I’ve Got This Couple. What Do I Do?
The purpose of a theory is to help practitioners of a social science diagnose, understand and treat clients.
Research demonstrates that therapists who present themselves as confident, grounded in a theoretical framework with a sense of direction for therapy have positive therapeutic outcomes (Seligman, 1998; Hyman & Woog, 1989; Miller, Hubble & Duncan, 1997; Green & Herget, 1991).
An effective couples’ theory should create a decision tree from diagnostic decisions that tell therapists and client couples alike what is wrong and what to do about it. I do not expect students and practitioners to be startled and surprised by the ideas presented here. I hope to give professionals who work intuitively with couples and families a way to organize what they already think and do. Having a template of common-sense categories may help couples and their therapists get to the point faster and with more confidence.
It is my ambition here to posit such a theory and to introduce a therapeutic heuristic that makes this theory accessible to professionals and lay couples.
This theory comes from my work with the construct of sense of community I developed some years ago as a graduate student in community and clinical psychology at Vanderbilt under the direction of Bob Newbrough and Larry Wrightsman. Most of the research used to build my theory of sense of community comes from social psychology research. The Sense of Community theory was first published in 1986 (McMillan and Chavis). It has been the successful base of hundreds of research studies and journal articles. My friends, Bob Newbrough and David Chavis, have promoted and encouraged community psychologists to use this theory while I abandoned it for a career in marriage and family therapy.
At midlife I was asked by the Journal of Community Psychology to write a ten-year retrospective of this theory (McMillan, 1996). I had not given the theory much thought until I received that request. As I revisited my original ideas, I could not help but reflect on them in the context of my twenty plus years of training and practice with couples and families.
What I rediscovered in systems terms was “isomorphy.” This means that a theory that is true at one level of a system is true at every other level. So the laws of sense of community are the same laws that apply to the most intimate community, the loving couple. Words like attachment, bonding, group cohesion, sense of community, all refer to the human glue that connects us. What academics use these words to refer to, ordinary folk call “love.”
From these thoughts about community emerged the book Create Your Own Love Story, the Art of Lasting Relationships (1997). This was a trade book aimed at a lay audience and professionals who embrace narrative therapy, communication theory, learning theory, and systems theory.
The theory has four elements. The elements when applied to a community are easily understood by using these four terms: (1) membership, (2) influence, (3) reinforcement and (4) shared history.
Membership refers to the notion that a community must define who belongs and who does not. Influence suggests that a community must have a way to make decisions. A healthy community needs to be able to have power over its members and members need to feel that they have power in their community. Reinforcement means that being a member must somehow be rewarding. Shared history implies that people must spend time together and share meaningful events in common if they are to be a community.
Already the reader can probably see the parallels from a community to a couple. To use the theory with couples I use a different four terms to represent the elements of my theory: Spirit, Trust, Trade and Art
There are many poets and scholars that say love is a mystery. Others use academic words like “the attachment bond” or “cohesiveness” to make love sound more scientific. Yet often scholars do not bother to define these terms beyond the obvious. Love, intimacy, social glue, cohesiveness, attachment, romance, desire, chemistry, heat, turned on, infatuation, are just some of the words that represent the energy juice that brings people together.
I think love can be defined. I think it is important to define love. This story illustrates why this definition is important to therapists. What is love?
Story: What is Love
“It was love at first sight for both of us,” Ed said. “But not, I think. I must have been seeing things that weren’t there because I don’t feel that way anymore.”
“Ed’s right,” Grace agreed. “I was not in the habit of having sex on the first date, but I did with Ed. It felt like there was magic in him. Looking at him made my knees weak. But now I hear his voice and I feel like throwing up.”
“Sometimes I look at her and she turns me on,” Ed said. “But that is happening less and less and it’s not enough.”
“We still have good sex,” Grace said, “When we are both into it. Good sex doesn’t go very far and it doesn’t seem to matter to how we get along. After sex Ed withdraws and gets mad every time.”
“We have had chemistry,” Ed says. “And we can get it back sometimes. But is chemistry, love? Are weak knees and a hard dick love? I don’t think so.”
“It’s something,” Grace said. “But it’s not enough for either of us. If love isn’t chemistry what is it? And we want to know if we got it.”
“So, what is it?” Ed asked.
“You’re right,” I concurred. “Love is more than sex or the heat of attraction. But with this as a start you can develop the other elements, but without all the pieces the kind of love you just described won’t last.”
“So, what are the elements,” Shirley asked.
“The first one has to do with your spirit,” I said. “To promote and protect that spirit you need boundaries that protect the relationship from intrusions from other lovers, parents, children, work, hobbies and more. You need to believe that you belong together, not just as soulmate, but that you are welcome wherever your partner is. Your partner needs to acknowledge that you belong next to them. There is respect for the role you play for each other as the primary caregiver.”
“All that is one element?” Vern asked.
“Yes,” I said.
“And there are three others?” Vern asked.
“Yes.”
“Don’t go into all that detail,” Vern said. “Just tell us what they are.”
“There’s trust,” I said.
