Is it Love... or is it Wimpy Parenting?

It's easy for me to ask the question and it's even easier for me to pontificate about it as I sit in the ostensibly all-knowing-and-wise Wizard of Oz chair 50 hours each week.  The debate has strong adherents on both sides. 

Many parents explain to me that the realities today are significantly different than when I was leaving the nest of my parents’ home. Quite true.

Of course, we live in a very difficult financial environment. I'm told it is very difficult if not impossible for a young person to find employment that will cover their housing, food and other bare essentials. Also, there have been articles written suggesting that another "developmental phase" is evolving; a  "20-something phase" which follows adolescence but precedes adulthood. This argument supports the idea that it is healthy for pre-adults to stay under a protective parental wing.

I'm in agreement with the first argument; we are certainly living in difficult times - I am not so sure about the notion that another developmental phase is evolving that warrants a protracted adolescence. 

I am continually flummoxed when it's suggested life should be "easy" or "easier". I wonder, when has life EVER been easy - except for during my childhood when my mother did my laundry, prepared my meals, cleaned my bedroom, virtually did my homework and fought my battles with my father. 

Since I matured (in the last few years), I've come to "accept" that Life is difficult. As I survey the situation of others, I think others have a more difficult situation than do I. As I consider those in other countries, it is doubtless that their life is even more of a struggle.

Where did we ever get the impression that life "should" be easy?  

[Disclaimer: I have often said and it applies here also that this is my OPINION - not facts or the conclusion of research - so feel free to dissent.] 

In my professional experience, I generally find it unhelpful to allow young adults to stay in their parents’ home. Young adults are in a developmental period in which it is appropriate to make their own rules - often these rules are at odds with the parent's values and norms. If a young adult is living with parents, one party will have to adjust and often - it's the parents that capitulate. Instead of maintaining clear boundaries about their expectations and allowing the natural consequences to occur, they violate their own integrity (becoming increasingly angry and increasing helpless in the process) and unintentionally retard their child's emotional/psychological maturity. 

Why do parents, again and again postpone imposing significant consequences (i.e., booting the older-adolescent out)? Parents, frequently, will offer a litany of rationalizations - but more often, the real answer is that the parents can't tolerate their own anxiety that would escalate if they "induced labor" to get their child to leave the nest. They feel plagued by all of the "what if" questions. "What if the young adult becomes homeless? What if they turn to crime? What if they go hungry?"  These are real possibilities - but they are possibilities that the parent(s), ultimately, cannot control. The lack of control is what provokes the anxiety. The parents are exchanging a feared future “what if” for the alternative – a surly, entitled and resentful offspring who never develops a sense of competence and responsibility.

It may be worth reviewing the blog entry about the “drama triangle”. The rescuers believe they are motivated by compassion, but more often, the root motivation is their own anxiety. They engage in recuing behavior to contain their own anxiety which would escalate if they were to allow their young adult to face the harsh realities of life. As they continue to rescue, the “victim” suddenly becomes the rescuers’ persecutor who now feels like they are the victim. The familiar refrain from parents and other rescuers is, “After all we’ve done for you, this is how you repay us”?

Commonly, the young adult (or other victim) will charge the rescuers with being too controlling or unfair.

How, you may ask, does one extricate oneself from this kind of trap? The answer, I'm afraid, is not easy. And, isn’t it interesting that the initial desire to provide an easy way became the fertile feild for this very hard dilemma? 

The answer is that there is no escape from the fact that this life is hard and that we do a grave disservice to our children when we try to shield them from this fact. The way out of this dilemma is hard and heart-breaking. The way is filled with anxiety as we wonder if our children will “make it”.

There is a well-known saying – which while sounding hard-hearted is true: Life is hard, so get a helmet.


Two neighbors have a fence between their backyards.
The first man notices the neighbor got a new dog.
Over a period of weeks, as the man observes his neighbor's dog, it seem his tail is getting shorter.
One day, as the neighbors meet at the mailbox, the first man comments that he has seen the new dog.
His neighbor gushes about how cute and sweet the dog is.
The first man mentions that it seems the dog's tail is getting shorter and shorter.
Yes, says the neighbor, "The Vet said I should get his tail docked, but I love that dog so much...I didn't have the heart to do it all at once."

Living Vicariously

Recently, I was asked if I’d written about “living vicariously”. The question has prompted me to write about it. (Most of what I write is directly or indirectly in response to questions my patients/teachers present to me.)

Let’s begin with a definition of "vicarious" that I’ve appropriated from dictionary.com.

• performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another: vicarious punishment.
• taking the place of another person or thing; acting or serving as a substitute.
• felt or enjoyed through imagined participation in the experience of others: a vicarious thrill.
• Physiology . noting or pertaining to a situation in which one organ performs part of the functions normally performed by another.

