Strategies for Initiating Discussions of Family Dysfunction

In several previous posts (The series Ve have Vays of Making You Talk, and How to Disarm a Borderline), I have discussed ways in which individuals who experience ongoing and repetitive family discord can overcome the defenses and sensitivities of other targeted family members in order to change these patterns.

I have neglected one important consideration, however.  How on earth can a person get such a conversation started? For discussions of these patterns (metacommunication) to be successful, it is vitally important to get off on the right foot.  Otherwise, metacommunication can quickly provoke fight, fight, or freeze reactions in everyone concerned.  

Metacommunication will end as quickly as it started, and family behavior may actually deteriorate even further.  One’s initial approach to the targeted other is usually critical in determining one’s ultimate success or failure at any given attempt at metacommunication.

A successful start may allow ideas about the family dynamics to be discussed without encountering undue defensiveness or invalidation from the target. In turn, the discussion of family dynamics allows an individual to empathically discuss the nature and origins of difficulties in his or her own relationship with the target, and potential ways to improve it.

Unfortunately, a strategy that works wonderfully in one family may lead to disaster in another family that may superficially appear quite similar. Every family has its own unique set of variables to which they over-react! There is usually no way to know in advance what the best opening will be. Figuring out the best approach usually requires the assistance of a therapist. Nonetheless, in Part I and Part II of this post, I will discuss five possible initiating approaches.

In doing psychotherapy with patients, when I start to help them shape an initial approach, I usually try one or another of the five potential strategies in a role playing exercise to see what my patient is up against. I generally stick with a given strategy even if the target’s initial response is a negative one - such as evasive maneuver or a verbal invalidation of the patient. Such maneuvers can often be countered with specific responses that are employed as the conversation progresses. 

However, if I seem to get in trouble with escalating negativity from the patient playing the targeted other even while employing the usual countermeasures, I know that I should stop, and try a different initial approach. 

Of course, all the usual approaches may not work, so ingenuity is required. Every time I am foolish enough to think that I have heard every possible negative response, I am surprised.  But where there is a will, there is definitely a way.        

What follows are the first two of the five suggested initial strategies:

1.  The first option is to begin with a discussion of family history, using the core relationship problems as they were manifested in past generations as a metaphor for current interactional difficulties. To use this option, a potential metacommunicator should have already done a bit of research about the history of the family emotional process and the family history by constructing a genogram.  

I will not go into the complex subject of genograms here; an example of the kind of information needed can be found here.  Of crucial importance is the relationships parental figures had with their own parents, as they were affected by such historical events as ethnic and cultural values, changing circumstances, illnesses and premature deaths, immigration, mental illnesses, child abuse, and emotional cut-offs.

The metacommunicator starts with non-threatening questions about family history and then goes on to discuss more emotionally charged past family interactions that parallel the current problem. Next, the metacommicator slowly traces with the target the history of the family problem all the way into the present day, as it has come to affect the individual's current relationship with the target. 

This strategy was the first one I devised and is discussed in more detail in my first book (Allen, 1988). Current problematic roles being played out by family members stem from issues that develop over at least three generations. Therefore, any problem in the present or in one’s childhood has precedents in the interactions of the members of earlier generations. 

For families that do not produce individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), strategy number one is often the least threatening option. It tends to be much less threatening for parents to discuss long past relationship problems with their own parents, with their siblings (the metacommunicator’s aunts and uncles), or even with the other parent than it is to discuss those very same problems as they exist with the metacommunicator in the here and now. 

The negative impact of the issues seems muted when viewed from the distant perspective of the past. However, once the analogous issues have been brought up for discussion, one can gradually demonstrate how the earlier difficulties have led to problems and miscommunication in the present. The metacommunicator can then say something like, “No wonder you reacted so strongly when I did [such and such]! I wish I had known that before.  I always thought you reacted because [whatever explanation one had thought to be true previously].” 

During this process, one receives confirmation or clarification about the family dynamics. In this scenario, the parents should feel that their adult child is really trying to understand them and not attack them.

Unfortunately, I have found that in families that produce offspring with BPD, strategy number one is often the worst option. In these families, the parents usually do not want to touch their feelings about their own families of origin with a ten foot pole. There is so much repressed rage and anguish from the past that it is in fact easier for an adult child and his or her parents to talk about the here and now first. Rather than seeming distant, the past seems more alive in the present than it ever has.  

Even getting the target to describe interactions in previous generations for purposes of gathering genogram data can be extremely difficult. The parents do not want to even think about their relationships in the past for fear of triggering an all-consuming emotional reaction. This leads us to strategy number two.

2.  The second option is the most direct of all. Metacommunicators cut to the chase and move directly into a tactful confrontation about how the target's current behavior affects them adversely.  The term “confrontation” as I am using it here means bringing up a problem for discussion, not picking a fight.  

If a direct confrontation is to succeed, there can be no sense whatever that the conversation is an adversarial proceeding. Adult children must remain absolutely empathic and say nothing that clearly suggests that their parents are to blame for their own problems, even if they had been severely abused. The best way to start such a confrontation is to employ disclaimers. The use of disclaimers was discussed in a previous post.

The opening gambit in this strategy is a statement such as “Dad, I know you always wanted me to succeed in my career, but when you did not come to my graduation, I began to wonder if somehow you might be threatened by my success.” The metacommunicator then say nothing further and awaits some kind of response by the parent.  Depending on how the target responds, the metacommunicator and the target should then go on to discuss how they have been misreading one another’s intentions because of behavior they have both manifested that was due to each person’s own internal conflicts. 

