39
The lifespace and the field
Gestalt therapy integrated Kurt Lewin’s theory of the organism– environmental field, also known as the lifespace, into its approach. His theory, central to contemporary gestalt therapy, contends that behaviour is a function of the person and the environment together, which he showed in the equation B = f (P, E)8. Lewin saw
behaviour as ‘being embedded in a context which intrinsically includes the person, with all their characteristics and perceptions, and the environment with all its forces and influences’ (Kepner, 2003: 8, original italics).
Lewin (1952) stated that the person and the environment have to be considered as one constellation of independent factors. He called the totality of these factors the lifespace of the individual. As gestalt therapy is committed to this worldview it follows that the field with which the therapist must deal with is the lifespace of the client. The person and the psychological environment consti- tute that lifespace, as it exists for that person at that time in the here and now – neither can be viewed in isolation.
At this point it might be timely to note that in gestalt therapy the terms ‘field’, ‘situation’ and ‘lifespace’ have been used inter- changeably, indeed Lewin did so himself. This has contributed to some confusion exacerbated by the term ‘field’ having multiple meanings and being used indiscriminately (Staemmler, 2006). There is no field per se that is perceived by one and all. In our habitually deflective language, when we talk about the field or the situation, we talk of a realm that exists outside of our lifespace, beyond our perception. For clarity we should identify who per- ceives the phenomena in the field, hence, an accurate description would be my phenomenal field or my situation. Without an engaged subjectivity as a co-constitutive pole there is no field,
8 In this equation B = behaviour, f = function, P = Person, E = Environment.
fields cannot be spoken of properly as existing in themselves (McConville, 2001a).
Marrow (1969: 39) represents the lifespace diagrammatically, in the example below E = environment, P = person:
In Figure 3.1 the person’s phenomenal world is represented within the oval and it is in the relationship between the person and the environment, within their lifespace, that the individual defines their reality. The ‘non-psychological’, what we may think of philosophically as a ‘real’ external world is unknowable. We live in an inter-subjective world. If we accept Lewin’s theory it fol- lows that to understand our clients we need to be open to their subjective perception of their environment within their lifespace – of which we become a part and influence. In Figure 3.1 the con- tact boundary (see Point 12) is represented by the parentheses containing (P).
Whilst acknowledging the double-edged potential for use and abuse in using the many maps available to us in gestalt therapy, Parlett (1991: 69–81) built upon and integrated the work of Lewin in recasting field theory into five principles. He identified these interrelated aspects of a field theoretical approach as:
1. The Principle of Organization – Everything is interconnected, the meaning of any singular aspect can only be derived from looking at the total situation.
2. The Principle of Contemporaneity – It is the constellation of influences in the present field that ‘explains’ the current behaviour. We are concerned with the field conditions at this present time not the events of the past or future.
3. The Principle of Singularity – Every person–situation field (lifespace) is unique. The individual will construct meaning and any generalizations are suspect.
4. The Principle of Changing Process – The field is in a constant state of flux, nothing is fixed. Consequently, we need to be wary of a tendency to categorize.
5. The Principle of Possible Relevance – Every part of the field impacts on the field and therefore no part of the field can be excluded in advance as irrelevant. All parts are potentially as meaningful as each other.
None of the above five principles can be applied in isolation as all are interdependent.
To believe in and follow the principles of field theory, to view the whole situation and to embrace the lifespace is not easy. To do so requires a whole paradigm shift away from an atomized and individualistic worldview towards a much wider contextual world- view. However, such a shift is needed in order to practise gestalt therapy.
To understand the dynamics of a process, we have to com- prehend the entirety of the situation involved, along with all its elements and characteristics.
40
Viewing the lifespace through a developmental lens
A criticism often levelled at gestalt therapy is that the approach does not have a thorough enough developmental theory9. I believe
that gestalt’s rebellion against psychoanalysis’s exploration of the archaic led to a de-emphasizing of the developmental theory already contained within our therapeutic philosophy10. Develop-
mental theory is implicitly contained within field theory and the lifespace.
I have discussed the developmental significance Perls attached to the infant cutting teeth (Point 16). He later considered healthy development as being the transition from environmental support to self-support (F. Perls, 1973). This is inconsistent with gestalt’s situational view of self. Laura Perls’ (1992) stance differed mark- edly in seeing development as only being possible when there was adequate support available. Development through a gestalt lens of support is not a relentless march towards the individual’s standing on their own two feet; this is but one pole of a support continuum. It may be a pole that in general terms we tend to move towards as we become increasingly more capable of independence in relation to our expanding experienced world. However, a pro- cess of individuating takes place within an interactional field of relations. From a field perspective development is an on-going process that is created between the individual and their environ- ment not in the individual in isolation – developmental potential is not achieved within our own skin.
