Some have observed that Rogers emphasized research from a subjective, phenomenological perspective while also attempting to integrate the “subjective” and the “objective.” Here I would like to clarify what I mean by Rogers’ stance of “bringing himself into the work.”
By this phrase, I am not referring to a theoretical viewpoint, but to something Rogers did as a person—consistently, over decades. Early in his career, he found that the assessment methods he had learned were of limited use in actual practice. Influenced in part by Rank’s emphasis on attending directly to feelings and responding from within them, Rogers began to develop a way of working that treated those he served primarily as persons. In his 1939 book on work with children, he emphasized the counselor’s caring for the client, a position that later gained wide recognition in the field.
He then devoted years to identifying what truly mattered in psychotherapy so that he could teach students something genuinely useful. By the 1950s, he acknowledged that this way of working was effective, while also admitting that its mechanisms were not yet fully understood. Throughout this process, Rogers maintained an open, exploratory attitude, showing little interest in proving theories he had already come to favor. His stance—“I am a person exploring the world from within my own experiential field”—differs fundamentally from an approach that begins with hypotheses and seeks to verify them from a supposedly objective position.
Although Rogers lived long before modern neuroscience, his understanding of subjective reality aligns closely with contemporary views. This convergence reflects his lived openness. As an expert, he insisted on understanding people from the inside, rather than imposing authoritative explanations. At the same time, he fully expressed himself while recognizing that, in any interaction, he was simply one autonomous person meeting another. Neither represented an objective standpoint; instead, meaning emerged through the encounter between two subjective realities.
This, to me, is what it means for Rogers to have “brought himself into the work”: a refusal to assume a godlike position. It also helps explain his resistance to bureaucratic organization. Only late in life did he agree to the formation of a professional organization, which eventually became the ADPCA, whose first conference he attended in Chicago.