The metacommunicator must be careful to acknowledge his or her own contribution to any misunderstanding while explaining that his or her behavior was due to a misreading of the target’s motives. Such a conversation can lead to discussions of the past family history that has lead to the conflicts. If the target has a high level of emotionality about past interactions as mentioned previously, however, that part of the conversation must be approached with exceptional delicacy and tact.

In the next post of this series, I will describe three more possible strategies for initiating family metacommunication.

Disclaimers: The Good, Instead of the Bad and the Ugly

In an earlier post Words that Work, I discussed the idea from political consultant and polster Frank Luntz that “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” This blog has also discussed in detail how talking to one’s family about dysfunctional patterns requires just the right type of wording and tone of voice. 

Disclaimers can be used to alter listeners’ perceptions about what another person is saying.  They can be very helpful in making something that otherwise might be perceived as an attack or accusation much more palatable.  

It is also true that disclaimers can be used in for more nefarious purposes, such as in deceptive propaganda. I wrote about this latter purpose in two previous posts on plausible deniability - 8/31/11 and 6/19/12.

The odious purpose is summed up very well in the cartoon below:

 

In this post I will focus on the use of disclaimers for doing good– their advantageous employment in discussions that aim to achieve solutions to ongoing problems within a family. As a psychotherapist, I find them to be very useful with my patients, and I also coach my patients on how to use then when they attempt metacommunication with family members.

 

Disclaimers are pre-statements that acknowledge the potentially unpleasant nature of an issue at hand, proclaim the lack of any ill intent on the part of the the person making the statement that follows the disclaimer, and give others the benefit of the doubt concerning their motivation for engaging in problematic behavior. Disclaimers can also be used to avoid power struggles that tend to occur when someone might be perceived as sounding like a know-it-all or like someone trying to “put one over” on the other person. 

Disclaimers can make it possible to bring up for discussion just about anything. Of course, tone of voice is extremely important.  If someone is trying to bring up problematic family behavior with other members of the family, a scolding or sarcastic tone will automatically nullify any advantage conferred through the use of disclaimers.  Usually, tone should be matter of fact as well as friendly sounding for maximum effect.

In the type of psychotherapy I do, unified therapy, I frequently need to bring up and explore a patient’s problematic or counterproductive behavior, or describe potentially unflattering hypotheses about the patient’s family relationship patterns. Patients have a natural tendency to become defensive in these situations, and a therapist runs the risk of provoking a negative reaction of some sort. The use of a disclaimer often makes the initiation of such discussions more palatable to the patient. 

When making interpretations regarding a patient or his or her family, the therapist’s use of disclaimers leads the patient to become less likely to get defensive and more likely to consider the merits of the therapist’s proposition. Later on in unified therapy, therapists teach patients to make use of disclaimers during metacommunication with their family about relationship patterns and issues. 

Disclaimers can be used in innumerable ways. A few examples will be given here of the types of situations in which disclaimers are useful. The examples are also meant to give the reader a general idea about how disclaimers should be phrased. 

First, when bringing up someone else’s seemingly provocative behavior, the metacommunicator might say something such as, “I know you’re not trying to anger me when you do that, but when you do [such and such], it would be easy for someone who did not know you so well to get the wrong idea.”  

Second, in situations where the Other has a hard time discussing a certain topic, one might say, “I know this is hard to talk about, but it sounds like it is really important.”

Third, family members often hold the belief that certain behavior from another family member is purposely meant to “ask for” or elicit a nasty response.  They may be reluctant to say so, however, for fear they will be branded as self-serving or even crazy.  The metacommunicator can often get the Other to acknowledge such thoughts by putting the burden of “craziness” on himself or herself:  “This is probably going to sound crazy, but I wonder if sometimes you get the idea that mom wants you to steal money from her. After all, she keeps leaving it in plain sight.”

Fourth, disclaimers are useful for bringing up for discussion the obvious ways that the Other’s behavior causes problems without sounding like a critical parent or insulting the Other’s intelligence. The metacommunicator might say, “At risk of sounding just like Mom, and as I’m sure you already know, attacking Dad does not seem to solve anything.”

Fifth, many times a metacommunicator has an hypothesis about what might be going on in the family, but is not sure. However, the Other may take umbrage at the implications of such a hypothesis. This happens for many reasons, including that the possibility that the hypothesis in question is flat out wrong. Giving the other an “out” so that he or she can easily reject the proposal without getting into an argument can solve this problem. One can say, “I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but I wonder if [such and such] might be happening. What do you think?

Sixth, whenever a metacommunicator brings up the behavior of family members who seem to be contributing to the speaker’s problems, others will often defend their family. They do so despite the fact that they themselves are at wit’s end with the relative that is being discussed. Defending one’s family from a perceived attack even if one is angry at them oneself is quite a natural reaction, but may preclude much useful discussion about the possible reasons for the family member’s misbehavior.  A useful disclaimer that may prevent this from happening is, “I’m not trying to turn Dad into a villain, but…”

Last, metacommunicators should also make use of disclaimers when explaining their thoughts and reactions to significant others. This is part and parcel of the important strategy of giving family members the benefit of the doubt as to their motivation when asking them to be aware of and change behavior that the metacommunicator finds problematic.

For example, they might say, "I know you wanted me to be successful, but it often appeared to me that you did not" or "I know you really do care about me but..."  If the other then says that the metacommunicator is stupid for thinking or feeling the way they do, the metacommunicator can humbly say, “Maybe so, but that’s how it looks to me, and I’m sure you don’t want me to get the wrong idea about you, so I thought it would be important to let you know how this looks to me.”

Of course, disclaimers do not always have the desired effect, but they do often enough that employing them is an excellent strategy.