IJSP Number 4, 2022

44 confrontational interventions, etc. This will put a strain on the relationship, but can be successful if, despite all the conflicts and struggles, the feeling of working together “ shoulder to shoulder with a view to the task ” is not lost, i.e. that a common direction and the feeling of pulling in the same direction is maintained. This is promoted by a differentiated perception of different parts and aspirations, methodically supported by the induction of different perspectives (internal view/external view) and the joint effort to endure (as yet) unresolved issues, “ shades of gray ” . 5.1. Working against each other or: When does the relationship “ tip over ” ? Up to this point, it should be clear: It is not conflicts per se that endanger the relationship in the long run, but the loss of a sense of community that supports the relationship. The immediate experience of an effective togetherness in the sense of the praegnant process Gestalts described above, the experience of being part of the whole of the relationship dynamic, turns into a feeling of distance or even that of “ against each other ” . The patient will then no longer experience the therapist (and/or vice versa) as a partner, but increasingly as an opponent. The “ shoulder to shoulder ” constellation will dissolve. This ‘ tipping event ” can be very different. It may happen suddenly and escalating or very gradually and subtly progressing. It may be obvious to both parties involved or only to one of them, but it is also conceivable that initially hardly perceptible processes may cause the relationship to tip over. The term “ tilt ” for this has been borrowed from the studies on shape perception. Many are familiar with the classical tilt figures (vase/faces, old woman/young woman cf. fig. 1, duck/rabbit). Here applies: Among the perception figures, tilt figures or ambiguous figures are a rare special case. They are characterized by the fact that it is already the special structuring of the visual material that enables not a single but two praegnant ways of viewing the picture. What makes them tilt figures or ambiguous figures is therefore not the relationship of the viewer to them, but their special nature or factual suitability for this phenomenon. The tilting process itself, i.e., the emergence of the second concise figure/ground structure embedded in the material itself, is an involuntary or arbitrarily brought about process of restructuring, primarily of re-centring. The role of the subjective side in this process has several aspects. 1) there must be enough interest or a special occasion on the part of the viewer to look at the picture long enough or repeatedly enough for there to be any chance at all of tilting; 2) his “ attachment ” (sic!) to the figure/ground constellation seen first must not be too strong (although this attachment can certainly be imagined as having something to do with his given state of tension of needs and strivings). Even if this special perceptual phenomenon cannot simply be transferred one-to- one to the much more complex processes of change in a relationship, it is worth taking a look at it: Just as not every picture is suitable for a tipping figure, not every relationship is suitable for a “ tipping relationship ” . In the tipping figures, the two possibilities are present from the outset in roughly equal weight; such an antagonistic, dichotomous view of the counterpart can also be present in a therapeutic relationship, as the following examples will show: