BRITISH Volume 3

Number 1
GESTALT May 1994
-
pp 1 72
JOURNAL ISSN 0961 - 771X

JUDITH HEMMING

D.J. KENNEDY hnscendence,Tmth md Spirituality in the

Gestalt Way - (A lesson from Nicolai Berdyaw)

PETER PHILIPPSON Gestalt Therapy aad the Culttire of NareEssism

GORDON WHEELER Compnbian and Curiosity: A Gestalt Approach to
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Letters to the Editor
DANIEL ROSEHBLATl' A Memoir ia Mourning for Laura Perfs
BUD PEDm Empathy ia the P e m n - G e n W and Gestalt
Approaches

TALIA LEVINE BAR-YOSEPH Exploring the ReIatlanship in the Middle Ground

between JewhMsmeU and German Cultare

GARY YONTEF Dialogue, 5elf and Therapy: A Reply to Hunter

Beaumont
HUNTER BEAUMONT A Reply to YontePs Reply

Specid Book Review

W O L M PARLETT Introduction and Otremiew to Gestrrli Illiempj:
Perspectives and ApplicaCions,
Edited by EDWIN C. NEVIS

KEN EVANS Chapter 2 'Diagnosis: The Straggle for a

Meaningful Paradigm'

ANNE KEARNS Chapter 4 'Gestalt Ethics'

FLORAMEADOWS Chapter 8 'The Alcoholic: A Gestalt View'

GILL CARGWCDAWES Chapter 9 'Gestalt Work with Psychotics'

ANDY SLUCKlN Chapter 10 'GestaIt Work witb ChiEdwm: WolWng
with Anger and Introjects'
JUDITH HEMMING Chapter 11 'The Gestalt Approach to Couple
Therapy'

JOHN WHITLEY Chapter 12 'An Ovedew of the Theory and

Practice of Gestalt Group Pmcess'
Book Review
KAREN ROOKWOOD The Good M d Guide: By ROS and JEREMY
HOLMES
Nokites
 The Brltlsb Gestalt Journal continues to develop and
change. As you will see from the new editorial line-up on the
inside cover we have created new structures, distributing the
many functionstaken by the original team, and seeking always to
work more effjciently and pfessionally. We am pleased to be
drawing on the advice and support of an Editorial Consultative
Group with whom we will now k meeting at i n t e d s . We have
also expanded lthe Mitorial Advisory Board, helping to extend
our connections and s o u m of goodwill both nationally and
internationally.
There is naw m mud Nwis Priz awarded for outstanding
writing in the field of Gestaln. In fact there are two, tach carrying
a stipend of $50a: one.for a full Iength h k and one for writing
of chapter m article length. TRe recent1y endawed fund which
honours the work of Ed Nevis, a key figure in the Gestalt
Institute of Cleveland, is awarded by an independent panel of
judges and administered by the Gestalt f nstitute of Cleveland.
We are delighted to mnotmce that the 1993 Nevis Prize for
writing of article length has been awarded to Hunter Beaumont
for his article in The Bribisb Gestalt Journal Vol 2 No 2 ,
'Martin Buber's Y-Thou" and Fragile Self Organisation: Gestalt
Couples Therapy.' Further, there were two runnets-up m i v i n g
honourable mention by the judges, MI of which ate also fnsm
Volume 2 of this Journal; namely Malcolm Parlett's article on
field theory, 'Towards a More Lewinian Geslalt Therapy' and
Lee McLcod's exposition on the 'Self in Gestalt Therapy
Theory', We join in our mgramlations to t h e e writers and take
pleasllre in the way the J o w l has played its pan in bringing
these pi- to a wider audience than they had originally reached
when they were fmt oonmivd. Hunter &aumontls article was a
reworked version of an earlier paper published in German in
1987, Lee McLeod recast his MA thesis into anicle length
especially for the. J o m 1 , and Malcolm Parlett originally wrote
h~ paper as a plenary talk far the European Gestalt Conferenoe
in 1992.
All three p a p attested to the importance in Gestalt of what
-
Buber named 'the space between' 'beyondindividual egos, our
separate selves; reflecting our awesome interconnectedness.
Hunter Beaumont $stressed how it is in the speaking of the 'I-
Thou' that healing can m w , h e M c M returned us to the
fundamental Gestalt vision of self as contacf and the eraburation
of field theory in Malcolm ParlettVspaper made it clear that
holism as understood through the vision of Lewin is part of what
could nsoum the massive paradigm shW needed to relate to our
planetary crisis. Thc vdue and range of these ideas goes much
further than the clinical consulting mom; they also connect the
spiritual dimension to the heart of Gestalt theory. We continue to
develop the theme of the spiritual dimension of Gestalt even
moFe explicitly in this issue with Des Kennedy's inspiring p a p
'Tranxendence, Truth and Spirituality in the Gestalt Way (A
h n hNicolai Myaev).' That an Ammi= foundation
can honour a British, a Canadian and a German based American
writer in a British jomal is testimony to the internationalism a d
interconnectedness of the Gestalt Community in 1994. I r is the
h i t born of the British Gestalt community's wfllingttss to re-
immerse itself in a similar quality of inFellecm1 excitement to
that which originally fired the a r t y years when Gestalt therapy
ww being created in the 19403 and 1950's.
When I began my Gestalt mining in England in 1981 t h e
was nothing I could read that related Gestalt to the mntext in
which I Iivd and practised Gestalt is now corning of age in
Britain by articulating its relationship to the field as it exists k c ,
to the soil in which it now grows, as well: as to its American and
international context and inheritence.
Quite apart hrn this Journal the p at few years have h g h t a
dramatic shift in what is available in print. There is a spate of
significant new publishing in Gestalt, b t h hete and in the States
The Gestalt Institute of Cleveland Press is launching a raft of
new b k s this year. A l d y jn print is m e we have singled out
for detailed anention in this issue. That book is 'Gestalt Therapy,
Pwspe~tivesand Apptications'edited by Ed Nevis, a mllection
of papers from a range of distinguished American practitioners
and thmticians.
As Malmlrn Pzlrlctt & r i b in his InWlaction to the Special
Book Review, we have chosen to respond to this book in a
particularly thorough way, in part to develop this 'tradition of
making a more 'indigenous' Gestalt. The reviewers of the
separate chapten are all British W e d and all have reemtdded
the themes of the chapters into their own contexts and
experiences,
We have also been cumsidering how to widen the range of
bmeworks and formats in which dialogue can take place in the
BGJ, We are arranging, for example, to abridg papers as well
as oontinue to emurage transrations from the European -11
comrnunily. We are pleased in this isrnme to have a more extended
letters section, including a dialogue between Hunter Beaumont
and Gary Yonrev that extends and clarifies some of the issues
raised in Hunter &.aurnont5 previous h c l e .
With Gordon Wheeler's paper 'Complsiba and Cdasity: A
Gestalt Appmh to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder' comes our
first case shldy, a sensitive combining of thewy and practice that
brings the fwhmss of lived contact to the printed word. This
hhness is precious. R is a challenge to m v e y the s e m of
wonder at the uniqwness of the experienceof a W t - i n f o r m e d
encounter. Sometimes trainee - and those encountering Gestalt
for the fusZ time - may be able to convey a sense of awe and
passion more powerfully than those who, while more
knowledgeable, may have their dge dulled by longer exposure
to this kind of magic. Trainees now regdarly write papers as an
~stablishedpart of their learning process. Often this witing
swssfully relates lived experience to the concepts of GestaIt.
There exists therefore a body of this kind of uncirculated but
often very high quality writing. Some of these pieces describe the
personal experience of being a learner in Gestalt therapy or
training, where a familiar concept has suddenly 'lit up' and is
u n d e ~ 5 Win iis ptency and deeply felt for the first time.
Accordingly we have decided we should like to open up the
Jwmal to include sampla of such 'experience based' writing so
that these vital first encounters with Gestalt ideas - when
everything 'gels' at somatic, phenomenological and ~n~~
ievels simuItaneoasly - c;tn be communicated more widely. We
therefore invite submissions and are willing to offer edibrial
help, either to mvert such writing to the style and standards of
the JournaI or even perhaps to alter our notions of what f m a t s
we can use.
We do not wish to became the BrflM~ F k d GesW Jwraal.
Instead we want to remain open to and welcoming of all
suggestions, ideas, and feedback concerning what kind of
material should be included in this, your professional!journal.

JurfahHemming

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE BRITISH GESTALT JOURNAL

on the occasion of the awarding of the first annual
NEVIS PRIZE
for outstanding writing in the Gestalt field 1993
The Nevis Prize, which is given by ithe Gestalt Institute of Cltvclard hmws the work of Bdwin C.
Nevis. a pioneer in the ongoing development and teaching of the CiestaIt therapy model, with a spec~al
focus on applications k y w d the individual. The prize is given annually to the most distinguished
written work of the year in the field of C t e d t . Prize awards are in two categories: one for book
length and w e for article or chagtw-length work. Each award carries a $500 stipend.
The 1993 Nevis prize f o r most distinguished book-length work was awarded
to:
BOOK PRIZE:
Patricia Papernow: B~coming a StepfarnilyPatterns of Development in Remamed
Families. Jossey-Bms Iae. (Macmillan), 1993.
ARTICLE PRIZE:
Hunter Beaumont: 'Martin Bubet's "I-Thou" and Fragile Self-Organization: Gestalt
Couples Therapy'. British Gestalt Journal, 1993.
HONORABLE MENTION:
Malcolm Parlett: 'Towards a More Lewinian Gestalt Therapy" British Gestalt
Journal, 1993.
Lee McLeod: 'The Self in Gestalt Therapy Theory' British Gestalt Journal. 1993.
For mwe information about the Nevis Rize, or to make naminalionr for tht 1994 a w d . please
contact Dr. Dorothy Siminivitch, Nevis Rimt Coordinator, Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, 1588 Hazel
Drive. Cleveland. OHIO 44106- 1791. USA. Phone 2 16-4214468. Fax 216-42 1- I729
 TRANSCENDENCE,TRUTH AND
SPIRITUALITY IN THE GESTACT WAY
(A Lesson from Nicolai Berdyaev)
DJ.Kennedy
Received 12 January 1994

Abstmet: In this article 1 attempt to map out a way of bringing tagether Gestalt therapy and
personal spirituality. I question the view of what constitutes human expaiencc kpcatW us by
the great teachers: Freud, k e y and Perls. T b i r view is too narmw, too limiting. T h y fail to
take into aumunt that dynamic of transcendtlpoc which commzly m w t s our heam towards w
more truth; and this can be seen and cultivated as tht self~ommuniatianof the I n m p r e h s i b l e
Mystery. I draw upon the teachings of NimlaiBetdyaev (1874-1W). a trail-blazerfor the Gestalt
appmzh, to make the point.

but unlike that statue of Apno w b legs were broken in an

This is an essay in the spirituality of Gestalt therapy. Tbls is
different from religion, which happem when spirituality adopts a
cultural dress. Religion may, and frequently does, distort the
insight of spirituality. This insight may even become an
ideoIogy when it is dimmmaed from expeciem aad turned into
a system that seeks to change the world (Segundo, 1982).
SpirituaEity is mt what 1 think, but what I live, And living the
truth, sys the Rlrssiau p h i l q h e r Berdyaev (19491, can burst
the world
Many psychotherapists became uneasy when we talk about
';truth' and even more so if we are headed in the direction of
aligion, h e n forbid! This is because, as Betkegaard says,
they 'five in a certain trivial povinoe of expaieftces 9s to how
things go, what is p~ssible,what usually occurs"lW11%8).
Yet ironically thest same people will all a g m enthusiastically
that the philosophy which underwrites Gestalt is
Phenomenological Existentialism. This it is that intepes the
various parts of W t b r y and helps rs decide what belongs
and what does not belong. They seem to forget that leading
Existentialists such as Heideggw, Buber, M y a e v artd Meeleau-
Ponty were driven by questions of truth and human self-
understanding.
TtEt discomfort -ken of a b v e is due, I believe, to the ltgaey
of such titanic influmces as Freud and Dcwey. Tbq & M e the
world of psychology Iikc the Colmrs the harbour at Rhodes;
earthquake, little has happened to r e m e their influence. For
Freud, truth is the preserve of scientific research. Human
ewrieoce is the objGCt of scientific investigation and this leads
a~ truth Mi is a world in which ' o b w v e knowledge' is king. It
follows, of come, that b & e areas of human experience which
are less amenable to scientific research have very lightweight
status indeed. 'Religion', says Freud (1973), is "he wishful
world which we have developed within us as a result of
biological and psycblogical -itiesr. The truth d thing is
to be found in their scientific explanation. So Fred explains a
lot of things away: what spiritwar writers would call 'the
Incomplehensible Mystery' (bhncr, 1978),he d l s a biological
or psychologicat function. He finds the explanation of the whole
in Ihe par&.
John Dewey (1859-1952) was showered with academic
honours during tht whole o f his long life. Hism h i n to the
c o n s m i o n of Americau society was extensive and profound
(Buckley, 1989). His teachings permeated the schools, the
training colleges, even the libraries af the U.S.and his ideas
underwrite a lot of what passes as liberal American society
today. A m of how summary sta~ementscould convey a Mse
impression of the wotk af this great thinker, I am going to risk a
few: he taught that the oniy a h l u t e is growfh, personal and
social; howledge and experience are really nothing special -
simply the active relation between the organism and the
environment; metaphysics or generalized statements about
d i i y are a waste of h e ; truth is a hyputhesis that works, 'h
religious" isvseful a d should be maintained for soeial w m ;
'the self' is constituted by habitf a d demands for certain kinds
of acfion(Coplaton, 1966; Morrish, 2967).
It is not hard to reqgiw the influence of this pragmatist view
of the world upon the authors of that basic Gestalt textbook:
Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth i n the Human
Persow@ (PerIs, Hee1ine and Cbdmn, 195V1973). Ttreir
assumption is that there is no reality beyond contact boundary
functioning and that this exhaustively d e w the d:
Experience is the function of this boundary, and
psychologicaIIy what is teal ate the "whole' configurations of
this functioning, some meaning king achieved, some action
completed.
PerIs et al(l95111973)
'Fhe aim is always what ean be comprehended and grasped.
There is xi mtment of the meaning of tranwendence in the
book. Thnwmut this p a p r I am using the tenn 'm-ll~e'
in the sense that Medeau-Pmty uses it in his Phmmembgy of
Pmcqhbn: 'An act in which exislence (the subject} takes up and
transforms a situation' (Merleau-Pondy, 1962). The way in
which, for example a sexual p m e r begins to exist for a person,
through perception and desire, (ibid p.154). In such a situation
the parties choose to transform the whole meaning of their
meeting and all its details. When Kierkegaard speaks of
'possibility' that leads to the self-reaIization, (10c.cit.) he is
speaking oftmwmdence. The whole of Karl Rahner's work is
dominated by this notion of tranwe- he describes a human
person as a 'lramxndent being the one to whom the silent and
unconmIlable infinity of reality is present as mystery' (1978).
For a view entirely different from that of Dewey and Freud, I
introduce Nicolai Alexanchvitch Berdym, Russian aristocrat, a
contemporary of Freud, but with an entirely different vision of
the world. 1 make no apology for including a lot of biographical
material about him because we l a m most, I think from a person
who lived the p h i h p h y that he ~ u g h t BeEdyaev
. was a man of
heart, a mystic, obsessed with God,absorbed, like his great
mentors, Jakob Baehme and Meister Eckhart, with the
incomprehensible mystery of God's presence. He found Freud's
window on the world too little to accommodate spirituality
(1947) and, ironically, people continually found Berdyaer too
much for them.
As a boy his parents found him too much for them so they sent
him away to military s c h l which he loathed; his teachersf m d
him tm much and pronounced him a d m whilst he secretly
read Kant and Schopenhauer;the authoritiesfound him too much
whilst he was a student at M m University, so they sent him
to cool o E in Siberia; as a citizen of the new Communist slate h
was too much for Lenin so he was banished from the Soviet
Union. In 1948 he died, writing at his desk in his home at
Clamart in the suburbs of Paris. And when they m e to bury
him in the link churchyard there, they found thal his coffin was
tao big for the hole they had prepared.
I think it was the intensity of his interior life that dsew so much
antagonism upon him again and again. ahis led him at times to
extremes in defence of people he considered were being unjllstly
treated: even of people he didn't how, like the dissident monks
on Mount Athos whom the Orthodox Archbishop Antony
subdued with military force in 1913. J3edyaevYsverbally violent
protat got him arrested, charged with blasphemy and sentenced
to w t u a l exile in Siberia, a sentence which he exaped only
on amount of the o u h a k of World War I. His intensity also
led him to write books, more than thirty of them,imnsIated into
twelve laoguaga including Japanese. Here again his dogmatic
and even arrogant style is ton much for our li-l times, so very
few of hi books have been reprlnkd since the 1%. Of these
writings he says: 'It is very difficult for me to find form of
e x p s i o n for the chief idea of my life (& ....I)everything I
write in this b k is linked with the tormenting @ern of spirit
... My f k d o r n and my creativeness are my obedience to the
mystmiow will of God ...' (1948). For Berdyaev tbe dynamic
transcendent element in our every act of perception is our Wire
to know God: 'He is the completeness towards which man
m o t avoid striving' (1916, in m e 1965).
Spinelli would say that such a view of human life is avoidant,
introducing, as it does, the notion of the 'Ultimate
Resewr'(1989). Spinelli is k r e following Yalcm,and YaIom is
following Freud. P& says that the meaning of life is that it be
lived, (1969A). But then what do you do when there is no mare
life to be lived? What do you do when there is no further gestalt
to emerge? This came hame to me some years ago with a client
whom I shall d l Jim.
It was during our sixth session that he told me in a hoarse
whisper that they had finally dia- hi c a n e r of the throat
That was the beginning. Nine months later, after stumbling
along the 'via doloma' of radio-therapy, chemotherapy and
surgery, this promising young solicitor with a wife and twr,
children was brought, quite unresigned, into the shadow of a
nursing h e .to die. The problem of archaic introjwts suddenly
h a m e very small W. The prospect d death marvellorsly
constellates the field
And as we 'raged against the dying of the light', thtre arose in
me, from the horizon of h c r p e k w , a shining conviction that
Jim's agony was my agony and his death mine: here was an
impasse between my inclination to step back as from a stricken
thing and the manifest truth that bere, beneath the covering of
everyday experience, he and I were one. There is here a
summons to meet death,not with despair but with TRUTH:the
alignment of heart and mind. The dawning realization that t k e
is something utterly mysterious and totally gracious in what
happens to us when we deliver ourselves over to the pocess of
life and death, to the ptocess of being the p e m I truly am, in
other words to live the mth.
Is this just wishful thinking? Or is it possible that in this
sihticm I am glimpsing my kanxendenoe; and what elicits this
banxendence is @?allybeyond my comprehension? Whatever
?heexplanatha this insight enabled me to tK more F n t with
J i at this time.
It would be entirely wrong to see me as urging people to
develop a spiritual life in order to L better tbfxapislq as if an
'inner-life' and prayer and meditation were part af the good

therapist's ml-kit. Spiritual fife belongs to me as a person,
primarily; to make it ancillary to some function such as
'therapist* or "eacher', would be to degrade that which
constitutes a person in her supreme dignity, her subjectivity
namely, the image of God in her. Because, by making her
r e l a t i d i p with God serve to enhaace a mle, she is reducing
this relationship to the status of a thing. Berdyaev calls this
'objeetivisation', which is 'a state in which existential subjects,
are tramifamred into things' (1937). For him, spiritual
life is not something 1 'do',but an event in which a gift is offered
me, in which the divine is revealed or shown to me. To make a
tool of this gift is to do what he criticized Fred .for Wig to the
spiritual life: "Weam living through ...the despititualization and
devastation of the mind (by) Freud and psychoanalysis'!
(Berdyaev 1947 in Lowrie 1965).
It seems to me that to open our minds and hearts to the
p i b i l i t y that our human capcicy allows of experiencewhich is
altogether beyond the range of dear and distinct ideas is gtwl
C h t d t thinking. Why not set the world as a gift, a given, rather
than a "grasped'; a meeting rather than a doing? This opew up
the way lo religious faith as an in-l part of the Gestalt way.
This mntrastswith a well-established view in psychotherapy and
psychiatry which sees religious faith as a substitute for living,
and experience of the Mystery as psychopathology. An m m e
example of this i s when Friedman and Kaplan in their
Comprehenrive Tertbook of Psychiaty (1967), speak of the
'unio mystics', so beloved of St Bernard, as 'psychological
regression at its most extreme" Swh a view seems to me not
merely anti-Gestalt but logicaliy flawed and philosophically
mg-ant; flawed, i n ' h t it extends ta the tohl phenomenon what
may be legitimate inte~pretationof some aspects of it; arrogant,
b u s e it claims ta know what we cannot pssibly know - the
boundaries of the possibilities of hman expien=.
Is it not pible that there is a kvel of 'everyday' expknm,
quite apart &om stxalled 'mystical ' experience, which evokes
the question of Incomprehensible Mystery as part of self-
undc~standing?I find such a level evoked by the question: Why
does our awareness always 'move beyond'? This is
'transcendence'. 'Man is a being,' says Btrdyacv, 'who
surmounts himself. ?'he realization of ofmn in man is this
continuour m n d i m g of selE He desires to go out frwn the
closed circle of subjectivity ..... This path lies in the deeps of
existewe, on this path the^ W e place the existential meeting
with God, with other people, with the interior existence of the
wmld' (1945). The phenomenology of tranxendence is to b
found in the process of enquiry, which we wiIl look at ia detail
later.
I notice a lot m m qxnnes to h i s question in more reoent
Gestalt writing. Clmkson (1992) talks about it extensively under
the name of 'physis'. Also in her manual of Gestalt mumelling
(1989) she is open to the possibility of just such a level of human
experience. Korb, Gorrell and Van De Reit (1989) b a t of it as
the dynamic in the maturational process and are open to the
possibiliiy of an ever richer experience. I also find hints of the
same ape- in Hycner (1944). Z i e r (197978),Yontef (I!Xi),
Parlet4 (1 9921, and Fuht (1993). Most explicit of all I find
DJ.Kemedy
Jmbs (1989).
I t i s not enough to say that contact and awareness serve our
biological and motional ntodr. 73m appears to be a bind of
ontological, imperative, an urge towards p w t h , so that these
pcasi=soperate at inmasingly finer levels of complexity horn
biology.
Parlett (19SYL) lingers, significantly, over the phenomenon of
presence: he quotes tinker: 'Reseum is the acquired state of
awe in the face of an infinitely complex and mysterious
universe.' (The reader will note the remarkable similarity
behKeen this and the quote from Karl &hner which I made at
the beginning of this paper.) Remarkable also, is Martin
Buba's translation of the name of God given to Mosw at Be
burning bush (Exodus 3, 13-14): 'Iwill be present' (Adawn
1986). Our experience of our hansr;endenee is basically an
expicme of presence, an experience of gift and m p n q not
of manipulating or managing or grasping. This is the view
which Berdyaev t s of the p~senceof one pmn to another:
&
'A person cannot be laKlwn as object, as one among objects in
the world .....
A person may be known only as subject, in
infinite subjectivity, wheTe the mystery of wtistenoe lies hiddtn'
(l3erdyatv 1938 in W e 1955).
Expbhing Away the Mysteq:Dewey and Freud
I want now to retnm te John Dewey (1859-1952) and
Sigmund Freud (18561939) for whom talk of 'the mystery of
existence' would have meant m t h i n g very different.
Existena for John Dewey meant experience. This he views
on a biological m d l as a series of transactiorts between the
organism and the environment (Buckley, 1989). And that's it!
Experience leads to nothing ex* more and more of the same
kind of thing. It is like a train-spatter's view of life on the
railway: data and still more data. Enduring expriences,
cumulative interactions with the environment, lead to the
emergence of culture. Culture moulds eqxriena and supplies
categories whereby people can attach meaning to such
phenomena as religion and philosophy. So, for Dewey,
religious experience is fine but, for heaven's sake, don't drag
God into it! If you do that, then you have spfled it a11 by going
mend the domain of 'exptnenee'. So, instead ofalkwing for
the p i b i l i t y that religious expwience, which always mtalm
an element of transcendent promise, points towards
Immpehensiblt Mystery, i t becomes instead just a laudable
attitude towards high-minded values. God bemmes a thought
h m within the person, a mativation for being a gaod citizen.
Dewey explains the Mystery away by disregarding it.
Although totally devoid of any religious belief himselF 'Dewey
never hesitated to @aim how valuable religion is and haw
society needs it (Cbpleston, 1967;Mqwrrie, 1967).
Freud similarly works from human expmcnce and similarly
sees religion as a product. Unlike Dewey, he is not out to
'save' it. Religion for Freud, is not mmIy a mt powerFu1
agency for mnmlling peoptq it is essentially a pathology: it is
a dstortion of the two main oonstituents of culture, howledge
and regulations; so, religion is concerned with illusion and
phibitions (Freud,1922).
Both Freud and Dewey built into their methodology a
ksson from 3erdyaev
particular undetstanding of experience : it is selfenclosed and
points to no reality beymd itself; c1mA-off to Kierkeprd's
'critical moment where everything is reversed, after which the
point becomes to understand more and more that there is
something which cannot be understood' (Kierkegaard,
1849/1969). So* as Perfs says: N mmse is a rose is a rose'
(1%9). There is here no movement to transcendence. Perls is,
in Merleau-Ponty's phme, 'tied to actuality', so that liberty of
spirit is lost and a whole world of possible situations is
dismissed (MerIeau-Ponty, 1979). So,when Jim's wife decicks
to go on a spiritual retrat in a convent of nuns in Ireland to
pray a b u t what is hawning to her family, Fteud and Dewey
would have to explain this in berms of calling up the illusion of
the Ultimate Rescuer and carmot entertain the possibility that
she has come to Kierkegaard's 'critical moment' of insight.
A man or a woman does not live by bread alone. Truly we
need bread; but the condition of the possibility of our
satisfaction is t h e p h that there is mom around for us than
bread. Hence it is that a person will fwego the possibility of
'bread' for the sake of greater nourishment.
LiLing the l h t h m e t y
Berdyaev I d academic life, his delight was to write, read,
lecture and talk Mth friends about the deep thing of existeoce;
yet because his truth beckoned him that way he spoke out
strongly against the subversion of learning in Moscow
University in 1922. For this he was sacked Truth, he would
say, is a new kind of awareness; it is a gift mnferced on us,,
rather that something that we grasp. Far from being 'useful' to
us {which would be the way Dewey wauld a p e of Mary's
spiritual retreat), each of us finds himself judged by the truth.
'Truth', Berdyaev says, 'is the turning of the whole human
king in the direction d creative value' (1953).
The gift of truth, that is, the opening up before me of a whole
world of new possibilities in a new self-ah-ding, so that I
can look my death in the Eace and not despair, is frequently
given us in what Karl Jaspers calls 'limit situation', such as
sudden and brutal bereavement. Ordinarily, we live insulated
h r n reality; but even Fhe death of a much-loved pet can strip
away that insulation and leave a person exposed to the full
shock of existence. It is this sense of being e m to brutal
realities of existence and then trying to make sense d it all, that
I find pawerfulIy present in the w o r h of Bedyaw.
First af all he had his own m n a I bundle d diftkulties k t
muld have kept him in h p y for very many years: all his life
long he was a h i d of the dark dof the devil; he had sexual
diffic~~lties galore- He rarely mied, worried a great deal a b u t
his health and was afflicted with a nervous tic in his face
alarming enough ta have him amted an m e masion, when
the @ice thought be was sneering at them. As if all this was
not enough, his personal life was traumatized by convulsive
events in his environment: the Bolshevik Revolution, the First
World War, the Cheka Termr, two banishments, a period of
forced labour, frequent arrest, confiscation of property, the
Secand W d d War which involved him in interrogations by the
Gestapo whib he lived h Paris. (Heesmpeddeportation to the
death-camps only by the repeated protective intervention of
some anonymous patron in the Berlin government.) His
7
teachings den'ved from the heart of his life expetienw- Lowrie,
&om w k biography I derive most of my information h u t
Bwdyaev, says of him: 'The only truth of any value for
BeEayaev was "dstentid",that which mmqmded to his own
experience' (1960).
The life of Berdyaev i s of a man who is constantly
tmmcending his present situation, never senling comfortably
into a system. For a time as a young student he seemed to h d
what he sought in Mamism; but then in 1'901 during a period of
banishment in Siberia for his Socialist activities, he read
Dostoyevsky and began to see that Marxism dehumanized
people by taking away their freedom. From then on the
p-emxupyingconvictioa in all his writings is man's supeme
worth and eternal destiny which resides in our fimbm. This
fmxbm is the source of thc enigma that faces our every effort
to understand ourselves: 'becam (man) is not the product of
natural (aompIetely) but is W s child and creation,
and also because he is the child of fireedom and springs from the
abyss of non-being' Qkdyaev, 1945).
He saw life as a procesg in which a person is continually
summoned to cocreate himself and his wwld:
Man is not mmly a siaful being explating hi sin, is not
merely a rational, &doping and &a1 being, not merely a
king skk with dte mnflid betweetl his comial~~ness and
the urn- but first ad foremost, he is a aeative being
....Man is a creator too arad is called to cteative cooperation
in the work of Cod (1945) ...The p m n is selfconstnrctive.
Not a single man can say of hmlf that he is completely a
Person (f 944).
The summons to selfoansbru~tioncomes to a p e m as she
struggles deeply within to disGwer the truth about her life: "Ihis
path Iies in the deeps of existence, on this path &re takes place
the existential meeting with God, with other people, with the
inferior existence of the world' (1944). This, for Berdyitev, is
what constitutes spirituality.
The threat to personal authenticity cwnes dram objedvization.
n;lis is the lie at the heart of the person when he v i t s himalf
to became an 'object', pushed around and rnmipuIated, a play-
thing of the environment. This can easily happen if one becomes
a highly respected member of society. This is very similar to
what Perls describes when k talks about people who live by
'shoulds' (1971). Berdyaev saw any k i d of institutionalisatkin
as a threat to the dignity and Worn of the person. For this
m n he called marriage 'a piece of shamelessness" in that
'something secret, sacred and inrimate, which only two lovers
can see and understand is profaned by being made public ...'
(1945). I.3e speaks of obj&vizarian as a f m of death because
in it a person loses sight of who they a q they forget their name,
heir subjectivity,which is where their truth is revealed to them.
With swh 1- the person -1 awareness of herbiis power of
selfcreation h g h 6aeedm; now life hecomes a question of
being sucm~ful, of fitting in, of making oneself acceptable. The
8 DJ.Kennedy
most important and deepest thing in a person, which is her
hunger and thirst for truth, that mysterious dynamic which draws
each p a w n to semh for whokness, is m W out. A light is
extinguished in the person's heart. 'Truth is not mniFwmiiy with
what we call being, but W i n g of a light within being ...
my seeking is already thc dawning of the light, and mzh already
kginning to reveal itself (Ekrdyatv, 1953). This is a very
different world h m that of Dewey and Freud in which truth is
viewed as 'useful' and such p s i o n for it as dehmfon.
Truth for Berdygev is nor simpIy 'the case as it is', lawyds
truth Truth is the expxieaced relationship between sex a d the
actuality. Truth is given me when I permit mystlf to beeMne part
of h e field so that reality impacts me and I have t6 dtal with the
c x l v n c e s . When I permitted myself, for instan- to enter
Jim's s i h h and allowed the dwdW reality to impact me as
part of that situation, hen I began to see a new and tmsfomed
reality. But for this to happen my heart had to be open to
psibilities of faith.
Part of his process is my mweness that I do not bring truth
about I do not 'grasp' it. Tnrth amits me and dram me on. Like
a friend waiting for me. Tkre is the dawning nmgdtion that
tbis is where my enqujr is leading me. There is ttre dawning
recognition that a whole new world of possibilities is being
offeted to me (Mdau-fonty, 1962). 1 am aware that F do not
have to enaer this world, I am not being compelled; I can stop my
enquiry now, w I can move in a different dinxtion. E m if 1 do
shut down the process, I shaIl still carry that sense of
unconditional claim upon me: 1 am aware that this does not
derive from some mhaic introjeaion, but arises from the very
oatwe of rhe kind of being I am in relation to d.lc w d d . Truth
draws me beyond myself and the limitations of my present
existence, and F am aware of hav serious a thiing it is for me to
turn my back upon this oppomnity and its claim upon me.
I am further aware of the magnitude of this claim. I c~~
it as w x t e d v e with my existence.My integrity is an the lint. I
-
am aware that in any mdin of claims as, for instance, when
my religion teaches, or the government requires something
m&wy to the truth-theclaim of fmthis paramount. Thisclaim
is bigyr than me, teaches beyond this situation, is omnipresent
and allows na escape. It belongs to the very structnre of my
existem (Buckley, 1978).
This is where spirituality midm in openness to this most
mysterious rnwemen! in our hear& to Imth at all lew-ls of our
existence. ?'his is the ' q m d i vires' (the f m f u l search) of
which St Augustine speaks in his treatise, De Trinftate; it is
Buber's 'I-Thouboment '...tearing us away to dangerous
extremes ...'(1966). This is what Ymtef seems to imply when he
says lhat spirituality is 'rebtional' (1990).I1 is what Parlett and
Zinker itstend when they s p k d 'me' as tht key to presence
(-Parleg 1992). M y a e v calls it 'existential communion' which
is the polar oppasite to the alienation and 'de9th' which comes
from objectivjzation.
S-g the Present S M n
'...Man is a beingwho trarsseends himself and the whok of life'
(Berdyaev, 1945). This is the dynamic movement b w d s huh,
the opening up to greater and greaw relational wm1ds during the
whole of life. It is the very opposite of acting b r n necessity,
from being pushed around by events. For me to have said to Jim:
We're aZ1 in the m e bat, death rxnnes to us dl,' would not be
fmh in Eedyacv's sense; because such an ut?mallcein no way
surpgsses the p m n t situation: it derives from the necessity
which belongs lo things. It belongs more in the world of
pvitatiod gull and chemhl d o n . Truth between us is the
~ e him, comprising all my knowledge,
Mfms of my p n s e ~ l with
beEEefs and hopes, m y feelings and my openness to a larger
experience of our shared humanity. "Fm?h,' says M y a t v , 'is
not that which is; that which is forced upon us as a given
d t i m as necessity ... Tmth is mmpceknsion a d liberation
ofbeing, it presupposes the creative act of the knower witlain the
being. Truth is meaning ... it makes us free'(1923 B).
I n pactice, h s experience is, like all existelm, paradoxid. R
is an experience at once both of emptiness and fullness. Of
emptiness, bemlse although from a distance I may seem able to
comprehend Ithe other, as I move closer this canprehension
increasingly mxdm from me; of fullness, because I expwience
the promise of 'something more to be seen' which draws me on.
Have you ever n o t i d that the closer you are to a flower the
mom h u t i f u l and mysterious it bemmes?
A person who is living in the h t h will manifest this in her life
with others. Her turning towards others will have nothing of
ownership about it, but will tend to establish clear bomdsries
and set the a t h r person hx in their digaity as a human person.
Even the most casual cuntacts, such as with the girl on the
supermarket cbeckaut will have about them some quality of
oprmcss which respects the mystery of rhe other.
Berdyaev fens the I s i s of his own.spirituality: 'I became a
Chisria!&' he says, 'became I was seeking for dacper and truer
foundation for bclief in man.' The Christ in whom Berdyaev
k g a n to belicve when he was twenty-six and in Siberia, was
very much the Chrisr of his most favourire writer, Fydor
.
Dostoyevsky In his novel, The Brothers Kararnrrx~v,
Dostoyevsky sets up a scene in which through an elaborate
'legend' Christ is arraigned kfom the Grand Inquisitor and
condemned to be burned h a u s e he set w p t e free: "Youdid not
mrne down (from the cross) W u s e again YOU did not want to
enslave man by miracle and because you hungered for faith
based in &will and not on miracles. You hungered for k l y
given love and not for servile r aw of the slave kfm the
might that has him once and for all ...for if anyone has
ever h r v e d fire it is you. Tornomw J shall b u m you. Dixi'
@osklywsky, 188011970}.
'I have accepted the Chbt of ?he w' -, 1949).
me Grand Inquisitor and his fol2owers, on the other hand,
W n t all thm who Ptaw abandoned thc path af 'existential
communion' and mted the world of 'objectivization'. They
rend to own people, d save thtm from thek own stupidity. The
Inquisimr calls his exmist of power over people 'love' and
a c c m W s t of a lsck of b e : 'Instead of taking away man's
..,.
freedom you have iacreased it, and by so doing you a d as if
you did not love mankind.' Tbc Inquisitor s y m b l h that great
Lesson fmm Berdyaev
army of people who are paivy to special m t knowledge and
kmw infallibly what is best far others, like the &tor who had a
nurse dismissed bemuse she dared to talk with a patient about
that patient's appraaching death. These Great Ones know that
freedom is too much for people to manage. Such is the
Inquisitor's esteem for people, such is his accusation against
Christ: 'You have thwght too highly of men. It was pitiless of
you to value man so highly.' So, in the name of love, the
Inquisitor deprives people of their freedom. And those
'thousads of millions of happy babes' mme and kiss his hand
and hank him for delivering them. 'We don't mind being your
slam so long as you feed us ...' 'Without us,' says the Inquisitor,
'they will never feed themselves...', So the selfdeceit of the
Inquisitor bemmes the selfdeqtion of the people and so a lie
becomes a pillar of the state.
On this central point, that authenticity is in taking
responsibility for one's own life in all its details, Berdyw and
Fritz Perls a ~ in
e agreement. But Berdyaev takes it further than
merely being open to more and more experience. For him it
means an opening of the heart to those infinite possibilities
promised by Ihe limitless range of our knowledge and desiring.
That way truth touches us; and once touched by the truth,
thereafter we c . within us a kind of touchstone by which we
measure wr own authenticity in the midst of events. This is a
kind of 'organismic self-regulation' of our spirituality. From time
to time we need to experience that the truth of our being makes
an absolute claim upon us; that our Ya to this truth is more
important than even our lives or our career;that No to this truth
may save our lives but Ime wmlves. Let us see how Eerdyaev
lived this out in his own time.
bne evening in lal, just afkr a meetmg with a d l p u p
of friends, the Cheka ur s m t police came and m t e d the lot of
them. Berdyaev, this man who worried constantly about his
health, stood his ground in the presence of the Terror, refused te
be intimidated by his threats and Wited on lecturing him for
forty-five minutes on 'the religious, philosophical and moral
reasom why he was qqmwd to Communism' (Lowrie 1960).
His long experience with police helped him to deflect many of
the questions put to compromise his friends. In the early hours he
was 'courteous!y' rel& by his Inquisitor. No 11% an authority
on the prison system than Solzhenifsyn gives Berdyaev high
commendation for the way he srood up to Dzerzhinsky
(SIzhenitsyn, 1973). Berdyaev was not a man to be baught.
Some time later he and Dzerthinsly passed one another on the
street. Dzerzhinsiq raised hi hat, Ekrdyaev snubbed him, and
amazingly, got away with it, except for confiscation of his
property and perpehlal banishment a year later.
Berdyaev's thoughts on the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor are
set out in his book Dostoyevsky (1923). In the Foreword he
mentions casually that the book came about from lectures he
delivered in a seminar 1W21.He d m not mention that agents
of the secret police conspicuously sat in the hall and spied upon
him and reported to their authorities a h u t him a11 during the
course of that *minar. Urged to be careful by his dearest fiiend
and sister-in-law Eugenie, he replied that he thought it 'better to
be bnest and die before a firing squad than to be careful and die
9
in your bed"CLowrie, 1960). He nor merely carried the
rouchstone within him, but was himself wried forwad by his
passion for truth.
He was uneasy mmd authority which he saw as a way of
conmlIing people and depriving them of their tkxhn. 'I am
devoid of the slightest inclination to occupy a position in the
hierarchical order of society, and the will to power evokes in me
an unspeakable nausea and revulsion' (1949). Nevertheless,
when the Chancellor of Cambridge University invited him ia
1947to visit and m i v e the degree D x b r of Divinity - h o k
cam- he did so most willingIy. He prirsdl this honour c o n M
on him by a British university, the only degree he ever reaeived
and this only eight months before he died. He saw it as a
celebration and affirmation by colleagues in the academic world,
of ideas and values to which he had devoted hi whole life.
Summmy and C o ~ t ~ l u s i o ~ ~
It bas k e n my contention in this p p r that tlme spirituality of
the Gestalt way is to be open more and more to the truth of my
self-understanding. I find this spirituality exernplifid in the life
and explained i n the writings of Nicolai AIexandrovitch
Berdyaev.
By self-tmdlding I mean an appreciation and love of my
existence as belonging in an inexhaustiile field and endowad
with idmite passibilities. Basic to this self-understanding is the
exprlenoe t h t my every movement of perception and choice is
heuristically structured in that it contains an element of
transcendent promise: the movement always points beyond itself
to more and more integration. My a-tite to b o w and love is
inexhaustible. At the heart of me is the dynamic summons to
&her myseIf over to truth. My selfconstruction is in choosing
to follow this summonswhemxmm it l&s, dIowing this truth,
which m e s to me as a g~ft,to permeate ever-hawing areas of
my existence. 'Ihis direction of my being is my spirituality.
'hmy life and in painting I can quite wen dispense with God,'
Van Eogh says, 'but suffering as I am, I cannot dlspem with
something greater h n myseIf, mething that is my whole life:
the power of creating,' (in Dunne 1985). In our lives as
psychotherapists we can certainly dispense with God-talk;but it
is another matter entirely if I nrle out that insistent kkoning of
the truth that informs my every act of perception. As we work on
ourselves, and stme our people, we all of us 'dwell in the valley
of the shadow of death.' There is no easy short+x~,m, easy way
of finding our own spiri-I path. B is the easiest thing in the
world for any of us to go along with the fashions of the time and
miss out on that truth which Berdyaw said 'canbml the world
apart' (1949).
% Fundamentalists' reach for certainty, the Redwtionists'
mpulsion to over-simplifi and label all movements of the
human spirit, Me ernergem of therapy m Big Busirtess, are all
things inimid to this spirituality. Subjectivity is now
as a commdity (Haug, 1983). In such a world we need to watch
our back and suspect the values that infoma highly suwssful
people. Gestalt therapy is becoming increasingly fnstitution-
centred. 'lhe history of every institution is that, over time,it tends
to betray the value it was founded to prom and premote: I think
of the religious ordas,of the U.N.,of the churches, of rnaniage,
of poIitical parties and so on. The i W of mrnpassion and truth-
10 D.J. Kennedy

