counselling

What kind of help facilitates the growing up efforts of others?

Jenny Brown Blog, Bowen theory, Growing Up , , , , , , ,

All this focus on maturing self, begs the question: is it sufficient just to work on growing ourselves up in our relationships? Is such a focus on self the best way to be helpful to others? I am convinced that as we become more responsible people, aware of our own immature reactions, we become a greater resource to those around us. I do, however, see a place for being a counsellor and helper; a place for guiding and supporting others through their troubles. Indeed, much of my over 35-year career effort has been to become a better helper and therapist. Helping efforts can be both helpful and unhelpful to people’s growing up.

Getting past the desire for the quick-fix expert

A theme running all the way through my book is that clear thinking in the face of pressure increases our effectiveness. Each of us can discover that we have a surprising wealth of wisdom to draw on from our human brains that can help us resolve life’s problems. The challenge is to put aside the desire for a quick fix and the tendency to look to others to come up with the instant solution. This quick-fix mentality has created a burgeoning industry of programs that promise a new method to get us out of our difficulties. Some even promise a new you in one week. Within my own profession of counselling and psychology, amidst some sound theories there are plenty of examples of this quick-fix technique trend.

Over my decades of clinical practice, I have observed that people make the best progress when they access their own answers to their dilemmas. I have learnt to refrain from giving directives and answers to client’s difficulties and instead I endeavour to guide their focus away from changing or blaming others to looking at themself. I pay close attention to their descriptions of what they are doing to address their problems and ask them to assess what they think is helping and not helping. From here I can share some ideas about the predictable patterns that all humans get caught in when trying to manage the challenges of relationships. I then encourage clients to research these ideas in observing themselves in their real lives.

When people give up their own capacity to problem-solve, no matter what their intellectual capacity, they are left to either blindly depend on others or to blame and criticise others when their advice does not work. This leads to communities of dependent followers or reactive blamers.

When any one person pulls back from blaming others or trying to be the expert for others, or just going with the flow of others’ opinions, it is possible to emerge as a more thoughtful, mature contributor to society.

What to look for from a helping professional

If you are in a professional therapy relationship or looking for an effective counsellor, It may be useful to ask yourself the following questions about your helping relationship:

  • Am I asked questions that get me thinking of new ways to understand and resolve my difficulty? Or are my viewpoints all accepted?
  • Am I respected and listened to as a competent person? Or am I being pitied or overly protected?
  • Am I given suggestions that build upon the description and ideas I have come up with myself? Or am I given lots of advice?
  • Am I encouraged to consider my part, and the way each person affects each other? Or is my view of the problem in others affirmed and agreed with? –
  • Do I leave my sessions thinking about my own pain in the context of relationship patterns? Or am I left thinking about how hard done-by I am?

 

This blog is from excerpts from the 2nd revised edition of Growing Yourself Up pages 217; 238; 241-2. The new sections of this book are focused on the process of mature helping.

https://www.exislepublishing.com.au/Growing-Yourself-Up-2nd-edition.html

The bigger picture behind negative self-talk

Jenny Brown Family Systems Theory , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“I know that my ‘self-talk’ in relationships tends to be negative and full of doubts. I need to work on improving this self-talk.”

I wondered whether there was more to this than a case of negative self -talk.  Together we began exploring the effects of the relationship reciprocity and not Helen’s individual cognitions.

*Helen is a recently semi-retired, professional woman. She had enjoyed a successful work life but was ready for a reduction in work responsibilities now that she was in her 60s. It was a huge transition for Helen who had been with the same employer for over 25 years. She had taken on this full time career track following her divorce. Helen described the way her adult children were stepping up to support her following this significant job departure.  They were all hearing about her fears that she would struggle to manage her finances and have sufficient funds. While Helen had followed sound advice on her investments and had offers of secure part time work, these facts did little to allay her fears.

As Helen reflected on her shifting relationship with her 3 adult children she recognised how much she was venting her worries to each of them. They responded with reassurance, statements of respect for her ongoing achievements and advice about her transition decisions. Helen did appreciate the caring response from each of them but said that she felt unworthy of their praise and encouragement. When asked about the effects of their increased support she replied:

“The more support they give me the emptier I seem to feel about myself, and my money anxieties are not relieved.”

Such an interesting response! I deemed it was worthy of further investigation. I asked Helen how she accounted for her discomfort with her children’s gestures of encouragement and affirmation. She thought that distance had been her main way to manage herself in relationships to her own parents and that this had translated into a comfortable distance with her own children. Not a cut –off kind of distance, as she saw them all regularly. Rather it had been an emotional distance where she refrained from sharing at a deeper, more personal level. She had been concerned not to be an emotional burden for her children. This current transition had prompted a greater connection with her children. Her recent expressions of vulnerability however, were clearly unsettling the previous equilibrium for Helen.

