learning at all levels. It is a way of creating an intense group experience that has influenced the theory of group dynamics.

Biographical sketch

Carl Rogers was born on January 8, 1902 in Oak Park, Illinois to a wealthy religious family. The specific attitudes of his parents left a heavy imprint on his childhood: “In our large family, strangers were treated like this: people's behavior is doubtful, this is not appropriate for our family. Many people play cards, go to the movies, smoke, dance, drink, do other things that are indecent even to name. You have to treat them with indulgence, because they probably don't know better, but stay away from them and live your life in your family."

It is not surprising that he was lonely in childhood: "I had absolutely nothing that I would call close relationships or communication." At school, Rogers studied well and was very interested in the sciences: “I considered myself a loner, not like others; I had little hope of finding my place in the human world. I was socially inferior, capable of only the most superficial contacts. A professional might call my strange fantasies schizoid, but, fortunately, during this period I did not fall into the hands of a psychologist.

Student life at the University of Wisconsin turned out to be different: “For the first time in my life, I found real closeness and intimacy outside the family.” In his second year, Rogers began to prepare for the priesthood, and the next year he went to China, to the conference of the World Student Christian Federation in Beijing. This was followed by a lecture tour of Western China. As a result of this journey, his religiosity became more liberal. Rogers felt a certain psychological independence: "Since this trip, I have found my own goals, values and ideas about life, very different from the views of my parents, which I myself had previously adhered to."

He began his graduation year as a theological seminary student, but then decided to study psychology at the Teachers' College at Columbia University. This transition was to some extent caused by doubts about a religious vocation that arose during a student seminar. Later, as a psychology student, he was pleasantly surprised that a person outside the church could earn his living by working with people in need of help.

Rogers began his work in Rochester, New York, at a center for helping children who were referred to him by various social services: “I was not associated with the university, no one looked over my shoulder and did not ask about my orientation ... agencies did not criticize the methods of work , but counted on real help. During his twelve years at Rochester, Rogers moved from a formal, directive approach to counseling to what he later called client-centered therapy. He wrote the following about this: "It began to occur to me that if only to abandon the need to demonstrate one's own intelligence and learning, then in choosing the direction for the process it is better to be guided by the client." Otto Rank's two-day seminar made a great impression on him: "I saw in his therapy (but not in his theory) support for what I myself began to learn."

In Rochester, Rogers wrote the book Clinical Work with the Problem Child (1939). The book received a good response, and he was offered a professorship at Ohio University. Rogers said that by starting academia at the top of the ladder, he escaped the pressures and strains that stifle innovation and creativity on lower rungs. Teaching and student response inspired him to take a more formal look at the nature of the therapeutic relationship in Counseling and Psychotherapy (1942).

In 1945, the University of Chicago gave him the opportunity to create a counseling center based on his ideas, of which he remained director until 1957. Trust in the people, being the backbone of his approach, was also reflected in the center's democratic politics. If patients could be trusted to choose the direction of therapy, then staff could be trusted to manage their own work environment.

In 1951, Rogers published Client-Centered Therapy. it outlined his formal theory of therapy, personality theory, and some of the research that supported his views. He argued that the client, not the therapist, should be the main guiding force in the therapeutic interaction. This revolutionary reversal of the conventional attitude has drawn serious criticism: it has challenged conventional wisdom about the therapist's competence and the patient's unconsciousness. The main ideas of Rogers, which go beyond therapy, are set out in the book On the Formation of the Personality (1961).

Series: "Modern psychology"

Books and articles by Carl Rogers attracted numerous followers and students to him. In this book, the author reveals to the reader a true and paradoxical picture of what marriage is from the inside.

Publisher: "Eterna" (2006)

Format: 84x108/32, 320 pages

* * *

The following excerpt from the book Marriage and its alternatives. Positive Psychology of Family Relations (Carl Rogers) provided by our book partner - the company LitRes.

Marriage and its alternatives

Positive psychology of family relations

Dedicated to Helen, a generous, loving, faithful person; my companion on independent but closely intertwined paths of human growth that has enriched my life; the woman I love; and – luckily for me – my wife.

Why did I write this book?

This is a question I often asked myself while working on the book. A rather curious and unexpected answer suddenly came to mind: "Because I rejoice at young people."

And this has been true for many years, as it remains true today. Much of what I learned about modern world, came from conversations with young people, young colleagues, friends and grandchildren, when I willingly plunged with them into some moments of their lives that delight, anger or confuse. I consider it a great success that most of my friends and acquaintances are 30-50 years younger than me. Some of these young people seem to me to be some kind of hope on this "white-blue planet" that passes through a very dark world space.

Through my interactions with young people, I know well the insecurities, fears, joys and anxieties that they go through, the funny living situations that arise when they try to build some kind of relationship between a man and a woman that has features of permanence - not necessarily permanence for life, but something more significant than a fleeting relationship.

Thus, thoughts began to arise in my head that I could offer useful things to these young people in their search for creating a new type of marriage or alternatives to it. But that this was not a stupid book of advice, but something really new.

The idea of a vague concept began to appear, what kind of novelty could it be.

I know that from literature you can learn anything about outside marriages and partnerships. You can learn about the differences between men and women, their sexual needs and rhythms. You can read books on how to improve sexual intercourse. You can study the history of marriage. You can find out, for example, the percentage of young people of college age living together without being married. You can read compiled lists of the main sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in married couples from questionnaires - and so on ... We are overwhelmed with information. But rarely do we get a true picture of what partnership is. from within, tested on my own experience. This is the one new element which I might add.

I began to think about the richness of the life experiences of some married couples or similar couples that I knew. Will I be able to identify this wealth? Will couples or individuals be open? Can the experience of alliances that I know anything about be teaching? Is it possible to depict vivid pictures of conflicts, “moving together”, hours of torment and months of bewilderment, jealousy, despair that accompany partnerships?

So I started interviewing some couples and tape recording our conversations. I asked some of them to describe their intimate experiences together. I was surprised by the reaction. I have never been strongly rejected. On the contrary, both partners and couples freely described the intimate side of their marriage (or its alternatives) as a relationship perceived from within. Such understandings and views are for me - and for this book - material for study. The description of all the vicissitudes of such unions, from the point of view of the experience of the person participating in them, allows, in my opinion, to comprehend several important points. Such material does not impose itself on the reader by saying, "Here is the path you must follow." He doesn't warn in alarming tones, "Don't do this." He does not draw clear conclusions. It's just a couple telling the reader, "Here's the path we've traveled. You can learn some things from it that will help you in achieving your own change, in making risky decisions.”