Often the way we use it in the vernacular is when we suggest that one person has consciously or unconsciously avoided the challenges of Life and hope to experience the good parts (Who would want to experience the painful parts?) through someone else. Perhaps some of the better known examples of vicarious living are (please forgive my sexism) the “stage mother” who always wanted to be a performer but for various reasons turned away from their dreams – now, they push their child with a peculiar relentlessness. Another familiar expression is the “sports dad”; when their son or daughter is still a toddler, they begin shaping them into an image that the father wants. More subtle expressions are found in the inverse. Parents who have lived an indentured life of their parents morality – and then they are shocked when their own children express the “hell-raiser” that the parent was afraid to express. Had the parent expressed it (not necessarily in outlandish fashion) the child wouldn’t need to so vehemently express the parent’s unlived life.

There’s something quite narcissistic about this dynamic. Instead of trying to be aware of what talents emerge organically, the parent imposes an image which is not natural for the child. Often as the child matures, the child sometimes doesn't express their own native identity but accepts the image the parent imposes. 

I’m reminded of chánzú – foot-binding of very young girls practiced in China for almost a thousand years. – because small feet were considered more desirable. It was a form of mutilation. Consider the word, “mutilation”. To me, it suggests the act of muting another’s expression. When we force our children into an environment that extrudes some reflection that we wanted to see when we looked into a mirror. When we indulge in this kind emotional mutilation we are violating the unique character of the child.

I am not suggesting that children should not be socialized to be responsible citizens; that is our responsibility as parents – but it is also our responsibility to nurture their unique character.

Most children (I’m thinking about my own son.) despite our best efforts, become their own persons.

I’m concerned for those young people who have demurred individuating because they fear disappointing their parents.

I’ve often said I used to be threatened by a person’s threat of physical suicide… today; I am more horrified by one who commits psychological suicide or psychological homicide. Abandoning your self is gruesome beyond words.

I believe that it is each person’s SACRED OBLIGATION to live their own life with all the integrity they can.

Again, from Dictionary.com

Sacred:

• reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object:
• regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
• secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights

If we abdicate this central task, it becomes the seeds of all manner of problems. If we are parents, I believe we are obligated to create the environment wherein our children can express their unique character and gifts. That means we are not to enable them to remain perpetual adolescents. It means we prepare them for the realities of living in a difficult world. We do what we can to prepare them for the disappointments that are inevitable. We communicate (more so in our behavior but also with our words) that their supreme task is to express their Spirit (not yours), as fully as possible. We communicate that we (their parents) are not the most important ones to please – they must live, as much as possible, a life of integrity.

My teacher, Carl, used to refer to the “disease of abnormal integrity” a mode of functioning wherein one acts without regard to societal expectations, violating any or all cultural norms, having no apparent respect for the feelings of others. A more modern description might be "sociopathy". The opposite is someone who has no integrity; they are people-pleasers in extremis. Neither is the desired state. Finding a balance between them is the trick… and it is quite a trick. 

There is an inherent tension between the two impulses. Knowing (through trial and error), how to navigate between the dangers of these two positions largely is the functional definition of emotional/psychological maturity.

Let me return to “vicarious living”. Vicarious living is dishonest living. Whether we are trying to coercively scapegoat our children into living the life we didn’t have the guts to live ourselves – or whether we are psychological/emotional parasites, getting our thrills voyeristically from another’s life, it’s dishonest and reflects our own failure to mature while simultaneously planting seeds of problems in our children.

I am reminded of a fragment of a letter that Paul wrote to the Philippians, he says, “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” The Greek word for “salvation” is soterios – it means WHOLENESS, COMPLETENESS or HEALING. Note that Paul tells them to work out their own wholeness (not someone else’s) and that it’s a scary process – not for the faint-of heart.

Living a life of integrity – honesty – not shirking our obligations – not drafting our children into living a life from which we turned away, is our endeavor.

Is it easy? No, it’s the hardest thing I can imagine – something I strive to do – something I fail to do – but I keep trying. I hope you keep trying too.

Where is Chistmas? (Hint - look in a mirror.)

Most cultures celebrate the advent of “God” being manifest in the world. In the Western culture, it is virtually impossible to escape the commercialized expression of Christmas. Probably, the number of people who celebrate a secularized Christmas out-number those who celebrate Christmas as a sacrament. Paul Tillich believed a sacrament was an outer expression of an inward Grace.
 
During a recent conversation with a theologian, he commented on the dynamic tension between psychology and Faith. Probably, I would think they share more in common than he would but for the purposes of this brief comment, the differences are not so important.

