Just talking out loud here, but I think when Cobra brings up that we seek the mother/father in our spouses, he may mean that men want emotional nuturing and support from their Ws, and women want direction and encouragement from their Hs. So long as neither is taken too far.
Yes, now you are getting it. I never presumed anyone wants to go back home and live with their parents. Maybe I was unclear. Sorry for the confusion.
I can see that as mothering/fathering... but Cobra, I also see it as a purely m/f dynamic, that if taken too far, can cause all KINDS of problems within the M. That is why I think it is so important for both people within an R to have a very solid sense of self... or I will relie on you TOO much, take the daddy thing too far... set the R up as a parent/child relationship... and watch it all spiral out of control.
Again, his is exactly what I am saying. Finding your way out of a trouble R is not easy. There is a narrow window of opportunity and you must walk a very thin line. Too far in either direction and you wind up in D court. Yes, mother/fathering is precisely M/F dynamics, but I think it is important to tie the M/F dynamic to your personal mother/father dynamic to better gain your solid sense of self, KWIS? This can be especially valuable to your spouse since it will help them to better understand your particular love language.
Recall that my W and I had problems with the IMAGO approach. I had some emptiness with the Schnarch approach. There is a balance between all the approaches, just as there is with M/F dynamics, with too much FOO or too little FOO, with pushing too hard and not pushing hard enough. For many, finding that thin line can be to overwhelming and scary, so it feels safer to stay stuck. But for me, the attachment theory neatly ties up a lot of loose ends and offers a different POV that seems to actually allow a little wider path with a little more room for understanding and therefore error.
Here are some excerpts from the first part of the book “Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy with Trauma Survivors; Strengthening Attachment Bonds” by Susan Johnson.
Secure dependence and autonomy are two sides of the same coin, rather than dichotomies. The more securely connected we are, the more separate and different we can be. (p. 38)
It is emotional engagement that is crucial. In attachment terms, any response (even anger) is better than none. If there is no engagement, no emotional responsiveness, the message from the attachment figure is “Your signals do not matter, and there is no connection between us.” (p.39)
Attachment behaviors become heightened and intense as anxious clinging, pursuit, and even aggressive attempts to obtain a response from the loved one escalate. (p.39)
Working models are formed, elaborates, maintained, and, most important for the couple therapist, changed through emotional communication. (p. 41)
The reason working models and the associated engagement strategies remain stable, when they do, is that they are actively constructed, enacted, and confirmed in present relationships. (p 42)
What may be expected to resolve conflict and foster relationship satisfaction then is not so much new insights or new contracts about pragmatic issues, but the emotional attunement and responsiveness that make for a more secure bond. (p. 47)
The value I see in this emotionally focused therapy (EFT) approach is as an OVERLAY to the other methods we have discussed here, not as a substitute. Adult attachment explains the cause of anxiety in a very safe, non-blaming sort of way. I also think it bridges the gap between other-validation therapy, such as Hendrix, and self-validation therapy, such as Schnarch. Other ideas we have discussed here can also benefit, such as the following dynamics:
• avoider/pursuer • one-up/one-down • love languages • Harley’s Love Busters • Alpha male
It seems to me that each of these approaches can work for certain types of couples, but not for all. So with an understanding of adult attachment, I can see a new level of why all these concepts work as they do, why they do not, and how to make them better, with regard to an individual situation. A greater understanding of the underlying anxiety that drives the dysfunctional behavior, what that person is really crying out for, and what we can do to address that hurt can go a long way toward reestablishing trust, empathy and compassion. Once those bonds are recreated, the relationship is firmly on the road to recovery. But without a true understanding that the soothing of fear and anxiety is the primary purpose of these approaches, it can be easy to get sidetracked off that narrow path and fall into a power struggle.
Cobra, I'm troubled by the picture of a successful R as a carefully navigated high wire act over a moat full of alligators.
Surely this
Quote: There is a narrow window of opportunity and you must walk a very thin line. Too far in either direction and you wind up in D court.
is not literally true? In fact, people and relationships seem to be able to tolerate, function, forgive, and get on with things under a very wide range of circumstances and conditions.
Quote: Tenacity plays a big part in this. I see many on this board willing to work long and hard to save their relationship. That tenacity is one of the most admirable features I see in everyone here. It is truly an inspiration. My only gripe is that if something is not working, try something else, adopt another philosophy, ask why things stall, why each person reacts as they do.
This statement of yours on another thread seems more accurate to me-- not the "thin perilous line" model.
