Who Does What . . . in Response to Whom . . . and Then What?
What is the interactional pattern in the Kesler family that gets set in motion around Billy’s school problem? All of us—individuals and families—react to stress in predictable patterned ways. If Ms. Kesler is to use her anger as a guide for changing her position in the family, her first task is to learn to observe the current “stuck” patterns. When I questioned Ms. Kesler about specific details, she described a sequence of events that had occurred the previous evening:
Billy watched television after dinner instead of doing some math problems that he had agreed to finish at this time. Father noticed first and sternly reprimanded Billy for behaving “irresponsibly” and “failing to meet his agreement.” Billy hedged (“I’ll do it after this program is over”) and his father became angrier. Mother, who was doing the dishes and listening from the next room, yelled from the kitchen, “John, there is no need to be so hard on the boy. The program will be over in fifteen minutes.” Father yelled back, “You stay out of this! If you didn’t spoil Billy to begin with, the situation in school would never have gotten this far!” Mother and father continued to argue while Billy retreated to his room and lay down on the bed. Father then distanced from mother, who pursued him unsuccessfully and then withdrew herself.
Before Ms. Kesler spoke up, the triangle consisted of two calm sides and one conflictual side between father and son:
When Ms. Kesler entered the interaction in a rescuing position toward Billy, she became the focus of Mr. Kesler’s criticisms and the triangle shifted:
SCENARIO 1
This triangle would not necessarily be problematic if the pattern was transient and flexible. Let us suppose, for example, that the following events occurred later that evening: After Billy went to sleep, Mr. and Ms. Kesler talked together about their different perspectives on Billy’s problem. They recognized that they had different opinions about the meanings of their son’s behavior but were nonetheless able to reach a consensus on how to handle Billy that they both could support. Mr. Kesler then shared with his wife that he was upset about an incident at work and perhaps that was part of the reason why he had reacted so strongly to Billy. Ms. Kesler speculated that perhaps she was especially sensitive to his criticizing Billy because her own dad was always fighting with her older brother (also a first-born son, like Billy) and this had been very stressful for her. Mr. and Ms. Kesler would leave the subject of Billy behind as they moved on to talk about other issues in their personal or work lives or in their relationship together.
SCENARIO 2
But such flexibility did not characterize the Kesler family. Instead, Ms. Kesler was describing a repetitive pattern that was moving in increasingly rapid and intense cycles. When this family was under stress, the following occurred:
Father was stuck in a blaming position toward Billy. He became intense at the first sign of misbehavior or irresponsibility on the part of his son. (“You’re going to get into deep trouble if you don’t shape up!”)
Mother was stuck in a rescuing position toward Billy and a blaming position toward father. (“John, that boy needs a little love and understanding from you, not an iron hand!”) Sometimes she would adopt the role of the mediating, or fix-it, person. She would offer both her husband and her son advice on how they might better handle each other and themselves.
Billy was stuck in the underfunctioning position in the family. He had already acquired the label “problem child” at home and in school and he was the overriding focus of parental worry and concern.
Last but not least, Mr. and Ms. Kesler were stuck in repetitive cycles of fighting over how to parent, in which Mr. Kesler stood for “law and order” and Ms. Kesler for “love and understanding.” The emotional intensity of these fights deflected and obscured other important issues in their marriage and their personal lives.
WHAT NOW, MS. KESLER?
During the following weeks, Ms. Kesler learned to observe her own anger as well as the family’s pattern of interaction around Billy’s problematic behavior. Now she could more clearly identify her characteristic style of handling stress. She saw that she assumed a rescuing position toward Billy, a blaming position toward her husband, and occasionally a peacemaking or mediating position between Billy and his father.
Ms. Kesler also noted that her participation in the old pattern was not effective: Whenever she tried to come to Billy’s defense, her husband perceived her as siding with Billy and turned his criticisms against her. Ms. Kesler was now ready to think about her options for moving differently.
Getting Out of the Middle
When we continue unsuccessful efforts to intervene in another relationship, we are part of a triangle. The most difficult job that Ms. Kesler had before her was to let her husband and son fend for themselves and manage their own relationship without her. Here’s what she did:
First, she went to her husband and apologized to him for interfering in his relationship with Billy. She admitted that she might have made things worse by thinking that she had any answers or advice for either of them about their relationship. She empathized with her husband’s worry about Billy and praised his involvement as a father and his efforts to help his son grow up to be a responsible person. She expressed confidence that he and Billy could work out whatever problems they had.
To her son, she said, “Billy, I realize that I’ve been getting exhausted by rushing in and playing the role of the American Red Cross when you and your dad argue. You’re a smart kid and you know what gets your dad’s goat. I am sure that you and your dad will be able to work things out together, and from now on you’re on your own.”