Many who know me, already know that I have some formal training in the Christian tradition, so please forgive me if it seems the Christian tradition is more prevalent in my comments. I don’t mean to “dis” other faith traditions – it’s just easier and more familiar for  me to speak in my “first language”, the Christian idiom. Other traditions, whether they be tied to a faith-tradition or other-cultural tradition also have expressions of the Divine being expressed in the material world.

For those readers with an antipathy towards Christianity, try to imagine my references as an allegory like an impressionist painting.

Consider the medieval arcane practice of Alchemy; the over-arching idea was to transform a “lower” substance to a “higher” substance – the “philosopher’s stone” of Harry Potter fame. The transformation was thought to be brought about by strange, often tortuous procedures of heating, cooling, pulverizing or combining with other substances. We find a similar motif in Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”; Ariel is the spirit (a higher substance) liberated from the tree (lower substance) in which he’d been imprisoned. In Alchemy, the lower, base substance is often called Prima Materia. In the practice of psychotherapy, the patient comes with a “presenting problem” which is the Prima Materia – it is the beginning base element which we hope to transform to something better and higher.

In the Christian narrative, God is expressed in human form. (Remember… ALLEGORY) The angel Gabriel tells Mary, a virgin, 

“Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

 
Here, we find another example of the Divine (higher substance) being expressed in a human womb (lower substance). I don’t think it is just an interesting coincidence that “mother” and “matter” come from the same root, in Latin, Mater and Sanskrit, Mata.


Later, as Mary is ready to deliver the child, we read:

"While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them. And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
 
Do you see the leitmotif? The Sublime presented in very crude surroundings.

Many times through Christian writings we find God’s will expressed through less than revered forms; from the mouth of an ass, from a bush and others. We are told that God uses the foolish to confound the wise. We are told of a "building block that was rejected" and how it becomes the cornerstone of a new epoch.

I point to these to set the stage for my “Christmas” message – that it is within YOU that the Divine is expressed, not in those who outwardly appear spiritual. Eckhart tells us that God is found in our weakness. It is when we are most broken that we find the Divine is with us and around us, in fact, IN US.

Are you feeling rejected or demoralized? We all, I am sure, have our psychological low place, our emotional manger; that is the more likely place we will find the cornerstone of our Spiritual emergence.

Forget material riches – forget what you think you know. Be honest about where you are the most broken… and then, get ready for Christmas!

In Appreciation of Duets

In Honor of SD & BS - Mazel Tov!

I’ve been re-reading parts of Carl’s writing about marriage (He’d be nearly 100 by now so it’s probably safe to now say “committed-long-term relationship”. From here forward, when I say “marriage“ feel free to paste in CLTR; to me, they are nearly synonymous.) Carl viewed marriage as the most natural venue where emotional growth could blossom. Granted, things were so much different even 40 years ago but in many ways we are so much the same in our psychological makeup.

Like Carl, I’ve long been an advocate of marriage. I’m certain there’s much to be said about the merits of singleness and even serial monogamy but that is not my focus in this column.

The thesis of this column is the idea that “maturity” is only half accomplished when we are physically and intellectually mature – the rest is a process that happens in the context of a marriage. Perhaps an apt metaphor is the event of two compatible DNA strands meeting and the explosive proliferation of Life that comes from it. One strand is insufficient (unless we dare venture into the world of cloning). While we are initially attracted by preliminary dynamics, we soon find ourselves on the launching pad for the ride of our life – and like a rocket launch, the ascent is not a cushy ride, but bone shaking. The ride will test our fortitude and endurance. Here, we discover if we are still in an adolescent stage of insisting that Life conform to what “I” say, or have we matured enough to accept that our partner is different and often sees things differently – not wrongly.

Carl likened marriage to the tennis player who decides that playing doubles is more enjoyable because of the creative interplay that develops. Learning when one should  hit the ball for the other and admiring the other’s abilities. Playing as a twosome is entirely different than being the staring monad. “… the simple joy of teaming becomes more important than whether we win or lose”.

I’ve talked with many couples who seem to be under the impression that marriage is about winning. The partner is seen as an opponent. The couple is playing singles against each other. When they are in my office it sometimes seems I should be wearing a black robe as I listen to attorneys for the prosecution and the defense. I often wonder, “Where is the jury?”

If we successfully graduate from our family of origin, we might be ready for the challenge of marriage. Successfully graduating helps to make it more likely that we won’t have to re-enact old unfinished familial battles with our mate – somehow again proclaiming our independence and worth, but this time, to the wrong ears. If we have successfully matriculated, we won’t be forced to complete our adolescence in our marriage.

