Systemic psychotherapy for married couples read. Family psychotherapy with spouses. Conditions of change and techniques of structural therapy

Family communicative psychotherapy Within the framework of a systemic approach, family communicative psychotherapy is distinguished, which grew out of the Palo Alto school. Leading figures are G. Bateson, D. Haley, D. Jackson and P. Watzlawick. According to M. Nichols (Nickols M., 1984), communicative

Family psychotherapy of constructs

Family behavioral psychotherapy The theoretical basis for family behavioral psychotherapy is contained in the works of B. F. Skinner, A. Bandura, D. Rotter and D. Kelly. Since this direction in the domestic literature is described in sufficient detail (Kjell L., Ziegler

Family psychotherapy for neurotic, somatoform and psychosomatic disorders Neurotic and somatoform disorders are among the most common neuropsychiatric disorders (Karvasarsky B. D., 1990, 1998; Popov Yu. V., Vid V. D., 1997). Their

Family psychotherapy for schizophrenia Sullivan proposed his own approach, different from the approach of traditional psychoanalysis, to understanding the nature of mental illness - “interpersonological” (Sullivan H. S., 1946, 1953, 1956). In his opinion, schizophrenia in children is

Family psychotherapy for accentuations and personality disorders in adolescents “Family psychotherapy is one of the main methods in adolescent psychiatry, since the main source of psychogenic behavior in adolescents is the family” (Lichko A. E., 1979). Family relationships

Family psychotherapy for addictions According to A. Yu. Egorov, addictive disorders, which include chemical, non-chemical and food forms of addiction, are characterized by six main features (Egorov A. Yu., 2007): 1) dependence, which has an overvalued

Family psychotherapy and family counseling Family psychotherapy is a type of psychotherapy that is aimed at positive changes in relationships between family members, ridding family members of emotional disorders, most pronounced in

Family psychotherapy The significant prevalence of marital conflicts, divorces, alcohol abuse, drug addiction, etc. in families of persons with combat and non-combat PTSD determine the importance of family psychotherapy (FP) as a modification of relationships in

Year of publication and journal number:

Systemic family psychotherapy appeared around the middle of the twentieth century. The first works (Selvini Palazzoli et al. 2002; Haley, 1997) were devoted to families where the child suffered from one or another mental illness - schizophrenia, anorexia. The identified patient was a child for a long time. The work of the pioneers of the systems approach showed that there are no separate children's problems. All the child’s problems are indicators of the problems of the whole family, in other words, the marital relationship – the missing part of the whole. All difficulties in the development and behavior of a child are ways in which relationships in a married couple are stabilized. As a result of therapy, the way the family system functions changes, and the child no longer needs to behave dysfunctionally in order for parents to deal with his problems instead of solving their own. However, marital dysfunction itself has only recently become a topic of psychotherapy. Peggy Papp wrote in 1983: “It is impossible to conduct family therapy with two people who are unwilling to explore their relationship, even if the therapist is quite sure that the child’s problems are inextricably linked to the discord in the marital relationship. …Until spouses can see how their marital problem is related to (the child’s) symptomatic behavior, they will have no incentive to explore their relationship” (Papp, 1998, p. 162). The marital relationship was not a priority for either the couple or the therapist. The priority was the child. Since then, the sociocultural situation has changed (see articles by A.Ya. Varga, G.L. Budinaite “Modern marriage: new trends” in this collection). Now the marriage relationship has become important in itself.

Getting married and starting a couple's life together is usually a difficult time for spouses. Romance and life under one roof are completely different things. Until there was a common territory and there were no such important signs of intimacy as simultaneous sleeping and eating, a stable new family system did not arise. The common territory is the main organizing component of the new family. During an affair, people are free from the routine of everyday life, they are at a greater distance, which allows them to rest from each other and dream of meetings. When people start living together, they have to agree on a lot of things. Distribution of functions in the family: how to relax and who organizes this vacation, who takes the bathroom first, when to have a child and what is sexually attractive behavior - this is just part of the list. Something that does not cause strong feelings can be easily agreed upon. In the early days of marriage, almost everything evokes strong emotions because everything is a sign of relationship. “I had already gone to bed, and he said that he wanted to finish watching the football. Is this about football or is he already losing interest in me?” “I poured tea for myself first - is this what it will be like now: everything for myself, but nothing for me?” With a high level of trust, you can voice internal concerns and save yourself from many problems in the future. There are things that are practically unconscious. For example, crossing the boundaries of a common territory: under what scenario should this happen? The usual biosocial rules for crossing the border of a common territory: the one who is inside joyfully and affectionately greets the one who comes. The usual expectations of the person who meets you: now the communication will begin. Someone wants to be alone when they come home after a hard day; they need a vestibule to move from work to home.

This, however, does not mean that he does not want to be greeted. He wants to be greeted joyfully and not be offended that he is not yet ready to communicate. It turns out that one person’s delight is met with another’s ignorance. One person believes that such ignoring does not offend and should not affect anything; another person believes that by getting married, a person will change the habits of his single life - for example, he will do without a vestibule. It is very difficult to understand these mechanisms, and even more difficult to discuss them.

Another systemic mechanism concerns the rules of hierarchy. People did not live together, and the question of where whose things were did not arise. When they come together, you need to understand: does everyone have their own cup or not? Is the seat at the table fixed or not? Does a kitchen towel have its own place or can it just lie where it needs to? And most importantly: who decides this? Because whoever sets the rules for living together is the one in charge. The family system is organized according to a hierarchical principle. At every moment of its existence there is a hierarchy in it. In a functional family, the hierarchy is clear and can be easily changed depending on the requirements of the environment. People are able to distribute zones of life and decide who is in charge in which zone. In a dysfunctional family, the hierarchy is either very rigid or is the target of a fight. For example, the wife believes that she is in charge of organizing everyday life, and the husband does not seem to argue with this, but he always walks from the front door to the kitchen in street shoes if he brings purchases. This is a reason for a quarrel, because the wife convincingly asks to leave street shoes in the hallway. She believes that not obeying her rules means that her husband does not respect her. And the husband works a lot, supports his wife and expects that she will appreciate it: for example, ask him for money, squander it, have sparkling sex after such sweet madness. But she doesn’t like to be in a dependent position, she saves her husband’s money, tries not to spend it on herself, and compensates for her dependence by creating complex rules for organizing everyday life. It is clear that the husband also believes that his wife does not respect him, since she finds fault with little things. People feel discomfort in communicating with each other, and this further upsets them, because they connected for happiness and joy, and not for grief.

For the functional development of a newly created family system, three components must be realized.

1. Optimal amount of divided information. To experience intimacy, trust and comfort in living together, people living together must have the feeling that they know a certain amount and basic information about each other (about a person’s past, significant events in his life, his relatives, friends, colleagues), and current information (about how the day went, how the person feels, how he feels about his partner). Through experience, people come to determine this amount of information and understand the priorities in this zone - what should be reported first. For example, F.M. Dostoevsky wrote a lot in letters to his wife about the state of his health and the details of his intestines; M.I. Kutuzov, who was rarely at home, gave orders about the housework; Alan Milne wrote an autobiographical novel, Two, in which the action begins with the hero telling his wife that he has written a novel.

“Reginald Wellard filled his pipe while he waited to hear what his wife would say. And he waited.

- Just think about it! - she said.

Reginald, for some unknown reason, suddenly wanted to justify himself.

“After all,” he said, “a person needs something to do.”

“Darling,” Sylvia smiled, “I don’t blame you.”

It’s not at all clear what these two are doing together. Meanwhile, this is, in a sense, a description of a happy marriage, only the maximum degree of intimacy for this couple will seem like a distance for many.

Now communication technologies have changed, contact has become very simple - the Internet and mobile phones make it possible to be in constant contact. In my opinion, this does not promote intimacy. A certain ersatz is created: people who are separated can keep Skype on and create the illusion of complete togetherness - they eat while watching their partner on the screen, and sleep with the screen turned. This does not help them get to know each other deeper. The beauty of separation is that people, freed from the need to immediately react to messages they receive, can create thoughtful messages and reread those received, calmly understand them, without allowing emotions to cloud their consciousness.

