In an earlier newsletter, I gave the following example of the kind of intimate conversation that I try to help partners have.
Brad: I’m embarrassed to say this but sometimes—maybe more than sometimes—I worry that you’re more important to me than I am to you.
Lisa (genuinely surprised): That’s amazing to me. You wouldn’t believe how often I’m scared you don’t need me at all—that you’d rather be with somebody else.
In this brief exchange, both partners confide what they had been struggling with alone—which turns out to be the same feeling: concern about being less important to the other than the other is to them. It’s an intimate moment.
That’s good, wrote Judith commenting on my newsletter, but suppose Lisa is not surprised, suppose she agrees with Brad that she’s more important to him than he is to her. How can they get an intimate conversation out of that—even with a therapist’s help?
They can if Lisa’s response to Brad’s admission is one of compassion—in which case, she might put her arms around him and say quietly, “Maybe so, but I still love you and I have no intention of letting you get away.” She’d be trying to reassure him. Or she might say, “That’s sweet. I feel so cherished.” She’d be taking his comment as an expression of affection.
But let’s say that Lisa’s response isn’t compassion but, instead, impatience. She sees Brad as too needy—as probing for reassurance in a way that she’s tired of. She blurts out, “Well, do me a favor and get over it.” Or “I’ve really had it with the injured puppy bit,” Or “Why don’t you man up.”
My task, were I their therapist, would be to recast Lisa’s statement.
Dan: Okay Lisa, I’m wondering if you’re feeling something like—Here, I’ll be you talking to Brad. And as you, I’d say: “Brad, I’m pissed, as you can see. I know you’re one of those sensitive males—that’s what attracted me to you in the first place. But there are times, like now, when I wish you were more the self-confident bad boy. I know that’s probably unfair.” (To Lisa:) Tell me if any part of what I just made up for you captures what you feel.”
I’d be translating Lisa’s angry statement into a confiding one. I’d be showing what she might say were she to look at her reactions from a dispassionate and compassionate vantage point—a platform. I’d be creating this platform by (1) substituting a friendly tone of voice for her angry one, (2) replacing her accusations with acknowledgements, and (3) reporting her anger rather than unloading it.
How do I know that my guess about what Lisa feels is accurate? I don’t know, but it might be accurate, since I’d be basing it on what she about herself earlier in the therapy. And it doesn’t matter if I’m inaccurate. She can correct me. In fact, I hope she does correct me, since she’d then be putting her stamp on my intervention. I’m using an example of something she might feel as a way to suggest a whole genre—the genre of compassionate meta-level statements. I’m saying in effect, “If my guess is inaccurate, is there another statement of the same general sort that does capture what you feel?”
Let’s say Lisa’s response is: “No, he just needs to get a life.” Let’s say, furthermore, she’s operating from what Terry Real calls a grandiose position. She enjoys dominating and bullying. That doesn’t feel bad to her. It feels good, because it gives her the sense of control she wants. Were we to put a microphone to her mind, however, we might hear that she’s not fully behind what she’s doing.
I hate when Brad gets clingy like this.
But I am overreacting.
No, I’m not. He needs to be called on his behavior.
But—oh god!—I sound like my father.
No, this is different. My father went ballistic with no reason. I have reason.
But enough reason? “Man up” is pretty harsh.
It’s for his own good. He needs to man up.
But I knew what I was getting when I married him. It’s my own fault.
I used to love how he adored me; now it just feels smothering.
It doesn’t matter. I should be able to accept him for what he is.
Oh, “shoulda-woulda” All that fawning is just too hard to take.
But he looks so crushed. I feel bad.
Of course I do. That’s what he wants me to feel.
This inner debate might occur right there in the moment or later when Lisa was taking a shower or driving to work. In this debate, she toggles between justifying her reaction and criticizing it. My task as therapist is to bring this debate into the open.
Dan: Lisa, I wonder if you’re thinking—here I’ll be you, talking to Brad. “Brad, I go back and forth between telling myself that I should accept you the way you are and telling myself that I don’t want to put up with the way you are. It’s no secret that I’m presently in the second state big time.”