For me, this very personal view "from the inside" is not only the best source for learning, but also the starting point for finding the direction of a new and more humane science of man. But this may take us far from the goals of this book.

From the interviews and letters that I have, I have tried to select a fairly wide range of people and situations that, in my opinion, can be most interesting and useful.

I have carefully edited the material to hide names, addresses, and other identifying details. But I did not distort the personal and psychological content. Since I have purposefully selected what should be included in this book, I would like to list four criteria that guided me.

1. Do partners (individually or together) express themselves freely, spontaneously, sincerely, talking about the relationship in which they are. When describing their marriage, life together, sexual experiences outside of this relationship, do they tell everything as it is (or was)? I believe that an "objective", external factual picture of the relationship is not so useful for our purposes, while even a glimpse from the inside can just lead to questions that arise in the depths of the reader's soul. You may have your own judgment as to how far I have met this criterion.

2. I tried to select people who had experience of a sufficiently long marital relationship and the experience of their destruction. There are no descriptions of married couples going through a period of honeymoon or the agony of divorce. I have tried to select people who have experienced the ups and downs, the pain and elation that accompany partnerships, and yet have a clear memory of everything that happened, whose perception was not distorted by any ecstatic or traumatic experiences of that moment. As a result, couples were selected whose relationship lasted from three to fifteen years, most of the respondents were between the ages of 20 and 36 years. There was one exception - this is my attempt to describe my own marriage. We are both seventy.

3. I wanted to include partnerships that cover a wide range of both positive and negative experiences, or both. By societal standards, the people considered in the book range from "successful" to "unsuccessful". And many cases in our culture are difficult to categorize at all. In my mind, these examples range from the extremely happy and satisfied to the tragically unsatisfied, as well as mixed types.

4. I wanted the description to come directly from the experience of these people, so that my in-depth study would penetrate into their own thinking, forming, as it were, independent intertwining threads. The only exception to this is the chapter on community experiments, where I relied heavily on others to provide first hand data.

I have tried to keep these criteria fairly clear. In fact, they formed as the book was written, in the form of spontaneous natural paths that I tried to follow. It is possible that these seemingly clear statements about what was selected and how should be balanced by an explanation of what the book is not, which paths it naturally leaves aside.

First of all, it does not explore partnership or marriage in different cultures. It is only about the study of relations between men and women in the US in the 70s. It does not attempt to consider European or Eastern models of partnership, although I am sure that we are all moving - for better or worse - in the direction of mixing styles.

In addition, the book does not cover all classes, cultural trends, or levels in our society. Given the nature of my personal contacts, which does not include the very rich and the extremely poor, these categories were also not considered by me. Some of the people described here belonged to the lower strata of society (one black man lived in the ghetto as a child), but still most of them cannot be called very oppressed from an economic point of view. In my opinion, this is not so bad, since I assume that most of my readers belong to this group.

This is not a book of advice, as I always explain, not a collection of statistics (although there are some figures in the first chapter), not a thorough analysis of sociological trends.

Instead of all this, the book is a series of sketches, paintings, impressions of relationships, their change and breakup, taken from the lives of different couples. These insider views are given in a nonjudgmental manner. Is this union "good" or "bad" or does it belong to any other evaluation categories? I do not know. But he exists.

I am convinced that you will find here close and understandable relationships between a man and a woman in their real life - with all its tragedies, even periods, happy or turning points, during which personal growth of partners occurs.

My deepest thanks go to the anonymous couples and individuals whose conversations make up a very large part of the book. I appreciate their openness towards me, and even more their permission to open their lives for you.

A few more words about my own attitude to work. I have been a psychotherapist for forty years, have led many therapeutic "encounter groups" and have had an unusually rich opportunity to meet and befriend young couples. However, when I set out to write a book, I found that I simply couldn't draw on this past experience. I could only reproduce and record what was still fresh in my memory and relevant to me at the moment. Otherwise, I would feel like I was writing a book of "stories". While I am no doubt drawing on both past and recent experience in the comments, I am mostly using brand new material: with a few exceptions, everything has been collected over the past twelve months.

If the book somehow helps you in this risky process that we call life, and especially in your relationship with another person, then it will fully justify its purpose.

Will we get married?

In trying to understand my position on this issue, which is difficult enough for almost every young person and for many of those who are older, I preferred to start from the point where the book itself began. A few years ago, I tried to paint a picture of human relationships as they might be in the 21st century. What I wrote then about the relationship between men and women may serve as a backdrop for us against which we can place some much more recent examples of marital unions, both stable and dissolved or re-established. So, as a start, what I think are the more likely trends in the development of marriage and its alternatives.

What will intimacy be in the coming decade between boy and girl, man and woman?

Enormous forces are at work here and such aspirations of people are manifested that, in my opinion, the situation will not change for a long time.

First, the trend towards greater sexual freedom among adolescents and adults is likely to continue, whether it scares us or not.

Many circumstances have evolved to bring changes to this behavior, and the emergence contraceptives just one of them. It is likely that sexual intimacy will be part of a stable or somewhat ongoing relationship with the opposite sex. The attitude to sex as a simple lust quickly fades. And sexual intimacy is seen as a potentially joyful and enriching part of relationships. The attitude of possessiveness - the possession of another person, which has historically dominated sexual unions - is likely to decrease substantially. There will definitely be a significant change in the quality of sexual intercourse, from one in which sex is purely physical contact, almost as solitary as masturbation, to one in which the sexual aspect is an expression of feelings, experiences and individuality for each.

In the 21st century, it will be possible to completely control the birth of children in families. One of the tasks being solved at the moment is to ensure that everyone is guaranteed long-term infertility in adolescence and early adolescence, which can be eliminated only after a mature and deliberate decision to have children. This will radically change the existing situation, in which only with the help of certain means can protect yourself from pregnancy. In addition, computer matchmaking of prospective mates will be much more advanced than it is now, and will be much more effective for those who are looking for a suitable partner of the opposite sex.

Some temporary unions formed in this way can be legalized as a type of marriage without commitment and without children (by mutual agreement), and if the union breaks up, there will be no legal charges, no need to demonstrate legal grounds and no alimony.

It becomes quite obvious that the relationship between a man and a woman will constant only to the extent that they satisfy the emotional, psychological, intellectual and purely physical needs of partners. It means that constant the marriage of the future will be even better than the marriage of the present, because the ideals and goals of such a marriage will be on a higher level. Partners will expect and demand more from the relationship than is the case today.

