What you’re “supposed to feel”

No matter what kind of family or culture we were born into, we got instructed on what we should feel under this or that circumstance. Some of the instructions came in the form of admonitions (“Of course you love him, he’s your father!”) and some in the form of role modeling. As children, we learn a lot from the behaviors we observe being demonstrated by those around us.

Real love is rooted in a naturally-occurring feeling we have for another person, but love is institutionalized in a variety of ways. New mothers are “supposed to” love their babies, but this isn’t always the case. It may be a hormonal thing, as with post-partum depression, or it might be that the child was conceived by rape; but a mother who doesn’t spontaneously feel love for her newborn is usually judged or blamed. Children are “supposed to” love their parents, but not all parents are worthy of their children’s love.

We all have feelings about our feelings. We may feel ashamed for having been afraid, or angry at ourselves for being depressed. A number of people I worked with over the course of my career felt terribly guilty for not loving a parent or other close relative who had neglected and/or abused them. We can’t choose what we authentically feel about anyone, and nobody has the authority to tell you what you’re “supposed to” feel. Real loving feelings either arise spontaneously, or they don’t. It’s not something we owe someone just because we’re blood relatives.

Gestalt guru Fritz Perls said that most people are socialized to be phony. Ideally, a kiss is a genuine expression of affection or love. But many times in some families, children are told to hug and kiss a relative because (s)he’s kin, whether or not the child feels affection or love for that person. Kissing may become a hollow social ritual, performed because it’s expected. In some family situations, a child may be expected to kiss someone who has abused or neglected them, or whom they find “creepy.” In some cultures a child may be required to kiss a dead relative at a funeral. This sort of thing can be a traumatic experience. It can be a perversion of what a kiss is meant to express. You can’t make yourself love someone any more than you can make someone love you. But you might be put in a position where you feel you have to fake it. When Perls called a behavior phony, he wasn’t judging the client; he was observing that the behavior wasn’t an authentic expression of feeling.

I’ve worked with couples in loveless marriages who reflexively claim to love one another, because that’s what’s expected, when they haven’t felt love for their partner in a long time. It’s not always black and white, however. Observing my father’s parents as a youth, I came to understand the term “love/hate relationship.” Love and hate can be closely allied, and it’s been suggested that the opposite of love isn’t hate, but indifference.

Relationships can be emotionally nourishing or, at the other end of the continuum, they can be toxic. People can change, and family systems can change. Often the goal of family therapy is to change the family system and to promote reconciliation between family members. But this isn’t always possible. Bad marriages can be terminated by divorce, but your parents will always be your parents – for better or for worse. I’ve worked with people who’ve tried time and again to reconcile with family members, only to find that the relationship remains toxic to them despite their best efforts. If a client had gotten to the point where they’d concluded that a family relationship would never be anything but painful for them, I’d suggest that she had the option to “divorce” that relative. It’s a sad happenstance, but it’s sometimes necessary for healing to begin.

I’ve also suggested that not all “kinfolk” need be blood-related, that you might have brothers and sisters you haven’t met yet. There are several people in my life that I consider “found” brothers and sisters. Someone who was abused or neglected by a parent might later find a nourishing relationship with an “other mother” or with a man who feels like the father he wishes he’d had. I’ve seen it happen. The mere fact of blood relationships doesn’t necessarily confer lifelong obligations, and certainly not the obligation to feel a certain way about a member of your birth family. We feel what we feel, and there’s no “should.” Rational thinking can free us from the tyranny of “shoulds.”

The Gloria sessions

I’ve written posts about my education as a psychotherapist in the humanistic psychology program at the University of West Georgia, and my exposure to a variety of therapeutic modalities. These included Rogerian (client-centered), gestalt, and cognitive behavioral therapy. I remember watching a videotaped film titled “Three Approaches to Psychotherapy” that I’ve always thought of as “the Gloria sessions.” For many years this film was only available for viewing by professional therapists, faculty, and students of psychotherapy; but now all three sessions can be viewed on YouTube.

In 1965 a courageous young woman named Gloria – a divorced single mother – agreed to be videotaped in brief therapy sessions with three of the most influential American psychotherapists of the twentieth century: Dr. Carl Rogers (client-centered therapy), Dr. Fritz Perls (gestalt therapy), and Dr. Albert Ellis (cognitive behavioral therapy). Watching the sessions again, I was reminded of Gloria’s courage and candor. The production quality isn’t always good and following the Perls  session takes concentration, due both to poor sound quality and Perls’ thick German accent. But if you want to see three masters of psychotherapy at work, this film is a treasure trove. Their approaches to working with Gloria are very different.