In addition, the couple “agrees” on who is more open. In one marriage, the distribution was as follows: the wife tries to tell her husband everything, and when the husband listens to her carefully, both are happy. It is not required that the husband talk in detail about how his day went. Problems arise when the husband does not listen to his wife. In another family, it is considered correct when both spouses share significant information. It is important to agree on who is responsible for understanding: who gives the message or who receives it. In one married couple, the husband, a great scientist, is a priori considered excluded from everyday life. The wife is not able to understand what he is doing, and she is generally not interested in it. The wife organizes home life, for example, asks her husband to make certain purchases. Then the husband receives a detailed list with instructions and the wife also calls along the way. In their life together, the wife is responsible for understanding.

2. A certain amount of shared experience. If people only communicate, but do nothing together, this is a virtual romance. If people only do things together - make love, eat and have fun, but know little about each other - these are companions. For some couples, the experience they have together at home and in the store is enough, for others it is necessary to relax together and have fun, for others it is meaningful to communicate with friends and/or relatives. The main thing is that priorities coincide.

3. General picture of a favorable future. Spouses must understand why they are together, and understand more or less in the same way. To give birth and raise children is the most common reason for marriage. Children give a lot of meaning to this enterprise, structure the life of the spouses, fill it with worries and joys. They often become the “undertakers” of the marriage - they transfer the spouses to the state of parents irrevocably. Recently, children have ceased to be a universal justification for marriage; many specific reasons have begun to arise, and marriage itself has become fragile. That is why the overall picture of a favorable future is a much-needed stiffener. A couple has approximately the same idea of ​​how well they will live in the summer, in a year, and in old age. This understanding of “good” includes the appearance and future of children, and how to take care of relatives, how to relax, whether to increase one’s wealth, how to provide for one’s old age, etc.

In addition to these three components, in a functional marriage, communication between spouses must be arranged in a certain way.

Any social system is permeated with communications, literally flooded with them. The fact is that in a human group, communication is identical to behavior. There is always behavior, there is no “non-behavior”. According to systems theory, all behavior carries information (Vaclavik et al., 2000). In fact, spouses are immersed in interaction and communication, whether they want it or not. It is impossible to avoid communication. Thus, being in a group, even if it consists of two people, a person is in the information field. He constantly gives and receives messages. Refusing to communicate is also a message. The more closely connected people are in a group, the more information they exchange. Not only words, tone of voice, gestures and facial expressions are informative, but also any change. For example: “I used to call a couple of times during the day from work to find out how things were going, but now I don’t call at all.” “She used to kiss me when she saw her off to work, but now she just says ‘bye’.”

In a functional family, changes are discussed; in a dysfunctional family, changes are often not discussed. Zones of silence arise; people prefer not to check their versions of what is happening, but to accept them as the truth. For example, a husband calls his wife from work and asks her to take some documents from her desk drawer and read them to him over the phone. When the wife put the documents back, she discovered photographs of her husband with a certain woman. The erotic nature of their relationship left no doubt. The relationship in this married couple is conflictual. The wife is financially completely dependent on her husband. The family has four children. The wife gets very upset, sobs quietly so that no one notices, greets her husband as usual, but from that moment on she stops making love to her husband. The husband, after making a couple of attempts, retreats and does not ask his wife about the reason for her behavior. The spouses begin to move away from each other, go to different rooms and live this way for several years. At some point, the couple goes to a family therapist due to their son’s compulsive masturbation. During therapy, the above situation emerges. The wife explains that she did not ask her husband anything because she was sure that he would not say anything and, in addition, would be angry and go to that same woman. And the husband did not discuss his sex life with his wife because he believed that he was “denied by his body” because he was a bad lover. It is clear that people attribute meaning to any behavioral manifestation. They can be adequately understood only in the context of a specific communicative situation. For example, symptoms of diseases carry certain messages and make sense in a communicative context. Everyone knows well the stories about how a wife has a “headache” in order not to have sex. The head really hurts, perhaps due to tension and anxiety associated with the fact that, based on some signs, the wife “understood” that her husband intended to make love today, the wife does not want this, and is afraid to say about it, because the husband may be offended , but I don’t want conflict, and I don’t want sex either, but it’s not clear what to do, this is where I get headaches. You can take a pill for a headache and have a difficult conversation with your husband about how to reorganize this very sex so that your wife wants it more often. Or you can not take the pill, complain about a headache, get a portion of sympathy from your husband and, mind you, no sex. And by the way, no difficult conversations about this. And my husband is happy, because he didn’t really want it. So the headache becomes a meaningful message in a certain communication system. In systems theory, mental illnesses are also considered to be messages. Symptomatic behavior corresponds to the communicative system in which it occurs. As soon as the rules of communication are changed, symptomatic behavior changes until it completely disappears (Varga, 2009). Human communication has a number of features and properties.

1. People use both digital and analogue modes of communication. Words, their spelling, naming things, phenomena, etc. are digital communication. It bears no resemblance to the signified. Why does "k-o-r-o-v-a" mean cow? No resemblance to a real animal. In digital code, even roosters from different countries crow differently, although it is clear that they make the same sound, and the language “digitizes” this sound in its own way. Nonverbal communication is analog communication, it is the language of facial expressions and gestures, tone of voice. In cases where communication is directly related to emotional interaction, it becomes “more analogue”. In communication, both communications are combined and complement each other.

There is no precision in analog “statements”; many signals need explanation: tears of grief or joy? clenched fists from pent-up aggression or from embarrassment? Digital text can help clarify the situation. Verbal statements reflect emotional states very approximately. They subtly convey the meaning, but rather roughly - the shades of relationships. In the wonderful film “Divorce Italian Style,” a wife in love constantly asks her husband: “Do you love me?”, and he wearily answers: “Yes, dear.” Clearly, this is not enough for her, because the statement is not supported by analog text. Then the wife asks: “How do you love me?” Difficulties in “translating” from one communication to another arise constantly. People are in a serious romance and would like to spend their lives together. To marry or not? Courtship, love relationship– analog field. Marriage registration, marriage contract – digital field. The difficulty of this situation was defined by Jay Haley: people cannot understand: they are together because they want to or because they have to. An analog utterance reflects the internal state of the speaker and may contradict a digital text. We find ourselves in such a contradictory situation very often.

An example of a pathogenic contradictory message was described by Gregory Bateson's group (2000).

The group observed families of children who suffered from schizophrenia and discovered a certain pattern of interaction, which they called the double bind (“double bind”, we use the term “double trap”). This is an incongruent message that is constantly coming to the child (on the digital level there is one information, on the analogue level it is exactly the opposite) message in a situation where he cannot leave communication. The work was carried out in 1969, when everyone - both therapists and clients - was interested in families with children. It was then believed that a constant “double trap” could give rise to schizophrenic behavior in a child.

Bateson gives an example: a boy suffering from schizophrenia is in the hospital, and his mother comes to see him. She is sitting in the hall. He comes out to her and sits down next to her, close. She moves away. He withdraws and is silent. She says: “Aren’t you glad to see me?” And he adds: “You shouldn’t be ashamed of your feelings, dear.” Here's what happens: on one communicative level she shows him that she would like to increase the distance, while on another - verbal - she does nothing of the kind. And when he reacts to the non-verbal level, he receives condemnation and a negative reaction. And leave communication, i.e. No child can leave their parents. The younger the child, the more difficult it is for him to even think about leaving this field, because he is vitally dependent on his parents. Besides, he is always simply attached to them. No matter what the parents do, the child is completely emotionally connected to them until a certain age. Since no reaction of the child is correct, he becomes autistic because he cannot be adequate. He simply goes out of touch.

There are many situations of contradiction between digital and analog methods of communication in a married couple. He says he misses him, but is in no hurry to go home. He says that he loves, but does not strive for sex. Doesn't make eye contact or talk, but says everything is fine. Incongruent communication creates anxiety and confusion. It is very difficult to discuss such a situation, because the person has the feeling that maybe he is just paranoid himself, which is what the spouse told him (her) a hundred times when he (she) tried (tried) point out contradictions: “I always love you, but I don’t want to have sex today.” “I love talking to you, I just really want to sleep today.”

2. All communication exchanges can be either symmetrical or complementary. This feature of communication was first noted by Bateson in 1935. He described two options for the interaction of different cultural communities. One option is the relationship of complementarity. They arise when the aspirations and behavior of two groups differ. Let's say one group behaves aggressively, and the second is submissive. If these behavioral patterns are persistently preserved, then we can talk about complementary schismogenesis. The differences are growing: on the one hand, aggression is increasing, and on the other, submission. They reinforce each other, and seizure, Anschluss, annexation, expropriation occur. The second option is those cases when the behavior of two groups is the same and their interests are the same. Then, with symmetrical schismogenesis, we see a mutual increase in, say, aggression and, ultimately, war. Or the parties behave peacefully and want to cooperate, then we see ideally a united Europe, general disarmament, a nuclear-free world.

