Field Theory

Reflections on Field Theory
The British Gestalt Journal, 1991, 1, 68-91

by Malcolm Parlett
Commentary: The following is an edited version of a plenary lecture given at the 4th British Gestalt Conference in Nottingham in July 1990. I introduce the basic features and history of field theory and suggest that it provides a foundation for Gestalt therapy theory and practice. Five basic principlesof field theory are explored. I then argue that the models of knowledge and knowing embodied in field theory form part of the emerging epistemology that characterises many new areas of inquiry e.g., holistic medicine and ecology. In the second half of the lecture I apply field theory thinking to a discussion of the Self in Gestalt therapy and to the mutual effects on one another of two (or more)persons relating together. I focus on some new ways to think about the psychotherapy field of therapist and patient and end by discussing the importance of presence.

Introduction
The organiser of this conference, Ken Evans, invited me to talk about field theory, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to review this area. As Gary Yontef has said, field theory is "the least adequatelydiscussed aspect of Gestalt therapy (and) ignorance of (it) seriously distorts the basic conceptual understanding of Gestalt therapy", (Yontef, 1981). I agree with him. My intentions today are, first, to lay out the principles of field theory as I understand them to be from the point of view of a Gestalt therapist. Second, I want to suggest that field theory thinking can be allied to the whole movementin thought which is taking place today, as reflected in, for example, ecology, holistic medicine, and many other alternative approaches which have reacted against the predominant assumptions of conventional science. Third. I will elaborate field theory thinking as it applies to a simple social unit, the two person system, and specifically the relationship between therapist and patient.

Gestalt"Maps"
We all know that "the map is not the territory" and in Gestalt work there are usually various applicable maps which we can refer to, in order to make sense of what we encounter in the territory. Confronted, say, with a young woman struggling to clarify her experience, or to release herself from knots of past confusion, there are alternative ways of characterising or making sense of herexperience and of the encounter. Thus, we may be thinking in terms of the balance between, on the one hand, support and, on the other, challenge or contact. This was a favourite map of Laura Perls. An alternative map, the Gestalt experience cycle, was originally developed at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland (e.g., Zinker 1977) and recently expanded on by Petruska Clarkson (1989) in her welcome anduseful new book. The map used here would make sense of the territory by portraying what is happening in the woman's experience as a sequence of steps in organismic self regulation, as an unfolding gestalt in time. There are many such maps in Gestalt therapy and as abstractions they are all potentially useful. And they can also trap us, if we use them too exclusively or without reference to others.(And of course there is variation in which ones we use at different times. For instance, I noticed that in my work in the weeks leading up to this lecture I have tended to bring into my therapeutic encounters outlooks which derive from field theory.) In talking about field theory I am drawing your attention not to one particular map but to a whole section of the atlas. Arguably this sectionincludes all the maps concerned with how the organism relates to the environment, and thus the needs cycle, organismic self regulation, and the contact boundary and its disturbances could all be depicted in field theory terms. However, the focus here will be the narrower one of drawing your attention to what field theory is and of exploring one particular area of application. My hope is that you will...