If partners feel deep trust in each other and both want to stay together to start a family, then they enter into a marriage of a different kind, with more stringent obligations. Everyone will make commitments, including the issue of having and raising children. By mutual agreement, you can include or not include sexual fidelity as one of the obligations. Perhaps in the 21st century we will already achieve, through education and social pressure, that a couple will decide to have children only if their relationship is already sufficiently permanent and quite mature and responsible.

What I am trying to describe is a whole range of relationships between a man and a woman, from casual meetings and casual relationships to a harmonious and fulfilling partnership in which communication is open and real, where everyone is interested in and helps the partner’s personal growth and where there are long-term commitments to each other that form a solid foundation for having and raising children in an atmosphere of love. Some elements of this spectrum are within the law, and some are not.

It can be argued with a fair degree of truth that most of this spectrum already exists. However, the awareness and open acceptance of this whole range of relations by society will lead to its qualitative changes as a whole. Suppose it is openly acknowledged that some marriages are failed and temporary unions that will be dissolved. If children in such marriages are not allowed, then one divorce for every two marriages (the current divorce rate in California) will not be considered a tragedy. The dissolution of a partnership may be painful, but it will not be a social catastrophe, and such an experience may be necessary for the partners' personal growth and greater maturity.

To some, this statement may appear to be based on the assumption that ordinary marriage, as we know it in our country, is either disappearing or will be substantially changed. But let's look at some facts. In California in 1970 there were 173,000 marriages and 114,000 annulled. In other words, for every 100 couples that got married, there were 66 that separated forever. This is, by all accounts, a distorting picture, as a new law that went into effect in 1970 allows couples to "dissolve marriages without trying to find a guilty party," simply by agreement. Termination occurs after six months instead of a year, as was the case before. Now let's look at 1969. During that year, for every one hundred marriages, forty-nine were divorced. Perhaps there would be more divorces, but they were waiting for the new law as more effective. In Los Angeles County (especially in downtown Los Angeles) in 1969, the divorce rate was 61% of the marriages. In 1970, under a new law, the number of divorced marriages in this district reached 74% of the total number of marriages. Three couples ended their marriage while four entered into it! And in 1971, Los Angeles County had 61,560 marriage certificates and 48,221 divorce certificates, which was 79%.

These are not final changes, as the final results will still be unknown for some time, but they indicate the direction of further steps. Thus, in 1971, out of every five couples who were going to marry, four had the intention of subsequently divorcing. For three years, the figures of 61%, 74%, 79% - indicators of the relative frequency of divorces in one of the largest cities in the country. I believe these couples and these numbers are trying to tell us something!

Some of you may say, "Yes, but it's in California." I deliberately chose this state because, when viewed in terms of social and cultural behavior, what the Californian does today, the rest of the country - as has been seen many times - will do tomorrow. I chose Los Angeles County because what is done in the city center today turns out to be the norm for the country tomorrow. So, in the humblest of expectations, we can say that more than one out of every two marriages in remote areas of California is in the process of being annulled. And in urban areas - more educated and more in tune with modern trends - three out of four and even four out of five.

From my interactions with young people, it became clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the modern young person has a mistrust of marriage as a social institution. He sees too many flaws in him. He very often saw failure in his own home, in his family. Many of them believe that the relationship between a man and a woman is meaningful and worth keeping only if it is an enriching, developing experience for both.

There are only a few reasons for marrying for economic reasons, as was the case in the US during the early colonial period, when husband and wife made a much needed work team. Today's young man is not impressed that, according to religion, marriage should last "until death do us part." Rather, he will consider oaths of unchanging constancy to be completely uncritical, hypocritical. And from observations of married couples, it is clear that if they were truthful, they would swear that they would be together "in sickness and in joy" only as long as their marriage continues to be a spiritually enriching and satisfying union for each.

Many are "sounding the alarm" about the current state of marriage. It is obvious to them that culture is losing its moral and ethical standards, that we are experiencing a period of decline, and that it is only a matter of time until God's patience is overflowing and he is angry with us. While I must agree that there are many signs that our culture is indeed in crisis, I strive to see it from a different perspective. This is a time of upheaval for many, including many couples. Perhaps we are living under a curse known since ancient China: "May you live in times of great change!"

It just seems to me that we live in an important and uncertain time, and the institution of marriage is in the most uncertain state. If 50 to 75 percent of Ford or General Motors were to fall apart in the early stages of their automobile lives, the most drastic measures would be taken. We do not have such well-established mechanisms in relation to our social institutions, so people often grope, almost blindly, looking for alternatives to marriage (among which definitely less than 50% are successful).

Living together without registration, living in communes, expanding child care centers, serial monogamy (one divorce after another), a feminist movement that affirms a woman as an individual with her rights, a new divorce law that eliminates the search for the guilty (the idea of guilt) - all this is the search for a new form of relationship between a man and a woman in the future. It takes a braver person than me to predict what will come of it.

Instead, I want in this chapter to present several sketches of real marriages, each of which has its own specific form, in which serious questions are raised - morality, practicality, personal preferences. It is my hope that even if you do not find any answers in the book, there will still be a lot of material for you to make a meaningful and individual search for a solution.

Why did Joan get married

Let's listen to Joan, a young woman who is now divorced. She exchanged in a "meeting group" some rather intimate details of her marriage. I found her story to be very important to me, but that I will share with you later. So here's Joan:

“I guess the reasons I got married were completely wrong. It was just about time to do it. All my girlfriends and friends are already married. What should I do? I'm in my senior year of college, already too old. I'm starting to think about marriage. I don't know what else to do. I can teach, but that's not enough.

The guy I married was a very popular person, and I was insecure, very insecure! And I thought, “Okay, by God, I will marry this guy, and everyone who loves him, after I marry him, will also love me.” I don't think he understood me well, but I felt safe with him. Because of this, and also because I didn’t know what to do after graduating from college, I got married.”

A little later, she moved on to more detailed description what she thought about before getting married.

“My engagement happened because my very good friend was already engaged and she had a very pretty ring and she was making wedding plans. My girlfriends said: “Jesus, Joan, when are you and Max going to get married? You've been walking together for three years now. Don't let him get away. If you let him go, you'll be a terrible fool." And my mom said, 'Oh, Joan, where else can you find a guy like Max? He is so smart and responsible, serious and calm.” And I knew, 'This is the one I should marry because my close friends, my roommate, my mom, everyone is talking about it.' And although I had doubts coming from somewhere inside, I thought: “Well, you are so insecure and so stupid that you do not know your own feelings. They know best what is right, so you should follow their advice.”

I had enough internal confidence to tell Max why I was marrying him, and I also said that I really was a little afraid of getting married, and added: “I don’t know, really, if I should do it.” And he said, “Don't worry. You will learn to love me." Indeed, I learned to love him with a brotherly love, but nothing more.