Helen’s next reflection was especially intriguing. She said:

“I know that my ‘self-talk’ in relationships tends to be negative and full of doubts. I need to work on improving this self-talk.”

I wondered whether there was more to this than a case of negative self-talk.  Together we began exploring the effects of the relationship reciprocity and not Helen’s individual cognitions. I asked about the pattern of receiving praise from important others. We explored how the more she expressed her self- doubts, the more her children responded with assurances; and the more Helen received assurances the more she was felt inwardly depleted. This cycle did provide positive connection with her children but it was also setting up a pattern for Helen to under-function. The more she was reassured, the more she feared for her future; the more she was praised, her sense of confidence diminished. The self- talk was much more than an expression of individual doubts. Rather, it was an outworking of a relationship phenomenon.

To investigate the relationship influences further I asked about the specific patterns with each of her children. While the over-all pattern of Helen venting and her children encouraging was apparent, each relationship had some unique features. Helen became increasingly fascinated as she explored the nuances of her interactions with each adult child. This was expanding her lens well past individual introspection. She could see that her eldest son responded with lots of practical suggestions and offers to help her save money by having regular meals with their family. Helen’s response to him was to present as less capable than she was in terms of her budgeting and life management. With her only daughter, Helen experienced a good dose of emotional caretaking. She felt quite overwhelmed by her daughter’s rescuing gestures but could see that she was giving plenty of invitations to be rescued through her expressions of worry.  Her other son was somewhat less responsive to Helen’s worries. He was more laid back in listening to her concerns.  After listening and empathising he would shift the conversation away from her worries to an exchange of ideas. Helen had first thought that he was less caring than the other two. However on further reflection she saw that she felt more solid and less vulnerable in this interaction. Each of the varied patterns with her children reflected differences in the degrees of worry she had for them growing up. The son she worried least about was the son who was now relating more to her capacities. The children who she saw as having more struggles during their growing up and young adult years were the ones that were relating more to Helen’s expressions of incapacity.

Helen began to appreciate how much she was contributing to a depletion of her ‘self’ in her relating – in particular with her eldest son and her daughter. This ‘de-selfing’ in the relationship exchange contributes to a negative internal dialogue.  Helen determined to stay connected to each of her children during her current life transition. She was not going to revert to the previous distancing. She stated however that she wanted to work on connecting in a less fragile manner. She resolved to be open about the impact of the changes to her circumstances. She would share what she was learning about herself during this time. Helen wanted to share in a manner that conveyed she was responsible for managing her worries thoughtfully. She would welcome her children’s gestures of care but endeavour not to participate in unnecessary rescuing interactions. All of this would require consistent observation of herself in each relationship and continued practice at presenting her more open and capable self to the other. It would be a different effort to just endeavouring to correct negative self -talk about her deficiencies.

I think that Helen’s example demonstrates how ‘systems thinking’ is different to individual thinking. The key focus of attention is how is each person is effecting and shaping the other. Each individual’s ‘mind set’ and behaviours are inextricably linked to the back and forth responses in important relationships. The question that promotes maturity is not: How can I change my self -talk and the consequent behaviours? The more constructive growing up question is: How am I contributing to this pattern that is either depleting my confidence, or another’s sense of capacity? How is the relationship dance shaping my thinking, feeling and behaving? How can I alter my part of the dance in ways that promote mutual responsibility?

*Names and identifying details have been changed

Clarifying and expressing my thinking about a highly emotive topic

Jenny Brown Bowen theory, Family, Family Systems Theory, Relationships, Social interactions , , , , , ,

blogpic

Couples in Conflict = Clarifying and expressing my thinking about a highly emotive topic

It’s easy to write about topics that are socially acceptable, to express an opinion that is shared by the current majority trend. I’m aware that any writing that stays in a safe harbour of majority group think is not a growing up exercise.

I’m sitting down to write about couple conflict.  With so much important publicity this past week about the serious end of the spectrum of domestic violence I’ve thought it useful to add another angle on the less extreme situations.

It is a ‘growing up’ challenge to write about any highly emotive topic. The more a topic stirs up strong feelings the more the tendency to black and white thinking.  I admit that my conflict avoidant priming has rendered me a tad nervous about how this blog might be interpreted. That said I’ll now venture forth into my writing – a discussion of reciprocal couple conflict.  Reciprocity means considering how both parties contribute to a pattern of fighting. I know that there are many in the field who say that the woman is always in the one down position due to her reduced physical strength. Hence if fighting is escalating to yelling and angry gestures such as door slamming the wife needs to get quick smart to a place of safety.

