Power Dynamics in Gestalt Therapy Training

1. Introduction

On 2 December 2024, the AETG sanctioned Quim Mesalles and Ferran Lacoma by expelling them as members and withdrawing its endorsement of their school, Espai Lúdic, of which they are the owners, directors and trainers. Although the situation has been marked by profound misinformation because neither the AETG nor Espai Lúdic has issued an official statement, the information I have been able to gather appears to suggest that the sanctions were a response to alleged cases of “abuse of power”, “malpractice” and “psychological violence”.

When I received the message explaining the case (included in the annex), I was shocked but not surprised. I am a former student of Espai Lúdic, where I completed my Gestalt therapy training in June 2024. During the three years of training, Marta Cabré was my tutor, and Quim Mesalles and Ferran Lacoma regularly taught my modules. My own experience, recent events and the stories shared with me by other students, both from Espai Lúdic and from other schools, lead me to use the following idea as the starting point for this text: cases of abuse of power, malpractice and psychological violence may be occurring relatively frequently in Gestalt therapy training. Rather than trying to demonstrate the validity of this idea or develop it further, however, my purpose is to:

1. Encourage reflection. First, I seek to deepen my own understanding of what happened while inviting the community to question and debate the issue. I hope these pages offer an accessible and rigorous starting point for an exchange of ideas in which every voice can be heard.
2. Answer two key questions:
   1. What characteristics of the Espai Lúdic system may have enabled abusive practices, psychological violence and malpractice?
   2. What can we do to build a safer and more ethical system for students?

As we shall see, answering the first question will give us the key to resolving the second. I have focused on Espai Lúdic because I can speak about this school based on my own experience, but, as I said, I believe my analysis could be extended to other schools.

My knowledge is limited, but I believe that we must never lose our critical voice. Quite the opposite: we must leave behind the fear of reprisals and discuss matters openly and respectfully, making mistakes and learning. This text seeks to convey my voice, in the hope that it will soon mingle with the voices of all of you.

2. How the AETG and Espai Lúdic Have Managed the Conflict

To date, the AETG has not issued any official statement explaining what happened. We know that an investigation was allegedly conducted, but neither the reported events, the investigation process nor its conclusions have been detailed. The little information available comes from anonymous WhatsApp messages and word-of-mouth rumours, which only fuel confusion and anxiety. The endorsement of Quim Mesalles, Ferran Lacoma and the school itself was withdrawn without any public explanation. I consider this extremely serious because it leaves us, the students of Espai Lúdic, in a position of extreme vulnerability. We are unable to make informed decisions and act accordingly.

The AETG has a responsibility to inform the Gestalt community transparently about what happened. The school itself also has a responsibility to explain the situation to its students. However, the fact that Espai Lúdic is an accused party means that its account of events can easily be questioned, reinforcing the idea that the AETG should assume the role of primary source of information.

Far from acting transparently, the AETG has avoided providing information. My fellow students and I wrote to several members of the organisation requesting explanations. Our messages were read, but, after more than twenty days, we have received no reply.

In this way, the AETG is missing a major opportunity to set an example of what Gestalt therapy can contribute to conflict management and to demonstrate the values that should characterise our community. Proper management would have meant communicating transparently about what happened and opening a process of self-criticism and review, inviting every party involved, including schools, students, former students and Gestalt professionals, to participate in an open, rigorous and constructive debate.

This process could have included:

• In-person and online debates to reflect collectively on the situation.
• The creation of safe channels through which people affected by abuses of power in Gestalt training settings could share their accounts, following examples such as the #MeToo social movement or the recent case of Ana Polo.
• The development of an action plan aimed at ensuring that Gestalt training courses are safe spaces for students and trainers.

This kind of management would have transformed the conflict into an opportunity for collective learning, using the lived experience as a catalyst to promote real change and strengthen the Gestalt community.

Although the current reality is radically different, I remain hopeful that the approach will change.

