The Large Community Group
The intent of this chapter is to: (1) Describe the history
and some
features of person-centered community groups; (2) State
several
theoretical and functional assumptions of these community
groups; (3) Discuss the role of facilitators (or conveners)
in the
large groups; and (4) Offer some emerging research findings
from
qualitative research.
Personal Background in relation to groups
First, a note about my background in experiencing
person-centered community groups. As I stated earlier,
I learned
about the person-centered approach working with chronic,
long-term hospitalized psychotics and neurotics in state
mental
hospitals as a Psychiatric Rehabilitation Counselor.
My first
experience leading a group was with a heterogeneous
group of
patient who had been placed in group homes outside
of the
hospital. I was exposed briefly at this time to community
group
meetings in one state hospital where patients voted on
off-grounds passes, medical treatment and other similar
decisions for their fellow patients. Other than that
I had no
experience in therapy or growth groups.
I facilitated many Basic Encounter Groups of rehabilitation
agency clients and of graduate students prior to attending
the
renowned client-centered encounter group known as the
La Jolla
Program. After the La Jolla Group experience in 1974,
I was a
participant in person-centered community groups of one
kind or
another for, at least, one time a year to the current
date. I also
facilitated (or convened) large groups numerous times,
more
recently (since 1987) coordinating and being one of the
conveners of the annual Person-Centered Workshop in Warm
Springs, Georgia.
My first experience as a group leader in the psychiatric
hospital
was with a group of about fifteen individuals who had
entered a
group home outside of the hospital after twenty or more
years as
hospital patients. The group was established in order
to permit
me to meet with all of the individuals during my community
trips
each week. In short, nearly every semblance of the group
violated the traditional knowledge about groups (since
I didnt
know much about the group literature at the time). There
were
over 15 participants in the group who usually met under
a shade
tree. The structure consisted of my request for us to
meet . . .to
see how things are going. It was a heterogeneous group
that
was diagnosed with a variety of labels. For example,
members
included a sixty year old male with chronic alcoholism:
undifferentiated type; a sixteen year old male schizophrenic,
hebephrenic; a mentally retarded (IQ: 50s) thirty
year old
woman; a forty year old male manic-depressive; a thirty-five
year old female schizophrenic, hebephrenic; a forty-five
year old
male schizophrenic, paranoid, and a variety of individuals
with
still other diagnostic labels. They simply had the opportunity
to
talk (or not talk) about anything. No rules, directions,
orientation
were ever given. It was years later that I discovered
that nearly
everything about the group went against guidelines for
groups.
Nevertheless, standard criteria suggested that every
member
made clinically significant progress.
It was from this early experience in the psychiatric hospital
that
I became interested in groups and was involved as a facilitator
and participant many times and in many kinds of groups
over the
years. These experiences included participation in Gestalt
groups, Adlerian groups, Psychodrama, Tiger training,
encounter
groups, and T-groups. I personally facilitated client-centered
groups with graduate students, vocational rehabilitation
clients,
out-patients from mental hospitals and others. I had
some
experience observing several therapeutic community groups
in
mental hospitals but did not experience large community
groups
until 1974 in the community meetings at the La Jolla
program.
My dye was probably cast by this time. Every year from
that year,
I was a participant in groups of some type with Rogers
and his
various colleagues. I became in effect a participant/observer
who, I have been told, Rogers viewed as a puzzle and
wondered,
Why does this guy come to these groups. He never says
anything. As an aside, I have always wondered why he
forgot his
own admonishment when he thought a Japanese woman who
never said anything in any of his classes . . .couldnt
possibly be
getting anything from the class. When she turned out
to be the
major force promoting the client-centered approach in
Japan,
Rogers said that he would never again assume that he
could
predict what a person was learning. I also noticed that
over the
years in the large groups, he became more silent himself
with
less need to respond to individuals. It was, at least,
somewhat
satisfying to me to view Rogers as moving more towards
a
stance in the community groups that was more akin to
my way of
thinking about convener activity in the groups.
