5

,

A Theory of Marital Systems

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to be without a theory. Clinical theories may be quite simple—almost to the point of mocking the complexity of human behavior—or so complex that they are unintelligible to all but the originator. Haley (1980) suggests that clinical theories are judged on their utility rather than on their comprehensiveness and that they must be useful to the average clinician. Perhaps of equal importance is how explicit the clinician’s theory is. Theories that operate out of awareness, without the grounding of empirical validation, are most dangerous because they often are comprised of value judgements, biases, and other idiosyncratic processes. They also are often so diffuse and ambiguous that “proof” of their validity can be found in any and all data.

In this chapter I describe briefly the theory of marital systems that guides my assessment and therapy. The theory itself continues to evolve as I test it in my clinical work and am challenged to rethink its premises both by my patients and by the publications of colleagues. I shall cite those colleagues whose work has contributed to my understanding of marital systems, but in no way do I claim to review comprehensively all the relevant literature.

Before I describe the theory, there are a few general principles about human systems that are a part of many systems theories. Those that have been most relevant for me are outlined in Exhibit 5.1.

There are also several phrases that need definition. These include:

1.  Metaphorical distance: the affective-cognitive position taken regarding the subjective experience of another; may range from great distance (e.g., inattentiveness, changing the subject, suggesting actions) to moderate distance (e.g., intellectual understanding), to very little or no distance (e.g., experiencing that which the other experiences, empathy, merger, “being there”).

2.  Separateness-autonomy: the experience of one’s self as separate or at some distance from the experience of others; an ability to act alone and independently, to take care of one’s self; may be associated with feelings of freedom, solitude, isolation, or loneliness.

3.  Connectedness-intimacy: the experience of one’s self as close to or merged with another as, for example, experiencing what another is experiencing; the ability to be in a relationship; may be associated with feelings of togetherness, sameness, or oneness.

BASIC PREMISES OF THE THEORY OF MARITAL SYSTEMS

The 15 premises of the theory of marital systems are presented in Exhibit 5.2 and discussed at greater length below.

1.  Separateness-Autonomy and Connectedness-Intimacy: Two Basic Human Behavior Systems

This premise states that these two behavior systems are separate and coexist in each individual rather than representing the opposite poles of one behavior system. Thus, it should be possible to identify individuals who manifest well-developed functioning in both systems, greater development in one system relative to the other, or little development in either system.

These two systems are believed to be fundamental in the sense that they are deeply rooted, with lengthy lineages in evolutionary time. As will be obvious in the discussion of the next premise, it is believed that the strength of these two behavior systems in individuals is determined by the complex interplay of genetic programming, developmental experiences, and family, ethnic, and social variables. Although I do not believe that the following constructs are identical to these two systems, it is likely that there is considerable overlap between the two basic systems and those of extraversion-introversion, approach-with-drawal, and agency-community.

My belief in the separateness of these two systems is not meant to suggest that they do not influence each other. Rather, they are found to have systematic and lawful relationships.

Finally, I believe that the central role played by these two systems in human behavior is the construct that most effectively links a rich variety of theories of individual development and functioning and major theories of small interpersonal systems, such as marital and family systems. From object relations theory and attachment theory to marital-family systems, these two fundamental behavior systems offer many opportunities for theoretical bridges.

2.  Separateness-Autonomy and Connectedness-Intimacy: Biologic, Developmental, and Social Determinants

This premise states that the factors that determine the strength of the two systems are multiple and complex. The biologic, developmental, and social determinants are discussed below.

Biologic Determinants

There is little question, for example, that both systems have biologic roots. In his classic discussion of attachment, Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1982) emphasized that the ability to connect with one’s offspring has survival value. Those who connect well will provide more protection for their progeny and more of the progeny will survive. Over many generations, those who connect well will be more represented genetically in each generation and those biologic mechanisms, whatever they may be, will endure over time. The same type of evolutionary logic applies to the capacity for separateness-autonomy: Individuals better able to take care of themselves will survive in greater numbers and will be overrepresented in subsequent generations.

Although we do not know the biologic mechanisms involved in either behavior system, there is a wide range of speculations. One group of speculations involves temperament—those hard-wired behavioral characteristics present at birth and subsequently modified to some extent by later experiences. If one examines, for example, the overall types of temperament described by Chess and Thomas (1984), it seems apparent that the easy child, the difficult child, and the slow-to-warm-up child can be understood as having different balances of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. Cloninger’s recent work involves dimensions of temperament such as novelty-seeking, harm-avoidance, and reward-dependence—all of which can be understood to suggest directly, particular balances of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy (Cloninger, Svrakic & Przybeck, 1993).

Although it is far too rich to review in detail here, mention must be made of the work of Kagan and his associates on the physiology and psychology of behavioral inhibition in children (Kagan, Reznick & Snidman, 1987; Kagan, Gibbons, Johnson, Reznick & Snidman, 1990; Kagan, Reznick, Snidman, Gibbons & Johnson, 1988). Their studies have examined the longitudinal courses of both extremely shy and very sociable children through the first seven years of life and they present evidence of an association between behavioral inhibition and lower thresholds of physiologic processes that originate in the limbic lobe. They note that the literature suggests that studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins reveal that those characteristics yielding the best evidence for heritability involve the approach to or withdrawal from the unfamiliar. It is clear that Kagan believes that the temperamental disposition to be inhibited or uninhibited in early childhood is biologically based, but that, when consideration is given to the many variables influencing personality, temperamental disposition “probably contributes no more than 10% to the variation in the adult characteristics our society values” (Kagan et al., 1990, p. 174).

