For Oedipus a new Family Gestalt, gtk books/02 by Gestalt Therapy kairos Institute

ISSN 2039-5337

FOROEDIPUS ANEWFAMILY GESTALT

september 2013/02

Gestalt Therapy Kairos Institute

/02

by Giovanni Salonia Antonio Sichera Valeria Conte

GESTALT THERAPY KAIROS

/02

Gestalt Therapy hcc Kairòs Institute Post graduate school in Gestalt Psychotherapy

In its quarter of a century, the institute significantly contributed to the history and progression of Gestalt psychotherapy, forming about a thousand psychotherapists and intersecting various and fruitful relationships of cooperation and affiliation with many national as well as international corporations and bodies directed to scientific exchange and the research in the specific field of psychotherapy and treatment connections. From the beginnings, the institute has been in contact with Gestalt psychotherapy founders that were living at that time – Isadore From, Jim Simkin – and handled to start didactic and scientific exchanges with the most illustrious representatives of second generation Gestalt therapists – E. Polster, M. Polster, S.M. Nevis, Ed Nevis, R. Kitzler and others – committing themselves to international research projects about Gestalt psychotherapy theory and therapy. The institute weaved didactic and scientific exchanges with the most prestigious Gestalt therapy institutes in Italy and abroad, as well as with the most qualified Gestalt Therapy associations worldwide, maintaining relationships of cooperation. In 2001, the institute started a collaboration with the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, establishing second level Master courses, arrived at its 16th edition.

THE INSTITUTE ORGANISES ■ Second level Master degrees in “Paths of prevention and treatment of sexuality. Gestalt Therapy and interpersonal relations” in cooperation with the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery in Rome. ■ Second level Master degrees in “Family Mediation” in cooperation with the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Faculty of Psychology in Milan ■ CME Continuing Medical Education courses AFFILIATIONS EAGT (European Association for Gestalt Therapy) NYIGT (New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy) SIPG (Italian Association for Gestalt Therapy) FISIG (Italian Federation of Gestalt Schools and Institutes) CNSP (National Coordination for Psychotherapy Schools) FIAP (Italian Federation of the Association of Psychotherapists). WEB www.gestaltherapy.it BLOG www.gestaltgtk.blogspot.it FORUM www.abusosessuale.forumattivo.it www.gestaltherapykairos.forumfree.it OFFICES RECOGNISED BY THE MIUR Sicily Ragusa / Latium Rome / Veneto Venice D.M. 9.5.94, D.M. 7.12.01 e D.M. 24.10.08 SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Giovanni Salonia Scientific responsible Valeria Conte Responsible of didactic Erminio Gius Member of scientific committee

GTK books of GESTALT THERAPY KAIRĂ&#x2019;S journal of psychotherapy Scientific Director Giovanni Salonia Managing Director Orazio Mezzio Chief editor Gaetano La Speme Rosaria Lisi Assistant editor Stefania Antoci Emiliano Strino Law Office Silvia Distefano Scientific Committee Angela Ales Bello Vittoria Ardino Paola Argentino Eugenio Borgna Vincenzo Cappelletti Piero Cavaleri Valeria Conte Ken Evans Sean Gaffney Erminio Gius Bin Kimura Aluette Merenda Rosa Grazia Romano Antonio Sichera Christine Stevens Editing Laura Leggio Aluette Merenda Agata Pisana Translations and English Consultancies Glenda Lowe Gemma McGlue Luisa Pacifico Andris Ozols Graphic project Marco Lentini Pagination Paolo Pluchino

Illustrations Angelo Ruta The Texts of GTK Psychotherapy Review and GTK Books are subjected to a double-blind peer review system. Printed by Grafica Saturnia Siracusa GTK books of GESTALT THERAPY KAIRÒS International journal of psychotherapy Address for all correspondence: GESTALT THERAPY KAIRÒS journal of psychotherapy Via Virgilio, n°10 97100 Ragusa Sicilia Italia Enquiries: Editorial +39 0932 682109 Subscriptions +39 0932 682109 FAX +39 0932 682227 Email: redazione.gtk@gestaltherapy.it Website: www.gestaltherapy.it

INDEX

Editorial...................................................................................... pag. 7 In this issue............................................................................. pag. 9 Oedipus after Freud. From the law of the father to the law of relationship.................................................. pag. 13 Giovanni Salonia From Freudian fracture to Gestaltic continuity: the epistemological gap of Gestalt Therapy.......... pag. 51 Antonio Sichera Letter to a young Gestalt therapist. Gestalt therapy approach to family therapy..... pag. 63 Giovanni Salonia The refund grandson......................................................... pag. 89 Co-therapy carried out by V. Conte and G. Salonia Giusyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s failed degree...................................................... pag. 117 Therapy conducted by G. Salonia

EDITORIAL

If it is true that the West is hanging by a “handful of stories” (Steiner), the one of Oedipus is integral part of this restricted group and, what is more, with the chrism of a special election. Because old generations mirrored in the event of the wretched King Thebes, and above all because the new generations have found themselves again in it, when they had to face a disquieting extraneousness, including an inexplicable and painful lack implied in their original relationships. So, Oedipus became our friend, shaped us; but thanks to Freud (and because of him?) the mythos of the son murdering his father, and mother’s husband, gave us interpretations of reality repeated throughout time with an assertiveness on the limit of laziness, as if Oedipus was fate, indeed an immutable mirror, a pure description of the inevitable. This English GTK Books edition aims at creating problems to clinical reading that is bond to ancient history, searching for new hermeneutics and keeping up with our times, where hidden turns, silences, insufficiencies of Sophocles’ text first of all speak. In Gestalt Therapy, Oedipus becomes metaphor of a desire to relationships, of a tension to the ‘triangle’, far earlier than mere recognition of a tragic, unsolvable polarisation. The father’s name is not opposed to the relatio cordis here, but rather supports and fulfils it, in view of a growth that is not undermined by fear towards bodies and their contact – the intercorporeal contact that had actually been one of Freud’s distresses (and limits). Thus, if lead with accuracy and radicalness, the reinterpretation of Oedipus opens a new scenario to family therapy, redrawing its prerequisites. First of all, it is not about reorganising distances or fixing roles. From a gestaltic viewpoint, it is in the first place the strength coming from feeling involved together, as parents, in an affective adventure full of passion, where the body of both allows in reciprocal contact the birth and growth of the body of the other, which is touched and loved to the fullest. And it is about finding again words that tell the bodies and have a body, or better the weight of flesh that saves us. For Oedipus is symbol and hope for all this, besides being contribution offered for the discussion. Because Oedipus still has to be told and narrated, but you may have to take care (again) of Oedipus.

IN THIS ISSUE

Giovanni Salonia pag. 13 Psychologist, psychotherapist, lecturer in Social Psychology at the LUMSA University of Palermo and at the Antonianum Pontifical University in Rome. Scientific director of the school of specialisation in Gestalt Psychotherapy of the Institute of Gestalt Therapy HCC Kairòs (Venice, Rome, Ragusa) and of the second level Master’s Degrees offered in collaboration with the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome. Internationally known as a teacher, he has been invited to numerous universities within Italy and abroad, he has published numerous papers in national and foreign journals as well as Comunicazione Interpersonale (with H. Franta), Kairòs, Odòs, Sulla felicità e dintorni, which deal with both anthropological and clinical themes. He is director of GTK, online journal of psychotherapy and is a former president of the FISIG (Italian Federation of Gestalt Schools). Antonio Sichera pag. 51 Antonio Sichera teaches modern and contemporary Italian Literature in Faculty of Literature at the University of Catania and is the teacher of Phenomenology and Hermeneutics of the post-graduate school of specialisation in Gestalt Psychotherapy of the Institute of Gestalt Therapy HCC Kairòs. Having studied lexicography and semantics in his formative years under Giuseppe Savoca’s prestigious school in Catania, he has written essays on Foscolo, Pasolini, Pavese, Pirandello, Montale, Quasimodo and numerous other contemporary authors from and interdisciplinary and hermeneutic perspective. He has dedicated his time to critical theory and literary movements, in relation to philosophy and theology, between Gadamer, Benjamin and Jossua. On the clinical side, he is the author of diverse essays concerning the aesthetic and hermeneutic aspects of Gestalt Therapy. He has translated texts from both Greek (A Diogneto) and from French (different works by Father Jossua).

Valeria Conte pag. 89 Psychologist, executive of the Mental Health Department of the provincial ASP of Ragusa; psychotherapist and regular Supervising teacher recognized by the FISIG (Italian Federation of Schools and Institutes of Gestalt). Member of the scientific committee and teaching and clinic responsible of the Gestalt Therapy Institute HCC KairĂ˛s. Trained with the mayor national and international representatives of Psychotherapy of Gestalt, she has widened her specific background with specialization in family therapy and corporal therapy. She deepened the epistemological model of Gestalt Therapy in her work with psychiatric patients and in the work with couples and families, whereof publications in national and foreign journals.

Collana GTK Edizioni Il Pozzo di Giacobbe L’Istituto di Gestalt Therapy hcc Kairòs cura una collana di testi di Gestalt Therapy presso l’editore Il Pozzo di Giacobbe. Tanti piccoli grandi libri sulla vita e sulla morte, sul senso e sulla sua disperazione, sul dolore e su i suoi esiti, sulla crescita e i suoi blocchi, sulla patologia e sulla clinica. Libri ispirati alla Gestalt Therapy (o ai suoi dintorni) e tesi a rileggere in maniera agile, vivace e scientificamente coerente le contraddizioni e il fascino della condizione umana nel difficile transito della modernità.

TESTI PUBBLICATI

Devo sapere subito se sono vivo. Saggi di Psicopatologia Gestaltica Autori: Giovanni Salonia, Valeria Conte, Paola Argentino Come comprendere la follia propria ed altrui? Dove cercare il motivo originario dell’umano smarrirsi? La Gestalt Therapy propone quale cifra ermeneutica di ogni esistere, nella pienezza e nello smarrimento, l’intenzionalità di contatto, ovvero: l’insopprimibile bisogno di raggiungere e di sentirsi raggiunti dall’altro. I fallimenti di questa intenzionalità – inscritta e vibrante nei vissuti corporei relazionali – generano il disagio psichico nelle sue varie forme. Su questo Grundkonzept si costruisce e articola la psicopatologia della Gestalt Therapy nei suoi vari capitoli: eziologia, diagnosi, terapia. Grazie ad una lunga esperienza di clinica, di formazione e di ricerca, gli Autori di Devo sapere subito se sono vivo presentano alcune forme di disagio psichico, coniugando, in un genere letterario immediato e toccante, la lettura del disturbo e l’intervento relazionale. Ne viene fuori un nuovo modo di guardare alla sofferenza psichica e di curarla, ma anche una diversa epistemologia della scienza e dell’esperienza terapeutica. ISBN: 978-88-6124-432-0 Pagine: 292

Tra. Per una fenomenologia dell’incontro Autore: Bin Kimura Viviamo ogni giorno trasportati dall’onda inarrestabile del quotidiano. Eppure il nostro organismo è costantemente in contatto con un fondamento della vita che ci supera e ci sostiene, mentre appare al contempo strutturalmente aperto al mondo in cui accade per noi e per tutti il gioco dell’esistenza. In Gestalt Therapy il principio vitale che regge e armonizza le dinamiche dell’esserci si chiama sé, l’istanza che esprime il nostro essere collocati alc onfine dell’esperienza, lì dove siamo protesi verso l’altro e incontriamo l’ambiente che ci sollecita e ci nutre. Da questo punto di vista, Tra di Bin Kimura, uno dei più noti e influenti psichiatri giapponesi, può a buon diritto essere considerato come un vero e proprio trattato di fenomenologia gestaltica, dove, con u linguaggio rigoroso e concettualmente controllato, si racconta la manifestazione del sé nella concretezza del contatto intersoggettivo e intrapersonale. ISBN: 978-88-6124-300-2 Pagine: 160

GIOVANNI SALONIA

OEDIPUS AFTER FREUD FROM THE LAW OF THE FATHER TO THE LAW OF RELATIONSHIP Giovanni Salonia

1. The crossroads of human condition: between truth and relationship, between dyad and triad

In GT hermeneutics, every psychic ailment reveals (and comes from) an interruption of the approach process from O. to A.

«Jocasta: Laius… was murdered at a trivium... (Oedipus Rex, 716) Oedipus: What dismay, what tumult of the soul came o’er me, Lady, as I heard your words! Jocasta: Why do you turn away? Why so anxious and upset? Oedipus: I thought I heard from you that Laius was murdered near1 a trivium» (Oedipus Rex, 726-730). At the mention of “Trivium” uttered by Jocasta, Oedipus’s memory is jolted and he is overcome by an intense, profound reaction: in his heart of hearts, he hopes that he misunderstood and ‘with fear and tremble’ he seeks confirmation, replacing in the original Greek text Jocasta’s unequivocal en (en triplaìs amaxitoìs) with a vague pròs (pròs triplaìs amaxitoìs). However, a crack has been torn open by then in his certainty exposed to fierce attacks for some hours. The mention of a trivium opened a crevice in Oedipus’s blindness, becoming the main clue in a quest that will lead him to uncover the truth (is it not said that the search for truth is nothing else but the art and science of clues?). In reality, the crossroads has been the place of missed identity and crisis: the crossroads is the rupture in the protagonists’ lives as well as in the plot of the tragedy. Before arriving at that crossroads, the existence of Laius and Oedipus appeared to

1 I have added italics. I come back to Oedipus at the end of a path that already made different stop-overs: G. Salonia (2010), Edipo dopo Freud. Una nuova gestalt per il triangolo primario, in D. Cavanna, A. Salvini (eds.), Per una psicologia dell’agire umano. Scritti in onore di Erminio Gius, Franco angeli, Milano, 344-358; G. Salonia (2005), Il lungo viaggio di Edipo: dalla legge del padre alla verità della relazione, in P. Argentino (ed.), Tragedie greche e psicopatologia, Medicalink Publishers, Siracusa, 29-46.

be rather peaceful: the former was a king, the latter the son of a king. Yet it is true that both, at different times, were tormented by an anguish of different forms, but similar in content. Oedipus could not forget the insult of being called a “bastard” at dinner by a drunken banqueter, and despite the reassurances of his parents, he kept on asking himself who his real parents were (after all, do not all children harbour the fear that they are not natural children, but foundlings in their infancy?). Laius, on the other hand, could not entirely find peace since, while drunk (even in this story we find the motif of wine breaking the order of appearances), he marries Jocasta, fathering a child that, in the damned prediction, would kill him. Both father and son make their way to Delphi to consult the Oracle. Oedipus wants to know about his past (which are my origins?), Laius about his future (how will I die?). It is at that crossroads that the fundamental questions of the human condition cross paths and swords: the mystery of origins and those of death. At that crossroads, the protagonists of the tragedy are thus drawn by the same destiny (or rather, the same anànke: the ‘need’, destiny), and meet but do not recognise each other. This is the heart of the tragedy: the truth they seek is there, within reach, but they are both blind and cannot see it. They do not recognise each other and hence they do not know each other. They have not been listening for a long time, maybe – they forgot! – the voice of heart and the voice of blood. Yet, the phrase that marked the beginning of all wisdom has always been engraved on the temple’s pediment: Gnòti seautòn! (Know thyself!). It is intriguing and striking that Laius and Oedipus meet and do not recognise each other precisely at a moment when both are highly interested in searching for the plot of their existence. Having arrived at the crossroads where three roads meet, do not manage to take the road of truth. Paradoxically, the truth is there, it is in the person in front of each other but they do not recognise it. They search for it outside, elsewhere. They do not know that the truth does not lie in Delphi but at that crossroads2.

2 In a motivational-relational reading, Emde reflects about the crossroads – the intersection of three roads – as co-presence of three viewpoints regarding Oedipus: Oedipus instigator (intrapsychic prospective), Oedipus victim (intergenerational

This is the heart of the tragedy: the truth they seek is there, within reach, but they are both blind and cannot see it. They do not recognise each other, and hence they do not know each other. They have not been listening for a long time maybe – they forgot! – the voice of heart and the voice of blood.

Truth is there, it is in the person in front of each other, but they do not recognise it.

Perhaps the truth that we all seek is always here before us in the present, or, actually, in the present of the encounter with the other.

Perhaps we need a new cognitive paradigm to discover the truth that lies in the present of every encounter.

Who knows, perhaps the truth that we all seek is always here before us in the present or actually, in the present of the encounter with the other. T.S. Eliot was right: we have a long way to go, a long journey ahead before arriving at the present!3 Perhaps we need a new fact-finding paradigm to discover the truth that lies in the present of every encounter. That way, the crossroads becomes the theatre in which truth is simultaneously concealed, though ready to reveal itself. However, what made Laius and Oedipus so blind before even arriving at the crossroads? It is well known – as Plato reminds us in Protagoras – that the first wise men, (the Seven Sages), dedicated the first fruits of their sophìa to Apollo, writing alongside «Know thyself», medèn àgan – Nothing too much.4 There is an intimate dependency – notes Cacciari5 – between knowing oneself and avoiding all forms of hybris, any kind of presumption, and any excess. Both Laius and Oedipus are blinded by hybris. The old and defeated Oedipus admits to Colonus the high price he has paid for learning this sophìa: «Acceptance is the lesson that suffering has taught me» (Oedipus at Colonus, 4). Aeschylus’ pathéi màthos (learning through pain) resounds. However, Oedipus had yet to learn or rather recognise and gone through the suffering that he carried within himself at the time of the crossroads. Not only his feet (according to an etymological story) but also his heart had been tormented. Oedipus, however, was not aware of it and thus denied and repressed his pain with arrogance and with a sense of superiority. The story of Oedipus started in a bad, in a very bad way. A father and a mother that want to kill him at birth: their fear him, dramatic and old incipit.

interpretation), Oedipus researcher (systemic vision). Cf. R.N. Emde (1991), L’incrociarsi di tre strade: un cambiamento di punti di vista nella storia psicanalitica di Edipo, in M. Ammaniti, D.Stern (eds.), Rappresentazioni e narrazioni, Laterza, Roma-Bari. 3 Cf. T.S. Eliot, (1959), Four Quartets, W.H. Allen & Co., London. 4 Cf. Platone [1979], Protagora, in id., in Opere complete, Laterza, Roma-Bari, vol.V, XXVIIIb. 5 M.Cacciari, (1992), Conosci te stesso, in AA.VV., La norma nella vita morale del cristiano, Atti del Convegno (a cura di S. Ronca ed.), Ed. Studio Teologico Cappuccini, Milano, 49-57.

A peasant that does not commit the ordered murder, so that Oedipus is adopted by the king of Corinth. He grows far away from his real family and grows as the strongest, most presumptuous among his peers. His strength and boldness will make his suspicion not to be the son of Polybius, good-natured and fearful king, more credible to him (and to the others). Oedipus is used to always win. When, in Oedipus Rex, he insistently asks to remain with his daughters (Antigone and Ismene), an annoyed Creon responds: «Your cannot always win» (Oedipus Rex, 1524). In the end, Oedipus (as one ultimately learns) was also tricked by the Sphinx. That is true. The one who solves the riddles of the Sphinx, wins and saves Thebes but he does not notice the trap: he should have realize a much more subtle risk was hidden in the Sphinx’s challenge: indeed, that of hybris. After all, the Sphinx used to be called the “chanting bitch”, the strangler, the “perverse woman”? When the discovery of truth turns into pride and arrogance, the result is always damnation. Hybris and alètheia (pride and truth) are irreconcilable. Actually, Oedipus solves the riddle on a human being (the voice with four, two and three legs), but he did not understand than human beings is not an enigma but a mystery. And the biggest mystery are we to ourselves. The enigma’s solution blinded Oedipus in the research of himself. Was this not the Greek sophìa: going into ourselves? The one that defeated the Sphinx knows who the man is, but does not know who Oedipus is and not only. The quality of the two knowledges is separate and in many ways alternative: knowledge of the universal does not correspond with the wise self-awareness. Even Laius grew up like a blind. Even his story was a dramatic one. Orphaned of his father Labdacus at the age of one, he experienced the violence of two guardians. Only once they died, he could have his throne again. Hence, he had a troubled relationship with his male reference figures. Indeed, his ruin will be the need for contact with a male body. His homosexual love (his first, according to some) for Chrysippus, his host’s son, will be the cause of his downfall according to goddess Hera: «You shall remain childless and should you have some, your own child will kill you»6. According to an old rite, Laius wounds Oedipus’s feet,

6 Cf. Igino, (2000), Miti, by G.Gindorezzi, Adelphi, Milano.

When the discovery of truth turns into pride and arrogance, the result is always damnation.

Oedipus solves the riddle on a human being (the voice with four, two and three legs), but he did not understand than human beings is not an enigma, but a mystery. And the biggest mystery are we to ourselves.

You cannot be interested in the research for truth and fight for your right of way. Only by giving way and hanging back in respect of other and of reality, you realize that truth is not an object to be pillaged or taken possession of, but something which should be awaited and searched for together, because it belongs to everybody and is revealed to everybody: just as it is phenomenologically present in a rose, truth appears in the face of the other, showing its footsteps and direction. Humans are used to questioning themselves about the responsibility of their own fate, which is often perceived as a joke (and yoke) imposed by the gods, but they remain blind on their own choices regarding death in the present.

so not to be followed by his shadow. Instead, he is just in front of him. However, he does not know. They are in front of each other, both blinded by fear and pride, feelings of undefined borders overflowing like rivers into a sea of anger. Oedipus and Laius trickle with hybris and argue about their right of way: Who’s turn is it? The king’s or the passer’s-by? The young or the old man’s? This is their basic mistake: you cannot be interested in the research for truth and fight for your right of way. Right of way must always be given to the other, when travelling on the road that leads you to truth. Only by giving way and hanging back in respect of other and of reality, you realize that truth is not an object to be pillaged or taken possession of, but something which should be awaited («It does not need forceps», Whitman sings7) and searched for together, because it belongs to everybody and is revealed to everybody: just as it is phenomenologically present in a rose, truth appears in the face of the other, showing its footsteps and direction. Hence, while the truth that Laius and Oedipus seek (and which would have saved them) remains hidden at the crossroads, unfortunately the other reality reveals itself, the foreboding death of their ancient and obstinate hybris. Hybris leads to death: Laius dies, and also Oedipus dies. That is how the first act of the tragedy begins. And it is interesting to note that Oedipus, while (justifiably) grieving the misfortune of the unjust destiny he has been dealt by the gods who condemn him for a crime he was not aware of committing, does not realise or admit his responsibility in that first gesture (his transgression against an old man) which gives rise to the unfolding tragedy. Humans are used to questioning themselves about the responsibility of their own fate, which is often perceived as a joke (and yoke) imposed by the gods, but they remain blind on their own choices regarding death in the present. Oedipus is guilty of one thing: having killed an old man who demanded right of way. That old man was his father but he did not know that.8 So, not

7 All truths wait in all things,/ … / They do not need the obstetric forceps… Cf. W. Whitman (2009) (or. ed. 1950), Leaves of Grass, Oxford University Press. 8 In Oedipus at Colonus Oedipus justifies his behaviour in front of Creon: «Tell me now: if the oracles prophesied to my father that

guilty of his father’s death, but guilty for a man’s death. This is the obscure drama of human condition: how can you know if the person you are about to kill does not have per chance your same blood? However – and this is the point to be stressed, to what point can the blood of another man be declared unknown by somebody? The crossroads is the stage of drama: the place where fate is sealed. Meeting place that may become revelation and recognition of communion of blood or, as unfortunately happens to Oedipus and Laius, place of arrogance, non-recognition and therefore of death. We started together with Oedipus and Laius in the research of truth and ended up in the crossroads of relationships. We discovered that truth and relationship are intimately connected.9 What is more: history teaches us that the ones, who believe they are aware of the truth, can turn into murderers. The force of truth is destructive if it is unleashed beyond the circle of relationship. Relationality is an intimately constituent quality of truth, its inevitably dialogical essence, because truth is irremediably contextualised in the co-ordinates of space-time. Truth is lost when it is taken away from a relationship, becoming specious and presumptuous. It was written that truth has to be “crucified”10 in order to be such, that is ‘subjected’ (this is the sense of hypomonè: the ability to give support) to the labours of human encounter. In other words, by entering the crossroads of truth, you enter the triangle of relationships. In fact, a relationship is not just the womb where truth can be born but it is also the very truth that we search for. Ultimately, what Laius and Oedipus seek is, indeed, the truth of their relationships: Who is my father? Who gave me birth? Who is my son? Who will let me die? Father and son search for each other opposite feelings: Oedipus wants to know who his father is (without harbouring hom-

he would die at the hand of his child, how can I be blamed for this, being not yet even begotten nor conceived in my mother’s womb?» 9 Cf. G.Salonia (2007), Odòs. La via della vita. Genesi e guarigione dei legami fraterni, EDB, Bologna, in particular chapter: La vocazione fra innamoramento e verità, 147-154. 10 G.Ruggieri, (2007), La verità crocifissa, Carocci, Roma.

How can you know if the person you are about to kill does not have per chance your same blood? However - and this is the point to be stressed, to what point can the blood of another man be declared unknown by somebody?

Truth is lost when it is taken away from a relationship, becoming specious and presumptuous.

By entering the crossroads of truth, you enter the triangle of relationships. In fact, a relationship is not just the womb where truth can be born, but it is also the very truth that we search for.

If Jocasta had been present at the crossroads, would Oedipus and Laius have recognised each other? If the body of the woman that had housed, even if in rather different ways, had been present at the crossroads, would father and son have recognised their bond of blood that germinated in Jocasta’s womb?

Not the dyad, but the triangle is the primary matrix of encounter and life.

icidal intentions). Laius wants to know if he succeeded in killing his son (in other words, avoiding to be killed by the person to whom he gave life). At the crossroads, the deck is reshuffled: Oedipus finds himself killing the person he was searching for, while Laius is killed by the person he tried to kill. It is awful how life (or divinity) makes fools of two blind men who are not aware of their blindness. Oedipus himself acknowledges that he sees many more things only after having pierced his eyes. A specific person – if we do not want to be blind (like Sophocles?) – is missing at that crossroads: Oedipus and Laius are present but Jocasta is missing. Such absence is crucial, in reality and metaphorically. You may ask yourself: if Jocasta had been present at the crossroads, would Oedipus and Laius have recognised each other? If the body of the woman that had housed, even if in rather different ways, had been present at the crossroads, would father and son have recognised their bond of blood that germinated in Jocasta’s womb? If the woman, the one who, by definition, presides over life had been present, would Laius and Oedipus have had the courage to face and transform their deathly destiny by remaining alive? Maybe, had Jocasta been present at the crossroads the intimate essence of it would have been revealed: not the dyad, but the triangle is the primary matrix of encounter and life. However, we will get back to this later. Now, let us look into the other non-visible presences at the crossroads. Let us go back to the starting point: why do Laius and Oedipus not recognise each other at the crossroads? Sophocles places the answer on the Olympus: the gods do not want it, because a curse has to be fulfilled. Thus, the hybris that blinds father and son would have origins from the gods. The gods decided what should happen, and in order to happen, they blind those who see, and the latters become aware of this destiny and make themselves blind, as if to report and revenge the big injustice, the big deceit: truth – even the one that appertains us! – does not belong to us. Therefore, it is necessary to do to Delphi and consult the oracle, in order to know what the Olympus decided over us without consulting us.

