Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

You've no doubt heard the epigram first made public in January 1849 by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, founder and editor of Les Guêpes:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Usually translated as "the more things change, the more they stay the same," plus ça change refers to what happens when we attempt to resolve problems within the paradigm in which they were created. What does this mean in everyday terms? To borrow again from the French:

On ne fait pas d'omelette sans casser des œufs.

Translation: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." I'm tempted to leave you with these powerful metaphors. But I'll illustrate how plus ça change became the code for a married couple to interrupt an interaction pattern that was frustrating to both of them - to "break the eggs" they'd both been hatching and create a new "omelette."

This had been their pattern: When the husband perceived the wife as "interrupting" in conversation, he would shut down and "pout" (according to the wife). The wife, annoyed that he would blame her instead of speaking up for himself, kept talking while pulling back emotionally. He saw her withdrawing emotionally, wanted to have peace between them, so bypassed his feeling of being ignored and tried to draw physically closer. She felt "schizophrenic" - "He's critical and wants to get closer? Doesn't compute!"

In the past, the pattern had been the opportunity for each to give "feedback" to the other, not realizing that his telling her she interrupted, and her telling him he should speak up if he so desired, fed the plus ça change pattern so that it kept occurring, over and over. When they looked at their interaction systemically and saw how both of them kept it going the way it always had (plus c'est la même chose), they stepped back, let go of blame, and agreed that whoever saw the pattern occurring would simply say, "Plus ça change..."

Alter the Interaction, Not the Other Person

How often when you're having relationship problems, do you focus on how "touchy," "unreliable," "critical" etc. the other person is? Operating from that premise, you may have unwittingly attempted solutions that continued or even exaggerated the perceived problem.

Let's say someone who is operating from Enneagram point One sees her spouse (at point Nine) as not hands-on enough in their family business–she thinks he gives employees too much leeway.

She questions her husband frequently and in detail.

As a consequence, he doesn't tell her about what he does that's hands-on because he thinks She'll just nit-pick anyway.

This confirms her belief that he isn't paying enough attention to details, which leads her to follow up more frequently.

He responds by retreating even more, leading her to check in even more, and so on.

In contrast, you can reframe a situation as an interaction problem. A fundamental premise of this approach is that problems in relationships persist only if maintained by both people–not only the one identified as having the problem:

• Problems that occur between people are situational difficulties–both are doing something to maintain the problem. 
• It's normal and appropriate to resist attempts by another to "fix" us; such so-called resistance can become a source of energy with positive potential.
• It may seem paradoxical, but going with the other person's energy is much more likely to make a difference than lecturing, advising, or scolding.

You can shift focus from what's wrong with the other person to how you both contribute to a self-fulfilling problem. To do this requires two critical skills: 

1. Focus on observable behaviors in the interaction (vs. only the behavior of the other person).
2. Do something to alter the interaction (as opposed to trying to change the other person).

Ideally, both partners in the interaction would talk about the self-fulfilling pattern and decide together how they can interrupt it and do something different. Sometimes, though, one of the partners isn't willing to do this. In this case, it's still possible for one of them to break the cycle.

Paradoxically, changes we seek in other people are more likely to occur if we first accept those people as they are. A particularly interesting application of this concept relies on the paradox of going with a behavior in order to change it. 

Following this premise, the person above could reframe the negative connotation of "not being hands-on enough" and frame the same goals in positive terms, with something like this: "I like the idea of being able to trust our employees to do their jobs well. Let's figure out an approach that gives them more autonomy and doesn't require our checking in on them."


(For a full description of this approach see The Paradoxical Approach to Problem Solving)

Forget everything you thought you knew about change

Greg was a college professor who loved mental gymnastics but wasn't very comfortable with emotions. He especially dreaded extended family holidays because his wife Suzanne thought his relatives were cold and arrogant, and invariably a member of his family would say something that upset her during their visit. She would then go into what he called "a dramatic meltdown." Greg's response? He didn't want to talk about it with Suzanne; he wanted to hide. This upset her even more, which increased his desire to withdraw. Greg wanted Suzanne to stop reacting "so emotionally." She wanted him to "quit being so intellectual and support her."

