Gestalt Therapy vs. Person-Centerd Approach

Introduction

I intend within this task to investigate and compare the gestalt therapy with the client-centred therapeutic approach, to show the historical development of the Gestalt therapy, and to demonstrate the similarities and differences in the therapeutic methods and goals. I as well intend to analyse the strengths and limitations of both Gestalt therapy and person-centred therapy.Psychotherapy is an area of study in psychology that actually deals with the processes of prevention and treatment of psychological pains and functional incompetence.According to Corey (2009) psychotherapy refers to a mechanism where two people engage and dialogue with a core purpose of changing through therapeutic venture. Klonicki (2002) further explains psychotherapy as a state of being in anassociation with a specially educated person in order todiscuss your psychological problems in an emphatic way toboost an individual’s self-recovery means from his pains and emotional imbalances.

Fashioned by Fritz Perls, gestalt therapy refers to a psychological counselling and therapeutic approach thatemphasises on the client’s awareness vivacity through engaging the clients in several awareness experiments, techniques, empathy and dream work. The gestalt therapy is established on a humanistic analysis of individuals in a holistic approach while, Carl Roger’s person-centred therapy refers to a psychological counselling and therapeutic approach that emphasises on the incomparability of the clients’ experiences and howtheir psychological imbalances can be ended by the use ofother people’s evaluations and experiences, and treating them as if they were their own. Person-centred approach stresses on interactionscharacterised by respect, compassion and non-possessive affection. Even though these approaches have varied ideas on how to treat psychological traumas, it is important to note that they both form the humanistic psychological school of thought.

Gestalt therapy is actually a humanistic therapy established by Fritz Perls, Paul Goodman and Laura Perls towards the end of 1940s. Contrary to the public perception, the roots and origin of this theory can be traced far much beyond the existence of Fritz, Laura and Goodman. This section will give the role of Zeitgeist during the 19th century and the role of the scientists, revolutionalists, philosophers and psychoanalysts during the 20th century in the development of Gestalt theory.Before and during the 20th centurysaw the rise of many scientists had risen and some of their ideas greatly favoured the establishment of the renowned gestalt theory for instance the rapid development of quantum and nuclear physics boosted the drastic revolutionary transformations. This together with the development of medicine played major roles in the establishment of the revolutionarist thoughts that includedMarxism, socialism, expressionism and anarchism.Renowned expressionists like Otto Dix, Van Gogh and many others created new ideas and visions on fantasy, feelings, subjectivity and intuition that later on acted as the major pillars of Gestalt therapy.

Philosophers as early as in the 19th century tried to counter the effects of materialistic thoughts with the German idealism. Marx for instance developed Marxism while, other expressionist philosophers like Friedlander, Moreno and Reinhardplayed an important role in the development of psychoanalysis from the concept of creative indifference and other relevant spiritual sources. Psychoanalysis acted as the backbone of gestalt theory for instance,Perls referred to Friedlander’s philosophy as the Western equivalence to the teachings of Lao-tse. After successful psychoanalytic trainings in Berlin, Frankfurt and Vienna, Laura and FritzPerlsjointly discovered the Gestalt psychology that later on resulted into Gestalt theory.The terminology “gestalt” was formerly derived from a Viennese named Graf von Ehrenfels who described the term as a physical whole established from constructingeverlasting fields Gestalten. Fritz also had the opportunity to work with one medical doctor (neurologist) called Goldstein while at Frankfurt who gave him lectures on Schemer and Heidegger philosophies that played key roles in the inclusion of holism inGestalt therapy. Later, Fritz and Laura Perls would meet with Paul Goodman’s works and ideologies, and hired him to be their co-author on Gestalt therapy since, his ideas and reasoning were(like the Perls’) positive about the Freudian psychoanalytic approaches.These findings were later followed by a close research on more Eastern philosophical ideologies and mysticisms including,Zen-Buddhism, Taoism and many more. Finally, it is important to note that Fritz Perls was also motivated by the fact that numerous reactions within the body were developedas a result of emotional imbalances, and that an individuals’ inner environment can be cosseted by the strengthening of muscles and establishment of body armoury as a result of Wilhelm Reich’s psychoanalytic therapy on him.

