Psychotherapy

Volume 22/Spring 1985/Number I

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

THE LINEARITY ISSUE AND GESTALT THERAPY'S THEORY

OF EXPERIENTIAL ORGANIZATION
MARVIN L. KAPLAN
University of Windsor

NETTA R. KAPLAN

A correspondence is noted between the

issues of linear assumption that the
founders of Gestalt therapy addressed
and those of concern to theorists and
researchers in several areas of
psychology. Linearity involves
assumptions of 1) the organism as a
stable entity, 2) discrete functions and
structures that exist in time enduring
form, and 3) systematic descriptions of
behavior as corresponding to actual
events. There are conceptual and
methodological issues that are involved
in shifting from a linear to a nonlinear
model. Gestalt therapy is described as
a theory of nonlinear human
functioning in which experiential
processes are continuously maintained
in an organized relationship. The
theory proposes that organizational
self-maintenance involves ongoing,
moment-to-moment regulation of
change processes. The theory's
alternatives to linear assumptions and
its contributions to nonlinear theory are
discussed.

tionistic, as based on structural assumptions, and

as disregarding the holistic nature of human functioning. Similar issues have recently been addressed
by others: in personality theory (Bandura, 1978;
Fiske, 1979; Mischel, 1979), in developmental
psychology (Lemer, 1978; Riegel, 1975), in social
psychology (Buss, 1975) and in systems-oriented
approaches to family therapy (Dell, 1982; Kaplan
& Kaplan, 1982; Keeney, 1979). In each area
there has been criticism of and challenges to established formulations and to the research methods
that appear to be linked to these formulations.
These challenges are based on a number of grounds,
but a central theme concerns how both theoretical
constructs as well as research methods have been
embedded in linear assumptions.
Although similar issues are involved, the direction taken by the Gestaltists was quite different
from that of other critics. The early Gestaltists
(founders of Gestalt therapy, not of Gestalt psychology) translated an organismic orientation into
a working model of human functioning. While
the therapeutic application of the model attracted
a great deal of attention and adherents, its theoretical basis has been relatively neglected. Couched
in terms of experiential processes and related to
how people could be helped to function differently,
Gestalt therapy's theory has not been recognized
as addressing the issues that are of concern to
theorists and researchers who are more focused
on methods of systematic investigation. However,
in venturing to formulate their ideas the Gestaltists
recognized and dealt with a number of the issues
of linearity and nonlinearity. The founders of Gestalt therapy did not clearly articulate a nonlinear
basis for their approach. However, in examining
and clarifying the theory a nonlinear basis is discerned, and we are able to distinguish some formulations that appear to us to contribute to nonlinear
theory. Before examining Gestalt therapy's theory
it will be useful to specify the issues of linearity
that are of concern.

Several issues raised by the founders of Gestalt

therapy can be recognized as recurrent in various
branches of psychology. The early Gestaltists criticized the dominant theories of the day as reduc-

Requests for reprints should be sent to Marvin L. Kaplan,

Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset
Ave., Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada.

Windsor, Ontario

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Marvin L. Kaplan & Netta R. Kaplan

Linearity in Psychological Theory and
Method
Theories of human functioning have been described as falling into two classes, organismic and
mechanistic, each suggesting a different world
view. Organismic theories follow a perspective
in which the "essence of substance is activity"
with activity viewed as holistic and in a continuous
state of transition (Reese & Overton, 1970).
Mechanistic theories, on the other hand, "represent
the universe as a machine composed of discrete
parts"; when forces are applied "the results are
a chain-like sequence of events" (Reese & Overton,
1970). These two models are presumably based
on radically different conceptions, and their
frameworks are assumed to be unassimilable. Adhered to by mechanistic theorists and criticized
from the organismic view, linearity would appear
to be one of the unassimilable issues involved.
However, this is not entirely true. In recent years
the linearity issue has emerged as a concern among
both classes of theorists.
The term linear is derived from the description
of one phenomenon having a unidirectional effect
on another or others as a function of time. As
currently used in theoretical and methodological
critique, unidirectional influence is still the heart
of the matter although the focus of concern has
been extended. Linearity implies that discrete
"things" or forces have an enduring existence and
are capable of acting on or interacting with one
another. A major trend in psychological research
has been to determine the nature of basic attributes
that are assumed to be relatively stable structures
or forces within persons. However, in psychology
as well as in other disciplines linearity has been
challenged as incongruent with how events take
place. A shift toward nonlinearity emphasizes
events as occurring in a relational and contextual
process and goes so far as to question the assumption of the existence of any form of timeenduring entity (Dell, 1982).
This shift in conceptualization poses a number
of difficulties. One is that although simple linear
assumptions of causality are relatively easily recognized (e.g., as in trait theory), generally these
assumptions appear to be more subtle. A related
difficulty is that the research methods employed
carry linear assumptions and inadvertently produce
results that appear to support linear formulations.
Moreover, challenges to linear formulations and
methods have been described as posing a challenge
to psychology's claim to scientific status. These
issues are briefly summarized.

