close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

pr0.1961.8.2.333

код для вставкиСкачать
Psychological Reports, 1 9 6 1 , 8 , 333-338. @ Southern Universities Press 1961
A RATIONAL APPROACH T O PREMARITAL COUNSELING1
ALBERT ELLIS
New York City
People come for premarital counseling obviously because they have problems; and people with problems, as has been recently stressed by Ellis (1956),
Harper ( 1953, 1955), Laidlaw ( 1950), and Lawton ( 1958), can often best
be helped by some form of marriage counseling which not only presents a
solution to their present circumstances but also goes to the root of their basic
problem-creating disturbances. They need, in other words, some type of psychotherapy.
Although I see a few clients for premarital counseling who have simple
questions to be answered, which can sometimes be resolved in one or rwo
sessions, the majority come for deeper and more complicaced reasons. Their
typical presenting questions are: "Is my fiancee the right person for me?"
"Should I be having premarital sex relations?" "How can I find a suitable
mate?" and "How can I overcome my sexual incompetence or my homosexual
leanings before I marry?" These and similar questions usually involve deepseated personality characteristics or long-standing emotional problems of the
counselees.
When put in more dynamic terms, the real questions most individuals who
come for premarital counseling are asking themselves are: "Wouldn't it be
terrible if I were sexually or amatively rejected? or made a mistake in my
sex-love choice? or acted wrongly or wickedly in my premarital affairs?" And:
"Isn't it horribly unfair that the girl or fellow in whom I am interested is unkind? or ununderstanding? or overly-demanding? or too selfish?"
Stated differently, the vast majority of premarital counselees are needlessly anxious and/or angry. They are woefully afraid of rejection, incompetence, or wrongdoing during courtship or marriage; and they are exceptionally
angry or hostile because general or specific members of the other sex do not
behave exaccly as they would like them to behave. Since, according to the
principles of rational psychotherapy which I and Dr. Robert A. Harper have
been developing for the past several years, feelings of anxiety and resentment
are almost always needlessly self-created, and inevitably do the individual who
experiences them more harm than good, my psychotherapeutic approach to most
premarital counselees is to show them, as quickly as possible, how to rid themselves of their fear and hostility and thereby to solve their present and future
courtship and marital difficulties.
'Paper delivered at the Inrernational Conference on the Family at Teachers College,
Columbia University, August 26, 1960.
334
A. ELLIS
The main theoretical construct and counseling technique which I employ
in extirpating a client's shame and anger is the A-B-C theory of personality,
which has recently been outlined in several articles and books (Ellis, 1957,
1958, 1960a; Ellis & Harper, 1960a, 1960b; Harper, 1960). This theory holds
that it is rarely the stimulus, A, which gives rise to a human emotional reaction,
C; rather, it is almost always %the individual's system of beliefs regarding,
attitudes toward, or interpretations of A-which actually leads to his reaction, C.
Take, for example, premarital anxiety-which is usually the main presenting
symptom of young people who come for counseling before marriage. I have
recently been seeing a girl of 25 who, in spite of her keen desire to marry and
have a family, has never been out on a date with a boy. She is reasonably goodlooking and very well educated and has had a good many opportunities to go
with boys because her entire family is concerned about her being dateless and
will arrange
- dates for her on a moment's notice. But she always has found some
excuse not to make appointments with boys; or else has made dates and then
cancelled them at the last minute. At the very few social affairs she has attended, she has latched on to her mother or some girl-friend and has literally
never left her side and never allowed herself to be alone with a male.
Although it is easy to give the girl's problem an impressive "psychodynarnic" classification and to say that she is pregenitally fixated or has a severe
dependency attachment to her mother, such labels, even if partially accurate, are
incredibly unhelpful in getting her over her problem. Instead, she was simply
helped to understand that her phobic reaction to males, at point C, could not
possibly be caused by some noxious event or stimulus at point A (such as her
once being rejected by a boy in whom she was interested); but that her own
catastrophizing sentences at point B must be the real, current cause of her
extreme fear of dating boys.
"What," I asked this client, "are you telling yourself at point B that makes
you react so fearfully at point C?" At first, as is the case with many of my
clients, she insisted that she wasn't telling herself anything at point B; or that,
if she was, she couldn't say what she was telling herself. In my now distant
past as a psychoanalyst, I used to take this kind of denial seriously, tell myself
some of my own nonsense at point B to the effect that the patient was not yet
ready for deep interpretation, and spend the next several months helping her
avoid the main issue by demonstrating to her that she had some kind of an
Electra complex which she was repressing and that she now, by long-winded
processes of free association and dream analysis, had to dig up and face. Being,
at the present stage in the game, a less naive and wiser psychotherapist, I now
refuse to take a simple no for an answer and keep insisting that the client must,
on theoretical grounds, be telling herself something at point B. Now what, and
let's have no nonsense about this, is it?
