This article and the professional commentaries that follow were published in the tri-annual

journal, Gestalt Review, Volume 13(2), 2009; pp. 135-164 - a special issue focusing on
Gestalt therapy and creativity, based on presentations and workshops at the Gestalt Institute of
Cleveland’s 2007 conference on “Creativity and Gestalt: An International Celebration.”.

GESTALT PEDAGOGY – CREATIVITY IN TEACHING

Ansel L. Woldt, Ed.D.
Emeritus Professor, Kent State University
Ansel Woldt is an emeritus professor of counselor education at Kent State University where he
has taught and researched Gestalt therapy since 1968. He graduated from the Gestalt Institute of
Cleveland’s 3-year Post-Doctoral Program in Gestalt Psychotherapy in 1973. He is co-editor,
with Sarah Toman, of Gestalt Therapy:History, Theory and Practice (2005), and he maintains a
private practice as a psychologist and clinical counselor in Kent, Ohio.
Abstract
This article begins with a number of personal revelations about the author, here-to-fore
unpublished, that set the stage for his approach to teaching and learning. Most notable among
them is the severe closed-head injury he sustained as a child that left him with extensive brain
damage and life-long difficulties with memory. In spelling out some of his learning experiences
as a teacher, he lays the groundwork for the importance of creativity in the educational process,
including ideas about creation and its relation to Gestalt therapy from his graduate students’
perspectives. The sections on Gestalt pedagogy elucidate many of the ways he has developed a
Gestalt-based learning environment, the importance of experiential learning, and Gestalt’s
holistic approach that enhances creativity in pedagogical pursuits. This article ends with some of
the major pedagogical interventions he has used successfully over the past four decades that
facilitate learning to become a Gestalt therapist from a creative Gestalt therapy perspective.
Introduction
The workshop on Gestalt pedagogy at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland’s (GIC)
conference on “Gestalt and Creativity” was based on my experiences as a learner since
childhood, and as a teacher, counselor and therapist from 1955 to the present. It is usual for me
when I move into my instructional mode, whether teaching or writing, to feel grounded by
bringing self-as-instrument and personal experience into the picture. Central to the pedagogical
side of my life was the closed-head brain injury I sustained at age five in a freakish farm accident
when I was kicked in the head by one of our draft-horses, smashing my head between her hoof
and the stone wall behind the horse stalls in our barn. Having no memory for some time,
followed by the loss of short-term memory for succeeding years until I was about eleven years
old, necessitated the daily practice of organismic self-regulation and the art of creative life
adjustment – processes I discovered a few decades later to be propitious principles of Gestalt
therapy theory.
My experience of elementary school was essentially one of frustration, failure and shame
due to the fact that my teachers followed traditional rules and educational rituals where success
and failure were determined predominantly by memorization and test scores, not about learning
or life adjustments essential for the use of knowledge. As jokesters often say, “What I was good
at in school was recess, lunch, and forgetting what it was the teacher said I should be doing.”

1
Fortunately my parents were respected and prominent members of our rural community, my
mother having been a high school teacher and my father having been the first Democrat elected
to public office in Lake County, South Dakota the year I was born. With my 3 brothers and 2
sisters being the top students in their classes, my teachers and classmates marked me as the odd
one – occasionally called “Woldt’s Brain Child” due to my brain damage. Quite naturally, I
heard this as criticism and felt ashamed of my being.
Thus, it became my life-long task to learn predominantly by means of “right-
hemispheric” experiences. How I was able to navigate in school I learned later was the polar
opposite of brain-work required in traditional “rote education” that relies almost totally on left-
hemispheric memory. Interestingly, of our six Woldt children, five of whom were academic
successes with lives filled abundant in great accomplishments, I am the only one with a doctoral
degree. Needless to say, these inimitable childhood experiences not only determined how I
learned, but also vastly affected the way I go about teaching, or what I prefer to call facilitate
learning. Shifting from my experience as a learner, I will next address some highlights of my
experiences as a teacher and then as professor, or better, “pedagogue: a facilitator of learning.”
My first real pedagogical experience was as an officer in the U. S. Marine Corps
following graduation from college. On my first active duty assignment I was certified to teach
military operations, tactics, history and law. As I progressed from infantry platoon commander to
research control officer to company commander, I felt competent as a lecturer but preferred to
teach by example and through in vivo experience. My time in the service of our country was
followed by a stint in a department store where I thought I’d become a personnel officer, only to
find myself working in home furnishings and an understudy of a famous interior decorator. This
experience of working with the public, while learning about a fashion industry I knew nothing
about previously, paid huge dividends when I decided to become a teacher, counselor,
psychologist, psychotherapist, and professor.
To become a school counselor in those days required a minimum of 2 years successful
classroom teaching. So, with a bachelor’s degree and majors in sociology and
religion/philosophy, I first had to become certified as a teacher. This necessitated another year of
college, broadening my social studies background plus education courses and student teaching.
Student teaching provided me the opportunity to teach history, geography, sociology and
psychology in a senior high school paired with a semester-long experience as an understudy with
an outstanding junior high guidance counselor who I assisted with individual and group
counseling. That experience led to two years employment as a junior high school social studies
and speech teacher. I soon realized as a teacher, basketball coach and referee (basketball
official), that the real “subjects” I was teaching were students – that these young lives took
precedence over the curriculum. It was with this educational mission that I received a full
scholarship to a school counseling and guidance graduate program.
Surprisingly, upon completing my Master’s degree, I was encouraged by the faculty to go
on for the doctoral program – an amazing scenario for The Brain Child who early in life
wondered if he would be able to graduate from high school. Needless to say, my undergraduate
education being in a liberal arts college where much of the focus was on learning, knowing and
doing not merely on memorization, had prepared me well for the unique graduate program in
which I found myself. I have often commented about the student-centered and experience-
centered orientation of that graduate program, wherein counseling students were engaged in a
supervised practicum seeing real child and adolescent clients almost from the beginning of our

