THE CONCEPT OF THE FULLY FUNCTIONING PERSON

CARL R. ROGERS, PH.D.University of Wisconsin

INTRODUCTION

I wrote this paper on one of our winterquarter "escapes" from the rigors of the Chi-cago winter. If my memory is correct, I wroteit in 1952-53 in a cottage (more accurately"shack") at the tip end of the island of Gren-ada, in the Caribbean, where we could lookout on the angry Atlantic to the east, and to-ward the calmer, more colorful Caribbean tothe west. When I had finished it I liked thepaper.

Considerably later, I submitted it to aprominent psychological journal, whose editorwrote me in kindly fashion. It was clear he wasdubious about its publication value; as a be-ginning he suggested that it be completely re-written in much more objective terms. I knewI did not want to do this, but I was also awareof how remote it was from orthodox psycho-logical thinking, so I simply had it duplicatedfor personal distribution.

As time went on, I drew on it very heavilyfor later, and perhaps more polished, articles.Consequently the reader may find large por-tions of this paper which he has met in someother context. Nevertheless, as I re-read itnow, I am pleased to have it come out in itsoriginal form. I realize that many of the thingsI said very tentatively then I would say withmore conviction, and with more objective evi-dence, now.

THE PROBLEM

I suspect that each one of us, from time totime, speculates on the general characteristicsof the person who has completed psychother-apy. If we were as successful as therapists aswe could wish to be, what sort of personswould have developed in our therapy? What isthe hypothetical end-point, the ultimate, ofthe therapeutic process?

I have often asked myself this kind of

question and have felt an increasing dissatis-faction with the kind of answers which arecurrent. They seem too slippery, too relativ-istic, to have much value in a developingscience of personality. They often contain too,I believe, a concealed bias which makes themunsatisfactory. I think of the commonly heldnotion that the person who has completedtherapy will be adjusted to society. But whatsociety? Any society, no matter what its char-acteristics? I cannot accept this. I think ofthe concept, implicit in much psychologicalwriting, that successful therapy means thata person will have moved from a diagnosticcategory considered pathological to one con-sidered normal. But the evidence is accumu-lating that there is so little agreement ondiagnostic categories as to make them practi-cally meaningless as scientific concepts. Andeven if a person becomes "normal," is that asuitable outcome of therapy? Furthermore re-cent years have made me wonder whether theterm psychopathology may not be simply aconvenient basket for all those aspects ofpersonality which diagnosticians as a groupare most afraid of in themselves. For theseand other reasons, change in diagnosis is nota description of therapeutic outcome which issatisfying to me. If I turn to another type ofconcept I find that the person, after therapyis said to have achieved a positive mentalhealth. But who defines mental health? Isuspect that the Menninger Clinic and theCounseling Center of the University of Chi-cago would define it rather differently. AndI am sure that the Soviet state would havestill another definition.

Pushed about by questions such as these 1find myself speculating about the character-istics of the person who comes out of therapy,if therapy is maximally successful. I shouldlike to share with you some of these tentative

17

18 CARL R. ROGERS

personal speculations. What I wish to do is toformulate a theoretical concept of the end-point, or asymptote, of therapy. I would hopethat I could state it in terms which wouldbe free from some of the criticisms I havementioned, terms which might eventually begiven operational definition and objective test.

THE BACKGROUND FROM WHICH THE

PROBLEM IS APPROACHED

I shall have to make it clear at the outsetthat I am speaking from a background ofclient-centered therapy. Quite possibly allsuccessful psychotherapy has a similar per-sonality outcome, but I am less sure of thatthan formerly, and hence wish to narrow myfield of consideration. So I shall assume thatthis hypothetical person whom I describe hashad an intensive and extensive experience inclient-centered therapy, and that the therapyhas been as completely successful as is theo-retically possible. This would mean that thetherapist has been able to enter into an in-tensely personal and subjective relationshipwith this client—relating not as a scientist toan object of study, not as a physician expect-ing to diagnose and cure, but as a person to aperson. It would mean that the therapist feelsthis client to be a person of unconditionalself-worth; of value no matter what his condi-tion, his behavior, or his feelings. It meansthat the therapist is able to let himself go inunderstanding this client; that no inner bar-riers keep him from sensing what it feels liketo be the client at each moment of the rela-tionship; and that he can convey somethingof his empathic understanding to the client.It means that the therapist has been comfort-able in entering this relationship fully, with-out knowing cognitively where it will lead,satisfied with providing a climate which willfree the client to become himself.