seeking are easily replaced by the conventions of a clique; the Freud, S. (1973). ?Re -
Q ofa W e l - h g ( originally
bad faith of individuals can take over and become the bad h t h published 1933). u n New Innodu(~toryLectures , Pelican
of a adi it ion: then t h m whom we train in our institutes, and
Baoks, Lendon).
induct into a "tradition' become, unwittingly, merchants of Euhr, R. (1993). BeyondContaaProcess. British Gestalt
Joumal,2,1,pp. 53 60.
irrauthenticity. Only a person innocent of history can say for SF: -
This will not h a m to us. %knows?Let us take b heart that Waug, W. F, (1986). A Critique of Gammdity Aesthetia.
R w i a n sayin& also be!& ofBerdyaevIand which I take £rum PoIity Preq Cambridge.
SoIzhem'wn's a d d m m the Swedish Academy: 'One word d Hycner, R. H . (1985). Dralogicul Gestcrfr m. ?lac Gestalt
truth can outweigh the whole world.' Journal, 8,1,pp. 23 47. -
Jacobs, L (1989). Diohgue in GesktIr ?heory and Theraw.
Rafmwes The Gestalt Jomd, 12, I, pp. 25 65. -
~ d %L~ - ~ w ~O Tdf~ ~
~B. (1968). T ,a m Kierkegaard, S. (1969). The J o m k (originally published
hgmans, b d o n . 1849). &Ilins Farrtana Books, UK.
Berdyaev, N. (1938). Sdimfe a d Society. G e o f h y Blw Ee~ketPUd* S- (1wlW). S ~ ~ SFVinceton
Zondon. U.P., Princeton, USA.
Bdyaw, N. (1948). F & ~ & & spa. my ~ 1 % Korb, M.,Gorrell, J. .and Van & Riet, V. (1989). Gestalt
Londm T h p y . Allyn & Bacon,USA
Rdyaev, N. (194.4). Slavery d mfiy ~ 1 % m i e , D.A (1960). l?ebefld Pmphet: A fife of N d i
hndon. Bmdyaev. ColIana, tandon.
Berdyaev, N. (1945). The Destiny of Man. Geoffrey Ma~9uarries3. (1972). ~ f e n t i ~ Penwin f ~ ~ BOOk%
,
Bles, Landon. Macquanie, J. (1967). Twentieth. Cenfivy Religiorcs Tbught.
Berdyaev,N. (1953). M m t d R e v e k t i o n GmEkyBles, SCM*Landm.
hdon. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1979). ~ f s e 1 1 0 n I e n 0 f ~ofPereeplion.
g~

Berdyaev, N. (1923). Dostoevsky: An I~terpretotion. Kegan mn,

Meridian New American Library, New York. Monish, 1. (1 %7). Dkipliws qfE h a t i w r . Allen & U m 6 ,
Berdyaev, N. (1923). Tlre Meaning of dre Creariwr A a in D.
Lowrie, (1965)A Bmdyuev Anthdogy). Parlett, M. (1992). R e p e C h on FSk4 l h w y . Britisb G e d t
Berdyaev, N. (1949).Dream a d Reality (in D.M e log. dtt Ioud7 f, 2, pp. 69 81- -
Perls, F. (1971). Gestalt Therapy Verbanin. Bantam mks,
(1963.
h k s , M. (1968). Between M a mrd Man (arigklly published New
1847). Fontana Libmy, Collins, Landon, Perls, E(1969179). En Plrrd Ord oftk Garbage Pail. Bantam
Buckley, M. J. (1978). Transcendence, Truth and Faith. BOOk% New York.
~ l e g l c aStudies
l paltimore 21%2), 39,4, p. 648. Perls, F., Hefferl ine, R.F. and Goodman, P, (1973). Gestalt
B ~ MM.~J. ~(1989). , -e and cutare:A pdd of Therapy: Excitement and Growth in Human Pmontzlity.
Departure for American A theism. Theo. Studies, 50, 3. Book Lmdm.
w e s t o n , F. (1967). A ~ h t ofpbihmphy.
q 8, pp. 109ff. Palster, E and~olster,M. (1974).Gestalt ~ntegrared.
Doubleday, New York. Vintage &oh, New Ymk.
Clarkson, P . (1989). Gestalt Counselling in Action. Sage 3- (lW8).Fdh ofttseChrkrian -&
Publication, Jnadon. Lmgman and Tdd,London.
Qa-n, P. (19g9).I&$&[& &C - 1 ~ (&&qh Segundo, J* L (1%2)* F a d & Ward
-
British Gestalt J o d , 1,1, pp.28 37. Isndon.
Solzhenim, A. (19'73). The Gulag ~rchipelngo. allins,
Clarkfon, P. (1992). T r m B c h l ~ ~ p bw m& m .
TavistocMRoutldge, London. hndon.
hmky, kb h firm
( 1 ~ 0 1 .1 (-,penguin Spinelli, E. (1989). The Interpreted W d d . Sage, London.
Vol. 1 , bndon. Wernham, C.S. (19158). %o & R fihkws: BerSyaer attd
Dublin, J. E. (1 977). Gestalt %rap, Exisfential T h r a w Shesfuv~ ofTmto Canada-
and/vemus 'Perkism'. (in E.W.Smith (ed.) The G-g Y ~ n e f ,G. (19802 C e a l t WW: Dialo@ M M .
Edge of Gestalt Therapy. Secaucus, Citadel Press, New Un~ublbhedMS.
Jersey. ref fmm Chlrson, P. (11989) Yontef, G.M. (1990)R~entTrends in Gestalt Theram and
me, J. ( 1 ~ . H - qfw* ~ness,mn. What WeNeed to Leamfiom Them Brit Gestalt JaumF, 1,l.
~fi~ andm wan, (1967). A
-C T ~ Mf,. Zinker,
Boob
3. (1978). CreativePmcess in G d t Thetam. Vintage
USA.
Psychiatrqr. Williamson & Wilkins, Baltimore.
Des Kennedy, BA, Lic.Phil., S L , Dip.GPI1. He is a gmduate of metamia in West Londoh He
did his advanced studies in xholastic philowphy atPd theology during tiis time as a Jesuit. For
many years he headed the teaching of religious education to all the students and existentialist
philowphy to the senior students in a grammar school.We is in pnvate practice as a therapist in the
Wirral,

Ahssforc-: Shalom, 36,Haside Road, West Kirby, W i d LA8 gSB

 GESTALT THERAPY AND THE
CULTURE OF NARCISSISM

Peter Philippson
Received 17January 1994

AMmct, This paper is a reworking of a paper presented at the British Gestalt Conference,
Cambridge, July 1993. I present some of the ideas of Christopher Lasch (who died on S t
Valentine's Day this year) and discw their relevam to the practice of psychotherapy in ow
dm.E a h explore how aspb of the values psychothempis$ have a s p o u have coam'buted
to the build-up of this culture d the Rarcissitic personality of our times.

Key wmb: Narcissism, relational 4eK, image vs. reality,dtwe.

'Even when therapists speak of the mal for 'meaning' and
'lave', they define love and m a h g simply as the fulfillment of
the patient's emotional quirwnents. It hardly occurs to them -
nor is there any m w n why it shollld, given the nature d the
thetaptic enkqmse - to encourage the subject to suhdinate
his needs and inkrash bo those of others, to m e o n e or same
cause or tradition outside himself. 'lave' as self-sacrifice or
self-abasement, 'meaning' as submission to a higher loyalty - (1981) d Kohui (1977), 9 h m various jmb of the analytic
these sublimations strike tk rherapeutic seosibnity as intolerably
oppfessive, offensive b common sense and i n j u r i ~ to
s personal
health and well-being, To liberate humanity from such
outmoded ideas of love and duty has beoome the mission of the
post-Freudian therapies and pa~iicutarlyof their converts and
popularizers, for whom mental hearth means the overthrw of
inhibitionsand the immediategratificaionof every impulse,'
Lasch [I9791
Narcissism k defined in terms of praoccuption with self,
mupled with a laek of empathy for others, emotional coldness
-
and grandiosity. This can be overt the undiscovd genius
(Kenneth Williams: 'I could W e been a star'); or covert, with
rage and sense of injltstice hiding behind a superficial humility
(like t
k very 'umble Uriah Heep).
Perls (1948) identified (secondary) narcissism with
reboflection. He painted to the cusmmrrry usage as being 'self-
Iwe', but said that this is to miss the point. The narcissist is nat
capable of love of self or others put can often simulate love
quite well). Think rather of the beautiful b y Narcissus looking
at himself in the warer and believing that he is looking at
meone else. He cannot move away from the water without his
friend disappearing; neither can the water be dishlibed by the
slightest breath of wind without his image of perfediun rippling
away. Under what conditions in the rest of this youth's world
wilI he stay with his reflection as his only 6rIend?
?here are many ways of dewriling the etiology ofnarcissi:
among the best-known writers we Kernberg (197% Mastersoo
tradition. However, we have in the Gestalt theory of the
relational self a particularly good way of understanding
narcissism. Self grows by mm:with the other, the novel, tfie
excltink the nourishing. But what if there is na other to really
amtact, te be excikd by M to be nourished by? Say the chid's
parents arr: sick, or physically or p s y c h a l ~ f yunavailable to
the child. The drive for self-actualization (in the Goldstein
(1939) sense: self is made acW by my action/con- with no
normative content of the kind which 'Humanistic
Psychotlhefapy' has added to th conoept) will often be strong
enough for the infant to project ?heird e s M ideal parent onto the
Mark screen of the unavailable parent. In ordw to suppwt this
projection, the infant must learn to deflect any sense data which
might contradict this image: this would include most real
emotional mnm! So tht infant develops a sense of self based
on retroflection rather than mnhct
h infani in contact with a real human rnmwr-ks available
pwson l m to deal with the disappointments of t h e times
when the parent does not turderstand what the child wants or is
jua not prepaTed to play with the child in the middle of h e night,
or any of the ordinary mismatches that happen between real
people; any such disappointment to a child in love with ao ideal
projectedimage pdzentidry opns thE floodgab to an aware- the cbild's upbringing. And if that fails, there is always the
of h M e r real abandonment rage, accompanied by a sense of dlpcational psycho log is^ the probation officer, thc rwcial worker.
dissolution of the self. As this infant grows up, this will manifest This goes alongsick - is both a reaction to and aEso promotes -
in an inability to show real warmth, an inability to separate image the collapse of aubliry. The buck stops somewhere else! In
from d i t y , and rapid altcnration belwecn grandimity (a perfect Britain, education i s full of new programmes to increase the
person from a wonderful family) and rage and feelings of sew of achievement, which militate against acntal achievernenl:
inadequacy (always caused by others!) if anyone truly 'gets school Ieague tables, ill-tbught-out testing, pseEld+lcvanoe to
through' emotionally. Lmking acceptable will be important indusky.
rather than acting m o d y ; tbe narcissit is not Itrustworthy, since
hislher commitment is to a fantasked ideal rather than to a reat Similarly, o k h d e s such us the Wth m i e E take
pema over the hkiq after of the old and d y i the disabled and tk
brain-damagod. They thus both fespond to, and contribute to, the
The Cu&m ofNmrissism c u l diiincIinatiorr
~ offamilim and communities to lwk after
those who need this extm attention,
M a d t e r Area Hcalth Authwity h a insistad that waiting
lists be&&eb This laudable aim has k n achieved by closing the Icss of culturally
* The trivialisation of personal ~r~lations,
some waiting I& to new people when tfrey have m hed a year! apprwed md agreed methds for sigudTing sexual interest, the
patblogisi of mrnmitment 'for k w r or for worse', teading to
* British Rail wants a greater proportion of trains b e t w a n an intensification of the sex war as men and women look for
Maochesttt and lnndcm tu arrive on time. 3hey have adjusted some ideal of canflllcnt -mess, a d m enraged when they
the timetables so make. the journey time five mimes longer. don't find it. They then flip to the other side, either isoletion
from the other sex OF exploitation.
* The doings of chmctes in te1evisim 'soaps' are presc~tedas
news. Dread of old age, with ib lass of power, beauty and health.
Devaluation of the 014 so that the government can say that we
a afford state eamingweIafcd pensions, and plans to impose
T h e t r e ~ i n p l i t l c s i s l l e v e ~ t o r t s i ~ t v w i f c a u g h t w t i ncan't
stupendous rnidemeawm VAT on fuel bills.
The ciornrnon factor in all this is the elevation of images above
reality. If there's a disaster, it's someone else's fault, and In each case, what wm prniously pmided (while o h not
someone else should do xrrnething, very wonderfully) in tbe community is now provided by a
bureaucracy or not at all. The solution becomes the new
problem by mtributing to the decline of mutual commitment
and the expectation of someone dse providing heontact, or
A smse o f d ~ m nuclear, envirwtmental, d h n c falling apart denial of the imprtanee ofcontact
Analogously to the individual mreissist, the culture retrenches
and stops 1wking. A MI serrie of continuity with histwy and
movement towards lthc fumis replaocd either with an obsessive
focussing on the present, or an allegiance to an idealid past S o w h a t d o e s t h i s m e a n f o r p s y e ~ ~ igeneralandfor
n
when everything worked and the trains ran on h e . P l m for Gestalt therapy in C.paticular? T h m me basically two appmwhts
living turn into plans for mere survival. Compare this with the in psychotherapy: self-exploration and problem resofutlon.
f r e q m t misreading of Pnls on the here-d-now as 'You should Gestalt has been used in both these forms: the original form
only focus on the presentv rather than seeing memory and pointcd at by Cam9 and Egq Hunger and Aggtession
hopedplandfears of the fume asking part of the present field. and Perk' verbatim tramtip& and lectures; and a more mmt
form of 'working on issue',
Success seen less as achievement of ambition than as It seems to me that if we concentrate on wwking on huts,we
achievemtnt of admiration from others because of how come to faciIitate what Hunter Beaumont (pcrsoaal
successfulywseemtobe, communication) calls 'polishing the ego' rather than the
development of the relational self, and this fits into Lasch's
In advertising and politic4 e cynicism going b e d tmb a d critique of the pt-Frtlrdian therapies, However, if we work the
W h o o d to the truly narcissistic NLP iM: 'The meaning of a other way round, facilitating the exploration and of self in
communication is the effect it has.' If the fa- are verifiable, so action and relationship, we bKIw that the work promotes greater
much the better, because that will be more effective. ease at dealing with life sihlatiow for growth in sew equates to
greater flexibility of relationship possibility, and knce to greater
* Ihe %gradation' of spprt ifito entmainment'qsxta.cle rathea ability to apply self- and tnviroamcntal support to difficult
than beingpart of thc fabric of society. situations. The difference would be that the new soIutions would
be integrated with a more eontactful self-process rather than
The school is acting mere and more as part of the 'New being merely techniques.
Paternalism', 'Paternalism without Father", KI that parents can I will sidetrack to a paper by Chris Argyris (1986) about
have a sense of handing over tu the school the responsibility for 'Skilled Incompetence",where he points out that many
GuIture of Narcissism
pmfessionals are debarred by their interpersonal skills from
really resolving oonflictq rather they learn to deflect from them
and either find firms of words, or to acknowledgment of the
OK-ness bf the other perm. Tiis is demonshated very clearly
in a p a p by Carl Ragers and David Ryback (1989 odining
their facilitation in the Camp David accords between Begin and
Sadat. The prcicms of dealing with the hard and conflictual
issues involved was diverted to a p m s of people dkmveting
their common humanity. Then Sadat was assassinated, the
Ismelis went on killing Palestinians in their occupied territories,
Cater was ousted by Reagan, and mthmg had really changed.
They had used their skills to answer the wrung question!
One of the points that h c h and athers, including Gordon
Wheeler (1991X have made is that lhe way cIients present has
changed with the culture. We rarely see over-borndied clients
h m the kind of strict families that Freud saw, with the clients
mponding with repression and hysberical canvmion symptoms.
We are more likely to see under-boded clients who have no
sense of who they are, where any physical abuse they suffered
would have k e n unavoidable and meaningless as opposed to a
technique in instilling a pamcular kind of socialisation. To ask
someone the answer the question 'What do you want?' is not
useful if the client cloesn't know who this 'I' is who might want
something! It is very easy to produce a peu&solution which
makes more problems than it mlves.
k second p i n t for Gestalt h p h t s is linked to the last me:
the importance of dialogic therapy. Over-use of empty chair d
other techniques are part of the issue-orientated approach.
However9if self is to be developed, then as self is relational, the
work must centre on budding relationship. This is not to say that
experiments are out, but are to hie seen as ways of enhancing
contact and exploration in the 'safe emergency' as PerIs et al
(1973) put it, rather than the primary focus of Gestalt. It is also
well-known that two-chair work across the primary split for
narcissistic or krderline clients does not work,since an ending
of the split plunge the client into depression.
Thirdly, I believe there needs to be a de-emphasis on
tegmsion in therapy. James Hillman and Michael Ventura
(1992) have co-written a very interesting book called We'w Had
a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World's Getting
Worse, which complements bsch's book well. One of
Hillman's and Venturn's most telling points is that in focwing
on 'The Jnner Child', psychotherapy is promoting the
identification of clients with a way of being which is
individualistic, irresponsible, lacking commitment or
responsibility for othem. More bereand-now Gestalt questions
ate: What is tbe pmms by which we make memories of pain
from childhod figural now? What ecological function do they
have now? Whnt are the learn& about the world that we made
then which we m still holding to now? Bwderline clients ate
very likely to 'fall apart' in any form of regressive therapy,
especial1y if 2his includes a lot of physical holding. Narcissistic
herapists and clients will enjoy their sense of speciaIness to each
other, but woe betide the therapist who 'tries to get beyond this
and mnfrsnt the client's manipulation, Rather, the important
point is that clients leam to remake good mntact with first the
therapist and then the -Id. I also believe that group therapy
has a geat part to play in this, with its richer environment, with
the other group members p i d i n g a symboIic representation of
13
the whole world. Will they like or dislike me; will they think I'm
g d or bad, attractive or ugly; will they accept me or rereject me?
Following on from the pint about rqmmibdity, we need to
b~much clearer about the Gestalt approach to whom and for
what we are responsible. In its Gestalt fornulation, 'rwpmm-
able', I am response-abIe for myself and for my environment,
and since the meaning of me is k p m i b l e fnrm the meaning of
my environment, I cannot be one without the other. If my Iife is
totally dependent on the air that I breathe, then I am response-
able for the state of the rain-forests which praduce mast of the
worid's oxygen. If my life is here in Britain, then I am response-
able for the social, political and culturaI situation in Britain,
which is v d y important for my own existence. Read some of
the political and educational writings of Paul Goodman (e.g,
1 g 1 ) to see how central this was to the foundation of Gestalt
therapy. The point is that the Gestalt concept of response-ability
is not additive: if someone else is 100% response-able for
herself it doesn't mean that I am 0% rqmlseable for k.In
kt,I am 100% response-ablefor her as weII. I am r e s p o w
able for he client, and the cIient's family and environment If
my client is discovering anger, it is my responsibility to
encourage her not to practise on innment civilians (like the
as4ertiveness training course which was thrown out af a hat
after all the members sent their wine back!). As therapists, we
need to have an eye to the social effects of what we do. We are
in a real s e m beneficiaries of human misery. Do we then say
that we are quite satisfied with the misery?
I want to end with an expansion from my own and others'
expience of what 1said about the kinds of clients we emunter.
There is a vwy Iarge number of people about who manage to
hide psychotic and close-wpydmticsymptoms behind a well-
functioning facade. Ow culture of narcissism presents us with
many ways of creating this facade. A standard psychiatric
assessment is to ask mmmne to count down from 100 in 7%.
Patients knaw this and have been frequentIy observed on the
wards practising Fogether. A large pmentage of clients will, at
least temporarily, function less well during therapy as they come
to terms with issues of abandonment, rage, md their carefully
constructed retrodective seIf vanishing. Some are at immediate
risk of breakdown, or of being perceived as having had a
breakdown. I remember working with a mentaI heaIth
professional whose new-found ability to fee1 emotion was looked
on with such suspicion by the consultant psychiatrist thar he was
required to undergo a psychiatric assessrnenr? Our work must
take this into account, together with the ethical question: 'Do we
work with someone whase job, stam in society, sanity, primary
relationship, or parenting could well be permanently adversely
affected?'
We must rediscaver the human hetion of thinking. So many
people have fli@ to the 0 t h side of Perls" eqrration, feeling
but not thinking or wing their senses,so that as we11 as being told
'Lase your mind and come to your senses' they need to be toid
'Distnrst your feeling;; what do you think?'! So many d i e m "
feelings have so little connection with hereand-now reality:
regarding their My-irnsge; or how they are perceived; a how
others are relating to them and others' motivation for criticking
them; ot tbt o o v of their aim. A huge number d
paople have simply lost the knack of making friendships and
commitlad relatiomhips - and this inclndes many therapists! A
huge number of people have lost the knack of enjoying
themelves without looking over their own shoulders at the
image they are presenting - also including many therapists.
PeopleXsfeelings are based on their awn w o n p j d out
onto tbe environment and thea seen as attacking them, the
victims They mtd to think about haw they know what they
-
lrnew the question Bob Rcsnick Cpersonal communication) is
very keen MI asking. W M are they actually perceiving and what
is projection?
Shom of aarcisslsticgmradimity, tbcrapists m't redly change
tlre world Therapy is neither the new form of politics mr the
new religion What we can do bwevet is te aware of how our
cult~lralasarmptiom relate to the assumptions of the world we
live in, and whether we are, in our focus on the individual,
reinforcing dmal assumptions which ate at best not conducive
to mental health and destructive to human rclat6cfncss, and at
wwst a u l d be fatal to the human me.

Lasch, C. 11979). Zlte Culhcte of N a m h Norm, New

Argpis, C (1%). SkilM I r n m p m In Bmmd Btlskss
Review, SeptemberUctober 1986.
Goldstein, K. (1939). The Organism. American Book
Company,Baston.
Goodman, P. (1971). C m p u h r y Miseducutian. Penguin,
London.
Hillman, J. & Ventura, M. (1992). We'w trad 100 years of
Pwhutheriqy and the warld's G W g Wwse Harptr, San
Francisco.
Kernberg, 0. (1975). Borderline C A d Pahbgkal
Narcissism Science House, New York
Kohua, H.(1977). The Restomtion of the Serf: lntnnatianal
University hs, New York
Ymk.
Lasch, C (1985). IIte Minimat Self: P i i , ~~
Petls, F.S. (1948). Theory and Techniqwe ofPersonali@
I n t e g n r t h American Journal of Psychotherapy, 2, 4, Oa.
1948, reprinted in Stevens(1975).
Peris, F.S., Hefferline, R. & Goodman, P. (1973). Gestalt
m. Pelican h k s , bndoa p. 338.
Rogers, C. & Ryback, D. (1985). TIce Altmmiw ra M u c k
Plummy Suicide. In Counselling (Iht J o d of the British
M 8 t i o n for Counselling) No.52, May 1985.
Stevens, J.0. (1975). Gessoit is. Red People PES, Moab.
Wheeler, G. (1991). G d Rec&ed. Gmal~estalt Institute of
Cleveland Prm.

Peta PMBppm isan IXCP- registendW t psgchatherapnt and maim, 8 Tcaching and
Supervising Memhr af the Gestalt Psychotherapy Training Imtitute UK, a fbunder member of
Manchwter Gestalt Centre aad a guest trainer for Teamwork in. Edinburgh. He is editor of 'The
N a m of Pain' and (with John Harris) m-author of 'Gestalt: Working with Groups' and coaditm
of 'Topicsin Gestalt Therapy', all published by Manchester Gestalt Centre.

AddhseC m eM a n c bW t Chlrc, 7, NO- Road, Manebem M14 5LF

 COMPULSION AND CURIOSITY
A Gestalt Approach to Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder
Gordon Wheeler
Reccivd I7 November 1993

Abstract. Obsessive-compulsive behaviour patterns have been treated from a variety of

themetical p e w i v e s , often without norable sucoess. 7 k G a d t model offers an intersubjtztive
approach which mtextuzlrizesthe problem in terms of =lationship and self-wganization, enabling
the clinician to move flexibly among inmpsychic, interpemnal and sys&rnidfamiIy levels of
analysis and intenrention, In application t~ work with childre& h e Gestalt model provides a
theoretical h e w a r k for organizing a variety of methods and apptmhes, including dialogue,
play therapy, structured activity, enactment, journal writing and family intervention fsom a
mnstnmctivist and developmental point of view.

w&:child aeative adjastment, development,Gestalt therapy, iotembjcctivity,

joumalig, ~ i v e 9 0 r n p u l s i v edisorder*Paul Gaodman, play therapy.

