“In 50 years of reading gestalt therapy literature, I’ve never encountered an

author who accomplishes what Mann does. This book stands out for its
clear and comprehensive exploration of the fundamental principles of gestalt
therapy, allowing curious readers to delve deeper into the implications.
Mann not only articulates these ‘Basics’ with precision but also provides
vivid clinical examples, making it a valuable resource for both beginners and
those seeking a profound understanding of how these principles are applied
in therapy. A truly remarkable achievement.”
Rich Hycner Ph.D., author of Between Person and Person:
Toward A Dialogical Psychotherapy

“Although covering ‘The Basics’, this book is an important resource for

both beginners and seasoned practitioners. Mann manages to convey the
fullness and richness of gestalt theory whilst offering the detail of key maps
and concepts in a well referenced and meticulous way. This is certainly a
book to be dipped into and re-read over and over again.”
Dr Marie-Anne Chidiac, author, Relational Organisational Gestalt
and co-founder Relational Change

“In writing The Basics, Dave Mann is like a high quality builder. Here are
reliable theoretical foundations, contemporary materials, with sound thera-
peutic craftsmanship on display throughout. Each gestalt therapy writer has
to find their own synthesis of history, clinical experience, philosophy, and
practical examples. This book is a creative achievement from a seasoned
writer and confident explainer. I recommend this engaging read for begin-
ners and familiars alike, a skilful summary full of wisdom and energy.”
Malcolm Parlett Ph.D., international gestalt coach
and Whole Intelligence researcher

“Pull up a chair! Reading Dave Mann’s book is like chatting with him while
sitting around a warm fireplace. His easy, conversational style and his crea-
tive use of accessible, everyday examples allow the reader access to concepts
and terms that might seem daunting at first. One comes away loving gestalt
therapy, eager to learn and practice. What more can one ask?”
Lynne Jacobs, Ph.D., co-founder, Pacific Gestalt Institute
 GESTALT THERAPY

Gestalt Therapy: The Basics provides an accessible and concise over-

view of the approach and its substantial theory.
Experiential exercises, clinical vignettes and examples from every-
day practice are included to enrich understanding of gestalt’s theory
and its clinical application. This book explores: the history of gestalt
therapy, gestalt maps, philosophical beliefs, creative experimentation
and ethical considerations. Useful chapter summaries are featured
throughout to aid comprehension.
This book is essential reading for gestalt trainees, as well as coun-
sellors and psychotherapists wanting to learn more about the gestalt
approach.

Dave Mann, M.Sc., is a UKCP registered gestalt psychotherapist

who delivers training and supervision across the United Kingdom
and abroad. He is author of two editions of Gestalt Therapy: 100 Key
Points and Techniques and several chapters on aspects of gestalt.
The Basics Series

The Basics is a highly successful series of accessible guidebooks which pro-

vide an overview of the fundamental principles of a subject area in a jargon-
free and undaunting format.
Intended for students approaching a subject for the first time, the books
both introduce the essentials of a subject and provide an ideal springboard
for further study. With over 50 titles spanning subjects from artificial intel-
ligence (AI) to women’s studies, The Basics are an ideal starting point for
students seeking to understand a subject area.
Each text comes with recommendations for further study and gradually
introduces the complexities and nuances within a subject.

RELIGIONS AND SPORTS

Terry D. Shoemaker
CRITICAL THEORY
Martin Shuster
SOCIAL GEOGRAPHIES
Kath Browne, Mary Gilmartin, Dhiren Borisa and Niharika Banerjea
JAPAN (SECOND EDITION)
Christopher P. Hood
PHILOSOPHY OF TIME
Graeme A. Forbes
GESTALT THERAPY
Dave Mann

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routledge.com/

The-Basics/book-series/B
GESTALT THERAPY

THE BASICS

Dave Mann
Designed cover image: KjellBrynildsen © Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 Dave Mann
The right of Dave Mann to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in
any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.

ISBN: 978-1-032-32115-8 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-32113-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-31288-8 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888
Typeset in Bembo
by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.
To Mum and Dad, for providing the ground upon
which I stand today.
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements xii

Introduction 1

1 Gestalt Therapy: The Background Shapes the Foreground 3

1.1 What Is Gestalt? 3
1.2 Gestalt Psychology’s Laws of Perception 6
1.3 The Birth of Gestalt Therapy 13
1.4 Gestalt Therapy’s Development 16
1.5 Summary 21

2 Gestalt Maps 23
2.1 Awareness and Contact 23
2.2 The Contact Boundary 28
2.3 The Gestalt Cycle of Experience 30
2.4 The Here and Now 34
2.5 Self and Selfing 36
2.6 Polarities 39
2.7 The Paradoxical Theory of Change 42
2.8 The Zeigarnik Effect – Unfinished Business 44
2.9 The Five Explorations 46
2.10 Summary 48
x CONTENTS

3 Moderations to Contact 50
3.1 Moderating Contact 50
3.2 Types of Moderations to Contact 52
3.3 Summary 65
4 The Situation: Field Theory 66
4.1 Field Theory – The Situation 66
4.2 The Embodied Field 71
4.3 Developmental Theory in Gestalt 74
4.4 Shame and Guilt as Functions of the Field 80
4.5 The Cultural Field 84
4.6 Summary 87
5 Experiencing the World: Phenomenology
in Gestalt Therapy 88
5.1 Phenomenology as a Philosophy 88
5.2 Phenomenology in Gestalt Therapy 93
5.3 Intersubjectivity and Co-creation 98
5.4 Phenomenology and the Body 101
5.5 Holism 107
5.6 Summary 111

6 Dialogue: Emerging Through Relationship 112

6.1 Dialogue in Gestalt Therapy 112
6.2 I-Thou and I-It Relating 115
6.3 Characteristics of a Dialogic Relationship 119
6.4 The Between 128
6.5 Summary 133

7 Creative Experimentation 134

7.1 Gestalt Experimentation and Challenge 134
7.2 Two Chairs and the Empty Chair 138
7.3 Experimental Methods 142
 CONTENTS xi
7.4 Dreamwork 148
7.5 Remain Mindful and Come to Your Senses 151
7.6 Summary 153

References 154
Index 167
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I was fortunate to arrive in the world in a supportive and loving

family, my mother and father were consistently present throughout
my upbringing supporting me through the trauma and confusion of
recovering from major surgery over many years of my childhood. I
still stand on the solid relational ground that they provided for me
and my brothers today.
The greatest support in my life is my wife Karin whose consist-
ent love, care and authenticity is the background that supports the
foreground of my work as a therapist, supervisor, trainer and writer.
She also acts as my first editor and proof reader and has reeled in my
tendency to use ten words when seven or less will do. My grandchil-
dren, Ru, Otto and Asa over the years have re-taught me the value
of play that has helped me across my professional life.
I am fortunate to have many professional supports, too many to
adequately acknowledge here. My friends, colleagues and fellow
gestalt therapists Sally Denham-Vaughan and Malcolm Parlett are
two stand out influences and valued supports. My peer supervision
partner of many years, Brenda Luckock, and significant consultative
supervisors over my career include Ken Evans, Peter Philippson and
Rich’ Hycner all of whom have played a part in my professional
development.
A far from comprehensive list of other trainers and colleagues
who have helped shape my thinking through introjection, agreement
and disagreement over the years in chronological order include: Ian
Greenway, Des Kennedy, Richard Erskine, Petruska Clarkson, Judith
Hemming, Lynne Jacobs, Lynda Osborne, Phil Joyce, Gary Yontef,
 Acknowledgements xiii
Frank Staemmler, Maggie Ridgewell, Gordon Wheeler, Friedman
Schulz, Donna Orange, Jan Roubal and Anne Pettit.
Thanks are also extended to the editorial team at Routledge for
their patience and support, particularly as submission of my manu-
script was delayed due my undergoing surgery. I would also like
to thank Miguel Fernandes-Arias for providing material for me to
adapt, Carmen Galea and Beth Newton for providing useful exam-
ples and Jay Gort for his help in creating the figures.
A welcome by-product of working in the field of psychotherapy
is that as long as I remain open, I learn from my contact with many
clients, supervisees and trainees. Some of those lessons have not been
easy, some joyful, all ultimately welcome. To the vast majority it has
been a privilege to know them and be part of their journey, I con-
tinue to be staggered by the creativity of human beings.
 INTRODUCTION

Whilst I was delighted to be asked to write Gestalt Therapy: The Basics

I approached the task with a smattering of trepidation. So many sim-
plistic ideas about gestalt therapy and its methodology have abounded
over the years and I felt wary of inadvertently reinforcing such notions
by being too basic. That concern was outweighed by my desire to play
a part in making gestalt therapy’s rich interwoven tapestry of inte-
grated theories and ideas that support the clinical application of the
approach more accessible, hopefully to a wider audience.
In gestalt therapy we believe that the background shapes the fore-
ground so to be consistent with gestalt philosophy I have designed
this book by first outlining the background from which gestalt ther-
apy emerged that shapes the foreground of how gestalt therapy is
practiced today. Experiential learning is central in gestalt therapy, so
again to be consistent with the methodology of gestalt I will invite
the reader to participate in experiential exercises at various points as
this often leads to a deeper embodied learning than simply discussing
theory and practice. You don’t have to complete these experiments
but if you choose not to I invite you to consider your resistance. I
think of my work with clients as a journey and am thinking along
similar lines with you, the reader. In my relationships with clients the
road is not always smooth, we can stall, things sometimes get bumpy,
confusing. Notice your reaction should such moments arise for you
and what meaning you might attribute to your response.
I have intentionally referenced this introductory book heavily,
from the gestalt psychologists to the founding text Gestalt Therapy:
Excitement and Growth in Human Personality (Perls, Hefferline &

DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-1
2 INTRODUCTION

Goodman, 1951), through generations of gestalt therapists to con-

temporary gestalt practitioners. This is to help direct readers whose
interest has been pricked towards further study. In the interests of
gender equality where I have referred to clinical work I have moved
between referring to the client and therapist as ‘they,’ ‘she’ and ‘he.’
Any terms that readers may be unfamiliar with will be explained as
they are introduced in the text.
Gestalt therapy is a creative synthesis that stands upon the founda-
tions of three interrelated disciplines – phenomenology, field theory
and dialogue. Through the lenses of these disciplines we will explore
the ways in which gestalt therapy integrates gestalt psychology,
experimentation, existentialism, holism, bodywork alongside Zen
Buddhism and Taoism.
In gestalt therapy we do not seek an outcome. We do not try to
ameliorate anxiety or lift depression. We do not aim to solve the cli-
ent’s problems or improve their situation. No therapist can know the
other’s situation better than they do. What we do is explore how a
person reaches out to their world and how they make sense of their
situation with a single aim – to heighten awareness. We believe that
heightened awareness increases contact with ‘what is’ in the present,
broadens choice and inevitably leads to change. Our task as gestalt
therapists in relation with the person before us is to create the condi-
tions for such growth by providing as much support as necessary and
as little as possible (Perls, 1978). Gestalt therapy is, ‘…an adventure
in living’ (PHG, 1951: 15).
 1

GESTALT THERAPY
The Background Shapes
the Foreground

Gestalt therapy did not suddenly appear overnight; but arose

from a rich background. This section contains an explanation
of what gestalt therapy is with an introductory overview of the
philosophies that underpin it – phenomenology, field theory and
dialogue – that will be discussed in more detail in later chapters.
We then proceed chronologically from the gestalt psychologists
work around perception that was integrated into gestalt therapy,
to the birth of gestalt therapy through its adolescence to where it
stands today. In doing so, we will look at the many influences that
have contributed to the creative synthesis known as gestalt therapy,
including the journeys of its co-founders Laura, Fritz Perls and
Paul Goodman, before a brief sketch of the development of the
approach over the years.

1.1 WHAT IS GESTALT?

In the English speaking world the word ‘gestalt’ offers few clues
about a therapy that has been with us since the early 1950s with one
of its primary roots, gestalt psychology, dating back to the turn of
last century. This German noun has no direct English translation, the
closest single terms being ‘form,’ ‘pattern,’ ‘shape’ whilst a more accu-
rate translation might be ‘a whole configuration that is more than the
sum of its parts’ as ‘gestalt’ relates to overall appearance and totality.
Let’s see if we can make practical sense of these last two definitions.
Look around you or out of your window and focus on something, it

DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-2
4 GESTALT THERAPY

could be an item of furniture, a TV, car or tree. You will perceive this
thing as a whole rather than its constituent parts. If you’re looking at
a car you don’t break it down into its parts – the wheels, tyres, chas-
sis, windscreen, etc., but experience the complete object. How we
perceive this car will be shaped by many background f­actors includ-
ing our experience of cars, our cultural background, our need in
that moment, the circumstances or situation we stand in, our famili-
arity or otherwise with cars. These factors and many others will
shape, pattern and form the way in which we complete the whole,
in this example the car, and our emotional, cognitive and behav-
ioural response to it. If the perceiver has recently been involved in
a car accident she is likely to have a very different experience of the
car than if she is a car mechanic or needs transport to get home. In
this process of perceiving, we gestalt our experience in the present
in relation to our past experience and any future need or imagining
to make meaning of the whole, a meaning making process that in
health will change over time.
If you have read any gestalt literature you will often find that
gestalt is capitalised, just as other German nouns would be. However,
‘gestalt’ is far from a new addition to the English language. As a ther-
apy it has been with us since the founders published Gestalt Therapy:
Excitement and Growth in Human Personality (Perls, Hefferline &
Goodman, 1951, hereafter referred to as PHG), and one of its roots,
gestalt psychology, predates that by virtually 50 years. Gestalt is
not a new modality but one of many accepted approaches and ‘is
as English a word as frankfurter or sauerkraut’ (Bloom, Spagnuolo-
Lobb & Staemmler, 2008: 7), therefore throughout this book it will
appear in lower case just as any other counselling or psychotherapy
would (except when quoting others who capitalise).
In answering the question ‘What is gestalt therapy?’ one is likely to
generate more questions than answers as the approach stands upon the
ground of three interrelated philosophies all of which merit further
clarification and discussion. Below I give a brief outline of these three
philosophies that in gestalt therapy are referred to as ‘the three pillars of
gestalt’ (Yontef, 1999: 11). They are:

• Field Theory or Situation – The person’s experience is consid-

ered in relation to their entire situation, where they are situated
in their world. A dominant need will organise the situation. No
one is an island, the person and their situation (of which the
therapist is a part) are inseparable.
 GESTALT THERAPY 5
• Phenomenology – Concerned with the way the world appears
to the person experiencing the world with a focus on description
opposed to interpretation. It is the study of subjective experience.
• Dialogue – This relates to a meeting in all our humanness that
may include verbal contact but also goes beyond verbal commu-
nication and dialogue with humans. We are always in dialogue
with our world, with people and things.

All three of these philosophies need to be practiced by the therapist

to practice gestalt therapy, if not then gestalt therapy is not being prac-
ticed. I will discuss each of these philosophies, that are the foundations
upon which gestalt therapy stands, in more detail later in the book but
for now let me try and make sense of how these philosophies inter-
relate in the here and now in relation to my current experience.
I am sitting typing this introductory chapter in a coffee bar and facing me
is a mirror mounted higher than I am sitting that is reflecting part of what
is behind me. My phenomenological experience is to be curious around
the edges of this mirror, what it does not reveal. I have a bodily felt sense
of wanting to stand up to enable me to see more of what is not visible to
me. Beneath it there is a man intently looking at his phone, again I am
curious about what he appears to be writing but I also have a vague sense
of guilt about writing about him without him knowing. He glances up at
me briefly and my sense flips to one of mild embarrassment.

When I reflect on this on-going dialogue with my world as these

moments pass, I can make sense of my curiosity as I have long been
curious about human relating and the edges of experience since first
entering the world of psychology over 40 years ago and probably
well before that! My immediate experience is also strongly influ-
enced by my current activity, writing this introductory chapter. My
guilt is likely influenced by my Catholic upbringing and social and
cultural norms become prominent when the man I am observing
makes direct eye contact. My phenomenal field of my past shapes my
current experience, just as it does for everyone else in this coffee bar.
If I allow my imagination to wander, the artist to my left is staring
at two empty coffee cups and plates whilst contemplating them as a
possible still life piece. The elderly gentleman in the corner struggles
to enjoy a passed its best Danish pastry with a sadness as he reflects
back on his life and the loss he has experienced. Our individual
phenomenological fields are different as we sit in this shared space.
In gestalt we do not define people as isolated entities, ‘only in terms
of their interaction in the field’ (Jacobs, 1992: 32).
6 GESTALT THERAPY

Amongst the uninitiated gestalt therapy is probably associated

more with experimentation than the above three underpinning,
interrelated philosophies. Experimentation is to gestalt therapy
what free association is to analysis, part of its methodology, and
was a radical departure from two of its founder’s analytical back-
grounds where neither patient or analyst would venture from
the couch. Again, I will discuss experimentation in more detail
later but probably the best-known gestalt experiment is with the
empty chair or two chairs. In essence, it involves the therapist
facilitating the client in placing a person from their past or present
life (or it could be a quality, aspect of themselves, organisation,
Allah or God) and dialoguing with who or what they place on
the chair. Unfortunately, as gestalt therapy’s popularity grew in
the 1960s and 1970s many poorly trained (or untrained) therapists
simply churned out this technique as a form of behaviour modi-
fication. This led to the wildly inaccurate and minimising view
outside gestalt circles that gestalt therapy was about the empty
chair or chairs experiment (Roubal, 2019), a view that still lingers
today. It is not. The gestalt therapist holds an experimental atti-
tude with any experiment emerging from the dialogue between
therapist and client in relation to the client’s phenomenal field of
experience, in simple terms what they experience in the present
moment and how their past affects that experience. The number
of possible experiments is only restricted by the limits of creativ-
ity between client and therapist and the field in which they are
situated and may not include chairs!

1.2 GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY’S LAWS

OF PERCEPTION
It may seem strange to begin an introductory book on gestalt therapy
with an account of a related discipline, but gestalt therapy is an inte-
gration of several different philosophies and the gestalt psychologists
thinking and research on perception forms a hugely significant part of
gestalt therapy’s background with some key concepts being integrated
into gestalt therapy. Whether we are observing an item of furniture,
listening to violins in an orchestral piece or looking at how history
shaped a psychotherapy the background always shapes the foreground.
The original gestalt psychologists hailed from Germany and Austria
and researched common patterns of perception, initially focussing on
visual perceptual organisation before moving on to research other
 GESTALT THERAPY 7
modes of experiencing. The founders of this early 20th-century
movement – Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Kohler and Kurt Koffka –
developed a set of ‘laws of perception.’ One of these ‘laws,’ that could
be considered the mother of all the other laws of perception, is known
as the law of Pragnanz. Pragnanz is German for ‘pregnant’ and in this
sense is meant as being pregnant with meaning; we humans are mean-
ing making beings. In making meaning the law of Pragnanz states that
we will shape our experience into as simple a pattern or form, ‘… with
as much cleanness and definiteness – directedness and economy, stabil-
ity and strength, as the global conditions allow’ (Yontef, 1993: 246),
we organise our field in the best way possible in the given situation.
The Law of Pragnanz formed the ground upon which all the
other perceptual laws developed by the gestalt psychologists stood.
These laws include: closure, continuity, similarity, proximity, sym-
metry, common fate and figure and ground. I will discuss figure and
ground separately but offer descriptions and diagrammatic examples
of the other six laws below.

• The Law of Closure – We close spaces to complete a regular fig-

ure. In Figure 1.1, we naturally close the spaces to create a circle
and a square. The spaces can be quite far apart as in Figure 1.2
where I assume you see a football rather than six separate shapes.
• The Law of Continuity – Our need for closure and completion
comes into play again in Figure 1.3 as we literally join the dots to
complete two lines. You’ll notice that these laws are not separate as
there is overlap between the law of continuity and the law of closure.
• The Law of Similarity – Similar patterns are grouped together.
Visually this may be a grouping of images due to colour, form
or shape. In Figure 1.4, we group the black dots together in
horizontal lines.
• The Law of Proximity – In the given example in Figure 1.5, we
group the dots that are closer together perceiving two columns
rather than lines with spaces.
• The Law of Symmetry – In Figure 1.6, we perceive the symme-
try of the brackets as belonging together. Our need for balance
tends to override the rule of proximity.
• The Law of Common Fate – When we observe a series of ele-
ments moving together in a certain direction they are perceived
as connected. Flashing Christmas illuminations that form an
image of a reindeer are one example. Another might be the
crowd at a football match that we may see as one.
8 GESTALT THERAPY

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 1.3
 GESTALT THERAPY 9

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5

Figure 1.6

Of course with any of the above laws (also referred to as princi-

ples) if we make a conscious effort to pattern separately, asymmetri-
cally or unfinished we can do so but we naturally gravitate towards
order, continuity and completion. If we listen to a melody we hear
the whole first rather than perceiving separate notes, just as we close
the incomplete circle above first, only then may we perceptually
divide it up into separate notes or lines (Wertheimer, 1938). The
given images are all visual but the principles of needing to complete
and/or shape in the best form possible with order and simplicity
apply across a whole range of experiencing.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Listen to a piece of music and suddenly stop the melody mid-phrase.
Notice any impulse that may arise to complete the melody.

Similar to the above exercise consider your experience when you

read the following, ‘Humpty Dumpty sat on.’
10 GESTALT THERAPY

Knowledge of gestalt psychology can help us understand how we

perceive our world. In day-to-day life understanding what and how
we perceive can be applied practically, for example in developing
road signs with simple and clear communications. The laws of per-
ception can often be seen at play in the advertising industry also with
designers, artists and publicists of all kinds employing these principles
to convey their messages.

1.2.1 Figure and Ground

Gestalt therapy imported the concept of figure and ground from
gestalt psychology and it should be eternally grateful, the study of the
relationship between figure and ground has furnished gestalt therapy
with a conceptual framework.
There are numerous diagrammatic representations of figure and
ground but by far the most well-known and well-used is the two
faces/vase illusion created and named after its creator Edgar Rubin in
the early 20th century. Not surprisingly Rubin’s vase generated great
interest amongst the gestalt psychologists who went on to develop
similar examples. In Figure 1.7, one can perceive a vase or two faces
but we are unable to perceive a vase and two faces simultaneously
though we are likely to move between the two rapidly. When one
image is background the other is foreground.
Figure and ground is often eloquently discussed in cognitive, neuro-
scientific terms (Fineman, 1996; Hoffman, 2000; Hassan et al., 2001
and others) but although we align ourselves with many of these views
in gestalt therapy we apply the concept more broadly. The figure is your
immediate experience in the here and now that surfaces from the ground
of your experience in this moment and may change in the next moment.

Figure 1.7
 GESTALT THERAPY 11
This figural experience could be a sensation, emotion, cognition, behav-
iour or any reaction but will always be in relation to the background
from which it emerged, just as Rubin’s vase emerges from the faces or
the faces emerge from the vase. Gestalt therapists pay attention to the
relationship between what is figural for the person (what stands out), and
the ground from which that figure emerged, the movement between the
two and sharpness of the figure, being attentive to the process of figure
formation. The emerging figure will be shaped by the person’s need at the
time and their situation. For instance, I have just paused for thought and
am with my ideas for the next sentence, in this moment this is my fig-
ure; I reach for my hot drink for comfort and momentarily the warmth
of the cup becomes figural with my ideas sinking into the ground. I
take a sip from the cup and the warm sensation of coffee is foreground
before my fingers return to the keyboard with the plastic feel of the keys
fleetingly becoming figure before I type out my thoughts – what was
ground has returned to being figural. However, it is not only my drink
that was ground for unlike Rubin’s vase the world is multidimensional.
Our ground is everything in our past from what happened a moment
ago back to our birth and beyond, it includes our upbringing, embod-
ied cultural beliefs and field, inherited privilege or otherwise, where we
are situated in the world, race, ancestry and more. These areas form an
undifferentiated background from which figures emerge in response to
needs, desires or interest at the time. When the persons interest changes
their field is reconfigured. In healthy functioning this process of figure
formation is fluid and responsive to the changing situation. It is impor-
tant to note that in gestalt therapy we do not see this process as hap-
pening within the person but between person and their situation, take
a few moments to chew this over for it may be difficult to grasp from a
Western cultural viewpoint. Perhaps Figure 1.8 may help.
In the illustration the image of the old woman and the young
woman alternate between being figure and ground. You are likely to
see one first and if you are unfamiliar with the image may struggle
to see the other. Notice the point that the other image emerges. It
seems to come off the page, as we make sense of the image it meets
us in the space between us and the image. Although we reach out to
the world bodily with our senses the world also reaches towards us.
Step back for a moment and consider what figures have emerged for you
whist you have been reading this section of text. Notice the way in which
you shift between what is figural for you and your ground. Note the rate
of movement between your figures and ground and compare this with
other areas of your life.
12 GESTALT THERAPY

Figure 1.8

Although it is important to explore each individuals experience in

relation to their situation particular dynamics in the flow between
figure and ground characterise certain conditions. In severe depres-
sion the figure, ‘strains to emerge from a ground which is devoid
of energy … not even the vaguest hint of a figure peeks through’
(Roubal, Francesetti & Gecele, 2017: 8) whereas in acute anxiety
states, ‘figure formation is rapid and poorly differentiated from the
ground …’ (Mann, 2021: 18) as would be the case with a mood dis-
order such as hypomania. Post-traumatic stress disorder would likely
present with dominant and invasive figures suddenly emerging in the
form of flashbacks and fear from a traumatised aspect of the person’s
ground. Conversely, in healthy functioning well defined figures of
interest emerge fluidly from the ground before falling back into the
persons ground a process that provides the opportunity for change. At
a simple level this can be re-evaluating a food you once disliked rather
than staying with a fixed view – not many children like cabbage! A
more profound change could be the challenge of a fixed belief such
as all men/women can’t be trusted that may have been constructed
in childhood to keep the person safe in a toxic environment but in
adulthood is now outdated. As figures emerge from the ground of our
experience of our phenomenal world, change takes place in the per-
sons ground as new figures fall into that ground and are assimilated to
rise and form new figures. In the person that struggles to trust women
an experience with a caring, reliable women in therapy will fall into
their ground and create the possibility of movement. The therapist
may also work to heighten the persons awareness of any supportive
 GESTALT THERAPY 13
females she has encountered in her wider field, whilst appreciating
the client’s need for wariness around some women and how this crea-
tive adjustment has served the client in the past. Unfortunately there
have been times in gestalt therapy’s past where the focus has been
placed solely on what is figural without paying attention to the on-
going structure of the person’s situation, the ground from which the
presenting figure emerged (Wheeler, 1991). Such ‘figure therapy’ is
non-relational and deprives the client accessing the many resources
that already exist in their ground but are likely out of awareness.
Ground needs to be carefully tended to provide the right conditions
for growth – a daffodil does not grow at ten thousand feet!

1.3 THE BIRTH OF GESTALT THERAPY

As we have seen the background shapes the figure and the back-
ground story of the birth of gestalt therapy is as colourful as the lives
and journeys of its three founders. Frederick Perls (known as Fritz)
is sometimes named as the sole founder of gestalt therapy but his
wife Laura Perls part in the development of this radical departure
from their psychoanalytic backgrounds cannot be underestimated.
Likewise, neither can the co-author and critical thinker of the
founding text, Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human
Personality PHG, 1951), Paul Goodman be neglected when we look
at gestalt therapy’s conception.
The story of gestalt therapy’s formation began with Laura and Fritz
Perls in Frankfurt, Germany – a zeitgeist of creative thinkers, artists,
philosophers and psychologists. The influences that were integrated
into shaping the creative synthesis known as gestalt therapy followed
the journeys of its founders.
Having completed his medical Doctorate Fritz assisted Kurt
Goldstein, a renowned figure in the field of holistic psychology, in
his work with brain damaged soldiers. It was through this work that
he met Laura who was a student of Goldstein’s. She studied with
numerous distinguished psychologists and philosophers including
the existential philosopher Martin Heidegger, the gestalt psycholo-
gist Max Wertheimer and the existential theologians Paul Tillich and
Martin Buber. Whilst Fritz’s views on bodywork had been shaped
by his training analyst Wilhelm Reich, whose work centred around
body armour, Laura’s philosophy for bodywork formed from her
study and experience of contemporary dance (Wysong & Rosenfeld,
14 GESTALT THERAPY

1989). Though Fritz and Laura had both studied psychoanalysis the
dogmatism of the approach never rested easily with either of them.
Laura’s doctoral studies researched the feeding and weaning of infants
that formed the foundation for Fritz’s first paper written for a psy-
choanalytic conference in 1936 entitled ‘Oral resistances.’ Expecting
it to be seen as an advancement of psychoanalytic theory it was gen-
erally received badly, but appears to be a marker for the couple’s
departure from classical psychoanalytic theory, the development of
their theory on introjection (see Part Three) and ultimately along
with Paul Goodman, the creation of gestalt therapy.
As the Third Reich rose to power in Germany Fritz and Laura fled
Frankfurt for The Netherlands before moving on to South Africa
where they met Jan Smuts, the South African Prime Minster, who in
his writing on holism considered the organism to be self-regulating
and containing its past as much as its future in the present (Smuts,
1987). Fritz Perls is often credited with being first to bringing work
in the here and now into the field of psychotherapy that up until the
late 1940s had concentrated solely on the archaic. However, it was
his contact with the analyst Otto Rank who stressed the importance
of re-experiencing and establishing new meaning in the present that
played a major part in shaping this aspect of gestalt therapy, being
further supported by the analyst, Karen Horney. Horney also advo-
cated a more environmentally focussed approach to psychotherapy
that married at least to some degree to the social psychologist Kurt
Lewin, who had undertook work with the gestalt psychologists
before developing his ideas on field theory that were integrated into
gestalt and still have great relevance today.
Laura and Fritz worked as analysts whilst in South Africa having
initially been ‘sent’ over to form a psychoanalytic foundation by the
president of the international psychoanalytic association (Wysong &
Rosenfeld, 1989), but eight years later they had to give up due to
pressures arising as a result of World War II. Laura continued to
develop her work with the body and abandoned the couch in favour
of facing her patients and experimented with them lying on the floor,
exploring their co-ordination and alignment. Whilst Fritz and Laura
continued to identify themselves as analysts and Fritz remained tied
to the couch at this time, both he and Laura’s thinking and practice
were on a trajectory further and further away from classic psychoa-
nalysis a journey that appears to have begun with their enthusiasm
for the work of the gestalt psychologists that provided them with the
organising principle for gestalt therapy (Yontef, 1993).
 GESTALT THERAPY 15
At the end of World War II the couple moved to New York. Fritz
moving in 1946 to be followed by Laura a year later, the year that saw
the first statement against psychoanalysis being published under F.S.
Perls authorship. The book Ego, Hunger and Aggression was poign-
antly subtitled a Revision of Freud’s Theory and Method. Although
Laura was not credited with the work it is widely considered that
she had considerable input given that many of the influences that
shaped her clinical thinking and practice run through the text. It
was in New York that the couple met and collaborated with Paul
Goodman in the writing of the seminal text PHG (1951). The book
is divided into two ‘books’ with the original first ‘book’ (the order of
the books was changed in some later editions) containing numerous
experiential exercises and the second being much more theoretical.
Goodman received a rough draft of the book from Fritz and con-
tributed most of the theory, a huge contribution to forming the
ground upon which gestalt therapy stands today that is often over-
looked (Davidove, 1985) along with Laura’s uncredited input. Ralph
Hefferline, a professor at Columbia University was also recruited;
his contribution generally understood to centre on his student’s par-
ticipation and reports on exercises in the first ‘book’ (Mann, 2021).
The New York Institute was formed in 1952 with shades of the
zeitgeist from Laura and Fritz’s early days in Frankfurt who along
with Paul Goodman were now referring to themselves as gestalt
therapists rather than analysts. They were joined by others who were
to become instrumental in developing gestalt therapy theory includ-
ing amongst others Isadore From, Elliot Shapiro and Richard Kitzler.
In the words of The New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy, Fritz’s
enthusiasm sparked the fire whilst for many years Laura’s forceful
patience sustained it. Paul Goodman provided the ground for theo-
retical rigour.
This radical new therapy quickly began to generate interest fur-
ther afield and other Gestalt Institutes were formed, the first being
The Gestalt Institute of Cleveland who, with input from the New
York Institute, developed an intensive training programme deliv-
ered by renowned gestalt trainers and writers such as Joseph Zinker,
Erving and Miriam Polster, Elaine Kepner, Sonia and Edwin Nevis.
Word continued to spread about this new modality and its popular-
ity grew, but as it grew Fritz began to get itchy feet. He was letting
go of working with people individually in favour of working with
groups and running a circuit of trainings but remained unfulfilled.
He found his home some 4,000 miles away on the West coast at
16 GESTALT THERAPY

the Esalen Institute, California where his particular version of gestalt

therapy afforded him celebrity status. It is unfortunate that some of
his work at Esalen led to misunderstandings, misconceptions and
simplistic ideas about the approach that was largely painted as atheo-
retical. Laura, Paul Goodman and Elliott Shapiro were all later to
criticise Fritz for, in Goodman’s words, ‘taking gestalt down the
wrong road’ leading to it becoming ‘anti-intellectual’ (Wysong &
Rosenfeld, 1989). The sensational nature of some of the techniques
used by Fritz were simply copied by some of his students with lit-
tle, if any, theoretical underpinning. The counter-cultural movement
of the mid-sixties provided fertile ground for an explosion in the
popularity of gestalt in the United States, at the centre of which was
Esalen and Fritz. Meanwhile, back on the East coast in New York,
Laura, Goodman and Fritz’s old contemporaries continued to prac-
tice a less sensational, more grounded version of gestalt therapy in
line with the original theory and practice discussed in the original
text (PHG, 1951). Future generations of gestalt therapists were to
take the approach further both clinically and theoretically.
A version of Section 1.3 appears in the introduction of my chapter
in The Handbook of Individual Therapy – Sixth Edition, Mann (2014)
and Mann (2021).

1.4 GESTALT THERAPY’S DEVELOPMENT

One can only speculate where Fritz and Laura Perls, together with
Paul Goodman and their contemporaries, would have taken gestalt
therapy theory and practice had they still been alive today. Inevitably
it was left to later generations of gestalt practitioners to stand on the
shoulders of these giants to develop gestalt therapy further. Here I
can offer you the briefest glance of an overview of gestalt therapy’s
development that will be elaborated on as far as space will allow later,
although the interested reader may wish to study my references for a
more comprehensive picture.
In Ego, Hunger and Aggression (1947) Perls alluded to field theory
but did not develop these ideas. PHG (1951) developed the notion
of field and situation further, particularly Paul Goodman, but fell
short of a full articulation of this aspect of gestalt theory although
the ground was laid for future development as they moved away
from the dominant Western cultural view from an individualistic
paradigm where the person is primary, towards a field view where
‘… the energy comes from both parts of the field, i.e. both the
 GESTALT THERAPY 17
organism and the environment’ (PHG, 1951: 182). Although Fritz
Perls had deserted a field perspective with his highly individualistic
work at the Esalen Institute, in his later years he showed signs of
returning to a situational view of the person saying that behaviour
was always a function of the total situation and that to be able to
work effectively the therapist needed an awareness of the total situ-
ation (Perls, 1973).
Later generations of gestalt therapists including, amongst others,
Yontef (1993), Latner (1983), Parlett (1991, 2000, 1993), Wheeler
(2000), Robine (2001) and more recently Wollants (2012), Robine
(Ed.) (2016), Francesetti and Griffero (Eds.) (2019), developed more
comprehensive and well-articulated gestalt views of field theory. At
this point we need to bear in mind that as we live in a phenomenal
field, a situation that is forever changing. field theory cannot be sepa-
rated from phenomenology – our perception of the world – and we
are in constant dialogue with our world.
Parlett (1991) outlined five principles of field theory: organisa-
tion, contemporaneity, singularity, changing process and possible rel-
evance – work that he has since gone on to develop further (Parlett,
2005, 2015) and will be discussed later. This was part of a wider
process of enabling the principles of field theory (a situational view)
application in the clinical setting. Schulz (2013) named four of the
principles of field theory that contemporary writers articulated, I
offer my own take on these below:

1. Holism – The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, there-
fore studying parts of a system, person or phenomenon will not
reveal the whole picture. In the words of Latner, ‘The founda-
tion of the first principle of Gestalt therapy is holism’ (1986: 6).
2. The here and now – Whether we are looking to the future or
thinking about the past we are doing so in the present moment.
The here and now may be all that exists but, in the words of the
phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty, ‘… the present is not shut up
in itself, but transcends towards a future and a past’ (1962: 421).
3. Phenomena being determined by the whole situation – Clients
entering therapy often want to know why they are experienc-
ing what they are experiencing. From a field perspective this is
virtually impossible to answer due to the multiple layers of con-
stantly changing relational dynamics in their whole situation, a
situation that includes the therapist and the relational dynamics
of their situation.
18 GESTALT THERAPY

4. Field self-organisation – This relates to gestalt psychology’s law

of Pragnanz in that we organise ourselves in the best possible
way as the prevailing situation allows. A child in an abusive or
neglected situation may creatively adjust to that situation by
escaping into a fantasy world.

As indicated above gestalt therapy’s development has not been lin-

ear, it can’t be as meaningful development in a discipline requires
sound knowledge of the ground that it stands upon, as the second
generation gestalt therapist Isador From said, ‘Beethoven was a bril-
liant composer and he knew his Mozart well.’ Parlett (1993) brought
the work of Lewin to the forefront of gestalt therapy and field the-
ory. Robine (2011) highlighted that Paul Goodman distinguished
between an organism being ‘in the field’ and ‘of the field’ – we do
not live in an environment but by means of an environment. Latner
(1983) drew on Einstein and Faraday, ‘space is not empty’ (ibid: 75)
in applying physics’ views on space and energy to the psychologi-
cal field. These are but a handful of examples that have been built
on, argued against or developed further by subsequent theorists
(Wheeler, 2000; Philippson, 2001; Staemmler, 2006, 2009; Wollants,
2012, 2016; Francesetti, 2015 and many others).
As I write I am experiencing difficulty in separating out aspects of
gestalt therapy theory and am feeling uncomfortable in crediting spe-
cific authors with developing specific areas of gestalt therapy. I can make
perfect sense of my reaction because gestalt therapy is an integrated
therapy and what I am doing here is a false separation, the referenced
authors will be discussing field theory, phenomenology, dialogue, self,
experimentation and all aspects of gestalt therapy within its integrated
framework that stands upon the three pillars. Just as in architecture,
take away a supporting pillar and the whole construction will collapse.
Having emphasised this I will move on with my false separation!
The work on articulating the integration of dialogue into gestalt
that began in PHG (1951), and was believed to be heavily influenced
by Laura Perls contact with the theologian and philosopher Martin
Buber, was developed further by Hycner (1993, 1999), Hycner and
Jacobs (1995), who translated and unpicked Buber’s work clearly dis-
cussing dialogue and I-Thou/I-It relating in particular his classic text
I and Thou (Buber, 1958). Many have contributed significantly to
understanding dialogue and the dialogical in gestalt therapy, Wheeler
(1991), Yontef (1993, 2009, 2008), Staemmler (2009, 2012), Bloom
(2010, 2014) to name a few.
 GESTALT THERAPY 19
As stated phenomenology in gestalt therapy cannot be separated
from the other two pillars of gestalt – dialogue and field theory.
Therefore for all of the aforementioned theorists phenomenology
will inevitably be woven into the fabric of their work as this broad
philosophy explores how we construct meaning and experience.
Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) is generally considered to be the
founder of phenomenology in gestalt therapy, he developed a process
where he believed we could suspend or transcend our natural experi-
ence of the world to be touched by it afresh – his phenomenology
was known as transcendental phenomenology. Another renowned
phenomenologist of particular relevance to gestalt therapy is Martin
Heidegger (1889–1976) who initially worked as Husserl’s assistant
and developed existential phenomenology, whereas Husserl’s phe-
nomenology was the science of pure consciousness (Husserl, 1931),
Heidegger’s phenomenology is a phenomenology of being. Of no
lesser significance is Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961) who
majored on bringing the body to the forefront of phenomenology,
‘The world is not what I think, but what I live through’ (Merleau-
Ponty, 1962: 16), he considered inside and outside to be inseparable, a
view that married well with Goodman’s view in PHG (1951) that we
are of the field. The title of the phenomenologist Ernesto Spinelli’s
book, The Interpreted World (2005) explains what we attempt to move
beyond in phenomenology. In the clinical setting the therapist’s real-
ity is no more objective, valid or ‘right’ than the clients and one’s
experience of the other shapes the other, ‘I touch the world and the
world touches me in a dialectic of co-creation [that] changes me and
transforms the world’ (Kennedy, 2003: 78).
The breadth of experiments available to the gestalt therapist are
only limited by the creativity between therapist and client, that
includes their respective fields. Within the gestalt therapist’s field are
those who have contributed theoretical ideas and sought to develop
gestalt experimentation beyond the empty chair. Early significant
post-Perlsian contributors include Polster and Polster (1973), Zinker
(1977) and Feder and Ronall (1980). Houston (1982, 1995) pro-
duced two short books with sample experiential exercises. A gestalt
experiment is designed to challenge the way a client organises them-
selves in a given situation through what is termed a safe emergency
(PHG, 1951: 65) affording them the opportunity to try out differ-
ent ways of being. Many recent authors have expressed their views
on experimentation including Philippson (2001), Yontef and Schulz
(2016), Roubal (2019) and Skotten and Kruger (2022).
20 GESTALT THERAPY

In discussing a therapy that sees the person’s body, mind and phe-
nomenal field as inseparable it seems ridiculous and contradictory
to be identifying ‘body therapists’ or ‘body work’ in gestalt therapy’s
developmental story – so I won’t! Rather, I’ll identify some of the
therapists that have contributed considerably to developing body
process as an integrated whole firmly supported by the three pil-
lars of gestalt therapy. Kepner (1999, 2008) explains how we crea-
tively adjust to our environment bodily whilst Frank (2001, 2023)
and Frank and La Barre (2011) offer a body oriented developmental
perspective on child development that will manifest in later life. This
‘body’ of knowledge is built upon by Clemmens (2020) who covers
a range of embodied work by a cross-section of authors.
The clinical application of gestalt therapy in the field of psychopa-
thology and in relation to specific presentations have been eloquently
and comprehensively discussed by Francesetti, Gecele and Roubal
(2013), Francesetti and Griffero (2019) (editors) whilst Taylor (2014)
focussed on the broad area of trauma with reference to neuroscience.
Elinor Greenberg has written about personality adaptions focussing
on Narcissism, Borderline and Schizoid adaptions and beginning
her book, the culmination of many years of writing on the subject,
with ‘Nobody is a Borderline. Nobody is a Narcissist. Nobody is a
Schizoid’ (2016: 3) summing up the unique and fluid way any map
or diagnosis is viewed in gestalt.

1.4.1 Gestalt Therapy’s Growth in Britain and Beyond

Back in the early 1950s there were a mere handful of people practic-
ing gestalt therapy. Today there are hundreds of training institutes
around the world producing thousands of well-trained therapists.
It was around the time of Fritz Perls death in 1970 that gestalt
therapy began to grow in Britain. In those early days there were no
formal guidelines for training delivery, consequently trainers deliv-
ered their favoured version of gestalt therapy that varied from inte-
grated versions in line with the original theory to eclectic mixes
that might draw ad hoc from aspects of other approaches. Shades of
what has been referred to as the ‘East coast/West coast split’ (more
accurately the different practices of gestalt therapy at Institutes such
as New York and Cleveland compared with Fritz’s version at Esalen)
that had manifested years earlier in the United States presented in
Britain with some trainings being attracted to the drama of cathar-
tic experimentation. Gradually things began to change as gestalt
 GESTALT THERAPY 21
training became more formalised. The United Kingdom Council for
Psychotherapy (UKCP) formed in 1993 and trainings began to align
their syllabuses with the requirements for registration. The pendu-
lum swung further as gestalt therapy training organisations formed
partnerships with universities and subsequently offered qualifications
up to and including doctorate level. Numerous research projects
undertaken on trainings and supported by gestalt research publica-
tions (Brownell, Meara & Polak, 2008; Fogarty et al., 2016; Roubal
(Ed.), 2016; Brownell (Ed.), 2019) has added substance to the value
and efficacy of the approach.
In most of the Western world gestalt therapy has moved from its
anarchic past to sit, albeit somewhat uncomfortably, within formal-
ised educational systems. I imagine that Laura Perls, Paul Goodman
and Fritz Perls would smile at some areas of its development and
cringe at others. There are definitely gains in its move towards the
respectability of the centre ground of the therapy world, a consider-
able one being that it is now more widely accepted as a psychother-
apy. However, there is a cost to such respectability. Gestalt therapy
was born breaking the mould of conventional psychotherapy at the
time, it rose from the ravages of a world war, was daring and edgy,
its birth, ‘owes more to the ovens of Auschwitz than it does the
armchairs of Oxford’ (Kennedy, 1998: 89). Perhaps a danger is that
gestalt softens to fit the armchairs of Oxford.

