A GESTALT THERAPY APPROACH TO SHAME AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS:

THEORY AND METHODS

Richard G. Erskine
Received November 1995
Abstract:
Shame and self-righteousness are intrapsychic dynamics that help the
individual defend against a rupture in relationship. This article discusses how,
from a life script perspective, shame is comprised of the script belief
'Something is wrong with me', formed as a result of messages and decisions,
conclusions in response to impossible demands, and defensive hope and
control.

In addition, from a Gestalt therapy perspective, shame involves a diminished

self-concept in confluence with criticism, a defensive transposition of
sadness and fear, and disavowal and retroflection of anger. Furthermore,
shame may be an archaic fixation or an introjection. The suggestion is made
that self-righteousness is the denial of a need for relationship. A contactoriented relationship psychotherapy that emphasises methods of inquiry,
attunement, and involvement is described.
Several years ago a colleague telephoned and began the conversation by
criticising my behaviour and defining my motivation as pathological.
Although I apologised, attempted to explain the situation, and tried to rectify
the problem in writing, the previously warm and respectful relationship

ended in a lack of communication. In each subsequent attempt to talk to that

person I tripped over my own words, experienced myself as inept, and I
avoided talking about both my feelings and our relationship. The experience
of having been humiliated by the colleague whom I respected left me feeling
a debilitating shame. I longed for a reconnection with the colleague. I wished
that the person would inquire about my feelings and our lack -of
interpersonal contact and recognise and respond empathically and
reciprocally to the humiliating experience I had in the original phone
conversation. The sense of shame and longing for a renewed relationship
compelled me to examine my own internal reactions to the humiliation. In
my own psychotherapy sessions I re-experienced being a little boy of sevenand eight-years, filled with hurt and fear and adapting to a highly critical
teacher. The personal benefit of the psychotherapy was a reclaiming of
sensitivities to others and to myself and a personal sense of contentment.
The professional benefit of resolving my own shame was an evolution in the
therapeutic methods and interactions of my own clinical practice. I was faced
with several questions: how and when do I define people? Do I ascribe
motivation rather than facilitate the person's self-understanding of their
behaviour? What is the effect of my inner affect or behaviour on the other
person? Am I, in my attempt to be therapeutic, implying to the client,
'Something is wrong with you'?
Shame and self-righteousness are protective dynamics to avoid the
vulnerability to humiliation and the loss of contact-in-relationship with others.
When a relationship with another person is tainted by criticism,. ridicule,
blaming, defining, ignoring, or other humiliating behaviours, the, result is an
increased vulnerability in the relationship. The contact or attachment is
disrupted. Shame and self-righteousness result from humiliating disgrace or
reproach
and
a
loss
of
self-esteem.
Both shame and self-righteousness reflect the defences used to avoid
experiencing the intensity of how vulnerable and powerless the individual is
to the loss of relationship. Simultaneously, shame is an expression of an
unaware hope that the other person will take the responsibility to repair the
rupture in relationship. Self-righteousness involves a denial of the need for
relationship.
The theoretical ideas on shame and defensive self-righteousness and the
clinical interventions presented in this article are the result of several years
of my investigating my errors as a therapist, the ruptures I have created in
the therapeutic relationship with clients, and the methods that may increase
a client's sense of shame. A respectful inquiry into each client's
phenomenological experience of our therapeutic dialogue has provided a
trans action- by -transaction exploration of my empathic failures,
misperceptions of developmental levels of functioning, and affective
misattunements - the interruptions to contact- in -relationship. When I take
responsibility for the ruptures in the therapeutic relationship my therapy
focuses on attuning to the client's affective experience and responding with

a. reciprocal affect. My therapeutic involvement is in my consistency,

responsibility, and dependability. It is in the exploration and resolution of the
ruptures in our relationship that I can be most effective in uncovering the
core life script beliefs that determine the significant interpersonal
experiences in my client's life.
Confrontation or an emphasis on intense, emotional expression, or an
excessive value placed on aggression, or an emphasis only on the 'here and
now' all intensify the likelihood that a client may experience being humiliated
in the psychotherapy. Fritz Perls described his confrontive therapy as
teaching clients 'to wipe their own ass' (Perls, 1967). Subsequently, Gestalt
therapy has been characterised as defining clients' behaviours as 'phony',
'irresponsible' or 'babyish'.
To define or confront someone, even if accurately, may devalue and
humiliate them. Genuinely to inquire about an other's experience,
motivation, self-definition, and meaning in their behaviour avoids the
potential of humiliation. To respond with empathy and attunement empowers
the person to express fully feelings, thoughts, perceptions, and talents.
Inquiry, attunement, and involvement - methods of a contactful, relationshipbased Gestalt therapy - invite the client's self-discovery of her/her underlying
meaning and unconscious motivation and enhance an interpersonal contact
that values the client's integrity and sense of self (Erskine, 1995).
Gestalt Therapy Perspectives
In the Gestalt therapy literature the phenomenon of shame has received
little attention, either as a theoretical topic or as an area of therapeutic
concern. Yontef describes a Gestalt therapy perspective on shame and the
use of a dialogical approach in psychotherapy (1993). Evans postulates the
Gestalt therapy of shame as repairing disruptions in relationship (1994).
Wheeler's (1991) description of a clinical case identifies the significance of
shame. Lee's and Wheeler's compilation of a collection of Gestalt therapy
articles, The Voice of Shame (1996), provides a broad spectrum of
understandings on the psychotherapy of shame. Lynne Jacobs (1996)
describes the role of shame and righteousness as a defence against shame,
in both client and therapist as it emerges in the therapeutic dialogue. The
topic of self-righteousness has received no attention, either theoretically or
methodologically.
Clinical practice and theoretical development push and pull each other in
their process of -evolution. Clinical interventions that make use of respect
(Yontef, 1993), the therapeutic dialogue of an I-Thou relationship (Buber,
1970; Jacobs, 1996), inquiry, attunement, and involvement (Erskine, 1993;
Erskine & Trautmann, 1993) have revealed that shame and self-protective
fantasies are dominant in the lives of many clients. These phenomena have
not been adequately placed within a Gestalt therapy theory. My clinical
experience has helped to evolve a theoretical understanding that places