Lik mwy I 0 - y e a r d 1ManGAaF a b d & u U hmp smCrar@ to the O b d ~ i vDhmkr e Click at a

h&r- the~-stan&gkrndwirhaba~rdma local teaching hospif~l for evaluation wd medication,
p a r t , ~ b y a w & M p y ~ b a s eAndlikeinmy : w&h k *gb the treabnmt dI0mf.hOCD.!
other kids his age, he was in the hobit of shooting a few
bash-& at odd monsents, belore getting irro bed at What are we b make of 'obsessimpllsive' beMan?
night. A w a s m o t ~ u a l e ~ r t h a t M a r k l i k e d t o d o n a What does it mean wkn m e exhibit lengthy and s k f d y p i
g d ~ a r r d d i r f n ' t E i k e k l q u t l d h e k a d o n e . %t behavbml sequences, over and over, that have to be performed
was wwual war t k i* Mark's case thir b e d h e routine in just a certain way and seem to make w sew to other people?
Itad somehow mlrshroomd into a lengthy ond a-acting h d then what are we to do a b u t it, what stance should we
nha$, w h i c h h a d t o b e a ~ h e d h e v e r y h t ~orl , take? Are these Mmviom the residue of unattached libidid
ekthere uxwnopossibkwayhewuklsdedown adget and aggressive energy, imrrmpletely c a ~ s u b I i m a t e din the
ro skp. Oedipal crisis? (Few p p l e wouId say so today, and yet our
Tobeginwt& dresmmsfd&had&beaswish- language for discussing these and other clinical problems
d r a r i s , i t ~ t o g o ~ h w i t k o l r f f o t c c h i n g b n ~ r d # remains extensively grounded in h e classid psychodynamic
rim ?%enit had to hil the j h r Md 'did ' (Mark's own model). Dysfunctional pas?learning schedules, which can now
w d for it, meaniffgcme to a sky)d u t ut aU touching be aitered for thR t m e r with reinforcement, and the behaviors
the carpet which covered the room from the other end, reshaped? Faulty belief systems? Perhaps a biochemical
w k r h e b e d w s r s ~ p a p t w a ~ h . i C ~ ~ ~ i f t h e b anmdy, aIl which can be medicated away? Anxiety? - in which
came straight down on fiFepyromid base, it would m~rcmlly case what is anxiely, from a Gestalt or any 0th perspective?
be defected out into the carpet area, cutd an otherwise Or doas the problem lie rather in the family dynamic, the
p q k t shot woeJd be ruined interpersonal 'system', which may somehow be working to
By the ~ l W u r k c a m + i o w e mdrisni&@ q r i d support the problem bekaviow and block change, in the service
had grown into a full-scak ordeal that c o d take up to of somthing else?
three hours a night and counting. And they were thee Is the family 'undifferentiated', so that one persun's moods
hotrrs of tortwe for the family, with Mark in teats, his and anxiety are somehow felt by crhm as their awn -and if so,
m d w altermareIy yelling and cIying, his f t r &&g Ihe how does that happen? Or are we dealing here with a 'fixed
r m and somehines k house & manage his own anger gestalt' - and then what does that mean, and what do we do
mrd&h~-olenMark's~sirterslcle~be~gtobe abut it?
drawn in Uftk t h e Ihm@ts ahe fan@ had c ~ n d b d All of these pssibilitia (and some others) repesent @ti=
befowtheyga mhudrecammnded he betaktm of major % h i s of therapy with regard to OCD. AU of t h
 -
plainly have some merit t o them even the classical
psychodynamic, if we take it metapharically enough, as
Goodman did (see for example 1977, especially Part .)I And as
Goodman liked to say, if all of us are looking at the 'same
animal', and dP of us are sinaere and none of us is cmq, then
them must b me meaningful cmmcti~nbetween and among
our different ways of understanding these events (Perls,
Hefferline & Goodman, 1951, hereinafter PSIG). What is that
connection, and what is the particular Gestalt pe~pectivton the
problem? What does a Gwlalt approach add to all the others,
how docs it differ - a d most of all, how might it help us to
contcxtualize and make sense of the sometimes bewildering
m y of other approaches? Because clearly if Gestalt, which
bills iwlf as a 'holistic'm&od, can fulfiII its promise in this
contextualking way, then the 'neaessasy eckticism' forced on
us by our patients can itself k m m e a meaningful whole, and not
jmt a menu OFchoics.
When I asked Mark what he thought hi nighttime basketball
activity meant, he said, not surprisingly, that he didn't know.
WEB, 1 countered, how about if I push you a Little bit on that:
when people feel like they have to do something jmt a certain
way, and hey'= m y upset if it doesn't work out, and they can't
go on to the next thin& then a lot of times they say they feel v q
anrious a b u t something. Would he say he felt anxious, say
during ?he ~~l muthe, or during the day beforehand? No,
Mark replied, ht wouldn't say that.
But-1 insisted-hkpmtswreteUmgmhe~veryupset
about. somerhing every nigh6 and he himself said he couldn't
p s i b l y fall asleep until the task he had set fm himself had ken
accamplished succesfully: would he dl that feeling anxiety,
or nervousnew or what would he call it exactly? Anxious I
guess, was Mark's somewhat grudging reply after another
moment - maybe more as a way of managing me and my
qwstiolls than anything else!
(Here I was reminded of 12-yearald Paul, who told me he'd
decided to give up his presenting problem - a quite seriow om
ofhurting himself with hard objects-because 'it's just notwolth
it anymore if J have to come hem and talk to you about it every
time I 60 it.' Not that he didn't want to m e ? He did, so he
codd 'whip my blm'in our bestaf-fifty Vefy Sorry Mumamenf
where he was miling badly at th moment, mostly because he
played so unaggmsively, and didn't pay any attention to my
game, but only coaoemratad on his awn. He jta didn't want to
have to talk about Us 'symptom,'so he was giving it up to
-
remove it as a p i b l e topic, Was this t h p y + g u n l s h m e n t
or was it that Paul just didn't fee1 so much like hllrting himself,
now that he felt more empathic interest (from both of us) in
himself and his subjective world? Or was it that he naw had a
-
better venue the interpersonal field between us - for
e x p l o ~ ~ e x p s s aggression?
hg Or all of the W e ? What we
m sky for sure is that the entry of anohm p s m , the therapist,
into the sIrbjecHve fL& of the problem somehow changed the
problem, so that the patient organized his own field in some
significantly different way).
With Mark, of course my aim at tbis early point was not to
force him to pam,t my rn- though I might be interestad in
pushing him, now or later, to try them on. OR the contrary, I was
delighted to see his ~es- and then hi sullenness - h t was
such a plia boy! To me, t h t h i n g seemed to be positive
signs for a productive relationship in the future, which might
inclu& some ebments afanflict or struggle. For now, my hope
was n h r to begin mapping out the grotmd for what it was we
were going to do together, what stance we were going to take up
(together, if he would), toward his problems and his world.
Specifically, I wanted m begin esatblishing tb following t h i n e
which Ialso told h i edicitly: I) that feelings matter, k y are
subde and m p l e x pr?sof ourselves bat grvt to o m us, te
point us to where it is we want to go (or away fjom w k r e we
don't want Eo go). If we don't h o w ow feelings, don't h m a
lnnguage dfeeIin& then we're operating without a cornpas, at
least a big part of the time; 2) that we get to know wr feelings,
develop and articulate and nuance that language, principally
through M n g them a d with mother prsw who takes an
interest in our internal world: 3) t b t behaviow always has a
meaning, or meanins and that it is intetesting, impwtant, and
very psi'ble for us to figure out, together, what at least some of
those meaniw might be, and h l I y 4) that for kt#? or worse
(or both), if we worked together then I was going b inskt on
bing involved in m e way. to some in Mark's i n k e d
world (and here again was why it was important to begin getting
m e sense of Mark's cupuctly for resisrance, which would be a
crucial support for us in the work. If he couldn't resist the
conta&influence of mother person-which a k all might be the
-
nature of his problem in the first place then we would first have
to nurture and develop that capacity, kfore we could struggle
together over 0 t h things, and he could wrist and own his own
meanings).
-
Finally - and this part 1did not try to say to Mark directly in
the Gestalt model there is an important sew in which all thase
four things - the language of feelings. the intersubjective
e~plorationlconstructionof that language, the question of
meaning, a d the nature of the interpemnal field - m really the
same thing or a s p % of the same thing. To understand this, we
first need to back up and discuss the Gestalt notion of the
concepticonstruct of self, and how that differs from the
understandingof =If and self functions in other models.
Broadly speaking, in the Western tradition from the pre-
Socratics through the Christian writers and on down through
Freud, the self, or self-function, has been thought of as
something purely internal, private, more or less equivalent to
what we mean when we say ' m m t self,' the me krtown onIy
to me - and perhaps to Gd. This last is significant, because
'self in tbis sew is very e l m , in the dominant tradition, to the
-
term 'soul' that which i s essential about a person, is
ontologEcally real, and by definition (in that model) essentially
d p m m n l l y sepmte and distiml frwn other selves. This is
the monadic theory of self, articulated by Leibniz but actually
characterizing the whole of the last thee rnillenia in the West, at
least in its dominant voices. The k h a v i o d world yielded by
this view is a biitiard-ball world, where one 'windowless
monad,' to use Libniz's term (1714), baunces blindly or
'selfishly' offof the 0 t h - but all according to a divine pEan, all
.fbr the btst in the k t d all p i b k worlds (this is the arbitrary
or inorganic optimism satirized in Voltaire's CamW). The glue
Compulsion & Curiosity
of this universe, or for that matter of any society, any wlatiom&
within it, lies in the mind of God not in any organic or i n h n t
i n t a m e n e s s - or as we might say now, intersubjectivity -
between and a m g individual people. Separate individualiiy is
r d ; C O ~ ~ t e d n is t Xonly i n s w n t a l , and thus essentially
illusory. Subtract GDd fmm the picture, and you are left with the
wotldview (and self-view) of the behavioural model, or of
Niceor Fred (each monadic self striving M act out its own
selfish drives) - and, clearly, with the crisis of meaning that has
characterized Western culture for the past century and mare.
Of course, h r e has k e n a muter-dition in the West, or
-
various (xlunter-traditions chiefly the mystical tradition in its
many variations, which typically have more closely paralleled
the Easm views of an underlying or supraindividual self. In
these views it is which is essential and leal, and
separate individuality which is illusory. In the sociaVseculat
realm this tradition takes the form of the variow communitarian
movements which have been particularly strong in 19th and
20th- Century America, and which very rnllch influenced
Goodman (see for example 1947).
It was M r n a n ' s particular achievement to attack the self
problem in a way that refused to dawn@ either pole of thew
-
two great broad streams of thinking the individual and the
-
collective but rather insisted on retainin& even heightening, the
creative te'nsion between them. Indeed, he identified that
tension itself. tihat 'h-,' as the location and essence of the
self function, or as he would say, s e l f - m s s (PHG, p.437). In
retrospect, his achievement here is even more original and
remarkable than i t must haw seemed at the b e , even to him
-
(since, as he liked to say no doubt defiantly but also certainly
sincerely - his formulations and ofisenrations were all 'self-
evident' and 'obvious'; (PHG,p.269). That is, in his
psychologicdl formulations Goodman consistently harked back
to the phenomeno10gical -what it feels like, how it isfor me- as
the touchstone of theoretical rightoess and usefu- in sharp
and obvious contradistinction to Freud (or for that matter the
Behaviourists), who would say that the 'patien!,' the person, is
the Iast one we should ask, in establishing what is
psychologidly real. To GBodman it is ahways the antact that
-
is real the more or less satisfying resolution of the 'external'
world of resources, d~stacIes,perceived threats and sought-after
goals,with the 'in~rnal'world, of felt needs and known desires,
memories, aims past learning and future hopes. It is this contact,
this ongoing resolution (the best the p e m can manage with the
world as she sees it, by definition) that is what Goodman called
'neathe adjustment', the operation of the self. That is, =If and
self-process or function are not coterminous with the 'inner'
wodd of the depth psychologists and Western philosophers, -
nor with the 'external' world as the social psychologists would
-
have it h t rather form a supraordinak or unifying function,
which integrates the whole field from a subjective point of view.
This is what makes Gestalt a holistic mmodel, and this is what we
mean when we say the Goodman G&dt model rehatar the
self, to a position above the apparent dichotomy in the field, of
inner and outer, private and public, even self (as privately
cudved) and other.
But - and this is a point often neglected in the model - the
mimiation of this 'imer' world, the world of feelin& desires,
thoughts and fears, wishq doubts, appetites and fantasies, is not
17
an obvious thing we are brrm with, but is itselfa M o p m e R t g l
adtkmmt, at Ieast as much as howMge and exploration af
the 'external' worId is learned and achieved over time, and by
dint of considerabIe active energy and work, And more than
this, even the skiIls and structures involved in getting to know
one's internal subjective world, are themselves developmental
achievements. That is, we aren't born laowing ourselves, or
knowing how to b o w ourselves. AII that toa is learned, a d lFte
pmess by whtds it is kumed is e m intmubj&iw p m m . We
learn how to be curious about ourselves, always and only
through the benevolent, stimulating, empathic curiosity and
interest of another p m n . As Wimioott puts it, the self of the
infant exists first in the mother's eye (reading any intimate
caretaker for mother here). It is though being ~reatedas a sea
which is to say as a being with a valid i n t e d experience, or
intersubjectively, that we learn to regard ourselves, and olhers,
with this persptiw, and with a firm s e m of this d i t y . To the
extent that this intersubjective process is impoverished or
distorted in development, then the internal s u b j d v e world itself
remains impoverished and ~lnarticulated. And then the self-
function, which is the ongoing integratjon of this wmld with the
'outer' world, remains likewise impoverished, unarticulated,
d i s t d in various ways and degrees.
It is in this sense that the Gestalt mudel is fundamentally,
inherently an intersubjective model, by its nrthrre and at its core.
The relational perspective is not something ony to the
d e l , in the way that the Self-in-relationship mdeE tries w do,
w e r a fundamentally individuaIistic psychodynamic base (see
for example the otherwise very interesting and fruitful work of
the Stone Center in this regard, e.g. Surrey, 1985). Rather,
~Iationalityis given in the phemmenolagical premises of the
Gestalt appach. When the patient enters therapy, it is always in
some way because of a breakdown in self-process and self-
function in this sense. *This in turn means a breakdown or
distortion ot intemplion in deveIopment - either currently, as in
the case of a child, or in the past in the case of an adult (more
rarely, an adult may seek therapy because of a transition or loss
or other life event which is more or Iess purely a &is in ongoing
adult development, and not refIective of some past
developmental trauma; this is rare because without that past
trauma, that necessary compromise in natural deveIopment, the
person will more likely find the intersubjective supports in
herhis own informal relational network, without seeking a
forma1 therapeutic suppn).
Put mother way, the patient c o r n to shwapy because sheJk
is too &#re with herlhk problem What was Mark tm alone
with, I wondered? What fears or feelings were being hekl too
closeIy, not welcomed, reflected, talked about, so that he could
welcome and know and articulate them for himself, a d thus
incorporate them into his iqmwme, in the full sense of that
word (which is reaIIy another term for development: each one
wntains and implies the other)? His mother said that Mark had
'lost his innocence' since entering fifth grade, which was in a
middle school with older boys and bullies, entirely different in
feeling b m the more sheltered private school where
he had spent the previous four or five years, to all appeararrces
very happily and successfiIly. Was this the stress (and note
again that when we say s w we mean a pressure that has to be
borne alone, without support; it is the tooaIonefms of it that
18 Gordon Wheeler

makes it a ms, and not just a chancnge). But the family was no Ionger sewing its function, or of which the secondary a t is
talking about this, and working with it. I kept listening for too high (the 'symptom' of substance abtrse mmes to mind, as a
something deeper, more embedded, in Mark's way of holding familiar example), To Mark 1 said that k seemed to me the
himself and approaching his world- problem here was not that he had a bedtime muthe or rim],but
that the thing wasn't working. Or better, maybe it was working
in some senses @cause Mark slept without further problems
after each nightly workout, which may have served other family
When a &Id is bmught to therapy, I'm always inbmstd ta p u r p as well) - but we might be able ta figure out somefhing
lolow what was going on in the pmnts' lives, when they w m together that would m e Even better, and rnaylme at lower mt
th same age the child is now. We all of us live in a social fiela all around, once we UMderstmd more what it was he was byhg
and OUT belongingness, our lack af boundary k h v e e n what is to accomplish exactly, every evening with the basketball. Again
'us' and what is 'not a'b just as real as our b- our Mark lookcd at me like we might not share common planetary
separate 'individuality' (and note that individual means origins, but he did assent to the idea, at l a verbally, that we
undivided, whole, not -tea). These are the two poles of the would explm tbe thing together.
Goodman self model - and the two poles of our experience, This we did, through the coming weeks, in a number af ways.
which is our integratiw if we can, these 'inner' and 'outer' The first had to do with what we might dl Mark bringii the
aspects of ourstlves. lust as there is a way in which we arc problem to me. Sirm I couldn't be there in his room at night, b
always the same. ongoing person, h e is a way in which we arc see just what was going on, we spent some time m t i n g his
a different person in a diffe~nt field Gust ask any child who goes room in my office. Moving the chairs and sofa around, we
back and forth between the bomcs of two divorced parents; most marked off where the bed was, in relation to the basketbalI hoop
will tell you that it's not just the oukr sunomdings that change, (represented by a wastebasket), how far it was to the edge of h e
but that they themselves are a d l y a different petson, to some rug, how hard the shot was (I tried it repeatedly, with mixed
degree, in the two diffetent worlds). results). At one point I offered the suggestion that U1e simplest
The age of ttn,as it turned out, wss a time oferisii in tht lives solution to thc whole thing would be to move the rug, so that
d b t h of Mark's parenis. Fur his mather, it marked the first of more shots would count. This time, in place of the usual
many hospitalizationsfor ber own mother, in a lifelong history af e*atmArM Imk in my dimtion, Mark ttww back his head
depression. For Mark's father, ten meant the sudden [to him) and laughed - at the s h r outrageors simplicity of the idea. But
death of his own mother fmm dnhwis - a trauma which no one what then emerged from all this spatial manipulation and
in the family then ever talked about, for Iong years, I asked exploration was a cnrciat realization for Mark: namely, thar
Mark with his parenfs there,whether hc thought his parents were there were in fact already borderline ases, with regard to the
any different lately, as he came into an age that had been so swish, the. backbmd, the carpet edge, and that he was aheady
traumatic for them. Again he said he didn't !mow, but this time m&g judgment cailr, which varied from h e to time d night
he added a guestirsn: why did 1 want to know? Well, 1 said, at to night In other words, sometimes he was more strict a judge,
this point it's just an idea, but my idea is that if Iwking at hinr harder on himseIf, than other times. F m this it was only a short
these days is reminding them of a lot of painful and anxious step to thinking h t why fhat might be, w b t the variation in
-
memories, and they're not talking about it that much, and then &lying feelings might be, h r n one time to another. In orher
here he is feeling anxious and not knowing why, well there words, parts of his cxperiene - the affmive and the bchavioural
might bt some conneaim - which had been split apart, now began to take up some
-
He didn't see how then a u l d bt, was M a W s reply. Again, relationship with each other h g h the m & h g jnlerest of
thar was fine with me. To me what mattered was that he had 0110hpetsrm . And more - in an area of his life which felt
asked the question. By asking the question he had agreed, like it was happening 'to' him, h was bcginnlng to dismver bits
prwisionally. to have a conversation a b u t these things, to be and comttsof agency and choice.
cwious about them together. Conversation, literally, means a That was dl a way of bringing tht @lam to me+,A second
turning fogether, which is to say movement, with support, m d e we used to work on entailed my being involved in his
intersubjectively if you wi15 nat alone. And movement with 'symptom' and hiis world; we might d l it bringing me to the
support i n this sense, in the Gestalt view, is always in a problem. This we explored through the use of a journal. Since 1
constructive direction, always in the service of development, muldn7 actually be bere at night to hsar a b u t these variations
which is to say the direction of ?he growing and creative in feelings and severity, 1 told him, haw a b u t if he made a few
elaboration of the p a s s of self-in-theworld. notes, a son of log, of how the bedtime routine went tach n i & ~
Meanwhile, what to do about Mark's 'symptom,' the That way he wouldn't forget what happened when. Then when
nighttime routine that was dominating family life (which would we got t o g e t k we auld go over the log and see what struck us.
take what direction,without this structure?) I asked Mark what To kgin with, 1 asked h i just to note down how many minutes
he kncw h u t sptlls and rituals and good-luck chams - which the whole basketball activify toak each night, from start to head
-
turned out to be quite a lot Athletes, chess players, politicians on the pilIaw, and especially if that night was a long one,
-
and gamblers all are well-known for having lucky tokens and whether anything had happened that day that was difficult or
rituals they depend on tn manage stress and anxiety, and Mark upsetting, that might make it take longer to acmmplish the wotk
was f a m i l i with a great many of them. In Gestalt, this non- of the routine, whatever that might be (which after dl. we were
pathological emphasis is important, bacause of the model's still far from having entirely clarified yet). And again, 1 didn't
insistence that a 'symptom' idwas a creative regolution which is ask this expbcting that he would come up with any simple one-
 Compulsion & Curiosity
to-one correspondence: between day and evening, but rather to
foster the general stance of checking for the felings, insisting
that behaviour has meaning, and looking for possible
connedons beween the two.
Mark took up this new activity with a wiII, and from the
beginning wrote more than the assigned task His first addition
was just to record something about how strict he was with
himself that night, which quickly led to our fmusing speciaI
attention on any borderline cases -cases where he himself was
aware of making that call, between an acceptable and an
unacceptable last shot. Then, again following his initiazive, I
asked him always to include a note about how tense or anxious
hi parents seemed that night, in his experience. "~ecause you
know,' I told him at least once a week, 'I have this Wry that a
lot of things we do, we do because of other pple's feeline not
just our own.'
'Yeah,I know you think that,' Mark said to me after quite
m e weeks. 'And I wed to think that didn't make any sense at
all. But now I'm not so sure.'
The more the weeks sped by, the more the 'figure' of the
problem, whkh is to say the presenting symptom, fell off, ta the
point where I was concerned lest the figure disappear entirely,
before we had understood the ground together (and in the Gestalt
view it is that Eumderstanding toge*, not just a new behaviouraj
experiment, which is transformational.) The part of Freud's
work which has endured, after all, is the wealth of concrete
clinical insights (as opposed to the metapsychological
sqmstructule, which has not endured): prominent among these
insights is the idea of symptom substitution. Again, in Gestalt
language we would say that a change of figure is pointless,
unless it is accompanied by a reorganization of ground, a
different arrangement of perceptions and feelings about the inner
and outer worlds of the subject, so that the 'self itself has new
pssibilities and new power.
In practice, this is a fine line. Of come we want to see the
initial distress get better, b take pleasure in that with the patienr -
but without somehow conveying that there was something
'wrong' or shameful about the person In the first place, that they
were not good enough for us the way they were when they Fame
in. (Though to be sure there are times when we have to say a
given behawiour is not auxpbie; this is part of the complexity
of the fine line). To Mask I said that I thought it was great that
his bedtime routine was working so much better for him now,
that he was getting more of the benefit of it at less of a cost.
When k spoke of maybe 'trying to give it up now' altogether, I
demurred mildly, saying 'oh, after all, what's the hurry, and
remember,all that practice must be good for your basketball
skills'. Instead of giving it up, I suggestad, why not play around
-
some more with the rules of the thing rules which he was
coming more and more to experience as under his power, as we
paid attention e t h e r to his special role as Arbiter of BorderIine
Cases. What if we made an experiment in allowing a non-swish,
say, or letting it go when t k ball dribbled onto the rug?
Meantime, we weren't spending all our time on reading
journals and moving furniture anymore. Part of the time we
talked about his friends and his life at school, part d the time
about his reading. Mark was a great fan of Jack Londan. 'The
only Landon story I remembered, To Build a Fire, turned out to
br: one of his favourites. This is the one a b u t a man somewhere
19
in the Arctic who loses his last match, and realizes he will k z e
to death before dawn without some heat source. His last hope is
his dog, whose body he p l m ;to use. OrtIy the dog, somehow
seeing murder in his master's eye, panics and rum off, and there
the story ends, I couldn't he$ wondehg what drew Mark b
this harsh tale. Was it samething wintry in his own larpdscape,
maybe the nameless chill of his parents' withdrawal into
themselve, as their own lasses were reactivated? If so,we had
at least worked on giving this chill a name, as their feeling world
?manea more open part of our discourse. both between the two
of us and in the family in general.
And we played games. The function of sin~chlredgames -
board games and cads and the like - with latency age children is
not generally we11 explained in the literature. Again, a Gestalt
pempwtive is clarifying. The game, in the GeHaIt view, Is not
just a pastime to keep the kid in the room, as is sometimes
implied - nor, at this age, is it usually a mode of generating
fantasy rnateriaI, in the way of play therapy at an earIier stage of
life. Rather, the game is an episode of contact in its own right, in
the here and now with a11 the present issues and urgencies that
implies, and with as much or as little passion as the people
involved may bring to it. That is, the game is seen as a valid
'slice of Iife' which can be analyzed and 'played around with',
figure and ground. Iike any other experience - only with the
advantage of being lived in the present real relationship, and not
just talked about. If the game has the right mix of s ~ and c ~
openness, luck and skill, movement and mmplexity, then it can
call on many or all of the same strategies and feelings of any
other life situation. Giving and W n g , winning and losing. luck
(and its inverse, shame), aggression and holding back, thinking
clearIy under pressure, taking care and trusting the other,
o m i t i o n and: alliance, defeating an adult (which may carry a
range of dangers with it) - this is the stuff of Iiving itself with
p p l e . (I'm thinking now of 7-yarald Patty, who would nut
win at Go Fish. I asked her what she thought mid happen to
me if she mlly 'slaughtered me' at cards: would I lie down and
die? explode? hit somebody? take drugs, like some adults she
knew well? Eventually this became our great joke, If she beat
me really badly I" say well, I guess SII just go take drugs now,
or excuse me, I have to go hh somebody, or at least quit m y job.
And she would giggIe and ask if I didn't think 1was averdoing it
justalittlebit. Orif IwonImightofferhermymfiee,sayingit
was the only dnrg I had handy, and I knew she believed people
had to take drugs if they had the Ieast bit of stress. And she
would shout NO THEY DONT, and look startled at the power
of her ownvoice, and we'd both laugh).
And the choice of game is important. Some 10-year-olds can
only play 'baby games', where luck i s everything and
competency isn't in question. Twelve-year-old Bruce could
only pIay blackjack with n o betting, deal a hand, see who's
higher, deal another one, for weeks on end, When I tried to
introduce chips, he made it a rule that you t a k ~one chip from the
bank when you win, but you don't give up anything if you lose.
And the chips muldn't be stacked, presumably because that
would make it too easy to tell who had mare. It was a year
before we were actually both putting up a stake, another six
months till we could &I out seven-card sttmd, bet freefy on every
card, build a big pot and win or lose all, Bruce enjoyed
discovering that I'm a rotten bluffer, whereas he had
20 Gordon Wheeler

considmble untappd talent in that direction. But his biggest agent a m g other subjective agents, and not in terms of drives,
triumph ultimately came not from winning but from the day lob-' or 'behaviours detached h m their meaning. That, srsd
when 1 saw a chance to pull even in a b a r d game tournament, a guide to understanding the structure of experience itself
and played [en minutes past the hour to try to make it happen. (always an incomplete task), which leads in turn ta some idea, at
Bruce lost that game, but for the f i t time he didn"t care, because least, of where and how to go about supporting the unblocking
he had gained a sense tbat Z was invested in him, in a way that he and restoration of the contactingorganizing functions, which are
now trusted somehow more than before. the growing self in operation. And fnally and most important,
Mark wasn't that eager to play a competitive board game at the model's insistence that 'understanding the structure of
all, and when he did play, it was with reserve and seeming experience' is necessarily an interpersonal, intersubjective
disinterest - in sharp contrast to the heat and passion of his process: indeed, that that activity and intersubjectivity are one
isometric struggle with himself every night. When faced with a and the same thing.
choice beween advancing his game or setting mine back, he Of mum, a different patient would have needed different
always chose the former, because the other way would be specific strategies. and certainly one without Mark's internal
'mean.' His preferred outcome, he told me, wouId be a draw. resources (which are she a m e as the structure of his family
Next to that he grefemd to win, but 'just by a little.' So that 1 supports) would likely have needed a longer time, and much
wouldn't feel bad, I asked? 1 guess, was the answer. It certainly more structured therapeutic suppon, to developltestore robust
wasn't my goal to take away any of this quality of sensitivity and self process ('develop' always being more difficult than
concern for the other person -especially now tbat T was hearing 'restore'). Indeed, the very idea of restoring rests on the
that his soccer game was becoming more hard-hitting and presupposition of some stable, empathic/intersubjectivel y
focused, with mare open relish in fhe victories there when they available person in h e 4world of the patient's history, whose
came. 1 asked if he womed about the feelings of the losing team. interest and exchange provided the ground fat self development
'No,' he answered thoughtfully, 'I don't. Because they have each up to the point of break or inhibition- the p i n t which the idea of
other'. 'restoration' aims back towards. Every schml of therapy - and
The journal, meanwhile, was gradually replacing the espially every school of work with children - h w s this and
basketball routine ;is a gettingdown-to-slep ritual. As the one ties in some way to take it into account. as with WinnicottXs
got shorter. the other got longer. M e n Mark went out of town insistence that therapy has to be based on going back and
on a family visit. or after we went to an every-secand-week reconnecting with the point or moment sf 'good-enough
schdule, he would mail the Xeroxed pages to me (because he mothering,' as he would put it. the point of good 'object
didn't want to part with the journal itself: it now contained relations,' and building h m there (even if that point has to be in
important parts of the self). He still threw the ball at nigh4 but some sew invented; see for example discussion in Gustafson,
almost any decent shot would count now - with intermittent 19861, In Gestalt we might expfess the same idea by saying that
exoeptlaq when he would suddenly k 'hard on himself again', we are looking always for 'lost voices of the self' (be, 1994),
as he put it. ?%meexceptionr 1 zrid always to greet with an 'Oh that place or time where the se!Jprocess, which we have
gmd, that gives us another chance at understanding more about described here as the integration of our inner and outer worlds,
what makes some nights harder than others'. 1 sort of regretted was still proceeding without too much inhibition of either of
- -
the rapid loss of the 'problem', 1 told him because sf the thcst two experiential poles and then w k r e that "inner' world
window it offered us into his world. Mark disagreed, sharply. of, as Goodman would say, 'authentic' self feelings and desires,
And after all, as we both agreed, he was the dDctor. was split off,s u p p w d , conhind, or left toa alone with itself,
-
Some eighteen weeks had p m d since our first meeting a in silence. In Mark's case we might say simply that he had been
total of fourieen sassiom. Summer was coming. Now that he left ruming in too small a drcle, hying somehow to work out in
was able to sleep away from home, Mark was off to soccer himself and on himself, thing that could o d y be integrated and
camh hen a family vacation. We made a date to check in in the resolved coastructivel y with other people. And that when we re-
-
fall, which turned out to Ibe the last time but once that I was to see peopled his inner landxape with the presence and empathic
him - at least so far. curiosity of the hfXapEst, the reopened dialogue with his patens,
even a wanner, more articulated voice From himself - then he
found the resourees to put the pieces together in a new way, that
left new mfor his inner world in the the world, and for him to
W patients make good therapis& as everyone who works ;grow.
with people knows. Mark's steady and fairly rapid Mark's restoration of self endured, For some months der we
improvement from such severe distress had everything to do stopped seeing each other he checked in, every month or so,
with his history of having an involv& caring family who had always with a god report of some fresh milestones - a soccer
provided many of the basic conditions for growth of the self, and trophy, a paper route, a trip out of town alone, with a friend's
were willing to work on those that might be missing. And no family. After that 1 didn't see him again for seven1 years, and
doubt something to do wilh his therapy as well, and the when we next m into each other it was socially, and by c h a m .
therapeutic stance of k I i n i n g to pathologize his problem (and This was on the occasion of a 'men's circle,' a festivity thrown
his solution), and of looking for health and growth. What the by a fnend of mine to honour the passage into manhocrd of his
Gestalt model provided more specifically was a frame and a 13-year-old son, who m e d out to be a new school friend of
rationale for understanding Mark's distress in fieldlconfextual Mark's. Our meeting was completely casual on the surface:
-
and phenomenological rems which is to say as a subjective after a warm handshake he paid no more and no less attention to
Compulsion Br Curiosity 21

me than to any other adult there, and I took my cue h him.
This experience is a familiar one to those who work with
chiIdren - as teachers, therapists, social workers, medical
personnel: if your work is s ~ ~ ~ c e ~ f uoutgrow
they l, you, and for
all the warm memories that may be thew, when you meet later
on they ofkn h d they have nothing to say. This only illustrates
again the self in Gestalt perspctive, as the integrator of past,
present, and future, the inner and outer worlds and the lively
'boundary' that demarcates and joins them at the same time.
When one of the= a m has changed and grown - h e child's
world of experience - then the 'same' encounter yields a
different self, even a sense of stran- and shyness. This is as
it should be. The adult caretaker remembers the child. T?E child
remembers only the love, which s/he takes, and w,and m o w
on.
Notes
1. By 'OCD' here we are referring to khaviour which meets the
criteria of the DSM-JIIR for 300.30, Obsessive CompuIsive
Disorder. That is, the behaviour pattern is repetitive and
stereotyped, not 'realistically' connected with the fears that
'more then an hour a day,' and is causing 'marked distms'
and/or interfering with the person's Iife and functioning.
Clearly Mark met all the criteria for a 300.00dia-is,
2.The N i e e k n self-view is important here because it is so
close to the Perlsian, which derives from i t (through
Nietzsche's disciple Friedlaender, whom Perls identifies
(1974) as his own phitosophical mentor) - and so utterly
different from the communitarian views of Goodman.
Nietzsche's self as 'wll ta power' is basically an i n r e d drive
madel, very much Iike Freud's, with only the substitution of
aggressive libido (later aggression and libido) for 'power.'
Perls's own view, which permeates his writings, is of a self
wfiose basic nature is a surt of aggressive self-assertion. In this
way Perls remains closer to Nietzsche, and perhaps Adler, than
to Freud, whose libido theory, while technically monadic,
always tended more toward the relational. In sharp contrast,
Goodman pictures a self and self-function whose basic goal is
'gehg along in the wmld,' pragmatically and callabratively,
achieving some measure of satisfaction, self-expression,
contact, and mnstruction of meaning, always in a social
context.
D.S.M.(IIIR). (1987). Diagnostic and Statktic~lManual of
M n t a I Disorders. American Psychiatric Association,
Washington DC.
Goodman, P. (1947), Comrrrwitas. Random House, New
York
Goodman, F.(1977). Name Heals ( d.T.Stoehr ). Free Life
Editions, New Yark.
Gustafson, J. (1986). The Complex Secret of Brief
PsycIsotkapy. W.W.Nwton, New York.
LBe, R. (1994). C~upl;es'shame: the u n a d d d issue in On
Intimate Ground: a Gestalt Approach to working with
Cauples (eds. S. Backman and G. Wheeler). Jossey-
B M ~ c m i l l a nInc., San Francisco.
Leibniz, G. (1714). MunudoIogy. 11n kibniz (ed.P. Wiener).
Chas. Sctibner's Sons, New Yo&.
Perk, F, (1%9). In and Out of rhe Garbage Paii Real People
Press, Mmb, Utah.
Perls, F., Hefferline, R. and Goodman P. (1951). GestaB
Thm19y. Julian PreSE,New York,
Surrey, J. (1985). TFae Serf-h-relation': a Thewy of Women's
~I~ The Stone Center, Wellesley, MassachusettF.

Gordon Wheeler Ph.D.is a B c e d pychblogist in private practice in Frlassa&w&ts, working

with children, adults, families, groups and school programmes. He did his Gestalt training at the
Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, where he is now a member of the teaching faculty and Editor-in-
Chief ofe the GIC Press (publishing jointly with Jwy-BaWMacmillan). He teaches widely in
the US and Europe. His a n t bwks include Ge&Et Recotwidered: a NewAppmzch to C-t
and Resistmce (GaKlner Press and On Intimate Ground: a GestaIt Apprwch to Working with
C&es (Jossey-Bass,&ired with Stephanie Backman).

A d d m for c w e : 29 Chauncy Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.

 V W P-sl
T ~ B ~ G ~ J Otee4,s. ,
0) 1894. The Oestah PsyehdhsraWTmW~pItmMue.

U T T E R S TO THE EDITOR m a i n e d rebellious and independent, and yes, stubborn too, for
the rest of her life.
I am not convinced myself that Laura had a writing block a1
all. S k continued to write throughrout her life, I do think that
she struggled with her writing, but no writer of any merit just
tosses off great work. I think that Laura struggled with her
LAURA PERGS -FURTHER writing because she saw it a s not only a means of
MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS communication, but as an art, and for her being an artist meant
being dedicated, serious, inspired and also a craftsman with a
strong sense of style. It is possible to look at Laura's writing as
Daniel Rosenblatt pieces of sculpture. The topics she chose always had great
weight, and she took ermrmorrs pain to give them a p m p r farm.
She chipped away at the ideas she was pursuing, and when she
Received 16 Mach 1993 had completed her explmations, 10, there was an integration of
the whole, a new gestalt had come into being, and the new form
was related to the flow of her tbught. In addition to articles
about therapy, Laura wrote short stories, poetry, did some
Dear Editor, translations. book reviews and introductions. I think that she
would have preferred to write more, but her ambition was
J e w Kogan's tribute to taura Perls ~~ Geddt Jonmal, thwarted by her perfectionism. She didn't just want to get
1991, Vol.1 No.2) covers: much of the ground but there are a something down, she wanted it to be memorable, and not
number of additional points to make. Given Laura Perls" because of her thoughts, but because of the form she had
centrality in the history and development of Ccstak therapy. I imposedon her work
think my observations arc w m h adding to what has a l d y ken Laura was concerned about elucidating the fundamental nature
written about her. of the therapeutic issues of support and contact. Since the idea of
When Laura Perk m e to live in New York in 1948, I was support is much easier to grasp, Laura returns repeatedly in
privileged to become her semnd patient. At that time 1 was an several of her articles to outline what the process of cantact is
historian, but because of the transforming nature of my work and how it functions, She also return to the usefulness of the
with her, I returned to graduate work at Harvard and became a concept of the cuntaet-bwndary.
clinical psychdogist. Laura continued in New York Dunring the Just as Freud continued throughout his life to aIter his conoept
next fwty-two years of her life she was my mentor, my friend, d the ego and its structure and function, so Laura repeatedly
my culleague. She and 1 both referred patients to one another, comes back to discussion of contad. 1 don't think she was ever
n e t at meetings of the b a d of felkxvs of the New York Institute completely at peace with the explication of the elusive boundary
of Gestalt Thempy, and she would came and spend weekends at and the cantact functions, and that is one r em she returned to
my fann in Upstate New York and later at my home on the them over and over again, not just becaw they are so central but
North Fork of Lang Island. Occasionally we ran workshops bemuse of her sew of perfmtion, she felt that somehow she had
together w shared a lecture platform. no! clarified them sufficiently.
The first p i n t I should like to add to Kogan's account is about Still another aspect of Laura's relative lack of productivity is
Laura's love of music. She ;began to play at the age of two on
related to the level on which she chose to write. Her themes
the family piano, and mmic continued to give her pleasure and were always chosen with the largest overview of personality
joy throughout her life, even though she lamented that in her last
(fear and anxiev, commitment, give and rake, suffering and sex,
few years, her arthritic fingers prevented her from always hitting supprt) and she dearly wanted to say something profound a b u t
the right notes or keeping the rhythm. (Laura frequently noted,
each. Here there is a parallel and continuity with Laura's own
you don't practise the piano, you play it.) She had hoped to life. She exemplified great dignity in her life- bearing suffering
borne a concert pianist, but when she rzalised that her tatent
and not suffering fooh gladly. There waq little that could be
limited her, so that she might become at best a first-rate called slipshod about her. In kter personal appearanoe, she was
accompanist, she decided first to pursue law and then by her always meticulous in what she wore or how she carried herself.
early menties turned to psychology. So,for the next sixty years, She was a grand European lady, though not pretentious or off-
her major involvement bacame the development and pctioe of putting. And she carried these qualities into her writing. There
her therapeutic skills and the theory which accompanied them. was little that might be called casual in kt work. Unlbke Frik
But music always remained her first Iwe. who could be at times gross or coarse, Laura was concise, petite,
exact. In her youth she had studied with the best German
j!hmz$ writing psychologists and philosophers of the Weimar era (Jaspers, .
Althou* Lam vrs ;t gift& d lalencd intdkdual, she .ua Buber, ~ i i i c h ~, e n h c i m e r ctc.) ; These were her role models,
not an easy or nahral writer. she often referred 10 her writing and in her writing she did not in tend to k less than they.
'block', and she believed that it originated from an early incident In writing, Laura was not hying to publish something to
with her mother, who had sought to pressure Laura toward gain a reputation or embellish her ego, but to mY something
precosity in writing. And sa Laura spitefully rebelled. Thus her importan4 something that was deeply thought Out and deeply
so-called block was initially a sign of independence. Laura felt. And failing this she was silent.