1.5 SUMMARY
• Gestalt therapy has roots in the early 20th century with the work
of the gestalt psychologists thinking about perception.
• ‘Gestalt’ is a German word its closest translation being, ‘a whole
configuration that is more than the sum of its parts.’ It refers to
perceiving things in their entirety rather than as separate elements.
• The three pillars of gestalt therapy are: Field Theory (consider-
ing a person’s experience in relation to their entire situation),
Phenomenology (studying subjective experience without inter-
pretation) and Dialogue (meeting with the world and others in
all our humanness, including but also beyond words).
• All three philosophies must be practiced by a therapist to practice
gestalt therapy.
• Experimentation is central to gestalt therapy.
• Gestalt psychology’s laws of perception show how we make
meaning.
22 GESTALT THERAPY

• Figure and Ground is a way of understanding the relationship

between immediate experience and broader context.
• Gestalt therapy was founded by Frederick ‘Fritz’ Perls, Laura
Perls and Paul Goodman. The seminal text Gestalt Therapy:
Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality (1951) being a
collaborative effort.
• The New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy, formed in 1952, was
the first gestalt institute and played a pivotal role in the therapy’s
evolution, it is still active today.
• The person’s body, mind and phenomenal field as inseparable.
• Gestalt therapy continued to evolve through generations and
continues to evolve.
 2

GESTALT MAPS

If we set out on a journey to somewhere unfamiliar we need some-

thing to help direct us, some form of map. The therapist and client
set off on a journey when they sit together. The therapist, and con-
sequently the relationship, can benefit from the direction offered by
a theoretical map. Over the next nine sections I will cover a range
of therapeutic maps used in gestalt therapy. However, anyone who
has followed a Sat Nav blindly down a cul-de-sac will know that the
map is not the territory. Consider the following maps and theories
but they may not fit for every client, even the best maps and theories
need to be held lightly.

2.1 AWARENESS AND CONTACT

The phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty (1962/2014) poetically
described awareness as the cradle of things and gestalt therapy holds
the ‘cradle of awareness’ central to its philosophy. Many theorists
consider awareness to be gestalt therapy’s only goal (Yontef & Jacobs,
2010). We increase our awareness through our contact with the
world via our five senses, proprioception and the ways in which we
hold our bodies in any given situation, it is a whole body event that
is marked by excitement – hence, the sub-title of the founding text
‘Excitement and Growth in Human Personality’ (PHG, 1951). One
of the many experiential awareness exercises that appear in PHG is a
four phase process with the first three points laying the ground for

DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-3
24 GESTALT MAPS

the experiment, I offer an abridged variation that can be completed

alone but is best done with a partner.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
1. Maintain a sense that your awareness exists here and now in the
present.
2. Realise that you are living this experience, actioning it, resisting it,
observing it.
3. Attend to all experiences, ‘internal,’ ‘external,’ abstract, concrete,
those that move back in time and those that orient towards the
future, any ‘oughts’ or ‘shoulds,’ any that you deliberately produce
and those that arise spontaneously.
4. With regard to every experience verbalise ‘Now I am aware that …’
and continue to complete this sentence, I suggest for ten minutes.

The task is simply to notice ways of avoiding and minimising

awareness and contact just as a gestalt therapist would in the therapy
room, such exercises are not designed to make one aware of some-
thing rather to heighten awareness of how one may avoid being
aware. Pace is important as the quality of contact is reduced if the
exercise is rushed, likewise one can reduce contact bodily through
shallow breathing or holding bodily tension. The gestalt therapist
may simply notice and say what they see in the client whilst paying
attention to their own bodily reactions.
Such a simple exercise as noticing what one is aware of in each
passing moment can reveal favoured areas of perception and in what
areas there may be blocks. Fritz Perls (1992) described three areas
that he called zones of awareness, his recommendation was to allow
a flow through the three zones. We need to remain mindful that
though I describe the zones separately these three zones are inter-
connected and mutually dependent (Joyce & Sills, 2018).

1. Inner Zone – Concerned with what we might consider internal

phenomena such as muscular tension or relaxation, breathing,
heartbeat and bodily sensations.
2. Outer Zone – Concerned with our perception and awareness
of our world through our five senses. It is how we make contact
with our outer world.
3. Middle Zone – This is a movement away from sensory experi-
ence and what is happening ‘here and now’ towards cognitive
 GESTALT MAPS 25
processes. This would include interpretations, memories, fanta-
sies, thoughts about the future and past. The middle zone acts as
mediator between the inner and outer zones of awareness.

In another classic gestalt experiential exercise (that you may also

wish to try) similar to the first, the client is asked to describe what
she or he notices in the here and now alternating between their
internal world (inner zone) and their environment (outer zone), for
example: now I feel shivery … now I can smell the flowers in the
room … now I feel a tightening in my chest … now I see you look-
ing at me … and so on. The idea behind this exercise is based on the
awareness continuum, it moves people away from a ‘why’ orientation
and towards a ‘what’ and ‘how’ perspective (Levitsky & Perls, 1970),
in doing so it is phenomenological in gaining description about how
the person reaches out and what they reach out to in their world.
The awareness continuum is a four phase sequence outlined in PHG
(1951) having its initial roots in Perls ‘cycle of inter-dependency of
organism and environment’ (Perls, 1947: 44). It describes how the figure/
ground dynamic shifts from emergence through to assimilation, com-
pletion and withdrawal. I’ll illustrate this process of fore-contact, contact,
final contact, post-contact with an example from daily life:

Fore-contact – Having been sat writing at my computer for a while I

become aware of bodily sensations of stiffness in my shoulders and
thighs along with a vague discomfort at the base of my spine. These
figural sensations relegate my desire to write to my background.
Contact – Following this increasing awareness I mobilise, disengag-
ing from the computer and pushing myself up out of my chair
before a new figure forms as I stretch my arms, legs and arch my
back. To meet this immediate need I need to alienate competing
needs temporarily such as my need to complete this chapter. I
refine my need to stretch further, the emerging figure becomes
the stretching of my arms and expanding my chest.
Final contact – I really lean into this stretch fully. For a few moments
the rest of my situation is background as I enjoy the sensations of
my chest expanding as my arms arch backwards.
Post-contact – Reinvigorated and satisfied I glance at my computer
before shrugging my now relaxed shoulders. Space has emerged
for a new figure to emerge. I reject the idea of returning to my
computer in favour of venturing outside for some fresh air. Back
to fore-contact I begin a new cycle as I walk towards the door.
26 GESTALT MAPS

This model of the awareness continuum formed a template for

further developments that I will discuss in Section 2.3.
I hope that it is becoming evident that we gestalt therapists are not
in the business of archaeology, we simply work with what is on the
surface and trust the client to find their own depth basing our inter-
ventions on the figures that surface from the client’s ground and their
process of figure formation. We attempt to strengthen awareness by
intervening to sharpen and support figures as they surface and, when
appropriate, allow space for them to fall back into the client’s ground
for a new figure to emerge. Although Fritz Perls stated that ‘aware-
ness per se of and by itself can be curative’ (Perls, 1992: 37) awareness
cannot be ‘of and by itself ’ as it cannot be separated from contact. If
we become aware it follows that we are in contact with ‘what is’ then
we have a choice whether to increase or decrease our level of con-
tact, our choice will depend on our situation at that time, ‘Gestalt
therapy is organized around the central theoretical concepts of aware-
ness and contact’ (PHG, 1951: 8). Latner saw awareness as having five
qualities, those being: contact, sensing, excitement, figure formation
and wholeness (2000, in Nevis). Similarly awareness and conscious-
ness are inextricably connected, one being a function of the other,
‘Awareness is our sense of one another, as the ground for whole ‘inter-
subjective’ experience … the fringe around our consciousness’
(Bloom, 2014: 118).

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Slowly and gradually complete the following exercise. Stand up and
check that you are breathing regularly before taking account of any
areas of tightness or stress in your body no matter how slight. Now
lean to your right side and gradually place as much of your weight as
possible on this side of your body increasing it incrementally. Notice
the stress present on the right side of your body and where your
awareness is focussed. It is not that you won’t be aware of the left side
of your body but this will be swallowed up in the awareness of what I
am assuming is tension on your right side that is likely to be figural.

From a Western cultural ground of individualism it is easy to view

the heightening of awareness and contact as a one-person process
by considering the awareness continuum of the client without con-
sidering the situation in which their process is taking place, that
includes the therapist, and the environment in which they meet as
 GESTALT MAPS 27
well as the wider field. In numerous schools of psychotherapy and
counselling we often encounter the term self-awareness and this has
different meanings for different approaches. In gestalt therapy this
does not mean some introspective process detached from contact
with all that surrounds us, quite the opposite, self-awareness from a
gestalt perspective means being in full contact with oneself in relation
to one’s ever changing field and having the ability to creatively adjust
one’s level of contact in accordance to those changes in the field.
As human beings, as long as we are breathing, we are always in
contact with our environment: we smell the newly mown grass,
we taste the food, we touch the other, we hear the music, we see
the sunset, we tense our body in reaction to danger, our heart rate
quickens with excitement or anxiety as we approach a new adven-
ture. We might like to think that we initiate contact but in gestalt
we believe that contact is an event that takes place between our-
selves and the environment. The smell of the newly mown grass,
the sound of the music, the sight of the sunset reach towards us as
we reach towards them. Just as awareness is not passive, but active
and organising, neither is contact passive perception – we reach out
actively to meet our environment through motor and sensory pro-
cesses that are wider than our five senses, what we refer to in gestalt
as contact functions. In this reaching out process we make and break
contact and that informs our lives and how we are in the world. The
quality of the contact we make can range from dull and lifeless to
vivid and vibrant with all shades between these two polarities as we
moderate our level of contact depending on the situation (Mann,
2021). Full vibrant contact is not needed when filling the car up
with fuel, but enough awareness is needed to avoid spillage. In the
process of making contact a figure emerges from the ground, the
quality of contact will be determined by how clearly defined the
figure is. ‘It is in the contacting phase that we try out different possi-
bilities’ (Skotten & Kruger, 2022: 260). With an innumerable range
of contact and awareness options possible in numerous areas – body,
immediate field, wider situation, sensations and more – the therapist
could feel swamped. A question that often arises with therapists in
supervision or training is how do I choose? What area do I work
with? I’ll conclude this section with the wise words of Laura Perls,
‘We start with the obvious, with what is immediately available to
the awareness of therapist and client, and we proceed from there in
small steps which are immediately experienced and thus are more
easily assimilable’ (1992: 156).
28 GESTALT MAPS

2.2 THE CONTACT BOUNDARY

To give an explanation of the contact boundary seems a simple task,
a boundary being defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, ‘a
real or imagined line that marks the limits or edges of something.’
However, we are not talking about something as clearly delineated
as a fence, wall or country’s border. A straightforward description of
the contact boundary is offered by the Polsters who describe it as
‘… the point at which one experiences the ‘me’ in relation to that
which is not ‘me’ and through this contact, both are more clearly
experienced’ (Polster & Polster, 1973: 102). The contact bound-
ary does not separate the person from the environment, ‘rather it
limits the organism, contains and protects it, and at the same time it
touches the environment’ (PHG, 1951: 229). In many ways it is not
a boundary at all rather a meeting place between the individual and
the environment, but this meeting place does not have a definite
identifiable location. The skin has been named as an example of
the contact boundary as it both separates and connects, but this is
used more as a metaphor (Ginger, 2018) rather than a literal meeting
place – even in a concrete way, we make contact beyond our skin
though our contact functions but it is naïve to suggest that the limits
of the contact boundary are organs of sensory and motor responses.
Instead of considering the contact boundary as a meeting it is better
to consider it as the meeting (Latner, 1985), as the between, for to be
congruent with gestalt therapy’s philosophy the contact boundary
cannot belong to the individual or the environment. Whilst many
examples of boundaries from the physical world don’t fit with the
construct of the contact boundary in gestalt one offered by Latner to
my mind does, ‘We would not say that the shoreline belongs to the
sand or the sea. It is brought into being by their meeting’ (ibid: 57).
Gestalt therapy is the study of what happens and how it happens at
the event of the contact boundary. In healthy functioning between
self and environment this meeting will be fluid, flexible and in rela-
tion to the current situation. It follows that where there is suffering
fluidity and flexibility will be affected and may be in relation to an
archaic situation rather than the present field.
Helen experienced sexual abuse as a young child with intimate personal
boundaries being crossed. To manage the trauma she creatively adjusted
to this appalling situation by detaching, desensitising and escaping into her
imagination. As an adult, now with a caring partner, she continues to detach
and desensitise herself, her contact boundary between her and her partner
 GESTALT MAPS 29
hardens whenever he is intimate with her. Her creative adjustment, that was
once protective, is now outdated and leads to problems in her present relation-
ship whilst depriving the couple of the closeness they both crave.

In the above account it might be easy to see this as ‘Helen’s problem’

enclosed within the confines of her own skin. However, if Helen is
suffering then her situation is suffering too. Even with a less traumatic
experience where someone has picked up messages that they are not
artistic, not creative or unintelligent they may then deny themselves and
the world their art, creativity and intelligence as a consequence. From
a gestalt perspective, ‘The effects of the suffering of the between (of
the contact boundary) … can be felt by anybody standing in the rela-
tionship’ (Francesetti, Gecele & Roubal, 2013: 61). Obviously, in the
therapy room one person standing in the relationship is the therapist, it
follows that the vibrations of suffering, denial of intelligence, creativity
or artistic potential will be felt by the therapist. The task is then to dis-
cover the nature of creative adjustments that emerge by raising awareness
of how the client and therapist moderate contact in the here and now
of the meeting – what happens between them in the present situation.
Although we are not the sole owners of the contact boundary
between ourselves and the environment, we do all have favoured con-
tact styles that will have formed over the course of our lives. The innu-
merable contacts we have experienced will have shaped our relational
style. Just like Helen’s detachment and desensitising we develop a way
of being in relationship in certain situations that may have become
habitual. The present situation may be perceived as dangerous or safe
when the opposite may be the case, the creative adjustment between
self and environment can be a mismatch as the environment is viewed
through a historic, out-of-date lens. Constant reassessment of our
relationship with our environment, of what happens between us, is
needed to maintain healthy present-centred functioning – a task that
we are all likely to fall short of to some degree! In health the contact
boundary needs to let nourishment in and in doing so, ‘… maintain
a fluid permeable boundary that blocks or eliminates the unhealthy,
toxic and the overwhelming’ (Gonzi, 2020: 8). However, though this
may be achieved to some degree ‘psychologically’ in relation to our
environment, our environment is constantly within us – if you doubt
this simply take a breath. COVID-19 gave us a stark reality check
if we believed that we owned and controlled the contact boundary,
that we were somehow separate – where the psychological ends and
the physical begins is a matter for conjecture. For years gestalt and
30 GESTALT MAPS

other relational approaches have argued against a Cartesian split of a

separate mind and body (Yontef, 1993; Wheeler, 2000; Philippson,
2001; Jacobs, 2007; Denham-Vaughan, 2010; Robine, 2011). Orange
(2002) posits that there is no outside, that it is not possible to stand
outside the system or individual as the other. So where does this leave
us with the concept of the contact boundary? I believe that it is impor-
tant in the give and take of relating in the therapy room to view it as
an event, to note what type of boundary events we co-create with our
clients and how they are created and maintained between us. Also not
to let go of the fact that the contact boundary is a theoretical construct.

2.3 THE GESTALT CYCLE OF EXPERIENCE

The four phase awareness continuum outlined in PHG (1951) and dis-
cussed earlier acted as a platform for other theorists to refine and build
upon. The first of these developments to enjoy popularity was devel-
oped at The Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, the Awareness-Excitement-
Contact Cycle (Zinker, 1977: 97) – see Figure 2.1, sometimes
inaccurately referred to as ‘The Cleveland Wave.’ Just as with PHG’s
four phase map of an experience of contact, a completed cycle repre-
sents a completed gestalt – that is the completion from the emergence
of a sensation through each phase of the cycle to satisfaction, with-
drawal and the void – a complete unit of experience. This might be a
brief activity such as drinking a glass of water or something over a con-
siderable period of time such as studying for a university degree. The
various models of the gestalt cycle of experience can be used to map
any life experience from birth to death, including the entire journey!

ENVIRONMENT

ACTION FINAL CONTACT

MOBILISATION

SATISFACTION
O ID

AWARENESS
IL E V
RT

SENSATION
FE

WITHDRAWL WITHDRAWL
SELF
Figure 2.1 The Awareness-Excitement-Contact Cycle.
 GESTALT MAPS 31
2.3.1 The Awareness-Excitement-Contact Cycle
To avoid confusion I need to clarify that the term ‘awareness’ in rela-
tion to the gestalt cycle of experience is used to denote the point
where a figure of interest emerges from the ground, rather than con-
sciousness. Joyce and Sills (2018) use the term ‘recognition’ and for a
time the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland used ‘figure formation’ (Korb,
Gorrell & Van De Reit, 1989) to avoid such confusion.

2.3.2 The Gestalt Cycle of Formation and Destruction

A further diagrammatic representation of the phases in the com-
pletion of a gestalt named The Cycle of Gestalt Formation and
Destruction (Figure 2.2) was offered by Clarkson (2013: 35) and was
based on Zinker’s model. Though popular in Britain this offered lit-
tle that is new and by virtue of being represented as a closed circle has
more of an individualistic feel than Zinker’s wave illustration.
All three models – PHG’s, Zinker’s and Clarkson’s - illustrate an
evolving contact sequence describing shifts in the figure/ground
dynamic, invariably problems present when there is stuckness at a phase
or when it is rushed through or bypassed. There can be overarching
patterns that are out of our awareness that can be cultural, typically in
Western culture we tend to spend insufficient time at the sensation
phase, where the first stirrings of a figure emerge. The more time we
spend in early construction of a gestalt, the stronger, the brighter it will

ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT
ID SENSATION
E VO
TIL
ER
F

WITHDRAWL
AWARENESS

SATISFACTION SELF

MOBILISATION

FINAL CONTACT

ACTION
Figure 2.2 The Cycle of Gestalt Formation and Destruction.
32 GESTALT MAPS

be. There is also a general trend to rush or miss the latter phases of the
cycle in not allowing sufficient space for satisfaction, withdrawal and a
void between experiences, we often rush on to the next task. Rather
than human beings we are sometimes human doings.

2.3.3 The Gestalt Cycle of Experience

Below are two examples of gestalt cycles in relation to very different
experiences. You will note that in the second column the satisfaction
phase does not necessarily translate to the common usage of the term
‘satisfaction.’ Bear in mind that in both examples this is one cycle in
an ongoing, co-created process (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Gestalt Cycle of Experience

DOOR BELL RINGS JOB DISSATISFACTION

Sensation Hear the sound, fleeting Sense of irritation and

surprise. dissatisfaction.

Awareness Sensation is interpreted and Begin to realise there needs

realisation that there is someone to be change. Anxiety and
at the door. uncertainly emerge.

Mobilisation Decides to answer the doorbell Moves towards exploring

begins to mobilise self to get up possibilities. Moves into deciding
to move out of chair towards to be proactive rather than staying
the door. in current post.

Action Moves towards the door, Explores what posts are

unlocks it and opens the door. available in the field. Completes
applications.

Final Contact Realise it’s my brother visiting. Gains an interview but is not
‘Hi, Paul great to see you’ Hug. appointed. Feels downcast and
‘Come on in.’ Coffee, sit and angry, ‘what’s the point.’ Cries
chat. post-interview.

Satisfaction Feel appreciative of Paul’s Resigns self to remaining in

visit, maybe reflect on the her current post, comforting
conversation. Alternatively herself by trying to find some
could feel relieved he’d gone! positives. Replays memories of
the interview.

Withdrawal Move to put the cups in the Moves away from thinking
dishwasher. about the interview.

Void Leaves space for further need to Space is left for the next need to
emerge. emerge in this process.
 GESTALT MAPS 33
You may note that within each of the above gestalt cycles there
are cycles within cycles. Getting up from a chair could be concep-
tualised as a cycle in itself. If we chose to refer to the gestalt cycle
model in our clinical work we chose the most figural gestalt cycle
that emerges between client and therapist. The flow of contact and
withdrawal from figures that surface from the ground whilst being
created in relationship will be idiosyncratic to each person’s perspec-
tive (Yontef & Fairfield, 2008) and will be co-created in relation to
the situation.
The cycle models are not without critics. One criticism that I
have already alluded to is that they can promote an individualistic
view of the person moving away from a field perspective (Wheeler,
1991, 2003; Wagner-Moore, 2004), and that the person is pri-
mary, ‘They imply that first there is a subject and then an environ-
ment … they imply that the individual system is superior to the
situation’ (Wollants, 2012: 93). However, any map or model needs
to simplify as much as illustrate and therefore we need to hold
them lightly, the map is not the territory. Personally, I use the
gestalt cycle model when teaching or supervising and may look
back retrospectively at work with a client to help inform what
processes may have been at play between us, but I do not tend to
consider it in the give and take of the meeting. Like any map or
model the gestalt cycle is a metaphorical way of conceptualising
human interaction (Miller, 2001). It is not only referred to in indi-
vidual work by many practitioners, but also group work (Tudor,
1991; Cole & Reese, 2018), coaching (Francis & Parlett, 2016)
and organisational consulting (Saner, 1999; Brownell, 2018;
Chidiac, 2018).

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Take a few minutes to consider your background (whatever that may
mean for you) before moving on to look at how this may affect your
journey through the cycle in the present. Now consider an activity you
engage in – this could be as simple as eating a meal. Now ask your-
self, at what phase(s) might I habitually rush through, spend more
time at, get stuck or skip completely in relation to the cycle? How
might this play out in other areas of my life?
34 GESTALT MAPS

2.4 THE HERE AND NOW

We can only ever be aware of our here and now experience, ‘There
is no other reality than the present’ (Perls, 1947: 208). Whilst those
from Fritz and Laura’s previous psychoanalytic training were working
with the subconscious and archaic they focussed on present ‘here and
now’ experience in order to raise their client’s awareness of ‘what is’
rather than what was or could be. In many ways they were ahead of
their time as Stern asserted over 50 years later that, ‘most psychothera-
pies agree that therapeutic work in the ‘here and now’ has the greatest
power in bringing about change’ (2004: 3). An aware, dialogic, present-
centred approach is gestalt therapy’s phenomenological methodology
and as such has been summarised rather simplistically as ‘I-Thou, here
and now’ – but then Fritz did love snappy catchphrases. That is not to
detract from his brilliance and bravery in explicating the here and now
moment when all around him were engaged in archaeological digging.
To demonstrate a here and now awareness exercise I’d like to invite
you to experiment with the following experiential exercise, that
should be completed with a partner.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Sit facing your partner and for a few minutes try to complete the fol-
lowing three sentences several times beginning with each of the fol-
lowing alternately: I see … I feel … I imagine … e.g. I see you frowning,
I feel irritated, I imagine you feel judged or I see you are wearing a
white shirt, I feel light, I imagine you are going to work later. Alternate
with your partner in completing the three sentences several times.
Check that you are stating something that you can actually see and
are not interpreting e.g. I see you are smiling, you can’t see ‘happy’. Also
check that you comment on a feeling/sensation rather than a thought.
Note your reactions as you complete the exercise with your partner.

Before we move on let us address a dumb question because dumb ques-

tions usually dig down and help with understanding – don’t be afraid
to ask them in therapy. What is the here and now? If the here and now
moment stands in not-so-splendid isolation from any other time zone
it is by definition a dissociative state. Living in such a state would be
closer to psychosis than anything else. Goodman (1994) had gone part
way to correcting the risk of isolating the ‘here and now’ by connect-
ing it to the ‘here, now, next’ and PHG did describe the present as a
 GESTALT MAPS 35
passage out of the past towards a future. The here and now, the present
moment, contains within it as Stoehr (1994) points out, a past and a
future, an orientation and a direction. The phenomenologist Edmund
Husserl (1931, 1964) proposed that the here and now held within it a
duration that consisted of a present-of-the-present-moment, a future-
of-the-present-moment and a past-of-the-present-moment. In com-
pleting the above here and now awareness exercise you will lead into
it from an immediate past that trails behind you like the tail of a comet
and depart through an immediate future that holds anticipation. That
is not to say that the three parts stand separately but, ‘… stand together,
subjectively, as a single, unified, coherent global experience …’
(Stern, 2004: 27). Husserl’s views were echoed by Thompson and
Zahavi (2007) who described the present as a ‘duration-block’ that
comprised of the present, past and future. So, the here and now does
not stand balancing precariously on some metaphorical knife edge, the
figural here and now moment emerges from a ground of experience
and contains that ground within its fibres. Consequently, in here and
now relating between therapist and client in the therapy room in each
passing moment the story of a history is being revealed coupled with
a story of expectation, or to be more accurate the stories of histories
and expectations because the therapist is not a detached observer and
the meeting takes place amongst a whole field of relationships, ‘Every
present includes in the end through its horizons of immediate past and
nearest future the whole of possible time’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1962: 109).
It is inevitable that we will carry our past into our present moment-
to-moment relating with the world. The way a person walks, the way
in which they carry their body, use their senses, their speech and so on
will reveal aspects of their past. On a residential training my co-trainers
and I invited students simply to walk across the room and for the other
students and trainers to comment on what they observed (the trainers
also took part). Jane (pseudonym) walked across the room with such
confidence and in such a ‘correct’ way. Others commented on her
wonderful erect posture, her straight back her apparent confidence,
one person said she walked like a model. My rather blunt comment
was that I didn’t quite buy it. Jane looked aghast, but then revealed
that she had spent long periods of her childhood in a supporting cast
for her back with years of physiotherapy exercises teaching her to walk
‘correctly.’ This wasn’t some magic piece of intuition on my part, I
simply noticed what I saw on the surface but crucially I drew upon my
own experience, not as a gestalt trainer, but as someone who had also
journeyed through years of physiotherapy as a child and years of my leg
36 GESTALT MAPS

being held in a calliper. There were tears with Jane and I as for a time
our roles of trainer and student fell away. As gestalt therapists we need
to be prepared to be truly present at the contact boundary in the here
and now and to be truly present means being vulnerable.
In gestalt therapy the answers all lie on the surface and therapeutic
effectiveness is grounded in the here and now unfolding of the thera-
peutic relationship and the inter-subjective phenomena that emerges
between self and other. This inter-subjective phenomena might not
always be present focussed but as therapists we can invite the sharing of
material from the past in a present focussed way, which is something
Erving Polster (1987) advocates as he acknowledges the immense value
of people telling their life stories. It is important to understand the
client’s total situation to gain an understanding of their here and now
experience. In working with trauma it is essential that the therapist
ensures that the client has a firm hold on the here and now and part of
the therapist’s task is to act as an anchor to the present to avoid losing the
client in a there and then ‘trauma bubble,’ such anchoring is achieved
through relationship building rather than technique. As Delisle states in
Taylor (2014), ‘it is not the historic past that is at stake but the past as it
acts upon the configuration of the present field’ (ibid: 76).
Whether it is coincidental or not Fritz Perls first post-doctorate
work was with brain damaged soldiers. His development of the
here and now focus has been found to mobilise, in particular, the
hypothalamic areas and the frontal and prefrontal lobes of the brain
(Ginger, 2002). Given the undoubted genius of the man I doubt
whether this was entirely coincidental.

2.5 SELF AND SELFING

In gestalt therapy self is an emergent process at the contact boundary,
the place where I meet other, PHG simply state ‘self is contact’ (1951:
151) and go on to define self as ‘the function of contacting the actual
transient present’ (ibid: 371). Take a few moments to digest this, it means
that from a gestalt therapy perspective our self emerges in every single
moment as we relate to our environment, as long as we are breathing
we are always in relationship with our environment in a dynamic, ever-
changing, fluid dance of contacting. Right now you are in relation with
these words on the page and your self will form between you and these
words as you read. As I write I become conscious of going public with
my thinking and become a little hesitant, our respective selves emerge in
relation to this book and will reform a moment later as we make contact
 GESTALT MAPS 37
with something else in our world that may be the next word on the page
or an emerging need to put the kettle on!
This view of self as emergent was radical when created by
gestalt therapy’s founders and remains so today. It has been devel-
oped further by numerous gestalt theorists (Parlett, 2000; Wolfert,
2000; Philippson, 2001, 2009; Francesetti, 2016; Robine, 2016;
Spagnuolo Lobb, 2016; Bloom, 2019 and others). As Francesetti
(2016) notes it sits well with recent models developed in neurosci-
ence and quotes Damasio’s (2010) metaphor of self as the conductor
in an orchestra who appears only when the orchestra starts to play.
It is not surprising that metaphors are often used to describe this
dynamic process as literal explanations are difficult given the limita-
tions of language, the noun ‘self ’ does not convey the fluid nature
of self in gestalt, consequently the term ‘self-as-process’ maybe
used or ‘selfing’ (Parlett, 1991; Wheeler, 2000; Philippson, 2018).
‘Selfing is an activity, a dynamic relation which is ever-moving,
ever-changing – an organization shaped by and shaping experi-
ences in the play of the forces of the field’ (Wolfert, 2000: 77).
Self is temporal, or more precisely self is the temporal sequence
of contacting whether we are looking at PHG’s fore-contact, contact,
final-contact, post-contact model or other gestalt cycle models. I have
often met with clients who want things to be back as they were but
of course they never can be, their environment has changed and
so have they as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, ‘You can
never step into the same river twice’ what is sometimes missed here
though is that it is not only the river that has changed, ‘nothing
endures but change.’
Self is inherently relational we are social beings that are constantly
selfing in relation to the world as we experience it. That doesn’t mean
that we can’t isolate ourselves. I live close to an old hermit’s cave, that
hermit might not have seen another human but he will have been
in relation with the trees and plants, the wind and sun, the earth
and rock, his world – constantly, from moment to moment. Hence,
gestalt’s theory of self brings together key core gestalt concepts: field
theory (or situation), phenomenology, dialogue and contact.
There is no pre-existing self that surfaces to be magically revealed
at the event of the contact boundary, self does not manifest in contact,
‘instead, it is contact; it is created in and through contact’ (Robine,
2016: 213–214) and is created and re-created through a continu-
ous on-going process of figure formation in relation to a constantly
changing ground as new figures fall into that ground.
38 GESTALT MAPS

2.5.1 Three Self Structures/Functions

PHG described three self structures or functions that emerge during a
contacting sequence: id function, ego function and personality function.
It is unfortunate that the Freudian terms are used for two of these struc-
tures as this can lead to confusion given how different these functions
are in gestalt compared with those discussed in psychoanalytic theory.
So what are these three self functions? The id function is described
as, ‘the given background dissolving into possibilities’ (PHG, 1951:
378) but let’s clarify that in relation to an ordinary contacting
sequence through a simple experiential exercise.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Focus on that last word ‘exercise’ for a moment. As you focus on it you
are surrounded by a situation that contains endless possible figures
of interest, smells, sounds, things on the periphery of your vision,
physical sensations to name a few. Something will emerge from this
plethora of possible figures, as it does you move from id functioning
to ego and personality functioning. You have already moved from one
word to another in reading this paragraph.

Id functioning is present at the beginning and end of a contacting

sequence, your day began with id functioning as you awoke from sleep
in that hazy state that precedes ego and personality functions. What
you selected to do next would be processed by your ego function that
selects and sharpens a figure whilst other figures fade and fall back
into the ground – you may have turned the alarm off, prepare to
get up or rolled over to grab more time in bed. Ego and personality
functions would have been at play here. Whilst self emerges at the
contact boundary in relation to the situation ego function is deliberate
and separates from the situation but although it ‘allows for self/other
process of the moment it offers no sense of continuity of selfhood’
(Philippson, 2009: 66). It is the personality function that maintains a
sense of continuity of selfhood in forming a framework of attitudes
and beliefs about who we are in the world in relation to the situations
we encounter over time. It is more sedimented but still changes over
time – think how you were last year, or 10 or 20 years ago or yesterday.
Although I have described these functions/structures of self separately
in healthy functioning there is a seamless fluidity, ‘id, ego and personality
 GESTALT MAPS 39
do not act separately, but all emerge synergistically in the process of ‘self-
ing’ in the present moment’ (Chidiac & Denham-Vaughan, 2007: 9).
The gestalt concept of self can be difficult to grasp, partly perhaps
because self-as-process is not graspable, it is always moving. Bloom
(2008) uses the metaphor of a rainbow that we see as an arc of colours
spanning the sky, but we know that it is not a solid object we cannot
grasp it. We know that it is water droplets and light and that it is in
constant motion – just as the gestalt theory of self is in constant motion.
It emerges from, yet remains of the field from which it is inseparable.

2.6 POLARITIES
Where to begin in discussing the theory of polarities? They are all around
us, in nature and in human life. In health polarities are complementary
and connected, one pole highlights the existence of the other, prob-
lems occur when they are not experienced as connected, rather as iso-
lated dichotomies or with one polarity being denied. Polster and Polster
(1973) say that there is nothing new about looking at polarities in human
relating, this is certainly true as the polarities of yin/yang from Taoist
philosophy that represent a dynamic balance of opposing but compli-
mentary forces are thought to date back around three thousand years.
An example of the characteristics of yin/yang can be seen in
Table 2.2 (Huang, 1989).
Table 2.2 Polarities

YIN YANG

Feminine Masculine
Dark Light
Passive Active
Negative Positive
Yielding Firm
Falling Rising
Warm Cold
Night Day
Moon Sun
Being Doing
40 GESTALT MAPS

Fast forward a few thousand years and we arrive at the gestalt psy-
chologist’s complimentary polarity of figure and ground that starkly
illustrates that one polarity cannot exist without the other. Amongst
other polarities PHG discussed the polarity of the contact/­withdrawal
process also stating that ‘many phenomena could not exist if their
opposites did not also exist’ (1951: 43). Zinker (1977) described the
individual as ‘a conglomerate of polar forces’ and drew upon a term cre-
ated by Erving Polster, ‘multilarities,’ to illustrate that a person possesses
more than one opposite – the polar opposite to kindness might be cru-
elty but it could also be insensitivity or ruthlessness depending upon the
situation. Zinker went on to say that theoretically a healthy individual
possesses thousands of integrated polarities holding awareness of each
end of every polarity. However, we all have areas that lack awareness.
Study the following qualities adapted from Zinker (1977: 198/199) and
consider what polarities you may need to develop and how the qualities
at each end may be healthy or unhealthy and in what situation.

Caring Ruthless
Brilliance Dullness
Kindness Cruelty
Selflessness Selfishness
Fluidity Rigidity
Warm/Friendly Cold/Distant
Sentimental Callous
Graceful Clumsy

The health or unhealth of any polarity is field dependent, that

is to say it depends on what is called for by the situation and that
may change moment to moment. In seeking to raise awareness of
internalised conflict between polarities the gestalt therapist seeks
to facilitate the client in exploring each polarity and may invite
him to experiment by giving a voice to each of the poles. Fritz
Perls discussed what he named a topdog/underdog polarity. The
topdog presents as authoritarian, commanding, bossy and full of
demands of how one ‘should’ be – whilst the underdog presents as
helpless, can be spontaneous and rebellious and is primarily sabo-
taging. The topdog appears to be the stronger and more powerful
 GESTALT MAPS 41
but it is the underdog whilst masquerading as the weaker is cov-
ertly powerful and invariably wins any conflict through sabotaging
the topdog from taking action (Perls, 1969). This dialectic could
go something like:
Top Dog: I need to complete this coursework and it needs to be perfect.
Underdog: C’mon, I’m tired. Anyhow perfection isn’t possible so why bother
at all.

The client may be encouraged to enact such a split through experi-

mentation with two chair work one possibility. In adopting the role
of topdog and underdog the therapist pays attention not only to the
dialogue between the two poles but also the nature of the dialogue,
how one part spoke to the other and what may be indirect sub-
text. Both sides can present with a dismissive self-righteousness, ‘I’m
right, so you’re wrong’ with the therapist’s task being to mediate
between the two to raise awareness, giving opportunity for integra-
tion through appreciation of the others point of view.
If we allow ourselves the full expression of our potentialities then
we are well positioned to centre ourselves, but this is much more
difficult to achieve in Western culture (Ingersoll, 2005). In Western
culture, ‘… light is at war with darkness, life with death, good with
evil, and positive with negative, and thus an idealism to cultivate the
former and be rid of the latter flourishes … To the traditional way
of Chinese thinking this is as incomprehensible as an electric cur-
rent without both positive and negative poles … [they] are different
aspects of the same system and the disappearance of either one of
them would be the disappearance of the system’ (Watts, 1975: 19).
This begs the question if the undesirable polarity is disowned then
what happens to it? The likelihood is that it is either maintained as an
internalised conflict or attributed to another whether this be a per-
son, organisation or country. Awareness is limited and consequently
so is the potential to live fully being restricted by internalised or
externalised conflict. It is ‘a prerequisite for fundamentalism, terror-
ism and genocide, for when individuals so strongly identify with one
polarity, they totally obliterate the other’ (Evans, 2007: 196).
To denote the point of balance from which differentiation into
opposite poles occurs the term creative indifference is used, this is some-
what unfortunate as it can paint a picture of disinterested detachment
when quite the opposite is the case. This term that Perls (1947) and
PHG applied to psychotherapy was never translated into English by
42 GESTALT MAPS

its originator, Salamo Friedlaender (1918), and its true meaning can
be lost. The German Schöpferische Indifferenz used by Friedlaender is
better rendered into English as ‘creative undifferentiation’ (Wheeler,
1991: 47) or ‘creative impartiality’ (Joyce & Sills, 2018: 40) that more
accurately describe a process where the therapist maintains a stance
that is ‘full of interest, extending towards both sides of the differentia-
tion’ (Perls, 1969: 17). In essence, the gestalt therapist does not invest
in a particular outcome, rather they remain in a position of neu-
trality between poles. If we apply this principle to the polarities of
figure and ground and the process of figure formation, in the case of
the diagrammatic example in Figure 1.8 on page 12, then the place
of creative indifference would be at the point where neither the old
woman nor the young woman have emerged (adapted from Sonne
& Toennesvang, 2015: 73). This particular diagrammatic example of
a neutral point of creative indifference has only two poles or possible
figures whereas maintaining an attitude of creative indifference in the
therapy room with another has any number of possible figures that
can emerge from the ground between therapist and client. Practicing
creative indifference in therapy is not an easy task as it is a position
of non-attachment, of entering a void with only an undifferentiated
landscape of possibilities stretching out before you. One can probably
see how this was imported and integrated into gestalt therapy from
Fritz and Laura’s interest in Zen, Taoism and Eastern philosophies.
If we return to the polarities of yin/yang in simple terms the more
we go into the dark the closer we come to the light but the dark con-
tains light and the light contains dark. Polarities are our life blood,
quite literally as without systolic and diastolic pressure blood would
cease to coarse through our veins. Without organism and environ-
ment there would be no existence. Without inhalation and exhala-
tion there would be no breath.

2.7 THE PARADOXICAL THEORY OF CHANGE

Some clients come to therapy to try and rid themselves of an unde-
sirable quality, discard unwanted thoughts or emotion or return to a
previous way of being following a life event. They may arrive with
some preconceived idea of a prescribed change. Different therapies
have different philosophies in relation to change, some challenge
‘negative thoughts’ or ‘thinking errors,’ others offer interpretation in
the hope of providing insight that will lead to change whether this is
in relation to ‘ego states’ or ‘defence mechanisms.’ Gestalt therapy has
 GESTALT MAPS 43
a different philosophy regarding change, one that seeks to facilitate
awareness and contact with ‘what is’ and acceptance of ‘what is.’
Yontef (1993) considers gestalt therapy to be ‘clinical phenom-
enology’ grounded in Buber’s work on the dialogic relationship and
Beisser’s Paradoxical Theory of Change. I’ll be discussing phenomenol-
ogy and dialogue in gestalt therapy in more detail later, here we will
address Beisser’s much quoted but sometimes simplistically under-
stood theory. The line that is often quoted in his paper and sums
up the theory is, ‘that change occurs when one becomes what he
is, not when he tries to become what he is not’ but he also stated
that, ‘Change does not take place through a coercive attempt by the
individual or by another person to change him, but it does take place
if one takes the time and effort to be what he is’ (Beisser, 1970: 77)
adding that the gestalt therapist rejects the role of change agent. He
saw the person seeking change through therapy as ‘constantly mov-
ing between what he “should be” and what he thinks he “is”’ (ibid).
What for me is a profound theory gained added gravity when I
was gifted with a fuller background of Beisser’s life by Lynne Jacobs
who had known him personally, on a residential training at the
Pacific Gestalt Institute. Our dialogue began when I made the mis-
take of describing Beisser as a womaniser and Lynne correcting me
in no uncertain terms! He was popular with women but was not a
womaniser, he was simply a companionable man. What followed was
an account of a hugely generous man’s life, his early struggle with
self-esteem, extreme disabling illness, and depression before finding
contentment.
Arnold Beisser was an intelligent, athletic, attractive man, a US
ranked tennis player, who despite his many attributes was apparently
ill at ease with himself. At the age of 32 he was struck by polio result-
ing in paralysis from the neck downwards. Having been an active,
virile young man the only things he was then able to do for himself
was to eat and breathe, and he could only do the latter with the aid
of an iron lung that he needed for the first three years following his
paralysis. Following a period of depression Beisser grew to accept
his new life and developed The Paradoxical Theory of Change that had
emerged from his personal journey. He was a sociable man, popular
with others following his paralysis, his field of relationships reflect-
ing his own self-acceptance. Even with his profound disability he
was willing to support friends in any way he could. Towards the
end of his life he said that even if it were possible to be given the
choice of returning to being the athletic young man he was prior to
44 GESTALT MAPS

his paralysis he would not take that option, he had truly accepted
what was. Apparently, prior to his paralysis Beisser did not consider
himself to be a particularly likeable man. His self-perception prob-
ably wasn’t shared by those around him judging from the number of
people that maintained close contact with him. As Jacobs told me,
there was always someone sitting with him on his porch whenever
she visited. A version of this summary of Beisser’s life also appears in Mann
(2021).
Beisser’s theory is often viewed as applying to the individual, he
does say that it was developed as a result of dyadic therapeutic relation-
ships but he ends his paper by saying the same principles are relevant
to social change taking the field theoretical view that, ‘the individ-
ual change process is but a microcosm of the social change process’
(Beisser, 1970: 79). He expands on this sharing his grave concerns
over the compartmentalisation of people from different backgrounds,
race, colour, ages, class, education, etc., viewing the various forms of
separation as a threat ‘to the survival of mankind’ (ibid). Sadly such
fears seem just as relevant today as they did over 50 years ago. As the
paradoxical theory of change forms such a significant part of gestalt
therapy’s ground it follows that when working with difference of all
kinds as therapists we need to sit with and truly own our assumptions,
prejudices and colour blindness rather than pushing them to one side
because they are uncomfortable, or superficially seeking to soothe
them by appearing more ‘right on’ than the next person.
The paradoxical theory of change stands upon the ground of
gestalt’s theory of organismic self-regulation that states, ‘we have a capac-
ity for awareness of and contact with what is growthful that will bring
us to the best solution in the situation we are in’ (Philippson, 2009:
136). My body moves towards what I need from my environment
at that time in a holistic, fully integrated way rather than responding
cognitively in response to how I think I should be responding. The
paradoxical theory of change is a theory that empowers the client
and trusts in the therapeutic process. ‘So simple, so unusual and so
easy to forget even for a gestalt therapist’ (Kolmannskog, 2018: 74)

2.8 THE ZEIGARNIK EFFECT – UNFINISHED

BUSINESS
The world may be made of atoms but it is held together by stories.
Having just given a brief insight into the story that brought the para-
doxical theory of change to gestalt let me now share the story of how
 GESTALT MAPS 45
the theory of unfinished business came to gestalt, or rather in this
case two stories.
Berlin, the mid-1920s and Professor Kurt Lewin and colleagues,
are out with their students in a local café-restaurant one of whom
is a bright Lithuanian woman, Bluma Zeigarnik. The order is long
and complex and surprisingly the waiter does not use a notepad but
memorises the entire order, rumour has it that the waiters not using
notepads is what attracted Lewin to the café-restaurant. The meals
and drinks arrive exactly as ordered are enjoyed and after some lively
conversation the bill is settled and the party depart. Once outside
Zeigarnik realises she has forgotten her scarf and returns to the restau-
rant, she approaches the waiter who served her and her colleagues and
explains that she has left her scarf behind. To her surprise the waiter
with the amazing memory asked her which table she was sitting at.
‘How can you not remember that when you memorised every little
thing on our order?’ Zeigarnik asked when she realised he wasn’t jok-
ing, ‘I remember everything until the final dish is served and the bill
settled’ explained the waiter, ‘when completed, I forget it.’
Zeigarnik (1927/1938) went on to complete research discovering
that unfinished gestalts called for completion. In a widely reported
experiment participants were given between 18 and 22 various tasks
to complete, a cross-section of mental arithmetic, puzzles and man-
ual skills. Some were interrupted part way through the task whilst
others continued. ‘Zeigarnik found that unfinished tasks were 90%
more likely to be recalled than finished ones’ (Seifert & Patalano,
1991: 115). She formed the hypothesis that the tension held with
unfinished tasks would make them more memorable (Roos, 2001),
as long as they remained unfinished they would take up psychologi-
cal space. Tension was released when the task was completed, ‘but
when activity toward completion is interrupted, the tension per-
sists and keeps the memory alive’ (Melnick & Roos, 2007: 97). This
is played on in marketing where interrupting an advert, especially
towards the end, can make it more memorable (Heimbach & Jacoby,
1972; Hammadi & Qureishi, 2013).
It was in Zeigarnik’s personal life that the greatest, embodied insight
into the effects of unfinished business was gained. She suffered a massive
trauma that triggered what could be considered to be a neurosis that is
described by Mazur (1996). In the summer of 1931 her husband was
arrested and she never saw him again, Zeigarnik was left alone with the
couple’s two children. Living in the family home, a dacha just outside
Moscow, she found it increasingly distressing surrounded with
46 GESTALT MAPS

reminders of him so in order to avoid her increasing anxiety and pain she
moved to live in Moscow itself. This had the opposite of the desired
effect as her anxiety increased, she began suffering panic attacks and
became agoraphobic. In the face of ever increasing symptoms she
decided to return to the dacha, the place where her husband had been
wrenched from the family’s life so brutally. There was no magic turna-
round, but over time her symptoms decreased in intensity as she visited
the very situations that had caused her such angst – the railway station
and venues that held emotive memories of her relationship with her
husband. She later described her decision to walk to and through these
situations as a self-regulating process from crisis (Zeigarnik, 1981). In
later years Zeigarnik focussed on self-regulation as voluntary conscious
control of behaviour in contrast to Perls (1969) concept of organismic
self-regulation (Mazur, 1996). I don’t believe that Zeigarnik has received
the recognition she deserves in gestalt for her work on unfinished busi-
ness, Fritz Perls (ibid) failed to credit her work when discussing unfin-
ished business and that trend has continued with some contemporary
gestalt authors.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Consider what unfinished business exists for you and notice any
changes in energy as you think of it. It does not need to be anything
big. Do you feel mobilised to move towards it? Is there any tension
you hold around this?

