Every few weeks, I will post my thoughts from various books, articles, and discussions – as an extension of my desire to understand better the relationship between human behavioral health and counseling/psychotherapy. This blog is NOT intended to diagnose, treat, or replace person-to-person psychological, medical, or legal professional consultation.
The Good Divorce?
It’s always been interesting to me to notice how counseling issues (themes) seem to come in waves. For example, the last few weeks have brought the often concurrent issues of relationship betrayal and dissolution to the fore. These are issues, unfortunately, never far from the sound-proofing of a therapist’s office. That said, I’ve been reminded what a helpful resource The Good Divorce (1994) by Constance Ahrons, PhD has been. Dr. Ahrons is professor emerita in the department of sociology at the University of Southern California, and called upon frequently as an expert by members of the media.
Dr. Ahrons quickly qualifies the rather oxymoronic title in the Introduction of her book:
“Is divorce good? The answer is a resounding ‘no.’ Divorce is what it is: a fact of our society….Its purpose is to act as a safety valve for bad marriages. In fact, most people say that this function is the only thing that is good about divorce. For most, it is better to go through that temporary, excruciating pain than to continue to live with the permanent, excruciating pain of a bad marriage.
But if divorce isn’t good, is there such a thing as a good divorce? The answer is a resounding ‘yes.’ Not only do such divorces exist, but about half of divorced couples today actually manage to end up with one. In these good divorces, couples part without destroying the lives of those they love. Their children continue to have two parents. The divorced parents continue to have good relationships with their children. The families of these good divorces continue to be just that – families.”
These assertions are based on Ahrons’ groundbreaking research—The Binuclear Family Study—in which she and her associates over the course of six years studied the relationship between ex-spouses three times: one, three, and five years after divorce. Ahrons coined the concept “binuclear family” to mean “any family that spans two households. Nuclear families have one nucleus, one shared household; binuclear families split into two nuclei, two households, each headed by one parent. The family continues to be a unit even though it shifts from a nuclear structure to a binuclear one.”
Five types of divorced couples were identified in the study, ranging from caring and supportive friends (one extreme) to hostile and bitter foes (the other extreme). The five types are as follows:
1. Perfect Pals – a small, but significant group in the study who remained very good friends after the divorce.
2. Cooperative Colleagues – About one-third of the total sample consisted of ex-spouses who handled their post-divorce fall out in productive ways; being able to separate their parental responsibilities from their spousal discontents.
At this point in the study, relationships between ex-spouses head south. Groups three and four divided almost equally; a distinction being “not so much the amount of their anger, but rather how they expressed it.”
3. Angry Associates – whose anger regarding marital differences infused all family relationships. These couples expressed anger at each other every time they communicated (which was only to make plans for their children), which would metastasize into related and nonrelated issues.
4. Fiery Foes – “the real prototypical examples of bad divorces.” Ahrons writes: “Fiery Foes were unable to remember the good times in their marriage. They clung to the wrongs done to each other, and even exaggerated these wrongs for effect or in order to keep building their case. Like couples in a conflict-habituated marriage, the Fiery Foes were still very much attached to each other, although they were quick to deny it. They simply could not let go.” (I’ll have more to say about this negative attachment shortly). Needless to say, fiery foes are the couples who make headlines.
5. Dissolved Duos – Although not present in Ahrons’ study, these ex-spouses completely discontinue contact with each other, where one parent disappears from the children’s lives. Although rare (even the worst parent usually maintains some contact), I hear stories of such duos all too often in therapy.
Chapter 3 discusses each of the five typologies more in depth. I especially recommend the reading of chapter four—“The Emotional Process of Divorce; Letting Go While Holding On”— which begins to discuss Ahrons’ five “transitions of divorce”: the decision, the announcement, the separation, the formal divorce, and the aftermath.
The negative attachment that often continues to plague ex-spouses and their future relationships is both diagnostically and prescriptively obvious in therapy. I observe this phenomenon a lot in working with couples. Ahrons writes:
“Why are the typologies important? Because the style of interaction and communication a couple develops postdivorce affects all their future intimate relationships. Interestingly, not only does the type of postdivorce relationship a couple develops affect the entire functioning of their family, but it also carries over into their remarriages. One of the most significant findings was that amicable exspouses, when they found new partners, were happier in their remarriages than were hostile or unfriendly exspouses.”
Sobering words. But, there’s more. In a section called “Acrimony Takes Its Toll”, Ahrons continues:
“There is no way to talk about divorce without talking about anger. It’s a universal reaction and it’s inevitable. But that doesn’t mean you should feel free to express your anger without restraint. Anger takes a terrible toll….When we focus on our rage, we stifle our ability to get on with life. In the Binuclear Family Study it was clear that those who stayed angry—Angry Associates and Fiery Foes—stayed mired in the past instead of moving on to the present….In a real sense, they were actually more attached to their exspouses than were Cooperative Colleagues….Continued, unrelenting hostility and anger are a clear indication that the losses that are an inevitable part of any divorce haven’t been mourned. Rage wards off not only the fears of facing sadness but ultimately the sadness itself. What almost always lies beneath rage is grief. If the loss of one’s dreams was allowed to surface, was felt and accepted, the rage would dissipate and life would go on. For many people, maintaining the continuing anger acts as a defensive shield.”
