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.
