Learner therapist (20)……Interpersonal politics of coupling, intimate or otherwise!

Learner therapist (20)……Interpersonal politics of coupling, intimate or otherwise!
Torrey Orton
January 27 , 2013

The blame and responsibility challenge – creating truth in shared facts

NB – this is a first go at addressing these issues. I expect it may not be the last because they are so difficult for me.

Michael and I have been having this discussion since we met 20 months ago. It keeps coming up so it must matter, at least to us. I'll call it the truth in relationship discussion. Mike might call it the responsibility in relationship discussion. I start from the question: how can we be jointly responsible for anything? He starts with the belief that we have to be responsible for ourselves first. The struggle between individual and group perspectives is the mental history of modernity, one prefigured in the outstanding lives of ancient individuals in all domains of human endeavour rising above terrain of their socio-historical contexts, without which they, too, could never have risen!! Some say, me among them, that the historical balance is out of whack now. Too much me, too little us.


Both are important perspectives and practices, but neither can stand alone. 'How do we get to be responsible?' is one question on the pathway of upbringing. It emerges from the WEness of family, community, and society in their various overlapping institutional forms. No surprise there.


Along the path of upbringing we may have experiences which compromise our capacity for being and feeling responsible for ourselves. Our social systems are as imperfect as our personal ones. Around this fact roils the search of many wounded individuals to parcel the responsibility (blame!) for 'bad outcomes' which they are subject to, and which they fear reproducing themselves in the next generation. This struggle can only be avoided by self-numbing – a long-term strategy bound for failure.


The compromised self develops distortions (I mean that, not disorders) in its capacities to relate to others and itself. Distortion is a normal occurrence because others' responsibility for us can never be perfect, or even close! As some poet roughly says, parents eff us up. We can only learn responsibility from responsibility; our parents learned theirs from their parents, ad infinitum. As well, the generally accepted contents of adult responsibility have changed measurably in the last century or so, and continue to do so now.


Unintentional offense and responsibility


M and I had been stuck in this discord for months, and amicably so, until one day:

M commented on his distress at my dismissive celebration ("Uh yeah…" w/self-satisfied tone) of him seeing something I clearly thought he should have seen before. (This is an often repeated verbal punctuation in the course of our acquaintance and a behaviour I was aware of; I had not yet gotten to the point of being able to interrupt it, only acknowledge it to myself as it irrupted once again.) I asked what feeling he was having after I said it and with some reflection he came up with "offended" or similar, to which I suggested "disrespected" and he accepted that, too.

 

I agreed he should feel "offended" because it was an inappropriate expression on my part…though I expressed it then, still do at times and not just between us. It is not my intent to hurt and wasn't then. But, I was to blame, he agreed, for his bad feeling about himself at that moment. His feeling included some anger….unsurprisingly. As part of our professional self-development, we have built a relationship of shared responsibility which contained the insult and the complaint about it and so opening another level of discussion between us. This experience lifted us up to the level of our relationship as the subject of conversation in a new way.

This article is a step towards formalising the difference in our understanding of responsibility so as to reduce the distance it provokes between us. Recently, I rediscovered on a back shelf Dr Harriet G. Lerner's book The Dance of Anger (1985) which includes a chapter titled "Who's responsible for what?" It brings together two of my favourite subjects – anger and responsibility in the context of intimate relationships. Here she notes:

It is tempting to view human transactions in simple cause-and-effect terms. If we are angry, someone else caused it. Or, if we are the target of someone else's anger, we must be to blame; or, alternately – if we are convinced of our innocence – we may conclude that the other person has no right to feel angry……

…We begin to use our anger as a vehicle for change when we are able to share our reactions without holding the other person responsible for causing our feelings, and without blaming ourselves for the reactions that other people have in response to our choices and actions. We are responsible for our own behaviour. But we are not responsible for other people's reactions; nor are they responsible for ours ...

