VOLUME FOURTEEN • NUMBER THREE

VOL. 14 • NO. 3
Forthcoming Articles

FESTSCHRIFT –
Celebrating the Power of Writing:
A Tribute to Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D., and Edwin C. Nevis, Ph.D.
(The 25th Anniversary of the Founding of Gestaltpress and Writers’ Conferences)

Gestalt Therapy for Patients with Schizophrenia: A Brief Review

Sidse M. H. Arnfred, M.D., Ph.D., MSc
Editorial. Contempt, Empathy, and Gestalt
Cross-Cultural Exploration of PTSD: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Susan L. Fischer, Ph.D.
Recommended Treatment Contempt
Dilani M. Perera-Diltz, Ph.D., John M. Laux, Ph.D., and Sarah Toman, Ph.D. Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., and Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.
Commentary I. Contempt
Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D.
Commentary II. Contempt
Rosie Burrows, Ph.D.
Commentary III. Contempt
Chantelle Wyley, MIS

GESTALT REVIEW
Response to Commentaries
Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., and Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.
Making Contact with the Self-Injurious Adolescent: Borderline Personality
Disorder, Gestalt Therapy and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy Interventions
Lynn Williams, Ph.D.
A Poetics of Practice: Organisation Consulting from a Gestalt Perspective
Robert Farrands, Ph.D.
Commentary I. A Poetics of Practice
Edwin C. Nevis, Ph.D.
Commentary II. A Poetics of Practice
Joel Latner, Ph.D.
Commentary III. A Poetics of Practice
Malcolm Parlett, Ph.D.
Response to Commentaries
Visit our Robert Farrands, Ph.D.
NEW Reviews and Reflections
website at Review
www.gestaltreview.com  The World in a Grain of Sand: The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and
Everyday Life (Daniel N. Stern)
Peter Cole, LCSW
Poem
Claire Dennery Stratford, LCSW (1929-2010)
Poem
Peter Wheelock Tarlton, M.S.
In Memoriam: Claire Dennery Stratford, LCSW
Frances S. Baker, Ph.D.
2010

Gestalt Review is a peer-reviewed journal published by

The Gestalt International Study Center • PO Box 515 • South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA PUBLISHED BY THE GESTALT INTERNATIONAL STUDY CENTER
 G E S T A L T R E V I E W INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Launched in 1997, Gestalt Review provides a forum for exchanges in theory and
Susan L. Fischer, Ph.D., Editor Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., Founding Editor practice throughout the world. It concentrates on the Gestalt approach at all system
levels, ranging from the individual, through couples, families, and groups, to organi-
Associate Editors zations, educational settings, and the community-at-large. The journal also publishes
original articles dealing with politics, philosophy, gender, and culture. The Review and
Liv Estrup, M.A. Susan E. Partridge, Ph.D., LCSW Reflections pages typically contain book reviews and personal reflections. The journal is
Jon E. Frew, Ph.D. Susan Roos, Ph.D. peer reviewed and published three times a year.
Rick Maurer, M.A. Gary M. Yontef, Ph.D. Gestalt Review is committed to working with authors in a productive and collabora-
Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D. tive manner. Original manuscripts should be prepared according to Gestalt International
Study Center stipulations and APA style (see below); generally they should not exceed
Editorial Board 25 double-spaced pages or approximately 7500 words (12 pt. Times New Roman font),
including References. A double-spaced Abstract of approximately 100 words should ap-
Nancy Amendt-Lyon, Dr.Phil., Austria Mark McConville, Ph.D., USA pear on a separate page, along with a 2-3 sentence Biography that includes your most
Jack Aylward, Ed.D., USA Gonzague Masquelier, Ph.D., France advanced academic degree/professional title. An electronic version of the manuscript
Daniel J. Bloom, J.D., LCSW, USA Alan Meara, M.G.T., New Zealand should be sent to the editor of Gestalt Review at sfischer@bucknell.edu. Manuscripts
Todd Burley, Ph.D., USA Peter Mortola, Ph.D., USA must not have been published, nor submitted for publication, elsewhere.
Arie Cohen, Ph.D., Israel Violet Oaklander, Ph.D., USA All submitted manuscripts will be initially screened for appropriateness of subject
Nigel Copsey, D.Psyc., England Eleanor O’Leary, Ph.D., Ireland matter. Following such screening, manuscripts will be mask reviewed, with each submis-
Sylvia Fleming Crocker, Ph.D., USA Brian O’Neill, B.A. MAPS, Australia sion sent to a minimum of two referees. The review process may take up to six months.
Bud Feder, Ph.D., USA Malcolm Parlett, Ph.D., England In order to assure anonymity, each copy of a manuscript should include a separate title
page with the author’s name, mailing address, and affiliations, and these should not
Iris Fodor, Ph.D., USA Erving Polster, Ph.D., USA appear elsewhere in the manuscript. Authors should make reasonable efforts to mask
Ruella Frank, Ph.D., USA Robert Resnick, Ph.D., USA their identity throughout the entire manuscript.
Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D., USA Jan Roubal, M.D., Czech Republic After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the author is asked to provide
Seán Gaffney, Ph.D., Ireland/Sweden Frank Rubenfeld, Ph.D., USA an electronic copy of the final version, to be sent to the editor of Gestalt Review at
Marion Gillie, M.A., M.Sc., UK Norman Shub, B.C.D., USA sfischer@bucknell.edu. The author is responsible for retaining an electronic copy of the
Elinor Greenberg, Ph.D., USA Claudia Baptista Tavora, M.A., Brazil manuscript in the event of loss.
Leslie S. Greenberg, Ph.D., Canada Sarah Toman, Ph.D., USA Style: Follow the stylistic guidelines of the 6th edition of the Publication Manual
Joseph H. Handlon, Ph.D., USA Daan van Baalen, M.D., Norway of the American Psychological Association (2010) as well as the APA Style Guide to
Electronic References (APA, 2007). Text references follow the author, date system
Gaie Houston, M.A., England Carmen Vázquez Bandín, Ph.D., Spain
(Smith, 1978) and are cited within the text, not as footnotes or endnotes.
Francisco Huneeus, M.D., Chile Gordon Wheeler, Ph.D., USA Multiple text references are listed chronologically, not alphabetically. Multiple
Lynne Jacobs, Ph.D., USA Ansel Woldt, Ed.D., USA works published in the same year must be differentiated by a, b, c, etc. added to the
Robert Kolodny, Ph.D., USA Georges Wollants, Lic. Ps. Ped. Sc., Belgium publishing date. Every text citation must have its corresponding reference listing (on a
Talia Levine Bar-Yoseph, M.A., Israel Joseph Zinker, Ph.D., USA separate page at the end of the article); the reference list should contain publication
Margherita Spagnuolo Lobb, Ph.D., Italy information only about sources cited in the text.
Quotations must be followed by their source page numbers in parentheses: (p. 120);
Design/Production: Judy Robertson Designs, Sarasota, Florida, Printed in the USA a quotation only of more than 40 words is typeset as an extract and should be typed as
an indented block, double spaced, followed by source page number(s) in parentheses:
©2010 by the Gestalt International Study Center, South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA. All rights reserved. (pp. 10-12). A detailed style sheet for final preparation of reference lists, etc. is avail-
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
able upon request and will be sent to authors whose manuscripts are accepted for
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microform, recording, or otherwise,
without permission of the publisher.
publication.
Manuscripts that do not conform to both APA style and Gestalt International Study
Gestalt Review (ISSN:1084-8657) is issued three times a year by the Gestalt International Study Center preparation requirements will be returned but may be resubmitted.
Center, P.O. Box 515, South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA 2010 subscription rates for individuals in the Permissions: Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work and for
U.S. are $55, for institutions $140 and for full-time students with a college ID $30. The 2010 subscrip- obtaining permission from copyright holders to reprint or adapt tables or figures or to
tion rate for individuals in all other countries is $65; for institutions $155. Single issue prices are $25
reprint substantial passages from previously published works. Authors should write to
for individuals in the USA; $30 for individuals in all other countries.
the original publisher to request nonexclusive world rights in all languages to use the
Prices are subject to change without notice. material being reprinted.
To order, call 508-349-7900 or write to the Gestalt International Study Center, P.O. Box 515, South Photocopying: Authorization to photocopy articles for internal or personal use, or
Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA or send an e-mail to office@gisc.org. the internal use of specific clients, is granted to users registered with the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the fee of $4.50
Postmaster: Send address changes to Gestalt Review, P.O. Box 515, South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA
per copy is paid directly to CCC, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. The fee code
A PUBLICATION OF THE GESTALT INTERNATIONAL STUDY CENTER. for Gestalt Review is: 1084-8657/02/$4.50. To request permission to copy for general
Edwin Nevis, Ph.D., Chair and David Tunney, M.A., Executive Director distribution, advertising or promotional purposes, creation of new collective works,
Periodicals postage paid at South Yarmouth, MA. or resale, please write to the Gestalt International Study Center, P.O. Box 515, South
Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA.
 GE S TALT REVI E W
Volume 14 2010 Number 3

Editorial. Contempt, Empathy, and Gestalt 210

Susan L. Fischer, Ph.D.
Contempt 215
Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., and Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.
Commentary I. Contempt 232
Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D.
Commentary II. Contempt 235
Rosie Burrows, Ph.D.
Commentary III. Contempt 241
Chantelle Wyley, MIS
Response to Commentaries 247
Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., and Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.
Making Contact with the Self-Injurious Adolescent: 250
Borderline Personality Disorder, Gestalt Therapy and
Dialectical Behavioral Therapy Interventions
Lynn Williams, Ph.D.
A Poetics of Practice: Organisation Consulting from a Gestalt Perspective 275
Robert Farrands, Ph.D.
Commentary I. A Poetics of Practice 301
Edwin C. Nevis, Ph.D.
Commentary II. A Poetics of Practice 305
Joel Latner, Ph.D.
Commentary III. A Poetics of Practice 310
Malcolm Parlett, Ph.D.
Response to Commentaries 316
Robert Farrands, Ph.D.
Reviews and Reflections 322
Review
 The World in a Grain of Sand: The Present Moment in
Psychotherapy and Everyday Life (Daniel N. Stern)
Peter Cole, LCSW
Poem 325
Claire Dennery Stratford, LCSW (1929-2010)
Poem 327
Peter Wheelock Tarlton, M.S.
In Memoriam: Claire Dennery Stratford, LCSW 328
Frances S. Baker, Ph.D.
©2010 Gestalt Intl Study Center
Gestalt Review, 14(3):215-231, 2010 215

Contempt1

JOSEPH MELNICK, PH.D.

SONIA MARCH NEVIS, PH.D.

A B S T R A C T

A perusal of any newspaper will generate many stories of

escalating violence–physical, psychological, and emotional–
across a wide range of relationships. These include violence
towards one’s self; within marriages and families; and between
religious groups, political parties, and countries. In this article,
we hypothesize that the concept of contempt can shed light on
how these destructive thoughts, feelings, and actions get gener-
ated and maintained. After first describing its origins and defin-
ing it, we will discuss how to work with contempt on many levels
of system.