2.9 THE FIVE EXPLORATIONS

A user friendly gestalt map was created by Parlett (2000) when
he outlined five dimensions of creative adjustment that have also been
referred to as five abilities (Parlett, 2003) before being recast as the
five explorations (Parlett, 2015). They outline the ways in which we
make contact with our environment. In many ways it is a simple the-
oretical map but as Einstein said, ‘a theory should be made as simple
as possible, but not so simple that it does not conform with reality’
(Nasser, 2008: 27). The five explorations are identified as: responding
to the situation, interrelating, embodying, self-recognising, and experiment-
ing. Though they can be considered separately their functioning is
interlinked, rather like the fingers of a hand – each can function
 GESTALT MAPS 47
alone, but for more complex tasks all need to work together. They
were originally created with individual, group work and organisa-
tional work in mind but have been expanded to a wider ecological
and global focus (Parlett, 2000, 2015). Below is a brief outline of the
five explorations:

• Responding to the Situation. We are all situated in the world and

respond to every situation we encounter – passivity and indif-
ference are still a responses. Our life experience (ground) will
shape our figural response in the present and our ‘response-
ability’ (PHG, 1951). If we are under stress and/or have unac-
knowledged trauma (of any kind) in our background we may
creatively adjust in a way that will affect our ability to respond
to the present situation.
• Interrelating is concerned with our ability to relate together indi-
vidually, in groups or communities with people that may be
like-minded or with whom we may hold differences and con-
flict. ‘It is essential that we remember that all energetic effort is
relational as well as self-organizing’ (Lichtenberg, 2012: 146), we
are looking at a continuum between understanding the others
viewpoint and wanting to annihilate them.
• Embodying relates to our ability to experience ourselves as fully
embodied beings rather than a cognitive talking head or mind/
body dualism. We carry our life stories in our bodies, we shape
ourselves in relation to our world, or to be more precise, our
perception of our world. ‘Embodying is about living fully as a
whole body-mind-energy system, which is exquisite in its com-
plex functioning’ (Parlett, 2015: 137)
• Self-recognising. To fully appreciate this area of exploration we
need to remember the gestalt view of self-as-process and the
fluid nature of self (see Section 2.5). It relates to our ability to
take on feedback and update any out-of-date creative adjust-
ments in the given situation in response to the present field con-
ditions rather than responding in a habitual way that may now
be out of place. Examples could be a manager genuinely asking
her staff for feedback on her performance or an orchestra lis-
tening to a recording of their performance to refine it (Parlett,
2015). Each may have previously held a ‘self-contained’ view
that their performance could not be improved.
• Experimenting. We live in a complex, ever-changing field and
as we are of the field, rather than separate from it, this calls for
48 GESTALT MAPS

experimenting in relation to the changing situations we face. It

can be tempting to stay with the familiar but this can be self-
limiting; if we limit ourselves we limit the world too. We often
encounter old internalised messages about how we should be in
the world, this prompts the question, ‘Is this the world of the
here and now or the world of the there and then?’

We need to consider the five explorations/abilities in relation to

the cultural field we are standing in, for example, some cultures are
more embodied, some more spontaneous in responding to the situ-
ation. To be able to engage fully across all five of the above abilities
will require firm ground having been built through a good enough
upbringing of secure attachment, or secure attachment having been
achieved through later relationships, that could include therapy. A
lack of supportive ground will be experienced as anxiety that is likely
to be more acute when one meets with the novel, the temptation
at such moments is to withdraw to the familiar to create an illusion
of secure attachment. The danger is that the five abilities are then
played out as five disabilities as they relate to an archaic situation.
To a greater or lesser degree we will all have our blind spots or
areas of growth, I invite you to complete the following exercise.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Peruse the above explorations/abilities and consider which may be
your strengths and which may be your growing edges. Think of them
in relation to several different situations and different people as your
way of being will change depending upon the situation you are in. Also
consider what support you may need in any areas that you imagine
might be difficult.

2.10 SUMMARY
• The prime goal of gestalt therapy is to increase awareness with
fluid movement along the awareness continuum.
• The awareness continuum outlines phases of fore-contact, contact,
final contact and post-contact.
• Three zones of awareness were identified by PHG: Inner Zone
(internal bodily phenomena), Outer Zone (perception of the
world) and Middle Zone (cognitive processes).
 GESTALT MAPS 49
• The therapist’s role is to support and sharpen figures that emerge
from the client’s ground.
• Awareness and contact are inseparable; in becoming aware one
increases contact with what is.
• Contact is an active event that occurs between the individual
and the environment, involving sensory and motor processes.
• The contact boundary is an event where one experiences the
‘me’ in relation to the ‘not me,’ it is a meeting place between the
individual and the environment and where self emerges.
• Gestalt therapy focuses on understanding what happens at the event
of the contact boundary and how it affects healthy functioning.
• Later gestalt therapists developed gestalt cycle models build-
ing on PHG’s awareness continuum, notably the eight phase
Awareness-Excitement-Contact Cycle (The Gestalt Institute of
Cleveland) that represents a completed gestalt.
• Critics argue that the cycle models promote an individualistic
view and prioritise the individual over the situation.
• Gestalt therapy focusses on the here and now, but the present
moment is not isolated; it contains a past, present and future
orientation and direction.
• In health polarities are complementary and connected, one pole
highlights the existence of the other, problems occur when they
are experienced as disconnected.
• ‘Creative indifference’ is a therapeutic stance of impartiality,
maintaining interest in both sides of a polarity.
• The Paradoxical Theory of Change emphasises that change
occurs when individuals fully accept themselves as they are
rather than trying to become something they are not.
• Unfinished business creates tension that keeps cognitive and
bodily memories alive.
• Five explorations outline the ways in which we make contact
with our environment they are: Responding to the Situation,
Interrelating, Embodying, Self-Recognizing and Experimenting.
 3

MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

We all creatively adjust to our environment in certain ways depend-

ing on the situation at the time. This is an ordinary process you don’t
need to be in wonderful contact when nipping out to buy some
milk. We all slide along a continuum with full vibrant contact at one
end and dimmer numbed contact at the other. In this chapter over
two sections, we will look at the various ways in which contact can
be interrupted or moderated both healthily and unhealthily along
continuums of contact.

3.1 MODERATING CONTACT

‘Moderations to contact’ is but one term used in gestalt therapy to
describe particular ways in which we can reduce, diminish or cali-
brate contact, they are particular creative adjustments made in relation
to our environment at the contact boundary. Originally described
as resistances by Perls (1947) and PHG (1951) – the term having
echoes of Fritz and Laura’s psychoanalytic background – they have
since, and still are, referred to in a variety of ways: resistances, bound-
ary disturbances, modifications, interruptions to contact and mod-
erations to contact. This can be confusing to those unfamiliar with
gestalt. The founders noted certain patterns by which people inter-
rupted their flow of energy, these ways of adjusting contact with
their environment will have served the individual well at one point
in their lives but they are often out of date habits originally formed
in a situation that lacked support.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-4
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 51
James, an only child, was brought up in the British countryside by critical and
unpredictable parents, it wasn’t safe for him to fully express himself. To make
his environment safe he made himself wrong and kept quiet, pushing down
any feelings of anger, sadness and hurt. Today he struggles to contact emo-
tions, his habitual pattern of repressing his feelings has left him depressed with
low self-esteem as he struggles to form and maintain relationships. Others
feel warm towards him but experience him as distant. Although James’ envi-
ronmental field has now changed completely he continues with his out-dated
creative adjustments holding back any feelings he has for others.

The majority of gestalt therapists will describe seven inter-related

processes through which we moderate contact with our environ-
ment. These moderations to contact are neither positive nor negative
in themselves and always need to be viewed in the context of the
situation in which they present, neither do they function in isolation
from one another – one moderation will affect all other moderations
in the contacting process. Healthy functioning will involve continual
revision and updating of the way in which the person employs these
processes and in what situations, habits form easily but are difficult
to break. This lifelong task of assessing and re-assessing the way in
which we creatively adjust to our eternally moving field of relation-
ships is central to gestalt developmental theory. In the above example
James originally found a way of isolating himself with a critical com-
mentary about himself to keep his environment as safe as possible, his
environment has now changed with support now available, but he
continues to close down his emotional response and turns his energy
in upon himself resulting in depression. James is relating to a past
field in the present, what is termed a fixed gestalt.
The seven moderations to contact are: Introjection, Retroflection,
Projection, Confluence, Egotism, Desensitisation (Perls, 1947; PHG, 1951)
and Deflection (Polster & Polster, 1973). The founders discussed the
first four of these moderations at length in the founding text and I see
these as core ways of creatively adjusting contact, From and Muller
gave a succinct and simplified summary of the four:
You might experience something is inside which belongs on the outside. This
means introjection. Or, you experience something which is outside and it
belongs to your organism. This is projection. Or again, you might experience
no boundaries between your organism and your environment. That’s conflu-
ence. Or you might experience a fixed boundary with no fluid change. This
means retroflection.
(1977: 83)
52 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

The seven moderations to contact can be viewed as one end of a

continuum connected to an opposing polarity or polarities with
middle ground. Healthy functioning would be an ability to fluidly
move along the continuum in response to the situation.

Introjection-------------Questioning, assimilating-----------Outright rejection

Retroflection-----------------Expression---------------Impulsivity/Explosion
Projection----------------------Owning----------Own Everything/Literalness
Confluence-----------------Differentiation---------------------------Isolation
Deflection-------------------Staying with---------------------------Bluntness
Desensitisation----------------Sensitivity---------------------Hyper-sensitivity
Self-monitoring/Egotism-----Spontaneity-----------Lack of all field constraints

Similar to the cycle models in gestalt therapy there is a general

problem when theorising in relation to moderations to contact in
that they invite an individualistic view of the person rather than
a relational perspective. If a client is moderating contact with me
in a session their behaviour does not take place in a void, it is co-
created and I am part of that co-creation. The clinical setting and
a whole host of field conditions will contribute to the client’s way
of being in the here and now. I need to consider how I may be
contributing to the client’s process as any moderation to contact
that presents can say as much about the therapist as it does about
the client.

3.2 TYPES OF MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

As outlined in the previous section most gestalt therapists identify
seven moderations to contact that are styles of creatively adjusting to
our situation. I will discuss the four moderations that I see as core
ways of adjusting to our environment and how they present before
moving on to outline the other three moderations. However, please
remember that although I am outlining these processes separately
they are interrelated processes.

3.2.1 Introjection
Although Fritz Perls disagreed markedly with much of Freud’s theo-
ries his thinking around dental aggression in relation to introjection
is based on Freud’s understanding of oral aggression. Fritz used the
metaphor of swallowing, chewing or spitting out food to develop his
notion of introjection. If we take in a piece of food whole without
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 53
chewing and tasting it, this piece of food can pass through our sys-
tem without being assimilated. It is in the interplay between person
and environment that a process of introjection takes place, as Laura
Perls said, ‘stuff is stuffed into little kids … leading to introjection.
They are not allowed time to chew’ (Wysong & Rosenfeld, 1989).
Consequently, there is a lack of choice and little or no differentia-
tion regarding what is taken in whether this is food, attitudes, beliefs,
traits or a way of being that reflects a lack of support for alternatives
in the situation. The result can be an internalised rule book of how
the infant, who then becomes an adult, should be in the world.
When picturing a habitual introjector I think of Eric Carle’s ‘The
Very Hungry Caterpillar’ that indiscriminately consumes anything in
its path, but whereas the caterpillar gets stomach ache before turning
into a butterfly the person who habitually introjects is out of contact
with their sensations and ends up with a bunch of oughts, shoulds,
do’s and do nots to live their life by. These undigested unassimilated
lumps eventually crowd out the organismic space available for new
experience (Kepner, 1999).
Introjection can present quite obviously in language with state-
ments such as ‘I mustn’t cry,’ ‘I shouldn’t be angry’ that are reinforced
by gender stereotyping in the media. The observant gestalt therapist
will pay attention to the client’s body process, they may appear to
swallow down therapist’s comments and there can be a look of dis-
taste or disgust on a clients face when sharing an introjected message
that is ego dystonic. There might be hesitation in taking the lead and
someone who chronically introjects is likely to be vigilant and obser-
vant in assessing how they ‘should’ be in a given situation. Anxiety
will present if a client goes against these internalised ways of being,
in the case of unhealthy introjects in need of updating this might be
a sign that the work is in the right area of the ball park!
In marketing introjection is used as a strategy to convince you that
you really do need the latest phone, gadget or skin care product. It
used to be that smoking was sexy, now attempts are made to portray
on-line gambling in the same way whilst showing care that you don’t
lose too much money! Introjection can be subtle and pervading and
there are examples in our use of the English language. Until relatively
recently in Britain terms like ‘sub-normal’ were used to describe
people with learning difficulties and ‘invalid’ to describe a disabled
person. Imagine what introjected views this could create not only
amongst the disadvantaged person but also in society, this is but one
example of possible societal introjects.
54 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

Before reading on I’d like to invite you to complete the following

exercise.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Get a piece of paper and divide it into two columns. Title one column
‘Black’ and the second column ‘White’ and beneath write any suffix
prefix or term that comes to mind, ideally as a flow of consciousness
rather than giving it a lot of thought.

When you sit back compare the two lists. I don’t believe that there
will be many that are positive in the black column. Examples might
be: black leg, black magic, black balled, black Friday, black sheep,
black mark, black propaganda, black heart, black market – I’m not
sure that there will be a single negative in the white column. All fuel
for introjected beliefs of white superiority for what Jacobs (2000)
calls ‘white skin privilege.’
Some introjects can be more readily challenged than others, a
definite statement like ‘I must be strong’ provides a well-defined fig-
ure. Those that are explicit and follow a coherent theme are more
accessible than those that have formed in the ground of a person’s
upbringing (McConville, 2013). The latter have been absorbed from
the environment through a process akin to osmosis as the person’s
experience of their world that is beyond cognition and articulation.
Such a process will underpin shame, but equally the process could
underpin a belief in oneself. It depends upon what is in the air that
the child breathes in, the ground upon which she walks. Such fun-
damental beliefs about herself shape her relationship with her world,
the way in which she holds her body and the possibilities for her
future. I don’t believe that these ground introjects can simply be spat
out and they will be the foundations for the building of whole sys-
tems of moderations to contact.
To return to where I began regarding the development of the
theory of introjection in gestalt therapy, Freud noted that humans fail
to take in information or events that challenge our core beliefs. We
are capable of a creative selective capacity regarding what informa-
tion we assimilate and what we distort, forget or reject in relation to
these core beliefs.
I realise that I have concentrated on the negative aspects of
introjection but it can be a healthy and necessary process. Society
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 55
probably would cease to function without the internalisation of
rules, likewise beyond our awareness most of the time we carry
cultural norms that are introjected ways of being and behaving. It
is needed in all types of learning. A healthy process is to introject
the new material and chew it over once an understanding has been
gained. Young children need structure in the overwhelming experi-
ence of organising their experience (McConville, 2013) and intro-
jects can provide that structure. Habitual rejecting is potentially just
as harmful as habitual introjecting as neither will be in contact with
the here and now.

3.2.2 Retrof lection

Whereas in introjection the contact boundary is characterised by
permeability in retroflection it is characterised by rigidity. Energy is
turned back against oneself rather than aggressing upon the environ-
ment in something akin to an armouring process but whilst armour
protects from the environment it is also self-containing and there-
fore inhibits connection as contact with the present environment is
restricted.
When retroflection presents there is a ‘doer’ and a ‘done to’ and
this split is often evident in language. A client says she feels angry, the
therapist might enquire who she is angry with and the client’s retro-
flection is revealed as she replies, ‘I’m angry with myself.’ The client
has split themselves into ‘I’ and ‘myself.’ This process can also be posi-
tive as is the case with self-care or self-appreciation, ‘I’m going to be
kind to myself.’ This splitting process also presents bodily, most obvi-
ously when someone strikes themselves or in self harming behaviour
but a person may also hold or stroke themselves when physical com-
fort is not available. Less obvious ways in which retroflection may
present is in muscle tension, including tension held in the diaphragm
restricting breathing therefore limiting contact with the environ-
ment. The ‘held in’ nature of retroflection can result in a pale pal-
lor, low voice, lack of facial expression, eye contact that appears to
look inwards, tension in the person’s jaw but unlike introjection we
are looking at a high energy moderation to contact – maintaining
chronic retroflection can be an exhausting process. Metaphorically,
and likely actually, one skeletal muscle pushes against another result-
ing in little movement or action but out of awareness expends a lot
of energy. Over time this can result in joint problems and enduring
fatigue.
56 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Hold your thigh and calf muscles a little tightly for 5 minutes and
notice the sensations and any possible restrictions of movement.
Notice if holding these leg muscles tightly affects you in any other
way. When you relax after the 5 minutes imagine what it might be like
to hold your muscles tightly in this way more permanently.

There are different types of retroflection but all involve turning an

impulse in upon myself and are characterised by a level of imperme-
ability at the contact boundary. This may take the form of doing
to myself what I want to do to others, or doing to myself what I
want to receive from others. The latter could be seen as something
of a reversed projection, hence it is sometimes identified as a sepa-
rate moderation called proflection. The person’s behaviour may not
necessarily reveal what type of retroflection is at play, for example,
someone who is stroking their arm or holding themselves could be
wanting to do this to another or have a desire to receive it from
another. It is always important in gestalt therapy not to assume or
interpret, we need to gain description through dialogue.
Freudian theory viewed depression as what we would describe
in gestalt therapy as a retroflective process in which aggression is
turned towards the self, PHG developed this further to include areas
such as self-soothing and self-stimulation as forms of retroflection
(Wheeler & Axelsson, 2015). Perls (1947) description of suicide as
the retroflective equivalent of homicide echoes Freud’s thinking on
the subject when he describes suicide as murderous impulses against
others redirected upon himself (Freud, 2001). ‘In suicidality and self-
harm, the disruption is often due to the hardening and decreased
permeability of the contact boundary’ (Krysinska, Roubal & Mann,
2022: 111).
It is invariably when we are most visible in our lives that we are
at our most vulnerable and given societal introjects around vulner-
ability, neediness and the like our impulse may be to hold back from
expression, retroflecting it into self-criticism, guilt or shame. The
relationship between introjection and retroflection is often a close
one. Unhealthy introjects lurking in a person’s ground based around
a lack of worth can lead to self-criticism and/or self-harm of all
kinds, from mild to severe and at an extreme suicide. Conversely, if
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 57
those archaic messages reflect a good upbringing containing encour-
agement the retroflective messages may take the form of self-belief
rather than self-chastisement, with metaphorical pats on the back
replacing metaphorical blows to the stomach.
A lack of ability to retroflect would result in impulsive, anar-
chic behaviour and society would cease to function. In microcosm
we might see this in a discussion group where no-one retroflects
their need to speak. There is a need to hold back in day-to-day life
whether that is choosing against expressing anger with a manager
at work or encouraging ourselves to keep going with an important
task, like caring for a young child, when tired. Healthy parenting
often requires the art of retroflecting one’s own needs. Some people
who lack an ability to retroflect present with antisocial behaviour and
anger management problems, they can be the perpetrators of abuse.
Retroflection is needed for healthy levels of guilt and shame.

3.2.3 Projection
A cinema projector sends an image onto a screen, the image that
originates in one place, the projector, appears in another, the screen.
This is basically the process when human beings project on to each
other, so unsurprisingly Perls referred to projection as ‘a screen phe-
nomenon’ (Perls, 1947: 288). The ‘screen’ can be another person,
race, institution, group, country or object to name a few possibili-
ties. What is potentially projected are attitudes, traits, qualities both
‘positive’ and ‘negative’ and a prerequisite is a lack of ownership. As
with retroflection implicit in projection is a split but rather than the
energy being turned inwards, as it is in retroflection, it is thrown out-
wards onto ‘the screen’ – whatever or whoever that may be. ‘Simply
stated projection is seeing in others what is present in myself ’ (Mann,
2021: 65).
The term ‘projection’ is widely used, in addition to the above
descriptions it can be used to:

• The ability to project into the future. This could be in a con-

structive way such as anticipating potential problems, anticipating
financial needs (budgeting, pension plans). Conversely, it could
be self-defeating as in catastrophising an outcome.
• Projecting as a piece of art, writing or any creative piece of work.
• A process where a person and a collection of their qualities is
projected onto another person, often discussed as the client
58 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

projecting onto the therapist using the term ‘transference.’ This

can take the form of a person from the clients past such as a
parental figure, an erotic transference, negative or idealised trans-
ference and the therapist can do this too!
• In relation to separating off and distancing ourselves from parts
of our own bodies.

Regarding this last point the body is often spoken of as a sepa-

rate object (Kepner, 1999) as in, ‘the back aches’ the therapist might
intervene to invite greater ownership and receive the reply that ‘my
back aches.’ Whilst this last statement appears a step closer the pro-
jective split between me and my body is still just as present, ‘What is
experienced is kept separate from the “I.” The body is still considered
an object of experience and not part of the subject’ (ibid: 111 origi-
nal italics). The process of deflection is also at play here. In Western
culture such a manoeuvre is so common it can go unnoticed and
therapists do it too! If we break with a Cartesian body/mind split a
true statement when a part of our body hurts is simply ‘I hurt.’
What can easily get missed when we discuss projection is that this pro-
cess takes place surrounded by a field of influences, it can never simply
be a case of something being thrown out by the client to land on the
therapist. The process takes place amongst a field of relationships and is
co-created within that field and between client and therapist – it is not a
one-way street. I would also like to emphasise that we are talking about an
ordinary process that happens all the time in everyday life, not just in the
therapy room – whether we are talking about projection or transference.
As Zinker said in an imaginary interview with his teacher and mentor
Fritz Perls speaking as if he were Perls (a projection exercise in itself!), ‘You
know I thought that 90% of all human interaction was projection. But
there’s a kernel of truth in every projection’ (Zinker, 1993: 133).
There is a danger that looking through a lens of projection will
establish a hierarchy of truth in the therapy room with the therapist
allegedly having a better grasp of reality than the client who is seen as
projecting (Jacobs, 2012). Central to gestalt therapy philosophy is the
belief in co-creation and simply saying that the client is projecting
takes a giant step away from a relational stance in which we seek to
equalise the relationship – no-one projects into a void.
However, if as therapists we hold in our awareness the possibili-
ties of unbalancing the therapeutic relationship there are many pro-
jection exercises and methods that can be employed with clients.
One can use projection in the form of drawing/art with clients who
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 59
struggle with expressing themselves verbally. Discussing her work
with children Oaklander, in relation to the therapeutic use of draw-
ing and painting, says ‘Projections are also useful for children who
talk a lot because they serve to focus on what’s underneath the talk’
(2015: 193). With experimentation being a central tenet in gestalt
therapy it is well placed to utilise such creative expression.
Spagnuolo-Lobb in discussing projection describes it as ‘the capac-
ity to leap into the environment through the imagination, the courage
of discovery, the use of the body as a promoter of change …’ (2012: 44
original italics). Whether that leap is in the service of good or evil, war
or peace, justice or injustice is another matter.

3.2.4 Conf luence

Confluence is a geographical term describing the place where two
rivers come together, so it’s no coincidence that in gestalt therapy the
term is used to describe a process of merging. The confluent person
goes with the flow, doesn’t rock the boat, consequently they expend
little energy being swept along by the current in whatever situation
they encounter as differentiation is avoided. Flowing together in con-
fluent moments can be a life enhancing experience when we lose
ourselves in the togetherness in a football crowd or music concert, in
completing a piece of art, making love or feeling at one spiritually.
If you have ever fallen in love, lost yourself in a beautiful sunset or
the night sky, bonded with an infant then you will know confluence.
Whilst these are positive examples, naturally the flip side of the process
also exists and pathological confluence has received more attention in
the gestalt literature, though contemporary gestalt authors are redress-
ing the balance. That ‘flip side’ is a loss of a sense of oneself, one’s
existence as an individual, on a more enduring basis. It is marked by
‘we’ with ‘I’ subsumed in constant agreement whether this is a couple,
group, organisation or nation. One can probably see how confluent
behaviour could be supported by a process of introjection, that could
be based on out of awareness fears of abandonment – ‘I can’t survive
alone’ for example. The dark side of confluence can be seen in cults
of all kinds and unsavoury nationalistic behaviour.
Fritz Perls had quite an aversion to confluence, a contributory
factor likely to be his and Laura’s history in fleeing Nazi Germany
and their death camps – confluence with the hollow promises of the
Nazi’s would have been life threatening. It is thought that this led
him having a stance of early differentiation in his work as a therapist
60 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

(Robine, 2006), believing that empathy should be banished from

gestalt therapy as he saw it as a form of confluence (Strawman, 2011).
When I think of people I have worked with who have a conflu-
ent contact style unsurprisingly I experience little friction, they tend
to reach out to me in some way, perhaps with their eyes. They can
collapse into the furniture, be overly apologetic, compliant, make
few demands and I need to take care not to take them for granted
by thinking in terms of ‘an easy session.’ I find I need to work harder
with a confluent client, an example being that if I suggest an experi-
ment they are likely to simply agree to it, so I need to suggest a few
experiments to invite choice and rejection. Some confluent clients
may expect me to be something of a mind-reader due to a lack of
differentiation, I need to disappoint them! The proverbial ‘we’ is
likely to be dominant in sessions so ‘I’ language needs to be invited
and modelled. However, whoever this ‘confluent client’ is before
me they are not sitting in an interpersonal void but a field of rela-
tionships that has shaped their way of being in the past and we are
co-creating our way of being together in the present. Questions I may
ask myself are: What is my part in this person’s need to be confluent
with me? Does this confluence need to be broken at this point? Is
this a necessary developmental stage in our relationship?
Western culture is largely confluent phobic whereas a more com-
munal culture will lean into confluence. In gestalt therapy, ‘treatment
of introjection and confluence, both of which are key processes in com-
munity formation … have largely been pathologized’ (Polster, 1999:
334 original italics). However, the tide is turning as what have become
known as the relational schools of gestalt therapy show greater appre-
ciation of confluence and the necessity of shuttling between confluent
moments in therapy in service of dialogic encounter. The discovery
of mirror neurons has thrown new light on how we relate (Gallese,
2001; Staemmler, 2009; Cozolino, 2014) with a greater understand-
ing of the value of empathy – and empathy is not possible without the
ability to move in and out of confluence (Staemmler, 2012).
In the earlier phases of a cycle of contacting confluence is not
helpful as a figure needs to form from the ground, therefore dif-
ferentiation is needed in selecting a figure of interest, ‘as the pro-
cess progresses to final contact, confluence or merger is inevitable’
(Lichtenberg, 1999: 161). It follows that as long as we journey
through a healthy contacting process we will also journey through
moments of confluence. As with any process problems only occur
when things are out of sync with the current situation.
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 61
3.2.5 Def lection
A person who habitually deflects is elusive, sidesteps and turns away
from direct contact. Interpersonally she ducks and weaves like a boxer
avoiding getting hit by impactful contact. The process will be notice-
able in language with a lack of ownership and definite statements.
Present-centred language will be substituted with generalisations,
‘talking about,’ discussing experience in the past tense – any manoeu-
vre that dodges direct contact. The deflecting person may consistently
feel misunderstood, being one step away from direct relating can leave
them and the person/people they are with untouched. Contact with
the environment can also be minimised by not breathing it in fully,
eyes may appear slightly glazed or distant, direct eye contact avoided.
Bodily movements such as shrugging of shoulders, distractive move-
ments and tightening of muscles may present.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Consider your behaviour when you receive a direct compliment. What
is your reaction? Do you fully breathe it in? Do you maintain eye con-
tact? As an exercise you could practice giving and receiving compli-
ments using direct language with ‘I’ and ‘you’ in the sentence.

Culturally in Britain and broadly speaking in Western culture deflec-

tion is commonplace, a simple example being an exchange between
husband and wife:
Dave: That’s a beautiful dress you’re wearing, Karin.
Karin: It’s just something I got from the charity shop.

Karin’s knocking aside from taking in Dave’s compliment is quite

obvious but Dave’s comment is a more subtle deflection, what he is
really saying is, ‘You look beautiful, Karin’ this illustrates the interplay
between projection and deflection, it’s more comfortable for Dave
to project onto the dress. A similar interplay between projection and
deflection that underlines how all moderations to contact interrelate is
often at play when we use ‘you’ instead of ‘I.’ For example, a student sits
with her college counsellor having been unprepared for an exam and
referring to herself states, ‘You sometimes aren’t fully prepared are you.’
If deflection is at one end of a continuum, then presence, com-
plete acceptance, breathing in is the opposite pole of the continuum.
62 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

If the environment is toxic in some way then moderating contact

through deflection would be a healthy way of managing the situa-
tion, along with retroflection. Polster and Polster (1973) first identi-
fied deflection, describing this turning aside from direct contact as
a sub-process of the armouring seen in retroflection. The deflector
may ‘not reap the harvest from his activity’ (ibid: 90) but then if the
harvest is not nourishing or poisonous it is better left alone. When
functioning as a sub-process of retroflection deflection will present
as a hardening of the contact boundary, but I believe the process of
deflection can also be marked by an apparent softening of the contact
boundary and as such can also act as a sub-process of confluence for
example use of ‘we’ language rather than ownership.
Use of humour in therapy is often viewed as deflective, we might
smile when discussing painful material or laugh to reduce the inten-
sity of contact during intimate moments. This dilution of full contact
by therapist or client might be an unhelpful avoidance or a construc-
tive way of grading contact. Humour can connect in helping to grease
the wheels of contact and it can sometimes be helpful for clients
and therapists to be able to smile at their own pathology. I have just
perused a number of journals containing accounts and obituaries of
gestaltists who have made considerable contributions to gestalt the-
ory – Bluma Zeigarnik, Ischa Bloomberg, Marianne Fry, Fritz and
Laura Perls. All refer in favourable terms to their sense of humour.
In gestalt therapy, in the service of the client, we need to bring all
our ways of being.

3.2.6 Self-Monitoring/Egotism
The process of egotism can be viewed as the blocking of sponta-
neity by control, being described by PHG as, ‘a slowing-down of
spontaneity by further deliberate introspection and circumspection’
(1994/1951: 236) before going on to say that it was a way of guard-
ing against the unpredictable, ‘… an attempted annihilation of the
uncontrollable and surprising’ (ibid: 456). The person steps outside
themselves and observes themselves in a relationship rather than
being in the relationship, whether that is with a person, people or
things. An example could be a person meditating and running a self-
congratulatory commentary whilst doing so, rather than being in the
experience. A further example that I imagine many of us can relate
to is watching oneself as an uncomfortable spectator when struggling
to sleep and internally commenting.
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 63
As I have stated elsewhere (Mann, 2021) the term egotism (that
translates to ‘I-ism’) does carry negative connotations and can be
misleading, therefore I welcome Joyce and Sills (2018) rebranding
it with the more descriptive term self-monitoring, a move followed
by other contemporary gestalt writers (Chidiac, 2018; Skotten &
Kruger, 2022).
Characteristics such as caution when encountering a new situa-
tion, assessing a situation before moving into action as well as acting
as a self-conscious spectator are seen in self-monitoring, the antith-
esis being impulsiveness or a lack of any constraints. We can see a
relationship to retroflection here as there is a holding one’s self back.
Isadore From likened self-awareness to egotism, which he viewed
through a lens of retroflection (Mulgrew & Mulgrew, 1987). This
view speaks to me as implicit in self-monitoring is a retroflective
split of a doer and done to, taking the form of a commentator and
a commentated on and/or the observer and the observed. However
self-monitoring is a more internal and primarily cognitive behaviour
and lacks any impulsiveness that is sometimes present in retroflection.
PHG described what they called ‘neurotic egotism’ as a type of con-
fluence with deliberate awareness. I believe unhealthy habitual self-
monitoring has its roots in introjection, messages that might dictate a
certain way of being taken in from family, religion, education, soci-
etal norms that may result in shame if these ‘rules’ are transgressed.
Self-monitoring may inhibit instinctive or unrehearsed action but
this function may be positive as well as inhibiting. To be sceptical and
consider the possibilities of a potential scam phone call or email
before handing over your bank details may be useful employment of
this moderation! Taking a brief step outside oneself and ‘helicopter-
ing’ in assessing yourself performing an activity such as driving or
working as a therapist can be useful, also when learning a new skill.
Learning to play a musical instrument may initially require observing
yourself but will then call for a letting go in order to play fluidly. At
the other extreme obsessive behaviour where a person considers
every possible option can prevent them from taking a single step.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Consider aspects of your life where self-monitoring is useful and
where it is less useful. In the latter think what moderation may under-
pin your self-monitoring.
64 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT

3.2.7 Desensitisation
Desensitisation does what it says on the tin, the person anaesthetises
themselves to the environment avoiding or limiting pain, stimulation
and essentially becoming ‘senseless.’ This numbing process is com-
monly seen in Western culture in the early phases following a pro-
found bereavement where the person who has suffered the loss is often
able to function relatively well for a brief period as the desensitised
pain of the loss does not form as a full figure, ‘that doesn’t allow the
person to perceive clearly the situation’ (Spagnuolo-Lobb, 2020: 19).
As a temporary measure this may not be an unhealthy creative adjust-
ment but if it becomes a fixed gestalt with lack of movement then it
will become problematic. A healthy desensitisation could be a mother
with an infant who desensitises from some of her needs to attend to
her baby. Sportswomen and men often need to desensitise temporar-
ily to complete races, boxing bouts, football matches and endurance
events, numbing themselves to every aching muscle, blister or punch.
Some people with insomnia describe being sensitised to stimuli such
as sounds, heat or humidity as they struggle to ‘switch off’ from their
environment, they may need to learn to a level of desensitisation.
As with all moderations to contact when discussing desensitisation
we are looking at one end of a continuum, with hypersensitivity at
the opposing pole in this case. Anything approaching such sensitivity
can also be problematic as anyone with a phobia or allergic reaction
will tell you. There are ordinary levels of desensitisation that help
us get on with our lives as we are bombarded with distressing news
from wars, natural disasters, climate change, murders and crime. We
wouldn’t be able to function if we opened ourselves fully sensitised
to the horror of these catastrophes. However, if we desensitise from
such events completely then we endanger ourselves, our fellow
humans, our wild life and our planet.
We do live in a world that is becoming increasingly disembodied
and desensitised, in which the cold virtual reality of the computer
replaces the wind on our faces and the sun on our backs, and we
cannot divorce ourselves from the impact of this pre-packaged field
of convenience that distances us ever further from the natural world,
from sensation. We also live in anxious times, in an anxious field,
and to avoid anxiety it is necessary to desensitise the body but any
underlying anxiety does not simply dissipate, that may be why we
have so many anxiety related disorders, PTSD, depressive problems
and attachment disorders (Francesetti, 2015).
 MODERATIONS TO CONTACT 65
3.3 SUMMARY
• ‘Moderations to contact’ is a term used in gestalt therapy to
describe specific ways in which individuals creatively adjust their
level of contact in relation to their environment.
• There are seven inter-related processes through which indi-
viduals moderate contact with their environment: Introjection,
Retroflection, Projection, Confluence, Egotism, Desensitisation
and Deflection.
• Moderations are neither inherently positive or negative and must
be understood in the context of the situation in which they
occur.
• Therapists need to be mindful of their own contribution to the
client’s process and consider how they may be co-creating ways
of moderating contact with the client.
• All moderations to contact take place between the person and
their situation that includes the therapist.
 4

THE SITUATION
Field Theory

We are all situated in the world with influences that press in upon
us, cultural ground that shapes us, development that moulds us. Field
theory can be difficult to explain partly because it can be spoken
about in vague terms but also because there are different perspectives
within gestalt therapy. Whilst this can enrich the approach it doesn’t
help me in writing this brief introduction to the subject! Therefore I
have devoted the first of these five sub-sections to outlining different
perspectives and the way in which leading gestalt practitioners con-
ceptualise field theory. Further sub-sections examine developmental
theory in gestalt and the cultural field with attention also given to
embodiment and major regulators of our field guilt and shame.

4.1 FIELD THEORY – THE SITUATION

Field theory can be a confusing and difficult subject to grasp as there
is a potential that the field/situation ‘can become so inclusive as to
include anything and everything’ (Parlett, 2005: 45). A further con-
tributory factor is likely that the terms ‘field,’ ‘situation,’ lifespace and
lifeworld are all used interchangeably by different gestalt therapists
and theorists. My preference is for the term ‘situation’ as we are all
situated in the world and I prefer ordinary language. However, the
term ‘field’ is also widely used, so I will alternate between the two.
Just as the term ‘field’ has multiple meanings (Staemmler, 2006), so
too does field theory that is defined through a number of perspectives
(Parlett, 1991, 2000; Philippson, 2009, 2018 Robine, 2011, 2015;

DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-5
 THE SITUATION 67
Francesetti & Roubal, 2020) this adds to the richness and diversity
of gestalt therapy but makes life difficult if one is looking for a solid
definition particularly as field theory is often referred to in vague and
casual terms (Staemmler, op. cit.). It’s not surprising that we cannot
definitively pin down field or situation, nor should we be able to, as
the field or situation is in a constant state of flux, just as in health we
are forever selfing as we creatively adjust to changing situations. The
person is indivisible from her context (Denham-Vaughan, 2010), in
my experience in the therapy room raising awareness of this reality
often creates a shift in the client when there is the realisation that
the problem is neither just out there in the environment nor self-
contained within the person but in the relationship between person
and environment. As Parlett states, ‘The field is the entire situation
of the therapist, the client and all that goes on between them. The
field is constantly made and re-made’ (2005: 43). Whilst I agree with
Parlett’s assertion it is in need of some clarification as ‘the entire situ-
ation’ and ‘what goes on between’ can be viewed simplistically and
miss the multi-layered, laminated nature of the therapist and client’s
situation. To explain let me return to my earlier statement that we
are all situated in the world. What do I mean by this? We have all
emerged from fields of relations, from a generational lineage, from a
history, conception through infancy, developmental and life stages to
the present moment. These fields of relations press in upon us, they
shape us, they shape our thinking, our behaviour, our bodies, our
expectations, our way of being in the world. I am not just consider-
ing relations as interpersonal but in the widest possible sense. We are
in relationship with our environment, ‘we are situated in the world
of things, natural objects and cultural objects’ (Daly, 2016: 49) and
we view that environment and all objects within it from our cultural
ground. If we stand upon communal cultural ground we will have a
very different view of the world than if we stand upon highly indi-
vidualistic cultural ground. Just as we don’t have a culture but are of
a culture, as Paul Goodman outlined, we humans are of the field rather
than being ‘in the field’ as we do not live in an environment but by
means of an environment (Robine, 2011).
A hugely significant figure in field theory is the gestalt psycholo-
gist and social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) whose work
has been integrated into gestalt therapy. His action research covered
perception and behaviour and integrated early gestalt psychology
with real life, dynamic situations. As Wheeler and Axelsson (2015)
68 THE SITUATION

recount Lewin gave an example whilst on active duty in World War

I that emerged from the situation surrounding him in which a trav-
eller, let’s say a soldier, moves across a valley. As he does certain fea-
tures emerge from his ground to become figural and others do not,
those that become figural are integrated as they fall into the soldier’s
ground as he meets with his environment to make meaning. This
process illustrates that our soldier’s field is a phenomenal field, that is
to say that there is a horizon of possible phenomena that emerge
within any given situation (Francesetti, Gecele & Roubal, 2022).
As gestalt psychology had shown the subjects behaviour will then
be based on this meaning-making that often contains a predictive
element (more often I imagine in a war situation). For any other
soldier moving across this same valley their perception would differ
as different elements would become figural for them in relation to an
environment that will have changed. Then what if the traveller is not
a soldier and this same field is not a war zone? How does that shape
perception? A lover, a farmer, a builder, someone out for a walk in
the country would all perceive this scene differently and make dif-
ferent meanings. The need will shape their perception and meaning-
making and no two lovers, farmers, builders or walkers will share the
same perception or make the same meaning, ‘The need organises the
field’ (Marrow, 1969: 167) and none of us are in precisely the same
situation. In a sense you and I and eight billion people on the planet
perceive different worlds.
I have just been gazing at the window in front of me in a busy
coffee shop, taking a break from writing as I’m feeling a little blank.
A casual observer might think I’m looking at the street outside, as
some of my fellow coffee drinkers seem to be, but I am looking at
the window itself and the hand and finger marks on it. This window
with its marks and smudges reaches out to me as I do to the window.
I make sense of my experience as at the time of writing I am three
days away from scheduled surgery and am guarding against possible
sources of infection that includes various decontaminating treat-
ments. In my reflecting on this brief experience I ponder did I reach
out to the window or did the window reach out to me? Culturally
we view any impulse as originating in ourselves when the objects
and settings we encounter meet us with a will of their own; they
challenge us to think, feel and behave in certain ways towards them
(Lewin, 1936), ‘… the energy comes from both parts of the field,
i.e. both the organism and the environment’ (PHG: 182). If the
recent COVID pandemic taught us anything it illustrated the long
 THE SITUATION 69
held gestalt belief that we are created by situations just as much as
we create them.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it
make a sound? It has been hypothesised that there is a world that
nobody perceives (Lewin, 1952; Marrow, 1969; Staemmler, 2006),
whilst this might make for interesting philosophical debate it is of
little clinical relevance. What is of clinical significance and central
to our work as gestalt therapists is that fields only exist in relation to
‘… an engaged subjectivity. Fields cannot be spoken of properly as
existing in themselves …’ (McConville, 2001: 200). It follows that for
all practical and clinical purposes ‘the field’ does not exist, for a field
or situation to exist it needs a perceiver, we do not say ‘the percep-
tion’ or ‘the feeling’ and if a client were to we would likely challenge
such deflective language.

4.1.1 Co-creation
My description of fields and situations thus far might inadvertently
suggest that we all function as separate, atomised individuals. From
a gestalt philosophical viewpoint nothing could be further from
the truth; human beings are more similar than we are different and
innately relational. Thoughts, feelings and sensations do not sim-
ply arise from within the individual but emerge between subjec-
tivities in a process of co-creation – we co-construct our worlds with
the other in the present (Desmond & Jowett, 2011). This view has
gained gravity following neurological research into the functioning
of mirror neurons resulting in a movement away from a one person
psychology (Keysers, 2011; Schore, 2012; Cozolino, 2014, 2017).
However, that is but part of the story as we know more about the
other than we perhaps first realise due to social referencing but also as
human beings we share situations, hence we are able to identify with
the other even when marked difference is present. I know that when
my heart aches with another’s pain and anguish, when my eyes prick
in the presence of another’s sadness, when my muscles tighten as the
other recounts their trauma.

4.1.2 Five Principles of Field Theory

Heavily influenced by the work of the gestalt psychologists Lewin
and Kohler, Parlett (1991) recast field theory into five principles,
producing a useable map for working with complex phenomena
70 THE SITUATION

holistically (ibid: 71). These five principles, though listed separately

all interrelate.

1. The Principle of Organisation – As Lewin (1952) identified

meaning emerges from the total situation and the meaning
derived will depend on the way in which the person or persons
organise their situation. A young woman’s depression cannot be
understood without a picture of how she organises the different
elements of her field and how those elements organise her.
2. The Principle of Contemporaneity – The constellation of influ-
ences in the present situation explains the current situation. The
present might include what is remembered and what is projected
into the future, for example, our depressed young woman may
predict a bleak future and select memories that reinforce that
view but this all happens in the present.
3. The Principle of Singularity – As discussed, every person’s situa-
tion and perception is unique. There may be common factors in
clients who present with depression/anxiety/bereavement but
no two experiences are ever the same.
4. The Principle of Changing Process – Nothing is permanent,
hence in gestalt we are sceptical about diagnoses that appear to
fix the client in a category, hence a preference for using verbs to
describe a client’s process rather than nouns.
5. The Principle of Possible Relevance – No part of the person’s
situation can be dismissed as any aspect has the potential to hold
significance. This ties in well with what is known as equalising
in phenomenology. A seemingly innocuous event or comment
could have, or lead to, huge significance.

Similar to Parlett’s five explorations a helpful way of viewing the

interrelatedness of these five principles is to think of them as the
five fingers on one hand, if you give a thumbs up sign the other
four fingers are involved in that action. Just as with moderations to
contact where one moderation will affect all other moderations, one
principle impacts all principles.

4.1.3 The Id of the Situation

As I sit here looking out at the Peak Districts landscape in England
there is a horizon of undifferentiated possibilities that existed before
I experienced this view. The range of trees, fields, undulations,
 THE SITUATION 71
blossoms and clouds and countless other possibilities were there
before they caught my gaze. I’m giving a literal example of what
Paul Goodman first described as ‘the id of the situation’ (PHG,
1951: 403). The term ‘id’ is not to be confused with the Freudian
use of ‘id’ which refers to an unconscious part of personality with
instinctive and primitive drives (Sayers, 2021). Goodman’s descrip-
tion refers to the drive originating in the situation rather than the
person’s psyche; this being consistent with gestalt therapy’s theory
of self as contact or self as process. The id of a situation is present
in any encounter we meet with, and remember that the individual
is part of the situation. The situation gives form to the person just
as the person gives form to the situation or as PHG put it, ‘Only
the interplay of organism and environment constitutes the psy-
chological situation, not the organism and the environment taken
separately.’
It was proposed that even before we begin to gestalt our experi-
ence within our phenomenal field, ‘a situation has already started
to be built and will be ground for forthcoming figures’ (Robine,
2011: 110). Localising the id in the situation itself was a radical shift
made by Goodman and built upon in particular by Robine (2001,
2016, 2011). When we meet with a situation, or should I say when
a situation meets with us – please forgive my cultural bias in seeing
humans as primary! – each will hold a certain atmospheric quality.
The view from my window holds a different quality than an airport
lounge, a hotel swimming pool or a dentist’s waiting room. Therapy
rooms hold these qualities too, clients I saw that were new to therapy
were often surprised to be met with a room that presented more as
a lounge than an office or clinical space. The situation has begun to
shape the meeting before we have reached the meeting.

4.2 THE EMBODIED FIELD

As a person approaches a situation the way in which they body forth
towards that situation will reveal something about their perception of
the situation they are about to encounter. The field calls to the per-
son and shapes their bodily response. A woman might drag herself
into the office but show more energy as she leaves at lunch and
depending upon the situation she is approaching at home and the
energy in her immediate field (work colleagues, the atmosphere in
the office, etc.), have a different energy at the end of her working
day. We have a bodily felt sense of situations we meet with and an
72 THE SITUATION

ability to assess that is pre-verbal that reflects the meaning for a per-
son in the here and now, ‘… the client bodies forth his sense of the
situation, how the situation affects and impresses him.’ (Wollants,
2012: 132). People will embody aspects of their field, if there is pres-
sure at work one may feel ‘weighed down’ and heavy, sporting events
and concerts provoke all types of anticipatory and situational emo-
tions, when I walk into our nearby woods with tall sycamore and ash
trees I feel my spine lengthen and straighten and my breathing relax
and deepen.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Consider different environments that you move to and from and take
a few moments to consider your bodily reactions in each of these envi-
ronments. As you reflect lightly consider what field conditions might
be at play to account for your response, just let your imagination wan-
der rather than try to find a reason. You could complete this exercise
as a creative visualisation.

Our environment shapes us, ‘Just as the contours of the earth I stand
on subtly shape the soles of my feet, my grasp of the ground I push
off of affects my gait and posture …’ (Bloom, 2016), so too does
the ground of our upbringing, every grain of sand from our life
story shapes the way in which we body forth in the present. Our
histories present in every step we take, how deeply we breathe in
the environment, how erect or cowed we stand, the tension or lack
of tone in our muscles. Although gestalt therapy focusses primarily
on the present moment past fields are contained within the fabric of
the here and now, pointing towards a yet to be revealed future. We
are eternally interconnected with the world hence the term ‘the lived
body’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1962/2014, 1968) is used in gestalt therapy
to describe the body as a lived unity of mind-body-world rather
than the body being seen through a Cartesian lens in which mind
and body are seen as separate from each other and discrete from the
world, ‘Our body is in the world as the heart is in the organism … it
breathes life into it and sustains it inwardly and with it forms a system
(Merleau-Ponty, 1962/2014: 203).
The unity of mind-body-world is what we are referring to in
gestalt therapy when we describe it as a holistic therapy. In the clini-
cal situation the gestalt therapist is attentive to the observable bodily
 THE SITUATION 73
expressions and movements of the client whilst noting their own
bodily reactions to the client. A few areas that the gestalt therapist is
likely to observe in relation to body are: how the client moves into
the room and how he moves at different points during the session,
the depth of his breathing, how he may fill space or take up little
space bodily, how he may situate himself in the room, how he uses
his voice, congruence between his verbal and non-verbal communi-
cation. Whilst being attentive to such areas and their own reactions
to the client the gestalt therapist will also allow themselves to wonder
about possible connections with the client’s reasons for coming to
therapy and how in microcosm their way of being in therapy reflects
their way of being in their wider field. This may offer clues regarding
possible fixed or outdated gestalts. So much information is present
in the first few moments of meeting, as I often say to trainees and
supervisees regarding how a client bodies forth, ‘Never forget the
first few moments when you meet a client.’
A prime need for any human being is to be understood, allied
to understanding is a need to empathise with the other’s situation.
Though empathy has been a thorny issue in gestalt therapy’s past, due
in no small part to Fritz’s aversion to confluence and him viewing
empathy in a similar light, relational gestalt therapists have redressed
the balance acknowledging the need to move in and out of con-
fluent moments to truly understand and empathise with the others
situation. The discovery of mirror neurons (Gallese, 2001; Rizzolatti
& Craighero, 2004; Staemmler, 2009; Cozolino, 2014) have added
weight to the argument that in healthy functioning a degree of conflu-
ence is inevitable and that we are wired to understand and empathise,
also that this is not a one-way street – clients have mirror neurons too!
However, whilst neuroscience has added to the body of knowledge in
gestalt therapy, ‘Simply put, neuroscience studies the function of the
nervous system and brain’ (Frank, 2023: 120). Empathy, understand-
ing, in fact human relating is a whole body experience that takes place
in a particular situation or field that shapes any meeting. It would be
grossly reductionistic and deprive us of the mysteries of relating to
explain away having your heart ache in the company of another as
being due to a particular set of neurons. Anyone’s field is far broader
than that. Ruella Frank, a body oriented gestalt therapist and former
student of Laura Perls, discusses kinesthetic resonance, the subjec-
tive experience of, ‘reverberating feeling tones that are generated from one
person to another (2016: 373 original italics) this being co-created in the
between of relationship, ‘as we compose and are composed by the
74 THE SITUATION

situation we live’ (op. cit.: 23). This view of the physical and sen-
sory in the field between therapist and client and all that they bring
from their respective situations is central to gestalt therapy and echoes
Staemmler’s (2012) thinking on the shared situation.
We have a felt sense of our world long before we have any verbal
capacity to describe it (Stern, 1998), it is at the point that we begin
to develop language that we begin to journey away from an embod-
ied way of being as language can never express our full range of
experience. We have an inadequate range of language for describing
movement and sensation and live in a field that falls short in sup-
porting an embodied way of being. Our pace of life is invariably fast,
people eat whilst walking or at workstations, our ever faster process-
ing computers and phones are matched by our ever faster thinking
and behaviours – living faster than we are able to sense has become
a way of life (Clemmens, 2012). To return to being in touch with
our bodies and therefore our field we need to return to sensation.
It should go without saying that this is not a cognitive process, yet
people including therapists can slip into the cultural trap of reporting
on sensation rather than staying with its emergence, ‘sitting in the
cockpit of my head, reading the dials about the body down their’
(Kepner, 2003). It is one of the tasks of the gestalt therapist to linger
with the emergence of sensation to allow the space for meaning to
emerge. It may be counter-cultural, but all meaning making and
awareness begins with sensation.

4.3 DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY IN GESTALT

A criticism of gestalt therapy is that it does not have a clearly defined
developmental theory, however it is more accurate to say that his-
torically it has not had a clearly defined developmental theory that
is consistently accepted across the approach in the same way that, for
example, Freudian psychoanalysis does with its model of five psycho-
sexual stages. It is interesting to note that prior to the birth of gestalt
therapy a similar criticism was levelled at field theorists who were
considered to lack interest in development when, ‘Nothing can be
more mistaken. In fact, field theorists are most interested in devel-
opmental and historical problems’ (Lewin, 1952: 45). As field theory
is one of the pillars of gestalt, from an integrative perspective it is
nice to know that we share being misunderstood in the same way!
Development in gestalt therapy is, ‘characterised by a recurrent need
to deal with new and specific themes or tasks …’ (Wollants, 2012: 47),
 THE SITUATION 75
or to put it another way, the ongoing need to renew and revise crea-
tive adjustments in relation to our field. It follows that from a gestalt
perspective development takes place between a person and their situa-
tion, rather than within a person.
Fritz Perls did lay out a developmental sequence around the infant’s
hunger instinct, how this matures and the importance of the cutting
of different sets of teeth. Initially the infant receives nourishment
through suckling, there is little choice over what the infant takes into
their body at this phase. The development of middle teeth allows
the infant to cut into solid food before that painful process when the
molars break through and the infant is able to chew. However, these
later abilities are field dependent. If the infant is kept on the breast for
too long or fed mushy baby food, the ability to bite and chew would
be disrupted. Conversely, if there is an early withdrawal from breast
feeding that is more common in Western culture disruption occurs.
Either way, Perls hypothesised that, ‘a fixation on sucking develops
that endures into adult life’ (Sluckin, 1993: 10) where the adult can
‘suck their relationships dry.’ As discussed Fritz and Laura developed
ideas around this phase of development in relation to introjection.
Fritz also described the infant as ‘cannibalising’ the breast leading
to forced weaning, the consequence being a lack of assertion as the
price of intimacy (Wheeler & McConville, 2002).
Fritz and Laura Perls did differ in their views on support in relation
to development. Fritz saw development in a linear way, as a transition
from environmental support to self-support (Perls, 1973) that was at
odds with gestalt’s theory of self-as-process and field theory. Laura’s
position emerged from her background in dance in considering what
environmental support might be needed to facilitate movement (Perls,
1992). Goodman (1977) described adulthood as ‘childhood plus,’ fly-
ing in the face of most psychoanalytic thinking at the time regarding
regression as he considered that we were simply every age we had ever
been and had the capacity to enter that way of being.
As we have seen, figural experience emerges from a background
and the here and now exists in relation to other time zones. Most
of the gestalt therapists of the 1950s, with solid clinical and philo-
sophical roots, embraced the importance of background in relation
to what presented as foreground. It was in Fritz’s Esalen era of the
1960s that background was neglected or even viewed as irrelevant in
that particular goldfish bowl of the gestalt world that unfortunately
became a caricature of gestalt therapy that spread wider than that
corner of the West coast of America. At this point rather than ‘a
76 THE SITUATION

revision of Freuds theories’ as Perls (1947) subtitled his first statement

against psychoanalysis, he moved to a position of outright rebellion
against anything archaic. From the 1980s thankfully gestalt moved
‘to bring the here and now figure and the historical background
into more of a synthesis’ (Yontef, 1991: 8), with a view that ignoring
developmental issues and effective therapy were incompatible.
Gestalt therapy does not believe in a phasic model of development
where one stage needs to be completed before another begins. The
psychoanalyst Daniel Stern shares this view of development and con-
sequently his research based theories integrate remarkably well with
gestalt therapy (Gillie, 1999). Rather than talking of sequential devel-
opmental stages he discusses four domains of relatedness, ‘Once formed,
the domains remain forever as distinct forms of experiencing social
life and self ’ (Stern, 1998: 32). They begin at different points in the
infant’s development but are never redundant. Space dictates that I am
only able to give a brief outline of the four domains here.

4.3.1 Emergent Domain of Relatedness (0–2 Months)

The infant experiences a mass of stimuli in an emergent process simi-
lar to id functioning. During this emergent domain the infant moves
to systematically order their isolated experiences in identifying what
is me and not me. In doing so, they experience the emergence of
organisation. Just as with id functioning all learning and creativity
begin in the emergent domain of relatedness.

4.3.2 Core Domain of Relatedness (2–7 Months)

As the infant enters the core domain of relatedness she begins to make
direct eye contact, with infectious smiling following soon afterwards.
The infant appears more wholly integrated, she develops senses of: self-
agency – authorship of her own actions, self-coherence – a sense of physical
wholeness with boundaries, self-affectivity – patterned qualities of feel-
ings develop, self-history – a sense of continuity develops. I and other
become distinct and the parent or caretaker becomes the self-regulating
other. Experiences such as arousal, feelings of attachment and secu-
rity, play cannot occur unless elicited or maintained by the actions of
another. What Stern termed ‘Representations of Interactions that have
been Generalised (RIGS)’ form these being predictive process relating
to how unfolding experience is likely to proceed and are activated by a
cue such as an association with a bib and food, a game of peek-a-boo,
 THE SITUATION 77
the sound of a door opening. In health these RIGS are constantly
updated and flexible, which may sound familiar if you think of the pro-
cess of creative adjustment in gestalt. The important conclusion drawn
regarding the seismic development of this domain was that the inter-
personal world of the infant was deeply social. In many ways the infant
presents almost as a different person when this domain develops.

4.3.3 Intersubjective Domain of Relatedness

(7–15 Months)
There is another quantum leap in the infant’s relationality as he not only
discovers that he has a mind but that others do too (Stern, 1998) and
that they are separate. There is the realisation that inner subjective expe-
rience is potentially shareable. ‘Intersubjective relatedness is built upon
the foundations of core relatedness’ (ibid: 125). Core relatedness differ-
entiates self and other through ‘concrete’ physical and sensory distinc-
tions that provides a platform of meaning that provides the ground for
subjective experience. Hence, the domain of core relatedness continues
as it co-exists supporting intersubjective relatedness. The development
of intersubjective relating sees recognition of the empathic process in
relation to the other whereas prior to its development this would not
register, only the empathic response. This process may be something
like, what I’m experiencing might be similar to what you’re experi-
encing and we might be able to let each other know non-verbally.
Alongside this empathic responsiveness affect attunement develops.

4.3.4 Verbal Domain of Relatedness (15–18 Months)

Are you always able to find the words to express yourself fully? The
development of language is double edged as words to not exist to
express our full range of experience. The child is able to verbally
express experience, partake in social engagement and communicate,
but verbal communication can never fully convey their felt sense.
With all its advantages verbal communication appears to narrow our
range of expression particularly in cultures where there is a tendency
to use body minimally to supplement the verbal. Language ‘moves
relatedness onto the impersonal, abstract level … away from the per-
sonal, immediate level intrinsic to the other domains …’ (ibid: 163).

The gestalt psychotherapist Ruella Frank has contributed greatly to

developmental theory in contemporary gestalt therapy. Her studies,
research and theories centre around movement and somatic processes.
78 THE SITUATION

Through integrating Body-Mind Centring (Bainbridge-Cohen, 1993)

in her practice based theories Frank identifies six fundamental move-
ments that develop between the infant and their environment: yielding,
pushing, reaching, grasping, pulling, releasing (Frank, 2001; Frank & La
Barre, 2011). Just as with Stern’s theories it is made clear that these
‘integral aspects of experience’ (ibid) become part of the complex
pattern of relating throughout life.
Yield – The infant gains a sense of weight as she surrenders to grav-
ity and the baby’s different muscle groups are stimulated as she rests
on different parts of her body. Changing position as she lies enables
the infant to differentiate the different parts of her body. Just as firm
ground is needed physically, solid relational ground is also needed
relationally with her primary carers. The ability to surrender creates
the background from which all other movement emerges. We are not
talking about a passive act of confluence, but a choiceful movement
that in later life may present as leaning into support and one that
broadly speaking is culturally dystonic. The receptivity or otherwise
of the parents will be key in developing this ability. A struggle with
yielding could result in a person being overly self-supporting in rela-
tionships in later life or develop sleep problems as the person main-
tains a bodily tension rather than surrendering to gravity.
Push – This process begins when the baby squirms as they adjust
themselves in relation to the gravitational pull. The act of pushing
again allows an experience of weight in the infant and compresses
soft tissue in the body, energy is in the opposite direction and some-
thing solid in the environment is needed to push against to allow the
infant to experience, ‘separating from while including the other’ (Frank
& La Barre, 2011: 27 original italics). In those early years if the baby
pushes themselves up to meet the gaze of an interested parent their
experience will be very different from a push that is met with a
vacant gaze. Whereas yielding allows one to join another, pushing
allows one to differentiate and a healthy way of being is an ability to
fluidly move along a yield-push continuum throughout life.
Reach – There is a sequence to the infant’s process of reaching. First,
there is a reach for the mother’s breast with her nose and mouth, this
is followed by eyes and hands reaching towards the mother’s face and
a reaching action as the infant stretches her fingers. How the infants
reach is met is likely to shape their reach in later life in terms of how
the adult reaches gracefully, tentatively, fluidly, cautiously, confidently.
As the infant reaches further their experienced world expands but this
is accompanied by a loss of balance that requires attunement by the
 THE SITUATION 79
parent. In the present as one reaches for another, ‘there is a moving-
feeling-knowing – a remembering of how one executed this reach in
earlier experiences’ (Frank, 2023: 132). Frank refers to this process as
kinesthetic remembering, body memories of specific moving-feeling
dynamics that could apply to any of the six fundamental movements.
Grasp – When the infant develops the ability to grasp, that will
first develop when they grasp the nipple with their mouth, they gain
a sense that the world is three dimensional. Shortly afterwards they
develop ability to grasp with their hands broadening their range of
exploration in terms of weight and textures of things. Paired with
reaching where the child can reach and lose balance as they reach
towards the unknown, grasping will stabilise the movement. This
stability is reinforced by the parent’s presence.
Pull – Having reached and grasped the nipple the infant pulls it
into his mouth. If you have had contact with any 3- to 4-month-
old baby you will likely have witnessed a reach-grasp-pull process as
objects are reached for grasped and pulled towards the child’s mouth.
Throughout this lifelong reach-grasp-pull process the child/adult dis-
covers to what extent ‘me’ and ‘you’ can become ‘we’ and degrees of
separateness and connection that will be unique to each relationship
encountered and the situation in which that encounter takes place.
Release – In common with all other developmental movements
we are looking at release in relation to the other developmental
movements and the situation. When pull is complete, release follows.
The infant initially only breaks her gaze when sleep comes or when
there is a disturbance but after a few weeks the first signs of a more
deliberate release are evident as the infant shifts her gaze around the
room. There then follows a grasp-release dynamic after a few months
in relation to objects. As adults we may need to release ourselves
from psychological clutter, out-dated ways of being or an activity/
occupation that is no longer satisfying.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Consider the above six fundamental movements in relation to your
current life. Can you think of examples of each? For instance, when you
have yielded and when you have pushed? Consider how each are mani-
fest for you physically e.g. how firm is your grasp when shaking hands,
how is your push away from the ground as you walk? Try not to attrib-
ute a value to your way of being, but consider possible growing edges.
80 THE SITUATION

It is impossible to cover all contributions to developmental theory

in gestalt therapy in this short section but in addition to the work
of Stern (1998), Frank (2001, 2023) and Frank and La Barre (2011)
the interested reader may wish to peruse the work of Wheeler and
McConville (editors) (2001, 2002) and McConville (2013) who dis-
cuss childhood and adolescence from a whole field perspective.
In summary, in gestalt we do not see development as taking place
in the individual but in relation to the person’s whole situation. Any
process of development begins with the surfacing of a developmen-
tal need whether this is a hungry infant, a five year old learning
to swim, an adult broadening their vocabulary or an elderly person
adapting to living with restricted physical ability. Throughout life
creative adjustments can be seen as developmental achievements and
these achievements are never complete once and for all.

4.4 SHAME AND GUILT AS FUNCTIONS

OF THE FIELD
Guilt is primarily associated with an act, when we have either
done something wrong, failed to do something we believe that we
should have done, or thought about doing something such as seek-
ing revenge or committing a violent act. Shame is associated with a
state of being wrong. In simple terms guilt is when I make a mistake,
shame is when I am a mistake. Both can arise when we do not fol-
low the prevalent norms or rules of the situation, they are functions
of the field but feel detached from any situation. With toxic shame
the affect can feel locked behind the person’s contact boundary but
agonisingly visible for all to see. Guilt and shame are formed in rela-
tionship can then be maintained in isolation but can only be revised
in relationship, they are creative adjustments to a past situation where
there was a lack of support. Processes of retroflection and introjec-
tion are invariably present in maintaining and sustaining these affects,
although confluence with criticism and disapproval can also be pre-
sent both in forming and maintaining these affects. Shame, and to
a lesser extent guilt, are major regulators of the contact boundary
between self and other.
One of the first to write about shame in depth was Gershen
Kaufman (1985, 1996) who described it as, ‘the affect of indignity,
of defeat, of transgression, of inferiority and of alienation … felt as
an inner torment, as a sickness of the soul’ (1985: vii), his writing
suggested that he knew shame beyond a cognitive level. He went on
 THE SITUATION 81
to consider it to be the source of such states as depression, paranoid
and schizoid states, compulsive disorders, borderline and narcissistic
personality disorders – states all rooted in interpersonal failure. The
‘inter’ of interpersonal is lost behind excruciating self-consciousness,
self-observation and self-criticism. There is the desire to hide, to
vanish, yet the physiological effects of shame make the person more
visible in a social situation; blushing, an inability to maintain eye
contact, loss of vocabulary, struggle with co-ordination, tics, stut-
tering or even a complete loss of words can accompany a sense of
social paralysis. The only escape from shame at its most toxic may
seem to be psychosis – or suicide as the ultimate escape – unless the
retroflective dagger is turned outwards and projected onto the other
with equally catastrophic possibilities. The physiological effects of
shame are considered ‘a more visceral experience than guilt’ (Taylor,
2014: 157) with such dysregulated functioning heightening an
already acute self-consciousness. To experience shame itself can be
shameful, particularly in an individualistic culture, and this process
can lead to a shame spiral in which simply having the feeling equals
inferiority and weakness resulting in shame of shame. ‘The view of
need and dependency as a weakness, and the creating of an icon of
the self-sufficient hero, so prevalent in American [Western] rugged
individualism, is fertile ground for creating shame’ (Yontef, 2009:
43) – it works for guilt too!
A shame reaction can be triggered by another feeling or way of
being initially experienced in an early relational rupture. Kaufman
(op. cit.) discusses shame binds where a feeling, reaction, drive or
interpersonal need binds itself to shame resulting in the shame-prone
person experiencing shame as soon as they touch the emotion,
drive, need, etc. Some examples of shame binds are: anger-shame,
fear-shame, sex-shame, hunger-shame, need-shame, power-shame
and differentiation-shame. Certain shame binds are more likely in
certain cultures, people from a more communal culture are more
likely to be susceptible to differentiation shame binds whereas
those that stand on the ground of an individualistic culture may be
more prone to need-shame binds. Any straying from cultural/sub-
cultural/familial norms has the potential of forming a shame bind.
I believe the above process could equally apply to guilt but a guilt-
shame bind is more likely to be in relation to an action or failure
to act.
Guilt and particularly shame can be debilitating, if not paralysing
affects and creative adjustments may be made to defend against the
82 THE SITUATION

affect. The introjected shameful way of being is too much to bear

in a field either void of support or perceived to be void of support,
so a solid deflective shield is erected and a variety of behaviours
defend against the underlying affect. These may take the form of
rage, perfectionism, blame, masking, grandiosity or acidic humour
all designed to protect the vulnerable underbelly of shame. Whilst
these behaviours might successfully defend against the person expe-
riencing their underlying shame they also deny them the empathy
and understanding that was developmentally absent, it takes an astute
therapist to notice and attune to the underlying relational need for
empathy when everything a shame-based person does invites the
opposite.
Shame and guilt based self-criticism can be considered second
arrow wounds. This idea comes from Buddhist teaching where
the person is shot by a first arrow, a suffering that is unavoidable
(Seely, 2022). Whist suffering this initial wound they engage in the
retroflective behaviour of picking up a second arrow and stabbing
themselves with a self-blaming internal commentary, for example, in
response to being attacked ‘I shouldn’t have walked this way.’
Regarding the physiology of shame the neuroscientist
Cozolino (2017) hypothesised that shame is associated with the
right hemisphere of the brain and Panksepp (1998) considers
shame to emerge from separation distress systems in the brain.
Such thinking is only of value if we maintain a field perspective,
it can inadvertently lead us away from a situational view of the
person and down a physiological tunnel in the search for a cause.
Neurobiological responses to shame are symptoms of a rupture in
field and are not self-contained under the skin even though the
individual may feel that they are. Whilst there have been amaz-
ing advances in neuroscience in recent years that has thrown
light on the physiology of what may happen between humans,
not least the discovery of mirror neurons that, ‘demonstrate the
profoundly social nature of our brains’ (Schore, 2003: 116), stand-
ing upon our cultural ground of individualism we can gravitate
to viewing affects through a ‘self-contained’ lens. There is a real
danger that viewing shame and guilt through such a lens will only
exacerbate isolation.
Guilt and shame have a function and a meaning, they restrict and
shrink a person’s ability to impact the world. There is a danger for
the therapist that when shame rears its toxic side in the between
of the therapeutic relationship, we either seek to soothe or avoid.
 THE SITUATION 83
When training or supervising therapists I have often heard, ‘that
might shame the client’ as a reason for not delivering a particular
intervention or being more proactive. Without being gung-ho and
respecting the need for solid relational ground as therapists we need
to remind ourselves that we are in the business of building resilience
to shame. The same can be said for guilt.
Whilst there has been an enormous focus in the literature on
healing shame within the field of psychotherapy, to which guilt has
taken something of a back seat, my impression is that insufficient
attention has been given to the healthy functions of shame and guilt.
A society or any group would fail to function without guilt and
shame, there would be complete anarchy, sociopathy would reign.
At a less extreme level shame and guilt helps enable us to hold back
impulses. An awareness of one’s guilt and shame makes the world
a safer place as it will counter any unaware process of managing
these affects by projecting them onto others and then attempting
to destroy the other and with it the illusion or delusion of freeing
oneself from such pain. Joyce and Sills (2018) describe a sense of
shame as an inter-personal boundary and note that Schore (2012)
identified the surfacing of feelings of shame around the age of 12
to 18 months that develop, ‘as a (potentially useful) neurobiological
regulator of social interaction’ (op. cit.: 87).
In her work on shame in relation to white privilege Jacobs cham-
pions the need for shame arguing that we need guilt and shame, as
they ‘remind us we are all more alike, vulnerable and fallible, than
different …’ (Jacobs, 2014: 304) she notes that failure to acknowl-
edge our guilt leads to a failure in acknowledging our privilege
and should we disavow our shame we forfeit our access to humility
and compassion. They are essential for human relating. If we are
able to recognise our shame and guilt reactions and are sensitised to
signs of them surfacing within the fibres of these affects is woven
information about what is needed or lacking in the field. We may
be attuning to a lack of support in the current environment that
can lead us to take action appropriate to the presenting field condi-
tions, this might include seeking support, realising a need to follow
a social norm or armouring oneself through retroflection until there
is more support. Even if we notice that our guilt/shame reaction is
a response to an archaic situation it still says something about the
current situation. ‘Guilt and shame indicate a rupture between the
individual’s needs and the environmental receptivity to meet those
needs’ (Mann, 2010: 148)
84 THE SITUATION

4.5 THE CULTURAL FIELD

As stated in gestalt therapy we work with ‘what is’ but ‘what is’ stands
upon a cultural ground that shapes our entire perception of things,
our understanding of the world, the way in which we hold our
bodies, our values and assumptions and most of these embedded,
embodied beliefs and ways of being will be held out of awareness.
We tend to take our culture for granted and it is not until we encoun-
ter a different culture that we can increase awareness of our own.
Something that appears to be just ‘what is’ in Western culture such
as dichotomies of me/not me or inner/outer, ‘is learned in social/
cultural development and is particular to our own individualistic cul-
ture’ (Wheeler, 2005: 94). The anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1988)
describes culture as being a shared system of communicated mean-
ings and moves on to view the embedded nature of culture as giving
the person stability. We can equate Geertz’s stability with gestalt’s
ground – as in figure and ground – for culture is the ground I stand
upon that will shape every figural movement I make – emotional,
physical, psychological and behavioural – culture shapes the limits of
my awareness, ‘… one human being can be a complete enigma to
another. We learn this when we come into a strange country with
entirely strange traditions … even given a mastery of the country’s
language. We do not understand the people … we cannot find our
feet with them’ (Wiggenstein, 2008). Again we can draw a parallel
with Wiggenstein’s inability to ‘find our feet’ with gestalt therapy’s
theory of ground.
As we are not in a field but of a field, it follows that we do not have
a culture or are in a culture – we are of a culture. Wheeler does use the
term ‘being-in-culture’ (op. cit.: 114), but the hyphens illustrate our
eternal connectedness to our being and our culture in much the same
way Heidegger (1962) uses the term ‘being-in-the-world,’ to show
the unitary nature that being and culture/world need to be viewed
as a whole. Pinderhughes (1989) defines culture as values, beliefs and
behaviours passed down from generation to generation, if we accept
this definition then an aspect of our shared field in Britain is our colo-
nial past with its assumptions of racial superiority. As a white British
man I’m finding it uncomfortable to acknowledge this, but when I
look a little closer I believe I am contacting healthy shame that may
help horizontalise my relationship with clients from another culture,
a culture that people from my ancestors generation (maybe my ances-
tors) could have enslaved.
 THE SITUATION 85
In the give and take of dialogue, if we are to truly embrace gestalt
philosophy we need to own the privileged positions we hold and the
power imbalance that comes with our privilege. Jacobs (2000, 2016)
explores privilege in relation to being white, latterly with a greater
focus on power. She observes that, ‘Dominant culture therapists are
least likely to understand their participation in power imbalances that
constrain dialogue’ (Jacobs, 2016: 149). In these hard-hitting papers
she explores the uncomfortable areas of white ignorance and white
supremacy and although she uses the US socio-political culture for
her research, I believe the points raised translate across the Western
world. In my white Britishness I need to hold an awareness of what
it might mean to be a person of colour in my therapy room, in our
society. That said, our cultural struggle in understanding the other is
that our imagination is limited by the culture in which we live, the
ground upon which we walk, which makes it unlikely that we are
able to think, feel or act in ways that are contradictory to it (Mead,
1949). We can only try, and trying in our white and privileged world
of psychotherapy might mean reaching out from the comfort of our
consulting room armchairs and moving towards other’s communities,
keeping ourselves informed about other cultures, seeking to widen
our awareness of our own backgrounds and how this shapes our
foreground; as white therapists recognising our position of power
and privilege.
Language is culturally embodied, just as our culture shapes the
way in which we hold our bodies so language shapes the way we
hold our jaws and move our mouths. Consequently, some words will
be pronounced differently by a non-native speaker. People from the
same culture share a more intimate understanding of their language
than the most accomplished foreign speaker. An area of unrecognised
privilege in the West is to be a native English speaker. This personal
capital will afford privilege in numerous situations; at international
conferences where the language is English (Chidiac, 2023), as a visit-
ing tourist in a non-English speaking country. The English speaker’s
answer to not having their foreign language understood can be to
speak louder, when they need to speak slower! In Britain there is also
different value placed on different regional accents. A further exam-
ple of ‘unrecognised privilege is being able-bodied … as the world
provides obstacles to various kinds of disabilities’ (ibid: 14) that are
out of the awareness of most of the general population. In our indi-
vidualistic culture, ‘Most personal difficulties that clients experience
result from a rupture of the ‘we’ in a situation’ (Wollants (2016: 226).
86 THE SITUATION

From a field theoretical viewpoint it is not surprising that the

culture we inhabit not only shapes us physically, psychologically and
behaviourally but also neurologically; an aspect of the field will affect
all aspects of the field. There is empirical evidence that cultural expe-
riences affect neural function, particularly areas of the brain associ-
ated with perceptual processing and how neurobiological processes,
social behaviours and cultural contexts are interconnected (Park &
Huang, 2010; Kim & Sasaki, 2014).
What is the effect on people who become dislocated from their
culture through migration or becoming a refugee? As there is separa-
tion from well-known supports and the familiar, ‘from social intro-
jects, from recognition of self-narration and of the cultural shape
acquired by the body’ (Gecele, 2014: 111) parallels can be drawn
with a trauma response. A supervisee I worked with in Britain
introduced me to the term ‘re-mooring’ in relation to immigration.
As a Maltese immigrant herself Carmen had left one country in
which her identity had been supported and understood and relo-
cated to another where identity needs to be re-situated and often
re-defined (Deaux, 2000), any familiar sense of self can be lost or
minimised as the field talks back, actually and metaphorically, in a
foreign language.
An absorbing documentary series that turned traditional anthro-
pology upside down was aired in Britain on Channel 4 in 2007.
Titled ‘Meet the Natives’ five tribesmen from Tanna, Vanuatu, a
remote South Pacific island, travel to a strange foreign land on the
other side of the world to spend time with three tribes. The pecu-
liar land is Britain and the three tribes; working, middle and upper
class. Whilst amusing as the islanders discover fox hunting, karaoke
and sample a ‘national delicacy’ known as KFC, it is also a poignant
reminder of different cultural values. One of the enduring memories
for me was when the five ambassadors stood dumbfounded that ‘the
natives’ walked past the homeless man on the pavement but took
their dogs to grooming parlours. ‘We would build him a house’ they
said – the stark difference between a ground of individualism and a
ground of communality summed up in a sentence. There was a dan-
ger of mockery as the series revealed the tribesmen’s spiritual beliefs.
They worshipped Prince Philip believing him to be an ancestral
spirit who had risen from a volcano and who, according to proph-
ecy, this ancestral spirit would eventually return to Tanna. At the risk
of treading on a few toes, is that really so far removed from many
Western spiritual beliefs? Even with our radically different cultures
 THE SITUATION 87
and values I return to us humans being more similar than we are dif-
ferent … rather than thinking of ourselves as entirely separate individuals
we are, first and foremost, interconnected and interdependent, and we cannot
exist otherwise (Parlett, 2015: 103 original italics).

4.6 SUMMARY
• The field/situation is in a constant state of flux.
• The person and their context or field are indivisible.
• The terms ‘field,’ ‘situation,’ lifespace and lifeworld are all used
interchangeably by different gestalt therapists and theorists.
• Human beings co-create their worlds through relational interac-
tions, emphasising our innate interconnectedness.
• Human beings are ‘of the field’ rather than ‘in the field.’
• A drive can originate from the field rather than from the person,
Paul Goodman referred to this as ‘the id of the situation.’
• Our environment shapes us bodily, the field calls to the person
and shapes their bodily response.
• Gestalt therapy views the body as a holistic unity of mind, body
and world.
• Development in gestalt therapy is characterised by creative adjust-
ment to new themes or tasks in relation to one’s field, rather than
as an internal process.
• Daniel Stern’s work on Domains of Relatedness has been inte-
grated into gestalt therapy, these four domains – emergent, core,
intersubjective and verbal – continue throughout life.
• Ruella Frank’s focuses on six developmental movements – yield,
push, reach, grasp, pull, release – that develop in relation to the
environment and continue throughout life.
• Shame and to a lesser extent guilt are major regulators of the field.
• Guilt is linked to a sense of doing wrong, whilst shame is linked
to a sense of being wrong.
 5

EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

Phenomenology in Gestalt Therapy

How are you reaching out to make meaning of this book at this
moment? What is your experience? Both are phenomenological
questions that seek to gain an understanding of your perceptual
experience. In being phenomenological we stay as close to the per-
son’s experience in the present without interpreting. That means
holding a phenomenological attitude in which the therapist remains
neutral in relation to what might ordinarily seem obvious in order
to gain as fuller description of the client’s subjective experience as
possible. Over five sections we will look at phenomenology as a
philosophy before looking at its application in gestalt therapy that
includes intersubjectivity – the interplay between subjective experi-
ences. The chapter will conclude by looking at the related theory
of holism.

5.1 PHENOMENOLOGY AS A PHILOSOPHY

I am feeling uncomfortable. For the purpose of clarity in this chapter
I will be separating phenomenology from my previous chapter cov-
ering field theory and my forthcoming chapter on dialogue. I cannot
create a clean cut between these three philosophies – the three pillars
of gestalt – nor do I want to for they weave in and out of each other
like an intricate tapestry; it would feel like carving up the Bayeux.
So, dialogue with the world of humans and things and field theory
will run through this chapter on phenomenology but I shall major
on the latter.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-6
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 89
The above is my experience as I move to write. I begin with a
feeling of what I call discomfort as I reach out to what I know as my
keyboard, discomfort with what I call separation of what I know as
three philosophies. My discomfort settles as I reveal my intentions
to major on phenomenology whist the threads of dialogue and the
situation entwine around it.
Stating what might be obvious phenomenology translates to the
science or study (‘-ology’) of phenomena (Zahavi, 2019) this then
begs the question what is phenomena? It can also be described as
the study of consciousness, again a philosophical question as to what
constitutes consciousness can be posed. In existential phenomenol-
ogy we are more likely to describe it as the study of being – what
is being? With such questions we might be in danger of vanishing
down some philosophical black hole, so before we venture into what
phenomenology is lets first look at what it is not. As we go about
our daily lives we engage in a process of sense-making that is full of
assumptions, judgements and ideas about what constitutes ‘reality.’
Of course, this process doesn’t happen consciously we just accept
things as we perceive them, as we gestalt them. I’m sitting on a chair
writing at my kitchen table facing the gentle hum of our SMEG
refrigerator, through the window I can see trees and birds, my wife
Karin is sitting in the adjoining room. I am not deconstructing any
of this ‘reality’ or questioning its existence, I am just accepting it as
what is. I meet with my world not with a phenomenological attitude
in making sense of it but with what is known as the natural attitude.
In maintaining this ‘natural attitude’ all experience, all perception, all
reality is interpretation. To practice phenomenology we step aside
from our ordinary meaning-making process, the natural attitude,
with all its assumptions and preconceived ideas of what constitutes
reality and maintain a phenomenological attitude (Husserl, 1931).
A straightforward description of phenomenology is, ‘… the study
of human experience and of the ways things present themselves to
us…’ (Sokolowski, 2000: 2). The roots of the term ‘phenomenology’
come from the Greek for ‘that which appears,’ this points us towards
what phenomenology is about – if we hold a stance where we allow
something to appear we move away from the interpretive stance of
the natural attitude. To apply this to my previous sense-making activ-
ity, as I type in my kitchen and look up at what in my everyday life
is my SMEG refrigerator holding a phenomenological attitude I no
longer jump to this conclusion but allow this thing to unfold before
90 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

me, as I would allow all other aspects of my interpreted world. I will

come to the theory and method of how this movement is achieved
later, but first a brief history of phenomenology.
The founder of 20th-century phenomenological philosophy is
Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), although the phenomenological tradi-
tion can be traced back to the 18th century with other philosophers
such as Leibniz, Hegel and Kant. The 20th-century phenomenologi-
cal tradition was taken forward and developed by philosophers includ-
ing Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980),
Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961), Emmanuel Levinas (1905–1995)
and Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002). Of greatest relevance to gestalt
therapy are Husserl, early Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty and it is the
essence of their thinking that I will try to convey.

5.1.1 Transcendental Phenomenology

Transcendental phenomenology was created by Edmund Husserl.
Whilst there are renowned works that convey the thinking of the
existential phenomenological philosophers Heidegger (Being and
Time) and Merleau-Ponty (The Phenomenology of Perception) no such
magnum opus was produced by Husserl.
Husserl began as a mathematician before coming to the world
of philosophy, evident in his first published work – The Philosophy
of Arithmetic. As a mathematician he was constantly reworking his
ideas and his mathematical way of thinking runs through his work.
His philosophical studies of phenomenology can be divided into
three main periods (Macann, 1993), but it is his middle period that
is of interest to gestalt therapists, that being when he developed
transcendental phenomenology. As the name suggests in transcen-
dental phenomenology Husserl was attempting to transcend the
natural attitude with all its associated beliefs and assumptions about
reality. Once free from our judgements he believed we would be
released to gain an objective view of the world through our senses,
to gain knowledge through what he described as original experience.
He believed that knowledge began with wonder and curiosity and
sought to find a way that experience could be uncontaminated by
prior knowledge, in the same way that a young child might meet
with a new object they have never experienced before. Husserl pro-
posed that such a movement was possible by engaging in a process
he devised known as phenomenological reduction also referred to as
the phenomenological method. Through a three-step process Husserl
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 91
proposed that preconceptions of the world could be suspended. The
three movements are:

• Bracketing (also known as the rule of epoche) – As the name sug-

gests all assumptions of what is or could be are quite literally held
in brackets and put to one side so that the perceiver is touched by
the experience of meeting this person or thing as if for the first
time. In Husserl’s language of phenomenology they are touched
by the virgin experience. To return to my SMEG refrigerator, I
meet this thing as if I have no knowledge of my well known
piece of kitchen equipment. Any notions of its function, that
it has handles, that the letters S-M-E-G are spelt out in bright
chrome, that it opens are held to one side.
• Description – In phenomenology we do not seek explanation,
we seek description. As far as possible we avoid interpretation
in this present-centred activity. In simple terms we say what we
perceive. Hence, I simply describe my experience of my SMEG
refrigerator as it unfolds before me in the here and now. As I
meet it with my senses I allow it to unfold before me and figural
aspects begin to emerge, its curves, its glossy finish that reflect
something of what I assume (!) is behind me. There is a low
pitched hum that invites my steady breathing. I can wrap my
hands around two shiny pieces that stick out from the smooth
surface (that in the natural attitude I’d call handles). If I pull on
these a cavity is revealed that is cold inside.
• Horizontalisation or Equalisation – All aspects of a thing or per-
son are held equally with no one aspect being deemed more or
less significant than another. In the language of gestalt therapy
we could say we were in id functioning until a figure begins to
emerge. You’ll note that there are overlaps between these three
movements as I need to horizontalise in order to describe, in this
case my emerging experience of my SMEG refrigerator. The
handles carry no more ‘weight’ than what I describe as a glossy
finish or it’s curves.

5.1.2 Existential Phenomenology

Martin Heidegger worked as Husserl’s assistant during which time
he began developing his own ideas becoming a key figure in creating
the foundations of existential phenomenology, more commonly known
as existentialism, taking the focus of phenomenology in a different
92 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

direction. Whereas Husserl’s phenomenology focussed on conscious-

ness, Heidegger’s phenomenology focused on existence or being
(Gorner, 2007); he did not believe that phenomenology could simply
be reduced to consciousness. Heidegger’s thinking in Being and Time
influenced Fritz and Laura Perls in their development of working in
the ‘here and now’ as phenomenology is a present centred discipline.
As existential phenomenology views human existence as inextri-
cably tied to the world phenomenologists from this school, including
Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, reject the idea of bracketing one’s
experience. They also reject the Cartesian view, ‘I think therefore I am,’
that would be more accurate should it be reversed. The problem with
Descartes famous statement from an existential-phenomenological
point of view is that it creates a false split between the person and the
world as well as making the person primary. To illustrate our con-
nectedness to the world the hyphenated term ‘being-in-the-world’ is
used and in common with gestalt therapy existential phenomenology
views our awareness and existence as intersubjective, ‘we must be
subjective, since subjectivity is in the situation …’ (Merleau-Ponty,
2010: 6). This statement also illustrates that existential phenomenol-
ogy and field theory cannot be separated, neither can either be sepa-
rated from dialogue for we are always in dialogue with the world,
‘… an existential-phenomenological approach defines existence as
relational’ (Cohn, 1997: 126).
Heidegger discusses being thrown into an uncertain existence with
existential givens that include finitude (death) and existential guilt, a
sense that we have not done enough. The given that we will die,
according to Heidegger, leads to an overwhelming angst which in
turn leads to a choice. To manage this angst we can bury this existen-
tial given alongside other givens such as existential guilt and live our
lives inauthentically thus deadening our vitality through restricting our-
selves with rule bound limitations. Alternatively we can choose to live
authentically acknowledging the realities of our existence and responsi-
bility in our lives and in doing so increase our freedom of choice. This
increase in freedom of choice should not be mistaken for an ability to
choose the events that happen to us, but we can choose the way in
which we react and respond to such events and the meaning we attrib-
ute to them. There is a dramatic example of such choice earlier in this
book with the account of Arnie Beisser’s story that underpinned the
paradoxical theory of change. There is also a paradox in living authen-
tically in relation to one’s death too in that if we take death into our
lives we free ourselves from the angst that surrounds death.
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 93
Deeply influenced by the work of Husserl and Heidegger the
philosopher Merleau-Ponty used their influences and thinking as a
platform for developing his philosophy of embodied perception. Just
as gestalt therapy does not buy into a dualistic splitting of mind and
body neither did Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, he saw perception as
inseparable from what he referred to as the lived body contributing, ‘a
new concept of perception and its embodied relation to the world’
(Carmen & Hansen, 2005). Central to his philosophy was the notion
that perception was a bodily experience not simply psychological.
He saw body, consciousness and perception as inseparable in our
relation with the world. Opposed to every type of dualism Merleau-
Ponty believed that inner and outer could not be effectively distin-
guished, ‘The world is wholly inside and I am wholly outside of
myself ’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1962: 407), his argument was that there was
no private inner being but only the embodied and perceiving being
in the world (Orange, 2010).
There are many areas where existential philosophers such as
Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger compliment and enrich gestalt therapy,
their thinking on time and focus on the present, the former discusses
standing in the present and comprehending his past differently, chang-
ing its meaning and thereby freeing himself from the outdated mean-
ing (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) that we could equate with updating a fixed
gestalt. I’m sure you can relate to changing the meaning of a past event, a
relationship or updating your fashion sense – you probably don’t attrib-
ute the same meaning to that childhood comfort blanket or teddy bear!
We cannot talk about the history, development and philosophical
roots of gestalt therapy properly without acknowledging the enor-
mous contributions made by Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty
in the field of phenomenology. The existential phenomenologists are
of greater relevance to today’s gestalt therapy and for me Merleau-
Ponty is the most influential of these giants, but he and Heidegger
benefitted from the substantial ground laid by Husserl. As a certain
Irishman put it failing to mention Merleau-Ponty when considering
the philosophical roots of gestalt is, ‘like writing about stout and not
mentioning Guinness’ (Kennedy, 1998: 89).

5.2 PHENOMENOLOGY IN GESTALT THERAPY

Having given a brief overview of phenomenology as a philosophy I
now need to state the obvious in that this is a book about gestalt ther-
apy and we are psychotherapists and counsellors not philosophers.
94 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

Although phenomenology is integrated into of our therapeutic phi-

losophy we are in the business of working with people’s distress,
desire for personal growth, crisis points in life and suffering. Bloom
makes this point and goes on to note an essential commonality, ‘Yet
both phenomenology as a philosophy and gestalt therapy as a psy-
chotherapy have one essential common denominator. They both are
concerned with first person experience – the very process of per-
sonal experiencing itself ’ (2019: 184). They are also both concerned
with description, with allowing experience to unfold without prior
judgement, subjective experience, in our case as therapists inter-
subjective experience – what happens between client and therapist
within a field of relations.
Whether we are able to engage in a Husserlian phenomenologi-
cal reduction as we sit facing a human being in our therapy room is
more than doubtful and most gestalt therapists would agree, includ-
ing this one, that we can never completely bracket our preconfiguring
material – our ‘knowledge’ of the person, our theories, our diagnos-
tic maps, our beliefs and values. Hence, being touched by the virgin
experience will always remain just beyond our reach, but we can get a
fair way down this road enabling us to describe rather than explain
and equalise the plethora of verbal and non-verbal information that
greets us as our client makes contact with us. In getting as close
to a phenomenological attitude as possible we hold, ‘an attitude of
openness to the world of the other’ (Wollants, 2012: 99) as we meet
with this new outlook attempting to be unencumbered by our own
perception of what we consider reality. Whilst we gestalt therapists
owe a great deal to Husserl’s thinking and incorporate his ideas in an
adapted form into our work gestalt therapy is not based on transcen-
dental phenomenology (Yontef, 1999).
Assumptions and judgements are so easy to make, I will offer a
simple example from a training group I facilitated and one that I have
witnessed many times:
In group process, where the group work with their own process issues, the sub-
ject of bereavement (it could have been any subject) was being shared. Rachel
began to sob, tears running down her face. Several members of the training
group rushed towards her with boxes of tissues.

What’s the problem with that you may ask? The group members
were responding from what they thought Rachel needed, they were
caring – they were also interpreting. There was no consideration
for how she was with her tears, what her experience was, she could
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 95
have been comfortable with the sensation of tears rolling down her
cheeks, needed space, needed to sob uninterrupted or needed her
hand holding. The significance of Rachel’s tears is for Rachel to
discover, just as the meaning of holding muscles rigidly is for the one
who is tense or the clenching of teeth is for the one who clenches
their teeth. The gestalt therapist might simply say what they see,
without taking a hierarchical position by then making sense of it for
the client, it is in the between of the relationship that meaning needs
to unfold.
There are two foci in phenomenological enquiry those being the
what of experience and the how of experience. This does not mean
that we relentlessly ask questions – we are therapists not inter-
rogators! There are many ways of enquiring to gain description
and many are non-verbal such as nods, facial and bodily gestures.
Simply saying what we see, e.g. ‘I notice you’re sitting on the edge
of the chair’ can facilitate description whist modelling direct pre-
sent-centred relating through statements. Information will also be
given by the client in their way of being in the therapy room, they
may talk quickly or hesitantly, fidget or remain still, take up space
or shrink. In our fast moving Western culture with its focus on
results and outcomes it is all too easy for a therapist to move on
quickly before gaining a full description of the client’s experience.
Time needs to be spent to allow full figures to emerge and form
from the relational ground between client and therapist and we
need to return to this figure/ground process of emergence again
and again, for what is experienced and how it is experienced will
change between client and therapist – if it appears not to, then we
explore how stuckness is maintained and what is the meaning of
this stuckness in the here and now of this relationship. In explor-
ing these foci we are working to gain an understanding of what
is known in phenomenology as an act of intentionality. This term
was used by Husserl who had been influenced by the philosopher
Franz Brentano (1838–1917) who first introduced the notion of
intentionality. It has been described in terms of the mind reaching
out to the world to translate stimuli into meaning (Spinelli, 2005;
Siewert, 2022). However, such descriptions suggest a mind/body
split in that intentionality is viewed as a mental activity, and is often
named as such, and gestalt therapists do not separate in this way. An
act of intentionality is a whole body event that takes place between
subjects and objects, what is more is that from a gestalt perspec-
tive it does not originate in one person but is an emergent process
96 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

between subjectivities, that I would situate at the point that a figure

begins to emerge from the ground of possibilities. Intentionality is
the emergent phase of a person’s meaning making process. ‘Human
beings are always directed toward something; for instance, toward
an object that has neither existence nor “objective” meaning in
itself, but acquires these thanks to the intentionality that aims at it’
(Robine, 2011: 140). From a gestalt-phenomenological perspective
there is no knowable objective reality only intersubjective reality,
even if there were an objective reality hovering somewhere in the
ether as hypothesised by Marrow’s non-psychological (1969), it is
beyond the reach of human awareness, therefore we’ll leave that
possibility for the philosophers.
I think that it is unfortunate that Brentano’s term intentionality was
used and passed through the generations of phenomenologists from
Husserl onwards. Unfortunate because it leads to confusion with the
common term intention. Being emergent intentionality is primarily
a function of id functioning as it moves towards meaning-making
whereas with intention meaning is already established, hence it is a
function of ego functioning. It is my intention to write this book,
it is not my intentionality to write this book as that makes no sense.
In simple terms intentionality directs us towards, we need to have
arrived at meaning for us to intend.
The practical application of phenomenology in gestalt therapy
focuses on the client’s figure formation in relation to their ground
so that the therapist gains a picture of how the client perceives their
world in the here and now of the meeting – a perception that will
shape their attitudes, their beliefs, their bodies, how they move, the
volume and quality of their voice their whole way of being in the
world, ‘… the psychotherapist closely observes … how patients
confer their own expressive styles (including symptoms) upon both
their experience of themselves and their worlds, or more accurately,
their experience of themselves in their worlds’ (Miller, 2011: 12). We
attempt to achieve this by remaining open to all possibilities, allow-
ing ourselves to be curious and to wonder as we engage with the
other with naivety, listening to our own body’s senses and resonance
as we sit with the other. We track the client’s movement in the thera-
peutic dance, noticing moment by moment changes in the client
and ourselves without conferring meaning to these physical and psy-
chological movements. We focus on what is and de-emphasise what
would be or could be, clinical phenomenology is, ‘a study of the
advent of being to consciousness, instead of presuming its possibility
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 97
as given in advance’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1962: 61). We focus on the
present, but not a dissociated present that stands in disconnected
isolation from a past and future, rather the present moment that is
intimately connected to a past and stretches forth towards a future –
the present moment does not balance on a knife edge. However,
as therapists we do not remain in this neutral position ad infinitum,
when a figure emerges and begins to sharpen between self and other
we move with that figure building a picture of its relationship to the
relational ground and seeking to sharpen that figure further whilst
noticing any new emerging figures. Here is a possible example of
this process:
Client: I’m not sure what I want from therapy today.
Dave: Okay, what’s it like for you to sit with this uncertainty? Just breathe
into it for a few moments.
(Client maintains eye contact and deepens her breathing)
Client: Somethings surfacing. I feel strangely excited, when I’ve come to ther-
apy in this place before often something significant has surfaced.
Dave: So, we have strangeness, excitedness and expectation all surfacing and
you’re on the edge of your seat. (I name what I perceive as possible figures)
Client: I’m more with my expectation (slumps a little). I could be disappointed.
Dave: How might I disappoint you?

In the above example I could have easily moved with the client’s
excitement that initially seemed to carry more energy. However, my
further enquiry by naming emerging figures led to a new figure of
possible disappointment emerging. It is tempting to move with the
more energetic qualities the client presents with before sharpening
that figure. However, we should remain mindful that certain ways
of being carry more energy than others, for example emotions such
as anger or rage carry more energy than disappointment, shame or
depression and the same can be said for bodily movements. I am
not saying that it is wrong to follow energy, just to allow time and
enquire about other possibly less visible figures.
Before concluding this section I feel a need to reiterate that we
cannot separate field theory, dialogue and phenomenology in gestalt
therapy. Any part of the client’s entire field/situation, including
the therapist, is part of the client’s total organisation and is there-
fore potentially meaningful in this moment (Parlett, 1991); in dia-
logue we shall see that the act of confirming the client requires that
the therapist enters the phenomenological world of the client
(Hycner & Jacobs, 1995), as it does in the process of inclusion. We
cannot understand a person’s experience by isolating them from their
98 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

whole situation, ‘suffering arises from the relational field that the
person has gone through, lives and expresses’ (Francesetti, 2021: 29),
the same can be said for any experience whether it be joy, wonder,
shame or loneliness. Gestalt therapy as a situational, phenomenologi-
cal approach defines existence as relational and the three pillars of
gestalt stand together.
The language of phenomenology can appear unwieldy and tech-
nical but the curiosity, wonder and need not to assume meaning was
summed up perfectly by the 6 year old son of a supervisee who said,
‘I love corners, you never know what is around them.’ Thank you,
Camello.

5.3 INTERSUBJECTIVITY AND CO-CREATION

As phenomenology is the study of subjective experience, ‘We must
be subjective since subjectivity is in the situation’ (Merleau-Ponty,
2010: 6) the world is opaque, indefinite and uncertain. We all have
our different histories, sometimes radically different histories, with
particular different contact styles that emerge from the ground of
that history and the inimitable stories weaved within it. Every one
of us makes sense of the world, our world, differently building from
the foundations of our unique upbringing and life history up to
this moment. Regarding perception Staemmler notes that ‘… “we
see” about 10% of what we think we see – 90% is a “construc-
tion” from what we just saw, … remember seeing in similar situa-
tions (Nadal 2010) and what we expect to see’ (2012: 15). We will all
make that construction differently. As I write this it’s a wonder that
we don’t all walk the planet as isolated, detached beings immersed in
our own subjective perception of the world, but, and it’s a big but,
we know stuff about the other and we know that stuff through our
being human. We are intersubjective relational beings who recognise
ways of being because we have invariably experienced similar ways of
being. If I return to my earlier example with Rachel group members
knew she was distressed, there was no need for verbal enquiry regard-
ing her emotional state, her tears and sobs spoke. They spoke to the
hurt and loss that group members could relate to from their different
life experiences, the group members could identify with Rachel’s
grief. Even if they had not experienced a significant loss they knew
of loss. Then there are the possibilities associated with mirror neu-
rons (Gallese, 2001; Gallese et al., 2011; Cozolino, 2014, 2017), the
functioning of which are thought by some to, ‘… demonstrate the
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 99
profoundly social nature of our brains’ (Seigel, 2007: 166), although
the early popularist fervour that surrounded the discovery of these
cells with claims that they were, ‘cells that read minds’ (Blakesee,
2006) and ‘the neurons that shaped civilisation’ (Ramachandran,
2009) has subsided over the past decade. However, these particular
brain cells are believed to gain their mirror qualities through sen-
sorimotor learning and will change that learning in the same way
(Gallese et al., 2011), in other words intersubjectively.
Reality might be interpreted with no knowable objective real-
ity but awareness cannot only be subjective as it points to some-
thing (Yontef, 2005), it has an intentionality and a direction. It is
through our ability to relate intersubjectively that makes it possible
for humans to share their experience and in doing so understand,
empathise and experience a sense of belonging with others. ‘We
learn who we are and what we can expect in the world from the
mirror that others provide for us’ (Yontef ibid: 91). We depend on
one another in order to make sense of our shared world, we co-
create each other’s worlds.
Intersubjectively when two realities meet a third reality that is
greater than the sum of its parts is created in the between of the
relationship, this third reality will be shaped and reshaped by the
presenting ever-changing field conditions. In this lived experience,
‘… subjective realms of experience interpenetrate one another’
(Midgley, 2006: 104) in an ongoing process that will change both
parties, not only the two people in the therapy room but also the
whole situation that surrounds them – as discussed previously,
change one part of the field and the whole field changes. Let’s try to
make sense of this in relation to you, the reader and me the writer of
this book. I am dialoguing with you through the written word and
you will be experiencing something, I don’t know what, it could
be frustration, boredom, interest, fascination or a struggle in under-
standing some of the language of phenomenology. On the other
hand I might be feeling that I need to impress and sound academic
as I think about writing a book that will be read by others, including
editors, including you. In addressing you, the reader, directly I have
become aware of a prospective readership – these words might not
just remain in the depths of my computer’s hard drive! My anxiety
rises slightly and I decide to take a break as a vague bodily sense
of needing to perform begins to rise. My experience changes as
my perception of writing shifts slightly, I’m wondering what might
have moved for you?
100 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

The individualistic view of a client’s ‘resistance’ or ‘interrupt-

ing/moderating contact’ taking place within the person is blown
asunder when we look through a lens of intersubjectivity and co-
creation. The person’s way of being, their resistance or moderat-
ing contact, is a function of the whole phenomenal field that has
become figural between client and therapist, therefore any type of
diagnosis, whether that be ‘the client is retroflecting’ or ‘the client
is borderline’ will say as much about the therapist as it will about
the client. The emergence of emotions, sensations, thoughts, feel-
ings do not belong solely to the person but arise, ‘from the between
of relationships where meaning is co-constructed with others in
the present’ (Desmond & Jowett, 2011: 222). We have individual
unique fields and shared fields but we do not drop a phenomeno-
logical cleaver between the two. From the beginning of life what
is traditionally considered as ‘inner’ is shaped by what we might
consider to be ‘outer,’ our world begins as an intersubjective world.
I don’t need to tell any mothers or fathers reading this that the birth
of a child reconfigures the whole family, extended family, friend-
ships, work patterns … I could go on. What is more the infant’s
development will see a development of the entire field, the whole
situation. Another example discussed by McConville (2001, 2013)
arises when this infant reaches adolescence, it’s not only the ado-
lescent that journeys through developmental change but the entire
situation surrounding the adolescent with ripples outwards from the
immediate family and friends.
From a gestalt phenomenal field perspective our whole existence
is reliant upon a reciprocal contact with the world. As long as we are
breathing it is a given that we will be in contact with the world, we
take it in through our living bodies – through our senses, our needs
for air, nourishment and sunlight. There is a choice in terms of the
level of contact we have with the world, as we have seen we are able
to moderate contact in all types of relationships, we can choose how
we moderate that contact through introjection, retroflection, desen-
sitisation, etc., but we cannot choose no contact. I can walk away
from you but we will both be affected and I cannot walk away from
the world (short of suicide). We are forever in a co-created, inter-
subjective dance with the world and our fellow humans, a dance of
mutual dependency.
Although PHG never used the term intersubjectivity as Jacobs
(2005) outlines they did discuss at length the process of configura-
tion and reconfiguration of the organism/environmental field, the
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 101
beginnings of an intersubjective view of the world. There were
inconsistencies in PHG where they moved towards a more indi-
vidualistic view, for instance in their accounts of boundary distur-
bances that are discussed as though they belong solely to the person.
However, they repeatedly return to an intersubjective stance in
asserting that experience and contact is emergent between organ-
ism and environment. As Goodman states in a later text, ‘… both
the “I” of the organism and the “that there” of the environment
are abstractions, coming after the primary fact of experience itself ’
(1994: 17).
Much of Daniel Stern’s work has been integrated into gestalt ther-
apy and it is useful for us gestalt therapists to consider his thinking
regarding five aspects that create a sense of vitality. The five aspects
being movement, force, time, space and intention (Stern, 2010).
As we view the therapeutic relationship as co-created as therapists
I believe we need to heighten our own awareness of our strengths
and growing edges in relation to these relational dynamics in paying
attention to our own energy flow and how it fluctuates from one
encounter to the next. We cannot make sense of the meaning of
a lack of energy or high energy from one pole of the relationship,
we are working with the between of the relationship. Any variations
in energy levels needs to be seen as a function of the field of which
client and therapist (or self and other) are figural parts. It is informa-
tion, what we do with that information will depend on the nature,
maturity and openness of the relationship. It is possible to stifle the
life out of therapy by becoming too attached to our theories – they
are after all just ideas, fantasies, not the life-blood of the relationship.
Us gestalt therapists need to learn our theories thoroughly but hold
them with a soft touch, ready to let them go when they do not fit the
vital, creative person before us. It may be true that ‘there is nothing
so practical as a good theory’ (Lewin, 1952) but that doesn’t mean
that a good theory is always practical.

5.4 PHENOMENOLOGY AND THE BODY

When reading about phenomenology you will encounter the terms
lived body and living body, this might sound strange as surely a psycho-
therapy would not focus on a body that was not living! The reason
for the language is to emphasise that we work with persons who
carry in their bodies a narrative history, experience and are part of
the world and its complex interwoven relationships rather than being
102 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

separate from it. In gestalt therapy we do not subscribe to a Cartesian

view of the world but in Western culture we separate the inside of
our body from the outside, we tell ourselves that there is the world
of things that we perceive and the world of inner experience because
culturally, ‘The average person having been raised in an atmosphere
of splits, has lost his wholeness, his integrity’ (PHG, 1951: xxiv). So
we split our bodies constructing a cultural fantasy of mind and body
separate from the world – such Cartesian interpretations may offer
us security but it is only an illusion of security (Denham-Vaughan,
2010). In gestalt therapy we subscribe to the view that there is a
mind in the body and a body in the mind and we are situated in
the world.
Separating out the functioning of the senses does of course hold
value from particular perspectives. Let’s take one of the senses. In
hearing sound waves enter the outer ear, they travel down the ear
canal to hit the tympanic membrane (eardrum) these vibrations then
journey to three minute bones that magnify the vibrations which
are then transferred to the cochlea that translates the movement
into nerve signals. The journey continues via fluid filled canals and
receptors to where electrical impulses are generated that are picked
up by the brain via the auditory nerve. This describes the mechan-
ics of hearing, essential knowledge for a medic or audiologist, but
we are viewing this from a phenomenological perspective not a
biological or medical one – this is not how we experience hearing.
The functioning of hearing does not communicate the whole body
experience of cringing to the sound of fingernails scraping down
a blackboard or being moved by Mozart’s requiem. If we focus
solely on biological and neurological processes we overlook what is
central in gestalt therapy – how the person engages in an ongoing
embodied unfolding of the world before them from moment to
moment, ‘the world is not what I think, but what I live through’
(Merleau-Ponty, 1962: xvii). If I am in the crowd watching a foot-
ball match I don’t just see the match, I hear the thump of the ball
the noise of the crowd, there are smells all around me, vibrations,
senses of expectation, myself and everyone in the crowd are hold-
ing their muscles and the fibres of their bodies in a certain way. All
of this experience, this perception, is only for a moment – it is ever
changing as am I. I do not ‘live through’ isolated sense experiences
but my various sense universes converge as they meet with the
world I am experiencing.
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 103
From the first moment that a client walks into the therapy room
they begin to reveal their history and their way of being in the
world. They may stride in with their body erect, a fixed gaze with
chest puffed out or tentatively feel their way into the room, with
head and neck bent downwards, collapsed chest, perhaps redden-
ing face and avoiding eye contact. If we are to remain phenom-
enological we need not to rush into assuming the former is say,
‘confident’ or ‘defended’ and the latter ‘depressed’ or ‘ashamed’
but wait for the client’s full story, bodily and verbally, to unfold.
Whilst doing so we need to shuttle between noting what is hap-
pening for the client and how that may be impacting us as thera-
pists, paying close attention to our emerging bodily sensations and
physicality in the here and now. Of course, as therapist I would
need to check out my own ground to ensure that my bodily reso-
nance is not a resonance from that argument I had with my wife
this morning, or some archaic response from my past and I would
need to repeatedly engage in such a process as I meet with the cli-
ent. There is a dance between therapist and client, it may have the
flavour of a tango or a waltz, be smooth or clunky, confluent or
retroflected, these movements between client and therapist form
‘a dance of reciprocity’ (Spagnuolo Lobb, 2016, 2020) and involve
the whole living body located within a field of relations. Allowing
space for the figure/ground dynamic to form (even if the figure
that forms is confusion or unclear) that facilitates the gaining of
what Francesetti describes as aesthetic knowledge that is ‘… emer-
gent (it is born in an instant), ephemeral (it only lasts as long as a
given experience), bodily (it is incarnate in the senses and in the
resonance of the body’ (2012: 7), we can gain a felt sense of what
it may be like to be the client or what it may be like to be someone
in the client’s life, a felt sense of the whole complexity of their
situation. So what might all this look like in terms of the nuts and
bolts of the therapeutic dialogue? I use ‘dialogue’ in the broadest
terms here encompassing far more than words. I offer an example
from my practice.
Sandra had referred herself to me for ‘self development’, she had attended
a number of personal development workshops over the years and described
herself as, “very self-aware.” When I collected her from the waiting room she
rose from her chair forcefully and purposefully as I showed her the way to my
therapy room. Once in the room she sat down on the edge of adjacent sofa
without using the support it offered, bodily I felt somewhat ‘knocked back’ by
her brusque manner, even a little threatened. I checked my level of breathing
104 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

and grounded myself in my chair, leaning back for support. Sandra sat with a
fixed look, her breathing was shallow and her pallor pale, her forearms were
on her thighs but I wouldn’t say they were resting there, in common with
the rest of her presentation there appeared to be a tension in her arms, face,
thighs and neck. “Welcome” I said, a simple greeting that took Sandra by
surprise as I was met with a quizzical look, I waited a few moments. “What
would you like from therapy?” Sandra lent forwards even more, to a point I
thought she may topple from the sofa, “I came to see you because you’re a
gestalt therapist and I want to be challenged” she said in a voice that seemed
powerful yet simultaneously held vulnerability. Again I paused before respond-
ing, “I suggest that you sit back and feel the support of that sofa,” I said whilst
sitting back and feeling the support of my sofa. Sandra sat back awkwardly,
shuffling and struggling to use the furniture’s support. “Unfamiliar?” I ven-
tured. Sandra nodded, there were no words her featured had softened, there
was the merest hint of wateriness in her eyes, she was bright – she got the
challenge. I felt moved by her and Sandra noticed as we breathed each other
in for a few seconds.

Having written the above account of my meeting with Sandra, I

have become acutely aware of the limitations of language. It is dif-
ficult to concisely convey the atmosphere of this meeting, the flesh
of the meeting, the between of the meeting.
There is a loss in our ability to express ourselves bodily when
we develop what Stern (1998) refers to as the verbal domain of
relatedness (see Section 4.3). Culturally verbal expression through
language is afforded higher status than other bodily forms of com-
munication, yet if I watch two deaf people signing they are invari-
ably engaged in a more embodied form of communication, are
far more animated and expressive than two people communicating
verbally – what is more is that with minimal knowledge of the
different forms of sign language, I can usually understand much of
what is being communicated.
As therapists we can fall into a trap of trying ‘to do the impossi-
ble: to integrate personalities with the help of non-integrative lan-
guage’ (Perls, 1948: 567), the world of words is full of splits evident
in the way in which we describe our own approach as ‘psycho-
therapy’ (Wollants, 2012) implicitly suggesting that disturbance is
an internal affair located in the person’s psyche. We can counter
disembodied verbal communication through use of metaphor that
is often more descriptive, can be offered for the client to adjust to
their own meaning (therefore more phenomenological) and can
create a bridge between client and therapist that transcends the
words used as well as being more embodied. Such subjective use of
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 105
language moves us closer to an experience-near form of descrip-
tion (Mann, 2021), our tasks as therapists is also to ‘flesh out’ our
words with sensations, movement with a focus on bodily existence
(Kepner, 2008).
Introducing physical movement in a therapy session can often
facilitate psychological movement. As I have stated earlier patterns
repeat and physical stillness can reflect psychological stillness. If there
is no movement a person’s perception of their body and of objects in
contact with their body is vague (Goldstein, 1939), for this reason I
have developed a habit of moving in some way in sessions and if the
temperature is right inviting the client to do likewise. This might
simply be changing the way we are sitting, fidgeting or standing up
for a few seconds, perhaps even shaking ourselves. With the move-
ment towards more on-line video sessions since COVID-19 it seems
even more important that we therapists are mindful of the need to
move as the immediate situation of sitting in front of a computer
screen invites the opposite.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
I am assuming that you have been sitting reading for a while. I’d like
to invite you to get up, walk around, shake your arms and move your
head and neck. Venture outside for a short time and deepen your
breathing in the open air. When you return to this chapter before read-
ing on take a few moments to notice any changes in energy, your level
of contact or anything that stands out for you.

Although Husserl and others had made reference to the body in

phenomenology the prime focus of the discipline remained con-
sciousness. It was the French philosopher and phenomenologist
Maurice Merleau-Ponty who went further than anyone else in
building a philosophy that placed the body and embodiment at
the heart of phenomenology. I find it important here to clarify
what we are discussing when I use the term ‘body.’ There is the
‘objective’ body that we dress each morning, place on the bath-
room scales and beautify, that is not the focus of Merleau-Ponty’s
philosophy. He focusses on ‘the lived body’ that is the lived unity
of the mind-body-world system (Bullington, 2013), when we
discuss the body in gestalt therapy it is this concept of body we
are referring to – a body that is intimately connected with its
106 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

environmental field and one that is situated in the world, a uni-

tary being that is part of a unified world. The lived body perceives
but according to Merleau-Ponty perception is not as we often like
to suppose, a psychological event that happens in our brain via
our sense organs, it is a bodily phenomenon that takes place in
relation to our world. ‘One’s own body is in the world just as the
heart is in the organism: it continuously breathes life into the vis-
ible spectacle, animates it and nourishes it from within, and forms
a system with it’ (Merleau-Ponty, 2014: 209). The lived body, our
bodies, are in constant dialogue with the world, if you doubt this
notice that you are breathing the world in at this moment, you
are taking in the words on this page – as long as we are living
breathing beings we will always be in contact with the world. The
world unfolds before us in each passing moment and then again in
the next moment, awareness and contact forms between the per-
son and the world as they are ‘born together’ – the French word
for knowledge is connaissance that translates to born together.
Merleau-Ponty’s work was ground-breaking in terms of embod-
ied perception but it is far from easy bedtime reading, he uses
unfamiliar language with words such as ‘chiasm’ and the term ‘flesh’
carries a different meaning to its common usage. ‘Flesh’ is used to
describe the interwoven inseparability between human beings and
the world, ‘That the presence of the world is precisely the pres-
ence of its flesh to my flesh, that I “am of the world” and that I
am not it, this is no sooner said than forgotten …’ (Merleau-Ponty,
1968: 127). As such we can view flesh as a relational ontology, it is
the between. The term ‘chiasm’ is used to describe the intertwin-
ing of our embodied belief systems with the world. This weighs
us down with sedimented embodied beliefs and meaning but also
gives us hope (Orange, 2010), hope and lack of hope being part
of the same continuum. The use of Merleau-Ponty’s somewhat
strange language was, Orange hypothesises, ‘… his wrenching
himself away from his own lingering philosophy of conscious-
ness (i.e. Cartesianism)’ (ibid: 57). For those wishing to study the
work of Merleau-Ponty further I recommend Orange (2010) as a
good starting point, Zahavi (2019) or Merleau-Ponty’s The World
of Perception (2008).
It seems fitting that I close this sub-heading with an invitation
to engage in a body-orientated experiential exercise, one that was
shared with me by my friend and colleague Sally Denham-Vaughan
in relation to her work on Liminal Space (2010).
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 107

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
I’d like you to stand and preferably close your eyes. Pay close atten-
tion to your breathing and deepen it a little, do not force it, just gently
deepen each breath. In your own time, and take your time, consider
a dilemma or a choice that you face in your life. It doesn’t have to be
a major issue, just something that you can either move towards or
remain where you are in relation to it. I’d now like you to gently, ever so
gently, rock forward towards your toes and back towards your heels. Be
aware of your breathing, pairing breathing in with your rocking move-
ment forwards and out with your movement back. Remember times
in your life when possibilities have opened up for you – note how this
feels in your body as you gently sway forwards and backwards. Take
a few moments and then return to your dilemma or choice. Visualise
this situation as you continue to move backwards and forwards and
breathe in as you rock forwards, out as you rock back. In your own
time consider whether you want to take a step forwards or back in
relation to this choice. Try not to place a value on this but stay with
your body’s sense of what is right for you in relation to the world at
this moment.

When I first completed this exercise I tried to focus on something

major in my life but moved to focus on my Sunday morning dilemma
of whether I move to go cycling or stay in my dressing gown read-
ing. As we are process focussed in gestalt therapy the actual content
carries less importance, we are seeking your embodied felt sense of
the situation.

5.5 HOLISM
Whilst mulling over the writing of this chapter I asked a friend,
a retired teacher with no experience of psychotherapy, what her
understanding of the term ‘holism’ was. After her initial ‘Oh, gosh!’
(after all we were on holiday), Sally replied, ‘I think it’s seeing the
person as a whole rather than as separate parts.’ A few days later at a
psychotherapy conference I posed the same question to a group of
colleagues, some of whom gave the same answer as Sally, whilst oth-
ers gave a broader understanding that extended beyond the person to
include the situation. In researching the gestalt literature and beyond
I have found that both the narrower more individual viewpoint of
holism and the view that holism needs to be viewed in relation to
108 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

the whole field has been espoused. My view is that in common with
phenomenology and field theory when viewing the person holisti-
cally we do not separate mind from body or ‘interior’ experience
from ‘exterior’ experience. Where I differ from Sally’s on-the-spot
definition is that neither do we separate the person from the world.
Each are seen in their complete, interrelated entirety, an entirety that
is never static but in a constant state of flux. There are wholes within
wholes, an atom is a whole but is part of a greater whole just as we
humans are wholes but are also part of greater wholes. Jan Smuts,
who is considered to have coined the term expanded this philosophy
beyond our world, ‘The evolution of the universe, is nothing but the
record of this whole-making activity in its progressive development’
(Smuts, 1987: 326).
In the introduction in PHG the authors emphasise the importance
of healing the splits inherent in ourselves, our society, and our envi-
ronment. They believed that the average person had been raised in
‘an atmosphere of splits’ (ibid: xxiv) and consequently had lost their
wholeness, in that respect one can easily argue that not a lot has
changed over the past 70+ years. Such splits from early childhood
create embodied ground introjects many of which are culturally
reinforced. The philosophy of holism – meaning whole, complete,
interconnected – flies in the face of such splitting, reductionism and
dualism so prevalent in Western societies. From a holistic viewpoint
we cannot gain a complete picture of a person by adding together
the individual component parts of the person and their field. The
whole is greater than the sum of its parts, to illustrate this we can
consider the arts – a musical stanza, a painting, a verse in a poem – all
are more than the sum of the separate notes, brushstrokes or words.
That said, any part of a whole can be said to encode the whole
(Clarkson, 1993).
Fritz and Laura Perls were influenced by Jan Smuts work on
holism during their time in South Africa after fleeing Nazi
Germany prior to arriving in New York. Smuts (1926/1987) intro-
duced the term holism in his book Holism and Evolution in which
he considered the organism to be self-regulating and to contain
its past and much of its future in the present. Smuts work had
already generated much interest amongst the gestalt psychologists
who, as we have seen, showed that man does not perceive things as
unrelated isolates but organises them in the perceptual process into
meaningful wholes (Perls, 1973: 2). Smuts saw holism as, ‘a process
of creative synthesis’ (1926: 87) viewing the perceived wholes as a
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 109
dynamic, fluid process that ‘… can only be explained by reference
to its past and its future as well as its present; the conception of the
field therefore becomes necessary and will be found fruitful in biol-
ogy and psychology no less than physics’ (ibid). In physics one of
the ways we can describe the motion of light waves is through par-
ticle theory, one of the ways we can describe the motion of humans
is through holism. With Smuts’ descriptions, some of which were
adapted and used with similar language in PHG, we can clearly
see how inseparable holism, phenomenology, field theory and our
dialogue with the world is and it has been described as, ‘the most
central feature of Gestalt psychology and Gestalt psychotherapy’
(Clarkson, 1993: 5).
The clinical relevance of holism and a holistic view of the person
in the give and take of the therapeutic encounter is that in order
to make sense of the person’s experience we need to explore their
wider field. We need to gain an understanding of the ground from
which the figural issue(s) emerge and the way in which the client
patterns emerging themes. The gestalt therapist attempts to achieve
this through phenomenological enquiry, observation and noticing
what takes place in the between of the relationship during dialogue
whilst holding a field perspective with any understanding being
temporary. As Parlett states, ‘If psychology was to have relevance
to people’s experiences, to how people lived and thought and per-
ceived, then psychologists needed to be observing patterning and
relationship, whole configurations and complex interactions, rather
than chopping up nature and experience into underlying sensations
or stimulus-response units in the manner of reductionist science’
(2005: 43). However, whilst I am in full agreement with Parlett we
do need to recognise that our cultural ground will inevitably shape
our perception of the person and the world. Realistically if we have
been brought up in an individualistic culture of splits, dualism and
reductionism, if that is the ground upon which we have walked upon
during our lifetime, we cannot simply shed our tendency to ‘chop
up nature.’ What the gestalt therapist can do is to notice and heighten
their awareness of their tendency towards such embedded cultural
norms. In many ways it is similar to having been brought up in a
dualistic ‘she/her, he/him’ culture and now with greater awareness
needing to include ‘they/them’ and other pronouns. Anyhow, if we
apply the theory of polarities then we need to fully experience dual-
ism, reductionism and separation to know holism – the light cannot
exist without the dark.
110 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD

The gestalt therapist Michael Clemmens (2020) observes that

whilst many therapists and trainers recite the ‘Torah of holism’ in
practice they focus on body as distinct and of a lower order of signifi-
cance than mind. We can take depression as an example that is clas-
sically considered as a ‘mood disorder,’ but it is far more than a mood
disorder – it affects the person’s whole body. Not only does it affect
the person’s whole body but depression radiates outwards affecting
the person’s relationships, with those close to the sufferer, with work,
with colleagues. The person suffers and the whole situation suffers.
There are cultures that would not identify with depression as affect-
ing mood because the body is affected. From a phenomenological
and holistic perspective we experience our world through our bodies.
Most gestalt training organisations continue to assess competencies
solely through mind-oriented assessments – essays with word counts,
final case studies and transcripts with theoretical reflections – there can
be a mismatch between methods of assessment and the embodied (that
includes mind) practice of gestalt therapy. If we believe in the unity of
body and mind we need to attend to somatic experience in learning
and assessment, rather than teach and assess only the top few inches
of the learner’s head. ‘In the learning process … there is a tendency
to become stuck in a one-dimensional view of self, thereby losing the
holistic richness of the individual.’ (Desmond & Jowett, 2011: 225).
A holistic philosophy can also be a casualty if we become too nar-
rowly focussed on neuroscience. We cannot understand the marvel
of all marvels, our constant dialogue with the world and the world’s
dialogue with us, by studying a single organ or system in the body.
Although holism is ever-present in our theory and practice, I agree
with Phillips (2014) that the use of the term has become increasingly
sidelined. Perhaps it has been consumed within phenomenology and
field theory in gestalt therapy as comparatively few contemporary
gestalt texts use the term to any degree, even though they discuss
holistic practice. ‘Holism’ and ‘holistic’ are certainly terms that have
been used casually or misused in many ‘therapy’ arenas. Bowman
believes that, ‘The death knell for holism as a useful concept …’
(2012: 34) is to be found in the human potential movement of the
1970s ‘… which had a major – and unfortunate – impact on Gestalt
Therapy’ (ibid). I believe there is truth in his assertion and it is a sad
irony that Fritz Perls version of gestalt therapy at the Esalen Institute
around that time contributed to that movement. Perhaps it is now
time for gestalt therapy to reclaim holism – in its entirety!
 EXPERIENCING THE WORLD 111
5.6 SUMMARY
• Phenomenology is the study of human experience and the way
in which phenomena presents.
• In our daily lives, we engage in a process of sense-making, mak-
ing assumptions and judgments about reality, this is known as
‘the natural attitude.’ In holding a phenomenological attitude
one does not make such assumptions.
• Transcendental phenomenology aims to transcend the natural
attitude and gain an objective view of the world through origi-
nal experience, achieved by a process called phenomenological
reduction.
• Existential phenomenology focuses on human existence and
rejects the idea of separating consciousness from the world. It
emphasises being-in-the-world and views existence as relational.
• In gestalt therapy, practical application of phenomenology cen-
tres on understanding how clients perceive their world in the
present. Therapists aim to remain open, curious and attentive
to the client’s movements and expressions without prematurely
assigning meaning.
• Gestalt therapy rejects the notion of a knowable objective reality,
focusing instead on intersubjective reality.
• Intersubjectivity is described as the meeting of two realities, cre-
ating a third reality greater than the sum of its parts.
• Humans are in a continuous, co-created, intersubjective dance
with the world and fellow humans, emphasising the mutual
dependency that underlies our existence.
• Phenomenology emphasises the terms ‘lived body’ and ‘living
body’ to highlight that we carry in our bodies a narrative history
and connection to the world.
• A holistic view of a person does not separate mind from body or
interior from exterior. It encompasses the complete, interrelated
entirety of an individual.
 6

DIALOGUE
Emerging Through Relationship

Dialogue in gestalt therapy is far more than the everyday use of the
term where we might understand it as a conversation or discussion;
thought of only in terms of verbal communication. Dialogue in gestalt
therapy is a whole body experience, it is being willing to be vulner-
able in reaching out to the other and holds specific characteristics. It
takes place between person and person or people, but we are also in
constant dialogue with our world. The poles of human relating are
I-It and I-Thou and therapists need to be willing to hold an I-Thou
attitude, be willing to stand in that vulnerable place ready for the rela-
tional call if or when the client is able and/or willing to meet them
there. Certain relational themes can hamper such deep relating and we
will explore these dynamics alongside what is known as the dialogical.

6.1 DIALOGUE IN GESTALT THERAPY

Two of us walked a narrow ridge today. To our left was a drop to a
comfortable cushion of questioning. To our right a drop to a feather
mattress of interpretation. Our footings were unsure, uncertain, vul-
nerable and at times unbalanced but we kept walking, feeling and
sensing our steps always in relation to the contours of that narrow
ridge and the space between us.
The above is a metaphorical description of the process of dialogue
in gestalt therapy inspired by Hycner’s description of the art of dia-
logue as, ‘Walking the narrow ridge’ (Hycner and Jacobs, 1995: 14)
that was in turn adapted from the existentialist, theologian and philos-
opher Martin Buber’s description of dialogue as, ‘… a narrow, rocky
DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-7
 DIALOGUE 113
ridge between the gulfs where there is no sureness of expressible
knowledge but the certainty of meeting what remains undisclosed’
(1965a: 184). Laura Perls (1992) was deeply influenced by Buber who
tutored her, ‘… more than any psychologist or psychotherapist.’ It
is therefore curious that PHG make no reference to Buber and the
word ‘dialogue’ appears only once in the whole text, one can only
reasonably speculate that the remnants of psychoanalysis were still jan-
gling around and that at the time the healing qualities of interpersonal
dialogue ‘played a marginal role’ (Staemmler, 2016: 4). It was left to
later generations of gestalt therapists to fully integrate dialogue and
Buber’s work into gestalt therapy with landmark texts in the 1990s as
relevant today as ever: Hycner (1993), Hycner and Jacobs (1995) and
Yontef (1993). Buber was a prolific writer and gestalt therapy owe
him a debt of gratitude for his work on dialogue and the different ele-
ments of dialogue: presence, confirmation, commitment to dialogue/
non-exploitation, the between and inclusion that I will address later.
You may have gathered by now that when we talk about dialogue
in gestalt therapy we are not referring to an everyday meaning of the
term, generally defined as a conversation or discussion between two
or more people. Dialogue in gestalt therapy often includes language
but moves beyond words and beyond the ordinary understanding
of non-verbal communication that is often interpretive. The dia-
logic relationship is central to gestalt therapy because when the client
and the therapist enter into dialogue they co-create one another and
then re-create one another moment by moment, minute by min-
ute, hour by hour, as selves-in process; it is through the dialogical
that we heighten awareness and increase contact with what is. As
Buber states, ‘The limits of the possibility of dialogue are the limits
of awareness’ (1965b: 10), and these limits are determined between
contact boundaries rather than behind them as Buber makes clear,
‘Man becomes an I through a you’ (Buber, 1958: 80). From a gestalt
and Buberian perspective there can be no such thing as an isolated ‘I,’
we can feel isolated, or isolate ourselves but we will always be con-
nected, always be in some level of contact.
Working dialogically can be demanding work, like any skill it requires
practice and commitment, but it is not rocket science. Inclusive, dia-
logic interventions can appear quite unremarkable. A simple interven-
tion such as, ‘I am wondering how that was for you when I said that,’
invites dialogue and phenomenological exploration, whilst a more
immediate statement such as, ‘I feel really touched by you’ can be really
impactful for the client especially if such relating is alien to them. As a
114 DIALOGUE

general guide an intervention will be more immediate if the sentence

contains ‘I’ and ‘you.’ Of course, dialogue is not a matter of robotically
phrasing interventions correctly, the therapist needs to hold an open-
ness in their heart to receive the client alongside a willingness to be
vulnerable, firm, boundaried, loving, to touch their own shame –
whatever quality may be in service of the furtherance of dialogue. We
need to pay close attention to the client’s bodily reactions, depth of
breathing, muscular tension, subtle deflections, etc., as discussed in pre-
vious chapters. The therapist needs to develop an ability to move along
a continuum, to relate honestly rather than respond with constant soft-
ness (Yontef, 1993). If dialogue can be achieved it has a transforma-
tional effect, something remains for the client that changes them but
this is no unilateral change as the therapist changes too.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
The invitation I gave on page 40 regarding considering your grow-
ing edges would be useful here, but this time I’d like to invite you
complete the same exercise but in relation to specific others
(that could be clients or friends) rather than simply for yourself –
how do you and the other configure this relationship?

We can view dialogue as a dance in which the therapist holds a

dialogic attitude in allowing the dance to unfold. The two partners
may begin with their respective versions of the dance, say a tango.
The therapist might misattune dancing the steps of an Argentine
tango when the client is dancing a ballroom tango, before, when
at a moment of connection, a third reality unfolds and the dance
itself takes on a life of its own. Such a moment cannot be forced, it
comes through grace and as soon as will enters the room it is lost. A
tango illustrates the need for distance and closeness in dialogue and
our being in the world as, ‘The ontological character of existence
requires both distance and relation’ (Buber, 1965b: 61–62).
In my decades of clinical practice, other than the occasional student
of psychotherapy, I am yet to meet a client who walks into my ther-
apy room for an initial meeting seeking a dialogic relationship. The
vast majority arrive with problems – anxiety based, situational based,
relationship based, depression based problems – that result in symp-
toms; the beginning point is that most simply want that problem and
their symptoms to be resolved. We meet clients where they are, often
 DIALOGUE 115
clients objectify the therapist as a fixer maybe even a miracle worker
or view gestalt therapy through a medical lens. At these times, that can
endure, the therapist needs to hold a dialogic attitude for the relation-
ship, available until such time that the client is able to move towards
being more process focussed rather than content focussed, intervening at
points to invite movement in that direction. If and when the therapy
becomes more process focussed a reparative contact experience can be
created between client and therapist, ‘… symptoms are always a plea
for a specific relationship: a kind of contact where the symptoms are
not needed anymore’ (Roubal, Francesetti and Gecele, 2017 my italics).
Whilst essentially I agree with Roubal et al, I always like to hold a
degree of uncertainty, for instance mood disturbance can be caused by
thyroid dysfunction that may require medical intervention.
It is difficult to give a description of dialogue in concrete terms, I
am discussing a way of being and the ontological does not lend itself
to being pinned down with the written word. This is probably why
I have used a couple of metaphorical descriptions and why Buber’s
writing was so poetic. He put dialogue, ‘… at the ontological centre
of life, meaning that you cannot come into being except through dia-
logue … there is no self without other’ (Jacobs, 1992). If you struggle
to understand this particular pillar of gestalt, this relational dynamic,
you are in good company, ‘To study the relational is like scooping
up a handful of sand. For an instant, you can grasp it – it feels like
you have something in hand yet inexorably, what seemed so solid a
moment ago slowly slips through your fingers’ (Jacobs & Hycner,
2009). Although we theorise over the dialogical, and we need to, it
is a bodily felt way of being, one that is more about the human spirit,
courage to let go and trust in the process that emerges than being a
theory. As the gestalt psychologists discovered in their research at the
turn of the past century, we perceive relations not separate, isolated
things as, ‘In the beginning is relation’ (Buber, 1958: 18).

6.2 I-THOU AND I-IT RELATING

Your Thou, my I,
And between us,
Something fleeting,
Something we cannot grasp,
We cannot aim for,
The moment that we do,
Is the moment it dies.
116 DIALOGUE

I-Thou and I-It represent the poles of human relating. Between

these poles there is a natural flow of connection and separation, a
flow that in gestalt therapy has been referred to as the relational, dia-
logic and the dialogical. The I-Thou moment emerges when both
parties meet in all their humanness, it is a fleeting peak experience
of human relating that requires both parties to let go of any goals or
perceived way of being. For that moment therapist and client are
absorbed by one another – no introjects, no projections, no retro-
flection, no confluence – simply a meeting of souls. As such these
figural moments, ‘… wherein the participants confirm each other as
the unique being each is’ (Hycner & Jacobs, 1995: 54) are to be treas-
ured, as they will inevitably fall into the ground of each party and
such profound meeting changes each party. The I-Thou moment has
the flavour of the spiritual, a touching of hearts.
One cannot aim for I-Thou as the moment one takes aim is the
moment I-Thou is objectified and thereby becomes an It. The ther-
apist’s task is to provide the ground from which I-Thou moments
can emerge by holding a dialogic attitude. In crude ‘geographical’
terms the therapist can only journey 50% of the way across the
between, no more, to be available to move to that vulnerable posi-
tion to be present for meeting without an expectation they will be
met. Of course, this depends on what is called for in the therapeu-
tic relationship at that time. There are many times in therapy and
life that the call is for the opposite relational polarity, I-It relating,
when we move into doing rather than being – the therapist and cli-
ent wouldn’t even get to the therapy room if we didn’t! If there is a
need for experimentation then we are relating from an I-It position,
likewise if we move into psycho-education, invite ownership, in
fact many gestalt interventions and conversations will, to a greater
or lesser degree, be I-It.
Buber’s classic and poetic work I and Thou (1958), as the title sug-
gests, focusses almost exclusively on the I-Thou moment of mutual
contact in relation to its polar opposite, I-It. This can inadvertently
lead to a dichotomising of each pole accompanied by a devaluing of
the absolute necessity of I-It relating. Between any two poles lies a
continuum, there are extremes of I-It relating that completely objec-
tify, speaking down from a podium of self-righteousness, and other
styles of relating that whilst still rooted in I-It contain care, compas-
sion and understanding. If we journey along this continuum towards
the I-Thou polarity we move towards an I-Thou attitude or I-Thou
process (Hycner, 1993; Yontef, 1993; Hycner & Jacobs, 1995) that
 DIALOGUE 117
provides fertile ground from which I-Thou moments may emerge.
Holding such an attitude in itself can be confirming for the client but
the therapist needs to move fluidly between I-Thou and I-It relating,
for example:
J ohan tells a story about a change in his past behaviour in relation to a work
colleague.
Johan: … so I didn’t get mad, or bottle it all up like I used to and take it out
on Ange (his partner) when I got home. I just told him straight, “Don’t talk
to me like that” It felt good.
Dave: I am really impressed by you. (I-Thou relating)
Johan: (Talking quickly) Yeah, I did okay. You know, I would have held on to
that for weeks and the resentment would have spilled out all over the place,
at work at home with family … ( Johan continues talking quickly in the same
vein) … and then I’d probably drink too much and …
Dave: Johan, just stop for a minute. (I-It)
Johan: Uh!
Dave: Notice your breathing, how deep is it? (I-It)
Johan: I was going fast again wasn’t I (he has been gaining a growing aware-
ness of his deflective/retroflective process).
Dave: So, we know how to counter that now don’t we? (we have covered
body armouring, softening and breathing in the environment in previous ses-
sions, so rather than take control I want to leave some responsibility with
Johan, it also feels more equalising – this is still I-It relating but is underpinned
by an I-Thou attitude).
Johan: (Deepens his breathing whilst maintaining eye contact, his facial
muscles soften, his shoulders drop slightly as he relaxes into our contact).
Dave: Did you hear what I said to you?
Johan: Yeah, you said you were impressed. (deflects by losing the personal)
Dave: Close, but not quite … Keep breathing this in (I-It) … I’m going to say
this slowly.
I … am really impressed … by you. (I return to I-Thou relating)
Johan: (Swallows, his eyes water, he moves to speak but stops and just nods,
a tear runs down his face).
Dave: (My eyes water and my heart feels touched by this man).

These last two lines are probably an example of an I-Thou moment

as best as the limitations of language can describe, the verbal forms
only a part of an I-Thou moment and it can emerge without words.
Although the above dialogue is fictitious, I felt a deep stirring in my
body as I wrote those closing few lines; my body remembered those
rare and magical moments where two hearts touch between self and
other in the therapy room, for which I feel a deep gratitude towards
all the clients who have stood on the relational precipice of that
118 DIALOGUE

moment with me willing to let go of the certainty of reified ways

of being. The above dialogue demonstrates the use of a number of
techniques or methods that help move the dialogue towards more
immediate relating. Although Buber’s (1958) magnus opus did focus
on the relational pole of I-Thou without much evidence of any-
thing resembling a continuum between its opposite relational pole,
he did diversify in his later works to pay more attention to I-Thou
process (Buber, 1965a, 1965b, 1967), Buber also acknowledged the
importance of methods whilst emphasising the human, ‘The decid-
ing reality is the therapist, not the methods. Without methods one
is dilettante. I am for methods, but just in order to use them not to
believe in them’ (Buber, 1967: 168). Creative experimentation is part
of the method of gestalt therapy with the aim of heightening aware-
ness and thereby increasing contact with ‘what is’, likewise I-Thou
relating facilitates a deepening of awareness and as demonstrated in
my dialogue with Johan an increase in contact. The two are not
mutually exclusive, far from it, they are part of an integrated whole
known as gestalt therapy.
Buber didn’t build his philosophy solely around human to human
relationships in common with one of gestalt therapy’s founders, Paul
Goodman, he included nature believing that the I-Thou process
included, ‘… one’s own feelings into the dynamic structure of an
object, a pillar or a crystal or the branch of a tree, or even an ani-
mal …’ (Buber, 1965b: 124). I know of many gestalt therapists that
bring this philosophy into their work today. Some have diversified to
incorporate dogs and horses in their work as well as working outside
the therapy room in nature, positive and creative moves that emerged
from the pandemic and have continued.
Whilst I-It relating is necessary in everyday life there has been a
toxic form of I-It that has oppressed minority groups for centuries,
harking back to slavery and beyond. The process of this pathologi-
cal I-It relating, in which the person is never seen as an equal (or
even as a person), still plays out today in all forms of prejudice.
Black people, people of colour, LGBTQ+ people, people with dis-
abilities to name a few groups that have been and sadly still are
oppressed victims of an I-It attitude. Perhaps there is a groundswell
towards change as, to adapt a much cited Buber’s quote, ‘Without It
a human being cannot live. But whoever sees a person only as an It
de-humanises them,’ the oppressor de-humanises themselves in the
process too as they move a step closer to opening the doors to the
gates of another Dachau.
 DIALOGUE 119
There have been criticisms of Buber’s work in relation to its inte-
gration into gestalt therapy, Strawman notes that his ‘… emphasis
on the present moment is so sharp that he appears … to lose sight
of how individual moments are nested in time’ (2011: 12), though
the same can be said of Fritz Perls summed up with his catchphrase
describing gestalt therapy as ‘here and now, I and Thou’ (1966: 545).
Individual moments are also ‘nested in’ a situation, a field of influ-
encing factors and any meeting will be shaped by the situation in
which it takes place, Buber discusses dyadic relationships with peo-
ple and things intensely focussing on the between at the expense of
the wider field. However, I need to reiterate that Buber was not a
gestalt psychotherapist or a psychotherapist of any description. He
presented gestalt therapy with a wonderful gift for which we owe
him a debt of gratitude.
‘When I confront a human being as my [Thou] … then he is no
thing among things nor does he consist in things. He is no longer
[They] He or She, limited by other [They’s] He’s and She’s, a dot in
the world grid of space and time, nor a condition that can be expe-
rienced and described, a loose bundle of named qualities …’ (Buber,
1958: 59)

6.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF A DIALOGIC
RELATIONSHIP
The process of dialogue holds several different characteristics, the
shape of which will be determined between client and therapist,
these characteristics or elements of the dialogic relationship have
been identified differently by different writers, almost all of whom
list inclusion, presence, confirmation, and commitment to dia-
logue with others adding non-exploitation. All were implicitly or
explicitly present in Buber’s writing but were made more acces-
sible and integrated into gestalt therapy by Hycner (1993), Yontef
(1993) and Hycner and Jacobs (1995) with later texts from authors
such as Staemmler (2009, 2012) and others adding to the body of
work. Just as phenomenology, field theory and dialogue alongside
experimentation weave in and out of each other in creating the
tapestry of gestalt therapy, so too do these characteristics of dia-
logue weave in and out of one another. Again, for clarification
purposes, I will engage in a false separation in describing each
characteristic separately but remember that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts.
120 DIALOGUE

6.3.1 Commitment to Dialogue

If we fully commit to something whether it be running a mara-
thon, training as a craftsperson, as a psychotherapist or eating more
healthily, commitment is the starting point and there is a cost to it.
In committing to dialogue we commit to what surfaces between
you and me, we commit to the between that can be viewed as the
hyphen between I-Thou and I-It. In doing so, we need to let go of
our certitudes, our interpretations, our theoretical comfort blankets
to provide the ground for meaning to emerge between us. We can
view this process as a form of bracketing, and as is the case with
bracketing in Husserl’s phenomenological method it might not be
fully achievable, but if we are to practice as dialogical gestalt thera-
pists we must travel down that road as far as we can. We need to
be prepared to surrender to the between of the relationship. This
doesn’t mean that we simply agree with the client, that would be
confluence, we enter the phenomenological world of the client
whilst holding on to our own phenomenological world. As figure
and ground cannot exist simultaneously a commitment to dialogue
demands a shuttling between the experienced world of the therapist
and the client, with our grasp on our own phenomenological world
firm enough for us to remain grounded but loose enough to allow
for change. The therapist is the steward of the dialogue and as such
holds responsibility for establishing and maintaining an atmosphere
in which the client’s needs are primary, including holding respon-
sibility for the safe exploration of issues that arise and maintain-
ing focus. Once meaning begins to emerge we may then seek to
sharpen the figure and at that point draw upon our theoretical maps
but always in relation to the figure/ground dynamic and in service
of the dialogue.
Years ago in my work as a gestalt therapist in the psychiatric ser-
vices in the British National Health Service I worked with individu-
als with radically different views of ‘reality’ from my own. I needed
to accept that my perception of the world was no more or less valid
than the person facing me, not an easy task when encountering ‘real-
ities’ that were far removed from mine – delusional thinking, ideas
of reference, paranoid ideation – often coupled with disturbances of
perception such as auditory hallucinations. In order to commit to
dialogue with these people I needed to appreciate their view of real-
ity no matter how bizarre it appeared. One man I recall believed he
literally had the devil on his back, another that his body contained no
 DIALOGUE 121
organs, a young woman believed microphones and cameras were in
walls and followed her around. In accepting these individual’s reality
without agreeing with it or trying to change it, I simply attempted
to understand the meaning for the person, consequently there was
often a shift in the so-called ‘thought disorder.’ In many cases it loos-
ened, became less figural, a process that I see as overlapping with
the paradoxical theory of change. Most of the people I worked with
had rarely, if ever, experienced dialogue in the Buberian sense of the
word. In their relationships their ‘symptoms’ were something that
needed managing rather than understanding and a prime need for
any human is to be understood (Bion, 1962). The therapist commit-
ting to dialogue can facilitate that need.

6.3.2 Inclusion and Empathy – Any Dif ference?

Fritz Perls (1973) was critical of empathy believing that to empa-
thise was to withhold one’s self and in doing so deprive the field
of what was the main agent for change, the therapist herself, he
saw no place for empathy in gestalt therapy as it did not facilitate
contact, was one-sided and could move into confluence. This was
his critique of a traditional view of empathy where the therapist’s
presence is subsumed with the starting point being with the cli-
ent. In contrast Buber’s inclusion’s starting point is distance with the
therapist moving towards the client and oscillating back and forth
between what is happening for the therapist and what is happening
for the client. This movement is not a cognitive exercise but one
that involves the therapist’s whole being. ‘The therapist must feel the
other side, the patient’s side of the relationship, as a bodily touch to
know how the patient feels it’ (Buber, 1967: 173). Friedman, who
studied Buber’s work extensively differentiates between a traditional
view of empathy and inclusion thus, ‘Empathy literally means to feel
into the other. It means you leave your ground and you go over to
the other … Inclusion is this bold swinging, through an intense stir-
ring of one’s whole being, through which one can, to some extent,
concretely imagine what the other is thinking, feeling and willing’
(Friedman, 1990: 22).
Staemmler (2012) discusses an expanded concept of empathy that
he describes as a form of social referencing based on intersubjectiv-
ity. Viewing the traditional view of empathy in a similar way to Fritz
Perls as one-sided, disembodied and individualistic he discusses an
expanded concept of empathy that includes mutuality, corporeality
122 DIALOGUE

and the joint situation. This expanded embodied view of empathy

that involves, ‘… a referencing of both the experiential world of
the other person(s) and also of the joint situation and its emergent
characteristics’ (ibid: 214) would probably have rested more eas-
ily with Fritz, particularly as it involves a movement between the
experienced world of the client and the experienced world of the
therapist.
Inclusion is an existential stance in which the other’s experience
is embodied by the therapist, one cannot practice inclusion without
attunement and a sensing, embodied way of being. Hycner acknowl-
edges the influence of Zen in gestalt therapy in the practice of inclu-
sion, … it is only when I empty out my self that the ontological crystal
clarity of the other can be truly seen (Hycner & Jacobs, 1995: 49 original
italics). Or to put it another way, nothing moves into a space that
is taken, if you are mulling over theory or how long there is left of
the therapy session you cannot be inclusive with the client at those
moments. The practice of inclusion is demanding work and as thera-
pists we cannot expect ourselves to be relentlessly inclusive all of the
time, in the same way that as gestalt therapists we hold a dialogic atti-
tude, we need to hold an over-arching inclusive intention. We will
get it wrong at times, we will miss our clients and there are likely to
be times where we inadvertently shame them, particularly if that is
part of their story. What is important is that we notice ruptures in the
relationship and work to repair them by restoring an inclusive stance
through honouring the client’s experience without letting go of our
own experience of the meeting.
There is a transcribed dialogue between Buber and the founder
of the person-centred approach, Carl Rogers (Anderson & Cissna,
1997) for whom empathy was so central. My reading of this dialogue
suggested that Buber had moved from his original one-sided view
of empathy as there appeared little, if any, difference between their
respective views on empathy and inclusion. In practicing empathy
with clients Rogers was also wary of becoming unhealthily conflu-
ent. Whether we choose to describe the process of this unique kind
of meeting as empathic or inclusive is largely academic, ‘choosing
the term inclusion over empathy has become something of an anach-
ronism’ (Strawman, 2011: 7). Although I agree with Strawman, I
prefer the term inclusion because of the individualistic nature of the
way empathy has been discussed and practiced in the past, but for the
client it really doesn’t matter what it is called – what matters is that
it is experienced.
 DIALOGUE 123
6.3.3 Presence
All meeting is meeting at ‘the contact boundary’ (PHG, 1951: xviii),
to be available for the client the therapist needs to be responsive to
the temperature and flavour of the meeting in sensing what level
of the therapist’s presence is called for at this moment, and the next
and the next. We calibrate our presence in relation to the other in ser-
vice of the dialogue – calibrate presence too high and the client may
feel overwhelmed or that there is insufficient space for them, too low
and they may feel unseen or believe the therapist is disinterested. The
active presence of the therapist is gestalt therapy’s chief tool (Yontef,
1993), or rather it is more of a quality or a way of being than a tool
as, ‘Presence implies being here fully, with all of one’s body and soul –
open to all possibilities’ (Zinker, 1987: 5). It stands at the opposite end
of a continuum in relation to the psychoanalyst’s stance of passivity and
interpretation and is an essential component of the I-Thou dialogue,
‘The I-Thou dialogue is to Gestalt therapy what the Transference
Neurosis is to psychoanalysis’ (op. cit., 1993: 204).
Dialogue begins with distance, a simple example being that when
I collect my client from the waiting room during the short walk and
settling in my therapy room we probably engage in some light con-
versation, or some therapists might choose to remain silent. Presence
then requires a ‘turning toward the other’ (Buber, 1965a) with all
one’s being in a stance marked by authenticity and available trans-
parency, when the latter is the call of the between. ‘Energetic avail-
ability and fluid responsiveness’ (Denham-Vaughan, 2010: 39) is the
mark of embodied presence that requires the engagement of all the
therapist’s senses, we are available cognitively, behaviourally, emo-
tionally and spiritually. If we do so it is possible to provide something
that the client may never have experienced before and in the pro-
cess move some way to repairing past relational ruptures, challenge
ground introjects around worthiness and being objectified, work
with processes of retroflection, adaptions through confluence and
shame issues to name a few key areas. However, although these are
possible areas that may surface from the ground of the relationship,
in line with the paradoxical theory of change the therapist accepts
the client where they are whilst also holding their greatest potential.
Self-disclosure is one form of presence and this can take numer-
ous forms many of which are non-verbal – touching your heart as
you feel touched by the client, frowns, smiles, shrugs of shoulders,
loosening or tensing muscles – the list is virtually endless and whilst
124 DIALOGUE

some have obvious intention others, such as some facial gestures,

might not be in the therapist’s awareness. We can only be responsive
to our client’s subjective experience of our way of being. In doing
so, we need to develop what Buber (1958) described as a detached
presence, a relational stance where we reflect on what is happening at
each passing moment in the relationship whilst being fully present
in the relationship. As we cannot be in two places at once (figure
and ground) I adapt this idea to a shuttling between being present in
the relationship with the client and helicoptering the relationship a
movement between being and doing a need that repeatedly presents in
the art of practicing presence.
Unfortunately there have been poorly trained gestalt therapists who
misconstrue presence to give licence to indiscriminate self-disclosure,
such practice is abusive, can diminish or shame the client and has no
place in gestalt therapy. Presence is not about charisma or the therapist
‘strutting their stuff,’ I use the analogy elsewhere of the boy in ballet
to describe support (Mann, 2021) and it fits here for supportive use
of presence. The boy in ballet supports from beneath, learns to be
alert and attuned to the prima donna’s every movement, to show her
off to be the best she can be. If the boy consistently and repeatedly
catches and holds the prima donna her confidence to be more than
she was will grow, she may take more risks. Even if the boy stumbles,
as he will do from time to time, the prima donna will trust that was
not his intention. Through continued practice and dedication to their
art they appear telepathic in their communication, the prima donna
never believed she could perform a grand jete but now performs
them at will. The client never believed that she was loveable but the
supportive and consistent presence of her therapist has confirmed her
for who she is and she performs her own grand jete.
We might ‘over-pitch’ with self-disclosure, but we need to track
our interventions, noticing that we might have missed the client and
respond with a simple direct statement such as, ‘I’m sorry, I think I
missed you there.’ This can re-establish the ground for dialogue but if
delivered with sincerity and care can be healing in itself. It can con-
tribute to the creation of a safe, holding environment that can facili-
tate physiological changes as discussed in polyvagal theory (Geller &
Porges, 2014), in which connection to others is seen as a biological
imperative vital to our survival (Porges, 2015), support being given,
‘in activating the autonomic circuit … while inhibiting the more
primitive spontaneous defence circuits …’ (Formosa, 2023: 21), these
‘defence circuits’ being those we associate with acute anxiety – fight,
 DIALOGUE 125
flight and shutdown. For me this reinforces the idea that in a sense
there is no inside or outside, only relationship between the two.
One cannot look at presence without considering its polar oppo-
site, absence, after all that is invariably what we are addressing in
our therapeutic work with clients alongside the profound hurt
such absences cause. In relation to presence Francesetti, Gecele and
Roubal (2022) discuss absences in relation to the field, but I am won-
dering about absences in the therapist in relation to the wider field –
what doesn’t enter the therapy room? Wheeler cites the African-
American author W.E.B. DuBois with regard to ‘race’ who says that
culture does not come up as an awareness or an issue ‘… until we are
in the presence of an activated cultural boundary’ (2005: 113) until
then we are just living rather than living in a culture. I imagine this
must also be the case with ‘sub-cultures’ including gender, sex and
relationship diversity (GSRD). There is insufficient space to discuss
such a broad topic here but we clinicians have ‘… a duty of care to
understand the current discourse on race, racism, cultural differences
and ableism in addition to GSRD theory so that clients are protected
from further harm due to lack of education’ (Alman, 2023: 127).
Buber gave gestalt therapy a great gift but he wrote at a certain time,
a time where only two genders were acknowledged, when same sex
activity was illegal, when to be black was to be seen as a second class
citizen (or worse) and the disabled were invalids.

6.3.4 Conf irmation

In the dialogic relationship inclusion, presence and confirmation go
hand in hand for they are component parts of a process, Inclusion is
the stance of fully taking in the other … confirmation is the act of
communicating this … (Cole & Reese, 2018: 24 original italics), I will
add that I see presence as the midpoint in this process and is the act of
making oneself fully visible.
At the heart of holding a dialogical way of being with a client is
confirmation, we confirm the other in all their humanness through
practicing inclusion and presence. We are born with a need for con-
firmation, if we are fortunate in where we land when we are thrown
into the world we receive sufficient confirmation of our being that
lays the foundations from which we are able to build meaningful
and trustworthy relationships later in life; our developmental starting
point is firm relational ground. Regrettably, many are thrown into a
world of chaos, neglect or a de-humanising environment where the
126 DIALOGUE

only option for the infant/child’s survival may be to make themselves

wrong. In the absence of any reparative relationship this can leave
the child that becomes an adult standing on shaky relational ground.
If we think of self-as-process people discover who they are through
other people who make them present through contact. Whether
the person is ‘made present’ as an It or a Thou will depend on the
nature of the relationship and the situation, but if the person receives
insufficient I-Thou dialogic relating, is never seen as a Thou, their
sense of themselves as a worthwhile human being atrophies. Creative
adjustments may follow in developing a ‘false self,’ as to gain an illu-
sion of confirmation for who she appears to be is preferable to no
confirmation at all, but this is a hollow pseudo-confirmation that,
‘leaves the individual feeling empty inside and false to her own true
self ’ (Hycner & Jacobs, 1995: 23), fertile ground for shame. Unmet
desire is a catalyst for shame (Lee, 2004: 22; Robine, 2011) and it
is desire that pulls us into the world and towards relationships in
the hope of reparation through confirmation, but this is juxtaposed
against what we refer to in gestalt therapy as the familiarity boundary,
the tendency to seek out what is familiar rather than what is novel.
Sadly, I have met with many clients who having experienced an
upbringing in which they were objectified in an abusive upbring-
ing, then gravitated towards relationships that repeated a similar pat-
tern galvanising their pathological view of themselves and cementing
shame. Confirmation after such experiences cannot re-write history
but such a therapeutic experience can facilitate a movement from
the person seeing themselves as objects to feeling themselves to be
human beings, something they then carry beyond the therapy room.
In confirming the other we move to attune to their phenomeno-
logical experience of the world as we bracket our own, we step into
their world as far as is possible whilst keeping one foot in our own
world, metaphorically shifting our weight back and forth, ‘When I
reach over into the life experience of the other to make the other pre-
sent in his or her unique being, I seek to confirm that being as other,
as You’ (Orange, 2010: 27). The therapist’s movement back and forth
is important and is not always stressed, as without a sense of I there
can be no You, leaning too far forwards into the You deprives the
relationship just as much as leaning too far in the opposite direction
and staying with I, in this sense dialogic gestalt therapy is all a matter of
balance. To achieve this balance the therapist needs to be well enough
supported – professionally and personally – sufficiently centred and
comfortable in their own skin. The therapist may gain confirmation
 DIALOGUE 127
from work with their clients but this must be secondary to the needs
of the intention to confirm the client. To therapists I supervise I say,
‘Be passionate about therapy, but don’t make therapy your only pas-
sion. Do other things, meet other people.’ Therapists need to gain their
sense of confirmation from outside the door of their therapy room.
Appreciation, acceptance, attunement and Heinz Kohut’s mirror-
ing from self psychology are all terms in the field of psychotherapy
that might be equated with Buber’s confirmation but whilst the lat-
ter may come closest, none match the fully embodied human to
human reach of confirmation, ‘Man wishes to be confirmed in his
being by man, and wishes to have a presence in the being of the
other. The human person needs confirmation because man as man
needs it … secretly and bashfully [he] watches for a Yes which allows
him to be and which can come to him only from one human person
to another’ (1965a: 16).

6.3.5 Non-Exploitation
It is with some embarrassment that I say the dialogic relationship
should not exploit the client, it seems so obvious that it shouldn’t need
to be stated, but working as a therapist is a privileged and powerful
position, from such a position subtle, blatant, in or out of awareness
exploitation can and sadly does happen. I’ve already touched on one
area of possible therapist abuse of power, that of using the client to
gain a form of confirmation for themselves and making that primary.
There are many areas of possible exploitation covered in training
institutes and organisations ethical codes from financial exploitation
to sexual misconduct with clients. I do not intend to cover those
areas specifically, here I am focussing upon the need to hold an ethical
attitude that forms the ground essential for any dialogic engagement.
The cornerstone of Buber’s ethics was the dialogic encounter and
this, ‘… excludes exploiting each other, because the other is always
also a potential Du [Thou]’ (Orange, 2010: 33).
Working as a dialogic relational gestalt therapist is not a coat that
we put on as we enter the therapy room only to hang it at the door
as we leave, ‘the ethical relation is not grafted on to an antecedent
relation to cognition; it is a foundation and not a superstructure’
(Levinas, 1987: 56). As a foundation ‘the ethical relation’ must be a
way of living for the therapist in their daily lives with others, with
animals and their relationship with our planet. To be an effective
therapist we do not need to always find the right intervention, to be
128 DIALOGUE

perfect, we might stumble and stutter. What is needed is an accept-

ing and aesthetic attitude towards the experience of oneself and the
client, it means ‘… having a humble and ethical attitude which does
not deny limits and places reciprocity of presence in the foreground’
(Spagnuolo-Lobb & Cavaleri, 2023: 8).
The recent COVID-19 pandemic put us in touch with our shared fra-
gility and vulnerability as human beings that amidst a universally shared
trauma and loss of trust in what we previously ‘knew’ to be safe, the air
that we breathed, highlighted the desperate need for an ethical relational
attitude not only in a narrow dyadic I and Thou relational sense, but
in relation to every aspect of our lives on the planet and our relation-
ship with our planet. In relation to the pandemic Spagnuolo-Lobb and
Cavaleri refer to a need for ‘post-traumatic processing’ (ibid: 15) so that
psychotherapists can then play their part in heightening awareness of
political and social values alongside values of non-exploitation. I simply
ask, if we quite literally exploit the very ground that we walk upon, the
Earth that supports us, then how can we hope to congruently practice
our art ethically and non-exploitatively? We need to embrace a dialogic
attitude, an ethical attitude, in relation to our planet, ‘Until we realise
that the “other” is “us” and “we” are the “other”, “we” will continue
to be righteous, to dehumanise, to exploit and to plunder’ (Resnick,
2002: 65).

6.4 THE BETWEEN

Historically gestalt therapy held the view of health, growth and
development as being the movement from environmental support to
self-support, one of the casualties in this unipolar, one-person psy-
chological view being acknowledgement of any developmental need
for healthy dependence in the client. Therapy focussed on the client
who was seen in gestalt as interrupting contact with an individual
separateness from the therapist and a wider situation, but gestalt was
far from alone in this view during its earlier years, it had plenty of
company from the fields of sociology, psychology and other psycho-
therapies. What got missed was that, ‘“I” does not index an origin
of action, but a relational achievement’ (Gergen, 2009: 133) that has
formed in, and is connected to a ‘you’ and a wider situation that is
always in a state of flux just as self is always in process.
There followed a paradigm shift in the 1980s and early 1990s with
what has become known as the ‘relational turn’ marked by a move-
ment away from a focus on self-support, self-regulation and the need
 DIALOGUE 129
to frustrate the client (Bloom, 2010) towards a greater integration of
the dialogical into gestalt therapy and consequently a focus on the
‘between’ of the relationship and how this is co-created, gestalt ther-
apy moved to a two-person psychology, ‘Both the client’s perception
and the therapists are considered not as isolated phenomena but as
individual perceptions … both of them contribute to a shared reality’
(Spagnuolo Lobb, 2023: 23). However, the therapeutic relationship
does not exist in a bubble, if the client is suffering then his world is
also suffering and although I can bracket myself from my world to
some extent, I cannot detach myself from it. The therapeutic rela-
tionship and what takes place between client and therapist is situated
within a field of relationships all of which impact that relationship
differently from moment to moment – what appears on the surface
to be a two-person psychology is actually a multi-layered, laminated
psychological field of relations. Buber’s intense focus on the nature
of dyadic relating and the between of the relationship, ‘… the inmost
growth of the self is not accomplished as people like to suppose
today, in man’s relation to himself, but in relation between the one
and the other’ (Buber, 1965a: 61), does not appear to have viewed
the between of the relationship in terms of the wider situation and all
field conditions that will inevitably impact the between of the dyad.
In the give and take of the therapy session we move between
what is happening for the client, what is happening for the therapist
and what is happening between us. As stated, the latter is a com-
plex interwoven matrix and we therapists need to allow ourselves
time to dwell with what emerges rather than rush to make sense.
What emerges in the between needs to be dialogued in the between,
although the decision when to do so is crucial and will depend on
a number of factors – the level of trust built, the material that has
surfaced, the presence of shame, to name a few possibilities – this
is likely a time for the therapist to use support in supervision. It is
not for me to make sense of my client’s experience, but for me to
facilitate my client to make sense of their experience through our
dialogue – I am a gestalt therapist not an analyst.

6.4.1 Transference and Enduring Relational Themes

There are different ways of conceptualising ‘the between’ and what
may happen in that space. A traditional way of viewing the dynamic
that harks back to Freud – and in gestalt therapy to Fritz and Laura’s
original training in psychoanalysis – is through a transference lens,
130 DIALOGUE

which is essentially a process of projection. A simplified explanation

of transference is when a person (usually described as patient or cli-
ent) projects a quality, trait or whole person onto the other (usually
described as the therapist). Therapists talk of mother/father transfer-
ence, erotic transference, positive transference or negative transfer-
ence though other types of transference are possible such as sister/
brother/idealised partner. Counter-transference usually describes the
therapist’s response to this projection, for instance if in response to
a father transference I behave in a ‘fatherly way’ that could be ‘good
parent’ or ‘bad parent.’ It is important to note that both processes
are two-way and often occur out of awareness. The dividing line
between what is considered to be projection and what is transfer-
ence is arbitrary, if it’s a trait it is usually described as projection, if a
whole person or way of being such as erotic, it is usually described as
transference. However, the process itself is the same, ‘You are putting
your own attitude into the other person and then saying that this
person makes you feel thus’ (PHG, 1951: 101 original italics). The
projection/transference is invariably from a different time, usually
childhood, but the therapeutic significance in gestalt therapy, ‘… is
not that it is the same old story, but precisely that it is now differ-
ently worked through as a present adventure: the analyst is not the
same kind of parent’ (PHG, 1951: 234). The concept of transference
is only referred to fleetingly on a few occasions in PHG, surprising
perhaps given Fritz and Laura’s background as analysts, less surprising
perhaps if we consider they, along with Goodman, were creating a
new synthesis with a greater focus on contact in the here and now
rather than the archaic.
Attempts to integrate transference into gestalt therapy have only
met with partial success, Yontef (1991, 1993), Crocker (1999),
Philippson (2002), Melnick (2003) and many others have writ-
ten about transference in gestalt therapy, but for me it is highly
questionable whether it can be fully integrated into the approach,
despite Yontef ’s assertation that, ‘One cannot do good therapy
without dealing competently with transference phenomena’ (1991:
18). However, Yontef wrote that 23 years ago and counting, he also
went on to say that in gestalt therapy we deal with transference and
developmental issues, ‘… using the dialogic and phenomenological
perspectives …’ (ibid: 18), I wholeheartedly agree, but that doesn’t
mean that the term ‘transference’ integrates into gestalt therapy.
Part of the problem with a transference map that includes projec-
tion, is that, ‘it creates a hierarchy of truth … there is an implicit
 DIALOGUE 131
establishment of a power imbalance, in which the therapist is claim-
ing to have a more “accurate” view of reality’ (Jacobs, 2012: 60). If
I am considered to be projecting there’s nowhere for me to go, if I
disagree I’m in denial, if I’m angry at such an objectifying stance it
confirms the objectifying ‘diagnosis’ – dialogue dies. I don’t believe
that an intervention such as, ‘I think you are projecting’ has any
place in gestalt therapy.
Jacobs (2017) considers the notion of transference is no longer
useable and cites White (2008) in support of this argument whose
main points are:

• That the term ‘transference’ has become so dissipated and con-

fused that it is increasingly difficult to know what is being talked
about.
• The term has been expanded to the point where it includes
everything that happens in the therapy room.
• The areas that transference are intended to encapsulate – fantasy,
memory, physical and emotional responses, facial expressions –
are not unique to the therapy situation.

I add that:

• A traditional view of transference is more focussed on the past

and is concerned with past relationships being projected in the
present, whereas in gestalt whilst we are interested in how the
past might shape the present figure we are more concerned with
the now to next.
• A classic view of transference is not field theoretical in that all
experience forms from the immediate situation. If you per-
ceive me as a father figure that is happening now and has been
co-created.
• Transference can be seen as a distortion or a regression, but
rather than seeing it in these terms it can also be seen as a way
of organising one’s relational field (Orange, Atwood & Stolorow,
1997), the latter view fits with gestalt therapy theory whereas
distortion and regression does not. Using the term ‘transference’
leads to confusion in gestalt therapy as what it is describing is
unclear.

If we are to deconstruct theory there is invariably a need to find

descriptions and theoretical ideas that are a better fit with gestalt
132 DIALOGUE

philosophy rather than simply leaving a void. The term cotransfer-

ence (ibid) that highlights the co-creation of the dynamic has been
suggested but has only rarely been used. Jacobs (op. cit.) remains
true to the pillars of gestalt in putting forward Enduring Relational
Themes (ERT’s). The lived present holds within it a past and a
future (Merleau-Ponty, 1962/2014), hopes and fears are contained
within this relationship across time zones and shape the clients
being and expectations in the world. I will give an example from
my practice:
Not surprisingly, I ask what a client would like to gain from coming to therapy
when we meet for the first time. People often struggle to answer, so I some-
times follow up this enquiry by asking what a miracle might be, Sam’s reply
was “to feel a bit better”, Rachel “to feel less anxious”, Imogen “my mood to
improve” – Dave’s reaction, call those miracles!

The above examples are single answers to a single question, but the
therapist can be alerted to the possibility of low expectations and a
lack of hope, with a wondering what historically might account for
such a process that plays out now. We need to track relational themes
over time before we establish them to be ‘enduring.’ They will mani-
fest again and again non-verbally and verbally, the therapist needs to
attune to the ‘language’ of the ERT that emerges in the between of
their relationship with the person, always holding that they will be
impacting this relational embodied belief, ‘Hopes and fears, config-
ured in ERT’s, comprise the background of our life choices, passions,
ambitions, relationships’ (Jacobs, 2017: 13).
I believe that such sedimented beliefs have their roots in ground
introjects and they index a relationship. Jacobs (ibid) gives the exam-
ple of a client who says she’s stupid but for someone to say she’s
stupid there needs to be someone ‘smart,’ likewise for such shame-
based ground introjects as seeing oneself as unlovable, toxic or
unworthy the polar opposite in the way the other views themselves
needs to be present or have been present. Historically these outdated
creative adjustments formed a function in preserving the few crumbs
of relationship that were available for the person, they cannot be
dismantled with a few interventions and will be protected by layers
of moderations to contact. They were valuable adaptions for the per-
son that may have ensured survival of abusive relationships. It is only
by providing a different experience between person and person,
holding whenever possible a dialogic attitude that such beliefs can be
shaken and perhaps transformed between I and Thou.
 DIALOGUE 133

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
I am wondering about ‘the between’ in relation to you the reader,
and me, the writer, right now. Make yourself comfortable, notice your
breathing and maybe just deepen it a touch.
I would like to invite you to sit back from reading and ponder on the
following questions: How would you describe your experience at this
moment? Notice whether your description changes as moments pass
or stays the same.
Have any characters from your life surfaced as you have been read-
ing? If so, what sense do you make of that? If not, what sense do you
make of that?
Are you able to identify a possible ERT that you have?

6.5 SUMMARY
• Dialogue in gestalt therapy goes beyond the everyday under-
standing of the term. It includes the co-created, moment-to-
moment re-creation of the client and therapist as evolving selves.
• Dialogue in gestalt therapy often includes language but moves
beyond words.
• ‘I’ cannot exist in isolation, we are always in relationship.
• I-Thou and I-It represent polarities in human relating.
• The I-Thou moment is a fleeting, transformative peak moment
of meeting that emerges when both parties meet in all their
humanness. It cannot be forced but comes about through grace.
• As soon as I-Thou is aimed for I-Thou is made into a thing, an It.
• There are five interrelated characteristics of a dialogic relation-
ship: commitment to dialogue, inclusion, presence, confirmation
and non-exploitation.
• The ‘relational turn’ in the 1980s and early 1990s marked by
a movement away from a focus on self-support, self-regulation
and the need to frustrate the client towards a greater integration
of the dialogical into gestalt therapy.
• Attempts to integrate transference and counter-transference into
gestalt therapy have met with only partial success. Jacobs (2017)
puts forward an alternative – enduring relational themes.
 7

CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

Experimentation has been referred to as the cornerstone of gestalt ther-

apy, clients are invited to try out new ways of being in the holding
environment of the therapy room and to adopt an experimental attitude
towards therapy and life. If you have read this book chronologically you
will already have been invited to take part in a number of experiments
and I hope that some have been illuminating, but an experiment is just
what it says it is and there are no guarantees it will illuminate what is
intended. We don’t blindly go in with experiments, they need to be
built on relational ground and emerge in the between of the relation-
ship in the service of the client and extending their familiarity boundary.
They often focus on growing edges but can be explorations of dreams.
The limits of experimentation are the limits of the combined imagina-
tion of client and therapist in each passing moment in the therapy room.

7.1 GESTALT EXPERIMENTATION AND CHALLENGE

Growth takes place when we reach beyond our familiarity boundary –
our ‘comfort zone.’ A muscle that is not exercised or only moved in
a limited number of ways will not reach its full capacity of strength,
flexibility and movement. If exercised it also requires the right ‘field
conditions’ – sufficient protein and nutrients, stretching after exercise
and rest. As hypertrophy results from creating minute tears in muscle
fibres, that are then repaired, we need to grade exercise to prevent
those minute tears becoming debilitating injury. If we do sustain an
injury we need support to heal. Many of these principles apply when
we invite a client to experiment in therapy.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003312888-8
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 135
Experimentation in gestalt therapy is described as the creation of
a safe emergency (PHG, 1951: 65), the therapist aims to create a hold-
ing environment to enable the client to ‘try out’ different ways of
being that may be alien to them. There is no therapeutic gain for the
client in repeatedly doing what is familiar to them, we work towards
the assimilation of novelty (ibid). In doing so, we seek to find the
person’s growing edge, that place that is enough of a stretch for the
client but not so far that they will topple over and collapse into fear,
overwhelm or shame. In doing so, we grade any experiment accord-
ing to our perception of the person’s groundedness, sensitivity, level
of connection with the therapist and ability to accept and ‘breathe in’
support, ‘An experiment is only useful for a client if it fits his or her
available supports’ (Yontef & Schulz, 2016: 17). Every time we chal-
lenge a client we risk a relational rupture, our methodology in focus-
sing on phenomenological enquiry, differentiation and connection,
meaningful dialogue with a field perspective together with experi-
mentation can in itself be challenging for a client.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Consider the word ‘challenge’ and notice what immediately surfaces
for you. What does the word evoke for you physically, what pictures
emerge for you and what would a challenge look like for you right
now? Take a few minutes to consider these areas.

If we look back at some of the theory that we have discussed we see

that challenge takes many forms. In experimenting with different ways
of responding to the situation (Parlett, 2000, 2015) is the developmen-
tal call for Yield, Push, Reach, Grasp, Pulland Release? (Frank & La
Barre, 2011; Frank, 2023). The ultimate challenge might be to fully
accept ourselves as we are (Beisser, 1970). Culturally ‘challenge’ is often
associated with confrontation, competition, pushing forwards and in
gestalt therapy is spoken about as aggressing on the environment, that
may often be needed in given situations but let’s hold in our awareness
what is culturally syntonic and what is culturally dystonic. The experi-
mental challenge may be to slow down, to allow space, to yield rather
than push, release rather than pull, accept rather than fight against. I
spent a period of time working with senior managers in the corpo-
rate sector with aims to increase productivity for both themselves and
their staff, simply creating a space for us to meet was a change in itself
136 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

and building upon that with unremarkable ‘experiments’ that centred

around taking regular breaks and not eating their lunch whilst working
at their computers increased motivation and energy. My only aim was
to heighten awareness of what might account for these people’s lower
energy, once the idea of creating space had been actioned the manag-
ers built upon this with team building away days and reward systems.
Productivity improved significantly alongside positivity and efficacy.
The gestalt therapist does not aim for an outcome in suggesting
an experiment, our only aim is to heighten awareness so that the
client increases their level of contact with ‘what is’ now, rather than
responding to outdated creative adjustments. In setting up and facili-
tating an experiment the therapist needs to be sensitive to the possible
twists and turns that can take place, for example, an experiment may
initially be set up to explore the client’s creativity through, say, paint-
ing or drawing but turns into an expression of sadness and loss as they
remember painting and drawing with a loved one, alternatively the
feel of the paint brush could send the experiment in a completely
different direction. The therapist needs to attune to the energy flow
of the client and any experiment needs to emerge from the therapist/
client dialogue rather than it being preconfigured by the therapist, this
might mean noticing what qualities, emotions or ways of being might
be absent or avoided or when energy drops as well as noticing when
energy increases. An experiment is co-­constructed between therapist
and client in relation to the field conditions at the time, that said the
therapist carries a degree of expertise and therefore may offer a num-
ber of suggestions as possibilities but a point of consensus needs to be
reached. The limits to the range of experiments are restricted only by
the limits of the therapists and client’s combined creativity, coupled
with the ethical and therapeutic boundaries of the relationship.
An experiment is just what it says it is, testing out something new
with no guarantee that it will lead to anywhere obviously meaning-
ful. In actively engaging in experimentation the client and the therapist
together risk possible embarrassment and shame, the experiment might
flop but it will not vanish. The experience will fall into the ground of
the relationship and can be treated as learning. As therapists we are art-
ists and we practice our art with our clients, as the playwright Samuel
Beckett says, ‘To be an artist is to fail …’ (1983: 126) we cannot get it
right all of the time, even if that were possible it would not be desirable,
it is our attitude to perceived ‘failure’ of an experiment (or any interven-
tion) that is important and can provide healthy modelling for the client.
A struggling single-parent author on social security apparently said, ‘We
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 137
speak about success all the time. It is the ability to resist failure or use
failure that often leads to greater success,’ the same could be said about
building a resilience to embarrassment and shame. That author contin-
ued to write whilst on the brink of poverty, her name, J.K. Rowling.
Experiential learning will involve trial and error but provides a
deeper, more embodied level of learning than simply ‘talking about,’
hence as therapists we encourage clients to actively participate in
exploration through living the experience rather than talking about it
as though they are some outside spectator.
Experimentation can focus on many different areas. We can
use graded experimentation to move into exploring those areas
that we may habitually avoid an example being our shadow quali-
ties. A favourite story of mine concerns the French writer Guy de
Maupassant who lived in Paris and along with many of the Parisian
avant-garde despised the Eiffel Tower, yet he regularly dined in the
tower’s restaurant. He chose to go into what he despised as that was
the only place he could gain an unspoilt view of his beautiful city.
Who knows what we may discover if we dine at the table with our
shadow qualities? This is but one possible area of experimentation,
and quite a high-grade experiment too. I offer a far from exhaustive
list of areas for possible reasons to offer experimentation:

• Heightening awareness in relation to moderations to contact and

situations where those moderations are still useful, need adapting
or are now outdated.
• Clarifying and sharpening figures and heightening awareness of
their relationship to the ground from which they emerge.
• Exploring the dialectic between polarities.
• Working with and exploring dimensions of contact such as
introjection-assimilation-rejection (see Section 3.1) in relation
to specific situations.
• Unfinished business can be closed.
• To stimulate and express creativity, working with the novel.
• To heighten awareness of enduring relational themes.
• To promote greater response-ability as the client takes an active
role in their therapy.
• To focus on specific areas of the gestalt cycle, e.g. satisfaction,
sensation, etc.
• To increase the level of contact with ‘what is’ in the here and
now and thereby increase immediacy.
• To face fearful situations in a supportive environment.
138 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

It is easy to focus on ‘the big stuff’ when thinking of experimenting

in gestalt therapy but experimentation comes in all shapes and sizes.
Simply inviting a client to experiment with using direct ‘I’ language
and to make direct statements to counter deflection can be viewed
through an experimental lens, just as following that up by inviting
them to breathe into the experience, make eye contact, move or feel
their feet on the floor can. We can also think in terms of working dia-
logically or experimentally viewing these dimensions as polarities, but
they are not distant cousins, ‘At a certain moment, one polarity can be
more in the foreground and the other more in the background, in the
next moment they can change their positions within the ongoing pro-
cess of the therapeutic relationship’ (Roubal, 2019: 227). Any experi-
ment needs to emerge phenomenologically from dialogue in relation
to the aspect(s) of the field that are becoming figural for them in their
relationship with the therapist, if not it has little to do with gestalt ther-
apy and more to do with the therapists needs. We are not in the busi-
ness of ‘applying techno-rational, pre-formed “fixes” to what should
be a co-emergent, horizontal process’ (Denham-Vaughan, 2010: 37).
When we bring in experimentation in sessions, we move away
from an I-Thou to an I-It stance, we are relating to an aspect of the
person possibly in a given situation rather than the person in their
whole being in relation to me now. This reflects the ordinary need for
movement along an I-It/I-Thou continuum that plays out in healthy
relating in everyday life, we don’t need to be in fully embodied con-
tact with the other when we check out at the till in the supermarket
but we do need a capacity to move from that relational position. The
dialectic between experiment and dialogue needs to be kept as fluid
as the relationship between client and therapist allows.

7.2 TWO CHAIRS AND THE EMPTY CHAIR

People’s first association with gestalt therapy is often the empty chair
experiment, it is unfortunate that it has become something of an
inaccurate caricature of the whole therapy amongst the uninitiated
and in the process devalues the intricacies of the approach. Although
‘the empty chair’ and ‘two chair’ experiments have over the years
been abused by poorly trained therapists the creation of these experi-
ments were a moment of genius by Fritz Perls and a daringly radical
departure from his and Laura’s backgrounds working as psychoana-
lysts using the couch. The influence of Fritz’s interest in the work
of the psycho-dramatist Jacob Moreno (1889–1974) and theatre was
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 139
clearly evident in the drama of these experiments. It is a technique
that can bring an aliveness to therapy, moving away from ‘talking
about’ towards experiencing in the present, but like any experi-
ment it must emerge from phenomenological dialogue in relation
to an emerging figure in therapy rather than being presented as a
preconfigured exercise, otherwise it will probably have more to do
with amateur dramatics and the therapist’s need rather than therapy.
As with any gestalt experiments, ‘the experienced awareness leads
to action instead of predetermined directions set by the therapist’
(Melnick & Nevis, 2012). Fritz Perls brilliance in devising the two-
chair and empty chair experiments was equalled by his capacity to
later apply these techniques in a rigid fashion detached from gestalt
therapy theory during the late 1960s and early 1970s for which he
was widely criticised for distorting gestalt therapy theory, his wife
Laura being amongst his many of his critics (Amendt-Lyon, 2016).
Any ‘chair experiments’ should be offered as a suggestion by the ther-
apist and consideration needs to be given to the client’s contact style, for
example, if they have a confluent style, need to please the therapist, do
they move to action quickly and need to spend more time at fore-con-
tact? The therapist also needs to consider whether their growing edge
can be better facilitated by other experimental methods or if a more dia-
logic stance is indicated. These experiments are ‘high grade’ devised to
bring archaic influences into the here and now enabling clients to chal-
lenge outdated creative adjustments, complete unfinished business, work
towards the integration of disparate parts and polarised qualities. There
needs to be sufficient ground built between therapist and client and the
therapist needs to track the client’s ability to support themselves during
the experiment, any signs of fragmentation and the experiment needs to
be abandoned in favour of grounding. I may be sounding cautious right
now, that is because I have witnessed the ‘and then I did some gestalt bri-
gade’ groundlessly moving into using the ‘chairs’ experiments for their
own self-gratification. Movement without sufficient relational ground
results in collapse. If delivered with care under the right conditions by
therapists with solid grounding in gestalt philosophy these experiments
can facilitate the birth of insight for clients and change their self-perception
that will then in turn fall into the ground of their experience.
Let’s look at different ‘chair experiments.’ When setting up the
experiment it is important that the client moves physically as they
will be moving to a different psychological and relational space,
this also helps in clearly defining the beginning of the experiment.
Likewise the end of the experiment needs to be clearly marked to
140 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

avoid boundary confusion, so the therapist would state the obvious

in naming that the chair(s) no longer contain the person or quality
that was previously projected onto it.
The empty chair experiment is used in a number of different ways.
Most commonly the client will imagine a person from their life (past
or present) sitting in the empty chair, it could be a parent, partner/
ex-partner, sibling, friend, manager or anyone of significance. Prior
to setting up the experiment the relational issue will have become
figural and the therapist moves into more of a supportive director,
I-It relational stance to facilitate a dialogue between the client and
the imagined other. Depending on how the experiment unfolds
they may encourage the client to be aware of their bodily sensations,
breathe more deeply, speak louder, move more, make more direct
statements as they address the imagined character in opposite chair.
The therapist’s role is to support the client in expressing themselves
to the imagined character, paying close attention to fluctuations in
expression and the client’s body process, e.g. tightening of muscles,
voice breaking slightly. There are many ways in which this experi-
ment can progress including the client taking the place of the imag-
ined other by moving to the other chair and replying to themselves
as if they were this imagined other (e.g. father, mother), a dialogue
could then ensue with the client moving between chairs, the chair
of self and the chair of other – a movement from empty chair work
to two-chair work.
The empty chair experiment is not limited to speaking to char-
acters from the client’s life, the empty chair is … well, empty! It can
represent anything, a quality the client wishes she had or disowns, an
organisation, an essay they are writing, Allah, God, the devil and the
deep blue sea! Although I was being playful with that last possibility
it leads us quite nicely to the two chair experiment.
Again the possibilities are virtually endless for two chair experi-
mentation, I’ve already touched on one possibility. Most commonly
it will be used for exploring dilemmas or the relationship between
polarities. Once the dilemma or polarities have been identified and
clarified the client will move between the two chairs speaking from
each polarity or each side of the dilemma. To illustrate the method-
ology of the experiment I’ll give an example of a particular polar-
ity that Fritz Perls worked with, the top dog/underdog split. The
top dog is often the voice of shoulds, oughts and responsibility, the
underdog is more spontaneous, rebellious and impulsive.
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 141
Top dog: I need to work as hard as I can to provide for my family.
Underdog: Ohh, but I want to have some fun.

The therapist would invite the client into one of the chairs that
might be set up facing each other, let’s say the top dog chair, and
invite a dialogue with the underdog with simple questions such as,
‘What would you like to say to this part?’ She would then invite the
client into the underdog chair to respond. In enacting this split the
therapist needs to be attentive not only to what is being said but also
how it is said, – the process of the dialogue. It is the therapist’s task
to ensure that there is no blurring of the ‘parts’ for instance with the
client talking from underdog in the top dog chair. What can unfold
is a fast, dismissive and self-righteous stance by both parts with the
therapist needing to mediate between the two or simply highlight
the process that maintains the conflict. Whatever polarities a person
presents with if unresolved they can serve to maintain a dichotomy
in that person. By heightening awareness through two-chair work
it can allow the opportunity for integration of previously disparate
parts so that they are no longer unattached polarisations but com-
plimentary to each other, in that the presence of one highlights the
existence of the other and a relationship between them – love cannot
exist without hate, light without dark, kindness without cruelty.
When facilitating a two chair or empty chair experiment it is
important that the therapist is alert and available to support the cli-
ent throughout the experiment including monitoring their level of
contact and directing to increase awareness by paying attention to
the client’s phenomenology and body process – breathing, muscular
tension, indirect statements, etc., as outlined earlier. There are sugges-
tions in the field that the empty chair is replaced with the client saying
directly to the therapist what they would have said to the empty chair
(Muller, 1993), with Spagnuolo-Lobb (2009) supportive of such a
move arguing that it brings the relational block into the field of the
present relationship. That may be true, but it also removes the sup-
port from the present relationship and has the potential for bound-
ary confusion – the therapist may have been on the receiving end
of a whole range of emotional responses and then need to, perhaps
suddenly, move to support the client having just been addressed as a
rejecting parent, a cruel teacher or an abuser (Mann, 2021). I believe
that amongst the innumerable creative experimental and dialogic pos-
sibilities that exist in the field between therapist and client there are
better and safer ways to address relational blocks with immediacy.
142 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

Two chair and empty chair work have influenced or are practiced
by a range of different therapies including certain integrative therapy
models, schema therapy, transformational chairwork, emotional-
focussed therapy and internal family systems but they are not to be
confused with gestalt therapy as all stand on a completely differ-
ent philosophical ground. From a gestalt perspective two chair and
empty chair experiments, whilst having the potential to be memora-
ble, meaningful experiences and key episodes in therapy, are figural
experiences that will sink into the ground of the therapeutic rela-
tionship along with all other experiences in therapy. It is not the fig-
ural experiences in themselves that facilitate lasting change in therapy
but the way in which they contribute to a reconfigured ground in
the whole therapeutic situation and the field of the person’s life.

7.3 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

All creative experiments share the same aim of heightening awareness
and increasing the client’s ability for contact. If the therapeutic relation-
ship is built upon a solid relational foundation of mutual trust experi-
mentation can also repair past relational ruptures in the here and now
of the therapy room. A fine example was shared with me by a senior
trainee I was supervising who I will call Paul, when discussing his work
with his client, Aisha (pseudonym). He had been working with Aisha,
who had suffered abuse as a child, for over two years at the time.
As a child Aisha had loved art, it gave her a means for expression. She shared
with Paul that in an art class in secondary school she had painted an abstract
painting that she described as ‘dark and foreboding’. When she looked up
from her artwork she saw that she was the only member of the class whose
painting was abstract, but she still felt proud of it. That pride was flattened by
her teacher whose feedback was simply, “I don’t get it” a casual thoughtless
remark that wounded her deeply. Ashamed, Aisha swallowed that comment
and gave up art from that point, denying herself what felt like the only vehi-
cle of expression available to her leading her to retroflect through self-harm.
Somehow though she had found a gestalt therapist who was not only creative
but was also an artist, that’s field theory for you! Having heard her story Paul
respectfully asked if she would be interested in joining him in creating a paint-
ing together, he was somewhat surprised at the level of enthusiasm this sug-
gestion was met with. He and Aisha took time in planning the session, Paul
taking care not to lead. He also stood back during the session the following
week to empower Aisha, only stepping forward to contribute to the painting
when invited. Aisha poured paint onto the canvas and splodged its dark col-
ours around angrily before the energy changed to something more subdued as
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 143
her breathing stuttered. Leaving space before intervening and noticing Aisha’s
changing breathing pattern Paul recalled how in previous sessions she had
‘choked-up’ when trying to discuss her trauma. He suggested using a straw
to blow the globules of paint around the canvas. Aisha was mobilised again
and blew paint around the canvas whilst Paul gently enquired about her emo-
tional state as she blew through the straw, inviting her to breathe into the
emotion before blowing the paint. By blowing through the straw she shifted
the paint through breaths of sadness, breaths of hurt, breaths of expression
inviting Paul to join her as she creatively undid a twenty-five year old introject-
supported retroflection through gentle catharsis. At the end of the experiment
she held an abstract picture of her anger, grief and trauma.

You will note from the above that the therapist developed the exper-
iment over time, on the surface over two sessions, but having formed
relational ground over two years. He took time to gain consensus
with Aisha and form a plan with her rather than impose his ideas,
then during the experiment stood back to a position of unobtrusive
director, a relationally sensitive I-It stance in which he was available
for support if needed. Paul was sensitive to the twists and turns of the
experiment and remained creatively indifferent, allowing space for
new figures to emerge between client, therapist and the situation. As
ever, there are numerous choice points in the experiment.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Run through the account of the experiment and see what alterna-
tive interventions you can come up with, then consider what creative
experiment you might have used with Aisha. If you are stuck stay with
this impasse a while as this is something we do in gestalt therapy,
something might surface, and staying with an impasse is itself an
experiment in our ‘doing’ culture.

In the above therapy session Paul demonstrated a respectful compas-

sionate way of facilitating catharsis in an emergent process that jour-
neyed through expression of anger to underlying emotions. This was
far removed from my experience when I first entered the field of gestalt
therapy via group work in the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s.
My experience tallied with that shared by Philippson (2018), in that
so-called ‘anger work’ consisted of pummelling cushions with fists or
tennis rackets accompanied by as much yelling as possible all in the
name of therapeutic catharsis, success seemed to be judged on sound
volume rather than integration. This was a warped interpretation of
144 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

gestalt therapy far removed from PHG’s view that work with emo-
tions, ‘… must employ a unitary method which concentrates both on
the orientation in the environment … and on loosening the motor
blocks of the “body”. Undue emphasis on either side can produce
only pseudo-cures’ (PHG: 346). Ignoring the original text in favour
of an anti-theoretical attitude that has subsequently been referred to as
‘boom-boom-boom’ therapy (Yontef, 1993; Resnick, 1995) resulted
in circular addictive patterns of repetition compulsion. Whilst these
repetitive acts were performed under the guise of healthily undo-
ing retroflection and challenging the underlying introjected beliefs
around non-expression of anger (Krysinska, Roubal & Mann, 2022)
it is likely that they did more harm than good as research shows that
repeated outpourings of anger and rage strengthen neural pathways
that lead to aggressive behaviour (Petzold, 2006; Staemmler, 2009)
and ‘… does not produce a cathartic effect: it increases rather than
decreases subsequent aggression’ (Bushman et al., 1999: 373).
Three experimental methods are outlined by Philippson (2001:
160): enactment with awareness, exaggeration and reversal. Below
I will give my own examples of the first two and discuss reversal
experimental possibilities.
Enactment with Awareness:
Jim (client): (Speaking quickly, with short breathes) You are so direct and
straight to the point, not like me, I beat around the bush and go around
the houses, it’s just what I do. I know I can go on a bit when I don’t need to
and lose the point. That’s just what my Dad used to do, and Mum, in fact
my whole family. (voice speeds up, breathing shallow, appears to be holding
muscular tension)
Dave: I’m experiencing you talking quickly with lots of words and struggling
to follow you. Try sitting back in the chair and create some room in your chest
for some air … breathe out a few times and just check those shoulders.
Jim: (Sits back and deepens his breath) Yeah, I’ve got a lot of tension there
(moves shoulders) and my stomach is churning and there are sensation going
down my arm and …
Dave: So, Jim, what one thing is it that you really want to let me know right
now? Take your time and tell me slowly.
Jim: Erm … I guess it’s that I’d like to be direct and get to the point so that
I’m understood.
Dave: Mmm … That’s three things.
Jim: (Smiles) Yeah … I noticed as I was saying it … I want to be understood
(eyes water slightly)
Dave: Yes Jim, I can see that you do … by?
Jim: Mum, Dad … and you
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 145
Reversal possibilities:
There are a number of choice points in the above experiment. For
example I could have chosen to work with Jim through a projection
lens seeing me as ‘direct and straight,’ inviting him to make statements
such as, ‘I am direct,’ trying them on for size. This would have been
a form of a reversal experiment. I could have invited him to sit in
my chair and be me as direct and straight again a reversal experiment.
There were openings for possible empty chair work, with Jim speaking
to father or mother on the chair and possibly moving chairs and taking
on the role of father or mother, another example of a reversal experi-
ment. Other examples of where reversal can be used is when there is
a ‘yes, but’ process such as, ‘I’d move away from home, but my mother
needs me’ the therapist could intervene with something like, ‘So if your
mother didn’t need you, you’d move away from home’ (Crocker, 1999).
I’ll illustrate an example of exaggeration with a continuation of
the earlier dialogue:
Jim: (Deflecting) Anyhow, that’s where I stand. Dad never understood me as
a kid and Mum was the same, I was always on the side lines (waves his arm
a little and flicks his wrist as if knocking something away).
Dave: That movement, Jim, can you just try making it bigger.
Jim: What, this? (Repeats the movement).
Dave: Yes, that’s it. Just try making it bigger and see if anything surfaces for you.
Jim: (exaggerates the movement extending his arm fully and flicking his arm
and wrist with more force).
Dave: Wow! There’s some energy there. Do any words go with that movement?
Jim: Yes … get off me, stay back, stay away. (I invite Jim to continue with the
exaggerated movement)
Dave: Who do you want to say that to? (I copy Jim’s gesture flicking out my
arm and wrist, this also gives me an embodied feel of the movement)
Jim: It’s sort of Mum and Dad, but not the whole of them. (briefly places his
hand on his heart as he says this)
Dave: I suggest you place your hand on your heart as you did but keep it there,
really feel the pressure of your hand (I place my hand on my heart), breathe
into your hand and make a statement to Mum and Dad. Take your time.
Jim: I love you Mum and Dad but please stop telling me how to be.

We could cross-reference experimenting with exaggeration with the

six developmental movements of yielding, pushing, reaching, grasp-
ing, pulling and releasing (Frank, 2001; Frank & La Barre, 2011;
Frank, 2023), exaggerate polarities or work with moderations to
contact whilst remaining alert to the fact that such experiments make
the client very visible and can trigger shame.
146 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

Many gestalt therapists use an array of creative media in their therapy.

Paper, paints and crayons are commonplace, alongside modelling clay,
sand trays, various toys, hats and too many others to mention – a raid on
the local hobby craft store is commonplace amongst gestalt therapists!
What is important in having an array of props available is that the thera-
pist does not preconfigure the experiment around the prop rather than
what is needed for the next step in therapy. In setting up an experiment
the therapist needs to horizontalise the relationship as much as possible
and bracket any pulls they have towards a certain experimental tech-
nique. Whilst having ready access to creative materials can help facilitate
and add novelty to experimentation, I recall a line from early in my
training that all that is needed to practice gestalt therapy is two people.

7.3.1 Unremarkable Experiments

The big, dramatic experiments tend to grab the headlines in gestalt
therapy but a therapist might practice many interventions that they
may not even consider to be experiments. Any invitation by the
therapist for the client to step out from their everyday habits can
be regarded as an experiment, such as those discussed in relation
to working with moderations to contact and challenging cultural
introjects. Obvious examples can include inviting the use of ‘I’ lan-
guage and ownership rather than deflective language, use of direct
statements rather than generalisations and the use of I and you state-
ments. Encouraging such experimentation with language can cre-
ate a bridge between an I-It relational stance implicit in suggesting
experiments and an I-Thou relational stance, in gestalt therapy we
oscillate between the two. Language is only one function of our bod-
ies, we can say the right words but we need music behind them. As
discussed clients can habitually armour themselves bodily against the
environment by restricting breathing and holding muscular tension,
simply asking a client to sit back and feel the support of the chair
can be an early step towards healthily leaning into the environment.
Regarding breathing therapists might simply say ‘breathe’ or ask
‘are you breathing?’ as an intervention when more is needed.
Breathing problems are invariably present when a person is anxious
or excited, and breathing patterns can become habitual or chronic –
outdated creative adjustments to an archaic field. PHG (1951: 168)
offer ‘a respiratory experiment’ to heighten awareness, I suggest you
experiment with it. Space does not permit me to share the whole of
the experiment but I will offer a precis.
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 147

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Exhale thoroughly four times. Then breathe softly, making sure you
exhale but without forcing. Feel the stream of air in your throat, your
mouth. Do you keep your chest expanded even when there is no air
coming in? Can you feel the inhalation softly down to the pit of your
stomach? Can you feel your ribs expand? Pay attention to any tight-
ness especially in your diaphragm.

PHG then invite you to notice times when you hold your breath and
in what situations, for example, when sexually attracted to some-
one or when confronted with a problem. They ask, what are you
restraining by holding back?
A breathing exercise I have practiced with clients begins in a similar
way to PHG’s experiment in that I invite a strong out breath, an in
breath naturally follows. I then invite the client to experiment with
breathing from three positions first: placing their hand on their chest
and breathing into their hand several times, then to repeat that by plac-
ing their hand on their abdomen again breathing in several times so
that their hand moves and finally by pacing their hand just above their
genitals and attempting to breathe into it. Like PHG I suggest that such
an exercise is practiced beyond the therapy room. This last point is
important as we can mistakenly think that ‘homework’ is the domain of
the behaviourists, we need to invite clients to practice in their situation.
I’d like to end this section with an invitation for you and another
person to experiment. If you accept my invitation you will each
need a fairly large piece of paper, pens and a willingness to try some-
thing out without knowing where it will go.

EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Sit facing each other with your respective pieces of paper in front of
you. Now I’d like you to identify one of you as ‘therapist’ and the other
as ‘client’. In silence I’d like the ‘client’ to think of an issue in their lives
(it doesn’t have to be major), something they might like to explore,
and in their own time start to move their pen around their piece of
paper whilst thinking about this ‘issue’. The ‘therapist’ then follows
the client on their own piece of paper, tracking them as closely as they
can. As therapist see if you can get in touch with any felt sense around
this issue. Continue doing this for 10 minutes. After10 minutes first
148 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

let the ‘therapist’ share their impressions, intuitions, felt sense and
reflections on the exercise The ‘client’ then share’s their experience,
whether they felt met/understood and at what points. When both
have shared the ‘therapist’ can, if they wish. Share what they thought
the issue was. Feel free to discuss anything else that arises.

7.4 DREAMWORK
At the turn of past century Freud (1900/1955) described the dream as
‘the guardian of sleep’ and working with dreams as the royal road to the
unconscious through his psychoanalytic methodology interpreted their
meaning. The psychoanalyst Carl Jung saw the dream as a compensation,
their function being to maintain a healthy balance between the uncon-
scious and conscious. He agreed with Freud in many areas but Jung
looked at dreams in terms of where they may lead rather than where
they originate, he considered that every part of the dream represented
an aspect of the dreamer. This latter view formed the basis of Fritz Perls
theory for working with dreams. Piggy-backing on Freud’s description
Perls described dreams as, ‘the royal road to integration’ (Perls, 1969: 66)
and sought to increase awareness of their meaning for the client rather
than interpret them. Perls viewed dreams primarily as projection seeing
them as ‘a condensed reflection of our existence’ (Skotten & Kruger,
2022: 164), hence he considered them to contain existential messages
for the dreamer (Perls, op. cit.). In common with Jung, Perls belief was
that everything contained in the dream represented some aspect of the
dreamer. He would invite ownership of these aspects by inviting the
client to talk in the first person from each part of the dream or engage
in mutual conversation about the dream elements. This could involve
enacting the dream with the focus on what is experienced during the
re-enactment in the here and now, rather than at the time of the dream
– this method would usually be used in group therapy. We can see the
influences of Fritz’s love of theatre and the influence of Moreno’s psy-
chodrama in his methodology. An example of Perls way of working
with dreams as projection might look something like this:
Client: (Discussing a recent dream) I’m leaning on a farm gate gazing across
a corn field and the gate starts wobbling.
Fritz: So be the gate, speak as if you are the gate.
Client: I’m wobbly, unsteady. I can’t support this weight on me. I’ve been out
in all weathers and I’m rusted closed, I can’t be opened.
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 149
It’s possible that Perls might then have moved into enactment particu-
larly when working in a group with members of the group taking on
aspects of the dream.
Isadore From was critical of Perls’ dreams as projection hypothesis,
not because it might be inconsistent with gestalt theory but because
such a view, ‘puts the therapist too easily in the stage director’s role;
that means he or she has to distance himself/herself from direct con-
tact with the client’ (Muller, 1995: 125 original italics). He argued
that the client was directed away from present centred relating being
led towards relating through a ‘third party’ – the dream. From saw
dreams through a lens of retroflection believing that the process of
relating the dream was in itself an undoing of a retroflection as the
person shares with the therapist through the vehicle of the dream
what they were otherwise unable to share.
Let’s look at one of From’s favourite examples to clarify the differ-
ence between his and Fritz’s ways of working with a dream, that of a
client who has a dream that features a rat:
Fritz Perls: Be that part of the dream, be the rat. Identify yourself with the rat.
Isadore From: How have I been like this rat in your dream?

Fritz’s intervention in viewing the dream as projection has a ‘what’

orientation and shifts the focus towards content, whereas From’s inter-
vention focusses on a ‘how’ orientation and invites immediate relating
in the here and now between therapist and client, rather than therapist
and dream. However, From’s intervention also contains an assumption
that he has been like a rat and appears to lead from his notion of dreams
as retroflection shaping any ensuing dialogue from this position, it lacks
a ‘maybe’ and could therefore be more phenomenological. In working
with dreams From advises that the therapist does not simply look at
the clients dream but also at themselves, ‘What you will often find in
the retroflections of the patient via a dream is disagreements, criticisms,
complaints but also positive feelings (which) the patient could not say
directly …’ (From, 1985 in Muller, 1995: 126 original italics).
Let’s just step back and take a look at Perls’ existential message idea.
Where does this existential message come from? Is it floating around
in the ether waiting to be grasped in sleep? ‘Perls did not seem to
be concerned with who the sender of these messages are’ (Roberts,
1999: 43), if I send the message to myself, by definition that is a ret-
roflection. It appears to me that Freud’s interpretational dreamwork
on the couch and Perls’ dreamwork through a lens of projection and
enactment have at least one thing in common – that the dream is a
150 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

self-contained event with meaning for the individual detached from

the wider situation. From does move to a more inclusive stance in
working with dreams and therefore takes a step closer towards a more
field oriented way of working with the dream but the spotlight is still
on the individual dreamer. Ultimately the methodology of Perls and
From are individualistic to a greater or lesser extent as both focus on
the dream holding a personal message for the dreamer either in rela-
tion to the therapist or themselves.
An alternative and contemporary way of considering a client’s
dream is as an emergent field event, ‘it can be seen as a precise reflec-
tion of the condition of the entire field as experienced from this par-
ticular dreamer’s perspective’ (ibid: 43). Such a view obviously includes
a personal perspective but in relation to the whole field rather than
in relation to oneself or oneself in relation to only the therapist. The
field does talk back and may do so in many ways including through
dreams, but I would like to reiterate what I have said earlier in this
book and apply it to dreamwork – the field does not only talk back,
it can initiate the conversation. From this viewpoint we can perhaps
see how in some indigenous cultures it is believed that dreams carry
messages not for the individual but for the whole community, the
dreamer is merely the receiver of the message.
The scaffolding provided by Freud and Jung that supported
dreamwork was dramatically reshaped by Perls then by From argu-
ing against and adapting Perls theories. Later generations of gestalt
therapists offered the idea of dreams as field events with the reali-
sation that the boundary was, or had become, more porous than
Perls and From’s era. If we are considering a field theoretical view of
dreamwork we need to view past theories in the context of the time
they were created. The trauma of World War II did not end when
Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945, following the poison of war a
communal outlook could be dangerous, so of course individualistic
theories were more likely to be created with the gas of Auschwitz
still hovering in the air. It is thanks to the creativity of these pioneers
that gestalt therapists today are in the fortunate position of having
a selection of lenses through which they can view dreamwork and
hopefully development will continue. In choosing the best approach
for this client at this moment we need to consider their style of
relating, what is their growing edge now in relation to this dream?
Is there a need to lean more towards the field or the individual?
Neither is it necessarily a case of ‘either – or,’ it may be appropriate to
change the viewpoint and methodology part way through a session.
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 151
In summary, some ways in which dreamwork can be carried out
are as follows:
• Working with dreams as projection by inviting the client to talk
from aspects and characters of the dream in the first person.
• Setting up a dialogue with the entire dream by placing the whole
dream on an empty chair and speaking to it using the methodol-
ogy discussed earlier in this section.
• Reversal of the above where the client would take the chair of
the dream.
• Re-enacting the dream, usually in group therapy, with individ-
ual group members taking on roles of various aspects and char-
acters in the dream. ‘A re-enactment of a dream can be done
in 1:1 therapy using creative media such as shells or sand tray’
(Mann, 2021: 280).
• Working with the dream as retroflection as discussed above.
• Suggest that the client express the dream non-verbally, for
instance by taking on different body postures, moving around or
making a noise (Joyce & Sills, 2018: 159).
• Creative materials can be used to express the dream – plasticine,
clay, paints, sketchpads and art materials. This could also be done
non-verbally.
• Attention can focus on the dreamer’s bodily sensations as they
tell the dream in the here and now.
• Working with the dream as a field event as discussed above.
• The completion of an unfinished dream by imagining or invent-
ing an ending in the present. This could be viewed through a
lens of unfinished business, the therapist could also invite the cli-
ent to stay with the unfinished dream exploring possible parallels
in their waking life.
This is a far from exhaustive list with any experiment, including
dreamwork, possibilities will surface between therapist and client.
Invariably I would invite the therapist to consider the clients dream in
relation to their wider situation with open phenomenological enquiry.

7.5 REMAIN MINDFUL AND COME TO

YOUR SENSES
The title of this closing mini-section is a play on one of Fritz Perls
commonly used slogans during his work in the 1960s, ‘Lose your
mind and come to your senses.’ This anti-intellectual proclamation
152 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION

taken by itself doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny in relation to the

theory he was so central in developing. It could be seen as an attempt
to correct Freud’s over-emphasis on thinking (Melnick, 2003), but to
function healthily and heighten awareness of sensations one doesn’t
need to lose one’s cognitive ability – I would strongly advise against
it. That said, in our busy lives we can lose contact with our senses,
fluidity between figure and ground can be temporarily lost especially
if something unexpected emerges subtly from the field and is out of
context with our familiar associations with that field. Let me share
a story of a social experiment on perception conducted in January,
2007 in a subway at Washington DC Metro Station to illustrate.
On that morning at 7.51am a man in a baseball cap opened his violin case and
played six classical pieces including pieces by Bach, Massenet and Schubert’s
‘Ave Maria’. The acoustics in the subway were good. Whilst he was playing con-
tinuously over a duration of around 43 minutes during the morning rush hour
1,097 people passed him playing his violin. It took 3 minutes before someone
slowed their pace to listen briefly and 4 minutes before he received his first dollar,
although the woman did not stop to listen. After a further 2 minutes someone
did stop to listen for a short while before moving on. At the end of the 43 min-
utes 7 people had stopped to listen for a short time, a further 20 gave money but
continued to walk by – the musician had collected $32.17 in an hour.
The busking violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the world’s great virtuosos. His
instrument was a Stradivarius from the ‘golden period’ worth an estimated
$3.5 million dollars, one of the best violins ever made, and he played one of
the most complex pieces of music ever written. Three days prior to this social
experiment he had played to a packed audience at the Boston Symphony Hall
where the average ticket price was $100. The social experiment on perception
was organised by The Washington Post and published in the Sunday edition
on 8th April, 2007 under the heading, ‘Pearls Before Breakfast.’

This social experiment raises many questions around perception of

beauty in relation to the situational conditions that surround it. Do
we need a familiar background to frame the foreground? If we have
a need to complete a particular gestalt, as most of those 1,097 people
did, do we allow space for a new experience to emerge? In other
words do we allow awareness of sensation if we have a competing
need to do? There was apparently a queue at a lottery machine nearby
and not one person turned around despite the fact they were simply
waiting for their turn to spin the numbers of the lottery machine. It
also begs the question what else do we miss in our day-to-day lives?
I will end by reiterating that the aim of gestalt is awareness, to ena-
ble the person to be in the best contact possible given the presenting
 CREATIVE EXPERIMENTATION 153
field conditions. To do so we need to move fluidly through our abil-
ity to sense, feel, think – always in relation to where we are situated.
If we can achieve this, then we might hear the music.

7.6 SUMMARY
• Experimentation allows clients to try out new ways of being and
break free from outdated ways of being.
• A gestalt experiment is referred to as the creation of a ‘safe
emergency.’
• The aim in formulating an experiment is to find the client’s
‘growing edge,’ a stretch that challenges without overwhelming.
• Creative experiments in gestalt therapy aim to increase aware-
ness and contact with the present situation.
• Therapists must assess the client’s groundedness, sensitivity, con-
nection with the therapist and ability to accept support when
grading experiments.
• Experiments are co-constructed between therapist and client.
• The empty chair experiment is the only experiment in gestalt
therapy. It has been victim to misrepresentation and simplifica-
tion, potentially undermining the approach.
• Fritz Perls introduced the empty chair and two chair experiment
as a radical departure from traditional psychoanalytic technique.
• Any experiment needs to arise from a phenomenological dia-
logue based on the emerging figure in therapy, rather than being
a preconfigured exercise imposed by the therapist.
• ‘Chair’ experiments are considered ‘high grade’ and aim to bring
archaic influences into the present, allowing clients to challenge out-
dated creative adjustments and integrate disparate parts of themselves.
• The effectiveness of chair experiments lies not only in the experi-
ences themselves but in how they contribute to a reconfigured
ground in the therapeutic relationship and the client’s broader life.
• Different experimental methods, such as enactment with aware-
ness, exaggeration and reversal, can be employed to facilitate
awareness, contact and expression.
• Unremarkable experiments, such as language adjustments and
paying attention to breathing, can be powerful methods for
increasing awareness and contact.
• The therapist’s role in creative experimentation is to be sensitive
to the client’s process and provide support when needed, whilst
allowing space for new figures to emerge.
 REFERENCES

Alman, A. (2023) In Alman. A., Gillespie, J. & Kolmannskog, V. (Eds.), Queering

Gestalt Therapy. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 121–133.
Amendt-Lyon, N. (Ed.) (2016) Timeless Experience: Laura Perls’s Unpublished
Notebooks and Literary Texts 1946–1985. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Anderson, R. & Cissna, K. (1997) The Martin Buber-Carl Rogers Dialogue. New
York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bainbridge-Cohen, B (1993) Sensing, Feeling and Action. Northampton, MA:
Contact Editions.
Beckett, S. (1987) Proust and Three Dialogues with Georges Dethuit. John Calder.
London
Beisser, A. (1970) The Paradoxical Theory of Change. In J. Fagan & I. Shepherd
(Eds.), Gestalt Therapy Now. New York, NY: Harper.
Bion, W. R. (1962) Learning from Experience. London: Maresfield Reprints.
Blakesee, S. (2006) Cells that read minds. The New York Times. January 10th.
Bloom, D. (2008) In pursuit of Gestalt therapy group process: Group process as
self process. Beyond the hot seat, revisited: Gestalt approaches to group, pp. 53–66.
Bloom, D. (2010) One Good Turn Deserves Another… and Another… and
Another: Personal Reflections on Relational Approaches to Gestalt Therapy.
Gestalt Review, 15(3). pp. 296–311.
Bloom, D. (2013) Situated Ethics and the Ethical World of Gestalt Therapy.
In G. Francesetti, M. Gecele & J. Roubal (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy in Clinical
Practice: From Psychopathology to the Aesthetics of Contact. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Bloom, D. (2014) Sensing Animals/Knowing Persons: A Challenge to Some
Basic Ideas in Gestalt Therapy. In D Bloom & B O’Neill (Eds.), The New
York Institute for Gestalt Therapy in the 21st Century: An Anthology of Published
Writings Since 2000. Queensland, Australia: Ravenwood Press.
Bloom, D. (2016) The Relational Function of Self: Self Functioning of the
Most Human Plane. In J.-M. Robine (Ed.), Self, A Polyphony of Contemporary
Gestalt Therapists. St. Romain la Virvée, France: L’Exprimerie.
 REFERENCES 155
Bloom, D. (2019) Gestalt Therapy and Phenomenology: The Intersecting of
Parallel Lines. In P. Brownell (Ed.), Handbook for Theory, Research and Practice
in Gestalt Therapy (2nd Edition). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, pp. 183–202.
Bloom, D., Spagnuolo-Lobb, M. & Staemmler, F. (2008) Notes on Nomenclature.
Studies in Gestalt Therapy: Dialogical Bridges, 2(1), pp. 7
Bowman, C. (2012) Reconsidering Holism in Gestalt Therapy: A Bridge Too
Far? In T. Bar-Yoseph Levine (Ed.), Gestalt Therapy: Advances in Theory and
Practice. Hove: Routledge.
Brownell, P. (2018) Gestalt Psychotherapy & Coaching for Relationships. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Brownell, P. (Ed.) (2019) Handbook for Therapy, Research and Practice in Gestalt
Therapy (2nd Edition). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Brownell, P., Meara, A. & Polak, A. (2008) Handbook for Theory, Research, and
Practice in Gestalt Therapy. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Buber, M. (1958) I and Thou (2nd Edition). Edinburgh: T & T Clark (original
published 1923).
Buber, M. (1965a) The Knowledge of Man: A Philosophy of the Interhuman. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Buber, M. (1965b) Between Man and Man. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Buber, M. (1967) A Believing Humanism: Gleanings. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Bullington, J. (2013) The Expression of Psychosomatic Body from a Phenomenological
Perspective. London Springer.
Bushman, B., Baumeister, R., Thomaes, S., Ryu, E., Begeer, S. & West, S. (1999)
Looking Again, and Harder, for a Link Between Low Self-Esteem and Aggression.
Journal of Personality, 77(2), pp. 427–446 (Wiley On-Line Library).
Carmen, T. & Hansen, M. B. N. (2005) The Cambridge Companion to Merleau-
Ponty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chidiac, M.-A. (2018) Relational Organisational Gestalt: An Emergent Approach to
Organisational Development. Oxon: Routledge.
Chidiac, M.-A. (2023) Fields of Power: The Moderation of Relational Moments.
British Gestalt Journal, 32, pp. 8–20.
Chidiac, M-A. & Denham-Vaughan, S. (2007) The Process of Presence: Energetic
Availability and Fluid Responsiveness. British Gestalt Journal, 16(1), pp. 9–19.
Clarkson, P. (1993) 2,500 Years of Gestalt: From Heraclitus to the Big Bang.
British Gestalt Journal, 2(1), pp. 4–9.
Clarkson, P. updated by Cavicchia, S. (2013) Gestalt Counselling in Action
(4th Edition). London: Sage.
Clemmens, M. (2012) The Interactive Field: Gestalt Therapy as an Embodied
Relational Dialogue. In T. Bar-Joseph-Levine (Ed.), Gestalt Therapy: Advances
in Theory and Practice. East Sussex: Routledge.
Clemmens, M. C. (2020) Embodied Relational Gestalt: Theory and Applications.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Cohn, H. W. (1997) Existential Thought and Therapeutic Practice. London: Sage.
156 REFERENCES