shame and self-righteousness as the result of both introjected shame and as

archaic, fixed gestalten that protect from reproach, humiliation, and the loss
of contact-in-relationship. Both unresolved archaic shame and introjected
shame potentiate the pain of any current criticism, adding a toxicity that
floods current humiliation with debilitating shame or defensive selfrighteousness.
Shame: A Theoretical Clarification
'Me formulation of a Gestalt therapy theory of shame and self-righteousness
requires that the phenomenon be integrated within a theory of contact and
of Gestalt formation and fixation. To arrive at an understanding of how the
phenomena of shame and self-righteousness are manifested it is necessary
to utilise the concept of id-, ego- and personality-function of the self and the
concepts of interruptions to contact, specifically, introjection, retroflection,
and confluence, although it is recognised that many other interruptions to
both internal and external contact are activated in shame and selfrighteousness
(Perls,
Hefferline
and
Goodman,
1951).
In the service of establishing a Gestalt therapy theory that describes the
phenomena of shame and self-righteousness, the terms humiliation and
humiliating transactions are used to refer to interactions that occur between
people where one person degrades, criticises, defines, or ignores the other.
The terms shame and self-righteousness are used to refer to the intrapsychic
dynamics occurring within an individual that may be described as consisting
of introjections, confluence, and/or archaic fixated systems of defence retroflection, deflection, projection, etc.. When the sense of shame has
become fixated it represents an intrapsychic conflict between an influencing
introjection of another person and a defended and confluent archaic fixation:
a child who longed for relationship. Fixation refers to a relatively enduring
pattern of organisation of affect, behaviour, or cognition from some earlier
stage of development which persists into and may dominate later life. It is
the fixated defences that maintain a lack of full contact and interfere with
archaic experiences being integrated into a here and now, fully contactful,
sense of self (Erskine and Moursund, 1988).
Shame is a self-protective process used to avoid the affects that are the
result of humiliation and the vulnerability to the loss of contact- inrelationship with another person. When children, and even adults, are
criticised, devalued, or humiliated by significant others, the need for
interpersonal contact and the vulnerability in maintaining the relationship
may produce a self-protective defensive affect and confluence with the
imposed diminishing definitions -a sense of shame. Shame is a complex
process involving:
1. a diminished self-concept, a lowering of one's self worth in confluence with
the external humiliation and/or previously introjected criticism;
2. a defensive transposition of sadness and fear;

3. a disavowal and retroflection of anger

Shame involves a disavowal and retroflection of anger in order to maintain a
semblance of a connected relationship with the person who engaged in
humiliating transactions. When anger is disavowed and retroflected a
valuable aspect of -the self is lost - the need to be taken seriously,
respectfully, and to make an impact on the other person. One's self-worth is
diminished because both id- and ego-functions of self are disrupted. Shame
also involves a transposition of the affects of sadness and fear: the sadness
at not being accepted as one is, with one's own urges, desires, needs,
feelings, and behaviours, and the fear of abandonment in the relationship
because of whom one is. The fear and a loss of an aspect of self (disavowal
and retroflection of anger) fuel the pull to compliance - a lowering of one's
self esteem to establish compliance with the criticism and/or humiliation. The
confluence with the humiliation, the transposition of fear and sadness, and
the disavowal of anger produce the 'sense of shame and doubt' described by
Erikson (1950). Writing from a feminist perspective on relationship therapy,
both Miller (1987) and Jordan (1989) validate this explanation by relating
shame to the loss of human connection.
Shame is most importantly a felt sense of unworthiness to be in connection,
a deep sense of unloveability, with the ongoing awareness of how very much
one wants to connect with others. While shame involves extreme self
consciousness, it also signals powerful relationship longings.
(Jordan, 1989, p. 6).
Kaufman similarly expresses that shame reflects the need for relationship. 'In
the midst of shame, there is an ambivalent longing for reunion with
whomever shamed us (1989, p. 19). Shame is an expression of an unaware
hope that the other will take responsibility to repair the rupture in the
relationship. Tomkins (1963) said that shame is the affect present when there
has been a loss of dignity, defeat, transgression, and alienation. He implied
that shame is an affect different in nature and function from the other eight
affects in his theoretical schema. The affect of shame, according to Tomkins,
(Nathanson, 1992), serves as an alternator or impediment to other affects - a
defensive cover for interest and joy. Tomkins's ideas parallel Fraiberg's (1983)
observations of the formation of psychological defences in children. She
described the process of 'transformation of affect' (p. 71) where one affect is
substituted or transposed for another when the original affect fails to get the
necessary contact between the child and the caretaking adult, sometimes as
early as nine months of age. When the child is humiliated, the fear of a loss
of relationship and the sadness of not being accepted are transposed into
the affect of shame. Shame is composed of sadness and fear, the disavowal
and retroflection of anger and a lowered self-concept - confluence with the
humiliation.
This confluence with the humiliation insures a semblance of a continuing
relationship and, paradoxically, is a defence as well. This self-protective
lowering of worth is observable among wild animals where one animal will

