Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The following essay aims to present the fundamental features of the psychodynamic mechanisms of defense and the Gestalt theory and its elements of boundary disturbances. This work will present the two theories and assess their similarities and differences before concluding on the implications these discoveries have for therapeutic processes. The theories have a number of shared components including the reliance on a constructed perception of social and internal functions, defenses as a form of reaction to internal and external encounters, and the necessary role of awareness. They differ on a number of essential elements, including the more abstract framework provided by Gestalt as opposed to the concrete hypothesis of psychological energy present in psychodynamics. The defenses within psychodynamics are also related to the inherent inner conflict prevalent in the theory while boundary disturbances are neither detrimental nor beneficial on their own. Similarly, Gestalt proposes that present experiences are more dominant in forming indeed while psychodynamics proposes that such effects emerge primarily from the past. Overall, both theories have roots in the 21st century and have been influenced by changing trends not only within psychology but in general socio-political contexts.
Psychodynamic Mechanisms of Defense
In order to better understand psychodynamic mechanisms of defense, it is essential to define the characteristics of psychodynamic psychology. In broad terms, psychodynamic psychology works in a systematic manner to observe psychological effects that are related to feelings, emotions, and behaviors (Cramer, 2020). Its early roots also place substantial emphasis on the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind and motivation. The terminology was first associated with Sigmund Freud, whose work in psychodynamics reflected thermodynamics, with psychological energy being a form of flow as opposed to heat (Fulmer, 2018). Psychodynamic treatments and therapies are inherently dependent on theories of inner conflict, and thereby also closely related to elements of defense mechanisms. Psychodynamic approaches propose the repressed behaviors or emotions of individuals that surface as a result of the inner conflict.
Through the lens of classical psychodynamic psychology, defense as a mechanism conforms to the other principles of the approach. According to Anna Freud, the daughter of Sigmund Freud and a contributor to psychoanalysis, mechanisms can be interpreted as unconscious resources that the ego could use to primarily decrease internal stress (as cited in Bailey & Pico, 2021). Patients aim to combat or limit the inner conflict that is proposed by psychodynamic psychology through the use of varied mechanisms. It is therefore the aim of the psychodynamic approach to move the unconscious conflict of a patient to their conscious mind. Defense mechanisms may then be seen as symptoms or the aftermath of inner conflict surfacing and causing an individual internal stress. The approach promotes self-awareness of the patterns defense mechanisms are likely to produce in order to gain better insights into mental disorders or even general mental health.
Psychodynamic defense mechanisms include a substantial list of forms that are usually split into primitive or high-level defenses. Primitive defenses are characterized by less severe and life-changing behaviors (Perrotta, 2020). A well-known example includes projection, which is described as a process during which an individual externalizes their own unacceptable impulses by attributing them to someone else. Disavowal refers to the unconscious behavior in which a person dismisses or refuses to acknowledge thoughts of emotions that are discomforting. A schizoid fantasy details an occurrence during which an individual reverts into an inner world in order to cope with anxieties presented in the external.
High-level defenses are usually characterized by more severe behaviors, but not necessarily in a negative way. For instance, sublimation refers to a practice in which unacceptable impulses are placed into socially and morally acceptable routes (Bailey & Pico, 2021). Similarly, anticipation allows an individual to focus on the needs of others to avoid thoughts or feelings they associate with stress or conflict. However, high-level defenses also have the potential to be problematic. They can include rationalization, a process in which a person justifies unacceptable behaviors, feelings, or motivations by presenting them as reasonable, whether to themselves or to others. Displacement works to shift unacceptable feelings from one object or feeling to another that may closely resemble it.
Both primitive and high-level defenses have the potential to affect an individual’s personal life, work experiences, and presence within communities or social situations. As such, the theory of psychodynamic mechanisms of defense categorizes these behaviors and creates or observes systems that relate the underlying psychological sources with the presented feelings, behaviors, or emotions (Cramer, 2020). Essentially, the theory is founded on the principles of psychodynamic concepts that assume that if the connection between the psychological composition and observed symptoms of defense is made visible to a patient, they are likely to utilize the awareness in a constructive change.
Gestalt Boundary Disturbance
Gestalt therapy and theory are constructed on a number of essential components, with the primary ones being contact and boundary disturbances. Contact is the process in which an individual encounters and becomes aware of differences. Inherently, it is the separation of the being and the environment it is in. It allows for the recognition of the self, but equally introduces clashes in the forms of differing information, opinions, or other factors. Therefore, contact is the overarching term that refers to the occurrence during which the mind is able to categorize elements into that which it is and that which it isn’t. It is neither beneficial nor detrimental to the individual, as it allows for the initial interaction, interplay, and sharing of differences in which neither works to overpower the other (Bandin, 2017). The contact may end in assimilation or rejection, with novelties being deemed as acceptable or not.