Next, Ms. Kesler did her best to stay calm and stay out when the countermoves came rolling in. Predictably, the other family members made some attempt to up the ante and reinstate the old triangle. Father took off his belt to Billy, whereas previously he had gone after his son only with harsh words. Billy ran to his mother, tearfully complaining about his father’s cruelty. Even Billy’s younger siblings got into the act. (“Mom, Dad’s going after Billy again!”) A typical “test” from Billy would go something like this:
BILLY: “Daddy says I can’t go to the baseball game tomorrow night, and I’m the catcher! Can’t you make him change his mind?”
MOTHER: “That’s between you and Dad, Billy. Talk to him about it if it’s bothering you.”
BILLY (crying): “But he doesn’t listen!”
MOTHER: “Well, Billy, this is between you and Dad to work out. You’re both smart people. Try to work it out the best you can.”
BILLY: “Daddy isn’t fair! You wouldn’t make me miss the game!”
MOTHER: “Daddy and I may set different rules sometimes. This is Daddy’s rule, and whether you go to the game or don’t go to the game is up to Dad. This is between you and Dad.”
Although Billy tried to draw his mother back in the middle, he was enormously reassured by her new position. In a way, Billy was unconsciously testing out whether he truly had his mother’s “permission” to have a separate relationship with his dad, or whether his mother needed him to be loyal to her, with the two of them subtly in alliance against a father labeled “unfair” or “incompetent.” Through her new behavior, Ms. Kesler was letting Billy know that she did not need to keep up the old triangle, in which father would be on the outside. Billy could work things out with his dad without having to worry so much about his mom.
Maintaining her new position was anything but easy. “I get terribly tense when John and Billy go at it,” Ms. Kesler explained to me. “When I hear John go on and on, I start feeling upset and ready to blow. Sometimes I go to the bathroom just to get away or leave the house to take a walk.” Ms. Kesler was able to take this distance when she needed it, without criticizing her husband. In a calm, nonblaming manner she explained to him, “When you and Billy start getting riled up, I sometimes react by getting uncomfortable and upset. I’m not sure what my reaction is about, but when I start to feel
this way, I may leave the room or take a walk because that helps.” She made it clear to her husband that she took responsibility for her own feelings and reactions and she was not blaming him for “causing” her discomfort. Throughout the process, Ms. Kesler conveyed confidence that her husband and son could take care of their own relationship without her help.
But what if Ms. Kesler believes that her husband might physically abuse their son? Obviously, she will need to take a firm position against violence and protect Billy as best she can, even if this means calling the police. However, violence will be least likely to occur if she can do this without reinstating the old triangle, because triangles greatly increase the probability of escalating aggression. For example, she might say to her husband (ideally, at a relatively calm moment): “I need to tell you that I have a real fear that things between you and Billy will heat up to the point where he gets injured. I know that I can’t solve anything between the two of you, but I can’t live with violence. If that happens, I will do whatever is necessary to separate the two of you.” To Billy, she might say pretty much the same thing: “I know that in the long run you and your dad have to work out your own problems. But, as I told Dad yesterday, I will step in if I get worried that things are getting so heated up that someone might get hurt.” Taking a responsible position with each party need not mean falling back into the old pattern.
What happened in the Kesler family as a consequence of Ms. Kesler’s getting out of the triangle? Mr. Kesler became less reactive to Billy’s problems and provocations. He moved in less quickly and intensely. Billy, in turn, began to take more responsibility for his own behavior and his school problems all but disappeared. The relationship between father and son was greatly improved. Does this sound like the Kesler family lived happily ever after?
Not exactly. First mother and Billy started to have open conflict in their relationship. Further, marital issues concerning closeness and distance surfaced between husband and wife. Mr. Kesler became depressed and called me for an appointment despite his disapproval of psychotherapy.
Why did this happen? Triangles serve to keep anxiety-arousing issues underground, and that is why we all participate in them. When a triangle is disrupted and we begin to have a person-to-person relationship with each family member, without a third party interfering, hidden issues surface. This is emotionally difficult, but it also provides us with an opportunity to stop focusing on others and look more closely at our selves.
LOOKING BACKWARD: OUR FIRST FAMILY
When things settled down with Billy, the next step for Mr. and Ms. Kesler was to turn attention to their families of origin and begin to gather some data about the past. When a child or spouse is underfunctioning and has become the primary focus of our anger, worry, or concern, it is helpful to take a look at the larger family picture.
A broad approach to the problem will help to shed light on a number of questions: Why was Billy targeted to become a “problem child” in this family, rather than his younger brother or sister? Why did family interactions suddenly heat up when Billy entered third grade? Why was Mr. Kesler so reactive to the issue of “responsibility” in his son? Why was Ms. Kesler so reactive to her husband and son’s fighting? Why did Mr. Kesler become depressed after he and Billy resolved their former conflicts? Most important, what work can Mr. and Ms. Kesler do to best ensure that no one family member will seriously underfunction or become the “problem,” as Billy did?