There is also much to suggest that yet-to-be-understood biologic aspects of affective development may play a role in the biology of these two behavior systems. This commonsense belief grows out of the role expressions of affect play in signaling both the wish for separateness and the wish for connectedness. As far back as we know, creatures have used multiple affective expressions to signal others to approach or leave. Although the development of language has placed a primary expressive responsibility on words, there is much use of the earlier nonverbal mechanisms. We grunt, groan, cry, laugh, threaten, and implore with facial expressions, postures, movements, and all the paralinguistic mechanisms at our disposal. All of these have many functions but none are more important than serving as distance regulation signals.

Lazarus (1993) has presented a relational theory of affects. Each of 15 affects is thought to arise from a different relational theme involving the person and his or her environment. Lazarus takes the position that the particular emotion experienced depends upon the person’s thoughts about the encounter, particularly the harms and benefits involved. It seems apparent that the harms and benefits involved can be translated into distance regulation language.

Our understanding of the biology of affects is in its infancy. Reviewing a few of the possibilities suggested by research may hint at the complexity that is certainly involved. Davidson and his colleagues present evidence that positive and negative affects are associated with left-and right-sided cerebral activation, respectively (Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis & Friesen, 1990). They suggest that positive emotions are associated generally with approach, and negative emotions with withdrawal. Dawson and her co-workers investigated affective behavior and frontal lobe activity in the infants of depressed and nondepressed mothers (Dawson, Klinger, Panagiotides, Hill & Spicker, 1992). They found evidence of reduced left-frontal activity during playful interactions with their mothers in the infants of symptomatic mothers, along with a failure to find right-frontal activation during maternal separation. Fox (1991) has presented a model of affective arousal that specifically involves the decision about approach or withdrawal leading to asymmetric activation of the two frontal regions. George and colleagues have recently presented evidence from brain-imaging techniques that extend the knowledge derived from earlier brain electrical studies (George, Ketter, Parekh, Horwitz, Herscovitch & Post, 1995).

In addition to the now firm evidence for cerebral asymmetry of the affects involving approach and withdrawal, there is mounting evidence to support sex differences in the biology of affects. A multitude of studies were recently reviewed in The New York Times and, in particular, I note those studies suggesting that there are sex differences in how well various emotions are recognized from facial expressions (Kolata, 1995). It appears that men, for example, have difficulty recognizing sadness in women’s facial expressions, but no difficulty in recognizing sadness on the faces of other men or happiness on the faces of women.

Brothers (1989) suggests that empathy is a concept with great potential ability for bridging neural and psychological data. He reviews some of the clinical syndromes in which there are deficits in the ability to perceive the emotions of others, and includes autism and alexithymia. He notes that Ross (1981) has published evidence that certain right hemispheric lesions result in deficits in either producing or comprehending affective communication. It appears also, from the studies of twins, that empathy is further developed in infant girls than in infant boys, and that empathy appears to have a modest hereditary component (Zahn-Waxier, Robinson & Emde, 1992).

There are also suggestions that certain hormones may be associated with separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. Oxytocin has been designated the “cuddle hormone” because it is associated in experimental animals with social attachments (Angier, 1991). Mehlman and his colleagues demonstrated that, in free-ranging primates, affiliative behaviors were associated with high levels of cerebrospinal fluid derivatives of serotonin, and low levels were associated with more aggression and risk-taking (Mehlman, Higley, Faucher, Lilly, Taub, Vickers, Suomi & Linnoila, 1995). They note that the chemical variables appear to account for 20–40 percent of the variance in these behaviors, suggesting the multiplicity of factors involved.

The multiplicity of biologic factors that may play roles in both separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy is only now being recognized. Clearly these are complex matters involving temperament, affective development, particular portions of the brain, gender differences, and, perhaps, various hormones and neurotransmitters. A few of these biological mechanisms are under some degree of genetic control. In trying to understand the strength of a particular individual’s behavior systems for separateness and connectedness, the clinician must keep in mind that some of what is observed may represent differences in underlying biologic mechanisms.

Developmental Determinants

When the focus is turned to how developmental experiences can influence the strengths of the child’s separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy behavior systems, we enter another area of great complexity. The literature on early development is voluminous and, in addition to early psychoanalytic theoretical emphases, recent decades have brought a huge outpouring of empirical studies. These research findings have reaffirmed the central importance for subsequent development of the first several years of life. Empirical findings have also brought into question some of the earlier theoretical constructs, such as the hypothesized earliest periods of infantile symbiosis and autism. Indeed, it appears that from birth on, the infant is highly interactive with his or her environment (Stern, 1985).

The leadership role in the empirical approach to early development has been assumed by attachment researchers. Starting with Bowlby’s theory of attachment and taking vigor from Mary Ainsworth’s development of a measurement procedure—the Strange Situation test—the field of attachment research has exploded with studies and new findings (Bowlby, 1972, 1980, 1982; Ainsworth, 1989).

The Strange Situation test is based on a series of separations and reunions in a standard setting. Infants from one to two years of age are observed insofar as to their capacity to explore the toys in the room, their protest when mother leaves, and the quality of their reunion behavior when mother returns. Four types of attachment behaviors have been described: secure, insecure-anxious, insecure-avoidant, and disorganized. These types of attachment behaviors have intriguing, predictive powers for the child’s subsequent developmental course through childhood and into adolescence.

There is a good deal of data that demonstrate that the infant’s attachment behaviors are correlated with the quality of mothering the infant has received. There are also data that suggest that mothers of securely attached infants are more likely to report positive experiences of their own as children with their mothers than are the mothers of insecurely attached infants (Ainsworth, 1989). There are also data, including some from the Timberlawn Research Foundation’s Young Family Project, demonstrating that the quality of the mother’s marriage, rated before the infant’s birth, influences the type of attachment behavior her infant develops (Lewis, 1989).

