Archive for March, 2006

It is generally agreed that one of the most influential of all factors in the deeper attitudes and feelings of people is the kind of “conditioning” they received in their childhood, particularly in the earliest years of their home and family life. Most of any person’s emotional needs have their origin in these early experiences and relationships, and the earlier the needs and assumptions are laid down the more “unconscious” they are likely to be. So almost all marriage counseling for any but the most superficial disorders will need to include some consideration of the early background of each client. As we have seen in the case of John and Mary at the beginning of this book it may be helpful to hear each client’s feelings and ideas about the in-laws as well as their own parents, and in this way the counselor may obtain a kind of “two dimensional view” of the early background of both clients, so that he can then help each client to relate present attitudes to early background.

The last part of the interview with Frank might be continued in some such manner as this:

c. Your mother used to be pretty good at anticipating all your needs?

F. Yes, I suppose I was the only pebble on the beach, you see Dad died when I was about 10, and he fortunately left her well enough off, and she didn’t have to go out to work. She looked after me like a prince, I didn’t have any real duties at home, and I suppose it wasn’t very good for me really. We had a married couple who looked after the whole place and they were there until a few years ago.

c. And then, when you married, Betty took over looking after you in the way your mother had done?

F. That’s one of the things that attracted me to her, she was always so thoughtful, and she anticipated every need of her parents, her mother refused to stand in the way of Betty’s marriage although she was going through a difficult time emotionally then. But she puts her oar in far too much now, and Betty takes too much notice of her. The result of all this is that I’ve got to look after myself most of the time, and I don’t think it’s good enough.

c. Could it be that you feel the need for a kind of “mothering” from your wife?

F. Well, I suppose it could, but why not? Shouldn’t a wife who loves her husband try to meet his needs to some extent?

c. And his demands too?

F. I didn’t think there was much difference between my needs and my demands.

c. Then you need the “fussing over” as well as demand it?

F. Well, I suppose I can get on without it I’ve been getting on without it lately at any rate. Yes, I think I’m beginning to see your point, that I’ve felt the lack of it mostly because I had so much of it from Mom. Perhaps Betty shouldn’t have fussed over me so much at the beginning of our marriage, and I might have come to earth sooner. Actually you know we’ve each been doing a lot of demanding on one another, and I think I can see now that we’ve each dug our heels in hard against them. In my case I’ve felt I had to protect what was left of my individuality that way, and I suppose Betty dug her heels in for the same reason.

c. If, as you feel, each of you has been digging your heels in mainly to resist possible demands, would the best answer be in the direction of cutting our demands on one another?

F. I suppose it would if we could do it, but does that mean that we would just have to put up with all kinds of inconveniences in silence?

c. What would you think about that? What would a good partner do in such circumstances?

F. I suppose he would tell the other one how he feels and appeal for cooperation. But then I’ve often appealed to Betty, and she just says she can’t do it, and then I get sore. So how can that do much good?

c. If you get sore when she says she can’t do it, can you really call it an appeal, or is it really a demand well disguised as an appeal, a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

F. I hadn’t thought of it quite like that but I think I’m beginning to see what you mean. If you’re not willing to accept “no” for an answer it’s really a demand, no matter how like an appeal it may sound. Is that what you’re getting at?

c. Well yes, that’s what I had in mind, you’ve got hold of the real difference between an appeal and a demand.

It is obvious here that the exploration of Frank’s background personal “conditioning” has brought him to the achievement of some insight into his proneness for dictatorial demands, and the discussion has in this case moved on by its own momentum to further clarification about the difference between appeals, which are helpful in a partnership, and demands, which may be destructive. This approach, through insight into why he wants to make demands, will be more likely to help Frank to stop doing so than any superficial lecture on the futility of demands in a democratic marriage. It may be that the same kind of opportunity may come to help Betty to gain insight into her demanding attitudes and to make some changes in them.

This discussion with either Frank or Betty may lead on to some consideration of helpful attitudes in the face of persisting demands from the other partner. In Frank’s case the discussion might possibly go on in some such manner as this:

F. But that’s all very well, suppose I stop demanding and become an appealing husband, what do I do when Betty makes demands on me? Wouldn’t that make it a rather one sided affair?

c. In questions of this kind do you think the best approach would be to start with some of the facts of life as we know them, and work from there?

F. I’m not quite sure how that applies, the demands are certainly “facts of life,” but how can we work from there?

c. Would you agree that one of the facts of life which applies to this is that Betty has, in common with all of us, what we might call the right of free speech; that if she wants to demand the world she is at liberty to do so and you are equally at liberty to decline to comply with it?

F. But that’s pretty much what I’ve done, isn’t it?

c. Have you accepted her right to demand anything, or have you got sore about it and made her feel her right to free speech threatened?