crouch in the presence of another to avoid an attack and to guarantee

acceptance. It is self-protective to lower one's status to withhold aggression
where a fight for dominance might occur. The lowered self-concept or selfcriticism that is a part of shame lessens the pain of the rupture in
relationship while at the same time maintaining a semblance of relationship.
The often quoted boxing coach's phrase, 'Beat 'em to the punch' describes
the function of a lowered self-esteem and self-criticism that is a defence
against possible humiliation from others. However, the punch is delivered to
one's self in the form of diminished self-worth.
A Defensive Fantasy
As a normal developmental process, young children often use fantasy as a
way to provide controls, structure, nurturing, or whatever was experienced
as missing or inadequate. The function of the fantasy may be to structure
behaviour as a protection from consequences or to provide love and
nurturance when the real caretakers are cold, absent, or abusive. The
fantasy serves as a buffer between the actual parental figures and the
desires, needs, or feelings of the young child. In families or situations where,
it is necessary to repress an awareness of needs, feelings, and memories in
order to survive or be accepted, the self-created fantasy may become fixated
and not integrated with later developmental learning. Over time the fantasy
functions as a 'reversal' of aggression (Fraiberg, 1983, p. 73): the criticism,
devaluation, and humiliation that the child may have been subject to are
amplified and turned against the self as in self-criticism or self-abjection
(retroflection). Such shame-based fantasies serve to maintain an illusion of
attachment to a caring relationship when the actual relationship may have
been ruptured with humiliation (a disruption of ego function of the self).
Many clients report a persistent sense of shame accompanied by degrading
self-criticism. They repeatedly imagine humiliating failures of performance or
relationship. In fantasy they amplify the confluence with introjected criticism
and humiliation while defending against the memories of the original
sadness at not being accepted as one is and the fear of abandonment
because of who one is. When emotion-laden memories of early traumatic
humiliations are defensively repressed, they may re-emerge in
consciousness as fantasies of future failure or degradation-foresight may
actually be hindsight! 'Me self-criticism and fantasy of humiliating failure
serve two additional functions: to maintain the disavowal of anger (a
disruption of id-function of self) and to protect against the shock of possible
forthcoming criticisms and degradation (an interruption to contact at the precontact stage).
Self-Righteousness: A Double Defence
Self-righteousness serves an even more elaborate function than the
defensive aspects of shame. Self-righteousness is a self-generated fantasy

(occasionally manifested in overt transactions) that defends against the pain

of the loss of relationship while providing a pseudo-triumph over the
humiliation and an inflation in self-esteem. While shame and self-criticising
fantasies leave the person feeling devalued and longing for a repair in the
relationship, self-righteous fantasies are a desperate attempt to escape
humiliation and be free of shame by justifying oneself.
Self-righteousness is:
1. a defence against the sadness and fear of humiliation;
2. an expression of the need to make an impact and be taken seriously and
respectfully (a partial release of disavowed and retroflected anger);
3. a defence against the awareness of the need for the other to repair the
ruptured
relationship.
The person fantasises value for himself or herself often by finding fault with
others and then loses awareness of the need for the other. The self is
experienced
as
superior.
As Alfred Adler described, a fantasy of superiority defends against the
memories of humiliation (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1956) and projects the
sense of shame outward. A clinical case
example may illustrate this concept.
Robert, a 39-year-old married father of two had been in group therapy for
two-and-a-half years. Robert described that, while driving to work, he would
frequently fantasise arguing with his co-workers or department supervisor.
He often elaborated these fantasies with an imagined long, well-articulated
oration before the board of directors. In these fantasised arguments he would
point out the errors of others, how their criticisms of Robert were wrong, and
most important, how they had made mistakes that he, Robert, would never
have made. The board of directors in Robert's fantasy would be emotionally
swayed by Robert's eloquent and convincing arguments. He would be
exonerated of all criticism while the others would be blamed both for
criticising him and also for their own failings. These obsessive fantasies were
often initiated by some criticism at work that was not accompanied by an
opportunity for Robert to explain his motivation. The lack of continued
dialogue with people seemed to propel him to obsessive fantasy wherein he
could debate with the other in front of an audience that in the end agreed
that Robert was correct, even righteous. These obsessive fantasies gradually
diminished and finally ceased when we explored the humiliations he
experienced repeatedly in early elementary school at a time when he had a
speech impediment. Both teachers and other children made fun of his
impediment. Although in psychotherapy he could not remember any of the
specific instances of taunts or mockery, he knew that they had ridiculed him.
He had a constant sense of their reaction to him as implying 'Something's
wrong
with
you'.
Over the years he painstakingly worked on improving his speech, overcame
the impediment, and eventually developed an impeccable diction. However,

for four years of elementary school he had been subject to the humiliation by
the other children and by teachers. In confluence with the humiliating
behaviour of teachers and classmates, he adopted the life script belief,
'Something's wrong with me' as an explanation for his loss of close
friendships with other children and his desire to be approved of by the
teachers. He further defended against the awareness of the life script belief
by perfecting his speech. No matter how perfect his speech became in adult
life, whenever someone criticised him he would listen intently to their
comments. The current criticisms would activate the emotional memories of
earlier humiliations wherein the introjected criticisms would intrapsychically
influence the fixated archaic shame, thereby potentiating the current
criticisms. To comfort himself, on the way to work the next day he would
obsessively defend himself from this colleagues' or supervisor's remarks,
longing for someone (the board of directors) to say he wag right.
In Robert's case the defensive process of disavowal and retroflection of
anger, confluence with the original criticism, transposition of affect, and
fantasy became fixated like any defensive process that is not responded to
early in its inception with an empathic and affectively attuned relationship
(Erskine, 1993). It was through respect for Robert's style of relating to people
and a gentle and genuine inquiry into Robert's experience that he began to
reveal the presence of his obsessive fantasies. The self-righteous fantasies
defended against the natural desire for contact- in -relationship and his need
for the others to repair the ruptured relationship. Through affective
attunement and empathic transactions he was able to experience the
original shame - the sadness, fear, anger, and confluence in response to the
humiliations. When expressing the sadness and fear at the loss of contact in
his relationships with teachers and other children, he rediscovered his
longing to be connected with others (an id-function of self). The defensive
fantasies stopped. Tender involvement on the part of the therapist and other
group members made it possible for Robert to experience his need for close
emotional contact as natural and desirable.
The Life Script
The central Gestalt therapy concepts of contact, interruptions to internal and
external contact, and an 'I-Thou' therapeutic dialogue provide the basis for a
contact- in-relationship-oriented psychotherapy. In the psychotherapy of
shame and self-righteousness, as with many other psychological
disturbances rooted in disturbance of relationship, the therapy is enhanced if
the psychotherapist has a consistent and cohesive relationship-oriented
theoretical basis for determining treatment planning and subsequent clinical
interventions.
In theoretical discussions and in writing, Frederick Perls used the concept of
life script (1967, 1973). He focused on the structure and reorganisation of
the life script and how individuals use other people to reinforce the life script.
Life script is an encompassing concept that describes fixed gestalten of an