I asked Greg to think of a way to go with the pattern instead of trying to avoid it. He decided he'd suggest to Suzanne that when with his family they'd find a private space every hour and take ten minutes so she could vent. He would take her feelings seriously.

Greg loved the idea of expecting and planning time for Suzanne to blow off steam, because he wouldn't be distracted wondering when or how it might happen. When he told Suzanne, she was pleased that he was acknowledging her right to her feelings about his family.

As it turned out, they didn't need to take ten minutes every hour. Just knowing they could do it was freeing. "That outing," Greg later said, "turned out to be our very best family visit. While we hoped to be able to make it through two days, we actually stayed three days extra."

More in Out of the Box Self-Coaching Workbook

.

Transforming the Interaction Patterns

No matter how deep our individual developmental work, it's only truly tested out in the world, with our friends, partners, and social groups. And it's a beauty of the Enneagram that we more easily see potential interaction patterns among different points.  

We know the particular filters at each point, as well as characteristic ways of interacting. Responses from the other eight points will also vary with each. 

So, a couple operating from points Eight (female partner) and Nine (male partner) might be drawn together initially because of their mutual comfort with point Eight providing structure, then both begin to feel some pain from that same dynamic. Point Eight has plenty of ideas but may forget to include point Nine, who hasn't initiated any ideas. He goes along with her, then obsesses over being left out. Over time, she's exhausted from having to "hold up the world" (a belief typical at point Eight and thus sustained, of course). He is equally tired of feeling "invisible" (though his fixated behaviors, of course, tend to evoke that feeling).

It's a gift of mutual development that neither partner is on the hot spot because both are learning about themselves within the relationship. This does require courage, however—to take personal responsibility for the relationship, to deepen our own self-awareness, to accept and integrate parts of ourselves we have not wanted to know and see, moving attention away from how we and our partner should be and toward who we are.

Step 1: Each share with the other your understanding of your Enneagram point in general and how, specifically, that plays out for you. What doesn't fit for you about that point's dynamics? What are your gifts? What problems do you think your motivations and behavior do or could create in the relationship? Ask each other for feedback and listen to it.

Step 2: Create a clear picture of what the transformed relationship will look like and commit yourselves to learning as you go. Pick two or three areas of mutual development (don't overwhelm yourselves with too many promises); set some priorities and work on them one at a time.

Step 3: Be alert to how you get in the way of your own progress and stay committed to the transformation—notice and affirm each other for the ways in which you stick to the plan. When one of you gets hooked into an old reaction, instead of placing blame, try to understand how it happened and what either of you could do the next time to keep from getting caught up in the old pattern.

Mother and Child Reunion

Because many people are worried about their adult children in a tough economy, let's explore a relationship pattern that can emerge when parents help so much that they actually create dependence.

What if one of your adult children needs a car to get to work, requires a lawyer, has a medical emergency, can't provide for your grandchildren? When operating from inside the relationship's patterns, the solution appears to be simple: If you have the resources, you offer them to your son/daughter/grandchild. What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

Consider this story:

A naturalist watched a big worm spend many hours squeezing through a tiny pinhole in its sack, until a slender butterfly with powerful wings emerged and vigorously flew away. Observing a second cocoon, the naturalist became impatient and made a thin cut in the sack so the creature wouldn't have such a struggle. This butterfly emerged after twenty minutes, but with weak wings and a heavy bottom. Without the exertion that pushed juice up into its now flaccid and flabby wings, it couldn't fly!

Upon hearing this story, my client Maureen significantly changed her approach with her adult son. Mike had finally found a job after a long struggle and had managed to pay $800 for a friend's old car and ante up for car insurance on his own. After a few weeks of work, he'd found himself stranded on the freeway when the car's engine seized up (oil leak) and couldn't be repaired. Searching for options and knowing he didn't have good enough credit to finance a car, he'd called Maureen to discuss the possibility of a loan.

