Projection
Many theorists have worked with idea of projection: Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Karl Wolfe and Melanie Klein. Scarf (1987) describes the process as:
…a mechanism which involves one person’s projecting denied and disavowed aspects of
his or her inner experience onto the intimate partner and then perceiving those dissociated
feelings as existing in the partner. Not only are the unwanted thoughts and feelings seen
as being inside the mate, but the mate is encouraged by means of cues and
provocations to behave as if they were there. (p.62)
Kerri described her inability to express her anger because of her people pleasing-nature. Ultimately, she fears rejection and longs for approval. It is reasonable to believe that Kerri has disowned this angry part of herself and projected it onto Patrick by acting in ways that designate Patrick as the angry partner and she as the victim of his reactive nature. Likewise, Patrick described Kerri as intellectually intimidating and emotionally deprecating. He may have disowned his vulnerable feelings that consequently make him feel like a victim and unconsciously projected them onto Kerri. This further allowed Kerri to act as the wounded individual who is intimidated by the aggressive and fractious partner.
A Jungian Perspective
Carl Jung used the term projection to describe the unconscious personalities of the animus (the inherently masculine construct) and the anima (the inherently feminine construct) that exist within men and women. When the man’s feminine anima is activated it is often projected onto a female typically one with who the man is engaged in a romantic relationship. Similarly, a women’s masculine animus is projected onto her partner. Accordingly, it seems that this image belongs to their partner, but in actuality it resides within each of them. According to Jungian theory, for the duration of their relationship Patrick has owned Kerri’s animus projection. Initially (and even now) she viewed him as her savior or hero. This makes clear her description of her first impressions of her mate. One who was “witty, intelligent, resourceful, and overall, very masculine.” This projection would be a very inflating experience for Patrick; however, over time he may have felt a particular sort of clinging or inequality surfacing in the relationship. This would also explain his pulling away, disregarding the relationship and refusing to partake in activities with her friends. It’s almost a type of retaliation against her requestseven when they are realistic and healthy. On the other end of the relationship Kerri is the container for Pat’s anima projection. Initially (and likely still) he was drawn to her by means of his anima projection. When I asked what his initial impressions of her were, Patrick said he found her “intoxicating, sexually attractive, warm, personable and fascinating.” This is likely the anima projection at work. When they began dating, Kerri was likely pleased and flattered by this projection, but over time her experience may have been more disagreeable. She described Patrick at times as being needy or pouty and somewhat upset if she did not pay attention him, especially physically. Consequently she experienced this neediness as having a slightly oppressive quality. Kerri is now unable to maintain the position as the keeper of his soul, and unfortunately, this projection is how he sees her and where he is comfortable. This is where their projections started to transform into dysfunction.
The following is a conceptualization of the couple’s current fighting style, in terms of the animus and anima at work within each person. Kerri described Pat as reactive and moody. Pat is unable to recognize that these projections exist within him; thus, he is often overcome by his moods, which belong to his anima. After speaking with Pat, it turns out he is often upset about his job and is not satisfied with many of his interactions in the workplace. He comes home emotional but is unable to recognize his feelings. He then allows his anima to take over and becomes moody. Kerri, feeling his lack of relationality feels she is perhaps to blame. Kerri then becomes engulfed by her animus that, likewise, retaliates and strikes out at Patrick’s anima with a stinging remark about his moodiness. Consequently, Patrick’s anima reacts immediately. Unfortunately, this causes Patrick to lose his objectivity and there is an eruption of affect. This fighting style is quite typical of this couple; the animus draws his sword of power and the anima ejects poison of illusion and seduction (Sanford, 1980). This style of fighting is also evident when Kerri’s animus is activated first and she becomes overly opinionated or judgmental—what Patrick calls “sharp-tongued.” Unaware of his anima, she reacts. Kerri receives the negative projection of the inner witch, and is, accordingly, held responsible for his bad mood while Kerri projects onto Patrick all the infuriating qualities that, in fact, belong to the man inside her (Sanford, 1980).
