This drip, drip effect sometimes is not realized by one partner but the other partner feels disillusioned and not having there needs met. They then try to talk to the other partner but the other partner can fail to hear their distress.  This leads to arguments and the breakdown of therelationship. Sometimes the family relationship can go on for a long time, reliant on the “making the family work”. This can be through the guilt of one partner not wanting to rock the boat so to speak, or from a feeling of responsibility or maybe some of both.

They usually come to Counselling when the end of the road is reached and it’s the last ditch attempt to make it work. This is not necessarily the best time to try to bring the relationship back from the brink. Both partners should check out the relationship on a regular basis and see if they’re needs are being met and they are happy. No relationship is ever 100% happy but most survive because they have a joint purpose that they both want to make happen, so they put up with little niggles or frustrations which are quite normal in relationships, especially these days when there is so much pressure on the relationship from outside influences, be it work commitments, the society media understanding of what they should have or little support in helping them cope with the demands of the world. Most families are distant now-a-days when they used to be very close and supportive, due to possible relocation for work, extended family loyalties etc.

Once the communication has disintegrated and they can only refer to the logistical aspects of the relationship, which one does the shopping, sorts the bills, looks after the kids, brings the finances in etc. Then the couple relationship really starts to be ineffective and detached. This loss of the connection sometimes does not even appear until the children are older and going there separate ways, leaving home, going to college/university etc, when the couple have to relate to just themselves and how that interaction works, or doesn’t, as the case may be. This is were re-making connections comes in, trying to establish a joint stable connection without others being involved what I call “Quality Time”

The relationship is always under pressure to find the time and energy to connect with each other; other things are always more important, finances, work, children, extended family commitments etc. This is a message that we receive from most of society, family etc, and the interaction and responsibility of having and looking after children is very important and has to be done.  The most important link however  is the relationship between the two adults, if that diminishes then the whole family unit begins to break down. We are always bombarded with messages of not doing or being enough, via adverts, television, peer pressure etc when in fact most people, even children, just want to be loved and accepted.  Not having the right label may be a drag but not having a mum or dad around will be missed much, much more.

“Quality Time” is a recognized and planned time which is not interfered with or lost; it is planned and happens unless something really important needs to take precedent, i.e. someone admitted into hospital or similar. This “Quality Time” is used to give the relationship time to bond and connect, the regularity is up to the individuals and as long as it is planned, and happens, then whatever time frame is good for them is ok. Now we have to do something constructive with that time and some people have no problems filling that time with something exciting and satisfying. Some people who have lost this bond find it hard to think of something to fill it with. This is where, something I term “Surprise Jars” is helpful. “Surprise Jars” just means that each party  fills  their surprise jar with things, activities, they would like to do.  Not what they feel their partner would like to do, but what they would like to do. Then in the allocated “Quality Time” slot they take it in turns and throw a dice to see which person goes first,  They pick out of their partners jar, one of their activities and the person giving the surprise takes responsibility for that to happen, they organise it and makes that surprise happen.

This does two things

• It shows the other partner that you care for them enough to actually give them a treat, which validates and respects them and if it was something that you personally didn’t much want to do then that’s a double bonus, you’re doing it just for them.
• You can never be wrong, the activity that you are organizing is the very thing they asked for, so it excludes the gamble out of making sure that the partner would like that activity, less room for error and less stress.

This will re-connect and strengthen the bond of the relationship, give fun a much needed injection into the relationship which we could all do with more of in a relationship. Relax the couple and build communication between them.

This way of constructing a “Quality Time” can also be used in numerous ways, with children,  for example each child having a “Surprise Jar. ” In Sexual Connections each partner having a “Surprise Jar” of things they would like to be done to them, which does not abuse anyone’s boundaries – maybe a clothed jar and an unclothed jar, in bed or out of bed maybe, the possibilities are endless.

If we are constantly re-enforcing the bond and our connections within a relationship then that relationship will be much more able to stand the test of time and be more interactive, bonded and happy.

If there was a golden rule of what makes a relationship and having a happy and fulfilling relationship then the interaction of communication being effective, open and honest between the partners must be at the top.

Want to read more of Ian’s articles? click here

The art of communication is something we all have to a greater or lesser degree.  It’s funny how this great and usually natural ability breaks down when we try to communicate with the people close to us. I have lost count of the many times well educated, good communicators have worked with me over the years and they have lost the art of communication with the people closest to them and this can result in arguments.

