subject: Searching for Couplework that Works [print this page] Author: Granite 5 Author: Granite 5
couples counselling by Helena Lvendal Srensen and Nick Duffell A version of this article appeared in The Psychotherapist, no 27, Summer 2005 When we began our therapy practices in the late Eighties we had a shock. Most of the issues clients presented were about relationships - whether they came alone or with their partners - as well as relationship traumas, like sexual abuse. And much of our training in individual work simply did not help. We had to get more knowledge in these areas particularly in sexuality. This has involved a persistent quest to many different schools. Since then, our aim has been to evolve a theory and methodology that works. The couples we saw (and our own relationship) deserved it. In our book we have written more about this process. In 1996 we formed the Centre for Gender Psychology, to offer workshops and to train couple-therapists. Intimate relationships are difficult. The feel-good factor of the honeymoon period doesnt last. Later, we approach the other and often retire hurt. As professional therapists, we thought of ourselves as good communicators - but that wasnt helping, so we knew there had to be more to it. We tried the Post-Jungians. Some suggested you have to get into trouble in intimate relationships in order to individuate, and that even skilled communication cannot help this process. They said: its soulwork. We imagined that if falling in love involves entering a mysterious realm where deep unconscious bonds are created, then individuals must need to get some distance from each other, even to the extent of polarising, in order to glimpse what unknown expectations they mutually project. The problem is that this is neither common knowledge nor easy to do. Generally, couples loose control of their relationships and feel like theyre failing. The psychoanalysts seemed to know lots about expectations and unconscious elements in relationships. We are not truly married to a person, but to unwanted, split off and projected parts of ourselves, says Tom Main. When these end up as irritants it can be a signal that our life wants us to re-own them. This is so difficult to spot from within a relationship, but easier from the outside, if you develop your curiosity. However, insight doesnt always modify behaviour, and many therapists avoid working with couples because of the messy conflict involved. Systemic therapists seemed to be better at that, understanding that couples must manage profound dilemmas, such as that between separateness and togetherness. While this causes couples to act out, therapists can help them act in by understanding the games they play. But you do really need to take charge of the session. With systems came Field Theory, which we have consistently seen at work. It may also explain why therapists who work own their own relationships can more easily get the best out of a client couple. Seeing a couple as a sexual partnership, we needed to study sexuality. Despite its origins, psychotherapy hasnt developed much sexually, and we found very little in the literature that helped us understand sexuality. The Wests current over-excitement and proliferation of sexual imagery is exactly matched to its former repression. But with the cork off the bottle, sex acts like a mischievous genie. While teenagers are out of control, many couples in long-term relationships are not making love. No one knows what to do. Luckily we found Willem Poppeliers, a Dutch psychologist and body psychotherapist, whose Sexual Grounding Therapy has been invaluable. It is full of common wisdom. We were created by sex. Sex remains the ground of our being, even if society has made sex into a kind of hobby, but one we dont tell the truth about because its too exciting and demanding. At a new beginning it is worth being reminded - even if its obvious that our parents had a sexual relationship. Subject to their relational field we build most of our personalities, according to what was encouraged, or as compensation, and develop our personality style. Sex and relationships cannot really be separated. When couples discretely present sexual difficulties (imagining theyre the only ones!) it invariably turns out that, instead of a bodily problem, it is the negotiation about sex, the store of bad memories, the shyness about wanting, and the fear of rejection that interfere. These are emotional problems, which have more to do with the heart than the genitals. Emotional life must be learned. In practice, so many loving wishes to be together turn into conflicts, creating cyclical rowing. Alternatively, bypassing disappointment, couples drift apart, perhaps relating only through a third thing: the children or work. Couples really need help with this, so in our professional trainings we focus on three major areas where couples polarise: the dilemma of power and vulnerability, relational styles learnt in childhood (already alluded to), and gender. Of prime importance is the challenge to be vulnerable, an existential problem we all have to learn, and the vital vehicle of trusting relationships. If we cant be vulnerable we get defensive, and power plays set in. The child part inside, fearing rejection and humiliation, tends to escalate in apparently grown-up moves designed to put the other in his place. Once on this wheel it is very hard to get off. We developed a model to analyse and work with this addiction, called Bonding Patterns (first articulated by Stein and Winkleman). Of course real power is whats needed, and in counselling couples can learn to spot their defensive patterns with humour, eventually becoming generally more assertive rather than controlling. Gender has had a bad press in psychology. In the early days, mostly male doctors theorised about women patients without deconstructing the power imbalance. Freuds original formulations have now been largely abandoned, with gender psychology relegated to the social sphere. In the service of freedom we have achieved more equality and choice. Yet our society is no better at relationships and families, while psychotherapists still dont agree on what actually is going with sex and gender. Though fearing the stereotype, we find we cannot avoid noticing certain classic problems that turn up, when we sit with couples. Nor are we able to resist some generalisations. For example, why is it that women have a tendency to loose themselves in relationships, while their men seem loathe to enter in? Even this one questions demands a congruent theory of gender that is post-post-modern but honours nature. With this on board, workers can help facilitate compassion and resolution rather than pathologise impasse. We found we needed some new distinctions in order to tease out understanding. For example, many people unwittingly fall into the trap of thinking that they can get their identity reflected back in an intimate relationship, and get disappointed. This is doomed to fail. We now distinguish between the need to build Identity, which has more to do with the same gender and often the same-sex parent. We see it as a preparation for Relationship activity, which has more to do with opposite gender parent. When couples realise this, they are often motivated to explore their own gender in the creative atmosphere of single-gender groups. This regularly promotes skill in intimacy. Intimate relationships offer a sound but tough learning curve. Couples need support as do families witness the recent stunning successes of BBCs Dr Tanya with her Little Angels. So we encourage our coupleworkers to be grandparents to their couples, stretching and supporting them, like alert but patient midwives. Engaging with and assisting the process of rebirth is its own reward. But in a world we still cling to privacy, couples also need each other, so we like to bring couples into groups to solve problems together. If couples develop what we call Compassion for the Task of Relationship they can grow immensely as individuals and have satisfying lives together. Children from such unions can learn to thrive at any age. The knock-on effect of working on relationships is so satisfying for us, that we have virtually abandoned individual therapy altogether. References: Duffell, N, & Lvendal Srensen, H, Professional, Personal and Private - the challenge of working creatively with couples, in Self & Society, Vol 27, No 4, 1999. Sex, Love and The Dangers of Intimacy Thorsons, London, 2002. Learner, H G, The Dance of Intimacy, Thorsons, London, 1990. Hudson, L, & Jacot, B, The Way Men Think, Yale University Press, Newhaven and London, 1991. Sexual Grounding Therapy, see www.sexualgrounding.com Stone, H, & Winkleman, S, Embracing Each Other, New World Library, San Rafael, CA, 1989. Young, R, Mental Space, Process Press, London, 1994. About the authors: Helena Lvendal Srensen and Nick Duffell are the authors of Sex, Love and The Dangers of Intimacy (HarperCollins Thorsons 2002), and founders of The Centre for Gender Psychology (www.genderpsychology.com), offering postgraduate training and supervision for coupletherapists, self-development work, and in-house training modules. They may be contacted on info@genderpsychology.com Find out more on couples counsellingAbout the Author:
