Beyond the potato: chaos, choices and co-becoming

The actualising tendency has been pointed as a fundamental feature of humanistic counselling (Sanders, 2002). 

In this article, I’d like to offer a critique of Rogers’ actualising tendency (aka, “the potato”) in a move towards ideas within the same humanistic paradigm that I argue have more explanatory power and healing potential.  

The actualising tendency

Rogers defined the actualising tendency as “man’s tendency to become his potentialities”, and as an “urge to “expand, extend, develop, mature”. He believed that this force was present in all individuals even if “deeply buried”. (Rogers, 1967: 351)

We can find the roots of this idea in Heraclitus, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche who formulated earlier iterations.  

Later, neurologist Kurt Goldstein coined the term “self-actualisation” (Goldstein, 1939: 197-207 ) which Maslow adopted as part of his theory of human development. It was from there that Rogers developed his theory of the actualising tendency. 

But whereas for Goldstein (and his philosophical predecessors) this force was neutral, what made Rogers’ (and similarly, Maslow’s) view of human self-actualisation unique was their emphasis on its positive, socially constructive nature. 

He believed that as long as people are open to all of their experience (including positive as well negative feelings) this tendency would lead them to “behave in a fashion which is harmonious, integrated, constructive” (Rogers, 1967: 351)

To illustrate this, Rogers made us think of potatoes: growing towards light, in whatever conditions they find themselves.   

Consequently, Rogers has been criticised as naive, having an unshakeable faith that humans are essentially good based on his limited experience and an untestable theory. 

In his defence, he didn’t necessarily argue that humans were inherently good (Wilkins, 2003). And in fact he cautioned against the use of “good” and “bad”. But he was so very close in his choice of words that he made many take away that idea. 

Why did he?

Nietzsche argued that every philosophy is the confession of its creator (Hollingdale, 2003). He meant that any theory can tell us more about the person behind it than about reality as it is. 

When we think about the strength with which Rogers defended the actualisting tendency and the conditions of change as “necessary and sufficient” we need to wonder – did he need this to be true, in order to be OK? 

That’s not to say that the conditions (Rogers, 1959) are not helpful or even necessary for therapeutic change. In studies of psychotherapy effectiveness, the three core conditions have been found “demonstrably effective” (empathy) and “promising and probably effective (congruence), (Steering Committee 2002, as quoted in Cooper, 2008) . Rogers has made a huge contribution to the world of therapy. 

But the argument I’m making is rather than the hopeful view of humans as essentially positive, trustworthy, forward-moving and growth-seeking is limiting and conducive to therapeutic passivity. 

Beyond the potato-based view of humans, I’d like to propose three ideas from existentialism and postmodernism that take us beyond the comfortable potato into more scary – albeit freeing – territory. 

Acknowledging the contingency and chaos of our human nature. 

Rogers took comfort looking at potatoes growing towards the light, but I’d argue it was Roquentin, the protagonist of Sartre’s novel Nausea who understood more about human life by staring at a tree. 

Trees also grow towards the light, but it wasn’t this forward movement that hypnotised Roquentin. What captivated him was the random, contingent, unnecessary way in which that one tree existed. Rather than theorising about the tree, Roquentin looked deep into its nature: relentlessly unique and without “the slightest reason to be there” or be the way it is: radically free. 

That we have “not the slightest reason to be here” is the basis of existentialism: we are devoid of essence, absent of given values, part of nobody’s plan.   

And as complex organic systems we are ultimately unpredictable: chaotic. Our bodies get ill with little warning. We live in collectives upon which we depend and don’t control. We exist on top of a spinning mass floating through a hostile Universe.  

Humans have found many ways to take back control of this contingency and chaos. In pre-modern times, we had myths and stories. In modern times, the scientific method, religions and discourses of progress. 

Rogers’ potato is one of those discourses of progress: conveniently hopeful, warm and cosy. And it gives us a method (the person-centred approach) to achieve the theoretical goal of human self-actualisation. 

But how does that work with someone who has six months to live? How does that work with chronic illness? Or with someone who’s totally alone in the world? And someone imprisoned for life for horrible crimes they did commit? 

