Recognizing the ambiguity and the differences in understanding of the concept of normalcy, it is still safer for the nonmedical counselor to think of his client as temporarily beset by a combination of problems which are beyond him, and as in need of objective exploration, guidance, and kindly assistance, than to assume that his behavior is abnormal and proceed to spin fancy theories about the why's and wherefore's of his deviational behavior or that of the people in his orbit. Where the client's actions do not conform to the concept of normal behavior as commonly held, or where the counselor's knowledge and understanding are inadequate to explain or account for the symptoms, difficulties, and problems he faces, the counselor will do much better to seek psychiatric help than to determine that his client is neurotic or psychotic or to be even more specific in his diagnosis. Seeking medical or psychiatric help will be better for the counselee, too, because if his behavior should be due to some physical, mental, or nervous disorder, he will be put in touch with medical aid without losing what may prove to be precious time.
Psychoanalysts prefer to see only the patient they are working with and, with few exceptions, will not see the other party or parties to the conflict. This pattern has held also for many psychiatrists, although in the last decade there have been more flexibility and experimentation by certain groups who interview the spouse or family members when they deem it constructive. The former procedure is due mainly to two reasons: first, these specialists are primarily concerned with the patient's personal adjustment and they aim to aid him in obtaining his maximum self-realization; second, they believe that the patient will feel threatened and that if he knows his spouse or other family members will be seen, he will fear lest his confidence will thus be violated. The marriage counselor, however, aims at treating the situation as a whole, and the interpersonal relationships of the persons involved. He must, therefore, know the picture as it appears not only to the client who comes to see him, but to the spouse who is intimately involved in the situation. Hence he should endeavor to see the spouse whenever possible. Occasionally it may be necessary to see parents or other family members.
The counselor must be careful, however, to make it absolutely clear that confidences will be respected and under no circumstances should he reveal to one spouse, directly or indirectly, what he has learned from the other unless, as sometimes happens, one spouse requests the counselor to open up a difficult subject which he has found it impossible to do for himself, or unless both spouses give the counselor blanket permission to use any of their material with the spouse as it might seem helpful. The preservation of the client's confidence is at times extremely difficult and requires the utmost caution and self-discipline on the part of the counselor.
Maximum Benefit in the Counseling Process
This requires a recognition on the part of the counselor when a situation is beyond his professional skill and competence. It also requires the possession of a sense of professional security with respect to what the marriage counselor is as well as what he is not equipped to do, so that he will not feel that resorting to other professional skills would be considered an admission of incompetence. Failure to recognize his natural limitations may do incalculable harm to the counselee and may bring discredit upon the counselor. This applies especially to the use of medical, psychiatric, and legal assistance as soon as the need for such assistance becomes evident.
There is probably no single phase of the counseling procedure in which counselors differ as greatly as in the degree of their activity and permissiveness. The counselor must bear in mind that the interview serves several purposes, including that of providing a catharsis for the counselee. This is likely to be nullified if the counselee is not given the opportunity and encouraged to talk freely and fully. Besides, if the counselor does too much talking he may stop the counselee from presenting his story in the most telling way, may give the narrative a different and false direction which in turn may mislead both counselor and client.
Here is another area in which counselors differ greatly. It is impossible to say what the correct procedure would be in a given case because it will depend upon the situation and the personalities involved. This, however, may be said with a fair degree of certainty; those plans are best which emanate from the counselee under helpful guidance and suitable stimulation. Furthermore, the counselee is much more likely to identify himself with and execute a plan which he, himself, has made than to participate in a plan which stems from the counselor, regardless of how intelligent and logical it may be.
Many people who accept the view that compromise is necessary in marriage have a tendency to set rigid and arbitrary standards and limits as to how far they will go in compromising. It is essential to remember that an unyielding attitude or a mechanical and fixed set of rules in what should be a fluid and easy relationship, may lead to disastrous results and that the art of adjustment lies in knowing when to yield and when not to yield. Give-and-take in marriage is a desirable ideal, but it is sometimes better and wiser to give all or take all. The goal should be a flexible arrangement which will take into consideration the values involved in the issue and the personalities, rather than a hard and fast line which is adhered to regardless of the consequence.
There is probably no single phase of the counseling procedure in which counselors differ as greatly as in the degree of their activity and permissiveness. The counselor must bear in mind that the interview serves several purposes, including that of providing a catharsis for the counselee. This is likely to be nullified if the counselee is not given the opportunity and encouraged to talk freely and fully. Besides, if the counselor does too much talking he may stop the counselee from presenting his story in the most telling way, may give the narrative a different and false direction which in turn may mislead both counselor and client.
Here is another area in which counselors differ greatly. It is impossible to say what the correct procedure would be in a given case because it will depend upon the situation and the personalities involved. This, however, may be said with a fair degree of certainty; those plans are best which emanate from the counselee under helpful guidance and suitable stimulation. Furthermore, the counselee is much more likely to identify himself with and execute a plan which he, himself, has made than to participate in a plan which stems from the counselor, regardless of how intelligent and logical it may be.
Many people who accept the view that compromise is necessary in marriage have a tendency to set rigid and arbitrary standards and limits as to how far they will go in compromising. It is essential to remember that an unyielding attitude or a mechanical and fixed set of rules in what should be a fluid and easy relationship, may lead to disastrous results and that the art of adjustment lies in knowing when to yield and when not to yield. Give-and-take in marriage is a desirable ideal, but it is sometimes better and wiser to give all or take all. The goal should be a flexible arrangement which will take into consideration the values involved in the issue and the personalities, rather than a hard and fast line which is adhered to regardless of the consequence.
Flexibility and an Open Mind for Marriage Counseling
The counselor should hold himself free from preconceptions as to the cause of the difficulty, should not jump to conclusions, should avoid hasty and unwarranted generalizations, and should scrupulously avoid preconceived and ready solutions. He must be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it will lead him.
Many persons doing marriage and family counseling, especially those who come to it with a definite religious perspective, find it extremely difficult to maintain unbiased and openminded attitudes. The problem of right and wrong is almost always present in such counseling, and the counselor is hard put to it to avoid rendering value judgments and taking sides, particularly where extramarital sex relations are involved or where other ethical and religious values enter into the conflict between husband and wife. Nevertheless, the counselor should eschew such judgments and hold himself free from prejudice, if he desires to win and hold the confidence of his clients and to be of help to them. The counselor should be careful, however, not to give the impression to his counselee that he, the counselor, is lacking in such values for himself. He should be aware of his own cultural and emotional biases and the emotional blocks they may produce.
This may be due to ignorance, reticence, shyness, or initial lack of confidence in the counselor. Or it may be due to a lack of insight and understanding, or to a lack of courage or emotional inability in facing the facts on the part of the counselee. Occasionally, it may be due to an unconscious or even deliberate attempt to mislead the counselor and get him to take sides or identify himself with the counselee. It is important for the counselor to bear this in mind, or he may be misled by the surface situation, making the problem much more difficult of ultimate solution.
Many persons doing marriage and family counseling, especially those who come to it with a definite religious perspective, find it extremely difficult to maintain unbiased and openminded attitudes. The problem of right and wrong is almost always present in such counseling, and the counselor is hard put to it to avoid rendering value judgments and taking sides, particularly where extramarital sex relations are involved or where other ethical and religious values enter into the conflict between husband and wife. Nevertheless, the counselor should eschew such judgments and hold himself free from prejudice, if he desires to win and hold the confidence of his clients and to be of help to them. The counselor should be careful, however, not to give the impression to his counselee that he, the counselor, is lacking in such values for himself. He should be aware of his own cultural and emotional biases and the emotional blocks they may produce.
This may be due to ignorance, reticence, shyness, or initial lack of confidence in the counselor. Or it may be due to a lack of insight and understanding, or to a lack of courage or emotional inability in facing the facts on the part of the counselee. Occasionally, it may be due to an unconscious or even deliberate attempt to mislead the counselor and get him to take sides or identify himself with the counselee. It is important for the counselor to bear this in mind, or he may be misled by the surface situation, making the problem much more difficult of ultimate solution.
Some Suggested Principles and Guides for Marriage Counseling
At this point it seems desirable, even if repetitious to the seasoned practitioner, to consider some of the important principles, techniques, and processes of marriage counseling. In such a young field of specialization there is little likelihood that any set of guides could meet with general acceptance.
The methods of different counselors vary a good deal of course, but there are basic principles which most accept. One of these is that the counselor's job is not to tell John and Mary Smith what to do, but to help them to find their own solution to their problem. Only a solution that comes from them, out of their own thinking and feeling, is of any use. If the counselor dictated a policy to them, he would be taking over the job of running their lives, imposing his will upon theirs. This he must not do, because the work of the counselor is based upon his respect for the freedom of the individual to manage his own life in his own way, in so far as this is in accord with the welfare of others.
The counselor therefore accepts John and Mary Smith as they are. He makes no attempt to put them under pressure to do what he thinks they ought. Whatever they say, and whatever they do, he continues to respect their individuality. He knows that if he fails to do this he has forfeited the power to help them.
The aim of the counselor is to create an atmosphere in which John and Mary are free to talk of themselves, to bring out their hurt feelings, to unburden their disappointments. He may on occasion see them together, but usually he sees them separately, because if there is conflict between them they will feel freer and more relaxed out of one another's presence.
Some marriage problems can be cleared up in one interview. But that is very unusual. As a rule a series of separate interviews will be necessary with each of the marriage partners. It takes time for John and Mary to gain complete confidence in the counselor; and it takes time for the counselor to get to know John and Mary well enough to give them all the help they need.
The methods of different counselors vary a good deal of course, but there are basic principles which most accept. One of these is that the counselor's job is not to tell John and Mary Smith what to do, but to help them to find their own solution to their problem. Only a solution that comes from them, out of their own thinking and feeling, is of any use. If the counselor dictated a policy to them, he would be taking over the job of running their lives, imposing his will upon theirs. This he must not do, because the work of the counselor is based upon his respect for the freedom of the individual to manage his own life in his own way, in so far as this is in accord with the welfare of others.
The counselor therefore accepts John and Mary Smith as they are. He makes no attempt to put them under pressure to do what he thinks they ought. Whatever they say, and whatever they do, he continues to respect their individuality. He knows that if he fails to do this he has forfeited the power to help them.
The aim of the counselor is to create an atmosphere in which John and Mary are free to talk of themselves, to bring out their hurt feelings, to unburden their disappointments. He may on occasion see them together, but usually he sees them separately, because if there is conflict between them they will feel freer and more relaxed out of one another's presence.
Some marriage problems can be cleared up in one interview. But that is very unusual. As a rule a series of separate interviews will be necessary with each of the marriage partners. It takes time for John and Mary to gain complete confidence in the counselor; and it takes time for the counselor to get to know John and Mary well enough to give them all the help they need.
Some Important Aims and Steps in the Counseling Process
Marriage counseling consists of three major divisions: (1) premarital counseling, in preparation for marriage; (2) marital counseling on problems and difficulties arising within the interpersonal relations of marriage; and (3) counseling with the unmarried, the divorced, and single persons who as yet are unmarried. Counseling of any one of these types may be carried out individually or in groups.
Given the necessary preparation on the part of the counselor which will enable him to differentiate between normal and abnormal behavior in terms of the client's cultural background, there emerges a set of procedures in the counseling process which serve as basic steps. Although these may be considered elementary by the experienced counselor, they are mentioned here for those readers who are not yet sophisticated in counseling, and who hope to prepare themselves to understand marriage counseling. In addition, for beginning professional workers and for those more experienced who wish to take stock of their work, the following aims and procedures may serve as helpful guides to marriage counseling. It should be emphasized, however, that although these steps are used with each partner in the marriage, in marriage counseling the focus of the counseling is on the interpersonal relationship between the marital partners.
Establishment of Rapport: Webster's New International Dictionary defines rapport as "harmony, conformity, accord or affinity, intimate or harmonious relations." Establishment of rapport means, therefore, the development of a close understanding; the development of confidence on the part of the counselee in the counselor. The need for rapport is, of course, obvious if the counselee is to be willing to confide in the counselor and share with him the thoughts, problems, and experiences which have arisen in the marriage relation -- the most intimate relationship known to men.