1
We would like to thank Gloria N. Melnick, Ph.D., for her editorial assistance.

Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., is a clinical and organizational psychologist. He is

the founding editor of Gestalt Review, co-chair of the Cape Cod Training
Program, and a member of the board of the Gestalt International Study
Center. He has published extensively on a wide range of topics related to
the Gestalt approach. Most recently (2009) he, along with Edwin Nevis,
Ph.D., co-edited a book on a Gestalt approach to social change entitled,
Mending the World: Social Healing Interventions by Gestalt Practitioners
Worldwide. He teaches and trains throughout the world.
Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D., is co-founder of the Gestalt International
Study Center and has practiced and taught Gestalt and family therapy
concepts worldwide for over forty-five years. She was a founder of the
Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, where she created the Center for Intimate
Systems, devoted to the training of couples and family therapists. She is
the primary contributor to the Cape Cod Model, an approach to working
with couples and families. She is currently co-writing a book that describes
the development of the Cape Cod model and contains a collection of her
published papers.
©2010 Gestalt Intl Study Center
216 contempt

Introduction

Much of our life progresses by moving from interest to interest. This

process happens so naturally that we seldom notice it. 2 Mainly, our en-
counters and relationships are with people, but they also include our in-
terests in sports, books, and music; our tastes in clothes, wine and food;
our spiritual and religious practices; and our social and political beliefs.
They also encompass our experience of intimacy found in our sense of
family; and our feelings of belonging anchored in our culture and country.
These encounters and relationships have a “to and fro” dynamic and
can include moving towards or away from, attraction or repulsion, and at
times a mixture of both, which defies logic. It often does not feel like a
choice that we make, but instead something that seems to happen to us.
This back and forth movement does not exist in a vacuum. We are always
in relationship to someone or some thing. When life is going very well,
we move towards others, and they join us with more or less equal energy.
And, if we are lucky, they want the same type and amount of connection
with us.
Sometimes, however, the interest is unbalanced; what we want from
each other is different, either in form or degree. Others may want more
or less of us than we want of them. If this is the case, it becomes more dif-
ficult to engage in a mutually satisfying way. Dealing with and managing
these discordant experiences form much of the work of psychotherapy, as
we deal with loves and losses, addictions and obsessions, and yearnings
and desires (on living with desire, see J. Melnick, S. Nevis, & G. Melnick,
1999).
Then there are other times when we neither join nor move away; we
stay in the middle. This staying in the middle is a complicated affair, filled
with conflicting feelings and desires, yet is quite normal. Do we go to the
movies or stay home? order the chicken or the salad? have a child now or
wait? take the new job or stay put? It can be a comfortable experience
and a wonderful opportunity for learning, if we know how to navigate
through it. Such an ability rests on understanding three points: first, that
ambivalence is always present in life; second, that most of the ambiva-
lence we experience involves choices that nourish us and make us grow;
and third, that managing and resolving differences is essential for growth
and development (Melnick, 2007).
Instead of being an opportunity for choice and growth, however, the

2
Gestalt theorists have many ways to describe the movement, usually referring to it as the
contact cycle or cycle of experience. For a detailed discussion, we would recommend the
dialogue that occurred among Gaffney, E. Nevis, and Bloom in Gestalt Review, 13.1 (2009).
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 217

overall experience can be a painful, turbulent time when both individuals

fight for who is right, while never learning to live with differences. Mar-
riages and many other forms of relationship can go either way, towards
growth or stagnation.

Contempt: Its Origins

Another form of relationship in which ambivalence exists, often with-

out awareness, takes a very specific form. It appears, not in terms of mixed
or conflicted feelings for those are, in fact, clear and primarily negative.
We do not like, value, or respect the other(s). We may be envious, jeal-
ous, or resentful, hold them in disdain, or wish them harm. But despite
our negative feelings, we are unable to turn away, even though staying
where we are does not feel good, especially in the long run.
This negative interest creates a powerful, complex, and sometimes ob-
sessive form of connection. While, on the one hand, we want less of these
individuals, at the same time we find ourselves putting a great amount
of energy into them. Examples of this dynamic include the experiences
of jealousy and schadenfreude (Melnick & S. Nevis, 2001). These multi-
faceted and potent forms of negative attraction are common to all of us.
And they exist, not only towards those connected to us but even towards
people with whom we have no personal connection, such as politicians,
sports and movie stars, religious and political leaders. Even more surpris-
ing is that this negative attraction can be as great in our encounters with
collectives, such as groups, organizations, and institutions whose values
and beliefs differ from our own.
In this article, we will discuss a specific form of negative, ambivalent at-
traction–the syndrome of contempt–which, like jealousy, schadenfreude,
and envy, is a way of self-regulating and managing differences. But even
more than these three examples, long term, ongoing, and unchecked
contempt is dangerous, for it holds within it the seeds of destruction.
This is true not just for individuals and intimate relationships but also for
cultures, countries, and possibly our planet (see, for example, Keenan &
Burrows, 2009). One might argue that our inability to manage contempt
is a serious threat not only to our individual and intimate well-being but
to our global survival.
We shall first describe the effects of this experience, followed by a dis-
cussion of how others view it and how we view it. Utilizing a Gestalt frame,
we will describe how it operates, its emotional and cognitive mechanisms,
the gestures it generates, and the actions it sometimes produces. Lastly,
we will discuss how to work with it from a Gestalt approach.
218 contempt

Creating the Ground:

How We Became Interested in Contempt

Joe’s Story: Traveling, Part I

A year or two ago, I boarded a transcontinental plane early. As I settled

into my seat, I looked up and saw a man attempting to stuff an oversized
suitcase into an overhead compartment. People were beginning to back
up in the aisle behind him. No one was speaking, but some were giving
him dirty looks. Unfortunately, he was oblivious to them all. To my sur-
prise, I caught myself muttering quietly, “You idiot.” I was amazed at my
strong negative reaction to watching this stranger. As luck would have it,
he ended up sitting next to me. He turned out to be a delightful person
who had never traveled before by plane. In addition, he was exhausted,
having been traveling for more than 24 hours.
When I told the story to Sonia, her first response was to say that con-
tempt was not something very well developed in her. She called me back
a few days later and said that she had been mistaken. It just took a little
focus for her to locate this experience within her. After we got through
laughing, we decided to explore the concept further.
In case you, the reader, think that you are immune to this syndrome,
we would like to give you a few common examples. After reading each of
them, see if you can describe your own thoughts and feelings.

• You are driving down the highway and someone in front of you: a) is
traveling well below the speed limit; b) cuts you off; or c) forgets to
signal before turning.
• You are in a supermarket and in a hurry. The person ahead of you in
the check-out lane: a) does not know how to use the credit card ma-
chine; b) takes out a checkbook after all the bags have been packed; c)
begins a friendly conversation with the cashier; or d) fill in the blank.
•Y  ou are at a movie theater: a) two people begin a casual conversation
just as the movie begins; b) a person is reserving two seats by putting
a coat over them, even though the theater is crowded; or c) the per-
son in front of you begins text messaging while the movie is going on.
•Y  ou are sitting alone on a beach reading a book and enjoying your
solitude when: a) a person places a blanket right next to you and
begins talking to you; b) two people begin throwing a ball, and it
nearly hits you; or c) a person ten feet away starts playing horrible
music loudly.
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 219

We would like to point out that these examples are transitory and in-
volve mainly a temporary invasion of time and space by individuals with
whom we have minimal or no relationship. Imagine if these experiences
were ongoing with individuals whom we viewed as beneath us because
of race, sex, class, religion, etc. Imagine further that our relationships not
only were continuous and long term but also involved some type of mu-
tual dependency. This is the brew that helps create ongoing contempt.

Contempt Defined

A perusal of three dictionaries generates a list of common terms and

phrases that can be used to describe this syndrome. It is an attitude in
which the other is viewed as inferior, base, vile, or worthless. It is similar
to scorn and open disrespect. On the recipient side, it is a state of being
despised, dishonored, or disgraced.
While agreeing with the basic definition, theoreticians also emphasize
the notions of hierarchy and status. For example, Nathanson (1992) de-
fines contempt as “a form of anger in which we declare the other person,
the object of our negative affect, so far beneath us and worthy only of re-
jection” (p. 129). Solomon (1993) emphasizes the concept of status. He re-
lates it to resentment and anger, with resentment being directed towards
a higher status individual, anger towards an equal status individual, and
contempt towards a lower status individual. Kearns and Daintry (2000)
define the contemptuous person as someone who feels superior and sees
others as lesser or inferior beings lacking in some way. Bell (2000) de-
scribes contempt as containing a judgment. Because of some moral or
personal failing or defect, the scorned person has compromised his or her
standing, either deliberately or by a lack of status. Bell also views it as a
perceived failure to meet an interpersonal standard.
All of these theorists focus on the interpersonal relationship, which is
understandable. Yet, it is important to reiterate that we can also find
contempt towards whole groups with whom we have minimal contact.
And many of us are contemptuous of entities like church and state, which
are grounded in different values and belief systems we consider different
and beneath us.
It is important to talk about the form of contempt which, like jealousy
its cousin, is acontextual (Melnick & S. Nevis, 2001). By this we mean that
it is narrow and isolating, that it distorts and impoverishes experience.
For even if our assumptions, characterizations, and beliefs were accurate
(which they rarely are), we would still be unable to justify the actions that
sometimes flow from this powerful emotion; or the obsessive grip that
220 contempt

ongoing contempt has on people’s lives.

Now, to be clear, the experience of contempt is a normal and all too
common way of managing differences, with great individual variation in
how we experience and handle the mixture of thoughts, feelings, ges-
tures, and actions. Some of us move into contemptuous places only oc-
casionally, others more easily, while for still others it might constitute a
primary organizer of our character and sense of self.

The Syndrome of Contempt

We have talked earlier of the thoughts that contribute to the concept

of contempt. We have talked, too, of the “better than” feelings that are
part of the experience as well. But this syndrome also includes expressions
and actions. We will delve more deeply into these aspects in this section.

Emotions/Sensations

Contempt is a universal experience that cuts across cultures (Ekman &

Heider, 1988). Theoreticians have long debated whether it is a primary
or secondary emotion. Rather than consisting of a singular emotion, we
believe that it a unique blend. Metaphorically, it is a “bitter taste in our
mouth.” Some love the taste, some hate it, while many of us do not know
what to make of it. But the primary sensation is that of disgust (Nathan-
son, 1992). The words “You disgust me” or “They make me want to vomit”
fit here. We also believe that it contains a dose of arrogance–the unaware
projection of our inadequacy onto another. And, of course, sadism, rage,
and righteousness are also part of the mix.
Finally, it is important to talk about what emotion is missing when con-
tempt is present. That emotion is empathy. It is the capacity to identify
emotionally with someone else’s experience, to “put one’s self in someone
else’s shoes.” And it must be present for contempt to soften and diminish.

