Compare and contrast freud’s psychodynamic conceptualisations and Rogers’ person centred and phenomenlogical conceptualisations

Freud could be hated, criticised, but could never be ignored. Both had clinical theories, based on their own experiences, which were sound and contributing, and both theorists had well thought-out theories without any obvious loopholes and both their theories had very broad application possibilities. To some extent, the similarities end here.
The difference comes in the simplicity and elegance of Roger’s theory and the difficult, exalted concept of Freud’s. This does not mean that Freud’s theory is inapplicable. Actually, it has remained more applicable than all the other psychoanalytic theories. But Roger simplified much of the theory and to a very large extent, humanised them. For Roger, the psychological disturbances and metal difficulties and deficiencies of a person are normal, because he thinks about mental problems in par with the physical problems and he says, in humans, it is expectable. He builds his entire theory on a single ‘force of life’ and calls it the man’s ‘actualizing tendency’. He thinks that every man has a built-in-motivation that could be either ignored or developed into its fullest possible potential. His concept says that apart from the survival instinct, man has the foremost desire to develop himself to the fullest potential, and whether he does so, or not, depends on the circumstances and will power, but definitely not due to lack of desire. He thought organisms, birds, animals, ecosystems have more possibilities of maximising and utlising their potential than the man and he called it organismic valuing with positive regard.
All concepts theorised by Rogers were more person-centred more connected with person’s own experience and framework of reference as response to the obvious phenomenological functioning of the person. His focus is on the immediacy of client’s experience. He said “I do not minimise the importance of dealing with the past as it