Tom spoke of wanting me to help 'open his mind up' regarding a difficult topic. He spoke of the importance of trust, and that he felt he could trust me to help him. I firstly noted that along with the part of him wanting to open up, there was probably a part that wanted to stay closed. I also noted to myself that he spoke of his mind, rather than his feelings. This indicated that feeling explorations needed to proceed carefully. I also enquired as to what he meant by trust. Trust is an important thing in psychotherapy, yet its very much a projective illusion. Its about the person 'trusting', their expectations, their imagination of who the therapist is, and to some degree, its about their actual experience. But its important not to take such statements for granted. He mentioned some places he had been betrayed, but these were business examples, so I asked him about what it meant between him and me - we always bring things to a here and now, I and thou focus in Gestalt. He said 'that I would know your purpose'. That is, what was organising me in my work with him. So I listed of a half dozen 'purposes', including to serve, to be effective, to complete unfinished business, to have fun, to earn my wage etc. This revealed my own motivations, so he knew more about who I was and why I was doing it. This was enough for him for us to proceed. I asked what the issue was - his ex-wife. As soon as he mentioned this, a rush of emotion went through him. I remarked on this, but he did not say anything further about it. He described the situation. They had a son. He had tried to find the right city to live together in, but she never agreed to any of his solutions, and never came up with any of her own. He had finally got extremely frustrated, and confronted her - 'if we are to live together, we have to find where. Heres a range of options, I am willing to work this out with you'. Her response was silence, and he was never able to get her agreement, or to make some kind of joint decision. Further, when they separated and then divorced, she did not want to discuss anything, and did not want to parent their son. So he was a single parent, and she visited several times a year to the girl, who was 13. She was coming this weekend, and he remarked that the girl did not want to see her. When he was speaking of this, some emotion came into his eyes, but every time I asked him about his experience, he would say 'I feel calm'. I pointed out that for him to find a way through this very difficult situation, would require that he address the 'unfinished business', including his feelings. He still had nothing to report. So I provided support by listing a range of things he might be feeling - sadness, regret, anger, frustration. He nodded, especially at frustration. So I asked him to locate that in his body. He pointed to his stomach. But when I asked him to stay with that feeling he said he was calm again. So I again asked him to focus on his stomach and locate exactly where the frustration was. He said, its there a little bit, but there is a line -and he pointed to the bottom of his ribs - and above there is calm. I explained this was his 'calm barrier', and was what we call in Gestalt a 'creative adjustment'. This is a way of dealing with very difficult situations so we dont get overwhelmed. Such mechanisms are useful at the time, but they tend to become embedded habits, which are no longer so useful. This is a Gestalt reformulation of 'resistance', which we dont believe it. Such adjustments are useful and necessary, but then need more awareness and choicefulness introduced. So I put it to him - this had been useful, but we needed to find a different way to deal with the feelings, or they would remain unfinished. I needed to enlist his participation and motivation - the 'purpose' he had alluded to previously. He agreed, but I could see he needed support. So I was empathic with him, sharing how terrible his experience seemed - for his genuine efforts at relationship to be me with stonewalling. I related a story which gave a dramatic example of that, and told him I could understand all sorts of strong feelings in the face of this experience. I also pointed out to him that he was going to have to work at this, as there was nothing from his ex-wife that gave any clue at all. He said - 'yes, I just have to accept that I am not going to understand why'. I pointed out that this was true, but he was going to have to deal with the feelings, as they were in fact not being managed by the 'calm barrier', but were arising in his daughter as the anger towards his mother. This was a systemic observation. So, having provided all this motivation, I asked him again to go into the feelings in his stomach - he described them now as anger. I then asked him for a metaphor for those feelings - he said 'a dumpling'. So I asked him to 'be' the dumpling. He described an outside, with holes, and a filling. Inside the filling was 'black stuff'. This was then the core of his feelings. I asked him to 'be' the black stuff. He said that there was a fragment of that in his heart. This indicated to me that we could only work with a very small part at a time, and this would be a longer therapy process. I let him know this. Then I asked him to be really be with that black fragment. His emotion increased. He said - but she will never listen to my feelings here. I replied - no, but I am here with you in this place right now. We sat there for a few moments, in contact, I could really see the anger in his eyes, and he was willing to show it to me. Then he said 'I am calm again'. This was his creative adjustment - enough emotion as he could handle, but also a little movement towards integration of his anger. It was clear to me that this process was going to need to be repeated many times to slowly work through the store of anger. Its important to give clients a realistic idea of what can be achieved. We had done a great deal, and there was a great deal more to go.