Another of Laura's struggles, I think, was the fierce Ioyalty she
maintained to relationships she had outgrown, and naturally - Laura however remained silent in print and in person, saying
since she was the first to write about the hanging-on bite of the
suckling in her chapter on the dummy in Ego, Hunger and
Aggression - we can feoognise that she m, for ail her strength
and wisdom, could clamp down and hang-on to what was no
longer nourishing for her. She often spoke of the deadly
bo&m of fixed ge.staIlen, yet her continued relationship with
her husband Fritz is the most notorious example of her bond with
m e o n e who didn't propedy appreciate her. Laura would say of
Fritz after his death, 'No, I don't think he Iwed me, but then he
didn't Iove anybody. Not even himself. He didn't laow what
love was, although he had some tender feelings for his sister,
Grete.' Laura also said, '1 married Fri& because when I first met
him, he was the most interesting man that I knew.' (PIease note,
not the most loving or IovabIe, but inkresting; that is, Fritz's
mind was interesting, and that was most important to bum, and
that was what she felI in love with).
In writing earlier about Laura's efforts to elucidate the issues
surrounding the contact process and the boundary, I was
reminded of Fritz affer he had become Esalenized in the Sixties.
Laura had remained committed to the theory of Gestalt therapy
as first enunciakd in the text by Perk, Hefferline and Goodman,
whereas Fritz had suggested that he wanted to 'throw that
damned book in the Pacific Ocean.' In other wards, Fritz
abandoned his early contribution to Gestalt therapy in order to
popularise the techniques of his workshop demonstrations, In
direct competition with Scbutz and the encounter worbhops.
Not only had Fritz and Laura's marriage collapsed, but their
versions of Gestalt therapy were also split asunder. Although
there was at times a kind of surface pee or truce between them.
the theoretical wars continued to rage, and Fritz was unwilling to
give Laura credit for her contributions to what he had
presumably discarded.
It is templing for me to get further into the battles of Fritz and
Laura, of Frik vs Laura, but I will try to abstain. My major point
is that they we* equals, whether as adversaries or pben. Fritz
as an egocentric German husband did not want to share any of
the glory, and Laura I think was too patient with him and too
committed to not provoking more of his anger. The result was
that while he was alive, he did his best to neglect her mntribution
to his own thinking and to the development of G&t therapy.
Since his death, a great deal of this has been mrrected, but it is
still worth making the point that just as Fritz neglected to
mention Paul Goodman's contribution, so he equal1y neglected
Laura's work too.
I have aIready written abovlt the Fritz-hura eoncrweny in
W t ' s Love Got to Do with It?' and in the 'Inlrduction' to the
Festschrift for Laura Perls' seventy-fifth birthday. Frib was
unsure of his own abiiity as a writer and thinker, He borrowed
easily from whomever was useful: Moreno, Hubbard, Reich,
Smuts, Goldstein, etc., and he was indebted to Laura for her
background in existentialism and amdernic Gestalt psychology.
However, indebted hardly equals gateful. Instead, Fritz was
resentful of Laura's i n t e i l ~ accomplishmenrs
l and in his own
insecurity was not about to honour her as a coIlabtor. In the
first edition of Ego, Hunger and Aggression, he nates her
contribution, 'but in later editions, he omits it, And in his
autobiographica1 work, In and Out of the Garbage Pail, Fritz
mentions her very little and then only in disparaging terns.
nothing derogatory about Fritz,and commenting on him only
very gently in one rrr two papets she delivered. Thus, on the
most superficial Ievel, what Fritz said and did stands.
Now Iaura's w-dled 'bIock' becomes more understandable.
Yes, she was a perfectionist about her writing. Laura was
wrestling with the construction of a theory which had been
abandoned by the other founders. She knew that there was
something good and true and beautiful in the block af rnartrle
represented by the original Gestalt Therapy and she kept
chipping away at it, trying to bring forth a clearer sense of its
integrity.
Eaum the Pemm
I want to comment briefly on what Laura was like as a person.
Laura was an am&e woman, but not a great beauty. Her mast
impressive feature were her eyes which were lively, intense,
searching. They could also k very merry, and this dong with
her low, strong laugh meant that whoever was with her had the
opportunity for joy and relaxation.
She wanted to remain a lively and a-ive woman, and wed
Iotions and creams at night, so that in her l a m years men and
women were astonished at her age. She d about her looks
and she cared about her clothes. I remerrrber particularly a
brown camel hair cape and a russet mohair stole. I also
remember once many decades ago I asked her to a a m m p y me
to a party where she met W.H. Aden and afternard she charged
me, 'Why didn't you Iet me know who would be there; I would
have worn something more appriate.'
Lura was what David Wechsler called a 'baby-peeper'. She
was interested in every baby a a: little person, significant in his
own right. Walking down the street with h u r a meant that
whenever e woman with a buggy appeared, she delighted in
looking at the child. She often r e f e d to 'his majesty,the baby',
She also loved dogs and cats,and often inquired a b u t Jerry and
Willy Kogan's Shorty. Years after my dog Siegfried, a golden
labrador, had disappeared, Laura referred to him, and
commented on what a wonderful dog he was. And this same
love of babies and dogs and cats, for the vulnerable and pre-
verbal and needy, extended to patients. Laura was greatly
a@ated by her patients not only for her inteIlect, but because
she was so gentle and caring and tender when someone was
suffering. I remember her smking the back of a ptient who was
weeping in large rhythmic circular movements, comforting
himher with her hands, like a good mother with a disconsolate
chiId. And of course she couId be a good friend, non-
judgmental, supportive, attentive, com&.
I hope that no one reading this will get the imptession that
Laura Petls was a sweet, little old lady, and if so, I have erred.
She was not a saint, and she had nu intention of being one. When
she thought It appropriate, she could be razor-sharp in her
comments,cutting away the sentimentality or conventionality
which often obscured what needed to be said or undmtood.
Laura remained a sharp, wise, unsentimental, shrewd and
intelligent woman who was insightkt1 and d i d . Although she
had infinite patience when she thought i t was required
therapeutically, and though she could be, indulgent about the
foibles of family members when she wanted to, she oould shoot
straight from the hip and hit the target dead cenhe. She kept this
trail even during her hospital stay at Roose~elt. Equally,
although she had chosen lo indulge Fritz for her own reasons, she
was not fmled by him. ActualCy, Laura reminded me in itris way
of Hannah h n d t . Hannah in her presentation of self had a
slightly girlish air, and tight little curls, but there was nothing
girlish or cute about her intellect. Neither she nor Laura needed
to shout to be heasd, nor did they have to pound the table. Both
were slight and small, and in their own qtliet way, each was
heard and carefully listened to. But never as sweet little old
ladies.
Even in her penultimate stay at Roosevelt Hospital in New
York in the spring of 1990, Laura would insighlfully comment in
her most incisive and articulate manner about the staffing
problems of large health facilities, the dead-end nature of the
jobs, and the low motivation of Ithe hospitaI workers as a result of
their feeling neglected, and even made perceptire responses to
her awn illness and deterioration. Indeed, she was accurate,
sound and clear sight through to the last time I saw her on May
21, 1990, before her final departure For an old folks' home in
Germany.
Although she was not dour or dull, Iam was qpmd to 'fun'
which she felt wa trivial and she used to offer stem strictures
against America and its 'fun culture'. Life was too impartant to
debase it with a cheap pursuit of fun. In this way Laura always
carried with her something ofthe Eu-n woman who had had
to fight to enter the & y m i r u n (high school), which was a male
province in Germany, and later rhe university. As a radical
intellectual she felt life -5 seriam, and she wanted to guard her
status as a woman thinker and a radical by not succumbing to
'fun'.
In a similar way she was critical of American pop culture and
its debasement of classical and madern art. She would quarrel
with the current k r y that the distinction between high art and
pop art is no longer valid. For her Mozart and Beethoven were
not on a continuum with Michael Jackson and Boy George but
repmnted genuinely different aesthetic approad'tes to music. In
part she baxd her position on Geslalt theory, claiming that pop
art and p p musk were deliberately too easy to swatlow, were
made for tmthless sucklings and resembled pblum, and were
fundamentally unnowishing.
Laura was an unrepentant high-brow, or if you will, an
intellectual snob, and I honoured her for i t At the beginning of
the twentieth wntury when she was born, Nietzsche and Freud
were the avant-garde in philosophy and psychology, and she was
well versed in bath. In our conversatiom she would casually
quote Rilke or Aristotle., Heidegger, Husserl or Plato. She was
unapologetic for her learning.
Her stance - which might today be considered a radical
feminist stanm - led her to associate with the most difficult and
enlightened ideas of her time. Laura often said she had no
trouble as a woman in intellectual circles - that she was
considered 'one uf the boys'. Feminists today might challenge
her, but I think Laura meant she was accepted as an intellectual
equal by the m n . Yet she did not have to devalue her femininity
or become asexual in order to achieve this position.
One final pint. Laura did not want to be enshrined, When it
was suggested that a b u r a Perls Institute be founded, she
demurred. She disapproved of how Hilarion Petzold had used
the name of Fritz Perls for his Institute. Although she was
scrupulous about giving &it to those who advanced Gestalt
theory, she was unwilling tol be elevated Eo the position of having
an institute named in her honour.
Dan Roseeblatt Ph.D. practises in New York City. He also
l e d training groups in Europe, Japan and Australia.
k&m9 fmmmspondme: Yutisha, 3225, tighthouse Road,
Southald, New York, 11971, USA
EMPATHY IN THIE:PERSON-
CENTFWD AND GESTALT
APPROACHES
Bud Feder
Received 12 December 1993
D m Editor,
I fully concur wirh O'kary (1993) in her support of the
necessity for empathy in the therapeutic process. As a student in
college prior to Carl Rogers' book that she refers to (1951) I was
already a great fan of Rogers when he. was catling his emerging
method nandirective counselling (1942). 1 later studied with
one of his more outstanding disciples, Virginia Axline (1947)
who extended his sppmach to children.
Thus I was a Rogerian until Fritz Perls burst into my
consebusness around 1970. I was fully grabbed by his theory
but appalled by his frequent abusive attitude, espcially towards
ceeain kinds of passive and resistive people. ("Goaway, you're
obnoxious'). Rogers had another concept of which empathy was
one part, which he labelled unconditional positive regard (1951).
Geshlt tkrapists would do well to familiarize themselves wirh
his discussions in that vein, too.
While weke an the subject of empathy I, for one, have
benefited greatly from Kohut's concepts of transmuting
internalization and aaunement - see, for instance, Elston's
elucidation (1!J&5), (since Kohut himself writes so pondemusly).
Axlie, V.(1447). Play n w r a ~Houghton-Mifflin,
. Boston.
'Elston, M.(I 9%). SelfPsychdogy is CIinicaI Sociol Work. W.
W. Norton, New York.
Letters to the Editor 25

O ' h r y , E.(1993). Empathy in the PersonCetzfredand Cesralt 'I do not understand why you are going to Germany. They could
Apprwches. British Gestalt Journal, 5 5 pp 111-114. come here if they want to have a workshop with you. I shalI
Rogers, C. (1 951). Client-Centrad Therapy. Houghton-Mifnm, never ever go to Gmany even when T am grown up.' There
BoslQn . was a silence for a while and then Adi, aged 7, said, %ut you are
Rogers, C. (1 942). CmeIling arrdPqch&heru~.Houghton- going to work with peopIe who were born after the war, aren't
Mimin, Boston. you?'. Y left home with these two polaritie echoing in me.
On the way to London airport, the cab driver - also an Israeli
Bud Feder, Ph.5. is a longtime member and current faculty -;proudly told me Bat he did not own any German prcld1.1~3~ and
member of the New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy. His confronted me about going to Berlin. '1 have an important
-
special interests are training, group therapy and casework He is mission to participate in a here-and-now dialogue. We have to
currently co-sditing with Ruth RwalI, (they previously co-edited move on and Iet go of the polarkation.' Only then did I beeom
Bey& fhe Hot Seat: Gestalt Approaches to Group) a casebook fully aware of my aplogetic attitude to this trip. As open as I
in Gestalt therapy, scheduled for publication in 1995. He believed I was, I still needed a '@' reason far going.
frequently provides training experiences in Great Britain and the Cornelia and I met in London some months before the
Cantinent. conference and we designed the workshop to be mostly non-
verbal. Ourwish was to explore a way of having a dialogue with
Address for correspondence: Montclair, Psychotherapy the fantasies, with me and with one another.
Associates, 51a Upper Montclair Plaza, Suite 21, Upper Eighteen people sat in a small circle in a rather large halI. On
Montclair, NJ, 07043,USA the floor was a large amount of coIoufil plasticine. We plunged
straight into a guided fantasy. Each member of the p u p was
asked to imagine a collective, transparent German mind/head.
Thoughts, feelings, anitudes, beliefs, colom, smells, pictures ....
all were part of the workshop. Having got to a stage of
BEYOND RIGHT AND WRONG: 'lamwing' enough they were asked to store the 'German head'
somewhere in their mind and go through the same process with
A REPORT ON THE an Israeli Jewish mindhead. When both co1lective mi& were
GENMAN/ISRAELI RELATXONSW as clear as possible or wished for individually, each person took a
IN THE HERE AND NOW few moments to bringboth figures to the foreground, exploring a
comfortable position for h t h in relation to one another while
hth in vision.
n l i a Eevine Bar-Yoseph The next stage was to m a t e out ofplesticine, without talking,
an individual imageJsymbo1 which would repsent what they
had arrived at in their fantasies. One older man got up and left
Received 1 March 1% and never approached any of us again. Another woman sat
silently and did not create a symbol. The others seemed
i m m d in their creations.
Dear Editor, The final stage of the non-verbal experience was to find
another symbol and have a nun-verbal dialogue with it. The
outcome was to be a joint symbot. One participant got up and
Following on Marianne Fry's interview (British Gestalt went to t k piano at hfar end of the hall and came back without
Jowrral, 1993, Vol. 2 , pp. 77-84) and her discussion of working his symbol and waited for the rest to finish. A group of five,
with the unfinished business from the past k t w e n Germans and including Cornelia, had a Eively dialogue, The woman who had
Jews, I have a reeenl experience which I should like to report. not created a symbol out of plasticine joined them with a
Last October I was asked to co-Iead a workshop in Potsdam, colomful string bracelet instead. My white and yellow symbol
Germany, with Cornelia Muth, on behalf of the Berlin Gestalt joined another yellow figflre and soon after a yellow 'pebbley-
Fedagogisch Association. As an Israeli, Jew and Gataft-based like figure came along. The rest of Fhe memkrs of the group
trainer and psychotherapist, I was inb-igued to acccpt. It opened found their way to each other.
my mind, heart and soul to a rare opportunily to explore the NaturaIly, I m repert only abut my own ptoce~~. However,
relationship between the Germans and the Israelis in Zhe here and Iater I will report on what other people shared.
now. Reaching out to a group of educators, all of whom are I 'knew' I belonged with the other yellow figure. It took me a
-
trained in Gestalt, felt then and stiIl does- like a privilege. split second to move towards it. To me it looked like an inviting
I grew up to perceive the Germans as crud, heartless, soft and warm blanket. I placed my white, mostly 'Jewish' rmse
followers without thought, drunk, fat and not b be contacted, I head next to it with a bright yeIlow 'German' abstract barbed
grew up with fear, hatred and pin, f learnt about victims and wire fence in between them. 'Ihe bright yellow 'pebble' joined
victirnising. I moved from not understanding the cruelty to not the two figures but kept some distance. Later we were shocked
urderstanding {and sometimes even blaming) the passivity of the to realize that none of us noticed that the bright yellow was the
Jewish people. In short, I never felt free to explore, observe, colour of the star the Jews had to wear during the third Reich
change or move on. Before I left London for Berlin I got a mini- days in order to define them from the Aryans (a fact we were d l
lecture from my eldest daughter, Neta, who is eleven years old: familiar with). At some point the 'blanket' creator took my
26
'nose' and tucked it under her blanket. My breathing stbpped
and I had a surge of fury and Zhcn after a while a feeling of
warmth. The mutual symbol to which we had all arrived after a
long and very careful no~verbaldialogue had the b a d wire
fence behind it with no spikes, my Jewish 'nose' under the
blanket and the 'pbble', with lines marked on it, much clmer
and more hlonging. We all felt moved. 1 knew that 1 allowed
myself more softness and intimaq in the non-verbal dialogue, to
the degree that 1 was "told off by the 'pebble' creatw for being
careless by softening the barbed wire so much, She was a
woman who believed that Ihe Jews should go on being very
careful in their relationships with the Germans. After some
debriefing in the subgroups we spent the rest of Ihc time sharing
the non-verbal experience verbally. One participant told us
a b u t not breathing in deeply all her life. 'In here (she pointed to
the stomach area) is my history and 1 do not breathe in there. In
this workshop 1 risked breathing in deeply ... I found out that 1
a n breathe and stay a h & ' (As some time has passed and as the
workshop was not recorded I apologise for pmsible mistakes in
the quotes.)
One group reported a touching dialogue where they Ried to
move one member into becoming more optimistic. She created
two half bridges pointing in opposite directions. The most she
eompmmise-d was to have the two pinting in the same direction.
She would not agree re make one out of t k m klieving that it is
impossibleto put the Jews and Gemam together. She was very
adamant in her feelings that the chance for a dialague between
the two cultures was less than slim.
Another participnt spoke in German to the group, leaving me
aware that I did not speak German, about having longed all his
life to meet a Jewish pecan. Ipointed wt lhat here was a chance
to meet one and he might miss i t Bravely he agreed to take five
minutes and meet me in any non-verbal way he chose to. He got
up moved his chair as close as he auld to mine and faced me.
He held one green 'finger' af plasticine in his right hand and one
white 'finger' still in its ariginal wrapping in his left. This was
his original symbol. He held one end of each finger and handed
over the other ends to me, The room w s still. Following my
hands I p& the two ends which were handed to me. The
plastic wrap bothered me so I removed half of it He moved the
other half and threw it forcefully away. Later someone told me
that the white one was the 'Jewish side', Our eyes met and it
was hard to breathe for both of us, 'I will feel too much if I
breathe' he said. 1 was following my hands and had no thoughts
and 0Eei-d no interpretation. ,411 1 'knew' was that something
very powerful was happening whatever the meaning of i t was.
My 'hand' found it necessary ta stick a piece of the green onto
the w hi&, so I did. The dme was over. Relieved he went back to
his place. Finally he had met a Jew.
Until that moment 1 had never taken in the fact that so few
Jews are left in Germany and that it is p i M e for a German
go through life without meeting one.
?he man who went to the piano said, 'When I finished my
image and looked at if f knew that there is no chance for a
dialogue between rhe two without a third force. I fdt hopelm
but then I noticed sow& of music in my head. Listening to the
music I realised it was one of Mendelssohn's rhapdies. I then
remembered that Mendelssohn discovered Bach. Bach for me is
the most German composer. So, if it took a Jew to discover
Bar-Yoseph, Yontef
Bach, the music may be the third force. 1 therefore pm my work
on the piano's keyboard."
1 was moved by every one of the participants including the ane
who chose not to share his experience. I arbitrarily choose to
stop here. Travelling to Germany corrfrolnfed me with feelings
and introjects as well as real people. I faced my awn limitations
and blind spots. I met shame, blame, pain and helplessness,
internally as well as externally. 1 came back feeling a strong
need to contribute to changing and exploring more deeply the
ground of the two polarities. I am grateful IO the people who
ma& my visit possible.
Tdia Levhe B a r - Y q h ,M.A. (Clin. Psych.), Dip. (GITLA),
TM (GPTI), is Gestalt Course Director at Metanoia
Psychotherapy Training Institute. She has extensive experienw
in psychotherapy, supervision and oganisational-behaviour
consultancy, as well as the supervision of and training of
psychotherapists. She was academic co-ordinator of the Gestalt
Training Programme in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and
is a visiting Iecrurer aod supervisor at institutes and universities
in the UK and Eumpe. Her particular inkrests include working
with couples, groups and pt-traumatic stress disorders.
Address for correspondence: Talia Levine Bar-Yoseph.
Metanoia Psychotherapy Training Institute, Ealing, landon, W5
ZQB, UK.
DUILOGUE, SELF AND THERAPY:
A REPLY TO BEAUMONT
Gary Yontef
Rcaeivcd 12 March 1994
Hunter Beaumont's 'MartinBuber's 'I-Thou' and Fragile Self
Organization: Gestalt Couples Therapy' is a very thoughtful
article [hat warrants thorough discussion from both she
theoretical and clinical perspectives. Clinically, I find particularly
useful his discussion of couples therapy with patients with
deficient self-organization, the therapeutic requirement of
attendingto their sense of self (although I regard this as crucial in
any Gestalt therapy) and the nature of the marital relationship
between such patients. ThemzticalPy, I found his discussion of
the theory of self-organizing self (autopoiet ic) and his treatment
of the relationship between systemidfield perspectives and the
philosophy of Martin Bukr interesting.
1 want to advocate wo convictions divergent from those in the
article: 1)I-Thou can ( i i fact, musr) lx the p n d of relating in
therapy. Effective psychotherapy is made possible by those
 Letters to the Fdilor
dialogic conditions that can be intended by the therapist. 2) Sdf-
organizing self is still of a @dl and self-organizing process
requires contact.
In his article Beaumont states:
The Yontef, Hycner, Jacobs, Friedman line of Gestalt
therapy seems to suggest that the 'I-Thou' between
therapist and client can beccsme the basis of a therapeutic
'dialogue' or dialogic therapy. I agree that 'I-Thou' does
sometimes occur between therapist and client. In fact it
may he the most important healing agent, but I do not
agree that it can ever beoome the basis of the therapy...?he
situation of the client and the therapist are different and
thus 'I-Thou' is not possible. No therapist can make '1-
Thou happen.
To attempt to apply it as a tktapeutic technique makes it
into an instrument. and negates the very nature of the
moment. Psychotherapeutic interaction must be
concephlalized without the 'I-Thou' as the agent of
healing. Ifwe argue that therapy works only because of
something which we cannot contr01, but which mmes
and goes as it will and which weqrone can experience,
then we have little justification for taking money for our
work. What we can do is to t a c h the conditions, skills
and valua which are most conducive to 'I Thou'...
@ 93)-
Other Gestalt therapis&, myself included, have a different view
of I-Thou and insist that I-Thou is a n v condition for a
therapy that wishes to address such fundamental problems as a
breakdown in the self-organizing functions of a patient (See
discussions of I-ThouIDialogue in Hycner, 1985; Jacobs,
1989;Yontef, 1993). We point out that although there are only
the two primary modes of relating that Beaumont describes, Idt
and I-Thou, and although I-Thou can never be willed or
mnttolld, Buber was clear that people such as educators and
therapists bear the responsibility of bringing -in 'conditions
of the inter human' to tkir work These conditions constitute a
chosen, applied discipline without which the possibility of the
moment of I-Thou cannot inhere. These conditions which Buber
described have been subsumed under the genera1 term, 'the
dialogic atritude' and are expIicated in the works cited above,
especially in Hycner and Jambs.
I-Thou is a form of contacting and contact is the basis of
h t a l t therapy. The theoretical efforts at clarifying the n a m of
the healing relationship (relationship = contact over time) has
come to be called dialogic Gestalt therapy. Those of us who refer
to Gestalt therapy as dialogic, do not ignore the difference
between therapist and patient, between dialogue in herapy and
dialogue in other relationships, between moments of I-Thou and
a general dialogic relationship, ObviousFy, there are built in
inequalities of role and inclusion in therapy, i.e. the patient
comes for help and the therapist a d d m the experience of the
patient while the patient does not focus on the therapist in the
same way,
In ongoing relationships, moments of pure I-Thou alternate
with momen&marked to varying degrees by a mixture of I-Thou
and 1-16 (Ja- 1989; Kauhan, 1956). For several years now I
27
have followed the lead of Hycner aml Jacdbs and wed the term
'dialogic' to refer to the mode of alternating I-Thou, I-it (always
ground4 in the conditions which Buber put forth) that I used to
call 'the I-Tlrou attitude' or the ']-Thou relationship', and have
reserved the term 'I-Thou" for the narrower usage (see
Jmbs,1989). Beaumont seems to be either using the tern I-
Thou for bdh the I-Thou moment and the ongoing relationship
marked by the I-Thou attitude - or else does not recognize the I-
Thou relationship ex=@ in the purity of I-Thou moments.
Beamont's claim that the 'I-Thou' is not possible (p.933 in
therapy and cannot be the basis of theragy is not well supprted.
Not only did Buber think that I-Thou was possible in
psychotherapy, in fact k thought it the basis of p d therapy. Of
course, Buber makes clear that it is a dialogue with
modifications, e.g, in therapy inclusion is not mutual and
dialogue must be disciplined by the professional h w I d g e of
the therapist, dedication to the task and understanding each
patient's limitations (Buber, 1958,1965a, I%%, 1967;Cissna &
Anderson, 1994 Friedman, 1994; Kron and Friedman, 1994).
Of course I agree with Beaumont when he states that the
therapist m a t make the I-* moment happen. I also agree
when he States that applying it as a technique is a violation of the
nature of dialogtme. We who believe in a dialagic base for Gestalt
therapy live the dialogic method in therapy, we don't 'apply' it
@. 93) as a technique or manipulation or teach it as a self-
manipulation and we don't advocate imposing dialogic
functioning or using it instrumentally. It is the basis for Be
therapist's attirude and how the therapist treats the patient. We do
not enter the dialogue in order to achieve some instrumental end,
e.g. self-cohesion. But selfcohesion does rault from dialogue.
Dialogue is the highest development of awareness and eontact,
and it is a prasibility that as the patient's aware- and contact
skills grow,the patient will enter into dialogic contact with the
therapist and in other forum of his or her life, and then a more
complete Thau may emerge that is mutual and not conhalled by
either participant
SeKRefimWandTime in the Organkm
Envitvnmenl Field
Beaumont advocates therapeutic attention ta the larger issues
of organization d the self and attention to pattern ever time,
bash of which I agree with and have written about. He disc-
individuals who have diculty maintaining a cohesive sense of
themselves over time, which E consider a needed clinical topic.
Unfortunately he says The problem of these couples is mt poor
contact between organism and environment, but rather the
organization ofthe 'organism' is not stable through time (pa.')
Tlus dichotomizes two thingi that have to go together. The poor
contact between organism and environment makes no sense
withaut adding the sense of self and the factor of development
over time, and the p r self organization of the organism cannot
be separated from the relations in the organisrn/environrnent
field, at least not in Gestalt therapy theory and not without some
new t h t i d definitions that Beaumont does not provide (e.g.
a different definition of self).
An integrated view of the entire mgmisn2lerrvironment field is
needed. This includes how the person relates to him or her self,
individuaIenvironment processes, distinguishing a11 types of
28
patients and considering time as an indispensable variable.
By canmtst, it seems to me, Beaumont's articIe manif- an
individualistic attitude that focuses almost exclusively on
awareness work without regard to the field - the contact and
relationship matrix - within which Ihe awareness work
necessarily takes place.
In my opinion, the articlt does not sufficientIy recognize that
the self-organizing self is still of a field and requires contact for
its healthy life. In Gestalt Therapy (Perls, Hefferline and
Goodman, 1951) individual and environment are but
differentiationsof the field. The otganismJenvironment boundary
determines one's sense of self and awareness, and defines what
is relevant environment. This dynamic process always occurs
over time rather than at a single time. There is no self-process
apart from the organism environment field.
'She article seems to construct a dichotomy between disorders
that are internal over rime and those that are between individual
and environment.
One problem with this fornulation is that the two category
system of distinguishing patients Beaumont uses is too crude,
recognizing those with self disorders and those without is
insufficient. It d m not recognize the variety of personality types
within the Geld and subtypes of the self d i d r s . For example,
-
while some patients as Beaumont asserted - with *If disorders
want others to do for them what they must do with their own
awareness work, e.g. borderlines, others do the opposite.
Schizoid patients and sometimes patients with narcissistic
personality disorders often refuse to recognize when they do
need something from the outside and b y ta do it all with their
own internal awareness process. These are important distinctions
which are ove~simplifidin Ekaumant's paper (Yontef, 1993).
M m e r . 1 believe that the sense of identity over time mlst
be cansidered with all patients and not just patients with self
dkorders (Yontef, 1987,1988,1993).
In a larger sense, Beaumont does not make clear his werall
view of the relation between selforganization and boundary
pmxssa Amding to the definition of self of Gestalt t h p y ,
self is between organism and environment and self disorders
involve the sense of self. ?he sew of self over time involves the
continuing relationship of self at the contact boundary(ies).
One's sense of self is still a function of the organism
environment field and the self in Gestalt therapy i s still an
interactive seIf.
He writes that no one can provide self-organization for another
and that patients with self disorders want others, especially their
mates and therapists, to do just that. Since they ask for the
impassible, Beaumont's attitude seem to plrsh the patient into
doing their work in isolation rather than in contact
In this spirit he appears to minimize the role of the therapy
@lationship and he is critical of Gestalt work that is 'informed
by the need fulfillment model'. He attributes to this Gestalt
therapy model 'The implication (is) that what they need is in the
environment' @. 92). I do not believe it accurate that in Gestalt
therapy theory the environment has whatever the individual
needs and the individual merely obtaim it from the environment.
Frankly, I cannot tell if Beaumont is merely emphasizing that
there is 'internal' awareness work that m x s a r i l y must be done
-
by the patient and that can not be provided by others with the
assumption that the reader will be clear about the larger
Yontef
theoretical picture - or if he disagrees with what I see as the core
of Gestalt therapy theory by conceptualizing internal awareness
work isolated from contact with the rest of the organism1
envircmrnenr Field. But if Beaumont contends that those with a
self disorder have problems that are 'internal' and others have
prablems between internal and external, then that is a serious
divetgence from Gestalt therapy theory as I understand it. lssua
of self-organization, 'internal p x s e s , are always an aspect of
the boundary between individual and environment and
psychological issues between organism and environment are
always part of the process of self. The lack d cohesive identity
over time can be conceptualized in process terms and -
Ekaumont does some of this. I believe that the lack of self-
cohesion refers not only to the individual considered d o , but to
a process htween the individual and the rest of tlle field over
time.
I belime Buber is right that healing of dcep self-ogmizational
deficits cannot be done by personal pkmrnelrological focusing
work done in isolatian, and I believe that interpersonal
relationship has an indispensable role for self-organization. The
article does not make explicit whether Beaumont agrees with
this, but it mds as if the self-nlzational awareness work is
solo behaviour done internally rather than something done
ktween p em and environment. It would be helpful to clarify
exactly what he believes can be done by the other, what by the
person alone and what must happen in the interpersonal
environment to make it safe to do the kind of awmness work he
describes so wel I.
I believe that the theory of Gestalt theraw dDes not daim that
needs are met by the environment -just in relation to the
environment. Na one I know advamks wing ta gratify a11 of the
patient's needs. N e d s have to be clarified. But exploration is rtot
the same as gratification or enmuragernent of the idea that the
environment provides and the, individual only has to take, Rather
what is advocated is responding ernpathically to each patient's
subjective experienm, his or her longing and even his or her
sense of not k i n g able ro live without the needs being gratified.
Some r e d s a n only be met by others, including some needs
that some patients need to have fulfilled by the therapist. Some
needrr cannot be met, and mmt instead by mounted. m e n the
patient needs the therapist to understand and accept his or her
subjectivity - and this is something tfie therapist can do. The
kneed-fulfillment cyde"Gestal1 Formation and Destruction
Cycle) is an a p p r i a t e paradigm for analyzing the awareness
proc~ss of these patients - as with all patients, whether the needs
call far suppon From orhem or self.
The alternative to pushing the patient into working in isolation
and glf-suficiew is for the therapist Do contact the patient in a
manner that supports patients'identification with their own
experience (including wishes and n&) and action in the field.
The answer is not to eoncepualize awareness work apart from
the field, but to develop support in the field for the work the
patient needs to do.
The type of patients Beaumont is writing about generally xek
another to do for them what ~ e my w do for themselves because
they despair a b u t their own capacities, Beaumont shows that
these patients often suffer from not speaking I-Thou. However,
patients also suffer from mat having 'Thou'spoken to them!!
Dialogic Gestalt therapy is a context in which these and similar
 Letters to the Editor 29

