Applying the Family Therapy Model - Essay Example

? Family Therapy session with Jim and Pam of the TV show, The Office (US) (2005) Family Therapy session with Jim and Pam of the TVshow, The Office (US) (2005) Family therapy sessions with Jim and Pam required a family therapy model that considered the inner experiences of the clients. Firstly, the two seem extremely compatible, even before the therapy sessions I congratulated them for seeking to overcome the difficulties they were experiencing in their relationship. From a historical perspective of the relationship of Jim and Pam, I also realized they had developed a bond and friendship, which would allow for an easier resolution of their situation (Becvar & Becvar, 2006). For these reasons, experiential family therapy model was the best option, as it places emphasis on the need to nurture, experience, and monitor the internal processes of the relationship and the respective individuals. The model also insists on the development of the self, and placing it into the context of the family, which is very important for couples. Additionally, the therapist shares their internal experiences and processes, in response to the session – which offers the couple a sense of direction and a clear perspective on the problems facing their relationship (Nichols & Schwartz, 2008). Case Description Pam called me to schedule for a relationship therapy session, for her and the husband, Jim. Jim is a mature, soft-spoken and a professionally successful person. Pam, on the other hand, besides being a co-actor to Jim, she had developed a strong bond with Jim. According to her, the bond developed spontaneously. As a result, she feels that they are greatly compatible for one another despite their differences. In addition to his duties as an actor, Jim has started a consulting business. He also identifies several of his hobbies, including skydiving and restoring antique bicycles. Because of his ‘poker face,’ I had difficulties evaluating his reactions during the consultation; during the first sessions. Pam who is in her late 20s works as a co-actor to Jim, but also works outside their home, as a free-lance movie editor. Due to her duties at the different work areas, she has to juggle between professional work and the care of their jointly-adopted daughter, Sophia who is two years old. Pam – although shy – was straightforward, friendly and very outspoken. Her character is similar to the one she assumes for the show. Unlike Jim, Pam showed her reactions clearly, all over her face. Pam was very upset and very vocal about the insensitivity of Jim. According to her, Jim’s mind is always at some other place. As a result, he would often forget the promises he made to her regarding their shared time, get-together sessions, romantic plans, and household commitments. She put it straight that he only cares about himself, his projects and hobbies, and accused him of not showing much effort on maintaining the responsibility required by a relationship and a family, although they were not yet married. Jim, on the other hand, said that his performance never met Pam’s satisfaction. He argued that Pam was a good couple and mother to the daughter, but that her expectations of him were grossly unreasonable; she was constantly upset about something. In a one-on-one session, Jim told me that he viewed Pam as immature – like a three-year old – who resolves to throw tantrums, whenever they cannot have their own way. He continued to say that he felt it would be wrong to give in to her childish demands, and added that on the few instances he did not do so, Pam would remain upset and quiet until he backed down and apologized (Schwartz, 1995). The two partners felt that they were a victim of the unreasonable ways of the other. Jim saw Pam as emotionally punishing and highly controlling person, and confessed that her care for him depended on whether he remained a ‘good boy’ and did things as she wanted. He felt that the only option available to him – when attacked by Pam was standing his ground; pointing out her defective thinking and accommodating them as they are. However, his accommodations were accompanied by the feelings of resentment, condescension and disgust. Pam, on the other hand, saw Jim as irresponsible and not caring. She felt that the only way to get a considerable level of involvement from him was through constantly showing and convincing him that he acted like a jerk. Her viewpoints were generally projected from an emotional point of view, characterized by contempt and anger (Nichols & Schwartz, 2008). Phase One My goal as a therapist was to convince the two partners, that their personal reactions to the unreasonable behaviors of their spouse were obstructing the very changes they expected to see from them. This was done, through holding individual sessions with Pam and Jim, respectively (Safran & Greenberg, 1991). I advised Jim that, from the individual session with Pam, I felt that her principal fear was being ignored or discounted. She had the feelings of insignificance in the family she was brought up from, therefore constantly worried that Jim would not offer her enough consideration. I presented the hypothesis that, during the times when Jim pointed out the errors in her behavior and thinking – then accommodated them – she sensed his barely veiled disgust, making her feel discounted. I hinted that what she needed most from him was not his cooperation, but a sense of emotional responsiveness. I expressed to Jim that Pam would most likely drop her angry tantrums – if she felt that she got through to him emotionally. He was skeptical but consented that things could get much worse, in the case he did not try it, thus agreed to spend more sessions reviewing his emotional responses to her (Schwartz, 1995). I suggested to Pam that Jim’s primary fear was that she wanted him – only for what he could offer her. I noted that this insecurity developed out of his experience in the family he was brought up from, where he received recognition or affirmation, only after doing what he was expected to do. I hinted to Jim that even at times when she showed genuine affection for him, he felt that these times only came when he had met her expectation and did what he wanted, so that he could please her. I explained that Jim’s emotional distance and resentment were directly linked to his belief that, failure to give in to Pam’s demands would lead to punishment through her anger. I expressed to Pam my belief that, if she could show him love even in cases when he had disappointed her, he would grow closer to her emotionally and try to please her. Pam felt that, this approach made sense, but she protested that she would not be able to fake contentment when she was upset with his insensitivity. I reassured her that I would not recommend that she fakes contentment, as she could gradually learn how to influence her feelings towards Jim, if only she decided