with his so-called Gestalt prayer, Fritz Perls parallels a saying that originated with one of the Hasidic masters.   First the Gestalt prayer: 

“I do my thing, and you do your thing.

I am not in this world to live up to your expectations and you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I,

and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.

If not, it can’t be helped.” 

The saying of one of the Hasidic masters, Rabbi Mendel of Kotzk, is written from a slightly different point of view:

“If I am I because you are you,

and you are you because I am I,

then you are not you, and I am not I.

But if I am I because I am I,

and you are you because you are you,

then I am I, and you are you,

and we can talk. “

Both of these are expressions of the importance of self-authen­ticity. Self-authenticity is vital both in Gestalt therapy and in the Jewish religious enterprise.

---

Top Dog and the Evil Inclination

There is a fascinating parallel between one of Perls’s arsenal of props and a fundamental teaching from Jewish tradition, both of which deal with the problem of duality of the individual. First, Perls and his Topdog and Underdog; then the Evil inclination and Good inclination of Jewish tradition.

Perls spells out our internal self-torture games as being a struggle between what he calls our “topdog” and “underdog”: “the topdog usually is righteous and authoritarian; he knows best. He is sometimes right, but always righteous. The topdog is a bully, and works with ‘you should’ and ‘you should not.’ The topdog manipu-with demands and threats of 

catastrophe such as ‘if you don’t – then you won’t be loved, won’t go to heaven, you will die,’ and so on. (29)

The underdog manipulates with being defensive, apologetic, wheedling, playing the cry-baby and such. The underdog has not power …and the underdog works like this: ‘…I will try my best…

can’t help it if I fail…I have such good, intentions.’ So you see,
the underdog is cunning, and usually gets the better of the topdog
because the underdog is not as primitive as the topdog. So the top-
dog and the underdog strive for control The person is fragmented

into controller and controlled. This inner conflict, the struggle between the topdog and the underdog is never complete, because topdog as well as the underdog fight for their lives.”(30)

Neither force can win out over the other, but they can be reconciled. The process is one of externalizing the dialogue between these two forces through an action of orientation which has the person play out each side of the struggle. The Gestalt therapist using this technique has the person sit in one seat for one role, and then switch seats to play the other. The therapist listens attentively to pick up clues that present themselves in terms of language, tone of voice, and the like. The therapist urges throughout the process

a kind of meditation “listen until you can hear whether you are

talking or somebody else is talking.”(31)

As the dialogue between the topdog and underdog goes on, it often becomes clear that the argument is an unfinished gestalt, and as the parties in the argument become clearer, there is a shift to the real dialogue underneath.

The Jewish traditional teaching of the evil inclination and a good inclination is meant to suggest that the individual is often torn between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing. There is, however, a deep respect, even appreciation for the so-called evil inclination. There is a realization that without the evil inclination, the “ways of the world” would draw to a stop. There is even a notion that this evil inclination is not so bad after all.

–

Interpreting the Biblical verse, “It was very good” from the creation account in Genesis, one Rabbi said, “That is the evil inclination. But is the evil inclination very good? Yes, for if it were not for the evil inclination, man would not build a house, or take a wife, or beget a child, or engage in business, as it says, ‘all labour and skillful work comes of a man’s rivalry with his neighbor.’”(32)

There is an interesting story which I recall hearing from my seminary professors of how one group of rabbis attempted to rid themselves of the evil inclination. They plotted to get a eunich, dressed him up as one of them with their black garments and sideburns, and then placed him in front of a talmud and waited for the evil inclination to come in the form of a beautiful woman. Sure enough, soon the evil inclination came as a seductive woman trying to work her will on the young “talmud scholar.” After trying all she could and  wt succeeding, the “evil inclination” faints away. The rabbis rush in from the other room – observing all from peep holes, tie the “evil inclination” up, and take her off to a furnace to rid themselves of her. Meanwhile one of their number had been off fasting in a forest to lose pounds of flesh – a cure for his obesity. With the evil inclination out of the way, things of life came to a standstill. Hens did not lay eggs, people became lazy, and all was not well.

The Rabbi who had gone off to fast in the woods started back towards town, and as he traveled in the direction of his home, an ash from the furnace fell into his eye. Unable to get the ash out of his eye, the rabbi managed somehow to get back to town stumbling, and wiping his eyes. Upon his arrival at home, things began to get back to normal, for he had brought the evil inclination back home.

There never again was any attempt to get rid of the evil inclination.

The evil inclination or Yetzer Ha-Ra of the rabbis along with its Yetzer Tov or good inclination were seen as two parts of a person very similar to Perls’s topdog, underdog. The rabbis were unwilling to admit duality to God, but could allow a duality of forces operating on the individual. In the Midrash, or non-legal tradition, there were often discussions between non-persons, objects, so one could easily imagine a dialogue between the two inclinations. There is even one quotation which deals with an evil inclination speaking: “If the evil inclination says to you, ‘Sin and God will forgive you,’ believe it not.”(33)