Dancing to projective identification in dance movement therapy for couples (DMT-C)

Journal Pre-proof Dancing to Projective Identification in Dance Movement Therapy for Couples (DMT-C) Einat Shuper-Engelhard

PII:

S0197-4556(19)30182-0

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2019.101614

Reference:

AIP 101614

To appear in:

The Arts in Psychotherapy

Received Date:

11 December 2018

Revised Date:

2 September 2019

Accepted Date:

17 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Shuper-Engelhard E, Dancing to Projective Identification in Dance Movement Therapy for Couples (DMT-C), The Arts in Psychotherapy (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2019.101614

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Dancing to Projective Identification in Dance Movement Therapy for Couples (DMTC)

Einat Shuper-Engelhard, Ph.D.,

Head, Dance Movement Therapy program

of

Graduate School of Creative Art Therapies.

ro

Faculty of social Welfare & health sciences,

University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905,

re

Israel

-p

emili sagol creative arts therapies research center,

lP

Graduate School of Creative Art Therapies. Faculty of humanities & social sciences, Kibbutzim college of education, 149 Derech Namir, Tel Aviv 62507. Tel Aviv, Israel

ur na

Tel: +972546379406

Email: [email protected]

Highlights:

Shared experience of movement represented the beginning of a process of

Jo



discovery of projections in the relationship.



By leading the other in dance participants discover, through their bodies, that their partner is attuned/not attuned to them, in contrast to what they assumed.

1



By mirroring the movement of the other that participants discover, through their bodies, they act or behave differently in their relationship than they thought.

Projective identification influences the behavior of couples in an unconscious way, in a process that may likely sustain destructive and difficult-to-discover-and-resolve conflicts.

of

In projection, non-verbal messages in the couple relationship are interpreted through sensorimotor systems involved in perception. The present research study examines how,

ro

and in which areas, awareness of somatic and kinesthetic processes in therapy induces recognition of projection and identification in relations. Nine couples (n=18) participated

-p

in 12 sessions of dance movement therapy for couples (DMT-C). The sessions were

re

documented on video and in the personal diaries of the therapists and the participants. According to the participants, the movement experience gave rise to new perceptions of

lP

the couple relationship and the relationship partner with reference to three central issues: manifestation of (a) power; (b) passion; and, (c) support. The discussion will examine ways

ur na

movement incorporated in therapy helps identify embodied processes that take place in the couple relationship.

Keywords: Embodiment; Implicit knowledge; Passion; Power; Projective identification;

Jo

Support

Since the beginning of the field, family system therapists have used participatory

action methods extensively (Chimer, 2013; Gabb & Singh, 2015), such as enactment (Minuchin, 1975), semantic polarities, spatial metaphors, positioning and sculpting (Papp,

2

Scheinkman, & Malpas, 2013) in order to reveal the emotions of couples in relationships. These techniques have been receiving recognition in neuroscience research where it was found that childhood interactions are coded as schemata that include somatic memories about the self and the object, undergo sensorimotor activation in subsequent intimate relations, and shape the perception, interpretations and behavior of the partners in a relationship (Fosshage, 2018). Somatic or motoric stimulation can lead to activation of a

of

schema related to a negative experience with a past significant other and cause distress in

ro

a current relationship. In this sense, non-verbal discourse during a therapy session exposes embodied cognition which cannot be articulated in a conscious and verbal manner. For

-p

example, when one of the partners comes closer, the other retreats, which produces another

re

attempt to come closer and afterwards, withdrawal and isolation. The therapist is directly exposed to non-conscious schema about the self and the other, emotions, internal

lP

motivations, hopes, fears and defenses (Thorson, Lorber, Slep, & Heyman, 2018). Accordingly, a growing body of knowledge indicates that the couples’ attitudes

ur na

which are based on an implicit level better capture the nature of the experience with their partner than their explicitly-declared attitudes about the relationship (Fazio & Olson, 2014; Jones, Olson, & Fazio, 2010; Murray, Holmes, & Pinkus, 2010; Hicks, McNulty, Meltzer, & Olson, 2016; Hicks, McNulty, Meltzer, & Olson, 2018). It would seem that the explicitly

Jo

declared perception of relations may be biased due to cognitive expectations and wishes, but attending to somatic reactions in the relationship exposes an additional and fundamental level of experience. Couples therapists are witness to physical activities, discourse style, sitting position, dominance in couple conversation, and to the connections between observed

3

behaviors, content discussed and the emotions aroused in the couple. All these embody implicit knowledge concerning the relationship (Haynes, Yoshioka, Kolezeman, & Bello, 2009; Nielsen, 2017a). In order to bring the couple to the point where they are aware of and take responsibility for what they each bring to the relationship (Herbine-Blank, Herbine-Blank, Kerpelman, & Sweezy 2016; Schwartz, 2008;), one of the techniques suggested in the literature is the use of direct questions posed to each member of the couple

of

about emotions or thoughts provoked as a result of certain behaviors in the session (Duman

ro

et al., 2007; Seikkula et al., 2015). But, many times, despite the therapist reflecting the characteristics of explicit behavior in the relationship back to the couple, they do not

-p

understand the reason for their behavior.

re

In the aim of explaining these situations, Dicks (1967) was the first to relate to nonconscious psychological processes that take place between the couple themselves.

lP

According to him, the spouses perceive the other as part of themselves. He called this phenomenon “marital joint personality.” As a result, through the mental mechanism of

ur na

“projective identification,” the couple unconsciously influences and is influenced by the feelings and behavior of the other, as based on their past experiences and present needs (Sandler, 1987; Stern, 1994).

