190

2007 Gestalt Intl Study Center

Living in the 21st Century: A Gestalt Therapists
Search for a New Paradigm
1
K E N E VA N S , F R S A
A B S T R A C T
This article is an attempt to connect some of the basic theoretical assump-
tions of Gestalt theory with the practice of living in the 21st century against
a background of seemingly uncontrollable, violent sectarian/tribal conict.
Gestalt theory is located within a postmodern epistemology whose strengths
are critically explored, as well as the tendency toward a skepticism that can
deteriorate into a nihilistic impotence. A new paradigm of community,
compatible with Gestalt theory, is suggested: You are, therefore, I am.
This new paradigm arguably has been gathering momentum for at least
seventy years. While offering an alternative vision of hope, it also requires
a challenging reection on personal responsibility and a commitment to
community.
Introduction
I
n early September 2006, just after the ceasere in the Lebanon, I traveled to Israel.
The European Association for Gestalt Therapy (hereafter EAGT) had planned a
project in Israel to support dialogue among interested professionals from the J ew-
ish, Israeli Arab, and Palestinian communities. The project was postponed because of
the war but I felt drawn to go anyway. J oanna Hewitt Taylor, Gestalt Course Leader at
1
This article is based on a paper presented to the First Gestalt Conference, Czech
Republic, September 2006.
Ken Evans is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Director of
the Scarborough Psychotherapy Training Institute, President of the
EAGT, and a former Training Standards Ofcer for the United Kingdom
Council for Psychotherapy. He is currently Co-Senior Editor of the
online European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy
(www.europeanresearchjournal.com).
Gestalt Review, 11(3):190-203, 2007
191
the Scarborough Psychotherapy Training Institute, also decided to go to Israel, as did
Daan van Baalen, External Relations Ofcer for EAGT, and Peter Schulthess, Training
Standards Ofcer for EAGT. Four people from The Netherlands and one person from
Germany also decided to make the journey. Nurith Levy, Chair of the Israeli Gestalt
Association, responded with her characteristic enthusiasm and quiet determination and
tried to arrange a gathering of people. With support from her friend Idit and others,
Nurith rented a room at a college of education in Tel Aviv and we waited. Gradually
the room lled with forty peopleJ ew, Israeli Arab, and a Palestinian Arab who had
been in prison for four years.
Some people present thought those of us from Western Europe had come to offer
advice, so we explained that on the contrary, we were here to learn, listen, and engage
in dialogue.
We reected on what Gestalt theory might contribute to the challenge of recon-
ciliation and how the conict in the Middle East might, in turn, affect the evolution
of Gestalt theory and practice. We were inspired by reports of local and courageous
endeavors toward reconciliation between J ew and Arab, to which I shall return later.
The World Outside the Therapy Room
Violent conict is an epidemic for the human species or perhaps an epidemic of the
human species. We appear no further along in constraining the scale and magnitude
of violence, except that nowadays, with our more sophisticated weaponry, we have
learned to commit violence with greater clinical precision and premeditation than ever
before.
The world of the therapy room can no longer ignore the world outside the therapy
room, which impinges directly or indirectly on therapist and client alike. However,
psychotherapy in general has not evolved its theory and practice to address the social,
cultural, and political dimensions of living. We are too preoccupied with the intra-
psychic and attend only to the interpersonal insofar as it relates to the therapistclient
dyad.
Perhaps we feel the task is too overwhelming? However, I believe that if we attend
more closely to the values underpinning psychotherapy theory and critically examine
the philosophical premises on which our theory is based, we might inform and evolve
our methods and practices to take more seriously the wider eld in which we live.
Thus, in addition to our being a psychotherapist with a social conscience, we might
better integrate social awareness and social action into psychotherapy theory and prac-
tice.
Regrettably, psychotherapists rarely appear to reect on or question the philosophi-
cal assumptions underlying their theories, models and approaches (Mace, 1999).
2
The
education and training of psychotherapists need to take more responsibility for this
relative lack of critique. As Downing writes, while some doubts are tolerated by a
training program, challenges to the core assumption of the approach are usually dis-
couraged, dismissed or treated as resistance. A trainee learns rather quickly that there
2
Notable exceptions in Gestalt therapy are Paul Goodman (1959/2002) and Philip Lichtenberg (1996).
