Carl Rogers and Eugene Gendlin on the Bodily Felt Sense : What they share and where they differ

Ikemi
Carl Rogers and Eugene Gendlin on the
Bodily Felt Sense: What they share and
where they differ
Carl Rogers und Eugene Gendlin über den körperlichen Felt Sense: Was ihnen
gemeinsam ist und wo sie sich unterscheiden
Carl Rogers y Eugene Gendlin sobre la sensación sentida en el cuerpo: qué
comparten y en dónde difieren
Akira Ikemi
Kobe College, Japan
Abstract. Client-Centered Therapy developed by Carl Rogers and Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy
developed by Eugene Gendlin share much, and yet they differ in many ways. This paper discusses the
bodily felt sense as a significant phenomenon in both Rogers’ and Gendlin’s theories. Through an
examination of their theories, the author suggests that it may have been Rogers who first made rudimentary
observations of bodily felt senses, or sensory and visceral experiences, and their significance in therapy.
Rogers also made some observations before Eugene Gendlin regarding the experiential process, although
Rogers made no explicit attempt to facilitate that process. Different theoretical paradigms used by Rogers
and Gendlin to understand the bodily felt sense are discussed. Moreover, the paper suggests that later,
Rogers seems to have assimilated parts of Gendlin’s experiential theory, signifying a general understanding
between them: that is, the experiential process happens in a certain manner of relationship characterized
by empathy and acceptance.
Zusammenfassung. Klientenzentrierte Therapie von Carl Rogers und Focusing-Orientierte Psychotherapie
von Eugene Gendlin haben vieles gemeinsam und dennoch unterscheiden sie sich in vielerlei Hinsicht.
Dieser Artikel erörtert den körperlichen Felt Sense als ein signifikantes Phänomen in den Theorien
beider. In seiner Untersuchung ihrer Theorien kommt der Autor zu dem Schluss, dass es vermutlich
Rogers war, der als erster rudimentäre Beobachtungen zu körperlichen Felt Senses oder auch sensorischen
Author Note. I would like to thank Gene Gendlin and Mary Hendricks Gendlin for their valuable
comments on a preliminary version of this paper. I also appreciate Shoji Murayama, who encouraged me
to write this article. Please address correspondence to Akira Ikemi, Kobe College / 4-1 Okadayama /
Nishinomiya 662-8505, Japan. Email: <a-ikemi@mail.kobe-c.ac.jp> (Homepage: http://www.kobe-
c.ac.jp/~a-ikemi).
Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1
© I
2
kemi 1477-9757/05/01XX-12 77