Often couples present the bi-lateral pseudo-therapy model. In this set-up (pun intended), there is a covert awareness that HE isn’t quite right in his current form but SHE will subtly shape him into the man SHE knows he can be. HE temporarily tolerates HER inconsistencies with the intent of “helping” her become the woman HE thinks she should be. This is an idea that borrows the dubious notion that a therapist is going to change another.

Marriage is not a long-term remodel job on your partner. Marriage is teaming.

For certain, there will, in marriage, be trying moments, there will be moments of “blah” and there will be moments of great joy. Carl spoke of “…[a] whole-person to whole-person relationship…” It is a more mature love that hopefully develops. Of that stage of relational development he commented, “It is independent of sexual stimulation or sexual attraction [do not infer sexual abstinence].”

A marriage, like a swinging pendulum, increases one’s capacity for being part of a WE.  A thriving marriage allows for the increasing ability to express each party’s individuality and reflexively, each increases their capacity for togetherness.

This increasing back and forth arc describes the growing development of the WE co-created by the He and SHE.  

(Please forgive the limitations of my sexist language. I do not intend to exclude those too often marginalized. Specifically, I mean to include the wide spectrum of gender preferences) 

In this way, a marriage naturally has the movement of Life. The tides come in and go out; the heart contracts, and relaxes. In this manner we develop our personhood. Too often, this natural movement provokes anxiety for a couple:

“Oh no, they’re moving away!” or the opposite “Ugh, I’m feeling smothered.”

When we fearfully resist (or escape) this natural and reflexive dialectical process, anxiety and the resulting impulse to control the other can soon follow. Being able to relax - rising and falling with the swells of Life is freeing for both in the marriage. It is similar to what is taught in meditation – “follow the breath” – inhale… exhale. Would someone argue that it is more RIGHT to inhale than exhale? (Probably, some would.) Together there is Life, when one stops the other does too – it’s called death. 

The idea of WE, as something distinct from HE and SHE, is an idea too often unappreciated by a couple. I have always enjoyed the following poem which expresses this ephemeral idea:

The Third Body

A man and a woman sit near each other, and they do not long
at this moment to be older, or younger, nor born
in any other nation, or time, or place.
They are content to be where they are, talking or not talking.
Their breaths together feed someone whom we do not know.
The man sees the way his fingers move;
he sees her hands close around a book she hands to him.
They obey a third body they have in common.
They have made a promise to love that body.
Age may come, parting may come, death will come.
A man and woman sit near each other;
as they breathe they feed someone we do not know,
someone we know of, whom we have never seen.

Robert Bly

To me, a compelling question is: How does the couple move from the “bilateral pseudo-therapy stage” of relationship with its assorted games and maneuvers to the more mature, enjoyable, less controlling and anxious, “whole-person to whole-person stage”?

In my personal and clinical experience, it seems that, like other forms of evolution, it is a process borne of necessity, not choice. Either we adapt and evolve a more expansive and flexible style of relating (my Analytic friends might call it sublimation) or the relationship will fail like a root-bound plant. The plant’s previously useful pot (older ideas about the relationship) must expand to allow for new growth. For those with green thumbs, the concept is familiar – sometimes the pot needs to be discarded in the interest of the plant’s health – but the important element is the plant, not the pot. Too often, a couple fears discarding their earlier definitions of the relationship because redefining the relationship carries a risk – a risk of change – and who among us welcomes change when we have become accustomed to what is familiar – even if that familiarity is the very thing that is killing the relationship.

I remember with great fondness (before the constraining “pot” of today’s health insurance), my colleague Tomaso and I practiced co-therapy for more than a decade, a sort of professional marriage. We saw hundreds of families, couples and individuals as a professional team. His therapeutic style encouraged me to see things differently, we sometimes openly disagreed in front of our patient(s) but we were not vying to be RIGHT. Musicians, probably, (I’m not a musician so if I’m wrong, my brother or others will correct me) will agree that playing with others is more fun than… (Dare I say it?) playing with yourself. (Another intended pun.)

There is room for solos, but in this brief commentary I have addressed duets.

A commentator from an earlier column chastised me for not being more encouraging and so I end this column with my prayer for couples:

Look for what is different in the other, strive to appreciate the differentness. Resist the impulse to make others more like you. Look and listen for the rhythms created by the WE.

Perhaps this is what musicians would describe as the “unplayed notes” or playing “in the pocket”. 

Thank you to JB, TH and Bill for your help.

An apology...

Preface:
I know I’ve recently made various allusions to a former teacher, Carl. Here is another of Carl’s stories. (If anyone knows the facts of this to be different, I hope you’ll correct me.) Earlier, in Carl’s career, he was appointed to a much coveted position as the Chairman of Psychiatry at a famous medical school. Almost immediately, he established a policy that all first and second year medical students must participate in regular group therapy. Probably, this was a great idea but it ended up entirely alienating him from the rest of the faculty. So, soon thereafter, he was fired. It was a terrible blow to his career. From that incident, Carl learned that while it’s important to do what is morally and ethically right, one must also consider the repercussions – particularly if one has a family.