“She doesn’t trust me,” Vern said.
“And trade or value.”
“He doesn’t value me,” Shirley said.
“And the last is honor or art,” I said. “And it doesn’t sound like either of you do that for each other. These are all described in my book Create Your Own Love Story. You can read the book and tell me where you want to begin.”
What follows is a development of four elements of love. But a definition without a sense of how to apply it in therapy is not useful. I use a decision-tree model to help therapists know how to use this theory. The decision tree map along with the book Create Your Own Love Story can help therapists know where to begin with a couple and what to do.
We will begin now with the definition of the elements.
SPIRIT
Truth creates the fire in a relationship. But to be intimate, a couple must be safe to express and reveal themselves (Wright, 1943; Gage & Suci, 1951; Pepitone & Reichling, 1955; Bugental & Lehner, 1958; Bishop, Chertok, & Jason, 1997; Prapavessis & Carron, 1996; Fine & Holyfied, 1996; Hughey, Speer & Peterson, 1999). Each person must be free to tell their truth (Frank, 1997; Keelan, Dion & Dion, 1998). Boundaries, faith that one belongs and a welcoming, accepting, attitude help create the safety for truth telling. Spirit and passion come from truth. The truth that we speak of here is not the truth about facts or history. It is rather the truth about how one feels about their partner in the right-here-and-now moment. This is a dangerous thing to disclose (Canary & Spitzberg, 1989; Brandt, 1989; Prager, 1989; Bombar & Littig, 1996). What would happen if your partner didn’t feel the same way? What would happen if your partner did or is his or her feelings were even stronger? Telling this kind of truth breaks the polite expected social script. After one person tells his or her truth in this way all bets are off. No one knows what will happen next. This kind of self-disclosure is exciting.
To participate in this kind of passion the partner must know how to listen to the truth. They must share the values that the truth is more important to hear and understand than having your partner say what you want to hear. In other words, the messenger of difficult truth must be protected, and honored, not punished or shamed. Boundaries create safety for truth telling (Burroughs & Eby, 1998). Boundaries are created by promises and commitments. The intimate truths that are exchanged must be protected and held in confidence. Shared intimacies protected in this way become sacred secrets (Erickson, 1966; Buss & Portnoy, 1967; Forsyth, 1988; Stein, 1989; Ng & Wilson, 1989; Weenig, Schmidt & Midden, 1990; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990; Wilson & Baldassare, 1996).
This safe spirit is encouraged by a shared sense of belonging (Kelley & Shapiro, 1954; Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960; Westre & Weiss, 1991; Rugel, 1987; Bishop, Chertok, & Jason, 1997; Sagy, Stern & Krakover, 1996) and the feeling that, where your partner is, you are welcome and you expect to play a part (Alden & Bieling, 1998).
TRUST
Couples may have the spirit and passion, but still be unable to develop Trust. Trust has to do with how the couple handles power and influence. For a couple to have an effective relationship it must be able to receive information, process it and use it to inform a decision. If a couple cannot make decisions then the couple is not secure enough to have a future or develop a history.
Just like a community, a couple must have a form of government. The basis of that government is taxation. Is each partner willing to commit time, energy, and resources for the good of the couple? Sacrifice, commitment and compromise are essential ingredients to a successful relationship (Rempel & Fisher, 1997; Geller, Roberts & Gilmore, 1996). This is how a couple taxes both parties for the good of the whole. Sacrifice creates a feeling of entitlement. One feels that sacrifice is a ticket to belonging. Sacrifice helps both parties hold tight to their investments in the couple. It motivates the couple to defend the relationship against threats. Sacrifice prepares the couple to be vigilant for signs of trouble.
Sacrifice is the first element of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1950; Sagy et al, 1996). It can be an investment that binds the couple together. Such investments make both members proud of the relationship that they have sacrificed for (Schopler & Bateson 1962; Berkowitz & McCaulay, 1961; Zander & Cohen, 1955; Jackson, 1959; Ingram, 1986; Swann, 1992; Seta, Seta, and Erber, 1993; Hughey, Speer & Peterson, 1999; Karau & Hart, 1998; Wech, Mossholder, Steel & Bennett, 1998).
Sacrifice also gives pride and self-esteem to our mate. When your partner receives the dues, you have paid to him or her, your partner feels valued and complimented. Your sacrificing behavior testifies that you value and care for your mate (Prapavessis & Carron, 1996). It is important that each partner serve the relationship rather than serve the person or their partner (Westre & Weiss, 1991).
Though sacrifice is an essential element to the intimate infrastructure of a couple, the couple must have rules, norms or laws (Kelley & Woodruff, 1956; Berkowitz, 1954; Thibaut & Strickland, 1956; Wilson & Baldassare, 1996). Couples need agreements about where to put the silverware or who will pay the electric bill. These decisions don’t need to be fought about every time the bills need to be paid or the silver needs to be put away. The more agreed-upon rules and norms, the easier it is to know what to expect of your partner and the more easily you can predict your partner’s behavior and the better team you will make. Consider canoeing partners, dance partners or tennis partners. (Hamblin, 1958; Bettenhausen & Murighan, 1991; Griffith, 1988; Hazani, 1987; Littlepage, Cowart & Kerr, 1989; Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Fucher & Keys, 1988; Keller, 1986; Zahrly & Tosi, 1989).