Emotionally Focused Theory
Lastly I would like to explore the couple’s dynamic and presenting problems using attachment theory; specifically, using Sue Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Therapy as a theoretical framework. It focuses on adult attachment styles (i.e., secure, preoccupied/anxious, dismissing avoidant and fearful avoidant) and individual developmental needs that are expressed in positive or negative ways. The attachment process between partners consists of a bond or a safe haven for security and support and a secure base from which to explore the world (Johnson, 2008). A partner tests these waters by emotionally engaging with his or her partner and then evaluating whether this partner is accessible and responsive to his or her needs. Based on these responses, the partners form a subsequent adult attachment style. After gathering family history and past relationship history, I conclude that both partners had secure attachments with their parental figures; however, both had experiences of of rejection in their past relationshipsalso known as relationship trauma or wounds. This leads Kerri and Patrick to adopt a preoccupied/anxious attachment style. They both have a strong need for support and affection from one another but fell an exaggerated sense of hurt, and a state of extreme emotionality occurs between the couple. Johnson also spoke of the Pursuer and Withdrawer, which is a negative interaction style characterized by many conflict-ridden couples. When attachment needs are not met, one partner will often fall into the role of the Pursuer, that is to say, the one who feels the loss of his or her partner’s attention, care, or concern and so searches him or her out with anger, frustration and hurt. The pursuer feels that if he or she does not chase after his/her partner, he or she will not be seen or understood. Within this role are the underlying feelings of rejection, unlovability and unimportance (Stoop & Stoop, 2002). Meanwhile, it is the other partner who acts out the complimentary role as the Withdrawer. He or she will frequently walk on eggshells and skirt around issues that may trigger displeasure in their spouse. Oftentimes withdrawers say that attempting to get their point across is not worth the hassle because they feel that their spouse would not understand them anyway (Stoop & Stoop, 2002). Kerri and Patrick’s fight style is defined within the context of the Pursuer-Withdrawer. Patrick, feeling rejected by Kerri, perhaps because of her dedication to her job, her opinionated nature or simply his own insecurities, becomes frustrated and angry. Accordingly, he acts out in an emotionally reactive manner. Kerri, who feels quite helpless and inadequate as a spouse, will either avoid conflict altogether by being overly cautious (so not to upset her mate) or withdraw completely—refusing to discuss matters further and then retreating into herself to avoid further emotional grievances.
Johnson’s Emotionally Focused Therapy also focuses on affect regulation within the relationship. She goes on to explain that i emotions bind couples together or divide them; thus, it is crucial to work with the couple’s emotions directly. Emotions constitute a connection between the clients and their environment (Johnson, 2008). If emotions are experienced and not expressed there is miscommunication within the relationship. The need for each partner to feel loved, respected and validated is critical, and when communication breaks down it can often be attributed to the blocking of these crucial experiences. Johnson also goes on to distinguish between primary and secondary emotions. Primary emotions such as fear, injustice or guilt are often out of the client’s conscious awareness. They may be unacknowledged, ignored or even disowned. Secondary emotions are responses to a primary emotion and are often what the therapist will see in his or her sessions with clients. These can include feelings of fear, anger, depression or anxiety. These secondary emotions need to be acknowledged by the therapist, but moreover, he or she must evoke the primary feeling if authentic experiences are to occur (Johnson, 2008). Pulling from past conversations with both Patrick and Kerri, it is probable that Patrick’s expressed anger is a secondary emotion—a reaction to his fear of rejection. Similarly Kerri’s frustration and anxiety about the relationship may be related to her primary feelings of rejection or a sense of injustice she feels is forming in the relationship.
Interventions
As a novice therapist who has not had any real clinical experience working with couples, I have decided to explore possible interventions that draw a parallel between two separate and distinct theoretical bases: that which is outlined by Bader and Pearson (1988) and the Emotionally Focused approach delineated by Sue Johnson.
Bader and Pearson
The following therapeutic objectives and strategies are adapted from the work of Bader and Pearson (1988). They are based both differentiating-differentiating couples and symbiotic hostile-dependant couples.
- Each partner will develop the ability to self-reflect and identify what they think, feel and desire
- Each partner will develop the ability to express to his or her partner what each thinks, feels and desires
- Each partner will develop the ability to respond effectively to one another’s feelings in a way that supports increased differentiation in each other
- The couple will develop the willingness to change the environment or provide support for the partner in facilitating the creation of what is desired.
- The couple will develop a fight style that is effective in their relationship. One that leaves both individuals feeling understood, even if not agreed with.
- Establishment of boundaries merged in the symbiotic stage
- During conflict the couple learns to replace hostility with more support
To meet the above objectives requires the couple to above all make a solid commitment to their therapy. I will have each partner fill out a contract that outlines some simple goals for the couple that also includes a written commitment to their therapy for twelve weeks.
Developing a fight style.
