Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies

Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2012, 31–47

Person-centered expressive arts therapy: A theoretical encounter

Natalie Rogersa, Keith Tudorb*, Louise Embleton Tudorc and Keemar Keemard
a b&c
San Francisco, USA; Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand; dSheffield, UK
(Received 18 September 2010; final version received 9 November 2011)

This article aims to make explicit the theoretical underpinnings of person-

centered expressive arts therapy (PCEAT). We introduce PCEAT with a
summary of the person-centered perspective on creativity, and expressive therapy,
followed by a discussion which connects it to the fundamental principles of the
person-centered approach (PCA), specifically the nature of the organism, and the
nondirective attitude of the therapist. The article concludes with some thoughts
about how expressive therapy facilitates individual and collective action, and the
peace movement. Drawing on Natalie Rogers’s work on creativity (N. Rogers,
1993/2000, 2011), and an invited lecture on expressive arts and peace (N. Rogers,
2004), the article aims to make explicit the theoretical underpinnings of person-
centered expressive arts therapy.
Keywords: theory; person-centered expressive arts therapy; creativity; expressive
therapy; organism; nondirective; peace

Personzentrierte expressive Kunsttherapie: Ein theoretisches Encounter

Dieser Artikel zielt darauf ab, die theoretischen Grundlagen der personzentrierten
expressiven Kunsttherapie explizit zu machen (PCEAT). Wir stellen PCEAT in
Form einer Zusammenfassung über die personzentrierte Sicht zu Kreativität und
zu expressiver Therapie vor. Darauf folgt eine Diskussion, wie dieser Entwurf mit
den fundamentalen Prinzipien des Personzentrierten Ansatzes (PCA) verbunden
ist, insbesondere mit der Natur des Organismus und der nicht-direktiven Haltung
des Therapeuten. Den Artikel beschliessen einige Gedanken dazu, wie expressive
Therapie individuelles und kollektives Handeln und die Friedensbewegung
fördert. Ausgehend von Natalie Rogers’s Arbeit zu Kreativität (N. Rogers,
1993/2000, 2011) und einem Vortrag zu expressiver Kunst und Frieden (N.
Rogers, 2004) soll der Artikel die theoretischen Grundlagen der personzentrierten
expressiven Kunsttherapie aufzeigen.

Terapia artı́stica expresiva centrada en la persona: Un encuentro teórico

Este artı́culo pretende hacer explı́citas las bases teóricas de la terapia de artes
expresivas centrada en la persona (PCEAT siglas en inglés). Introducimos PCEAT
con un resumen de la perspectiva centrada en la persona de la creatividad y terapia
expresiva, seguida de un debate que la conecta con los principios fundamentales
del enfoque centrado en la persona, especı́ficamente con la naturaleza del
organismo y la actitud no directiva del terapeuta. El escrito concluye con algunas
reflexiones acerca de cómo la terapia expresiva facilita la acción individual y
colectiva y el movimiento a favor de la paz. Basándonos en el trabajo de Natalie

*Corresponding author. Email: keith.tudor@aut.ac.nz

ISSN 1477-9757 print/ISSN 1752-9182 online

Ó 2012 World Association for Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapy & Counseling
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2012.656407
http://www.tandfonline.com
32 N. Rogers et al.

Rogers sobre creatividad (N. Rogers, 1993/2000, 2011) y una conferencia sobre las
artes expresivas y la paz (N. Rogers, 2004), el escrito pretende hacer explı́citas las
bases teóricas de la terapia de artes expresivas centrada en la persona.

La thérapie expressive centrée-sur-la-personne : Une rencontre théorique

Cet article vise à rendre explicite les principes théoriques qui sous-tendent la
thérapie expressive par les arts centrée sur la personne (TEACP). Nous
présentons la TEACP à travers un résumé de la perspective centrée sur la
personne sur la créativité, et la thérapie expressive, puis une discussion qui la relie
aux principes fondamentaux de l’approche centrée sur la personne, plus
spécifiquement la nature de l’organisme, et l’attitude non-directive du ou de la
thérapeute. L’article conclue avec une réflexion sur la manière dont la thérapie
expressive facilite l’action individuelle et collective, et sur le mouvement pour la
paix. S’appuyant sur le travail de Natalie Rogers sur la créativité (N. Rogers,
1993/2000, 2011), et une conférence sur les arts expressive et la paix (N. Rogers,
2004), l’article vise à rendre explicite la théorie qui fonde la thérapie expressive
par les arts centrée sur la personne.

Terapia expressiva pela arte centrada na pessoa: Um encontro teórico

Este artigo pretende explicitar os fundamentos teóricos da terapia expressiva
pela arte centrada na pessoa (TEACP). A TEACP é introduzida com um resumo
da perspetiva centrada na pessoa relativamente à criatividade e à terapia
expressiva. Segue-se uma discussão que relaciona esta forma de terapia com os
princı́pios fundamentais da abordagem centrada na pessoa, designadamente a
natureza do organismo e a atitude não-diretiva do terapeuta. O artigo termina
com uma conclusão acerca de alguns pensamentos que defendem que a terapia
expressiva facilita a ação coletiva e individual e o movimento de paz. Partindo
do trabalho de Natalie Rogers sobre a criatividade (N. Rogers, 1993/2000, 2011)
e de uma palestra sobre artes expressivas e paz (N. Rogers, 2004), o artigo
pretende explicitar os fundamentos teóricos da terapia pela arte expressiva
centrada na pessoa.