In the projective identification process, when one of the partners is unable to accept

Jo

or “contain” a conflicted emotion or thought about himself and his world (because it conflicts with another belief), facts or feelings become split into dichotomous terms of black and white, all or nothing, and are projected onto the other through verbal and nonverbal behavior (Slipp, 1988). The other internalizes the role placed upon her and acts accordingly (Kernberg, 2018; Ogden, 2018). As a result, an internal conflict is

4

unconsciously played out as an interpersonal, inter-couple conflict (Middelberg, 2001; Nielsen, 2017b). For example, when, at the beginning of each therapy session, the husband talks non-stop and the wife shrinks into silence, touching her face in discomfort and frowning, they are embodying the unconscious roles that each one of them consigned to the other - the husband is responsible for resuscitating relations and avoiding contact with

embodies the rage, absence and frustration in the relationship.

of

pain and lack by filling the session with words, while the wife, through her behavior,

ro

In the literature, the assumption is that from the start, people choose their partners in a way that will enable them to reenact internalized, unresolved conflicts from

-p

relationships experienced in their families of origin (Gabbard, 2014; Siegel, 2004). Thus,

re

projection does have a basis in the reality of the relationship; a spouse who is aware of the emotions a particular behavior or attitude of their partner evokes in them can ease the

lP

conflict or cause it to be repeated and escalated. A couple with emotional and empathic availability can help soften the conflicted emotional content being projected in the

ur na

relationship (Catherall, 1992). When the couple relationship is unstable or centers on emotional issues, the projection and internalization mechanism can become a defense mechanism (Kissen, 1996; Middelberg, 2001 ;Mones & Patalano, 2000; Scharff & Scharff , 1997) which creates polarized perceptions, lack of empathy, lack of satisfaction in the

Jo

relationship and difficulty adjusting to marriage (Catherall, 1992; Middelberg, 2001; Scharff & Scharff, 1997). The present research The assumption underlying the present research is that the primary channel for processing embodied unconscious content is attentiveness to emotional content that

5

emerges from non-verbal interactions with the partner. Unprocessed content experienced by the body in early relationships are inherent in kinesthetic and somatic experiences and thus, by attending to the sensations and emotions that arise through different movement interactions, their role in relations is intensified. In couples therapy, verbal processing of the emotions and sensations that surface following movement causes the partners to encounter their significance within their relationship.

of

The use of movement represents a key technique in couples dance movement

ro

therapy, a field growing and developing in recent years out of the clinical (Wagner & Hurst, 2018) and research fields (Behrends, Müller, & Dziobek, 2016; Kim, Kang, Chung & Park,

-p

2013; Pietrzak, Hauke, & Lohr, 2017). In dance movement therapy for couples (DMT-C),

re

movement is a means of becoming familiar with the psychophysical language of each member of the couple and with the reciprocal influence of the somatic and kinesthetic

lP

experience (Author, 2018). The patients’ somatic and kinesthetic experience offers a window into emotional processes connected to intimate and sexual communication.

ur na

Inviting the couple to engage in joint movement calls up an inter-subjective encounter in which embodied memories, sensations and emotions receive a central place in transference-counter-transference processes and through this, understanding the nature of the body as a source of pleasure, closeness, suffering, shame, invasiveness, and more. By

Jo

staying for a while within different movement interactions and being attentive to sensations, emotions, images and memories related to the movement interactions, develop the ability to assign meaning to implicit knowledge embodied in the bodily experience (Cornell, 2015; Sletvold, 2016; Soth, & Heitzler, 2018). Thus, trying out different

6

movement scenarios such as leading/leaning on/relaxing into/using strength in the movement, facilitate deep familiarity with relationship processes. Familiarity with the technique of dance movement therapy can move processes forward in systemic couples therapy in situations where there are complex difficulties and in which words alone do not sufficiently help. To extend knowledge on the benefits of doing so, we conducted a comprehensive study in the field of couples dance movement

of

therapy (Author et al., 2018). The present research study focuses on gaining empirical

ro

knowledge about the way projections and internalizations in relationships are embodied in somatic and kinesthetic experiences with the spouse. The research is based on the

-p

participants’ perceptions of the memories, sensations and emotions evoked during dance

re

with their partner. The research questions are: What types of experiences in movement arouse projection and internalization in the relationship? How do somatic and kinesthetic

lP

experiences in therapy embody the relationship’s conflicts and roles? In which areas is there a gap between the partner’s perception of the relationship and the partner before the

ur na

movement experience, and the embodied experience during the movement? As mentioned, delving deeper into these areas is important for formulating diagnostic and intervention processes for couples therapy. Method

Jo

A phenomenological approach

In the present study, the phenomenological-qualitative method was used. The

choice of the research paradigm and tools stemmed from the desire and aspiration to investigate processes that are largely non-verbal via the subjective experiences of the participants (Author, 2014).

7

Participants The present study is one of a series of studies conducted within the framework of a comprehensive research project examining the use of body-movement awareness in couples therapy. Using purposeful sampling techniques to reach out to a target audience (Patton, 2002), nine couples (18 participants) responded to a call and were recruited to take part in short-term DMT-C. In deciding what constituted a couple, Middelberg’s (2001)

of

criteria were used. Thus, couple status was recognized for any two people that made an

ro

emotional commitment to make each other their primary attachment figure. The nine couples, all heterosexual, ranged in age from 28 to 50 years old, with an average of 37.8

-p

years. They had been sharing the same household for at least three years (mean=7.8,

re

S.D=4.3); their religious backgrounds and countries of origin varied. They had different educational backgrounds and engaged in a variety of professions (4 high-tech

lP

professionals, 3 artists, 2 education professionals, 2 physical training professionals, 2 students, 2 therapists, 1 in the communications field, 1 engineer, and 1 in the tourism

ur na

industry). Procedure

Nine couples participated in 12 couples therapy sessions that took place at an

academic institution. All the sessions were structured so that there was a part that included

Jo

verbal sharing, experience with joint movement, which were then followed by discussion about the kinesthetic experience. The therapeutic framework was chosen as most suited to the objective of discovering a variety of content in the relationship within a safe and comfortable environment, in a gradual, ongoing process that enabled familiarity with the technique that combines discussion and non-verbal experiencing in movement.

8

The room used for the sessions was a space dedicated to this kind of therapy; it held three easy chairs and had an area large enough for movement. Two therapists were involved in the study, each one treated half of the couples who were randomly assigned to their therapist. The two therapists leading the sessions were women with 13 and 14 years of professional experience. They both specialize in combining movement with psychodynamic couples’ therapy. The therapists were supervised by senior therapists,

of

experts in the field. Supervision aimed to create a shared treatment language and maintain

ro

a stable structure for the therapeutic sessions.

The treatment sessions began with the spouses sharing their experiences in the

-p

relationship. They were then asked to engage in joint movement, without any guidance or

re

plan, only to be attentive to their personal and interpersonal experience in the movement beyond that of its aesthetic/visual aspect. Following movement, the couple was told to

lP

discern somatic sensations and emotions, images and memories that were connected to it. At each session, on the basis of the sensations and feelings the couple felt during movement

ur na

with their spouse, the therapist asked them to investigate these emotions further, through movement. For example, when one of the participants felt that his partner was distant because she didn’t care about him, the therapist suggested that he try and pay attention to the sensations that arise when he comes close to her during movement. When a participant

Jo

felt she was being led during the movement, she was asked to try out the role of leader. A participant who felt that her partner was not looking at her when she moved was invited to observe him as he moved her own movement with his body. In bidding the couples to investigate the perceptions and beliefs that joint movement evoked in them, the therapist used images, suggested changes in the intensity and rhythm of the movement, proposed

9

changes in the extent of leading the movement and relaxation of the body, movement while maintaining eye contact and with eyes shut, at varying distances, with and without the partner, echoing the partner’s exact movement and more movement, and experiencing movement tasks that require cooperation. All this in line with the content that emerged from the couple themselves during the sessions. Following movement, the couple was invited to discuss their sensations, feelings and memories to which the movement gave

of

rise.

ro

Research tools

In collecting the data for the research study, three related methods of data gathering

-p

were used: (a) video recordings of the sessions; (b) notes taken by the therapists; and (c)

re

participants’ personal diaries written throughout the 12 sessions of therapy (Rodgers & Elliott, 2015). Participants were requested to keep personal diaries where they would

lP

record notes and feelings about the movement experiences during and after each session. The content of the diaries contained anything that came to participants’ minds including

ur na

thoughts, memories, wishes, feelings, sensations, and different types of insights. Data analysis

Thematic analysis, a method recommended by Braun and Clarke (2013), was used

in analyzing the data emerging from the research’s three types of data collection. Thematic

Jo

analysis is defined as a flexible, analytical approach that supports exploration of themes arising from the participants’ experiences. The analysis was carried out by two researchers experienced in the methodology. The first phase of data analysis consisted of discovering and classifying the material into themes; this was conducted with minimal interpretation. Later stages of the analysis

10

focused on all of the participants’ reflections, as recorded during the 12 therapy sessions and taken from their personal diaries. The two experienced researchers coded the materials in a process of analytic triangulation to ensure consistency and reliability; this was in line with the requirement for multiple analyses and multiple interpretations (Goldberg & Allen, 2015). Details concerning the six stages of thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke are described in another study conducted by the present author on the topic of participants’

of

expectations from couples’ therapy which incorporates work with the body (for more

ro

information see, Author, 2018). Ethics

-p

The design and conduct of the research were in line with the ethical codes of

re

research promulgated by the academic institution’s Ethics Committee. This included confidentiality, anonymity, consent and potential sensitivity. Prior to starting the study, the

lP

participants signed written consent forms attesting to their being fully informed with respect to the project and their understanding that participation was voluntary, that the

ur na

research was carried out with strictest confidentiality and that they could opt out of the study at any time. Out of the 11 couples that initially inquired about participating, nine couples decided to take part. Data collection and analysis were performed using anonymous identities.

Jo

Findings

Following the invitation to attend to the sensations and emotions emerging during the interaction in movement with their partner, the participants repeatedly noted that in that bodily experience, they understood they were sensing and feeling other and/or additional sensations and emotions towards their partner than they were before the movement

11

experience and that they needed other things from their partner, as expressed in verbal discussion, than what they originally believed. They discover, through their bodies, that their partner is attuned/not attuned to them, in contrast to what they assumed, and that they act or behave differently in their relationship than they thought. In a discussion following joint movement, participants again and again came back to the element of surprise: “I’m suddenly finding myself,” “I was expecting something else,” “I’m surprised by what I

of

found.” The disparities between the perception and the experience revolved around three

ro

themes: manifestation of (a) power; (b) passion; and, (c) support. The findings describe the nature of the content that arose from the participants and the type of movement intervention

-p

which, from the participants’ perspective, brought it to the fore.

re

(a) Who owns the power?