2. What if the gods did not exist? And if the divine predictions were simply voices of the heart you do not listen to? And if mankind became dangerous (murderer) when turning the gods into a shelter to avoid seeing the other? The couple Laius - Oedipus does not recognise each other because the one perceives the other as obstacle rather than travel companion, when looking in direction of the gods at the crossroads. We could read Sophocles this way: the gods always risk becoming (and how many times did this happen in history!) enemies of alterity. Freud does not believe in the gods and replaces the Olympus with the unconscious: truth of humankind does no longer dwell with the gods but within man, in an interior space that is unknown to himself. Men get unconsciously blind, so not to look into their own netherworld’s face. While secularizing truth, Freudian unconscious at the same time gives a horizon of meanings to insanity: every insanity (from psychosis to lapse!) find the possibility to be deciphered in the unconscious, that is one’s own hidden and dynamic consciousness. Just like Moses released the Jews from Egypt, Freud releases human condition from the drift of absurdity (and Narrenschiff11). Thus, Sigmund not only as ‘master of suspicion’, but also as master of sense and production of sense. ‘Free associations’ proof it: the patient (that) pronounced words without any logic and grammatical connection, is given a coherent puzzle, a plot that reveals the compelling sense of completion of those words that otherwise would remain flatus vocis12.

11 Cf. in relation P. Argentino (2013), Dalla Narrenschiff al ‘divenire fiori’: la danza dell’incontro nelle strutture psichiatriche, in G. Salonia, V. Conte, P. Argentino, Devo sapere subito se sono vivo. Saggi di psicopatologia gestaltica, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani. 12 It is true: actually, it is not an invention of Freud, given that the technique of free associations as research of the seventy-first sense was carried out by every Jewish community as a way to read the Torah. Cf. P. De Benedetti (2006), Ciò che tarda avverrà, Qiqajon, Torino. As for the relationship between Freud and Judaism, also cf. D. Meghnagi (1997),Il padre e la legge. Freud e l’ebraismo, Marsilio Editori, Venezia.

And if humankind became dangerous (murderer) when turning the gods into a shelter to avoid seeing the other?

Even the unconscious god as knowledge instrument of the other seemed to have reached the end of the line today.

Like every Olympus, the unconscious expropriates men from their truth, consigning it to others.

The truth of humankind is no longer hidden in the skies but moves within the unconscious, even if it is an arduous venture having access to it. Freud’s unconscious takes on a divine form: unknown, uncatchable, inaccessible. One has to learn its semantics and grammar, in order to get into it; those secret codes that allow unveil the concealed (or ill-concealed) meaning of each behaviour. This operation will be carried out by the ‘ministers of the unconscious’, the analysts, to whom Freud asks the personal analysis as itinerary of humility and respect for the other, so to reduce the risk of those obfuscations that the unconscious of the sacerdos can determine. The unconscious truth of the other is always a ‘burning bush’; therefore, it is necessary to wear off shoes of power and pride before accessing it. Hence, according to Freud, Oedipus should have gone to the minister of unconscious rather than to Delphi, in order to unmask the hidden instincts that torment and drives him deeply: in the matter in question, the loving passion for his mother as well as the homicidal one for his father13. Here is our point. Even the unconscious god as knowledge instrument of the other seemed to have reached the end of the line today14. Therefore, the gestaltic horizon suggests a different way, a new word: we move the interest from the material coming from the unconscious to what emerges from the contact with the therapist15. Indeed, like every Olympus, the unconscious expropriates men from their truth, consigning it to others. However, how can we be a therapist, have a decisive role and therefore the power of truth of the other, embracing at the same time the truth that the other consigns us? A didactic example: Gabbard tells about one of his patients who grow irritated when he looked at the clock at the end of her session, in order to make sure she might have had still time for anoth-

13 The name ‘Oedipus’ means ‘swollen foot’, in reference to the fact that his father Laius pierced the baby’s feet at birth. 14 Cf. A. Sichera, From freudian fracture to Gestaltic continuity: the epistemological gap of Gestalt Therapy, infra. 15 I. From, (1993), Seminari di Gestalt Therapy, Souillac, (pro manuscripto).

er intervention. The patient perceived this gesture as a sign of disqualification, insomuch that she exclaimed, despite the therapist’s attempts to explain: «Good try to get by! Do you think I believe it?». Gabbard tells he said: «Believe it or not, this is the truth!». Then, he comments: «one of the biggest challenges for psychotherapists is managing these almost nonsensical certainties of some borderline patients»16. The position in front of this comment is crucial. From my point of view, appealing to the unconscious in conflicts risks to turn into a use of powerfulness towards the other. I will try to explain myself. In postmodernity, the transition of a patriarchal society into a horizontal17 one is carried out, where subjectivity is central. By now, you invoke the death of the gods, of the fathers, but also of the unconscious god. Everyone is a master of his own fate. It is like discovering the existence of a new place where truth is hidden. A place that is not defined at Olympus, that does not want to have corners and does not have power on truth, but is open to everyone, a sort of ‘no-man’s-land’ or ‘every-man’s land’18. It is like the fulfilment of Heidegger’s prevision: we are too mature to believe in the gods. The truth of humankind is hidden in the phenomenological dialogue not in the divine oracles, not in the interpretations of the unconscious world. Like saying that the dialogue remains phenomenological even in asymmetrical19 contexts, it cannot take the form of Socratic maieutiké20

16 Cf. G. O. Gabbard (2005), Mind, Brain and Personality Disorders, in «American Journal of Psychiatry», 162, 648-655. 17 Cf. L. M. Friedman (1999), The Orizontal Society, Yale University Press, New Haven. 18 In relation, G. Salonia (2011), Sulla felicità e dintorni. Fra corpo, parola e tempo, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani, in particular chapter Nella terra di nessuno, 101-106. 19 The fact that M. Buber does not recognise the therapist-patient relationship as genuinely human relationship – in the famous dialogue with C. Rogers – has to be assigned most likely to the fact that he does not dedicate much attention to the child’s development in his theory of dialogue, which requires an asymmetric dialogical relationship, which however does not exclude being genuinely human. Cf. M.B. Rosenberg (2003), Le parole sono finestre (oppure muri), Esserci, Reggio Emilia, 210-211. 20 Cf. G. Salonia (1999), Dialogare nel tempo della frammentazione,

From my point of view, appealing to the unconscious in conflicts risks to turn into a use of powerfulness towards the other.

The truth of humankind is hidden in the phenomenological dialogue, not in the divine oracles, not in the interpretations of the unconscious world.

(subtle play between those who know and those who do not), but is positioned in the obvious logical phenomenon that is the surface’ deepness21. The therapeutic phenomenological dialogue arises from empathy – essential, but not sufficient requisite – in its different declinations22 and reached the ‘contact boundary’ or better the therapeutic traity of Gestalt Therapy. Phenomenology required a radical change of paradigm, as Husserl already stated: «Maybe it will be proved that the total phenomenological approach (totale phänomenologische Einstellung) and the epoché that is part of it are called for their essence to first of all producing a personal change (personale Wandlung), which should be compared to a religious conversion (religïosen Umkehrung) as a first analysis, but that above all includes the sense of the big-

in F. Armetta, M. Naro (eds.), Impense adlaboravit, Pontificia Facoltà Teologica, Palermo, 572-595. 21 In relation, P.A. Cavaleri (2003), La profondità della superficie. Percorsi introduttivi alla Psicoterapia della Gestalt, Franco Angeli, Milano. 22 Empathy as understanding of experience of the other, like the other perceives it, has been studied from a philosophical point of view (if and how it is possible to understand the other) Cf., respectively by E. Stein; from a psychiatric point of view (the Verstehen and Einfulung: understanding through empathy without explaining) by K. Jaspers; in psychotherapy (empathic response as privileged intervention) by C. Rogers; as preparatory intervention to interpretation by da H. Kohut; as acknowledgement and social by A. Honneth; as acknowledgement and learning of a child’s experience by the Infant Research. Cf. E. Stein (1989), On the Problem of Empathy, translated by Waltraut Stein, from The Collected Works of Edith Stein, 3, ICS Publications; K. Jaspers (1997), General Psychopathology, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, C. Rogers (1995), Client Centered Therapy, Constable & Robinson, London, H. Kohut (1971), The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders, International University Press, New York, A. Honneth (1996), The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammal of Social Conflicts, Mitt Press, Cambridge; C. Trevarthen (1993), The self born in intersubjectivity, in U. Neuser (1993), The Perceived Self: Ecological and Interpersonal Sources of Sef Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Now well known organic basis of empathy after the studies on ‘mirror neurons’ di Rizzolatti: G. Rizzolatti, C. Sinigaglia (2006), So quel che fai. Il cervello che agisce e i neuroni specchio, Raffaello Cortina, Milano. Ads for the phenomenological communication (representative, descriptive, empathic communication), cf. H. Franta, G. Salonia (1979), Comunicazione interpersonale, LAS, Roma

gest existential metamorphosis (existenziellen Wandlung) that has been entrusted to human nature as such»23. Hence, it is about a conversion, a different way to place oneself towards the world and the other that has the same range and intensity of the religious event. Coming back to Heidegger: we are ‘not very mature to believe in one god’. But what god? The last god, the one that could save us does not live in the Olympus, does not live in the unconscious, but – as the master of hermeneutics24 teaches us – consists in the ‘dialogue between religions’ or better in the dialogue between the absolutes, between the subjectivities that auto-perceive each other, each for its own part, like an absolute. ‘The ministers of dialogue’ – the therapists – are called at first hand for a phenomenological conversation not only to understand what the patient experiences but also (and above all) to feel in an open and rising way what happens with the patient at the contact boundaries. We could call it therapeutic traity25. As the patient Gabbard talks about, a gestalt therapist would have probably answered: «In a certain sense you are right. Once again, it happened what used to happen at your home. While you were talking to me, I distracted myself for a moment and rather thought of me, of the possibility to help you by offering you one of my interesting comments. I am sorry. I believe I missed some of the interesting things you were saying». So, in GT the therapist wonders: What happened/is happening between us? How do our respective experiences self-regulate reciprocally? How do I possibly lead my possible concern into the twist of my as well as my patient’s experiences? Patient and therapist do not look at the gods at the crossroad that leads to Delphi, they do not search for a secret and segregated map but they look at each other and talk to each other in a process of continuous identification.

23 E. Husserl (1970), The Crisis of European Sciences and Trascendental Phenomenology, North Western University Press, Evaston. 24 Cf. H.G. Gadamer (2000), L’ultimo dio. Un dialogo filosofico con Riccardo Dottori, Reset, Milano. 25 About traity, in-depth analysis in G. Salonia (2012), Il paradigma triadico della traità. I contributi della Gestalt Therapy e di Bin Kimura, in A. Colonna Romano (ed.), Io-tu. In principio la relazione, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani, 27-36.

Patient and therapist do not look at the gods at the crossroad that leads to Delphi, they do not search for a secret and segregated map, but they look at each other and talk to each other in a process of continuous identification.

Truth is delivered to relationship in an accessible visibility. To both.

If the crossroads becomes no-man’s land, or every-man’s land, we are in Delphi! Humans know their fate in the encounter with other humans: these are maybe the moments of divinity that the gods granted us.

Maybe, if Laius and Oedipus had looked at each other, if they had shared their paths and their researches, their underworlds and their gods, if they had been travel companions, they would have recognised each other and would have taken the path of life and encounter. Truth is delivered to relationship in an accessible visibility. To both. It is true: nature ‘loves to hide itself’. And if it would hide in the surface details, where relationship is embodied, in that relational obvious Gestalt Therapy26 started with? If the crossroads becomes no-man’s land, or every-man’s land, we are in Delphi! Humans know their fate in the encounter with other humans: these are maybe the moments of divinity that the gods granted us. We can experience the magic of encounter between Gnade und Geheimnis (between mercy and mystery)27 only as travel companions. Only after the experience of such disoriented proximity, we will be able to go together and meet the god.

3. The primary triangle: in Sophocles’ Antigone, in Freud’ Vienna, in postmodernity Let us stay some more time at the tragic crossroads. For his intimate and implicit reference to the primary triangle, Freud saw (or wanted to see) confirmation of his theories regarding child development28 in this tragedy. For him, Oedipus Rex represents the drama of child growth: incestuous desire for one’s mother and murderous hate for one’s father, along with a related fear

26 Cf. F. Perls (1947), Ego, Hunger and Aggression: Vintage Books, New York. After many years, even Bettelheim observed the therapeutic value of the ‘obvious’ cf. B. Bettelheim, A. A. Rosenfeld (1993), The Art of the Obvious, Knopf, New York. 27 Cf. B. Callieri (1999), Lineamenti di psicopatologia fenomenologica, Mondadori, Milano 28 The first official pronunciation of the Oedipus complex happens with The Interpretation of Dreams. The concept is set down in 1910 in Contributions to the Psychology of Love and only in 1913, with Totem and Tabu, it becomes a paradigm to explain the development of human organism. The complete definition will take place with S. Freud (1962), Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Basic Books, New York.

of punishment (castration). The prohibition for incest29 becomes neuralgic point of the developmental road leading to emotional maturity. According to his theory, it is a universal prohibition, because the push to sexually possess a parent of the opposite sex and eliminate the parent of the same sex is universal – and thus innate. Only when (and if) the child renounces the sexual desire felt for his mother (or her father) psycho-sexual maturity can be reached. Taking possession of some ethnological theories (that the origins of the prohibition would come from patricide of the primitive horde and the consequent guilt of children), Freud interprets the Sophoclean tragedy under this viewpoint and thus ‘invents’ the ‘Oedipus Complex’ as fundamental drama of our existence. The core of every neurosis has therefore to be identified in the inability to overcome the incestuous attachment to the mother, to lock oneself into any other relationship and in the anguish of castration. In other words, the Oedipus complex is meant to represent the crucial moment in which the intimate, dyadic mother-child relationship has to decide to open itself to a third party (to the father and to society); this is the only way to achieve sentimental and sexual maturity. Lacan will show how the existential limit is acquired and at the same time the order of affections guaranteed only in ‘the name of the father’: everyone recognises himself and the other in the differentiation of roles. The prohibition on incest thus becomes the borderline of health and psychic illness: «The psychotic – affirms Ricoeur, citing Lacan – is the one who does not get in in the Oedipus Complex, whereas the neurotic is the one who does not get out»30. In reality, despite Freud’s pretension, the Oedipus theory has shown an intimately conditioned construction of a first-modern society structure that is still patriarchal. Indeed, with its oligarchic and fluid social organization, postmodernity presents other vicissitude of primary affective bonds31.

29 On this topic, cf. G. Salonia (2004), Incesto, in G. Russo (ed.), Enciclopedia di Bioetica e Sessuologia, ElleDiCi-Vegar-Leumann, Torino, 986-989.. 30 L. Aversa (1986), Racconto, metafora, simbolo. Dialogo con Paul Ricoeur, in «Metaxù», 2/86, 82-92, 84. 31 Maybe the limit of such theory is having conceived the Oedipus

The fight between father and son arises from the father’s fear to find a possible younger rival in his son, besides an unquestionable and live memory that he will one day have to make room for him and die.

However, let us go in order. To begin with, Oedipus is presented by Sophocles as a victim as not as author of his own drama: in fact, he is Laius who wants to kill him at birth and afterwards blocks his road to Delphi, arousing anger in him. That is why it is called ‘Laius complex’ (still forgetting Jocasta!), who would forerun the one of Oedipus, according to the logic that patricide, even as an experience, precedes infanticide32. Certainly, Sophocles and Freud confront each other with an archaic dramatic and intriguing relationship – the father-child relationship – that was already told by myths (Uranus tries hard to avoid Gaia giving birth to his children, Chronos devours his new born children)33.

complex as universal situation. On the ‘decrease of the Oedipus Complex’ cf. H.W. Loewald (2000), The Waning of the Oedipus Complex, in «Psychother Pract Res», 9:4, 239-249. Spiro analysed the variables in terms of structure, quality and intensity of the oedipic situation in different cultures: cf. M.E. Spiro (1985), Is the Oedipus Complex Universal?, in G.H. Pollock, J. Munder Ross, (eds.) (1988), The Oedipus Papers, Universities Press inc., Madison, 435-471. 32 Many studies even in psychoanalysis highlighted how the theorification of the Oedipus complex gives little space to Laius’ responsibility, whose violence and arrogance precedes the one of Oedipus: cf: J. Munder Ross, J. (1982), Oedipus Revisited-Laius and the ‘Laius Complex’, in G.H. Pollock, J. Munder Ross, (edd.) (1988), op. cit.; G. Gallino Tilde (1977), Il complesso di Laio, Torino, Einaudi. Rascovsky insists in showing how an almost total repression of distructive trends of the parents has been carried out in the history of thought, including the psychoanalytic one. Even war is seen as filicide by Rascovsky. He puts a sentence of Herodotus as exergo in his book: «In times of peace children bury their fathers, while in times of war, fathers bury their children». However, these interpretations remain in a psychoanalytic epistemology, which has a negative and inevitable vision of aggressiveness (role and responsibility are changed) and reduces the primary triangle to a (conflictual!) father-child dyad. Cf. A. Rascovsky (1977) (ed. or. 1973), Il figlicidio, Astrolabio, Roma. 33 Cf. W. Otto (2002) (or. ed. 1929), Die Götter Griechenlands, Klostermann, Frankfurt. As for the Latin world, cf. E. Cantarella (2013), Non cercate a Roma i padri di oggi, in «Corriere della Sera», Lunedì 8 Aprile 2013. How in such a sculptural way Pasolini claims (Come in modo scultoreo afferma) «Thousands of children are killed by their fathers: and, occasionally, a father is killed by his son - this is known»: P. P. Pasolini (1977), Affabulazione, in Id., Il teatro, Garzanti, Milano. On the father-child relationship in Pasolini

And undoubtedly, the fight between father and son arises from the father’s fear to find a possible younger rival in his son, besides an unquestionable and live memory that he will one day have to make room for him and die. On the son’s part, the father may come to represent his mortal and not divine origin (humans cannot even imagine the concept of true paternity among the gods, because a god cannot live with another god). However, Sophocles’ tragedy has nothing to do with the Oedipus complex. Already J.P. Vernant in Oedipus without complex34 punctually demolished Freud’s theory. The topics in Sophocles’ tragedy are quite different. The tragedy basically shows the drama of human responsibility that is still suspended between human will and fate. While the plot deploys, patricide and incest are seen as a damnation rather than a guilt. It is as if humans are punished ‘with’ – and not ‘for’ – the incest and patricide35. The misfortunes of Thebes result from the fact that the murderer of Laius is unpunished more than his patricide and incest, perceived as contaminations36. Fromm states that Sophocles does not but facing the topic of father-child conflict – which is the drama of power, limit and death – on the context of a patriarchal society37. In other words, the hybris of the crossroads is already included in the original father-son relationship. In this sense, it is the persistence of a patriarchal organization of a Gemeinschaft where the father plays a central func-

cf. the worthy contribution of A. Sichera (1997), La consegna del figlio. «Poesia in forma di rosa» di Pasolini, Milella, Lecce. 34 Cf. J. P. Vernant (1976) (ed. or. 1973), Edipo senza complesso, in J.P. Vernant, P. Vidal-Naquet, Mito e tragedia nella Grecia antica, Einaudi, Torino. 35 Even Hillman, reconsidering Oedipus, underlines how patricide precedes incest and is carried out, by the way, without passion. Cf. J. Hillman (1991), Oedipus Rivisited, in K. Kerèny, J. Hillman, Oedipus Variations, Spring, Dallas. 36 J. P. Vernant (1976) (ed. or. 1973), Edipo senza complesso, op. cit., 37. 37 According to Fromm myth can be seen as symbol of the son’s rebellion against the father’s authority in a patriarchal family, not as incestuous love between mother and son; the marriage between Oedipus and Jocasta only is a secondary element, only one of the symbols of the son’s victory, who takes his father’s place, including all his privileges. Cf. E. Fromm (2000) (or. ed. 1951), The Forgotten Language, Grove Press, New York.

Humans cannot even imagine the concept of true paternity among the gods, because a god cannot live with another god.

Sophocles’ tragedy has nothing to do with the Oedipus complex.

It is as if humans are punished ‘with’ – and not ‘for’ – the incest and patricide.

tion as saviour, governor and pharmakos (scapegoat) that brings together the Freud’s Vienna and Sophocles’ Athens. In other words: in a society where you experience danger (war, hunger) you entrust someone who can save (a role usually fulfilled, at least historically, by men), which means that the greater the fear, the greater the power given to the ‘chief’38. Danger creates a vertically integrated social structure. In such a context, a son may be perceived as either an ally (an extra hand in labour or war) or a threat (the would-be usurper of the father’s power). Albeit with significant differences, the society known to Freud is also a patriarchal society, which meant that even here the father-son relationship is experienced as a power conflict. What Freud grasps, though, is that in his contemporary cultural context, the conflict between father and son ‘moved from the throne to the bed’:39 the context for power developed into conflict for love. Freud thus introduced women into the triangle but seeing her as the ‘object of desire’ disputed by father and son. So, a woman torn between ‘being woman’ and ‘being mother’. However, Freud’s introduction in the drama does not affect the patriarchal logic: the father is still represented as the person who brings order (from above?) to the emotional spheres, ensuring that the child (and the woman with him?) learns and accepts the limit and clarity of his precise emotional position. And here is the point: what happens in the postmodern ordo? It could be read like this: the conditions of imminent and total peril are missing and so society passed from a patriarchal-institutional aggregation model (oligarchic and fusional) to a horizontal model. The central value of the individual, his subjectivity, life, interests and self-realisation has emerged in an increasingly progressive and pervasive way. Such ‘death of the fathers’ (who has been progressively first contested, then deprived of authority and ultimately ‘befriended’) has

38 Cf. G. Salonia (1999), Dialogare nel tempo della frammentazione, op. cit.; Id. (2011), Tutto cominciò il 6 agosto 1945, 115-120, in Id., Sulla felicità e dintorni. Fra corpo, parola e tempo, op. cit. 39 S. De Risio (2005), Il complesso di Edipo dopo Freud, in P. Argentino (ed.), Tragedie greche e psicopatologia, Medicalink Publishers, Siracusa, 47-52

expropriated all authority of the regulation, protective and aggregation function, leaving room for a new awareness: the capacity of individuals to regulate themselves, seek protection and choose different aggregation contexts. The monolithic model of society has been weakened, as new forms and definitions have emerged over this period of time, which see society as ‘complex’40, ‘fragmented’41, ‘horizontal’42 and ‘fluid’43. These transformations are different from each other, arrived at an anchorage: legitimateness of subjectivity, of the existent only because it exists. Each individual sees himself as competent in his existence and as reference of the sense of life and the world of values. Any attempt at external regulation is eyed with mistrust and ‘do-it-yourself’ has become the new rule of thumb in both technical and value-based realities. Even those who choose to belong or depend do it with the awareness and pride of a person who chooses what is right for himself44. In postmodernity, the basic question is not any more: obeying or braking the law? Instead: Who are you to give me laws? And with what title? That is the decline of the Super-Ego as declination of the father’s law45. It’s a radical change in paradigm compared to the psychoanalytic theorising of an urgent need of people, both as individuals and as groups, to interject external rules (which is the regu-

40 Cf. E. Morin (2011) (ed. or. 1985), La sfida della complessità, Feltrinelli, Milano. 41 Cf. G. Salonia (1999), Dialogare nel tempo della frammentazione, op. cit. 42 Cf. L. M. Friedman (1999), The Orizontal Society, op. cit. 43 In relation, Z. Bauman (2000), Liquid Modernity, Polity Press, Oxford. 44 Cf., acute considerations of L.M. Friedman (1999), The Orizontal Society, op. cit. 45 It’s interesting that also an essayist arrives at intuitions about the Super-Ego close to the ones that Gestalt Therapy already suggested in the Fifties: «In my opinion, what Freud called SuperEgo is within the ‘Es’ and not outside, because it also is an instinct and has the same power and the same impetuousness». Cf. E. Scalfari (2011), Scuote l’anima mia Eros, Giulio Einaudi, Torino, 83. While Scalfari attributes such application to the survival of species (love for the others), the Gestalt Therapy links it with the auto-regulation of the relationship.

As long as it is stated that there is a physiological instinct leading to the sexual possession of the mother and murder of the father, the Superego is needed as regulation instance.

Once the Superego is faded, what new normative request is possible for humans and for their living together?

latory function of the superego)46. The appeal to an external regulatory function is based on the assumption that there is a ‘natural’ negative drive: as long as it is stated that there is a physiological instinct leading to the sexual possession of the mother and murder of the father, the Super-Ego is needed as regulation instance. Theories about the Superego and Oedipus are intimately connected. Once the Super-Ego is faded, what new normative request is possible for humans and for their living together? In the Fifties, a new awareness emerges in the consideration and clinic of humanistic therapies: starting from the studies of neurosurgeon Goldstein, we arrive at the discovery that a regulation instance47, a drive to self-regulation48 is innate in humans. Therefore, you do not need to appeal to an external law (law ‘of the father’ or ‘of the Super-Ego’), but rather facilitate in humans the fact to listen to oneself, unique way to discover an intimate organismic evaluation that pushes the subject to search a ‘good life’49 for his own organism. In a second, with Gestalt Therapy, this principle – giving rise to misunderstandings and individual drifts – is completed (like a figure that finds its background), integrating it in a relational logic: it is stated that the regulation instance has to be removed

46 A psychoanalyst that is prepared and sensitive to cultural changes notices with discomfort the border of theories about Super-Ego and exclaims: «I dream of a transformation of the human being [...] A humanity on a higher cultural level, that is without too much Superego». Cf. S. De Risio (2004), Derive del narcisismo. Psicoanalisi, psicosi, esistenza, Franco Angeli, Milano. 47 In Greek culture, an external instance still responds to a method of Ulysses, who uses repressive expedients to escape the fascination of the mermaids, while referring the story of Jason and his companions to a different prospective and already self-regulation; they win the charm of the mermaids thanks to the music emitted in their hearts from Orpheus’ singing. 48 See C. Rogers (1995), Client Centered Therapy, op. cit.; F. Perls (1947). Ego, Hunger and Aggression, op. cit. 49 One of the initial intuitions of Gestalt Therapy actually was substituting the technique of free associations with the one of concentration. From truth that comes from deciphered unconscious to truth that is revealed by listening to one’s own organism in contact. Cf. F. Perls (1947). Ego, Hunger and Aggression, op. cit.

from the Super-Ego control and shall not be collocated in the organism (as if it was a monad), but in the relationship or better in the contact boundary (border) (the third one or traity), which is created when Organism and Environment interact one with the other. Contact is the real regulation instance, since humankind is included in relationship, is realised and grows. Each genuine concentration on oneself opens and is included to the relational awareness in a sort of inevitable figure/background connection. We could say that it is a sort of clinical translation of Augustine’s great intuitions: if «in interior homine habitat veritas»50, this truth is only reached in relationship (“non intratur in veritatem nisi per caritatem”51), from where a new regulation instance, the ordo amoris52 rises: «Love and do whatever you want»53. Hence, in Gestalt Therapy, the ‘cultural discomfort is dissolved in the creative adaptation’54 any organism is capable of. The point is being aware of the fact that human experiences are always relational experiences and that they include the intention towards a positive and nourishing contact with the other55 in a manner that cannot be eliminated, though disturbed. When every involved subject listens and clears his own contact intentionality, the need to find a mutual regulation that allows encounter entirely56 contextually emerges. Not only does the

50 Augustine of Hippo, De vera religione, XXXIX, 2 51 Augustine of Hippo, Contra Faustum, XXXIII,8. 52 Cf. Augustine of Hippo, De civitate Dei, XV, 22; Id., De doctrina christiana, I, XXII-XVII, 23.26.28. Cf. moreover R. Bodei (1991), Ordo amoris. Conflitti terreni e felicità celeste, Il Mulino, Bologna; R. De Monticelli (2003), L’ordine del cuore. Etica e teoria del sentire, Garzanti, Milano; M. Scheler (2008), Ordo amoris, Franco Angeli, Milano. Cf. also G. Salonia, Ordo amoris e famiglia d’origine, soon to be published. 53 Augustine of Hippo, Commento alla 1 Lettera di Giovanni, VII, 8. 54 Cf. G. Salonia, M. Spagnuolo Lobb, A. Sichera (1996), From the ‘discomfort of civilization’ to ‘creative adjustement’: The relationship between individual and community in psychotherapy in the third millennium, in «International Journal of Psychotherapy», 1, 45-53. 55 For an introduction to Gestalt Psychotherapy, cf. F. Perls, R. Hefferline, P. Goodman (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in The Human Personality, Julian Press, New York. 56 Texts that elaborate these changes of paradigms are: G. Salonia, M. Spagnuolo Lobb, A. Sichera (1997) (ed. or. 1994), Postfazione, in F.