2. Reduction of Hostility: The counselee is frequently oppressed by the feeling of hostility to the person or persons or situation which he believes to be responsible for his problem. It is important for the counselor to provide the opportunity for and to encourage the fullest possible expression of this hostility because little constructive work can be done until the client frees himself from the weight of this load. This is sometimes referred to as ventilation of feeling or catharsis. This process can be begun by the counselor's making the client feel comfortable in verbally expressing his negative feelings toward his spouse or others involved, whether his feelings are based on fact or fantasy.
3. Development of Insight and Objectivity: The third aim in the counseling process is to develop insight and objectivity in the counselee. This is perhaps the most difficult goal to achieve because emotional disturbance, which is almost always present, hinders insight and objectivity. It certainly cannot be accomplished without good rapport between counselor and counselee. Hence it must follow after or at times be developed simultaneously with the establishment of rapport.
4. Reorientation: Once insight and objectivity are obtained, it is not difficult to lead the counselee to a reorientation toward his problem or problems and the situation. This may mean the development of a new or different relationship to the person or persons involved; or it may mean the avoidance or a more courageous facing or transcending of conflictual situations, as the case may require; or it may necessitate changing his role or behavior; or it may require reorganizing existing relationships. In a sense this means aiding the counselee in re-educating himself so that he may be equal to the new conditions of life which he will have to face, and the requirements they will make on his resources.
5. Development of New Objectives and Perspective: As a result of the reorientation, new goals will have to be envisaged in terms of the new relationship to be established. These must be related to the counselee's needs, his abilities, and his resources, both personal and environmental; to those of his spouse and to the marriage itself. Here it may be well to call attention again to the problem-solving capacity of the individual if properly stimulated by a good relationship with the counselor and a modified relationship to the marriage partner.
6. Implementation: The new objectives and relationship will require ways and means of achieving them. These, in turn, will necessitate carefully considered plans which will be based on all the foregoing considerations. It may be well to emphasize that the planning should be done by the client instead of the counselor. The client should experience the thrill of making and executing these first plans and discuss the results with the counselor as a means of gaining self-confidence in his newly acquired strengths and awareness of inner resources.
The foregoing six elements in the counseling process are not independent of each other. They are, in fact, interdependent in time and psychological development and they may be worked on, to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the situation, almost from the first interview.
Given the necessary preparation on the part of the counselor which will enable him to differentiate between normal and abnormal behavior in terms of the client's cultural background, there emerges a set of procedures in the counseling process which serve as basic steps. Although these may be considered elementary by the experienced counselor, they are mentioned here for those readers who are not yet sophisticated in counseling, and who hope to prepare themselves to understand marriage counseling. In addition, for beginning professional workers and for those more experienced who wish to take stock of their work, the following aims and procedures may serve as helpful guides to marriage counseling. It should be emphasized, however, that although these steps are used with each partner in the marriage, in marriage counseling the focus of the counseling is on the interpersonal relationship between the marital partners.
Establishment of Rapport: Webster's New International Dictionary defines rapport as "harmony, conformity, accord or affinity, intimate or harmonious relations." Establishment of rapport means, therefore, the development of a close understanding; the development of confidence on the part of the counselee in the counselor. The need for rapport is, of course, obvious if the counselee is to be willing to confide in the counselor and share with him the thoughts, problems, and experiences which have arisen in the marriage relation -- the most intimate relationship known to men.
2. Reduction of Hostility: The counselee is frequently oppressed by the feeling of hostility to the person or persons or situation which he believes to be responsible for his problem. It is important for the counselor to provide the opportunity for and to encourage the fullest possible expression of this hostility because little constructive work can be done until the client frees himself from the weight of this load. This is sometimes referred to as ventilation of feeling or catharsis. This process can be begun by the counselor's making the client feel comfortable in verbally expressing his negative feelings toward his spouse or others involved, whether his feelings are based on fact or fantasy.
3. Development of Insight and Objectivity: The third aim in the counseling process is to develop insight and objectivity in the counselee. This is perhaps the most difficult goal to achieve because emotional disturbance, which is almost always present, hinders insight and objectivity. It certainly cannot be accomplished without good rapport between counselor and counselee. Hence it must follow after or at times be developed simultaneously with the establishment of rapport.
4. Reorientation: Once insight and objectivity are obtained, it is not difficult to lead the counselee to a reorientation toward his problem or problems and the situation. This may mean the development of a new or different relationship to the person or persons involved; or it may mean the avoidance or a more courageous facing or transcending of conflictual situations, as the case may require; or it may necessitate changing his role or behavior; or it may require reorganizing existing relationships. In a sense this means aiding the counselee in re-educating himself so that he may be equal to the new conditions of life which he will have to face, and the requirements they will make on his resources.
5. Development of New Objectives and Perspective: As a result of the reorientation, new goals will have to be envisaged in terms of the new relationship to be established. These must be related to the counselee's needs, his abilities, and his resources, both personal and environmental; to those of his spouse and to the marriage itself. Here it may be well to call attention again to the problem-solving capacity of the individual if properly stimulated by a good relationship with the counselor and a modified relationship to the marriage partner.
6. Implementation: The new objectives and relationship will require ways and means of achieving them. These, in turn, will necessitate carefully considered plans which will be based on all the foregoing considerations. It may be well to emphasize that the planning should be done by the client instead of the counselor. The client should experience the thrill of making and executing these first plans and discuss the results with the counselor as a means of gaining self-confidence in his newly acquired strengths and awareness of inner resources.
The foregoing six elements in the counseling process are not independent of each other. They are, in fact, interdependent in time and psychological development and they may be worked on, to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon the situation, almost from the first interview.
Marriage Counseling Differentiated
We have thus far treated counseling and marriage counseling as closely related to psychotherapy. Indeed, there are those who hold that counseling in general, and marriage counseling in particular, is a type of psychotherapy, or at least short-term, conscious, face-to-face psychotherapy. Others seek to differentiate the one from the other.
We can express the difference in emphasis then, by saying that counseling looks more often toward the interpretation and development of the personality in the relations characteristic of specific role-problems while psychotherapy looks more often toward the reinterpretation and reorganization of malignant conflictual elements within the personality through the relation with the therapist.