F. Ah! Now I’m beginning to see the point; if I can accept other people’s right to demand, and quietly exercise my own right to disappoint them, then we can agree to differ without any great trouble. That seems to have possibilities. I shall have to try it out a bit more with Betty and see how it goes.

Notice how the counselor tries to handle the interview in such a way that the client gradually works out the helpful insights himself, helped at times by “creative questions.” This is much better as a rule than any attempt to offer the information to him in the form of dogmatic statements, because he is more likely to accept the ideas he works out himself and still more to remember them. He is also more able to work out future decisions on a basis of the facts of life because of this experience of doing so.

We have referred to the fact that as the client’s narrative proceeds, helped by the counselor’s accepting and questioning comments, the counselor will gradually perceive a kind of pattern as it is progressively revealed to him. He regards it as tentative, and continually open for correction or modification as he feels further into the client’s attitudes.

A fairly obvious part of this pattern, somewhat wider in scope than the specific role perceptions and expectations in the marital relationship is made up of the client’s habitual attitudes and responses. As these are revealed during the interviews the counselor can help the client to clearer awareness of them by “reflecting” them back to him in a manner and tone of voice which show acceptance of them and a desire to understand the client’s feelings more fully.

For example, with the interviewing of Betty and Frank already discussed to some extent, Betty might have made several statements which could be summed up in the expression, “If he really loved me he wouldn’t mind doing things in the home the way I want them done, would he?” This looks like a habitual attitude which invests “love” with a rather possessive demanding quality inconsistent with the democratic principle of “autonomy” and respect for other people’s freedom even one’s marital partner’s freedom. How is the counselor to deal with this comment of Betty’s, remembering that she is probably unable at the moment to see her habitual attitudes objectively?

If he faced her directly, even if not bluntly, with the statement, “But you can’t use love to make people do what you want them to do!” it would probably put Betty’s back up and make it even more difficult for her to see her attitude objectively. A type of comment which might be more illuminating to her is, “You feel that those who love you should do what you want them to do?” If she says “yes,” it would be unwise for the counselor to turn the situation back and ask, “Would you then do that for someone you loved?” for two reasons. First because that is not the criterion of human behavior; we don’t do things because someone else would do the same for us but because we think it right to do them. And second because Betty might well say “Yes I would!” and leave the counselor in a “dead end.” A better kind of comment might be, “But it seems that others may not think of love in quite the same way, can you allow for that?” This will give her something to go on pondering over if she doesn’t gain insight at that time.

This clarifying process demands considerable patience and tact, and a high standard of empathy, but the general attitude and method of handling is more likely than any other to help the client to growing insight into any destructive habitual attitudes and responses. But there are deeper factors still which may need to come to light if those habitual attitudes are to be overcome. As suggested in the last example there are uncritically accepted assumptions about life, about people, and about the client’s own self which have had a lot to do with the formation of the habitual attitudes, and unless these are realized and corrected it may be difficult to change the habitual attitudes.

Linked up with any uncritical assumptions and often dominating them are the person’s emotional needs, and his ways of seeking fulfillment of them. For example a client may show indications of a deep need for everyone to agree with him in everything, or for everyone to “understand” him. This constitutes the next stage of clarification.

Although this has been described as distinct from habitual attitudes for purposes of discussion, in actual practice these characteristics of the client will probably be clarified as they emerge without any real distinction. But a person’s emotional needs are often deeply imbedded in his personality, well below the level of his awareness, and they may need more patience and skill from the counselor if they are to be helped into awareness. The counselor’s own recognized emotional needs may also have a significant influence, often a destructive one, on the counseling process, and it is therefore necessary to give some special consideration to this set of factors in the client’s attitudes and conduct.

For example in further interviews with Frank it may appear that he feels quite strongly that he should have no responsibility for any kind of “domestic” responsibility, and as the counselor discusses this attitude further with him he may show some indications of a deep emotional need for “mothering,” and the counselor may help to clarify this by some such comment as, “You’ve felt a bit disillusioned lately at Betty’s neglect of your comfort?” Then the interview might proceed as follows:

F. Yes, she used to be quite different when we were first married, she used to anticipate most of my needs, but now I come nowhere, I just earn the money.

c. And you don’t feel so happy about it?

F. Well, I had hoped for a bit more thoughtfulness, even though I know she has a lot more on her plate than she had in the early days. I come home tired after a trying day at the office, and I just want to relax and be myself and be fussed over a bit. But I’m fussed over the wrong way, I’m expected to turn to and mend the cupboard door, and keep the kids occupied while Betty gets the table laid.

c. You have the feeling that you’re entitled to a bit more consideration after all the hard work you’ve done at the office. It would help if Betty just let you sit down and relax, and if she brought you something to drink before dinner?

