 |
The Couple as an Entity: The Power of Treating the Couple as a Whole/Peter L. Sheras and Phyllis Koch-Sheras |
| Couples and Infertility: Clinical, Intervention and Practice Development Issues/Laurie Kolt | |
| Working with Couples around Couples and Work/Jayne Speicher-Bocija |
| Peter L. Sheras, Ph.D., ABPP and Phyllis Koch-Sheras, Ph.D. | The Couple as an Entity: The Power of Treating the Couple as a Whole In our zeal to be helpful to our couple clients, we often concentrate our energy in the wrong place—that is, on the two individuals in the partnership. What if we saw the couple a bit differently, as a unit in itself with its own history and personality? If we look at it this way, it is not enough merely to focus on helping the two individuals in the couple understand each other better. What if we could show them that having a satisfying relationship was not dependent on individual feelings, circumstances, or previous experiences, but could be produced by a joint vision for the future of the couple as an entity itself? This vision represents a shared commitment to be something together, something bigger, a whole bigger than the sum of the parts. Research demonstrates that cohabitating couples report low levels of satisfaction and do not tend to survive (Nock, 1999). This supports the notion that without a sense of common purpose or vision, such a union is “like two soloists (that) do not make a very good duet” (p.26). The love that may bind such individuals together, while important, may not be sufficient to create an enduring entity without including a shared commitment to a larger notion of what it means to be a couple. If the entity of “couple” is a prerequisite for a fulfilling and lasting relationship, then, what is required to create and maintain this entity? The answer seems to be a high level of commitment to each other and to the relationship. Cordova and Jacobson (1993) point out that couples with a commitment to each other and with a desire to work things out have much better outcomes in therapy. As therapists, we notice that couples who are still “testing” each other or “voting” on how the other is doing, tend to be less functional and more likely to break up. On the other hand, those that operate from a shared commitment to the relationship seem to be able to overcome their individual differences or “incompatibilities.” They are able to see that the real compatibility is in their dedication to the relationship rather than to the idealized expectations of each other. Consider the married couple (each married for the second time) that almost broke up over the issue of the husband’s flatulence. She found his inability to control his body functions as gross and rude. When the wife resolved not to sacrifice the relationship because of her olfactory sensitivity, however, she came to see his episodes of flatulence as “marking the space” as a dog does to keep out intruders and protect her. It became an act of love rather than a sign of incompatibility and served to remind them of their commitment to each other (it made the odor almost worthwhile!) This “reframe” was actually a dedication of the couple to solve the problem together by seeing it a different way. Now they laugh at his noise-making and say out loud, “I love you, too, honey!” As a therapist, how do we get our clients to imagine and then create this kind of commitment? First, one or both partners may need to work on individual issues from their families of origin, such as abuse, loss, or shame, only in order to create a foundation strong and accepting enough to generate the commitment to the couple. Like a teepee, each side must have enough strength to contribute to the total structure. Some couples may already have done that preliminary work and are ready to clarify their commitment; they may seek therapy merely because they lack the skill or direction to do so. These clients are ready to learn to generate a statement or “proclamation” of what they want for their couple as an expression of vision and commitment. Other couples need to feel good enough about themselves to not fear being “lost” or “swallowed” by the relationship. The commitment of each partner to the couple as a unit needs to be established before any further couple therapeutic work can be truly effective. Without it, the best we can do is act as a mediator between two antagonistic individuals. Therefore, the work of creating a couple proclamation needs to be handled as early as possible in the therapy. One place to start is to have the couple rediscover their wedding vows, stating them in the session and reciting them to each other at home. The therapist can help the couple get in touch with the positive feelings and visions for the marriage that they had at that time and “who they were” then that allowed them to have a hopeful vision for their future together. To move from the original wedding pledge to a new vision and proclamation for their life together, the couple must engage in a joint venture to create this single entity called “couple.” They can be directed to view this much like conceiving a baby that they are committed to nurture, love and support as it develops. The therapist can have them address the couple proclamation through a “miracle question” (Berg and deShazer, 1993). Such a question might be: “If a miracle occurred in your relationship that enabled it to be exactly like you want it to be, what would it look like?” However we get to it, the goal is to have the couple come up with a specific description of their joint vision or ideal. They must then state it in the present tense as a declaration of fact or an existing state of being, rather than as an unfulfilled desire. For example, “We value and appreciate each other” rather than “We want to value and appreciate