In a later section of the book called “After the Anger May Come Depression”, Ahrons concludes: “(T)wo of the most common reactions to being left (are anger and depression. However) where anger is mobilizing, depression is paralyzing. Anger often masks depression, and when the angry feelings abate, the depression emerges.”
It’s no wonder many ex-spouses prefer mad to sad. “Mad” feels better. But, it comes at a price.
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
Traumatic Anniversaries
One year ago this past week, the nationally covered Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs claimed land, property (approximately 350 homes destroyed), and human life (2 deaths). It got me to thinking about the nature of traumatic experiences about which I wrote a blog entitled “Trauma!” This June, 2013–a year later–got me to thinking (again) about the nature of traumatic experiences – albeit “traumatic anniversaries.” Little did I—nor other residents of the Pikes Peak region—know that the “Black Forest Fire” would tragically and ironically claim even more land, property (approximately 500 homes destroyed), and human life (2 deaths) – around the same time as the Waldo fire.
In a recent eNewsletter (Value Options, June 2013) I receive, the lead article (“Phases of Traumatic Stress Reactions in a Disaster”) begins: “Many posttraumatic stress symptoms are normal responses to an overwhelming stressor which may change our assumptions and create distress, but will recede in intensity with time. Experts agree that the amount of time it takes people to recover depends both on what happened to them and on what meaning they gave to those events.” The article describes how reactions to traumatic events often fall into different phases: impact phase, immediate post-disaster period, and recovery phase. The recovery phase is that “prolonged period of return to community and individual adjustment or equilibrium.” “During the stage of acute danger the priority for all is basic safety and survival. Once this is relatively secured, other needs emerge that are both existential and psychological. And once manifest, these needs are typically left frustrated and unfulfilled for a prolonged period of time. And many times, through media, retribution or continued violence, the society in question is re-exposed to further traumatic events.”
One such “prolonged reaction” is the possibility of “anniversary reactions”; “certain so-called coincidences (where people) react to the fact that the date is the anniversary of some critical or traumatic event. For example, a family member might become depressed at the same time each year around the date when a parent or sibling died, even though he or she often makes no conscious connection.” (McGoldrick, 1999)
In his splendidly succinct book Healing Trauma (2005), Peter Levine, PhD, discusses anniversary reactions vis-à-vis the “compulsion to repeat” (“one of the more unusual and problem-creating symptoms that can develop from unresolved trauma”). Levine writes: “Reenactments may be played out in intimate relationships, work situations, repetitive accidents or mishaps, and in other seemingly random events. They may also appear in the form of bodily symptoms or psychosomatic diseases. Children who have had a traumatic experience will often repeatedly recreate it in their play. As adults, we are often compelled to reenact our early traumas in our daily lives.” Levine relates a story told by renowned psychiatric researcher Bessel van der Kolk. A PTSD veteran held up a convenience store on July 5 in the late 1980s at 6:30 a.m. – with only a finger in his pocket to simulate a gun. Returning to his car, he waited until police arrived. It was discovered that the traumatized vet had committed six other so-called “armed robberies” over the past 15 years, all at 6:30 a.m. on July 5. Dr. van der Kolk asked the man directly what happened on July 5 at 6:30 a.m. It was finally learned that a close army buddy in Vietnam had died in the vet’s arms at exactly 6:30 a.m. on July 5. The man had reenacted the anniversary of his friend’s death every July 5. The traumatized veteran spent the therapy session with Dr. van der Kolk grieving over the loss of his friend, having made no connection between his friend’s death and the compulsion to commit robbery. The connection between the robberies and the Vietnam experience? Staging the robberies meant re-creating the firefight that resulted in his friend’s death. The man’s annual, anniversary reenactment unconsciously enlisted the police as Viet Cong. Once the man became aware of his feelings, and the original event, he was able to cease the annual reenactment.
“Admittedly,” writes Levine, “the story of the man staging robberies every year on the same day is a rather extreme example. It serves the purpose of illustrating the fact that we can go to great lengths to create situations that will force us to confront and deal with our unresolved trauma. Unfortunately, the link between a reenactment and the original situation may not be readily obvious….Frequent reenactment is the most intriguing and complex symptom of trauma.” Levine concludes: “With this story in mind, you might look for events and/or accidents in your own life that seem strangely repetitious, as they may well show the mark of some unresolved trauma. Perhaps you have forgotten the original event that initiated the pattern of behavior you revisit through reenactment. Often, when exploring these possible reenactments, you’ll get a sense of both knowing and not knowing. As you work with these patterns and the memories that may awaken, trust your own felt sense and give yourself the freedom to explore the hidden connections.”