Does Research Provide Evidence of Stable

Structural Elements?
The idea that people have deep and enduring
personality qualities is the basis of much theory
and research. A major trend in research has been
the development of methods that attempt to isolate
and measure the effects of discrete personality
components within people. Although these studies
seldom achieve the kind of results that would
confirm the existence of postulated elements, they
are usually taken as supporting the general hypothesis that such stabilities exist. They are then
assumed to underlie systematic variations in observed functioning. A number of critics have
pointed out that such "stable" effects may come
about as the result of linear assumptions in the
design of the research itself (Fiske, 1979; Petrinovich, 1979; Tyron, 1979). The point is made
that the manner in which controlled research is
designed imposes situational constraints on the
free variation of the functioning of subjects. The
stabilities that emerge in the data may reflect limitations in situational and design factors rather
than determinants inside of a person (Petrinovich,
1979).
How Are Observational Data Related to Actual
Events?
Researchers have been concerned with the criticism that events, cannot be observed in any pure
form but that data emerge through an interaction
between method of observation and the phenomena
being observed. Moreover, there are also issues
with respect to arriving at what is to be observed.
As Fiske (1979) has noted, it is impossible to
specify "what is there" to be observed independent
of a conceptual framework that provides direction
and meaning to observation. The specification of
what is to be observed (and measured) inevitably
imposes a more or less arbitrary observational
template on the phenomena themselves. In addition
to constraints regarding the form and nature of
the data that is to be observed, statistical methods
of treating data usually carry assumptions of linearity. To sum or to accumulate observations that
fit criteria of sameness distorts the recording of
actual events and also assumes that the "same"
observation has the same meaning at different
times. Similarly the concept of central tendency
is a further abstraction of actual events. Statistical
methods, such as ANOVA and regression analyses,
carry assumptions that the effects of enduring entities are being measured (Petrinovich, 1979).
Perhaps the most general and encompassing critique

Gestalt Therapy'' s Theory of Experiential Organization

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

of currently used methods of systematic observation

is that they assume that recorded observations
correspond to actual events and that the abstractions
produced by the statistical treatment of what is
recorded have a correspondence to inferred internal
structures.
Do Formulations of Interactive Processes
Remedy Linear Assumptions?
The linearity issue is manifest in the assumption
that time-enduring entities behave in ways that
affect their environments. This assumption is
embedded in a number of theories of personality
that postulate traits, structure, or some form of
stability that transcends observations of variations
in actual functioning. Members of the interactionist
school among the personality researchers (e.g.,
Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Mischel, 1979) have
attempted to remedy this concern in research designs by systematically varying persons and situations in order to arrive at an appreciation of
mutual or circular influences between person and
environment. However, a residual linear assumption appears to be involved in this effort. Reflected
in the question What is it that is doing the interacting? is the idea that an enduring "something"
is doing the interacting. Buss (1979) notes that
the interactionists appear to have confused the
idea of interactions occurring among preexisting
entities and the idea that phenomena exist (and
change) as they function. The first position reflects
residual linear thinking while the latter position
recognizes a form of mutual reciprocal determinism
in the process of interaction itself.
The Use of Systems Thinking as a Means of
Transcending Linearity
The application of "systems thinking" to observations of mutual causal phenomena in families
is another effort to provide a remedy for linear
assumptions. The family theorists propose that
family functioning is not a matter of interactions
among attributes of individuals but that what happens between persons is to be understood on the
basis of stable recurrent interactional phenomena.
However, here too there are issues of residual
linearity. Such systems concepts as circular feedback loop, homeostasis, steady states, step mechanisms, and "system" itself are efforts to encompass observed events in abstracted descriptive form.
Dell (1982) and Keeney (1979) call attention to
the conceptual difficulty brought about when the
phenomena involved are labeled in process or
systems language. Such descriptions are actually

metaphors of processes rather than processes

themselves (Keeney, 1979). For example, systemsoriented family theorists are likely to use a concept
such as "scapegoating" to represent observations
of a recurrent pattern of behaviors among the
numbers of a family. The term is then assumed
to represent a process that exists in the family
"system" although it is merely a label for a set
of observations. Such labels tend to be taken as
referring to actual aspects or parts of an organization, and they are assumed to exist as enduring
phenomena that act in ways that influence immediate events.
Does a Process Orientation Imply Continuous
Change?
Dialectical formulations of personality suggest
that phenomena exist as they function and that to
function is to change (Buss, 1979; Lerner, 1978).
A number of dialectically oriented developmental
psychology theorists call for revised concepts and
research methods that recognize that a person exists
in contextual relationships that are continually
changing (Lerner, 1978; Riegel & Rosenwald,
1975). However, these theories appear to assume
that changes occur over a span of time and that
they are so gradual (and perhaps discontinuous)
that a person may be assumed to have "substantial
identity and stability over time" (Mischel, 1979,
p. 742). This conception of gradual change and
"effective" stability also appears to carry residuals
of linear thinking. Variations in functioning tend
to be ascribed to fluctuations in the activity of
stable entities. Again, observations of change or
of stability have more to do with the concepts
and modes of observation that are employed than
with actual change processes.
Can a Nonlinear Model Be Scientific?
There are suggestions by many authors that
some form of linearity is required by scientific
method. A nonlinear perspective presumably holds
that everything is active together, that all activity
mutually and simultaneously acts on other activity,
and that change occurs as activity takes place.
This conception raises awkward questions: In a
nonlinear model can systematic observations be
made? If change is continuous, what is to be
observed? If the organism and its environment
are continually changing, what is to be considered
objective reality?
In writing about the problem of circularity that
is involved in moving from objective to subjective
definitions of what is encountered in an interaction