PREMARITAL COUNSJXING
335
My persistent questioning soon paid off. The client, on urging, found
that she was telling herself thac it would be perfectly awful if she went with
boys and, like her two older sisters before her, was seduced sexually before
marriage but (unlike these sisters) didn't actually marry her seducer. These
internalized sentences, in their turn, were subheadings under her general
philosophy, which held that marriage rather than sex was the only real good
in life and that any girl who failed to achieve the marital state was thoroughly
incompetent and worthless. Perversely enough, as happens in so many instances of neurosis, by overemphasizing the necessity of her marrying, my
client literally drove herself into a state of panic which effectively prevented
her from achieving the goal she most desired.
What was to be done to help this client? In my psychoanalytic days I
would have encouraged her to transfer her love and marital needs toward me
and then, interspersed with a great deal more free associational and dream
analysis evocation and interpretation, I would have tried to show her that
because I accepted her, she could fully accept herself and then presumably feel
free to go off and marry some other male. Maybe, after a few thousand hours
of analysis, this would have worked. Or maybe she would have become just
as parasitically attached to me as she now was to her mother and would have
finally, at the age of 65, realized that I was not going to marry her and been
pensioned off to a home for ex-analysands which I sometimes fondly think
of organizing.
Not being willing any longer to risk this dubiously fortuitous outcome of
therapy, I very directly took this girl's major and minor irrational philosophies
of life and directly challenged them until, after three months of counseling,
she decided to give them up. More specifically, I vigorously attacked her
notions that premarital sex relations are wicked and shameful; that marriage
is the only good state of female existence; and that anyone who fails in a major
goal, such as the goal of having a good relationship with a member of the
other sex, is completely inept and valueless as a human being. I induced this
client to believe, instead, that sex-love relations can be worthwhile in themselves, quite apart from marriage; that marrying may be a highly preferable but
hardly a necessary goal for a female; and thac failing in a given purpose is a
normal part of human living and proves nothing whatever about one's essential
worth.
In miracles or any other supernatural influences I passionately disbelieve.
But the changes thac took place in this patient concomitant with her reorganizing her sex-love and general philosophies of life were almost miraculous. It
needed relatively little urging on my part to get her to make several dates with
young males; she thoroughly enjoyed petting to orgasm with some of these
partners; a few months later she entered into a full sex-love relationship with
336
A. ELLIS
one of them; and she is now engaged to be married to her lover. Moreover,
although we rarely talked about some of the other important aspects of her
life, she has also gone back to college, which she had Left in despair because of
her poor social life there, and is intent on becoming a nursery school teacher.
Quite a constructive change, all told!
Let us consider another case of premarital counseling along rational psychotherapeutic lines. A 28-yr.-old male came for counseling because he kept becoming angry at his fiancee, ostensibly because she continually "unmanned"
him by criticizing him in public. On questioning, he also admitted that he
had never been fully potent with a female and had acute fears of whether he
would succeed sexually with his fiancee after they were married. According
to psychoanalytic interpretation, he was really not afraid of his fiancee unmanning him in public, but of unmanning himself when he finally got into
bed with his bride; and her so-called attacks on him were acrually a projection
of his own castration fears.
So I would have interpreted in my psychoanalytic youth, Fortunately,
however, I had the good sense to call in this client's fiancee; and I quickly
found that she was a querulous, negativistic woman and that she did, figuratively speaking, often castrate my client in public. Whereupon I quickly set
about doing two non-psychoanalytic and highly directive things. First, I talked
the fiancee herself into becoming a counselee, even though she at first contended that there was nothing wrong with her, and that the entire problem
was the result of her boy-friend's inconsiderateness and ineptitude. When I
saw her for psychotherapy (in all, 48 sessions of individual and a year of
group therapy, since she proved to be a rather difficult patient) I set about
showing her that her anger, at p i n t C, stemmed not from her boy-friend's
inept behavior, at point A, but from her prejudiced and grandiose interpretations of this behavior at point B.
I showed this woman, in other words, that she kept saying to herself: ( a )
"John is doing these inept and inconsiderate things to me" and ( b ) "He
shouldn't be acting that way and is a no-good sonofagun for doing so." Instead, I insisted, she would do much better by saying to herself: ( a ) "John is
doing these things, which I consider to be inept and inconsiderate to me," and
( b ) "If I am correct (which I may or may not b e ) , then it would be much
nicer if he could be induced to stop acting this way; and I should be doing
everything in my power to help him see what he is doing, without blaming him
for his behavior, so that he changes his actions for the better."
When I convinced this client that, as I contended at an American Psychological Association symposium last year (Ellis, 1960b), no one is logically
ever to blame for anything, and that people's errors and mistakes are to be
accepted and condoned rather than excoriated if we are truly to be of help to
PREMARITAL COUNSELING
337
them, she not only stopped berating her boy-friend in public but became a
generally kinder and less d~sturbedindividual in her own right.