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
The Past is Not Past
A month ago, I had the privilege of attending a two-day workshop in Denver led by Laurel Parnell, PhD. Dr. Parnell is a renowned clinical psychologist and EMDR specialist. (For more information about Eye Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing therapy [aka EMDR], consult the “Services” and “Resources” links on my website.) In her book, A Therapist’s Guide to EMDR (2007), Dr. Parnell gives a good example of how current symptoms are often linked to past situations – which is why therapists, like me, often want to “dig around” the possible etiology [causes] of problem behaviors.
Pretend you’re a therapist. A woman comes in to see you because she is having “problems at work.” She tells you that whenever her boss walks up to her desk to ask her a question, she “chokes up, feels stupid, and can’t think straight.” Instead of her usual bright and articulate self, she becomes mute and deeply embarrassed. She wonders how much longer she can tolerate such stress. She considers quitting the job she loves (or worse yet, getting fired for incompetence). She also tells you that she doesn’t understand why this is happening since her boss “is a nice guy.” He’s done nothing to cause her to feel this way.
As you begin gathering information about her history, you eventually discover some interesting details that–linked together–might be influencing the current difficulty with her boss. You learn that in childhood her father was “overbearing and critical.” He continually scrutinized her homework and always found fault with it. She remembers feeling powerless and stupid when he would criticize her. Her heart would begin to beat faster, and her stomach would tighten. She felt small and ashamed.
As you continue information-gathering about her past, you discover that her early paternal memories seem to link up with other negative experiences with dominant and critical teachers, boyfriends, and employers. You learn that she had a mean teacher in the sixth grade who intimidated her, a high school basketball coach who demeaned her, and more recently a boyfriend who verbally abused her. Her strange and confusing reactions to her current boss seem to take on new meaning.
You consider the strong possibility that it’s not her current boss per se who she’s reacting to, but earlier memory networks that are strangely and painfully coalescing in the person of her boss. You think that what’s needed is to address and reprocess some of those past memories with her father, teachers, and partners. You share your thoughts with your client, and suggest a future course of therapy. She agrees – and in time, her symptoms improve. Her boss is no longer the feared person he once was to her.
Dr. Parnell observes, “Sometimes reprocessing the earliest, most charged memory (in this case, her father) can have such a strong generalization effect that it clears the rest of the memories up the chain alleviating the present problem and symptoms.” I would like to say that this is “always” the outcome, but the generalization potential of targeting “root experiences” cannot be overlooked. To do so, says Parnell, is like “taking off the top of a weed without getting the roots. The weed will just grow back.”
William Faulkner was surely right: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
“On Transience” (“On Change”)
Every now and then in a therapy session, I will pull down a book from my shelf and read a few lines that I think might be helpful to a client. Such was the case a few days ago. I read from the book, Going to Pieces Without Falling Apart (1998), written by Dr. Mark Epstein, psychiatrist and professor of psychology at New York University. My client suggested that I share it in a blog, along with a few of my personal comments. Dr. Epstein’s text is reproduced below in regular print, while my comments are in italics.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
“In a short, masterful, and little discussed paper written in 1915 called ‘On Transience,’ Freud….(recounted) a summer walk that he took through a ‘smiling countryside’ with a ‘taciturn’ friend and a ‘young but already famous poet.’ Freud described how his friends were unable to smile back at the beauty that surrounded them. They could admire the sights he observed, but they could not ‘feel’. They were locked into their own minds, unwilling or unable to surrender to the beauty surrounding them….(T)hey were unconsciously guarding themselves against engagement with something that might disappoint them.
‘The proneness to decay of all that is beautiful and perfect can, as we know, give rise to two different impulses in the mind,’ wrote Freud at the beginning of this essay. ‘The one leads to the aching despondency felt by the young poet, while the other leads to rebellion against the fact asserted.’ Either we get depressed when confronted with impermanence, suggested Freud, or we devalue what we see and push it away.”
I was unaware of this essay by Freud, but it certainly begins to illustrate the automaticity (versus mindfulness) with which we often live life. Faced with the inevitability and rapidity of change (transience), we automatically (mindlessly) distance ourselves from disappointment and hurt by anesthetizing ourselves through either depression, or avoidance behaviors (for example, compulsive/addictive behaviors, relationship hopping, etc.). Epstein continues.
“Only by cultivating a mind that does neither…can transience become enlightening…; that it is possible to cultivate a mind that neither clings nor rejects, and that in so doing we can alter the way in which we experience both time and ourselves.”
Epstein’s words “it is possible to cultivate a mind that neither clings nor rejects” reminds me of one of my earlier blogs: “Hold On Loosely (But Don’t Let Go).” In that blog, I quoted the lyrics of the southern rock group ’38 Special: “Hold on loosely, but don’t let go. If you hold too tightly, you’re going to lose control…” The anxiety of change–especially when it’s unpleasant–often compels us to either tighten our grip on things, people, and outcomes, or let them go altogether. Clinically speaking, tightening our grip tends toward enmeshment and rigidity, while letting go tends toward disengagement, even chaos. Instead, holding loosely without letting go preserves a third way of which Freud and Epstein speak. Back to the text.