Kerri and Patrick are in the very beginning of the differentiating stage but intermittently fall back into a hostile-dependant conflict style. It is imperative that before working on their individuation that we take the time to de-escalate the couple’s negative interaction and existing aggression. The Limits exercise would be very useful in accomplishing de-escalation. Bader and Pearson (1988) outline this technique below:
In this exercise, partners are asked to go home and complete the following four
statements:
- The following behaviors are acceptable for me to use during a fight:
- The following behaviors are acceptable for you to use during a fight:
- The following behaviors are unacceptable for me to use during a fight:
- The following behaviors are unacceptable for you to use during a fight:
After each partner fills out this questionnaire carefully and thoughtfully, (they) negotiate agreements in the following session….partners are asked to make only agreements they believe they will be able to keep…the agreements…provide a safer and more predictable structure to the fighting that occurs when anger erupts at home.
When using this technique, couples are not permitted to discuss any fight from the previous week or any or any past unresolved disagreements during sessions. Discussions are centralized around what each partner wants in order to make the relationship feel more positive (Bader & Pearson, 1988). This exercise is often supplemented with the agreement that partners to do fun activities as a couples a few days a week. This technique can be supplemented with Time-Outs technique when the couple is at home. “Time Outs are a relational/communication skill designed to be issued in time of insurmountable conflict. They involve a brief break in the emotional action/argument so that the angry person(s) can vacate” (Mihaloew, 2009). This allows for the emotionality to diffuse and to break the tension so the couples can talk afterwards in a more calm and objective manner. They are no longer than 20-30 minute break, and include the use of “I” statements to describe how each partner is feeling during the time of conflict. For example:
Patrick: I am really getting worked up
(or)
Patrick: I am feeling too angry to talk rationally right now
The person taking the time out declares as such and sets the parameters. Finally, the person taking the time out communicates to their partner their willingness to discuss the issue upon return and most importantly, each takes the time to think of how they have contributed to the fight.
Escalation in the therapy room.
If the couple’s dysfunctional fight style merges in the therapy office it’s imperative for the therapist to intervene to stop the negative cycle. Using Bader and Pearson’s (1988) Principals for Intervention, I would diffuse the conflict as quickly as possible. If a heated fight erupts it may be more useful to channel the couple’s anger through the therapist, and talk to the therapist instead of the partner, than allowing them to continually escalate (we already know they are experts at this and don’t need to pay for further practice). Normalizing and predicting future fights can also be very helpful; fighting is after all part of any relationship and telling the couple to expect fights in the future also paradoxically decreases the probability on minimizes the significance of their occurrence (Bader &Pearson, 1988). When progress is eventually made with the couple, it is important to provide support and positive reinforcement, particularly when an individual is willing to take responsibility for his or her aggression.
Tammy (therapist): Patrick, it’s good to see you recognizing your anger and how it is
contributing to your arguments with Kerri.
Last of all, learning to apologize to one another is a healthy way to end subsequent fights between the couples. The couple must be taught not only to say “I’m sorry” but to also to explicitly recognize and take ownership of one’s mistake.
Kerri: Patrick, by ignoring your concerns and storming off into the other room, I was
only avoiding the situation and making it worse. I’m sorry.
Apologies are difficult for most people. It’s important to discuss why that is during therapy and assist the couple in developing a more rounded way of understanding what a healthy and functional apology looks like.
Differentiating in the relationship.
According to Bader and Pearson (1988) partners that find themselves in the differentiating-differentiating stage of their relationship are each forming their own identity by defining their own needs, wants and desires. In this context conflict is bound to rise. This stage is predominated by the couples incessant bickering back and forth without it being intensified by destructive behavior (Bader & Pearson, 1988). It’s a question of addressing wants and needs of both individuals and then balancing them as a couple. The couple is no longer symbiotic and they begin to realize their partner is not who they thought they were (as projection formally lead them to believe) and the vision of being a single unit is ultimately crushed. According to Bader and Pearson (1988) this leaves the couple with strong feelings of grief, loss and betrayal, which must be resolved. Kerri and Patrick are at a stage where they are beginning to express their differences but are unsure of how to do so in a safe way where they will still feel loved and validated. As the differentiating in each partner is minimal, the therapy will continue slowly, and some individual therapy may be proposed as an adjunct to help better develop the self. What Kerri and Patrick might do is need the chance to feel validated by the therapist and have their “story heard”. In attempting to be fair and not align with either partner, I would allow one of them to ventilate anger to the other, and then let the partner respond. This is done with the use of the Initiator-Responder technique, as outlined in Bader and Pearson (1988):
The role of the initiator is to: bring up the problem; describe his or her feelings about the
problem; and describe what he or she wants to happen or would like to feel or accomplish
by the end of the discussion. The role of the responder is to: listen; ask questions until he
or she is understands why the partner feels the way he or she feels; respond with
empathetic statements before moving into any problem solving or decision making that
will be focused on helping the initiator; stay wit this position until a soothing moment has
occurred and been experienced.