Background
This article originates from a recorded discussion between Natalie Rogers, the
founder of person-centered expressive arts therapy, and Louise Embleton Tudor,
Keemar Keemar and Keith Tudor, then all Directors of Temenos, an independent
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 33

person-centered education and training centre in Sheffield, UK (see www.temenos.

ac.uk). The discussion took place following a lecture given by Natalie and sponsored
by Temenos on ‘‘Expressive Arts for Peace: Using the Creative Process to Connect to
the World’’ (N. Rogers, 2004) and following Natalie’s facilitation of a management
team day at Temenos. The article is based on an edited transcript of that discussion
and subsequent correspondence over some seven years since.
There were a number of strands which brought us together. Firstly, we (Keemar,
Keith and Louise) had all met Natalie during her previous visit to Temenos and had
made a good and creative connection with her around the concept of temenos and
our person-centered philosophy of education, incorporating creativity. This had
been supported by our co-authorship, with others involved with Temenos, of a book
on the person-centered approach (PCA) as an approach to life (Embleton Tudor,
Keemar, Tudor, Valentine, & Worrall, 2004) in which we had acknowledged Carl
Rogers’s emphasis on creativity – and fluidity. Secondly, at the time, Keith was
working on the manuscript of Person-Centred Therapy: A Clinical Philosophy (Tudor
& Worrall, 2006) which, amongst other things, reclaimed the centrality of the
organism in person-centered theory and therapy, and the importance of ‘‘philoso-
phical congruence’’ (p. 17). Thirdly, having had the opportunity of working with
Natalie, we were keen to hear and contribute to the articulation of the theory
underpinning PCEAT.
With this in mind, we set up a meeting which lasted approximately 90 minutes
and which we recorded, which took the form of a semi-structured dialogue about
core principles of the PCA (Sanders, 2000; see also Tudor & Worrall, 2006) with
regard to PCEAT. The recording of the meeting was later transcribed (by Keith) and
edited into an initial paper, which has subsequently been reworked by all the co-
authors and re-edited (also by Keith) so as to maintain the coherence of the initial
purpose as well as the original experience and sense of dialogue. In the subsequent
editing some material has been added by way of introduction and links between the
sections (and in response to reviewers’ comments). The excerpts in this final version
represent approximately one half of our original dialogue.
As creativity is fundamental to PCEAT we begin with a review of the person-
centered approach to creativity.

Creativity and the person-centered approach

Carl Rogers’s ideas about creativity are not well known. They have been taken up
and developed most notably by his daughter, Natalie Rogers, and, for some, are seen
as central to person-centered therapy (see Tudor & Worrall, 2006). Rogers argued
that creativity is one of the outcomes of therapy (Rogers, 1959); that there is a social
need for creativity (Rogers, 1980); and, in a phrase which echoes Winnicott (1965),
that it depends on a nurturing environment. Rogers (1954/1967) identified two
elements of the creative process and the relationship between them: ‘‘there must be
something observable, some product of creation . . . [and] [t]hese products must be
novel constructions’’ (p. 349). He went on to define the creative process as: ‘‘the
emergence in action of a novel relational product, growing out of the uniqueness of the
individual on the one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances of his life
on the other’’ (p. 350). Interestingly, in a published oral history based on a series of
interviews, Rogers reflected on the fact that he wrote the article on creativity, in
essence, in one night: ‘‘It was in itself a creative act. It just flowed’’ (Rogers &
34 N. Rogers et al.

Russell, 2002, p. 296). In the same passage, Rogers went on to describe having been
tested by Thurstone (who developed a number of tests concerning mental ability –
see Thurstone, 1938) in terms of right brain/left brain functioning, in which Rogers
was found to be quite even across both brain hemispheres. Rogers also talked about
the one painting he created (among many) which he prized, as well as mobiles he
enjoyed making. Carl’s wife, Helen, was an artist trained at the Chicago Art
Institute. She taught Carl how to paint. In a videotaped discussion about creativity
with his daughter, Natalie, and granddaughter Frances Fuchs, Carl said he stopped
painting when he finally did one he really liked.
In an echo of his famous statements about the necessary and sufficient conditions
for therapy, Rogers (1954/1967) hypothesized certain ‘‘inner conditions’’ (p. 355)
which are most closely associated with creative acts:

(i) Having an openness to experience – or ‘‘extensionality,’’ the opposite of

psychological defensiveness.

Rogers described this explicitly as being aware of this existential moment as it is.

(ii) Having an internal locus (or place) of evaluation.

Rogers (1954/1967) argued that: ‘‘The value of his product is, for the
creative person, established not by the praise or criticism of others, but by
himself. Have I created something satisfying to me? Does it express part of
me?’’ (p. 354). Significantly, in terms of the centrality of the organism, he
referred to this as an organismic reaction to and appraisal of the created
product.
(iii) Having an ability to toy or play with elements and concepts.

Rogers (1954/1967) described this as:

the ability to play spontaneously with ideas, colors, shapes, relationships – to juggle
elements into impossible juxtapositions, to shape wild hypotheses, to make the given
problematic, to express the ridiculous, to translate from one form to another, to
transform into improbable equivalents. It is from this spontaneous toying with life
that there arises the hunch, the creative seeing of life in a new and significant way. (p.
355)

Rogers then presented two conditions – which we may think of as external

conditions – which foster creativity in the context of meeting the social need for
creativity:

X. Psychological safety

This, in turn, is established by the facilitation of three processes:

(a) Accepting the individual as of unconditional worth,

(b) Providing a climate in which external evaluation is absent, and
(c) Understanding empathically.

