A Field-Centered Approach to Gestalt Therapy: Agency and Response-Ability in a Changing World

In the aforementioned epigraphs, we can see the development of a historical understanding of the nature of creation and the implications regarding the nature of our phenomenological experience.

Field theory derived from physics in its understanding that all matter is a manifestation of a unified field of energy, thus clarifying that despite appearances, there is no separateness. Everything is made from the same “stuff,” so that everything affects everything and is affected by everything. Just as this discovery was a paradigm change in our understanding of the physical universe, Kurt Lewin’s (1951) translation of this into social field theory was a paradigm change in the social sciences and in the realm of psychology.

Lothar Gutjahr has taken on an important and complex subject in his book, A Field-Centered Approach to Gestalt Therapy. The subject of the field predated the foundational text by Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman (1994) and strongly influenced its authors in the construction of their theoretical framework. Field theory derived from modern physics in its understanding that all matter is a manifestation of a unified field of energy, thus clarifying that despite appearances, there is no separateness. All is of the field. Indeed, the basis for all that Perls et al. propose (and integrate from other theoretical and clinical concepts) is the understanding that we are inextricably inseparable from the “organism-environment field.” Humans (and all life forms) could not exist separate from the organism-environment field, where there is an ongoing exchange of that which is life-sustaining. As such, we are not existing in the field, but we are of the field, affected by all relevant “vectors” (active field elements) that compose our field at any present moment.

This is an understanding that has been reflected on by many of our colleagues in their efforts to reiterate the theory and to build on it. Lothar Gutjahr references some of these theorists in his writing. But Gutjahr is seeking here to do more than reiterate or even redefine field theory as it relates to our original theory; he is seeking to expand field theory so that it is not simply the ground that we stand on, but it is the figure that we orient to.

Gutjahr begins by laying a groundwork in which he refers to the work of sociologist Zygmunt Baumann (2000), who speaks of “Liquid Modernity.” By “Liquid Modernity,” he refers to seeing the current social/economic environment as having no stable footing and requiring individuals to become marketable commodities in order to be seen as having value. This commodification of the person has the effect of dehumanizing and alienating the person from him/herself and from others. Gutjahr distinguishes “Liquid Modernity” from times of “Solid Modernity,” in which social structures were previously more entrenched, and the task that presented itself (e.g., to Perls) was to help people to free themselves from the oppressive structure by eliminating their introjected imperatives and finding their individuated self.

I am disappointed when Gutjahr’s efforts to expand field theory become political positions rather than an acknowledgement that any political or economic system will significantly affect the field. How we function, perceive, engage with the field, and grow (creatively adjust) is a function of the human organism. I admired Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman (1994) for not advocating for or against political and economic positions, but rather for accepting those as field conditions and focusing on looking at the human process of experiencing and growing. These observations are relevant regardless of whether Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, or a Monarchy is the prevalent form of governance. And such universal application is true for Gutjahr’s formulation as well, regardless of Liquid Modernity, Solid Modernity, or Feudalism. Whatever the field conditions are, we are affected by, and we affect, the field. We are of the field. This is where Gutjahr’s contribution is valuable. Bringing our experiential awareness to that which is always present and which unites us can certainly open expanded possibilities for our experience of self and for our work.

We are each entitled to our political/social/economic frames, but to weave that into a theoretical exposition is to offer us introjects to swallow and abide by. I would prefer that each of us be empowered to find what resonates as true. The multiplicity of points of view can only enrich the field, as long as there is room for dialogue. Robert Resnick saw three pillars of Gestalt therapy: Field, Phenomenology, and Dialogue. Dialogue allows us to have differentness without being mired in alienation.

Using field and Liquid Modernity as his basis, Gutjahr develops his thesis that the focus of the work that we do as Gestalt therapists should now shift to finding connection (sharing ground) rather than establishing individualism. And in order to do this work, the relationship to the field resonances between therapist and patient (“pole” and “pole” in a horizontal field) needs to be that which is attuned to. (Gutjahr wants to be clear that resonant contact is a function of the field, not of the individual “poles,” and that the field that gives birth to this resonance is ever changing.)