I think this is Mike's view, too, though not his exact words… and the view of not a small proportion of my patients who've been exposed to modern no-fault processes which are under-pinned by attitudes / principles like those Lerner proposes above.



Therapy, for those who choose it, is one pathway to undoing distortions of the self. Some undoing takes a few sessions; some takes years. The principal means of effecting recovery is the therapeutic relationship – the most reliable, "evidence-based" characteristic of therapeutic effectiveness, regardless of 'school' of therapy! The relationship stands or falls on the ability of the therapist to be present for patients in ways their histories have not made available to them. In doing so, the therapist is taking responsibility for the patient's recovery…while recognising they cannot be responsible in the end!! This paradox will reappear later in fractured couples' relationships.


Offenses to the self


We had a minor offense to M's self by me. The vignette of its occurrence and our recovery through "shared responsibility" is exemplary of the relationship challenge, while barely noteworthy in the greater picture. A bigger offense might elicit feelings like this:

What is it that is so unacceptable, that I react with such a survival instinct style reflex? What is so horrific about my reaction to these words that has me revert to this primal state? or if not primal, infantile or juvenile, and has me cry ...

"Now look what you made me do!"

I'm particularly interested in childhood experiences which underlie chronic depression and anxiety. Pretty consistently these experiences are major abuses of trust by parental, or broader familial, violations of personal space and self-control – often co-occurring sexual, physical and psycho-social violences. These can be usefully considered offenses to the self, are classified as such in legal systems and labelled traumas in western cultures.


They are chronic for two reasons: one, the offenses are sustained into the present by the social system(s) (families, churches, schools, clubs, workplaces…) in which they were first committed and/or reproduced, and two, optimal recovery often requires some change to those present sustaining systems. Children are not responsible for these behaviours, though almost every adult with an abused childhood attempts to take responsibility for others' abuse of them. Efforts to recover must pass through the blame grinder.


'my pain is your fault'

One couple I have worked with off and on for 2 years found the perspective from which to rise above and hold the pains of their struggles: a place which they shared with equal interest and need. They are a couple both deeply injured in ways which when touched by the other regresses them to catastrophic positions – 'my pain is your fault.' Whichever gets there first on any given occasion, their catastrophic feelings incite the other. They have developed a number of effective workarounds and pre-emptions for many recurring circumstances they share, but not even these can stand up against the most conducive conditions for regression – co-occurring overtiredness, professional stress, excess drink, demanding kids and unbalanced, living parents .

 

The new perspective came into view as they were sinking for the N^th time into the fires of their respective recriminations about each other, dragged down or blown up by the catastrophic certainty of repeated disappointments, each with the other. I interrupted the rising tide of exasperation and suggested they stay with the very specific topic they were on…a matter of how physically close they needed to be when both were highly stressed by various things in their joint and separate lives at that moment. This is, of course, a quite sophisticated exploration already.

One, I don't remember which, verbally stepped back and noted that I had proposed on another occasion that their respective needs for closeness were almost exactly opposed when crisis struck: one withdraws and the other approaches, generating a massive reciprocating tension powered by catastrophic thinking. He/she checked that the other was experiencing it now, which she/he was, and the tension dropped. This was the first time they had created a respite from their struggle without leaving it in a heated rage or quiet despair. That creation remains as a shared platform for their struggle for a workable togetherness at their times of greatest vulnerability. Both acknowledged the achievement.

They had created a shared fact about their relationship which undergirds the potential for getting to new places in it instead of replaying the past, deprived places. This fact expresses and symbolises what the relationship is for, its purpose(s) rather than its product(s). Sometimes it's a revisiting of purposes still in play but lost from view which liberates deep motivation – in fact, the most important things about the relationship: its aspirations.


The blame and responsibility challenge


Now back to Lerner. She says our anger can become a source of useful change,

"…when we are able to share our reactions without holding the other person responsible for causing our feelings, and without blaming ourselves for the reactions that other people have in response to our choices and actions."