---

Rogers and Gendlin on the Bodily Felt Sense
und viszeralen Erfahrungen und deren Bedeutung für die Therapie machte. Es war auch Rogers, der
noch vor Eugene Gendlin einige Beobachtungen zum experienziellen Prozess machte, obwohl Rogers
nicht explizit versuchte, diesen Prozess zu fördern. Verschiedene theoretische Paradigmen, die Rogers
und Gendlin verwendeten, um den körperlichen Felt Sense zu verstehen, werden diskutiert. Darüber
hinaus stellt der Artikel die These auf, dass Rogers später Teile von Gendlins experienzieller Theorie
aufgenommen zu haben scheint. Dies weist auf ein allgemeines generelles Einverständnis zwischen den
beiden hin, nämlich dass der experienzielle Prozess in einer bestimmten Art von Beziehung geschieht,
die durch Empathie und Akzeptanz charakterisiert ist.
Resumen. La terapia centrada en el cliente desarrollada por Carl Rogers y la psicoterapia orientada en
focusing desarrollada por Eugene Gendlin comparten mucho, y aún así difieren en muchas maneras. Este
artículo discute la sensación sentida en el cuerpo como un fenómeno significativo tanto en la teoría de
Rogers como en la de Gendlin. A partir de una revisión de sus teorías, el autor sugiere que habría sido
Rogers el que realizó las primeras observaciones rudimentarias de sensaciones sentidas en el cuerpo, o
experiencias sensoriales y viscerales, y de su significado en la terapia. Rogers también hizo algunas
observaciones sobre el proceso experiencial antes que Eugene Gendlin, aunque Rogers no hizo ningún
intento explícito para facilitar ese proceso. Se discuten los diferentes paradigmas teóricos usados por
Rogers y Gendlin para comprender la sensación sentida en el cuerpo. Asimismo, el artículo sugiere que
más tarde, Rogers parece haber asimilado partes de la teoría experiencial de Gendlin, lo cual demuestra
una comprensión general entre ellos, en cuanto a que el proceso experiencial tiene lugar en un cierto tipo
de relación caracterizado por empatía y aceptación.
Keywords: Bodily felt sense, Carl Rogers, Eugene Gendlin, Client-Centered Therapy, Focusing-Oriented
Psychotherapy.
Client-Centered Therapy, the theory and practice of psychotherapy developed by Carl Rogers,
and Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy, the theory and practice of psychotherapy developed
by Eugene Gendlin, share much, and yet they differ in many ways. Historically, it may be
possible to locate Gendlin’s Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy as a development of Rogers’
Client-Centered Therapy. Some, including Gendlin, see Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy
as Client-Centered Therapy (1996, p. 301), while others, for example Brodley (1990), see
them as two different therapies.
The issue regarding how Focusing-Oriented Therapy is, or is not, Client-Centered
Therapy can be addressed from many angles. For example, the two therapies may be discussed
and compared in terms of how they are practiced, or in terms of theoretical assumptions and
constructions. In this paper the author considers the bodily felt sense, an important
278 Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1

---

Ikemi
phenomenon shared by both therapies, and then discusses how Carl Rogers and Eugene
Gendlin differed in their theoretical paradigms regarding the felt sense. In this paper I also
suggest that there are traces in Rogers’ writings hinting of a shift in his thinking, away from
his original position and toward incorporating Gendlin’s paradigm. The implications of
these different paradigms for psychotherapy practice will then be discussed.
CARL ROGERS AND THE FELT SENSE
The heading ‘Carl Rogers and the Felt Sense’ may seem strange to many readers, since it was
Eugene Gendlin who coined the term ‘felt sense’, not Carl Rogers. However, through an
examination of Rogers’ writings I am convinced that it was Rogers who first observed and
reported what is now called ‘felt sense’. I base my opinion on Rogers’ book Client-Centered
Therapy, published in 1951. Gendlin (2002a) reflects that he started to work with Rogers
only in 1953, so the book Client-Centered Therapy was written before Eugene Gendlin could
have had any influence on Carl Rogers’ observations and thoughts.
In his book Client-Centered Therapy, Rogers repeatedly refers to what focusing-oriented
therapists now call ‘felt sense’ or ‘bodily felt sense’ by using the term ‘sensory and visceral
experiences’. Surely, the felt sense is ‘sensory’ and it is bodily felt, as if it were of the internal
organs (viscera). Another frequently used expression by Rogers denoting the felt sense was
the ‘gut-level feelings’. Also, he used the term ‘organism’ to imply a bodily felt mode of living,
as opposed to the controls of the introjected conditions of worth. It is clear that Rogers
placed great emphasis on the ‘viscerally and physiologically experienced’ way of being. In one
passage in Client-Centered Therapy, Rogers wrote:
This experience of discovering within oneself present attitudes and emotions which
have been viscerally and physiologically experienced, but which have never been recognized
in consciousness, constitutes one of the deepest and most significant phenomena of
therapy. (Rogers, 1951, p. 76, italics added)
The bodily felt sense is often associated with Focusing, rather than with Client-Centered
Therapy, but clearly Rogers observed here that getting in touch with the bodily felt sense
(‘emotions which have been viscerally and physiologically experienced’) and recognizing its
meaning is one of the ‘deepest and most significant phenomena’ in therapy. This is a particularly
interesting passage because explicating meaning from the felt sense is a process that is now
called ‘Focusing’.1 Thus it may be speculated that Rogers stumbled upon the process that is
now called Focusing, and made rudimentary observations of that process. He did not, however,
intentionally attempt to facilitate the process.
1. One of the confusions regarding Focusing is that the word ‘Focusing’ is often used to denote both the experiential
process happening in the person and the specific instructions which facilitate that process. In this paper I have used
the term ‘focusing’ to mean the experiential process and have used the term ‘focusing responses’ or ‘focusing instruc-
tions’ when the facilitation procedures for focusing is meant.
Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1 279

