Steve Andreas > Articles > Modal Operators

3. How are they linked to, or related to, each other?

(I have found two major ways, one inherent, and one that is optional.)

Inherent linkage. Choice and necessity both presuppose possibility, but desire does not. It is ridiculous to say that a person can choose or must do something that is impossible.

This inherent linkage can be quite useful. For instance, sometimes a person is tortured by thinking that they should do or choose something which is actually not possible for them—at least at the moment—but they don't realize the logical contradiction.

To work with this situation, first you can pace the “should,” or the “choose” and even strengthen it. “So you really believe that you should do X.” Then establish in their experience that it is impossible for them to do X (at least at this time, in their present state of development, finances, etc.).

After doing this preparation, you can put the two together by asking, “How is it that you think that you should do X, when you know that it is impossible? If the preparation was done thoroughly, this is one of those times when you can almost see smoke coming out of the client's ears, as the two beliefs collide, the contradiction becomes apparent, and the “should” (and the problem) vanishes.

However, desire does not presuppose possibility; quite often we desire things that are not possible. This fact is the source of much human misery, since desiring something that is not possible is very frustrating. But this is also the source of human progress, as we are motivated to seek and discover ways to do what was previously not possible.

Optional linkage. Some kinds of linkages are not inherent, but learned.

1. In the first of these, people simply combine MOs sequentially. “I have to choose,” is quite different from “I want to choose, or “I can choose,” (a bit redundant, since choosing presupposes possibility, but it does reinforce the person's sense of their capability.). People often say, “I want to be able to,” or “I need to choose,” or “I might have to,” but there are many other such combinations that people seldom use, such as, “I am capable of not wanting,” or “I choose to not have to,” and some of these are very empowering. Of course it is one thing to recognize this kind of possibility, and quite another to access or create a congruent experience of it. Nevertheless, recognition of the possibility is a very useful first step toward increasing choice.

With four categories of MOs, and including their negations, there are 64 possibilities for these two-step linkages (including the somewhat repetitive “choose to choose,” and “choose to not choose,” etc.). It is very useful to systematically write them all down, and experiment with some trivial content, to discover how each one modifies your experience. Some will seem familiar and “sensible,” but the ones that seem strange, or bizarre will be the ones you can learn the most from, because they stretch your map of what is possible—even if some of them are not particularly useful. This is a great way to sensitize yourself to the impact of how you and your clients typically link MOs, and to experience the impact of the linkages that you seldom use, or never even consider using.

2. A second (and very similar) kind of linkage is to link two MOs sequentially, in an “if-then” cause-effect chain, such as “If I want to, I can.” or “If I have to, I won't.” Discovering how a person typically links MOs causally gives you very valuable information about how their experience is limited, and what kind of situations will likely be troublesome. These linkages, like most generalizations, are often uncontextualized, and easily become rather global beliefs that are applied across a lot of different content and contexts.

Again, most people typically use certain linkages often, and others not at all. Many of the less-often used linkages can be very empowering. “If I choose to, I will,” “If I have to, I desire to.” “If I want to, I don't have to.”

Of course some of these linkages are much more useful than others. Nevertheless, if someone uses only a few choices out of 64, that is a pretty severe limitation in what is possible for them, and experimenting with these unused possibilities can be very empowering.

It would be very easy to create a simple written test asking people to complete a series of sentences like, “If I want to, I ......” and then look through the answers for limiting combinations and significant patterns.

Self/Other: In the discussion above, we presupposed that the person applied the MOs to him/herself. If we add another person in relationship, we can get another 64 combinations, such as, “If you want me to, I have to,” or “If I demand, you should.” The applications for couple therapy (whether or not the other member of the couple is present) should be obvious.

Although linkages of two modal operators are most frequent, a linkage of three is not uncommon, and even more are possible. “If I have to, I can choose to want to.” Here there is an even greater variety of possibilities (512) and most of us only use a few of them.

It is a relief to realize that you don't have to memorize all these many possibilities. Starting with the recognition that these can be very important, and with some systematic practice to sensitize your perceptions, you can simply recognize a linkage, and try it on quickly in your own experience to discover its impact.

With more than one other person, as in families, it even becomes even more complicated—and interesting. “If he says I have to X, but she wants Y, I can't do Z.” (an additional 512 possibilities here!).