When the wedding presents were unwrapped and the novelty was gone, when the novelty of having a baby was also gone, then all of a sudden I started to feel, 'Oh, you're a total idiot, you should listen. herself". I've said this to myself before, but then I didn't listen because I was too stuck to figure out what was best for me. But it turns out I was right...

Here are a few points that are important to me in Joan's experience. First of all, it shows how we all tend to fall under social pressure. College seniors plan their marriage and wait for social approval for it.

The dangers of various kinds of advice are clearly visible. Out of love, concern and well-meaning, her mother and her good friends advise her what to do. How easy it is to direct the life of another, and how difficult it is to live one's own!

In addition, the fear of a direct meeting face to face with their own problems.

Joan felt it was dangerous. She felt that she was afraid of the future. She didn't really hear her own feelings. Instead of facing inner problems directly and directly, she did what many of us do. She created the illusion that she had to find the solution outside of herself—in another person.

Finally, what really struck me was that Joan, like many others, did not have confidence in her own feelings, in her own internal unique reactions.

She was vaguely aware of the doubts she had about the relationship, her deep love, her willingness to really commit herself to this person. But these are just feelings. Only feelings / Only after marriage and after the birth of a child, she realized that she had to be guided by her own inner feelings, if only she believed them so much that listen to them.

Loss of self and its impact on marriage

Now I would like to give an example of a good marriage that has fallen apart. I think we can see a lot by thinking about the reasons why he failed. So here's the story of Jay, a promising young journalist, and Jennifer, a sociology student with an interest in international affairs as well as the arts.

I have known these young people for many years and their parents were my friends. They were both in their early twenties when they met, and their initial acquaintance developed around a mutual interest in world affairs. Now they are in their forties. Both of them came from educated families, but Jay's father, although he was a very developed person, was still in more self-taught.

The young people were of various religious beliefs, but none of them gave preference exclusively to their own faith: their beliefs, rather, could be called humanistic. They got married, and their marriage actually seemed very happy. After a while they had a boy and a girl. This was the first moment when the possibility of a break was outlined. Jay comes from a family where it is customary to admire a child. He felt that nothing could be too good for a child and that every whim of any child should be obeyed.

Jennifer supported such views for some time, but it was not her own opinion, and she clearly disagreed with Jay on this issue.

Jay is a wonderful father. Unlike many men, he loved nothing more than spending the day with his children, and at the same time he knew how to be a big child himself.

As Jay grew professionally, he had to spend some time abroad - in Europe, Latin America and Asian countries. On long trips, he took his whole family with him. They met interesting people, got to know new countries and cultures, and Jay and Jennifer even worked together on some foreign projects. It seemed that it was an idyllic marriage and a very strong family. However, there were separate, subtle flaws in the personality and behavior of each - flaws that seemed to nourish other vices. Gradually, although these shortcomings were not directly revealed and discussed, they made this idyllic marriage unbearable. Let me very succinctly describe this imperceptible gradual degradation.

Jennifer, before her marriage, was a highly independent, creative, progressive person, always starting something new or taking on projects that others did not have the courage to undertake. However, in her marriage, she decided to be a support for her husband, to do what he wants, in the way that he likes. Jennifer believed that a wife should behave in this way. She even wrote to him before the wedding (as she herself told me) that she was not too sure of herself and wanted to live her life for him (live his life).

Jay is a charming person with a pronounced charisma, a brilliant intellectual, a delightful conversationalist. Not surprisingly, almost all the people who came to the house were his friends. As a rule, he was the center of the evening, while Jennifer tried to treat everyone with food, drinks and make everything beautiful. She tried, but usually unsuccessfully, to enter into conversation or introduce her own topic for discussion. In the depths of her soul, her resentment about this accumulated, although it never showed during the twelve or fourteen years of their marriage. Long time she was really unaware of her resentment. Perhaps this was due to her upbringing in her parental family, in which negative feelings were almost never openly expressed.

In any case, Jennifer, unaware of what was happening, turned her indignation inward. Why did she turn out to be so inadequate, useless, so slow-witted that she could not please her husband, as others did? She simply abandoned herself in an attempt to be a good wife, the way he needs and the way he would like her to be. Soren Kierkegaard's saying comes to mind: “The greatest danger - the loss of oneself - can happen quite imperceptibly, as if nothing had happened; but any other loss, such as an arm, a leg, five dollars, etc., cannot go unnoticed.” Although it was written over a hundred years ago, it turned out to be amazingly true for Jennifer, and it took her years to discover the loss.

Another important aspect of their relationship was Jay's dependence on his wife, which manifested itself in many things, but especially when making important decisions. Jay, outwardly very competent, professional man, seemed to have great difficulty in finding serious solutions and often coaxed Jennifer to find a solution for what he should do. Then he did just that. If this choice turned out to be unsuccessful, then the wife was considered partly to blame, and he subtly let her know this.

His addiction and his inability to be a strong and determined father brought more and more of Jennifer's repressed rage until she found, to her horror, that she hated the sound of his car when he drove home from work.

She had the feeling, "This is my third child coming back," and a deep sense of despondency enveloped her like a cloud.

This unconscious repression of all her negative feelings about her relationship with her husband made her increasingly depressed until thoughts of suicide began to appear quite often. At some point, she discovered that she had already begun to take some steps that could lead to her death. She was sure that she was good for nothing, that neither Jay nor her parents would grieve for her, and if no one was interested in her, she could end it all. Then something she was indignant. It was at least a glimpse of the feeling that she has the right to live. Jennifer immediately sat down and wrote to a therapist she knew and trusted, asking for an urgent appointment, which he did. She underwent a course of psychotherapy, which lasted quite a long time.

It was definitely a radical turn for her, but not for her marriage.

As she became more open with her husband, some of her long-hidden anger and irritation spilled out onto Jay, often to his complete bewilderment. He tried to give her everything she wanted. He was a husband and father who loved his home, his wife and his children. Who was this new, evil woman who called him dependent, who reproached him for not being sexy enough for her, who resented his success in public life? Her parents also experienced some confusion when she expressed to them some long-standing grievances that often had nothing to do with real relationships.

Jay clearly felt that he was not to blame for the situation, that he had always acted like a husband, and that, obviously, Jennifer was "sick."

He was generous, caring, sympathetic and absolutely loyal. He didn't understand the situation and definitely felt that he wasn't the only one in need of change. So they made several attempts to figure it out with the help of a marriage counselor, which, however, were not successful. In a way, they even made things worse. Jay was always able to present himself so effectively and charmingly that even the consultant turned out to be somewhat fascinated by him, which made Jennifer even more angry than ever.

