Re-authoring marital partners ’ stories The aid of sculpting and the use of small objects as “ co-therapists ”

Re-authoring marital partners' stories. The aid of sculpting and the use of small objects as “co-therapists” /\s a result of the high divorce rate and the traumatic and far-reaching effects these phenomena have on adults and children, psychologists should constantly aim to develop effective ways of marriage counselling and therapy. The aim of this article is to introduce one approach to marriage therapy that has been developed by the author of this article. Within this approach to marriage therapy the therapist employs the assistance of a number of figurines and objects utilized as ''co-therapists" during the therapy sessions to represent the marriage partners' relationship. During this process the emphasis falls on the close proximity or distance (i.e. intimacy or lack of it) between the marriage partners, and the difference in height (i.e. power relations) which exists between the partners. Experience has indicated that this approach is a powerful diagnostic and therapeutic technique. In this article a theoretical grounding for this technique, methods of presentation and the rationale behind the technique are discussed. Suggestions for further research about the technique, as well as for the development of it are also given.


Introduction
The divorce rate in South Africa is alarm ingly high.Statistics of 1996 indicate that 146 732 m arriages were solemmized, 32 775 divorces were officially granted, and 41 971 m inors were involved in these divorces (Statistics SA, 1998).As a result of the traum atic and far-reaching effects that divorce has/can have on both adults and children (cf.Everett & Volgy, 1991;Hodges, 1991;Venter et a!., 1995), and in view of the com-plex nature of marital problems and the difficulties experienced by marital partners in their attempts to solve these problems, it is essential that marital therapists should continuously attem pt to develop new creative approaches (techniques) to assist marital couples in coping with their problems.Naturally such approaches (techniques) should be based on sound theoretical principles.This point o f departure should be a matter of special priority for the Christian psychologist: from the Scripture it is clear that God instituted marriage as a lifelong com m itm ent between husband and wife -a relationship in which they should show loyalty and love towards one another (De Bruyn, 1996).
Because of his own attem pts and failures to assists marital couples, the author o f this article has developed a simple but powerful technique to assist couples in coping with their problems.The technique that has been developed is based on the integration o f the assum ptions o f a num ber o f theoreticians/therapists about the marital interaction between partners, and a variety o f therapeutic approaches and techniques.

Theoretical foundation of the technique
Subject-related literature indicates that a large num ber o f theoreticians using various theoretical points o f departure conceptualize the relation ship between people (and also marital partners) in term s o f the degree of fusion and differentiation (individuation).Stated in simplified terms, this view implies a focus on the distance that people maintain in their relationships.Exam ples of theoreticians sharing this view are Bowen (1976), Karpel (1976) and Sager (1981).
Bowen (as quoted by Kerr, 1981:236) proposes that in human relation ship system s tw o natural forces exist that act to counter-balance each other, viz. a force towards individuality or autonom y, and a force towards togetherness or fusion.According to Bowen (in Kerr, 1981:236) these forces are in constant motion, with each m em ber within the relationship monitoring the current status o f the balance.A feeling of too much togetherness will trigger efforts to recover some individuality and a feeling of a limited togetherness will stim ulate m oves towards emotional closeness.Karpel (1976) and Sager (1981), in their conceptualization and representation o f the relationship dynamics, specifically focus on the interactional contracts which may occur between marital partners.Karpel indicates 4, and Sager 7 such kinds o f relationships.Karpel (1976:70 81), in his integration o f m any theoreticians'/therapists' work, proposes 4 m odes of relationship, viz.unrelatedness, fusion, am bivalent fusion and dialogue.

C.A. Venter
• Unrelatedness refers to the situation w here close relationships are largely avoided.
• Fusion exists in a relationship when two m inimally individuated persons form a close emotional relationship.Their dependence on one another drives them to be alm ost exclusively relationshiporientated.Little or no energy is devoted to the task o f self-growth and individuation.
• The essence of the third relational mode, am bivalent fusion, is the conflict between progressive tendencies towards differentiation and regressive tendencies towards identification.This mode of relationship is often experienced as being caught between the fear o f being totally absorbed in a fusion with another person, and the fear of being alone.