For the client, this optimal therapy hasmeant an exploration of increasingly strangeand unknown and dangerous feelings in him-self; the exploration proving possible only be-cause he is gradually realizing that he is ac-cepted unconditionally. Thus he becomes ac-quainted with elements of his experience whichhave in the past been denied to awareness astoo threatening, too damaging to the struc-ture of the self. He finds himself experiencing

these feelings fully, completely, in the rela-tionship, so that for the moment he is hisfear, or his anger, or his tenderness, or hisstrength. And as he lives these widely variedfeelings, in all their degrees of intensity, hediscovers that he has experienced himself,that he is all these feelings. He finds his be-havior changing in constructive fashion inaccordance with his newly experienced self.He approaches the realization that he nolonger needs to fear what experience may hold,but can welcome it freely as a part of hischanging and developing self.

This is a thumbnail sketch of what client-centered therapy might be at its optimum. Igive it here simply as an introduction to mymain concern: What personality character-istics would develop in the client as a resultof this kind of experience?

THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PERSON

AFTER THERAPY

What then is the end-point of optimal psy-chotherapy? I shall try to answer this ques-tion for myself, basing my thinking upon theknowledge we have gained from clinical ex-perience and research, but pushing this to thelimit in order better to see the kind of personwho would emerge if therapy were maximal.As I have puzzled over the answer, the de-scription seems to me quite unitary, but forclarity of presentation I shall break it downinto three facets.

1. This person would be open to his ex-perience. This is a phrase which has come tohave increasingly definite meaning for me.It is the polar opposite of defensiveness. De-fensiveness we have described in the past asbeing the organism's response to experienceswhich are perceived or anticipated as incon-gruent with the structure of the self. In orderto maintain the self-structure, such experi-ences are given a distorted symbolization inawareness, which reduces the incongruity.Thus the individual defends himself againstany threat of alteration in the concept of self.

In the person who is open to his experience,however, every stimulus, whether originatingwithin the organism or in the environment,would be freely relayed through the nervoussystem without being distorted by a defensivemechanism. There would be no need of the

T H E CONCEPT OF THE FULLY FUNCTIONING PERSON 19

mechanism of "subception" whereby the or-ganism is forewarned of any experience threat-ening to the self. On the contrary, whether thestimulus was the impact of a configurationof form, color, or sound in the environmenton the sensory nerves, or a memory tracefrom the past, or a visceral sensation of fearor pleasure or disgust, the person would be"living it," would have it completely availableto awareness.

Perhaps I can give this concept a morevivid meaning if I illustrate it from a re-corded interview. A young professional manreports in the 48th interview the way in whichhe has become more open to some of hisbodily sensations, as well as other feelings.

Client: It doesn't seem to me that it would be possiblefor anybody to relate all the changes that you feel. ButI certainly have felt recently that I have more respectfor, more objectivity toward my physical makeup. Imean I don't expect too much of myself. This is howit works out: It feels to me that in the past I used tofight a certain tiredness that I felt after supper. Wellnow I feel pretty sure that I really am tired—that I amnot making myself tired—that I am just physiologi-cally lower. It seemed that I was just constantly criti-cizing my tiredness.

Therapist: So you can let yourself be tired, instead offeeling along with it a kind of criticism of it.

Client: Yes, that I shouldn't be tired or something.And it seems in a way to be pretty profound that Ican just not fight this tiredness, and along with it goesa real feeling of I've got to slow down, too, so that be-ing tired isn't such an awful thing. I think I can alsokind of pick up a thread here of why I should be thatway in the way my father is and the way he looks atsome of these things. For instance, say that I was sick,and I would report this, and it would seem that overtlyhe would want to do something about it but he wouldalso communicate, "Oh, my gosh, more trouble." Youknow, something like that.

Therapist: As though there were something quite an-noying, really, about being physically ill.