The same features of communication are characteristic of paired interactions between people. With a complementary pattern of interaction, we see pairs: executioner - victim, self-affirmation - submission, boasting - admiration, etc. As differences grow, one member of the couple constantly adapts to the other and loses himself in the relationship. He ceases to understand his desires, motives, aspirations, and is not aware of his inner content. Just as with the increase in complementary schismogenesis of groups, two equal countries are replaced by a metropolis and a colony, so in a pair, instead of two different people, what Murray Bowen called an “undivided ego-mass” arises. With symmetrical schismogenesis in a couple, people communicate according to the principle “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” With this interaction, the differences become less and less. Other pairs line up: anger - anger, aggression - aggression, indifference - indifference. People's behavior and aspirations are the same; they are two mirrors facing each other. It is clear that mutual aggression leads to violence in the family, and with mutual non-inclusion or submission, people cannot make decisions, and the dynamics of family life practically freeze.

People are prisoners of communication patterns. Their behavior is subject to communicative logic. In a dysfunctional family, many processes are very rigid. Communication patterns are no exception. Stereotypes of interaction arise, and people follow them. In a functional married couple there are few interaction stereotypes; patterns of symmetry and complementarity change quickly.

3. Every communication has a content and relationship aspect. Communication not only conveys information, but also influences behavior. Sometimes communication is divided into descriptive and incentive. Imagine a device. There is a description of it - a substantive aspect. There are instructions - what you need to do in order to use it - this is the incentive aspect, or information about information. In human communication, everything works the same way, but it looks more dramatic. The incentive aspect of communication, or information about information, shapes people's relationships.

The husband purposefully gets drunk while visiting. The wife threatens to go home alone. This is the content of the message, the information itself. The husband is touched in response and reaches out to kiss, i.e. gives information that he did not take the threat seriously. “I'm not kidding” is information about information.

More often than not, information about information is hidden in communication. Interesting examples quoted by I. Utekhin: “Where do you leave your socks again, you never turn off the light in the kitchen, why do you always have to clean up after you, there are crumbs on the tablecloth, the trash is not taken out...” (Utekhin, 2004, p. 1).

Information about information are the words “always”, “never”, “again”. Utekhin summarizes them in one word: “how long?” One educates, and the other is a victim of education if he accepts reproaches. Metacommunication determines the status arrangement in a couple. One is “higher”, he educates, the other is an object or victim of education, he is lower in position. If we single out “bare” metacommunication, it looks like this: “I see myself as the main one in contact with you at the moment.”

The victim is in the complementary position. It doesn't matter whether she apologizes or grumbles back. If there is no reciprocal aggression, then the motivating response is: “I see myself as subordinate in contact with you at the moment.”

The answer may be different. “If you say another word, I’ll leave, beat you, and won’t do anything.” In this case, the partner’s position is symmetrical and the incentive aspect of communication is as follows: “No, I see myself as the main one in contact with you at the moment.”

It is very important that the incentive aspects of communication exchanges are very dynamic. They really only “play” in the moment. If the relationship is difficult and conflicting, then the motivating aspects are the determining and most important, and the substantive aspects are unimportant.

In system theory, there are three options for the incentive aspect of communication.

1. Confirmation of self-determination.

I see myself as such in contact with you at the moment – And I see you exactly like this in contact with me at the moment..

In everyday life it looks, for example, like this: “Does this haircut really suit me?” - “Yes, dear, you are beautiful.”

2. Denial of self-determination.

I see myself like this in contact with you at the moment - But I don’t see you like this in contact with me at the moment.

“Does this haircut really suit me?” - “Nothing suits you at all” or more softly: “The haircut is good, but you still need to lose weight.”

3. Ignoring self-determination.

I see myself as such in contact with you at the moment - I don’t see you.

“Does this haircut really suit me?” - “Move away, please, you’re blocking my TV.”

Denial and disregard for self-determination hurt, especially when it comes from significant others.

4. The communication process is perceived differently by the parties involved; Each person develops his own reality. Different people always have different pictures of the sequence of events. In systems theory this phenomenon is called different punctuation sequence of events. The two got into a fight in the street. They were brought to the police station and interrogated. One reports: “The fight started when he hit me back.” For him, the event was not that he hit a person, but that he received a blow in return. In life we ​​encounter this all the time. The husband complains that his wife grumbles all the time. The wife complains that her husband does nothing at home. The wife comes home and sees her husband sleeping on the sofa and his socks lying on the floor. She wakes up her husband, reproaches him for throwing his socks around, and takes the socks to the wash. The husband is dissatisfied that he was not allowed to sleep, that he was rudely awakened, and reports that he will not get up from the sofa today. The wife grumbles, but she brings dinner to him on the sofa, takes away the dirty plates and continues to grumble. For the wife, the sequence of events is as follows: lies - lies - lies. For the husband it’s different: grumbling - grumbling - grumbling.

It is clear that different punctuation patterns are patterns of reinforcement exchange. This is how the union of hypo- and hyperfunctional is formed. They can't live without each other and encourage each other, even if they don't like it. If the wife didn’t wake him up, didn’t grumble and didn’t do anything for her husband, then, you see, he would get up from the sofa. And if the wife persisted in her sweet idleness, then the husband would become more active, and the wife could throw her tights everywhere.

People usually argue about the punctuation of the sequence of events. This happens all the time in the office of a systemic family psychotherapist. It is very difficult to convince people not to look for common punctuation, but to be interested in everyone's picture. Sometimes this is difficult for a psychotherapist too. He may lose neutrality and accept the version of one side. The salvation from this is to move away from the linear punctuation of one person and move towards a circular vision. In this case, the therapist takes into account the mutual reinforcement that occurs each time an interaction occurs. There would be no surrender if there was no first blow. In addition, the therapist takes into account all communication contexts. The hypofunctionalist is pleased when he is served; he sees this as a sign of care and love. And the hyperfunctionalist likes to realize that he is needed and omnipotent.

5. Paradoxical ways of interaction may arise in communication. People were very interested in paradoxes. The famous paradoxes of the ancient world have not yet been forgotten, for example: Achilles and the turtle or the island of Crete, where everyone is a liar. Paradoxical communications are placed in a separate class and called pragmatic (Vaclavik et al., 2000).

Pragmatic paradoxes are a sphere of daily human communication. There are paradoxical instructions. For example, a parent tells a child, “Don’t be so obedient.” If a child starts acting up, it means that he is obedient. If he continues to behave well, then he has not fulfilled the order. The child is at a dead end. Or a girl says to her lover: “Be powerful with me.” All clear. If he begins to fulfill her request, then the power is in the hands of his beloved, and if not, then he will not fulfill the request. Or: “You have to be spontaneous.” Paradoxical instructions destroy activity.

The paradox is that a symmetrical response within a complementary interaction is required.

The double trap also falls into the realm of pragmatic paradoxes. At one communicative level one instruction is given, at another - the opposite, and, in addition, there is a ban on leaving contact, on disobedience. Stay there, come here, that's an order.

Communication paradoxes are not limited to individual messages. Most often this is a whole detailed scenario of behavior. For example, a person who passionately wants to be loved will most likely not achieve this goal. The very need to “be deeply loved,” especially if it is a priority need, contains a paradox.

Let's say this person is married or in other serious relationship. He wants to be loved, which means he carefully monitors and counts signs of love in communication with his partner. Moreover, a person who passionately wants to be loved has identified for himself those behavioral signs that indicate the strength of his partner’s love.

1. Signs of caring: gifts, provision of various assistance (those who are more modest need only receive help after making a request; those with more imagination expect that they will help him without asking), service - who needs what: coffee in bed, shoes clean, rub the back...

2. Signs of passion - usually this is sexual interaction. It is believed that if a partner loves deeply, it means that he constantly wants sex and tirelessly and variedly engages in it and - most importantly - experiences pleasure not from his own feelings, but from the positive emotions of his partner. This is where things sometimes get complicated. Sex from the category of profane is transferred to the category of sacred - it is a kind of special action and a special sensation, the essence of which is roughly formulated as follows: my body is a temple; Having known him, you have partaken of the holy mysteries. For apostasy (treason) - death. When the sexual ritual is performed, “gardens bloom all over the earth” and all living things become fruitful and multiply.

