|
Field
Theory and Group Process
by John
Bernard Harris
As we have previously commented in Topics
[Vol. 3 No. 2, 1995], there is a large gap in Gestalt therapy
theory at present. Though much Gestalt therapy is done in a group
setting, very little has been written about a theory of groups
based on up-to-date Gestalt therapy principles and practice. And
yet the historical relationship between Gestalt ideas and the
development of group theory is strong (see below), and the three
main parent theories upon which our practice is based - field
theory, dialogic existentialism and phenomenology all have much
that would contribute to the development of a comprehensive Gestalt
account of group life.
Developing such an account has long been
an aim of both Peter Philippson and myself. In this piece I would
like to make a contribution by talking about how field theory
might form the basis for a group theory. In particular, I am going
to use field theory as a way of characterising group processes
in the context of an ongoing therapy group. I believe that field
theory provides us with a useful way of understanding and using
group process in therapeutic and other settings. In what follows
I am mainly relying on the accounts of field theory given by Malcolm
Parlett [1991], Gary Yontef [1993] and Peter Philippson [1997].
Background
Using field theory and Gestalt ideas as
a way of underpinning our understanding of groups is not a new
idea. Much of the theory and research into small groups carried
out by social psychologists originated in the work of Kurt Lewin.
Lewin originally trained in Berlin with, amongst others, the Gestalt
psychologists Wertheimer and Kohler. Emigrating to The USA in
the early 1940's, he founded the first Research Centre for Group
Dynamics. Though Lewin died tragically early in 1947, he effectively
started the systematic study of group processes which was the
foundation for modern group therapy. [For further discussion of
Lewin's contribution to Gestalt therapy see Parlett 1993]
Less well-known amongst Gestalt therapists
is the connection between another major school of group therapy
and Gestalt ideas. S.H. Foulkes, the founder of the group analytic
movement, was a student of Kurt Goldstein and Adelmar Gelb. Goldstein's
holistic view of the human organism and Gelb's emphasis on figure-ground
relationships were cornerstones of group analysis, together with
many ideas from field theory [Foulkes & Anthony 1957].
It is, superficially, easy to see why field
theory might form a sound basis for our understanding of group
processes is simple. Its emphasis is precisely on process, relationship,
activity, and the dynamic forces of the field that we experience
in groups. These seem to be precisely the kind of explanatory
ideas which might help us to capture the complex and ever-changing
social interactions which characterise group life. However, much
of the hard work of developing a 'Gestalt theory of groups' remains
to be done.
Five Principles
One of the problems with talking about field
theory is that we are still struggling to understand and formulate
it. Gary Yontef wrote as recently as 1991, "I know of no discussion
of field theory in the Gestalt therapy literature that I consider
clear, cogent, comprehensive, systematic and comprehensive" [op
cit p. 285]. In his seminal article, 'Reflections on Field Theory',
Malcolm Parlett lists five principles which characterise a field
theoretical way of thinking [Parlett 1991], and I will use these
to provide the framework of the present discussion. They are:
1. The Principle of Organization
2. The Principle of Contemporaneity
3. The Principle of Singularity
4.The Principle of Changing Process
5. The Principle of Possible Relevance
I will take each of these principles in
turn, and see what understanding and guidance they offer us in
the context of group therapy.
1. The Principle of Organization
Drawing on a definition of Kurt Lewin, Parlett
characterises this principle as saying that "meaning derives from
the total situation, the totality of co-existing facts" [Parlett,
ibid, p. 71]. Before seeing how this principle applies
to groups, I want to take a little time to explain it as best
I can.
Parts and Wholes
The principle states that if we want to
understand ('find and make' the meaning of) a particular part
of the world, we need to place it in the context of a wider whole
of which it is itself a part. The more comprehensive this wider
picture, the more fully and in depth we understand the fragment
we are studying.
