Structured Relationship Therapy: A New Paradigm for Successful Couples Counseling

Professional Resource Article

The 3 C’s of relationship: Choice, Consent and Contract. When I work with relationships there are several different ways in which I initially engage to assess whether these three elements are in place and to what extent. It is important to understand that, until these three things are in place as explicit agreements, the likelihood of success in the healing of the relationship is significantly diminished. And often these themes exist in layers. The more complicated the relationship is, the more likely there are to be multiples of layers. One simple way to demonstrate this is to utilize the structure of the traditional wedding ceremony as an example of how we as a society have attempted to place these principles into a marriage This seems to demonstrate the intention of embracing this principle as part of the traditional sacrament or institution of marriage.

In my first career I was a musician. I play guitar and sing. I am a singer first and a guitarist second. Consequently, I have never been anyone’s best man. I have had numerous friends come to me and say, “I would love to have you be my best man. But would you sing in my wedding?” So, as a professional singer, I have sung in literally thousands of weddings. Now, I do not have thousands of friends. But people would hire me to sing in their weddings While I do not necessarily believe that a marriage has to be in place as the form of relationship commitment for a couple to be successful, longitudinally, nevertheless I value the institution or sacrament of marriage very much Part of the purpose of the wedding ceremony/ritual is for everyone present to experience the process, not just the couple getting married, by vicariously re-experiencing their own coming together in whatever form it took. At least that is how I perceive it. Consequently, even if I am hired to professionally play in the wedding of strangers, I experience the wedding as a spiritual renewal process in myself. (The reader will please keep in mind that there can be many forms of ceremony/ritual for many forms of relationships, but the basic processes, tenets or themes of commitment that I am endorsing here remain present in all of them. If not, they tend not to last. Also, the author begs the reader to please be aware that the words, “ceremony,” and “ritual,” may be used interchangeably or together.)

In the traditional wedding ceremony/ritual of two people there are many layers of choice and consent that occur in the traditional ritual. (While I am not saying that the traditional ritual, nor any specific form must occur for a couple to be successful, the marriage ceremony provides us with a process that, in a familiar way, illustrates a lot of the basic tenets of establishing the three C’s). These layers are in a sense laminated into the formation of a contract, which I will discuss a bit more going forward. The first ritual of giving consent is when the father walks the bride down the aisle. In my wedding, my father-in-law had his own family ritual that he engaged in with my wife, as he did with all his daughters, I am told In the narthex, before walking her down the aisle, he told her, “You don’t have to do this You can walk away right now, and I will cover for you I don’t care who came, or from how far away I don’t care how many people will be disappointed. I don’t care about the gifts that they bought. I don’t care about the cost of the reception. You can walk away right now, and I will cover for you. I want you to be free to make this decision for yourself ” While part of me might have wanted to be upset that he might be sabotaging my wedding, I would not have had her walk down that aisle any other way. So, I consider him to have done me a huge favor, and I love him for that. The father traditionally walks the bride down the aisle and up to the dais wherein the celebrant asks of the father, “Who gives this woman to be married?” (Now, truth be told, this is my least favorite part of the wedding, simply because the woman is being treated like property or chattel to be given away. Nevertheless, it is the traditional form.) In order for the wedding to continue the father must reply, “Her mother and I.” (Indicative of choice followed by consent). The father then gives the woman’s hand over to the groom and the two of them proceed up to the dais and face the celebrant (Indicative of choice followed by consent) The celebrant then asks them, “Do you come freely to be married?” If they do not answer in the affirmative, the wedding is over (Indicative of choice followed by consent) The celebrant then explains the process in opening statements and gives charges to the couple as to the seriousness of their situation. At some point shortly thereafter, the celebrant asks the couple, “Do you, bride, take this man to be your husband” And then, “Do you, groom, take this woman to be your wife?” If they do not reply with, “I do.” The wedding is over. (Indicative of choice followed by consent). Then there is the placing of the rings on the left hands, accompanied by the vows of commitment. (Indicative of choice followed by consent).