Because of this kind of conflict a range of different sub-relational form s can develop as a way in which people handle this conflict, viz.
-one-partner distancing, -alternative distancing by the partners creating cycles o f fusion and unrelated ness, -continual conflict and -the impairment o f one partner (Karpel, 1976:74-77).
• The fourth relational mode, as proposed by Karpel (1976) is dialogue.
This mode represents a mature relational mode in which each person strives to respect the other person in the relationship as someone who is separate and different from the self.Consequently, the individuation of each person in the relationship operating within this relational mode will increasingly be promoted.
Sager (1981:97-103) indicates 7 interactional contracts that partners can use in a relationship to fulfil their separate goals and purposes.These contracts include the equal, the companionate, the romantic, the parallel, the rational, the parental and the childlike partner.
• The equal partner seeks a relationship on equal term s for him self and his spouse, and expects that both will have the same rights, privileges and obligations.He/she expects his/her partner to be a complete person in his/her own right, largely self-activating, but responsive to the needs of his/her mate and em otionally interdependent of him/her.
• The com panionate partner wants a companion with whom to share daily living but he/she does not aspire such a close (intimate) relation ship as the equal partner requires.
• The rom antic partne r behaves as if he/she wants and expects his/her partner to be his/her soul mate and to act as one entity.
• The parallel p a rtne r interacts so as to avoid an intimate sharing relationship.He/she wants the partner to respect his/her emotional distance and independence.
• The rational p artne r tries to establish a reasoned, logical, well-ordered relationship with his/her mate.He/she depends on his/her partner to bring spontaneity and emotional expression into their relationship.
• The essence of the dynam ics o f the p arental p artne r is to control his/her partner.The parental partner som etim es assum es the role of the protective parent or he/she behaves like a punitive authoritarian parent.
• The childlike partner is the counterpart o f the parental partner.In the interaction he/she aim s to be cared for, protected, disciplined, guided and freed from responsibility.
It thus seems as if Sager's interactional contracts can be related to those o f Bowen and Karpel.
In the first 4 partner styles as proposed by Sager (1981), the focus is on the distance/closeness that the partners have but the last two of Sager's interactional contracts (parental partner and childlike partner) allude to the differences in power that may exist in relationships.Other theo reticians, e.g. the structural family therapists, strategic family therapists and Bowen also em phasize this dim ension in relationships (cf.Hanna & Brown, 1999;Colapinto, 1991;Levant, 1984;Madanes, 1991).
In view of the above information, the hypothesis is that two basic dim en sions in relationships are the proxim ity between m arital partners and the differences in power between them.It is evident from a num ber of sources that these dim ensions of distance and pow er in relationships play im portant roles in functional and dysfunctional relationships, and consequently these should be dealt with during therapy sessions (cf.Bartle & Rosen, 1994;Becvar & Becvar, 1996;Goldner, 1998;Holtzworth-M unroe & Jacobson, 1991;W orden, 1999).It is also noticeable that Bowen and Karpel's theoretical perspectives serve as the basic points o f departure for most of the above-m entioned theorists/therapists.It is also striking and rem arkable that these same two dim ensions (distance/proxim ity and status) are indicated in Scriptures as two essential dim ensions in interpersonal relations (Kruger, 2000).
The discussion o f the technique itself (cf. 3) will indicate that a modified form of sculpting is often used during therapy sessions.This technique utilizes small objects and figurines acting as "co-therapists" to represent the relationship between marital partners.L' Abate et al. (1986) clearly indicate the advantages of this technique in their comprehensive discussion of sculpting.In short, it can be stated that the technique "... is a potent process of concretizing and exploring relationships, with the ability to condense meaning into an evocative, efficient image which is easier to store, retrieve, and relate to than equivalent verbal descriptions" (Papp quoted in L'Abate e i al., 1986:166).
