Rogers and Goldstein redux: the actualizing person responding to trauma and loss

Carl Rogers’ concept of actualization is discussed in relation to neuropsychiatrist Kurt Goldstein’s concept of self-actualization, both of which explain the inherent capacity of the human organism for growth through adversity. It is argued that Rogers’ organismic perspective is compatible with the existential-ontological elements of Goldstein’s holistic, biological conception of the human organism. There is, however, a fundamental difference in their concepts of actualization and their metaphors of self-healing that reflects their dissimilar clinical milieus and philosophico-existential perspectives. Rogers’ metaphor of self-healing calls up the client’s organismic experiencing in a therapeutic relationship whereas Goldstein’s refers to the patient and pathology that is an indication of lawful variations of the normal self-regulating process. Their concepts of actualization are considered in relation to six existential-ontological dimensions of human experience delineated by Hersch. It is argued that they provide a more in-depth understanding of an individual’s experience than the dominant biomedical models of disease. This process is illustrated by drawing on the self-reported experiences of persons with traumatic brain injury concerning the extent of their recovery and post-traumatic growth. Considered together, the legacies of Goldstein and Rogers span biology and phenomenology, existential philosophy and humanistic psychology.