However, there is a possibility for this process to be adversely affected by what is referred to as boundary disturbances within the theory. They are divided into seven categories that are introjection, confluence, projection, retroflection, egotism, deflection, and defense mechanisms. Introjection refers to complete assimilation and is often seen in the absorbance of cultural values at a young age (Brownell, 2019). Confluence allows for the individual to bridge the gap between the self and the environment, and can be observed in spiritual experiences but also in mob mentality. Projection provides a person with the ability to misplace features of the self unto their environment, which can be seen in examples of people experiencing inadequacies and blaming external factors. Retroflection is the withholding of information or responses within the self and not allowing it to be visible to the environment. Egotism refers to an exchange in which interplay is not present, and while hostility or rejection may also be exhibited, no value is traded. Deflection moves the contact boundary, which would often manifest as a change in conversation in regular interactions. Defense mechanisms, similar and different from prior disturbances, are actually complete manipulations of boundaries as a response to unfamiliar or unacceptable environments.
Overall, the theory presents a structure in which the distinct self of a patient is in constant interaction with an environment or the other. These contacts are different and can be identified through their exchanges and effects. Classical Gestalt theory and therapy are connected with awareness, field research, and experimentation, though its entire basis has been challenged to evolve and change numerous times. This is a notion supported by John Frew, a doctor in organizational behavior, who urges its diversification as it already exists as a non-universal therapeutic approach. While relational Gestalt therapy has already been formed in order to be distinct from its traditional counterpart, Frew (2016) promotes even further adaptation. In his own work, he has noticed the overlapping themes within the theory and his practice among multicultural groups and settings. Technological advances are also likely to play a role in the ways in which contact and boundaries are perceived in the modern day. Essentially, the Gestalt theory provides a system of exchanges between the self and the other but is only truly sufficient when susceptible to change and adaptation.
Similarities
The theories share a number of similarities. Both the boundaries and the psychological flow presented within the theories have a number of influences on their overall practices. The boundary and contact notion builds the fundamental understanding of Gestalt’s theory and works to describe a number of interactions and the effects they have on the individual (Bandin, 2017). Psychological flow refers to processes that occur in the unconscious but have the potential to and likely influence human behaviors, responses, and emotions (Frew, 2016). These concepts overlap as they are both hypothesized explanations for processes that are currently unknown to researchers. There are no observable boundaries or flows, but the theories present them as metaphors for ongoing occurrences within the human mind that cannot be currently measured.
Similarly, both theories deal in defenses and responses to both internal and external stress. Psychodynamic psychology of defense is almost entirely focused on the mechanisms of defense and their impact on an individual. The Gestalt theory provides that one of the many versions of boundary disturbances includes defense mechanisms, a modification of the boundaries between the self and the other (Rafagino, 2019). While the processes are defined uniquely within both theories, they essentially result in the same behavior. This reaction usually manifests as a distinctive coping strategy towards unknown or unacceptable forces by protecting or assuring the self. Boundary disturbances can be seen as the adjustments made in the interactions of a person and the exterior world while psychodynamic mechanisms provide distinct coping behaviors.
When the theories become involved within therapeutic utilization, they have similar goals and achievements. Both theories provide an overview of constructive and non-constructive reactions to both internal and external stressors. Within psychodynamic psychology defense mechanisms are split into primitive and high-level, but can also be categorized as detrimental or healthy. Certain behaviors such as humor provide a more positive and constructive method for limiting stressors while rationalization allows an individual to make unacceptable things reasonable (Prout et al., 2019). Similarly, Gestalt theory provides that certain boundary disturbances have the potential to provide both a positive and negative effect, such as within confluence where the self and the other become merged (Yontef et al., 2019). Essentially, both theories assume that individuals have the potential to express responses that may be constructive and non-constructive and it is the goal of the therapy to guide the patient to a more beneficial outcome.
Differences
Despite the similarities in the perception of boundaries within Gestalt theory and the underlying psychological energy of psychodynamics, they are also vastly different. Gestalt theory does not present contact and boundaries as if they were concrete or biological factors, but simply as representations of otherwise unseen effects. Essentially, they are imagery tools in order to achieve a better grasp of the interactions that are categorized as boundary disturbances. Psychological flow or energy within psychodynamics is presented as a more tangible process, but it is primarily unfounded. Most early practitioners of psychodynamics approached the concept as a physical manifestation of a biological process (Prunas et al., 2019). As such, the theories become distinct in the fundamentals of their practices with Gestalt theory being constructed on a much more theoretical and abstract idea while psychodynamics is exploratory and pragmatic.
