As such, I believe it is essential our clients are consciously aware of those insecurities and the behaviour they drive.  Failure to get clients to make that connection leaves them looking in the wrong places for solutions – either blaming their partner or collapsing into shame and self-blame – neither of which will solve their relationship issues.

Since writing that blog, I have had many conversations with colleagues discussing how hard it is to accurately identify core insecurities, especially when clients are reluctant to accept the impact of their upbringing on their present-day behaviour.  Where their answers to my final four questions in the previous blog are superficial or dismissive. Many clients seem offended or contemptuous if you suggest they are still being affected by less-than-ideal circumstances in their childhood (probably as sign they feel ashamed or exposed by your suggestion). 

Their tone and manner suggests they regard still being under the influence of childhood events as a moral failing rather than an inevitable truth of the human condition.  Ironically, this is often a reflection of, or result of, the kinds of core insecurities their upbringing created. The strong emotional reaction they are having is probably rooted in exactly the shame that you are trying to get them to track (and that is causing difficulty in their relationships). There is often also a sense that being open to the idea that their childhood was anything less than “fine”, “normal” or “good” is being unappreciative and disloyal to their parents or family.

Reflecting on those conversations, I realised I have a four-pronged approach to clients like this

• Psychoeducation about the neuroscience of the developing brain (esp pre-adolescence), emphasising how self-centred kid’s minds are because of their cognitive limitations
• Exploration of their childhood with me highlighting how seemingly unimportant or “normal” events might have had more impact than they realise.  Showing them how the theoretical concepts I have discussed in #1 might have played out in practice in their life.  Sometimes this is done in the face of great scepticism from clients (often hiding their fear of exposure).  But I am setting the scene for…
• Stressing the reflexive ways they are protecting themselves in the present (ineffective self-protective behaviour) and demonstrating how those behaviours were adaptive in the context of their upbringing but are damaging to their current relationship(s).
• Accompanying this all the way through is an emphasis on self-compassion.  Clients need to understand that, while they are responsible for their behaviour as adults, they were NOT responsible for the events that shaped them in childhood.  That when we recognise that we are reflexively doing unhelpful things, the useful response is to be kind to ourselves and try and attend with love to the parts of ourselves that are still hurting because of what we came to fear all those decades ago.

I think the key is persisting in showing them how this way of understanding themselves opens up new possibilities for changing things.  How being vulnerable instead of shut down draws their partner closer.  How being assertive instead of appeasing allows their partner to become more attuned to them.

Many people will not easily follow your lead – you will have to be tenacious and back your knowledge and experience.  A lot of clients equate self-compassion with self-indulgence and vulnerability with weakness.  Others have been trained to blame themselves and take responsibility for things that are not their fault.  Those clients need help in understanding where they learned such unkind and self-destructive beliefs.  It’s vital that we don’t let those beliefs stand unchallenged in our therapy. 

It is a situation where we need to lead, not follow, our clients.  To have the confidence that, in this respect, we therapists see more broadly and deeply than they do, because their core insecurities blind them to seeing their true worth. Hence, our perspective is much more likely to give them hope and a path towards achieving the intimate relationship they crave.

When I have made a mistake, got something wrong, or behaved in ways that are hurtful to my partner, my self-protective impulses often prompt me to talk about why I behaved that way. Usually, this involves an attempt to minimise my responsibility. The most common way to do this is to try and excuse and justify my behaviour.  For example, “I only shouted at you because you were being so rude”. 

That focus on what my partner did to “cause” my behaviour usually comes because I struggle to feel OK about myself, so recognising and accepting that I have got it wrong can feel devastating; like I am confirming what a bad person I am.  For example, I unconsciously fear that when I am aggressive I am like my domineering father.