Though a couple needs rules it also needs a form of government that will allow a couple to change the rules. Many of us might assume that a democracy in a couple will work best. What is most important is that the partners have a vehicle or an established pattern to make decisions. Stereotypically traditional couples have used a delegated dictatorship, where one person decides about one area (e.g., how the income taxes are done or how to decorate the house or how to maintain the car) while the other partner defers to his or her partner’s expertise in that area. Today’s relationship is often more democratic with both partners wanting equal say on all matters (and hence more opportunity for conflict). The therapist should not judge a couple’s well-developed form of government. The therapist should only be interested that the parties be happy with the role each plays in the decision-making process and that whatever form of government the couple uses that this system produces clear decisions.
TRADE
Spirit provides the energy for a relationship. Trust creates a relationship infrastructure. And Trade is the economy of a relationship. Most people seeking couples’ therapy don’t like to consider a relationship as a business, but it is. No one will keep investing a business that is going bankrupt and no one will remain in a relationship if it is not rewarding (Lott & Lott, 1965; Heider, 1946; Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Cline, 1989; Cline & Musolf, 1985; Donovan & Jackson, 1990; Lashley et al, 1987; Prager, Fuller, & Gonzalig, 1989; Prager & Beuhrmester, 1998).
Rewards for staying in a relationship, of course, are not necessarily monetary and they are not always obvious to onlookers. For example, there are rewards to remain in a relationship (for an enabler to an addict and for an abuse victim of a perpetrator) that therapists may understand, but few others do. All relationships have a trading economy. There are always exchanges taking place, something one party gives in return for something that the other party gave (Burroughs & Eby, 1998).
Every economy has a medium of exchange. For a couple status, competence, or success are parts of a relationship’s currency (Hurwitz, Zander & Hymovitch, 1960; Cohen, 1958; Brawley, Carron & Widmeyer, 1988; Burnstein, Stotland & Zander, 1961; Baron, 1969; Zander & Havelin, 1960; Spink, 1990; Ziller & Behringer, 1960; Kleiner, 1960). The most important social exchange is self-disclosure (Larson, Foster-Fishman & Franz, 1998). The more personal and revealing the self-disclosure the more dear and precious it is in a trade (MacNeil & Byers, 1997).
Feelings expressed about what it feels like to be with each other in the present moment are the most valuable currency in a relationship trade. But a relationship must mature to a place where these most valuable trades can be safely exchanged (Laurenceau, Barrett & Pietromomaco, 1998). Sometimes one partner wants to hasten the development of intimacy by declaring his or her love for the other early in the relationship. This can be a form of emotional blackmail. If a person pushes a relationship into premature declarations of love, that person is often running away from the important awkward, frightening negotiation of a relationship (Bell & Bromnick, 1998). He or she is probably trying to push the relationship past the risky trading stage where there is always potential for rejection (Rotenberg, 1997).
There are three different forms of intimate trades. In the beginning every couple trades for confirmation. Each party delights in the discovery that their new friend shares likes and dislikes in music or fashion, have common experiences that help them understand each other and that they seem to think a lot alike. Trading similarities confirms both partners right to be themselves and helps them believe they will find understanding and acceptance in their partner (Solomon, 1960; Kipnis, 1961; Fiedler, 1954; Backman & Secord, 1962; Preston et al, 1952; Davitz, 1955; Rasmussen & Zander, 1954; Stotland, Zander and Natsoulas, 1961; Taguiri, 1958; Taguiri, Blake & Bruner, 1953; Taguiri, Bruner & Blake, 1958; Howard & Berkowitz, 1958; McCauley, 1989; Posner-Weber, 1987; Turner et al, 1992; Greene, 1989; Klein & Friedlander, 1987; Storey, 1991; Bernard et al, 1992; Papsdorf & Alden, 1988). Confirmation trades protect each person from shame and this protection is one of the primary rewards that being a couple gives to both parties.
Trading for similarities eventually becomes boring and unsatisfying. Real trades, trades that add value, must be to give something that you have plenty of and won’t miss for something that you need and don’t have. Such trades are complementary trades. This means that you look for differences in your partner, ways that they are not like you. These differences are what create real value in your partner. They have something that you don’t and that you want very much. If they were just like you, you wouldn’t need or want to trade with them. Discovering and trading for differences occurs after the initial introductory phase or a relationship. In these trades your partner becomes your complement, the part of a whole that you are only one-half of. Their strengths compensate for your weaknesses and your strengths do the same for them (Harrison, Price & Bell, 1998; Chapman & Campbell, 1957; Goodacre, 1951; Berkowitz, 1956; Sacks, 1952; Peterson & Martens, 1972; Deutsch, 1959; Klein & Christiansen, 1969; Myers, 1962; Thibaut, 1950; Wilson & Miller, 1961; Stendler, Damrin, & Haines, 1951; Phillips & D’Amico, 1956; Deutsch, 1959; Gottheil, 1955; Jennings, 1950; Bandura & Huston, 1961; Solomon, 1960; Riley, 1970; Dyce & O’Connor, 1992).
Each partner often may begin to wish to have the skills and responsibilities that have been assumed by his or her complement. Being someone’s complement, or other half, may be necessary in a fast-paced marriage and family where crisis management is the norm, but over time this way of trading can become confining. Once the children are grown and the need to delegate to one another’s strengths is less intense, a couple may begin to make transforming trades. These are trades where one party supports his or her mate to develop the competence to take over a responsibility that was once considered the prerogative of the other. One member of the couple may want to learn how to cook and the one, who once was the primary food preparer, would agree to teach them how. While the partner who had been the exclusive food preparer might wish to learn more about money and investments and his or her mate would agree to teach that skill in return. This is a transforming trade. This form of trade doesn’t add to the couple. It adds to each individual a new skill that changes them (Burnstein, Stotland & Zander, 1961; Baron, 1969; Zander & Havelin, 1960).
No matter what kind of trade, it is important that the trading process be fair. Both members of a couple need to keep score in some way to protect the couple’s trade balance. If you get the better of your partner in a trade you injure your trading relationship. And a good healthy trade relationship is more valuable than winning in one trade. Keeping score protects you from winning when you don’t want to win; you just want to be fair. And it protects you from potential abuse by your partner. It also helps both parties test reality by looking at the score and reminding each other of what is fair (Fondacaro, Dunkle & Pathak, 1998).
Relationships always need to be careful to be fair. If a couple takes care to keep an honest account, sometimes they can give for the joy of giving and not to get in return (Polzer, Neale & Glenn, 1993). This is grace. Occasionally relationships can fall into a state of grace when fairness is not the point and the score is irrelevant. But just as quickly as the couple fell into grace, they can fall out and then keeping score becomes important again.
Art
If spirit gives a relationship its energy, trust its infrastructure, and trade its economy, then art gives a relationship its flavor, color and texture. Art provides a way for couples to take note of themselves and celebrate their share good fortune of being together. The raw material of relationship art is a couple’s history.
Shared history is made by spending time together (Gullahorn, 1952; Stotland, Cottrell & Laing, 1960; Stotland & Cottrell, 1962; Norfleet, 1948; Maissonneuve, Palmade & Fourment, 1952; Byrne & Buehler, 1955; Gullahorn, 1952; Kipnis, 1957; Jackson, 1959; Sherif, White & Harvey, 1955; Heber & Heber, 1953; Wilson & Miller, 1961; Palmore, 1955; Deutsch & Collins, 1958; Mann, 1959; Allan & Allen, 1971; Griffith, 1989; Schectrman, Vurembrand & Malajah, 1993; Sampson, 1991; Sharabany & Weisman, 1993; Gundlach, 1956; Cook, 1970; Rainey & Sweickert, 1988; Cantrill, 1998; Sagy et al, 1996; Burroughs & Eby, 1998; Neckerman, 1996; Matheson, Mathes & Murray, 1996; Van Horn et al, 1998). A couple must be present together, in the same place at the same time or there is not material from which to draw on to make relationship art. But just being at the same place at the same time does not create art. Relationship art comes from a shared valent event. The event must be dramatic and memorable for it to become art. The shared event must have something about it that arouses, excites and captures the attention of both partners (Phillips, 1996; Berkowitz, Levy & Harvey, 1957; Wilson & Miller, 1961; Wright, 1943; Lanzetta et al, 1954; Lanzetta, 1955; Clark, Goering & Tomlinson, 1991; Schneider, 1993; Gal & Manning, 1987; Grant, 1993). This quality may be facing danger, competition, seduction, conquest, or some other dramatic endeavor (Festinger, 1950; Schopler & Bateson, 1962; Berkowitz & McCaulay, 1961; Zander & Cohen, 1955; Jackson, 1959; Ingram, 1986; Rugel, 1987; Swann, 1992; Seta, Seta & Erber, 1993; Lawler, 1992; Fung, 1991; Chin, 1990; Cottrell, Eisenberger & Speicher, 1992; Roark & Sharah, 1898; Wheeler, Goldie & Hicks, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Ahearne, 1997; Langfred, 1998; Wech, Mossholder, Steel & Bennett, 1998; Neal, 1997).
Though some events may be memorable, shared and dramatic, that doesn’t mean that these events become relationship art. The event outcome is important. The event must represent a success in order to become art. The expectations of the settings must be clear (Hodson & Sorrentino, 1997; Hamblin, 1958; Mann & Mann, 1959; Kalma & Ellinger, 1985; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990; Sodentani & Gudylennst, 1987) and the outcome clearly positive. What happens in the event must be important to both parties. Each one of them needs to have an investment in the event’s outcome (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Ahearne, 1997; Bishop, Chertok, Jason, 1997; Matheson, Mathes & Murray, 1996).
This does not mean that a relationship cannot work to overcome one’s failure or string of bad outcomes. In fact, overcoming adversity to achieve a goal is success. Many partnership myths are woven out of the struggle against adversity. But failure never relieved by success, seldom leads to art. Partners who never achieve the goals they set out to achieve seldom remain together. If they do remain together, their stories are often bitter stories about their individual suffering, not about their collective sharing. Such history does not make ennobling art (Finkenauer & Rime, 1998).
Though clarity contributes to art, it’s important to stress that partners should not make their goal the complete elimination of uncertainty. No one can predict the future. Partners cannot completely guarantee an outcome no matter how much they invest. Instead, partners should focus on approaching the future as a team. The best way for partners to guarantee success is to put forth their best effort and accept a number of potential outcomes as success. Understood in this way, success represents the quality of the effort and the value of the lesson learned from the experience. It is not merely a matter of whether or not the goal was achieved.
In couple art, whether a story becomes art, depends on how blame, shame, compassion and honor get represented. There are many different kinds of stories and there are many different ways to tell a story. Comedy is one type of story. In a comedy there is always the butt of the joke. The butt of the joke can be the teller of the story. Such self-deprecation is a gift to the audience and courageously places humiliation on the self while giving compassion and honor to the partner. This makes excellent relationship art. A funny story that is told at the expense of the partner can serve the same purpose (Pittman, 1995). It is only funny if the partner genuinely laughs too. Then the partner’s gracious willingness to be shamed, to be laughed at, becomes a gift to the partner and the audience.
Another form of story is tragedy. A tragedy has a hero who stands up against the odds, either a villain or difficult circumstances. In a tragedy there is also a victim. Often the victim and the hero are the same person in the story. The hero rescue story is a typical two-dimensional couple story. This story can become art, but it is the most immature of the possible stories. It honors the hero and honors the victim in that the hero would take such risks for the victim. It sees everything simple as good or bad. Characters are either allies or enemies. There is little complex texture that grounds the story’s credibility. If this kind of story is the only type that becomes relationship art then the person in the role of victim has his or her strength discounted and the person in the role of hero becomes lonely and isolated.
In healthy relationship art stories, both parties work together to overcome adversity. There are no one dimensional villains and both members of the couple are heroes. According to Joseph Campbell (1949) we are all heroes. Life is hard. All of us must face the prospects of failure and death. Each of us must negotiate the paradox of being along and yet part of the human community. We all do the best we can and stories that respect this are stories that give honor, respect and compassion to all its characters. Even when a couple has opposite points of view as the plot of their story evolves, they can remember that they share the same goals and that through their partner is opposing them, they are opposing them for the good of the whole. Their partner, in such instances, becomes a valued, worthy opponent who helps be sure that we consider the possibilities and prepare for the contingencies. By doing this they remain our ally. Their criticism is valuable (Klein & Lamm, 1996).
Artful stories are not about factual truth. In relationship art the fish get bigger with each telling of the story. The greater the mythical exaggerations, the greater the story’s symbolic truths and the more important the values are to the couples that tell the story. What’s important is that the stories be told and retold (Norrick, 1997).
A couple’s art grows richer with time as they collect more stories; acquire possessions, rituals and traditions that symbolize their story (Phillips, 1996; Schlorshere, 1989; Gregory, 1986).
The Theory’s Decision Tree
To use the decision tree, ask first about the four areas. Is there passion or spirit in the relationship? If the answer is “no,” stop here and work with the Spirit decision tree. If the answer is “yes” proceed to Trust. Ask whether or not each partner can trust the other to respect them, to keep agreements, and to collaborate with them to make decisions. If the answer is “no,” stop here and work with the Trust decision tree. If the answer is “yes,” proceed to Trade. To inquire about Trade, ask whether or not they give and receive fair value in their relationship. If the answer is “no” stop here and work with the Trade decision tree. If the answer is “yes,” then proceed to the Art decision tree and ask: Do they celebrate, remember, and symbolize events in their collective history? If the answer is “yes” then you have completed the work of the theory. If the answer is “no” help them work with the art segment of the theory. (See figure 1).
Often time’s couples don’t give uniform answers to these questions. The rule I use when applying this theory is the same rule I use when someone in the family car needs to stop and go to the bathroom. I stop when any one person feels that they need relief here. There is no debate. If one person feels this way then I respect that and help their partner to respect that too. We work together in any area where one party feels the need for help.
Spirit Decision
The basis of most intimate relationships is romantic love, chemistry or passion. The first question is to find out whether or not it is there. Begin with: Is there passion in this relationship? If the answer is “no,” that means that the truth is being blocked. Pursue the “no” leg of the decision tree to determine whether the partners in the relationship know how they feel. If they don’t know, stop here and teach them how to know and speak the truth about how they feel. If they do know how they feel and can speak it, ask: “is it safe to tell the truth in this relationship?” If the answer is “no,” teach listening skills to the couple. Help them learn to protect the messenger and value truth more than being right. This exhausts the “no” limb decision tree in response to the “is the truth told” question.