The responsibility for facilitating these processes rests primarily with the facilitator
or therapist. Ultimately, however, such safety lies in the experience of the beholder
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 35

or participant and cannot be guaranteed or ensured. This fits with Rogers’s (1958/
1967) view of the sixth and ‘‘assumed condition’’ of therapy: ‘‘that the client
experiences himself as being fully received’’ (p. 130).

Y. Psychological freedom and permissiveness – of symbolic expression

Rogers argued that this is enabled by the facilitator permitting ‘‘a complete freedom
of symbolic expression’’ (1954/1967, p. 358). In elaborating this, he made a distinction
between the expression of behavior (which may be limited by society) and symbolic
expression (which may – or is best – not be limited). To some extent this distinction is
at odds with his organismic theory of behavior and personality (Rogers, 1951) and it
is perhaps interesting to note that (in a parenthetical point) Rogers himself
acknowledged that he was ‘‘unsure of this paragraph’’ (1954/1967, p. 359).

In her work Natalie Rogers takes forward an emphasis on symbolic expression in her
use of the expressive arts in healing, and adds a third condition (N. Rogers, 1993/
2000):

Z. Offering stimulating and challenging experiences

Whilst the first two conditions may be viewed as providing the soil and nutrients for
creativity, this third, external condition is offered by the therapist/facilitator in a
more active way. The expressive therapist may offer suggestions to the client
designed to stimulate and challenge. In her book on expressive arts, Natalie Rogers
(1993/2000) wrote:

We need to get people up and out of their chairs and actively engaged in the creative
process to experience it. We do not become creative by talking about it. I may suggest to
a client who is experiencing grief or fear to express her feelings in color or clay or
movement. These suggestions are meant to facilitate expression rather than to direct a
client’s experience. Also, the product becomes part of the language between client and
therapist.

Using movement, dance, drawing, and sculpting for intellectual stimulation is also
supported by Gardner’s (1983/1993) work on multiple intelligences.
These ideas place creativity at the heart of what it is to be human: to be fully
functioning is to be creative; and to be uncreative or to have a creative block is to be
in some way alienated from ourselves – and others. In The Creative Connection (N.
Rogers, 1993/2000) Natalie wrote about the blocks to creativity: the inner critic, the
fear of failure, and the fear of the unknown. As a person-centered group facilitator
she aims to create a safe, nonjudgmental environment where these fears can be put
aside, even dropped, and experimentation and play can prevail (see N. Rogers,
2011). In these groups students often report that they stopped dancing, painting or
singing because they were judged or criticized by teachers or parents. This is a
terrible loss not only for the individual but also for society. The role of creativity and
the creative arts is beyond the scope of this article although it formed a part of the
original discussion in which we acknowledged that, especially in Western societies,
educational systems have emphasized linear, left-brain learning almost to the
exclusion of the arts. Music, dance, visual arts and drama are the first to be
eliminated when school budgets are cut when, from a person-centered perspective,
36 N. Rogers et al.

we would argue that the arts are essential to creativity, life-long learning, and
nourishing the soul. As Natalie observed during our conversation: ‘‘In Bali there is
no separate word for art because it is totally woven into the culture, as the Balinese
engage in everyday rituals that include dance, singing, praying, and creating art.’’

Expressive arts therapy and the person-centered approach

Expressive art refers to using the emotional, intuitive aspect of ourselves in various
media. It is a process of discovering ourselves through any art form that comes from
an emotional fullness. It is not about creating a beautiful picture, a perfect poem or a
choreographed dance. To use art expressively means to go into our inner realm to
discover feelings for expression through visual art, movement, sound, writing or
improvisational drama. We emphasize the process more than the product although
the product may give us a depth of personal insight (N. Rogers, 1993/2000), and
personal and professional reflection (see Bell, 2007).

Natalie: My concept of the Creative Connection1 refers to the important influence

one art process has on the other. For instance, when we move or dance
and then do art, the art becomes alive and poignant. If we follow this with
writing or poetry, metaphor may ‘‘drop in.’’ Although many group
facilitators offer one or the other media for personal growth, the notion
that offering such work in sequence will bring individuals into a deeper
sense of self is seldom discussed. Actually, this kind of sequencing of the
arts allows individuals to get into an exquisitely focused state or ‘‘altered
state of consciousness.’’ This is relevant as we discuss the implications of
creativity.
For me, it is very important that the foundation of my work is person-
centered. Some expressive arts facilitators are analytic, Jungian or have
other theoretical constructs. When I invite clients or students to use the
arts for self-expression I want them to know their products or images will
be respected and not interpreted or analyzed. I help them uncover the
meaning the image or movement has for them. If these images stir deep
emotions, I listen and respond empathically and without judgment or
interpretation. I am a companion on their path doing my best to
understand the world as they perceive it. This creates a very safe
environment in which people can explore and express further.

Having given something of the theoretical background to our conversation, we now

turn to those parts of our discussion which focused on two principles of the PCA:
that the human organism tends to actualize; and that the person-centered facilitator
supports the organismic direction of the client, clients, or group by adopting a
nondirective attitude.

