Collaborative couple therapy: Turning fights into intimate conversations

DANIEL B. WILE
What distinguishes Collaborative Couple Therapy from other approaches to couple therapy is a focus on the moment rather than the problem. Based on the idea that, within the context of the therapeutic setting, three losses arisethe individuals loss of voice, the couples loss of connection, and the therapists loss of empathythe therapeutic task is to solve the moment rather than the problem, which means in that moment to recover from these three losses. The therapist may need to regain access to his or her empathy before they can help each partner find his or her voice, and help the couple to reestablish connection. Solving the moment can create the collaborative spirit that enables couples to arrive at whatever practical solutions might be possible. In many cases, the absence of this spirit is responsible for the problem in the first place. This can free the therapist from the pressure to fix things and makes therapy possible with couples whose problems seem unsolvable. The aim is to create intimacy out of the manner in which the partners talk about their problems, whether solvable or unsolvable. Through the use of two case vignettes, DAN WILE presents the major features of Collaborative Couple Therapy in this chapter from the forthcoming, Case Studies in Couples Therapy: Theory-Based Approaches.

ollaborative Couple Therapy (Wile, 1981, 1993, 2002, 2008) is based on the idea that when issues arise in the relationship, the individuals problem is loss of voice, the couples problem is loss of connection, and the therapists problem is loss of empathy. The therapeutic task is to solve the moment rather than solve the problemwhich means in that moment to recover from these three losses. To do that, the therapist helps each partner find his or her voice and the couple to reestablish connection. These tasks may first require that the therapist regain access to his or her empathy. Solving the moment is the collaborative couple therapy way to solve the couples problem, since it creates the collaborative spirit that enables couples to arrive at whatever
52

practical solutions might be possible. In many cases, the absence of this spirit is responsible for the problem in the first place. Solving the moment frees the therapist from the pressure to fix things and makes possible therapy with couples whose problems seem unsolvable. The goal is to create intimacy out of the manner in which the partners talk about their problems, whether solvable or unsolvable. Collaborative Couple Therapy arises out of the psychotherapeutic thinking of Bernard Apfelbaum (Apfelbaum, 2010; Apfelbaum & Gill, 1989) and Carl Rogers (1959) and shares major concepts with John Gottman (Gottman & Silver, 1999). Rather than describe this therapeutic approach with a couple in phases (early, middle, late), I will first present the major features of

collaborative couple therapy using the relationship of Lisa and Brad. For the case study, I will present one in-depth session with another couple, Joe and Alice. Both couples are composites drawn from my practice. Case vignette 1: Brad and Lisa
The partners problem: Lack of voice

The big problem for people is loss of voice (or for those who never had it, lack of voice). They have difficulty confiding what is on their minds. They are unable to pin down and express what is alive for them at the moment, to use Marshall Rosenbergs term. If Brad were to express what was alive for him at the moment, hed tell his wife Lisa, Im embarrassed to tell you this, but I worry sometimes that Im less important to you than you are to me. He would be confiding his

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

ache of the moment, his leading-edge feeling, and, as a result, would feel relieved. He would be making a move toward an intimate conversation. But Brad is unable to confide this feeling, or even fully recognise that he has it. He is embarrassed about being too needy and about Lisa losing respect for him. This embarrassment becomes the new leading-edge feeling, which, if expressed, would be Im embarrassed to tell you this, but I worry sometimes that Im less important to you than you are to me. Because Brad is unable to share this feeling either, he is left to struggle with it alonewell, actually, not even alone, since he is not on his own side. He loses his voice. Moreover, Lisa is deprived of access to what is alive for Brad at the moment. What do people do when they lose their voice and are unable to talk directly with their partners about the situation they are in? They engage in fallback measures. They blame the other person, which is one type of fallback measure. Brad thinks: Shes too involved with the kids. Shes a good mom but has forgotten how to be a wife. She doesnt treat me the way a wife should treat her husband. Or, As for her priorities, Im lower than her grocery list. Or, She thinks only about herself. Or, Shes afraid of intimacy. Or, She doesnt know how to love. In thinking this way, he makes the adversarial shift of everyday life: taking a feeling that makes him uneasy (feeling less important to Lisa than she is to him) and turning it into something that she is doing wrong. Another type of fallback measure is withdrawal. Brad falls silent, leaves physically (I think Ill check my e-mail) or emotionally (gets a faraway look), talks about something other than his real concern (How was work today?), gives up temporarily on the relationship (Its the children who are really important), distracts himself (I wonder what time the Warriors game starts), numbs himself (I need a beer), spins off into self-reproach (Im weak, Im needy), fights off his concerns (Im just tired, thats all. I need a vacation), daydreams about an old girlfriend (I wonder what ever happened to Linda with the big hair), or logs onto a porn site and imagines having sex with women who are really