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Marvin L. Kaplan & Netta R. Kaplan

experiment, Block and Block (1981) write, "Thus
we understand the situation from the behavior and
the behavior from the situation" (p. 88). Bowers
(1981) has commented that "the first difficulty is
that identifying the situation with the person's
perception of it brings us perilously close to a
solipsistic position that threatens the very notion
of an objective science of Psychology" (p. 179).
These positions appear to equate scientific methodology with a paradigm that requires events or
data to be formulated in linear sequence. An alternative view suggests that rather than our adherence to this formulation, it is our conceptions
of the linkage which may be required to change
in order to resolve these issues.
The Neglect of Gestalt Therapy's Theoretical
Base
Gestalt therapy is not often accorded the status
of a theory much less that of a comprehensive
theory of human functioning. Generally presented
as an organismically oriented therapeutic approach
that fosters experiential growth, its "principles"
are usually expressed in terms of humanistic values
and as technical guidelines rather than as carefully
reasoned theoretical constructs. Typical descriptions of Gestalt therapy note such aspects as a
focus on "present" experience as "reality," the
development of a spontaneous and genuine relationship between therapist and client as the only
valid basis for recognizing immediate experience,
and on the client as discovering how he or she is
responsible for moment-to-moment experiencing.
It appears that such descriptions present Gestalt
therapy as an orientation and a methodology for
working with people in a treatment context rather
than as a theoretical framework. However, there
is more than the relatively atheoretical orientation
of those who have provided popular descriptions
of Gestalt therapy involved in the neglect of its
theory. There may be something about how the
theory was originally formulated and presented,
and perhaps something about the nature of the
theory itself that poses difficulties.
The primary reference for Gestalt theory is
Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the
Human Personality, written by Fritz Perls, Ralph
Hefferline, and Paul Goodman, with contributions
by Laura Perls; published in 1951 (PHG). Much
of the material in this book develops a new framework (and a method of working within it) but the
framework itself seems not to have been clearly
specified. That Gestalt therapy is unique and in-

volves radical ideas seems both clear and unclear

in this work. The authors presented their ideas
largely in term of counter-points to their understanding of the reductionistic and structural biases
in both Behaviorism and Psychoanalysis. Their
ideas tend to be phrased in commonsense and
phenomenological descriptions of human functioning as well as supportive material from related
areas (e.g., Existentialism, Biology). The Gestaltists offer, for example, the ideas that functioning is "unitary" and that a conception of a mindbody duality is in error. They point out the basis
of this thinking in terms of a process orientation:
functioning exists as activity and activity exists
in relational organized context. Although the reader
is helped to appreciate the validity of this conception, there is little work on central unifying
principles. The concept of configurational organization adapted from Gestalt psychology is utilized
and so is the notion of "holistic" functioning, but
these two constructs are not brought together. If
the reader grasps the authors' basic approach,
they seem to be writing quite clearly in terms of
a unitary framework; if the reader does not see
the "whole," it is not readily apparent.
Although they repeatedly refer to their approach
as different from the "older psychologies," many
readers are indeed likely to recognize what is
presented as shared in other theories and to assume
that what is offered is a kind of amalgam rather
than a new whole. The authors are sensitive to
the uniqueness and clarity of their offering when
they say:
We are not benevolently eclectic; none of the disciplines mentioned have been swallowed wholesale and artificially synthesized. They have been critically examined and organized
into a new whole, a cohesive theory (PHG, p. iii).