2
graduate work. There was an emphasis on developing your own unique style based on the
underlying belief that the “self of the counselor” is a necessary and important ingredient in
developing a therapeutic relationship with clients of all ages. Dialogical relationships were
cherished and rewarded. Little did these professors, three of whom were prodigies of Carl
Rogers, know that they were laying the groundwork for my becoming a Gestalt therapist. During
my time as the administrative assistant to the department chair I assisted with writing grant
proposals for federally funded educational projects and research grants, which paid off later
when I became a director of guidance and pupil personnel services in a Minnesota public school.
Upon completing my doctoral coursework and pre-doctoral internship in the university
counseling center, I was recruited heavily for various high school counselor positions and I took
a job that not only provided support for completing my dissertation research but also allowed me
to teach their senior psychology course. That class, meeting an hour per day Mondays through
Fridays, provided me another opportunity to experiment with learner-centered classroom
procedures and practices, small-group-based and cooperative learning experiences, paradoxical
classroom interventions and the art of facilitating learning. Students came to life with a desire to
be present, make meaningful contact with both peers and instructor, not wanting to miss class
because their curriculum was an experience that grew out of their field and involved their
interests and needs. Instead of sitting as empty vessels or receptacles being “taught about”
psychological principles, they were involved in the creation of our curriculum and classroom
experiences.
As a school counselor, pseudo-administrator and community activist I found myself
drawn to participate in a variety of community action programs that came on the scene at that
time. Combining my grant-writing skills with my political leanings and commitment to serving
youth, in the mid-60’s I found myself being elected as the secretary of the regional community
action program in northwestern Minnesota. With my contacts at the University of North Dakota I
was also involved with writing grants. This was in the early days of President Lyndon Johnson’s
“Great Society” and “War on Poverty.” Most noteworthy amongst the millions of dollars in
funded educational and community grants I authored was a massive multi-county “Neighbor-
hood Youth Program” (NYP) for northwestern Minnesota and two “Upward Bound Programs”
(UBP) for Native American and low-income North Dakota and northern Minnesota high school
students. The NYP was designed to provide pay for nominal jobs for destitute high school kids,
many on the verge of dropping out of school, wherein they could experience learning as a
valuable and satisfying activity. The Upward Bound experience brought some of these
disadvantaged NYP students along with high school students from the Indian reservations and
Native American boarding schools to university campuses in the summers to provide them with a
taste of college life and positive learning experiences. It was amazing to see how these young
people blossomed and came to love learning, considering many of them were predicted to drop
out of school before graduating. Much of the success of these programs was due to the
philosophical and methodological underpinnings that promoted learning as a facilitative process
balanced between right and left hemispheric functioning and non-traditional education where
emotional intelligence was valued.
These federally funded programs had both an educational philosophy and a theoretical
approach to change that integrated principles I had learned from four basic sources in my
graduate program. First was A. S. Neill’s book, Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child
Rearing (1960) – a story about a unique school in England for children who did not respond

3
positively to traditional educational practices, where there were no laws of morality or religion,
where the philosophy of love was lived, and where freedom without license was practiced
successfully. Second were the principles of personal growth and therapeutic change from Carl
Rogers who had mentored my doctoral advisor and internship supervisor. His books, Client-
Centered Therapy (1950) and Becoming A Person (1960), were like bibles in our graduate
program. The third, a rather modest influence, was Albert Ellis’ book, Reason and Emotion in
Psychotherapy (1962), not exactly a favorite amongst our Rogerian and psychodynamic
professors. The fourth major influence was from a source barely known by our psychology
faculty but filled with theoretical and therapeutic processes supportive of my own life
philosophy, namely, Gestalt Therapy: Excitement and Growth in the Human Personality by
Perls, Hefferline and Goodman (1951).
My academic life since the mid-60’s has been almost totally dedicated to graduate
education of school and community counselors and doctoral-level psychologists and counselor
education professors – initially at the University of North Dakota and for the past 40 years at
Kent State University. While having taught practically every course in our comprehensive
graduate programs I have had the good fortune to develop both curricular materials and
instructional methodology based on experiential, learner-centered models and Gestalt therapy
principles. Completing the 3-year post-doctoral training program at the Gestalt Institute of
Cleveland between 1970 to 1973 had a major impact on my pedagogical approach. Having
taught at least one class per year (and sometimes 3 or 4) in Gestalt Therapy since 1970 has been
pivotal in my feeling grounded in Gestalt therapy principles. Of course having well over 100
people who were either students in or graduates from the GIC post-graduate programs amongst
these many other graduate students augmented these pedagogical and learning experiences.
Similarly, having directed 101 doctoral dissertations, over half of which were on some aspect of
Gestalt therapy, also augmented my being grounded in Gestalt therapy principles and practices.
Gestalt pedagogy is based on the belief that people are by nature health-seeking and
capable of both self-direction and creatively adjusting to life’s challenges. Viewed from the
perspective of Gestalt pedagogy, learning is an organismic, self-regulating process that involves
the learners’ whole being with self-determined boundaries and contacting processes in response
to the field conditions. Knowing that true learning involves more than what is demanded in
traditional classrooms, teaching from a Gestalt therapy perspective regularly involves creativity,
innovation, experience and experimentation. A more thorough description of my approach can be
found in the “Pre-Text” of Sarah Toman’s and my textbook, Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory
and Practice (2005), in which I elaborate on creating the field for teaching and learning. In
addition to creativity, authenticity and optimism, holism and trust are valued principles in the
practice of Gestalt pedagogy. In discussing creativity with students in my Gestalt therapy class,
we came up with the following ideas and observations, all of which have ramifications for
Gestalt experiments.
Creation and Creativity from Gestalt Therapy Graduate Students’ Perspective
 To be creative one must be capable of inspiration, imagination and transformation.
 The act of creating is giving birth to ideas, new life, hope and endless possibilities.
 Creation is giving form to the formless, dreaming, and expressing the inexpressible.
 Creation is exciting, like walking down a new path not knowing what will appear next.

4
  Creation as we know it is the beginning of life on earth followed by rebirth and endings.
 Creation is the foundation of an idea and the action that effects some change.
 Creation is the wonderment of nature, at one with the universe in its vastness of life.
 Creating is making substantive contact in a new way – giving breath to life.
 Creating can be fun, artistic, playful, messy, exasperating, emotional, and satisfying.
 Creativity is constant, profound, liberating, powerful, freeing, ambiguous, transforming.
 Creativity is the ability to think freely to develop something new or unique.
 Creativity is making something new to better understand our selves and the universe.
 Creativity is the expression of what could be and can become – a precious gift!
The relationships between creativity and Gestalt therapy are often discussed in my
classes, usually in conjunction with the role of experimental interventions and of experience in
the learning process. The following diagram was created with a recent class as an experiment in
discovering and describing some of these inner connections between creativity and Gestalt
therapy:
Contact is the essential ingredient of creation and of Gestalt therapy.
Relationality involves mutuality and reciprocity, essential elements of dialogue.
Experiment is bringing attention to the now, action to the content, theory to life.
Awareness is the key process for attending to the obvious in the here and now.
Trust is an initial objective in creating a cohesive learning environment.
Inclusion is essential to develop a trusting and authentic classroom experience.
Visualization is important because a picture is worth a thousand words.
Individualize is necessary to meet every student where s/he is at to make contact.
Taoism is the heart-beat of Gestalt therapy – living in the present moment.
Yearning is the way students respond to creative Gestalt pedagogy.
AND

Gestalten is the formation and form of a complete unit, involving closure.

Experiential is unique to Gestalt therapy – an experience is worth 1000 pictures.
Sensing is the “what and how” of initiating awareness and contact.
Touching is an expression often used by Gestalt students – they feel “touched.”
Aha! is what people say when a new gestalt is realized, “AHA!”
Learning is accomplished when students are able to integrate their knowledge.
Theory is the essential foundation for understanding Gestalt interventions.