There has been much interest in looking at adult romantic relationships through the lens of attachment. The theory involves the establishment in the infant of an internal working model as a result of early attachment experiences. From this working model, a group of expectations about the self in relationships flow and, unless altered by later intense relationship experiences, they can form the template for adult relationships. Those who study this facet of attachment search for descriptions of adult relationships that parallel the basic types of infant attachment. They also explore the correspondence of retrospective accounts of early attachment and descriptions of current romantic relationships (Hazen & Shaver, 1987; Cohn, Silver, Cowan, Cowan & Pearson, 1992; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Although there are methodological issues to be resolved, on balance this type of inquiry has yielded positive correspondences between infant and adult styles of attachment.

The aspect of attachment research that is most relevant for this theory of marital relationship is the inclusion in the Strange Situation test of measures of separateness-autonomy (the child’s ability to move away from the mother and explore the surround) and connectedness-intimacy (both the quality of the infant’s protest upon separation from the mother and the quality of his or her reunion behavior). Although it appears that reunion behaviors are most heavily weighted in arriving at attachment classification, it should be possible to obtain an early measure of the strength of both behavior systems through use of the Strange Situation paradigm. To my knowledge, however, Strange Situation data have not been analyzed in such a manner. Regardless, the revolution in the empirical study of early development brought about by attachment research has solidified the importance of crucial early experiences for the individual’s subsequent development, including his or her balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy.

Social Determinants

The third major determinant of the strength of these two behavior systems is the family in which the child spends his or her formative years. Families vary tremendously regarding their emphasis on separateness and connectedness. In some families, the emphasis is heavily skewed toward separateness, autonomy, and successful individual competition. In other families, the skew is in the opposite direction and relationships, closeness, and being intensely connected are paramount. For some families, both separateness and connectedness are emphasized and family members often learn the importance of context in facilitating behaviors that invite separateness or connectedness.

There are many family variables that operate in concert to establish the emphases on separateness and connectedness. Perhaps at the core are shared underlying belief systems and values that reflect positions on universal issues. Although I will discuss this topic later in some detail, I refer here to such issues as: What is the basic nature of humankind? Is it dangerous to get close to others? What is the nature of the world? Is it orderly and knowable and can it be mastered through knowledge? Or is it random and do destiny and fate prevail to the extent that individual effort at mastery is of little consequence and need not be emphasized?

Shared family belief systems are most often not conscious constructs. If family members are asked about them, they may or may not acknowledge their importance. Often, the observer infers the underlying belief from the family’s rules that govern relationships within the family. In observing family discussions, there are a small number of variables that may provide particular insights into the family’s emphases on separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy.

Those variables that facilitate the development of separateness-autonomy include:

Those variables that facilitate the development of connectedness-intimacy include:

These family processes are but examples used to illustrate some of the many ways in which what goes on in the family can play a crucial role in establishing the strength of the individual’s behavior systems for separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. It is also most often through the family that individuals incorporate particular religious, ethnic, or social class influences on these behavior systems.

My brief discussions of these three categories of variables (biological, developmental, and social) that influence the development of the individual’s capacity for separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy is not meant to be inclusive; rather, it is to illustrate the complexity involved. It is, however, even more complex than I suggest because not only are there many other variables involved, but all the variables interact with each other and do so most often in ways that are difficult to know. If the idea of interaction is tested even in a simple way, the results are suggestive. One illustration is the work of Mangelsdorf and colleagues on the interaction of infant temperament and maternal personality (Mangelsdorf, Gunnar, Kestenbaum, Lang & Andreas, 1990). Neither infant proneness-to-distress nor maternal personality independently predicted attachment outcome, but attachment was predicted by the interaction of this temperament variable and maternal personality. Mangelsdorf suggests that these findings support a “goodness-of-fit” model of attachment.

From a different perspective, Maziade and colleagues examined the interaction of temperament in seven-year-olds and family functioning in predicting adolescent psychopathology (Maziade, Caron, Cote, Merette, Bernier, Laplante, Boutin & Thivierge, 1990). All adolescents in their study with difficult temperaments at age 7 and dysfunctional families were symptomatic at age 16. Once again, it was the interaction that was crucial.

I use the work of Mangelsdorf and Maziade to illustrate the importance of even simple interactions between variables. When we think about the development of the individual’s behavior systems for separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy, there may be a dozen or more important variables involved, all of which interact with each other in ways we can only begin to imagine.

3.  The Balance of Separateness-Autonomy and Connectedness-Intimacy

Each individual can be understood as having a more-or-less stable balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy that may be altered in response to life circumstances or developmental challenges.

The use of the phrase “more-or-less” signifies the presence of a significant qualification to this premise. The issue is to what extent the individual’s life is understood as continuous and how much emphasis is given to discontinuities over the life course. Continuity is basic to the concept of personality itself in that it speaks to the relatively enduring ways the individual experiences himself or herself and the world.

On the other hand, discontinuities—defined as distinct changes—appear to occur with surprising frequency. Some individuals mellow as they age and others discover a quality of assertiveness heretofore missing. Marriage can change one for better or worse. Parenthood can lead to the discovery of qualities hidden from view before a child is born. Some losses lead to chronic depression. Chronic unemployment can change the individual’s relationships with important others as well as with the self. Experiences in the Armed Forces during war-time can leave lasting impact—sometimes for the better, but sometimes for the worse. A religious conversion, a near fatal illness or accident, the adoption of a new belief system—the list could go on and on.

Thus, it appears that life has some continuity (although we may read in more than there “really” is), but discontinuities are very common. When it comes to the premise that each individual has a more-or-less stable balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy, there are simply no data that I know of to either support or disprove the premise. My including it as one of the premises is based on my clinical work and my observation that the premise has utility.