The field or situation with which the gestalt therapist deals
9 There have been some fine importations into gestalt, in particular the work of Daniel Stern (1998) whose developmental theories integrate well with a gestalt view of self as process.
10I would like to direct the interested reader towards the work of contemporary gestalt therapists Frank (2001), Philippson (2009) and Wollants (2008).
is the lifespace of the client as perceived by that client at that moment in time. Creative adjustment through reorganizing one’s response in relation to changes in the person’s lifespace is central to a gestalt view of development. The person creatively adjusts in relation to their situation and their situation adjusts in relation to the individual. From a gestalt perspective development is not a series of steps leading to ‘maturity’. The lifespace of a child given sufficient psychological and physical nourishment will continue to grow. Starved of physical and psychological nourishment that development will be restricted, although the child may develop creative adjustments in forming an imaginative ‘internal’ world. Similarly, the lifespace of an elderly person shrinks in many ways, but within this shrinkage there is often an on-going growth in terms of the way in which they creatively adjust to their smaller physical world.
From a field perspective my world cannot exist without me and I cannot exist without my world. Lewin discussed existence, inter- dependence and contemporaneity as attributes of an individual’s lifespace.11
Existence – The lifespace consists of all elements that have exist- ence for the individual: cultural, physical, biological, social, religious, familial. All impact the individual’s relating and devel- opment within their world. It will also include those influences that are not present in the person’s immediate field but can have a profound impact upon it. For example, the recent collapse of the banks that led to recession.
Interdependence – All elements of the field affect all other elements of the field. For a person to develop healthily is dependent upon favourable field conditions – a reasonable upbringing, encourage- ment from peers, a culture that allows expression of creativity. ‘A person emerges from situations’ (Wollants, 2008: 41).
Contemporaneity – Any behaviour depends on how the individual views the psychological situation at that moment. In gestalt we believe that present experiences and the way in which we
11I am grateful to my colleague and gestalt therapist from Australia, Sally Brookes, for sharing her thinking regarding these attributes of the lifespace.
constellate our current field emerges from our background. Our history shapes our current lifespace and can only be explored in the present through noting how an individual configures their world in the here and now. An example might be a woman who has experienced abuse from men during her upbringing then con- figuring her relationships with men in adulthood by keeping them at a relational distance. However, in gestalt we do not believe that we can take one aspect of the field and say that x leads to y. In the given example there will be multiple factors influencing the situation that could lead to a very different constellation of the woman’s field.
You may be wondering why I have included contemporaneity in a section discussing the lifespace through a developmental lens. Quite simply, through the very action of you reading this page you are continuing to develop contemporaneously – in the here and now. Development has a past but it also has a present and a future.
41
The therapy space as present situation To see a world in a grain of sand, And heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.
(William Blake, Auguries of Innocence, 1977) Clients arrive for therapy not with problems in themselves but problems with their situation. They present these problems in their relating to the world in the present situation – the therapy space. As they do so the nature of these problems unfolds in the style and manner the client makes and breaks contact in the here and now of the therapy session. The way in which the client relates in the therapy situation will have shades of varying depth and colour to the way in which they constellate their world of relations outside the therapy situation. Although every meeting in every situation and every therapy session is unique, there are patterns of relating in all of us that will play out across situations. We may call this character, style or personality – it is an essential part of who we are. However, this can lead to rigidity and loss of a healthy fluidity in relating. The style that developed in the past plays out in the present.
I see many areas worthy of consideration as I sit facing a fellow human being experiencing discord in their situation. How can I make sense of the way the client makes and breaks contact? How does this relate to their perceived malfunctioning field of relationships? How does this person affect me and can I make any sense of my reaction in relation to what is presented? The possi- bilities may be endless, but the answers and choices of direction lie on the surface if we only pay attention to what the client is telling us in all the ways in which they communicate. Our reactions to their way of being with us and theirs to us give us all the raw data we need, and will be evident from the first moment we meet in the way in which we body forth to one another.
I have been struggling in trying to convey this aspect of field theory. The mists of my confusion are now lifting as I make sense of my struggle to explain my thinking regarding the therapy space as the present situation. I believe that my struggle reflects a confu- sion that arises in others when trying to gain an understanding of field theory. The field of any one person holds an infinite num- ber of possibilities. Yet we can only deal with the most figural possibilities in the present situation – and here I am attempting to cover all possible eventualities! Just as I get stuck here, stuckness, or impasse, is a common feature of therapy (and life). Whilst the therapist may be able to facilitate movement through inter- ventions, there is no guarantee that these will provide insight or awareness and there is often a need to remain with impasse.