“Freud sought to return his friends to a more intimate and immediate experience of the moment. ‘It was incomprehensible, I declared, that the thought of the transience of beauty should interfere with our joy in it….A flower that blossoms only for a single night does not seem to us on that account less lovely.’ Yet Freud’s exhortations did not move his friends. He was unable to open their senses to the beauty surrounding them. Their hearts remained closed, their minds stubbornly disconnected from their bodies, their avoidance of transience overshadowing their sights, smells, and perceptions.
Why, asked Freud, do we prevent the flow in moments such as these? Why do we hold ourselves back from contact? Why do we hold ourselves so aloof? His friends’ disengagement on their summer walk obviously had all kind of reverberations. Would they not hold themselves back from love just as they were holding themselves back from nature?
In Freud’s discussion of his two friends’ hard-heartedness, he had the realization that they were trying to fend off an inevitable mourning. In their obsessional way, they were isolating themselves and refusing to be touched….To one degree or another, we are all, like his friends, in a state of abbreviated, or interrupted, mourning. Acutely aware of our own transience, we alternate between an aching despondency and a rebellion against the facts. We cling to our loved ones, or remove ourselves from them, rather than loving them in all of their vulnerability. In so doing we distance ourselves from a grief that is an inevitable component of affection. Using our best obsessional defenses to keep this mourning at bay, we pay a price in how isolated and cut off we can feel.
By pushing away the painful aspect of experience, Freud observed, his friends were isolating themselves from their own capacity for love….(The truth is) everything is always changing. When we take loved objects into our (lives) with the hope or expectation of having them forever, we are deluding ourselves and postponing an inevitable grief. The solution is not to deny attachment but to become less controlling in how we love.”
I see it all the time with clients in therapy. Heck, I see it often in my own life; the avoidance of disappointment and hurt. And, why not? No one–including me–likes to hurt! Except…when our tendency to suppress and deny keeps life on auto-pilot.
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
Shared Relationship Control (Part 2)
This blog post piggybacks on my previous post: “Shared Relationship Control.” I ended that post as follows: “In making a (relationship) investment, you choose to allow the other person’s activities to influence (control) certain aspects of your life. It’s called ‘shared control,’ and it is most certainly implied in the relationship vows we take. ‘I do’ implies the abdication of absolute personal control. But, can any of us say we fully understood this at the moment of commitment? No. This doesn’t mean that we should never ask our partner to change something about their behavior. It means that we ask, and then accept their dilatoriness, even noncompliance, should that be the verdict. It means that we must find other ways to reduce our personal stress than arm-wrestling our partner for personal control. ‘Shared control’ is the language of togetherness. ‘Personal control’ is the language of separateness. In a newly released book, What Makes Love Last? How to Build Trust and Avoid Betrayal (2012), relationship specialist John Gottman (Ph.D., University of Washington) talks differently, but similarly…about this theme of ‘shared relationship control.’ I recommend it.”
It is to this book by Gottman that I now turn and continue the theme of “Shared Relationship Control (Part 2).”
As indicated by the subtitle, Gottman juxtaposes “trust” and “betrayal.” “Betrayal”, he writes in the Introduction, “is not always expressed through a sexual affair. It more often takes a form that couples do not recognize as infidelity….(for example), pervasive coldness, selfishness, unfairness, and other destructive behaviors are also evidence of disloyalty and can lead to consequences as equally devastating as adultery….(But) I now know that there is a fundamental principle for making relationships work that serves as an antidote for unfaithfulness. That principle is ‘trust’ (which Gottman admits sounds like ‘trumpeting the obvious’).” “Trust,” he adds, “removes an enormous source of stress because it allows you to act with incomplete information. You don’t subject your mind and body to constant worry, so the complexity of your decision making plummets.” (pp. xvii-xix). Although Gottman definitely addresses the subject of “betrayal as sexual infidelity” (Chapter 3: “I Didn’t Mean for It to Happen: Why Cheaters Cheat”; Chapter 4: “Men, Porn, and Sex Drives”; and especially Chapter 10: “Recovering from Infidelity”), Chapter 5 expands “betrayal” to include “Ten Other Ways to Betray a Lover”. Chapter 5 is a must-read for every committed couple relationship.