I must apologize to those who read my comments here. Earlier this week, I posted information which I believe is important information to consumers of health-care services. It is possible that there would be repercussions which would impact others. Because of that, I have removed those postings.

If you want to view the information, feel free to email me and I’ll try to help you find it yourself.

How to Quickly (and Easily) Ruin a Relationship.

So much as been written by so many about how to make relationships (with mates – family – coworkers) better; I thought I’d try it the other way – since there are shelves after shelves of books about improving relationships and the reasons for relationship failure continue to grow.

One might think that (logically) it would be reasonably easy to keep a relationship together; just pay attention to what’s happening in the relationships that go bad… and do the opposite!

To get you started with your own list, I’ll start you off with some of the most common blunders I encounter as I work with families and couples.

[11/15/2010  Warning: the following is irony, see the below comments.]

• Believe fervently and insist that your perceptions, judgment and recollections are “RIGHT”. For variety, you can try the reverse – insist that the other person’s recollection of events are distorted or outright lies. Try gently insinuating that the other person is perhaps demented or lacking in integrity. (Just consider how effective this has been for Israel and Palestine.)
• When you’ve been thinking for days about something the other has done that bothers you – wait until the other party is unprepared and ambush them with your carefully thought-out and rehearsed verbal attack. During WW II this was known as the “Pincer” attack and was successful in defeating the other side.
• Tell others that you know what they are secretly thinking – this is almost guaranteed to make the other person apoplectic and will damage the relationship.
• Secretly keep score of who is winning or losing points when there is a disagreement. If you think the other person “won” the last contest, provoke another argument so you have an opportunity to even the score.
• Make up tests that will determine if the other person REALLY cares about you, is honest, finds you desirable – anything you feel insecure about; design a test (also known as a trap) that will somehow prove that your insecurities are caused by the other person which also means it is THEIR responsibility to behave differently so that you won’t have to deal with your own issues.
• During a disagreement, be sarcastic and pretend to agree with the other person but paraphrase what they’ve said stating it in the extreme, absurd and hyperbolic manner. For example, if the other says, “I didn’t understand what you were saying.” You could try saying, “Oh, that’s right, I’m the one who doesn’t know how to communicate and you’re the one who never miscommunicates.” (If you can say it in a snide tone it’s even more destructive.) This will often create a no-win situation that will surely damage the relationship.
• At all costs, avoid stating things in a provisional way. Stating anything provisionally only leads to solving problems. To insure problems, state things in the extreme. (i.e., I never… You always…) Stating things in the extreme will make sure that a disagreement is perpetual. (Isn't this fun?)
• Whenever possible over-reach your boundaries and encroach on another's boundaries. This should be easy because there are a variety of ways to do it. Here, are but a few you could try tonight. Tell the other person how to drive or where to park. Tell the other they use too much salt. Make social plans without informing others – then “spring it on them” with little or no notice. Tell the other how to dress. When you engage in any of these, reframe the boundary violation as an innocent attempt to be “helpful”. (This way when the other person objects; you can make it sound like you were only trying to help and THEY are unappreciative.) SCORE.
• Never fall into the trap of accepting personal responsibility for contributing to the misunderstanding. Proclaim your sainthood at even the smallest of opportunities.
• Only talk about negatives. Never tell the other person about all the nice things they do. This nearly always makes the other person feel like a failure and they’ll quickly stop trying to be helpful giving you another opportunity to criticize them (cool).
• Remember all the things you used to do early in the relationship that was fun? Don’t do any of them. If you really want to poison the relationship, only do things that are drudgery. Make sure that everything else is more important than your relationship. Work, kids, laundry, softball, lawn-work should all take priority.
• To spice things up, try blindsiding the other with an ultimatum. Ultimatums will always set you at odds and will surely stimulate resistance from the recipient.
• Expect others to read your mind so that they would do better than Kreskin (I guess that dates me.) when it comes to reading your body language and silence.  
• Treat your relationships with others as if they were made of iron and able to tolerate abuse and neglect.
• Take your relationships for granted. Perhaps this is a little redundant since many of the above are examples of how you can behave as if your relationships are a birthright. Behave as if you are entitled to use awful language. Act like an impudent adolescent and NEVER share in household responsibilities.

 
These are but a few ideas just to get you started. Remember, improving a relationship takes time and work but tearing one apart can be done easily and quickly without too much effort.

Your Beliefs versus a Therapist's Beliefs

As some know, one of my pet peeves is the fact that so many people have unquestioningly accepted the various beliefs and theories put forth by a century of therapists.