It’s amazing how many people who seem one hundred percent committed to their condemnation of their partner will acknowledge being of two minds about it. Of course, many others don’t acknowledge their ambivalence, either because they are not of two minds—I guessed wrong—or fear that if they do so, they will weaken their case.
Let’s say that Lisa denies having such an inner struggle; she feels totally justified in her criticism of Brad. I would then look for an outer struggle, where the problem exists between Brad and her.
Dan: Okay Lisa, I got that wrong. It’s what you said: that you’re upset with Brad and need him to change.
Lisa: He’s not going to change.
Dan: Oh?
Lisa: When I tell him what I want, he gets defensive, so I’ve stopped telling him—except times like this when my frustration builds up.
Dan: Well then, Lisa, are you saying to Brad, “I don’t have a way to tell you what I want that doesn’t just start an argument, so I hold my tongue. But my resentment builds up and eventually I burst out in a way that starts an argument anyway. So I feel stuck. And, Brad, I suppose you feel stuck, too, having this wife who goes back and forth between quiet resentment and active anger.”
I’m demonstrating what Lisa might say were she to report her struggle and at the same time acknowledge his. Everyone is recurrently in a struggle of some sort, if not an inner one then an outer one, and confiding this struggle is the intimacy available in the moment—even if, as in this case, it means talking intimately about being at an impasse.
Let’s take it a big step further and imagine that Lisa is operating from “a really ugly place,” as Judith puts it. She seeks to hurt Brad—“to exploit, deceive, intimidate, dominate, undermine, humiliate, manipulate, or gaslight.”
There’s a general question here and a specific one. The general question is: aren’t there couples for whom I can’t create intimate moments? My answer is: yes, many more than I’d like. My goal is to help partners have conversations that make a difference and I don’t always succeed. The specific question is: isn’t a major reason for such failure that one of the partners is exploitative? My answer: I think of such a person as deprived. For whatever reason—whether its roots are in character, culture, or experience—they are unable to avail themselves of the pleasures that a two-sided (collaborative) relationship can provide—the attachment pleasures of responsivity and give and take—and must make do with the lonelier one-sided pleasures of dominating, deceiving, and exploiting.
Another elegant and exquisite newsletter. I so appreciate that you take “worst case” situations (which is where we feel most challenged) and still manage to find a compassionate stance, a compassionate voice, an intimate moment. Seeing an “exploitive” or “narcissistic” person as “deprived” is not just a deft reframe; it’s seeing the person for who they are, not for how they behave. And you are so right that the booby prize is being right/dominant/powerful when what most people would prefer is to be happy and connected. Thank you, Dan!
You really pinned down the essence of the piece.
The Judith reservation and your answer remind me of the W. H. Auden couplet, “If equal affection cannot be,/ Let the more loving one be me.” Which would one choose to be in a couple, on the assumption that “equal affection” is only an ideal, the more loving or the more beloved?
I always appreciate your literary references.
Thank you for this; it brought me to tears. How beautiful!
I think what you’ve come up with for situations in which harshness covers ambivalence is excellent and wonderful. I see how you give every chance for a positive, healing side of inner debate or outer struggle to emerge, and that you make your openness to correction clear, which I think is critical, especially if the truth of the matter is that there is no positive side at the moment.
As for situations involving exploitive or malicious motives, I agree with you that the victimizer is deprived. That concept might be a good starting place both for helping the therapist cope with his own emotions in reaction to ugly behavior and for crafting therapeutic responses.
If Bob the victimizer can be helped to realize he is deprived, well and good–an intimate conversation might be possible. If not, then I think the therapist still needs to figure out how to help Jane, the victim. What is her understanding of what Bob is up to? Is she in denial, confused, disillusioned and devastated, perfectly clear and retaliating, exploitive or malicious in her own right? If Jane says harsh things about Bob, to what extent is she involved in inner or outer struggle, and how can the therapist avoid invalidating the possible truth of some or all of her negative perceptions?