Client: Yeah, I am sure that my father has the samedisrespect for his own physiology that I have had.Now last summer I twisted my back, I wrenched it, Iheard it snap and everything. There was real pain thereall the time at first, real sharp. And I had the doctorlook at it and he said it wasn't serious, it should healby itself as long as I didn't bend too much. Well thiswas months ago—and I have been noticing recentlythat—hell, this is a real pain and it's still there—andit's not my fault, I mean it's—

Therapist: It doesn't prove something bad about you—

Client: No—and one of the reasons I seem to get moretired than I should maybe is because of this constantstrain and so on—I have already made an appointmentwith one of the doctors at the hospital that he wouldlook at it and take an X-ray or something. In a way Iguess you could say that I am just more accuratelysensitive—or objectively sensitive to this kind of thing.I can say with certainty that this has also spread towhat I eat and how much I eat. And this is really aprofound change as I say—and of course my relation-ship with my wife and the two children is—well youjust wouldn't recognize it if you could see me inside—as you have—I mean—there just doesn't seem to beanything more wonderful than really and genuinely—really feeling love for your own children and at thesame time receiving it. I don't know how to put this.We have such an increased respect—both of us—forJudy and we've noticed just—as we participated in this—we have noticed such a tremendous change in her—it seems to be a pretty deep kind of thing.

Therapist: It seems to me you are saying that you canlisten more accurately to yourself. If your body saysit's tired, you listen to it and believe it, instead ofcriticizing it; if it's in pain you can listen to that; ifthe feeling is really loving your wife or children, youcan feel that, and it seems to show up in the differencesin them too.

Here, in a relatively minor but symbolicallyimportant excerpt, can be seen much of whatI have been trying to say about openness toexperience. Formerly he could not freely feelpain or illness, because being ill meant beingunacceptable. Neither could he feel tendernessand love for his child, because such feelingsmeant being weak, and he had to maintainhis facade of being strong. But now he can begenuinely open to the experience of his or-ganism—he can be tired when he is tired, hecan feel pain when his organism is in pain,he can freely experience the love he feels forhis daughter, and he can also feel and expressannoyance toward her, as he goes on to sayin the next portion of the interview. He canfully live the experiences of his total organism,rather than shutting them out of awareness.

I have used this concept of availability toawareness to try to make clear what I meanby openness to experience. This might bemisunderstood. I do not mean that this in-dividual would be self-consciously aware ofall that was going on within himself, like thecentipede who became aware of all of his legs.On the contrary, he would be free to live afeeling subjectively, as well as be aware of it.He might experience love, or pain, or fear,

20 CARL R. ROGERS

living in this attitude subjectively. Or he mightabstract himself from this subjectivity andrealize in awareness, "I am in pain," "I amafraid," "I do love." The crucial point isthat there would be no barriers, no inhibitions,which would prevent the full experiencing ofwhatever was organismically present, andavailability to awareness is a good measure ofthis absence of barriers.

2. This person would live in an existentialfashion. I believe it would be evident that forthe person who was fully open to his experi-ence, completely without defensiveness, eachmoment would be new. The complex con-figuration of inner and outer stimuli whichexists in this moment has never existedbefore in just this fashion. Consequently ourhypothetical person would realize that "WhatI will be in the next moment, and what Iwill do, grows out of that moment, and cannotbe predicted in advance either by me or byothers." Not infrequently we find clients ex-pressing this sort of feeling. Thus one, at theend of therapy, says in rather puzzled fashion,"I haven't finished the job of integrating andreorganizing myself, but that's only confusing,not discouraging, now that I realize this is acontinuing process. . . . It is exciting, some-times upsetting, but deeply encouraging tofeel yourself in action and apparently know-ing where you are going even though youdon't always consciously know where that is."

One way of expressing the fluidity whichwould be present in such existential living isto say that the self and personality wouldemerge from experience, rather than experi-ence being translated or twisted to fit a pre-conceived self-structure. It means that onebecomes a participant in and an observer ofthe ongoing process of organismic experience,rather than being in control of it. On anotheroccasion I have tried to describe how this typeof living seems to me. "This whole train ofexperiencing, and the meaning that I havethus far discovered in it, seem to havelaunched me on a process which is both fasci-nating and at times a little frightening. Itseems to mean letting my experience carryme on, in a direction which appears to beforward, toward goals that I can but dimlydefine, as I try to understand at least thecurrent meaning of that experience. The sen-

sation is that of floating with a complexstream of experience, with the fascinatingpossibility of trying to comprehend its ever-changing complexity" (Rogers, 1958).

Such living in the moment, then, means anabsence of rigidity, of tight organization, ofthe imposition of structure on experience. Itmeans instead a maximum of adaptability, adiscovery of structure in experience, a flowing,changing organization of self and personality.

