|
Tracey and Samantha were talking about some unfinished business from previous times in their relationship, a conflict they had where Tracey had reacted to Samantha, and they had an argument. Tracey made an authentic statement about herself, and her experience with Samantha. Samantha listened, but then turned away and said nothing. It seemed a somewhat disconnected response. Tracey pursued the topic - she was not satisfied with the response. Samantha then replied, sharing that Tracey was right about her concerns, but that Samantha couldn't really accept this part of Samantha, that Tracey was giving her feedback about. Tracey wanted to talk more, and tell Samantha how she felt about this. I interrupted Tracey. Samantha was giving a clear indication that she felt shame. The inability to accept parts of ourselves comes originally from those parts not being accepted by important people in our lives, caregivers. That leads to a sense that these aspects of self are unacceptable, and are therefore put out of awareness. When they do come back into awareness, there is generally a sense of shame connected. In that place of shame, there is little or no capacity for dialogue, for rationality or reasonableness. There is deep pain, and generally a sense of hiding. The fear is of the same rejection and exclusion occurring…and it often does, in a tragic repetitive cyclic sense. In most relationships this occurs at some point, and it generally goes downhill from there. Neither person feels heard or met. The one in shame often doesn't recognise the shame - they just feel terrible, and shut down, react, or shame the other person back. The person raising the topic generally doesn't mean to have that effect - they may be genuinely raising an issue of concern. However, the more they raise it, the more the other person goes to shame, and down the cycle goes. What is necessary is the recognition that shame has arisen, and for one or both people to pause, and shift gears. This is hard, but essential. In this case, I came in as the 'hand of God' to interrupt the situation, taking care of both people in the process. I explained to Tracey that her concerns were completely valid, and that her desire for dialogue was positive, but that Samantha simply wasn't available in this place - she needed her shame addressed before anything else would shift. I told Samantha that her sense of nonacceptance of that part of herself was a place where she needed and deserved support, and that this needed to occur before she could be available for any further dialogue. Many relationships come up against this point, and the understanding and recognition of shame is essential to get through it. There also needs to be knowledge of what is necessary for both people - for the one in shame, things need to pause, they need to find their ground, reduce exposure, and if possible declare their fears. For the other person, they need to get that they are not going to be met in this place, and although their needs are perfectly valid, nothing will happen until the shame is addressed. So they may need to go elsewhere for support on the issue, and themselves in that place. Couples therapy can provide support to both people, and its also possible with sufficient insight and awareness, to use this knowledge oneself in a relationship.
 Betty came forward to work. My previous experience of her was that she was quite a card. Funny, dramatic; she talked about a variety of problems she felt quite hopeless about.
She started to mention a few of them.
I made a choice not to engage with her about the detail, nor to parley with her about 'the madness of it all'. I resisted the temptation to be playful with her or create a Gestalt experiment where she could exercise her drama, and where we might explore something related to that.
Instead, I was interested in something deeper with her.
But I knew that pretty well whatever I said, or whatever I did, I would elicit her standard responses. I had been around that cycle several times with her before.
In response to her 'I'm not really sure what to do with my life but its sure a problem' story, I cut through and said 'you are pretty good at avoiding'.
This remark is potentially shaming - exposing her in the very heart of her defence. So I also included myself - 'I am pretty good at avoiding as well'.
I was upfront with my agenda, and told her I would ask her a 'trick question': 'what are you avoiding Betty'. Her answer: was that she 'didn't know'.
So I tried another 'trick'. I asked her to give me a clue. What did she know about herself in the place of avoidance? Blank again.
We sat for a while, silently, looking at each other. I was looking to find a way in, to a deeper place. I knew words were of little use. Then, for a moment, an expression came over her face, her eyes softened. Then she quickly shifted back to her usual cheeky look. I said - 'tell me what just happened, something shifted, what were you feeling'. Again, she was blank.
I knew now what I was looking for, and it was that - that openess to contact, outside of her normal entertainer or 'tired of life' self.
But I could also see that we were not going to get there directly, or easily.
