1 1995, The British Gestalt Journal, 4(1), 14-22. Gestalt and Shame: The Foundation for a Clearer Understanding of Field Dynamics Robert G. Lee Abstract. The Gestalt model inherently incorporates an understanding of shame dynamics in its analysis of contact processes. Shame is a field variable, a ground condition modulating the contact boundary, a natural process of retroflection enlisted at times of perceived insufficient support. The shame-support polarity, when functioning optimally, allows the person to be at the edge and to venture beyond old organizations of the field--i.e. to grow. Conversely, with severe or persistent lack of support (e.g., severe or sustained abuse, neglect, or loss), shame becomes internalized and integrated into basic beliefs about the 'self and the possibilities of contact with others. These fixed gestalts (Perls' introjects) which have been learned in a particular field then become blueprints with which to interpret experience and guide behaviour in general, restricting flexibility. Restoring flexibility means facing the shame that holds the fixed gestalts in place. This can only happen in the context of a relationship. One of the chief processes of therapy then becomes supporting awareness of shame in the present field, between therapist and client. Key words: gestalt, Gestalt Therapy, Field theory, shame, support, contact processes, self processes, shame bind, introject, figure and ground. About seven years ago I discovered the work of Tomkins (e.g. 1963) and of Kaufman (e.g. 1980, 1989) on the phenomenon of shame. I was taken with the similarity between what I read and what I had been noticing in my clients. As a result, I became extremely interested in the phenomenon of shame. At that time I did not conceptualize shame as being related to Gestalt theory or therapy. I don't remember exactly when my thinking changed, but as part of the transition, I remember attending a day-long seminar in Boston given by Kaufman five or six years ago. In the first half of the day, Kaufman presented and discussed theory connected with the phenomenon of shame, and in the second half, he conducted an experiential demonstration 2 on the treatment of shame. During the first half of the day, I had the sense of starting to master a new discipline. However, my experience in the second half was completely different. As Kaufman proceeded with his demonstration, I quickly found myself in old, familiar territory. Much of what Kaufman illustrated was very similar to what I was trained to do at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland and to what I had been doing as a Gestalt therapist for many years. With time I noticed more and more that significant portions of Gestalt theory and therapy concerned the phenomenon of shame without mentioning shame by name. Correspondingly, as I became aware of Gestalt theory'3 inherent incorporation of shame dynamics in its treatment of contact processes, I gained a fuller understanding of the nature of shame. Introjects and Shame Binds To begin with, I noticed (Lee, 1994) that what Gestalt theorists refer to as an introject (conceived of by Perls, 1947, and refined by others, e.g., Polster and Polster, 1973) is what Tomkins (1963) and Kaufman (1989) call a shame-bind. From a Gestalt perspective, this is significant because Perls' idea of 'resistance to contact,' which is central to his conception of neurosis, is centered around his construct of'introjects.' All of Perls' basic resistances to contact (introjection, projection, and retroflection) are organized around an introject at their core. Introjects are 'standards, attitudes, ways of acting and thinking, which are not truly ours' (Perls, 1973, p. 35) yet organize our functioning. Thus, introjects are cognitive, affective, and kinesthetic information from the environment that has been 'swallowed whole,' according to Perls, rather than assimilated (i.e. reorganized to be in harmony with one's needs and one's internal and external resources). In order to live in accordance with introjects, one must disown aspects of one's functioning. The cognitive part of introjects are beliefs (for example, 'shoulds' and 'oughts') that hold within them the piece ofthe self that has been disowned. For example, the cognitive part of an introject may take the form of 'I shouldn't be angry' or 'I shouldn't need help when I'm hurt.' In these cases what is disowned, respectively, is one's anger or one's need for nurturance or assistance when hurt. Perls maintains that introjects form because of over control by the environment, i.e., the person is not allowed to. act in accordance with his or her own needs 3 and sense of self. This is very simUar to how Tomkins (1963) and Kaufman (1989) describe shame binds. Shame binds form when a person's feelings, needs, or sense of purpose (i.e., the building blocks of ways of being in the world) are seriously unsupported by the