The personality and the self would be con-tinually in flux, the only stable elements beingthe physiological capacities and limitations ofthe organism, the continuing or recurrent or-ganismic needs for survival, enhancement,food, affection, sex, and the like. The moststable personality traits would be openness toexperience, and the flexible resolution of theexisting needs in the existing environment.

3. This person would find his organism atrustworthy means of arriving at the mostsatisfying behavior in each existential situa-tion. He would do what "felt right" in thisimmediate moment and he would find this ingeneral to be a competent and trustworthyguide to his behavior.

If this seems strange, let me explain thereasoning behind it. Since he would be opento his experience he would have access to allof the available data in the situation, onwhich to base his behavior; the social de-mands, his own complex and possibly conflict-ing needs; his memories of similar situations,his perception of the uniqueness of this situa-tion, etc., etc. The "dynamic system" of eachsituation, as Krech (1951) would term it,would be very complex indeed. But he couldpermit his total organism, his consciousnessparticipating, to consider each stimulus, need,and demand, its relative intensity and impor-tance, and out of this complex weighing andbalancing, discover that course of actionwhich would come closest to satisfying all hisneeds in the situation. An analogy whichmight come close to a description would beto compare this person to a giant electroniccomputing machine. Since he is open to hisexperience, all of the data from his senseimpressions, from his memory, from previouslearning, from his visceral and internal states,is fed into the machine. The machine takesall of these multitudinous pulls and forces

THE CONCEPT OF THE FULLY FUNCTIONING PERSON 21

which were fed in as data, and quickly com-putes the course of action which would be themost economical vector of need satisfactionin this existential situation. This is the be-havior of our hypothetical person.

The defects which in most of us make thisprocess untrustworthy are the inclusion ofnon-existential material, or the absence ofdata. It is when memories and previous learn-ings are fed into the computation as if theywere this reality, and not memories and learn-ings, that erroneous behavioral answers arise.Or when certain threatening experiences areinhibited from awareness, and hence are with-held from the computation or fed into it indistorted form, this too produces error. Butour hypothetical person would find his organ-ism thoroughly trustworthy, because all theavailable data would be used, and it would bepresent in accurate rather than distorted form.Hence his behavior would come as close aspossible to satisfying all his needs—for en-hancement, for affiliation with others, and thelike.

In this weighing, balancing, and computa-tion, his organism would not by any meansbe infallible. It would always give the bestpossible answer for the available data, butsometimes data would be missing. Because ofthe element of openness to experience how-ever, any errors, any following of behaviorwhich was not satisfying would be quicklycorrected. The computations, as it were, wouldalways be in process of being corrected, be-cause they would be continually checked inbehavior.

Perhaps you will not like my analogy of anelectronic computing machine. Let me put itin more human terms. The client I previouslyquoted found himself expressing annoyance tohis daughter when he "felt like it," as well asaffection. Yet he found himself doing it in away which not only released tension in him-self, but which freed this small girl to voiceher annoyances. He describes the differencesbetween communicating his annoyance anddirecting his feelings of anger at, or imposingit on her. He continues, "Because it justdoesn't feel like I'm imposing my feelings onher, and it seems to me I must show it on myface. Maybe she sees it as 'Yes, daddy isangry, but I don't have to cower.' Because

she never does cower. This in itself is a topicfor a novel, it just feels that good." In thisinstance, being open to his experience, heselects, with astonishing intuitive skill, asubtly guided course of behavior which meetshis need for release of angry tension, but alsosatisfies his need to be a good father, and hisneed to find satisfaction in his daughter'shealthy development. Yet he achieves all thisby simply doing the thing that feels right tohim.

On quite another level, it seems to be thissame kind of complex organismic selectionthat determines the scientific behavior of aman like Einstein, holding him toward a givendirection, long before he can give any com-pletely conscious and rational basis for it.During this initial period he is simply trust-ing his total organismic reaction. And he says,"During all those years there was a feeling ofdirection, of going straight toward somethingconcrete. It is, of course, very hard to expressthat feeling in words; but it was decidedly thecase, and clearly to be distinguished fromlater considerations about the rational form ofthe solution" (Wertheimer, 1945). This is thetype of behavior which is also, I believe,characteristic of the person who has gainedgreatly from therapy.