In the following, we wish to show that nonlinearity is the unrecognized core of Gestalt therapy
theory. This recognition of the nonlinear basis of
the theory will provide some help in explaining
the difficulty that the founders of Gestalt therapy
had in developing a clear formulation.
In articulating a theory of nonlinear functioning
some difficulties are to be expected. It is difficult
to arrive at a "proper" descriptive sequence of
the concepts involved in a nonlinear formulation
since each concept is assumed to be embedded in
all of the others. For example, an important idea
in Gestalt therapy is that every aspect of a person's
immediate functioning is simultaneously as aspect
of the whole. Thus a person may be described as
relating to his or his environment, but these re-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Gestalt Therapy's Theory of Experiential Organization

lational "events" are described as the same processes that constitute the person's "sense of self."
This is likely to be difficult to grasp since we are
accustomed to linear conceptualization in which
apparently discrete functions are assumed to be
related to separate structures. We structure our
observations and our conceptual understandings
accordingly and we require points of reference
with which to see "nonlinearity" through "linear"
eyes. Language itself is linear; we are required
to describe in words events that are occurring at
a given instant in a complex and unique form and
simultaneously changing as they occur.
In describing the theory of Gestalt therapy, our
emphasis is on what we see as its essential nonlinear
basis. We bypass issues which we consider unrelated or tangential. Our goal is to describe the
approach in a way that will facilitate the nonlinear
"whole" to emerge with optimum clarity.
Gestalt Therapy's Theory
The Organism Is Active
The founders of Gestalt therapy pointed out
that a distorted conception of human functioning
results when the person is viewed as a passive
and mechanistic entity. Psychology's efforts to
objectify the study of human functioning were
said to have created mechanistic formulations of
people as passively awaiting arousal and as being
controlled by forces or "things" from within and/
or from without. Efforts to categorize behavior
were viewed by the Gestaltists as arbitrarily fragmenting what is actually occurring and as inevitably
producing a distorted view of actual functioning.
They offered a conception of the organism as
ongoing and active, a conception that allows an
appreciation of functioning processes that occur
"in the present." They "reframed" inferences regarding past and future in language that describes
these processes as "present" phenomena:
Remembering and anticipating are actual, but when they occur,
they occur in the present. What you remember will be something
seen and heard in the past, but its recepture or review is in
the present. What you anticipate will be something which, if
it happens, will happen at some time in the future, but such
fore-seeing is the present seeing of a picture which you here
and now construct and label "future" (PHG, p. 32, italics in
original).

If human functioning is "whatever is happening

now," we might conjure up images of random
activity and lack of organization, but this is obviously not the case. People function in a cohesive
and integral fashion and they "experience" them-

selves as stable and continuous so that they are

led to linear assumptions of enduring inner properties that are "making them" function. However,
the Gestaltists proposed that the experience of
"stability" occurs as the person functions as an
organization and coherence creating unity. As
we will note below this proposition is consistent
with a number of other ideas, particularly how
processes are assumed to exist, how the organism
relates to its environment, and how change processes are understood.
Functional Unity of Processes
Before turning to the Gestalt therapy conception
of how ongoing processes of functioning are organized, it is helpful to clarify the theory's view
of process. The Gestaltists say that what is occurring
are always processes in action. The organism does
not build up special elements of functioning or
structures that "store up" residuals of earlier activity
that are called into use. The Gestalt conception
is that whatever is happening at a given moment
is a unitary relationship involving whatever is
currently active. This formulation indicates that
as activity occurs it involves an "integration" of
whatever is occurring. But even the word "integration" implies "bringing together" of discrete
parts. A more accurate phrasing would be that
activity is integral as it occurs. An illustration of
integral processing offered in PHG is of a person
who is thirstythe experience of thirst and the
attractiveness of drink are not discrete events but
are given in one another (PHG, p. 252). We can,
however, create an experience of apparently discrete components when we focus our attention on
one or another aspect of a "normally" whole experience. For example, in recognizing a colored
object, a person normally perceives the unitary
"gestalt," but depending on his or her focus, the
color (or the form, or some other attribute) can
be "figural" while other aspects are "ground"
(PHG, p. 56). In this way we create an experience
of discrete attributes as a function of how we go
about organizing the experience.
Organizational Processes
This line of thinking regarding the functional
unity of processes is also a means of appreciating
the holistic nature of organismic functioning. If
what is occurring are integral processes in relationship to one another, an integral whole exists;
the various "processes" are actually one process.
The term "in relationship to one another" is a

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Mary in L. Kaplan & Netta R. Kaplan

technically inaccurate phrasing; what is active at
a given moment is an integral whole. However,
the Gestaltists' inclusion of all aspects in functioning also means that the whole is experiential.
That is, the what of functioningmeaning and
affectand the howsensory-motor activity
are all the same process. To illustrate this point,
if someone is reading, all of his or her current
activity is the experiential whole. Included are
the "meaning" of what is being read, "attitudes"
toward the material, how the person is attending
including eye movements, comfort, sitting position,
breathing, etc. All of this current activity is occurring as an organized functional unity that is
experiential in nature.
This unitary functioning is organized in a differentiated manner, that is, as a configurational
process. The early Gestalt therapists adapted this
configurational idea from the Gestalt psychologists
who had developed the formulation that the organism related to its environment in terms of how
the environment was perceptually organized. This
process is an expression of the relationship of
organism to environment and it is organized as a
configurational process. The Gestalt therapists
added two aspects to this formulation. First, they
extended this peripherally oriented perspective to
include the immediate functioning of the whole
person as integral with the process of configuration,
and second, they directed attention to how the
person is involved in continuous moment-to-moment processes of configuration creating (PHG,
pp. 237-238). The configurational process involves
a figural focus of attention in relationship to a
background which includes all of the activity not
in the figural focus. In the illustration given above,
the person who is "reading" may focus attention
on the content of what he or she is reading, and
this focus is the current figure. If the person is
actually feeling fatigue and is "forcing" himself
or herself to continue reading, the figure now is
this activity. This focus has less clarity and sharpness and the person's "experience" is correspondingly more "diffuse" or complex.
Nonlinear Processes of Organization and the
Linear Figure
A person is continuously engaged in such configuration creating. In this process the figure of
configuration is what is "recognized" and in fact
corresponds to how attention is being directed.
We can speak of figures as the "products" of
organization of experience processes and these