If the couple can speak the truth and make the relationship safe for the truth and passion still is missing the next prospect is that there is a leak in the relationship boundaries. That then becomes the next question to ask: Does the relationship have clear firm boundaries? If the answer is “no,” then discover where the gaps are in the relationship boundaries and focus on building clearer stronger boundaries. If the answer is “yes,” then proceed to the questions surrounding sense of belonging. Does each partner expect that their partner will enjoy their company? If the answer is “no,” work with the couple to help them develop the faith that their company is wanted by their partner. If the answer is “yes,” then ask the question do you welcome your partner in your life? If the answer is “no,” help the couple develop welcoming rituals that help them come together after being apart. If the answer is “no,” ask the question: do you have a role to play in your partner’s life? If the answer to this question is “yes,” proceed to Trust. If it is “no” help each of them defines their job description as a partner in this venture. (See Spirit, figure 2).
Trust
Begin the survey of trust with this question: Do you trust your partner to respect you, keep agreements and collaborate with you to make decisions? If the answer is “no,” explore the benefits of sacrifice. Ask: Do you sacrifice for the relationship time, energy, money, etc? Do you compromise for your partner? If the answer is “yes,” but my partner does not notice my sacrifice, help the couple develop a sense that the burdens of the relationship are shared. Help each partner learn to value and appreciate their partner’s sacrifice. All through the Trust section the teaching of mediation skills, problem resolution skills, and negotiation skills would be appropriate interventions.
If the answer is “yes, we sacrifice willingly and compromise easily” then proceed to the questions about norms. Those questions are: Do you know what to expect from your partner? Do you and your partner have agreed upon established patterns of behavior that you both agree to serve? If the answer is “no,” explore what it would be like to serve a person rather than serve the good of the relationship rather than a person. Help the couple negotiate new contracts that they both believe are the right things to do for the relationship. Help them make clear effective agreements that they both will serve.
If the answer to the previous question about trust is “yes” and the couple still have trouble with trust the last question to ask is: Are they able to make decision together easily? If the answer is “no” that means that they do not have an effective government. If the negotiated norms are a couple’s laws, this couple needs a constitution that establishes a form of government to help them change the laws. It is easy for a couple to say that they want each partner to be equal and that they want to live with a democratic government. Most of the time that is not really the case. Often each of them has one area in which they want to be the boss. The therapist’s job here is to help them be clear, truthful and realistic in helping a couple create a decision-making process that they both have faith in.
If all these trust questions have been resolved and trust remains an issue it is likely that the parties don’t know what the truth is and how to tell it. Go back to truth telling in the spirit section and teach them that anger is never the truth. Anger is a defense that protects the vulnerable feelings of hurt, shame, sadness and fear, which are the truth when there is emotional interest in a relationship. If the trust issues are resolved and difficulties remain, go to the Trade questions. (See Trust, figure 3).
Trade
The first question in the series of trade related question is: Does the relationship have something to value that makes you want the relationship to continue? Sometimes couples seeking therapy say “no,” but their behavior of seeking therapy says that there is something about the relationship that they want to hold on to. If, however, one person really means “no, I do not get anything from this relationship” then the relationship is over. There is no commerce here. There is no exchange of energy. Therapy won’t help. It only takes one person to end a relationship. It takes two to build one.
If you, the therapist, believe that there is benefit for the parties to remain a couple, try to help them rediscover the value of being together. Ask questions about their history, how they met, what were they originally attracted to in their partner, etc. As these questions get answered often you will find something amiss in spirit or trust that needs to be addressed.
If the answer is “yes, I value this relationship,” then the next question is: Does each of them feel that they give and receive fair value in their relationship? If the answer is “yes,” then proceed to art. If the answer is “no,” ask about the three types of trades. Begin with confirmation trades by asking: Do you have things in common? If the answer is “no,” then go back to the beginning of their relationship and ask, “was there ever a time when you did have things in common, when you felt in sync with one another?” If the answer is “yes” then ask the couple to talk about that time. Help them rediscover what they still have in common and what goals they do share. Almost always there are things that they both value. Sometimes they do not want to admit that they share common interests because they would have to give up their defenses against intimacy. Sometimes you cannot help them find what they have in common. If this cannot be done, bless their parting. Tell them that you respect how hard they have tried, but you cannot help them.
If the answer is “yes, they have many things in common,” then the next question is “do you have trouble getting along because of your difference?” If the answer is “yes” then the focus of therapy is appreciating and integrating and celebrating differences.
If the answer is “no, we are glad we’re different,” then the next question is: Are you interested in getting out of your old roles and developing some of the skill your partner has? Do you sometimes find yourselves competing? If the answer is “yes,” help the couple find ways to learn the skills that they don’t have but depend on their partner for.
If the answer is “no” then ask them: Do they believe that they are treated fairly in this relationship? Would they know how to tell if they were not? If the answer is “no,” help them examine the relationship’s trade balance. Help them design a way of keeping tabs of their rate of exchange, thus ensuring fairness in their trading relationship.
Many times, when therapists focus the couple’s attention on trade, they will find issues that relate to spirit or trust which, have not yet been addressed and which need to be. The therapy should shift focus back to these issues and work them through. (See Trade, figure 4).