Boundary disturbances and defense mechanisms are also incredibly distinct from each other. While the psychodynamic mechanisms of defense illustrate both reactions to external and internal influences, they are primarily used as responses to inner conflict. As such, they are inherently more concerned with the hypothesized concept of psychological energy and the presumed internal struggle that is described within the theory. Contact boundaries on the other hand, which can sometimes be perceived as defenses, are more concerned with defining the self and its interaction with the unfamiliar (Ginger et al., 2019). It is not innately a defense and can be better described as an exchange. While positive forms of defense mechanisms exist within psychodynamic psychology, they are non-existent without the presence of inner conflict. In contrast, boundary disturbances are not inherently founded on conflict as certain contacts can be overwhelmingly positive or cooperative. A constructive exchange, or even a non-hostile rejection, can be observed as largely conflict-free within Gestalt theory.
The primary focuses of therapy are also slightly varied within Gestalt theory and psychodynamic psychology processes. The traditional approach of psychodynamics dictates that awareness is fundamental in constructive growth and observes past events as being deeply ingrained in present behaviors (Fulmer, 2018). Gestalt therapy also focuses on awareness but incorporates freedom and self-direction. Essentially, it prioritizes the effects and impact of the present over the potential encounters of the past. Overall, Gestalt theory believes that the present environment is the fundamental influence in a person’s life while psychodynamics believes that present identity is entirely constructed of past experiences.
Conclusion
Both the theory of psychodynamic mechanisms of defense and the Gestalt boundary disturbances have an extensive past and a propensity to change. They share a number of similarities including the abstract but descriptive underlying theory that drives human motivation, the inclusion of behaviors in response to conflict or the unfamiliar, and the ambition for patients to achieve constructive growth and reactions. On the other hand, Gestalt provides a framework that is theoretical and clearly presented as illustrative and non-concrete while the psychological energy within psychodynamics is perceived as a tangible process. They also differ in their approach to defenses, which are seen as inherently conflict-centered in psychodynamics while they are founded on exchange within Gestalt theory. While both theories aim to achieve awareness in the patient, psychodynamics believes that the past has the primary influence on an individual’s identity while Gestalt theory proposes that the present experience is more impactful. As such, the theories have fundamental differences but also share a number of imperative features.
References
Bailey, R. & Pico, J. (2021). Defense mechanisms. StatPearls Publishing.
Bandin, C. V. (2017). Towards a notion of resistance in gestalt therapy. Gestalt Review, 21(3), 242–258. Web.
Brownell, P. (2019). Handbook for theory, research, and practice in Gestalt therapy (2nd ed.). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cramer, P.(2020). Psychodynamic perspective of defense mechanisms. In Carducci, B. J., Nave, C. S., & Riggio, R. E (Eds.), The Wiley encyclopedia of personality and individual differences: Models and theories (pp. 147-151). John Wiley & Sons.
Frew, J. (2016). Gestalt therapy: Creatively adjusting in an increasingly diverse world. Gestalt Review, 20(2), 106-128. Web.
Fulmer, R. (2018). The evolution of the psychodynamic approach and system. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 10(3), 1-6. Web.
Ginger, S., Spargo, S., & Cojean, S. R. (2019). Gestalt therapy: The art of contact. Routledge.
Perrotta, G. (2020). Human mechanisms of psychologicaldDefense: Definitions, historical and psychodynamic contexts, classifications and clinical profiles. International Journal of Neurorehabilitation, 7(1), 1-7. Web.
Prout, T. A., Malone, A., Rice, T., & Hoffman, L. (2019). Resilience, defense mechanisms, and implicit emotion regulation in psychodynamic child psychotherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychology, 49(1), 235-244. Web.
Prunas, A., Di Pierro, R., Huemer, J., & Tagini, A. (2019). Defense mechanisms, remembered parental caregiving, and adult attachment style. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 36(1), 64–72. Web.
Rafagino, R. (2019). Gestalt therapy effectiveness: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(6), 66-83. Web.
Yontef, G., Jacobs, L., & Bowman, C. (2019). Gestalt therapy. In D. Wedding & R. J. Corsini (Eds.), Current psychotherapies (11th ed.) (pp. 309-348). Cengage.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.