It may also be pointed out that unlike psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and some clinical psychologists, the marriage counselor deals more often with so-called normal, average people, who, on the whole, manage their affairs quite adequately but occasionally find themselves confronted by a set of circumstances or a constellation of problems which are too much for them, either because of their own emotional involvement, or because they do not possess the necessary information or perspective to handle the situation, or both.
This view of marriage counseling problems leads to several rather important considerations. First, that the marriage counselor who is not a psychiatrist and who has no special training, though holding himself alert to evidence of abnormalities and of hidden motivations, need not always, in fact is not necessarily equipped to, probe too deeply, and should not indulge in extended analyses or attempt fundamental personality changes. In many situations requiring his professional services, he can safely deal with the problems as they present themselves on a reality or conscious level after making certain that he is not dealing with a displacement; that is, that the client is not withholding the real problem from him by substituting a different problem, perhaps one of lesser significance and importance. Second, that the marriage counselor must make certain, so far as possible, that he is not dealing with a deep-seated psychotic or neurotic behavior manifestation with which it is beyond his ability to cope. This implies that the marriage counselor should be sufficiently well trained to recognize a neurosis or psychosis when he is confronted with it. This is admittedly not always easy or certain, for there are situations which will puzzle or escape even the better-trained psychotherapist who is not especially versed or experienced in differential diagnosis. It means also that although the nonmedical marriage counselor need not be prepared to handle the deep-seated neuroses or psychoses, he should be prepared to interpret psychiatric service to his client and, where needed, to spend sufficient time to lay the groundwork for a constructive psychiatric referral. In addition, in cases where it becomes evident that the marriage produces, in Karen Horney's term, a real "enslavement for one or both partners," the counselor may have to aid the family members to as nondestructive as possible a severing of their relationship, and to a positive attitude toward the future.
The wise marriage counselor, will, of course, call a competent psychiatrist into consultation whenever it is possible if he is uncertain about the nature of the problem with which he is dealing. Similarly, the conscientious marriage counselor will take proper precautions that he does not overlook or ignore somatic factors and will refer to the medical profession whenever the situation seems to require it.
It follows that the marriage counselor can best make his important contribution by equipping himself to function not as a pseudo-psychiatrist or analyst, but as one who has made a special study of the problems and interpersonal relationships of family life: the bonds, loyalties, and conflicts; the loves, rivalries, and hostilities; the need for identification and independence, on the one hand, and the conflicting desire for independence, on the other; the wish for security and the urge for adventure; in brief, the stresses and strains involved in membership in a marriage and a family and the psychosocial factors and influences of such membership on the personality.
By way of summarizing our discussion of the differentiation of marriage counseling up to this point, it may be said that the marriage counselor should have, in addition to the necessary knowledge and understanding of the positive and negative influences on the family, special training to be able to differentiate normal from abnormal or deviant behavior mechanisms and to understand the dynamics of human motivation as manifested in the interpersonal relationships in the marriage. This requires as a minimum about the same type of psychiatric knowledge as is included in a standard curriculum for a master's degree in social work. Such knowledge, however, will no more equip the marriage counselor for involved psychiatric analyses and therapy than it does the social worker except where there has been additional and special training. And, like the social worker, the marriage counselor can handle most situations on a conscious level, being ever watchful for indications of more profound disturbances and calling upon the appropriate specialist when necessary.
The foregoing comparison of marriage counseling with social work in terms of the type and amount of psychological and psychiatric knowledge required as a minimum for marriage counseling and the level on which they can function, raises further questions about the other professions engaging in marriage counseling. This is especially true of the professions of medicine, psychology, the ministry, and social work. Some members of these professions carry their marriage counseling load as part of their daily work within their own professional activity. Others, apparently a relatively small minority of the members of these professions, recognize that marriage counseling requires specialized knowledge and skill and therefore believe that marriage counseling can be most effective and will make its best contribution to those who need what it has to offer by developing a new and distinct professional discipline. (There is a relatively large group of people doing marriage counseling without any kind of training for the work who are not members of any professional group. These people would, in all probability, deny any need for specialized training. However, since they are not members of any recognized profession we cannot be concerned with them here.)
A recent survey by Kerckhoff outlines the views of some of these professional groups. Rutledge and Bridgman, in independent studies, present the viewpoint for marriage counseling as a distinct professional discipline. These divergent points of view are being subjected to thoughtful examination and evaluation by committees of the American Association of Marriage Counselors and by individual members of the Association. The issue as to whether marriage counseling is or will become a separate professional entity or will remain a specialized aspect of various disciplines is not yet resolved and may be confidently expected to come up again and again. Whatever the merits of the varying views and however the issues involved may be determined, adequate preparation for marriage counseling, regardless of by whom it is done, is an obvious necessity.
We can express the difference in emphasis then, by saying that counseling looks more often toward the interpretation and development of the personality in the relations characteristic of specific role-problems while psychotherapy looks more often toward the reinterpretation and reorganization of malignant conflictual elements within the personality through the relation with the therapist.
It may also be pointed out that unlike psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, and some clinical psychologists, the marriage counselor deals more often with so-called normal, average people, who, on the whole, manage their affairs quite adequately but occasionally find themselves confronted by a set of circumstances or a constellation of problems which are too much for them, either because of their own emotional involvement, or because they do not possess the necessary information or perspective to handle the situation, or both.