In those moments when I am making excuses for myself, I am more in relationship with my insecurities than I am with my partner. My distress at the triggering of my fears about myself makes it hard for me to recognise, let alone accept and respond to the impact of my behaviour on them.  My partner is likely to feel twice wounded if I come across as justifying the behaviour that hurt them

If being a good partner is my top priority, then I need to aim to repair the “rupture” to the relationship caused by my ineffective self-protective behaviours asap.   Remember that John Gottman’s research showed us it’s the speed and effectiveness of relationship repair that separates the happy from the unhappy couples.  Explanation is often part of repair, but the timing of it matters. This is what our clients so often get wrong!

When I accept that I have done something unhelpful or hurtful then I will first acknowledge that without justification.  I will take responsibilty for my behaviour and focus first on repairing my connection with you; things like apologising and doing what I can to make things right.  “Sorry, I came on way too strong there.  I didn’t need to shout like that.  That must have been scary for you”.

Somewhere in that process it is likely to be useful for me to be able to understand why I acted in ways that were contrary to my values and against my intentions to be loving, kind, supportive etc to my partner.  My focus will be on myself, my insecurities, my upbringing and training around intimacy, and my present circumstances.

Working out what was going on inside me, why I interpreted my partner’s behaviour the way I did, is important for me to make effective plans for acting differently next time something like this happens.  “What I think happened for me was…”          

When clients offer this kind of in-depth, self-exploratory explanation of why they did something unhelpful it is going to make any assurances they offer about not doing it again much more believable for their partner.  It also is an example of the sort of intimate, vulnerable communication that builds trust and respect. 

So next time you are trying to help a couple resolve a conflict where one person was trying to explain why they behaved the way they did, make sure they focus on taking responsibility and repairing the relationship before they worry about “why”?  Make sure they are not looking for shame-driven excuses but, instead, are able to find a deep and self-aware explanation that will help them change their behaviour and build their partner’s trust and respect.

Once they can do that, talking about the reasons behind their behaviour becomes an explanation, not a justification.   It becomes an opportunity for intimate reflection and connection that helps both of them understand what makes one person “tick”.  It’s also a chance for both of them to show some compassion for what drives that person to be self-protective.  Processing ruptures this way is a vital plank in building a relationship that both people will want to be in.

»»»

We know the therapeutic relationship is at the heart of our effectiveness. Yet when working via video conference, it can be hard maintaining a strong sense of connection with your clients.  Here’s a tip from my misspent youth that night help…

When I was an actor working in theatres I was taught that if I wanted everyone in the audience to feel included I needed to look at the back row, that is, above the heads of most of the people in the theatre.  If you look above people’s heads they will feel included.  But if you look at the front row, all the people above your “eyeline” will feel excluded.

Now most people work on a computer with a single screen and a camera mounted at the top of the screen.  What this inevitably means is that when you are looking at your clients onscreen, you are looking down, and the camera (which is your clients point of view) will be above your eyeline.  This gives your clients a subtle message that you are not with them – they aren’t in your sight, as it were.

I have a monitor ( a second screen) mounted above my laptop set up something like the picture below.  That means I can move the image of my clients above the camera.  I was playing with it today and the difference was so clear I felt moved to tell you all about it. 

You can buy a new monitor for about $200.  There are many other benefits of having two screens so I doubt you’ll regret the money.  And if you plan on doing more tele-therapy, your connection with your clients will benefit.

Experienced couple therapists know that “communication problems” are almost never the real problem.  Formulating within the Developmental Model allows us to identify where each partner is held up in their relational development.  People who say “we can’t communicate” are often holding onto lifelong symbiotic fantasies or, at best, are at the early stages of differentiation and dealing with difference inexpertly.  Such couples often want closeness without really doing the work of tolerating the emotional vulnerability necessary for intimacy.

The impasse can often show up in one of four ways is:

• an inability to be accountable
• self-protective reactivity
• lack of motivation
• lack of ownership over regressive responses.  