For a simple example take the first word
I used in the penultimate paragraph: 'drawing'. This has several
different meanings in English, but the context, in this case the
sentence in which I placed it, removes any ambiguity and tells
us which sense I am currently using. We could go further and say
that the isolated word has no meaning. In Wittgenstein's dictum,
'meaning is use', and we can only understand this or any word
as a part of a more fundamental unit of meaning, a sentence. Individual
word-meanings make sense only as part of a wider linguistic field.
Parlett refers in his statement of the principle
to the context as 'the total situation'. It is therefore relevant
to ask how far do we have to go in our quest for ever-deepening
contexts and meaning? That sentence is part of a paragraph, section,
article, and so on. Each of these units is in turn a part of some
larger whole which gives it further meaning, and so each context
we locate for it is in its turn further contextualised. Pursuing
this thought, we could plausibly argue (anthropologists have)
that in order to understand this one sentence fully, you must
possess a vast amount of cultural and linguistic knowledge which
form the 'total context' of the sentence's use. Does this principle
therefore entail that we cannot understand anything until we have
understood everything?
In one sense, the answer is yes. Fritz Perls
hinted at this when he wrote, paradoxically, that in order to
understand Gestalt Therapy the reader needed to have the
Gestaltist mentality; but in order to acquire the mentality he
must first understand the book. And writers such as Ken Wilber
(who would subscribe to the principle of organisation) argue that
the Cosmos actually consists of a hierarchy of 'holons' - wholes
and parts stretching to infinity in both directions [1995]. Electrons
are parts of atoms are part of molecules...right on up to human
beings which are part of groups which are part of societies...and
so on. The more we apprehend this structure, according to Wilber,
the more we appreciate how the universe actually consists of fields
within fields within fields...ad infinitum. And the more
we approach an understanding of 'how things are' in the universe.
In another sense, the answer is no. If the
Cosmos is infinite, we will never, by definition, be able to appreciate
it in its entirety. Never mind: we will have to manage with the
partial, and relative knowledge scratched up by our feeble and
imperfect intellects. Yet all the time we are seeking to increase
its depth and breadth by understanding how wholes and parts, contexts
and fields, interrelate.
Applying the principle to groups
Parlett's principle is formulated as an
epistemological one, about the meaning of events in the field.
So: 'no facts (statements) about group life can be understood
in isolation from other facts'. But behind it, as the last section
has indicated, is a more fundamental ontological principle about
the actual nature of the field, its mode of existence. The principle
tells us, in effect, that no events in the group field are in
fact and reality isolated from other events. Though these two
ideas are plainly connected, they should be considered separately.
Looking at ontology first: what field theory
says is that all field phenomena are 'of' the field, actually
constituted by the field and its complex structures and dynamics.
Yontef defines a field as: "A totality of mutually influencing
forces that together form a unified interactive whole." [Yontef
op cit, p. 297]. There is nothing which occurs in the group
which is not part of this field. This includes the actions, interactions,
feelings and fantasies of individual group members - all that
we include as part of the group process. (And remember that the
group field is part of a wider field, which is part of a still
wider one...)
It is because of this assertion that the
thesis on meaning follows from the ontological one. If everything
is 'of the field', then it does not make much sense to try to
know and understand it as if this were not the case. So our epistemology
and our 'research methodology' - our ways of trying to interrogate
the therapy group situation and understand the phenomena of its
process - need to reflect this. We need, in effect, to treat people
as the relational selves they actually are. This means seeing
individual group members not as separate people who happen to
interact in the group setting (this would be a systems approach)
but as parts of the same field who actually co-create and co-sustain
each other and the ongoing group process [Philippson 1997].
Please note that field theory does not deny
individualism or the existence of relative degrees of separateness
and isolation between people. Confluence and isolation are, in
field terms, polar opposites which define each other. In Ken Wilber's
terms, each person is a holon, a 'part/whole', both a whole person
and a part of the wider social fabric at t he same time. And in
each of us we find instinctive tendencies both towards 'partness'
(confluence or community with the greater wholes we are parts
of) and 'wholeness' (separateness and individuality). Indeed,
we could without undue distortion characterise group life as the
ongoing struggle to balance these two urges to connect with, and
to differentiate from, others.