The blame and responsibility challenge – people show up for couples work because they are stuck in patterns of repeating failure to meet each other's needs, especially those which make being a couple worth the effort. It is impossible to progress as a couple without transgressing in the view of one or the other, or both, at some times!! There are three domains of likely transgression: (1) style (intellectual, expressive, etc. - preferences of congenital origin), (2) cultural role determined behaviours (responsibilities, tasks, authorities, etc.) and (3) personal needs/wants arising from particular normal developmental transitions. The manner of transgression often includes violences of aggressive (hitting, yelling, betrayal) and passive- aggressive (withdrawal, sniping, silence…) sorts. Often a number of manners and domains are involved together.


Complicating the effort to connect is the fact that injured parties carry loads of self-blame which inclines them to expect they will fail the needs of the other (I'm not good enough, don't care enough….), and they expect the other to blame them for the failure – a self-sealing circle of partner-assisted, covert self-accusation. Someone has to break through that circle to change the relationship disconnect cycle. To do so requires confronting their own sense of failure and their sadness /rage about it and doing so in a way that minimally elicits the partner's version of the same system. This is what the couple above achieved.


It's all a perception…not.
It cannot be achieved from a perspective which says everything in relationships is just a perception, and nobody's perception has a better claim to attention than anyone else's. That perspective is the driver of irreconcilable differences in which the members of a couple stand on their "right" to their perception, and giving any of it up to have a joint perception is not on offer. It only takes one person with such a stance for the relationship to be doomed all the way to the courts and beyond. This is a small part of the broken relationship population, at least judging from the fact that 90+% of broken marriages do NOT end up in court. They create some kind(s) of shared truth out of their "shared facts".


And this is the area of personal development into interdependence – partnership as the playground for skill building in joint ownership, authorship construction and so on. There are no free kicks in couples development, unless the couple are already developed enough to provide them freely?!! There have to be stumbles along the way and some way to do better than build up personal grievance banks loaded with material to prove the justice of ones disappointments with the other, and vice-versa. A combustible collection.


And so couples therapy has one task above others, which is helping the couple to see their existing and near horizon emerging successes in interdependent functioning, a joint ownership where the boundaries of who owns what are dropped, melt, disappear…which is what the romantics dream of in the merger/ melding of self in love, etc. but can't be dreamed, must be achieved…and all the more difficult in our times because the jointness historically was given by roles, which have for some time now been corroded by modernity. They have to blindly take responsibility for each other. An act of faith, repeated.









 

Learner therapist (19)…… systemic problem-solving improvement in relationships

Learner therapist (19)…… systemic problem-solving improvement in relationships
Torrey Orton
June 5, 2012

More tools for talk …and how therapists could help them do it.

 

Problem solving is hard to do

 

Daily life is full of stumbling efforts to fix things, the larger the system the bigger the stumbles…and yet we move on, even with sub-optimal solutions, or even solutions which aggravate the situation.


Striking when the iron is hot is good if you don't burn yourself or the other in the blow. Emotional and conceptual clarity are the key. Hot things cannot be cooled too much or they lose their energy, too hot and you lose your hand, or more. So, how to get started? If the start is wrong what follows will very likely get worse.


An overfull mouth
Problem solving is conceptually obvious and practically mind-bending because the feelings, issues and contexts to be handled are beyond presentation at once. So they have to be parcelled up both to make them accessible to the other and to get them organised for ourselves so they can stay organised under pressure from unexpected forces in ourselves, and the other!