In 1986, several client-centered advocates envisioned
an annual
workshop which developed into what has become known as
the
Warm Springs experience which held the twelfth meeting
in 1998
(Eleven of the twelve workshops through 1998 were at
Warm
Springs, Georgia). This gave me the opportunity to participate
and observe an ongoing experiment with large groups.
The Historical Development
The person-centered community group evolved from the
framework of the client-centered approach as depicted
and
researched by Carl R. Rogers and his colleagues. The
central
theoretical base is that of Rogers (1959) statement
of the
Client-Centered Theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal
relationships. This statement is summarized in several
other
chapters in this book.
The community group evolved with Rogers expanding interests.
Rogers more expanded interests and efforts evolved from
his
interest in individual psychotherapy (1940s & 1950s)
to the
Basic Encounter Group (the term applied to client-centered
encounter groups; 1960s; see Chapter 17) of eight to
ten
individuals. The term person-centered crystallized in
the 1970s
to denote the application of the principles of client-centered
therapy to areas other than psychotherapy. Rogers and
his
colleagues started to experiment with the concept of
large
community groups of fifty to three-hundred or more individuals
(Rogers, 1977). This experiment increasingly involved
more and
more individuals from different cultures and eventually
led to an
emphasis on cross-cultural groups often represented by
twenty
or more nationalities. The work of Chuck Devonshire (1991)
in
developing client-centered training programs in Europe
added to
the focus on cross-cultural groups. Eventually, the cross-cultural
groups provided Rogers with a foundation in which to
attempt
workshops focusing on client-centered principles for
societal
change. One of his major intentions was to assist with
the
diminishing of international tensions among nations.
John K.
Wood (1984; 1994a; 1994b) has pointed to some of the
difficulties
in such groups including the difficulty of operating
in the way
that Rogers proposed. I have been told that in 1987,
Rogers was
recognized for this societal effort by being one of the
individuals
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, when
he
received this nomination he was in a coma preceding his
death.
Some Features
The person-centered community group usually refers to
a group
of thirty to three hundred individuals who meet for three
days to
two weeks in a psychological atmosphere founded upon
the
principles of the person-centered approach. The setting
is
generally one in which participants will have contacts
in their
daily activities including dormitory rooms with shared
baths,
cafeteria meals, and facilities which offer opportunities
for
participants to meet each other. There are generally
small
groups, topic groups, paper presentations, experiential
activities
such as expressive therapy; and recreational activities.
These
may or may not be structured prior to the meeting. They
often
develop from the large group community meeting. It is
the large
group meeting of all participants that might be described
as the
one major activity of person-centered community groups.
The
large group involves the meeting of all workshop participants
who choose to attend a nondirective meeting. There
are
facilitators who are dedicated to the principles of the
approach
and who have previously experienced such groups. These
facilitators presume various responsibilities depending
upon the
particular facilitators. However, they are for the most
part willing
to go with the direction and pace of the group.
In such groups, there are usually periods of silence,
anger,
attempts to organize, criticism of the facilitators and
expression
of various emotions as well as, at times, long dialogues
by
participants. In the case of cross-cultural workshops,
the verbal
communications are translated into one or two languages.
Personal encounters among individuals and power struggles
among group factions often occur. These large groups
usually
meet for three or more hours. They usually meet, at least,
once
each day although they have remained as the only agreed
upon
meeting of the community in some workshops. The development
of the "formal" activities of the workshop usually emerges
from
these meetings.
