(a) If, in Step (2), Experience (receiver), the receiver has organized his reception of the conflicting messages so that he is aware of only the consistent messages, he will reach the conscious conclusion that the communicator intends only the messages of which he is aware. As mentioned previously, he will receive and accept the conflicting messages at the unconscious level, and, typically, will reach the conclusion (at the unconscious level) that the communicator intends the messages received outside of awareness. The outcome of this process is that the receiver creates within himself conflicting models of this experience and usually feels confused.
(b) If, in Step (2), Experience (receiver), the receiver has organized his reception of the conflicting messages so that he is aware that they do not match, he will regard the communicator as insincere or manipulative, or even as evil and malicious.
4. Generalization (receiver): Often, in the context of incongruent communication, previous experiences (especially from the receiver's family of origin) are activated or triggered by the conflicting messages. It may be, for example, that the particular combination of incongruent messages in the specific sensory channels parallels a pattern of incongruent communication from one of the parents of the receiver. Or, it may be that the feelings of confusion experienced by the receiver trigger the recall of experiences from the past in which he also felt confused. If, for example, two people have a history of inter-communication and one of them, when expressing anger, has, in the past, consistently extended her finger, pointing at the second person, then, when she is incongruent in a way which specifically includes pointing her finger, the second person will respond only to the pointing-finger portion of the incongruent communication — that is, for the second person:
finger pointing = other person angry
no matter what other messages might accompany the pointing finger. This type of generalization — taking a portion of a complex experience and accepting it as representative of the whole experience — is, again, an example of what we call Complex Equivalence. Furthermore, when the second person decides that the meaning of the pointing finger is that the first person is angry, he presents us with a typical example of the pattern which we call Mind Reading. One distinctive characteristic of the types of generalization called Complex Equivalence and Mind Reading is their rigidity [ heir inflexibility. The person making these types of generalizations has no tools for checking to find out whether or not they are accurate. His conclusions are fixed and operate automatically, often independently of the context in which they occurred. We emphasize that generalizations are a tool, an important way of organizing our experience. This book is, in itself, a series of generalizations about our experience in family therapy. It is only when generalizations become fixed and rigid, deeply embedded in the person's perception of inter-communication messages, that he experiences no choice in responding. These generalizations are, literally, presuppositions — a filter of generalizations from his previous experience. They are so deeply embedded in the person's behavior that he will distort the messages he is receiving to fit his generalizations, rather than to come to his senses and directly experience the world. These patterns are powerful examples of self-fulfilling prophecies — they keep the person who operates with them from experiencing the world in the present time and place. They distort fresh experience to fit their previously determined concepts and the world becomes a monotonous rerun of the past. These two patterns — Complex Equivalence and Mind Reading — form the basis of the calibrated communication cycles which create pain in family systems.
5. (Response Behavior (receiver): As mentioned previously, the response can be regarded as the beginning of a new cycle of communication. In addition, unless the receiver of the original incongruent communication is himself congruent, he will respond incongruently and another calibrated communication cycle begins. Therapists need to carefully avoid developing, without their being aware of it, calibrated communication with those with whom they are working in therapy, and themselves reinforcing the destructive patterns rather than developing new choices with the family members. An example of this is the situation in which the therapist responds to an attack by one family member on another member as though he (the therapist) were the one being attacked.
Typically, calibrated communication cycles between members of a family will become more and more abbreviated until merely the raising of an eyebrow will trigger pain and rage in other family members.
We now present an example of a highly calibrated, pain-producing communication cycle from a family therapy session.
The family in this session consists of three members:
Henry — the husband/father: placating, with a kinesthetic representational system as primary;
Michele — the wife/mother: blaming, with a visual representational system as primary;
Carol — the daughter (age 16): super-reasonable, with an auditory representational system as primary.
Earlier in the transcript, each of the family members identified the name of what he/she wanted for himself/ herself (their nominalizations) as follows:
Notice in this portion of the transcript the way in which the experiences each family member wants (their Complex Equivalences) interact so completely that, even though the original names show little overlap, they fit together in a tight cycle of calibrated communication.
…
Michele: ... At this point, I don't even care what you do; I don't see what difference it . . . (left finger pointing, voice shrill)
Carol: OK (interrupting) . . . I'll just check out then . . .
Michele: .. . (interrupting and screaming) Don't you ever turn your back on me, you . . .
Carol: But you said that you didn't care what I did so I .. . (turning to Henry) . . . you heard what she said,
didn't you?
Henry: Huh?
Michele: Henry, she's doing it again — she's not respecting me.