Jennifer began to demand that Jay become the husband she wanted and expected. Jay, for his part, just wanted Jennifer to be the same person he'd known her for nearly fifteen years. He will continue to be as loving as he was if she becomes the same again. loving wife what was. The marriage became more and more painful, the atmosphere between them was filled with hostility, and the question of divorce arose with all obviousness.

I would like to make only two comments about this marriage. While Jay and Jennifer didn't quite match, there's reason to believe their marriage could have been a success. It is easy to see, in retrospect, that if Jennifer had insisted on her truth from the start, the marriage would have had many more conflicts, but a lot more hope. Ideally, if Jennifer, for the first time feeling excluded from the general conversation, expressed her indignation to her husband as her inner feeling, it is very likely that some mutually acceptable solutions would be found. The same applies to her thoughts that she is unhappy because she has to manage the children alone, to her annoyance at the dependence and independency of her husband, to her frustration at the lack of sexual activity. If only she could express these feelings and thoughts as they arose, before they began to exert a lot of pressure. If she could express it as feelings that exist within herself, and not as accusations that they turned into later, then there would be a chance that they would be heard, and the opportunity to come to a deeper understanding, and the hope of overcoming difficulties would be would be much larger. It seems tragic that a marriage of great inspirational potential had to fall apart. From it, however, arose a strong and creative Jennifer, who now, I believe, will never sacrifice herself to the desires and requirements of another person.

And Jay - had he encountered these feelings as they arose - had to admit that he had not always been a great father and husband, as he believed that he had not always been right, that he had not only shown love and care, but also aroused anger and resentment and created a sense of his own inadequacy in his wife. Then he could become a more open and more human, direct, mistaken person. Instead, he felt the truth of his point of view, the certainty that he was a great husband and father, that there was no tension in the marriage, as far as he could tell, until Jennifer, for unknown reasons, "retired." He considered the breakup of marriage unnecessary and wrong. For him, Jennifer's discourse on relationships gradually became an ugly caricature of what was truly beautiful, creative, and often joyful. He just didn't understand it at all, except that he was sure it wasn't his fault. It was disappointing to see the loss of insight in such a talented person.

Saving a marriage

I learned a lot from counseling a young married woman, Peg Moore. Even though this happened a few years ago, what bothered her and what I learned appears as if now. I met Peggy in my study group classes. Agile, spontaneous, with a good sense of humor, a young woman with a healthy appearance of a typical American girl. However, a little later she came to me for a psychotherapeutic consultation. Her complaint was that her husband, Bill, is very formal and secretive with her, that he does not talk to her or exchange thoughts, that he is inattentive, that they are sexually incompatible and quickly drift apart. I began to think: "What a pity that such a lively, wonderful girl is married to a wooden idol." But as she continued her relationship story and became more open, the mask slipped and the picture changed dramatically. She said that she felt a deep sense of guilt about her life before marriage, when she had affairs with many men, mostly married. She realized that although she is cheerful and lively with most people, with her husband she is tough, controlling, not spontaneous enough. She also realized that she demanded from her husband that he be exclusively what she would like him to be. At this point, the consultation was interrupted due to my forced departure from the city. She continued to write to me, expressing her feelings, and one day added: “If I could only tell him (husband) about this, I would remain myself at home. But what will happen to his trust in people after that? You would probably think me disgusting if you were my husband and knew the truth. I would like to be a "good girl" instead of a "pretty girl". I'm so confused."

This was followed by a letter, from which, in my opinion, it is worth quoting at length. Peg tells how irritable she was, how unpleasant she was when they had a party one evening. Here's what happened after they left:

“I felt bad about my crappy behavior… I was so gloomy, guilty, angry at myself and Bill—in the same dejected mood that our guests were in.

So I decided to do something that I really wanted to do and that I kept putting off because I realized it would be better than having someone else tell Bill about my terrible behavior. It was even more difficult than telling you, although it was also quite difficult. I couldn't talk about it in such detailed detail, but I managed to express some unpleasant feelings for my parents and even more so for these "terrible" men. And suddenly I heard from him the best thing I ever heard from him: “Okay, maybe I can help you?” - when talking about my parents. And he completely accepted everything that I did. I told him how I sometimes feel inadequate in many situations - because I was not allowed to do many things, for example, I don't even know how to play cards. We had talked, discussed and really got to the bottom of our feelings. I didn't tell him everything about the men—I didn't name them, but I gave him the idea that there were a lot of them. Imagine, he understood me so well and everything became so clear that I began to trust him. Now I am not afraid to tell him about my stupid, illogical feelings that keep arising in me.

And if I'm not afraid, then maybe in time these stupid thoughts and feelings will cease to arise. Then, in the evening when I wrote to you, I was almost ready to give up everything - I even thought about leaving the city (getting rid of everything at once).

But I knew that I had to deal with it, because I would not be happy until I resolved this issue. We talked about the kids and decided to wait with them until Bill graduated, and I was happy that we agreed on that. Bill thinks about the same as I do about what we would like to do for our children and, more importantly, what we would didn't want do for them. So unless you get more desperate emails, then know that everything is going as well as it can be.

I'm very curious - did you know all this time what was the one thing I had to do to create an intimacy between Bill and me? This, I thought, was something that Bill would not like. I thought it would destroy his faith in me and in everyone. There was such a big barrier between Bill and me that Bill almost seemed like a stranger to me. The only reason I forced myself to do this was the understanding that if I did not at least know his answer to the questions that bothered me, it would not be fair to him - I need to give him a chance to prove that he can be trusted . He proved to me even more: he, too, went to hell with his feelings—for his parents and for many other people in general” (Rogers, 1961, pp. 316–317).

It is interesting to find out how much psychic energy is wasted by spouses who, in their marriage, try to hide behind masks! Peg no doubt felt that she was only acceptable to her husband if she maintained a façade of respectability. Unlike Jennifer, she is somewhat aware my feelings. But she was sure that if she opened them, she would be completely rejected.

For me the importance of this story includes not that Peg told her husband about her past sexual relationships. I don't think this is the lesson to be learned from this. I have known happy marriages where one spouse hid something from the other without feeling uncomfortable. In Peg's case, this cover-up erected a huge barrier, such that she could not be sincere in her relationship with her husband.