In each segment, the therapist briefly describes his approach to therapy, then works with Gloria, then comments on the session. In the first segment Carl Rogers says that if the therapist can establish certain conditions in relating to the client, “therapeutic movement” will predictably occur. The first condition is genuineness, and the second is congruence – meaning that your non-verbal communication is congruent with your verbalizations. The third condition is transparency , meaning that the therapist hides nothing and can be easily “seen through.” Rogers states that if these three conditions exist, and the therapist can be in tune with the client’s “inner world” (how she experiences herself in the world) insights and growth will follow.

During the session Gloria keeps trying to get Dr. Rogers to give her advice about making a decision, and dealing with guilt feelings related to the decision. He never accedes to her request, but keeps accurately reflecting on what she’s saying, allowing her to eventually take ownership of the issue, and to trust her own judgment. (Contrary to popular belief, good therapists seldom or never give advice.) Rogers is comfortable with silences, and at one point asks, “What do you wish I’d say to you?” She gets it. In his commentary, he remarks on how her “then-and-there” orientation at the start of the session quickly becomes a “here-and-now” focus. He highlights the “I-Thou” quality of their experience, rejecting Freud’s intellectual concept of transference/counter-transference in favor of Martin Buber’s term for authentic relating. He concludes, “Gloria and I really encountered each other” and says he thinks that both of them benefitted from their brief encounter. Watching again, I can’t help but agree.

Perls puffs on a cigarette while he describes gestalt therapy, and Gloria lights up at the beginning of the session, admitting that it’s a response to anxiety. In his introduction Perls, like Rogers, endorses the I-Thou relating essential to the therapeutic relationship, and the idea that therapy should not dwell on the then-and-there, but should always focus on the here-and-now of direct experience. He states that a gestalt therapist never offers interpretations, but provides clients with experiential opportunities to discover things about themselves, often by interrupting the client’s verbalizations and calling attention to automatic behaviors that the client is usually unaware of. Early in the session Perls labels some of Gloria’s behaviors as “phony” – which has a specific meaning in gestalt therapy. She’s initially bewildered and angry, feeling judged. She’s very defensive, but Perls doesn’t back off, and Gloria appears to catch on to what he’s saying by the end of the session. He was never judging her; he was giving her an experiential lesson in her automatic, typical defenses. It’s known in gestalt therapy as “being on the hot seat.” It was Perls who wrote what became known as the Gestalt Prayer, which starts with: “I am not in this world to live up to your expectations and you are not in this world to live up to mine.”

In his introduction, Albert Ellis expounds upon the notion that – contrary to Freudian psychodynamic theory – the past isn’t the primary determinant of present-day distress or dysfunction. The past may have a role in its formation, but it’s present behaviors that maintain the problem – specifically, the irrational things we tell ourselves about our experiences and their consequences. As I’d remembered, Ellis came across like the  stereotypical pushy, fast-talking New Yorker, but his words were precise and logical. In his short session with Gloria he manages to convey the principles of rational thinking, by applying them to Gloria’s anxieties about dating and seeking a life partner. She appears to grasp the notion that she makes undesirable situations worse by catastrophizing. “Don’t beat yourself over the head or convince yourself you’re a no-goodnik, just because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted.” He explained how he gives his clients behavioral homework assignments to complete between sessions, and suggests that Gloria should set up opportunities to take some small risks, instead of holding back in social situations. Its a behavioral technique called exposure, and Ellis was one of its early proponents.

When I first saw “Three Approaches to Psychotherapy,” I remember that there was a brief interview with Gloria after the sessions; but I wasn’t able to find it online. As I recall, Gloria said that she liked Carl Rogers the best, and learned some valuable things from Albert Ellis; but her session with Fritz Perls was the one she most benefitted from. If you don’t understand the basics of gestalt therapy, what Perls says and does in the session won’t make much sense. It shook Gloria up; but that’s what good gestalt therapists do, and Perls was one of the best. I highly recommend the Gloria sessions to social science students, psychotherapists in training or practice, and people who want to know more about psychotherapy.

Little did I know when I first watched the film that I’d actually meet Rogers and Ellis. I’ve already written about my brief meeting with Carl Rogers. In a later post I’ll describe my encounter with Albert Ellis.