each other.” A proclamation is a statement of commitment agreed upon as a couple. An acceptable proclamation is achieved when both members seem visibly moved or excited by it, and do not appear merely to be going along with the other. “Does this light you up?” we often ask. A good proclamation is the statement of a possibility for them, a vision they see for themselves together. Once the commitment is made, it must be reaffirmed regularly. What the couple needs to see is that what keeps their relationship alive is not that a proclamation was made but that it continues to be made. This can be done in many ways. The couple can use their proclamation as a daily affirmation, repeating it together at least once a day, leaving it on each other’s voice mail or E-mail, or putting it on post-it notes around the house. To facilitate this repetition, the wording of the proclamation should be brief and in the present tense so that it is easy to remember and repeat. The therapist can act as the couple’s guide here, asking questions and suggesting changes in the way they act or speak until they are truly complete with this task. It may seem awkward at first, but with practice it soon makes its way into the couple’s ongoing vocabulary and behavior. A more detailed description of the proclamation process along with several examples is presented in previous publications (Sheras and Koch-Sheras, 1998; Koch-Sheras and Sheras, 1999). Reinforcing commitment is just one aspect of the value of seeing couple as an entity. A second manifestation of treating the couple as a whole is the ability to cooperate as a team. The most consistently satisfied and fulfilled couples seem to derive their strength from committing not only to individual goals, but also from creating common ones, what we might think of as the higher purpose of the couple. Through helping the couple to join together with a common vision, a team is created, with each partner/player making a valuable contribution toward the goals of the couple as a whole. The couple needs to learn that as members of the team, each of them is responsible not only for their own performance, but for that of the other team member, that is, their partner, as well. This is not a 50/50 proposition; each person in the couple takes on 100 percent of the responsibility for the outcome and must be 100 percent committed to doing what is best for the “team.” Once couples grasp the concept of being an entity, they seem to find it easier to cooperate in accomplishing significant goals from this perspective. Women, who have traditionally been trained to think in terms of the family as a whole can usually grasp this concept of joint responsibility somewhat easier than men, for whom the sports analogy works well. Couples we have worked with have taken on as a team such tasks as: one person losing weight, dealing with a difficult parent or child, or coping with problems in the work place. Even though the goal may be changing one person’s behavior, it is the couple as an entity or team that takes it on. For instance, in one couple, the husband was having problems at work with his boss. He was so angry and frustrated he was thinking he might just quit. They took this problem on together, and his wife helped him to design a plan to deal with his employer and his own stress. She did not just give him advice; rather she coached him as a member of their team, seeing the problem as “theirs,” not just his. This is teamwork and cooperation, not just support. For another couple, the goal was for the wife to lose weight. In the past this had been a difficult issue for the husband who complained about his wife’s problem. She saw him as unsupportive and critical. When he came on as a member of the team, rather than as a judgmental observer, there was something useful for him to do as well. They became so committed to the outcome together that at her weekly weigh-ins they asked that they be weighed together and only told the total weight of their couple. In that way, they both took responsibility for the weight losses and gains. The word “couple” often means two of something – a couple of people. That idea, however, may not be effective in treating a couple. Two individuals imply two separate sets of goals and expectations. The first step in effective couples therapy is creating the idea of the couple as a unit with its own goals and expectations. These can be fostered in the treatment. In fact, if we are too side -tracked on issues related to the individual, we miss the opportunity to empower the joint commitment necessary for a satisfying and long lasting relationship. When a therapist can help a couple create a proclamation of their joint vision together, they can construct an arena in which to realize the limitless positive potential they have. If they cannot construct this vision, it is likely that the couple will not survive. As therapists operating in this way, we also commit ourselves to fostering an ongoing creative process, not just applying techniques to fix a broken relationship. References Cordova, J. & Jacobson, N. (1993). Couple distress. In D. Barlow (Ed.), Clinical handbook of psychological disorders. New York: Guilford, pp. 481-512. DeShazer, S. (1988). Clues: investigating solutions and brief therapy. New York: Norton. Koch-Sheras, P, & Sheras, P. (1999). The dream sharing sourcebook. Los Angeles: Lowell House. Nock, S. L. (1999, July/August). The problem with marriage, Society, 20-27. Sheras, P. & Koch-Sheras, P. (1998). New frontiers in treating couples. In L. VandeCreek, S. Knapp, & T. L. Jackson (Eds.). Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 16). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc., pp. 399-417.
E-mail at pls@virginia.edu or sherfam @aol.com |
||||
| Return to Top | |||||