PSYCHOTHERAPY: THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

VOLUME 16, # 3 , FALL, 1979

RESOLVING SPLITS:
USE OF THE TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE
LESLIE S. GREENBERG
Faculty of Education, Department of Counselling Psychology
University ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T1W5

ABSTRACT: The therapeutic use of the two chair oper- proceeds to have an encounter between them.
ation is discussed. The distinctive features of three This two chair technique has become a popular
types of splits, Conflict, Subject/Object, and Attribu- and fashionable one and is presently being used
tion, are described to aid process diagnosis. Each by many practitioners in the field, who sense its
split is characterized by the nature of the two parts, relevance to their practice, even though they may
relationship between the parts and the client's subjec-
not be trained in the particulars of Gestalt
tive experience of the split. Five principles of the
Gestalt method for resolving splits, Separation and therapy. This operation can be used with skill
Contact, Responsibility, Attending, Heightening and And sensitivity in order to carry a person forward
Expressing, are presented. The nature of the client in their resolution of splits but it is too often
process in each chair in the dialogue is described in misused and becomes just a flashy dramatic
terms of depth of experiencing and voice quality. technique 'full of sound and fury, signifying
Examples of specific interventions implementing each nothing.'
principle are given. Perls and others have written about and dem-
onstrated their work with splits, but there has
The complex interventions of many experien- been little specification of the principles which
tially oriented therapists are frequently regarded guide the therapists' moment by moment per-
as intuitive artistic endeavours, and are too often formance in therapy nor of the component skills
thought to be unteachable in any systematic way. needed in their behavioral repertoire. The pur-
Without denying the intuitive aspects of good pose of this paper is to spell out the specifics of a
therapy, there does appear to be a basic structure Gestalt method of working with splits, in order to
to many of the interventions of good therapists. facilitate training, supervision and research of
The fundamentals of many techniques in the field this method.
today are specifiable and teachable and more Although the Gestalt approach is wholistic in
effort is needed for laying bare some of the tacit emphasis, valuing that the whole is greater than
knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) and underlying prin- the sum of the parts. Gestalt therapists do
ciples governing these skilled performances. In respect and pay attention to minute detail in
this paper the underlying principles of a method behavior in order to promote the formation of
for resolving splits, derived from the practice new Gestalten (Perls, 1973). This specification of
of Gestalt therapy, are presented. the details of a Gestalt technique will in similar
Many systems have stressed the importance of spirit promote a sharper awareness of some of the
polarities and splits in human functioning (Jung, elements of a complex therapeutic performance.
1966; Rank, 1945; Perls, 1951) and Gestalt ther- Practice in the specifics of this complex skill by
apists make explicit use of those ideas, in their the therapist will in turn lead to higher level
work with the empty chair (Perls, 1973; Fagan, integrations and improved therapeutic perform-
1974). In this Gestalt experiment the person ance much the same as the manner in which
plays the role of both sides of the conflict, usu- practice with notes allows one to excel in the
ally locating each side in a separate chair, and playing of more complex melodies.