Again and again, participants related to the fact that in their physical experiencing

lP

with their partner, the embodiment of aggressiveness, power and intensity all differed from the way they perceived their relationship, themselves and/or their partner. Participants were

ur na

surprised to discover the pleasure inherent in expression of intensity and strength in relations (n=16). For example, in the ninth session, one participant (in a relationship for 8 years, 2 children) said, “I enjoy the parts where I exert strength. It’s so unexpected.” His spouse also expressed surprise: “You surprise me with the intensity of movement, I see

Jo

that your movement is strong and full of energy, more than I expected.” Another participant (in a relationship for 10 years, 3 children), expressed pleasure from the options for expression she discovered: “Forceful strength and strongly-placed weight -

it’s been a

long time since these have characterized the way I act in the relationship. In the movement with you today, I discovered that I have strength. I’ve discovered where in my body I can

12

find my strength.” Her partner adds: “On the face of it, you’re the weak one and I’m the strong one, but in the movement, I feel that this isn’t the case. I don’t know how to use my strength. In sex as well, softness and gentleness are more in my comfort zone.” Another participant (in a 6-year relationship) refers to a conflict vis-à-vis the intensity or softness he attributes to his spouse’s conduct, a situation that leaves him confused about his own needs: “To me, it’s unpleasant when your weight that leans on me

of

is light, soft; I feel your weight on me and I’m looking more for the counterweight and I’m

ro

not finding it. I want to give and to get the counterbalance, to feel you more… on the other hand, when I said that to you during the dance, you changed immediately. It felt extreme

-p

to me. As if you were fighting with me. Aggressive. That’s not what I was looking for or

re

what I meant.”

Another participant (in an 8-year relationship, 2 children), during the fourth session,

lP

related to a characteristic to which her partner attributes to her and until now its significance was foreign to her: “You always claim that I don’t push forward enough. Suddenly, I felt

ur na

it in my body. Passivity and lack of energy.” In the sixth session, her spouse describes his conflict vis-à-vis the expression of his partner’s strength and weakness: “There are surprising moments when you stand up for yourself and it’s then, specifically, I feel that for a moment that I shrink. It’s possible that I don’t give you the space to express the

Jo

strength within you, it also scares me, the strength, and it’s also frustrating when you’re passive.”

In the second session, following experiencing movement that requires cooperation,

one of the participants (in a 5-year relationship) described a gap between the struggle she was expecting would develop and the playfulness and pleasure that was present in the

13

experience: “Holding the ball between the two of us wasn’t as hard as I expected, it was even fun, a game free of struggle. Pleasant, comfortable, and close.” In the fifth session, her partner related to the surprise in quite the opposite way. Following experiencing movement in which the partners were asked to each lead the other in the space with their eyes closed, he felt that coming out of their movement were aggressiveness and anger in an intensity unknown to him before: “Both you and I were taking out our aggressions, I

of

could see our anger. I understand that both of us are holding onto anger.”

ro

(b) Who owns the passion?

Another theme many participants discovered was that the gap between the way they

-p

perceive themselves and their partner, and their body experiencing, and that this is related

re

to issues connected to the desire for intimacy, liveliness and release alongside motifs of death, indifference and fatigue (n=15). For example, in the sixth session, one participant

lP

(in a relationship for 8 years, 2 children) relates with wonder to his partner’s sensuality in the movement: “I feel like I don’t really know you (when you move) and that you’re new

ur na

to me and this scares me too and it’s exciting… I enjoy your release in the dance, I don’t know you in this way.” In response, his spouse says: “When I danced in front of you I really did feel release. I did things that I haven’t done till now and I feel beautiful, and real and attractive. I feel your gaze, fascinated, surprised. As if you don’t know such an

Jo

important part of me and suddenly you’re exposed to it.” Many times, prior to engaging in movement, participants attributed a negative meaning to their partner’s behavior: avoidance of intimacy, indifference, lack of confidence in the relationship, and distance. In experiencing movement, they found themselves confronted with the complexity of the joint experience. In the fourth session, a participant (in a 4-year relationship, 1 child) describes

14

how his spouse’s anxiety serves him in the relationship: "I enjoyed leading you when you have your eyes shut, fear, dependence on me… when you open your eyes, I feel the anxiety in my body… I understand that maybe it’s only when you’re more frightened than I am, can I be filled with a sense of confidence in the relationship.” A participant (in a 9-year relationship, 2 children) describes an experience of helplessness that comes about when faced with her partner’s indifference when she moves

of

sensually and he, she feels, does not look at her: “Your gaze is tired, cold, lacking any

ro

feeling and emotion. Your gaze is so unfocused, so unconnected and unaccepting, I don’t feel there’s any difference whether you look or don’t look (at my movement).” In light of

-p

these remarks, the therapist asks her to sit down, and her partner to move the same

re

movement she had just moved. Her partner mirrors the movement; she is surprised by the accuracy and there is a change in her feeling after she sees him re-enact her movement:

lP

“…strange, I couldn’t feel him looking at me but he really knows my movement… and he also appears to me to be more handsome, full of life.”

ur na

Another participant (in a 7-year relationship), in the fifth session, relates to his experience of when his spouse moves at a great distance, and after the therapist suggests that he try to get closer to his partner, discloses a new discovery: “It’s interesting to see you through the movement. In the beginning I missed you being close to me, I feel you’re far and it’s only