Expressions

Surprisingly, Darwin is given credit for first describing the facial expres-
sion of contempt (Izard & Haynes, 1988). Most agree that the facial ex-
pression involves one side of the mouth being raised while the other is
pulled down (Tomkins, 1963). Ekman and Heider (1988) point out that
this behavior occurs primarily on one side of the face, also noting that
contempt is the only emotion expressed asymmetrically. Sneering is also
common, as are dismissive gestures.
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 221

Contempt can be expressed through a turning away. On an individual

level it might mean a refusal to acknowledge the presence of another. In
terms of collectives, many religions and countries throughout history have
used shunning, which involves a refusal to speak to or even acknowledge
another’s existence.
Gossip is an interpersonal magnification of contempt. It allows us to
keep the experience alive and energized. Also, teasing often partially
masks a contemptuous attitude. And while gossip and teasing are not
always destructive, bullying, which involves behaving abusively towards
a person judged inferior, nearly always is. Bullying involves a fuller, more
direct expression of contempt that is sometimes physical and always ver-
bal. When bullying is taken to an extreme, strangers can become victims
of hate crimes based on their gender, race, or ethnicity.
Recently, there has been much press regarding a female teenager who
moved to the USA from Ireland. She briefly dated a star athlete, generat-
ing rage and jealousy on the part of a number of classmates. She was
harassed constantly in and out of class. She was verbally insulted (“Irish
whore”), threatened with physical harm, and had objects thrown at her.
Teachers and other students witnessed these episodes. What little in-
tervention was attempted was minimal and insufficient. After taking as
much as she could bear, she committed suicide. Not surprisingly, recent
research indicates that people who are simply watching their peers get
verbally or physically abused experience as much psychological distress as
the actual victim, if not more (American Psychological Association, 2010).
The most damaging form of contempt involves a spiraling escalation
between parties who have both the wish and the ability to harm one an-
other physically. It results in an ongoing state of high mobilization, inter-
spersed with increasing streams of aggression and counter-aggression. It
can occur at all levels of system from the intimate to the global. Given the
increased accessibility to weapons of mass destruction, our whole world
will be in jeopardy unless we can find a way to deal with this expression
of contempt.

A Gestalt Perspective

Before continuing, we need to mention that we found little writing

on the subject of contempt in the Gestalt literature. We should also state
that we agree with the above-cited theorists on two fundamental points:
that contempt is a hierarchical experience status and value based; and
that it involves a negative judgment resulting in a narrowing of experi-
ence. Nevertheless, as we have also said, its range goes far beyond what
222 contempt

happens in a relationship, and it occurs in many different types and levels

of system (Melnick & E. Nevis, 2009). For example, contempt can often
focus on one’s self. Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman (1951) describe it “as a
core element that results in a weak self system and is the core of neurosis”
(p.157). In addition, Gestalt writers have written extensively about the
concept of shame (e.g., Lee & Wheeler, 1996), which is often the outcome
of contempt turned inward.

Intimate and Work Systems

Contempt can occur in many types of small systems such as work groups;
it can also occur in intimate systems such as couples, friends, and families.
The presence of a power differential often leads to abuse–if not physi-
cal, then certainly verbal–resulting frequently in an experience of shame.
If there is a large amount of ongoing contempt, an escalating stream
of insulting behavior that seems almost immune to change is common.
Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson (1995) found that ongoing contempt
is a major cause of dysfunctional marriages.
Contempt can occur between sub-groups, including segments of soci-
ety. For a current example in the USA, we have only to look at the political
left and right. It is exemplified by competing television and radio show
personalities who continuously demean and trivialize those with different
opinions. And, as with all forms of contempt, it involves a simplistic cari-
caturing of the “other.” For instance, the political left often refers to the
right as illiterate, lower class, beer drinking, car racing, country music lov-
ing, fundamentalist, etc. The right, on the other hand, refers to the left
as atheistic, elitist, pro-abortionist, intellectual, tree hugging, socialistic,
and wine drinking snobs.
It is also easy to witness episodes of contempt while watching sports
teams. In fact, in this country the National Football League has had to
enforce penalties for taunting. And, of course, when one combines sports
with nationalism, such as in the worldwide football (soccer) competition,
it has resulted in a level of aggression leading to physical injury and even
the death of fans.
Lastly, contempt can occur between systems. This is a common occur-
rence in professional organizations. The well-documented, long-term turf
battle between psychiatrists and psychologists in the USA is a relevant case
in point. But these conflicts are trivial when compared to the struggles
between countries and religious institutions. Our history is filled with reli-
gious intolerance fueled by contempt. Although examples abound, mod-
ern day struggles between Muslims and Christians, Hindus and Buddhists,
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 223

Catholics and Protestants, are easy cases in point. And, sadly, it can occur
between countries, for instance, between South and North Korea and
between the two Chinas. When religion, nationalism, and neighboring
territories are combined–as with Palestine and Israel, India and Pakistan,
and Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland–the perfect breeding
ground for contempt of the worst kind is created.

The Experience of Contempt

When we experience contempt, we have a negative interest in the other.

We are in the confusing experience of both pulling away and moving to-
wards–often at the same time. Our attachment is counter-intuitive, for one
would think that when we are scornful of another we would turn away and
our interest would decrease quickly. But instead, our interest can rise to a
level of obsessiveness, from which it is almost impossible turn away.
Contempt is difficult to extinguish because it is largely an unaware pro-
cess that is highly projective.3 The qualities we hate in the other person
are those that live within us in an essentially unaware state, for we simply
do not know how to deal with those aspects of ourselves. As a result,
nearly all of the focus is on them and little on us. It is primarily about
output–not input. And this is why it is so confusing and difficult to man-
age, for a contemptuous attitude is an overdeveloped interest in our-
selves, masquerading as an interest (in this case highly negative) in the
other. Often this lack of awareness and understanding creates the “stuck-
ness” in systems riddled with contempt.
There are also other reasons why a contemptuous attitude is so diffi-
cult to impact. Contempt and its brew of thoughts and feelings, although
the generator of much emotion and energy, is frequently kept inside or
expressed solely to like-minded individuals, often resulting in a sense of
righteousness. Thus, unlike self-contempt, contempt of others can feel
strangely good because we do not have to deal with feelings we com-
monly deny. This experience of hierarchical positioning and negative
judgment, and of seeing others as “less than,” has always been a way to
protect us from feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. It is a retroflective
reminder to ourselves that we are OK.
As we mentioned above, contempt is also a projective syndrome. We
are not taking in or incorporating new experiences but instead projecting
negative assumptions and judgments onto others. We believe we know
and understand them, but what we are really doing is making up stories
3
Lichtenberg (1990) has written extensively on the role that unaware projection has had with
respect to the role bigotry has played in society.
224 contempt

about them in our mind; these projected stories, it should be emphasized,

often consist of disowned or unassimilated parts of ourselves.
Usually our experiences of contempt are fluid and changing. We move
in and out of the experience, hopefully learning a little and letting go.
But the type we are describing is habitual. It consists of a fixed belief
(Gestalt) in the correctness of our ways of seeing the world and others in
terms of values, beliefs, and actions. It also includes the denigration of the
others’ values, beliefs and actions. It is highly resistant to change because
it is a projective stereotyping and caricaturing of people or groups we
hardly even know. And, most importantly, there is little or no experience
of them beyond a narrow range, for once a person is contemptuous of
others, genuine contact is usually avoided. Instead, data that support the
stereotypes are favored, and experiences not in line with the fixed Gestalt
are dismissed or minimized. Without openness to new experience, there is
no way that the fixed stance can be changed or softened.
Let us give you a relatively benign example. One of us lives in the state
of Maine, which borders on Massachusetts. We Mainers hold a caricature
of Massachusetts residents as rude and aggressive drivers. If we notice a
driver who behaves rudely, we look at the license plate of the car; if it is
from Massachusetts, we nod knowingly. If it is from Maine, we respond
with surprise and a feeling of puzzlement. The caricature remains intact.
Given all the negatives involved with a contemptuous character or
stance, it can seem puzzling as to why ongoing contempt is so prevalent
in the world. Maybe the answer lies in a core aspect of our human experi-
ence: our common feelings of being “less than” and “not good enough.”
Feeling contemptuous feeds a primitive need to feel “better than.” It is a
way to ward off the insecurities and doubts that are part of our human
condition.
Contempt is usually generated when we experience our values being
violated, either actively or passively. Our values–around space, manners,
religion, politics, etc.–play a fundamental role in determining how we
define our relational self. And though responding to these perceived vio-
lations with contempt provides some immediate relief, ultimately no real
relief comes about.

When Facing Contempt . . .

While the potential responses to being the direct object of contempt

are many, they often fall into two categories. The first involves a type of
internal collapse. When this happens, we join the person who is contemp-
tuous of us in some way–we buy into their negative projection, becoming
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 225

vulnerable and losing self-esteem. There is often a feeling of humiliation

and loss of face; the common experience, as we have stated, is that of
shame. Erskine, Moursund, and Trautmann (1999) view the experience as
a disavowal and retroflection of anger, in order to maintain a semblance
of a connected relationship with the person who had engaged in the hu-
miliating behavior; the result is a diminished sense of self.
The second response is to lash back in a contemptuous manner. In a
relationship filled with much mutual contempt, ongoing rage is often the
result, leading to a long-term “back and forth” whose outcome can be
physical harm and sometimes death. Sadly, this spiraling escalation, which
often involves reprisals, makes up a significant part of what we read in
our daily newspapers. And even when the physicality is stopped, these
sensations and emotions can remain in the individual for a long time, or in
the collective fabric for generations. (See Keenan and Burrows [2009] for
a description of the long-term PTSD felt in Northern Ireland, years after
the armed conflict had ended.)

How to Manage Contempt

As indicated previously, contempt is highly resistant to change and of-

ten feeds upon itself. When turned into action, it is a root cause of much
of the destruction we experience in this world. Having said this, we all
need to become aware of our undeveloped feelings in order to diminish
its occurrence and clean up the mess we are all making. In this section, we
will describe how an intervener can work with contempt, using different
levels of system as a frame.