THE FULLY FUNCTIONING PERSON

I should like to pull together these threethreads into one more unified descriptivestrand. It appears that the person whoemerges from a theoretically optimal experi-ence of client-centered therapy is then a fullyfunctioning person. He is able to live fully inand with each and all of his feelings andreactions. He is making use of all his organicequipment to sense, as accurately as possible,the existential situation within and without.He is using all of the data his nervous systemcan thus supply, using it in awareness, butrecognizing that his total organism may be,and often is, wiser than his awareness. He isable to permit his total organism to functionin all its complexity in selecting, from themultitude of possibilities, that behavior whichin this moment of time will be most generallyand genuinely satisfying. He is able to trusthis organism in this functioning, not becauseit is infallible, but because he can be fully

22 CARL R. ROGERS

open to the consequences of each of his ac-tions and correct them if they prove to beless than satisfying.

He is able to experience all of his feelings,and is afraid of none of his feelings; he is hisown sifter of evidence, but is open to evidencefrom all sources; he is completely engaged inthe process of being and becoming himself,and thus discovers that he is soundly andrealistically social; he lives completely in thismoment, but learns that this is the soundestliving for all time. He is a fully functioningorganism, and because of the awareness ofhimself which flows freely in and through hisexperiences, he is a fully functioning person.

SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DESCRIPTION

This, then, is my tentative definition of thehypothetical end-point of therapy, my descrip-tion of the ultimate picture which our actualclients approach but never fully reach. I havecome to like this description, both because Ibelieve it is rooted in and is true of our clini-cal experience, and also because I believe ithas significant clinical, scientific, and philo-sophical implications. I should like to presentsome of these ramifications and implicationsas I see them.

A. Appropriate to Clinical Experience

In the first place it appears to contain abasis for the phenomena of clinical experiencein successful therapy. We have noted the factthat the client develops a locus of evaluationwithin himself; this is consistent with theconcept of the trustworthiness of the organ-ism. We have commented on the client's sat-isfaction at being and becoming himself, asatisfaction associated with functioning fully.We find that clients tolerate a much widerrange and variety of feelings, including feel-ings which were formerly anxiety-producing;and that these feelings are usefully integratedinto their more flexibly organized personali-ties. In short, the concepts I have stated ap-pear to be sufficiently broad to contain thepositive outcomes of therapy as we know it.

B. Leads Toward Operational HypothesesWhile the formulation as given is admit-

tedly speculative, it leads, I believe, in thedirection of hypotheses which may be stated

in rigorous and operational terms. Such hy-potheses would be culture-free or universal,I trust, rather than being different for eachculture.

It is obvious that the concepts given arenot easily tested or measured, but with ourgrowing research sophistication in this area,their measurability is not an unreasonablehope. We are already making one very crudeattempt to get at the concept of openness toexperience.

C. Explains Perplexing Contradictions.

Over the last several years there have beenan accumulation of several perplexing bits ofevidence regarding the relationship betweentherapy and projective tests. They are thestubborn facts that simply cannot be fittedcomfortably into the overall trend of researchfindings. I will describe each of these in gen-eral terms, so as not to embarrass the personsinvolved.

a. On an early case which was regarded byseveral criteria as very successful, a youngdiagnostician studied the post-therapy Ror-schach and exclaimed, "My God! Does thetherapist realize this client is still psychotic!"

b. Rorschachs on ten cases were submittedto an experienced psychodiagnostician. Hefound no evidence of constructive change inthe Rorschachs, only slight fluctuations. Thisresult was published. Later a more experi-enced clinician who was also a Freudiantherapist analyzed the Rorschachs on thesame ten cases. She found decided evidenceof therapeutic progress. This seemed confus-ing, and was never published.

c. When a clinician studied the pre andpost Rorschachs of fifty-six clients, her im-pression as a diagnostician studying theRorschachs was that no progress was shown.Later, when objective rating scales had beendeveloped, measuring traits which theoreti-cally should change in client-centered therapy,it was found that significant change has oc-curred in terms of these scales.

d. On one case, studied and analyzed ingreat detail, the TATs were analyzed by aclinician who was experienced in projectivetests and strongly oriented toward therapy,but who knew nothing of the case. She foundstriking evidence of progress. When the same

THE CONCEPT OF THE FULLY FUNCTIONING PERSON 23

set of TATs was later analyzed on the basisof objective scales set up by a diagnostician,no change was found.

e. On a series of cases judged by therapiststo range from little to much success, therewas a highly negative correlation between thetherapist's ratings and the analysis of theTATs on the basis of objective scales set upby a diagnostician. The cases judged mostsuccessful by the therapist were rated leastsuccessful on the TAT scales. The cases ratedmost successful on the TAT scales were re-garded by the therapists as still decidedlydefensive.