Jo

me who wants closeness, I think that possibly our needs are different. When we get closer you seem to me to be embarrassed, to feel lost. I want to help you.” The remarks of another participant evince confusion between the boredom that ensues when he is not active in movement and the boredom that he attributes to his spouse’s movement. When he is asked to look at her without moving, he says: “Looking at you

15

dance is boring, tiring…” After the therapist asks him to pay attention to the sensation in his body when he moves alone with strong intensity and speed, and afterwards when his movement is small and slower, he connects between the two experiences: “…when I was moving, mostly vigorously, I felt lively, when observing (my partner) or in the small movements it was tiring, I’m restless when I’m not active, vigorous.” Another participant (in a 9-year relationship, 2 children), during the fourth session,

of

relates to the gap between her and her partner with respect to the liveliness of body rhythm:

ro

“We’re not matched in rhythm, it annoys me that he’s so slow, lethargic…” Following the therapist’s instruction that each one of the partners find their own personal rhythm in

-p

individual movement and their shared rhythm in joint movement, she says: “…it seems

re

like your slowness makes me increase my rhythm because I was slower when I was searching for my personal rhythm. But together, it seems that I speed up. This doesn’t allow

lP

me rest in this role. And, maybe it doesn’t let you be faster sometimes. Maybe you also slow down when you’re with me so you can balance my speed.”

ur na

At the therapist’s suggestion, use of images to experience and investigate aspects of the relationship through the body summoned a new kind of presence in the body vis-àvis the partner. For example, when the therapist counseled the couple who expressed indifference and fatigue in their relationship, to observe their partner’s movement as if they

Jo

were witness to “a lofty and admirable thing,” in the eleventh session, one participant (in a 10-year relationship, 3 children) related to the primacy of the experience: “To feel admiration in dancing with my spouse is meaningful, interesting, pleasant. It expresses and revitalizes something. (I understand that) in general, I admire unattainable things that can’t be touched. To express this in dance is like discovering a language... to yearn for her.” His

16

spouse says that the movement together with the image helped her experience her partner as separate from her even in intimate and close moments: “To dance and be admired is refreshing. Recalling that you’re a body separate from myself, that I have the good fortune to touch you, and in your gaze I feel special and desired. It allows me serenity.” (c) Who owns the support? Another theme many participants discovered is that the gap between the way they

of

perceive relations with their partner and the experience in the body, is tied to the ability to

ro

give support and be supported in the relationship (n=17). For example, in the tenth session, a participant (in a 7-year relationship) related to feelings to which she is exposed during

-p

movement: “I discovered that because I’m flexible, my small body can give you pleasant

re

support and that you lean on me. I fold and you stretch your back out. I generally feel less capable in our relationship, smaller, more frightened of life and everything.” Her partner

lP

reacts to this: “It was important to me to realize that I can release my back and lean on you and that you can support all my weight. I was surprised, it doesn’t happen often between

ur na

us. I need to shoulder most of the responsibility.” In the eighth session, through movement, another participant (in a 10-year

relationship, 2 children) encounters different parts of her personality: “I didn’t think that I would lean on you and at the end I see that it’s actually comfortable for me when you hold

Jo

me… the opposite of real life - it’s hard for us to organize, to carry out the small tasks of daily life, and suddenly it’s easy. I always feel that you’re the one who leans and I need to lead everything and here, suddenly, you’re holding me and it wasn’t easy for me to lean but eventually it became comfortable.”

17

A participant (in an 8-year relationship, 1child) relates to the conflict between needs that are cognitively perceived and the panic that sets in when experiencing with the body: “I have the desire to be led but it’s not comfortable for me to be there. I prefer being in control. I want to lead but it’s not comfortable for me to do so. Leading makes me tense, being led restricts me. It provokes feelings of anger, panic.” At first, the anger and panic are projected onto her partner but after attending to her feelings in movement she begins to

of

attribute the experience to her inner conflict.

ro

In another example, a couple related to the confusion between attributing needs to themselves or to their partner. In the third session, a participant (in a relationship 7 years,

-p

1 child) describes the following: It was hard to support you. It was as if I was confused

re

between what you like and what I like.” In response, his partner relates to the same conflict from another angle: “I felt that some of the time I try to lead you and you cut into my

lP

leading, you’re not attentive, you don’t accept my leading. He generally feels that I always lead.” In return, her spouse relates to a struggle in their roles and to encountering the same

ur na

needs, as manifested in the body: “Strange, when the two of us are together, each one feels that the other is leading a little too much and not allowing him to do what he wants.” Discussion

Kinesthetic and somatic features of interpersonal interaction bring up embodied

Jo

emotions, sensations, images and memories (Cornell, 2015; Sletvold, 2016; Soth, & Heitzler, 2018). The aim of the present research was to discover the way awareness of somatic and kinesthetic processes in therapy engender projections and internalizations in relationships, from the participants’ perspective. The findings stressed that being attentive to sensations and emotions during joint movement leads the couple to encounter three main

18

characteristics which they share: strength, passion, and providing support. It should be noted that the different themes characterized all of the participants, whose countries of origin and cultural backgrounds differed from one another. For some themes, a difference in the experience between men and women was seen. The reason will be addressed in the Discussion as will the contribution of the various insights to the clinic, with adaptation of the couples dance movement therapeutic technique for systemic therapists who are not

of

expert in that field.

ro

In the “who owns the power?” theme it was mostly women who were surprised by the strength they exerted in the movement with their spouse while men discerned the

-p

conflict with respect to the expression of their partner’s weakness/strength. In

re

correspondence, it is evident that today, there is a gap between the prevailing perception among couples regarding the importance of equality in positions of power/strength in the

lP

relationship (Knudson-Martin, 2013; Knudson-Martin et al., 2015) and the fulfillment of this ideal (e.g., Gerson, 2010; Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 2009). The feminist revolution

ur na

encourages women to develop assertiveness and strength and at the same time, traditional womanly characteristics such as softness and concern for others continue to reign (Jordan, 2009; Lyness & Lyness, 2007). The disparity in the diverse messages creates conflict, implicitly expressed in the relationship.