For the purposes of therapy only the present structure of the person-world interaction is available.
(PHG 1951: 61) The present situation contains more than the client and the therapist and more than their collective histories. Many settings that we encounter seem to meet us with a will of their own and challenge us to act in certain ways – fields dialogue with us. Such a dynamic is true for the therapy space as much as any other space. For a client new to therapy, the field may be speaking in a foreign language. The field in which the therapy takes place will have its own ‘voice’ and what it ‘says’ will depend upon, amongst other factors, the history of the person it is speaking to, the relational stance of the therapist and the location of the therapy.
42
The need organizes the field
A hiker has been on a challenging walk acutely aware of his empty water bottle, a constant reminder of his thirst. He happens upon a rushing freshwater river and with relief gulps down some of the fast-flowing water. On the opposite bank a fisherman is casting his fly and watching the river intently for the possible bite of a salmon. An ecologist is measuring the depth and flow of the river to assess whether the water level has dropped and the feasi- bility of harnessing its energy, whilst a canoeist rushes by on those same currents. Two young children splash playfully in the shallows of the riverbank, watched by their mother grateful for a few min- utes respite from their energetic demands. The same river perceived in radically different ways according to the person’s needs.
Lewin (1938) considered that we create a map of our landscape based upon our need at that moment in time. He gave an example, similar to the one above, of a soldier in wartime and a farmer in peacetime viewing the same field of corn based on their needs. People are always actively organizing their fields. They do so in relation to their current needs which will be influenced by past experience. For example, our hiker may have had an experience of poisoning from drinking from a river and choose to remain thirsty, or the mother may not allow herself to enjoy the experi- ence of space from her children through an introjected belief that this would be neglectful and make her a bad mother.
Self-awareness is often spoken of as an internal event discon- nected from others. In gestalt self-awareness is a field event – strictly speaking it is self-as-process-awareness. Any of the individuals in my given example, if self-aware, would be aware of the figural aspects of their phenomenal field impacting upon their functioning in the here and now. Their behaviour will be influ- enced by their past and their anticipated future, but it will be the present dynamics of the current field (of which past and future are a part) in which the figural need surfaces that will influence the behaviour and organize the field.
When we meet with clients we need to gain an understanding of how they organize their field and what is causing them to constellate their field in this way.
Case example
A client has been a victim of a road traffic accident in which a white transit van ran into the side of him. His children were in the car at the time and he could do nothing to avoid the collision. Since the accident he has become oversensitized to possible dan- gers on the roads due to an overwhelming need to ensure his family and he himself remain safe. In response to his need for safety he is constantly anxious and alert to any possible dangers. He is hyper-vigilant when he sees any white transit van, which triggers particularly strong memories of his accident. He begins to recall past events where his safety was threatened, resulting in a greater need for certainty and security, exacerbated by his project- ing into the future about what dangers could befall his children. He attempts to minimize uncertainty by avoiding driving at busy times or on busy roads before withdrawing from driving com- pletely. He continues to organize his field around his need for safety, security and certainty through avoidance.
As we say in gestalt, one thing leads to another. A need organ- izes the field, the field talks back and a new need forms and so the process continues. The only certainty we have is that there will be constant change. Although the need organizes the field and we need an understanding of the person’s need, it would be a mistake to attempt to study that need in isolation. Many links have been made between findings in quantum physics that show that we cannot study one specific thing in isolation (Philippson, 2009), as there is no specific isolated thing in existence. There are only interrelated fields of energy and these principles support gestalt’s field perspective.
43
Investigating supports
Lewin’s field (or situation) is only ever a field of a certain person at a certain time in a certain place. It follows from a field perspec- tive that what is supportive for the person in one situation does not necessarily transport to being supportive in another situation. At a micro level a teacher returning from work may or may not feel supported at the sight of her three-year-old son depending upon the constellation of her field at that moment. If preoccupied with the lesson for the following day’s assessment, she may feel very differently to a situation where she has just had a successful day and school holidays have commenced. At a macro level cer- tain cultures will be more supportive of an embodied way of being whilst others will support a more cognitive way of being. In defining support Lee and Wheeler (1996) asked what kinds of connection/disconnection lead to rich figure formation with the possibilities for increased interconnection within the situation. Experiential exercise
Draw a map of your supports including all types of relationships: interpersonal, hobbies, interests, activities, challenges, withdrawal and any other supports that may apply for you. Now consider in what circumstances each of these potential supports moves into being less supportive or a pressure, for example, the need to keep up with friends may become a burden at times. Then consider what best supports you physically: nourishing healthy food, firm ground to stand upon, furni- ture that is supportive, exercise, sufficient sleep, warmth, a healthy and inspiring environment. Can you build upon your supports?