KEN EVANS
192
are ways of experiencing, behaving, and verbalizing which receive praise and reward
from the mentors, and those that are greeted with raised eyebrows, silence, or even
rebuke (Downing, 2000, p. 39).
Frank and Frank (1991) suggest that belief is central to an understanding and ap-
plication of any psychotherapeutic approach, but while therapeutic progress requires
sufcient belief in the therapeutic method on the part of both therapist and client, I
agree with Downing that it is dangerous when those beliefs are held as absolute truths
rather than as temporary and open to critique (Downing, 2000). There is also a sense
that when people have invested large amounts of time and money in training in a
particular approach, it may be difcult to critically challenge that allegiance.
Sophie Freud, in a public lecture, criticized her grandfather, Sigmund Freud, to-
gether with Carl J ung as false prophets by encouraging dependency and uncritical
adherence among their disciples (Sophie Freud, 2002).
Such dependency is not conned to classical psychoanalysis. Leaders and teachers
in all schools of psychotherapy, including Gestalt therapy, need to be mindful of what
is being modeled to trainees and take time to critically reect on our own narcissistic
tendencies.
Sophie Freud urged her audience to relate to leaders in the psychotherapy profession
as brothers and sisters rather than fathers and mothers. This attitude of deference
to the parents in the psychotherapy profession is more reminiscent of the age of
antiquity than of 21st-century postmodernity.
So, I shall repeat my premise that Gestalt therapy needs to critically explore its val-
ues and philosophies, to more adequately inform and evolve its practice and respond
to the challenge to pay better attention to the socio-cultural and political dimension
of human existence, especially the challenge of the epidemic of violent conict as a
means of settling disputes. In this paper I hope to make a small contribution to this
challenge.

New Lamps for Old
Without even a general knowledge of the philosophical bases of Gestalt, it is impos-
sible to adequately critique Gestalt theory or the values conveyed in the clinical appli-
cation of Gestalt therapy. It is absurd and dangerous to assume that a Gestalt therapist
can suspend her/his values, which are always implicit and sometime explicit in her/his
behavior and attitudes during the therapy hour.
So what are the philosophical bases of Gestalt therapy? What values do we convey
to our clients, directly or indirectly? In order to fully appreciate contemporary philo-
sophical inuences on Gestalt psychotherapy, it is important to rst understand the
historical context out of which current philosophical ideas have emerged. Someone
once said, Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In the history of Western philosophy, it is possible to distinguish three distinct para-
digms or world viewsClassical, Modern (or Age of Enlightenment), and Postmod-
ern. Kuhn (1962) introduced us to the idea of paradigms, which are a way of looking at
LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
193
ourselves and the world that give meaning to our lives and shape an entire cultural age.
A paradigm shift/change requires new theories and new assumptions that are contrary
to and incompatible with prevailing theories, and that bring about major changes in
what is considered worthy of consideration for inquiry and inclusion in the eld of
study.
I believe there is evidence of a new paradigm which has been emerging somewhat
sporadically and randomly over the past seventy years or so, which is gradually gather-
ing momentum and taking shape, and offering the possibility of a new perspective on
human community. This new paradigm may provide the basis for an effective challenge
to the paradigm of violenceone that believes in resolving a problem by removing the
problem, violently if necessary.
But before proceeding with the new paradigm, let us remind ourselves of where we
have come from: the ground out of which contemporary society has emerged.
The Classical Age culminated in Greece (429-347BCE) with the Platonic notion
that all reality was based on Ideals and Forms which transcended human reason. Truth
was considered universal because it was grounded in universal forms such as beauty,
goodness, justice, and so on. Such forms were metaphysical, and human knowledge
was contingent on the existence of these forms. Within the J ewish and Christian tra-
ditions, this was manifest in the notion of God as creator and everything, including
human beings, were contingent upon God. Faith was a form of knowledge, revealed
knowledge. Truth was universal because it was grounded in an eternal and external
creator: God is, therefore I am.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Modern Age, or Age of Enlightenment, moved
knowledge beyond superstition and religious dogma and instead put its trust in the
power of reason. Observation, calculation, checking results, deducing conclusions,
testing ideas, developing theories were all made possible by new technology such as
the telescope and the prism. In the West, people began to move out of the prison of
dogma and fear of divine punishment. These experimental methods moved perception
and understanding away from a basis in blind faith to one in observed fact. A process
of de-centering the universe began. This was a paradigm shift of immense proportion,
from a theocentric to a ratio-centric way of thinking. The universe was rational and
could be understood by reason. Truth was held as universal because human beings
were rational. Descartes (1596-1650) epitomized this shift from dogma to reason with
his famous statement: I think, therefore I am.
