Does Gestalt Need a Theory of Group Development?

 by John Bernard Harris

A distinctively Gestalt theory of groups has yet to be developed in any detail, and there is still
relatively little written on the subject. Over the years a few Gestaltists (including ourselves) have
written articles about Gestalt therapy in groups, and in 1980 the seminal Beyond the Hot Seat,
which attempted to outline a Gestalt group process approach was published. (This is now into its
second edition and its 10th anniversary was recently celebrated by a conference in New York which
Peter Philippson and I attended.) But, despite these flurries of interest, writing on the theory and
practice of Gestalt approaches to groups is still scarce. A quick search through the six back issues of
the British Gestalt Journal, for instance, reveals one article on large groups by Gaie Houston, and
one on working with teams by myself.
This is very surprising, for all sorts of reasons - not least the amount of Gestalt therapy done in a
group setting of one kind or another. Gestalt is a field theory, and field theory is absolutely ideal for
helping us to consider the experiences and behaviour of people in group settings. Indeed, it says
that, as social beings, we are never, ever out of them. Remember Fritz's words in The Gestalt
Approach??
 
"No individual is self-sufficient; the individual can exist only in an  environmental field. The
individual is inevitably, at every moment, a part of some  field." [Perls 1976, p.16]
  
So all our theories should really start with the group as the primary social reality, and explain
individual psychology in that broader context. Despite this, I still (and remember that this is the
judgment of someone who considers themselves as a groupworker, first and foremost) sense a kind
of snobbery amongst Gestalt (and other) therapists, which says that only individuals are important,
that real therapy is one-to-one, and what we do in groups is derived from that, and correspondingly
less important. I think this view is quite mistaken.
Why do we need a theory of groups? Mainly so that it can inform and ground our groupwork
practice, in the way that good theory should. Far too much groupwork is improvised, spur-of-the-
moment stuff. This is unacceptable when so much research has been done and so much been written
about good group practice; we owe it to our clients to inform ourselves about it.
What would a Gestalt theory of groups require? Well, for a start, it would use Gestalt ideas to speak
to us about all sorts of groups - large as well as small, open and less-bounded as well as closed, like
most therapy groups. It would need to offer ways to describe both how groups and their members
interact in the here-and-now (horizontal description), and over time, as groups change and develop
(vertical description). Finally, it would need to make the links between theory and practice by
describing ways of actualising Gestalt principles in the way the therapy (or other) group is run.
In this short piece I want to raise a question about one of these issues, group development. That
small groups develop over time is part of the conventional wisdom of group theory and various
models are offered to describe this process. Such models usually:
(i) describe distinct stages in the group's life;
(ii) link them together in a series or sequence; and
(iii) present the sequence as a movement from a less developed (desirable) to a moredeveloped
(desirable) stage.
A classic example is Tuckman's [1965] model, immortally summarised as 'forming, norming,
storming and performing'; or Schein and Bennis's more complex, multi-stage model [1965].
These models have their uses. They are presented as quite comprehensive in scope - Tuckman says,
for example, his model:
 
 
 

1
"... is offered as a conceptualisation of changes in group behaviour, in both  social and task realms,
across all group settings, over time." [ibid. p.325]
  