Meanwhile, to flashback to my original client in this pair, whom we left
gnashing his teeth at his fiancee and shivering in his pajamas abouc the spectre
of his sexual impotence, he proved to be a relatively easy convert to the cause
of rational thinking. Afcer 16 sessions of highly directive counseling he was
able to see thac, whatever the verbal harshness of his intended bride, her words
-at point A--could only hurt and anger him-at point C-if
he kept telling
himself sufficient nonsense abouc these words at point B.
Instead of what he had been telling himself at point B-namely, "That
bitch is castrating me by her horrible public criticism and she has no right to
do that to poor weakly me"-he was induced to question the rationality of these
internal verbalizations. Afcer actively challenging his own unthinking assumptions-particularly,
the assumptions ( a ) that his fiancee's critical words
were necessarily horribly hurtful; ( b ) that she should not keep repeating her
criticism of him; and ( c ) that he was too weak to hear this criticism and not
be able to take it in his strid-chis
client began to believe in and tell himself
a radically different philosophy of sex-love relationships, namely: "There goes
my poor darling again, making cracks at me because of her own disturbance.
Now let me see if any of her points about me are correct; and, if so, let me try
to change myself in those respects. But let me also try, in so far as she is
mistaken about her estimates of me, to help her with her own problems, so thac
she doesn'c need to keep being nasty to me in public." When this change in
his internalized sentences was made, my client improved remarkably in his
ability to take his fiancee's criticism; and his hostility toward her largely
vanished.
H e was then also able to face the matter of his own impotence-which
proved co be, as it so often does, a result of his worrying so greatly over the
possibility of his failing thac he accually tended to fail. When he was able to
acquire a new sexual and general philosophy about failing, he became more
than adequately potent.
In his new philosophy, instead of saying to himself: "If I fail sexually,
it will be terrible and I will be totally unmanned," he began to say: "It is
highly desirable, though not necessary, thac I succeed in being potent; and in
the event that I am impotent for the present, there are various extravaginal ways
of satisfying my partner; so what's the great hassle?'' Losing his acute fear
of sex failure, he easily succeeded; and losing his terrible fear of his fianee's
publicly criticizing him, he helped her to be much less critical.
The main aspects of rational therapy which are usually applied to premarital counseling, then, include the counselee's being taught that it is not
horrible for him to fail in his sex-love ventures; that there is no reason why
338
A. ELLIS
his love partner shozdd act the way he would like her to act; and that any
intense unhappiness that he may experience in his premarital (or, later, marital)
affairs almost invariably stems from his own self-repeated nonsense rather than
his partner's attitudes or actions. Rational therapy, in these respects, directly
forces the patient to accept reality, particularly in his relations with his sexlove partner.
SUMMARY
The theory and practice of rational psychotherapy are applied to rwo cases
of individuals who were seen for premarital counseling. In both cases, rhe
clients were significantly helped when they were induced to accept the fact
that it was not the behavior of their prospective mates which upset them, but
their irrational, unrealistic expectations about and reactions to this behavior.
When these premarital counseling clients were shown how to question and
challenge their own self-defeating internalized sentences, their problems with
themselves and their prospective mates were appreciably ameliorated.
REFERENCES
ELLIS,A. A critical evaluation of marriage counseling. Marriage Fam. Luing, 1956,
18, 65-71.
ELLIS,A. Outcome of employing three techniques of psychotherapy. I . clin. Psychol.,
1957,. 13.. 344-350.
ELLIS,A. Neurotic interaction between marital partners. J. counsel. Psychol., 1958, 5,
24-28. ( a )
ELLIS,A. Rational psychotherapy. 1. gen. Psychol., 1958, 59, 35-49. ( b )
ELLIS,A. Marriage counseling with demasculinizing wives and demasculinized husbands. Marriage Fam. Living, 1960, 22, 13-21. ( a )
ELLIS,A . There is no place for the concept of sin in psychotherapy. 1. counsel. Psychol.,
1960, 7, 188-192. (b)
ELLIS,A.,
ELLIS, A.,
& HARPER,
R.
& J~ARPER, R.
A. Creative marriage. New York: Lyle Sruart, 1961. ( a )
A. A guide to rational living. Englewmd Cliffs, N. J.:
Prencice-Hall, 1961. (b)
HARPER,R. A. Should marriage counseling become a full-fledged specialty? Marriage
Fam. Living, 1953, 15, 338-340.
HARPER,R. A. Failure in marriage counseling. Marriage Fan. Living, 1955, 17,
359-362.
HARPER,R. A. A rational process-oriented approach to marriage counseling. J. Fam.
Welfare, 1960,6 (4), 1-10.
LAIDLAW,
R. W. The psychiatrist as marriage counselor. Amer. I . Psychiut., 1950,
106, 732-736.
LAWTON, G . Neurotic interaction between counselor and counselee. J. counsel. Psychol.,
1958, 5, 28-33.
Accepted March 4, 1961.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
2
Размер файла
230 Кб
Теги
1961, 333, pr0
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа