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来，  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。”

 

   一种很激进的个人主义。这也正是格林伯格所甚感他与Perls分歧的地方。在想到这一点时， 我就会想到自体心理学Kohut的三种移情， 这似乎是和我这东方人更加契合的地方。

 

   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。”

 

  关于这段定义， 你能联想起到什么吗？

 

   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: It might help me to understand if you can just tell me a little bit of your background in Gestalt, and then I'll be able to relate.

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：我在政府部门工作，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: Did we meet?

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。

Leslie: So, you had asked me what is this experiential label. And let me give you a sort of anecdotal answer. I went recently to this Gestalt writers' conference, and basically I put the following question to them, "Given that both Client-Centered and Gestalt therapy (and the humanistic therapies in general) have died in academia - I'm trying to revive them under the global title of experiential - and given that psychodynamic has many different sub-schools within it, how would people at this conference feel about being one of the schools under a broader label of experiential?" We had a discussion of that. I had a chapter I'd written, and at the time it was called "Experiential Psychotherapy: The Essence of Client-Centered, Gestalt, and Existential Approaches." In the discussion, people influenced me to call it "Experience-Centered Therapies: Gestalt, Client-Centered, and Existential."
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.

I was always unhappy with the Perlsianism aspect of Gestalt therapy.

Leslie:  你刚才问我“体验”是什么，我先说一件轶事。最近我去参加完形作家会议，问了他们一个问题：“既然在学术界人本治疗和完形治疗（以及所有人本主义取向的疗法）都已消亡，我打算让它们在“体验”的名字下复活；既然心理动力学有许多不同的小学派，那么在座诸位对归属于一个叫“体验派”之大类门派下会有何感受？”我们做了讨论。以前我有本书的一章叫“体验：人本、完形与存在主义治疗法的本质”。讨论之后，他们影响了我，标题改成了“体验中心治疗：完形、人本与存在主义”。

 

是Laura Rice引领我学了完形心理治疗理论。我经常开玩笑说我可能是少数先从理论上学习完形治疗的人之一。我在理论课上读了Perls, Hefferlein, 和Goodman，觉得很有趣。我是通过书籍进入完形治疗的。而后我发现镇上有位叫Harvey Freedman的精神病学家在做完形团体治疗；我就加入了。他在多伦多综合医院带团体，我跟了两三年。

           

我在约克大学也遇到来自Berkeley的人带领的类似的团体。那时我做为咨询心理学家接受训练，也看我自己的来访者。

 

之后Perls选中Harvey Freedman来掌管位于Vancouver岛的加拿大完形学院；Freedman都准备要去的时候，Perls死了。结果Harvey Freedman创立了多伦多完形学院；他留在了那里，我是第一年的训练团体——最早的团体的参与者之一，在那儿受了三年的正规训练。很多人到过那儿，包括Laura Perls还有其他人。这样我接触了完形治疗的西海岸风格；虽然在那儿接受训练，但我一直觉得他们缺少有关关系的理论或任何关于共情和治疗关系的见解。其间我在我大学的训练中从Rogerian的观点中学到了很多；我印象中一个关键事件是我对Harvey说：“你没有考虑关系和团体作用。”他的回答是：“告诉我关系或者团体在哪儿？”这是一种激进的现象学观点，非常以“我”为中心，而绝非以“我们”为中心。这样我总是与他们有一种理念分歧；当时我还非常年轻，试图被认可，但我一直有一种观点：这是完形治疗实践的薄弱处，尽管“我－你”关系被称为完形治疗的基柱之一，却没有真正应用。我一直把这看成重大的理念问题。最后我去了北美的Vancouver，因为在那里谋到一份学院工作，不然我会在多伦多完形学院待下去。

 

我总是对Perls式的完型疗法有种不满。

 

Phil: Which is what to you?

Phil: 你指得是什么？

 

Leslie: Well, I saw it as pathological notions of radical independence. And I was always much more, although it wasn't articulated at that time, interested in a model of relational interdependence.

Leslie: 我指的是病态的彻底独立概念。虽然那时我的想法还未整合成形，但我一直对独立-互持关系模型更有兴趣。

 

Phil: A sort of systems thing?

Phil: 是某种系统的东西吗？

 

 

Leslie: Well, no. I guess it's a difference between self-sufficiency and self-support. I saw a lot of people in Gestalt as trying to be or believing in self-sufficiency.

Leslie: 哦，不。我想自足和自我支持之间有差别。我在完形治疗中看到很多人试图达到或相信可以自足。

 

 

Phil: Sort of independent?

Phil: 是某种独立？

 

 

Leslie: Right, the radical independence. Which is exemplified in the Gestalt prayer. And I believe that we need other people, and that that's actually an important part of being human, and that interdependence, as opposed to independence or dependence, is very important. My connections are a part of who I am and are important in understanding who I am; I can't understand myself without understanding my connections. And I believe that's very much what Buber was saying.

Leslie: 对，彻底的独立。完形祈祷词中可以作为例证。我相信我们需要他人，这是作为人类的一个重要方面。独立互持，不同于独立或依赖，是非常重要的。我与他人的联结属于“我是谁”的一部分，对于理解“我是谁”也很重要；若不了解我的联结，就无法了解我自己。我相信这就是Buber所说的。

 

 

Phil: Would this be compatible with the idea of a constantly forming self?

Phil: 这跟不断形成自我的理念一致吗？

 

Leslie: Yes, absolutely, but so could a radical independence view be a constantly forming self.

Leslie:  当然，不过彻底的独立同样可以认为它也意味着“不断形成的自我”。

Phil: Okay

Phil: 好，我懂了。

 

Leslie: That could be totally self-forming, self-organizing. And part of my view is that we need field support in order to constantly organize. And that what we are organizing is always a synthesis of inner and outer. The self that I'm organizing at the moment is a function of the field. So it's highly compatible with the modern interpretations of Goodman, with Wheeler's and subsequent sort of interpretation, or clarification of Goodman - that the self is forming at the boundary as a function of the field.

Leslie: 那可是绝对的自我形成、自我组织。但我的部分观点是：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。这与Goodman的阐释、后来Wheeler的阐释乃至Goodman的澄清十分一致——在场域作用下， 自我在人际边沿形成。

 

Phil: You're talking about Gestalt Reconsidered?

Phil: 你在说《完形再思考》这本书？

 

体验新版博客