10

products are linear constructs. That is, they are

"experienced" as real and as "things." Thus, a
person creates, attends to, and "experiences" his
or her own figural creations or what the Gestaltists
refer to as "normal linear illusions" (PHG, pp.
243, 263).
We can compare these configurational organizations of experience with assumptions of how
perceptual processes are organized. Just as in theories of perceptual organization people are described as creating perceptual constancies that are
then "experienced" as objective phenomena, so
in the broader area of whole experiential functioning, the organism is viewed as creating abstractions of experience or experiential constancies
(PHG, p. 266). For example, a man who may be
described as organizing himself as "inadequate"
and simultaneously as experiencing another person
as "overpowering," is not likely to recognize these
figural constructions as his own creations but rather
as phenomena which exist: he is an inadequate
person; the other is overpowering.
This conception of how experiential constancies
are created clarifies how we go about making
assumptions about our own functioning and structure. For example, a person who is "absorbed in
thought" may be described as currently focusing
attention on his or her thoughts. "Thoughts" are
now "figural" and the person "experiences" his
or her "mind" as an experiential constancy, that
is as a discrete entity. The Gestaltists point out
that in our usual functioning we are continually
creating such figural entities along lines of familiarity and assumed constancy (PHG, p. 117).
As we "experience" the constancies that we create
we assume that they actually exist in enduring
form, and we deal with ourselves and with our
environments in terms of these linear "illusions."
The Contact Process
As a person exists as a continuously changing
unitary configuration, this process of the whole
is also in continual relationship to its constantly
changing environment. This relationship between
the ongoing organization and its environment is
expressed by the Gestaltists in terms of the process
of "contact":
You and your environment are not independent entities, but
together you constitute a functioning, mutually influencing,
total system. Without your environment you, your feelings,
thoughts, tendencies to action would not organize, concentrate
and have direction; on the other hand, without you as a living,
differentiated organization of awareness, your environment

Gestalt Therapy's Theory of Experiential Organization

cess refers to "boundary" processes between figure
and ground. Again a comparison to visual perception is helpful. A perceiver appreciates that
more exists in the visual field than that which at
the moment is organized as figural but as he or
In an oversimplified way we can describe the
she maintains a configurational focus the figure
contact process as the way in which the organism
remains stable. Sometimes this stability is more
engages the environment and simultaneously it is
easly maintained and sometimes there is less stathe locus of how the organism is changing. Howbility. Rather than assume that the property of
ever, in order to describe this critical aspect of
stability resides in what is perceived, the Gestaltists
functioning more clearly it is necessary to slice
view stability maintenance (and change) as ocup this nonlinear formulation and examine it from
curring via processes by which we are regulating
several vantage points.
our organizational focus (PHG, p. 108). As we
1. Concrete processes. From one perspective
maintain this "configuration" we are maintaining
the contact process is the unique, concrete character
a boundary between what is in focus and "other"
of what is happening at any given moment. This
processes that exist as background. Change occurs
is the "here and now" concrete focus of the Geas a process of organizational modification but
staltists. They avoid categorizing or labeling prowithin limits that maintain organizational (and
cesses as abstractions or inferred structures. For
experiential) continuity. As may have become clear,
example, in a specific context a person "assumes"
Gestalt therapy theory proposes that configuration
that another has a certain characteristic. The process
forming processes simultaneously serve experof "projection" is presumably involved but rather
iential stability maintaining functions. This point
than labeling a person as a projector, a "noun"
is further developed in terms of self-regulatory
label connoting a stable and enduring personality,
processes.
these events would instead be viewed in terms of
the actual activity and hence referred to as "pro4. Self-regulation and awareness. While we
jecting." However, even this phrasing suggests
are always partly aware of our ongoing experience,
an abstract quality. What is actually occurring as
our attention is not generally on how we are functhe person is organizing his or her experience is
tioning but on our figural creations which are
a unique configuration that exists as it functions.
experienced as constanciesas linear phenomena.
To classify what occurs has a distorting effect.
We can, however, shift our attention from these
experiential constancies to our ongoing processes.
2. Locus of change. The change aspect of the
As we do this we are shifting attention from a
contact process can be described most easily by
focus on what is relatively linear to what is relatively
comparing this experiential phenomena with visual
nonlinear and, in Gestalt terms, we are becoming
perception. In vision we "create" a visual conmore aware (PHG, p. 266). Awareness, then, is
figuration which has a focus and a background.
attention directed toward the currently active,
As we scan or refocus we always move from the
nonlinear processes of functioning, that is, on the
organizational base of our current perceptual orconcrete ongoing organizational processes.
ganization to an engagement of what is new or
different, the creation of the next emerging con5. Contact with the actual. The Gestaltists disfiguration. Thus the process proceeds from ongoing miss distinctions between artificial and real, and
to emerging organizational process and in this
between subjective and objective. They say that
"flow" an "experience" of visual continuity is
the perception of "reality" is an illusion that is
created. This same process of configurational flow
created as we imagine that the figural experiences
is proposed for the whole of experiential functioning
(experiential constancies) that we create actually
providing the basis of a person's sense of continuity
exist. What a person can experience, according
as an experiencing self. Functioning is organized
to this formulation, is the actual, defined as what
configurationally from a baseline of what exists
is concretely happening, and what is happening
experientially at each moment. Thus a person's
are the person's immediate efforts at engagement
functioning is actually a continuity of organizational
of the environment (PHG, p. 85). The term "conprocesses, a continuity of configurational foci and
tact process" is used to describe the quality of
a continuity of experiential wholeness.
these engagement activities along a dimension
3. Relationship betweenfigureand ground. From from relatively direct focus on the actual (the
"contact" pole of the dimension) to relatively
a somewhat different perspective the contact pro-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

