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
|