Henry: (moving over to Michele's side and placing his arm around her waist supportively) . .. Well, perhaps I could . . .
Michele: (interrupting Henry) God, Henry, don't paw me — I'm serious about this child's disobedience and lack of respect.
Henry: (voice low and shaky, eyes moist and downcast) I was just trying to . . . oh, forget it (turning away).
Michele: Oh, God, not you, too!!
Carol: It's so ridiculous — Mom, I think I'll split, OK?
Michele: ... I couldn't care less what you do now.
Carol: OK, goodbye!!
Michele: (screaming) Young lady, if I've told you once I've told you a thousand times . .. Henry, why don't you ever do anything about this?
Carol: But, you said . . .
Henry: (overlapping with Carol) Huh?
…
Notice how the seemingly diverse names of what each family member wants (nominalizations) actually interact: Carol wants equality — described as an experience, this means that she wants to be listened to as seriously as she listens to other, family members. Michele wants respect — to her, this means that the other family members should look at her when she is doing something which involves them. Michele begins by saying (in words) that she doesn't care what Carol does. Carol, with her model of the world (auditory), takes Michele's words seriously and turns away, ignoring the incongruent messages from her mother's body movements and voice tonality. Michele then explodes, as, to her, turning away is equivalent to failing to show respect. Carol seeks support from Henry, asking him to verify what Michele has said. Henry, given his kinesthetic representational system, has missed nuances of the exchange, which required visual and auditory representation for full understanding. When Michele demands that Henry respond to her, he does so in the way which is most appropriate for his model of the world: He moves to Michele's side and touches her. She, however, wants his visual attention and fails to recognize the kinesthetic contact by Henry as a caring response. Henry now feels rejected and shows this by turning away, unloved. This, of course, is a signal to Michele that he doesn't "respec
t" her. Carol now asks Michele for permission to leave. Michele responds to Carol incongruently . . . and the cycle begins again. This example shows the way in which very different-sounding words (nominalizations) can be closely connected — so closely, in fact, that they form what we call a calibrated communication cycle.
The remainder of this book presents some of the choices for effective, creative intervention by the therapist in such calibrated communication cycles.
FEEDBACK COMMUNICATION CYCLE
We now briefly describe the way in which the five steps in the communication cycle in which feedback is present are different from calibrated communication cycles.
1. Communication (communicator): In the case in which the communicator is congruent — all of the messages match — there is no difficulty; the communicator is unified in his expression. In the case in which the communicator is incongruent, he is in contact with his ongoing experience so that he himself will detect the incongruency in his communication. This allows him many choices.
2. Experience (receiver): If the communicator is congruent in his expression, no difficulty arises. If the communicator is incongruent, the receiver, if aware of the incongruency, has the freedom to gracefully call the communicator's attention to the incongruency, and, if asked, the receiver can then offer additional feedback to the communicator to assist him in integrating the conflicting messages and the models from which they arise. For example, when faced with a person whose head is slowly shaking from side to side, while he states that he really does want to wash the dishes, the receiver may gently comment: "I heard you say you want to do the dishes, and, at the same time, I saw your head shaking slowly from side to side. I'm wondering if you can help me make sense out of this for myself." The important point here is that the receiver has the freedom to comment and the incongruent communicator has the freedom to accept the comment without feeling attacked, without his self-esteem's[21] being threatened. These are the essential ingredients of communication with feedback.
In the case in which the receiver is initially unaware of the incongruity in the original set of messages, he may only notice a vague uneasiness which marks the discrepancy between the meaning of the messages received at the conscious level of awareness and the meaning of the messages received at the unconscious level. In this case, he has the freedom to mention that he feels uneasy and to explore the source of his uneasiness with the communicator. This requires that the receiver have a sensitivity to his own ongoing experience as well as the ability to explore his feelings of uneasiness without his self-esteem's becoming involved.
3. Conclusion (receiver): When the messages which the receiver accepts are congruent, he has no difficulty in understanding the meaning of what the communicator intends. When the communicator presents incongruent messages, whether or not the receiver has organized the conflicting messages so that he is aware that they do not fit, he will reach a conclusion that something about the communication didn't work for him. This will either occur in the receiver's awareness, and he then will have the freedom to gracefully present the dissenting conclusions he has reached from the conflicting messages and, possibly, even give the communicator specific feedback (for example, that the communicator's body posture did not fit the tone of voice he used) as he explores the specifics of the incongruity with the communicator. If the receiver has not been aware of the particular conflicting messages (i.e., when he has organized his experience so that he is only aware of the messages which fit together, the conflicting messages having been received and accepted at the unconscious level), he will, typically, reach the conclusion that he is confused. When the receiver is sensitive to his own experience and recognizes his confusion, he is free to comment on it and has the choice of requesting the assistance of the communicator in resolving it. What is particularly important here is that the receiver and the communicator both have the choice of exploring their communication without their self-esteem's being threatened — without the exchange's becoming a survival issue — using the occasion, instead, as an opportunity for growth and change.