Complex signs of great love are usually from the mystical realm. Well, firstly, this is a special understanding, without words and better in advance. You’re just about to think, and she’s already... Likewise, your views on life and people should coincide down to the smallest detail.

Secondly, the love of a partner withstands all tests. It is clear that tests must be arranged, otherwise it is impossible to test the power of love. The test can be anything; drunkenness, bad temper, bad habits. The main thing is not how a person behaves, but how he thinks strategically. A test occurs when a person, testing the love of another “for strength,” fundamentally refuses to meet the expectations of this other, who loves deeply, and often tries to do it “out of spite.” Love me, little black, and everyone will love me, little white.

The person who is focused on whether he is loved much is actually focused on himself, on the process of obtaining psychological benefits, i.e. is in an egocentric consumer position. The reality of the other person, the one from whom he wants to receive this benefit, is ignored - sometimes grossly, sometimes subtly. There is no full communication, no dialogue, no partnership. A person wants love and, being rude, behaves in a repulsive manner. The other person, who is assigned to the role of the lover, has no idea that he is participating in the test of love. And he cannot find out - then the whole point of checking is lost. This is the paradox.

There are also many paradoxical interactions in the psychotherapeutic process. The paradox may also be contained in the very request for help. Clients both want and fear change. Therefore, the frequent subtext of the appeal is: “Let’s change everything, but in such a way that nothing changes.”

In a functional marriage, the subtext does not prevail over the text; symmetrical and complementary exchanges change flexibly. Communication is dominated by confirmation of self-perception if it is positive, and disconfirmation if it is negative. There is practically no such thing as being ignored. There are no double traps, communication is congruent. Paradoxes are used mainly to make jokes, and if not, then people can discuss this situation. In addition, spouses understand that everyone has their own reality, even if they are talking about the same event. It is difficult to know her; it is difficult for people to understand each other in general. In a functional marriage, there are irreconcilable differences in views, values, and preferences.

In the psychotherapeutic process it is impossible to do without communication analysis. Such analysis is itself metacommunication. During this analysis, spouses begin to see different punctuation of events, incongruent messages, and different incentive aspects of communications. It becomes clear how paradoxes work and how difficult it is to accept differences and admit that differences do not interfere with living well together.

A good marriage is one where both people understand that together they expand the capabilities of each, creating a life that one would not be able to create for himself. This concerns not so much the material component as the emotional, psychological and biological. You can have and raise children together, create joy and care for each other, pleasant experiences that people cannot get with strangers. Understanding, syntony, sympathy and comfort, emotional support - these are what people can receive from each other in marriage. In ordinary life, at different moments, marriage can be both functional and dysfunctional, especially when people are affected by strong and/or long-term stressors.

Stress for a family arises every time when moving from one stage of the life cycle to another, because the human environment, the structure of the family changes, and new tasks arise that are not very clear how to solve. In addition, illness, moving, and changes in the economic situation in any direction are stress for the family. It is clear that the family is also affected by all the social stressors that affect the entire society. Stress increases anxiety and discomfort for every person in the family. Each family has its own psychotherapeutic potential, which determines the degree of effectiveness of coping. If in difficult times spouses unite and help each other, then stress is overcome quickly, and the psychotherapeutic potential of the family is high. If stress leads to mutual accusations, conflicts and distancing, then we can talk about low psychotherapeutic potential. A dysfunctional family is usually not resistant to stress. In addition, a dysfunctional family has internal stressors - these are the relationships of the spouses with which they are dissatisfied. Their psychological needs are frustrated. They try to reduce personal stress, reduce anxiety - most often through attempts to achieve a higher position in the family hierarchy. If we consider marital relationships, then in a family that is under stress, as a rule, there is a struggle for power and control. A person with frustrated needs hopes that, having taken the main position in the family, he will be able to fulfill his needs. His partner wants the same for himself. The struggle for power takes the most bizarre forms and often affects the three main areas of family life - raising children, sex life and financial strategies. How can you understand that you are in charge? They listen to you, they obey you. For some, submission in some areas of life is enough, for others, total submission is necessary. The more frustrated the needs of the spouses, the tougher their struggle over whose rules to live by. With the growth of symmetrical schismogenesis, the very expression of a need in any form gives rise to disobedience and refusal. Relationship formula for power struggles: if you want it, you won't get it. The struggle for power in its emotional structure may well replace love - emotions are intense, simultaneous, and there is intrigue: who will win the fight? According to the law of homeostasis (Bertalanffy, 1973), the struggle for power becomes a system-forming factor. She begins, in a sense, to define family identity: we are in a clinch, not to be confused with hugs.

In any long-term dysfunctional family there is bound to be a struggle for power and control. If it weren’t for her, the spouses would be able to meet each other halfway. Sometimes such couples reach a psychotherapist. They themselves are exhausted by their lives - it is impossible to separate, because the one who leaves the battlefield is considered a loser. “UN blue helmets” are needed, otherwise the marriage may be nothing but ruins, and there will be no winner. The spouses resort to psychotherapy and even say that they would like to improve their relationship, but this is not the main thing. The most important thing is to change the relationship in such a way that you do not end up capitulating. It is difficult to work with such couples because they, as a rule, do not follow instructions. Everyone is afraid that the other will think: you are ready to listen to a psychotherapist, maybe you will listen to me too? And then I will achieve...

For a psychotherapist, the main danger in this situation is to begin to participate in the struggle. One order was not fulfilled, I will write another one for you. And explain why you didn’t do it? A sign that the therapist is involved in a power struggle is his own frustration, irritation, and desire to force clients to finally get help. If clients do not comply with the instructions, it is of course worth asking them what prevented them and what instructions might benefit them. However, there is no need to delude yourself - if people are fighting for power and control with each other, they will almost certainly want to fight with the psychotherapist. The best help in this situation is the complete surrender of the therapist.

K.'s spouses complained of strong conflicts with each other, which usually arose on weekends. On weekdays, life was stereotypical and distant. The distance made it possible to communicate ritually, predictably, and there was no reason for conflicts. On weekends, they spent more time with each other, facing mutual dissatisfaction and disappointment. The conflict helped not to get closer. If you quarrel on Friday, you can hope that you won’t communicate on the weekend. At the session they discussed how not to quarrel on Friday and have a good weekend.

I asked everyone one question: what could he do himself to prevent conflict from arising. It is important not to focus on what the other spouse could do, because in a power struggle situation this will only provoke additional resistance. My husband said he would cook dinner on Friday. The wife promised that she would take care of some interesting film. They quarreled on Thursday and did nothing on Friday. This happened twice. At the next meeting, I said that I could not help them get rid of conflicts. It is obvious that conflicts have some hidden meaning, that they are very important for their lives. I offered to end the sessions due to the fact that I could not be useful to them. This is a classic Milanese technique that allows one to transfer responsibility to clients and demonstrate the therapist's non-participation in power struggles through a demonstration of incompetence. We decided to meet again, most likely for the last time. After this, it became possible to collaborate with me, and then with each other.

Let's consider the most typical options for dysfunctional interaction in marriage and options for therapeutic prescriptions.

Conflicts. People quarrel and do not make peace. At best, they bypass the conflict and pretend that nothing happened, and then argue again about the same issue. Conflicts don't solve anything. In a situation of conflict, one type of communication begins to predominate and it does not change - either symmetrical or complementary. In these cases we talk about complementary or symmetrical schismogenesis (Bateson, 2000). A complementary increase in differences occurs, for example, when one member of a couple constantly attacks, accuses and reproaches, while the other constantly makes excuses and apologizes. One is always right, and the other is always to blame for everything. In one couple, the husband kept losing his things, not only at home, but also at work, and the wife was always to blame for this. If at home, then “you stuck it somewhere,” and if at work: “you called me at the wrong time, distracted me, and so I lost it.” With a symmetrical split, aggression meets aggression and conflicts become dangerous to health. It starts with a scream and ends with a fight. Where do conflicts come from? They arise from a conflict of interests when it is impossible to find a compromise. People marry with certain needs. Both hope marriage will improve their lives. No one gets married to suffer. Joy, comfort, peace, delight, trust and similar emotional experiences are the function of marriage. People hope and desire to experience precisely these states and, if possible, nothing other than these states during their life together. For each person, the required states arise in different ways and from different sources.

