Spring 1998
Our Influence on Our Clients

William J. Doherty writes of the many therapists who promote divorce by their pervasive biasness against sustaining marital commitment in his recent article, How Therapists Threaten Marriages [The Responsive Community, 7, 31-42]. My initial response while reading this was, "Yes, of course. If someone not happy with their marriage seeks advice from a therapist, and gets a 'trust your feelings' response [as one of Doherty's examples illustrated], then s/he is encouraging the dissolution of that relationship." Certainly, candid verbal cues will influence a client's outcome. But do we also influence our clients in non-verbal ways?

Various experiments show how the tools used to track the activities of subatomic particles influence their various outcomes. For example, in the now famous two-slit experiment, when only one slit was open in a screen, photons behaved like particles passing through the one slit. However, when two slits were open, the photons behaved like waves, passing through both slits. It was concluded that the measuring apparatus is an integral part of the observed system thereby annihilating the former classical notion that the physical world can be observed objectively and replacing it with quantum physics, a science pronounced with uncertainties. Furthermore, the very act of observing influenced the object observed. Subject and object were somehow intimately linked: ". . .at the quantum level at least there is a creative dialogue between matter and consciousness. This dialogue means that the observer's conscious mind actually influences the material development of that which he observes."1

But what does this mean for us as mental health professionals? The microcosmic world offers a blueprint for our macrocosmic world. That is, what is happening at the subatomic level is also happening, on a continuum from subtle to severe, at the human level. So when the subject (the therapist) observes the object (the clients), we can never be truly objective. Our unspoken values and beliefs influence the couple's outcome by unconsciously revealing themselves in our body language, our emotional tones, and the environment we create (to name a few).

The therapy office thus becomes another domain for the growth of the therapist. "What is my body language conveying?" "Do I avoid certain topics?" "Do I find myself siding with one partner because I see him/her as 'healthier'?" "Am I identifying with his annoying narcissistic tendencies," or "Are her emotional outbursts troublesome because of my own disconnection to the emotional realm?"[Conversely, positive feelings may indicate something about your lost potential.] Questions such as these keep our window to the unconscious open, to explore feelings and thoughts [if possible, with our partners], until we discover the origin and no longer have an emotional connection to it. That is the only way we can truly avoid hindering the healing and growth of the dyad with our own projections.

At the end of the article, Doherty lays out a series of "planks," the first one being that therapists need to move "beyond the guise of neutrality" and to "recognize and affirm the moral nature of marital commitment." I would agree with this. It reminds me of Ken Wilber's distinction between "idiot compassion" and "real compassion," revealed in his most recent book, The Journals of Ken Wilber. Idiot compassion expresses that all views "are equally part of a rich diversity, and thus no view is better than another." Nice sentiment. But Wilber points out that by extolling this view and declaring all others as inferior, idiot compassion collapses in self-contradiction. That is, by saying "all views are equal," that view becomes the "right" and "superior" view in a world where one view is not supposed to be better than another. Real compassion on the other hand incorporates wisdom and makes valued judgments with care and concern. That is, one view is better than another.

"We need to learn to consciously make qualitative distinctions."2 I also agree with this. Real compassion however precariously teeters toward righteousness that could defensively push our clients away. Here, our therapeutic challenge becomes finding the balance between the two extremes ("I don't care whether or not you stay together" and "Divorce is wrong!") by balancing the psychoeducation of the potential and purpose of marriage without losing the ability to authentically validate any opposition.

Years ago, when I began the training in Imago Relationship Therapy, I was not emotionally invested in the outcome of my couples: my objective was to remain as neutral as possible. But as I began to see the healing mechanism of marriage (from a personal and professional standpoint), my neutrality transformed into "compassion with action." Compassion because I saw the couples suffer. And action because I knew there was a path to authentically alleviate that suffering. Through the Imago work, their suffering could be understood and, through empathic connection, transcended into emotional healing and growth. Today, I am no longer neutral on the topic of whether or not my couples should stay together. I let them know of my expectation for them to progress and follow-up on this weekly by asking them to initially report on the positive exchanges. I also let them now how I feel about marriage and its potential and that if they choose to part, they will only find the same problems playing out in the same power struggle with another Imago match. All of this I believe positively influences the couple towards commitment and intentionality.

In addition to our outspoken messages, it is the unspoken dialogue (body language, projections, our own developmental arrest and denied selves, the therapeutic context we create, our values and attitudes, etc.) that influence the outcome of our clients. Although we are facilitators in the Imago framework and the healing and growth rests within the dyad, as long as the couple remains in our office, we are influencing or hindering that healing and growth. Our responsibility as therapists includes working on our own personal journey even while deepening the connection of our clients and encouraging their commitment. The conscious journey is not a journey with an ending. It is the journey itself that has no end for clients and therapists alike.

1 Zohar, Danah. The Quantum Self. New York: Quill, 1990, p. 57.
2 Wilber, Ken. One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber. Boston: Shambhala, 1999, p. 101.