Now, in the so-called postmodern age and after the end of the Great War of 1914
1918 (the war to end all wars), the Second World War, and contemporary weapons of
mass destruction (WMDs), we appear to have lost belief in emancipation and progress
through knowledge, reason, and scientic research (Kvale, 1992). Personal understand-
ing and subjectivity give meaning today while objectivity is viewed with skepticism.
According to Rosen, knowledge and meaning are constructed and reconstructed over
time and within the social matrix. They do not constitute universal and immutable
essences or objective truths existing for all times and cultures (Rosen, 1996, p. 20).
The essential reality of nature is no longer separate and complete in a way allows it
to be examined objectively and from the outside. This is a problem that quantitative
KEN EVANS
194
researchers appear not to have addressed, instead clinging ever more tightly to an illu-
sion of objectivity. Contemporary psychology and medicine are rmly embedded in a
modernist paradigm that rst emerged more than 300 years ago.
The Challenge of Postmodernism
From a 21st century, postmodern perspective, there is no single, universal, privi-
leged, accurate, truthful, and secure way of understanding anything, especially people!
I agree with Loewenthal who writes, Postmodernism blows the whistle on scien-
tic intellectualism as one more form of Victorian morality (Loewenthal, 1996). The
general tone of postmodernism is curious, confused, pluralist, fragmentary, and open-
ended. Tanesini believes that the idea of the postmodern expresses a widespread loss of
faith in big ideals and theories (Tanesini, 1999). Lyotard describes the postmodern as
incredulity toward metanarratives (Lyotard, 1996). In the postmodern age, It is no
longer possible for psychotherapists to intentionally or unintentionally don the mantle
of science through the seemingly scientic nature of their theoretical language, their
therapeutic methods, or the locale of their practice (Downing, 2000, p. 237).
The postmodern constructivist paradigm is based on a relativist ontology (multiple
realities), a subjectivist epistemology (therapist and client co-create meaning), and a
naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodologies (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
The philosophical bases of Gestalt psychotherapy include phenomenology, eld
theory, and holism which are clearly postmodern epistemologies. From the phenom-
enological perspective, human behavior is seen as determined by personal experience
rather than by an external objective reality (Cohen & Manion, 1994). The phenomeno-
logical method of inquiry honors the importance of subjective experience as a valid
source of knowledge. Emphasis is placed on direct experience and engagement, the
most signicant understandings that I have come to I have not achieved from books
or others, but initially, at least, from my direct perceptions observations, and intu-
itions (C. Moustakis, 1994, p. 41). Phenomenology is in turn compatible with eld
theory.
Field theory, according to Lewin (1952), is a way of looking at the total situation,
which has been described as the organized, interconnected, interdependent, interactive
nature of human phenomena (Parlett, 1991). In this context, what the eld produces
is viewed as having intrinsic meaning and value in itself. An experience is intimately
connected with the current eld conditions and cannot be understood in isolation. This
underpins the importance of a sensitivity to the context of the clients life, including
life outside the therapy room. The Gestalt notion of gure and ground is helpful in
discerning on what, out of the totality of experience, to focus attention. At any point
in our experience, certain needs will take priority and become gural while others will
remain in the ground of our experience. Attending to what is gural helps us avoid
being overwhelmed by all that is possible in the ground. In focusing on the totality of
experience at any given moment, eld theory is compatible with holism.
Holism maintains that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. From the
holistic perspective, nothing is deliberately ignored. Observation of the happenings in
LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
195
the external world is made in parallel with observation of ones inner subjective world.
Holistic observation is therefore not simply looking, but rather looking mindfully
and in depth. The holistic process offers active involved observation in all of ones
being, including cognition, sensation, and emotion. One attempts to bring the whole of
oneself to what is gural in the whole of ones engagement with the world. This may
be viewed as the interface between the dialectical-intrapsychic and the dialogical-
interpersonal level of experience in the context of a persons total experience (Hycner,
1991, p. 74).