Person-Centered Theory
This basic premise of person-centered theory is that the
human
being moves naturally towards constructive growth and
development of his/her inherent potentialities and that
such
growth is fostered by an identifiable, attitudinal environment
created by the attitudes of the therapist. Again, this
critical
assumption is repeated in this book as a continuous reminder
of
the foundation block of the theory (Rogers, 1980). I
have also
periodically stated that the three conditions of congruency,
empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard
are
integrally interrelated and functionally necessary and
sufficient. I
have concluded from Rogers major theoretical statement
and his
personality theory that the curative condition in the
theory is that
of unconditional positive regard (Bozarth, 1992). Genuineness
is
the state of the therapist/facilitator/convener that
enables him or
her to experience empathic understanding and unconditional
regard for other individuals. I suggest it is consistent
with
Rogers statements to conclude that empathic understanding
is
the pure vehicle or vessel for communicating unconditional
positive regard. I believe that this idea is basic to
Rogers
general theoretical statement. I think that this schema
of the
theory has implications for further consideration of
the theory as
related to community groups.
Theory and Application in the Community Group
The person-centered community group can be summarized
as
one application of the basic premise of the person-centered
approach; i.e., dedication of facilitators to the natural
growth
process of individuals and of the universe. This is the
fundamental theoretical point in the person-centered
approach
which is true whether or not the approach is implemented
in
individual therapy, The Basic Encounter Group, Person-Centered
Family Therapy, organizations, the community group or
any other
human activity (Bozarth, 1991a). Several of the functional
manifestations of facilitators operating on this premise
in
community groups are that facilitators (or conveners)
entrust
themselves to: (1) Trust group wisdom as well as individual
wisdom; (2) Become participants in the group as well
as
facilitators; (3) Trust the inherent therapeutic potential
of all
members realizing that any particular person may be more
therapeutic with any particular group member than any
of the
facilitators; (4) Combine the spontaneous, genuine
responsiveness with their desire and efforts to understand,
and
(5) Relinquish control of outcome, direction, or mood
(Bozarth,
1988). The following axioms seem to me appropriate for
person-centered community groups:
Axiom 1:
The basic intent of the person-centered approach is to
perpetuate the nature and destiny of humans and, in doing
so, to
perpetuate the nature and destiny of the universe. By
considering
the actualizing and formative tendencies, this axiom
was
developed. The large group exemplifies this axiom in
that a
major intent of the facilitator is to create the trusting
atmosphere
that promotes both individual growth and the wisdom
of the
group.
Axiom 2
The primary thrust and abiding intent is to be a genuine
person
who attempts to understand and who accepts the world
of the
other person from the perspective of that person. It
is interesting
that Rogers comments on understanding in the community
group
suggests the importance of the intention to understand
and the
willingness to have no preconceptions of what might occur.
He
states:
Thats one of the duties of learning to be truly empathic.
You may
not have known that this would occur-or that would crop-up-but
your whole mind-set is a readiness to understand, to
try to grasp
what it is that has meaning for the person at this point
and that
gets across to the group- that desire to understand.
(Rogers,
1975, p. 63)
Axiom 3
Individuals move toward the best growth mode available
to them
through their own best process. Another comment of Rogers
relates to this axiom and is reflective of periodic references.
He
said, The whole aim is to relinquish any attempt to
control the
outcome, to control the direction, to control the mood
(Rogers,1987, p. 64).
Axiom 4
The infusion of ones self into the group as a genuine
person and
group member helps to facilitate the group. Rogers indicated
specifically that one thing about the facilitator is
the need for
genuineness (Rogers, 1988, p. 68). Genuineness helped
him to
be more one of the group (p. 68) and to even help a
group realize
that I really was experiencing the whole thing with
them (p. 69).
Maintenance of spontaneity and openness to the
moment-by-moment process of group communication (p.
68) was
one way he referred to the intertwining of genuineness
and
empathy in the large group.
Axiom 5
There is no pre-supposition of what people will be like,
or do, or
become during or after the group experience. One of the
essential points in person-centered theory is that those
with
designated leadership roles, accept what is (Rogers,
1987, p.
65). Rogers thoughts on this point are relevant here
in view of
discussions about facilitator roles. In The Association
for The
Development of the person-centered approach newsletter,
the
Renaissance, Rogers states:
If youre going to expect a certain degree of affect-if
you expect
that of the process-then that can be artificial. If the
degree of
affect is what is comfortable, reasonable, or natural
for this
person, this group, then thats fine (Rogers, 1987, p.
