Hello everyone.
This is Beverly at Talking Therapody.
In this “Poddle Cast” we will continue looking at Rogers’ 40 constructs.
In the previous episode, I briefly introduced you to Rogers’ opus, “A theory of therapy”
so we can take a look at his first construct now.
The first construct is “actualising tendency” and is part of Rogers grouping of concepts
within the “actualising tendency and related constructs”.
This grouping contains “actualising tendency” and “tendency toward self-actualisation”.
We’ll get into this “actualising tendency” as Rogers describes it and then I will try
to unpack it and give some of my own thoughts as we go through the text.
Rogers explains that actualising tendency is the inherit tendency of the organism to
develop all its capacities in ways which serve to maintain or enhance the organism.
I may need to point out that, when Rogers uses “organism”, he means a human being
as a whole, the person, their physical, emotional and intellectual embodiment.
In other works, Rogers explains that person-centred (though he originally referred to it as “client-centred”)
approaches require human beings.
Rogers does not explain where this “inherent tendency” comes from in this construct but
implies that everyone, every human, has it as a natural instinct which would be evident
without any other affects.
Rogers does make reference to Maslow and his hierarchy of needs here.
Rogers explains that this actualising tendency seeks to achieve fulfilment of Maslow’s
“deficiency needs” as well as “more generalized activities”, though, again,
he does give further explanation of these needs.
Rogers explains that the “actualising tendency” is the force that attempts to satisfy the
need for air, food, water, etc as Maslow’s theory explores but also that of differentiation
of organs and of functions as well as expansion through use of tools, reproduction and development
toward autonomy.
Rogers describes this in connection with heteronomy or control by external forces.
This reminds me of Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals” where he describes heteronomy
in terms of external incentive for moral action through punishment and reward conditions and
rigid demands.
These demands may remove individual freedoms and counter actualising tendency.
Rogers quotes Angyal to reiterate actualising tendency by including the passage “Life
is an autonomous event which takes place between the organism and the environment.
Life processes do not merely tend to preserve life but transcend the momentary status quo
of the organism, expanding itself continually and imposing its autonomous determination
upon an ever increasing realm of events.”
However, Rogers makes it absolutely clear that actualising tendency is the only motivation
in his 40 constructs.
“There are no homunculi, no other sources of energy or action in the system” and “this
basic actualizing tendency is the only motive which is postulated in this theoretical system”
Rogers also explains that the “self” is important within the 40 constructs but doesn’t
do anything.
It is the actualising tendency that may react according to self but the “self” takes
no action in the process.
Some of the objectives of the actualising tendency, according to Rogers’ first construct
is need reduction, tension reduction and drive reduction.
In addition to that, Rogers also includes growth motivations, to seek pleasure, creativity
and to engage in discomfort and displeasure if it furthers this growth and may create
a more able and comfortable state.
So to recap as this is quite a big package to get our heads around.
Rogers is saying that, in his 40 constructs, we all have an instinctive drive to better
ourselves and take charge of our own lives with the ambition of becoming an effective
and individual being.
The only motivation is to serve our own needs and reduce negative experiences or provide
stimulus which also serves some need.
No external force compels us to such actions.
It could be argued that any motivation towards others (including our own offspring) is still
our own and compelled to action (or inaction) by our own energies and actualising tendency.
When a baby cries and the parent comforts it, is the prime motivation to comfort a part
of Rogers’ concept of tension-reduction?
Is there room for truly altruistic motivations within the actualising tendency?
Is there such a thing or are all actions motivated by some self-need or gratification (including
need-reduction, tension-reduction, drive-reduction, etc)?
An example I can think of is when someone, possibly a client, may give reasons for particular
actions.
Think about a client you may be working with and they have been describing how they chose
their partner’s friends and alienated those that they didn’t like.
The client may explain that they didn’t want their partner to associate with certain
people but preferred others.
These others were then given preference to and invited to engage in social events while
those that were not wanted were forgotten about or otherwise excluded.
If you asked the client about their personal feelings towards these people, they may explain
they didn’t like one group but did like the others.
The client may even use descriptors of feeling good around some and feeling tense or worried
around the others.
The client may give the ultimate reason for their behaviour and actions as “I only did
for my partner, the friends were doing nothing for him (or her).”
Their contradiction being that the client claims their action were purely to support
and assist their partner to achieve better things and avoid being sidetracked from some
goal.
However, it could be argued that the prime motivating force was to reduce tension and
bad feeling in themself when certain people engaged with the client and their partner.
Another example is someone who has spent a significant amount of their time doing good
deeds, helping others without pay or even acknowledgement.
They may be seen as doing selfless work without any gain or reward.
However, according to Rogers’ first construct, they may be doing it because it makes them
feel “good” and it is that feeling of satisfaction or some other emotion that is
the motivation.
It may be hard to read the first construct without value judgement.
We are often told that selfishness is bad.
It can become more complex when we include such judgements into the equation and try
to rationalise reasons behind behaviours, especially when those behaviours may be counter
to our own ideals or does not serve our own actualising tendency.
We may temper such judgements based on the situation, of course.
If the actualising tendency is a natural instinctive force that we all have why is it that so many
of us have difficulties in achieving the goals of it?
What stops this actualising tendency to be fulfilled?
Well, this is where the other constructs come in but if you have read person-centred theory
then you could think in terms of introjected values, conditions of worth, configurations
of self and these kinds of things which can alter perception and prevent self-actualisation.
I’ll get further into actualising tendency with the other hosts up in the studio and
really dig deeply into this concept.
There are many thoughts and feelings which could be explored and it will be very interesting
to see what the others think.
Also, please give your thoughts and comments about actualising tendency.
If you post something that can further the conversation before we record the conversation
with the other hosts, we will include them.
All comments are moderated to avoid so many of the potential issues we have on the internet
so your comments may not be added to the video page immediately.
We do aim to reply to all comments that do appear on the page.
As always, please consider subscribing so others have a chance to find this video.
Check the notification bell so you get updated on new content if you wish.
Until next time, this is Beverly at Talking Therapody, goodbye.