One universal way is to become infected with all this beauty from a partner. He admires you, is touched, experiences sexual arousal from you, delight, etc., and you do the same in return. This is not bad, unless the roles are rigidly fixed, if the spouses produce uplifting states in turns. And if only one spouse always does this, then pretty soon he begins to feel unappreciated and used and can no longer breathe love into the relationship.

Another difficult point is that people do not always know what they themselves need to do or what their spouse can do in order for the desired states to arise. There is a harmful mythology of love: people believe that if there is love, then everything works out by itself. This ease, ease and hand-made happiness is a sign of “true” love, but if relationships have to be built, if understanding does not arise at the snap of a finger, then this is all wrong, and the relationship should not be cherished and developed.

In reality, depending on the experience of love that a person received from his parents in childhood, he develops love preferences, the signs of love he perceives, and his own loving behavior in the broad sense of the word. For a couple, these signs partially coincide. If it weren't for this, they wouldn't be able to make a couple. But many signs and manifestations do not coincide. Full of good intentions and good feelings, people express love, but these messages do not reach their recipients. When people don't receive enough love from their partner to feel good, they become sad, angry, and anxious. People express their bad feelings, reproach and blame - all this aggravates the situation. If bad health occurs more often than good health and lasts longer than good health, then spouses begin to have doubts about their own life choices - what to do with such a disappointing experience?

Conflicts arise due to any disagreement, tension, stress, or poor health. The usual circle of interaction is this: one spouse thinks that the other is criticizing him.

For example:

Matvey returns from a business trip and asks his wife on the phone: “ What wishes do you have for me?».

Zhenya: I want you to be sweet, kind, attentive, gentle.

Matvey: Stupid!

Zhenya - obscene language, tears.

What happened? Matvey expressed his disposition and good will. I thought that he would be asked to bring something back from a business trip. Zhenya said that she wants her husband to treat her in a certain way. At this moment, the event begins for Matvey - the quarrel arises right now. He hears in his wife’s text, firstly, that his good intentions have been ignored and, secondly, that he is not what he should be, and Zhenya is dissatisfied with him. This outrages him, and he calls Zhenya names. Zhenya believes that she simply made a playful remark with erotic overtones. For her, the event began with the fact that Matvey, out of the blue, called her names. She is outraged and offended, and she shows it. Conflicting couples always have subtext more important than text. Therefore, as a rule, they do not remember what they quarreled about. The point is not in real reasons, but in the completely unacceptable attitude that each spouse, as it seems to him, receives from the other spouse. This situation is well described by an anecdote: two drunks go to a beer stall to get over their hangover. The stall is closed, and there is a piece of paper hanging on it: “No beer.” One drunk says to another: “Valka is a bitch. I couldn’t simply write: “There is no beer.” You must definitely write: “There is no beer” (pronounced with an extremely mocking intonation).” This kind of misunderstanding occurs in all married couples, but in dysfunctional ones, the development of such quarrels is “malignant.” They do not sort things out, do not reach the metacommunicative level, i.e. they don't have communication about communication. Matvey and Zhenya cannot calm down and peacefully discuss what happened between them. They don't know how to put up. They don't feel safe with each other. It seems to everyone that as soon as they express the need for communication, for reconciliation, this will make a person vulnerable and the partner will definitely take advantage of it. Therefore, after conflicts, they first distance themselves, do not talk to each other, then external circumstances lead them to the need to discuss something specific (“I can’t walk the dog tomorrow morning”) and then they begin to communicate as if there was no conflict. The reasons that led to it and the conclusions are not discussed. Soon everything repeats itself again.

It must be said that for chronically conflicting spouses, the strongest emotions arise precisely during quarrels. They are, of course, negative, but at least they exist, and there is an emotional exchange. When such spouses undergo therapy, a moment inevitably arises when they begin to fear that when the conflicts go away, they will have to separate altogether. They do not understand on what basis they will communicate. If emotions completely disappear from communication, then how to live together?

Therapy. The strategic goal of therapy for conflicting couples is not to stop conflicts, but to create opportunities for metacommunication that will allow spouses to clarify the causes of conflicts and agree on more comfortable interactions. The possibility of such a dialogue is first provided by a transition to another emotional state. It is pointless to build an open dialogue if both spouses are exhausted by their suffering, sick with mutual mistrust and unfair to each other. First, it is necessary to artificially create safe areas of interaction and accumulate precedents of positive communication. Anxiety and suspicion will decrease, then it will be possible to talk about the vicissitudes of love. These safe zones are created through direct mandate. The therapist asks clients what they like or used to like to do together. Sex is excluded at this stage of therapy as a very emotional interaction. Together with our clients, we are looking for an activity that everyone likes on its own, does not require anything special (like, say, travel), i.e. something that can be arranged easily, without large financial and time expenditures, and is not energy-intensive: walks, watching movies together at home or in the cinema, visiting restaurants, playing cards, dice, any board or electronic games for two, etc. The prescription sounds like “so much -once a week, regardless of whether you are in a quarrel or not, you do this and that” (what they chose together in a therapy session). Usually this softens the atmosphere, and then in sessions it is possible to analyze conflict interaction, revealing subtexts, needs, signs of love read and sent. Then during the sessions it becomes clear how to make peace, how to end an acute conflict. There is also a useful direct instruction here - during a passionate conflict, dramatically change the “picture”, for example, start undressing, wherever the conflict is: in a store, on public transport.

In my experience, the paradoxical prescription of conflicts (“make a schedule of who will be responsible when for the conflict to occur; the “conflict duty officer” should initiate the conflict on a certain day and time, and the second person should note on a large sheet of paper “is it enough “the duty officer acted well”; “efforts” are assessed in points; you need to take turns on duty) reduces their emotional intensity, sometimes even removes conflicts from communication, but often no other emotional interaction takes their place. A couple can simply move from the category of conflict to the category of distance.

To reanimate an emotional connection, so-called “surprise dates” can be useful. Each spouse is asked to ask the other out on a date. The content of this date is invented by the inviter, but he keeps it a secret from the other spouse. You cannot refuse such a date. The idea of ​​this injunction is that each invites the other into his “good and pleasant.” If one member of a couple manages to infect the other with his good condition, then this is the expected result.

“As if” prescriptions are effective. For example, each spouse is asked to choose a secret day during which he will communicate with the other spouse as if he were confident in his kindness, love and acceptance. The other spouse must guess when that day was. The success of guessing and, in general, the analysis of such interaction are discussed with the therapist at the appointment.

Communication instructions are effective either when complementary schismogenesis is clearly expressed in the family, i.e. one spouse is in the rational zone most of the time, the other in the emotional zone, or when communication is very distant.

In the first case, the initiator of communication, as a rule, is the “emotional one.” It expresses some strong emotion, usually negative. It is easier to attract attention with a negative emotion. “Reasonable” responds with explanations or advice.

"Emo": Today I stood in a traffic jam for half a day, I was exhausted, I was late for three places, I cried...

"Intelligence": I told you, take the subway.

“Reason” does not sympathize with “Emo”, and “Emo” does not listen to the advice of “Reason”, so there is no contact between them. The more the rational one is cold and wise, the more the emotional one feels and suffers. The order asks them to switch places: every day they must talk. Each person speaks for five minutes, but “Reason” reports his most powerful experiences of the day, and “Emo” reports his thoughts and considerations. In one case, you need to start a phrase with the words: “I feel...”, in another case: “I think...”. First, it is better to practice directly during the session. A reasonable person loves to say something like: “I feel that I think such and such.” It is usually more difficult for him to move into the emotional zone than for an emotional one to move into the rational zone.

As a rule, conflicts concern three areas of family life - sex, raising children and spending money. Issues of raising children will not be discussed in this article, but sex and money are quite appropriate to discuss. Conflicts over money are a variant of the struggle for power. To keep the struggle going, such couples do not discuss the budget. They often do not know their total income or expenses at all. Even if there are agreements on the budget, they are usually not respected. In a dysfunctional family, money has a symbolic meaning. They, like sex, are good topics for settling scores, convenient battlefields. Money has many symbolic functions and is included in a variety of myths. This is beautifully described in the book “The Secret Meaning of Money.” (Madanes, Madanes, 2006). In addition to the well-known functions - power, control, compensation for damage or a way to relieve oneself of guilt (a person took a walk on the side, bought his wife a gift - and the feeling of guilt goes silent; and the deceived half is happy - she does not know the reason for such a good attitude towards herself ), this is also a way of showing love, as well as a way to humiliate or coerce. Money is often used to relieve anxiety and tension in a marriage, however, only in cases where the spouses have the same attitude towards money. For reconciliation after a conflict, both shopping and going through what you have bought are suitable as therapy.

