On Resistance In Gestalt Therapy: Mechanisms Of Interrupting Contact Or Ways Of Forming It?

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

In the Gestalt approach, resistance is viewed through the prism of forms of interruption of contact, which traditionally include merging, introjection, projection, deflection, retroflection, egotism, etc. different stages along the way. On the other hand, these forms of resistance are ways of disrupting the ego function. In other words, they block the ability to creatively adapt, and, therefore, make it impossible to choose, as well as the implementation of the function of acceptance / rejection. And finally, on the third hand, they are the same methods of deformation of the boundary-contact. In some forms of resistance, the boundary of contact seems to be "pressed" into the organism, in others, the organism as metastases penetrates the field of the environment, in the third, the line between the organism and the environment is completely erased. This is the threefold understanding of resistance inherent in the Gestalt approach. Of course, I described it in one paragraph in the most general terms, since within the framework of this work I do not pretend to be an exhaustive analysis of the problem. Readers interested in the topic will be directed to my earlier works, where this analysis was presented in detail.

I will say right away that, in general, such an understanding of resistance by the founders of Gestalt therapy seems to me to be progressive in relation to the classical psychodynamic ideology of resistance existing at that time. Although, of course, I see it as a kind of compromise solution that does not agree with the values of the self-theory, created by the genius of Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman, in understanding it as a process unfolding in the field. Progressive insofar as it considers resistance in the dynamics of the field - as an obstacle to the mental process. At the same time, it inevitably breaks with the classical tradition of considering the psyche as being contained INSIDE of a person. A compromise insofar as it borrows the fundamental provisions of the psychodynamic tradition, which, well, simply do not in any way agree with the VERY progressive and, most importantly, promising idea of self as a process. This is reflected even in some names and definitions of the essence of certain forms of resistance.

How does experience-focused psychotherapy relate to this kind of understanding of resistance in Gestalt therapy? So, for example, what is a projection if there is no inner world and there is simply nothing to project outward? Because if there is no inner world, then there is no outer world either. Both are the essence of abstraction - accepted by the professional community and shared at the level of common sense, but still abstraction. I guess with a little effort I would find the answer to this question. From the point of view of the dialogue-phenomenological field theory, the projection could be considered as a rejection of some field phenomena, their assignment not to oneself, but to another abstraction. Thus, projection is an act of the birth of the Other. In this case, identification would be complementary to the described mechanism - it would act as an act of self-birth. The therapy would be transformed into reciprocal acts of birth. The meeting of projections and identifications would mean contact. If this contact is present, then therapy is more effective.

But these reflections of mine would make sense only if the concept of projection had an applied meaning for the practice of psychotherapy. But for psychotherapy, the main and only goal of which is experience, conceptualization on the topic of projection is only an intellectual enterprise, irrelevant to the practice of psychotherapy as a profession. On the one hand, nothing but projection and the process of identity exists as mechanisms for the formation of field reality. On the other hand, one can easily do without them in the process of psychotherapy, since both are concepts of this reality and are irreducible to it. There are only phenomena, the dynamics of the experience of which forms one or another stream of the reality of life. Any attempt to classify and inventory them will not be able to help achieve the goal of dialogue-phenomenological psychotherapy.

The foregoing has a similar meaning for other field abstractions in the form of confluence, introjection, retroflection, deflection, egotism, etc. They are neither good nor bad - they simply cannot be “parked” to the “pier” of dialogue-phenomenological field theory. In the most general form, I would consider these mechanisms not as ways of interrupting contact, but on the contrary - as a means of ensuring its dynamics. In other words, by "projection", "retroflection", "introjection", etc., we build contact with other people in connection with our actual needs. Contact cannot be interrupted for one important paradigmatic reason - it is more than us! Moreover, it is the source of ourselves. Therefore, if we really could mentally break the contact, then it would be possible to state that we managed to invent a new form of suicide. And, perhaps, the fastest, most effective and painless.

Why do I always use a particle in describing my intermediate position? Because the use of "resistance mechanisms", as well as of these categories themselves, is not at all necessary in psychotherapy experience. Moreover, I believe that appealing to them will rather complicate the task of the psychotherapist, who helps the dynamics of the field to develop in a natural way, based solely on his own nature, the driving force of which is natural valence. This kind of conceptual intervention will slow down the process rather than facilitate it.