earlier age as they are lived out years later (Erskine, 1979). The life script is
formed by introjections and defensive reactions made under the pressure of
failures in contactful and supporting relationships. The need for contact and
the related feeling of loss of relationship are denied and suppressed. The
introjections and/or fixated defensive reactions, conclusions, and decisions
that form the core of the life script (Erskine, 1980) are cognitively organised
as 'script beliefs' (Erskine and Zalcman, 1979; Erskine and Moursund, 1988).
In a child's attempt to make sense of the experience of a lack of contact-inrelationship he or she is faced. with answering the question: 'What does a
person like me do in a world like this with people like you?' When the child is
under the pressure of a lack of contact-in-relationship that acknowledges,
validates, or fulfils needs, each of the three parts of this question may be
answered with a defensive reaction and/or the unconscious defensive
identification with the other that constitutes introjection. When the
introjections and the defensive conclusions and decisions are not responded
to by a contactful, empathic other person they often become, in an attempt
to gain self-support, fixated beliefs about self, others, and the quality of life the core of the life script. These script beliefs function as a cognitive defence
against the awareness of the feelings and needs for contact- in -relation ship
that were not adequately responded to at the time when the script beliefs
were formed. The presence of script beliefs indicates a continuing defence
against the awareness of needs for contact- in-relationship and the full
memory of the disruptions in relationship - an archaic, fixated gestalt.
In Robert's case, during the elementary school years he adopted the script
belief, 'Something is wrong with me' as a confluence with the humiliation by
the children and teachers and as a pseudo-satisfaction of his need to be
accepted by them. The core of Robert's sense of shame consists of a child's
defensive transposition of sadness and fear, a disavowal and retroflection of
anger at not being treated respectfully, and a fixated diminished self-concept
in confluence with the introjected criticism. When the pain of not being
accepted as one is becomes too great, as in Robert's situation, a defensive
self-righteous fantasy may be used to deny the need for relationship while
simultaneously expressing the previously disavowed and retroflected anger,
the need to make an impact, and the desire to be treated respectfully.
From the perspective of life script theory the sense of shame is comprised of
the core script belief, 'Something's wrong with me' that serves as a cognitive
defence against the awareness of the needs for relationship and the feelings
of sadness and fear present, at the time of the humiliating experiences.
When the script belief 'Something's wrong with me' is operational the overt
behaviours of the life script are often those that are described as inhibited or
inadequate: shyness, lack of eye contact in conversation, lack of selfexpression, diminished expression of natural wants or needs, or any
inhibition of natural expression of one's self that may be subject to criticism.
Fantasies may include the anticipation of inadequacy, failures of
performance, or criticism that conclude with a reinforcement of the script

belief, 'Something is wrong with me!.. Other fantasies may involve a

rehashing of events that have occurred and reshaping memory in such a way
as to reinforce the script beliefs. In some cases, the script belief is
manifested in physiological restrictions such as headaches, stomach
tensions, or other physical discomforts that inhibit the individual from
behaving in such a way that might be subject to humiliating comments from
others, while simultaneously providing internal evidence that 'Something's
wrong with me'. Often old memories of humiliating experiences are
repeatedly recalled to maintain a homeostasis (Perls, 1973) with the script
beliefs and the denial of the original needs and feelings. Yet in inhibiting
one's self or in self-criticising fantasies, the need for contact-in-relationship
remains as an unaware hope for the re-establishment of a contactful
relationship and for full acceptance by the other. It is as if he were saying to
those who did the ridiculing, 'If I become what you define me to be, then will
you love me?'.
Robert, as an example of the dynamics of a double defence of selfrighteousness, entered therapy unaware of any hope or need for
relationship. His life script was manifested, seemingly opposite to the script
belief: he perfected his speech and behaviour in such a way that there was
no external evidence that 'Something's wrong with me'. His fantasies were
self-righteous, focusing on what was wrong with the others. Yet he remained
hypersensitive to criticism with an unaware longing for someone in authority
to tell him he was OK.
'Something's Wrong With Me'
The compounded and continual reinforcement of the script belief, 'Something
is wrong with me' presents the therapist with complex challenges which are
specific and unique to the psychotherapy of shame and self-righteousness. In
many clinical cases this particular script belief is inflexible to the frequentlyused Gestalt therapy methods that involve hot seat work, confrontation,
aggressive encounters, and an emphasis on self-support or self-responsibility.
Each of these sets of methods provides only partial or temporary change in
the frequency or the intensity of the complex script belief that is at the core
of shame and self-righteousness. In fact, the very use of these methods
frequently communicates 'Something is wrong with you', which then can
serve as a reinforcement of the script belief, increase the denial of the need
for contact-in-relationship, and thereby increase the sense of shame or selfrighteousness. Through the use of methods that emphasise respect (Erskine
and Moursund, 1988), the therapeutic dialogue (Yontef, 1993 and Jacobs,
1996), and gentle inquiry, affective attunement and involvement (Erskine,
1993; Erskine and Trautmann, 1993; Erskine, 1995), the opportunity for
reinforcement of the script belief during the therapy process is considerably
lessened.
In order to facilitate treatment planning and refine psychotherapeutic