The following represents Gottman’s understanding of “shared relationship control” (in my view):
“Game Theory was popular during the Cold War, when analysts hoped that scrutinizing decision making would let them better predict the behavior of hostile groups or nations during confrontations….(where opposing nations) aspire to maximize (their) own benefits – what game theorists refer to as…payoffs. The zero-sum game is probably the best known game theory concept. In such a contest, each side wants to maximize its own payoff and prevent the opponent from achieving anything. Football is a zero-sum game: when the New York Jets win, the New England Patriots lose. But adversaries are not always interested in an all-or-nothing outcome….Most game theory scenarios assume that in order for one side to get the greatest payoff it must influence what the other side does. Here’s an example, using a couple in a new relationship. Imagine that Jenny and Al have just moved into a town house and want to figure out the best way to share the hated housework. Game theory takes for granted that, (like some nations), Jenny and Al don’t trust each other. This is not an unrealistic assumption….despite their mutual devotion. As rational ‘players,’ Jenny and Al know there are only four ways they can divide the housekeeping. Either neither of them cleans, they both clean, or one cleans and the other doesn’t. Both of them want the best deal they can get….Each of them has determined that getting the other to clean will maximize their own payoffs….(At this point, Gottman offers his mathematical probabilities for both Jenny and Al, and concludes)….The bottom line is that for Jenny to get the best deal she can, she must get Al to clean….To maximize his payoffs, Al is going to have to convince Jenny to clean.” (pp. 2-6)
Gottman concludes:
“The story of Jenny and Al’s dirty town house may seem pretty inconsequential, but it demonstrates distrust with great accuracy. If you don’t have faith in your partner, you take the stance that he or she should change so that you can maximize your own payoffs. Likewise, your partner wants to change your behavior for his or her own selfish reasons. When distrust abounds, neither of you includes the other’s well-being in your calculations. Turn this description of distrust around, and you have my definition of its opposite. Trust….is the specific state that exists when you both are willing to change your own behavior to benefit your partner. The more trust that exists in a relationship, the more you look out for each other. You have your beloved’s back, and vice versa. In a trusting relationship you feel pleasure when your partner succeeds and troubled when he or she is upset. You just can’t be happy if achieving your payoffs would hurt your significant other. Once Al and Jenny develop more trust, they will stop playing hot potato with the laundry basket. They will cooperate and clean together because doing so offers their partner the highest pay-off. Al’s paramount thought won’t be, ‘I better do the vacuuming so Jenny will want to have sex later.’ Instead his thoughts will run, ‘I’m going to vacuum because Jenny worries about turning into a drudge like her mother. I don’t want to make her feel that way.’ Likewise, Jenny’s decisions will take into account her husband’s needs and wants. Trusting each other doesn’t mean that Al and Jenny will always put the other’s needs ahead of their own – that is unlikely to be healthy. But it does mean that their happiness will be interconnected. They will each change their own behavior to increase the other’s payoffs.” (pp. 6-7)
This sounds a lot like “shared relationship control” to me. Doesn’t it you?
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
Shared Relationship Control
Every now and then you read something that resonates with you so clearly and succinctly, that you find yourself reading it repeatedly. Such has been my experience in reading about stress and marriage in The Stress Myth (1985) by Richard Ecker (Ph.D., Iowa State University). Truth is, most of what Ecker says about married couples could be generalized to any close relationship. His words resonate–indeed, corroborate–my approach to working with clients in therapy. He specifically addresses the need for “shared relationship control.” He writes:
“Most people find that their greatest problems with stress arise from their relations with other people. Any setting which puts people in regular contact with one another has significant potential for stress. And when people’s lives are closely interdependent – when the activities of one affect the lives of the others – the potential for stress increases. The greater the investment in the relationship, the greater the likelihood of stress and conflict. Obviously, the family head the list of potentially stressful settings, and the workplace is a close second. Emotionally motivated stress typically occurs in response to a perceived loss of control over one’s circumstances. Clearly, when a relationship requires sharing control with another person – spouse, parent, child, friend, supervisor, employee, colleague – the possibility for conflict is greater than when no such sharing occurs. We need to understand the concept of shared control if we want to put our stress-analysis skills to work on improving personal relationships. Shared control occurs whenever one person’s activities have a significant influence on the life events of another person – whenever one person loses some or all control of his or her own life because of dependence on the actions of another person” (pp. 87-88).
This concept of “shared control” resonates with my approach to working with clients because I am constantly pointing out in therapy that anxiety–often manifesting as anger–implies a loss of control; and, all of us desire some measure of control, or stability, in our lives. When this desire for control, or stability, becomes inordinate, we often try to self-soothe by pressuring those closest to us to change. Ecker writes:
“When, by choice or by chance, we become part of a relationship, our lives are affected by many factors beyond our control. If we perceive such loss of control as a threat to our stability, the frequent result will be unwanted stress. As a consequence, our relationships will probably be subject to frequent conflict….Some people, reacting with stress to this loss of control, attempt to regain control in order to eliminate the stress. When they do this, they take a big step toward destroying the relationship….(E)ach…feels out of control and blames the other….Each also feels that the only way to regain control is for the other to change. So they shout, point fingers and resurrect outdated sins, each trying to eliminate the unpleasantness of unwanted personal stress. The dynamics…are simple: each time the husband makes a cutting remark to regain control for himself, the wife assumes that he has all the control. She redoubles her own efforts to get it back, thereby making the husband fear that she has all the control” (pp. 88-89). Etcetera. Etcetera.
Sound familiar? He continues:
“Have you ever observed a married couple who have agreed to divorce, but are still living together until the details of the separation are worked out? It’s not unusual to hear their friends describe the relationship as ‘living like strangers.’ They don’t fight anymore. They are civil, but distant. Both have withdrawn their investment in the relationship. What the husband does is no longer viewed by the wife as a factor in her control of life events, and what the wife does no longer affects the husband. The basis of conflict has been removed” (p. 90).