turned on by him. He makes the withdrawn shift of everyday life: taking a feeling that makes him uneasy and sweeping it under the rug. Still another type of fallback measure is the rush to fixefforts to solve the problem without talking about it. Brad brings Lisa flowers in

People resort to these measures because they are unable to put words to what is alive for them at the moment. It is their Plan B when they would prefer Plan A. They would prefer confiding what is on their minds what is alive for them at the moment if they knew what it was and could find

when issues arise in the relationship, the individuals problem is loss of voice, the couples problem is loss of connection, and the therapists problem is loss of empathy.
the hope of inducing her to do loving things for him. Or he tells her that he loves her in the hope that her I love you, too will be enthusiastically forthcoming. Or he ignores her in the hope that playing hard to get will make her more aware of his importance to her. Or he initiates sex in the hope that lovemaking will make him feel more loved and her more loving. a way to express it that didnt make matters worse, that is, that didnt start a fight, hurt their partners feelings, or fill them with shame or fear. They would prefer such confiding because it would be so much more relieving and satisfying. The Collaborative Couple Therapy task is to help partners recover from their fallback measures (or to make

Illustration: Imagezoo, Stock Illustration, Getty Images.

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

53

resorting to them unnecessary) by helping them discover and confide their leading-edge feelings. Okay Brad, Im going to speculate about what you might be feeling. You can tell me where Im right and where Im wrong. Ill be you talking to Lisa, and for you Id say: Lisa, Im not the kind of guy who generally thinks about such things, but Im actually starting to worry how much you really care about me. Brad had been unable to confide such feelings because he viewed them as an unacceptable sign of weakness and neediness. He felt unentitled to his experience, to use Bernard Apfelbaums term. I am trying to entitle him to his experience in the process of suggesting what it might be. I am presenting his feelings as understandable ones that anyone might have, in the hope that doing so might make it possible for him to acknowledge them. When I ask Brad about the accuracy of my guess, I am hoping that he revises his statement, that is, puts his own stamp on itwhich he does. He says, Im not used to feeling like such a wimp and I dont like it.
The couples problem: Loss of connection

The big problem for couples is loss of connection (or for those who never had it, lack of connection). Connection (intimacy) is created when partners confide what is alive for them at the moment and feel their partners understand. Such confiding can trigger a collaborative cycle in which each partner admits, acknowledges, listens, comforts, reaches out, tunes into the other, builds upon what the other says, becomes conciliatory, gives the other the benefit of the doubt, looks at things from the others point of view, or makes a laughing-together-about-thesituation joke in response to the other doing the same. If Brad were able to confide to Lisa, Im embarrassed to tell you this, but I worry sometimes that youre more important to me than I am to you, she might say, Thats amazing to me. Lots of times I feel that you dont need me at all and could do quite well without me. Brad might say, You really think that? Each partners tuning into the other would create an urge in the other to respond in kind.
54