Organism and environment

Keemar: Your point about expression and your work reminds me of the
importance of understanding people as human organisms in the context
of the environment, and so I would see expression as organismic
expression as well as self-expression. One of the key tasks of the therapist
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 37

or facilitator is to create an environment which is conducive to the client

releasing his or her potential. When I refer to ‘‘environment’’ I’m talking
about two things: one, the broader, social, economic, cultural environ-
ment; and, the other, the environment or context of therapy or training.
Natalie: Now the quantum physicists are saying that we are – and not just as
human beings – we are, as a universe, all one [Capra, 1975, 1983]. And
there’s an amazing film, What the Bleep Do We Know? [Arntz, Chasse, &
Vincente, 2004; see also www.whatthebleep.com], which documents that
we are all connected, so to talk about body/mind is only part of the
picture. I am whole and part of that plant, and part of the consciousness
of China, and part of my stomach ache.
Keith: I think that the centrality of the organism in person-centered theory really
helps us understand this [see Tudor & Worrall, 2006]. I think that Carl did
put the organism at the centre of the theory but that it’s got a bit lost with
the emphasis on the self and self-concept. Missing out the organism misses
out that embodied interconnectedness between me/us and the environ-
ment/world.
Natalie: Carl used the word organismic a lot: organism and organismic. I have a
hard time explaining it but I know what it means.
Keemar: As I see it, that concept is the mind/body: the organism is all of that, and is
connected to the world because we can’t understand the organism – the
human organism or any other organism – without relation to how and
where it is in the world. That we three [Keemar, Keith and Louise] are
British is a different experience from you being an American. Our different
societies and geographical location impact us as organisms differently, for
example, our different use of language (in British and American English).
So, what we’re saying is that the organism tends to actualize, and that it
has an inherent direction; and, therefore, that we (the therapist, educator/
trainer, facilitator) don’t have to direct it. At the same time the human
organism, as any other organism, does need optimum conditions in which
to maintain and enhance itself – and the creation of those optimal
conditions is the responsibility of the therapist, facilitator, etc.
Keith: Yes, it’s always surprised me that people focus on Rogers’s theory of
conditions (and, in doing so, often misrepresent them), when it is clear
from his 1959 paper that he frames them in the context of the organism
and its tendency to actualize.
Keemar: . . . and, of course, it is essential that the way each of us creates the
conditions is congruent with who we are. If it is congruent for me, as a
therapist/facilitator, to introduce movement (dance), music and/or the
arts, then this is my contribution to a congruent environment and the
creative connection with all aspects of the organism.
Natalie, you use movement and are aware of the place of the body in
your work using expressive arts – and I know you draw on meditation and
spiritual practices as well. Given that we are talking in the context of your
lecture [on using PCEAT for peace], if we are going to embody peace,
what, for you, is the impact of the body perspective on thinking?
Natalie: That’s a good question. Using movement, color, sound and all of the
expressive arts stirs up and awakens the right hemisphere of the brain.
There’s research on this and how the creative process balances the right
38 N. Rogers et al.

and left hemispheres of the brain [Springer & Deutsch, 2001]. Creative
processes encourage creative thinking. Look what happened yesterday.
You had asked me to spend a day as a consultant with the four members
of your Temenos management team. First I offered you the opportunity to
engage in a half an hour of guided movement to help you be in touch with
your body. Then I invited you to spend an hour using chalk pastels on
paper. Each of you were so totally focused on your art work the time flew
by and I had to put a time limit on it so that we could also have time to
discuss the management challenges you had. It was absolutely amazing to
me that after a morning of that Creative Connection1 work, when we sat
in a circle to discuss the long list of problems you had given me when I
interviewed each of you the previous day, you quickly came up with a
whole new way of looking at your team and how you were going to work
together. I was astounded! I remember pulling my chair back out of the
circle to observe you rather than do much facilitating. I believe that each
of you had been through a creative process in the morning that took you
out of your usual linear mode of solving problems and integrated your
left/right brain process so that when you came together to discuss the
management of Temenos you had a whole new perspective on how to share
the responsibilities and tasks.
I know if I have been writing and I’m feeling muddled, or my thoughts are
not clear, I put on music and dance, then suddenly the thoughts ‘‘drop in.’’
Freeing our bodies frees our minds. That’s a simple way of putting it. Doing
art after movement brings us to a new state of consciousness. The creative
process helps us break through existing patterns of perception. I believe that
is what happened to you as a team, yesterday. When you started to discuss
your issues your mind, body and spirit were one. Your perceptions had
shifted.
Keith: That’s interesting because I perceive in some of your writing a mind/body
split or perhaps a subtle prioritizing of the body or emotions over the
mind. However, being with and talking with you I don’t get a sense of
that. What I see and experience you saying, in effect, is ‘‘If you can dance,
you can write better.’’
Keemar: Yesterday I really experienced that mind/body connectedness and what
that freed up for me in my thinking.
Natalie: That’s great, and this is where Carl often begins: with experience. This is
what we need to catch. For example, what is it that you experienced
yesterday? I can tell you what we did, and my observations about your
perceptual shift – but did you experience that shift and if so, why? What do
you think happened? Collecting your views of your experience would
give us data to support the notion that using the creative arts process in
a person-centered environment helps us think clearly and constructively.
Keith: This links with fluidity which I think is an important concept in person-
centered theory. Carl [Rogers, 1958/1967] describes fluidity as ‘‘new
experiencing with immediacy’’ in which ‘‘feeling and cognition interpene-
trate’’ [p. 158].
Natalie: Congruent. Yes, this is a good way to do it! . . . and there’s a lot written
now that is scientifically supporting what we are talking about. For me, it
started as early as Jean Houston’s [1982] book The Possible Human.
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 39