There is a relatively new ritual that has been added to weddings since I began singing in them in 1968. Over the years I have witnessed its evolution. Traditionally, two acolytes would walk up to the altar with lit tapers, and each would light one of the two candles that stood on the altar. Eventually, most churches adopted a third candle being on the altar, often provided by the couple, and, at some point during the ceremony, the couple would go up, each take one of the candles from the altar, and together light the third candle. The celebrant would explain to the congregation that this was symbolic of their two lives (or flames) being joined as one. At that point, originally they would blow out the two candles and put them back into the candleholders on the altar However, as time went by, most celebrants realized that they should keep the other two candles lit, explaining that this symbolized that, although their two lives (flames) were now blended into one, they still remained two individuals And the celebrants emphasized that just because they were married, this did not mean that they were giving up their individuality. The ritual of the two parties engaging in this process symbolically enacted, almost as a dance would, that they were making a choice and giving consent (Indicative of choice followed by consent)

Eventually, many churches added a third vow, asking the congregation or the witnesses if they were willing to be there for this couple, support them, encourage them, help them when they were in trouble, and help them to preserve the relationship going forward. The congregation was then expected to respond, “We do.” Here is another broader layer of choice and consent. (Indicative of choice followed by consent.) And one of the last ritual statements given by the celebrant prior to introducing them as a couple, asking of the congregation, “Does anyone here have any reason why these two people should not be married? If so, speak now or forever hold your peace ” (Indicative of choice followed by consent)

All of these are pieces of the puzzle, consisting of the rituals of layers of choice and consent. They are traditionally meant to be the foundation of forming a contract of the relationship. Most people assume that the vows arethe contract. However, the vows are only a small piece of the contract. The contract between a couple has been developing since they were children, and long before they ever met each other. Most of the time couples have no idea what is in their contract Many other components of their contract were not made by the couple, but by the parents, grandparents or other ancestors of the couple, because the couple, as children, learned what a relationship is by watching their parents This is not always a good thing Just as you would not sign a contract for a loan without reading the terms of that contract, these people would really need to know the terms of the contract in order to make an informed decision as to whether to sign on, so to speak.

So it is that, many times when couples appear for relationship therapy, they have no idea what’s going wrong They almost always say that it is just “communication ”In my experience I find that couples tend to show up sometime between six and eleven years into their relationship I think this may be why people call it “the seven-year-itch ” Also, the research shows that the average divorce occurs approximately eight years into the marriage – right in the middle of that time frame. And, truth be told, approximately 50% of first marriages fail. Second marriages fail at about a 68% rate and third, and subsequent marriages fail at a 78% rate. I believe the reason for this is because they did not learn from their mistakes, because they were not aware of the terms of the contract in the first place and fail to admit that each of them was 50% of the problem (more about that later) Also, when they present for therapy, they don’t realize that that they have a contract that may have never been appropriate for them, or, if it was, they have outgrown it and need a new contract. This is because the original contract was not formed by the people in the relationship. It was usually formed by their parents or families in prior generations. The template was simply handed down to them outside of everyone ' s awareness. Thus, although there is a contract that was formed, the parties involved in that contract are not aware of it. Often, their perception, or lack of perception, of the current contractual paradigm is based on the fact that they are totally unaware of the concept that the necessity of a contract for the relationship even exists. Thus, they do not know that there is a contract that needs to be fixed, nor do they have any idea what should be in that contract

This begs the question, “What is the old contract? Is it that the existing contract that now needs to be changed? Or has the couple moved from one contract to another recently?” As a result, they often do not see how hopeful the recovery of the relationship could be. And many of the terms of the initial existing contract tell them to behave in ways that are self-destructive to the relationship Thus, we need to teach them some new relationship tools And – nobody teaches these to us in any consciously aware process as we are growing up. In this way we need to and are able to build on the strengths of the relationship and strengthen the weaknesses of the relationship.

Written By: Michael G Holler, MA, NCC, CFMHE, CCCE, CCMHC, LMHC

Michael is a Past President and current Ethics Committee Chair & Parliamentarian of FMHCA He is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor, a National Certified Counselor, a Certified Clinical Mental Heath Counselor, a Certified Forensic Mental Health Evaluator, a Certified Child Custody Evaluator, a Qualified Parenting Coordinator, a Qualified Clinical Supervisor and a Certified Kink Aware Therapist & Educator

Michael has a private practice in the Florida Keys and has been working with individuals, families, couples and organizations for over 36 years You can find the latest work of Michael in his recently published book, Structured Relationship Theory: Nothing Less Would Have Sufficed