James Hillman and Michael Ventura authored a book some years ago – “We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy – and the World’s Getting Worse".

I’m not sure their assertion is accurate but I don’t think the influence on the culture is always benign or helpful. Psychotherapy is in the company of other “healing arts” – they too are not always benign. Who has not heard frightening stories of surgeries gone awry or adverse reactions to medicine; and these are usually the result of well-meaning practitioners using approved treatments. Add to these the quacks using untested methods or phony treatments.

Many, if not most, naively present themselves for treatment, assuming that the treatment provided will help. I am a bit surprised that many of my own patients scheduled preliminary appointments with me without interviewing me first. It is worrisome that some will accept the referral of AN INSURANCE COMPANY employee whom they’ve never met. When I’m on the phone with a potential patient scheduling a first appointment, I’ll usually ask, “Is there anything you’d like to ask me about – my therapeutic approach, how long I’ve practiced, my credentials, what my thoughts are about specific concerns." Some just want to schedule the appointment (I hope if they find me unhelpful they won’t continue seeing me.) A recent patient was candid enough to tell me she just wanted to talk with me for a while to see if I sounded crazy.

Allow me to mention a few of the ideas and practices that I believe are unhelpful. (In previous columns, I’ve discussed what I think IS helpful.)

Talking more is always helpful.
This commonly held belief has prevailed in the Western culture for probably the last 50 years. Rooted in the heyday of anything-goes sensitivity groups (originally, “T-groups”) unedited stream-of consciousness talking was thought to be “healthy”, it theoretically was an expression of an uninhibited mind.

The truth is that more talking is SOMETIMES helpful and it is sometimes unhelpful. Perhaps you’re familiar with the axiom: “You cannot unring the bell.” It is also true that what is said CANNOT be taken back regardless of some people who strongly assert that they take back a comment. Once said, it will exist forever in the mind of the one hearing it.

I have told many patients that when I speak to my boss, I am careful (i.e., full of care). It seems to me that when I speak to someone I care about, my words should reflect my care. If I spoke carelessly to my boss, I imagine I would not have remained employed for more than 20 years. Presumably, I care more about my mate than my boss – I believe my words should reflect that I care. Context is an important (though not sole) determinant of our tone of voice and our words. Some believe that they are not responsible for their words and tone of voice. I assume the most people are (for the most-part) neurologically intact. That leads me to believe that most (99.5%?) do have control of their behavior – despite the insistence by some that they don’t. A gross example would be the battering spouse who would have us believe they were not in control of the hands that strangled their spouse.

A variant of this idea, that we must “say what is on our mind” is an apparent belief that we must express our thoughts and feelings (particularly if they are negative) because if not expressed, we will somehow build-up psychic pressure (as if people are pressure cookers or steam engines) and explode. This belief has no foundation in fact. It does bear striking resemblance to the old but still used ploy told to women (forgive me for the following vulgarity) that unless men can have sexual release with women that the man will develop “blue balls” (an entirely fictional condition). Just as men will not explode without sexual release – people will not explode if they don’t express to ones they care about, complaints or other hurtful comments. (If this principle were true, wouldn't there be a pandemic people - particularly teenage boys, spontaneously exploding?)

It’s OK to say (if it’s true.)
Another falsehood – again I suggest the guiding principle should be “Is this the most caring thing to say and way to say it.” Using the rationalization that “it’s true so it’s OK” is an excuse to be uncaring and hurtful in our communicating.

Most of us have heard the cliché: A woman asks her mate, “Honey, do these jeans make my butt look big?” One can very lamely try to hide behind the rationalization that the jeans are unflattering to say, “Yes, they make your butt look really big.” With just a little thought, one can answer in a more caring way, “Those jeans are OK but I really like the way you look in the other outfit.” The guiding principle is caring.

You should use communication the way I do.
For me, it’s annoying when people seem to believe that others should communicate in a way that essentially is similar to their own. Previously, I reported a saying from my old mentor: “The fact that we both speak English only augments the delusion that we are speaking the same language.” Clearly each of us uses language differently, some more effectively - others… not so much.

Problems develop proportionally to how much we expect others to believe and communicate as we do. I can personally attest to this. Not everyone appreciates my sense of humor. In the not-too-distant past, I was careless about my sense of humor. In recent years, I have become more careful. I used to believe that everyone could, with only brief notice, express how they think and feel (copiously) about almost anything. I’ve learned that others are not like me – some people prefer to be more deliberate (i.e., think before they speak). I’m unaware of any word that has a unitary definition and if there were, we would still moderate the word by the tone and inflection we use. Others will not (ever) communicate the same way we do. You might wonder, “How then do we ever communicate?” The answer is the same as the punch-line to the old joke: “How do two porcupines mate?” The answer is, “Very CAREfully.” Effective communication acknowledges that we are all different and so we communicate most effectively when we try as much as we can to avoid assumptions that the other has understood what we intended with our comments – we intermittently confirm that we have communicated effectively - when we detect miscommunication, we correct it.