needs can be met. 7he therapist an speak Thou and be Thou for Cissna, K. and Anderson, R. (1994). The 1957 Martin Briber
the patient. To s u m this dialogic process, the therapeutic work Carl Rogers DIaloglde, as Dialogue. Journal of Humanistic
includes these tasks: Psychology, %,I, (Winter 19941pp. 11-45.
1. Find the quantity and qualiq of environmental support that Friedman, M. (1994). Reflections on the Buber-Rogers
helps these patients to clearIy identify their needs/wish and to Dialogue, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34, 1, (Winter
grieve the inevitable loss of some of the sustenance that was 19% pp. 4665.
needed and not obtailKd d which they still cannot obtain. Hycner, R. (1985). Dialogical Gestalt therapy: An initid
2. Empathic contact by the therapist with the patients' pmps111.The Gestalt J&, 8, 1, (Spring 1983, pp. 2349.
experience of despair, which supports identification with their Jaoobs, L (1989).Dial- in Gatafttheo~ya d rkerqy. The
experience without confirming that they are as hopeless as they GestaltJownal, U,1 (Spring lm),pp. 2567.
*I. ahis builds support for further contact and eropehentation, Kaufman, W.(1956). fiktePltjalkm fiom Dosiwmky to &he.
builds skill with awarenm (especially of painful affects), and is Meridian B d q New Y d .
an organizing experienoe in itself. Kmn, T,and Friedman, M.(1994). Probkm ofCo&madwr in
3, Develop awareness sf what they presently ntmd to do or P s y c h t k a ~Journal
. of Humanistic Psychology, 34,1,
receive in relation to others in order to continue their (Winter ICM), pp. 65-83.
development (eg. empathy to or from others, courage to act, Perls, F., Hefferline, R. and Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt
faith in a higher power, be in the company of responsive others, Zkrapy. Ilell Books; New York.
wisdom, patience, confidence and so forth). Tobin, S. (1982). Self-Disorders, Gestalt Therapy and Self
Psych@. The Gestalt Joumal, 5,2, (Fall 1982)' 3 44. -
Yontef, G. (1975). A Review of the Practice of Gestalt
~herapy.(Fifstpublished 1969). Also in (1975) F. Stephenson
At the heart of Martin Buber's philosophy is the idea that
(Ed.), Gestalt Therapy Primer: Infroductoq Readings in
human growth takes place by the human encounter. There is
Gesfult nerapy. Springfield, IL, Charles Thomas. Also in
growing evidence that the relationship is the most vital aspea of
Yontef, l9!?3.
the therapeutic relationship. While it is tnre that the person who
Yontef, G. (1976). G&a& therapy: Clinical pknomemrogY. In
has done his awareness work, always in relationship to another
Binder, V., Binder, A. and Rimland. B. (Eds.), Modern
who can facilitate, has gone through the void that Beaumont
Therapies Bentice-Hall, New York.Also in Yontef,1W3.
discusses, can function without his or k p i n e l giving him or
Yontef, G. (1983a). Gestaittherapie also Dialogische
her the empathy he or she desires, it is a vital part of ow human
MeMelntegmtiw Thempie, 9, Jg. Heft 213, 98-130. (First
functioning to be confirmed by others and the growth
circulated 1981 as unpublished paper: Gestalr Therapy: A
e n v i m e n t quires human encounter.
Dialogic Method). MSCI in Yontef, 1993.
I don't h w whether or not Beaumont would disagree with
Yontef, G.(1933b). l k winG m l t E h e r a ~Reply
: lo Tobin.
this, but his article either diverges from this position or else taka
The Gestalt Journal, 6,1, (Spring I%), pp. 55-70.
it for granted - and I can't tell which.
Yantef, G. (1987). Gestalt therapy 1986: A plemic. The Gestalt
His call for therapeutic attention to the larger issue of
Journal, 10,1, (Spring 1%7), pp. 4168.
organization of the self and the attention to patterns over time are
Yontef, 6.(1988). Asshilaring diagrsosric IUEdp~y~hoaMw
cries that I agree with and have discussed But when he says
pnpectiws inGestalt h p y . ?he Gestalt Journal, 11,
'The problem of these couples is not poor contact between
(Springl988),pp. 5-32.
organism and environment, but rather the organization of the
Yontef, G. (1993). Awaretress, Dhbgw a d Preces: E h y s otl
'organism' is not stable through time,' (p.83) he dichotomizes
Gestalt Tker~py. The Gestalt Journal Press, Highland, NY.
two things that have to go together. The p r contact between
organism and environment makes no sense without adding the
sense of self and the f a m r of development over time, and She
poor self organization of the organism cannot be separated h r n
the relations in the organism environment field, at least not in
Gestalt therapy theory and not without some new theoretical
definitions that Beaumont does not provide (e.g. a different
definition of self).
Refemices Hunter Beaumont
Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. Scribners, New York.
Buber, M.(1%5a). Be- Mm arsd Man.. Macmillan, New
York
Buber, M.(196%). Knowledge of Man.. Harper Row, New
Yark.
Buber, M. (1%7). A Believing Hwnrrnism. (In R. Anshen (Ed.), Dear Editor,
Gleaningsby Martin Buber). Simon and Schuster, New York
Beaumont, H. (193). M a r h Buber's 'I-fim' rutd fragiie self Yontef wishes to 'advocate two convictions which are
orgunkation: Geslalt couples tkmpy, British Gestalt Journal, divergent from those in the article', namely that 'effective
2, 2,(September 1993), 85-95. psychotherapy is made pclssible by those dialogic conditions that
.-,
30
can be intended by the therapist' and that 'seIfmganuing self is
still of a field.' He lhus implies that I disagree, when in fact these
two suppitions are not at all divergent from my position,
although they were not the emphasis of my discwbn.
The 'I-lku'inPsychothempy
He begins his discussion by making a distinction between 1-
Thou' moments and the 'dilogicbnditions which support or
allow such moments. He reminds us that he )s&' the term
'I-Thou' for lbe narrower usage'. That is precisely the sense in
which I have used the term.
When he writ=, 'Beaumonfs claim that the "%Thoun is not
p s i b l e in therapy and cannot be the basis of therapy is Iwt well
supported,' he misrepresents my position and by so doing,
sidestep the criticism of the dialogic method implicit in my
discussion. I specifically stated that 'I-Thou' momenfs do oanrr
in fierapy, and in fact, may b the primary healing agent. What I
actually wrote was: ' "I-Thou" i s not possible between a
therapist and a client' That is, when such moments do occur in
therapy, they are a meeting between two humans, not the
meeting of s therapist and a client. In this, I was following
Buber's own position as expressed in the RogentBuber
discussion,
Yontef and I agree that a therapist must contribute to the
diaolgic conditions in which 'I-Thou' moments occur and I
m u m e that we agree that the ddogic anditions are not in and
of themelves an adequate and sufficient therapy, that it is the '!-
Thou' moments which heal. Yontef is convinced that the
therapist can utiliz 'I-Thou' moments for healing by creating a
diaIogic context that can o [ ; c non-imminentally.
~ He writes,
We who believe in the dialogic base for Gestalt thetapy live
the dialogic method in therapy, we don't 'apply' i t as a
technique or manipulation or teach it as a self-manipulationand
we don't advocate impsing dialogic functioning or using it
instrumental!y. It is the basis for the therapist's attitude and how
the therapist the patient We do not enter the dialogue in
order to achieve some instrumental end ....
In spite of what he claims, take note of his language: The
dialogic method is the basis of how the therapist treats the
patient. And later, 'Tosupport this dialogic process, the
therapeutic work includes ...tasks ..."my italics). To my way of
thinking, Yontef is confusing the therapist's consciow intention,
his/her aware phenomenolw as one among many dynamics
organizing the field.
The word 'herapist' M b e s a fimctiond dynamic. It is not
an adequate or complete description of the person carrying out
that function. A Ampist, as Yontef agrees, 'treats' the patient.
When the 'I-Thou' moment does occur, that pemn is no longer
functioning a$ a therapist and the patient is no longer being
treated. Tley meet as w o humans kyond their functions and
their meeting has no imtnrmental quality. We cannot avoid the
reality that the therapisllpatient relationship (unlike some other
helping relatiomhips) is always a xrvim-for-fee relationship
(even when the 'fee' is not money). Therapeutic intent to 'live'
this service-for-fee relationship non-instrumentally does not
change its basic nature. When an 'I-Thou' moment nevertheless
does occur, it no longer has ha tkrapisl/patient structure and
dynamic and thus cannot be the basis of the therapy.
Beaumont
Yontef's position stems to me to avoid a eenml problem in
attempting to use Buber's work as the basis of psychotherapy:
Bukr was a very pious man, perhaps even a holy man. For
Buber, the 'I-Thou' moment heals, the 'I-Thou relatianship'is
the necessary - but not sufficient - condition for that healing
moment. (On this Ysntcf and I a p e ) . The "-Tbou'hheaiing
moment comes by the grace of G d and is an expression of
God's mercy and God's love. For Buber, 'I-Thou' is
unthinhbIe without Gad's mion. Yorttef doesn't mention what
is central for Buber: W If we cut God out of Buber, we have
cut the heart our of 'I-Thow'. If we make Buber the M i of our
psychonhetaw without amputsting God from his thought, then
we come dangerously close to c o d i n g the distinction bchveen
religion and therapy.
The solution Yontef suggests, making a Godless 'I-Thou' t k
basis of psychherapy, seems to me to k unacceptable, What 1
was pleading for is teaching the couple to create dialogic
mnditians for one another so that lheir 'I-Thou' expresses itself
in their 'we'. This seems to me one possible solution to the
problem of the therapist's role - the therapist teaches
instrumentally, the couple practise with one another non-
instmrnentally - and God does whatever He [or She) finds
good. Should an 'I-Thou' moment occur between the person
who sometimes has the role and function of therapist and the
other pmons who sometimes have the role arad functiom of the
patients (or clients), it is wonderful bonus, but it is nM the basis
of the therapy,
Yontef continues, %he thetapist am speak Thou and be Thou
for the patient.' I hold this formuPation to be dangerous for work
with couples. In the first place, as 1discussed above, it seems to
me impossible for a herapist as thempist to speak or beThou for
his/her clients, and secondly, the Thou is best spoken by the
coupl~,one te the other; and they ate the best Thou,o m for the
other. It is not necessary for a therapist to insert himntemlf into
a couple's intimacy with one another in fhat way.
?%e SeIfin fithe Field
The second point Yontef discusses is more complex.
Although his summaries o f my position seem to me to
misrepresent what I said, and to sidestep lhe issues 1 was trying
to raise, he nevertheless puts his finger on the weakest part of the
article: My argument d m irnpIy and require rethinking the
Gestalt thctapy concepts of boundary. contact, self,organism and
the nature of the fields in which life occm in a way divergent
from Yontef's theoretical effort, and it starts a task it does, not
complete. One is limited in what one an include in an article
and it is always a dilemma whether to wait to publish until the
task is complete, or to publish progress reports a5 one goes along.
Yontefs criticism at this point seem to me to be fully justifiable.
Nevertheless, I do not find Gestalt theory (including his
formulations) thmticall y and clinicalty satisfying. There are
still too many open questions, too many assumplions glossed
over with terminology which conceals important issues, too
many s l o p in popular usage which hider good clinical work
Sadly, I am unable to formulate a statement of these themes
within a Gestalt theory cantext which is adequate. For this
reason, f was at psins to refer the interested reader to those
writers with whom I am in intellectual dialogue (respecially
ktkn to the Editor
Janbch, Horowik Hdlinger, S m , Stevens).
On the other hand, Yontef's implying that I provide no
alternative concept of self, that I dichotomize two things that
have to go together (self-organization and cont;act), that I use a
hiro-ategory system of diagnosisand do not disthguish between
varieties of self disturbance, that I advocate individualistic:
'internal' awareness work in isolation from the field - and so on,
all seem distortions of what I wrote and have the disturbing
effect of obscuring the issues I was raising.
Yontef is careful to te1I us that he is unclear at points about
what I mean. He then summarives a position which a d d be
mine (but often is not), and uses that as a straw-man to restate his
position. Io this way, he ddoes not deal with the issues I raise, but
with his image of what I am saying (which is easier to defend
against), and he leads the reader to believe that I was saying
something quite different from what I said.
Let me a d k only two of these points:
Yontef quotes, 'The problem of these couples is not poor
contact between organism and environment, but rather, the
organization of the "organism" is not stabIe through time', and
then suggests l 'dichotomize two things that have to go together'.
He reminds us that contact between the organism and the
environment in the O/Efield and self organization are best
conceptualized as being aspects of a unitary process. 'An
integrated view of the entire organismlenvironment field is
needed. This includes how the person relates to him or herself,
individual environment prooesses ...'
Yontef jumps over the questions I was askhg. Before one can
speak of relating as he does, there must be some differentiation in
the field, there must be at least two which can relate to one
another, Although the fidd is unitary, it is meaningful to speak
of individuals, as for instance the two members of the cauple.
How do individuals come into being? (Suggesting that ir is a
function of contact boundary process just gives the mystery
another name). And if a person can 'relate to him or hrselr
how is s/he divided within h i r s e l f - what is 'her' and what
b 'self that they can relate to one another? Can a prson have a
contact boundary with themselves? Yontef s plea for an
7nkgrated view' is laudable, but skirts the theoretical @tern of
how a unitary field can differentiate into an
mganism/envimmental field.
In a similar way, Yontef introduces the distinction between
'interior awareness work' and 'external contact work' as if that
were my distinction, yet the entire thrust of my conceptualization
is to overcome this dichotomy. He writes, 'The answer is not to
conceptualize awareness work apart from the field, but to
develop support in tbe field for the work the patients needs to do'
- as if I had oonceptuaIi awareness work apart from the field
That is his conceptualization, not mine. I explicitly made
reference to JanWh and Goodman and to Erik Erikson's early
notion of environment as transcending the interiorlexterior split.
The whok notion of a couple's learning to speak 'I-Thou' to one
another i s an attempt to overcome the dichotomy of
interiorlexmior, to view contacting and self-organization as the
same act, which they me in an 'I-Thou' moment.
% metaphor of the whirlpml was my attempt to mceive of
the self in i& field. ?he whirlpool organizes the river creating
itself and 'contacts' the river in one integmted act. The emphasis
I place on contact as 'mutual self-creation' is anything but
31
'interior' work in isolation. W h y dws Yontef ignote these
elemenrs of the arficle?
Moreover, the ism? 3 was raising was essentidly a clinical
issue. Of come cIients suffer from not having 'I-Thou' spoken
to them as Yontef suggests. That was m t my point. Rather,
what happens when they demand that the other speak it to them?
I impIy that 'I-Thou' is the requirement for good self-
organization. It is absurd to imagine that 'I-Thou' can be
practised in isolation. .To whom shalt one speak it?
And finally, Yontef's clinical observations of borderline,
schizoid and narcissistic personalities seem to m e to be
superbcia1. Yts they 'often refuse to recognize when they do
need something.' If we look at the whole gestalt of their
behaviour (as opposed to their aware pknomenology only), for
instance their anger at w t getting their needs met, we recognize
that they do expect the other to do it for them. If they didn't they
wouldn't be angry. Persons who rend to organize themselvesin
any of these three pattern are prone to rage reactions when their
needs are not met, although especially those operating in the
schizoid pattern may not be aware of their feelings. Still a
therapist trained in body work can easily see the physiological
excitation and holding. (My artides on Gestalt work with the
Schiwid and Narcissistic patterns of self organization are only
available in German).
In summary: Yontef obviously has taken a p t deal of care
to be fair and objective in hi criticism. It is gratifying tQ read his
acceptance of my suggestion of the term 'organismic self
organizationkver 'organismic self-regulation'. We disagree
about the term 'inskumental'. We agree a b u t the irnprhce d
a dialogic attitrade and the healing effect of 'I-Thou' moments.
We disagree about the appropriateness of the therapist (as
therapist) attempting or intending to be Thw for the client.
And we agree that when one person manages to speak Thou
through the grace of God, healing may mur. Although Yontef
may be loath to admit it, 1 suspect he agrees that when God's
grace enables someone t d y to speak 'I-Thou' to another, the
speaker is not at that moment a therapist and the Iistemr is not a
patient.
We don't agree about the size of the gestalts we want to look
at. YonFef"s work is too forepudariented to me (too much
emphasis on the aware phenomenology to the exclusion of other
elements of the fieId). Yontef seems te skirt the issues I raise,
generally dealing with his impression of what I was saying,
simply restating his own position rather than confronting the
issues implied.
Hunter Beaumont trained at the Gestalt Tbetapy Institute of
Los Angeles and was a member of the training staff before
moving to Germany in 1980 where he was gum professor of
psychology from 1980 ro 1983. He is a proponent of the
integrative intention of Gestalt therapy established by Paul
Goodman and FriB and him Pals in his writings, practice and
mining.
Address far eomespodence: hndwehrstrasse 79, D-80336,
Miinchen, Germmy.
IheBtniehMJamal,lB!W,3.33-3Q.
ID 1994. ma i3emtdl m d h s r q y f&ng I d M e .

S P E C . BOOKREWEW

A MATURING DISCIPLINE
Special Book Review of Gestalt Therapy, Perspectives and Applications.
Edited by Edwin C.Nevis. Gestalt Institute of Cleveland Press/Gardner Press,
New York. 360 pages. Price £32 Hardback *.

h4AEOCM PARLETr Introlaaction and Overview

KEN EVANS Review of Chapter 2 'Diagnosis: The Struggle for a Meaningfol

Paradigm' by Joseph Mehick and Sboia March NevIs

ANNE KEAFtNS Review of Chapter 4 'Gestalt Ethics' by Gordoa Wbwler

FWRA MEADOWS Review of Chapter 8 'The Alcoholic: A Gestalt View' by C. Jesse

Carlaek, Kathleen O'Rallemn Glaus and Cynthla A. Shaw

G U CARtlDOCDAVIES Review of Chapter 9 &GestaltWork with Psychotics' by Cynthia

OlldeJalrs Harris

ANDY S L U C m Review of Chapter 10 GCestaltWork with Children: Working with

Anger and Intmjects' by Violet Oaklander

JUDlTH HEMMING Review of Chapter 11 'Tbe Gestalt Approach to Couple Therapy' by

Joseph Zilpker

JOHN WHITLEY Review of Chapter 12 &.AmW e d e w of the Theory and Psaclblce of

Geshlt Group F%mss' by Mary Am Ancksbay

*{obtainable from GIC Press far $34.95, see advertisement in this issue)

sample o f h r 3 contains.
I should l i b to say why we decided to award taris mwk- the
s&lw of havinga S ~ i a l B m k R ~ " . I n the sections which folkow, seven individual chapters of
A new edk~:tion ofpapers about Gestalt therapy is a rare
Gestalt T hew:Perspectives and Applications are seprrakb
W R L A&-inrelknrnlkrn in Gestnlt h not so fmg b k d rhat WE m&d Each reviewer was asked, Frss, to convey to r e a h
can take a book like this for granted. Our cousins in the whut he chnpter LT abut, thss to afir u critique of it, a n d f i I ( v
mlyticai wrId nwy absorb vdumes ofthis &pe us a matter of to add -thing ofhis w Her own Ihirnking.
Eolcrre. But, in dK Pxtendedfmnily o f J q e ~G , e s
~ As ~Editor I want to rhank the c o h u t m s fma jab d l done
h e a pmr record when it comes to writing down w h t they Mefrwn@vhgan~rtantbookduea~~intheBdi&
-
know and partkuhrly how they pac& or upply what they GeslaIrJournal, oerr revkwrs haw a h m h d to high p f l e u
how. n k & f h ? ~ ~ y ~ ~ &f of S@@hWl&)W~~G+dlb?d kU?S, offah!tkat me
We &c&4 dm$ore, after readug thmgh tke bad, fhat it welcome in the BGJ. We wanted to give space to those with
cdEedfor 6 i W p h l atfembn 4jtather, that u single & special m e or inik~ests,to shnre same of their thinking with
woukt nos suff;.e.Heme & idea was born of dividing up r k
ourfelsders. ?%is rke m i w s h a v e h e .
reviewing klsk betweend i f m w r k s . M y sub- task here (donning a revher's hat nryseg will
A& factor in our thinking wnr the ejktoftheprice ofthe
be to ofer some comments on the book as a whole, a d to
h k W e & ~ u & i t m i g h t ~ ~ t ~ b w a y m t o m ~ ~ d hvtemsk e y o u lo the chuptm rrd sekctedfor specific mhw.
as it deserws, so w e decided to give our readers a sizeable
 Introduction and Overview
(Review of Edwin C. Nevis (Ed), (1992)Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications.
Gestalt Institute of Cleveland PresslGardncr Press,New York.
Malcolm Parlett
EdN&isbeldinhigh~mbythosewhokrmwhiminthe
Gestalt wmld and in the world of organizational consulting. He is
a 'maker of things happening'. He has been a steadying
presence, perhaps a father figure, in the Gestalt Institute of
Cleveland (GIC)for many years, as well as one of its most
diligent and creative faculty members. He was alss the founding
spirif and firs1 editor-in-chief of the GIC Press, originally in
&ation with h e Gardner Press -who have published the
present volume.(Subquent volumes from GIG: Prm have been
published by Jassey-Bass, see advehements in this issue of the
BGJ). I vnderstand lhat Ed Nevis tmtk over the editorship of thir
collection late in the day, and 1 am not sure to what extent it
really has his editorial stamp.
In fact the volume's thirteen chaptern fonn an odd coll~.on.
There are 1- of special dishes bbuf together they add up to a
rather strange menu, as if drawn from diffefing cuisines. It 1s
possible that the mix may be explained histmidl y, in how Nevis
andor hi -s) variously aimived the project.
Nevis acknowledges Ibis diversity. He opens his intduc€ion
with the claim that the 'volume att- to the continuing richness
of Gestalt therapy as a conceptual and methodological base €ram
which helping professionals can craft their practice' (p.3). This
strikes me as a fair and justif& daim. He goes on: 'the volume
reflects the freedom lhat Geslalt therapy allows for ptacltitiorrtrs
to exgress their individuality of style'. He is hying to imply an
wedl coherence to the book which I am not sure is there. His
own introduction is too slight to act as a powerful integrating
fm.
What was (and is) requid in any attention specifically to
Perspectives and Applications is same clearer sense of what
Gestalt therapists know. What kinds of knowledge, ability,
philqhical positioning oudook on hman life ace intrinsic to
Gestalt therapy Perspectives and are mWied and enacted in the
field of Appl icatjons?
Rather than leave the questions hanging in midair, I will try
myself to provide a framework which may help in the
appreciation of the seven selected chapter reviews, and of the
b m k as a whole.
There seem to me to bc at least four dirnibfe mcdes, or
modalities of larowin& which apply in Gcsltalt therapy. I discuss
each of them in hm.
1. Conceptual Knowledge and Beliefs. There arc defining
theoretics! assmptim in Gestalt therapy. One such defining
idea is that figures of interes! form from the ground of one's
being and return to the ground when interest is focussed
elsewhere. T h i s notion forms one vertebra in the theoretical
spinal column of the approach. Arguably, without a spinal
column, the ideas and beliefs wouId be amorphous and
iacohemt: it would not be an approach.
In a system or coFlective srrh as Gtszalt Wpy the original
provmtive and informing ideas, provisionally advanad, can
b e progdvely dimented m that they effectively mume
the status of foundation beliefs, unchangeable axioms. In this
sense, Gestalt therapy is somewhat skin to a religious sect,
political movement or charitable venture. AIE these have to
define what it is they hold to, what is included and excluded,
what m estheir boundaries or falls rntiiside them.
So natumfly it is in the rcalm of conceptual knowledge and
beliefs lhat we find the most in- contmversy. T3e officially
sanctioned, taught, and (in same cat@ e m i d knowledge is
written - as is customaty in a system of thought, practice and
belief - in sacred texts (Perls, Heffetline and Goodman,
1951f1973 being still the main om). And, again, as elsewhere,
one finds the equivalent of Gestalt fundmentalis&, middle-of-
the-roaders, and active revisionists, as; we11 as those who may
have long forgotten what the defining beliefs aft?, given that heit
-
affiliation offers them a variety of other benefits e.g. a club,
livelihocrd, identity-provider.
To point out how the miofogy of movements is rtdevaot to
Gestalt ~herapyis not to belittle Gestalt, nor to diminish the
impartarm of ia mhl tenets. As a 'beliwm' myself, I find the
approach satisfying and profowxi.
The more general point. however, is that this fonnal and
argued-hut categoiy of knowledge gets a vay large amount 05
the total attention, when it comes to defining what Gestalt
knowIedge is and bow it is distinguishab1e from that of other
approaches. T h i s said, such knowledge is sipificant: every
pmctitioner, however rusty she or he may be in terms of being
able to articulate Gestalt concepts and philosophical
assumptiom, has a number of ideas formalist4 h e y provide the
basic conceptual notions and betiefs which Gestaltists use to
justify what they do.
2 P e r s o ~ Rl ~ Pm&xidly, ~ one of the
, distinctive
formal ideas of Gestalt therapy theory, inspired by Paul
Goodman, is !hat individuals have a supreme obligation and
 chance in life to exercise their taste and pemnal ~~spansibility, fixed frameworks, not Ieast as a result of our professional
an anarchistic thread. And it is true that Gestalt practice, as we11 working. And if these are allied to giving us a sense of
as writing about it, allows much scape for individual variation. competence and skillfulness, any incentive we have for
But there is something else. In learning Geshlt it is clear that examining them may be diminished, and we live blithely within
much of what is changing in the experiences of trainees (or their unexamined compass.
clients, since they are 'learning' GestaIt too) is individual: there
are masses of personal remgnitions going on, flashes of insight 4. Practical '1Know-Uow'. A more explicit form of ktwwld@ is
and connection. l h i s kind of understanding is viscera1 as much the kind which is taught within GestaIt €raining comes relating
as mgnitive, a somatic and often wordless kind of knowledge, to, say, 'working with undoing retroflections' or 'relating to
known 'in one's hnes', or gut or heart or pit of stomach. This is W r l i n e clients'. Here is the public arena of skill teaching, of
the type of knowledge which b r e a k life into the conceptual attention ro technique, diagnosis, of drawing on clinical
-
understanding of the first category what turns concepts in knowledge which is also communicated via journals and
books into persona1 belie&, conferences.
Once integrated, each personal recognition becomes an Of mum in Gestalt therapy there has a h y s been this kind of
increment of knowledge which is qluite individual, expertise and generalisation, though in some Gestalt training
autobiographical and privately oontextuailissd. This is not public courses tfiere has been little formal teaching, with an excessive
-
knowledge as such. But it provides a store-house from which reliance on demonstration work with the expctation that
teachers of Gestalt draw continuously. Without this kind of people will 'pick up' what the app0w:h is about. There is also
knowledge, Gestalt would be a dry shell of assorted theories and suspicion in many quarters about trying to generalise and order
odd-seemingtechniques. 'Pfuere are no Gestalt teachers of worth and systemah the thinking which is embedded In practice, in
who do not draw extensively upon their own journey's case the spontaneity and uniqueness of each enceunEr is lost. So
disOOvefi&. Unless Gestalt is appreciated prsonally it cannot be there has been a mixed history of owning and communicating
taught with heart or conviction. 'public' know-how of this kind.
The four kinds of knowledge are like four strings - intertwined
3. Pmess Undersbndinng A third domain of knowledge is the they form a strong rope of expertise and h m a n wisdom. None of
accumulated experienceof our relevant undefstandiigs of others, the four alone suffices, no two (or three even) can take the hi1
of human processes, of human functioning. Every practitioner is load of psychotherapy practice with a broad range of clients. Of
also a natural historian, collecting observations, residues sf course the balance of the four domairis is subject to debate and
memory and conclusion which, progressively integrated and differences, and individual styles and prefetemxswill be evident.
constantly tested out, provide the basis for all skillful functioning. Yet all are neasary.
We are map makers. model builders and the increments of So this boak, now reviewed, can also be consided from this
meaning which we find and build upon define our 'level' of angle. It is geared towards Perspectives and Applications, the
experience. sub-title says. So we are not looking here at a straightforward
Practitioners have difficulty in defining or laying out such theory book. There is practical how-how all tight; there is some
knowledge, and consequently in teaching it. In working with natural history, with people trying to make explicit what is
someone therapeutically, experienced petitioners wiU often say known about but not usually talked about. There is even a
they 'just do it, can't tell you how'. In PoIanyi'a (1966) words, it straightforward account of founding beliefs and 'spinal
is 'tacit' krmwledga, implicit rather than explicit. How can you column'theory. What is least apparent are accounts which are
tell someone how to ride a bicycle? They just have to learn it. revealing of the personal experiences and values of working
Largely invisible though it may be, this kind of knowledge is therapists talking about what they beIieve in. There is also no
ever-present in interpretation, in assessment, in all clinical discussion of Mining.
judgement. I am not suggesting that each of these four domains ne& to
Also deeply embedded in what pople take for granted are be represented here, nor that it is necessary to emphasise one
their values and fundamental attitudes. They permeate each over another. But it would be helpful, I think to differentiate
encounter, each pmfessianal and personal choice. Again, they what these various kinds of knowledge call for, in terms of
are often inexplicit - Ithey 'are part of who I am'. Yet they writing and discussion, and it would have been exciting if the
infiltrateevery encounter, choice, preference. book itself had begun with some kind of meta-theoretical
Obviously, there are enormous questions about fhis kind of -
overview not necessarily exactIy like this - but one which
knowledge. It is awesame to see highly experienced practitioners somehow oontextualised the various chapters as dl contributing
at work in the Gestalt way - they can seem to weave gold out of in different ways to a unified picture of Gestalt therapy in the
sttaw, w be able to reach a person at a very deep level in a short 1990s.
space of time. At the same time, this kind of knowledge and skill
is the least accountable, mast hidden, while being some of the
mmt potent in terns of applying Gestalt. Therapy can be thought
G e d And ...
of as a way of examining personal taken-for-granted maps. In looking at some of the chapters not selected, I am choosing
Although we may, to an extent, unlearn our archaic patberm of 60 begin with three chapters relating Gatalt therapy to other
thinking and be personally challenged along the way, there is the approaches, three attempts to buiId bridges to neighbouring
-
conjoint process happening - namely that as fast as we jettison 'camps' ta transactional analysis, to a bodywork method, and
the baggage of the fixed past we a n easily be generating new to psychosynthesis. It is not exactly clear why these three
36
'combinations' were choscn and not others: there muld have
been many more (e.g. Gestalt with the Rogerian approach, see
O ' h r y , 1993, or with Morita therapy, see Philippson, 1991).
Alternatively, these three bridge-building chapters could have
been left out altogether, given the sharp and clear focus on
extending specifically Gestalt thinking and practice which
othefwise pervades the h k .
Of course, the xlvisability of combining Gestalt with other
a-hes at all is a mntinuing Issm of mtention, and given
the presence of these three chapten netds to be owned up.
First, everyone acknowledges that there are parallels and
overlaps between Gestalt and other therapies, phiiowphies, a d
practices.The doubts arise as to how much integration is w i b l e
with these outside influenceswithoutjeopardizing the identity of
Gestalt therapy itself.
Lam Perls (1992, pp. 13P140,149) was one of those who
expesed misgivings about the tendency of people to base their
practice on 'Gestalt therapy and something else'. She was not
averse to practitioners 'assimilating and integrating' influences
h m elsewhere - in- she welcomed 'a continually ongoing
innovation and expansion in whatever diredion is -file'. She
thought of 'any theory (including Gestalt) no! as holy sCript but
rather as a working hypothesis, a serviceable device for the
dascription,communication ,end rationalization of our particular
.
personal approach' No, her objection to 'Gestalt and ...' was
based on what she saw as a fundamental misprception of
Gestalt therapy.
Laura Perls regarded all combinations of the 'Tmnsactienal
Analysis and Gestalt' or 'Bicumergetirs and Gestalt" variety ss
suspct, on the grounds that whar was being combined were
'techniques': 'Gestalt therapy is reduced to a purely technical
moddi?y'@.I49ibid.). And, nrs she remarks elsewhere 'a Gestalt
therapist does not use techniques; he applies hiself in and to a
situation with whatever professbnal skill and life experience he
has accumulated and integrated Cp.140 ibid.) ...?he basic Esncepts
of Gestain therapy are philosophical and aesthetic rather than
technical' (p.149 ibid.).
She suggests, then, h a t personal integration is healthy; that we
must all, as pmciitioners of Gestalt, be capable of assimilating,
improvising, and continuing to develop our particular style; and.
second, she is dtstinctly sceptical a b u t attempts to @uce more
formal amalgamations, believing these to be superficial, mere
imptations of tecbiqm.
If we turn to the three 'C;lestrrltand..,' chapters in the Nwis
volume, and regard them in the light of Laura Perls' temarks,
what do we find?
The first is by Bob Goulding who writes about the links
b e m TA and Gaaalt ,a very common crosssver, The style
of this chapter is decidedly informal and at times written at a
beginner's level. It evokes an earlier, rougher-hewn eta of
Gestalt. There is no thorough going integration of the two
approaches here, yet f found it refreshing too. He is someone
who is trying to convey the feel of therapy, and there are
practical tips in abundance. It is personal writing. Ir sticks out as
different in a volume that is, in the main, attempting a different
overall style. This is a chapter I wodd recommend to beginning
therapists, not least for same trenchant remarks about the
usefulness of therapy 'cantrack*.
A second chapter, also by a well-known figure, llana
Malcolm Parlet1
Rubenfeld, titfed 'Gestalt therapy and the Bodymind' is rather
similar in giving the impression of being dasW off. The chapar
has a subtitle, mentioning a method which she has developed.
Every time the precise name of this method is referred to it has
an 'R' in a circle next to it: this is an approach which has a
registered trademark and I am not going to mention the name,
partly in protest against such ptection~srnfl don't hear Yonkf,
or Fry, w Zjnker talking about their 'rnethds' in such a precious
way, let alone copyrighting cv patenting them, yet they have all
developed their own mature and distinctive integrations ). In part,
too, 1 do nor want to mention the name in case I risk the British
GeslaIr Journal getting into legal dispute if we forget an T'!
Rubenfeld's particular synthesis -which doubtless is a profound
personal integration of tk kind that Laura Perk encourages us all
to achieve - is written a b u t at such a simple level that it dots not
satisfy. No hdp here in considering how people actually put
together learning from different sources in the way Rubenfeld
has hemzlf done.
The third of the 'Gestalt and .,.' chapters is one by Janette
Rainwater, who has bridged to Psychosynthesis. Again the
picfalls of m i n g theoretical divides an: shown up. The amount
of psychosynthesis thinking Shat can by conveyed in a chapter
like rhk is &EowEy slight. The chapter has to b pitched at an
introductory Iwl,as the redw cannot be p u m e d to have any
fundamentals to psychosynthesis already in place. So it is a bit
like trying to say ' h k here, Gestaltists, there is some i m w n t
stuBF here, that arguabjy should be taken seriously by you, but I
can only t ~ u c hon it', which means that the real task of bridge
building remains as a fanMising prospect.
The reader of the baok may feel, as I did after reading these
three chapters, that Laura Perk' strictures on combination
approachts are justified. Yes, there are undoubted technical, even
strategic elemenls which can be drawn into a personal therapy
sryle; but trying to link together the diierent approaches, and to
teach them as a combination of two different disciplines,
p r o d m an ullsatisfyiagthearetical gestalt. There may be bits of
practical 'know-how' which can be amalgamated, but what
about the mre concepts?
However, &ere are counter arguments. Them are distinguished
Gestalt practitioners who take a keen interest in advancing the
cause of a genuine, thearetically-grounded ar well as practical
integration. They believe that 'integrative' approaches to
psychotherapy are inevitably going to win out in time. At prestnt
psychotherapy is still in its early life, historicalEy s ~ k i n g It.
cannot go on as a 'Fewer of Babel, with hundreds of little
sectarian voices and special thries all cIairning to provide the
best way and looking down on the &hers.
Already, they point out, there ere massive changes afoot
politically which are beginning to forge a generic profewion of
psychotherapy. In the wake of professionalisation (and the
political expediency which accompanies it) comw at first civilily
across garden f e r n Then the discovery is made that numerous
parallels exist between approaches - albeit couched in different
jargon and embedded in different philosophies. Later, the
prediction goes on, there will be more and more people - therapy
linguists, as it were - who are comfortable moving between
approaches and conceptual languages, intwpreting modalities to
each other. Integration of theory must follow in time; a meta-
tfiewy of therapy will emerge, and it will draw on many different
Nevis Overview 37

outlooks. AND, say t k integrationists, Gestalt me& 111.be parf dmwing attention to and that is his emphasis on waking with
of dzk process, not hanging back not insisting an ib 'purity' to fntrojects. This, he says, becomes a primary task in the middle
the p i n t that it continues to be marginalid when it should be at phases of therapy, after the client has become used to the
the very centre of what is happing (see, for instan* Clarkm therapist, to Gestalt, and a conbract and relationship has been
1991). b argumentsare compelIing. established.
I have strayed here into a minefield But it is a contempwary Many experienced therapists wodd agree about the crucial
minefield. And in a book which really dealt with up-to-date role of introjects, the "basic programmes' that a m for a great
Perspectives and Applicariom 1 would have welcomed a very many of our clients to underpin their individual disturbances of
serious dixussion of the issues which arise far Gestalt therapy, contact. As Shub points out, inm- are developed out of 'life
as its insigh& becxnne arguably less different from Shose of other themes' which are themselves 'the most powerful, most
approach than they were twenty years ago;, and when &re is aFfectively charged and deepest of the intmjeca' (pJ03); they
more and more collective psychotherapy activity (at least in can affect physical appearance, psture, breathing, as well as
Europe), pointing towards a more integrated future. 'Does interpersonal relationships.The 'muitant introjects', he goes an,
Gestalt therapy have a future in its own right?' is a questha that 'make up a complicated system of rules which govern our
many practitioners ask privately. More positively we might ask emotional lives' and it is in the systematic unpicking of these
how we can demonshate that, as an qpmch, Gestalt therapy is various rules that provides the 'therapeutic access' to the life
bbth acutely relevant to our times and could well serve itself as a theme iW2f. And 'working with the life theme inboject is one of
-
basis - not necRssariIy &e basis for an integmted therapeutic the pivotal experiences in t k therqmrtic pms',
approach. Shub gives some guidelines for working on, identifying and
ImhxtiveIy and mnfidently, many of us believe that Gestalt working through these key 'life theme' introjecb; he suggesis
therapy has a M t h y future, provided that it erne- fimn its that without a deliberate focussing on them they may not 'be
ghetto and its practitioners can convey its soope, relevance, given the priority they deserve'. I found this discussion Itseful,
theoretical basis, and clinical versatility - through and beIieve that beginning therapists could well find this
demonstrations, +tion, writing, teachin& btmies, the emphasis, on actively exploring the introjective system,
quality of its .LTainings, and its journals. How Gestalt h p y will informative and powerful.
-
change -as it already has a lot in the last stforty years remains to Pausing hete, I cannot help thinking again that a bolder, mare
be seen. But my money will be on its continuing to be decisive agenda for this book would have enabled a more
refieshingly d i m t hm many other approaches at the same exciting outcome. There is such a lot of divergence between
time as incoprating more and more illsights and methods from practitionerswhen it comes to their views ofthe t k p y joumey.
other sources, both within psychotherapy and beyond it. What a b u t conducting some research into what differen?senior
practitioners regard as priorities? What about discussion of
particular cases? This chapter is not weighty or convincing
enough to stand on its own, given the importma of the topic,
Another chapkr in the Perspectives seetion not reviewed in but the topic is o£ i m p t and general interest ( a d offers new
detail is Norman Shub's 'Gestalt Therapy Over T i e ' . Having directions for the Britinb EestaHJomd).
an overview of the therapeutic journey is important for every
therapist. Suggesting there are patterns of development, and
different kinds of therapeutic input required at dlflerent stages,
makes sense. Others have suggested such sequences (e.g. I would like ta comment M a y on ansther unseleeted chapter,
C l a r h n 1989). The idea is therefoe rmt new. And it is oertainly this time in the 'Applications' section of the book, by Claire
not exhausted, Unfortunately, while Gestalt therapists by and D e ~ e r ySltratfonl, which interestedme very much.
large remain unwilling to publish case studies, the shared Gestalt theory, with its grounding in field theory, offers a
material which would enhance c o I t d v e thinking is simply not powerful way of thinking s h u t communal, organizational, or
available. social settings. Straltford is interested in 'learninglteaching
-
Sbub's attempt which falls into the category of trying to environments such as haspital programs for psychiatric patiem
articulate and formalise a mass of therapeutic insight - is group-living settings, day treatment programs, sheltered
ambitious, and though it mtains s c ~ n euseful ideas, does aot (in workshops, and many kinds of educational program' (p.332).
my view) achieve what it sets out ta do. Having said that, let us Her suggestion is that Gesralt principles, thinking, and skills
ackmwldge how &&cult any pneralizing or model-building is teaching have applicability in transforming siettirpgs like e, so
in a field so characterid by diversity. In my experience, each they &come more conducive to people's growth. Stratford
therapy trajecbry is unique and believing one can find any kind suggests that Gestalt practitioners have it within their scope to
of painem is optimistic. I can mgnise, with particular clients, switch their attention from 'influencing clients' to 'influencing
phases of work, developmental shifts, changes of contract or the environment'.
direction, plateaus and surges forward and leaps backward. Stratford's grounded and sensible a m u u t will resonate with
However, to f i d overall patterns across clients, to tease apart many who work in the public sector, especially thase who find
generalizeable phases, strikes me as intellectually very that Gestalt practice has helped hem personally and are locking
demanding. 1commend thwe who try. for ways of applying their Gestalt knowledge in their work in
Although the phases he delineates do not p n i d a r l y 'speak' clinics, institutions, rehabilitation miresetc..
to me, there is something which I really do think is wofih A large measure of what she recommends has to do with
38 Malcolm Parlen

heightening awareness, often among the staff of a centre or pers@ve and the capacity for political action. Stratford is not a
clinic, anti also among managers a d adrninisttaools. A is Gestalt Paul Goodman type of social critic, who might tear into the
education, baseid on principles that thost acquainted with Gestalt stupidity and duplicity which pervade large self-sewing
m take for granted but which m by no means commonplace ~ ~ of the k i d e
s she writes abut.
s But as a reformer on
among the general population of care-workersand professionals. the 1mI scale, she has a great deal to say to us.
I can give o m or two examples to whet your appetite. She
points out, for instance, that those who are 'lumped into Ehe JmfLutnerandaCkpterofGeslalt Theory
general category of poor selfesteem' may be in programmes
where there am deliberate attempts to teach (hem the 'skill' of 'a
I have lefi to last the h t chapter of the book, which stands on
sGnse of entitlement'. Yet, at the same time, the setting may offer
its own as a Gestalt theory piece, when the emphasis is othemisc
h r n Little by way of emmmgement. What are needed are 'small on fields of application To quote Nwis in his Introduction, 'J-1
Latner walks us through the core a s p t s of Gtstalt thwapy ., .
enough living units and con.istency of staffiagb that clients
can 'experience being seen, noticed and responded to ... There This chapter can serve as an inttocluctian for kginning r a
needs to be an expectation that clients can make requests or and a s a pungent r e b h e r for the more experienced' @p. 4-5).
demands from others as well as respond to requests and demands Whether the Laher chapter belongs in this h k is to return to
of s W (~340).In 0th words, the patient or resident r e g ~ ~ n d s theme I spoke of at the beginning -the volume is d i m and
the
to the whole field not just bo the 'tfeatment' p t of the field. A this relates to a fonn of knowledge which is different h r n othm
vwy good Gestalt point. kinds repme~tedin the book.
However, the chapter is there, an excellent introddon to the
Secondly, and simildy, 'prqgrammes that are too rigidifad in
matrix of basic ideas, philosophy, and methodology that
their procedures mirror tb problems of patients who are too
rigidified'. Rather than thinking about pathology locked up
characterisc our disciplii. Since I think it is pithy, welt-written
within individuals, therapists in institutional setting would be an$ sound in its mtment of Gesdt, I obviously welcome it as
better off 'providing opportunities to practise... missing another "ontchapter summary' to add to thase of, for instance,
s k i l I d w i s within
~ an envimnmmt, preferably built into
Yontef and Simkin (1989) and Parlett and Page (1990).
Jcel Lawr has a distinguished record as a Gestalt hider ard
daily routines'.
-
Third, Stratford points out how 'systemicmntradictious' like teacher.
view of
His account here is a traditional om: it is an orthodox
Gestalt, faithful to the original mnon of Gestalt ideas,
a conflict between how managers and care-workers view
-
priorities may contribute to staff bumout as much as (or more
and theoretimlly mmwative (with a small 'c').
So here we find lucid accounts of present-centredness, of
than) continuow involvement with were problems and dimcult
clien?swhich is what usuajly burnut is alm%uted to. Again,
middle p m d , of f i p formation, of the contact bomdq, to
name a few. ahere are some well-wed h a p . , (e.g. going to thc
somethingwhich twonates as likely to be true.
Fourth, she draws attention to the fact that 'clinica1 racoFds are
refrigerator as part of fulfilling a need) as well as many new
ways of putting things. 1 could choose lots of examples of the
a relatively unbalanced amunt of the failings and shortcomings
of patients'. She g o ~ on:
s
-
latter laere's one:

Tlw d i t y of Ud e o r g ofmmmplimcntar)r idonmaion

The working offigrae fmmth are d m to dighRned pray
is In and of &If a noxious reality... A potential fur supporting than they are to problem solving ..... Spontaneity, advenhue and
playfulness are its h f l m k s . Though i t eventuates in growth,
awareness of strengths and existing skills is to build such
figure formation is not directed towards any end. Rather, as
awareness into any transmission of information system,thus
Kant so well put it, we proceed 'with a sense of purpose,
making it more figural to staff and inevitably reflecting that
without a plrpose.' In f d n g and destroying figures, we bring
consciousnessback to clients. (p.336).
the entirety of our king ta it. Not just aur h a i r s , bbut all of
Here the thinking about the therapeutic milieu in iis entirety ourselves: heart, M y , swl, mind, intellect. Perhaps it mn be
Jeads to questioning some of the most familiar, obvious (but conceived of as thinking with the whole M y .
therefore easily overlaoked) features of it, in this case, record- 'IFmcw, is a lot more I muld quote h n b'tnw's chapr, wilh
keeping.
plwure and appoval, Also I auld find lots of small p i n g with
Fifth, Sbadord blumly acknowledges, s a fact of life h big which 1 muld qllibbl~Some of his arguments and examplas I
systems, that % hallmark of particularly effective healing will i n m p a t e into my teaching; others I definitely would nol.
environments is that they rarely smive for long periods of time' There is nothing exceptional about such divergencies Getween
Cp.350). She goes on: Gestalt specialists. But if does raise the question of whether
The stress of wing to maintain small utopias embedded in disaprnents over theoretical issues are as imprtant to look at
larget inflexibilities of bwcies makes healthy beatmnt as differences between other kinds of Imwvledge which affect
mitieus tare in the public service delivery m r . The fad that practice. What are Lamer and I expected to agree upon?
they continue tu be born, live fw a while, and subside speaks to Relarsd questions step up h m behid, and they came k k to
the intuitions of individuals and sensitive small groups about the question of whal Gestalt knowledge is exactly. For instance,
healing and health. Rte larger mzinesses of ow culautc do not
support the maintenance of subsystems that behave with
-
what do mince GeslaIt therapists need to learn what is the
'core chculum'? a deep immersion in Gestalt zheary and
n
i kgk.j
philosophy Iwd to a d q r and more effective practice? Can
This rather Me& outlook sulSgesCs that in addition to the ever- Gestalt therapy be learned 'osrnoticaEly', by example and
hcq~fulefforts of l d pioneers one needs also a wider political demonstration? Is the current mend in therapists' training -
Nevis Overview

towards more writing and more theoretid discussion - essential we do.

in learning Gestalt or is it simply a function of the politics d I have suggested that mast of all, perhaps, we need to reflect
professionalisation? These are questions talked aboa inf~mdly upon our knowing .,... what is it that we know? How do we
a lot, at least in the British Gestalt community. acquire such 'knowledge'? Do we, in short, know what we
know? Unless we can begin to arrmver these questions, I fear we
shall be immured in the Cestalt of yesteryear. To embrace the
twenty-first century we shasl need to re-invent ourselves many
My intmluction to this volume is inevitably not complete, as I times over. Doing this intellectually requires,again, that we are
have not strayed into discussion of the chapters subsequently - -
aware knowledgeable, f a r - s e e i continually reflwting of
reviewed. I have, I hope, communicated that I r e d this volume what we do, believe in, and want for mr dipline.
as an imprmive indication that Gestalt therapy is maturing as a
therapeutic mmodality in its wvn right.
Ovemll, then, I am very enthusiastic, and believe that the book
is a notable addition to the Gestalt literature. I believe that Nevis Clarkson. P.(1990). Gestalt is C h & : Part 2 - F m rhe Pmt
has, in whatever way he had to do it, presided over the -
to &e PrewnL British Gestalt l d , 1, pp. 8'7 93.
compilation of some important material. It will serve as an Parlett, M.R.and Page. F. (1990). GestaIt Therapy. In W.
encouragement for further collections, (and for articles in this Dryden (Ed.) Individual Therapy: A Handbook. Open
Joumal) about practice and applying Gestalt in diffwent settings, University Press, Milton Keynes.
in diverse ways. Perls, F., Hefferline, R. arad Goodman, P. (1951119'73). GsPalt
On the other side of the balance sheet, I found the overall T k n y y : Exci&ment a d G m t h in dre Human Permtali@.
- -
structure as I have aIready hinted somewhat imnsistent in Penguin Jbk,Hmondswwth.
style. And there is very little that brings the various chapters Perls, L. (1992). Living at the B o d a t y . A Gestalt Journal
together. But it would require extensive editorial surgery - and Publication, Highland, New York
-
some implants to correct this. PhiIippson, P. (1966). Sensing, Feeling, Illrinhhg and Acting:
In particular, the concerns which W l t must deal with, in its Gestalt l%wapyand M& Wp)l. British Gestalt Joumal,
Perspsctives and Applications, relate to the pressures coming l,pp.38-41.
from professionalisation of psychotherapy, h m rapid steps Polanyi, M.(1966). The Tac2 Dhemiwr. Doubleday, Garden
towards therapy integration, from the need to assess a@,NW Y W ~
competencies in a fair and eonviacing manner, and b m thase O'LRary, E. (1993). Empdty in the Pmon Centred and G e d t
who question the whole basis of individual therapy. In the light Appmdm. British Gestalt Journal, 2, pp. 111- 114.
of these d e v e l we ~ to know more clearly what it is Yomtef, G.and Simkin, J. (1W).Gestalt ~~.
~ have In R.W n i
we believe in, what marks our boundaries, what kinds of and D.Wedding, (Ms.) Cuweni P-m*, 4th Edition,
activities and skills, methods and assumptions, distinguish what F.E. Peamck Publishers, Ithaska, Illinois.

Mala~ImParle#,BA., PhD., C., Psychol., kF.B.Ps.S., is an Honorary Founding Member of the

Gestalt Psychotherapy Training Institute. He trained at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland. He is a
therapist, supervisor, trainer and organizational consultant in private practice in Bristol.

A h @ coiw@e: 51, Fernbank Road,Redlad, Bristol BS6 6PX

 A Review of Chapter 2, CDfagnosis:The Stmggle for a Meaninml
Paradigm', by Joseph Melnick and Sonia March Nevis
(En W i n C. Nevis (M.), (1992) Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications. Gestalt
Institute of Cleveland PrtsdGardnea Press, New York).
Ken Evans
In this chapm Joseph Melnick and Sonia March &is explore
the dilemma of diagnosis 'How is one to know and dtxribe
another?' G.77).In their struggle te find a meaningful pafadigin
they present the cycle of experience (Zinker, 1978) as the basis
of their d i a w c system which they then utilk to d e & i the
concept of character. Finally they attempt to fit four common
DSMllIR (1987) diagnoses into the cycle of experience -
Borderline Personality Disotdet; Simple Phobia; Histrionic
Personality Disorder; Post Trauma tic Stress Disorder.
Appropriatesbategia of intervmtion are suggested for each.
Melnick and Nevis bgin the c h a m by confirming what I
have long hlieved. that whatever one's view about the vdut of
diagnosis one dms in fact do it anyway. 'To say it simply, one
cannot not diagnose' (p.57).
Diagnosis is neatly defined as a 'demiprive statement that
articulates what is being noticed in the moment" (p.58), By
paying amtion to what is n o t i d in the moment an aspect of
hhaviour will at some pint h e a foclrs of interes~and a
pattern will emerge. This pattern may lead tu a diagnosis - 'the
patient appears to be retroflecting'. I agree with the authors'
claim that this approach to diagnosis is useful because the
behaviour is readily observable, the techniques that may be
utilised are well documented, and the thmapuzic work a n often
be satisfactorily accomplished within a single session A very
important qualification is added with a caution against ovet-
emphasising quick forming figures (e-g,, a pre-occupatian with
problem solving) which mn lead people tu become less likely to
accept themdves and more likely to p s u e the 'rigtl~'approach
with the 'right' therapist in search of *radicalchange'. The
av~horscorrectly stress that it is the ground which must
ultimately be affected if a person is to experience a more
enduring change. This is a welcome counterpoint to the
caricature of Gestalt 9s a 'quick fix Ihetapy' which still lingers
among the prejudiced and thE ignorant.
From a Gestalt perspective healthy human functioning
involves moving relatively smoothly through the individual
phases of the experience cycle with clear figure formation and
destruction. Unhealthy functioning involves either redundant
structures or recurrent too rapid movement through the cycle
resulting in incompletion and dissadsfaction. Gestalt therapists
atFend to blocks to healthy functioning and describe them as
disturbances or neurotic self-regulat ion - project ion,
retroflmtion, deflection etc
Assessment In the here and now is clearly valued by the
authm as being tbmptvtically optimistic by sqprting change
through remaining open to new pcsibiiities and clues to new
meaning by the ptient. This is seen as an important challenge
to Freudian deterratinism.
TheD S M . and the Cycle ofE m w e
I agree in thinking ?hat the Borderline patient blocks at the
~ t i o n l ~ ~ g ~ ephase
n e sofs the cycle. The patient has such Iw,
toleration of sensation stimulation that it is very difficult to
translate sensation into manageable form and figure. The
hmpeucic task is to help in the management of sensation by
lowering internal and external stimulation, and thereby assist
awareness to emerge so tket movement though the cycle can
continue.
In my opinion the necessity for a more formal diagnostic
system is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than by the
authm' d i m i o n of the bmde~1inepatient. The indiscriminate
use of classic Gestalt techniques, such as the luse of the empty
chair, increase sensation and are potentially dangerous for h e
patient, precipitating regression out of contact, or even a
psychotic episode. Also, confrontational, belhavioural and
paradoxical interventions tend to produce added or ambiguous
sensory inpur,
The authors chosse simple phobia to illustrate a block at the
mobilizatiodenergy phase of the cycle. Phobias imolve either
the investment of too much energy around an inappropriate
figure (fear of snakes prevents a visit to the South) or the
mobilization of energy around a wrong awareness (fear
generated from fantasy as opposed to reality). Treatment
involves matching the c m r a figure with the stimulus so that
completion can oocur. TIE a u h smss the important p i n t that,
as in all phases ofthe cycle, the work must I x tepeated over and
aver again for energy to be available for the generation of
adequate cantact.
Disturbance at the contact phase of the cycle results in
experitnoes that arr: eitha m little (e,g, the hug that has too litlle
energy and no warmth) or too much (the hug that is overly
passionate) for a specific environmental context. Too much
energy has been traditionally called histrionic. Energy in
histrionic patients is 'inner determined, undisciplined and
exaggerated and does not keep pace with the environmental
field' @. 71). The a u h s accurately state the diEemma for the
-
thetapist how to help the patient slow down and how to help
the patient become more interested in the emironmental field,
especially other people? Contact requires h t h an inward and
 kom: the Struggle for a Meaningful Paradigm
Melnick 3 & Nevis S M
outward focus and the authors suggest some helpful experhen&
to facilitate bth.
The last phase of the cycle is called demobilization by the
authors and inoorpmtes bath resolutiodclosm and withdrawal.
The purpose of this phase is to allow for the absorption of an
experience into the ground of the individual. This is
accomplished when a person is able to disengage from an
experience, chew it over and absorb and digest it. I agree that
Gestalt therapists have largely ignored this phase and given it tao
small a part in the experience cycle. Several reasons are
suggested, beginning with the western cultural ideal of goal
setring and a bias against movement inwards and aloneness.
Also, the demobiIization process is difficult to understand
because it is largely an intrapsychic process and must be inferred
rather than observed. FEmlIy demobilization is often unpleasant,
particularly when associated with death, illness, divorce, or
defeat.
According to the authors, demobilization onquires a 'turning
away' from (e.g. by stopping drinking) or 'being tmd away
h m ' a figure in which energy is still interested (e-g.the death of
a spouse). Love on the rebound or religious conversion are
examples of figure substitution, the purpose of which is to
tmsfer unspent energy onto something large and captivating in
order to avoid assimilating the pain. Consequently, the person
may be doomed to skip h r n one love or religious experience to
another. I suspect that figure substitution may also be a
significant factor in explaining why some patients skip from one
therapist to another!
Assimilation can a h be muk rnwe difficult by the therapist's
reluctance to remain patient with work that may appear
redundant or boring. Here t k task may be to assist thew patients
find forms through which they can e x v their feelings in small
ways. Talking,rather than dramatic cathatsis, may be required to
enable the patient to express a feeling without an expectancy of
an external outcome or an aim to change anything.
At some stage in this phase of the cycle the patient will
enamtw the void. This is described as experiencing a perid of
time when nothing manus, where nothing is of interest. This can
indeed be terrifying. At this crucial point in demobilization m
inability to turn fmm the old, tlte painful and the non-nourishing
to the unknown means a ptentially M l e void becomes a futile
void. That the authors suggest this is a precondition for many of
-
the 'addictions>tevalent in our society workaholkm, love
addiction, codependency - came as a new and interesting idea to
m.
Melnick and Nevis are to be congratulated for providing a
h i s for a more formal system of diapmis wherein information
can be kfter organis&, strategies of inkwention more m M l y
considered, and the evolution of therapy given a greater element
of prediction. I particularly appreciate the assertion that the
paces of diagnosis is a grounding experience for the thetapist.
That is, it acts as a kind of brake preventing ttK therapist jumping
in precipitously and enabling him to remain calm while waiting
for a figure to emerge. However, the basic h m e w o r k offered by
Mehick and Nevis needs ~Iarification,refinement and further
development.
Tile authors define chamcter as 'the d i i v e ways in which
individuals organize their experience' @. 64). I l e concept of
42 Ken Evans

character is not sufficiently &eloped and requires fwhm and
more precise clarification as to how it is linked to the cycle of
experience and the DSMTITR, Much of this work has alfieady
been done by Gilles Delisle and I was surprised to find no
refence to this work in this chapter @elisle, 1591).
Delisle defines personality as a specific and relatively stable
way of organizing the cognitive, emotive, and khavioural
m p n e n t s of one's experience and gives a person a sense of
identity. This sew of id en ti^, and the way it impacts a others,
is personality, RlisIe links personality to the cycle of experienoe
by asking three.questions:
1 . r n ~ ~ d ~ ~ b e o b s e r P e d t P e s s o n a l i t y a s a n overwhelms the patients' capacity to organize the field at the
organking prooessof expenpenem mn be i n f e d .from
observations made ar the mntact boundary in tho way a person boundary something that may result in harmony and
uses their contact functions,
2H0w d o e s d y d h 6 n mmife!&atsrlF! Onthecycleof
experience. In one or other of the cuntaa phasts of some
specific contact e p W the dysfunction will manifest itself.
Of the several major innovations ia the ways that
psychopirtho10g)r is conceptualized in the D S m I R , Delislc
ernphasises two in particular. Fiat, Iht criteria for diagnosing
each personality disorder ate compatible with the
phenornenologica! attitude, in that they are based on manifest
descriptive pathology rather than inferences or criteria from
presumed causation. Secondly, in order to aocommodate the
multiplicity of people's liva and experiences the DSMIIR uses
a multi-axiaI system that reflects the systemic character of
psychopathology and is campatible with field themy.
lklisle links prsanaIity to the DSMIIlR in the folIowing
manner. Personal pathology arises out of a meeting of the
organism and the environment. The configuration of the field
time. The patient is not 'sick' as such, but st the contact
intercomectedmsresults in suffering, The mult of tk patient's
inability b manage the contact boundaty so as to be nourished
and not poisoned is the clinical syndrome. The patient's
relatively stable and maladaptive performance at the contact
boundary is the personality disorder.

3. Hnw will dgalbmetlrmbe d t a h e d ? Through the various Refinement

resistances(dis-ntmptions to contact) and by not
making effective use of s w r t systems - interpersonal, One rarely, if ever, encounters any pure prototypes of
cognitive and biologid, i.e. how we use other people, how we pmonality disolrder. PeopIt E d to present as a mix of at kast
u ~ our -
e bod& to suppon health or pathology. two m three personality orientstions. For example the DSMIITR

Df agnosis
h i integrative approach

FOCUS GESTALT PERSPECTIVE CONVENTTONAL,SYSTEMS

Here & Naw Functional Dysfunctional Diagnostic

There and Now StatisticaI
Manual 3rd Ed.

Here & Then Relational ContactRntemrptions to contact

mere and Then Developmental Fixed Gestalt Repetition

Compulsionsscn'pt

Gary Yonttf (1988) descn'bes phenomenalogical experience in four time zones:

Here and Now - the whole person-environmental field at a particular moment.

There and Now - the client's life outside of therapy.

Here and TMn -that which happened in the therapy mom a few moments ago, last week, last month, last ycat.

Then and 'IBen - history, the background that aIIows meaning to emerge.
Diagnosis
focuses exclusively on the grandiose manifestation of the
narcissistic personality disorder. Most of my patients with a
primary narcissistic orientation have been so frightened of their
grandiosity that they would more accurately be diagnosed
Narcissistic with an Avoidant overlap. Ftequently they present as
reasonably sucEessfUl socially and are often employed in care-
giving occupatim where their chronic mask of self-reliance can
be maintained by getting their dependency needs met
vicariously. When the Avoidant orientation is figm they may
block at the early phases of the cycle, primarily by retroflscting
and projecting. Wfien the Narcissistic orientation is figure they
may block between contact and satisfaction by a quiet yet
chronic self-absorption (egotism).
A patient in a local Mental Health Centre presented as a
Histrionic with a Barderline overlap and hquently blocked not
ar the cantat3 phase of the cycle as Melnick and Nevis suggest
but at the sensationJawareness phase. The ptient exhibited
intense emotion in order to avoid thinking and thereby avoid
deeper contact with her pain.
A patient with a Passive Agrjrmivflmtnoid personality is
typical of the kind of treatment dilemma p s d by 'multiple'
diagnasis. The passive aggressive patient knds to block at the
mobilization phase of the cycle - often by retroflecting his or her
anger. The therapist may gnnu increasingly frustrated and end up
carrying the anger which is king denied by the p t i e n t A very
useful article by Paul Ware (1983) which focuses on treatment
sbategies with different personality orientations suggests that the
therapist mists b m i n g cognitively entangled with the passive
aggressive patient; rather he or she should f m awareness on
the patient's behaviour, as the open door Zo contacting emotion
md facilitating movement along the cycle. "Ihe problem here is
that the exact opposite strategy is advised with the paranoid
personality. In this case a focus on lxhaviour will likely heighten
the patient's sense of being criticized and the belief that the
therapist is hastile. The dilemma is which strategy to adopt with
the patient who is both paranoid and pwjiveaggressive.
Do these brief examples of 'multiple' diagnosis overwhelm
the cycle of experience as a framework for diagnosis? Or
alternatively is it possible that the framework can accommodate
such refinement and sophistication?I believe the latter is possible
if the paradigm moves away from its exclusive emphasis on
functional diagnosis to develop a more comprehensive
framework that integrates functional diagnosis with relational:
and developmental aspects of diagnosis.
In defining diagnosis Melnick and Nevis acknowledge that
diagnasis is not simply about here and now eprperienoe but ' p
beyond the moment, implying a pattern as well as a prediction'
(p58).They further acknowledge that by bussing on the here
and now one Fan lose sight of patterns of behaviour over time
and the therapist's role in maintaining blacks. On page 60 they
acknowledge that Gestalt Therapy needs to be grounded in a
wider perspectire that indudes past and future because a focus
which stays close to the patient's immediate experience dam not
allow for the continuity of a p e m n ' s e ~ r i e n cover
e rime.
The schema below is a brief outline of a paper presented at the
Eumpean Gestalt Conference in 1992 (Evans, 1992). It is an
43
a p p x h to diagnosiswhich retains the emphasis on th here and
now but includes hitherto neglected relational and developmental
foci.
Here mtdNuwjThm d N m
The first two time zones together provide a diagnosis of
&served functioning and dysfmaioning st ?hemntact boundary
compatible with the descriptive IphenomenoIogicaI) bias of the
DSMIIIR.
The therapeutic relationship is a rnicmmm of the client's way
of being in the world and so much of what we need to Imow, in
order to understand another human being, is not available at the
outset of therapy, and is frequently not immediately olwervable,
but is revealed over time in the transference and counter-
transference.
Gestalt therapists who believe the theraputk relationship to
be the central curative factor in therapy are E O to reclaim
~
the there and then, i.e. the focus on the therapeutic counter-
transference. Labelling a transaction as transference daes not
mean that patients' &haviour towards the therapist is distortad.
On the contrary, the transference is the client's
phenamenological Wth, his or her way of making sense of the
world, including the world of the therapy room.
It is necessttry, then, to understand a patient's phenomenology
and behavioln throughout the come of therapy, not just at the
beginning. To diagnose a client borderline, or histrionic or
narcissistic will be to 'label' in a dehumanisingway if we do not
fill in what this means in relation to each individual patient's
specific ways of being at the contact bowndary, which is played
out ovw time in the therapeutic relationship.
Franoes (1987) &bes how each of the diffkmt personality
disorders presents, fairly typical transfmential organization which
elicits fairly typical wunter-hansferential responses from the
therapist. The ongoing emotional response of the therapist to the
client is therefore dditional diagnostic information that helps ta
confirm or challenge the initial diagnasis, (Frances ibid.). This
brings the therapist's subjective experience {phenomenology)
into the process of diagnosis, which in turn helps to bring to
awareness h e way in which the therapist may be bImking.
There and Then
The past not cause the present but out of the original
infadpnrnay care-giver field, pttems of relating are formed
which tend to continue habitually and out of awareness
throughout life. These relationship patterns (fixed
gestaltslrepetition compulsion) emerge in the therapeutic
relationship, often in the transference and caunter-tmderertce.
An understanding of developmental ism is essential in erder
to understand what is going on in tk therapeutic relationship.
Self Psychology provides a theary of child development that has
much in common with Gestalt therapy. It presents a perspective
on child development which is phenomenological, holistic and
fieId theoretical and may be integrated without compromising
the integrity of Gestalt (Tobin, 1990).
 Mclnick and Nevis make a convincing case that clinical
diagnmis is mmpatlWe with tl.K: Gestalt approach, However the
diagnostic framework presented needs to be widened and
deepened to reflm the faa that 'the writ is wt shut up within
itself, but transcends towards a future and a past' (Merlcau-
Ponty, 1962).
References
&lisle, G. (1 991). A Gestalt Perspective of Personality
Disonier. Wtish Gestalt Jam, & pp.4230.
DSMrIIR (1987). Dtogmxtic & Stahrrical Manwl of Metdal
-
Disorders. (Third E d i h Revised), Amtrican Psychiatric
~ a t i m .
Evans K.R. (1992). Diagnosis: an Integrative Appraech,
Workshop presentation at thc European Gestalt Cbnference,
Paris, Erancc 1992
.
Frances, A.J (1987). DSMIIR Personality Disorders:
Diognmis a d Twtabnmf.B . M A Audio Chstttes, Guildford
Press,New Ywk
Merleau-Panty, M.(t%2). Phemmndogy qfFem@im (C.
Smith tmsIation). Routledge.& Kegan Paul, bndon.
Tobin, S. (1990). Self Psychology as a Bridge between
Existentid-Humanistic Psychology and Psychwnalysis.
J o d of Humanistic Psycholbgy 30,l. pp 1463.
Ware, OP.(1983). Pemwliry Adupmbw: Dmrs D m,
Tmsctioaal Analysis J d , W ,1 pp. 11-19.
Yontcf,G. (1988).AsFimtiYng Diagnosdc mul Psycbtna@hd
P m p m h w & Gestalt Therapy. The T h t t Journal. 1E,1,
pp. 5-32
Zikn, 1. (1978). C r m k Pmcas in Gatdl Rteropy. f'tutage
Baob New Yotk.

f i n E v m is Dimor of the SbtrwDOd Psychotherapy Training Institute (Nottingharn and

London), a Teaching Member of G.P.Z=I., md an Associate of the lnstiNte for Integrative
PsychotfieraW, New York. He is a member of the Board of Directols of the European Asmiation
for Gestalt Psychotherapy and Prcsdent of t
k Europearr hcxiation far Psychothqy. FomerIy
a social worker, he is dm an Anglican prim

. SSherwood Psychthmpy W i g Institute, Thislarcly How, 2

Ad&ess-for e ~ w q m d e wTRe
St James' Termx, Nottingham. NG16FW.Fax: 0602-2422738.
 A Review of Chapter 4, 'Gestalt Ethics' by Gordon Wheeler
(In Edwin C. Nevis (Ed), (1992) Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications. Gestalt
Institute of Cleveland PresdGardner Pms, New York)
Anne Kearns
In his chapter, 'Gestalt Ethics', Gordon Wheeler like a good
-
Gestaltist and I am aware of the value judgement implicit here
- ash more questions than he offers answers. Is there, he asks,
such a thing as a Gestalt ethics? Can we, the inheritors of
Goodman and Perls who sought to forge a new therapy that
would establish a norm as little as p i b l e , address ourseIves to
issues of content (values) aver prooess i.e. 'the structure of the
actual situation, here and now?' (Peris, Hefferline, Goodman,
p.329). Can we, as I have already confmed to doing, bring our
value positions to bear on a situation, clinical or otherwise, and,
if we do, do we do this from a somehow tarnished personal
perspective or can we draw on values explicit in the realm of
pure Gestalt theory which tells us that healing happem through a
process of the client's organismic self-regulation? In other
words, does the therapist's ground have a place in a therapy
whose main too1 is 'floating awareness in the here and now?'
@elisle, p.43)
Ethics, as Wheeler &ha it, is 'any o m or systemic set
.... of values - where "value" is understood to mean an
established preference far particular behaviours .... without
regard for immediate outcome of the behaviollr or considerations
of p ~ s o n a lsatisfaction or pleasure....' Please bear with me.
Wheeler has already addressed nearly a volume, (Gestalt
Recu)ssidered.-A New Approach to Contact and Resistance,
1992) to an exploration of the sstrcrure of ground and these
valves belong to that part of the ground which we call
personality. Even eoodman and Perk who pout that the self is in
constant creation acknowledge that 'Personaiity (capital 'I",
even!) is the rqmnsible stmcture of the self.' (Perls et al, p383).
A11 thwapisg even Gestalt therapists, have values. But iE, as
Wheeler believes, to speak of values means to speak neady
always of a competition for dominance of one figure over
another (p.115) intra-personally - e.g, 'It goes against my
-
principles' then to speak of ethics is to speak of a conflict or
ampetition for daminarace inter-personally - 'I don" believe it's
all right for you to do that.' These intra- and inter-persona1
distinctions are mine for the sake of simplification as Wheeler's
chapter is sometimes as densely complicated as it is important
and interesting.
In WheeLr's view a Gestalt defiition of health is built around
these conflicts of figure over figure, or between self and
environment and the ability of the p m d to release a clear and
not 'impoverished' figure. A too cons$icted process of figure
formation from a rigid ground indicates a too constricted,
'socialIy overadjusted' person; a C!KI 'malleable' ground begins a
pnxm of figure formation leading to the predominance of 'peak
experiences' over satisfaction. The gestaIt model with its
emphasis on experiment encourages a constant testing of figwe
against ground, of 'making real' as Goodman says, and of
ground against f m as ground is only b w n (as Lewin says)
by contact with the new.
It is in this cyclical process of organismic =If-regulation,
WWler reminds us, that Cudman tells us thgt reality and value
emerge, whether healthy or neurotic. (p.118). Here Wheeler asks
what I read as his most energetic qlrestiom: 'h this mean that
we can, after all, speak of 'healthy' (or neurotic) vdues? Can
g r a d structure then, not just figure alone, be judged as healthy
or otherwise?' Is this the link, Wheeler asks, between process
and content that we have been looking for?I sir paised and ready
and nearIy half-way through the chapter waiting for an answer.
He gives us, alas, more questions and some experiments to focus
our awareness on certain ethical dilemmas -such as; our clinical
respomibility as Gestaltists when faced with a suicidal client or
with one who is: in conflict over relational commitments.
Hider as Client
We are asked, in the lead experiment, to imagine oumelves in
private pactice of Gestalt therapy sitting m i t e AdolE Hitler
himseIf. The client is suffering horn indigestion, insomnia, mood
swings,inability to mncentrate, sexual dysfunction. The client is
de@. So far so good. HIS symptoms are keeping him from
achieving his life's ambition which is to purify Europe of a
whole list of categories of undesirables of which you, his
prospective therapist, and if not you certainly most of your
alleagues and mentors, fall into at least one.
Now here comes the big question. Do you work with this
client? And more questions. If not, do you make your decision
from revulsion alone? Or is there some theoretical basis for
declining to help such a person to move through the contact
cycle? Or do you believe that the work itseIf - such as helping
the client to became aware of and ta own his projections, bearing
in mind that all race prejudice, according to Goodman, is
projection -thereby wiU free him to be more than the sum of his
parts and in touch with the full range of possibilities in himself
and his environment? But wait a s&coRa, as Wheeler reminds us,
didn't Niemhe say '....that we hve repressed the 'beast within'
to our own detriment and that wholeness and health must
necessarily involve the undoing of that repression?' (3.120).
46
Ocrps. Our potential client, this Hitler, would say that it was not
the repression of animal desire in himself but the very lack of it
in otkrs that is the sign of their inferimity.
OK, you may ask, as Wee!er asks, 'what if my spontanwus
dominances conflict with the client's?'WWhat, indeed, if we
return for a moment to the original issue: 'How can a p m l y
subjective m e l , which sctb to tah its of M r h only
from the structural properties of the presenting figure of the
moment, p s i b l y discriminate between one figure and anather,
on content grounds?' (p.120). Tn other words, haw can the
values of the therapist take pmmlenceover the client's agenda?
Further, we are asked to imagine that we work as Gestalt
therapists in a wmId when the new Nazi order is in place with a
new system of new values firmly accepted by the majority.
Would we then as Gestaltis& be relegated to '..,,wringing our
hands on the sidelines of the argument and assuring ourselves
that their assent cannot really be real, because organismic self-
regulation is not m p d to m e wl that way?!?'(p.121).
Still the author offers us na answers, only the carrot that the
answer must lie in the p u n d if it lies anywhere at all @.1Z).
You mztst find your own answer. 1 will give you mint.
I o n e had a man rebned ro me who knew e d y what he
wanted from therapy. His fervent desire was to be able to
achieve an orgasm with a prostitute so that he mu!d then rape
'Jews and oiggers." was horrified. I believe I may even have
told him so. Working as 1 did I h m days from a TmrtsactionaI
Analysis ptrspective I probably wen told him it was 'not OK'
with me to do those thinp and would not that contra&
He left and weeks later turned up at my door with a Iittle table
he had made me and said that I was a nice m.1 may be but
for all I know he is still doing the munds of herapists trying to
find someone who could workwith him to achieve his goals.
At the time I was dear that I had made the right decision; that
my values and his were in such conflict that I could not keep my
self separateenough for a therapeutic encounter to take p l m . In
retmpza that is not at all the reason I declined to become this
man's therapist. The truth is that I had diagnosed - sorry - a
schizotypal or schizophreniform disorder that m l d not be
treated in weekly sessions nor without the client receiving
regular supporl from other professionals. But most of all
working,as I did at the time,in my home on my own, I hlieved
I would have been putting myself at risk, if in undoing the
client's projections and ~trdections(he had chopped off the
Anne &am Dip. GPn,is a psycMmpist in private practice in h c k m and GnBdfnrd,
England. She has an MSc in Clinical *ial Work from Columbia University, New Ywk and
trained in Trmwc'timal W y s i s and GesMt in the UK,
Addrtwfor w m p d m e Mount Pl-t C o w 1 Mom Pleasant,Guildford,
Sumey, GU2 5HZ.
Anne Keams
tips of most of his fingers), some of this aggression became
directed at me.
I would have loved, I realise m,ta haw wotknd with Mi
man. 1 did not, simpIy, have the clinical support to do so. 1
wanted to work with this man h u s e I found him fascinating
And 1 havt heard Erv Polster say that is the best reason to want
to embark upon a therapeutic journey with another human
being. If 1 had worked in a clinic or a hospital 1 would h a w been
delighted to take him on,bracketing my asurnpons that he was
probably mad and bracketing, too, my revulsion which was
considerabIe but less figural, d y , than my interest in him. The
latter, my revulsion that is, 1 would have bracketed until such
time as my experience of my contact. with him led me to
hypothesize (all right have a hunch) that he was able to hear it
and to hold it without feeling ashamed orproje=ctedupon. And at
that point, as s Gestaltist, I truly believe that this man would
have been in an existential position to choose another, less
humiliating way of expressing hi sexual aggression. 1 believe
this because 'I & believe in organismic self-regulatian; that a
person put in touch with the range of pbssibilities between self
and environment win choose creation wer destruction.
This answer, my answer, m e s from my persod ground and
to a large extent ftom the caIlective g r w d of the community in
which I was mind and in which I p M c e . It mud be up to the
m of its content and then you will be a
d e r to evaluate it in t
good way into the journey of answering Wheeler's final
question as to whether such s m e s of value and p u n d may
not themselves be evalmted. functionally and clinically, in terms
of their content. 1 wish you well on your journey and look
-
h a r d to Dr. Wheeler's W e r and I hope Iess socratic -
effo*.
References
DelisEe, G.(1 99I). A Gestalt Perspective of Personality
Dkorders. British Gestalt J o w l . 1, 1. p 43.
Perls, F. S., Hefferline, R. & Chxlrnan, P. (1951). Gestalt
Theram: Excitement and Growth in the H m Pemmwlity.
The Julian Press, Inc., New York
W b l e r , G.(1941) .Gestalt Reu~lsideTed:A New Apprmch to
C m c t and Rerirmce. Oardm Press,lnc, New York.
 A Review of Chapter 8, 'The Alcoholic: A Gestalt View' by CJesse
Carlock, Kathleen O'HaIleran GIaus, and Cynthia A. Shaw
(In Edwin C.Nevis (Ed), (1992) Gestalt Therapy, Perspectives, and Applications. Gestalt Institute of
Cleveland PressJGardner Press, New York)
Flora Meadows
In his introduction to the overall h k , Edwin C Nevis writes:
'Carlock, Glaus and Shaw present an extensive and sensitive
discussion of issues in working with dcohoIics, They lay out
their treatment strategy in great detail, sharing their assumptions
and concerns at each step of the way. The Gestalt cycle of
experience serves as a foundation for looking at alcublism as a
disorder in self-regulation. Also noteworthy in t i i s presentation
is the way in which they include the use of Alcoholics
Anonyn~wsas an integral aspect of the therapy with alcoholics,
The chapter is rich with ideas and examples; indeed, this work
serves as an eocyclophc summay on its subject.'
The chapter itself begins with the authors noting that the
alcoholic has been much neglected in leading Gestalt writings
about either theory or therapy, which they find surprising since
staristiw suggest that a significant proportion of clients treated by
Gestalt therapists may be alcoholic. They then present a
themtical model and a treatment programme, based an Gestalt
principles, that the authors have found to be fiedive in treating
the alcoholic.
In this section, the authors write that alcoholism m n t s a
disotder in self-regulation, and so their h t m e n t programme is
designed to interrupt disordered self-~gulatorybehaviour and re-
establish normal self-regulation. They defm their assumptions:
they assume readers are familiar with basic Gestalt terminology;
that they are familiar with the symptoms of alcoholism and are
able to accurately diagnose this condition; and that they have a
working knowledge of the 12-step programme of Alcoholics
Anonymous. They alsa define their boundaries: issues of m-
dependency and relapse prevention are beyond the scope of the
chapter.
The authors first present a Gestalt model of 'normal' =If-
repiation which they call the cycle of experience; this describes
a process in which people interaa with or make contact with
their environment so that needs are met. They &henpresent a
dbrdered cycle, typical of the behaviour of alcoholirs.
They write that there are two levels to the regulatory
disturbanoes shown by the alahlic. First, almhaIics, like non-
almholic people, develop habitual defeaces and resistances that
intempt the cycle at various points and interfere with its smooth
flow rowads need fulfilment Since these habitual defensive
styles are fundamentally the same in alcoholic and nonalcoholic
people, this level of teguiatory disturbance is seen as more
profound an4 say the authoss, limdamental to alcoholism. Thii
level is a disturbance in the cycle itself, with distortions in
ground deveIopment, awareness and figure formation. The
figure becomes fixed,either to alcohol or to drinking.
F m this understanding af the involved in almhorism,
tbe authors propose a treatment strategy that is organized and
prioritized by being broken down into f m phases of m v e t y :
the drinking phase, the transition phase, the earIy r a m r y phase
and the on-going recovery phase.
In this section, the authors explore the process by which
alcohol ascends tr, such prominence in organizing the experience
of the drinking alcoholic, and the p e s s e s that support and
maintain this prominent figure over time. They offer three
patterns that they beIieve are related to the development of the
fixed figure of alcohol in at least some alcoholics.
Firstly, for some alcoholics, the figure of alcohol may be
rooted in their own biology: they may have a biologically
determined predisposition to develop alcohoIism. Secondly,
children reared in alcoholic homes may develop a strong
association between alcohoI and the redwciion of needs. Thirdly,
clients may deflect into drinking to handle stress or other
dysphoria. The authors note that there may be other patterns and
that mixed patterns can mar. They also explore the issue of
denial. extreme selftiticism and projecting blame.
The principal task for the therapist in this phase is to disrupt or
displace the fixed figure CaIcohol or drinking), replacing it with a
new figure: 'I am an aIcobIic - I cannot control my drinking'.
The task is to support and emurage the cIient to adopt a new
identity as an alcoholic, a person who cannot drink, and to
reorganize the client's experience m u d this new figure. Once
clients show an interest in stopping drinking, they should be sent
tu Alcoholics Anonymous meetin6 whether or not they are able
to stay &r. The authors reject 'flashy behavioml plans' to
help cIients to mntml their drinking, and insist that there can be
no progress into the wand phase of @ ~ t m e nuntil t the client
shows at least a tentative interest in &eq.
2. The h.mr&'hP h e
During this phase, the alcoholic begins to turn towards
abstinence,shaws some willingness to consider a new identity as
an alcoholic and staris to acknawledge that he or she h s littie
control over his or her drinking. Movement into the second
phase thus represents an important nrming pint in the journey
The Alcoholic: A Gestalt View