Remember the overfull mouth of thought/feeling/action words which rush for exit at the moment you start opening a volatile issue. This is the everyday challenge of the damaged relationship, ending often in irradiating outbursts or cast-iron inhibitions. Such patterns can be improved a bit by a flexibly systematic approach. It has steps roughly as follows, which are straight out of rational problem solving handbooks. The order of steps matters, but the process should be recursive – doubling back on itself to keep the direction in view, because what we are seeking in such processes comes only fully to light as we go through them. The fullness of the task is seldom known from the start.
I like to think of problem solving as a process like a tumbleweed rolling along the slight inclines and divides of a Mallee farm on a windy day, picking up bits of this and that as it rolls, including other tumbleweeds, dropping off some same bits as well, and ending up in a mass of intertwined tumblers at the fence line where they begin to anchor, safe from the ploughing and reaping of daily farm life to provide the start for the next season. Not even a video of a tumbleweed rolling along can capture all the facets and phases of a problem-solving process, so I'm not too unhappy with my serial depiction below. Just remember to allow yourself to acknowledge all the associations which arise as you pass through it.


The problem solving sequence – an example

Step	Activity	Words / dialogue
Propose –getting something on the agenda; taking initiative	First, a proposal answers the question: 'what should we talk about?' - a statement of the issue of concern to one party, including a description of what it is, why it matters to you and what you want the other to do with it. This should also include an estimation of time required to deal with it and proposal for timing and location of the discussion. Proposal contents are often supplied by the issues chart developed in the first session. This also serves as the base for a shared running agenda and progress documentation. Flagging of volatile material is usually essential to progress with an issue. Start with simple issues which can be executed in one step if the relationship is in perilous condition.	(H) I want to get started on one of our issues. It's not too hot, but warm enough to make me focussed on it. It's our messy house problem. I'd like to get started tonite and have some solution(s) by next Monday. I expect it will take a few hours since we already understand it pretty well. We could start tonite just getting clear – maybe 30 minutes after the kids are in bed - and then follow up with options and decisions over the next nights. How's that strike you? (J) Yup, tonite at 9 say, but only ½ hour for starters. I've got a report to read for work, too. The recursive moment*
Acknowledge and clarify – ensuring joint ownership of the issue; being responsive	Second, acknowledgement and clarification answer the question; 'do we know what we are doing?' Three steps establish shared understanding of the proposal and a willingness to proceed with it: one, mirroring / paraphrasing back the proposal; two, adjusting it to confirm joint ownership; and three, deciding when to discuss it.	Later that day (J) So, I want to be really clear what you're proposing. What I got earlier is: you want to take up the "messy house" issue with the aim of having it fixed by Monday, right? (H) That's it. (J) OK, I want a little detail of what you think the issue is so I'm sure we're close enough to start. We've made that mistake before… (H) Well, I mean we've got a lot of stuff lying around and more coming in while we can't find last week's mags… (J) That's roughly what I think it is, too…so I'm ready to set a time (H) OK, let's agree a discussion schedule with next Monday as completion time, if possible. The recursive moment
Explore - establishing what matters to both – engaging with personal meanings	Third, exploration answers more precisely the question 'what's this all about?' by clarifying in detail why it should be important to both parties; this will involve especially establishing the meaning the issue has for both: its place in their personal and joint lives. This may result in a reformulation of the issue, usually more specific and actionable.	….. (J) …messy to me is not being able to find things…and you? (H) ...well, more finding every walk space cramped by piles of stuff and things looking just "messy"! (J) So what if it's messy..? (H)..Uhm, 'messy' I can't stand...feels like everything's out of control and then I feel out of control…you know what happens then. (J) Uh huh, things get messy between us and I begin to feel things are out of control… (H)..so in a funny way we're both bothered by messy – me first and then you following on as my bother bothers you!! (J) and that reminds me of another factor – when your mother's eagle eyes are cast over us each time she visits…!!! The recursive moment
Options –creating	Fourth, options answer the question 'now what's imaginable?' Usually there are already some options on the table, standing in clashing opposition to each other. The task is to turn them from positions into options. Trying to complete an options assessment in a single go will likely jam the creative, intuitive systems - throwing you back into clashing positions. Spread option finding over a couple of days at least. Provide a shared repository for potential options (e.g. a chart on the fridge). Follow the rules for issues charting: include everything and dispute nothing. Test for assumptions which limit the range/depth of possibilities. A good handle on restrictive assumptions is the word 'should'.	… (J) … remember, we're starting with an anything goes phase here… (H) Sure ...we already mentioned a few things we could do to reduce the 'messy' like: get an idea of what minimum mess is for us both, find some cleaners to organise the mess, and try out a holding pen for incoming stuff to corral the mess before it spreads .What else might be useful?? (J) For me it would be good try reducing my daily contributions to our mess… (H)…and maybe for me to reduce my complaining about that, too.. (J) And, then there's your mother: maybe we could agree on an approach to her expectations?? Maybe signalling how irritating her observations are…or inviting her to make some useful suggestions about how to deal with mess?? Scary thoughts, huh? The recursive moment
Decide	Fifth, decision(s) answer the question 'now what's possible, probable and practicable?' A decision should have an action set in a time framework with some mutually visible quantities attached to it. Start with simple decisions which can be executed in one step if the relationship is in perilous condition. Making effects of the solution testable is a way of ensuring commitment and the option of fine-tuning or changing the decision.	… (J) …so let's go with the cleaners first just to get the stuff neater, more packed, and we'll get a better feel for the shape of the next steps. (H) OK, and while we're at it we'll get them to price a more thorough solution – some storage options, some disposal options and so on. Does that follow? (J) Sure, but only if we have a way of keeping track of how these steps are unfolding, especially how we are managing variations to the solutions as they emerge…. (H) Well, that will probably be harder than agreeing and implementing these first steps… (J) Probably, so we shouldn't be too hard on ourselves if we're a bit slack now and then…. (H)…and here comes my mother again…How about this: we do some of what we've just suggested and then run the result by her for her observations??... (J)…and then modify our next steps somewhat. Sounds good…too good? Anyway, I'll get after the cleaners tomorrow and let you know when things are happening!!. The recursive moment, with special focus on how this solution(s) relates to other parts of your lives together, especially the problematic ones, as reinforcer or detractor from their progresses.

