There are many facets of this article that impressed me. The authors establish their authority and credibility immediately when they detail how many groups they have led since the 1970’s. This is an impressive resume in an era when many Gestalt therapists report that they are doing fewer and fewer groups. I also appreciated the authors’ attention to confidentiality, integration of both the relational (or interpersonal) and the individual (or intrapersonal) levels of experience and development of coherent therapeutic strategy which involves male/female co-therapy in the group and complimentary individual sessions.
There is an old saying here in the U.S. “there are many ways to skin a cat.” Having a cat (and a dog and a hamster), I don’t like the image it evokes; however, it leads me to say, “There are many ways to practice Gestalt therapy in a group setting.” Historically, the group has been the vessel in which the fundamentals of Gestalt therapy have been taught, developed, demonstrated and debated...from Manhattan to Cleveland, to Esalen, to Paris; from the hot seat to the beyond the hot seat, to the floating hot seat to no seats at all! The authors have certainly staked out an approach and a style of Gestalt which by their report has longitudinally proven impact and effectiveness.
There is a question of exactly what to call their approach. Even the authors seem to have different terms. In their conclusion they use the phrases, “Gestalt therapy groups,” “individual therapy within a group setting,” and “group therapy.” This is reminiscent of the terminology debate which Fritz Perls eventualy clarified when he stated (1966) that he was not doing group therapy when he used his workshop/demonstration model. The authors distinguish their model, which involves individual therapy within the group, as compared to groups, which is centered on process or group phenomena in which the group is considered client. From reading, Gingers’ approach is individually centered and the therapists carry the primary responsibility as agents of change, contact and awareness. Group members are limited in how and when they can be involved.
Despite the indivdual focus, the authors cite examples of members expressing themselves freely after therapeutic sequences, participating in pschodramatic enactments and saying provocative things to the “client” that the therapist refrains from saying. These type of contacts inevitably create process issues, and it is unclear the degree to which the authors attend to interpersonal dynamics that are not related to a designated member who is at that moment engaged in individual therapy work. Finally, although the authors state that they do not focus on group phenomena, there are several references to the group as a secure environment which facilitates controlled enactment. My point is that group leaders often choose one dimension of phenomena that occur in groups, but the other dimensions are inevitably interwoven. Serge and Anne Ginger focus on individual therapy in their groups, but they have also found creative ways to take full advantage of some of the interpersonal and group level dynamics which occur in all groups.
The purist in me would prefer they call their approach “Gestalt therapy in groups” or individual therapy within a group setting. The anarchist in me recognizes that they can call what they do whatever they want and clearly they have mastered a model or approach that is very powerful regardless of what it is called.
A more significant concern I would raise in reviewing this article is the degree to which the authors’ approach adheres to the fundamentals of phenomenology and dialogue which are two of the cornerstones (the other being field theory) of our theory and method.
There are several references to techniques, usual practices and games which leaves me to believe the authors’ style pushes, aims or directs their clients. For example, having a sexual trauma victim enact the attacker to dissolve deep neurological imprints of passive resistance or moving beyond verbal exchange to movement and emotion to facilitate “limbic” opening which allows the therapy experience to be durably stored in the cerebral structures. The authors go as far as to define the “usual sequence of events in Gestalt therapy” as physical expression, emotion, verbalization of identification and sharing. Co-therapists in groups will deliberately play out “good cop, bad cop” roles and then switch to “avoid habituation and maintain the client’s freedom of choice.”
These examples are contrary to a Gestalt therapy in which attention to awareness and contacting supports a “next step” emerging which the therapist follows and explores rather than a next step being aimed at by the therapist. In a phenomenological approach new clients to the group would be able to describe their own experience rather than be projected upon by group members, as in the crystal ball game, before they can reveal themselves. In a phenomenological and dialogic approach the sequence of events in Gestalt therapy could vary widely, experiments would replace usual practices, and discovery would replace destination.
I have not sat in these groups. I believe that very powerful therapy and personal development occurs and that is why their clients improve and why this group model has lasted and prospered for 28 years. Perhaps, the therapy which occurs in these group situations is more phenomenological and less heirarchical than the Gingers’ article would lead the reader to believe. A Supreme Court justice in the U.S. once said, “I don’t know how to define pornography, but I certainly know it when I see it.” I don’t know how to define Gestalt therapy, but I know it when I see it. With the Ginger model, I’m just not sure.