However, a collaborative cycle can also end suddenly. Brad and Lisas conversation would have ended before getting started if she were to respond to his I worry sometimes that youre more important to me than I am to you by saying Get over it. Or Its always about you. Or Youre like another child I need to take care of. Or Grow up. Or Get a life. (In John Gottmans terms, this would be responding to a bid for connection by turning against.) But when the collaborative cycle takes hold, it creates the possibility for partners to peer into the relationship to discover what is going on there. Lisa says, Maybe it isnt such a mystery that you feel the way you do. I have been preoccupied lately. I havent been exactly tuned into you. Grateful to Lisa for acknowledging her contribution to the problem, Brad says, Well, you cant be loving all the time. Youve got your own stuff to deal with. Lisa says, which I havent been dealing with well at all. Its my boss againyou know the onethe micromanager of all he surveys. I know I shouldnt let him get to me like this. Brads confiding his unease of the moment has triggered a conversation in which Lisa confides hersshame about letting her boss affect her so much. She had been dealing with this shame by keeping it to herself. She withdrew from Brad, which is what led him to feel unimportant to her. In putting this together, Lisa and Brad are creating a compassionate perspective from which they are looking at what is happening in their relationship. There is a second type of cycle, an adversarial one, that is triggered by blaming. Lets say that Brad makes the adversarial shift and tells Lisa, Youre too involved with the kids, an accusation that turns her into an enemy. She defends herself, Thats not true, and counterattacks, and anyway, someone needs to be involved with them. You treat them like just another household chore you resent. Brad defends himself, What are you talking about? I took them both to the ballgame yesterday. Lisa refutes his defense and counterattacks, Yes, because you wanted to see the Phillies. Its always about you. Brad defends himself and counterattacks, Its not

always about me, and if it is, now and then, its because someone needs to look out for me. You sure dont. Lisa says, I might if you would spend one minute thinking about someone in the family other than yourself. Brad says, Thats all I think about, the family. Why do you think I work so hard? Lisa says, Oh great! Here comes the martyr routine. Brad says, How can I be a martyr when youre taking all the room up there on the cross? In an adversarial cycle, each partner feels too unheard to listen, too misunderstood to be understanding, or too stung by what the other person just said to do anything other than sting back. When partners are in this cycle, all they can do is attack, defend, deny, refute, and retaliate. They dont get a chance to discuss anything, which is unfortunate, since issues are arising that call for discussion. People say things in fights that they dont mean, but it is sometimes only in fights that they can say what they do mean. After the fight, when the anger has subsided, they might be able to talk about it. Brad could go to Lisa and ask, You accused me of thinking only about myself. Did you really mean that? There is a third type of cyclea withdrawn cyclein which each partners subdued, polite, respectful, avoidant, restrained, socially appropriate, or forced cheerful response stimulates the same in the other, much as whispering stimulates whispering. Brad feels too ashamed about his feelings to confide them to Lisa (or even recognise that he has them), so he looks for something else to talk about. He asks her, How was work today? Because his heart isnt in it, his tone is flat, which leads Lisa to conclude that he isnt really interested, and she loses heart in answering. She says, Same old, same old with her own flat tone, which demoralises Brad. In an effort to invigorate the conversation, he tries to say something upbeat: Youll never guess what happened today after I left the office. Put off by Brads forced cheeriness, Lisa suppresses a yawn, which Brad notices. Discouraged, he brings his story to a quick end and says, Well, I think Ill check my e-mail. Later that evening he plays video games with their younger son while she watches television in another room.

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

These three cyclescollaborative, adversarial, and withdrawnconstitute much of what happens in relationships. If you lose your voice and are unable to confide your leading-edge feeling, which could trigger a collaborative cycle, you engage in the fallback measure of blaming (which can trigger an adversarial cycle) or avoiding (which can trigger a withdrawn cycle). If

to remain neutral when one partner nags, stonewalls, bullies, or expresses contempt toward the other. Much of the time, therapists find themselves siding with one of the partners against the other. Therapists react to partners in the same way partners react to each other, although in a less intense way. Therapists, too, slip into adversarial, withdrawn, or rushing-to-fix-it stances.

when the collaborative cycle takes hold, it creates the possibility for partners to peer into the relationship to discover what is going on there.
you cant turn your partner into an ally, you are stuck with turning your partner into an enemy or a stranger. A colleague, Kevin Russell, said that Collaborative Couple Therapy sees the underlying problem as the couples moment-to-moment inability to connect about whatever is going on and, instead, withdrawing or fighting. A certain amount of withdrawing and fighting is inevitable. The therapeutic task is to help partners become more skillful in conducting recovery conversations in which they create a platforma compassionate vantage point above the frayfrom which they are able to talk about how they have been withdrawn, adversarial, or rushing to fix things. From this vantage point, this meta level, they discover and confide their heartfelt feelings and inner struggles, appreciate how the position of each makes sense, arrive at whatever solutions to their problems might be possible, and commiserate about those problems that appear unsolvable. The therapeutic goal is to make such a vantage point increasingly more prominent and increasingly more effective in dealing with the problems that arise in the relationship.
The therapists problem: Loss of empathy