to. She consented that she would lose nothing through trying (Schwartz, 1995). Phase Two During the second phase of therapy, I continuously met Pam and Jim for individual sessions. The aim of the individual sessions was to influence each partner – to identify the self-protective emotional defenses, which were triggered habitually in the two. These include Jim’s disgust/ distant resentment and Pam’s intense anger after a confrontation with the behavior of the other. Second, was to influence the development of the ability to influence the defensive, habitual emotional states (Schwartz, 1995). Each partner was encouraged to think of their personal emotional reaction towards the displeasing behavior of their partner; discuss the shock of the response on the other, and recognize how the partner could pick up the emotional defense in nonverbal ways. (Jim agreed that Pam could detect his disgust and resentment, even though he could try to hide it). As the discussion continued, the two were able to see how their defensive emotional state triggered the worst in the other. As a result, both expressed curiosity – though in a skeptical manner – over how the other would react like, in the case they did not react in the habitual manner (Safran & Greenberg, 1991). Steadily, the discussion shifted from talking about the emotional states – towards aiding Jim and Pam relate using their emotional states. We identified the defensive emotional states, which were preceded by vulnerability states. Towards interacting using an emotional state, the state had to be active and running, thus the initial task was aiding Jim and Pam activate the defensive states that would be triggered by their interaction (Schwartz, 1995). Pam concentrated on her anger, which was quickly activated by reading a list of Jim’s recent inadequacies. I encouraged her to picture her angry state as part of her – for reasons she may not fully comprehend. My goal during these sessions with Pam was to aid her build a link with her angry person – so as to learn how to help it shift or cool down when necessary. I achieved this through a number of ways: (1) helping her recognize that she never gave the angry self a thought (2) showing her that she voluntarily let the anger take over (3) influencing her acknowledge that she had an angry side (4) allowing the angry side take over for a while so she could study how it felt to her (5) Notice how she felt about it (6) Check the thoughts that come to her when the angry part was on (7) Question the causes for the anger, and command it her way, notice its response to her command and check the shift in her feelings as she interacted with it (Schwartz, 1995). Pam was able to view the anger as only a part of her and not a central aspect to who she was. From her words, she pictured this part as a female Devil inside her, which she could calm after internal dialogue. During one session, following Pam’s focus on how the angry state took precedence, she grasped that she was irritated with herself for being highly dependent on Jim. For example, she noted a situation when she hired a decorator to wallpaper rooms – a job that Jim had promised to do, but failed to (Schwartz, 1995). During his sessions, Jim practiced reaching the resentful, detached state he felt towards the unreasonable nature of Pam. With him, I used many of the approaches used to develop Pam’s connection with her angry state. However, different from Anne’s ager, which was fully expressed, Jim’s defensive resentment bubbled under the surface. In fact, at first, he said that he felt nothing, but later captured his condescending and resentful feelings. Further, he was able to bond with resentful self – and reported relief every time he acknowledged it and gave it audience. On one case when he had bonded with the resentful self, I asked him to enquire from it – the most upsetting trait of Pam. After some duration of self-talk, he told me that Pam did not believe in him like she did before. He acknowledged that there was a soft spot that desired the recognition of Pam, but that part came alive less often. He also explained that Pam had not experienced that soft side of him, except during their initial days of dating. He also seemed heartened by my advice that she needed to contact with the soft Jim some more – which may be all that she missed in him (Nichols, 2009). For the few succeeding sessions, Jim felt vulnerable, in relation to Pam, memories of his family or events that took place at work. After ten one-on-one sessions, Jim grew more comfortable with contacting his vulnerable self and grew less worried about his ability to handle the intense feelings that accompanied it (Schwartz, 1995). Phase Three This phase had already started, by the time I met the two. Pam had discovered alternative ways of meeting her needs and was significantly less angry at Jim. Jim had quit defending his stand, and stopped showing Pam her unreasonable nature. His sense of resentment about Pam had reduced considerably. Initially, during the joint discussion, Pam grew angry at Jim, and Jim defended his position with a condescending tone. During that incidence, I stopped the two and showed them how the negative part had taken over – which facilitated a swing to the vulnerable states. Through interceding, Jim allowed Pam to relate with the lonely part of him, which desired her support. Pam was also able to respond tenderly, which reminded Jim how he missed that side of her. As a result, Jim perceived the part of Pam that felt insignificant, which called for his attention. From the situation, both gave reassurance of sustaining the dependent person and enhancing harmonious co-existence (Becvar & Becvar, 2006). Importantly, the two did not talk about their vulnerable feelings, but allowed the feeling surface during the sessions. This happened after one of the partners triggered a defensive reaction inside the other. For example, the expression of disgust in Jim triggered the feelings of hurting in Pam. However, a simple apology from Jim cooled her feelings of hurting and the anger developing (Nichols, 2009). The therapy with Jim and Pam took 31 sessions spread across a period of five months. In my most recent communication with the two, they reported that their relationship was going very well and that they planned on having another child. References Becvar, D., & Becvar, R. (2006). Family therapy: A systemic integration. Boston, MA: Pearson Griffin, W., & Greene, S. (1998). Models of family therapy: The essential guide. Boston, MA: Pearson. Nichols, M., & Schwartz, R. (2008). Family therapy: Concepts and methods. Boston: Pearson. Nichols, M. P. (2009). Family therapy: Concepts and methods. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Safran, J., & Greenberg, L. (1991). Emotion, psychotherapy, and change. New York: Guilford. Schwartz, R. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. New York: Guilford Press. Read More