The point? “In making a (relationship) investment, you choose to allow the other person’s activities to influence (control) certain aspects of your life.” It’s called “shared control,” and it is most certainly implied in the relationship vows we take. “I do” implies the abdication of absolute personal control. But, can any of us say we fully understood this at the moment of commitment? No. This doesn’t mean that we should never ask our partner to change something about their behavior. It means that we ask, then accept their dilatoriness, even noncompliance, should that be the verdict. It means that we must find other ways to reduce our personal stress than arm-wrestling our partner for personal control. “Shared control” is the language of togetherness. “Personal control” is the language of separateness.
By the way, in a newly released book , What Makes Love Last? How to Build Trust and Avoid Betrayal (2012), relationship specialist John Gottman (Ph.D., University of Washington) talks differently, but similarly, in chapter 1 about this theme of “shared relationship control.” I recommend it.
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
When “Talking” Doesn’t Seem to Help
In a December 4, 2012 “Huffington Post” article entitled “Jumpstarting the Talking Cure,” journalist Wray Herbert writes:
“The ‘talking cure’ originally referred to psychoanalysis, the brand of therapy made famous by Sigmund Freud and his followers. Today the phrase describes a very wide range of psychotherapeutic approaches…that begin with clients, well, talking about themselves – their experiences, relationships, thoughts and feelings. Frank disclosure is considered the cornerstone of a trusting therapeutic alliance – and thus key to psychological healing and well-being.”
Indeed, putting words to our feelings and experiences is the sine qua non of counseling and psychotherapy. However, the neuroscience revolution of the past 15+ years has revised what we understand as the “talking cure.” Specifically, it has a lot to do with brain lateralization, or left- and right-brain research. While the left-hemisphere of the brain is integral to the words we use to understand and express conscious experiences and memories, the right-hemisphere of the brain dominates all the nonverbal ways we encode and express unconscious experiences and memories. This explains why we can “know” something is true (for example, “The abuse was not my fault”), but not “feel” that it is true. Consequently, disturbing experiences and memories don’t always respond as well to the “logic” and “language” of traditional talk therapy; the problems lie elsewhere. This “elsewhere” has much to do with the right-hemisphere of the brain.
In his splendid book, I Imagine; How Creativity Works (2012), Jonah Lehrer quotes: “The world is so complex that the brain has to process it in two different ways at the same time….It needs to see the forest and the trees. The right hemisphere is what helps you see the forest.” (p. 9) While traditional talk therapy (“the talking cure”) tends toward the “trees” so to speak, different approaches to therapy help us see the “forest”. For example, I might say to a person in therapy, “When you bring up that disturbing memory, what are you feeling just now and where are you feeling it in your body? Just notice that.” Such a request does not exclude left-brain language and logic (we will always need words and insight), but includes right-brain memories, emotions, and body sensations – that sometimes elude our verbiage in therapy.
Professor and psychologist John Watkins (1997) offers another useful analogy:
“An insight that is only cognitive or intellectual is like an individual standing on a hill and viewing the perspective of his home town in the valley below. He sees the crooked streets, the neglected slums, the crime-laden areas, etc., and he understands the needs. But as long as he views this town from the hill only as an object out there, no change occurs. Through insight he knows that he is looking at himself, but it is like a picture of himself. It is an object, and not a real experience of ‘selfdom.’ He must descend into the town, experience it as a citizen, feel its pain, and become involved. The ‘self-town’ must become a subject, not remain merely as an object. Since it is ‘his town’ he must reexperience it with his whole being, as he did ‘for real’ originally as a child. To change something he must be there, where it is. Insight must be much more than cognitive understanding. It must be a level of meaning that is experiential…(as well as cognitive), involving every tissue of his or her make-up, physical and mental. It is a ‘gut’ understanding as well as a cerebral one. Such genuine insight releases in the (person) new reserves of vigor, because energy that had previously been employed in repression or (avoidance) is now made available for more effective living.” (p. 57)
Such is the role–and importance–of the left- AND RIGHT-BRAIN in therapy.
So, if psychotherapy is not merely the “talking cure”, then what is it? UCLA’s Allan Schore (2012) provides an apropos revision: “Psychotherapy is not the ‘talking’ but the ‘communicating’ cure.” (p. 39); that is, a “communicating cure” that includes both left- and right-brain communication.
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
The Dance of Anger
There is one book I’ve yet to write about, and it’s perhaps one of the most recommended readings I share with clients. It’s The Dance of Anger (’85, ’97, ’05) – a “New York Times Bestseller” by psychologist Harriet Lerner, Ph.D. Despite the subtitle, A Woman’s Guide to Changing the Patterns of Intimate Relationships, I recommend it to as many men as women. Although Dr. Lerner uses the “Dance” theme in several other books (The Dance of Fear; The Dance of Connection; The Dance of Deception; The Dance of Intimacy), The Dance of Anger is unquestionably her most popular “Dance” publication.
