韩岩导读
在这里介绍格林伯格对我来说是再自然不过了。因为他所创造的整合格式塔和以咨客为中心疗法的“以情感为焦点疗法”(Emotionally-focused
Therapy)曾在我心理治疗实践的早期给予了很大的影响。
这里说一些我个人与这一流派相交的经历,也许有助于读者阅读本文。这得从我对格式塔疗法的兴趣谈起。在我上的大学的一个心理咨询课中,我选择了格式塔做我的焦点。我没有选择学院里最占统治地位的认知行为治疗(尽管后来这成了我早期训练中相当主要的一个部分),实在因为对于这大学四年不断的Cognitive over emotion即思想统治一切get enough,就是说烦了。我在想,如果让一个受中国传统教育的知识分子来到这悉尼的大学里学心理学,他一定会大惊失色:“这是在研究人吗?这是在研究 it 啊!”当然这后半句他一定说不出来,那是我明白了西方语言后说出来的。:)
他的惊异是:西方人之分化,将认知从体验整体中分化出来,将研究和实践分化开,将心理学和它的前身的人文学科之分化出来,已达到如此一个登峰造极的程度。这在悉尼的大学心理学系中可以窥一豹而见“现代性”的全身。你无法不叹其精深,但在那时候,我反正是烦了。我被格式塔创始者 Perls 深深吸引的是他的重视“现在和此地”当下整个体验的精神,还有他对精神分析的智力倾向的反叛。Perls 对这种智力倾向的批评在某些方面极为精彩:
他说:这种精神分析,你只是talk about,绕来绕去在表层未接触情感的那个层次绕,不断分析过去造成现在的原因,你走出来吧,直面眼下,一切过去必包含于当下之中,你的一个眼神,一个动作,你-到底-在-做-什-么?(这就是本译文提到的积极实验技术的雏形)。
Perls对精神分析的批评当然并不全面,所谓的解释技术自有其特定的价值,更何况今日之精神分析已经不是那个样了,但是,我想,那个时代的Perls此言无疑是革命性的,不乏为一种对特定西方阶层的过度智力倾向的解毒。还有反正我当时就是被这治疗方式迷住了。
这里头还有一层,它诱发了我历史的记忆,我想到了禅宗的棒喝,当下开悟,时而沉默时而答非所问。。。。。
然而另一个发现对于当时的我也是非常震撼的:Perls当时好象去过日本接触过禅宗,这“当下”强调可能与之有关。但如果你以为这和禅宗所走的是一个方向,那就大错特错了。禅宗也许要让你顿悟的是空性,Perls也罢,格林伯格也罢,却丝毫不贬低人的需要(有性?),恰恰相反,它的技术让你去掉文饰防御直逼你深层的需要。格林伯格的疗法在某些时候会让你努力去实现你的深层需要,而不是缩在恐惧的防御中。这一点,与大量东方的教育区分了开来。
然而并不是Perls的所有东西我当时都觉得对路。最觉歧异的是所谓的格式塔的祈祷词:
“我是我,你是你;我不是生活在这个世界上来实现你的期望,你也不是生活在这世界上来实现我的期望;如果我们相遇,那是好运气,如果不,那也没办法。”
写到这里,大家再读本文,恐怕就不难发现何以格林伯格深深吸引了我。
以上提到的是格式塔和格林伯格疗法的实践部分,在这里还要提到的是,格林伯格创立情感为焦点疗法之后,其理论构建的语言和方式却是接近了学院中认知心理学的概念,如情感基模的概念。这样它就被拉回了学院心理学的主流,有的心理学家刚刚接触情感为焦点疗法甚至会有种感觉:“这不是和认知疗法很象吗?”概念上如此,但操作起来,其实我以为还是两码事。
西方健康系统现在很流行一种说法:叫以证据为基础的疗法(Evident-based therapy),格林伯格的贡献在于它将格式塔和咨客为中心的东西拉进了这一类的疗法。
最后,我想提请诸位注意下本译文中的一段话:
“我们需要场域支持才能不断组织。我们所不断组织的总是内在与外在的综合。某个瞬间我所组织的自我是依赖于场域的。。。。在场域作用下,自我在人际边沿形成。”
最后感谢楚云舒的翻译。本译文是访谈的上部分,还有一个下部分,请诸位静心等待。
Phil: Well, that brings up something. When I've run across your writing,
your work, I keep encountering the term "experiential," and then
sometimes you call it "experiential-process," and I've been curious at
times, really trying to understand Gestalt, I've given myself with a
passion to understanding that, and I come to your work and I say, "Hm.
Is he just using another word for Gestalt, or how does he conceive of
Gestalt. What is this?"