316
 RESOLVING SPLITS: TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE 317

The first step in the use of this operation is the ing that at that moment requires and is highly
recognition of splits in a person's functioning. amenable to change. Diagnosis of 'moments' of
Whenever an internal conflict is obviously ex- this nature enable optimal use of the therapist's
pressed, such as, "I would like to but I don't executive skills, i.e., they highlight particular
dare;" "I want to but I can't;" "I'm not sure client states that at that moment are most pro-
whether I can;" "I feel like crying but I'm hold- ductively worked on in a particular way.
ing back;" the basic nature of the experience, Three types of process splits occur most fre-
that of fragmentation, a split in the person's quently in clients' presentation of their 'prob-
functioning, can be readily extracted from the lems in living' to the counsellor. The Conflict
person's own verbalizations about their experi- Split is one in which two partial aspects of the self
ence. Instead of a single clear preference arising, are in opposition to each other and are felt as two
the person is torn between alternatives. There is opposing tendencies. A Subject/Object Split is
an experience of two parts of the self split into one in which clients express that they are doing
partial selves in opposition, rather than the ex- something to themselves. The third split, prolific
perience of a single integrated self in process. in many clients' presentations, is the Attribution,
Clearly identifying this split and sensing the op- when one aspect of the self is attributed to the
posed forces within, becoming aware of the world.
conflict between the two parts, represents the A study of a number of examples of naturally
fundamental task for the client in this experi- occurring splits showed that they could be de-
ment. fined on the basis of distinctive features in the
In general, the split can be identified by its clients' behavioural productions. The following
verbal markers, i.e., what the person is saying. scheme for defining splits was developed from a
Often we find, "I should do this but I. . . ," "I formal observation procedure, (Greenberg
want to stop but I. . . ," "I am happy but I 1976).
wonder if. . . ," and then the stage is set for an
interminable merry-go-round of self cancella- The Split
tion, of if/then, yes/but, etc. . . . These words
are the markers of the split, i.e., "I want to be A split is a verbal performance pattern in
honest but I just can't. I always end up telling which a client reports a division of the self pro-
lies." In this marker of the split, we find one cess into two partial aspects of the self or tenden-
part, the first " I " (It) who wants to be honest cies. The three types of splits detailed below
is not fully aware of the separate existence of differ in that the relationship between the parts of
the second " I " (l^) who wants to fabricate. This self (R) and the person' s subjective experience of
marker, "I want to but I can't" represents the the splits (S) are different for each type of split.
split in its most salient form.
If at this point, people take responsibility for 1. Conflict
both sides in the conflict, namely for wanting to
do something and also not wanting to do it, and This split is characterized by the two partial
become aware of how they are preventing them- aspects of the self being in opposition with each
selves, they may discover the path to resolution. other. The relational feature is a word or words
The opportunity for contact between parts, if which indicate that the two parts are being set
provided, leads to creative problem resolutions against each other (but, yet, if/why). The per-
in the form of an integration or centering "the son's subjective experience of this type of split is
reconciliation of opposites so that they no longer one of struggle, indicated by some process or
waste energy in useless struggle with each other content cue that the person is involved in some
but can join in productive combination and inter- form of inner struggle, striving or coercion
play." (Perls, 1970) (should, must, want, etc.).
The recognition of splits is predominantly a
Examples
perceptual skill, the making of a 'process diag-
nosis,' by identifying verbal or non-verbal mar- a) Sometimes I think that I am cold and rejecting; maybe
/ (PI)* am but (Re) / (P2) don't want (Ss) to be.
kers of a client's internal state of conflict. What b) / (PI) should (Ss) be more tolerant yet (Re) / (P2)
is important about this diagnosis is that it cap- can't. (Ss).
tures an aspect of the client's ongoing function- c) / (PI) have to (Ss) complete this. / (P2) don't really
318 LESLIE GREENBERG

want to (Ss) but (Re) / (PI) must (Ss). b) He (PI, Rt) thinks this (what I say) is ridiculous.
d) On the one side (Re), / (PI) don't want to (Ss) tie / (P2) get so upset (So). / can't, I just can't (P2 So)
myself down. On the other side (Re) however, / ever get him to see my point of view.
(P2) want (Ss) the security offered me by marriage.
I just don't know (Ss) what to do.
b) Attribution of Agency
* PI, part one. P2, part two. Re, conflict indicator. Ss,
struggle indicator. In this attribution split, people 'give up their
power' to the environment and then feel acted on
2. Subject/Object or alienated by it. The goal is to regain one's
power, an experience which leads the individual
In the second type of split the two partial to feel less victimized or alienated and more able
aspects of the self are in subject-object relation to to do something about their situation. The sub-
each other. One partial aspect of the self (the jective feature in this type of split is one of
subject, I) does something of which the other passivity in which people experience something
aspect (the object self) is the recipient or the being done to them by a third person or the locus
observer. The person is usually fully invested in of control lying in the third person.
one aspect of the self in this situation. The rela- a) She (PI,* Rt) made (Sp) me (P2) feel embarrassed
tional feature is a pronoun such as myself or I (angry, etc.).
which indicates the self as an object. The subjec- b) / (PI)need (Sp) them (P2, Rt) to reassure me.
tive feature is either a process or a content cue * PI, attributed part. P2, part two. Rr, third person or ob-
indicating discontent or exasperation with the ject indicator. So, opposition indicator. Sp, passivity indi-
cator.
behaviour in which the person is engaged.
a) / (PI)*judge (Sd)myself (P2 Ro). Discussion of the Two Chair Operation
b) My difficulty (Sd) is that when I'm (PI) writing my
paper, I'm (P2) also marking it. (Ro)
c) / (PI) close off (Sd) my feelings (P2, Ro). / (PI) The therapist's initial function in this opera-
don't allow (Sd) myself (P2, Ro) to feel. tion is to suggest an experiment to help demar-
* PI, part one. P2, Part two. Ro, Object indicator. Sd,
cate the two parts of a split. The experiment is set
discontent indicator. up by the therapist but control and observation
are shared with the client. The therapist's mo-
3. Attribution ment by moment interventions may not always
follow a linear or logical path. They are rather
In the attribution-type split a feeling that is designed to bring to fullness the totality of ex-
actually a part of the self is attributed to an pression that is occurring in the present. It is the
outside object or person. The relational feature is counsellor's ongoing awareness of the client,
a third person or object indicator such as he, they and sometimes of himself, that form the basis of
or it. There are two subclasses of attribution this shuttling intervention, jumping from the
discriminated by the subjective feature. dialogue to a body movement to an interesting
voice quality, following any facet of expression
that may add to the client's awareness of what is
a) Attribution of Opposition unfolding in the present.
This attribution is indicated by the person's In initiating this experiment therapists do not
hypersensitivity to a minor manifestation of at- approach their clients with the deliberate inten-
titudes or feelings expressed by a third person. If tion of doing something to them. Rather, the
a person is bothered in this way, this is taken as therapists approach the situation as true obser-
evidence that something of importance, that vers and when a split jumps vividly as a figure
needs to be resolved, is being touched on. The into their field, they follow their awareness and
subjective feature is a process or content cue engage in a two chair experiment. If the therapist
indicating a disagreement with or a struggle becomes deliberate and invested in identifying
against a third person in which the self is particular conflicts, reifies these, and engages in
strongly invested. the operation in a premeditated way, the benefit
of the 'process diagnosis,' viz., that the split is
a) My father (Pl*Rt) says I should (So) finish the four
years, / (P2) keep trying (So) to tell him I'm not an indicator of present readiness for change, will
learning anything. be lost.
 RESOLVING SPLITS: TWO CHAIR TECHNIQUE 319