Chapter 1, “The Challenge of Anger,” begins:
“Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to. Our anger may be a message that we are being hurt, that our rights are being violated, that our needs or wants are not being adequately met, or simply that something is not right. Our anger may tell us that we are not addressing an important emotional issue in our lives, or that too much of our self – our beliefs, values, desires, or ambitions – is being compromised in a relationship. Our anger may be a signal that we are doing more and giving more than we can comfortably do or give. Or, our anger may warn us that others are doing too much for us, at the expense of our own competence and growth. Just as physical pain tells us to take our hand off the hot stove, the pain of our anger preserves the very integrity of our self. Our anger can motivate us to say ‘no’ to the ways in which we are defined by others and ‘yes’ to the dictates of our inner self.” (p. 1)
I’ve noted in previous blogs that the term “emotion” literally means “to move.” Emotions “move” us to say and/or do something. For example, depression often moves us to address perceived or actual “loss” in our lives. Anxiety moves us to address perceived or actual “threat”. Happiness moves us to express “joy”. Anger, as Dr. Lerner notes, moves us to address something we’re wanting/needing, or not. And, sadness or anxiety can look a lot like anger! In other words, anger on a continuum (frustration ->resentment ->rage) is often the outward manifestation of feeling sad/depressed, or scared/anxious; like losing our child in the shopping mall, but getting angry when we find them. The reason we get angry is because the temporary loss of our child’s whereabouts scares us. So, I am continually asking angry clients what it is they want/need, or not; a seemingly obvious question with important implications. Once the question is answered (which may take some time), it becomes the essence of assertive communication (“polite, but powerful” communication) with others; for example, “I’m frustrated (Angry!) that I’m never asked about my day. I’d like for you to ask me about my day!” Like a tennis game, we volley our wants and needs over the net – in the hope that the receiver will play. If not (mixing metaphors), we access our “trump card question”: “What am I prepared to do if s/he is unwilling–perhaps unable–to work with me?” I’ll illustrate the “trump card question” using one of Harriet Lerner’s examples:
“Larry’s pattern of leaving household jobs half finished was a real irritant to Sandra. The typical old pattern was that Sandra would push Larry to finish a task, in response to which he would procrastinate further, which provoked Sandra in pushing harder. The circular dance was procrastinate-push-procrastinate-push…As is often the case, Sandra’s pushing actually helped Larry to be more comfortable with his irresponsible behavior. He would become angry and defensive in the face of her criticisms, which protected him from feeling guilty and concerned about his difficulty completing tasks….Now, Sandra is clear in telling Larry that she becomes upset when the bathroom ceiling remains half painted and buckets of paint are lying around the house. If Larry shows no positive response to her complaint, Sandra then puts her energy into determining what she will do or will not do in order to take care of her own needs. She is able to do this when she begins to feel resentful….Thus she can talk to Larry without hostility and let him know that she is needing to do something for herself and not to him. After considering the options open to her, she may choose to say any number of things to Larry. It may be: ‘Okay, I don’t like it, but I can live with it.’ Or, ‘Larry I would rather you finish what you began, but if you are unable to do so this week, it is bothersome enough to me that I will do it myself. I can paint it without becoming angry, so that’s okay with me.’ Or, ‘I can only tolerate looking at this unfinished job for one more week, and I can’t complete it myself without becoming angry about it. So, what might we do that you don’t feel pushed and I don’t become furious? One idea I have is to call the painter if it’s not done by Saturday.'” (pp. 65-66)
That’s an example of what I mean by the “trump card question”. I assure you that Harriet Lerner’s The Dance of Anger is worth the read!
Exercise for Mood & Anxiety
Last week I was reacquainting myself with the “Resources” link on my website when I clicked on the Anxiety and Depression Association of American (www.ADAA.org) website. I had forgotten what valuable information one can find in those national websites. I learned that the ADAA launched “National Stress Øut Week” in 2005 to help people manage the stress in their lives and find treatment – and, this week–November 11–17, 2012–is “National Stress Øut Week.” Here’s an excerpt from the ADAA website:
“‘Exercise has been shown to have tremendous benefits for mental health,’ says Jasper Smits, PhD, the director of the Anxiety Research and Treatment Program at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, and a member of the ADAA Scientific Council. ‘People who exercise report fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression and lower levels of stress and anger,’ Smits says.
Exercise can cause the body to produce endorphins, chemicals in the brain that act as natural painkillers. A low or moderately intense workout makes you feel energized and healthy; regular aerobic exercise has been shown to decrease levels of tension, elevate and stabilize mood, and improve sleep and self-esteem. Even five minutes of aerobic exercise can stimulate anti-anxiety effects.”
Understanding the profound impact of physical activity on mental well-being offers valuable insights for those seeking relief from anxiety. In conjunction with established methods like exercise, exploring natural supplements such as Organic CBD Nugs could provide an additional layer of support. Just as exercise triggers the production of endorphins, CBD harness the power of natural compounds, promoting relaxation and potentially alleviating symptoms of anxiety. Incorporating these supplements into one’s routine might serve as a holistic approach, enhancing the benefits of regular exercise and contributing to a more balanced and serene state of mind. Much like the wisdom shared by experts, this combination reflects a comprehensive strategy aimed at promoting mental health and well-being.