In Gestalt Therapy, the ‘cultural discomfort is dissolved in the creative adaptation’ any organism is capable of.

Human experiences are always relational experiences and include the intention towards a positive and nourishing contact with the other in a manner that cannot be eliminated, though disturbed.

Not only does the subject tend to meet the other, but he is also intimately and originally disposed to combine the intention to meet the other with the ‘other’ reality of the other.

subject tend to meet the other but he is also intimately and originally disposed to combine the intention to meet the other with the ‘other’ reality of the other. ‘Oedipic’ translation: there is no incestuous desire of the child towards his mother. If it would arise, it shall not be regulated by an external prohibition and the paternal figure would be the bearer of it (‘the law of the father’), but has to be considered the fruit of a dysfunctional relationship: the one of co-parents57.

Perls, R. Hefferline, P. Goodman, op. cit. Teoria e pratica della Terapia della Gestalt, 497-500; M. Spagnuolo Lobb, G. Salonia, A. Sichera (1996), From the ‘discomfort of civilization’ to ‘creative adjustement’: The relationship between individual and community in psychotherapy in the third millennium, in «International Journal of Psychotherapy», 1, 45-53. It is Interesting to note how, although with different perspectives, Infant Research studies have attained at pioneering insights of Gestalt Therapy: E. Tronick (2001), Emotional Connections and Dyadic Consciousness in Infant-Mother and Patient-Therapist Interaction. Commentary on Paper by Frank M. Lachmann «Psychoanalytic Dialogue», 11, 2, 187-194; C. Trevarthen (1993), The self born in intersubjectivity, in U. Neuser (1993), The Perceived Self: Ecological and Interpersonal Sources of Sef Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 57 According to Kohut, the Oedipus complex and the castration anguish, as known by Freud, become pathology of the Self and unveil the parent’s lack of empathy. The author asks himself: «Why are we not able to convince our colleagues that the normal state, no matter how rare, is an evolutive movement that is gleefully experienced in childhood, including the passage in the oedipic stage; during this stage, the parents respond with pride and increasing empathy, with joyful reflection towards the new generation, thus affirming the right to grow and be different? In other words, we believe that we are not in front of an irreducible conflict between opposite basic instincts (Thanatos fighting against Eros), but rather in front of potentially correctable interferences that impede a normal development… How dreary our arguments are… compared to Freud’s vigorous and mightily evocative terminology. How dull the normality of an oedipic phase joyfully exerienced by parent and child is compared to the silent drama of the Oedipus complex…What tools has a critic, in order to contrast Freud’s magic?... The strongest tool… is making use of a dosis of counter-magic… My counter-magic comes from a story… the story of a first possible fail to report service you can find in literature, the story of Ulysses». Here Kohut refers to an episode of Ulysses told by Hyginus in his Fabulae: Ulysses, is called by other Greek kings to take part in the Trojan War, he pretends to be demented. However, he stops when his son is put in front of the plow, revealing his mental health and his love for Telemachus. Cf. H. Kohut (1989) (ed. or. 1981), Introspezione, empatia e il semicerchio della salute mentale, in Id., Le due analisi del signor Z., Astrolabio, Roma.

Any rigidity or fixation of the father-son dyad expresses a dysfunctional relationship within the co-parental dyad. It expresses the scission of the relationship with the co-parental partner58. The relationship that makes one grow (that nurses), is actually not the one between parent and child but the one of parents among with each other and with their son. In this new (and revolutionary) paradigm, the opening of the child to society will not be placed at the age of three, at the time of the transition from dyad mother-child to the father, but will be considered operative right from the beginning. Thus, the mother-child dyad already includes the origin of society and it will be opened in a spontaneous and functional way, if the mother will experience the relationship with her son not as recovery of an absence or a relational conflict with the co-parent, and if the father, from his side, will not live the relationship with his son in antagonism with his parental partner. Therefore, we return to the crossroads after a long trip; metaphor of the “primary triangle” (Laius, Oedipus and Jocasta). Mother and father need to meet in an equal relationality – the «democratization of the private sphere of intimacy»59 – in order to make that contact boundary flexible (or, in Minuchin’s semantics the ‘generational line’)60 that underpins the functional and positive nurturing of the child.

58 G. Salonia (2012), Theory of self and the liquid society. Rewriting the personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 29-57; A. Sichera (2012), The personalityfunction in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 17-27. 59 A. Giddens (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy, Polity Press, Cambridge; U. Beck, E. Beck-Gernsheim (1990), Das Ganz Normale Chaos Der Liebe, Suhrkamp, Berlin; also cf. L. Irigaray (2001), Democracy Begins Between Two, Routledge, London. 60 The concept of ‘generational line’ refers to the family structure: cfr. S. Minuchin (1974), Families and Family Therapy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. in Gestalt Therapy instead we talking about “personality-function of self”: cfr. anche G. Salonia (2010), Lettera ad un giovane psicoterapeuta della Gestalt. Per un modello di Gestalt Therapy con la famiglia, in M. Menditto (ed.), Psicoterapia della Gestalt contemporanea. Strumenti ed esperienze a confronto, Franco Angeli, Milano, 185-202.

The relationship that makes one grow (that nurses), is actually not the one between parent and child, but the one of parents among with each other and with their son.

Thus, the mother-child dyad already includes the origin of society and it will be opened in a spontaneous and functional way, if the mother will experience the relationship with her son not as recovery of an absence or a relational conflict with the co-parent, and if the father, from his side, will not live the relationship with his son in antagonism with his parental partner.

It is his parents that made a long way before seeing Oedipus.

From Sophocles to Freud and from Freud to Gestalt Therapy, it is not Oedipus that carried out a long journey, but his parents that made a long way before seeing Oedipus!61

4. From discomfort of the son to the discomfort of the primary triangle So we gained some firm points: observation of real children (and not the virtual child that can be discerned from the accounts of adult patients)62; the attention placed on the

61 The son’s responsibilization (and related guiltiness) in a ‘Greek’ perspective is so predicted that even an observant essayist like C. Magris improperly compares Oedipus (son) example of violence with Hector (father) example of welcoming care. Cf. C. Magris (2012), in «Il Sole 24 ore» Domenica, 3 Giugno 2012, IV. Such cultural skid has relevant clinical reflections. For example, Recalcati’s recent study remains in the Freudian father-son dyad epistemology. The text suggests the known Telemachus-focused perspective and articulates a sort of Oedipus trip (arrogant Oedipus, narcissist Oedipus, anti-Oedipus, Telemachus). Cf. M. Recalcati (2013), Il complesso di Telemaco. Genitori e figli dopo il tramonto del padre, Feltrinelli, Milano; G. De Simone (2007), Le famiglie di Edipo, Borla, Città di Castello, 98. In reality, this perspective continues to analyse the son’s experiences without considering that the matrix of such experiences can be found in the parental dyad. How can you emphasize the comparison between Oedipus and Telemachus without realizing that the real difference lies in the Laius/Oedipus and Ulysses/Telemachus dyads on one side and the Laius/Jocasta and Ulysses/ Penelope dyads on the other side? They are two quite different epistemologies placed in different anthropological horizons and determine different diagnostic and clinical procedures. Cf. G. Salonia, Danza delle sedie e danza dei pronomi, soon to be published; Id. (2013), Gestalt Therapy and Development Theory, in G. Francesetti, M. Gecele, J. Roubal (edd.), Gestalt Therapy in clinical practica – from psichopathology to the aestethics of contact, Franco Angeli, Milano. 62 It’s interesting how the Infant Research results (intersubjectivity) have contradicted psychoanalytic theories, such as for example the one of Lupinacci (non-identification of the child up to the age of eight months of the two parents and anguish in seeing them together). Cf. M. A. Lupinacci (1998), Reflections on the early stages of the Oedipus complex: The parental couple in relation to psychoanalytic work, in «Journal of Child Psychotherapy», 24:3, 409-421.

interaction of children with their mothers (and not on their presumed – predetermined – intrapsychic development)63; the consequent emergence of an understanding of growth as a progressive change in ‘schemas’ of ‘being-with’ (in which breast-feeding, for instance, can be understood as a relational dance between the mother’s nipple and the child’s mouth)64; the focus on the Self, understood as a subjective nucleus that continuously and constituently relates to the world. After all, there is a bigger and bigger sharing in the prospective that does not limit (in the observation, in the diagnosis and in the clinic) the mother-son dyad, but includes the third (that is not the grandmother, but the co-parent!): the primary triangle as hermeneutic matrix of the child’s discomfort. In the Infant Research, the group of Lausanne65 with its LTP brought forward this new research prospective, where it is observed – from a diagnostic point of view – how interactions take place within the triangle in four precise moments (the child plays twice with the co-parent and the other parent watches each other; the child plays alone and the co-parents watch; the child plays with both co-parents). The great success achieved from this research – now even declined in therapeutic terms66 – tells us how the intuitions of Gestalt Therapy (according to the relationship is self-regulated) are more and more welcome and shared by the cultural and clinic context: these are all stages67 of a progressive

63 D. Stern (1998), The Interpersonal World of the Infant, Karnak Books, London; also cf. B. Beebe, F.M. Lachmann (2002), Infant Research and Adult Treatment: Co-constructing Interactions, The Analitic Press, New York. 64 D. Stern (1995), The Motherhood Constellation, Basic Books, New York. 65 E. Fivaz-Depeursing, A. Corboz-Warner (1999), The Primary Triangle, Basic Books, New York; J. McHale (2007), Charting the Bumpy Road of Coparenthood: Understanding the Challanges of Family Life, Zero to Three ed. 66 Cf. M. Malagoli Togliatti, S. Mazzoni (eds.) (2006), Osservare, valutare e sostenere la relazione genitori-figli. Il Lausanne Trilogie Play clinico, Raffaello Cortina, Milano. 67 A detailled presentation of these developments in G. Salonia (2005), Prefazione, in P. L. Righetti, Ogni bambino merita un romanzo, Carocci, Roma, 719; G. Salonia, Gestalt Therapy and

The therapeutic (and educating) relationship is ultimately the parent-parent/therapist-therapist relationship, and not only the parent-child/ therapist-patient relationship.

approach of developmental research to the Sophoclean triplaìs amaxitoìs, where Oedipus can only truly be understood (and surpassed). In the clinical field the model of co-therapy session (two therapists and a patient) that was already born many years ago in Gestalt Therapy, the primary triangle68 is explained with hermeneutic centrality. In this new structure, the therapists listen at first the flowing of how their lived experience unfolds before the patient (‘what does this patient and this triangular situation immediately provoke in me?’), while excluding any kind of therapeutic thoughts (such as: what does she want to say?, what does she need?). At a second stage, subsequently emerges that the experience of each of the two therapists with regard to the patient is intimately tied up with the experience each therapist has of the co-therapist and the co-therapist’s relationship with the patient. At a third stage, in working through and clarifying this bind of relationships, significant (therapeutic) changes are provoked in each of the co-therapists’ experiences of the patient and the patient’s experiences of the co-therapists. The basic assumption is now clear: each difficulty in the therapist-patient relationship would appear to be caused by the failure to clarify the therapist-therapist relationship69. The (therapeutic) relationship that cares (as well as the relationship that educates) is ultimately the parent-parent/therapist-therapist relationship and not only the parent-child/therapist-patient relationship.70

Development Theory, op. cit. 68 M. Spagnuolo Lobb, G. Salonia (1986), Al di là della sedia vuota: un modello di coterapia, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», II, 3, 11-35. 69 In contrast with the Lausanne model, which observes how triangular interactions occur (integrating psychoanalytic and systemic perspectives), the co-therapy model stresses how the interaction of one parent is conditioned by his/her relationship with the co-parent and the co-parent’s relationship with the child. 70 Such epistemological change has innovative consequences both in clinics and in supervision. In relation, Cf. L. Lisa (2006), Il processo di supervisione nell’attuale epistemologia della Psicoterapia della Gestalt, postgraduate thesis in Gestalt Psychotherapy, Venezia.

At this point, the crossroads, which has become the primary triangle, is observed as a gestalt of relationships where the bond of each parent with his/her child is intertwined and conditioned within a triadic articulation: – how every parent lives his/her relationship with his/her child – how the parent lives his/her relationship with the other parent in parental terms – how the parent lives his/her relationship between the other parent and his/her child. The diagram shows this twist.

Child

a c

Parent X

Parent Y

In other words, the way of being parents comes from the functionality (or disfunctionality) of the experience with the co-parent and of the approach towards the relationship between the other co-parent and child. The parental personality-function is always a co-parental function. Each mother embraces her child in a different way, based on how she experiences the relationship with the co-parent and how the relationship between co-parent and child is represented. From here, new ways from an anthropological, educational and clinical71 points of view.

71 An interesting application of this perspective can be deduced from the cotherapy model M. Spagnuolo Lobb, G. Salonia (1986), Al di là della sedia vuota: un modello di coterapia, op. cit.

The parental personality-function is always co-parental function.

5. From the crossroads a new hermeneutics for co-parenthood

The parental relationship holds together – in an equilibrium which is never entirely stable – two constituent polarities of the human condition and nurturing care: the female body and male body; the beauty of unconditional acceptance (of existing) and the beauty of growth as an expression of potentiality (becoming); belonging and differentiation; protection and encouraging risk; ordo domus and ordo civitatis…

Having started from the Laius-Oedipus dyad, we now find ourselves at the Laius-Jocasta dyad. «History taught us many things, but not the most essential one: how to live together, in a couple, at home and in town»72. The novitas of the horizontal society lies in the discovery of the central importance of equality in relationships: between women and men and between parents. The parental relationship obviously differs from the partner relationship: while the latter may cease, the parental relationship never ends because it is always involved in the growth of the child. The parental relationship holds together – in an equilibrium which is never entirely stable – two constituent polarities of the human condition and nurturing care: the female body and male body; the beauty of unconditional acceptance (of existing) and the beauty of growth as an expression of potentiality (becoming); belonging and differentiation; protection and encouraging risk; ordo domus and ordo civitatis… The maternal and paternal figures enshrine this constituent and indissoluble duality in the educational task. The absence of one or the other figure can only damage the emotional and relational growth of the child. However, it is not the physical presence of the other parent or the absence of conflict that makes the relationship between parents valid but lies in both mother and father developing parental experiences which see the function of the other parent irreplaceable (that is: his/ her point of view, sensibility, reactions). If, for example, two parents disagree over the time they should give their son to come home, the inevitable conflict can be managed in three ways: excusing («you make our child grow up fearful»; «you are thoughtless and do not consider the risks of such a late

72 L. Irigaray (1993), Je, Tu, Nous, Taylor and Francis LTD, New York. On these issues see also G.Salonia, (2005), Femminile e maschile: un’irriducibile diversità, in R. G. Romano (ed.), Ciclo di vita e dinamiche educative nella società postmoderna, Franco Angeli, Milano, 54-69.

return»73); rational («Let’s find an intermediate time») or relational. Within the relational perspective, each parent is aware of the complexity of the situation, which “includes” both the need to protect the daughter as well as the need to support her in facing risk. While remaining faithful to their respective points of view, each of the two partners is grateful to the other for sustaining an opposite, though equally important polarity. Here, the discussion will not aim at winning or producing an abstract examination of rights and wrongs. Instead, it will creatively take into account the complexity of a context requiring that two nurturing polarities negotiate («I appreciate that she expresses a fear that I experience as well, but that I’m not able to control»; «Thank goodness he is the one takes this courage I admire, which I don’t have»). This is what we can define the ‘hermeneutics of the crossroads’. In a healthy relational perspective, the coalitions co-parent/ child (e.g. father/daughter, mother/son) carry out a positive function, since they are not experienced ‘against’ the other co-parent. And even the families’ Es-function (in particular the intercorporeity) gains a positive and growing spontaneousness. Every parent goes through a special (visceral) – even physical – freedom in the approach to his/her children. They are not afraid of contact and live their relationship with their children to the full, even in a physical sense. In this sense, it is important to underline how a certain ‘phobia of incest’, generated by the Oedipus complex divulgation and socially reinforced74, sees an emotional fracture of the parental couple.

73 These perceptions (or mis-perceptions) have stratified roots and are based on the rigidity of the division of roles, so that the mother is seen as expert of the house but fearful, ‘hysterical’, while the father expert in the polis but affectively superficial. Nana, the protagonist’s mother in Khaled Hosseini’s Thousand splendid suns, says to her daugther: «The man’s heart is a wretched, wretched thing, Miriam. It won’t bleed, it won’t stretch to make space for you. I’m the only one that loves you…». K. Hosseini (2007) (ed. or. 2007), Mille splendidi soli, Piemme, Casale Monferrato, 34. On these topics, cf. G. Salonia (2005), Femminile e maschile: un’irriducibile diversità, op. cit. 74 On this topic cf. G. Salonia (2004), Incesto, op. cit.; Id. (2012), La grazia dell’audacia. Per una lettura gestaltica dell’Antigone, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani

The coalitions co-parent/child (e.g. father/daughter, mother/son) carry out a positive function, since they are not experienced ‘against’ the other co-parent.

Distance and embarrassment (first of all corporal) of a parent towards his/ her son prevents the latter to experience and/or express his sexual identity fully in the world.

A spontaneous intercorporeity between parents and children will also mature the experienced bodies, which will not confuse vibrant sensuality of one’s own identity with sexual intimacy.

Sons and daughters being peacefully and freely close to their parents’ soul and body will grow virtuous and strong.

However, distance and embarrassment (first of all corporeal) of a parent towards his/her son prevents the latter to experience and/or express his/her sexual identity fully in the world. A father with a contact with his partner-parent will not be afraid of the physical contact with his daughter. ‘Being seduced’75 and ‘seducing’ (in the sense of peaceful corporeity) will allow the daughter to pass with self-confidence to another man (and not in search of safety!). When the need of children for physical contact with their parents is not fulfilled (having confirmation of being touched and being able to touch and explore the parents’ bodies), it becomes obsession («that which is not completed – said Goodman – is perpetuated»76), and does not turn into desire77. A spontaneous intercorporeity between parents and children will also mature the experienced bodies, which will not confuse vibrant sensuality of one’s own identity with sexual intimacy. Sons and daughters being peacefully and freely close to their parents’ soul and body will grow virtuous and strong. Inventing Antigone’s gracefulness bravery, Sophocles will put her, maybe not by chance, as fruit of an incest: the generation of a father that also is a brother. And centuries after, Nietzsche will say, «A wise magus could be born only out of incest»78. As if having a presentiment that only a son (a daughter) that is allowed to having the audacity to feel him/herself deeply male

75 The inverted commas indicate that the term ‘seduction’ needs clarification. In asymmetrical relationships, defining an intercorporeal approach behaviour of the daughter (or patient) as seductive means seriously misunderstanding (clumsy or learned) attempts to contact intentions. While revealing a parent’s (and therapist’s) dysfunction of the personality-function, such connotation creates senses of undeserved and confusing senses of responsibility and guilt in entrusting people. Indeed, asymmetrical sexual relationships are always responsibility of the care-giver. For an in-depths analysis cf. G. Salonia (2012), Theory of self and the liquid society. Rewriting the personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 29-57. 76 F. Perls, R. Hefferline, P. Goodman (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in The Human Personality, op. cit. 77 G. Salonia, Desiderio e bisogno, soon to be published. 78 F. Nietzsche (1999) (or. ed. 1872), The Birth of Tragedy, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, 31.

of female in front of his/her parents, can reach full maturity79. Anyway, at the Sophoclean crossroads, in the absence of Jocasta, father and son fight for the right of way and destiny is in the hands of the gods. At the Freudian crossroads, where the woman appears, the fight between dyad and father is still there and destiny is in the hands of the ministers of the unconscious. At the Gestalt Therapy crossroads, the one of mature modernity by now projected beyond itself, a reconstruction of co-parental dyad takes place and destiny is in the hands of relationship. If Jocasta and Laius will live at the crossroads, there will not be any fight for right of way (neither at home nor in town), Oedipus will be able to fully feel his dignity of being a son and go back to his brothers80. And perhaps Thebes can hope in a future without wars.

79 Maybe the father-daughter relationship is one of the most significant news and opportunities of postmodernity: the paternal confirmation will ease the woman to express the brilliant female specificity in the polis. Cf. G. Salonia (2005), Femminile e maschile, cit. 80 «Like the Oedipus Complex inserts the subject in the world, in culture through the prohibition of incest, the brother complex includes the individual in social order for the analysis of the narcissist relationships that are articulated more or less with the Oedipic dynamic»: L. Kanciper (1996), Il complesso fraterno e il complesso edipico, quoted in G. De Simone (2007), Le famiglie di Edipo, op. cit. For the gestaltic perspective of brotherhood, cf.: P. Aparo (2013), Oltre l’Edipo. Un fratello per Narciso, in «GTK Rivista di Psicoterapia», 4. in press. And moreover: J. Dunn, C. Kendrick (1982), Siblings: Love, Envy and Understanding, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; J. Mitchell ( 2001) Map Men and Medusas: Reclaiming Hysteria, Basic Books, New York; also cf. G. Salonia (2007), Odòs. La via della vita. Genesi e guarigione dei legami fraterni, op. cit.

Only a son (a daughter) that is allowed to having the audacity to feel him/herself deeply male of female in front of his/her parents, can reach full maturity.

REFERENCES

Agostino d’Ippona, Commento alla 1 Lettera di Giovanni. Agostino d’Ippona, Contra Faustum. Agostino d’Ippona, De civitate Dei. Agostino d’Ippona, De doctrina christiana. Agostino d’Ippona, De vera religione. Aparo P. (2013), Oltre l’Edipo. Un fratello per Narciso, in «GTK Rivista di Psicoterapia», 4. in press. Argentino P. (2013), Dalla Narrenschiff al ‘divenire fiori’: la danza dell’incontro nelle strutture psichiatriche, in G. Salonia, V. Conte, P. Argentino, Devo sapere subito se sono vivo. Saggi di psicopatologia gestaltica, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani. Aversa L. (1986), Racconto, metafora, simbolo. Dialogo con Paul Ricoeur, in «Metaxù»,2/86, 82-92. Bauman Z. (2000), Liquid Modernity, Polity Press, Oxford. Bauman Z. (2001), The Individualized Society, Polity Press, Oxford. Beck U. (2003), La società cosmopolita, Il Mulino, Bologna. Beck U., Beck-Gernsheim E. (1990), Das Ganz Normale Chaos Der Liebe, Suhrkamp, Berlin. Beebe B., Lachmann F.M. (2002), Infant Research and Adult Treatment: Co-constructing Interactions, The Analitic Press, New York. Bettelheim B., Rosenfeld A. A. (1993), The Art of the Obvious, Knopf, New York. Bodei R. (1991), Ordo amoris. Conflitti terreni e felicità celeste, Il Mulino, Bologna. Bodei R. (2001), Il dottor Freud e i nervi dell’anima. Filosofia e società a un secolo dalla nascita della psicoanalisi. Conversazioni con Cecilia Albarella, Donzelli Editore, Roma. Cacciari M. (1992), Conosci te stesso, in AA.VV., La norma nella vita morale del cristiano, Atti del Convegno (a cura di S. Ronca), Ed. Studio Teologico Cappuccini, Milano, 49-57. Callieri B. (1999), Lineamenti di psicopatologia fenomenologica, Mondadori, Milano Cantarella E. (2013), Non cercate a Roma i padri di oggi, in «Corriere della Sera», Lunedì 8 Aprile. Cavaleri P. A. (2003), La profondità della superficie. Percorsi introduttivi alla Psicoterapia della Gestalt, Franco Angeli, Milano.

De Benedetti P. (2006), Ciò che tarda avverrà, Qiqajon, Torino. De Monticelli R. (2003), L’ordine del cuore. Etica e teoria del sentire, Garzanti, Milano. De Risio S. (2004), Derive del narcisismo. Psicoanalisi, psicosi, esistenza, Franco Angeli, Milano. De Risio S. (2005), Il complesso di Edipo dopo Freud, in P. Argentino (ed.), Tragedie greche e psicopatologia, Medicalink Publishers, Siracusa, 47-52. De Simone G. (2007), Le famiglie di Edipo, Borla, Città di Castello. Dunn J., Kendrick C. (1982), Siblings: Love, Envy and Understanding, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Eliot T.S. (1959), Four Quartets, W.H. Allen & Co., London. Emde R. N. (1991), L’incrociarsi di tre strade: un cambiamento di punto di vista nella storia psicanalitica di Edipo, in Ammaniti M., Stern D. (eds.), Rappresentazioni e narrazioni, Laterza, Roma-Bari. Fivaz-Depeursing E., Corboz-Warner A. (1999), The Primary Triangle, Basic Books, New York. Franta H., Salonia G. (1979), Comunicazione interpersonale, LAS, Roma. Freud S. (1962), Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, Basic Books, New York. Friedman L.M. (1999), The Orizontal Society, Yale University Press, New Haven. From I., Seminari, Souillac, pro manuscripto. Fromm E. (2000) (or. ed. 1951), The Forgotten Language, Grove Press, New York. Gabbard G.O. (2005), Mind, Brain and Personality Disorders, in «American Journal of Psychiatry», 162, 648-655. Gadamer H. G. (2000), L’ultimo dio. Un dialogo filosofico con Riccardo Dottori, Reset, Milano. Gaffney S., Parlett M., Salonia G. (2008), Psychotherapy and Social Change: GestaltTherapists Reply to Questions – From the Editors and From Zygmunt Bauman, in «Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 2, 1, 11-44. Gallino Tilde G. (1977), Il complesso di Laio, Torino, Einaudi. Giddens A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Giddens A. (1992), The Transformation of Intimacy, Polity Press, Cambridge. Gius E., Alfredetti M. (2005), Trasformazioni sociali e nuove conoscenze. L’idea di unnuovo umanesimo nella modernità attuale, Giuffrè, Milano.

