Introduction

    Actually, “Who’s to Blame For Everything,” is not original. Years ago, I saw a cartoon of a couple sitting with a marriage counselor. The caption read: “We’ve resolved all our differences except one: who’s to blame for everything.”

     Couple’s counseling poses unique challenges and unique rewards for a therapist. The rewards are that change can occur quickly, result in real success stories and save two hurt, lonely people (and their children) much unnecessary pain. Partners who feel lost in conscious and unconscious anger, hurt, betrayal or loneliness can become conscious of the mystery of why they were attracted to one another in the first place, and why they sought love and healing in one another. Sometimes, to reconceive a relationship, a couple needs to reconceive themselves.

    There are a few challenges as well, which require a therapist to approach couple’s counseling differently than individual counseling. Being a couple’s therapist requires more direction and redirection than being an individual therapist, so that sessions don’t devolve into a cycle of mutual accusation and argument. The psychologist also needs to be far more than a referee who helps couples “negotiate” their differences. Focusing on this more superficial level of a couple’s conflict may address symptoms of the couple’s unhappiness, but can avoid the real causes and real issues.

Individual or Couple’s Counseling?

   

    Often, in the course of a couple’s power struggle and pain, one partner will be tempted to demand that the other partner “get some help” in order to be “fixed” or changed. And often there may be a basis in reality for this feeling.

   

    It is very easy for unhappy couples to feel that “if only” the other partner changed and “got help,” that he or she would then become more loving, giving and sensitive, and that the relationship problems would go away. It depends on the type of problem, however, many therapists agree that individual therapy in the midst of a marital crisis can even destabilize the marriage further, in some cases. And frankly, when couples are in crisis, it feels safer to go to individual counseling for one-sided “support.”

    Even when one party “needs help” or clearly has “issues,” I often advise couples whose relationship is in a state of crisis or estrangement to stabilize the marriage first. Once the relationship is stabilized and enhanced, and the destructive cycles are no longer draining the couple, then partners who need and want it, can try individual therapy, hopefully with a more supportive and trusting partner.

Philosophy and Theories of Working With Couples

   

    As for individual therapy, so for couples therapy, there are different models or trends in marital counseling. One distinguished therapist refers to the “alphabet soup” of therapies, the letters for all the different acronyms or initials for models of therapy.

    Many marital therapists get too easily engaged into a couple’s power struggle of negotiating and compromising over their frustrated differences. However, there is a value to “going deeper,” since relationships are really about such universal human elements and needs as love, attachment, past traumas and wounds, safety, security, respect, binding fears and insecurities, and affirmation.

    Some current therapy models for couples that focus on these deeper issues are the imago therapy developed by Harville Hendrix, emotion focused therapy (EFT) which is very much related to attachment theory, and object relations couples therapy. I try to use elements of these models in my work with couples.

   

The Dragger and The Draggee: Resistance to Couple’s counseling

    Most people, to some extent, are resistant to change––even when they know they need it. Resistance is even more of a therapeutic problem with a couple, because rarely are both of them equally on the same psychological page and psychologically self-aware and motivated to seek counseling, at exactly the same time.

    Many couples, even unhealthy couples, reach an equilibrium or accommodation, and changing any balance that has been built and negotiated over a period of time can feel stressful at first--even if change is for the good.

    I sometimes say that one partner is the “dragger,” the one who is dragging the other partner, the “draggee,” into counseling. Sometimes this occurs in the form of an ultimatum, as one partner threatens to end the relationship unless the other attends couple’s counseling.

    This is one reason I ask couples to consider the first stage of counseling as a consultation, without commitment to further sessions. This seems to take pressure off the partner who feels dragged into the couple’s counseling, and allows the therapist to build a therapeutic alliance with both partners. Hopefully, during this initial stage, the couple can accept the concept that counseling is a safe process that can benefit them both.

    Even from a purely practical perspective, the emotional and financial costs of couples separating in a bitter and adversarial manner can be significant. Sometimes, it might feel safer for one partner to approach initial counseling on this more practical and neutral level, that therapy is of value, even if one or both partners ultimately decide to separate.

Consultation & Stabilization

     I suggest thinking about psychological services in specific stages, for specific problems, for a specific amount of time––in contrast to people joking about going to therapy “forever.”

    The first stage might consist of a few meetings, including brief interviews with each partner individually, an analysis of the marital problems, and, if they would like, some psychological testing. If there has been a crisis, such as a suspected affair, severe anger, or self-destructive behavior, this consultation stage might help to stabilize the marital crisis. Then a kind of “feedback” or summary session would occur, during which the couple would receive an assessment of the problems and a proposed treatment plan.

    If the couple then wants to try a course of counseling, I often ask them to make a good faith commitment of about 8-12 weeks. Making even this temporary commitment to a 2-3 month “truce,” and working on the relationship, helps to stop the desperate “fight/flight” dynamic of feeling some kind of decision needs to be reached immediately. It also helps to stop one or both partners from physically or emotionally exiting the relationship, so that therapeutic work can be accomplished. This is also long enough to complete a series of sessions, exercises and “homework assignments” to stabilize the relationship, helping the couple to regain hope in the future––and each other.

    In my experience, and in the research literature, many couples (and individuals) who say they have “tried” therapy or couple’s counseling but that “it didn’t work,” actually did not attend more than a few sessions with one or several counselors.