| |
| |
| |
| |
Steve: Ann, you have someone you're still angry with, and you also have in mind someone you have forgiven. Think of those two experiences; how are they different?
Ann: (briskly) The anger is here on the right; it's close, larger than life. (softly and more slowly) Forgiveness is pretty far out in front of me, 10 or 12 feet, perhaps three or four inches high. (rapidly) Anger is in really bright, stark, angry colors. (softly) The forgiveness one is pastel, softly lit from the back. I feel soft and warm and connected with that person. Forgiveness is real quiet. (quickly) The angry one has lots of dialogue, with “Yeah, buts” and rationalizations; it's argumentative.
Steve: OK, now what objection do you have to transforming anger into forgiveness?
Ann: (thoughtfully) It feels like leverage, a way that I can get the change that is needed.
Steve: So, you have some outcome, and by remaining angry you think that will help you get it. What is it about remaining angry that helps you make progress toward the outcome?
Ann: By remaining angry, that creates, literally, distance between us, and he doesn't want the distance; so as long as I'm angry, then he needs to do something.
Steve: You strike me as a fairly resourceful woman. How could you maintain distance without having to be angry, so that you could enjoy it even more?
Ann: The objecting part is saying, “If I let go of this anger, then I'll let him come back, and he won't have made the requisite changes. And then we'll be right back where we were before.
Steve: It sounds like that part doesn't believe that you, Ann, have the strength of mind or character, or whatever, to maintain a particular outcome and go for it.
Ann: Not without a lot of struggle.
Steve: OK. What makes it difficult?
Ann: It just seems like there's such a discrepancy in our value systems.
Steve: Given that you recognize this discrepancy in value systems, it sounds like you've made a fairly congruent decision that distance is the best thing, at least for now. And you said something about leverage – that this person wants to be back with you, and that as long as you can say “not now,” you have a way to create some motivation for him to maybe make changes.
Ann: Right.
Steve: Now given that's a decision you've made, what do you need the anger for? It seems to me it would be even easier to do all that without anger. It would give you even more of a feeling of power and upholding your own values.
Ann: It appears easier with anger.
Steve: What makes it appear easier? Is it just that it's familiar?
Ann: (thoughtfully) There is an element of familiarity in there.
Steve: Try traveling into the future. Imagine that over the next week, you have no anger, and you're very clear, and your mind is set on this goal, and you could be even more comfortable in just simply saying “No,” to any possible encroachment, or whatever... Do you have any objections to that? (Ann: No.) Does any part have any objection? (Ann: No.) OK, are there any other objections? (Ann: No.) It sounds like you still have some connection with this person, that there are some valuable parts of this person that you also respect and have warm feelings toward as well. A lot of people think that if you feel warmly toward someone, that means you can't feel angry at them, or you can't deny them something. To me, it's even more respectful of them as a whole person if you can say, “Look, this part of you fits1 for me beautifully; this part over here doesn't fit for me and I don't want it.” And just be really clear about that. It's not that you're bad or that I'm good. It's just, “This fits for me and that doesn't.” It can be even easier for you to say what doesn't fit if you acknowledge the parts that do fit, so that you're not rejecting him as a whole. That has got to be hard for him; he's going to be defensive, and then you're going to have to be defensive, and so on. But instead you can say, “Gosh, the way you do this is wonderful, and this over here doesn't fit for me, and I refuse to do it.” Does that make sense to you? (Ann: Yes.) OK, let's go ahead and change your anger to forgiveness. As we do this, I want you to be very sensitive to any other objections that might come up. Take this representation of him on your right, and move it over here and farther away, and see what other changes occur spontaneously. Find out what it's like to represent this person in pastel hues, softly lit from the back, just like that other person you have already forgiven.
Ann: (softly, thoughtfully) I feel a loss of power; the powerlessness of not being able to say “No.”
Steve: And what is it that prevents you from saying “No” to future harm?
Ann: (happily) I just fixed it. I brought him closer, so he's life-size, so then we're equal. When he was smaller than life-size, then I felt pity, and I couldn't say “No.”
Steve: And now, what's your feeling toward him? Do you have that warmth, and sense of connection?
Ann: Yeah, and I can have a conversation with him as equals, rather than having to play “topdog” or “underdog”.
Steve: Great. Now close your eyes for a minute, and jump into next week or whenever you might have an interaction with him and see how that goes... (Ann is smiling and relaxed.) That looks pretty good from here!
Ann: Yes. (quietly) I feel softness, and tenderness, and understanding, and a real connection that wasn't there before. When you used the word “fit” earlier, that was absolutely perfect for me, because the objection part was being judgemental, making him wrong, and those things he did be bad, whereas just to see it as not a fit makes a big difference.
In an audiotaped follow-up interview ten weeks later, Ann said, “At the time of our session, he was in Vermont, and as far as I was concerned, he could stay there. Now he's back here and we're setting a wedding date! How's that for results! There are two other things that I'm specifically aware of. One is that there's no bitterness on my part, and there's no reservation. I find it easy to have the same level of intimacy and trust as I did before... And I've also used the forgiveness process in my own practice with couples, and it works.”
| |
| |
| |
| |