interventions, it is essential to distinguish the intrapsychic functions as well

as the historical origins of the script belief. The complex historical origin of an
archaic, fixated gestalt 'Something is wrong with me' can be understood from
three perspectives: messages with confluent decisions; conclusions in
response to an impossibility; and defensive reactions of hope and control.
Each of the ways in which the script belief was formed has unique
intrapsychic functions that require specific emphasis in psychotherapy.
In the face of a potential loss of relationship, a child may be forced to make a
defensive, confluent decision to accept as his identity the definition of those
on whom he is dependent (a disruption of ego function of self). This may be
an adaptation to and confluence with overt or implicit messages of
'Something's wrong with you'. In many cases the message is delivered in the
form of a criticising question, 'What's wrong with you?' The psychological
message is, 'You wouldn't be doing what you are doing if you were normal'.
Such criticism fails to value the child's natural and spontaneous behaviour,
understand the child's motivation, or investigate what may be missing in the
relationship between the child and the person criticising. A child who forms
such a script belief in confluence with criticism may become hypersensitive
to criticism, fantasise anticipated criticisms, and collect reinforcing memories
of past criticisms (a disruption of personality -function of the self). The
intrapsychic function is to maintain a sense of attachment in the relationship
at the expense of a loss in natural vitality and the excitement of spontaneity
(a disruption of id-function of the self).
When children are faced with an impossible task, they often conclude,
'Something's wrong with me'. In such a conclusion they can defend against
the discomfort of the missing contact needs and maintain a pseudosemblance of relationship. Dysfunctional families often present impossible
demands on children. It is impossible, for instance, for a young child to stop
an alcoholic parent from getting drunk, or a baby to act as a marriage
therapist, or an elementary school child to cure depression. It is impossible
for a child to change gender to satisfy a parent's desire to have a dream
fulfilled. Each of these examples represents a reversal of the caretaker's
responsibility to the welfare of the child and a loss of contact in relationship.
Further disruptions in relationship are experienced as 'my fault' and deflect
from the awareness of needs and feelings present when the welfare of the
child is and was not being honoured (disruptions of both id- and egofunctions of the self).
The script belief, 'Something's wrong with me', may be formed in a third way,
as a defensive reaction of control and hope - the hope for a continuing,
interpersonally contactful relationship. When family relationships are
dysfunctional," a child, needing contact-in-relationship, may imagine that the
caretaker's problems are his/her own fault. 'I made dad get drunk,' or 'I made
mother get depressed', or 'I caused the sexual abuse to happen ... so
therefore, something must be wrong with me!' By taking the blame, the child
is not only the source of the problems, but can also imagine being in control

of solving the family's problems: 'I'll be very good'; 'I'll hurry up and grow up';
'I can go to therapy to get fixed'; or 'If things get very bad I can kill myself
since it is all my fault'. The function of such reactions is to create a hopeful
illusion of need-fulfilling caretakers that defends against the awareness of a
lack of need fulfilment within the primary relationships. The caretakers are
experienced as good and loving and any ignoring, criticising, beating, or
even rape is because 'something's wrong with me'. Here the core script
belief may function as a defensive control of the vulnerability in relationship
(a disruption of id-, ego-, and personality- functions of the self).
Each of these three origins of the core script belief has specific homeostatic
functions of identity, stability and continuity. With any particular person there
may be only one way the script belief was formed. Frequently, however, the
core script beliefs have more than one origin, multiple intrapsychic functions,
and multiple disruptions of the function of self. Any combination of these
three defensive reactions made under pressure increases the complexity of
the functions. The core script belief, 'Something's wrong with me' is often
compounded by these multiple functions.
It is essential in an in-depth Gestalt therapy to assess the origins and
intrapsychic functions of a script belief and to value the significance of how
those multiple functions help the client maintain psychological homeostasis
(Perls, 1973). The psychotherapy of shame and self righteousness is complex
because of the compounded and continually reinforcing multiple intrapsychic
functions. Merely to identify or confront a script belief and attempt methods
of empty chair work, emotional expression, or premature self support,
overlooks the psychological functions in forming and maintaining the script
belief. Such efforts may increase the intensity of the intrapsychic function
and may make the fixed core of the life script less flexible. A respectful and
patient inquiry into the client's phenomenological experience is required to
learn the unique combination of intrapsychic, homeostatic, and self
functions. It is then the task of a relationship-oriented Gestalt therapist to
establish an affective, developmental attunement and involvement that
provides for the transferring of defensive intrapsychic functions to the
relationship with the therapist. Through the therapist's consistency,
dependability, and responsibility in contact-in-relationship the client can
relax defensive contact-interrupting processes and integrate archaicallyfixated .gestalten, introjections, and id, ego-and personality- functions of the
self. The psychological functions of identity, stability and continuity are once
again provided through contact in an interpersonal relationship and are no
longer a self-protective function.
Shame as an Introjection
When the fixated core script belief is formed either as compliant decisions,
conclusions in response to an impossibility, defensive reactions of hope and
control, or any combination of the three, there is most likely an absence of a
caring, understanding, and communicating relationship. When there is a lack