So the principle of organisation as an epistemological
thesis says: we cannot fully understand what any particular 'happening'
in a therapy group signifies unless we relate it to the overall
field - in effect, contextualise it. And a different context (field
perspective) offers us a altered meaning for the experiences or
events, however slight the change is. Since there are always different
ways in which we can 'frame' the actions, there are always multiple
meanings available. The more contexts, the richer (deeper or broader)
is our 'interpretation' or understanding. The principle offers,
in effect, a theory of the meaning of group behaviour and group
process.
The Group Environment
When we talk of context, we are always talking
about a number of different field conditions which contribute
in different ways to the 'actualisation' of group life in a particular
'here and now' form. Put more simply, what happens in a particular
session of a particular ongoing therapy group depends on a myriad
factors, including the group culture, current world events, group
member's individual histories, their memories of what happened
in the previous session, and so on.
In an earlier article I offered a model
for simplifying and thinking about the multiplicity of contexts
which shape the matter and the sense of group life [Philippson
& Harris 1992, Ch. 4]. In this I considered the group as oriented
in space and time. I distinguished four contexts, or zones:
(i) Here and Now: This is what goes
on in group sessions, the here-and-now process of the group. In
field theory, this is what is 'real', our primary therapeutic
focus. A few of the relevant field factors which constitute the
group process are: the physical conditions of the group room,
group member's current feelings and desires, individual contact
styles, contact patterns between individuals (pairs and sub-groups),
energy levels and so on.
(ii) There and Now: This zone includes
factors relating to the current (spatially) external field in
which the group operates. This includes group member's current
lives outside the group and between sessions, the location of
the group room, events in the world which may be impacting on
the group in some way (in the electronic age, spatial distance
is irrelevant).
(iii) Here and Then: This refers
to the group's history, what has happened to group members in
previous sessions. This includes their memories of what has happened,
and also fantasies and stories about the past.
(iv) There and Then: This largely
refers to the past history of group members - their life stories.
All these zones are part of the total group
context in space and time. What happens in group sessions (zone
(i)) will be affected by what is happening or has happened in
any of the others insofar as it impinges on 'here and now' - the
particular goings-on in this particular group on this particular
day. (For further discussion see principle 2 below.)
Putting the Contexts to Work
Let me illustrate this with a simple example
from a group. Suppose that a group member, Susan, is feeling irritated
in the group. Another group member, Mark, makes a remark to her
about her being late for the session, and she 'flares up' at him.
What are the contexts which contribute to and shape Susan's 'here
and now' expression of anger to Mark?
Start with some contexts from zone (iv).
First is the broad social context in which we learn to have and
share feelings as we grow up. In our individualistic society,
we sometimes forget that human nature is fundamentally and from
the outset part of a social and relational web. We are born into,
and live our lives as part of, particular human and social structures
which we can alter but never escape.
Then there are the more specific contexts
of a particular society, culture, neighbourhood and family which
socialise us to express feelings in certain ways. Here factors
of class, gender, race and so on are highly relevant contributors
and shapers.
All these social and cultural conditions
help shape Susan's life history - her particular set of experiences
and actions - and therefore may have a bearing (greater or lesser,
depending on circumstances) on how she feels now. This notably
includes the realm of transference into the group situation -
for example, Susan reacting to Mark in a certain way because he
reminds her of her cruel father, or to the group situation because
it reminds her of unhappy incidents in her school class.
Next, moving to Zone (ii), we find a range
of current factors outside the group which may predispose us to
feel a certain way. Perhaps Susan misses her bus, is late, feels
irritated when she arrives at the group. More broadly, she may
be currently having a hard time at work, have just embarked on
a love affair with a colleague, be worried about her mother's
health after visiting her before the group, and so on. Also relevant
here are a multitude of general factors relating to 'the state
of the nation'. Perhaps the political party Susan supports has
lost the election, and this affects her mood, and also that of
group members in various ways.