Louise: Yes, it’s like Csikszentmihalyi’s [1990] concept of ‘‘flow’’ which he described
as the potent combination of attention, motivation and situation which can
result in a seamless experiential flow: back and forth between action, thought
and movement, which gives rise to feelings of harmony, fulfillment, and joy.
Thanks to developments in neuroscience, we now understand more about
the brain circuitry of this state when we are in this ‘‘flow,’’ ‘‘being totally in
it,’’ or being ‘‘in the groove.’’ Also, it is acknowledged that play is a primary
emotional function of the mammalian brain. Panksepp [1998] speculated
that the innate capacity for play in humans can be voluntarily channeled in
to a variety of activities, and he recognized the capacity of human beings for
the use of symbolism in playful states. He proposed that feeling safe and in
the company of trusted companions facilitates playfulness, whilst feelings of
threat inhibit it. Further, when we immerse ourselves in play, we often allow
ourselves to explore a boundary, and underlying authentic feelings often
emerge. According to Cozolino [2002] both creative and problem-solving
abilities ‘‘result from the overall integration of neural networks throughout
the brain’’ [p. 144]. Thus, products of left-hemisphere functioning, which are
predominantly sequential and logical, and right-hemisphere processing,
which are predominantly sensorialy derived information and which is likely
to be emotional in flavor, are mediated and integrated with the help of the
corpus callosum. Other systems are likely to be involved too, for example, the
seeking system [Panksepp, 1998], the structures involved in the retrieval and
integration of memory.

Nondirectiveness
Keith: At the end of your lecture, Natalie, a member of the audience challenged
you on what he perceived to be the directiveness of expressive therapy. I’d
like to move on to the question of directivity.
Natalie: Yes, that question annoys the hell out of me [laughs], so you start!
Keith: Well, I think there are three arguments about this: the first concerns
techniques, the second is about structure and experience, and the third
questions our predominantly verbal culture. On the question of technique,
I go back to one of Carl’s key theoretical papers [Rogers, 1957] in which
he addressed this. In the context of an integrative statement about the
necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change,
Rogers commented that: ‘‘the techniques of the various therapies are
relatively unimportant except to the extent that they serve as channels for
fulfilling one of the conditions’’ [p. 102]. However, over the years, person-
centered therapists have generally taken a stand against using techniques
and this, I think, was the point of the question from the member of the
audience: that expressive therapists use techniques – and, I have to say,
that it seemed to bother him more than it bothers you.
Natalie: First of all, Carl was always growing, so whatever he said in 1957 or 1987 (in
the last year of his life), will be somewhat different, although his philosophy
remained the same. He changed so much. He said, many times, ‘‘This is what
I think now, it may not be what I think tomorrow.’’ You know, I lived that
life with him . . . but it doesn’t really matter to me whether he [Carl] would
agree with us or not. I’m not trying to justify my work in terms of his work.
40 N. Rogers et al.

I’m trying to take his work and use it to the best of my ability to further that
which is self-enhancing, group-enhancing and world-enhancing. To people
who point and say, ‘‘Well you’re not doing it Carl’s way,’’ I say, ‘‘Well, so
what?’’ I don’t even want to get into the argument: ‘‘Is it or isn’t it?’’ What I
want to talk about – and what I think he would want us to talk about is: ‘‘Is
this helping people to become their full potential? Is this helping people
grow?’’ We know things now that he didn’t know and the world is a very
different place, scientifically and technologically.
Keith: I agree with all of that, and I think that there are theoretical pointers in his
work to support this, some of which are underemphasized, like the
concepts of fluidity [Rogers, 1958/1967], and creativity [Rogers, 1954/
1967] – which we can draw on and which support us in saying: ‘‘Don’t get
stuck.’’ Rogers was very explicit about valuing fluidity [1958/1967]:

Would everyone agree that this is a desirable process of change, that it moves in
valued directions? I believe not. I believe some people do not value fluidity. This
is one of the social value judgments which individuals and cultures will have to
make. [p. 135]

So, ‘‘going with the flow’’ includes the intellectual flow.

Natalie: Yes, that’s true. His basic truths are so profound. I’m speaking them, I’m
teaching them and I’m being them. However, I do not want to get hung up
on the notion that he has ‘‘the’’ truth.
Keith: Absolutely. He himself talked about the authority of experience: ‘‘Neither
the Bible nor the prophets – neither Freud nor research – neither the
revelations of God nor man – can take precedence over my own direct
experience’’ [Rogers, 1953/1967, p. 24]. I think that’s such a great quote.
Unfortunately, some people who identify with the person-centered
approach lose that trust or knowledge in the authority of experience
and, ironically, become quite dogmatic. Moreover a lot of his ‘‘truths’’ are
universal wisdoms that predate him.
Natalie: Yes. They’re in Lao Tzu; they’re in Buddhist writings, and so on.
Keith: The second point which I think is pertinent to this part of our discussion is
that there’s a distinction between offering structure and directing
experience. Coghlan and McIlduff [1990] made this point with regard to
groups. Being nondirective is about not violating people’s experience. You
talk about this, both in your published work and in the lecture. You’re
willing to set up a structure, to create a stimulating environment – which is
one of your conditions of creativity [see above]. None of that says that you
want to direct people to have a particular experience; if anything, it seems
to me that you want people to have an experience, their own experience. In
some ‘‘person-centered’’ circles there seems to be a fear of putting a chair
somewhere, or having art materials around, or saying ‘‘You might use
paints instead of crayons.’’
Natalie: Yes, I agree. Offering art material is offering a medium. However, words
are also a medium. Are we using words, or are we using a pen, or colors?
The arts are a language for self-expression. It seems difficult for some
people to realize that offering an open-ended structure so that people can
have a creative experience is not directing their outcome.
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 41