These contradictions now begin to fall intoa sensible pattern, in terms of the theory Ihave been presenting. It would appear, thoughat the moment I state this very tentatively,that when projective tests are analyzed fol-lowing therapy the very elements which thetherapeutically oriented worker sees as evi-dence of progress, are seen by the diagnosti-cally oriented worker as evidence of disor-ganization. What one sees as fluidity, opennessto experience, existential rather than rigidorganization, may be seen by another as ex-treme lack of defense, disorganization, near-chaos. This, at any rate, is what is tentativelysuggested by our evidence.

It seems possible then that the openness,adaptability, and existential living which ischaracteristic of the person who has receivedmaximal aid from therapy, may be seen by adiagnostician, operating in terms of popula-tion norms, as signs that the person is "fallingapart." What to the client are deeply enrich-ing qualities in his life, may in terms of popu-lation norms be seen as deviant pathology.This is a meaningful possible explanation ofwhat otherwise are disconnected and contra-dictory facts.

D. Creativity as an Outcome

One of the elements which pleases me inthe theoretical formulation I have given isthat this is a creative person. This person atthe hypothetical end-point of therapy couldwell be one of Maslow's "self-actualizingpeople." With his sensitive openness to hisworld, his trust of his own ability to formnew relationships with his environment, hewould be the type of person from whom

creative products and creative living emerge.He would not necessarily be "adjusted" tohis culture, and he would almost certainlynot be a conformist. But at any time and inany culture he would live constructively, in asmuch harmony with his culture as a balancedsatisfaction of needs demanded. In some cul-tural situations he might in some ways bevery unhappy, but he would continue to behimself, and to behave in such a way as toprovide the maximum satisfaction of his deep-est needs.

Such a person would, I believe, be recog-nized by the student of evolution as the typemost likely to adapt and survive under chang-ing environmental conditions. He would beable creatively to make sound adjustments tonew as well as old conditions. He would bea fit vanguard of human evolution.

E. Builds on Trustworthiness of HumanNature.

It will have been evident that one implica-tion of the view I have been presenting isthat the basic nature of the human being,when functioning freely, is constructive andtrustworthy. For me this is an inescapableconclusion from a quarter century of experi-ence in psychotherapy. When we are able tofree the individual from defensiveness, so thathe is open to the wide range of his own needs,as well as the wide range of environmentaland social demands, his reactions may betrusted to be positive, forward-moving, con-structive. We do not need to ask who willsocialize him, for one of his own deepest needsis for affiliation with and communication withothers. When he is fully himself, he cannothelp but be realistically socialized. We do notneed to ask who will control his aggressiveimpulses, for when he is open to all of hisimpulses, his need to be liked by others andhis tendency to give affection are as strongas his impulses to strike out or to seize forhimself. He will be aggressive in situationsin which aggression is realistically appropri-ate, but there will be no runaway need foraggression. His total behavior, in these andother areas, when he is open to all his experi-ence, is balanced and realistic, behavior whichis appropriate to the survival and enhance-ment of a highly social animal.

24 CARL R. ROGERS

I have little sympathy with the ratherprevalent concept that man is basically irra-tional, and this his impulses, if not controlled,would lead to destruction of others and self.Man's behavior is exquisitely rational, movingwith subtle and ordered complexity towardthe goals his organism is endeavoring toachieve. The tragedy for most of us is thatour defenses keep us from being aware ofthis rationality, so that consciously we aremoving in one direction, while organismicallywe are moving in another. But in our hypo-thetical person there would be no such bar-riers, and he would be a participant in therationality of his organism. The only controlof impulses which would exist or which wouldprove necessary, is the natural and internalbalancing of one need against another, andthe discovery of behaviors which follow thevector most closely approximating the satis-faction of all needs. The experience of extremesatisfaction of one need (for aggression, orsex, etc.) in such a way as to do violence tothe satisfaction of other needs (for compan-ionship, tender relationship, etc.)—an experi-ence very common in the defensively organ-ized person—would simply be unknown inour hypothetical individual. He would partici-pate in the vastly complex self-regulatoryactivities of his organism—the psychologicalas well as physiological thermostatic controls—in such a fashion as to live harmoniously,with himself and with others.