5
 Pedagogical Gestalt: Creating a Gestalt-Based Learning Environment
Research and practice on enhancing conditions for learning consistently reveal that
students are more prone to respond positively to an “invitation to learn” than being “ordered,
coerced or paid to learn.” Learning from desire and from internal motivation is far superior to
mandated and forced learning, and to studying that is based on fear. Gestalt pedagogy, ideally,
involves a statement of trust in the inherent ability of the organism/student to know his or her
own needs, the way to go about satisfying these needs, and the order in which they should be
dealt with. Like dialogical contact and experimental engagement of Gestalt therapists with
clients, authentic Gestalt pedagogy is a trust-based endeavor. It involves believing that the
process will support the investigative procedure and that learning will occur. The following
quote from Laura Perls is an effort to help clarify what I mean by “authentic Gestalt pedagogy.”
The actual experience of any present situation does not need to be explained or
interpreted; it can be directly contacted, felt and described here and now. Gestalt
therapy deals with the obvious, with what is immediately available to the awareness
of client or therapist and can be shared and expanded in the actual ongoing
communication. The aim of Gestalt therapy is the awareness continuum, the freely
ongoing gestalt formation where what is of greatest concern and interest to the
organism, the relationship, the group or society becomes Gestalt [sic], comes into the
foreground where it can be fully experienced and coped with (acknowledged, worked
through, sorted out, changed, disposed of, etc.) so that then it can melt into the
background (be forgotten or assimilated and integrated) and leave the foreground free
for the next relevant gestalt. (L. Perls, 1976, pp. 137–138, italics in original)
Gestalt pedagogy is much akin to Gestalt therapy, being both art and science. In working
with students, it has always been important to let them know that my interest and intent is to
offer them a learning experience that supports their developing a solid foundation in Gestalt
therapy theory and clinical skills that are applicable to counseling and psychotherapy in general.
Since most, if not all, graduate programs provide students with a variety of approaches to
therapy, it is not my goal or intention to brainwash or convince them that the Gestalt approach is
the only way to work therapeutically with clients (although I’m sure I come across as Gestalt
therapy being the most effective approach for most clients). Thus, when they raise questions
about how Gestalt differs from other approaches or how best to integrate it with an approach
with which they are more familiar, I welcome their questions and desire to integrate their new-
found knowledge and experience. In fact, my usual pedagogical intervention is to respond to
them by asking a couple of students familiar with the non-gestalt approach (in question) to role
play or demonstrate a brief therapeutic interaction, which I will then process with comments
about similarities and differences. On occasion I volunteer to role-play a client by presenting the
kind of issue or problem they are likely to face in their practicum or internship and have them
use the ‘other’ theoretical model with me; following which I process the scenario from a Gestalt
perspective. Typically I will then demonstrate the Gestalt approach to the same situation to
engage them directly in a therapeutic experience. One of the things students often comment
about is the word experience because the other approaches they are exposed to rarely rely on
experience in their teaching, learning or therapy processes. A discussion of experience leads to
the next section on experiential pedagogy.
Experiential Teaching/Learning: Creative Pedagogy

6
 If a picture is worth a thousand words, an experience must be worth a thousand pictures.
On the surface, experience, experiential, and experiment are just words; however in Gestalt
therapy they are cherished concepts, even more so, cherished possibilities for learning and
change. To facilitate optimal learning, it is wise pedagogy to create an experiential activity for
every concept and application in Gestalt therapy. For example, I bring experiential learning into
our Gestalt classes by regularly employing paradox as a way to motivate students to read by
giving them antiassignments. Using paradoxical principles and interventions facilitates students
taking more responsibility for their learning. Following is an excerpt from my Gestalt Therapy
Syllabus that provides a paradoxical orientation to reading for the graduate course I have taught
since 1970:
I’d like to facilitate your introduction to the Gestalt therapy literature, philosophy,
history, principles, methods, and intervention techniques by encouraging you to
read a lot and engage actively in class activities, therapy demonstrations, and a
variety of Gestalt-based learning experiences. To do this, I address your inner-self
with an antiassignment. From my years of teaching and mentoring graduate
students, I know that reading assignments often engage you in a “top-dog versus
bottom-dog” dialogue (Gestalt terminology à la Fritz Perls), internal
argumentation, and even conflict as you go about addressing suggested readings.
Much, if not most, of our class activity will be approached without exact reading
assignments; however, you obviously will need to read in order to understand and
participate in this class in a meaningful way. Therefore, I want you to begin by
reading what catches your eye, what you are curious about, what piques your
interest, what seems to stand out from the background, what you are motivated to
look at, what you feel like exploring, what your heart desires, and what you
intuitively are drawn to, with the possibility that it may address a creative venture
or touch upon some unfinished business in your life. If you find yourself not
wanting to read, I suggest you experiment with delving into your resistance at the
moment of awareness. In fact, you might consciously work at avoiding the book. If
you engage in this experiment, pay attention to your inner processes and be willing
to share your experiences with the class. In case you don’t recognize it, this is a
paradoxical approach to reading and learning—the principal approach to change in
Gestalt therapy. Therefore, my real assignment for you, in this antiassignment, is to
explore what it is like to not read assignments or things you are told you “should
read.” Then bring your reactions to this antiassignment to class for discussion.
(Woldt, 2008, p. 2, italics in original)
The invitation to experiment with Gestalt ways of learning helps students attune
themselves to experiential processes while simultaneously learning Gestalt methods and
knowledge of theory, practice, and ethics of therapeutic relationships. Any noticeable resistance
from a student to engage in the cooperative experiential approach, provides an opportunity to
describe and demonstrate how Gestalt therapists honor resistance as the energy, not the enemy.
Approaching students in this positive manner—with an invitation to learn and honoring their
natural presence—has typically yielded greater awareness, lively interest, enhanced motivation,
authentic involvement, energized action, and significantly increased reading and engagement in
outside learning activities. I continue to be amazed that most students report that they read more
for my class than any others, digesting the three textbooks and several suggested Gestalt therapy
books. Without the traditional academic competitiveness, this authentic Gestalt approach creates

