DREAMERS' REACTIONS

TO TWO METHODS OF

DREAM INTERPRETATION

Wendy A. Forray and James W. Woodcock

C.W. Post College of Long Island University

 

Many new ways of dealing with dreams have arisen in recent times. For examples of dreams that have been interpreted from a variety of theoretical orientations, we refer you to the work of Heuscher and Jones (see references 4,5). In this paper we present a preliminary study of differences in the dreamer's reactions to various dreamwork models. Here we compare a cognitive approach, Calvin Hall's content-analysis model, with an affective approach, Fritz Peris' Gestalt model.

Calvin Hall's approach to dream interpretation was based on an extensive analysis of over 10,000 dreams (2,3). Hall views the dream as an intelligible and precise account of what the dreamer thought while sleeping. The dream thus reflects the dreamer's self-concept and his perceptions of others are illustrated by the roles each enact in the dream, while the dream setting portrays the dreamer's conception of the world.

Fritz Peris' approach to dream interpretation was based on his work developing methods to help people experience themselves in a more direct, complete and spontaneous manner (6). Consequently, Peris viewed the dream as representing an existential fact-of-life for the dreamer. The dream's vision is assumed to be a projection of the dreamer's own self. Each dream image is regarded as a lost, rejected, alienated or undiscovered part of the dreamer's self. Through a revival of the dream experience (or fragment of it), these unconscious personality characteristics can be expressed and subsequently integrated to help form a more whole-some individual. The focus of concentration in the dreamwork is on the experience of the dream, rather than upon thoughts about the dream. Peris encouraged a strictly affectual reenactment of the dream, having the dreamer assume the role of the dream image and engage it in dialogue.