IJSP Number 4, 2022

43 seen and sensed is expressed, how it is evaluated or not evaluated. In short, the entire therapeutic attitude is not only passively perceived by the patient, but can also be successively “adopted” , at least partially, sometimes also “ on a trial basis ” , for example in the sense of: “ Aha, this is a new or interesting or helpful way to look at me and my world! ” In Lewin’ s terminology one could formulate: The therapist`s power field [13] induces in the patient an endeavour that is initially foreign to her, namely to look at herself in a self-caring and interested way, while her own original endeavour is directed differently. As soon as she has left the therapy room and thus, (in this assumed case) also the therapist ’ s field of power, the induced striving may lose ground and her own striving may come to the fore again. In the long term, however, this could help the patient to deal with herself in a more self-caring way even outside the therapist ’ s immediate power field. Galli means something similar when he speaks of „ love that compels love in return ” [16, p. 58] with reference to Dante. In this sense, the therapeutic relationship can be understood as a process Gestalt that follows certain regularities, primarily praegnanz tendencies. In this context, Stemberger [14] also refers to Galli and emphasizes that, on the therapeutic side, what matters most is the social virtue of „ devotion ” - devotion in relation to the task and in relation to the therapeutic concern. This, in turn, does not only apply to the therapist, because the patient will also, as a rule, surrender to the task at hand, intensified by her psychological strain. The relationship takes now on the excellent praegnanz form of common devotion to the task at hand. The tendency to praegnanz can be understood as a superordinate active principle in the therapeutic process; it can contribute to the fact that the participants have the experience of „ pulling together ” or also „ being pulled ” (pull of the goal ) [9]. This shared experience can be described in an approximate way as a certain conducive, creative “ atmosphere ” that “ carries ” the relationship, much in the same way that one can sense and describe different atmospheres in groups (families, school classes, clubs, etc.). Whatever words can be used to describe these atmospheres ( “ stimulating, challenging, exciting, interesting, calming, horizon-expanding ” etc. will probably be more conducive than “ boring, threatening, constricting ” etc.): They are co-determinants of what constitutes the atmosphere of the therapeutic situation in the respective experience, which either strengthens the bond or makes it appear fragile. The potential of therapy lies in the collaborative atmosphere just described; it provides a supportive framework so that crises that arise can be overcome. It may also be necessary to overcome longer phases of conflict. This can succeed if both participants are aware of the necessity (insofar as it makes therapeutic sense) of phases of struggling to move on [7]. In the sense of the field-theoretical model of the therapeutic relationship outlined at the beginning, it must even be regularly expected that such phases arise. The therapist ’ s task is to support this process, to accompany it compassionately, to endure the problem (often also the suffering and pain) together with the patient. As described above, there is already potential for conflict in the supposedly harmonious cooperation between patient and therapist. In addition, the therapist must successively intervene in such a way that a “ position can be taken ” , e.g. by inducing a change of perspective, encouraging the patient to adopt other points of view, “ holding up a mirror ” to the patient in the sense of