When Kerri and Patrick come into session they will negotiate who will go first, and then switch roles. The objective is not to allow the partners unload emotionally but to be clear about his her needs and wants—e xperiencing themselves as separate persons existing in a relationship. Feelings being directly experienced are a focal point. For example:
Kerri: I’m scared I won’t be enough for Patrick. I’m frightened to make him angry.
As a therapist, I need to differentiate between venting frustrations and experiencing emotions that underlie frustrations in the relationship. Questions are directed at clients when they respond with cathartic unloading:
Tammy (therapist): What is the core issue that is upsetting you right now?
Tammy (therapist): Will you tell your partner in one sentence what you are feeling and
what you want her to do?
Then it is up to the responder to answer in a way that focuses on his or her partner. We want the responder to move out of a self-centered, defensive position and into one that expresses a caring interest in the partner (Bader & Pearson, 1988). For instance:
Tammy (therapist): Patrick, it is easy for you to feel angry with Kerri when you get in this
situation where you feel so frustrated, but for now can you put that anger on hold and
respond to the feelings Kerri has expressed.
Generally this emotionally corrective experience is a focus on gaining real-life experience in learning how to shift between self-focus and a focus on the other (Bader & Pearson, 1988). Another area to focus on is discerning between problem-solving issues, which can simply be remedied with quid pro quo agreements, and issues involving more complex developmental factors such as narcissistic wounds. Changes within this context will come from an emotionally corrective experience where each partner feels heard, validated and emotionally soothed. In these instances it is the initiator who is precise and clear in his or her statements, expressing them without blame, and the responder returns the communication in an empathetic way that is absent of defense or counterattack (Bader & Pearson, 1988). In a final attempt to augment differentiation within each partner, attention will be drawn toward individual growth outside the dyad; specifically, a focus on developing activities outside the partnership and daily journaling will be utilized to accentuate the work done conjointly in therapy.
Emotionally Focused Therapeutic Approach
Goals and stages of EFT.
Johnson (2008) specifies that the role of the therapist in Emotionally Focused Couples is :
. . . (to) understand the relationship distress as resulting from the frustration of an
individual’s innate need to maintain a sense of close emotional connection with others. . .
when this connection to a loved one is threatened, individuals seek proximity to their
partner. When partners fail to respond to this search for proximity, individuals typically
develop secondary, less effective, affect regulation strategies to cope with their feelings of
abandonment and isolation. The developed secondary strategies are either hyperactivating
strategies which include clinging, pursuing, or demanding behaviors, or deactivating
strategies which involve the numbing of emotions, the avoidance of emotional
involvement, and a denial of a need for intimacy. (p.267)
A primary goal of EFT is for the couples to better understand their negative interaction style. Rather than blaming one another, the cycle is identified, broken down and blame is externalized to the cycle itself. This negative interaction cycle is caused by unexpressed primary emotions, which result from unmet attachment needs. Through the work in therapy they are gradually explored and expressed between partners (Johnson, 2008). EFT unfolds in three stages and broken into nine steps. The first stage is de-escalation. Here the therapist validates each partner and allows them to tell their story; the partners need to be calm and non-reactive before real work can be done. This stage will help delineate conflict issues, identify their negative interaction style and ideally reframe the conflict in terms of the negative interaction cycle, underlying emotions and attachment needs.
The second stage is called bonding. This is where change in the couple’s interactional pattern occurs. There is an increased emphasis on identification and expression of primary emotions, recognition of disowned needs and acceptance of their partner’s experiences. Most importantly, new ways of interacting are established, and there is a facilitation of the individuals’ expression of needs and wants. Overall, this gradually leads to emotional engagement of both partners.
The final stage, consolidation of change, is where the therapist facilitates the emergence of new solutions to problematic issues and new cycles are established within the relationship (Johnson, 2008).
Specific interventions for Kerri and Patrick.