Hillman J. (1991), Oedipus Rivisited, in Kerèny K., Hillman J., Oedipus Variations, Spring, Dallas. Honneth A. (1996), The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammal of Social Conflicts, Mitt Press, Cambridge. Hosseini K. (2007) (ed. or. 2007), Mille splendidi soli, Casale Monferrato, Piemme. Husserl E. (1970), The Crisis of European Sciences and Trascendental Phenomenology, North Western University Press, Evaston. Igino (2000), Miti, a cura di G. Guidorizzi, Adelphi, Milano. Irigaray L. (1993), Je, Tu, Nous, Taylor and Francis LTD, New York. Irigaray L. (2001), Democracy Begins Between Two, Routledge, London. Jaspers K. (1997), General Psychopathology, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Kanciper L. (1996), Il complesso fraterno e il complesso edipico, quoted in De Simone G. (2007), Le famiglie di Edipo, Borla, Città di Castello. Kohut H. (1971), The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Approach to the Psychoanalytic Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders, International University Press, New York. Kohut H. (1989) (ed. or. 1981), Introspezione, empatia e il semicerchio della salute mentale, in Id., Le due analisi del signor Z., Astrolabio, Roma. Laing R.D. (1977), Conversations with Adam and Natasha, Pantheon, New York. Lisa L. (2006), Il processo di supervisione nell’attuale epistemologia della Psicoterapia della Gestalt, post graduate thesis in Gestalt Psychotherapy, Venezia. Loewald H.W. (2000), The Waning of the Oedipus Complex, in «Psychother Pract Res», 9:4, 239-249. Lupinacci M.A. (1998), Reflections on the early stages of the Oedipus complex: The parental couple in relation to psychoanalytic work, in «Journal of Child Psychotherapy», 24:3, 409-421. Lyotard F. (1979), La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir, Editions de Minuit, Paris. Magris (2012), Famiglia teatro del mondo, in «Il Sole 24 ore», Domenica 3 Giugno. Malagoli Togliatti M., Mazzoni S. (eds.) (2006), Osservare, valutare e sostenere la relazione genitori-figli. Il Lausanne Trilogie Play clinico, Raffaello Cortina, Milano. McHale J. (2007), Charting the Bumpy Road of Coparenthood: Understanding the Challanges of Family Life, Zero to Three ed. Meghnagi D. (1997), Il padre e la legge. Freud e l’ebraismo, Marsilio Editori, Venezia. Melucci A. (1994), Passaggio d’epoca. Il futuro è adesso, Feltrinelli, Milano.

Minuchin S. (1974), Families and Family Therapy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Mitchell J. (2001), Map Men and Medusas: Reclaiming Hysteria, Basic Books, New York. Morin E. (2011) (ed. or. 1985), La sfida della complessità, Feltrinelli, Milano. Munder Ross J. (1982), Oedipus Revisited-Laius and the ‘Laius Complex’, in Pollock G.H.,Munder Ross J., (eds.) (1988), The Oedipus Papers, Universities Press inc., Madison. Nietzsche F. (1999) (or. ed. 1872), The Birth of Tragedy, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish. Otto W. (2002) (or. ed. 1929), Die Götter Griechenlands, Klostermann, Frankfurt. Pasolini P. P. (1977), Affabulazione, in Id., Il teatro, Garzanti, Milano. Perls, F. (1947). Ego, Hunger and Aggression, Vintage Books, New York. Perls F., Hefferline R., Goodman P. (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in The Human Personality, Julian Press, New York. Platone (1979), Protagora, in Id., Opere complete, Laterza, Roma-Bari. Rascovsky A. (1977) (ed. or. 1973), Il figlicidio, Astrolabio, Roma. Recalcati M. (2013), Il complesso di Telemaco. Genitori e figli dopo il tramonto del padre, Feltrinelli, Milano Rizzolatti G., Sinigaglia C. (2006), So quel che fai. Il cervello che agisce e i neuroni specchio, Raffaello Cortina, Milano. Rogers C. (1995), Client Centered Therapy, Constable & Robinson, London. Rosenberg M. B. (2003), Le parole sono finestre (oppure muri), Esserci, Reggio Emilia. Ruggieri G. (2007), La verità crocifissa, Carocci, Roma. Salonia G. (1999), Dialogare nel tempo della frammentazione, in Armetta F., Naro M. (eds.), Impense adlaboravit, Pontificia Facoltà Teologica, Palermo, 572-595. Salonia G. (2004), Incesto, in G. Russo (ed.), Enciclopedia di Bioetica e Sessuologia, Elle-DiCi-Vegar-Leumann, Torino, 986-989. Salonia G. (2005), Femminile e maschile: un’irriducibile diversità, in Romano R. G. (ed.), Ciclo di vita e dinamiche educative nella società postmoderna, Franco Angeli, Milano, 54-69. Salonia G. (2005), Prefazione, in Righetti P.L., Ogni bambino merita un romanzo, Carocci, Roma, 7-19. Salonia G. (2005), Il lungo viaggio di Edipo: dalla legge del padre alla verità della relazione., in Argentino P. (ed.), Tragedie greche e psicopatologia, Medicalink Publishers, Siracusa, 29-46.

Salonia G. (2007), Odòs. La via della vita. Genesi e guarigione dei legami fraterni, EDB, Bologna. Salonia G. (2010), Edipo dopo Freud. Una nuova gestalt per il triangolo primario, in Cavanna D., Salvini A. (eds.), Per una psicologia dell’agire umano. Scritti in onore di Erminio Gius, Franco Angeli, Milano, 344-358. Salonia G. (2010), Lettera ad un giovane psicoterapeuta della Gestalt. Per un modello di Gestalt Therapy con la famiglia, in Menditto M. (ed.), Psicoterapia della Gestalt contemporanea. Strumenti ed esperienze a confronto, Franco Angeli, Milano, 185-202. Salonia G. (2011), Sulla felicità e dintorni. Fra corpo, parola e tempo, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani. Salonia G. (2012), Il paradigma triadico della traità. I contributi della Gestalt Therapy e di Bin Kimura, in Colonna Romano A. (ed.), Io-tu. In principio la relazione, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani, 27-36. Salonia G. (2012), La grazia dell’audacia. Per una lettura gestaltica dell’Antigone, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani. Salonia G. (2012), Theory of self and the liquid society. Rewriting the personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 29-57. Salonia G. (2013), Gestalt Therapy and Development Theory, in Francesetti G., Gecele M., Roubal J. (eds.), Gestalt Therapy in clinical practica – from psichopathology to the aestethics of contact, Franco Angeli, Milano. Salonia G., Danza delle sedie e danza dei pronomi, soon to be published. Salonia G., Desiderio e bisogno, soon to be published. Salonia G., Ordo amoris e famiglia d’origine, soon to be published. Salonia G., Spagnuolo Lobb M., Sichera A. (1996), From the ‘discomfort of civilization’ to ‘creative adjustement’: The relationship between individual and community in psychotherapy in the third millennium, in «International Journal of Psychotherapy», 1, 45-53. Salonia G., Spagnuolo Lobb M., Sichera A. (1997) (ed. or. 1994), Postfazione, in Perls F., Hefferline R., Goodman P., Teoria e pratica della Terapia della Gestalt, Astrolabio, Roma, 497-500. Scalfari E. (2011), Scuote l’anima mia Eros, Giulio Einaudi, Torino. Scheler M. (2008), Ordo amoris, Franco Angeli, Milano. Sichera A. (1997), La consegna del figlio. «Poesia in forma di rosa» di Pasolini, Milella, Lecce.

Sichera A. (2012), The personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 17-27. Sichera A. (2013), From Freudian fracture to Gestaltic continuity: the epistemological gap of Gestalt Therapy, infra. Spagnuolo Lobb M., Salonia G. (1986), Al di là della sedia vuota: un modello di coterapia, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», II, 3, 11-35. Spiro M.E. (1985), Is the Oedipus Complex Universal, in Pollock G. H., Munder Ross J., (eds.) (1988), The Oedipus Papers, Universities Press inc., Madison, 435-471. Stein E. (1989), On the Problem of Empathy, translated by Waltraut Stein, from The Collected Works of Edith Stein, 3, ICS Publications. Stern D. (1995), The Motherhood Constellation, Basic Books, New York. Stern D. (1998), The Interpersonal World of the Infant, Karnak Books, London. Trevarthen C. (1993), The self born in intersubjectivity, in Neuser U. (1993), The Perceived Self: Ecological and Interpersonal Sources of Sef Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tronick E. (2001), Emotional Connections and Dyadic Consciousness in Infant-Mother and Patient-Therapist Interaction. Commentary on Paper by Lachmann Frank M. «Psychoanalytic Dialogue», 11, 2, 187-194. Vernant J.P. (1976) (or. ed. 1973), Edipo senza complesso, in Vernant J. P., Vidal-Naquet P., Mito e tragedia nella Grecia antica, Einaudi, Torino. Whitman W. (2009) (or. ed. 1950), Leaves of Grass, Oxford University Press.

TESTI PUBBLICATI Come l’acqua…Per un’esperienza gestaltica con i bambini tra rabbia e paura Autori: Dada Iacono, Ghery Maltese Si esce dalla lettura di Come l’acqua... con delle sensazioni forti, come quando si viene fuori da uno di quei fiumi rigeneratori presenti in ogni cammino di iniziazione. Il corpo che vibra e le gocce che giocano sulla pelle narrano dell’acqua che scorre, della dolcezza del fluire ritrovato, della forza che proviene dagli argini, dell’impeto come energia che attraversa gli ostacoli. Leggendo si impara tanto su come, nella teoria e nella prassi della Gestalt Therapy, si lavora (o meglio: si entra in contatto) con i bambini. E non solo con loro. E non solo nel setting terapeutico o educativo. Perché i bambini ci aiutano a crescere. E forse, per far crescere la «nostra statura prossima» (quella di cui parla mirabilmente Mario Luzi), abbiamo bisogno di raggiungere ogni bambino ferito nel suo dolore, nella sua disperazione, e di coinvolgerlo (e coinvolgerci) nella danza relazionale che dentro il suo corpo vibra e preme per fluire. Come l’acqua... ISBN: 978-88-6124-384-2

La Grazia dell’audacia. Per una lettura gestaltica dell’Antigone Autore: Giovanni Salonia Il volume è ispirato da un personaggio che è icona della forza gestaltica della relazione e della capacità di portare avanti fino in fondo ciò che il cuore detta: Antigone, protagonista dell’omonima tragedia di Sofocle. Sono le riflessioni di Giovanni Salonia a guidarci nei sentieri del cuore e delle vicende di questa fanciulla che, con grazia ed intensità tutta femminile, sa proclamare ad una società che si è smarrita nella insensatezza ed aridità di una logica autoreferenziale, quell’ordine degli affetti che – solo – può restituire via e vita. «Solo perché lei sacrifica i suoi affetti più cari non scomparirà nella città il diritto degli affetti». Al saggio di Salonia fanno da cornice una prefazione di Antonio Sichera che introduce ad un lettura gestaltica dell’eroina sofoclea ed una traduzione inedita ed integrale del testo greco, preceduta a sua volta da una breve pagina di delucidazione sui criteri ed i riferimenti che hanno guidato l’opera di traduzione. ISBN: 978-88-6124-365-1 Pagine: 80

Sulla felicità e dintorni. Tra corpo parola e tempo Autore: Giovanni Salonia La felicità passa, ma a volte ritorna. È questo il messaggio in codice che viene dalla lettura di questo libro. Come a dire che non dobbiamo deflettere, che non è mail il caso di deporre la speranza. Anche nella condizione più difficile si può farle spazio, affinché la tanto attesa ritorni. ISBN: 978-88-6124-182-4 Pagine: 184

ANTONIO SICHERA

FROM FREUDIAN FRACTURE TO GESTALTIC CONTINUITY: THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL GAP OF GESTALT THERAPY Antonio Sichera

The unconscious and its by-passing in a historical-cultural perspective

“Death of God” (of the father, of tradition, of authority) and the relative relocation of the new man to the challenge of the “heaviest weight”, i.e. the attempt to autonomously endow one’s own being-there with meaning (including therein pain, suffering and death).

Freud himself, on the threshold of the 20th century (a historical period that was not by chance defined as the “age of catastrophe” by Hobsbawm1), perhaps did not intend the unconscious to become a metaphor and a hermeneutic criticism of mature modernity. The dawn of the modern age, in fact, coincides with an attack on the paradigms of the classical and Judeo-Christian tradition, and the consequent break in a thousand-year old equilibrium, in which a series of recognized authorities, transcending subjectivity, guaranteed a shared interpretation of the cosmos, of history, of existence itself. It was the form borrowed in the Medieval period from the paradigm of Christianity, based around the divine justification for living or dying. Its demise, cleverly foreseen by Nietzsche in the famous pages of The Gay Science2, may, in fact, be represented as the “death of God” (of the father, of tradition, of authority) and the relative relocation of the new man to the challenge of the “heaviest weight”, i.e. the attempt to autonomously endow one’s own being-there with meaning (including therein pain, suffering and death). The unconscious could not now appear without this background, of which it is a metaphor. Why? Because, as we know, the source of the repressed unconscious3 can be located at the level of the Oedipus, i.e. in the original scene (in Freud’s interpretation, which, as Vernant4 has shown ad abundantiam, has nothing in

1 E. Hobsbawm (1996), The Age of Extremes: A History of the World 1914-1991, Vintage Books, New York.. 2 F. Nietzsche (2001), The Gay Science, University Press, Cambridge. 3 M. Mancia (2006), Implicit Memory and early unrepressed Unconscious: their role in the therapeutic process, in «The International Journal of Psychoanalysis», 87, 83-103. 4 J.P. Vernant (1996), Edipo senza complesso, Mimesis, Milano; G.

common with the 5th century Oedipus); here the subject endures his decisive conflict with authority and tradition (the father), feels the anguish and sense of guilt in mortal combat (i.e. experiencing the wound and the inherent risk in this confrontation with the Other) and finally emerges, being unable to bear the intensity of the conflict. He decides “rationally” to install himself, to take the place of authority and tradition, in a positive but ambiguous development, since it is obtained at the cost of refusing to look directly into the tragedy of the wound, whilst healing himself, oblivious of the drama looming over everything. In any case, from our point of view, it is important to note that the unconscious is principally a tragic space, not only in that it is generated by the psychic deposit of an event under a tragic “title”, but because this original story has tragic contours at its root; an intensive, profound and decisive conflict takes place, terrible enough to resolve itself in either a sort of ambiguous flight or a wound practically beyond healing. Yet the unconscious is not merely this, not only a tòpos to be ascribed the identity of the tragic; in it there also lies unsuspected energy brimming with a sense of fun and liberation. The Unbewusste is also, in fact, the source of aesthetic creation, the powerful drive towards a dreamlike deformation of reality, towards its defaulting through the development of an emergent “primary” process, in which the transfiguring and subversive potential of the actual actions of children is expressed. Here language is manipulated, the ratio of the real is derided, the rules infringed. Freud hesitated when confronted by this disquieting enèrgeia, singing its praises on the one hand, but, on the other, confining it in a plane of existence incapable of touching on actual reality; what is more, he conceived of it, from the point of view of the poietès, as merely partial and unattainable compensation for pathological discomfort. However this does not detract from the fact that the unconscious is also, for the father of psychoanalysis, a ludic space, the driving-force behind the artistic experience that throughout the modern age has represented the salus, almost the only possible theology in a world deprived of God’s vigilance.

Salonia (2013), Oedipus after Freud. From the law of the father to the law of relationship, infra.

Unbewusste is also, in fact, the source of aesthetic creation, the powerful drive towards a dreamlike deformation of reality, towards its defaulting through the development of an emergent “primary” process, in which the transfiguring and subversive potential of the actual actions of children is expressed.

We are ultimately dealing with an epistemology of split, with a theoretical structure marked by discontinuity and the dramatic separation of the subject and his experience of the world.

In Freud there is the metaphor of both the tragedy of the modern and its possible lenition, but the hermeneutic prophecy of psychoanalysis is repaid by the excruciating isolation of the suffering man (divided within himself and deprived of any intersubjective awareness) and the confinement of the reanimating dynamis in a psychic region removed from consciousness and the everyday. The unconscious is a dual space, both tragic and recreational, but by definition it is a psychic area protected by a barrier separating the subject from the world and also from himself. We are ultimately dealing with an epistemology of split, with a theoretical structure marked by discontinuity and the dramatic separation of the subject and his experience of the world. It is in this context that there is a need to understand the existing debate with the Freudian legacy (which the authors of Gestalt Therapy5 have been striving to confront); this was the founding book of Gestalt Therapy, emerging in New York in the late post-war period, in accordance with a thorough re-reading of Freud’s writings by a refined group of European and American intellectuals (therapists, philosophers, scholars) collected in a “circle” by Laura Polster (the wife of Frederick Perls, to whom we owe the germinal theoretical intuitions subsequently developed in his New York book by the sharp writing of Goodman). They did not want to ignore Freud or attack him gratuitously, but to re-assess him, beginning with the new theoretical premise that we might call “epistemology of continuity”, i.e. the subjective integrity and totality of experience. More specifically, as regards the unconscious and its duplicity as generator of the pathology and also hidden creator of the aìsthesis, there was essentially a need to execute, with regard to the Freudian lesson, two opposing and specular moves. On the one hand, restore the tragic dimension to the founding aspect, i.e. return it to the intersubjective surface which is at its base, and can be recovered and somehow unravelled in therapy; on the other hand, there is a need to restore to art its power to modify the

5 F. Perls, R. Hefferline, P. Goodman (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality, Julian Press, New York.

real, re-reading it at the same time as a process of profound integration of the levels of experience, between word and body, between the implicit and the explicit.

The first move: the relational hermeneutics of the unconscious The acquisition from which to depart in Gestalt Therapy, in order to restore the unconscious to its relational matrix, is certainly that of the organism/environment field. As if to say: «In the beginning was the field», or in other words: in the model worked out by Perls and Goodman, reality is not supplied by an isolated subject, separated from the world, falling back on its own psyche, but is a vital organism/environment field, i.e. a reality in which subject and world offer themselves originally as jointly-present, as a “being-there-with” (Heidegger’s MitDasein). The en archè of existence is therefore the relationship considered at all levels: physiological, emotional, social, cultural, political, because all these levels interact holistically in the phenomenology of experience. But what then is experience? Experience is the organization of the field in accordance with the rhythm of the figure and the background. Thus, it is an event of the field, like a spontaneous internal organization for which, starting from an organismic need or an environmental stimulus, it is pervaded by a structuring energy, the excitement (energetic equivalent of desire) that conducts the organism and the environment, the I and the You, to the co-creation of a communal space, the contact boundary. At the basis of this process, there is the illumination of an area of the field that attracts the resources and energies present (that which we call “figure”) and which is progressively determined on the “background” of the body and the environment untouched by excitement; in the contact the figure is full and bright, then the boundary stop vibrating, the organism and the environment withdraw and the figure retreats into the background, being assimilated and contributing to the growth of the organism. This is the vital rhythm that belongs to experience in a constitutive manner from early childhood. One might imagine the infant (not to be considered outside the sphere of the mother and his caregivers, at the risk of an unsustainable

The acquisition from which to depart in Gestalt Therapy, in order to restore the unconscious to its relational matrix, is certainly that of the organism/environment field.

Experience is the organization of the field in accordance with the rhythm of the figure and the background.

Experience is never the concern of a single subject, but the fruit of its creativity in the field, its manipulating, refusing, choosing of the possibilities “given”, proffered by the field.

abstraction), who feels the need to eat, the hunger, emerging from its his corporeal background. The creative process of the self6 takes off from here. When the object/possibility that can satisfy the need is illuminated (i.e. the milk) excitement increases, the object becomes a figure whilst the need fades into the background; at this point the figures comes into focus, through orientation and exploration. The baby cries, moves (knowing that the field will shape itself in relation to his attempt to manipulate it) and carries out a series of identifications and alienations (refusing water or a dummy, which might possibly be offered as a substitute); when the mother’s hand with all its warmth proffers the feeding bottle or her breast, the figure is wholly formed, the contact is full, the shining figure of the You emerges and all the rest (the uninvolved body and the environment external to the process) fades into the background. The contact concludes with satisfaction (with milk and warmth), which leaves a sense of fluidity in the relationship, entailing both peace and a game between mother and child; the body absorbs the milk without the awareness of the child (the figure recedes into the corporeal background) and appends it to the domain of physiology, since whatever has been absorbed belongs to our body and can be utilised spontaneously7. Experience is therefore a totality, understood as a process of contact, whose rhythm and internal laws do not vary, independently of the contents of the experience (be it a question of, for example, feeding oneself, physiological functions or emotional or educational learning). Two things should be noted: 1) experience is never the concern of a single subject, but the fruit of his creativity in the field, his manipulating, refusing, choosing of the possibil-

6 G. Salonia (2013), Gestalt Therapy and Development Theory, in G. Francesetti, M. Gecele, and J. Roubal, Gestalt Therapy in Clinical Practice – From Psychopathology to the Aesthetics of Contact, Franco Angeli, Milano. 7 M. Spagnuolo Lobb (2001), La teoria del sé in psicoterapia della Gestalt, in M. Spagnuolo Lobb (ed.), Psicoterapia della Gestalt. Ermeneutica e clinica, Franco Angeli, Milano, 86-110; G. Salonia (2012), Theory of self and the liquid society. Rewriting the personalityfunction in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 29-57; A. Sichera (2012), The personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 17-27.

ities “given”, proffered by the field, meaning that experience is creative adjustment, and creativity belongs to it intrinsically; 2) whatever is absorbed in the contact process becomes part of the corporeal background like a second physiology, an unaware but ever-retrievable habit, regardless of its belonging either to the pre-oedipal or the oedipal. It is not necessary to think of an unrepressed unconscious, but of a withdrawing of the figure into the background, an unconscious corporeal assimilation of the nourishing element, which, in the ‘good-enough’ contact process, provides the possibility of undergoing the experience again, which can take place either through corporeal knowledge or through linguistic ability, in the case of learning subsequent to the appearance and utilization of this exceptional faculty. As regards corporeal knowledge, in our earliest infancy experiences our memories of the content fade away, whilst the corporeal memory of the forms of experience, of warmth received, of trust apportioned, of spontaneity felt, remains very much alive and can be re-attained as a great force in adult life. Where and how is the pathology generated? When the rhythm of experience, its flux, is broken up and interrupted. More precisely, when the progressive illumination/approach to the contact figure is blocked and the increase in excitement is stifled, one learns how to deliberately control the experience so that over a period of time the control is forgotten and becomes part of one’s physiology, thus transforming itself into an unaware habit; on the other hand, the excitement (the desire) continues to disturb the corporeal background interfering with every subsequent situation. The wounded relationship is one in which contact is not achieved, in which it has seemed dangerous or impossible, and the self has been obliged to find a way of defending itself from the danger (holding one’s breath, hunching one’s shoulders etc.), impeding the excitement and emerging from the process with the least possible damage, with an adjustment consented “in emergencies”. The way in which the relationship was impeded is forgotten, the desire for contact, the opening-up of the self to encounters with others, the original tension with regard to the You with whom the encounter was possible, remain and cannot be jettisoned. The difference between neurosis and psychosis, from this standpoint, lies in the fact that, whereas non-archaic childhood desire remains in the background, in the body, like a disturbance

The wounded relationship is one in which contact is not achieved, in which it has seemed dangerous or impossible.

The psychoanalytical fracture between the conscious and unconscious is replaced by a continuity of subjective experience entrusted to the body and the whole played out in the relationship between the aware and unaware.

Gestalt therapy is not a way of retrieving the repressed content, but concluding, in a real relation, an uncompleted situation, which is present here and now in the setting.

of subsequent experiences (and it is this pressure on the body that generates the neurotic symptom, like an alarm-bell for the crisis of subjective â&#x20AC;&#x153;traditionâ&#x20AC;?), in older experiences the block on excitement in its initial expansion, destroys the background itself preventing the ground from forming; it impairs the primary functions of the body, which cannot then distinguish, for example, between perception of the world and proprioception. In this case every experience is filled up by the self, everything is a figure, no background provides support or gives confidence: a psychotic symptom is generated8. Several consequences: 1) in Gestaltic interpretation, what psychoanalysis calls the unconscious (in the sense of the repressed unconscious) is simply the by-now unconscious fruit of a relational block transformed into an intra-psychic block, a deliberate control originating in the relationship and absorbed by the body/background as an unaware habit, whose energy for desire however remains alive, to weaken and disturb every subsequent experience. The archaic character of the block establishes the nature of the disturbance as a weakness of the figure or a crisis in the actual background of the experience; as we have already mentioned, the non-repressed unconscious, i.e. the models and forms of pre-oedipal infant experience, must, along the same lines, be considered not as buried and inaccessible experience, but as original learning available to the corporeal memory as decisive potential in adult life; 2) in this sense, the psychoanalytical fracture between the conscious and unconscious is replaced by a continuity of subjective experience entrusted to the body and the whole played out in the relationship between the aware and unaware; 3) Gestalt therapy is not a way of retrieving the repressed content, but concluding, in a real relation, an uncompleted situation, which is present here and now in the setting, and not simply evoked or represent-

8 M. Spagnuolo Lobb (2003), Creative Adjustment in Madness: A Gestalt Therapy Model for Seriously Disturbed Patients, in M. Spagnuolo Lobb, N. Amendt-Lyon (eds.), Creative License: The Art of Gestalt Therapy, Springer, Vienna & New York, 261-277; G. Salonia, V. Conte, P. Argentino (2013), Devo sapere subito se sono vivo. Saggi di psicopatologia gestaltica, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani.

ed ideally: therapy is the road towards fresh illumination of the contact figure or towards a (re-) constitution of a never-formed background, in a co-creation that restores vital elasticity to the boundaries and turns them into spaces of encounter with the reality of a You. Therefore, the unconscious, in Gestalt Therapy, returns to the world of men, to the reality of their relationships; it can be rendered creatively attainable, and can be “unravelled” in therapy, but not without aesthetics.

The second move: the aesthetic resolution What actually happens in the setting? Simply a poìesis, a shared creation in which the circle between implicit and explicit, between body and word, is sealed. From the Perls and Goodman perspective, in fact, therapy is an aesthetic space in which substance is given to the empty words of the neurotic, or the word, as expressive receptacle, is given to the wounded body of the psychotic. This is a crucial point, because in this sense therapy, in fact, merely “mimes” (and “remakes”), in the relationship, the actual essence of every aesthetic act. What then is art? Certainly not a process at the basis or core of which to place the unconscious (repressed or not), in the sense of an implicit representing its secret, the key-stone, like a source nucleus subsequently arrayed by the artist in words, sounds, colours, i.e. “formalized” and expressed in terms that are specific (aesthetic in the proper sense), but ultimately secondary. No. The phenomenology of the aesthetic act cannot strictly consider it either as the dominion of pure implicitness or a sort of process of verbalization or externalization of a psychic content not to be made explicit. The secret of art, from a phenomenological standpoint (Schelling9 knew this, hermeneutics has reaffirmed it) is the act of “giving form” in a strong sense; it is the appearance in language and its codes, of the implicit energy, i.e. the poìesis, in which the unconscious (however one might imagine it) finds specific and irreplaceable expression in a world of symbols and words. Poetry is a glaring

9 F.W. Schelling (1993)(or. ed. 1800), System of Trascendental Idealism, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

In fact, therapy is an aesthetic space in which substance is given to the empty words of the neurotic, or the word, as expressive receptacle, is given to the wounded body of the psychotic.