Notice that 3 out of the 5 steps are concerned with establishing the relationship focus of the problem-solving process. This is to ensure a good 'political' foundation for the detail work. This foundation is the basis for shared facts being created in the process – that is, each of you will get a fair go - speaking opportunities should be jointly monitored and adjusted (some things take more time than others, etc., especially if new aspects come into view like long term experience hooks which have blocked earlier work on this subject); and, there's a method for interrupting if hot things suddenly emerge.


The Options and Decisions steps can be unfolded in much greater detail, but technique will not replace bad 'politics'. The temptation to be too rational, too linear, which problem solving techniques usually offer, is often experienced as a power play if the process is failing. It may not be meant that way, especially if your personality is of the more rational, technical sort. Bridging a personality gap, or experience gap, or values gap is the job of interpersonal 'politics' not technique.




Afterword - Some matters of value(s)
Apart from the four 'theories' mentioned in the previous article, there are some other factors affecting relationship improvement out of relationship dysfunction. Here's a few:

Not all outcomes can be equal in the short term; sometimes not even the long term…

 

Not all needs are known at the start of any problem-solving effort, so unpredictable surprises will arise.

 

Not everything is within ones, or both's, power.

 

Doing heavy relationship lifting on a weak preparation is a self-fulfilling expectation of failure, a sign of unconscious pro-forma efforts at improvement. Do not try to do serious things when too tired or preoccupied to do them.

 

Small wins on small things are wins; they provide the whiff of success. Stopping yourselves from diminishing small wins is a critical move.

 

'It all depends' is the correct answer to any invitation to judge the rightness or wrongness of any action. Getting the dependencies right will largely answer the question of right or wrongness. Effectiveness is the most important standard.

 

The most important principle of relationship development is principled flexibility.

 

 

*So, what are the implications of this step for the one(s) which have come before? E.g. does our work at this point change the scale, scope, salience of the previous one(s)?
...and what are the implications for the next step(s)? E.g. what do we need to do to improve them? …what conditions or constraints should we apply to them?