It is almost always possible to help individuals formulate their own estimates of the strength of each of these behavioral systems. They sometimes emphasize continuity (“I’ve been shy, a loner since I can remember. I had no trouble getting things done and I could take care of myself—but never got too close to anyone”). Others describe discontinuities (“As a kid I was horribly insecure and avoided relationships. The Navy fixed that—it taught me how to be part of a team, how to relate to others—and my confidence soared”).

Thus far, I have discussed these two behavior systems as if they were relatively independent of each other. They are not, of course, and they influence each other in complex ways. Common examples involve the individual who overcomes the inability to relate closely to others, in part, as a consequence of successful individual functioning. On the other hand the confidence in one’s self growing out of a deeply meaningful and successful relationship may inspire the individual to experiment with higher levels of individual autonomy than ever before.

4.  Psychological Maturity or Health

Psychological maturity or health involves the capacity for both separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy.

This premise addresses this culture’s traditional emphasis on separateness-autonomy as the major construct in psychological health. Within psychoanalytic-psychodynamic circles, the literature of recent decades has been filled with theories supporting separation-individuation as the organizing metaphor in thinking about healthy development and psychological maturity. Provoked by confrontations from feminist writers and augmented by increasing recognition of ethnocentrism, a gradual shift has taken place. The shift involves an increasing emphasis on the capacity for relationships, and therefore, connectedness-intimacy, as equal in importance to separateness-autonomy in the definition of health.

Thus, this premise states that for both men and women to be considered healthy or well functioning, there should be evidence of the capacities for both separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. This premise is not meant to minimize the importance of data suggesting that there likely are sex differences of a biologic nature in the roots of these two behavior systems. Rather, it is to emphasize that the ideal of health and maturation for both sexes involves transcending to whatever degree possible whatever biologic factors influence the capacity for either separateness-autonomy or connectedness-intimacy.

5.  Underlying Fears

Both separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy may be associated with underlying, frequently unconscious fears.

Fears of separateness and fears of closeness are considered ubiquitous, but we have very little empirical data. The deficiency is most marked regarding representative samples. In psychotherapy, it is usually easy to help patients organize diverse experiences around themes of loss, aloneness, abandonment, separation and/or being invaded, and merger with loss of sense of self, or around themes involving aggression and death. From such crystallizations, patients can develop insight and metaphors that organize their experiences. In this way, they may come to feel an increasing sense of mastery. Whether or not such themes would arise from exploratory interviews with nonclinical samples is unknown—at least, I am not aware of any such studies.

And yet there is every reason to believe that such fears are deeply ingrained in human experience. Yalom (1980), for example, in his discussion of the ultimate concerns of existential theory, presents the viewpoint that these concerns are fundamental. They are believed to be a part of each person, but are usually more hidden than concerns about dependency, anger, and the like. Yalom’s four ultimate concerns—death, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness—can be understood as having much to do with separateness and connectedness. Death, for example, can be understood as either separation from important others or reunion with deceased loved ones. Freedom, as defined by Yalom, relates to the absence of external structure—the awareness that one constructs his or her own world, that there is nothing “there” but what one constructs. In this regard, freedom is a statement of one’s essential aloneness. Existential isolation refers to the final, unbridgeable gap that exists between self and the world. Meaninglessness springs from the awareness that life is of one’s own making, that in that construction one is essentially alone, and that death awaits.

It seems clear that the underlying emphasis in Yalom’s four ultimate concerns involves fears associated with separateness. Many have agreed that separateness is the fundamental fear. Being cast out, exiled, and abandoned have been the ultimate punishment. As Tracy Kidder wrote in Old Friends (1993), separateness is the universal problem: “The original punishment, the ultimate vulnerability, the enemy of meaning” (p. 345).

Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1982) has written that intense reactions to early separation from mother have had survival value through the ages. Hofer (1984) has suggested that dyadic relationships have regulatory functions for the participants and that separation may lead to loss of physiologic regulation. Silverman’s work with subliminal stimulation involving merger statements in which a broad variety of functions show improvement following presentation of such stimuli may also speak to the centrality of both the fear of separation and the longing for connection (Silverman, Lachmann & Milich, 1982).

In psychotherapeutic work, fears of connection (in the form of closeness, commitment, or intimacy) are at least as frequent as—if not more frequent than—fears of separateness. Once again, however, we are on thin ice in regard to the prevalence of such fears in nonclinical samples and, if they are broadly present, to whether or not they can be retrieved with interviews.

With all the gaps in our knowledge about underlying, frequently unconscious fears, there is still sufficient clinical knowledge and theoretical prominence to accord such fears an important place in a theory of marital systems.

6.  A Central Relationship from Childhood

For most individuals it is possible to identify a central problematic relationship from childhood that is the source of the underlying fears.

This premise reaches back to the individual’s family-of-origin experiences to locate the source of the fears of separateness-autonomy or connectedness-intimacy. Once again I am not aware of systematic data from representative samples that inform as to the prevalence of a central problematic relationship from childhood. The problems of retrieving such memories and their interpretation are legion. Main and her associates, for example, have developed an interview technique (The Adult Attachment Interview) to retrieve the nature of adults’ early attachments to their parents (Main & Goldwyn, 1988; Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). The scoring of the Interview relies more on the subject’s ability to tell a coherent story than it does on the actual content of the memories. Our research at Timberlawn Research Foundation demonstrates that women’s memories of their fathers change during the early years of parenthood, and the change is associated with here-and-now problems the women’s husbands are experiencing (Lewis & Owen, 1995).

Despite the absence of a solid base of empirical knowledge of representative samples, patients in many forms of psychotherapy (including marital therapy) almost always present a central problematic relationship from childhood. The problematic relationship issues range from most severe (sexual abuse, physical abuse, extreme neglect) to those that appear more subtle (excessive demands, highly contingent affection, subtle parental favoritism for another sibling).