Attitudes towards money and the subjective meaning of money are brought up and modeled in childhood, in the parental family. Often people handle money in one way or another, copying the financial habits and priorities of their parents. If spouses are fighting over money, the first and easiest thing to do is to compare the money strategies of the parents' families. The money genogram was proposed by David Mumford and Gerald Weeks (Mumford, Weeks, 2003; see Appendix for questionnaire). Often, a conflicting couple combines a spender and a stingy person, or a person who despises money and a person who respects it. For example, one young man believed that there was no need to look for a job based on salary. He said that if the business is right, one that suits him, then the money will come. It’s hard to argue with this, only his wife, who had just given birth to a child - and they rented an apartment, and both of their parents lived poorly and far away - was not ready to wait until either the occupation began to bring in money, or it was announced wrong. The husband was very offended and called his wife obsessed with material things, and she called him irresponsible. And both were right. When it is possible to find out what the difference is in attitudes towards money and what the symbolic meaning of money is for each spouse, as well as what attitude towards money the spouses inherited from their parents, then the conflict regarding money can usually be resolved. People begin to negotiate.

Distant couple. When distancing, communication between spouses is formal and ritualistic. Both positive and negative emotions leave the interaction. As a rule, there is no sex in this couple, or it is impersonal and physiological. Everyone experiences emotions in other situations: with children, with friends, in outside relationships, with relatives. There are certain obligations that spouses fulfill towards each other. Usually there are emotional mediators who unite the distant couple - most often children, sometimes pets. Such a couple seeks help only if something happens to their emotional mediator. A classic of the genre is the symptomatic behavior of a child that unites a married couple, occupies them and does not give them the opportunity to deal with own problems. The scheme is simple: marital relations do not suit anyone, but divorce is not seen as a solution to this situation. The emotional vacuum is filled by the child (lately the child can be replaced by a pet). Children and animals serve the psychological needs of spouses by disrupting their behavior. When an identified patient's symptomatic behavior causes more trouble than it is worth, the family brings him to a psychotherapist. Therapy must remove the burdensome responsibilities of maintaining marital homeostasis from the identified patient and shift them to the couple.

Recently, the same role has been played by a pet. A common dog binds former spouses together after a divorce no worse than a child - “parents” also agree on who goes on vacation and who takes care of the dog. I was in therapy with a family who shared a dog for 11 years after a divorce - two weeks in one family, two weeks in another. The dog was very old when it was taken to the hospital, ex-spouses met there. Each already had another family.

As a matter of fact, it was precisely such couples that were the main clients of the systemic family therapist. All techniques of psychotherapeutic work with married couples developed and described in the 1970–1980s were aimed at introducing greater emotionality and greater spontaneity into the communication of spouses (Sherman, Fredman, 1997; Minukhin, Fishman, 1998). The main idea was that the parental subsystem should not extend into the married life of the couple. Instructions similar to active listening training were popular - one person speaks for half an hour, another listens and does not interrupt, then the listener tells how he understood the speaker. Then they change places. After 40 years, it’s not easy to imagine a person speaking for half an hour. Many long-distance couples say that their most cordial communication happens via email or Skype: “We really love reading each other’s blogs.”

The goal of distant couple therapy is emotional rapprochement. The child has been used for this purpose for centuries, but this did not improve his mental health. Lately, pets have been perfect for this purpose. As one spouse from a distant couple who got a puppy told me: “Now we sit on the floor together and pet the dog, and I call from work in the afternoon to find out how we ate, how we went for a walk.” . The pet becomes the third member of the family, this absorbs the excess anxiety that accumulates in the dyad, and further analysis of communications (which at least arise), expectations, and feelings is possible. Game prescriptions serve the same purpose well. Games (board, card, electronic, city) create an alternative reality in which safe emotional rapprochement can also occur. The game allows you to experience excitement, interest, fun, and all this is not connected with the flow of ordinary life, where everything is frozen.

Adultery. Betrayal is a traumatic event and there is a lot of suffering involved. In some cases, the marriage recovers from this blow and may even become more functional, and in some cases, infidelity destroys the relationship.

The cultural marriage contract assumes that marital relationships are unique, that people create a kind of irreproducibility on the side of their relationships and experiences. As a rule, this includes marital fidelity. This refers not only to sexual communication, but also to love interaction, intimacy in the broad sense of the word. Often intimacy is regarded as something more important. There are couples who do not consider sex on the side to be cheating, but do not put up with falling in love. The main thing is to be the most valuable and dear to your spouse. If this is lost, trauma occurs. The deceived spouse feels betrayed, abandoned, suffers from jealousy, and his self-esteem is usually greatly reduced: “If someone is preferred to me, then this person is better than me.” Treason is a case when people do not have a common experience in an extremely significant area of ​​​​life. The trauma also expresses itself in the fact that the usual course of life is disrupted and the deceived spouse’s understandable picture of the world is destroyed. There is a very big difference in the punctuation of events. The one who cheats has an internally consistent picture: here I have a family and some kind of life is going on in it, here I have some events on the side: a meeting, sex, relationships, then again life in the family, then a meeting with another person ; My wife (husband)’s life goes this way and that way, I know. But the deceived person has a different picture: here comes mine family life Together with my husband (wife), I imagine his (her) life in such and such a way, and then it turns out that in fact everything with my husband (wife) is not going as I thought. The deceived spouse is trying to find out what really happened. Deception is offensive in itself. Detailed and obsessive clarification of all the details begins, down to the most intimate details. The answers are usually not satisfactory. Obsessively and uncontrollably, painful ideas arise about how a husband (wife) makes love with another person, how they laugh at me, how they go to the places where we visited together, how the same gifts are bought and given, “more everywhere". How events will develop further depends on many things. If the deceived spouse is shocked by the very fact of betrayal, does not want to know or understand anything, categorically breaks off the relationship, separates physically, and stops living together, then, as a rule, the marriage is destroyed.

If the betrayed spouse wants to restore the relationship, tries to understand how what happened, is willing to interact despite his suffering, then the marriage can survive. Much depends on how the traitor behaves.

Anna and Peter were married for 9 years. My son is 7 years old. There was good intellectual communication between the spouses, the social aspect of marriage was also valuable to them - they were happy with the way they looked in public, how they interacted with mutual friends. The emotional connection was carried out mainly through the son. Anna did not work, Peter worked a lot and earned good money. The most wonderful time in marriage was when Anna was pregnant and when her son was a baby. There was complete emotional contact, support and mutual admiration. The coalition between mother and son began to develop naturally. Peter was rarely at home, Anna turned out to be a very enthusiastic mother. Peter was at first offended by the lack of attention, then he took a rational and closed position. Anna at first did not notice the change in her husband’s position, but as her son grew older, she began to notice his lack of involvement and formality in communicating with himself. Complementary schismogenesis began to grow: Peter became more and more rational, closed and cold, Anna became more and more emotional and suffering. At some point, Peter met a woman and fell in love with her. He did not hide his affair from his wife. Roman was “nervous”, Peter became very emotional, and this helped Anna create contact with him. He spoke openly about his relationship with another woman, his wife became a mother and confidante. She suffered and rejoiced - she suffered from betrayal and rejoiced at getting closer to her husband. She demanded only one thing: that “this woman” not interfere with the family, not get to know her son, and not try to communicate with her. The husband could not provide this. The mistress somehow got hold of his wife’s phone number, started calling with unpleasant conversations, and met her son. Anna demanded that Peter leave the house. Peter began renting an apartment in a neighboring house, did not take his mistress to live with him, and after a while he wanted to return. At first Anna was glad about this, she hoped that Peter would return not only as a physical body, but also “in heart”, that their emotional connection would strengthen. Peter didn’t want this. He was afraid of reproaches, did not want to feel guilty. So when he decided to return, he set a condition for his wife: “no questions and no conversations - as if nothing had happened.” In fact, he was trying to reproduce the unspoken condition of their marriage contract - “I don’t want to feel anything when communicating with you.” Anna agreed to this, and soon bitterly regretted it. She had already seen her husband very emotional, realized that her husband was capable of feeling, and now wanted his feeling to be directed towards her. She thought that after this whole story, realizing what suffering he brought her, her husband would turn on her in his emotional orbit, double his tenderness and care, and she would finally understand that she was dear to him and that she was the best. None of this happened. The husband returned as if there had been no betrayal. Anna couldn't stand it; having her feelings ignored was more traumatic than being betrayed. The couple separated.