To some extent the therapeutic position that the therapist assumes during the session(s) agrees with that of the Milan therapists and some narrative therapists (especially Michael White, Harlene Anderson & Goolishian, and De Shazer).Two of the strategies o f the Milan School, viz.hypothesizing and curiosity are especially utilized (cf. Palazzoli et al., 1980;Cecchin, 1987).Curiosity helps the therapist to continue looking for different descriptions of and explanations for the couple's ideas, their behaviour and the explication o f events in their lives.From this perspective, many hypotheses can be derived from the couple's stories.
In term s o f narrative therapy, the marital partners are stimulated to discover alternative stories and "new-old" stories about their relationship and not only to focus on the dom inant story of their relationship (Hewson, 1991;White, 1991;W hite & Epston, 1990).In term s of the work of Anderson and Goolishian (1988) the therapist should ensure that sufficient emotional space is created during the sessions, so that the marital partners can articulate the "unsaid" or the "not-yet-said", as these new/alternative perspectives are viewed as the resource for possible change during a therapy process.W ithin this "circle of the unexpressed" the therapist and the marital couple can co-create and co-develop new them es and new narratives (stories).In the co-creation o f new stories the therapist, taking cognisance of the work of De Shazer (1991), can help couples to construct progressive narratives (i.e.new stories signalling changed insight and acting as sources for desired change in their lives).The construction of these progressive narratives are im portant because couples experiencing problems usually have stability and/or regressive narratives about their lives (i.e.narratives that justify that their lives are unchanging -stable -and narratives that indicate that their lives are moving away from their goals).In view o f Tom Andersen's (1998) comm ents care is taken that the therapist and the clients use everyday language in the comm unication process.
The position the therapist takes in during the therapy process should not assum e the role of "expert'', but rather the position of "I do not know ".This position implies that the therapist should not present couples experiencing m arital problems with general "universal truths" about the dynamics of m arriage.The therapist should rather, in cooperation with the marital partners, support a num ber o f interpretations of reality (cf.Anderson & Goolishian, 1988;Dashti & Wigg, 1997;W hite, 1995).

The technique
The application o f this technique implies that the marital partners' stories are redefined and re-authored in term s of partners' closeness and power in the relationship.In this re-authoring process small objects are utilized as "co-therapists" to sim ulate a certain position.
The "co-therapists" used by the author o f this article consist of certain ornam ents and objects.The two "co-therapists" that has been used most often are an owl (10 cm tall and a diam eter o f 9 cm) and a wire figure (7 cm tall with a diam eter of 5 cm) (cf.figure 1).These two "co therapists" usually represent the two marital partners.The problem in the relationship (a particular m atter or person) is som etim es represented by a small m onster (5 cm tall and 7 cm in d ia m e te r) (cf.figure 1).Children are represented by erasers of different sizes.An object often used in the representation o f a situation is a notebox made o f wood (7 cm x 7 cm x 4 cm).Certain figures are placed on this container to indicate the differen ces in height.Som etim es this box is placed on its side and between two figures to indicate a definite barrier between persons.
During the session(s) the sculpting process is done on the therapist's desk.The m arital partners are requested to indicate w hether the sculpting is a true reflection o f their respective stories.The horizontal distance between the "co-therapists" indicate the proximity between partners in the relationship (their intimacy), and the vertical differences (if indicated by the use o f the notebox) indicate the differences in power.
During the discussion(s) which follow the sculpting pattern can be changed.In m any cases the m arital partners change the sculpting them selves by m oving the "co-therapists".New them es (stories) are discovered through this process, as well as sm aller nuances o f wellknown stories.

Case study
A married couple in their mid-thirties reported for therapy as the husband was uncertain as to whether he still wished to continue their unfulfilled marital relationship.
