Mail Jim

Relationships, communication and change, II

--Jim Challis, Ed.D., Tina Tessina, Ph.D., and John Burik, M.Ed.

John and Tina concluded Part One with the importance of unlocking closed systems, or tackling inertia. John put it: "anything to pry loose the inertia of the system," and Tina added: "A wedge, a foot in the door. Anything to get out of the impasse...." The conversation continues.

---

Do something, anything

John:

Tying a couple things together here: we can't effectively impact change if the client's stuck in the problem state, so we've got to do something to get zir out of that and at least trying something else.

Jim:

I had a platoon sergeant who used to tell us before every exercise, "Do something -- even if it's wrong!" I think now, that he wanted us to opt against the cautionary, "He who stands and waits, also serves", and "Haste makes waste" and for "He who hesitates is lost". So, with that meme to bolster my decision taking, I think I would "Try something else."

John:

Bandler and Grinder used to say: when what you're doing's not working, do anything else.

Tina:

It really doesn't matter what, because if you can do anything from an impasse, then it's not an impasse any longer. In How To Be A Couple And Still Be Free, Riley and I made guidelines for negotiation, one of which is "All solutions are renegotiable at any time" -- to prevent an impasse... but if it happens anyway, we suggest experimenting with a solution you think will not work -- just because you'll learn from the process, and the new information may give you what you need to know to get moving.

---

Taking responsibility

John:

I think -- and of course NOW wouldn't rate this as very p.c. -- that people get into the kind of relationships they think/feel they deserve. They are "responsible" even if unconsciously and "not guilty." That's an important Batesonian distinction (the difference that makes the difference).

Jim:

And as Ellis would say, "the person needs to learn to evaluate his performance, not his so-called self."

Tina:

I love Ellis' distinctions between the person and the behavior, the thought and the deed, etc. -- so useful.

Tina:

PC doesn't hold water for me. Definitely we are responsible, if our actions and thoughts and beliefs are keeping us in a situation we'd otherwise be able to get out of. But, it's tough getting that across to someone with zilch self-esteem without them just taking it as more blame. I always say "this is the good news. It means you can do something about it." Which they never want to hear. They're so beaten up, inside and out, that they can't imagine doing more work, which is all it looks like to them.

Jim:

Ellis says there is an inelegant and an elegant way of helping the client regain self-esteem and self-worth. He describes them, as you will recall, the Rational-emotive approach to psychotherapy. The former approach is to get the client to accept that zie is "Good" and "Worthwhile" as a person not because of anything zie does, simply becaue zie exists. The latter technique is to show the client that zie does not have to rate, value, or assess zirself, but that zie can take more delight by only measuring and valuing zir traits, characteristics, and performances.

Tina:

It's great theory, but not so easy when the clients' very existence and history belies zir's worth -- ie: abuse, neglect, parental hostility or dysfunction. A lot of my clients have to let out their anger at God for not rescuing them (the innocent, battered child) before they can even see any self worth.

John:

We can make a distinction here between facts and interpretations. We're responsible. Earlier responses we made got us where we are now. We are response-able now, so we can choose a new response. There's no need to interpret beyond that. When we do interpret, we're likely to interpret in a negative way and end up with -- as Ellis says -- the conclusion that we're a worm (and if you've not heard Ellis himself say, "You're a worm," try to borrow a tape of his work).

John:

The Albert Ellis Institute is on the web, and a particular article on this topic is "Showing People They Are Not Worthless Individuals".

---

More systems stuff: domestic violence (DV)

John:

This gets into an aside on my sense of where we're making a big mistake in the domestic violence area. It is good that we're admitting child, spouse, and elder abuse (Beisser/Perls/AA acceptance). It is good that we've gone beyond the particular incidents to appreciate a systemic dynamic, namely, a cycle of violence. But we stop short of getting the perpetrators out of the cycle, don't we? We put them in a prison where they're likely to be victims of abuse, and then collectively throw our hands up at recidivism.

Tina:

Hear, hear. O.J. is the prime example. No one ever made him understand how out of control he was. He needed his illusion of control to feel OK about his battered little child self, and it turned him into a monster. He's still locked in it, and, like Tyson, will eventually do something else. Sorry about the racist examples, they're just in the front of the news. Clinton also has an unresolved problem he's not facing -- but it's not violent, just out of control.

John:

I'm not suggesting merely group hugs for offenders, but I think we perpetuate the cycle by institutionally abusing the abuser.

Tina:

Absolutely. No opportunity for learning and growing there. Unless you mean learning better ways to be violent, and growing in justification of it.

Jim:

Yep.

John:

This picks up again on the systems theme. When we recognize the systemic nature of something, we need also to approach the "cure" systemically. Speaking of unresolved problems, relationships, systems: two of the Kennedy's were mentioned on the national news the other day. Seems Joe is withdrawing from a gubernatorial race due to bad press when his ex- stated he forced her into an annulment, and something about his brother (Michael?) hittin' on a 14-yr-old babysitter.