Let’s take a look at an expanded family diagram of the Kesler family and gather a few more facts. If you are feeling ambitious, you may want to draw a diagram of your own family, including, if you can, at least three generations. The diagram of the Kesler family, on the following page, is incomplete, in order to keep it uncluttered and to highlight certain key points. A complete family diagram would include the dates of births, deaths, serious illnesses, marriages, and divorces and the highest level of formal education for every member of the extended family, for as far back as we can go. An X in a circle or square indicates that the person is dead. Two diagonal lines across a marriage line indicate a divorce.
What does this family diagram tell us? Looking at father’s side of the family, we see that he has a younger sister, Gina, who is married and has two daughters. If we do some simple arithmetic, we learn that Mr. Kesler’s father, Lewis, was a first-born son who died at age thirty-five, when Mr. Kesler was eight years old. Mr. Kesler’s mother, Lorraine, is the younger sister of a sister and did not remarry following her husband’s death.
Looking at mother’s family of origin, we see that she is a middle child. Her older brother, Les, is twice-divorced and her younger brother, Ken, is married and has one daughter. I learned from Ms. Kesler that Les is the “black sheep” in the family. In her words, “Les is an alcoholic who can always be counted on to screw up in business and marriage.” Ms. Kesler’s parents, Martin and Catherine, alternate between distancing emotionally from Les and bailing him out financially. Ms. Kesler is cut off from her brother and sees him only every few years at family gatherings.
Let us first examine father’s side of the family diagram, with an eye toward linking the patterns of the past with those of the present.
Mourning a Father
When I gathered the above data during my initial appointment with Ms. Kesler, I understood why the relationship between Billy and his father had become intense and conflictual when Billy turned eight and entered third grade: Billy is now the age that Mr. Kesler was when he lost his father. In addition, Mr. Kesler is thirty-six years old, just past the age that his father was when he died. It is predictable that Mr. Kesler would have an “anniversary reaction” at this time and experience a reactivation of buried emotions that surrounded the loss of his dad.
Mr. Kesler did not directly mourn his dad or consciously experience the associated feelings of anger, anxiety, and loss as this anniversary date arrived. Instead, as is typical, he focused his emotional energy on a third party—his son—and became very reactive to any sign of trouble in Billy. It is the intensity of our reactions toward another person’s problem that ensures not only the escalation but also the continuation of the problem itself. Billy’s lack of cooperativeness increased in direct proportion to father’s emotional reactivity (and mother’s reactivity to father), setting a circular dance in motion.
Why did Mr. Kesler handle his anxiety by becoming focused on a child? This is a common way for mothers to manage emotional intensity and stress—as our social education actually fosters this child focus—but men are not immune from this triangle. Other triangular patterns might also have arisen. Mr. Kesler, for example, might have had an affair or left his wife at the time of this anniversary reaction. He might have distanced from her by becoming increasingly work-focused, which is a typical male pattern of managing anxiety. He himself might have underfunctioned and developed a new physical or emotional problem. He might have constantly found fault with his wife, leaving his children free from his emotional focus. We all handle stress in one or more of the above ways and, ideally, in more than one way. If the only way a family handles stress is to focus on a “problem child,” the outcome will be a severely troubled child. If the only way a family handles stress is through marital fighting, the outcome will be a severely troubled marriage.
Why Billy?
Father and Billy share the same sibling position as first-born males. Father is thus more likely to identify with Billy than with his other children, to confuse Billy with himself, and to have more intense reactions to the strengths and weaknesses he perceives in his first-born son. Predictably, this might be the most problematic or intense relationship for Mr. Kesler, and the intensity would increase at a time of high stress. The fact that Mr. Kesler’s own father was also a first-born further magnifies the emotional charge of Mr. Kesler’s relationship with Billy. Birth order is an enormously important factor in determining how our parents perceive and label us and how we do likewise with our own children.
“Be Responsible, Son!
”
Nothing pushed Mr. Kesler’s buttons more than seeing Billy behave in a way that was not competent and responsible. Why?
The family diagram alone provides some good clues. At age eight Mr. Kesler lost his father and was left with his mother, Lorraine, who was the younger sister of a sister. What is known about the typical characteristics of a younger sister of a sister? As parents, often they are not comfortable taking charge, assuming a position of authority, and taking the initiative to do what has to be done. As a first-born child (and son), Mr. Kesler might have exercised his typical characteristics of “responsibility” and “leadership” at a very early age, perhaps trying to fill his father’s shoes and help his widowed mother out.
When I met with Mr. Kesler, my speculations were confirmed. He had been a “little man” at an early age, and his own need to be a kid who could goof up and let others care for him was buried under a lifetime of overfunctioning and worrying about other family members. He was quick to react to the first sign of irresponsibility in Billy because Mr. Kesler was so responsible as a child that he never really had much of a childhood. As he was later able to say to me, “I think I get so hot under the collar when I see Billy goofing off to have fun, because I’m a little jealous. After my father died, I stopped being a kid and became a worrier, long before I was really ready. My problem is that I feel too responsible for things.”
Dance of Anger: A Woman's Guide to Changing the Patterns of Intimate Relationships Page 16