“Approaches in Communication”

As Carl Rogers stated, psychotherapy and communication go hand in hand. The reason

why a person is considered “neurotic” is because of his difficulty to communicate, causing his

relationship with others to be damaged. Rogers believes that as a psychotherapist, his job is to

help the person begin to form good communication skills that will allow him to communicate

within himself and others. However, Rogers’s main objective is to present the impeding progress

of communication, and to present solutions in removing those obstacles.

Rogers starts his presentation by drawing out a hypothesis that the major barrier to reach

a mutual understanding is our tendency to judge and evaluate. Basically, people tend to

immediately evaluate things in their own perspective upon hearing another person’s statements.

Rogers starts to introduce examples of how a situation like this would occur. He brings up how if

he were to say the Republicans have been behaving more good than bad these days, those who

disagree would immediately call him a conservative.

However, when an argument contains a lot of emotions and feelings, agreeing on

something is almost impossible. By supporting his hypothesis further, Rogers believes that “the

stronger our feelings, the more likely it is that there will be no mutual element in the

communication” (Rogers 458). This is common in most fights and arguments today between two

people.

Furthermore, Rogers’s “nonantogonistic” or “nonoppositional” method is a rhetorical

strategy that seeks not to highlight differences but to find common ground (Wilbers). To achieve

this, Rogers presents a solution: to communicate empathically. It is important to listen and

understand the other person’s views and feelings. Rogers further explains this approach letting

his readers know that it is not as simple as they may think. He addresses that through his research

in psychotherapy, empathic understanding with a person can be so powerful that it could alter the

individual’s personality.

Even though Rogers tries prove to his skeptical readers− who have supposedly tried this

approach but did not yield the same results− by claiming that the way they “listened” to people

was the wrong way because it wasn’t the same way he had done it, does come off a bit biased.

To show that his approach is in fact reliable, Rogers suggested experiments for people to try in

order to “test the quality of [their] understanding” (Rogers 459). He believes that if you are able

to summarize the opposing speaker’s thoughts and feelings really well, then you are able to fully

understand the situation a lot better.

As great as Rogers’s approach is, he decides to mention why it is not more commonly

used. First, Rogers states that it could be dangerous when one becomes overly empathetic,

running the risk of being changed. In order to counter this, people choose to evaluate rather than

listen since they may not have the courage to hold on to their own beliefs and are easily

influenced. The second reason is when emotion plays a big part in attitude. Rogers states that

when this happens, it is best to acquire a neutral, third party, to clarify the views and thoughts

each person in the argument holds. The third party allows for mutual understanding, and the

statements that were once exaggerated and defensive are no more.

Although Rogers considers his approaches to be effective and an improvement in

communication, he realizes that his flaw is that these approaches only apply well to small

groups. He also admits that in order to confirm the validity of these “test-tube solutions,” he

would need more time and money. For now though, Rogers believes that his approaches would

still be able to help large groups, as the primary goal remains the same: to listen, understand, and

reach a common ground.

Finally, Rogers concludes his entire essay by summing up all the approaches he has

stated since the beginning, and reminds the readers once again that he has researched and

experienced these solutions in order to solve these major barriers in communication.

Works Cited

Rogers, Carl R. “Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation.” Current Issues and

Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Ed.

Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 457-463. Print.

Wilbers, Stephen. “Pick a Fighting Method: Rogerian Persuasion Seeks Common

Ground.” Orange County Register: 0. Feb 05 1996. The Advocate (Stamford); Baltimore

Sun; Business Dateline; California, South Newsstand; Greenwich Time; Hartford

Courant; Los Angeles Times; Morning Call; Newsday; Orlando Sentinel; ProQuest

Newsstand; Sun Sentinel. Web. 7 Mar. 2013 .