She'd immediately dropped her plans for the day and flown to his rescue, helping him choose a better used car and paying for it up front so the title could be in his name. Two days later, when that car broke down, Mike contacted the dealership, arranged for a pick-up and loaner car, then called Maureen to talk over options. Again, her first response was to take it on as her problem but this time she suffered an anxiety attack which spilled over into resentment that "he couldn't do anything for himself."

When Maureen and I observed her relationship with Mike as a system of interconnected parts, where each element in the system sustained another element that contributed to the whole, she realized that her generosity had not been free of strings. Yes, she wanted him to "grow up" and take care of his own problems, but she also had a fundamental story: "If I don't take care of people, they won't love me." Her unconscious motivation was "I need your appreciation," whereas the message to Mike was, "You can't get along without me."

In actuality, Mike did not lay the whole problem on Maureen. He wanted to discuss options in the first call, and when the second car broke down, it wasn't clear to him that it was his car. Yes, his name was on the title, but she'd paid for everything and sent him off with a smile. Yes, she was angry when he called to tell her it broke down, but would she have been angry if he hadn't called her? Hard for him to know.

Also, they had a history of the same dynamic showing up time after time, so Mike was conditioned to look to Maureen for help, even though he thought less of himself when he couldn't seem to manage on his own.

With my encouragement, Maureen shared with Mike the idea of their relationship as a system, and how they'd both played a part. Together they agreed that Mike was responsible for his own life and Maureen was available if he wanted to bounce around ideas before he made his own decisions.

Maureen did slip into her old pattern a week later when she sent an email asking him to please call because she didn't know if his not contacting her was good news or bad news. This was his response: 

All is well and everything will be great with my car. They're putting in a "new" engine which will have fewer miles than the original and they're going to warranty the whole car. We're cool, Mom. Please get some rest, don't worry, and I will call you on the weekend.

Hands Off

Often when we experience relationship problems we conclude it's the other person who's "touchy," "unreliable," "critical," etc. Operating from this premise, you may unwittingly attempt solutions that reinforce or even exaggerate the perceived problem.

Let's say Anne and Bill have a family business and Anne, a perfectionist, thinks Bill gives employees too much autonomy. 

Anne presses Bill to be more hands-on, questioning him frequently and in detail. Bill doesn't keep her posted on the ways he is hands-on because "She'll just nit-pick anyway." This confirms Anne's belief that Bill isn't paying enough attention to details, which leads her to follow up more frequently. Bill responds by retreating even more, leading Anne to check in even more, and so on. 

Instead, they could reframe the situation as an interaction problem:

• Problems that occur between people are situational difficulties -- both are doing something to maintain the problem.
  
• It's normal and appropriate to resist attempts by another to "fix" us; such so-called resistance is more usefully labeled as a source of energy when released for positive purposes.
• It may seem paradoxical, but going with the other person's energy is much more likely to make a difference than lecturing, advising, or scolding.

This approach requires relationship partners to develop the ability to:

1. focus on observable behaviors in the interaction (vs. only the behavior of the other person),
2. do something to alter the interaction (as opposed to trying to change the other person).

A particularly interesting application of this concept relies on the paradox of going with a behavior in order to change it. Following this premise, Anne could release the positive potential of Bill's management style by saying something such as "I respect your value of trusting our employees to do their jobs well. Let's talk about how we can help them be more autonomous." This is a win-win situation:

• If Bill "resists" Anne's suggestion, he becomes more "hands-on," increasing his oversight of employees and eliminating her basis for criticism.
• If they work out standards that ensure employees do their jobs without frequent follow-up, again there is no longer a basis for Anne's complaint.

For more about this approach, read The Tactics of Change, by Fisch, Weakland, and Segal.

Owning Up

As follow-up to exploring how both people in a relationship contribute to interaction patterns ("Hands Off"), the following exercises will be most useful if both complete and discuss them. Nonetheless, it's possible for even one person to significantly change a relationship if you think through and write down your responses to the following:

First, what is characteristic of you in relationships? 