I understand that we must be realistic and bear in mind that Gestalt therapy does not enjoy the best reputation among institutions or the general public. The AETG carries out arduous work to increase the visibility and recognition of Gestalt therapy, and it is reasonable to think that the alleged cases of abuse of power, psychological violence and malpractice may have a negative impact on our reputation. But to protect our reputation, we cannot act opaquely or set aside any of our principles and values.

3. Understanding What Happened Through Systems Theory

3.1. Espai Lúdic Is a System

General Systems Theory (Ludwig von Bertalanffy) and Field Theory (Kurt Lewin) hold that behaviours and problems can only be fully understood by considering the interactions and the context in which they occur. My most immediate context is the Espai Lúdic system, with its directors, trainers, students and former students. At the same time, Espai Lúdic forms part, as a unit, of other systems (such as the AETG system).

This means recognising that the actions (or inaction) of which Quim Mesalles and Ferran Lacoma have been accused did not occur in a vacuum, but within a relational context whose characteristics made those actions possible. Identifying these characteristics is therefore a necessary step if we wish to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves.

I therefore consider this theoretical framework a useful starting point because it is simple, relevant and accessible to members of the community. We are familiar with its concepts, which form part of a shared language. I hope that the systemic approach will help us broaden our perspective beyond the reported events.

3.2. The Symptom Is a Voice That Speaks to Us About the State of the System

The Spanish legal system is geared towards treating the symptom. If a person commits a crime, they are found guilty and punished in one way or another, yet statistics tell us that the person is likely to reoffend. A large study by the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), conducted with former prisoners from 30 states, found that approximately 68% of people released from prison were arrested again within 3 years. After 5 years, the rearrest rate rose to 77%, and after 9 years it approached 83%. How can this be? From a systemic perspective, the answer is simple: we are treating the symptom, addressing the offence by punishing the offender, rather than the cause, namely the social, economic and political system. I do not mean to suggest that punishment is useless. Punishments are quick, easy to apply and effective in their own way (that of treating the symptom); they send a strong message that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable behaviour and act as a deterrent, although, as we have seen, not a particularly successful one. Sometimes it is necessary to imprison someone promptly if they pose a risk to the integrity of those around them, just as it is necessary to take an antipyretic when a fever rises above 41 degrees. What we must avoid is allowing treatment of the symptom to distract us from treating the cause.

In the case before us, the alleged offences committed by Quim Mesalles and his associate Ferran Lacoma are our symptom. The symptomatic treatment applied by the AETG has consisted of expelling them as members and withdrawing the school's endorsement. Although withdrawing the endorsement affects parties who are not responsible, it appears to be a logical consequence because Quim and Ferran hold the roles of owners, directors, trainers and therapists, so a failure on their part compromises the integrity of the system. However, if we stop here, we will be making the same mistake that we criticise in our criminal justice and medical systems.

To listen to the voice of the symptom, we must seek to understand how our system works. We will begin by identifying the characteristics of a healthy system and then try to locate the parts that have favoured abusive practices.

3.3. The Health of the System Depends on the Degree of Integration Between Its Parts

A system achieves efficiency and effectiveness in its adaptation processes (that is, it can self-regulate and achieve its objectives) when its different parts function in an integrated way. In a healthy system, there is just enough connection and differentiation between the parts, and information flows between them, creating harmonious and flexible functioning. A lack of differentiation leads to chaos, while a lack of connection leads to rigidity. Traumatic experiences provide an illustrative example: the brain fails to process physical sensations, reason and emotions in an integrated way. This lack of integration results in a fragmented experience that is difficult to make sense of, preventing a coherent response from the system (in other words, the system fails to regulate itself).

If we apply this perspective to an organisation such as Espai Lúdic, we see that many elements influence the degree of integration between its parts, including clear communication channels, well-defined roles and responsibilities, monitoring and continuous improvement mechanisms, effective communication, and so on. In the sections that follow, we will therefore conduct a more detailed analysis to determine where and how integration has failed within the Espai Lúdic system.