To work actively on affect regulation and guide Kerri and Patrick through the stages of EFT, several experiential techniques are used, which are outlined in Johnson’s manual: Emotionally Focused Therapy for Couples (1988). These techniques are not focusing on content so much as the underlying emotional undertone of the interactions. First are empathetic reflections. This technique allows therapy sessions to decelerate and permit each individual adequate time to process their feelings and validate their experiences.
Tammy (therapist): So when Kerri hides in the bedroom and doesn’t want to talk to you,
you feel angry, as if your feelings are not important to her?”
Patrick: Yes. It’s like she doesn’t care what I have to say to her and it tells me she doesn’t
actually care about working it out.
Evocative responses/questioning are used help partners explore their reactions to their partner by using open-ended questions about the emotional experiences.
Tammy (therapist): Is it that you feel she has left by yourself to deal with your pain?
Patrick: Yes. I guess you could say that.
Tammy (therapist): What is happening to you right now Kerri as you hear Patrick talk
about how alone he feels?
Kerri: I feel bad that he feels that way, but I also feel helpless. His anger is scary and I
don’t want to deal with it. Hiding is just easier sometimes.
Tammy (therapist): So what you’re saying is it makes you upset that you can’t do
anything to help him, but you also feel afraid.
Kerri: Exactly. I feel like I want to make our relationship better, and Patrick happy, but
I’m too scared to do that for us.
Heightening highlights deeper primary emotional experiences that provide the undertone of the dysfunctional interaction style of the couple.
Kerri: It’s easier to keep him out; it’s lonely, but it feels better than being rejected
Tammy (therapist): It feels safer to keep him on the other side of the door, far away so he
can’t hurt you, but at the same time it makes you feel alone and isolated from him
too?
Kerri: Yes. I love Patrick very much, but being with him can be really lonely sometimes.
Tammy (therapist): Can you say that to Patrick. Can you tell him, “I am lonely and sad
without you, but I am so afraid of you not being there, that I end up keeping you out.”
Reframing restructures the experiences in a way that draws attention to attachment fears. The following example highlights Patrick’s aggressive behavior.
Tammy (therapist): So when you feel Kerri isn’t supporting you or hearing you out, you
get angry with her. Your anger only gets worse when she withdraws from you and
walks away. This makes you feel helpless and you start to worry that Kerri
might be rejecting and abandoning you. Is that right? It’s hard for you to feel helpless,
so you continue to pursue her, worrying that if you don’t you might lose her?
One last technique utilized in EFT is enactments. This is used in the later stages of therapy where the therapist facilitates a “gradual restructuring and shaping of new interactional cycles. Partners act out specific moments in their cycle while reflecting on the attachment-related aspects of their experience. Slowing down partners’ interactions, while having them directly express the attachment-related affect underlying their behavior, can heighten the thoughts and emotions that maintain the relational distress” (Johnson, 2009, p.271).
Tammy (therapist): Patrick, can you turn to Kerri and tell her how afraid you are of
losing her? How you pursue her when you’re angry because you are actually scared
she is rejecting you?
Conclusions
Bader and Pearson’s model of therapy, Jung’s analytical theory and Johnson’s EFT approach all serve good theoretical frameworks and provide a rich and thoughtful approach to conceptualizing interactions within a relationship. Both Bader and Pearson’s methodology and the EFT approach promote growth in the couple and allow for positive, corrective emotional experiences to occur. They allow the therapist to facilitate change to basic perceptions of the self and other, affective responding and interactional cycles. They both proficiently target change at both the individual and systems level, making them useful and practical in a clinical setting.
References
Bader E., & Pearson, P.T. (1988). In quest of the mythical mate: A developmental approach to
diagnosis and treatment in couples therapy. Florence, KY: Brunner/Mazel,
Johnson, S., & Moser, M.B. (2008). The integration of systems and humanistic approaches in
emotionally focused therapy for couples. Person-Centered and Experiential
Psychotherapies, 7, 262-278.
Greenberg, L.S., & Johnson, S.M. (1988). Emotionally Focussed Therapy for Couples. New
York, NY: Guilford Publications Inc.
Sanford, J.A. (1980). The invisible partners: How the male and female in each of us affects our
relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Scarf, M.S.(1987). Intimate Partners: Patterns in love and marriage. New York, NY: . Random
House, Inc.
Stoop, D.A., & Stoop, J. (2002). The Complete Marriage Book: Collected Wisdom from Leading
Marriage Experts. New York, NY: Baker Publishing Group.