Arguments

When people engage in arguments they feel they are communicating, albeit loudly or aggressively.  In fact an argument is a verbal battle and communication is lost in the struggle to win or achieve a superior position over the other person and in order for one person to ‘win’, the other must ‘lose’.

Arguments are based in insecurities -  by using argumentative language to win, rather than have calm discussion, then we must feel insecure. We shout or use aggressive language in order to create security.

To help people who are stuck in arguments I use a particular intervention called, “Time Out” so people can engage in a constructive way and not a destructive way. Time Out is just a phrase to help people understand the process; any phrase can be used which works for the couple, but not in their ordinary, everyday language and cannot be confused for ordinary speech. It is known to both of them, and is established in advance.

The phrase signals to them that the emotion in the room is escalating and it is time to call a halt, before a full blown argument ensues.  It enables people to stop arguments, as long as it is honored and respected

They also agree a time span; this is the amount of time it would take each party to calm down, to bring their temper under control. When either of the parties realize that it is going into an argument phase, call their phrase and the other party respects their decision.

They then move out of each others face and space up to the time limits they agreed to as being the length of time needed for them to calm down.

Sometimes one person may chase the other to bring a conclusion to the argument whilst the other will try to withdraw to protect them self.  Sometimes this kind of argument can lead to violence; the one who wants to escape cannot, and so will lash out in order to escape.

Similarly,  a cornered rat  will try to jump over you to escape but if it cannot then it will attack you to protect itself.

When the parties can respect and honor this “Time Out” process then they are more able to move forward and start work on why they need to argue in the first place. This then involves them listening to each other instead of talking at each other, as only by listening can you fully understand another. Understanding why arguments occur creates the correct conditions to help them to be more secure and move them on to using a better communication structure; their language can sometimes have an aspect of telling not asking.

Want to read more of Ian’s articles?  Click here

This is an interesting concept I have grappled with over the last 3-4 years of my practice. It seems to me that there is two fractions at work with everything we do in relating to particular instances and situations in our lives the “What and Why” concept.

To explain this I will look at different situations in the way Human Beings interact with each other which I have observed through news/ media, observing the clients I work with and personal circumstances in my life.

The “What” part of the concept seems to me to be the building blocks of understanding why things go wrong in our lives and the reason we don’t move forward.  Some of this, is due in part, to us trying to fix things instead of looking at the underlying reasons for “Why” things are not working. The “What” is an easier aspect to work with.  We don’t have to look too deep or question ourselves within this process.  We don’t have to take responsibility in the “what” -  we go into fixing mode, usually more prone stereotypically to Men but can also be a part of the female context. This moving to fixing mode is usually only a short term fix and does not usually get the underlying problem resolved.  It tends to just move it to another “What”, a bit like people who have a compulsive aspect to their life’s. Sometimes you are able to resolve the particular compulsion they present with but then the compulsion impulse moves onto another area in their life. It’s usually more expensive to fix the “What” in the long term as when it moves it just creates another version of itself; you still have to fix the next “What. ” The “Why” is usually connected more to the taking responsibility for our actions and interconnections to the what.

It’s our choice whether we take the “Why” or the “What” route but in order to remove the problem altogether we have to understand the “Why”,  take responsibility for it and change our interactions to complete the process.

In order to initially explain this process I shall use the issue of taking chemical substitutes to explore this concept.

Most Professionals know that people who take chemical substitutes are trying to alter their view of  life, their life’s position, hide from emotional conflict or it, the substitute, enables them to see their world differently to the reality that it is, a deflection process. This view in no way minimises the huge reaction chemical substitutes have on people’s life’s or the misery it inflicts on people. I need to say I have no clinical expertise in working with people around chemical substitutes  but I do have a deep understanding of people and how they relate to others.

I am breaking the chemical substitute issue down to the basics and taking away the emotional involvement of the process to explore this concept. In order for us to fix these issues in peoples lives we try to give people drying out or other acclimatising programs, reducing the amount or taking away the chemicals altogether, to help them come off the addiction.  Taking the chemicals is the “What” -  we don’t have to look at the “Why.” The process is to get the person off the dependency of the chemical and the resulting implications to society. This may fix it for the individual person at that time, or it may not. It may just temporarily help them but they might then go back to the chemical of choice in the future, or deflect again from the “Why” and create another “What”.

This process does nothing to understand the reason “Why” someone would want to take chemical substitutes in the first place.  In order to understand that society needs to understand the initial reason -  “Why”, they would want to deflect their individual life issues by taking drugs in the first place.