7
a cooperative atmosphere in the class, fostering a sense of belonging and community, and
provides the foundation for integration of Gestalt principles with other therapeutic models and
modalities.
Gestalt’s Holistic Pedagogical Perspective
From Gestalt’s holistic perspective the therapist’s personal and professional development
are inseparable. A general goal of Gestalt therapy education is to facilitate and support students
to experience integrity in their personal and professional development. To best understand and
integrate the Gestalt approach, it is important for students to experience in vivo both the Gestalt
therapy process and Gestalt methods of processing. To accomplish this goal, I “invite” students
to learn—which necessitates making contact with them and engaging them at our contact
boundary. I attempt to “meet them where they are,” not where I may want them to be, think they
should be in their preparation, or wish they could be. It has been my experience that treating
students with the same kind of respect that Gestalt therapists show their clients, effectively
engages them in a desire to learn. I invite students to approach the Gestalt learning process with a
fresh attitude about themselves as learners, asking that they, not I as professor, be responsible for
their learning. By doing this, I am making this educational experience a shared venture—it
becomes “our” class, not “my” class.
In my first class meeting I often use the metaphor of my classes being like having guests
for dinner. My invitation is for them to come to the table to dine. While I believe I have some
tasty morsels and food that will please their pallets and appetites, I do not yet know their tastes
and preferences, their likes and dislikes, whether what I have prepared might satisfy their
appetite. As we sit at the dinner table together we are for the most part strangers. I tell them I
hope they have good appetites, that there is enough food available that “seconds,” “thirds,” even
“fourths” are welcome. They should feel free to eat as much as they’d like; while realizing of
course that I cannot make them eat. Some will dive in, gobble up everything on the table and go
to the cupboard for more, never seeming to have their appetites fully satisfied; they are starved
for Gestalt dining. Many will want the recipes to take home with them. Others will nibble a bit
here and there, leave some on their plate, chew over and swallow what tastes good, and spit out
what isn’t appetizing, what feels indigestible, or tastes toxic. It is rare that we have people at the
table who reject all the food because they likely didn’t even consider accepting the invitation in
the first place.
Using this metaphor in class, I introduce students to the Gestalt lexicon called introjective
processes – swallowing whole without chewing, often creating indigestion – and its counter-
processes, chewing and reconstructing. They’ve had plenty of experience with the introjective
model because that is the traditional approach to graduate education, professors expecting
students to swallow whatever the teacher thinks is important for them to learn and be prepared to
regurgitate on their exams. Academic introjection is a process by which ideas, like under-chewed
or un-chewed food, are swallowed whole. Contrarily, the Gestalt method discourages
introjection, preferring to encourage, stimulate and facilitate “chewing” on new ideas and
methods so as to make them palatable and digestible. Using metaphors facilitates creative
learning process and develops interest, curiosity, and motivation to learn more.
Not unlike Fritz Perls, at times I intentionally create ambiguity and frustration as growth-
producing challenges in the learning process. This is particularly useful with students who are
used to being “spoon fed” and expect faculty to take responsibility for their learning.

8
Gestalt therapy’s basic principle of change is based on paradoxical theory.
Specific Gestalt Pedagogical Interventions
In closing, I offer the following list of specific pedagogical interventions that are
consistent with Gestalt therapy theory and practice to facilitate students’ learning to be better
counselors and psychotherapists.
 Emphasize that our Gestalt class is just that – OUR CLASS! As the professor or instructor,
it is not MY class. As students, although they are paying for it, it is not THEIR class. I reiterate
throughout the semester that we are in this learning experience together. We are all a part of the
field. Doing so also fosters a cooperative learning environment that is reinforced by including
both in-class and out-of-class activities that require cooperation. My prime example of this is
having them meet weekly in a therapeutic dyad where they practice Gestalt interventions with a
partner from class. Sometimes I have a second dyad observe and give feedback on their
observations. They then reverse the process.
 I take a photograph of my students in their first class session and have them complete a
personal data sheet (see addendum at end of article) that provides information for me and their
classmates so they are known by more than their name. I make a copy of everyone’s photo and
data sheet for distribution to the class. This facilitates interpersonal contact and the development
of mutual support throughout the semester. They are advised that since rather personal
information is being requested for sharing with their class colleagues, it is only proper for them
to not share the class roster with anyone outside of our class. This also provides an early lesson
in the importance of ethical considerations in becoming a counselor or psychotherapist.
 I tell them early on that our class is like most of life – it’s a process to be lived, not a
problem to be solved; it is a journey to be experienced, not a task to be achieved. I remind them
that truly learning something is more about process than outcome. I want our class to be a place
where the focus is on learning, not memorizing; on practicing, not perfecting; on optimism, not
pessimism. That I will attempt to develop experiences necessitating risk-taking, where a
momentary sense of failure may produce more learning than always looking good, playing it
safe, or being perfect. All of this is approached with the confidence that something positive can
come from participation in classroom experiments where the results are never guaranteed – a
primary principle in Gestalt’s valuing of the use of experiment. Experiential activities bring
theory to life. Helping students “chew” over ideas before swallowing them, facilitates digestion
and integration.
 I have students create their own learning goals in writing, including how they think they
might best attain them. I ask this to be turned in within the first couple weeks of the semester.
While this provides some guidance for me regarding expectations, more importantly is its
importance to their experiencing personal responsibility for their learning. Speaking of
expectations, I tell them my hope is that they learn the difference between expectations and
expectancy, saying, “I’d like for you to have no expectations, but great expectancy.”
 Focusing on and practicing how to stay with the here and now, what and how, and I – Thou
in every class session reinforces learning the most basic Gestalt elements. The step that follows
“focusing on” and “staying with” is practicing and learning how to creatively move these
interactive processes along into therapeutic dialogue.

9
 I invite students to participate in creative learning experiences like they rarely, if ever,
experience in traditional educational programs. From the very beginning, they are invited to
participate in therapeutic dialogue with me as we go around the class circle sharing our present,
here and now awarenesses in response to my asking them to complete the sentence, “Right now I
am aware of . . . .” Doing live demonstration work with agreeable students is experienced as a
treat that they don’t receive in typical graduate work. Authentic presentation of myself (the
teacher, facilitator, therapist, consultant, trainer) provides a model for students to be real,
realistic, and relational. Modeling appropriate self-disclosure supports the students’ openness and
desire to make class a more authentic personal and professional growth experience.
 Believing that students will creatively adjust and self-regulate places these basic Gestalt
therapy principles of living directly in their lap. A valuable aspect of creative adjusting as a
therapist is learning how to work effectively with resistance – the key to which is helping them
value resistance as “the energy” of awareness and change instead of “the enemy.” Finally,
relating to students by modeling Gestalt-dialogical processes enables them to experience
presence, dialogical attitude, genuine and unreserved communication, and, thereby, support for
dialogical relationships – an ultimate Gestalt creation.
References
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ: The Citadel Press.
Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to childrearing. Oxford, UK: Hart
Publishing.
Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy: Excitement and growth in the
human personality. New York: Julian Press.
Perls, L. (1976). Comments on the new directions. In J. Wysong (Ed.) (1992), Laura Perls:
Living at the boundary, pp. 137-138. Highland, NY: The Gestalt Journal.
Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Woldt, A. (2008). Gestalt therapy syllabus. Kent, OH: Kent State University. Unpublished
manuscript, p. 2.
Woldt, A., & Toman, S. (2005). Gestalt therapy: History, theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