F. Behavior Dependable but not PredictableThere are certain implications of this view

of the optimum human being which have todo with predictability, which I find fascinat-ing to contemplate. It should be clear fromthe theoretical picture I have sketched thatthe particular configuration of inner and outerstimuli in which the person lives at this mo-ment has never existed in precisely this fash-ion before; and also that his behavior is arealistic reaction to an accurate apprehensionof all this internalized evidence. It shouldtherefore be clear that this person will seemto himself to be dependable but not specifi-cally predictable. If he is entering a new situa-tion with an authority figure, for example, hecannot predict what his behavior will be. Itis contingent upon the behavior of this au-

thority figure, and his own immediate internalreactions, desires, etc., etc. He can feel con-fident that he will behave appropriately, buthe has no knowledge in advance of what hewill do. I find this point of view often ex-pressed by clients, and I believe it is pro-foundly important.

But what I have been saying about theclient himself, would be equally true of thescientist studying his behavior. The scientistwould find this person's behavior lawful, andwould find it possible to post-diet it, but couldnot forecast or predict the specific behaviorof this individual. The reasons are these. Ifthe behavior of our hypothetical friend isdetermined by the accurate sensing of all ofthe complex evidence which exists in thismoment of time, and by that evidence only,then the data necessary for prediction is clear.It would be necessary to have instrumentsavailable to measure every one of the multi-tudinous stimuli of the input, and a mechani-cal computer of great size to calculate themost economical vector of reaction. Whilethis computation is going on our hypotheticalperson has already made this complex sum-mation and appraisal within his own organ-ism, and has acted. Science, if it can eventu-ally collect all this data with sufficient accu-racy, should theoretically be able to analyze itand come to the same conclusion and thuspostdict his behavior. It is doubtful that itcould ever collect and analyze the data in-stantaneously and this would be necessary ifit were to predict the behavior before it occur-red.

It may clarify this if I borrow and extendsome of the thinking of my colleague, Dr.Hedda Bolgar, and point out that it is themaladjusted person whose behavior can bespecifically predicted, and some loss of pre-dictability should be evident in every increasein openness to experience and existential liv-ing. In the maladjusted person, behavior ispredictable precisely because it is rigidlypatterned. If such a person has learned apattern of hostile reaction to authority, andif this "badness of authority" is a part of hisconception of himself-in-relation-to-authority,and if because of this he denies or distorts anyexperience which should supply contradictoryevidence, then his behavior is specifically pre-

THE CONCEPT OF THE FULLY FUNCTIONING PERSON 25

dictable. It can be said with assurance thatwhen he enters a new situation with an au-thority figure, he will be hostile to him. Butthe more that therapy, or any therapeutictype of experience, increases the openness toexperience of this individual, the less predict-able his behavior will be. This receives somecrude confirmation from the Michigan study(Kelley, 1951) attempting to predict successin clinical psychology. The predictions for themen who were in therapy during the periodof investigation were definitely less accuratethan for the group as a whole.

What I am saying here has a bearing onthe common statement that the long rangepurpose of psychology as a science is "theprediction and control of human behavior"a phrase which for me has had disturbingphilosophical implications. I am suggestingthat as the individual approaches this opti-mum of complete functioning his behavior,though always lawful and determined, be-comes more difficult to predict; and thoughalways dependable and appropriate, moredifficult to control. This would mean that thescience of psychology, at its highest levels,would perhaps be more of a science of under-standing than a science of prediction; ananalysis of the lawfulness of that which hasoccurred, rather than primarily a control ofwhat is about to occur.

In general this line of thought is confirmedby our clients, who feel confident that whatthey will do in a situation will be appropriateand comprehensible and sound, but who can-not predict in advance how they will behave.It is also confirmed by our experience astherapists, where we form a relationship inwhich we can be sure the person will discoverhimself, become himself, learn to functionmore freely, but where we cannot forecast thespecific content of the next statement, of thenext phase of therapy, or of the behavioralsolution the client will find to a given prob-lem. The general direction is dependable, andwe can rest assured it will be appropriate;but its specific content is unpredictable.