3.4. Self-regulation Mechanisms in the Espai Lúdic System

As we have been arguing, a healthy system is capable of self-regulation.

Like any educational institution, Espai Lúdic needs regulatory mechanisms that guarantee a safe environment. In essence, these mechanisms are not very different from those found in any school, secondary school or university. Clear codes of conduct, procedures for responding to complaints, regular supervision and opportunities for participation are among the many tools available to prevent and correct potential abuses of power.

I am inclined to believe that many of the mechanisms I have mentioned either have considerable room for improvement or do not exist at Espai Lúdic. Nevertheless, to keep this text as brief and accessible as possible, we will focus on two regulatory mechanisms that are particularly relevant to the case at hand: the role of students as a mechanism for controlling and regulating power, and the tools used to gather feedback. We will begin by defining both mechanisms, then assess how they function at Espai Lúdic and the impact they may have had on this case.

3.4.1. Formal Feedback and Reporting Channels

A first regulatory mechanism consists of having tools that collect students' feedback on their satisfaction with the training. These tools, including regular surveys, suggestion boxes, anonymous electronic forms and group evaluation meetings, must be carefully designed so that students feel free to express themselves without fear of reprisals.

To be effective, these satisfaction assessments must:

• Be conducted periodically (for example, at the end of each academic year). This makes it possible to detect and address potential problems at an early stage.
• Guarantee anonymity. When gathering feedback in an environment where the trainer occupies a position of power, guaranteeing anonymity is especially important. This is the only way to prevent fear of negative consequences for expressing criticism or discomfort.

I am not aware of any such mechanism at Espai Lúdic. Of course, I am speaking from my experience as a student during the three years of training and from the information I obtained by asking my peers. We were never asked to complete a form giving feedback on the training, nor were we asked for feedback in person. I therefore consider this self-regulation mechanism to be non-existent or, at best, deficient at Espai Lúdic. It represents one of the factors that have contributed to abuses of power and violence occurring at the school and to their not being dealt with promptly and effectively.

If my analysis is correct, then we have found part of the answer to our two questions: cases of abuse of power, psychological violence and malpractice may have persisted over time because there were no feedback and reporting mechanisms in place to bring them to light. Consequently, implementing such mechanisms would be one way to prevent this from happening again. The school should establish safe and accessible channels through which students can freely express their concerns, criticisms or complaints without fear. It is also essential that this information be managed responsibly, making it possible to identify areas for improvement and, where necessary, activate effective intervention protocols.

3.4.2. Students as a Mechanism for Controlling and Regulating Power

Students themselves can, and should, play a role in resisting and controlling behaviour that they consider inappropriate. Consider the example of a secondary school: if a teacher shouts at the class disproportionately, students can identify that the teacher is violating a rule and that the behaviour is therefore inappropriate. They can then alert other parts of the system by telling their parents or the headteacher, or even by challenging the teacher directly.

For this mechanism to work, students need to feel that their voices are legitimate and that their role within the institution is not merely passive. This means fostering a culture of dialogue that recognises the right to reply and the need to verify information or decisions. It also requires a well-defined theoretical framework and clear, explicit rules: if students do not know the rules governing the dynamics of their training, they will have greater difficulty identifying when a trainer has breached one.

Although I can tell the reader in advance that I consider this self-regulation mechanism to be deficient within the Espai Lúdic system, I will leave its analysis until section 4, since it requires us to venture into more complex issues such as power dynamics and influence.

4. Power and Influence

4.1. The Lack of Differentiation Between Educational and Therapeutic Spaces and Its Impact on Power Dynamics

Gestalt therapy training, as offered by Espai Lúdic, combines education and therapy. On the one hand, the technique and theory of Gestalt therapy are taught; on the other, introspection and the so-called “personal process” are encouraged. This duality can be highly enriching for students, but it also entails risks when the boundaries between the two areas become blurred. If it is not clear when we are in a space for theoretical and practical training and when we are in a space for therapeutic intervention, that is, when there is insufficient differentiation between the parts, confusion arises, making it difficult to identify rules, responsibility, power and influence.