In another family, the scenario of betrayal developed differently. The husband fell in love and left his wife for another woman. After a short time, he realized that he missed his wife and child and began to try to return. The wife resisted for quite a long time, the husband had to win her over and persuade her. In the process of such communication, their emotional connection was restored; now both say that communication has become closer and more trusting than before the betrayal.

The most important thing in the treatment of cases of infidelity is the restoration of emotional contact between spouses, making up for the damage that the “traitor” caused to the other spouse. The second task is to conclude a new psychological marriage contract. The fact is that betrayal, which becomes known, is a message from the cheater to his partner - not always, but often. In the case of Peter and Anna, Peter revealed his relationship to punish Anna - you neglected me, but there was a woman who appreciated me.

An example of re-concluding a psychological marriage contract is the case of Natalya and Yegor. Natalya found a strange SMS in her husband’s phone and demanded an explanation - it turned out that Yegor had an outside connection. The marriage had lasted three years at this point. Yegor was always the initiator of relationships, sought out Natalia, and she seemed to condescend to him. When they got married, life flowed according to Natalia's rules. Yegor gave in to everything, did not complain, did not express his needs. Natalya believed that he was happy with everything and that they had a wonderful marriage. In fact, Yegor suffered from Natalya’s dictates, but he could not change the style of communication, he did not know how. At home, he constantly “stepped on his own throat,” but in his relationship with his mistress, he was in charge. Neither spouse wanted a divorce. They would like to stay together and change their relationship in such a way that infidelity will not arise in the future.

A change in marital relations is only possible if the affair ends. Yegor broke up with his mistress. For him it was not difficult, because there was a slight affair between them.

During the sessions, the couple discussed a lot about how differently they felt in their marriage and how differently they understood what was happening. Natalya shared how she felt when faced with betrayal. It is very important here not to give clients the opportunity to reproach and blame each other. The therapist can reformulate blaming statements, interrupt aggression, and ask to talk only about their experiences. The style of this conversation is a description of feelings. Yegor’s text was structured in the same way when he described his experiences in marriage. These confessions began in sessions, but after three meetings the couple were able to continue this conversation at home. An important stage of therapy is forgiveness. Not all people believe in the possibility of forgiveness, but Natalya and Yegor believed that forgiveness was possible.

Natalya regretted that she was authoritarian and inattentive, Egor regretted that he had an affair on the side. A very important point is signs of sincerity. How exactly do people ask for forgiveness, how to repent so that the other person wants to forgive? A well-known example of repentance in case of betrayal is described in the novel by A.N. Tolstoy's "The Lame Master": a husband crawled on his knees several kilometers from his estate to his wife's estate, and was forgiven. The logic here is clear: I caused harm to you and in order for you to forgive me, I cause harm to myself. It cannot be argued that this is a universal way to ask for forgiveness. It is best to ask each person how they would like to be asked for forgiveness, which could be compensation for the suffering they have suffered. Usually the answer is not found right away. People should listen to themselves, imagine what can be done to comfort them. They often say that you don’t need to ask for forgiveness - you just don’t need to do bad things in the future. In fact, this is a veiled challenge proposal: “You behave differently, and I’ll see how you do it.” Here it is necessary to clarify how long a person must behave correctly so that the spouse is convinced that changes have occurred. It is impossible to repent endlessly. Treason is an episode that had a beginning and an end, and if the traitor is asked not to do this again, and it is impossible to ask for forgiveness in any other way, then it means that he is not actually forgiven. This is a subtle point: it is assumed that the person changes his behavior forever, but the period is needed so that after its expiration the episode is considered over, so that the spouses do not return to him at every minor quarrel, so that the mistrust is put to an end. In our case, Egor asked Natalya to change her behavior, which is understandable. The trial was scheduled for three months. We agreed that Yegor would immediately express any disagreement and his needs and desires. Natalya will question him and carefully observe his condition, and in conversations she will clarify her understanding. Egor, as a form of repentance, took Natalya on a romantic trip to distant islands. A year later they had a girl.

Sexual disharmony. Often marital dysfunction manifests itself in sexual disharmony. First of all, attraction disappears. This may be against the backdrop of a wonderful relationship. Esther Perel, a Belgian family therapist, especially known for her work on the treatment of sexual disharmonies, noted that the structure of modern marriage destroys the eroticism of relationships (Perel, 2007). A good marriage is supposed to be a very close relationship, where people are “everything” to each other: lovers, friends, relatives, parents and children. Attraction requires distance; eroticism requires uncertainty, mystery, play, and slight danger. One married couple had a very kind, trusting relationship; they worked, rested, and were sick together. Sex was a compromise: she really loved sex in general, she was experienced in it, but she did not feel any attraction to her husband. The husband, on the contrary, was inexperienced, inept and timid in sex. In addition, his natural temperament was clearly inferior to his wife's. One day they had a big fight and the husband left. The husband's things were left in the wife's house. The wife recalled how desire pierced her. In the morning, her husband, wearing a new cashmere coat that she had not yet seen, burst into the apartment because he urgently needed to pick up some papers before a business meeting. The wife was still lying in bed. He casually said to her: “Hello,” walked energetically to get the necessary papers and, taking them, left, slamming the door. She practically had an orgasm.

People often say that attraction returned when they saw their spouse in an unusual environment, as if new, from the outside. Sex can be combined with intimate relationships if it occurs in a special environment. Mara Selvini Palazzoli offered all couples, whether they were experiencing difficulties in their married life or not, a permanent prescription. It goes like this: “Once a week for a day - get out of the house without children.” This prescription helps to outline the boundaries of the marital subsystem and allows you to make love not at home, where everyday life and worries interfered with erotic moods, but in another place, in no way connected with the home routine. Good sex requires novelty and adventure.

Sex is a mass grave for all sorts of tensions and roughness of married life. He is very sensitive to all the nuances of relationships. There are skewed cultural expectations for men and women. It is assumed that a man is an “iron woodcutter” who wants and can always do whatever you do with him. A woman seems to be a more “subtle creature”, which sometimes gives in to “dirty passion”. Marital sex is usually part of a power struggle.

A very important question is who decides when there will be sex? Who controls a couple's sex life? Who decides which caresses are acceptable and which are not? Often the man controls the money, the woman controls the sex. In one married couple, sex stopped at the insistence of the wife when the husband went broke. The winner in this fight is the one who doesn’t need anything. A highly spiritual being - a wife - would like to use sex as reward and punishment, but then it turns out that a man is not an iron woodcutter, he can do without sex. If you don’t need a prize, then there is no control and no power.

Often, refusing sex is a message that a person is unhappy in marriage. Sexual dysfunction goes away if direct, open dialogue is established. Faina and Ivan were married for six years. Faina always controlled sex, simply because she never needed it. Ivan, however, did not feel rejected, because he had been “saving” Faina for several years. He helped her take care of her sick mother, and Faina was very grateful to him. In general, Faina is a caring and attentive wife. Faina's mother died, and soon Ivan stopped initiating sex. Faina was alarmed and decided that Ivan “had someone.” She began to follow him, checking his phone, email, literally sniffing him. Faina began to actively demonstrate a strong attraction to Ivan and expanded her arsenal of possible sexual scenarios, although previously she had been extremely stereotypical. Although Ivan did not push Faina away, he emphasized that sex did not give him pleasure, that his orgasm was mechanical, physiological. Against this background, they sought psychological help. During therapy, it turned out that Ivan was very offended by Faina, since he was completely exhausted over the years of actively helping Faina, he worked a lot, but Faina never worked. Recently, Ivan’s business has gone downhill, but Faina did not want to go to work, although Ivan asked her about it more than once. Faina believed that she would not earn any noticeable money, since she did not have a profession. Ivan thought that he helped Faina with her mother, not being a doctor, and now, when he needs help, Faina refuses him it. It didn’t matter to him how much Faina earned, but it was important that she respond to his request. When Faina realized this, she went to study to become an accountant, and the couple’s life improved.