Yes, I’d be developing Jane’s position at the same time as I’d be developing Bob’s, doubling for her as I would for Bob. I’d thus be helping her state her objections.
I think that would help a lot!
In my earlier comment, I think I skipped too quickly over the possibility of helping Bob realize he is deprived because I think that would be so hard to accomplish. If Bob’s motives are exploitive or malicious, probably the last thing he wants to recognize is that he is missing something, that he is perceived by the therapist as a wounded soul. Such recognition is likely to feel weakening, humiliating. But if the therapist nevertheless can lead Bob to this and if Jane could welcome Bob home–how profoundly healing that would be!
To clarify how the therapist runs the risk of invalidating Jane’s perceptions, suppose the therapist doesn’t realize Bob is coming from exploitive or malicious motives (let’s abbreviate these as “Es or Ms”). Then the therapist doubles for Bob, supplying possible more compassionate alternatives. Bob may accept these with relief, glad for a way out and for having fooled the therapist. Jane may think she’s being mean to be thinking mean thoughts about Bob when look how the therapist attributes vulnerability to Bob–she should be feeling sorry for him maybe! Or maybe Jane is so confused by Bob’s tactics that she can’t even come up with mean thoughts about him. In that case, the therapist has reinforced her confusion. If Jane feels clear and strong enough to argue with the therapist and accurately insist Bob is coming from Es or Ms, then that’s good.
Yes, those are things I’d want to be on the watch for so that I could keep them from happening.
Yes, maybe awareness of what could go wrong is the key. Maybe there is no one best way to deal with complicated E or M situations, but being aware they could play a part helps one prevent bad outcomes.
I’m thinking what is needed is for therapists to be as well-versed in the range and frequency of exploitive and malicious motives as they are of the ordinary human feelings that arise out of the vulnerability of the human condition. Forewarned is forearmed. Thank you for this conversation.
Following up on my comment above about being well-versed in the variety and frequency of exploitive or malicious motives, I think if the therapist has this knowledge base, she is more likely to be able to convey some kind of matter-of-fact acceptance of Bob, however much she may dislike, loathe or fear what he is up to. She can convey she still sees him as part of the human race; that people commonly are not pure of heart. Old time Christian religion conveys this by asserting we are all sinners and we all can be redeemed. If Bob can take in this message from the therapist, he is more likely to be able to own up to his motives and be open to the possibility of a better way.
A worst case scenario: Jane is the identified patient because she’s a mess, whereas Bob seems to be functioning well. Neither Jane nor the therapist recognizes Bob’s Es or Ms. Jane is a mess primarily because of Bob’s attacks which she cannot recognize as such. (Think of the movie “Gaslight.) If on the other hand she’s clear enough to accuse him of Es or Ms, he uses that as evidence that she’s really crazy. If the therapist does not recognize Bob’s Es or Ms, he may privately agree with Bob that Jane is paranoid, or he may try to supply her with more compassionate ways of thinking about him, adding to her confusion and feelings of defectiveness.
Sounds like going to couples therapy if one partner has aspergers.
Aspies can cause such anguish and ill-health in their partners and a therapist without experience makes it far, get worse for the non-aspie partner.
Aspie behaviour can be just like gaslighting!
Wonderfully insightful, Dan. You have a unique gift — to be able to get inside others’ heads like you do and reflect back thoughts and feelings even they didn’t realize they had.
Another great piece of work. I especially like how you work to uncover the ambivalence hiding below the surface of the wife’s anger and unwillingness to respond with what Brad wanted to hear. Well done, Dan!
I really like the concept of the inner and outer struggles and the way you described them.
Hi Dan. That is a beautiful piece, illustrating your endless ability to be compassionate. I would have said something far harsher. I think I’d have said to her that her contempt of his needs could eventually destroy his love for her, and that she has a choice to make, and so does he. If she wants to have a relationship in which she feels okay denigrating his needs of her, then the eventual consequence is that he will turn away from her, and be left alone, and lonely, and perhaps search for someone who will respect his needs. The choice he has to make is whether he wants to be in a relationship in which his needing closeness with her is rejected and he is seen as un-manly. If this is allowed by her and him to become a characteristic of their relationship, then it could be a deal breaker. It would be for me, if I were him.