would be, for you, non-existent. Your sense of the unitary

interfunctioning of you and your environment is contact, and
the process of contacting is the forming and sharpening of
the figure-ground contrast (PHG, p. 73).

11

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Marvin L. Kaplan & Netta R. Kaplan

direct focus on the linear figural constancies that
are created (the "confluence" pole) (PHG, p. 118).
6. Contact processes and the regulation of
change. The person is continually creating a figural
focus, and this process is simultaneously the basis
of his or her experience of continuity. However,
when a person shifts attention toward the "actual,"
the immediate concrete processes of functioning,
he or she is to some degree "releasing" figural
organization based on linear formulations. In this
shift to "contactual" functioning the person creates
a figural organization focused on functioning and
simultaneously "allows" himself or herself to
recognize new organizational possibilities. For
example, when someone who has "labeled" another person becomes aware that he or she is
"labeling," he or she opens the way for discovering
more of how the other can be experienced. This
is the familiar Gestalt concept of "growth"; it is
a process of release of self from familiar "linear"
bases of organization maintenance and involves
a corresponding change in focus to "discovering"
ongoing processes.
7. The self. The contact-confluent dimension
also refers to how a person "experiences" himself
or herself. However, the use of subject-object
language in the last sentence involves a linear
error. Rather than propose an "experiencer" apart
from experience (a linear construct), the Gestaltists
propose that the "self" is integral with what is
occurring at any moment: the self is the "system
of contact at any moment" {PHG, p. 235). The
experience of self is the process of creating figureground relations: "It is the organism as a whole
in contact with the environment that is aware,
manipulates, and feels" {PHG, p. 374).
The Gestaltists address the issues of experiential
coherence and continuity by saying that self-experience is the same process as "how functioning
is occurring." The "experience" of self as continuous involves how functioning is continually
changing yet being regulated and maintained as
organized. Thus descriptions of experiences of
self as "fragmented," "confused," "at one with
oneself," etc., correspond to how processes of
self-regulation are actually occurring.
8. Relationship to the environment. While the
Gestalt framework has been developed in terms
of how functioning is organized on an individual
basis, it is also clearly a perspective of person in
context:
The individual is inevitably at every moment a part of some
field. His behavior is a function of the total field which includes

12

both him and his environment. The nature of the relationship

between him and his environment determines the human being's
behavior. . . . The environment does not create the individual
nor does the individual create the environment. . . . The environment and the organism stand in a relationship of mutuality
to one another. . . . More specifically it is the activity of
relationship to the environment that constitutes the organism's
experience of self in relationship to non-self (Perls, 1973, pp.
16-17).