Working Intrapsychically4

When individuals voluntarily choose to seek psychological help, the

establishment of trust is relatively easy and they are motivated to look at
their own behavior. One tool available to Gestalt therapists is the height-
ening of the internal conversation between the client’s “top dog/under-
dog” (Perls, 1969). We all have the top dog/underdog dynamic within
us. In some, the resulting aggression is self-contained and self-directed,
leading to self-loathing and shame: “I’m stupid, ugly, incompetent, etc.”
The overall sense is one of being “less than.” In others, the underdog ex-
perience is not in the person’s awareness. Instead, these feelings are sup-
pressed or projected onto an object of contempt: “That person doesn’t
4
The focus of this paper is not to address the therapeutic issues of the person experiencing self-
hatred or shame. The interested reader should see Perls (1969).
226 contempt

dress right, is stupid, impolite, etc.” So, rather than experience these dif-
ficult and uncomfortable underdog feelings and sensations within our-
selves, we embrace contempt based on the mistaken belief that we are
the top dog.
Because these unaware feelings towards another involve a threat to
oneself, they can be addressed first by supporting the individual’s expres-
sion of the affect, and then by exploring the introjects that are often its
source. For example, let us imagine what it would be like if Joe were a
client and his therapist asked him to have a conversation between his top
dog and his underdog:

Top dog: You are so stupid. I can’t believe that you have no consider-
ation for other people. All you care about is yourself.
Under dog (pleading): I do have consideration for others! He was just
exhausted, and it was his first time on the plane. I feel so bad about it.
Therapist: Do you know where you first heard such words coming at
you?
Client (smiling): Yeah, from my father. In many ways he was generous
and had a heart of gold. But he was pretty non-trusting and dismissive of
others. I would argue with him constantly about his contempt for others.
I guess a little of him seeped into me.

If the conversation were to continue, I might explore further the values

that underlie my response. For example, I could examine the belief that
“one should always focus on others first, and that focusing on oneself is
selfish and bad.” These internal exchanges can result in an integration of
the self, which reduces the need to resort to contempt.

Working with Intimate Systems

It is important to mention that when contempt passes a certain thresh-

old and is physically abusive, we are now dealing with a legal issue in
that and the intervener must take appropriate action to stop the abuse.
Assuming that this is not the case, the intervener’s task is first to gain
the trust of all individuals in the system so that they are open to being
influenced. Gestalt practitioners, given our field perspective, know how
to remain close to phenomena, to avoid judgmental stances, and to stay
aware of potential countertransferential experiences.
The building of trust with intimate systems is more complex than it is
with individual work. The first job of the intervener is to become inter-
ested in the relationship between all parts of the system, and to get the
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 227

clients to the point where they can turn to the intervener and be open
to growth. The interventions also have to be balanced in order to create
openness for conversation and dialogue. Once this occurs, the clients are
more capable of looking at their experience.
Intimate systems filled with contempt often manifest high degrees of
negativity, resulting in little openness. Gestalt practitioners are experts at
affect management; they know how to help these clients manage their
emotions so that they are able to hear and respond to each other. Once
this occurs, the individuals may then be able to focus on more productive
aspects of their relationship.

Working with Hierarchical Systems

When working with hierarchical systems such as families and multilevel

organizations, trust building becomes even more complex because the hi-
erarchical dimensions are important and need to be addressed. It is essen-
tial to understand and respect the power and importance of hierarchy for
the system’s good functioning. The absence of respect breeds contempt
in families and organizations: when either the leaders or the followers
do not feel respected, a cycle of contempt much resembling the top dog/
underdog dynamic can get created.
In one of our workshops, a consultant told the story of a privately held
factory where she consulted. The owner was known for his demeaning
and belittling attitude towards all of the employees, but mainly towards
the workers. For example, he would fire workers regularly, often on a
whim. In an attempt to save money, he decided to fire one of the janitors,
a well-loved man, whose primary role was to clean the machines. After
this dismissal the workers staged a spontaneous slow down, and the qual-
ity of their work began to diminish. The consultant was appalled at the
owner’s behavior, which she saw as the “last straw.” She invited him to a
meeting, gently critiqued his behaviors, and explained that she was quit-
ting because his behavior had breached her sense of ethics. In discussing
her experience with a colleague, she became aware that she had been
inducted into the system and had ended up behaving in a righteous and
contemptuous manner.
When dealing, for example, with two or more hierarchical systems at-
tempting to merge, it is common for them to have two different realities
that lead to disagreements, disputes and, all too often, contempt. There
is regularly a sense of urgency that the consultant needs to manage well.
Time must be spent with both sides in order to create trust. A common mis-
take is to move forward to action before the trust builds. Only when trust
228 contempt

builds can the parties put aside their contemptuous stances and become
open to new information and possibilities. As manifested in the above
story, consultants need to be aware of their own contemptuous feelings,
be able to put them aside, and not shame or embarrass either party.
Even if one is successful in working with the leaders, there is no guar-
antee of ultimate success in managing these sorts of differences. And it is
important to work at all levels of system. In merger situations, for instance,
often the leadership benefits from the new reorganization, whereas the
followers are frequently kept in the dark and run the risk of being de-
moted or of losing their jobs. If the merger is not addressed honestly at
all levels of system, contempt is often the result. Numerous examples of
working with organizations in conflict are cited in Mending the World:
Social Healing Interventions by Gestalt Practitioners Worldwide (Melnick
& E. Nevis, Eds., 2009).

Political and Religious Systems

It is difficult, if not impossible, to read a newspaper without finding

a story about conflicting religious and political organizations filled with
contempt for each other. The leaders have an unusually tough job, for
they have the hard task of managing not only their own righteous beliefs
and attitudes but also those of their followers. As consultants, there are a
number of issues of which we must be aware.
First, generating trust takes even longer in these situations–often years.
Second, the consultant needs to work with all of the leaders in order to
create safety. Often “shuttle diplomacy” is used in the initial stages, but
at some point the consultant has to establish credibility while in the same
room with all parties. It is easy to forget that the consultant’s purpose
is not to help with the content but to provide safety. Safety comes from
being neutral and supporting the leaders to continue talking until they
can begin (at least temporarily) to put aside their differences and start
looking for commonalities. Third, “you can’t be in a hurry,” for premature
actions do not work in the long run. Until a consultant can help the lead-
ers understand how complex these situations are, and how many similari-
ties and differences exist among them, success will be difficult to achieve.
An area that the consultant needs to address immediately is the struc-
turing of the work, which includes contracting and reaching an agree-
ment as to rules of conduct. An unclear contract and unclear rules can
actually create mistrust and therefore be useless. For example, in the
Public Conversations Project (1997), a set of rules was agreed upon, e.g.,
“Ask questions” and “Do not try to convince.” These agreed upon rules
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 229

allowed the individuals to hold onto their stances and beliefs in a “soft”
way, so that they could slowly hear the complexity of the issues and begin
to notice similarities and differences. Another framework for proceed-
ing in a situation filled with contempt is found in Difficult Conversations
(Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999), which also provides a frame utilized in
generating the Belfast Peace accords.

Joe’s Story: Traveling, Part II

A few months after my airplane adventure cited earlier, I had another

experience involving contempt. I had just landed, exhausted from an
overnight international flight. I boarded a shuttle van to my hotel and
found myself sitting next to a well-dressed American deep in conversa-
tion with a European couple seated behind him. My semi-dreamlike state
was punctured by a series of phrases from this man. “Obama is a lot like
Hitler”; “He also took power during a time of economic depression”; “Do
you know that children in America are taught to say “Hail Obama?”; “He
really is a foreigner; he was not born in the United States.”
I felt rage–and, yes, contempt began quickly to build inside me. I strug-
gled whether to speak or to remain silent, knowing that speaking from
my anger might feel good in the moment but ultimately would serve no
purpose. I also knew that I could not remain silent. Taking a breath, I
tapped him on the knee, smiled, and said, “I want you to know that I
disagree with basically everything you have been saying since I entered
this van.” He looked startled and surprised. I then said, “I rarely have an
opportunity to discuss things with people who have your political beliefs.
My guess is that this is the same for you.” He nodded slowly and began
to relax.
I then said, “It is too bad that people who feel so passionately about
our country as the two of us do rarely get an opportunity to have a good
conversation.” He relaxed further, and slowly we began to talk. To be
truthful, he was mainly doing the talking and I the listening. But in my lis-
tening I continually reminded him in a soft way that I disagreed with him
“nearly 100%,” but I also told him that I was interested in his thoughts
because, as I put it, “I rarely get to hear people with your views.” As I was
leaving the van, he held out his hand and said that it was too bad we were
staying at different hotels, because he would like to have had a drink with
me and talked further. I told him that I agreed with him.
Did I change any of his views? I doubt it. But I do hope I created a little
bit of openness on his part with respect to other perspectives. As for me,
I do know that I was able to “get out of the middle” and move on.
230 contempt

Summary

It appears that we are experiencing an epidemic of contempt at many

levels of system, from the intimate to the global. We have described con-
tempt from several different perspectives. We view it as a failed attempt
to manage differences–differences primarily around values. Furthermore,
for contempt to flourish, empathy must be minimal or nonexistent.
Describing the syndrome seems relatively easy when compared with
what to do about it. If we had to choose the most important key to work-
ing with contempt, we would say it is to reverse the dynamic of maxi-
mum output and minimal input. We would argue that the primary goal
of the intervener, consultant, therapist, or peacemaker is to create the
conditions for respectful dialogue to happen. This belief is supported by
a recent conversation one of us had with a Republican (Catholic) activist
in Belfast. I asked her what the citizens thought of George Mitchell, the
American who had brokered the peace accords between the two sides.
She spoke quite highly of him and asked me if I knew his three principles
for dealing with high conflict situations filled with contempt. When I said,
“No,” she replied: “1) Listen. 2) Listen. And 3) Listen.”

Joseph Melnick, Ph.D.

josephmelnick10@gmail.com

Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.

smnevis70@gmail.com

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (2010). Monitor on psychology.

Bell, M. (2000). A woman’s scorn: Toward a feminist defense of contempt as a
moral emotion. Hypatia, 20(4), 80-93.
Bloom, D. (2009). Commentary I: The cycle of experience re-cycled: Then,
now…next? Gestalt Review, 13(1), 24-36.
Carstensen, L., Gottman J., & Levenson, R. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-
term marriage. American Psychologist, 10(1), 140-149.
Ekman, P., & Heider, K. (1988). The universality of contempt expression: A
replication. Motivation and Emotion, 12, 303-308.
Erskine, R., Moursund, J., & Trautmann, R. (1999). Beyond empathy: A therapy
of contact-in-relationship. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Gaffney, S. (2009). The cycle of experience re-cycled: Then, now…next? Gestalt
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 231

Review, 13(1), 7-23.