This view of marriage counseling problems leads to several rather important considerations. First, that the marriage counselor who is not a psychiatrist and who has no special training, though holding himself alert to evidence of abnormalities and of hidden motivations, need not always, in fact is not necessarily equipped to, probe too deeply, and should not indulge in extended analyses or attempt fundamental personality changes. In many situations requiring his professional services, he can safely deal with the problems as they present themselves on a reality or conscious level after making certain that he is not dealing with a displacement; that is, that the client is not withholding the real problem from him by substituting a different problem, perhaps one of lesser significance and importance. Second, that the marriage counselor must make certain, so far as possible, that he is not dealing with a deep-seated psychotic or neurotic behavior manifestation with which it is beyond his ability to cope. This implies that the marriage counselor should be sufficiently well trained to recognize a neurosis or psychosis when he is confronted with it. This is admittedly not always easy or certain, for there are situations which will puzzle or escape even the better-trained psychotherapist who is not especially versed or experienced in differential diagnosis. It means also that although the nonmedical marriage counselor need not be prepared to handle the deep-seated neuroses or psychoses, he should be prepared to interpret psychiatric service to his client and, where needed, to spend sufficient time to lay the groundwork for a constructive psychiatric referral. In addition, in cases where it becomes evident that the marriage produces, in Karen Horney's term, a real "enslavement for one or both partners," the counselor may have to aid the family members to as nondestructive as possible a severing of their relationship, and to a positive attitude toward the future.
The wise marriage counselor, will, of course, call a competent psychiatrist into consultation whenever it is possible if he is uncertain about the nature of the problem with which he is dealing. Similarly, the conscientious marriage counselor will take proper precautions that he does not overlook or ignore somatic factors and will refer to the medical profession whenever the situation seems to require it.
It follows that the marriage counselor can best make his important contribution by equipping himself to function not as a pseudo-psychiatrist or analyst, but as one who has made a special study of the problems and interpersonal relationships of family life: the bonds, loyalties, and conflicts; the loves, rivalries, and hostilities; the need for identification and independence, on the one hand, and the conflicting desire for independence, on the other; the wish for security and the urge for adventure; in brief, the stresses and strains involved in membership in a marriage and a family and the psychosocial factors and influences of such membership on the personality.
By way of summarizing our discussion of the differentiation of marriage counseling up to this point, it may be said that the marriage counselor should have, in addition to the necessary knowledge and understanding of the positive and negative influences on the family, special training to be able to differentiate normal from abnormal or deviant behavior mechanisms and to understand the dynamics of human motivation as manifested in the interpersonal relationships in the marriage. This requires as a minimum about the same type of psychiatric knowledge as is included in a standard curriculum for a master's degree in social work. Such knowledge, however, will no more equip the marriage counselor for involved psychiatric analyses and therapy than it does the social worker except where there has been additional and special training. And, like the social worker, the marriage counselor can handle most situations on a conscious level, being ever watchful for indications of more profound disturbances and calling upon the appropriate specialist when necessary.
The foregoing comparison of marriage counseling with social work in terms of the type and amount of psychological and psychiatric knowledge required as a minimum for marriage counseling and the level on which they can function, raises further questions about the other professions engaging in marriage counseling. This is especially true of the professions of medicine, psychology, the ministry, and social work. Some members of these professions carry their marriage counseling load as part of their daily work within their own professional activity. Others, apparently a relatively small minority of the members of these professions, recognize that marriage counseling requires specialized knowledge and skill and therefore believe that marriage counseling can be most effective and will make its best contribution to those who need what it has to offer by developing a new and distinct professional discipline. (There is a relatively large group of people doing marriage counseling without any kind of training for the work who are not members of any professional group. These people would, in all probability, deny any need for specialized training. However, since they are not members of any recognized profession we cannot be concerned with them here.)
A recent survey by Kerckhoff outlines the views of some of these professional groups. Rutledge and Bridgman, in independent studies, present the viewpoint for marriage counseling as a distinct professional discipline. These divergent points of view are being subjected to thoughtful examination and evaluation by committees of the American Association of Marriage Counselors and by individual members of the Association. The issue as to whether marriage counseling is or will become a separate professional entity or will remain a specialized aspect of various disciplines is not yet resolved and may be confidently expected to come up again and again. Whatever the merits of the varying views and however the issues involved may be determined, adequate preparation for marriage counseling, regardless of by whom it is done, is an obvious necessity.
Types of Counseling Procedures
As in psychotherapy, there are different schools and types of counseling, and the type used depends upon the orientation of the counselor and the institutions with which he is connected. For our purpose it will suffice to mention briefly only two wellknown schools: directive counseling and nondirective counseling, representing the two extremes. Most counseling falls somewhere in between these two extremes. The thoughtful reader of the cases in this volume will have little difficulty in identifying these types as represented by the case material, although it should be borne in mind that very few counselors, except those who are devotees and dedicates, adhere strictly without deviation to either approach.
Few counselors will classify themselves as consistently "directive." Those who disagree with this form of counseling claim that it is authoritarian, that its results, although quick, are often transitory, that it does not seem to build up the counselee's inner strength and resources, that it may call forth the resentment, opposition, and hostility of the client. Some also feel that although directive counseling may occasionally be justified in cases of emergency to gain time or to give specific information, it should be resorted to only under circumstances demanding such procedure.
Similarly, comparatively few counselors will identify themselves as entirely "nondirective." This approach, mainly associated with Carl Rogers, actually had its origin in psychoanalysis, Rankian psychology, passivity, and so on. Rogers now prefers to call his procedure "client-centered" counseling or therapy, having more or less abandoned the earlier designation of "nondirective" as inadequate for describing his processes and aims. This does not mean that he rejects the "nondirective" approach. It means, rather, that as he sees it, directive counseling is interested in problem solving, problems of the client, to be sure, but as discovered, defined, diagnosed, and prescribed for by the counselor with the client having little or no initiative or part beyond coming to the counselor. The counselor directs all activity, and the counselee is the passive recipient of the benefits of the counselor's wisdom and experience.
In "nondirective" counseling, the client becomes the active agent; it is he who endeavors to discover, define, and diagnose the problem and who even prescribes the solution. The counselor serves as a catalyst, occasionally reinterprets what the counselee brings forth, and enables him to draw upon his own resources for the solution of his problem.
Client-centered or "nondirective" counseling also has its critics. They recognize its value because it avoids the weaknesses and dangers of the directive procedure. They admit that it tends to utilize the inner resources of the client and provides more ready acceptance of the client on a nonjudgmental basis than the directive approach. However, they maintain that "nondirective" counseling has the weaknesses of its strengths; for example, that to depend solely upon the inner resources of the counselee is to waste a great deal of time, and that the client usually has neither the time nor the finances nor the patience required in this procedure.