I agree and I should restate. What I specifically am referring to are those of us here on this board who wrestle with fixing a dysfunctional relationship and whether to stay or leave.
I agree there are plenty of relationships that continue to exist for years that can tolerate, function and forgive. The question is what is the common denominator? The attachment books says it is the emotional bond that allows all these types of relationships to endure. If the couples and routinely connect and feel heard and validated, the marriage can survive. If they do not feel this connection, then no matter how much training, knowledge, differentiation or whatever they may do, the marriage will have a greater probability of not surviving. The emotional bond is the common denominator, not being able to hold onto yourself, having a strong sense of self, or anything else.
There are plenty or relationships that are severely dysfunctional, at least to those of us who understand a little of what dysfunction is. To those in the relationship, everything might be quite tolerable as long as some basic needs are met. The book is saying that emotional bonding is a requisite need. Other needs may be important too, but without bonding, meeting those other needs is insufficient.
This statement of yours on another thread seems more accurate to me-- not the "thin perilous line" model.
In my eyes, tenacity and the thin perilous line go hand in hand. Without enough tenacity, the perilous line becomes more real. With enough tenacity, you can, by force of will, ignore the thin line, at least for a while. It you accept the serenity prayer at face value, there is no logic to pressing for more tenacity.
Corri,
The reason I am pressing this attachment idea is that I truly think it can help others on this board. It can be like an enhancer, a turbo boost to other methods. Since we are in many ways dealing with the unknown, anything and everything that can tilt the odds in favor of reconciliation should be used (assuming you are willing to throw the serenity prayer out the window, but that is just my opinion.)
Quote: The reason I am pressing this attachment idea is that I truly think it can help others on this board. It can be like an enhancer, a turbo boost to other methods. Since we are in many ways dealing with the unknown, anything and everything that can tilt the odds in favor of reconciliation should be used.
This attitude, I think, is where you rub people wrong. You press other people to adopt what you find to be the most worthy path... and it may in fact be just that. However, you have to let people find their own way, respect that we all have intelligence, we all have an ability to discern for ourselves, a course of action the is best suited for ourselves.
This method, for YOU, is a turbo boost. Seems to me The Passion Trap served as a turbo boost for Fran.
I feel like you want to shove this method down my throat, get me to see it as you do, claim it to be, by far, the best method found so far. That attitude alone prompts me to rebel, for I find it personally insulting.
I resist, however, because I don't think you mean to insult me, nor anyone else here. You are excited for the understanding and you want to share it. I understand that. In so doing, however, it does not initially FEEL as though you are respecting me as an individual because you continue to PRESS me to accept this method as the preferred course of action.
Quite hoenstly, what you have said here is really no different than what I hear others who are experiencing progress are saying... it's just all being said in a slightly different way.
Give people some room to be themselves, Cobra. And then when we all get to Rome, no matter how we got there, we can appreciate the differences we all experienced along the way... we'll have something to talk about... not necessarily be carbon copies of one another.
I feel like you want to shove this method down my throat, get me to see it as you do, claim it to be, by far, the best method found so far. That attitude alone prompts me to rebel, for I find it personally insulting.
Let me follow up on my question to you. Your statement above is actually a good example in that I do not think you are being honest. There is nothing in anything I have said that makes the claim you state. How you say you feel is only your interpretation. Why?
I think there is strong value to attachment theory. You may not. You may feel I am pushing it down your throat, I do not. (Actually, you are the only one responding in detail to my posts.) But why you feel the need to rebel is unclear. I think it is because you feel I am not validating your POV, that I am one-upping you somehow, and that is what bothers you. Rather than respond with those true feelings, you state that you feel insulted and subtly go on the attack. Is that anywhere close to accurate?
This is not a differentiation issue, it is not an enmeshment issue, it is not even a respect issue (I have not said anything disrespectful to you). So what is it? The only thing I can see is that you feel I am not acknowledging you. That feeling comes from somewhere within you, and is the very point of why attachment theory is so important and powerful, why soothing your partner is so important.
Let me say this for the record. I have some differences with you in my approach to handling relationships and how I think those who are stuck should proceed. But I am also male, you are female. We will see things differently for that reason alone. Yet in spite of this handicap you have I still highly respect your insight and POV and are in awe of the incredible trauma you have overcome in your past to arrive at such a healthy and balanced place that you are now.
That is an honest, heartfelt statement. And it affirms you. I hope it makes you feel better too.
BTW, I have no Idea what "mu" is. Is that some type of heifer?