65).
And, more specifically stated: Its best to be fairly
naive or not
full of expectations (Rogers, 1987, p. 65).
I believe that these are important fundamental axioms
when
considering person-centered community groups.
The Facilitator or Convener
My major conclusions about facilitators in such groups
are the
following (Bozarth, 1996):
(1) It is most ideal not to have facilitators;
(2) If there are designated facilitators, they shouldnt
do very
much except be themselves;
and
(3) That pre-conceived ideas about groups emanating from
other
theoretical stances have contaminated person-centered
views
and practice in groups as well as in individual therapy
(Bozarth,
1996).
These conclusions are based upon the theoretical considerations
previously mentioned, Rogers comments and my own
observations and experiences.
Some Evolutionary Considerations
More recently, my thinking has been influenced by recent
research, the Warm Spring Workshop experiences, and by
mulling over the theoretical underpinnings of Rogers
theory of
therapy and interpersonal relationships.
An extensive qualitative study of person-centered community
groups offers some fascinating findings (Stubbs, 1992).
First, she
found support for the construct of the actualizing tendency
as
the foundation block of the person-centered approach.
Her
findings also suggested support for the importance of
participants experiencing genuineness and unconditional
positive regard during the workshops. In addition, the
importance
of nondirectivity was supported as a basic theoretical
premise.
Also of particular interest was the lack of reference
and support
for experiencing empathic understanding from others.
Likewise,
there were frequent references of interviewees to perceived
facilitators that suggested that the facilitators might
have been
viewed as important; however, the importance was non-specific.
That is, there were no common facilitator characteristics
or
behaviors that were noted as particularly important.
Mearns (1994) discusses the large unstructured group in
relation
to training of person-centered counselors punctuated
with the
comment: The release into congruence enhances both the
quality and the quantity of the counselors unconditional
positive
regard and empathy (p. 43). This is in accord with my
thoughts
on the nature of the central concept even though I believe
it is
more complex due to the intertwining of the conditions
(Bozarth,
1993).
Although Rogers often discussed the facilitator as the
person
who embodies the attitudes, it is the actualizing tendency
of the
client that is the foundation block of the theory. This
is the
natural motivational force of each individual of .
. .a tendency
toward fulfillment, toward actualization, involving not
only
maintenance but also the enhancement of the organism
(Rogers,
1980, p. 123). He continues to say that humans are always
doing
the best they can with a . . .flow of movement toward
constructive fulfillment of its inherent possibilities
(p. 117). The
bottom line is explicit in Rogers theory; that is, it
is the client
who has the capacities and inner resources. The climate
of
unconditional positive regard enables individuals to
develop their
own unconditional positive self esteem freeing them from
the
interjections of conditional regard by society (Bozarth,
1993).
Some learnings from the Warm Springs Workshops
The first Person-Centered Workshop at Warm Springs, Georgia
took place in 1987. Carl Rogers had died just a week
before. The
idea of an ongoing workshop was initiated at the first
meeting of
the Associatin for the Development of the Person-Centered
Approach (ADPCA) in Chicago. The facilitators who were
involved
were: Barbara Brodley, Chuck Devonshire, Nat Raskin,
Dave
Spahn, Fred Zimring and myself.
These individuals were identified as staff on the brochure
and
had somewhat varying ideas of what it meant to facilitate
a
person-centered group. A core of students acquainted
with
person-centered principles from the University of Georgia
was
quite actively involved in creating the psychological
environment
of the workshop. Warm Springs is the name of the Georgia
town
in which the Little White House existed during the administration
of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt spent much
of the
year at the center where he was close to treatment resources
for
polio. This historical site seems appropriate for the
person-centered workshops.
Over the twelve meetings through 1998, there was a shift
towards not identifying staff or facilitators. This took
place to the
point that only my name was on the 1996, 1997 & 1998
brochures as the person to whom to send registration
forms.