F. Yes, that’s exactly what I mean; she used to do that when we were first married, just as my mother used to do it before that. She says now she just hasn’t got time with the kids having to be fixed up for bed and with everything else, but I can’t see why I should be the one to be left out. As I said, I come nowhere, I just earn the money!

It appears that Frank has little if any insight as yet into his need for continued “mothering,” and the counselor might fail to bring him to a more objective view by a direct approach in such a situation. He will probably do better by taking the cue from Frank and going still further back to Frank’s relationships in his earlier life, particularly with his mother and father. As before this next “stage” in the clarification is only distinguished from the earlier ones for the purposes of discussion, and in actual practice there need generally be no definite line of cleavage, especially when the client’s remarks provide any good opening for deeper exploration. So in this case the interview would move straight on to an exploration of possible reasons for Frank’s emotional need for “mothering,” so that he might have the opportunity of gaining insight into the situation.

Betty, for example may have expressed some feelings which suggest that she sees her “wifely” role as that of a domestic dictator, strictly administering the whole of the domestic organization with rigid efficiency, as Mary did in the first case described in this book. She may also have conveyed her “role expectatons” regarding husbands, that Frank should be a very efficient and enthusiastic “handyman,” in which view she pestered him continually to do what he had never had any talent or enthusiasm for doing and preferred to pay a tradesman to do. Frank, on the other hand, may have expressed feelings which suggest that he sees the husband’s role in marriage as in a very real sense “the head of the house” who must never descend to any kind of “domestic activity,” such as drying the dishes or helping with looking after the children.

If the counselor is on the lookout for the nature of these role perceptions and expectations, then, when the main unburdening of feeling has been completed, he may help the clients to clarify their attitudes by such a questioning comment as (to Betty), “You feel that Frank ought to fit in completely with what you decide in running the home?” or “You look on the minor repairs as Frank’s job?” With Frank, a possible comment may be something like, “You feel the husband should have no responsibility for helping in the domestic duties?” Frank and Betty are then able to respond either affirmatively, “Yes, that’s how I feel about it,” or to correct the counselor’s comment, “Well, not quite to that extent, but I do think-.”

In this way the role perceptions and expectations of each partner are brought to light and made quite definite, and the “role frustrations” also become clear. Later when there is a joint interview, it may be possible to put the feelings of each of them about roles in marriage alongside one another for comparison in a manner which would previously have been impossible for them to have managed on their own owing to the “intrusion” of intense emotional reactions. This clarification of role perceptions may enable them to come to some measure of mutual compromise at this level, which may be satisfactory to them when their troubles are not very deep or involved. Frank may feel “If that’s all that’s holding us up I could easily give Betty a bit more help in the domestic jobs.” And Betty might say, “If Frank feels the organization so much I think I could relax a bit in the interests of peace and harmony.”

The chief risk of such an agreement is that it may leave some very powerful underground influences untouched, and these may well be stirred up by some unintentional “hurt” or “neglect,” and the subsequent disillusionment, after the high hopes, may bring sufficient despair to break up the partnership. In some cases there is what is often called a “honeymoon reaction,” “a sense of enormous relief and an uprush of loving feelings” (”Social Casework in Marital Problems,” Tavistock Publications, Ltd., London, 1955, pp 62, 63). This may provide a most useful period of relief from bitter conflict and enable some mutual confidence to be restored, but it may also be used by one or both clients to evade the difficult and possibly painful process of exploring deeper sources of conflict. It is important for the counselor to be aware of this, and to attempt to keep sufficient contact and rapport with the partners, so that they, or a least one of them, may feel able to carry on with the counseling.

In many cases, however these conflicting role perceptions and expectations will not be reconcilable in this way, because they depend on deeper and largely hidden or “unconscious” attitudes, which are so much imbedded into the structure of the clients’ personalities that they are accepted uncritically as “reasonable.” These hidden factors can generally become revealed through the reactions of each client to the many kinds of interaction described in the interviews if the counselor can make suitable and acceptable “clarifying questioning comments,” and this further clarification will generally constitute the next stage in the counseling process.

In subsequent interviews with either client some deeper problems may be expressed, which for various reasons were not brought up earlier. The counselor needs always to have this possibility in mind and to keep an open mind for them. He may also help if he is sensitive to any rather cautious tentative approaches to such deeper matters, and able to respond in such a way as to encourage their full unburdening. One kind of tentative approach may be through an apparently general question, and if the counselor is induced to give a straight answer to it he might unwittingly “close the bidding” and discourage the client from going on. A constant unexpressed question at the back of the counselor’s mind, “I wonder why she is asking that question” may help him to respond to the implied feeling, and “keep the bidding open.”