COMMENTARY I: GESTALT PEDAGOGY – CREATIVITY IN TEACHING

M. WILLSON WILLIAMS, PH.D.
Union Institute & University, Los Angeles, CA, and Saybrook Graduate School & Research
Center, San Francisco, CA
M. Willson Williams, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology on the graduate faculty of Union Institute
& University as well as at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. She lives in Santa
Fe, New Mexico.
I am moved by Dr. Ansel L. Woldt’s description of his experience with using Gestalt

10
practices to inspire his students’ creative expression, and delighted to share my thoughts as
stimulated by his article on “Gestalt Pedagogy – Creativity in Teaching.” Invoking the word
“creativity” in an educational setting can be complicated. As Woldt notes, if we can unlock our
creative energies, we can broaden and deepen our therapeutic efficacy. Indeed, engaging the
creative process can help us loosen the constraints that typically bind our worldview, and aid us
in reaching beyond our real or self-imposed limitations. But it can also be daunting to do so.
Woldt has given us an idea of how we can move beyond that intimidation through the use of a
pedagogy rooted in the concepts of Gestalt therapy.
I think we would agree that bringing the creative process into teaching is something to
which we aspire. However, there are times when that can be scary to the graduate student who
has yet to develop a secure therapeutic identity. (Or to the educator who is unsure of his or her
pedagogical prowess.) Woldt’s clear and elegant suggestions about how to integrate Gestalt
practice into the classroom or training setting are a great help to all of us in higher education.
As I look back some 30 years to my master’s and doctoral degree experiences, I realize
that “creativity” was not something that was overtly fostered in either program. My master’s
program was strictly Rogerian in orientation, and anything off that course was discouraged. The
only “B” I received in my entire graduate education was in my master’s practicum, because the
instructor 1) did not believe that master’s-level students were therapeutically competent enough
to warrant an A in his course, and 2) did not believe that anything other than a Rogerian
approach to counseling was useful. How sad that was for him and his students.
I certainly would not discount the foundational and important work of Carl Rogers, but
part of being “creative” in a teaching situation is to let the learner flirt with alternatives without
being quick to restrain the budding therapist’s distinctive development. This usually occurs when
the supervisor or teacher is not confident in his or her own orientation or abilities (or so I wanted
to believe 30 years ago). Whatever the reasons, letting learners have creative reign over the
learning process is a true indication that the teacher or facilitator has the confidence in not only
his or her own beliefs, but in the innate ability of their learners to find their own way with
sufficient guidance.
For almost 25 years I have been a professor of interdisciplinary studies associated with
alternative higher education in this country, yet I had never made such pedagogical parallels with
Gestalt therapy. Woldt captures clearly the best practices of teaching, especially in relation to the
education and training of future therapists. And he has helped me realize that even though I did
not identify as a Gestalt therapist when I was in private practice, my training in that perspective
comes through loud and clear in my current work with doctoral learners.
In 1979-80 I was privileged to be a part of a Gestalt training group in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, led by Dr. Rae Perls. As I remember it, we met for several hours on Wednesday evening
every other week. I had been introduced to Gestalt therapy in 1978 during my master’s degree
program at North Texas State University, but as I noted above, that program had been Rogerian
in nature, so did not focus intently on Gestalt principles of practice. What I learned from Rae and
the other therapists in her training group was invaluable from a therapy practice perspective, but
until reading Woldt’s article on the relationship between Gestalt pedagogy as applied to
creativity in teaching, I had not made the full connection how valuable it really was.
After receiving my doctorate from the University of New Mexico, I went into private
practice for several years, but eventually my interests directed me toward the academic world. I

11
was fortunate to become associated with Union Institute & University in 1985, and later
Saybrook Graduate College and Research Center. Both of these universities are humanistic in
orientation, and pedagogical creativity and flexibility are highly valued. I had not thought of my
teaching method as Gestalt in orientation, but I am beginning to now see parallels.
In my role as core faculty advisor with doctoral learners, I consider it my job to bring my
authenticity, full attention, and focused intent to the task of helping them develop a course of
study and eventual research question for the dissertation. When I bring the best of who I am to
my facilitation with doctoral students, I am in the moment and focused on helping them to
envision their work creatively.
One of the most exciting times in my teaching life is when I am able to brainstorm with a
student about possible research questions for the dissertation. This begins when the student
relates the “passion” around which she or he would like to create a question. Usually these
passions are expansive and too cumbersome initially to turn into a doable research project. But
then something almost magical happens when we begin the process of discovery around the
possibilities inherent in that passion.
The process feels like a dance. We spin the elements of the question around through
verbal exchange; throw out possible scenarios for method; converse about the pros and cons of
each prospect. Then the “aha” moment arrives. The learner is floored to discover the specific
question that arises from our discussion and to realize that the kernel of the dissertation is being
formed right before her eyes. The creative flow that rushes between learner and facilitator at that
moment is indeed thrilling. And the process is also usually beyond words.
But then, it is the numinous and ineffable that always makes us catch our breath and
stand in awe at the wonders of what can be. Even just the simple act of helping learners to see
different options can be powerful. In many ways, the creative moment can almost be captured in
its process. That is, helping learners consider different points of view or approaches to their topic
actually takes on a very similar process. And that process can come about only as a result of my
being able to be in the moment and genuine with them, along with the authentic belief that they
are capable of finding their own answers. Hmm, I’m sounding Rogerian . . .
I have conducted many seminars in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on “Creativity and the
Feminine Aesthetic.” During the five years I presented this seminar for Union Institute &
University, I found myself getting more and more in touch with the creative spirit that adult
learners can bring to their professional and academic pursuits. Allowing the creative spark to
manifest uncensored is a very freeing act, although one adults can find quite uncomfortable at
first try. Encouraging creativity in academe can inspire us to reach beyond our self-imposed as
well as real limitations, or it can be daunting in self-imposed expectations of brilliance. It is what
urges us to look out of the corner of our eye to see the flickers of things not yet realized that are
lurking on the periphery of our vision, in all senses of that word. And creativity is very much one
of those “I know it when I see it” kinds of things, even if it is difficult to get the experts to agree
on a definition.
As Joseph Zinker (1978) noted over 30 years ago, creativity is an act of bravery. And
many theorists have argued over the years that creativity is fundamental to who we are as human
beings (e.g., Dissanayake, 1992; May, 1975; Richards, 2007). When asked to revisit Homo
Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why, Ellen Dissanayake (2003) noted that, “I don’t
define art as ‘making special,’ but in the simplest sense, I do think making special characterizes

12
what artists of all kinds do. Even more, it describes a common trait that, in a Darwinian sense, is
a noteworthy feature of human nature” (p. 10). For educators, it is this “making special” that
infuses our work with meaning.
References
Dissanayake, E. (1992). Homo Aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. New York: The Free
Press.
Dissanayake, E. (2003). Retrospective on Homo Aestheticus. Journal of the Canadian
Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 7-11.
May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Norton.
Richards, R. (Ed.). (2007). Everyday creativity and the new views on human nature:
Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Zinker, J. (1978). Creative process in Gestalt therapy. New York: Vintage.

COMMENTARY II:
EVERYDAY CREATIVITY AND GESTALT LEARNING: WOLDT’S MESSAGE IN
TERMS OF 7 SUGGESTIONS FOR CREATIVE EDUCATION
Ruth Richards, M.D., Ph.D.
Saybrook Graduate School, San Francisco, CA, and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA
Dr. Richards is professor of psychology at Saybrook Graduate School, a research affiliate of
McLean Hospital (Massachusetts General Hospital Psychiatric Unit), and a lecturer in the
Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. She is a Fellow of the American
Psychological Association, recipient of the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Lifetime
Contributions to Psychology and the Arts from the Division of Aesthetics, Creativity and the
Arts (2009), and the principal author of The Lifetime Creativity Scales. With Mark Runco she
co-edited Eminent Creativity, Everyday Creativity and Health (1997). She is also editor of
Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological, Social and Spiritual
Perspectives (2007).
Thanks a million to Dr. Woldt for sharing a life journey that, in retrospect, makes so
much sense, and which brings us so many heart-felt messages. Here is, first, a young boy with
traumatic brain injury and, then, a young man who at first doubts his abilities. Yet he not only
finds his strengths—and in holistic ways to which we all need to attend more—but finds the
energy and passion to bring his learnings to a greater audience, and indeed to help change and
improve how people learn about the world and themselves.
Resiliently rising above adversity, itself a creative quality (Runco & Richards, 1988;
Zausner, 2007), Dr. Woldt finds deeper power within himself and his fuller range of capacities
than many without limitations or disabilities even imagine exists—integrating right and left
hemispheres, multiple languages of knowing, arts and sciences, and the fuller field of influences
which impact us all in the present moment, and at every moment, in order to learn about both the
world we inhabit and the human heart. In fact, Dr. Woldt becomes the most educated member of

13
his family, and goes on to do a great deal of good, in public schools and finally at U. North
Dakota and Kent State University.
Do note that we define everyday creativity here, after Frank Barron (1969; Richards et
al., 1988), in terms of just two features: (a) originality, and (b) meaningfulness. This allows us to
look for the human ability to innovate wherever it may manifest in everyday life—be this in
teaching, parenting, designing an advertising campaign, landscaping one’s home, repairing one’s
car, or finding one’s way out of the woods when lost. This is the broad based sort of creativity
known to humanistic psychologists such as Carl Rogers (1961) and Abraham Maslow (1968)
among others, and is very consistent with gestalt views.
Although one finds talents specific to creativity in certain domains, as in the arts or
sciences, one also finds evidence for general factors (e.g., Plucker & Beghetto, 2004; Richards,
2007), and these are central to everyday creativity. Our everyday creativity operates across many
domains; it is first of all about survival—our human ability to improvise, be flexible, try one
thing and another, to adapt to our environment and to change our environment to suit us. But
there is more. Our innovative potential also provides an opening to some of life’s greatest
pleasures, can help give life real meaning, and indeed can move us along a path of personal, and
sometimes spiritual development (Runco & Richards, 1998; Richards, 2007a,b,c).
The discussion so far is focused on creative product and process, two of the “Four P’s of
Creativity” (Rhodes, 1961), and well known perspectives on this phenomenon. We can talk as
well about the other two Ps, creative person, and also press of the environment that stimulates
creativity. Notable to scholars of creativity, Dr. Woldt seems to integrates some disparate
personal qualities into his way of life—including the bridging of stifling gender stereotypes, a
well known feature of highly creative people (Richards, 2007c). High creators appear able to
manifest their fullest self without being boxed in by prevailing stereotypes, e.g., being at once
assertive and gentle, emotional and intellectual, logical and intuitive, and so on (Richards, 2007),
and he also notably integrates all of body, mind, and spirit.
Here is Dr. Woldt, Marine and interior decorator, professor and client centered therapist,
scientist and artist, creative advocate of Gestalt education and therapies, where the separation
fades and one sees that “Know Thyself” is indeed at the pinnacle of learning, and that learner-
centered education is central to our greater wisdom (never mind its helping with simple
retention, and immeasureably). As source of true knowledge, Gestalt educators know, and the
world’s great wisdom traditions most surely stress, is the present moment (Richards, 2007a;
Tarthang Tulku, 1978; Thich Nhat Hanh, 1988). Let us open to that moment even further.
Consider Dr. Woldt’s inspired anti-assignments in psychology. Example: “…explore
what it is like to not read assignments…you are told you should read.” What learnings can result!
He believes in, and empowers his students. He sees their natural strivings—toward health,
toward knowledge, toward contribution, toward overcoming resistances, and ever-becoming
more whole. He challenges them to see what is in the way, learn what is important to them, and
complete their own life gestalts. Of course the young people come to class!
I would like to comment further, in seven paragraphs, in fact, on Dr. Woldt’s inspiring
essay, using a template, “Seven Suggestions for Everyday Creative Learning” I just outlined for
a chapter in an education handbook (Richards, in press). These seven are also found in Table 1.
Table 1: Seven Suggestions for Creative Learning

14
 Note.—This table is adapted from Richards (in press-a)
We need greater valuing and conscious development of our:
1) OUTER SPACE = Creating a rich and safe environment, accepting of divergence, errors,
novelty, surprise; making room for innovation.
2) INNER SPACE = Valuing our fullest human experience and ways of knowing including
uncon-scious modes and the curious revelations they may force upon us, even when we don’t
want them.
3) OUTER BRAVERY = Awareness of pressures and willingness to address social
constraints and obstacles, while able to follow what is creatively necessary to produce and
share one’s creative activity.
4) INNER BRAVERY = Risking new knowing and self-awareness, taking creative risks,
conscious of inner pressures and fears, and doing what’s needed even when it is
uncomfortable.
5) VALUING OUR CREATIVE SELVES = Valuing our creativity, and not devaluing
creative qualities in self and others, even when this is uncomfortable, as with others’ more
difficult views and behaviors, and conflicting perspectives.
6) RELATING CREATIVELY = Practicing and valuing interpersonal creativity
beginning with authentic presence, and valuing the revelations and mutual growth that can
result.
7) KNOWING THE JOY = Embracing the glowing and uplifting moments that can result
from positive use of creative talents, e.g., in personal growth or social action.
Some of these suggestions are not the usual. Interestingly, they fit Dr. Woldt’s expansive
approach very well. They involve inner and outer personal space, inner and outer bravery, and
the valuing of the creative self, along with the highly underemphasized area of relational
creativity, and joy.
1) OUTER SPACE: Creating a rich and safe environment. These educational suggestions
were articulated elsewhere (Richards, in press-a) , not because they are so obvious but
because—alas—in some public school and even college settings, they are not obvious at all
(Cramond, 2005; Cropley, 1992, Richards, in press-b)). Happily, in this Gestalt setting, they
may seem more familiar, harmonious and necessary. As you know, many a classroom seems
overly ordered, strict, closed to much questioning. As Dr. Woldt says, the material may be
fully introjected or swallowed whole. In his alternative structure, the class belongs to all
participants, people have come to know each other more fully and holistically, and there is
connection, trust, dialogic processing, and presence in the moment. Dr. Woldt as facilitator
provides rich materials for encountering material or issues on one’s own terms, finding and
transforming one’s own energy, and experiencing learning in a much more true and creative
sense.
2) INNER SPACE: Valuing our fullest human experience. Here one turns to our subjective
world, and it is rich with alternative ways of knowing, visual, verbal, kinesthetic, individual,
dialogical, right hemisphere, left hemisphere, and as per much creative activity, an integrated
use of one’s full brain (e.g., Hoppe, in Runco & Richards, 1998). We also, as creative
individuals, find access to unconscious and often preconscious phenomena (Richards, 1981,