As in psychotherapy, so also in counseling, there are those who would call themselves eclectics; and, as in psychotherapy, unless such eclecticism is based on comprehensive knowledge and discriminating choice, it may be little more than a patchwork of expedients and opportunism. However, when it is based on knowledge, discipline, training, and requisite skill, as well as experience, it can be a broad, flexible, and constructive approach to counseling.
Few counselors will classify themselves as consistently "directive." Those who disagree with this form of counseling claim that it is authoritarian, that its results, although quick, are often transitory, that it does not seem to build up the counselee's inner strength and resources, that it may call forth the resentment, opposition, and hostility of the client. Some also feel that although directive counseling may occasionally be justified in cases of emergency to gain time or to give specific information, it should be resorted to only under circumstances demanding such procedure.
Similarly, comparatively few counselors will identify themselves as entirely "nondirective." This approach, mainly associated with Carl Rogers, actually had its origin in psychoanalysis, Rankian psychology, passivity, and so on. Rogers now prefers to call his procedure "client-centered" counseling or therapy, having more or less abandoned the earlier designation of "nondirective" as inadequate for describing his processes and aims. This does not mean that he rejects the "nondirective" approach. It means, rather, that as he sees it, directive counseling is interested in problem solving, problems of the client, to be sure, but as discovered, defined, diagnosed, and prescribed for by the counselor with the client having little or no initiative or part beyond coming to the counselor. The counselor directs all activity, and the counselee is the passive recipient of the benefits of the counselor's wisdom and experience.
In "nondirective" counseling, the client becomes the active agent; it is he who endeavors to discover, define, and diagnose the problem and who even prescribes the solution. The counselor serves as a catalyst, occasionally reinterprets what the counselee brings forth, and enables him to draw upon his own resources for the solution of his problem.
Client-centered or "nondirective" counseling also has its critics. They recognize its value because it avoids the weaknesses and dangers of the directive procedure. They admit that it tends to utilize the inner resources of the client and provides more ready acceptance of the client on a nonjudgmental basis than the directive approach. However, they maintain that "nondirective" counseling has the weaknesses of its strengths; for example, that to depend solely upon the inner resources of the counselee is to waste a great deal of time, and that the client usually has neither the time nor the finances nor the patience required in this procedure.
As in psychotherapy, so also in counseling, there are those who would call themselves eclectics; and, as in psychotherapy, unless such eclecticism is based on comprehensive knowledge and discriminating choice, it may be little more than a patchwork of expedients and opportunism. However, when it is based on knowledge, discipline, training, and requisite skill, as well as experience, it can be a broad, flexible, and constructive approach to counseling.
Personality an Important Concept for the Counselor
The counselor's concept of personality is no less important. The term "personality" and its meaning have been the subject of intense controversy in the socio-psychological literature in the last three decades. It would take us too far afield to sketch even briefly the main considerations and directions of this theoretical ferment. 8 But we cannot fail to indicate here that the counselor's view of personality is of the utmost importance in determining his approach to his client as well as the type of therapy he will utilize. If he looks upon personality as essentially static, biologically fixed and determined by early conditioning, as unchanging and unyielding, he will necessarily be limited in his expectations and goals; and he will assume, consciously or unconsciously, an attitude which will restrict him as well as his client in the solution of the problem under consideration. If, however, the counselor views personality as an unfolding, evolving, ever-growing, and developing expression of almost limitless potentialities and inner strengths which only need assistance to achieve fruition, he himself, as well as his client, will envision broad goals and will marshal the inner resources of the client toward their realization.
This view of personality is, by and large, familiar to counselors and more particularly marriage counselors, coming as they do from the fields of education, social and clinical psychology, social case work, the ministry, and psychiatry. In addition, certain new concepts of personality as nonstatic and dependent upon the frame of reference of the person judging it, have been substantiated by actual research on material collected during marriage counseling with spouses. These findings indicate that the impressions which husband and wife have of each other's personality characteristics, vary as the spouse is influenced by feelings of love and accord (oneness) or of dislike, discord, or separateness. In other words, partners who feel love for each other tend to see each other's personality characteristics as more similar to their own than partners who are in conflict or feel strong dislike for each other. This holds for couples even though the husband's impressions of himself may not resemble the wife's impressions of herself. In fact, this holds when there are considerable differences in how each partner sees himself. Implications of these findings in terms of concepts of reality and projection are obvious. They have an important bearing on the question of the advisability, and even urgency, of working with both partners in a marriage in order to understand the actual relationship between husband and wife. In the viewpoint of the Committee who prepared this manuscript, dynamic concepts of personality have important creative possibilities for the counselor and make counseling an art replete with potentialities for constructive stimulation and guidance.
This view of personality is, by and large, familiar to counselors and more particularly marriage counselors, coming as they do from the fields of education, social and clinical psychology, social case work, the ministry, and psychiatry. In addition, certain new concepts of personality as nonstatic and dependent upon the frame of reference of the person judging it, have been substantiated by actual research on material collected during marriage counseling with spouses. These findings indicate that the impressions which husband and wife have of each other's personality characteristics, vary as the spouse is influenced by feelings of love and accord (oneness) or of dislike, discord, or separateness. In other words, partners who feel love for each other tend to see each other's personality characteristics as more similar to their own than partners who are in conflict or feel strong dislike for each other. This holds for couples even though the husband's impressions of himself may not resemble the wife's impressions of herself. In fact, this holds when there are considerable differences in how each partner sees himself. Implications of these findings in terms of concepts of reality and projection are obvious. They have an important bearing on the question of the advisability, and even urgency, of working with both partners in a marriage in order to understand the actual relationship between husband and wife. In the viewpoint of the Committee who prepared this manuscript, dynamic concepts of personality have important creative possibilities for the counselor and make counseling an art replete with potentialities for constructive stimulation and guidance.
The cultural environment, Heredity, The physical environment
Heredity refers to the biological process of transmitting traits from parents to offspring. It comes about through the union of male and female cells, and it manifests itself in such things as eye color, body shape, mental capacity, and numerous other physical and psychological tendencies which characterize the newborn child. Heredity sets the stage, so to speak; provides the "stuff " out of which human behavior emerges; establishes the potentials. Heredity plays its last hand at the time of conception, and though the product may be modified after that, environment can never completely change what nature has done.
