THE FAMAxford

Eckstein, ILY JOURNAL:

/ L OVINGCOUNSELING
AND BEING LOVED
AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAM ILIE S / April 19 99

For Couples and Families

For Couples and Families features materials for use as handouts for
counselors working with couples and families. Send your ideas to
Daniel Eckstein, Ottawa University, 13402 North Scottsdale Road,
Suite B-170, Scottsdale, AZ 85257. E-mail: deckstein@juno.com

Loving and Being Loved:

Commitment Implications
Daniel Eckstein
Darsi J. Axford
Ottawa University

Each person has a personal way of receiving and oppressing the ex-
perience of being in love. It is based on modeling and personal deci-
sions stemming from family of origin, coupled with personal wants,
needs, and values. This article adapts Sam Keen’s (1997) To Love
and Be Loved to assist couples in examining their respective per-
sonal histories of love after describing object-relations theory. Rela-
tionship commitment implications then are explored by means of an
experiential activity.
T hree umpires were describing their jobs. The first one
said “I call them as I see them;” the second one observed,
“I call them as they are;” and the third one said, “It ain’t
nothin’ ‘til I call it.”
So it is with what each person defines as “being in love.”
Everyone has what George Kelly (1955) called “personal con-
structs” or what Alfred Adler (1933/1964) described as “pri-
vate logic,” meaning that although we may use the same word,
often, we have different meanings. Being in love or being
loved means different things to different people. The purpose
of this article is to help partners describe some of the different
styles or meanings that may be operating when one feels “in
love,” as well as to explore each person’s personal history
involving love. Greater personal understanding of each part-
ner’s own personal views of love is a major objective of the
activity suggested in this article.
Awareness of how couples view love is based on family of
origin as well as individual wants, needs, and values. In To
Love and Be Loved, Sam Keen (1997) suggests that if one
asks, “How do I choose my rightful partner?” before the
self-assessment question of “How do I become a loving
person?” what often will be missed is a personal focus on
acquiring the skills necessary for becoming a loving human
being.
CHARTING A PERSONAL
HISTORY OF LOVE
For best results, each partner is encouraged to write his or
her responses to the following items alone. Later, the partners
should meet and discuss their personal responses to the ques-
tions. So, begin the journey by individually answering any or
all of these 13 questions.
1. Whom or who do I love? In what ways?
2. By whom do I feel loved?
3. How satisfied or unsatisfied am I with my love life, in the
broadest sense of the term?
4. Is there now a “love vacuum” (lack of love)?
5. In what ways have I felt cheated? Abandoned? Not loved
enough?
6. What would fill or has filled that vacuum (a lover, an animal,
a mate, a child, a parent, a friend, a spiritual path?)
7. What style of loving was practiced in my family? What was
the “vocabulary” of love (touch, discipline, food, gifts, nur-
turing talents?)
8. Who loved and who was loved by whom?
9. What did I learn about bodies, touch, and sexuality by the
way in which I was touched or not touched?
10. Did I have to give up, hide, or reject anything to purchase
love?
11. Do I feel I was unloved, ignored, abused?

THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES, Vol. 7 No. 2, April 1999 185-186
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

185
186 THE FAMILY JOURNAL: COUNSELING AND THERAPY FOR COUPLES AND FAMILIES / April 1999
12. How is the past still controlling my present? How do I feel my
family’s way of loving and not loving shaped my present life?
13. What do I feel will be the future implications of these past
experiences?
THEORY INPUT
Object-Relations Theory
Such psychoanalytic-oriented therapists as Melania Klein
(1975) and Margaret Mahler (1968) use the labels self psy-
chology or object-relations theory, a term used by Freud, to
refer to that which satisfies a need or to the significant person
or thing that is the object or target of one’s feelings or drives.
Just as a young child, and later, the adolescent, needs to learn a
healthy balance between bonding (attachment) and separa-
tion (individuation), couples also are happiest when they feel
both independence and attachment. Such couples feel a basic
serenity based on a sense of freedom, self-sufficiency, and
self-esteem, which then paradoxically allows a truer intimate
bonding with someone else.
Commitment-Experiential Activity
Establishing a commitment is an essential aspect of bond-
ing with a partner. The following seven exercises and/or ques-
tions are suggested by Keen (1997) to assist individuals with
their own issues involving the ability to make and keep
commitments.
1. Imagine an escalating scale of commitment in which the low-
est level represents the kind of engagement you have with a
casual business or social acquaintance, and the highest level
consists of the vows and unconditional acceptance that exists
within an ideal marriage and family. Identify some specific
examples of people with whom you have different levels of
commitment. Begin with the most superficial—agreements
and contracts you make with associates and acquain-
tances—and work your way up to the highest level.
2. To whom and what have you committed yourself? What per-
sons? What organizations? What work? What places?
3. What are the unstated conditions in your intimate relation-
ships? Fill in the blank: “I will continue to love you if
_________________.”
4.
To whom (if anyone) are you committed without reservation
or qualification?
5. Who is more valuable to you than your immediate happiness
and self-interest? For whom would you sacrifice your time,
your health, and your life?
6. Whose promises, commitments, and unconditional love
have enriched your life?
7. On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being low and 10 high, rate
your own level of risk taking with your partner. Explain your
rating in one to two sentences.
Summary
Love means different things to different people. The
American Indians say, “If you want to understand my world,
walk a mile in my moccasins.” This article attempts to have
couples self-assess their own “private logic” relative to how
each individual’s own “umpire” calls the “balls and strikes”
of love. Greater empathy or understanding of one’s partner is
also possible by exploring the different styles, meanings, and
language one may use to express love.
REFERENCES
Adler, A. (1964). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. New York: Capri-
corn. (Original work published 1933)
Keen, S. (1997). To love and be loved. New York: Bantam Books.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Klein, M. (1975). The psycho-analysis of children. New York: Dell.
Mahler, M. S. (1968). On human symbiosis or the vicissitudes of individua-
tion. New York: International Universities Press.
Daniel Eckstein, Ph.D., ABPP is currently associate professor of
counseling psychology for Ottawa University, Phoenix, Arizona. He
is also an adjunct professor for Northern Arizona University and
Arizona State University. Dr. Eckstein is coauthor of seven books,
including Leadership by Encouragement (with Don Dinkmeyer). He
has a diplomate in counseling psychology from the American Board
of Professional Psychologists.
Darsi J. Axford is a graduate student in the professional counseling
program at Ottawa University, Phoenix, Arizona, and is a personal
and spiritual development coach in private practice.