---

Rogers and Gendlin on the Bodily Felt Sense
On page 49 of Client-Centered Therapy, Rogers wrote:
. . . when the counselor has adopted in a genuine way the function which he
understands to be characteristic of a client-centered counselor, the client tends to
have a vital and releasing experience which has many similarities from one client to
another. (Rogers, 1951)
What is described here seems to be the phenomenon that is now called ‘felt shift’ or ‘experiential
step’. In a felt shift, the experiential process moves forward and the client indeed experiences
a ‘vital and releasing experience’. (See, for example, Gendlin, 1996, ch. 3.) Of course, it is
speculative to conclude, from this short passage, that the phenomenon described here is
really a felt shift, but it may be worthwhile at least to point to the possibility that both the felt
sense and the felt shift, which characterize Focusing-Oriented Therapy, might have been
observed and described by Carl Rogers before Eugene Gendlin.
Rogers apparently did not emphasize the importance of the ‘sensory and visceral
experiences’ as much in his earlier works. For example, in ‘The Case of Herbert Brian’ (Rogers,
1942), where transcripts of his sessions are available, it can be noticed that many of the
bodily felt senses that the client articulates go unresponded to. However, by 1951 the sensory
and visceral experiences begin to play a more significant role in Rogers’ theory. Indeed, the
‘experiencing dimension’ became one of the major undercurrents of Client-Centered Therapy.
SENSORY AND VISCERAL EXPERIENCES IN ROGERS’ PERSONALITY
THEORY
How did Rogers theorize about the sensory and visceral experiences that he found in therapy?
To address this question, we need to know the paradigm, or the style of thinking, that Rogers
employed.
Despite the large differences in contents and in their view of human beings, Rogers’
paradigm is similar to that of Sigmund Freud’s classical psychoanalysis in that both Freud
and Rogers used what Gendlin (1964) called ‘the repression paradigm’. In this paradigm,
certain aspects of human experience are blocked from coming into conscious awareness. For
Freud, certain impulses and memories were blocked because they contained aspects that
were dangerous to society. A hypothetical entity called the ‘superego’ introjected societal
norms and blocked impulses that conflicted with these introjected norms. Rogers maintained
this paradigm in his theory. The ‘concept of self’ was formed out of interactions with significant
others whose values got introjected into the concept of self. Experiences that conflicted with
the concept of self were said to be ‘denied from awareness’, while those that were congruent
with the concept of the self were described as ‘accurately symbolized in experience’.
For Rogers, the ‘sensory and visceral experiences’ represented those aspects of experience
that were not accurately symbolized in consciousness, and were denied to awareness because
they conflicted with the self-concept. The following passage from Client-Centered Therapy,
which explains case material, illustrates Rogers’ view of the sensory and visceral experiences as
280 Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1

---

Ikemi
experiences denied to awareness.
. . . it would seem clear that she has all along been experiencing, viscerally, feelings of
opposition towards her husband. The crucial missing element is the adequate
symbolization of these experiences . . . it also seems clear that the basic reason for the
phenomenon of ‘repression’ or ‘denial of experiences’ is that adequate symbolization of
the experience in question would be definitely and often deeply in contradiction to the self
concept of the individual. (Rogers, 1951, pp. 147–8, italics added)
It is also worthy of note that Rogers used the word ‘represented’ or ‘symbolized’ in contexts
such as these. The use of these words suggests a two-layer model of the human psyche, where
what appears in one layer ‘symbolizes’ or ‘represents’ what exists in the other layer. One of
these layers is called ‘awareness’ in Rogers’ theory, while in the other layer ‘experiences denied
to awareness’ remains. Experiences in this layer are pre-verbal and are expressed, not in language
and cognition, but in a ‘sensory and visceral’ way. (If the use of the metaphor ‘layer’ sounds
overly reminiscent of psychoanalytic theory to some readers, it may be substituted with the
metaphor of ‘area’, as Rogers sometimes did. A little later, in 1959, Rogers elaborated on
what I call two layers here by calling one of them ‘experience’ and the other ‘awareness’,
‘symbolization’ or ‘consciousness’, and said that these latter three words were synonymous in
that theory.)
This view of the sensory and visceral experiences as representations of experiences denied
to awareness — denied because they would conflict with the concept of the self when brought
into awareness — is elaborated in Rogers’ assertions in his ‘Theory of Personality and Behavior’,
included in Client-Centered Therapy:
(XIV) Psychological maladjustment exists when the organism denies to awareness
significant sensory and visceral experiences, which consequently are not symbolized
and organized into the gestalt of the self-structure. When this situation exists, there is
a basic or potential psychological tension. (Rogers, 1951, p. 510)
(XV) Psychological adjustment exists when the concept of the self is such that all the
sensory and visceral experiences of the organism are, or may be, assimilated on a
symbolic level into a consistent relationship with the concept of the self. (Rogers,
1951, p. 511, italics added)
In these assertions, it is clear that the sensory and visceral experiences were signposts for
experiences denied to awareness. For adjustment to exist, all these experiences need to be
brought into awareness. It may be noted that he used the expression ‘all’, which makes it
seem as if these denied experiences are already formed and that they are countable.
Although very different in theory, Rogers’ view of adjustment, as seen above, uses the
same repression paradigm as does psychoanalysis. Rogers’ view of adjustment as letting all the
sensory and visceral experiences come into awareness rings familiar with Sigmund Freud’s
dictum: ‘Where id is, let ego be.’
Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1 281

---

Rogers and Gendlin on the Bodily Felt Sense
CHANGES IN ROGERS’ CONCEPTION OF THE BODILY FELT
EXPERIENCES
The difficulty in comparing Rogers — or for that matter any thinker — with another is that
Rogers’ thinking continued to develop. Ten years after Client-Centered Therapy, Rogers included
the article ‘The Process Conception of Psychotherapy’ in his 1961 book, On Becoming a
Person. The Process Conception departs from Rogers’ repression paradigm as mentioned
above, and explicates the manner of human living from the standpoint of the mode of
experiencing. As Greenberg and Van Balen (1998) state, this is a significant departure from
Rogers’ earlier thinking.
No longer is it the self-concept that mediates the organism’s actions and experience,
and no longer is it denied contents that are pathogenic. No longer was there a self-
concept that admitted or disallowed certain feeling, but only an experiencing subject.
(Greenberg and Van Balen, 1998, p. 36)
However, the thoughts presented in this Rogers 1961 paper, as well as the abundant inclusion
of technical terms created by Eugene Gendlin, makes it seem as if the paper were based on
Gendlin’s theory of experiencing. In fact, Rogers wrote in the beginning of this article that its
contents were borrowed heavily from Eugene Gendlin. It does not fit well with the rest of
Rogers’ theory. In crediting Gendlin, he wrote:
. . . I would like to mention my special indebtedness to Eugene Gendlin, William
Kirtner and Fred Zimring, whose demonstrated ability to think in new ways about
these matters has been particularly helpful, and from whom I have borrowed heavily.
(Rogers, 1961, pp. 128–9)
Apparently the Process Conception advocated ‘new ways of thinking’ — a new theory of
experiencing using a different paradigm — being developed by Gendlin at around that time.
By the inclusion of this article in the book On Becoming a Person, Rogers acknowledged the
newly evolving theory, but did not yet assimilate it into his own thinking; hence it was still
borrowed.
More than another decade later, in A Way of Being (1980), Rogers explicitly states that
he concurs with Gendlin’s theory of experiencing. I will cite particularly from the article
‘Empathic: An unappreciated way of being’ (originally published in 1975) included in this
book. Rogers wrote:
In formulating my current description, I have drawn heavily on the concept of
‘experiencing’ as formulated by Gendlin (1962). This concept has enriched my
thinking in various ways, as will be evident in this paper. Briefly, it is his view that at
all times there is going on in the human organism a flow of experiencings to which
the individual can turn again and again as a referent in order to discover the meaning
of those experiences . . . (Rogers, 1980, p. 141)
Rogers goes on to explain Gendlin’s Theory of Experiencing and then discusses interactions
282 Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1