15
 2007a). Carl Rogers (1961) whose books were important to Dr. Woldt, and who wrote
remarkably on creativity, speaks of “toying with elements” and being open to one’s full
experience, in being creative. Yet many is the classroom where linear, verbal ways of
knowing highly predominate. In addition, we all have our less accepted unconscious
elements, what Jung (e.g., Storr, 1983) called the shadow. The creator takes a good look here
too! The results, in fact, can be good both for physical and psychological health
(Pennebaker, 2005), as well as creativity. The clear links between clinical and pedagogical
Gestalt work speak all the more to knowing and valuing our inner space.
3) OUTER BRAVERY: Awareness of and willingness to address social constraints and
pressures. Dr. Woldt speaks less directly of this one, but shows awareness of the issues. Our
creative innovations can lead to real resistance from others, our bosses, teachers, authority
figures who really don’t want the change we are advocating! It also makes life harder for the
classroom teacher (Cramond, 2005; Richards, 2007a; Torrance, 1965) to deal with all these
cheerful and creative nonconformists who want to do things their own ways! Dr. Woldt
jumps right into an alternative model where learning is individualized, where resistances are
used, and where each learner works to complete their own gestalts. Indeed the success with
Upward Bound and NYP students speaks to an ability to engage them meaningfully.
Evidence exists, it should be noted, even for our unconscious self-organizing resistance as
groups to new ideas, a particular pernicious phenomenon (Loye, 2007; Richards, 2007b).
Thus, a creative program such as this one would do well also to educate students about some
of the forces of resistance in the world. This will ease the road to social change. Indeed,
Summerhill, favorite book of Woldt’s as well as a report on an experimental school, was a
result of such a movement.
4) INNER BRAVERY: Risking new knowing and self-awareness. Dr. Woldt’s willingness
as facilitator to have students look within, to know themselves, to use strengths and
weaknesses, as well as one’s energy and resistances, in the service of personal growth, to
dialogue with others as part of the process, is very consistent with this suggestion, as well as
with Rogers (1961) suggestions for creativity. Ellis (2001) also asked us to challenge
circumstances and self to find a deeper truth. Indeed there can be spiritual growth and
development along similar lines (Richards, 2007). This suggestion carries with it as a clear
prerequisite, the clear personal vision of conscious awareness (Richards, 2007c) and living in
the present moment, as per Gestalt clinical and pedagogical practice. The gestalt belief that
humans can self-regulate, and have an urge to learn and grow, is also very much consistent
with the humanistic orientation of schools such as Saybrook Graduate School (Taylor &
Martin, 2001). Is bravery required? Absolutely. Dr. Woldt is well aware of the defenses and
resistances we can martial to avoid threatening material. This self-knowledge is often not a
focus in the schools—but how much stronger we would be as individuals and cultures, if it
were. “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” This is not about
memorizing history. It is about conscious assessment of the past, with critical and creative
awareness, toward finding better ways to live and to be, in the future.
5) VALUING OUR CREATIVE SELVES: Recognizing, valuing, and not devaluing
creative qualities in self and others. Why is this a problem? We have already alluded to those
who don’t like creative upstarts who want to change everything. At the level of the student,
young creative kids can sometimes feel ostracized and different, and their creative behaviors
(such as “I’ll do it my way”) may be pathologized, more than celebrated. Some cope by

16
 withdrawal, and some by clowning. (Cramond, 2005; Cropley 1992, Richards, 1996, 2007;
Torrance, 1965). Did you know that many teachers, even some who claim to honor creativity,
may actually elevate qualities associated less with creativity (e.g., obedient, agreeable) and
pathologize certain creative traits (e.g., emotional, outspoken)? (Westby & Dawson, 1995).
It will take a new set of values, inside the classroom and out, as well as higher budgets for
individualizing instruction, to honor our creative youth. A different way of defining
creativity, based on one’s personal best (e.g., Beghetto & Kaufman, 2007; Runco, in
Richards, 2007) Some make it to adulthood despite their early experience. Some are
traumatized along the way, as Dr. Woldt himself described. He at least looked for, and now
helps us look as well for, a different model—both for what we learn, and what it means to be
a learner.
6) RELATING CREATIVELY: Practicing and valuing interpersonal creativity. This one
is interesting because most mainstream Westerners don’t think of creativity in relational
terms at all (see Richards, 2007d). Yet what could be more attuned to our criteria of (a)
originality, and (b) meaningfulness, than our mutual give and take in relationship, our
heartfelt confidences, intellectual dialogues, our interactive experiences in the present
moment. There is spontaneity, reaction, flexibility, and change. We grow in relation to the
other, if there is true mutuality in the relationship. It is the creative qualities that bring a
relationship alive, that help us feel known and empathize deeply in turn, that allow us to
grow, and allow the overarching relationship to grow (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, &
Surrey, 1991). Dr. Woldt is very attuned to relational qualities and, indeed, to the classroom
as it belongs to the class members, to the totality of the individuals involved in defining the
field. Indeed we are learning more these days about relational psychology and our very
neurobiology (e.g., Eisler, 2007; Siegel, 2007). Many clinicians would agree that
psychotherapy, done well, and collaboratively, can be one of the most creative enterprises
around (Richards, 2007d). There are also interesting ties to Eastern philosophy and modes of
thought, and Dr. Woldt himself brings in Taoism. This is beyond the present discussion, but
helps explain potential growth processes and even spiritual progress for individuals and
groups so oriented (Richards, 2007a, d). Too long has mainstream psychology concerned
itself largely with the isolated individual and a specific curriculum. Gestalt psychology, and
relational creativity can move beyond these limits!
7) KNOWING THE JOY: Embracing the glowing and uplifting moments. Need this be
said, that creativity can be wonderful? That there is joy of discovery, of the new, of enlarging
one’s horizons, while at the same time bringing new and elegant order to the field, to one’s
maps of reality, to one’s understanding? This may even occur at times when the creator seems
passive, a member of an audience (Pritzker, 2007). Here indeed, as Dr. Woldt points out, is a
flowering of our emotional intelligence. There is certainly awareness that those moments,
together, when we creatively relate to each other, can bring real “highs” in joy and satisfaction
(Goleman, 2006, Richards, 2001, Russ, 1999, Schneider, 2004). And that our creative “Ah-ha!
moments” and discoveries, although perhaps preceded by times of turmoil and uncertainly (and
“tolerance of ambiguity,” a highly creative trait we can also, believe it or not, come to enjoy),
can be intensely rewarding? That efforts coming, as Dr. Woldt puts it, from within, out of
intrinsic motivation, and out of our own health-seeking and growth oriented motives, as well as
our wish to know and learn, to experience, and to bring our own efforts into the world. We may
well understand why Dr. Woldt’s students wanted to come to class. It was truly their class,
meeting their needs, and Dr. Woldt was at times like a midwife to this growth. We have such