Izard, C. E., & Haynes, O. M. (1988). On the form and universality of the
contempt expression: A challenge to Ekman and Friesen’s claim of discovery.
Motivation and Emotion, 12(1), 1-16.
Kearns, A., & Daintry, P. (2000). Shame in the supervisory relationship. British
Gestalt Journal, 9(1), 28-38.
Keenan, B., & Burrows, R. (2009). Extraordinary skills for extraordinary
circumstances: Supporting parents, children, and caregivers in the
transition from armed conflict in the North of Ireland. In J. Melnick & E.
C. Nevis (Eds.), Mending the world: Social healing interventions by Gestalt
practitioners worldwide (pp. 66-96). South Wellfleet, Massachusetts:
Gestalt International Study Center.
Lee, R., & Wheeler, G. (Eds.). (1996). The voice of shame: Silence and connection
in psychotherapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lichtenberg, P. (1990). Community and confluence: Undoing the clinch of
oppression. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Gestalt Press.
Melnick, J. (2007). Managing differences: A Gestalt approach to dealing with
conflict. Gestalt Review, 11(3), 165-169.
Melnick, J., and Nevis, E. C. (Eds.). (2009). Mending the world: Social healing
interventions by Gestalt practitioners worldwide. South Wellfleet,
Massachusetts: Gestalt International Study Center.
Melnick, J., & Nevis, S. M. (2001). Jealousy, the protection of intimacy, or caring
gone wrong. The Australian Gestalt Journal, 5, 49-60.
Melnick J., Nevis, S. M., & Melnick, G. N. (1999). Living with desire–An essay.
British Gestalt Journal, 4, 31-40.
Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of the self.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Nevis, E. C. (1999). Commentary II. The cycle of experience re-cycled: Then,
now…next. Gestalt Review, 13(1), 37-42.
Perls, F. (1969). Gestalt therapy verbatim. Lafayette, California: Real People
Press.
Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy: Excitement and
growth in the human personality. New York: Julian Press.
Public Conversations Project. (1997). The basics of our approach. Available
from http://www.publicconversations.org
Solomon, R. C. (1993). The passions: Emotions and the meaning of life. Hackett
Publishing.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss
what matters most. New York: Viking Penguin.
Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect imagery and consciousness: The negative affects
(Vol. 2). Springer: New York.
232 Gestalt Review, 14(3):232-234, 2010

Commentary I. Contempt

ISABEL FREDERICSON, PH.D.

I have long admired and enjoyed the work of the writing partnership
of Joseph Melnick and Sonia Nevis. It is consistently seamless, fluid and
clear, opening our eyes to new ways of looking at everyday emotions and
their effects on our lives at personal and group as well as societal levels.
As they have done in the past, Melnick and Nevis have become interested
in a subject that is familiar, a commonplace part of our daily lives, and
have explored its depth, importance, and even its implications for global
peace.
They often startle with one-word titles like “Desire,” “Jealousy,” and
most recently, “Contempt”–all expressions of powerful, everyday emo-
tions. By the time that Melnick and Nevis have developed their ideas, the
meanings have broadened and the applications have deepened their sig-
nificance. Reading their writings reminds me of watching a spider spin its
web. One little thin line, barely visible, grows and grows, spreading out
into space, until it is a sizable and useful object. So, Melnick and Nevis take
their one-word titles and develop their ideas into more and more areas of
significance, from the intensely personal to larger and larger systems, al-
ways including ways of dealing with them in Gestalt. They have done that
again in this article on the concept of contempt and the consequences of

Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D., is semi-retired from her private practice in Santa

Barbara, California. She is a co-founder, with Joseph Handlon, Ph.D., of the
Santa Barbara Gestalt Training Center. She is still active in the Association
for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy (AATG) and enjoys participating
in writing workshops.

©2010 Gestalt Intl Study Center

isabel fredericson 233

feeling and expressing it.

Through their writings, both individual and as a team, they have not
only broadened but further humanized Gestalt theory and practice. The
concept of “contempt” was not part of the Gestalt vocabulary, nor was
it present in the consciousness of practitioners in the early years (1960s,
1970s, and even into the 1980s). But it was frequently expressed, even by
Fritz himself. Some leaders might have felt that its shock value hastened
awareness, while other leaders might have believed that that every emo-
tion should be expressed. I still feel deep regrets about an incident that
involved a group in which I participated, and for which I felt responsible.
I had invited a woman from the Esalen Gestalt community to present
a workshop on integrating Gestalt into the learning process, a subject
about which she knew a lot, to a group of educators in Cleveland. She was
informative and stimulating, but also rather abrupt in her responses to
questions or comments from the participants. One member of the group
seemed to annoy her particularly, until the leader asked the woman to
leave the room. To my distress, I was stunned and said nothing. The leader
turned to me and asked me to see that it was done. I was frozen, shocked,
and speechless, and did nothing. The woman left and to this day, 40 years
later, I regret not having countermanded the leader’s request, supported
the woman who was asked to leave, and said to both the leader and the
group that this was very “ungestalt.” It was an expression of contempt in
a most obvious and hurtful manner, and I was ashamed to have partici-
pated in it.
The concept of empathy, the opposite of contempt in many ways, was
not foremost in those early days. Fortunately, empathy has returned to
the theory and practice of Gestalt, aided by such work as done by Melnick
and Nevis.
The word “contempt” is complex, containing within its meaning many
other emotions, e.g., shame–“the other should not be doing what she is
doing”; anger–“the other is doing something against me”; irritation–“the
other is doing something to make it inconvenient for me”; snobbery–“the
other is simply not as good as I am.” Thus, I found that some of the ex-
amples given for the situations suggested in the article evoked–at least
in my experience–not so much contempt as irritation or differing degrees
of anger. For instance, if a car in front of me is going too slowly, and if
this continues for a long distance, I am likely to feel, and have felt, irrita-
tion or anger rather than contempt. Disdain is inherent in the meaning of
contempt, and it was not present in the situations referred to.
The writers have chosen a complex and complicated subject with impli-
cations for many more discussions. There is a vast difference, for example,
234 Commentary I

between a temporary feeling of irritation or contempt and a practice of it

that is embedded in a culture–such as feelings in the USA between blacks
and whites, or feelings in Israel between Arabs and Jews. The article
mentions only briefly the global dangers engendered by tensions that
exist and are expressed in the syndrome of contempt. Indeed, it would
take a book to do the topic justice. Examples are numerous and seem
to be increasing. In many cases, they have led to violence both within
and between countries. A vivid example of intra-culture contempt is the
way women in the Congo are treated when freely used as sex objects
by men who take no responsibility, either for the consequences of their
multiple rapes, or for the children who are born because of their actions.
It is hoped that further writings will examine these subjects as well.

Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D.

freddy9282@gmail.com
Gestalt Review, 14(3):235-240, 2010 235

Commentary II. Contempt

“One finger pointing at you,

the rest pointing back”

ROSIE BURROWS, PH.D.

A B S T R A C T

As a Gestalt practitioner working in the north of Ireland, a place

Melnick and Nevis view as an example of a “breeding ground
for contempt” at large system level, I wish to reflect and re-
spond. The combination of historic field conditions of unequal
power, structured discrimination, religious fundamentalism, and
findings about the role of embodied traumatic experience and
memory, have undoubtedly fostered the development of rela-
tions based on contempt in the north of Ireland. There are also
less known stories to tell of how groups, in spite of institutional-
ized discrimination, managed to hold solidarity in various ways,
with new possibilities continuing to influence the field.
*
Contempt is difficult to extinguish because it is largely an
unaware process that is highly projective. . . . A contemptuous
attitude is an overdeveloped interest in ourselves, masquerading

Rosie Burrows, Ph.D., is an independent Gestalt practitioner who

works with young people, adults, and groups in private practice and in
communities that have little access to therapeutic support. Her interest
lies in contributing to the transformation of relationships in the north of
Ireland.

©2010 Gestalt Intl Study Center

236 COMMENTARY II

as an interest (in this case highly negative) in the other. (Melnick

& S. Nevis, “Contempt,” 2010)

I wish to respond to the article on “Contempt” as I experienced a “gut

reaction” to the word, due to the relevance of the issue to me as a Gestalt
practitioner living and working in Belfast, in the north of Ireland, a society
emerging from long-term political conflict. I appreciated the reference made
by the authors to the north, and my response is a “first thoughts reaction-
response.” This field represents something I both experience and seek to in-
fluence (in the sense of an “in and out of the garbage pail ‘emergency,’” into
the light of day, with increased contact and awareness).
At the time of writing, the daily news was focused on a major financial
scandal with Irish banks being bailed out by the Government, to the sum of
unimaginable amounts of money, a debt of billions. This is international and
local financial dysregulation that smacks of the contempt, recklessness, and
greed of a financial and political elite stinging the next generation. I expe-
rienced flashes of my own rage–contempt for top bankers and the political
elite that enable, collude, and benefit; and I appreciated the authors’ frank-
ness with respect to discovering their own contempt and how to handle it.
Melnick and Nevis state that, in the long term, unchecked contempt holds
within it the seeds of destruction; they describe “discordant experiences”
(e.g., “when individuals fight for who is right, while never learning to live
with differences”) as showing features of contempt. The north of Ireland is
cited as one example of a “perfect breeding ground for contempt.”1
The Belfast phrase “sour bake”–or for more than one non-intimate system
“a bunch of sour bakes” (i.e., a sour face, someone who is unhappy, soured
by life experiences)–emerged from the field of northern dark humour that
helped get us through painful conflicts with a smirk rather than a smile. Rela-
tional sour notes versus graceful notes.
I was particularly interested in the descriptions of what can occur when oth-
ers treat a person or group as an object of contempt in the absence of self and
environmental support; this involves first an internal collapse, often with a
feeling of humiliation and loss of face; while a second response is to lash back
with rage, at the risk of escalating mutual contempt and the dangers associ-
ated with that reaction. These sensations and emotions remain in the body,
sometimes emerging two decades later, since “trauma is in the body not the
event” (Levine, 1997). In the absence of sufficient support, we experience and
witness this process as “transgenerational trauma”: all of the unspoken non-
1
The British Government and Armed Forces is a primary force in Ireland that historically has rep-
resented mainly the aggressor/oppressor as a colonial power, rather than as a neutral or even
rescuing force; though historically, Unionists and Loyalists were largely allied with the British, save
for a few radical Presbyterians or dissenting radical Protestants.
ROSIE BURROWS 237

verbal ways that children learn how to be and to survive (Burrows & Keenan,
2004; Keenan & Burrows, 2009).
Multiple connections and memories sprang directly and indirectly from my
ground, often conveying the experience of being “held in contempt,” subtlely
and not so subtlely; for example:

• primary school children being lined up and handed small Union Jack flags
to wave at the English Queen, who speed by in an instant in a large black
limousine with her arm up in the air, seemingly waving, though it was
hard to tell;
• sitting the 11 plus exam, which divided children, aged 11, into a minority
of those entitled to a better quality education, and those not entitled
since they were not found intelligent enough by definition of the test;
• listening to a haughty Conservative or Unionist politician speaking with a
kind of authentically snobbish English accent, or emulating an inauthentic
English accent and tone that revealed not only an attitude of contempt
but also power relations of blatant inequality;
• the British Army on Belfast streets stopping cars randomly and asking for
personal identification–all that could be seen initially at night was the
blinding, white light of a megapower torch waving in slow circles, and
then gradually beyond that, uniformed soldiers.