The major problem for therapists what interferes with their ability to help partners accomplish the goals just describedis loss of empathy toward one or both partners. It is difficult

Collaborative couple therapy is possible only when the therapist is in a collaborative state, that is, able to empathise with both partners and appreciate how the position of each makes sense. When therapists are in an adversarial state, they dont think a partners (and in some cases either partners) position makes sense. Instead, they stand back in negative judgment. Rather than simply trying to stifle this judgment, the therapist can use it as a countertransference clue, that is, as a means of detecting the particular partners contribution to the relationship problem of the moment, which is the poor job this person is doing making his or her case. This person is not, for example, pinning down and confiding heartfelt feelings, acknowledging the partners point of view, or reporting rather than unloading anger. If this person were better at making his or her case, the therapist and, more importantly, the persons partner might empathise rather than judge. The therapists job is to serve as spokesperson for the partner whom, at the moment, he or she is siding against, since that is the person who is engaged in the more flagrant and counterproductive fallback measures. Becoming such a spokesperson requires therapists to shift out of their adversarial state and into a collaborative one, that is, to solve the moment for themselves. Just realising that I am in an adversarial state is often

enough to snap me out of it (although I may need to coax myself: I dont think this person has a case, but if he did, what would it be?). If that doesnt work, I remind myself of the central principles of collaborative couple therapy (I have to remind myself because shifting into an adversarial state means forgetting these principles). I ask myself, What is the leading-edge feeling that, because this person cant pin down and confide it, has led as a fallback measure to this symptomatic behavior? Or, How might this persons behavior make sense (be understandable) and not just be a carryover from his or her family of origin. That is, how might this person be reacting, although in an exaggerated way, to something that is actually going on? Or, How might this person be experiencing an extreme version of a common human problem, of which I might have at least a minor version? Or, What would it be like to deal with what he or she is dealing with? Or, What does this person need to hear in order to be able to listen? Or, What is this persons inner struggle? (a question that reminds me that there is an inner struggle). As Philo of Alexandria said, Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle. If I am too ensconced in the adversarial state to be able to ask myself any of these questions, I do for myself what I do for partners to shift them out of an adversarial state. I try to have my sayto express some part of what I am feelingif I can find a way to do so that is also useful to the partners. Using an approach similar to Jacob Morenos psychodrama method of doubling, I speak as if I am one of the partners talking to the other. In an early session, Brad attacked Lisa in a contemptuous way that got me reacting against him. Moving over and speaking as if I was Lisa talking to Brad, I said, Brad, you may be right in some of what you say, but I cant listen when you talk to me that way. Ive tuned out. Having said that and getting Lisas confirmation that this is what she felt, I felt better. I had expressed enough of my feelings while speaking for her to be able to look at things from Brads point of view (something that I was unable to do a moment before). Moving over and
55

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

speaking for Brad, I then said, Lisa, I know Ive been talking in an angry way that makes it hard to listen. I have a lot of pent-up feelings about this. But I hope that at least a little of it got through, because Im saying some things that are really important to me. My problem when the therapy is not going quite the way I want is

my practice) because collaborative couple therapy can best be understood by looking at what happens in the moment. The therapeutic task is to solve this moment by helping partners find their voice; turn their fight, withdrawal, or rush to fix into an intimate conversation; and create a compassionate perspective above the

In collaborative couple therapy, the symptomatic behavior of clients is seen as a fallback measure, what they resort to because they have lost their voice.
much like the couples problem when the relationship isnt going quite the way they want. Collaborative couple therapy substitutes loss of voice for resistance as the key pathological principle. In the old classic view, clients are seen as resisting our effortsas reacting defensivelybecause they are getting too much out of their symptomatic behavior to be willing to give it up, or because we are confronting them with hard truths about themselves that they dont want to accept, or because they want to hold onto the familiar. According to this classic view, we and our clients are to some degree working at cross purposes. Our relationship with them is in some way adversarial (Apfelbaum, 2010; Wachtel, 2008; Wile, 1981, 1984). In collaborative couple therapy, the symptomatic behavior of clients is seen as a fallback measure, what they resort to because they have lost their voice. It is their Plan B when they would much prefer Plan A. They would much prefer figuring out and confiding their leading-edge feeling, since, if they could, it would be so much more satisfying. Because that is exactly what we are trying to help them do, they will welcome our efforts. We will be working on their behalf in a way that they are likely to appreciate. As a result, the relationship with them is intrinsically collaborative (Wile, 2002). Case vignette 2: A single session with Joe and Alice I am presenting a vignette from a single session (a composite drawn from
56

frayall of which may require first that the therapist solves the moment for himself or herself.
First part: Moving in quickly to acknowledge what each partner is trying to say