---

Ikemi
with a person in an encounter group.
. . . Gendlin’s view, with which I concur, is that he is checking them [verbalizations]
against the ongoing psychophysiological flow within himself to see if they fit. This
flow is a very real thing, and people are able to use it as a referent. In this case, ‘angry’
doesn’t match the felt meaning at all; ‘dissatisfied’ comes closer, but is not really
correct; ‘disappointed’ matches it exactly, and encourages a further flow of the
experiencing, as often happens. (Rogers, 1980, pp. 141–2)
Here it can be seen that the earlier ‘sensory and visceral experiences’, or the ‘psychophysiological
flow’ as mentioned here, are not representations of experiences denied from awareness, as
they were in his earlier repression paradigm. Here, Rogers is stating that there is an ongoing
flow of experiencing and that this flow of experiencing is not denied from awareness. A
person can turn to it and discover meaning from those experiences. He also articulates the
relationship between words and this flow of experiencing which can be used as a ‘referent’.
Matching words and the referent ‘encourages a further flow of the experiencing’. This, of
course, is Gendlin’s Theory of Experiencing (Gendlin, 1964). Rogers goes on presenting
transcripts of a session with Mrs Oak, discussing it with Gendlin’s Theory of Experiencing.
Here, too, we see how this unverbalized visceral flow is used as a referent . . . ‘Oh, you
poor little thing’ does not really fit the inner felt meaning of compassion and sorrow
for herself. In my judgment, she has not only used this aspect of her experiencing as
a referent, but has also learned something about this process of checking with her
total physiological being . . . (Rogers, 1980, p. 158)
Interestingly, this description of the ‘process of checking with her total physiological being’,
or the process of checking concepts with the body, seems to be identical with the process that
goes on in the client which is called ‘focusing’. (This does not mean that Rogers intentionally
facilitated the process of checking with the body, as in Focusing instructions.)
Incidentally, the phenomenon of checking with the body, or focusing, seems to have
been observed by Rogers much earlier, although it was not conceptualized in the way that
Rogers did in 1975. Nor did Rogers attempt to intentionally facilitate this process, although
he did make note of it. For instance, in Client-Centered Therapy, Rogers describes the following
process of the client:
As she struggles to find her true feelings for her father, the one which matches her
sensory experience, she uses the interview as a tryout ground. (Rogers, 1951, p. 83
italics added)
As I have tried to show in the above, it may be suggested that with respect to the theoretical
conception of the bodily felt experiences, Rogers was moving away from the repression
paradigm that he held earlier in Client-Centered Therapy. However, it cannot be determined
from the citations above whether he intended to revamp his earlier paradigm completely.
Rather, it seems as though Rogers was attempting his own blend between his earlier theoretical
paradigm and Gendlin’s model. In this regard, the closing lines before the ‘Conclusions’ of
Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1 283