of full psychological contact between a child and the adults responsible for
his or her welfare, the defence of introjection is frequently used. Through the
defensive, unaware identification that constitutes introjection, the beliefs,
attitudes, feelings, motivations, behaviours, and defences of the person on
whom the child is dependent are made part of the child's ego as a
fragmented, exteropsychic state (Erskine and Moursund, 19-88). The function
of introjection is to reduce the external conflict between the child and the
person on whom the child depends for need fulfilment. The significant other
is made part of the self, and the conflict resulting from the lack of need
fulfilment is internalised, so the conflict can seemingly be managed more
easily (L. Perls, 1977, 1978). The introjected other may be active in
transactions with others (a disruption in personality -function of the self),
intrapsychically influencing (a disruption in id-function of the self), or
phenomenologically experienced as self (a disruption in ego-function of the
self).
An individual may transact with family members or colleagues as the
introjected other once did, for example, communicating, 'Something's wrong
with you!' The function of such a transaction is to provide temporary relief
from the internal criticism of an introjection and, via projection of the
criticism, to continue the denial of the original need for contact-inrelationship.
The internal criticism is A replay of the criticism introjected in the past. It
perpetuates the cycle of confluence with the criticism and the archaic,
fixated defence against sadness and fear. This defensive cycle of shame
functions to maintain an illusion of attachment and loyalty to the person with
whom the child was originally longing for an interpersonally contactful
relationship.
Introjected shame may not only be active and/or influencing, but may also be
experienced as self. The parent's sense of shame may have been introjected.
With the cathexis or energising of the introjection the shame is misidentified
as one's own. The script belief - 'Something's wrong with me' - may actually
exist as an introjected other. The cycle of shame-confluence with the
criticism, transposition of sadness and fear, the disavowal and retroflection
of anger, and longing for relationship - may be mother's or father's.
Defensive self-righteousness may also be the result of the cathexis of an
introjection.
For years Susan had suffered with a debilitating shame related to her own
sense of inadequacy, having a mother who was alternately depressed and
angry, and fearing that she would someday be 'crazy' too. The initial phase
of therapy acknowledged her own needs for attention, validated the
emotional neglect of her childhood, and normalised the defensive process of
'Something's wrong with me'. The psychotherapy then focused on the
introjected shame that was originally mother's (Erskine & Moursund,- 1988).
With a contact-oriented, in-depth Gestalt therapy that emphasised inquiry,
attunement, and involvement, Susan experimented with a two-chair dialogue

where, in one chair she was 'mother' and in the other chair the 'Susan of a
much younger age'. She was able to remember vividly wanting to bear the
burden for her mother so her mother could be free of suffering. During the
two-chair dialogue,. she succinctly described the process of unconsciously
introjecting: 'I love you so much, Mom, I'll carry your shame for you!'
Psychotherapeutic Interventions
The psychotherapy of shame and self-righteousness begins with the
therapist newly discovering each client's unique psychodynamics. Each
shame-based client will present a different cluster of behaviours, fantasies,
intrapsychic functions, interruptions to contact, disruptions of self, and selfprotective defences. The theoretical perspectives described in this article are
generalisations from clinical practice and the integration of several
theoretical concepts. The theory is not meant to represent a statement of
what is, but rather to serve as a guide in the therapeutic process of inquiry,
attunement, and involvement. Importantly, the phenomenon of shame and
self-righteousness explained within the perspectives of Gestalt therapy
theory may encourage Gestalt therapists to explore with each client his or
her unique experience of shame and to adopt a relationship-oriented
psychotherapy approach.
A patient, respectful inquiry into the client's phenomenological experience
will provide both the client and therapist with an ever increasing
understanding of who the client is and the experiences to which he or she
has been subjected. The process of inquiring must be sensitive to the client's
subjective experience and unaware intrapsychic dynamics to be effective in
discovering and revealing needs, feelings, fantasies, and defences. A major
focus of a gentle inquiry is the client's self discovering of longing for
relationship, interruptions to contact (both internally and externally), and
memories that have in the past necessarily been excluded from awareness.
A less important focus is the psychotherapist's increased understanding of
the client's phenomenological experience and intrapsychic functioning. In
many cases it has been important to clients to discover that the therapist is
genuinely interested in listening to them and in knowing who they are. Such
discoveries about the relationship with the psychotherapist present a
juxtaposition between the contact available in the here and now and the
memory of what may have been absent in the past.
The juxtaposition of the therapist's inquiry, listening, and attunement with
the memory of a lack of interpersonal contact in previous significant
relationships produces intense, emotional memories of relational needs not
being met. Rather than experience those feelings, the client may react
defensively to the interpersonal contact offered by the therapist with fear,
anger, or increased shame. The contrast between the interpersonal contact
available with the therapist and the lack of contact-in-relationship in the past
is often more than clients can bear, so they defend against the current
contact to avoid the emotional memories (Erskine, 1993). The juxtaposition

presents an opportunity to acknowledge what was needed and to validate

that feelings and self-esteem may well be related to the quality of
relationship
with
significant
others.
Shame may be a significant dynamic in most relationship difficulties,
including depression, anxiety, obesity, addictions, and characterological
presentations. The therapist's attunement to the unexpressed sense of
shame provides the opportunity for clients to reveal their inner processes of
feelings, fantasies, desires and defences. Attunement involves a sense of
being fully aware of the developmentally -based needs, affect, and selfprotective dynamics - a kinaesthetic and emotional sensing of what it is like
to live with their experiences. Attunement occurs in the therapist's honouring
the client's developmental level of coping with shame and the absence of
any defining or categorising of the client's fantasies, motivations, or
behaviour. Attunement also involves sensitively communicating to the client
that the therapist is aware of the inner struggles; that he or she is not all
alone in the sadness at not having been accepted as one is, and in the fear
of loss of relationship because of whom one is. The therapeutic processes of
attunement and involvement acknowledge the difficulty in revealing the
inner confusion and struggles, value the desperate attempt at self-support
and coping, and simultaneously provide a sense of the therapist's presence.
Some clients who are shame-based will not have the experience of talking
about needs nor have a sense of language that is related to affect and inner
processes. In some families, to have needs or express emotion may result in
the child being ignored or ridiculed. When there has been a lack of
attunement, acknowledgment, or validation of needs or feelings within the
family or school system, the client may have no language of relationship with
which to communicate about his or her affect and needs (Basch, 1985;
Tustin, 1986). There is often an absence in such family or school systems of
the interpersonal affective contact (a non-verbal transaction) where the
expression of affect by one person in relationship stimulates a corresponding
affect of reciprocity in the other.
Affect is transactional-relational in its nature, requiring a corresponding
affect
in
resonance.
The expression of the affect sadness is to elicit compassion and possible acts
of
compassion;
Anger is to elicit affect related to attentiveness, seriousness, and
responsibility and perhaps acts of correction; Fear is to elicit affects and
actions of security; Joy is to elicit affects of vitality and expression of
pleasure.
This concept of affect is embodied in a two-person psychology or field theory
perspective that is a basis of Gestalt therapy (Perls, 1944), although
sometimes not accounted for in therapeutic practice. When an individual's
affect is received by another as a relational transaction, the affect can be