Therapist: What brings you in? Joe: (looks at Alice). Alice: I guess I should start, since it was my idea to come. Joe: (to therapist, breaking in) Dont take it personally, doc, but I dont think much of your profession. Therapist: (indicating that he doesnt take it personally) Yes, I wonder about it too, sometimes. Joe: And, anyway, I dont think we need to be here. We can handle our problems by ourselves. Therapist: Okay, so youre here then because Joe: Because its so important to her (indicating Alice). Alice: (to therapist) You see what I have to deal with? (to Joe) Obviously were not handling our problems by ourselves and youre too pigheaded to Joe: (interrupting) Yes, well I cant Alice: (interrupting) Im tired of being the only one trying to make things better. Joe: (defending) Dont start with that. Im here, right? Alice: (looking at Joe in disgust) Sure, but I had to drag you in. Joe: (defending) Yeah, yeah, yeah. But Im here. Couple therapists often handle angry exchanges by structuring the therapy so the problem doesnt come up

(e.g., speaking to one partner at a time and not letting the other interrupt), asking one partner to paraphrase what the other is saying, or confronting partners with their counterproductive behavior. The preferred Collaborative Couple Therapy approach is to build on what the partners say rather than urge them to restrain themselves. Alice and Joe are pressing their points without acknowledging what the other is saying, which is what keeps the fight going. I try to do some acknowledging for them and, in the process, guess at their leading edge feelings. Therapist: (speaking for the partners) Okay, Alice, so youre sayingIll add a few things and see what you think, Joe, maybe I should just be grateful that you agreed to come, and I am grateful, but Im not thinking about that now. What Im thinking about now is how angry I am about how very hard it was to get you here and how alone Ive been feeling for such a long time. And Joe, youre saying, Okay, sure, I gave you a tough time. Maybe that wasnt good. But I wish youd appreciate how much coming here goes against my grain and how much I had to overcome to get myself to agree to it. And what I really wish is that youd just be a lot happier with me. I am trying to show how it might look if Alice and Joe were to make admissions, rather than refutations and accusations, and confide feelings and if Alice were to report her anger rather than unload it, that is, talk in a non-angry way about being angry. I am trying to turn their fight into a conversationto create a compassionate vantage point above the fray, a platform from which Alice and Joe can empathise with themselves and each other. For a moment, that is what they now seem to do. Therapist: (continuing) I made up some of that, so tell me where I was right and where I was wrong. Joe: (pointing to the therapist and saying to Alice) What he said. Alice: (voice softening) I do feel alone. Joe: (voice softening) I dont want you to feel alone. Joe and Alice have snapped out of their adversarial cycle and into a collaborative one.

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

Second part: Losing and regaining empathy

Alice: (immediately snapping back into an adversarial mode) Youd hardly know it. Joe: (joining Alice in an adversarial cycle) Whats that supposed to mean? I say to myself, Why did Alice have to say that? Things were beginning so well, and now she had to go and ruin it all. I am reacting to Alice. I am seeing her as unreasonably rejecting Joes warm comment, which means that I have lost my ability to be her therapist. In an effort to regain this ability, I try to think how her behavior might make sense. Maybe she has stored-up anger that has yet to all come out. Or maybe she feels that Joes concern about her feeling alone is too good to believe; she doesnt trust it. Having performed this bit of cognitive restructuring on myself, this reframing, I am able again to listen to and empathise with Alice. Alice: You didnt say a word to me on the whole drive here. Joe: Thats crazy. We talked about Maggie and the bully at school, and then about Alice: (interrupting) You hate coming here. I say to myself, Could that be why Alice shifted back so quickly to an adversarial mode: fear that Joe wont get into the spirit of therapy and, instead, will just resent her for bringing him here? Joe: Okay, its not my first choice for how to spend an afternoon. But Im here. Alice: Barely. The first thing you tell him (points to the therapist) is that you dont like his profession. Youve got one foot out the door. Youve got two feet out the door. Joe: What do you want from me? I agreed to come. Im here. I say to myself, Why does Joe keep repeating that mind-numbing Im here? I am reacting to Joe, which means that I have lost the ability now to do therapy with him. In an effort to regain this ability, I try to think how his reaction might make sense. Maybe Joe feels in the wrong and out-argued and his Im here now is the only way he can think to defend himself. Okay, Ill provide him with a better defenseone he can enjoy more because it expresses how he feels and