Cole, P. (Ed.) (2022) The Relational Heart of Gestalt Therapy: Contemporary

Perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.
Cole, P. & Reese, D. (2018) New Directions in Gestalt Group Therapy. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Cozolino, L. (2014) The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the
Developing Social Brain (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Norton.
Cozolino, L. (2017) The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy: Healing the Social Brain
(3rd Edition). New York, NY: Norton.
Crocker, S. F. (1999) A Well-Lived Life: Essays in Gestalt Therapy. Santa Cruz,
CA: Gestalt Press.
Daly, A. (2016) Merleau-Ponty and the Ethics of Intersubjectivity. London: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Damasio, A. (2010) Self Comes to Mind. Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York,
NY: Pantheon Books.
Davidove, D. (1985) The Contribution of Paul Goodman. Gestalt Journal, 8(1),
pp. 72–77.
Deaux, K. (2000). Models, Meanings and Motivations. In D. Capozza &
R. Brown (Eds.), Social Identity Processes: Trends in Theory and Research.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Denham-Vaughan, S. (2010) The Liminal Space and Twelve Action Practices
for Gracious Living. British Gestalt Journal, 19(2), pp. 34–45.
Desmond, B. & Jowett, A. (2011) Stepping into the Unknown: Dialogical Experiential
Learning. Berkhamsted, UK: Ashridge Business School.
Evans, K. (2007) Living in the 21st Century: A Gestalt Therapist’s Search for a
New Paradigm. Gestalt Review, 11, pp. 190–203.
Feder, B. & Ronall, R. (Eds.) (1980) Beyond the Hot Seat: Gestalt Approaches to
Group. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Fineman, M. (1996) The Nature of Visual Illusion. Mineola, N.Y: Dover
Publications.
Fogarty, M., Bhar, S., Theiler, S. & O’Shea, L. (2016) What Do Gestalt
Therapists Do in the Clinic? The Expert Consensus. British Gestalt Journal,
25(1), pp. 32–41.
Formosa, P. (2023) A Journey to the Soul: Exploring Presence at the Heart of Gestalt
Therapy and Salesian Education. Sliema, Malta: Pubblikazzjoni Salesjana.
Francesetti, G. (2012) Pain and Beauty: from the Psychopathology to the
Aesthetics of Contact. British Gestalt Journal, 21(2), pp. 4–18.
Francesetti, G. (Ed.) (2015) Absence Is a Bridge Between Us. Gestalt Therapy
Perspective on Depressive Experiences. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Francesetti, G. (2016) ‘You Cry, I Feel Pain’: The Emerging, Co-created Self
as the Foundation of Anthropology, Psychopathology and Psychotherapy in
Gestalt Therapy. Self: A Polyphony of Contemporary Gestalt Therapists. Paris:
L’Exprimerie, pp. 147–168.
Francesetti, G. (2021) Fundamentals of Phenomenological Gestalt Psychopathology.
L’exprimerie-IFGT. Paris: L’Experimerie.
 REFERENCES 157
Francesetti, G., Gecele, M. & Roubal, J. (2013) Gestalt Therapy Approach to
Psychopathology. In G. Francesetti, M. Gecele & J. Roubal (Eds.), Gestalt
Therapy in Clinical Practice: From Psychopathology to the Aesthetics of Contact.
Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Francesetti, G., Gecele, M. & Roubal, J. (2022) Being Present to Absence. In
P. Cole (Ed.), The Relational Heart of Gestalt Therapy: Contemporary Perspectives.
Oxon: Routledge, pp. 44–56.
Francesetti, G. & Griffero, T. (Eds.) (2019) Psychopathology and Atmospheres: Neither
Inside nor Outside. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Francesetti, G. & Roubal, J. (2020) Field Theory in Contemporary Gestalt
Therapy. Gestalt Review 24 (2), pp. 113–136.
Francis, T. & Parlett, M. (2016) Contact and Context: New Directions in Gestalt
Coaching Introduction. Santa Cruz, CA: Gestalt Press.
Frank, R. (2001) Body of Awareness: A Somatic and Developmental Approach to
Psychotherapy. Cambridge, MA: Gestalt Press.
Frank, R. (2016) Self in Motion. In J. M. Robine (Ed.), Self: A Polyphony of
Contemporary Gestalt Therapists. St. Romain la Virvée: L’Exprimerie.
Frank, R. (2023) The Bodily Roots of Experience in Psychotherapy. Oxon: Routledge.
Frank, R. & La Barre, F. (2011) The First Year and the Rest of Your Life. New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Freud, S. (1955) The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by J. Strachey. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Freud, S. (2001) Totem and Taboo. Oxon: Routledge Classics.
Friedlaender, S. (1918) Schöpferische Indifferenz [Creative indifference]. München:
Reinhardt.
Friedman, M. (1990) Dialogue, Philosophical Anthropology and Gestalt Therapy.
The Gestalt Journal, 13(1), pp. 7–40.
From, I. & Muller (1977) Didactical notes (unpublished). Isadore From’s Contribution
to the Theory and Practice of Gestalt Therapy. The Gestalt Journal, XIX(1),
pp. 57–81.
Gallese, V. (2001) The ‘Shared Manifold’ Hypothesis; From Mirror Neurons to
Empathy. Journal of Conscious Studies, 8, pp. 33–50.
Gallese, V., Gernsbacher, M. A., Heyes, C., Hickok, G. & Iacoboni, M. (2011)
Mirror Neuron Forum. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, pp. 369–407.
Gecele, M. (2014) Yes We Care! Social, Political and Cultural Relationship as Therapy
Ground, A Gestalt Perspective. Edited by Guus Klaren, Nurith Levi, Ivana Vidaković.
Human Rights and Social Responsibility Committee of European Association of
Gestalt Therapy, South Wellfleet, MA. In Gestalt Review 21(1), pp. 56–71.
Geertz, C. (1988) Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Geller, S. & Porges, S. (2014) Therapeutic Presence: Neurophysiological
Mechanisms Mediating Feeling Safe in Therapeutic Relationships. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 24(3), pp. 178–192.
Gergen, K. J. (2009) Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
158 REFERENCES

Gillie, M. (1999) Daniel Stern: A Developmental Theory for Gestalt? British

Gestalt Journal, 8(2), pp. 107–117
Ginger, S. (2002) Is Gestalt Therapy “Chemo” Without Knowing It. Gestalt
Review, 6(3), pp. 236–249.
Ginger, S. (2018) Gestalt Therapy: The Art of Contact. Oxon: Routledge.
Goldstein, K. (1939) The Organism. New York: American Books.
Gonzi, M. (2020) Covid-19: Our Response as Gestalt Therapists. British Gestalt
Journal, 29(1), pp. 3–11.
Goodman, P. (1977) Nature Heals: The Psychological Essays of Paul Goodman
(T. Stoehr Ed.). New York, NY: Free Life Additions.
Goodman, P. (1994) Crazy Hope and Finite Experience (T. Stoehr Ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gorner, P. (2007) Heidegger’s Being and Time: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, E. (2016) Borderline, Narcissistic and Schizoid Adaptions. South
Carolina: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Hammadi, A. & Qureishi, F. K. (2013) Relationship between the Zeigarnik
Effect and Consumer Attention in Advertisement. World Journal of Social
Sciences, 3(4), pp. 131–143.
Hassan, U., Hendler, T., Bashat, D. B. & Malach, R. (2001) Vase or Face? A
Neural Correlates of Shape-Selective Grouping Processes in the Human
Brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 744–753.
Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Heimbach, J. T. & Jacoby, J. (1972) The Zeigarnik Effect in Advertising.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association of Consumer Research.
Chicago IL: pp. 746–758.
Heraclitus (1991) Les fragments d’Heraclite, Les immémoriaux-Fata Morgana.
LaLibrairie.com
Hoffman, D. D. (2000) Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Houston, G. (1982) The Red Book of Gestalt. London: The Rochester Foundation.
Houston, G. (1995) The Now Red Book of Gestalt. London: Gaie Houston.
Huang, C. A. (1989) Tai Ji, Beginner’s Tai Ji Book. Berkley, CA: Celestial Arts
Press.
Husserl, E. (1931) Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, Vol 1. New
York, NY: MacMillan.
Husserl, E. (1964) The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness (J. S. Churchill,
Trans.) Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hycner, R. (1993) Between Person and Person: Toward a Dialogical Psychotherapy.
Highland, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
Hycner, R. (1999) Dialogical Gestalt Therapy: An Initial Proposal. Gestalt
Journal, 8(1), pp. 23–49.
Hycner, R. & Jacobs, L. (1995) The Healing Relationship in Gestalt Therapy – A
Dialogic/Self Psychology Approach. Highland, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
 REFERENCES 159
Ingersoll, R. (2005) Gestalt Therapy and Spirituality. In A Woldt & S Toman
(Eds.), Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory and Practice. CA: Sage Publications.
Jacobs, L. (1992) Insights from Psychoanalytic Self-Psychology and Inter-
Subjectivity Theory for Gestalt Therapists. The Gestalt Journal, XV(2), pp. 25–61.
Jacobs, L. (2000) For Whites Only. British Gestalt Journal, 9(1), pp. 3–14.
Jacobs, L. (2005) The Inevitable Intersubjectivity of Selfhood. International
Gestalt Journal, 28(1), pp. 43–70
Jacobs, L. (2007) Self, Subject and Intersubjectivity. Studies in Gestalt Therapy:
Dialogical Bridges, 1(1), pp. 13–40
Jacobs, L. (2012) Critiquing Projection: Supporting Dialogue in a Post-Cartesian
World. In T. Bar-Yoseph Levine (Ed.), Gestalt Therapy: Advances in Theory and
Practice. Sussex: Routledge, pp. 59–69.
Jacobs, L. (2014) Learning to Love White Shame and Guilt. International Journal
of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology. London. Routledge.
Jacobs, L. (2016) Dialogue and Double Consciousness: Lessons in Power and
Humility. Gestalt Review, 20(2), pp. 147–161.
Jacobs, L. (2017) Hopes, Fears and Enduring Relational themes. British Gestalt
Journal, 26(1), pp. 7–16.
Jacobs, L. & Hycner, R. (2009) Relational Approaches in Gestalt Therapy. New York,
NY: Gestalt Press/Routledge.
Joyce, P. & Sills, C. (2018) Skills in Gestalt Counselling & Psychotherapy (4th Edition).
London: Sage.
Kaufman, G. (1985) Shame: The Power of Caring. Rochester, VT, Schenkman Books.
Kaufman, G. (1996). The Psychology of Shame: Theory and Treatment of Shame-
Based Syndromes (2nd edition). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co.
Kennedy, D. (1998) Gestalt: A Point of Departure for a Personal Spirituality.
British Gestalt Journal, 7, pp. 2.
Kennedy, D. (2003) The Phenomenal Field: The Homeground of Gestalt
Therapy. The British Gestalt Journal, 12, pp. 2.
Kepner, J. (1999) Body Process: A Gestalt Approach to Working with the Body in
Psychotherapy. New York, NY: Gardner.
Kepner, J. (2003) Healing Tasks: Psychotherapy with Adult Survivors of Childhood
Abuse. Cambridge MA: Gestalt Press.
Kepner, J. (2008) Towards a More Deeply Embodied Approach in Gestalt
Therapy. Studies in Gestalt Therapy, 2(2), pp. 43–56.
Keysers, C. (2011) The Empathic Brain. E-book published by Christian Keysers.
Kim, H. S. & Sasaki, J. Y. (2014) Cultural Neuroscience: Biology of the Mind in
Cultural Contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, pp. 487–514.
Kolmannskog, V. (2018) The Empty Chair: Tales from Gestalt Therapy. Oxon.
Routledge
Korb, M., Gorrell, J. & Van De Reit, V. (1989) Gestalt Therapy: Practice and
Theory (2nd Edition). Elmsford: Pergamon Press Inc.
Krysinska, K., Roubal, J. & Mann, D. (2022) A Safe Place for Katie. In J. F.
Gunn & D. Lester (Eds.), Perspectives on a Young Woman’s Suicide. New York,
NY: Routledge.
160 REFERENCES

Latner, J. (1983) This Is the Speed of Light: Field and Systems Theories in
Gestalt Therapy. The Gestalt Journal, VI, pp. 71–90.
Latner, J. (1985) What Kinds of Figures Does Gestalt Therapy Cut? Gestalt
Journal, VIII(1), pp. 55–60.
Latner, J. (1986) The Gestalt Book. Gouldsboro, ME: The Gestalt Journal Press.
Latner, J. (2000) The Theory of Gestalt Therapy. In E. C. Nevis (Ed.), Gestalt
Therapy: Perspectives and Applications. Cambridge, MA: Gestalt Press.
Lee, R. (Ed.) (2004) The Values of Connection: A Relational Approach to Ethics.
Cambridge, MA: Gestalt Press.
Levinas, E. (1987) Collected Philosophical Papers. (A. Lingis, Trans.) Boston. Nijhoff.
Levitsky, A. & Perls, F. (1970) The Rules and Games of Gestalt Therapy. In
J. Fagan & I. Shepherd (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy Now. Palo Alto, CA: Science
and Behaviour Books.
Lewin, K. (1936) Principles of Topological Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1952) Field Theory in Social Sciences. London: Tavistock.
Lichtenberg, P. (1999) Myself and My Other Selves: Book Review. Gestalt
Review, 3(2), pp. 157–172.
Lichtenberg, P. (2012) Inclusive and Exclusive Aggression: Some (Gestalt)
Reflections. Gestalt Review, 13(2), pp. 145–161.
Macann, C. (1993) Four Phenomenological Philosophers. London: Routledge.
Mann, D. (2010) Gestalt Therapy: 100 Key Points and Techniques. Hove:
Routledge.
Mann, D. (2013) Assessing Suicidal Risk. In G. Francesetti, M. Gecele &
J Roubal (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy in Clinical Practice: From Psychopathology to the
Aesthetics of Contact. Siracusa: Instituto di Gestalt HCC.
Mann, D. (2014) Gestalt Therapy. The Handbook of Individual Therapy (6th Edition).
London: Sage Publication Ltd., pp. 179–205.
Mann, D. (2021) Gestalt Therapy: 100 Key Points and Techniques (2nd Edition).
Oxon: Routledge.
Marrow, A. J. (1969) The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Mazur, E. (1996) The Zeigarnik Effect and the Concept of Unfinished Business
in Gestalt Therapy. British Gestalt Journal, 5(1), pp. 18–23.
McConville, M. (2001) Lewinian Field Theory, Adolescent Development
and Psychotherapy. In M. McConville & G. Wheeler (Eds.), The Heart of
Development: Gestalt Approaches to Working with Children, Adolescents and Their
Worlds: Vol 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
McConville, M. (2013) Adolescence: Psychotherapy and the Emergent Self. Santa
Cruz, CA: Gestalt Press.
Mead, M. (1949) Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World.
London: Gollancz.
Melnick, J. (2003) Counter-Transference and the Gestalt Approach. British
Gestalt Journal, 12(1), pp. 40–48.
Melnick, J. & Nevis, E. (2012) Mending the World. Melnick, J. & Nevis, E. (Eds).
Santa Cruz, CA: Gestalt Press.
 REFERENCES 161
Melnick, J. & Roos, S. (2007) The Myth of Closure. Gestalt Review, 11(2),
pp. 90–107.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of Perception. Translated from French
by C. Smith. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968) The Visible and the Invisible. Translated by A. Lingis.
C. Lefont (Ed.), Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2008) The World of Perception. Oxon: Routledge Classics.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2010) Consciousness and the Acquisition of Language. In
Talia Welsh (Trans. and Ed.), Child Psychology and Pedagogy. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2014) Phenomenology of Perception. Translated from French
by Donald A. Landes. Oxon: Routledge.
Midgley, D. (2006) Intersubjectivity and Collective Consciousness. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 13(5), pp. 99–109.
Miller, M. V. (2001) The Speaking Body (Or Why Did Wilhelm Reich Go
Crazy). The Gestalt Journal, 24, pp. 11–29.
Miller, M. V. (2011) Foreword. In J.-M. Robine (Ed.), On the Occasion of the
Other. Gouldsboro, ME: Gestalt Journal Press.
Mulgrew, E. & Mulgrew, J. (1987) Awareness of Self and Other in Gestalt
Therapy. The Gestalt Journal, X(2), pp. 67–72.
Muller, M. (Ed.) (1993) Psychophysiologische Risikofaktoren bei Herz/Kreislauferkrankungen
– Grundlagen und Therpie. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Muller, M. (1995) Isadore From’s Contribution to the Theory and Practice of
Gestalt Therapy. British Gestalt Journal, 4(2), pp. 121–128.
Nasser, G. D. (2008) The Legacy of the Walnut Lane Memorial Bridge. Structure,
27, pp. 27–31.
Oaklander, V. (2015) Windows to Our Children. Highland, N.Y: Gestalt Journal
Press.
Orange, D. (2002) There Is No Outside: Empathy and Authenticity in
Psychoanalytic Process. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 19(4), pp. 686–700.
Orange, D. (2010) Thinking for Clinicians. New York, NY: Routledge.
Orange, D., Atwood, G. & Stolorow, R. (1997) Working Intersubjectively:
Contextualism in Psychoanalytic Practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998) Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal
Emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Park, D. C. & Huang, C.-M. (2010) Culture Wires the Brain: A Cognitive
Neuroscience Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 5(4), pp. 391–400.
Parlett, M. (1991) Reflections on Field Theory. British Gestalt Journal, 1(2),
pp. 69–81.
Parlett, M. (1993) Towards a More Lewinian Field Theory. British Gestalt Journal,
2, 115–120.
Parlett, M. (2000) Creative Adjustment and the Global Field. British Gestalt
Journal, 9(1), pp. 15–27
162 REFERENCES

Parlett, M. (2003) Creative Abilities and the Art of Living Well. In Spagnuolo
Lobb, M. & Amendt-Lyon, A. (Eds.), Creative License, The Art of Gestalt
Therapy. Vienna: Springer.
Parlett, M. (2005) Contemporary Gestalt Therapy: Field Theory. In A. L. Woldt
& S. M. Toman (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory and Practice. London:
Sage Publications.
Parlett, M. (2015) Future Sense: Five Explorations of Whole Intelligence for a World
that’s Waking Up. Leicestershire: Matador.
Perls, F. (1947) Ego, Hunger and Aggression. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Perls, F. (1948) Theory and Technique of Personality Integration. American
Journal of Psychotherapy, 2, pp. 565–586.
Perls, F. (1966) Gestalt Therapy and Human Potentialities. In H. A. Otto (Ed.),
Explorations in Human Potentialities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,
pp. 542–548.
Perls, F. (1969) Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Perls, F. (1973) The Gestalt Approach and Eye Witness to Therapy. Palo Alto, CA:
Science and Behaviour Books.
Perls, F., Hefferline, R. & Goodman, P. (1951) Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and
Growth in the Human Personality. London: Souvenir Press.
Perls, L. (1978) Concepts and Misconceptions of Gestalt Therapy. Voices, 14(3),
pp. 31–36.
Perls, L. (1992) Living at the Boundary. Highland, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
Petzold, H. G. (2006) Aggressionsnarrative, Ideologie und Friedensarbeit – Integrative
Perspektiven. FPI-Publikationen, Verlag Petzold + Sieper Hückeswagen.
Philippson, P. (2001) Self in Relation. Highland, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
Philippson, P. (2002) A Gestalt Approach to Transference. British Gestalt Journal,
11(1), pp. 16–20.
Philippson, P. (2009) The Emergent Self: An Existential-Gestalt Approach. London:
Karnac Books Ltd.
Philippson, P. (2018) Gestalt Therapy: Roots and Branches Collected Papers. Oxon:
Routledge.
Phillips, G. (2014) In Dialogue with Gabe Phillips on Psychology and Spirituality,
Noel Haarburger (Interviewer). Gestalt Journal of Australia and New Zealand,
11(1), pp. 41–51.
Pinderhughes, E. (1989) Understanding Race, Ethnicity and Power: The Key to Efficacy
in Clinical Practice. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Polster, E. (1987) Every Person’s Life Is Worth a Novel. New York, NY: Norton.
Polster, E. (1999) Individuality and Communality. In Polster, E. & Polster, M.
(Eds.), From the Radical Center: The Heart of Gestalt Therapy. Highland, NY:
The Gestalt Press.
Polster, E. & Polster, M. (1973) Gestalt Therapy Integrated: Contours of Theory and
Practice. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Porges, S. (2015) Making the World Safe for Our Children: Down-Regulating
Defence and up-Regulating Social Engagement to ‘optimise’ the Human
Experience. Children. Australia, 40(2), pp. 114–123.
 REFERENCES 163
Ramachandran, V. S. (2009). The neurons that shaped civilization [Video]. TED
Conferences, November.
Resnick, R. (1995) Gestalt Therapy: Principles, Prisms and Perspectives:
Interviewed by Malcolm Parlett. British Gestalt Journal, 4(1), pp. 3–13.
Resnick, R. (2002) When ‘Other’ Is Less Than…. British Gestalt Journal, 11(1),
pp. 64–66.
Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. (2004) The Mirror-Neuron System. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 27, pp. 169–192.
Roberts, A. (1999) The Field Talks Back: An Essay on Constructivism and
Experience. British Gestalt Journal, 8(1), pp. 35–46.
Robine, J. M. (2001) From Field to Situation. In J.-M. Robine (Ed.), Contact
and Relationship in a Field Perspective. Bordeaux: L’Exprimerie, pp. 95–107.
Robine, J. M. (2006). Il rivelarsi del s. nel contatto. Studi di psicoterapia della
Gestalt. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Robine, J. M. (2011) On the Occasion of the Other. Gouldsboro, ME: Gestalt
Journal Press.
Robine, J. M. (2015) Social Change Begins with Two. Siracusa, Italy: Instituto di
Gestalt HCC.
Robine, J. M. (Ed.) (2016) Self: A Polyphony of Contemporary Gestalt Therapists.
St. Romain la Virvée: L’Exprimerie.
Roos, S. (2001) Chronic Sorrow and the Gestalt Construct of Closure. Gestalt
Review, 5(4), pp. 289–310.
Roubal, J. (Ed.) (2016) Towards a Research Tradition in Gestalt Therapy. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Roubal, J. (2019). An Experimental Approach: Follow by Leading. In Philip
Brownell (ed.). Handbook for Theory, Research, and Practice in Gestalt Therapy (2nd
edition). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 220–268.
Roubal, J., Francesetti, G. & Gecele, M. (2017) Aesthetic Diagnosis in Gestalt
Therapy. Behavioural Sciences. Basel: MDPI.
Saner, R. (1999) Organizational Consulting: What a Gestalt Approach Can
Learn from Off-Off Broadway Theater. Gestalt Review, 3(1), pp. 6–22.
Sayers, J. (2021) Sigmund Freud: The Basics. Oxon: Routledge.
Schore, A. (2003) Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. New York, NY:
Norton.
Schore, A. (2012) The Science of the Art of Psychotherapy. New York, NY: Norton.
Schulz, F. (2013) Roots and Shoots of Gestalt Therapy Field Theory: Historical
and Theoretical Developments. Gestalt Journal of Australia and New Zealand,
10(1), pp. 24–47.
Seely, M. (2022) When the World Changes in an Instant: Exploring “Cracks
in the Continuity of Experience”. In P. Cole (Ed.), The Relational Heart of
Gestalt Therapy: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.
Seifert, C. M. & Patalano, A. L. (1991) Memory for incomplete tasks: A re-
examination of the Zeigarnik Effect Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Chicago, IL: pp. 114–119.
164 REFERENCES

Seigel, D. (2007) The Mindful Brain: Reflection and Attunement in the Cultivation of
Well-Being. New York, NY: Norton.
Siewert, C. (2022) Consciousness and Intentionality. In E. N. Zalta (ed.),
The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2022 Edition. Available
from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/consciousness-
intentionality/
Skotten, G. & Kruger, A. (2022) Gestalt Therapy Practice: Theory and Experiential
Learning. Oxon: Routledge.
Sluckin, A. (1993) Addressing the Whole Field: The Implications of Food and
Chemical Intolerance for Psychotherapy. British Gestalt Journal, 2(1), pp. 10–18
Smuts, J. C. (1987) Holism and Evolution. Cape Town, SA: N & S (originally
published 1926).
Sokolowski, R. (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sonne, M. & Toennesvang, K. (2015) Integrative Gestalt Practice: Transforming our
ways of working with people. Oxon. Routledge
Spagnuolo-Lobb, M. (2009) The Therapeutic Relationship in Gestalt Therapy.
Relational Approaches in Gestalt Therapy. Santa Cruz, CA: Gestalt Press.
Spagnuolo Lobb, M. (2012) Lo sviluppo polifonico dei domini. Verso una pros-
pettiva evolutiva della psicoterapia della Gestalt. Quaderni di Gestalt, XXV,
pp. 31–50.
Spagnuolo Lobb, M. (2016) Self as Contact, Contact as Self. A Contribution
to Ground Experience in Gestalt Therapy Theory of Self. In J. M. Robine
(Ed.), Self. A Polyphony of Contemporary Gestalt Therapists. St. Romain la
Virvée, France: L’Exprimerie, pp. 261–289.
Spagnuolo Lobb, M. (2020) The Relational Turn of Gestalt Therapy Clinical
Practice: From the “empty Chair” to the “dance of Reciprocity” in the Field.
International Journal of Psychotherapy, 24(3), pp. 17–32.
Spagnuolo Lobb, M. (2023) Working on the Ground in Aesthetics and the
“Dance”. In M. Spagnuolo Lobb & P. Cavaleri (Eds.), Psychopathology of the
Situation: A Field Oriented Approach. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 20–45.
Spagnuolo-Lobb, M. & Cavaleri, P. A. (2023) Psychopathological Situations
in a Post-Pandemic World. In M. Spagnuolo Lobb & P. Cavaleri (Eds.),
Psychopathology of the Situation: A Field Oriented Approach. Oxon: Routledge,
pp. 7–19.
Spinelli, E. (2005) The Interpreted World: An Introduction to Phenomenological
Psychology (2nd Edition). London: Sage.
Staemmler, F. M. (2006) A Babylonian Confusion?: On the Uses and Meanings
of the Term ‘Field’. British Gestalt Journal, 15(2), pp. 64–83.
Staemmler, F. M. (2009) Aggression, Time and Understanding. Cambridge, MA:
Gestalt Press.
Staemmler, F. M. (2010) Contact as First Reality: Gestalt Therapy as an
Intersubjective Approach. British Gestalt Journal, 19(2), pp. 26–33.
Staemmler, F. M. (2012) Empathy in Psychotherapy: How Therapists and Clients
Understand Each Other. New York, NY: Springer.
 REFERENCES 165
Staemmler, F. M. (2016) Taking Another Turn: The Relational Turn in Gestalt
Therapy Revisited. British Gestalt Journal, 25(2), pp. 3–19.
Stern, D. N. (1998) The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York, NY: Karnac.
Stern, D. N. (2004) The Present Moment: In Psychotherapy and Everyday Life.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Stern, D. N. (2010) Forms of Vitality. Exploring Dynamic Experience in Psychology
and the Arts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stoehr, T. (1994) Here, Now, Next: Paul Goodman and the Origins of Gestalt
Therapy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Strawman, S. (2011) Empathy and Understanding: Phenomenology and
Hermeneutics in Relational Gestalt Psychotherapy. British Gestalt Journal,
20(1), pp. 5–13.
Taylor, M. (2014) Trauma Therapy and Clinical Practice: Neuroscience, Gestalt and
The Body. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Thompson, E. & Zahavi, D. (2007) Philosophical Issues: Phenomenology. In
Zelazo, P. D., Moscovitch, M., Thompson, E. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of
Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–87.
Tudor, K. (1991) Integrating Gestalt in Children’s Groups. The British Gestalt
Journal, 1, pp. 21–27.
Wagner-Moore, L. E. (2004) Gestalt Therapy: Past, Present, Theory, and
Research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(2), pp. 180–189.
Watts, A. (1975) Tao: The Watercourse Way. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Wertheimer, M. (1938) Gestalt Theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed. & Trans.), A Source
Book of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 1–11.
Wheeler, G. (1991) Gestalt Reconsidered – A New Approach to Contact and
Resistance. New York, NY: Gardner Press.
Wheeler, G. (2000) Beyond Individualism: Towards a New Understanding of Self,
Relationship & Experience. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Wheeler, G. (2003) Contact and Creativity: The Gestalt Cycle in Context. In M
Spagnuolo-Lobb & N Amendt-Lyon (Eds.), Creative License: The Art of Gestalt
Therapy. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 163–178.
Wheeler, G. (2005) Culture, Self and Field: A Gestalt Guide to the Age of
Complexity. Gestalt Review, 9(1), pp. 91–128.
Wheeler, G. & Axelsson, L. (2015) Gestalt Therapy. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Wheeler, G. & McConville, M. (Eds) (2001) The Heart of Development: Volume 2
Adolescence. Gestalt Approaches to Working with Children, Adolescents and their
Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Gestalt Press.
Wheeler, G. & McConville, M. (Eds) (2002) The Heart of Development: Volume 1
Childhood. Gestalt Approaches to Working with Children, Adolescents and their
Worlds. Cambridge, M.: Gestalt Press.
White, C. (2008) Beyond Transference Towards a Psychotherapy for the 21st
Century. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338967039
Wiggenstein, L. (2008) Philosophical Investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, trans.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
166 REFERENCES

Woldt, A. & Toman, S. (Eds.) (2005) Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory, and Practice.
London: Sage Publications.
Wolfert, R. (2000) Self in Experience, Gestalt Therapy, Science and Buddhism.
British Gestalt Journal, 9(2), pp. 77–86.
Wollants, G. (2012) Gestalt Therapy: Therapy of the Situation. London: Sage.
Wollants, G. (2016) The Bodying Forth of the Situation. Contact and Context: New
Directions in Gestalt Coaching, Santa Cruz, CA: Gestalt Press, 3, pp. 223–234.
Wysong, J. & Rosenfeld, E. (1989) An Oral History of Gestalt Therapy. Highland
NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
Yontef, G. (1991) Recent Trends in Gestalt Therapy in the United States and
What We Need to Learn from Them. British Gestalt Journal, 1(1), pp. 5–20
Yontef, G. (1993) Awareness, Dialogue & Process: Essays on Gestalt Therapy. New
York, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.
Yontef, G. (1999) Awareness, Dialogue and Process: Preface to the 1998 German
Edition. The Gestalt Journal, XXII(1), pp. 9–20.
Yontef, G. (2005) Gestalt Therapy Theory of Change. In A. L. Woldt & S. M.
Toman (Eds.), Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory, and Practice. London: Sage
Publications, pp. 81–100.
Yontef, G. (2008) Relational Gestalt Therapy: What Is It, and What Is It Not.
International Gestalt Journal, 31 (1), pp. 91–113.
Yontef, G. (2009) The Relational Attitude in Gestalt Therapy & Practice. In
R. Hycner & L. Jacobs (Eds.), Relational Approaches in Gestalt Therapy. New
York, NY: Routledge, Gestalt Press, pp. 37–59.
Yontef, G. & Fairfield, M. (2008) Gestalt Therapy. In K. Jordan (Ed.), The
Quick Theory Reference Guide: A Resource for Expert and Novice Mental Health
Professionals. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 83–106.
Yontef, G. & Jacobs, L. (2010) Gestalt Therapy. In R. Corsini & D. Wedding
(Eds.), Current Psychotherapies. Belmont, CA: Brookes/Cole Thompson
Learning, pp. 342–382.
Yontef, G. & Schulz, F. (2016) Dialogue and Experiment. British Gestalt Journal,
25(1), pp. 9–21.
Zahavi, D. (2019) Phenomenology: The Basics Oxon: Routledge.
Zeigarnik, B. (1927) Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen.
Psychologische Forschung, 9, pp. 1–85.
Zeigarnik, B. (1938) On Finished and Unfinished Tasks. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A
Sourcebook of Gestalt Psychology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench Truber & Co,
pp. 300–314.
Zeigarnik, B. (1981) Teoriya lichnosti. (The Theory of the Personality by Kurt
Lewin) Moscow: Moscow University.
Zinker, J. (1977) Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy. New York, NY: Vintage
Books.
Zinker, J. (1987) Presence as Evocative Power in Therapy. Sketches. New York,
NY: Gestalt Press.
Zinker, J. (1993) Fritz Perls in 1993 – Book Review. British Gestalt Journal, 2,
pp. 131–135.

Note: Page numbers in italics refer figures and bold tables in the text.
abilities 46–48, 75
action in gestalt cycle of
experience 32
anger work 143
awareness: awareness-excitement-
contact cycle 30, 31; contact and
23–27; continuum 25; in gestalt
cycle of experience 32
Axelsson, L. 67
Beckett, Samuel 136
Being and Time (Heidegger) 90, 92
Beisser, Arnie 92; The Paradoxical
Theory of Change 43
Bloom, D. 18, 39, 94
Bloomberg, Ischa 62
bracketing (the rule of epoche) 91
Brentano, Franz 95–96
Buber, Martin 13, 18, 43, 122,
127; description of dialogue 113;
detached presence 124; I and Thou
116; magnus opus 118
Carle, Eric 53
Cavaleri, P.A. 128
changing process, principle of 70
chiasm 106
Clemmens, Michael 20, 110
INDEX
closure, law of 7, 8
co-creation 69; belief in 58;
phenomenology 98–101
comfort zone 134
commitment to dialogue 120–121
common fate, law of 7
confirmation in dialogue 125–127
confluence 59–60
contact 25, 37
contact boundary 28–30
contact functions 27–28
contemporaneity, principle of 70
continuity, law of 7, 8
core relatedness 76–77
counter-transference 130
COVID-19 29, 68, 105, 128
Cozolino, L. 82
creative adjustment 13
creative experimentation 134–153;
dreamwork 148–151; empty chair
138–142; experimental methods
142–148; gestalt experimentation
and challenge 134–138; remaining
mindful 151–153; senses 151–153;
two chair 138–142; unremarkable
experiments 146–148; see also
specific types
creative indifference 41–42
168 INDEX
creative undifferentiation 42
Crocker, S.F. 130
cultural field, field theory 84–87
culture, defined 84; see also Western
culture
Damasio, A. 37
deflection 61–62
de Maupassant, Guy 137
Denham-Vaughan, Sally: Liminal
Space 106–107
description in phenomenology 91
desensitisation 64
detached presence 124
dialogue 5, 19, 112–133; between
128–133; characteristics of 119–
128; commitment to 120–121;
confirmation 125–127; enduring
relational themes 129–133; in
gestalt therapy 112–115; inclusion
and empathy 121–122; I-Thou
and I-It moments 115–119; non-
exploitation 127–128; presence
123–125; transference 129–133
domains of relatedness: core 76–77;
emergent 76; intersubjective 77;
verbal 77–80
dreamwork, creative
experimentation 148–151
DuBois, W.E.B. 125
Ego, Hunger and Aggression (Perls)
15–16
ego function 38, 96
egotism 62–63
Einstein, Albert 18
embodied field 71–74
embodying 47
emergent relatedness 76
empathy 73; banished from gestalt
therapy 60; dialogue 121–122;
understanding and 82
empty chair experimentation
138–142
enduring relational themes 129–133
Esalen Institute 16, 17, 110
existentialism 91
existential phenomenology 91–93
experiential exercise 9, 34, 38, 56,
63, 79, 135
experiential learning 137;
importance in gestalt therapy 1
experimental methods 142–148
experimentation see specific types
experimenting 47–48; see also empty
chair experimentation; two chair
experimentation
familiarity boundary 126, 134
Faraday, Michael 18
Feder, B. 19
field self-organisation 18
field theory/situation 4, 19,
66–87; cultural field 84–87;
developmental theory in gestalt
74–80; embodied field 71–74; five
principles of 69–71; principles of
17–18; shame and guilt in 80–83;
situation in 66–71
figure and ground 10, 10–13, 12
figure formation 11, 12
figure therapy 13
final contact 25, 37; in gestalt cycle
of experience 32
five explorations/abilities 46–48
fore-contact 25, 37
Francesetti, G. 17, 20, 37, 125
Frank, Ruella 20, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80
Freud, Sigmund 38, 52, 54, 71, 129,
148, 150; psychoanalysis 74; on
suicide 56; understanding of oral
aggression 52
Freudian theory 56
Friedlaender, Salamo 42
Friedman, M. 121
From, Isadore 15, 18, 51, 63, 149
Fry, Marianne 62
Gadamer, H.-G. 90
Gecele, M. 20, 125

Geertz, C. 84
gender, sex and relationship diversity
(GSRD) 125
gestalt concept of self 39
gestalt cycle of experience 30–33,
32, 32–33
gestalt cycle of formation and
destruction 31, 31
Gestalt Institute of Cleveland 15, 30
gestalt maps 23–49; awareness and
contact 23–27; contact boundary
28–30; five explorations 46–48;
gestalt cycle of experience 30–33;
here and now 34–36; Paradoxical
Theory of Change 42–44;
polarities 39, 39–42; self and
selfing 36–38; Zeigarnik effect
44–46
gestalt psychology, laws of
perception 6–13
gestalt therapy 3–22; described
3–6, 28; developmental theory in
74–80; development of 16–21;
dialogue in 112–115; disciplines
of 2; experimentation and
challenge 134–138; figure and
ground 10, 10–13, 12; formation
of 13–16; growth in Great Britain
and beyond 20–21; importance
of experiential learning in 1;
phenomenology in 19, 93–98;
philosophies of 4–5; see also
phenomenology
Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and
Growth in Human Personality
(Perls, Hefferline and Goodman)
1–2, 4, 13
Goldstein, Kurt 13
Goodman, Paul 3, 14, 15, 16,
18, 19, 21, 34, 101, 118; on
adulthood 75; Gestalt Therapy:
Excitement and Growth in Human
Personality 1–2, 4, 13; humans of
the field and in the field 67; on id
of the situation 71
INDEX 169
grasp 79
Greenberg, Elinor 20
Griffero, T. 17
guilt in field theory 80–83
healthy functioning 11, 12, 28, 38,
51–52, 73
Hefferline, Ralph 15; Gestalt
Therapy: Excitement and Growth in
Human Personality 1–2, 4, 13
Hegel, G.W.F. 90
Heidegger, Martin 13, 19, 84,
93; Being and Time 90, 92; on
existential phenomenology 91–93
Heraclitus 37, 70
here and now 17, 34–36
holism 17; phenomenology 107–110
Holism and Evolution (Smuts) 108
horizontalisation/equalisation 91
Horney, Karen 14
Houston, Gaie 19
humour use in therapy 62
Husserl, Edmund 19, 35, 90, 93,
105; The Philosophy of Arithmetic
90–91
Hycner, Rich 18, 112, 113, 119
I and Thou (Buber) 116
id function 38, 76, 91; of situation
70–71
inclusion 122; dialogue 121–122
inner zone 24
intentionality 95–96
interrelating 47
intersubjective relatedness 77
intersubjectivity, phenomenology
98–101
introjection 52–55
I-Thou and I-It moments: dialogue
115–119
Jacobs, Lynne 18, 43, 54, 85, 100,
113, 119, 131, 132
Joyce, Phil 31, 63, 83
Jung, Carl 148, 150
170 INDEX

Kant, Immanuel 90 Oaklander, V. 59

Kaufman, Gershen 80 Orange, Donna 30, 106
Kepner, Elaine 15 organisation, principle of 70
Kepner, J. 20 organismic self-regulation 44
Kitzler, Richard 15 original experience 90
Koffka, Kurt 7 outer zone 24, 25
Kohler, Wolfgang 7
Kruger, A. 19 Pacific Gestalt Institute 43
Panksepp, J. 82
La Barre, F. 20, 80 Paradoxical Theory of Change
Latner, J. 17, 26 42–44
Leibniz, G.W. 90 The Paradoxical Theory of Change
Levinas, Emmanuel 90 (Beisser) 43
Lewin, Kurt 14, 45, 70; action Parlett, Malcolm 17, 18, 46, 67,
research 67–68 109; five principles of field theory
Liminal Space (Denham-Vaughan) 69–70
106–107 perception, law of 6–13
lived body 72, 93, 101, 105 Perls, Frederick (Fritz) 3, 13–16,
living body 101, 103 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 40,
42, 46, 50, 62, 92, 110, 119,
Mazur, E. 45 121, 139, 140, 148; aversion to
McConville, M. 80 confluence 59, 73; developmental
Melnick, J. 130 sequence 75; disagreed with
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 17, 19, Freud’s theories 52; Ego, Hunger
92, 93, 105; on awareness 23; and Aggression 15–16; Gestalt
embodied perception 106; The Therapy: Excitement and Growth
Phenomenology of Perception 90; The in Human Personality 1–2, 4, 13;
World of Perception 106 on holism 108; original training
middle zone 24–25 in psychoanalysis 129; projection
mind-body-world 72 as screen phenomenon 57;
mindful, creative experimentation psychoanalytic training 33; on
151–153 suicide 56
mobilisation in gestalt cycle of Perls, Laura 3, 13–15, 16, 18, 21,
experience 32 27, 42, 50, 53, 62, 73, 92, 113,
moderations to contact 50–65; types 139; developmental sequence 75;
of 52–64 history in fleeing Nazi Germany
Moreno, Jacob 138 and their death camps 59; on
Muller, M. 51 holism 108; original training in
psychoanalysis 129; psychoanalytic
natural attitude 89 training 34
Nevis, Edwin 15 personality function 38
Nevis, Sonia 15 phenomena 17
New York Institute 15 phenomenal field 68
non-exploitation, dialogue 127–128 phenomenological attitude 89
 INDEX 171
phenomenological method 90 Rogers, Carl 122
phenomenological reduction 90 Ronall, R. 19
phenomenology 5, 88–110; body Roubal, Jan 19, 20, 115, 125
and 101–107; described 89; in Rowling, J.K. 137
gestalt therapy 93–98; holism Rubin, Edgar 10–11
107–110; intersubjectivity and
co-creation 98–101; as philosophy safe emergency 19
88–93; roots of the term 89; Sartre, J.-P. 90
transcendental 19; see also gestalt satisfaction in gestalt cycle of
therapy experience 32
The Phenomenology of Perception Schöpferische Indifferenz 42
(Merleau-Ponty) 90 Schore, A. 83
Philippson, Peter 19, 130, 143, 144 Schulz, F. 19
Phillips, Gabe 110 self-affectivity 76
philosophy: defined 58; self-agency 76
phenomenology as 88–93 self and selfing 36–39
The Philosophy of Arithmetic (Husserl) self-as-process 37
90–91 self-coherence 76
Pinderhughes, E. 84 self-disclosure 123
polarities 39, 39–42 self-history 76
Polster, Erving 15, 19, 28, 36, self-monitoring/egotism 62–63
39–40, 62 self-recognising 47
Polster, Miriam 15, 19, 28, 39, 62 sensation in gestalt cycle of
possible relevance, principle of 70 experience 32
post-contact 25, 37 senses, creative experimentation
post-traumatic stress disorder 12 151–153
Pragnanz, law of 7 shame, in field theory 80–83
presence, dialogue 123–125 shame binds 81
proflection 56 shame of shame 81
projection 57–59 Shapiro, Elliot 15, 16
proximity, law of 7, 9 Sills, C. 31, 63, 83
psychoanalytic theory 14, 38 similarity, law of 7, 9
pull 79 singularity, principle of 70
push 78 Skotten, G. 19
Smuts, J.C.: Holism and Evolution 108
Rank, Otto 14 Spagnuolo-Lobb, M. 128, 141
reach 78–79 Spinelli, Ernesto 19
Reich, Wilhelm 13 Staemmler, Frank 18, 74, 98,
release 79 119, 121
Representations of Interactions that Stern, Daniel 34, 76, 78, 80, 101,
have been Generalised (RIGS) 76 104
responding to situation 46 Stoehr, T. 35
retroflection 55–57 Strawman, S. 119, 122
Robine, J.M. 17, 18, 71 symmetry, law of 7, 9
172 INDEX
Taoist philosophy 39
Taylor, M. 20, 36
Thompson, E. 35
thought disorder 121
three self structures/functions 38–39
Tillich, Paul 13
transcendental phenomenology 19,
90–91
transference 58; dialogue 129–133;
see also counter-transference
two chair experimentation
138–142
United Kingdom Council for
Psychotherapy (UKCP) 21
unremarkable experiments
146–148
verbal relatedness 77–80
virgin experience 91, 94
void in gestalt cycle of
experience 32
Wertheimer, Max 7, 13
Western culture 31, 41, 58, 60–61,
64, 75, 84, 95, 102
Wheeler, G. 67, 80, 84
Wheeler, Gordon 17, 18
White, C. 131
withdrawal in gestalt cycle
of experience 32
Wollants, G. 17
The World of Perception
(Merleau-Ponty) 106
yield 78
yin/yang 39
Yontef, Gary 17, 18, 19, 43,
119, 130
Zahavi, D. 35, 106
Zeigarnik, Bluma 44–46, 62
Zeigarnik effect 44–46
Zinker, Joseph 15, 19, 40, 58
zones of awareness 24