Let me be clear that I unequivocally condemn violence against women and children – acts of criminal assault combined with inexcusable intimidation and control. I think that white ribbon day is enormously valuable in opening up much needed public discourse on the seriousness of relationships that escalate to men intimidating, controlling and beating female partners (or ex – partners). The statistic of 2 Australian women killed each week by domestic violence is appalling! But I also see, from years of clinical practice, that not all aggressive conflictual episodes in the home are helped by a ‘black and white’ response that blames and removes the stronger male perpetrator and treats the female as a victim. There are many expressions of relationship conflict that can unhelpfully be confused with the most serious of unsafe situations; and in these cases the label of villain and victim doesn’t assist either party to grow some maturity and to rise up out of their pattern of excessive fighting.

One of my colleagues recently told me about a couple she was working with in counselling where the presenting problem was frequent fighting. She explained that both spouses would quickly and regularly escalate to yelling at each other and both would sometimes slam doors or bang fists.  They could argue about the big and the incredibly small issues. The content seems less a driver of their fights than their sensitivity to losing one’s position. It’s an ugly picture in a marriage but it is very common.  I heard that in this case the female had discussed the fighting with a community health worker and within 24 hours she had been assisted to a refuge with her children and was engaging a solicitor to apply for a restraining order. After beginning a process of counselling where each had separately conveyed their desire to improve their marriage, the sessions had abruptly halted with a legal process taking over. Like many of the couple’s I’ve worked with, my colleague conveyed that these spouses both seemed committed to breaking this conflictual cycle but they each felt trapped in it. They had been able to describe their highly reactive behaviour in response to the other not seeing things their way. Each would turn up the volume to the point of exasperation and then retreat to a period of distance and avoiding each other. As I listened to my colleague describe this situation I recalled a number of women who had commenced couple counselling reporting to me being told by other helping professionals that they should not stay in a marriage where there is shouting – especially when there are young children. I have wondered if the helper had asked enough questions to see the pattern of provocation and arguing that both partners acknowledge they are caught in. I have pondered whether the criminal justice system and family and child protection systems would be better able to respond to the genuine safety threats if more questions were asked about the two- way patterns of arguing.  There is an important distinction between reciprocal arguing and the pattern of over-dominating aggression from the male partner (with a very small number being female partners).  In contrast to a mutual intense cycle of attack, defend and withdraw in a couple relationship, the more serious pattern of violence includes paranoid monitoring and efforts to control the others interactions with the outside world..

Dr Bowen observed that conflict and distance were one of the common patterns utilised to manage anxious intensity in a marriage.  Another pattern is when couples project their insecurities towards an over -focus on a child which may impinge on the child’s development; and the other common couple dance is an over- responsible /under-responsible way of relating that may leave one spouse vulnerable to emotional illness. For those in a confilctual marriage/relationship, the fighting serves a function of bolstering insecure aspects of self through the pretend strength of arguing; and then retrieving some breathing space through distancing. Couples in conflict often experience a strong reinforcing intimacy at their reunions (this is a false intimacy but can be quite compelling). Each of the 3 patterns for managing immaturity in the couple relationship can become destructive if they get fixed into a long term manner of relating. Yet it is usually the fighting couple whose relationship is judged more severely. In some families Bowen observed that the fighting created a kind of ‘conflictual cocoon’ that did not involve the children and left them surprisingly free to develop relatively unscathed. (This is distinct from conflict that draws children into taking sides or violent conflict that corrodes a child development through sustained fear).

It is concerning when people treat an argumentative couple on a par with a situation of severe regressive spouse abuse.  I think this confusion happens more than people may realise. When the fighting couple have had enough of their immature fighting cycle and want help to break free of it, they need to work on changing their contribution rather than labelling one side as the villain. Neither is helped by increasing a blaming focus on the other that can lead to unnecessary relationship breakdown. I think of couples I’ve worked with where each has moved away from blaming and railing against each other to figuring out how they can bring some personal integrity to the situation. I’ve heard men speak to an appreciation of what their wife must be up against when they don’t follow through on a commitment; I’ve heard women consider the effect of their withdrawal of interest in their mate while at the same time lavishing attention on their kids;  I’ve heard men and women own that when they use intellectual debating they know they leave their partner feeling at a loss to communicate; I’ve heard women after separation shift from only communicating through a solicitor to making time to talk in person to their ‘ex’ about contact with the children; I’ve heard husbands acknowledge that when they walk out in the middle of their wife expressing a complaint it is excruciating to her. A whole new path can be built when at least one spouse is willing to see the ways they contribute to the provocation and escalation of conflict. They come to see it as a false way of building a sense of secure self with their mate.