one Alice can listen to better because it acknowledges what she feels. Therapist: (bringing them in on the strategy) Joe, Im going to repeat what you just said but start by having you agree with Alice, which might then put you in a better position to make your point. Here, Im you, talking to Alice and youd say: Yes Alice, youre right. I am barely here. This isnt my natural habitat. But I dont want you to feel alone. I felt bad when you said that. And I dont want you to feel that its all up to you. Okay, maybe I should have come earlier. But I wish youd appreciate that I did get myself here. Lets see what happens. Alice: (to the therapist) Thats what youre saying. Its not what hes saying. I say to myself, Oh-oh, she might be right. Joe: But thats what I feel. Alice: I just dont believe it. Therapist: (to Alice) What part of my statement for Joe do you think he doesnt really feel? Alice: (to therapist) The part about lets see what happens. Hes not here to see what happens. He doesnt think anything will happen. He doesnt want anything to happen. Hes closed his mind to the possibility of anything good coming out of this. I think I see a leading-edge feeling poking out of thatthe feeling that, because Alice has been unable to pin down and confide it, has led as a fallback measure to her attack. Therapist: (to Alice, replacing her accusation with a fear) I guess youre saying that youre afraid that Joe wont give therapy a chance. In making this intervention, I am suggesting a whole genre of responsesthe genre of softunderbelly feelingsby presenting an example of one. I am saying in effect, If my guess about what you are feeling is inaccurate, is there another feeling of the same general sort that you might be having? Alice: Bingo. A warmth returns to Alices face, which is what typically happens when people get in touch with their leadingedge feelings. I sense she is poised to engage in a collaborative cycle. Joe seemed ready to do so a few moments ago, but he isnt now.

Joe: (to Alice, with an edge) Theres no way to please you. Whatever I do, youre going to find some way to be unhappy about it. You wanted me to come here, and so I came. But no, thats not good enough. You want me to love being here. Well thats just not me. I think I know what is going to happen now. I imagine Alice saying When do you ever try to please me? I dont remember a time. And Joe snapping back I came here, didnt I? Alice: Yes, but I practically had to rent a bulldozer to get you here. Joe: Well, Im here now. I dont see the value of going over this territory again, so I jump in before it can happen with a two-element multiple-choice question. Multiplechoice questions allow the therapist to raise possibilities without pressing the partner in a way that he or she might find threatening or humiliating. Therapist: (replacing Joes accusation with a fear) Joe, how much do you think, as you just said, that Alice is the kind of person who will never be happy? And how much do you fear that youre not the kind of person who can make her happy? Joe: (sadly) I know Im not the kind of person who can make her happy. Joe is confiding a leading-edge feeling, which draws Alice into a collaborative cycle. Alice: (backtracking) Well yes, I want some changes, but I dont want you to Joe: (moving back to an adversarial mode) Yes, things that will make me not me. Alice: (joining Joe in an adversarial cycle) Talking a little more about your feelings isnt going to turn you into a different person. Joe: Sure, but when I do, you blow up at me for that, too. Alice: What on earth are you talking about? Joe: Have you forgotten Saturday already? Alice: Yes, but I had reason. You called me a jerk. Joe: I didnt call you a jerk. I was just telling you how I felt and Alice: (interrupting) If you dont believe me, ask my sister. She heard every word. Joe: Wonderful, go ahead, bring your whole family in on this.
57

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

I say to myself: Why do Alice and Joe have to fight like this? This means that I have lost the ability now to do therapy with both. To regain this ability, I remind myself that a fight is generated by the frustration people feel when they are unable to make their points (its amazing how quickly I can forget this). So I move in to help Alice and Joe make their points.
Third part: Bringing out the hidden conversation