• Think of a recent situation with your partner or a close friend where your characteristic behavior played out. Run through it mentally from the beginning. 
• Now think of another situation. And another.
• What do these three situations have in common? What do you notice about yourself and intimacy with others?

Second, identify ten things that annoy you about your close friend or partner. For each, explore: 

• What is your reaction to their behavior?
• How do you provoke that behavior?

Next, describe five painful situations that have occurred in your relationship:

• What were the consequences for you? 
• What was your responsibility in each situation?
• What keeps the situation alive for you (what is the pay-off in the present)? Examples are illusion of control, getting a charge from the anger, not having to face your own fear of intimacy, etc.

Finally, describe ten positive characteristics of the other person and the effect of each on your relationship. Reflect on how you might integrate more gratitude into this relationship and into your life.

What's Good Enough?

Several of my clients worked with me to look more closely at their marriages, for a variety of reasons. One couple -- while their marriage was already more than good enough -- wanted some fine-tuning and gave rave reviews of a workshop I recommended with Doctors John and Julie Gottman in Seattle, "The Art and Science of Love." 

With a client who wanted to refresh her marriage, we began exploring "what's good enough?" I learned about this concept from Carolyn Bartlett, who uses it in The Enneagram Field Guide. Initially coined by psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott, "good enough" describes a nurturing relationship that provides the basic safety, love, mirroring, and containment needed by a developing child. It's also a template for effective therapy. And we can easily extend it to effective partnering in adult relationships.

Interestingly, healthy "containment" is not restrictive. Quite the opposite: the term refers to an emotional, mental, and spiritual space where both partners are available, expansive, and secure; where both feel calm and safe; where each can experience and express perspectives and emotions -- with the expectation of support and comfort, and without fear of judgment or rejection.

Clearly, this definition of "good enough" does not mean compromising or lowering standards. It simply recognizes the fact that no human being and no partnership of any kind is or has to be perfect. And it inspires open communication to make sure each partner's needs are being met.

In "Bad Relationships: Change your Role and the Rules of Engagement," Dr. Tara J. Palmatier quotes Gottman's "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:" criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. Palmatier suggests two scenarios that can have "mutually satisfying, long-term relationship outcomes" (the remaining eight are "either 'get out now' or 'live a life of resignation' outcomes"). In response to your concerns, your partner could:

1. Hear what you say, be accountable, respect your feelings, and actively try to change.
2. Hear what you say, be accountable, respect your feelings, communicate which of your behaviors are contributing to the situation, and you both actively try to change.

From a systemic view, I prefer the second scenario, and suggest that you also (1) look together at how the pattern operates that you've created together, and (2) agree on an interesting and inventive way to interrupt the pattern. Michelle Weiner-Davis addresses this in Divorce Busting, especially Chapter 6: "Breaking the Habit: Interrupting Destructive Patterns."

 

Playing a Bigger Game

Remember Games People Play? The relationship games described by Eric Berne are so familiar from our own interactions, it's relatively easy to notice when someone else plays them. In truth, though, if you're in a game, you're a player, too. When we view relationship interactions as systems, we can see how all players contribute to the pattern.

The popular "Why don't you--yes, but" game is described in 50 Psychology Classics as beginning "when someone states a problem in their life, and another person responds by offering constructive suggestions on how to solve it. The subject says 'Yes, but...' and proceeds to find issue with the solutions. In Adult mode we would examine and probably take on board a solution, but this is not the purpose of the exchange. It allows the subject to gain sympathy from others in their inadequacy to meet the situation (Child mode). The problem solvers, in turn, get the opportunity to play wise Parent."

The Parent, Adult, Child references are from Transactional Analysis, popular since the sixties and still highly relevant.


