THEORY CAN'T DEFINE GESTALTHERAY

• Divergence in Gestalt therapy? by Timothy C. McNamara, 3/8/97
  • Criterion for Gestalt Therapy by Joe Wysong, Editor, The Gestalt Journal, 3/11/97
    
    

Is Gestaltherapy Theory important to define Gestaltherapy? I’d enphatically say: "YES!" Is it enough, or apropriated to do so, in the sense of Gestaltherapy wholeness and specifity? I’d say: "NO!" There is as an important dimension the philosophical foundation of Gestaltherapy. Note, please, that when someone says: "PHILOSOPHY IS NOT IMPORTANT, I’M CONCERNED WITH EXPERIENCE AND REALITY!" This is often a PHILOSOPHICAL empiricist statement. Mainly if as "experience" and as "reality" one is speaking about the empricist conceptions of them... It seems intresting to me to observe that Gestaltherapy emerges in its specificity from a specific philosophical shift, which is fundamental for human thought and life: the shift from an empiricist point of view in psychology, psychotherapy and science to a phenomenological one. The distinction means something very special, I think... The shift was also from cultural and philosophical points of views which departure from the negation of life, of body, of the senses, and of experience (in its phenomenological meaning of "the root of the world") to points of views which departure from a radical YES! to them: radical (from the root) affirmation, ratification, of life, of body, of the senses, and of experience (in its specific phenomenological meaning of "the root of the world"). So life, experience, in this sense is affirmation. A point of view that radically afirm this affirmation that life, experience, body, senses, already are. This seems to me very important. Gestalt Theory, specifically, was, and is, very important because it had a phenomenological point of view. I get dispaired watching people who says that "Gestaltherapy is phenomenological, existential and dialogical", and what is said after this first statement has poor links or nothing to do with phenomenology, existentialism or dialogic philosophy of relation. I don’t say that Gestaltherapy is or must be a philosophical approach, not at all: it is a very pragmatic one! But these are its essential sources and roots of its pragmatism, the sources of its actitudes and practices. Aren’t them?. (Yontef and Simkim say they are in their introduction). I can understand if somebody say that they are not. But please make explicit which ones are supposed to be... Otherwise, please, understand the original ones, before become dogmatic... Another important point to define Gestaltherapy, I think, is that it is not just defined in its theory, but in its culture, in the practice and active living and interactions of the culture of its comunity. This one, this culture, is much more complex and conflictual then plain theory. Indeed it is in the beginnigs of its construction. And for me it would loose its originality if it loose its original inspirations as its core essence. I understand that the newness of creation is absolutely necessary, and, more than this, unavoidable. But it would be somehow natural and wise not expect frogs as the offsprig of dogs... This comunity has very peculiar challenges, because, in its practice, Gestaltherapy is not a theoretical approach, but an experiencial one, although it has a (growing, I hope) theroy. This is a challenge also to the theory, to its nature and growth. Its still consensually poor, I think, as I said before in this Forum, but it has fascinating challenges in its possibilities, as Gestaltherapy practice itself and the living of its comunity(ies).

No Replies