17
 an opportunity in the world of education. Let us surely make the learnings useful, and let the
students also “know the joy.”
One may close by thanking Dr. Woldt once again for showing us the deep creative
potential of gestalt therapeutic and pedagogical work, and how it can reach into all corners of our
experience, and our lives. It can leave us better people, and the world a better place. A pleasure
indeed to contribute to this special issue on creativity of the Gestalt Review with such expansive
vision and vital goals.
References
Barron, F. (1969). Creative person and creative process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Beghetto, R., & Kaufman, J. (2007). Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for
“mini-c” creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 73-79.
Cramond, B. (2005). Fostering creativity in gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cropley, A.J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisler, R. (2007). Our great creative challenge: Rethinking human nature, and recreating
society. . In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature:
Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (pp. 261-285). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Ellis, A. (2001). Overcoming destructive beliefs, feelings, and behaviors: New directions for
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Jordan, J., Kaplan, A., Miller, J.B., Stiver, I.P., & Surrey, J.L. (1991). Women’s growth in
connection. New York: Guilford.
Storr, A. (Ed.). (1983). The essential Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Loye, D. (2007). Telling the new story: Darwin, evolution, and creativity versus conformity in
science. . In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature:
Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (pp. 153-173). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Nhat Hanh, Thich (1998). The heart of the Buddha’s teaching: Transforming suffering into
peace, joy, and liberation. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
Plucker, J.A., & Beghetto, R.A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain
specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko, & J.
Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-167). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Pritzker, S. (2007). Audience flow: Creativity in television watching with applications to
teletherapy. . In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature:
Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives (pp. 109-129). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.

18
Richards, R. (1996). Does the lone genius ride again? Chaos, creativity, and community. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 36(2), 44-60.
Richards, R. (2001). A new aesthetic for environmental awareness: Chaos theory, the natural
world, and our broader humanistic identity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 59-
95.
Richards, R. (2007a). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social,
and spiritual perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richards, R. (2007b). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday
creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual
perspectives (pp. 25-53). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richards, R. (2007c). Twelve potential benefits of living more creatively. In R. Richards (Ed.),
Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual
perspectives (pp. 289-319). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Richards, R. (2007d). Relational creativity and healing potential: The power of Eastern thought
in Western clinical settings. In, J. Pappas, B. Smythe, & A. Baydala (Eds.), Cultural
healing and belief systems. Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises.
Richards, R. (in press-a). Everyday creativity in the classroom: A trip through time with seven
suggestions. In J. Kaufman & R. Beghetto (Eds.), Creativity and education. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, R. (in press-b). Everyday creativity—Process and way of life: Five key issues. In J.
Kaufman & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, R., Kinney, D.K., Benet, M. & Merzel, A (1988a). Assessing everyday creativity:
Characteristics of the Lifetime Creativity Scales and validation with three large samples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 476-485.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Runco, M., & Richards, R. (Eds.). (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health.
Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publ Corp.
Russ, S. (Ed.) (1999). Affect, creative experience, and psychological adjustment. Philadelphia,
PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Schneider, K. J. (2004). Rediscovery of awe: Splendor, mystery, and the fluid center of life. St.
Paul, MN: Paragon House.
Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-
being. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Tarthang Tulku (1978). Openness mind. Berkeley, CA: Dharma Publishing.
Taylor, E, & Martin, F. (2001). Humanistic psychology at the crossroads. In K. Schneider, J.F.T.
Bugental, & J.F. Pierson (Eds.), The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges
in theory, research, and practice (pp. 21-27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torrance, E.P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

19
Westby, V.L., & Dawson, E.L. (1995). Creativity: Asset or burden in the traditional classroom?
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 1-10.
Zausner, T. (2006). When walls become doorways: Creativity and the transforming illness.
Harmony/Random House.
Zausner, T. (2007). Artist and audience: Everyday creativity and visual art. . In R. Richards
(Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and
spiritual perspectives (pp. 75-89). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

ANSEL’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTARIES

What a pleasant surprise to find that my article was selected for commentary in the
Review. Realizing the eminence of the commentators certainly added to the level of satisfaction
in reading their commentaries. I took the latest issue of Gestalt Review along to read on my flight
to Tokyo last month where I was to present, teach and train at the Japanese National Gestalt
Therapy Conference when I first saw the announcement of forthcoming articles. I was
flabbergasted when I saw it on the back cover.
It is a joy to know that Willson Williams, a distinguished professor of 25 years at Union
Institute and Saybrook, valued the story of my life’s journey as a creative Gestalt educator. As
she related my story to her own pedagogical experiences, she reminded me of the process of
mentoring doctoral advisees. Her statement, “The process feels like a dance,” stirred my soul as I
reflected on many different kinds of dances my mentees and I choreographed while creating 101
dissertations – some were like waltzes, some tangos, some jitterbugs, some plain old country
hoedowns and a few that did not fit any style of dance. Willson’s words, “It is the numinous and
ineffable that always makes us catch our breath and stand in awe at the wonders of what can be,”
fit for so many mentoring relationships. Yes, these acts of creation were indeed thrilling and
sometimes beyond words. Willson referenced one of my principal Gestalt trainers, Joseph
Zinker, with the reminder that, “Creativity is an act of bravery.” I concur with her statement,
“Encouraging creativity in academe can inspire us to reach beyond our self-imposed as well as
real limitations, or it can be daunting in self-imposed expectations of brilliance.”
Needless to say, it was also ego-enhancing to know that Ruth Richards, a physician and
professor of medicine at Harvard and also a professor at Saybrook, savored my contribution and
found support in it for her own theory of creativity. I like her identifying my heart-felt messages
as “everyday creativity.” I feel honored that she was sufficiently inspired by my essay to identify
aspects of it in her own forthcoming book, “Seven Suggestions for Everyday Creative Learning.”
While it felt risky to share my life journey in such a public forum, I now feel it was well
worth the risk for the satisfaction I received in reading these distinguished commentaries. Thank
you both for setting my heart and mind at ease. I am not only relieved, but also overjoyed.

20