Here's one rule that's worked out for me: in any long-term relationship, it's best to openly express any lasting feelings rather than repress them. Suppressing them can only hurt the relationship. The first condition is not accidental. Only if the relationship is long enough and only if it is recurring or persistent feelings, it is necessary to disclose them to the partner. If this is not done, then such a constantly unspoken feeling gradually becomes poisonous, as happened in the case of Peg. So when she asks, "Did you know all along what was the one thing I had to do to create intimacy between Bill and me?" - I certainly believe that her sincere confession and communication of her real feelings saved the marriage, but whether it was necessary to tell the details of her behavior to Bill - only she could decide.

Later, I learned that they had a healthy child and their relationship finally improved.

my own marriage

I would like to tell you about my own marriage, in which I have been, as it is written, for over forty-seven years! To some of you this may seem incredibly long, but I cannot agree with that. Helen and I often wonder ourselves that we still enrich each other's lives, and wonder how and why we ended up being so happy. I cannot answer these questions, but I would like to tell you the story of our marriage as objectively as I can. Perhaps you will get some benefit from it as a result.

Helen and I lived on the same block in suburban Chicago when we were in high school. Other children from our group also lived there, and she had more friends than I did. When I was thirteen, my family moved, but I don't remember much pain either from separation from Helen, or from the fact that we stopped communicating.

When I entered college, I was surprised to find that she chose the same university even though her interests were completely different. She was the first girl I dated, mainly because I was too shy and shy about dating strangers. But, as I began to date other girls, I began to appreciate many of her qualities - gentleness, honesty, quick wit (not brilliant academic fervor, but a willingness to think openly about real issues that I often stumbled over, wanting to seem educated. But I remember I felt ashamed of her sometimes in companies, because she turned out to be a complete layman in some general and academic matters).

Our friendship deepened. We went on walks and picnics where I could initiate her into the natural world, which I love. She also taught me to dance and even sometimes enjoy communicating with people. My feelings for Helen became more and more serious. She liked me too, but she wasn't completely sure she wanted to marry me. Then, due to some circumstances, I left college for a year, but continued to write more and more impassioned letters to her. When I returned, Helen had already graduated from college and got a job as an advertising artist in Chicago, so we were separated for a long time. But in the end she said yes. One evening she confessed to me that she was sure she loved me and wanted to marry me. Then I spent the rest of the night riding the dirty, shaking train back to my college for classes, but I didn't care. I was in seventh heaven, in the clouds. "She loves me! She loves me!" It was a peak experience that I will never forget.

Then there were another twenty-two months of life apart before we got married, then we had continuous correspondence (now it could be telephone conversations). In my last two years of college, I succeeded in growing my business, which brought in amazing profits, enough to get me married before graduation.

Our parents approved of the choice, but not the marriage. Marry without getting an education?! What will I keep her for? Unheard of! Nevertheless, we got married (at the age of twenty-two) and went to graduate school together. When we look back, we realize that this was one of the wisest decisions we have ever made.

We were both sexually inexperienced and extremely naive (although we considered ourselves very experienced and sophisticated), but nevertheless for many months we lived surrounded by a joyful romantic haze, moved thousands of miles away from our families (great idea!), Finding the smallest apartment in the world in New York, furnishing it the way we wanted, and loving each other very dearly.

Since we both chose to go to New York, we could develop together. Helen started attending the same courses as me. I learned art from her. We discussed books and performances that we could afford with rather modest money. Both of us have changed incredibly in our attitudes towards religion, politics, and everyday events. She worked part-time, and I had a regular job on the weekends, but nevertheless we could spend a lot of time together, learning to exchange thoughts, interests, feelings in everything but one area.

I began to dimly realize that although our sexual relationship was very important to me, it was not as important to her. At the same time, I felt that I did not really understand the deeper meaning of her phrases: "Oh, not tonight!", "I'm too tired", "Let's wait until next time!" Without a doubt, the situation could lead to a crisis.

At this point, pure chance gave us a break, and like any good chance, it had to be exploited. In graduate school, I learned that a psychiatrist, Dr. J. W. Hamilton, was looking for several young married men to complete his research. There was probably some payment involved, which made me jump at the opportunity very quickly (in fact, Hamilton's research predated the well-known work of Kinsey, it was of a high professional standard, although it was never widely known). I went to see Dr. Hamilton for two or three lengthy interviews. He asked so calmly and easily about all aspects of my sexual life and development that I gradually began to talk about it with almost the same ease. One thing I was beginning to realize is that I even Do not know, whether my wife ever had an orgasm. She often seemed to enjoy our relationship, so I assumed that I know the answer. But the most important thing that I learned: it turns out that those moments of my personal life, about which impossible was to say may be easily and freely discussed.

So the next question came: can I bring this into my personal life? I began a disturbing process of discussion - present discussions - with Helen of our sexual relations. It was unsettling because every question and every answer made one of us so vulnerable to attack, criticism, ridicule or rejection. But we survived it! Each learned to understand more deeply the desires of the other, his taboos, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with our sex life. And if in the beginning it gave us only great tenderness, understanding and joy, but gradually led not only to an orgasm for Helen, but also to a full-fledged, stable, harmonious and mutually enriching sexual relationship, thanks to which we could discuss new difficulties, as how they arose.

This was very important for us and, undoubtedly, saved us from deep delusions that could divide us. But even more important was that we seemed to understand - what seemed impossible tell each other, it turns out, you can discuss the problem that you, it would seem, should hide can be discussed. Although we have gradually forgotten this truth many times, it has always returned in times of crisis.

I certainly won't attempt to detail the entire experience of our marriage. There were periods of great distance from each other and periods of great closeness. There were periods of real stress, fighting, annoyance and suffering - although we were not a conflicting couple - and periods of great love and support. But we always continue to share our thoughts and feelings with each other. None of us is so immersed in our own lives that we do not find time to communicate with others.

There is one point on which we have never fully agreed: is possessiveness possible in a good marriage? I say "No. And she says yes. I developed a real attachment to another woman, an attachment that, in my opinion, did not exclude Helen, but complemented my love for her. Helen didn't see it that way at all and was very upset.

It was not so much jealousy as a deep resentment towards me that she turned inward, feeling that she was "out of business" and inadequate. Here I am very grateful to my grown daughter, who helped Helen realize her true feelings and restore communication between us. When we were able to express our true feelings, a solution to the problem became possible: both Helen and I, both of us, remained good friends with the woman who seemed so threatening to her. Here you can see that each of us could bring several serious cases when our children, son or daughter helped us a lot, and this is an invaluable experience.

I think that each of us received good support from the other during periods of personal experience or anguish. I would like to give two examples of how she supported me, and one where I am sure that she felt my support.