Art
If there are not spirit, trade, or trust issues then the therapist should proceed to the Art inquiry section. The primary question here is: Do they celebrate and symbolize the couple’s shared history in symbols, rituals and traditions? This question is usually too abstract. So begin more concretely. The first question is: Do you have enough time together alone? If the answer is “no,” then help the couple create boundaries that protect their time together alone. If the answer is “we have time together alone and it is very unpleasant that’s why we came here doc,” then ask that they give you an example of a bad experience they shared. Notice in their telling of the story that there are really two different stories. Each partner has his or her own version that is really a different story. Examine each story. Is there a villain? Who is it? Is it their partner? Is the story filled with good versus bad and the teller is the good hero? Does the story have more than the two dimensions of good and bad? Does the story have enough complexity to include multiple realities or just one? Is there a victim? Is the victim the teller? How does the teller attribute blame? Is there any compassion in the story for all the characters?
The story and the way it is told tells the therapist more about the teller than the details of the story reveal about the couple. The partner who is most blaming is the partner who is usually weaker and feels more vulnerable. The therapist should begin by listening to that partner and validating his or her right to feel as he or she feels. Then do the same for the other partner. Then weave the stories together into a story that has compassion for both partners, blames neither, where there is no villain, no victim, and both are heroes.
Once you have expanded their frame of reference in this way, teach them how to tell their stories so that these stories become art instead of psychological poison. Have each of them keep writing their story until both of them are heroes and the stories include rich doses of humor and compassion.
Often a couple can honor one another and protect one another from shame, but they can’t seem to create are because their standards for acceptable art are so high or they aren’t clear with each other about what they expect. So, ask if they have clear shared goals. If the answer is “no,” help them develop clear shared goals. If the answer is “yes,” ask: Are they able to change their goals to more reasonable ones when their goals aren’t reached? If the answer is “no,” work here.
If the couple has clear goals and can change them when appropriate so that success is possible; if the couple can laugh together at their own foolishness and can avoid the victim role and the lonely hero role then proceed to the question of art forms. Does the couple have ways to express and reflect their art proudly? Do they have shared symbols, rituals, traditions, and ceremony that displays and represents their shared art? If the answer is “no,” help them create these art forms. If the answer is “yes,” the cycle is complete or you need to help them go back to learning how to tell the truth or to work in one of the other aspects of spirit, trust, or trade. (See Art, figure 5).
People and couples come with all different kinds of histories, skills, strengths and weaknesses. Some couples will collaborate with the therapist eagerly and will find the maps presented here and the stories in Create Your Own Love Story (1997) to be extremely helpful. Others will resist any ideas that they share part of the collective human experience as a misguided attempt to put them in a box. No matter how good our theories or our maps for treatment, there is no substitute for a compassionate artful therapist.
It can be useful to have representative stories to share with a couple so that they can see their patterns as a third-party observer, detached from the action and the in-the-moment emotion. You can write a story for them of another couple who have the same struggles so that you normalize their experience for them and give them change entry points that they can see in others, but not themselves.
I tried to do that in Create Your Own Love Story. That book is a presentation of the theory in lay terms and a collection of parables that offer these relationship troubles as examples of the troubles we all have.
Many clients read the book and come back to me saying, “Here we are on page 51. We are Maria and Chuck.” That is helpful because the book empowers the client to collaborate with you as a therapist and increases both the speed and the depth of their work with you as their therapist.
The problem with presenting a theory and a decision tree, as has been done here, is that it looks so pat and so easy when in fact it is not. This theory is not complete. The decision tree presented here needs criticism and refinement. Therapy will never be reduced to a recipe, but recipes help us have confidence in ourselves and the therapy process as we work with our clients. Our clients always teach us that our theories are only partially well founded.
What to Do with Differences in Relationships? Appreciate Them.
After being together for almost thirty years, Marietta and I are still learning to dance together in our day-to-day life. My mother tried to teach me to wait for my partner, to walk with and not ahead, to get a glass of water for my partner as I get one for myself, but I was not a good student. I want to leave when I’m ready. I don’t want to wait for Marietta, yet I expect her to wait for me.
I am bad, but in my opinion Marietta is worse. It is emotionally expensive for us to be together. One of us has to pay some price to have the other in our lives. Perhaps the price is waiting. Perhaps the price is to hurry and in hurrying leaving behind something important, like the plane tickets.
Connections in any relationship require some price we were not or are not expecting to pay. It is easy to begin to blame and pathologize our partners when we cannot contain the resentment for the price we are having to pay.
Marietta and I just got these two new bicycles, made especially for old farts like us, cruisers, big comfortable seats, handle bars allowing us to sit up, seven speed gears without a derailleur and pedal brakes. Our goal at sixty-seven is not to ride far. It is to ride and breathe hard while riding for at least thirty minutes a day.
So, I come home early from work one day and I want to go with Marietta for a bike ride. She wants to go too. I really enjoy Marietta’s company and I’m glad she wants to come along. In my mind we should leave right away before the sun sets. Our bikes are not equipped for a night ride.
