"How do our marriage enrichment groups differ from group marital therapy
on the one hand, and from encounter groups on the other?" These
questions are raised by many people. What are the answers?
Group therapy for married couples is now widely available, and its
effectiveness has been established. Our marriage enrichment groups
differ from therapy groups in three important respects.
First, marital therapy is undertaken with couples who have serious
problems, often because the individuals concerned suffer from
personality disorders. When marriages are not stable a good deal of
pathology may emerge in the course of group interaction. Severe
conflict between husband and wife may have to be permitted to surface
and be handled openly by the therapist.
The second important difference is that therapy groups generally
continue meeting, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, over a long period of
time--as long as a year in some cases. Moreover, individual couples may
also undergo counseling (individually, conjointly, or both) in
association with the group therapy either before being admitted to the
group or concurrently with the group experience.
The third difference is in the leadership pattern. Therapy groups are
led by professionally qualified persons--psychiatrists, clinical
psychologists, social workers, marriage counselors. They play a fairly
directive role. The leaders are often male and female co-therapists, but
are seldom husband and wife. The role model aspect of the enrichment
group, as well as the participatory aspect, are therefore much less
pronounced and the group is less free to find and follow its own
direction.
An enrichment group consists of several married couples not in need of
therapy meeting on an intensive basis but for a limited time period. In
our opinion such groups need not be led by professional therapists;
although, other things being equal, that is of course a decided
advantage. We have come to the conclusion, however, that effective
leadership can be given by lay couples if they are carefully selected
and trained.
The encounter group, a general descriptive term, is intended to include
many variants. We have participated in such groups, studied their
procedures, and adapted some of these to our marriage enrichment
retreats. Couples who have been involved in encounter groups adjust
quickly and easily to the methods we use in marriage enrichment, are
generally very cooperative, and an asset to our groups.
There are two significant respects in which our marriage enrichment
retreats differ from encounter groups. First, encounter groups are
composed of individuals, while our groups are confined to, and led by,
married couples. This distinction calls for different approaches. There
is a greater complexity in the leadership, and a greater complexity in
the group itself. The encounter group is confined to interactions
between separate individuals and usually these individuals have not
known each other before joining the group and probably will not continue
association afterwards. By contrast, we have at least three kinds of
interaction: between individuals within the group, between couples
(including the leading couple) within the group, and between husband and
wife within the marital unit.
This multidimensional aspect of the enrichment group not only makes it
more complex, but also increases its potential. This is particularly
true after the experience is over. From our knowledge of encounter
groups we are aware of the problems encountered by the individual who,
after experiencing a new and invigorating openness and warmth in
interaction with others returns home to an atmosphere in which a similar
quality of relationship cannot be sustained unless there are already
friends and associates at home who have had the benefit of earlier
encounter experiences. In the case of our marriage enrichment retreats,
the experience is not gained by an isolated individual, but by a
preexisting social unit, so that new levels of openness and warmth which
the couple have experienced in the group can continue to be maintained
after their return home. This would suggest that the "casualty rates"
for couples would not be nearly so high as for individuals. We know of
no precise study that has investigated this, but our general impressions
would seem to confirm it.
The second significant difference between encounter and marriage
enrichment groups raises a somewhat controversial question. Encounter
groups are more ready to evoke negative interaction between
participants, while we place major emphasis upon positive interaction.
If our judgment of encounter groups is in this respect inaccurate we are
open to correction. We have, however, gained the impression from many
sources that an important technique used in these groups is to provide
opportunities for the participants to secure cathartic release of their
pent-up hostilities, including hostilities engendered by, or projected
upon the group leader or one or more of its members. We recognize that
many people in our culture are pregnant with suppressed hostility or
rage, and that the provision of properly controlled opportunities for
its release may constitute a commendable service; and since the group
members are generally strangers who will not be personally and socially
involved later, no entangling complications are likely to follow.
For our married couples, the situation is different. We do not mean that
they do not have hostile feelings toward each other. They often do, and
this comes out clearly and unmistakably. We do not mean, either, that
healthy discharge of these feelings might not be good for them--in our
therapeutic work with individual couples in conjoint interviews, we make
full use of such controlled opportunity for cathartic release with
ensuing interpretation. It is our considered opinion, however, that in
the particular context of our enrichment retreats, unrestrained
discharge of hostile feelings should in general not be encouraged.
Our reasons? One, the shortness of the available time might not permit
the proper resolution of such episodes. Two, a couple who have openly
discharged rage against each other may well react later with deep
feelings of humiliation that are not easily assuaged. Three, coping with
this kind of explosive emotional discharge could be alarming for lay
leaders not accustomed, as the therapist is, to the expression of deep
feelings which normally are not displayed in public. Four, other members
of the group could be similarly disturbed and diverted from full
participation in the main purpose of the retreat. This complaint has
actually been made, and we think justly, by participating couples in a
group where a violent and prolonged emotional episode took place.
We have been criticized for taking this position, but have not been
persuaded to change our considered opinion. That opinion is reinforced
by another conclusion, namely, that when genuine positive interaction is
promoted, negative emotion, even when it is strong and intense, tends to
dissolve and wither away. Couples have told us how their fierce hate
melted in the atmosphere of warm and loving support engendered in the
group, and with the stirring of compassion within them, they began to
see each other in a new light. We are inclined to the view, after
hearing such testimonies, that in deploying our therapeutic armament we
have given short shrift to the power of love not only to cast out fear,
but also to turn away wrath.