Even though both Fritz Perls and Carl Rogers focused on therapist and client interaction, and were products of the conventional psychoanalysis, their therapeutic mechanisms and ideologies largely differed. We will start by an in-depth analysis of the major conflicting areas in their theories. For instance Perl’s Gestalt therapy largely focusedon her and how while, Roger’s client-centred therapy involved the therapist’s unrestrictedaffirmativeconsiderations with the client. Another area of conflict between the two theories was the fact that Carl Rogers proposed that human neuroses results from the negative life experiences of the individual in question while, Fritz Perls’theory holds that neurosis originates from the conflicts of embracing one’s true self.The theories both appreciate the Freudian psychoanalysis ideologies that the clients always possess interactive roles, and they both emphasise on the personal dialogue with clients instead of a therapist’s analysis of client’s free association mechanisms. But, they differ in the sense that in Carl Roger’s person-centred therapy, the therapist should be able to mirror back the entireclient’s statements and problems while giving instant answers and resolutions concerning the client’s predicaments (Moss, 1999). But Perls Fritz’s Gestalt theory emphasises on the client change and growth by emphasising on the client’saccountability and responsibility for their own actions.

In as much as Carl Rogers’stheory emphasises on a person-centred therapy involving a certainty that a personal relationship with clientsthrough emphatic and unadulteratedtherapeutic interventions propels the client’s change and growth, Fritz Perls’ Gestalt therapy intends to change the client in a more ostentatiousand antagonistic manner.Rogers (1970) emphasises on a client-centred therapy that talks about the clients’ past and history as a means of therapeutic healing while, FritzPerls’ Gestalt therapy puts emphasis on the here and how mechanism of psychological healing.In fact, Carl Rogers argues that the therapist should not bother or be doubtful of his client’s actionsor chatter and let the counselling conferences be non-directive and in his book Carl Rogers on Encounter Groups he quotes that, “I tend to accept statements at their face value...and as a therapist... I prefer to be a gullible man; I will believe that my clients are saying the truth and the way it is in them” (Rogers, 1970, pg. 50). This phrase depicted Carl Rogers’ person-centred therapy as a theory that largely depends on dialogue contributing to therapeutic relationships in a positive and productive manner. He adds that the therapist should always be emphatic towards their clients to be able to understand their point of view, and to enable the client to appreciate this fact while, Fritz Perls’ Gestalt therapy do not put much emphasis ona therapist’s ability to give their clients positive feedbacks in attempts of upholding an emphatic relationship with the clients. Instead, he designs his ideologies in a manner that enables therapists to directly confront their clients by posing questions to know the reasons as to why their clients are acting in certain spurious ways to necessitate their change and growth.Generally, the disparities evident between Carl Rogers and Fritz Perls’ therapeutic theories, are as Moss (1999) puts them, largely based on the reasons as to why people gain neuroses for instance, Gestalt therapy appears to be much more self-centred thanthe self confessedRogerian person-centred therapy in the sense that Gestalt therapy emphasises on the clients’ ability to free themselves from societal problems without depending on renewal through societal relationships while, Rogerian (client-centred) therapy emphasises on the unconditional positive regard and obtaining a redemptive relationships. Even though much has been discussed on the differences between the Rogerian and Gestalt therapeutic theories, they as well share some evident similarities in their dealings as discussed here below. Both Tobin (1990) and Kahn (1985) emphasised that Gestalt therapy is similar to other humanistic therapies including self-centred therapy. Gestalt shares basic ideas with the theories of self psychology, inter-subjectivity and psychoanalytic phenomenology for instance, the renowned father of self psychology-Kohut and the greatest intersubjectivists-Stolorow et alargued that human experience is always built onconcepts that are principally accessible to the clients’ experiences (Stolorow& Atwood, 1984; Kohut, 1959). The intersubjectivityideologies adopted by the person-centred therapy by argued in a similar way to Gestalt therapeutic ideologies in that they both pointed to the unconscious mind not being vessel containing numerous impulses but also as a product of interactions of varied thoughts in the human mind. Also, they both emphasised on the emotional advancement as key to the growth of key self-structuresleading to higher capacities of self-regulation by individuals

Also shared with person-centred therapy is the reasoning that personal resistances should not be considered as defences or sabotage plans by the clients against their therapeutic procedure but should be considered as an implication the client’s self-protection and self-striving mechanisms. Finally, both Rogers’ person-centred and Fritz’s Gestalt therapiesthey both seem to establish clinical phenomena through self-experience terms and not through drives and mechanisms. They as well share similar concepts inawareness, contact and organismic experiences