Anne was a young woman, with lots of passion when she spoke. Her parents divorced when she was 10. She described how her mother was outgoing and dramatic, while her father seemed quieter. But internally, she spoke of her father as being 'twisted' as his communication looked supportive; in fact it was often about his need or self interest, but expressed indirectly. She described several situations where she lost respect for her father because of this style of communication, and her consequent disappointment. She felt somewhat superior to him, in that she had exposed his indirectness and manipulativeness, and he couldn't deny the underlying agenda. This alerted me to the dynamic between us. I pointed out to her I was a male, probably around the age of her father, and I was therefore interested in how she experienced me. Her experience was positive; so I pointed out some of the ways I have indirect communication. After doing this, she said that now I was no longer on a pedestal, but more on a level. That was a good start. But it was important to get directly into the interpersonal dynamic itself. So I told her some of my responses to the way I had seen her communicate, from the point of view not of my criticism of her, but of my critique of myself in response to her. She had been asking a lot of questions, and I appreciated her energy and enquiry, and at the same time, found myself a bit frustrated by the way she was 'all over the place'. So by giving her my perspective on myself, I gave her an insight into my own indirectness - normally unexpressed, and likely to be invisible to her. This required a willingness on my part to expose my own ego. I told her 'I am giving you ammunition here'. I then enquired about how she felt in relation to me. There was a combination of her being relieved at my honesty, as well as some feeling of superiority. This was important, as it deepened the contact between us. This kind of authenticity allows us to get to the heart of the relational dynamics, in the here and now. As we were talking, I notice she kept drifting off of the subject, and in her high-energy style, moving to other topics. I reported to her that I was feeling lost on the other end, and she remarked how she got that feedback from many people. We had already achieved a lot in the session - not resolved anything, but brought some deeper aspects of experience into relationship. I could see that if I followed her direction we could move away easily onto other topics…I experienced this as an ungrounded movement, because it didn't stay with a clear figure. So I drew the session to a close. It important not to allow too many issues to arise in a session, in fact, its better to just select one, move through the emergent Gestalt, and then close, to allow the person to digest. People often want 'more' before they have really taken in what has been covered, and so as therapist its important for me to hold the container, draw a limit, and leave them to stay with what has been achieved, rather than moving onto the next topic of interest. We had generated material for many further sessions already, and this builds a base to move from. Much of therapy involves building this base, and in many ways it is the base itself which provides a lot of the ultimate value, beyond the specific topics and interventions. In the face of her difficulty staying with a clear figure, I moved into dialogue, rather than continuing to try to facilitate her. That would only lead to a 'tussle' - me trying to focus her, and her using her style of what we call 'deflection' in Gestalt. This is a way of making contact that dilutes the intensity of the contact. In order to work through figures of interest in Gestalt, the awareness needs to stay present and focused. People have different ways of interrupting that flow of awareness (what we describe as the awareness cycle), and thus not achieving completion. This leads to unfinished business, and a lack of satisfying contact. But just offering or supporting good contact is not enough. People do their customary interruptions, and generally do so without awareness. In this case, I brought some awareness to this process of interruption - sometimes thats enough, and sometimes, the work needs to be slow and very careful, otherwise a person can 'resist', which means, they feel unsafe. Thats where the longer term aspect is necessary, to build the ground of safety.