digest and assimilate. It is an exciting treatment strategy.
Regrettably, the material is so condensed that discusion is
lacking and hence some of the moE complex treatment issues
are rmt add&. For example, in the section Self-Regulation:
the Cycle of Experience, the fixed figure for me indicates an
unresolved shock state. Shock exists in dients who have
suffered traumatic events such as abuse, h i or birth injuries or
have been raised in alcoholic farnililes where there are repeated
chaotic episodes and little consistent care. With shmk state
clientsZ one can go through all the therapeutic interactions
named but the work may only turn around in circles until this is
-
addressed; hence many remain addicted if not to alcohol then
to other behaviours, even to Alcoholics Anonymous itself.
Working with the shock client means paying particular attention
to the therapeutic lat ti on ship and the working alliance, body
pmwis (including cranial work to help h the shock) as well as
the historial life events.
I particuIarly like the integration of the lZstep AlcohoIics
Anonymous programme and the stages of the recovery of the
alcoholic that is suggested for tackling the steps. I have,
however, some difficulty with the statement 'no therapist can
adequately direct clients into appropriate activity without a
working knowledge of Aloeholics Anonymous'. There me some
disadvantages in that the meetings vary in quality and the
sponsor relationship - which is open to abuse - offers no setm
of boundary, which is fundamental to the issue of addiction.
Unusual is the sponsor's relations hip being brought
(metaphorically) into the therapy m m : 'w they are engaged in
this befoe engaging in sipificant work'. What is the effect of
this triangulation?Who is the sponsor to the client and who is he
to the therapist? My dissatisfaction is the lack sf information
about the intimate nature of the therapeutic relationship in that
the therapist is present rnaidy in assessing, doing, dimring and
controlling. 'Although there is reference to the therapist being
willing to share feelings and to have a loving encounter with the
client, the ongoing name of this relationship is absent, with littIe
attention being paid to the therapeutic a1lianc.e.'
I was interested that body+riented work was avoided in the
early phases of the therapy. My experience is that breathing and
stretching exercises enhance body sensation and awateness and
relieve stress and tension. Mostly I find clients early in treatment
have little emotiona1 feeling or sensation they have -
anaesthetized themselves and vacated their badies. The re-
inhabiting of their M y takes primary importance, including the
teaching of retmfIBction and deflectfw so that the client is in
charge of the axpression of feeling, which the authors d d b e so
well.
The wrim also mrnmenrl !heir engagement with the client
and his family at the Imer stages of therapy. Given the intern
nature of the therapeutic relatiomhip, is this a wise choice? It
seems to me that this enhances the dependency relationship
rather than the therapist supporting the cIient to do this work with
hi family, wing his initiative to fid a way acceptable to both
him and his family.
I strongly recommend this chapter to a11 our readers and
encourage them to take foeus EIF terms of their experience a d
thinking. It makes enlightening reading and will enrich their
thinking and work in the area of aImholism and with other
addictive dents.
I . Shock stam are d m k d in Kritrhg, W.(1985). Ckrovric
Shock and Adult Children of Akoholics. Pompano Beach,
Florida Health Communications.

Elma Meadows, BSc., CQSW, was trained initially in the biolugicaI sciences a d subsequently
psycholcgy and social work. She was employed for 20 years in social work practice and teaching,
primarily in M t h setting and then at Glasgow University. Having trained in Gestalt therapy and
in bioenergetic analysis, she is currently a trainer with GestaIt Training Servim ( GTS ), working
in Sootland, Ireland and Germany. She has a private practice in individuai and group thempy.
 A Review of Chapter 9, 'Gestalt Work with Psychoticsyby
Cgnthia Ondejans H a m s
(In Edwin C. Nevis (Ed), (1 992) Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applicmtions. Gestalt
Institute of Cleveland PresslGardner Press,New York)
Gill Caradoc-Davies
This article is most timely. If Gestalt llherapisrs wish to survive
earnomially as we approach the year 2000, they may need to be
prepared to work in the mental health services as well, where
their work will include extensive w n w with psychotic patients.
This chapter sets out a compassionate and yet pragmatic
approach on how to work with these rnm deeply disturbed
patients using a Gestalt appmch, yet honouring the wisdom of
the medical model which has appropriate application here as
well. Dr. Harris's philosophical commitment to working with
this gmup of poignantly suffering fellow humans shines through.
We are taken through an overview of the context of care of the
mentally ill which is usually in rht hospital setting, at least to
begin with. The therapist me& to be prepared ro work not only
with multidisciplinary teams,but also be comfottable with the
use of medication.
Psychotherapy with this mbst d E d t group of jmtieats is then
discussed, using the Gestalt approach. The pitfalls and
advantages are ad- through such concepts as awareness,
contact, boundaries, self-disclosure and polarities, and the
differences in approach when dealing with those who are
psycbdc.
Clearly for those who have managed to grasp that Gestalt
hrapy is more than a pychokrapy, the wick applicarions of
the Gestalt approach to include working with people with
psychoses, become easier to understand. Gestalt is better
conceptualized as a p h i l ~ and y a way of living in Ux ww14
with the principles of this approach 'being twly experienced and
integrated in a holistic way, fully involving M y , mind, heart
and spirit. This is a state of grace shiven for, and not always
achieved. Practitioners of Gestalt continue themselves to be
alive, only if this wider view of Gestalt is followed and allowed
to pmneate xhe workplace. Differences in the various roles fall
away and dealings all around become more honest and direcb
Clearly this applies not only to psychiatrists bu to the psychotic
patients they deal with as well. Although not all psychiarrists
have psychotherapy sessions with their patients, every encounter
can potentially be oonmctful, even Vllou interactions; human
kings meeting, Even though there is a d i m n c e in mining and
expertise, psychiatrists can make themselves known to their
patients, putting their talents and knowldge in their hands in a
way that is useful to them and which give them informed
choices. Psychla'trisn have a pofe!xionaI responsibility to share
their knowledge with heir patients in a way that enables choice
to rake place,
Cynthia Harris wsim in a way hat reveals a happy integration
of, first, experience in the clinical =Ring, second, the relevant
literature; third, familiarity with the: best psychiatric practice.
This chapter comes across as full of sound judgement and
common sense,with her feet firmly on the ~~. For example,
the issue a b u t medications in psychbay is seen in perspective
and context. This is imprhnt in tday's psychiatry b e a u x
there is enough evidence,for example, that a psychiatric Ellnm
such as schizophrenia has a stmng biological component, and
that therefore we would face medical council censure should we
approach the management of such cases with a
psychotherapeuric approach only. I feel personally much
resonancewith Cynthia Wa&s appcmh.
The start of this chapter is unfortunate in that the term
"psychosis' is not tightly defined. Psychosis is beWr defined as a
loss of contack with reality as experienced mmensllal1y by others
around the patient (including an inability to interpret ref ity).
This involves disorders of perception (hallucinations), thinking
(delusions), communicating (language disorder), and motional
responses, a11 of which lead to disturbances in behaviour.
Hams's "looser' definition coutd. for example, aIso include
severe personality disorders. She, however, gc~son to explain
what she means, which is not st variance with the definition
above, but this could have been made more explicit. Historidly
the USA has always had a loaser definition (based; on Bleuler's
work) which has in the pasl led to a mmparstive overdiagnasis
of schizophrenia in the USA as compared to the UK. This has
largely now been ameded with the intductim of the atandads
of the DSM III-R (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders as produced by the American Psychiatric
Associstion). Hopcfufly this will be Surther enhanced with the
DSM IV.
Cynthia Harris goes on to give many persMlal examples from
a wide clinical experience, which enrich the text.
There are places where it would have been helpful to give
more details so that the udannation c9n be understood in mntext.
Presumably this book will be read mainly by &stair therapists
who may not have a psychiatric background. For example, when
it is said that schizophrenic persons are disproportionately
represented in the poorer classes, some explanation is needed as
a 'gmund' or background to this, lest ir be rnisperoeived that
poverty is one of the causes of schizophrenia. In reatiry the
incidence of schizophrenia is about the same throughout the
world, involving approximately one in every 100 people.
Presenta~ionsof the disorder manifest differently in different
cultures. One explanation for the disproportionate number of in the initial phases, as is expected of those who do not hare
people with schiihrenia in the lower socic+economic classes is psychosis. In order to be responsible, one must at least be
that sf the 'dtifi hypothesis', which says that those with capable of perceiving reality which, by definition, the patient
disadvantage tend to campete less favowably with others for with psychosis is not.
jobs and education and hence occupy a more impoverished She talks about the quality of the relationship during
socio-ecenomic niche, even dhough their families of origin may psychotherapy with psychotic people. The establishment of a
have had a higher s o c i m n o m i c status. Schizophrenia is no trusting, solid and honest relationship is paramount. She
respecter of pemm and can occur in the families of the well-to- highlights the interesting fac?, which is emerging from research
do and well educated as we11 as in the humblest home. in the fieId of psychotherapy, that the interventions of an
Cynthia Harris goes on to give a really practical but sensitive enthusiastic novice psychotherapist are o h as effective, if not
overview of the guidelines for managing the psychotic patient more so, as those of the more s e a ~ ~ n epsychothempist
d This is
with the emphasis dearly on the management rather than the probably due to both the hopefulness and the contactfulness
am.She talks of the impetus twvatds this therapy coming from generated in such an encounter vmus the faded views of those
deep roots within o w l v e s , raising again that question which is who may have been m t l i n g with the system for some time.
sa valuable to ask while training those interested in the human I found the quote from the patient with schizophrenia very
services: 'Why do you want to become a doctor?', or even more poignant. This is too long bo repeat here. This increased my own
pipantly: 'Why do you want to become a therapist with so awareness of how often in the system patients are de-humanid
much fervour?' by being mated only with piIls. I am aware of the increased
pressure, under the guise of cost-effectiveness, to continue to
provide less than optima1 treatment for my patients and I
qwstion my own role in what is essentialIy a 'stuck' system.
She talks with down-to-earfh common sense of the use of The descriptions of GestaIt therapy with psychotic people are
medication as a means of making it possible to access the patient lively and exciting to read. Much has been written about the
with a psych& disorder and rhe means by which the patient can inappropriateness of Gestalt therapy with the psychotic patient,
be 'held' with authentic empa thy and 'I/nowl responsiveness beeause of the supposed vivid emotiom and memories that may
dlning the acute phase. Tfie im-ee of liasion in the multi- be evoked with GestaIt therapy. These ideas regarding Gestalt
disciplinary team caring for such a patient is ernphasised. therapy usually reveal inexperience on the part of the objector
Then folIows one of the best expositions on the role of with the actual, practical application of Gestalt lherapy. Gestalt
medication and psychosis available for the non-medical reader, therapy works sensitively at the cutting edge of plrocess, alive at
clarifying the fact that we are dealing here with a holistic the contact boundary and aware of ?heresponses folIowing each
situation where 'the old boundaries between "mind", "brain", interaction. As Harris points out, this therefore has an inherently
and '"My" ate beginning to blur'. This is a validation of the non-invasive quality in practised hands, being expiemzed by
Gestalt a p e . She ernphasises the impartance of therapists patients as very delicate.
knowing about medications, not only when dealing with the SubtIe forms of blaming need to be avoided. Laing in his
patients and their feelings regarding the taking of medication, but descriptions of 'the schizophrenogenic mother' caused a great
for very pragmatic reasons in working in the modern health deal of distress which was very damaging to family relationships.
services. Thiis is especially important as biological psychiatrists Therapists need to encomge the patient ta come into more direct
are more recently k g i ~ i n gto appreciate the Iimitations of the contact with his or her immediate environment. But there may be
purely biological approach and to re-approach the importance of hooks hidden in the words; "I felt left out as if you are not talking
psychotherapeutic interventions with their clients. Bigoted to me" 0. This often needs to be rephrased, or a rider needs
ignorance can alienate potential allies and colleagues. She to be made that thii is OK with the therapist. The patient needs to
encourages people to use simple English, entering into the be reassured that the therapist is not damaged or in some way
patients' colloquial language, and also the use of metaphors to angry because of t h i i Often working with psychotic patients it is
enable understanding of the role of medication in the situation in not always easy to be sure whether this message is coming
which they find themselves. across.Again it is the here and now sensitivity, and gathing of
It would have k e n helpful had she been able to make more feedback, which will tell how the clientlpatient is taking this
refeteme to other papers in the psychiatric literature per se, that particular bit of feedback. The same thing holds with self
deal with medication and psychotherapy, with names that are disclosure. Disclosure should always be governed by the
better known in psychiatric circles, such as the work of Julian judgement that it will benefit or enhance the process of personal
Leff and Goldberg, particularly the latter's work with famiIy growth, i.e. will be of benefit to the client's &. This is also
therapy and the resulting lesseningof the ned for medication. true even with those who are not psychtic.
I am interested to see that Cynthia Harris talk abwt 'bopdog'
and 'under-dog'; terms which have largely lain unused for
Otherissuesfop d i e d Theprrph
considerable while, probably because these tern have not been
One aspect of Gestalt psychotherapy which is talked about a particularly helpful, especially when worked as a polarity or as
great deal is that of taking responsibility for one's self. There are sub-personalities. Winnicott's krms of ,f true and false self are
limits to this concept of total responsibility. This is a favourire best likened to these terms, and the approach to dealing with this
set-assignment at the senior level for trainees in Gestalt. The is very different to the working of a polarity. This paper is in
psychotic patient is not capable of as much responsibility, at least preparation at the moment'. The most important line in this
52 Gill CaradmDavies

section must be !he lone that ernphasised the importance of
validating the client without validating or s w i n g the client's
psychotic experience. This is a deliate knife edge and it is
p x i b i e to get this right.
1 would like to offer a wwd of warning when working wilh
body awareness with a patient with a psychosis. Even the
slightest reflecting back as to lk a v m m s of the patient*^ M y
movements can be perceived as persecuting by the sensitive
patient, unless the anxiety has been dealt with. The patient's
ability to rnisinterprtt wen the simplest of interventions is, after
all, what is characterirticabout this stare of mind.
Much ofwhat 1 have written above is about fm timing. On the
whole I 5nd myself enthuskshlly in s u p p i of most of what
hBS k n said in thls chapter. 'lhe sensitivity and professionalism
in which it has been laid out moves me at a human kwel. Rrere is
obvious compassion and de&mding that shines h u g h . The
notes right at the end for me summarize the attitude that
permwtcs this chaprer, which finisha with lhhop that offence
is not given to readers: 'GesraIt therapy at its btsl always strews
the individuafity and pelsonhood of its clients, patients and
practitioners, I have sought to do so irt this chapter.'
1 believe Cynthia Hanis has succeeded.
I. 'Topdug Underdug Revisited With Wiicott's True and
False Self; Gill Camdoc-Davis.

Gill Gsradoe-Davks. MB,Ch.B 0, MFGP(SAII FRANUIP, MNZAP, is a Senior

lFacuIty member of the Gestalt Institute of New Zealand and Senior ConsuItant Psychiaht
at D u d i n Hospital where she is also a clinical 1-r. She is a member of the Editorial
BotYd of Advisors of the British Gestalt J d

Addresrfot c w m 779Portobello Rod, Dunedin, New Mand

 A Review of Chapter 10,'Gestalt Work with Children:
Working with Anger and Intmjects' by Violet Oaklander
(In Edwin C. Nevis (Ed.), (1992) Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications. Ge-stalt
lnstitute of Cleveland PresslGardner Press,New York).
Andy Sluckin
Up untiI fairly recently, training in Gestalt Therapy has
focused almost exclwively on working with adults. ChiIdren
have been negkctd. This one-sidedness reflects the p i t i o n of
children in our society. They are still, to a large extent, expected
to be 'seen, but not hard'. We do not live in a childcentred
culture. This really came home to me earlier this y e . when I
met with our new intake of clinical psychology trainees. By and
large, the prospect of meeting children in a clinic, especially
disturbed o m , terrified them. Their anxiety came, at least in
part, from a lack of everyday contact with children. Little
wonder that children easily become something of an unhown
species for therapists.
Trainees on placement in our clinic desperately need
encouragement and suppwt to try out various ways sf @Wing to
know children. In this way, they also begin to renew contact
with their own childhodl. Only with these supports in place, are
they ready to learn therapeutic skills. Gestalt trainees may not be
that much better off. Despite much 'working through' of early
experiences, they t w may be alarmed at the prospect of working
with a child patient and wonder if they have any skdls at a11 for
the job.
For many Gestalt therapists, myself included, Violet
Wander's (1978) famous book 'Windows to our ChiEdten: a
Gestalt Therapy Approach to Working with Children and
Addexents" has been an inspiration. As a fledgling child and
family clinical psychologist with a Gestalt perspective, I referred
almost daily to my dog- copy, In the summer of 1987 I
travelled to California to meet Violelt Oaklander and learn mare
a h a her work.
Twelve years have elapsed sinwl I started to stlady OakIander's
approach. In the 1970s when her work first became known,
childten's voics had yet ta be dlsoovered. Since then, the issue
of child abuse has taken an@ stage. The Children Act in the
UK has sought to ensure that children will forever more be
listened to and their needs seen as paramount. Oaklander must
be regarded as one of the professionals who influenced this shift
in attitudes. Whilst there have been newer approaches to therapy
that emphasi the ability of writs tn change, Oaklander mainly
sought to support children in a world that largely discounted
hm.
Oaklander's chapter is essentially a restatement of her basic
themes (1978,1982). She argues persuasively for the value of
offering therapy to children, even to those who are inextricably
caught up in their parents' dificulties. Like the psychoanalyst
and writer Mice MilIer (I983,f985), W a n d e r believes Ehat the
experienm of having just one trusted friend to hun to in times of
difficulty is vitally important for the child's emotional survival,
even if that person can do nothing to change the situation.
Indeed, Oakla~der'swhole approach emphasises the weds of Ehe
child, She challenges us as therapists, Bducatots or parents to
consider how we can reach out and offer suppwt to children in a
way that enables the child to gain self-confidence, self-
understanding and new m w m with which to facethe world.
Oaklander describes how her thmputic a p a c h is based on
her understanding of how psychological diicul ties atise. Rather
than summarise her, I will quote her extensively in her own
words:
The healthy, uninterrupted development and expression of a
-
child's organism se-, M y , emotions and intellect - is the
underlying basis for the child's z e ~ of e a strong sense of
self;
~ ~
self leads to g o d contact with her phfiical and emotional
world... How parents meet the child's n& and wants and
react to her expression of them and how they react to her
undaunted devel~pmentof her sense, body, emotional
expression and infelIect pwfoundly affect her belief system
about herself. During this time many negative intrcljects are
taken in because she has not yet l e d the art of spitting wt,
or rejecting that which is toxic for herself... She takes in forher
own that which comes from t h e she tmsfs or longs to trus!,
fiom those upon whom her very life & p e a .
Oaklander is particularly commed abaut the extent to which
chiIdren's anger is mismdershood by add&:
They learn that it is n ~ at w b l e for them to be angry, yet
they experience !he wrath of anger from adults either very
d i d y or in the indirect form of icy dimp p d . . . When her
feelings are scorned, explained away, ridiculed, responded to
harshly, she fmls deeply rejected. Though she and her M y
may find some way to express the feeling in an oblique quest
for health, the child nevertheless harbours the feeling that she is
bad... Further, the behaviours she engages in to take care of
herseIf h n g even more wrath upon her... As the child begins to
absorb thee negative mewages about herself, she tends to feel
an actual loss of self. She begins to intemrpt and constrict her
own growth, even as she is growing. She shuts down her
senses, contraas her muscles,withdds exprsion, shutsoff her
mind. Her s e w d self may became so dl* that she must
engage in a variety of defensive behaviom to maintain some
semblance of being alive... The very behaviours that bring
chiIdren into therapy are those that they use to gain some
feeling of self, to achieve some sense of power in a world where

they feel so powerlcq to e x p m who thGy are and what they
fee!...
Oaklander's understanding of what has been missing m the
parentzhild relationship guides her therapeutic approach. In
essence, she offers a form of re-pattnting.
When a child is brought into therapy, I laww nhat I must assist
this chitd En her quest for sttength and self- 1 noed to
find a way to help her remember. regain, p e w and strengthen
that which she once had as a tiny baby but which naw seem
lost. As her senses awaken; as she kgins to know her body
again; as she reoognises, accepts and e x p n x m buried feelings;
as she kgim to we her intellect to make choices, to verbalise
her wants and needs and thoughts and ideas, and l o find
different ways m get het needs met; as she learns who she is in
her differentms £ram you and me, she will find herself once
again upon her rightful p t h of growth...
The way in which Wan& achieves this gal, through the use
of many playful materials and sensitive encounters, is the subject
of the rest af her chapter.
There is no doubt that Oaklander provides a coherent view of
how a healthy s e w of self develops and am become threatened.
Her major contribution has been to provide a mdel of how to
work individual1y and in groups with children and adoltxents.
Her willingness to ke directive in her supprt d a child's contact
functions has been in sharp contrast to the previously dominant
model of nondirective play therapy, first d-bed by Virginia
Axiline (1971) in her seminal work 'Dibs in Search of Self'.
Likewise, Oaklander has done much to uphold the value of
working therapeutically with chgdren and not simply assuming
that all family problems must be resolved 'through family
therapy
Since 1 immersed myself for many years in studying
Oaklander's way of working, I welcomed the opportvnity to
review her Ialest artick. In psrticu!ar, I hew that the task would
challenge me to consider why over the last few years I have
increasingly given up following her approach. What could have
prompted such an about-turn? Was it part of a natural
development proms of needing to find other influences to chew
over and assirnilatt? Or did my move away reflect shortcmings
in the therapeutic system itself? Or was I attempting to
accommodate organisational pressures to see more and more
patienis? In offering my personal expetienq I want to reflect
upon issues that affect all of us working therapeuticalIy with
child~tnand families.
My own success with Oaklander's approach came from
fouscing on school-agechildren and teenagtrs. I did not attempt
to work with children under five, nor with teenagers who were
intent on avoiding any possibility of cdntact with me. Like*
I found it difficult to work with socalled chaotic or multi-
problem families. If I saw the child of such a family alone, then
the parents were l i I y to withdraw the child h m therapy bcfore
any change could take place. If 1 saw the whole family together*
I would quickly feel overwhelmed as I artemfled, in vain, to
enable family members to listen and respond to each other.
What these families desperately needed were skills in b w ta
Andy Sluckin
make oontact with each ather and Oaklander's approach did not,
by itself, seem enough.
My opportunity to think about new appmaehcs came some
four years ago whtn I was asked ta review our clinic's services
to families with young children. Since I was now a parent of
young children myself, I had little remaining e x m for avoiding
the needs of this group, which w h I mlld teadity identify. It
was their demand for advice about hbw to be a pmnt that had
always terrified me and, of course, echoed my own ignorance.
Unlike pareats of older chitdren, my offer to help them
understand their children's needs did not seem to be enough.
They came to the clinic for guidance and I needed to think about
how to offer them what they wanted in a form that wouid h~
acceptable to us both. Oaklander" approach lacks this
pcrspactive.
Hitherto, 1 have always linked guidance with advice. In
Gestalt therapy circles, advice has usually been seen as
undermining the process whereby families or individuals
discover their own solutions to poblems. Thus, in Oaklander's
approach, children develop through 'remembering, regaining,
renewing and strengthening that which they once had as tiny
infants, but have now lost'. They begin to gmw in this W t h y
way when those around them provide an atmosphere of
recognition of their needs. Oaklander does not place enough
emphasis upon the need to help paren@provide this atmosphere.
Instead, she is skiI€ul at compensating for parental deficits and
daes not seek strongly enough to activate healthy parenting
skills. With this in mind, my intetest fumed towards leaning
a h t other therapeutic approaches that .can help p e n s with this
task.
In Uhe 1980s child care services in the Netherlands, like their
British counteqmrts, came under inknse pressure to reduce the
number of children k i n g placed out of the home in residential
settings. One way to achieve this was &ugh a new approach
called Video Home TrainingNideo Interaction Guidance,
Although initially aimed at keeping severely socially disturbed
children at home with their parents, tht approach has recently
'been applied far m m widely. The key to this new direction was
the way that the therapists pdtheir central question. 'Wbt do
"healthy" parents do that supports and guides !heir children's
development? Can these dwelopmcntal principles be applied to
therapeutic work with families in difficulty?'
The Dutch practioners had been inspired by Colwyn
Trevarthcn" (1981) pioneering research aver the last twenty
years in Edinburgh into mother-baby relationaships. His
writings enable rrs to undeRtand in fine h il exactly what pre-
v e M and later verbal communication involves. His
inkresf is in how a sew of 'inter-subjectivityaemerge. By this
he means something akin to the experiences involved in the 'I-
Thou' relationship. Trevarthen's focus on how moments of
Eontact arise gave the Dutch psychologists the idea of helping
family members learn how to make kttw cwntact with each
othw. Wit goal was the same as Oaklander's but their means
towards it was dif€erent.
Central to Video Home Twining is making shart films of
family interaction, usuaIfy within the family" own home. The
Working with Children
interaction analysis that follows enables parents to see on the
screen those moments of successful contact that they aIready
have with their children. Seeing is literally believing. Parents
gain not only an awareness of how they have enabIed these
moments of contact to happen, but also an increased orientation
to their children" &. All this helps them to build a better
p i m of themselves as parents. With these supports in place,
positive cycles of communication can increase and relationships
deepen. BBcause the children now have mare confidence that
their initiatives wiIl be received, they begin to offer more of
themselves.
Video Home Training fcmtm in minute detail on the pcess
of communication. The luxury of frame-by-frame analysis
brings out a new reality. Parents learn what is present in their
communication and alsa what is missing. They begin to
understand better the principles of contact This way of working
has enabled me to feel g d about giving advice, since I can
discuss with the parents what we each make of the fiIm material
in front of us. We have some common reference pint. More
important, my advice is not about how to solve problems but
abut mngthening relationships.
I have found that Video HomeTmining adds a new dimension
to working with children, The emphasis on developing parenting
skills contrasts with Oaklander's thrust towards re-parenting by
the therapist. I have been irnpmxd by how helpful this new
approach is in working with families with young children, many
living in deprived areas. I have k e n particular1y drawn ro its use
with disturbed mother-infant reIationsbips (SIuckin 1994)
especially in cases of severe posbnatal depression where the
mother has, in addition, no feelings at all for her baby (Sluckin
1993). The video feedback can literally allow the infant to
become a person in the mother's eyes,
My interest in understanding the conditions necessary for the
emergence of strong lat ti on ships prompted me to return to my
mts in developmental psychology. New and exciting findings
emerged during the 1980s in this field, a b u t how children eater
into our world of shared meanings and how they develop a sense
of self (e.g, Trevarthen 1981, Stern 1985). This more recent
perspective greatly extends Oaklander's formulations and can
only enrich Gestalt therapy which up to now has lacked a sound
basis in developmental theory. The psychody narnic stage
theories of Margaret Mahler and her colleagues have offenbeen
borrowed to fill this gap. Johnson (1985) offers, an excellent
summary of this work, but recent research studies are beginning
to cast doubt on their empirical validity (Stern 1985).
OakIander's contribution to Gestalt therapy has been to offer a
developmental perspective. She has provided the baa bones of
an understanding of the pmws of normal development and how
it is affected by trauma. Others will need to elaborate the
Andy Slucldm, D. Phil., is a chartered clinical psych~lsgistworking in an NHS Trust Child and
Family Centre.
Address for cmpolldertcc Bethel Child and Family Centre, Mary Chapman House, Hotblack
Road. Norwich NR2 4HN.
55
framework based on a more subtle understanding of the
prooesses involved.
Finally, a wider yet crucial question: Can Oaklander's
approach to therapy and way of working survive in the 'new
NHS', as the new system of contracting is euphemistically
called? I write this article some few weeb before our clinic
becomes an NHS Tmr. We have negotiated our contract for
next year and the expectation is that w average each family will
receive just five sessions. I am deepIy dismayed by this move
towards ever briefer therapies. I fear for the results of such a
policy especially for the most needy families that I meet.
Whatever mode1 of GestaltaientPid child and family therapy I
follow - and Oaklander's approach continues to have an
important place - I h o w that human growth takxs time and
needs a great deal of support Tkere are limits to how much this
process of development can be hurried along. Despite much talk
about quality, I am far from convinced that the British
government acknowledges this indisputabIe fact about human
beings.
AxiIine, V. (1971). Dibs in Search of Self: Personality
D e v e l in~Phy Therapy. Penguin, Hmondsworth,
Johnson, S. (1985). Char~ctemlogicaITrunrformati~n: The
Hard Work Miracle. Narton, London and New York.
Miller, A. (1983). For Your Own Gobdr The Hidden Rmts $
C m l @in CkiidRearing. Virago, Landon.
Miller, A. (1985). Tkou Shalt Not be Awnre.' Smety 's BehayaI
of the Ckild. Pluto, London.
Oaklander, V. (1W8).Widows ta Our Children: A Gestalt
T h w Approack t~ Chiidren and Aablescem. Real People
Press, Moab, Utah.
OakEan&r* V. (1982). Tk R e b n M i p of Gestalt % ~ p y b
ChiIdm. The Gestalt Journal, 5,1, -74.
SIuckin, A. (1994).A Ctisis inAdapt'bnn V i oHome Training
as Mdhm-Infan#Psyr:hofhpy. Adoption and Fostering, 18,
-
1,pp.23 30.
Sluckin, A. (1993). 'My Baby Doesn't Need Me':
U h t m d i n g FaBme to B o d Health Visitor, 66,11,
w-414.
Stem, D. (1 985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A
View fiom Psychoanalysis and Developmental P.ryckology.
Basic Books, New York.
Trevarthen, C., Murray,L,and Hubley, P. (1981). P~ydwlogy
of Infants (Eds. J. Davis and 1. Dabbing). Scientific
Foundations of Clinical Paediarrics 2nd edition. Heinemann
Medical, London.
The Brhlsh WlJwmal. 1991.3. SB -58.
.D 1894. Ths Gestalt Prychwhwapy TrainingIMilutn.