I was perfectly clear in my statement – YOU misinterpreted.
An axiom of communication theory states: “The meaning of a communication is its effect.” (not its intent) This is a very difficult notion to understand. I too have trouble accepting it, particularly if I’m the one that feels that I was totally clear about what I’ve said. If I am trying to communicate a thought or idea to another, it is my responsibility to express it in a manner in which it is most likely to be understood by the other party. If their reaction to my communication suggests they may have misunderstood, it is my responsibility to restate the communication more effectively. It is not the receiving party’s responsibility to understand me (particularly if I am using expressions that are not commonly understood). Believing that “I communicated clearly” is very similar to the delusion “I am right and you are wrong.” (see my earlier post.) Anyone who does public speaking will appreciate that choosing the right words and tone is their obligation. Again, in homage to my teacher, Carl, “If during a play of a comedy, the audience doesn’t laugh, it’s not the fault of the audience.”

Feelings reign supreme.
Psychotherapy has encouraged the idea that feelings and emotions are more important that thoughts and behavior. Truthfully, all are important but the relative importance of each merits greater reflection because they each are differing categories of experience.
Feelings are emotional facts like the doctrine of The Trinity is a religious fact. It is a disservice to try to justify these as concrete facts – this doesn’t however diminish their importance. Feelings can be very ephemeral; I may experience an emotion for a moment and then it fades. An emotion is not bound by appropriateness or consistency. I’ve often heard a patient say of their mate, “I love him but at times I could just strangle him.” Emotions don’t have to be reasoned, they just are. Emotions can shift from one moment to the next. Thinking is more deliberative; we have considered a variety of factors and have come to a tentative position.

Think of behavior as sign-language. I remember that for years, I expected my father to express himself the way I do. For years, I believed that because he didn’t communicate and believe as I do, he was in “denial”. When I became a bit more open-minded, I saw that his behavior communicated what he couldn’t verbally express. Too often, behavior is under-appreciated. When a man changes the oil in his wife’s car, it is an act of caring. When a wife makes dinner (please excuse my sexism), it is an act of caring.
At least twice monthly a patient tells me, “I love my mate, but I’m not “in love” with him/her.” To me, this reflects that my patient is expecting the exhilarating feeling of infatuation that is often experienced in the first stage of a relationship. Some of my patients have told me love is a verb. Love is what you do or what another does for you. Being “in love” is an experience – the experience is not a constant; it is a variable phenomena that ebbs and flows. Reflect on other feelings such as fear, joy, anger or suspense. These are not constant, they come and go depending on context.

Feelings are not more important – they are feelings, nothing more and nothing less.

My last comments before ending this rant; please consider carefully anything a therapist says. Remember, unlike physicians who have x-rays and lab tests all we have is beliefs. A therapist's job is to help you be more clear about what you think and feel – not to indoctrinate you into what they think and feel.

Family Mythology (instead of individual pathology)

Earlier today, I had a “first appointment” with a patient. Her concerns were in many respects similar to many patients but her family history is the stuff of epic stories.

I think our family histories (and herstories) are largely neglected in the way we view ourselves. In this present day, most view themselves as discrete phenomenological packages that emerged the day we were born and conclude when we die.  We have somehow become blind or conditioned to dismiss the generations that eventuated our existence. We fail to view ourselves as an extension of a lineage of lives and stories. We have been severed from our family tree or what many call their family-mythology.

Our family heritage/mythology influences us in ways that are sometimes very obvious and at times in very subtle ways. Even if the “facts” of our heritage is not clear, the stories (true or not) leave an indelible impression. Patients have told me they know nothing about their family-of-origin history but the non-verbal attitudes of their parents is as strong or stronger than known historical facts. I often have seen this when my patient is Latino. Perhaps their parents were born in the US and they believe they are thoroughly Americanized/modernized – but their parents were raised in homes that had strong traditional values – those values are powerfully transmitted from generation to generation. I have sometimes said to my Latino patients, “Your consciousness may be very American but you blood and bones (the unconscious) are still nurtured by the Soul of Mexico.”

My patient today has a family mythology going back many generations. A grandfather was a famed captain of industry; she said he was a “king” and his spouse, a “queen. The king and queen begat princes and princesses, one of which begat my patient.