They can also be used to relate directly to the groupworker's constant dilemma as a facilitator - what
to do in the group - because they say, in effect: "If the group is at such-and-such a stage, then this is
what they need to do to move on; and what you need to do to help them".
But they also have severe limitations, which are less discussed. For example, they are based on 'old-
paradigm' ideas of 'the group = small, closed group'[see Philippson & Harris 1992, and my other
article in this Topics]. They treat, in effect, the group as a far more closed system than it ever is in
practice. My experience is that real-life groups (even therapy groups) have messy boundaries.
Members meet in the breaks between sessions, and even outside the group, and this is all part of the
group process. They also have partners, children, neighbours, and colleagues who influence them,
and hence the group, and who are also part of the context in which it develops and changes over
time. The consequence of all this messy real life impinging on our group sessions is that groups
simply do not 'develop' in regular and consistent ways. So we have a nice neat, universal model,
which never quite seems to apply in practice.
If this were the only problem, then we could shrug and leave it at that - no general theories are that
specific. But there is another, for me more serious, objection to some models of group development.
Many old-paradigm theories of group development come from an analytic background, and are
based on assumptions from analytic (ultimately Freudian) psychotherapy theory. Let me -
admittedly rather crudely and polemically - try to draw some of these out:
(i) The analytic approach has a particular (deterministic) view of causation: to put it simply, our
present experiences are caused by what happened to us in the past. So I am uncomfortable in the
group now, because I come from a family whose social interactions damaged me as a child.
(ii) The analytic approach is essentially a developmental one. Definite and distinct stages of infant
and child development are postulated, and with this goes the normative assumption that there is a
correct developmental sequence. If we go through and complete each stage we will be normal; if we
don't, we become neurotic or psychotic.
(iii) The analytic model further asserts that therapeutic work is, in essence, helping people to
acknowledge (and then hopefully overcome) developmental deficits - to become aware of and fill in
the missing stages, if you like.
(iv) Finally, this developmental approach is an essentialist rather than a relational one: change is
seen as coming from internal development of individuals (hopefully facilitated in the group). The
external conditions relating to the lives of individuals and the group are played down as relatively
unimportant compared to what goes on within the (ideally closed) group boundaries.
This approach to individual psychology is mirrored in the various analytic approaches to group
therapy. In their book Object Relations, the Self and the Group, Ashbach and Shirmer state that:
  
"...the movement from infancy to adulthood is repeated in group phase development.  In other
words, 'groupogeny recapitulates ontogeny': the development of the group  recapitulates that of the
individual." [Ashbach & Shirmer 1987: p. 162 - my  italics]
  
These are the ideas behind classic models of group development - there is a sequential change as the
group over time, which is ideally a development, e.g. from a less to a more mature state. If we think
of individuals in the group, they are seen as acting out (usually via the transference relation) their
individual developmental deficits in the group setting, and hopefully remedying them. Notice how a
particular model of group leadership follows directly from this view - that the leader's primary job
is to help the group develop (become more mature). (They, of course, have undergone analysis and
are mature already.) Notice also the strong normative flavour: groups (individuals) ought to develop
in certain ways, become 'mature'. But the 'infantile/mature split' is scarcely an objective one. One
eminent Gestaltist described it as:
  
2
"...an occupational disease of psychotherapy itself, springing from the  personalities of the
psychotherapists and from the social role of the 'cure'; on the one  hand a tantalising preoccupation
with the distant past, on the other the attempt to adjust  to standard of adult reality that is not worth
adjusting to. Traits of childhood are  disesteemed the very lack of which devitalizes the adults; and
other traits are called  infantile that are the introjection of adult neuroses." [Perls, Hefferline & 
Goodman 1951 p.288]
  
Defining 'maturity' in ways which favour you, and then judging the rest of the world accordingly is,
as Goodman implies, distasteful. But the clinching objection to this approach to group development
is more fundamental: none of the above assumptions seem to me consistent with field theory, and
hence with Gestalt therapy theory. Field theory holds that what happens here and now can be
understood and explained in terms of the current field, which is, of course, here-and-now by
definition. And this was precisely this revolutionary insight on causality - no psychological 'action
at a distance'- which Lewin developed into a new social psychological approach, and which was
later incorporated into Gestalt therapy theory by Perls and Goodman. And it is working (knowingly
or unknowingly) from this perspective - that we live in the here-and-now, not the past, and that
therapy consists of helping people to create new experiences and behaviour in the here-and-now -
that makes Gestalt therapy in any setting work so powerfully.
Unfortunately, most writers on Gestalt groupwork (I include myself) have failed to notice this;
many adopt models of group development wholesale (and usually uncritically) from other sources.
Joseph Zinker, for example, borrows Irving Yalom's four-stage model:
  
"Gestalt groups, be they weekend workshops or ongoing groups, follow a  developmental pattern
similar to that of other therapy groups. Our groups begin with  initial social superficiality and
exploration and the cautious testing of trust levels;  they then move into identity conflicts and power
struggles." [Zinker 1970 p.62]
  