The goals of conducting psychological counselling and psychotherapy are all based on and reflect the human moral, ethical and social values Neumann (1957). In fact Bergum(1957) argues that values determine the concepts of mental health, goals and aims. Given that counselling never guarantees complete treatment, many therapists alludes that the therapist’s values leads to tolerable amounts of conflicts (Ginsburg, 1950). Ginsburg (1950) adds that therapists and analysts must always work withdefinitions making up the emotional, mental and physical conditionthat they always try to enable their clients to establish, and that those definitions shouldreflect the analysts’ self-evident values.However, the conceptual goals of mental health largely vary (Scott, 1958).Lindner (1952) has been categoricallyinstrumental in the formation of therapeutic goals in order to harmonise the therapeutic process while maintaining the client’s internal and external environment leading to a subjective interpretation that has resulted into a number of negativities including, bias evaluation, mass statistical interpretation and adjustments in non-distressing behaviours.The concept of integration has as well been adopted in the psychoanalytic therapy goals where, it stresses on the client’s internal state of mind, rather than his adjustments to particular environments (external environment). It advocates for an individual’s capability of wholesome integration based on internal environment only hence, suggests that however much paranoiacs can be integrated, they can’t by any means be considered mentally healthy. Another therapeutic goal was proposed by Jahoda (1950) and Smith (1950) due to the inadequacies of both integration and adjustment goals. It was named the cognitive adequacy or the perceptual adequacythat was used for testing hence proposed a triple criterion. In fact, in her illustrious book, Jahodaproposes a criterion that integration (self-consistency) is by itself unacceptable and that a mastery of the immediate environment involves free will, choice and other environmental modifications (Jahoda, 1950). Therefore, there is no criterion or a therapeutic goal that is sufficient on its own. Based on this fact, Maslow (1954) in his extensive list outlines numerous therapeutic goals that are characteristically self-actualising in nature. They includedspontaneity, problem-centred rather than ego-centred goals, appreciation freshness, mystic experiences, democratic character structure, discrimination between means and ends, freshness of appreciation, philosophical sense of humour, creativeness, resistance to enculturation and many more goals (Kelmen et al., 1956).

Therapeutic methods are as important as the therapeutic goals in fact, according to the APA code of ethics the two are inseparable (America Psychological Association, 1953) as seen in their quote that, “the psychologist’s ethical standards, goals and his professional techniques are inseparable.”

Both the Gestalt and person-centred therapeutic theories shares the following limitations since, they both carry the psychological equivalence of health warnings. First, they both have restricted focal points of view in that Rogers (1957) poses a unitary diagnosis of all clients’ problems with a general assumption that there is incongruence between personal experiences and self-structure therefore, views six association conditions sufficient in all instances. Freudian psychoanalytical approach comments very little on the specific behaviour development in dealing with daily societal and emotional problems.The second limitation is based on therapist rigidity;this rigidity rises especially from practitioners of the theories since much of their work is based on theoretical interpretations and flaws. This majorly occurs due the fact that both theories largely depends on both the client and therapist’s personal environment and experiences. Third, both the person-centred and Gestalt therapeutic theories supports the client’s status quo which in turn affects the analysis session since the therapist avoid taking into consideration the client’s cultural and socio-environmental factors for instance, racial abuse, poverty, and many more that can also explain the client’s behaviours. These theorists always tend to assume if not ignoring Client’s heterosexuality especially due to the fact that the therapeutic theories never captures this as one of the environmental factors that can change an individual’s way of behaving.Fourth, both theories have a weakness of depowering clients which leads to the therapists focusing majorly on the client’s wrongs rather than his achievements. Such situations always make the psychoanalysts to observe the client’s learnt ineffective actions only as signs of internal conflicts which can at time make the client’s problematic issues even more griever.In fact clients are always unable to maintain their gains after therapeutic sessions when later faced with similar psychological situations. Finally, another limiting factor is the fact that both theories are based on numerous assumptions for instance; the person-centred therapeutic theory has the following assumptions; on the image of the person, on the concepts of psychological health, on the acquisition of psychological disturbances and many more.

Reference

America Psychological Association, 1953, Ethical standards of psychologists, Author Printers Press, Washington, DC.

Atwood, G, &Stolorow, R, 1984, Structures of Subjectivity: Explorations in Psychoanalytic Phenomenology, Analytic Press, Hillsdale, NJ.