Good sex is not measured by the number of orgasms, the length of the penis, or the level of sexual arousal. Good sex in a married couple is measured by tenderness, trust and humor, as well as the absence of a rigid script for sexual behavior. If people can share their fantasies without embarrassment, if they can discuss their feelings online, then sex will develop and be enjoyable for both.

There are often cases when a wife does not have an orgasm from sexual intercourse with her husband. Orgasm occurs only during masturbation. This is just a case of an extremely tough scenario. The husband usually suffers, believing that since his wife does not experience orgasm, then he is a bad lover. The wife explains that she has never experienced orgasm with anyone, but the husband does not believe it, at least he doubts it. All this spoils relationships in general, not just sex. Couple V. turned to a psychotherapist about conflicts. Conflicts arose for various reasons, including sexual ones. It turned out that the wife experiences orgasm only if she stimulates herself with water, and the stream must be of a certain temperature and pressure. It started in adolescence. There has never been an orgasm with anyone other than with water. At the same time, both spouses wanted and hoped to “get” a female orgasm into the marital bed. Both were very upset when this did not happen. The pursuit of orgasm completely ruined sex for them. Such cases have been described in sexology, and the technique for overcoming these sexual stereotypes is quite simple. The idea is to connect the scenario of the wife getting an orgasm to the sexual interaction of the spouses. Both spouses expressed great doubts when I suggested moving lovemaking to the bathtub. The husband said: “Then why should I?”, the wife said: “I can’t do it in front of him.” It turned out to be not about sex, but about ambition and mistrust. When the relationship as a whole became warmer, both began to trust each other more, and then sexual interaction improved. The husband stopped “carving” an orgasm out of his wife, the wife stopped being shy about her husband, and sometimes they made love in the bath, although the wife believed that an orgasm with her husband was not comparable in strength to the orgasm to which she was accustomed. However, it became more of a joke than a source of anger and suffering.

Conclusion. Marriage is a conversation. Everything can be discussed and everything can be agreed upon if you do this. The essence of marital therapy is the facilitation of contact between spouses, as well as the transfer of responsibility for their own well-being to them. Different psychotherapeutic approaches determine only what the conversation between the therapist and the couple will be like and about.

Application

The meaning and significance of money

1. What saying about money have you heard from your parents (“greed leads to poverty”, “a penny saves a ruble”, etc.)?

2. What does money mean to you?

3. What does financial self-discipline and self-restraint mean? What's positive and negative about this?

4. What does it mean to spend too much money, to squander?

5. What does it mean to be stingy?

6. What do you usually regret spending money on?

7. In what cases do you not save? What do you never save on?

8. What are your financial priorities?

9. Who controls spending in your family?

10. What would you like to change in the “money area”?

Money genogram

1. Mom’s financial strategy: how did she spend her money?

2. Dad's financial strategy: how did he spend his money?

3. Which of them is closer to your handling of money?

4. How did you consider yourself as a child - poor, rich, average?

5. What were the financial difficulties in your parents’ family?

6. What lesson did you learn about money from your parents? How much of this is affecting you now?

7. Did your parents have financial success? What was it? What did this teach you?

8. What was your parents' main fear about money? What do you think of him now?

9. When you think about what your parents could do with money, what upsets you most? What makes you most happy?

10. Did your parents have the same values ​​regarding money? What were the differences?

11. Did your parents have common or separate money?

12. Did your parents talk about money? How did this happen?

13. How were financial responsibilities distributed in your parental family? Who paid for what?

14. How did your parents resolve their financial conflicts?

Literature:

1. Bateson G. Ecology of the mind. M.: Smysl, 2000.
2. Bertalanffy von L. History and status of general systems theory // System Research. M.: Nauka, 1973. pp. 20–36.
3. Varga A.Ya. Introduction to systemic family psychotherapy. M.: Kogito-Center, 2009.
4. Vaclavik P., Beavin D., Jackson D. Psychology of interpersonal communications. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2000.
5. Madanes K., Madanes K.. The secret meaning of money. M.: Independent company "Class", 2006.
6. Minukhin S., Fishman Ch. Family therapy techniques. M.: Independent company "Class", 1998.
7. Papp P. Family therapy and its paradoxes. M.: Independent company "Class", 1998.
8. Selvini Palazzoli M., Boscolo L., Cecchin G., Pratta G. Paradox and counter-paradox. M.: Cogito-Center, 2002.
9. Utekhin I. The language of Russian cockroaches // Family ties: Models for assembly. Book 1 / Comp. and ed. S. Ushakin. M.: New Literary Review, 2004.
10. Sherman R., Fredman N. Structured techniques for family and couples therapy: A manual. M.: Independent company "Class", 1997.
11. Haley J. Leaving Home: the Therapy of Disturbed Young People. 2nd ed. N.Y.: Brunner/Routledge, 1997.
12. Mumford D.J. & Weeks G.R. The money genogram // Journal Of Family Psychotherapy. 2003. V. 14. No. 3. P. 33–44.
13. Perel E. Mating in Captivity. N.Y.: Harper, 2007. URL: htpp://www.estherperel.com / (access date: 05/04/2012).

Library of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis – 5

Text provided by the copyright holder http://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=9367539

“Systemic psychotherapy of married couples / Scientific editor and compiler A. Ya. Varga”: Cogito-Center; Moscow; 2012

ISBN 978-5-89353-370-5

annotation

The book is devoted to an extremely relevant topic - psychotherapy of married couples. Modern marriage has been in crisis for several decades - families are breaking up, more and more people are not starting families at all. At the same time, people have by no means lost the need to be in a couple and still experience discomfort from loneliness.

The authors are employees of the Department of Systemic Family Psychotherapy at the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis and have extensive experience working with problem couples. Modern approaches to couples psychotherapy are described and their typology is presented. Techniques given psychological assistance married couples, the issues of psychotherapy of divorce, work with families suffering from alcoholism of their members, changes in the family climate in the family after the birth of children are touched upon.

All sections of the book are written in a lively, accessible language, illustrated with examples, which makes it interesting not only for practical psychologists, but also for everyone who is concerned about the problems of the modern family.

Systemic psychotherapy for married couples

Scientific editor and compiler A. Ya. Varga

Introduction

A. Y. Varga

Marriage seems to be the universal form of adult life together. Over time, he has aged significantly. Now the marriage of teenagers seems strange: “My Vanya / Was younger than me, my light, / And I was thirteen years old,” and the marriage of people who have only a couple of years left to create a child or two seems normal. Throughout the history of mankind, marriage has changed, but never ceased to exist. We know polygamous and polyandrous marriages, we know homosexual unions, and we consider single life to be something “wrong,” especially if we are talking about a young person, and, to be honest, about an older person too.

Most people suffer from loneliness and the concept of happiness is associated with a union with another person, where there are shared joys, mutual assistance, support and love. Over the past ten years, marriage has become very fragile and vulnerable - one might say that it is sick.

Marital psychotherapy is something that heals a marriage or helps it end its existence relatively painlessly for children.

This collection describes various options for systemic psychotherapy for couples. The first article is devoted to the evolution of marriage in the modern world. She explains why marriage has become so fragile and insecure today. It also analyzes possible prospects for the development of marriage and changes in psychotherapeutic paradigms associated with this sociocultural process.

The section “Methods and techniques of marital psychotherapy” presents articles describing both classical approaches to marital psychotherapy (structural psychotherapy, the Virginia Satir approach, communication psychotherapy in a married couple) and post-classical ones (narrative psychotherapy for married couples and solution-oriented short-term psychotherapy). In addition, this section includes: an integrative approach - emotionally focused psychotherapy for married couples, working with couples in the Murray Bowen approach, and also describes a case of team work with a married couple.

The section “Stressors of Marriage Life” describes the most common “harmfulness” of marriage – having children and alcoholism. The last article in this collection is devoted to the death of marriage - divorce and family psychotherapy in the event that one or both members of a married couple believe that further life together is impossible.

All articles, with the exception of the article on alcoholism by David Berenson, were written by employees of the Department of Systemic Family Psychotherapy of the Institute of Practical Psychology and Psychoanalysis. The teachers of the department are primarily practicing psychotherapists, therefore the articles describe today's real psychotherapeutic practice in a huge metropolis.

The collection will be useful to helping specialists, psychology students and anyone interested in the mysteries of modern marriage.