“Resonance” is a central element in his construction of this field-centered Gestalt therapy. Resonance is given to be understood as a kinesthetic vibrational experience, one in which both poles of the field (people) are affected by an experience that may or may not be in either’s awareness. There seems to be an element of “fore-contact,” in which there may be a faint awareness of a vibration or sensation, wordless, and not yet formed into a figure. These resonances are “of the field” and are what the field-centered Gestalt therapist should attune to, even when it evokes uncertainty and disorientation. This requires the therapist to be open to uncertainty and disorientation, much like the experience of impasse, described by Perls et al. (1994). Impasse involves the shifting of ground, such that the known and expected world falls away, and the experience of “next” has not yet formed. These resonances are not simply passively received (“echoed”), but reverberate and elicit an experiential response, which then resonates with the other “pole.” There is a sharing of experience that transcends cognition or ideation. And the very presence of these resonances changes the field experience of each pole. Gutjahr is so committed to the field perspective that he dismisses discussion of “mirror neurons” as being too individualistically based, since they are located inside the brain of each person. The experience of resonance (somehow) should not be seen as involving or requiring the neurological apparatus of either pole. And yet, how do we have experience without neurology? Neurology, after all, is a field element.

But “resonance” seems to me to be a useful and important point of orientation. And it raises questions about expanding our understanding or definition of “contact boundary.” Gutjahr declares that the experience of resonance is not at the contact boundary but is experienced with the “whole self.” This is confusing to me, since the Gestalt theoretical formulation of self is the experience at the contact boundary. But rather than conceiving of the contact boundary as a singular, aware meeting of organism and field, perhaps we should consider that there may be multiple simultaneous contact boundaries (all being field functions), with varying degrees of awareness. Certainly, the internal organs seem to be interacting with some type of communicative awareness, but not with words or concepts or even consciousness (unless, as Perls et al. [1994] posit, there is a problem that is not resolved). And, again, the internal organs are also of the field.

Gutjahr references (and expands on) Perls et al. (1994) in stating that “resonant contact is the first reality” (63, emphasis added), that is, that contact requires poles in the field joining in resonance. This is the experience that he seeks to provide to both poles of the field in the consulting room. As Gestalt therapists, we regularly have the experience of feeling a mutual resonance with our patients or even of having an experience that seems to be wordlessly emanating from the other (even Freud references such experiences). But Gutjahr does not help the reader (me) to get a sense of how his approach would deal with this issue, or how he would structure a session to highlight and utilize such experiences.

I must confess not only to being interested in an expansion of the theory and of a paradigm change in the work that we can do but also to being confused by some of the assertions that Gutjahr makes. While reading I kept thinking, “I wish I could have a conversation with him about this.” Since I could not (or chose not to see if I could), perhaps I can speak directly to him here, in what follows.

So, Lothar, when you base so much of your frame of reference on Baumann’s sociopolitical theory (i.e., Liquid Modernity and the marketable commodification of people), I start to feel as if we are beginning at the point of someone else’s conclusion. Are people uniquely being commodified in these “Liquid” times? Marxism, which Baumann clearly echoes, was actually developed in preliquid times, indeed perhaps in premodern times. People have likely always been perceived of and treated as “marketable commodities.” That was true in the nineteenth century (and for centuries before that), and it was true in “Solid Modernity,” when Perls and others developed Gestalt therapy theory. I remember being a young boy watching Dinah Shore (an entertainer in the 1950s) on television, standing in a long, form-fitting sequined dress by a shining car (marking her as a marketable commodity), singing “See the USA in your Chevrolet,” implying that if you do so, you will be marketable as well. So, I think it is untrue that this was different at some other point in time. I do, however, agree that the nature of what makes one marketable/acceptable/desirable changes (the field is always changing), as does the rapidity of such change. And whether we are valued/devalued by the factory owner, Madison Avenue, or TikTok, I see forces of coercion as being present and as alienating us from resonant contact with others and with ourselves. This theme of alienation is not new, liquid, or even modern.

I am interested and hopeful that you can expand my view and the range of possibilities that exist in our work. But I am further confused when you say that the person walking into our office is not “pathological” but simply an expression of field/relational imbalance—an absence of resonant contact with [her] field. And that this absence of resonant contact is not a function of the person but of the imbalanced field. That may be true if you consider that the original field, which was present during the person’s development, has now reified into [his] personal field (Life Space). But how shall I otherwise understand that the person is symptomatic, whether [she] is alone or among caring people, in rural or urban environments, rich or poor, and so on? The corrective experience of sharing a resonant horizontal field is important and necessary. Even so, can we at least say that such persons are embedded in a field that they may be unaware of and that determines and affects their experience of self and others? (This is much like my discussions regarding the constructed self/world: the reified system of identifications, introjections, and projections that accumulate as the result of field deficits, and our failure to creatively adjust successfully to an unassimilable field). Lothar, some of the field is internal, even if its origins are not. And if we are truly to hold a field orientation, there is no inside or outside—only the perspective of the perceiver.