A t the beginning of the first session he indicated that he felt as if there were a wall between him and his wife.He also indicated that he had already wondered whether it would not be better to be divorced.As a result of his openness and obvious impatience with the situation, the therapist decided to sculpt the information provided on his desk.The husband was represented by the owl, his wife was represented by the wire figure, and the wall between them by the notebox (cf.figure 2).A number o f questions were formulated and hypotheses about the situation were then deduced -for example: If the wife had also been aware of the wall between them, for how long had she been aware that this wall had existed.Further questions that could be asked, include the following: W hat did each of them contribute to the building of the wall?W hat did each of them experience in their relationship before the wall had been created?W hat difference did the wall make in their relationship and lives as people?W hat had they already tried to do to break down the wall?How did each one maintain the wall?W hy did they think these attempts had failed?On the last question the husband replied that he felt that he would have to push the wall away or alternatively turn around and end the marital relationship.Many other alternative options of what he could do were then indicated to him by pointing to the sculpting on the desk, and by changing the position of the owl.These suggestions led to the generation o f many new questions and hypotheses regarding the various possibilities.The following questions were considered: what would happen if he were to stand against the wall, call his wife and ask her how she experienced the wall; w hat would happen if he looked over the wall and asked her to help him to gradually break down the wall; etc. Upon inquiry at the end of the session, it seemed as if both partners had benefited from the session, and that it had been instructive to sculpt their relational problem s as had been done.
During the second session the husband seemed determ ined to remove the wall between his wife and himself.From the ensueing discussion, it seemed as if he had been experiencing a great deal of frustration resulting from his w ife's over-involvem ent with their children.He experienced his position as that o f an outsider.The sculpting made during the first session was again arranged on the desk (cf.figure 2 ).
Re-authoring marital partners' stones.The aid o f sculpting and the use o f small objects ...  when had the children assumed the position between them?W hich of them had the greatest share in this?W hat did each o f them do to maintain the children's positions?W hat did each child do to stay in this position?W here did the children fit into the sculpting prior to this situation?W hich advantages and disadvantages did the situation hold for each m em ber of the family?W hat would happen if the children were to move out of the specific positions and did not form a wall anymore?Upon enquiry it seemed as if both marital partners had come to nume rous new insights (stories) regarding their marital and family dynamics during the session, and that the sculpting had clearly indicated which structural changes they could bring about in their family relationships.
The third session extended the sculpting pattern to include the role of the husband's job and the w ife's fam ily of origin.The husband's job was represented by a small monster, and the m embers of his w ife's family of origin were represented by a number of erasers.During this and later sessions the new themes (stories) raised by the marital partners were incorporated into the sculpting.This obviously led to new sets of questions and hypotheses, and possible ways in which the marital partners could address their problems.
Therapy was ceased after seven sessions, as both partners then indicated that there had been an improvement, and that they felt that they were busy removing the wall between them.Information regarding various aspects of their marital and family relationships confirmed their suppositions.

Rationale of the technique
The rationale underpinning the technique can be formulated as follows: • The implementation of the technique is a visual spatial metaphor which enables one to redefine complex, and often vague marital issues in a simple, workable form.This representation o f a situation creates a new "language" which minimizes the possibility of misinter pretation between the therapist and the marital partners.
• The technique appeals to the functions more specifically associated with the right hemisphere of the brain, i.e. the functions particularly responsible for the holistic, intuitive and creative processes.The discussion revolving around the sculpting process contributes to an integration of the cognitive, affective and experiential components (cf.W issing, 1991).
• In the application of the technique each partner is intellectually involved in studying material with a high emotional content and thus acquires new knowledge about it.The partners can therefore be more objective about marital issues as they get to know them selves better, and can assum e the "I" position.This position will promote the partners' self-differentiation within their marriage.This hypothesis rests on Bowen's theoretical assum ptions (Bowen, 1976) and the view of Papp et al. (1973) that individuation can be brought about as a result of family sculpting.
• As with fam ily sculpting (Cromwell et al., 1980), the technique discussed in this article has an adhesive effect on marriages.Marital partners realize that they constitute a unit and that each partner is not only an essential part o f it, but also influences the other person in the unit.
• Partners become aware of the positive and negative characteristics of their marriage and how this information can enable them to affect certain changes in their relationships with their partners or with others.
• As with sculpting, the active and novel nature o f this technique dem ands more attention than marital discussions, and it is therefore ideally suited to counteract boredom and restlessness, inattention and repetitive, m eaningless interchanges (cf.L'Abate e ta l., 1986).
• Because of the unique nature o f the technique, people often find it interesting and not as threatening as one could expect.Hum our can also easily be incorporated into the process.