This is a much deeper problem where society and people in their system would need to analyse their role in that choice and also to take responsibility for their part in that person’s choice of eventually taking chemicals, starting the process of going down this different reality route.

This taking responsibility is a much harder thing to admit to as society would have to admit that things are wrong in the world and that we have a part to play in that.  Instead of working with the “Why” we just do more initiatives, throw more money at the issue, clearing our conscience.  We have done something, and work with the result of the “Why” the “What”.

In relationships, more around my area of practice, we have the same problems and when working with clients, the “What” might be the issue people originally present. , and There might be lots of “What’s.” These are easier to see and work with as they don’t require us to look any deeper nor to immerse ourselves in or see the clients system involvement in the process. To show an example of this,  the client may have a person in their life who is constantly leaving things lying around, making a mess, leaving a disaster area when they move off, either physically things lying around, or emotionally leaving the people around them distraught. You might see that as a “What” they do -  they never change, just more and more of a mess.

Now if they have always been like that then it might just be them.  If however they started doing it at any one point in time you may see some type of insecurity trauma, someone leaving, parents getting a divorce, walking out etc, or someone dying.

This then may lead you down the road of hypothesising or questioning as to the security of that person, in the client’s system.  Are they leaving things lying around, emotionally or physically just so they will still have a presence in the room or in the system to remain secure?  If you work on the “Why” you will resolve the issue, the reason for the “What” appearing in the first place, working to build that persons security in the system.

If you work on the “what” then you will just interact with the situation of leaving things at the time. This will often create turmoil in the process and disharmony, forcing them (the person leaving things) to take away some of their security, leaving them more insecure the next time they have to leave, and possibly moving the “What” into some other area of their life.

By working with and understanding the “Why” it will resolve things for all time as it removes the need for having the “What” in that person’s life. Sometimes lots of “What’s” may be around the process.  They may overlap or be singular,  they may be different “What’s” but the one thing which will connect them will usually, in my opinion, be a feeling, in most situations the link will be a similar feeling.  Like the insecurity in the above example the base problem will result in a feeling of being insecure and the way it is being presented is always leaving a mess, different messes, but similar feelings.

You might want to change the terminology I am using if you were working with clients with a history of an abusive situation the “What” might be classed as the trigger or reaction.

If you can get to the base feeling then you can resolve the problem.

It’s the getting to the base feeling which is the hardest thing to do as this involves the other people, and their systems, in that person’s life taking their responsibility in the issue. The couple who are separating, the possible reason in the above example, will have to face up to their issues and resolve them, to enable the child to feel more secure, so maybe they don’t have to react by leaving the mess, the person dying will have to be discussed and so the system can emotionally bring closure to them not being around.

All this involves people talking honestly and being emotionally open to others, which is usually very hard for most humans to do, people usually see this as making them vulnerable and weak, which is the opposite of the reality, as if you able to be vulnerable and open with others it’s a very strong and secure position. This is sometimes the reason that we, the professionals, are distracted from looking at the “Why” in that it’s easier to work with the “What” it does not require us to or involve us in opening ourselves up to the possible transference experience of seeing other people’s emotions, as in seeing and working with emotions we have to connect with our own emotions also at the same time a joining together in the pain and suffering, being empathic.

We have to as professionals and more importantly as society get more to the point in looking at what the “Why’s” are as this will be more helpful to everyone concerned in the end and will also enable the person’s we are working with to move on and not have to “What” anymore. If we choose to go down the emotionally easier route of working with the “What’s” then we will just move the issue or the problem on to some other deflection source and this will not be the most beneficial outcome for the client or their system. Insecurity is a major force in the reason we resist in looking at the “Why” as in looking at the “Why” we have to also look at our own insecurities and connect with them.

To read more of Ian’s articles, please click here

This reaction, a sub-conscious process, is more usually seen with people who are emotionally connected.  One of the couple (A) will be uneasy with seeing and holding their partner (B) in emotional pain so they will interrupt the process of emotional release and try to give fixing options, such as ‘if I was you’, ‘what you need to do’,’ let me sort it’ etc.

The person who cannot hold the pain (A) will try to disconnect the person trying to process the pain (B) so removing (A) from the emotional impact.

This will result in the person trying to process the emotion (B) in a feeling of being unheard or even worse they will store the pain and this will result in a build up for (B) over the period of the disconnection.  If this carries on, the couple will not be able to talk about this issue and they will over time drift apart until all interactions of an emotional level will be off limits.