We know that self does not “belong” to the person, that it is a field function, and that has great implications regarding what our work is actually about. And, Lothar, you seem to see this as an important potential antidote to the pandemic of alienation that concerns you. Horizontal resonance with another “pole in the field” (language that you prefer to “person”) seems by definition to create an experience of being (part of) connected to the field and of dissolving the exaggerated experience of alienation: that is, simply being an object for someone else’s emotional or financial profit. And there is truth in that. Buber said one hundred years ago that without I-It, we cannot survive, but without I-Thou, we cannot be fully human. So, yes, resonance, the experience of joining in an experience with another (pole), is truly a humanizing experience.

Yet, humans (and the animals that I have known) seem to have needs for both connection and for separateness. Your point about Perls focusing on helping people to “individuate” is accurate. But he was also clear that individuating led to the possibility of connecting in ways that would truly be resonant, and that this would not be possible without finding separateness. We see this in child development, where the toddler must learn to push away in order to be able to reach out. The two functions are not in opposition but are necessary co-regulators of the human experience.

Also, Lothar, in my view you are incorrect when you assert that the original goal of therapy set forth in Perls et al. (1994) was homeostasis. You rightly see the aim of therapy to be one of growth. But notice that the subtitle of the foundational text is Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality. Growth has always been seen as the essential nature of being human, and deficits in the field (particularly during early development) interfere with and inhibit that process. Perls et al. speak explicitly of reinstituting growth and see homeostasis as a beginning and an end point of contacting the assimilable novelty (the process of growth). And Perls et al. are clear that the homeostasis of Final Contact is a new organization, not a return to the static. As you say, the field is ever-changing, and resonant contact with the field results in change and growth.

I had written a blurb for your book, praising how you write about Field in a scientific way, rejecting the semimysticism of the New Phenomenology. The idea that there are external field affects, quasi-thingly essences that float around infecting us with affective experience, is an idea that we both think should be rejected out of hand. Field elements are more complex, and each of us is affected in relation to our own Life Space (although you might argue that, since the experiences are direct transmissions, they bypass our Life Space). We resonate with others’ experience, as is scientifically validated in mirror neuron research. But this is not because of a quasi-thingly atmosphere but because of our being of the field, not in the field.

And yet, I am confused when, after negating the New Phenomenologists’ claim regarding quasi-thingly essences, you agree with Jan Roubal’s (2019) formulation of “depressive atmospheres” pulling down those in its realm of influence. A depressed pole (person) will affect those in contact with the other, but is this really because there is an atmospheric condition, independent of the “poles” of the field? Lothar, I think here you are trying to emphasize the “figure of the field,” but it seems to me that you lose the figure of the person (pole) and of the person’s agency. Is agency simply the result of field vectors? Or is there also an element of individual choice? The task you have taken on is complex and paradoxical. We are all of the field, and yet we are all individual. We affect the field, and we are affected. Yet emergence cannot be located within or without the person. This requires that we include the field in our inquiry, but it does not mean that we should or even can exclude the individual.

I would like to return to one more observation, Lothar. I was eager to read how you operationalize your approach. A transcript of a session, anecdotes about your work with a patient, or some way of seeing and tasting the application of your theoretical bent would give me something to anchor to. I agree that we tend to overlook the field as the figure in our work, primarily appreciating it as the ground that gives birth to figures and to self. I myself have been interested in how we overlook the field phenomenon of awareness itself. That is, is awareness a property of the individual, or is it a field phenomenon that the individual resonates with? How do we bring these omnipresent elements into the work? How does someone who walks into our office suffering with trauma, low self-esteem, or self-defeating rigid patterns of cognition and behavior benefit by bringing field (or “pure” awareness) into the work? I was hoping to see what a cohesive clinical approach would look like and how it would differ from and expand on my own attunement to resonance or preverbal transmissions. Perhaps your next article or book can take this development further. I will be an eager reader.

REFERENCES