fully expressed. Metaphorically, the yin of the affect is met by the yang of a
reciprocal affect in response.
Attunement includes the therapist's sensing of the client's affect and in
reciprocity is stimulated to express a corresponding affect and resonating
behaviour, a process similar to the one Daniel Stern (1985) described in
healthy interactions between infant and his or her mother. The reciprocal
affect in the therapist may be expressed by acknowledging the client's affect
and leads to validation that affect has a function in their relationship. It is
essential that the therapist be both knowledgeable of, and attuned to, the
client's developmental level in the expression of emotions. The client may
need to have his or her affect and needs acknowledged but lacks the social
language to express the emotions in conversation. It may be necessary for
the therapist to help the client name his or her feelings, needs, or
experiences as an initial step
in gaining a sense of making an impact in relationship.
Involvement begins with the therapist's commitment to the client's welfare
and a respect for his/her phenomenological experiences. It evolves from the
therapist's empathic inquiry into the client's experience and is developed
through the therapist's attunement with the client's affect and validation of
needs. Involvement is the result of the therapist being fully contactful with
and for the client in a way that corresponds to the client's developmental
level
of
functioning.
Shame and self-righteousness are defensive processes wherein an
individual's worth is discounted and the existence, significance, and/or
solvability of a relationship disturbance is distorted or denied. A therapist's
involvement that makes use of acknowledgment. validation, normalisation,
and presence diminishes the internal interruptions to contact that is part of
the defensive denial accompanying shame.
Through sensitivity to the manifestation of shame and in understanding the
intrapsychic functions of shame and self-righteousness, a psychotherapist
can guide a client to acknowledge and express feelings and needs for
relationship. Acknowledgment is the therapeutic counterpart to discounting
the existence of a disturbance in relationship. Acknowledgment becomes
internal and dissolves the internal interruption to contacting affect or needs
when given by a receptive other who knows and communicates about
relational
needs
and
feelings.
Therapeutic validation occurs when the client's sense of shame, diminished
self-worth, and defensive fantasies are experienced as the effect of
significant relationship disturbances. Validation is the cognitive linking of
cause and effect, the therapeutic response to discounting the significance of
a disturbance in relationship. Validation provides a client with an enhanced
value of phenomenological experience and therefore an 'increased sense of
self-esteem.
Normalisation is to depathologise and to counter the discounting of the
solvability of a relationship disturbance. Many clients as children were told,
'Something's wrong with you' or when faced with the impossibility of being

responsible for their parents' welfare, concluded 'Something's wrong with

me'. The burden of responsibility for the rupture of relationship was falsely
placed on the child and not on a grown-up caretaker. The therapeutic
counterpart to discounting the solvability of a problem is the assigning of
responsibility for the relationship. It is imperative that the therapist
communicates that a client's experience of shame, self-criticism, or
anticipated ridicule is a normal defensive reaction to being humiliated or
ignored, and is not pathological.
The assignment of responsibility may begin with a therapist actively taking
responsibility for any breach in the therapeutic relationship. Most therapeutic
breaks occur when a therapist fails to attune to the client's affective or nonverbal communication (Kohut, 1984). When a client bears the responsibility
for the relationship the discounting of the solvability continues and the sense
of shame is reinforced. It may be necessary for a therapist to take total
responsibility for not understanding the client's phenomenological
experience, not valuing his or her defensive process, or not being attuned to
the client's affect and needs.
Presence is the therapeutic involvement that serves as a counterpoint to the
discounting of an individual's self-worth. Therapeutic presence is provided
through sustained empathic inquiry (Stolorow, Bandschaft, and Atwood,
1987) and consistent attunement to the developmental level of affect and
needs. Presence involves the therapist's attentiveness and patience. It
communicates that the psychotherapist is responsible, dependable, and
reliable. Presence occurs when the behaviour and communication of the
therapist at all times respects and enhances the worth of the client. Presence
is enhanced by the therapist's willingness to be impacted by the client's
affect and phenomenological experience - to take the client's experience
seriously. It is more than communication, it is communion - full interpersonal
contact.
The psychotherapist's involvement through transactions that acknowledge,
validate, and normalise the client's phenomenological experience is the
antidote to the toxicity of discounting the existence, significance, or
responsibility for solving the disruptions of contact-in-relationship. The
dependable, attuned presence of the therapist is the antidote to discounting
the worth of the individual (Bergman, 1991; Jordan, 1989; Miller, 1987;
Surrey,
1985).
The effective psychotherapy of shame and self-righteousness requires a
therapist's commitment to contact-in-relationship, a commitment of
patience, and. an understanding that such therapy is complex and requires a
considerable amount of time. Inquiry, attunement, and involvement are all a
mental orientation, a way of being in relationship, as well as sets of
therapeutic skills. When used in resonance with the developmental level of a
client's functioning, they are methods of providing a caring, understanding
relationship that allows a client to express a sense of self-value that may
never have been expressed before. Inquiry, attunement, and involvement

are descriptions of respectful interactions that foster contact-in-relationship.