(A) will usually have grown up in an unemotional family grouping, so they will not be secure with talking emotionally or being emotional.  Possibly some emotional trauma will have occurred in their life and this will sub-consciously stop them from interacting emotionally. The only real way through this would be to realize you are acting in this way, by discussing your feelings, and consciously talk about the emotions even if they hurt you personally or hurt you through your partner being hurt.

Hiding from them will only put off the inevitable or put the relationship between you both into terminal decline.

To read more of  Ian’s articles click here

Sometimes people use the above to help the person they are communicating with to understand them, they use their perception of the situation to help, they think, to fix or help fix the situation, this is only their perception.

This telling not asking does not validate or respect the other person’s position.  It can say to the other person ‘what is the point in telling you what I have to say as you are not listening’,  creating distance between you both. It also closes dialogue. If a particular situation is off limits, due to this telling and not asking  then all that issue will be withdrawn from the communication possibilities between you both. This reducing will not only effect that situation but any other situation that connects not only the circumstances but also the feelings. An example of this would be if someone close to you both died and both of you, not being able to talk or help each other through this process of grief.  It may then result in any aspect of loss being off limits, maybe the loss of a job or house etc as this would need you both to re-connect with the original feelings of loss and that would also connect back to the current issue you are going through. This connection or disconnection of feelings alienates us and divides us in lots of areas of our life and therefore also divides our communication process. It is much better to ask than tell, to find the reality and not the perception, as the perception is a possible not an actual. If you follow this process of asking not telling this opens dialogue creates a joining and reinforces the relationship between you both harmony, if you do not then disharmony ensues.

By Ian Wallace

To read more of Ian’s articles please click here

This page will be updated frequently with tips and facts to help you lead a full and emotionally healthy life with your family and loved ones. If you would like a particular aspect of life’s issues focussed on then please e-mail me at my website ian@counsellingwakefield.co.uk and I will try to oblige. Hope these tips help you understand the dynamics of being a human being and how we interact with others to build healthier relationships.

TIPS FOR BETTER COMMUNICATION AND RESOLVING CONFLICT

In contentious communication structures don’t use the words “You or Your” these words increase arguments and give the other person no position or place so they have to respond with verbal, emotional or physical pressure or leave which does not solve anything.

Look at the “Why not What” when people react they do so sometimes in the most illogical way, and the reaction could be to any small thing that is seen to be wrong, that I class as the “What” when in fact the reason for the reaction is the “Why” if you find the why and sort that out then there is no reason for the what to exist.

“Telling not Asking” this is similar to the you your if someone is being told they again have no position so will possibly counter any comment with aggressive behaviour or language.

“Perception and Reality” If you enter into a conversation with a perception of the other persons position, your own view of their world, without finding the reality, the other persons view of their world, this will possibly always create conflict as you again are telling not asking.

“Listen don’t talk” If you really want to understand someone give them space to tell you how it is, interrupting to “Fix” will only cause anxiety and may lead to the telling not asking process.

Face or Fix article: click here

To read my article entitled ‘Conversation’ click here

Another article Remaking Connection gives Ian’s tips on how to rekindle the flame when it has all but gone out!

Copyright Ian Wallace 2000

All Human Beings work from a historical premise, that what we know, have learnt and understand  informs our interaction within our world today, our “Perception” is our “Reality.”

This way of understanding, the way the world works, is sometimes an issue for partners, as in tha all of our perceptions are as individual as – ourselves.  Even twins will have a completely different way of perceiving and interacting within their world. This difference is usually the reason why things, initially  break down in relationships. We cannot seem to understand the other persons point of view because we have no experience to understand it, so we perceive it the way we think it is and we will always get it wrong.  No ones perception will ever be “The Reality” as we all have different views.  No one view will ever be the right one, it will be our reality but not “The Reality.”

When we connect with another human being we have a relationship, whether it is at work, home, friend or sexual partner.  In this relationship we communicate to understand each other, so we find a common reality.  The reality in-between our individual realities, a shared view. This works fine as long as we keep checking it out and reframing it as things change. oOr reality is always changing as the experiences we are having are always changing, minute on minute, day on day etc. It’s when we stop checking out the changes, the other person’s perception, or the communication between them breaks down that we start using our individual perception to understand what is happening instead of asking for the other person’s perception as well. So we have a piece missing to inform us of what is really going on. When we do this it inferswe know how the other person is feeling, what they want etc, It usually shows itself in statements like “You feel I am” Or “I think you are” etc using our perception to understand their reality. So the golden rule is “don’t think talk” Ask don’t Tell then you will always be working with The Reality not your reality.

To read more of Ian’s articles please click here