I definitely agree that having your spouse participate in the BB would make it much more valuable. I have invited my H to participate a few times to no avail . I think he regards the BB as "my space".
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
I listened to another Schnarch tape yesterday, the “Tyranny of the Lowest Common Denominator.” Again, most of the thoughts were in the book. He recorded this tape at some counselor’s convention several years ago, and mentioned some discussion between himself and Harville Hendrix, who started IMAGO therapy. Apparently there was some confusion by lay people over the similarity of their two methods. Speeches given by both Schnarch and Hendrix were very similar. So Schnarch explained that their two methods are actually quite different and move growth in opposite directions, something I never bothered to think about.
But after thinking it over some, I think this concept is important enough to mention on this board. First a little background on IMAGO, which is apparently similar in philosophy to many other methods. IMAGO uses a foundation of empathy, acknowledgement and validation through mirroring techniques. I mentioned this in a post way back. The original counselor my wife and I used practices IMAGO. She taught us to use a standard routine in which one person expresses their complaint in a succinct manner. The other person repeats back the complaint as accurately as possible, adding how they thought the first person felt because of their complaint. The whole process allows both people to feel they have been heard, acknowledged and validated by each other. There are some very good things that come out of this process.
However Schnarch says this process is only another form of other-validation and forward progress can be blocked up if one person refuses to acknowledge or validate the other. I recall feeling the very same thing when my wife and I used this method. She would go through her part of the process, mirroring and validating me in a very mechanical, unfeeling manner that made it quite clear to me she only wanted to placate and shut me up, that she had no intention of really acknowledging what bothered me or admitting her role in that. Perhaps her own issues had more to do with her need to be heard, so she may have assumed that was also what I needed. Because I did not feel I was getting anything out of the process, I began to care less about what she said and focus more on what she did. I remember telling her repeatedly that I wanted to see action not words.
As I have come to better understand deflection, I can see now that her IMAGO “validation” of me was really just another form of her method of deflection – talk around something enough and it will go away. So she while she thought she was doing her part to sooth me, she was really soothing herself. I am not as much a words of affirmation person as an act of service person, so the mirroring did little to comfort me. At the time I did not have much understanding of differentiation, but I can see now how my frustration was due to my own issues as well.
So I eventually dropped trying to use the mirroring process. It just seemed like too much of an act. I could not see much real, root level progress. We were dancing around issues and the relationship stayed stuck, so we also stayed stuck individually. If she got anything out of mirroring by feeling that she had been heard, validated and therefore respected, my stopping the process only helped to set us further back (but I am not sure how much she got from the mirroring either).
So as with the LD partner who rations out the sex, one person can hold up any personal growth through this approach simply by not properly validating the other and thus preventing the relationship from moving forward. The contradiction is that our counselor realized that each person is not in the same boat, but in separate boats, hopefully cooperating and moving toward the same destination. But the mirroring process really requires both people to be in the same boat, at least part of the time. There is a clear understanding that neither person needs to agree with what the other says, but they should try to empathize, and somehow that concern will speak to each of them on a less conscious level.
Hendrix recognizes the need to be differentiated, to not rely on one another for self-validation, but his method does not seem totally consistent with that idea. I felt this as some form of insincerity from my wife and had a hard time buying into the process. If the marriage as deteriorated too far as ours did, neither person wants to get into the same boat, make any attempts cooperation and the relationship gets stuck again. This is where I think my wife and I were a few years ago. So while I see great value to Hendrix’s relationship based approach, I think it has some limitations.
I also think Harley’s Marriage Builder’s methods are very close to Hendrix. As Lou has shown, he is very frustrated that he feels he is committing to the relationship but BB is not. So progress is stuck because he seems to hold to Harley’s methods, but those methods cooperation. (I think Divorce Busters may be some combination of Schnarch and Harley.)
This is where Schnarch’s methods spoke to me, and he addresses the difference on his tape. His focus on differentiation and self-affirmation, not other-based affirmation, means each person can move forward even if one spouse chooses not to. So one very important source of frustration and resentment is eliminated. This is what allowed me to begin to grow. I understood that I had to stand on my own two feet and not depend on her, or even expect her to stand with me or agree with anything I did. I did not need any affirmation or approval from her to do so. My move to differentiate was entirely my own, and to do so meant I had to self-confront. The good part is that I did not need to tolerate any feedback from her that might have hit one of my hot buttons, I did not need to make myself vulnerable to her (and give her further ammunition to attack me). I could just work on me by myself.
So as Schnarch states on the tape, these two approaches move the relationship in OPPOSITE directions, though they both address the same issues, have the same objective and seem to be doing the same thing. I see each of them as a valuable approach, and appropriate for all couples, but possibly for different stages in the relationship. If a couple still maintains certain levels of respect, has not broken down into character assassinations, has not developed too much resentment, has healthy levels of differentiation, then Schnarch may not be needed at all (though I think knowledge of his methods is needed to move toward higher states of intimacy). But if the relationship is in serious trouble, and has serious enmeshment issues, like mine, then Schnarch may be the better approach, to start from the bottom and lay a solid foundation on which approaches like IMAGO, Marriage Builders and Divorce Busters can build on.
I can see now that understanding the different philosophical approaches of the various methods is critical for this board. I see at times when advice that pulls from both camps can be contradictory. When no progress is made, or things get worse, the board is then stumped to find a solution and the person gets very frustrated and depressed. Different issues with each of us may require a us to distance from the relationship, whereas someone else may need to get closer to the relationship. Understanding that the advice we give can have these different effects is crucial, and I have not seen this discussed anywhere on this board yet.
Good analysis, cobra, of the potential pitfalls of mirroring (or active listening, as it's called in other places). Especially ineffective unless both people really show up.
The thing that I think is most valuable about the IMAGO approach is that it makes explicit the ways that our current relationships re-create sitch's with our earliest caregivers. This seems obvious to me (and I know it does to you), but when the idea was first floated on this board a couple of years ago, several people jumped up and down and said things like (NOT a direct quote): "Well, THAT doesn't apply to me. My parents were very happy, my dad/mom was not abusive, they loved me very much, ours was a perfectly happy/totally normal family-- I can't for the life of me figure out why I'm married to a(n) abuser/cold fish/control freak (choose one-- or ALL). But I KNOW my marriage is NOTHING like my FOO."
The IMAGO books put you through a process where you find out how you have indeed UNCONSCIOUSLY recreated your childhood sitch so you can work through those issues and heal them.
However, I agree that just knowing this stuff, or even just feeling empathy for your spouse/partner doesn't necessarily propel growth.
BTW, I went to an IMAGO therapist for a while when I first started dating my bf... but she died. I had another therapist while my H was alive (she was married to my H's therapist, the same man my bf has been seeing for C for ~ a year), and SHE died. And it's not just because I'm old-- both of these women were younger than I.
I read a short piece on in -validation the other day.
Quote: Have you ver been walking down the street and absent mindedly singing aloud(or talking) to yourself and walked past another person who has given you a wide berth and a strange look?....
Then you have been invalidated...firstly by yourself who wanted not to "appear" weird or oddball (you have internalized conforming to the norm,reinforced once again by the other persons "avoidance"of you...) its very important to notice that we ultimately invalidate ourselves, and our responsible for allowing ourselves to be invalidated by another. Hence Schnarch differentiating, and self hugging.
We do seem often to invalidate people as a everday norm....for instance
Even when we are happy, unhappy people want to ruin it for us by saying diminishing things like: What are you so happy about? That's it? That's all you are so excited about?
There was an expression . It was "Who put a quarter in you?" (a quarter was once enough to startup in a juke box.) So the implication was the person was acting abnormally happy, excited, lively etc...
The converse of this is "Who pissed in your weeties?" and said when someone is percieved to be sad,angry,annoyed....
When you are aware , you'll begin to notice such comments on a regular basis and they take their toll on us. We wonder if there is something wrong with us for feeling how we do. It seems fair to say that with enough invalidation, one person can drive another person crazy. This is especially true, in the case where one person has long-term power over another. Examples of such relationships are parent/child, teacher/child, boss/employee, spouse A/spouse B. Such a sad scenario appears to be even more likely when the person being invalidated is highly sensitive, intelligent and has previously suffered self-esteem damage(italics mine.)