The epistemological bases of Gestalt psychotherapy outlined above of course are
interrelated and mutually supporting. Together they underpin the theory and method
of Gestalt psychotherapy as well as provide the foundation for the values of Gestalt
psychotherapy. In my opinion, the philosophy, theory, and values of Gestalt psycho-
therapy need to be consistent and explicit so that they can be accessible to critique.
Twenty-rst Century postmodernism, by challenging the foundations of what we
know and how we know what we think we know, demysties the great narrative
of modernism (Gergen, 1992, p. 28). It encourages inquiry and questioning of all
phenomena, and is supportive of the notion of the Gestalt psychotherapist as reexive
practitioner engaged in an ongoing process of inquiry and self-questioning.
Critique of Postmodernism
However, the postmodern paradigm has major problems, for while absolute truth is
neither as absolute nor as true as the modernist paradigm would have us believe, the
opposite polaritythat truth is indistinguishable from opinionmeans that nothing
is real, nothing is true and nothing is important (Holland, 2000, p. 3).
And this sums up the postmodern perspective: Nothing is real, nothing is true, and
nothing (I am) is important.
According to Holland, modern skepticism as expressed, for example, in the writings
of J acques Derida, does not attempt to cultivate a new philosophy of life, but rather to
critique the theories and prejudices of others. But if we take everything apart, then on
what authority do you judge anything? Postmodern philosophy at its worst, presumes
no authority at all except to claim with authority that there are no authorities (Holland,
2000, p. 365). I have considerable sympathy with Holland when he concludes that,
neither the simplicity of grand narratives (modernism) or skepticism (postmodernism)
deal with the complexities, inconsistencies and paradoxes of real life (Holland, 2000,
p. 360).
We need to look elsewhere if we are to nd a means to escape the contemporary
predicament of blind conviction or uncertainty and nihilism. But where might we look,
and how (Lawson, 2001, p. xxxvii)? How can we avoid our assumptions becoming
reied in dogma and at the same time avoid the ultimate impotence of unyielding
skepticism (Downing, 2000)?
Some seek to establish a middle ground between the nihilism of deconstruction
and the navete of modernism, based on pragmatism. For example, Black and Hol-
ford maintain that from a postmodern perspective, what is important is not whether
KEN EVANS
196
something is right or wrong, true or false, but whether it works (Black and Holford,
1999). In a similar vein, Polkinghorne writes, One does not ask if a knowledge claim
is an accurate depiction of the realis it true? One asks, rather, does acting on this
knowledge claim produce successful results? (Polkinghorne, 1992, p. 151). However,
pragmatism is too narrowly focused on the immediate situation. It is a form of situation
ethics that dies the death of a thousand qualications when one attempts to apply it
to other and different situations.
Paradox and Possibility
So, where else shall we look? A potential way through this demise is to consider
the Gestalt notion of viewing polarities from a paradoxical rather than an oppositional
perspective. I agree with Bernstein that there is an intrinsic relationship between ab-
solutism and nihilism in that either polarity, in the extreme, obscures the other and is
liable to become dogmatic (Bernstein, 1992). Perls (Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman,
1951/94) believed that polarities were dialectical, forming two ends of one continuum
(Clarkson & Mackewn, 1993). You cannot have one without the other; for example,
good/bad, right/wrong, structuralism/deconstructionism, absolutism/nihilism: the one
denes the other. So-called opposite characteristics do not contradict each other, but
instead form two sides of the same coin.
In Perlss paradoxical view, when one characteristic is foreground, another polarity
remains present in the background, and it is possible to work with both polarities by
bringing both characteristics into awareness. In this way, one can afrm the validity of
both ends of the polarization. Polarization entails either/or categories that can become
stuck and impervious to change (Kelly, 1955), and into which one classies events or
perceptions (Korb, Gorrell, and Van De Riet, 1989). The polarization of attitudes, feel-
ings, and behaviors tends to make rigid a persons view of self, others, and the world.
Polarization is appealing because it appears to offer certainty and thus security in an
uncertain world; Polarisation of feelings, attitudes and values enable the individual
to establish dening bases for relating to the world (Korb, Gorrell, and Van De Riet,
1989, p. 14). Polarization is a prerequisite for fundamentalism, terrorism, and geno-
cide, for it can mean individuals so strongly identifying with one polarity that they
totally obliterate the other.