Thirdly, are factors relating to group history
(zone iii) . Perhaps Susan is often late, imagines (correctly,
as it happens) that some other group members resent this, and
feels a mixture of fear and anger in response. Group members'
response to her outburst may be coloured by the fact that she
has lost her temper in the past, and several are scared of her
as a result. Focussing on this particular set of factors leads
us to take a developmental view of group life, looking at how
the group culture changes over a period of time.
All the factors above lead us, on a field
theory approach, to the actuality of the group session. They contribute
to the present dynamics of the group field, the particular structure
and conditions that it currently, uniquely, has. This structure
will tend to make some things 'figural', and keep others background
both for individual group members and for the group as a whole.
It will encourage some things to happen, and make others unthinkable
or 'impossible'.
What actually happens here, is that Mark
says something to Susan about being late and she flares up. We
can now understand how this might happen, and it might even, knowing
all we do, seem inevitable - who said 'to understand all is to
forgive all'? But - and this is crucially important - the field
structure is not deterministic, and will always allow other possibilities
simply because the field conditions will inevitably include individual
group members who are free human agents, and therefore the possibility
of their choosing differently. For example: Susan could have chosen
instead to stay silently and secretly irritated for the whole
session, and that would have altered the whole group process in
turn.
Either way, both what is happening and what
is not happening in the group right now is always and utterly
part of the overall group field. Both the choice to express anger,
or to remain sulkily silent will affect others directly. They
have choices about how they will respond to her. The sum total
of these choices is the co-created ongoing process of the therapy
group.
The Three Levels of Group Life
Both the group leader and the group members
are trying, in their different ways, to gain insight into the
structure and dynamics of the group field, right here and now.
Even the 'simple' example above show how complicated this group
field is. I would like now to consider a way to divide up and
focus in on current process which is of particular interest and
use to group leaders. This involves identifying three natural
'levels' of group life: the individual level, the interpersonal
level, and the group-as-a-whole. If the group leader understands
these levels, then she can organise her observation and intervention
in the group setting by choosing to concentrate, as appropriate
and useful, on the behaviour and experience of group members as
individuals; on the interactions between individuals, and
on the 'group-as-a-whole', the group system.
This distinction between three 'levels'
of group life is part of the holistic approach which stems directly
from the principle of organisation. In effect, we are choosing
three levels in the infinite hierarchy of life which presents
itself to us for study. (We could, of course, extend our study
either way, down or up a level, by looking at parts of persons
(the brain patterns of group members) or inter-group dynamics
(how our group relates to others)). When we choose a level to
examine, we in effect temporarily regard the structures and processes
at that level as 'wholes' and bracket their 'partness'. (This
is what the sciences of psychology, social psychology and sociology,
respectively, do.) At the individual level, an individual organism
(a group member such as Susan) is now seen as a whole, and a person
in her own right. Moving up a level, she is also a part of more
complex wholes such as the pair comprising Susan and Mark, or
the grouping which includes Mark's ally Dave. This in turn is
a part of an even more complex (even higher level) whole, the
'whole group system', the group-as-a-whole. Each level is 'nested
in' the one above it.
When we focus on each of the three levels
particular classes of contact boundary come to the foreground.
So if Susan's 'self-other' boundary is foreground for her or us,
we are choosing to look at 'individual process'. If we focus on
the boundary which links and separates Susan and Mark as they
interact, we are attending to the interpersonal process. And if
we look at the totality of group interactions then we are considering
whole group process. We see different 'realities' depending on
where we draw the boundary.
