From time to time I comment on a case study offered by a
columnist. In particular, I am drawn to the Ask Polly advice column in New York
Magazine and now to credentialed therapist Lori Gottlieb’s column, in the same
magazine, that shows us how therapists think. To be fair, the column suggests that therapists don’t think: they emote and empathize and fail to
understand anything that is going on in their patients’ lives.
When I write such commentary I often note that the
prospective patients’ letters are often the best part of the exercise—unless you
like reading Polly’s extended rants about herself—and that we would like to know more details about the case. You cannot help anyone deal
with their problems if you do not have the facts. The old saying tells us that
God is in the details. When it comes to offering advice and counsel, the person is in the details. If you don’t know the details, you know nothing.
You cannot deal with an individual’s problems. You are dealing with your
own mental processes.
As though to answer my critique, Lori Gottlieb proposes a
letter that is short enough to be a tweet. Which is not a good thing.
The woman, calling herself, “Fighting Unfairly” wrote:
When my
husband and I fight, one of us invariably threatens divorce. Does this mean
we’re destined for our marriage to fail?
Short and sweet. Or, short and bitter.
Astonishingly, Gottlieb expresses something resembling joy
at not having to deal with the reality of this woman’s life. Or, effectively, of
dealing with this woman. Therapists, you might not know, do not much care about
you or your life. They care about your mind and their ideas. They want you to absorb their
very own ideas, and to feel your feelings, of course. They believe that once you feel your feelings you will automatically know how to deal with your life. Which is therapy's grand illusion... it's snake oil, if you wish.
In Gottlieb's words:
What’s
beautiful about your question is how concise it is. Instead of describing in
exquisite detail the particulars of your arguments — what therapists would call
“the content” — you went straight to what’s known as “the process,” which is
the emotional dance that you and your husband do while arguing about the
content (money, sex, laundry, kids, your parents, toilet seats, whatever).
Picture a triangle where the vertex at the top is “the content” and each of the
bottom vertices are you and your husband, respectively. The baseline of the
triangle, the line that connects you and your husband, is where “process”
happens. In other words, the content happens “up there” and the process happens
“down below,” at the emotional level beneath the content.
Gottlieb is happy that she can descend into
psychobabble-- her comfort zone-- without examining the particulars of any specific argument-- over whether
or not he will not defend her to his mother.
If you want to solve a problem, this is precisely the wrong
way to go about it. Gottlieb continues with a long and mindless disquisition
about how both of these people are reliving what they saw in their homes when
they were children. It may be true. It may not be true. Certainly, the
causality is dubious, on a good day. They might also have learned this debating
style by watching television or by going to a therapist like Lori Gottlieb.
Antagonism between men and women is part of our culture. It
is prescribed by people who think they know what is best and pretend that they
can turn couples all loving and cuddling by helping them to understand why they
have been rendered defective by their defective parents.
Once you throw people back into their miserable pasts you
leave them with no skills to work on their present issues. It’s not that the
couple is not loving and caring. From the evidence at hand we do not know
whether they are. We do not know if they are simply replicating their parents’ style or are
failing to deal with present issues because their therapist told them to rush
headlong into their minds.
So, forget about the loving and caring. The couple in question does not know how to negotiate. They do not know how to engage in the
normal everyday marital give and take. They might have learned from the culture
that they should have it all. But, they cannot engage in an effective
negotiation unless they deal with specific details. No good negotiator can
succeed without knowing the details. And without addressing the details, one by
one. Admittedly, some negotiators proclaim that they are letting themselves by guided by
their guts, but they are wrong.
As Gottlieb presents it, therapy is the problem here, not
the solution. By failing to address the details of these arguments, the
therapist has failed her patients by not grounding them in reality and in not
teaching them that marriage is a cooperative enterprise... that requires work.
As for the woman’s question: if she follows the
therapeutically correct way of dealing with problems, then Yes, her marriage is
probably doomed.
3 comments:
Stuart - I enjoyed this article. The comment that the "couple didn't know how to negotiate" made me wonder how old this woman was. I just find the younger generation lack's a certain ability to communicate honestly without manipulating to get a desired self centered outcome. (I could say that about a large portion of people.) And if this is the root of the relationship, self centeredness, communication isn't built on a loving relationship. What I see is a mutual exploitation to feel good - which I term a form of co-dependency/enabling relationship), so I see how negotiation can fail.
I thought by reading the original article I might get a better understanding of it. I vass wrongk. Too many unknowns.
FU: When my husband and I fight, one of us invariably threatens divorce. Does this mean we’re destined for our marriage to fail?
It does sound like someone who hasn't been married too long, and most certainly doesn't have kids.
I'd guess a divorce-threat in an argument is always about a "need for autonomy" of some sort, even the autonomy to be free to see things differently without being wrong. And its probably natural to feel that calling, while it is not necessary to express it. And words can be used against you later, so it's not even wise to threaten like that.
C.S. Lewis wrote in "The Four Loves": "It is one of the difficult and delightful subtleties of life that we must deeply acknowledge certain things to be serious and yet retain the power and will to treat them often as rightly as a game."
The game part might mean we have to be willing to lose to play, or it might mean there are always hidden rules in relationships that don't come out of logic, but come out of divergent needs, like connection vs autonomy, and neither side can "win" without everyone losing.
Post a Comment