These connections are flickering images of a complex, challenging, fright-

ening, sickening, deadly, exciting, and changing environment. Memory exists
as pinball machine that speedily pings the silver ball to and fro, as the feel-
ings and sensations I associate with contempt at a personal level in the north
of Ireland constellate: fear, shame, exposure, adrenaline fuelled anger-rage,
resignation, revulsion, exhaustion, keep going on automatic, power and pow-
erlessness, terror, isolation, tight “trauma” bonding/merging with a group.
The sensations of restriction, sighing, numbing, choking/airlessness, shallow
breathing, wanting to take flight and/or to fight or freeze. Familiar. “Familiar-
ity breeds contempt”–the close-in confluence of trauma bonding while under
threat, the “breeding ground” mentioned by Melnick and Nevis in their ar-
ticle. And the turning away from.
Reflecting upon the act of “turning away” that can be an aspect of re-
lational contempt, I recognize the necessity of this movement in oppressor/
oppressed relations and in other mutually oppressive relations at least as
a temporary form of regrouping, as a way to stop hostility from becoming
more destructive in the absence of support for fuller contact. Since the peace
process and signing of the Good Friday Agreement, the north of Ireland has
ironically become increasingly segregated, as we choose to live with those we
238 COMMENTARY II

perceive as “our own”–facing “our own,” then, who I/we actually am/are in a
changing environment. The paradoxical theory of change.
Working through the absence of self and environment is a challenging pro-
cess. This supports me as a practitioner to continue to explore with clients and
colleagues what the authors describe as “our common feelings of being ‘less
than’ and ‘not good enough’” (i.e., contemptuous/”under dog”); as well as
the accompanying needs to feel “better than” (i.e., contemptuous/”top dog”)
and to develop support for feeling “good enough.”2
There are many instances of Gestalt practice in Northern Ireland. Examples
of Gestalt practice in the north with individuals, groups, and communities
who are discriminated against and often “held in contempt,” and who are
working to transform oppressive relations include: parents and grandparents
who have survived life threatening events3 with their children; young people
from the two main political/cultural traditions working in an interface com-
munity; a community those members have been displaced through state and
sectarian violence; lesbians and bisexual women (Quiery, 2002); parents of
children on the Autism Spectrum4 ; and a supervisory group for practitioners
(Gaffney, 2009). My own interests lie increasingly with the importance of
awareness and skills in working with the physiology of experience as a ne-
glected aspect of personal and interpersonal integration, given the impact of
prolonged unresolved trauma (i.e., overwhelming events involving a sense of
physical or physiological annihilation and helplessness, which usually include
intense feelings of self-contempt and shame).
Melnick and Nevis offer examples of interventions with individuals and
with intimate, hierarchical, political, and religious systems. They provide many
insights, including those of benefiting from hindsight, of having being “in-
ducted into the system,” and of having “ended up behaving in a righteous
and contemptuous manner.” Both their article and the work of Herman (1992)
have inspired me in respect of what Gestalt practice offers and of our need to
continue supporting ourselves and each other,5 while also serving as a warn-

2
Supporting integration, especially working with sensation to support bodily and re-
lational integrity, has increasingly been part of my personal and professional practice.
3
As this society carries on with the slow transformation of unjust, unequal political and social rela-
tions, other forms of social oppression continue to be revealed (e.g., this society has the highest use
of prescribed medication for anxiety, depression, stress, and post/complex traumatic stress in West-
ern Europe). Serious health problems and early deaths continue to emerge, particularly among this
generation of adults, many of whom are also parents and grandparents. The ways of survival that
once served no longer serve, not to mention the lack of adequate state intervention and leadership.
4
The prevalence of children diagnosed on the “Autism Spectrum” is up 400% in the last decade
in Northern Ireland (Burrows, 2010).
5
In the north of Ireland, the first Gestalt Institute in Belfast is being established. We welcome
your interest and any support you might offer to make Gestalt practice more available. The email
address of BGI is: gestaltireland@yahoo.com
ROSIE BURROWS 239

ing echoed by Herman: “In the absence of strong political movements for
human rights, the active process of bearing witness inevitably gives way to
the active process of forgetting. Repression, dissociation and denial are phe-
nomena of social as well as individual consciousness” (p. 9).
By way of conclusion, I offer up the words of the Chorus in Seamus Heaney’s
(1991) version of Sophocles’ Philoctetes, rendered as The Cure at Troy:

Human beings suffer,

they torture one another,
they get hurt and get hard.
No poem or play or song
can fully right a wrong
inflicted or endured.

The innocent in gaols

beat on their bars together.
A hunger-striker’s father
stands in the graveyard dumb.
The police widow in veils
faints at the funeral home.

History says, Don’t hope

on this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
the longed for tidal wave
of justice can rise up,
and hope and history rhyme.

So hope for a great sea-change

on the far side of revenge.
Believe that a further shore
is reachable from here.
Believe in miracles
and cures and healing wells.

Call the miracle self-healing:

The utter self-revealing
double-take of feeling.
If there’s fire on the mountain
Or lightning and storm
And a god speaks from the sky
240 COMMENTARY II

That means someone is hearing

the outcry and the birth-cry
of new life at its term.

– Seamus Heaney (1991)

Rosie Burrows, Ph.D.

rosieburrows@ntlworld.com

REFERENCES

Burrows, R. (2010). Is anyone listening? Research available online: www.

autismni.org
Burrows, R., & Keenan, B. (2004). “We’ll never be the same”: Learning
with children, parents and communities through political conflict
and trauma. Research available online: www.barnardos.org.uk/
selfempowermentproject.
Gaffney, S. (2009). Gestalt at work: Integrating life, theory and practice.
Metairie, Louisiana: The Gestalt Institute Press.
Heaney, S. (1991). The cure at Troy: A version of Sophocles’ “Philoctetes.” New
York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: From domestic abuse to political
terror. London: Pandora.
Keenan, B., & Burrows, R. (2009). Extraordinary skills for extraordinary
circumstances: Supporting parents, children, and caregivers in the
transition from armed conflict in the North of Ireland. In J. Melnick & E.
C. Nevis (Eds.), Mending the world: Social healing interventions by Gestalt
practitioners worldwide (pp. 66-96). South Wellfleet, Massachusetts:
Gestalt International Study Center.
Levine, P. (1997). Waking the tiger: Healing trauma–The innate capacity to
transform overwhelming experiences. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic
Books.
Quiery, M. (2002). A mighty silence. A report on the needs of lesbians and
bisexual women in Northern Ireland. Belfast: LASI.
Gestalt Review, 14(3):241-246, 2010 241

Commentary III. Contempt

C H A N T E L L E W Y L E Y, M I S

The article on “Contempt”–spanning levels of system and offering a social

message–is welcome to practitioners who look to this journal and to these
writers for conclusions from therapy-rooted practice applicable to work in
organisations and wider social systems. Since the mid-1990s Gestalt has sup-
ported a group of us involved in socio-economic development, mainly in Af-
rica, with our socio-economic change agenda.1 As I write, we are working with
the Presidency in an African country in government-wide systems and cultural
change around performance monitoring and delivery; and with the Secretar-
iat of a regional African community in a leadership development program to
give effect to its governance and economic integration strategy. We believe in
“mending the world,” one group, one person at a time.2 Joseph Melnick and
1
We began our journey with Gestalt by attending the International Organization and Systems
Development Program (the first in our group attended Program ll, 1995-1996); we have con-
tinued with the Cape Cod Training Program and other offerings from the Gestalt International
Study Center, the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, and the Organization and Systems Development
Center (Cleveland). We work as development (project and program) management facilitators,
trainers and consultants in West, East, and Southern Africa, on behalf of donors, non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs), and in the public sector. Our guiding principle is: “All (develop-
ment) interventions are interventions in the lives of people. As such we believe they need to be
conducted with professionalism, expertise, and sensitivity, and need to leave people with the
wherewithal to continue their lives more productively than before“ (see www.baobab-ct.org).
2
This phrase acknowledges the title of Joseph Melnick and Edwin C. Nevis’s edited volume, Mend-
ing the world: Social healing interventions by Gestalt practitioners worldwide (2009), to which
we have contributed.

Chantelle Wyley, MIS (Masters in Information Services), is based in

Cape Town, South Africa. A coach, facilitator, and trainer specialising in
development project management training, facilitation training, and
leadership development, she uses emotional intelligence techniques
and the Gestalt approach to organisation and systems development. She
coaches and supports leaders in the South African public and private sector
in the technical aspects of project management, leadership, personal
development, diversity, and the cultivation of powerful personal presence
and resonant relationships.

©2010 Gestalt Intl Study Center

242 COMMENTARY III

Sonia M. Nevis’s strong message in this article, to manage individually and so-
cietally our contempt for denied aspects of self that we deem disgusting and
unworthy of respect, is a strong, specific, and well-argued pointer at where
and how to focus our work.
The authors’ approach echoes another “pointer” we have found useful,
taken from the discipline of social neuroscience. Rock (2008) applies recent
studies of the brain to workplace behaviour. He draws on the work of Gor-
don (2000), arguing that human activty is motivated by two primary survival
drives: that of minimising threat (hence avoid, flight/fight), and that of maxi-
mising reward (approach, connect). Both drives are strong and primitive, and
are located in the non-rational area of the brain. My reading of the neurosci-
ence research suggests that this perspective offers a starting point for under-
standing the strong pull-push, negative attraction (avoid/approach) tension
that Melnick and Nevis identify as characterising the contempt experience.
These primitive urges activate the limbic and reptilian brains via the amyg-
dala, triggering physical and verbal defence mechanisms or flight (this has
also been well understood and applied to workplace behaviour by emotional
intelligence researcher Goleman [1998; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002]).
In Gestalt terms, this hard-wired mechanism of forming memory/experience-
informed fast and fixed figures enables human beings to stay alive by quickly
accessing dangers and options in a complex and uncertain ground/environ-
ment.
Rock’s useful contribution is to identify workplace factors that activate the
avoid or the approach response. Interactions which promote status, certainty,
autonomy, relatedness, and fairness (hence his “SCARF” model) evoke the
approach/connection response. Actions which diminish status, evoke uncer-
tainty, limit autonomy are unfair and provoke defensive/avoid responses.
Melnick and Nevis’s identification of status and (negative) hierarchy and “bet-
ter than” feelings, as being part of the contempt picture, are supported by
Rock. In primitive situations, status guarantees survival; modern humans have
retained the neural hard wiring that directs us to calibrate status relative to
others in almost all social situations (Zink et al., 2008 as cited in Rock, 2008).
Being subjected to a real or perceived reduction in status activates the same
areas of the brain as physical pain (Eisenberger, 2004 as cited in Rock, 2008).
Attaining status (e.g., winning a race against others) activates the primary
reward circuitry and increases dopamine levels; hence, the “better than” feel-
ing.
Rock’s conclusions explain the lure and triumph present in the “topdog”
expression of contempt identified by Melnick and Nevis. Those expressing
contempt are feeding their “feel good” circuitry and contributing to their
own sense of survival, longevity, and health. It is a primitive urge that oc-
CHANTELLE WYLEY 243