I believe that this way of looking at group
life in terms of 'levels' stems directly from the holistic roots
of principle of organisation. When we talk of levels we are talking
about the hierarchical ways in which the group field is structured
by natural and social forces, and our attempts as group leaders
and members to gain insight into this structure both by how we
conceive it and how we act within it. I hope in future writing
to return to this important theme.
The Group Leader in the Field
One final and important point in this section.
The principle of organization tells us that though the group leader
has a particular and important role to play in the group, he always
remains part of the group field. The essentially positivist epistemology
which suggests that the leader is (or should be) a separate, objective
figure who must somehow distance himself from the other group
members in order to study them does not fit with a field theory
perspective. As Wheatley says:
"No longer, in this relational universe,
can we study anything as separate from ourselves.
Our acts of observation are part of the process that brings
forth the manifestation of what we are observing.
[Wheatley 1992: quoted in Brown 1996 p.4]
What this means is that simply by being
in the group I am inevitably helping to co-create the group process.
Like any other group member, I bring along my own way of being-in-the-world,
and throw it into the melting pot in toto. I cannot escape
this: what I do and what I choose not to do, what I say and what
I refrain from saying, what I notice and what I miss is all part
of the overall process.
The 'enmeshment' of the group leader in
the group field in this way may seem a complicating factor, yet
it is actually the key to the whole 'problem of knowledge' in
the group. If I were not a living, breathing, feeling, part of
the group field, how could I come to know and understand it? Whether
I attend to others or to my own process, I am always and inevitably
tapping directly into the group field.
2. The Principle of Contemporaneity
This principle states that it is the constellation
of influences in the present field which 'explains' present behaviour.
So events from zones (ii), (iii), (iv) are part of the context
of the 'here and now' group process, but, in the strictest sense,
do not exist, and so cannot directly influence it. As Peter Philippson
says:
"... what is important in the field
is always what is present, not what is past or future.
We are not affected by the past, which no longer exists
for us, nor by the future, which is to be chosen.
What we call 'past' and 'future' are reifications (processes
seen as things) of memories, verbalisations, expectations,
fantasies: all of these being present events. We are
affected by our memories of the past (and we choose which
of our myriad memories we bring into the present and
how we remember them) and our expectations and learnings
based on our remembered experiences. We are also affected
by our expectations, hopes, fears and plans which
we term 'the future'. All of these are present parts
of the field, as are all the environmental reminders of
the past (people, photos and situations which in some
ways parallel past events) and pointers to the future (diary
appointments, lottery tickets, wedding dates, etc.). People
in Gestalt therapy regularly change the pattern of
the way they remember, the way they relate to their childhood
learnings, and the way they move towards and take their
parts in creating what will be. 'The past' and 'the
future' have then changed for them." [Philippson 1997]
Field theory offers a way of looking at
causality in the group setting which is quite different from the
usual one. What happened to me in the past does not cause me to
behave and feel in the ways that I do now. If this were the case,
we would the prisoners of our unchanging pasts, unable to do things
differently in the present. In Gestalt, what is important is how
I now experience my past, and how that contemporaneous experiencing
creates some possibilities and choices and excludes others. I
am, in effect, continuously re-creating my self each moment of
my existence, and I always have choices about how I do that (which
include the choice to deny myself any choice).
This in turn leads us to a particular conception
about what therapy consists of in the group situation. What we
focus on is not so much how people come to be the way they are,
but on how they keep themselves that way right here and now. We
help them to become aware of how they structure their present
experience in the group: how they do their feeling, remembering,
relating with these other people, in this particular setting.
And it is only because we can help each other to gain new awareness,
make new and different choices, and to experiment with them in
the 'here and now', that therapy can work. This is what is behind
the Gestalt focus on the 'how' rather than the 'why' of people's
behaviour. Material from the other zones is useful only insofar
as it can give us greater insight into the structure of the field
here and now.