Authentic human relations are profoundly aesthetic and, therefore, art is a transfiguring force in the world and the subjective conditions of existence.

example of this. No psychic energy, no pure pàthos is sufficient to explain it, nor can it be achieved through abstract knowledge of techniques and linguistic procedures: poetry “is” when there emerges one word (that and no other) that can render the voice in the present, (Steiner imagines a Eucharistic10 presence), a corporeal accord, the implicit inhabiting an existence, its history, its being-there. When a presence is re-proposed, one is faced by a word that restores emotions, strength, the mysterious intensity of a reality and a body; this is where poetry emerges. We might decline the implicit in a subjective or communal, existential or cultural sense; furthermore, we might confer historically diverse characters to the explicit and its forms, but what really happens in the actual poetic manifestation is this almost miraculous circuit, this being-there of that word and no another, as a voice, as an intimate and indissoluble form of an implicit, of a corporeal “knowing” and “saying”11. The second Gestalt Therapy move appears thus in its originality: the unconscious dimension of the aesthetic is not to be denied, and this decisive space of experience needs to be restored to the integrity of the subject, to its creative awareness expressed in the search for the word and the code, in this way returning aesthetic experience to a human, relational source; (it is not the unconscious or the implicit, understood as a pre-linguistic primum and, therefore, subtracted from the surface of existence that constitute the decisive intersection of the aisthesis). In other words: authentic human relations are profoundly aesthetic and, therefore, art is a transfiguring force in the world and the subjective conditions of existence; in the space of creation the artist “resolves” his problem, completes his unfinished business (which amounts to “healing”), if one substitutes the poet’s ideal listeners with the real audience of the other, the therapist in the setting. Thus, in

10 G. Steiner (1991), Real Presences, University Chicago Press, Chicago. 11 A. Sichera (1997), Comparison with Gadamer: Towards a Hermeneutic Epistemology of Gestalt Therapy, in «Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 6-7, 9-30. Idem (2003), Therapy a san aestethic issue. Creativity, art and dream in Gestalt Therapy, in M. Spagnuolo Lobb., N. Amendt-Lyon (eds.), Creative License: The Art of Gestalt Therapy, op. cit., 93-100.

Nietzschean terms (it is not mere chance that Freud loved and feared his writing) the Dionysian of the tragic space finds its own Apollonian form, an essential condition for its authentic appearance in the world. The aesthetic welcomes the tragic, expresses it and dissolves it into the scene (unthinkable for Freud and Nietzsche) of a real human, everyday relationship.

Brief conclusions To sum up. Albeit from the very precise viewpoint of the Oedipus or the generation of the unconscious, Gestalt Therapy has been seen as a profound (and in many ways, unsuspected) interlocutor for the psychoanalytical universe, starting from its founderâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s key-texts. Humanistic therapies do not usually, in principle, welcome freudian conceptualization, which is deemed unacceptable tout court (and therefore excluded from any form of dialogue), whereas, in contrast, the Gestalt Therapy approach aims to fruitfully harness phenomenological inspiration with the psychoanalytical matrix, in accordance with a quite original model; thanks to contact phenomenology, on the one hand this model shuns Freudian intra-psychism, and, on the other, diagnostic (and linguistic) impotence in virtue of a close comparison with the analytical and post-analytical movements, reinterpreted by Perls and Goodman in a hermeneutic key12. This is because Gestalt therapists know that where there is the Id one needs to site the I-You; where there is the fracture one needs to reconstruct the vital continuity of experience. However, remembrances persist, in both thought and language, that the fracture is in fact a loophole, the uterus, from which they will emerge into the world like new creatures.

12 G. Salonia (1993), Time and relation: relational deliberateness as hermeneutic horizon in Gestalt Therapy, in ÂŤStudies in Gestalt TherapyÂť, 1, 7-19.

The aesthetic welcomes the tragic, expresses it and dissolves it into the scene (unthinkable for Freud and Nietzsche) of a real human, everyday relationship.

This is because Gestalt therapists know that where there is the Id one needs to site the I-You; where there is the fracture one needs to reconstruct the vital continuity of experience. However, remembrances persist, in both thought and language, that the fracture is in fact a loophole, the uterus, from which they will emerge into the world like new creatures.

REFERENCES Hobsbawm E. (1996), The Age of Extremes: A History of the World 1914-1991, Vintage Books, New York. Mancia M. (2006), Implicit Memory and early unrepressed Unconscious: their role in the therapeutic process, in «The International Journal of Psychoanalysis», 87, 83-103. Nietzsche F. (2001), The Gay Science, University Press, Cambridge. Perls F., Hefferline R., Goodman P. (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in The Human Personality, Julian Press, New York. Salonia G. (1993), Time and relation: relational deliberateness as hermeneutic horizon in Gestalt Therapy, in « Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 1, 7-19. Salonia G. (2012), Theory of self and the liquid society. Rewriting the personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 29-57. Salonia G. (2013), Oedipus after Freud. From the law of the father to the law of relationship, infra. Salonia G. (2013), Gestalt Therapy and Development Theory, in Francesetti G., Gecele M. and Roubal J., Gestalt Therapy in Clinical Practice – From Psychopathology to the Aesthetics of Contact, Franco Angeli, Milano. Salonia G., Conte V., Argentino P. (2013), Devo sapere subito se sono vivo. Saggi di psicopatologia gestaltica, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani. Schelling F. W. (1993)(or. ed. 1800), System of Trascendental Idealism, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Sichera A. (1997), Comparison with Gadamer: Towards a Hermeneutic Epistemology of Gestalt Therapy, in «Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 6-7, 9-30. Sichera A. (2003), Therapy a san aestethic issue. Creativity, art and dream in Gestalt Therapy, in Spagnuolo Lobb M., Amendt-Lyon N. (eds.), Creative License: The Art of Gestalt Therapy, Springer, Vienna & New York, 93-100. Sichera A. (2012), The personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 17-27. Spagnuolo Lobb M. (2001), La teoria del sé in psicoterapia della Gestalt, in Spagnuolo Lobb M. (ed.), Psicoterapia della Gestalt. Ermeneutica e clinica, Franco Angeli, Milano, 86-110; Spagnuolo Lobb M. (2003), Creative Adjustment in Madness: A Gestalt Therapy Model for Seriously Disturbed Patients, in Spagnuolo Lobb M., Amendt-Lyon N. (eds.), Creative License: The Art of Gestalt Therapy, Springer, Vienna & New York, 261-277. Steiner G. (1991), Real Presences, University Chicago Press, Chicago. Vernant J. P. (1996), Edipo senza complesso, Mimesis, Milano.

PROSSME PUBBLICAZIONI

Danza delle sedie e danza dei pronomi. La Gestalt Therapy con le coppie e le famiglie Autore: Giovanni Salonia La famiglia postmoderna porta avanti un progetto inedito e ambizioso: essere il luogo della piena realizzazione di ognuno e di tutti. Dentro tale intenzionalità accadono difficoltà e conflitti che spesso sembrano contraddire questo progetto. Coniugare, infatti, maternità e paternità, maschile e femminile, sessualità e vita quotidiana, sogni e tradimenti, piccoli e grandi, centralità e periferia, primogeniti e secondogeniti è fatica spesso impossibile. La Gestalt Therapy, assumendo come principi ispiratori e clinici la centralità del soggetto in relazione, il corpo vissuto, il qui-e-adesso del contatto, offre chiavi di lettura e di intervento che facilitano nella famiglia la ripresa della danza relazionale, dove diventa musica il ritmo di ogni membro della famiglia. Categorie come intercorporeità, funzione Personalità, grammatica della relazione, diventano nella presentazione dell’autore strumenti terapeutici preziosi per ridare alla famiglia il sogno di una pienezza del singolo e di tutti. ISBN 978-88-6124-388-0 Pagine: 160

La luna è fatta di formaggio. Terapeuti gestaltisti traducono il linguaggio borderline Autore: Giovanni Salonia (ed.) Nella acuta risposta di I.From «Luna e formaggio sono gialle» è racchiusa la cifra della rivoluzione clinica operata dalla Gestalt Therapy nella cura dei pazienti borderline. Non negare la loro esperienza, non interpretarla, non definirla, non confrontarla ma trovarne il senso. Il libro prendendo le mosse da questi insegnamenti sviluppa in modo sistematico un modello di cura del paziente borderline che nella sua formulazione - “la traduzione gestaltica del linguaggio borderline” - esprime la nuova ermeneutica: accostarsi al linguaggio strano del borderline come ad una lingua straniera e non subalterna o strana. vengono descritti - con il sussidio delle neuroscienze - luoghi e livelli di confusioni che - rilette all’interno della teoria del sè e del ciclo di contatto - costituiscono la trama della terapia. In un serrato e puntuale confronto con verbatim di altri approcci - Gabbard, Henberg, mentalizzazione, empatia – vengono illustrate le declinazione cliniche della nuova ermenetuica: traduzione gestaltica del linguaggio borderline. ISBN 978-88-6124-489-4 Pagine: 150

GIOVANNI SALONIA

LETTER TO A YOUNG GESTALT THERAPIST. GESTALT THERAPY APPROACH TO FAMILY THERAPY Giovanni Salonia

Key words the three functions of the self, the Id-function, the Personality-function, the Ego-function, Gestalt family therapy.

Introduction1 I am writing to offer a more in-depth reply to your question about family therapy and Gestalt therapy (GT). Having seen me at work with families, you asked me why it was that family therapy manuals2 make no mention of GT, and why some Gestalt therapists themselves claim that GT should not be used with families. Although very much applicable to family settings at the theoretical and clinical levels, in its beginnings GT, for various reasons, privileged group and individual therapy work.3 The few Gestalt therapists who early on began working directly with couples and families were in some way ‘visceral’4 in their approach, focusing on the centrality of experience in both theory and practice. For this reason, manuals in the USA in those years classified GT as an experiential family therapy

1 The contents of this article were developed over many years of work with couples and families seen in co-therapy with Valeria Conte, who I very much thank for her clinical contribution and cooperation. A heartfelt thanks also goes to Professor Agata Pisana for her stylistic and bibliographical review of this paper. 2 Cfr. A.S. Gurman and D.T. Kniskern (eds.)(1981), Handbook of Family Therapy, Routledge, New York.; cf. also M. Andolfi (2003), Manuale di psicologia relazionale. La dimensione familiare, APF, Roma. 3 For example, W. Kempler (1974), Principles of Gestalt Therapy, Kempler Institute, Costa Mesa, CA. 4 On the division of GT into three streams see E. Rosenfeld (1987), Storia orale della Terapia della Gestalt. Conversazioni con Laura Perls, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», II, 3, 36-62.

(together with C. Whitaker, V. Satir and others).5 Only later on, thanks especially to the theoretical and clinical research of J. Zinker and S. Nevis,6 was the theory of contact/withdrawal from contact applied in work with couples and families. The specific feature of the Gestalt Family Therapy model (GFT) which you saw put into action in my work, and which I will shortly present to you in broad terms, lies in having taken on and redeveloped with reference to family work the theory of self, and in particular the three functions of the self: the Id-function, the Personality-function, and the Ego-function. In this model, previous perspectives focusing on the experience and theory of the contact/withdrawal from contact cycle are therefore included within the broader framework of the theory of the self.

The theory of self when working with families As you know, one of the initial intuitions of GT lay in the development of a new and original theory of self.7 Taking a relational epistemology as their starting point (the relationship of the organism to its environment), the founders of GT moved from a theory of the ego to a theory of self. Their intuition soon proved clear to all theorists of the self: we do not live on islands but in constant contact and interaction, which means that any theory of growth and development must deal with the capacity of individuals to relate to their environment.

5 Cf. F.P. Piercy et alii (1986), Family Therapy Sourcebook, The Guilford Press, New York. 6 J. Zinker, S. Nevis (1987), Teoria della Gestalt sulle interazioni di coppia e familiari, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», II, 4, 17-32. 7 Cf. F. Perls, R Hefferline, P. Goodman (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in The Human Personality, Julian Press, New York.; G. Salonia (2012), Theory of self and the liquid society. Rewriting the personality-function in Gestalt Therapy, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 3, 29-57; C. Whitaker (1990), Considerazioni notturne di un terapeuta della famiglia, Astrolabio, Roma; G. Salonia (1989), Tempi e modi di contatto, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», V, 8/9, 55-64.

The specific feature of the Gestalt Family Therapy model which I will shortly present lies in having taken on and redeveloped with reference to family work the theory of self, and in particular the three functions of the self: the id-function, the personality function, and the ego function.

Three functions are co-present at the contact boundary at all stages, mutually influencing each other. For instance, the perception of bodily sensations and environmental stimuli (the id-function of the self) is intimately tied with the perception we have of ourselves and of how we should interact with the environment (the personality-function of the self).

In line with their phenomenological approach to experience, and in order to prevent the reification of the self, the founders of GT set to work on carefully developing the concept of the functions of the self. They defined the self as the ‘organism-in-action’, identifying its three specific functions: the Ego-function, the Id-function, and the Personality-function. These functions, as you will know, come into play at various stages of the contact/ withdrawal from contact cycle between the organism and the environment. The self is in the Id-function when it focuses on bodily sensations that come from ‘within the skin’, from the history of contact and from reactions to environmental stimuli. The question ‘what do you feel?’ — so typical of the Gestalt therapist — zeroes in on ‘where’ and ‘how’ the organism finds itself in relation to the environment (organismic intentionality). At this point, the organism needs to distinguish between what belongs to ‘me’ and what does not, the ‘non me’, and to decide whether or not to start the process that will bring it in contact with the environment. The Ego-function — ‘what I want’ — consists in the organism’s being present at the contact boundary with the environment. Once full contact is made between the organism and the environment, the assimilation stage begins, in which the organism redefines itself through the new contact experience, asking questions such as ‘what have I become?’, and ‘who am I now?’ (the Personality-function of the self). It should be stressed that these three functions are co-present at the contact boundary at all stages, mutually influencing each other. For instance, the perception of bodily sensations and environmental stimuli (the Id-function of the self) is intimately tied with the perception we have of ourselves and of how we should interact with the environment (the Personality-function of the self). When a forty-year-old perceives himself as a teenager, he distorts his perception of lived experience and environmental stimuli, and moves in the environment with false information. The family as a whole is an organism-in-action. Hence, a parent with a Personality-function disorder will find it difficult to become fully conscious of his parental experience and of the needs that emerge from his children, or rather, from his children’s bodies.

The Id-function of the self in the family-body (a diachronic perspective) As you will have often heard, requests for therapy usually arise when a person or a family is having difficulty going through a stage of its own life-cycle.8 The specific problem to be dealt with when working with families is the emergence of difficulties for one family member (a child who is suffering for instance) from the troubled ground of the entire family (that is, undeveloped, confused or rigidly conflictual experiences). For GT, the boy/girl is suffering because s/he does not have the specific support s/he needs from the family (or more specifically, from the parental figures) to grow and develop. Hence from this perspective, therapy needs to focus on the lived experiences of all the family members, which is the experiential ground from which the problem emerges. Let’s look at an example. A daughter will find it excessively embarrassing to expose her body if severe, fearful, or discrediting family eyes have never permitted her the spontaneous, vibrant experience of expressing herself in full. Bearing in mind that the Id-function in GT concerns the body, understood as intimate identity, it should be stressed that such problems have a clear bodily matrix to them. Changes in our bodies trigger new lived experiences, signalling the passage from one step in the life cycle to the next. As the body changes, it presents us a new developmental task: the rethinking or redefinition of the boundaries of our identity and approach to relationships.9 Hence when working with families, the Gestalt

8 Cf. G. Salonia (1987), Il lavoro gestaltico con le coppie e le famiglie: il ciclo vitale e l’integrazione delle polarità, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», III, 4, 144-155; E. Scabini (1992), L’organizzazione della famiglia, tra crisi e sviluppo, Franco Angeli, Milano; F. Walsh (1993), Ciclo vitale e dinamiche familiari, Franco Angeli, Milano; R.G. Romano (ed.) (2004), Ciclo di vita e dinamiche educative nella società postmoderna, Franco Angeli, Milano. 9 That bodily changes trigger modifications in relationship approaches can also be seen through a Gestalt interpretation of freudian developmental theories. Cf. G. Salonia (2008), La psicoterapia della Gestalt e il lavoro sul corpo. Per una rilettura del fitness, in S. Vero (ed.), Il corpo disabitato. Semiologia, fenomenologia e psicopatologia del fitness, Franco Angeli, Milano, 51-81.

The emergence of difficulties for one family member (a child who is suffering for instance) from the troubled ground of the entire family

Changes in our bodies trigger new lived experiences, signalling the passage from one step in the life cycle to the next. As the body changes, it presents us a new developmental task.

The difficulties faced in the transition from one stage of the life cycle to another are visible in both the body of the changing person and in the bodies of other family members who, provoked by the new situation, seek to avoid it or impede it.

He symptom can be placed within the nexus of proximity of bodies and relationships experienced within the family itself, and which elsewhere I have called intercorporeity.

therapist observes signs and distress tied to changes in the bodies of the family members. The difficulties faced in the transition from one stage of the life cycle to another are visible in both the body of the changing person and in the bodies of other family members who, provoked by the new situation, seek to avoid it or impede it. How can a mother support and nurture the beauty of her daughter as she grows into a woman, if she herself did not experience this in the intimacy of her own body as a woman, before becoming a mother? It is precisely when the family-self is unable to understand the distress experienced by family bodies that the symptom becomes full-blown, often in one family member only. To understand fully the type of suffering expressed through the symptom, three dimensions of the symptom need to be borne in mind: the developmental, bodily and relational dimensions. The symptom tells us, in an anguished and often non-linear way, of how the body is changing, of how a family which should be changing with that body is unable to, of how other bodies experience fear instead of providing support, and of how old tensions have returned to the fore, exerting pressure to become the figure and be developed. Interestingly, the symptom can be placed within the nexus of proximity of bodies and relationships experienced within the family itself,10 and which elsewhere I have called intercorporeity.11 The family calls for help because it has not managed to silence (let alone understand) the distress of a body that is dismantling the emotional order, leaving the distress of family bodies to emerge. In the GFT approach, it is the Id-function that needs to be looked at first. Which body in the family is suffering? Which budding change is not being developed? How are other bodies suffering? At which stage of the developmental cycle is the family stuck? Understanding family processes (the family Id-function) offers the therapist a precise horizon for developing therapy (and helping the family progress to the next step of the develop-

10 On the lived home see G. Giordano (1997), La casa vissuta. Percorsi e dinamiche dellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;abitare, GiuffrĂ¨, Milano. 11 On the body in GT see G. Salonia (2008), La psicoterapia della Gestalt e il lavoro sul corpo. Per una rilettura del fitness, cit.

ment cycle). Bear in mind though that informing the family of the developmental nature of its distress will not produce any immediate therapy results. Results will only be seen once emotional-relational wounds have been opened up, giving voice to bodily fears.

The Personality-function (a synchronic perspective) The disorder of Personality-function is also present in the difficulties a family has in dealing with change. If family members do not define themselves and the others by clear, flexible boundaries, they will not be ready to face the new, emerging situation and, as a result, their bodily experience of the new situation will be distorted (Id-function disorder). The Personality-function of the self is, in fact, intimately tied to the Id-function. Personality-function disorders in families have their roots in the Personality-function of the parenting couple — not just one parent, that is, but both. Their shared experiences — what they feel in relation to the parenthood of the other, which may be sympathy/ isolation, exclusion/inclusion, support/discreditation — determine the quality of the contact boundary and their identification with their children (others talk of a ‘generational line’ which may be present/absent, flexible/rigid, clear/confused). The Personality-function of the parents consists of two specific functions: the Personality-function-of-being-a-couple and the Personality-function-of-being-parents. These two functions are distinct, which means that even if the couple breaks up, they each remain parents. This is fundamental in guaranteeing the mental well-being of children, despite the physical suffering experienced with the break-up of the family. The parent-function, in turn, consists of two intimately connected states: ‘being-parents-of (I am the father/mother of this child) and ‘being-parents-with’ (I am the father of this child with this mother).12 It is therefore much more complex and intriguing to

12 Cf. G. Salonia, Danza delle sedie e danza dei pronomi. La GT con le coppie e le famiglie, Il pozzo di Giacobbe, Trapani, in press.

Personality-function disorders in families have their roots in the personality-function of the parenting couple — not just one parent, that is, but both.

The personality-function of the parents consists of two specific functions: the personality-function-of-being-a-couple and the personality-function-of-being-parents.

‘Being-parents-of’ (I am the father/mother of this child) and ‘being-parents-with’ (I am the father of this child with this mother).

‘Being-parents-with’ influences and determines the quality of our ‘being-parents-of’.

observe the experience of ‘being-parent-of from the triangular perspective of ‘being-parents-with’. Some family theories — especially in latest research into child development13 — and the Gestalt interpretation of Oedipus14 clearly suggest that the quality of our ‘being-parents-with’ influences and determines the quality of our ‘being-parents-of. If a parent has a disturbed relationship with the partner parent, the risk is that a negative perception of the co-parent will be transmitted to the child, or even, as we shall see further on, that contrasting alliances may be built. For this reason, the objective of the therapist when working with families is to reconstruct the parent-function, starting from the primary function of ‘being-parents-with’. Remember that this does not mean that the parents have to ‘get along’. In GT, contact is considered ‘valid’ or ‘positive’ depending on how interaction occurs, and not on whether conflict is resolved or absent. Where developed with our full attention and the attention of others, conflict or diversity can render contact valid or nourishing. For instance, two parents who disagree on the curfew they should give their daughter will effectively and creatively resolve their conflict not by simply reducing the disagreement to.a rational compromise (settling for a one o’clock curfew, where one parent proposed midnight and the other two o’clock), but rather when whatever solution they find is based on the appreciation of the other’s diverse point of view, and on the intimate awareness that it enriches their original perspective on parenting. In fact, even if no argument ensues, the parent proposing the midnight curfew will suspect in her inner self that she is being overprotective of the child, while the parent proposing the two o’clock curfew will realise in his inner self that he too is at bit afraid of the possible risks of his child staying out late. Since children need to learn both prudence

13 E. Fivaz-Depeursing, A. Corboz-Warner (1999), The Primary Triangle, Basic Books, New York. 14 Cf. G. Salonia (2005), Il lungo viaggio di Edipo: dalla legge del padre alla verità della relazione, in P. Argentino (ed.), Tragedie greche e psicopatologia, Medicalink Publishers, Siracusa, 29-46; Id. (2013), Oedipus after Freud. From the law of the father to the law of relationship, infra.

and audacity, it is important that the approach to parenting includes both these polarities, without false divisions being created. Where there is respect and gratitude for the ‘other’ perspective of the co-parent, whatever solution is found will be good for the child. Even where one parent is absent, the parenting function of the other parent will be validly fulfilled providing that he/she does not live this absence as a sort of ‘short cut’ to imposing their own parenting approach. Let me now present briefly some of the more common Personality -function disorders in parenting couples. While appreciating the genius of Salvador Minuchin’s structural therapy model15 (systems, sub-systems, generational line), in the GT approach, we will focus on how the bodily relational experience lived by each family member determines the quality of family relationships. Let’s look at these disorders together. A first disorder emerges when both parents remain stuck in a childhood Personality-function, which leads them to create a falsely egalitarian relationship with their children (neurotic confluence). In this case, the boundary that distinguishes (separates and unites) the parent-child generational line is missing. In reality, for various reasons (often the parents have not developed their own experience of children), the parents feel uncomfortable with the experience of taking care’ of others. They interact with their children on an egalitarian level without taking responsibility for their upbringing. As a result, the parents may easily become authoritarian without being authoritative, or apprehensive but ineffective in managing rules within the family. Children who do not receive the support they need from their parents remain torn between being little and being grown-up (Personality-function disorder)16. A second interruption in the parent-child boundary occurs when the parents experience parenthood as a threat to their own relationship as a couple, as though the couple and parenting dimensions were irreconcilable. This perceptive dysfunction expresses a

15 S. Minuchin (1974), Families and Family Therapy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 16 This situation frequently emerges in disadvantaged social groups where the patriarchal family structure still reigns, with a ‘tribal chief’ in charge of, or insisting on, fulfilling the parental function even as far down as the third generation.

A first disorder emerges when both parents remain stuck in a childhood personality-function, which leads them to create a falsely egalitarian relationship with their children (neurotic confluence).

The parents experience parenthood as a threat to their own relationship as a couple, as though the couple and parenting dimensions were irreconcilable.

Parents experience their couple relationship in terms of dependency and contraposition instead of on equal terms, that is as one up-one down. This rigid asymmetry may become manifest in a dependent/introjective way (where one partner is consensually perceived as up) or in a counterdependent/projective way (where one partner is perceived as the enemy in an escalation of symmetry).

Personality-function disorder because the couple remain stuck in a disturbed confluence that inhibits them from creatively opening up to the parenting role. Differences are denied although the healthy aggressiveness necessary for full contact to be achieved remains in the ground.17 This developmental block, which is expressed and upheld by the habit of precociously resolving conflict, forces the couple to remain cohesive, and the couple is not able to evolve towards new stages involving openness towards others. Absorbed by unconscious internal conflicts (unfinished gestalten), each partner in the couple is unable to distract his/her attention away from the other partner, not even to take care of their children.18 In such a relational context, children feel their own presence to be of little interest to their parents, thereby exasperating, as a result, self-support processes (parentalisation) and egalitarian ties with their siblings (a sort of solidarity between ‘emotional orphans’). A third dysfunction occurs when parents experience their couple relationship in terms of dependency and contraposition instead of on equal terms, that is as one up-one down. This rigid asymmetry may become manifest in a dependent/introjective way (where one partner is consensually perceived as up) or in a counterdependent/projective way (where one partner is perceived as the enemy in an escalation of symmetry).19 These two approaches to the relationship give rise to dysfunctional approaches to the parenting role of the couple. Either the family is organised hierarchically, in which one parent becomes a reference for the entire family, and the other parent (together with the children) become dependent (in this case, a child of the same sex as the up parent is left in a down position, relegated to the role of ‘Cinderella’; or the

17 Cf. V. Conte (1998/99), Dalla appartenenza alla individuazione: come restare coppia, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», XIV-XV, 26/29, 134-136; Id. (2008), Essere coppia nella postmodernità, in A. Ferrara, M. Spagnuolo Lobb (eds.), Le voci della Gestalt. Sviluppi e innovazioni di una psicoterapia, Franco Angeli, Milano, 168-173. 18 Quite clearly, as therapists we are not concerned with the affection felt by parents, but exclusively with the quality of contact: cf. G. Salonia (1993), Time and relation: relational deliberateness as hermeneutic horizon in Gestalt Therapy, in «Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 1, 7-19. 19 P. Watzlawick, B. Beavin and D.D. Jackson (2011), Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, W.W. Norton & Co., New York.

couple experiences a rigid, conflictual asymmetry (‘one against the other’), in which children are often used as allied partners in a power struggle (with each parent allied to a child), and the family unit is beset by lacerating divisions and sterile, destructive conflicts. It is normal, even physiological, that one parent may feel closer to one child rather than another (for reasons of sex or affinity). However, parent-child alliances become dysfunctional20 when the child is perceived by the parent as a ‘better’ substitute to his/her partner, and the alliance is seen to be ‘against’ the other parent. In such a context, the parents obviously cannot fully take on their parenting role and hence fully take care of their children, who in turn are left bereft of the necessary and specific support they need to grow. These three models of disturbance in the parental function can be didactically described using the metaphor of who has the right to occupy the ‘matrimonial bed’: if the parents, stuck in their Personality-function, see themselves as children with children, then the bed will indiscriminately belong to everyone; if the couple, rigidly closed unto itself, sees parenthood as a threat to their intimacy, then the bed will be strictly prohibited to their children; if the couple are in the obsessive contraposition of a one up-one down relationship (whether dependent or conflictual), the bed will be occupied by a crosswise parent-child couple. To sum up, each and every Personality-function disorder in the parents will produce persistent and innumerable unfinished gestalten in family members. When a new stage in the family life cycle begins, these situations of rigid suffering that have become stratified (forming what Goodman would call a ‘taken-for-granted ground’ which is therefore unconscious) inhibit the family from dealing with the new situation, which is

20 Decoding incest as a perverse, extreme situation of inveiglement opens up new perspectives for understanding compared to the classic interpretation of the ‘Oedipus complex’, cf. G. Salonia (2004), Incesto, in G. Russo (ed.), Enciclopedia di Bioetica e Sessuologia, Torino, ElleDiCi-Velar-Leumann, 986-989; Id. (2005), Il lungo viaggio di Edipo: dalla legge del padre alla verità della relazione, cit.

predominantly manifested in the changing body. In this way, changes demanded of the family members by life clash with fears of life itself. As we all know, it is only by accepting and going through the pain of change that the fullness of change can be achieved, for ‘what the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls a butterfly’.