I said - 'fair enough, why should you trust me? I am just a therapist, you have no demonstrated reason to let go of your avoidance'. This was in order to validate her reluctance to go deeper, and her holding onto her avoidances.
So I started sharing with her about my own avoidances.
Then I stopped talking - I didn't want to have too many words get in the way. Again, we were silent, looking at each other. I was looking for the Betty underneath the avoidance, but I also became conscious of my own avoidances - my energetic ways of not being fully present. So I let her see me underneath my avoidances. She started to soften, to drop the crazy look in her eyes, and there she was, present with me, I with her. It was like dropping down a well. Down we went, silently, just present with each other, fully.
I added a few words, just to articulate my experience, to acknowledge her. But I was careful not to use too many, not to distract from the intensity of the contact, the recognition.
Betty remarked it was like I wasn't the therapist role, and this was kind of true. I let myself be vulnerable as well, and in that place we met as equals.
This is something characteristic of the gestalt approach -- the transparency on the part of the therapist, creating the ground for the client to be able to ''drop down''. We may note a client''s ''defenses'' but we cont dont push them, we work with them, acknowledging them, and also finding other ways to make contact, especially ones that not about probing, but about increasing the depth and vulnerability of the relationship.
words can be useful., but they can also get in the way of therapy, of really being present, which is by far more powerful as a means to therapeutic change.
Noticing the micro changes of the client is essential, as otherwise we can miss very subtle signs of important emotions which the client themselves may not be aware of, the softening expression for instance.
A therapy session can, from a dialogical point of view, start with the therapist's experience and feelings first. When this is in the form of a relational statement, it can be an excellent beginning to a session. So sitting with Miranda I told her that my experience with her contained two elements - warmth, and caution. I asked her about her experience with me…she spoke of feeling uncomfortable. As we explored that, the figure that formed was she was uncomfortable with the thought that I might misunderstand her. I wanted to know just what that might mean, between us. As we explored this, it became clear that she was afraid that I would expect too much of her. This was related to the family she grew up in, and the expectations that were often unrealistic and created a great deal of pressure for her. So the synopsis statement that I helped her come to was this 'don't overestimate me'. This then made perfect sense to me - as I realised my caution was related exactly to this - I was aware that the way she presented did not always represent her actual capacities. It would be easy for me to come to believe that she had more capacity than she actually did, because of her confident manner. So this was a statement of her vulnerability, her creative adjustment (to over-promise, and over extend herself), a core relational issue, and a very grounding request. Gestalt can work very quickly in this way, arriving at core issues by using a combination of present centred awareness, non-directive enquiry, and relational exploration. It also points to the importance of not over-focusing on the client's experience. The experience of the therapist is an essential ingredient in a dialogical exploration, and we don't have to 'make sense' of it, but rather just notice, and then perhaps report it.
 Belinda laughed and smiled a lot.
I told her that I enjoyed her friendly manner. And I also wondered what she was feeling.
She said she felt fear, but tended to hide it.
I asked further..
Fear of rejection was her issue.
So I invited her into an experiment, to support her in authentic expression.
I asked her to pay attention to what she felt in her face.
I asked her to do her best to relax her face.
This took her some time - she was not used to that. When she did relax her face, she started to look sad. I gave her this feedback.
She said - 'well, I don't see the point of showing my sadness - I feel it inside, but at least if I smile I don't bring other people down, or have to explain myself.'
I understood, and pointed out to her that showing her true feelings might not change how she was feeling, but it changed the impact she had on others: when I only saw her smiling face, then she only engaged the part of me that is warm and friendly in response to her laughter. She deprived me of responding to her sadness - I explained I felt a bit gypped.
This was novel to her - in her state of fear, she hadn't really thought through the relationships she was creating as a result of only presenting her sunny side. Her relationships lacked depth, there was no chance of her getting care in the place of her sadness..in protecting herself from rejection, she also stopped people getting close.
The trouble was, the acceptance she was getting from people was more to do with how she presented herself, than how she truly felt.