• The sculpting of the m arital partners' interaction is a unique way through which they are enabled to externalise their problems.In this process the problem s become a separate entity, and thus external to and separate from the persons them selves and the relationship to which the problem was initially ascribed.Because the problem is rendered less fixed, it enables the persons to separate them selves from the dom inant stories that have been shaping their lives (cf.W hite & Epston, 1990).
• The sculpting helps the therapist not to become too involved or even sucked into the emotional system of the marital partners.This advantage is achieved because the sculpting process creates some distance and it is therefore easier for the therapist to be and to stay cognitively involved in the process (cf.Bowen, 1976).

Conclusion
Marital couples exposed to this technique/approach can provide im portant inform ation regarding the im pact that the technique has on Another aspect that could/should be investigated is how Christian psychologists who use an explicit Biblical approach in their therapeutic conversations could possibly involve the aspects o f God's presence and His prescriptions for Christian's marital life in the sculpting process.It goes w ithout saying that such an approach would have to be done very carefully and circumspectly.A possible way of doing this is to see the walls of the therapy room as God's all-embracing and loving presence.

Key concepts: Kernbegrippe:
co-therapists beelding maritial therapy huweliksterapie narrative therapy ko-terapeute sculpting narratiewe terapie FIGURE 2: A s vie w e d by th e c lie n ts FIGURE 3: A s vie w e d by th e c lie n ts BibliographyA N D ER SE N , T. 1998 Inner and outer voices in the reflecting process Pre-C ongress W o rkshop during the Xth W orld Fam ily T herapy C ongress Dusseldorf, G erm any 14-15 M ay 1998.AN D ER SO N , H. & G O O LIS H IAN , H .A 1988.Hum an system s as linguistic systems: P relim inary and evolving ideas about the im plications fo r clinical theory.F am ily Process, 27(4):371-393.BARTLE, S E. & RO SEN, K. 1994.Individuation and relatio n sh ip violence.The A m e rican Jo u rn a l o f F am ily Therapy, 22(3): 222-236.BECVAR, D.S & BECVAR, R.J. 1996.Fam ily therapy: A system ic integration.Third Edition.Boston : Allyn & Bacon.BO W EN, M. 1976 Principles and techniques of m ultiple fa m ily therapy.{In Guerin, P J., e d Fam ily therapy: T heory and practice.N ew Y o rk : G ardiner, p. 42-90.)C EC CHIN, G 1987.H ypothesizing, circularity and neutrality revisited: An invitation to curiosity.F am ily Process, 26(4):405-413.C O LAP IN TO , J 1991.Structural fa m ily therapy.(In G urm an, A S .& Kniskern, D.P., e d s H andbook o f fam ily therapy.Volum e II New Y ork : Brunner/M azel.p. 4 17 443 ) C R O M W E LL, R., FOU RNIER, D & KVEBAEK, F. 1980.T he K vebaek fa m ily sculp tu re technique: A diagnostic and research tool in fam ily therapy Jonesboro, T ennessee : Pilgrim age.D ASHTI, I.O.& W IG G , D S. 1997 T h e evolution o f fa m ily the ra p y and fam ily therapist: M aking the shift from m odernism to postm odernism .P aper read at the 7th International C onference on Fam ily T he ra p y o f the Israeli Association for M arital and Fam ily Life Education.(The 9th W orld C onference on Fam ily T he ra p y.) Jerusalem , Israel.9-13 M arch 1997.DE BRU YN, P.J. 1996.W esenskenm erke van die huwelik.B ybelse b eginsels vir die huwelik.