A spouse with a P/A SO is being Invalidated constantly.There are many here, male and female. It can be very insidious. Words are not even necessary to invalidate someone. You can a)ignore them, b)make gestures or body language that demean or lower the efforts you make at contacting/conecting to them so that you are in a position beneath them.
However IMO, the blanket type validation that most people try to use to to reach there spouse, is... not truthful. Incongruence is going to cause a whole nother set of issues. lack of trust. but lets stick to validation and respect.
I mentioned this really briefly on F4W thread yesterday. Validating the SO/OP at your expense is simply invalidating yourself. That is no way to generate respect, or value in the eyes of the other person.
To me validation is focusing on the person. Seeing them, hearing them, acknonwledging they are their and exist and that they have there viewpoint and feelings. Giving them your full attention and perhaps meeting them halfway, or even further. That doesnt mean its correct or jives with mine. So maybe not, but I have not invalidated them by brushing them off, and or dismissing them as if they or the issue does not exist.
Which is typical what happens when a person is P/A, or in my case, I retreat to my cave (and a lot of other men). Fighting/conflict/arguing can be validating, as long as respect is generated.
So how you validate your spouse is going to be a mixture of what you are dealing with. IF they have close to zero respect for you, continuing to blanket validate(placate.. or worse, supplicating with trying to validate them/show them how much you love them, through endless AOS,) your not going to earn respect thru that.
So if your SO invalidates you, which can be extrememly destructive to you self worth, Shine a light on it right then and there. be prepared and mention it.
ex. you: Why did you do that? OP/SO: What. you: you just said/did .....(fill in the blank). There is no reason for that. or I dont appreciate that. or There is no call for treating me like that. Knock it off. OP/SO: oh... well ... I just meant.....mumble mumble. you: (ignore their rationalization, no on likes to be disciplined. You said your piece, move on. )
The similarity in IMAGO and Schnarchian therapy is that both assume that you are with the "perfect" person for you. In IMAGO the person you are with is there to allow you to work through early trauma and with Schnarch your Spouse is there to shine a light on areas where you are stuck to give you the chance to differentiate and grow up. Both are fairly non-pathological models. IMAGO deals more with early trauma but does expect that your marriage is a vehicle to help you overcome and get beyond those issues.
They are very different in the "closeness/distance" aspect. IMAGO therapy is designed to engender a great deal of closeness and understanding and sympathy for the other and not so much awareness of the spouse's otherness. Schnarch puts the emphasis the other way around. I think that IMAGO techniques are very helpful if the issues are ones of basic inability to understand one anothers depth, one anothers issues, what makes them tick. In other words, it will help people be better partners and companions. I'm not sure it will lead to better sex. Knowing our spouse's deep wounds doesn't necessarily turn us on.
I think of the methods as almost for two distinct purposes. Both have their utility in any marriage. A good marriage is a blend of closeness and differentiation. Not one or the other.
Very good dicussion. My C (who was excellent) was mostly Schnarch-ish but focused on using the communication problems we had to illustrate fusion (though she never used any of these words...she knew how to deliver this stuff to the masses). She had us adopt some of the reflexive stuff...which we only use when we absolutely have to make sure we understand each other. It doesn't bring closeness...it just prevents mistakes. Unless we use a form of reflexive listening, we aren't allowed to get upset with the other for not undertanding each other. The "assumption of being heard" is symptom of a fused system. The degree of your fused state can be exposed by analyzing your communication patterns. Do you ever hear people say "he/she should have known that I don't like blah blah blah"? My divorced neighbor was talking like that once at a party and the other women in the room were totally agreeing with her. So much bad thinking is reinforced by well-intentioned friends who want you to feel good for a moment. The media is pretty bad about this too. Didn't we do a round-up of fusion-fantasy songs? I think that "Broken Wings" song came in at number 1. for the worst offender. Man, I'm rambling....I need some sleep (it's 4am here).
Anywhere is walking distance if you have the time
-Steven Wright
. I think he regards the BB as "my space". 