Chaos is where we start. Then we put an order to it. This was Nietzsche’s insight into the Apollonian and Dyonisian forces within us. To deny the chaos is to deny life as it is. And to neglect to put order to it is a failure to make life worth living. 

Blending the Dionysian chaos with the Apollonian order is how we can live our best lives. 

And we do that by acting, by making choices. 

Choosing: Making use of our freedom

Existentialist ontology (understanding of “being”) is that in our radical freedom we become humans by constantly trying to become what we are not. 

This is quite similar to the actualising tendency, except instead of a forward movement, it is a movement in any direction, and instead of a Platonic essence magically guiding us, it’s our choices – good and bad – that moves us.  

To be human is to act, to negate our being, to become. This is powerful in therapy as we humans have a damaging tendency to want an end goal or, like Maslow, the top of a pyramid. 

Instead, existentialism proposes that we throw our being into the world and we bear in mind that we will always want to keep doing that. 

That rainbow is always on the horizon: we won’t be happy when we achieve the next thing, not for long. 

The way to make the most of the chaos within the constraints of the biological and social givens is therefore simply that: make our choices, experience their consequences and make more choices as a result. 

Our choicefulness is an infinite reservoir of constructive power. It doesn’t matter where we are in life, we always have choices within our constraints. 

And that can help any sort of person, in any sort of situation: accept your constraints, make your choices. 

Co-becoming: Collective experiencing and co-created reality

Another crucial weakness of the potato-based view of human nature is its individualism. 

The potato grows to the light by itself. It doesn’t need other potatoes to do that. As I discussed here and here, humans are born in a collective upon which they depend. We become an “I” in a “we”, and the trick is to make those two things work: I can be and I, and I can be a we. 

A better analogy to the potato is a cell (Phillipson, 2009). It’s distinct from other cells, separated by its cell walls to conduct its functions, yet unable to carry said functions without the environment which is made up of other cells.  

In the context of therapy, the potato discourse leads to emphasis from person-centred practitioners in how the therapist creates the conditions for the actualising tendency to kick in. 

And so, whilst person-centred therapy has a profound respect for the client, it risks leading the therapist to act as an expert by holding this theory rigidly (“these conditions are sufficient”). It also keeps clients in the dark on what’s actually happening in the room. And risks over-focusing on “skills” and their performance to achieve a “way of being” that provides the conditions and in doing so, activates the starchy tuberous essence of humans.   

Existentialism looks at things differently. Born out of philosophical insight, it’s about making meaning of existence in a way that anyone can benefit, whether they have a therapist or not. 

So when as an existentialist I am helping someone, it is not to practice an approach, or acting or being in a particular way, but about exploring the meaning of existence, the consequences of freedom and the limits of givens, in the context of my client. 

Rather than withholding the power in the room by leaving out my own frame of reference, I choose to roll up my sleeves and work with my client at the same level so we both can make meaning of the client’s experiences.  

Bibliography 

Cooper, M. (2008) Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Facts are Friendly. London: SAGE Publications.

de Beauvoir, S. (1948) The Ethics of Ambiguity. Translated by B. Frechtman. New York: Philosophical Library.

Gilbert, D. (2003) Affective forecasting, in Brockman, J. (ed.) Thinking. Harper Perennial. 

Goldstein, K. (1939) The Organism, A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man

Nietzsche, F. (1886) Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by R.J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Classics.

Nietzsche, F. (1887) The Gay Science. Translated by W. Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books.

Nietzsche, F. (1872) The Birth of Tragedy. Douglass Smith. Oxford World Classics.

Philippson, P. (2009) The Emergent Self: An Existential-Gestalt Approach. London: Karnac Books.

Rogers, C.R., 1957. ‘The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change’. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), pp.95–103.

Rogers, C.R. (1961) On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. London: Constable.

Sanders, P. (2002) First Steps in Counselling: A Students’ Companion for Basic Introductory Courses. 3rd edn. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

Sartre, J-P. (1938) Nausea. Translated by L. Alexander. New York: New Directions.

Wilkins, P. (2003) Person-Centred Therapy in Focus. London: SAGE Publications.