Different Meanings, Common Ground -
AAGT
Second International Conference


By Charlie Bowman, M.A.,
President of the AAGT

One of the things I have learned through embracing Gestalt therapy is that I can only state my experience of any event. I will summarize some of the feedback here, though not in any systematic fashion. My comments come from my many contacts during the conference, feedback I received as AAGT's President about the event, the Conference Evaluation Forms which I read, and the data collected from a large group experience conducted the Saturday morning of the conference for all participants.

The AAGT Second Annual International Conference last spring in San Francisco was a real exercise in diversity. There were about 300 people from 24 countries representing 5 continents. This was certainly one of the largest gatherings of Gestalt therapists in North America. That diversity I found exciting, and more stimulating yet was the diversity of belief about what is and what is not Gestalt therapy. Now, I am a real believer in Gestalt therapy theory as it was presented by Perls and Goodman in "the bible". It was no small feat for me, therefore, to "bracket" my strong opinions and take in the different beliefs and ideas about Gestalt therapy and Gestalt therapy theory.

A number of people voiced their opinion that the conference was strongly focused on the "field" or "ground" and not on "figure". After all, attending to the emerging figure is what Gestalt is all about, right? Several participants were disappointed with the absence of the "hot seat" in process groups or demonstrations. One person commented that the process groups (a small group process experience) weren't Gestalt groups because there was no "making the rounds." Maybe 10 or 15 people commented about the political focus Gestalt therapy seems to have undertaken in the "90s" - the politics of world chaos highlighted by the keynote speaker, Maureen O'Hara, the political struggles between Gestalt therapists from different parts of the world, and the politics of AAGT itself. One person asked, "is Gestalt still a therapy?"

There were also the ponderous debates of process over content, or process over product, and of reaching balance. AAGT was accused, rightly, of being too process focused and, rightly, being too content focused. I say "rightly", because my own belief is that we are too focused. Period. Sometimes the serious endeavor of "advancing" Gestalt therapy overcomes me and I lose sight of the relationships I cherish. (I can't see the field for the figure!)

Fritz called Gestalt therapy the "Philosophy of the Obvious". What seems obvious to me is that Gestalt therapy has built a very large container in order to grow and embrace the diversity witnessed at this conference. Of course we need those that will carry the flame of the old anthology. Of course we need those who will branch out into saving the planet and other "non-clinical" endeavors. And, most of all, we need people willing to make contact, to be responsible for themselves and their impact upon others, and to change and make change as our field continues to evolve. That was the contact I witnessed at our San Francisco gathering.

Two participants remarked that their experience was more like an experiential workshop than a large conference. In terms of personal impact I believe I had a similar experience, best summarized by the following story:

A week or so after the conference a client of mine (Also a Gestalt therapist) presented a dream. She was in a large, church-like room full of people for whom she was caretaker. A thick glass wall separated her, and this room, from "the other side": an open, light, airy field with sunshine and no people. As the dream progresses the glass wall shatters and she finds herself choosing to stay in the church-like room caring for those hurt by the glass (instead of moving to "the other side"). She had worked the dream in a group prior to our session, where she was the shattering glass and became more aware of being rigid, shattering, transparent, etc.

This seemed to me to be a viable focus for the dreamwork, though I found myself curiously disinterested in the parts of the dream, per se, and more interested in the whole. So, we played with her standing in the church-like room and we played with her standing in the airy field. We even played with straddling the two where the glass wall once stood. In a novel way, I was asking her to be in the dream and not "play" the parts. She was free to move in and out of the whole dream and to be in the dream wherever she wanted to be in the dream. As a result, she was more aware of the real tear in her life between continuing to be a therapist and her fantasy wish of taking to the road in a recreational vehicle, just her and her husband. Being a therapist, she was eager to make other interpretations. I was satisfied with our work.

I believe my experience at the AAGT conference had a real influence on my work with this woman. There is so much more to be seen (and lived) when I am aware of the whole. Aligning or identifying with "parts" is one way I can feel alive. Embracing the whole is another way. That was my experience of the conference: the different meanings brought to the Miyako Hotel were much less figural for me than the common ground on which we all stood in that moment.