How a Couple Counsellor Thinks (Integrated Systemic & Psychodynamic Theoretical Framework)

⚠️ This is a blog post on the systemic theoretical framework (holistic systems thinking, circular causality (circular questioning), context, strengths and support, etc.) and the psychodynamic theoretical framework (unconscious processes, defences, childhood experiences) when integrated to apply to therapy with a couple’s relationship.

A Systemic / Psychodynamic Framework for LGBT/QIA+ Couples

How does a Couple Counsellor Think when he’s meeting with a LGBT/QIA+ Couple or Group for therapy?

Counsellors must employ a framework whilst we work. We cannot simply listen to stories and only reply with: “hmmm”. We call what we are thinking a theoretical (or therapeutic) framework and it’s like a massive database of knowledge for human relationships – and the stuff that can go wrong in them. Couple counsellors, such as Dean Richardson, employ a systemic (family systems) / psychodynamic theoretical framework.

So, you may be curious as to what’s going on inside a couple counsellor’s head when he’s working with your distinct relationship (and, perhaps, what is a systemic/psychodynamic framework).

To assist an LGBT/QIA+ Couple or Group, the counsellor must try and make sense of the stories the client-relationship is telling us.

Couple Counsellors are not there to give advice nor prescribe solutions (as if anyone’s personal experiences or fund of knowledge could provide verbal a “do this and you’ll be cured” prescription!). We’re there to help the couple learn about their relationship in ways they hadn’t noticed before. And nothing more.

At the same time, we’re not there to simply listen and sympathetically utter “hmm” sounds. That would be paying a lot of money in return for very little.

No, what is happening in our heads is that we’re using years of training, knowledge and experience to make sense of the client’s story around our theoretical framework; we’re attempting to bring comprehension first to ourselves and then to the client (using layman’s terms). 

Curiosity can lead to comprehension. At a place of comprehension the couple can take this invitation to make (prepare, experiment with…) relationship transformations;  changes which may also be discussed within counselling sessions. Paradoxically, the unhappy system the couple is engaged in may also be more familiar (and, hence, less scary) than the transformation the couple may wish for. Making changes to a relationship is not easy – but that’s what counselling sessions provide a safe space for: discussion.

And I say “invitation” on purpose, because a counsellor can’t tell you what to do or make you do it. Your autonomy is paramount.

Let me share some of the stuff that goes on in my head during a relationship counselling session.

Aims of the Counsellor’s Theoretical Framework

…and he replies: “hmm”.

You might  think:“that’s it?!!?” You might be curious towards why it’s costing you lots of money to pay the counsellor, and all appeared to do was to say “hmm”.

Is the couple counsellor actually working? Is there anything going on inside of his head? What does the couple counsellor consider that prepares him to say something so simple or so profound that the couple is taken aback (because the couple observed behaviour that they were not observing for themselves)?

Unlike some other therapeutic approaches, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach (what some call: manualised). This is a facilitated approach an experienced counsellor who is thinking in a systemic/psychodynamic framework integrated with knowledge of human development. It’s kinda science-ey when you think about it 🤔👍🏻

“Hmm” regularly means that the counsellor is working hard in his head. He’s making sense of what the couple/group have told him according to his theoretical framework (and other matters). He’s working on a number of jigsaw pieces in his head, preparing to put things in terms that the couple or group might understand, make use of, and prepare to make their own changes.

This “stuff” we call a Theoretical Framework. There are lots of them. A Counsellor must choose the ones (a) he’s skilled at working with and (b) out of those skills, which ones might be most useful to the client in front of him.

Let’s start with a simple framework based upon the Milan Associates‘ discoveries around families and their behaviour. 

An Example of Systemic Thinking

As you read this section, keep in mind that my core theoretical models for relationship counselling are: systemic/family and psychodynamic.

The couple tell me a story. I’m listening to one partner speak. I’m also paying attention to my feelings and thoughts and putting them on a shelf in my head so I don’t have to come to a decision right away. Alternatively, if I hear something strikingly serious, I’ll note that in my head too.

As I listen I’m watching my neutral position, noticing if it shifts towards one partner or the other. I choose to move back to a neutral position because this is the position from which I can relate to the relationship/client in front of me. I’ll remain neutral even in situations where one partner tries to convince me that the other partner is the cause of all the faults.

I’m waiting for the partner to speak so that I might hear the story from a different perspective. As I do I’ll notice within me confirmation and opposition (versions of a single story are rarely the same because they’re told from different perspectives).

I’m pondering how the two versions of the story relate to each other, because the relationship is my client (not one partner, or the other, nor both together: it’s their relationship). 

I’m looking at the story bearing in mind the client-relationship system (when partner 1 does “A” partner 2’s response is “B”… which leads to partner 1 doing action “C” and so on). Do I notice any patterns in the behaviour? Have I heard versions of the behaviour process before? Might the relationship be used to support a crisis or neurosis?

But there’s another version of the story I haven’t mentioned yet: the story lived versus the story told.

The couple, one or both partners, may have a version of the story they tell themselves, and a version that they actually act out in reality. So now the versions of the relationship “story” is growing.

When I have something new in my head to share with the couple, I’ll offer it to the client-relationship for the partners to consider (or reject). If I have nothing new, I may tell the partners their own story back to them (as they may not have felt heard in their relationship before). I may ask them to notice the holes in the story that I don’t yet have information about… or to hypothesise what might be going on in the system (with new knowledge comes new understanding and new options).

Unfortunately, some relationships decline help. One partner may be stuck in their belief system (“they’re the problem, not me” – when, from a systemic point of view, both partners play a part in being ‘the problem’). Such a stuck partner will not ~ probably for good, personal reasons ~ make any attempt to consider a shift in their thinking, or to entertain an invitation to build a pathway that helps the relationship walk forward out of conflict.

But there’s more in my thinking process… lots more…! 

How does the Counsellor not Blame the Partner whose Fault this is?

An interesting question put to me by a non-couples counsellor (i.e. someone whose training focuses on individual clients) was asking about “how do couple counsellors stop yourselves from blaming the partner who’s at fault?”

Here’s the misunderstanding: when the couple counsellor is thinking systemically, the counsellor is not observing one partner’s behaviour in isolation. There is no “one person who is the fault”.

There are two partners in a couple relationship and – on a long enough timeline – both will have contributed to every event that has, is, and will occur to them.

Blaming one partner for an event nullifies the contribution that the other partner made before a “fault”, and made in response to, or after, the “fault”.

Consequently, as a couples counsellor, I don’t find myself thinking “blame”; I find myself think “precedences, events, responses”.

This approach can be very helpful to a couple experiencing difficult behaviour that might include domestic abuse (where the layman might want to blame the abuser alone); whereas with this approach to thinking (and assuming both partners wish the abuse to stop) we can bring the skills of both partners into addressing and resolving the behaviour.

My Approach for LGBT/QIA+ Couples

I’m about to share with you an outline of my work as a Couple Counsellor. When I write “couple” I am also referring to “partners within any intimate partnership”. This can include intimate (polyamorous) couples as well as groups in an established relationship and family members.

So, let’s talk a little of the science-ey bits of how the counsellor makes use of integrated, theoretical frameworks (based, at it’s core, upon Systemic / Family therapy, Psychodynamic Understanding of the Mind, Integrated with Human Development) to help relationships in counselling.