environment, through abuse, neglect, or loss. When the experience of shame is severe enough or chronic enough a linkage forms between shame and the feeling, need, or sense of purpose that is unsupported. Thereafter, whenever the person experiences the given feeling, need, or sense of purpose, he or she will automatically also experience shame. And, in more severe cases, with greater unavailability of support, the person will lose awareness of the feeling, need, or sense of purpose and only experience the shame. This is similar to the consequences of an introject in which the need, etc. is disowned. Comparing their similarity further, both shame binds and introjects are formed in the context of relationships where people rely on others, e.g., parent-child, teacher-student, husband-wife, employer-employee, etc. As Kaufman (1980) says, it is when people care that they are vulnerable to shame. It is in this context, when people have needs that must be met for survival or growth, that they are vulnerable to the threat of abandonment which in tum triggers shame. Expressed in Gestalt terms, Tomkins' and Kaufman's understanding of shame is transformed into the following: shame is a regulator of the boundary between 'self and the social field. (I will discuss this further later.) Under these conditions, when there is an aspect of one's functioning that is disapproved of by significant others, one may experience a threat of abandonment and over time, disown the disapproved aspect of one's functioning through shame, thus 'swallowing' an introject. This allows the person to continue to belong in the needed relationship and to continue to have hope of satisfying those needs that he or she perceives as important for survival or growth. The connection between shame binds and introjects continues as we look further at Perls' theory. Perls et al often refer to habitual resistances to contact as neurotic mechanisms. They state: 'every neurotic mechanism is an interruption of some kind of excitement--a prevention of its further development' (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1951, p. 145). But according to Tomkins (1963), it is shame that regulates excitement. Shame's function is to help the organism 4 pull back from interest-excitement or enjoyment-joy that is perceived to be inappropriate or dangerous. Thus, theoretically, shame is associated with Perls' neurotic mechanisms which in tum have introjects as their basis. As a test of whether or not a relationship exists in fact between introjects and shame, I examined transcripts of Perls' sessions with clients. Ifit is true that Perls' introjects are shame binds, we would expect that as Perls works with client's neurotic mechanisms in sessions, verbal expressions and other signs of shame would appear. These would be associated with client's underlying introjects or with attempts to avoid their associated shame. A reading of the transcripts of Perls' (1973) sessions reveals many such instances. For example, a client who is talking to himself, in the process of re-owning his projection (the projection being that he believes that Perls wants him to 'stretch') states to himself: 'Don, you 're not good enough the way you are so you've got to stretch' (p. 122) (italics added). 'You've got to stretch' is the introject, and 'you're not good enough' is the accompanying shame. Another client says: 'I try to hide my fear' (p. 130) (italics added). The introject here is 'I should not be afraid,' and hiding is an expression of the shame. Another client, in re-owning her power associated with being tall, says to the audience (when Perls suggests that she talk as if she is a giant): 'you might think that's a silly idea. You might laugh at me' (p. 171) (italics added). The introject here is something like 'I should not be powerful.' And imagining that others would think that she was silly and laugh at her, she projects her shame onto others. In another instance, Perls chides a couple for falling into the 'blaming game' (p. 140) (italics added). This is an example ofthe use ofblame (a form of shaming another) to avoid one's own shame. (Lansky, 1980, talks at length about couple's shame cycles that involve blame.) In almost all of the transcripts, Perls presents himself working with a client, and 1 facilitating the impasse , and in each case direct or indirect signs appear that indicate that the client is experiencing shame. While there is much of Perls' theory and practice as a therapist with which I do not agree, some of which I will discuss shortly, this is supportive evidence, both theoretical and practical, that introjects are shame binds. 5 Introjects in the Light of Shame Theory My recognition that introjects are shame binds brought with it a new understanding of the nature of introjects as well as support for the view that Wheeler (1991), among others, has espoused that there are some serious flaws in Perls' theory.