The Ego-function of the self: ‘being one-alongsidethe-other’ or ‘being-in-contact’

Disorders in the id-function and personality-function go hand-in-hand with the loss of the ego-function of the self. The organism does not recognise the new brought by change as part of ‘me’ and as a result seeks to expel it.

In GT, being capable of contact means being capable of encounter with the other, in the fullness of ourselves and the other.

Disorders in the Id-function and Personality-function go handin-hand with the loss of the Ego-function of the self. The organism does not recognise the new brought by change as part of ‘me’ and as a result seeks to expel it. The Ego-function of the self, as I mentioned earlier, concerns the capacity of the self to identify itself or alternatively alienate itself from the environment with which it is in contact (the capacity for discrimination and decision-making). The loss of the Ego-function makes full contact with the environment difficult for the organism, as it can no longer distinguish between the ‘me’ and ‘non-me’. In GT, being capable of contact means being capable of encounter with the other, in the fullness of ourselves and the other. This means being able to tell the other everything we feel it is important to say, while at the same time being able to listen to everything that the other wishes to tell us. This means words to be said, but also gestures to be made. In a healthy family, family members express themselves spontaneously through words and the body; they are free to make gestures and request that long-awaited gestures be delivered. Being alongside each other is obviously not enough for contact to be made, but expressing oneself fully and spontaneously is necessary. The task of the therapist, therefore, is to encourage family members to bring unfinished gestalten to completion, in the awareness that the unsaid-which-needsto-be-said interrupts the fullness of a relationship, provoking suffering and symptoms. By inviting family members to speak to each other, the therapist can focus on how and when their interactions need specific therapeutic support so as not to become crystallised in non-functional approaches to interaction

(phases of orientation-introjection, manipulation-projection, decision-retroflexion, contact-egotism, assimilation-nervous attack). Getting family members to talk to each other and encouraging them to express their bodily/relational experiences, while remaining open to listen to the experiences of the other without neglecting their own, is an effective course of therapy. To orient ourselves through the complexity and fragmentariness of words that are commonly said in therapy, the therapist must bear in mind that the key to all family discourse lies in the intentionality of contact. It is necessary to distinguish between talking and interacting so as to move closer to the other or to move away from the other, so as to become interesting to the other or to become ‘invisible’ to the other, so as to evade an invasive embrace and rediscover one’s uniqueness, or evade the other out of fear of leaning on him and becoming dependent. As we know, family ties are in reality never entirely completed and are always a new attempt to combine uniqueness with belonging, spontaneity with care. As the family therapy sessions continue, the Gestalt therapist should observe and facilitate clear (Personality-function) and full (Ego-function) contact between the family members. Ultimately, this will act as a sort of Ariadne’s thread through the labyrinth of family subjectivities, enabling the warps and wefts of the relational fabric that day-in, day-out every family weaves to be rediscovered and restored.

Therapy Session one: from the symptom to the relational fabric (the Id-function of the self) As you well know, the starting point when working with families is to consider the family as a gestalt, as a totality giving structure. A sharp change in mentality, or epistemological shift, is needed by therapists moving from an individual setting to a family setting. The starting point lies in the Gestalt principle by which it is the whole that gives meaning to the parts. It is the sentence that gives us the sense of words, even though it is the

The therapist must bear in mind that the key to all family discourse lies in the intentionality of contact.

Each family member should be observed as a figure that emerges from a ground constituted by the family’s history and the other family members.

The family is the matrix of relational identity. I am what my family has allowed me to be, just as I have the body which my family has allowed me to have.

words that form the sentence. As D. Parisi reminds us,21 in the sentence ‘The bishop ordered two cappuccinos’, the two polysemic words ‘to order’ and ‘cappuccinos’ acquire meaning from the context of the sentence which they themselves comprise. Similarly in the practice of family therapy, each family member should be observed as a figure that emerges from a ground constituted by the family’s history and the other family members. To understand the uniqueness of each single member, a double description (Bateson)22 or, in keeping with GT, a holistic perspective will be needed that observes and compares the subject in relation to the whole of which the subject is a part. Each and every characteristic of the subject is always a way of being a subject-in-relation, which means that uniqueness always has to be contextualised. We are always unique in reference to others. A practical example will clear this up. The excessive aggressiveness of a child23 has no predetermined sense for the Gestalt therapist. Meaning is acquired within the family context, which may be ‘appeasing’ or ‘accusatory’, or it may permit only some family members (males, children, etc.) to express aggression. Depending on the case, an accusatory approach may be either a healthy, functional way of distinguishing oneself, or a dysfunctional way of imitating or allying oneself with others. In this regard, Minuchin24 would say that the family is the matrix of identity. From our Gestalt perspective though, we would say that the family is the matrix of relational identity. I am what my family has allowed me to be, just as I have the body which my family has allowed me to have. When considering the relationship between the individual family member and the family as a whole, it is useful to bear in mind as your goal the coexistence of two wholes and two fullnesses: that of the individual and that of the totality. Munch

21 D. Parisi (1972), La comunicazione come processo cognitivo, Boringhieri, Torino. 22 G. Bateson (2000), Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 23 Cf. V. Satir (1976), Making contact, Celestial Arts, Berkeley, Calif. 24 S. Minuchin, M. Nichols, W.Y. Lee (2007), Assessing families and couples: From symptom to system, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

expressed this concept artistically when he said, «When I look at a painting of mine, I see it in all its beauty. And I have observed that when I put all my paintings together, not only does each painting emanate its own beauty from the set of paintings, but it takes on an even greater beauty — almost a new meaning — that comes from being part of the whole set».25 As a Gestalt therapist you are already aware that ‘the symptom is an appeal to the relationship’,26 as it expresses the intentionality and the impossibility of communicating one’s suffering and reaching out to the other. In family therapy, the symptom of the individual is never a phenomenon in itself. It always harks back to the relational fabric of the family, expressing a creative adaptation (although suffered and dysfunctional) to distress in the family. For instance, if a child cannot express his/her anger in the home because someone or everyone is uncomfortable with that anger, what else is the child to do if not creatively adapt to her environment and direct his/her anger against herself, expressing his/her suffering, for instance, through a psychosomatic symptom? The symptom, as you know, also encloses within it the direction that the family’s growth has taken, and hence the next step in the life cycle towards which the family might, or must, move. It is for this reason that we say that the symptom also reveals the need for support — something which all the members of the family, to a greater or lesser extent, sense in this stage along their path to growth. Let me now offer some clinical suggestions for approaching the symptom from a relational perspective (from the symptom to relational fabrics) and a developmental perspective (the next step in the development cycle). It is important to take note, for instance, of who is the first to talk about the problem and how. You might ask each family member (including the ‘DP’)27 what they each would change in the family, if they had a magic wand, that would make them feel better. In clinical practice it is often noted how the way a family assesses a symptom reveals the relational dynamics at

25 E. Munch (2001), Munch Fine Art Tattoos, Dover Publications, Incorporated. 26 A. Sichera (1997), Comparison with Gadamer: Towards a Hermeneutic Epistemology of Gestalt Therapy, in «Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 6-7, 9-30. 27 ‘DP’ in family therapy literature stands for ‘designated patient’.

‘The symptom is an appeal to the relationship’, as it expresses the intentionality and the impossibility of communicating one’s suffering and reaching out to the other.

The symptom, as you know, also encloses within it the direction that the family’s growth has taken, and hence the next step in the life cycle towards which the family might, or must, move.

Another question that should be asked — to the entire family (never forget the holistic perspective!) — is whether others have, or have had, the same or another symptom

Ask each family member what they see the strengths of the family to be, the potential they see in themselves and the other family members.

work. Different situations, for instance, will emerge if everyone agrees on calling the symptom a problem, or if some are exasperated by it while others do not see it as a problem at all. To help facilitate the identification of the individual’s symptom in the family’s suffering, another question that should be asked — to the entire family (never forget the holistic perspective!) — is whether others have, or have had, the same or another symptom (not from a hereditary perspective obviously). In fact, very often one or both the parents tell of, or better still, reveal how at the same age as the DP, they too suffered distress which they expressed through similar if not the very same symptoms. It is touching to witness the DP’s ‘pleasant’ surprise at the new perspective offered to him, as he realises that he is no longer the household problem (the ‘bad’ or ‘mad’). In this way, the rigid figure begins to dissolve, enabling relational gestalten, that are as yet unfinished, to emerge from the ground. I remember one family that presented the symptom of the fourteen-year-old Giulio’s enuresis.28 When the ‘circular’ question was asked, Giulio’s father revealed that he too had similar problems as a teenager, while his mother and twenty-year-old sister confidently affirmed that they had never suffered from any sort of problem at all. At this point, Giulio’s symptom revealed the (certainly long-standing though unresolved) conflictual contraposition of strong, efficient women to ‘feeble’ men. For Giulio to grow, he needed to find a new answer to the question of how a boy could become a significant male in this family. Attention should also obviously be paid to how the family reacts to the symptom expressed by one of the members, as this reflects the emotional climate in the family, and in particular the space granted uniqueness, diversity and fragility. Finally, to build on the value of the resources of the family unit as a whole and make them explicit, it can be useful to ask each family member what they see the strengths of the family to be, the potential they see in themselves and the other family members. Their replies will trigger a nourishing exchange

28 In this as in other clinical cases, certain details and the names of patients have been changed for privacy reasons.

between the family members (how often positive relational experiences remain implicit!) or they will raise aspects that not everyone agrees with. In either case, reciprocal dialogue can reveal experiences of genuine contact between the family members. Along these same lines, it can be decisively useful, and a source of surprise, to ask each family member how they believe they each contribute to the well-being of the family. Encouraging a developmental and relational understanding of the symptom in the family can take quite some time, as it tends to promote the personal and relational growth of all the family members. To conclude, right from session one, the therapist puts into motion — as Erving Poster says29 — blocked and stagnant family relationships. In doing so, the original problem can become a resource for building new, creative, relational approaches. In the first session, questions are ultimately a tool, along with concentration (so dear to F. Perls30), for raising awareness and encouraging the family consciously to realise that the symptom can become an occasion to complete unfinished gestalten that restrict the nourishing and functional nature of the relational climate in the family.

Beyond the first session: inside the relational fabric To recapitulate, in GT the following points are high-lighted with particular attention: – The family is undergoing a transition towards a new stage in its developmental cycle, but it is unable to understand the new that emerges from bodies (Id-function disorder). – The quality of contact between family members is often dysfunctional (due to the loss of the Ego-function); they live sideby-side but are unable to achieve full, nourishing contact. – Family members, especially the parents, perceive the bound-

29 E. Polster (1987), Every Person’s Life Is Worth a Novel, W.W. Norton & Co., New York 30 F. Perls (1947), Ego, Hunger and Aggression, Vintage Books, New York.

In order for the family to rediscover its ability to move through a new developmental stage in its growth, therapy needs to focus on the relationships (‘the betweens’ or the ‘contact boundary’) between family members, bearing in mind the difficulties that emerge from disturbances in the id-function and the personality-function, and from the loss of the ego-function.

The seating arrangement also reveals which bodies are loved at a distance and in silence, which bodies are controlling, which annul each other, and so on.

aries of their relational identity in a distorted way (loss of the Personality-function). In order for the family to rediscover its ability to move through a new developmental stage in its growth, therapy needs to focus on the relationships (‘the betweens’ or the ‘contact boundary’) between family members, bearing in mind the difficulties that emerge from disturbances in the Id-function and the Personality-function, and from the loss of the Ego-function. In clinical practice all three functions are addressed in context, though for didactic purposes — action is synthetic, thought is analytic — I will describe separately two types of approaches that can facilitate change processes.

The dance of chairs’, or changes in family proxemics (acting on the Personality-function) Let’s start with where our attention should begin. Observe how the family members freely sit down, how they occupy the chairs available. It should be clear to you now why in clinical practice an extra chair with respect to the number of family members is always added, so as to offer greater decision-making space. The choice of chair or where to sit clearly expresses familiarity with spatial placement (near whom, away from whom). I like to think that the proxemics of the chairs (of the seats taken) reflects the proxemics of relational experiences. Two elements make up this connection: the body which you want near to or far from you (intercorporeity),31 and whose face you want front on or to the side (visual perception). As I have stressed in other didactic contexts, the vicinity of certain bodies helps us breathe better, while others may block breathing and spontaneity. Being seated next to a body that emanates warmth risks becoming confluent, though the effect is offset if that warmth is not supported by front-on faces. The seating arrangement also reveals which bodies are loved at a distance and in silence, which bodies are controlling, which annul each other, and

31 G. Salonia (2008), La psicoterapia della Gestalt e il lavoro sul corpo. Per una rilettura del fitness, cit.

so on. As therapists we observe the obvious which, as Hegel noted, is a profundity all the more difficult to reach precisely because it is obvious.32 The point however is not to interpret the relational significance of proximity (the relational value of the seat occupied) but rather to help people become aware of the experience, which the body feels and recognises well before it is made explicit. For instance, it can be useful to ask the family members (though not immediately) how they feel (Id-function) in the seat they occupy, and how they experience others (bodies) near to and far from them. How does it feel to have certain faces fronton and others which can only be seen ‘out of the corner of your eye’? At this point, I often ask the family members to change chairs. Thus, each person takes turns, depending on how relationships are progressing, in playing ‘musical chairs’. Afterwards, of course, you should ask what the ‘game’ has revealed or confirmed, what has happened in the body of who has changed chairs and in the body of who has become his ‘new’ neighbour. It is amazing to see how the experience of changing chairs (whereby a person sits near a feared or desired body, or people speak facing each other instead of avoiding each other, etc.) produces such significant perceptive and relational changes. Not only chairs are changed but also perspectives, leading to new ways of being and new approaches to relationships. As people who work on bodies know, such changes in visual perspective and bodily vicinity provoke new relational thoughts,33 causing a concrete break with perceptive automatisms. A family seeks help for Giulia, a twenty-two-year-old who is having trouble graduating from university. She is very shy and is experiencing growing difficulties in her social life, to the point that she increasingly lives shut up in the home. Gi-

32 In this sense we talk about the ‘profundity of the surface’, cf. P. Cavaleri (2003), La profondità della superficie, Franco Angeli, Milano. 33 Cf. G. Salonia, Danza delle sedie e danza dei pronomi. La GT con le coppie e le famiglie, cit. For intercorporeity’s notion, see: G. Salonia (2011), The Perls’ Mistake. Perceptions and misunderstandings of the gestalt post-Freudianism, in «GTK Journal of Psychotherapy», 2, 51-70

It is amazing to see how the experience of changing chairs (whereby a person sits near a feared or desired body, or people speak facing each other instead of avoiding each other, etc.) produces such significant perceptive and relational changes. Not only chairs are changed but also perspectives, leading to new ways of being and new approaches to relationships.

Such changes in visual perspective and bodily vicinity provoke new relational thoughts, causing a concrete break with perceptive automatisms.

acomo, her elder brother, is fully allied with their parents, and is particularly efficient and self-confident. The way they take their seats reflects these dynamics in a physical way: husband and wife are close to each other, with Giacomo alongside the father. Separated from everyone is Giulia. The husband declares his devotion to his wife, who is clearly the central figure of the family. All three agree that the only problem is Giulia. At a certain point, I was struck by the way Giulia eyed her father. Hence I asked the father if he spends time with his daughter. His answer was: ‘What is the point now that she has grown up? When she was little, of course I used to play with her.’ At this point I asked Giacomo and Giulia separately whether they would be willing to exchange seats so that Giulia was next to her father and could talk to him. The dialogue that ensued began angrily, before progressively calming down. I asked the two siblings how they experienced this exchange of seats. Giacomo replied, with the tone of someone who had just discovered something entirely unexpected, that only now, seated in his sister’s spot, did he understand something he had never before imagined: Giulia’s solitude. From that moment on, Giacomo experienced a growing understanding of his sister’s problems, while Giulia, in turn, experienced greater warmth and strength from the empathy of her brother. Then slowly, also through Giulia’s rapprochement with her father first, and then her mother, the parenting couple managed to overcome their rigid convergence and reconstruct the contact boundary between parents and children. Changing seats, therefore, facilitates receptiveness to one’s own and the other body (Id-function), opening up — finally — the opportunity of expressing what one has to say to the other (Ego-function), and enabling, even in a physical sense, the contact boundary between the parents and children to be rebuilt (Personality-function). As I said earlier, this is precisely what therapy wants to achieve. Obviously, to arrive at such a change, progress needs to made step by step, as can be seen in another example. Elena is the problematic daughter of a family in which the mother shines vibrantly in the light of everyone (including her husband) and places her youngest son on a pedestal. Given the situation, Elena’s distress can only be resolved once the couple learns to see each other as equals and

the children build their sibling bond. To achieve this, though, intermediate steps need to be taken, through which, for example, Elena speaks and moves closer to her father, perceived as unreachable due to his obsessive esteem for his wife. If not, how can Elena ever grow into a woman if neither of her parents, for different reasons (the father has eyes only for the mother, and the mother has eyes only for herself or others), see her as a woman and allow her to become one?

Transforming relational grammar, or ‘dance of the pronouns’ (the Ego-function of the self) Now that we have discussed the Id-function (‘What do you feel?’), we can focus on the Ego-function (‘What do you want?’). Bearing in mind the bodily matrix of words, the Ego-function of the self can be said to become visible, from a GT perspective, specifically through words. It is with words (and their relationship with the body) that people express the quality of their relationships. By working on relational words, the therapist seeks to encourage awareness of the connection between what we say and what the body feels. In this sense it can be said that words emerge from the body. In contrast with the Bowen method,34 where family members are asked to differentiate (de-massify) themselves by speaking to the therapist using I-statements only, in GFT members are asked to interact, as the sharing of relational experiences expresses the quality of contact and enables contact to be improved. As this happens, the therapist should obviously take note of who speaks the most, who silences other, who is obstinate, and similar behaviour. By observing, something will emerge as figure, though as a Gestalt therapist your task is to encourage not so much behaviours as experience — in particular missed experiences that have interrupted the contact process. It is interesting to note the relational value of the habitual use of personal pronouns — a suggestion I have also seen

34 M. Bowen (1978), Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, NJ.

In this sense it can be said that words emerge from the body.

In working on the ego-function of the self, family members should learn, playing a sort of ‘musical pronouns’, to listen to themselves (‘the concentrating self’, as Goodman would say), to use an authentic ‘I’ when sharing their (bodily and relational) experiences and their own vulnerability, to use ‘you’ empathetically to use ‘you’ empathetically to use ‘we’ not as a sign of confluence but as a genuine experience of belonging

Helping family members to communicate without necessarily understanding or agreeing with each other means helping them to become aware of the relational intentionality underlying the use of all words.

in the work of Irigaray, though from another perspective.35 Here I mean the self-referentiality of ‘I’, the dependent or accusatory tone of ‘you’, the confluent ‘we’, the plural ‘you’ that excludes the accuser, and ‘they’ referred to those outside the family setting. In working on the Ego-function of the self, family members should learn, playing a sort of ‘musical pronouns’, to listen to themselves («The concentrating self», as Goodman would say), to use an authentic ‘I’ when sharing their (bodily and relational) experiences and their own vulnerability, to use ‘you’ empathetically to reach out to the other, to use ‘we’ not as a sign of confluence but as a genuine experience of belonging, and to use a realistic ‘they’ when talking about the polis.36 The result is a harmonious dance that expresses and creates contact. It is also important to support the family members in having the strength to speak — a strength which is necessary for self-identification. The eleven-year-old Yolanda tries to speak, but Mum, Dad, and her big brothers are so absorbed in their own discussions that nobody realises that she is pouting and beginning to get agitated. When the therapist asks her, «What would you like to say, Yolanda?», she cries out: «That’s enough, I want to talk now. Even if I’m only little and I don’t understand what you are talking about, I want to talk about my things». Helping family members to communicate without necessarily understanding or agreeing with each other means helping them to become aware of the relational intentionality underlying the use of all words, even in discussions that seem to go on and on or which do not seem to make much sense. After a long and tortuous speech to his wife, I ask Carlo to tell her briefly whether his efforts to express himself were intended to bring him closer to her or to distance himself from her. His answer was: «I am telling you all this to be closer to you, because I don’t see you reaching out to me. All these words because when I look at you,

35 L. Irigaray (1985), Parler n’est jamais neutre, Les Editions de Minuit, Paris. 36 For a phenomenology of communication see H. Franta, G. Salonia (1979), Comunicazione interpersonale, LAS, Roma; cf. also (1999), Dialogare nel tempo della frammentazione, in F. Armetta, M. Naro (eds.), Impense adlaboravit, Pontificia Facoltà Teologica, Palermo, 572-595.

you seem cold, and I’m afraid of not being able to reach out to you». Regardless of the content and words used, the sharing of relational and bodily experiences in this way creates a new experience of healthy closeness between family members. Even negative experiences (‘I’m angry with you’, ‘I’m disappointed in you’) take on positive value if communicated with a sense of authenticity, integrity, and respect for the other. At times, an unfinished gestalt might concern a specific word unsaid or a specific gesture not made, in which the desire for full contact is interrupted and hidden. As I said earlier, when dealing with the Ego-function, the therapist should aim at bringing out the interrupted and unfinished gesture (and word) expected but not received, which has long been postponed or suspended. This is a necessary step in restoring the spontaneity of the relationship, which makes living together a healthy, nourishing experience. In working on completing this unfinished business, attention should be focused on breathing. Holding one’s breath means holding up words, as well as holding up the next step towards the other. Nevertheless, if the family members manage to share the experiences of their bodies, for instance by saying «When you say things like this, inside me I feel a fear of getting close to you, and I freeze, I don’t know why», the road towards the other will be opened again. Full contact unfolds and is revealed through the encounter of words and the body, when words emerge from the body and bodies open up to words. At a certain point when working with a family, the importance of working specifically with the parenting couple will emerge. It is a road that opens up many possibilities. Seven-year-old Francesco is ‘brought to therapy’ for behavioural disorders at school. It soon becomes clear, though, that the ground of his distress lies in unexpressed conflict in the couple. When we tell the couple in front of the child «Next time we want to see just the two of you», Francesco exclaims with candour and relief «Finally!». Perhaps he would have liked to have added, «Was it so hard to understand who really needed help?». As therapy continued, it became clear that Francesco was right. At this point you will be asking yourself, seeing that the relationship between the parenting couple is so determinant, how should we work with couples? I will write to you soon on this. In the meantime, thank you for your attention.

At a certain point when working with a family, the importance of working specifically with the parenting couple will emerge. It is a road that opens up many possibilities.

When we tell the couple in front of the child ‘Next time we want to see just the two of you’, Francesco exclaims with candour and relief ‘Finally’. Perhaps he would have liked to have added, ‘Was it so hard to understand who really needed help?’.

REFERENCES

Andolfi M. (2003), Manuale di psicologia relazionale. La dimensione familiare, APF, Rome. Bateson G. (2000), Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Bowen M. (1978), Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, NJ. Cavaleri P. (2003), La profondità della superficie, Franco Angeli, Milan. Conte V. (1998-9), Dalla appartenenza alla individuazione: come restare coppia in «Quaderni di Gestalt», 26-27, 134-136. Conte V. (2008), Essere coppia nella postmodernità, in Ferrara A. and Spagnuolo Lobb M. (eds.), Le voci della Gestalt. Sviluppi e innovazioni di una psicoterapia, Franco Angeli, Milan. Fivaz-Depeursing E., Corboz-Warner A. (1999), The Primary Triangle, Basic Books, New York. Franta H. and Salonia G. (1981), Comunicazione interpersonale, LAS, Rome. Giordano G. (1997), La casa vissuta. Percorsi e dinamiche dell’abitare, Giuffré, Milan. Gurman A. S. and Kniskern D. T. (eds.)(1981), Handbook of Family Therapy, Routledge, New York. Irigaray L. (1985), Parler n’est jamais neutre, Les Editions de Minuit, Paris. Kempler W. (1974), Principles of Gestalt Therapy, Kempler Institute, Costa Mesa, CA. Minuchin S. (1974), Families and Family Therapy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Minuchin S., Nichols M., Lee W.Y. (2007), Assessing families and couples: From symptom to system, Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Munch E. (2001), Munch Fine Art Tattoos, Dover Publications, Incorporated. Parisi D. (1972), La comunicazione come processo cognitivo. Boringhieri, Torino. Perls F. (1947), Ego, Hunger and Aggression. Vintage Books, New York. Perls F., Hefferline R., Goodman P. (1951), Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in The Human Personality, Julian Press, New York. Piercy F. P., Sprenkle D. H. et al. (1986), Family Therapy Sourcebook, The Guilford Press, New York. Polster E. (1987), Every Person’s Life Is Worth a Novel, W.W. Norton & Co., New York. Romano R. G. (2004), Ciclo di vita e dinamiche educative nella società postmoderna. Franco Angeli, Milan.

Rosenfeld E. (1986), Storia orale della Terapia della Gestalt. Conversazioni con Laura Perls., in «Quaderni di Gestalt», 3, 36-62. Salonia G. (1987), Il lavoro gestaltico con le coppie e le famiglie: il Ciclo Vitale e l’integrazione delle polarità in «Quaderni di Gestalt», 4, 144-156. Salonia G. (1989), Tempi e modi di contatto, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», 8-9, 55-64. Salonia G. (1993), Time and relation: relational deliberateness as hermeneutic horizon in Gestalt Therapy, in « Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 1, 7-19. Salonia G. (1999), Dialogare nel tempo della frammentazione, in Armetta F. and Naro M. (eds.), Impense adlaboravit, 572-595. Pontificia Facoltà Teologica, Palermo. Salonia G. (2004). Incesto, in Russo G. (Ed.), Enciclopedia di Bioetica e Sessuologia, ElleDiCi-Velar-Leumann, Torino. Salonia G. (2005), Il lungo viaggio di Edipo: dalla legge del padre alla verità della relazione, in Argentino P. (Ed.), Tragedie greche e psicopatologia, Medicalink Publishers, Siracusa. Salonia G. (forthcoming), Il lavoro gestaltico con il corpo. Per una ridefinizione del fitness, in Salonia G., Corpi e famiglia: l’intercorporeità La GT con il corpo e la famiglia. Salonia G. (forthcoming), Elogio del non comprendersi. Satir V. (1976), Making contact, Celestial Arts, Berkeley, Calif. Scabini E. (1992), L’organizzazione della famiglia, tra crisi e sviluppo, Franco Angeli, Milan. Sichera A. (1997), Comparison with Gadamer: Towards a Hermeneutic Epistemology of Gestalt Therapy, in «Studies in Gestalt Therapy», 6-7, 9-30. Spagnuolo Lobb, M. and Salonia G. (1986), Al di là della sedia vuota: un modello di coterapia. Ottica familiare e psicoterapia della Gestalt, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», 3, 11-35. Spagnuolo Lobb M. (2001), La teoria del sé in psicoterapia della Gestalt, in Spagnuolo Lobb M. (ed.), Psicoterapia della Gestalt. Ermeneutica e Clinica, Franco Angeli, Milan. Walsh F. (1993), Ciclo vitale e dinamiche familiari, Franco Angeli, Milan. Watzlawick P., Beavin B. and Jackson D. D. (2011), Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, W.W. Norton & Co., New York. Whitaker C. (1990), Considerazioni notturne di un terapeuta della famiglia, Astrolabio, Rome. Zinker T. and Nevis S. (1987), Teoria della Gestalt sulle interazioni di coppia e familiari, in «Quaderni di Gestalt», 4,17-32.