So, having the experience of showing me her sadness, and feeling acceptance in that place, had a big impact on Belinda. She understood that by being fully who she was, she had a better chance of getting true acceptance. The risk was real - of being rejected for her sadness, as she had been historically in her family. To become more authentic in relationship required taking that risk.
In Gestalt, we support and encourage people to take risks. We ask 'whats the worst that can happen; and can you take responsibly for that'. This confronts what Fritz Perls called 'catastrophic fantasies', which people use to hold themselves back.
The Gestalt experiment provides a 'safe emergency', which sets up a situation of taking a risk, doing something new, something more authentic, in a way which is relative safe. This is an ideal learning setting, and provides people a new experience. The insight which flows from this is embodied rather than just cerebral.
 Felice said she was afraid of abandonment.
This is of course a fairly common theme.
I had worked with Felice, and new that she could be somewhat dramatic, and childlike at times. She was young - in her mid 20's.
So rather than go into her 'abandoned' position, I went to a responsibility position.
I told her I was interested in those aspects of this that were out of her awareness - where and how she did the abandoning.
She had never considered this question before.
This is often the case when people identify with one end of a polarity.
So I invited her into a Gestalt experiment. I would pull at her sleeve, and say 'I need you'. She would pull away…in other words, abandon me.
We then did another experiment - she would act as if her mobile phone was ringing when she was talking to me, and break our conversation to answer it….
We swapped roles, and I did the same.
This brought her to the awareness that abandonment happens often, in all relationships, in small ways. In this sense, the issue became not so much a global one, but a very specific one, rooted in small everyday awarenesses.
This gave her a whole new way to see abandonment - it was not something in the future, to be feared, but something in her present, to be addressed.
In Gestalt we break down global issues - anxiety, anger, depression - into the here and now experience, which people can do something about. There are choices available in the present, that often people are not aware of. By focusing awareness on the present, they start to see those choices, and in that way find empowerment in the face of issues that previously seemed overwhelming.
So then I pointed out that the issue was not so much abandonment, but the repair necessary when abandonment occurred. Given that its part of the fabric of life, its a skill to be learned.
So we practiced - she acknowledged: 'yes, I did that' (e.g., looked away, pulled away), and then she said 'sorry'.
The Gestalt experiment allows us to explore, in very practical ways, the issues that someone raises…to find new outcomes, to try out new ways of being. The result is always new awareness - not just cerebral, but embodied and connected with the emotions.
This brings a sense of integration and completion, even though issues such as this are never 'resolved' in some kind of final way.
 Odetta said that she talked too much, then felt depleted.
I noted to myself that characterlogicaly, this suggested issues to do with orality, and unmet needs.
She said that she had problems with two different women.
I asked her to pick one of them, and have a dialogue with her, by imagining she was on the other chair.
My instruction was to start with her feelings. Odetta described them as being like a rubber ball in her guts.
I asked her to imagine pulling the rubber band out of her guts, putting it her hand, and the expressing those feelings to the other women.
I did this because I wanted her to be present with her trauma, but not get bogged down in it. From my past work with Odetta, I knew she could easily get lost in her feelings. By pulling the feelings out, she actually could get more in touch with them.
Her expression was then 'I want to throw the ball at you'. This suggested aggression, but in Gestalt we never assume, so I enquired, as she still had not shared her feeling. People often do this, find ways to avoid being in touch with their feelings, or avoid expressing them directly.
So I focused her awareness on this 'emerging figure' as we say in Gestalt. Then she said to the woman 'I like your groundedness'.
I then invited Odetta to say what it was that she wanted, in the present, from the other woman.
Asking her to say this in the present is very important, otherwise people easily get lost in their feelings.
Odetta told the woman 'I want to know how you stay so grounded'.I got her to swap chairs, and reply as the woman - she said 'its because I have positive beliefs'.
I asked her to swap chairs again. Odetta, speaking as herself, said '..but I can't do that'.
This is an important juncture. It means that Odetta is caught in the experience of her powerlessness, likely a historical feeling, as she was a perfectly capable woman, in her current life. But in her 'talking too much', she couldn't take in an instruction or a suggestion - I had found this previously in therapy..that she really didn't take much in.