This confusion places the student in a vulnerable position and grants the trainer considerable power, because it allows the trainer to adjust the relational framework to suit their own interests and makes it difficult for the student to resist.

A representative example occurs when a student objects to a theoretical point or questions the approach being taken. At that moment, the trainer can redirect the situation to the therapeutic plane, invalidating the critical opinion through psychologising and turning it into the student's “personal problem”. The question “And what is it about this that affects you?” will sound familiar to all of us. When used to “protect the therapist”, this question has the effect of turning a space that should allow intellectual challenge or an exchange of views between equals into a therapeutic setting. This neutralises one of the system's regulatory mechanisms mentioned above: students as a mechanism for controlling and regulating power.

I would like to conclude with another example, this time from a training programme related to our discipline that does clearly differentiate between spaces and could therefore serve as inspiration. “Recuperant la Connexió” is a trauma training programme, in which I am a student, designed around three pillars: theory, personal process and therapeutic practice.

Each topic is developed over three sessions, each focusing on one of these pillars. Before starting a new topic, we are given all the theory in print so that we can read it beforehand. We begin with the theory session: we sit on chairs that support comfortable writing, and, while reviewing the content, we are invited to ask questions and share ideas. The resulting debate is extremely enriching and attracts a high level of participation.

The next two sessions on the topic focus on therapeutic practice and personal process, respectively. This separation of spaces is not rigid: theoretical questions can arise at any time, while personal processes can emerge in theoretical spaces, and so on. There is therefore a clear separation of spaces while sufficient flexibility is maintained to allow connections between them when necessary.

This separation of spaces enables us to understand the relational code that applies at any given moment. We can debate freely during theory sessions, secure in the knowledge that the trainer will never refer to our psychological characteristics in order to refute our arguments. And when we engage in clinical practice, we have a well-defined theoretical basis that provides clear criteria for evaluating our performance.

The next section addresses this last point: the importance of having a well-defined theoretical basis.

4.2. The Lack of Defined Concepts and Rules and Its Impact on Informational Influence and Privileges

Another factor contributing to confusion in Gestalt therapy training at Espai Lúdic is the shortage of theoretical content. Experiential learning (emotional and bodily) is given predominant weight, while rational explanation, bibliographic study and conceptual debate are relegated to the background.

Concepts specific to Gestalt therapy, such as awareness, introjects and the empty-chair technique, are addressed in class and appear in the bibliography. However, other fundamental concepts that cut across the training, such as level of awareness, level of openness and resistance, lack clear definitions. Despite their ambiguity, these terms are routinely used to evaluate students' progress implicitly.

Although there is no formal graded assessment, trainers communicate signals of approval or disapproval based on these concepts. This lack of clarity leaves students unsure about what is expected of them or the criteria by which their progress is evaluated. As a result, the trainer assumes the role of absolute arbiter of what is “correct”, “true” or “appropriate”. This grants the trainer disproportionate informational influence and limits students' critical capacity to question decisions or behaviour. Informational influence is a type of social pressure that leads people to accept the opinions or behaviour of others because they believe those people possess superior information or knowledge. It is based on trust in the credibility and experience of the source, and occurs especially in situations of uncertainty or when individuals feel they lack sufficient knowledge to make an independent decision.

Moreover, this implicit assessment manifests itself concretely in decisions that can have a major impact on students' future paths. For example, at the end of the training, the trainers decide which students will take on the role of observer and who will be assigned clients from Espai Social (a therapy service for people at risk of exclusion). It is also common for some trainers to refer therapy cases to the students they consider most capable. These decisions grant significant privileges to a few and exclude everyone else, but the greatest concern is that they are made opaquely and on the basis of ambiguous concepts.