Now look again at the players in "Why don't you--yes, but." Either party can start the game. The problem solver might be in the role of wise Parent, or might be playing parent, period, whether reacting to the other or initiating advice. How many times have you described a situation to a friend, co-worker, or life partner where you wanted a listener or someone to brainstorm with as you talked it through, only to have the other person jump in and tell you what you should do about it?
 
When you re-read the above example of "yes, but..." notice the assumption that one player (the "Child" in this case) creates the pattern, and the "wise" Parent is the blameless bystander. Looking at our interaction patterns this way promotes blaming and judgment. Yes, we all play games, and yes, sometimes one party is less emotionally healthy than the other, but by definition an interaction takes two people.
 
Instead of judging the interaction games in your relationships as someone else's fault, notice how a pattern is perpetuated, by either or both of you, and look for inventive ways to interrupt the pattern. If asked for your opinion by someone who's typically responded with "yes, but," for example, say "I'm not sure what the best thing would be for you," or "What have you considered?" or "What do you think might work?"
 
And, of course, pay close attention to the games you initiate. They wouldn't be games unless both people wanted to play.

"How," not "Why," is the Question

To more fully understand the couple in the Plus ça change blog entry, it helps to know that people with the husband's personality -- point Nine in the Enneagram personality system -- tend to go along with others' ideas yet feel unspoken resentment when they stifle their own agenda. At the same time, they are peacemakers and want to be reassured that even their unexpressed annoyance has not created a disruption.

Thus, the husband wanted to snuggle up to his wife, who was very aware of his "pouting" and didn't feel so inclined.

Those of the wife's personality -- point Eight in the Enneagram -- typically have plenty of ideas but often succumb temporarily to their enthusiasms and/or forget to include their partners. This couple might have been drawn together initially because of their mutual comfort with the wife providing structure, then both began to feel some pain from that same dynamic.

What's fascinating about this couple is that we did not spend time exploring their personality patterns so they could understand why they were having difficulty. Instead, I asked questions to help them look closely at what each of them did and said, so they could see how they were unwittingly feeding their interaction pattern. This works in the same way as interrupting a personal pattern. You look carefully at how the pattern operates, then find a way to playfully interrupt it, so it loses its "juice."

A Partnership Model

A business executive with point Six Enneagram patterns met with her team to define a leadership model reflecting their values as supporters of abused women. They made explicit the characteristics of a traditional power-based system, contrasted with their own vision of an equality-based system -- a true partnership:

Power-Based Systems (control behavior)* Don't share feelings  Don't take a stand Don't accept criticism Don't listen to others Don't depend on others Don't admit mistakes Cover up skill deficiencies      (or fear of them) Break promises/agreements Withhold information

Equality-Based Systems (resilience, harmony, meaning) Be self-disclosing  State opinions openly Share accountability for problems Acknowledge what others say, feel Give importance to all agendas Admit mistakes, fears, not knowing Be consistent, honor agreements Give time to process:     - Descriptive feedback    - "I" statements

*Control is a form of addiction, used to deny our fears." 

See also Riane Eisler's Partnership Politics ("The partnership and domination systems not only give us names for different ways of relating but also explain what lies behind these differences.")

A Parallel Universe

When I was coaching, I had great zeal for helping my clients learn how to interact more effectively instead of vying for power and control. But frankly, we often don't see how our own behavior plays a role in the difficulties that arise in relationships. Instead, we tend to blame others for their behavior. We lose sight of the fact that the very act of "blaming" makes us players in the power game. 

In The Fifth Discipline Peter Senge describes how the underlying structure of a human system "causes its own behavior." We have the power to alter these structures and create new patterns, but our interaction systems are subtle: we usually don't see the structures at play. In particular we don't see how our own behavior helps maintain the status quo in relationships.

Changing such patterns requires a complete change in context--we must step into a parallel universe of human interaction where the old, unexamined rules no longer compel us to act in certain ways, where we ask new questions:

• "What's behind this other person's behavior?"
• "What am I doing that keeps this dysfunctional pattern of interaction repeating itself?"
• "What could the pay-off possibly be for me to have things remain the same?"
• "How might either of us do something different?"