This is from the online gestalt therapy journal Gestalt!, edited by Philip BrownellI have misplaced the exact date it was published, which was sometime between 2003 and 2007.

STRADDLING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN GESTALT THERAPY AND PSYCHODRAMA

Victor Daniels,
Sonoma State University

ABSTRACT

Two enactive scenarios that can be very useful in specific situations within the context of the Gestalt working process is described, and another more generally useful tool is presented. One specific scenario applies in situations where a person is torn between remaining in a relationship or leaving it, and the other applies where someone important has died, either recently or long ago, and the client is trying to work through feelings and come to closure regarding thoughts and feelings about the death. The third working tool described is the use of additional empty to chairs to represent participants in a situation. Several useful guidelines for doing so are presented.

– – – – – – – – –

It is well known that one of the qualities of the Gestalt process is its enactive character, in which clients do not just talk about their problems or issues but actually act them out, often including a dialogue with another person or between different parts of the self that are in conflict. In some situations, emphasizing the enactive aspect of the work by bringing in just a little more psychodrama, while remaining within the basic Gestalt process and theoretical context can prove quite useful. The general principle that governs when such uses are appropriate is that psychodrama customarily is used with explicitly interpersonal issues, in contrast to those that are largely intrapsychic. Although the principle is not rigid, since in some cases a person may carry a whole interpersonal cast of characters within himself or herself, it’s a useful rule of thumb.

Here we look at two very specific psychodramatic applications, each of them useful in a particular, closely defined context, and at one more general one that represents a shadowy zone in which elements of psychodrama and Gestalt mix and mingle. I’d like to thank Maurica Anderson for showing me the first two techniques long ago.`      The first situation is when a person is torn between remaining with a partner and leaving the relationship. Whether we’re dealing with a relationship of a few months or one of many years, the basic structure of the event is similar: “To go or to stay?” A person may ruminate endlessly, and even carry out a Gestalt dialogue with “the partner” that goes on and on, or a similar dialogue between the part of the self that wants to keep working at the relationship and the part that wants to break it off. When many words have been spoken without a sense of clarity emerging, the following enactment is useful.

In standard psychodramatic style, the person is asked to choose the member of the group who can best represent the partner. That person stands near the center of the room. (At that point there has probably been enough of a dialogue that the role he or she will play is clear, with no further instructions needed.) The client is asked to stand next to the door that leads out of the room.     The facilitator tells the partner something like, “Your job is to try to keep her (or him) from leaving. You can beg, plead, promise, or do anything you wish that’s consistent with the character you’re portraying.”

Then the client is told, “Put one hand on the doorknob. That door leads out of the relationship. Anytime you want to, you’re free to open that door and walk out. On the other hand, you may choose to remain in the room.” Then the two are left to proceed to interact., In some cases, in thirty seconds the client is gone. In others, after five minutes they’re still talking and it’s obvious that he or she is not ready to end the relationship. It’s a simple tool, yet one that often cuts through miles of verbiage to portray a person’s underlying inclination in a crystal-clear manner.

In a one-to-one session with no group, the person can be asked to alternate between the side that’s standing by the door with a hand on the doorknob, and the side that’s saying, “stay in the relationship. I think there’s still hope.” Again, the question is whether the person opens the door and walks out, or stays in the room and keeps talking.

The second situation addressed here is at least equally poignant. Someone important to the client has died, and there is important unfinished business such as unsaid resentments, regrets, or apologies. The first part of the work is a classical Gestalt empty-chair dialogue in which both the client and the Departed say the various things they have to say to one another. If any final hugging or other expressive behavior is to occur, perhaps with the choice of another group member to represent the Departed, that can also occur. The work could end right there, but one useful psychodramatic enactment can lead to a more distinct sense of closure.

If the client has not already done so, he or she is asked to choose someone to represent the Departed. That person is asked to lie down motionless in the center of the room, and the facilitator covers him or her with a coat or jacket or something similar. The client is asked to stand up. “As you now know very well,” he or she is told, “this person is dead and nothing will change that. We are all at the funeral service, and you have been chosen to deliver the Eulogy. You are telling the world about this person, what he or she was like, along with whatever virtues and perhaps faults you wish to mention. This is your final statement.” Then the client delivers the Eulogy.

It’s optional to ask for two more group members to come up and stand by with imaginary shovels as gravediggers. If this is done, after the Eulogy, they shovel imaginary dirt on top of the Departed.

Again, this can be done in an office alone with a client by using pillows or whatever other props are available for the corpse. Covering with a blanket or jacket is a necessary touch. I have found the delivery of the Eulogy to be powerful and valuable.

A third application is the use of extra empty chairs. Often there’s just one more, such as when it’s important to talk to Mom and Pop together. The dialogue may begin with just one of them, and then suddenly it becomes obvious that the other needs to come into the conversation without the first one exiting. Dad was physically, sexually, or emotionally abusive, for example, and after the client talks to him about that until she’s finished for the moment, she makes some passing reference to Mom (one of Erving Polster’s “neon arrows”) that’s a cue to bring Mom in too. There may be resentment that she didn’t provide protection, that she accepted abuse too, or , , , , It may also be valuable to ask the client to carry out a dialogue between Mom and Pop, shuttling between the two empty chairs. Often dynamics emerge that were invisible in the dialogues with each of them individually.

Sometimes there may be many chairs. Mom and Pop, brothers and sisters, Uncle Jake and Grandma Ann—the whole family circus may be involved in a crucial situation. In this case it is useful to ask the client to place each chair at a distance and facing in a direction that accurately represents that person’s role and psychological place in the family. For instance, the chair representing Mom may be closest, that of Dad a little farther away and facing slightly sideways, that of sister Meg right next to the client’s chair, side-by-side, and brother Bob may be across the room with the chair facing the wall. The physical positions of the chairs alone can say volumes about the social and psychological dynamics before a single word is spoken. Then the client is asked to engage in such dialogues as further the direction of the unfolding work

Depending on the situation and the facilitator’s intuition and confidence in his or her ability to guide a full psychodramatic enactment, the client may be asked to choose others from the group to stand in for each participant. The client briefly enacts that person’s role, then the others assume their roles and an enactment ensues. At this point we are all the way into psychodrama, and “doubling” can also be useful, in which a group member comes up and stands behind a participant, articulates what he thinks the participant may be feeling or thinking but not saying, and then sits down again. (In such enactment, group members need to be cautioned in advance to pay attention to the direction in which the work is proceeding and avoid doubling in ways which would move it in a completely different direction, which could confuse the client.)

I use such full enactment infrequently. . . .When it intuitively feels right, however, it usually works perfectly. I think of one session in which a young man’s unfinished business involved childhood schoolyard bullies. Dialogues with the empty chair remained at a highly intellectualized level. I had him choose three men from the group to represent the bullies. When they started taunting and shoving him, he broke through his intimidation into his rage and found the power he had buried for so many years.

When the occasion is just right for one of them, these three enactive tools of the hand-on-the-door, the Eulogy, and the extra chairs can make the difference between a good  session and an outstanding one.

__________