The subjective feature of the split, what the and with other people and things. The client
client is presently experiencing, will probably initially uses a more external or lecturing voice
account for its rising as a vivid figure in the and engages at low levels of experiencing.
perceptual field of the therapist. The client's Clients speak from the 'Other chair' as though
voice may suggest a certain urgency, his body an they are their internal objects and representations
agitation; some increased intensity of feeling is of the world in the face of which the organism or
portrayed by the way in which the person talks the self in the 'Experiencing chair' reacts or
about his experiences. A difference is observed, feels. The description of the dialogue in terms of
some aspect of the client comes alive for the the 'Experiencing chair' and the 'Other chair'
therapist and it is this present cue which prompts appears to be a useful one and has led to the
the therapist's intervention. following observations from split episodes
Having recognized an initial split, the thera- which reached some form of resolution. Resolu-
pist is ready to set up a dialogue between the tion performances appear to be characterized by
parts. What is it about this type of dialogue that a shift at some point in the dialogue in the 'Other
makes it so useful? The process of having a chair' to higher levels of experience and more
person talk to themselves usually livens things focused-expressive voice much as though the
up a little just by its difference, but this is not client in the 'Other chair' becomes less critical,
sufficient. Some particular things need to be ob- softer, and more understanding or accepting of
served and done to aid the integration process. the self.
First and foremost, the therapist needs to be These observations suggest that the therapeu-
able to continually identify what the person is tic task is to promote experiencing in the one
doing in each chair. Perls (1969) has popularized chair and criticisms and projections in the other
the notion of Top Dog and Underdog and shown chair. In addition, they point to the fact that
how the bullying authoritarian part of the per- being alert to any change in tone and quality in
sonality engages in an endless dialogue with the the way the person relates to themselves from the
manipulative excusing part of the personality. 'Other chair' can greatly enhance the probability
Although this is a useful description of some of of facilitating split resolutions.
the two chair process, it does not clearly aid our Given that the therapist recognizes the 'exper-
understanding of what happens in the rest of the iencing part' and the 'Other part' the following
dialogue nor how resolution comes about. underlying principles of this operation convey
Research and observation of the process of the the nature of some of the moment by moment
two chair dialogue has shown that the two chairs interventions that can be used to help carry this
in the dialogue can be profitably characterized as type of two chair dialogue forward toward reso-
the 'Experiencing chair' and the 'Other chair' lution. The five principles are: 1) Maintaining
(Greenberg, 1976; Greenberg, in press). These the Contact boundary- maintaining clear separa-
chairs have similarities to Underdog and Top tion and contact between the parts. 2) Responsi-
Dog respectively, but can be used to describe the bility-directing clients to use their abilities to
unfolding of the dialogue in productive therapeu- respond as the agent of their experience. 3)
tic process as the person moves to resolution. Attending-directing the client's attention to par-
The 'Experiencing chair' is the experiencing part ticular aspects of their present functioning. 4)
of the person much like the organism or self in Heightening-highlighting aspects of present
other experiential therapies. When the dialogue experience by increasing the level of affective
is progressing well, this part rapidly moves away arousal. 5) Expressing-making actual and par-
from whining and excusing and engages in a ticular that which is intellectual or abstract.
process of inner exploration and experiencing. These principles are elaborated below and are
This chair has been shown in our research to exemplified by a number of specific therapist
engage in the dialogue at deeper levels of experi- behaviours which embody these principles and
encing on the Experiencing scale (Klein et al. indicate how they are used. A specific therapist
1969) than does the other chair. It also uses more behaviour may satisfy more than one principle at
focused and expressive voice (Rice, 1967) than a time although it will have a primary thrust
does the 'Other chair.' governed by one principle. These principles
The 'Other chair' in contrast is filled with viewed together define a basic structure or
internal objects, with the person's attributions configuration of the therapist operation.
 LESLIE GREENBERG