A dialectical perspective and attitude toward truth afrms the paradoxical nature
of reality and, as such, is open to exploring the entire continuum between and includ-
ing polarities. Growing and developing the capacity for seeing both sides requires
a capacity for openness, a willingness for vulnerability, and the courage to sit with
ambiguity, uncertainty, and not knowing (Gilbert & Evans, 2000). It involves a radi-
cal extension of Bubers IThou, myself and the single other person, to embrace the
multiple others, the community (Buber, 1923/1996). Such radical extension of I-Thou
dialogue to the wider eld exemplies the postmodern spirit of open enquiry, rather
than the postmodern skepticism that in extremis takes anti-rationalism to absurdity:
Nothing is real, nothing is true, and nothing (I am) is important.
The epistemological bases of Gestalt psychotherapy include the nonlinear multi-
LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
197
causality of eld theory, the illumination of subjective personal experience of phenom-
enology, and the simultaneous exploration of both inner experience and outer engage-
ment with the environment which is fundamental to holism. The dialogical perspective
developed by the existential philosopher Martin Buber is compatible with all these
epistemologies, and adds a further dimension crucial to Gestalt psychotherapy: the
inter-human dimension.
Buber criticized the overemphasis of individual existence at the expense of human
inter-existence. The inter-human focus of Buber incorporates both the I-Thou and I-It
polarities of living and conrms our conviction that a paradoxical perspective toward
polarities best ts the human condition. I-It is necessary for living, said Buber, but at
the same time, without the I-Thou, we do not really live (Buber, 1996)!
A New Paradigm
The paradoxical perspective on polarities, the co-creation of dialogue, and an adher-
ence to a truly interpersonal view of Gestalt psychotherapy offer the possibility of a
new paradigm: You are, therefore I am which, paradoxically, could probably only
emerge in this current period of history which is fast becoming known as the Global
Age.
Bubers emphasis on the I-Thou of relationship leads naturally to a belief in the
co-creation or co-construction of all relationships. The therapeutic relationship is an
interactional event in which both parties participate. With regard to the presence of
the therapist, Staemmler writes, Any attempt to negate subjectivity would mean to
negate ones own subjective humane-ness and thereby to withhold exactly the human
counterpart from the client who s/he urgently needs for her or his personal growth
(Staemmler, 1997, p. 45).
Therapy is therefore not a one-sided relationship in which one party does to the
other while the other is a passive recipient, but rather a constantly evolving co-con-
structed relational process to which client and therapist alike contribute.
The Gestalt perspective on the therapeutic relationship that is exemplied in the
writings of Hycner, J acobs, Staemmler, Wheway, and Yontef, (Hycner, & J acobs, 1995;
Staemmler, 1997; Wheway, 1997; Yontef, 1993) is close to intersubjectivity theory that
emphasizes reciprocal mutual inuence (Storolow & Atwood, 1992, p. 18). It is in
turn similar to contemporary relational psychoanalysis which views the patient-ana-
lyst relationship as continually established and reestablished through ongoing mutual
inuence in which both patient and analyst systematically affect, and are affected by,
each other (Aron, 1999, p. 248).
Stolorow and Atwood succinctly summarize this position: [T]he trajectory of self
experience is shaped at every point in development by the intersubjective system in
which it crystallizes (Storolow and Atwood, 1992, p. 18). They use the term co-de-
termination to describe this reciprocal process in development and in psychotherapy
(Storolow and Atwood, 1992, p. 24).
All three approaches to psychotherapydialogical Gestalt, intersubjectivity, and
relational psychoanalysisstress the mutuality of the therapeutic process, although
KEN EVANS
198
the techniques used, views of transference and countertransference, and manner of
relating vary widely.
It seems characteristic of a new paradigm that its central ideas emerge outside
a single group or school or movement engaging a wider participation across diverse
cultures. You are, therefore, I am is emerging not simply within and across relation-
ally oriented psychotherapies, but throughout the world as we evolve the notion of the
global village.