Anne was a young woman, with lots of passion when she spoke. Her parents divorced when she was 10. She described how her mother was outgoing and dramatic, while her father seemed quieter. But internally, she spoke of her father as being 'twisted' as his communication looked supportive; in fact it was often about his need or self interest, but expressed indirectly. She described several situations where she lost respect for her father because of this style of communication, and her consequent disappointment. She felt somewhat superior to him, in that she had exposed his indirectness and manipulativeness, and he couldn't deny the underlying agenda. This alerted me to the dynamic between us. I pointed out to her I was a male, probably around the age of her father, and I was therefore interested in how she experienced me. Her experience was positive; so I pointed out some of the ways I have indirect communication. After doing this, she said that now I was no longer on a pedestal, but more on a level. That was a good start. But it was important to get directly into the interpersonal dynamic itself. So I told her some of my responses to the way I had seen her communicate, from the point of view not of my criticism of her, but of my critique of myself in response to her. She had been asking a lot of questions, and I appreciated her energy and enquiry, and at the same time, found myself a bit frustrated by the way she was 'all over the place'. So by giving her my perspective on myself, I gave her an insight into my own indirectness - normally unexpressed, and likely to be invisible to her. This required a willingness on my part to expose my own ego. I told her 'I am giving you ammunition here'. I then enquired about how she felt in relation to me. There was a combination of her being relieved at my honesty, as well as some feeling of superiority. This was important, as it deepened the contact between us. This kind of authenticity allows us to get to the heart of the relational dynamics, in the here and now. As we were talking, I notice she kept drifting off of the subject, and in her high-energy style, moving to other topics. I reported to her that I was feeling lost on the other end, and she remarked how she got that feedback from many people. We had already achieved a lot in the session - not resolved anything, but brought some deeper aspects of experience into relationship. I could see that if I followed her direction we could move away easily onto other topics…I experienced this as an ungrounded movement, because it didn't stay with a clear figure. So I drew the session to a close. It important not to allow too many issues to arise in a session, in fact, its better to just select one, move through the emergent Gestalt, and then close, to allow the person to digest. People often want 'more' before they have really taken in what has been covered, and so as therapist its important for me to hold the container, draw a limit, and leave them to stay with what has been achieved, rather than moving onto the next topic of interest. We had generated material for many further sessions already, and this builds a base to move from. Much of therapy involves building this base, and in many ways it is the base itself which provides a lot of the ultimate value, beyond the specific topics and interventions. In the face of her difficulty staying with a clear figure, I moved into dialogue, rather than continuing to try to facilitate her. That would only lead to a 'tussle' - me trying to focus her, and her using her style of what we call 'deflection' in Gestalt. This is a way of making contact that dilutes the intensity of the contact. In order to work through figures of interest in Gestalt, the awareness needs to stay present and focused. People have different ways of interrupting that flow of awareness (what we describe as the awareness cycle), and thus not achieving completion. This leads to unfinished business, and a lack of satisfying contact. But just offering or supporting good contact is not enough. People do their customary interruptions, and generally do so without awareness. In this case, I brought some awareness to this process of interruption - sometimes thats enough, and sometimes, the work needs to be slow and very careful, otherwise a person can 'resist', which means, they feel unsafe. Thats where the longer term aspect is necessary, to build the ground of safety.