Only Dave Spahn, Nat Raskin and myself who had been
designated conveners of the 1987 workshop attended the
1997
and 1998 meetings. There were, however, other participants
who
had attended most of the workshops. The first seven workshops
were held for four days while the 1995 and 1996 years
were
seven days. The 1997 workshop was changed from a seven-day
workshop to a three-day workshop due to low enrollment
in the
first session. Attendance was always mobile and fluid.
There
were always some individuals who came for only a part
of a day
and some who came, left and returned. There has always
been a
structure on the brochure that included the community
group,
topic groups and small groups. However, the schedule
was
seldom adhered to in any structured way. The community
meeting was the core site of scheduling. I will mention
some of
my observations about this experience. These observations
are:
1. The event was in large part emergent. That is, there
was
virtually no planning and little conventional organization.
2. Although there were no designated facilitators, some
individuals assumed that there were and, as well, identified
other
participants as facilitators. A few people assumed that
the
student coordinator and myself were the facilitators.
Others
assumed prominent individuals were the facilitators.
That is,
varying participants chose to perceive varying individuals
as the
designated facilitators (A point consistent with Stubbs
findings).
3. There were often statements at the end of the workshops
that
the experience had . . . changed my life . . . ;
. . . been an
exceptional experience . . . ; . . .will have a major
impact on my
life . . . There were also some who complained that
the group
should have been different but who continued to come
back year
after year. About half of the participants never return
for reasons
which vary dramatically. In addition, There were wide
varieties
of perception of the event itself from those who attended.
After
one workshop, I heard a range of explanations to others
by
participants that included: . . .It was a big party;
. . .It was
group therapy . . .; . . .great intellectual experience
. . .; . . .it
was a family reunion. . . ; . . . it was so terribly
intense. . .
4. I periodically thought that the 1994, 1995 and 1996
workshops
verged on the edge of being laissez-faire. I personally
became a
bit concerned. Several times, only a couple of individuals
of the
community came for the scheduled community meetings.
Yet,
the community group at the end of the workshop was one
that
reflected cohesion and individual satisfaction.
5. Considerable dissatisfaction was expressed during the
1995
workshop when I did not go to one of the community meetings.
It
was reported that the group was leaderlessly walking
the
grounds looking for me. One person was ready to leave
and
another wanted a refund of her registration fee. The
concerned
group met for the entire night and the next day had changed
their
view to that of having had a very positive workshop experience.
I have reached the conclusion from the Warm Springs experience
that designated facilitators, workshop format, or the
presence or
absence of particular individuals are of little relevance.
When
people feel fundamentally free to be who they are at
the moment,
they move in constructive directions. And that it is
often in the
struggle that they find freedom and growth. The relevant
question to ask might be: "How is that atmosphere created?
The
general answer is . . .to be free to be themselves."
Coulsons comment on encounter groups is, perhaps, relevant
in
terms of the role of the designated facilitator in the
community
groups. He suggested that the necessary and sufficient
conditions for encounter is that there be an occasion
for it. The
major characteristic is to have the time for it in an
unstructured
situation. Coulson (1970) specifically states:
This occasion, this sole necessary and sufficient condition
of the
encounter, is one of stopping the action long enough
for people
really to come to see one another, for them gradually
to have
with one another the things which are so simple--to weep,
to be
held, to be loved-that people ordinarily are too embarrassed
to
mention them (p. 10).
Coulson suggests, though, that people need permission
to talk
differently from the way they talk in ordinary social
discourse.
Hence, individuals who have been in previous encounter
experiences, or . . .permission-giving facilitators
can help
individuals to not . . .while away the time chit-chatting,
vying for
leadership, or in other ways avoiding honest expression
(p. 10).