Let me give an example. There is a lot of
talk in group circles about the desirability of trust in groups
and how it is created. If the group contains a number of people
whose trust has been repeatedly abused in the past, we might well
assume that 'not trusting' will be a major feature of the group
process that we have to address with 'trust exercises' or some
other device. But such an assumption should be treated as an hypothesis
rather than a fact. What will interest us a Gestalt leaders is
how individuals actually 'do' their trusting and not-trusting
in the group. Who do they actually trust here and now? What does
that mean exactly for each individual - e.g. are some people trustworthy
for some things and not others? When do they feel more or less
trusting, and what group or individual factors influence this?
The role of the group leader is crucial
here. If he has an personal or theoretical investment in 'increasing
levels of trust' in other group members or him, then this will
be 'part of the field' and may interfere with members' exploration
of their actual experience of trust and distrust. He also has
important personal data to offer (in an appropriate way) about
his own feelings of trust and mistrust in the group and its members.
The principle of contemporaneity suggests that the leader and
the group members will learn most by focusing on 'how things are'
rather than how they imagine they are, want them to be, or think
they should be (though the existence of these on-going imaginings
etc. is also part of the field, and important here-and-now data).
This encourages real interaction and meeting between group members.
3. The Principle of Singularity
This principle says that each situation
which occurs in the group is unique. Malcolm Parlett says:
So even though a number of people are in
a group room together, their phenomenal experiences are all different.
They will have different perceptions, needs, desires and backgrounds.
No two people will experience the group process exactly the same,
and sometimes perceptions will vary very widely indeed. There
is therefore no absolute objective 'truth' about how the group
really is. The best we can hope for is an inter-subjective,
negotiated view of what is going on which allows for multiple
perspectives.
The implications of this for group processing
are profound. Even if we think that a situation is repeating itself,
we must recognise this is literally impossible. Every situation
and every experience is, if we consider it fully enough, totally
unique, different to any which has preceded it. This does not
mean that there are not regularities, that one situation will
never resemble another, but that the resemblance is always partial
and limited.
Because human behaviour is so complex, there
is a long history of attempts to deal with the situation by formulating
laws of group process and development, often modelled on physical
laws of nature. Such a process is inherently deterministic, and
fundamentally flawed. It misses out the primary human characteristic
of choice. Without exercising choice I cannot be fully human.
As group therapists we need to accept that
there are no rules and recipes which will tell us what to do.
Each person, each interaction, each moment of group life is new
and fresh. This has important consequences, as Malcolm Parlett
points out:
So in accepting each moment of group life
as unique, we at the same time accept our own uncertainty and
ignorance about it.
But this, paradoxically, means that we are
able to cast off the shackles of 'knowledge' and be fully present,
embracing the moment. We then free ourselves to be creative, to
take a new perspective, and feel pleasure in making our own unique
contribution to the co-created group situation.
There is an important democratic principle
here, which, if understood, is a profound - possibly the main
- source of empowerment and healing for group members. In accepting
the principle of singularity for ourselves for ourselves, we also
accept it for the group members. The group leader's perspective
on things is not privileged. His actions have no special magic
inherent in them. Despite his importantly different role, he is,
in the end, no different to anyone else. Each and every group
member has their own unique way of being in the group, and experiencing
it. Anything which a group member does, anything which happens
may turn out to be useful. We are equal partners in the co-creation
of the therapeutic potential of the group, and of the experience
of each of us and of the group as a whole. This is a political
perspective which I believe can contribute greatly to the therapeutic
potency of the group.
4. The Principle of Changing Process
This principle, closely connected to the
previous one, states that the group field is continuously changing.
Whether we are considering individual process or whole group process,
nothing stays the same. Group life is always provisional, never
permanent. To paraphrase Heraclitus, 'we cannot step into the
same group process twice'.