G. Relates Freedom and Determinism

I should like to stray still further afield,and give one final philosophical implicationwhich has meaning for me. For some time I

have been perplexed over the living paradoxwhich exists in psychotherapy between free-dom and determinism. In the therapeuticrelationship some of the most compelling sub-jective experiences are those in which theclient feels within himself the power of nakedchoice. He is free—to become himself or tohide behind a facade; to move forward or toretrogress; to behave in ways which are de-structive of self and others, or in ways whichare enhancing; quite literally free to live ordie, in both the physiological and psychologi-cal meaning of those terms. Yet as we enterthis field of psychotherapy with objective re-search methods, we are, like any other scien-tist, committed to a complete determinism.From this point of view every thought, feel-ing, and action of the client is determined bywhat precedes it. The dilemma I am tryingto describe is no different than that found inother fields—it is simply brought to sharperfocus. I tried to bring this out in a paperwritten a year ago contrasting these twoviews. In the field of psychotherapy, "Hereis the maximizing of all that is subjective,inward, personal; here a relationship is lived,not examined, and a person, not an object,emerges, a person who feels, chooses, believes,acts, not as an automaton, but as a person.And here too is the ultimate in science—theobjective exploration of the most subjectiveaspects of life; the reduction to hypotheses,and eventually to theorems, of all that hasbeen regarded as most personal, most com-pletely inward, most thoroughly a privateworld" (Rogers, 1952).

Now I am not so naive as to suppose thatI have resolved the dilemma between thesubjective and the objective, between freedomand determinism. Nevertheless, in terms ofthe definition I have given of the fully func-tioning person, that relationship can be seenin a fresh perspective. We could say that inthe optimum of therapy the person rightfullyexperiences the most complete and absolutefreedom. He wills or chooses to follow thecourse of action which is the most economicalvector in relation to all the internal and ex-ternal stimuli, because it is that behaviorwhich will be most deeply satisfying. Butthis is the same course of action which fromanother vantage point may be said to be

26 CARL R. ROGERS

determined by all the factors in the existentialsituation. Let us contrast this with the pictureof the person who is defensively organized.He wills or chooses to follow a given courseof action, but finds that he cannot behave inthe fashion that he chooses. He is determinedby the factors in the existential situation, butthese factors include his defensiveness, hisdenial or distortion of some of the relevantdata. Hence it is certain that his behaviorwill be less than fully satisfying. His behavioris determined, but he is not free to make aneffective choice. The fully functioning person,on the other hand, not only experiences, bututilizes, the most absolute freedom when hespontaneously, freely, and voluntarily choosesand wills that which is also absolutely deter-mined.

I am quite aware that this is not a new ideato the philosopher, but it has been refreshingto come upon it from a totally unexpectedangle, in analyzing a concept in personalitytheory. For me it provides the rationale forthe subjective reality of absolute freedom ofchoice, which is so profoundly important intherapy, and at the same time the rationalefor the complete determinism which is thevery foundation stone of science. With thisframework I can enter subjectively the ex-perience of naked choice which the client isexperiencing; I can also as a scientist, studyhis behavior as being absolutely determined.

CONCLUSION

Here then is my theoretical model of theperson who emerges from therapy—a personfunctioning freely in all the fullness of hisorganismic potentialities; a person who is

dependable in being realistic, self-enhancing,socialized and appropriate in his behavior; acreative person, whose specific formings ofbehavior are not easily predictable; a personwho is ever-changing, ever developing, alwaysdiscovering himself and the newness in himselfin each succeeding moment of time. This isthe person who in an imperfect way actuallyemerges from the experience of safety andfreedom in a therapeutic experience, and thisis the person whom I have tried to describefor you in "pure" form.

My purpose has not been to convince youof the correctness of this view. Indeed I wouldhave to confess that I have written this paperprimarily for my own satisfaction, to clarifythe thoughts which have been stirring in me.But if this presentation causes you to formu-late your view of the person who emergesfrom therapy, or enables you to point outflaws in my own thinking which I have notyet seen, or arouses in you the desire to putto objective test either this picture or onewhich you paint for yourself, then it will havefully served both its primary and its second-ary purpose.

REFERENCESKELLEY, E. L. & FISKE, DONALD W. The Prediction of

Performance in Clinical Psychology. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 1951.

KRECH, D. Notes toward a psychological theory. / .Pen., Sept., 1949, 18, 66-87.

ROGERS, C. R. Personal thoughts on teaching and learn-ing. Merrill-Palmer Quart., Summer, 1957, 3,, pp.241-243. Also published in Improving College andUniversity Teaching, 1958, 6, 4-5.

ROGERS, C. R. Persons or Science: A PhilosophicalQuestion. Amer. Psychologist. 1955, 10, 267-278.

WERTHEIMER, M. Productive Thinking. New York:Harper, 1945, 183-4.