Following recent leads in psychotherapy research, it is useful to develop a three-part synopsis of the problematic relationship. The first part focuses on what it was that the individual wanted from the important person from childhood (e.g., affection, affirmation, protection). The second part involves how that important person responded to the wish (e.g., with disregard, inconsistency, outright rejection). The third part of the synopsis focuses on how the individual responded to the important other’s response (e.g., with continued effort, retreat into self, blaming self). This gives the central problematic relationship from childhood an interactional cast that lends itself to the search for parallels in here-and-now adult relationships.

These early problematic relationships can be seen as resulting in fears, fears that may operate across a wide variety of adult relationships. The fears may lead to avoidance of relationships, or to relationships that can be understood as tests of the individual’s childhood hypothesis, or to relationships that heal in the sense of diminishing or extinguishing the fears.

Some patients do not report a central problematic relationship from childhood. Often, however, what they report is the absence of an early family milieu that emphasizes either connectedness-intimacy or separateness-autonomy. Most often this involves families that emphasize separateness but not connectedness. Children growing up in these families may not fear connecting closely with others; rather they have not learned how to do so. Many such individuals are more readily able to learn how to relate closely than are those with clear reasons to fear closeness.

7.  Attraction to Specific Others

Individuals are drawn to specific others for many reasons, including the unconscious attempt to repair the central problematic relationship from childhood.

One of the most intriguing observations of longitudinal research is that some persons have adult experiences that undo the harmful effects of central problematic relationships from childhood. Most, if not all, of such healing experiences appear to involve new connections—with a confidant, a therapist, or a new belief system. The most frequently observed turning point in the lives of individuals, however, is entering into a stable marriage in which there are both low levels of conflict and the opportunity for confiding. I have summarized in Chapter 2 and in another publication (Lewis, 1996) some of the studies that suggest that relationships with low levels of conflict and the presence of confiding have implications for both the psychological and physical health of the participants.

Kernberg (1991) discusses two levels of the unconscious search involved in marriage. One is primarily oedipal in the sense that each partner searches for the ideal opposite sex partner with whom sex and tenderness may be experienced. Kernberg also suggests that for women, the lover represents the pre-Oedipal mother who satisfies her dependency needs and is tolerant of her sexual intimacy with the symbolic Oedipal object.

There are, in addition, more specific dynamics involving the unconscious wish to repair the dominant pathogenic relationship from the past and “the temptation to repeat them in terms of unfulfilled aggressive and revengeful needs” (Kernberg, 1991, p. 50). The actual reenactment with the lover is the result of this inner struggle between the forces of repair and repeat. Each partner tends to induce in the other, through projective identification, the past Oedipal or pre-Oedipal conflicts around aggression. It thus appears that the repair-repeat dilemma is, for Kernberg, decided by the severity of the conflict with the early object, the amount of unresolved aggression, and the strength of the unconscious wish for vengeance.

That healing marriages occur is without question. Once we move beyond their documented occurrence, however, we know very little. How frequently they occur is not known. Whether they represent lucky occurrences like fortunate spins of the marital roulette wheel or are lawful in the sense of resulting from factors that can be learned is also unknown.

Rutter (1988) has discussed whether or not the healing process is likely to be found in the presence of certain characteristics of the individual (e.g., planfulness), in the presence of certain characteristics of the spouse (e.g., absence of serious psychopathology), or in the nature of the relationship itself (e.g., confiding). He finds support for all three possibilities.

If one takes as a starting place Meissner’s (1978) transference theory of marriage, the emphasis would fall on the unconscious motivation to repeat the central problematic relationship from childhood with the spouse. Healing would occur when the transference was not allowed to unfold.

I prefer to believe that the search for healing experiences—both those in which one is the healer and those in which one is healed—are important and neglected aspects of basic human motivation. Searles (1975) has been one of the few voices proclaiming the important dynamic of the need to heal, and he suggests that the dynamic begins with the infant’s wish to relieve the mother’s anxiety about their interaction.

It is possible, however, that there are yet-to-be-discovered aspects of an individual’s psychological makeup that load the scales in the direction of repeating rather than repairing the childhood injury. It is tempting to think that severity of psychopathology may play a role, with the most disturbed tending to repeat and those with lesser disturbances tending to repair—although several studies found this not to be the case (Rutter, 1988).

Notwithstanding our lack of convincing empirical data, I find it useful in working with couples to posit marital dysfunction as failed healing. In doing so, the emphasis is on the issues of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. Statements like, “You hoped to find a relationship in which you felt safe from abandonment” or “You wanted a relationship in which you could feel safe from your fears of intrusion by a powerful other” are common organizing themes. In this, as in other therapeutic work, the emphasis moves from identifying the wish to identifying the way in which the individual gets in the way of the gratification of such wishes.

It is known that individuals are attracted to each other for multiple reasons. Appearance, personality features, similar backgrounds and values, stage of life, and other reasons are all involved. In this clinical theory of marital systems the major focus is on those unconscious factors in mate selection that reflect the underlying search for a healing experience.

On a few occasions, the search for healing is not apparent in the clinical material and, indeed, the data suggest the opposite dynamic: the unconscious selection of a spouse because he or she will not interfere with a pathological fixation on a childhood object. The woman still tied to a charismatic father, who selects a methodical man with little interest in or ability to help her emerge from her father-fixation is an example. Here the dynamic is not healing, but rather a prolongation of the early relationship.

8.  Definition of the Relationship

The central task of relationship formation is the definition of the relationship, in particular establishing a balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy that is reasonably comfortable (relatively fear from fear) for both participants.