Anne was a young woman, with lots of passion when she spoke. Her parents divorced when she was 10. She described how her mother was outgoing and dramatic, while her father seemed quieter. But internally, she spoke of her father as being 'twisted' as his communication looked supportive; in fact it was often about his need or self interest, but expressed indirectly. She described several situations where she lost respect for her father because of this style of communication, and her consequent disappointment. She felt somewhat superior to him, in that she had exposed his indirectness and manipulativeness, and he couldn't deny the underlying agenda. This alerted me to the dynamic between us. I pointed out to her I was a male, probably around the age of her father, and I was therefore interested in how she experienced me. Her experience was positive; so I pointed out some of the ways I have indirect communication. After doing this, she said that now I was no longer on a pedestal, but more on a level. That was a good start. But it was important to get directly into the interpersonal dynamic itself. So I told her some of my responses to the way I had seen her communicate, from the point of view not of my criticism of her, but of my critique of myself in response to her. She had been asking a lot of questions, and I appreciated her energy and enquiry, and at the same time, found myself a bit frustrated by the way she was 'all over the place'. So by giving her my perspective on myself, I gave her an insight into my own indirectness - normally unexpressed, and likely to be invisible to her. This required a willingness on my part to expose my own ego. I told her 'I am giving you ammunition here'. I then enquired about how she felt in relation to me. There was a combination of her being relieved at my honesty, as well as some feeling of superiority. This was important, as it deepened the contact between us. This kind of authenticity allows us to get to the heart of the relational dynamics, in the here and now. As we were talking, I notice she kept drifting off of the subject, and in her high-energy style, moving to other topics. I reported to her that I was feeling lost on the other end, and she remarked how she got that feedback from many people. We had already achieved a lot in the session - not resolved anything, but brought some deeper aspects of experience into relationship. I could see that if I followed her direction we could move away easily onto other topics…I experienced this as an ungrounded movement, because it didn't stay with a clear figure. So I drew the session to a close. It important not to allow too many issues to arise in a session, in fact, its better to just select one, move through the emergent Gestalt, and then close, to allow the person to digest. People often want 'more' before they have really taken in what has been covered, and so as therapist its important for me to hold the container, draw a limit, and leave them to stay with what has been achieved, rather than moving onto the next topic of interest. We had generated material for many further sessions already, and this builds a base to move from. Much of therapy involves building this base, and in many ways it is the base itself which provides a lot of the ultimate value, beyond the specific topics and interventions. In the face of her difficulty staying with a clear figure, I moved into dialogue, rather than continuing to try to facilitate her. That would only lead to a 'tussle' - me trying to focus her, and her using her style of what we call 'deflection' in Gestalt. This is a way of making contact that dilutes the intensity of the contact. In order to work through figures of interest in Gestalt, the awareness needs to stay present and focused. People have different ways of interrupting that flow of awareness (what we describe as the awareness cycle), and thus not achieving completion. This leads to unfinished business, and a lack of satisfying contact. But just offering or supporting good contact is not enough. People do their customary interruptions, and generally do so without awareness. In this case, I brought some awareness to this process of interruption - sometimes thats enough, and sometimes, the work needs to be slow and very careful, otherwise a person can 'resist', which means, they feel unsafe. Thats where the longer term aspect is necessary, to build the ground of safety.
Brigitte brought forward a conflict she had with her husband of 18 years. She wanted her parents to live with them, and he didn't. So I invited her into the classic Gestalt dialogue, using two pillows, one for her, and one for her husband. In the course of the 'conversation' she made two statements. The first was feeling guilty about their being in a happy family situation, but not having the parents there. The second was that they should be considering her parents needs. I picked the guilt - as it generally disguises a 'should'. Sure enough, the should was, 'I should not be happier than my parents'. So I asked her to put the should on the pillow, and then a conversation ensued. The should lecturing her about being good to her parents. Her reply was an angry one - don't tell me how to live. I asked her to move back and forth in the conversation. At one point, she sort of collapsed - said 'ok' to the should. But this was not a real capitulation, so we identified that, and I encouraged her to keep going. Then she got a flash - when she was 5 and her mother was feeding her, her mother told her, one day you will look after me when you are older. So I asked her to talk to that statement of her mother's, but from her position now, as a 43 year old woman. She said - I am your daughter, not your mother. Its not that I need to look after you, that's not quite right. She was very clear on this. Something settled in her, what we call 'integration' - where insight + an embodied experience and a shift in energy all come together. This clarified the 'should' in a way which led to what we call 'digestion', that is, taking what's nourishing, and leaving the rest. Shoulds are indigestible beliefs we carry with us from society or parents. They may have truth and value in them, but they need to be processed to find what fits for each person. Otherwise, they continue to rule - consciously or unconsciously, in a tyrannical way. No longer do we hear the messages externally - we have internalised - introjected - them. So in Gestalt we re-examine them, to bring them up to date.