Keemar: Yes, being nondirective creates an environment in which the organism can
actualize; but the therapist is another organism and necessarily also has an
impact on the environment, including the client’s. Our task is to be
nondirective, but everything I am and do has an impact on the
environment, and on my clients. As Brodley [1999/2005] put it: ‘‘all
therapies influence their clients . . . A therapy must influence in order to be
effective’’ [p. 1].
Natalie: Thinking about my experience of ‘‘nonstructured’’ large groups in which
we worked for seven summers – with Carl, John K. Wood, Maureen
O’Hara, Maria Bowen, myself and others – after stepping back from it, I
realized what a powerful structure that ‘‘non structure’’ was. There were
powerful group norms that were not verbalized – that’s my opinion. As
facilitators we rather arrogantly thought we were not using structures, but,
indeed, as I look more at group process and how we behaved as
facilitators, there was very definitely a structure.
Keemar: You were saying yesterday that part of that unspoken structure was that
the group ended when Carl put his shoes on . . .
Natalie: . . . or when the dinner bell rang!
Keith: I think the issue is making the structure explicit: whether that comes from
walking into a room, or setting up a course.
Natalie: I like the way you’re putting that. We are setting up a structure to allow
people to have an experience; we’re not directing the experience. I never
thought of putting it that way. I like what you’re adding to this, it helps.
Keith: The third response to the question of directiveness, I think, concerns our
verbal culture. The verbal culture, the ‘‘talking therapy’’ culture is only
one aspect of human experience, and if we stay with that we may, in a
subtle sense, actually be being directive. Whereas, if we integrate other
media – dance, song, music, painting – that is much more organismic and
holistic. When we help people move, sometimes literally move, we may be
facilitating them more than if we only operate in one verbal mode or
medium. Conversely, if, as a therapist, I am only focusing on clients’
verbal communication, and only responding verbally, I may be doing
them a disservice and supporting their stuckness in one medium or
modality. If I’m in danger of being directive, I’m willing to go there, if
we’re going to help people to get out of a purely verbal culture and to add
something to that.
Keemar: I was reflecting on the work yesterday and my own practice as a therapist.
Everything in some sense is directive. I practice from a room that only has
chairs and that actually does direct somebody’s experience: they need to
come in, sit down and talk. Like you, I get a little irritated with ‘‘directive
or nondirective?’’ because actually everything has an impact on some-
body’s experience. The important issue is whether or not we have that as
an intention: not to direct somebody’s experience but to be able to
acknowledge that if you only talk to me as a therapist, that is going to
direct your experience. I was also thinking that I am really interested in
changing the space in which I practice as a therapist, and to extend or
expand that space, with different media and an opportunity for people to
move or use other ways of expressing themselves in their therapeutic
process. I have a vision of a therapy studio . . .
42 N. Rogers et al.

Natalie: You may be joined by a few others who seem to be inspired by their
expressive arts experience, here. When I come to Temenos and teach/
facilitate expressive arts, I am teaching your students who are already well
trained in the person-centered approach and client-centered therapy. So, I
only need to offer them the theory and experiential aspects of expressive
arts and how to apply their empathic listening skills within that
framework. They get it very quickly. At home [the USA] most students
or workshop participants only know client-centered methods from a
chapter or two in a textbook. This means I also have to teach the person-
centered philosophy and have people practice the core conditions.
I trust you, Keemar, that, when you expand your practice to include the
arts and a client shows you her painting, you’re not going to interpret it
because you’re deeply person-centered. At home students tend to think
they need to offer their interpretation or solutions or give advice because
they haven’t had the years of training in the person-centered approach.
Keemar: Here at Temenos we have created a process in the training in that our
focus is not on training person-centered therapists, but to offer a person-
centered experience of training to become a therapist. As Rogers [1951]
put it: ‘‘no student can or should be trained to become a client-centered
therapist . . . It is far more important that [the student] be true to his
experience than that he should coincide with any known therapeutic
orientation’’ [pp. 432–433].
Natalie: That’s a wonderful distinction.
Keemar: . . . and the learning is through that experience. In the second two years of
the Diploma course there is no formal curriculum: it’s completely created
by the student cohort, and is different every year . . .
Louise: . . . and that’s been validated. We’ve been really trusted by the [Middlesex]
University to ensure a quality training through that process . . .
Keith: . . . To be that therapist which one truly is!

Having discussed the principles of the PCA with regard to PCEAT, in our
conversation we turned our attention to Natalie’s application of PCEAT to healing
and to peace work.

The application of PCEAT: The personal – and the expressive – is political

Keith: I’d be interested to talk a little about the application of PCEAT. What do you
see as the link between personal healing and world healing? What is the
translation between an individual feeling more ‘‘at ease’’ and, for that matter,
less ‘‘dis-eased,’’ and her or him taking that out into the world?
Natalie: Carl often said, ‘‘What is deeply personal is universal.’’ I agree. To me that
means that when we unfold to our deepest emotions of fear, sadness, rage,
joy, sexuality and ecstasy we are aware that these feelings are a part of
every human experience. Thus we are able to be more compassionate with
those who are different from us. Our deepest emotions are experienced by
all people in every culture.
Louise: Yes, also, I’m interested in how – or whether – you see a role for the
expressive arts in the movement from a personal engagement with political
ideas to public ideas.
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 43