In the early stages of a relationship of emotional intensity, with a hoped-for indefinite future, the process of establishing the basic relationship dimensions begins. Each person brings to the process of definition a number of desires. Some of these are conscious and reflect experiences in particular family, ethnic, and class cultures. Popular stereotypes from the media may play decisive roles. In addition, unconscious factors are involved and these reflect another wide range of experiences. In the preceding premise, the unconscious wish for a healing experience was hypothesized as a significant part of the choice of a partner. The characteristics of the chosen partner may include the general characteristics of effective therapists (e.g., empathy, warmth, and genuineness), but specific qualities that are corrective for particular deficiencies in one’s sense of self are also sought.

So often, neither partner is actually what the other thought during the early intoxicated phase of the relationship. Perhaps as a consequence, each partner tries to define the relationship by attempting to change his or her partner.

The process of defining the relationship usually occurs around everyday issues and there is rarely conscious awareness that discussions and disagreements about money, in-laws, sex, time, space, and all the other daily issues are actually about the “big” questions: “What kind of relationship are we to have?” “How much of what kind of closeness and separateness can we agree upon?” “How is the nature of the relationship to be decided?”

At the core of the relationship’s definition are the issues of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. If the spouses come easily to an agreement about the amount and quality of these two dimensions of their relationship, the developmental course of the relationship is very apt to go smoothly. If one participant imposes his or her wishes on the other participant, the developmental course of the relationship may be somewhat difficult. If the participants cannot agree and each continues in the attempt to unilaterally define these two dimensions, there is apt to be chronic conflict or termination of the relationship.

Although biological, developmental, and family factors can influence each participant’s attempt to define the relationship, often his or her efforts can be understood as driven by fear. Each person attempts to negotiate a balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy that is relatively free from fear. When both partners are highly satisfied with the relationship, it is safe to assume that they have found a balance of these two dimensions that is relatively free from fear for both of them. This balance may be skewed in the direction of either separateness-autonomy or connectedness-intimacy and may seem unusual to the outside observer, but it “works” for both partners because it does not impinge too heavily on the fears of either.

The idea that central to relationship formation and key marital dynamics is the balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy has preoccupied many students for many years. Those whose descriptions have been particularly helpful to me include Rausch and his colleagues, Kantor and Lehr, Napier, Jacobson and Margolin, Jacobson, Fogarty, Johnson and Greenberg, and Feldman. (Rausch, Barry, Hertel, and Swain (1974), Kantor and Lehr (1975), Napier (1988), Jacobson and Margolin (1979), Jacobson (1989), Fogarty (1976), Johnson and Greenberg (1994), and Feldman (1979).*

9.  Affects and Their Communication

Affects and their communication are central to the establishment of the balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy that characterizes the relationship.

Affect is considered to be the primary organizing force in social interactions. Most commonly, it is through the expression of affect that the individual signals his or her wish to approach or retreat from another. The expression of affect also signals another either to come closer or to retreat. Earlier in this chapter, I noted several of the studies that suggest something of the biological, developmental, and social roots of an individual’s affective systems.

Within a culture, the expression of certain affects signals the wish for increased closeness. Sadness and fear are examples. Other affects signal the wish for increased distance. Disgust and anger are examples. The response of the other—particularly in relationships of emotional importance—to the expression of affect is crucial for the quality of the relationship. Disregarding an important other’s affective signals often leads to despair and conflict. Responding to the expressed affects by recognizing them accurately and letting the sender know that the feelings are understood is crucial to the empathic process. Other terms are sometimes used to describe this level of empathy. Examples are attunement and mirroring. Deeper levels of empathy involve actually experiencing the affects of the other.

When two individuals share a deeply felt affective experience, there is often a feeling of intense closeness, bonding, or oneness. Such affective experiences are the hallmark of psychological intimacy and may lead to a profound sense of new meaning for the partners.

Recently, Goleman (1995) has brought together a large group of studies regarding the importance of affect. He has coined the phrase “emotional intelligence.” At the heart of this multifactorial construct is the ability of the individual to be in touch with his or her feelings from moment to moment while being sensitive to the feelings of others. From this perspective, psychotherapists come to know individuals with vast differences in emotional intelligence. Some of these differences almost certainly reflect hard-wired biological variations. Other differences, however, are better understood as reflecting ego-defensive operations related to unresolved feelings from adverse childhood experiences. The differences may also reflect widely divergent family experiences regarding the expression of and response to feelings. Thus, the psychotherapist must consider a wide array of factors that can influence the couple’s capacity to express and respond to a wide array of affects.

10.  Negotiating Around Five Issues

The balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy in the relationship is subtly “negotiated” around five issues: closeness (sharing), commitment (priority), intimacy (vulnerability), separateness, and power.

In the research at Timberlawn Research Foundation, we have found that collecting data regarding each of these five issues provides an overview of the balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. Berman and Lief (1975) identified these same five issues as crucial for relationship formation. Couples must face important questions regarding these issues, questions that can hardly be avoided.

The issue of closeness is defined here in terms of how much of their lives the spouses are to share. Will they come to agree on basic values? How many interests and activities will they share? Will they share the same level of investment in parenting if they decide to have children? Will they have many shared friends? Will they share satisfaction in their sexual life? There is considerable variation among couples in this sharing perspective on closeness. Some spouses share very little of their lives and others appear to share so extensively that it is difficult to find areas of separateness.

Commitment refers to the emotional priority of the relationship for both participants. At a practical level, the question is whether there is any other person who is more important to either spouse than each is to the other. The other person may be a child, parent, sibling, friend, or lover, and if the relationship with that person has greater emotional significance than the marital relationship, there is a problem with commitment.

Although many couples seen in therapy indicate high levels of commitment, there are those couples in which each spouse has another relationship of higher emotional priority. Couples in which one spouse has less commitment to the marriage than the other spouse are also common in clinical samples.