---

Rogers and Gendlin on the Bodily Felt Sense
this 1975 article need careful attention.
It seems to me that only when a gut-level experience is fully accepted and accurately
labeled in awareness can it be completed. Then a person can move beyond it. Again, it
is the sensitively empathic climate that helps to move the experiencing forward to its
conclusion, which in this case is the uninhibited experiencing of the pity she feels for
herself. (Rogers, 1980, p. 158, italics added)
In this passage, a blend of both paradigms can be seen. To make this clear, I have put in bold
italic the wordings of this passage that indicate Rogers’ original position, and in light italic
the wordings that reflect Gendlin’s theory.
As in Gendlin’s theory, experiencing is viewed here as a process that involves interaction
between the preconceptual bodily felt sense and words or concepts. In Rogers’ quotes above
he uses the words ‘gut-level experience’ for bodily felt sense, and ‘labeled in awareness’ for
words or concepts. In such an interaction, experiencing can be ‘carried forward’ (Gendlin),
which is expressed by Rogers’ words here as ‘move experiencing forward’ and ‘can it be
completed’. In this regard it seems as though Rogers was moving away from the repression
paradigm he held earlier and towards Gendlin’s experiential model.
However, there is another element in this passage. The ‘fully accepted’ and ‘empathic
climate’ mentioned here denotes that the ‘gut-level experiencing’ is, by nature, hard to accept
and is potentially threatening to the client. Because it is threatening, the empathic climate
and full acceptance becomes a necessity for experiencing to be carried forward. This assumption
originates in Rogers’ earlier theory that the gut-level experiences represent emotions denied
to awareness because they are in conflict with the self concept. In fact, Rogers’ personality
theory and his therapy theory are bound in a theoretical set. That is, experiences are denied
to awareness because they are in conflict with the conditions of worth, and therefore, the
nature of the therapeutic relationship needed to be unconditional for denied experiences to
come back into awareness.
Nevertheless, if one disregards the element of potential threat discussed above for a
moment and views the larger picture of what was said here, it may be possible to suggest that
Rogers had indeed arrived at a blend of his own theory and that of Gendlin’s. The quotes
above signify an observation that would be in total agreement with Gendlin’s theory: the
process of experiencing happens in a certain mode of human interaction, characterized by
acceptance and empathy.
THE BODILY FELT SENSE IN GENDLIN’S THEORY
Eugene Gendlin, a philosopher and a former colleague of Carl Rogers, built on Rogers’
observations of the ‘sensory and visceral experiences’. Gendlin developed his own theory of
Experiencing (Gendlin, 1964), a method of Focusing (Gendlin, 1981), a style of therapy
known as ‘Experiential’ or ‘Focusing-Oriented’ (Gendlin, 1973, 1996), a philosophy of
‘Implicit Entry’ (see, for example, Gendlin 1991) and a method of thought called ‘TAE’
284 Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1

---

Ikemi
[Thinking at the Edge] (Gendlin, 2002b).
Gendlin did not employ the same paradigm, or model of thinking, to understand the
bodily felt sense as Rogers did. He pointed out that paradigms used in most theories of
personality ‘render change impossible by definition’ (Gendlin, 1964, p. 103). In particular
he pointed out that Sigmund Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan and Carl Rogers have used the
same paradigm: what Gendlin called ‘the repression paradigm’ (Gendlin, 1964, p. 104). In
this paper I have pointed out how Rogers used this paradigm to understand the sensory and
visceral experiences in his book Client-Centered Therapy.
Instead of using the repression paradigm and seeing the bodily felt sense as a representation
or symbolization of something not in awareness or consciousness, Gendlin saw the bodily
felt sense as existence, a sense of ‘living in situations’ (Gendlin, 1973), a Befindlichkeit (Gendlin,
1978/1979), elaborating on Heidegger’s philosophy. The sense of living in situations is an
implicit understanding of how one is, and is always an implying of further steps of living
(Gendlin, 1973). Speaking interacts with the bodily felt sense and can change or carry forward
the bodily felt sense in the direction that it implies. Therefore experience is not static, but in
process; hence the term ‘experiencing’. Let me explain some of these observations using one
of the quotes from Rogers mentioned earlier.
One of the important characteristics of experiencing is that it is always in interaction.
One of the earlier quotes (Rogers, 1980, pp. 141–2) shows how this interaction happens.
The person in the encounter group is interacting with himself and with the group. He is
seeing how words interact with the bodily felt sense. ‘Angry’ and ‘dissatisfied’ come close, but
not exactly. ‘Disappointed’ matches the felt sense exactly and there is a felt change, a carrying
forward of experiencing. The carrying forward of experiencing takes the person’s experiencing
into another level of process hierarchy, or to the further flow of experiencing. Hence ‘angry’
and ‘disappointed’ are not static contents to be understood in themselves, but are aspects of
the process of experiencing.
Living a situation in an angry or dissatisfied manner is a different mode of living from
living in a disappointed manner. When experiencing is carried forward, it changes the person’s
living in situations, their existence. The ‘disappointed’ manner of living in a particular situation
may change when more steps come from the further flow of experiencing. In fact, the
‘disappointed’ manner of being-in-the-world may be implying steps or directions of living
that would, when found, make living not so disappointing.
There is another important interaction to be noted here, and that is the person’s interaction
with the group. To have a bodily felt sense and to be able to refer to it is contingent upon the
manner of the relationship. The bodily felt sense itself is interactional. For instance, when
someone can listen with acceptance and empathy, the speaker may be able to feel the bodily
felt experiences in themselves; while if someone is listening critically without empathy or
acceptance, the person may become tense and frightened without being able to form or refer
to the felt sense. For the group member in the quote above to be able to spend time checking
words with the felt sense, an empathic and acceptant climate of the whole group must have
been necessary.
From early in his writings, Gendlin (1964) emphasized what he called ‘reconstituting’:
Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1 285

