![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutI’m reading the kindle version; this is 74% of the way into the book.
“In the original 1984 manual, Klerman and colleagues state that role disputes arise from “non-reciprocal role expectations.” … In other words, in any relationship, things go well when each party has a clear idea of what his or her role in the relationship should be and what the role of the other person should be, and each is able to meet the other’s expectations without having to give up his or her own. Things go badly when the parties don’t have the same role expectations and/or when one or both parties cannot meet the expectations of the other.”
I haven’t read the work in question. IPSRT builds on top of Klerman et al’s work by adding an explicit social rhythm component to the underlying Interpersonal therapy. I’m really here for the social rhythm component, _not_ what feels to me like an overly structured and suspiciously retrograde perspective on relationships. However, I’m now here and if I can ever figure out where I dropped my jaw, I’ll probably have something to say about this. In the meantime, I will type.
Frank goes on to say, “This can certainly be true of therapeutic relationships and is likely to lead dissatisfication and, eventually, to dropout.” Frank dropped a “to” between lead and dissatisfaction. Given the typos, wordos and other confusion I routinely produce, mild mistakes of this sort warm the cold cockles of my heart.
“Unfortunately, many aspects of the specific psychopathology of bipolar disorder and the complexity of its treatment can interfere with the development of the ideal, reciprocal-expectations-met therapeutic relationship.”
Well, now, let’s not go _right_ down the path that this is the gate to. This is a theory of interpersonal relationship based heavily on the idea of people — really, here, persons — as monadic. That is just never not going to cause me to jump up and point and see, see, see, see!!!! Somebody did it again! Further it is a theory of interpersonal relationship with a massive bootstrapping problem, in the therapist - bipolar client context _for sure_, and also just in general. Where did those expectations come from, anyway? I mean, if you are kinda trad, and writing in the 1980s, you can walk around going, well, of _course_ a wife has these expectations from a husband and _of course_ a husband has these expectations from a wife and you can diagnose people who argue with you. Can’t do that anymore! Someone will diagnose you. But even in the 1980s, a therapist had to _teach the bipolar client_ what the disease was and what treatment involved and what to expect and so forth. The therapist is walking into this with the intention of carpetbombing the client’s expectations and replacing them with the therapist’s idea of what the client’s expectations should be.
This is a not great theory of interpersonal relationship. But wow, is it bonkers here.
I’m absolutely _here_ for a theory of relationship that involves people being reciprocal and people having expectations of each other. I am _much less here_ for an idea of “role”. I understand that if I have custody of a minor child, I have assumed some legal obligations associated with that role. But why is this idea of role popping up _here_? Probably to import into a dispute between _two_ people a bunch of laundered opinions of a third and additional people. Got a husband and a wife arguing about how much money one of them is (not) spending? Sure, why not add everyone else’s ideas about how much should (not) be spent. Got a parent and a child arguing about when the child should get up, go to bed and what the child should be doing between those two things? Sure, why _not_ add everyone else’s ideas about all that? That’ll help so much!
I am all in favor of ransacking cultural products for more ideas for how to solve problems. Go forth and expand your repertoire of ideas and tools! And also, if you are doing something with/to other people and we’ve got legal constraints on how that can and cannot be done, probably increase your awareness of all that and if it looks like you are not going to be acting within those limits, factor that into planning (not legal advice!).
In general, if someone is involved in a role dispute, my very first piece of advice is going to be, let’s get rid of the roles and see if the dispute exits with the roles. If it doesn’t, let’s address the dispute between persons, with the “role” elements on the list with everything else about the persons that the “role” excises from our understanding of each other.
However, I have not read the underlying book; I’m just having a metaphorical allergic reaction to the “role” construct.
ETA:
In a case study of Janis, 78% of the way into the book.
“She reported a history of bipolar disorders beginning in her early 20s, with yearly episodes of both mania and depression that clearly had a seasonal pattern. Her mood began to dip each September, with worsening symptoms over the fall. Her mood tended to lift in mid-February, and by April she experienced hypomanic symptoms.”
Ahhhhhhh. I can’t even express how familiar this is, in its subclinical (or, at any rate, undiagnosed!) form. So. Many. People.
