Admidst the terrible moments of high conflict, or the more usual moments of daily dulled marital distance, it is common for both partners to nurse an underlying feeling that the other is “the enemy” or “an enemy.” This kind of thinking or “attituding” is the primitive underbelly of many marital relationships. This is an aspect of “core functioning” or “core self” that probably has its roots in the primitive fight/flight emotional centers of the brain. When we remind ourselves that, in fact, our partner is not the enemy, we are then drawing upon the resources of “outer functiong” or “outer self” which likewise is probably derived from higher cortical functions in the brain.  Such a shift in perspective is, by itself, valuable because it sets the stage for a taking down of polarization and the reactivation of emotional connection. 

More than most psychotherapists that I know, I am indebted to psychoanalytic roots. I personally love the study of unconscious dynamics, psychodynamic conflict, transference/countertransference, dreams, and object relations, to name just a few fertile areas of psychoanalytic thought. However, as a therapist who typically works in a once or twice weekly model, I also have the therapist’s committment, as distinquished from the five times per week psychoanalyst, to accurately distill what is most essential in psychological theory for effective positive change/growth in our patients lives.

As most other current day therapists, I have long believed that it is relationship that heals. Said differently, since emotional problems are created in relationship, it makes sense that they are healed in relationship. To distill things further, it is attachment that provides the skeletal foundations to relationship. Perhaps it is a bit of an overstatment, but not by much, to say “so goes attachment… so goes relationship.” What this understanding suggest is that an effective working with deep attachment dynamics is the surest way to bring about the deepest therapeutic change, whether it be with individuals, couples or groups.

Though I honor my psychoanalytic roots with ongoing deep attention to unconscious transference and countertransference dynamics, I count myself among that minority of therapists who believe that the therapy relationship is itself, a deeply real relationship; it is every bit as real, often more real, as our patients have in their outside lives. It is my understanding that human beings have a particular ability to make deep human contact every bit as real anywhere else in their lives, even though the context for the interaction is professional fee-for-service. Perhaps akin to the “willing suspension of disbelief” that occurs in the appreciation of literature/movies/plays/video games/virtual reality, the human attachment with the therapist is fully real at a deep psychological level. From this perspective, when either patient or therapist minimize the therapy relationship because “I pay you” or because “I only see you an hour or two a week” they in fact are engaging in “attachment defense” likely analogous to how they defend against attachment wounds in their life generally.

Amidst a conversation with Nancy Aikin PhD & Paul Aikin PhD of Davis CA, the topic of “shame” came up, especially the question as to whether shame is a primary emotion or a secondary reactive emotion.

Nancy made a very intersting point; that shame is reactive because it emerges from  “fear of reaching out.” Upon reflection, this view is compelling because… every situation of shame that I am aware of in patients and friends is hugely helped by vulnerable reaching out to others who are empathically safe. This fits with a generally understood distinction between shame and guilt; that guilt results when we view ourselves to have caused hurt/suffering to others, whereas shame is connected to how our behavior or very being appears deficient/negative/bad in the eyes of others watching on (or potentially watching on). That our reaching out for reassurance or expression of need would be met with disregard, coldness, correction, criticism, punishment, disdain, or contempt. A question… is shame the inevitable feeling when we cannot reach to other for fear of such consequences?

As I have recently steeped myself in the attachment literature on marriage I am reminded once again of certain fundamental understandings regarding the marriageofopposites. One such understanding is that the pursuer’s escalation into anger/rage is founded upon a desperate seeking of positive attachment reasurance and is not, at base, a desire to hurt anyone. When the pursuer encounters emotional walls in the distancer they enter into an internal crisis within themselves regarding their inner feeling of attachment safety; even mild walled-off-ness can evoke within the pursuer, often unconsciously, a sense that love has gone away and nothing of emotional connection remains. Their confrontive escalation, which often begins is a toned-down fashion but can quickly escalate when met with defensiveness, is simply an attempt to “shake the other person” into their “proper” emotional attachment senses, and come forth with concern, warmth and empathy. Of course, it all plays out terribly wrong and damage ensues for both partners, but that is not the fundamental intent.