ABSTRACT
Sometimes when people are disturbed or distressed by things that happen to them their recourse is to some aspect of behaviour. Cameron (2012a: 115) states that person-centred theory admits no drive towards atrophy or self-destruction but the effects of any one (or more) ‘maladaptive’ behaviours such as the use of an addictive substance (Cameron 2012a), eating problems (Douglas 2012) or self-injury (Cameron 2012b) can lead to the conclusion that the actualising tendency cannot be at work in someone so self-damaging. However, the opposite is true. Rogers (proposition XII, 1951: 507) discusses how some needs are denied symbolisation in awareness if incompatible with the self-concept. The next proposition (1951: 509) implies that sometimes we find ourselves doing something we think we shouldn’t, or can’t, and then saying, and believing, that ‘it wasn’t me’, or ‘something took me over’. The ‘something’ was the actualising tendency pressing to meet an organismic need. In other words an apparently damaging behaviour is likely to be experienced as a relief and release. The person is making the best choice they can in the circumstances as they understand them.