Let us recall that, if the available information is correct, the AETG's accusation against Quim Mesalles is based on the allegation that he referred patients and appointed observers according to his own interests, a practice that the system allowed to continue unchallenged for years.

To prevent these dynamics from recurring, a clear and transparent assessment system based on well-defined concepts and criteria must be implemented. This would not only ensure a fairer allocation of responsibilities and privileges, but would also make it possible to establish effective self-regulation mechanisms in which internal monitoring and the capacity to resist power act as barriers against possible abuse and inequality.

4.3. Normative Influence

Normative influence is a type of social pressure that drives people to adopt the group's norms, ideas or behaviour in order to avoid rejection and gain acceptance. In the context of Gestalt therapy training at Espai Lúdic, this phenomenon is particularly relevant because the group approach is a central part of the methodology.

While reading Francisco Peñarrubia's “Terapia Gestalt, la vía del vacío fértil” (Peñarrubia was a co-founder and the first president of the AETG) during my first year of training, I came across a passage that caused me great concern. The passage reads:

“(...) the individual can better defend themselves against the interventions of an individual therapist (when the therapist frustrates the patient's avoidance and attempts to confront them with their falseness) by thinking, for example, that these are just 'things the therapist says'. This is much less likely to happen in a group: one cannot dismiss what dozens of eyes are seeing when they agree in pointing out the neurotic games of the individual working at that moment in the centre of the group.”

This short passage summarises three key ideas that, in my view, favour the emergence of abusive practices. First, it highlights the therapist's role as an agent of truth, since the therapist dictates what is false and what is true. We addressed this in section 4.2 on informational influence.

It also presents the patient as someone whom the therapist must strip of their ability to defend themselves. Conceiving of the therapeutic space as a situation of struggle and defence is connected with confrontation and psychological violence, an issue we will address later, in section 5.

Finally, the idea we now wish to address, because of its connection to normative influence, is the one Peñarrubia expresses in the phrase “one cannot dismiss what dozens of eyes are seeing”. In other words, the perception shared by the group carries the weight of “objective truth”, which the individual cannot (and should not) question. I will now try to explain my profound disagreement with Peñarrubia and the dangers this idea entails.

First, we are talking about a group led by a trainer who, as we have seen, exercises considerable informational influence. This leader can turn to the group to support their opinion when they encounter resistance from a participant (or, using non-therapeutising language, “when a student disagrees with them”). Although the group could theoretically disagree with the trainer, in practice it is unlikely to do so, because the trainer's authority and knowledge grant them credibility and reinforce their position. In this context, it is difficult for group members to develop their own judgement and feel sufficiently secure to challenge the trainer.

Once some members express agreement with the leader's opinion, the rest of the group is exposed to normative influence: social pressure to conform to the majority in order to avoid rejection. This can lead students to accept interpretations they do not share, prioritising group acceptance over critical thinking. Those who do not may be excluded from the group, and they could represent a significant proportion of the students who leave the training.

Second, history has repeatedly shown that collective opinion is not necessarily more accurate than individual opinion. There is no evidence to support the idea that a group's decisions or perceptions are more valid or correct simply because they are shared. The tendency towards group conformity can reinforce errors, biases and mistaken judgements, underscoring the importance of maintaining critical thinking even in a collective environment.

Unfortunately, during my training, I repeatedly saw this idea that “the group is right” put into practice through small comments such as “The group seems to agree”, “Don't you think that is how it is?” and “Look, the group is laughing, so perhaps it is true after all”. In this way, the trainer's power and influence over the group increase, while students' capacity for criticism and opposition diminishes.

To avoid these risks, it is essential to critically review the role of normative influence in training. Accepting the group's perception without qualification can be as harmful as denying its value. It is therefore necessary to:

• Encourage critical thinking: the trainer should work to ensure that students feel safe questioning them and raising doubts without being labelled resistant.
• Establish clear boundaries: trainers must be aware of their power to influence the group and should avoid using the group as a tool to exert pressure or validate their interventions.
• Promote a diversity of perspectives: a plurality of opinions enriches learning. The majority perception should not be assumed to be correct.