cupies the survival circuitry of the brain, disenabling the cognitive functions
and increasing the likelihood of generalisation to justify triumphing over oth-
ers. As Rock explains (drawing on Subramaniam et al., 2008), “the increased
overall activation in the brain inhibits people from perceiving the more subtle
signals required for solving non-linear problems, involved in the insight or
‘aha!’ experience” (p. 3). This research backs Melnick and Nevis’s point about
the “narrow and isolating” nature of contempt.
In addition, because the human brain is more finely attuned to threatening
stimuli, it is easier to trigger an avoid/defensive response (closing down our
ability to take in new data from the environment) than an approach/connect/
engage response (where we are open to new stimuli, can take risks, and can
relax and think deeply). And the avoid response creates much more activa-
tion in the limbic system of the brain, resulting in a long-lasting, lingering,
smouldering effect.
A contempt-laden situation may also involve (perceived or real) uncertain-
ty, diminished autonomy, violation of relatedness/belonging, or unfairness.
These are also identified by Rock as triggering the defensive/avoid/fight re-
sponse and, if present in addition to diminished status, make for a potent mix
of emotional memory-fuelled defensiveness and aggression.
With the amygdala attuned to incoming threats, critically engaging with
our environments and ourselves, we are usually making contact from a stance
of (close to the surface) fear and uncertainty. As Melnick and Nevis state:
“Maybe the answer lies in a core aspect of our human experience; our com-
mon feelings of being ‘less than’ and ‘not good enough.’” This is another
frame for understanding the authors’ identification of projections as deter-
mining and fuelling our contempt of others. A need to establish a sense of
elevated status relative to others is based on a sense of personal inadequacy/
low status to start with, which is difficult to acknowledge without further
threatening personal status.
Melnick and Nevis have admirably tackled how to work with contempt,
usefully supporting the work of practitioners like myself. Rock gives practical
suggestions regarding how to minimise the activation of the avoid/defensive
response in the modern workplace. For example, by giving positive and public
feedback to employees and reports we activate the reward response and al-
low the creative areas of the brain to function; furthermore, by emphasising
mentoring, coaching, and learning in performance feedback, we activate a
reward response related to elevated status based on betterment versus a past
self.
Rock advocates using the SCARF model to identify when one’s threat re-
sponse has been triggered; and thereby to name and reframe the experience,
to know why one cannot think clearly, and to start gradually to introduce
244 COMMENTARY III

more rational, creative and appropriate responses (this echoes Melnick’s ex-
perience of working with his own response to the man in the airport van).
Clearly, the primitive wiring/contact mechanisms no longer serve us well
in a world that demands connection, support, curiosity about diversity; and
collaborative, creative thinking around solutions to the world’s challenges.
We need precisely the trust, openness, and holding ourselves in a place of lis-
tening and responding with curiosity and tolerance for difference (maximum
input), and of enabling “respectful dialogue,” as suggested by Melnick and
Nevis.
Their emphasis on the empathy required for this stance is also backed by
the research informing the Goleman-Boyatzis-McKee (2002) model of emo-
tionally intelligent leadership.3 The model defines empathy as one of 18 com-
petencies required for leadership, singling it out as one of three foundational
competencies (alongside self-awareness and emotional self-control). Empathy
is defined as: “sensing others’ feelings and perspectives, and taking an active
interest in their concerns” (The Hay Group, 2002, p. 11; Teleos Leadership Insti-
tute, 2005). The behaviours related to the empathy competency back up Mel-
nick and Nevis’s recommendations for avoiding the stuckness of contempt. In
ascending order of complexity and difficulty they are:

1) Listens attentively;
2) Is attentive to people’s moods or nonverbal cues;
3) Relates well to people of diverse backgrounds;
4) Can see things from someone else’s perspective.
(The Hay Group, 2002, p. 11)

Melnick’s and Nevis’s conclusions are based on years of reflective observa-

tion of the human condition, in self and others, from an empathetic, sup-
portive stance as Gestalt interveners (therapeutic and organisational). The
social neuroscience research, with the new technology of mapping activity in
parts of the brain to sets of behaviours and related emotions, supports these
Gestalt-based observations and conclusions.
At the time of writing this commentary, public conflict in the South African
ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), can helpfully be under-
stood by using the frame of contempt. The ANC is approaching its centenary
as a liberation movement in Africa, with a noble and ethical history. Today,
after 16 years in power, the current leadership publically heralds and claims
this legacy but, in some cases, is active privately in personal, excessive, and
sometimes illegal material gain, courtesy of public office. Elements in the ANC
3
Annie McKee is a graduate of the Gestalt International Organization and Systems Development
Program lll.
CHANTELLE WYLEY 245

Youth League are enriching themselves through lucrative government con-

tracts, at the same time that they are adopting a radical agenda of resource
and wealth distribution (e.g., nationalisation of mines) for the benefit of “the
people.” These elements are crudely accusing party leadership of straying
from a redistribution-of-wealth agenda, with contempt written all over their
accusations (culminating in a crude criticism of polygamy directed at the Presi-
dent). Senior ANC leaders seemed helpless in the face of this aggression, which
violates party norms about respect for elders and loyalty to the party. At the
recent ANC general national council in Durban, the senior leadership lashed
back, ordering the uncouth youth to behave and advocating new measures
around “cadre education” and discipline. These contemptuous exchanges are
received by the public as unnerving and anxiety-provoking, and as an op-
portunity to take sides and express its own contempt for either the youth or
the mainstream party. This is a dangerous place for the ANC and the country
to find itself. The ANC is a majority party and wields enormous power and
control of resources. Consumed with contempt-ridden engagements within
its ranks, creative thinking is unavailable for analysing and addressing the
country’s challenges. In contemplating this political posturing and power-play
through the Melnick and Nevis lens of contempt, I gained insight and under-
standing. I kept myself from taking sides and heaping derision and contempt
on the other side, I got curious about what was driving the contemptuous
expression, and I am developing ideas on how to influence positively the po-
litical players to whom I have access. Thank you.

Chantelle Wyley, MIS

cwyley@baobab-ct.org

REFERENCES

Eisenberger N. I., & Liberman, M. D. (2004). Why it hurts to be left out:

The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 8, 294-300.
Goleman, D. (1998). Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the
power of emotional intelligence. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business
Publishing. Also published as The new leaders: Transforming the art of
leadership into the science of results. London: Little, Brown & Co. (2002).
Gordon, E. (2000). Integrative neuroscience. Singapore: Harwood.
The Hay Group (2002). Emotional competency inventory (Volume II: Feedback).
Boston: Boyatzis, Goleman, & Hay Acquisition Co.
246 COMMENTARY III

Melnick, J., & Nevis, E. C. (Eds.). (2009). Mending the world: Social healing
interventions by Gestalt practitioners worldwide. South Wellfleet,
Massachusetts: Gestalt International Study Center.
Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and
influencing others. Neuroleadership Journal 1, 1-9.
Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2008). A
brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415-432.
Teleos Leadership Institute (2005). Resonant leadership for results. © Program
handouts, Philadelphia.
Zink, C. F., Tong Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D., Stein J. L., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A.
(2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans.
Neuron, 58, 273-283.
Gestalt Review, 14(3):247-249, 2010 247

Response

JOSEPH MELNICK, PH.D.

SONIA MARCH NEVIS, PH.D.

As Isabel Fredericson points out in her commentary, our process is to find a

topic, many times an everyday emotion, which interests us. We then engage
in numerous conversations, often bringing our ideas into workshops and con-
ferences, and if our interest persists, some of these interests eventually turn
into papers. Our conversations frequently continue long past the publication
of the article, in that our writings are never finished. There are always other
voices and other perspectives that help enrich and develop the topic.
This is certainly the case regarding our interest in the concept of contempt.
Because we have devoted much of our professional teachings and writings to
the study of intimate systems, we ended up emphasizing that level of system
more than the internal experiences of individuals. The same is true with re-
spect to our cursory focus on the global level. In hindsight, too, we might have
paid more attention to our own Gestalt origins, to how clients and partici-
pants were treated historically by Gestalt practitioners. Not surprisingly, our
three commentators, Isabel Fredericson, Rosie Burrows, and Chantelle Wyley,
have helped not only to fill in these gaps but also to extend the conversation.
For this we thank them.
As Fredericson points out, contempt was not part of the original Gestalt
vocabulary, though it was frequently embedded in the work of many teach-
ers and trainers. She describes a personal incident when an invited leader
humiliated a group member. She reports remembering that incident many
years later. Many of us can still recite those “rules” of Gestalt: turn questions
into statements; do not use qualifiers (i.e., do not say “I really love you”; say
instead, “I love you”). Clients were often told what they were doing wrong,
routinely corrected, and told what to say and how to say it.
Much attention was also paid to emotions. It was thought that every emo-
tion–no matter what emotion (and certainly aggression)–should be expanded

©2010 Gestalt Intl Study Center

248 response

and expressed fully. Although many experienced a freedom from retroflected

and repressed feelings, others felt shamed and humiliated. Of equal impor-
tance, the impact of our words and actions directed at others were not a part
of our early Gestalt principles.
Fredericson believes that she differs with us on the point of our common-
place examples, such as being behind someone driving a car too slowly. She
describes how, when she is in that situation, she is likely to feel irritation or
anger rather than contempt. She rightly adds that she would not feel disdain–
a necessary emotion in order for contempt to exist. We agree with her. We
did not mean to imply that those commonplace situations would or should
produce contempt. Ideally, they would generate low-level negative emotions
that we could turn away from. What interests us is that they sometimes result
in responses that seem much larger and more negative than what we would
have expected. Our article attempts to understand what is going on when
overly large negative reactions occur.
Fredericson ends her commentary by mentioning the global dangers en-
gendered by cycles of contempt, rightly pointing out that they are only briefly
referred to in our article. We certainly agree with her. This lack of attention
to both the global and the individual is also addressed by Rosie Burrows, who
has spent much of her professional and personal life dealing with the after-
effects of the conflict in Belfast, in the north of Ireland. One simply has to
look at the murals that dominate the city, which describe horrible acts on all
sides, to understand that though physical violence has mostly been quelled, a
contemptuous climate still exists on a large scale.
An expert on stress, Burrows reminds us that the experience of ongoing
contempt has great negative and physiological consequences, just as in all
prolonged, unresolved trauma. She points out how long cycles of contempt
not only result in horrible actions but also find an uneasy home as embodied
traumatic experiences passed on generation after generation, in what she
calls “transgenerational contempt.” Burrows cites Levine (1997) to underscore
that trauma is found in the body, not the event. She lists some of the conse-
quences of ongoing contempt as: “fear, shame, exposure, adrenaline fueled
anger-rage, resignation, revulsion, exhaustion, keep going on automatic,
power and powerlessness, terror, isolation.”
Burrows also discusses tight “trauma bonding” that involves a powerful
merging with the group. It is this “confluence of traumatic bonding” that
creates the breeding ground, and often the energy, for greater isolation and
more narrow, negative projections of the other, which are highly resistant to
change (Vallacher, Coleman, Nowak, & Bui-Wrzosinska, 2010). This is certainly
the case in the north of Ireland. Sadly, Burrows reports that since the signing
of the peace agreements, the north of Ireland has grown increasingly segre-
Joseph Melnick and Sonia march nevis 249

gated. So, rather than becoming interested in differences, the two sides have
turned increasingly less interactive and their positions more intractable.
Our last commentator, Chantelle Wyley, also discusses the physical out-
comes of prolonged cycles of contempt. Focusing on the developing field
of social neuroscience, she describes a way of looking at the “negative at-
traction” inherent in a contemptuous experience. When we are faced with
situations that have the potential to diminish our sense of status, contempt
is evoked as a defensive/avoidant response. Similarly, in primitive situations,
anything that brings about a rise to a higher status results in “better than”
feelings and supports survival. Unfortunately, our inborn wiring mechanisms
no longer serve us well. The dilemma is how to alter our primitive physiologi-
cal reactivity.
Wyley ends her commentary by describing the public conflict within the
South African ruling party, the African National Congress. This is the party
of Nelson Mandela that has been in power for 16 years and has embraced
the philosophy of reconciliation to help people move through experiences
of long-term contempt and oppression. This conflict particularly saddens us,
since we both taught there and were impressed by what we perceived as suc-
cessful reconciliation.
To free us from this ancient and primitive syndrome–or at least to lessen its
hold on us–we not only have to become more aware of its triggers, but we
also have to train ourselves and others to counter them. As Wyley writes, we
need to teach people to listen actively, to become more attentive to others’
moods and nonverbal cues, and to relate better to people of diverse back-
grounds. And, most importantly, we must teach people the skills of empathy,
so that they can see things from others’ perspectives.

