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..."

Loop the Loop

What do I mean by a "systems approach" to relationships? An analogy is our natural environment, where we easily understand two key principles. 

A stable environment tends to maintain stability (homeostasis). For example, when sunlight is plentiful and atmospheric temperature climbs, phytoplankton on the ocean's surface thrive and produce more dimethyl sulfide (DMS); the DMS molecules in turn increase cloud condensation, and the increasing number of clouds lowers the temperature of the atmosphere. 

Changes in one part of the environment will affect others parts. Think of what happened with the introduction of kudzu, jokingly referred to as "the vine that ate the South." Kudzu was brought to the U.S. from China in an effort to control erosion, but these non-native vines spread rapidly and killed many trees by shading them with leaves.

Those who introduced kudzu to a non-native environment were using what's referred to as "single-loop learning": Hey, this plant grows quickly and would stabilize some ground that's eroding. Let's try it! "Double-loop learning" would have been to consider that basic assumption in light of a bigger picture, the environment into which the kudzu would grow, whether or not it would have natural boundaries or constraints similar to those in its natural environment.

You can use the same principles in your relationships:

What do you do that maintains homeostasis, even when you don't like the results? If your spouse or roommate expects you to manage the finances, for example, and you'd rather not, do you grouse as you balance the checkbook, or do you step back and ask Wait a minute, why does this keep happening even though I complain? Clearly my grousing isn't changing anything. What have you introduced into a key relationship, thinking it would have a positive result, only to find it made things worse?

For example, Gary Chapman's five Love Languages are acts of service, quality time, physical touch, affirming words, receiving gifts, A client whose love language was acts of service thought she would get closer with her partner by doing little things for him, but he withdrew more and more, interpreting these acts as implicit criticism that he couldn't do those things well enough. His love language was affirming words. All she needed to do was tell him what she loved about him, but until they stepped back and examined their assumptions about how to express "love," her attempts to grow closer were only creating distance between them.

Soul-Mates

Friends interested in each other at the soul level do not simply look at each other's lives and listen to each other's intentions and explanations. They look together at this third thing that is the soul, and in that mutual gaze they find and sustain their friendship. Thomas Moore.

All enduring relationships are friendships, whether pals, spouses, or other life partners. With truly mutual affection, we listen and are listened to; we know the other and are known.

Sometimes we're blocked from true mutuality, however, by automatic responses that are personality-bound. Some partners may resist giving up control, for example. Others may jump to judgment, suppress their own needs, feel competitive over their partner's successes, dream unrealistically of a more ideal relationship, have difficulty sharing their emotions or trusting others, avoid deep conversations, or give in too quickly to their partner's preferences. 

These and many other personality attributes, while they can bring complementary gifts to a relationship, also have the potential to exaggerate each partner's down side. 

With a couple I've coached, Barb is a highly relational person in partnership with Joe, who's more independent, more focused on thoughts than feelings. What felt like a complementary strength in the beginning had become a source of criticism:

Barb: "You never tell me you love me."

Joe: "It doesn't feel natural to me. You know I love you. Why do I have to say it?"

Barb: "I've lost a lot of weight and have new clothes, but you never tell me how good I look."

Joe: "Well, you can see that in a mirror. Why do you need to hear that from me?"

When Barb and Joe began to examine their relationship as a system, focusing on what Moore refers to as a "mutual gaze," they noticed how, when Barb pushed Joe to share his feelings, that only led him to withdraw. They agreed to two practices that began to change their automatic responses.

First, Barb agreed to pull back some so Joe had space to enter the pool of emotions, one toe at a time. This gradually reduced his fear of drowning in feelings. She and I also explored her sense of self to develop more intrinsic awareness of her attractiveness as a person (not tied to her outward appearance or compliments). 

Second, Joe had a private session with me where we invented some playful ways to interrupt his pattern of shy withdrawal from emotions. To him, saying "You look great in that outfit" seemed superficial, especially because he'd loved Barb equally before and after her weight loss.

Joe does spend a lot of time in his head and has a terrific, Far Side kind of humor. So I knew I had his interest when we played with ways to exaggerate comments to Barb:

"My darling, you are the goddess of the universe!"
"My beauty, you are the oil paint on the canvas of my life!"
"You look so stunning in that outfit; it makes me want to sing!"

No, Joe didn't actually say those things to Barb (though she would have been good-natured about it because they were focused on mutual development). But creating those outrageously inauthentic phrases made him laugh, and then a simple "I love you" or "You look nice tonight" began to seem easy.

This is what's meant by soul-mates.

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

.

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 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?"