4. Generalization (receiver): What distinguishes this step in a feedback communication cycle from the way generalizations are made by the receiver in a calibrated communication cycle is that, when the incongruent messages are received by the receiver and they trigger some experience from the past, he is sensitive enough to his ongoing experience to immediately become aware that he is only partially present in the interaction — part of his attention has shifted to some other time, place and experience. This allows him the choice of continuing with the communication, refocusing his attention with the understanding that there is something unfinished connected with the particular pattern of incongruency presented by the communicator. He understands that some of his experience at that point in time is coming from somewhere else. He may, of course, comment to the communicator on what is occurring, and he has the freedom to request feedback to help him resolve the unfinished pattern from the past which is presently distracting him.
One way in which the feedback cycle differs from the calibrated cycle is that, whenever the receiver is confused or aware that a previous occurrence is intruding and distracting him from freshly experiencing the present, he immediately attends to that sensory experience to discover what is happening. By being able to immediately establish sensory contact with his present situation and, especially, with the communicator, he can use his experience of confusion or distraction to learn more about himself and the person with whom he is communicating. This allows him to detect any patterns which are distorting his experience by accepting a part of a message for the entire communication (Complex Equivalence) and patterns of "knowing" the inner experience of the communicator without checking it for accuracy with the communicator (Mind Reading). Thus, the generalizations which the receiver in a feedback cycle makes and uses are flexible guides for understanding which are constantly being up-dated and checked against sensory experience.
5. Response Behavior (receiver): If the communicator began this cycle with an incongruent communication, then either the receiver has detected the conflicting messages in awareness and has begun to explore this with the communicator, using feedback, or he has detected a sense of confusion and has begun to explore this. If neither of these have occurred, then, typically, the receiver's response behavior will reflect the incongruency — that is, the receiver himself will present the original communicator with an incongruent set of messages. If both the original communicator and the original receiver have the freedom to comment on and explore any confusion or incongruity without the interchange's becoming an issue of survival, then, before long, one or the other of the people involved, as they shift from communicator to receiver, will detect miscommunication patterns and begin to explore this opportunity to learn.
One way to clarify the usefulness of these two specific kinds of communication cycles (calibrated and feedback) is to understand that the therapist's task is to assist the family members in changing their patterns of communication from calibrated loops to feedback cycles. (See page 118.) Another way to use this model is for the therapist to check his own communication patterns with the family members to prevent himself from being incorporated into their destructive patterns of communication. These specific choices of effective intervention by the therapist are the focus of the remainder of Part II. We offer the five-step communication model for your use in understanding the way in which all of the specific intervention techniques fit together.
We move on now to present in more detail the intervention choices available to therapists, based on this communication model.
The most general level of patterning in our model for family therapy has three phases:
I. Gathering Information
II. Transforming the System
III. Consolidating Changes
I. GATHERING INFORMATION
In the first phase of family therapy, the therapist works with family members to gather information which will help him to create an init
ial experience with them (Phase II) which can then serve as a model for them in their future growth and change. The question
which the therapist must face is: Which introductory experience will best serve as this model for the family? One of the major purposes of the therapist's actions during this phase is to determine exactly which experience he will, in fact, initially use as a model. We call this set of actions by the therapist determining the desired state. Essentially, the desired state is a description of one condition of living for the family which would satisfy the desires of the individual family members. In other words, one of the ways by which the therapist organizes his activities during this phase is to seek out the information which identifies for him the way the family members themselves want the family experience of living to be.
In the process of determining this desired state for the family, the therapist is listening and watching, experiencing the family fully as they begin to make known their hopes and fears about themselves as individuals and about the family as a whole. This identifies the second category of information that the therapist is seeking: information regarding the present state of the family. In order to act effectively in Phase II, the therapist needs to know not only what the family wants — which we will call the desired state — but also what resources the family has presently developed.
We emphasize that what we are calling the present state and the desired state are nominalizations. These nominalizations are useful only to the extent that the therapist and the family members understand that the present state is actually not a state but a process — the ongoing interaction and communication. Furthermore, the desired state — the experience which the family members and the therapist will create in Phase II — is actually the first step in the process of opening up the family system to the possibilities of growth and change.
Changing with Families - A Book About Further Education For Being Human Page 8