The physical environment consists of various material elements and energies that at all times surround the human organism, influencing both development and behavior. Before birth it is made up of chemicals, temperatures, and other conditions within the mother. It is affected by such things as diet and exercise; and it, in turn, affects the growth rates, survival chances, and general health conditions of the child not yet born. After birth it consists of the many geographic factors--temperature, rainfall, sunshine, wind, soil, mineral resources, elevation, topography, and the like. During the prenatal stage this physical environment is the only one operating. In the postnatal, however, there are competitive influences along with it --the social and the cultural. Culture, particularly in the Western world, has developed nearly far enough to supersede geography in influence. To some extent man has learned how to control temperature, remove mountains, and in other ways harness the forces of nature to his advantage. Modern man is not nearly so dependent upon the elements as were his ancestors. Yet, neither is he independent of them. Though the physical is perhaps the least important of man's postnatal environments today, it is nevertheless there and it has influence. To give but one example, soil compositions in the Great Basin area of the West result in iodine deficiencies in diets built from foods grown there. This condition, in turn, produces a higher rate of goiter in that area, with some ill health and personality tensions as end results.
The social environment comes from the presence of other human beings and one's interaction with them. This is sometimes referred to as the "group situation." It starts with birth and continues normally throughout the lifetime of the individual. "Man is a social animal" said Aristotle many years ago. By this he meant that society, or the interaction of peoples in groups, has a great deal to do with man's behavior. There have been rare instances of men's being deprived of this social or group environment and/or remaining undeveloped or "wild" because of it. Such individuals, those growing up or living for long periods of time without or with little human association, are called feral men. 2 They are odd because they have not had an opportunity to become socialized through normal contact with others. No personality can develop normally and completely in isolation. Everyone is influenced by, and also influences, those around him.
The cultural environment is made up of the multitude of man-made objects, customs, understandings, and skills that one is born to accept. Culture is sometimes defined as man's "social inheritance," for just as individuals are different, depending upon the kind of biological inheritance that is theirs, so they are also different, depending upon the kind of society into which they are born.
Someone born to live in the heart of New York City, for example, would have a far different social heritage, and therefore a different personality, from another on the upper reaches of the Amazon. Culture, though not the same as society, is one of society's products. It consists of all that is created by man in interaction, deposited or retained by society, and passed down from generation to generation.
Thus it is that man is the product of a number of forces, all interrelated. Biology starts him off, lays down the raw materials out of which he can grow, establishes tendencies, sets limits. The physical environment, operating both before and after birth, influences his general health and, in some cases, also sets limits upon his development and activity. Starting soon after birth, both the social and the cultural environments come into strong play, the first by an interstimulation and interresponse of persons in contact with one another, and the second through an exposure to the traditional ways of thinking and acting that the group has built up. Personality is the outgrowth of them all.
It isn't really a question of nature versus nurture, as some would have it, but nature and nurture, operating jointly and with interactional effects. Heredity makes the start by providing materials out of which personality is to be built. But it is to the environments, mainly those social and cultural, that we must turn if we would understand the dynamics of personal action and the variability in directions of development. The age-old argument on the relative importance of heredity versus environment is fruitless, for both are absolutely essential and it is only through the interaction of one with the other that personality comes about. Science has not progressed far enough to give exact proportions for the various components of human behavior, nor is it likely that it will ever be able to do this. The important thing is to know what these components are, how they operate, and that they function in unison.
The physical environment consists of various material elements and energies that at all times surround the human organism, influencing both development and behavior. Before birth it is made up of chemicals, temperatures, and other conditions within the mother. It is affected by such things as diet and exercise; and it, in turn, affects the growth rates, survival chances, and general health conditions of the child not yet born. After birth it consists of the many geographic factors--temperature, rainfall, sunshine, wind, soil, mineral resources, elevation, topography, and the like. During the prenatal stage this physical environment is the only one operating. In the postnatal, however, there are competitive influences along with it --the social and the cultural. Culture, particularly in the Western world, has developed nearly far enough to supersede geography in influence. To some extent man has learned how to control temperature, remove mountains, and in other ways harness the forces of nature to his advantage. Modern man is not nearly so dependent upon the elements as were his ancestors. Yet, neither is he independent of them. Though the physical is perhaps the least important of man's postnatal environments today, it is nevertheless there and it has influence. To give but one example, soil compositions in the Great Basin area of the West result in iodine deficiencies in diets built from foods grown there. This condition, in turn, produces a higher rate of goiter in that area, with some ill health and personality tensions as end results.
The social environment comes from the presence of other human beings and one's interaction with them. This is sometimes referred to as the "group situation." It starts with birth and continues normally throughout the lifetime of the individual. "Man is a social animal" said Aristotle many years ago. By this he meant that society, or the interaction of peoples in groups, has a great deal to do with man's behavior. There have been rare instances of men's being deprived of this social or group environment and/or remaining undeveloped or "wild" because of it. Such individuals, those growing up or living for long periods of time without or with little human association, are called feral men. 2 They are odd because they have not had an opportunity to become socialized through normal contact with others. No personality can develop normally and completely in isolation. Everyone is influenced by, and also influences, those around him.
The cultural environment is made up of the multitude of man-made objects, customs, understandings, and skills that one is born to accept. Culture is sometimes defined as man's "social inheritance," for just as individuals are different, depending upon the kind of biological inheritance that is theirs, so they are also different, depending upon the kind of society into which they are born.
Someone born to live in the heart of New York City, for example, would have a far different social heritage, and therefore a different personality, from another on the upper reaches of the Amazon. Culture, though not the same as society, is one of society's products. It consists of all that is created by man in interaction, deposited or retained by society, and passed down from generation to generation.
Thus it is that man is the product of a number of forces, all interrelated. Biology starts him off, lays down the raw materials out of which he can grow, establishes tendencies, sets limits. The physical environment, operating both before and after birth, influences his general health and, in some cases, also sets limits upon his development and activity. Starting soon after birth, both the social and the cultural environments come into strong play, the first by an interstimulation and interresponse of persons in contact with one another, and the second through an exposure to the traditional ways of thinking and acting that the group has built up. Personality is the outgrowth of them all.
