What has often gone unrecognized is the fact that because Gestalt Therapy began with roots in both the research and experimental aspects of psychology as well as the more speculative, subjective approaches, it gained the strengths of each and thus has been able to avoid the pitfalls of the other. Experimental approaches led to treatment approaches that were effective but limited in scope. The psychodynamic approaches paradoxically led to approaches filled with dogma rigidification. Each of these approaches has, in recent years, had to begin to look to the other in order to self-correct fairly basic errors.
Although not always with the greatest consistency, Gestalt Therapy has been able to develop an approach that retained its experiential base without turning to dogmatism and yet is well supported by current psychological science and research without becoming too narrow to be broadly useful. Both aspects have been intertwined in the context of the larger world conferences such as the first four held by the Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy (AAGT), the European Association for Gestalt Therapy (EAGT), and the Gestalt Association of Australia and New Zealand (GANZ).
These two aspects of Gestalt Therapy, “head” and “heart,” have always come together best for me, at GATLA’s European Summer Residential Training Program in Gestalt Therapy (GATLA-SR for short!). Each year, this has been a gathering of highly motivated, highly trained and accomplished individuals representing numerous fields of pursuit coming together to learn Gestalt Therapy at its finest and bringing expertise from fields as diverse as Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Psychoanalysis, Organizational Theory and Development, research Psychology, Psychiatry, Neuropsychology, Pediatric Psychology, Family Therapy, Computer Science, Literature, Education, and many others. The lecture topics have ranged from personality theory to the experimental literature that supports specific aspects of Gestalt Therapy, psychopathology, developmental neurology, developmental phenomenology, memory systems associated with character structure, group process, group conflict and conflict resolution, and the list could go on. Major contributors to this dialogue have included many people but I would like to mention a few (fully aware in doing so, of the injustice to many who equally deserve mention) such as Iris Fodor, Gottfried Rosenow, Zish Zimbienski, Virginia Burley, Richard Evans, Hugh Pidgeon, Kiti Freier, Vernon Van De Reit, Angela Forde, Jay Levin, Robert Resnick, Hunter Beaumont, Rita Resnick, Jan Ruckert, Liv Estrup, Helen Kennedy, and I could go on.
Theory and research presentations have taken on many creative formats. Gestalt Therapy’s theory is complex and difficult to teach in the linear methods normally used to teach theory. Most theories of personality and therapy are linear and rely on the notions of traits and states. By contrast, Gestalt Therapy, is a process theory. In other words, it is a theory of how life works in real time, in action. It is about how the person and its ecosystem function as one. Thus many fine gestalt therapists often cannot articulate the theory effectively. Aware of these difficulties, Liv Estrup, has been fascinated with searching for ways to present Gestalt Therapy’s complex and unusual theory using visual images and space which relate to parts of the brain that are more closely associated with process. Refined over several years, this presentation entitled "What’s Behind the Empty Chair," is now available commercially on video tape.
Another very effective method of teaching theory has been to alternate lectures with demonstrations of the concepts presented. Few who were present in Belgium will ever forget the depth and impact of a touching session conducted by Gertrude Harrow illustrating issues in the use of Dialogue. Such presentations are frequently followed by panel discussions of the issues demonstrated.
Each experiential piece of work is followed by a brief theoretical and research discussion of aspects of the work. Thus supervision and learning of theory are intimately and immediately related. As the years have improved this process, a spirit has developed that allows the trainees be supervised and engage in discussions of the work without feeling on the spot or shamed. Indeed, increasingly there is an awareness that the best learning comes out of the most difficult work. Consequently, there is often an eagerness to bring difficulties in doing the therapy to the fore.
This rich mix has provided a critical mass of interest and energy that appears now to be poised to generate its own fledgling research program! This year we will begin to provide data for researchers, and begin to do some of our own research on topics such as group process and outcome. Other projects are possible such as studies of the therapy process itself and the coordination of research on a worldwide basis. We invite ideas, which may be of interest to individual participants or groups of participants who wish to study aspects of the Gestalt Therapy or the unique process of the GATLA-SR itself. That we must be validating and researching our methods and clinical hypothesis about therapy was recently emphasized to me when I received a copy of Snyder and Ingram’s (2000) major new text entitled Handbook of Psychological Change: Psychotherapy Processes and Practices for the 21st Century. Nowhere was there a reference to Gestalt Therapy although Adlerian approaches and Medard Boss were mentioned. The euphemism, which has replaced Gestalt Therapy, Experiential Therapy, was not even mentioned. We had slipped off the radar screen. But more on that at a later time.
It is most unfortunate that in the community of Gestalt Therapy, there are still pockets of thought that Gestalt Therapy can only be “head” or “heart.” This perspective seems strongest amongst those who see Gestalt Therapy as a dogmatic system (in the quasi-religious sense of the phrase). The concept that holds sway here seems to be that all that one needs to know about Gestalt Therapy was revealed in 1951 by Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman (usually along with a Gestalt Apostle or two) and that Current Gestalt Therapy ought to be returning to and exploring the “old truths.” In a world where there is an increasing demand for evidence that what we do is effective and that we strive to improve what we do, this approach is as suicidal as going to South America in the company of Jim Jones.
Sharing the methods of training that GATLA (and previously GTILA) has developed has been important. We are proud of having had many of our methods copied by others (witness the ubiquitous “trios”) and are eager to also borrow from others as we have often had the privilege to do. If there is a spirit that is appropriate to Gestalt Therapy it is community and sharing of ideas and feelings while avoiding parochialism.