(In Swanepoel, F A , red.Die huwelik.Pretoria : Powell-Bybelsentrum .p. 15-22 ) DE SHAZER, S. 1991 Putting difference to w ork New Y ork : Norton EVERETT, C .A & V O LG Y , S S 1991 T re a tin g d ivorce in fa m ily therapy practice.(In G urm an, A S & Kniskern D P., eds.H andbook o f fam ily th e ra p y Volum e II.New Y ork Brunner/M azel.p. 508-524.)G O LD N ER , V 1998.The treatm ent o f violence and victim ization in intim ate relationships.F am ily Process, 37(3):263-286.HANNA, S M. & BR O W N , J H 1999 T he practice of fa m ily therapy Key elem ents across m odels.Second Edition.London W adsw orth H EW SO N , D 1991.From laboratory to th e ra p y room: P rediction q u estions for reco n stru cting the "new -old" story.D ulw ich C entre N ew sletter, 3:5-12.HO D G ES , W F 1991 Interventions for children o f divorce: Custody, access and psych o te ra p y S econd Edition.N ew Y o rk : John W iley. H O LTZ W O R T H -M U N R O E , A. & JA C O B S O N , N.S. 1991 Behavioral m artial therapy.(In G urm an, A S .& K n iskern D P , e d s H andbook o f fa m ily therapy.Volum e II N ew Y ork : B runner/M azel p 96-133 ) KARPEL, M 1976.Individuation: From fu sio n to d ialogue F am ily Process.15:65-82.KERR, M E. 1981.F am ily system s th e ory and therapy.(In Gurm an, A S. & Kniskern D.P., e d s H andbook o f fa m ily therapy.N ew York: B runner/M azel p 226-264.) KRU G E R , S.F. 2 0 0 0 M enslike pe rso o n likh e id en to e ru ste n d e herderlike bediening : A sp e kte van 'n m etateorie, b asisteorie en praktykteorie.U npublished doctoral th e ses in progress.P otchefstroom : PU vir CHO.L'A BATE, L , G ANAHL, G & H AN SEN , J.C. 1986.M ethods o f fa m ily th e ra p y E ngle wood C liffs, N ew Je rse y : Prentice-H all.LEV AN T, R F. 1984.F am ily therapy: A co m p re h e nsive overview .E nglew ood Cliffs, N ew Je rse y : Prentice-H all.M AD AN ES, C. 1991.S tra te gic fa m ily therapy.(In G urm an, A S & Kniskern, D P ., eds H an d b oo k o f fa m ily therapy.V o lum e II.N ew Y o rk : Brunner/M azel p. 4 1 7 443.)PAPP, P., S IL V E R S T E IN , 0 .& CAR TER , E 1973.F am ily sculpting in preventive w ork w ith "well fam ilies".F am ily Process, 12(2): 197-212.P A LAZZO LI, M.S., BO S C O LO , L " C EC C H IN , G. & PRATA, G. 1980.H ypothesizing -circu la rity -neutrality: T hre e gu id e lin es fo r the co n d ucto r o f th e session.F am ily Process, 19(1 ):3 -1 1. SAG ER, C.J 1981.C ouples th e ra p y a nd m arriage contracts.(In G urm an, A S & Kniskern, D.P., eds.H a n d b oo k o f fa m ily therapy.N ew York: Brunner/M azel.p 85-130.) S T A T IS T IC S SO U TH A FR IC A. 1998.M arriages and divorces: Statistical release, P0307 VE N TE R , C.A., VA N D E R BERG, A .M ., V A N DER M E R W E , H.J. & VAN REN SBU R G , E. 1995.P sychological team a p p ro a ch to child cu sto dy and access disputes.The S o cia l W ork P r a c titio n e r -R esearcher, 9(2): 106-115.W ISS IN G , M.P 1991 D iffe re n tia tio n a nd integration: C ongruence betw een qualities o f p e rso n a lity and n e u ro p sych o lo gical fu n ction in g P aper read at Second Inter national C onfe re n ce on C lient C entered and E xperiential P sychotherapy: Theory, R esearch and Practice.Stirling, Scotland.1-6 July 1991.W H ITE, M. 1991.D e co n stru ctio n and therapy.D ulw ich C entre New sletter, 3:21-40.W H ITE, M. 1995.R e-authoring lives: Interview s and e ssa ys A d e laide : Dulwich C entre Publictions.W H ITE, M & EPSTO N, D 1990.N a rra tive m eans to th e ra p e u tic ends.N ew Y ork : W W . Norton.W O R D E N , M. 1999.F am ily therapy basics.Second Edition.P a cific G rove : B rooks/ Cole.