When I asked my patient about their spouse’s pedigree s/he was a bit clueless. The spouse’s lineage was unclear due to a father that was mostly absent due to military duty and a mother, enchanted by wanderlust. Imagine the relational dynamics when someone descended from a long aristocracy partners with a mutt. One has well established expectations of high achievement the other has no established familial patterns for a template of personal values and behavior.

Because the contemporary culture has suggested (and most are too willing to suckle from any breast of information) that we are monads, devoid of generational influence, when conflict arises we naturally assume that the problem stems from the so called “individual pathology” of the two parties. It would be very unusual but very reasonable to suspect that the misunderstanding stems from transgenerational differences. If an Irish-Catholic partnered with North African-Muslim, I think most of us would understand that the couple would have predictable misunderstandings. In graduate-school, there are classes in cross-cultural psychology. It would be good to pay more attention to differing family mythologies.

Sometimes, though not very successfully, I ask a patient about their “family-religion”. What I am referring to is their family-mythology. In ways, it is similar to a religion. Normally when people think of a religion, they think of beliefs, commandments and creeds. A person has a family-religion. 

Part of my family-religion (imparted by my father/patriarch) were the commandments:

• Thou shalt never draw attention to yourself.
• Thou shalt always wear something on your feet, except when in bed.
• Thou shalt never be late.
• Thou shalt always behave in a manner reflecting your station in life.
• Thou shalt always be polite.
• At all times, be ready to stand and deliver the answers demanded of thee.
• Never contradict thy father.

Imagine some of the misunderstandings that would develop if I partnered with someone whose family religion encouraged one to be bare-foot and where time commitments were “negotiable”. If both parties are fundamentalists with their family-religion it can lead to real acrimony.

It may be asked, “What is the solution?”

My answer is to develop an attitude of appreciative inquiry; think of yourself as a comparative mythologist.

Vive la différence

More of "What is this therapy thing?"

In an earlier post, I deigned to criticize “psychotherapy” because it is not an objective science. Really, psychotherapy is closer to art or theology. Allow me now to say where or how I DO find value in therapy.

I have no argument with religious beliefs. (I have a few of my own.) A religious “fact” does not depend on an objective, concrete, scientific basis. Religious facts and scientific facts are two entirely unique categories of phenomenon. People far brighter than me, who study a branch of philosophy called epistemology could doubtless explain it more clearly. For people of average intelligence (like me) allow me to offer this vernacular explanation: I can resolutely say that I love Janaki, but if asked to prove it (scientifically) I can’t offer anything. A beautiful piece of music is not beautiful due to a scientific fact. These are phenomenon of a different sort, horses of a different color.

This is where “fundamentalists” err. They try to migrate a belief (their faith), to the realm of objectivity, the category of concrete facts.

Psychotherapists can make them same error. Therapists err when they fail to appreciate that their cherished theories and belief systems are mythologems. When a therapist fails to view their belief-system or school-of-thought as just one of many possible descriptions of what may be vexing a given patient, they slip into what I view as therapeutic fundamentalism. These therapeutic fundamentalists, overtly or sometimes with greater finesse, try to make their patients life circumstances fit the parameters of their beliefs. For those unfamiliar with the concept of a “Procrustean bed”, allow me to summarize the basics:

In Greek mythology (from which much of contemporary psychology grows) Procrustes was a son of Poseidon. On the way between Athens and Eleusis. he invited every passer-by to spend the night. The traveler would find themselves restrained in a bed made of iron. Procrustes would set to work on them with his smith's hammer, to stretch them to fit. If the guest proved too tall, Procrustes would amputate the excess length; nobody ever fit the bed exactly because secretly Procrustes had two beds.

This story became the basis for the common idea of trying to make a square peg fit a round hole – or vice-versa.

Therapists make a grave error when they try to cram a patient’s situation into the therapist’s theory.

Instead of this method, therapists better serve their patient by letting the patient explain, in their own unique way, what has happened and is happening.  I prefer an appreciative inquiry approach to working with a patient. I try to understand the unique experiences of the patient as well as the patient’s unique descriptions. I ask questions so that I can better understand the patient’s languaging of the patient’s experiences.

In my experience, as the patient explains and helps me to understand, they simultaneously better appreciate, and understand more fully their experience. Often, the patient will understand something well before me. Quite honestly, it is not necessary that I understand -  but it is in the process my respectful and genuine desire to understand - reciprocated by the patients' languaging of their experiences, that patients find the process helpful. In my work, patients are not helped by me imposing my explanations, but by the patient animating understanding through languaging.

(Note: As I am writing (i.e., languaging) this blog column, I am better understanding the process. It is an in vivo example about which I have been writing.)

A Critique of the DSM, by Karl Tomm

This link will take you to a PDF document which, while a bit clinical is brief, concise and REALLY good.I hope you find it interesting.