“In the original 1984 manual, Klerman and colleagues state that role disputes arise from “non-reciprocal role expectations.” … In other words, in any relationship, things go well when each party has a clear idea of what his or her role in the relationship should be and what the role of the other person should be, and each is able to meet the other’s expectations without having to give up his or her own. Things go badly when the parties don’t have the same role expectations and/or when one or both parties cannot meet the expectations of the other.”
I haven’t read the work in question. IPSRT builds on top of Klerman et al’s work by adding an explicit social rhythm component to the underlying Interpersonal therapy. I’m really here for the social rhythm component, _not_ what feels to me like an overly structured and suspiciously retrograde perspective on relationships. However, I’m now here and if I can ever figure out where I dropped my jaw, I’ll probably have something to say about this. In the meantime, I will type.
Frank goes on to say, “This can certainly be true of therapeutic relationships and is likely to lead dissatisfication and, eventually, to dropout.” Frank dropped a “to” between lead and dissatisfaction. Given the typos, wordos and other confusion I routinely produce, mild mistakes of this sort warm the cold cockles of my heart.
“Unfortunately, many aspects of the specific psychopathology of bipolar disorder and the complexity of its treatment can interfere with the development of the ideal, reciprocal-expectations-met therapeutic relationship.”
Well, now, let’s not go _right_ down the path that this is the gate to. This is a theory of interpersonal relationship based heavily on the idea of people — really, here, persons — as monadic. That is just never not going to cause me to jump up and point and see, see, see, see!!!! Somebody did it again! Further it is a theory of interpersonal relationship with a massive bootstrapping problem, in the therapist - bipolar client context _for sure_, and also just in general. Where did those expectations come from, anyway? I mean, if you are kinda trad, and writing in the 1980s, you can walk around going, well, of _course_ a wife has these expectations from a husband and _of course_ a husband has these expectations from a wife and you can diagnose people who argue with you. Can’t do that anymore! Someone will diagnose you. But even in the 1980s, a therapist had to _teach the bipolar client_ what the disease was and what treatment involved and what to expect and so forth. The therapist is walking into this with the intention of carpetbombing the client’s expectations and replacing them with the therapist’s idea of what the client’s expectations should be.
This is a not great theory of interpersonal relationship. But wow, is it bonkers here.
I’m absolutely _here_ for a theory of relationship that involves people being reciprocal and people having expectations of each other. I am _much less here_ for an idea of “role”. I understand that if I have custody of a minor child, I have assumed some legal obligations associated with that role. But why is this idea of role popping up _here_? Probably to import into a dispute between _two_ people a bunch of laundered opinions of a third and additional people. Got a husband and a wife arguing about how much money one of them is (not) spending? Sure, why not add everyone else’s ideas about how much should (not) be spent. Got a parent and a child arguing about when the child should get up, go to bed and what the child should be doing between those two things? Sure, why _not_ add everyone else’s ideas about all that? That’ll help so much!
I am all in favor of ransacking cultural products for more ideas for how to solve problems. Go forth and expand your repertoire of ideas and tools! And also, if you are doing something with/to other people and we’ve got legal constraints on how that can and cannot be done, probably increase your awareness of all that and if it looks like you are not going to be acting within those limits, factor that into planning (not legal advice!).
In general, if someone is involved in a role dispute, my very first piece of advice is going to be, let’s get rid of the roles and see if the dispute exits with the roles. If it doesn’t, let’s address the dispute between persons, with the “role” elements on the list with everything else about the persons that the “role” excises from our understanding of each other.
However, I have not read the underlying book; I’m just having a metaphorical allergic reaction to the “role” construct.
ETA:
In a case study of Janis, 78% of the way into the book.
“She reported a history of bipolar disorders beginning in her early 20s, with yearly episodes of both mania and depression that clearly had a seasonal pattern. Her mood began to dip each September, with worsening symptoms over the fall. Her mood tended to lift in mid-February, and by April she experienced hypomanic symptoms.”
Ahhhhhhh. I can’t even express how familiar this is, in its subclinical (or, at any rate, undiagnosed!) form. So. Many. People.