Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Staemmler On FIeld Theory 1

    Uploaded by

    MarijanaMay
    22 views20 pages

    Original Title

    Staemmler-on-FIeld-Theory-1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    22 views20 pages

    Staemmler On FIeld Theory 1

    Uploaded by

    MarijanaMay

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 20
    ‘toh Gon Joa 2108 Ver 16 No 84-88 A BABYLONIAN CONFUSION?: ‘Copy 2008 Gost Pubes Li ON THE USES AND MEANINGS OF THE TERM ‘FIELD’ Frank-M. Staemmler Received 22 November 2005 Abstract: Although frequently employed within Gestalt psychotherapy, the term “field” is rarely defined or the precise meaning exemplified. This paper therefore examines the ways in which it is used in various physical, philosophical, and psychological theories. Special attention is given to the field theory of Kurt Lewin (1951), as well as to the notion of a field as applied in Ego, Hunger and Aggression (Perls, 1947/1992) and Gestalt Therapy (Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman, 1951). Similarities and differences between Lewin’s and Perls’ respective ideas of a ‘field’ are pointed out, and confounding of categories in Perls” and Goodman's theoris ing is scrutinised. Key words: critical realism, epistemology, field theory, holism, life space. When A uses a word he might mean something quite different from what B understands. The revolutionary science of semantics ~ the meaning of the meaning ~ will, I hope, provide a remedy for this Babylonian ‘confusion. (Perls, 1947/1992, p. 248) In order to make intelligible the wide range of ‘behavioural phenomena which human beings exhibit, it is not enough merely to utter the magic word “field” At best, this provides no more than the beginning of wisdom in the intricate set of questions that always arise when some conerete occurrence requires fundamental rather than superficial explanation, (Hartmann, 1942, p. 174) “It’s not easy to be a field theorist’, said Lynne Jacobs (2002), and 1 can think of at least three reasons underpinning this statement. First, to comprehend the notion of a ‘field’ in psychology is demanding since it requires the understanding of a new paradigm (Kuhn, 1970) which both opposes and transcends our traditional ‘modes of thinking. Second, with reference to the notion of a ‘field’ a number of different theories have been developed. Third, and probably most importantly for Gestalt therapists, to date the field theory that many Gestalt therapists refer to has not yet been comprehensively spelled out in published writings. Of course, there have been some efforts to lay the ground. There can be no doubt that the debate that took place in The Gestalt Journal with its valuable contributions by Joel Latner (1983; 1984), Gary Yontef (1984), and Wright (1984), formed a first milestone on the way to what may become a mature Gestalt therapeutic field theory some day. The writings of Gordon Wheeler (1991, for instance) and some writers of the Cleveland school have also been both remarkable and influential Last but not least, Malcolm Parlett deserves great appreciation for the creativity and diligence with which he took on this difficult task again and again (see Parlet 1991, 1993; 1997; 2005). It is in honour of his contributions that I write the article at hand, The above mentioned papers have been a success —at least as far as their history of effect is concerned. Obviously, they have been impressive and convincing to many Gestalt therapeutic authors: in recent years ‘numerous articles have been published that include the term “field” in their titles. Moreover, if one looks not only at the titles but also at the contents of the Gestalt therapy literature of the last decade one has a hard time to find any papers at all in which the word “field” does not occur. As is the case in many other contexts, however, this success story has not only yielded positive results. | do not welcome the fashionable, sometimes inflationary, sometimes stereotyped, use of the term “field” that is in danger of emptying it of any theoretical meaning. As Malcolm Parlett says, * there is a potential difficulty in that the field can become so inclusive as to include ‘A Babylonian Confusion? — The Term “Field” anything and everything’ (2005, pp. 44-45). And his “dialogue respondent’, Robert Lee, concurs: “The term field can have several different meanings and is often used interchangeably, between these meanings, frequently within the same article’ (ibid., italics in original). It seems to me that neither Parlett nor Lee feels comfortable with the “potential difficulty’ of the “interchangeable” manner in which the term is frequently applied. It is possible, however, that I am projecting my own strongly felt discomfort onto them: Phold that if the “field” i to be a substantial element in our theory, it must not be applied to ‘anything and everything” If it is, it degenerates to nothing but jargon. Jargon may be acceptable in everyday conversations,! but in theoretical discourse it is not. If we want our theory to be of practical value, wishy-washy talk is not helpful: although ‘it is correct that field theory emphasizes the importance of the fact that any event is a resultaat of a multitude