Jo

In most cases, the strong one in the relationship is not aware of her “status” in the

relations (Parker, 2009; Kimmel, 2009), and the partner tends to automatically adapt himself to the “strong one” (Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 2009). The conflict with respect to power relations within the relationship is likely to be exposed, as occurred in the present study, through movement. The participants’ felt that the therapist’s suggestion to exert

19

strength in the movement by leading the spouse demonstrated the splitting and projection of the position of strength and of weakness in relations and stimulated discussion of needs and fears in this area. Thus, movement invited awareness and shifts in gender roles. In addition, the opportunity to experiment through movement with roles that are not familiar in the couple relationship allowed many couples to have an egalitarian experience of strength or power in the relationship. Various studies emphasize the

of

importance of practicing the expression of strength. For example, a comprehensive study

ro

found that only couples that divided power and were not organized around a dynamic influenced by stereotypical sex differences, displayed mutual affection (Jonathan &

re

predicted future happiness (Gottman, 2011).

-p

Knudson-Martin, 2012). Another study found that open expression of anger by women

There is consensus in the literature that in order to bring about change in positions

lP

of strength, the dominant person must recognize his/her partner’s value and identity. Particularly for women, it is important that they are able to rely on their partner’s

ur na

receptivity and acceptance of their feelings and concerns in order to feel secure and to express greater definitiveness in the relationship (Greenberg & Goldman, 2008). A change in relations occurs when the one in the position of strength becomes more flexible toward her/his partner and adopts an alternative gender position (Fishbane, 2011; Silverstein et al.,

Jo

2006; Williams & Knudson-Martin, 2012). Being mindful of gender bias is a vital issue in a relationship, in the present research, experimenting with the expression of power by both women and men summoned the male partner’s recognition of the lack of legitimacy of the woman’s more powerful position in the relationship and, in other cases, the woman’s recognition in the existing legitimacy of expressing power in the relationship.

20

With respect to the “who owns the passion?” theme, it emerges that both the partners transfer the responsibility for feelings of indifference, boredom and emptiness in their relations to their spouse. Thus, the role of the “passionate” one is assigned to one of the partners, and the other carries the role of the “indifferent” one in the relationship. Correspondingly, in earlier research it was found that one of the main reasons for splitting and projection in the couple relationship is the fear of intimacy (Feldman, 1979; Feldman

of

& Pinsof, 1982). For couples occupied with finding homeostasis between distance and

ro

closeness, intimacy or distance that is too great provokes anxiety about the relationship. In order to preserve stability at all times with respect to feelings of closeness-distance, the

-p

couple will endow one of the relationship partners with the role of the good, loving, needful

re

one and the other with the role of the one who undoes, withholds and destroys closeness (Middleberg, 2001). Expanding on this, in the present study, the therapist’s invitation to

lP

examine the relationship’s beliefs and perceptions via instructions to come closer or move further and for movement with or without the partner, made the couple encounter the inner

ur na

conflict between yearning and indifference in their relations and thus restored the responsibility for processes taking place in their relationship to each one of the couple. In the “who owns the support?” theme, the participants were surprised to encounter

wishes to have their body supported, to discover that they can support their partner, and to

Jo

acknowledge feelings connected to these roles. Conflict between the wish for dependence (inherent in being supported, leaning, and being led in the relationship) and the demand for independence, typical of the dominant cultures in most of North America, Western Europe and Australia, may be the primary reason for the gaps on this issue and explain the need to communicate such content through a splitting and projection mechanism. Western cultures

21

value independent thinking, independent behavior, and self-reliance. A growing body of research findings indicates that in a couple relationship, too much dependence can be pathological for relations, however, lack of dependence is also pathological to the same degree (Bischoff, 2008). Accepting a partner’s dependence is a factor in higher satisfaction in the relationship (Feeney, 2007) and a greater feeling of closeness in both members of the couple (Overall & Sibley, 2008). And, ultimately, it leads to achieving the sought-after

of

balance between dependence and independence (Darcy, Bavila, & Beck, 2005). As

ro

mentioned, in the current research, participants felt that these are needs that can be accessed through the body. Through experiencing with the body they can be encountered and

-p

communicated in the relationship and thus influence processes taking place in the couple

re

relationship and in couples therapy. Conclusions

lP

The difficulty in identifying unconscious processes in relations is the main reason for distress in couples seeking therapy (Siegel, 2004). Recognizing the process of

ur na

projective identification in the couple relationship is complex specifically because of its invisibility, which aids in denying these processes in the relationship. The findings show that the suggestion to pay attention to sensations and feelings that arise during movement exposes members of the couple to gaps between their cognitive perceptions as expressed

Jo

in discussion about the couple relationship, and somatic sensations which are aroused in the body in joint interaction. The study results shed light on the way systemic therapy can be enriched by

techniques contributed by dance movement therapy. In DMT-C, the therapist is attentive to the interpersonal systemic content that emerges from the couple in movement and

22

suggests movement interventions that summon encounter with different parts of the self for each one of the couple. The therapist observes the couple’s spontaneous movement and afterwards, invites the couple to switch roles and examine different options for being with the other. The research findings show that when issues of power and control come up in therapy, the experience each member of the couple has in leading the other in dance with eyes open and shut stimulates discussion of this type of content in the relationship. When

of

conflict arises with respect to support and dependence, experimenting with leaning on,

ro

supporting one another in movement and experimenting with movement that requires cooperation induces discussion of this content in the relationship. Regarding issues of

-p

passion and its absence, experimenting with different rhythms and intensities of movement,

re

mirroring the movement of the other, changing the location of one partner with respect to the other, and movement preceded by images and metaphors that call up embodied

lP

schemata on the topic, creates discussion of this content in the relationship. The current research further deepens the understanding of how non-verbal

ur na

communication can be harnessed for couples therapy. For each of the themes, the shared experience of movement represented the beginning of a process of discovery of projections in the relationship but on its own, it is insufficient for the purpose of working through and unraveling them. Verbal discussion of this content in therapy, with the therapist’s

Jo

reflections conveyed back to the couple in a softer and more digested manner (Ogden,2018), enabled delving into and understanding the way intrapersonal material is played out in interpersonal dynamics in the couple relationship. Limitations of the study

23

The research was executed using a qualitative method in the aim of uncovering processes in the relationship and their embodiment. Examining this content with different populations, using additional research paradigms will allow expansion and generalization

Jo

ur na

lP

re

-p

ro

of

of the findings.

24

References Behrends, A., Müller, S., & Dziobek, I. (2016). Dancing supports empathy: The potential of interactional movement and dance for psychotherapy. European Psychotherapy: Embodiment in psychotherapy. European Psychotherapy, 13, 99. Bischoff, R. J. (2008). The role of dependence in couple relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 7, 267-273. doi:10.1080/15332690802238050

of

Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for

ro

beginners. England, London: Sage.

Catherall, D. (1992). Working with projective identification in couples, Family Process,

-p

31, 355-367. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1992.00355.x

re

Chimer, C. (2013). A passion for action. Context, April (126), 1–2.

Cornell, W.F. (2015). Somatic experience in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy. England,

lP

London: Taylor and Francis.

Darcy, K., Bavila, J., & Beck, J. G. (2005). Is social anxiety associated with both

ur na

interpersonal avoidance and interpersonal dependence? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 171–186.

Dicks, H. V. (1967). Marital tensions: Clinical studies towards a psychoanalytic theory of interaction. England, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Jo

Duman, S., Grodin, J., Cespedes, Y., Fine, E., Otilingam, P., & Margolin, G. (2007). Couples. In M. Hersen, J.C. Thomas (Eds.) Handbook of Clinical Interviewing with Adults (pp.

340-357). Sage,

Thousands Oaks. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2014). The MoDe Model. Dual-process theories of thesocial mind, 155.

25

Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependency promotes in dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.268 Feldman, L. B. (1979). Marital conflict and marital intimacy: An integrative psychodynamic-

behavioral-systemic

model.

Family

Process,

18,

69-79.

doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00069.x

of

Feldman, L. B., & Pinsof, W. M. (1982). Problem maintenance in family systems- An

ro

integrative model. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 8, 295-308.

Fishbane, M. D. (2011). Facilitating relational empowerment in couple therapy. Family

-p

Process, 50, 337–352. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01364.x

re

Fosshage, J. L. (2018). Implicit and explicit pathways to psychoanalytic change. In Knowing, Not-Knowing and Sort-of-Knowing (pp. 215-224). Routledge.

lP

Gabb, J., & Singh, R. (2015). The uses of emotion maps in research and clinical practice with families and couples: Methodological innovation and critical inquiry.

Family

ur na

process, 54, 185-197. doi:10.1111/famp.12096

Gabbard, G. (2014). Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice..Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press .

Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: How a new generation is reshaping family,

Jo

work, and gender in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples. New York, NY: Guilford.

26

Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2015). Communicating qualitative research: Some practical guideposts for scholars. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 3-22. doi:10.1111/jomf.12153 Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2008). Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of emotion, love, and power. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

of

Haynes, S.N., Yoshioka, D.T., Kolezeman, K., & Bello, I. (2009). Clinical applications of

(226-249). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ro

behavioral assessment. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of personality assessment

-p

Herbine-Blank, T., Kerpelman, D. M., & Sweezy, M. (2016). Intimacy from the inside out.

re

New York, NY: Routledge.

Hicks, L. L., McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., & Olson, M. A. (2016). Capturing the

not

explicit,

partner

lP

interpersonal implications of evolved preferences? Frequency of sex shapes automatic, but evaluations.

Psychological

Science,

27,

836–847.

ur na

doi:10.1177/0956797616638650

Hicks, L. L., McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., & Olson, M. A. (2018). A Dual-Process Perspective on How Sexual Experiences Shape Automatic Versus Explicit Relationship Satisfaction: Reply to Brody, Costa, Klapilová, and Weiss (2018). Psychological Science,

Jo

29(4), 670-672.