Tina:

Actually, he did more than hit on her -- it was an ongoing affair. Apparently, JFK Jr dissed Joe (?) in his magazine. Now there's a formerly locked-tite system that's coming unglued (like the Royal Family -- although God knows what Diana's death last night will do to that). It's probably good for the dynasty, bad for her sons.

Tina:

But, to get back to the systems difference, this is where "inner child" work is so powerful. To recognize two distinct (tho not dissociated) states of consciousness; the current abuser and the innocient, abused internal child (per Anne Wilson Schaef in Women's Reality or Alice Miller in For Your Own Good) is the beginning of healing. When the grown person can face that child and see zir's worth, despite whatever the adult has done, change has a chance of happening. Also, empathizing with that hurt, frightened child (whom the abuser has been running from) allows zir to empathize with others eventually.

---

Working interventions

John:

A colleague of mine had a contract to provide group therapy for probationers. It began with a basis of full-disclosure, including no confidentiality on abuse issues. According to Pank (his real name is like "Everett"), after a couple of weeks of participants admitting deeds and what that must have felt like for their victims, they'd begin to access their individual histories and subsequent original fear and rage. During the two-year run of the program, there was only 2% recidivism. (I don't know N and whether there was a measure against a control group.) I mention this as one real-world possibility (until the "Fundies" get involved -- probably why it was only two years).

Tina:

John, there are so many good programs like this. Delancy Street comes to mind. But, they have a difficult time getting funded. And, the people in power don't "believe" in them. That's why the research has to be propagandized to the public at large. This is a (sort of) democracy, which means the understanding of the electorate is crucial to anything good happening.

Jim:

I've seen Delancy Street, and the fisty women who was/is? running the program. I agree that such programs to give the people who will work at it a leg up. I second the motion for "Marketing". Propaganda has a negative connotation, left over from WWII.

John:

Agreed: propaganda has a negative connotation. I'm looking at two hopeful signs. First, I notice the civil rights movement. It's been long and slow, yet change is occurring. I see the fall of Communism and the end of apartheid. As beliefs slowly change, these old institutions fall. Second, I'm hopeful that the enlightened thinking in S. Africa, namely, truth and reconciliation rather than retribution, will be such a powerful demonstration that folks (read "funding agencies") will be willing to invest in new ways.

---

Big question: how to change

Jim:

1.) Design a method of early, early -- even pre-natal -- teaching/learning

Tina:

Delivery is the problem.

John:

Ah yes, delivery. Ideally parents would already be behaving in a partnership, cooperative, etc. fashion, and because they were reading to each other, speaking articulately, listening to music, and watching enriching TV, the child would be experiencing the same in utero. Of course, we're far short of the ideal. I think #2 and #3 (below, and next section) have a better shot.

Jim:

By "design a method" I really meant "devise" the steps to be taken to make the concept doable. Note my use of Concept versus Ideal.

Tina:

The ideal world -- (sigh)

Jim:

I know, I know, but I believe that "If we can build it, they will come". Am I a blurry-eyed optimist or what?!

Jim:

2.) Market this program to "enlightened" adults...

Tina:

It's the uneducated, disadvantaged, uninterested that we really need to reach.

Jim:

And I contend that one way to reach them is by accomplishing 1 and 2 above.

John:

Unfortunately, we often get "the uneducated, disadvantaged, uninterested."

Jim:

Aha! what a challenge for blurry-eyed optimists! Kinda similar to teachers of the 11th and 12th grades today. John Bro., "How motivated is Johnny these days? My Grandson thinks motivated is not cool.

John:

...until after there's a problem: truancy, abuse, conviction, dx'd mental disorder.

Tina:

Tho' that's a beginning.

Jim:

You mean everybody doesn't follow the rules? No!

Tina:

Yes. Did you see the news stories about the guy in Colebrook, NH who shot up the weekly newspaper? Everyone knew he was a nut -- going to blow, but no one did anything until a bunch of people died. We need a much better intervention process -- of course, making it a criminal proceeding means that we can't arrest anyone until they hurt someone. We badly need other solutions.

Jim:

I don't know if it would be more than a "partial solution", but in the immortal words just spoken, it may be "a beginning" -- i.e. a national pre-school battery of physical and psychological examinations of every child. It would be organized like the National Pre-school innoculations program. Only local health care (including mental health) people would have names and individual records -- as these people do now. The purpose here is to catch as many potential problem areas -- which could result to damage to persons, property, and community resourses -- as possible. You know, an ounce of prevention....

Tina:

But then we have "individual rights" problems. Who can be trusted with that information? Who can say the state can't get it, and do Nazi-style "ethnic cleansing" of anyone with the wrong patterns? It's happened before.

[Next section | Previous section ]