Phil:
这引出了一些东西。我在你的著述和作品中经常看到“体验”这个词,有时候你把它称为“体验-过程”;我曾经对”完形”非常有兴趣, 并试图了解它。
读了你的作品,我就想:“哦,他只不过在用另一个词指代完形吗?他是怎么看待“完形”的?体验指什么?”
Leslie: 告诉我一点你在“完形”方面的背景,这会帮助我理解你提的问题。然后我再回答你。
Phil: Okay. Going way back, during the time you were moving into the
Toronto area, I was in the San Francisco bay area, and I was in the
Navy, working on the psych wards at Oakland Naval Hospital. I was
exposed to Gestalt - they used Gestalt and transactional analysis on the
units there - through some people who were doing training with Fritz
Perls and Jim Simkin down at Esalen, who would bring back what they were
learning and use it on the unit. I was young, and the impact was fairly
significant. After the service, I went on to do other things; I was in
the ministry but always had this experiential, existential flavor to
everything that I did. Several years ago I got out of the ministry and
enrolled in a Psy.D. program. I also started training in Gestalt with
Maya Brand and Carol Swanson. Along with their training, they would
bring in trainers from outside, mostly from Los Angeles, so I've been
exposed to Todd Burley, Bob and Rita Resnick, Jan Ruckert, Lynn Jacobs,
and in the process got involved with AAGT. I went to the conference in
New Orleans, met Iris Fodor...
Phil:好。你迁到多伦多的那段时间,我在旧金山海湾,在海军服役,在奥克兰海军医院的心理病房工作。我在那儿接触到完形疗法——他们用完形治疗和交互作用分析疗法——是一些在Esalen受过Fritz
Perls 和Jim
Simkin训练的人,他们把学到的东西带到医院里应用。那时我很年轻,这对我影响很大。服役之后,我改做其它一些事情:我在政府部门工,但我做的每件事都带有这体验性的、存在主义的风味。几年前我离开公职去读心理学博士,同时开始参加Maya
Brand和Carol Swanson的完形培训。他们的培训经常外请一些培训者,主要从洛杉矶,所以我也接触过Todd Burley,
Bob和Rita Resnick, Jan Ruckert, Lynn
Jacobs,在此期间加入AAGT。我去过新奥尔良开会,在那里遇到Iris Fodor……
Leslie: 我们见过吗?
Phil: We met. We met at her workshop. As far as the theory goes, I
have latched onto Bob Resnick's summary of it where he did that
interview with Malcolm Parlett...The three main components are field,
dialogue, and phenomenology.
Phil: 见过的。在她的工作坊见过。不管理论怎么发展,我还是牢记Bob Resnick会见Malcolm
Parlett时做的总结……完形治疗最主要的三个成分是场域、对话和现象学。
Laura Rice introduced me to Gestalt psychotherapy theoretically. And I
often joke that I'm one of the few people who probably learned about
Gestalt therapy theoretically first. I read Perls, Hefferlein, and
Goodman in a theories class, and I thought this was really interesting.
I read Perls, and then I tried to seek out Gestalt trainers. So I really
was introduced to it through books.
Then I found out there was a person in town by the name of Harvey
Freedman, who was a psychiatrist, and he was running Gestalt therapy
groups. I joined with Harvey Freedman; he worked in the Toronto General
Hospital, and he ran groups, and I went into these groups for two or
three years.
I was also in encounter groups at York University where people were
coming up from Berkeley and doing things like that. I was training
meanwhile as a counseling psychologist, seeing my own clients and so on.
Then Harvey Freedman was picked by Perls to run the Gestalt Institute
of Canada on Vancouver Island. Harvey was getting ready to uproot here
and go out there, and then Fritz died. The fallout of that was that
Harvey Freedman started the Gestalt Institute of Toronto. He stayed
there, and then I was part of the first group, the first-year training
group, and I trained here for three years in a formalized training
program. Different people came in: Laura Perls was one of the people,
and a variety of others. So, I was exposed to a West Coast style of
Gestalt Therapy, and I got my training there, but I always felt that
they lacked a theory of relationship or any kind of view of empathy and
therapeutic relationship. Meanwhile, I was getting a lot of that at my
university training from a Rogerian perspective, and I remember like a
critical thing at one point saying to Harvey, "You know you don't take
the relationship and group process into account," and he said, "Show me
where the relationship or group is." It was sort of a radical,
phenomenological view, which was very "I" centered, and not "We"
centered in any way. And so I always had this sort of theoretical
divergence; I mean I was still very young, and it was all mixed up in my
still trying to be recognized, but I always had this view that somehow
this was a weakness in the practice of Gestalt therapy, and although the
"I-Thou" relationship was said to be one of the legs, it wasn't really
used or practiced in very strong terms. So I always saw it as a strong
theoretical problem. Then I went to Vancouver eventually, because I got
an academic job, otherwise I would have stayed here with the Gestalt
Institute of Toronto.