The two journal articles which I critique have in common the construct of humor (spelled in both international journals as humour). I will examine humor in the first article as a construct. It is utilized as a tool, as a component of therapy but I will examine the very basic underlying nature of humor as a construct and as a phenomenon that can be appropriately and adequately utilized in a gestalt modality (particularly tied to existing gestalt therapy tools). In the second article I will examine the actual use of humor – the specific functioning of humor as a therapeutic tool or therapeutic mechanism within the psychoanalytical modality.
In brief, in the first article I critique the use of humor as a construct suitable for the gestalt therapy paradigm and in the second I critique the use of humor as a tool, actually used as a portion of the psychoanalytic therapeutic modality. Humor in gestalt therapy – curative force and catalyst for change: a case study (Jacobs, 2009) This article is the description of research by gestalt psychologist Susanne Jacobs, centered on the case study of a 13-year-old girl who had endured significant condition of worth losses (including family unit, parental involvement, physical contact, trust, identity structure, etc. . She was placed in a therapeutic setting where the gestalt therapist made the concerted efforts to evoke a therapeutic methodology that incorporated humor as a mechanism for the girl to modify and correct boundary disturbances, and develop adaptive and useful deflective mechanisms rather than the maladaptive deflection mechanisms that she was currently exhibiting. The two goals of correcting boundary disturbances and development of appropriate deflection mechanisms were specifically articulated in the article.I believe that the holistic nature of gestalt therapy has often led to what behaviorists or cognitists or even psychoanalysts might describe as a less structured methodology of operational definitions and instantiation.
Such is the case in the current article. One of the problems inherent in the research effort is the fact that the author attempted to tie humor to awareness, i. e. quating an increased sense of humor with the concept of increased conscious awareness. The tacit but unspoken implication is that development of a sense of humor is tantamount to the development of a more sophisticated sense of self-awareness leading to the potential for a more sophisticated deflection mechanism and the potential for a better sense of self, and a better integrated sense of self.Within the context of this research, the author cites the holistic approach of Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman and states, in the context section of this article that, "gestalt therapy consists, in part, of introducing a process of heightened awareness so that the person's natural functioning can reinstate itself," (Yontef, 1989; cited by Jacobs).
A significant portion of the article then attempts to relate the actions of the therapist during the course of therapy to the outcome of the therapy, with particular regard to the therapist's use of humor within the therapy.Several references are made in the article to the historicity of therapists being more interested in crying then laughing, and also to the lack of interest, orientation, or research into humor as either construct or tool. Within the literature survey portion of the article a beginning point is made by referencing gestalt play therapy. The gestalt play therapy includes use of games fantasy and imagery in order to provide the subject with tools to modify their perception of self and the connection of self to the environment.
The author herself notes that even with something as simple as gestalt play therapy and its use of games fantasy and imagery, the literature fails to connect humor to the concept of play therapy to be used either as a deflection coping mechanism or a defining mechanism for contact boundary disturbances. Within the literature survey section the author moves to the point at which she posits what I would suggest is a questionable operational definition. She notes that humor is in fact experiential and process, and that sense “refers to the ability to feel or appreciate something; the ability to be aware comments to the fore," (Jacobs, 2009).Just a couple sentences following that the author states, "awareness, characterized by contact, sensing, excitement and gestalt formation is considered a primary therapeutic mechanism," (Yontef, 1989; cited by Jacobs). As the research design is articulated this is about as close as the author gets to delineating an operational definition that connects the awareness associated with sense of humor with the awareness which a gestalt therapist would associate with better deflection mechanisms and the ability to better handle boundary disturbances.
My primary concern with the structure of this research lies with the very initial transition from the review of literature to the initial implementation of the research methodology and design, and with the somewhat inadequate operational definition of the construct of humor (as it relates to gestalt modality) and to a failure to more implicitly or directly connect humor and sense of awareness (whether through literature citations or methodology).If the author assumes to delineate a relationship between humor and the efficacy of gestalt therapy that incorporates humor, it is absolutely necessary for an adequate, appropriate definition and a very well delineated connection between that construct and the therapeutic goals of increased sense of awareness or ability to perform appropriate deflection. The research methodology was quite simply the assessment of the psychological state and adaptive capabilities of the girl prior to and following therapy in which humor was presumably incorporated as a therapeutic tool.The assessment of the case study participant indicated multiple instances of deflective behavior in many different ways prior to the onset of therapy.
The child was seen to be functioning from her false layer and from incomplete gestalts with contact boundary disturbances including interjections projections and deflections. Examples of the kind of humor utilized by the therapist included exaggeration, modeling, and banter. The exaggeration took the form of exaggerating the problems that the girl stated.Modeling took the form of humorous behavior on the part of the therapist, and banter took the form of slightly pointed barbs about comments made by the client.