Natalie: Yes. The expressive arts are profound in helping people become aware of
all their feelings and particularly help them accept their dark or shadow
side. The arts are a way to channel that energy constructively. You can
dance your rage, paint your fear, or despair. Then several things happen:
you discover how to find inner balance, inner peace. You are not so likely
to view people who disagree with you as the ‘‘other’’ or the enemy; in
other words, you are likely to have more compassion. This result is
becoming empowered to go out and take action. It is different for each
individual, of course. However, when each one of us comes from a very
clear emotional place we are a light, a candle, a force in the world. When
we come from such a spiritual place, we will radiate that out in concentric
circles. The Buddhist paradigm says that the inner light is it; the way to
peace is for each one of us to find inner peace. But that’s not organized or
organizing. Sometimes political activists – which I am at times as well –
say ‘‘Well, that’s not enough.’’ The expressive arts stir up, enliven and
enhance our creativity, which helps us move in the direction of our full
potential of the role we want to play in the world.
Keith: That’s the emerging person, the political person?
Natalie: Yes. I remember one woman in a student group I worked with feeling
devastated and overwhelmed by certain world events. By the end of the
workshop she went out with a greater sense of herself, saying ‘‘I’m going
to be more responsive and do things that I need to do, politically, in my
own way.’’
Keith: So expressive therapy is more about the individual’s empowerment and
capacity to go forth, than about organizing for collective action. Perhaps
that’s another step, whereby people who feel more at peace or at ease with
themselves and feel more empowered as a result of their work with the
expressive arts and therapy could then go forward and organize. As the
Swedish American labor activist, Joe Hill, put it: ‘‘Don’t mourn,
organize.’’ For me it’s that sort of collective action that’s often missing
in the world of therapy. Expressive therapy encourages more of an
individual emergence than a collective emergence. I guess there’s still a
question in there which is, if I am more of an emerging person [see Rogers,
1980], am I likely to link up with other people and to take collective
action?
Louise: Yes, what’s the impetus?
Natalie: Yes, do people actually get more engaged? That would be an interesting
piece of research. I believe they do because once we’ve opened up our own
creative process, including thinking creatively, allowing thoughts to
become clear, then our actions become clear. We have more options on
how to respond to world events. When we’re feeling more centered, whole
and present with the world, rather than feeling depressed on the one side
or violent on the other side, then we have more options on how to
respond, whether it’s to a war or a hurricane, an international or personal
grief. I know for myself that when I am able to channel my energy
appropriately I can then respond politically to what’s happening, rather
than feeling hopeless. To give an example, I was running an expressive
therapy workshop. It was Martin Luther King Day [18th January], which
[in 2002] was also the day of a demonstration against America’s war on
44 N. Rogers et al.

Iraq. We were all feeling hopeless and despairing but, as a result of the
four-day workshop in which we listened and responded to each other as
we danced, painted and discussed our grief, anger and pain, when people
left they took a political stance. Precisely how they – and we – translate
that into some form of political action is, of course, up to the individual. I
prefer to say that they (we) respond to world events with appropriate
reaction. [To Louise] Does that resonate with you?
Louise: Yes. I’m thinking of when trainees, and particularly those early on in their
training, say ‘‘Well, this is all very well, and it’s very nice in here, and we’re
nice to each other, but it’s not like out there in the world.’’ ‘‘What happens
[they ask] when, as a result of therapy, people get more comfortable? What’s
the impetus to change anything about the world? Do people stop caring
about others?’’ These questions can be challenging. In response, I talk about
our tendency as human beings to actualize and to become more of who we
are. This, together with experiencing acceptance and understanding, enables
you to have more energy available: you know yourself better, you can
resonate more with what’s happening for other people, and feel more
empathic towards others. In general, you can be more responsive and,
therefore, more likely to be impelled to do something about the world.
Natalie: It is also true that when we access our creativity – and one way this happens is
through the expressive arts – it brings forth independent thinking. We have
seen how dictators squelch art and all creative endeavors, because a creative,
spontaneous person will not tolerate conformity. In the last chapter of my
book [N. Rogers, 1993/2000] I discuss how creativity overrides conformity
and self-empowerment prepares us for action.
I should also add that many people are using the expressive arts in
large community meetings to help people connect with their personal feelings
and thoughts and share them with their neighbors. One colleague invited her
community to come and express their feelings after the tragedy of 9/11 [i.e.,
the attack on the World Trade Center on 11th September 200l]. She said they
were very appreciative of the opportunity to use creative expression in a time
of deep tragedy when it was difficult to find any words or utter them. There
are many applications of the expressive arts for community building. I have
used the arts to help people envision peace.
Keemar: I was thinking that in the Creative Connection [N. Rogers, 1993/2000] you
quote a colleague of yours, Ben Hedges, who says that one of the most
profound ways of working towards peace is to embody and be peace: that
really putting the emphasis on the individual being peaceful in the world:
that if you are – or be – peace, that this has an impact on peace movement.
Natalie: Absolutely. I think he’s paraphrasing a statement of Mahatma Gandhi’s:
‘‘Be the change you want in the world’’ . . . and that makes me think of
something we haven’t discussed or tapped into. I have known for years
that there are times when the pain or the despair that I feel is not mine; it is
coming from someplace else in the world. Also, it interests me that as a
woman walks in [Louise had joined the group late] I’m already thinking
about this: about the feminine and the masculine. Of course, anyone can
access that kind of information, that way of knowing. However, it is most
often experienced and talked about by women. At times I have known
intuitively about things that were catastrophic, whether it was something
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 45

happening to one of my kids, or something happening in another country.