Abstract The author presents a Gestalt therapy approach to family therapy using the literary genre of the letter, which lends itself perfectly to the concrete approach of Gestalt therapy. Assuming and including past perspectives on Gestalt therapy with families (the experiential model and the theory of the contact/withdrawal from contact cycle), the author constructs, after years of therapy, research, and teaching activities, a heuristic and clinical model of Gestalt Family Therapy (GFT) which builds on a family-focused understanding of the theory of the self. The three functions of the family-self become the key to understanding personal-family distress, how therapy can be conducted, and how long it can take. Specifically, the Id-function of the self embraces the family in a holistic way as bodies that grow; the Personality-function reveals the quality of the contact boundary between the bodies of parents and those of their children; the Ego-function focuses on the quality of contact itself (bodies and pronouns, timing and approach to sessions). A peculiar characteristic of the model presented by the author is its understanding of the bodily nature of relationships (building on an intercorporeity perspective developed by the author). The authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s model represents further confirmation of the originality, genuineness and specificity of Gestalt therapy when working with families.

VALERIA CONTE AND GIOVANNI SALONIA

THE REFUND GRANDSON Co-therapy carried out by V. Conte and G. Salonia The family arrives and sits down opposite the therapists. From left to right they are seated as follows: mother, father, daughter (Laura), and son (Giuseppe). (See Fig.1).

Fig.1

Therapist G: Well! Did you come here willingly? How do things stand? Son: I was out of town so… I was asked to come. I got a phone call. Therapist G: Generally, when people come here there’s a block... Wife: Yes, I made the call, then. It was more than a week ago. Almost ten days. Suddenly one night Laura gets out of bed: she’s asleep, tucked up in bed when I see her wandering around the house. It’s something weird; therapist V., at almost twenty, to have her wandering around, wandering a, as if she were asleep. He said we weren’t to wake her up but she wanders about. Therapist V: Who said you shouldn’t wake her up? Have you spoken to a doctor?

Wife: Yes, I talked to our family doctor and he said, “Don’t worry! Just let her wander”. But now we lock all the doors not only the front door. What would happen if she opened the door and went out? It’s a very... difficult time. (She nods her head). Therapist G: Heavy going... Wife: Yes, heavy going. Therapist G: And you are very worried. Wife: Yes, very, very. What would happen if she gets out? She could lean over a balcony. We live on the fifth floor. (She indicates the number of floors with her fingers). This is no joke, the fifth floor! But not everybody agrees with me. (Turning towards her husband and son). Laura says, “I’ll get over it”, still! Therapist G: Let’s hear from..... Therapist V:...Dad... Therapist G: Precisely. Husband: Well, at the start I didn’t take it seriously enough (He is holding a notepad on his lap). Therapist G: Have you been taking notes? Husband: Yes, to avoid... Therapist G: Forgetting... Wife: He’s organised. Husband: Yes, so that I won’t forget anything and since they told my wife, they explained to my wife that this sort of thing occurs when they’re younger (first he turns towards his wife and then towards his children). With the fact that she’s twenty and it’s happening (sighs) now instead and... but we (shrugs) we can’t seem to get a lot of information about it, it appears to be something that worsens when she’s particularly worried about an exam and we don’t know how much it has to do with the fact that her brother’s not at home (looks at son), although recently there have been positive events, she’s become an aunt! (the daughter wriggles in her seat). Her brother... I have had a grandson... but recently...

Therapist V: No, I haven’t understood... Husband: He is... (looks at son) Can I tell them Giuseppe? Son: I don’t understand, Dad. We’re here for her, I don’t see why... (angry and perplexed, he looks at his father). Therapist G: What’s happened? Wife: It’s a nice thing really, come on Giuseppe, it’s nothing bad! Do you want to tell them? (urges her son in a kindly but rather impatient tone). Son: Because it isn’t a problem, they’re turning it into a problem. Daughter: (At the same time as her brother in an irritated tone of voice, nodding and moving her hand with a derisory gesture) Okay, but that’s just typical of them! Therapist V: Is she talking about something that concerns your life? Son: My life, yes, and we’re here now. I thought that Laura was the problem and instead it would seem... I live with my partner and we’ve had a baby. It happened. Therapist V: First you made love and then you had a baby. Husband: We did not think that this was a good thing... there have been these overlapping events. Therapist G: This is what’s happening in your family. Therapist V: What’s recently changed, shall we say. Husband: And when was this baby born? (Turning towards his son) Son: Well, this baby’s two months old now. Therapist V: And what’s the baby’s name? Son: His name’s Flavio, we brought him to show him to the parents (looking at them and rubbing his hands together). Therapist G: Did you know he was expecting a baby? Mother: No, we didn’t know. We found out right at the end, recently (turning towards her husband). It was a huge shock to him. In fact, he was so furious...

Father: Initially... Mother: That he even cut off everything, (leaning towards her husband). You cut off everything, didn’t you?! Therapist V: Money-wise? Mother: Yes, it was very painful. Father: It was necessary to make him more responsible, to not make everything too easy for him. Not negative! (The father sits composedly, when he speaks he moves his hands and when he is silent he holds them crossed in his lap or keeps his arms folded across his chest). Therapist G: Interesting! So let’s say that there’s a problem that calls for therapy and another that benefits from it, we’ve asked for therapy and while we’re at it let’s talk about this, too. Seems okay to me! Father: Even because she’d like them to get married but that’s another question. Let’s not go there. The couple say something inaudible to each other (Minute 5.44). Therapist G: Well, we’ve got something to work on and talk about! Laura, what would you change at home to improve life there? Daughter: I’d change Mum because she’s over-anxious, she invents problems that don’t exist. (She looks towards her whilst repeatedly lifting up her hands). I don’t see the reason for all this worry, recently I’ve been a bit on edge but, okay, it will pass, I don’t see the reason for all this worrying. They make mountains out of molehills. Even for Giuseppe (she indicates her brother with her hand) they worry, in reality he had told me... Therapist G: You knew? Daughter: Yes, I knew (smiles) but I told him: “Let’s not say anything, given what they’re like, especially if Mum finds out!” Therapist V: Were you happy to become an aunt? Daughter: Yes (smiles and turns to look towards her brother).

Son: The only one in the family... Therapist V: Happy? Son: Yes. Therapist G: So we’ve got two needs, rather three: Mum’s request for Laura, Laura’s request for Mum and then Mum and Dad’s requests for Giuseppe. Son: I was called and I came because I was told that Laura had a problem but I’m under the impression that they are preparing a trap for me here because you also deduced that I’m a problem, too (turns to look at parents). Well, a son who leaves to go and live with his partner, who hides his partner’s pregnancy, reveals it only when the baby is two months old... Therapist G: They expect you to get married... Son: They expect you to get married is one problem instead we’re here because it would seem that at night Laura sleepwalks... Therapist V: Did you know that at night she sleepwalks? Son: No. Therapist V: So you hadn’t talk about this? Son: I study medicine and nobody asked for my opinion on this subject (indicates his parents with a wave of his hand). They went to the family doctor for information. Therapist V: Laura, didn’t you say anything about it to your brother? Daughter: Since he’s not at home very often and that, truly, I didn’t want to worry him, seeing how worried they are, I thought “then maybe he’ll be worried as well...” (Laura fidgets on her chair). Therapist G: It seems to me that we need to ask the basic question of which problem we need to discuss. Son: That’s a good question! Therapist V: Instead, let’s see what we can improve before we address a problem.

Therapist V: What would you change at home, Giuseppe? Son: I’d like my Dad to be more there for us. Just look at him! (Points at him with both hands, alternately looking at his dad and the therapists) “That’s him”. Spruced up in his shirt and tie, he goes out every morning to the bank and comes home every evening. Therapist G: Always with his notes? Son: Well... Therapist V: Almost... Son: Almost! Therapist G: So he’s very precise. Therapist V: (To father) Do you need to write? Do you need a pen? Father: No, I was thinking about Flavio... Son: In fact, now that I’ve become a father, at this precise moment I don’t know whether to say alas or hurray... Therapist G: There’s an ‘ouch’? Son: On a personal level, I’m really happy, the only problem is that it strains our budget because I’m still a student, unfortunately I’m behind in my studies and so I said, now that I’ve become a father, I question myself, I ask myself, “Will I be a father who’s present or will I be like my dad?” Therapist G: This question seems to touch you emotionally. Son: Yes, it gets to my emotions, yes, yes (nods). Therapist G: Just to talk about memories here, what in your past, at their age, might remind you of what Laura is going through and/or what Giuseppe is experiencing? Therapist V: When you were there age Mrs..., more or less. Therapist G: You were twenty once. How did you experience that time of your life? Father: Laura has been great, she made a realist and practical choice. Therapist G: Instead, you...?

Father: Giuseppe wanted to study medicine... Therapist G: You were thinking about the notes, maybe. My question was: ‘when you were in your twenties did you have any problems like Laura’s or Giuseppe’s or did everything run smoothly?’ Father: But I finished my university studies in the right time frame, I had great grades and then I immediately found a job. Therapist G: You never had moments of going off the rails. Father: No, I never went off the rails. Therapist G: Okay! Father: I hoped (pointing to his children). Instead... Therapist G: Variety is the spice of life! You, Mrs? Mother: It was a long time ago... Therapist G: Don’t say too long, Mrs, it wouldn’t appear to be too long ago (husband looks at his wife and smiles). Wife: I already had a job when I was twenty... Here there is something inaudible. The wife whispers something to her husband and complains to Therapist G about the note-taking. (Minute 11.30). Mother:... then a year’s engagement. Therapist G: What was fascinating about your meeting? (The couple share a glance and smile of complicity) Who didn’t approve? There was a little mishap. Will you tell us what it was? Come on, there was a little mishap! Mother: (Smiling winningly, a bit embarrassed, put her hands reversed between her legs). Yes... Therapist G: Tell us Mrs because there was something a little... It was a secret or... Wife: (Talking to her husband, they look at each other smilingly and with complicity) Go on, tell! Husband: About your mother’s opinion? You tell, you tell. Wife: (Laughingly to husband) Do you remember?

Therapist G: Yes? Wife: He had brought me a present. It was a lovely evening, it was a rather intimate present for our life as a couple. It was New Year’s Eve. A sweet little red object and my little brother opened it in front of everybody, all of my family, my parents. He was so red! Therapist V: Like the... Therapist G: Exactly, he was dropped right in it! And you? Therapist V: You must have been embarrassed?! Wife: Very, very, I didn’t know where to look. Husband: But it was useful! (General laughter). Therapist V: Everything went fine, you’re here (laughter again). Therapist G: Did you know that your parents had a private life like this? Son: No, but it makes me think about how I was conceived practically (laughs). I didn’t know. I didn’t know. Therapist V: You seem pleasantly surprised? Son: Yes, yes. He’s not the saint he seems, this dad of mine, even he... Therapist V: What effect does it make on you, Laura? Daughter: Very nice. I like it. Therapist V: Seeing your mum.... Daughter: Seeing my mum a bit more relaxed, laughing. Therapist G: Laura, if you had to speak face to face with someone, who would you feel inclined to talk to because my feeling is, I don’t know if we understand each other, that there’s loads of goodwill in your family, earnestness, but perhaps you don’t talk much. Given, it’s not a problem, but certainly it’s not normal for a son to have another son, become a father full of ange, or for things to happen under cover of darkness and I can’t understand why. Because it seems as if in your house you need to feel better by talking more. Therapist V: Also a little light-heartedness... Therapist G: A little light-heartedness...

Therapist V: I’m thinking about your expression, I liked it a lot, your expression looking at mum and dad who were smiling with their understanding of something light-hearted. Maybe just talking without necessarily talking about problems. A little light-heartedness. Therapist G: It’s as if you waited for night to come in order to dance, isn’t it? And he moves far away and even hides his partner’s pregnancy. There are snatches of dialogue with Therapist V that cannot be heard. (Minute 15.25). They seem like things of the night, of shadows, of distances. Who would you most like to talk to most to improve verbal communication, mum or dad? Daughter: (Sighs deeply). Therapist G: Who do you want to tell something to or who would you like to hear from? Daughter: Perhaps it’s easier for me with mum! Therapist G: With your mum. Good. Therapist V: Sit here (gets up and gives her seat to Laura, bringing it nearer to the mother’s seat and putting it opposite it). Therapist G: Face each other and try to tell each other things. (See Fig. 2)

Fig. 2

Therapist V: What would you like to say to your mum? Therapist G: Or what would you like to hear her say, it’s all the same. Daughter: (Sighs, dangling her arms and rubbing her hands on her legs). Therapist G: What’s going on? Daughter: It’s a bit hard. Therapist G: Oh, what changes when you look at each other in this position? Daughter: (Laura looks at her mum) I can feel her worry and it blocks me. Therapist V: You feel... and then carry on. Daughter: (Sighs again. The mother leans towards her with her upper body as if to come nearer) Well, I’d like to tell her to be serene, to trust me a bit. No! (Turns towards Therapist V questioningly, they smile). Therapist V: You can feel her anxiety and you protect her. Let’s change, a titbit of information for mum. Daughter: Oh, a titbit... about what? Therapist V: To her, as a woman, as your mum. I don’t know! Do you know where she buys her clothes? Daughter: Yes, I know some of the shops. Therapist V: Well, something else then, to tell you that you don’t have to talk about important things with your mum because it appears that there’s no intimacy. Just say any old thing! Mother: (Smiles invitingly to her daughter whispering a word of encouragement, holding her hands out to her). Therapist G: For example, you could ask if your father has given her other gifts of underwear or if you want to find out where to buy it whether you have to ask her or your dad. Loads of things. Daughter: What underwear do you like? What colour do you prefer?

Mother: (Smiles and nods) And then what else do you want to ask me? Daughter: What do you want for your birthday: it’s coming up soon. Therapist V: Please, go ahead. Mother: Which shall I answer first? (Leaning towards daughter and smiling). Therapist V: Whatever comes naturally to you. Mother: As a present I’d like a lovely ruby, perhaps two and then, as you know, I am a customer of that shop on the corner... Therapist G: She asked you what colour. Mother: Green, the colour green. Daughter: You’ve got a green set, did Dad give it to you? Mother: I bought it myself. I asked you to come out with me the time I got it but you didn’t want to come. Daughter: I don’t remember. Mother: You don’t go out much. You stay at home a lot. Therapist G: And what would you like to know about your daughter? Mother: As I said, she stays at home a lot. Therapist G: What would you like to know about your daughter? (The mother turns to look at Therapist G). Therapist V: Do you know what colour underwear your daughter wears? Mother: That’s her business. Therapist V: Aren’t you interested? Mother: No. I’d like to understand... when you go out and then tell me “I had a great time” What do you do? Where do you go? Daughter: I do loads of things. With my friends! I love going to the cinema, remember? Generally on Saturdays I go to the cinema.

Mother: What have you seen? Daughter: Lately, what have I seen, well..? The one, you know... “Bianca come il latte, rossa come il sangue” Do you remember I tried to tell you about it but you! Mother: (silence…) Daughter: It’s fantastic, though. Do you like watching films, cinema? Mother: Yes, it’s that nowadays. We used to hire videocassettes, we used to watch them, but now! Daughter: Yes, I remember. (Nodding and smiling), it was great! Mother: We had all the Disney films. Therapist V: (To the two women) Could you hold each other’s finger for a second? Therapist G: Giuseppe... Therapist V: (To colleague) Just a second, they’re not touching... Therapist G: Oh yes. Sorry. Therapist V: Hold a finger. Mother: A finger? Therapist V: A finger, yes, together with the other finger. That means touching each other! (The two entwine their fingers) Therapist V: No, slowly, slowly, don’t hang on to each other! (They laugh) Just touch each other! Daughter: Wait, wait, like this! (She gestures to stop with her hand and she explains the action to her by showing her the position to take). Therapist V: Close your eyes... (Mother and daughter touch with their fingertips) Therapist V: You feel... (The mother grasps her daughter’s finger with two fingers. The daughter moves the finger with her hand).

100

Daughter: No, you mustn’t hold on to me. (The mother laughs about her difficulty in carrying out the order). Therapist V: Only one finger. Can you feel the fingers touching? Each their own and the other’s finger? Therapist G: Try and feel something (touches his breast as he says it). Therapist V: (To the two women) Tell each other what you are feeling in your finger, each in her own finger and in the contact with the other’s finger. (See Fig. 3)

Fig. 3

From here onwards for a while the setting appears to double itself in a play of figure/background: the figure is therapist V working with the mother/daughter and in the background therapist G is asking the father and son questions, as if to connect everything. Therapist G: (To Giuseppe) What effect does seeing mum and Laura have on you? Son: Certainly, it’s a nice sight. Therapist G: You like it. Son: Yes, in our house we’re not used to contact...

101

Therapist G: (Nodding) Mmm. Son:...as well as talking to each other. (Mother and daughter moved their linked fingers). Therapist V: You only have to feel, doing comes later. Therapist G: (To the husband) And what effect does seeing this have on you? Therapist V: Breathe. Father: (Silence… he even forgets his notes…) Father: Yes, yes, because I’ve been concentrating on them. Therapist G: Good! Therapist V: What are you feeling, Laura? Daughter: Very little. Perhaps I feel her finger more than mine. Therapist V: You feel her finger more than yours. And you, Mrs? Mother: A pleasant sensation. And which finger do I feel most? Mother: Perhaps Laura’s more? Therapist V: (Addressing Laura) You didn’t know that. She feels yours and you feel hers. Try and feel yours and hers. And you hers, Mrs. Each has to do the other part. When you manage it give a sign without speaking, you can open your eyes. (Mother and daughter continue the experience of touching each other). Therapist V: A sign to conclude the experience? Concluding means that it’s complete. How to end this experience? Apart from the signs you are making? How do you usually say goodbye to each other? Daughter: How do we say goodbye to each other? (Both of them play with their figures as if they were happily fencing with each other and then they give each other a ‘high five’ and for a moment they hold hands). Therapist V: Oh! Just look at you now. Is something changing? Daughter: I feel she’s closer to me.

102

Therapist V: You feel her closer, lighter... Daughter: I feel like getting nearer. (Laura moves nearer to her mum who is stroking her leg. Laura strokes her mum’s hand). Therapist V: Wow! Mrs, does seeing Laura like this change something for you, now? (She also gets nearer whilst continuing to caress her daughter and giving her affectionate pats on her leg. Laura places her hand over her mother’s). Mother: I perceive her as older, stronger. Therapist V: But it also feels more natural for you to get nearer to her, doesn’t it? While Therapist V speaks to mother and Laura, Therapist G whispers with Giuseppe. (Laura takes her mother’s hand and they both affectionately squeeze each other’s hand). Therapist V: The way in which you get nearer to her also seems different, more equal! As if Laura were older and you… Therapist G approaches his colleague and interrupts her. Therapist G: Let’s let them do what they want because I’ve already spoken to him (the son) who wants to speak to his dad. Therapist V: OK! Well, shall we take a look at them now? (Laura tries to take her mother’s hand but her mother doesn’t see the gesture and Laura gives up and moves her chair away). Therapist G: (To mother and daughter) Stay. (To father and son) Please. Therapist G: I’ve asked some questions he has some things he’d like to tell his dad. Are you ready to listen to him? Father: Yes. Therapist G: (To mother and daughter) You can enjoy this scene, if you like. (See Fig. 4)

103

Fig. 4

Son: You work in a bank, a pregnancy lasts nine months as you know and I hid it but you never came to visit me during those nine months. Father: (Nods, raising his eyebrows) Yes. Son: You never came to see me, I don’t know why, maybe you sensed... Therapist G: (To son) How did you feel? Tell us. I felt... Son: Bad, he makes me angry. Father: I thought I was respecting your... I had guessed that something was going on... but I didn’t want to intrude, I didn’t want to... (Observes his son in silence). Son: You’ve always behaved like this, even on other occasions. Therapist G: (To son) When you don’t ask me because you don’t want to be nosy, I feel, tell us. Son: I feel invisible. Your lack of nosiness is indifference, in my opinion. Father: This surprises me given that he hadn’t spoken... Therapist G: (To father) Seeing that you. Father: Seeing that you hadn’t said anything. (Sighs) I thought that you were waiting to tell us and that it still wasn’t a decision you’d made. Seeing that in the past, and just as your mum

104

said, you had several experiences and I didn’t know if this was the true one, so... Son: And now that you know are you glad or am I still the black sheep? Father: No, no! Now that I know I’m fine about it, the baby makes me happy, of course... Therapist G: (To father) Look at him, look at him. Father: Just as it all came out unexpectedly, we didn’t want to emphasise this aspect, we want you to decide, to come to a decision leading to marriage. A choice which is solid, let’s say this straight, you know my opinion, a forever that gives you a guarantee which protects you from yourselves. Therapist G: I don’t understand whether you’re more worried about justifying yourself to someone or worried about your son, I don’t get it. What are you worried about regarding your son? Father: No, I’m not worried about what other people might think, it’s what I said... Therapist G: Look at him, look at him. Father:... I want... Therapist G: What happens when you look at him? Father: I feel that he (tenses his shoulders to express his son’s feelings) is a bit touchy not... Therapist G: Fantastic! It’s nice when you sense that he’s touchy, you’re looking up as if there were another picture. (Smiling at the father and addressing the son) Is there a photo of you there? Son: No, I don’t think so. Therapist G: Well look at him and say, “What’s the matter?” Father: What can I do so that you’ll feel me closer to you? And so that we can get over this difficulty we have? Therapist G: A brilliant question! Giuseppe, please. Son: First of all, now that you know your attitude hasn’t changed, you continue to do your job, you go the bank every morning in a

105

suit, you come home late... that all things considered I’ve got my own life now with my partner, let’s call her that, I’ve got a son, but you’ve not been there for mum as well as for us. Therapist G: What does this present moment make you feel about him? Son: Now that I’m here even if you say “You’ve got to marry” but it isn’t marriage that unites people!| It’s something inside us... Father: Yes, yes, yes. Son:... and so what’s the point of being married if you’re never with your wife or kids at home? Father: So you rightly say “Let’s not make the same mistakes as them”. I’m okay with that. What I want to communicate to you, if I can manage to, is that it’s not a mere formality, a need, how can I say this, I’d like you to reach the idea of marriage because your relationship can grow with regards to the baby too. Therapist G: Can you remember his name? Father: Flavio. Therapist G: Oh yes! Son: (Moves from one side to the other on his chair, rubbing his chin with his hand. He seems perplexed) But, you’ve just said, you know what I think but actually I don’t know because we’ve never had the opportunity (father and son laugh together in amusement). Therapist G: They are many things that you don’t know. One thing I don’t know, I’m curious as an external observer, is what your gut reaction to your son having become a father is? Therapist G: (To son) I don’t know this and I’m curious about it. This is my curiosity, if you’re not interested, don’t worry. Son: He’s become a grandfather, above all! Therapist G: (Laughs) Oh yes, above all and for sure! Father: The experience of becoming a grandfather is a fantastic one, as far as I’m concerned, stupendous. It gives an extraordinary sense of fullness.

106

Son: In one fell swoop. Father: It fills me with joy, I repeat, and I also realise that the accusations, and rightly so, of my absence weigh me down. I realise that I was often not there, too busy outside the home (hearing this utterance the son knits his eyebrows together), I wish I had been less absent, closer to you and I’d like to close this gap, this distance. Therapist G: How has your way of talking to your son changed knowing that your son is not only a son but also a father? Therapist V: Do you feel closer to him now as a father now that he’s a father? Father: Yes, certainly. Therapist V: He’s older. Father: Yes, certainly, I feel him closer and... Therapist G: You, you, you. Father: I feel you closer to me and I understand the lack that you felt in the past and I hope you won’t commit the same mistakes I’ve made and as a grandfather I hope that I’ll succeed in completing your work as parents through us grandparents’ role which is that of providing a history, when it comes down to it, of being useful. (The son sighs doubtfully while the father speaks). Father: You told me that what you wish for me, and I wish that you would change because, as far as I’m concerned, I think I dedicate enough time to my family, here now I’ve got a family and also because, let’s be honest here, you don’t even dedicate time to yourself. (The father bows his head sighing, his shoulders bow almost to the point of closing, he lowers his torso towards the floor), you haven’t got a hobby, you don’t do sport. You never think about yourself what with your work, the bank, your career. I’ve never seen you in a track suit, a sweatshirt, a pair of shorts... whatever. (Therapist G stop Giuseppe touching his arm with his index finger). Therapist G: Now he’s too old to change. Can I make a suggestion, Giuseppe? Can I?

107

Son: Sure. Therapist G: Put Flavio in his arms. It’s the only argument he can understand. Put Flavio in his arms. Son: Yes, I can see him being a good grandfather. Therapist G: Tell him. I think you’ll be a good grandfather. Son: I can see you better as a grandfather. Father: Huh! And I hope... Therapist G: What happens in your body if you are holding Flavio? Father: If he’s holding Flavio? (Points to his son). Therapist G: You, you. If you have Flavio in your arms. Father: What me? Therapist G: Come on, come on! Father: If I’m holding Flavio in my arms I (lifts his torso up, arches his back and moves the fingers of his hands cheerfully in front of him) I feel that I’m jumping out of my skin with happiness. Therapist G: Eh. (To Giuseppe) It looks like the only way to make him jump out of his skin with joy, do you see (gives him an affectionate pat on the knee). And you were destined to create all this joy to make him change, you’ve even given him a grandson to make him change. You’re great! (they laugh). Son: Well. You just look at that! Therapist V: (To mother and daughter) What effect does it have on you to see the men of the family like this? Daughter: It’s lovely! Therapist V: (Nodding and smiling at Laura) And you Mrs? How do you see your husband now? Mother: (Amazed and enthusiastic) Different now, happy!! (Her husband looks at her, smiling contentedly). Therapist V: Ah! Therapist G: Okay, now would seem to be the time that you get nearer and you go back to your seat with your brother who’s wait-

108

ing for you, Auntie! Would you like to say how you perceive your husband now? (Therapist G gets up, gives his seat next to Giuseppe to Laura and resumes his seat next to Therapist V). (See Fig. 5)

Fig. 5

Mother: Now he’s beaming, he’s happy, great! (Smiles in gratification). Therapist G: And you? Mother: I see them serene! (Extends her hand pointing to her children smiling happily) Aren’t my kids gorgeous? Therapist V: They’re grown up/great! Mother: I’m glad for them. I see them as gorgeous, relaxed. Therapist G: Just one more question needs to be asked, Mrs. May I ask it? What happens when you hold Flavio in your arms? Is it okay to ask this question, Giuseppe? Son: Who to? To Mum? Sure! Mother: (Opens her arms and then smilingly she joins her hands) I’m going to be a grandmother! Therapist G: And what’s happening, we know on the official records it says grandmother! Mother: Grandmother! And what’s happening? You and I are going to go out walking with the pram, so the boy can

109

study! (She gets closer to her husband and energetically grabs his arm with one hand whilst with the other she pats his hand) He can study more! (Turning to her son in an inviting tone) You’ll bring him to us, won’t you? Bring him! Bring him! In the meantime Therapist V approaches Therapist G and speaks in a low voice. Therapist V: OK! Therapist G: Chat amongst yourselves while we go out... Therapist V: We’re going out a minute to consult then we’ll be back... Therapist G: With a verdict, okay? (Everyone smiles at the joke). A brief pause. The Therapists speak alone. Therapist G: Laura said that things happen at night, Laura made us realise that at night things can happen that don’t get talked about during the day. I think the fact that she’s become an aunt is important, don’t you?! I think Flavio’s business is very important. If you want, at the next session... I was thinking (turning to look at colleague) to get the lady and the father to come. Therapist V: But who’s the dad? Giuseppe? Therapist G: Yes, with the mother. Therapist V: Well! Therapist G: What were you thinking? Therapist V: Well, I thought that the thrust was in the fact that the parents talk to their kids as if they were still small children. Taboos and the things that don’t get talked about are what happens at night and not during the day. I think that they are not close. Therapist G: Yes, that’s certainly crystal clear. Therapist V: Yes, that’s certainly crystal clear, the two women were miles apart. Therapist G: They seem a very close couple (closes his fist). Therapist V: Yes, too close. And so for as long as the kids were small there was nurturing. Now that they’re grown they don’t

110

know how to relate to them. It’s not that they don’t want to relate to them, they don’t know how to. At this juncture the kids also have to let go of the idea of how they want their dad to change... it’s obvious! He’ll have to give it up or it’ll become excessive. Therapist G: Yes, indeed, I said that the only way was to put Flavio in his grandad’s arms. Therapist V: Yes, indeed! Therapist G: And for Laura? Therapist V: Closeness with her mum but without words, though... because they get lost with words. Therapist G: All of them do a bit... Therapist V: Talking gets them confused! Therapist G: You heard the dad, he’s prone to talking in a way... Therapist V: And what can we say about Laura? Therapist G:... Laura... Therapist V: But Laura, I think, doesn’t sleepwalk when she’s not at home! At university, away from home, I don’t know! Deciding to do things together, doing without talking. Therapist G: This is what I’d suggest, and I think a month would be enough, give them some ‘homework’. Therapist V: Female, male? Therapist G: Yes, separately. Therapist V: Here’s a couple that’s too close. Therapist G: Yes, but close in a way that’s also... because then they also have little tricks... Therapist V: But between themselves, though! Therapist G: Yes, that’s why we need things to do together: Laura and her mum. Go and buy underwear together, let’s start from there, shall we? And I think it might be helpful, for Giuseppe and his father to go out with Flavio. I’d like to see all three together.