Do therapy groups in general, and Gestalt groups in particular tend to develop in the same (even
very general) ways? I appeal to the reader's own experience here.
Elaine Kepner also borrows a similar (in this case three-stage) model, this time based on ideas of
Will Schutz, saying that the stages "tend to occur in sequence". But she retains a normative tone. In
the second, 'Influence and Counter-dependence' stage, "...the major issues the group must deal with
are those of influence, authority and control." [Kepner 1970 p.19, my italics]. Again, in both these
theories is the analytic idea that we must 'work through' stages such as 'storming' if we are to 'move
on' (and presumably then stop attacking the poor group leader). This implies that really mature
groups (and group members) don't need to fight, rage, conflict and generally behave badly.
This is, I believe, a view that only has to be stated to be questioned. Contrast this view of conflict
with a Gestalt perspective from Paul Goodman:
  
"So again in conflicts: the destruction and annihilation are full of self, the  identification and
alienation occur with diminished self. In brief, where there is most  conflict, contact and
figure/background, there is most self; where there is most  'confluence' (flowing together), isolation
or equilibrium, there is diminished self.  [Perls et.al. 1950 p.429]
  
In other words: The testing of trust levels in groups is not an antecedent to work, but a major part
of how people create and explore contact boundaries. (I am grateful to Peter Philippson for this
neat way of putting the point.)
I want now to return to my opening question: does Gestalt as a field theory need a model of group
development? I believe not - at least as this is traditionally understood. Some of the 'new paradigm'
ideas on this would be as follows:
(i) Groups change over time, but not necessarily in predictable or sequential ways.

3
(ii) Different groups change in different ways. Despite Zinker's comment above, there are, I believe,
clear differences in the ongoing process of weekend and longer-term groups, for example. People
are very different; group aims and goals are very different; group leaders are very different;
contexts are very different.
(iii) There is no right (ideal developmental) way for groups to change over time; each one changes
as they change. Our task as Gestaltists is to be aware of and stay with the group process as it
unfolds, without having an investment in any specific 'development' - i.e. an ideal outcome we are
directing the group towards. If we want to carry on using developmental terms, we need to
acknowledge that factors such as a group's level of maturity or immaturity will continually
fluctuate, depending on a whole range of factors, internal and external to the group.
(iv) Finally, we must never lose sight of the group's ('external') field or context, and its impact on
group life. Just as we attend to both sides of the boundary when we work with individuals (self and
other), so we must do the same when we work with the whole group. (For further discussion of this
point see the article 'Individual Therapy as Group Therapy' in Philippson & Harris[1992].
What we need, then, is to develop an array of ideas and concepts which is based on experiences in
groups and which allows us a theoretically adequate and practically useful description of group
process in the here-and-now. This is 'horizontal' description of group life. I believe that Gestalt
therapy theory has shown it can provide this in principle, though there is still much to be said in this
area.
Though I am rejecting a traditional 'staged' model of group development, retaining a 'vertical' sense
of how things change over time is essential. As I have said elsewhere, the group history provides
the background against which current events acquire their full meaning . Group sessions (especially
in an ongoing group) are not isolated, but connected in all sorts of complex ways, and we must
always be aware of this, as part of the group's 'here and then', its history [Philippson & Harris 1992,
Chapter 4]. Group gestalts or patterns may emerge regularly as the group responds to field
conditions both inside its boundaries and outside them. Such patterns may relate to particular client
groups; particular individuals (a 'confluent' group, for instance) and so on. What we need, then, is a
more flexible approach to mapping group development, which responds to what is actually
happening in the group, rather than what ought to be happening.
 
References
Aschbach C.& Shirmer V. [1987], Object Relations, the Self and the Group, Routledge, London
Kepner E. [1980], 'Gestalt Group Process', in Feder B. & Ronall R., Beyond the Hot Seat,
Brunner/Mazel, New York
Perls, F. [1976], The Gestalt Approach, Bantam Books
Perls F., Hefferline R.,& Goodman P. [1951], Gestalt Therapy, Penguin Books
classic;