So maybe it would make sense to try Dan’s method first, to explore whether Lisa already has latent doubts about her nasty bluster that could surface with a little help. If not–if Lisa feels perfectly justified being contemptuous, then maybe it would make a lot of sense to point out the probable terrible consequences of Lisa’s behavior and the fact that both Lisa and Brad have choices to make about it.
(Continuing reply to John Gottman): I realize that a core dilemma for me is that I feel comfortable only when I’m in an empathic, supportive mode and am out of my comfort zone when “harsh” confrontation seems to be in order. Is it possible to respond supportively and empathically to both an abuser and his/her victim without whitewashing the abuse? I’d love to be able to do nothing but develop the positions of both people, but if one or both are not straight shooters, am I required to state my own opinion of what is going on, at the risk of feeling I’m being harsh and judgmental? John, you may have been feeling you were harsh because you really didn’t like what Lisa was doing, but as I read what you would say to her, it feels to me like you’d be giving rather objective and informative feedback. Perhaps “objective/informative” could be a middle ground therapeutic stance between supportive/empathic and harsh/confrontational?
Yes, you’ve shown in your studies how extremely corrosive contempt is in relationships.
“…they are unable to avail themselves of the pleasures that a two-sided (collaborative) relationship can provide—the attachment pleasures of responsivity and give and take—and must make do with the lonelier one-sided pleasures of dominating, deceiving, and exploiting”.
…describes the Sadist, whether physical or psychological. But I keep in mind that some Sadists find their Masochist and hence return to the collaborative life style of sorts, on the one hand. On the other, some Dominating-Deceiving-Exploiting folks are seeking profit not please.
Dan, it seems to me that the folks best served by the Collaborative are those who who are pent up with love, even with a measure of pain. The others are a children of another God.
Hi Dan,
Thank you for your helpful blog. I continue to be amazed at the difference between your approach and that of most others. Your greater compassion enables partners to find their respective voices and to achieve the healing shifts that often arise naturally from the collaborative (heartfelt) conversations and compassionate meta-level statements you help them to have and make. At some point I think it would be great for practitioners to engage in an ongoing discussion about why it seems the vast majority of us attempt to fix, advise, correct, etc. rather than to help partners find their most vulnerable voices in a safe environment.
I’m looking forward to your next blog.
Best Wishes,
Dave
“Find their most vulnerable voices”–that’s a great phrase.
HI Dan – and all – you asked me to comment – well – Dan is an empathy master so much of this just resonated with me – and but – an EFT therapist would go in with an attachment frame – and go deeper into the emotion –
SUE: “Could you help me – you used the word “smothered” – when he comes and strokes your arm and tells you how you are the center of his life but feels unsure as to how much he matters to you – you feel smothered ? Like the closeness is somehow too much …………yes ?
LISA: yes – its like he is becoming a child or something ……..its too much. People should be able to stand on their feet –
SUE: ” Hum – so you dont see him as telling you how precious you are to him ? – you dont see his courage and strength in how he reaches for you with such honesty ( she looks at me sideways) – somehow you are worried that he isnt just reaching for you – he will maybe lean – weigh you down – ask for too much closeness perhaps ? Its somehow strange or uncomfortable for you when he talks like this ((in EFT we call this catching the bullet))
LISA: Well – yes – it does feel uncomfortable – what does he want me to do !!
SUE: Right – I get that – this kind of reaching for reassurance and open sharing of love isnt a place you know – you even get a little worried that he is asking for more than you are comfortable giving ? ( she nods) What happens in your body when we talk about this – I notice you are pressing your hand on your other hand. You really are not used to someone moving in this close and asking for this kind of response
SUE:……………………………….etc – can you tell him – “I am not used to this kind of connection – it makes me feel wary ……. some part of me wants you to back off a bit .
sue j
It amazes me what you can do with the concept of avoidant attachment.