Commenting on this principle, Peter Philippson
says:
"...for Gestalt therapy, homoeostasis
and creativity go hand-in-hand. I need to come to
some kind of balance with my environment (homoeostasis),
but this cannot be a conservative act of returning
to the previous balance, since the field is changing, and
what worked before will often not work now. I must then
invent new ways of balancing my needs and interests
with environmental possibilities (creativity). At the same
time, my environment will be responding creatively
to my actions, so that homoeostasis, often seen as
a conservative force, is actually seen here as the driving
force behind creativity, and creativity makes homoeostasis
possible in a changing world." [Philippson 1997]
In group situations, the existential problems
of dealing with continuous change often manifest themselves in
groups trying to close down possibilities by establishing habitual
ways of behaving. These may include fixed group roles for individual
members and group norms for the group as a whole. This is not
a bad thing in itself - as with the individual case, habits can
be useful, time-saving ways of dealing with ongoing situations.
Problems arise when the group ceases to be aware of its roles
and routines, or even refuses to acknowledge them as such. (For
discussion of the potentially harmful effects of confluent group
cultures, see Philippson, 1995.)
The advent of new group members is especially
important here. New members can hold a mirror up to group practices
which established members (including the group leader) have long
ceased to notice, enabling them to be re-evaluated. A group's
willingness to allow this scrutiny (in effect, its willingness
to embrace the principle of changing process) is a key test of
its healthy functioning. There is therefore a potential advantage
to allowing people to leave and join groups as part of the process.
(For further discussion of group boundaries see Philippson &
Harris 1992, especially Chapter 8, and Harris 1995.)
5. The Principle of Possible Relevance
This principle states that no part of the
field is 'irrelevant', can be excluded in advance as unimportant,
however mundane or trivial it appears to be. Indeed, it is often
precisely by attending to what seems obvious (even if we do not
know why it seems so) that we gain greater understanding into
the structure of the group field.
Two examples: Peter Philippson gives the
example of a training group where a fascinating group process
began with his observation that group members used large amounts
of toilet paper. I recall a group where during a period of low
energy I became fascinated with the way that group members had
their feet arranged - together, apart, sticking out, under their
legs and so on. Commenting on this led to a lively debate about
the patterns of participating and holding back amongst group members.
Figure and Ground
The principle of possible relevance leads
us to think more closely at how we organise our perceptions and
our actions in a group situation. What influences what is interesting
or obvious for us, or what we habitually ignore in a particular
group situation? There is a natural sorting-out process which
is an essential part of being human, and which Gestaltists call
'figure-ground formation'. This is the process by which we organise
our experiences and actions to form 'meaningful wholes'. Depending
on a variety of field factors (which include both our state and
that of the environment), at any given moment something 'stands
out' for us. This now becomes, whether momentarily or for a longer
period, the centre of our attention - 'figural'. If the figure
is a 'good' one, then what we notice will often seem lively, interesting,
sharp or clear - these are Gestalt's 'autonomous criteria'.
Figures do not exist in isolation, but always
stand out against a background. The succession of figure/grounds
is continually changing over time. What is now figure becomes
ground for the next figure. In Gestalt theory, it is the relationship
between the succession of figures and grounds in the phenomenal
field that constitutes 'the meaning of the situation' for us.
In the group context, the purpose of observation is to use our
(and other's) figure-ground process to explore and utilise the
structure and dynamic of the group field.
Using Phenomenological Method
It is now widely acknowledged that the practice
of Gestalt therapy is, in effect, 'clinical phenomenology' [Yontef
1993]. The phenomenological approach provides one main foundation
of our approach to understanding and working with group process.
Like field theory I believe that it has much to offer in helping
us to understand and work with group process in therapy. Its importance
here is that it is a methodology directed precisely towards training
ourselves to be 'good observers' in terms of the principle of
relevance. For this reason, I would like to conclude this article
by outlining some of its principles, and discuss their application
in groups.
Spinelli [1989, p. 19] lists three steps
in phenomenological method:
Step One: The Rule of Epoch‚ ('bracketing
off bias and prejudice')
Step Two: The Rule of Description ('describe,
don't explain')
Step Three: The Rule of Horizontalization
('treat each observation as having equal value')
I will look briefly at each of these steps
in turn.