If a couple is severely stuck, all four forms can be present.  Partners will use strategies such as blame, resentful compliance, confusion, a “poor me”/victim stance or withdrawal as ways to cope. 

Our role as therapists is to support the growth of the emotional capacities required to feel more internally solid so partners can show up as they truly are rather than ineffectively defending themselves or denying their inner states and pointing the finger at their partner.

Picture a couple where one partner held the hope (symbiotic fantasy) that her mate would notice her, read her distress and provide her with the comfort and care she craved after a hard day at work, without her ever having to say a word.  So at the end of each day she would wait in silent expectation, and when he inevitably failed to read her mind, she would withdraw emotionally and physically, feeling hurt, disappointed and self-righteously resentful.  Now imagine how this behaviour impacts on her partner – he feels confused, anxious and hurt.  Typically, he is no more differentiated than she is, so he inevitably believes that she intends to make him feel that way (another symbiotic assumption) and, rather than talking about it, withdraws into a self-righteously resentful sulk of his own.  It doesn’t take very many iterations of this cycle for the atmosphere in the home to feel very heavy and unpleasant. 

When working with a couple like this our role is to help each partner take individual responsibility for their part in the cycle.  The DM offers us great ways to do this by naming the pattern we see that is not working, catching those pivotal moments when defences surface, holding each partner accountable and creating a boundary around each individual while still staying connected to their partner.  This allows for the beginnings of differentiation to surface as two defined individuals now exist within a relationship rather than one fused relational entity.

However, a word of warning.  Developmental growth is anxiety-provoking, especially when it comes after a period of developmental stagnation (e.g. staying stuck in Symbiosis for 10 or even 20 years).  So, when supporting partners to move forward they are likely to become triggered and their defensive patterns will emerge and can be turned towards us as therapists.  Questions such as “why are you picking on me?”, “what about him/her?”, “why is it always my fault?” can come firing our direction.

When clients react this way, they can appeal to our own areas of vulnerability such as our fear of conflict, desire to be empathic, fear of being a bad therapist (imposter syndrome).  To remain therapeutic we need to use our own differentiation skills and lean into our belief In our goodwill and our expertise, staying true to our assessment and judgement (while still being open to client feedback). 

For example, if you coached this woman in the case above to talk about the vulnerable feelings underlying her hostility and, further, to take responsibility for how her silent response impacted on her mate and apologize to him, she may be quite challenged at first.  But if you persisted and she spoke vulnerability about her hunger for connection at the end of a workday, it is likely that she (and we) would see a very different response from her partner – one of concern and care, one that precisely meets the needs she has been so inexpert at communicating.

Ellyn Bader emphasizes the importance of slowing down at these pivotal moments of vulnerability.  Vulnerability makes people uncomfortable and they will need guidance to stay in the moment and savour these new ways of interacting.  Ellyn encourages us as therapists to make room for non-verbal empathy behaviours to enable deeper connection suggesting therapists try things like

• telling couples to slow down their verbal responses (the importance of silence)
• encouraging deep breathing
• modulating to a gentle tone
• inviting the couple to hold eye gaze

Ellyn highlights that there is a typical sequence in which partners find ways to hide from their vulnerabilities and that we can successfully intervene to transform these stuck patterns.  Our role as DM therapists is to:

• Describe non-judgementally what we are seeing each person do in their personalized flight/fight/freeze self-protective strategies
• Connect the dysfunctional “communication patterns” with early coping learnings
• Assist each partner to “own” (take responsibility for) their contribution to the impasse
• Structure change in the here and now by experimenting and offering positive encouragement and support in sessions
• Follow-up next session to see if they were able to maintain their new behaviours
• Check that they feel understood and that they understand their partners more deeply
• Highlight the relief this creates relief and
• Reassure them that new neural pathways will be forming to enable healthier relating to resolve those “communication” problems

When we can accomplish these tasks for clients then we can be confident we know what to SAY and DO when clients present with “communication problems”.

Paula Dennan