It isn't really a question of nature versus nurture, as some would have it, but nature and nurture, operating jointly and with interactional effects. Heredity makes the start by providing materials out of which personality is to be built. But it is to the environments, mainly those social and cultural, that we must turn if we would understand the dynamics of personal action and the variability in directions of development. The age-old argument on the relative importance of heredity versus environment is fruitless, for both are absolutely essential and it is only through the interaction of one with the other that personality comes about. Science has not progressed far enough to give exact proportions for the various components of human behavior, nor is it likely that it will ever be able to do this. The important thing is to know what these components are, how they operate, and that they function in unison.
Marital success is partially dependent upon a stable society
It should be clear by now that marital success is partially dependent upon a stable society. Families simply do not operate in isolation. No thinking person will deny that social change has repercussions upon the marriage and family institutions. Nor will he dispute the claim that these are sensitive to the pulse of society at large, and that the transitional and confused character of our contemporary culture leaves them dangling, so to speak, and somewhat insecure.
Changes affecting the family have been both technological and ideological in nature. In the first category would fall such events as the invention of the automobile, the vacuum cleaner, the radio, contraceptives, and a thousand or more other devices and processes which have revolutionized housekeeping and homemaking. Technological advance has increased the comforts and conveniences of man, has raised his level of living, given him more leisure, enlarged his knowledge and power to control the forces of nature. But it has also made life more hurried, crowded, and insecure. In the second category would be placed such things as the continuing shift in the direction of greater sex freedom, the growing social acceptance of divorce, and the recent emphasis upon individual rights and personal pleasure. This newer freedom in thought has probably made people more restless, but it has also opened the way for a better realization of the democratic goals; it has both created problems and opened up opportunities at the same time.
No solution to the marriage problem will come by way of retreat. Technology undoubtedly is here to stay. So also are the urban mode of life, a high mobility of population, and many other innovations that have been temporarily disturbing to marriage and the family. A certain amount of disorganization is inevitable to change, and change is always a necessary prerequisite to progress, whatever the field. Though there are many cultural paradoxes in our present family culture, disorganization necessarily precedes reorganization as familistic-patriarchal forms give way to smaller, more personalized family associations. An acceptance of the technological age and a willingness to adjust to it are the only attitudes that can make modern marriage succeed.
The same cannot be said for the "problem" aspects of society, however. By urging that people accept technology we do not mean that they should embrace it in all of its present manifestations. The unfortunate effects of depression and war have already been analyzed. There are other conditions and happenings that plague society, too, problems ranging all the way from the distribution of obscene literature to poverty and bad housing. All of these have their impact upon the family. One way to improve marriage, therefore, is to build a better world, to work for security, justice, and peace.
Also, it should be pointed out that not only is society a factor in successful family life, but that the family is a factor in maintaining a stable society. The two are interrelated and interacting. Just as society, by providing the setting, influences the growth and development of the family, so the family, by establishing attitudes and habits in young citizens, sets the stage for local, national, and world affairs. Such mutual interstimulation will incline us to one of two patterns: either (1) a vicious circle of disorganization as each adds weakness to the other, or (2) a constructive cycle moving forward as each contributes reinforcement to the other. Which shall it be?Throughout the remainder of the book major attention will be given to personality factors. It should constantly be kept in mind, however, that back of personality lies society. The immediate responsibility for marriage rests with those who. marry, it is true. But people are to a large extent the products of the world in which they live. The answer to family failure is better marriage, which depends upon better adjusted individuals, which in turn depends upon a better integrated and compatible social and cultural environment.
Changes affecting the family have been both technological and ideological in nature. In the first category would fall such events as the invention of the automobile, the vacuum cleaner, the radio, contraceptives, and a thousand or more other devices and processes which have revolutionized housekeeping and homemaking. Technological advance has increased the comforts and conveniences of man, has raised his level of living, given him more leisure, enlarged his knowledge and power to control the forces of nature. But it has also made life more hurried, crowded, and insecure. In the second category would be placed such things as the continuing shift in the direction of greater sex freedom, the growing social acceptance of divorce, and the recent emphasis upon individual rights and personal pleasure. This newer freedom in thought has probably made people more restless, but it has also opened the way for a better realization of the democratic goals; it has both created problems and opened up opportunities at the same time.
No solution to the marriage problem will come by way of retreat. Technology undoubtedly is here to stay. So also are the urban mode of life, a high mobility of population, and many other innovations that have been temporarily disturbing to marriage and the family. A certain amount of disorganization is inevitable to change, and change is always a necessary prerequisite to progress, whatever the field. Though there are many cultural paradoxes in our present family culture, disorganization necessarily precedes reorganization as familistic-patriarchal forms give way to smaller, more personalized family associations. An acceptance of the technological age and a willingness to adjust to it are the only attitudes that can make modern marriage succeed.
The same cannot be said for the "problem" aspects of society, however. By urging that people accept technology we do not mean that they should embrace it in all of its present manifestations. The unfortunate effects of depression and war have already been analyzed. There are other conditions and happenings that plague society, too, problems ranging all the way from the distribution of obscene literature to poverty and bad housing. All of these have their impact upon the family. One way to improve marriage, therefore, is to build a better world, to work for security, justice, and peace.
Also, it should be pointed out that not only is society a factor in successful family life, but that the family is a factor in maintaining a stable society. The two are interrelated and interacting. Just as society, by providing the setting, influences the growth and development of the family, so the family, by establishing attitudes and habits in young citizens, sets the stage for local, national, and world affairs. Such mutual interstimulation will incline us to one of two patterns: either (1) a vicious circle of disorganization as each adds weakness to the other, or (2) a constructive cycle moving forward as each contributes reinforcement to the other. Which shall it be?Throughout the remainder of the book major attention will be given to personality factors. It should constantly be kept in mind, however, that back of personality lies society. The immediate responsibility for marriage rests with those who. marry, it is true. But people are to a large extent the products of the world in which they live. The answer to family failure is better marriage, which depends upon better adjusted individuals, which in turn depends upon a better integrated and compatible social and cultural environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)