Mary HENLE - Society for Gestalt Theory and its Applications (GTA)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

unclosed gestalts without, so far as I can see, shedding any light on it.) If we find a certainplausibility, along with a disdain for specific analysis, in the treatment of unsatisfied needs asunclosed gestalts, this plausibility is lost in further examples. In the case of one patient, Perlsremarks, that he was unable in one session to 'achieve full closure, milk the symptom dry'(1969/1972: 139). War, with its frustrations, is apparently an incomplete gestalt; at any rate,peace is the possible closure (1969/1972:87).Here is a final example of the many Perls provides: 'We . . . have to fill in the holes in thepersonality to make the person whole and complete again' (1969/1971:2). I happen to believe thatthe phenomenal personality, like other percepts, can he conceptualized as an organized whole,though the theoretical problems involved are extraordinarily difficult and only the most primitivebeginnings have been made - not, by the way, by gestalt therapists. Until we can say somethingspecific about this organization, it does not add to our knowledge to say that 'the neurotic man ofour time' is an 'incomplete, insipid personality with holes' (Perls 1969/1972:294). As I haveindicated, in some of these instances there is a certain vague plausibility about Perls' use ofcomplete and incomplete situations, closed and unclosed gestalts. But vague plausibility is notenough for a theory of neurosis or therapy or personality - or of anything. lt is necessary to beclear about the specific characteristics of the structure we are calling neurosis or personality,about the nature of the processes involved, and the nature of the closure demanded by thatstructure. Such questions are never found in the material I am considering, and we are left with aterminology so vague as to defy any specific use. A concept loosely applied to a perceived figure,to a neurotic personality, and to war does not shed any specific light on any of these phenomena.For a theory, we must also be able to say in what ways the perceived figure, the personality, andthe war are different, not merely stretch the same term to include them all.The following is a passage from Köhler on the extension of the concept of Gestalt:The concept 'Gestalt' may be applied far beyond the limits of sensory experience. According to the most generalfunctional definition of the term, the processes of learning, of recall, of striving, of emotional attitude, of thinking,acting, and so forth, may have to be included.... By no means is it believed, however, that any of those larger problemscan actually be solved by the application merely of general principles. On the contrary, whenever the principles seemto apply, the concrete task of research is only beginning; because we want to know in precisely what mannerprocesses distribute and regulate themselves in all specific instances. ( Gestalt Psychology, 1947:178-179).lt is this crucial step - the working out of the Gestalt concept in connection with specific problems -that Perls has omitted. He does have some things to say - at times, it seems, almost inadvertently -about how organization occurs, and it is interesting to compare these remarks, with theforrnulations of the Gestalt psychologists. The conditions of organization suggest to the Gestaltpsychologist what processes must be responsible for them. In accordance with the principle ofisomorphism, the demonstrated relational properties of perception (and of other psychologicalphenomena which I will not discuss here) suggest corresponding physical interactions in thenervous system, particularly in the cerebral cortex. These interactions depend on the properties ofthe cortical events in relation to each other (Köhler 1940:55); and these properties, in turn, areultimately largely a consequence of the nature of the stimulation that starts the chain of eventsleading to perception.For Perls, interest, cathexis, motivation, or attention produces organization. This view appears inhis first book (1947/1969:53) and is more explicit in Gestalt Therapy. We read, 'The figure/ groundcontrast . . . is . . . the work of spontaneous attention and mounting excitement' (Perls, Hefferline,and Goodman 1951/n.d.:73). Again,''Objects' of sight and hearing exist by interest, confrontation,6
discrimination, practical concern' (1951/n.d.: 372n). What would seem to be a motor theory ofperception is, at times, assumed: 'The eyes and fingers cooperate in drawing outlines, so that theanimal learns to see more shapes and to differentiate objects in his field. By outlining onedifferentiates experience into objects' (1951/n.d.:312). In another place Perls suggests that 'westart with the impossible assumption that whatever we believe we see in another person or in theworld is nothing but a projection. Might be far out, but it's just unbelievable how much we projectand how blind and deaf we are to what is really going on' (1969/1971:72). Although he does nothold with it completely, Perls seems to be saying that this assumption has something to it. Thestatement is less radical, but the meaning essentially unchanged, when he tells us that cathectedobjects become figure (1973:19). Once more, it is asserted that things-by which I assume hemeans phenomenal things - 'come about, more or less, by man's need for security'(1970/1973:20).It is difficult to discuss Perls' theory because we are not told on what the interest, attention, andcathexis are acting to produce percepts. lt is certainly not on organized entities, since they do theorganizing. Presumably, therefore, they are acting on sensory data. If this is the case, Perls'(partially implicit) theory is not only not Gestalt psychology; it is formally similar to the theoriesthat Gestalt psychologists have criticized again and again, ever since Köhler's paper of 1913, 'OnUnnoticed Sensations and Errors of Judgment' (1913/1971). lndeed, Perls' theory, if it were spelledout, would seem to be very similar to those put forth by G. E. Müller and Eugenio Rignano in the1920s, both of which were criticized by Köhler. About such theories it may be said that neitherattention nor interest creates form; rather, a form must be perceived before it can be attended toor cathected. In both cases, the directional process presupposes the organization; the argument isthus circular. A similar problem arises if a motor theory is really meant: if visual organizationcomes from kinaesthesis, then that kinaesthetic organization remains to be explained. All thetheory has succeeded in doing has been to push the problem into another sensory modality.lt is not necessary, so far as I can see, that a theory of therapy include a theory of perception. Butif the author insists on such a theory, there are certain known pitfalls he would do well to avoid. Ifhe believes that his theory is a Gestalt theory, he would be well advised to look into what theGestalt psychologists have to say.Gestalt psychology is most developed in perception and cognition, while gestalt therapy isconcerned with personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Comparison of approaches tosuch different areas is often difficult. Nevertheless, in the present case, additional issues invitecomparison. As it happens, none of them is trivial.Gestalt psychology has, from its inception, been interested in value. Challenging the widely heldview of ethical relativism, the view that what is right and wrong changes with time and place, ithas tried to understand values in terms of relations within happenings themselves. The value of anaction is seen as depending on its appropriateness to the demands of the given situation. Thus,Gestalt psychologists have held that values are not arbitrarily attached to objects or actions,depending on subjective evaluation or on the individual's history of rewards and punishments. Ananalogy of Wertheimer's will perhaps be helpful:Someone in adding makes seven plus seven equal fifteen. ... And he says, I call it good because I love the numberfifteen.... The determination of the fifteen is ... in violation of that which is demanded by the structure of the objectivesituation. If I prefer the fifteen in this case ... this is irrelevant to the fact that the fifteen is wrong. 1935:360-361)7
Page 2 and 3: I was astonished to read the statem
Page 4 and 5: How does Perls stand on this issue?
Page 8 and 9: What about Perls? In Ego, Hunqer an

Mary HENLE - Society for Gestalt Theory and its Applications (GTA)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?