First, I recall that when I was about forty, there was a period when I felt that I had no sexual desire at all - for anyone. There was no medical reason. Helen was confident that my normal state (sex drive) would return and simply "was with me" in my predicament. It is easy to come up with possible psychological reasons, but none of them fit well enough for me to agree with. This has remained a mystery to me. But my wife's quiet, continued love meant a lot to me and was probably the best therapy possible. In any case, I gradually returned to the previous norm.

A more serious crisis arose around a long, difficult psychotherapeutic relationship with a girl suffering from a severe form of schizophrenia. The story was long, but suffice it to say that partly because of my desire to help her at all costs, I got to the point where I could no longer separate my own self from hers. I literally lost myself, lost the boundaries of my "I". Attempts by colleagues to help me proved futile, and I was convinced (I think with good reason) that I was becoming crazy. One morning, after spending about an hour at work, I just panicked. I came home and said to Helen: “I have to get away from here! Very far!" She certainly knew a bit of what I was about to get away from, and her answer was balm to my soul. She said, "OK, let's leave right now." Several phone calls to the staff asking them to take over my duties, hasty packing, and we left two hours later and did not return home for more than six weeks. There I had my mood swings and when I came back I had therapy with one of my colleagues which helped a lot.I would like to mention here that during the whole difficult period Helen was sure that this state of mind should pass, that I was not crazy and took care of me in every possible way. Wow! That's the only way I can express my gratitude. That's what I mean when I say that she supported me during critical periods. I tried to act the same when she suffered this or otherwise.

Helen's mother suffered several severe heart attacks as she aged. This backfired and led to noticeable changes in her personality. If earlier she was a warm and kind person with stable intellectual interests, then gradually she became picky, suspicious, and sometimes terribly harmful. This was extremely difficult for her daughters, and especially for Helen, who felt overwhelmed and resentful of the psychological stab that came from her mother towards those with whom she was very close. Her mother was becoming unable to live with anyone, but she could not live alone either. I had to make the difficult decision to take her out of the house and put her in some kind of institution with appropriate care (preferably a nursing home) and accept the fact that she is no longer the person she used to be. Helen felt terrible guilt at being forced to do this to her mother, who went to great lengths to exacerbate that guilt. For six long and very difficult years, I believe I supported Helen. She couldn't help but feel resentment, guilt, and frustration at her frequent (twice a week) visits to her mother. I could let her feel those feelings and also tell her how I felt about the false accusations I had heard from my mother and that I believed she was doing her best in such an unsettling and difficult situation. I know that she felt supported and helped by the fact that "I was with her." Our son, a doctor, also helped her a lot in understanding the physical and psychological deterioration that had occurred and as a result, the mother's complaints were not taken literally by her.

When I look back on many years of living together, it is these moments that seem important to me, although, of course, I cannot be objective ...

We both came from the same social stratum of society, with similar environments and values.

We complemented each other. Someone said that out of many types of marriages, there are two that are located, as it were, at two opposite poles. One "linked" marriage, in which one spouse complements the other's shortcomings, and they are comfortably united, sometimes too calmly. The other is a conflict marriage, in which the success of the marriage depends on the couple continually trying to constructively resolve the many conflicts that might otherwise destroy the marriage.

Our marriage is somewhere in the middle of this scale, but a little closer to a "linked" marriage. I tended to be a timid bachelor; Helen is more natural and spontaneous in communication.

I stubbornly immerse myself in what I do; but one day she says: “Why don’t we do such and such?”, “Why don’t we go on a trip?” I reluctantly agree, but as soon as it happens, I become more risky and childish, and she more stable. I am a therapist interested in research work; she is an artist and an eternal worker in the field of family development planning (upbringing, child-parent relationships). Each of us had something to learn from the other. We have also been able to constructively deal with most of our conflicts and concerns.

As a result, each of us has always had a separate life and interests in the same way that we lived together. Therefore, we never directly competed. As we approached it, it became unpleasant. When I was painting for a while and made one or two acceptably good paintings, it bothered her. When I see that she is much more successful in helping the person I have to help, I acknowledge my reaction: “Oh my God! She is better than me!” But this envy and competition were rarely very important.

In another area, we are remarkably uncompetitive, and that is to our taste. From the first years of our marriage, we found that if we chose furniture, a gift, or even some clothing, we tended to choose the same thing. Sometimes I say: “OK, I already decided; let me know when you make your choice.” When she chooses, it turns out to be the same one that I chose with amazing frequency. I can’t explain it. I just I state this fact.

She was a great mother when the kids were little. I can only assess myself as a father in a mediocre way; curiously enough, on some days I was more focused on whether the children were in the way of me than on what they were doing in the direction of their development and growth. As our children grew up, my communication with them became more complete, and sometimes I did it even better than she did.

Perhaps I have given enough examples to show how we complement each other and how this balance changes.

In the area where I have always been ahead - in reading, in last years more and more I don't have time for this - she got ahead of me, and I began to rely on her to keep abreast of everything that comes out.

We went through periods of illness and surgery, but never at the same time, so that each could take care of the other in times of need. In general, although the problems of the past years sometimes attack us, we have managed to maintain the foundations and foundation of good health.

David Frost gave a definition of love on TV, which sounded something like this: "Love is when one person is more focused on the other than on himself." I think this description fits the best periods of our marriage. I understand that this can also be a disastrous description of love when it means one or the other is giving up himself for the other. In our case, this was not the case.

Probably the most complete thing I could say about our marriage - and I cannot explain it more precisely - is that each has always wanted and desired for the other. development. We grew as individuals and grew together as a result.

And one final paragraph about our current state, when we have reached the biblical age of "three times twenty plus ten" (seventy years). We've had so much shared joy, suffering and struggle that we also fit into Truman Capote's definition of love: "Love is when you don't have to finish a sentence." In the middle of some events or feelings, Helen may say to me: “Remember when we …”, and I will answer: “Of course”, and we will both laugh together, because we know that we are both thinking the same thing. And because our sex life is not the same as it was in our twenties or thirties, our physical intimacy, our touches and hugs, and our sexual relationships are something like a string that is beautiful in itself, but also because of the many, many overtones that much more than this binding thread itself. In short, we are incredibly happy, although at times we have to work very hard to keep this happiness.

Lest it seem to you that this has made everything quite rosy, I must add that our two children have experienced their full measure of marital difficulties. It turns out that our joint growth and creation of satisfactory relationships did not give any guarantees for our children.

A few final remarks

So what can we infer from the experiences of Joan, Jay and Jennifer, Peg and Bill, Carl and Helen? I think you will draw your own conclusions.

What I was trying to point out is that no matter what marriage is now, there is no doubt that it will be different in the future.