It is through a contact-oriented, relationship-focused psychotherapy that
protective dynamics of shame and self-righteousness are revealed and
dissolved. A Gestalt therapy focus on contact-in-relationship enhances an
individual's capacity for full internal and external contact.
References
Ansbacher, H.L. and Ansbacher, R.R. (1956). The Individual Psychology of
Alfred
Adler.
Basic
Books,
New
York.
Basch, S. (1985). Narcissistic States and the Therapeutic Process. Jason
Aronson,
New
York.
Bergman, S.J. (1991). Men's psychological development: A relational
perspective. Work in Progress, Vol 48. Stone Center Working Paper Series,
Wellesley.
Buber, M. (1970). 1 and Thou. Scribner's Sons, New York.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and Society. W. W. Norton, New York.
Erskine, R.G. (1979). Lifescript: The fixed gestalt years later. Workshop
presented at the First Annual Gestalt Therapy Conference, New York, New
York.
Erskine, R. G. (1980). Script cure: Behavioral, intrapsychic and physiological.
Transactional
Analysis
Journal,
10,
2,
pp.
102-106.
Erskine, R.G. (1993). Inquiry, attunement, and involvement in the
psychotherapy of dissociation.Transactional Analysis Journal, 23, 4, pp. 184190.
Erskine, R.G. (1995). Inquiry, attunement, and involvement: Methods of
Gestalt Therapy. Workshop presented at the First Annual Conference of the
Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy, New Orleans. Available
on
audiotape,
Goodkind
of
Sound,
(#SU8
A&B),
Sylva,
NC.
Erskine, R.G. and Moursund, J. (1988) Integrative Psychotherapy in Action.
Sage
Publications,
Newbury
Park.
Erskine, R.G. and Trautmann, R.L. (1993). The process of integrative
psychotherapy. In B.R. Loria (Ed.), The Boardwalk Papers: Selections from the
1993 Eastern Regional Transactional Analysis Association Conference.
Eastern Regional Transactional Analysis Association, Atlantic City.
Erskine, R. and Zalcman, M. (1979). The racket system: A model for racket
analysis.
Transactional
Analysis
Journal,
9
,
1,
pp.
51-59.
Evans, K. (1994). Healing shame: A Gestalt perspective. Transactional
Analysis
Journal,
24,
2,
pp.
103
-108.
Fraiberg, S. (1983). Pathological defences in infancy. Dialogue: A Journal of
Psychoanalytic
Perspectives,
Fall,
pp.
65-75.
Jacobs, L. (1996). Shame in the therapeutic dialogue. In Lee, R. & Wheeler, G.
(Eds.), The Voice of Shame: Silence and Connection in Psychotherapy. JosseyBass
Publishers,
San
Francisco.
Jordan, J.V. (1989). Relational development: Therapeutic implications of
empathy and shame.Work in Progress, No. 39. Stone Center Working Paper
Series,
Wellesley.

Kaufman, G. (1989). The Psychology of Shame. Springer, New York.

Lee, R. and Wheeler, G. (1996). The Voice o Shame: of Silence and
Connection in Psychotherapy. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
Miller, J.B. (1987). Toward a New Psychology of Women (2nd ed.). Beacon,
Boston.
Nathanson, D. (1992). Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self
W.
W.
Norton,
New
York.
Perls, F. (1944). Ego, Hunger and Aggression: A Revision of Freud's Theory
and Method. The Knox Publishing Co., Durban, South Africa.
Perls, F. (1967). Gestalt Therapy: Here and Now. Workshop (September),
Chicago.
Perls, F. (1973). The Gestalt Approach and Eye Witness to Therapy. Science
and
Behaviour
Books,
Palo
Alto.
Perls, F, Hefferline, R. and Goodman, P. (195 1). Gestalt Therapy: Excitement
and Growth in the Human Personality. Julian Press, New York.
Perls, L. (1977). Conceptions and misconceptions in Gestalt Therapy. Keynote
address, European Association for Transactional Analysis Conference,
Seefeld,
Austria.
Perls, L. (1978). An oral history of Gestalt Therapy, Part I: A conversation with
Laura Perls, by Edward Rosenthal. The Gestalt Journal, 1, 1, pp. 8-3 1.
Stem, D. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant.. Basic Books, New
York.
Stolorow, R.D., Brandschaft, B.' and Atwood, G. (1987). Psychoanalytic
Treatment: An Intersubjective Approach.. Analytic Press, Hill e, NJ.
Surrey, J.L. (1985). The 'self-in-relation' A theory of women's development.
Work in Progress, No. 13. Stone Center Working Paper Series, Wellesley.
Tomkins, S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness. The Positive Affects (Vol.
1).
Springer,
New
York.
Tomkins, S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness. The Negative Affects
(Vol.
2).
Springer,
New
York.
Tustin, F. (1986). Autistic Barriers in Neurotic Patients. Karnac Books, London.
Wheeler,
G.
(1991).
Gestalt
Reconsidered:
A
New
Richard G. Erskine, Ph.D. is the training director of The Institute for
Integrative Psychotherapy, New York City. He serves on the faculty of the
New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy, the Indianapolis Institute for Gestalt
Therapy, and the Sherwood Psychotherapy Training Institute in Nottingham,
England.
Address for correspondence: Institute for Integrative Psychotherapy, 500 E.
85th
Street,
New
York,
NY
10028,
U.S.A.
Notes
1 The author gratefully acknowledges the members of the Professional
Development Seminars of the Institute for Integrative Psychotherapy for
sharing personal experiences and for their professional involvement in
formulating the ideas in this article. Portions of this article were presented at
the Symposium on the Treatment of Shame in Minneapolis, MN, USA in

October, 1993 and were originally published in the Transactional Analysis

Journal,
Vol
24,
No.
2,
April
1994.
Published in the British Gestalt Journal, 1995, Vol. 4, No. 2, pages 108 - 117