1. 'Bracketing off'
"This rule urges us to set aside our
initial biases and prejudices...to suspend our expectations
and assumptions, in short, to bracket all such temporarily
so that we can focus on the primary data of our experience"
[Spinelli op. cit. p. 17]
In bracketing I try to experience the group
and its individual members as they are in that unique moment.
(See the principles of contemporaneity, singularity and changing
process). I put aside assumptions about the person and the situation,
and try to experience them freshly, as if I had just met them.
Instead of assuming that I know about them or the situation, I
seek to explore by asking open questions such as: 'How is that
for you?' or 'What is happening now?'.
Of course it is not possible to completely
bracket all biases and assumptions. Being biassed is part of being
human, and their are many sources of information about people
which turn out to be inaccurate. But skill in bracketing means
seeking to learn about some of our own particular habits and assumptions
and trying to put them on one side. Even when this proves especially
difficult, simply recognising the omnipresence of bias can lessen
its impact on us. Supervision is one place where we can learn
to do this, but groups in which constructive feedback is supported
and encouraged, are also invaluable tools.
2. 'Describing, not Explaining'
I approach any group situation with a range
of habitual ways of trying to make sense of my experience, to
understand and explain what is going on. Theorising is an important
part of understanding group process, but it is done best with
adequate data, gathered by uncluttered observation. My initial
goal is to remain, as far as possible, at the level of immediate
experience, getting as full a sense of what is happening as possible
without jumping to premature conclusions about why it is happening
or what it means.
Let me give an example. It has happened
more than once that I have made the mistake in a group of assuming
that a lack of energy in the group was due to some profoundly
stuck group process, and failed to realise that the real cause
was simply that the room was stuffy and airless, or that the members
needed a break. My love of complex explanations led me to miss
the obvious.
3. 'Treating Observational Equally'
This rule, closely related to the principle
of possible relevance, urges us while we are data-gathering to
initially avoid valuing some observations more than others. Again,
it is part of our natural 'figure ground' process that some things
in any group situation will 'stand out' for us as observers. We
cannot avoid this process, but we can stand back from it, and
try to treat all observations as potentially useful in the formation
of an overall picture. We are interested in what is present, and
also what is absent (ground) in the situation.
To sum up this section on the application
of phenomenological method to observation of group process, I
quote from Spinelli:
Conclusion
The approach to understanding group process
that I have been setting out here is based on field theory. It
contains good and bad news. The bad news is that the task for
group leaders is even more difficult than Spinelli suggests in
the quotation above. Parlett's five principles tell us that the
jigsaw puzzle that is group life has multiple perspectives, is
unique in every moment, is continually changing and can never
be completely understood. So as group leaders and members we are
ourselves part of a living puzzle which can never be completed,
and whose 'final image' does not exist. The good news is that
for precisely these reasons, groups offer scope unparalleled scope
for creativity and choice in a shared exploration of the human
condition.
References
Judith Brown (1996), The I in Science,
Scandanavian University Press
S. Foulkes & E. Anthony [1957], Group
Psychotherapy, Penguin Books
John Harris [1995], 'Working with Large
Groups and Teams', Topics in Gestalt Therapy Vol 3 No 2
Malcolm Parlett [1991], 'Reflections on
Field Theory', British Gestalt Journal, Volume 1 No 2
Malcolm Parlett [1993], 'Towards a More
Lewinian Gestalt Therapy', British Gestalt Journal, Volume
2 No 2
Peter Philippson & John Bernard Harris
[1992], Gestalt: Working with Groups, Manchester Gestalt
Centre
Peter Philippson [1995], 'Why Should't We
Interrupt?', Topics in Gestalt Therapy Vol 3 No 2
Peter Philippson [1997], A Gestalt Theory
of the Self, in preparation
Gary Yontef [1993], Awareness, Dialogue
and Process, Gestalt Journal Press
|