Hi Dan
I really loved the dialogue above. If I were absolutely at the top of my game and the kind of therapist I want to be, I would say the kind of things you said. What I think would be challenging in this kind of a situation is managing my attention to Brad as well as Lisa. While I am trying to understand and develop Lisa’s experience, Brad may not sit quietly and experience nothing further. He may be angry at Lisa for her rejection of him, interrupt and nail Lisa for it, seek my support in his view that Lisa is cold-hearted and undeserving of his generous love, and be unconvinced in my efforts with Lisa and think that I am just trying to whitewash her coldness. I would like to hear your thoughts on how you manage attention to both or manage the interruptions that each may make. I try to keep some kind of balance but often make momentary decisions on the basis of who I think is more emotionally stable at the moment and can wait while I work with the other.
In addition to the kind of work you describe above, which in IBCT we would call “empathic joining,” I might try to do what we call “unified detachment.” In this, I would help the couple get to a more objective, detached platform in which to have a discussion. Specifically, I would engage them in a discussion of the pattern of interaction in which they get stuck, helping them describe its repetitious, circular sequence, as well as the impact it has on them individually as well as on their relationship. However, this is very much a back-up strategy when the content has to do with such emotionally evocative material as revelations about the importance that each one has for the other.
John, I was interested in your comments. I have not had a lot of success when I have resorted to confrontation. Bill Miller of Motivational Interviewing fame just gave a skype talk to my graduate seminar and mentioned the consistent literature on the failure of confrontation in the addiction literature. I don’t know of any relevant literature in the couple or family area. If you do, I would love to hear about it. My guess is that there is not much there, so we are guided by our theories, our predilections, and our gut feelings rather than data, as is so often the case.
You bring up the next question that needs to be dealt with: what do you do when both partners need your immediate attention: they are so triggered by the other that they need you to appreciate their point of view and will interrupt—spew out angry denunciations of the other—if you don’t do so immediately? I’ll work on an answer to that question for a future newsletter/blog.
Well, I’m afraid I’m very late to this conversation and having read many of the comments, I must say that I’m in agreement with what many have said. Dan, I loved your piece. Once again I find how much you and I think similarly. In PACT we do some doubling, as you know. However, I could imagine getting similar results by using a bottom-up technique (non-verbal and surprising). One possibility would be to have the partners hold a pose (static physical positions) such as putting them into a Lover’s Pose with Lisa in the inferior position of lying with her head on Brad’s lap and looking upward into his eyes. I would carefully watch their bodies and faces for reactions to this position. If Lisa were highly avoidant and dismissive of dependency needs, I would expect to see signs of discomfort arise as both she and Brad held this pose. The inferior position (infant) would be highly evocative as would the maintaining eye contact without talking. As an avoidant, I might expect her to be unaccustomed to being held as she would likely show signs of contact avoidance/aversion. I might have Brad, while maintaining his gaze on Lisa, comment on Lisa’s comfort in this position; what her face is doing; what her eyes show. I might ask Lisa how she feels looking up at Brad and what she sees in his face. We could play here for a very long time (as long as neither partner becomes physically uncomfortable) and make use of this trance-inducing pose and work with implicit and explicit memory systems.
“Lisa, as you look at Brad, do you recall anyone holding you and gazing at you in this way?” Or “Brad, while gazing at Lisa, tell her, ‘You’re not too much for me.'” And then watch what happens in their faces and eyes. In the context of Lisa’s stated impatience with Brad’s neediness, this statement may sound weirdly off key. But in keeping with the likelihood that Lisa’s own experience of having her attachment needs dismissed or put down, the statement may then be appropriate and surprising to Lisa.
There are sooo many other things to play with in this particular pose that I could outstay my visit here. I have to say that your (Dan) if/then examples above are so wonderfully familiar to me, as are worse-case scenarios which I think are the most fun (as a therapist).