I have tried to select examples containing some of the factors that can prevent a successful marriage or even cause it to break up, and, accordingly, other factors that can restore or transform a marriage or make it “work”.

I hope you understand that the dream of a "made in heaven" marriage is completely unrealistic, and any long-term relationship between a man and a woman needs to be built, repaired, and constantly updated as both partners grow. In the next chapter, we will look at other aspects of this phenomenon of relations between the sexes, which are so important for the lives of almost all people.

"Married-unmarried" couple

I know a young couple who met when she was eighteen and he was nineteen. Then they just lived together for several years. I was surprised when I heard that they were married in full ceremony - the bride in a white dress, the groom in a tuxedo, and all that. I thought that if they agreed to talk about the different phases of their relationship, it would be very helpful for many young people. The couple (I'll call them Dick and Gail) didn't mind and very frankly shared with me about the past and present of their relationship about six months after the wedding, and I would like to present some excerpts from the tape recording of their story.

Early relationships

Dick and Gale told me about how they met, and there was a curious example of distorted memories in their story.

Dick: I remember back then I thought I really liked Gale. I spent more effort on her than on other girls. It seems to be the only strong impression I can remember. For a long time we did not have sexual relations. I think this is pretty important. I think that's how it went...

Gale. Week…

Dick. a week? No, it's been longer than a week, Gail...

Gale. A week and two days after the meeting.

Dick. Truth?

Gale. Yes. I don't think it's been that long. Do you remember the first time it happened...

Dick. That was great! It was on the beach, but I remember that it happened more than a week later.

They had a fairly tempestuous courtship, and Gale describes it this way:

“I first noticed Dick. I saw him on the first day of school. Although he looked good, at first he seemed rather nasty to me. He wore dark glasses all the time. And later I found out that he broke his real glasses, and without them he could not see well, but at the same time he gave the impression of a smart-ass. I can't stand it. However, his roommate told me that he wasn't really that nasty, and we started dating. I liked him almost immediately, after I realized that he was not such a child. From the very beginning, everything was pretty serious for me. As we talked, I realized that Dick wants to turn my head and make me fall in love with him. I thought about it and said to myself: “Okay, why not? What's wrong with that?“ And then a rather difficult period came for me. You see, I wanted the relationship to be serious and permanent, but Dick thought differently - he easily stepped aside. And it hurt my feelings."

I. A really difficult period, the fluctuations in your relationship began even before you began to live together?

Dick. That's right - up and down. At one time I started to try drugs. This was when I went to San Francisco for the Christmas holidays and lived there completely monstrous life. I realized that I don't want this anymore. And during this time, while I was in San Francisco, which lasted probably no more than two months, which seemed like years, when Gail was not around, my feelings for her grew stronger. Without her, it was easier for me to understand my attitude towards her.

Marriage and its alternatives. Positive psychology of family relations

Instead of a preface

Carl Rogers and his humanistic psychology

Rogers' theoretical views have evolved over the years. He himself was the first to indicate where the point of view had changed, where the emphasis had shifted or the approach had changed. He encouraged others to check his statements, prevented the formation of a "school" mindlessly copying his conclusions. In his book Freedom to Learn, Rogers writes: "The view I present seems to suggest that the fundamental nature of man when he acts freely is constructive and trustworthy." his influence was not limited to psychology. It was one of the factors that changed the idea of management in industry (and even in the army), in the practice of social assistance, in the upbringing of children, in religion ... It even affected students of theology and philosophy departments. In the 1930s, this was a fickle but apparently successful way of dealing with clients; in the forties, Rogers, although not quite clearly, formulated this as his point of view ... The "technique" of counseling became the practice of psychotherapy, which gave rise to the theory of therapy and personality; the hypotheses of this theory opened up an entirely new field of research from which a new approach to interpersonal relationships grew. Now this approach is making its way into the field of education as a way to facilitate learning at all levels. It is a way of creating an intense group experience that has influenced the theory of group dynamics.

Biographical sketch

The years spent in Chicago were very fruitful for Rogers, but also included a period of personal difficulties when Rogers, influenced by the pathology of one of his clients, almost fled the center in critical condition, took a three-month vacation, and returned for therapy with one of the colleagues. After therapy, Rogers' interactions with clients became much freer and more spontaneous. He later recalled this: “I often thought with gratitude that by the time I needed therapy myself, I had raised students who were independent individuals who could help me.”

In 1957, Rogers moved to the University of Wisconsin-Madison where he taught psychiatry and psychology. Professionally, it was a difficult time for him due to a conflict with the leadership of the psychology department over restrictions on his freedom to teach and the freedom of students to study. "I'm quite capable of living and letting live, but I find it very dissatisfying that they don't let my students live."

Rogers' growing indignation found expression in the paper "Accepted Prerequisites for Higher Education: A Concerned Opinion" (19b9). The journal American Psychologist declined to publish this article, but it was widely circulated among students before it was finally printed. "The theme of my speech is that we are doing a stupid, inefficient and useless job of training psychologists to the detriment of our science and to the detriment of society." In his article, Rogers questioned some of the supposedly obvious assumptions of the traditional system of education, that "the student cannot be trusted to choose the direction of his own scientific and vocational education; assessment is identical to learning; the material presented at the lecture is what the student learns; the truths of psychology are known; Passive students become creative scientists.”

Marriage and its alternatives. Positive psychology of family relations

Instead of a preface

Carl Rogers and his humanistic psychology

Rogers' theoretical views have evolved over the years. He himself was the first to indicate where the point of view had changed, where the emphasis had shifted or the approach had changed. He encouraged others to check his statements, prevented the formation of a "school" mindlessly copying his conclusions. In his book Freedom to Learn, Rogers writes: "The view I present seems to suggest that the fundamental nature of man when he acts freely is constructive and trustworthy." his influence was not limited to psychology. It was one of the factors that changed the idea of management in industry (and even in the army), in the practice of social assistance, in the upbringing of children, in religion ... It even affected students of theology and philosophy departments. In the 1930s, this was a fickle but apparently successful way of dealing with clients; in the forties, Rogers, although not quite clearly, formulated this as his point of view ... The "technique" of counseling became the practice of psychotherapy, which gave rise to the theory of therapy and personality; the hypotheses of this theory opened up an entirely new field of research from which a new approach to interpersonal relationships grew. Now this approach is making its way into the field of education as a way to facilitate learning at all levels. It is a way of creating an intense group experience that has influenced the theory of group dynamics.

Biographical sketch

Positive psychology of family relations. Marriage and its alternatives

Biographical sketch

Other books on similar topics:

See also other dictionaries:

* * *