of factors, this does not suffice. Field theory is something ‘more specific’ (Lewin, 1951, p. 44, italics added). However, in many writings by Gestalt therapists the word is used in a very general sense — almost synonymously with “social circumstances’, ‘society’, or, even more general, ‘context’; in the most general sense the field in Gestalt therapy. can be considered pure potentiality’ (Miller, 2001, p. 110). One can find instances as well in which the word “field” becomes a more or less mystifying place-holder for anything vague, unknown, ot metaphysical: for instance, the proposition that “something is “in the field” is used sometimes to say no more than ‘something is “in the room’, ‘in the air’ ‘in the atmosphere’, or an element of the zeitgeist. With this paper I would like to contribute to the claboration of a clearer profile of the term “field” within the Gestalt therapeutic context. I do not, however, aim at a definitional fixation but rather hope to be instrumental in a fertile development of the term and its theoretical meanings. Words: Different Contexts, Different Meanings While semantics may be boring, they are here a necessary precursor to the exciting material that is to follow. Five different meanings of the word “field” can roughly be distinguished: 1. The literal meaning; 2. The extended meaning; 3. The figurative meaning; 4. The theoretical meaning in physics; 5. The theoretical meaning in psychology. According to The New Oxford Dictionary of English, the basic colloquial meaning of the word ‘field’ is* an area of open land, especially one planted with crops or pasture, typically bounded by hedges or fences: a wheat 6s field, a field of com’ (1998, p. 680, italics in original). 1 would like to call this'the literal meaning. There is an example of this in Ego, Hunger and Aggression (Perls, 1947/1992, pp. 35-37); here Perls takes a cornfield as an example of a landscape that may be used in different ways by a farmer, a pilot, a painter, an agronomist, a ‘merchant, and a couple of lovers and, thereby, assumes different psychological meanings for the respective persons. It is the example of a (literal) field and the different ways in which it can be experienced phenomenally (see below). From the first, literal, meaning, in which the primary purpose of a field is agricultural, a second meaning is derived; here other primary purposes come into play. We might call this the extended meaning of ‘field’, which then describes: an area marked out for a game or sport: a football ‘field. A large area of land or water completely covered in «particular substance, especially snow or ice: an ice field. ‘An area rich in a natural product, typically oil or gas: a ‘gas field. An area on which a battle is fought: a field of battle. (The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998, . 680, italics in original) The third meaning of the word is figurative. It refers to * a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest: we talked 10 professionals in various fields’ (ibid, italics in original). For instance, it was in this sense that Malcolm Parlett used the word when in his lecture at the 1992 European conference he said: “I shall also have something to say about the field of Gestalt therapy itself” (1993, p. 115). In the context of perceptual research as well as in many Gestalt psychological writings one can also find another figurative use of the word such as, for instance, the ‘visual field’ Here the word denotes nothing but the spatial area that is covered by the eyesight of an individual. In almost all cases no further theoretical implication is intended. Another figurative meaning is pertinent to the way in ‘which the term is used in ‘field research’ Here ‘field’ means “natural conditions’ or ‘ordinary life situations’ (as opposed 1 laboratory situations —for details, please see Appendix). Fourth, in the (figurative) field of physics, the word has acquired a theoretical meaning: * the region in which a particular condition prevails, especially one in which a force or influence is effective regardless of the presence or absence of a material medium’ (The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998, p. 680), as in an electromagnetic field. Here the word may also describe the force exerted or potentially exerted in such an area: the variation in the strength of the fie (ibid. italics in original) Fifth and finally, in the (figurative) field of psychology (and philosophy), the word is used in a theoretical sense too. Although the term found its way into psychology partly from physics, its sense differs from the one it has in physics (or biology, respectively) since it is defined bya psychological theory. ‘Physicalistic positivism’, Lewin Wrote, * . has outlived its usefulness’ (1951, p. 157). In this vein, he stated: ‘A totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent is called a field (31).4 Psychology has to view the life space, including the person and his environment, as one field’ (1951, p. 240, italics in original). This fifth meaning of the word — the ‘field’ as a ‘heoretical term in psychology ~ is the one I will primarily focus upon in what follows, ‘Galilean’ Interdependence: Field Forces “Marty’ has been working with ‘Fritz’ for a while. Marty experiences frustration, tension, confusion, and embarrassment; things do not make sense to him. Then follows this dialogue: Fritz: So close your eyes. Now go away from this, this horrible situation here. [Pause] And come back to us Where were you? Marty: | was fishing. Fritz: Yah, Marty: At, [sigh] a place in the mountains, in California, that really like Fritz: Good. Close your eyes again. Go back to that place and tell us what you're doing there. ‘Marty: 'm—T'm standing on, on top of some rocks and, and I'm sitting on a rock, in the middle of the river, in some rapids. Watching the water go by [cough], and I'm afraid, I'm afraid of falling in the water. But that — that doesn’t make any sense, either, because I wasn’t aftaid of falling in the water when I was there. Fritz: So, come back to us here. How do you experience being here? Marty: The colors are bright. (Perls and Baumgardner, 1975, p. 190, italics added) What has happened? Did somebody in the audience switch on the lights at the right moment to illuminate the effect of Perls’s work with Marty? Did the weather assume the role of Perls’s dramatic advisor and change for the better just in time to reward Marty for his work? Presumably not: most likely the emotional change that ‘ook place for Marty also had an effect on his vision. This is a. common experience: who does not know that under the impression of a grey and cold November moming it is easier to get depressed than on a bright spring day? The body tends to feel heavier, the coming working day appears to be longer, thoughts acquire a more pessimistic Frank-M, Staemmler ‘one, unpleasant events become more significant, etc Different aspects in the experiential world of a person are not isolated from each other; they are ~ to a greater or lesser degree’ — interdependent, even if they do not stand in direct relation. In other words, a certain experiential ‘element does not ‘have’ a certain character in and of itself and in general. Rather, it acquires its respective temporary properties under the given psychological circumstances. This observation, that is typical for Gestalt psychology as it emerged in the 1920s, was cause for Kurt Lewin (1931) to propose a paradigm shift from * Aristotelian, [to] Galilean modes of thought in ‘contemporary psychology’ For Aristotle (384-322), an object moved because of its inherent properties: for Galileo (1564-1642), its movement was the result of various influences: The so called inherent properties ofan object are said to be ultimately traceable to forces impinging upon it from the surrounding field which is construed as the effective whole determining the attibutes and behavior of the part or parts coming within its influence. (Hartmann, 1942, p. 166) This ‘Galilean mode of thought” was illustrated by Hartmann (ibid.), a colleague of Lewin, as follows: Legeid: The x stands for the thing, happening, or quality whose ‘nature’ is governed more by its relations to the definite circumscribed field that contains it than by any intrinsic or inherent forces, The double-headed arrows indicate that interdependence or reciprocal influence obtains between all ‘parts’ of the ‘whole’ and the total itself (ibid.) Mlustration 1 This ‘interdependence between all parts of the whole and the total itsel{” is what characterises field forces (both in physics and in psychology) as opposed to mechanical forces that in general are one-directional and affect only ‘one or some other part(s) of the whole in a direct way. In a mechanistic model, the space between the interacting ‘A Babylonian Confusion? ~The Term “Field” pars is thought to be empty; there is not interaction unless the parts are directly connected. In contrast, “in a field theory, space is not empty. Instead, fields are the physical states of space, taking part in events’ (Latner, 1983, p. 76). Moreover, field forces have “strengths” or ‘valences" (Lewin's word) in their relation to other forces; that is, at the same time they may have a strengthening effect on some of the other forces, whille they may ‘weaken some others, or have a neutral or even ambivalent effect on other forces.* I'suma the term “field” in its theoretical sense in physics and psychology refers to the interrelatedness of a multitude of dynamic influences that are not necessarily effective in 2 direct manner. Analogously, the psychological field theory of Kurt 7 tte basic statements that (a) behavior has to be derived from a totality of coexisting facts, (b) these coexisting facts have the character ofa “dynamic field in so far as the state of any part of this field depends on every other part of the field. (Lewin. 1951, p25) In the physical-psychological analogy we see the influence that the physics of the late 19 and carly 20! centuries exerted on the social sciences of the time. Accordingly, Lewin gave credit to Albert Einstein (Lewin, 1951, p. 240)7 However, itis important to note that although Lewin worked with the analogies listed in my previous paragraph he was philosophically well enough educated (see Lewin, 1981/1982? Marrow, 1969; Métraux, 1992)!° to know that itswould be a:‘category mistake’ (Ryle, 1949)! to think of these two fields as ‘identical in kind.!2 He left-no doubt that a physical field

    You might also like