As to the role of the facilitator:
. . .But put a facilitator in the room, imply that s/he
knows what
hes doing and then suggest to him that s/he not do anything,
except perhaps to gently express his/her own feeling
from time
to time, and this assignment of leadership will both
prevent
people from wasting time with such social maneuvers as
contending over leadership them-selves, and also give
them
sufficient permission to speak honestly. People need
an excuse
at first to speak honestly, and the mere presence of
an expert
can be sufficient excuse- he (she) doesnt have to do
anything
special (Coulson, 1970, p.10).
Although Coulson is referring to the Basic Encounter Group,
he
also echoes the role for conveners in the community groups.
Coulsons observations resonate to the importance of
the
nondirectivity and lack of interference. The important
aspect of
group facilitation is that an atmosphere exists where
individuals
are free to be themselves while overall experiencing
themselves
as being unconditionally accepted by someone. In therapy,
Rogers hypothesized that individuals adaptation of unconditional
positive regard for themselves is related to experiencing
such
regard from the therapist as a significant other. In
groups, there
is no particular reason that the significant other should
be the
facilitator. In fact, when freedom in the community exists,
there
are many significant others accepting any given individual.
Recent Research Findings
As mentioned above, an extensive well designed qualitative
research study of person-centered community groups offers
some considerations for theory and practice of the
person-centered approach in community groups (Stubbs,
1992). A
more detailed look at Stubbs study is revealing. She
used
heuristic methodology to study individual experiencing
in
person-centered community workshops. She interviewed
fifteen
individuals from nine countries at four person-centered
workshop
sites held in Pezinok, Czechoslovakia; Coffeyville, Kansas;
Stirling, Scotland; and Modra Harmonia, Czechoslovakia.
The
range of participants in the groups was from sixty to
three-
hundred-thirty. She summarizes her data analysis in the
following
words:
The emergent depictions, portraits, and a synthesized
integration
of the data produced a dynamic flowing among four categories:
(1) The individual factors of personal influencing including
the
dimensions of identity and societal influencing; (2)
The
community factors of power and diversity; (3) Struggling
depicted
as organizing, dividing, and communicating; and (4) Freeing
characterized by accepting, belonging, experiencing,
empowering, and trusting. These four categories are interactive
with each category flowing into the core category of
evolving.
The findings of the study indicate a process of individuals
evolving and through that evolving experiencing struggling
and
freeing. Within this struggling, the individual synthesizes
his or
her own personal boundaries with the boundaries of community.
(p. 2 abstract)
As referred to earlier, the results of her study supports
the
construct of the actualizing tendency as the foundation
block of
the person-centered approach in community groups. Her
findings
also suggest support for the importance of participants
experiencing genuineness and unconditional positive regard
from
other group members. In addition, the importance of
nondirectivity was supported as an important theoretical
premise. Also of particular interest was the lack of
reference and
support for experiencing the construct of empathic
understanding from others. Likewise, the frequent reference
of
interviewees to facilitators indicated an importance
of the
facilitators; however, the importance was non-specific.
There
were no common facilitator characteristics or behaviors
that
were noted as particularly important. In addition, the
importance
of personal contact was present as was support for the
idea that
the group is a microcosm of society.
Implications of theory, research, axioms and practice
The implications are, simply put, that individuals who
can
experience the freedom to be who they are (unconditional
positive regard) can find themselves becoming freer to
experience growth (actualizing tendency). Facilitators/conveners
create this freeing atmosphere by trusting the process
(hence,
acting in ways that promote that freedom), not interfering
with
struggles, accepting each individual in his or her right
as a
human being and by being open to whatever outcome might
occur. This is the essence of the atmosphere and the
role of the
convener to promote such an atmosphere in person-centered
community groups.
Adapted paper presentations from:
Bozarth, J.D. (1992, August). The person-centered community
group. A paper presented at the America Psychological
Association symposium, Contributions of client-centered
therapy
to American psychology's 100 years. Chaired by Ned Gaylin,
Washington D.C.
and
Bozarth, J. D. (1995, May). Designated facilitators; Unnecessary
and insufficient. A paper presented at the national conference
for
the Association of the Development of the Person-Centered
Approach, Tampa, FL.