---

Rogers and Gendlin on the Bodily Felt Sense
in other words, that the presence of the listener reconstitutes aspects of experience that were
not there before. It can be said that in the quote above the presence of the group reconstituted
aspects of the group member’s experience. It is rightfully emphasized in Focusing-Oriented
Psychotherapy, therefore, that ‘In therapy the relationship is of first importance, listening is
second, and focusing instructions come only third’ (Gendlin, 1996, p. 297). One quote
from Gendlin’s (1990) article states this directly:
I want to start with the most important thing I have to say: the essence of working
with another person is to be present as a living being . . . (p. 205) . . . Do not let
focusing or reflecting or anything else get in between . . . (Gendlin, 1990, p. 206)
Elsewhere I have suggested three key vantage points for understanding the felt sense in
Focusing-Oriented Psychotherapy: presence, existence, and space (Ikemi, 2000). The felt
sense is an interaction with the presence of the other. The felt sense is our existence, our
living. A certain experiential space or distance is needed to let a felt sense form. In this paper,
I have discussed the felt sense in Gendlin’s theory from two of these vantage points: presence
and existence.
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
In the foregoing I have pointed out several aspects of Rogers’ and Gendlin’s theories regarding
the bodily felt sense. Let me summarize what the two share and where they differ.
1. Interestingly, Carl Rogers may have observed and described the bodily felt sense before
Eugene Gendlin.
2. Rogers also observed and took note of the process of checking words against sensed
experience — the process which is now called Focusing — before Gendlin did, although
Rogers did not attempt to facilitate that particular process.
3. Both Rogers and Gendlin agree that interacting with the bodily felt sense is a significant
happening in therapy.
4. Rogers tended to think of the sensory and visceral experiences using what Gendlin
(1964) calls ‘the repression paradigm’, where such experiences were seen as being
denied from awareness. This is particularly different from Gendlin’s thinking regarding
the felt sense as a sense of living in situations and as an aspect in the process of
experiencing.
5. Due to the repression paradigm, Rogers tended to see the bodily felt sense as potentially
threatening, while Gendlin did not. Rogers seemed to have maintained this view even
after he expressed his ‘concurrence’ with Gendlin’s thinking, in 1975.
6. Both Rogers and Gendlin agree that the relationship is of primary importance. Both
agree that focusing, or the experiential process, happens in a certain manner of
relationship.
7. Gendlin would use specific responses to facilitate the experiential process, whereas
Rogers did not.
286 Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, Volume 4, Number 1

---