I told Annabelle that I appreciated the way she brought herself to life, and to relationships. This was a place of mutuality, a place we shared values. So I also talked about myself, including the places I found a discrepancy between my values of authenticity and being of service, and then my own needs and limitations. Annabelle spoke of how she could give to others in her role, but it was harder for her to take in. She then shared that she derived little pleasure from food, and had to force herself to eat. Although this represented a very large set of issues, related to the field (food is very much related to family and relationship growing up), I wanted to keep a focus on the therapeutic relationship. So I suggested an experiment where I do something nourishing for her, and she practice taking it in. So we held hands. I slowly stroked her hands with my fingers. She started to do this back, but I stopped her - this was her tendency to give rather than receive. The direction I gave her was see if she could take in some nourishment and pleasure. As I did this, she reported not being able to take in much - her arms were stiff. She also bit her lip, and was aware of doing a number of things to block taking in some nourishment from me. So, holding her hands, I slowly lifted her arms up and moved them around. I asked her to let go of control, relax, and let me do this. She found it very hard, holding on stiffly, and trying to follow my movements, rather than let me direct her. We did this for some time. She was able to let go a little bit, and as she did, she could allow a bit more nourishment in. But it was hard for her. I gave her the homework to find someone else to practice this with. In terms of ongoing work, there would also be a number of ways I would take this forward - exploring her resistance to letting go of control, as well as her unwillingness to take in nourishment. We would address whatever family issues were related to this, including the place of food in her household. Anytime we hit 'resistance' in Gestalt we do not push through it - instead we respect it. We look for the context - the original situation which engendered the 'creative adjustment'. We look to appreciate this creative adjustment, to understand it, and to treat it positively. In this way, I could find out how how important it was for her to stay in control, what was at stake for handing over some control, and trusting. Its like to become clear that trusting, letting go, was not a good idea in her original/family context. So any new experience with me would need to be taken very slowly, appreciating just how risky it is. Its better to work very slowly, in a way which can be integrated - so the experiments would need to keep this in mind. We could also experiment with having some food in the session - for instance slices of apple. And do an awareness experiment to do with eating it, noticing the detail of the experience. Rather than 'talking about' behaviours, we are always looking to explore them in the session itself, with awareness and support.
Martha described her difficulty getting in touch with her feelings. She was a counsellor, but mostly was in her head. Firstly I focused on the here and how between us. What was it like for her to sit with me, what did she feel in our contact. With each question I asked Martha, I also shared my own feelings. Next I asked her to look around the room, at each person, and notice her feeling reaction, and how it was different. Finally, I invited her to look at me, and I allowed her to see some of my own internal world - I moved into 'client mode' for a minute or so, stepping out of my 'giving/in charge/professional' mode. It didn't take her long to notice - she said 'oh you are sad'. I pointed out that what was important was what she was feeling -her sadness in response. She could then check out with me and ask me my experience. She was right in this case, but its important not to assume. People have the mistaken notion that they can 'feel someone else's feelings'. In Gestalt we disagree - you always feel your own feelings - but the boundary is important. You can only guess at another's feelings, and enquire to confirm. Assuming one 'knows' is disrespectful, and unhelpful. In more classical terms we use the word 'projection' to describe what is happening. You simply cannot feel another person's feelings - they belong in their body, and you are not in their body. Your own feelings may be in resonance, but they belong to you. Projection in this sense describes your ability to IMAGINE the other person's feelings, using your own as a guide. This helps us orient in the world, relate to others, and find ourselves (potentially) in parallel with them. But its only when you check such things out that you confirm whether your projections are accurate or not. Hence the precision of language is considered important in Gestalt, as it allows us to have these conversations, to enquire, to dialogue, to test our perceptions. This equips us with a language of communication about emotions that is clear and contactful, rather than being fuzzy and assumptive.
Samantha was a successful businesswoman. But she just couldn't seem to find a partner. She described one of the difficulties - either she worked hard on her businesses, or she worked on trying to find a partner.
She seemed distressed about this, and reported being very unhappy. Her attempts to meet men just weren't working out.
The more we talked about this, the more I could see her intense unhappiness. She looked quite miserable. I asked about this. She described a general state of unsettledness, but pinned it to not finding a partner.