Therapist: (bringing the partners in on his plan) There is a conversation hidden in the fight you just had that I want to bring out. In this conversation, Alice, you say (therapist moves over and kneels next to Alice and looks at Joe), Joe, I felt really bad when you said you cant make me happy. I dont want you to feel that. Im just asking for a few changes. And Joe, you say (therapist moves over and kneels next to Joe and looks at Alice), Yes, but the changes you want would turn me into a different personwhich makes me afraid that you just dont like the person I am. Thats what really troubles methat you dont like the person I am. I am making explicit heartfelt feelings that were only hinted at or implied, with the hope that doing so might turn their fight into an intimate conversation. Therapist: (continuing to move back and forth between Joe and Alice) And Alice, you say, I dont want to turn you into a different person. I just want you to talk a little more about your feelingswhich you can do. In fact, youre doing it right now. At this point I worry that I am speculating too wildly. Therapist: Oops, Im saying a lot of things that neither of you have said. Well, you can tell me later whether any part of what I am saying is accurate. Having said that, I feel better, as people generally do when they confide their concern of the moment, their leading-edge feeling. As this comment suggests, I relate to the partners in the way that I am trying to help them relate to each other, not just to model it for them, but because relating in such a manner is beneficial in almost every type of relationship, therapist-client included.
58

Therapist: (in a gentle voice) Then Joe, you say, Yes, but heres the problem and I know you wont like hearing this because, okay, its a criticismwhen I talk about what Im feeling, you get angrylike this Saturday. And Alice, you say, You werent talking about your feelings. You said some things that hurt my feelings. And Im getting mad again now just thinking about it. And Joe, you say, Im getting mad again, too, because thats not what really happened. In my effort to turn Alice and Joes fight into a conversation, I have them report their anger rather than unload it. Therapist: (continuing to move between the partners) And Alice, you say, I know it upsets you when I bring in other people as witnesses for my side, but Im so frustrated at the moment that I dont care. My sister was there. You can ask her. And Joe, you say, Youre right. It drives me crazy when you bring in other people, which is why Im getting sarcastic and telling you, Why stop at your sister? Why not bring in the whole family? I know that sarcasm just inflames the situation, but Im so frustrated, I dont care. I am having Alice and Joe report what they are doing (and their reservations about doing it) rather than just doing it. Therapist: (to Alice and Joe, concluding) Since I made up some of this, I want to know where I was right and where I was wrong and how you felt watching me playact the two of you? Joe: I wish I had said it that way. Alice: (to Joe, in a soft voice) Do you really feel that I dont like the person you are? Joe: (moved by Alices warm tone) A lot of the time I dont like the person I am, like on Saturday. I said some pretty nasty things. Alice: I did too. And I wish I hadnt gotten defensive when you were just trying to tell me what you felt. Joe: I could have said it better. Alice and Joe are in a collaborative cycle, admitting what they had been denying a moment ago and building on what the other is saying rather than tearing it down. But suppose, as sometimes happens with couples, Alice and Joe were to remain in an

adversarial cycle throughout the session, rejecting everything their partner and the therapist said. Even if that happens, there is a fair chance that they will return the next session having changed in ways that indicate that they had heard what had been said and had taken it to heart. Conclusion The therapeutic task is to provide partners with a continuing flow of examples of turning fights or withdrawal into intimate conversations by creating a vantage point above the fray and by confiding leading-edge feelings. The featured technique for accomplishing this purpose is speaking for partnersat times kneeling (or sitting on a stool) next to a partner in a method similar to doubling in psychodrama. The goal is to increase the couples ability to solve moments, that is, to become adept at shifting out of adversarial and withdrawn cycles and into collaborative ones. A relationship in this way is mood management. The ability or inability to make this shift largely determines the quality of life in a relationship. Some couples profit quickly from this therapy. A session or two is all they need to break the logjam, set the relationship on a new footing, and begin coming up with their own versions of the statements the therapist makes for them. Other couples are slow to get the idea and apply it in their lives. This chapter presents a theory (solving the moment), a technique (speaking for partners), and a sensibility (monitoring the therapists slippage from listening to judging). Each of these three can be used without the others. You can adopt the theory while using techniques from other approaches. You can adopt the technique and apply it to other therapeutic theories. And, you can adopt the sensibility with whatever theory and techniques you use. An integration of the three constitutes Collaborative Couple Therapy. Implications for training and supervision In Collaborative Couple Therapy, the principal way to deal with couple fighting is to create a platforma compassionate vantage point above the frayfrom which partners can talk

PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011

about the fight rather than continue muddling within it, appreciate how the position of each makes sense, define the pattern they are stuck in, report their reactions, and make acknowledgments. In learning to do collaborative couple therapy, keep in mind each of these interrelated tasks. The goal is to increase the ability of couples to create such a compassionate perspective in their everyday lives. Talk about rather than from within the fight: How do you feel about this fight? Are you getting a chance to say a few things and hear a few things, or is this frustrating, the way you fight at home, and what youve come to therapy to stop? Or, In what ways is this fight useful and in what ways is it not so useful? Appreciate how the position of each makes sense: Alex, you understandably dont like Sharons bringing up that incident from so long ago; it makes you feel shell never let you live anything down. And, Sharon, its understandable that youre bringing it up, since its the clearest example of what you want Alex to see is still happening in more subtle ways today. Define the pattern they are stuck in: Here is the painful cycle you are stuck in. Steve, when Joan gets angry, you withdraw; and, Joan, when Steve withdraws, you get angry. Or, Heres the impasse. Each of you needs the other to hear your point before youll be able to listen to that of the other.

Help the partner who has just attacked report his or her anger and make acknowledgments (which puts him or her in a position to more effectively make his or her own point). Doubling for this partner (speaking as if you were this partner talking to the other partner), you say, Im upset, so I know that Im not saying it in the best possible way. Or, I know this is a criticism. I wish I could find a way to say it that wasnt critical, because its so important for me to say this to you in a way you can hear. Or, I know Im not being totally fair, since you could criticise me for the same thing, but Im upset about it. Or, I go back and forth between blaming myself for the problem and blaming you and, as you can see, at the moment, Im deeply into blaming you. Or, You may be saying some good things, but Im so angry that I cant listen to any of them. Help the partner who has just been attacked report his or her reactions (rather than just react): What were the various thoughts and feelings that went through your mind listening to what Jerry just said? Or, How much of what Betty just said seems an accusation and how much is heartfelt? Or, Sarah is accusing you, so youll understandably want to defend yourself, but is there anything to what she is saying?

Acknowledgements
Copyright (2011) From Case Studies in Couples Therapy: Theory-Based Approaches by David K. Carson and Montserrat Casado-Kehoe. Reproduced by permission of Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, a division of Informa plc.

References
Apfelbaum, B. (2010). Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.bapfelbaumphd.com. Apfelbaum, B., & Gill, M. M. (1989). Ego analysis and the relativity of defense: Technical implications of the structural theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 37, 10711096. Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York, NY: Crown. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the clientcentered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science: Vol. 3 (pp. 184265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Wachtel, P. L. (2008). Relational theory and the practice of psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford. Wile, D. B. (1981). Couples therapy: A nontraditional approach. New York, NY: Wiley. Wile, D. B. (1984). Kohut, Kernberg, and accusatory interpretations. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice, and training, 21, 353364. Wile, D. B. (1993). After the fight: Using your disagreements to build a stronger relationship. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Wile, D. B. (2002). Collaborative couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (3rd ed., pp. 281307). New York, NY: Guilford. Wile, D. B. (2008). After the honeymoon: How conflict can improve your relationship (Rev. ed.). Oakland, CA: Collaborative Couple Therapy Books.

AUTHOR NOTES

DAN WILE Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist with thirty years experience as a couples therapist. He is internationally recognised for his innovative work with couples and his expertise in transforming conflict into intimacy. Wile is an Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Diplomate in Clinical Psychology of the American Board of Professional Psychology and has published on psychotherapeutic theory as well as couples therapy. His books include Couples Therapy: A Nontraditional Approach; After the Honeymoon: How Conflict Can Improve Your Relationship; and After the Fight: Using Your Disagreements to Build a Stronger Relationship. Dr Wile will visit Australia to present training on Collaborative Couple Therapy with PsychOz Publications in August 2011. For more information www.danwile.com
PSYCHOTHERAPY IN AUSTRALIA VOL 17 NO 3 MAY 2011 59