Bergum, M, 1957, Values and some technical problems in psychotherapy, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 27: 338-348.

Corey, G, 2009, Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy, 8thedn., Thompson Brooks/Cole Publishers, Belmont, CA.

Ginsburg, SW, 1950, Values of the psychiatrist.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 20: 466-478.

Jahoda, M, 1950, Toward a social psychology of mental health, In, Senn, MJE (eds) Symposium on the healthy personality. Supplement II: Problems of Infancy and childhood, Josiah Macy Foundation Press, New York, USA.

Kahn, E, 1985, Heinz Kohut and Carl Rogers: A timely comparison, American Psychologist, 40(8) 893-904.

Kelman, H, et al, 1956, Goals in therapy: a round table discussion, American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 16: 3-23.

Klonicki, E, 2002, Thinking about therapy? What to expect from “the talking cure,” Writer’s Showcase Press, Lincoln, NE.

Kohut, H, 1959, Introspection, Empathy and Psychoanalysis.Journal, American Psychoanalytic Association. 7: 459-483.

Lindner, R, 1952, Prescription for rebellion, Rhinehart Publishers, New York, USA.

Maslow, AH, 1947, Motivation and personality, Harper Publishing Press, New York, United States.

Rogers, CR, 1957, The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21: 95-104.

Scott, WA, 1958, Research definitions of mental health and illness, Psychologist’s Bull., 55:29-45.

Smith, MB, 1950, Optima of mental health; a general frame of reference, Psychiatry, 13: 503-510.

Stoehr& Taylor, 1994, Here now next: Paul Goodman and the origins of Gestalt Therapy, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Tobin, S, 1990, Self Psychology as A Bridge between Existential-Humanistic Psychology and Psychoanalysis, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(1) 14-63.

Newman, EB, 1957, Public relations-for what,American Psychologist, 12: 509-514.

Bibliography

America Psychological Association, 1953, Ethical standards of psychologists, Author Printers Press, Washington, DC.

Atwood, G, &Stolorow, R, 1984, Structures of Subjectivity: Explorations in Psychoanalytic Phenomenology, Analytic Press, Hillsdale, NJ.

Bergum, M, 1957, Values and some technical problems in psychotherapy, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 27: 338-348.

Corey, G, 2009, Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy, 8thedn., Thompson Brooks/Cole Publishers, Belmont, CA.

Ginsburg, SW, 1950, Values of the psychiatrist.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 20: 466-478.

Goldstein, N, Parloff, MB, &Infund, B, 1957, Communication of therapy values between therapist and schizophrenic patients, Sage, Chicago, Illinois.

Jahoda, M, 1950, Toward a social psychology of mental health, In, Senn, MJE (eds) Symposium on the healthy personality. Supplement II: Problems of Infancy and childhood, Josiah Macy Foundation Press, New York, USA.

Kahn, E, 1985, Heinz Kohut and Carl Rogers: A timely comparison, American Psychologist, 40(8) 893-904.

Kelman, H, et al, 1956, Goals in therapy: a round table discussion, American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 16: 3-23.

Klonicki, E, 2002, Thinking about therapy? What to expect from “the talking cure,” Writer’s Showcase Press, Lincoln, NE.

Kohut, H, 1959, Introspection, Empathy and Psychoanalysis.Journal, American Psychoanalytic Association. 7: 459-483.

Lindner, R, 1952, Prescription for rebellion, Rhinehart Publishers, New York, USA.

Maslow, AH, 1947, Motivation and personality, Harper Publishing Press, New York, United States.

Newman, EB, 1957, Public relations-for what, American Psychologist, 12: 509-514.

Rogers, CR, 1956, A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centred framework, Mimeograph Publishers, Chicago, United States.

Rogers, CR, 1957, The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21: 95-104.

Scott, WA, 1958, Research definitions of mental health and illness, Psychologist’s Bull., 55:29-45.

Smith, MB, 1950, Optima of mental health; a general frame of reference, Psychiatry, 13: 503-510.

Stoehr& Taylor, 1994, Here now next: Paul Goodman and the origins of Gestalt Therapy, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Thorne, FC, 1950, Principles of personality counselling, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Brandon, Vermont.

Tobin, S, 1990, Self Psychology as A Bridge between Existential-Humanistic Psychology and Psychoanalysis, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 30(1) 14-63.