Utilization of humor during board games and gameplaying therapy was also attempted. The author concludes from improved deflection mechanisms and boundary setting at the culmination of therapy that the client exhibited improvement as a result of the utilization of humor within the therapeutic modality.She further concludes that humor can be taught, that the client can be made aware of the utilization of humor, and that "only a miniscule shift [in humor or attitude toward humor] can evoke [positive or improved] change," (Jacobs, 2009). While I agree with the author’s suggestion that more extensive effort is justified to examine the nature of humor and the utilization of humor as a construct in a therapeutic modality, I am unable to concur with some of her basic definitions, assumptions and methodology, and – as a result – the conclusions of the efficacy of its use in this research.
Gunfire, humor and psychotherapy (Middleton, 2007) This article is – quite frankly – is a hodgepodge of culturally specific anecdotes, a smattering of literature review, and a rehash of some of the author's opinions given his experience at practicing historical psychoanalytic modality. The author presents several moderately long anecdotal descriptions of characters that he has known in the Australian outback who have exhibited a penchant for violence in the utilization of firearms.These examples, in addition to being anecdotal, seem misdirected and only tangentially related to the concept of the utilization of humor as a component of psychoanalytic modality, which is the author's primary purpose. Throughout these anecdotal instances the author occasionally makes tangential reference to the possibility of some of the behaviors of his outback acquaintances as possible manifestations of Freudian trauma or conflict.The awareness that some of the individuals identified have crisis issues is not at all difficult; the connection between their internal turmoil and any therapeutic use of humor in psychoanalysis is much harder to discern in this article. Several pages into the article, the author arrives at what appears to be the crux of his paper when he states, "I am struck by the conspicuous absence of reports of humorous exchanges between patient and therapist," (Middleton, 2007).
In a most psychoanalytical fashion the author suggests that his own personal experience of psychoanalysis was not devoid of humor and laughter, and he particularly relates his personal experience with his second analyst and the transference that occurred as a function of that analytical process. The author bounces from a review of literature that is broad and frequently not appropriately honed, such as a quote from Kierkegaard, to very pragmatic instances in his own experience as a psychotherapist.After quoting Kierkegaard and his concept of comical as being related to contradiction and incongruity, the author uses a phrase that appears somewhat glib when he says, "I recall a patient beset by the tragedies that usually permeate the lives of those with limited self esteem…" (Middleton, 2007). Throughout the paper the author is frequently incredibly subjective.
He follows several of the anecdotal descriptions which he presents with the following line. Scenarios that I have briefly described above don't lend themselves naturally to the notion of the therapist as an opaque screen practicing the fine art of highly developed therapeutic neutrality," (Middleton, 2007). One of the potential problems with this paper is that the writer should have practiced some writing/research neutrality. The writer also seems somewhat loose or sloppy in his stating of background assumptions and underlying tenets.
As an example at one point he states, "…a key stated or unstated goal of therapy for many patients is the growth or enhancement of a sense of self, of which the growth of more mature or adaptive defense mechanisms including the use of humor is such an important part,” (Middleton, 2007). The author does significant disservice by falling back to psychoanalytic "conventional wisdom. The author does in a few small instances actually get past the rather ambiguous and sloppy utilization of the construct of humor to talk about the utilization of humor as a tool in psychoanalytic modality. He posits - following one of his anecdotal, quasi-case studies - that it is important for an early key intervention to get patients to acknowledge the broad range of the feelings and emotions which they experience and that humor can do that by moving them away from the concept of a singularly angry persona.
The author further obfuscates the utilization of humor as a tool when he quotes Freud saying, "humor can be regarded as the highest of these defense processes,” (Valliant, 1977, cited by Middleton). The author has moved from his stated purpose of discussing humor as a tool in a particular therapeutic modality to a completely different construct of humor in terms of one the manifestations of a patient's behavior. The author intersperses quotes from Freud, and Freud's perspective of humor as a symptomatic manifestation with a significant number of bad jokes.Following this rather convoluted and questionable collection of literature review, questionable quasi-case studies, and questionably subjective opinions from the writers experience as a psychoanalyst, he concludes with still another vague and less than scientifically sound conclusion: "yet I suspect humor represents one of the strongest mechanisms for effecting understanding and, if used respectfully, in conveying empathy and stimulating growth,” (Middleton, 2007).
Nothing in this significantly flawed scholarly journal article suggests any relationship between the use of humor as a therapeutic modality and either of those therapeutic goals.