Arguably, the new paradigm was rst manifest with the failed attempt at a League of
Nations early in the 20th century. It emerged again through Gandhis nonviolent pro-
test, and we see it again with the founding of the United Nations. Though riddled with
human error and frequent political mischief, the United Nations nevertheless reects
the stumbling emergence of the birth of the new paradigm. Examples continue with:
the demolition of the Berlin Wall;
the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa which so far has thwarted
the bloodbath anticipated by many with the ending of Apartheid;
the prolonged ceasere in Northern Ireland that seemed virtually impossible less
than a decade ago;
Live 8 a popular outpouring of You are, therefore, I am with regard to our
brothers and sisters in Africa;
the growth of eco groups and communities that share a respectful attitude toward the
planet that sustains us.
All these are examples of the emergence of the new paradigm which suggests a
growing consciousness of the interconnection and interdependence of all races and
cultures and of our intimate relationship with the natural world around us.
Will this attitude of You are, therefore, I am continue to grow and develop and
ultimately defeat the cynicism, greed, and violence that has been an epidemic in the
modern age? It is to be hoped that humanitys incredible ability to survive and adapt
will make it so.
Certainly we witnessed a remarkable expression of this new paradigm in Israel at
the beginning of September, 2006. There, in the very heart of the storm in which politi-
cal leadership on all sides appears bankrupt, where resolution of the conict appears
hopeless, a new possibility is emerging from the grassroots which could eventually
shake the very foundations of the old paradigm of violence.
Ali, a Palestinian, was at the meeting in Tel Aviv and told us he had spent four years
in an Israeli prison because of his involvement in the Palestinian resistance. Later,
after his brother was shot at an Israeli checkpoint, he had asked himself, How many
J ews do I have to kill in order to get revenge? He has since chosen the way of non-
violence. Nuella was also at the meeting in Tel Aviv. She is the widow of an Israeli air
force pilot shot down in action. She and Ali work together in Israel and in the Palestin-
ian territories, crossing the borders, sharing their stories, often initially having to face
considerable anger and hatred from all sides.
Ali and Nuella are members of a group of about 500 families that was rst estab-
LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
199
lished in 1994 as The Parents Circle by an Israeli father whose 19-year-old son was
kidnapped and killed by Hamas. The Parents Circle is now called The Families Forum.
The Forum works to resolve conict through dialogue and mutual understanding. Be-
cause of the lack of trust or empathy between Palestinians and Israelis, the Forum pres-
ents a different perspective, working to imbue both sides with a sense of tolerance and
reconciliation rather than hatred and revenge. Through courageously sharing personal
and painful stories, each side experiences the pain of the other and thereby undermines
the tendency to polarization. If you can look into the eyes of the another human being
and feel their pain and your own, it is impossible to kill them!
The new paradigm of You are, therefore, I am was summed up succinctly by
Desmond Tutu, speaking in New York in 2004:
Peace is possible when we allow ourselves to be vulnerable. When we dis-
cover the reality that our happiness is bound up in the happiness of the
other. We are bound up together in the bundle of life and no one is free
unless we are all free. The Family Forum have experienced truth through
suffering and loss. They have found there is more that unites us than divides
us, that we are all members of one family [Archbishop Desmond Tutu in a
speech, 2004].
The Scourge of Tribalism
Tribalism dominates the older paradigms. In the long history of the planet, homo
sapiens arrived just a few minutes ago. Only recently our ancestors roamed the jungles
and forests. If they heard a tree branch snap or a strange sound in the grass, then those
who survived were those who immediately considered the probability of danger and
grouped together for protection. We are descendants of the survivors, the paranoid,
and as such we are still genetically and fundamentally paranoid and tribal. A terrorist
bomber in Iraq, Afghanistan, Madrid, London, or at the school at Beslan must polarize
their victims in order to feel no empathy. They dissociate any sense of the other as a
human being. Aerial blanket bombing and guided missile strikes mean the people who
push the button no longer sees a human being, only a target. They are not present to
experience the result of their actions in terms of the devastating impact on the other.
Instead, they deny the reality of their actions by referring to civilian causalities as col-
lateral damage! The Families Forum creates the conditions for seeing and feeling the
other, so that You are, therefore, I am can be realized.
Self AND Other
During the meeting in Tel Aviv, I experienced a deep conviction that the war in Is-
rael and Palestine is not a war over there. Given certain eld conditions, such violent
conict between different tribes, races, religions is possible anywhere in the world.
We will never nd a solution to violence in the world until we nd a solution within
ourselves, until we can truly see and feel the other, every day that we are engaged in
KEN EVANS
200
violence, in one form or another. We need to extend our perception of violence beyond
the physical and include the psychological and emotional violence we create whenever
we lose sight of the other.