111

Therapist V: Yes, yes. Therapist G: The men with Flavio, this other male who’s arrived. Together. Because words get this family confused. Therapist V: Because they create burdens, responsibilities. Therapist G: It is as if they weren’t used to speaking about their feelings. Okay, more or less! Therapist V: That’s okay, then! Therapist G: Who’s going to start? Therapist V: You? Therapist G: I don’t know, we’ll see! The Therapists go back in. (See Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Therapist G: Overall, your family is a healthy one, but you’ve got a past in which little was said; you’ve always not spoken much, have you? (mother and father nod). That’s why, given this change in the family, we want to make some suggestions. We’ll see you again next month to see how you’re getting on and in the meantime here’s some suggestions. I’ll give the men theirs and Therapist V will give the ladies theirs. For the men, something original that’s not normally done. Giuseppe, take a walk with your dad and your son. Great, something new! Leave your partner at home,

112

get your dad and Flavio and take an all-male walk. Do you remember Aeneas, (to father) father and son, just great, just great! Father: In any case we’ve got a new stroller because we’ve just given it to them as a gift. Therapist G: Yes, but it’s great, father and son together like that, intriguing! Therapist V: Every so often pick him up, spoil little Flavio! Therapist G: Who’s holding whom in his arms? Who knows! Anything that happens is fine! Therapist V: Instead for Laura and her mother, I’m thinking of getting them to do something together, going out together geared towards (to Laura) showing your mum where you go. In the sense, let her into what twenty year-olds do these days. Could be that your mum doesn’t know. And your mum can show you other things. Therapist G: Because mum has done some things but only with dad! At twenty, a life time isn’t enough... Therapist V: Instead, you can get her interested in what twenty year-olds do now and your mum can tell you what she did when she was twenty. Get her interested in a twenty year-old’s life. Go out together from time to time. Daughter: OK! Dr. Salonia: (To the public) Now, out of respect, we’ll listen to their experiences and then discuss them. (See Fig. 7)

Fig. 7

113

Dr. Conte: When did you feel something moving inside during the encounter. What moment did you feel as decisive? What utterance and when, for example, near someone, did you feel there that something had changed? Dr. Salonia: Remember the session on the level of bodily experience and in terms of relationships. When did I feel something in my body, who was talking... Dr. Conte: Everybody think about ‘what did I say?’ Dr. Salonia: Something that happened in your bodies. Laura: Yes, at the beginning I felt great disquiet, when I was sitting here. I couldn’t sit still. Then when I changed seat, there was a turning-point, certainly with the exercise with the fingers. Yes, because afterwards I felt much calmer. My body was more relaxed after we touched each other. Yes, I certainly felt calmer. Dr. Salonia: Good, let’s hear from other bodies. Father: I felt, with regards to my grandson Flavio, put on the spot. Perhaps I got involved because I’ve recently become a grandfather. Dr. Conte: And so energy about this. Father: Yes. Giuseppe: I noticed something. Despite being a heavy-going argument about a son who leaves home, lives with his partner, hides a pregnancy, becomes a dad, and even if it was all fiction my heart was beating fast and, despite everything, it was a civilised dialogue; people spoke one at a time, they listened to each other, they looked into each other’s eyes in a way that doesn’t happen in real life, only in films, and perhaps in therapy when maybe they have a go at each other. Dr. Salonia: When was it that your heart rate slowed down, Giuseppe? Giuseppe: When you said that he’s old now, elderly, he’s beyond certain stages... Dr. Salonia: That’s not what I said but it’s what I meant... Giuseppe:... put Flavio in his arms, he can only be a grandfather... Dr. Salonia: Precisely that, well done.

114

Giuseppe:... the stage of being a father is over and done with... Dr. Salonia: Yes, but it’s interesting that it was that that calmed you down. Giuseppe: It was the solution. Dr. Salonia: Yes, yes! Mother: The moment of closeness with Laura was undeniable. It was great because it made us calmer even if I felt the need to distinguish the role of the mother from that of the daughter and that disturbed me a little but the acceptance was important. Another moment when I felt my heart beating fast was when Giovanni was so shamelessly on Giuseppe’s side. I thought “What‘s going to become of this poor man?” Dr. Conte: You were worried about your husband? Mother: Yes, I was thinking, well just listen to what they’re saying to and about him! Husband: Well done, well done! Mother: The turning point came when the two pairs came closer, in a sort of ‘let’s get these two clans sorted’. Dr. Salonia: By the way, this is an important piece of information, whatever answer I get, it has a meaning for me. Did you think I was on Giuseppe’s side or was that your wife’s perception? Listen to yourself! Father: No, I didn’t feel that you had taken sides, I felt you approaching both of us through Giuseppe and you hadn’t taken sides. Dr. Conte: This worry makes sense, let’s talk about it now.

115

GIOVANNI SALONIA

GIUSYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S FAILED DEGREE Therapy conducted by G. Salonia

M: Mother; P: Father; G: Giusy, elder daughter; A: Alessandra, younger daughter; T: Therapist. The family enters the room, where there are six chairs; the members of the family introduce themselves to the therapist, who shakes hands and introduces himself (see Fig. 1)

Fig. 1

T: Giovanni! G: Giusy! A: Alessandra! T: How old are you? (Addressing the elder daughter). M: Twenty one (The mother responds on behalf of the daughter). T: You? (Looking at the younger daughter).

117

A: I’m nineteen! T: Madam? M: I’m Ada. P: Stefano. T: Good, make yourselves at home! Was it easy getting here? M & P: Yes, yes fairly! T: Because, sometimes, it is hard to find parking here! M: No! T: Who drove? M: My husband drove! P: She is my navigator! M: I make him take shortcuts so that we arrive on time! T: Why have you come here? Generally people come because there is something that they would like to improve! Who is going to introduce themselves first? Alessandra, the younger one? Or, Dad? Who is going to start? P: Look... It’s better that I don’t say anything! T: Ok, let’s start with the youngest then... Alessandra, why have your parents decided to do this? Whose decision was it? M: Mum decided! Because... T: I imagine you are happy to be here, right? (Smiling) A: Because I also don’t understand what I have to do with it all...? T: Exactly!... What do you usually do at this time? Gym, do you do gymnastics... Do you study? A: Yes, I go to the gym and then I study! T: Be patient! In your opinion, why do you think your parents have decided to do this? A: mmm... because... maybe they didn’t understand the situation very well? There was a small problem with my sister and they decided to come here. However, exactly why, I don’t know...

118

T: What does this have to do with you? (smiling)... Well you know, since at home... You talk and you don’t talk, let’s say it is better to say everything in public...! Alessandra (with an affectionate tone), if it were to depend on you, what would you change at home? A: mmm... maybe... the conversation! T: Between whom? A: Between us (pointing to the sister) and our parents, in particular my Dad! T: mmm, ok! We already have a plan: to improve the conversation between yourselves! Now let’s pass to another young lady... Hello Giusy, is it also good that you are here? G: mmm... I feel bad, because I know that the cause of all that has happened to the family is my... T: What has happened, Giusy? G: mmm... I let my parents down, especially my Dad. He doesn’t want to speak to me... mmm... T: But what happened, Giusy? G: I let them down! T: You let them down...? Ah! I understand: you didn’t meet their expectations... G: In short, I feel alone... like everything is against me, as if I were a bad person, and... when Mum asked me to come, rightly... I thought we should give it a go! Also because... I would like to rebuild relationships, however... I feel bad! T: Is it hard? G: Fairly! T: Certainly, I can imagine... So, you would like to improve the relationship with your parents, in particular with your Dad... I understand that... G: Yes! Yes, even though I find that Mum is warmer, more involved, I find that with Dad, this fractiousness has been created, this wall that I am unable to... that we are unable to overcome!

119

T: There is a lot of clarity in your family! Everyone has clear ideas! Good...! Madam? (Addressing the mother)... Why did you come here? What would you like to improve between yourselves? P: Go on, tell us! (The father intervenes with an arrogant tone and a little angry, expressing himself in dialect). G: If you behave like that, I am not going to want to try this!! (There is some commotion between members of the family who in turn raise their voices and talk over each other). T: Does it always happen like this in your family? M: I think it is important... my suggestion to come here... In the beginning there was some hesitancy, however then they all accepted and... certainly, I also felt like a failure as a mother in the situation that we are about to recount... because I didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know, maybe, how to create good conversation with my daughters, with my husband, to have had little trust perhaps towards my daughters, however... I would like to regain this, here, and do it in a way that will also establish a mutual respect, a good... T: What would you improve, in practice, in your family? M: But... certainly, the conversation... the... T: Between whom? M: Certainly... between me and my daughters... but... T: Both of them? (Pointing to the daughters). M: Yes, yes... both of them... that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need to be scared of... of us, as parents! T: How do you know that they are scared? M: Because, we are here, hiding from things... maybe, they are scared of an overreaction... T: In the sense that you have discovered something that they have hidden from you? M: Yes... therefore... T: Do we leave this thing covered up? Or do we find out what it is?

120

M: But... now we find out, we find out because... T: Is this regarding one of your daughters? M: Yes... It regards... T: May I ask, may I ask; who does it regard? M: Giusy. T: Do we find out or do we leave it covered up? (Addressing the daughter) G: mmm... Ok, if it is important, we can find out! T: Whatever you say, Giusy! Tell me... How can I say it...? Do you trust me? G: Yes! We can find out! T: Would you like to tell us or shall they tell us? G: mmm... Perhaps, they should start and... T:... and you can correct them! If you do not agree with their story, say... stop! They can stop, and you can correct them... G: Ok! T: Ok? G: Ok! T: Madam...! M: So... (sighing), Giusy is our first daughter and I think that, as parents, we are happy to have these children: to have expectations, we give them our trust, freedom... She (looking at Giusy), after school, decided to study away from home... and she is... in Rome, and... certainly, I am a bit of an... anxious mother, I call her continually and... however... here, she has undertaken a course of study that she is enthusiastic about and... we are happy about this, because she also got on really well from the outset! The bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree that she has chosen in oriental languages. is coming to an end... so... we are also waiting to take part in her graduation... and for some months, here, I have been helping her with her final dissertation, the introductions... T: Do you work?

121

M: Yes, I teach! T: Mmm! M: Whilst my husband is an agronomist! T: Mmm! M: In short, we are awaiting the date... because the thesis has already taken place... T: Even I am waiting! (With an affectionate smile). M: Yes! At some point, we are expecting the announcement of the lists of graduates and... we often log onto the site, but... I became aware that she wasn’t on the list of graduates! I called her and she told me that there had been some problems with the secretary, because she hadn’t paid her fees! I asked her to immediately find out and find a solution and to understand what had happened! I called her the day after, she told me there was a bill she needed to pay, but in reality it just didn’t seem right to me... a reason, here... honestly, I got a bit annoyed, and with a rather angry tone, I wanted, I asked her what... that she needed to tell me the truth, because here she was, she was hiding too many things and... she broke down in tears on the phone, telling me that in reality she would not be graduating, because she still had five exams to complete, the dissertation was still not finished and... and this... a little, it... was a particularly hard situation, I felt, when I put the phone down, like a failure as a mother, because perhaps there is something, some problem that she has had and not told me about! T: Ok! Do you follow, Giusy? G: Yes. More or less, yes... T: Does more or less mean something... G: Yes, but this is it... mmm, she didn’t mention, however, that I have gotten so behind with my studies, with the subjects, because I went through a horrible period, because a relationship ended that I really believed in, an important relationship... T: When did it finish? Two years ago? Last year? G: A year ago, more or less and... I haven’t been able to get on with things. I’ve been stuck all over the place... I have felt

122

alone: I haven’t been able to tell them about these difficulties... apart from Alessandra, to whom I told a few things but to mum and dad, I haven’t been able to... T: So it wasn’t something that happened just like that... There was a reason! G: Yes! T: Good! Let’s listen now to the pater familias... What would you change in this family? P: Look, I don’t know what to do anymore! I have given everything to my daughters... Neither of them have ever missed out on anything... I was so happy, we were preparing everything, the party! The degree! You can imagine, a daughter graduates... and instead... I come to discover that in the end... Not only she did not sit her exams, but moreover... she completely took us for a ride! From my point of view, I did everything that I could and perhaps I did too much... but if these are the results... well, you tell me!! T: I understand. So... it is very clear... It’s a family in which there is a lot of clarity! G: Yes, however, Dad doesn’t understand that I didn’t do it to disappoint him or because anyhow... I feel bad knowing that I have disappointed him... but I was in a bad place, I needed someone at that moment to help me: it wasn’t bad will, because I didn’t want to study or not give him the satisfaction... He sees this aspect, but he doesn’t understand my illness... T: Now let’s see, Giusy, certainly... little by little,... otherwise you wouldn’t be here...! One question... (addressing the parents)... When you were Alessandra’s or Giusy’s age, how was it? What was the situation? At twenty years old, at eighteen... What was your situation at their age, did you ever have any problems? M: Well... I... T: Let’s start with your husband, madam. P: Doctor... I went to university, and for the most part I worked, I paid to do the exams, like everyone else! I didn’t ask this of my daughters...!

123

T: Did you ever have any doubts? P: Such as? T: You didn’t ever have any tough times? P: But everyone has tough times! T: And when you had tough times, when were these? At what age? P: (Pensive)… T: A lot of time has passed, hey! At what age do you remember having a tough time? P: Maybe the first few years... After we got married! You know how many costs there are...! How difficult it is... T: How did you feel in those years in which you had a few difficulties... alone? Together? How did you feel? P: Hey...! Luckily my wife was there... T: So... you didn’t feel alone...? And when someone feels that he/she has problems... How is he/she? Does one have a desire to do other things? P: mmm... no, not really, I think! T: Good...! Madam, you… at what point in your life did you get into any difficulties? M: Well... in adolescence... I also had some difficulties...! T: What kind? Tell us, go on... M: mmm, I left home at fifteen years of age... T: Whilst saying goodbye or slamming the door? M: Eh...? No, I left home slamming the door... together with a boy... I let down... T: (Addressing the daughters) Did you know that? Did you know that? G & A: No, no! T: What effect does that have on you both? G: I feel closer to her, more human! Because... we always feel like she is so upright, so rigid!

124

M: Well... I am quite helpful, open, in short... I teach and, with kids I try to also be... T: Did you also know that about your Dad... during the first few years that he was married...? M: mmm... but it wasn’t him... T: What effect does it have on you to know that Dad, in the first few years that he was married, had some tough times? A: Strange, because he always seems like a person who is very sure of himself, very. together, and that he always knows what needs to be done... T:... and instead, even he... G: It honestly doesn’t interest me... They had no interest in my illness! T: So the war has begun! What do you say, shall we make war? Whilst we are there... we shall do it all the way! What do you say, Giusy? You come here and tell your Dad all the things you like... Do you like (addressing the Dad) your daughter talking to you? (The Dad nods) (Giusy gets up and goes and sits facing her father) T: What effect does it have on you facing each other? (Long silence) G: I am sorry that I have disappointed you, because I knew that it was important to you... rightly, as a Dad, you want to be proud of me. I am really sorry about thisbut I wasn’t well and at the time I didn’t have anyone close by, especially my parents (she gazes at her mother). I didn’t feel close to you both... T: Giusy... one at a time: speak with your father, then, if need be, the other can talk... one at a time, however! (The mother, at the invitation of the therapist, goes and sits near to Alessandra, perhaps to ease the direction Giusy’s glance as she is talking to the father). See Fig. 2

125

Fig. 2

G: The thing that I am sorry about is the fact... the fact that, even now that this situation has come out, I have felt bad, you, you got annoyed, you criticised me, you took the words right out of my mouth, but... you never asked me how I was feeling, what had happened to me, what I had experienced, in other words you focused your attention on the failure that, for heavenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sake, you have all the reasons in the world to because... I am sorry, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s true, but I donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t feel close to you, you have lost sight of the thing that, in my opinion and all things considered, was more important! T: What effect does it have on you to hear your daughter saying these things? P: Well... I... T: What effect does it have on you? P: It makes me reflect, for sure... you are also right, but... T: Speak to her! P: But what you need to fundamentally understand is that I tried to grow beyond our possibilities and then you hint at such a thing, that... in the end it was enough... in any case the thing that annoyed me more was the lack of... how do I say it, the joking: months of saying, so we then prepare, we do this, we do that... instead, I then come to discover that the situation is totally different and then you tell me that I should continue to ask you

126

how you are and how you are not when, in the end, you only tell me things that aren’t true! Luckily your sister, in a way, put a flea in our ears so we were able to find out, if not who knows how much time would have passed before we discovered the truth... T: What effect does it have on you hearing this, Giusy? G: He is right, I am sorry, my sense of guilt is increasing, my regret is increasing, my suffering... T: What do you want to say to your Dad about this? G: That... you are right, for this I am saddened, for this I have mistaken... to not have the strength to inform you of what was happening, but, unfortunately, it was a series of things that... I reacted badly, I didn’t have the strength to tell you, because also when we spoke on the phone, you could hear that I was talking a bit strangely, you would ask me... what’s up? However, you took it for granted that it was tiredness due to the degree... It’s normal, you are at the end now, how lovely, now we can party, so this intimidated me a bit, into closure... I had difficulty telling you ”no”, effectively the strange voice wasn’t down to tiredness, but it was down to this and that... because it is as if, in any case, if I let you down, even if then, I... I gave you both more... in short, I understand it! T: What effect does it have on you to listen to this from your daughter? P: It seems to me that finally we are starting to understand each other. T: And what are you going to say to her, by the way? P: I can tell you that, from my point of view, I will try to listen to you more, maybe at the start we will try to avoid these situations. G: I, what I now want to know, in other words... We can break down this wall, in other words... either you will always continue to have this disappointment and look at me with the eyes of a disappointed father, or you give me another chance... and we can break down this wall? P: We will see, if you give me the satisfaction of this degree... and then we can try to...

127

T: It seems a little bit that you are understanding each other more! (Addressing Giusy’s sister, Alessandra). T: What effect does it have on you to see your father and your sister speak? A: Well, I am happy, yes... because I have seen them very at home... They no longer ate at the same table: when one was there, the other wasn’t... and so... T: Do you also have something to say to your father? A: (With an endearing and playful tone) Dad, will you send me to university in Rome? (The therapist invites Alessandra to stand up and sit opposite her father, Giusy goes and sits in Alessandra’s place). See Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

A: (With a serious tone) I’m also sorry for hiding all this from you in the beginning, but I did it... however for Giusy, because it didn’t seem right to me to be a spy and then... I wanted her to tell you both... it was something important! Now, I also hope that we can have this kind of conversation going forward... T: Whilst you are both there... Do you both want to say anything else to your Dad? Are there any other conversations to be had? Try to speak, all three of you... then we can bring in your Mum... (addressing the Lady). You, madam, for now... you are enjoying this...

128

M: Yes, I am... T: You are enjoying this, right? M: Yes, yes... I am... T: Enjoy it, Madam! M: Yes... it is a real pleasure for me to see... because it is in reality something that doesn’t happen... ever! Because... it is true that each one of us has our own way... but, he is much more reserved... he prefers to distance himself rather than confront things... T: I imagine that you, happy that at school all the students are happy with you... then you arrive home... and he doesn’t talk... damn it! (Addressing everyone) Tell yourself three things that you like, reciprocally... Then will we bring in Mum at this point? Madam, come on, sit here... (The therapist makes some space near to the husband)... close to your husband, don’t worry! (See Fig. 4)

Fig. 4

All of you try and tell each other three things that you like about one another! P: Who is going to begin?

129

T: (Looking at Alessandra) Would you like to? A: No! Not this time! T: No, if you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to, no! Not this time! Will the parents begin?! They are parents, they must be parents: I think itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right?! Please go ahead! M: Well... I will start... T: The teacher! M: I will start with my husband, the things that I like about him... T: Tell them to him! (indicating the husband) M: Yes! The three things that I like about you are: the availability when one asks something of you and... the other is that... however, sometimes I like that... you try to defuse a situation, however... (looking at the therapist) Can I also say something negative? T: (With a playful tone) Madam... it was to be expected...! M: I like the fact that you defuse some things, whilst others you prefer to switch off to, in other words, I like this... T: We have two things! M: The last is that you adapt easily... to everything! About Giusy, I like her... T: (Addressing the daughter) Your! M:.Your desire to make friends and... then, because you are a bright person, and the other because... I understand that you are someone who likes to say what you think and, maybe, you should... there you go... you should have less fear, however, especially of us... T: Madam, always three to one! M: About Alessandra, I like... this... her... T: Your (addressing the daughter). M: Your availability, really, to listen, to stand by... others and... I also like your radiance, because you are also a bright girl, and then... I like your... the fact that you think before doing something!

130

T: Good! How are you doing? (Addressing the daughters) Did you know these things, that Mum had this... A: No, we didn’t know this! T: Has it been a surprise? Shall we let Dad continue? You can also say something negative, three to one... (With a playful tone, addressing the daughters) Perhaps you will both say something more! Don’t worry! Dad, after you! P: Yes! (Looking at the wife) About you, I like, just, the capacity that you have to listen, especially to... understand various situations, surely more than I can! Then, very related, in my opinion, to this is... part of your character, but that... in my opinion, you are a very good person, and this is the second important quality! And then, I see you as a very calm person, in life in general... so, a stable person! One thing that you could improve... is, for example... I don’t know, at this moment in time, nothing comes to me! M: However... I like him! He has told me that I am calm, whilst he always tells me “You are always agitated!” T: Did you also both know that Mum and Dad, between themselves, say nice things to each other? A: No, in front of us, no! T: In front of you both, no, but, deep down... Well, to your daughters... say something nice! P: About Giusy, ok, the fact that I didn’t like... Ok, we understand! It was the lack of sincerity in this case, but I know that she has many other positive qualities, like, for example, the ability to not give up, the ability to fight, in a way, to not beat herself up and... also like you, as her mother, the ability to listen to people! And we already have three things... T: There are already three, Giusy? G: Yes! T: And what are they? Go on! G: He said... the ability to not give up, to fight and to listen! T: It is true, give up and fight, they seem like synonyms to me...

131

now it is there, come on! But where you find her (at the computer, if you are looking for her (addressing daughter Giusy), you find a quality! P: Doctor, my daughter really is beautiful... T: Tell her, then! P: But... also such a quality...?? T: Why is to be beautiful not a quality? P: (Silence)... T: What are you doing? Are you thinking about it? G: Dad is very shy! P: For Alessandra, a quality that she has... is loyalty, that you have demonstrated towards your sister at this time. You are a very loyal person... she is also a strong person! T: No, “she” doesn’t exist! P: You are also a very strong person, and another quality that I appreciate a lot is your ability to, in a sense... to empathise, to try and think about all of us, how to find a way to cause the least damage in the family! T: Did he say two or three? P: Three! T: What do you say? Do we send him to the oculist? P: Doctor, I told you that both of my daughters are beautiful! T: I would like you to tell me the diversity of beauty: Giusy’s beauty and Alessandra’s beauty! How are they different, from a man, the beauty of Giusy and the beauty of Alessandra? Madam, are you worried, no? No jealousy, right!! M: He is a Dad! T: He is a Dad, indeed! P: You are asking me to have a preference between my daughters! T: No! M: No!

132

P:... (Silence) mmm... T: It needs to ripen... P: I have found myself with two daughters at university... all of a sudden! (Smiling). A: Enjoy it! (Smiling). T: Good, it appears, all things considered, that these are new conversations and so, at times, it is difficult! Would you both (addressing the two daughters) say something nice to your Dad and your Mum, not just nice things, but also things that you would like more from Dad and Mum? G: Yes, I wanted to start, however, with my sister... speak to my sister! T: Yes, certainly! Turn your chairs around and speak to each other! (They sit one in front of the other). See Fig. 5

Fig. 5

G: The positive things, you know them... T: And say them again! G: I have told you often: that you are, other than my sister, you know, one of my friends, actually, my best friend, you come to meet me, you are the only person that has listened to me, advised me, you have given me support at this difficult time...

133

T: Giusy, nice things, said in passing... seem... G: Things lose their value if said quickly! T: One at a time! G: You are someone capable of listening, capable of advising, capable of... making yourself feel nearby also when you are far away... even so, you were in Ragusa, I was in Rome, so there was distance between us... T: Then? G: You kept the secret, even though I knew that keeping the secret was causing you grief because you were having to go against Mum and Dad’s faith, like I was doing, but... you didn’t want to get Mum and Dad into any difficulty and I know that it cost you and I am asking for your forgiveness for ever getting you into this situation in the first place. T: It seems to me that your sister is very reliable: a person who keeps secrets is reliable! G: The only thing that I would like to tell you is to not make my mistake with Mum and Dad: to not say anything to them, like I’ve done! Seen that we have had this situation, try to now... to have a more open relationship with them, more confidence, because then... you feel terrible! T: Whilst we are here, (addressing Alessandra) would you like to say three things to your sister? A: Yes, ok, in the meantime, thanks for what you have said to me... it’s also been a difficult situation for me. It is not always easy to say things to Mum and Dad, so I also understand what you were trying to do, but, I would like to say that I think you are such a smart sister. You are a bit like a role model to me, also for ever having undertaken your university studies, your desire to go away from Ragusa, to emancipate yourself. In my opinion, you are a very intelligent person, and then I like this relationship that there is between us, that we really tell each other everything, that you are a friend as well as a sister and, in other words, I am happy about how things have gone with them just now... T: What effect does it have on you hearing your daughters speak like this?

134

M: It moves me! T: And you? You have grown some beautiful and very bright daughters, capable of talking. I have to ask, what you want to say to Mum and Dad. Do it at home! As an exercise! Within 15 days, one month, we will meet again to see how it has gone, however choose a day in which you will continue the exercise. It seems to me that, by now, you have found the right formula! Ok? We are done! M + P: Ok! Thanks! G + A: Ok! Thanks!

135

/02

PR I E

C â&#x201A;¬1 5, 00