So I asked Odetta to pause for a moment, and really digest what she had heard. This interrupted her pattern of 'I don't know what I want or what I feel'. Her talking too much was skating on the surface. Yet, to go deeper required not just Gestalt experiments, but taking time slow down, and integrate the nourishment she had been given.
So I left her with this, as homework.
Facilitating process can be supportive, but its also important to know when to allow someone space to integrate. Too much activity is exciting, but not so useful in the long run. And with someone with oral issues, they need to find the place where they are 'full', as otherwise they will keep on talking, and keep on asking. So the therapist has to draw a boundary line.
~
 My first comment to Marcy was - I need to ground myself to start with. I was feeling a little flustered, and needed to come into the present. I often found myself tussling with Marcy; it was hard work doing therapy with her.
In Gestalt, the therapist needs to ensure that they are available, and if not, then declaring that is bringing oneself into relationship, so the client knows 'who' they are on the other end of.
The first thing I noticed was her clothes. They were beautiful - traditional Chinese. I commented on that. Not as a compliment to her per se, but because I appreciated them - more in the way of acknowledgement, recognition, and saying something about myself.
I told Marcy that it was easy for me to tussle with her, and I didn't want to do that. I told her I liked her resilience, and also felt irritated and a bit cautious with her.
This kind of authenticity is essential from a Gestalt point of view. To simply work with the client, and ignore my own experience does neither of us a service.
Marcy understood. She often had this experience with people - though they often would not articulate their experience directly.
Next she told me 'I don't dare to show my gifts'.
I asked what these gifts were. And whether she could show them to me now.
When people make general statements, we always invite them to make them specific, and in the present. That makes them available for contact.
Indeed, as I asked this, I saw her tears form.
In that moment, the content was not important. What was significant was a sense of connection in that place. I acknowledged this.
This is what I found difficult about Marcy - it was normally very hard to bring her to this place of contact. No amount of questions, sharing, interventions would drop her into present, open hearted contact.
So, here she was, available, and I stayed with them moment, with her. There was a deeper sense of connection.
Now we were able to do some therapeutic work.
She said her issue was that she couldn't focus on things, was distracted easily. She was interested in so many thing.
I shared with her my own difficulty in not being distracted at times. Such sharing promotes a sense of connection, of shared humanity (in Object Relations terms, Twinship).
This sounded like an embedded pattern, suggesting the field.
So I asked Marcy about the phenomena of distraction and losing focus in her family, growing up.
She explained that her mother had a lot of pressure and expectations on her. But that her mother was also very inconsistent in her response. So Marcy learned to be very rebellious to the pressure.
I shared that I also was a kind of rebel, could be very defiant.
Again, this helped her feel connected, and made way for deeper explorations.
This was also useful, as there is a great deal I know about my own defiance, and that can help me understand something about her rebelliousness, and know what to ask.
Marcy explained how she would like to do meditation regularly, but because of her rebelliousness, it was hard to do this.
So I firstly asked her what exactly this would look like - Marcy needed a lot of grounding, as she often talked in a very abstract way. She said she would like to do 30 minutes, twice a day. Once at 7am, the other time before bed.
I knew from her description of her rebelliousness, that there would be a reaction to this idea, unless it really felt comfortable for her. Getting the details allowed her to name what suited her, and to own that herself.
And, at the same time, I wanted to surface her defiance. So I asked about that part of her…what it said to this schedule.
Of course, the underdog part said - 'no..not committing to more than 5 minutes per session, twice a day'.
I invited her to dialogue between these parts, and the agreement in the end was that she would absolutely do it at least 5 minutes twice a day, and more if she felt like it.
This was a point of integration. It is important not to just go with someone's grand agendas for change, or to do healthy things, even though that might be very good for them…because in the end, unless they do it with their whole being, the underdog will undermine - as she put it 'be distracted and not focus on things'. That was sign that she was split, and it is these splits we pay attention to in Gestalt.
|
|
|