These quotes bring together a number of specifics

regarding the relationship between self and environment. One aspect that emerges is that the
relationships between self and environment are
relationships of processes rather than of entities.
Although we might assume that one's physical
being and one's experiential unity would occupy
the same boundaries, this is a linear conception.
As we have noted, a "self" exists as processes
or organizational maintenance actively function.
Thus, in a Gestalt perspective, a self is not a
physical entity, and the relationship of self to
environment is not one of contact at a skin or
sensory boundary. The Gestaltists propose that
the environment of experiential organization also
includes the body. The contact process refers to
relationships between an existing experiential organization and its environment, and the physical
organism is part of this environment {PHG, pp.
85, 179, 259). These self-and-environment relationships involve events both inside as well as
outside of the skin {PHG, p. 230).
Contributions of Gestalt Therapy's Theory
to a Nonlinear Paradigm
Rather than finding that the founders of Gestalt
therapy made a number of criticisms of linear
thinking and offered a number of interesting alternative ideas, our observation is that they arrived
at a comprehensive reformulation of human functioning within a nonlinear framework. The implications of nonlinear conceptualization are that
a) everything is happening at once, b) that all
processes are in simultaneous mutual relationships,
and c) that functioning changes as it occurs. While
these implications may conjure up assumptions
of randomness and confusion, a radical shift in
conceptualization brings these ideas together in a
theory of nonlinear experiential organization.
It is understandable that Gestalt therapy's nonlinear base had not been clearly recognized. In
formulating their ideas the founders of Gestalt
therapy appear not to have had the kind of intellectual exchange and social support that were
needed to articulate their thinking in the language

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Gestalt Therapy's Theory of Experiential Organization

of nonlinearity. There seems to have been a gap
between their "sense" of their paradigm and how
they were able to articulate it. This gap appears
to us to help account for the manner in which
Gestalt therapy has been received. Attention has
been directed mainly to Gestalt therapy's premises
and technique of working directly with people in
a therapeutic context. There has been much less
attention directed to Gestalt's theory of organizational functioning. Gestalt's theoretical basis,
however, has several important concepts that bear
on nonlinear theory.
1. The nature of organismic functioning. The
mere labeling of human functioning in presumably
nonlinear terms (e.g., mutual interaction, configuration, field) does not by itself create a nonlinear
formulation. Such constructs can be utilized in a
linear model if the ideas imply enduring phenomena
in a closed or homeostatic manner. What is required
in a nonlinear perspective is recognition of ongoing
processes and their relationships. What distinguishes Gestalt therapy as a nonlinear formulation
is that it describes the functioning of people as
consisting of ongoing organization making and
change regulating processes.
2. The process focus. Rather than viewing people
as producing behavioral events, a linear notion
imnplying that the person functions as a static,
enduring entity that "generates" behavior, the
Gestaltists presented a formulation of ongoing organizational processes in which "behavior" is
embedded. What is to be observed are phenomena
that exist as ongoing holistic organizational processes. This formulation "reframes" behavior from
"thing" to processes embedded in unitary functioning. What the Gestaltists have done is to integrate time concretely into descriptions of functioning. Functioning is ongoing, continuous, and
changing at each moment and organizational continuity is maintained as change is regulated.
This formulation opens the way for systematic
observations that are oriented toward recognizing
how change processes function. As noted earlier
these change processes are the heart of applied
Gestalt therapy, and attention has been directed
primarily to how a person "creatively" engages
arousal at the experiential "edge," the boundary
between what exists at one moment and how what
exists is being changed. The Gestalt perspective
includes a dimension of experiential stability. This
dimension or continuum assumes a polar relationship between two qualities of stability maintenance. At one end experiential stability is based

on the maintenance of linear abstractions of experience (confluence), and at the other on configurational focus on actual processes of functioning
(contact). The Gestaltists have characterized the
nature of functioning along this dimension in terms
of various aspects of a person's ongoing experiential
processes. Included are phenomena such as locus
of attention, "present centeredness," degree of
recognition of the "actual," and the quality of
self-experience. The Gestaltists' description of
these processes infers that changes that can be
observed in these processes reflect ongoing holistic
organizational processes.
3. Changes in functioning are organizational.
The experiential boundary view indicates that ongoing experiential continuity is maintained by the
regulation of change processes. This perspective
opens the way for recognizing what is usually
referred to as behavioral change as configurational
reorganization (PHG, p. 112). The Gestaltists
present human functioning as generally stabilized
in terms of nonlinear configurational processes
which are "anchored" in linear conceptualization.
However, a person may shift the basis of ongoing
stability maintenance to a relatively nonlinear focus,
that is toward a focus on actual concrete processes.
When configurational processes are "anchored"
relatively more in these processes, the person
functions and experiences himself or herself as
relatively more self-responsible and as relatively
more able to choose how functioning will occur.
For example, when a person engages in what
is termed "self-disclosure," this behavior is often
taken as a significant emotional as well as behavioral step of how the person is allowing himself
or herself to function. Rather than merely viewing
this change as "behaving differently," "allowing
new depths to be reached," or becoming more
"trusting," each of these aspects may be viewed
as embedded in how the person is engaged in a
holistic experiential reorganization. Such reorganizational processes may occur as a shift from
one form of stability maintenance to another. When
such reorganization occurs an intermediary phase
may be assumed in which the person "releases"
his or her experiential anchorage in a currently
focal configuration. This intermediary phase presumably involves a form of temporary destabilization of organization-maintaining processes and
involves experiences of uncertainty and risk related
to temporary loss of a sense of experiential stability.
Viewing such phenomena as ongoing organizational processes permits an appreciation of how

13

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Marvin L. Kaplan & Netta R. Kaplan

people shift the whole of their orgnizational functioning as they "behave" differently. To engage
in functioning that may require a radical shift can
be viewed as a process of "discovering" how to
organize oneself in an unfamiliar way, a process
that involves an experience of uncertainty and
risk. This same organizational perspective permits
an appreciation of how people can experience
themselves as "enmeshed" in their ongoing
"selves" even while they "know" that they do
not always function and experience themselves
as they do at the moment.
4. Organizational relationship to the environment. Since they have formulated the person as
creating his or her own organization of "what
is," it is interesting to discover how the Gestaltists
deal with the issue of mutuality in relationships.
The Gestalt formulation of individual functioning
carries a self-referential concept: each person experiences his or her environment from within his
or her immediate organization of experience (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). The same idea of selfreferential functioning has been used in contemporary
systems thinking to account for a system's selfmaintaining processes. Varela (1976) has pointed
out that systems are not closed, as linear thinking
would hold, but neither are they completely open
in ways that would lead a system to lose its distinctiveness from its environment. Systems are partly
open and partly closed since they link themselves
to their environments self-referentially: a system's
processes of linkage to its environment are themselves
embedded in the system as it functions so that the
system "reads" its environment from within its own
current frame of reference (Varela, 1976).
The Gestalt field construct opens the way for
appreciating mutual functioning among persons
in this self-referential and nonlinear perspective.
The Gestaltists did not pursue this line of thinking,
but the contact process may be seen as one in
which the person creates "social constancies" along
the same lines described with respect to experiential
constancies. This extension of Gestalt theory suggests that confluence and contact processes function
in the broader experiential field and that people
interactively support linear assumptions regarding
the nature of their current mutual "reality."
5. Linear methods within a nonlinear paradigm.
Rather than simply showing that linear assumptions
are erroneous and should be dispensed with, Gestalt
therapy's theory helps bring linear processing into
a broader nonlinear perspective of human func-

14

tioning. Ongoing nonlinear configurational processes are recognized as creating experiences of

linearity. The theory proposes that a person's experience of stability and of a stable continuous
self are to be understood as based on these linear
"constancy" creating processes. People appear to
learn how to create experiential constancies as
they leam how to adapt to their social environments.
They self-referentially discover how others establish constancies, and at each moment of functioning they locate "supports" for their own ongoing stability-maintaining processes around
"constancies" that they recognize in their experiential fields. The study of individuals in terms
of how their use of constancies develops and how
people mutually support experiential stabilization
processes appears to have a place that complements
an appreciation of how the person functions in a
moment-to-moment experiential organizationcreating manner.
References
BANDURA, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.
BLOCK J. & BLOCK, J. H. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism.
In D. Magnusson (Ed.)> Toward a Psychology of Situations.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
BOWERS, K. S. (1981). Knowing more than we can say and
saying more than we know: On being implicitly informed.
In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buss, A. R. (1979). A Dialectical Psychology. New York:
Irvington.
DELL, P. (1982). Beyond homeostasis: Toward a concept of
coherence. Family Process, 21, 21-41.
ENDLER, N. S. & MAGNUSSON, D. (1976). Toward an interaction
psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956974.
FlSKE, D. W. (1978). Strategies for Personality research: The
Observation versus Interpretation ofBehavior. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
FISKE, D. W. (1979). Two worlds of psychological phenomena.
American Psychologist, 34, 733-739.
KAPLAN, M. L. & KAPLAN, N. R. (1982). Organization of

experience of family members in the immediate present: A

Gestalt/Systems integration. Journal of Family & Marital
Therapy, 8, 5-14.
KEENEY, B. P. (1979). Ecosystemic epistomology: An alternative paradigm for diagnosis. Family Process, 18, 117130.
LERNER, R. M. (1978). Nature, nurture, and dynamic interactionism. Human Development, 21, 1-20.
MISCHEL, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person situation debate. American
Psychologist, 34, 740-754.
PERLS, F. (1973). The Gestalt Approach and Eyewitness to
Therapy. New York: Science & Behavior Press.

Gestalt Therapy's Theory of Experiential Organization

PERLS, F., HEFFERLINE, R. & GOODMAN, P. (1951). Gestalt

TYRON, W. W. (1979). The test-trait fallacy. American Psychologist, 34, 402-406.

RIEGEL, K. F. & MEACHAM, J. A. (1976). The Developing

Individual in a Changing World, Vol II: Social & Environmental issues. Chicago: Aldine.
RIEGEL, K. F. & ROSENWALD, G. C. (1975). Structure and

Transformation: Developmental and Historical Aspects. New

York: John Wiley.
VARELA, F. (1976). On observing natural systems. The CoEvolution Quarterly, 10, 26-31.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality.

New York: Delta.
PETRINOVICH, L. (1979). Probabilistic functionalism: A conception of research method. American Psychologist, 34,
373-390.
REESE, H. W. & OVERTON, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of development. M L . R. Goulet and
P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-Span Developmental Psychology.
New York: Academic Press.

15