I was pleasantly surprised to read Dr. Smits name because I’m currently reading Exercise for Mood and Anxiety (2011) by Michael W. Otto, Ph.D and Jasper A. J. Smits, Ph.D., professors of psychology at Boston University and Southern Methodist University respectively. Early in the book, Otto and Smits cite a number of reasons why exercise might reduce a person’s vulnerability to depression and anxiety:
“First, it appears that exercise whips your body into better shape to handle stressors. Exercise in itself is a stressor – it requires effort, and it forces the body to adapt to the demands placed on it….Your body is toughened up by exercise….A second (reason)…has to do with neurotransmitters (chemical messengers)….A number of studies have demonstrated that exercise may be the nondrug equivalent of antidepressant medications….A third explanation for the protective effects of exercise focuses on the value of activity, particularly in response to anxiety and depression. Central to anxiety disorders is the concept of avoidance. Individuals with panic disorder, for example, avoid the sensations they fear – rapid heart rate, dizziness, breathlessness….Likewise, in depression, people start to do less – they stay home or stay in bed instead of continuing to be engaged in social activities. One way to treat anxiety and depressive disorders is to treat the avoidance part of these disorders – returning people to functional activity and giving them a chance to learn that situations are safer and more rewarding than expected. In the same way, learning to persist with exercise despite urges to avoid it (being active despite a certain contradictory feeling), may help undo the cycles that maintain both anxiety and depression.” (pp. 10-14)
I know what you’re thinking. “I just can’t motivate myself to exercise.” Significantly, Drs. Otto and Smits distinguish between “motivation for the outcome” and “motivation for the effort to get there.” Most people have the first kind of motivation (outcome), but it’s the second kind of motivation that’s problematic. And, it’s this second one that gives the book a unique feature. In the words of Drs. Otto and Smits: “Our focus is on getting you to exercise, on the process of getting to the outcome you want (and not just the outcome itself). To prepare you for this process, this chapter [4] provides a crash course of sorts on the nature of motivation, how it works, and just how malleable it is.” (p. 35)
It might be worth it – both physically and mentally- to check out this book. Sounds like “National Stress Øut Week” is a good time to do it.
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
Couple Trauma
I do a lot of couple therapy in my practice, and I’m always cognizant of the traumatic nature of strained couple relationships. If the word “traumatic” seems a bit strong, I beg to differ. In her book, The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy; 3rd edition (2004), Dr. Susan Johnson observes: “Distressed partners…tend to adopt stances of fight, flight, or freeze that characterize responses to traumatic stress.” (p. 32) I realize that words like “fight” and “flight” conjure up images of prey and predator. But, consider what happens to a distressed person’s nervous system when their partner says or does something that’s perceived as threatening. The sender’s word and/or behavior triggers the receiving person’s “thalamus” (the brain’s receiving station for incoming sensations) which in turn (a millisecond later) signals that person’s “amygdala” (the brain’s center for fear and aggression [fight or flight], which in turn (a millisecond later) prompts a knee-jerk reaction of blame and/or withdrawal; the two basic dance steps of relationship injury, according to Dr. Johnson. These two dance steps then take the form of three dance patterns: blame-blame, blame-withdraw, and withdraw-withdraw (the very same “fight” or “flight” responses to traumatic stress).
Ready for an interesting twist? In Robert Sapolsky’s Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers; 3rd edition (2004)–see last blog post–he cites the research of UCLA psychologist Shelley Taylor who suggests an additional trauma response by women: “tend and befriend.” Sapolsky writes:
“Taylor argues convincingly that the physiology of the stress-response can be quite different in females, built around the fact that in most species, females are typically less aggressive than males, and that having dependent young often precludes the option of flight….Taylor suggests that rather than the female stress-response being about fight-or-flight, it’s about ‘tend and befriend’ – taking care of her young and seeking social affiliation….Taylor also emphasizes a hormonal mechanism that helps contribute to the ‘tend and befriend’ stress-response. While the sympathetic nervous system, glucocorticoids, and the other hormones…are about preparing the body for major physical demands, the hormone ‘oxytocin’ seems more related to the ‘tend and befriend’ themes….And the fact that oxytocin is secreted during stress in females supports the idea that responding to stress may not just consist of (fight or flight), but may also involve feeling a pull toward sociality.” (p. 33)
All of which brings me to the advice of another relationship specialist, John Gottman (Why Marriages Succeed or Fail; 1994). If limited to one general piece of advice to both men and women, Dr. Gottman’s advice to men would be: “Embrace Her Anger.” His advice to women would be: “Confront Him Gently” (pp. 159-161). Could it be that her anger (“Fight”) is really her prime way of moving closer to her partner, thereby calming her nervous system (“tend and befriend”) – however confusing or ludicrous that may seem to men? And, could it be that “confronting him gently” is really the best way to keep him from calming his nervous system by shutting down or running away (“Flight”)?
Bill Bray, Colorado Springs, CO