Let us consider this within our own profession of psychotherapy. Traditionally,
schools of psychotherapy have tended to exist in relative isolation from each other.
There has been little access to, or interest in, rival theories. Indeed, the proliferation
of different schools of psychotherapy post Freud appears similar to the proliferation
of religious denominations following the breakdown in the monopoly of the Roman
Catholic Church.
Within each psychotherapy denomination, there seems to me a fundamentalist
element that preserves the founding teachings relatively unchanged, holding them as
universally valid for all time, thereby underpinning dogma rather than supporting dia-
logue and critique. Perhaps this is a contributory factor in the proliferation of schools
since a controversial idea may ultimately be forced to nd a new home elsewhere. No
wonder those brave enough to disagree can feel their views are tantamount to heresy
and go underground.
The marginalization of certain schools of psychotherapy is thankfully slowly di-
minishing. However, this is being replaced by restrictive practices among psychiatry,
psychology, and psychotherapy. No one is really fooled when a medical doctor and,
in some cases, a psychologist with little or no training in psychotherapy disqualies a
psychotherapist who has trained for at least four years. This is not about standards. It
is about territory, power, and money and it is a form of violence.
There is also marginalization within schools of psychotherapy as one training group
claims to have higher standards than another, or argues about which is the true Gestalt
or true Integrative approach or true Freudian perspective. There is a common standard
established by the European Association for Psychotherapy (EAP) throughout Europe
for psychotherapy in general and a specic standard for Gestalt therapy established
by the EAGT. All may achieve the standards and some may surpass them, but the
existence of a common standard means there is no excuse for perpetuating the better
than mentality. This is just another manifestation of tribalism in a different guise.
So, while physical violence is epidemic, there are other, more sophisticated ways of
destroying a persons heart and spirit.
Violence is a contamination of conict but peace is never conict-free. Peace does
not mean the absence of conict, but rather the capacity and maturity to sit with and
tolerate the conict that we experience both within and between, when we encounter
difference. Full contact requires the appreciation of difference and not the obliteration
of difference. Even a respect for difference can become polarized and oppressively
politically correct when we ignore the opposite polarity: what we have in common!
The new emerging paradigm, You are, therefore, I am, demands a costly letting go
of our addiction to violence in all its forms, overt and subtle, physical and psychologi-
cal. Instead, it requires a real willingness to live with the conict inherent in tolerating
difference, recognizing what we have in common, holding the other in the I-Thou
attitude.
I want to conclude by emphasizing that we are only now discerning the emergence
LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
201
of the new paradigm. Much work needs to be done to further develop critical reection
of its potential and possibility.
The Human Spirit
The two short passionate statements that follow are published in The Families Fo-
rum information leaet. The rst, from a J ewish parent, and the second, from an Arab
parent, both conrm for me the necessity to commit to the new paradigm, and herald
the hope that is inherent in You are, therefore, I am.
My Son
My youngest son, David, was killed on March 3rd, 2002. There can be no
worse sentence for a mother to write than this. One moment he was there,
a gifted musician, a committed educator. The next, at an isolated roadblock
in the West Bank, David was shot and killed by a Palestinian sniper. The
Families Forum provides me with an answer to the pain and anger I felt
I am consoled only by the thought that my work will somehow prevent one
family, on either side, from facing the horror of losing a son.
- Robi Damelin
My Son
I lost my beloved son, Ghasan, on September 1st, 2003. He was 27 years
old. As Israeli tanks rolled into Nablus that day, Ghasan ran into the street
to warn a group of children to go home and stay safe. He was shot by sol-
diers and died one week later. Nine other members of my family have died
as a result of the conict. My other son, Marwan, who was badly beaten
by soldiers, read about the Families Forum He contacted and joined
because he believes in peace and reconciliation. I too am a member and
the support of other mothers in the group helps ease my pain and brings
me hope.
- Elham Elshoabe
Shalom. Peace to us all.
Ken Evans
[email protected]
R E F E R E N C E S A N D R E S O U R C E S
Aron, L. (1999), The patients experience of the analysts subjectivity. In: Relational
Psychoanlysis, S. A. Mitchell & L. Aron (eds.). Hillsdale, NJ : The Analytic Press,
p. 248.