But Marietta has to finish what she is doing, go to the restroom and change clothes. At least fifteen minutes. That’s what it costs if I want her to come along. Or she has to stop what she is doing, hit the john, throw on some tennis shoes and be on her bike in five minutes.
Which of us was going to pay the price?
The point is that always in the joining of two people there is a price to be paid. One will must bend to the other. Always someone needs to go to the bathroom at an inconvenient time or wants chocolate when you want vanilla and there is only room in the picnic cooler for one carton of ice cream.
This may seem obvious to many of you, but it has not been to me for sixty-seven years. I have thought that love meant that no price was required. It was my job to serve the pleasure of my partner and their joy to serve mine. That’s simply not true. I see now.
One strength of a successful relationship is that the partners know how to share the sacrifice that is required by their connection and their differences.
The sacrifices can be minimized by planning and by creating clear and reasonable expectations. And by appreciating and celebrating differences.
Too often I want to blame Marietta for some needs she has by attributing them to her being a woman. And there may be something to that. For example, when we began to live together, I noticed that we consumed four to five times more toilet paper than I did alone.
Marietta often commiserates with her female friends about their tunnel-visioned, self-absorbed, know-it-all husbands.
There is a short-cut that is taken when we label these differences as masculine or feminine that makes it easier to defend one’s ego while at the same time acknowledging differences. But this comes at the expense of the opposite sex, 50% of the world’s population gets bashed in the process. And what’s more it is often not true. Many women have what are generally considered masculine traits and many men have feminine traits.
I was in a theatre recently observing people and I saw this square-jawed woman, chewing gum and moving about with a mannerism that reminded me more of a cowboy than a model. I’m sure she is aware of her choice to occupy space and create the assertive tone that she does. Should she feel as if she is less of a woman because of this? Don’t many of us tend to make that value judgment when we observe her or a man with feminine mannerisms and dress?
If we have strong fixed notions about masculinity and femininity and we tend to see differences in our relationship in those terms, we are likely to make negative judgment s of the opposite sex, while at the same time making judgments about people who do not fit our stereotypes.
So where does that leave us? It puts us back to having to deal with differences between us and our partners with the shortcuts of attributing the differences to a sexual stereotype.
So, what if I am a box and my partner is a ball. I envy my partner’s ability to move about. They bring so much to me with their mobility. (As I refer to partners, I choose to use the plural pronoun they and them rather than he/she to avoid sexualizing differences).
I hope my partner admires my ability as a box to contain things. If you put me together with a bunch of other square boxes, you store a great deal of material. Putting things in balls and putting balls inside a container will not be nearly as effective. There will be a great deal of empty space in the container. And if you remove part of a ball, it is no longer a ball. It must remain full and whole in order to be a ball.
The point here is simple. Two people will always be different. This can cause problems. Because of their different needs and preferences, there will always be a cost to their connection. If we see that our partner’s difference brings us value just as the ball brings value to the square and the square to the ball, then the price of connection is more easily paid.
Too often one of the partners feels like they are blamed for the problems in the relationship. The paragon/screw-up relationship is a difficult pattern to resolve. The ball constantly blames the box because it can’t move about as easily as the ball.
The box agrees and wishes to move like the ball but it also frustrated by the corners that seem to always get in the way.
The mud of the relationship or what’s wrong seems to always cover one partner. The clean partner seems to always point at the dirty partner. Yet, at the same time the dirty partner is expected to be attracted to the clean partner whose finger is pointing at them.
But the person who shames them (or one pointing a finger) is not attractive. For a time perhaps the partner in the mud is attracted to their pure partner because they hope for absolution. After not getting absolution, the muddy partner begins to lose interest.
Or the muddy partner offers some mud to their clean partner. Come play in the mud with me. Be a fellow screw-up. I would enjoy playing in the mud with you and maybe we can take a bath together.
If the paragon accepts this invitation, real communion is possible. However, as it often happens, the muddy partners attempt at slinging mud only backfires and they end up pouring more water on dirt deepening their mud puddle.
Paragons must want to see the dirt that is on them that they cannot see. They must be the one to say, yeah, I’ve got dirt I need to know about and acknowledge. It is their job to know their character flaws and define their soul work. If they choose to deny their part and refuse to get in the mud with their partner, little good is likely to happen.
Boxes do have corners that limit them. If they want to move better, boxes need to knock off some of their edges. Balls cannot open themselves easily and they are not very stable. If they want to become more stable, they need to develop some points and if they want to contain something, they must discover an internal hinge and a top. All this will limit the balls mobility.
As we bump up against our partner, we learn where our edges are, if we are a box and if we are a ball, we learn how to define our points better from our partner the box, but only if we value their difference and acknowledge our limits and do this without using sexual stereotypes that eventually become prejudicial and return us back to labels and blame.
A box is a box and a ball is a ball. Our differences are what they are. We become resources to our partners when we appreciate and value these differences. (And there are always differences). We become enemies and pass blame back and forth when we expect others to be like us.