A husband who had been in a conflictual marriage for over 20 years  wrote on a counselling feedback form that he had shifted his focus from getting his wife to change her attitude (or hoping the counsellor would achieve this) to a desire to change himself. He wrote:

We have each contributed to the tension in our relationship. We have each reacted in such a way as to reinforce the worry in the other person. ———One of us needs to take the initiative, put the hurt behind them, and choose to declare their decision to act, as much as it depends on them, to re-establish a good relationship. —–My effort is to be that “one of us”.

An approach that looks at what each partner brings to the equation of their own immaturity is a path to breaking a cycle of futile fighting. Even at the severe end of the spectrum, where couple counselling is ill advised and safety is paramount, I see that there is still a degree of reciprocity to the patterns of fusion from which regressed behaviour can emerge. This does not blame the woman in any way but it does mean that once safety is achieved, she can be assisted to consider ways to prevent a pattern of over deference to a man who initially presents as a kind of over- charming ‘rescuing prince”. Men can also be assisted to look at ways their family of origin relationships have given them inadequate experience of not getting their own way contributing to an excessive sense of entitlement.

This is my effort to put out my thoughts regarding a tendency I’ve experienced to over diagnose domestic violence when hearing about fighting couples. I know this is a sensitive topic but I hope I can contribute to a thoughtful response to the complexity of relationship symptoms.  It’s easy to write about topics that are socially acceptable, to express an opinion that is shared by the current majority trend. I’m aware that any writing that stays in a safe harbour of majority group think is not a growing up exercise. Equally however, if I write provocatively to stir up dissent I am also on an irresponsible path. Bowen in his depth of observational research of the human family could see that the overly compliant person, who always looks for approval, is similarly undifferentiated as the overly rebellious person who creates a pretend identity using the forces of opposition. This blog has been an exercise in writing about an emotive issue where I have experienced past strong disagreement within my field. I hope to contribute to a thoughtful dialogue and information sharing about the diverse presentations of couple and family conflict.

Questions for reflection:

  • How do I deal with talking about issues that I know will evoke negative reactions?
  • Am I avoidant out of fear of disapproval? Or do I draw a degree of kudos from being provocative?
  • How do I respond to hearing divergent views about issues that I only like to see in terms of ‘black and white’ or right and wrong?
  • What is my response to the different ways immaturity is managed in marriages, /couples? Conflict, distance, focus on child, over and under-functioning?
  • Do I judge any pattern more harshly than another? Am I prone to a blaming stance? Can I hold a view of destructive behaviours that both preserves accountability and considers reciprocity – how each person contributes to symptomatic patterns?

Relevant Bowen theory quotes:

On holding a position that is not in line with prevailing emotions:

The ‘I’ position stance is conveyed by: ..’These are my beliefs and convictions…it is not negotiable in the relationship system in that it is not changed by coercion or pressure, or to gain approval, or to enhance one’s stand with others…….the pseudo self is acquired in the relationship system in the prevailing emotion.’ FTCP p 473

An expression of poor differentiation (maturity) is ‘working always for togetherness in relationships with others and avoiding “I” position statements that would establish themselves as separate from another.’ P 423

Bowen’s description of very low differentiation that describes one who is violent with an intimate partner:

‘Their use of “I” is confined to the narcissistic, “I want – I am hurt – I want my rights.” …They are dependent on the feelings of those around them. So much life energy goes into ‘being loved’ or reaction against the failure to get love.’ P 162 FTCP

What increased differentiation involves:

The difference between the narcissistic undifferentiated self and a differentiating self: ‘The responsible “I” assumes responsibility for one’s own …wellbeing. It avoids thinking that tends to blame one’s own unhappiness, discomfort or failure on the other.’ P218 FTCP

Patterns for dealing with fusion (over investment /sensitivity to the other)

Early in marriage two pseudo selves fuse into we-ness. The symptoms from fusion come [later]. To manage fusion the following patterns are utilised in varying degrees:

1= emotional distance

2= Marital conflict permits each to keep reasonable emotional distance most of the time and intense closeness during ‘make-ups’.

3= another pattern continues the fusion. One spouse moves into the dependent position leaving the other as the functional decision maker.

4= transmission of the intensity onto a child.

FTCP p 433

A good book reference: Couples in Conflict, R W Richardson 2010

Helpful suggestions for recognising signs of unsafe coercion & physical abuse p114-117.

‘Clarifying and expressing my thinking about a highly emotive topic’ – Jenny Brown