Intimacy is defined here more narrowly than it usually is by other students of relationships. Waring (1988), for example, has been one of the most productive investigators of intimacy, but starts his work from a much broader definition of intimacy than do I.* Intimacy as used here is the ability to share vulnerabilities. When each spouse participates in reciprocal sharing of vulnerabilities, the relationship is considered to be intimate.

Vulnerabilities involve those secret wishes, fears, hopes, dreams, and fantasies that are usually kept private for fear that exposing them will result in some negative, harmful response. When couples are intimate, it is often noted by them as one of the most important aspects of their relationship.

Clearly, intimacy involves being in touch with one’s own inner world and trusting that sharing that world will not turn out badly. How common intimacy is in contemporary life is not known. Wynne and Wynne (1986) believe it is quite rare—a luxury of sorts—that eludes most couples. In our research volunteer samples, we find that 20 to 25 percent of middle and upper middle class couples had intimate relationships, but intimacy was much less frequent in economically-deprived couples (Lewis & Looney, 1983).

Separateness speaks to the ability of the spouses to accept the ways in which they differ from each other. To accept the ways in which the other has different values, interests, activities, and friends acknowledges differences and is the first step toward respect for each other’s subjective reality.

The capacity of the spouses to agree on the ways in which they differ, to accept the ways in which they will be separate in contrast to fighting over what is “right” or “the truth,” is an important determinant of how much separateness and connectedness will prevail in their relationship. Accepting the ways in which each partner differs from the other facilitates the development of greater levels of connectedness and sets the stage for intimacy.

Power is the most important variable in the couple’s attempts to define their relationship. This is so because if one spouse has greater power he or she may prevail in unilateral decisions as to how much of what kind of closeness, commitment, intimacy, and separateness will characterize the relationship. Thus, the subtle negotiation of the balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy is intensely political. Marriage is, as emphasized by Rose (1983), usually the most political experience of an individual’s life. She states that marriages fail not just because people fall out of love but, more often, due to failure in their joint political process.

In the attempt to define the relationship, both participants bring to the process all of those power tactics developed in earlier life. For some, those tactics are overtly aggressive; for others, they are better described as passive-aggressive; for some, the tactics are deliberately manipulative. For many, however, power tactics are primarily persuasive, even charismatic. As noted before, the surface issues are everyday disagreements, and the cumulative outcome sets the tenor of the relationship more than any other single factor.

Thus, the position taken here is that spouses cannot not deal with power. It is a “given”—every human system must establish some sort of organizational structure and, in the doing, each participant strives to influence the other to accept an organizational structure in keeping with his or her individual needs and fears.

11.  Repetitive Interactional Patterns and the Development of Relational Structure

Out of the negotiation of these five issues, repetitive interactional patterns develop that come to serve as rules that regulate actual and metaphorical distance in the relationship. Over time, these interactional patterns become relatively stable and are considered the relational structure.

As the term is used here, I wish to emphasize those interactional patterns that regulate separateness and connectedness in the relationship. These patterns or rules govern the circumstances in which greater separateness-autonomy or greater connectedness-intimacy is to be acceptable to both participants. The rules provide operating guidelines that inform as to the circumstances in which one person may move toward or away from the other physically. The rules, however, have a more important function than the regulation of physical space: they also regulate metaphorical space.

A key issue in regulating metaphorical space concerns the sharing of subjective experiences. What are the circumstances in which inner experience is disclosed? What are the rules regarding the kind of response to be made to the inner experience of the other? When is help in exploring that experience indicated? When is giving advice the preferred response? There are a large number of such issues regarding closeness to or distance from the subjective experience of an important other. Because of the complexity, it would not be possible to deal with each interchange as a new experience. Some sort of structure is required, a system of rules that provide general guidelines.

This relational structure is relatively stable. One way of looking at the developmental phases of a marriage, however, it to look at those periods that make changing the rules either necessary or adaptive. Thus, both the intensity and quality of separateness and connectedness within the relationship can change because of developmental challenges or because of stressful life events.

A common clinical observation in couples who come for assessment and therapy after some years of a stable, satisfactory marriage is that one partner is involved in a unilateral attempt to change the rules governing separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy. The conflict involves either how acceptable the new rules are to the other partner or whether it is acceptable that one partner tries to change the rules unilaterally.

12.  Relational Structures Either Facilitate or Fail to Facilitate Continuing Healthy Development

Although any relational structure may persist and be experienced as satisfactory by the participants, certain structures facilitate the continued healthy development of the participants and others do not.

It is a remarkable irony that individuals select mates and participate in the establishment of a relational structure that may come to haunt them. A basic premise of this theory of marital systems is that relational structures have profound importance for the life of the participants. At one extreme are those structures that encourage the continued healthy development of both participants. At the other extreme are relational structures that facilitate the development of serious psychopathology in one or both participants. In the middle ground are relationships that neither encourage growth nor facilitate psychopathology; rather, they more-or-less assist each participant to maintain his or her psychological status quo.

The relationship of individual development, health, and maturity to the interpersonal context in which the individual lives his or her life is, at the minimum, circular. Individual psychological health increases the probability of relationship competence, and relationship competence increases the probability of individual health.

The questions about relational structures that facilitate healthy development cannot be answered completely. In Chapter 4, I discussed the characteristics of competent marriages as revealed in the research studies at Timberlawn Research Foundation, and those observations are a starting place to search for a thorough understanding of healing relationships.