Jonathan, N., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2012). Building connection: Attunement and gender equality in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11, 95–111. doi:10.1080/15332691.2012.666497

27

Jones, C. R., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2010). Evaluative conditioning: The “how” question. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 43, 205–255.[PubMed: 22241936] Jordan, J. (2009). Relational-cultural therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kernberg, O. F. (2018). Projection and projective identification: Developmental and clinical aspects. In J. Sandler (Ed). Projection, identification, projective identification (pp. 115), Oxon, UK: Routledge.

of

93-

ro

Kim, S. Y, Kang, H.W, Chung, Y.C., & Park, S. (2013). Empirical application of empathy enhancing program based on movement concept for married couples in conflict. Journal of Exercise

-p

Rehabilitation, 9, 426-431.

re

Kimmel, M. (2009). The gendered society (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

lP

Kissen, M. (1996). Projective identification: A resistance in couples. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 50, 54-65 . doi:10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1996.50.1.54

ur na

Knudson‐Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships. Family Process, 52, 5-18. doi:10.1111/famp.12011 Knudson‐Martin, C., Huenergardt, D., Lafontant, K., Bishop, L., Schaepper, J., & Wells, M. (2015). Competencies for addressing gender and power in couple therapy: A socio

Jo

emotional approach. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41, 205-220. doi:10.1111/jmft.12068 Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (Eds.) (2009). Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships. New York, NY: Springer.

28

Lyness, A. M., & Lyness, K. P. (2007). Feminist issues in couple therapy. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 6, 181–195. doi:10.1300/J398v06n01_15 Mahoney, A. R., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). The social context of gendered power. In C. Knudson-Martin & A. Mahoney (Eds.), Couples, gender, and power: Creating change in intimate relationships (pp. 17–29). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Middelberg, C.V. (2001). Projective identification in common couple dances. Journal of

of

Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 341-352.doi:10.1111/j.17520606.2001.tb00329.x

ro

Minuchin, S. (1975). Families and family therapy. England, London: Routledge.

Mones, A. G., & Patalano, F. (2000). From projective identification to empathic

re

Therapy, 9, 57- 66 . doi:10.1300/J036v09n01_05

-p

connection: The transformation of a marriage from the inside out Journal of Couples

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Pinkus, R. T. (2010). A smart unconscious? Procedural Experimental

Social

lP

origins of automatic partner attitudes in marriage. Journal of Psychology. 46, 650–656. [PubMed: 20526450]

ur na

Nielsen, A. C. (2017a). Psychodynamic couple therapy: A practical synthesis. Journal of marital and family therapy, 43, 685-699. doi:10.1111/jmft.12236 Nielsen, A. C. (2017b). Projective Identification in Psychoanalytic Couple and Family Therapy. Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15877-

Jo

8_18-1

Ogden, T. (2018). Projective identification and psychotherapeutic technique. Routledge. Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2008). When accommodation matters: Situational dependency within daily interactions with romantic partners. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 44, 95–104. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.005

29

Papp, P., Scheinkman, M., & Malpas, J. (2013). Breaking the mould: Sculpting impasses in couples therapy. Family Process, 52, 33–45. doi:10.1111/famp.12022 Parker, L. (2009). Disrupting power and privilege in couples therapy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37, 248–255. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edition.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

of

Pietrzak, T., Hauke, G., & Lohr, G., (2017). Connecting couples intervention: Improving

ro

couples’ empathy and emotional regulation using embodied empathy. European Journal Psychotherapy,13. 66-98.

-p

Rodgers, B., & Elliott, R. (2015). Qualitative methods in psychotherapy outcome research.

re

In Psychotherapy research (pp. 559-578). Springer, Vienna.

Sandler, J. (1987). Projection, identification, projective identification. Madison, CT:

lP

International Universities Press.

Scharff, J. S., & Scharff, D. E. (1997). Object relations couple therapy. American Journal

ur na

of Psychotherapy, 51, 141-73 .

Schwartz, R. (2008). You are the one you’ve been waiting for: Bringing courageous love to intimate relationships. Oak Park, IL: Trailhead Publications. Seikkula, J., Karvonen, A., Kykyri, V.L., Kaartinen, J., & Penttonen, M. (2015). The

Jo

embodied attunement of therapists and a couple within dialogical psychotherapy:

An

introduction to the relational mind research project. Family Process, 54, 703–715. doi:10.1111/famp.12152 Siegel, J.P. (2004). Identification as a focal point in couple therapy. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 24, 406-419. doi:10.1080/07351692409349091

30

Silverstein, R., Bass, L. B., Tuttle, A., Knudson-Martin, C., & Huenergardt, D. (2006). What does it mean to be relational? A framework for assessment and practice. Family Process, 45, 391-405. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00178.x Sletvold, J. (2016). The analyst’s body: A relational perspective from the body. Psychoanalytic Perspectives, 13(2), 186-200.

of

Slipp, S. (1988). The technique and practice of object relations family therapy. NewJersey, NY: Aronson.

ro

Stern, S. (1994). Needed relationships and repeated relationships: An integrated relational perspective. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 4, 317–346.doi.org/10.1080/10481889409539020

-p

Soth, M., & Heitzler, M. (2018). Somatic experience in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy:

re

in the expressive language of the living. Body, Movement and Dance in Psychotherapy, 13. doi:10.1080/17432979.2018.1425221

lP

Thorson, K. R., Lorber, M. F., Slep, A. M. S., & Heyman, R. E. (2018). Adult adiposity linked to relationship hostility for low-cortisol reactors. Journal of Family Psychology,

ur na

32(2), 197.

Wagner, D., & Hurst, S. M. (2018). Couples dance/movement therapy: Bringing a theoretical framework into practice. American Journal of Dance Therapy, 1-26. doi:10.1007/s10465-018-9271-y

Jo

Williams, K., & Knudson‐Martin, C. (2013). Do therapists address gender and power in infidelity? A feminist analysis of the treatment literature. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39(3), 271-284. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2012. 00303.x.

31