The Problem With "Active Listening"

"Consider this: We never talk about "active speaking." So, why do we use it for listening? Because we have a misperception that speaking is an active process, while listening is passive. The term "active listening," therefore, reveals a deep-seated linguistic bias. It implies that the default state of listening is passive, that unless we add a qualifier, listening is merely the act of silently receiving information, which confuses listening with hearing (whereas the latter is indeed passive)."

"Here is how the modern "technique" of active listening contradicts Rogers' original intent: Rogers Loathed "Parroting": In modern listening training, "reflection" often devolves into mechanically repeating the speaker's words (e.g., "I hear that you are sad"). Rogers despised this, calling it a "wooden mockery." He didn't want you to be a tape recorder; he wanted you to be a mirror that reveals the speaker's internal world, not just their syntax."

People often feel unheard despite visible cues like nodding and eye contact. The adjective 'active' implies listening is default-passive and conflates listening with hearing. The phrase 'active listening' reflects a linguistic bias that frames listening as needing external activity. This bias has produced checklist-style training that prioritizes looking active over genuine presence. Carl Rogers and Richard Farson coined 'active listening' with an internal, empathetic intent, which modern techniques have distorted. Modern 'reflection' can become mechanical 'parroting' that Rogers criticized as a 'wooden mockery.' True listening should mirror the speaker's internal world rather than imitate their words.

Read at Psychology Today