In the last article, I explained ‘adjacent possible’ and its application to Relational Gestalt Therapy (RGT). Here I focus on Merleau-Ponty’s concept of ‘embodiment’, its influence on Gestalt Therapy (Jacobs, PGI Residential, 2017) while highlighting its application with a case vignette. In his Phenomenology of Perception (1945), he developed the concept of ‘embodiment’ as an alternative to the Cartesian “cogito ergo sum”. He looked at the body as the primary source of knowing the world and not “cogito”. Merleau-Ponty, the French existential philosopher wrote extensively about the ‘lived’ phenomenological experiences of the individual and the primacy of this. He saw the Cartesian view as immature and argued that it could not illuminate human subjectivity. The human organism is a biological, social, cultural entity and his/her identity is formed in relation with others or his environment.

Cognition, consciousness, this world and the body are mutually engaged, like the game of stone (refer to the previous article on ‘adjacent possible’). The phenomenon is not an object of natural science that can be observed, recorded and generalised but is a product of this mutual engagement and ‘becoming’. It can only be partially understood in dialogue with the individual perceiving the phenomenon. Our body develops an “understanding” about the world that we perceive through our senses. We all possess a body knowledge that cannot be understood by cognitive processes alone. The concept of a mindful body was intended to replace the mind-body dualism proposed by Cartesians. This process is akin to the concept of mindfulness which stems from ancient Hindu philosophy and Buddhism. Our thinking needs to integrate our sensory-perceptual experiences. As therapists, our own therapy helps us to build this awareness, especially if we have been fortunate enough to engage in a journey of ‘reflective awareness’ (reflect on our sensory experiences and get an understanding into our struggles). Moreover, as practitioners of RGT we can help clients to become aware of how to be aware (Yontef, 1993).

Applied to RGT, the client and therapist are in contact and from this, there is an emergence of awareness which is constantly changing and shifting. The minute we believe we have understood the client, assessed the source of the problem and we can move into empirically validated interventions, we tread on the dangerous territory of only using our intellect and negating client’s and our embodied experience. This kind of practice is not RGT, it does not fit into the paradigm stance of working relationally with the client and being attentive to the ‘lived experience’ and ‘dialogue’. Because there would be certain things outside the therapist’s perceptual awareness which affects the client and certain things outside the client’s perceptual awareness which affects the therapist. As therapists, we impact our client and our client has an impact on us. This can be understood only through dialogue. There is no objective dais from which to study the reality, the therapist’s reality is not more objective or privileged than the clients, both realities have some validity (Hycner,2009; Yontef, 2002).

We can try to grasp this emergent phenomenon within the relational context. We engage in exploring the embodied experiences of the client: the process of the client looking at the self, trusting the body, accessing thoughts, feelings, sensations. The therapist also looks at his/her own embodied experiences, trusting what the body communicates. There is a mutual engagement ‘within’ and a mutual engagement ‘without’. Two sources that provide a feasible understanding of clients embodied experience is the ‘lived experience’ and ‘dialogue’. As therapists, we try to understand the client’s feelings, emotions, bodily sensations and awareness in the present ‘here and now’ (Yontef & Schultz, 2016). It is equally important for us to be in tune with our own lived experience during the therapy hour.

I had been seeing Manohar for a few sessions and I remember feeling each time a kind of numbness in my body, acute sleepiness, and an inexplicable feeling of fatigue. As I continued to talk to my consultant, exploring my ‘embodied’ experiences, thoughts about my role as a therapist, feelings of guilt and shame; it struck me that my body was being attentive. Manohar continued to talk very eloquently about his environment, the way people behave and the daily occurrences in his life. In each session, his mind and the external world occupied all his sharing, his work life, what his wife cooked, what his children did. My mind wanted to question, challenge Manohar, ask him ‘why’ he was sharing all this with me in every session. However, my body was clearly communicating with me, as I would drift off into a “dissociated” state, not acting on my cognitive processes. Although I got into a dialogue with my body fairly early in the sessions, it took me an unusual number of sessions to act on my awareness of my ‘embodied’ experience and raise the question, “how do you feel?” “what’s happening to your body as you say this?”.

As sessions progressed I got a better understanding (never complete) into the mind-body disconnect experienced by Manohar. Interestingly, my body and mind were also disconnected during the initial sessions. I learnt after a year into therapy that he had been self-medicating himself for anxiety. While growing up he had no permission to express anger, sadness and anxiety. Accompanied by this was an intense shame about seeking therapy, a strong belief that ‘therapy is for people who are mentally ill’. It took more than two years to get a sketchy picture of the family history, the number of people in the family who suffered from some form of mental illness. I am still working with him and we are still trying to keep the connect with his bodily experiences instead of drifting invariably into the external world. And I have to tune into what my body is communicating to me, which is difficult in this particular therapy hour, at times the experience is like retrieving a kite that has got cut off from its string.

Our body knows, intuitively our body knows, yet somewhere along the way of growing up into this adult world we have stopped giving primacy to our bodily experiences. We tend to stay more often in our cognitions and actions. Keeping ourselves constantly busy with the external world. However, if we can be attentive to our ‘embodied’ experience, it acts as a guide to find meaning both in our professional and personal lives. Not create a duality between mind, body and actions. Instead establish a connection between our bodily sensations, thinking and actions.

Significantly it gives us direction about ours and clients unique ‘adjacent possible’. If staying in our body induces terror then we would have found ways to distance and we can take tiny, minute steps to get back into our body experiences. Trust our body to help us identify what is our ‘adjacent possible’ and trust our clients to identify their adjacent possible.

References

• Hycner, R. (2009). Preamble to a relational Approach: A Plea for Existential Fluidity. L. Jacobs & R. Hycner (eds.). Gestalt Press, CA & Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. NY.
• Jacobs, L. (2017). Personal Communications, Pacific Gestalt Institute Residential Program.
• Yontef, G. (1993). Awareness Dialogue and process: Essays on Gestalt Therapy. Highland, NY, The Gestalt Journal Press. Pp 181-201.
• Yontef, G. (2002). The Relational Attitude in Gestalt Therapy: Theory and Practice. International Gestalt Journal. 25/1.
• Yontef, G. & Schulz, F. (2016). Dialogue and Experiment. British Gestalt Journal, vol.26/No.1, pp9-21.