A person may have a clear figure of interest - their 'issue'. But this is not always what we work with in Gestalt. We are always more interested in process, in the HOW, rather than the WHAT. In this case, it was her tone, her mood, that I picked up on. Its important to listen to the issue, but not get distracted by it either! Emotional state always comes first, and the content second.
So I invited her to do an experiment. I asked her to look around the room and tell me her favourite colour - green. It was a painting with a green tree.
I asked her to look at it, and put her hand on her belly, and breathe in the pleasure of looking at that colour. She variously started crying, closing her eyes. But in a strong voice I asked her to stay present, to look, breathe, and let some of the pleasure in.
In Gestalt we attend to the experience of 'now' - this is part of the grounding work, as well as the direction towards discovering aliveness, which in a sense, is the goal of Gestalt.
Next I asked her to choose an object in the room. So she chose a green candle.
I asked her to do the same thing. She started pulling into herself, and again, I asked her to be present. She did so, but then she said a phrase 'the living dead'. I asked her what she meant.
She explained that she felt guilty, that she had an abortion, and had never got over it.
So, this made apparent the unfinished business, which needs to be dealt with before a person can become truly present in their life.
So I created a ritual for her - lighting the candle, and I gave her a long sentence to say to the unborn child, acknowledging it, and then letting go; then blowing out the candle.
As she did this, she became steadier.
I suggested she do this ritual every day until the candle burned down.
Again, I asked her to look at the green candle, with her hand on her belly, and breathe in some pleasure, She was more able to do so now.
This was important to help her stay in present time, as people when they have a tendency to depression, can easily sink into it, drowning in the familiarity of their misery.
One antidote is pleasure, and being able to take it in. This can strengthen, so the person can then 'get on with their life', whatever the content of that is.
Navin mentioned that he ran creative classes with his wife as a hobby. I was interested in what kind of woman she was - strong and powerful he said. I talked about my experience with my wife, also strong and powerful.
We discussed how this was for us - setting the ground for connection. He spoke about his son, a teenager, and his connection with him, which was solid. The way I explored these topics was from a place of mutuality - sharing my own experience as well. With each question I asked him, I also gave my own answer.
Navin spoke about how he tended to be somewhat passive in relationship, going along with his wife and what she wanted, for the most part. For instance, going to the restaurant she wanted. However, there was one occasion when he chose somewhere different, because he was bored with the same place. It surprised him that she went along with this.
So this indicated to me that the relationship was to some degree predicated on his easy going adjustment. I also shared my ground regarding my own style around this.
I suggested an experiment. He had three wishes, and on the third wish he had to ask for 3 more. Then I asked him to imagine a day, from the start, and to name what he would ask for, directly, from his wife.
We went through the day step by step..it was hard for him to identify some of the things he would want…so I gave various suggestions to help him think about it. He slowly identified different points at which he would ask for something, right through to end of the day.
This was a simple but profoundly important experiment. In Gestalt we are always interested in enhancing authenticity, and using it to support the quality of contact in relationship.
In this thought experiment, Navin had a chance to try out being more assertive, and speaking up more for who he is and what he wants. People can ride along comfortably in relationship, but we are interested in bringing more depth. This comes through the process of 'showing up', with what we feel, what we want, and who we are. This allows us to be more known and seen, and increases intimacy.
In terms of gender, women appear to like 'being in charge', or getting their wishes seen, heard and responded to, but there's a balance - as they also like for a man to take the lead in the right way. In this experiment we created a safe way for Navin to try out this kind of declaring his interests up front.
Such experiments always involve some risk, even if they are just thought experiments. They represent a new way of being, and uncovering and voicing aspects of self which have tended to be background. There is generally emotion which is associated with this process - either repressed resentment or excitement, and perhaps both. Its important in any experiment to not just follow the content, but also to keep checking for the emotional tone.
These case examples are for therapists, students and those working in the helping professions. The purpose is to show how the Gestalt approach works in practice, linking theory with clinical challenges.
Because this is aimed at a professional audience, the blog is available by subscription. Please enter your email address to receive free blog updates every time a new entry is added.
