Part 2 (1/2)
Occasionally when we are faced with a controversial subject (for example, ”How far are you prepared to allow your partner to go in friends.h.i.+ps with the opposite s.e.x?”), we might ask all the couples to discuss this privately together for ten minutes, and then report to the whole group what conclusions they have reached.
Another kind of exercise is what we call ”dialogues.” A volunteer couple sit in the center on chairs or on the floor facing each other, and talk back and forth on a subject chosen by the group but accepted by them.
Some topics have been ”How do we deal with conflict in our marriage?”; ”How do we overcome fears of intimacy?”; ”What are our procedures in decision-making?”; ”How do we meet each other's dependency needs?” The subject should of course focus on husband-wife interaction.
It is best for the interchange between the couple to be slow and deliberate. Indeed, it is helpful for each to allow a period of silence before replying to the other (learning to pause in this way is a very helpful means of making husband-wife discussions more effective).
Sometimes two or three couples may volunteer; all sit in the center of the circle (the ”fishbowl,” as it is sometimes called) and the dialogue is taken up by each in turn. While the dialogue is going on, other members of the group should not intervene or in any way act as an ”audience.” The general discussion comes afterwards, and provides an opportunity for others who identified with the couples in dialogue to share what they felt.
An interesting variant is to ask if another couple will volunteer to sit with the couple involved in dialogue, and to function as _alter egos_ (Latin for ”other selves”). The _alter ego_ on each side listens carefully to what is going on, and intervenes from time to time to verbalize deeper levels of communication and interaction that are not being expressed in words. Playing the _alter ego_ role requires some insight and skill, but it is highly effective when well done.
Another exercise for individual couples is ”positive interaction.” A very simple device, it is usually highly effective and often deeply moving. For this reason we often make it the last activity on Sat.u.r.day evening. It can either be carried out by about three volunteer couples, or all couples may agree to take turns. The couple sit facing each other, holding hands, and are asked to tell each other, simply and directly, what they specially like about each other, being as specific as possible. Surprisingly, it turns out that very few couples have ever done this before, and everyone finds it a heartwarming experience. We think we have encountered here another taboo in our society--married couples spend infinitely more time telling each other what they _don't_ like about each other than what they _do_ like. Most of us have a strangely inhibited self-consciousness about spelling out in detail what we mean by ”I love you.”
We generally conclude the retreat with a short session of perhaps half an hour in which we share with each other new insights and the rewarding experiences we have had together. This may appropriately be followed by a Quaker meeting for wors.h.i.+p.
These exercises are no more than ill.u.s.trations. Leading couples are inventing new ones all the time, and there seems to be no limit to their ingenuity. The books by Herbert Otto and Gerald Smith, listed in the bibliography, are full of good ideas.
In essence, these were the experiences in which we and our nine trainee couples were involved during the crowded hours we spent together at Pendle Hill. Before they took their departure, we enjoined them not to try to repeat anything we had done unless they could do so entirely naturally and comfortably. They would develop their own patterns of leaders.h.i.+p, and these would be more effective than anything we had taught them.
EVALUATION AND REAFFIRMATION
The follow-up retreat at Pendle Hill was much more than a reunion or season of rejoicing. We undertook together an intensive evaluation of what had been experienced. One couple, for example, had had to cope with a marriage in serious conflict so we set up a role-playing re-enactment of the situation to serve as a learning experience for the whole group.
We also tried to pool our ideas about the best way to plan and lead marriage enrichment retreats. Our agenda covered the following areas:
_Organizing the Retreat._ Time, place, cost, recruitment of couples, size of group, preparatory materials.
_Methods and Techniques._ Introductions, agenda, directing discussion, dividing up, special exercises, crisis situations, evaluation.
_Leaders.h.i.+p Roles._ Qualifications, goals, training, couple teamwork, preparation, vulnerability, follow-up.
_Future Plans._ Further retreats, training new leaders, cooperation with other groups, books and materials.
_Other Areas for Enrichment._ Retreats for youth, premarital couples, parents and teen-agers, solo parents, senior citizens, Meeting members.
A number of issues of particular concern to the group were extensively discussed. One was the distinction between our retreats and group marriage counseling on the one hand, sensitivity training and encounter groups on the other. Another issue concerned our emphasis on positive interaction, and the discouragement, though not avoidance, of overt expression of negative feelings between members of the group. We also discussed what causes marriages to get ”stuck” so that they cease to grow. This led us naturally to consider the limitations of lay leaders without training in marriage counseling, and how to make effective referrals to professionals when this seems to be indicated. We also talked about the use of silence, so natural to Friends, and how far non-Quakers could accept this.
In all our discussions we were looking forward. There was a confident a.s.surance that we had found something of great importance that must be communicated to others--to the Society of Friends generally, but to the wider world as well.
THE SECOND ROUND
Another training program was organized and a second group of couples were invited to Pendle Hill. On a Friday evening in November 1971, therefore, another wide circle of married couples a.s.sembled in the familiar living room at Pendle Hill; later went forth to conduct retreats arranged by their Yearly Meetings; and returned triumphantly in April 1972 to report to one another what had happened.
Six of these couples were new. With them we invited two experienced couples from the first group of trainees. Our idea was that they might help in the training of the other six, and be ready then to graduate as trainers in later regional programs.
We have used this method in training couples before, encouraging a couple conducting a retreat for the first time to team up with another trained couple, each supporting and helping the other in shared leaders.h.i.+p. This is a good learning process; and now we were applying it at the level of training potential leaders, in the expectation of making ourselves dispensable. A movement of this kind should not be allowed to focus on personalities. It will prosper best by involving many couples in a broad sharing of leaders.h.i.+p responsibility.
We might have asked ourselves whether what had happened in 1969-70 could happen again in 1971-72. Would the high caliber of the earlier group of couples be sustained? Would they again learn quickly enough through the experience of one retreat to function as successful leaders? Would they come back with the same enthusiasm and delight? The answers to these questions would do a great deal to validate the plan we had adopted.
When our couples returned in April 1972, the answers were resoundingly in the affirmative. In one case, it was true, the local arrangements had broken down and they had not had the opportunity yet to conduct a retreat--but they came to the reunion just the same. (Their opportunity for leaders.h.i.+p came later.) Reports from all the others, including the two ”veteran” couples, had the same authentic ring of success that had been sounded so unmistakably a year earlier.