Joseph Melnick, Ph.D.

josephmelnick@gmail.com

Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.

smnevis70@gmail.com

REFERENCES

Levine, P. (1997). Waking the tiger: Healing trauma–The innate capacity to

transform overwhelming experiences. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic
Books.
Vallacher, R., Coleman, P., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking
intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American
Psychologist 65(4), 262-278.
 G E S T A L T R E V I E W INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Launched in 1997, Gestalt Review provides a forum for exchanges in theory and
Susan L. Fischer, Ph.D., Editor Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., Founding Editor practice throughout the world. It concentrates on the Gestalt approach at all system
levels, ranging from the individual, through couples, families, and groups, to organi-
Associate Editors zations, educational settings, and the community-at-large. The journal also publishes
original articles dealing with politics, philosophy, gender, and culture. The Review and
Liv Estrup, M.A. Susan E. Partridge, Ph.D., LCSW Reflections pages typically contain book reviews and personal reflections. The journal is
Jon E. Frew, Ph.D. Susan Roos, Ph.D. peer reviewed and published three times a year.
Rick Maurer, M.A. Gary M. Yontef, Ph.D. Gestalt Review is committed to working with authors in a productive and collabora-
Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D. tive manner. Original manuscripts should be prepared according to Gestalt International
Study Center stipulations and APA style (see below); generally they should not exceed
Editorial Board 25 double-spaced pages or approximately 7500 words (12 pt. Times New Roman font),
including References. A double-spaced Abstract of approximately 100 words should ap-
Nancy Amendt-Lyon, Dr.Phil., Austria Mark McConville, Ph.D., USA pear on a separate page, along with a 2-3 sentence Biography that includes your most
Jack Aylward, Ed.D., USA Gonzague Masquelier, Ph.D., France advanced academic degree/professional title. An electronic version of the manuscript
Daniel J. Bloom, J.D., LCSW, USA Alan Meara, M.G.T., New Zealand should be sent to the editor of Gestalt Review at sfischer@bucknell.edu. Manuscripts
Todd Burley, Ph.D., USA Peter Mortola, Ph.D., USA must not have been published, nor submitted for publication, elsewhere.
Arie Cohen, Ph.D., Israel Violet Oaklander, Ph.D., USA All submitted manuscripts will be initially screened for appropriateness of subject
Nigel Copsey, D.Psyc., England Eleanor O’Leary, Ph.D., Ireland matter. Following such screening, manuscripts will be mask reviewed, with each submis-
Sylvia Fleming Crocker, Ph.D., USA Brian O’Neill, B.A. MAPS, Australia sion sent to a minimum of two referees. The review process may take up to six months.
Bud Feder, Ph.D., USA Malcolm Parlett, Ph.D., England In order to assure anonymity, each copy of a manuscript should include a separate title
page with the author’s name, mailing address, and affiliations, and these should not
Iris Fodor, Ph.D., USA Erving Polster, Ph.D., USA appear elsewhere in the manuscript. Authors should make reasonable efforts to mask
Ruella Frank, Ph.D., USA Robert Resnick, Ph.D., USA their identity throughout the entire manuscript.
Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D., USA Jan Roubal, M.D., Czech Republic After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the author is asked to provide
Seán Gaffney, Ph.D., Ireland/Sweden Frank Rubenfeld, Ph.D., USA an electronic copy of the final version, to be sent to the editor of Gestalt Review at
Marion Gillie, M.A., M.Sc., UK Norman Shub, B.C.D., USA sfischer@bucknell.edu. The author is responsible for retaining an electronic copy of the
Elinor Greenberg, Ph.D., USA Claudia Baptista Tavora, M.A., Brazil manuscript in the event of loss.
Leslie S. Greenberg, Ph.D., Canada Sarah Toman, Ph.D., USA Style: Follow the stylistic guidelines of the 6th edition of the Publication Manual
Joseph H. Handlon, Ph.D., USA Daan van Baalen, M.D., Norway of the American Psychological Association (2010) as well as the APA Style Guide to
Electronic References (APA, 2007). Text references follow the author, date system
Gaie Houston, M.A., England Carmen Vázquez Bandín, Ph.D., Spain
(Smith, 1978) and are cited within the text, not as footnotes or endnotes.
Francisco Huneeus, M.D., Chile Gordon Wheeler, Ph.D., USA Multiple text references are listed chronologically, not alphabetically. Multiple
Lynne Jacobs, Ph.D., USA Ansel Woldt, Ed.D., USA works published in the same year must be differentiated by a, b, c, etc. added to the
Robert Kolodny, Ph.D., USA Georges Wollants, Lic. Ps. Ped. Sc., Belgium publishing date. Every text citation must have its corresponding reference listing (on a
Talia Levine Bar-Yoseph, M.A., Israel Joseph Zinker, Ph.D., USA separate page at the end of the article); the reference list should contain publication
Margherita Spagnuolo Lobb, Ph.D., Italy information only about sources cited in the text.
Quotations must be followed by their source page numbers in parentheses: (p. 120);
Design/Production: Judy Robertson Designs, Sarasota, Florida, Printed in the USA a quotation only of more than 40 words is typeset as an extract and should be typed as
an indented block, double spaced, followed by source page number(s) in parentheses:
©2010 by the Gestalt International Study Center, South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA. All rights reserved. (pp. 10-12). A detailed style sheet for final preparation of reference lists, etc. is avail-
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
able upon request and will be sent to authors whose manuscripts are accepted for
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microform, recording, or otherwise,
without permission of the publisher.
publication.
Manuscripts that do not conform to both APA style and Gestalt International Study
Gestalt Review (ISSN:1084-8657) is issued three times a year by the Gestalt International Study Center preparation requirements will be returned but may be resubmitted.
Center, P.O. Box 515, South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA 2010 subscription rates for individuals in the Permissions: Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work and for
U.S. are $55, for institutions $140 and for full-time students with a college ID $30. The 2010 subscrip- obtaining permission from copyright holders to reprint or adapt tables or figures or to
tion rate for individuals in all other countries is $65; for institutions $155. Single issue prices are $25
reprint substantial passages from previously published works. Authors should write to
for individuals in the USA; $30 for individuals in all other countries.
the original publisher to request nonexclusive world rights in all languages to use the
Prices are subject to change without notice. material being reprinted.
To order, call 508-349-7900 or write to the Gestalt International Study Center, P.O. Box 515, South Photocopying: Authorization to photocopy articles for internal or personal use, or
Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA or send an e-mail to office@gisc.org. the internal use of specific clients, is granted to users registered with the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the fee of $4.50
Postmaster: Send address changes to Gestalt Review, P.O. Box 515, South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA
per copy is paid directly to CCC, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. The fee code
A PUBLICATION OF THE GESTALT INTERNATIONAL STUDY CENTER. for Gestalt Review is: 1084-8657/02/$4.50. To request permission to copy for general
Edwin Nevis, Ph.D., Chair and David Tunney, M.A., Executive Director distribution, advertising or promotional purposes, creation of new collective works,
Periodicals postage paid at South Yarmouth, MA. or resale, please write to the Gestalt International Study Center, P.O. Box 515, South
Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA.
 VOLUME FOURTEEN • NUMBER THREE

VOL. 14 • NO. 3
Forthcoming Articles

FESTSCHRIFT –
Celebrating the Power of Writing:
A Tribute to Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D., and Edwin C. Nevis, Ph.D.
(The 25th Anniversary of the Founding of Gestaltpress and Writers’ Conferences)

Gestalt Therapy for Patients with Schizophrenia: A Brief Review

Sidse M. H. Arnfred, M.D., Ph.D., MSc
Editorial. Contempt, Empathy, and Gestalt
Cross-Cultural Exploration of PTSD: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Susan L. Fischer, Ph.D.
Recommended Treatment Contempt
Dilani M. Perera-Diltz, Ph.D., John M. Laux, Ph.D., and Sarah Toman, Ph.D. Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., and Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.
Commentary I. Contempt
Isabel Fredericson, Ph.D.
Commentary II. Contempt
Rosie Burrows, Ph.D.
Commentary III. Contempt
Chantelle Wyley, MIS

GESTALT REVIEW
Response to Commentaries
Joseph Melnick, Ph.D., and Sonia March Nevis, Ph.D.
Making Contact with the Self-Injurious Adolescent: Borderline Personality
Disorder, Gestalt Therapy and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy Interventions
Lynn Williams, Ph.D.
A Poetics of Practice: Organisation Consulting from a Gestalt Perspective
Robert Farrands, Ph.D.
Commentary I. A Poetics of Practice
Edwin C. Nevis, Ph.D.
Commentary II. A Poetics of Practice
Joel Latner, Ph.D.
Commentary III. A Poetics of Practice
Malcolm Parlett, Ph.D.
Response to Commentaries
Visit our Robert Farrands, Ph.D.
NEW Reviews and Reflections
website at Review
www.gestaltreview.com  The World in a Grain of Sand: The Present Moment in Psychotherapy and
Everyday Life (Daniel N. Stern)
Peter Cole, LCSW
Poem
Claire Dennery Stratford, LCSW (1929-2010)
Poem
Peter Wheelock Tarlton, M.S.
In Memoriam: Claire Dennery Stratford, LCSW
Frances S. Baker, Ph.D.
2010

Gestalt Review is a peer-reviewed journal published by

The Gestalt International Study Center • PO Box 515 • South Wellfleet, MA 02663 USA PUBLISHED BY THE GESTALT INTERNATIONAL STUDY CENTER