For example in the interviews with Betty she changed the subject at one point by asking, apropos of nothing in particular, “Do you think husbands and wives ought to try always to please each other?” If the counselor gave the obvious answer, “Of course they should,” with or without a pleasant little homily, it would probably close that part of the discussion and Betty would switch off on to another subject, or make some inconsequential observation.

But supposing the counselor has his wits about him to the extent that he realizes that Betty would already know the answer to such a straight question, and must therefore have some interesting reason for asking it. Then he might respond in some such manner as, “You sometimes find it difficult to please Frank?” This would give Betty the chance to go into more detail, “Yes, I’m afraid I do in some ways,” and this might well lead on to a full discussion of the sexual relationship and the despair Betty is feeling about meeting Frank’s needs when he is not seeing any need to win her, but rather takes her compliance in sex intercourse for granted. It is obviously essential that this deeper area of their conflict needs to be explored, if possible with each of them, if a lasting solution to their conflicts is to be achieved.

We have seen that while the “unburdening” of either partner is proceeding the counselor is encouraging the progressive expression of feelings by responding to their expressed feelings rather than to the facts related in the narratives. But he is not discarding the facts, he is keeping them at the back of his mind for a very important purpose. He assesses the facts mainly in terms of what meaning they have for the client, how the client feels about them, and he more or less instinctively relates such reactions to what might be regarded as reasonable. As the story goes on he will begin to perceive a kind of pattern of reaction, through which he can gain increasing information about the personality of the client. This information may be considered from certain particular points of view for each client.

Identification. It is very common for a counselor to be tempted to identify with a client whose feelings touch a sympathetic chord. This differs from counter-transference in that the counselor is responding to something experienced by a client rather than something experienced by himself directly from the client.

For example a female married counselor who has children of her own may be given a pathetic story by a female client of the husband’s sadistic and sustained cruelty to their children. It may be that the counselor suffered from some such cruelty in her own childhood, and has been trying to give her own children a much better life than she received. Now the account of cruelty to the client’s children, and the client’s distress may well stir up very strong hostile feelings against the client’s husband before she even sees him, coupled with considerable emotional identification with the client. She may either feel averse to seeing the husband at all, or if she does see him she may have a strong desire to let him know what she thinks of him.

If such feelings are strong it might be wise for her to arrange for another counselor to see the husband, and if necessary the wife too, because strong identification with the client will only add to her hostility against her husband, while the counselor’s hostility would most likely spoil any chance of building rapport with the husband.
It is of course natural for such feelings to arise in the counselor under such conditions, but an important part of the inner resources of the counselor’s personality is that she should be able to withhold judgment, and assume that there will be some set of reasons for the husband’s cruelty. If she can control her feelings in some such manner as this and give full acceptance to the husband she may gain some idea of his feelings and his background, the uncritical assumptions and emotional needs behind his attitudes. Then, possibly in a joint session, the whole background conflict which contributed to the cruelty might come out in the only kind of atmosphere in which it could be constructively faced and dealt with.

Behind all such emotional reactions in any counselor there is a fundamental reality which sometimes needs to be recalled. We often allow ourselves to live in the unreal assumption that life should be always pleasant, and ignore the grim fact that suffering is a universal experience, an integral part of life as it has always been and as it will be as long as there is evil abroad in the world. Everyone who comes into any “helping” activity will come at some time to the realization so eloquently expressed by St. Paul, “We are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians, 6:12, R.S.V.) However they may regard it counselors need what St. Paul described as “the whole armor of God,” .the ability and strength to fight constructively against all unnecessary suffering, but to do so in such a manner as is most likely to overcome it “from the ground up,” by inner healing of the disturbed personalities who in their bewilderment or despair would go on inflicting it. Contact with human suffering drives anyone with any regard for human beings back onto their own philosophy or their own religion, and constitutes a searching test of its adequacy and a challenge to continued growth and personal development.

Identification can occur in many other ways than that which has been discussed, and it is inevitable that a counselor will find things in the unburdening of his clients which resonate with his own inner feelings and his earlier and more recent experiences. But counselors are trained, and gain considerable practice in the art of keeping themselves out of the picture, and concentrating in genuine caring fashion on the welfare of the client in the long term more than the short term view.

This involves some real self-acceptance on the part of the counselor, without which it is very difficult to accept anyone else in any genuine fashion. There is always room for improvement in every counselor’s inner resources of psychic strength and stamina, and counseling itself provides a very good opportunity for such improvement to happen as long as the counselor is honest with himself and open to a genuine search for help when he feels any need for it.