5. Confrontation or Psychological Violence

I want to take a moment to reflect on confrontation because I believe it frequently leads to psychological violence, as the line separating one from the other is very thin. Confrontation is only effective and ethical if it meets certain fundamental principles.

First, it must be guided by a genuine intention to benefit the student or patient. This means that the trainer or therapist must prioritise the individual's well-being over any other motivation, such as reaffirming their authority or imposing their perspective.

Second, it is essential that the trainer know the student well enough to identify their emotional and personal limits. If confrontation is too intense or poorly calibrated, it can be perceived as an intrusion or even an act of violence. Forcing someone to confront aspects of themselves for which they are neither predisposed nor prepared may not only be ineffective, but may also cause emotional harm and retraumatisation.

The use of confrontation in a training context must therefore be approached with extreme caution. The trainer must be fully aware of the risks involved in using this tool and continually reflect on whether their intervention genuinely serves the student's learning and growth process. Ignoring these considerations can transform what should be a technique for support and growth into an act of abuse of power and emotional violence.

6. Summary and Conclusions

To begin drawing conclusions from the path we have followed so far, we need to revisit the questions that have guided us:

1. What characteristics of the Espai Lúdic system may have enabled abusive practices, psychological violence and malpractice?
2. What can we do to build a safer and more ethical system for students?

Regarding the first question, we have seen that some self-regulation mechanisms are deficient or non-existent. On the one hand, the lack of differentiation between therapeutic and training spaces and the lack of theoretical content and explicit rules grant the trainer disproportionate informational influence, increase the group's normative influence and prevent students from fulfilling their role as a mechanism for controlling power. We have also found that there are no safe feedback and reporting channels, making it difficult for abusive practices to be brought to light and addressed promptly. Finally, we have explored how confrontation can become psychological violence if it is not guided by a genuine intention to benefit the student, if the trainer does not know the student's limits or if it is not applied with great caution.

Regarding the second question, schools could foster a safer and more ethical system by supporting students' role in controlling and resisting power. This requires the creation of permanent feedback and reporting channels that guarantee anonymity, as well as a clear distinction between training and therapeutic spaces in order to prevent therapeutic framing and the use of psychologising strategies that some trainers might employ to discredit students and protect themselves. It is also important that schools promote critical thinking and a diversity of perspectives, and that trainers avoid using the group as a tool to exert pressure or validate their interventions.

From my point of view, schools have a great deal of work to do, and students must become aware of the importance of our role as agents who control power within the system. In this spirit, I make a proposal to students and former students in the following section.

7. The Now as the Basis for What Comes Next

I have borrowed this expression from María Spagnuolo for the title of this section because it precisely reflects the moment in which we find ourselves: the present as the basis from which to propel ourselves towards the next step. Up to this point, this text has been an exercise in analysis and reflection, with proposals aimed primarily at Espai Lúdic, the AETG and the Gestalt community in general. However, I want to close this document with a concrete and actionable proposal addressed directly to us: students and former students of Gestalt therapy.

I propose the creation of a Spanish Association of Gestalt Therapy Students and Former Students. I believe this association could become a safe space where students and former students could share our ideas and experiences and, through this exchange, collectively promote the initiatives we consider necessary. The association could function as a mutual support network while also acting as a mechanism for controlling and regulating Gestalt therapy training, helping to improve the quality and safety of training processes.

A fellow student shared with me the idea of creating a student committee within the AETG, the purpose of which would be to give students a voice inside the institution. The idea seems as appropriate as it is disconcerting, since it appears to reveal that, since its foundation in 1982, the AETG has operated without incorporating active student participation.

As a first step, I have created a form that you can complete if you would like to be part of this association of Gestalt therapy students and former students. If there is sufficient interest, I commit to creating a space for debate and collaboration where we can jointly decide how to proceed.

Here is the link to the form:

Form to join the association of students and former students