“Wheeler gives a special spin to much of what he writes, a spin that seemed to me to be often of questionable accuracy in its understanding of Gestalt therapy theory and intellectual history and his analysis and construction of theory are remarkably flawed. Moreover, he frequently sets up inaccurate strawmen summaries of his theoretical predecessors as a support for his alternative.”
“Wheeler has a tendency oversimplify and misunderstand positions and issues.”
So read excerpts from a review of Gordon Wheeler’s book Gestalt Reconsidered in the publication Gestalt Journal. Wheeler’s deftly delivered revisionist take on gestalt is an eerie echo of his performances at Esalen, as is a must read for anyone who’s sat in a community meeting with the Esalen president or wonders how the institute has wound up where it is.
The full article is available here [local backup]
More excerpts follow:
I did not find the accurate understanding of history and theory upon which the bold new steps were to be constructed and old contradictions resolved. Certainly my initial enthusiasm in scanning the book turned into incredulity and dismay at the theoretical weaknesses revealed by a thorough examination of the theory in this book…
His definitions frequently do not define very well. They are often inexact, idiosyncratic and poorly articulated. He makes claims that often seem to me to be rediscovering the wheel, crediting the innovation to himself or the Cleveland Institute. For example, Wheeler seems to think that it is he and the Cleveland institute that introduces into Gestalt therapy the concepts of time, choice and context in judging the utility of a boundary disturbance. He also writes as if it is only the Cleveland group who added withdrawal as a necessary part of the contact cycle. I think this shows a lack of understanding of Ego, Hunger and Aggression and Gestalt Therapy…
Wheeler’s clear and authoritative writing style and scholarly appearance obscures questionable historical characterizations, faulty new theoretical constructions, and an apparent lack of understanding of the principles of phenomenology and field theory that underlie Gestalt therapy theory…
There is a parallel issue in reference to Wheeler’s clinical practice comments. Wheeler has some definite biases about clinical practice, which he links to his theory of “structured ground.” But his clinical biases are separate from the theoretical constructions he makes to link these to Gestalt therapy theory. The connection is tenuous at best, and hardly necessary or parsimonious considering that his theory contradicts Gestalt field theory…
Wheeler ridicules the notion that confluence could be resistance and states that to see confluence as a resistance “is to confuse terms hopelessly (p. 111).” It is only in his idiosyncratic usage that confluence can not be a resistance…
Much of what he advocates is not as new to Gestalt therapy as claimed by the author, nor are his accounts as accurate or scholarly as claimed…
Unfortunately, from a theoretical standpoint, Wheeler’s historical and theoretical analysis, propositions and scholarship are so defective that they make the book unsatisfactory…
Although I find his historical statements stylistically clear, authoritative and reasonable sounding, Wheeler has a tendency oversimplify and misunderstand positions and issues…
Nothing is more basic to the Gestalt therapy theory, and Wheeler totally misunderstands it. The more I examine Wheeler’s discussion of the structured ground the less theoretical sense it makes…
There are times when it seems as if Wheeler can see no good in the early Gestalt therapy literature. He accuses Perls, et. al. as not seeing the positive aspects of resistance (by which Wheeler is referring to separation, maintenance of differences) and also not seeing the positive aspects of loosening differences (which Wheeler calls confluence). It seems to me that Wheeler contradicts himself in his analysis of Perls, Hefferline and Goodman. First he says that maintaining differences is overly valued in early Gestalt therapy theory, but then he calls this “resistance” (as opposed to confluence) and says this is insufficiently valued in early Gestalt therapy…
Wheeler’s discussion of “resistance” is a morass of terminological confusion and idiosyncratic usage…
—Anonymous
For a similar review see the British Gestalt Journal Vol 2 #1