As discussed in Chapter 4, however, relational structures have even broader implications for the participants. There is a growing body of empirical data suggesting that the nature of one’s primary emotional bond influences physical health. At this relatively early stage of research, it appears two relationship variables may be involved in the interface with physical health. One involves the level of conflict; the other, whether or not the relationship is confiding. If there are relatively low levels of conflict and the capacity to exchange confidences exists, there is a good likelihood of better physiologic regulation of blood pressure and enhanced immune functioning.

In Chapter 4, I also commented briefly on the correlation of satisfaction with one’s marriage and both overall life satisfaction and the sense of meaning in one’s life.

It is important, however, to recognize that marital satisfaction measures are not without their problems. For the most part, this reflects the observation that individuals can be satisfied with relationships seen by outside experts as significantly dysfunctional.

13.  Parental Relationship Structures and the Psychological Development of Children

Certain parental relational structures increase the probability of healthy psychological development of children raised by the couple and other parental relational structures do not.

Three relationships are crucial for shaping the healthy development of the child in the family. One is the mother-child relationship; the second is the father-child relationship; and the third is the parents’ relationship with one another. The more recently evolved concept that the nature of the parents’ relationship has a powerful impact on the child’s development has received increasing support from systematic longitudinal family research. I will illustrate this empirical documentation of what therapists have known for years at a clinical level with examples from our own research.

The parents’ relational structure as studied during the mother’s first pregnancy predicts infant-mother attachment behaviors at age one year and at other developmental markers for the child. Further, this effect appears to operate separately from the influence of either mother’s or father’s personality (Lewis, 1989). In those instances of marital dysfunction (measured prenatally), it is also possible at one year to observe triangular interactions involving infant, mother, and father that appear to parallel dysfunctional family triangles observed clinically with some symptomatic adolescents and their parents.

Thus, the important stage of marital development involving the incorporation of the child into the family in a healthy way is clearly threatened by preexisting marital dysfunction. This research and that of other family researchers adds a beginning empirical foundation to the observations of clinicians regarding the importance of a stable and satisfactory parental marital relationship as a safeguard against the development of destructive crossgenerational alliances.

14.  Developmental Course of Marital Relationship Structures

Marital relational structures undergo a developmental course that often includes changes in the levels of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy.

For several decades, great credence has been placed in the concept that development occurs in an orderly way. Whether one is discussing the development of individuals, marriages, or families, there has been broad acceptance of this premise. How much the presumed orderliness of development is a reflection of the needs of observers to impose upon complex processes occurring over time a much simplified organizing scheme is not known. Empirical support can be found at the level of the individual for both continuity and discontinuity of developmental processes, but it is well to note that empirical support for the orderly development of marital and family systems is extremely rare. In the absence of empirical support, theoretical models of system development have arisen, some of which emphasize periods of crisis, conflict, and resolution as necessary and normal developmental processes.

Once again, I wish to illustrate something of the greater complexity that may be involved by briefly summarizing some of the research at the Timberlawn Research Foundation (Lewis, 1989). We studied couples’ marital relationships both prior to and following the birth of their first child, a time calling for major accommodations in the marriage. We found that some types of relational structures were remarkably stable during the transition to parenthood, with no signs of crisis, conflict, and resolution. Other types of relational structures (those with significant conflict before the baby was born) did appear to go through crisis, increased conflict, and resolution. Further, the resolution was of an unpredictable nature that ranged from dissolution of the marriage to continued conflict to significant conflict resolution. This piece of rare empirical research suggests what makes intuitive sense: The nature of a couple’s adaptation to parenting is clearly influenced by how well they had established a relational structure that was highly satisfactory to both before their child was born.

Despite the relative lack of empirical data regarding the orderly development of marital and family systems, clinical work with couples and families reinforce the utility of developmental formats. Over and over, couples come for help at times in which some alteration in the balance of separateness-autonomy and connectedness-intimacy appears either required or desired. Thus, clinicians need to be sensitive to those situations in which developmental challenges are not being met and the marriage is becoming increasingly conflicted or alienated.

15.  Underlying Value Systems

Marital relational structures both reflect underlying value systems and memorialize them over time.

There is growing interest in the idea that marital relational structures reflect jointly held values that are often not openly articulated. Couples may be able to articulate their shared values spontaneously, or may acknowledge such values only when such are presented to them, or may deny important values when presented with them despite behaving as if such values were present.

When to this problem of validating a couple’s values is added the complexity arising from a failure of the participants to realize consciously that the values are shared and are a central part of the relationship, the task of studying marital values systematically may seem overwhelming.

Reiss (1981) has written cogently about underlying, shared family paradigms (values) and suggests that the presence of particular paradigms must most often be inferred from both the way the spouses treat each other and the way they relate to the outside world.

There is also the problem of which values to consider. In my interviews with couples, I most often use Spiegel’s (1982) modification of the Kluckhohns’ (1951) key values (as slightly modified by this author). The modified Spiegel list of values is presented in Exhibit 5.3.

I also use the Rokeach Value Survey, a forced ranking of terminal values and a similar ranking of instrumental values (Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). I search for significant areas of agreement and disagreement about the relative importance of different values. I may ask couples to discuss their differences regarding values in which they differ greatly.

From the perspective of the theory of marital relational structures presented here, I am particularly interested in knowing how much each spouse values separateness, independence, individuality, and autonomy as contrasted with connectedness, relatedness, closeness, and intimacy. It is also useful to know where the emphasis each spouse places on such values has arisen—particularly whether these values have been passed on over many generations or have arisen out of each spouse’s own life experiences.

Finally, it is important to recognize that almost regardless of what individuals say about their values, it is the ways in which they relate to each other and to the world that not only reflect their values but carry them forward into the future. It is, of course, not what parents tell their children that is internalized by the children as much as the ways in which the parents relate to each other, to the children, and to the world.

These 15 premises comprise the foundation for my approach to the assessment and treatment of couples, which I describe in the chapters that follow.

_______________