A Review of Chapter 11, G s t a l t Approach to Couple

Therapy' by Joseph Sinker
(In Edwin C. Nevis (Ed.), (1N2) Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications. Gestalt
Institute of Cleveland Press/Gardner Press, New York).

Judith Hemming

Zinker's chapter is only sixtccn p a p long - one of the mast The longing for fusion must fail, continues the argumenr, and
succincq poetically condensed contributions to this callection. It what must follow is separation; or in Jungian terms,
summarises his and his associates' research and practice at the individuation. In Gestalt language what follows is boundary
Genter for the S W y of Intimate Systems at the Gestalt Institute formation since contad requires adequate boundaries rYou a n ' t
of Cleveland, highlighting the key concepts they have develop& have mutact or conflict with mush'); only then can there be a
notably those of fusion and differentiation, cornplementatity and rhythm of fusion and separation which Zinker describes as the
middle ground; and offering a process mode1 that aims to 'dynamic juice' of being in a relationship, from first Iove through
heighten awareness as the route ta the resalution of difficulties. to the appearance and departure of children to final illness and
As Zinker half jokingly writes, he wanted lo understand how death.
he and his wife had survived in a couple for twenty-eight years. Sa the first task of the therapist is to heighten awareness of the
He, like the Cleveland Jnstitute itself, represents a seasoned and separate self, to support individual boundaries, even to offer
experienced version of the practice of Gestalt. In an artlessly individual sessions so that he 'I' is sufficiently articulated by
straightforward style his chapter is shaped by the best in its each party to supprt a 'we', This is followed or set alongside Ihe
theory and practice. The first half focuses on the key polarities task of teaching the couple how to manage the %el; how to fight
mentioned above and the rest on h e cycle of experience as it cleanly, and importantly how to amp1 that not all problems are
affects the whole relationship of a couple, the course of tbempy soluble, contrary to the myth sold by the personal growth
and, ideally, each individual meting. Zinkw is helpfully explicit movement.
about his guiding values as !hey relare to working with the
couple as a system, the dyad. His examples of interventions
Camplemerrtarity and M M e Ground
reflect this; they are often warm and poetically metaphorical and
always draw on what is distinctive and potentially vaImable abaut 'Ihe distinct contribution of Zinker and his assoeiaks is in the
a s p t s of any polarity while stressing their mutual coexistence. aniculation of the I-we polarity into their functional aspecfs of
I t is a kind of 'moderation in all things' approach that comes mmplemenfarity and middle ground, Most marital lhrists have
from not denying differences between couples but integrating their own particular formulation of what Zinkes calls
and even enjoying them. complementarity, the way each partner chooses another to
complement the parts of themselves which are not in awareness
and are not accepted. Later in a relationship, the disowned
qualities begin to surface and the partnerascomplementary
Given that his presentation is so schematic, Zinker begins with behaviour is no longer seen in this positive light. Zinker gives
a reacsuring affirmation of the unique history with which any examples of relevant interventions here, showing how a couple
couple will come, as well as his wish to understand the can experiment with d'wwned polarities to restore appreciation
comparative maturity of the relationship and hence its place in of the other. The term 'middle ground', on the other hand, is a
his schema, He begins by describing a Gestalt view of the key additional concept to that of complementarity. Middle
development of lwe, with its origins in the first dream of fusion ground stresses similarities rather than differences, provides a
with mother, the wish to be om with another, Any way in which place where 'energy is even rather than peak&....the repository
the original need for union is not met, Zinker says,'fotever of quiet confluence,' where the g l u o ~(Sonia Nevis's term] af
damages' the infant and leaves him or her with enormaus everyday life can take place. Both middle ground and
longing, usually undifferentiated undl adol-nce when 'I love mrnplernentarity are ncerlcd by each couple In some unique ratio
yout(in our culture) begins ta capture this need. This first for them to survive. So the t k n p h needs to discover how much
representation of love ('Without you I am nothing') denies Ihe conflict and how much confluence each paflicular system has
recognition of the other and indeed the self ap a complete petson, and can tolerate. Zinker offers an extended example of a
a whole. Zinker is clear that it is only when, much later in life, marriage analysed in these terns.
basic needs have k e n at least partially met. that 7 loye you' can
come to mean something less conditional, less instrumental, The ThirdEnfify
more genuinely curious: ('I want to know you. One adult to
another'). The final section of the chapter fucuses on the actual process
of Gestalt therapy with muples. He suggesb that it has 'been a
focus on the
weakness in Gestalt that therapists have tended to
individual relationship with the therapist and on individual
behaviour rather than analysing the dyad in its own right, and
Zinker counteracts this tendency by describing how he p i t i o n s
h i l f far enough away from the system, the 'third entity' as he
calls it, to be able to perceive both partners at once. In this way
he can address himself specifically to the relationship, e.g.
'When you start arguing logically, b t h of you dose up shop.' So
he can stress interactional characteristics; and, especially when
he allows himseIf to speak metaphorically, ('You two remind me
of a quiet lake before a storm'), he can remind the coupIe that
they are also one organism. There then foIlows a very useful
description of how in practice Zinker has evolved experimental
ways that the partners, rather than the therapist, can become
advocates for their system, wing an empty chair as a place h m
which each speaks on behdf of the relationship rather than for
themselves. This leaves the therapist freer to observe process,
reporting and sharing his experience or using paradox to
mobilise the system.
Zinker is open and explicit about the values implicit in this
Gestalt systems treatment, vaIues not so much about what the
couple should do but how tfie therapist might relate 10 them. It is
a deeply process-based model, empbasising respect for the
system, working in the present, not taking sides, and underlining
the importance of both mutuality and complementariv. Zinker
advocates keeping away from intra-psychic motives,
discouraging looking at 'why' questions and encouraging
'what'and 'how'; he emphasises appreciation and compassion,
the sharing of relevant internal experiences, and he supports what
he sees: as the healthy rhythm between contact and withdrawal.
He is equally explicit about what these process values might
imply to the couple, presenting a beautifully succinct description
ofa 'Gatall way of life and marriage', stressing respat, self
responsibility, compassion, humour, the abiIity to live with
problems, and to seek help, h e ability to pnotect the boundaries
of the system from threat, and especially the key skill of
enhancing the continuing growth of each without loss of
intimacy.
The CestaIt cycle of experience is the basis, the framework,for
translating thex values into practice, and Zinker shows how the
process of couple therapy can move through this cycle. He
discusses needs and interventions relevant to each stage; the
development of sensation, awareness, energy and action, contact
and resolution. This framework is equally relevant to the prams
of the therapy as a whole, where early sessions may be focused
on awareness, middle ones imbued with energy and experiment,
later ones with good contact, and the final ones involving
weaning and withdrawal. In the whole chapter there is no talk of
pathology, other than Zinkes's mention of the permanent damage
Ieft by early developmental lacunae. His writing is deeply
respectful of the infinite variety of fonns h a t a good enough
partnership can take.
However, his optimism about the sufficiency of a process
based model, at least in the way that he describes it in this
chapter, appears to run counter to more recent developments in
the theory and practice of Gestalt, as does his beguilingly
a r d to 'stay out' of the dyad, a view that is
s l r a i g h t f ~ ~ ~dictum
not supported by a field theory perspective which states that we
are all in the field, therapist as much as couple; that there is no
'ouutside', onIy varieties of 'inside'. Actually the language Zinker
uses to describe his work dm not do justice to him. The way he
speaks of process, for example, seems to imply that it will be
obvious to someone, whether the therapist or the couple, what is
immediately figural. what will carry sufficient meaning or
energy to be worth attending to and completing. But in order for
a figure to have meaning, the grunnd also needs to be known,
arad known by a11 present. This understanding n& to be l e d
and shared, often a painstakingly lengthy process. What does it
mean, for example, that a wife is so adamant that she mmd take
in lodgers, when her husband's sense of privacy is so injured by
the prospect of having strangers in their home? What d m a
'family home' mean to the husband that he is so passionate about
its composition and baundaries? Without stopping and making
time for these meanings to emerge, the process af attending to
the 'present figure' may be trivial or unproductive. In practice
what this implies, at the very Ieast, is rime for telling stories; for
the narrative, the 'content', of the past to be allowed to illuminate
the figure of the present. Erv Polster's book Every Person's Life
is Worth a N m l (1987) makes this p i n t very cogently. I know
that Zinker does En practice encourage and make time for just
such a focus on content. He shows what must be or must have
been the case for each individual that they construe their
predicament in a particular way and encourages it to become
known and shared. It is unfortunate that he does not make this
interest in the background story more explicit in this chapter.
Instead he allows (or at Ieast does not contradict) the tendency of
earlier models of Gestalt to over<mphasise the here and now to
the p i n t of excluding the there and then. Conflicts: can often be
m l v e d by reframing (shifting the background) just as usefully
as they can by even the cleanest of fighting. This may be what
Zinker means when he advocates that wuples concentrate on
changing themselves rather than the other but if XIhe is far from
explicit. And although he writes in terms of systems, he does not
in this chapter focus on the extraordinary power of
rnwltigenerational famify patterns. Family systems thinking
would be a powerful addition to his repertoire ofcompts.
I had the ~pportunitythis summer in Cambridge to meet
T i e r and watch him work. He told me that this chapter was in
fact written ten years ago and that, nut surprisingly, hk work 9nd
theory that underpins it has matured considerably since then. It
was my experience in watching and listening to him that his
hrmuIation of what is involvd in 'staying out' of the dyad is
much more sensitively attuned to field theory than is explicated
in this chapter. What he actually did reflected his capacity to
understand both how imprtant it is for the couple to operate and
relate within their system; and at the same time to benefit h m
the impact of haviog him close by to influence their contact. His
current practice is much more sophisticated than the language he
uses in this chapter to descrii it. I also watched how delicateIy
and subtly he could use phenamenological observation and
develop experiments to fill out the undeveloped areas of a
couple's life. What was an habitual stuck place in their process
would become a place of d e a r contact and profound
connectedness. It might stern from h e figures observed but the
58 Judith Hemming

outcomes were often dramatic end deeply moving and always
reflected his understanding of the importance of developing a
shared ground. The work I saw was wonderfully elegant and
solid, reflecting the same campsion and ~ s p c and t lack of
focus on pathology as does his writing. I irnagim that if he had
updated this chapter we would see the compfexity of his thinking
and practice more accurately pamyed.
But these changes would only add additional colour; they
would not be fwndamentally in conflict with what Zinker has
presented. There is only a small body ofwriting on Gestalt work
with couples; apart from Kempler's (1974) book there have
mostly been occasional papers, nothing more substantial than
t k sixteen pages. Many distinguished practitioners, such as he
Resnicks af LBS hgeles, who have spialised in eoup4es work,
have put their energies more into practice and ttaching than into
writing. So this chapter is a timely gift. As a Gestalt
psychotherapist originally trained in psychodynamic marital
therapy 1 appreciate his capicy to lay out the sprertd of what a
Gestalt perspective can offer to couple therapy. Thinking in
terms of these key polarities, of complementarity and middle
ground, spares the therapist from working in a set direction.
Instead the theory can generate e rnulti tude of possibilities:
inviting the establishment of mwe middle p u n d for his couple,
more open conflict for that; the opportunities to loosen or tighten
boundaries, to practise mom or less negotiating skills. She can
promote more awareness of the '1' or the 'we', and can focus on
whichever part of the cycle the couple habitually intemrpt; she
can make zrse of her capacity to be touched or fnrstrated. Zinker
has translated these generative ideas into an inviting array of
possibilities without falling into the normative Imp of wanting lo
over-influence the direction a relationship should move in order
to be 'healthy'. For this and many other reasons I m m m e a d hs
i
chapter to marital therapists from all heoretical ptrsuasions.
Kempler, W (1974). Principles of Gestait Family Therapy.
Nmdahls Taykelri, &lo.
Polster, E. (1987). Every Person's Life is Worth e Nwel.
Norton, New Yo&.

JnditL Hemmfng, MA, PGCE,Dip. GPTI, is an Associate Teaching and Supervising

member of the Gestalt Psychotherapy Training Institute and an Associate Editor of the
British Gestalt Journal. She works as a psychotherapist, supervisor, trainer and consultant in
private practice in London.

Address for correspndencs: 79 Ronalds Road, bndon, N5 IXB, England.

 -
The British &stam Jamal. 1994. a, 59 62,
a 7994. T ~ E Pt@merqq Trainjng Institute.

A Review of Chapter 12, 'Am Overview of the Theory and

Practice of Gestalt Group Process' by Mary Ann Huckaby
(In Edwin C. Nevis (Ed.), (1992) Gestalt Therapy: Perspectives and Applications. Gestalt
Instirute of Cleveland PresslGardner Press, New York).

John Whi tley

Mary Ann Huckabay has written a valuable chapter that puts Clearly and succinctly, she desaibes the goals and outcomes of
together ideas from several different mmphlal fields. She gives small groups; their norms; roles within them; stages of p u p
us a usehl, informative and practical overview of the processes development; and group composition by level; illustrating her
involved in working in groups. It will be fruitful for advanced m u n t by a figure summarizing several authors' views of group
students and practising group therapists, to enable both to stages @. 313).
understand some of the frameworks within which group leaders In her next section 'Classical Gestalt Theory', Huckabay
need to operate and so to deepen both their theory and their reiterates much that will be well-known to readers of this
practice. She aims to m n t to a wider audience the thinking of Journal, Besides providing her own view of the historical
the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland (GIC) over the last twenty context, she diseuses the Gestalt theory relevant b small-group
years, and names in a note those who have chiefly contributed. phenomena, citing organismic self-regulation, contact and the
British readers will be especially familiar with the chapter, in contact boudaty, awareness, and the importam of the here and
Feder and Ronall (1980). by Kepner and Zinker. Then she now. She is able to illustrate self-regulation, for exampIe, by
wishes to speIl out the theoretical contribution of the three considering 'the situation in which a group seems unable to focus
different fields that she considers, and also to present a set of on a member's need to explore his faItering marriage because of
considerations and intervention strategies in doing Gestalt group feeling evoked but not addressed by a previous piece of work'.
work. Then comes an account of the theotetical links between
In her introduction, Huckabay speaks of the beginnings of General Systems, Group Dynamics and Gestalt Theories.
modern group-therapy by the ever-worked psychiatrists of Huckabay surveys the various approaches to Gestalt group
WWII who found it economical, in every sense of that word, to process interventions, discussing goals, and both stage- and
treat their 'shell-shocked' patients in bunches rather than level-related interve~tions,giving m informative adaptation of
individual sessions. She well and briefly outlines the sheer Kepner's (190) thinking in a figure (p.320). Like her other
usefulness and effectiveness of groupwork, with its ability to figures (pp. 322 & 313) these are mostly effective tools for
replicate many slim of life, being itself a slice of life and so camprehending the hypotheses being advanced. Yet they tend to
provide the corredive recapitulation (Yalam, 1975) far the simplistic a d mechanistic, as is the nature of student handouts.
dysfunctional ones. In particular, Huchbay shows how a single went in the group
She then proceeds to reflect upon three of the theoretical may lead to interventions at diffmnt levels. Thus the tear on the
hrneworks that Getdtists may use to support their own work in cheek of a member may be met with 'What are you doing to
p u p . She takes these three to be: block yourself?' (intmpersonal or inhapsychic level); 'Is there
1. General Systems "Iiheory; 2. ?he Field of Croup Dynarnia; someone here you want to make a statement to right now?'
3. Classical Gestalt Theory. (interpersonal level); or 'I'm wondering if this p u p is a safe
In the section on Systems theory Huckabay both gives the place to cry?' (group level) (pp. 319 & 320). All can be
historical beginnings of this way of thinking and outlines the effective, all act on each other and all energize the system of the
main concepts of holism, open and dosd systems, entropy and group to work.
negative entropy, homeostasis er self-regulation, and the The last section of the chapter (p.318) deals with the
splendidly titled equifinality, which she helpfully sub-titles as interventions that may be used in Gestalt groups. Here
'there are many paths to Rome'. All these principles are Huckabay is on very sure ground, sutvey ing and illustrating a
illustratd by lively examples of how they may +rate in Gestdt: range of intemntions, and styles of intervening, and the confexts
group. Under holism, for imbme, she h ~ how k the work in which each is suitable.
of a group member on her commitment to the group 'creates a
fettile void in which that same issue can reverberate in other
subsystems or .the p u p system as a whole' Cp. 307).
F m m Difemnt Sides of the AtEatnrEc
Huckabay then $oes on to do something similar with the 'Field This cham is a new and concise presentationof material that
of Gmup Dynamics', starting with its origins in the work of Kurt has not been readily available on this side of the Atlantic.
Lewin, the refugee Gestalt psychologist from Nazi Germany, Huckabay decidedly fulfils her aim of presenting the group work
who in America discovered the principles of 'Tgroups', not so teaching of the Cestalt Institute of Cleveland, providing a pithy
serendipitously as Huckabay says, considering his origins. and workable guide for the Gestalt group work practitioner. One
 60
experienced therapist, who had not btxn provided with much
g~oupwork rheory in her training, said that it had given her a
perspective she had not had before. Huckabay 's chapter
deserves to be read by d l who professionaIly practise in the field,
alongside her pradecessors Kepner and Zinker (both 1980, and
both GIC). As such she rnovEq the specific Gestalt discussion
forward by seven1 stages.
I agree with much of what she says, and am grateful to her for
dmuiating me to think through more fulIy my own hypotheses
and manner of working. There are, however, places where I
differ or would have appreciated more extended development of
the ideas.
In her infroduction Muckabay mentions, but does not elaborate
on, those who at the end of WWII found this 'expedient
appIication of individual psychotherapy' (p.303). T take her to
refer particularty to the synchronistic work of W. R. Bion and S.
H. Foulkes, both at different times at Northfield Hospital. She
names the first's Experiences in Groups in the bibliography, but
nowhere references or seems to make particular use of Bion's
understanding of the Work Group and the Basic Assumption
Group, nor the extension of his ooncepts by Heigl-Evers. I find
Basic Assumption Dependency, or Right or Fight, or Pairing
(Bion 196P), or Heigl-Eves's Oneness (nearly equivalent to
Gestalt confluence) are integral to my way of working in, a
Gestalt goup. Many of these concepts overlap or were actually
drawn from each other as with K e p m k staages of movement
between dependency, counter-dependency and interdependency,
illusbated by Huckabay on page 320. It is very useful for group
members to realize that their corning into these basic
assumptions is 'inevitable, instinctive and instantaneous' (Bion
1x1).
Nor does Huckabay refer to any part of the work of S. H.
Foulkes, who cornpad the p u p to a hall of mirmrs in which:
puts of ourselves are reflected and counter-reflected, we see
faceis of ourselves in others and others see themselves in us.
We sometimes admire and cherish others and learn from them
because they seem to represent our better selves; we distrust
and m n h n t or ignore p r k of other people which 'mirror' the
darker corners of our awn personality. It is when group
members deny and disown parts of themselves, (for example,
failing to realize that the attitude adopted by the member next to
them, which they are challenging vehemently, is actually an
attitude they themselves secretly espousie) that attempts to work
become fraught with tension (quoted in Bramley, 1979).
Huckabay's description of systems theory reads more drily
than the ran of h e chapter, and is only occasionally illuminated
by some of the examples from group experience that enliven the
rest of her wiring. Although she begins with his area, it may be
that she is less interested in it. She covers Holism, but without
mentioning the acquaintanceship between Jan Christian Smuts
and the Perls, and the impact that Srnults's h k on Holism had
on Perls' thinking, acknowledged in Ego, Hunger and
Aggression (Perk, 1942). As Clarkson pointed out in British
Gestalt Jou~nal ~01.2,no. 1, 'the concept of holism is probably
the most central feature of Gestalt psychology and Gestalt
psychotherapy'. Yet Huckabay presents it as porn of Systems
theory. 'Ibis is typical of much of the rest of this section, where
her clear and engaging explanations lack a mention of the
overlap between Systems and Gestalt ~theory,or a full attempt at
John Whitley
integration. Later @. 317) Huckabay discusses in a brief section
the theoretical links between the three theories she has presented,
but I am not able to agree with Ed Nevis in his ~ntrodudion@.8)
that she has sucoessfully melded these concepts.
Here I am very sympathetic to her, since I do not think that the
diverse theories upon which I myself draw are anything like
MrrnpIetely synthesized. There is exceptionally valuable work to
be done here, by some polymath who can produce a fully
gestalted theory of 'Gestalt Group Process' in which d l the
elements are brought into balance and wholeness. In particular,
something a u l d be htten about how every intervention in the
group alters the field of that group.
A WalkAround the Mountain
The present difficulty is that some of the concepts ussd by
both Huckabay and myself seem antithetical. The view that I
have mentioned of the importance of Bion, Foulkes and Singeret
a1 is not wholly reconcilable with Gestalt theory. Yet their very
utility shows that they are differenl perspectives of the same
mountain.
Thus 'permeable boundsries' (Huckabay p. 308)conflict with
the Gestalt idea of a boundary as the place w h e n contact is
made. Huckabay says (p.304) that she and Kepner (1980)
present a synthesis, yet what she actuany does seems not to show
the thesis, antithesis, synthesis sequence of the dialectic Geslalt
pmcess, as desnibed by Bloomberg (1983):
An effective therapist work dialectically; the thesis: the client's
non-adaptive, habitual atrihdes; the therapist's antithesis: an
oppsition and challenge that will stimulate and support the
client's ego functioning; the result of this conflict of thesis and
anti-thesis is the synthesis, the process of contacting, when the
apparent boundary hetween self and the other is experienad as
a unified field of feeling and action, in essem a transpersonal
phenomenon.
While Huckabay deals deftly with he levels of group
intervention, (particularly as illustrated by her figure on pp. 322
& 323, taken from GIC training materials), she does not deal
with the other axis of the diagram presented by Singer el al. in
Lawrence (1979), from which I imagine these ideas were
originally drawn. This paper was first published in The Journal
of Applied Behavioural Science in 1975 and, with other material
from National Training Labs (WL), may have been wed by
GIC staff. It is important when setting up a p u p b be dear
about the parameters within which you are working. This helps
to determine what style of work is appropriate. Singer said that
the task lies along a continuum which ranges h r n laming (in
the sense of cognitive/perceptuaI change) to psychological
change (in the sense of altered coping capacity, personality
strucrure or q n s e repertoire). The term &el refers to the
psychological system targetted in the work with the group,
exactly as described by Huckabdy. In her discussion of these
levels of interventions, following her colleagues and teachers,
Huckabay adds a fourth, that of the dyadic or subgroup, to the
original three postu1ated by Singer et al. I agree with her that is
absolutely vita1 that leaders are skilled at intervening suitably at
every level, and she gives some splendid examples of such
interventions. Yet 1 have difficulty In agreeing that it is
necessary to separate the dyadic lwei from the interpersonal, of
Gestalt Group Process
which it seems to me to be merely a sub-set Since I first read
Huckabay's chapter I have experimented in groups with this
concept, While subgroups clearly need dealing with, I am not
convinced that the theory of Singer et al. n& this development.
And I shall continue to experiment with an open mind.
When Huckabay speaks b.314) of the historical context of
classical Gestalt theory she says that 'for Perls, it was almost
serendipity that personal learning o c c d for all who wimsed
a piex of individual work, and he never seized the opportunity
to use the group itself to potentiate individual change' (Kepner ,
1980). Yet Perls himself argues in Workshop vs. Individual
Theram (1967) that the p u p is more effective than individual
work:
Now, in the group situation something happens that is not
possible in the private interview. To the whole group it is
obvious that the pGt90n in distress does mot see t k obviou-r,
does not see the way out of the impasse, does not see (for
instam) that his whole misery is a pwely i m a w one. In the
face of this collective mnvidion he cannot use his usual phobic
way of &owning the therapisr when he m t muniplare him.
Somehow the trust in the collective seems to be greater than the
-
trust in the therapist in spite of all so-called transference
confidence (p.10, Peds's idics throughout).
Of course, this statement may have represented Perls's ideal
rather than his common practice, and there is evidence from
cuntemporaries to support this view. Equally however there is
evidence to suggest that Pals practised what he preached. L I.
Bloomberg recalls being present in the late sixties when PerIs
was working in the living mom uf his h o w in Esalen, with a
group of about 24 people. The design was for Perls to work
morning and evening, and for the group to divide inm four in the
afternoon, one portion working with Jim Simkin while the other
three met in peer-groups. 'Illis design is sharply different from
the massive introductory demonstrations that Perk did around
the country, for instance at the Gestalt Institute of San Francisco,
consisting of hundreds of people. (L.I. Bloomhrg, personal
communication to the reviewer, 1993).
Pos&ilitr'es for Further E q l o h n
I should have liked Huckabay to cover subjecs such as the use
of co-leaders in Gestalt groups, so oomctively replicating the
model of parents who negotiate, argue, conflict and reach co-
operation through conflict. This model of co-working also
provides greater safety and learning for novice practitioners.
More dimmion is also needed on the personal qualities of the
leaders, their own integrity and transparency. These may only be
achieved by experiences both as a member in therapy and
training group, and as a supervised leader in a variery sfgroups,
This debate was begun by Yalom (1975) and needs a great deal
more attention in the Gestalt field. The other aspect that
fascinates me is how when it is 'steam engine time' different
thinkers in different parts of the world invent the steam engine,
or the telephone, or flying machines, or in our cases in discourse,
we develop similar and complementary theories that potentiate
each other in the field of group work.
This leads on to the importance that Huckabay gives to
environment, and my own reflwtions on this. Clearly she and I
61
b t h do and do not speak the same language: 'hvo great nations
only divided by a common tongue'. Sometimes she has derived
her knowledge from the same sources as I, and sometimes we
have found the same information in different ways; my Gestalt
is European, hers American. The more we can speak and
understand each other, the more the field grows.
The further fascination is with how the external environment
affcts our work in groups. Perhaps we need to think more in
terms of differing cultures that we have so far done. A group in
war-torn Belfast displays contrasting characteristics from one in
authoritarian Germany. The question of the cultures that
smund our gmups has only begun to be written about.
Practising, thinking and writing in this field are hard work, and
yet extraordinarily valuable. Perls himself (1972) quo& Freud
'Denken ist Probearbeit' ('Thinking is trial work"), the
hypothesis that is tested becomes a useable theory, and needs
testing again, and rwised and tested o m more. This is haw we
advance ourselves and Gemalt: our gratitude is due to Mary Ann
Huckabay for this latest p r o m .
Acknowledgements: thanks to my family, friends, trainers,
ciollmglmes, trainees, supmisees and clients for their thoughts
and contributionsto this review.
Bion, W. (1 961). Experknces in Croups. Tavistock
Publications, London.
Bloomberg, L I. (1983). Dhlechi:al7%mq. Gestalt Training
Service training paper, Edinburgh.
Bramley , W. (1979). Group Tutoring, Concepts and Case
Wies, Kogan Page, London.
Foulke., S. W. and Anthony, E. J, (1957, rev. 1965 & 1973).
Group Psychotherapy: the Psychoanalytic Approach
Penguin, London.
Heigl-Evers, A, (1972), Kortzepte der anaiytisclnen
Gruppenpsycborherapie. Vandenhoeken & Ruprecht,
Giittingen.
Kepner, E. Gestalt Group Pmess in Feder, B. & Ronall, R.
(eds.) B& the Hut Seat (1980) Bntnner/hlaWl Inc., New
Ywk.
PerIs, F. S. (1942). Ego, Hunger and Aggression Knox .
Publishing Company, Durban, South Africa. (latest edition
1% GestaIt Journal Press,Highland, New York )
Perk, F. S., (1x7)Workchops
. vs Individual Therapy . Journal
of the long Island ConsuItation Center, 5,2. Long Island.
Pals, F. S . (1972) Four Lmtures in Gestalt TkamNow . (Eds.
Fagan & Shepherd), Penguin, London.
Perls, F., Hefferline, R., and Goodman, P.(1951). Gestalt
nteruw: Excitement and Growth in in Humart P e r m ~ l &
The JuIian h s s , New York (Latest British edition, Souvenir
mesS, London 1972).
Singer, D.L. et al. Boundary Management in P'syholugical
Work with Groups in Lawrence, W. G. (Ed.) Exploring
Individuai and OrganLationalBoundaries (1979) John Wiley
Chichester.
62 John Whirley

Yalom, I.D., 77ie 7 h e q and Practice afGroyp Psydrofhempy, G m q (written 1970, pub1ished 1980) in Fedet, 8. & RonalI,
2nd Ed (19753.Basic Books, New York. R. (Eds.) Beyond the Hor Sear . BnmnerlMaml Inc., New
Zinker, J. C,,The DeyeIopmcnf Pmess of a GestalI Therapy Yo&.

J o b WYlitley, MA (Cantab) CPCTh CSWEd, is a Gestalt trainer, supervisor and psychotherapist

who also works on the continent with C;TS. He was trained in group wotk along analytic and
Gesdt lines, and has writlen two theses on it He uses groups as the agent for training, therapy and
supervision. He has taught group work at Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities, to nurses, and for
a decade to ~ocialworken.

A&es@ c+ence: 114 VKwtorth, Edinburgh, Scotland EHlO 4LN.

%BnishGes$RJouwl. 1994.5.83-W,
63 7994. lhs GBstan PsydvYherqq Training ImlW.
BOOK REVIEW
THFI GOOD GUIDE TO BAD MOODS
Karen Rook~~ood
A review of The Good Mood Guide by Ros and Jeremy Hdmes. J. M.
Dent, London, 1993. 166 pages. Price: 29.99
Somewhat to my surprise I have enjoyed reviewing this k k
- a self-help manual with a catchy title and a bold bIue, red,
yellow and graen cover. 'Oh no,' I thought at first,'not another
-
superficial, simplistic quick fix' but 1 have been pleasantly
surprised and sometimes delighted by what I have read.
The aim of this book is to 'describe some simple steps n&
to maintain psychological health' (p.6) and the authors are
-
explicit about how dimcult these simple steps are: 'Changing
old habits and patterns is hard. The suggestions we have put
forward, although simple, are not easy. For them to work for
you, you have to work for them. Practising breathing and
awareness on a daily basis, and facing your difficulr feelings,
requires application and courage. The results are rarely
instantaneous. Internal change has its own rhythms; occasional,
sudden, blinding realizations; more often slow and gradual
strengtheningprogress; resistance and despair, as well as a sense
of liberation and breakthrough' @.158).
Ttve essential thesis of the book is that 'suffering is an intrinsic
parl of life - just as day goes with night, beauty with ugliness,
love with hate' - and that it is possible to use this insight 'to Fmd
the "good" aspects of 'bad'' m d s ' b.7).
They call their approach 'mood ecology', (from the Greek
'oikm' - house), - seeing the self as housing all our different
hopes, feelings and desires - and asserting that we need to value
all our moods as part of our totaIity. 'An ecological approach to
mood transformation emphasises the interconnectedness of
things and takes a m u n t of the cyclical:nature of our being and
of our relationship to the environment' (p.9).
The major influences are Zen Buddhism, the paradoxical
theory of change and the irnpoitance of embracing polarities.
Developing awareness is central to their method as ate internal
dialogue, the development of good internal parenting skills and
reframing. Also important is their assertion that 'The present
moment is the point at which we have control - the past has
gone, the %lure is not yet here' (p.15). The fabric they weave
out of these different strands has much in common with the
Gestalt appraoch and as such 1 would hesitate to call it a
revoIutionary technique (as they claim on the book jacket).
Nevetheless their presentation is novel and engaging.
The Met-
In the first part of the book, The Methods', the authors give an
overview of their understanding of moods and address the
questions 'What are moods made of?' and 'What are moods
for?' They outline their methods for mood transformation
coIlect., hold, transform - in other language a step-bystep guide
around the cantact cycle.
Breathing and relaxation are used to develop and heighten
awareness- 'mllecting feelings'.
Visualisation and 'mood-bding' are used in increase the
clarity to figure within the field - 'holding feeIing'.
Creative day.dreaming and inner dialogue are wed to finish
unfinished business h m the past and develop new strategies for
action - 'transforming feelings'.
They also offer a fairly extensive elaboration of how to
increase awareness using physical methods (breathing, eating,
exercise, stretching etc.), id process exercises (drawing,
dreaming, day-dreaming) and cognitive exetcises (identifying
and describing moods, recording and challenging automatic
thoughts).
The m n d part of the book lmks in mote detail at the whole
range of m d s which might be called 'bad". D e y are arranged
in clusters by cobur - the blue, yellow, red and green moods.
Thoughout, the emphasis is on embracing one's mood as part of
oneself, finding its place in your life and finding appropriate
forms of expression. n e y look in some detail at the roots of
different feelings in chiIdhood and in present life, and give
suggestions for 'taking hold of your mood'. The suggestions
they make give more specific examples of the methods
previously outiined (collect, hold, transform) applied to
pticzrlar m d s .
I was struck by the sensitivity ~f many of their suggestions and
the repeated encouragement to accept what is. For example 'In
apathy the flow of feeling has been dammed in order to avoid
painful feelings of pain or emptiness or fear. Transforming
apathy means unblocking the channels of emotions and this has
to be done gently and with tact. The more you try to force
yourself ta act or feel, the more you will cling to your apathetic
state' b.64-9, The moments of delight for me came with the
authors' use of imagery and humour- drawing both on their own
imaginations and on examples from literame and life. One of
my favourite examples is 'Picture your boredom as a prison.
What do you need to escape: a flute to charm the guards, money,
a gun?' (p.68).
?heir writing is humane, compassionate and spiritual and
addresses some of the deep existential questiom of living.
There were points in the book when I felt that the examples
- quoted were too simplistic (tantaIising?) but after all this isn't a
64 Karen Rookwood

book for psycho!hempists who want meaty case studies!
There were paints when their instructions took one's
awareness out of oneself into the world (perhaps a subtle
ideological mwe) at the exFnse of inner warenass: perhaps
this other dimension ofawareness is sometimes neglected in our
practice.
And undoubtedly there will be peoplk who find a way [a me
their m e t W to retreat further into their egotism.
On the whole, however, time are small criticisms- 1 think rhis
h k could be a rich resource for people who are searching for
life within, for ptients, for general practitioners, for health mre
workers,for .... It is an optimistic, life-afiming and nourishing
b k .

Karen Rookwood, BM,BS, member of the Ruysl College of Psychiatrists, is a

Gestalt psychotherapist, consultant and staff training member of Teamwork.
She qualified ss a doctor in 1978 and worked in the NHS far 11 years, mainly
as a psychiatrist and lanerly as a GP. She trained as a psychotherapist both
within the NHS in Nattingham and with GTS (Scotland).

Addras for cmespondence: 21, Livingstone Place, Edinburgh EH9 1PD.

GESTALT TRAINING SERVICE: GTS (Ult()

We offer training in Gestalt therapy to professionals in Northern Ireland and
Scotland; consultancy to practitioners cf various kinds, and to organizations; supervision of
Gestalt psychotherapists and those trained in other disciplines; and therapy to those who ask
for it. In the training function we work together with a co-operative of European trainers
and therapists.
We offer basic training programmes for people who wish to use the Gestalt
approach in their working context, or to becomes Gestalt counsellors. There is further
training for those who wish to become psychotherapists.
Our training aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of group and
' individual process and groupwork skills, depending on group and personal needs.
New groups are expected to be starting soon in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.
For NI contact Marea Robertson 0232 660 784, and for Scotland John Whitley 031 229
0130. I

GTS (UK) has been working and training people in GestaIt in Britain for the last 19
years, and has been closely associated with GTS in Europe, especially Germany and Italy.
Recently we have gracefully deconstructed ourselves. Our former Senior Trainer and the ,
founder of GTS,Dr L I Bloombeg wishes to retain the name GTS, and sa we in the UK are
preparing a new name for ourselves, while still holding our corporate identity.

(Company timired by guarantee registered in Scotland no, 144033)