1. Maintaining the Contact Boundary. boundaries can constitute a state of confluence.

(Perls, 1951) An important technical issue in this
The aim of the experiment is to achieve clear experiment is that often in dialogue, the bound-
separation of the parts, and clear contact, en- ary between the parts collapses and both sides
counter between the parts. This is the primary agree with each other even though an integration
goal, to have both parts clearly separated and has not been achieved, e.g., a client who is
making contact with one another. The therapist depressed engages in the following dialogue:
intervenes when the dialogue is halted in order to
PI "You don't have to sit around being bored. You don't
maintain a flow of contact and works continu- really not have any energy. Your body produces en-
ously to separate out emerging polar aspects of ergy the same as anyone else's body produces energy.
the client's on-going experience. This continual Where does it go?"
separation serves to deepen the process by pro- T "What does she say?"
P2 "That's a good question. Where does it go?"
gressively refining the nature of the conflict. T ' 'What do you feel about what she says to you?''
When a split arises the counsellor can encourage P2 "She's right. I should have energy when I don't have
the formation of a contact boundary between the energy."
parts by working with the person at: T " I hear this other side talking. Come back here.''
PI "Yeah, I don't see why you don't have energy.''
T "So, make your demands on her."
a) Getting a 'sense' of the part. P2 " I just want that part of me to go away. Go away!''

C "It seems like I have two parts, active and pas-

sive."
Here we see confluence, the non-awareness of a
T "Tell me some of the things you like to do as boundary between the two parts, when P2, the
the active part." 'Experiencing chair,' loses touch with self and
in effect becomes an extension of the 'Other
In this intervention the therapist suggests that the chair,' PI. The therapist twice attempts to get
person speak as one part to get a sense of it. P2's response but when this fails P2's statement
C "There's a nameless mass of people out there who is labelled as belonging to the other side and PI
don't care. It's full of people who don't care." is clearly kept as the agent of dissatisfaction.
T "Be them, take a little time and get a sense of This is one of the ways of dealing with this situa-
being them."
tion of confluence. Another way is to suggest
In this intervention the therapist attempts to sepa- the person as P2 try on the opposite role, instead
rate out two sides, self and world, by asking the of agreeing, to state differences, and make a
person to be the one side in the other chair. case for being energyless, i.e., to respond as the
energy less part and to identify with the feelings,
b) Contacting. etc., embodied in the experiencing. This recog-
nition of the collapsing of the parts and the
C "I don't like the way that part of me does things." reestablishment of separation is essential for the
T "Now say this to your other part. Here she is.
Say this to her." experiment to have any hope of success.
Another way in which defining differences can
In this intervention the therapist suggests that the be useful is in helping to clarify the conflict. One
part in the 'Other chair' speak directly to herself. of the most obvious characteristics of two parts
C (to the Experiencing chair) "I think you should in conflict, especially when they are stuck at an
stop complaining - accept your situation.'' impasse, is that they do not wish to come to-
T "So, sit in this chair and now tell her how you gether because they do not accept their differ-
feel."
ences. At this point the parts can be asked to
In this intervention the therapist intervenes in the define their differences or dislikes of each other
dialogue to give the part in the 'Experiencing and this often serves to clarify the impasse.
chair' an opportunity to respond.
The guiding principle of this experiment is 2. Responsibility
reflected in this process of separating out the
parts and setting up contact, The Gestalt notion of avoidance is important
c)Defining differences: The experiment involves in this context. Avoidance, the phobia of experi-
clearly defining differences or boundaries, be- ence and the blocking of awareness, is the activ-
tween the two parts in dialogue. The lack of clear ity of not taking responsibility. This activity is