KEN EVANS
202
Black, T. & Holford, L., eds. (1999), Introducing Qualitative Research: A Distance
Learning Study Guide. Guildford: School of Educational Research, University of
Surrey.
Bernstein, R. J . (1992), The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons Of
Modernity, Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buber, M. (1923, 1996), I and Thou. Trans. J . Kaufmann. New York: Touchstones.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1994), Research Methods in Education (4th edition).
London: Routledge.
Clarkson P. & Mackewn, J . (1993), Fritz Perls. London: Sage.
Damelin, R., My Son: A personal testimony. Available online at:
www.theparentscircle.org.
Denzin, N. K & Lincoln, Y. S., eds. (2000), Introduction: The discipline and practice
of qualitative research. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edition).
Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage.
Downing, J . N. (2000), Between Conviction and Uncertainty. Philosophical
Guidelines for the Practicing Psychotherapist. New York State: University of
New York Press.
Elshoabe, E., My Son: A personal testimony. Available online at:
www.theparentscircle.org.
Frank, J . D. & Frank, J . B. (1991), Persuasion and Healing: A Comparative Study of
Psychotherapy (3rd edition). Baltimore, MD: J ohns Hopkins University Press.
Freud, Sophie (2002), Lecture presented in Stockholm.
Gergen, K. J . (1992), Towards a postmodern psychology. In Psychology and
Postmodernism: Inquiries in Social Construction, S. Kvale (ed.). London: Sage.
Gilbert, M. & Evans, K. (2000), Psychotherapy Supervision: An Integrative
Relational Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Goodman, P. (1959/2002), The Empire City: A Novel of New York City Youth. Black
Sparrow.
Holland, L. A. (2000), Philosophy for Counselling and Psychotherapy. London:
Macmillan Press.
Hycner, R. (1991), Between Person and Person. New York: The Gestalt J ournal Press.
Hycner, R. & J acobs, L. (1995), The Healing Relationship in Gestalt Therapy. New
York: Gestalt J ournal Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: W. W.
Norton & Co.
Korb, M. P., Gorrell, J . & Van De Riet, V. (1989), Gestalt Therapy, Practice and
Theory. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Kvale, S. (1992), Psychology and Modernism. London: Sage.
Lawson, H. (2001), Closure, A Story of Everything. London: Routledge.
Lewin, K. (1952), Field Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock.
LIVING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
203
Lichtenberg, P. (1996), Community and Conuence: Undoing the Clinch of
Oppression. Cleveland: Gestalt Institute of Cleveland Book Series/The Analytic
Press.
Loewenthal, D. (1996), The postmodern counsellor: Some implications for practice,
theory, research and professionalism, Counselling Psychology Quarterly,
8(4)373-81.
Lyotard, J . F. (1996), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Mace, C. (1999), Introduction: Philosophy and Psychotherapy, in Heart and Soul:
The Therapeutic Face of Philosophy, C. Mace (ed.). London: Routledge.
Moustakis, C. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods. London, Sage. p. 41.
Parlett, M. (1991), Reections on eld theory. British Gestalt Journal, 1(2):69-81.
Perls, F, Hefferline, R. & Goodman, P. (1951/94), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and
Growth in the Human Personality. Gestalt Journal Press, New York: Highland.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1992), Postmodern epistemology of practice. In: Psychology
and Postmodernism: Inquiries in Social Construction, S. Kvale (ed.). London:
Sage, p. 151.
Rosen, H. (1996), Meaning-making narratives: Foundations for constructivists
and social constructivist psychotherapies. In: Constructing Realities: Meaning
Making Perspectives for Psychotherapists: Inquiries in Social Construction, H.
Rosen & K. T. Kuehlwein (eds). London: Sage, p. 20.
Staemmler, F. M. (1997), Cultural uncertainty: An attitude for Gestalt. British Gestalt
Journal 6(1):40-48.
Storolow, R. D. & Atwood, G. E. (1992), Contexts of Being. Hillsdale, NJ : The
Analytic Press.
Tanesini, A. (1999), An Introduction to Feminist Epistemologies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wheway, J . (1997), Dialogue and intersubjectivity in the therapeutic relationship.
British Gestalt Journal 6(1):16-28.
Yontef, G. (1993), Awareness, Dialogue and Process. New York: Gestalt J ournal
Press.
KEN EVANS