I think this also has to do with opening up the creative channels that we
have, allowing information in as well as giving it out. This is why the movie
What the Bleep Do We Know? made by quantum physicists, molecular
biologists, and neurologists, is so validating: what we are experiencing
personally, and subjectively is validated objectively. Quantum physics is
demonstrating and saying: ‘‘Yes, what you are experiencing is valid. We
are all One’’ . . . and, among other aspects of being all One, we have the
potential to heal people at a distance with a focused energy.
Keith: I don’t know if you know of Andrew Samuels and his work on
psychotherapy and politics [Samuels, 1992, 2001]. He’s been doing some
interesting work, linking these two worlds, which includes running what
he refers to as ‘‘political clinics’’: workshops and conferences on
psychological approaches to politics. One of the questions he asks in
these clinics is: ‘‘If the world were your client, what would you do?’’
Natalie: That’s a powerful question! If humanity was my client I would do my best to
open my heart to listen to and understand their terrible suffering, the
injustices, the outrage. I believe the terrorist acts that are happening have
root causes of oppression, poverty and a sense of hopelessness by those who
commit them. I would offer them a lot of clay to pound and to mould their
grief, and paint to express their despair. It is amazing how such visual release
transforms some of these feelings. . . . and I would put on music so we could
dance together, and paint to transcend these feelings. At the same time, of
course, we would need to address ways to shift those root causes so that
justice and a basic level of health and wellbeing were achieved.
Keemar: I was reflecting on your question and answer, Louise [to the question posed
by students], and on the connection from the personal to the political. One of
the criticisms of person-centered therapy and, maybe, therapy in general, is
that it promotes and develops individuals, selfishness . . .
Natalie: . . . narcissism . . .
Keemar: . . . yes, and an undue focus on self. What we are talking about,
describing – and what we experienced [yesterday] – is that, actually, as
we become more ourselves, we release energy. In other words, the
organism’s tendency is to be out more, to be out in the world more. So
there’s a paradox that when we become more ourselves, we become more
interested in others, community, politics, and the world.
Natalie: Yes, and more connected to the welfare of people and the planet. I think
that’s true, although there may be a certain self-selection of people who
come to us. Nevertheless, the more people can free themselves from their
own distress and become more whole, the more giving to others they
become.
Keith: Yes, and I think there’s a difference here between the analytic approach
and the person-centered approach. Samuels’s work in this area, as
represented in his question, frames the discussion in terms of the world
coming to the individual, and, in his terms, an interest in the therapist’s
countertransference. In our discussion the movement is more from the
individual out into the world. It reminds me of the challenge President
Kennedy posed in his inaugural address in 1961: ‘‘Ask not what your
country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.’’
46 N. Rogers et al.

Summary
PCEAT is a form of creative arts therapy based on the principles and informed by
the conditions of the PCA. It develops Carl Rogers’s theory of creativity and
challenges some notions about the theory and practice of nondirectivity.

References
Arntz, W., Chasse, B., & Vincente, M. (Producers & Directors). (2004). What the bleep do we
know? [Film]. Los Angeles: Roadside Attractions.
Bell, J. (2007). Person-centred expressive supervision. In K. Tudor & M. Worrall (Eds.),
Freedom to practise II: Developing person-centred approaches to supervision (pp. 59–71).
Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books.
Brodley, B.T. (2005). About the non-directive attitude. In B. E. Levitt (Ed.), Embracing non-
directivity: Reassessing person-centered theory and practice in the 21st century. Ross-on-
Wye, UK: PCCS Books. (Original work published 1999).
Capra, F. (1975). The tao of physics. Boulder, CO: Shambala.
Capra, F. (1983). The turning point. London: Fontana.
Coghlan, D., & McIlduff, E. (1990). Structuring and nondirectiveness in group facilitation.
Person-Centered Review, 5, 13–29.
Cozolino, L. (2002). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Building and rebuilding the human
brain. New York: W. Norton & Company.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper.
Embleton Tudor, L., Keemar, K., Tudor, K., Valentine, J., & Worrall, M. (2004). The person-
centred approach: A contemporary introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). London:
Fontana Press. (Original work published 1983).
Houston, J. (1982). The possible human: A course in enhancing your physical, mental, and
creative abilities. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. London: Constable.
Rogers, C.R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality
change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.
Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, as
developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a
science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, C.R. (1967). ‘‘This is me.’’ In On becoming a person (pp. 3–27). London: Constable.
(Original work published 1953).
Rogers, C.R. (1967). Toward a theory of creativity. In On becoming a person (pp. 347–359).
London: Constable. (Original work published 1954).
Rogers, C.R. (1967). A process conception of psychotherapy. In On becoming a person (pp.
125–159). London: Constable. (Original work published in 1958).
Rogers, C.R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C.R., & Russell, D.E. (2002). Carl Rogers, the quiet revolutionary: An oral history.
Roseville, CA: Penmarin Books.
Rogers, N. (2000). The creative connection: Expressive arts as healing. Ross-on-Wye, UK:
PCCS Books. (Original work published 1993).
Rogers, N. (2004). Expressive arts for peace: Using the creative process to connect to the world
(Temenos, Producer). [DVD]. Available from Temenos, 55 Westbourne Road, Sheffield
S10 2QT, UK.
Rogers, N. (2011). The creative connection for groups: Person-centered expressive arts for
healing and social change. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Samuels, A. (1992). The political psyche. London: Routledge.
Samuels, A. (2001). Politics on the couch: Citizenship and the internal life. London: Profile Books.
Sanders, P. (2000). Mapping person-centred approaches to counselling and psychotherapy.
Person-Centred Practice, 8, 62–74.
 Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies 47

Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G. (2001). Left brain, right brain: Perspectives from cognitive
neuroscience (5th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tudor, K., & Worrall, M. (2006). Person-centred therapy: A clinical philosophy. London:
Routledge.
Winnicott, D.W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in
the theory of emotional development. London: Hogarth Press/Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Copyright of Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies is the property of PCCS Books Ltd. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.